|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Le Aristocrat Vice Captain
|
Posted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 5:33 am
Which power source is the best/most appropriate?
I personally like Geothermal, Solar and Wind. Tide is a bit of a downer for me, as it can kill fish. Biomass still produces carbon dioxide. Nuclear produces harmful waste. Fossil fuels= obvious.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 5:42 am
I think that solar ande wind should be promoted so that each home can provide for it's self. We should each have a mini wind turbine and solar panells/cells!
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Le Aristocrat Vice Captain
|
Posted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 5:49 am
Emmanuela I think that solar ande wind should be promoted so that each home can provide for it's self. We should each have a mini wind turbine and solar panells/cells! That would be so cool!!
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 6:02 am
I know! I've seen home grown wind turbines in B&Q, and there is also a program running in my area to get solar pannels. It would save a lot of money too!
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 7:43 am
xd 1 vote! ... wink wasnt me...
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 10:23 am
I support all forms of renewable energy except nuclear (reasons against nuclear - health dangers, waste disposal, terrorist/accident risk, expensive, high grade fuel used is a finite resource and also produces CO2 when being mined) I prefer large scale renewables especially large wind farms because for the cost and resources used they save more CO2 than domestic scale renewable energy (eg. solar panels) I'm not against small household renewables though if people can afford them. Onshore wind is cheaper than offshore.
Biomass is a developing technology but it has potential. It is good when biomass plants are combined heat and power so they heat local houses as well as producing electricity. Biomass would probably have a limited role to play in renewable production because there is only so much land we would want to use for growing energy crops rather than food crops (same with biofuels for cars) The scope for utilising the wind and sun, however is massive.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 11:14 am
The house next to mine has solar panels.
I think wind should be used more.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 11:48 am
Badgerkin I support all forms of renewable energy except nuclear (reasons against nuclear - health dangers, waste disposal, terrorist/accident risk, expensive, high grade fuel used is a finite resource and also produces CO2 when being mined) I prefer large scale renewables especially large wind farms because for the cost and resources used they save more CO2 than domestic scale renewable energy (eg. solar panels) I'm not against small household renewables though if people can afford them. Onshore wind is cheaper than offshore. Biomass is a developing technology but it has potential. It is good when biomass plants are combined heat and power so they heat local houses as well as producing electricity. Biomass would probably have a limited role to play in renewable production because there is only so much land we would want to use for growing energy crops rather than food crops (same with biofuels for cars) The scope for utilising the wind and sun, however is massive. There is almost no terrorist risk. None. Yes, there is an accident risk, but the reasons why Chernobyll and Three Mile Island (the only major neuclear blows) went it was because not enough money was being put into them to keep them in good enough condition. Kept in a good state, there is very little accident risk.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 12:19 pm
Emmanuela Badgerkin I support all forms of renewable energy except nuclear (reasons against nuclear - health dangers, waste disposal, terrorist/accident risk, expensive, high grade fuel used is a finite resource and also produces CO2 when being mined) I prefer large scale renewables especially large wind farms because for the cost and resources used they save more CO2 than domestic scale renewable energy (eg. solar panels) I'm not against small household renewables though if people can afford them. Onshore wind is cheaper than offshore. Biomass is a developing technology but it has potential. It is good when biomass plants are combined heat and power so they heat local houses as well as producing electricity. Biomass would probably have a limited role to play in renewable production because there is only so much land we would want to use for growing energy crops rather than food crops (same with biofuels for cars) The scope for utilising the wind and sun, however is massive. There is almost no terrorist risk. None. Yes, there is an accident risk, but the reasons why Chernobyll and Three Mile Island (the only major neuclear blows) went it was because not enough money was being put into them to keep them in good enough condition. Kept in a good state, there is very little accident risk. Even so, there is stherill a risk. And if there was an accident, the damage can be massive. And people will alwsys try to spend as little money as possible. There is also where we so put the waste. We can't just dump it in the sea!
