Aileron Posted September 2, 2003 Report Posted September 2, 2003 After the recent blackout, it has become clear that we need to modernize our power system. One thing we will have to do is build more plants. I have purposely left out alternative sources of energy such as wind and solar. They seem to be only applicable in certain locations and certain amounts. It is obviously preferrable to apply these wherever they can be applied, but we can't build an entire system on these.
madhaha Posted September 2, 2003 Report Posted September 2, 2003 Nuclear. Its good, clean and when the American's mess up with it they're screwed Just bury the waste somewhere unpopular like Texas.
MillenniumMan Posted September 2, 2003 Report Posted September 2, 2003 what about electricity? Uhmm..... I hope you're kidding. That's like the kid that likes cows but says that killing them is murder than his father says "where the -*BAD WORD*- do you think hamburgers come from?" and the kid says "from the supermarket" I have some alternate sources for ya: Methane: Tie fat people down to a chair with a pipe sticking out of it that leads to a collector and have them break wind 24/7 Then they'll contribute something useful to society and not take more space. Large hamster wheels: Again, chain a fat person to a hamster wheel and have them purpetualy chase after a large chocolate eclair for nine hours a day. That'll solve two problems at once This can also be doubled as an efficient means of daycare, stick the little rats into these hamster wheels and make those whiny three year olds burn off that excessive energy so when their parents pick them up at the end of the day the little darlins are all tuckered out and they've done their patriotic duty If anyone think's I'm kidding about these methods, remember who's posting this, then just waaaaaaalk awayyyyyyy sloooooowlyyyyy......
Evil Jin Posted September 3, 2003 Report Posted September 3, 2003 i say nuclear just so if something goes wrong we can blame bush
»nintendo64 Posted September 3, 2003 Report Posted September 3, 2003 It's good to see old Politics Forists Nuclear Power Plants are the best solution, You people need to realize not all Nuclear Plants are that volatile when it comes to wrong management. In fact the Nuclear Plant that has the biggest risk of a meltdown is the Sodium or Liquid Metal coolant nuclear reactor, because as must of we know when Sodium comes in contact with Oxygen or Water it will produce an explosion. Also Sodium get radioactive when its goes through the reactors core, in simple words althought the amount of Energy produced is high, This Power Plant can meltdown easily. USA doesn't use this type of Nuclear Plants since 1972 and the idea of Liquid Metal as a coolant came from the Soviet Union (Chernobyl was a Liquid Metal Nuclear Plant). USA uses mostly Light Water and Pressurized Water Nuclear Plants, the first basically uses Water to cool the reactor and when the water evaporizes it's used to move the turbines then gets condensed back to its original state, and it repeats this loop. The Pressurized Water Nuclear Plants does the same like the first one except pressurized water lasts longer before Evaporizing, meaning it'll cool the reactor faster. I want to say also that i've never heard of a Nuclear Meltdown in France and 75% of their Electricity comes from them. -nintendo64
Fluffy White Bunny Posted September 3, 2003 Report Posted September 3, 2003 Nuclear power plants release less radiation into the surrounding area than coal power plants (except in the event of a meltdown of course ) Dont know much about hydrogen power but it looks like a good possibility too.
MonteZuma Posted September 3, 2003 Report Posted September 3, 2003 I have a better idea. Use less electricity. Instead of putting a billion bucks or so into a new power station, use the same money to replace energy inefficient machines. It'll take some clever financial juggling...and the government will need avoid manipulation by lobbyists in the energy industry, but in the long run it will cheaper and better for everyone. Monte.
»dr uniburner Posted September 3, 2003 Report Posted September 3, 2003 I like the dams actually...but there are some problems with them. However it seems better then having to deal with the stuff the power plants leave...in central washington they have buried radioactive material in train carriages and covered them in concrete and they still leak -*BAD WORD*- out into the soil and crap.
Guest 2pac Posted September 3, 2003 Report Posted September 3, 2003 i say china owns usa's -*BAD WORD*- 4 life
»nintendo64 Posted September 3, 2003 Report Posted September 3, 2003 Yes Uniburner Hydro Plants are a great solution, the problem is how fast the water speed is, not all rivers give enough speed for Hydro Plants Generators to produce electricity. -nintendo64
Manus Celer Dei Posted September 3, 2003 Report Posted September 3, 2003 nintendo is right, hydro is great but there aren't nearly enough fast-flowing rivers to satisfy the American consumers demand for electricity. Of all the options available Nuclear power is the cleanest in the short-term, but of course this needs to be weighted against the possibility of meltdown or other radiation accidents and the extremely long half life of plutonium waste. More to the point, your country would also need to upgrade its electrical distribution network to make sure there are no choke-points which can be easily overloaded.
Darkflare Posted September 3, 2003 Report Posted September 3, 2003 you forgot hamster and slave driven
A Soldier Posted September 3, 2003 Report Posted September 3, 2003 what about electricity? Uhmm..... I hope you're kidding. heh sorry, I think I didn't make myself very clear. I was refering to Quebec's system, they use water to move turbines which produce electricity. My bad, my bad. I think it's a clean way to produce it but like nintendo said, not everyone can do it that way since it depends on how fast the water goes. Wind mills = no good
MonteZuma Posted September 4, 2003 Report Posted September 4, 2003 Dams suck because of the ecological implications, and because of the amount of land that they consume. It is NOT a good thing to build new dams. Nuclear and fossil fuels suck because they prduce waste that we cannot manage safely. If we can't reduce electricity consumption (which is total BS - we can), then we should develop technology for geothermal power and wave power. Wind might have a place in some situations too, but it isn't very efficient.
Darkflare Posted September 4, 2003 Report Posted September 4, 2003 i think we should all wear things on our shoes that create electricity and harnesses it for use as we walk
Fluffy White Bunny Posted September 4, 2003 Report Posted September 4, 2003 i think we should all wear things on our shoes that create electricity and harnesses it for use as we walk Umm..humans cant even produce 1HP. Wearing large solar-panel hats would be more efficient
Evil Jin Posted September 4, 2003 Report Posted September 4, 2003 but if we do go with nuclear were will they dispose of the nuclear waste?
»nintendo64 Posted September 4, 2003 Report Posted September 4, 2003 I'll tell you all the Future Power Plants will either be Solar or Hydrogen powered. We could put a Satelite that will circle the Earth always in the position where it gets Solar beams and with enough Cable or some sort of transmission it will send the Electricity generated to the Earth. We could also stop being so lazy and harness the power of water, and use hydrogen for electricity generation. -nintendo64
madhaha Posted September 4, 2003 Report Posted September 4, 2003 What is a hydrogen powerplant? Lets see, hydrogen is created by electrolysis. So lets use electricity to run a powerplant. Hydrogen is not a fuel, its a storage medium. Concerning nuclear powerplants, its not the meltdowns that are the big worry, its the leaks which the US don't have a particularly good track record with. Biofuels are good but they take lots of land. Like thats a problem the American's have...
Aileron Posted September 4, 2003 Author Report Posted September 4, 2003 I'll tell you all the Future Power Plants will either be Solar or Hydrogen powered. We could put a Satelite that will circle the Earth always in the position where it gets Solar beams and with enough Cable or some sort of transmission it will send the Electricity generated to the Earth. We could also stop being so lazy and harness the power of water, and use hydrogen for electricity generation. -nintendo64 The problem with those ideas is that those are chiefly experimental. The satelite idea doesn't even work, because either we will need a very loooooooooooong cable and loose most of the power on the way down, or we will have to figure out a way to "beam" it down, which there is no device capable of doing that, let alone safely. In my opinion, nuclear plants, when modern safety proticals are applied, wins hands down. Also, wind and solar are not completely safe to the environment either. Both require huge amounts of area to collect power. Not so much for wind, but if we were to attempt to build a power system on solar alone, we would have to destroy a few ecosystems to do it. As for nuclear storage, the new project is an old salt mine in Utah I believe. The old salt residues will help hold it in, but it's chief safety feature that it will simply be too deep underground to get out. How deep is too deep? Well, it is under a mountain and still below the water table at the base. Thus, since water flows downhill, even if there is a leak(it will have to leak for several miles), water will only be able to leak IN to the site, not out.
»nintendo64 Posted September 4, 2003 Report Posted September 4, 2003 Hydrogen can be burnt and that produces Energy from heat. There are some organism that are able to separate Hydrogen from water without Electorlisis but throught chemical reactions, i think we have a prototype that does it or it's on is way. Nuclear is the most reliable energy source from the ones we have, but we still have some new ones on their way. -nintendo64
madhaha Posted September 4, 2003 Report Posted September 4, 2003 So basically its either biofuels via hydrogen (lengthy, untested and a pain the arse to store) or via alcohol (which can be adapted to be burnt like petrol or as a mix, or alternatively used in fuel cells once they get them working with impure alcohol). Nuclear will not be popular for all too many reasons (price, threat of material falling into the wrong hands, difficult waste disposal, dangerous leakages, build time etc.) . Fossil fuels can be extended for a good few decades, maybe even a century depending on if we discover any new fields and how we use existing ones which makes it a likely candidate in the near term. An interesting powerplant in europe is being powered by ex WWII explosives. I doubt they'd be using that in America/Canada.
MillenniumMan Posted September 4, 2003 Report Posted September 4, 2003 i think we should all wear things on our shoes that create electricity and harnesses it for use as we walk Umm..humans cant even produce 1HP. Wearing large solar-panel hats would be more efficient The military is actualy developing something like that to power their gear (NVgoggles, PDAs, GPS, so on) It was on future fighting machines.
madhaha Posted September 4, 2003 Report Posted September 4, 2003 Research in english universities has created various materials that convert body heat into electricity. *Visions of The Matrix* Its not much use for largescale stuff, just charging a mobile or perhaps at best a laptop.
Recommended Posts