Energy sources discussion

[viktor]

personally i do not like nuclear power, if a power plant was being built near my city i would be gone so fast my underwear would be trying to catch up.

nuclear power may be important to some, but there should be a LOT more restrictions on it, it should NEVER be near a population center, and should never be where it can contaminate fresh water supplies. in deserts and in mountains are ideal, maybe expensive to do but, it IS worth it for the safety and protection, overall i fundamentally detest nuclear power.. i mean if it is so fine and dandy, then why ban north korea and iran from having it? just because the spent rods can be used to make bombs? guess what?! they have it and the missiles to deliver, so... whatever...

wind power.... it is clean on a great many accounts, however there is a major problem. the low frequency vibrations emitted from them have been found to cause mental issues.. even drive bears mad, you cannot have wind generators in populated areas, however, if in theory a site close enough for a nuke plant that would make me run away was used for windmills instead, i would most likely stay put.
check out this article and keep in mind, low frequency sound travels way way further than higher frequencies
http://windfarms.wordpress.com/2008/02/ ... ts-health/
i am iffy on wind power, even playing sim city you need ludicrious amounts of land to get any energy (they try to make it realistic)

geothermal power.. i tried finding actual negative points.. i couldn't, i could only find limiting factors as in, there are only some select locations suitable to build them, plugging up geysers and such... okay so yellowstone park could produce a shitload of power at the cost of no more beautiful geyser..... alternative to coal/oil/nuclear i'd say it's a small price to pay
i am for geothermal power

hydro power, i'm not gonna bother looking anything up, i live in manitoba for christ sake, hydro power only has one disadvantage, and that is the shifting of water systems, if studied correctly and everyone does their research these effects can be minimised or even put to our advantage. waterfalls being very ideal sites as they need little to no rise in water behind the dam to get the potential there for the generators.
though some flooding can be an issue at the onset of a dam, we can minimise the effect and it is much much safer and cleaner compaired to the nuclear/oil/coal/wind power concepts
i am absolutely in favor of hydro power

tidal power, relatively clean, the scope of it's environmental impact depends upon the sites chosen from those available. negative impacts? until the newer designs are in, there are fish kills, the power generated is somewhat intermittent (batteries anyone?) as we get about 2 tides per day (remember this is earth not cantr) but is again much better than nuclear/oil/coal/wind power
check out this site for a bit of info
http://www.energy-consumers-edge.com/ti ... y_use.html
i believe in this as a viable and relatively safe (once we have fish friendlier turbines) source of power

people power... well, no scope of how much power this will generate, and it has absolutely no further impact on anything that we currently do, people in many countries around the world go to the gym and one important part about a good workout is some good cardio... seriously, i myself could make a generator from my stationary bike and a motor from a trashed laudry dryer, this takes so little to impliment and could help generate some undisclosed amount of power, if even only a little, could still be worth the effort to do
i feel for this as i do for hydro power, i am totally behind it, i almost feel like writing letters to shapes and the ymca

coal/oil power... do i actually need to write something here? common enough knowledge that is is dirty filthy, unhealthy heavily pollutive and destructive, takes vast amounts of land and endless disasters, this is not just about emissions and settling particulate but also oil spills, coal mine collapses and so on...
do i need to state where i stand on this?

solar power, clean power, no emissions, free fuel source (the sun), in fact the only issues with solar power are... it does take a bit of space to set up yes, less than wind turbines, other than that is just the increased heat (large scale solar plated roofing in cities would rise the temp of the air above those cities and have some effects on local weather)
all in all i am for solar power

ethanol? um... cleaner than oil and coal, safer than nuclear.. primary source is corn and that is a problem, we need the croplant to feed our population while it's still trying to plateau, there are other possible sources for making the fuel like wood chips and other plants growing where foodcrops are not suited.
i'm rather on the fence about this one

microwave power... this is sending a satellite into orbit with massive solar panels then converting the energy into a beam of microwave or laser energy to a reciever on the surface of the earth....................... you have got to be fucken kidding me, whoever thought of this idea is out of their damn mind, aside from the possible ionization of the atmosphere from another high powered energy being shot through on a permanent basis and then the multitude of things that could cause just a subtle shift of the satellite and the direction of the beam (solar flare, meteroids, space junk, gyros or boosters malfunctioning, minute miscalcuations etc.. etc... etc...) could have CATASTROPHIC effects, i'd rather live in a shack on top of chernobyl, oh wouldn't that be lovely, if a meteoroid slammed into one of these babies and redirected the beam down the throat of a volcano, or roasting people and sparking forest fires as the beam makes a trek of destruction across the land, we're already told not to watch our food cook in the microwave, and not to beam low powered laser pointers at eyes or even onto skin
i think you know where i stand on this rediculous, assanine concept


that all being said, discuss and enjoy

[Vega]

You've forgotten all the contamination around the manufacture of solar panels, and the silicon used to it, wich is toxic.

