Notes from Alex Carrick | |
Insight and Analysis of Construction Industry Trends |
Get RSS Feed |
Account AccessAnalytic Products - USAnalytic Products - CANNews & Analysis |
Intriguing Ideas to Replace Oil and Natural Gas (2)
Yesterday, I began a discussion about new means to generate clean and renewable energy as alternatives to oil, natural gas and particularly gasoline. Biomass and some of the variations on water power have been covered. Now let’s look at some of the “neater” alternative energy proposals.
Another interesting aspect of these alternative power sources relates to transporting the electricity thus generated to market. Today’s transmission towers, running from big stations and carrying high voltage, run on AC (alternating current) circuitry. It is thought that the amounts of power that will be generated by smaller alternative stations can be more quickly and cheaply moved by DC (direct current) means. Finally, it needs to be said that the massive investments underway and planned in these alternative technologies will still not likely raise their portions of the total energy grid to anything like what will be required in twenty or so years, according to the U.S. Energy Information Agency, an independent research branch of the Department of Energy. If the option of using oil as a feedstock to heat water, create steam and generate electricity is now off the table, what other options are there? Natural gas in co-generation projects is still viable. This will mean the need to build more pipelines and liquified natural gas (LNG) facilities. But there is still the carbon footprint issue. The most hope for the future, whether alarmists like it or not, is clean-burning nuclear power. The latest design features reduce the chance of meltdown through gravity-feed cooling systems. Solve the spent-fuel storage problem and the world has a winner. By the way, from my reading so far, “fusion” does not seem to be given much credence as a likely short-term answer at this time. Coal is the other option with enormous potential, if the hoped-for improvements in removing sulphur, carbon and other harmful emissions can really be achieved. Many of the world’s most energy-needy economies still have vast underutilized coal reserves. Alex CarrickFind Canadian construction-related economic articles in Canadian Construction Market News and in the Economic Outlook section of Daily Commercial News. Member Comments» View all comments (3 total comments)
08/11/2008 - posted by marcus
e8005, you are correct, nuclear is quite expensive and potentially catastrophically dangerous. But the unfortunate reality is that if we all continue to grow at the rate the world does, we don’t have a choice. Do I need to spell out the obvious implication of the underlying problem here?…
08/09/2008 - posted by e8005
Big problem with nuclear (if we can really believe it’s 100% safe now) is it’s so expensive compared to coal.
07/30/2008 - posted by marcus
Good point, Alex, about nuclear technology. No matter what we like to preach about the environment, like it or not, it is our required #1 source for power. A majority of our energy must be this source, if we continue to grow evermore rapidly. A commenter crunched some simple numbers in this article I came across. Read Other Recent Alex Carrick Posts01/05 - TYBA Projects
|

Get RSS Feed


Join the Discussion