Which is the best alternative to fossil fuels?

Magic.

There is no one single best alternative. It depends on the region. Here in Switzerland we can do a lot with water, like river power plants or dams

@ArchoNils2: Oh yeah. I didn't include dams because I consider them too damaging to the environment. I would prefer geothermal if it was available to damming rivers.

EDIT: I kind of forgot too. But they do alter the environment drastically if scaled up like the Hoover Dam.

Fun fact: salmon used to travel right into the center of the uk up rivers before water mills were introduced. Also stagnating river wildlife due to less oxygen being in the water.

I think its a combination of Solar, Battery technology and micro-tech which makes things more efficient.

I live in an RV and I can dry dock no problem without being connected to the grid. I do have to run my gas generator if I am going to use my desktop, microwave or A/C but everything else is easily powered by a fairly inexpensive battery+solar system.

so laptop, movies, kindle, internet access, lights, water pump etc. all solar with just one panel

I think the future will be energy at the point of use instead of distribution.

Speaking personally I am not doing any of this for the enviroment, I do it for the freedom. I can live almost anywhere

@tryit: I think I'm talking about national power grid's and I didn't make that clear I admit.

But for a portable power supply you can't beat solar really.

Unless you have Mr. Fusion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeLorean_time_machine

maybe the future is no more need for a grid.

something to think about

@tryit: maybe the future is no more need for a grid.

Well yeah. More localised grids may be more efficient in less populace areas but energy can be transported quite long distances with step up/down sub-stations and AC current but in less populace areas that may well be the best solution.

Canada has been running a tidal harness since 1984 it seems!

Solar is the best, Depending on how the testla's new battery in Melbourne Australia is going which seems to be doing well but really wont know till summer (Our government has really sucked for the past 20 odd years), But since Every house has a roof, tinted windows could be replaced with solar panels and that 50% of our country is uninhabitable anyway. Australia could really be run of it. Probably the US too if the tech is developed more (especially the tinted window design). Wind Power kills a lot of birds for me to want to use it. I don't like Nuclear because it takes 5 years to cool a rod then it has to be stored in thick concrete for another 5,000 because 3% is still radioactive which looking at Chernobyl is as bad as we first thought but will build up, (I do want to see what that Radiotrophic fungus becomes though)

and I think a near complete removal of the electrical grid might be a possibility. Cost wise and consumer wise that could become very attractive I would think.

also energy efficiency of products is taking huge leaps lately.

Everyone here who owns has solar as the government pays for it, Except if its a rental then it doesn't. I can get a solar panel 230W for $30 a piece sometimes. Its insane to see how much its gone down in price in the past 10 years.

a lot of solutions in how RVs been doing things for decades as well.

Like a waterheater switch in the kitchen so you just heat up hot water when you need it instead of all the time (it only takes about 5 mins to get hot water).

toilets that dont use 15 billion gallons of water

etc.

I've done a couple of different papers in my latest round of college courses and it appears that solar is the best renewable source of energy as it has become the most cost effective source availalble today. @jackamomo Now, my research paper on solar energy was mostly information that centered around the US as opposed to the UK, but also touched upon how there was a large market for it in Germany at one point due to tax incentives and then shifted over to the US after a time due to similar incentives. And yes, also the market shifted from rooftop solar to concentrated solar in the form of solar farms out in the Mohave Desert among other places.

Ultimately the winner of the energy battle won't be the one people like the best, feel the strongest about, or what's best for the environment. Instead it will be the one that is most affordable, when you can tell people that your source of energy will save them money people will want to switch to it.

exactly

AND a bit of 'you dont have to be connected to a grid' is appealing because that translates to 'I can be mobile, or I can own property that doesnt have grid connection' and 'If there is a city wide black out I still have power'

Right, different things will appeal to different people, but I think that the argument that will capture the widest audience will be the one that says, "This will save you the most money". That's the thing that most people are ultimately concerned with regarding something that will continually cost them on a daily, monthly, and annual basis. Personally I find this unfortunate, but I have converted my views to work within the capitalist system rather than try to work outside of it and against it because I think it will be what ultimately gets people to adopt technology that helps the environment.

