Fission:

""But even assuming that to be true, the potential is limited. To produce enough nuclear power to equal the power we currently get from fossil fuels, you would have to build 10,000 of the largest possible nuclear power plants. That’s a huge, probably nonviable initiative, and at that burn rate, our known reserves of uranium would last only for 10 or 20 years."

http://pr.caltech.edu/periodicals/CaltechNews/articles/v38/oil.html

Fusion:

"The inventors of the device emphasize that it cannot generate power because it does not support a self-sustaining thermonuclear reaction."

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2005/2005-04-28-03.asp

It has not yet proven that it works.

Biofuel:

"To run our cars and buses and lorries on biodiesel, in other words, would require 25.9m hectares. There are 5.7m in the UK. Even the EU's more modest target of 20% by 2020 would consume almost all our cropland.

If the same thing is to happen all over Europe, the impact on global food supply will be catastrophic: big enough to tip the global balance from net surplus to net deficit. If, as some environmentalists demand, it is to happen worldwide, then most of the arable surface of the planet will be deployed to produce food for cars, not people. "

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1357370,00.html

Even if we import it, it will increase deforestation.

bioenergy production can have potential negative environmental impacts such as acidification, eutrophication or summer smog. The production of energy crops can also have negative impacts due to the agricultural methods used.

Ethanol:

"Study: Ethanol Production Consumes Six Units Of Energy To Produce Just One"

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050329132436.htm

Hydrogen fuel cell:
" If we were to build a similar infrastructure to deliver hydrogen it would cost $200 trillion."

http://www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_display.cfm?a_id=940

Wind:
"A single 555-megawatt gas-fired power plant in California generates more electricity in a year than do all 13,000 of the state’s wind turbines"

http://canadafreepress.com/2005/driessen012905.htm

Solar:

"If you want to gather enough solar energy to replace the fossil fuel that we’re burning today—and remember we’re going to need more fossil fuel in the future- using current technology, then you would have to cover something like 220,000 square kilometers with solar cells."

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4287300/

Wave:

"there are only five states with good tidal flows and maybe eight states with good waves" "Waves are powered by winds and uneven solar heating, he says, and wave energy works best in ocean depths of at least 50 meters, before waves lose energy to the friction of a shallow sea bottom."

http://pubs.acs.org/cen/coverstory/8240/8240energy.html

Geothermal:

"While this appears to be an exciting breakthrough, we must remember that so far very little electricity has been provided by this form of geothermal heat, and even if successful, it will probably be decades before it is contributing significantly to the world grid."

http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/the-power-beneath-our-feet/2005/09/26/1127586753959.html

Nanotechnology:
"A Nobel Prize-winning chemist says the impending world energy shortage requires several miracles of science that nanotechnology can help to deliver."

http://www.alternet.org/envirohealth/19812/

Hydropower:

"Hydroelectric power's dirty secret revealed"

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7046

OTEC:

"Such a small temperature difference makes energy extraction difficult and expensive. Hence typically OTEC systems have an overall efficiency of only 1 to 3 percent."

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

Tidal power:

"The change in water level and possible flooding would affect the vegetation around the coast, having an impact on the aquatic and shoreline ecosystems. The quality of the water in the basin or estuary would also be affected, the sediment levels would change, affecting the turbidity of the water and therefore affecting the animals that live in it and depend upon it such as fish and birds. Fish would undoubtedly be affected unless provision was made for them to pass through the barrage without being killed by turbines. All these changes would affect the types of birds that are in the area, as they will migrate to other areas with more favourable conditions for them."

http://www.esru.strath.ac.uk/EandE/Web_sites/01-02/RE_info/Tidal%20Power.htm

Research might solve some of those problems but it will take time and money.

The above are just the greatest drawbacks of alternative energies. There are more drawbacks.

Each has a different source.

Environmental impacts:

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/renewable_energy_basics/environmental-impacts-of-renewable-energy-technologies.html

www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/renew.htm

Right!

The days of cheap and plentiful energy will soon be over.

You haven't proven anything funzone36, despite some good research. The correct answer is 'yes', they certainly can replace fossil fuels. In the First World countries, we simply consume too much energy, and use it unwisely. Ultimately, the point is moot; we will need to make alternative energy sources work for us.

OK, industrialized countries use "too much" energy, but this implies that our way of life can continue with alternative energy with only a few changes. This is an hallucination. A transition from where we are to a third-world-style farming situation will cause widespread economic and social disruption. The only thing that will mitigate this is some planning and preparation. Think this will happen anytime soon?

"The American way of life is non-negotiable"
President George Bush (Sr.) at the summit on the environment in Rio de Jeniero in 1992

Certainly not when people like the clown you quoted are permitted.

You haven't proven anything funzone36, despite some good research. The correct answer is 'yes', they certainly can replace fossil fuels. In the First World countries, we simply consume too much energy, and use it unwisely. Ultimately, the point is moot; we will need to make alternative energy sources work for us.

Even though you make a couple of good points yourself, he/she actually has proven quite a bit. The fact that you, I, and many others don't like the results doesn't negate facts.

There are a few "distortions" though, notably the one about fusion power. It's true that currently it does not produce a net gain of energy, but that's only because the job isn't finished.

Yes, we waste far too much energy. In my opinion, SUVs are the prime example of that. But it's pretty obvious that their days are numbered. It could be said that at least that IS one small benefit that has resulted from the increase in world oil prices.

But we do need to face some hard facts. Among those are that most of the current alternative energy sources will fill only niche requirements here and there. And the majority of them cannot effectively be scaled up to the point of producing sizable amounts of power.

However, there is a lot of room for improvement. Ultimately, it will be fusion power that provides most of the energy used throughout the world. Some of it will always be produced by alternative sources but they will never rise to the point of becoming our major providers of energy.

Hydroelectric, for example was maxed out long ago. There simply aren't enough good sites left to make any real difference. And tidal power is also very limited in the number of places around the world where it's even feasible. Not to mention that there certainly is a great danger to the survival of marine life because it depends heavily upon tidal flats as nurseries for the next generations.

Wind is a good supplier of energy but it has limitations as well. Once you move away from the coastline, most of the interior of large continents like North America have only limited areas where winds are strong and steady enough to be depended on for sizable amounts of generation. Wind farms are also facing opposition in many places just as cell phone towers are. The old familiar "not in MY back yard" cry is preventing in installation of windmills in many places. And that resistance will only grow as they attempt to spread.

