Power sources of the world

[Duskmourne]

Don't forget fuzzzie, though, that a breakthrough such as fusion technology would forever change the world. No more energy problems. What would happen to the economy? The big companies don't want this. They will try to counter it with all their power.

I'm a huge supporter of nuclear power. Fusion will be a beautiful thing. And to the big companies that do not want this; it is only a matter of time. The uncomfortable truth is that most of our resources are finite. The greed of big companies is staggering and dangerous, but eventually it will happen.

[Herecius]

Nuclear energy is still one of the safest energy sources in the world. Coal and natural gas are both rather high pollution, coal in particular, and many people die in coal mines and from horrible lung afflictions due to working in coal mines every year. That said, the constant danger of it being weaponized in many countries cannot be ignored, and to be honest, I have no idea how it could be avoided forever.

The best thing to do is accelerate research and development into more alternative energy sources, including fusion.

[Afrospinach]

Nuclear fusion pwns your puny fission

Whats the point in investing in nuclear power if there is only less than 100 years left to use it? are their alternatives to uranium that can be used?

Yes! Google thorium reactors, I would post a link but can't. Don't often hear about them so not sure what to make of it with regards to actually seeing them in action.

[Deleted]

Nuclear power all the way, whether it be fission or fusion.
Gotta love how certain moneyplayers/govt's are stalling with the researching....Money, source of all our problems.

[Deleted]

Why should we once again make us dependent on an powersource that is not infinit? Nuclear power is a good temporary solution, but we shouldn't build any new plants. And oil/coal should not be used to make energy in any way.

And powering the world with renewable energy is possible.

By 2020 renewable energy should account for 20 percent of the EU's final energy consumption. To meet this common target, each member state needs to increase its production and use of renewable energy in electricity, heating and cooling and transport. Sweden has set their target at 50 percent renewable energy by 2020.
In 2009 47,7 percent of Sweden's total energy supplied was renewable energy.

Sweden plans to be world's first oil-free economy
Sweden is to take the biggest energy step of any advanced western economy by trying to wean itself off oil completely within 10 years - without building a new generation of nuclear power stations.

This is only 10 years away, no oil, no new nuclear power plants.

[HazardYo]

And powering the world with renewable energy is possible.

That is not feasible.
It may work in some regions that are not as power-hungry, like Sweden, but compared to the USA, China, or many other bigger industrialized countries, this is just not going to work.
Not now, not later on, never.
Renewable energy cannot and will not provide enough energy for such countries.

[grothezk]

sorry i'm not an expert on nuclear, but I don't really need to. In my country we use hydroelectric energy. Clean, safe and eco-friendly.

For me it's a /facepalm that countries like Chile pretends to start using nuclear energy, when they, like Japan, are heavy sismical countries.

[Jackmoves]

I'm not too keen on nuclear power, but its far better then some alternatives. It should be in every countrys best interest to try and get as much of their power as possible from renewable sources though. Some countrys dont have the possiblity to get that much energy from natural sources however but they should try their best. Being a swede we get a lot of our power from renewable sources, close to 50%. But we got a great suply of hydropower, other countrys don't. Biofuels is a good alternative for some.

[HazardYo]

For me it's a /facepalm that countries like Chile pretends to start using nuclear energy, when they, like Japan, are heavy sismical countries.

It could work out, depending on how clever they are.
Their best bet might be to learn from the japanese - they are the smartest people on earth when it comes to building buildings that withstand heavy seismic influence.

Being a swede we get a lot of our power from renewable sources

As I said before, you cannot compare Sweden to big industrialized countries in this world.
Renewable energies will not be able to power them, ever.

[Jackmoves]

As I said before, you cannot compare Sweden to big, industrialized countries in this world. Renewable energies will not be able to power them, ever.

I said countrys should try and get as much energy as possible from renewable sources. Not that they should abandon nuclear/coal/gas plants alltogether. Every % counts and makes at least a slight difference.

Sweden and it's economy has been built upon high energy consuming industrialization and exports for years to, it's only the last 30-20 years we have started to take an active route away from it really. Industrialization was what saw swedish economy growing extremly strong from ww2 and onwards.

[Deleted]

Even Today they say in some of these reruns that the quake was a single 8.9 and not 3x 9.0.

Um, it was a single 9.0... There was a 7.2 foreshock and a 7.1 aftershock, but everything else has been below 7.

sorry i'm not an expert on nuclear, but I don't really need to. In my country we use hydroelectric energy. Clean, safe and eco-friendly.

Hydro isn't that eco-friendly - you have to flood large areas of land to make the reservoirs to feed the generators. Soing so releases large amount of carbon from the destroyed plant life and destroys habitats for various creatures. Of all the renewables, hydro is the least eco-friendly in fact.

Also hydro is very much not a realistic choice for most of the world due to lack of suitable water supplies.

[Zygersaf]

personally, i think that nuclear and wind power are the way to go.