@npiet1: Wind Power kills a lot of birds for me

Not really.

Although it is widely understood that wind turbines do cause bird mortalities due to turbine collisions. Collision rates and impacts on bird populations are tentative and wide ranging since data is not subject to scientific review.

http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2016/ph240/white1/

It's feral cats they need to look out for!

@Serraph105: Ultimately the winner of the energy battle won't be the one people like the best, feel the strongest about, or what's best for the environment. Instead it will be the one that is most affordable

Just trying to find figures on relative costs of various types of energy but finding it difficult.

But you can just use common sense. The materials necessary for a wind turbine are well known as each is just a turbine with a reversed electric engine like nuclear, coal etc but with just being turned by wind instead of compressed water vapour.

Photovoltaic plates are hi-tech and therefore subject to constant design changes and upgrades with a complicated array of chemicals and materials needed to convert sunlight into a current.

Having these cells scaled up to a level which is sufficient for all our energy needs (which is the theoretical discussion I'm going for) would require a serious amount of these to be made and I'm not sure how broken one's should be disposed of safely. For instance, are they toxic like batteries?

A wind turbine is just metal.

Also, I believe it to be amongst the cheapest.

EDIT: This seems to be the best source for relative energy station production and long term-cost in megawatts per hour.

O&M is operation and maintenance, including fuel.

https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/renewable/electric-generating-costs-a-primer/

@jackamomo said:

@npiet1: Wind Power kills a lot of birds for me

Not really.

Although it is widely understood that wind turbines do cause bird mortalities due to turbine collisions. Collision rates and impacts on bird populations are tentative and wide ranging since data is not subject to scientific review.

http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2016/ph240/white1/

It's feral cats that need to look out!

suddenly people give a shit about birds out in the desert?

lol

Solar power isn't really an option here. It's ok-to-great for maybe 4 months. Then a waste for the other 8 months a year.

Wind power is more plausible here. If the wind turbines are placed off shore. But we can't, because we need our oil installations off shore.

@horgen: But we can't, because we need our oil installations off shore.

Don't be silly. The sea is pretty darn big.

We also need all our expertise on off shore working on or with this oil rigs. There is no one left to design or build windmills off shore.

Check this out!

It appears the average home uses 30 kilowatt hours a day.

If I dont use my desktop computer, microwave, A/C or slow cooker I use about .2 kiowatts a day.

so that means I can still use my cell phone, internet connection, movies as much as a want and surfing the web until I cant stand it anymore.

If I use Desktop for 8 hours that day then its about 1.2 kiowatts a day.

clearly the missing link is A/C but still! households use up way too much engery.

Bicycle power. Think Black Mirror. Just imagine if you will a community of citizens not only generating their own electricity, but becoming more fit as they do it. This means more incentive to actually bike to work, or if they do use gas powered vehicles, their emissions will be lower because they'll be transporting less weight. Not only will efficiency be greatly improved, but it will further reduce the carbon footprint while also alleviating the healthcare industry due to reducing weight-related health issues. This means less calls for emergency services so ambulances and fire engines won't be driven as much. Seriously, I know that Black Mirror episode was just fiction, but it makes SO much sense.

I have a album that was recorded that way. whole thing was recorded using human bicycle power.

hidden truth about that is one needs more calories, food calories means more farming which is more fuel etc.

To what degree, though? People who exercise are already burning calories. If they apply the time they've spent towards generating electricity, then it only becomes a gain. People who don't exercise, though, are hording calories. If they get incentivized to spend those calories to generation energy, then it would also end up as a gain. I guess it would depend on just how much energy one decides to allot towards generating to determine whether or not the cost of food production offsets energy production.

agreed!

not sure which is more.

