Renewable Energy - page 15. | Bitcointalksearch.org

alphablitzer

full member

Activity: 154

Merit: 100

Quote from: Forester618 on March 28, 2017, 08:19:36 AM

Quote from: crwth on March 27, 2017, 09:26:48 PM

Quote from: Sithara007 on March 27, 2017, 09:14:22 PM

Quote from: canine2017 on March 27, 2017, 01:30:45 PM

Nuclear energy is more clean, but the problems are in the event of an accident. Remember Chernobyl and Fokusimu. On the other hand there is a problem with storage of radioactive waste.

How many people died in Chernobyl and Fukushima? The numbers are only a small fraction of those who die every day from the pollution from coal-fired plants. And now technology has also progressed. The chances of a nuclear accident is near zero.

Yeah, probably. From those fatal cases, there are certain solutions invented now that would definitely increase the safety of nuclear plants, I just hope mother nature wouldn't intervene.

Unfortunately it is impossible to foresee everything. Whatever protection there is always the chance of an accident. That is why I am against nuclear power plants. Companies that sell electricity produced her a lot and sell everything. I am advocating that every home produced a bit of energy for myself, but it is not beneficial to plant owners, and so it is slowly moving to alternative technologies.

It is impossible. Not every time would be perfect but I think it could be perfected. Some companies are going with the renewable energy but I think what can be most efficient when it come to energy is the nuclear part. There could be different things be done when researching about it.

Eternu

sr. member

Activity: 560

Merit: 257

Quote from: Forester618 on March 28, 2017, 08:19:36 AM

Quote from: crwth on March 27, 2017, 09:26:48 PM

Quote from: Sithara007 on March 27, 2017, 09:14:22 PM

Quote from: canine2017 on March 27, 2017, 01:30:45 PM

Nuclear energy is more clean, but the problems are in the event of an accident. Remember Chernobyl and Fokusimu. On the other hand there is a problem with storage of radioactive waste.

How many people died in Chernobyl and Fukushima? The numbers are only a small fraction of those who die every day from the pollution from coal-fired plants. And now technology has also progressed. The chances of a nuclear accident is near zero.

Yeah, probably. From those fatal cases, there are certain solutions invented now that would definitely increase the safety of nuclear plants, I just hope mother nature wouldn't intervene.

Unfortunately it is impossible to foresee everything. Whatever protection there is always the chance of an accident. That is why I am against nuclear power plants. Companies that sell electricity produced her a lot and sell everything. I am advocating that every home produced a bit of energy for myself, but it is not beneficial to plant owners, and so it is slowly moving to alternative technologies.

I agree with you. Nuclear power is to devastating and accidents happens, even with bellow one percent for accident to happen. And maybe there are not many lives taken when Chernobyl happened, but think of polluted soil that is not usable for so long after. Nuclear energy is to dangerous if you ask me.

Forester618

member

Activity: 98

Merit: 10

Quote from: crwth on March 27, 2017, 09:26:48 PM

Quote from: Sithara007 on March 27, 2017, 09:14:22 PM

Quote from: canine2017 on March 27, 2017, 01:30:45 PM

Nuclear energy is more clean, but the problems are in the event of an accident. Remember Chernobyl and Fokusimu. On the other hand there is a problem with storage of radioactive waste.

How many people died in Chernobyl and Fukushima? The numbers are only a small fraction of those who die every day from the pollution from coal-fired plants. And now technology has also progressed. The chances of a nuclear accident is near zero.

Yeah, probably. From those fatal cases, there are certain solutions invented now that would definitely increase the safety of nuclear plants, I just hope mother nature wouldn't intervene.

Unfortunately it is impossible to foresee everything. Whatever protection there is always the chance of an accident. That is why I am against nuclear power plants. Companies that sell electricity produced her a lot and sell everything. I am advocating that every home produced a bit of energy for myself, but it is not beneficial to plant owners, and so it is slowly moving to alternative technologies.

Kemarit

legendary

Activity: 3080

Merit: 1353

Quote from: crwth on March 27, 2017, 09:26:48 PM

Quote from: Sithara007 on March 27, 2017, 09:14:22 PM

Quote from: canine2017 on March 27, 2017, 01:30:45 PM

Nuclear energy is more clean, but the problems are in the event of an accident. Remember Chernobyl and Fokusimu. On the other hand there is a problem with storage of radioactive waste.

How many people died in Chernobyl and Fukushima? The numbers are only a small fraction of those who die every day from the pollution from coal-fired plants. And now technology has also progressed. The chances of a nuclear accident is near zero.

Yeah, probably. From those fatal cases, there are certain solutions invented now that would definitely increase the safety of nuclear plants, I just hope mother nature wouldn't intervene.

