Power sources of the world

[shockpally]

And yes, I lost a lot of faith in gov'ts :P But hopefully, in 50 years we'll switch to renewables, they are almost infinite (The only thing that'll end them is time, since the Earth will be destroyed in billions of years, thanks to the Sun). Nuclear energy wouldn't be a bad alternative for a while, sadly I think that's what'll get developed instead of renewables, whatever, it's better than Coal (because they are in a perfect state most of the time).

There is no reason we cant use all of those technologies. When the wind is blowing and sun is shining and waves are crashing the regular power plants wont have to output as much or use as much resources. But thinking that somehow in the next 30-50 years we could get all of our energy from renewable sources isnt realistic IMO.

America has already reduced its consumption of oil by about 7%. I dont see why we cant drill our own oil and use regional renewable sources instead of giving millions of $$ to OPEC nations that hate us. Maybe NOT giving money to Middle eastern oil nations would do more to win the war on terrorists than fighting them.

[JohnnyTKF]

There is no reason we cant use all of those technologies. When the wind is blowing and sun is shining and waves are crashing the regular power plants wont have to output as much or use as much resources. But thinking that somehow in the next 30-50 years we could get all of our energy from renewable sources isnt realistic IMO.

America has already reduced its consumption of oil by about 7%. I dont see why we cant drill our own oil and use regional renewable sources instead of giving millions of $$ to OPEC nations that hate us. Maybe NOT giving money to Middle eastern oil nations would do more to win the war on terrorists than fighting them.

I saw a graph, where they combined all the renewables. I know it's not realistic though :P Buuuut I thought of oil running out (In 30 years, there'll barely be any left) so it's either developing renewable widely or nuclear power (Fusion won't be ready). Then again, only the developed world follows ethical eco friendly practices, in my country, the only "renewable" resource are dams, and those aren't the best for ecosystems. Worst part is most of the suggestions are ignored, and sadly this happens in a lot of developing countries (Except growing giants, like Brazil or China which need renewables by the time they settle in a developed market, in coming decades), and I don't see that changing for the moment (Which means that, you are right, renewables won't be widespread :S)

By the way, the US SHOULD be allowed to drill their oil, why not? Those protesters don't realize that it's still better for everyone than paying the OPEC (IMO), maybe you guys will find a solution, or just ignore them.

[shockpally]

Um... the last estimate i saw on the U.S. oil reserves (undrilled) was over 300 years at that years consumption. And that was before hybrids. It just isnt in one big pile like the saudis have. We have to go all over to get it. If you look at the ANWR map the area they want to drill in is the size of a postage stamp. Native species have become accustom to the pipeline and live with it. We could drill our own oil with minimal impact on the surrounding areas. There are huge deposits in the Mid west also.

[Badpaladin]

The amount of people who don't have a clue about nuclear power in this world are astounding to me. Eating a banana gives you more exposure than a day of working at a nuclear power plant. People who work at nuclear power plants in the control rooms(very near the reactor) experience an insignificant amount of radiation. The plants we have right now were built in the 70's. Can you imagine how awesome plants would be if they were built today, and with today's technology? Think for a moment what computers were in the 70's compared to today, and you'll have an idea.

[Kouki]

Nuclear is the best way to go imo. Those oil and coal power sources give long term problems.

If you've seen Aftermath, those documentaries on National Geographic, you will see that those coal power plants will give big problems when the world gets overpopulated and the governments build more of those.

Nuclear power plants might explode and give away loads of radiation. But if the plant gets controlled often and in top condition (unlike those in Japan) then there shouldn't form any problems.

What is longer term then 2000 years of radiation?

[haxartus]

The biggest mistake with the Chernobyl disaster wasn't the explosion itself, but the attempts to hide it from the population.

[Maarsch]

Pro-renewables.

If that doesn't match our energy requirements I'd prefer Nuclear run by non-people over fossiles.

The pros of a properly managed nuclear plant (which is also not built on a fault line or something silly like that) over fossile fuel is quite good.
Problem is, people are stupid and nuclear plants won't always get the management it requires and people will die/mutate because of that. Meaning I don't know what to root for after renewables.

[Tore]

I have placed my full faith in Nuclear Energy following the disaster in Japan.

That station was 40 years old and outdated, and it still withstood a direct hit from a massive Earthquake, flooding, more earthquakes, and several consecutive explosions. Further, considering the reaction has yet to even reach the outer meltdown failsafe chamber, the odds of a recovery are much better than the media is telling through fear-mongering.

