Renewable Energy

[crwth]

I really agree on renewable energy, it's really saving our planet and reduce the global warming but of course this need a lot of research and cooperation from all people and we know one day we will run out of energy source so we cant depend on those energy source, but some people simply don't want to know, they will only realize when the problem already at critical point, it is really important to keep on developing this technology so we will save our earth

The main problem with renewable energy is that it is not very affordable. Look at solar panels and wind power turbines. They cost a lot, and they require constant maintenance. The only affordable renewable energy source is Uranium. 

The reason why renewable energy is expensive, it's because the materials used to manufacture those kinds of devices are hard to get meaning more price will come from that. Solar panels have different specifications also and that comes with a price and how much energy you could store in your storage. That's one of the problems of renewable energy, how to store it.

Why store this energy, if the endless defect of solar and wind energy will be generated constantly, so you will need to consume it. And now a very large selection of materials for the creation of such a station. And the prices depend only on the materials themselves.

Use your brains. How can solar panels generate electricity during the night, when the electric consumption is the highest. Similarly, how can the wind turbines generate electricity when there is no wind? That's why we need to store the electricity.

Maybe he just doesn't know what the problems that renewable energy is facing and why it's not easily accessed or installed to some countries. It's still being researched on what kind of material would be the best fit for the efficiency. That's the challenges of the renewable energy, and that's what the cases are, and they are tackling the problem head on.

[crwth]

If scientist were able to make a solar cell with at least 70 percent of efficiency, It would solve the entire energy problems of the entire world. Cars will all switch to solar powered cars which will eventually help tackle global warming.

No. That will not solve the problem. They need to design solar panels which needs the minimum maintenance (especially in the desert areas such as Sahara, this is a big problem). Also, they need to increase the lifespan of these panels. Then they need to design special batteries, which can store the electricity generated by these panels.

It's not that simple, some companies that manufacture those kinds of solar cells has already achieved 70% efficiency, but the problem is, if they mass produce it, it's going to be really expensive and not practical for people to buy it. It's being researched still and hoping that a favorable material would overcome the challenges the solar panels it's facing.

[Sithara007]

If scientist were able to make a solar cell with at least 70 percent of efficiency, It would solve the entire energy problems of the entire world. Cars will all switch to solar powered cars which will eventually help tackle global warming.

No. That will not solve the problem. They need to design solar panels which needs the minimum maintenance (especially in the desert areas such as Sahara, this is a big problem). Also, they need to increase the lifespan of these panels. Then they need to design special batteries, which can store the electricity generated by these panels.

It's not that simple, some companies that manufacture those kinds of solar cells has already achieved 70% efficiency, but the problem is, if they mass produce it, it's going to be really expensive and not practical for people to buy it. It's being researched still and hoping that a favorable material would overcome the challenges the solar panels it's facing.

One advantage with the solar panels is that the raw materials are easily available. But if the researchers can improve the lifespan of these panels, then it will be a huge boost to the proponents of the renewable energy.

[crwth]

If scientist were able to make a solar cell with at least 70 percent of efficiency, It would solve the entire energy problems of the entire world. Cars will all switch to solar powered cars which will eventually help tackle global warming.

No. That will not solve the problem. They need to design solar panels which needs the minimum maintenance (especially in the desert areas such as Sahara, this is a big problem). Also, they need to increase the lifespan of these panels. Then they need to design special batteries, which can store the electricity generated by these panels.

It's not that simple, some companies that manufacture those kinds of solar cells has already achieved 70% efficiency, but the problem is, if they mass produce it, it's going to be really expensive and not practical for people to buy it. It's being researched still and hoping that a favorable material would overcome the challenges the solar panels it's facing.

One advantage with the solar panels is that the raw materials are easily available. But if the researchers can improve the lifespan of these panels, then it will be a huge boost to the proponents of the renewable energy.

Yeah, which is the primary source for the ingots, silicon. They can get it easily and they can manufacture it to silicon wafers which then be attached to some integrated circuits. It will be a breakthrough with renewable energy concerning on the sunlight. That's one of the abundant energy source available.

[BADecker]

Renewable Energy? The horse on a treadmill.   

[Sithara007]

Renewable Energy? The horse on a treadmill.   

LOL. What about Uranium? IMO, Uranium is a renewable resource (as there are enough deposits to cover the current consumption levels for the next few thousand years), and it is very cheap as well.

[crwth]

Renewable Energy? The horse on a treadmill.   

LOL. What about Uranium? IMO, Uranium is a renewable resource (as there are enough deposits to cover the current consumption levels for the next few thousand years), and it is very cheap as well.

While the horse is being slapped, that's so sad  . Don't do that. I don't think that Uranium is very ideal since it's radioactive. I don't know, it might cause some side effects to humans or other species as well.

[0xfff]

Renewable Energy? The horse on a treadmill.   

