Most efficient energy source:

[Pie]

So, this was sparked from the;
http://forums.soldat.pl/index.php?topic=22459.from1196242880;topicseen#msg262682
Instead of going off topic there (like i already did) I decided to make a thread about it,
What would be the most efficient, reliable and cost effective energy source?

Our planet is supposedly running out of Fossil Fuel, what are we to do?
Is wind or solar the answer, or is nuclear the way to go?

What's your opinion?

[Will]

Nuclear fusion, if we could contain it and somehow spend bilions and bilions of dollars perfecting it.
Alternatively, constant energy sources in order: wind, geothermal, hydro

[Pie]

Nuclear fusion, if we could contain it and somehow spend bilions and bilions of dollars perfecting it.
Alternatively, constant energy sources in order: wind, geothermal, hydro

You still suggest Nuclear even though it is unstable and the cost of it is quite large in the beginning of the process?

Well after more research, i found out that;

GeoThermal Energy

    * This type of energy source takes advantage of water which is heated by magma lying close to the earth's surface.
    * This type of energy is limited to a few areas of the west in the U.S. and is non-renewable.
    * Potential of less then 10%.



    * In this type of a system steam is used to run the turbines which create electricity. The magma is probably around 2,000° F. This system will probably only last 10's of years before the rocks have been cooled.
    * Although the aforementioned geothermal system has very limited use there is another system that could take advantage of water in the earth. About 10 feet below ground the earth is unaffected by seasonal changes and keeps a constant temperature of about 52 deg F on Long Island. A vertical closed loop system which had pipes filled with water going down into the ground until heated to 52 deg F and then brought back out into a home could be used as a heating system in the winter, and a cooling system in the summer. The water temperature would be perfect for air conditioning in the summer.Water being heated in the winter would require considerably less energy to raise it from the 52 deg F then would much colder air in the winter months.

 
So I guess it isn't all it's cracked up to be, i didn't know it was only suitable in some places.


Energy source      % now      % in 2075
Oil     40     0
Gas     25     0
Coal     25     100
Oil Shale     0     ?
Tar Sand     0     ?
Methane Hydrate     0     ?
Nuclear Reactor (not renewable uses U235)     7     15
Breeder Reactor (uses Pu239)     0     100?
Nuclear Fusion     0     100?
Geothermal     0     10
Solar     0     15
Hydropower     3     5
Tidal Power     0     0
Wind     0     10
Biomass     0     ?
Biogas     0     ?



Current prediction of energy outcomes(May not be reliable)

[Iridescent]

Nuclear power isn't really unstable. One incident which people seem to always bring up is Chernobyl. But apart from that I don't see any green mutants running around.
People are just scared, and with current health and safety regulations where it looks like we can't breathe without being checked, I don't see why it isn't invested in more. Besides, more money into it will allow them to become safer.

Obviously geothermal energy has to be placed at certain sites, you try digging pipes from an 8km altitude to get close to the mantle.

I won't vote on any one of them because we should be looking into all sorts of methods. Reliance on one got us into this mess, I doubt it will keep us out.
Nuclear is good as a replacement for the fossils and as the stations grow old we go into renewable sources. Invest a load more into solar energy, its sparking up (excuse the pun) but it has a long way to go.

[a-4-year-old]

Efficient, in what way? Cost efficient would be Geothermal, since it is the cheapest I know of.

Biomass kind of sucks, it costs a lot compared to solar, wind, geothermal, coal ect.

For availability, the top two would be Wind and solar, nuclear is out because nuclear facilities currently have too many regulations to pass to be used everywhere.

There are various others, a lot deal with the ocean, there is a design that takes the kinetic energy of a wave and turns it into electricity, there is one for currents on the bottom of the ocean, which would be pretty good in the sense of it doesn't do anything but take up some space on the bottom of the ocean.

[Iridescent]

Wave turbines and the like to affect the sea though.
Wildlife gets disturbed and I think in some cases might affect longshore drift.

As far as I know geothermal is really expensive to start up 'cause you need to drill down deep. However to keep running, yeah its cheap.
You can't rely on biomass, its polluting anyway.

[Tallacaps]

Some system to reuse human heat. That's a loss.

[Biscuiteer]

Solar power is about efficient as it's gonna get. You can get energy from the sun virtually everywhere! The cons:

1) High initial costs (for the equipment)
2) Mostly useless at night (reflected sunlight makes it barely useful, if at all)
3) Technology is still very undeveloped at this point

[BondJamesBond]

For availability, the top two would be Wind and solar, nuclear is out because nuclear facilities currently have too many regulations to pass to be used everywhere.

You know nuclear isn't as bad as you think. My city was born from a nuclear industry, during World War II. It's true that you need very strict policies to maintain a plant and it is also true that prolonged use will have devastating effects. However, during this time where we must find a way to shift sources and recover from dependency, nuclear power is a good way to carry us through. It is a fairly efficient source and can reduce our foreign dependency dramatically (considering there are many nuclear sites in America that can be used for energy). Reducing the dependency gives us more time and money to began developing other, more reliable and safer sources - but until then nuclear energy can keep us patched until a new source becomes available.

[a-4-year-old]

For availability, the top two would be Wind and solar, nuclear is out because nuclear facilities currently have too many regulations to pass to be used everywhere.

You know nuclear isn't as bad as you think. My city was born from a nuclear industry, during World War II. It's true that you need very strict policies to maintain a plant and it is also true that prolonged use will have devastating effects. However, during this time where we must find a way to shift sources and recover from dependency, nuclear power is a good way to carry us through. It is a fairly efficient source and can reduce our foreign dependency dramatically (considering there are many nuclear sites in America that can be used for energy). Reducing the dependency gives us more time and money to began developing other, more reliable and safer sources - but until then nuclear energy can keep us patched until a new source becomes available.

I know nuclear is safe and such, but it is hard to get a facility built.

Also building geothermal isn't really that expensive when you look at other things, and it pays for itself very very quickly.

[BondJamesBond]

Well personally, I hope we can eventually convert to a combination of wind, solar, and water.

[7th_account]

... And with geothermal and heart, Captain Planet would be formed.

[a-4-year-old]

no superhero without some radioactive shit.

[Pie]

Efficient, in what way? Cost efficient would be Geothermal, since it is the cheapest I know of.

Biomass kind of sucks, it costs a lot compared to solar, wind, geothermal, coal ect.

For availability, the top two would be Wind and solar, nuclear is out because nuclear facilities currently have too many regulations to pass to be used everywhere.

There are various others, a lot deal with the ocean, there is a design that takes the kinetic energy of a wave and turns it into electricity, there is one for currents on the bottom of the ocean, which would be pretty good in the sense of it doesn't do anything but take up some space on the bottom of the ocean.

Tidal turbines, aren't always a good option, they only work a certain % of the time(not sure which)
It's only a small percent though. It is because tides aren't always reliable or something :S.

[ghg]

I don't think we're gonna run out of light in the foreseeable future so I vote solar.