One time I did the calculation based only on dollar cost and it costed me less to ride a motorcycle to work then it would be to eat the extra calories to cycle to work

That said, oil prices are heavily subsidized so their true cost is not properly represented in dollars and like you say, many people exercise anyway!

There is also a battery (for the phone I think) that recharges itself while you walk. its not much but it helps.

Hmm... but then one has to wonder where maintenance comes into play for the motorcycle. I'd imagine it's much more expensive to maintain a motorcycle than it would be a bike. Ugh, too many factors!

maybe BOTH!

while human cycling it charges the batteries!

so elec bicycle

Electric motorcycle should have much lower maintenance cost than a motorcycle. The control unit for the engine is more advanced than the comparable parts on a fossil fuel engine, but when you go from several hundreds (or possible a few thousand moving parts) to maybe 20, things are bound to be cheaper.

An electric engine like the ones used in Tesla vehicles is simple.

@tryit: There is also a battery (for the phone I think) that recharges itself while you walk. its not much but it helps.

There is also a kinetic energy driven watch which I would like, I think called Kinetik.

@horgen:We also need all our expertise on off shore working on or with this oil rigs. There is no one left to design or build windmills off shore.

This is also silly. I'm sure there are more than a few illegal Mexican immigrants who would be more than happy to take a course on offfshore windfarm maintenance and design. They even have universities in Mexico you know.

@JustPlainLucas: Bicycle power. Think Black Mirror.

This post was meant to be about about alternative, clean power sources and I don't think pedal power is it. Neither did I think that was a good program.

Pedalling is not an efficient way to generate electricity even if you had a mindless slave army.

The power produced would not outweigh the cost in maintenance ie fuel, ie food and water as well as sleep and other exercises to ensure your muscles don't seize up so would not generate a very efficient or even sustainable electric output.

I think your minds are all still on the electric vehicle thread.

This is the next step in the debate seeing as electric is really only as efficient as the energy generated is efficient.

Wind farms also have a dramatic effect on wildlife, most notably bird species. The short answer is that there is no power source that will address every major concern at once (well, fusion, if we can ever figure it out). There will always be a balance between CO2 output, environmental impact, availability during peak hours, and accessibility. Nuclear, on the whole, is a very good choice for mainline power sources. It is zero carbon emission, can power large, populated areas, and has a negligible impact on the environment if done properly. It can be supplemented with solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal when it makes sense to do so, but very rarely does it make sense to run an entire grid off of those. Some places in Texas, for instance, get almost all their power from wind and solar, but Texas gets above average amounts of wind and sun. To power a city like, say, New York on wind and solar would take a hugely massive investment in new infrastructure and create disruptions to the local environment. There's a reason that all the European countries moving away from nuclear are going to coal and natural gas instead of renewables, it's just easier to run a grid off of them.

@theone86:

Nuclear, on the whole, is a very good choice for mainline power sources. It is zero carbon emission, can power large, populated areas, and has a negligible impact on the environment if done properly.

Yeah but if not you get vast areas of the planet which are uninhabitable by man for the next 20,000 years, so yeah. Bit of a risk there. Wildlife seems strangely unaffected though. Unless you count people wildlife.

As with fusion, don't you have a power source which can't potentially create a megaton explosion? Not to mention the toxic waste?

No, your right. I'm sure mankind will never make another mistake again and there will be no more nuclear meltdowns... *crosses fingers*.

Wind farms also have a dramatic effect on wildlife, most notably bird species.

As I said above. No they do not. Windows kill like 100 times more, there is a graph above.

To power a city like, say, New York on wind and solar would take a hugely massive investment in new infrastructure and create disruptions to the local environment.

Not really. An offshore windfarm is not that expensive to build compared to a Nuclear power plant as well as having no fuel or emissions. With batteries, energy can be stored for less windy times, more so with time but the amount of wind actually needed is in fact minimal and pretty much assured. At sea it is rarely calm.