I was watching the news about 2 months ago (BBC, im from the UK) and they were debating wether or not to put 5 wind turbines up in yorkshire... i thought this was a good idea but everyone they interviewed almost refused to let it be done. This got me thinking about why, turns out they make lots of noise and aparently "look ugly" those are the only reasons the people could come up with for not having them put up.

After watching for a few more miniutes i then found out that those 5 turbines would be able t power 4000 houses.... I jsut cant belive people will pass up the chance of having 4000 houses powered just becasue of a bit of noise on 1 farm somewhere probably too far away for 90% of the people in that area to hear.

[Sunseeker]

We need to work harder to develop fusion technology and move away from fission. Waste and hazard reduction along with increased power generation.

What we really need to do is get away from turbines and steam. EVERY power plant works by either spinning something really fast or by making steam to spin something really fast.

[soulinger]

Fusion probably has been possible for awhile now, like you said big companies wont allow it because of greed just like curing cancer
People can cure cancer but if they do it too much than companies/doctors dont make money. Cancer is a money maker that will never be " official" cured for good. Good luck on being one of those that get the ok to be cured because not all of us that encounter cancer will be that lucky.

as for Nuclear powerplants, yes it seems like a great way for energy but it also is so risky to use. Japan could end that side of the world at any time if they arent careful right now

[rantus]

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.

What's wrong with saying mutate? Its well known that radiation can cause mutations.

And only people who have no clue would even think about not rooting for renewable energy.

Seriously, even if you're old enough that resources running out won't affect you, it will affect future generations. Not developing renewables now is basically giving a giant middle finger and a fuck you to the people of the future.

[Deleted]

Fusion probably has been possible for awhile now, like you said big companies wont allow it because of greed just like curing cancer
People can cure cancer but if they do it too much than companies/doctors dont make money. Cancer is a money maker that will never be " official" cured for good. Good luck on being one of those that get the ok to be cured because not all of us that encounter cancer will be that lucky.

as for Nuclear powerplants, yes it seems like a great way for energy but it also is so risky to use. Japan could end that side of the world at any time if they arent careful right now

Yes it's all a conspiracy. Billions and billions of maney just goes through the drain because we don't want to cure cancer or find a good energy source.

[Fooliecoolie]

personally, i think that nuclear and wind power are the way to go.

I was watching the news about 2 months ago (BBC, im from the UK) and they were debating wether or not to put 5 wind turbines up in yorkshire... i thought this was a good idea but everyone they interviewed almost refused to let it be done. This got me thinking about why, turns out they make lots of noise and aparently "look ugly" those are the only reasons the people could come up with for not having them put up.

After watching for a few more miniutes i then found out that those 5 turbines would be able t power 4000 houses.... I jsut cant belive people will pass up the chance of having 4000 houses powered just becasue of a bit of noise on 1 farm somewhere probably too far away for 90% of the people in that area to hear.

Noise from wind turbines can travel up to 3000 meters and the noise generated hits between 85 to 105db plus this noise is cycling at a low frequency 24/7. It can cause health issues as it disrupt sleep patterns to humans, pets, livestock and wildlife.

http://www.dangerousdecibels.org/edu...me-guidelines/
http://www.maine.gov/doc/mfs/windpow...rbineNoise.pdf

[Deleted]

I'm making this in order to let those who expressed concern regarding nuclear vs non-nuclear in the Japan Quake thread a place to discuss with no fear of being banned for being off-topic.

To start of the conversation, I am pro-nuclear, thinking it is a pinnacle of human engineering and remaining one of the best and safest power sources on the world.

P.S. Please keep it civil.

Not the safest, but its the best power source in the world, and it has future. Would be stupid to abadon that source just because we might have 2nd "chernobyl" comming, this technology should improve after all and try maximalize the safety of the plants. Humanity is in the Nuclear Age since the "Trinity" test, when they discovered the nuclear fusion , and IMO It would be really stupid as GREENPEACE says, to abadon this worldwide just because of 2 bigger failures. People learn through failures and people will discover how to maximaze the safety of this source.
My few cents here.

[HazardYo]

What's wrong with saying mutate? Its well known that radiation can cause mutations.

Because it was listed as an alternative to death. There were plenty of people that asked on the Earthquake in Japan thread, wether or not radiation would cause them to become mutants. Radiation does not do that. Nothing does that. That's science-fiction.
If it wasn't meant like that by the original author, I am apologizing.
But radiation doesn't cause you to directly "mutate" in any way.

Not developing renewables now is basically giving a giant middle finger and a fuck you to the people of the future.

That's why everyone's rooting for fusion.
It's far more efficient and better than anything else. But instead of throwing the money in the research for that, while using fission plants in the meantime, we use said money to build freaking renewable energy systems that barely can hope to power half of a middle-sized town.

[Deleted]

as for Nuclear powerplants, yes it seems like a great way for energy but it also is so risky to use. Japan could end that side of the world at any time if they arent careful right now

End that side of the world? Japan wouldn't end itself if they just left Fukushima to explode right now, let alone the whole eastern hemisphere.
Remember, Chernobyl blew up and burned for 10 days and it didn't destroy most of Europe, it barely even touched most of the Ukraine.