Alternative Energy's

[Blobfish]

Australia , with Communist Dictators Messers J.Gillard & B Brown

Have just introduced a Carbon Tax

However, they are really promoting alternative energy

Any Ideas.. as to an alternative energy besides coal

[Deleted]

Australia , with Communist Dictators Messers J.Gillard & B Brown

Have just introduced a Carbon Tax

However, they are really promoting alternative energy

Any Ideas.. as to an alternative energy besides coal

Human batteries.

[Voij]

Australia , with Communist Dictators Messers J.Gillard & B Brown

Have just introduced a Carbon Tax

However, they are really promoting alternative energy

Any Ideas.. as to an alternative energy besides coal

Communist Dictators? That really doesn't sound right...

Anyways, Solar energy could work well for you guys down there. You do have enough land and sun for it.
Not sure how you'd do with Wind energy, water is probably out of the question. Geothermal would probably be rather hard and I don't think it'd be easy to support the nation with it.

Yeah, that's about all I can think of.

[Blobfish]

Dude they are in Australia

They want to control the internet

Bob Brown of the Greens want less Anti Media towards his gay party

Julia Gillard lies, & Talks horribly..

She aint a world leader

[Gorthalis]

Dude they are in Australia

They want to control the internet

Bob Brown of the Greens want less Anti Media towards his gay party

Julia Gillard lies, & Talks horribly..

She aint a world leader

Controlling the internet is different to filtering illegal content. I disagree with the internet filter in all capacities as it provides the infastructure and a stepping stone for a more invasive approach in the future while at the same time not helping curb the rate of child abuse/production of child pornography, but as it stands it's not too bad. It's hardly "controlling the internet". No, the only ones that want to do that are those twerps - in place of a ruder word - from the Australian Christian Lobby. Pushing for all internet pornography and violent video game material to be filtered and such.

I'm not sure what you're on about with Bob Brown. He doesn't want the media to say bad things about his party? Please elaborate, because EVERY party reacts badly to criticism.

Talking horribly? If you want to judge a politician by their voicebox then whatever. I just hope you don't vote.

On topic.. Wind power and solar power are good ideas given the huge amount of space we have to construct them. If money for the carbon tax went towards creating wind farms and solar power stations, that would be a good move.

[zorkuus]

Any Ideas.. as to an alternative energy besides coal

Solar power? Wind power? Hydropower?.....

[Deleted]

Human batteries.

It would require 0.49 million km² to power the whole world with solar power.
It would require 5.85 million km² to power the whole world with offshore wind power.
It would require 18 148 million km² (whole Earth's land about 121 stories high, cell by cell next to each other) to supply today's need of electricity with human batteries (matrix style).

Just a fun fact.

[Blobfish]

Cool wind Power

Those great big windmills on the side of Mountains.. awesome Asethitics

Solar power.. Hopefully enough solar panels to keep a city of Sydney 4.1 million.
or Melbourne going

[zorkuus]

I was expecting you to bring up that age old argument.

"Alternative energy is too inefficient!"

Well guess why? Because people are too complacent and used to their old ways, and that's why alternative energy reseach and development doesn't get enough attention and funding to make them more efficient.

Those great big windmills on the side of Mountains.. awesome Asethitics

I find them quite a pleasing sight... compared to a nuclear power plant.

[Notalent]

Off shore wind is the safest bet.

Nuclear power is the BEST bet.

---------- Post added 2011-07-31 at 02:53 AM ----------

I was expecting you to bring up that age old argument.

"Alternative energy is too inefficient!"

Well guess why? Because people are too complacent and used to their old ways, and that's why alternative energy reseach and development doesn't get enough attention and funding to make them more efficient.

Actually there is a huge amount of finance into alternative energy, the reason its not being pushed even harder is its just not profitable. Hippies need to realize Alternative energy won't be pushed for until it costs less to work around then coal, natural gas, and oil.

[TJ]

Nuclear power is the BEST bet.

Japan says hi, nuclear power is far too vunerable to natural disasters, an earthquake or w/e can easily destroy the reactors and release harmful radiation into the atomosphere.

[Voij]

Those great big windmills on the side of Mountains.. awesome Asethitics

You do know that it's better to build them on flat surfaces, right?

I find them quite a pleasing sight... compared to a nuclear power plant.

80% sure you don't have any major wind-parks in your surrounding area. One or two of them are nice and interesting, multiple dozens are just annoying.
[Especially since they destroy the "natural" look of the landscape.]

Japan says hi, nuclear power is far too vunerable to natural disasters, an earthquake or w/e can easily destroy the reactors and release harmful radiation into the atomosphere.

