Future Energy Choices

Hail!

Quote :

Anyway, has anyone noticed the new ranking system yet?

Oh yes I was going to post yesterday to see what my rank was but was too lazy to even do that B)

Well, I guess nows the moment of truth

Colonial Resident... ayay!

I suppose you're now ready for the Writer's Guild. Now where did I post those vows...

Oh and hail to Temporal too. I forgot to mention him in my "hail" post.


And now a moment of silence for Japan.

I thought you meant Temporal when you wrote TV.

*plays Taps and holds right hand to heart simultaneously*

A moment in silence for Japan indeed. Their nuclear reactors reacting to the earthquake isn't helping them either...

Yeah. I just hope it doesn't stall the US and its process of making new nuclear power plants.

Nuclear power plants = bad. Solar panels don't kill people after earthquakes.

Solar Panels = Not efficient enough or affordable enough

Nuclear Power = Most efficient energy source and extremely safe as long as you don't build them over geological hot spots

Solar panel = Well... yeah, I know. But they don't kill many people.

Nuclear power= Non-renewable, nuclear waste, Chernobyl.

Solar panel = What if one falls on someone or something?

Nuclear power = Question. What do they do with nuclear waste? And, as far as I know, nuclear power is also considered to be a green energy.

They store it in some facility for a few hundred years until its not radioactive. It's not a green energy, I think.

You store it in underground bunkers till it decomposes, in water.

Three Miles Island = Nothing what's so ever

Hype = Nuclear Winter!!1!!11!

Chernobyl = Idiot Soviets

Idiot Soviets...

The internet's international, which I think includes Russia.

Yeah well, what if terrorists go and blow up your nuclear power plant. What then?

Yeah, I'm not saying Russians are stupid, just at the time the builders were less then cautious with the project.

What if terrorists go and blow up your oil rig or your solar panels?

(I know there's the lack of radiation but just stick the things away from large communities AKA deserts, islands, etc)

Well if they blew up the oil rig that would suck... (But oils a terrible energy source anyway) and the solar panel would just... blow up.

So would a nuclear powerplant. Just with radiation. So stick it away from human populations. (again, deserts)

Lolz Argument...

Technically the world is a geological hotpot. An earthquake can easily effect anywhere in the world. Missouri is no where near plates, but as we know the New Madrid fault line is fairly powerful. The Bad part? At least six Nuclear reactors are within a 7.0s range.

The only place that is not a geologic hotspot near Earth is the moon. and that is hardly doable.

Solar panels are pointless...

Wind Turbines cost too much to maintain.

Burning Dinosaurs and old plants is stupid.

((Clean energy is not clean. as the materials are made of the earth in factories. These factories are not powered by clean energy. The world would be much cleaner if we didn't try to make this crap we don't need.))

My solution?
Harness the power of the earth. One Earthquake powered generator could power a lot even at 50% efficiency. Put them on various fault lines. How this would work? I have no Idea but kinetic energy is easily transferred to heat then Electricity.

If this doesn't work, well, the next step is fusion power, which is very close and could be developed as a prototype before the turn of the next century.

Personally, I'd go for wind, wave, tidal, water and geothermal energy saurces. I like your tectonic power generation idea, but wouldn't that be, like, really expencive?


Anywho, what is this topic doing on this topic?

Geothermal and Nuclear all the way baby!

Well, were we ever on topic with this? I should just change the title because this topic is actually pleasant and relevant.

Well. I guess the size of a nuclear generator is my worry.

Never thought of tidal energy... I see a barnacle, muscle, clam, bivalves-in-general problem as they would clog any impeller used to generator energy. And a wave energy generator would break very easily. Tsunami death prone.

Although every energy source has a pro and a con, as you are taking energy from something with lots of energy, and this will be one or more of three things. Dangerous, Inefficient, Difficult to get the object which has a lot of energy.

Hmmmm...

So then you find the energy source where the pros outweigh the cons.

With nuclear fission, the cons outweigh the pros, in my opinion. Radiation is bad.

Speaking of radiation, did you know that if you ate one hundred million bananas you would die of fatal radiation poisoning? Or something like that. I'm unsure of the number.

Everything is radioactive.

Just not very. It's from radioactive particles spread out everywhere.