This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Our environmental problem

This is a result of geography revision :rolleyes:

Basically, if we carry on using fossil fuels like we are, we'll be out of oil and natural gas within, say, 70 years. We obviously need to find alternatives, quickly. There is some limited use of renewables, but it isn't significant. Also, as less developed countries are becoming more developed, they are now using more energy than before. So, what is the answer? Nuclear? The general public seems to be terrified by the word. Increased use of renewables? It costs a lot of money from the government for a relatively small energy output.

Discuss! :smile:

Reply 1

TSR Community Staff

I would say that when I came across a discussion on neuclear energy a few weeks ago on another board I was pleasantly suprised by the number of people who were supporting the use of nuclaer energy, it was as much as 75% of the people talking part in ths discussion. I think I was almost as suprised at this as my GCSE Georgraphy teacher was suprised about 6 years ago when I wrote an article in support of nuclear energy...she wasn't expecting anyone to be in support of it, certainly not as much I was...lol.

Reply 2

JonD

The hydrogen economy sounds promising. We extract hydrogen from water, store it in a safer form and use it much the same way we would petroleum. It would be a completely renewable fuel source, and ideally only produce water as waste.

It's presently within our grasp, only uneconomical because the cost of the electricity required to process the water is more bigger than the petroleum that it would compete with in the market. This could be the reason behind the government's intention to splash out on nuclear power. The only country that has the abundance of electricity required is Iceland, thanks to hydroelectric dams. They plan to become a complete hydrogen economy by 2050.

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/hydrogen-economy.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_economy

Reply 3

pedy1986

I'm not convinced this is really the case. I mean is oil really going to run out that soon? If we consider that as supply starts to run out the price with inevitably rise (this is a reason for investing in other forms of enegery). This price rise merely makes firms more willing to look for more oil - we know that we only get around 35% of oil out of an oil resoiver as the rest is considered 'uneconomical' at the current oil price return - surely it will come to a point when more and more of *already known* oil can be mined as it becomes economically viable?

Reply 4

The Centipe

JonD

But surely the electricity used in the electrolysis process is greater than the electricity produced by burning the hydrogen?

Reply 5

JonD

I gave up not bieng convinced because I can't be bothered to follow all the arguments "out there":

One guy recently swore blind to me that if you take into account all the rubbish oil available to us, which we don't use because M.E. and Texan oil is better, we have enough to last 10,000 years. Then there're the ones who swear by the Peak Oil Theory that the oil wells of the world are secretly running on fumes, that the world economy will collapse into World War III and we'll be in the dark ages of horses and carts by the end of the decade.

When I say the environment debate is "out there", I mean in the X-Files sense.

Reply 6

JonD

StriatedCentipe

But surely the electricity used in the electrolysis process is greater than the electricity produced by burning the hydrogen?

That's the point. The cost of having to use national grid electricity to make the product you'll stick in your car more expensive than if you were using petroleum. If we had an abundance of national grid energy, like I assume Iceland has, it would become worthwhile.

Reply 7

The Centipe

http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=63&contentid=2097 or the world has "limitless supplies of petroleum" :rolleyes:

Reply 8

Douglas

"moon gas" may be the answer to all our energy problems. 25 tons of the stuff can supply the U.S.'s energy needs for 1 year.

Check here
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200411/s1252715.htm

he3-diagram.gif7.9KB

Reply 9

material breach

Douglas

"moon gas" may be the answer to all our energy problems. 25 tons of the stuff can supply the U.S.'s energy needs for 1 year.

Check here
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200411/s1252715.htm

Its going to require alot of improvement in out space technology. Also wouldnt the energy to send a rocket up there kinda cancel out any potential gains?

Reply 10

Douglas

Well, if the space shuttle could carry just 6 tons, that would be enough energy for the U.S. for four months.

Reply 11

JonD

The impression I get is that Helium-3 would be the 2nd generation of nuclear fusion power, the materials to create the first generation are availible to us, but the technology isn't. I doubt we'll be able to stick a fusion power generator in our cars any easier than sticking a nuclear fission power (the nuclar type we use now) generator.

Reply 12

KizD

"Dr Taylor says 200 million tonnes of lunar soil would produce one tonne of helium."

Reply 13

JonD

kizdesai

"Dr Taylor says 200 million tonnes of lunar soil would produce one tonne of helium."

Definately far out of our ability, for now.

Reply 14

IZZY!

for now we can use nuclear power, but in 50 years time, with advances in technology we may be able to invent something else.Nothing happened with France's nuclear power stations. Everthing is steady.

Reply 15

danni_bella

StriatedCentipe

This is a result of geography revision :rolleyes:

I don't like Nuclear actually, tbh a bit suss I reckon. Although our government wants to use it in some states where I live :frown:

Defo into increased use of renewable energy, digging wind and solar, altho some say hydro's good too, depending on where you live.

And yeah, I KNOW it's expensive, but we can learn to use less. It's just Western society has become so reliant and dare I say, 'spoiled', with our extensive use of resources that it seems like an incredibly difficult thing to do. Even though it's not really.

For instance I ride my bike everywhere, tend to bring packed lunches to uni, eat vegies instead of processed food, don't use much packaging, don't watch much TV (internet is my vice :redface:

Emails, and here lol), etc. and I prefer it, too.

Anyway, other greenies, come and talk in the Environment Awareness Society thread, now examies are over for the time being, have more time to chat with you in there :smile:

DB_x

Reply 16

ArthurOliver

Free Energy anyone? :eek:

Recent breakthroughs in 'Zero point' energy include a 'Motionless Electromagnetic Generator' and a 'Rare Earth Magnetic Amplification Technology'.

:confused:

More plausible than it sounds - the idea is to plug into the 'empty space' around us - which of course isn't empty but filled with an almost infinite amount of energy.

Peak Oil is certainly a serious problem (aren't we already at war because of it?) and current alternatives other than nuclear aren't viable. If an alternative does turn up don't be surprised if it comes from a Tesla style maverick working outside the system.

Reply 17

Golden Maverick

ArthurOliver

Free Energy anyone? :eek:

Recent breakthroughs in 'Zero point' energy include a 'Motionless Electromagnetic Generator' and a 'Rare Earth Magnetic Amplification Technology'.

:confused:

He sounds like a quack.

"Application of the “Porthole Process” can potentially cure cancer, AIDS, SARS, anthrax, or ANY cellular affliction in 30-second treatment."

" The 6 lb. unit also produced anti-gravity."

“... In 1999, the Earth's first strategic sub-space war was silently fought and won...”

Maybe there's something truthful on that site, but I'm not sure.

Reply 18

ArthurOliver

Golden Maverick

He sound like a quack..."Application of the “Porthole Process” can potentially cure cancer, AIDS, SARS, anthrax, or ANY cellular affliction in 30-second treatment."