Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,588
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    LopezElliana
    Newest Member
    LopezElliana
    Joined

Renewable Energy & Technologies Of The Future


SVT450R

Recommended Posts

(CNN) -- The event was over in a fraction of a scintilla of a blink of an eye and released a burst of energy that's not particularly impressive by most standards.


But it's being hailed as a milestone in a decades-long quest to harness the power of nuclear fusion, the same process that powers the sun. For the first time, scientists at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California say they produced more energy from a reaction in their fuel source than they put into the fuel, said Omar Hurricane, the physicist who led the experiment.


 


http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/12/tech/innovation/energy-fusion/index.html?sr=fb021314energymilestone3p


Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
  • Replies 239
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • 1 month later...
  • 2 months later...

I work for one of the largest solar developers in the world.  In our office staff meeting today it was mentioned that we plan to grow 10 fold in the next three years. 

 

I called last week to a company about leasing solar panels... They never called back. Must be real busy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...

Interesting news and I hope that there is real substance to it and not just hype.  Has anyone seen anything that states the Lockheed system has actually achieved fusion?  Or is that part of the additional R&D needed?

From what i have read i believe a working prototype is the next stage in the process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Just a quick thought.

 

 

In 2001 I bought a new 2001 Ford Explorer Sport 4.0L engine, pumped out 210HP and got 21mpg

 

In 2010 I bought a 2011 Chevrolet Traverse, 3.6L engine, Pumps out 281HP and gets 24mpg

 

In 2011, the 2012 Ford Explorer was released. It features a 2.0L engine that pumps out 240HP and gets 28MPG.

 

In 2015, the 2016 Ford Explorer will be coming out. It features a 2.3L engine, Pumps out 290HP and gets over 28mpg

 

These are all peak highway figures.

 

Amazing how much we can squeeze out of a gallon compared to just 13 years ago.

 

My other current car is a 2014 Prius.....

 

When the Traverse goes, I plan on going full electric. If I bought a new car to replace the Traverse today, it would probably be a 2016 Explorer, but I'll hold off for the next bigger breakthrough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a quick thought.

 

 

In 2001 I bought a new 2001 Ford Explorer Sport 4.0L engine, pumped out 210HP and got 21mpg

 

In 2010 I bought a 2011 Chevrolet Traverse, 3.6L engine, Pumps out 281HP and gets 24mpg

 

In 2011, the 2012 Ford Explorer was released. It features a 2.0L engine that pumps out 240HP and gets 28MPG.

 

In 2015, the 2016 Ford Explorer will be coming out. It features a 2.3L engine, Pumps out 290HP and gets over 28mpg

 

These are all peak highway figures.

 

Amazing how much we can squeeze out of a gallon compared to just 13 years ago.

 

My other current car is a 2014 Prius.....

 

When the Traverse goes, I plan on going full electric. If I bought a new car to replace the Traverse today, it would probably be a 2016 Explorer, but I'll hold off for the next bigger breakthrough.

Everything is becoming much more efficient look at the new F-150 coming out with the aluminum body shaving 100s of pounds off which will equate to better fuel economy.  I really think diesel engines will be becoming even more popular as the quest for better fuel economy continues.  As you know the differences in clean diesel tech over the last decade is quite impressive and should only get better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

Game changer?

 

http://www.sciencealert.com/audi-have-successfully-made-diesel-fuel-from-air-and-water

 

Diesel made from co2 and water process.

 

Their base product, which they’re calling 'blue crude' is created using a three-step process. The first step involves harvesting renewable energy from sources such as wind, solar and hydropower. They then use this energy to split water into oxygen and pure hydrogen, using a process known as reversible electrolysis.

This hydrogen is then mixed with carbon monoxide (CO), which is created from carbon dioxide (CO2) that’s been harvested from the atmosphere. The two react at high temperatures and under pressure, resulting in the production of the long-chain hydrocarbon compounds that make up the blue crude.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Game changer?

 

http://www.sciencealert.com/audi-have-successfully-made-diesel-fuel-from-air-and-water

 

Diesel made from co2 and water process.

 

Their base product, which they’re calling 'blue crude' is created using a three-step process. The first step involves harvesting renewable energy from sources such as wind, solar and hydropower. They then use this energy to split water into oxygen and pure hydrogen, using a process known as reversible electrolysis.

This hydrogen is then mixed with carbon monoxide (CO), which is created from carbon dioxide (CO2) that’s been harvested from the atmosphere. The two react at high temperatures and under pressure, resulting in the production of the long-chain hydrocarbon compounds that make up the blue crude.

 

 

probably no more of a game-changer than post 212 above

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably not. It takes a lot of energy to split hydrogen from water. Energy that has to come from somewhere and that you won't recover by burning the hydrogen.

