What is the ideal energy palette of the future?

Question

Let's say you've been asked to serve as a public member of an advisory committee made up of scientists, politicians, and other authorities on energy and climate in North America. What array of energy sources would you advocate?

Don't be afreaid to think outside the box but don't throw the box away, either!

Answer 1

Wave.

Wind.

Solar.

Biofuel from non-food produce.

Answer 2

Jello has a good feel for the needs of the future in realistic terms. I have included some forward looking material that has been tested and proved but not implemented because of political intervention by Jimmy Carter and congressional democrats!

Answer 3

I agree with TomCat (for the life of me I can't figure out what he wrote that deserved a down arrow).  I think oil and coal are temporary fuels and may last for a hundred years or more and methane will probably last somewhat longer (As a geologist I don' t bye into the peak oil scare, but I just suspect better sources of energy will replace them).  I suspect nuclear will increase.  Maybe limited solar will be used.  I think space based solar is very promising.  We should eventually master fusion of hydrogen.  Once that is accomplished, the sky is the limit.  I wonder if the alarmists will find something they don't like about fusion, too much helium generation maybe, making everyone talk funny, hmmm?

Answer 4

It depends on how far in the future, renewables will never support 15 billion people, helium 3 is the ideal fuel, that makes nuclear fusion possible. And nuclear fusion is the only long term possibility that will allow everyone to have our standard of living.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-3

Answer 5

Jeez...we take such pride on being logical creatures we toss practical application in the garbage. Esthetics's verse application, a big problem. How many times have you seen a subdivision with the windows facing north. Or the ones facing south have no deciduous Floria. That's roughly a 15-20% residential energy savings without even trying. Mulching and planting a garden go hand in hand. There's times of the year where it's best not to mulch but the clippings can still be utilized. Most people don't even consider foot or bike paths anymore. I take a lot of pride on having a Eco-friendly niche. A enormous amount of my energy is dedicated to natural fauna and it's preservation. I believe native plants serve a better purpose then exotic.

I just don't see a easy way out, and maybe the inch by inch approach has merit...the only people you can change is yourself. Every energy source has beneficial aspects. It's the practical application that confuses everyone.

Answer 6

Subsidising alternative energy is not the way to go.  Wind farms and solar power stations are so cost inefficient that the cost to taxpayers is high and the amount of power saved is so small that it benefits nobody except the company getting the subsidy.  

Improving energy efficiency is the best way to reduce fossile fuel consumption.  We should be working towards more fuel efficient cars, homes, offices, industries and commercial transport.  Telecommuniting would save a lot of fuel also.  

Answer 7

What's ideal to me is to maximize the amount of renewable energy we use, because it has the smallest environmental impact and the fuel sources are the most reliable.  My ideal energy palette looks like this:

Baseload power:

Nuclear: maintain the nuclear facilities we currently have.  Maybe build a few more in areas where renewable energy sources are not abundant.

Solar thermal: develop mainly in areas with very sunny weather, like the deserts of the southwest.  Can be transported around the country through low-loss DC transmission lines.

Geothermal: is more widely available than people think (as shown in the video in the first link below) and has the potential to provide more energy than we need.

Overall I'd like to see solar thermal and geothermal provide most of our baseload power.  They're cheaper, cleaner, and less dangerous than nuclear.  I want to see coal phased-out completely.  Perhaps maintain some natural gas plants as well, but I would prefer that they become unnecessary.

Supplemental power:

Wind is very cheap and very abundant in the US midwest.  I'd like to see a significant portion of our energy come from wind.  The only downside is that it's not reliable, so it can't be used for baseload power.

Solar photovoltaic is currently pretty expensive, but the cost is rapidly coming down as the technology advances.  I'd like to see solar PV on rooftops in urban areas, where energy needs are the greatest.  Also some large PV plants in sunny areas, as California is developing.

http://greenhome.huddler.com/forum/threa...

Other renewables like tidal energy, offshore wind, etc. should also be utilized.  By diversifying our energy sources, we ensure the greatest stability for our power grid, and there are plenty of renewable options to utilize.

As for fusion, it's something we've been working on for decades without a lot of progress.  I don't want to assume that it will ever become a viable technology (but it would be great if it did).  I don't think we need it, and I'm not optimistic that we'll make a breakthrough, so I'm not including it in my energy portfolio.

Answer 8

Who could say what's "ideal" in the future?  Not enough data.

But it's going to be difficult to avoid serious effects from global warming, so we need to throw everything we've got at it now.  Nuclear, solar, wind, conservation.  The effort will provide data on what mix will be "ideal" in the future.

Jello!!!  Yay!!!  Thoughtful answer.

Answer 9

First push Nuclear Power.  By developing Nuclear Power we could take coal and other fossil fuel power stations off line and reduce green house gases.  50% of all green house gases are produced by power generation.

Switching to Nuclear opens up two great options.  First electric cars would be 100% green as they would no longer be recharged from dirty power plants.  Second, more natural gas would be freed up to use in cars instead of gas.

Then homes could be switched to all electric instead of burning oil for winter heat and gas to keep their water hot.

These changes would eliminate green house gases by over 70%.

Then I would eliminate all ruralification programs, as these government programs subsidize rural life while making life in the cities more expensive.  The result of these laws is urban sprawl.  By removing the subsidies, people would move back into the cities were mass transit is available and practical.  And this would result in a 75% reduction in green house gases within a 20 year time frame, and it would do so by removing taxes rather than adding to them.