best power source?

[whatevah]

okay... I'm trying to move the off-topic posts about power source into a full thread...

what do you think the best power source is? (and why?)

[niv]

i'd say wind, solar, hydroelectric, and any other kind of renewable yet enviornmentally friendly resource. why? because i SAY so ;)

[whatevah]

okie... I'm for solar power... but it's mainly for small uses.. ie, a house.

it's cheap (once you pay for it, it keeps running...)
it doesn't have any harmful output..

I'm also for hydro-electric power... in some cases. (for those who have no idea what I'm talking about... water at a dam go through a turbine, spinning it, and creating electricity)

as long as you have water.. it'll keep going.. but, would require more expensive maintenance than solar, depending on the size of the power plant.
scale-able power... could power a small develpment, or a city.

[Gayowulf]

Sure hydroelectric is renewable, but it does serious irreparible damage to the river, and the river ecosystem it is placed on. Im not some greenpeacer, i have just seen resivoirs before, and i fell lucky to live on one of the few large riviers in my country that are undammed. Hydroelectric projects where i live power prety well the whole province, as well as california.

as ar as solar, it can be large scale i.e 100s of large mirrors focusing sunlight on a central tower with a boiler in it, or it can be per household.

as for the poll, technically oil based and coal should be the same. and those two plus nuclear rely on steam to produce the power

[whatevah]

yeah... I forgot to put the cons for hydro-electric... I'm getting tired...

I really hate dams... hydro-electric should only be put into existing dams, or onto small rivers, where it won't disrupt the water flow much... (and, it should have a shute so water can get around the dam... so fish wouldn't be blocked from going upstream)

[Gayowulf]

small rivers usually dont have enough waterflow, or a big enough valley to support a dam, but ther are generators out there that use a creek or small river to produce power, and at the same time dont obstruct it that much. there is one or two around here in remote areas that were origionally built by this techno freak. he invested a couple hundred thou in this generator, and everyone thought he was crazy. funny thing is hes a millionaire now, and the sole supplier of electricity in the area.

[niv]

I'm talking about hydroelectric plants where it will not disturb the flow of the river, i.e. Niagra Falls, NY

[polestar]

Solar and Nuclear energy is the way forward.

[Giancarlo]

Nuclear power is the best power source despite radiation problems. It produces the most power out of all of those... Wind and Solar Power are quite unreliable. Hydroelectric could also be unreliable if there is a drought. So I am for Nuclear and Petroleum Power.

[gyrbo]

Nuke power all that way!
[add]
Why? Just because there is enough of that stuff for at least a million years!

[Gayowulf]

Originally posted by Giancarlo
Nuclear power is the best power source despite radiation problems. It produces the most power out of all of those... Wind and Solar Power are quite unreliable. Hydroelectric could also be unreliable if there is a drought. So I am for Nuclear and Petroleum Power.

despite radiation problems :rolleyes: radiation problems that will affect progeny for hundreds of thousands of years. Wind and solar may be unreliable on a large scale basis, but if each community was responsible for supplying its own power, it would work.

Hydroelectric: im not sure of you knew or not, but most rivers that are dammed are quite large; a lack of rainfall doesnt really affect them that much. Why would a power company put a multimillion dollar project ona river that might dry up?

Petroleum is cheap, but it pollutes. It is the easy and cowardly way out.


The Bush Administration energy plan ignores high-tech, energy-efficient solutions in favor of increased oil, gas, coal, and nuclear production, while his budget proposal slashes funding for renewable energy and efficiency. He needs to think of the future.

[jw]

He wants a solutions to the california crisis NOW, renewable sources just dont create enough power fast enough to solve the california energy crisis.


Another note, what is hemp power? Never heard of generating electricity that way...


Oh, just one more note, steam isn't a source of power, all generation methods (except wind and water) generate steam which turns the rotors in the generators...they just use different methods of heating it, ie. sun, coal, natural gas, nuclear...etc...

