other forms of energy?

[guest6785]

to everyone,
is there other kinds of making green energy besides solar,wind,thermal or hydroelectric?
i know there are about 4 or 3 new ones.

[Zalorticus]

Geothermal, Tidal, Wave, Biofuel, Fuel made from farm waste (different than biofuel). I feel like I'm forgetting some, though.

The combination of geothermal, tidal, and wave energy could power the whole world for infinity.

[guest6785]

i heard hydroelectric is bad because they flood the surrounding area and river

[Eyamsiyu]

Here's an interesting concept for energy: your crap.  Not even joking: you can run a house burning it.

[guest6785]

yes,i heard of it being used in poor countries.they put all waste in this big tank and leave it to rot and produce methane to burn!

[Eyamsiyu]

yes,i heard of it being used in poor countries.they put all waste in this big tank and leave it to rot and produce methane to burn!

Well honestly, maybe the rich countries should look at doing something like that too.  It is, you could say, a renewable source of energy, because there's so much of it!

[Dreamlight]

Yeah, the rich countries do seem to produce an awful lot of crap. 

[Ku'rända]

Yeah, the rich countries do seem to produce an awful lot of crap. 

It's all the caviar :B

[guest6785]

there's one suggestion is using giant solar cells,and putting them in orbit around the earth to absorb the sun's energy.one problem is the transfer of the energy,mainly because they would need regular shuttle launches which burn fuel and it could be fragile the solar cell"wall".though one concept to transport the energy is sending beams of microwaves to earth to be received,but if it misses:KABOOM!

[bommel]

If they could get cold fusion to work... maybe this would solve lots of our energy problems?

[guest6785]

i don't think so.first,fusion power stills produce radiactive waste(but much less then fission reactors) and second,the reason why fusion reactors are not successfull these days is beacause we don't have a metal or material that can withstand the melting heat of the reactor. :'(so it's like basically going through the earth's mantle and back.

[guest6785]

 today's future or model way of power is finding a source that does not pollute or make fumes,but produce a lot of energy and does not require continues feed of fuel.well,that nearly impossible with our current technology . also,it could be easyily built and optionally portabile enough to be a driving force or locomation of vehilcles.

[bommel]

i don't think so.first,fusion power stills produce radiactive waste(but much less then fission reactors) and second,the reason why fusion reactors are not successfull these days is beacause we don't have a metal or material that can withstand the melting heat of the reactor. :'(so it's like basically going through the earth's mantle and back.

That's where cold fusion comes in. It's a (theoretical) approach to avoid the use of plasma-based fusion reactors.

[guest6785]

so,exactly how does cold fusion works and it's differences with normal fusion?

[bommel]

Jsut have a look at the Wikipedia articles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon-catalyzed_fusion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion

There you'll find also some problems why we can't use it atm (e. g. you have to put in more energy than you get out, etc.)

[guest6785]

it seems that all the theorys and formulas seem very compilcated to me,but i guess scientist are still studying fusion and cold fusion.

[bommel]

it seems that all the theorys and formulas seem very compilcated to me,but i guess scientist are still studying fusion and cold fusion.

Srane, I don't understand that much of the formulas too but in theory cold fusion seems to be very powerful.

[guest6785]

here a link you should read about"everlasting power"

Perpetual motion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

note-if it doesn''t work,then just google it

[bommel]

I'll have a look!

[El Jacko]

Cold fusion is based almost entirely on hype and some dodgy readings. While it should theoretically be possible, it will require significantly higher pressure than standard fusion to overcome the weak nuclear force (the reason 'hot' fusion is so actively pursued is because the science behind it is solid and proven; one only needs to look to the skies to see it working).

i don't think so.first,fusion power stills produce radiactive waste(but much less then fission reactors) and second,the reason why fusion reactors are not successfull these days is beacause we don't have a metal or material that can withstand the melting heat of the reactor. :'(so it's like basically going through the earth's mantle and back.

First point: The only real radioactive waste from Nuclear Fusion is the reactor core itself (it becomes very neutron-rich during use) after its ~50 year lifespan.

Second point: While we do lack a metal that can withstand the heat, we don't need one. The superheated plasma is contained within a powerful magnetic field, which also serves to provide the necessary pressure.

Third (albeit picky) point: The temperature of the plasma has been measured at a peak of around 100,000,000 kelvin, in contrast to the ~3000 kelvin of the Earth's Mantle.