What is everyone view point on alternative energy, IE, solar and wind production?
Particularly anyone in the Europe, Denmark vicinity!
Anabolic Member
What is everyone view point on alternative energy, IE, solar and wind production?
Particularly anyone in the Europe, Denmark vicinity!
Banned
I don't think we have come far enough to ultilize it yet
Anabolic Member
What makes you say that hun?
Banned
it's so new ppl don't trust itOriginally Posted by needmorestrength
English Rudeboy
What's to trust or not trust?
The sun will shine.
The wind will blow.
Banned
not necessarily.. we're relying on nature...
And with the way things r going.. i think people tend to shy away from new ways of doing things.. IMO
Every one wants other people to try it out, and see how it goes before they're willing to do it.
also if im not correct doesnt some of these things cost alot to impliment?
English Rudeboy
Yes necessarily! If the sun stops shining we all die and if the wind stops blowing our weather system has crashed!
True.
Retired: AR-Hall of Famer
I think wind and solar power might have a future. But it will never be able to replace oil. What we need to do is build LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS of nuclear power plants. That is the only energy source that can replace oil until we have fusion power.
Breeder reactors produce more fissile matter then they consume. Just rig up a buttload of those and we will have energy for atleast the next 10 thousand years.
In swede we are lucky that we have so much hydroelectric power. Most of our electricity come from nuclear and hydroelectric plants. But because of the morons and idiots in this country we are dismantling our nuclear reactors. Pisses me off. Everyone shit there pants after chernobyl and now they think fission is the devil. Uneducated, ignorant ****s like that shouldnt be able to vote.
Anabolic Member
Its a question of money as well. Is it cheaper to produce/import energy as in oil or is it cheaper to produce alternative energy? Right now, technology permits us to to extract crude oil fairly cheaply.
Also a combination of what I just said and raising oil prices make it worthy to extract oil from previously avoided areas(due to costs) as in Alberta and Alaska.
Albeit, I agree that producing these "alternatives" will eventually be unevitable.Technology is always evolving so it will make economic sense and sound environmental practice (for you leftists).
Some are claiming eventually to produce energy from H2O, so go figure.
Also we must consider politics in all this, sometimes the power to be have interest in keeping oil consumption, i.e they are stakeholders in oil companies.
Retired: AR-Hall of Famer
solar cell panels needs to be cut in price atleast to 1/5 of today while increasing efficiency for them to be close to compete economicaly with other energy sources.
Retired: AR-Hall of Famer
The one way to make solar cell panels work would be to have them in orbit around earth and send the energy down to ground with microwaves. The technology to do this already exists. It would be a HUGE investment at first but it would also be the most cost effective energy source ever.
Retired: AR-Hall of Famer
I hate greenpeace and the other enviromental activists that stands in the way for nuclear power. The idiots doesnt even understand they are shooting themself in the foot by doing so, since there is no cleaner power.
Anabolic Member
!!
Well places such as Denmark, 50% of there power comes from Wind!! They seem to have no problems!!
Retired: AR-Hall of Famer
acctualy denmark get 20% from windpower. They hope to increase it to 35% before 2015
Anabolic Member
Yes I agree. At least subsidize them. There within lies the problem. Its a conflict of interest because do you think Dubya is interested in losing his oil assets and is essence start his own downfall? Sure they could do more by funding R&D more but they dont give a fvck. "Lets just terrorize our citizens and go to war on false pretenses, so that we can become more affluent". Its ludicrous but reality
Associate Member
We have windpower here in California. I think the less oil we use the better. Natural energy sources ae also great for the environment.
Anabolic Member
well perhaps its holland? one is close to 40 or 50 %
Anabolic Member
How do you figure bud? I agree prices need to go down, and they are... But an average off grid system has a PB period of 7-9 years, while running maintanace free for around 20 years! Also solar hot water heaters are becoming ever more efficient, and more applicable.. Things like Ground source heat pumps are also awsome ways to reduce energy costs, which ultimatly decreases the GHGs produced
Retired: AR-Hall of Famer
nah. Check this site
http://www.windpower.org/en/futuresupply.htm
denmark is the world leading windpower nation with 20% of used energy coming from wind. 20% is a shitload anyway
But keep in mind denmark is a small country with a population of a few million. There is more people in a big american city then there is in denmark. Same with sweden. So we can much more easily switch our powersupply around.
The nordic countries are pretty advanced when it comes to enviromental friendly energy. Norweigan statkraft(the state run power company) is right now researching a new way of producing energy from the reaction betwen salt and fresh water. I hope that project will be succesfull since plants like that can be built wherever there is a river.
