Environmentalists will need to fix these charts before green energy is worth it.

[Christan]

What, you think they make nuclear power plants out of cardboard and tinfoil?

wasn't there a tsunami recently in japan, one of the highest technological countries in the world, that left a reactor so close to melting down it had people scared?
didn't that "regulated and safe" reactor get approved from the nuclear autority?
thing is, we don't have tech for purely indestructible items and mother nature laughs in our face constantly.
this is reality not fantasy, and current tech doesn't support making stuff stronger than tinfoil according to mother natures designs(even some human designs...terrorists and all)

so yes, they make it out of tinfoil (as an comparison, because everything is flimsy when enough force is applied)

what is considered 100% safe by them will have something thrown at it, be it human or nature, that screws everything up.

even the best reactors have nuclear waste.

all in all screw nuclear power.

Hydrogen would work like a battery for the power produced by said solar panels or whatever, not the source itself.

there is actually hydrogen cell technology, its output is, water, and electricity, some buss systems are running off it in england i hear use large cells.

small versions:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8mv2oq75vk
just read up on current tech for it, hydrogen cells could seriously help with solar power being intermittent
i what i think when i think about green energy is NOT one specific type working solo.
but a roof covered in solar panels, 1 or 2 turbines in the backyard, charging large batteries in the basement.
then some sort of control board that reads how much is being used and uses up a hydrogen fuel cell to make up for battery life.

all of those combined would almost completely negate the problems with the other types of power being intermittent / stopping for a bit
(storm clouds roiling blocking off light would probably make the wind turbines produce more, night time no wind or turbines if it doesn't look like battery life will last till the next day start using some of the hydrogen cell electricity --so on so forth)

[Rukentuts]

wasn't there a tsunami recently in japan, one of the highest technological countries in the world, that left a reactor so close to melting down it had people scared?
didn't that "regulated and safe" reactor get approved from the nuclear autority?
thing is, we don't have tech for purely indestructible items and mother nature laughs in our face constantly.
this is reality not fantasy, and current tech doesn't support making stuff stronger than tinfoil according to mother natures designs(even some human designs...terrorists and all)

so yes, they make it out of tinfoil (as an comparison, because everything is flimsy when enough force is applied)

what is considered 100% safe by them will have something thrown at it, be it human or nature, that screws everything up.

even the best reactors have nuclear waste.

all in all screw nuclear power.

Yeah, a plant that is over 4 decades old, just like pretty much every one in the USA.

I go to bed not far from a nuke and a coal fired plant, and the coal one pisses me off helluva lot more.

[Linkedblade]

We need to build electronics that require less POWER. That way not as much charge is necessary to run our technology. Many electronics/appliance companies are aware of this and working on it. The space shuttle has devices that operate on such low power that all the electricity it needs is charged via solar panels onboard.

---------- Post added 2013-01-09 at 12:14 AM ----------

Yeah, a plant that is over 4 decades old, just like pretty much every one in the USA.

I go to bed not far from a nuke and a coal fired plant, and the coal one pisses me off helluva lot more.

The nearest solar plant to me is less than 50 miles away. The nearest coal natural gas plant is less than a mile away. Neither really concern me, but some of the shit I've seen near the nuclear plant scares me to this day.

[Rukentuts]

We need to build electronics that require less POWER. That way not as much charge is necessary to run our technology. Many electronics/appliance companies are aware of this and working on it. The space shuttle has devices that operate on such low power that all the electricity it needs is charged via solar panels onboard.

---------- Post added 2013-01-09 at 12:14 AM ----------



The nearest solar plant to me is less than 50 miles away. The nearest coal natural gas plant is less than a mile away. Neither really concern me, but some of the shit I've seen near the nuclear plant scares me to this day.

I live not too far from Sherco. That shit is massive.

Ironically, it's almost within eye-shot of the Monticello Nuke, one of the safest plants in the nation.

Holy shit, the medical costs from just that one plant (Sherco) in a year.

[Eagle1Fox2]

there is actually hydrogen cell technology, its output is, water, and electricity, some buss systems are running off it in england i hear use large cells.

Maybe I'm confused, but isn't that a battery? You put the hydrogen in, water comes out, you run out of hydrogen and need to split it again with some other source of power, which you then transport back to your car or whatever. The problem is coming up with the energy for electrolysis isn't it?

Edit: Did a bit of reading on uranium because I'd heard we only had about 100 years left of the fuel. Looks like there's actually another 100 years of the cheap stuff and the price of fuel would need to increase in order to extract it from non uranium rich places.

[Gheld]

Hydrogen would work like a battery for the power produced by said solar panels or whatever, not the source itself.

Except that even with 100% efficiency, the electrolysis of water to produce hydrogen requires more energy than hydrogen produces when it is reacted with oxygen. (i.e. burned, or combined in a fuel cell).

So that would just be adding even more inefficiency to a technology whose advocates argue is only limited by its currently low level of efficiency.

[Rukentuts]

Maybe I'm confused, but isn't that a battery? You put the hydrogen in, water comes out, you run out of hydrogen and need to split it again with some other source of power, which you then transport back to your car or whatever. The problem is coming up with the energy for electrolysis isn't it?

Hydrogen is actually very abundant. The problem with using it for mobile sources of power is safe storage as it is highly volatile.