And bio-mass energy, too...

[viktor]

You've forgotten all the contamination around the manufacture of solar panels, and the silicon used to it, wich is toxic.

And bio-mass energy, too...

well anything you construct will require dirty toxic processes, the steel to make any and all plants and generators, oils used to make componants. and so forth.. though i was mainly thinking of the post construction pollution and destruction and continual fuel use, i am glad you brought this up, as some things in their construction will be dirtier and nastier than others which is another side that would need to be examined,

[Mykey]

Nikola Tesla spoke of pulling electricity out of the stratosphere.
I like tidal energy and solar to a degree. Nuclear should be banned until we perfect fusion. Bio-mass would have more potential if they didn`t use a food crop. It`d be nice if they gave hemp another use.

I`m convinced there exist an almost perfectly clean, extremely cheap to free, energy source. And the second part, is the reason why it will never see large scale deployment. The whole planet is essentially a giant electro magnet I`m sure we could tap into that if we really wanted to.

[joo]

personally i do not like nuclear power, if a power plant was being built near my city i would be gone so fast my underwear would be trying to catch up.

nuclear power may be important to some, but there should be a LOT more restrictions on it, it should NEVER be near a population center, and should never be where it can contaminate fresh water supplies. in deserts and in mountains are ideal, maybe expensive to do but, it IS worth it for the safety and protection, overall i fundamentally detest nuclear power.. i mean if it is so fine and dandy, then why ban north korea and iran from having it? just because the spent rods can be used to make bombs? guess what?! they have it and the missiles to deliver, so... whatever...

I'm not sure how you can "fundamentally detest" something without knowing enough about it to come up with a rational argument about why it is so bad. Most people who are against nuclear power seem to base their opinions on what they've heard from popular media about high-profile accidents like Chernobyl, without understanding how wonderful it is to generate so much power by firing neutrons at a lump of Uranium.

wind power.... it is clean on a great many accounts, however there is a major problem. the low frequency vibrations emitted from them have been found to cause mental issues.. even drive bears mad, you cannot have wind generators in populated areas, however, if in theory a site close enough for a nuke plant that would make me run away was used for windmills instead, i would most likely stay put.
check out this article and keep in mind, low frequency sound travels way way further than higher frequencies
http://windfarms.wordpress.com/2008/02/ ... ts-health/
i am iffy on wind power, even playing sim city you need ludicrious amounts of land to get any energy (they try to make it realistic)

The blog you've linked to is very badly written and questionably sourced. It takes a lot of things out of context. It might be true that the noise generated by wind farms is harmful, but it hasn't yet been proved that they're any more harmful than other sources of noise like power transformers, cars, aeroplanes, etc.

microwave power... this is sending a satellite into orbit with massive solar panels then converting the energy into a beam of microwave or laser energy to a reciever on the surface of the earth....................... you have got to be fucken kidding me, whoever thought of this idea is out of their damn mind, aside from the possible ionization of the atmosphere from another high powered energy being shot through on a permanent basis and then the multitude of things that could cause just a subtle shift of the satellite and the direction of the beam (solar flare, meteroids, space junk, gyros or boosters malfunctioning, minute miscalcuations etc.. etc... etc...) could have CATASTROPHIC effects, i'd rather live in a shack on top of chernobyl, oh wouldn't that be lovely, if a meteoroid slammed into one of these babies and redirected the beam down the throat of a volcano, or roasting people and sparking forest fires as the beam makes a trek of destruction across the land, we're already told not to watch our food cook in the microwave, and not to beam low powered laser pointers at eyes or even onto skin
i think you know where i stand on this rediculous, assanine concept

Again, you seem to jump to conclusions without understanding the details of how it will work, instead basing your opinion on your emotive reaction. Whether or not this is dangerous depends entirely on how it is executed. Different frequencies and amplitudes of electromagnetic radiation have different effects, and some are more harmful than others.

Nuclear should be banned until we perfect fusion. Bio-mass would have more potential if they didn`t use a food crop. It`d be nice if they gave hemp another use.

Why do you think that fusion generators are any safer than fission generators? Perhaps because fusion is still largely theoretical as a reliable power source, and only its positive attributes are widely known.

I do agree, though, that nuclear fussion even more wonderful than nuclear fission as a power source. Solar power generation involves collecting energy generated by nuclear fusion in the sun, and geothermal generation involves collecting power generated by nuclear fission in the Earth, so as mechanism for power generation, they are not as strange as some people might believe.

