[pea-jay]

An aside on refrigeration points made by gg3 and Devil;

Refrigeration need not be electrically powered. By use of the absorption method you can achieve great refrigeration with no freon, compressors or moving parts. These units work by heating an ammonia / water solution separating them before condensing them. (This done under high pressure) Then the pressure is then removed, in the process removing a lot of heat. It is this heat removal that is applied to the refrigerator, keeping it cold. Eventually the ammonia reunites with the water, completing the cycle. No moving parts or electricty required.

For more info on absorption refrigeration, click here:
http://www.nh3tech.org/absorption.html

Sure, right now these units are fossil fuel-fired, but the temperatures demanded are capable from solar or wood (pellet) energy. Imagine: a refrigeration unit that has its primary energy source as the sun with a wood pellet burner back up. This scenario would require some electrical input, for burner and advanced control functions. In a sunny climates you could get a great deal of cooling with only limited combustion and no net global warming contribution.

I am not an not engineer or physisist, but I dont see why something like this wont work.

Below is an example of solar powered absorption used to produce ice:
http://fsec.ucf.edu/ed/iasee/isree/s22236.pdf

Actually when you think about it, combining energy sources together for a synergy between two otherwise separate uses is an untapped energy saving technique.

[Devil]

Small absorption units have been available for donkey's years, even gas versions. The problem is that they are grossly inefficient. In a past life, I had one in my office and it consumed many more kWh than a large conventional one would have done Their big advantage is relative silence.

I guess that a solar version would be feasible, except that a) the sun doesn't shine at night, making the back-up heater a daily requirement and b) placing a fridge in the sun doesn't seem to me to be a wise proposition. I wonder whether consumers would go for a fridge requiring daily maintenance (adding fuel, raking out ashes etc.).

However, a solar absorption aircon unit on a S-facing wall (N. hemisphere) could, I suppose, be potentially feasible, provided that the heat input could be regulated (intolerant of major changes).

When I was a youngster, in the early 30s, we didn't have a fridge. I think my parents bought their first one in 1937. It gave up the ghost in the war, when it couldn't be replaced or repaired, nearly killing the household by a SO2 leak. Ammonia, would be as bad, being highly toxic. Both the ACGIH and NIOSH recommend a 25 ppm TWA concentration with the NIOSH Immediately Dangerous To Life or Health Concentration (IDLH) set at 300 ppm, with pulmonary oedema setting in at lower concentrations. Is this really suitable for household use?

I think a more pragmatic approach may be needed.

[MonteQuest]

Obviously conservation is at the top of the list, but in terms of techno-fixes, I think upgrading our energy systems would go a long way, however there is the expenditure of energy to retrofit. Electric motor drive systems consume over one-half of the electrical energy generated in the United States and more than 70% of electrical energy used by industrial facilities. I have read that replacing existing motors with currently available techonology in production would increase motor use efficiency 30%. Here's a link:

http://www.abbdrives.com/cowern/motorterms14.html

[UncoveringTruths]

If we could just figure out how to harness, store, and distribute lightning.

[UncoveringTruths]

I found this theory.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A') recent conference on electroengineering concluded that the phenomenon of ball lightning still remains one of the greatest mysteries in the field of electromagnetism. Despite enormous contemporary advancements into the micro-universe--the structure of atoms, nuclei, elementary particles, and the origin, evolution, and structure of the universe, the natural phenomenon of ball lightning, which literally appears right in front of our eyes during a storm or in an electrical appliance in our houses, still remains baffling.

But why has this interesting phenomenon failed to attract the serious attention of physicists? Why has ball lightning not yet been artificially produced? First, because nobody expects to realize any great benefit for humankind from understanding the nature of ball lightning. A common belief is that the energy of ball lightning is negligible and comes from an external source. Second, to reproduce a natural phenomenon under controlled conditions requires a clear understanding of what, exactly, the natural phenomenon is. So far, modern scientists are not clear about the nature of ball lightning. Observations, not experimentation, remain the only source of information; and these observations are based on statistical analyses of reported sightings of ball lightning by members of the general public. yet to discover the nature of the ball lightning will require active experiments and new ideas.

After drafting this chapter on ball lightning, I came across an interesting article about the first international conference on ball lightning, held in 1989 at Waseda University in Tokyo, Japan. Here are some excerpts from a report of this article as it was published in the Bulgarian magazine Nauka i Technika (Science and Technology) in September 1989.

Ball lightning "is a phenomenon of qualitatively new character, similar to radioactivity discovered at the end of the previous century, that might prove to be a new, precious source of energy in the future."
The most widely held opinion is that ball lightning is "a new and unfamiliar form of stable plasma or ionized gas."
If scientific study of the phenomenon increases, as most participants hoped, "the results might prove quite surprising and will determine an unexpected turn in the future energy production."
such a realm of study would be "new, unprecedented, fantastic."

