Poll: Energy
- Thread starter Timtom77
- Start date
Other: fusion. Unless you're counting that under "nuclear," in which case I am obligated to nerdrage at you for conflating fission with fusion. >:|
Anyway, fusion offers the cleanest energy, the cleanest emissions, and the most efficiency (in theory, but the only thing stopping us is the smaller details.)
Anyway, fusion offers the cleanest energy, the cleanest emissions, and the most efficiency (in theory, but the only thing stopping us is the smaller details.)
Actually, America is probably leading the industry in Nuclear energy (France might be ahead).Korolev said:
And we actually build alot of Nuclear plants to supplement our energy consumpion, for example, here is the power consumption graph, (2009,US govt.)
Finally, the public is actually open to nuclear power, and new methods of safely storing (and even reusing!) nuclear waste is currently being implimented (info obtained from National Geographic).
okay we need to do the high tech tax incentives, then we get fusion power plants in 2015 an- oh wait, we aren't playing simcity 3000...
still i think solar will largely replace fossil fuels sometime in the next ten years. wind energy just isn't cost effective, and geothermal/hydro need certain terrain and geographical features which just aren't widespread enough for common use. and biofuels which would solve the fossil fuels problem don't really solve the problem which they causing (i.e. greenhouse effect, climate change, global warming, etc. etc.). Nuclear is pretty common already it's just not putting out enough energy for a long enough time to make up for the waste and pollution it causes.
Solar is where it's at right now though. Solar panels are getting more and more complex and oddly cheaper and cheaper. seriously the governments of the world needs to get every household to just put a solar panel on their roof and alot of power problems would virtually disappear. really interesting stuff happening in that field.
still i think solar will largely replace fossil fuels sometime in the next ten years. wind energy just isn't cost effective, and geothermal/hydro need certain terrain and geographical features which just aren't widespread enough for common use. and biofuels which would solve the fossil fuels problem don't really solve the problem which they causing (i.e. greenhouse effect, climate change, global warming, etc. etc.). Nuclear is pretty common already it's just not putting out enough energy for a long enough time to make up for the waste and pollution it causes.
Solar is where it's at right now though. Solar panels are getting more and more complex and oddly cheaper and cheaper. seriously the governments of the world needs to get every household to just put a solar panel on their roof and alot of power problems would virtually disappear. really interesting stuff happening in that field.
Actually Sweden is the leader in nuclear power plants. they have the most of any country and might have the most advanced (as you said France may hold that honor...)Edible Avatar said:
Where i live, it snows half of the year (and rains a 1/3 of the time in the summer), so solar is out of the question; But there has been some success with wind turbines here.rayen020 said:
I hope the oil and gas industry never goes down, cos I'm hoping to get a career in it. There is still a lot of money in the oil industry.
I disagree with the anthropic global warming hypothesis, but I agree that we need to transition away from fossil fuels eventually because of the finite supply.
I don't think subsidizing economically inefficient solar panels is acceptable, that money should go to research to future solar panels that will be economically viable.
Nuclear fission is economically viable, but for someone who doesn't think human use of fossil fuels can cause the kind of disasters in Al Gore's movie, nuclear waste and coal/oil pollution are comparable, so I don't see a major incentive to build fission plants.
Replacing fossil fuels with solar and nuclear fusion will take many technological advances in materials science and physics. We need to fund these technologies with public money, but not just focusing on the narrow short term goals like building prototype reactors and cells, but also on fundamental technologies and science.
I don't think subsidizing economically inefficient solar panels is acceptable, that money should go to research to future solar panels that will be economically viable.
Nuclear fission is economically viable, but for someone who doesn't think human use of fossil fuels can cause the kind of disasters in Al Gore's movie, nuclear waste and coal/oil pollution are comparable, so I don't see a major incentive to build fission plants.
Replacing fossil fuels with solar and nuclear fusion will take many technological advances in materials science and physics. We need to fund these technologies with public money, but not just focusing on the narrow short term goals like building prototype reactors and cells, but also on fundamental technologies and science.
Aren't there other materials that can be used in place of metal? Synthetics or ceramics that don't rust or break down as easily?creationis apostate said:
Wind isn't exactly inefficient, I mean 1 windfarm near me with about 120 windmills provides power to 70,000 homes. I guess that's mostly because there's always wind in the area though, a place that doesn't have wind would be a little difficult to work with.