النتائج 1 إلى 6 من 6
  1. #1
    عضو جديد
    تاريخ التسجيل
    Mar 2008
    الدولة
    uae
    المشاركات
    30

    افتراضي please تقرير عن the future energy

    ضرووووور ي

    بليز الي عنده يرد علي

    وله جزيل الشكر مقدما

  2. #2
    مشرفة الصف الثاني عشر
    تاريخ التسجيل
    Jun 2008
    الدولة
    every where
    المشاركات
    2,715

    افتراضي

    Future Energy Pty Ltd is a Victorian company committed to the establishment of community owned and profitable renewable energy projects.

    Future Energy will give you the opportunity to share the investment returns from renewable energy projects and at the same time produce clean energy for Australia.

    We secure high energy projects to help communities take advantage of their energy resource and reduce Australia's greenhouse gas emissions

  3. #3
    مشرفة الصف الثاني عشر
    تاريخ التسجيل
    Jun 2008
    الدولة
    every where
    المشاركات
    2,715

    افتراضي

    The 2009 International
    Future Energy ChallengeTM



    February 3, 2009
    Agenda for Future Energy Challenge Workshop at APEC 2009
    Please click here to download the workshop agenda. See you in Washington DC!!!
    August 19, 2008
    </SPAN>
    Guidelines for preparation of the first summary progress report
    Due on September 5, 2008
    Dear Participants,

    The first summary progress report for 2009 IEEE International Future Energy Challenge is due on September 5, 2008. Failure in submitting the status report may result in disqualification of your team for next rounds. In preparation of your report please take note of the followings:

    [LIST]<LI class=MsoNormal style="TEXT-JUSTIFY: inter-ideograph; COLOR: black; TEXT-ALIGN: justify; tab-stops: list .5in; mso-list: l2 level1 lfo3">The first summary reports are limited to 10 double-spaced, single-column pages total, including all diagrams, attachments, and appendixes. Please do not use any font smaller than size 11. <LI class=MsoNormal style="TEXT-JUSTIFY: inter-ideograph; TEXT-ALIGN: justify; tab-stops: list .5in; mso-list: l2 level1 lfo3">Report should clearly outline the organization of the team, support by the higher education institution or industry and the role that each component plays. <LI class=MsoNormal style="TEXT-JUSTIFY: inter-ideograph; TEXT-ALIGN: justify; tab-stops: list .5in; mso-list: l2 level1 lfo3">Preliminary simulation and experimental results addressing the pace of progress for each team are to be included. [*]Report should include a timeline and list of remaining tasks.[/LIST]
    The organizing committee wishes you success and we are looking forward to meeting you in Washington dc during IEEE-APEC 2009.


    Warm Regards


    Babak Fahimi

    Chairman, 2009 IEEE-International Future Energy Challenge




    June 2, 2008
    Topic A&B teams informed of acceptance into the competition

    The following schools have been accepted to participate in the 2009 International Future Energy Challenge – Topic A (Integrated starter/Alternator systems):

    · Consortia of the University of Colorado at Boulder (USA) and University of Tokushima, Japan
    · Federal University of Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil.
    · United International University, Bangladesh


    The following schools have been accepted to participate in the 2009 International Future Energy Challenge – Topic B (Low Cost Wind Turbine Energy Maximizer):

    · University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee, USA.
    · Cologne University of Applied Sciences, Germany.
    · University of Central Florida, USA.
    · Federal University of Ceara, Brazil.
    · Consortia of Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology and East West University, Bangladesh.
    · University of Texas at Arlington, USA.
    · Istanbul Technical University, Turkey.
    · Universitaet Karlsruhe, Germany.
    · HuaZhong University of Science and Technology, China.
    · Northern Caribbean University, Jamaica.
    · University of Macau, China.

    Congratulations to all accepted teams.

