Yes. They are called the steam engine and the internal combustion engine.

----I could be wrong from this point here----

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_engine#E...of_heat_engines

All these heat engines rely on some sort of working fluid to transfer heat from Point A to Point B. And the working fluid is almost always in the form of a gas or a liquid. Plus, it's only applied to systems with moving parts (so no plugging it in directly to a TV or XBOX).

Solid state forms aren't a good method of distributing the conversion of heat-to-energy throughout a system that has moving parts. Unless your car is as flat as a pancake.

This post has been edited by VMSmith: May 31 2010, 03:20 PM

Or it can be a frickin huge frying pan a block wide where you actually fry a thousand eggs.

Two problems that I see. First as you said, the need for some kind of medium, a plasma of some sort to transfer that heat energy from A to B. The second is a way to focus all that energy to one spot to superheat the plasma & make it hot enough to actually make conversion to useable energy viable.

Makes me wonder how many joules of energy can we extract, say from a 1m square piece of thick metal left to bake 11am-2pm in downtown KL, and how big the metal needs to be in order to capture in enough heat energy to boil a kettle of water.

---

Added on May 31, 2010, 5:06 pmAh, turns out there is actually such a thing called harvesting thermal energy. Quote:

"A unique concept for harvesting electrical energy from thermal energy is presented. A thermomechanical actuator was fabricated using ferromagnetic material. The device converts thermal energy into mechanical energy, which can be converted into electrical energy using piezoelectric materials. Magnetic force and operating frequency were measured on the device. Results show that the current power density at ΔT = 50 K is between 1.85 and 3.61 mW/cm2. A thermal finite element analysis model is also presented to understand the influence of thermal interface, suggesting that increases of 18.5 mW/cm2 or higher are achievable."

Source: http://apl.aip.org/applab/v91/i9/p093508_s1?isAuthorized=no

IEEE also entertained the idea here:

http://www.computer.org/portal/web/csdl/do...109/BSN.2006.37

I've heard of projects to harvest geothermal energy before in places that have volcanic activity. It seems that some of the technology is already commercially available.



This post has been edited by Beastboy: May 31 2010, 05:06 PM

also been done. no need for fancy plasma or unobtainium, just plain water-steam would do.

again, temperature fluctuate throughout hte year. maximum outout for such a plant that was constructed was around 10MW. comparatively gas power plant outputs 100-200MW. combined cycle (gas+steam) outputs 600+ MW.

Yes. But Malaysia hardly has any volcanoes...

We have an extinct one in Sabah I think, and we still have a few active hot springs in peninsular Malaysia. The point is, whether the source is geothermal or solar, we are baking left and right with no motivation to harness all that energy.

I notice the power industry keeps running back to oil and gas baseline as if nothing else will ever do, except nuclear which you rightly pointed out is also non renewable. Its a subtle way of saying the renewable energy sector is a waste of time. If societies are not willing to consider a lifestyle that's less power hungry, then I guess the writing is on the wall then.

actually we dont need to increase power output, how about just reducing waste, by implementing strict building code on home and office to be more efficient. there are one zero energy building beloging to Pusat Tenaga Malaysia. the lesson learn there should be implemented in other new development and retrofitting old building to be more efficient.

You mean efficiency in buildings that require cooling? Sure you can crank it up but it will only delay the inevitable. If oil supply will reach critical levels in 50 years, mustn't the shift to alternate sources have to happen now in order to avoid social unrest later? I am unsure if Malaysia has an energy policy other than to increase tariffs every other year. Anyone here know?

Hot springs wouldn't give the same energy output as a volcano. Even less worth the time.

The reason we keep going back to oil and gas is despite the relatively high price, it's still cheaper to extract and they have a much higher EROEI (Energy returned to energy invested) ratio than anything else on Earth.

Sure, we definitely have the technology to move almost 100% of global energy consumption to renewable tech. But it'll bankrupt everyone in the process. (I have high doubts if we can even achieve this, considering that even renewable tech relies on a fossil-fuel based infrastructure to start up).



