Alternative Energy Sources

[DBloke]

Liverpool, eh? VERY VERY CHEAP SHOT.

...And Jack got to my point before me. =(

Theres a point ?
Is it over there ?

 

[FRuMMaGe]

Waluigi will save me, and leave all you non-believers to suffer the rapture :lol:

 

[el-zilcho]

Meh
Them big windmills seem good
And they only place them off the coast

You also get some situated around hills that are generally out of the way but you end up getting the locals pettioning against them as they are unsightly and ruin the aesthics of the countryside .
I see thier point but if they are efficient then I say bung em up everywhere .

 

[JAKE196]

oh idk. . .

solar panels are aspensive and you need a but load of them

wind/hydroelectric power can't work everywhere.

I think we should just invent fusion, less Nuclear waste than fission and a **** load of energy. :lol:

Nuclear energy is fairly safe if handled properly. Chernobyl was the result of a moronic mistake. These days they can store Nuclear waste in re-enforced containers that are like super-ultra-strong too.

 

[FRuMMaGe]

I think we should just invent fusion, less Nuclear waste than fission and a **** load of energy. :lol:

Yes because it's just that simple :lol:

Mr Scientist: I'm bored, I'll invent Nuclear fusion

(5 mins later)

Mr Scientist: Who would have thunk it, all it takes is a rabbit, a toaster and some ordinary household bleach! :lol:

 

[TacosTacos]

I think the two best options that are out there at this point are nuclear and geothermal. I think we need to do some serious research on the ramifications of tapping into geothermal energy though. I think that the problems with disposal of nuclear wast present a problem, but I have confidence that that could be overcome. I also don't hate the idea of water power on a small scale, but it may prove to be controversial. People are getting pretty uptight about water now and days.

 

[FRuMMaGe]

I think the two best options that are out there at this point are nuclear and geothermal. I think we need to do some serious research on the ramifications of tapping into geothermal energy though. I think that the problems with disposal of nuclear wast present a problem, but I have confidence that that could be overcome. I also don't hate the idea of water power on a small scale, but it may prove to be controversial. People are getting pretty uptight about water now and days.

Apparently they were considering waste disposal. One idea would be to simply launch it into space. However, the risk of it burning up in the atmosphere and spreading across planet were potentially far too destructive.

 

[JAKE196]

Yes because it's just that simple :lol:

Well there is an international effort to create a huuuuge fusion reactor in France. :yesnod:

 

[Brawny]

There's a lot of people here that shouldn't be... D:

1. Solar power is still infantile; barely any of the available energy gets converted to electricity.

2. Water generated power does not consume water...

3. Nuclear power does not emit any greenhouse gases...

4. The uranium and/or plutonium from a reactor must be enriched, which is the hardest part.

5. I especially love "doesn't bring in as many jobs"... Isn't the point of a power plant to produce the most energy from the least amount of feul, using as little monetary (read: jobs) input as possible?

 

[FRuMMaGe]

2. Water generated power does not consume water...

Did someone here actually think water-generated power consumed water? :lol:

What an idiot! You were right to mock them :yesnod:

 

[Master Foot]

It's all about money, industry and politics. It's freaking 2007 and we're still burning carbon for energy. To me that seems ancient. If enough time was spent on investing in solar power, all this hoo hah about greenhouse gases and global warming can be put to rest. Look on the bright side, once the ozone layer is destroyed, the sun's rays will be potent enough to provide more than enough solar power.

 

[blueovalboy7]

Well I live about 50 miles from a nuclear power plant, and it powers a good portion of my town. No ill-effects that have been noticed at all. The wildfires got fairly close to it, but luckily it had been powered down for maintenance when the fires arose and thus there was no danger.

Also there are a lot of "windmill" generators near my hometown that help power the area, and they have been there for years. I'm glad there are more actions taking place, but like previously stated I think it is too little too late.