    About the 2009 International Future Energy Challenge
    International Future Energy Challenge (IFEC) is an international student competition for innovation, conservation, and effective use of electrical energy. The competition is open to college and university student teams from recognized engineering programs in any location. The 2009 competition addresses two broad topic areas:

    Topic (A) Integrated Starter/Alternator-Motor Drive for Automotive Applications: The main purpose of this challenge is to conceptualize, design, and develop a 1 kW, 3000 rpm electromechanical energy converter for operating efficiently (not less than 75% at cruising speed) as an alternator and motor. It is also desired to have a (cold) stand still torque of 30 N-m and supposed to reach the speed of 3000 rpm within 3 to 5 seconds.

    Topic (B) Low Cost Wind Turbine Energy Maximizer: The objective of this topic is to foster innovation in low power wind turbine generation systems for remote, rural and small urban applications. The goal is to construct a power electronic interface converter for a wind generation system that will support and protect the system operation under all operating conditions; achieve maximum energy transfer when charging a 12V battery over a wide range of wide speeds, without overcharging or damaging the battery; reliably operate without significant user support over many years of use; be a leading edge solution in the areas of performance, reliability, and safety. The design is supposed to be for minimum weight, minimum component cost and count, to achieve reduced high volume manufacturing cost.


    Participation is on a proposal basis. Those schools that are interested must submit a proposal no later than May 2nd, 2008. Proposals will be judged by a distinguished panel of volunteer experts from the IEEE and from industry. Schools with successful proposals will be notified by May 12th , 2008. Major sponsor of the 2009 competition is the IEEE Power Electronics Society (PELS).


    The Request for Proposal (RFP) is linked here in PDF and Microsoft Word formats.


    Links:
    · 2003 International Future Energy Challenge
    · 2005 International Future Energy Challenge
    · 2007 International Future Energy Challenge


    Version History
    8/19/2008 Reminder about first report
    2/4/2008 First announcement on line

  4. #4
    مشرفة الصف الثاني عشر
    تاريخ التسجيل
    Jun 2008
    الدولة
    every where
    المشاركات
    2,715

    افتراضي

    Energy development

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    Jump to: navigation, search

    It has been suggested that this article be split into multiple articles. (Discuss)
    This article may require copy-editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone or spelling. You can assist by editing it now. A how-to guide is available. (January 2009)Energy development is the ongoing effort to provide sufficient primary energy sources and secondary energy forms to fulfill civilization's needs. It involves XXXX installation of established technologies and research and development to create new energy-related technologies. Major considerations in energy planning include resource depletion, supply production peaks, security of supply, cost, impact on air pollution and water pollution, and whether or not the source is renewable.
    Technologically advanced societies have become increasingly dependent on external energy sources for transportation, the production of many manufactured goods, and the delivery of energy services. This energy allows people who can afford the cost to live under otherwise unfavorable climatic conditions through the use of heating, ventilation, and/or air conditioning. Level of use of external energy sources differs across societies, as do the climate, convenience, levels of obesity, traffic congestion, pollution, production, and greenhouse gas emissions of each society.
    Increased levels of human comfort generally induce increased dependence on external energy sources, although the application of energy efficiency and conservation approaches allows a certain degree of mitigation of the dependence. Wise energy use therefore embodies the idea of balancing human comfort with reasonable energy consumption levels by researching and implementing effective and sustainable energy harvesting and utilization measures.
    XXXXXXXs

