Since the 70s and 80s, oil production has peaked and fallen in multiple countries in the world. Since the 60s, pollution levels make it unbearable to live across the globe, and not just for humans. So I'm wondering how alternative energy develops in alternate histories.
Prior to WW2, I doubt there'd be any real thought given to the matter. Real consideration I think would really only develop during the mid 60s, after many environmental disasters, increasing levels of pollution, and realization of the dangers of nuclear radiation. However, oil companies would still have control, and any major changes I think would happen only past peak production somewhere around 1975.
Oil becomes scarcer, and the world is in a crappy state. Could a major oil corporation begin a transition towards clean energy? And who would be willing?
In the 70s and 80s, there would probably be no possibility of nuclear fusion power, and solar power plants would be incredibly expensive at this time, even though there's incredible potential, particularily in poorer, sub-Saharan African nations.
The best bets would be hydro and wind. Again, there's incredible potential in hydropower. However, dams are equally as environmentally damaging as old coal and oil power.
But...
What about waterwheel power! The function would be the same as a dam: water turns the wheel, which turns the thingies in the generator, and poof! Electricity! Plus, you can build batteries of them over a stretch of river.
Also, couldn't people design dams that have openings in them to allow free passage of water?
Good ol' fashioned wind turbines (not windmills) could also be used to turn the tingies in a generator (I'm not mechanically inclined, sorry!).
Although oil companies wouldn't want to Go Green, but I'm sure some of them would realize that there's more potential in alternate energy, as oil lasts only for so long, while things like the Sun's energy, the wind, and water are endless!
Canuck2012 (talk) 23:26, July 27, 2012 (UTC)Canuck2012
While it may be an interesting idea,
- We'd need to make them massively huge, which could cause as much problems as a hydropower dam
- If we were to use smaller ones, we'd probably need thousands to power maybe a city, if that much.
What I've recently come to appreciate is the possibility of hydrogen power. While it not may be as efficient as gas (nothing is, really), it can be made easily and cleanly. A simple array of solar panels is able to split hydrogen from water, then harnessing the hydrogen to burn it. It might not have much electricity use yet, but I am interested in it mostly for vehicles. It can be made right at home (if you can buy the panels), it's relatively light, and it even makes water vapour as emissions instead of CO2. And though I may not have looked much into this part, I'd assume that putting water vapour into the atmosphere would help rain, reducing the amount of drought, and it's really an endless cycle. Hope that comes into the light one day. ChrisL123 (talk) 01:38, July 28, 2012 (UTC)
Waterwheels are inefficient to begin with - and are also only useful on certain rivers - which are usually tiny but fast-moving. Much the same logic applies to the dam design, with the added problem that such a dam would be extremely weak and very prone to failure.
Oil Production, moreover, has not fallen. It has increased.
Hydrogen, alas, is overrated. Have to use energy to make it, remember. Unless we find some ridiculously efficient way of making it, it is not worth making. Nor would the water vapor be in enough quantities to do much of anything.
Oil companies wouldn't grow greener, either.
Best solution? There is a lot of work lately going into "wireless power transmission." Few years, we'll be able to use that method to transport solar power from orbit - where it is ridiculously efficient. Problem solved.
Lordganon (talk) 08:35, July 28, 2012 (UTC)
To the best of my knowledge, that also requires a station in space to transmit the energy. And, it is kinda easy to be dissolved off.
Better solution: Antimatter harvesting!
CERN has made progress in Antimatter harvesting, to the point now that they can get small amounts- atom sized- amounts of anti matter.
Now, anti matter has HUGE energy yield. One half of a gram will VAPORIZE 1 sq mi.
'Course, this is a military DISASTER. Using a magnetic field, you could make a handheld device approx the size of a can of soda to hold the anti matter... walk near # 10, or the White house, or whatever, and then disable the mag field...
The Royal Guns (talk) 09:21, July 28, 2012 (UTC)
Point was, Guns, that it is cheap. And only requires solar panels up there, not a station. Just need the wireless bit to do it. Doubt anyone cares if it is mooched off of, either.
...Only tiny particles of antimatter have ever been formed - nothing worth anything. Enormously expensive to make, too - in addition to the dangers posed. And no experiments of the damage have ever been done - for good reason - despite what some may tell you, Guns.