I won't attempt to deal with each one individually but they all have similar limitations in one form or another. And eventually there will be others developed that will help make contributions. One might be generation facilities that take advantage of the big temperature swing between day and night in the world's deserts. Another is the huge temperature difference that exists between the waters of the oceans at the surface and at moderate depths.

But in the final analysis, most serious experts agree that fusion will be the ultimate prime source for the future.

Overall, I agree. The technology is certainly available, if not within our future grasp. I believe the biggest stumbling block will be the human one: changing peoples' minds about consumption. To this day it boggles my mind that someone can drive an SUV. The vast majority of the time it has been my experience that the driver is (excuse the stereotype..) a 'soccer-mom', alone, simply driving around town running errands. This kind of activity is exhorbitantly, blantantly, and mindlessly wasteful.

Thanks for the info Funzone36.

Fossil fuels can produce fertilizers that alternative fuels can't. Fossil fuels can produce pesticides that alternative fuels can't. Fossil fuels can produce plastics that alternative fuels can't.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1357370,00.html

"This prospect sounds, at first, ridiculous. Surely if there were unmet demand for food, the market would ensure that crops were used to feed people rather than vehicles? There is no basis for this assumption. The market responds to money, not need. People who own cars have more money than people at risk of starvation. In a contest between their demand for fuel and poor people's demand for food, the car-owners win every time. Something very much like this is happening already. Though 800 million people are permanently malnourished, the global increase in crop production is being used to feed animals: the number of livestock on earth has quintupled since 1950. The reason is that those who buy meat and dairy products have more purchasing power than those who buy only subsistence crops."

--Rant Mode to HIGH--

Hmm, let's see...

The persistance of inefficient subsistance farming in the third world is a direct result of the massive agricultural surpluses produced elsewhere (usually due to protective subsidies) resulting in the global market being flooded with cheap food. And this is at the same time that vast quantites of meat is being produced.

Farmers in the third world simply cannot survive economically if they grow food crops, which is why they grow cash crops for export instead. These 'cash crops' are far too expensive to be bought by the local population during times of crisis. (Ironically, these 'famines' only serve to undermine any incentive for subsistance farmers to move to more efficient methods of production, since they certainly cannot complete with the flood of free food in the form of aid.)

Now, let us now say that the sources of cheap food being to produce more 'fuel crops' and less 'food crops'. By the basic tenets of economics, there will come a time when food crop production is decreased so much that the price of food will begin to rise. Why? Because, unlike fuel, food is an inelastic good in the short, medium, and long terms. (Fuel is inelastic only in the short and possibly medium terms. This is amply demonstrated by the 1973 oil crisis.) Indeed, if their is insufficient food, one would expect the price of food to skyrocket, providing an incentive to increase food production. In the end, an equilibirum will be reached where fuel production will come in second to food production.

Interestingly enough, rising food prices may actually make the of food crops in the third world a viable thing to do. Or at the very least, it would provide an incentive to strive more more efficient means of production, producing a surplus on a local level suitable for buffering against 'bad times'. (And maybe even for international export? Fancy that.)


"Road transport in the UK consumes 37.6m tonnes of petroleum products a year. The most productive oil crop that can be grown in this country is rape. The average yield is 3-3.5 tonnes per hectare. One tonne of rapeseed produces 415kg of biodiesel. So every hectare of arable land could provide 1.45 tonnes of transport fuel.

To run our cars and buses and lorries on biodiesel, in other words, would require 25.9m hectares. There are 5.7m in the UK. Even the EU's more modest target of 20% by 2020 would consume almost all our cropland."

Ah, and here is the quite-misleading idea that 'we have to do it all ourselves'. Economics dictates that production will occur where it is most feasible, which means that everybody will have to import some things and export others.

Put shortly, some countries will have to continue importing fuel from elsewhere. For example: Japan. Even if it used all of its extremely limited arable lands to fuel production (highly doubtful given that Japan views that land and its food production as a strategic resource) it would still need tankers of fuel brought to its ports.

Indeed, nobody seems to have any particular objections to the concept of importing fuel nowadays. Why so in the future? That's economics and capitalism at work.

The author also fails to consider any advances in technology (which can be expected to achieve a level somewhere between 'none' and 'wildly optimistic', yes? ;) ) Malthus also made that mistake, and we all know where his most well known notions ended up going.

Saying that, I do believe the article is a bit limited in its scope and, in my view, suspect when it comes to its logic.

---

Realistically, no single 'alternative' is going to provide for all of our energy needs. Different applications and locales will require (or prefer) different methods. Only in combination will they be sufficient.

---


Fossil fuels can produce fertilizers that alternative fuels can't. Fossil fuels can produce pesticides that alternative fuels can't. Fossil fuels can produce plastics that alternative fuels can't.

Indeed. But what is being discussed is whether crude oil can be supplanted in its role as an energy source (which is what is implied by the term 'fuel').

That's a very good reason to make the effort to replace oil as an energy source so that it can continue to be used (as cheaply as possible) to produce compounds like fertilizers and pesticides. Even here, the costs will continue to increase giving additional impetus to the development of replacements. In fact, the technology (there's the 'T' word again) to replace plastics is already available, but won't become prominent until it becomes the cheaper option.

--Rant Mode to MEDIUM--

Ultimately, it will be fusion power that provides most of the energy used throughout the world

That is assuming that nuclear fusion actually works. It has not been proven that it works.

In fact, the technology (there's the 'T' word again) to replace plastics is already available

What's that technology? Genetically modified algae?

There is no doubt as to whether or not alternative forms of energy can completely replace fossil fuels.

In fact, we've already discovered so many sources we can possibly replace fossil fuels several times over.

Photovoltaics got a new jump from the successful implementation of lead sulfide, which can convert IR radiation (not just UV anymore) into electricity, and thin-film composites and other nanotechnological improvements are rapidly advancing.

Wind energy is starting to boom.

The ocean is another great source of energy. Waves, tidal pools, and thermal stratification hold considerable promise.

And then there's geothermal, which can replace world demand alone.

Genetically modified algae?