    [hide]
    [LIST]<LI class=toclevel-1>1 Primary energy sources
    [LIST]<LI class=toclevel-2>1.1 Fossil fuels
    [LIST]<LI class=toclevel-3>1.1.1 Pros [*]1.1.2 Cons[/LIST]<LI class=toclevel-2>1.2 XXXXXXX energy
    [LIST]<LI class=toclevel-3>1.2.1 XXXXXXX fission
    [LIST]<LI class=toclevel-4>1.2.1.1 Pros [*]1.2.1.2 Cons[/LIST][*]1.2.2 XXXXXXX fusion[/LIST]<LI class=toclevel-2>1.3 Renewable sources
    [LIST]<LI class=toclevel-3>1.3.1 Biomass, biofuels, and vegetable oil
    [LIST]<LI class=toclevel-4>1.3.1.1 Pros [*]1.3.1.2 Cons[/LIST]<LI class=toclevel-3>1.3.2 Geothermal energy
    [LIST]<LI class=toclevel-4>1.3.2.1 Pros [*]1.3.2.2 Cons[/LIST]<LI class=toclevel-3>1.3.3 Hydroelectric energy
    [LIST]<LI class=toclevel-4>1.3.3.1 Pros [*]1.3.3.2 Cons[/LIST]<LI class=toclevel-3>1.3.4 Solar power
    [LIST]<LI class=toclevel-4>1.3.4.1 Pros [*]1.3.4.2 Cons[/LIST]<LI class=toclevel-3>1.3.5 Tidal Power Generation [*]1.3.6 Wind power
    [LIST][*]1.3.6.1 Pros [*]1.3.6.2 Cons[/LIST][/LIST][/LIST]<LI class=toclevel-1>2 Increased efficiency in energy use <LI class=toclevel-1>3 Energy transportation <LI class=toclevel-1>4 Energy storage
    [LIST]<LI class=toclevel-2>4.1 Compressed air vehicles <LI class=toclevel-2>4.2 Battery-powered vehicles
    [LIST]<LI class=toclevel-3>4.2.1 Pros [*]4.2.2 Cons[/LIST]<LI class=toclevel-2>4.3 Hydrogen economy
    [LIST]<LI class=toclevel-3>4.3.1 Pros [*]4.3.2 Cons[/LIST][*]4.4 Energy storage types[/LIST]<LI class=toclevel-1>5 Sustainability <LI class=toclevel-1>6 Energy resilience <LI class=toclevel-1>7 Future energy development
    [LIST][*]7.1 History of predictions about future energy development[/LIST]<LI class=toclevel-1>8 See also <LI class=toclevel-1>9 Notes <LI class=toclevel-1>10 References <LI class=toclevel-1>11 Relevant journals [*]12 External links[/LIST][edit] Primary energy sources

    Primary energy sources are substances or processes with concentrations of energy at a high enough potential to be feasibly encouraged to convert to lower energy forms under human control for human benefit. Except for XXXXXXX fuels, tidal energy and geothermal energy, all terrestrial energy sources are from current solar insolation or from fossil remains of plant and animal life that relied directly and indirectly upon sunlight, respectively. And ultimately, solar energy itself is the result of the Sun's XXXXXXX fusion. Geothermal power from hot, hardened rock above the magma of the earth's core is the result of the decay of radioactive materials present beneath the earth's crust; which was the byproduct of a previous supernova event.

    [edit] Fossil fuels


    This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (April 2008)Main article: Fossil fuel
    Fossil fuels, in terms of energy, involve the burning of coal or hydrocarbon fuels, which are the remains of the decomposition of plants and animals. There are three main types of fossil fuels: coal, petroleum, and natural gas. Another fossil fuel, liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), is principally derived from the production of natural gas. Heat from burning fossil fuel is used either directly for space heating and process heating, or converted to mechanical energy for vehicles, industrial processes, or electrical power generation.

