First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
Which energy source are you most sympathetic towards?
Posted 2/23/16
Other?

Comment below
Banned
17503 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / B.C, Canada
Offline
Posted 2/23/16
Fossil fuel is a dead end, only so much to go around. Solar relies on good weather and those panels take punishment about as well as a schoolgirl takes a mace to the head . Wind turbines are fragile things and are also weather dependent. Nuclear is just plain stupid, that waste remains lethal for way too damn long and a single malfunction turns a plant into a fucking 20 megaton bomb ya know.

I wanna say Hydroelectricity but even that does a number on the environment. Really is there a single decent and reliable way to generate electricty on the scale a modern society needs?
7420 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/23/16 , edited 2/23/16
Fuel Cells for personal/home use.

Fusion for industrial use.

Solar for space-based industries.

As for fossil fuels - hydrocarbon based fuels can be easily created using only water + carbon dioxide. It's just not as cost efficient as existing hydrocarbons.

http://phys.org/news/2016-02-proven-one-step-co2-liquid-hydrocarbon.html
10228 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / United Kingdom
Offline
Posted 2/23/16
Fossil fuel will soon run out apparently. Nuclear is rather dangerous. There seems to be a hell of a lot of people in my area sticking solar panels up so there must be something in it
Posted 2/23/16
No doubt about it, totally nuclear.
Wind or solar?
18092 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
16 / F
Offline
Posted 2/23/16
Nuclear energy is one of the cleanest but it's non-renewable and super expensive.

My vote goes for solar... until it disappears eventually
97968 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
68 / M / Columbia, MO
Offline
Posted 2/23/16
So far solar is most efficient when used in small applications. Hopes of harnessing this technique for larger projects have produced lackluster results. That dilemma may change as time goes on, better delivery / conversion applications get developed.

Wind sounds great on paper and promotion but unintended consequences, parts reliance, and government subsidy caps have tempered its potential. Out in Kansas certain co-op utilities have found that rattlesnakes are quite found of choosing the base interior as habitat. This can be disconcerting if you, the repairman, have to access a motor problem located a few stories above. Certain migratory birds have not fared well either.

Nuclear was thought to be a great provider / source of energy back in the day but fast forward 50 years as either unforeseen or ignored storage facility location problems, soil percolation, container shelf life radiation deficiencies are offsetting the advantages. Alas, the human race may eventually become the glow in the dark race because of our ignorance about radiation.

Fossil fuels, identified as a bogeyman by many, are still needed to run a lot of the infrastructure in today's world. Possibly, everyone / every application can be weaned from it in due time but it's not going to happen today or next week.

Cold fusion has promise. If any of the platitudes about its potential are true this process could account for a great source of power for our needs at very reasonable cost moving forward. Cold fusion purportedly can make fossil fuel application almost obsolete once it gets perfected for public use. We'll see. You may live long enough to see that. Unsure if I'll be around though.

It's going to be a combination of all applications (plus those not mentioned) for now. I don't think fossil fuel importance will be diminished near term.
9787 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F / Johnstown, PA, USA
Offline
Posted 2/23/16 , edited 2/23/16
Of these; wind.




Mostly because of Simcity.
6782 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M
Offline
Posted 2/24/16
Nuclear; there's still a lot of potential that could come out of it if we put enough research into it.
Although, right now it's a pretty destructive source.
89194 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / in your head
Offline
Posted 2/24/16
nuclear, tho right of now we are still INCAPABLE of utilizing that IMO. We know the BASICS and even tho we do, we still cannot fully comprehend it and what we 'maintain' at nuclear facilities is nothin' more than 'disabled suns' as I call them; plus I do believe that fully grasping that technology will allow us to make CLEAN energy WITHOUT nuclear waste.

One day ...
Posted 2/24/16
solar energy
seems to be the most useful and eco friendly
5087 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/24/16
Other: I prefer Coffee as my energy source................................. hah.
16415 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / east coast. Let t...
Offline
Posted 2/24/16
I'm sympathetic towards nuclear energy.... because nobody loves it.
Ba Dum Tis
24681 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Aberystwyth, Wale...
Offline
Posted 2/24/16

Ranwolf wrote:Nuclear is just plain stupid, that waste remains lethal for way too damn long and a single malfunction turns a plant into a fucking 20 megaton bomb ya know.


Actually I don't know. Please, elaborate, what single malfunction can create a supercritical mass in a normal fission reactor? What were those idiots at the Manhattan project doing, that they pretended to be the greatest physicists of their time but they took years of effort to design and build a mere 20 kiloton bomb? How did it take until the invention of the Teller-Ulam design and the fusion bomb for yields of the order of 20 megatons to be reached? Why can North Korea only make 10kt devices?

The fact that people as ignorant about nuclear power, nuclear physics, nuclear anything, are allowed to vote on issues relating to nuclear power are the reason we still use coal, and the cause of all the deaths we can attribute to coal power stations - including the radiation deaths, from trace uranium in coal, which vastly outnumber radiation deaths from nuclear power.
Banned
17503 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / B.C, Canada
Offline
Posted 2/24/16 , edited 2/24/16

Rowan93 wrote:



Actually I don't know. Please, elaborate, what single malfunction can create a supercritical mass in a normal fission reactor? What were those idiots at the Manhattan project doing, that they pretended to be the greatest physicists of their time but they took years of effort to design and build a mere 20 kiloton bomb? How did it take until the invention of the Teller-Ulam design and the fusion bomb for yields of the order of 20 megatons to be reached? Why can North Korea only make 10kt devices?

The fact that people as ignorant about nuclear power, nuclear physics, nuclear anything, are allowed to vote on issues relating to nuclear power are the reason we still use coal, and the cause of all the deaths we can attribute to coal power stations - including the radiation deaths, from trace uranium in coal, which vastly outnumber radiation deaths from nuclear power.


And people think I am bad. Was I exaggerating, of course. Did I actually show fossil fuel a single iota of support no I did not. Is the threat of the waste by-products Nuclear Energy produces real, yes it is. Is the damage malfunctioning Nuclear plants have done to the landscape over the decades since Fission was discovered real and well documented yes.

So mate how about you stop making me looking polite and well thought out.
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.