Retired: AR-Hall of Famer
There is still the startup cost of a solar power plant. Right now they are not efficient enough(the solar panels) nor cheap enough for anyone to invest in it.
Im gonna try and dig up a list with the cost per kilowatt for each source of energy. I know nuclear is cheapest followed by coal.
Retired: AR-Hall of Famer
http://www.uic.com.au/nip08.htm
http://www.countryguardian.net/gener...sts_report.pdf
This is the price(p/kWh) to produce electricity in the UK. Solar wasnt on this list.
Nuclear 2.3
Gas-fired CCGT 2.2
Coal pulverised fuel 2.5
Coal fluidised bed 2.6
Onshore wind 3.7
Offshore wind 5.5
Retired: AR-Hall of Famer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_p...voltaic_panelsThe real issue with solar panels is the capital cost, as shown at the net energy gain article, requiring up to over 7 years recovery period before any profit is made, out of a 40+ year useful life. In contrast, nuclear or coal plant recovers its capital cost in under a mere month
Retired: AR-Hall of Famer
cant find any good comparison
this one compares every energy source but I dont know how the hell to intepret it
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/archive/.../pdf/tbl38.pdf
Anabolic Member
Hmm thats awsome thanx bud.. I cant imagine the start up cost of a Solar power plant.. But for home/businesses, why not?
The thing with Nuclear is what do we do with the waste? What happens IF there is a meltdown (i kno slim chance)... And coal well hell... People need to understand that GHG's NEED to be cut down on NOW.. its no good to talk about doing something.. Action is needed, therefore Coal Is OUT!
Retired: AR-Hall of Famer
yeah for home and business its cool and if the cells get cut in price I hope many homes will invest in it and get maby 50% of the electricity they need from the panels.
About nuclear power. We have methods to morph the long time radioactive isotops into other fissile matter that is only radioactive for 100 years or so. We can also put the waste from one nuclear plant into another specialy built nuke plant and continute to get energy this way. So the waste isnt realy a issue. Its just a scarecrow the greens like to toss around all the time. But get this. This procedure is against the law in the united states!!!! Some idiotic thing the greens managed to push through. Thank good we europenas dont follow that idiocity.
One other thing. There is lots and lots and lots of regular toxic waste that will be dangerous for ever that is harder to store then nuclear waste. But yet again this is a thing media and greens ignore, cause we all know nuclear power is the big boggeyman
You can also build reactors that cant physicaly meltdown. They automaticly, by there design shut down if a critical point is reached and reactors not built in that way have so many automatic checks that a meltdown is incredibly unlikely.
Ironicly I also feel that chernobyl acctualy shows how safe nuclear power is. Because chernobyl only happened because the dude running the plan shut down EVERY safety mechanism in order to run a test with the coolant shut down. All his advisors told him not to do it but he stubbornly pushed on. Only by doing such a dramatic thing is a meltdown even possible and that was in the old plants with non optimal designs.
There is more radiactive waste release into the atmosphere from coal power then from nuclear power since there is residues in coal. You dont hear any green say that though
As you can tell I love nuclear power
China and india is leading the way now. China is going to build several hundrad new nuclear power plants(right now there are only 400 or so in the world) and india is investing heavily in breeder reactor technology since they have so much thorium.
Retired: AR-Hall of Famer
The one issue I have with nuclear power is the mining. Mines of all kinds are so ****ing poluting. But I guess that it something we have to live with unfortunaly.
Retired: AR-Hall of Famer
Last edited by Kärnfysikern; 12-18-2005 at 06:20 AM.
Retired: AR-Hall of Famer
If we want to switch from a oil economy to a hydrogen economy nuclear power is curcial. Also one of the byproducts of nuclear power plants just happens to be hydrogen
Retired: AR-Hall of Famer
Also not to come off as to negative. I am all for solar and wind power. But as of right now they are just not realistic. Only type of solar power that would be able to compete with nuclear power is solar power stations in orbit around the earth.
I acctualy hold the oppinion that if we dont start building massive ammounts of nucler power plants NOW it will be to late. We need to get away from oil dependacy as fast as possible.
Retired: AR-Hall of Famer
So everyone. When you se a enviromental activist. Make sure to kick em in the nutsuntil they get a more sane approach they should be harassed.
Retired: AR-Hall of Famer
One of the leaders of greenpeace btw went over to the nuclear side when he realise its the most enviromental friendly energy.
He got kicked out of greenpeace as a result
Retired: AR-Hall of Famer
Junior Member
Cant buy a power source that creates a form of waste that will make you drop dead if you walk within 10 feet of it.