    [edit] Pros
    [LIST][*]The technology and infrastructure already exist for the use of fossil fuels.[*]Petroleum energy density in terms of volume (cubic space) and mass (weight) is superior to some alternative energy sources (or energy storage devices, like a battery (electricity)).[/LIST][edit] Cons
    [LIST][*]Petroleum-powered vehicles are very inefficient. Only about 30% of the energy from the fuel they consume is converted into mechanical energy.[1] The rest of the fuel-source energy is inefficiently expended as waste heat. The heat and gaseous pollution emissions harm our environment.[*]The inefficient atmospheric combustion (burning) of fossil fuels in vehicles, buildings, and power plants contributes to urban heat islands.[2][*]The combustion of fossil fuels leads to the release of pollution into the atmosphere. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, a typical coal plant produces in one year:[3]
    [LIST][*]3,700,000 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2), could be the primary cause of global warming.[*]10,000 tons of sulfur dioxide (SO2), the leading cause of acid rain.[*]500 tons of small airborne particles, which result in chronic bronchitis, aggravated asthma, and premature death, in addition to haze-obstructed visibility.[*]10,200 tons of nitrogen oxides (NOx), (from high-temperature atmospheric combustion), leading to formation of ozone (smog) which inflames the lungs, burning lung tissue making people more susceptible to respiratory illness.[*]720 tons of carbon monoxide (CO), resulting in headaches and additional stress on people with heart disease.[*]220 tons of hydrocarbons, toxic volatile organic compounds (VOC), which form ozone.[*]170 pounds (77 kg) of mercury, where just 1/70th of a teaspoon deposited on a 25-acre (100,000 m2) lake can make the fish unsafe to eat.[*]225 pounds (102 kg) of arsenic, which will cause cancer in one out of 100 people who drink water containing 50 parts per billion.[*]114 pounds (52 kg) of lead, 4 pounds (1.8 kg) of cadmium, other toxic heavy XXXXls, and trace amounts of uranium.[/LIST][*]Dependence on fossil fuels from volatile regions or countries creates energy security risks for dependent countries. Oil dependence in particular has led to war, major funding of radical terrorists, monopolization, and socio-political instability.[*]Fossil fuels are non-renewable, un-sustainable resources, which will eventually decline in production[4] and become exhausted, with dire consequences to societies that remain highly dependent on them. (Fossil fuels are actually slowly forming continuously, but we are using them up at a rate approximately 100,000 times faster than they are formed.)[/LIST]
    The Moss Landing Power Plant burns natural gas to produce electricity in California.

    [LIST][*]Extracting fossil fuels is becoming more difficult as we consume the most accessible fuel deposits. Extraction of fossil fuels is becoming more expensive and more dangerous as mines get deeper and oil rigs must drill deeper, and go further out to sea.[5][*]Extraction of fossil fuels results in extensive environmental degradation, such as the strip mining and mountaintop removal of coal.[citation needed][/LIST]
    Gas flare from an oil refinery.


    Since these power plants are thermal engines, and are typically quite large, waste heat disposal becomes an issue at high ambient temperature. Thus, at a time of peak demand, a power plant may need to be shut down or operate at a reduced power level, as sometimes do XXXXXXX power plants, for the same reasons.[citation needed]

    [edit] XXXXXXX energy

    Main articles: XXXXXXX power and Peak uranium

    Diablo Canyon Power Plant XXXXXXX power station.



    The status of XXXXXXX power globally:
    countries building its first reactors
    countries building new reactors
    countries planning/considering its first reactors
    countries planning/considering new reactors
    countries with reactors, but no plans for expansion or phase-out
    countries with reactors considering phase-out
    countries without commercial reactors/do not have XXXXXXX capabilities
    countries declared itself free of XXXXXXX power and weapons