Oh yes. And then there's biodiesel for that matter^^

Given enough time, alternative energies do have potential for the replacement for fossil fuels. But time is what we are short of. One fossil fuel, conventional oil, will likely peak by 2008 and conventional oil will likely be exhausted by 2040. As it has been proven that alternative energies is still decades or a century away, time is what we are short of. That is why I think alternative energies will not replace fossil fuels anytime soon. With the global peak of conventional oil, we will have to convert coal or natural gas (both will also peak) into conventional oil. Coal and natural gas are still fossil fuels. Our dependency on both of them will increase CO2 emissions.

Alternative energies is not entirely new. Some of them existed 30 years ago. Are they globally commercialized for large-scale production yet? No.

Oh yes. And then there's biodiesel for that matter

It won't work since the decomposition of algae will take away so much oxygen from the environment.

Put shortly, some countries will have to continue importing fuel from elsewhere.

Importing does not solve the issue of deforestation.

It won't work since the decomposition of algae will take away so much oxygen from the environment.

This statement is in reference to biodiesel and I cannot see what you are trying to say here. Please explain as it seems to make no sense that I can tell.

It's in reference to the genetically modified algae I commented earlier.

It's in reference to the genetically modified algae I commented earlier.

Then you've limited yourself too much. That's hardly the only way to produce biodiesel.

But even if it is accomplished (genetically modified algae) and developed as a fuel source, your "oxygen depletion" concerns would not be justified. Can you tell me why you think that would be so?

Actually, I was talking about what technology can be used to replace the manufacturing of plastics without fossil fuels. You said the technology was already there.

Can you tell me why you think that would be so?

No oxygen = no life

And so what if you can convince me alternative energies work? That doesn't solve one thing that nothing can replace. Fresh water.

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/mg18825281.500

What you're trying to tell me is that our life is sustainable on Earth.

Actually, I was talking about what technology can be used to replace the manufacturing of plastics without fossil fuels. You said the technology was already there.

Hang on a second... When did I say the technology was already there?

No oxygen = no life

Well, that sure goes without saying! But don't forget - since we were talking about algae that they PRODUCE oxygen.

And so what if you can convince me alternative energies work? That doesn't solve one thing that nothing can replace. Fresh water.

Gee golly whiz, guy! Here you go with the "you" business again. I was the very first one to point out that I thought everything you first posted was accurate (except for the fusion, which is much to early to write off) and you make it sound as if I'm disagreeing with you. Sheesh!

What you're trying to tell me is that our life is sustainable on Earth.

I've made NO such attempt - where in the heck are you coming from? You must be mistaking me for someone else in this thread. (I hope!!!)

Opps. Yeah, it was my mistake. I thought you were "kv1at3485".

Everyone should have an avatar because I'm having a hard time identifying who says what.

There is no doubt as to whether or not alternative forms of energy can completely replace fossil fuels.

In fact, we've already discovered so many sources we can possibly replace fossil fuels several times over.

Photovoltaics got a new jump from the successful implementation of lead sulfide, which can convert IR radiation (not just UV anymore) into electricity, and thin-film composites and other nanotechnological improvements are rapidly advancing.

Wind energy is starting to boom.

The ocean is another great source of energy. Waves, tidal pools, and thermal stratification hold considerable promise.

And then there's geothermal, which can replace world demand alone.
Can you fly a 747 on solar panels or geothermal energy? Or a container ship?

Overall, I agree. The technology is certainly available, if not within our future grasp. I believe the biggest stumbling block will be the human one: changing peoples' minds about consumption. To this day it boggles my mind that someone can drive an SUV. The vast majority of the time it has been my experience that the driver is (excuse the stereotype..) a 'soccer-mom', alone, simply driving around town running errands. This kind of activity is exhorbitantly, blantantly, and mindlessly wasteful.
The problem is deeper than that. The very structure of suburbia is built around the automobile. Even a Prius requires petroleum, plastics, smelting of metals, a worldwide supply chain of parts, new tires, diesel-powered road maintenance equipment, ect.

I'm going to strengthen my point that alternative energies sucks.

Bad news for wind energy and solar energy. It seems like they do generate a little bit of CO2 emissions indirectly:

http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/1323/18ek.gif

Graph taken from: http://www.uic.com.au/opinion6.html

http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/8462/26if.gif

Chart taken from: http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/nuclear.htm

2 sources. You can't say it's not true. Renewables do emit more CO2 than nuclear (non-renewable). Nothing to stop global warming now is there?

And people are still saying nuclear is bad.

Now for storage of energy using hydrogen:

"Recently, there have also been some concerns over possible problems related to hydrogen gas leakage. One issue, which may become more important as hydrogen usage becomes more widespread, is permanent hydrogen loss. Molecular hydrogen is light enough to escape into space. It has been hypothesized that if significant amounts of hydrogen gas (H2) escape, this may eventually cause an abundance of oxygen and a lack of water. However, it would take a lot of leakage to engender an appreciable and permanent loss-related effect. Alternately, hydrogen gas may form water vapor as it reacts with oxygen and cool, or, due to ultraviolet radiation, form free radicals (H) in the stratosphere. These free radicals would then be able to act as catalysts for ozone depletion. A large enough increase in stratospheric hydrogen from leaked H2 could exacerbate the depletion process."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_economy#Electrolysis

Also, the ocean acts as a reservoir of CO2. Less water will lead to more CO2 in the atmosphere. Plus, water vapour is also a greenhouse gas. Increased water vapour increases the intensity of storms.

Using batteries:

"There are severe limitations of the storage batteries involved. For example, a gallon of gasoline weighing about 8 pounds has the same energy as one ton of conventional lead-acid storage batteries. Fifteen gallons of gasoline in a car's tank are the energy equal of 15 tons of storage batteries. Even if much improved storage batteries were devised, they cannot compete with gasoline or diesel fuel in energy density. Also, storage batteries become almost useless in very cold weather, storage capacity is limited, and batteries need to be replaced after a few years use at large cost. There is no battery pack which can effectively move heavy farm machinery over miles of farm fields, and no electric battery system seems even remotely able to propel a Boeing 747 14 hours nonstop at 600 miles an hour from New York to Cape Town (now the longest scheduled plane flight). Also, the considerable additional weight to any vehicle using batteries is a severe handicap in itself. In transport machines, electricity is not a good replacement for oil (Jensen and Sorensen, 1984). This is a limitation in the use of alternative sources have where electricity is the end product."

http://www.hubbertpeak.com/youngquist/altenergy.htm

If you can't store energy, transportation networks are useless.

new tires

There's also natural trees that produce rubber but they are at risk from another fungal disease.

