Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 6/14/07 08:17 PM, JakeHero wrote: Contrast those numbers to the number of miners killed yearly mining for coal and fossil fuels.

yea you make a good point there.

but i say just stick with fossil fuels.
when we run out, we'll ride bikes. that will fix the obesity problem too! im a freakin genius.

---

At 6/16/07 08:35 AM, EndGameOmega wrote:

At 6/16/07 02:25 AM, Brick-top wrote: Solar

Can't work on any large scale, not to mention it causes more problems then it solves.

Erm, is that why people are buying them for their homes and that there are many differnet solar fields already in use?

Bio-fuel

Decent idea.

Of course it is, however it takes time to grow the plant and is used as food for many bird species. But it works more efficiently than other fuels.

Hydrogen

Intressting idea.

Methane

No.

nuff said

Not really. You need to give some explanation of why you think these options are viable.

What for? People are considering every other resorce. Hell in Germany there are trains that run on magnets which use almost no power so people will strop traveling short distances with planes.

Also:

Wind and hydro electric power.

---

For things that will run WITHIN a gravitational pull, or basically not in the middle of outer space.

Small, fast, cheap, efficient fusion is fine. But while that's in the future, improved solar, wind, and other types of power are good.

For space travel, ION drives, or whatever else the scientists are working on seems promising. Although Ion drives are a bit weak as of now, not much power.

---

At 6/16/07 12:35 PM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote: The costs of things always falls. You start mass producing things on large levels you'll find the price will drop significantly. Likewise, you start pouring money into research for stuff, the cost can go down.

Mass production can only bring the cost so far down. At most it will remove the cost of manufacture; However you can never get ride of the cost of materials, which are very expensive in the manufacture of solar cells.

Too expensive at the moment, yes, but forever? I'd find it hard to believe.

Depends on if we can find a cheaper method for growing Si crystals. Unlikely, but not impossible.

I assume you mean the cost as in monetary terms? I was thinking more along the lines of not destroying the environment and the whole having a supply of energy that really is Infinite, as as long as we have a sun, we have power. Even nuclear will run out eventually as it relies on a finite resource.

Solar cells aren't environmentally friendly. The chemicals needed to produce them are very toxic, and hard to deal with. You also have enviormental issues with where you place them; since a solar farm takes up a good deal of space, you end up with run off problems and massive habitat distruction.

As for nuclear being finite, if we allow for reprocessing, there is enough fuel to get us throw the next couple of millenium with out a problem.

Two, Photovoltaic cells have half lives of about 30 years. This rather short half life produce a waste problem much like nuclear, only worse as there's a hell of a lot more of it.

I have to say I was not aware of that at all.

Most people aren't.

At 6/16/07 01:27 PM, Brick-top wrote:

At 6/16/07 08:35 AM, EndGameOmega wrote:

At 6/16/07 02:25 AM, Brick-top wrote: Solar

Can't work on any large scale, not to mention it causes more problems then it solves.

Erm, is that why people are buying them for their homes and that there are many differnet solar fields already in use?

As I said, solar can't work. Some individuals have managed to offset some of there cost with solar cells, but most of the cost offset comes from tax breaks and incentives. As for large scale solar farms, they simply prove my point. The power out put of even large ones is pitiful, and the power they produce is expensive. Not to mention the other problems I've already written about.

Of course it is, however it takes time to grow the plant and is used as food for many bird species. But it works more efficiently than other fuels.

I wouldn't say more efficiently, it's a hell of a lot more efficient to just drill into the ground and refine crude. But as far as alternatives go it could be; we just need allot of land (or sea) to support the agriculture. It would be a good way to offset some of our emissions, and reduce our dependence on oil, but I don't think it could completely replace it.

Not really. You need to give some explanation of why you think these options are viable.

What for?

To explain how you think they can work. So that people can see if there's some logic behind your answers or if your just sprouting things you've heard.

People are considering every other resource. Hell in Germany there are trains that run on magnets which use almost no power so people will strop traveling short distances with planes.

One, the trains aren't powered by magnets. The trains are powered by electricity just like most other trains, but the glide over the tracts rather then on them, reducing drag and increasing efficiency. While not a bad idea, it isn't evidence of alternative fuel sources.

Also:

Wind and hydro electric power.

Hydro is limited in location and greatly alters then surrounding environment; wind is overly expensive, limited in capabilities, and has a very poor energy return.

