[Winstonm]

If this is as apolitical as advertised, it looks like nuclear power is the best - if not only - choice.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/20/ma...e_uk/print.html

[Al_U_Card]

It will, if you have it transported by cargo plane.

[Gerben42]

One source of power is never the solution. We need ALL kinds of power: Nuclear is a must but so are wind, water and solar.

The standpoint of some governments which is to not use nuclear energy is extremely harmful for the citizens, even if it might win votes in the short term, but so would be focussing only on nuclear energy and forgetting all the other sources of energy.

[jtfanclub]

Satellite lasers (satellites with solar collectors a mile on each side used to power a gigawatt x-ray laser) would also be very effective, if you don't mind having satellites in space beaming down enough energy to vaporize a city block. For some reason, it makes people nervous when you could punch in a few keystrokes and turn, say Red Square into smoke and ash.

[helene_t]

Sounds like a book worth downloading.

The tone on the website is a little over-enthusiastic. It basically says "he is a phycisist so he must be right". But to have a qualified opinion about nuclear power vs. renewable energy one has to know something about economics and engineering. I am not saying that the author hasn't got sufficient knowledge, just that his creditials as a physicist, while relevant, do not by themselves make him an authority on the issue.

BTW while solar power is probably not the solution to Britain's energy needs it mat be so in more sunny countries.

[y66]

“I don’t really mind too much what your plan is,” MacKay told The Reg this week. “But it’s got to add up.”

Amen brother Mac.

Don't want nuclear energy in your plan? Fine. Let's see some numbers please.

[onoway]

I personally think, not being a gambling sort of person, that the costs of losing the bet are unacceptably high if we actually are mistaken about the safety of the containment plans for the virulent waste produced by nuclear power. All along we have been told that nuclear power was safe, which was not true (according to studies of such things as the incidences of cancers and birth defects within a diminishing range of miles of a nuclear power plant) so am a bit reluctant to believe that there is now nothing left to solve in terms of the problems.

Perhaps if the money being spent on PR and campaign blitzes for nuclear energy were spent instead developing more ideas outside the box we would be in a much better situation.

I am very far from being able to intelligently assess the claims made in the following link, but they seem intriguing. Might this be one possible solution to vehicle pollution? http://www.flixxy.co...-automobile.htm

There is another one as well, with an entirely different approach but with similar claims (NOT run your car on water, btw) but I seem to have lost the link.

[Winstonm]

Yes, but is any form of energy truly and completely "safe"?

[Winstonm]

y66, on Jun 24 2008, 12:30 PM, said:

“I don’t really mind too much what your plan is,” MacKay told The Reg this week. “But it’s got to add up.”

Amen brother Mac.

Don't want nuclear energy in your plan? Fine. Let's see some numbers please.

Exactly why I found the provided link somewhat compelling - it didn't seem a political spin job and it dealt with what appeared to be realistic numbers.

[gwnn]

Quote

Skipping one bath saves a much energy as leaving your TV off standby for over six months.

I wonder if this is true.

[JanTucson]

I lived in Saudi Arabia for two years, and solar power didn't work THERE.

[y66]

These guys are making solar work. Saw their house on the mall last summer. Cool stuff.

So is Jim Rogers.

Any many others.

Before the solar water heating industry collapsed in the 1950s due to the low price and increased availability of natural gas, approx. 80% of new homes built in the Miami Florida area came with solar water heaters installed. We're going backwards (temporarily)!

[jtfanclub]

Except that Jim Rogers isn't making it work.

Jim Rogers is proposing that we tax the bejeesus out of power companies that don't mix in solar or the like to make it work. Which is great and all, but I don't think that qualifies as making it work.

[han]

Interesting material, unfortunately this article is clearly written by someone with an agenda.

[helene_t]

gwnn, on Jun 25 2008, 12:04 AM, said:

Quote

Skipping one bath saves a much energy as leaving your TV off standby for over six months.

I wonder if this is true.

Just a rough calculation:

A quick google search finds stand-by power consumptions ranging from 0.24 W to 15 W. 1W over half a year is 15.5 MJ which is enough to heat 170 liter of water by 20 C. Something like that.

So depending on you TV set, switching it off for half a year could get a bath of between 40 and 2500 liter.

[han]

That ignores cleaning the water, pumping it to your house and disposing of it afterwards.

[helene_t]

Minor detail, I thought a mathematician would be able to abstract from that

OTOH a joule of energy for heating water is cheaper than a joule of electricity.

[onoway]

another alternative being looked at;
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25374237/

[Winstonm]

In solar power, this looks interesting: http://raw-solar.com/index.html

[effervesce]

onoway, on Jun 24 2008, 03:05 PM, said:

I personally think, not being a gambling sort of person, that the costs of losing the bet are unacceptably high if we actually are mistaken about the safety of the containment plans for the virulent waste produced by nuclear power. All along we have been told that nuclear power was safe, which was not true (according to studies of such things as the incidences of cancers and birth defects within a diminishing range of miles of a nuclear power plant) so am a bit reluctant to believe that there is now nothing left to solve in terms of the problems.

Perhaps if the money being spent on PR and campaign blitzes for nuclear energy were spent instead developing more ideas outside the box we would be in a much better situation.

I am very far from being able to intelligently assess the claims made in the following link, but they seem intriguing. Might this be one possible solution to vehicle pollution? http://www.flixxy.co...-automobile.htm

There is another one as well, with an entirely different approach but with similar claims (NOT run your car on water, btw) but I seem to have lost the link.

Contrary to popular opinion, coal power plants release more radioactive waste into the environment than nuclear power plants. In all, effective dose equivalent of the radioactive waste released into the atmosphere from one coal power plant is equivalent to the radioactive waste produced by 100 nuclear power plants.

See http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-...xt/colmain.html