Cars without tires made from rubber = useless.

*******************

In the end, welcome to the stone age.

What's that technology? Genetically modified algae?

Nanocarbon materials.

As I said: not the cheapest option at the moment.

Lol. Search google for "grey goo".

You do not need self-replicating nanites to produce nanocarbon materials.

Not to mention machines that small are extremely fragile and are easily damaged by relatively low levels of radiation.

EDIT: 'Grey goo' is much overhyped anyway. Google: "grey goo"+Drexler

How could wind energy generate CO2?

'Grey goo' is much overhyped anyway. Google: "grey goo"+Drexler

But you can't assume it won't happen.

Also, read this:

http://www.crnano.org/dangers.htm#economy

"Economic disruption from an abundance of cheap products
Economic oppression from artificially inflated prices
Personal risk from criminal or terrorist use
Personal or social risk from abusive restrictions
Social disruption from new products/lifestyles
Unstable arms race
Collective environmental damage from unregulated products
Free-range self-replicators (gray goo) — downgraded as a risk factor
Black market in nanotech (increases other risks)
Competing nanotech programs (increases other risks)
Attempted relinquishment (increases other risks)"

How could wind energy generate CO2?
The extraction of raw materials.

But you can't assume it won't happen.

In other words, anything that entails any risk should not be considered, attempted, or done.


"Economic disruption from an abundance of cheap products
Economic oppression from artificially inflated prices
Personal risk from criminal or terrorist use
Personal or social risk from abusive restrictions
Social disruption from new products/lifestyles
Unstable arms race
Collective environmental damage from unregulated products
Free-range self-replicators (gray goo) — downgraded as a risk factor
Black market in nanotech (increases other risks)
Competing nanotech programs (increases other risks)
Attempted relinquishment (increases other risks)"

You realize that nothing on that list is new to humans?

You realize that nothing on that list is new to humans?

We have never encountered problems that big in human history. It's a total revolution of the world.

...Ethanol:
"Study: Ethanol Production Consumes Six Units Of Energy To Produce Just One"
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050329132436.htm
...THAT IS NONSENSE. It would be impossible to sell alcohol at half the price of gasoline, as is done now in Brazil, if it were true.

The fact that the author of this thinks energy is measured in watts tells a lot about his knowledge and accuracy. It just goes to show that you can find anything you like on the net.

Are they globally commercialized for large-scale production yet? No.


Wind energy is really taking off. If you pay enough attention to corporate interests and the protests about unspoiled beauty of landscapes in Europe, you'll really know that a few European countries will utilize wind significantly by 2040, maybe 20% or higher.

Funzone, the message that I get about the intention of your posts is confounding.

Are you a pessimist or an outright opponent of alternative energy?

We have never encountered problems that big in human history. It's a total revolution of the world.

Bogus.

At worst, it's just another version of the chaotic Industrial Revolution. And even that didn't take root everywhere at the same time.

EDIT: Beisdes which, as I said, nanomachines have not been shown to be a necessary component of nanocarbon production.

Wind energy is really taking off. If you pay enough attention to corporate interests and the protests about unspoiled beauty of landscapes in Europe, you'll really know that a few European countries will utilize wind significantly by 2040, maybe 20% or higher.

I'm talking about year 2005, not year 2040. Plus, unspoiled beauty is only a matter of opinion.

Billy T, that information was originated from the University Of California - Berkeley. Do you really think they will give wrong information?

Are you a pessimist or an outright opponent of alternative energy?

An outright opponent because there's no way that our way of life is sustainable on Earth.

At worst, it's just another version of the chaotic Industrial Revolution.

Exactly, it's chaotic.

Note: Nanocarbon is only carbon. Plastics is carbon + hydrogen; hydrocarbon.

funzone36: How would wind energy "generate C02 emissions indirectly"?

Didn't I answer that question already?

Reference to "unspoiled beauty"?
"Collective environmental damage from unregulated products"?

No, you haven't.

The extraction of raw materials.

Press ctrl-f and search the word "extract". I already answered it.

*******************

I don't think that alternative energies or nanotechnology will ever develop because unemployment will rise after the day of peak oil. No employment = no development.

Well I see your point if you mean that we need to extract raw materials to build the turbines? But then the extraction of wind to form energy produces no C02. The extraction of raw material to build any energy source would involve C02 emmision in the short run.

Exactly, it's chaotic.

Then as you will undoubtably realize, such chaos is nothing new.

Note: Nanocarbon is only carbon. Plastics is carbon + hydrogen; hydrocarbon.

Amazing how one can achieve the same properties of plastic using only carbon atoms, hm?

We can survive without plastic.

...Billy T, that information was originated from the University Of California - Berkeley. Do you really think they will give wrong information?...Not quite. It is the view of one UoC professor. I not only read the reference you supplied, but clicked on its "here" to read the original. The statement that energy is measured in watts is in the original, so it was not just some dumb reporter's mis quoting him. I do not trust anyone so ill informed about energy. It is obviously impossible to sell alcohol in Brazil at half the price of gasoline (I live here and know this to be the case.) if 6 times more energy is used to produce it than it contains. There is no subsidy here for it unlike there is for the inefficient production of alcohol from Iowa corn.

Think, at least a little, before you quote obvious nonsense.

kv1at3485, nanocarbon is cheap. It's not expensive. I just noticed that.

"All three of these are made of nanocarbons, products of the new nanotechnology. Nanocarbons are very cheap, 100 times stronger than steel, slicker than Teflon, lightweight, and can be made very thin, made to stretch, and built into any shape—all the things plastic can do. In addition, nanocarbon manufacturing is low to nonpolluting. Already, bowling balls, golf balls, sports equipment, and waterproof cotton balls have been made of nanocarbons."

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

Since nothing can stop nanotechnology because we are already using it, I wish the technology luck. For replicating nanobots, it will either contribute to the world or completely destroy humanlife. Only time will tell.

Amazing how one can achieve the same properties of plastic using only carbon atoms, hm?

Yes, it's so amazing.

We can survive without plastic.

