What is the most economically-viable carbon-neutral/positive fuel...

[NikolaeVarius]

Safe or not, we are still producing nuclear waste that will take tens of thousands of years to break down. After the human race has gone extinct, our nuclear waste will still be around.

Not only do we have to think of ourselves, we have to think of those that will follow us.




Probably the best answer so far.

In the long run, I think solar, wave and wind will be the best solutions.

1. That's why you also build reactors that further use nuclear waste to generate electricity. I'm pretty sure companies would pay other companies to haul away all that nuclear waste for use.

2. Solar wind and wave suffer from problems. Solar is too inefficient to account for more then a decent portion of our energy usage, wave simply doesn't generate enough, and wind suffers from a large amount of space needed in optimal areas to return on investment.

 

[Howard]

He meant(85% certainty)use Nuclear to produce Electricity, use Electricity for vehicles.

That's probably what he meant, but where is the justification that such a system is the cheapest of all green systems?

 

[HomerSapien]

Safe or not, we are still producing nuclear waste that will take tens of thousands of years to break down. After the human race has gone extinct, our nuclear waste will still be around.

Not only do we have to think of ourselves, we have to think of those that will follow us.

Probably the best answer so far.

In the long run, I think solar, wave and wind will be the best solutions.

None of those will provide for adequate baseload consumption. Face it, we are going to use nuclear energy, coal, oil/gas. and other forms that many may not like. For the current consumption and expected demand, those items will not provide enough power to suit the developing worlds needs. Solar has a chance of being more than a "feel good tech" for rich people if it can improve the ridiculously low efficiencies the industry is current manufacturing.

Instead of fighting based on incomplete assumptions, support the responsible use of these technologies and support more $$ for the continued research. The technological developments that came from the the nuclear industry are providing benefits to every facet of life.

 

[mmntech]

