Thread: Energy

So I was browsing my totally fav political blog today and I came across this ad by the Coen Brothers (who directed some damn good movies) for clean coal. Its running under the "Reality" brand I guess and its pretty funny. See: Coen Brothers Ad for Clean Coal... Now just for the fuck of it I checked out the backing site www.thisisreality.org and I swear that little yellow bird is the cutest thing ever. ^_^ Anyway, reading some of the facts on the site, and laughing at how silly this idea is made me think, what do you think is the best way to produce the energy we need for the future?

One thing that's been confusing the hell out of me lately is just how many people believe that it's "green energy" to burn garbage in order to create electricity.

What's the difference between burning paper, wood, and all the associated dyes and chemicals used in the treating of said materials and the burning of coal?

Good question, as I´m no electronic engineer, I´ve not the slightest idea how effective (quantity of energy + cost-performance ratio) wind and solar energy can be, and all available information is undependable as there are to many interest groups, that could gain/loose much money.
I am against nuclear energy, as I dislike carcinogenic waste. Fossil fuels are dirty and I doubt that can ever be changed.
And as far as I know, effective supply and usage of hydrogen is still future vision.
I don´t see a good solution...

hmm - On the other hand, maybe all the fat people of Europe and USA should produce electric energy on bicycle dynamos?

Nuke plants (and hydro where possible) is the way to go. In fact, in the long term, nukes and fusion (when it comes online) are the only cost-efficient ways to go.

Solar and wind take up too much space and are too expensive and the places where you can build large-scale wind and solar plants are out in the middle of nowhere, thus driving up the costs. Among the renewables hydro is clearly the most efficient, but is limited by the availability of rivers or streams,.

On the other hand, nuclear plants can be built almost anywhere, and produce far more energy per unit than any current alternative. And contrary to what people think, the plants are safe and the waste can be disposed of. So what's there not to like?

Originally Posted by Terasiel

One thing that's been confusing the hell out of me lately is just how many people believe that it's "green energy" to burn garbage in order to create electricity.

What's the difference between burning paper, wood, and all the associated dyes and chemicals used in the treating of said materials and the burning of coal?

Burnin paper, wood and other stuff like that doesn't contribute any net increase to the athmospheric amount of carbon dioxides since the raw material used is already part of the surface carbon cycle.

Digging up coal and burning it, on the other hand, adds new carbon dioxide that was previously not part of the cycle, thus leading to a net increase.

I kind of agree with Saizou,but we still have to deal with the nuclear waste ^^

And we talked about energy in Physics,and the thing is,the places where we can produce the most energy are deserted most of the times [Sahara for solar energy,or hydro power in Africa (mountain ->river->energy...)].
Anyway,nuclear fusion would be the best solution [I hope I´m not mixing things up here ]

CLEAN COAL IS A LIE. The commercial told me so. :O

Why did Jakko-cracko die?

Gravity and Quantum Effects would be the cleanest Energy Sources I guess. But since we won't be able to use them any time soon it would be Solar -> Tidal / Geo -> Nuke / Fusion for us I guess.

Power of Water...Captain Planet.

Power of Love.
Sailor Moon.