Your hard drive has plastic. Do you brush your teeth? Toothbrush bristles has plastic.

We can definately survive but some people can't survive without them. Some americans.

EDIT: Good site:

http://socialwork.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/D74.RENEWABLE-ENERGY.html

I Finally have an argument against self-replicating nanotechnology:

It will increase unemployment. We are in a world where robots control us. Robots neve controlled us before.

kv1at3485, nanocarbon is cheap. It's not expensive. I just noticed that.

So it says. I wonder if there's any hard numbers on how much it costs to produce a unit of ordinary plastic or nanocarbon. 'Cheap' is relative after all, especially in industry where capital costs also must be taken into account.

No doubt nanocarbon production will increase when economic factors move more visibly in its favour. Industry tends to be conservative after all.

We are in a world where robots control us. Robots neve controlled us before.

Today's robots (and computers for that matter) are fundamentally no different than the machines of 50 or 100 years ago. Their outward appearence may have changed, but function and place remain exactly the same.

As the aphorism goes: the reliability and efficiency of any piece of software (and thus the machine) is only as good as the programmer(s) that coded it. That in itself is indisputable proof of where control ultimately lies.

Today's robots (and computers for that matter) are fundamentally no different than the machines of 50 or 100 years ago. Their outward appearence may have changed, but function and place remain exactly the same.

As the aphorism goes: the reliability and efficiency of any piece of software (and thus the machine) is only as good as the programmer(s) that coded it. That in itself is indisputable proof of where control ultimately lies.

Software and self-replicating nanobots have one difference. Software exists in the digital world. Self-replicating nanobots exists in the physical world.

Once this technology is developed, someone will try to program the nanobot to replicate indefinately just like virus writers did to software. Because nanobots exists in the physical world, they will inflict much more damage.

**********************************
More on alternative energies:

"The SERVICE test for alternatives
This is a basic checklist to use in evaluating alternative energy. If a renewable energy fails just one of the tests below, it is not going to replace oil. The more tests it fails, the less it can help mitigate peak oil. The experts are telling us that no alternative energy matches all the tests below, so our lifestyles must change. It is that simple!

“Alternatives are not going to SERVICE our current energy needs after cheap oil.”

S.E.R.V.I.C.E.

Sustainability

Energy payback

Rare materials

Volumes

Implementing Infrastructure

Cheap

Even supply

Sustainability – is it sustainable for the long term?
Bio-diesel depletes the soil unless we put some NPK back (which is also difficult without accruing an energy loss).
Gas conversions to cars will just use up the LPG faster.
A "hydrogen economy" based on natural gas will just bring "peak gas" forward that much quicker, etc.

Energy Payback — the EPR. Do you get more energy out of a device that went into making it in the first place? Have you counted all the energy costs that go into the new energy infrastructure?

Tar sands and shale oil are incredibly energy expensive means of producing fuels. (And would again contribute to the global warming crisis.)

Rare materials essential to some renewable schemes would limit the worldwide deployment of that scheme.
EG: Electric Vehicles (EV’s) hold great promise, but what are the world’s current Lithium reserves and how many generations before we experienced “peak Lithium?”
EG: Fuel cells use plantinum, and after just a few years of a fuel cell transport system we would reach peak platinum.

Volumes — are most often too low.
EG: All Australian wheat into ethanol = 9% of liquid fuels and no bread! This alarming statistic takes into account the fact that we grow enough wheat for roughly 100 million people (we only consume 20% of our wheat for our 20 million Australians.) This statistic comes from Bruce Robinson of the STC.

EG: Biodiesel... even if we managed to grow biodiesel crops without modern fertilizers and pesticides (through biofarming methods such as "crop and cow" rotation) there is just not enough arable land to grow the quantities we need. We would run out of land for food!

Some potential energy volumes are vast (just 40 km by 40 km of solar PV is all Australia's energy needs) but we have left it too little too late. In other words, our current volumes of energy from these sources are far too low... below 1% of worldwide electricity supply.

Even if there is a vast potential energy source such as solar, the following questions pretty much prevent it running what we are currently running.

Implementing the Infrastructure — is the fuel compatible with the current infrastructure? What are the issues in implementing the new fuel at filling stations? Is it easy to transport? Can it be stored easily? How energy dense is the fuel — and will you burn 90% of the fuel just to transport it to the filling station? How long will it take to implement? What other time factors are involved in converting filling stations over?

Cheap — What is this alternative going to cost society? We are not running out of oil, we are running out of cheap oil and it is throwing us into a crisis.The costs for a solar to hydrogen fuel system would currently bankrupt any nation — we may as well use the original solar electricity to charge EV’s rather than bother wasting energy making Hydrogen. What the alternative costs is extremely important, and is the basis of the peak oil crisis.

Even supply of energy — Is the energy supply constant?

The sun doesn’t shine at night, and the wind does not blow for long periods. We need a system of energy that is reliable, or the power grids start to fail. How do we adapt to the intermittent nature of renewable energy sources? What backup energy mechanisms are there? How expensive is this, and how do we adapt society to live in the new realities of more expensive energy?"

http://www.eclipsenow.org/facts/service-checklist.html

As you can see, all alternative energies fail to pass the test.

Here's an idea, take a teaspoon of uranium, and encase it in a 6" steel ball.

now surround it with thermocouplings, and as the decay of the uranium exerts pressure on the inside of the ball, the entire thing heats up. The radiation-free outside releases this heat to the thermocouplings, which create power.

We have submarines and spaceships that run on this now. It's remarkably powerful, efficient, and the patents, sold by NASA in the 1950's are currently held in reserve by private companies (with the exemption that NASA and the Navy can use them). (I have no links to support this, I once had source of information from inside NASA during that time period)

How do you think the "nuclear-powered" subs run for months at a time? They don't have smoke stacks sticking out of the bows, do they?

Bury one sphere 100 feet under a apartment building, and have nearly emissions free power for years.

Negative: worry about leaks. similar, but much more isolated to nuclear power plants. Less overall radiation outlay than coal power, even in worst-case, where the steel rusts out, and dumps the teaspoon of material into the ground.

snip

Are you sure you aren't mixing up RTG's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator) with nuclear reactors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reactor)?

Ah, thanks for the link. Actually, I'm not mixing them up, I was stating that RTG's (I had not heard that name before, so I had not seen such references to the technology before) instead of the traditional steam/nuclear heat source power plant could be a possible option to be considered in this thread.

