All of the above - Alternative Energy Options

[Kerberoz]

Really, we should just stop being pussies and use Nuclear. It's a fuckton cleaner than pretty much everything else.

People are just fucking stupid about it. I mean look at Japan. They got hit by a fucking tidal wave and most of their other power infrastructure went to shit. Only like a handful of people got a harmful dose of radiation. And these were shitty Russian designed units.

If we actually put effort into making safe nuclear there would be next to no problems.

Yep. If only the general public would stop getting their information about teh horrible, horrible nuke-ular waste from comic books.

[Waraji]

that kid is fucking amazing btw, haven't watched the video yet but I'm guessing it's pretty fucking cool...

He's lecturing about :3 Molten Salt Reactors. yay.

[Khajit]

Yep. If only the general public would stop getting their information about teh horrible, horrible nuke-ular waste from comic books.

If they got their information from comic books they'd be all for it in the hopes of gaining superpowers.
Nuclear is one of the better options to start with though since in the end it's still better than what we currently use despite how long it takes for the waste to be safe
Wind needs to be kept away from human settlements since it apparently has been linked to increased suicide rates as the alternating shadows do weird things to the human brain.
I'm not so sure i trust the giant laserbeam shot into the Earth plan since some human will fuck something up at some point but it's a very cool idea once it becomes technologically possible.

[Plow]

He's lecturing about :3 Molten Salt Reactors. yay.

is that a bad thing? I can't tell for sure what you're saying lol.

anyway...

that vid is fucking amazing lol

"so I was thinking about stuff and I was like hrm energy is the real problem... so I took a few months and advanced nuclear power by decades. once I graduate high school in a few months I'm going to start making and selling these super cheap, safe, and very efficient nuclear power plants that can be produced on an assembly line."

[Waraji]

No, I've been following Molten Salt Reactor stuff on and off for 3 years now, Kirk Sorensen of whom peeked my interest originally. Found it surprising and refreshing that such a "fringe" thing would make it on TED is all.

[BaneTheBrawler]

If something called a Molten Salt Reactor works the way I suspect it might, I'm not at all surprised. Salt is some crazy shit.

[Kryssan]

Amusingly enough, the Russians have been using metal salt reactors for years. But it's a 'fringe' thing. By that logic, anything that isn't a thermal reactor complex of BWR / PWR nature is a 'fringe' thing.

The "Small Modular Reactor" design philosophy is probably the way of the future since it will purportedly dump a lot of the startup costs for creating reactor plants. And we need to get Gen IV and V initiative reactor designs actually moving forward. How many resources do you waste in a meltdown? Isn't that alone worth dumping money now into something that... gasp... doesn't meltdown? Until fusion is a realistic viability we need to stop being 'okay' with ancient reactor complex designs. We ( Americans in particular but plenty of other countries too ) also need to get over this fear of 'fast reactors' and the threats of proliferation.

[Ashmada]

I'd be very wary of Gaia worshippers, if I was you guys.
We've been (mis)led by them and the results aren't pretty:

Hype:
- "Wind-power turbines are the bestest thing evar! They'll create jobs! Revigorate the economy! Produce gajillions of power! And you're saving the cute lil' dolphins!"

- "Put solar panels on your roof! You'll pay it off in no time! And look, subsidies!

- "Get electric cars! Subsidies!"

Reality:
- Windmills built by a dutch company with their own staff; they don't hire locally. Power generation is laughable. Can't verify the claims about dolphins, but bat populations are on the way down.
A handful of landowners (big farmers, mostly) are rejoicing, though: they sold poor soil at premium price.

- The subsidies were in the form of "green certificates", which came with its host of problems, but ok, that was always spelled out when you installed.
What wasn't in it was their abrupt cancellation, the government effectively broke its contract with those who installed solar panels.
As for paying it off in no time, it would seem everyone involved somehow forgot Belgium wasn't exactly an equatorial country.

- Grid support inexistant. Oops. Note, the same happened in the 90s with the LPG craze/fad; so bad pattern recognition on the part of those who bought in.
Subsidies were cancelled, of course.
This time, it's no breach of contract, merely the "offer" running out, so it's a lesser offense.
That's the thing about subsidising inefficient tech: it's always a temporary measure to get the population to switchover.
Once you've switched, they pull out and you're left paying more for less utility.


We're supposed to have a socialist PM, but he gives in to the misanthropic whale-humpers on power generation and to the right on the economy (austerity just isn't working, can we stop now? Shit, even the UK Conservative gov is considering giving it up!), thus shafting the working classes in favour of patchouli enthusiasts and rich CEOs.

That's the story of a small country's fling with ecofascism. Hopefully it's at an end and we can finally be a bit social come next election.

I tell you, these days I can't tell whether the jesus cult or the Gaia cult is worse. The latter is currently a hell of a lot more proselytic, though.