There's a reason that all the European countries moving away from nuclear are going to coal and natural gas instead of renewables, it's just easier to run a grid off of them.

European countries are not moving towards coal and gas. The trend is towards renewables. It is also no more difficult to connect a renewable energy supply to a grid once it has been converted to a steady current.

Since 2010, output from these renewable sources increased by 377TWh, more than the UK’s current total annual demand. Most of this increase is due to wind (57%) and solar (25%), with a smaller contribution from biomass (18%).

https://www.carbonbrief.org/eu-got-less-electricity-from-coal-than-renewables-2017

As for nuclear...

EU nuclear reactors are ageing, with relatively few new plants being planned or built. The UK’s plans for new nuclear are an exception.

France also uses alot of nuclear power but those plants are also on the decline and Germany is still 45% coal.

Apart from Denmark, the UK is the most-improved in terms of cutting coal use and increasing its renewable share. Coal’s share fell from 28% in 2010 to 7% in 2017, while wind, solar and biomass increased from 6 to 21%.

As for hydro. This is not all that reliable really as apart from sometimes being also used for irrigation can dry up entire seas. It is also vulnerable to droughts.

Hydro had a particularly bad year, falling 54TWh (16%). This was predominantly down to a severe drought in southern Europe that saw hydro output halve in Spain and Portugal.

sounds about right.

I want a Zero motorcycle.

I would also like to make my truck (which pulls my trailer) into basically a mobile power system, solar on the truck cap, batteries, generators.

16.3 kWh for the largest one with the extended battery. that is massive amount of power

Problem is the weight of the batteries to keep the power somewhere. And if you intend on using electrical power without any form of ICE backup, you will need a large battery for having energy to move around as well.

I am reading up on Zero some more when you are not throttled the wheels will actually start to regen the battery

@jackamomo: Um, yeah, they DO kill birds:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/09/160929143808.htm

Wind turbines are more harmful to bird populations if they're in their migratory route, and the more turbines we build the more we threaten migratory routes. We not may kill that many YET because we can still construct wind farms out of the way of their migratory routes, but to power major cities and, as you're suggesting, an entire nation we'd need to build a whole lot more turbines, which means a whole lot more threat to bird species.

Neither fission nor fusion can create a megaton explosion. The nuclear material used in fission is not refined enough to create the self-sustaining reactions of nuclear weapons, and nuclear fusion reactions require a power input to create a reactions, in other words if anything ever got out of control turning off the power would stop the reaction (unlike with fission). Fusion reactions don't even require nuclear material, they use hydrogen isotopes. Toxic waste can be safely stored. The only thing that has prevented it from being safely contained in the past are cynical profiteers looking to cut corners (which can be regulated) and anti-nuclear government types who will actively sabotage safe nuclear storage just to "prove" how unsafe nuclear is (Bernie Sanders happens to be one of these). Same thing with meltdowns. We have plenty of technology and procedures that can make meltdowns a thing of the past if people just use them. There have only been three major meltdowns in the history of nuclear, two could have been avoided by simply using the safety technology available at the time, and one barely had any impact at all because proper safety procedures were followed. Also, fusion creates no toxic waste. The only byproduct is helium.

Nuclear power plants don't have emissions either. Batteries are not at a level yet where they can efficiently and safely store all of the energy needed to power a city. And yes, European countries are relying heavily on gas power over renewables:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mitsubishiheavyindustries/2018/07/20/how-the-internet-of-things-and-ai-help-keep-the-lights-on/#20a80a361ddf

I don't see why this has to be an all or nothing fight. Nuclear power is zero carbon emission, if done right it has zero impact on the environment, and it can replace coal and natural gas right now as an always on, peak demand source of power, AND it can be supplemented easily by renewables. No one on this side is arguing that nuclear should be the only source of power anywhere, I don't get why people like you demand that rewnewables are the only source of power anywhere instead of trying to implement them where they make the most sense.

