Poll: What energy source do you prefer?

[Tsmuktengan]

Same reply as Toruk Makto for me.

There are risks with almost all energy sources. Solar power can (does in fact) pollute a lot by the chemicals it uses.

When a Nuclear facility is properly managed in a low danger zone, there is nothing to worry about in normal situations. Tchernobyl was a very badly designed and managed power plant. Fukushima was suffering insufficient checks by an opaque management while the Power plant is in a high danger zone. 

So there is not enough reasons to withdraw such energy source that is necessary to develop fusion energy as well, in my opinion. There is no possibility to reasonably ban nuclear anyway, it produces far more energy than any other resource. However, it is possible to use alternative energies to reduce our dependency on Nuclear as well as save energy.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Nuclear power can destroy the environment and air


The risk for nuclear power
http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/np-risk.htm

Think what the cost of Chernobyl and Fukushima was?

It was at least $71 billion for Fukushima

I get this feeling that not only are you believing everything thats been sad bad about Nuclear power, but you are deriding it on a wholesale level. Nuclear power has some of the safest track records. There have only been 3 major incident regarding nuclear power, bringing a safety rate of almost .0068% failure rate. The inherent troubles compared to the innate benefits can not stack up at all. Nuclear energy, both as it stands now, and as it will become, is -the- most efficient, safe, and technologically sound way of generating energy right now.

If I were to give you numbers showing solar energy and thermal energy to be just as bad, if not worse than nuclear, would you deride them too?

[Niri Te]

 I had property that was within eyesight of the containment building domes of the Palo Verde Nuclear Power Generating Station, the LARGEST "nuke power site" in the free world for five years, and two of our good friends worked IN THE CONTROL ROOM for over a decade, and you know what? NONE of us grew any extra fingers or toes. NONE of us have any tumors, or growths on our skin. NONE of us are EVER going to believe ANY of this anti nuclear propaganda.
Tee and I power our entire house now with solar power that we generate ourselves, but not everyone can live where we live, so for THOSE people, there is NUCLEAR power.
Niri Te

[Tsanten Eywa 'eveng]

Same reply as Toruk Makto for me.

There are risks with almost all energy sources. Solar power can (does in fact) pollute a lot by the chemicals it uses.

When a Nuclear facility is properly managed in a low danger zone, there is nothing to worry about in normal situations. Tchernobyl was a very badly designed and managed power plant. Fukushima was suffering insufficient checks by an opaque management while the Power plant is in a high danger zone. 

So there is not enough reasons to withdraw such energy source that is necessary to develop fusion energy as well, in my opinion. There is no possibility to reasonably ban nuclear anyway, it produces far more energy than any other resource. However, it is possible to use alternative energies to reduce our dependency on Nuclear as well as save energy.

Wind power? Is that a good thing?
If you build your own?

[Niri Te]

Wind power? Is that a good thing?
If you build your own?
[/quote]


SURE it is!! We spent a total of 700 dollars building a 1,500 watt, twin turbine wind generation station. That was a lot less than the Solar array of the same output.  MOST of us that live out here in the outlying areas of far west Texas power our homes this way. Once we pay for the installation, (usually by ourselves), the power is FREE. I'm on the internet right now because of it.
Niri Te

[Toruk Makto]

Nuclear power can destroy the environment and air


The risk for nuclear power
http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/np-risk.htm

Think what the cost of Chernobyl and Fukushima was?

It was at least $71 billion for Fukushima

  Are you sure you meant to cite Dr. Bernard Cohen as your evidence?  Either you didn't read his NPR brief carefully enough, or you didn't understand it. For clarity, it can be summed up with the paragraph (quoted verbatim):

"Nuclear power technology produces materials that are active in emitting radiation and are therefore called "radioactive". These materials can come into contact with people principally through small releases during routine plant operation, accidents in nuclear power plants, accidents in transporting radioactive materials, and escape of radioactive wastes from confinement systems. We will discuss these separately, but all of them taken together, with accidents treated probabilistically, will eventually expose the average American to about 0.2% of his exposure from natural radiation. Since natural radiation is estimated to cause about 1% of all cancers, radiation due to nuclear technology should eventually increase our cancer risk by 0.002% (one part in 50,000), reducing our life expectancy by less than one hour. By comparison, our loss of life expectancy from competitive electricity generation technologies, burning coal, oil, or gas, is estimated to range from 3 to 40 days. "

I must say that doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement of your position.


  Markì

[Tsmuktengan]

Keep playing nicely. We are sharing personal views here, nothing more. It is always better when supported by facts.

Wind power is not efficient though, although it is very clean. It has several flaws :

- When you place several wind plants, you somehow affect and eventually destroy the beauty and integrity of a landscape.
- Maintenance can be very expensive when it comes to changing turbines or wings.
- Some wind plants seem to be causing severe nuisances, some turbines can be very loud. This the reason why it is not easy to place wind plants in France : there have been massive complaints because of landscape deterioration and non negligible noise nuisances.
- Birds and group of birds can eventually hit the wings. These should not be placed where there are endangered species.
- When there is no wind, there is no power. On a high scale grid, this is very difficult to manage.

So on very low scale, it isn't bad to help compensating some lack of energy. It is much better than turning back on a coal or oil power plant. Yet, it is certainly not a solution on it's own. This is why I tend to place more importance into solar power because of the higher potential that can be found as technology improves, hoping it would use less rare earth minerals and chemicals as well.