    [edit] XXXXXXX fission

    XXXXXXX power stations use XXXXXXX fission to generate energy by the reaction of uranium-235 inside a XXXXXXX reactor. The reactor uses uranium rods, the atoms of which are split in the process of fission, releasing a large amount of energy. The process continues as a chain reaction with other nuclei. The heat released, heats water to create steam, which spins a turbine generator, producing electricity.
    Depending on the type of fission fuel considered, estimates for existing supply at known usage rates varies from several decades for the currently popular Uranium-235 to thousands of years for uranium-238. At the present use rate, there are (as of 2007) about 70 years left of known uranium-235 reserves economically recoverable at a uranium price of US$ 130/kg.[6] The XXXXXXX industry argue that the cost of fuel is a minor cost factor for fission power, more expensive, more difficult to extract sources of uranium could be used in the future, such as lower-grade ores, and if prices increased enough, from sources such as granite and seawater.[6] Increasing the price of uranium would have little effect on the overall cost of XXXXXXX power; a doubling in the cost of natural uranium would increase the total cost of XXXXXXX power by 5 percent. On the other hand, if the price of natural gas was doubled, the cost of gas-fired power would increase by about 60 percent.[7]
    Opponents on the other hand argue that the correlation between price and production is not linear, but as the ores' concentration becomes smaller, the difficulty (energy and resource consumption are increasing, while the yields are decreasing) of extraction rises very fast, and that the assertion that a higher price will yield more uranium is overly optimistic; for example a rough estimate predicts that the extraction of uranium from granite will consume at least 70 times more energy than what it will produce in a reactor. As many as eleven countries have depleted their uranium resources, and only Canada has mines left which produce better than 1% concentration ore.[8] Seawater seems to be equally dubious as a source.[9] As a consequence an eventual doubling in the price of uranium will give a marginal increase in the volumes that are being produced.
    Another alternative would be to use thorium as fission fuel. Thorium is three times more abundant in Earth's crust than uranium,[10] and much more of the thorium can be used (or, more precisely, bred into Uranium-233, reprocessed and then used as fuel). India has around 32 percent of the world’s reserves of thorium and intends on using it for itself because the country has run out of uranium.[11]
    Current light water reactors burn the XXXXXXX fuel poorly, leading to energy waste. XXXXXXX reprocessing[12] or burning the fuel better using different reactor designs would reduce the amount of waste material generated and allow better use of the available resources. As opposed to current light water reactors which use uranium-235 (0.7 percent of all natural uranium), fast breeder reactors convert the more abundant uranium-238 (99.3 percent of all natural uranium) into plutonium for fuel. It has been estimated that there is anywhere from 10,000 to five billion years worth of Uranium-238 for use in these power plants.[13] Fast breeder technology has been used in several reactors. However, the fast breeder reactors at Dounreay in Scotland, Monju in Japan and the Superphénix at Creys-Malville in France, in particular, have all had difficulties and were not economically competitive and most have been decommissioned. The People's Republic of China intends to build breeders.[14] India has run out of uranium and is building thermal breeders that can convert Th-232 into U-233 and burn it.[11]
    Some XXXXXXX engineers think that pebble bed reactors, in which each XXXXXXX fuel pellet is coated with a ceramic coating, are inherently safe and are the best solution for XXXXXXX power. They can also be configured to produce hydrogen for hydrogen vehicles. China has plans to build pebble bed reactors configured to produce hydrogen.
    The possibility of XXXXXXX meltdowns and other reactor accidents, such as the Three Mile Island accident and the Chernobyl disaster, have caused much public fear. Research is being done to lessen the known problems of current reactor technology by developing automated and passively-safe reactors. Historically, however, coal and hydropower power generation have XXXX been the cause of more deaths per energy unit produced than XXXXXXX power generation.[15][16] Various kinds of energy infrastructure might be attacked by terrorists, including XXXXXXX power plants, hydropower plants, and liquified natural gas tankers. XXXXXXX proliferation is the spread from nation to nation of XXXXXXX technology, including XXXXXXX power plants but especially XXXXXXX weapons. New technology like SSTAR ("small, sealed, transportable, autonomous reactor") may lessen this risk.
    The long-term radioactive waste storage problems of XXXXXXX power have not been fully solved. Several countries have considered using underground repositories. XXXXXXX waste takes up little space compared to wastes from the chemical industry which remain toxic indefinitely.[12] Spent fuel rods are now stored in concrete casks close to the XXXXXXX reactors.[17] The amounts of waste could be reduced in several ways. XXXX XXXXXXX reprocessing and fast breeder reactors could reduce the amounts of waste. Subcritical reactors or fusion reactors could greatly reduce the time the waste has to be stored.[18] Subcritical reactors may also be able to do the same to already existing waste. The only way of dealing with waste today is by geological storage.
    The economics of XXXXXXX power is not simple to evaluate, because of high capital costs for building and very low fuel costs. Comparison with other power generation methods is strongly dependent on assumptions about construction timescales and capital financing for XXXXXXX plants. See Economics of new XXXXXXX power plants.
    Depending on the source different energy return on energy investment (EROI) are claimed. Advocates (using life cycle analysis) argue that it takes 4–5 months of energy production from the XXXXXXX plant to fully pay back the initial energy investment.[19] Opponents claim that it depends on the grades of the ores the fuel came from, so a full payback can vary from 10 to 18 years, and that the advocates' claim was based on the assumption of high grade ores (the yields are getting worst, as the ores are leaner, for less than 0.02% ores, the yield is less than 50%).[20]
    Advocates also claim that it is possible to relatively rapidly increase the number of plants. Typical new reactor designs have a construction time of three to four years.[21] In 1983, 43 plants were being built, before an unexpected fall in fossil fuel prices stopped most new construction. Developing countries like India and China are rapidly increasing their XXXXXXX energy use.[22][23] However, a Council on Foreign Relations report on XXXXXXX energy argues that a rapid expansion of XXXXXXX power may create shortages in building materials such as reactor-quality concrete and steel, skilled workers and engineers, and safety controls by skilled inspectors. This would drive up current prices.[24]
    On the other hand, in stark contrast to the claims of the XXXXXXX industry and its talk of a renaissance, XXXXXXX energy is in decline, according to a report 'World XXXXXXX Industry Status Report 2007' presented by the Greens/EFA group in the European Parliament. The report outlines that the proportion of XXXXXXX energy in power production has decreased in 21 out of 31 countries, with five less functioning XXXXXXX reactors than five years ago. There are currently 32 XXXXXXX power plants under construction or in the pipeline, 20 fewer than at the end of the 1990s [25] [26].

