New energy technology that might change everything

[jkoci]

Despite all of the issues with fossil fuels they will with us for quite a while. Here is a realistic look from the WSJ.

The Long Road to an Alternative-Energy Future
Blame it on technology, infrastructure or policy. But it's going to take many years for new technologies to make much of a dent in our current energy mix.

Why Alternative Energy Will Be Slow to Make Inroads - WSJ.com

 

[jkoci]

Who cares about AGW arguments? You clearly are obsessed with this subject. There are other more important issues to me that effect us right now. Do you really want to continue to use fuels that pollute the air and water, that cause us to go to war, that make us support dictatorships, that make us vulnerable to price shocks from foreign suppliers? AGW is the least of my concerns.

Not to mention health issues. That alone should be a reason to steadily move away from fossil fuels.

Drop in U.S. air pollution linked to longer lifespans - CNN.com

Mercury contamination in fish.

National Briefing - Science and Health - Mercury Found in Every Fish Tested, Scientists Say - NYTimes.com

Toxic fish in U.S. streams tell the true cost of coal emissions - DailyFinance

'Fingerprinting' method reveals fate of mercury in Arctic snow

 

[bobheck]

Blame it on technology, infrastructure or policy. But it's going to take many years for new technologies to make much of a dent in our current energy mix.

That's OK. Slow change is good change. No rush. We will gradually move away from fossil fuels in the next 100 to 200 years. It will all work out.

 

[jkoci]

That's OK. Slow change is good change. No rush. We will gradually move away from fossil fuels in the next 100 to 200 years. It will all work out.

I would think that a great deal of progress could be made within the next century. There seems to be alot of ideas out there.

 

[TClaeys]

I think if we make alternative energy a priority of our country and of the world, things could happen much quicker. We just need to have it deemed important. Right now the priority is economic. This has hurt our space program severely and our damaged will and inspiration to do anything other than to try and band aid crumbling financial woes. Perhaps the Bloom box will be a bright spot. Ideas are fine, but for every 1000 great ideas only about 1 sees any real application (yeah I made that figure up, OK?).

 

[Xylo]

Just a quick note since I haven't had time to carefully peruse both the replies and all of the articles on this particular "bloom box."

While I agree that this particular energy "source" or motor or whatever one should call it is a good thing, I also believe that is not a great thing. Reducing the human "carbon footprint" is a good thing. Eliminating it altogether would be a great thing.

Between our sun, our weather, our tides, and our geothermal energies, humans could, theoretically at least, eliminate any and all need for fossil fuels. But this particular box doesn't do that. From the articles which I have read, there are no specs for this particular device. What is it's efficiency rating? How do we know it's really that much more efficient? What are the chemical processes?

I would like to have more data so that I can give a more qualified answer. As of now, everything I say is speculative and based upon "pop" reporting, from what I have read in those articles. I would much prefer an article in Popular Mechanics or even better some sort of professional (peer reviewed) journal dealing with energy.

 

[conor]

Well at least we finally agree on something. That is, if oil is not actually an abiotic product. They found more oil on the surface of Titan than is known to exist on earth and I think it safe to assume there were no dinosaurs or swamps on Titan in the past.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/cassini/media/cassini-20080213.html

That aside, as the fossil fuels deplete gradually, new forms of energy will be developed to fill the void. So, everything should actually work out quite nicely.

How much does it take to go into outer space? How much does it take to go to the moon? Now, how much does it take to go to Titan, to take people to Titan? A LOT. At this time in history, using Titan as a sourch of oil is like hedging your bets on them finding a 0 point energy any time soon

 

[Astroboy]

While I agree that this particular energy "source" or motor or whatever one should call it is a good thing, I also believe that is not a great thing. Reducing the human "carbon footprint" is a good thing. Eliminating it altogether would be a great thing.

I agree. But having more choices spurs competition that can drive costs down for consumers. It's a necessary step toward ultimately using no fossil fuels just as hybrid cars are a good step toward practical and affordable all electric cars. Make me a all-electric car that costs $30,000 or less, goes 0-60 in 8 seconds or less, charges in 5-10 minutes, goes several hundred miles per charge and I'll buy it right now. The Tesla cars are not there yet. Meanwhile the Priuses are very practical and affordable.

Between our sun, our weather, our tides, and our geothermal energies, humans could, theoretically at least, eliminate any and all need for fossil fuels. But this particular box doesn't do that.

No one device will ever do all that. It'll have to be a combination of technologies and policy changes that will make it happen. They all have to be tailored to the resources both natural and financial that are available in each country.

From the articles which I have read, there are no specs for this particular device. What is it's efficiency rating? How do we know it's really that much more efficient? What are the chemical processes?

I would like to have more data so that I can give a more qualified answer. As of now, everything I say is speculative and based upon "pop" reporting, from what I have read in those articles. I would much prefer an article in Popular Mechanics or even better some sort of professional (peer reviewed) journal dealing with energy.

You should try to read all the links and videos that I've posted. Most of your questions are answered. It's worth the time. There is also this sobering assessment comparing it to solar and other technologies.

Bloom vs. Solar: Which One Is Best? | Epicenter | Wired.com

 

[Astroboy]

Here is another great technology that has come online only in the last few years. It's call Plasmagasification. It takes garbage, including stuff from landfills, and hazardous industrial and medical waste, both solid and liquid, and disintegrates it in a noncombustion manner with Plasma to get component gases and a rock-like solid. The component gases can be further refined for reuse as fuel or sold to industry. The rock slag can be used to make road tops or other applications.

This tech is being used by several companies and is being installed throughout the world. Imagine a world without landfills and garbage becomes a source of energy. It's coming.

 

[jkoci]

I think if we make alternative energy a priority of our country and of the world, things could happen much quicker. We just need to have it deemed important. Right now the priority is economic.

Absolutely. Making a profit is the main issue it seems.

 

[jkoci]

Between our sun, our weather, our tides, and our geothermal energies, humans could, theoretically at least, eliminate any and all need for fossil fuels.

Not for a while it seems. Right now nothing has more"bang for the buck" than fossil fuels. Nothing can really compete with the energy density fossil fuels have.