Now, we all know what to think when we get another perpetual motion claim.

http://www.reuters.com/news/video?videoId=84561

...

But there are, believe it or not, a number of ideas out there that are
• well supported by their respective academic field
• have credible funding
• if materialized would SMASH prices for the niche where it would preform
• need some particular development or are not producing due to some very real barrier, that given certain circumstances, could be completely overcome


The last point may be the most difficult sell. If something hasn't worked, why should we believe that it all of a sudden will? Well... there are reasons, and some are more convincing than others. But, right now, there are huge implications of declining production of oil and development of a large fraction of the world's population straining conventional resources.

Given the attention, money, and thought going into energy issues right now, it seems perfectly possible (though by no means definite) that alternatives even better than the original solutions will crop up. But wait! If something like this crops up... it's game over for the uneconomical conventional energy source that it replaces.

As we can imagine, this would come with implications.

The Candidates

Algae Biofuels

Why did God not evolve some bacteria that eats filth and CO2 and poops out clean oil? Well, there is a very good reason - it wouldn't have made any sense to do this. But now it would.

There are no physical limitations to say that such algae couldn't be engineered. In fact, some people are working on projects where it would directly produce ethanol with no refining.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-9966867-54.html

If the claims from this are right, that such a system could produce $3 per gallon ethanol... well, 3 < 4. It's even 'less than' enough to cover the energy density difference and be worth trillions upon trillions.

There are a lot of strains of algae. Aside from doing fuels, some does currently produce edible matter. The next 'green revolution' could be just a bunch of pond scum that produces plastics, food, fuel, building materials, and who knows what else.

Focus Fusion

This is a real thing. The idea is to produce net gain fusion plasma in short bursts, meaning that your minimum power input can be much much much less than the 60 MW called for in the Iter.

In fact, they claim that the optimal design would be something like a 5 MW unit.

http://focusfusion.org/log/index.php/site/article/focus_fusion_credibility/



There are 3 or 4 big (legit) groups prototyping 'alternative' methods of attaining fusion, i.e. not Tokomak. This one, has had on the range of million $$ funding. It's the highest risk and highest yield of the options. Really, it makes the algae thing look like a money market account.

Of course, there's nothing principally to say this couldn't be done, and many physicists are gung ho about it (not to say they're never wrong either). An extremely effective design could even get the aneutronic reactions, so you could tell the NRC and the IAEA to go fuck themselves and you would need no expensive labor to run these things.

--
As someone in their early 20s in a field that could be demolished by these, I'm all for them. I could easily move to another field if the bottom falls out where I am, and I would like to travel cheaply, see new radical development of the world and hey, go into space if I can - why not?

That said, if such a thing happened, I'd rather it happen sooner rather than later after I've devoted a significant part of my life to a 'best apparent option' field. And I'm guessing that even now there are people who wouldn't be happy to get the memo of

Drilling stopped - damned algae
Power plant canceled - sliver bullet found

What say you TSB?

6/19/2008 12:30:13 AM

Quote :

"Of course, there's nothing principally to say this couldn't be done, and many physicists are gung ho about it (not to say they're never wrong either). An extremely effective design could even get the aneutronic reactions, so you could tell the NRC and the IAEA to go fuck themselves and you would need no expensive labor to run these things. "

This is optimistic, at best. The public flips out on anything with the word "nuclear" in it.

In any case, I think the future of energy is not big huge powerplants, but a more decentralized infrastructure of smaller, cleaner power generation, and for various reasons, this is the best directions. I would love to see aneutronic fusion take hold though, that will be a great day.

But, I personally thing the "silver bullet" is going to come in solar. There is some excellent work now in nano materials and meta materials that I can see putting solar within the reach of true commercial viability, maybe within the next 10 years. We'll also see gains in battery technology that would put electric cars with the power we expect in the same class as current gas vehicles. Combine these 2 technologies of solar electricity on "grid" (it won't be a grid anymore) cars and you have a very significantly reduced reliance on gasoline. The day we have an electric tractor trailer is the day we know we've arrived though.

