Preferred Source of Electricity

Ethonal
The second smallest primary alcohol. and would make a good fuel for power stations and motor vehicles. However the problem is the generation of ethanol.

HydroPower
Water goes through the dam and there are turbines in there which the water will turn thus creating energy.

Wind
Wind can make energy by the windmills containing turbines and making them spin.

SolarPower
Solar panels can absorb the sunlight and turn it into energy, this can only be done when the sun is shining.

Nuclear
You can use it to make an extreme amount of heat, which will boil massive amounts of water to make a lot of steam(which goes and pushes the turbines).

Fossil Fuels
Fuels formed in the ground from the remains of dead plants and animals. It takes millions of years to form fossil fuels. Oil, natural gas, and coal are fossil fuels.

GeoThermal
Power extracted from heat stored in the earth.

I like fossil fuels really - should be an option :(

Added, trying to figure out how to edit the poll...

You could use solar until a storm comes, then use wind from the storm.

Ethanol - Burns up our corn for human and animal foods driving up prices, not as efficient as fossil fuels, total pollution from production to after use is more than fossil fuel.

Hydropower - Massive ecosystem destruction. Land loss. Interference with natural waterways.

Wind - Turbines are danger to birds, eye sore to some, do not survive storms well.

Solar Power - Uses certain heavy metals that can be bad for the environment, expensive, considered eyesore again by some

Nuclear - Requires large plants, radioactivity remains for 1000s of years in plant site, radioactive waste, eye sore for some, can meltdown.

Fossil Fuels - Dirty, Polluting, lack of, constant political intervention.


Main points from when I was in Debate sophomore year. And you forgot geothermal.

solar power, because, even if expensive, is the best for our environment by far.
also, im not sure of this, but it might even counteract global warming, because the energy from the sun wont be absorbed into the earth, it will be converted into energy. Correct me if my reasoning is flawed :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bionicle1800

solar power, because, even if expensive, is the best for our environment by far.
also, im not sure of this, but it might even counteract global warming, because the energy from the sun wont be absorbed into the earth, it will be converted into energy. Correct me if my reasoning is flawed :p

---

The massive amount of energy that it takes to heat our earth would never in any practical sense be offset by solar power. Sorry

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr.Klean

The massive amount of energy that it takes to heat our earth would never in any practical sense be offset by solar power. Sorry

---

im talking if the whole world reverted to solar power.
it was a long shot though, didnt do any research about it at all :p

I vote Nuclear Energy. I did a project on it last year, and I found its pretty efficient. I think one energy rod provides consistent energy for a couple of years.

hydroelectric, we have 5 electric generating dams in my home town.

Nuclear Fusion!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr.Klean

Ethanol - Burns up our corn for human and animal foods driving up prices, not as efficient as fossil fuels, total pollution from production to after use is more than fossil fuel.

Hydropower - Massive ecosystem destruction. Land loss. Interference with natural waterways.

Wind - Turbines are danger to birds, eye sore to some, do not survive storms well.

Solar Power - Uses certain heavy metals that can be bad for the environment, expensive, considered eyesore again by some

Nuclear - Requires large plants, radioactivity remains for 1000s of years in plant site, radioactive waste, eye sore for some, can meltdown.

Fossil Fuels - Dirty, Polluting, lack of, constant political intervention.

---

There’s enough harvestable wind to light up the whole country. Especially in the middle of the country. I read somewhere that just in that area alone (where there is plenty of unused land where it wouldnt be too much of an eyesore to power like 20 or 30% of the world...i cant find there reference though.

I cant really speak much for hydro power since i dont know its effects.

Solar, while taking up huge amounts of space and being ugly is very promising. Another thing i read, that i cant find reference to to back up, but enough light hits the earth in a day to power it for a year. Obviously we're never going to absorb all of it, but its still a very viable way of power. And their technology is evolving very fast.

Nuclear. I think it just gets a bad rep, but really i think its great. Fission is the notorious one. Good power, good efficiency, relatively, but fusion is the way to go. Fusions yields shitloads more power, has a very shortlived radioactivity, the fuel is very common, and is otherwise great. Its only problem is feasibility at the moment, but also evolving fairly quickly afaik, and once possible should be very profitable much better than current things.

geothermal is great as long as you're in the right area. Afaik, no real horrible negatives other than cost.

for a portable form of energy, hydrogen fuel cells in cars look to me, to be a very nice way to go, but its real problem is cost and availability.

