is biomass energy economically feasible?
115580
The basic answer is yes.\n\nThere are several forms of biomass energy. In the realm of liquid fuels (for transportation, for example) you have biodiesel (made from soy or another plant, basically vegetable oil) and ethanol (currently mostly made from corn but in the future also to be made from grasses, crop "waste", etc. These fuels are becoming cheaper and are now getting competitive. For example a 20% blend of biodiesel is probably no more than 5% over regular diesel, and ethanol is competitive with regular octane fuels (at least in the cost of manufacture). \n\nSolid biomass is a good option for mixing in with coal-fired power plants to cut costs and CO2 emissions.
628573
According to the USDA ethanol is a viable fuel. On average 67% more Btus of ethanol are produced than various fuels are consumed in the farming and manufacturing process. The oil companies disagree with this siting data from 1970s showing the farming of corn to use to much energy for ethanol to be viable. \n\nCellulose ethanol will be even better as you can harvest 10 tons of cellulose using less fuel than the fuel required to harvest 2.5 tons of corn. As technology gets better, these types of fuels will get even better. \n\nButanol would be an even better fuel than ethanol. A recent development research found a way to produce as much butanol per bushel of corn as you can produce ethanol. What is great about butanol is that it has 42% more BTUs per gallon than ethanol(just a little less than btus in gasoline). Butanol also isn't corrosive so it can be used in any current gas engine at 100% butanol. It is underdeveloperd however. Last year the creators were searching for funds to develope a pilot plant. It can currently be made with corn at 1.86 per gallon or from lactose (waste from cheese factories) at 85 cents a gallon. \n\nSolar power is a good power source, but small. A heat collecting panel 4 foot wide and long as a house can provide enough heat to replace the heater in winter almost all of the time. Solar panels for electricity are to weak to replace much. It takes better than a decade to pay for itself. Not good enough for most people.\n\nNuclear power is a over dramatized technology. It is safe. The last set of nuclear power plants won't explode by accident. Some of the new designs of nuclear plants might not explode if someone does try to destroy. The ironic thing here is if the public wouldn't have forced most research to go away, most of the problems associated with nuclear power probably would have been solved by now. \n\nWind, is the best developed electricity generator today. The technology is getting cheaper, but unfortunately is still more expensive than coal. In the future we may be seeing massive helium balloons that spin in the wind for the purpose of generating electricity. According to the company working on the design this will be far less expensive than current wind mills due to no costs associated with erecting towers. Rather the balloons only link to the ground is one long chain. \n\nthere are a lot of other stuff out there.
1076095
Yes but it would take a some time and a lot of effort and money invested into alternative sources in energy . We know that we have the capabilities with hydro electric wind solar and nuclear energies but they need more time and effort the only problem is with global warming Do we have the time?
396028
Wind is a reliable energy source and the studies of its use is taking off. Wind energy system converts the power of the wind into turning a turbine which generates electricity.\n\nWind energy is starting to be more economical based on the conversion factor. It is growing at a rate of 37%. The cost of wind power has dropped 5 times over a period of about 8yr's.\nTruly a very good source of energy which can replace fossil fuel.\n\nRead the following for all the facts and figures on Wind Power.
407797
I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at with this question. Biomass just refers to any organic substance on the planet: plants, animals, bacteria...  See first link below.\n\nWhen people talk about the relative "cost" of biomass, they are often comparing the amount of water and energy it takes to create a certain amount of plant biomass (e.g., 1 kg of wheat) vs the same amount of animal biomass (e.g., 1 kg of steak). Because of the way the food chain works, it takes a lot more resources to create meat for consumption than it does to produce a plant-based (vegetarian) diet. A lot of people therefore eat vegetarian because it's better for the environment (and the earth can sustain a LOT more people on a vegetarian diet.) See second link below for details.\n\nBiomass can also be burned for energy  - e.g. chaff, manure, or peat. This is usually called biofuel. The efficiency depends on the material, but like all methods of producing energy, there is some pollution generated by burning.\n\nI hope this is helpful.
266059
Solar power both thermal and photovoltaic, hydroelectric and hydromechanical, wind electric generators and wind mill mechanical drives. Alternative fuels; Methane, methanol, ethanol,Hydrogen.\n\nYou can pick up a photovoltaic cell at radio shack cheap.
198629
Ethanol is a renewable resource and can be produce by many plants. It also burn clean.
751107
I guess it is an assumption by you but it can happen.  It would be a better world because it will replace the use of many contaminating fuels and will be of a great economic value.  Also the hole over the pole caused by industrial  emissions and others would have a higher probability of surviving.  Actually such a use is increasing and you can find windmill farms for the production of electricity.  They are contamination free except for an acceptable low noise.  Although great advances are being made on the subject,  more can be done.  I have found a lot of information about this topic in the Internet, as well as for other alternatives like gasohol and bio diesel.  Today  you can get heat from the sun as well as electricity  by using either common panels or vacuum tube collectors.
755360
It is possible to store the energy, but it is neither easy, nor efficient.
411815
No.If there was we would use nuclear energy.It is not and never was a workable energy source because of the hazards and waste.
207408
cost to produce the fuels, amount of energy needed to make the fuel, newtons law is still in effect, nothing free comes out of nothing, it still cost energy  to make energy, the problem is the the cost is still higher than the final product ( combustion ) , and is also reflected on the relatively high price, even if it did come down we replace one type of pollution for another, of course the farmers are rooting for it as it will be a cash crop if it takes off, the same can be said for the hybrids, they cost more to produce in both materials and non renewable parts ( changing out those batteries will be mega expensive ), ect.. they are not the ultimate recycling dream the green groups like to champion them as they are, they simply do not want any rain on their parade
27592
Fossil fuel is the primary alternative due to price.  As the price of fossil fuel rises, a number of alternatives become more attractive.  Wind energy is an option, but it is not likely to be the main alternative.  Nuclear has a long history for power plants, but very limited short term potential for other applications.  Solar holds tremendous potential.  Gas to liquid technology and coal to liquid technologies are the most likely alternatives in the 5 to 10 year range.  Hybrid cars will help for a while, and in 15 years hydrogen fuel cell cars will start to have a MAJOR impact.
121402
Yes. It is just not possible to generate more electricity than that motor consumes.
1171490
So far, there's not enough demand to warrent the extra cost of developing alternative energy sources.  In order to stop using oil (for power) we will need to find cheaper ways of getting alternative energy or become much more motivated to do so.
428972
Alternate energy sources are our next step to stabilize our economy and lessen the dependence on other countries to provide us that need. However, they are extremely costly and hard to come by. Wind mills are a disaster in terms of the amount of space it needs to operate. Solar panels are not effecient everywhere, say Seattle or Alaska. Nuclear fission is the next step but since it is potentially dangerous as nuclear bombs, it's being closely monitored thus dampening the research process. I guess we are still depended on oil is because it is so universal and exremely easy to use and harness everywhere. I agree with you, if I had enough money to fund researches like these, I'd do it in a heartbeat!
951807
In terms of renewable energy this is possible. The technology can be termed "geothermal" but what you need to look into are heat pumps. This operates somewhat like a refrigerator or freezer. Heat energy can be removed from an object via exchange devices and converted.
970513
We can replace a lot of fossil fuels with methane energy. There's a town in the US which is almost totally run on methane gas from an intensive feedlot. If there was a will to do it there would be methane digesters and collectors on all sewerage systems and intensive farming installations.