The best alternative energy source

[Surenas]

What do you say?

A handful of Tokamak pilot plants really don't make a green meadow, if one is no dreamer...

Still only the old fission type is at work, to be fair, sold as blockbuster to the 3rd World and dominating Asia.

And that's what we are dealing with right now, for we neither live in the historical past nor in the

fictional future.

[Marxist ßastard]

Pls tell that the people of Europe

Okay. People of Europe, there is no danger from nuclear waste.

 

The most dangerous materials from spent fuel rods are melted into glass, which makes atmospheric dispersal (as in the Chernobyl disaster, the atomic bombings of Japan, and the ongoing release of radioactive materials from coal plants) impossible except for the very small proportion of material that may be outgassed from the surface. The glass is nearly impermeable to water, so groundwater contamination would be very difficult even if the waste were submerged. That only leaves direct contact as a means of radiation escape, which shielding and burial prevent neatly. So even "naked" nuclear waste is not very threatening to the environment. And because it only takes 40 years for the radioactivity of these materials to diminish by 99.9%, even a flawed storage system would be adequate for preventing the escape of radiation.

 

So how effective is burial? Well, were the Yucca Mountain complex to be entirely filled with nuclear waste, the maximum dose to a person living nearby would be 0.2 mrem per year, taking into account the probability and consequences of volcanic eruption and earthquakes. This is lower than the radiation dose that same person would receive from a coal power plant. And such a dose is insignificant compared to radiation exposure from natural sources. In fact, eating one banana every six months would give you that same 0.2 mrem per year. So fear of nuclear waste is tantamount to fear of bananas, or an admission that European systems are inferior to a proposed American one.

[ginnyfizz]

Ah yes, I'd forgotten about radiation from natural sources momentarily, but certainly in the UK you are in much more danger from naturally emitted radon than from anything Sellafield or Hinkley Point is producing. I live in an area that is a radon hotspot. I used to live on the edge of Dartmoor and walk on there a lot. It being a granite rock area, there is so much radon being emitted there that there were at one time warnings posted in the most concentrated areas. But I have never yet seen a lamb or calf with more than one head up on the moor.

[SilverDNA]

After watching the dreadful oil spill down in the gulf and seeing the enviromental devastation it has caused, I began to wonder what exactly is the best energy source for our planet to utilize. Each energy source has its pros and cons however which one do you believe should become more mainstream. Its fairly obvious oil supplies around the world are stretched thin, and nations like China and India are starting to get there standerd of living closer to that of the United States. This is not a sustainable situation and I belive the majority of the industrial world should switch over to something more sustainable like a hydrogen fuel cell economy instead of a petroleum based one. However I am looking forward to discussing other options for an oil free world.

 

 

Pls tell that the people of Europe

Okay. People of Europe, there is no danger from nuclear waste.

 

The most dangerous materials from spent fuel rods are melted into glass, which makes atmospheric dispersal (as in the Chernobyl disaster or the ongoing release of radioactive materials from coal plants) impossible except for the very small proportion of material that may be outgassed from the surface. The glass is nearly impermeable to water, so groundwater contamination would be very difficult even if the waste were submerged. That only leaves direct contact as a means of radiation escape, which shielding and burial prevent neatly. So even "naked" nuclear waste is not very threatening to the environment. And because it only takes 40 years for the radioactivity of these materials to diminish by 99.9%, even a flawed storage system would be adequate for preventing the escape of radiation.

 

So how effective is burial? Well, were the Yucca Mountain complex to be entirely filled with nuclear waste, the maximum dose to a person living nearby would be 0.2 mrem per year, taking into account the probability and consequences of volcanic eruption and earthquakes. This is lower than the radiation dose that same person would receive from a coal power plant. And such a dose is insignificant compared to radiation exposure from natural sources. In fact, eating one banana every six months would give you that same 0.2 mrem per year. So fear of nuclear waste is tantamount to fear of bananas, or an admission that European systems are inferior to a proposed American one.

 

As far as i know this debate is about "The best alternative energy source". I think we should get to the topic again of alternative energy.

To fuel the debate with something new I have found the concept of an alternative engine of cars. "See on Wikipedia the Compressed air car" It uses as the name suggests a Compressed-air engine. since most people need to go to work by car this could be, if developed further technical be an alternative to engines that use oil as basic fuel method. It is still not flawless but has some potential in my opinion.

[Marxist ßastard]

this debate is about "The best alternative energy source"

Nuclear power is an alternative energy source. And the "issue" of nuclear waste is in many cases the only reason why people don't see it as viable. If you don't like that people are taking this discussion beyond "I like wind!" "No, water!" "Earth!" ("Go Planet!"), well, welcome to the debates forum.

[SilverDNA]

I don't agree. It is the method of conservative thinking an lying that brought that oil mess to the coasts of Florida. And it is the conservative ways of thinking that hold back new solutions, because people that think conservative are mostly to lazy to think for them selves and are repeating the things said by others. Mostly those others who have financial interests in stating that oil or nuclear energy is save to use. The numbers of accidents witch involve nuclear energy (like Hydrogen Explosion) is much higher than published because it is in the interest of the politicians and concerns to keep debates and protests low.