,

Yes. They have invented more safety measure after the fatal Chernobyl incident, however, my question is, have we learned our lesson from the accident that will prevent us from future devastation again? For me, we need some courage to really think that phasing out nuclear power and replacing with renewable energy source to reduce somewhat the risk of nuclear proliferation globally. Because radiation that releases from nuclear accidents affects future generation so reducing them also help our children's children and the next generation of humans on our planet.

crwth

copper member

Activity: 2940

Merit: 1280

https://linktr.ee/crwthopia

Quote from: Sithara007 on March 27, 2017, 09:14:22 PM

Quote from: canine2017 on March 27, 2017, 01:30:45 PM

Nuclear energy is more clean, but the problems are in the event of an accident. Remember Chernobyl and Fokusimu. On the other hand there is a problem with storage of radioactive waste.

How many people died in Chernobyl and Fukushima? The numbers are only a small fraction of those who die every day from the pollution from coal-fired plants. And now technology has also progressed. The chances of a nuclear accident is near zero.

Yeah, probably. From those fatal cases, there are certain solutions invented now that would definitely increase the safety of nuclear plants, I just hope mother nature wouldn't intervene.

crwth

copper member

Activity: 2940

Merit: 1280

https://linktr.ee/crwthopia

Quote from: bryant.coleman on March 27, 2017, 01:14:20 PM

Quote from: crwth on March 27, 2017, 12:24:59 AM

Quote from: Sithara007 on March 26, 2017, 11:23:11 PM

Quote from: BADecker on March 26, 2017, 10:20:44 PM

Renewable Energy? The horse on a treadmill. Cool

LOL. What about Uranium? IMO, Uranium is a renewable resource (as there are enough deposits to cover the current consumption levels for the next few thousand years), and it is very cheap as well.

While the horse is being slapped, that's so sad Sad

. Don't do that. I don't think that Uranium is very ideal since it's radioactive. I don't know, it might cause some side effects to humans or other species as well.

There is a lot of propaganda going on against nuclear power plants. But let's look at the facts in an unbiased manner. Since the construction of the first nuclear power plants, how many people have been killed as a result of radiation poisoning from these plants? My guess is less than 100. OK... let's take a liberal figure of 1,000.

Now let's compare this figure with the number of deaths from the pollution caused by thermal power plants. Here is the figure:

India (per year): 115,000 deaths (including 10,000 children), 170,000 cases of bronchitis, and 21 million asthma cases.
USA (per year): 13,000 deaths & 20,000 heart attacks.
China (per year): 250,000 deaths.

Now please tell me which one is more dangerous. Coal or Uranium?

You're scaling it in a different sample size. Both are hazardous, but definitely, Uranium is more efficient since it can produce a lot more energy compared to coal, but mishandling by people could cause more unfortunate events also. Human intervention on things would likely be the cause of a failure there, but since coal was used first, a lot of studies has been carried out there.

crwth

copper member

Activity: 2940

Merit: 1280

https://linktr.ee/crwthopia

Quote from: 0xfff on March 27, 2017, 07:34:16 AM

Quote from: BADecker on March 26, 2017, 10:20:44 PM

Renewable Energy? The horse on a treadmill. Cool

I don't think treadmill horse is renewable. Someone has to feed the horse. Farming requires a TON of fuel for growing crops. If you let the horse eat grass naturally, then it is no longer on a treadmill. Horse also emit methane which is greenhouse gas. Treadmill horse is not good idea.

It's just a joke and it's not considered to be a renewable energy. A horse is not a natural occurring and not exhaustible source of energy. It gets tired, hungry and what not. Lol

Sithara007

legendary

Activity: 3346

Merit: 1352

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Quote from: canine2017 on March 27, 2017, 01:30:45 PM

Nuclear energy is more clean, but the problems are in the event of an accident. Remember Chernobyl and Fokusimu. On the other hand there is a problem with storage of radioactive waste.

How many people died in Chernobyl and Fukushima? The numbers are only a small fraction of those who die every day from the pollution from coal-fired plants. And now technology has also progressed. The chances of a nuclear accident is near zero.

Smoxer

newbie

Activity: 29

Merit: 0

i believe we can do it if the problem comes relvant enough, mabye in few decades people can be more aware and start actually worrying about it anough to care

canine2017

newbie

Activity: 55

Merit: 0

Quote from: bryant.coleman on March 27, 2017, 01:14:20 PM

Quote from: crwth on March 27, 2017, 12:24:59 AM

Quote from: Sithara007 on March 26, 2017, 11:23:11 PM

Quote from: BADecker on March 26, 2017, 10:20:44 PM

Renewable Energy? The horse on a treadmill. Cool

LOL. What about Uranium? IMO, Uranium is a renewable resource (as there are enough deposits to cover the current consumption levels for the next few thousand years), and it is very cheap as well.