6/19/2008 12:46:41 AM

still, batteries and fuels cells have been slow, high cost, low return technologies. We don't expect major breakthroughs from them, just improvement as production ramps up more. In a fairly straight arrow projection of the future, I see what you're saying.

But even if you run a tractor trailer with it, how about a Boeing or a supertanker? Fuel cells and batteries are simply middle of the road technologies.


Alright, and solar is a load of bull crap. Solar thermal is mostly the one that keeps announcing "oh my god we solved the energy problems!" I really wish they would shut up about that and tell me how much they paid for their plants.

Nevada Solar One had an overnight instillation cost of 3,546, divide by its .23 capacity factor, and it's 15,420 $/kW installed sustained energy. That sucks. That's 3 times even the worst acceptable investment for grid connection.

Solar PVs have potential.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/03/solar_pollution_china.php
They have their problems too. I still don't see any reason to think it's anything more than a poor to okay option. Even if a company sells one line or two for a symbolic 0.99 cent per watt... it doesn't mean much.

6/19/2008 1:03:15 AM

Zero Point Energy FTW?

http://magneticpowerinc.com/index.html

6/19/2008 1:16:40 AM

Quote :

"Alright, and solar is a load of bull crap. Solar thermal is mostly the one that keeps announcing "oh my god we solved the energy problems!" I really wish they would shut up about that and tell me how much they paid for their plants. Nevada Solar One had an overnight instillation cost of 3,546, divide by its .23 capacity factor, and it's 15,420 $/kW installed sustained energy. That sucks. That's 3 times even the worst acceptable investment for grid connection. Solar PVs have potential. http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/03/solar_pollution_china.php They have their problems too. I still don't see any reason to think it's anything more than a poor to okay option. Even if a company sells one line or two for a symbolic 0.99 cent per watt... it doesn't mean much."

Yeah but what i'm saying is if we found a new material that's more efficient, and hopefully cheaper to produce, it could easily be worth it with solar. Plus, everything is expensive to begin with, and gets cheaper with larger scales.

^ I can't see how they can possibly get enough energy from vacuum energy to be reasonable.

[Edited on June 19, 2008 at 1:19 AM. Reason : ]

6/19/2008 1:17:45 AM

There's definitely a silver bullet here:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=hxIuIxqo2So

6/19/2008 3:54:17 AM

True, solar PV technology could improve drastically and be the silver bullet.

Quote :

"Zero Point Energy FTW?"

lol, Focus Fusion cites Zero Point Energy and Z-Pinch as "our idea doesn't require new physics like these guys".

Quote :

"This is optimistic, at best. The public flips out on anything with the word "nuclear" in it."

Do you know about industrial plasmas? A aneutronic fusion reactor would be the exact same thing from a safety standpoint as an ordinary industrial plasma. If people have a problem with it, you could seriously tell them to go fuck themselves.

[Edited on June 19, 2008 at 7:55 AM. Reason : ]

6/19/2008 7:48:22 AM

Quote :

"If people have a problem with it, you could seriously tell them to go fuck themselves."

uhh, no, unfortunately, you can't.

if people get wind of any kind of nuclear facility coming to their town, all the NIMBA idiots come out of the woodwork and go on letter writing campaigns to city councils and newspapers and congressmen and successfully lobby to get just another dozen coal plants instead, and before long you go 30 years without building any nuclear power plants and oil raises to $140/barrel then we're all fucked.

6/19/2008 8:28:48 AM

i think nuclear will be picking up in the very near future though.

6/19/2008 8:38:05 AM

I was actually going to list the Molten Salt Thorium Reactor in this. But I got tired of typing.



The fuel flow is, naturally, completely continuous. Replace graphite every 30 years or so. The fuel is as abundant as most many proposed fusion fuels (sort of moreso than many), nearly 3 times as much as Uranium, and that includes the U238, meaning that it's really more like 3/0.007 = 500 times-ish more abundant, and we're not going to run out of Uranium soon either.

