The best alternative energy source

[ginnyfizz]

In any case, I do not think we can or should try to do completely without oil, let's face it, that's not practical right now and there are a lot of folk actually making their living at it (no I don't mean the chiefs of Exxon, BP and co, I mean the boots on the ground guys.) What I say is, we need to recognize that oil is a finite resource and develop other technologies, whilst still investing in oil prospecting to see if we can find some more. That's quite likely to happen around where I am - an old coalfield area where there have been oil strikes before.

[Vindekarr]

just explain to me in plain english what green energy is.

 

I hear this term alot. and this discussion in most circles simply devolves into CEO-speak. so drop the euphamisms and slang. what is green energy?

 

because nature should always take the backseat to sustainable human growth. we dont NEED nature, and keeping a rare species of insect from madascar from becoming extict isnt woth all of us living in a communistic slum for all eternity. if nature is going to get in the way of humanity nature can go burn in hell, and make some more "tide-me-over" crude oil in the process. thats my opinion anyway and Im sure it wont be popular.

 

But I think that we shouldnt use an inferior powersoucr because its green. if it damages the planet, then thats a concern. if it kills a few species insignificant in the general biosphere, so what? we have to harden up and realise that nature is going to take a pummeling in coming centuries because until terraforming and sustainable cryostasis make mars and titan inhabitable, our population will be simply too big to exist without damaging a few trees. Humanity has to come first, because its going to become impossible to advance humanity without harming nature. In the future I have no doubt that unless spirefarming replaces agriculture, our cities will swallow vast swathes of countryside and force the replacement of tract forest with synthetic oxygenator stations.

 

Im unashamedly biased on this, Ive never given a stuff about nature, greenpeace or the practice treehugging in general, but bias or not, its going to eventualy be impossible to be "green" and support our population-nature is going to have to cop it in the chin for evovling a species too smart for it.

[Turian3]

just explain to me in plain english what green energy is.

 

I hear this term alot. and this discussion in most circles simply devolves into CEO-speak. so drop the euphamisms and slang. what is green energy?

 

because nature should always take the backseat to sustainable human growth. we dont NEED nature, and keeping a rare species of insect from madascar from becoming extict isnt woth all of us living in a communistic slum for all eternity. if nature is going to get in the way of humanity nature can go burn in hell, and make some more "tide-me-over" crude oil in the process. thats my opinion anyway and Im sure it wont be popular.

 

But I think that we shouldnt use an inferior powersoucr because its green. if it damages the planet, then thats a concern. if it kills a few species insignificant in the general biosphere, so what? we have to harden up and realise that nature is going to take a pummeling in coming centuries because until terraforming and sustainable cryostasis make mars and titan inhabitable, our population will be simply too big to exist without damaging a few trees. Humanity has to come first, because its going to become impossible to advance humanity without harming nature. In the future I have no doubt that unless spirefarming replaces agriculture, our cities will swallow vast swathes of countryside and force the replacement of tract forest with synthetic oxygenator stations.

 

Im unashamedly biased on this, Ive never given a stuff about nature, greenpeace or the practice treehugging in general, but bias or not, its going to eventualy be impossible to be "green" and support our population-nature is going to have to cop it in the chin for evovling a species too smart for it.

 

Ok I disagree with you about not needing nature. First off this planet has been here for far longer than humanity and as the most intelligent species inhabiting it we should have a moral imperative to protect our only home right now. Right now spaceflight is not very practical and I think it will be some time before we send colonists off to the stars so I think we should attempt to keep Earth intact. As for our standerd of living going down because we adopt green energy I don't think that will happan. As some other people have commented fusion energy could have all the positives of nuclear without the waste and it would allow for continued growth instead of stagnation. So I would reconsider your stance that the earth is expendable. I for one would not want to live in some bunker underground because the surface got screwed over.

[ub3rman123]

The Earth is not expendable, but parts of it are. It's worth it sometimes to let one odd species die off, because the world is changing. Species have died off before, sans any human interference, we just feel guilty if it happens on our watch.

 

As for nuclear, it's safe enough to use. It's just that when a nuclear reactor doesn't explode and produces plentiful energy, the press doesn't care.

 

I don't think cold fusion is possible with life's game engine.

[Balagor]

Vindekarr

ub3rman123

 

You both sound like your horizon goes from your eys to your nose. Perhaps you are expendable, lol.

Every time you wipe out a insect or a flower, you remove a link in the very complicated chain called nature. One species dies out, can cause too many of another, crops can get spoiled. It has been noticed allready. To wipe out one tiny little insect, can actually cause tremendous damage on all, including the human species. btw, the human species is not the most important. No one is.

[JimboUK]

I have to agree with those who point to nuclear as the future, there just isn't any viable alternative. Large numbers of people will not go with solar as it takes far too long to recoup the cost of the panels from reduced power bills. Wind turbines are no good as they don't provide power on demand and we have no way of storing it, also the hideous monstrosities are a blight on the landscape. Wave power is horribly expensive and unreliable as devices have trouble standing up to the constant battering they receive. Coal and oil are dirty and will increase in price as the years pass and demand increases from former third world countries like India.