Solar power is more viable where I'm at which gets over 300 days of sun a year. About a third of our roof space at home is now dedicated to solar panels.

Wind power is best where there are contrasting temperatures such as coastlines. Another is mountains with large areas of flat terrain in close proximity.

@theone86: Nuclear power is not safe or clean.

Almost no-one uses it any more for that reason anyway. Only shitty UK and France.

Everyone makes jokes about Sellafield in the UK and all the various leaks and spills and radioactivity they released into the environment which would catch the wind and make its way all around the country. Chernoble carried half way around the world.

Safety and costs of failure is a factor when considering these stations even from the amoral perspective of an energy company accountant.

Our UK government is dodgy and thats why we get all these lame deals as the Tories line their pockets from the notoriously slippery nuclear lobbies and suspicious advocates.

Birds can see wind turbines and have the capacity to avoid collisions for the vast majority of the time.

Also I'm not sure what evidence you are basing this threat to birds species on but I'm not sure that information is available as I looked myself. Also, I direct you again to the above graph on bird mortality from wind turbines.

if done right it has zero impact on the environment

Even if your doing right you are producing one of the most toxic substances known to mankind into the world. This is not clean or safe as there is no way to irradiate spent fuel rods. Keeping them in bunkers or under the sea will only sweep the problem under the carpet for future generations as a nice gift to them.

Just build a f*cking windmill man. Jeez.

You talk about shills, but you sound just like a wind industry shill. "All the risks from wind are negligible, and all the risks from nuclear are catastrophic!" LOL!

We deal with radioactive waste the same way we deal with regular waste, we bury it. Future generations aren't going to unearth it because we bury it in special facilities designed to contain it. It's not like at some point in the future it's just going to unearth itself and start irradiating hapless populations.

Chernobyl may have carried halfway around the world, but it wasn't concentrated outside of a certain zone of irradiation. The fact that countries as far from Russia as Canada can be affected and not see any long-term problems is a testament to how alarmist concerns about nuclear are. AND Chernobyl was a completely avoidable accident that only occurred because of Soviet mismanagement. AND modern nuclear reactors are equipped with systems that make another Chernobyl impossible. The fact that you're still harping on a thirty-some odd year old disaster as proof that the modern nuclear industry is unsafe proves my point for me.

If I had to pick one, I'd say solar but I'm of the opinion that there would be better options available had they not been suppressed.

Wind isn't doable anywhere close to the city I live in. Norway is nothing but mountains and hills. The only flat terrain close by is either in another country or off shore.

It's no different here in the US. Many wind farms are far away from population centers.

@theone86: We deal with radioactive waste the same way we deal with regular waste, we bury it.

Not usually.

About 95% of the depleted uranium produced until now is stored as uranium hexafluoride, (D)UF₆, in steel cylinders in open air yards close to enrichment plants.

AND modern nuclear reactors are equipped with systems that make another Chernobyl impossible.

There are always accidents due to human error. It is not safe to have a potential accident a catastrophe. Oil spills don't come close to the damage a meltdown like Fukishima causes.

US nuclear station have accidents regularly.

The long-term storage of DUF₆ presents environmental, health, and safety risks because of its chemical instability. When UF₆ is exposed to moist air, it reacts with the water in the air and produces UO₂F₂ (uranyl fluoride) and HF (hydrogen fluoride), both of which are highly soluble and toxic. Storage cylinders must be regularly inspected for signs of corrosion and leaks. The estimated lifetime of the steel cylinders is measured in decades.^[165]

There have been several accidents involving uranium hexafluoride in the United States.^[166] The vulnerability of DUF₆ storage cylinders to terrorist attack is apparently not the subject of public reports. However, the U.S. government has been converting DUF₆ to solid uranium oxides for disposal.^[167] Disposing of the whole DUF₆ inventory could cost anywhere from 15 to 450 million dollars.^[168]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium#Safety_and_environmental_issues

@horgen: Wind isn't doable anywhere close to the city I live in. Norway is nothing but mountains and hills. The only flat terrain close by is either in another country or off shore.

