Hey guys! I am doing an energy debate in my physics class about energies and their viabilities/advantages and it is going to be EXTREMLEY competitive and I absolutley HAVE to win. Also, I'm a highschooler and this so far is the biggest assignment I've received of any class!
The four energies categories being debated are:
1. Fossil Fuel, Natural Gas, Coal
2. Nuclear
3. Wind/Solar/Hydroelectric
4. Fuel Cell, Hydrogen. Biodiesel, Ethanol, Methanol
I am doing #3. So far it is looking like it will be easy to tear down Oil and Nuclear for their pollution and especially oil for it's limited reserves.
Here is my simplified line of attack.
Benefits of my energies:
- Hydroeletric Power is the largest source of renewable energy in extistence today. It is 1/5 of the world's power, some countries (Norway) rely almost entirely on it.
- Oil is on the way out. A new energy source is going to have to fill the gap left by it, and do we really want it to be nuclear energy? Solar Panels can pay for themselves over time, and consistently becoming more viable alternatives for energy. There are still many oppurtunities to increase our Hydroelectric productivity.
- My energies are #1 for abundance. Hydroelectric power is basically infinite. 10 weeks of solar power energy are equivalent to all the known reserves of oil and gas on the planet!
- My energies are the cleanest of all. If we replaced the hydroelectric energy of the U.S. with oil energy, it would be the equivalent to adding 62.2 million cars on the road.
Expected Attacks
1. But Hydroelectric dams trap sediment and erode river beds. They make coastlines recede and slows rivers to a trickle, and are overall devastating to an ecosystem!
- Dams don't harm ecosystems, they change them. They create resevoirs supporting millions of fish, and increase the biodiversity of the area. Runoff streams provide added benefit to the local ecosystem. Turbines of hydro dams increase the level of oxygen in the water, giving the fish more to breath. It depends on which side you want to focus on.
2. Solar power is too expensive to be a viable alternate energy.
- Thousands of people around the country use solar panels already. Solar panels last for 20 years, and pay for themselves in the money saved by generating your own energy. Solar panels can often be cheaper than building a power plant and developing a power grid in a new area. As resources decline, the cost of oil can only go up, and as solar power continues to be accepted, the prices will continue to drop.
3. Hydropower turbines kill fish.
It's true, some fish die in hydropower turbines, but of the fish that actually somehow get into the turbine, 80-95% of them leave unharmed. Some turbines are slowed to make them less dangerous. And new technology is being developed to improve them even further.
So far that's where I am, and as you can see, I haven't touched fuel cells and the like with a 40 foot pole. How can I beat fuel cells? And also, if there is a flaw in my argument, or you have another strong point against it, PLEASE point it out!! All help is GREATLEY GREATLEY appreciated!!!
PeakOil is You
Peak oil debate
Peak oil debate
by abben » Sun 21 Nov 2004, 10:15:40
-
abben - Wood
- Posts: 12
- Joined: Sun 21 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
by Licho » Sun 21 Nov 2004, 10:39:44
Any fossil fuels (oil, nat. gas, coal) increase CO2 levels in atmosphere and cause global warming, which is probably th biggest threat next generations are going to face.. This makes them very unattractive..
Fuel cells/hydrogen, are not energy sources. It's just energy carrier, they cannot compete with renewable power sources, because they are not power sources..
Fuel cells/hydrogen, are not energy sources. It's just energy carrier, they cannot compete with renewable power sources, because they are not power sources..
-
Licho - Tar Sands
- Posts: 833
- Joined: Mon 31 May 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Brno, Czech rep., EU
by abben » Sun 21 Nov 2004, 12:10:00
Very much appreciated. One of the subjects I was thinking of bringing up was Hydrogen production and all the problems with making it real. For example:
- Hydrogen is a 'bulky' gas- it takes a greater volume of it to get the same amount of energy you'd get from less gasoline, giving you the problem of bulkier fuel tanks.
- Hydrogen is easier to ignite than gas. Greater chance of fire involved in automobile accidents, chance of increasing deaths in accidents. (Scare tactic but it might help me out.)