[Toruk Makto]

Keep playing nicely. We are sharing personal views here, nothing more. It is always better when supported by facts.

Wind power is not efficient though, although it is very clean. It has several flaws :

- When you place several wind plants, you somehow affect and eventually destroy the beauty and integrity of a landscape.
- Maintenance can be very expensive when it comes to changing turbines or wings.
- Some wind plants seem to be causing severe nuisances, some turbines can be very loud. This the reason why it is not easy to place wind plants in France : there have been massive complaints because of landscape deterioration and non negligible noise nuisances.
- Birds and group of birds can eventually hit the wings. These should not be placed where there are endangered species.
- When there is no wind, there is no power. On a high scale grid, this is very difficult to manage.

So on very low scale, it isn't bad to help compensating some lack of energy. It is much better than turning back on a coal or oil power plant. Yet, it is certainly not a solution on it's own. This is why I tend to place more importance into solar power because of the higher potential that can be found as technology improves, hoping it would use less rare earth minerals and chemicals as well.

  Most Alternative energy sources are only good for a fractional supply in their current state of technology. That is why we need to invest more into research and create more efficient ways of using these sources.

[Niri Te]

 What you say about wind plants is true where there are large "Wind Farms", or where there is not much wind.
Out here in west Texas, the wind is CONSTANT, except for about five weeks in the mid to late Summer, except for the gust fronts of thunderstorms. We have a fairly steady 10 to 20 MPH "breeze" out of the south-southwest almost all the time, Tee's an my private runway is oriented into these constant winds.
The private wind plants that most of us have out here, have props that have a six foot diameter disk, and the noise that the make is as much a part of our "Wild West Culture" as Cattle. The wind has been used ever since the first settlers shown up here to mechanically power the deep water wells that have been an essential part of west Texas life.  Just look at the Western Movies, you see the wind driven water pumps in them all the time.
To those of us that live out here, we don't "hear" them any more they are a soothing "White noise".
Niri Te

[Irtaviš Ačankif]

Keep playing nicely. We are sharing personal views here, nothing more. It is always better when supported by facts.

Wind power is not efficient though, although it is very clean. It has several flaws :

- When you place several wind plants, you somehow affect and eventually destroy the beauty and integrity of a landscape.
- Maintenance can be very expensive when it comes to changing turbines or wings.
- Some wind plants seem to be causing severe nuisances, some turbines can be very loud. This the reason why it is not easy to place wind plants in France : there have been massive complaints because of landscape deterioration and non negligible noise nuisances.
- Birds and group of birds can eventually hit the wings. These should not be placed where there are endangered species.
- When there is no wind, there is no power. On a high scale grid, this is very difficult to manage.

So on very low scale, it isn't bad to help compensating some lack of energy. It is much better than turning back on a coal or oil power plant. Yet, it is certainly not a solution on it's own. This is why I tend to place more importance into solar power because of the higher potential that can be found as technology improves, hoping it would use less rare earth minerals and chemicals as well.

Yup. Solar is way better than wind. I don't think that the rare earth minerals can be done away with though. The more advanced and the more efficient solar gets, the only thing happens seem to be requiring even more esoteric materials.

[Irtaviš Ačankif]

What you say about wind plants is true where there are large "Wind Farms", or where there is not much wind.
Out here in west Texas, the wind is CONSTANT, except for about five weeks in the mid to late Summer, except for the gust fronts of thunderstorms. We have a fairly steady 10 to 20 MPH "breeze" out of the south-southwest almost all the time, Tee's an my private runway is oriented into these constant winds.
The private wind plants that most of us have out here, have props that have a six foot diameter disk, and the noise that the make is as much a part of our "Wild West Culture" as Cattle. The wind has been used ever since the first settlers shown up here to mechanically power the deep water wells that have been an essential part of west Texas life.  Just look at the Western Movies, you see the wind driven water pumps in them all the time.
To those of us that live out here, we don't "hear" them any more they are a soothing "White noise".
Niri Te

Yes, but unless you build huge wind farms, they aren't going to produce electricity for anything more than a ranch. One turbine can't power a city! If you want to make it large-scale, you either have to put a noisy turbine in front of every house, which is obnoxious, or herd the turbines together in wind farms, which is, you see, obnoxious as well.

[Niri Te]

Again, to us it is not obnoxious, to us it is an over a hundred and fifty year old part of our heritage, and therefore, nothing more than white noise. Imagine how much pollution the thirty homesteads that I know of, there are surely more that I don't know of, that are using these wind plants in our windy 10,000 square mile area, by NOT being to the oil fired Power Company that is the sole provider of power to the County. Each of us runs our own 60 to 70 foot high, one or two turbine wind generation station, along with our solar arrays, enabling us to be energy independent.
Niri Te

[Tsmuktengan]

I understand. But it seems that in most other lands and state, it is not that obnoxious. In France, many people do not want to see this in each backyard :

in addition to the fact that in most french lands, wind is absolutely not constant.

This kind of energy relies a lot on territories properties. Solar energy won't work as well in Norway than in Spain or Canada than in Florida.  

[Tsanten Eywa 'eveng]

If you travel to Denmark, you see wind turbines everywhere

Here in Norway we using hydropower, wind power(only in Southern Norway on the coast), fossil fuels


Here I am living, we using hydropower


Some people here in Norway who have cabins, using solar power