What is the best 'alternative' energy?
- Thread starter Majithicus
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Nuclear!!! It's the most powerful, the technology is already there, and the only downside really is the waste and the possibility of a meltdown (but the measures that they take more than make up for that in my opinion)
My favorite "green" energy source would be geothermal though
My favorite "green" energy source would be geothermal though
Nuclear power would work well if we had more than about a 50 year supply of fuel for it and we had a way to dispose of the waste.
Solar is great in many parts of the world, but there are some that have weather that won't allow it to be used year round.
Hydroelectric has been great for the last hundred years, but people cry about the fish and it's only really usable around larger rivers.
Wind farms would work well in some regions, but like with all the other method that rely on nature it can't really be used everywhere even if you could people don't want to see the windmills.
Geothermal is nice in the places you can use it, but again, can't be used everywhere.
So really you would need to use what you could where you could, and supplement it with nuclear in the few region that had none of those options (I can't think of any that don't have at least one of those available, but I'm sure there's one somewhere.)
Solar is great in many parts of the world, but there are some that have weather that won't allow it to be used year round.
Hydroelectric has been great for the last hundred years, but people cry about the fish and it's only really usable around larger rivers.
Wind farms would work well in some regions, but like with all the other method that rely on nature it can't really be used everywhere even if you could people don't want to see the windmills.
Geothermal is nice in the places you can use it, but again, can't be used everywhere.
So really you would need to use what you could where you could, and supplement it with nuclear in the few region that had none of those options (I can't think of any that don't have at least one of those available, but I'm sure there's one somewhere.)
By and far Solar Power is the greatest option.Jamithicus said:
You could literally wire the US alone to gather more than enough power to sustain the entire world. Without making tons of land un usable either. The only major setback I see is creating an efficient means to transport the energy to other nations and even intra nationally. But that's because I'm not a chemistry or physics major
.This probably won't always be true but it is for the foreseeable future.
When you are very close (relatively speaking) to a power source that isn't going to die out before your species does (given how much we like dying) you probably should make use of it.
On a sidenote, I'm told that by containing uranium beads in a certain thickness of ceramics you can create a nuclear power plant who's energy source is already self contained because the melt down temperatures of the uranium never exceed the maximum limitations of the ceramics they are contained it
.
WTF are you talking about? What is "It" and how is it slowing the rotation of the earth? How would a turbine slow the rotation of the earth and push the moon away from us?cuddly_tomato said:
Tidal power uses the tide (when the water comes in and up the shore and when it goes back) it goes on forever and by the time it stops we will have bigger issues to worry about
Winner^. If we could do it reliably and safely we would have electricity for everyone.Lyiat said:
![[Gavo]](https://eg-forums-escapist-data.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com/data/avatars/l/33/33764.jpg?1620201950){kind=avatar}
I'd be scared of the ground crew drinking on the job.JWAN said:you can mix it with another fuel source and slow it down, don't use 100% alcoholcaptain awesome 12 said:
The tide is based on the moons orbit, it's relative position to the sun, and the earths rotation. Didn't you know that?JWAN said:
Erm... you linked it... did you not read it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_power
Tidal energy might contribute only a tiny amount to the slowing of the earths rotational speed, the problem is that it is impossible to increase that speed again.
Geothermal is another one I am dubious about. Removing energy from the earths core is a bad idea if we want to have somewhere to live in the future. If it cools down while we are still here we loose the earths magnetic field and are thus royally boned.
You have to be kidding, do you know how many worlds have been destroyed by anti-matter plenary busters?! There is a reason why it is a death sentence for any star ship captain caught using anti-matter you know.Lyiat said:
Ok back in the real world: Fusion if we manage to pull off a sustained, energy positive, reaction simply because it is massive amounts of energy that is quite safe radioactive wise. It does go boom pretty big though, but at least the radiation decay is measured in days, not centuries.
Till then concentrated solar energy, seeing I live in Australia where we have endless deserts as far as the eye can see. I'm still annoyed that there is only ONE plant of this sort. A small 'experimental' plant when a kid with a magnifying glass and a colony of ants knows the principles behind it work! Solar furnaces should be making up a vast majority of any country, or any state for that matter, energy production if they are dry, sunny and have lots of open area which are not being utilised in some other fashion. True not a 100% solution, but that is why I say you need a wide range of sources instead of just focusing on a single source of energy production.