- Will require tons of electricity to produce the Hydrogen, if we do it through electrolysis.
Are these good? What I was hoping for was that someone who knows a lot more about the subject than I do could find some major points that could help my argument or some major things I have left out.
- Hydrogen is a 'bulky' gas- it takes a greater volume of it to get the same amount of energy you'd get from less gasoline, giving you the problem of bulkier fuel tanks.
- Hydrogen is easier to ignite than gas. Greater chance of fire involved in automobile accidents, chance of increasing deaths in accidents. (Scare tactic but it might help me out.)
- Will require tons of electricity to produce the Hydrogen, if we do it through electrolysis.
Are these good? What I was hoping for was that someone who knows a lot more about the subject than I do could find some major points that could help my argument or some major things I have left out.
-
abben - Wood
- Posts: 12
- Joined: Sun 21 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
by Licho » Sun 21 Nov 2004, 13:55:14
There are generally 2 ways to create hydrogen - either using electrolysis or from methane (=natural gas). Almost all "cheap" hydrogen nowadays comes from methane. It's produced by steam reforming of methane. So it's just a way to transform energy contained in natural gas to hydrogen (with high losses). Energy-wise it's much better to use natural gas directly.
Same goes with electrolytic production of hydrogen.
If you consider electric powered train/tram, losses of electrical energy are only about 10-20%, 80-90% is finally converted to useable work. But if you have car with fuel cells, more than 50% of original electric energy is lost (due to losses in creation of hydrogen and further losses in fuel cells which convert it back to electricity). Hydrogen is just ecological, yet very expensive way to tranfer energy ..
Think about hydrogen like about any other energy source (nuclear, fossil) with the extra possibility of convenient way to transport and store energy at the price of 50% losses. If someone speaks about hydrogen, ask, how is he going to generate that energy.. If he plans to power all cars in USA with hydrogen, it would require hundreds of new nuclear plants..
Same goes with electrolytic production of hydrogen.
If you consider electric powered train/tram, losses of electrical energy are only about 10-20%, 80-90% is finally converted to useable work. But if you have car with fuel cells, more than 50% of original electric energy is lost (due to losses in creation of hydrogen and further losses in fuel cells which convert it back to electricity). Hydrogen is just ecological, yet very expensive way to tranfer energy ..
Think about hydrogen like about any other energy source (nuclear, fossil) with the extra possibility of convenient way to transport and store energy at the price of 50% losses. If someone speaks about hydrogen, ask, how is he going to generate that energy.. If he plans to power all cars in USA with hydrogen, it would require hundreds of new nuclear plants..
-
Licho - Tar Sands
- Posts: 833
- Joined: Mon 31 May 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Brno, Czech rep., EU
Re: Energy Debate
by Bytesmiths » Sun 21 Nov 2004, 15:49:23
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('abben', 'T')he four energies categories being debated are:
1. Fossil Fuel, Natural Gas, Coal
2. Nuclear
3. Wind/Solar/Hydroelectric
4. Fuel Cell, Hydrogen. Biodiesel, Ethanol, Methanol
I am doing #3.
Consider another option:
1. Fossil Fuel, Natural Gas, Coal
2. Nuclear
3. Wind/Solar/Hydroelectric
4. Fuel Cell, Hydrogen. Biodiesel, Ethanol, Methanol
I am doing #3.
5. a combination of technologies appropriate for their given bio-region.
I'd be especially distressed if #3 were implemented to the exclusion of some of the items in #4, and I don't like some of the groupings, particularly lumping "hydrogen" together with biofuels. Hydrogen is actually more like a transmission medium, like wire or pipelines.
But I guess the teacher made the rules, and you have to follow them.
Perhaps as part of your argument, you can introduce the notion that no single approach will solve the problem.
:::: Jan Steinman, Communication Steward, EcoReality, a forming sustainable community. Be the change! ::::
-
Bytesmiths - Tar Sands
- Posts: 730
- Joined: Wed 27 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Salt Spring Island, Cascadia
by Devil » Mon 22 Nov 2004, 03:35:30
You seem to be quite sold on hydroelectricity. It is not as great as you pretend.
