Should we switch to alternative sources of energy?

[Chris7He]

chris, i hate to attack you more cause you are definitely getting a lot of undeserved shit, but I do have to ask: isn't fusion... not possible? I mean, yeah, you get tons of energy from it, but you have to go to unreasonable temperatures to create it.

Cold fusion, my brother.

[Chris7He]

Ironically, I helped nuclear power gain the most votes...

[brooksieb]

we must move away from oil, the russians have a empire over it and can switch off our power just like they did to ukraine

[vtmarik]

I find that Nuclear is the most practical.

then you, sir, are a fool.

nuclear energy, although it doesn't cause global warming, is extremely poisonous, produces tonnes of radioactive waste and can cause explosions which poison entire continents.

also, supplies of Uranium-235 are likely to run out in the nextb 60 years.


i voted hydroelectricity.

The Thermal Nuclear Reactor is not the only option of nuclear power source.

Now the Integral Fast Reactor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Fast_Reactor) is an option. No waste, because you can use any radioactive actinide in the core (including plutonium which is what U-235 decays into). No meltdown because as the core overheats, it expands (Boyle's Law, it will eventually cool down and not be a danger).

[Jenos Ridan]

We need to use a combonation of all of those resources...we can't just depend on 1.

I second the motion.

BTW: Dave Mustaine for PRESIDENT OF THE U.S.A!!!

Mustaine-Cooper '08.

[trk1994]

i voted wind. not because the switch needs to be made anytine in the next hundred years or so but just when it is time it is the safest and easiest to get going. as long as there is hot and cold air masses there will be wind. and there is no chance of a nuclear melt down, no "acid wind" to melt the windmills. i can't really think of any adverse effect to wind power. can you? But anyway till then, i still love my oil.

Wind kills birds, there are not many places to build them, it is noisy, but that's it.

lol, been away from this thread for a while but OMG! If a wind mill kills birds then how in the world do any birds survive in the city. What with all those huge buildings and airplanes fliing around good lord it must be a slaughter house there. My God, we better cut down all those gigantic redwoods in the north west, a bird could be blown into one and impaled on a branch. lol You know the wind mills only turn as fast as the wind can get them going. they are not powered to turn faster...that would defeat the purpose. As far as no place to build them? How many untapped hectacres of surface area do we have in the Gulf of Mexico? How about south Texas or west Texas? Hundereds of thousands of acres there as well. Also what noise do they make? No fire, no combustion engine, i don't get it.

[Snorri1234]

i voted wind. not because the switch needs to be made anytine in the next hundred years or so but just when it is time it is the safest and easiest to get going. as long as there is hot and cold air masses there will be wind. and there is no chance of a nuclear melt down, no "acid wind" to melt the windmills. i can't really think of any adverse effect to wind power. can you? But anyway till then, i still love my oil.

Wind kills birds, there are not many places to build them, it is noisy, but that's it.

lol, been away from this thread for a while but OMG! If a wind mill kills birds then how in the world do any birds survive in the city. What with all those huge buildings and airplanes fliing around good lord it must be a slaughter house there. My God, we better cut down all those gigantic redwoods in the north west, a bird could be blown into one and impaled on a branch. lol You know the wind mills only turn as fast as the wind can get them going. they are not powered to turn faster...that would defeat the purpose. As far as no place to build them? How many untapped hectacres of surface area do we have in the Gulf of Mexico? How about south Texas or west Texas? Hundereds of thousands of acres there as well. Also what noise do they make? No fire, no combustion engine, i don't get it.

They make quite a lot of noise because they're just fucking big. But it's not big deal as long as you aren't near them. Factory-machines make a lot of noise too.

But why did you reply to a 2-month old thread?

[reminisco]

yeah, in defense of Wind power -- about 20x as many birds die each year from cat-related causes than from wind generator related causes.

[got tonkaed]

yeah, in defense of Wind power -- about 20x as many birds die each year from cat-related causes than from wind generator related causes.

well thats devestating news for the growing lolcats industry.

[oggiss]

I find that Nuclear is the most practical.

then you, sir, are a fool.

nuclear energy, although it doesn't cause global warming, is extremely poisonous, produces tonnes of radioactive waste and can cause explosions which poison entire continents.

also, supplies of Uranium-235 are likely to run out in the nextb 60 years.


i voted hydroelectricity.

Then sir you are a dumbass.


So instead of using a source that "can"/"could" be dangerous we should use sources contributing to the global warming? Tbh I don't think we would have started using nuclear energy if it was that dangerous. You can't really say it's poisonous, simply because it's only poisionous if and explosion happens. We have plenty of mountains to store the rests from our nuclear power plants. Our plants are today very safe, at least here in Sweden, don't really know about the ~130ish in the US, the ones in Japan, Russia, Poland or Eastern Europe.

