Greenpeace founder support nuclear energy

[Colon™]

What's everybody's opinion on biogas?

[JohnT]

After those jalapeno-heavy beef 'n bean nachos last night, my opinion on biogas is that IT JUST HAS TO STOP, GAWDDAMMIT!!!!

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

JohnT beat me to the obvious spam response.

So in serious response, the question is what are the economics of such an approach and are we talking methane digestors or heavier hydrocarbon productions?

[Colon™]

Originally posted by JohnT
After those jalapeno-heavy beef 'n bean nachos last night, my opinion on biogas is that IT JUST HAS TO STOP, GAWDDAMMIT!!!!

Donate yourself to your nearest biogas plant.

So in serious response, the question is what are the economics of such an approach and are we talking methane digestors or heavier hydrocarbon productions?

Methane digestors, I think. But you might just as well share your views on the other if you feel like it.

[Colon™]

And something else, I have this guy who believes it's doable to build solar plants in the Sahara desert, covert the power to hydrogen, and then reconvert it in Europe. Supposedly, 65% of the energy is maintained and the whole deal is profitable. I think he's full of crap.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


The latter couldn't possibly be correct, because then we'd be using more energy each day than actually hits the Earth.

That, or those solar cells are really inefficient.

[Dauphin]

And foreign people pronounce 'niche' funny.

[GePap]

I support nuclear power. Global Warming is a far greater environmental threat to human beings.

[Odin]

The nucleopobe scaremongers are back out in force for the 20-year aniversary of Chernobyl. Making BS up about it killing 200,000 people.

[Urban Ranger]

It's better to find ways to reduce energy usage first.

[Vesayen]

Nuclear power is enviromentaly friendly. Bury it in some ####hole. As long as the mining process is not so wastefull as to offset the gains, its better then any other energy production in terms of enviromental bang for the buck, compared to all combustion forms of energy production.

Solar electricity is just not viable for a majority of our power unless we are willing to cover say.... montana in solar cells.

I think that would be great, solve our power problems-we'd never do it though.

[Colon™]

Originally posted by Dauphin


That, or those solar cells are really inefficient.

The typical conversion rate is about 15%, and the highest rate that's been achieved so far is 30%.

[Sikander]

Btw, one of the prime things holding back "renewable" but intermittent energy sources like solar and wind is the lack of an efficient means of storing the energy. Advances in that area could profoundly change the calculus.

[Colon™]

Converting the power into hydrogen, and reconverting it as needed seems to be an often-suggested option.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Lul Thyme (because coastlines don't have areas, but length, and even then measuring length of a coastline is a whole other business...)

Apparently the fractional dimension of the canadian coastline is ~1.7