Ball Lightning
www.sporedum.net
I think that solar panels are the best as they use the sun which is when the most energy is used.
What is your favourite clean energy?
- Thread starter Ball Lightning
- Start date
Winner
Diverse in Unity
Nuclear - the best option now.
Geothermal - clean and cheap, in some areas.
Tidal - it has a potential.
The rest is either too inefficient, too expensive or too polluting. Hydro is excluded because I don't think it is possible to expand it by building new dams.
Geothermal - clean and cheap, in some areas.
Tidal - it has a potential.
The rest is either too inefficient, too expensive or too polluting. Hydro is excluded because I don't think it is possible to expand it by building new dams.
thetrooper
Misanthrope
- Joined
- May 24, 2004
- Messages
- 9,112
Solar ~ hydrogen.
Ball Lightning
www.sporedum.net
The problem with Nuclear is the waste which is toxic for about 1000 years (not to long) and the cost of creating it. You have to use energy and transport which all emmits CO2.
I like wind right now. It can be incorporated quite easily in bite-sized chunks and thus take pressure off of a grid or an energy bill. It's not enough to go-it alone, but as a supplemental source it's awesome.
Solar is similar, but still more expensive compared to wind.
I don't like nuclear mainly because of the huge capital costs. It puts tax-payers on the hook from day-one.
Solar is similar, but still more expensive compared to wind.
I don't like nuclear mainly because of the huge capital costs. It puts tax-payers on the hook from day-one.
Ball Lightning
www.sporedum.net
Theres a new Solar energy which is 10 times more efficient and can be used in light cloud cover, it does this by splitting the silicon, it also reduces the cost alot by using less silicon.
thetrooper
Misanthrope
- Joined
- May 24, 2004
- Messages
- 9,112
What do you mean by 'splitting the silicon'?
Winner
Diverse in Unity
It's not toxic, it's radioactive.
Anyway, the cost of transporting the fuel is marginal, it takes one load a year to keep the plant going. Most of the burnt fuel can be reprocessed and used again in different types of reactors. Only fraction needs to be stored underground, and it is perfectly safe anyway.
Until we have wroking fusion plants, nuclear power is the only viable and eco-friendly alternative.
Bury the waste in a mountain, it's not that hard
And solar power and other clean energy sources will also emit CO2 because of the maitanence, building emissions, etc
Ball Lightning
www.sporedum.net
The problem with wind is that you need a resonable wind level to get a modest amount of power and also if the wind is shifting in movement, then teh turbines don't go around.
Love
Deity
I mostly don't care, but windcraft is good...
Ball Lightning
www.sporedum.net
It just depends on how much maintanence and building emmissions you need for each type.
And yes you can put waste in a mountain, even through you never know what will happen in 500 years...
Hydrogen is not a power source (unless you find pure hydrogen without using a chemical process to seperate it from other elements because that costs energy)
Unless its about fusion power (that realeases far more energy then it takes to make it)
Ball Lightning
www.sporedum.net
Its also the cost to build it and nuclear power plants are hard to build. And who wants one in their backyard?
Love
Deity
But nuke plants give so much energy though..
I would be perfectly fine about having a nuclear power station in my local area. It releases less radioactivity in the air then a coal plant thanks to all that nice sheilding
thetrooper
Misanthrope
- Joined
- May 24, 2004
- Messages
- 9,112
Yo Stylesjl!
Hydrogen produced from solar energy is what I meant to say.
You are correct though that hydrogen is an energy carrier, not a source.
Winner
Diverse in Unity
They are expensive to build, but they are still profitable, unlike solar or wind energy.
thetrooper
Misanthrope
- Joined
- May 24, 2004
- Messages
- 9,112
Similar threads
