There's still more to it than that.

If there were tons of solar farms for example, more sunlight would be reflected back into space (I don't recall an issue with it, it's been a while). Then with wind farms, you need enough wind to keep the blades constantly turning, you need hundreds of them just to generate enough power to match something like a coal or gas plant, and then you need a ton of space to put all of those windmills.

The population will really have to step it up to clean things up in the world. Cleaner and renewable resources are only a small percentage of the total energy requirement of the world and the rest of it keeps on increasing each year.

You really (REALLY) need to stop reading one sided environmentalist propaganda and think that you’re really getting a clear picture.

People assume that nuclear reactors produce a lot of dangerous waste materials, and are at high risk of meltdowns, because of the nuclear reactor designs that became popular within the United States, Britan and Russia; and these designs were choosen primarily because they could be shrunk down to be put onto a Nuclear submarine.

For a wide variety of reasons, Canadians adopted a very different design in the 1950s and 1960s when they designed the CANDU reactor which is far safer both because it is far less likely to melt down and because it uses natural fuel (rather than enriched uranium) which isn't that much different from how uranium is found in the environment.

In my opinion we may eventually be in a place where we can produce enough energy from renewable resources that we don't need Nuclear energy or energy produce by fossil fuels, but this is still a very long way off ... A worthwhile goal would be to aim for 10% to 20% of energy to be produce from renewable resources to encourage investment in the technologies.

Alternative energy won't be massivly viable for ATLEAST 10 years.

So if you want to get anything done that will cut down on carbon emmissions the real question is "Nuclear or Nothing."

Anyone who purports renewable energy at this point are really just purporting stalling and hoping.

The Renewable energy lobby is all about profit as well.

By holding off on Nuclear, it means more emmisions energy is used.... and when renewable is workable... how much you want to be a few gas companys will be the ones who own all the designs.

Nuclear is a good source to use till we have viable alternative sources.

Solar panels are just getting to the point where they can actually generate electricity at decent level. This will be our most valuable alternative source.

Wind and water power is ok at best but viable only for small towns near the waterways so this is a no go.

Nuclear Fusion cannot happen due to the fact the universe always needs a transfer of energy from one state to another. You cannot create an unlimited power source without having some ultimate ramifications affecting some critical component in our Universe.

That energy source used in the movie Iron Man. That is possible... maybe. Just in battery tech?

The solar tech in Gundam 00. That would be interesting to see if it can be done.

nuclear all the way, renewable is for sissies

Yeah, I know there's alot to it, this (and physics) is what I'm majoring in. Solar at least, we've not done much on wind.

Solar cells don't provide as much energy per metre squared as a coal plant, it is true. Even with proper funding to get the efficiency up further, it still wont. But you can put solar panels on every roof in a city, hence providing each house with most of its energy needs whilst taking up no room.

I agree it will be a long time until we can go 100% renewable, but we should be deffinately trying to get more and more each year.

With hydroelectricity, there have been thousands upon thousands of damns built in the US. They can hurt the ecosystem and and are only build to last so long before they can endanger nearby areas by a collapse.

lol, I'm recalling my recent geology class and the pages upon pages of notes. You really can't have a simple answer to a problem, there are so many factors involved it's instane.

I think we should use a combination of both.

The answer is both. And it is stupid not to use both.

Renewable is problematic because it has some problems with efficiency, but to some degree that is rapidly changing. You have solar panels today that use much better technology that reflect light and use it so much more efficiently than previous models that it isn't even funny. Even wind turbines are much better than before, not to mention you can put them on land that essentially isn't being used for anything else. They are profitable, so I don't really see how someone could be against them. Its almost anti-capitalistic.

Nuclear is phenomenal in terms of efficiency, but has some messy side effects. You can cope with this by putting the nuclear waste in rock formations that do not allow it to seep through at any appreciable rate (France does this). But then you have to deal with the PR machine to make it look OK, not to mention you can only store so much nuclear waste.

Ideally, we need to find a cost efficient way to ship nuclear waste into space or to somehow make it non-radioactive (create some kind of enzyme or engineer some kind of bacteria that can do this). The second option is far-fetched, but people once said flying was far-fetched, not to mention using nuclear energy.

But anyone who is strongly against either nuclear energy or renewable energy is more or less just plain foolish.

Your going to get biased material from both sides of the argument.

Honestly, you need a comprehensive package on both the renewable, and non-renewable sides, because neither side provides complete answers.

Non-Renewables such as Nuclear and Clean Coal are pretty good choices, as the power output they provide far outweighs renewables, takes up less space, and is less invasive and easier to place in very specific areas. You cannot have all of America's electricity produced in a corridor in Nevada, or the Dakotas like renewables demand. Coal/Nuclear is much more flexible in that regard.

On the other hand, where applicable, renewables are a good choice, as they do, theoretically, provide a decent alternative in Solar and Wind, but aren't quite as developed as the NR's. Renewables must be pursued, because if they are developed properly, can easily surpass NR's - but may take decades to reach that point (whereas America is going to outstrip it's electrical demand in 2-3 years in most regions)...NR's can't be built at the pace we need them, at the moment.


All forms of eletricity generation - Nuclear, Coal, Solar, Hydro and Wind are going to be invasive to the environment. Turbines and Dams will change ecological patterns in their native areas. Solar will deflect sunlight which may cause problems. Likewise, Coal/Nuclear have their own problems and produce emissions, and require mining operations to dig for their power sources.

Oh, and FYI - Current costs per watt for industrial-capacity (that is, generated by massive stations), via the Royal Academy of Engineering of the UK (2004):

Coal: 2.5-3.4 Pounds Per Kilowatt Hour
Natural Gas: 2.1-3.1 Pounds Per Kilowatt Hour
Nuclear: 2.2 Pounds Per Kilowatt Hour
Biomass: 6.8 Pounds Per Kilowatt Hour
Offshore Wind Farm: 7.2 Pounds Per Kilowatt Hour
Onshore Wind Farm: 5.5 Pounds Per Kilowatt Hour
Wave & Marine: 6.7 Pounds Per Kilowatt Hour

To me, that's pretty damning of renewables as currently affordable. Although they're needed, it's important to understand that the cost to consumers for such power would be, and will be, very expensive, and sometimes unreliable due to the fickle nature of some renewable's generation methods.

So again - We need both types, and in generous amounts. Nuclear seems to be the most viable option for non-renewable (due to abundant supply and rather affordable), and Solar is the best option for renewables (as technology will drive down costs better than most other renewable methods).