Conquer Club

NESconqueror wrote:I say solar is most practical.... I wonder if there is any cloud cover at the summit of mt everest?

I agree. Solar is the best for now. Nuclear is what we'd need in the future.

Chris7He wrote:
BTW, no one ruled out the wireless energy transfer theory?

i dont know too much about it, but looking at some of the stuff on the wiki it probably could work in some ways. However it still needs to work on a larger scale before we could seriously consider it. But you could probably say that about just about everything that deals with alternative energy sources.

The problem is we have gotten remarkably comfortable with the energy sources we already use. In order to make a large change, the technology and the output would have to far exceed the current levels, because people dont necessarily like a lot of change, when you are talking about things as inelastic as energy.

got tonkaed wrote:

Chris7He wrote:
BTW, no one ruled out the wireless energy transfer theory?

i dont know too much about it, but looking at some of the stuff on the wiki it probably could work in some ways. However it still needs to work on a larger scale before we could seriously consider it. But you could probably say that about just about everything that deals with alternative energy sources.

The problem is we have gotten remarkably comfortable with the energy sources we already use. In order to make a large change, the technology and the output would have to far exceed the current levels, because people dont necessarily like a lot of change, when you are talking about things as inelastic as energy.

There have been hundreds of patents issued by the US government to people who believed they could produce Wireless Energy Transfer (WET). Wikipedia uses sources that ARE VALID. You can't edit sources (unless you are an old member of wikipedia... about a year or two) and the sources are rock solid.

WET is practical, but it requires large antennas to transfer energy without losing and having it dispersed. Nuclear power is vital to the future. Uranium and Hydrogen can be collected in space, so they may prove to be important to space travel and space colonies. People need to accept change and the only inflexible people are lazy Americans like me.

i wasnt arguing with the wiki there. Its more or less fine in the way you were using it there and the article didnt seem to be problematic really.

Like i said though, it still needs to be able to be effectively used for it to have any real value. I understand there are a lot of different patents out there and that its being used in some scenarios. But the fact that it does require large antenna to make it work is in some ways problematic.

I dont doubt that if a lot of these things get resolved it will be used. But it still doesnt resolve the fact there are issues with nuclear power on a large scale. Im not saying im not optimistic these things will be resolved, but they just arent yet.

Im not disagreeing with you as much as your post seems to imply.

got tonkaed wrote:i wasnt arguing with the wiki there. Its more or less fine in the way you were using it there and the article didnt seem to be problematic really.

Like i said though, it still needs to be able to be effectively used for it to have any real value. I understand there are a lot of different patents out there and that its being used in some scenarios. But the fact that it does require large antenna to make it work is in some ways problematic.

I dont doubt that if a lot of these things get resolved it will be used. But it still doesnt resolve the fact there are issues with nuclear power on a large scale. Im not saying im not optimistic these things will be resolved, but they just arent yet.

Im not disagreeing with you as much as your post seems to imply.

It's time to revolutionize the world. I'm an extremist revolutionary. I'm young, but I'm sure there's a few people like me who start to form opinions, early on. It's time to stop our damage and to shift the world in a new direction. It's time to shift towards a new age of reason instead of listening to the media.

Chris7He wrote: It's time to revolutionize the world. I'm an extremist revolutionary. I'm young, but I'm sure there's a few people like me who start to form opinions, early on. It's time to stop our damage and to shift the world in a new direction. It's time to shift towards a new age of reason instead of listening to the media.

theres nothing wrong with that. Its also certainly true that before these things can happen, people need to be thinking of them as viable ways to interact with the world, or they will never end up being practical solutions.

However, part of the world we live in certainly deals with a system that is very good at self replicating. Much of how we run things is based on the notion that things must be economically feasible before they can occur. Simply attempting to change minds will not a revolution make. If you want change to occur, there will certainly be all kinds of potential to do so. But there will need to be teeth behind these things, and in many cases that means there will have to be both applied and theoretcial teeth behind all of these ideas.

Chris7He wrote:

got tonkaed wrote:i wasnt arguing with the wiki there. Its more or less fine in the way you were using it there and the article didnt seem to be problematic really.

Like i said though, it still needs to be able to be effectively used for it to have any real value. I understand there are a lot of different patents out there and that its being used in some scenarios. But the fact that it does require large antenna to make it work is in some ways problematic.

I dont doubt that if a lot of these things get resolved it will be used. But it still doesnt resolve the fact there are issues with nuclear power on a large scale. Im not saying im not optimistic these things will be resolved, but they just arent yet.

