ForumsWEPRYour view on renewable energy

93 13349
Jrmagic
offline
Jrmagic
301 posts
Nomad

Our nation is mostly run on fossil views and other nonrenewable technologies, I personally think this will keep us content for roughly 70 years. After, we will be in a rut, and hopefully, before we run out of sources, we could invest in renewable energy.

If you believe in renewable energy, what source do you think would be the wisest? (Wind Power, Hydropower, etc.)

Solar power is the best option, (In my opinion) especially after looking at the Pros and Cons.

  • 93 Replies
Toadlord
offline
Toadlord
497 posts
Shepherd

Obviously any type of cheap renewable energy is a great thing.

Have any of you guys heard of the new "Cold Fusion" research? If it's correct, pretty much EVERYTHING electrical would change.

Pixie214
offline
Pixie214
5,838 posts
Peasant

Have any of you guys heard of the new "Cold Fusion" research?


Yeah it looks very interesting it has been discussed abit already. I can't remember the current view in the scientific community on superconductors (I seem to remember they went out of "fashion" a few years back) but I think some developments have been made. And they could help provide more efficient energy. But similar to cold fusion it is still about getting it working.

nb (cos I'm bored) a good way to make the national grid more efficient is to use silver wires instead of copper. More efficient conductors. There might be a slight <cough> down side in the cost though (ok not a serious idea but what the hell)
DDX
offline
DDX
3,562 posts
Nomad

And, DDX, your argument over all that fusioning and fissioning eliments until you get Iron is what I believe my science teacher called "hot fusion" when is messy and not safe.


Nope you never do that in real life because it wastes a ton of energy.
I argued that the product of fission is like Bi and Kr or something. and the product of fusion is H2O.

The cold fusion idea is localized hot fusion, The true cold fusion idea has not gone into motion ( with the magnets and neutrons and junk)
armydude624
offline
armydude624
61 posts
Nomad

Geothermal or solar just because they will most likely outlast us humans if you want to more about either just google it im too lazy to do it and put all that stuff on here

johnathann
offline
johnathann
78 posts
Nomad

Source? What happened to the stories of people falling into them and being mutated? DDX is right they put them underground.

Still Coldfusion is the biggest mother of all clean efficient energy. I believe they proved it was real but I'm not entirely sure.

And, DDX, your argument over all that fusioning and fissioning eliments until you get Iron is what I believe my science teacher called "hot fusion" when is messy and not safe.


People falling into them and becoming mutated? You watch far too many sci-fi movies. If somebody falls in one, they deserve it. They probably even deserve worse than that.

As for sources, why would I need sources when we already have active nuclear power plants in America running without any problems. This is a known fact, and I shouldn't need any sources to prove that we do have nuclear power plants.

Besides, if you really cared for our planets climate, then you would should be complaining about the fact that France gets 75% of their energy from nuclear power. [url=http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf40.html].
johnathann
offline
johnathann
78 posts
Nomad

Yay for broken links

[url=http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf40.html]

If this doesn't work, then copy paste

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf40.html

johnathann
offline
johnathann
78 posts
Nomad

Yes but you were the one claiming that the plants give off no waste when they do.

A little on the contrary are we?


I said they give off no pollution, not no waste. Besides, the waste they do give off is harmless to the climate. I'll quote DDX here.

on a more serious note, They actually package it into a leak proof container, as in you can detonate over 600 kilos of TNT on it and it even wont show signs of stress. They bury these containers in a plot of land set aside by the government. After a few hundred, or maybe thousands of years, the radioactive materials will have decayed into lead.


No pollution, no harmful waste. Energy problem solved.
jonnypants23
offline
jonnypants23
1,353 posts
Farmer

I love the idea for green energy , but wheres the money going to come from if we shut down some of our neclear plants ?

Sssssnnaakke
offline
Sssssnnaakke
1,036 posts
Scribe

What's kinda funny is that it takes more energy to make something use less energy. Kinda Like cars. Um I heard about the fusion from 2006 and if is a ton better than the nuclear power plants.

Sssssnnaakke
offline
Sssssnnaakke
1,036 posts
Scribe

They use more energy.
they pay themselves of in time.
they use less energy.
they -pay themssleves of in time.

Somecallmetim
offline
Somecallmetim
66 posts
Nomad

My renewable energy source i'd like to see put into practice is the combustion of water into diatomic Hydorgen (H2). You can use the H2 in hydrogen combustion chambers, which how they are trying to design cars to run these days, atleast one of the ideas. The only problem is the process of combustion of water to H2 is not an ideal process and requires added energy (in form of heat most likely) for water to undergo combustion to H2.

Maybe some day this perfect cycle of renewable energey will be realized. In the mean time I guess Solar panels and wind energy will make do hopefully. That and I do like the idea of cold fusion.

johnathann
offline
johnathann
78 posts
Nomad

I never said Cold Fusion was a bad thing. I just said nuclear power is also a good alternative to look into. I'm for everything, Solar, wind, thermal, you name it. I was just trying to prove that Nuclear energy is safe.

DDX
offline
DDX
3,562 posts
Nomad

My renewable energy source i'd like to see put into practice is the combustion of water into diatomic Hydorgen (H2). You can use the H2 in hydrogen combustion chambers, which how they are trying to design cars to run these days, atleast one of the ideas. The only problem is the process of combustion of water to H2 is not an ideal process and requires added energy (in form of heat most likely) for water to undergo combustion to H2.


wouldn't it take a crap load of energy to split the water into hydrogen and oxygen? Because I am almost positive it takes a lot of energy to break intramolecular (bonds between the atoms) bonds.
Somecallmetim
offline
Somecallmetim
66 posts
Nomad

wouldn't it take a crap load of energy to split the water into hydrogen and oxygen? Because I am almost positive it takes a lot of energy to break intramolecular (bonds between the atoms) bonds.


I think it takes somewhere around 720 degrees celcius or around 795 KJ of energy put into the system to make it a product favorable reaction. So the answer to that is yes, a crap load of energy is needed, hence the problem of why this isn't possible yet. But if someday the possibility to make this occur on a small scale in cars, we'd be set, since the reaction of combustion of H2 produces Water and the combustion of water produces H2.

Also according to one of my profs (who is the reason why this idea is in my head now, damn chem classes), supposedly to achieve this amount of energy can be done via solar panels, just a means of probably making this happen on a small scale like a car is most likely the problem.
DDX
offline
DDX
3,562 posts
Nomad

supposedly to achieve this amount of energy can be done via solar panels, just a means of probably making this happen on a small scale like a car is most likely the problem.


Then they should just store the energy and use it to power the car directly lol.
Showing 46-60 of 93