Can we talk about energy sources? which one do you think is best?
I think nuclear is the best, and the way forward in the future, and I 100% believe we will see consumer-grade mini reactors at some point, but until then I think wind/solar is the next best thing. Its just a shame that nuclear reactors have such a negative stigma around them when if due diligence is done, are no more dangerous or harmful to the environment than hydro dams.
Coal is absolute shit-tier, I can't believe that it is still used in 2016
Harness the power of zombies
Put them on giant turbines and hang brains in front of them.
>>53843308
could we use stemcells to make organic material and harness the methane or carbon dioxide?
>I can't believe that it is still used in 2016
It's even worse. Consider India's industry, built on the unique land where the sun shines the brightest and there's even a season of surges in strong winds, and yet almost entirely powered by coal. It's even like solar and wind power don't have any meaning at all to any group in charge of industries, other than the government.
>>53843221
/pol/ kick you out for being too autistic?
Suggest you find a Trump thread and argue the virtues of every house in the world (especially the moozlim ones) having its own nuclear power plant vs. coal-powered pick up trucks.
weak b8 / 10
>>53843518
Could that be due to employment culture there? I heard they look at jobs almost like a game and consider it a failure if they dont get promoted after a year or two. Is that permanent lack of experience preventing development?
>>53843563
Im really not politically motivated at all, and quite honestly consider myself a very centre-minded person, I think both sides of the political spectrum at all. But this really has nothing to do with politics, just logic
Ive seen nuclear reactors up close, and done work on them in the past, they really aren't that bad, and modern ones aren't dangerous. I've also done work on tons of hydro dams and honestly the environmental impact of those seems worse. I've done work on hydro dams that are built over mines where nuclear waste is disposed of (although modern reactors have like a 99% efficiency rate in terms of waste because they can keep reusing material), where I had to wear a geiger counter the whole time, and never once experienced abnormal amounts of radiation, and wildlife was effected more by the dam than the nuclear waste (no effect on nearby water systems at all really from the radioactive material since it was so far underground).
It just makes complete sense to me and I dont see why they couldn't be used to provide way more efficient and cheaper power to people as long as proper maintenance is performed. That in turn provides continual jobs in a wide range of fields long after the initial plant is built.
>>53843221
>consumer-grade mini reactors
Nigga you retarded.
>>53843628
>I think both sides of the political spectrum have good ideas
dont know what went wrong with that sentence but thats what I meant to say
I know that wind as energy is the worst. I don't want to see winds go.
>>53843636
that's way off, but I dont see why not. People would have to pay a maintenance fee or something, and it would have to be highly regulated, inspected and monitored by the government, but I dont see why it wouldnt eventually be feasible.
I by no means think that would be a good idea tomorrow, but maybe in 50-100 years
Is it theoretically possible to build power plants in space to soak up all dat radiation and light, and send it back down to earth with a laser?
Why aren't flywheels used for energy storage more? They don't require much in the way of materials like li-ion batteries, and I heard the energy density is very high.
Would the gyroscopic effect be something to take into consideration for throwing one in a car?
>>53843668
Do you even understand that this will lead to destruction of Europe by islam in a month.
>>53843221
Liquid Fluride Thorium Reactors, if they ever get off the ground.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor
tldr:
>They work at atmospheric pressure, so they won't Chernobyl if something goes wrong
>They use Thorium which is far more common and cheaper than Uranium
>They can't be used to enrich Uranium so poor sand-nigger countries can have them.
>The radioactive waste they produce reaches safe levels in 300 years, rather than having to be buried under a mountain for fuckin' 20,000 years.
>>53843221
>are no more dangerous or harmful to the environment than hydro dams
You mean apart from the toxic waste with no suitable final storage place?
Seems great to me. I love toxic waste.
>>53843833
that's a great idea/alternative
>>53843842
>modern reactors
there's really not that much waste
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/feb/02/nuclear-reactors-consume-radioactive-waste
>>53843893
Well, that's some nice news. Hopefully we'll see more of that in the future.
But anything that produces waste that takes ages to decompose into something that can be considered remotely safe and has no proper storage place is still irresponsible as fuck and should not be used.
>>53843941
Just throw them into space or under the sea or whatever.
its not that big of a problem
>>53843997
Yes, let's pollute the seas even more. What could possibly go wrong.
Shooting it into space works to some extent, I'd mainly be worried about shit falling back down eventually. I guess if you'd put it into a rocket with enough fuel and send it far far away on a course of which you know that it won't come anywhere close to planet earth again you could consider yourself somewhat safe.
>>53843221
>Can we talk about energy sources? which one do you think is best?
peoples fart is the best.
Solar-power towers / steam generation is better than nuclear in daylight hours. If anyone figures out how to store power, this will be the best alternative. For now, coal is still the way to go. Nuclear is too expensive and heavy on regulations. Good technology, but just not very efficient economically.
>>53843221
Its nuclear or solar.
Places like australia could just build massive solar plant in the desert. Any excess electricity could be used to generate hydrogen for storage and domestic use. They would save so much money in the long run, not having to rely on crude import.
Then again nuclear is most efficient but the goverments are too retarded to actually implement it.
Solar power is a meme, as far as a nation wide solution for energy
In Ontario they have pumped so much damn money into solar energy, so much that the contracts they have set up will cost us $9.8B over the next 10 years, yet it only provides an overall 2% of Ontario's energy
>>53843221
>2016
>nuclear energy
are you aware that the waste from nuclear energy poisons the planet for hundreds of thousands of years?
do something now --> fuck 100 generations after me
>muh wireless charging tho
>>53844045
>>53843941
All the waste ever produced at Chernobyl was stored right beside the reactors. That's over 20 years worth of waste from four reactors (reminder that the other three reactors continued operation after reactor 4 had its meltdown). And that's in a power plant that was a piece of shit the moment the design process started.
Now we have breeder reactors that can burn off long-lived waste. We have reactors that don't produce waste at all. We have reactors that are physically incapable of melting down. We have reactors that are small enough to decentralize the production of electricity, thereby making black outs impossible.
Honestly, there are far more problems with every other method of power production than nuclear. The oil cartels have just produced enough propaganda with their endless supply of money that the average person has no idea what the risks actually are.
Good job getting cucked by big oil, I guess.
N E V E R
>>53844045
>Shooting it into space works to some extent
Oh, yeah, let's strap a bunch of radioactive waste into several giant rockets, fire them at the moon and hope that they make it. I can only assume you've seen how those things, you know, explode sometimes. Oh boy, wouldn't it be great if one of them exploded above a major city?
You are CLEARLY NOT QUALIFIED to have an opinion on this.
>>53845939
>I know nothing about Nuclear Energy - The Post
>>53843628
>as long as proper maintenance is performed
Unfortunately this is the fatal flaw of nuclear. Eventually some failures will occur and when they do, the effects persist for centuries. People who havent even been born yet will die of cancer from the fukoshima disaster (although they will never know exactly where it came from). Also, nuclear power opens the road for irresponsible countries to have nuclear weapons. And todays responsible country can easily be tomorrows dictatorship.
I agree that it is cleaner that most anything else, but until human society evolves is it not a good long-term energy solution.
>>53846096
Tell that to the melting polar caps.
>>53846116
We might be past the point of no return on that one, sadly
>>53846096
>>53846082
the shit side of nuclear is NOT about improper maintenance.
It is about what you do with spent nuclear fuel. And how do you alert people 100 generations after you that certain areas are deadly and should not be neared.
>>53846159
So instead of risking portions of land, the lives of some humans, and maybe a nuclear war, you'd prefer that we continue fucking the entire biosphere up and guarantee the death of most of humanity along with countless other species?
I mean, if that's your position, I can't see why you'd care about nuclear energy.
>>53846218
no one is defending coal here
you are all american faggot who have no brain space to imagine a life with less.
the key is not producing the perfect clean energy which doesn't exist.
the key is CONSUMING LESS-
MUCH, MUCH LESS.
>>53843221
Nuclear is definitely the way to go for the coming decades.
People are always afraid about nuclear disasters, but are oblivious of the fact that the entire fossil energy industry accounts for WAY more pollution (daily) than they can imagine. Nuclear waste and a potential (unlikely) disaster pale in comparison.
Not that there's much wrong with other "clean" sources, but I don't think they're as efficient as nuclear power.
And then there's the recent advances in nuclear fusion which seem pretty promising.
>>53846212
We have reactors designs that don't produce radioactive waste. The irony is that because of people like you that are afraid of nuclear, most of the reactors currently in service are old as fuck-- no one wants to build new ones or test new technology.
>>53846232
We don't have another good baseload power option. We have an entire transportation system to power and there is no magical world in which green energy is going to take care of that. People aren't likely to give up creature comforts, either. The population is growing rapidly, as well.
Fossil fuels are the most reliable energy source we have-- even more reliable than nuclear, but nuclear is the only technology we currently have that can replace coal.