I don't think treadmill horse is renewable. Someone has to feed the horse. Farming requires a TON of fuel for growing crops. If you let the horse eat grass naturally, then it is no longer on a treadmill. Horse also emit methane which is greenhouse gas. Treadmill horse is not good idea.

[Malsetid]

In this technological era, some advancements have potential to make our world cleaner and greener. Do you think that it is possible? That people would start doing it in their own little ways that they can eventually have an impact on our environment?

Lots of scientific studies are out there being researched and developed, for example, the artificial photosynthesis. It's where you make a plastic coating of some sorts that will get CO2 or something and make cleaner air. That's where it's going to boom when it's practical to make for everyone to use.

Do you believe that the research papers now can have an impact? Cite examples and do you think that it's possible?

Well good things starts here from small things. I think there are even regular paints that cleans the air and it is now being used in some countries to counter pollution. Tech advancements doesn't have to be all negative effects on the environment as it can do the same thing to save it as well as harm it.

[Eternu]

In this technological era, some advancements have potential to make our world cleaner and greener. Do you think that it is possible? That people would start doing it in their own little ways that they can eventually have an impact on our environment?

Lots of scientific studies are out there being researched and developed, for example, the artificial photosynthesis. It's where you make a plastic coating of some sorts that will get CO2 or something and make cleaner air. That's where it's going to boom when it's practical to make for everyone to use.

Do you believe that the research papers now can have an impact? Cite examples and do you think that it's possible?

First i would like to say that it would be grate if scientist would make some new technology that could provide alternative source of energy. And hopefully it would be better than technology that we use today. Health of planet we live on is important. Many people don't take it seriously and I think that won't end well, if we don't do something to clean everything a bit.

[Maximilian_333]

In this technological era, some advancements have potential to make our world cleaner and greener. Do you think that it is possible? That people would start doing it in their own little ways that they can eventually have an impact on our environment?

Lots of scientific studies are out there being researched and developed, for example, the artificial photosynthesis. It's where you make a plastic coating of some sorts that will get CO2 or something and make cleaner air. That's where it's going to boom when it's practical to make for everyone to use.

Do you believe that the research papers now can have an impact? Cite examples and do you think that it's possible?

First i would like to say that it would be grate if scientist would make some new technology that could provide alternative source of energy. And hopefully it would be better than technology that we use today. Health of planet we live on is important. Many people don't take it seriously and I think that won't end well, if we don't do something to clean everything a bit.

Unfortunately, the EPA requires additional investments. Not interested manufacturers. Many people use the principles of "After me the deluge". I think that the impetus for the development of alternative technologies can only be a reduction in the cost of energy. Now the price of energy produced from alternative sources over traditional methods. In this situation, I do not see prospects of development of alternative technologies.

[bryant.coleman]

Renewable Energy? The horse on a treadmill.   

LOL. What about Uranium? IMO, Uranium is a renewable resource (as there are enough deposits to cover the current consumption levels for the next few thousand years), and it is very cheap as well.

While the horse is being slapped, that's so sad  . Don't do that. I don't think that Uranium is very ideal since it's radioactive. I don't know, it might cause some side effects to humans or other species as well.

There is a lot of propaganda going on against nuclear power plants. But let's look at the facts in an unbiased manner. Since the construction of the first nuclear power plants, how many people have been killed as a result of radiation poisoning from these plants? My guess is less than 100. OK... let's take a liberal figure of 1,000.

Now let's compare this figure with the number of deaths from the pollution caused by thermal power plants. Here is the figure:

India (per year): 115,000 deaths (including 10,000 children), 170,000 cases of bronchitis, and 21 million asthma cases.
USA (per year): 13,000 deaths & 20,000 heart attacks.
China (per year): 250,000 deaths.

Now please tell me which one is more dangerous. Coal or Uranium?

[canine2017]

Renewable Energy? The horse on a treadmill.   

LOL. What about Uranium? IMO, Uranium is a renewable resource (as there are enough deposits to cover the current consumption levels for the next few thousand years), and it is very cheap as well.

While the horse is being slapped, that's so sad  . Don't do that. I don't think that Uranium is very ideal since it's radioactive. I don't know, it might cause some side effects to humans or other species as well.

There is a lot of propaganda going on against nuclear power plants. But let's look at the facts in an unbiased manner. Since the construction of the first nuclear power plants, how many people have been killed as a result of radiation poisoning from these plants? My guess is less than 100. OK... let's take a liberal figure of 1,000.

Now let's compare this figure with the number of deaths from the pollution caused by thermal power plants. Here is the figure:

India (per year): 115,000 deaths (including 10,000 children), 170,000 cases of bronchitis, and 21 million asthma cases.
USA (per year): 13,000 deaths & 20,000 heart attacks.
China (per year): 250,000 deaths.