A lifestyle that's less power hungry means cutting down on consumption. No one would be willing to do that (And yes, not even me).

Didn't someone say "the American way of life is non-negotiable"? Well, that applies for pretty much everyone on Earth.

---

Added on June 1, 2010, 1:17 pmLike Beastboy said. It'll just be delaying the problem. With increasing population growth, the benefits of such a move would be canceled out with everyone having a smaller piece of the pie.

Humans have never been able to kick off the habit of carrying out Jevon's Paradox.

This post has been edited by VMSmith: Jun 1 2010, 01:17 PM

As long as the variables stay constant, yes, but as oil reserves dry up, the cost of exploration/energy invested will go up. Nobody seems to want to get their heads chewed off for predicting a depletion timeline so we all get to enjoy this illusion of a bottomless pit.

If you want to clone the current centralized power generation schema, then I agree. But why can't power generation be decentralized? A couple of small stations per district using a wind/hydro/solar combo coupled with an aggressive change in lifestyle. A radical shift for a radical problem, one consumer companies ain't gonna be too happy about.

Oh with enough pain, people will change. Nothing like lighting the fire under our *sses to make us dance.

Yes, but by the time the cost of conventional (i.e. oil and gas) energy is expensive enough to justify investing in other forms, it's too late. We MIGHT have had a chance to transition to a renewable form of powering civilization if we started decades ago. No way that is happening now with resource scarcity.

Actually, there's been quite a few people who's picked up on resource depletion and tried to warn others. M. King Hubbert was pretty much the first person to predict US oil production peaking by the 70's. Other who have also tried to sound the whistle (but sadly, will never be popular in the mainstream) are Richard Heinberg, Jared Diamond, Mike Ruppert and Julian Darley.

(Note: Because their surnames sound the same, I should not that M. King Hubbert is NOT related to L. Ron Hubbard, who is the father of Scientology.)


Because for one, it's expensive. And there's not that many places on earth which has the best of all three "weather conditions". Third, it's not efficient in terms of energy generation/infrastructure setup and maintenance.

I'd say that it's possible to pull this off in a few towns, maybe a city or two, but no way our country (or any country) can pull this off. It will be a financial and logistical nightmare.

Agreed. Though I see it as us being dragged, kicking an screaming down the Olduvai Gorge, wondering where the hell we went wrong.

Guys, can tell me basically solar energy as in those solar panel installed on our house main purpose is just to supply hot water ONLY? tats wat i heard... correct me if im wrong =)

Yes. It's only to supply hot water.

Note that these really aren't solar panels in the strictest sense.


Difference Between Photovoltaic Systems & Solar Water Heating
http://www.ehow.com/facts_5864535_differen...er-heating.html

This post has been edited by VMSmith: Jun 1 2010, 08:45 PM

I wonder if we have a more biological way to manufacture solar cells?

Looking at biotechnology. Usage of enzymes and such.

It would reduce the cost factor of making them but I don't think it's possible for usage since we use more electricity every year.

Or maybe if someone is smart enough to make fuel out of CO2 (impossible at the moment and I don't think it's possible in our lifetime or our grandchildren lifetime)

There's algae fuel, which grabs CO2 and sunlight, then converts them to oxygen and biomass.

Very expensive tech though.

What do you reckon is behind this ostrich syndrome? I've seen denial but something of this magnitude is clinical man.

Yeah it could've been Harry Larry and Moe telling us for all its worth.

Scary. Sounds like my uncle.

Nope, it's not merely an argument of semantics.

Total solar insolation at our upper atmosphere = 1366W/m^2 per day. Amount that reaches the ground = 1000W/m^2 per day. Taking into account the cosine effect of the sun's trajectory from East to West, the effective insolation is only 250W/m^2 per day. Polycrystalline solar cells have efficiencies of only around 20%. It's not because of manufacturing defects. It's because solar cells can only work with a narrow spectrum of sunlight and doesn't absorb ALL light including visible light. So, they only capture and convert up to 20% of the sun's radiation into electricity. We end up with a measly 50 watts per square meter per day, which means a single square meter of high-grade solar panel can only produce a maximum of 50 watts throughout the year.