[reminisco]

i for one think this is a ridiculous poll.

we should be allowed to "combine" sources of energy.

the only place where a uniform fuel source is necessary is in things like cars -- where in order to be manufactured, must have some industry wide standard.

but wind power ought to be combined with solar with hydroelectric, etc.

build the power generators where it makes the most sense. a waterfall might not be the best place for wind generators and an open, windy field, might not be the best place to build a hydroelectric generator.

caves might not be the best place to put solar panels.



one more thing... everyone keep an eye on Solar... there have been some very, very exciting and huge breakthroughs in the technology, getting to the point now where solar is able to generate more energy than it takes to install/maintain.

[oggiss]

i for one think this is a ridiculous poll.

we should be allowed to "combine" sources of energy.

the only place where a uniform fuel source is necessary is in things like cars -- where in order to be manufactured, must have some industry wide standard.

but wind power ought to be combined with solar with hydroelectric, etc.

build the power generators where it makes the most sense. a waterfall might not be the best place for wind generators and an open, windy field, might not be the best place to build a hydroelectric generator.

caves might not be the best place to put solar panels.



one more thing... everyone keep an eye on Solar... there have been some very, very exciting and huge breakthroughs in the technology, getting to the point now where solar is able to generate more energy than it takes to install/maintain.

Building solar cells requires an awful lot of time and is expensive, I don't think it will be widely used. But I don't doubt it's goodness since a household basically could have some solar cells on the roof and then use it during the whole summer. The winter might be tricky though.

About the placement - No shit sherlock

[reminisco]

Building solar cells requires an awful lot of time and is expensive, I don't think it will be widely used. But I don't doubt it's goodness since a household basically could have some solar cells on the roof and then use it during the whole summer. The winter might be tricky though.

About the placement - No shit sherlock

right, at present, you're right about solar. but it is significantly cheaper than in the past, and only getting better.

that's why i said keep an eye on it. at present, the costs and time of installation are offset by the amount of energy they are capable of producing. and it's only getting better.

i'm invested in a couple solar companies. i really believe in it, as the technology keeps improving.



and i was being sarcastic about the placement -- as a way of justifying why it's ridiculous for the poll to isolate each power source instead of allowing for a combination of them...

especially since at present, we do NOT use only one energy source in anything except automobiles.

(and even then, hydrogen cell engines are being used in municipal buses, or LNG fueled engines)

[trk1994]

Back to wind power.
Modern large turbines have low sound levels at ground level. For example, in December 2006, a Texas jury denied a noise pollution suit against FPL Energy, after the company demonstrated that noise readings were not excessive. The highest reading was 44 decibels, which was characterized as about the same level as a 10 mile/hour (16 km/hr) wind.

Impact on wildlife

Birds

Danger to birds is often the main complaint against the installation of a wind turbine, but actual numbers are very low: studies show that the number of birds killed by wind turbines is negligible compared to the number that die as a result of other human activities such as traffic, hunting, power lines and high-rise buildings and especially the environmental impacts of using non-clean power sources. For example, in the UK, where there are several hundred turbines, about one bird is killed per turbine per year; 10 million per year are killed by cars alone.[63] In the United States, turbines kill 70,000 birds per year, compared to 57 million killed by cars and 97.5 million killed by collisions with plate glass.[64] An article in Nature stated that each wind turbine kills on average 0.03 birds per year, or one kill per thirty turbines.[65]

In the UK, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) concluded that "The available evidence suggests that appropriately positioned wind farms do not pose a significant hazard for birds."[66] It notes that climate change poses a much more significant threat to wildlife, and therefore supports wind farms and other forms of renewable energy.

All info found with an internet search

and as far as combining sources: I also fell that solar energy is and excellent source. Yes the cost is high now but it is getting cheaper and even with the current cost, the savings would pay for itself in a very short time.

also i relied to a 2 month old thread cuz i spoke in it 3 1/2 months ago and felt like talking about it again.

[Neoteny]

This is slightly non sequitur, but I once told a friend of mine when he told me he wanted to be an architect that he would be responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands of birds. It upset him enough to make my day.

[nagerous]

Geothermal FTW!

[Colossus]

I didn't read the whole thread, but I thought folks might be interested to know that there are a couple of different plans that have been developed which would switch the American power grid completely over to solar by 2070. The total cost is estimated at about 300 billion dollars, if I remember correctly. One such plan was the cover article in Scientific American in January. This particular plan would have the US free from foreign oil by 2050 with solar power producing 69% of all electricity and 35% of the total energy needs of the nation. It would also cut the US carbon emissions per year by roughly two thirds by 2050. This plan would cost the federal government approximately 400 billion dollars over the next 40 years. So, if you figure that's 10 billion dollars per year, it's really not that much. Interesting article, if anyone is interested, I recommend it.

[spurgistan]

Geothermal FTW!

We don't all live in Iceland, ya know.

Viking bastards.