[Gayowulf]

I dont want to sound ignorant, but maybe california should be a little more energy efficient. Bush seems more set on exploiting the resources of canada then anyhting else.

this (http://allvit.netfirms.com/monkeymovie.swf) , i think, summarizes is plans quite nicely

[gyrbo]

Originally posted by jw
Oh, just one more note, steam isn't a source of power, all generation methods (except wind and water) generate steam which turns the rotors in the generators...they just use different methods of heating it, ie. sun, coal, natural gas, nuclear...etc...
Well, there is one way, I believe it's called themic energy. It's generated by steam comming out of the ground. Vulcanic activity.

[Gayowulf]

yeah- geothermal. i mentioned it in that other thread. it is the main source of power in iceland

[timdawg]

PLASMA, the 4th state of matter.
There trying to use this as rocket fuel as a plasma engine could propell a space shuttle at phenomonal speed

[jason]

whats going on in california is price manipulation and pratically theft. some critics of bush say he created this in order to justify drilling in alaska and builing more coal and nuclear plants, i don't know if that is true and have my doubts but one thing is for sure the ppl of california being taken for a ride and someone is getting rich because of it.
and there is no such thing as hemp powered anything i just think its something that could replace gasoline and oil possibly. something to look into and see if it can be used because sooner or later theres going to be no more oil left to drill.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Gayowulf


despite radiation problems :rolleyes: radiation problems that will affect progeny for hundreds of thousands of years. Wind and solar may be unreliable on a large scale basis, but if each community was responsible for supplying its own power, it would work.

Well there are always consquences when using the best power source avaliable.


Hydroelectric: im not sure of you knew or not, but most rivers that are dammed are quite large; a lack of rainfall doesnt really affect them that much. Why would a power company put a multimillion dollar project ona river that might dry up?

Oh really? You think so? Look at Brazil, some of the largest Hydroelectricity damns are there, and lack of rain fall caused a major power crisis worse than that of California.


Petroleum is cheap, but it pollutes. It is the easy and cowardly way out.


The Bush Administration energy plan ignores high-tech, energy-efficient solutions in favor of increased oil, gas, coal, and nuclear production, while his budget proposal slashes funding for renewable energy and efficiency. He needs to think of the future.

There is cleaner burning Crude, which is usually refered as Light "Sweet" Crude. I think. And I can probably guess that you are a liberal. The Bush adminstration is doing the best and most economically saving plan that you can possible do. Nuclear Energy is not low tech, but is very high tech. What is so high tech about wind or solar power despite frequent outages? Natural Gas is less polutting than Light "Sweet" Crude is, but still has very little... another fossil fuel that should be looked into.

Stop going after Bush, he is doing the Republican Way of getting power. And is ensuring that there will be power for the future, unlike the Democratic Way where all you do is listen to environmentalists while power outages plague the country, and the economy shrinks.

[SplashHost.com]

Hamster power is the best :D

[lucifer]

The best way forward is to try to reduce power needs. Energy efficientcy could reduce huge amounts of demand especially in places like the us where things tend to be inefficient by nature. europe tends to be efficient already and could give the us a few pointers though there's still much to be done there too.

I vote for hydro (responsibly done) wind, solar, tidal and geothermal can be good too.

It depends on where you are.

renewable = good

nuclear - the problem of the radioactive stuff needs solving and anyone who says it has been - where will it be stuck? There is no permanent storage - plus I don't believe that would be the solution either.

oil/coal based I think even the us is accepting that there is too much CO2 being pumped into the air (they just want someone else to use less not themselves) - not a workable solution


hemp energy? (hmm - when I get stoned I wouldn't say the hemp gave me energy exactly :rolleyes: )

[Giancarlo]

Energy Efficency will reduce the economic growth rate. Which won't work.