Now that I have a more modern name to read up on, I'll see if the output/(material and radiological contamination possibilities) make them a viable power source for the general public. My info on these units is most certainly outdated.

Edit:
actually, I was specifically referring to this unit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNAP-10A
which was a hybrid of the two designs, and which i'm amazed to see in print (esp. since google doesn't return anything related).
I had been under the impression that this event and the SNAP name were still under wraps. Huh.

edit 2: hm, the Wattage numbers from that wikipedia page are dissapointing. If the Hybrid SNAP units were as effective as I had been told, then there may be some value in reviving it for futher exploration as a terrestrial power source. however, if it is too unstable afterall, and RTG's can only put out power in the range of 100's of W per unit, then they are not a viable replacement for current energy usage. :(

Steel supplies are declining and they are getting more and more expensive.

http://www.purchasing.com/article/CA436066.html

Ok. I could go on and on with this so read this post I made:

http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic15361.html

What about the energy inherent within metal? Powdered metal can burn very rapidly, and power an internal combustion engine with no carbon emissions, only leaving oxidized metal, which can be recycled.

I believe you read that NewScientist article. The NewScientist article that you and I read, it says iron will be the most promising since it's the cheapest.

"Nickel and zinc are important raw materials for iron and steel-making enterprises."

Since nickel and zinc supplies are depleted, iron production will decrease or stop.

http://www.tdctrade.com/report/mkt/mkt_041102.htm

Also, to recycle oxidized metal, it says it will require hydrogen to produce water vapour. Water vapour is also a greenhouse gas + increases intensity of storms. Also, how will hydrogen be produced? From natural gas or from renewables?

What about the energy inherent within metal? Powdered metal can burn very rapidly, and power an internal combustion engine with no carbon emissions, only leaving oxidized metal, which can be recycled.You must be kidding (or very very ignorant).

Every metal that will burn already has. That is, they are found in the earth as oxides also called ores. Gold is an exception, as it does not does burn, but I doubt that even one who is very very ignorant is thinking of using gold dust to fuel his car.

Iron ore, for example is Fe2O3, but never found pure. It takes considerable energy to mine it, crush it, mechanically refine it, perhaps with some chemical processes also, but I do not know the details of how one gets high concentration Fe2O3 ready for the smelter. Typically "coke" (not the type you drink) but high purity carbon is used to smelt it. This coke is made in "coke ovens" where some coal is burned with limited air supply, (much like the way charcoal is made from wood) Again I do not know the exact numbers but probably three atoms of carbon in coal can produce two carbon atoms in coke, and I will assume this two to three ratio for illustration of the inefficiency of the "burn metal" as fuel concept.

Best you can do in producing iron (Fe) with coke (C) from processed ore, pure Fe2O3 is:
2Fe2O3 +3C --> 4 Fe + 3CO2, but of course there is the heat loss of the blast furnace etc to make up and the energy spent in mining processing transport etc. So I am sure that it is at best you get one atom of iron (Fe) for one molecule of carbon dioxide (CO2) released into the air but we increase this by ~50% when we remember the coke production also released CO2.

I will neglect the energy required to make the molten iron, typically cast into large very solid ingots, into a fine dust, because it might be possible to spray the molten iron into an argon atmosphere chamber and get a fine fog of iron dust condensing on the floor, but "pumping iron" would have a new meaning although still requiring a lot of energy.

I also neglect all of the problems that need to be solved to make an iron dust motor; however, I want to at least note that the Fe2O3 formed in the cylinders as the iron is burned is a very good abrasive. In approximately 1000 miles of driving you would need to tear the motor apart to replace the piston rings. The labor cost of this along, makes the whole idea nonsense. The release of CO2 to the air makes it very environmentally damaging. As Fe2O3 produced while you drive is not worth collecting, I assume that it is just dumped on the street as you drive. The wind will blow up red clouds of it and the energy and dollar cost of the laundry required will be about the same as the cost of this impractical fuel. Lets not forget the new "red lung" medical expenses everyone will suffer from , or the reduction in life expectancies, probably at least 10 years cut from the average urban dweller's life.

I could go on, but stop here. I can not imagine anyone so ignorant, so I am sure you were kidding. :confused:

Metallic fuels studied as future energy option

An ORNL researcher predicts that a car with a modified engine powered by metallic nanoparticles could drive three times as far as today's gasoline-powered internal combustion engine. Metal fuels also offer great potential for unmanned vehicles and battlefield power sources for military uses.

David Beach, leader of the Materials Chemistry Group at DOE's Oak Ridge National Laboratory, explains that, like hydrogen, a metal fuel is an energy carrier and burns cleanly. But unlike hydrogen, metal fuels—such as iron, aluminum, and boron—possess a higher energy content per unit volume, can be stored and transported at ambient temperatures and pressures, and can be combusted at high efficiency in a heat engine without the high costs of fuel cells.

Large particles of metal do not burn until heated to the metal's boiling point. At this temperature, metal vapor combusts to form metal oxides. Unfortunately, this process leads to very high combustion temperatures, fouling of the internal surfaces of the combustion chamber, and the production of oxides of nitrogen.

Metal nanoparticles, however, burn faster and more completely at lower temperatures with no gas phase combustion.

“These particles oxidize fast enough that they never reach the peak combustion temperature,” Beach says.

At the American Chemical Society meeting in March 2005, Beach's group displayed transmission electron micrographs of iron nanoparticles before and after burning in oxygen. Their poster included a sharp image of iron oxide particles, showing complete combustion.

“We displayed the results of a radiometry experiment in which we measured the iron nanoparticles' peak combustion temperature, which is 1100 Kelvin," Beach says. “The temperature should be hot enough to achieve high energy efficiency but not so high that exotic materials, such as expensive ceramics, are required to contain the combustion. Cast iron can be used as the combustion chamber for nanostructured metal fuels. ”

Beach says that the exhaust gas of metal fuels in a heat engine, such as a gas turbine or Stirling engine, is very clean. “We take the oxygen out of the air and have nearly pure nitrogen left,” he says. “We recover most of the heat using a recuperator and get much closer to the highest efficiency theoretically achievable in an engine.