---

Here's a solution:

About 10 to 20 feet under the ground, in most places in the world, you'll find that the ground stays at temperatures of about 60 degree's constant, Wouldn't it be possible to use this as a means to keep temperatures low in the summer and high in the winter. [60 degree's is a good moderizer, not to hot not too cold]

---

At 6/16/07 07:55 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Here's a solution:

About 10 to 20 feet under the ground, in most places in the world, you'll find that the ground stays at temperatures of about 60 degree's constant, Wouldn't it be possible to use this as a means to keep temperatures low in the summer and high in the winter. [60 degree's is a good moderizer, not to hot not too cold]

How would this work? Digging down to 20 feet to let the heat out in winter? How do you make warm earth cool the place in summer?

Not sure you thought that one through...

---

Nuclear= SAFE NOW!!!!!
The shnoble meltdown was a load of solviet BS!!!
It diddnt even have a containment wall!!!!

Ever sience 3 mile island, USA nuclear power has been made SUPER SAFE!!!

As a matter of fact you recieve 35,000 times more radiation per year from FOOD then you do from living across from a nuclear plant. Also- nuclear plants cant explode!!!!!!!!! >_<
the uranium in a nuclear plant is like 3-5% pure.....
a bomb needs a minimum of like 97%.....
explosion is impossible.....

And then as for car fuel- Ethanol- as brasil- they are 100% ethanol and workin fine
america has much more corn than brasil- all we need to do is apply the technology....

---

At 6/18/07 08:58 AM, bob111unknown wrote:

Ever sience 3 mile island, USA nuclear power has been made SUPER SAFE!!!

It was safe before 3 mile island.

the uranium in a nuclear plant is like 3-5% pure.....
a bomb needs a minimum of like 97%.....

The pellets used in a reactor are nearly pure uranium ceramic ~99%U. What your talking about is U235 vs U238. Both types of U can be used as a bomb source, but U 238 needs a very large neutron bombardment to cause ether fission or transmutation, so even under abnormal conditions it's not likely to happen in a reactor core.

And then as for car fuel- Ethanol- as brasil- they are 100% ethanol and workin fine
america has much more corn than brasil- all we need to do is apply the technology....

Yes, but the US agriculture system isn't set up to produce the needed amount of materials for ethanol. While corn can be used to produce ethanol it's not the most efficient or best way to do it. Brazil uses sugar cane to make the majority it's ethanol, not corn.

---

Its the age of LNG

Liquid Methane

---

Solar cells aren't environmentally friendly. The chemicals needed to produce them are very toxic, and hard to deal with. You also have enviormental issues with where you place them; since a solar farm takes up a good deal of space, you end up with run off problems and massive habitat distruction.

Two, Photovoltaic cells have half lives of about 30 years. This rather short half life produce a waste problem much like nuclear, only worse as there's a hell of a lot more of it.

Can you provide some sources on these? All I get when I type "solar cells environmentally damaging" in google is websites selling the things. Not challenging you here or anything, I'm just interested.

Now, as for people who think biofuels or hydrogen are the way forward.....think again. Both biofuels and hydrogen have to be manufactured to be used which consumes large amounts of energy. The return on the rate on energy for biofuels is somewhere around 2:3 (for every 2 units of energy put in you get 3 out) whereas with Texan crude it used to be 1:32, which kinda puts it into perspective. And hydrogen isn't an energy source, like oil is, it's a method of energy transport....meaning the energy would still have to be produced somewhere.

---

Just putting my two penny's worth in,

in the UK, as i am, the only viable and economic choice would be nuclear. if we chose wind power, as many seem to support, there could be well over 100,000 wind turbine dotted on and around the UK, and even then they would not generate enough electricity to meet todays needs.

Tidal or other renewable sources? not developed enough to be financially viable; in a century maybe.
Fossil fuels? Within the century we will reach a point where these fuels will cost TOO much for our economy to handle, and i do not think the planets leaders will agree on mining for coal/oil in the areas of natural beauty just yet.

In my opinion, nuclear is the only way to go. there are the problems of hazardous byproducts, and the fact that some last over 10 million years, but the real problem, the problem that is truly at hand, is the energy crisis, and nuclear energy is the only option that will last for centuries to come AND provide us with the same, if not more energy output than existing fossil-fuel burning power stations