Im not disagreeing with you as much as your post seems to imply.

It's time to revolutionize the world. I'm an extremist revolutionary. I'm young, but I'm sure there's a few people like me who start to form opinions, early on. It's time to stop our damage and to shift the world in a new direction. It's time to shift towards a new age of reason instead of listening to the media.

And posting on a online risk site is doing nothing to change the world.....only about 100-500 people are looking through the forums on regular basis and about 50 might...look and read this thread.

I'm just a kid. I'll change the world as an adult, thank you very much. I am changing the world by trying to convince others of a growing problem through a small way.

Chris7He wrote:I'm just a kid. I'll change the world as an adult, thank you very much. I am changing the world by trying to convince others of a growing problem through a small way.

i wouldnt listen to sound here....theres nothing at all wrong with trying to hone your ideas and get information out there. If someone read whatever it was a person posted, and looked it up themselves who knows, maybe one more person would be affected. For a lot of these issues, its simply getting the word out that can be important.

Teenage years are perhaps not the best time for cynics.

One thing I haven't read come up yet here is wave power, I'm pretty sure that's got some potential.

Also, Chris, most people already know about the energy crisis... Just trying to minimize your own power usage is probably more effective than telling other people about this problem.

bob the pirate wrote:One thing I haven't read come up yet here is wave power, I'm pretty sure that's got some potential.

Also, Chris, most people already know about the energy crisis... Just trying to minimize your own power usage is probably more effective than telling other people about this problem.

I prefer freedom of energy (as long as you don't have everything on in your house) and believe that the government should be the ones controlling energy production and ration it out if it is being overused. Wave power is included with the water. It's pretty practical, but I doubt it's comparison to nuclear power, which a breeder plant produces enough power to power a few major cities, and solar power, every day enough energy strikes the Earth from the sun to power it for 40 years.

i voted wind. not because the switch needs to be made anytine in the next hundred years or so but just when it is time it is the safest and easiest to get going. as long as there is hot and cold air masses there will be wind. and there is no chance of a nuclear melt down, no "acid wind" to melt the windmills. i can't really think of any adverse effect to wind power. can you? But anyway till then, i still love my oil.

... There are some excellent alternatives available (as you guys are already discussing)...

... Solar power is great, but photosensitivity (is that thwe right word?) levels (technology) have to be increased or you'll need 4 football fields or more to power a small apartment. But we can figure that out, in time.

... I love those hydro wind mill looking things they have up in ... was it Iceland or Norway? They are placed in deep rivers and turn with enough energy to power a small city. (I saw that in Iceland they are working out how to use ocean surf action, too... way cool).

... Nuclear power is simple and pretty safe. Accidents are very, very rare. Granted, nobody wants to be around a nuclear plant when stuff happens.

... I have a fabulous idea relevent to this thread. Treadmills attached to every house, used to power minor appliances, computers, etc.. Have prisoners earn days, weeks, months off their prison terms by running on these treadmills! Illegal aliens can earn citizenship after, say... only 5 to 10 years of running on these treadmills. How about it?

...

trk1994 wrote:i voted wind. not because the switch needs to be made anytine in the next hundred years or so but just when it is time it is the safest and easiest to get going. as long as there is hot and cold air masses there will be wind. and there is no chance of a nuclear melt down, no "acid wind" to melt the windmills. i can't really think of any adverse effect to wind power. can you? But anyway till then, i still love my oil.

I agree, considering that in Wyoming, there is a lot of wind.

trk1994 wrote:i voted wind. not because the switch needs to be made anytine in the next hundred years or so but just when it is time it is the safest and easiest to get going. as long as there is hot and cold air masses there will be wind. and there is no chance of a nuclear melt down, no "acid wind" to melt the windmills. i can't really think of any adverse effect to wind power. can you? But anyway till then, i still love my oil.

Wind kills birds, there are not many places to build them, it is noisy, but that's it.

Chris7He wrote:

trk1994 wrote:i voted wind. not because the switch needs to be made anytine in the next hundred years or so but just when it is time it is the safest and easiest to get going. as long as there is hot and cold air masses there will be wind. and there is no chance of a nuclear melt down, no "acid wind" to melt the windmills. i can't really think of any adverse effect to wind power. can you? But anyway till then, i still love my oil.

Wind kills birds, there are not many places to build them, it is noisy, but that's it.

Birds kill birds, hydro power is noisier, just put them where there is plenty of wind.