AC current can carry up to 3000 miles and hills are ideal for wind turbines.

Wind is pretty much everywhere. All of the time.

Also.

It's a rugged land of elevated plateaus, deep forested valleys and a few remaining ice age glaciers

Elevated plateaus are pretty much ideal. You don't know much about your own country.

I've never experienced hills as an ideal place for wind turbines. Maybe if they are close to a large flat area perhaps.

@theone86: You talk about shills, but you sound just like a wind industry shill.

The wind industry doesn't have a lobby because no oil or nuclear firms are investing in them hence they are all smaller co-operatives who would not have that kind of money.

Also, nobody would call me an asshole for advocating wind like they would if I was a nuclear lobbyist and I wouldn't have to lie or leave facts out because everything I've put down is correct and accurate and the methods of production and impact of wind power is open to public information and scrutiny unlike the nuclear industry.

@horgen: I've never experienced hills as an ideal place for wind turbines.

Interesting sentence. Are you a wind turbine location surveyor?

Maybe if they are close to a large flat area perhaps.

Anywhere with enough bedrock so it doesn't fall over and a bit of wind is all you need. There's plenty of suitable locations in Norway. You can put them anywhere.

Currently: Thermal bore.

Future: Fusion. Advanced fusion can also give us any element we want from base hydrogen. But that's a lot more complicated than simple hydrogen>helium fusion for power generation.

I'm pretty sure I've read numerous articles that all we need is solar and wind to get all the energy we need (in the US, at least). In fact I think if we put enough panels in a very small, unihabitated part of Nevada it would generate enough to supply the whole US and then some.

The problem, as with most large-scale undertakings, is the infrastructure and logistics of it all. You still need to lay all the cable for it, substations, not to mention if we did do that, you'd end up putting your eggs all in one basket.

I think the ideal would be to have regional, massive solar plants, supplemented by wind farms. Then connect them primarily to their own region, but also have them connected to one or more other regions.

Also if anyone wants to install solar in their homes, pay them to do it.

But the wind turbines would suck all the wind out of the air and then where would our cool breezes be?

@mrbojangles25:I think the ideal would be to have regional, massive solar plants, supplemented by wind farms

I think large scale solar farms tend to favour csp and I'm still not clear on the impact on the environment of the materials used in the photovoltaic cells but it is some...

Many of the regions in the United States that have the highest potential for solar energy also tend to be those with the driest climates, so careful consideration of these water tradeoffs is essential.

These chemicals, similar to those used in the general semiconductor industry, include hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid, nitric acid, hydrogen fluoride, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, and acetone.

Thin-film PV cells contain a number of more toxic materials than those used in traditional silicon photovoltaic cells, including gallium arsenide, copper-indium-gallium-diselenide, and cadmium-telluride. If not handled and disposed of properly, these materials could pose serious environmental or public health threats. However, manufacturers have a strong financial incentive to ensure that these highly valuable and often rare materials are recycled rather than thrown away.

https://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/our-energy-choices/renewable-energy/environmental-impacts-solar-power.html#.W24pn9hKiqA

You know it costs energy once you pass iron, right? (At least I think it was iron).

No, just personal experience. I don't know about a single hill or top inside or close to my city with good conditions. On the other hand, the whole west coast is supposedly windy all year round, my impression at least from media. Again a place with loads of mountains and valleys.

Given our knowledge and experience about off shore installations, I would guess that is the best option for us. I think some of those installations are already run by electricity made on land so some infrastructure for transporting electricity from off shore is already made.

@horgen: I think some of those installations are already run by electricity made on land so some infrastructure for transporting electricity from off shore is already made.

Not sure what you mean there...