DailyDirt: Placing Bets On Alternative Energy Technologies...
from the urls-we-dig-up dept
As oil prices fluctuate, so do the opinions of what to do about shifting away from fossil fuels. Gas prices seem to be going up, and that has boosted the calls for investment in alternative energy projects. Unfortunately, there's no clearly superior technology that's poised to take over. But there are plenty of opinions being thrown around -- here are just a few.- Arnold Schwarzenegger wants to put huge solar power plants in the Mojave Desert to help reduce America's dependence on oil. But isn't there a nuclear battery in his chest (from a Skynet-dominated future...) that we can reverse engineer? [url]
- Critics of wind and wave energy say that the environmental impact of these sources could be harmful -- if they were actually used to produce significant amounts of energy. Ah, the good old truckload of vegetables tactic arises, again. [url]
- Bill Gates says nuclear power is the best energy solution -- and that other alternative energy technologies are merely cute. Bill Gates is right, though, nuclear power is definitely not cute. [url]
- To discover more stuff on alternative energy, check out what's currently floating around the StumbleUpon universe. [url]
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: nuclear, oil, solar, truckload of vegetables, wave, wind
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Nuclear Power the cute way
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nuclear Power the cute way
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nuclear Power the cute way
Thorium power does not produce the heavy radio active isotopes (thus no good for producing weapons) but also the radio active waste is "only" radioactive for hundreds rather than tens of thousands of years.
Thorium power plants can be used to "burn" existing nuclear fuel (converting it into energy and less radioactive waste).
Thorium power plants cannot melt down because you have to actually put energy into sustaining the reaction. Pull the plug and everything stops. Much safer than what we are seeing in Japan.
Thorium power plants would produce much less waste. There is more energy to be had in the Thorium process.
There are 100s of times as much Thorium fuel than uranium.
Con:
Thorium power plants have to be developed. They do not actually exist as a commercial technology today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Nuclear Power the cute way
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
ps: I have nothing against nuclear, I even like the idea but I have reserves in calling it safe, there are risks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CSP
I again wonder why we don't focus on efforts to reduce our energy use by dropping the reproduction rate of our species, but I guess being "green" is still the hip thing these days (and in no way actually saving energy compared to reducing the population.)
We're either going to reduce the population per our control, or natural selection, but it isn't going to be pretty using the current methods.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't understand the thinking of those people, no central means of production can adequately serve the whole range of the population, why are they doing those centralized projects?
We should be moving to distributed creation of energy, food and care, with technologies that enable individuals to create their self-sustaining homes or more realistic today, partially self-sustaining homes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The economies of scale are the only way to feed and power the population. If everyone had to grow their own food or create their own energy, we'd be dead in a month.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gee, ya think? Really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nuclear Power�Just About The Only Way Left
And look at how Chernobyl is quietly but surely turning into a thriving tourism industry. Did you know that, in spite of all the contamination, the wildlife is actually thriving now that nobody lives there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Landscape Pollution
Leaving the efficiency debate aside, does anyone here think that this should be a valid criticism?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Landscape Pollution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Physics of energy density is missing from...
The density of energy and power in Coal/oil/NatGas/nuclear is magnitudes greater than wind/solar. Waterfall and geothermal comes close. More power comes into you home thru copper/aluminum wires from the electric company than falls on you house from the sun.
No amount of wind is going to make a passenger jet fly 600mph. No amount of solar can power cargo ship across the Pacific.
Most of the "eco-friendly" suggestions look like toy batteries when you do the Energy/Power density comparison.
Physics is a fact of life that you cannot legislate away.
Remember, Al Gore's home state of Tennessee tried to legislate the value of PI=3.0, look how well that worked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For solar panels, much of the heat that is captured by the panel isn't utilized and thus puts off heat, which is kind of what we are trying to limit.
In terms of wind power, if we put up enough wind farms, what does that do in terms of draining the energy in our skies? Doing so could drastically change our environment. If the energy is drained from the wind and harnessed by the wind farms, of course there will be a change in our environment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tennesse and wind power
"If the energy is drained from the wind and harnessed by the wind farms, of course there will be a change in our environment."
Interesting idea, trees convert masses of wind power into movement and sound, damn good we keep cutting them down to save the environment then.
As for all those sailing ships; man it's a wonder we have any waves left.
In the end of course wind farms will change the environment, we'll still have all the power stations running all the time in case the wind doesn't blow, but the land will be covered in windmills and not as quiet as it used to be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]