[johnmarkos]

Most likely: no miracle.

Possible but iffy: development of "clean coal" and algae-produced biodiesel in North America and natural gas outside of U.S. (I know, it can't last for more than a few decades), along with wind and solar to a lesser extent. I don't think we have time to ramp up solar and wind to the degree we would need them if they were to supply more than a small fraction of energy needs. Over time, solar and wind supply a growing fraction of energy for home use.

Extremely unlikely: a miracle. Time spent looking for one is better used developing known sources of energy.

[0mar]

There is no magic bullet. There aren't even many good/viable bullets.

Remember, we really don't use oil in power plants anymore. Oil is mainly used for transportation, plastics/other polymers of carbon, fertilizers/pesticides, etc etc. Having a surplus of electricity doesn't really solve these problems.

Oil is a round peg and all we have are squares. Different forms of energy are used for different purposes. Wind power can't power your car/airplane and oil is a waste to use in a power plant.

[spiritoflennon]

From the Earth's perspective that would have to be the cessation of all the technological devils that have been poisoning it for the last 100 years

[JoeW]

The most likely miracle scenario is that someone finds a way to make something dramatically cheaper.
If solar technology costs were cut 90%, that would be a miracle.
If costs of high performance batteries were cut 90%, that would be a miracle.
Miracles of this nature are much more likely, in my opinion, than technological breakthroughs that provide increased utility.

Joe

[bruin]

Miracle?

It would be a way to process all of the oil shale (sp?) and tar sands in a manner we can shove it in our cars, etc.

Maybe we won't have liquid gas anymore. We'll just put a lump of oil shale in our cars and off we go.

[khebab]

Nanotechnology has the most potential, there is a good possiblity that it could boost solar panel efficiency.

Metamaterials or smart materials have also huge potentials, for example, at the MIT they recently developed a new metamaterial with a negative refractive index (PhysicsWeb).

[pilferage]

They're already here, the question is 'will they, and can they, be used quickly and efficiently enough'. Basic housing that is nearly self-sufficient can be built for the same price as normal housing is built today. In fact, the increase in this type of house would allow the more expensive systems (which account for a large chunk of the cost) to drop in price. If you can effectively provide 'point of use' service for electricity, water, and to a certain extent gas (on demand heating), then that saves a lot of energy right there.
Right now we have solar panels that cost ~1/10th of the cost of conventional panels, but their efficiency is lacking. If there's a breakthrough here, coupled with the reduced cost of mass producing them, everyone could have have an entire system installed for maybe one or two thousand dollars. Concepts that are on the verge of being released, like the air car would flourish if everyone had their own cheap electricity. Biodiesel (or better yet straight oil) can be produced by using human and agricultural waste streams to grow algae for processing, and possibly using them to produce hydrogen for on demand heating. It probably can be done cheaply enough to recoup it's cost in three or four years and from then on it would easily be 1/3-1/4 of the price of crude...
these could be supplimented by wind, geothermal, and tidal (is that a word?) energy sources, as well as increased public awareness of energy efficiency. I believe this isn't happening here in the states because we don't want to imply that our energy concerns are the real reason we're in the ME. But once the secondary peak hits ~2008-2012 (who really knows), we'll be very concerned about renewable energy.
IMHO it's about politics, not intelligence. The large fossil fuel companies won't back something like this until our energy problem becomes self-evident, and by then they'll have already invested heavily in these new industries (surprise, surprise).

[BabyPeanut]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Aaron', 'S')torage... well actually transmission, since there really is no "electrical storage", per se.

[BabyPeanut]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lowem', 'G')iant ultra-capacitors, huge banks of lead-acid batteries, some breakthrough in Li-Ion, or NiMH, compressed air under the ground, electrolysis to split water into H2 and O2 ... what's best?

[chris-h]

We need an ultra cheap way to make durable solar cells.
At least 10 times cheaper than today.
This will not solve the problem 100 % but it WILL stop the really bad effects of peak oil.

[tmazanec1]

Most likely miracle:
One word...nanotechnology.

[Rickenbacker]

Anybody know anything about the possibility of using lightning? Seems like an easy way of getting a load of electricity running down a wire. Is it theoretically possible to store it?

Any links?

[rerere]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pilferage', '
')Right now we have solar panels that cost ~1/10th of the cost of conventional panels,

[0mar]

IMHO, I think the only silver bullet is fusion. With fusion, any talks about limits to energy simply become null and void. There are other limits of course, but I don't think fusion will be one for a very long time (at least until we have conquered the solar system).

Other than that, a regression to simpler, local, community based economies and food systems. I'm betting on this one personally

[brentmeister]

Thankyou babypeanut. I'm glad at least one peakfreak has heard of the vrb.