[Devil]

The various energy posts on this forum range from the sublime to the ridiculous. It may be interesting how the forum users see themselves. So please be critical and evaluate yourself as closely as you can into the nearest of these categories.

By "real technology", I mean one that it is already exploited, such as wind, hydro, nuclear hybrid cars, excluding anything which is still in development, such as large-scale biomass, fuel cell cars, fission etc., which I class as future technology.

Unfortunately, I could not add sufficient categories, so have to make do with these.

[killJOY]

I admit to ignorance.

Even though I read constantly, and can talk to people about the laws of thermodynamics, peak oil theory, the "viability" of alternatives, EROEI, etc., I'm no expert at anything. I'm just a skeptic.

I see energy demand rising while energy "sources" get more and more difficult to obtain, that's all.

[0mar]

I did general knowledge but I also wanted to put down

"I consider myself expert in a single real/future technology"

Because I'm getting my PhD in alternative fuel design by using agricultural waste and transforming them into biodiesal. It's not a viable alternative for the entire transportation grid, but meh.

[DamianB]

... excluding anything which is still in development, such as large-scale biomass

For info, large-scale biomass is a big thing in continental Europe and has been for decades.

Energy from biomass provides about 13% (130 PJ) of Austrian primary energy consumption. The greatest part of this bio-energy use (60%) can be attributed to traditional stoves and boilers, fired with wood-logs. In the last 15 years a new technology for providing domestic heating in rural areas was introduced: small scale district heating plants, that use wood chips, industrial wood wastes and straw as fuel. By 1998 more than 300 Biomass District Heating Plants (BMDH) have been established. This example of technology introduction gives an opportunity to study closely the interaction between driving forces and barriers that finally led to widespread technology deployment.

http://www.eva.ac.at/projekte/biomass.htm

The development of fluidized-bed-combustion technology over the past 20 years has significantly increased the use of various biomass and waste products in power and heat generation. In Finland, for example, the installed capacity of fluidized-bed boilers has already reached 1,200 megawatts.

http://www.memagazine.org/backissues/oc ... omass.html

[pilferage]

I'd say I have the ability to discriminate at an 'expert' level, however I have very little practical information to go off of besides hearsay and quotes. Does anyone know of a good source of published material regarding energy efficiency?
The only thing I'm confident enough to say is that on suitable roads, the bicycle (and it's power source, the human body) trumps everything else when it comes to energy efficiency.

[Devil]

... excluding anything which is still in development, such as large-scale biomass

For info, large-scale biomass is a big thing in continental Europe and has been for decades.

Energy from biomass provides about 13% (130 PJ) of Austrian primary energy consumption. The greatest part of this bio-energy use (60%) can be attributed to traditional stoves and boilers, fired with wood-logs. In the last 15 years a new technology for providing domestic heating in rural areas was introduced: small scale district heating plants, that use wood chips, industrial wood wastes and straw as fuel. By 1998 more than 300 Biomass District Heating Plants (BMDH) have been established. This example of technology introduction gives an opportunity to study closely the interaction between driving forces and barriers that finally led to widespread technology deployment.

http://www.eva.ac.at/projekte/biomass.htm

The development of fluidized-bed-combustion technology over the past 20 years has significantly increased the use of various biomass and waste products in power and heat generation. In Finland, for example, the installed capacity of fluidized-bed boilers has already reached 1,200 megawatts.

http://www.memagazine.org/backissues/oc ... omass.html

Sorry, putting a log into a stove is hardly "large scale" and the quote you make re BMDH specifically uses the term "small scale". The Finnish example is more large-scale locally, but this is still minute on a world scale and is so successful, to boot, that the Finns have ordered a nuclear power station to be put into service in a few years!

So far, with 24 votes, I'm amused by the results of the poll, but I won't comment yet.

[Pops]

Wow, I’m impressed with the level of knowledge and expertise here! You’d think we would have figured this thing out by now.

I’m no expert at anything, although I’m fairly well versed in the use of elbow grease to perform work.

Actually, my family and I are involved in an ongoing experiment regarding chaos theory as it relates to hand tools; my hypothesis that if we can leave enough tools scattered everywhere, at some point, no matter where I reach, the correct tool will be there. This would be a great energy saving breakthrough!

So far however the results are disappointing.

[johnmarkos]

I put, "I'm so ignorant, I haven't a clue where we're going."

I don't have much first hand knowledge of any alternative energy technology, except maybe bicycles, which I think will play a big part in the future.

Nonetheless, I did take physics and chemistry in high school and college and I can tell you when something won't work sometimes.

And I love to speculate about the future. I do the reading, too.

[uNkNowN ElEmEnt]

I put that I have a good overall knowledge but I would only be able to put two different technologies to practical use on my own.

[mididoctors]

low turnout for the poll is my observation.

IWHT a mix of current technologies is the immediate short to medium future..

you could argue Solar requires breakthroughs in nano tech at least in application

I am not a energy technology expert

Boris
london

[Devil]

OK, after a few days and 36 responses, nearly half claim to be overall experts in all the science and technology. It's a pity all the same guys don't contribute to the debates, because very few who do debate actually display much real knowledge!

BTW, as I had to vote to be able to see the results, I did NOT vote for the first choice. Yet I believe I am amongst the more knowledgeable of the participants here. So there are 17 with a better knowledge than I. Wow! That IS impressive!

[gg3]

Nuclear fission is a present-day technology, not a future technology; you must have meant fusion. Biomass is a viable technology, with large-scale biodiesel plants coming online in Europe, the UK, and if I'm not mistaken, in the US.


I consider myself an expert on:

Wind; spent a year doing engineering design and financial projections for a utility-scale wind project, including design of wind survey, design of improved survey equipment, evaluation of turbine types, logistical planning for construction, evaluation of equipment & methods, business plan development and writing, spreadsheets for five-year projections, etc. etc.

Energy efficiency technologies; most clearly with regard to telecommuting infrastructure, which counts because it directly takes cars off the road. I'm a telecoms engineer, have been in the field for 20+ years. For more, see www.cooperative-digital.com, click on the link for telecommuting, and click the sub-links for the pages within the telecommute section. Yes, I wrote all that:-). I also designed the OutRoute feature for telecommuters, which has been adopted by Panasonic as part of the firmware in its new-generation KXTDA telephone switches and KXTVS voicemail units.

Waste management; extensive background study and practical design for solid waste recycling, waste-to-energy, and municipal composting systems for small-town developments. Design & implementation of curbside recycling in a small northeastern town. Original equipment designs for source-separation technologies. Etc.


Experience or good working knowledge though not at expert level:

Involvement in a 2-year project to evaluate sustainable energy technologies, including evaluation of claims related to "zero point energy" devices (I've already posted my results & opinions on *that* topic in a number of places on this site, quick summary is that the ZP theory is interesting as pure science, but no reliable & replicable ZP technologies were observed.)

Decent layperson's knowledge of nuclear fission. In fact in college during the Three Mile Island incident I gave a couple of mini-lectures about why it was unlikely that the plant would suffer a catastrophic radiation release, and that was at a time when I was opposed to nuclear power due to the issues around nuclear waste management. (Needless to say I've long since decided that climate change is a far more significant issue, and have been supporting nuclear power strongly as a result.)

Decent layperson's knowledge of general science & engineering, and a geek mindset to go with it!:-)

[PhilBiker]

As much as I'm an advocate of nuclear energy, specifically latest generation fission reactors, I had to honestly answer "There is no future, so energy expertise is not required".