“An even better energy carrier would be boron if boron nanoparticles could be made at a reasonable cost. Boron is three times better than gasoline in terms of heat per unit weight and heat per unit volume.”

Submitted by DOE's Oak Ridge National Laboratory

I just heard about supermileage competitions, where modified 4-stroke briggs and stratton engines burning gasoline are able to achieve over 1,500 mpg!
http://www.mech.ubc.ca/~supermileage/Images/2005/Competition/PR%20Pack/images/img_0174.jpg
Here's a pic of one.
http://smv.berkeley.edu/SMV_2003/17.jpg
And another...sweet!
http://www.ecs.umass.edu/mie/smv/2004_2005_Page/comp8.JPG
I'd drive one.

http://students.sae.org/competitions/supermileage/

Metallic fuels studied as future energy option ....Ok, you are not kidding. I am tempted to say that leaves alternative b of my prior post, but I will not. Instead, I will asks for references and a few questions:

(1) How much more energy is required to produce the nanoparticle of metal than is released when they are combusted/ burnt in the IC motor? I.e. just how negative an energy system is this motor fuel?
Please tell what you include, and omit, staring with the mining operation and ore refining etc. if you can.
I know that the production of surface area takes a lot of energy and the surface area per Kg of nanoparticles must be enormous - Size of the US? How would they be produced and what excess energy (over the surface energy generation requirements) does the production process require?
What is the cost of electric power needed to make a gallon of gasoline energy equivalent of nanoparticles? I.e are they higher cost fuel than gas as I expect, just from the nanoparticle production process alone, even if the metal were free?

(2a) How much pollution is associated with the nanoparticle production? For example, does production of the energy equivalent to a gallon of gasoline generate more or less CO2 than burning the gas? How much environmental impact is there with the increased mining (river pollution, fish kills, etc. Mining is usually a dirty industry.) if US all cars ran on nanoparticles of metal?

(2b) How much pollition is associated with the exhaust? Is it just dumped on the street? Is "red lung" disease a big or small problem? Does inhalation of fine Fe2O3 exhaust kill you in a few years? (clogged lungs) What about "fuel spill" dust - will nanoparticles of metal destroy the lungs as they oxidize? Are they cacogenic?
If it leaves the combustion chamber with the N2 + NOx exhaust, as I assume, is it cool enough to trap in filter bags? How much of the useful output is lost to the "back pressure" of the filter bags, if used? Who changes them? How often? (number of miles between changes etc.)

(3)How many miles before the abrasive oxide exhaust makes you throw away the motor?

(4) How do your transfer the nanofuel to the car? Surely it can never be exposed to air. Perhaps fuel comes in "vacuum packs", the car has a vacuum pump to reevacuate the "fuel tank" after a 50 Kg vacuum pack is placed in side? The tank then punctures the fule bag after a 5 minute delay at the station for reevacuation of the fuel tank to high vacuum?

I don't know, go read the article in New Scientist. The metal can come from recycled steel and iron. I did read that the nanoparticles themselves can be recycled.

I don't know, go read the article in New Scientist. The metal can come from recycled steel and iron. I did read that the nanoparticles themselves can be recycled.What issue? Note I have added question / point (4) to prior post by late edit. This seems like a much more stupid idea than even hydrogen "fuel." Not easy for me in Brazil to learn more about, how bout some facts from the New Scientist or other source? If recycled, that must imply they are not just dumpted on the street and some sort of filter bags with back-pressure problems.

I just found a thorough article from the " Institute of Science in Society " that nanoparticles or nanotubes are highly toxic.

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/nanotubestoxic.php

So, nano-iron is also highly toxic. During a car accident, these nano-iron can escape from the car and get carried off to the lakes by the rain. Then, the whole lake will be contaminated. Thus, metals as an energy of the future is highly unenvironmental.

BillyT is very generous in his optimistic estimate of an iron powder motor lifetime.

A piston engine will be in dire need of rings, and due to quickly exaggerating blow by, a total overhaul, by the time it has gone around the block ( assuming it made it all the way. ).

The energy density of metal powders is tantalizing, but piston engines and turbines ( they have turbine blades and bearings vulnerable to abrasives ) are extremely unlikely bedmates.

Again, I repeat a strong preference for alternate fuels which ABSORB sunlight, and produce NO NET GREENHOUSE GAS during their combustion.

Just how mad is the current regime? We are discussing using God knows what kind of procedures to manufacture a powdered iron fuel for energy storage when hempseed oil is practically free and requires no new technology. There is appropriate technology, inappropriate technology, and just plain stupid technology. We can't be having fuels that take more to produce than we get out of them. There is nothing about "marijuana" that is worth the pain they are putting us through to keep us from using it.

Amen to the use of hemp as fuel.

I am opposed to illegal dope.

Opposed to the illegality or the dope?

We've got to give up that crap. People will gladly use marijuana instead of alcohol, tobacco, and harsh drugs. The rate of drunk driving, drug overdoses, and of drug-induced health problems would plummet. We would also have a fuel that we don't have to go halfway around the world and beat up third and fourth world countries over.

"We" do not need to increase the rate of crime and human degradation that is indivisibly connected to intoxicants that are illegal.

Many ignorant people do not understand that hemp is a non intoxicating variety of the family of plants that includes marijuana.

So that even an ignorant person will have a clear idea of my position: I favor the use of fuel derived from hemp or any renewable resource such as corn, cane, etc.

I disfavor the use of any intoxicant presently illegal.

MetaKron, possibly in a very relaxed mental condition , is one of a small number of people who could have been confused by my prior post, and may be a good example of the reason to disfavor marijuana and other illegal intoxicants which are apparently favored by a particular contingent.

Metal fuel has an advantage over oil or plant oils in that when burned, does not produce CO2, and it doesn't use up valuable farmland.

I would think the particles could be filtered like oil is filtered, and they would be mixed with lubricating oil anyway.

The issue of wear is highly reduced where nano-particles are concerned.

Funzone, that article was about nano-tubes, mostly of the carbon variety. This is not the same thing as very small particles of iron. Iron oxide is not toxic, otherwise you would be dead now, since your blood is full of iron oxide.

I have read the article, but the New Scientist site requires a subscription, otherwise I would quote from there.

I'm still skeptical about it, I just thought I'd throw it out there. Chances are the infrastructure needed to make it commercial still depend on oil.