 

Sorry to say that, but welcome to reality!

[Vindekarr]

Im with marxist on this.

 

You cant just start a deabte on alternative energy then scream AHA! but thats not alternative energy when someone offers an idea you dont like. As someone who has worked on alternative fuel, gas, and internal combustion cars for some time I could simply ridicule it here, but Im not going to because we need as many valid options as we can get.

 

Telling us to shut up about nueclear power is just shutting out one of the best possible options, while this argumentative tone should be dropped ASAP to prevent accusations of trolling or flaming, Im not going to sugarcoat my irritation at you're rejection of this vital part of the discussion.

[Vindekarr]

As for cars, well when I see most "scientists" ideas about what a future vehicle will look like I usualy have trouble not laughing out loud.

 

A lot of people see electric cars and yell in delight, because they see a car that makes no greenhouse contribution and use no fossil fuels. Hybred like toyota's prius and camry receive a similar standing ovation. These same people often look at performance oriented petrol cars with absolute disgust, as they use a lot of fossil fuels, and in the utopian lala land that these same people live in, that is all there is to it. This is wrong. on a highway, a Ford Mustang, powered by an eight cylender supercharged petrol engine, uses fossil fuels, its engine is powerful and fast, and can keep the car the highway speeds with very little effort, thus to go 60 mph costs it very little fuel or engine wear. In a toyota prius, going 60mph for the high commute that is so common in the USA, the engine is a very small petrol, normaly it uses a small amount of petrol, but what its owners and fanboys dont understand is that at the normal 60 km/h speed limit, a performance car with a massive powerful "decadent" engine actualy does the environment far far less harm than the adorable little prius.

 

Its even more laughable when they go on about solar energy. The advocates for solar powered cars either were dropped as babies or have never driven a conventional car. Ive driven a solar car on a sunny day, and its a horrible experience. To reduce weight they have a plastic seat, which is uncormfortable and gets very very hot, they have a cockpit so small it gave me claustraphobia, they have no climate control, and because they absorb sunlight into themselves, the interior gets so hot you risk heatstroke. furthermore they are laughably slow, have no luggage space and even if they did their "engines" are so weak they could'nt carry a bag of chips, let alone your groceries.

 

But the worst offenders are electric cars. Not only do they have laughably arrogant names like the "gee-whiz" and "thunderbolt" but they have little more comfort than a solar deathrap, no airbags, no crumplezone, no internal safetycell, a top speed of 30 mp/h and no room for your family or luggage. Whats more, they dont use fossil fuels to move. But they use plenty in their construction, its a fact most greenies are to ashamed to admit that to make an electric car does about as much or more environmental damage than it does to make a petrol car and drive it till it breaks. Not only that but they are horrificaly unsafe in a crash, have short ranges, use batteries full of extremely toxic chemicles such as the lethal hydrazine, and cant even be recycled.

 

At the moment the only truly viable replacement for petrol is hydrogen, which has the backing of oil corporations, but even that uses fossil fuel powerstations to make. Simple fact is that with hydrogen you make no carbon footprint by driving, no toxic gasses(the byproduct exhaust is fresh, drinkable water) and you dont lose anything that makes a car useful, such as range, speed, performance(some hydrogen concepts are faster than their petrol rivals) and they even look the same.

 

But to make a hydrogen car you need to make hydrogen. to do this you need to "free" the hydrogen from existing elements, this is easily done, I once did it for a school science fair, all you need is a tub of water, literaly any water will do, two powerleads with the correct endplates, and a huge electric jolt. This releases a massive swarm of hydrogen bubbles, which are easy to collect, harmless to us and nature, and can be used to make ultra lighweight batteries for electric cars known as fuel cells. But you ofcourse need a huge electric jolt, Electricity comes from coalfire power stations, oh dear...

 

For hydrogen cars to replace petrol cars and remove all environmental damage from transport is easy. Hydrogen vehicles are quite cheap, very reliable, as fast or faster than convential cars and have exactly the same shape, size and role. The engine is fueled up with hydrogen just like a petrol car gets gas, and the only by product of this is water, when the contents of the fueltank are expended, they hydrogen blends with oxygen and the result is water, H 2 O. That and hydrogen can come from anything with an H in its composition; its the most common element in the universe, so it isnt going to run out any time soon.

 

But for these to exist you need power, so until nueclear or geothermal power stations are fully operational, the greenhouse effect will continue in the transport sector.

[ginnyfizz]

Thanks for that exposition, Vindekarr. I have never seen solar power as viable in the transport sector, and what you say reinforces that. I still believe that we should develop new technologies in case of fossil fuels running out, but I do not think we should seek to obliterate the oil, gas and coal industries, and should still press ahead with exploration for these fossil fuels.

[JimboUK]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/7840035/Firms-paid-to-shut-down-wind-farms-when-the-wind-is-blowing.html

 

The wonders of wind power, what a waste of money.

 

As for electric cars they are no better than petrol cars, all your doing is shifting the pollution from the tailpipe to the power station.