-Roan
-Roan
Are you talking about alternative power for a city or an individual home?
For a home I would vote solar or wind.
For a city I probably would have to vote tidal or wind.
I don't know anything about geothermal on a small scale (except geothermal heat pumps), but I don't really like it for large scale.
For a home I would vote solar or wind.
For a city I probably would have to vote tidal or wind.
I don't know anything about geothermal on a small scale (except geothermal heat pumps), but I don't really like it for large scale.
Solar without a doubt. If the technology could be improved and manufacturered cheap enough then it would be great.
CKS
CKS
location, location, location,
QUOTE (paul h+Jan 25 2008, 06:40 PM)
location, location, location,
Yep. If I had a mountain/hammer/tidal bore....
Yep. If I had a mountain/hammer/tidal bore....
Zero point.
Definitely geothermal, as it's available when we need it, needs little area, and looks cheap (sure, we have no definitive figures).
Remember many places in the World need power in winter and during night. If the alternate source of power doesn't deliver at these times, you need either to pay for another powerplant that burns fossil energy then, or store your alternate energy over many months, which seems to be too expensive when you put serious figures on it.
It makes a huge difference whether you want to be individually CO2 neutral as a mean value over a standard year and rely on traditional sources from time to time, or switch the whole society to a never-CO2-emitting one. Then, sun or wind or tides only work if you can transport and store this energy. This is why people think of chemical storage. Hydrogen is fashionable, but ethanol or others would be as acceptable if not more.
The poll doesn't mention biomass, though it has the advantages of price, transport and storage. Pity it's a competitor to food with current producing schemes. The EU was a net importer of crop for the first time in 2007, because of "bad weather". This has been very little advertised.
Remember many places in the World need power in winter and during night. If the alternate source of power doesn't deliver at these times, you need either to pay for another powerplant that burns fossil energy then, or store your alternate energy over many months, which seems to be too expensive when you put serious figures on it.
It makes a huge difference whether you want to be individually CO2 neutral as a mean value over a standard year and rely on traditional sources from time to time, or switch the whole society to a never-CO2-emitting one. Then, sun or wind or tides only work if you can transport and store this energy. This is why people think of chemical storage. Hydrogen is fashionable, but ethanol or others would be as acceptable if not more.
The poll doesn't mention biomass, though it has the advantages of price, transport and storage. Pity it's a competitor to food with current producing schemes. The EU was a net importer of crop for the first time in 2007, because of "bad weather". This has been very little advertised.
I didn't vote because there is no correct choice.
The BEST is what is available at any given location.
For instance:
If you live near the coast in the high latitudes then Wind is probably your best option, but if you happen to live near an active crustal zone Geothermal might even be cheaper, while biomass and solar are probably not very cost effective.
If you live in the SE of the US you will get decent levels of sun but for most of the area, rarely a dependable wind speed high enough to justify wind. (with exceptions of course). Your long growing season starts making biomass more practical though.
If you live in the SW of the US you will get nearly the maximul amount of sun, and often wind as well, but lack of water means biomass is not practical and Geothermal is usually too deep.
etc etc
Arthur
The BEST is what is available at any given location.
For instance:
If you live near the coast in the high latitudes then Wind is probably your best option, but if you happen to live near an active crustal zone Geothermal might even be cheaper, while biomass and solar are probably not very cost effective.
If you live in the SE of the US you will get decent levels of sun but for most of the area, rarely a dependable wind speed high enough to justify wind. (with exceptions of course). Your long growing season starts making biomass more practical though.
If you live in the SW of the US you will get nearly the maximul amount of sun, and often wind as well, but lack of water means biomass is not practical and Geothermal is usually too deep.
etc etc
Arthur
wind power the best, solar expensive and bad at cloudy days. Another is to weak.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.