[Frigidus]

I didn't read the whole thread, but I thought folks might be interested to know that there are a couple of different plans that have been developed which would switch the American power grid completely over to solar by 2070. The total cost is estimated at about 300 billion dollars, if I remember correctly. One such plan was the cover article in Scientific American in January. This particular plan would have the US free from foreign oil by 2050 with solar power producing 69% of all electricity and 35% of the total energy needs of the nation. It would also cut the US carbon emissions per year by roughly two thirds by 2050. This plan would cost the federal government approximately 400 billion dollars over the next 40 years. So, if you figure that's 10 billion dollars per year, it's really not that much. Interesting article, if anyone is interested, I recommend it.

Somehow I know that it won't happen. There's somebody who benefits from the current situation who has deep enough pockets that they'll bury anything like this.

[Colossus]

That is the trouble, isn't it? It does seem to me, though, like many of the big oil companies have seen the writing on the wall and have started to acknowledge the need for a move toward alternative energy sources. That is not entirely a bad thing, as it indicates that it WILL happen eventually. It is a bad thing, though, in that it places much of the control over such a movement in the hands of the same folks who have been behind the overwhelming power of the fossil fuel industry....which of course means that a shift to alternative fuels will be done in the slowest and most fossil-fuel-consuming way possible.

[gdeangel]

There are only two things wrong with oil:

1) The demand is inelastic. It doesn't matter who has it, who controls it, and who doesn't, unless aggregate demand follows the "can't go without it" model.

2) Burning oil releases gasses that, over time and regulated/monitored in an irresponsible fashion, causes destruction of other valuable resources (i.e., biodiversity, environment, clean air, clean water/acid rain, etc.)

The same two issues apply to EVERY ONE of the options on your list. Even solar has habitat issues if not properly regulated, I mean, we could pave the swamps of Florida to set up solar panel fields there??

Overreliance on exogenous feuls - whatever they are - means economic collapse when those fuels become unavailable. How far can you look out to determine abudant supply. Solar will be around for millions of years, but then again, you can be sure whether on any day it will actually be sunny or cloudy. Nuclear will only be around as long as you can produce and maintain technitians, instruments, and facilities in which to create the energy. Water can be pretty reliable, but, as mentioned by others, it is particularly problematic on issue #2... loss of environment. Dams destroy habitat plain and simple. And even then you can have long-term watershed depletion much the same way that oil and natural gas wells become depleted.

The only real solution is to consume less energy buy living closer to where we work, by not "jet setting" around the globe, by buying "local" produce and game, and, yes, like grandpa used to say, turning off the lights and turning down the heat.

So why don't we do those things now, and why won't we do those things even though some places uses nuclear effectively, some use hydro, etc. etc. The answer is that energy is TOO CHEAP, and the cost of living in a shit-hole inner-city (i.e., most American cities large enough to have a sustaining economic base) is either OVERPRICED do to unregulated and unproductive RENT SEEKING BEHAVIOR and by a COMPLETE BREAKDOWN BENEATH THE SURFACE OF THE ABILITY TO ENFORCE CIVIL ORDER.

I posit that these issues are a product of a sort-of twisted liberalism where governments try to manage things so that "nobody gets treated unfairly". Take away the energy subsidies. Stop using the army to support hereditary kingdoms that will sell us cheap fuel. Put money into taking back the inner cities - not just funding the entitlements that allow them to limp along as cess pools. Implement a methodology of social responsibility that starts by not just intruding into personal freedome when someone says an offensive word - intrude where it will do some good, but putting children of unfit parents into homes where they can learn to be socially responsible members of a society that values thrift, economy, and respect for others and the environment.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

It will never happen.

[bedub1]

f you want to get rich, make a better battery. There is an infinite supply of "power" already everywhere around us....in the wind, the sun, gravity of falling water, splitting of atoms etc.

The problem isn't the generation of power, it's the storage and transfer of power. The US has a power grid, that generates just enough power to meet demand. Instead of trying to maintain a perfect equilibrium...as much power as possible can be generated and stored efficiently...."everything" could just run off batteries and all power generated would be used to charge and recharge the batteries.

Invent a better battery, and all our problems will be solved. Electric cars would be perfect if the batteries were half as heavy and lasted 100-1000 times longer. Even a 10 fold increase in storage capacity/life would be incredible, and finally make the vehicle usable.

[MeDeFe]

A ten-fold increase in battery capacity would put electric cars roughly on par with what we currently have in terms of range on one fill. I saw a program about that the other week, and every alternative from bio-diesel made of canola over biomass to ethanol, no matter how it was produced, lost out to using the materials for producing electricity. The only problem, as has been pointed out, are the batteries.
The best bet is probably to work on improving the efficiency of solar panels, in the same program they calculated that solar power in a sunny place like the arabic peninsula from an area the size of North-Rhine Westphalia (34k sqkm) could provide all of Europe (10M sqkm) with all the energy it needs today. Even with todays standards the loss of transporting the energy from there to Europe would not exceed 10%.

I guess the world will never be rid of the Middle East as an energy source.

[Skoffin]

We should turn people into batteries, that would solve two problems at once! population and energy.

[Neoteny]

I think the best bet requires one kilometer of PVC pipe and a complex system of ropes and pulleys.