The whole planet is essentially a giant electro magnet I`m sure we could tap into that if we really wanted to.

The Earth is not an electromagnet. It has a net magnetic field, but it is not emitting any energy because of this: it just has more electrons oriented in one direction than another.

[Mykey]

Why do you think that fusion generators are any safer than fission generators? Perhaps because fusion is still largely theoretical as a reliable power source, and only its positive attributes are widely known.

I do agree, though, that nuclear fussion even more wonderful than nuclear fission as a power source. Solar power generation involves collecting energy generated by nuclear fusion in the sun, and geothermal generation involves collecting power generated by nuclear fission in the Earth, so as mechanism for power generation, they are not as strange as some people might believe.

There is no risk of a meltdown, for one. The by-products would not be as radioactive for two. It`s mass to energy conversion rate is much higher for three.

The whole planet is essentially a giant electro magnet I`m sure we could tap into that if we really wanted to.

The Earth is not an electromagnet. It has a net magnetic field, but it is not emitting any energy because of this: it just has more electrons oriented in one direction than another.

I disagree, from the core, to the outer reaches of the atmosphere, we are living in a sea of electricty. It may not be emitting energy per se, but it is flowing all throughout the system. The key would be to tap it, like you would a Keg. I`m kind of a nutjob though, I have to admit. I subscribe to the electric universe theory.

[muidoido]

I disagree, from the core, to the outer reaches of the atmosphere, we are living in a sea of electricty. It may not be emitting energy per se, but it is flowing all throughout the system. The key would be to tap it, like you would a Keg. I`m kind of a nutjob though, I have to admit. I subscribe to the electric universe theory.

Googling about Tesla's electric car will show some interesting facts about atmospheric electricity.

[joo]

There is no risk of a meltdown, for one. The by-products would not be as radioactive for two. It`s mass to energy conversion rate is much higher for three.

That might be true. Your third point is certainly true, but it doesn't really imply that fusion will be safer - if anything, more intense radiation is going to be released as a consequence.

I disagree, from the core, to the outer reaches of the atmosphere, we are living in a sea of electricty. It may not be emitting energy per se, but it is flowing all throughout the system. The key would be to tap it, like you would a Keg. I`m kind of a nutjob though, I have to admit. I subscribe to the electric universe theory.

So are you saying that the magnetism of the Earth's core is in fact due to a net electric current in the Earth?

[Wolfsong]

So are you saying that the magnetism of the Earth's core is in fact due to a net electric current in the Earth?

... which is why north is always north in Cantr ... because they're inside ... the ... internet ... which is in a laptop that is powered by electricity ...

Er, that's how it works, right?

[Piscator]

There is no risk of a meltdown, for one. The by-products would not be as radioactive for two. It`s mass to energy conversion rate is much higher for three.

That might be true. Your third point is certainly true, but it doesn't really imply that fusion will be safer - if anything, more intense radiation is going to be released as a consequence.

You might get intense radiation while fusion is in progress, but that's pretty much inconsequential. As long as the nuclear reaction is happening where you want it to happen, it's no problem to install sufficient shielding. The advantage of fusion would be that the reaction would likely come to an end immediately if an accident happens, since it takes quite an effort to maintain suitable reaction conditions, which would make catastrophic results much more unlikely.
Depending on the type of fusion reaction, you would have the problem of handling radioactive educts/products and the reactor shielding slowly becoming radioactive though.

[Chris]

Biogas rocks: shit made into fuel for cooking, heating, and vehicles.

[Mykey]

There is no risk of a meltdown, for one. The by-products would not be as radioactive for two. It`s mass to energy conversion rate is much higher for three.

That might be true. Your third point is certainly true, but it doesn't really imply that fusion will be safer - if anything, more intense radiation is going to be released as a consequence.

I disagree, from the core, to the outer reaches of the atmosphere, we are living in a sea of electricty. It may not be emitting energy per se, but it is flowing all throughout the system. The key would be to tap it, like you would a Keg. I`m kind of a nutjob though, I have to admit. I subscribe to the electric universe theory.

So are you saying that the magnetism of the Earth's core is in fact due to a net electric current in the Earth?

I think I am, to a degree. One feeds off of and completes the other. The core is basically a spinning dynamo, right?
Where there is one, there is the other. That`s why we have four forces of nature, and not five. Magnetism and electricity are connected.

[joo]

That is an interesting theory.

[Mykey]

That is an interesting theory.

I think so too.

Nikola Tesla Biography

Decent blog commenting on Tesla, and The Electric Universe theory.

I wonder if there is any truth to any of it. I hope so.

And I`m sorry to hi-jack the thread viktor. I just think it`s hard to have any serious discussion of energy, without bringing up the man who made it all possible.