1. It is not infinite. Many countries have no possible HE resources, such as where I live. One of the largest generators of HE power, Switzerland, which is ideal for the kind of terrain, has had to rely on nuclear, because it is impossible to produce any more for its domestic needs. At this time, nuclear is about 35% of the production capacity and HE 65%. France is in an even worse situation, because a smaller percentage of its land area is suitable for HE: 76% nuclear, 24% HE.
2. It kills. Over the last 50 years an estimated 250,000 deaths have occurred globally, because of dam bursts and similar accidents. If the Three Gorges bursts, an estimated death toll of ~6,000,000 will occur.
3. It reduces crop growth. Valleys flooded upstream from dams are generally the most fertile land. The Three Gorges dam, for example, will have a retention lake of largely good crop-producing land 600 km long, in a country where it is difficult to produce enough food. Furthermore, because the land downstream no longer floods, natural fertilisation by silt deposits has to be replaced by chemical fertilisers, the production of which requires huge oil and energy resources.
4. It is seasonal. The supply of water to fill the dams varies with seasons. There is often too much at some seasons and not enough at others, which causes great difficulties for water management.
5. It is not perpetual. The Alpine HE systems rely on glacier melt-off to fill the dams in summer. The glaciers are disappearing. What then?
6. It is not true that ecosystems are hardly affected. They cause great changes. For example, the Yangtse has much fish which rely on the current for food and cannot live in still waters. Those caught downstream will not be able to pass Three Gorges to spawn. Those caught upstream will die because the character of their habitat will have changed. Millions of people rely on these fish for their protein. What then? River marshes take thousands of years to develop to a stable biosystem with unique species, including migratory birds. Putting 180 m of water on top of them will destroy the wildlife there for ever. Furthermore, the climates round large HE systems undergo changes. For every 50 m² of extra still water surface, you lose 1 tonne of water per day from evaporation on a summer's day.
7. Imagine how much CO2 is released from making and transporting the cement used in the concrete of a large dam: megatonnes. Worse, the silting behind the dam results in anaerobic fermentation of organic matter, releasing huge amounts of methane. Methane is ~35 times worse than CO2 as a greenhouse gas causing climate change.
Wind is the only viable renewable technology available today in reasonable quantities, but no grid system can support more than ~20% of its energy coming from variable or intermittent sources. It is therefore necessary to ensure stability from constant generating sources, such as HE, thermal (fossil fuel, nuclear, biomass) etc.
Hydrogen is pie-in-the-sky as a mass energy carrier. Only electrolytic H2 is environmentally acceptable. If the fleet of cars in any country were replaced either with H2 FC or electric cars, the generating capacity of the country and its grid system would need to be doubled or tripled to provide sufficient energy to drive the cars.
I'll grant you that it is specific to the island on which I live, but you may find http://www.cypenv.org/ useful. What I would like to emphasise is that any study on energy, of any sort, must be done holistically. This means that you have to research the impact from the conception through to the decommisioning at the end-of-life, financially, environmentally and humanly, from the cradle to the grave. There is no easy answer.
Good luck with your project. Put a link to it here, when it is finished.
1. It is not infinite. Many countries have no possible HE resources, such as where I live. One of the largest generators of HE power, Switzerland, which is ideal for the kind of terrain, has had to rely on nuclear, because it is impossible to produce any more for its domestic needs. At this time, nuclear is about 35% of the production capacity and HE 65%. France is in an even worse situation, because a smaller percentage of its land area is suitable for HE: 76% nuclear, 24% HE.
2. It kills. Over the last 50 years an estimated 250,000 deaths have occurred globally, because of dam bursts and similar accidents. If the Three Gorges bursts, an estimated death toll of ~6,000,000 will occur.
3. It reduces crop growth. Valleys flooded upstream from dams are generally the most fertile land. The Three Gorges dam, for example, will have a retention lake of largely good crop-producing land 600 km long, in a country where it is difficult to produce enough food. Furthermore, because the land downstream no longer floods, natural fertilisation by silt deposits has to be replaced by chemical fertilisers, the production of which requires huge oil and energy resources.