Lordganon (talk) 09:25, July 28, 2012 (UTC)
Interesting. So how long will this technology take to develop, if there is earlier interest (by the government) in energy alternatives? I know China, the US, Britain, and Russia would most likely work on a collaborative program, given the amounts of pollution in the major cities of said nations.
I didn't really mean oil production decreasing, I worded that wrong. Well, in America I'm pretty sure she's practically bone-dry of oil. I meant the amount of the resource has decreased.
Canuck2012 (talk) 01:08, July 29, 2012 (UTC)Canuck2012
My edit didn't go through.
Yes, obviously, no experiments have been done. I'm talking about equations.
To power the Earth, you'd need something close to a Dyson sphere- sure, type II civ and all that, but at least another 500 years.
The Royal Guns (talk) 13:48, July 29, 2012 (UTC)
Don't be ridiculous, antimatter can only be used as a secondary energy source since, as LG implied, it takes more energy to make antimatter than you get from burning it. That's thermodynamics for you so only a natural source of antimatter could serve as a primary source of power.
Two sustainable high-yield energy sources I can think of for the next century are: as LG said, beaming solar energy from installations in orbit; and splitting water then using the hydrogen in a nuclear fusion reactor. Both obviously require substantial advances in the efficiency of our technology. Red VS Blue (talk) 18:13, July 29, 2012 (UTC)
You still need someplace to harvest the sunlight. Besides which, actually, I'm suggesting harvesting antimatter. There are positrons, though small amounts, it the thermosphere or ionsphere.
As I said, in order to power just the Earth, you'd need a dyson sphere or an incredibly efficent series of stations.
We don't have the tech for either.
1 hydrogen atom of antimatter produces a visible flash, you don't exactly need that much.
And splitting hydrogen from water is INCREDIBLY inefficent.
Yeah, well all three ideas require improvments.
We don't have the tech to install a dyson sphere, point is.
The Royal Guns (talk) 08:19, July 30, 2012 (UTC)
Sunlight can be collected with satellites orbiting Earth. Believe it or not, enough sunlight to power entire countries could be collected from terrestrial orbit. The surface area of Earth facing the Sun has the potential to produce 174,000 TW without the possibility of being exhausted. Assuming 10% efficiency for our photovoltaic cells you would satisfy global energy needs by covering 0.09% of the sky. That's not too shabby on its own though infeasible given the amount of material required to build and launch that number of satellites.
The ionosphere doesn't produce anywhere near the required density of antimatter for harvesting - to say nothing of the difficulty of harvesting it in the first place.
As for the efficiency or lack thereof of the electrolysis of water (since we're talking about taking H from sea water): 1 g of hydrogen takes 237 kJ to extract. Since 1 g of gasoline can generate a minimum of 40 kJ of energy so 1 kg of hydrogen would take about 5.9 kg of gasoline to extract. And by my calculations from proton-proton chain fusion reactions, the H-H fusion alone has a maximum energy production of 20.9 GJ per kg of hydrogen. Additional fusion reactions like D-H and D-T fusion on top of that exponentially increase the energy production of a single kg of hydrogen but we'll ignore those for argument's sake. Gaining 20,899,000 kJ of energy from 237 kJ input (as far as fuel is concerned, since we're ignoring the energy requirement of jumpstarting fusion) makes electrolysis of water an enormously efficient means of getting fuel for nuclear fusion reactors.
This process, I think, is the future of energy production for the coming century. Red VS Blue (talk) 23:44, July 30, 2012 (UTC)
Guns, not only are you wrong about space-based solar energy - as Red just so aptly pointed out - you seem to be mistaken about what a Dyson sphere is, too, as it has almost nothing to do with solar power.
Note the word small in your statement about antimatter in the atmosphere. As in an amount that is not useful. Almost impossible to collect, besides.
Antimatter is not even remotely viable as a real source of energy.
Red's right on the hydrogen, by and large, too. Though I think the numbers may be a touch high, not that I can show it. Just need a way to actually make turning it into fuel more worth it.
Overall, Guns, you're not at all correct.
Can, we could actually do the space solar energy concept today, in theory - just have the problem, really, of it being too expensive to get it up into orbit. I figure that will change soon, when the private space companies get more off the ground. Only the American government has done anything on the idea. They'd be the ones working with the private firms on the concept.
