My electrical engineer and I were just discussing alternative energies. Solar and wind are very difficult to re-coup your investment, or to heat your house. I'd install something on my house tomorrow if it were feasible, not only based on payback, but actual ability to perform as needed. Even geothermal heat pumps are not 100%.

Traditional solar panels use some pretty rare materials, so those are out in a large-scale bases. Windmills work fine here in the plains. Geothermal works pretty good in the south. Anywhere we can start reducing consumption is a solid start. I like Fusion because much of the infrastructure is in place. Although, it is somewhat poorly designed, and needs updating, I think we're better off using an electrical grid system than trying to pipe/transport hydrogen for fuel-cells.

D

Any time you can do something on a larger scale, it is typically more efficient. Large megawatt style wind turbines are more efficient and cheaper per watt than smaller single kW residential types.

And geothermal heat pumps work here. Go down 50 feet and the temps are very similar to the south. But dirt is a poor conductor. The ground surrounding the heat pipes can become laden/lost of heat quickly, and then you have to shut down or switch to alternate heat until the ground can transfer heat.

The technology for alternative energy is there, it is just the institution of it that needs to move forward.

Coal can be used ecologically and would be a very viable source of energy. We cannot rely on any single source of power. You never know what will be the ultimate cause and effect. After WW2, the government went on a dam building spree. The idea of cheap hydroelectic power thrilled the masses, and the ecologists of the day favored it as a substitute for coal. Now they are knocking the dams and demanding that they be tore down. Wind farms could become an eco-disaster in the nest fifty years. They could just as easy find a cheap way to convert energy from coal or waste plants. Unless you can see the future, you are reduced to making decisions based on the best information you have.

Oklahoma invented geo-thermal heat pumps, so to speak. Yet it has yet to take hold of the public interest. Part of it is that the investment is still high for the recoup. Usually, it is the people that can afford higher bills that have the money to install the systems. Everyone else are seeing faster recoup times with windows, insulation, and other changes.

My personal thought is whether it might be practical to think of floating nuclear plants. While the environmentalists may get all bent about the chance of nuking the fish, it may be the safest way to go. Especially if you think about doing a series of submersible reactors, like parking a bunch of nuke subs around a hub.

Why underwater?

LEED Platinum buildings are a start at energy conservation, too.

Thats my only issue, it's good that Nuclear is making a comeback, but it's still gonna take a long while to come on line.

For the waste issue, I find it quite interesting that some so called environmentalists are conceding that storage of waste is a small problem compared to pumping tons of pollution in the air from coal plants.

I have an idea - simply put the waste into a rocket and send it into space.

#1, this probably won't happen, because of international treaties.

#2, if there is life out there, and we trash their backyard with nuclear waste, they might get p'oed.

#3, if they get p'oed and blast us out of the universe, well, at least we'll know that alien life exists...

For years I've said, "Aim it at the sun." I'm pretty sure there's no life there.

speaking of water, i think we've got a few salt water oceans on this rock. maybe we should put some platforms offshore with batteries on the top and big metal strips of different compositions hanging in the water below. then we could collect the electrons that flow in the batteries. hmmmm.....

I'll take Bruce's idea and improve on it.

Build one huge big old tower on the east coast of the USA, and one in France.

Run a wire from each tower to the ocean.

Now comes the hard part - starting the battery.

If we could figure a way to run a spark from tower-to-tower, aircraft, could be converted to electric motors and "ride-the-spark" from continent to continent.

Only problem, we might want to run a ground wire to some 3rd world country, or France might corrode.

And if you think of this as futility on a global scale, remember Lazlo Toth's idea that he submitted to President Ford's Energy Commission in the 1970s?

He got an award for an idea being "ahead of its time".

Too late.

A deep water nuclear plant would be safer from terrrorists. The easiest would be a ship based system. Russia is causing a stir with their plans to build a series of small nuclear power plants on barges. The benefits are great, but the fear of security and Russian technology/safety record is high. Westinghouse started to build ship based nuclear plants in the early 70s, and even building the construction facilities. The beauty of the system is that they can be massed produced, for cost savings. And safety would be more assured since any problems in one, could be sorted out in all of them much like the recall system for cars. Another advantage is that a plant could be moved into a disaster area to power things for as long as needed. Other uses are desalinization plants, powering floating oil rigs, and maybe eventually the development of ocean resorts.

Another thing is that even with the Chernobyl fear, and the poor track record of the Russian subs, none of the subs have created any environmental problems, and have even been recovered intact. My vision is of a central tube system like in space. Modules like the tail of subs would be manuevered into a dock like spokes of a wheel. The central tube would be anchored to the ocean floor. It would be out of the way of storms and winds. Even earthquakes would have little effect on them.

I'm sorry guys. For the ones who don't believe in GTHP or solar power it's already being done.

GTPH are being used across Canada and we don't have any "warm" regions. From what I read modern GHPs are typically rated no less than a COP of 3, so 300% efficient. Some are even as high as 3.6 - 3.8 COP.

Here in Ontario we just signed a 20 year contract to one of your Solar Panel company from California. It will be build in Sarnia, provide 40-megawatt from a solar farm of 365 hectares. It will be the biggest in North America. We are paying more for this type of electricity and it will cost the company approx. 300 million to build. Being low maintenance, can last for 30 to 50 years. Yes, it can only provide power for 10,000-15,000 homes. But compared to the hidden environmental costs, health impacts, and industry subsidies of other electrical plants, the province felt it was the right decision.

Heres one 12-megawatt solar park in Arnstein, Germany. They just signed a contract to build a 40-megawatt in the same region too.

Ground source heat pumps are a viable entity, never said they weren't. But you have to have a supplemental heat back up unless you increase your subterrainian surface by about 50%. These things are not cheap to begin with, and adding 50% extra below ground surface just increases the overall cost substantially. Typical payback around here is about 20-25 years if you have to upgrade to compete system, which many do. And the equipment will last you 15 years, but typically would require replacement at 12. So do the math, it isn't an overly feasible thing for the standard home owner to do. I work in this business, looked into this technology, and have a friend who actually installed one of these system at a cost close to $40k. He loves to see oil prices go up as it shortens his payback.

And again, large scale plants for solar and wind are feasible, small individual residential systems are not. So, we as home owners are kind of stuck until the mass populace decides to move forward in a municiple manner, and then one nay sayer will hold up the entire project. We are reaping what we sow.

From my industry, this is interesting info: