Hey all,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I watch the news alot nowadays and I've seen that the when it comes to politics its always about the environment, and almost always about the coal plants. I was just wondering: if you could control the energy production of a single country then how would you do it? Increase greenhouse gas emissions or reduce?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

btw: please try to be realistic :thumbsup:

Considering how much uranium australia has - foolish not to go nucleur.

Since I have little to no knowledge on the subject I would follow the advice of some advisor.

I'm not sure about your question about greenhouse gas emissions. Do you view them as bad? If so, is your question then essentially: "would you make our energy production methods bad or good?"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you're afraid ofNuclear energy, it is - despite popular myth - is actually quite safe.

Nuclear power, but with the security like fort knox.

Nuclear power is completely safe unless you're talking about criminal negligence and stupidity combined with a USSR-built reactor.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, and it actually pumps out less rads than a coal plant.

Wind Power :)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I live in a region where it's totally feasible.

I would use electricity

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Duh

runesmithie, rofl at your sig :P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Aaand... Im not sure, i would probably use windpower or nuclear power

I would use a combonation of power sources provided the country in question is the united states. some nations are too poor to go with anything but coal which is in great supply and very cheep.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

for one I would use solar power in the deserts, Nucklear power where practible i.e. large city's that can use all that energy. Geothermal power where the vents are, as well as wind and - hydro electric.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nuclear power is quite safe so long as proper standards are upheld in the plants construction and it has good security. also I heer on the moon there is a fourm of hydrogen or something that allows for clean nuclear power- that is to say no radioactive waste. so I would invest in mining operations to harvest this stuff.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

sadly nuclear waste as it is has a very long half life and is beyond dangourus to the future of the human race. im talking 100 thausand years or more from now when we either have nowheres to put it or the stuff we put under the ground starts leaking into the water.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I would also try to shake our addiction to oil from the middle east and go twoards hydrogen and electic cars. since we have cheep power sources from nuclear power plants and the like we can produce hydrogen cheeply and in great quantity's. I heer all you need is water and electricity if you have the generators.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and I would have a one billion dollar reward to anyone who can invent a reliable source of energy via perpetual motion generators.

Nuclear. For sure, for a few reasons...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. We don't have to wait 5 million years for plants to be compressed, and if we don't use up all the coal that means more diamonds later! :D

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Nuclear power is a source that will never run out. (along with hydro, and wind power)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. Nuclear power is healthier for the atmosphere so maybe this whole global warming idea will die down a bit. (ALSO along with hydro and wind power, except better! )

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nuclear, Hydro-power, and Wind-power are good ideas to keep around, for the places that have the capability to use hydro and wind, great, but not everyone can be powered off them unfortunately. :\

Hydro. With glaciers melting, what else do you need? :P

Nuclear, and a combination of other renewables.

Nuclear, and a combination of other renewables.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Problem with nuclear

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well if you use nuclear fusion, you are actually using up more energy than you produce. This, obviously, is a waste. It's quite obvious why only the sun can effectively use nuclear fusion

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

With nuclear fission, there are vast amounts of nuclear waste. What do you do with them?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's been a couple of years since I have studied nuclear power. Please inform me if there is a solution to this problem

Hamsters in wheels! :thumbsup:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wait...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I mean nuclear power! :D

 

Nuclear, and a combination of other renewables.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Problem with nuclear

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(1) Well if you use nuclear fusion, you are actually using up more energy than you produce. This, obviously, is a waste. It's quite obvious why only the sun can effectively use nuclear fusion

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(2) With nuclear fission, there are vast amounts of nuclear waste. What do you do with them?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's been a couple of years since I have studied nuclear power. Please inform me if there is a solution to this problem

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. I was under the impression that scientists were working on solving the problems concerning fission. The problem being the heat needed for the reaction. This being solved by somehow encasing it in an electromagnetic field? I dunno the specifics. When I last read about fission, it seemed they were nearing the solution, right now having made a field strong enough to encase the heat, now the problem is more that they have to find a way for the reaction to keep going, they were up to getting it started and actually producing energy, but the energy used in holding in the heat was greater than the energy produced.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I.e. they have most of the fram ready, it's more details and new technologies that are needed before hydrogen can be used as a reliable nuclear power source.