The amount of oil still in the ground, while obviously down in total, is very much so up for debate. Moreover, the USA still has large amounts in the ground. Not even close to bone-dry.
Lordganon (talk) 05:26, July 31, 2012 (UTC)othing
A Dyson sphere is a hypothetical megastructure originally described by Freeman Dyson. Such a "sphere" would be a system of orbiting solar power satellites meant to completely encompass a star and capture most or all of its energy output.
Yeah, nothing at ALL to do with solar power.
Yep. Even if those figures are correct, it is still a huge amount of energy to get fusing.
And how do you intend to install that?
The Earth's energy needs require a lot more than just a few satelites orbiting it. 0.09 % (and I'm not sre about those figures) is still a huge amount of metal. And it costs a LOT.
Yep, Can. There is lots. Especially since much of it is offshore.
Besides which, a lot of 'beamed' energy could easily be siphoned off. So much would get stolen, companies would go bankrupt. After all, if you're beaming it through the air, any idiot with a reciever can get some.
Any way, we're at least 10 years away from any of these solutions, except the dyson sphere. Based on the figures...
Forget antimatter. Plan #2. Cover the sahara with solar panels. The unoccupied parts, of course.
The Royal Guns (talk) 09:45, July 31, 2012 (UTC)
While you were correct, Guns, that Dyson spheres depend on solar energy, they are outside the concept of a orbiting terrestrial PV satellite and centuries, if not millennia, beyond humanity's engineering skills and resources. I would never consider it within the timeline of an alternate history.
The figures I used are accepted theoretical maximums for those chemical and nuclear reactions. That 174,000 TW is the extrapolated total solar energy striking the "face" of the Earth. As for my values for H-H fusion, consider that 1 g of U-235 releases 88 GJ of energy when undergoing fission and 20.9 GJ for H-H fusion stops seeming absurdly large. All the values I used are easily verifiable by a quick google search.
Now, Guns, the 0.09% necessary to power the entire planet is if humanity exclusively relied on orbital solar panels (not to mention with an efficiency of only 10%, which is subpar for modern panels which can reach 40%). Anyone who says we should exclusively use one power source is a fool, I'm sorry to say. Combinations of power sources are what we rely on in reality, and combinations are what we will rely on in the future.
Proper networks of geothermal, wind, hydroelectric, orbital solar, terrestrial solar, and nuclear fission could easily meet Earth's energy demands. If only it weren't so costly to convert all our infrastructure :(
Um, about idiots with receivers stealing energy being beamed to the ground, consider that the beam will be focused on ground stations which collect the beam and so anyone wishing to "syphon" energy like a couple of trailer park boys syphoning gasoline would need to levitate in the air around the beam to do so (the beam may may very well be too hot for a human to place himself in).
As for your plan in the Saharah, ask yourself, "What's the problem with building electrical power stations far from where people live?" Let me know when you find your answer.
Red VS Blue (talk) 14:20, July 31, 2012 (UTC)
Mm, yes, that's a brilliant idea! send down an incredibly hot beam that can kill people standing in it!
... Until that beam goes off a fraction of a inch and fries a town.
And, this satelite is in orbit. You need to construct a belt of power stations around the world. Good luck.
Doesn't matter. There will always be runoff energy, and at the frequencies you're describing, it will be a LOT.
As for you're objection to my sahara plan... ask yourself the same question, only add the qualifier "and where no human can breathe?" Let me know when you find yours.
The Royal Guns (talk) 14:44, July 31, 2012 (UTC)
So how can we get this technology earlier than OTL? I really like the solar panels in space idea, and we will obviously need combinations of different alt energies, like Red said.
Oil companies aren't going to want competition, and will still convince people and governments that alt energies aren't possible.
So, how can we at least start transitioning at least around the 90s, though personally I'd like it earlier, though that's improbable.
--Canuck2012 (talk) 15:26, July 31, 2012 (UTC)Canuck2012
We don't have the tech for that TODAY, Can.
By the way, the Sahara idea costs A LOT less money. It's the same as the space idea- you could even beam the energy off a satelite- only it costs less than going up to space and doing the same damn thing. In fact, it would be harde, too. The Sahara thing, we have the tech. The space thing? No.