    [edit] Pros


    This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (April 2008)
    [LIST][*]The energy XXXXXXX of a kilogram of uranium or thorium, if spent XXXXXXX fuel is reprocessed and fully utilized, is XXXXXalent to about 3.5 million kilograms of coal.[citation needed][/LIST]
    [LIST][*]The cost of making XXXXXXX power, with current legislation, is about the same as making coal power, which is considered very inexpensive (see Economics of new XXXXXXX power plants). If a carbon tax is applied, XXXXXXX does not have to pay anything because XXXXXXX does not emit toxic gases such as CO2, NO, CO, SO2, arsenic, etc. that are emitted by coal power plants.[citation needed][/LIST]
    [LIST][*]XXXXXXX power does not produce any primary air pollution or release carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere. Therefore, it contributes only a small amount to global warming or acid rain.[citation needed][/LIST]
    [LIST][*]Coal mining is the second most dangerous occupation in the United States.[27] XXXXXXX energy is much safer per capita than coal derived energy.[citation needed][/LIST]
    [LIST][*]For the same amount of electricity, the life cycle emissions of XXXXXXX is about 4% of coal power. Depending on the report, hydro, wind, and geothermal are sometimes ranked lower, while wind and hydro are sometimes ranked higher (by life cycle emissions).[28][29][/LIST]
    [LIST][*]According to a Stanford study, fast breeder reactors have the potential to power humans on earth for billions of years, making it sustainable.[13][/LIST][edit] Cons


    This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (April 2008)
    [LIST][*]The improper operation of a badly designed XXXXXXX reactor with no containment vessel near human settlements can be catastrophic in the event of an uncontrolled power increase in the reactor, as shown by the Chernobyl disaster in the Ukraine (former USSR), where large areas of Europe were affected by moderate radioactive contamination and the parts of the Ukraine and one fifth of Belarus continue today to be affected by radioactive fallout as of 2008.[30][/LIST]
    [LIST][*]Transuranic waste produced from XXXXXXX fission of uranium is poisonous and highly radioactive. Although some types of reactors can burn this waste as fuel, most cannot and whole fuel bundles containing transuranic waste must be stored in spent fuel pools or the bundles must be reprocessed to separate radioactive fission products. Once separated, transuranic waste will naturally decay to a non-dangerous level of radioactivity in 100-500 years.[citation needed] If burnt as fuel, transuranic waste undergoes fission into much faster decaying byproducts.[/LIST]
    [LIST][*]There can be connections between XXXXXXX power and XXXXXXX weapon proliferation, since many reactor designs require large-scale uranium enrichment facilities.[citation needed][/LIST]
    [LIST][*]The limited liability for the owner of a XXXXXXX power plant in case of a XXXXXXX accident differs per nation while XXXXXXX installations are sometimes built close to national borders.[31][/LIST]
    [LIST][*]Since XXXXXXX power plants are typically quite large power plants, and are, fundamentally, thermal engines, waste heat disposal becomes an issue at high ambient temperature. Thus, at a time of peak demand, a power reactor may need to be shut down or operate at a reduced power level, as do large coal-fired plants, for the same reasons.[32][/LIST][edit] XXXXXXX fusion