-----
The real solution is to invest in the future, not look to the past for inspiration. Ask Science for the answer, not Gaia.
Iter (experimental Nuclear Fusion reactor being built in the south of France) is an awesome initiative, but way too little is invested in Fusion and Thorium Fission.

[Buffy]

Um....where the hell are you? Gaia? Socialist PM? "small country's fling with ecofascism"?

I mean, Europe somewhere obviously.

[hey]

Ashmada is in Belgium.

[Outlaw]

Outlaw, are you aware that the oilsands are the worst human created pollution in the world?

I wasn't trying debate it's environmental impact I was just pointing out that we have options besides the middle east. As for being the worst pollution. That's a matter of opinion. Personally I think it's nuclear. A power source were the spent fuel remains deadly for millions of years, and has to be stored in special facilities, that if companies had their way would dot the planet? No thanks.

[Mazmaz]

You heard it here first. Quantifiable pollution is a matter of opinion.

[Outlaw]

Do you even read what people type?

I said witch is WORST is a matter of opinion.

[Mazmaz]

Except you can quantifiably decide which is the worst. You look at which method creates the biggest damage to the biggest part of the land and climate. The fact that you think fuel rods in a warehouse is worse than THIS seems insane to me:

[Kryssan]

I wasn't trying debate it's environmental impact I was just pointing out that we have options besides the middle east. As for being the worst pollution. That's a matter of opinion. Personally I think it's nuclear. A power source were the spent fuel remains deadly for millions of years, and has to be stored in special facilities, that if companies had their way would dot the planet? No thanks.

Considering that our planet has been running fission 'reactors' for far longer than humans have been around ( link ), I'd have to disagree. Humans just haven't figured out how to be as good at controlling the waste as nature was / is.

[Plow]

Um....where the hell are you? Gaia? Socialist PM? "small country's fling with ecofascism"?

I mean, Europe somewhere obviously.

I'm pretty sure that was copypasta.

[Outlaw]

Except you can quantifiably decide which is the worst. You look at which method creates the biggest damage to the biggest part of the land and climate. The fact that you think fuel rods in a warehouse is worse than THIS seems insane to me:

I agree. That's terrible. But it's going to happen though. Sorry I hate to seem so pessimistic but I'm a realist. The oil companies and politicians that are in their pocket have all the power and they are going to build it whether we like it or not. We are going to change the face of this planet, kill off countless species, and our children's, children's, children will have to deal with it. But here's the thing. Eventually the ecosystem will recover. I'm not justifying what ruined it I'm just saying. With radioactive waste though.. how to describe.. you have to think in the long term. And I mean really long term. Let's say 500,000 years from now. I'll be willing to bet that areas polluted with fossil fuels would have recovered by then. Not with radioactive contamination. You assume it's still going to be safely tucked away in it's warehouse somewhere. Who knows what can happen in the future? There could be a war, an earthquake that collapses the roof and crushes the containers letting the material out into the environment, even land deformations caused by continental drift that effect a underground facility. The point is, the lethality of the radioactive waste will outlast all this. So let's just say in a distant future the world is different and we only use clean energy and learn to not fuck up the world. Something could happen to one of those places that everybody has forgotten about and it's get's out into the environment. But hey, we'll be dead by then so who cares right?

Considering that our planet has been running fission 'reactors' for far longer than humans have been around ( link ), I'd have to disagree. Humans just haven't figured out how to be as good at controlling the waste as nature was / is.

That's interesting Kryssan. I have never heard that before. I would like to know the half life of naturally occurring fission material vs enriched uranium though.

[BaneTheBrawler]

Don't forget that when the space economy finally gets out of its embryonic stage, we can drop all that icky waste into our friendly neighborhood self sustaining fusion reaction. And then there's the solar collectors and their accompanying microwave power transmitters. Hell, could even put the fission itself in space, where if it melts down.... so what? You're already dealing with a soup of radiation, what's a little more? Although, that would require the amendment of a few minor treaties, like the one that explicitly says NO NUKES IN SPACE, ASSHOLES. But that shouldn't be a problem. Right? .... Right?

[Niiro]

you have to think in the long term. And I mean really long term. Let's say 500,000 years from now. I'll be willing to bet that areas polluted with fossil fuels would have recovered by then. Not with radioactive contamination.

There are already fungi at Chernobyl that have adapted to feed on radiation.

The meltdown was less than 30 years ago.

[Mazmaz]

1. Where's the proof that the ecosystem "recovers" from the largest amount of pollution it has ever experienced and will have ever experienced because it's man-made and not naturally occurring?
2. Are you seriously suggesting we should be pursuing energy forms that will wreck everything in the environment within the next 100-200 years so that whatever monstrosity that exists on the planet 500,000 years from now doesn't have to deal with used fuel rods?