Need an isotope from the reaction? They're processed out continuously, and pressed on-site into radioactive bricks. Waste? Well, you separate out the fission products (~300 yr life) from the rest of the stuff, and most of that 'rest' of the stuff you can just keep burning. Oakridge ran a 10 MW test version of this reactor in the 70s I think. But as many things in national labs go, it became unpopular.

But right now many people consider this to be the holy grail of fusion technology, and while unproven, it doesn't look to take much more R&D than other 'advanced' designs that get promoted.

Problems...
Looking back, this might have been the best option for us to start with from the beginning! Unfortunately, any type of mature fusion power reactor has billions upon billions of dollars behind it. No one will kid you on this, it would take that kind of investment, and of course, there are no guarantees. Comparatively, this has the longest way to go.

So, I think you can still call this a 'silver bullet', but it's not a free ride. Just like any of these proposals that should be taken seriously.

[Edited on June 19, 2008 at 9:01 AM. Reason : ]

6/19/2008 8:58:31 AM

Quote :

"uhh, no, unfortunately, you can't. if people get wind of any kind of nuclear facility coming to their town, all the NIMBA idiots come out of the woodwork and go on letter writing campaigns to city councils and newspapers and congressmen and successfully lobby to get just another dozen coal plants instead, and before long you go 30 years without building any nuclear power plants and oil raises to $140/barrel then we're all fucked."

If I could make a break-even aneutronic fusion reaction...

If the US was so amazingly stupid enough to try and stop me, I could go practically anywhere in the world I wanted to and get the red carpet rolled out. For legal opposition to be serious, they would have to jail everyone working on the project.

6/19/2008 9:06:17 AM

With regards to the Algae Biofuels, I don't know enough about algae producing ethanol directly, but there's already a lot of research being carried out by both Boeing and Airbus in breeding algae to convert into ethanol. Even this would be a big step forward since as you pointed out, aircraft can't do fuel cells (at this time) due to weight, and current ethanol simply doesn't have the concentrated power to run a jet turbine on (for those who don't know, aircraft run on a high grade kerosene, not gasoline).

6/19/2008 2:38:57 PM

Some algae even release ethanol as an off gas. But yes, there are those that can be processed into ethanol as well, as well as ordinary biodiesel.

You can make pretty much anything out of algae.

6/19/2008 5:03:10 PM

Nuclear Renaissance

Quote :

"The only thing smaller than atoms and molecules are subatomic particles, and while everyone else chases watts and riches from niches like bio-fuels, solar and wind--there's good reason to be contrarian and look at what's taboo: nuclear energy. The nuclear industry is coming out of a multi-decade moratorium that started with Hollywood's 1979 The China Syndrome followed two weeks later by a real malfunction at a reactor at Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island. Nobody was injured or killed, but fear ran rampant. And with Chernobyl in 1986--a certifiable disaster with 56 dead and 4,000 cancer deaths--nuclear expansion was halted. But now fear and opposition are falling just as fast as fears of global warming are rising. Environmentalists who once shunned nuclear power and stiff-armed it like a Heisman trophy are warming to it thanks to Al Gore's own alarmist trophies (Oscar and Nobel) and concerns over carbon emissions. Sensible since nuclear plants have zero-emissions and don't release carbon. Over lunch, Stewart Brand, a longtime environmental activist, told me firsthand he's pro-nuclear. And Patrick Moore, a founder of Greenpeace who once campaigned against nuclear, now fully embraces it. Here's straight talk on atomic energy. I'll simplify it: To make electricity, you spin a generator with magnets and you get an electric current. The generator is like a big fan and to spin it you need steam. To make steam, you need to boil water. To boil water you need heat. And to get heat you burn something. Our economy is fueled more and more by electricity and we make it by spinning our generators with heat from burning coal, gas or uranium."

http://tinyurl.com/634wkv

6/19/2008 5:24:31 PM

I like the idea of algae producing oil and ethanol in theory, but one has to wonder what would happen if this stuff got out of controlled environment and turned out to rapidly proliferate in oceans or major waterways. I suppose rivers of ethanol will help us return to the old days of burning rivers. Otherwise though, I'm all in favor of it: the oil burping algae, not rivers of fire that is.

