Alternative Power Sources?

[Richard I]

Does anyone know if it is possible to build Hydrogen-Plants? The only waste generated by a Hydrogen-car is water...

[WRangler Rhymer]

Originally posted by Richard I
Does anyone know if it is possible to build Hydrogen-Plants? The only waste generated by a Hydrogen-car is water...

Yes you can build hydrogen plants, but you need electricity first, then build reformers, then you can do hydrogen plants.

Solar panels are a good sources of alternative power, if everyone had solar panels on their roof, then we could save 50% of all power usage. There is a new break in solar panel research to make them more efficient.

[monolith94]

wind power only works in sim city 2000...

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
Could not those present difficulties induce the American citizens to save the energy rather than wasting it with ridiculous car consomption?

"But Lisa, if we conserved power, then the environmentalists win!" ... Homer Simpson

[Joseph]

We could build a hydroGenerator plant next to the ocean and pump water thru the turbine blades and back into the ocean, so it would be a loop.

[mrmitchell]

And you can do stupid things too. Heck, in my hometown, there was a surface nuclear dump for years. After the dump has been sent elsewhere and the terrain "cleaned", guess what was built on it ? An elementary school (and I'm not kidding)

Have the kids grown extra arms yet?

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Joseph
We could build a hydroGenerator plant next to the ocean and pump water thru the turbine blades and back into the ocean, so it would be a loop.

haha the idea of a hydroplant is the water is otherwise forced through the blades. if u had to actually pump u'd just be creating jobs, not energy.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by mrmitchell

Yeah, and now all you have to do is see what distant state is willing to be a garbage can for all of your nuclear waste. Even if some study came out saying that nuke waste was only bad for 50 or 15 years, it's still a political hot potato and for those two reasons not worth it.

And you've got the increased security risks and chance of nuclear meltdown.

The solution is to produce breeder reactors. Breeder reacters will recycle the spent fuel rods and allow them to be used over and over and over again. So we get a tiny amount of waste and tons of energy. It's the best energy source we're likely to ever find.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I've read on the same EDF document (see link above) that new technologies are being researched to have cleaner processes of coal burning. Understandably, the document is very enthusiastic about it (EDF takes part to the project ), but do you know if this research has led to anything serious so far ?

Believe it or not the US has been the biggest spender in developing so called clean coal. Enviromental regulations have lead to coal plants being phased out which was, of course, very unpopular in the coal producing states. That meant Congress has had to bribe them with large grants which were used to develope cleaner buring generators and to identify low sulfur coal deposits.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Spiffor
For comparison, the Three Gorges dam is expected to produce 84000 gWh a year !

Dams are the best way to get clean energy. It's a sham we haven't built more of them. The cost to benifit is so one sides. Just think how much coal or oil would have to be burned to produce 8.4 x 10^4 gWh.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Dams are the best way to get clean energy. It's a sham we haven't built more of them. The cost to benifit is so one sides. Just think how much coal or oil would have to be burned to produce 8.4 x 10^4 gWh.

The only thing is that there should be tunnels on the sides to let wildlife, like salmon, though. There are several dams that have those.

Clean Coal is an oxymoron and a scam by the coal companies.

[mrmitchell]

Clean Coal is an oxymoron and a scam by the coal companies.

Indeed. I get the urge to hunt down and maim coal lobbyists when I see those goddamned "Clean coal is America" ads on the ****ing tv.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Since the feds own pretty much all of nevada and all of new mexico, let's put all the nuke plants there.

they're already putting nuke waste there so why not nuke plants...

some of us actually live there you know

[Odin]

Originally posted by Dissident

some of us actually live there you know

Just Libertarians.

MAIM THE COAL LOBBYISTS!!!

[Dis]

well having worked in nuke plants in the navy, you can guess which one I favour.

The risk is almost nill if you design a decent plant. The blackouts posed no problem because they can use generators I'm sure to keep coolant flow through the reactor to prevent overheating the core (even while shutdown, the core produces heat). Some kind of EMP device might pose a threat to nuke plants, but it isn't likely anyone will get a hold of those. It would be easier just to invade a nuke plant.

I'm not sure how civilian nuke plants are set up, but I still can't see a well armed group of terrorists doing much to a nuke plant. Safety features prevent raising the reactor power too high. You could shut off coolant flow (safety features will shut down the plant without coolant flow, but there would still be a lot of heat generated), that could very well cause fuel elements to fail. But most of that would be contained in the pipes. Again I'm thinking pressurized water reactors. This could pose a more serious problem to reactors that directly boil water as many radioactive gases would be released. You could use explosives to cause a radioactive spill. Much of the radiaton would be contained at the power plant. It would be a hell of a mess to clean up, but wouldn't kill very many people.

I just can't see terrorists doing much to a nuke plant. Unless they detonate a nuke at a nuke plant It's more of a fear tactic. It wouldn't kill very many people, but it would terrify the **** out of american pussies who don't understand how radiation and contamination works.

Nuclear waste is a problem. I'm most worried about transporting it. I really don't have too much of a problem with them storing it in my state. Though it does piss me off they choose a state with seismic activity. There are 3 states in the union that have no earthquakes whatsoever, Nevada isn't one of them. But we have little political power because our population is so low.

edit: I forgot one major concern with terrorists gaining access to a nuclear plant. The nuclear waste- namely the fuel rods stored at the plant because there is no storage facility ready yet. I high explosive or say a 747 hitting the exact spot where they are stored might pose some risk to nearby populations. I'm not sure how much risk, as I'm not sure how exactly they are stored. I'm sure they are in concrete buildings. But that can only do so much...