For some reason, I dont think the people that died after Chernobyl would agree with nuclear.

~~~~~

Wind or wave powered electricity

Chernobyl was run be an incompetent government authority that failed to ensure the facility had proper safety measures in place. The reactors didn't even have concrete shields. That's a standard feature of all North American reactors and the most basic safety measure. More people in the US have been injured by natural gas power plants exploding.

Nuclear power is the safest and most reliable generating technology we have. Wind and solar are, at best, pipe dreams. They're geographically limited and highly inefficient. That's why they require the huge subsidies, or else they're not profitable. Hydro rates in Ontario are expected to go up 40% in the next 20 or so years, a large chunk of that going to green energy subsidies.

 

[Rubycon]

compressed air

Especially when used in vortex tubes to provide air conditioning.

 

[sandorski]

Nuclear energy is safe as hell. Chernobyl happened because the dudes turned off a dozen warning signals and safeties that said "STOP THE DAMN REACTOR"

What incompetence! You'd think they'd have made sure it was in Russian...

 

[Texashiker]

Instead of fighting based on incomplete assumptions, support the responsible use of these technologies and support more $$ for the continued research.

I do support energies that make money and provide jobs. Have you seen any of those wind turbine towers? Those things are huge - I see them all the time on hwy 96 going towards Oklahoma.

Also, Texas is talking about building a huge wind farm in the gulf of mexico.

 

[blinblue]

Bio-diesel seems like a potential source of fuel if the current problems with scaling and harvesting are solved. The fuel can be used in current diesel engines so that's a major plus. No need for additional infrastructure (which hydrogen would need, and if electric cars take off, the strain on the grid will require something to be done)

 

[Perknose]

...for the transportation industry today?

Oh, now you get specific. Because I was going to answer "Love."

Love is a renewable resource, a great source of energy, and warms as it nourishes as it puts your backfield in motion.

Love is the universal fuel, and we are the delivery system. ()

 

[Turin39789]

Oh, now you get specific. Because I was going to answer "Love."

Love is a renewable resource, a great source of energy, and warms as it nourishes as it puts your backfield in motion.

Love is the universal fuel, and we are the delivery system. ()

But have you seen what we can do with Hate?

 

[NikolaeVarius]

Oh, now you get specific. Because I was going to answer "Love."

Love is a renewable resource, a great source of energy, and warms as it nourishes as it puts your backfield in motion.

Love is the universal fuel, and we are the delivery system. ()

Everytime I drive my car, I use up the love in the universe. So every time I drive, I cause the divorce rate to go up.

It is the greatest car drive ever.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Nuclear is the only currently viable option that could provide enough power. An electric based infrastructure powered by nuclear energy (primarily nuclear with hydro, solar, and wind supplementing it) is the only way under current tech/economic levels. It could also have some hydrogen (using nuclear generated electricity to fuel the electrolysis).

Using thorium, breeders, and the 4th gen reactors we could meet our current energy demands in a much more environmentally friendly way. Might be slightly more expensive though.

 

[rcpratt]

Amused by ignorant people trying to talk about nuclear.

No, I'm not talking to most of you.

 

[Jeff7]

Nuclear is the only currently viable option that could provide enough power. An electric based infrastructure powered by nuclear energy (primarily nuclear with hydro, solar, and wind supplementing it) is the only way under current tech/economic levels. It could also have some hydrogen (using nuclear generated electricity to fuel the electrolysis).

Using thorium, breeders, and the 4th gen reactors we could meet our current energy demands in a much more environmentally friendly way. Might be slightly more expensive though.

Dear god, this.
My understanding of some of the 4th generation reactors is that they can't experience a severe malfunction like a meltdown.
There's a ridiculous amount of energy that can be obtained from nuclear reactions; until someone figures out a way of getting fusion to an efficient and commercially viable stage, we've got fission, with the ability to keep it safe. Unfortunately the public understanding of science is based on the mass media's understanding of science, which generally includes beakers of colored water with dry ice at the bottom, and not much else.

 

[rcpratt]

Dear god, this.
My understanding of some of the 4th generation reactors is that they can't experience a severe malfunction like a meltdown.
There's a ridiculous amount of energy that can be obtained from nuclear reactions; until someone figures out a way of getting fusion to an efficient and commercially viable stage, we've got fission, with the ability to keep it safe. Unfortunately the public understanding of science is based on the mass media's understanding of science, which generally includes beakers of colored water with dry ice at the bottom, and not much else.

There's no such thing as can't. Every technology has decreased the risk of an accident by at least an order of magnitude, though.

 

[Ichinisan]

Rubber bands (well, energy storage...anyway).

 

[Howard]

Guys, I'm talking about today (as noted in the OP). I would love for electric motors to power all of our vehicles, but that's not going to happen today because it'll be prohibitively expensive for most industries. Unless you've got some figures proving that every car and truck can now run on electricity cheaper than gasoline, you've got to change your tune.

 

[SagaLore]

Properly managed nuclear power plants are very safe, take a look at France, South Korea, etc.

Modern reactor designs can even handle quite a bit of stupidity on part of their operators.

Also, the pebble bed reactors CAN'T end up with a cascading meltdown.

 

[sandorski]

Guys, I'm talking about today (as noted in the OP). I would love for electric motors to power all of our vehicles, but that's not going to happen today because it'll be prohibitively expensive for most industries. Unless you've got some figures proving that every car and truck can now run on electricity cheaper than gasoline, you've got to change your tune.

Today? EST or PST?

 

[Howard]

Today? EST or PST?

Are you fucking with me or just being naturally Canadian?

 

[darkswordsman17]

Guys, I'm talking about today (as noted in the OP). I would love for electric motors to power all of our vehicles, but that's not going to happen today because it'll be prohibitively expensive for most industries. Unless you've got some figures proving that every car and truck can now run on electricity cheaper than gasoline, you've got to change your tune.

Well then, the answer is simple. Its oil. Your question is bullshit though, as you're asking what, in a market that is designed around a certain fuel source, and has been for decades upon decades, would be the most economically viable fuel source for that? Um, do you really have to ask?

Every other source there is going to be a give and take. With ethanol the only way you'll produce enough to replace gasoline is to use food crops which will raise food prices to where its not feasible. Right now, the tech for turning trash/waste into fuel just isn't there and would require multiple orders of magnitude of rollout compared to what it is now.

Even in places where electric trains and bikes are prevalent, would require a lot of money (as in likely trillions) worth of development to keep up with modern systems of transport and supplant oil as the primary energy source.

 

[Howard]

Well then, the answer is simple. Its oil. Your question is bullshit though, as you're asking what, in a market that is designed around a certain fuel source, and has been for decades upon decades, would be the most economically viable fuel source for that? Um, do you really have to ask?

Every other source there is going to be a give and take. With ethanol the only way you'll produce enough to replace gasoline is to use food crops which will raise food prices to where its not feasible. Right now, the tech for turning trash/waste into fuel just isn't there and would require multiple orders of magnitude of rollout compared to what it is now.

Even in places where electric trains and bikes are prevalent, would require a lot of money (as in likely trillions) worth of development to keep up with modern systems of transport and supplant oil as the primary energy source.

I never said the answer would have to be economically viable, just that it's the most economically viable. Big difference.

 

[sdifox]

I never understood carbon neutral. Not like we are making new carbon molecules.


fusion is the obvious answer.

 

[Howard]

I never understood carbon neutral. Not like we are making new carbon molecules.


fusion is the obvious answer.

Carbon hidden away in the ground is effectively nonexistent, wouldn't you say?

 

[gorobei]

algae based diesel is probably the best of the current alternative crop types.

nuclear: no real carbon release, but storage and our refusal to re-process into plutonium makes it less long-term friendly.

cellulosic ethanol: reduces atmospheric carbon and easier to transition to car engine wise, still requires a lot of enzyme processing(expensive). switch weed doesnt displace food crops, but still might screw over some animal habitat.

algae: much smaller land use, multiple extractions of hydrocarbon forms, can be used to scrub CO2 from smokestacks, waste byproduct can be fed to livestock. However, requires full transition to diesel, algae strains still need more modifying to get better hydrocarbon ratios, too many lobby groups for other more proprietary alt-fuel industries.

If you use the money being spent to subsidize the petrol industry to transition to alt-fuel, the cost is far less.