Wind, hydropower, even biodiesel are indirect forms of solar energy. The sun is instrumenal in making air currents, in causing evaporation and the rain that fills dams, and in growing soybeans for biodiesel. We could probably extract energy most efficiently if we directly harnessed solar energy. Hell, imagine if the entire Sahara was covered in solar panels, or even just every rooftop in Los Angeles! Solar even works pretty well in cloudier, temperate regions; all we need is a minor breakthrough in solar panel efficiency to make it a truly viable option. In the interim, use nuke power; it's cleaner than coal and oil!

use coal!

We make the most of it. That will be our next oil for the next 50 years, until we peak and run out....

moomaster2000 wrote:use coal!

We make the most of it. That will be our next oil for the next 50 years, until we peak and run out....

It'll be good for Wyoming, largest producer of coal in the states.

I say all other ways are great alternative energy sources...I vote for everything except oil(too wasteful) nuclear(too dangerous) and coal(also too dangerous)

trk1994 wrote:i voted wind. not because the switch needs to be made anytine in the next hundred years or so but just when it is time it is the safest and easiest to get going. as long as there is hot and cold air masses there will be wind. and there is no chance of a nuclear melt down, no "acid wind" to melt the windmills. i can't really think of any adverse effect to wind power. can you? But anyway till then, i still love my oil.

I also agree, I voted wind likewise. Stay away from nuclear anything...nuclear produces radioactive waste, doesn't it? Plus a meltdown and all your kids will have five legs and twelve eyes!

I didn't see Hydrogen on the poll...I think Hydrogen cells will take over everything in the future and quite possible Fusion will be in common use, which is a much safer alternative to Nuclear Fission reactors, plus more power output. Fusion will probably be linked to Hydrogen energy, so Hydrogen is king in my book.

In NorthDakota, they use Wind Farms to separate hydrogen from water. Then the hydrogen is used to fuel converted farm equipment. So many of these alternative fuels are inter connected...but I believe Hydrogen will reign supreme in the future as the new "oil" alternative.

I picked Biodiesel because no one else have yet.

Chris7He wrote:
Have you ever heard of nuclear power stations in space?

How exactly are you planning to get your reactor up there? The cost of hauling a fission reactor into space far outweighs any kind of benifit you'll get from having it there.

got tonkaed wrote:
it may be something that could be worked on in the future but i wonder....what would have to be sacrificed as an expense. You are talking about a project that multiple nations would have to be very involved in. Just the trip to mars (another pretty difficult endeavor) is essentially taking coalitions of all of the developed world, since no one nation can fund that.

Actually, I doubt it'll ever be that expensive or difficult to construct. If you've got nanotech, then just give them a huge pile of carbon (or whatever your construction material is) at the location where you want your elevator and watch. Also, pray that whoever you hired to program the was mildly competent so they don't go rogue or construct it poorly (no-one wants to be hit by a few hundred kilometres of carbon tubing from orbit).
Really, once you initially invest in the nanotechnology research (if it comes to anything any time in the near future, that is) the actual construction is fairly cheap and easy (since you're not doing it).

Chris7He wrote:Uranium and Hydrogen can be collected in space, so they may prove to be important to space travel and space colonies.

Whut? If you've got to the technological level where you can reasonably access a source of uranium outside the Earth's gravity well, what exactly are you doing using it for energy?

Anyway, Fusion and Solar FTW.
Go to the Moon and you've got access to all the Helium-3 and sunlight you could ever concievably use.

The fact that we have to change our energy source is obvious. The fact to which one is not.

Solar is not good enough to be the main source yet but research can improve that. Wind has it's limitations, it has to be in the country as it is extremely loud and so can't be in the city, nuclear is the one which could provide the most power but it is dangerous

... Even being the relatively "Conservative" guy that I am, I would vote for ANY candidate of any party who would seriously push for a big move away from ME oil.

... Cars can run on water, I've seen it. The engine drive separates the Hydrogen from the Oxygen, creates massive amounts of electricity in the process, and emits nothing but steam. It's similar to the Hydrogen battery cars, but these things, you don't need special fuel stations (like the ones in California, where you need to live to drive a Hydrogen Power car now). Just add water!

... I was amazed when I saw this stuff, and wondered, "Why isn't this mass-marketed?!"

... Turns out, the primary material needed for the engine is Platinum, which is rare, and quite expensive.

... But with money and research... who knows? They (researchers, scientists) can make it cheaper with a lot of effort and financial support.

...