best power source?

[whatevah]

okay... I'm trying to move the off-topic posts about power source into a full thread...

what do you think the best power source is? (and why?)

 

[niv]

i'd say wind, solar, hydroelectric, and any other kind of renewable yet enviornmentally friendly resource. why? because i SAY so

 

[whatevah]

okie... I'm for solar power... but it's mainly for small uses.. ie, a house.

it's cheap (once you pay for it, it keeps running...)
it doesn't have any harmful output..

I'm also for hydro-electric power... in some cases. (for those who have no idea what I'm talking about... water at a dam go through a turbine, spinning it, and creating electricity)

as long as you have water.. it'll keep going.. but, would require more expensive maintenance than solar, depending on the size of the power plant.
scale-able power... could power a small develpment, or a city.

 

[Gayowulf]

Sure hydroelectric is renewable, but it does serious irreparible damage to the river, and the river ecosystem it is placed on. Im not some greenpeacer, i have just seen resivoirs before, and i fell lucky to live on one of the few large riviers in my country that are undammed. Hydroelectric projects where i live power prety well the whole province, as well as california.

as ar as solar, it can be large scale i.e 100s of large mirrors focusing sunlight on a central tower with a boiler in it, or it can be per household.

as for the poll, technically oil based and coal should be the same. and those two plus nuclear rely on steam to produce the power

 

[whatevah]

yeah... I forgot to put the cons for hydro-electric... I'm getting tired...

I really hate dams... hydro-electric should only be put into existing dams, or onto small rivers, where it won't disrupt the water flow much... (and, it should have a shute so water can get around the dam... so fish wouldn't be blocked from going upstream)

 

[Gayowulf]

small rivers usually dont have enough waterflow, or a big enough valley to support a dam, but ther are generators out there that use a creek or small river to produce power, and at the same time dont obstruct it that much. there is one or two around here in remote areas that were origionally built by this techno freak. he invested a couple hundred thou in this generator, and everyone thought he was crazy. funny thing is hes a millionaire now, and the sole supplier of electricity in the area.

 

[niv]

I'm talking about hydroelectric plants where it will not disturb the flow of the river, i.e. Niagra Falls, NY

 

[polestar]

Solar and Nuclear energy is the way forward.

 

[Giancarlo]

Nuclear power is the best power source despite radiation problems. It produces the most power out of all of those... Wind and Solar Power are quite unreliable. Hydroelectric could also be unreliable if there is a drought. So I am for Nuclear and Petroleum Power.

 

[gyrbo]

Nuke power all that way!
[add]
Why? Just because there is enough of that stuff for at least a million years!

 

[Gayowulf]

Originally posted by Giancarlo
Nuclear power is the best power source despite radiation problems. It produces the most power out of all of those... Wind and Solar Power are quite unreliable. Hydroelectric could also be unreliable if there is a drought. So I am for Nuclear and Petroleum Power.

despite radiation problems radiation problems that will affect progeny for hundreds of thousands of years. Wind and solar may be unreliable on a large scale basis, but if each community was responsible for supplying its own power, it would work.

Hydroelectric: im not sure of you knew or not, but most rivers that are dammed are quite large; a lack of rainfall doesnt really affect them that much. Why would a power company put a multimillion dollar project ona river that might dry up?

Petroleum is cheap, but it pollutes. It is the easy and cowardly way out.


The Bush Administration energy plan ignores high-tech, energy-efficient solutions in favor of increased oil, gas, coal, and nuclear production, while his budget proposal slashes funding for renewable energy and efficiency. He needs to think of the future.

 

[jw]

He wants a solutions to the california crisis NOW, renewable sources just dont create enough power fast enough to solve the california energy crisis.


Another note, what is hemp power? Never heard of generating electricity that way...


Oh, just one more note, steam isn't a source of power, all generation methods (except wind and water) generate steam which turns the rotors in the generators...they just use different methods of heating it, ie. sun, coal, natural gas, nuclear...etc...

 

[Gayowulf]

I dont want to sound ignorant, but maybe california should be a little more energy efficient. Bush seems more set on exploiting the resources of canada then anyhting else.

this , i think, summarizes is plans quite nicely

 

[gyrbo]

Originally posted by jw
Oh, just one more note, steam isn't a source of power, all generation methods (except wind and water) generate steam which turns the rotors in the generators...they just use different methods of heating it, ie. sun, coal, natural gas, nuclear...etc...

Well, there is one way, I believe it's called themic energy. It's generated by steam comming out of the ground. Vulcanic activity.

 

[Gayowulf]

yeah- geothermal. i mentioned it in that other thread. it is the main source of power in iceland

 

[timdawg]

PLASMA, the 4th state of matter.
There trying to use this as rocket fuel as a plasma engine could propell a space shuttle at phenomonal speed

 

[jason]

whats going on in california is price manipulation and pratically theft. some critics of bush say he created this in order to justify drilling in alaska and builing more coal and nuclear plants, i don't know if that is true and have my doubts but one thing is for sure the ppl of california being taken for a ride and someone is getting rich because of it.
and there is no such thing as hemp powered anything i just think its something that could replace gasoline and oil possibly. something to look into and see if it can be used because sooner or later theres going to be no more oil left to drill.

 

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Gayowulf


despite radiation problems radiation problems that will affect progeny for hundreds of thousands of years. Wind and solar may be unreliable on a large scale basis, but if each community was responsible for supplying its own power, it would work.

Well there are always consquences when using the best power source avaliable.

Hydroelectric: im not sure of you knew or not, but most rivers that are dammed are quite large; a lack of rainfall doesnt really affect them that much. Why would a power company put a multimillion dollar project ona river that might dry up?

Oh really? You think so? Look at Brazil, some of the largest Hydroelectricity damns are there, and lack of rain fall caused a major power crisis worse than that of California.

Petroleum is cheap, but it pollutes. It is the easy and cowardly way out.


The Bush Administration energy plan ignores high-tech, energy-efficient solutions in favor of increased oil, gas, coal, and nuclear production, while his budget proposal slashes funding for renewable energy and efficiency. He needs to think of the future.

There is cleaner burning Crude, which is usually refered as Light "Sweet" Crude. I think. And I can probably guess that you are a liberal. The Bush adminstration is doing the best and most economically saving plan that you can possible do. Nuclear Energy is not low tech, but is very high tech. What is so high tech about wind or solar power despite frequent outages? Natural Gas is less polutting than Light "Sweet" Crude is, but still has very little... another fossil fuel that should be looked into.

Stop going after Bush, he is doing the Republican Way of getting power. And is ensuring that there will be power for the future, unlike the Democratic Way where all you do is listen to environmentalists while power outages plague the country, and the economy shrinks.

 

[SplashHost.com]

Hamster power is the best

 

[lucifer]

The best way forward is to try to reduce power needs. Energy efficientcy could reduce huge amounts of demand especially in places like the us where things tend to be inefficient by nature. europe tends to be efficient already and could give the us a few pointers though there's still much to be done there too.

I vote for hydro (responsibly done) wind, solar, tidal and geothermal can be good too.

It depends on where you are.

renewable = good

nuclear - the problem of the radioactive stuff needs solving and anyone who says it has been - where will it be stuck? There is no permanent storage - plus I don't believe that would be the solution either.

oil/coal based I think even the us is accepting that there is too much CO2 being pumped into the air (they just want someone else to use less not themselves) - not a workable solution


hemp energy? (hmm - when I get stoned I wouldn't say the hemp gave me energy exactly )