4. It is seasonal. The supply of water to fill the dams varies with seasons. There is often too much at some seasons and not enough at others, which causes great difficulties for water management.
5. It is not perpetual. The Alpine HE systems rely on glacier melt-off to fill the dams in summer. The glaciers are disappearing. What then?
6. It is not true that ecosystems are hardly affected. They cause great changes. For example, the Yangtse has much fish which rely on the current for food and cannot live in still waters. Those caught downstream will not be able to pass Three Gorges to spawn. Those caught upstream will die because the character of their habitat will have changed. Millions of people rely on these fish for their protein. What then? River marshes take thousands of years to develop to a stable biosystem with unique species, including migratory birds. Putting 180 m of water on top of them will destroy the wildlife there for ever. Furthermore, the climates round large HE systems undergo changes. For every 50 m² of extra still water surface, you lose 1 tonne of water per day from evaporation on a summer's day.
7. Imagine how much CO2 is released from making and transporting the cement used in the concrete of a large dam: megatonnes. Worse, the silting behind the dam results in anaerobic fermentation of organic matter, releasing huge amounts of methane. Methane is ~35 times worse than CO2 as a greenhouse gas causing climate change.
Wind is the only viable renewable technology available today in reasonable quantities, but no grid system can support more than ~20% of its energy coming from variable or intermittent sources. It is therefore necessary to ensure stability from constant generating sources, such as HE, thermal (fossil fuel, nuclear, biomass) etc.
Hydrogen is pie-in-the-sky as a mass energy carrier. Only electrolytic H2 is environmentally acceptable. If the fleet of cars in any country were replaced either with H2 FC or electric cars, the generating capacity of the country and its grid system would need to be doubled or tripled to provide sufficient energy to drive the cars.
I'll grant you that it is specific to the island on which I live, but you may find http://www.cypenv.org/ useful. What I would like to emphasise is that any study on energy, of any sort, must be done holistically. This means that you have to research the impact from the conception through to the decommisioning at the end-of-life, financially, environmentally and humanly, from the cradle to the grave. There is no easy answer.
Good luck with your project. Put a link to it here, when it is finished.
Devil
-
Devil - Tar Sands
- Posts: 816
- Joined: Tue 06 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Cyprus
by mikela » Mon 22 Nov 2004, 04:32:01
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('abben', 'H')ydroeletric Power is the largest source of renewable energy in extistence today. It is 1/5 of the world's power, some countries (Norway) rely almost entirely on it.
Yeah, but you can't just add another fifth to the world's power capacity with hydroelectric projects. Small hydro projects may have a furute, but nearly all the favorable sites for big hydro have been developed, both in the U.S. and abroad, and the few remaining opportunities in geological terms are arguably not worth the sacrifice of arable land and displacement of people. The Three Gorges dam on the Yangzi River required the demolition of several cities, resettling some 1.9 million people without compensation for many, and by 2009 will inundate 15,600 hectares of farmland that cannot easily be created elsewhere with irrigation as has been created in the U.S.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('abben', '3'). Hydropower turbines kill fish.
Well, I don't know if it's the turbines themselves that kill the fish or just the big wall that doesn't let them go up or down the river. Dams may be unfairly singled out as causing the decline of salmon in the Pacific Northwest, but they do kill more than their fair share. Here's one assessment:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife officially estimates that all Tribal, commercial and recreational fishing combined accounts for less than 5% of all human-caused immediate salmon mortality within the Columbia River Basin, and that roughly 90% of the remaining mortality is caused by the dams by killing baby salmon migrating downstream or as returning adults.
They're actually removing some albeit smaller dams because it's cheaper than building fish ladders, which don't work that well, anyway.
About the energy categories, hydrogen can be an energy carrier created by natural gas, nuclear, wind, hydro, or the various ocean power options--virtually anywhere you have water and a lot of electrcity that would either be going to waste or is too far from the makets for powerlines to be cost effective.
-
mikela - Peat
- Posts: 79
- Joined: Wed 25 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: West Coast, USA
