L
ladiesman217
Guest
in terms of energy required to power an energy station vs supply of fuel vs number of homes powered vs all that stuff, what form of energy harnessing has the highest output / lowest input?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
B
bestonnet_00
Guest
Depends on what kind of efficiency you are looking for.
With thermodynamic efficiency a combined cycle gas plant is probably about the best you can get.
If you are looking at number of houses powered compared to materials used then of our current technologies nuclear fission would beat everything (given that Uranium has about a million times the energy density of fossil fuels and nuclear power doesn't require the large areas of land that are required for wind and solar).
In terms of labour usage nuclear fission also tends to use the least amount of people per unit of energy produced (which is a good thing as it means there are more people for other sectors of the economy available then there would be with labour inefficient technologies). The jobs in the nuclear industry also tend to be much nicer than most other energy industries (do you think coal mining is a nice to job to have?).
Some people might try to argue that wind and solar are more efficient since they don't have fuel, but when you factor in higher materials costs for collecting the power from those sources along with the maintenance required it turns out they aren't so good.
From a financial point of view coal tends to be cheap in a lot of places with nuclear fission the cheapest low-emissions technology (and usually second cheapest next to coal or cheapest in places where coal is expensive), of course coal and nuclear work best when run at full power the whole time due to high capital expenses, for peaking power the fuel of choice tends to be natural gas which whilst expensive has low power plant costs (and if it isn't being used much the fuel cost is less of a concern than the capital costs), often the less simple cycle is used for natural gas peaking plants for quicker response.
Hydroelectricity is from a technical point of view quite good due to it's quick response time, high reliability, low cost electricity and the ability to pump water up hill (allowing it to store excess energy from other sources and then release it later on) but there aren't really all that many good sites left and the ones that are tend to be protected by environmental laws that would prevent damming.
The other renewables tend to be more of a nuisance since they just aren't reliable, electricity companies only deal with them because they get massive subsidies from government.
Fusion probably will be better than fission but we haven't quite got it working yet so it's not really relevant to current discussions of energy (but should it become relevant we need to be ready to change our minds).
With thermodynamic efficiency a combined cycle gas plant is probably about the best you can get.
If you are looking at number of houses powered compared to materials used then of our current technologies nuclear fission would beat everything (given that Uranium has about a million times the energy density of fossil fuels and nuclear power doesn't require the large areas of land that are required for wind and solar).
In terms of labour usage nuclear fission also tends to use the least amount of people per unit of energy produced (which is a good thing as it means there are more people for other sectors of the economy available then there would be with labour inefficient technologies). The jobs in the nuclear industry also tend to be much nicer than most other energy industries (do you think coal mining is a nice to job to have?).
Some people might try to argue that wind and solar are more efficient since they don't have fuel, but when you factor in higher materials costs for collecting the power from those sources along with the maintenance required it turns out they aren't so good.
From a financial point of view coal tends to be cheap in a lot of places with nuclear fission the cheapest low-emissions technology (and usually second cheapest next to coal or cheapest in places where coal is expensive), of course coal and nuclear work best when run at full power the whole time due to high capital expenses, for peaking power the fuel of choice tends to be natural gas which whilst expensive has low power plant costs (and if it isn't being used much the fuel cost is less of a concern than the capital costs), often the less simple cycle is used for natural gas peaking plants for quicker response.
Hydroelectricity is from a technical point of view quite good due to it's quick response time, high reliability, low cost electricity and the ability to pump water up hill (allowing it to store excess energy from other sources and then release it later on) but there aren't really all that many good sites left and the ones that are tend to be protected by environmental laws that would prevent damming.
The other renewables tend to be more of a nuisance since they just aren't reliable, electricity companies only deal with them because they get massive subsidies from government.
Fusion probably will be better than fission but we haven't quite got it working yet so it's not really relevant to current discussions of energy (but should it become relevant we need to be ready to change our minds).
G
Graham H
Guest
Coco pops. They have the snap, crackle and pop plus a nice chocolate flavour too.
S
shruthi jain
Guest
Solar energy.........
Z
ZelosWilder
Guest
Nuclear Fusion, it outstrips every other known energy option by a huge margin.
G
gunu19
Guest
In the long term, solar energy will provide the most power and keep the environment safe. (nuclear reaction's waste is hazardous and takes about a 1000 years to decay!) I the short term, I would recommend wind energy.
N
Nata T
Guest
Natural gas home heating and cooking. Furnaces and ovens approach 90% efficient. Natural gas in cars is only 25% efficeient.