I don't know if anyone has talked about it, but alternative fuels for our vehicles and alternative power sources for autos have been progressively implemented here in the U.S. with a large amount of Hybrid vehicles, being very popular here in California. Also General Motors introducing their line of E85 ethanol vehicles running on an 85% corn liquor/gasoline mixture. Also we have the Tesla, a purely electric vehicle that can go 250 miles on a charge with a 0-60 time in the 4 second range. I like the way the world is progressing. This is another positive step towards lowering greenhouse gases and pollution.

 

[Eagles]

I did a debate against Nuclear power a while ago. I was second speaker and here's what I said:

Tonight Ladies and Gentlemen, I will extend our argument by looking at security and safety issues, the likely social backlash and alternatives.

My first major point tonight is that nuclear plants are inherently unsafe and problems in nuclear power plants have the potential to become extremely hazardous. We all know about Chernobyl in Ukraine. Thanks to Soviet secrecy at the time, we will never know how many people actually died and we are unlikely to know how many people throughout Western Europe will suffer from cancer as a result of Chernobyl. However what we do know is that contamination from the accident was detected throughout Western Europe and even as far away as the east coast of North America. We know that there is currently an exclusion zone around the reactor of 30 kilometre radius. Can you imagine overlaying a circle this size centred somewhere in the outskirts of an Australian major city and saying no-one can enter this area as it is deadly?

You may think that you can disregard Chernobyl – old Soviet technology, it all happened a long time ago – this is the PR spin of the nuclear industry. We say look again. The Nuclear Inspectorate in the UK has been very critical of safety standards within the industry. Last year documents obtained under Freedom of Information in the UK revealed that the UK inspectorate had discovered deteriorated reactor cores in a number of UK reactors that were unknown and unexplainable by the reactor operating companies.

In Sweden, in July 2006 a reactor had an unplanned shutdown. One Swedish nuclear design expert stated that this was the most serious accident since Chernobyl and that only luck had prevented a meltdown. Throughout the last decade, numerous radiation leaks, and incidents have occurred in reactors throughout the world.

The world nuclear industry seems to run on a combination of ignorance and luck along with a good helping of cover-up. Yet look at the possible consequences. Do we want a Chernobyl or worse in our backyard?

My next point tonight is that Nuclear power plant’s make excellent targets for terrorists. This is no longer a point we can just ignore. Willie Briggitte was recently found guilty under terrorism charges in France. He and his associates were looking at disrupting power supplies in Sydney; they were looking at attacking the Lucas Heights reactor in Sydney. Don’t you think a Nuclear Power plant would make a number one target? Unfortunately, terror seems to be on the rise even in Australia. Other groups have been arrested in Melbourne and Sydney and it is pretty reasonable to suspect that others are out there.

My next point is that Nuclear Power is not popular with Australians. Even in those surveys where a majority have been found in favour of nuclear power, the respondents were overwhelming in not wanting to live near one. When Peter Garrett put forward the challenge to Government members to volunteer their electorates as potential sites for Nuclear power stations, did any of them put up their hands? No because it would be electoral suicide in any but the most solid of electorates. All the labor state governments are opposed to Nuclear Power, the Union movement is opposed to Nuclear Power. What government will risk their political livelihood on imposing Nuclear Power on us? What private company is going to invest the billions of dollars needed to build a power station in an environment where there is not full government support, where the unions are likely to blackban the project and there is every chance that the government that allowed it will be voted out of office at the next election and replaced by one that will stop the project?


Finally tonight I want to remind you that Australia is Energy rich. We have sun, wind waves and coal, geothermal and hydro. We have ample opportunity for conservation (like Turnbull’s banning of incandescent light bulbs). These are what we should be focussing on. Let’s not take the risk of disaster that Nuclear Power offers.

 

[Hugh345]

I think nuclear power is totally the way to go. As long as the radioactive waste is disposed of properly, it's a lot less damaging to the environment than fossil fuels. And the chances of another Chernobyl these days is quite low now they have better safety procedures. And if they ever manage to get sustained nuclear fusion to work, then that would be even better.

You can never dispose of the waste properly, Nuclear waste left behind from the processs needs to be kept away from the people and environment for as long as 250,000 years, which means approximatley 7,500 generations of our children will be dealing with the waste.

 

[Brawny]

shoot it into the sun...