Hehe, the lobbyists are going to insure that that government screws the idea.
Actually, no. The government will just hold it down. The Oilers will screw it.
Abandoning that rather tasteless metaphor, whoevers funds this needs to buy off the Govt AND pay for the solar panels.
The Royal Guns (talk) 15:35, July 31, 2012 (UTC)
Are you debating with me about solar satellites without having read anything about them?
The beam may be hot but direct contact is safe for short periods of time. You can even fly aircraft through the beam without risk (because of the metal body of the plane). Safety is even less of an issue than fission reactors.
A belt of satellites is far from necessary. A satellite could be in direct sunlight for over 99% of every day. I don't have a clue what you mean by run-off energy. If you mean the edges of the beam, the loss of power would be negligible and danger nonexistent.
I'm sorry to say but you're response to my question says to me that you have no clue what you're talking about haha That counter-question makes no sense in this context. I'll humor you anyway, the answer to your question being that the power can be beamed to antennae that can be any distance from a major city.
I won't rob you of the chance to actually answer my question, Guns.
And before you reply, I'm not arguing space-based solar as an alternative to your Saharah idea I'm arguing that the Saharah plan is ridiculously infeasible and then I'm arguing in favor of space-based solar power in the future.
Canuck, it seems like the surefire road to getting space-based solar power sooner would be for the American space program not to get shut down. The cost of space travel would gradually go downwards and, if a space elevator were ever built, the price could spike down. It needs to be remembered that the degradation of objects in space gives these installations an operational-life of something like ten years.
I don't think I could give you a timeframe for forcing the switch to alternative energy over fossil fuels but I'd be happy to advise you on what you're writing, Canuck. Sometimes all that can be done is to make an alternate history more realistic, not entirely realistic.
As for the oil companies and "big business", their heads may not be happy to lose demand for their product to alternative energy but they can only indirectly hinder the switch - e.g. lobbying that can (sometimes) get legislation that supports their goals or lowering their prices to outcompete alternate energy on the market. France is just one example of a country that gets virtually all its power from nuclear and only as much from fossil fuels as from hydroelectricity. So clearly the change is possible in its own way.
Message me on my wall if you want specific - not general please - help on whatever timeline you want to work these alternate energies into. I'm also certain that a POD could be found in the late-1800's that would get the shift to alternate energies started sooner. I recommend checking out J. D. Rockefeller with his Standard Oil company and Henry Ford with his gasoline-powered Ford vehicles.
Red VS Blue (talk) 00:10, August 1, 2012 (UTC)
Speaking of vehicles...
They had electric vehicles as early as 1902. How can I make them popular?
Canuck2012 (talk) 00:28, August 1, 2012 (UTC)Canuck2012
Guns, almost none of what you're saying is true. Red knows what he is talking about.
Can, they've got to be made more efficient than gas-engines. They really were not - or at least their rate of improvement was nowhere near as fast as the gas engines.
Lordganon (talk) 05:20, August 1, 2012 (UTC)
No, actually, I'm not.
My mistake red- I thought you were refering to getting the solar panels built and repaired.
It costs a hell of a lot less than what you're suggesting. Labor can be imported. And, fine, with the wireless idea, it can be beamed to a satelitte and then sent back down. There is NO need to have a series of solar satelites in space. Again, who's funding that?
But generally, Can, this stuff is all futuristic. Electric cars simply can't compete with gas cars. They're slower, have lower ranges, and more expensive, pound to cash, than non- electric.
The Royal Guns (talk) 10:11, August 1, 2012 (UTC)
Ah, you had me worried there, Guns haha
That's a nice idea, beaming it to a satellite, but the beam is too wide to catch with a satellite. Once you're already on the ground your only choice is transmission along wires and that is hugely inefficient. Not only that but, and I'd need to calculate with the frequencies used, I believe microwave radiation sent up at low enough angles will reflect off the atmosphere which might put even more limits on an already unfeasible idea.
