Renuclear sources (both), until we can find the ultimate source.
| mrstickball said: 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). |
what about Solar? its missing in that list.
and look up 3D Solar panels. Its 500% more efficient than current solar panels using the same tech we have now.
| ssj12 said:
what about Solar? its missing in that list.
and look up 3D Solar panels. Its 500% more efficient than current solar panels using the same tech we have now. |
This. Solar panels really have come a long way.
We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls. The only thing that really worried me was the ether. There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke
It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...." Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson
ssj12 said:
what about Solar? its missing in that list. and look up 3D Solar panels. Its 500% more efficient than current solar panels using the same tech we have now. |
The list didn't have Solar. But it really depends on the kind of solar your using. Systems range from 51p/kWh for residential (2 kWh generation), to 41p/kWh for larger commercial operations (100 kWh generation). I *do* believe prices come down to around 20p/kWh for industrial-scale plants are in the mix, but it's still well above other methods, currently.
You can say that 3D solar panels are vastly more efficent (and they are), but that doesn't take into considerations the costs of producing said 3d panels vs. traditional 2d panels. As far as I've seen, with all the 3d panel hype - There are no viable cost estimates on what the panels actually cost, nor a timeframe in which producing them for national (or local) electricity generation. They may be a great option down the road, but I don't see any news about plans to implement 3D panels - which makes me question their current viability.
Back from the dead, I'm afraid.
I'd like to point out that using the term "nuclear" like that refers only to nuclear fission. Nuclear fusion, generating power by combining light atoms, generates minimal radiation*, has a higher potential energy output than fission, has zero risk of "meltdown" (any failure would only affect the building itself), is cheap once set up, is clean and is renewable (uses hydrogen as fuel).
*The products aren't radioactive. The fuel is, but only weakly so and will obviously be used up in the process. The fuel only has a short half-life of 12 years, so there isn't a storage problem.
| Soleron said: I'd like to point out that using the term "nuclear" like that refers only to nuclear fission. Nuclear fusion, generating power by combining light atoms, generates minimal radiation*, has a higher potential energy output than fission, has zero risk of "meltdown" (any failure would only affect the building itself), is cheap once set up, is clean and is renewable (uses hydrogen as fuel). *The products aren't radioactive. The fuel is, but only weakly so and will obviously be used up in the process. The fuel only has a short half-life of 12 years, so there isn't a storage problem. |
Just that to get fusion, we would have to get the gas at hot as a star. I don't believe we can sustain that kind of heat at the moment.
IllegalPaladin said:
Just that to get fusion, we would have to get the gas at hot as a star. I don't believe we can sustain that kind of heat at the moment. |
I know. ITER is promising though. I just wanted to differentiate between nuclear fission and fusion so we don't get the kind of misinformed opposition that led to Greenpeace condemning it in the future.
PS360ForTheWin said:
if politicians did what they were elected to do and listened to the people then yes, unfortunatley the government has no intrest in public opinion |
Wow, do you even know why elections are used? Do you not know the function of the Lords?
Soleron said:
I know. ITER is promising though. I just wanted to differentiate between nuclear fission and fusion so we don't get the kind of misinformed opposition that led to Greenpeace condemning it in the future.
|
Fusion would be a great alternative if we could manage it. Lets hope we can some day without destroying the planet!
We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls. The only thing that really worried me was the ether. There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke
It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...." Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson
Soleron said:
I know. ITER is promising though. I just wanted to differentiate between nuclear fission and fusion so we don't get the kind of misinformed opposition that led to Greenpeace condemning it in the future.
|
Ignorant idiots.
Currently playing on PS3: God of War III
Currently playing on Xbox360: Final Fantasy XIII
Currently playing on NDS: Chrono Trigger
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2026 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
WHO IS JESUS REALLY?