    Fusion power could solve many of the problems of fission power (the technology mentioned above) but, despite research having started in the 1950s, no commercial fusion reactor is expected before 2XXX.[33] Many technical problems remain unsolved. Proposed fusion reactors commonly use deuterium, an isotope of hydrogen, as fuel and in most current designs also lithium. Assuming a fusion energy output equal to the current global output and that this does not increase in the future, then the known current lithium reserves would last 3000 years, lithium from sea water would last 60 million years, and a more complicated fusion process using only deuterium from sea water would have fuel for 150 billion years.[34]

    [edit] Renewable sources

    Main article: Renewable energy
    Renewable energy is the alternative to fossil fuels and XXXXXXX power.

    [edit] Biomass, biofuels, and vegetable oil


    Sugar cane residue can be used as a biofuel


    Main articles: Alcohol fuel, Biomass, Vegetable oil economy, vegetable oil as fuel, biodiesel, Ethanol fuel Biomass production involves using garbage or other renewable resources such as corn or other vegetation to generate electricity. When garbage decomposes, the methane produced is captured in pipes and later burned to produce electricity. Vegetation and wood can be burned directly to generate energy, like fossil fuels, or processed to form alcohols.
    Vegetable oil is generated from sunlight and CO2 by plants. It is safer to use and store than gasoline or diesel as it has a higher flash point. Straight vegetable oil works in diesel engines if it is heated first. Vegetable oil can also be transesterified to make biodiesel, which burns like normal diesel.

  5. #5
    مشرفة الصف الثاني عشر
    تاريخ التسجيل
    Jun 2008
    الدولة
    every where
    المشاركات
    2,715

    افتراضي

    اضغطي :

    Energy development - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    Energy
    The future of energy

    Jun 19th 2008
    From The Economist print edition
    A fundamental change is coming sooner than you might think




    SINCE the industrial revolution 200 years ago, mankind has depended on fossil fuel. The notion that this might change is hard to contemplate. Greens may hector. Consciences may nag. The central heating's thermostat may turn down a notch or two. A less thirsty car may sit in the drive. But actually stop using the stuff? Impossible to imagine: surely there isn't a serious alternative?
    Such a failure of imagination has been at the heart of the debate about climate change. The green message—use less energy—is not going to solve the problem unless economic growth stops at the same time. If it does not (and it won't), any efficiency saving will soon be eaten up by higher consumption per head. Even the hair-shirt option, then, will bring only short-term relief. And when a dire prophecy from environmentalism's jeremiad looks as if it is coming true, as the price of petroleum rises through the roof and the idea that oil might run out is no longer whispered in corners but openly discussed, there is a temptation to believe that the end of the world is, indeed, nigh.