[timdawg]

U guys never heard of plasma, its very powerful, but it is still being researched and i think its made by superheating gas a millions of degrees, although very expensive in the future it could be used for all kinds of things.(and i dont know what effect it has on the environment)

[Giancarlo]

Never heard of it and never seen anything for it. The only newer currently under research one I have seen is Cold Fusion.

[Gayowulf]

Giancarlo: are you saying sacrifice the health of the people, and the world for the sake of the american economy?

about brasil: thats different: mot rivers there dont stem from large mountain ranges like in north and south america.

i agree nuclear is a high tech, reliable source of energy, and it is unfortunate that its byproducts have a half live of several thousand years. I think nuclear fission will be the solution.


Well there are always consquences when using the best power source avaliable.
i think these "consequences" should influence the decision of what the "best" power source is.

I dont know much about plama for energy. ill look it up, it sounds interesting

[Toefur]

Ah yes... the Economy is always more important... right!

There was this cool article in the paper a few weeks back; it went on to explain how if we all lived like New Yorkers; the world would find itself out of resources disturbingly soon. That was interesting.

But yeah, effiency. People gobbling up all this power, didn't George Dubya say in some interview something like "americans shouldn't have to miss out on things (as in, cutting back in things, to conserver energy), because they deserve everything blah blah blah".

Solar Energy is a good option. Granted, Solar plants (with current solar technology) don't produce enough. But if every house had Solar Panels attached to their roofs, they could, mostly, generate some electricitiy (dont know if enough), if they have left overs it can be stored in batteries... or, even better... it can be fed back into the power grid, which seems a good option.

I've never heard of plasma, but it sounds like it could be good.

Hydrogen is supposedly meant to be a pretty good alternative, isn't it?

[Giancarlo]

Blame Bush... whatever... you don't know anything about him.
The economy doesn't do well, the people don't do well. That is something you greens fail to realize. You put the people behind everything. I say no to efficeny because it will dry up industry and commerce.

[Gayowulf]

Hydrogen has immense potential. Its main problem it that it is very reactive: remember the hindenburg?

When a household uses solar power, the sunlight is converted to electric energy which is stored in a battert and then used. Batteries are required.

[Toefur]

Giancarlo (if you were referring to when I mentioned bush) it wasnt (surprisingly) an attack on Bush.

But bush said something like that, and I used that to outline that seems to be the main way of thinking from power hungry Americans.

If you say no to efficiency cuz it will dry up industry and commerce; you should also think about a lot of other things. For example, you could change your hardline stance on drugs to be in support of the, because it is good for the economy. For example, Smoking is cost effective: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1442000/1442555.stm and im sure we could kill a few more people if other drugs were all legalised; which would then be more beneficial to the economy.

Yeah, Solar Power does need to be stored in Batteries... but it can be fed back into the power grid, and then, well yeah.

THe Hindenburg... how did that happen though? That was a while ago, are we better at using it these days, or something? I wouldn't know, just pondering.

[Dusty]

Plasma must first be heated (and heated a great deal) before it becomes of any use as far as power generating goes (it's not "plasma power", by the way, it's fusion). However, a generator that requires more power to make less power... that's not exactly "ideal". Plasma in this state does occur naturally, just not on Earth. I suppose we could get a couple of mason jars and collect some from a nearby nebula... oh wait, it melts all known substances, I guess that would include glass. Scratch that idea, we'd probably have a better chance draping and extension cord down from the sun...

I don't pretend to have the answers, but I know plasma fusion isn't it. Plasma has it's uses, mainly in propulsion systems, but it's not very well suited to power production and so far no one has been able to produce a plasma generator that's come close to working. Plasma power is a long way off, the only reason research on it is so heavily funded is because if they actually got it in a useable pellet-state it would be very helpful in weapons research (conditions inside a plasma pellet are identical to those in a nuclear bomb)

Wind (though not an option in this poll) is also out. Conventional windmills are useless in many areas with little wind or frequently changing direction wind. Those "new windmills" (I forget their name, they're the ones shaped like airplane wings) are even less useful as to start them requires power and if the wind is stop-and-go, as it is in most places, you end up using more power than you're making. Wind turbines are also quite loud, but I suppose that doesn't affect anyone but those nearby.