Going back to electric cars, Guns and LG basically hit the nail on the head. I can summarize what the problems back in the dayw were for you though:
- Internal combustion engines are cheaper and faster to mass produce than batteries
- Gasoline has a higher energy density than a battery, so for an engine and gas tank of a certain size you can go significantly farther than on one battery charge
- Henry Ford, due to point 1, brought the price of gas cars down to half that of electric cars (this is the primary reason for the decline of electric cars)
- An infrastructure was developed in the late-1800's for petroleum making it convenient to extract then transport to cities
- Refueling a gas tank was faster than recharging a battery
If I could think of a moderately plausible way for electric cars to dominate it is a POD where both Thomas Edison and Henry Ford die at young ages. Without being put down by the hyper-competitive Edison, Nikola Tesla and George Westinghouse would more easily assert the dominance of Alternating Current, possibly (this is the implausible part) bringing down the price of electricity. This also opens an opportunity for a timeline focused on magnifying Tesla's achievements which, in all honesty, can only be very interesting.
Red VS Blue (talk) 14:14, August 1, 2012 (UTC)
Thomas Edison's death, BTW, wouldn't effect his inventions. The lightbulb, for instance, was invented by Sir Humphrey David 77 years earlier. The motion picture, again, earlier. Both the father and son who invented it died under mysterious circumstances, the son having just testified in court for patent violation, against Edison.
Tesla was also a bit madcap, just saying.
Hmm... In that case, instead of using microwave radiation, It could be gamma or x-ray. Those could get through, possibly.
The Royal Guns (talk) 14:28, August 1, 2012 (UTC)
Exactly! That pinpoints why Edison's death wouldn't adversly affect technological development but would prevent his competition with AC power, stopping the Current Wars before they started and opening the road for AC power to gain an earlier and easier foothold in the power industry. I don't profess to be an expert on this part of history so this is only an amateur's interpretation of what might happen.
Gamma rays and x-rays are even worse. The atmosphere is ~100% opaque to high-energy EM radiation. But that doesn't matter, like I said the opacity of the atmosphere isn't the main problem with beaming energy into space its the need for a massive receiver antenna to catch the beam, which cannot feasibly be built in space.
Red VS Blue (talk) 18:10, August 1, 2012 (UTC)
Okay, so if funding continued into space programs, could the US create these Solar Satellites?
But how can solar power cars become mainstream? I guess this is a silly question, considering there is lots of interest already...but still. I aslo mean cut the prices down to a moderate level, cause they cost a pretty penny.
Canuck2012 (talk) 21:00, August 1, 2012 (UTC)Canuck2012
Can, those things take 5 hours charging to get two hours driving. And that is in the middle of the sunniest day of summer. Plus, they have a top speed of 4 KMPH.
The Royal Guns (talk) 06:43, August 2, 2012 (UTC)
Guns, that you would claim it would take a dyson sphere or a planetary network of such solar satellites shows that you know little, at best, on the subject, and are speaking untruths.
Nor is that statement on the cars very accurate.
Can, the cars just aren't efficient. Power would be, at best, limited - and the need to put in a gas engine anyways kind of makes it worse. It's not even remotely close to being economically viable.
As for more funding for the space program, we could create the satellites today, without any massive does if funding. It's getting it into orbit that is the problem. Really, that is the vast majority of expenses in space programs.
Lordganon (talk) 06:53, August 2, 2012 (UTC)
... Thank you LG. I'm well aware that solar cars don't actually have those specs.
No, actually, again, I was exaggerating. I'm quite aware that it doesn't require a dyson sphere. My point was that it would take a lot, but there, I will freely admit that I am wrong. Which, BTW, doesn't mean that I was 'speaking untruths'.
Yep.
The Royal Guns (talk) 06:59, August 2, 2012 (UTC)
You are making things up at random. And now you claim that you were "exaggerating." Don't buy that for one second.
Ergo? Untruths, at best.
Lordganon (talk) 07:27, August 2, 2012 (UTC)
No... I was giving what I thought would be a reasonable estimate. ESTIMATE. Estimates can be wrong.
Ergo, nothing.
The Royal Guns (talk) 09:12, August 2, 2012 (UTC)
Let's not let this discussion devolve into childish face saving...
Canuck, I recommend reading up on modern electric car technology. We can help by answering your questions but it'll be up to your to do your own research. There's a wealth of information on the internet so you'll have no shortage of place from which to draw data.
Red VS Blue (talk) 03:50, August 3, 2012 (UTC)
I agree with everything Red just said.
The Royal Guns (talk) 11:55, August 3, 2012 (UTC)