Solar energy

Yes, there are lots of reasons. For one nuclear power produces harmful waste, and no effective means of disposing it. We have more then enough energy from natural sources to power our cities that is effective and safe.

 

"For one nuclear power produces harmful waste"
Fission? Yes but unlike greenhouse gases it can be esialy and safely stored. If we manage fusion there will be no radioactive waste at all.

"We have more then enough energy from natural sources"
No we don't. It's cheaper to build nuclear power plants than x amount of solar panels or wind mills in such manner that they are equally as powerful and reliable as a nuclear power plant.

I am not advocating ignoring the solar/wind power unlike you.

 

'Safely' storing bi-product as hazardous as nuclear waste is not an effective solution to the problem. You'll just keep adding to the waste pile like garbage in a landfill, but it cannot be disposed of safely either. A man-made nuclear fusion reactor seems very dangerous and hardly practical to me. Besides, we already have a natural fusion reactor bathing the earth. Solar energy should not be overlooked, in the future we may adapt techniques to harnest the power of the sun that exceeds the energy output of nuclear power plants, while being more cheap to manage, and best of all no bi-product.

Other natural energy sources should not be overlooked either. For instance, tidal power is meeting about 20% of the UK's energy demands.

And how you put advocating and ignoring back to back in one sentence is beyond me lol

**EDIT**
I think the invention of super conductors on our power lines would be more of a milestone of human ingenuity then fusion power. Apply that with more effective means of harnessing solar energy we won't need fusion power.

 

THe biggest problem with natural power sources is location. Wind stations require wind, wave power can only be produced in coastal regions, solar power is best produced in equatorial regions with clear skies most of the time (ie. deserts), and geothermal power requires furmaroles. The other problem is that all of these options require a deal of space, since each individual generator only produces a small amount of power, and all of them except geothermal is affected by the weather. Also so far most of the energy that passes by the generator is wasted, solar being the worst offender at around 20% on the most expensive panels.

Nuclear on the other hand takes up little space and is vastly more efficient. Also it is possible to reprocess most of the waste from the reactors into new fuel rods, plus the spent fuel does still put out energy, so it could be utilized to heating.

Currently though, I am a proponent of both nuclear and solar power. The biggest problem I see with solar power though is where they are trying to use it: on the ground. Sure deserts are great places for power plants, but the atmosphere scatters a fair amount of energy on a good day. if clouds appear then the plat is useless for a time. Also, a field that only produces a small amount of electricity is HUGE. I think more research needs to be done in solar satellites. It is possible to replace a field of solar panels with a rectifying antenna (rectenna) array of the same size. This array would convert microwaves from an orbiting satellite into electricity. The advantages of this are that the satellite in orbit can be much larger than the field on the ground, and without the intervening atmosphere, can generate more power for an equivalent area with the added bonus of not having to worry about the weather.

 

So you also saw that documentary? If they get it working, then there would be political problems to it. I mean, just a few countries would be able to create those sattelites. The best energy source should be easy to access by everybody.

 

Yes and no.
I Did just watch that, but I wrote the post beforehand.

Research into solar satellites and wireless energy transfer has been going on for quite some time. The issue is that more funds have been funneled into ground based solar energy. So far investors and policy makers haven't taken space based solutions very seriously.


On the political front, that is true for lots of technology. The wave generators, and geothermal power plants, as well as current solar and fusion research are all based in a few first world countries. The list of researchers into advanced power lines up pretty close to the list of countries who can actually produce solar power satellites. regardless of the technology, you can bet that any breakthrough in power generation will be deployed in and benefit the European Union, Japan and the US and Canada first.

 

That would be cool. Beam me up some electricity scotty.

 

I still say the biggest problem, wall, setback, or whatever for alternative energies including solar energy is the corporations that make profits off of fossil fuels. I mean its no secret they are one of the most if not the most greediest corporations out there and I'm pretty sure that cheaper and cleaner forms of energy would be bad for business. Then you have the influnece and about of assets those corporations hold and you'll see what I'm trying to get at.

 

Well, its most likely the companies producing the fossil fuels that would produce these new energies.

 

Yes, but why would they want alternative energies going mainstream before all the fossil fuels are used up? Be like Blizzard releasing WoW2 before milking every drop out of WoW...

 

@Pancake: uhm. Sure oil companies wont invest into alternative soruces as long as they have something to mine but its not like they are actively crippling the progress towards alternative sources.

 

That's a real shame to sacrifice progress for profitable gain.