Nuclear, so much Uranium, why not use it? Nuclear creates soooo much energy from so little Uranium.

 

Nuclear, and a combination of other renewables.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Problem with nuclear

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well if you use nuclear fusion, you are actually using up more energy than you produce. This, obviously, is a waste. It's quite obvious why only the sun can effectively use nuclear fusion

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

With nuclear fission, there are vast amounts of nuclear waste. What do you do with them?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's been a couple of years since I have studied nuclear power. Please inform me if there is a solution to this problem

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You could bury the waste. It's not as stupid as it sounds, there's lots of potential space underground in tectonically stable areas.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not saying it's perfect, but it's a lot better than just dumping coal on a fire.

Nuclear - Plenty of supply , clean produces a lot of energy per mole.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hydroelectric power- Renewable clean, plenty of supply.

coal

Nuclear, Wind and Harbour systems (Absorbs the waves and makes energy of with with a generator, actually pretty awesome.)

Id rather not use coal, but there is a HUGE problem with nuclear energy. The cost of up keeping a nuclear reactor so it does not turn out to be another chernybal (sp?) is enormous! 5 billion CAD a year goes into nuclear reactors. Im pretty sure we have only around 22 (18 operational?) reactors. Also, the waste does last so long. Burying it is not an option. As much as you try to contain it, it will leak out. Containing it in lead will stop alpha and beta particles, but gamma particles still will get through lead sometimes. Even at that, lead is poison to organic life, so it will contaminate the place. Our best bet (I know this will sound crazy) is to send the waste into space. It will be madly expensive, but its the only way we can get rid of the waste whilst also protecting the planet. Before nuclear energy can become 100% of the worlds energy, we must perfect its use.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and I would have a one billion dollar reward to anyone who can invent a reliable source of energy via perpetual motion generators.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Im not sure what someone meant by this? Did they mean a generator that creates more energy then it takes in? This is impossible as dictated by physics. energy created can never exceed energy used.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Law of conservations is what i meant*

While Nuclear energy is clean, it presents the same problem as coal. While not producing air pollution, nuclear rods create slag and radioactive water that require expensive storage, and will eventually threaten the environment.

neuclear - efficient, relativley cheap, tiny production of green house gases. It was even recomended by Lovelock, the arch-ecologist and author of Gaia, that neuclear energy was the only way to begin to stabilise the planet.

 

 

Nuclear, and a combination of other renewables.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Problem with nuclear

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well if you use nuclear fusion, you are actually using up more energy than you produce. This, obviously, is a waste. It's quite obvious why only the sun can effectively use nuclear fusion

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

With nuclear fission, there are vast amounts of nuclear waste. What do you do with them?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's been a couple of years since I have studied nuclear power. Please inform me if there is a solution to this problem

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You could bury the waste. It's not as stupid as it sounds, there's lots of potential space underground in tectonically stable areas.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not saying it's perfect, but it's a lot better than just dumping coal on a fire.

 

 

 

How is that not stupider than it sounds?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's not like if we find a solution, we will be able to dig out the waste and put it somewhere else. There are many problems with burying it. I understand they can be held in special places and what not, but that is very expensive. You cannot just bury it because it is radioactive and can get into water supply. This, in turn, can be devastating.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"According to a report from the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, it will take 3 million years for radioactive waste stored in the United States as of 1983 to decay to background levels. So, presently, the only solution is to store the waste in a place so that the environment won't be contaminated. The problem with storing nuclear waste is both political as well as technological. In terms of politics, no one wants it stored near them. So there's much dispute as to where radioactive waste should be stored. In addition, storing so much waste is a major technological challenge. According to a report issued by the British Parliament, 'In considering arrangements for dealing safely with such wastes, man is faced with time scales that transcend his experience.'"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah...basically sums it up for me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By the way, I think it's nuclear. Correct me if there's some other way to spell it...