The energy can be derived from any available power source, in this case they used wind energy.

This is an important development, freight hauling vehicles will not be able to use battery power due to little range. This could be a solution to passenger cars too, for those who need unlimited range. I think battery alone will work for most consumers though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

This is probably optimistic and overstates environmental cost savings but shows the potential for making our energy system much more sustainable by mid-century.

 

100% clean and renewable wind, water, and sunlight (WWS) all-sector energy roadmaps for the 50 United States

Mark Z. Jacobson, Mark A. Delucchi, Guillaume Bazouin, Zack A. F. Bauer, Christa C. Heavey, Emma Fisher, Sean B. Morris, Diniana J. Y. Piekutowski,Taylor A. Vencilla and Tim W. Yeskooa

 

This study presents roadmaps for each of the 50 United States to convert their all-purpose energy systems (for electricity, transportation, heating/cooling, and industry) to ones powered entirely by wind, water, and sunlight (WWS). The plans contemplate 80–85% of existing energy replaced by 2030 and 100% replaced by 2050. Conversion would reduce each state’s end-use power demand by a mean of 39.3% with 82.4% of this due to the efficiency of electrification and the rest due to end-use energy efficiency improvements. Year 2050 end-use U.S. all-purpose load would be met with 30.9% onshore wind,19.1% offshore wind, 30.7% utility-scale photovoltaics (PV), 7.2% rooftop PV, 7.3% concentrated solar power (CSP) with storage, 1.25% geothermal power, 0.37% wave power, 0.14% tidal power, and 3.01% hydroelectric power. Based on a parallel grid integration study, an additional 4.4% and 7.2% of power beyond that needed for annual loads would be supplied by CSP with storage and solar thermal for heat, respectively, for peaking and grid stability. Over all 50 states, converting would provide 3.9 million 40-year construction jobs and 2.0 million 40-year operation jobs for the energy facilities alone, the sum of which would outweigh the 3.9 million jobs lost in the conventional energy sector. Converting would also eliminate 62000 (19000–115000) U.S. air pollution premature mortalities per year today and 46000 (12000–104000) in 2050, avoiding $600 ($85–$2400) bil. per year (2013 dollars) in 2050, equivalent to 3.6 (0.5–14.3) percent of the 2014 U.S. gross domestic product. Converting would further eliminate $3.3 (1.9–7.1) tril. per year in 2050 global warming costs to the world due to U.S. emissions. These plans will result in each person in the U.S. in 2050 saving $260 (190–320) per year in energy costs ($2013 dollars) and U.S. health and global climate costs per person decreasing by $1500 (210–6000) per year and $8300 (4700–17600) per year, respectively. The new footprint over land required will be 0.42% of U.S. land. The spacing area between wind turbines, which can be used for multiple purposes, will be 1.6% of U.S. land. Thus, 100% conversions are technically and economically feasible with little downside. These roadmaps may therefore reduce social and political barriers to implementing clean-energy policies.

 

Energy Environ. Sci., 2015, 8, 2093, DOI: 10.1039/c5ee01283j

 

http://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2015/ee/c5ee01283j#!divAbstract

 

hard copy available at following link:

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/100-percent-renewable-power.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 4 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

Ok, ok....anyone care to comment on this little study?  Solar (if used at a large scale) changes to climate could be worse at a regional level than the global mean?  I am confused as heel now (although I did see they mentioned the reduction in solar energy due to incresed cloudiness due to enhanced hydrolgic cycle of warming (something I mentioned several years ago on this forum).

 

http://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2843.epdf?referrer_access_token=9UpIos5nbkRkNcJLRAE6Q9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mhk46FmRPT6xmGxMzCdDQj_TR4jrCkwdeqZFN1QrXjfHoK87yJZqypLgWpzOmK61DNYfeT2hs3rYl59iPKYONBGn_0izI1woInoyvtFs9WQ5P1OaaNW3cnY-LYYJRk6H_EBuxVUw5DaQ-U00hLlUoY-eiBVldc-UBSKD4nB-IvLSLtcTLfkMV0sfgMClr8tqa1JbmWuKg2lsHfY-urVpePIglAB4wKIlgDhSCjewcgNoYbWqaqj03hRI9BTLmBNLGs9yxMB_s7u9sURFWs3EX1&tracking_referrer=www.washingtonpost.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

BUMP

After the election of Trump I am very concerned for the continued pace of renewable development.  Trump transition team is already stating they will pull out of the Paris accord and Trump is almost certain to cancel the Clean Power Plan which was a great federal driver for the increase of renewables.  My only hope now is that the bipartisan support of both the PTC and ITC extension earlier this year will mean a softening of Trumps anti-renewable rhetoric.

Sad

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...