    Not everyone, however, is so pessimistic. For, in the imaginations of a coterie of physicists, biologists and engineers, an alternative world is taking shape. As the special report in this issue describes, plans for the end of the fossil-fuel economy are now being laid and they do not involve much self-flagellation. Instead of bullying and scaring people, the prophets of energy technology are attempting to seduce them. They promise a world where, at one level, things will have changed beyond recognition, but at another will have stayed comfortably the same, and may even have got better.
    This time it's serious

    Alternative energy sounds like a cop-out. Windmills and solar cells hardly seem like ways of producing enough electricity to power a busy, self-interested world, as furnaces and steam-turbines now do. Battery-powered cars, meanwhile, are slightly comic: more like milk-floats than Maseratis. But the proponents of the new alternatives are serious. Though many are interested in environmental benefits, their main motive is money. They are investing their cash in ideas that they think will make them large amounts more. And for the alternatives to do that, they need to be XXXX as cheap as (or cheaper than) and as easy to use as (or easier than) what they are replacing.
    For oil replacements, cheap suddenly looks less of a problem. The biofuels or batteries that will power cars in the alternative future should beat petrol at today's prices. Of course, today's prices are not tomorrow's. The price of oil may fall; but so will the price of biofuels, as innovation improves crops, manufacturing processes and fuels.
    Electrical energy, meanwhile, will remain cheaper than petrol energy in almost any foreseeable future, and tomorrow's electric cars will be as easy to fill with juice from a socket as today's are with petrol from a pump. Unlike cars powered by hydrogen fuel cells, of the sort launched by Honda this week, battery cars do not need new pipes to deliver their energy. The existing grid, tweaked and smartened to make better use of its power stations, should be infrastructure enough. What matters is the nature of those power stations.
    The price is right

    They, too, are more and more likely to be alternative. Wind power is taking on natural gas, which has risen in price in sympathy with oil. Wind is closing in on the price of coal, as well. Solar energy is a few years behind, but the most modern systems already promise wind-like prices. Indeed, XXXX industries are so successful that manufacturers cannot keep up, and supply bottlenecks are forcing prices higher than they otherwise would be. It would help if coal—the cheapest fuel for making electricity—were taxed to pay for the climate-changing effects of the carbon dioxide produced when it burns, but even without such a tax, some ambitious entrepreneurs are already talking of alternatives that are cheaper than coal.
    Older, more cynical hands may find this disturbingly familiar. The last time such alternatives were widely discussed was during the early 1970s. Then, too, a spike in the price of oil coincided with a fear that natural limits to supply were close. The newspapers were full of articles on solar power, fusion and converting the economy to run on fuel cells and hydrogen.
    Of course, there was no geological shortage of oil, just a politically manipulated one. Nor is there a geological shortage this time round. But that does not matter, for there are two differences between then and now. The first is that this price rise is driven by demand. More energy is needed all round. That gives alternatives a real opening. The second is that 35 years have winnowed the technological wheat from the chaff. Few believe in fusion now, though uranium-powered fission reactors may be coming back into fashion. And, despite Honda's launch, the idea of a hydrogen economy is also fading fast. Thirty-five years of improvements have, however, made wind, solar power and high-tech batteries attractive.
    As these alternatives start to roll out in earnest, their rise, optimists hope, will become inexorable. Economies of scale will develop and armies of engineers will tweak them to make them better and cheaper still. Some, indeed, think alternative energy will be the basis of a boom bigger than information technology.
    Whether that boom will happen quickly enough to stop the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere reaching dangerous levels is moot. But without alternative energy sources such a rise is certain. The best thing that rich-world governments can do is to encourage the alternatives by taxing carbon (even knowing that places like China and India will not) and removing subsidies that favour fossil fuels. Competition should do the rest—for the fledgling firms of the alternative-energy industry are in competition with each other as much as they are with the incumbent fossil-fuel companies. Let a hundred flowers bloom. When they have, China, too, may find some it likes the look of. Therein lies the best hope for the energy business, and the planet.

  6. #6
    عضو جديد
    تاريخ التسجيل
    Mar 2008
    الدولة
    uae
    المشاركات
    30

    افتراضي

    thank u very much

ضوابط المشاركة

  • لا تستطيع إضافة مواضيع جديدة
  • لا تستطيع الرد على المواضيع
  • لا تستطيع إرفاق ملفات
  • لا تستطيع تعديل مشاركاتك
  •