Now please tell me which one is more dangerous. Coal or Uranium?

Nuclear energy is more clean, but the problems are in the event of an accident. Remember Chernobyl and Fokusimu. On the other hand there is a problem with storage of radioactive waste.

[Smoxer]

i believe we can do it if the problem comes relvant enough, mabye in few decades people can be more aware and start actually worrying about it anough to care

[Sithara007]

Nuclear energy is more clean, but the problems are in the event of an accident. Remember Chernobyl and Fokusimu. On the other hand there is a problem with storage of radioactive waste.

How many people died in Chernobyl and Fukushima? The numbers are only a small fraction of those who die every day from the pollution from coal-fired plants. And now technology has also progressed. The chances of a nuclear accident is near zero.

[crwth]

Renewable Energy? The horse on a treadmill.   

I don't think treadmill horse is renewable. Someone has to feed the horse. Farming requires a TON of fuel for growing crops. If you let the horse eat grass naturally, then it is no longer on a treadmill. Horse also emit methane which is greenhouse gas. Treadmill horse is not good idea.

It's just a joke and it's not considered to be a renewable energy. A horse is not a natural occurring and not exhaustible source of energy. It gets tired, hungry and what not. Lol

[crwth]

Renewable Energy? The horse on a treadmill.   

LOL. What about Uranium? IMO, Uranium is a renewable resource (as there are enough deposits to cover the current consumption levels for the next few thousand years), and it is very cheap as well.

While the horse is being slapped, that's so sad  . Don't do that. I don't think that Uranium is very ideal since it's radioactive. I don't know, it might cause some side effects to humans or other species as well.

There is a lot of propaganda going on against nuclear power plants. But let's look at the facts in an unbiased manner. Since the construction of the first nuclear power plants, how many people have been killed as a result of radiation poisoning from these plants? My guess is less than 100. OK... let's take a liberal figure of 1,000.

Now let's compare this figure with the number of deaths from the pollution caused by thermal power plants. Here is the figure:

India (per year): 115,000 deaths (including 10,000 children), 170,000 cases of bronchitis, and 21 million asthma cases.
USA (per year): 13,000 deaths & 20,000 heart attacks.
China (per year): 250,000 deaths.

Now please tell me which one is more dangerous. Coal or Uranium?

You're scaling it in a different sample size. Both are hazardous, but definitely, Uranium is more efficient since it can produce a lot more energy compared to coal, but mishandling by people could cause more unfortunate events also. Human intervention on things would likely be the cause of a failure there, but since coal was used first, a lot of studies has been carried out there.

[crwth]

Nuclear energy is more clean, but the problems are in the event of an accident. Remember Chernobyl and Fokusimu. On the other hand there is a problem with storage of radioactive waste.

How many people died in Chernobyl and Fukushima? The numbers are only a small fraction of those who die every day from the pollution from coal-fired plants. And now technology has also progressed. The chances of a nuclear accident is near zero.

Yeah, probably. From those fatal cases, there are certain solutions invented now that would definitely increase the safety of nuclear plants, I just hope mother nature wouldn't intervene.

[Kemarit]

Nuclear energy is more clean, but the problems are in the event of an accident. Remember Chernobyl and Fokusimu. On the other hand there is a problem with storage of radioactive waste.

How many people died in Chernobyl and Fukushima? The numbers are only a small fraction of those who die every day from the pollution from coal-fired plants. And now technology has also progressed. The chances of a nuclear accident is near zero.

Yeah, probably. From those fatal cases, there are certain solutions invented now that would definitely increase the safety of nuclear plants, I just hope mother nature wouldn't intervene.

,

Yes. They have invented more safety measure after the fatal Chernobyl incident, however, my question is, have we learned our lesson from the accident that will prevent us from future devastation again? For me, we need some courage to really think that phasing out nuclear power and replacing with renewable energy source to reduce somewhat the risk of nuclear proliferation globally. Because radiation that releases from nuclear accidents affects future generation so reducing them also help our children's children and the next generation of humans on our planet.

[Forester618]

Nuclear energy is more clean, but the problems are in the event of an accident. Remember Chernobyl and Fokusimu. On the other hand there is a problem with storage of radioactive waste.

How many people died in Chernobyl and Fukushima? The numbers are only a small fraction of those who die every day from the pollution from coal-fired plants. And now technology has also progressed. The chances of a nuclear accident is near zero.

Yeah, probably. From those fatal cases, there are certain solutions invented now that would definitely increase the safety of nuclear plants, I just hope mother nature wouldn't intervene.

Unfortunately it is impossible to foresee everything. Whatever protection there is always the chance of an accident. That is why I am against nuclear power plants. Companies that sell electricity produced her a lot and sell everything. I am advocating that every home produced a bit of energy for myself, but it is not beneficial to plant owners, and so it is slowly moving to alternative technologies.