While the horse is being slapped, that's so sad Sad

. Don't do that. I don't think that Uranium is very ideal since it's radioactive. I don't know, it might cause some side effects to humans or other species as well.

There is a lot of propaganda going on against nuclear power plants. But let's look at the facts in an unbiased manner. Since the construction of the first nuclear power plants, how many people have been killed as a result of radiation poisoning from these plants? My guess is less than 100. OK... let's take a liberal figure of 1,000.

Now let's compare this figure with the number of deaths from the pollution caused by thermal power plants. Here is the figure:

India (per year): 115,000 deaths (including 10,000 children), 170,000 cases of bronchitis, and 21 million asthma cases.
USA (per year): 13,000 deaths & 20,000 heart attacks.
China (per year): 250,000 deaths.

Now please tell me which one is more dangerous. Coal or Uranium?

Nuclear energy is more clean, but the problems are in the event of an accident. Remember Chernobyl and Fokusimu. On the other hand there is a problem with storage of radioactive waste.

bryant.coleman

legendary

Activity: 3808

Merit: 1219

Quote from: crwth on March 27, 2017, 12:24:59 AM

Quote from: Sithara007 on March 26, 2017, 11:23:11 PM

Quote from: BADecker on March 26, 2017, 10:20:44 PM

Renewable Energy? The horse on a treadmill. Cool

LOL. What about Uranium? IMO, Uranium is a renewable resource (as there are enough deposits to cover the current consumption levels for the next few thousand years), and it is very cheap as well.

While the horse is being slapped, that's so sad Sad

. Don't do that. I don't think that Uranium is very ideal since it's radioactive. I don't know, it might cause some side effects to humans or other species as well.

There is a lot of propaganda going on against nuclear power plants. But let's look at the facts in an unbiased manner. Since the construction of the first nuclear power plants, how many people have been killed as a result of radiation poisoning from these plants? My guess is less than 100. OK... let's take a liberal figure of 1,000.

Now let's compare this figure with the number of deaths from the pollution caused by thermal power plants. Here is the figure:

India (per year): 115,000 deaths (including 10,000 children), 170,000 cases of bronchitis, and 21 million asthma cases.
USA (per year): 13,000 deaths & 20,000 heart attacks.
China (per year): 250,000 deaths.

Now please tell me which one is more dangerous. Coal or Uranium?

Maximilian_333

member

Activity: 88

Merit: 10

Quote from: Eternu on March 27, 2017, 07:45:29 AM

Quote from: crwth on March 08, 2017, 09:16:00 PM

In this technological era, some advancements have potential to make our world cleaner and greener. Do you think that it is possible? That people would start doing it in their own little ways that they can eventually have an impact on our environment?

Lots of scientific studies are out there being researched and developed, for example, the artificial photosynthesis. It's where you make a plastic coating of some sorts that will get CO2 or something and make cleaner air. That's where it's going to boom when it's practical to make for everyone to use.

Do you believe that the research papers now can have an impact? Cite examples and do you think that it's possible?

First i would like to say that it would be grate if scientist would make some new technology that could provide alternative source of energy. And hopefully it would be better than technology that we use today. Health of planet we live on is important. Many people don't take it seriously and I think that won't end well, if we don't do something to clean everything a bit.

Unfortunately, the EPA requires additional investments. Not interested manufacturers. Many people use the principles of "After me the deluge". I think that the impetus for the development of alternative technologies can only be a reduction in the cost of energy. Now the price of energy produced from alternative sources over traditional methods. In this situation, I do not see prospects of development of alternative technologies.

Eternu

sr. member

Activity: 560

Merit: 257

Quote from: crwth on March 08, 2017, 09:16:00 PM

In this technological era, some advancements have potential to make our world cleaner and greener. Do you think that it is possible? That people would start doing it in their own little ways that they can eventually have an impact on our environment?

Lots of scientific studies are out there being researched and developed, for example, the artificial photosynthesis. It's where you make a plastic coating of some sorts that will get CO2 or something and make cleaner air. That's where it's going to boom when it's practical to make for everyone to use.

Do you believe that the research papers now can have an impact? Cite examples and do you think that it's possible?

First i would like to say that it would be grate if scientist would make some new technology that could provide alternative source of energy. And hopefully it would be better than technology that we use today. Health of planet we live on is important. Many people don't take it seriously and I think that won't end well, if we don't do something to clean everything a bit.

Malsetid

hero member

Activity: 924

Merit: 502

CryptoTalk.Org - Get Paid for every Post!

Quote from: crwth on March 08, 2017, 09:16:00 PM

In this technological era, some advancements have potential to make our world cleaner and greener. Do you think that it is possible? That people would start doing it in their own little ways that they can eventually have an impact on our environment?

