Page 1 of 3
1
2
3
LastLast
  1. #1
    Stood in the Fire Aussiedude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    418

    Alternative Energy's

    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

  2. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by Aussiedude View Post
    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.

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Aussiedude View Post
    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.
    It's astonishing how confused people get when a sentence does not end as they potato.

  4. #4
    Stood in the Fire Aussiedude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    418
    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

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Aussiedude View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Gorthalis; 2011-07-31 at 08:32 AM.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Aussiedude View Post
    Any Ideas.. as to an alternative energy besides coal
    Solar power? Wind power? Hydropower?.....

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Ultimoron View Post
    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.

  8. #8
    Stood in the Fire Aussiedude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    418
    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

  9. #9
    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.
    Last edited by zorkuus; 2011-07-31 at 09:55 AM.

  10. #10
    Off shore wind is the safest bet.

    Nuclear power is the BEST bet.

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

    Quote Originally Posted by zorkuus View Post
    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.

  11. #11
    Legendary! TJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    North Wales
    Posts
    6,295
    Quote Originally Posted by Notalent View Post
    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.

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Aussiedude View Post
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by zorkuus View Post
    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.]

    Quote Originally Posted by TJ View Post
    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.
    It's astonishing how confused people get when a sentence does not end as they potato.

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Voij View Post
    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.

  14. #14
    Legendary! TJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    North Wales
    Posts
    6,295
    Quote Originally Posted by Voij View Post
    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.

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by TJ View Post
    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.

  16. #16
    Beer power all the way!
    "If you want to control people, if you want to feed them a pack of lies and dominate them, keep them ignorant. For me, literacy means freedom." - LaVar Burton.

  17. #17
    Blademaster Malanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    The Garden of Bleeding
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by Notalent View Post
    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.

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Notalent View Post
    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.

  19. #19
    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.

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Fhaz View Post
    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •