[skree]

Not for it, but also for it. For it in the sense that it is the cheapest power available. Against it because we bury the waste under the sea in a lot of cases - one leak, that sea and any land it touches becomes irradiated.. nasty
 
I think small scale 'renewable' everywhere is the answer. A bank of solar panels on every building where putting them would be beneficial, same with wind turbines - large, or small, depending on the area, the wind available, the building, etc.
 
piezoelectric generation - walkways, roads can be generators. Perhaps not feasible as a major program replacing existing walkways and roads but feasible as additions to the design of new walk/roadways and implemented when existing structures become worn out and need resurfacing.
 
There are sound to electricity generators being developed.
 
Hydroelectricity can be accomplished without killing too many fish. There are places where this could be done. Areas of england are littered with old mill ponds that used to run huge water wheels for mechanical power to industry.
 
Thermoelectric generation. For my fellow nerds, using TECs (peltiers) inverted.. put cold on one side, hot on the other, current flow results. This is already doable and being done. This is just one example of how thermoelectricity could be accomplished - any place with good access to two very different temperatures can be used. My family owns a house made from stone. The stone block below the fireplace stays icy cold when the wood burning stove above it is running, even in the height of summer. This is largely because it's about 10 feet wide by about 10 feet long and many feet thick and mostly buried in the ground. I have been working on a design to allow me to put a few peltiers in there in their TEG (thermoelectric generator) configuration, merely as an added bonus, the fire would be burning anyway, to charge batteries.. which brings me neatly to the major drawback with all these techologies...
 
All these technologies cost money to implement, but the major hurdle as far as i can see is the unreliability of solar and wind generation particularly but of the other methods too - they don't, can't make energy all the time. Making necessary large banks of storage - batteries - which we just don't really have the technology to do properly yet. Batteries are the major sticking point. Metal-Air Ionic liquid batteries may be the answer but are still in the development of the technology stage. Supercapacitors on a gargantuan scale could also be the answer - I believe japan was building one the size of a megafactory to back their grid..
 
people make the mistake of thinking too big with renewables.. what we need is small scale production wherever there is waste heat, excess noise, sun, wind, any kinetic energy which can be used - regenerative braking, anyone? basically everywhere.. small scale, on a massive scale if you will
 
edit: combine this with a reduction in energy burned per capita, by making stuff more efficient, we have our solution.. but it'll never happen because it would cost too much to implement and then damage the obscene profits made by certain companies, groups, and individuals who have power in the political, coontrol sense.

 

[maverickronin]

Quote:

I think small scale 'renewable' everywhere is the answer. A bank of solar panels on every building where putting them would be beneficial, same with wind turbines - large, or small, depending on the area, the wind available, the building, etc.

 
Most of that is such an amazingly inefficient use of money that it won't be economically viable until all fossil fuels and radioisotopes on the planet are exhausted and we fail to invent anything better in the meantime.
 
Those giant multi-megawatt batteries will be quite useful though when they're ready for prime time though.  It will allow areas with favorable insolation to reliably get the majority of their power from solar sources and there are probably some places with enough wind for that to work as well.
 
Even with regular sorts of power plants it will improve efficiency.  Large plants have trouble changing their output to match the daily cycles of power use.  They either do it too slowly and require assistance from other fast starting but inefficient plants or lose plenty of efficiency themselves.  Such large batteries will allow plants to spend more time operating at peak efficiency by storing energy on off hours and discharging when demand is greater.

 

[skree]

agreed, that's why it will never happen - some houses are getting solar/wind over here and there will always be nerds like me... us? who like to experiment and do things like that
 
new battery technology makes many things better. ionic liquid batteries, it is claimed, could eventually reach twelve times the charge density even of lithium ion. this is why i say my above post.. they would make local storage (in the home) of enough power to make it viable, especially for green types and survivalist types - off grid with none of the drawbacks. I think they can be charged really fast too
 
Electric vehicles would be more viable, if they had a range of 600 (or more?) miles on a charge, and didn't take too long to recharge. Most people i know wouldn't mind going for a starbucks or whatever while their car recharged
 
imagine a DAP or pocket amp the same size as they are now with multiple hundred hours runtime on a charge 

 

[EPcnD]

I'm all for nuclear power, I don't think any other source can provide unlimited amounts of power - with enough energy you can do practically anything.  
 
 

 

[maverickronin]

Quote:

agreed, that's why it will never happen - some houses are getting solar/wind over here and there will always be nerds like me... us? who like to experiment and do things like that

 
I was talking more about the huge kind of batteries to supplement the power grid.  Things that you can make to arbitrary sizes to store massive amounts of energy, not something for a typical consumer to put in their basement or in portable electronics.
 