EDIT: NaumanAkhlaQ! you know where its at!

The problem with hydrogen is that it produces a lot less energy than it takes to create it - it may be better suited to cars in the current sense, but purely electric cars would reduce the overall electricity needed by a lot. This is based on using electrolysis to produce hydrogen though - if a magic, new sauce of hydrogen was found that was more efficient than electrolysis, then sure, go for it. I would prefer to see huge advances in battery technology that would create real, cheap electric car batteries that could easily provide long life and recharge quickly.

You forgot Geothermal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_power

You forgot to read the thread!
Check up, someone mentioned it already :)

I would say nuclear, whats to keep us from taking all the nuclear waste (Which isnt that much, but if used more widespread it would pose problems) and catapulting it into space? (With a literal catapult) Wind energy would be great, but we cannot store it, sadly. If we did a coal/wind hybrid, it would take a while, and use more energy than the wind saved to boot the coal part back up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mixster

You forgot to read the thread!
Check up, someone mentioned it already :)

---

Quote:

---

geothermal is great as long as you're in the right area. Afaik, no real horrible negatives other than cost.

---

Barely and it was still forgotten in the poll! :)

I do not believe any one source of energy is better than all the rest, but I believe the best solution would be to harness the power from all sources that we can.

Soiar is great, and even if it does use heavy metals that should not be a problem as long as people maintain it properly. Residential Solar power is climbing up too, soon they will be much more efficient in converting solar light into electricity and its only a matter of time.

Wind is great as well. The fact that birds can die in windmills(source?) is pretty moot, since even if they can there are solutions to every problem. As it stands there is enough energy harnessable from wind that we could power the world 7 times.

Nuclear energy is great too, sure the radioactivity is a downer but who is to say that will always be like that? New technology is being founded every day and who knows what tomorrow may bring us as far as reversing radioactive waste into something else. (Regardless if that is waste that isn't radioactive, or a use for radioactive waste does not matter)

However biofuels is the biggest sham in my opinion as far as suggestions go for alternative sources of electricity.

The problem is, all of these solutions are horrible if not maintained properly. If nuclear power plants melt down, than there is hell if it is not fixed quickly. If countries go the cheap way to "getting rid" of radioactive waste, than we all lose. Likewise to the heavy metals used in solar plants.

Its always been weird to me. We (As in the US) haven't ever had a significant meltdown that hurt anyone, so why not build more nuclear power plants, lots of European countries are switching to nuclear power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sirlaughsalot

Its always been weird to me. We (As in the US) haven't ever had a significant meltdown that hurt anyone, so why not build more nuclear power plants, lots of European countries are switching to nuclear power.

---

Probably because a lot of people are scared of nuclear power, or have misconceptions about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mixster

The problem with hydrogen is that it produces a lot less energy than it takes to create it - it may be better suited to cars in the current sense, but purely electric cars would reduce the overall electricity needed by a lot. This is based on using electrolysis to produce hydrogen though - if a magic, new sauce of hydrogen was found that was more efficient than electrolysis, then sure, go for it. I would prefer to see huge advances in battery technology that would create real, cheap electric car batteries that could easily provide long life and recharge quickly.

---

*Cough*carbon nanotube*cough*already exists, but doesnt have a very high maximum storage density*cough*

As for batteries, the current electric cars have a rough efficiency of 65 percent of getting the power to the motor assuming it cost nothing to make the power (using a reusable power source, ie...your power plant isnt using combustion), whereas hydrogen has an overall efficiency of 64% so i think they're fairly equal in that sense.

I'm a nuclear lover, own a 1958 Ford Nucleon, yea it's a pretty sight :cool:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Nucleon

IMO we should make everything nuclear, and when we need to dumb our waste? well, let's just thank our fellow Canadians :stirthepot:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cartmann

I'm a nuclear lover, own a 1958 Ford Nucleon, yea it's a pretty sight :cool:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Nucleon

IMO we should make everything nuclear, and when we need to dumb our waste? well, let's just thank our fellow Canadians :stirthepot:

---

No.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by r!ch!e

No.

---

Well i've done alittle bodywork on the front, but i tell you, a double-core nuclear earthquake engine kicks a**!
Even thouge it's alittle old and unrelieable (woulnd't want to have trouble with my cooling system on the freeway :P)

I meant No to dumping your waste in Canada.