Solar... I just don't see it happening on a large scale. Small scale, it's a great choice, but on the grand scale that some are talking about... I don't know. Now, what I'm not certain of are the existing-type solar generators just being blow up to humongous sizes and people expecting them to generate reliable and predictable power for large areas. If someone came up with a better idea than just a bunch of mirrors in the desert, I probably think differently.

Coal. Though no one's voted for it, it actually is a good idea. Coal in a fluidized bed boiler releases very little sulfur, carbon dioxide, or anything else that harmful. Plus, though coal is a fossil fuel, we do have a helluva lot of it, at least enough to last for another 200 years. There are no worries of coal deposits just suddenly disappearing in the near future. And, coal is cheap. In the end, money will be the deciding factor in what we use to generate power.

Oil doesn't burn cleanly at all and the risk of a supertanker running aground is much, much greater than that of a nuclear meltdown. Though we haven't even tapped a third of all the oil on the Earth, most of it is either unreachable or would cost untold billions to extrude. Though we have enough for many more years, we're running out.

Nuclear power, my personal choice, though I don't say that it's the answer to everything. Nuclear power is extremely clean (nothing is burned), other than for power uranium has very few other uses (so we don't need to worry about using too much), and when properly stored used nuclear fuel is not a risk to health or the environment.

Hemp power? :D

(Side note: When doing the little research I did for this post I realized how difficult it is to get an unbiased assessment of the power generating options. Just thought I'd mention that)

[niv]

Originally posted by Giancarlo
Never heard of it and never seen anything for it. The only newer currently under research one I have seen is Cold Fusion.

incidentally, Cold Fusion is a programming language used for the web like PHP and ASP :)

[Gayowulf]

Originally posted by Dusty
properly stored
Do you know if there is an agreed upon "standard" for the storage of nuclear waste?


I agree it is hard to find an unbiased source of information.

[polestar]

Hydrogen has immense potential. Its main problem it that it is very reactive: remember the hindenburg?

Yeah - that was unfortunate.

But remember - the hindenberg was filled with a massive volume of hydrogen with some air (ie oxygen) contaminent. Isn't that like rocket fuel?

In the fusion of hydrogen atoms, a much smaller volume of hydrogen gas would be used. An H-Bomb uses less hydrogen than would be contained in a party balloon, for example.

A 'melt-down' like at Chernobl is not likely, because the problem is keeping the fusion going, not preventing the reaction from going out of control.

Also, hydrogen would be a good fuel to burn, but extraction from water and other molecules is so difficult and prohibitively expensive.

In the mean time, we need to make more efficient solar arrays - did you see that plane powered by solar power - pathetic!

[Dusty]

Do you know if there is an agreed upon "standard" for the storage of nuclear waste?Spent fuel can be put behind two inches of lead, four feet of concrete, or under forty-five feet of water, if I'm not mistaken.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by needcgispace


incidentally, Cold Fusion is a programming language used for the web like PHP and ASP :)

Cold Fusion has something to do with hydrogen power... I am not quite sure. And I certainly know it is a programming language.

[niv]

:p

[lucifer]

Originally posted by Dusty
Spent fuel can be put behind two inches of lead, four feet of concrete, or under forty-five feet of water, if I'm not mistaken. If it's this easy how come there is no permanent storage facility anywhere on the planet?

[rmsharpe]

Hey, nuclear power is fine.

"More people died in the back of Ted Kennedy's car than from radiation (in the United States)." -me :D

[jon787]

Fuel Cells all the way!

[Gayowulf]

I think the best fuel cell is the ballard battery. there are city busses using it in Vancouver.