The reasons, at present, why a massively distributed "renewable" power generation network won't work is cost and efficiency.  Small arrays of solar cells and wind turbines placed wherever they'll fit on a building won''t be nearly as efficient as a large array of optimally placed devices.  On the whole, the world will get less power per dollar so there's not much reason to for the government to subsidize small scale solar and wind instead of just building a few large projects.  They're also expensive to purchase and they often need regular maintenance.  At current energy prices it takes a long time for a consumer to break even on energy savings.  You might have to move and leave it behind before then.  Even if you know you'll stay put for the rest of your life you might not be able to afford the initial outlay to have it installed and if you can you should probably compare it to other investments first.
 
There are useful things a homeowner can do to reduce energy usage but they don't tend to be as interesting or glamorous.  Few get excited about higher insulation standards for new construction or purchasing more efficient HVAC systems.  Solar water heaters are quite useful in some climates and other systems that heat or cool water by pumping it through underground pipes where the temperature is nearly constant will save a fair amount of energy as well.  Things like that are far more practical to implement.  They only have a modest initial cost, pay off faster, and don't impose any extra maintenance burdens on the homeowner.  The only problem is they don't sound nearly as cool.
 
In the near future we're going to need massive a increase in electrical generation anyway.  With the growth of the world's population and the depletion of many groundwater reserves used for irrigation nuclear powered desalinization plants are likely on the horizon unless we wish to condemn large parts of the third world to slow and painful death by starvation.  Increases in efficiency aren't going to offset that much extra power unless we all decide to reduce our standard of living quite a bit.  I don't know about everyone else, but if someone wants to take away my air conditioning they're going to have to pry it out of my cold dead hands...

 

[Uchiya]

Power should not be granted to the Meek.  I vote NO, with one exception.
That should it happen, it shall at an exponential rate.  Such that the great forces of creation bring Solid Snake into this world and I can see the Legend in action.

 

[beamthegreat]

If anyone was wondering, I voted NO since china and other newly industrialized countries will have higher energy demands in the future as their GDP rises. So unless you want dirty coal power plant to replace nuclear power or energy price to start skyrocket in the future by using inefficient and expensive renewable power, nuclear power is the most smart, efficient and economically viable choice. Many environmentally argue that nuclear power is dangerous and risky, which in my opinion is total BS. With the exception for solar and wind power, which is extreme inefficient and expensive, all sources other methods of harvesting power are also equally dangerous. Dams can burst, flooding cities and causing huge damage to cities costing tens if not hundred of billions of dollars to repair. Coal plants and gas power plants can explode and leak hazardous materials into the environment and even damage the surrounding area. Wind power and solar power are also not a wise option since it is not reliable source of energy and can suddenly stop producing energy for days that may have a huge impact on the economy. Therefore, I believe that the nuclear power ban in many countries should be lifted and people should start using nuclear power unless they want suffer from extremely high energy price in the future or risk damaging the ecosystem by using dirty non renewable resources such as oil, coal, and gas.

 

[beamthegreat]

Oh, I apologize for any confusion caused by the tittle of the thread. I thought proliferation applied to both weapons and power when I started this thread.

 

[Audio-Omega]

What's happening at San Onofre station in California ?

 

[grokit]

According to Edison, nothing to see here, please move along now 

 
http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/oceanside/san-onofre-nrc-say-leak-may-have-caused-minor-radiation/article_c11de105-a550-5e37-b202-e2c6e14f4177.html

 

[Dubstep Girl]

Quote:

I don't understand why people hate nuclear power. Although the cost of building the plant is expensive, it is cheaper than using coal power in the long term since an extremely small amount of uranium can power the whole city for years. Additionally, it does not produce any green house gas and is extremely clean. The methods of transporting and burying the spent fuel is also very safe. The only reason I cash think of is that they are afraid it will explode which is extremely rare. It also doesn't happen in modern nuclear plants. The recent meltdown in fukushima happened because the plant was built 40 years ago. If they replaced the plants every 20 years or so, no accidents would happen.
 
I have no objections against enviromentalist but these freak are complaining without thinking. They do not want nuclear power since they are afraid of it. They do not wan't Hydropower since it kills fishes and destroy forest. They are against wind power since they kill birds and bats. So what energy source do they want that can replace ANY of the above.

i totally agree about this, nuclear is way cleaner than coal power. major supporters of coal plants are slowly starting to switch to nuclear.
 
nuclear plants can't "explode" like a bomb, fukushima will probably not happen again, the plants are starting to take newer measures to avoid accidents like those. also, newer plants are much safer and advanced than previous models.
 
ironically also, coal plants actually release more radiation into the atmosphere than nuclear plants. nuclear plants have strict guidelines on limits of radiation releases to the environment. 
 
coal comes from the earth, all that stuff burned contains trace amounts of radioactive uranium which occurs naturally, when its burned, its released into the air. even though its in trace amounts, when you consider the huge amount of coal that is burned, it ends up being a significant amount of radiation being released into the air. yet no-one really seems to care.
 
and coal plants are way more harmful to the environment than nuclear ever will. also, as new disposal methods and possible recycling methods are being introduced, it becomes even less of a problem.