The sooner the world realizes that an argument against nuclear is an argument for fossil fuels, the better, because we have no other options. Really, we don't. Every expert on the planet will tell you that green is a great supplementary source, but we simply don't have the storage capacity for it to be reliable.
>>53846343
>we simply don't have the storage capacity for it to be reliable
Yes we do. They're called flywheels.
>>53846277
the massive amount of land that becomes unusable once something goes wrong though is not worth the risk
chernobyl alone made 1.75% of the entire earth's land mass uninhabitable for humans for thousands of years
>>53846395
Storing energy mechanically is fucking retarded, I hope you know that.
>>53846395
>>53846590
Also, flywheels have lower energy capacity than lithium batteries...
>>53843221
I think geothermal is hugely underrated.
All you have to do to get high pressure steam is drill a pipe deep enough underground.
This can be dome pretty much anywhere.
>how do you alert people 100 generations after you that certain areas are deadly and should not be neared.
Lol assuming the humans of 100 years in the future have lost the ability to read a sign, theres also this thing called a geiger counter.
Who /borohyrdride/ here?
>>53846672
i think he means when civilization has collapsed and the Apes have taken over.
My answer: they will learn it the hard way.
Just like Madame Curie.
No big deal in the greater scheme of things desu.
>>53843221
You again?
>I think nuclear is the best, and the way forward in the future
Umm, no? Renewable energy is. Not literally toxic fuels like coal, gasoline or nuclear.
>>53846590
Why is retarded? It's not like flywheels aren't used, they're just rare.
>>53846629
There isn't that much raw material for lithium batteries. You can make a functional flywheel out whatever you have lying around.
>>53847072
why not store energy as hydrogen instead?
>>53847115
[spoiler]I just think flywheels are cool and want people to share my enthusiasm for them[/spoiler]
>>53847149
are they easy to build and maintain yourself?
I need energy storage solutions for the zombie apocalypse
>>53843221
Any science people here happen to know the smallest amount of what material to achieve criticality for this? Even reactors in subs are gigantic ish I thought
Nuclear, hands down THE BEST!!
>>53846903
>He thinks that renewable energy can supply our needs for electricity
>>53846343
>but we simply don't have the storage capacity for it to be reliable.
Renewable energy wouldn't generate excess power anyway, so why would it be stored?
Regardless, there's plenty of methods of storing a huge amount of excess energy. Pic related being one of the most common.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity
>>53847195
Depends on the scale.
You could probably build a pedal powered one to power light bulbs or whatever, just need some wood, stone and copper I would imagine.
Big ones spin inside a vacuum, and you probably need really pure metals for the wheel, to make sure it's perfectly balanced, or else it'll wobble till it kills everyone.
>>53847149
But they only spin for a few hours at most.
Well said OP
>>53847596
Not true.
>>53847461
>guise, greeen energy is amazing!
>ok, now which lakes are we going to obliterate to use as storage systems...?
>>53847740
who gives a shit about a lake?
green energy is about keeping shit habitable for us humans not >muh landscape
>>53847740
These have nothing to do with green energy though, it's basically a giant battery that uses water, pumps and gravity to store massive amounts of energy.
>>53847781
Well battery is a bad word to use to describe it, but it's a giant energy storage device.
>>53846658
Geothermal power?
In my country Austria, capital city Vienna, our local energy supplyer has fucked around for a very long time until they finally started drilling in a place where they knew it would work. I have been there, the drill heads cost 80.000 euros and they had to replace them every other day. Weeks later I hear they hit unusually strong rock formation and the project is canceled.
>>53847810
>austria
>our local energy supplyer has fucked around for a very long time
no wonder, probably scared of hitting any cellar
>>53843221
>consumer-grade mini reactors
>NA Education
>>53847850
Maybe it would be better if they hit a cellar, that way people might actually listen to whats happening.
>>53847810
fucking Austria
fucking up nuclear programs of any neighboring country
>>53843221
1 - conquer some inhabited land in africa better if in desert
2 - build 10/20 nuclear reactors, biomass/garbage inceneritor and gigantic solar arrays
3 - set up an European military force to defend the location with very high budget and create a no fly zone over it
4 - build a redundant HVDC link to europe
5 - ???
6 - cheap and safe energy without "not in my garden" bullshit
>>53843221
>Coal is absolute shit-tier
Non brit eurofag detected
>>53843221
maybe these bladeless wind turbines will become popular.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_5K4kmnsL4