Lots of scientific studies are out there being researched and developed, for example, the artificial photosynthesis. It's where you make a plastic coating of some sorts that will get CO2 or something and make cleaner air. That's where it's going to boom when it's practical to make for everyone to use.

Do you believe that the research papers now can have an impact? Cite examples and do you think that it's possible?

Well good things starts here from small things. I think there are even regular paints that cleans the air and it is now being used in some countries to counter pollution. Tech advancements doesn't have to be all negative effects on the environment as it can do the same thing to save it as well as harm it.

0xfff

full member

Activity: 224

Merit: 100

Quote from: BADecker on March 26, 2017, 10:20:44 PM

Renewable Energy? The horse on a treadmill. Cool

I don't think treadmill horse is renewable. Someone has to feed the horse. Farming requires a TON of fuel for growing crops. If you let the horse eat grass naturally, then it is no longer on a treadmill. Horse also emit methane which is greenhouse gas. Treadmill horse is not good idea.

crwth

copper member

Activity: 2940

Merit: 1280

https://linktr.ee/crwthopia

Quote from: Sithara007 on March 26, 2017, 11:23:11 PM

Quote from: BADecker on March 26, 2017, 10:20:44 PM

Renewable Energy? The horse on a treadmill. Cool

LOL. What about Uranium? IMO, Uranium is a renewable resource (as there are enough deposits to cover the current consumption levels for the next few thousand years), and it is very cheap as well.

While the horse is being slapped, that's so sad Sad

. Don't do that. I don't think that Uranium is very ideal since it's radioactive. I don't know, it might cause some side effects to humans or other species as well.

Sithara007

legendary

Activity: 3346

Merit: 1352

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Quote from: BADecker on March 26, 2017, 10:20:44 PM

Renewable Energy? The horse on a treadmill. Cool

LOL. What about Uranium? IMO, Uranium is a renewable resource (as there are enough deposits to cover the current consumption levels for the next few thousand years), and it is very cheap as well.

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3990

Merit: 1385

Renewable Energy? The horse on a treadmill. Cool

crwth

copper member

Activity: 2940

Merit: 1280

https://linktr.ee/crwthopia

Quote from: Sithara007 on March 26, 2017, 08:42:35 PM

Quote from: crwth on March 26, 2017, 08:00:25 PM

Quote from: bryant.coleman on March 26, 2017, 01:46:02 PM

Quote from: darkseid1199 on March 26, 2017, 10:56:18 AM

If scientist were able to make a solar cell with at least 70 percent of efficiency, It would solve the entire energy problems of the entire world. Cars will all switch to solar powered cars which will eventually help tackle global warming.

No. That will not solve the problem. They need to design solar panels which needs the minimum maintenance (especially in the desert areas such as Sahara, this is a big problem). Also, they need to increase the lifespan of these panels. Then they need to design special batteries, which can store the electricity generated by these panels.

It's not that simple, some companies that manufacture those kinds of solar cells has already achieved 70% efficiency, but the problem is, if they mass produce it, it's going to be really expensive and not practical for people to buy it. It's being researched still and hoping that a favorable material would overcome the challenges the solar panels it's facing.

One advantage with the solar panels is that the raw materials are easily available. But if the researchers can improve the lifespan of these panels, then it will be a huge boost to the proponents of the renewable energy.

Yeah, which is the primary source for the ingots, silicon. They can get it easily and they can manufacture it to silicon wafers which then be attached to some integrated circuits. It will be a breakthrough with renewable energy concerning on the sunlight. That's one of the abundant energy source available.

Sithara007

legendary

Activity: 3346

Merit: 1352

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Quote from: crwth on March 26, 2017, 08:00:25 PM

Quote from: bryant.coleman on March 26, 2017, 01:46:02 PM

Quote from: darkseid1199 on March 26, 2017, 10:56:18 AM

If scientist were able to make a solar cell with at least 70 percent of efficiency, It would solve the entire energy problems of the entire world. Cars will all switch to solar powered cars which will eventually help tackle global warming.

No. That will not solve the problem. They need to design solar panels which needs the minimum maintenance (especially in the desert areas such as Sahara, this is a big problem). Also, they need to increase the lifespan of these panels. Then they need to design special batteries, which can store the electricity generated by these panels.

It's not that simple, some companies that manufacture those kinds of solar cells has already achieved 70% efficiency, but the problem is, if they mass produce it, it's going to be really expensive and not practical for people to buy it. It's being researched still and hoping that a favorable material would overcome the challenges the solar panels it's facing.

One advantage with the solar panels is that the raw materials are easily available. But if the researchers can improve the lifespan of these panels, then it will be a huge boost to the proponents of the renewable energy.

Topic: Renewable Energy - page 15. (Read 13453 times)