6/19/2008 6:13:55 PM

Topical article about new synthetic oil that actually has a negative carbon footprint.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article4133668.ece

6/19/2008 6:35:52 PM

^ That reminds me: George Will "complimented" Alan Colmes on his "itty-bitty carbon footprint" the other day. I spat up some drink!

6/19/2008 6:41:45 PM

Quote :

"I like the idea of algae producing oil and ethanol in theory, but one has to wonder what would happen if this stuff got out of controlled environment and turned out to rapidly proliferate in oceans or major waterways."

The strains that make ethanol and basically anything we need are significantly weaker than others. That's why contamination has been such a big problem.

It's not to say this would never be a problem, but for 50 years of algae bioengineering there really is practically no risk. Evolution knew what it was doing when it created life as it exists today, and when you ticker with anything below some n-th level, it will make the organism less competitive and die.

6/19/2008 8:34:53 PM

that molten salt reactor is a fission reactor...

6/19/2008 10:07:02 PM

and a horrible idea

the salt will corrode the metal pipes that it is pumped in

the only advantage is continuous refueling but there will still have to be outages for inspections and maintenance

6/19/2008 10:21:34 PM

yes, i seemed to have consistently replaced those two for a period.

6/19/2008 10:23:58 PM

Quote :

"the only advantage is continuous refueling but there will still have to be outages for inspections and maintenance"

No, the MAIN advantage is the removal of fission products. No decay heat -> completely new ballgame.

6/19/2008 10:26:48 PM

online urex or purex?

i havent heard about that

[Edited on June 19, 2008 at 10:35 PM. Reason : 

6/19/2008 10:28:10 PM

Actually - sounds like it's a fuel chemistry thing - the fluoride in the fuel mixture bonds with fission products and sweeps them out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_Salt_Reactor

Quote :

"Molten fluoride salts are mechanically and chemically stable at sea-level pressures at intense heats and radioactivity. Fluoride combines ionically with almost any transmutation product, keeping it out of circulation. Even radioactive noble gases come out in a predictable, containable place, where the fuel is coolest and most dispersed, the pump bowl."

As I understand it, the waste salts can then be seperated out of the fuel stream and reprocessed on-site through a small facility. Someone else with more knowledge could correct me on this point, however...

Also, the same fuel chemistry prevents the corrosion you'd see with an ordinary salt, it seems:

Quote :

"Control of the salt's corrosivity is easy. The uranium buffers the salt, forming more UF4 from UF3 as more F is present. UF3 can be regenerated by adding small amounts of metallic beryllium to absorb F. In the MSRE, a beryllium rod was inserted into the salt until the Uf3 was the correct concentration."

6/20/2008 12:24:06 AM

What? No love for Zero Point Energy?

Check this out....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efCelx7qe_M

6/20/2008 12:59:35 AM

Quote :

"There are no physical limitations to say that such algae couldn't be engineered. In fact, some people are working on projects where it would directly produce ethanol with no refining. "

Wouldn't algae engineered to produce oil be better? Ethanol isn't as energy dense, why does everyone seem to love it so much these days?

6/20/2008 2:45:53 PM

Oil is a mixture of a ton of different chemical compounds. Ethanol is a simple chemical compound that is easily produce via natural synthetic pathways. You couldn't really design an organism to produce something like crude oil or even gasoline, you could try to to say have an organism produce a more complex hydrocarbon like octane, but that would be infinitely more complex and is beyond what we are really capable of right now.

6/20/2008 3:28:52 PM

if this "silver bullet" is not easily taxable, the idiots in washington won't allow it.

6/20/2008 4:19:21 PM

interesting image



Which silver bullet shall we choose to fail with?

6/20/2008 4:51:35 PM