Coal, Nuclear, gas, and hampster power. Why?

[Theory5]

Hello. I was thinking about all these types of power plants, and I was wondering, is all that just to make steam to power turbines? Do coal, gas, and Nuclear energy just heat up water or other materials to power turbines? Isn't that a waste? Now suppose you wanted somthing cleaner, you might think of Wind or water power. But to get a lot of power for millions of homes you gotta have a wind farm and that takes acres of land free of trees. Now you might think of using bio power, right? Yes that is what you are thinking that Im going to talk about, well, bio power needs hundreds of living cells that need food and need care, and I heard something about them not producing tons of energy for electricity. Soooooo whats next? Chemical power! But don't you need a little bit of electricity to set off the chemicals, and you need them started often right? now how about this, You have all the chemicals set up so each reaction starts other reactions, and you could have power for days on end without a jolt of electricity. but you need lots of chemicals to do that. so how about a rectangular box. standing long side up, and inside are layers of packed together chemicals with layers of super conductive material, and then metal between each sandwiched layer. Just one jolt, and you start the whole box! Then you have power for days, maybe weeks! think of a generator that all you need is a 9V battery and it starts! No mess! no Fuel! then when it runs out of power, you remove the chemicals, everything comes out in a neat little package, then you put in a new set. and tada! instant power from the same nine volt!
please tell me what you think of this.
-Theory

[freeztar]

I think steam is historically and presently used because a) water's abundant and cheap/free b) steam is non-toxic c) water has a high heat of vaporization₁ and d) water has a high expansion potential₁.

Chemicals must be procured in some manner, usually by means of chemical reactions and processing. This requires energy and money, which partially accounts for the seemingly free energy from chemicals, not to mention the first law of thermodynamics.
For example, If you want to make a lead acid battery you must mine the lead, process it, refine it, transport it, and thermally or chemically calibrate it for your use. Chemicals don't grow on trees ya know.
Also, what byproducts would result? What chemicals are to be used?

Nonetheless, your question about why we don't have a better method of power generation is a good one. I certainly don't think we're anywhere near the end of the line and I look forward to breakthroughs that might occur in our lifetimes. One problem with original innovation is that it's not obvious. It is sure to come about in an Archimedian-type manner. Eureka!

Though, imho, we will not see any massive/revolutionary changes in the modes of power generation. It will always involve one or more of the forces of nature: earth, water, wind, fire, and gravity. Perhaps the key is to use all of these at once...