Renewable Energy

[MobilnaReakcija]

The politics behind renewable energy are vague at best. I am not seeing an energy policy that will work in the near future and which will curb America's thirst for oil. The different clean energy options currently out there, such as Hydrogen, E85 Ethanol and Electric power for vehicles all have strengths and weaknesses. Some are dreams for the future, and some have already been applied. But is it enough? Is it enough to get the American people to start putting money into the country rather than into the Middle East, where much of it finds its way into extremist hands who use it to fund their actions. What does NG think is the best energy policy for cars, homes and everything else?

[GriffinLancer]

I see where you're going here, and I'll say it. The US Government will NOT allow an alternative to oil happen. Bank Owners and Oil tycoons are not willing to give up their investments.

But, there are so many different energy alternatives. For instance, Hemp can be used in a variety of ways. Hydro-electric power plants on the ocean, in lakes, rivers. Solar Panels in Arizona, Nevada, Southern cali, anywhere where sun is present almost 80% of the time. Nuclear energy is a no-no. Theres too much of a risk of waste disposal, and MUF. Theres always the possibility of using fuel cells, although the technology to do it is there, the cost is what would kill the project in the end. Then theres the communist way. You can always create an economy car, and do away with imports, bring back American car plants, and put people back to work. The only thing we can do now is try and reach for higher MPG for cars.

[JoS]

Ethanol produces negative energy and drives up the cost of corn which sucks for people in countries where corn is a diet staple.

[JudgeDredd]

At 3/9/08 11:16 PM, MobilnaReakcija wrote: I am not seeing an energy policy that will work in the near future and which will curb America's thirst for oil.

Take it from a sci-fi visionary..

[winterpredator23]

At 3/9/08 11:16 PM, MobilnaReakcija wrote:

I am not seeing an energy policy that will work in the near future and which will curb America's thirst for oil.

I agree. There isn't anything now that can fully replace fossil fuels. Nuclear energy is deadly and about everything else can't fully replace oil and natural gas. We just have to wait and see what happens in the future. There are also many people that support fossil fuels and oppose renewable energy so I don't know if it will be easy just to fully and completely replace oil with renewable energy. It'll take a lot of work to replace fossil fuels.

[MobilnaReakcija]

The thing is we at least have to try to put money into better efficiency and control. This is not a game, and I do not realize why people are still skeptical. There is a mountain of proof that the Earth is spiraling towards doom. People gotta realize its do or die. Many of the catastrophic natural disasters experienced within the last couple decades can be attributed to increased use of fossil fuels, not a decline. The temperature of the Earth changed more from the 1990s to today then it did from 1900 to the 1990s. I say thats a bit worrisome.

[ABsoldier17]

The eneergy problem, is we have not built any new nuclear power plants in 20 years, and we have not built any new oil refineries in the same amount of time. When you stop moving domestic energy further you're going to have problems.

[Boltrig]

At 3/10/08 12:32 AM, GriffinLancer wrote: Nuclear energy is a no-no.

I have to disagree. As has been said, most renewable sources arent viable for providing 100% of the power needed by the population yet, and nuclear could be an effective stopgap. So long as research into alternative fules continues, why not use Nuclear to take up the slack and ease pressure on coal oil and gas plants.

The radioactive waste products could be stored (and I do mean stored, not abandoned) in underground fortified bunkers in uninhabited / uninhabitable locations pending discovery of an adequate disposal method.

If the risk of MUF is too great, tighten security in plant and in convoy. Meltdowns and reactor scares I dont really see as a massive threat. IIRC it only takes about 10 seconds to completely shut down the fission reaction in an emergency situation.

I think theres so much opposition to nuclear because people see the steam rising from nuclear cooling stacks and think "OMFG T3H RADIOATIVZ IS IN T3H AIR!". If you actually explained to folk that thats steam, nothing more nothing less but steam, theyd probably calm down.

[Elfer]

At 3/10/08 06:44 AM, winterpredator23 wrote: Nuclear energy is deadly

Nuclear energy has killed far fewer people than petroleum fuels have.

In any case, eventually we're going to run dry of useful oil and uranium deposits, and we're going to have to accept the fact that we have to take our energy from the sun. It beams free energy down everywhere all the time, so it's worth trying to work out more efficient ways to harvest that energy, whether it's using solar panels, wind/hydro turbines, or anything else we can come up with.