Our problem is not a lack of energy, our problem is we use too much, decreasing consumption will decrease pollution and make resources last longer.
I have done a bit on nuke power and will do more when my bothersome job gets out of the way.
http://marketingtheworld.com/nuclear...owerdanger.php
Retired: AR-Hall of Famer
I dont have time to read the site right now. But I will get to it in a few hours. Just a quick reply.
The danger of radioactive waste is hugely overblown. With transmutation we can bring down the waste storage time to 100 years or less. Most of the waste can be used to produce more energy. The risk of meltdown is nonexistant with modern reactor design. Its physicaly impossible for them to meltdown.
Energy consumption will NEVER go down and I thank god for that. As our technology advances energy consumption will increase 10 fold. The energy we use now will be phatetic compered to the energy we use in 100 years. Trying to stop energy consumption is to try and stop progress. I have no intention or will to live in a primitive society. Energy production DOESNT HAVE TO BE BAD. Solar panels in orbit is a effective, non poluting, cheap(once the stuff is there)source of unlimited energy. Fusion power when we master it will be another cheap, unlimited, nonpoluting energy source.
Regular nuclear power is also clean. Storage is a non issue that enviromental fanatics has blown WAY out of proportion.
What they dont realise is that they are shooting themself in the foot by doing so. They force us to use more fossile fuel to get electricity. Way to goUltimately refusing to use nuclear power might lead to war over the remaining oil fields. Oil will run out in the not to distant future. But there is fuel for nuclear plants for the next 100 000 years.
When it comes to storing the last remnants of waste that can not be reused in breeder reactors. They are stored in waste contains that are bombproof. There is no imaginable scenario where a container could possibly break. Its close to impossible.
There is far more dangerous waste then radioactive waste. Chemical waste for instance. much of it toxic FOR EVER and in ammounts that far exceeds the worlds combined nuclear waste deposits.
Radioactivity has become the boggyman since chernobyl and three mile island. Even though those 2 incidents clearly show how safe nuclear power is. Both plants had subpar design, in both instances gross neglect led to the incidents.
Retired: AR-Hall of Famer
Realise that the world will never cut down on energy usage. Its like trying to tell a hurricane to stop blowing. Even if by some miracle the western world managed to cut down on energy usage the slight cut down would be minisculed compared to the increases in india and china.
There is no idea to even hold on to that idea since it is totaly unrealistic and totaly against human nature.
Junior Member
Well don't find the excuse that we are too greedy to protect ourselves from destruction to be much of an argument but I guess if we do destroy ourselves that would be one solution to the problem.
Global corporations push the fallacy of a never-ending increase in the Gross World Product and that is a mindless and suicidal philosophy. The basis of all world production is resources. And as anyone with an ounce of logic can see the amount of resources is limited, to consume without a thought of restricting consumption is like having enough hay to feed 10 cows for the winter so you go out and buy 20 cows, odds are all your cows will die. However we ignore the unchangeable rules of nature, she will ignore our ignorance and let us die.
Last edited by wolfuncle; 12-18-2005 at 03:02 PM.
Retired: AR-Hall of Famer
resources as in energy is not by any stretch of the imagination limited. From nuclear power alone we have energy for thousands of years even with exponential increase in consumption. If we get fusion working we have by all means unlimited energy. If that wouldnt be enough we have all the energy the sun radiates at us.
With more energy aviable we will be able to go away from this planet. If mines run out on earth we can begin to mine asteroids. If we can produce enough energy we will have acess to the unlimited resources of the entire solar system. If we on the other hand try to restrain ourself now we will find ourself stuck on a barren earth without resources or future. Forced to live as animals again. Maby that is what some eco terrorists wants. But it surely isnt what I or the rest of the world wants.
ONLY by trying to limit progress by decreasing energy consumption will we find ourself in a position where we dont have anything. We have to spend energy to find new ways of producing energy!!!
I will repeate. There is NO REASON WHAT SO EVER TO LIMIT ENERGY CONSUMPTION in the long run!!!! Not any enviromental reason(there are plenty of clean chooises), not any logical reason(we will limit our progress), certanly not any humane reason(underdeveloped countries will never increase there standard of living).
Member
I din't go through everybodys posts , but within 6 months I sould be powering my truck with waste oil for free , and pushing 350HP .
And i'll be heating my house for free by next winter , which beats the 300$ natural gas bill I just got .
Anabolic Member
bio-diesel eh.... are you running SVO? or WVO?
Banned
im all for cars that run of cow farts
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