A problem with the use of plant oils for fuel:
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/12/06/worse-than-fossil-fuel

Apart from that, a few minutes thought should convince people that we are unlikely to get the current energy requirements solely from renewables as they currently stand. For instance, oil and coal etc are the end results of the storage of millions of years of energy, which we have burnt our way through in little more than a century. it is imposisble to grow enough plants to replace that energy using the small surface area we haev at our disposal. Windmills and solar panels etc will help, but I dont think we can get back to anything like our current energy use per head without fusion power or orbiting energy satellites beaming it back to earth as microwaves.

Metal fuel has an advantage over oil or plant oils in that when burned, does not produce CO2, and it doesn't use up valuable farmland....By calling it a fuel, you are making the same conceptual mistake most supporter of the Hydrogen "fuel" are. Metal nano-particle are difficult to handle (must always avoid contact with the oxidizing air) and only part of a larger inefficient energy transport and storage system. ALL METALS, except gold, are oxides in nature. Every erg you get from them in the IC engine was obtained from some other source first. But that is not even half the energy / pollution cost story:

I would estimate:
(1) + 30% more for the mining of the ore, crushing to pelet size, mechanically segregating the desired oxide from all the others to extent possible (shaking on sieves, floatation with pumps, etc. then drying)
(2) + 30% more for the chemical processing to get the desired oxide reasonably pure, at least not too toxic as many are when reduce to their metals.
(3) 105% for the chemical reduction of oxide to metal.
(4) + 100% for the production of the surface area of the nano particles. (The concept of a "surface energy" cost / requirements may seem strange to many. It is real and fundamental. To have some crude (and inadequate) understanding that all surfaces store/ require energy to create, consider an iron rod and begin to pull it into separate disks, 0.0000001 inch thick each, one at a time. You will do a lot of work on that rod to make these disks and you still have only worked on one of the three dimensions needing work input to get to "nano particles".)
(5) + 30% more for vacuum pumps and / or argon atmospheres required to prevent premature oxidation while processing in (3) & (4). (I often did my own machining of parts needed for my Ph.D research, rather than make detailed drawing and wait weeks for the physic shop to get to a graduate student's needs. Once when I had taken several fine cuts with the milling machine on an aluminum block, I used the air hose to clear away the dust and was startled to see a flame of burning aluminum dust several feet long. I was far from "nano-particles". I bet they explode with a good sneeze, or perhaps only exposure to any air.)
(6) + 5 % for re-evacuation of the car's "fuel chamber" after "fueling" with 50Kg vacuum bag of particles - God help you if the bag tears in the process.)

Thus, approximately the energy input required is 300% of the energy released in the combustion chamber, but only about 1/3 appears as energy shaft and cars wheels as the Carnot limits apply to all heat engines.

Thus, without consideration of the backpressure / oxide exhaust filter bag losses or the oxides exhaust collection energy, there is about 9 times more high quality energy input required than the high quality (non-thermal) energy output. Most of the will come from a fossil fuel. To get this high quality energy from a fossil fuel, more than three times as much thermal energy will be required from the coal or oil burning to generate it.

Thus, the metal "fuel" will required about 25 to 30 times more fossil energy input than the energy delivered to the cars wheels. :eek: Gasoline requires about three units of fossil energy for each unit of energy delivered to the shaft and wheels. Thus the CO2 production of the metal "fuel" system is about an order of magnitude greater. :eek: :eek:

Yes it is true, it produces no CO2 when burned, but lets tell the whole truth next time.

PS you said: "Metal fuel has an advantage over oil or plant oils" - I assume you are speaking of "job creation" as the motors destroyed by the abrassive oxide exhaust need to be replaced often (every month?)

"We" do not need to increase the rate of crime and human degradation that is indivisibly connected to intoxicants that are illegal.

Many ignorant people do not understand that hemp is a non intoxicating variety of the family of plants that includes marijuana.

So that even an ignorant person will have a clear idea of my position: I favor the use of fuel derived from hemp or any renewable resource such as corn, cane, etc.

I disfavor the use of any intoxicant presently illegal.

MetaKron, possibly in a very relaxed mental condition , is one of a small number of people who could have been confused by my prior post, and may be a good example of the reason to disfavor marijuana and other illegal intoxicants which are apparently favored by a particular contingent.

This is an example of invincible ignorance.

Sorry, let me try again. I think that the "disfavor" of any new legal intoxicant is nowhere near as important as having enough energy to run our society. I don't care how many people get high, and neither should you, Cangas. Everyone who is getting high is less likely to use more destructive drugs. I am not willing to give up my heat in the winter because someone might get high. It is not worth dying for! It is also not worth spending $300 and on up for a month's heat in a place where people can't get good jobs, or anywhere.

I like the idea of gravity being used as an energy source. It's abundant and can never run out. An example would be tidal power, harnessing the moon's gravitational pull.

I like the idea of gravity being used as an energy source. It's abundant and can never run out. An example would be tidal power, harnessing the moon's gravitational pull.Gravity is the coupling mechanism, not the energy source. The Energy source is the kinetic energy in the mutual orbiting of the Earth moon system. Gravity as an "energy source" has the same problems as "hydrogen" and "nano-metal powders" everything you get out of it was put in by some other source first with less (some times much less - See my post on nano-metals below) that 100% recovery. I.e. they are negative net energy systems. (i.e. You must lift the brick before you can drop it.)

For example you can pump water up to a higher reservoir and then let it out thru a turbine when you want power, and this is in fact done despite being a net loss of energy as it permits better use of capital. (Most of the cost of your electric bill is capital, not fuel cost.) That is you can run a smaller coal-fired power plant at 100% of capacity 24/7 (except for down time for maintaince etc.) if a near by higher lake exists (or can be made)
At less total capital cost than building the coal-fired plant to handle 100% of peak demand by itself.

DO NOT MISSUNDERSTAND: Wave power does make sense where it is feasible, but as the power in the waves the equipment must survive is at least a cubic function of wave height, it is hard to make equipment last long enough to make it economically attractive. Tidal power is better in this regard as although it varies it does not vary much (certainly not 1000 times stronger than the average as the (destructive) power in the waves can.) Unfortunately, there are very few locations where tidal power makes economic sense. Less than 1% of global demand can be economically met with tidal power, so it is not much in the big picture, even compared to wave power potential.