If it rains or if there are clouds, this figure drops even lower. Storage and conversion through batteries and inverters drops the effective figure to only 40 watts-year per square meter.

This is a terrible, terrible level of cost efficiency for the amount of electricity generated.


Definitely.

Not exactly true. A breeder reactor can be effectively self-fueling by enriching its own nuclear fuel. Hard neutron emitter byproducts can be looped back into the reactor core to contribute towards the neutron economy. Calculations have shown that if all uranium are mined from the Earth, and used in breeder reactors to breed enriched uranium and plutonium, this cycle can continue for a billion years or more. Basically, if we have the right sort of reactor, we're not gonna run out of nuclear fuel anytime soon.

Another possibility is Thorium, which is not as effective for breeding, but is so abundant and has such a high thermodynamic efficiency that pound for pound, it's much better than uranium. To start off with, it's about 700 times as abundant as enriched uranium. 1 ton of thorium can produce the same amount of energy as 54 tons of enriched uranium. This already makes thorium's energy efficiency almost 38,000 times higher than enriched uranium.

Thorium is cheaper to exploit as well, due in part to its abundance and due in part to the fact that it can be enriched in-situ within the reactor core as long as there's some thermal spectrum neutron source to kick off the reaction. In most cases, it would be the Uranium-232 and Uranium-233 impurities that often occur naturally together with thorium deposits.

Why isn't thorium-based reactors well-developed? It's for the simple fact that thorium is lousy as a nuclear bomb material. The uranium-232 impurities are unstable and emit neutrons all the time. While this contributes to a good fuel burn-up ratio within a thorium reactor, it ends up giving nuclear bombs a hair trigger. So, thanks to its lousy qualities as a weapons-making material, thorium has been overlooked for decades. The uranium-plutonium fuel cycle was focused upon so that nuclear reactors can generate material for nuclear bombs. Incidentally, it's this very same process that has the potential to generate fuel that can be fed back into the reactor, requiring just minor periodic addition of fertile materials (e.g. U-238) to be enriched in the core.. you can't get something out of nothing anyway.

Breeder reactors won't be our savior anytime soon.

http://www.fissilematerials.org/blog/2010/...tus_of_fas.html

Too expensive to build and maintain. Breaks down easily. Takes too long to repair.

I'm watching development of thorium reactors with great interest. Not that I think it'll save civilization from collapsing, but it's the closest thing to a "magic bullet" that can mitigate our energy issues. Since India is the most progressive in developing thorium reactors, it might save their asses in a few decades or so (Assuming they have the capability and time to do so) while the rest of the world turns into fuedal, warring states.

Where did you get this figure from? Most sources quote 3 to 4 times.

---

Added on June 3, 2010, 2:14 pmWell, you've pretty much answered your own question. Lots of answers, but they all pretty much boil down to denial.

This post has been edited by VMSmith: Jun 3 2010, 02:31 PM

Solar power extraction is not financially feasible at the moment. Definitely not for general application. The cost far outweight the savings. I have actually enquired for a working solar panel. A basic solar panel with lithium battery cost roughly around 60k. Higher capacity will cost more than 90k. I think it produce around 100 kWh on a good day.
Another way to extract the solar power would be to have the solar panel installed on a satelite. The satelite would then convert the energy into microwave before blasting it back to earth.

Exactly. Even if you were to install your own solar cell & generator at home, the total cost might have paid for 20years of electricity bills.

Besides being expensive, all solar stations will still have a diesel / battery back up so it won't be that much more "green" either.

And with current solar cells, we still can't harness enough energy to use for say ... running a milk factory or even a bakery. think of how much more power airports & smelter plants would need. the solar plants would take up miles & miles of land.

Reading this thread brings to mind Issac Asimovs' " The Last Question". Is there any way for us to stop consuming so much energy? It's scary to think about the future without any source of fuel left for us to suck on. I think those people staying in kampung have more chances of survival compared to us staying in the city.

Can't imagine a life without internet, without ACs, without TV