[Jurwi]

Renewables are just not good enough to provide the energy todays world needs. It's pointless to root for them. Silly hippies don't get it.

Nuclear is the way to go even if it has little downsides.

[HazardYo]

Problem is, people are stupid and nuclear plants won't always get the management it requires and people will die/mutate because of that.

You proved in just one second that you have no idea what you are talking about.
And only people who have no clue would even think about rooting for renewable energy.

[Deleted]

IMO Renewable energy is good (more wind, solar and to a degree hydro).

OTOH Nuclear fission is a decent stopgap solution (especially when compared to coal and oil).

Fusion would be really nice if we could just get it off the ground but it's turned into one of those techs that are constantly promised "10-15 years from now"...

[ralphie]

And where are you going to put all that nuclear waste?

[Tokru]

As for the germans shutting down their plants: the source of all this - I'm sorry, but I have to name it that way - idiocy seems to be deluded Greenpeace-environmentalists, who kept stirring up the masses against nuclear energy. Those guys were, after all this tragedy in Japan happened, all the time on the TV, explaining why the devil that is nuclear energy is bad to every living soul on this planet.
I can only wonder why anyone would listen to THOSE GUYS and not to people who actually know their stuff.

It's really funny watching our so-called news channels. They talk to a lot of "experts" but 90% of them are severely biased by the pure fact, that they are from green peace or other environmental groups. Of course they say it's very very very bad. They don't even have to air such an interview. Everyone knows what will be said. And then they re-air these interviews hourly. That's what they are doing since friday. They aren't even ashamed of the information that was proven false days ago. Even Today they say in some of these reruns that the quake was a single 8.9 and not 3x 9.0.

There was a real expert in an interview once. A professor for nuclear power. He said that it is completely out of place to judge what is happening in Japan from here because of severe lack of information.

Obviously this interview wasn't re-aired, because it meant, that all the fear-mongering from the news was wrong. And that's something noone wants to show to their audience.

[Dazu]

And where are you going to put all that nuclear waste?

Back in the ground?
The waste is no where near as bad as people make out. Most of it is fear mongering done to sensationalize stories.
All power stations emit radiation. Most fossil fuel ones in similar levels in the surround area to nuclear ones. Radiation is all around us and Nuclear stations are more likely to withstand disasters without massive contamination dramas than other power sources. Had those ones in Japan been coal.... all that coal and oils would have been washed away with the tsunami, the contamination to such a large area would be horrendous. The environmental damage from one coal station hit by the tsunami would outdo Chernobyl.

Further, Japans plants survived the Earthquake relatively unscathed. The tsunami wiped out the back out generators which caused the problems. Considering the sheer devastation and the fact that still no serious risks are posed by the stations is testament to the safety of modern nuclear systems.

[holyforce]

I support it to, until we perfect fusion technology.

p.s. Such a cute avatar.

this so much.

tencharacters.

[HazardYo]

Back in the ground?

This.
Just keep it away from groundwater and you could theoretically put it nearly anywhere in an isolated part of the world.
There, problem solved.

[Kyro000]

I think Nuclear power is fine as long as they are not built in places that are popular for natural disasters AND some type of organization is given every shred of info regarding the Nuclear plants every month so that way the Govt. and/or the company that owns the nuclear plant can't cover up any accidents (like every nuclear accident ever)

[HazardYo]

I think Nuclear power is fine as long as they are not built in places that are popular for natural disasters

Fukushima Daiichi in Japan got hit by a magnitude 9.0 earthquake, followed by mutliple magnitude 6+ aftershocks, coupled with a tsunami that washed OVER the whole facillity, as well as having multiple fire breakouts and explosions.
And it is still there.
And that thing is some 40 years old and wasn't even built to really withstand any of that. I'd say, that if such a plant was built with today's technology by Japan, it would be pretty damn safe.

[holyforce]

Fukushima Daiichi in Japan got hit by a magnitude 9.0 earthquake, followed by mutliple magnitude 6+ aftershocks, coupled with a tsunami that washed OVER the whole facillity, as well as having multiple fire breakouts and explosions.
And it is still there.
And that thing is some 40 years old and wasn't even built to really withstand any of that. I'd say, that if such a plant was built with today's technology by Japan, it would be pretty damn safe.

not to mention the Japanese have brought many tech. advances in building and safety. I think they would do a fine job if the built a new plant.

[Albert the fish]

imo nuclear fission isn't a good idea really
it is however our best stop-gap option until we refine 'green' energies to the point where they can mass produce on a similar level or until nuclear fusion becomes reasonable