send mail to support@abhimanu.com mentioning your email id and mobileno registered with us! if details not recieved
Resend Opt after 60 Sec.
By Loging in you agree to Terms of Services and Privacy Policy
Please specify
Please verify your mobile number
Login not allowed, Please logout from existing browser
Please update your name
Subscribe to Notifications
Stay updated with the latest Current affairs and other important updates regarding video Lectures, Test Schedules, live sessions etc..
Your Free user account at abhipedia has been created.
Remember, success is a journey, not a destination. Stay motivated and keep moving forward!
Refer & Earn
Enquire Now
My Abhipedia Earning
Kindly Login to view your earning
Support
Presently, a lot of enthusiasm is seen in development and adoption of alternante energy sources by the governments across the world. Though positive efforts done by the governments of the day for tackling climate change and ensuring sustainable devlopment must be seen in a positive sense, yet it is important to address some critical questions before scarce resources with developing counteries like India are deployed towards this end. Following are some of those questions;
Commercial hydrogen offers one clear example of how it takes more energy to produce the fuel than can be obtained from burning it. The current feedstock from which hydrogen is produced is natural gas. The natural gas is then treated with steam. Steam is water that is boiled using more natural gas, oil, or coal, either in the form of direct fuel or to generate electricity which is used to boil the water. Common sense dictates that this cannot be a solution because it still relies on fossil fuels. Converting water to hydrogen is done through electrolysis. Scientist David Pimentel has established that it takes 1.3 billion kWh (Kilowatt hours) of electricity to produce the equivalent of 1 billion kWh of hydrogen. (BioScience, Vol. 44, No. 8, September 1994.) Even a small positive EROEI, if obtainable, is not a solution because fossil fuels on the whole return many times the energy invested, not just a fraction. That's why we use them. Ethanol is another case in point. Some research has shown a negative EROEI for ethanol. Newer research from Oregon shows a slightly positive return. Ethanol is, at best, a slightly beneficial temporary alternative - not a substitute. Claims that cars can run on vegetable oil never take into account the amount of energy necessary to generate the vegetable oil (farming, vegetable transport, extraction, etc.). Devices that recycle plastic into oil don't mention the fact that plastic is oil, and that a great deal of energy was used to make it into plastic in the first place. Similarly, the new technology of thermal depolymerisation is not a legitimate alternative energy source. This process transforms carbon-based wastes back into hydrocarbon fuel. This technology is useful, and may help us on the downside of the Hubbert curve, but it will never replace fossil fuels. Why? Because the wastes were produced by the use of fossil fuels. Even using turkey offal, one must account for 1) the feed, 2) what fertilized the feed (natural gas), 3) how the feed was planted, 4) harvested, 5) irrigated (oil and gas), and 5) how the turkey got to market (oil). Thermal depolymerization should be more properly viewed as a form of recycling. But this process will never have the net energy of the original fossil fuels. As fossil fuels dwindle, so will the source material. Any alternative energy source claiming to be a solution to the coming oil and gas shortages must have documented “open book” EROEI policies. If it doesn't, then it has something to hide.
There are only four original sources of energy on this planet: the sun, gravitational forces, earth's interior, or nuclear power. All energy derived from organic sources can be traced back to sunlight. It is the same for renewable energy sources like solar and wind. Gravitational forces generate hydroelectric power and tidal power. Geothermal power is generated from the earth's interior. The earth's interior is hot due to the residual heat generated from the accretion of the planet and the heat of trace radioactive minerals. This internal heat powers all of the earth's tectonic processes. Nuclear energy is generated from either the breakdown of unstable elements (in the case of fission) or the fusing of two elements into one (in the case of fusion).
If an inventor claims an original source of energy other than these four, or if no original source of energy is apparent, treat the invention with skepticism. He or she may be the next Galileo giving us scalar energy, and upsetting the known laws of the universe, but the invention must still be proven, demonstrated, checked, and most importantly, made available. One cannot eat a picture of a hamburger. One can only eat the hamburger itself.
3. Does the inventor claim zero pollution?
There is no method of generating energy from a source that does not produce some form of waste (pollution). Even wind and solar create waste as a result of the construction of wind turbines and solar cells (albeit comparatively little waste generated in the initial construction phase). Hydrogen fuel cells create waste when the hydrogen is generated, though it is commonly claimed that they produce nothing but water. The waste is simply moved out of sight to a hydrogen generating plant. Hydrogen fuel cells depend on fossil fuels to generate the free hydrogen, so they create all the pollutants of burning hydrocarbons; they simply move them away from the vehicles to a centralized generating plant. Likewise, horses also produce waste; just ask anyone who has ever mucked a stable.
4. Infrastructure Requirements -- Does the energy source require a corporation to produce it? How will it be transported and used? Will it require new engines, pipelines, and filling stations? What will these cost? Who will pay for them and with what? How long will it take to build them?
While these questions do not tell you if the alternative energy source is legitimate, they will tell you how practical it can be for you. If the process is complicated, requiring specially trained technicians, sophisticated machinery, and elaborate processing, then major corporations and/or governments will likely control it. This will leave you with very little say in the matter. You will simply remain a consumer paying your bill, or a stockholder collecting your premiums.
Nuclear fast breeders have excellent net energy profiles, even better than fossil fuels. But if they are ever perfected, you can bet that you won't be able to build one in your garage. They will be owned and managed by corporations. The waste is dangerous and there isn't enough uranium to supply the world's energy needs anyway - not with an exploding population.
A 1999 University of California study revealed that more than 3,000 gallons of gaseous hydrogen is necessary to produce the same energy as a gallon of gasoline. Compressed hydrogen is highly explosive. Liquid hydrogen comes close to equaling gasoline's energy but it is so cold, it fractures the metals used in fuel systems. Where will people get hydrogen? And if one relies on a zero-point technology to make it, how much energy will be returned and where will the new engines come from?
There are a few technologies that do offer useful net energy profiles (while not approaching fossil fuels), and are available for home use. Windmills, passive solar (solar heating) and paddle wheels are examples of such technology. Methane processing of farm wastes has received some attention (particularly in traditional Asian cultures), but it generally involves some advanced machinery and is potentially dangerous because methane is so highly combustible.
An answer to the problem of energy depletion lies not in developing new energy sources so that we may continue our destructive, consumer lifestyles. Rather, the answer lies in developing new lifestyles that strive toward self-sufficiency and sustainability.
Finally, we must all learn that there is no hope for any of us outside of a community. We must learn to work with our neighbors in developing sustainable alternatives.
By: Abhishek Sharma ProfileResourcesReport error
Access to prime resources