Are you actually from Germany? I hate how the media has managed to scare so many of us into believing that nuclear reactors are a bomb waiting to explode.
Of course they're not absolutely safe, but in all honesty:
What do you fear? Earthquakes in Germany? Yeah, the 2-3 extremely small ones that occured over the last century are a really good reason...
Just face it, natural disasters are not only extremely rare, they're also not a danger for most places on earth. And even then, it takes exceptional ones to actually endanger a nuclear plant. [You did know that Japan gets hit by earthquakes incredibly often, right?]

Last but not least: The biggest upside to nuclear plants is the energy you gain by using them. Then again, most people would prefer millions of wind wheels destroying the landscape lightly instead of a few nuclear plants endangering a very small part of the land strongly.
I mean, why build a nuclear plant that can pay it's cost after 2 years, if instead you could build wind wheels that outweigh their own costs after about 2 decades.

[zorkuus]

80% sure you don't have any major wind-parks in your surrounding area. One or two of them are nice and interesting, multiple dozens are just annoying.
[Especially since they destroy the "natural" look of the landscape.]

Buildings of any type (or cities) destroy the natural look of the landscape aswell, yet we have them. And honestly I still don't see how windmills are the big evil of aesthetics. They just look neutral to me.

[TJ]

Are you actually from Germany? I hate how the media has managed to scare so many of us into believing that nuclear reactors are a bomb waiting to explode.
Of course they're not absolutely safe, but in all honesty:
What do you fear? Earthquakes in Germany? Yeah, the 2-3 extremely small ones that occured over the last century are a really good reason...
Just face it, natural disasters are not only extremely rare, they're also not a danger for most places on earth. And even then, it takes exceptional ones to actually endanger a nuclear plant. [You did know that Japan gets hit by earthquakes incredibly often, right?]

Last but not least: The biggest upside to nuclear plants is the energy you gain by using them. Then again, most people would prefer millions of wind wheels destroying the landscape lightly instead of a few nuclear plants endangering a very small part of the land strongly.
I mean, why build a nuclear plant that can pay it's cost after 2 years, if instead you could build wind wheels that outweigh their own costs after about 2 decades.

No im not from Germany, but you have to think of the future, climate change is said to get worse and there to be more extreme weather all over the world. Earthquakes would be stronger and there would be more chaotic storms increasing vulnerability to a nuclear meltdown in a powerplant, i was not necessarily talking about landlocked countries such as Germany but more about Japan and others prone to disasters.
Also no, you should face that disasters are not rare, they are rare in that they have not done much to nuclear powerplants before Chernobyl and recently Japan but i would take them as warnings that they can be a real danger to the world. More reactors = more chance of a nuclear disaster, also an easy target for terrorism which would be globally felt if big ones were targeted and destroyed.

What i do fear is that when a problem occurs in a nuclear reactor its felt in massive areas and that most people seem to just think of the Japan incident as "oh, well shit happens" when in fact it was serious and could affect the population years from now.

[Notalent]

Japan says hi, nuclear power is far too vunerable to natural disasters, an earthquake or w/e can easily destroy the reactors and release harmful radiation into the atomosphere.

Japan isn't even the best example if you want to go that route you may as well bring up Chernobyl. That doesn't change the fact that its the only cost effective form of alternative power currently.

[Tastyfish]

Beer power all the way!

[Deleted]

Japan isn't even the best example if you want to go that route you may as well bring up Chernobyl. That doesn't change the fact that its the only cost effective form of alternative power currently.

Also, those powerplants werent exactly new now were they? Considering the events in japan, dont you think the International energy agency is pouring funds into research, on how to build better and safer ways to produce nuclear power? I still believe its a viable source of power, and with propper maintanence it can last many many years.

[Deleted]

Actually there is a huge amount of finance into alternative energy, the reason its not being pushed even harder is its just not profitable. Hippies need to realize Alternative energy won't be pushed for until it costs less to work around then coal, natural gas, and oil.

It's not profitable due to the lack or short-time it's being researched. Extensive research in to it has mostly being in the last two decades... were as the crude fuels have being researched for a good handful of decades more. Hence it's not as cost efficient as crude fuel. The realisation that's needed is that transitions of this kind take several decades to succeed and it's a long term goal with longer term pay-off. Not a simple and quick fix.

[darthawesome]

The internet filter can be ignored as the leading ISPs who aren't terrible won't even bother with it.
As for the carbon tax, it's justified but crap (won't go into reasons for it, it's a LONG list).
We need nuclear power in Australia and it will come sooner or later.

[zorkuus]

The realisation that's needed is that transitions of this kind take several decades to succeed and it's a long term goal with longer term pay-off. Not a simple and quick fix.

That seems to be the problem here. People who are against alternative energies because of their inefficient state at the moment, are asking for a new form of energy to be handed to them on a silver platter, ready to be used, functional, efficient and profitable right from the get go.