Page 1 of 1

Nuclear vs solar?

Posted: Sat May 26, 2012 8:33 am
by spartan64
Before you make your statement, please make sure you read through this post carefully. If you have little knowledge about the topic or you seem to have no interest, then please press the backspace key on your keyboard (that's if you're on a PC). Thank you. :)

Now, back on topic. We've been burning fossil fuels for centuries and it has been our most reliable and efficient source of energy. It powers our cars, lights up our homes, especially your computers which you are currently browsing the web on, like me. That's right, my PC entirely runs on coal power. They've been powering our factories, cities etc. However we cannot burn fossil fuels forever, not because there is a finite source of it, but because it's polluting our planet's atmosphere, creating a thick blanket of C02 trapping the sun's light on the surface and warming up the earth, hence the Greenhouse Effect aka Global Warming or Climate Change.

Many are skeptical about this not being caused by human activity but by other causes like the tilting of the earth's axis. Others completely disagree with Climate Change saying that it's a complete hoax, that it's a conspiracy among politics and other crap, I won't go any further than this, but it goes up my nerves a lot. I don't need any scientific proof to convince me that Climate Change is real, I just know it is because it makes sense. Even a prep can tell. Before we eventually choke on our own emissions, it would be very wise to act now. And this where the question comes in.

I believe that nuclear is the way to go. It is atomically powerful and a regular station can power up an entire city 24/7, 0 carbon emissions. However there are few problems that you're might be aware of like the recent incident in Japan when one of their reactors were hit by an earthquake. I'm not sure what the situation is currently though, very critical however. One of the other main problems when dealing with nuclear energy is where to store the radioactive waste, and that's something we don't really want on our backyard do we? Although if you haven't noted before there is a new generation of nuclear energy that may surface in the near future, and that is fusion power! I don't know how fusion reactors work but what I do know is that they do not meltdown when problems occur and that they do not produce nuclear waste. Now that's what I call efficient, safe and clean! There is still a lot of researching going on so we won't see a fusion reactor for some time.

About solar power, it's a good source of energy and it's infinite, but it will only work as long as it's day, but lets take that disadvantage aside for now. Did you know that if we cover the entire Sahara desert with solar panels, it could power the entire planet! Do you know what solar panels are made of? Silicon. And do you know where silicon comes from? Sand, and there's a whole mother load of it on the Sahara! Unfortunately, solar panels are expensive to make, just for now. Currently, as we are all experiencing, oil prices are going higher and higher while solar panels are actually getting cheaper and cheaper. When the two intersect, it would be best for the whole world to consider solar because it's cheaper plus it won't do any damage to the economy. Now because solar doesn't work at night, it doesn't mean they aren't effective. The problem can be solved simply by storing a percentage of the day's energy in batteries or other kinds of energy storage systems.

So... what will win? Honestly, I think nuclear will be No.1. I know it isn't currently the safest method of acquiring energy but in the near future we will no longer need to worry about the next generation of safe nuclear fusion reactors. :)-
End of rant. I hope there are no errors

Re: Nuclear vs solar?

Posted: Sat May 26, 2012 2:39 pm
by Scott
A mixture of personal solar and kinetic power is the way to go.

Governments regulate solar equipment so it becomes more affordable and begins pushing the idea (give handouts to people switching to solar). New forms of the technology will surely pop up with more demand (shingles with panels built in would be fantastic). More people become self sufficient with their power needs.

Infrastructure such as stop lights could either all house small panels or use kinetic motion power. Governments would have to install special segments of road that are both a speed bump and a generator. It works by vehicles running over it which then rotates a generator. This already exists. The power gained could be used to power street light, stop lights and, with enough of them and the ability to send the electricity created to storage, residential and commercial buildings.

Of course, this would take years, so certain forms of power creation would have to stick around until everything is in place.

An easier system would be to promote more solar farms. I dislike nuclear power for the waste it creates and the danger the facilities bring. My home is completely run on Hydro power, which I think is often overlooked. But a possible current solution would be many solar farms, people using solar power for personal use, and maybe eventually perpetual/kinetic motion power generation.

Re: Nuclear vs solar?

Posted: Sat May 26, 2012 4:10 pm
by spartan64
Scott wrote:A mixture of personal solar and kinetic power is the way to go.

Governments regulate solar equipment so it becomes more affordable and begins pushing the idea (give handouts to people switching to solar). New forms of the technology will surely pop up with more demand (shingles with panels built in would be fantastic). More people become self sufficient with their power needs.
It would be great when people can afford panels. The cost is currently a big set back, but here in Italy we get free solar panels. Well, sort of free. Banks encourage us to get our roof covered with photo-voltaic panels. They will pay for them, however we won't gain any profit from the panels till the next 20 years, and we will still need to pay the electrical bill. After 20 years we would start getting bills with negative money (money that goes into our wallets).
Scott wrote: Infrastructure such as stop lights could either all house small panels or use kinetic motion power. Governments would have to install special segments of road that are both a speed bump and a generator. It works by vehicles running over it which then rotates a generator. This already exists. The power gained could be used to power street light, stop lights and, with enough of them and the ability to send the electricity created to storage, residential and commercial buildings.
That's something new that I haven't heard of before. :?: If you haven't heard before, there are these new hybrid cars which have electrical generators in the brakes. So even the kinetic energy in the brakes doesn't get wasted!

Re: Nuclear vs solar?

Posted: Sat May 26, 2012 4:27 pm
by Scott
spartan64 wrote:That's something new that I haven't heard of before. :?: If you haven't heard before, there are these new hybrid cars which have electrical generators in the brakes. So even the kinetic energy in the brakes doesn't get wasted!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... peed-bumps

Re: Nuclear vs solar?

Posted: Sun May 27, 2012 2:35 pm
by Chaos
Personally I favor Nuclear, by a long shot. However, large solar power satellites have a huge potential, because they are above the atmosphere therefore avoiding atmospheric problems, and are not limited by spacial concerns. What we really need are Fusion-Fission reactors! XD

Re: Nuclear vs solar?

Posted: Sun May 27, 2012 2:50 pm
by spartan64
Chaos wrote:Personally I favor Nuclear, by a long shot. However, large solar power satellites have a huge potential, because they are above the atmosphere therefore avoiding atmospheric problems, and are not limited by spacial concerns. What we really need are Fusion-Fission reactors! XD
I prefer fusion over fission because it doesn't create waste or any risks of meltdown.