[Deleted]

Well as far as I'm aware, solar photovoltaic is the only one that can be made more efficient. I'm not sure of the others, but I know Denmark and one of the other Scandinavian nations has dumped oodles of cash into offshore wind. The costs to produce that power remain well above the most expensive fossil fuels.

Yep.
For two reasons:

1. We care more about the cost to the environment, than the cost to the stupid wallet.
2. ... That's how you DO practical research, which is what you all say we need more of!

[Gheld]

Hydrogen is actually very abundant. The problem with using it for mobile sources of power is safe storage as it is highly volatile.

The problem with using it is like I've said a million times everybody mentions hydrogen in a thread. Producing hydrogen via electrolysis requires even more energy than it will produce from a separate power source.

What the world needs is a Helium-3 mine on the moon and better battery technology to bottle that energy.

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

The nearest solar plant to me is less than 50 miles away. The nearest coal natural gas plant is less than a mile away. Neither really concern me, but some of the shit I've seen near the nuclear plant scares me to this day.

Like what?

[Seranthor]

If people only realized just how much oil was subsidized in the US, they'd be screaming for their hard earned tax dollars to be going somewhere else.

Fuel is subsidized to make you continue to believe it's cheap. You really should take some time to research where your tax dollars go and how much you're ACTUALLY spending at the pump.

Other countries are beating us to cheap renewable alternatives and it's already become reality in most of those countries, meanwhile we continue to appease a fuel addiction and treat progress with apathy.

So tell us, with verifiable facts, how much oil is subsidized in the US... then, show us how much it pays in taxes in the US.

Then, tell us why the US government makes 40-60 cents per gallon of gas sold in the US... While they spend nothing to produce it... meanwhile, ExxonMobil makes approximately 3-4 cents per gallon profit...

So, yes in fact, you SHOULD do your research before you make up garbage and try and feed it to us..

Or maybe you've confused the oil industry with GE who actually got money BACK from the Feds, and we all know how much in taxes that Green energy generates for the Government.

[Rukentuts]

There's more methods than electrolysis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_production

---------- Post added 2013-01-08 at 11:48 PM ----------

ExxonMobil makes approximately 3-4 cents per gallon profit...

You're thinking of any gas station, not ExxonMobil the producer.

That's why you conveniently left out a source.

[Eagle1Fox2]

Hydrogen is actually very abundant. The problem with using it for mobile sources of power is safe storage as it is highly volatile.

Most abundant element in the universe, but like you said highly volatile to the point where we basically don't find it anywhere pure and we always have to expend energy to purify it, right?

[Rukentuts]

Most abundant element in the universe, but like you said highly volatile to the point where we basically don't find it anywhere pure and we always have to expend energy to purify it, right?

We don't just find pure gasoline either.

On the topic of H2:

The molecular hydrogen needed as an on-board fuel for hydrogen vehicles can be obtained through many thermochemical methods utilizing natural gas, coal (by a process known as coal gasification), liquefied petroleum gas, biomass (biomass gasification), by a process called thermolysis, or as a microbial waste product called biohydrogen or Biological hydrogen production. 95% of hydrogen is produced using natural gas,[54] and 85% of hydrogen produced is used to remove sulfur from gasoline. Hydrogen can also be produced from water by electrolysis or by chemical reduction using chemical hydrides or aluminum.[55]

So much for electrolysis.

However, H2 cars will never happen. There are too many permanent issues.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_vehicle#Fuel_cell

[Gheld]

We don't just find pure gasoline either.

On the topic of H2:

So much for electrolysis.

So we can get around the electrolysis process, all we need is MORE FOSSIL FUEL!!!

EDIT: Oh, and these thermochemical methods, require thermal energy.

And the amount of energy it takes to break a hydrogen bond in a chemical is the same, no matter what chemical you are breaking it on.

[Rukentuts]

So we can get around the electrolysis process, all we need is MORE FOSSIL FUEL!!!

I'll take Natural Gas plants and cars over coal and gasoline ones respectively any day of the week.

PS: The hydrogen produced by natural gas is at refineries, and used on site. There's no real public demand for it.

[Gheld]

I'll take Natural Gas plants and cars over coal and gasoline ones respectively any day of the week.

PS: The hydrogen produced by natural gas is at refineries, and used on site. There's no real public demand for it.

But what really needs to be done, is better batteries. So that solar energy can be collected in space by less laughable panel arrays, and so that when we finally develop fusion power it can be made viable for portable use.

[Rukentuts]

But what really needs to be done, is better batteries. So that solar energy can be collected in space by less laughable panel arrays, and so that when we finally develop fusion power it can be made viable for portable use.

Fusion Power isn't projected to be done before 2050.

Might as well swap our fossil fuel plants to natural gas while we wait.

[Gheld]

Fusion Power isn't projected to be done before 2050.

Might as well swap our fossil fuel plants to natural gas while we wait.

Well where I live over 99% of electricity is generated as hydro electricity. So excuse me if I don't feel the urgency of that one.

[Eagle1Fox2]

We don't just find pure gasoline either.

Got me there

I'll take Natural Gas plants and cars over coal and gasoline ones respectively any day of the week.

PS: The hydrogen produced by natural gas is at refineries, and used on site. There's no real public demand for it.

Yeah, you're right about that, but my point is that the answer isn't to just use hydrogen because we still need more sources of power, preferably without CO2 emissions.