Nuclear Power is the only option....

No, Nuclear power isn’t that good as it is crack-up to be. It would be nice if we could use just wind, solar, and water-dam power, it would make the world such a better place. But sadly that will never happen because BIG BUSINESS will lose money, and God know they can’t stand that, poor babies….

 

couldn't big business profit on solar pannels...windmills and in building dams?

 

not as much
short term profits not long term.

 

really? solar panels dont break and need replacing? dams/windills dont need upkeep?

Besides, Big Business isnt one massive corporation keeping everyone dependent on oil.

 

They require very little upkeep, average Joe can do it himself. They last for decades if build well and manufactured well.

its a big complex relationship.

 

There are many options. Most peoples views on the various options are not current. Here's an easy website to navigate:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

 

Really? Any average joe could take care of Hoover Dam or tens of thousands of acres of windmills?

sounds a little like a copout

 

I was addressing solar panels.

But sure why not?

you can't explain the relationship in two sentences. it requires a little bit more effort...............

 

The technology exists to build light bulbs that could last a lifetime but they aren't manufactured because they aren't profitable.

 

People were sayin' nuclear energy was the future over half a century ago. Hasn't happened. For one thing, it isn't economical. Also, it'd mean the grid network would continue, and I want to decentralize energy production. We can use wood, vegetable oil, garbage, etc...

 

bio-fuels from crops give out an equal amount of CO2 when used as fuel in vehicles. They are only considered to be carbon neutral because when growing they phtosynthesise and take in CO2. But if this became our main source of fuel then the damage caused to the environment through the agricultural production would then make this just as bad as fossil fuels. (too much land would be required)And as for incineration of garbage to produce energy then it still produces emissions and would lead us to be complacent about our waste.

 

Ah, but it'd no longer be waste at all. It'd be fuel!

 

When used as fuel for vehicles ethanol produces less CO2. However, once must remember that CO2 is produced through the fermentation process. This CO2 can be used for industrial purposes. There is also CO2 produced through the harvestation and transportation processes. So, yes, the NET CO2 would be similar to fossil fuels, not the Co2 burnt for fuel. I find that this distinction is necessary for a comprehenisive understanding of why ethanol is not the fuel source that should be focused upon. Check out the chemical equations of burning ethanol.

C6H12O6 + O2 ===> 6C02 + 6H2O + energy 6 moles of CO2
ethanol

1 C7H16 + 22 O2 = 7 CO2 + 8 H20
1 C8H18 + 25 O2= 8 CO2 + 9 H2O compared to about 15 moles of CO2

unleaded gasolene, first heptane, second octane

Another major problem with ethanol is a NET loss of energy. Basically, the process of making ethanol requires more energy than what ethanol produces. I've got to get to class, but if you have any questions I can find out how many joules 1 mol of ethanol produces and how many joules are required to make ethanol.

Peace and love

 

Right, like massive cooling towers dotting the landscape are all kinds of attractive. The bird issue is a red herring given your position on nuclear being the only option.

 

your not getting me, what I'm thinking is that we would start to not bother trying to reduce our waste because we would have the peace of mind that it is being burned to produce energy. Basically cos we are inherently lazy.

Also that equation breakdown is interesting and yes it probably does emit marginally less CO2 when being burnt as fuel. But what about the problem of increased agriculture and the problems associated with that (water, poor land management, etc)?

And fusion (hydrogen isotopes, not yet in use) or fission (current nuclear) hasn't been mentioned yet! And of course hydrogen and its possibilities, but this still has to be produced using energy from fossil or nuclear.

 

You assume the worst behaviors of humanity when it comes to any other alternative energy sources, but assume nothing of the kind when it comes to nuclear. Why is that?

 

Well actually i haven't mentioned solar, HEP, or tidal yet. And I've not yet said what I think about the negatives of nuclear (which I believe to be a highly dangerous source of power but that this danger is now, because of technology, less of a challenge than it used to be, except in the case of the waste getting into the wrong hands, and that we need to seriously think about it as a main provider of energy - unless you discuss both sides of the argument you cannot make a sensible judgment). And regarding wind power this has nothing to do with negative human behaviour, its just a case of putting them in the right place.

 

I wasn't arguing for ethanol; I just corrected the CO2 issue. In my opinion, any fuel that requires more energy to make than it produces is an inadequate one. Gas has an energy content of 51 kJ/g while ethanol only has 27 kJ/g. Ethanol may produce less CO2 than gas, but it produces about half the energy that gas does. Ethanol is NOT the future of transportation fuels.

Hydrogen power is another option that needs to be considered for transportation fuel. The only biproduct is H2O, our friendly water! No CO2, because there's no carbon in the equation. Any biogenic fuel (aka ethanol, fossil fuels, even food waste) will produce some CO2 since they are carbon based structures.

What produces energy? It's not the carbon, it's the hydrogen! Where does all the energy in the earth ultimately come from? The hydrogen fission in the sun. Cut out the excess elements and use hydrogen. The Hydrogen combines with Oxygen to create water. That's literally how a hydrogen cell works. Here's a link:

http://www.hydrogennow.org/

I think there are many advantages, but every option also has it's disadvantages. Decide for yourself if the pro's outweigh the con's.

Peace and love

 

Hydrogen has to be made. It as to be produced chemically in a power plant - this could be from fossil fuels or nuclear. From what I understand it is not that difficult to make but there is problems in its storage which means that it will probably never provide on a large scale, although obviously for transport things are developing.


It always concerns me when biofuels, or hydrogen, are mentioned in the press as new types of 'green' energy for vehicles - they never tell us that these have to be produced before they can be used, basically you need a coal fired power plant to get the hydrogen from water in the first place!

 

Hydrogen would only be worthwhile if we already had natural supplies of it just ready for the taking. We don't, and the effort to extract it isn't worth what you'd get out of it. It wouldn't make nuclear energy any less uneconomical.