Favorite power source

[Mr Skeptic]

There are several ways we can get energy to produce our electricity. Of course, a proper solution would likely be a mixture of all the options, but please pick a favorite and explain why you like it.

 

Oh, and don't correct me on the non-option I included; it is there as a filter.

[iNow]

Solar. It's clean, it's smart, and it helps me pay my bills (in more ways than one). We just need to find a way to make them using fewer mined resources, and we'd be all set.

[ecoli]

we need to diversify our energy portfolio. But I think using nuclear power to support things like electric cars or the electrolosis of water to produce hydrogen gas would be a good start.

[ydoaPs]

Nucular power is dum.

[iNow]

dum = Definitely Useful Methodology

[Sisyphus]

it helps me pay my bills (in more ways than one).

 

Well, are you going to share?

[Mr Skeptic]

I too like nuclear. It is safe, clean, reliable, scalable, even portable. Its the obvious thing to replace coal with, until we get either fusion or space-based solar.

[Phi for All]

I voted solar as my fave, but nuclear is a more likely alternative. Right now, I'm a big fan of BIPV, Building Integrated Photovoltaics. I'm even considering a job in the industry. There's a company in CA making a roofing sheet that generates a decent amount of power while integrating with the building envelope.

 

Innovative stuff that serves multiple beneficial purposes make my nipples hard.

 

I'm planning a trip over to NREL sometime in the next few weeks. I should see if they have a PR scientist who'd be willing to join up here for energy discussions.

[bascule]

(in the Mr. Burns voice:) NUCLEAR POWER!

 

Fission now, fusion later

[Gilded]

I voted "Other" since burning pine tables counts as biofuel right?

 

Other than that I can't really decide between nuclear and solar, since ultimately solar energy is just harnessing a natural nuclear reactor (especially in the case of superstructures like Dyson rings).

[john5746]

Solar - all that energy beating down on us everyday. We need to find better ways to store and use it.

[iNow]

I voted solar as my fave, but nuclear is a more likely alternative. Right now...

This is pretty much the same position I take, but I do think solar will scale up pretty quickly in the near future. I've seen first hand some of the advancements in manufacturing, and these old-fashioned ideas of small inefficient panels that cost an arm and a leg to produce is not where the industry has been driving the technology. It's a lot like computers, and Moore's Law. They were really expensive and really inefficient at first, but then a few key advancements and we have modern lappies. A little more investment in this technology and the possibilities are truly endless.

 

 

Well, are you going to share?

 

Nope. Mystery is half the fun.

[Phi for All]

A little more investment in this technology and the possibilities are truly endless.

And architect David Fisher is going to get some obscenely rich people to help invest with this building.

[Rev Blair]

I like hydro because of the massive amount of power it can produce. It's relatively clean and the small scale and in-stream technologies that are now coming out make it even greener.

[CDarwin]

Hydrogen/Solar have the best future, I'd say. Nuclear is great and all, but it too relies on a fuel source (Uranium) that isn't unlimited, and is already past peak in many countries. That's could make supplies of it less inexpensive and less reliable in the future.

[Ladeira]

For me, Solar is the best one. Even if nuclear is great for the much energy it releases, I don't think it's a good alternative. There are many others like hydrogen, hydro, wind (+/-) etc.

[mauy]

couldent we transfer the heat energy from the sun into a renewable energy, yet again im not an expert on anything in sciance just a student

[Tau Meson]

I personally think that our future is in solar. It is very easy to collect the energy from it, and the only real problems it has at the moment are problems of scale. But it's nothing that a little technical ingenuity can't accomplish.

[toastywombel]

I personally think that our future is in solar. It is very easy to collect the energy from it, and the only real problems it has at the moment are problems of scale. But it's nothing that a little technical ingenuity can't accomplish.

 

I totally agree, it may be somewhat expensive and inefficient now, but there are already some advancements that have taken place that really improve the potential of solar technology.

 

For example, placing photo-voltaic cells on small spherical objects that are placed in a grid, as opposed to a flat surface. Or directing some of the sunlight into a small frame, which would allow us to make smaller solar panels.

 

There might be other forms of harvesting energy, though, that we have not even conceived yet because of technological limitations.

[vordhosbn]

Zero-point energy extraction! Lol

 

More seriously, i voted for solar - with concentrating solar-thermal plants, the efficiency is already quite good. Renewable, clean energy - independent from localized resources. What's not to like?

[VedekPako]

What?

 

No, "Slave-Labour Power" option?

 

It built the Roman Empire.

 

Solar is the best. Although Solar power is a finite resource*, it still has more potential than the others, which are also finite.

 

 

 

*The Sun will burn out in about 5 billion years from now. Humans probably won't be using it then.

[zombieSquirrel]

Kind of hard to choose between solar and nuclear power, but I went with solar.

[the tree]

we need to diversify our energy portfolio. But I think using nuclear power to support things like electric cars or the electrolosis of water to produce hydrogen gas would be a good start.

This. there is of course no real reason to pick one source.

 

Some places have more wind and some places have more sun and some places have enough space to put a nuclear power plant. So it largely depends on context.

 

I think a big problem with nuclear is that it can only be done on a big scale which means centralising power and I think that's something we need to get away from. Whereas a functional building can generate it's own power with smaller scale resources.

 

I like anaerobic digesters a lot, because by coping with waste they kill two birds with one stone. (well, maybe they don't kill the second bird - but they certainly stun it).

 

Solar. It's clean, it's smart, and it helps me pay my bills (in more ways than one). We just need to find a way to make them using fewer mined resources, and we'd be all set.

This looks hopeful.

[npts2020]

My favorites are wind and solar but unless you have a nationwide grid for wind, they both need some sort of storage scheme. Tidal, geothermal, and hydro power may be used in places that have them available for a source.

[John Cuthber]

Most of them are nuclear power.

Solar power is nuclear power, but with the reactor 93000000 miles away.

Wind and hydroelectric power are solar power, but you don't build the solar collectors yourself.

Coal is solar power that's very old.

Geothermal power is a rather big slow nuclear reactor and hydrogen isn't really an answer because you can't mine it.

It might have been worth adding tidal power to the list.