Staredit Network

Staredit Network -> Serious Discussion -> What type of Power should we turn to?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Infested-Jerk on 2005-08-26 at 20:00:03
Solar: Uses the sun's rays to make energy. Solar Panels are expensive.
Wind: Harnesses wind using large windmills. Windmills can be an eyesoar.
Hydro: Uses rivers to create power. Often needs a dam, which could alter a river's flow.
Tidal: Utalizes the tides
Geo-Thermal: Uses Heat from the earth's core to create power
Nuclear: Uses Nuclear Fision or Fusion to create HUGE amounts of energy. Creates pollution problems (Fuel rods.)
Report, edit, etc...Posted by SiLeNT(U) on 2005-08-26 at 20:27:08
I vote for psychic energy, put those templars to good use.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by IceWarrior98 on 2005-08-26 at 20:33:12
Wind for sure, solars ok but the suns up for only so long. Plus with the weather we've been having lately we'd have tons of power. Especially since theres Hurricanes every week, so it seems.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Syphon on 2005-08-26 at 20:52:23
geothermal, convert the rest of denmark already
Report, edit, etc...Posted by VizuaL on 2005-08-26 at 21:21:01
most liekley nuclear, its the only way
Report, edit, etc...Posted by MapUnprotector on 2005-08-26 at 22:34:36
Would it be possible to just send the nuclear waste into space like in rockets?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Kashmir on 2005-08-27 at 01:17:19
uh icewarrior.... wind isn't always around. I would say heat energy. I say Hydrogen energy.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by lonely_duck on 2005-08-27 at 01:20:52
someone needs to make a propetial (spelt wrong) motion machine THATS ultimate energy my friend...But until someone makes one, I say solar since once the sun goes out we will. happy.gif
Report, edit, etc...Posted by l)ark_13 on 2005-08-27 at 01:56:13
I think geo-thermal energy because it is constant and here until the earth explodes tongue.gif Its also fairly easy to access.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Vibrator on 2005-08-27 at 09:42:59
Hydrogen definatly, although it isn't listed there for some reason... It technically is not renewable but it is the most abundant element in the universe, also it is clean and as safe as anything we are using today.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Ultimo on 2005-08-27 at 11:02:20
No Temp, it is not. Even though it may be the most abudent in the universe, pure hydrogen is VERY rare. In order to seperate them using electrolysis(sp?), it creates pollution and uses energy. So in turn, the energy supposely "saved" was wasted on getting the hydrogen into pure form, therefore, it's useless with our technology right now. Once we can get more efficient, then it'll be better.

QUOTE
Would it be possible to just send the nuclear waste into space like in rockets?

Though a viable idea, what if those same rockets come falling back down on us? Wouldn't be a pretty sight. We can't just launch everything into space, who knows what it could do out there, unknown effects of solar winds on them?

There isn't a renewable resource that we can use that will maintain the whole world right now. >.>
Report, edit, etc...Posted by MapUnprotector on 2005-08-27 at 11:17:57
I was looking up sending nuclear waste into space on google and I found some problems such as what Ultimo said about if a rocket failed and came back down to earth, and also the cost of launching nuclear waste into space.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Infested-Jerk on 2005-08-27 at 13:38:32
About sending Nuclear waste to space:
Why don't we just get NASA to send five pounds or so of Nuclear waste, put it is a lead container and chuck it toawards, I dunno, Pluto? C'mon, pluto is SO far out there, this day and age, pluto means nothing to us outside of school!
Report, edit, etc...Posted by CheeZe on 2005-08-27 at 14:38:12
Yeah, you know how much energy that costs? Not more than the amount produced, I can assure you of that.

The best alternative energy, in theory, is fusion. Whether or not it will work, I'm not sure. I'm on the side that hopes it does but for some odd reason, knows it will fail.

So... I'll have to go with solar, wind, and hydro power for now. They're clean, but not effecient. So.. let's change Africa. (I kid)
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Syphon on 2005-08-27 at 14:55:47
QUOTE(lonely_duck @ Aug 26 2005, 11:20 PM)
someone needs to make a propetial (spelt wrong) motion machine THATS ultimate energy my friend...But until someone makes one, I say solar since once the sun goes out we will. happy.gif
[right][snapback]299355[/snapback][/right]


I already did, it's powering everything in my room
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Infested-Jerk on 2005-08-27 at 17:20:27
Perpetual Motion Machines are impossible.

If you HAPPEN to have one, show the government, then maybe I'll believe you.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Cnl.Fatso on 2005-08-27 at 17:57:30
Odds are it wouldn't work even in space.

Hydroelectric has worked so far for British Columbia--almost all of our energy is produced by dams. But then again, other places don't have as many rivers and lakes as us.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Loser_Musician on 2005-08-27 at 18:08:27
solar would be best, cause we should have the technology to make power plants up in space soon. But of course, it would be expensive as hell and require a lot of work. Best for 22nd or 23rd century.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Snake)Ling on 2005-08-27 at 18:39:44
None of these technologies alone could satisfy the world's energy needs. We must utilize all of them.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Vibrator on 2005-08-27 at 19:26:52
QUOTE(Ultimo @ Aug 27 2005, 11:02 AM)
No Temp, it is not. Even though it may be the most abudent in the universe, pure hydrogen is VERY rare. In order to seperate them using electrolysis(sp?), it creates pollution and uses energy. So in turn, the energy supposely "saved" was wasted on getting the hydrogen into pure form, therefore, it's useless with our technology right now. Once we can get more efficient, then it'll be better.
[right][snapback]299582[/snapback][/right]


Have you done any reaserch on this? Seperating them doesn't need to use energy at all.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by lonely_duck on 2005-08-27 at 19:35:19
QUOTE(Temp @ Aug 27 2005, 05:26 PM)
Have you done any reaserch on this? Seperating them doesn't need to use energy at all.
[right][snapback]299870[/snapback][/right]

actaully it does require energy to seperate them (i forgot whats its called though pinch.gif )

QUOTE
Perpetual Motion Machines are impossible.


So thats how you spell it thanks Jerk happy.gif
Report, edit, etc...Posted by CheeZe on 2005-08-27 at 19:56:54
H2 (the most common form) is pure hydrogen. If you're talking about just H, it's not even stable. (And not required for fusion)
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Ultimo on 2005-08-28 at 01:12:44
It's called Electrolysis. (Seperating elements using electricity.)
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Fronter on 2005-08-28 at 01:23:49
Ethier:

Solar: Clean, renewable. And, for whoever said sun is only up for a while, there is something called a battery, where you can store the energy that comes from the sun.

Wind: Still clean, renewable, and looks weird though. I hate seeing hundreds of windmills around everywhere, it drives me crazy.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Vibrator on 2005-08-28 at 12:08:33
Liquid Hydrogen (using H2) is an easy way (and clean) to power different things. Although unfortunatly it isn't very affordable yet, but there are numerous reaserchers trying to improve on this.
Next Page (1)