[Vindekarr]

here is another wya to look at it: we are humanity, and we are the dominant species on this planet. right now, we should be looking after OUR interests, if an area of environmental damages causes us problems, then its a problem, otherwise, it is not.

 

We dont need nature, we need food, water, a breathable atmosphere and a place to live, nature has nothing to do with any of those, as all of the above can be syntheticaly produced at little enough cost.

 

As for extinctions, deforestation and global warming. These are only issues to the point that humanity will have to adapt to survive them, and no species adapts quite like humans. Cynical and biased though I am, I think we have very little to fear from extinction for one thing, people who's agenda and beleifs are tied up in the given s[ecies survival cerainly do everything they can to "raise awareness" for the species in question, wasting millions of their grants in advertising, but so what if tigers, orangutans, trumpetfish or polar bears dioe out? how does that effect us? simple answer. it doesnt. I think we should look after our own interests and let nature care for itself.

 

Certainly we have power, but what is natre if not something that is out of our control? its arrogant to think that we should assume the role of nature and guide and predict species chances of survival and they ley of the land. And as for our energy sources, we will eventualy be able to revert this place into a paradise, but it will be a long time away and we have to harden ourselves for a future of iron, oil and industrialisation. Certainly some zealots, and you mark my words, there WILL be zealots, will try to stop that, but its unnavoidable, to survive, industrialisation is going to become part of who and what we are even beyond what it is today.

 

And really, knowing that what can be done about it? Industrialism exists to fill the demands of the growing human populace, and to fill the demands of the industrialists in a circle of supply and demand. The only way that this can be reduced is by eliminating the need, thus reducing demand and cutting back on suipply, which reduces the demand for raw materials>reduced "nature damage" from mining and harvesting, and really, to slaughter hundreds of thousands of innocent poeple, or even to curb populationn growth is a nigh terrorist act. Its going to come down to us or "nature" and I sure as hells know who's side Im on.

[Marxist ßastard]

here is another wya to look at it: we are humanity, and we are the dominant species on this planet. right now, we should be looking after OUR interests... Its going to come down to us or "nature" and I sure as hells know who's side Im on.

But it's not a zero-sum game. We're not at odds with the rest of the ecosystem. An action which benefits the rest of the ecosystem doesn't have to harm us, and there are many actions which would benefit both at the same time.

 

Take the replacement of coal power plants by nuclear power plants, for example—something multiple people have suggested in this thread. Coal power plants release 100 times more radiation into the atmosphere than nuclear power plants with the same capacity, have caused a Chernobyl-style ecological disaster on US soil, and demand a mining infrastructure which defaces environmental features and takes thousands of human lives each year. Many of these effects hurt humans and the rest of the ecosystem at the same time. Moving from coal to nuclear power would benefit both at the same time.

 

Looking to the future, it becomes even more apparent that humans and the rest of the ecosystem share the same fate. Suppose we continue to actively harm both ourselves and the rest of the ecosystem by continuing to use coal power, which is a major source of excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. That carbon dioxide doesn't all contribute to global warming; some of it is absorbed into the oceans where it contributes to ocean acidification. The pH of the ocean is falling, year by year. At a point which we know from laboratory experiments, the ocean will be acidic enough (IE, its pH will be low enough) that it will dissolve coral reefs. Coral reefs are so critical to ocean life that this would cause a mass extinction. This will happen in the span of a few decades, far before artificial fish meat becomes practical. So if you want an idea of how this will impact humans, think of what the Deepwater Horizon disaster did to Gulf Coast fishing. Now extend that globally. Forever.

 

So here's a less self-destructive way to look at it: humans don't have to be the scourge of nature. We can exist, prosper, and progress industrially without further harming the rest of the ecosystem. And if we don't, I suggest you invest in an aquarium.

[JimboUK]

just explain to me in plain english what green energy is.

 

I hear this term alot. and this discussion in most circles simply devolves into CEO-speak. so drop the euphamisms and slang. what is green energy?

 

<snip>

 

"Green" has almost become a dirty word. I associate it with companies trying to sell me things I don't want or need, politicians looking for another way to empty my pockets and workshy hippies terrified of progress. I prefer to look on it as "Clean", no one wants to live in filth. No one wants factories/power stations that push out filth into the atmosphere, what goes up must come down and I don't want it on me. No one likes the stench you find in rush hour traffic, not only is it unpleasant it's also a health hazard. It's in all our interests to clean up our act, the trick is doing it without damaging businesses and our ability to compete with less developed parts of the world.

[Surenas]

"Green" is by no means to be understood in a negative fashion, as the absence of truth or somethin. The opposite is the case after an industrial century and a half of the total denial of nature as such. In the meantime almost all political colours have adopted "green philosophy", the one more, the other less. So what?

 

On solar energy.

Ever thought on what would probably cover the Arab Peninsula and other waste areas on earth when the oil flow dries out?

 

On nuclear energy and genetic research

Let us not end with a six-pack of nuka cola and a handfull of 7.62er ammunition in our hands fighting a somewhat helpless fight against armed mutants and privileged mercenaries of the remaining companies for drugged water and food, eh!