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 12:21 pm
~Rainbow Coloured Starz~ Emmanuela Badgerkin I support all forms of renewable energy except nuclear (reasons against nuclear - health dangers, waste disposal, terrorist/accident risk, expensive, high grade fuel used is a finite resource and also produces CO2 when being mined) I prefer large scale renewables especially large wind farms because for the cost and resources used they save more CO2 than domestic scale renewable energy (eg. solar panels) I'm not against small household renewables though if people can afford them. Onshore wind is cheaper than offshore. Biomass is a developing technology but it has potential. It is good when biomass plants are combined heat and power so they heat local houses as well as producing electricity. Biomass would probably have a limited role to play in renewable production because there is only so much land we would want to use for growing energy crops rather than food crops (same with biofuels for cars) The scope for utilising the wind and sun, however is massive. There is almost no terrorist risk. None. Yes, there is an accident risk, but the reasons why Chernobyll and Three Mile Island (the only major neuclear blows) went it was because not enough money was being put into them to keep them in good enough condition. Kept in a good state, there is very little accident risk. Even so, there is stherill a risk. And if there was an accident, the damage can be massive. And people will alwsys try to spend as little money as possible. There is also where we so put the waste. We can't just dump it in the sea! True, but if we were to start using lots of neuclear fuels then they would have to put a lot of money into it. Yes, but there are other, more effecitve ways and scientists have been working on new ways to dispose of it.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 12:23 pm
Emmanuela ~Rainbow Coloured Starz~ Emmanuela Badgerkin I support all forms of renewable energy except nuclear (reasons against nuclear - health dangers, waste disposal, terrorist/accident risk, expensive, high grade fuel used is a finite resource and also produces CO2 when being mined) I prefer large scale renewables especially large wind farms because for the cost and resources used they save more CO2 than domestic scale renewable energy (eg. solar panels) I'm not against small household renewables though if people can afford them. Onshore wind is cheaper than offshore. Biomass is a developing technology but it has potential. It is good when biomass plants are combined heat and power so they heat local houses as well as producing electricity. Biomass would probably have a limited role to play in renewable production because there is only so much land we would want to use for growing energy crops rather than food crops (same with biofuels for cars) The scope for utilising the wind and sun, however is massive. There is almost no terrorist risk. None. Yes, there is an accident risk, but the reasons why Chernobyll and Three Mile Island (the only major neuclear blows) went it was because not enough money was being put into them to keep them in good enough condition. Kept in a good state, there is very little accident risk. Even so, there is stherill a risk. And if there was an accident, the damage can be massive. And people will alwsys try to spend as little money as possible. There is also where we so put the waste. We can't just dump it in the sea! True, but if we were to start using lots of neuclear fuels then they would have to put a lot of money into it. Yes, but there are other, more effecitve ways and scientists have been working on new ways to dispose of it. True, but I don't think the future lies in nuclear.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 12:27 pm
Maybe not, but it is a very good power supply. I think they just need to get everyone using renewable supplies....
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 12:30 pm
Emmanuela Maybe not, but it is a very good power supply. I think they just need to get everyone using renewable supplies.... Of course, but when? Are they going to wait until the fossil fuels run out and then ask 'what now?'
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 12:41 pm
Emmanuela Badgerkin I support all forms of renewable energy except nuclear (reasons against nuclear - health dangers, waste disposal, terrorist/accident risk, expensive, high grade fuel used is a finite resource and also produces CO2 when being mined) I prefer large scale renewables especially large wind farms because for the cost and resources used they save more CO2 than domestic scale renewable energy (eg. solar panels) I'm not against small household renewables though if people can afford them. Onshore wind is cheaper than offshore. Biomass is a developing technology but it has potential. It is good when biomass plants are combined heat and power so they heat local houses as well as producing electricity. Biomass would probably have a limited role to play in renewable production because there is only so much land we would want to use for growing energy crops rather than food crops (same with biofuels for cars) The scope for utilising the wind and sun, however is massive. There is almost no terrorist risk. None. Yes, there is an accident risk, but the reasons why Chernobyll and Three Mile Island (the only major neuclear blows) went it was because not enough money was being put into them to keep them in good enough condition. Kept in a good state, there is very little accident risk. A nuclear power station could provide a target for a terrorist group. Radioactive material can be used in weapons. There isn't any way to guarantee the safety of nuclear power. If anything goes wrong with a nuclear power station the consequences are horrible and the area is contaminated for a long time. There are still children being born near Chernobyll with severe deformities - many are dumped into children's homes because their parents can't cope. The need to put lots of money into a nuclear power station to keep it running as safely as it can be, is one of the reasons why nuclear power is so expensive.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 12:46 pm
~Rainbow Coloured Starz~ Emmanuela Maybe not, but it is a very good power supply. I think they just need to get everyone using renewable supplies.... Of course, but when? Are they going to wait until the fossil fuels run out and then ask 'what now?' I would have thought that most environmentalists would agree that we need to be switching over to renewable energy now, before the fossil fuels run out.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|