What do you think is the cleanest, most effective, most sustainable sources of energy? Could we just resort to solar, wind, and water power effectively? Or should we focus on clean coal and/or nuclear energy?
What do you think is the cleanest, most effective, most sustainable sources of energy? Could we just resort to solar...
Anthony Roberts
Dominic Phillips
>nuclear
Lincoln Rogers
None. Fuck clean energy burning coal is good enough and much more efficient in giving power to everyone.
Samuel Fisher
Geothermal
Thorium
Cold Fusion
Anti-Matter
Resonance Annihilation
Extra-Dimensional
Ryder Flores
When a windmill explodes, its simply rebuilt. When a nuclear power plant explodes, a 30km exclusion zone is created that grows yearly because of the weather, and wild animals in the zone have to be shot because they're dangerously radioactive.
Brody Kelly
There is no such thing as clean coal. Every attempt to make it clean uses more energy than you get from it. We need molten salt thorium reactors that are inherently safe, more solar and wind, and batteries the size of semis. Eventually, we will have fusion that makes all those obsolete.
Jaxson Harris
It literally isn't, moron. Liquid thorium reactors. Why are you all so stupid? Even pebble bed reactors are great.
Parker Ross
Unimaginably based
Nathan Butler
If Andrew Yang becomes president and we may finally get Thorium Power... among other things we desperately need
Xavier Gutierrez
Solar. By a long shot.
Angel Parker
>Thorium
>Cold Fusion
>Anti-Matter
>Resonance Annihilation
>Extra-Dimensional
Show me one working example of any of these
Samuel Howard
Hydroelectric is probably the best for volume, range, and environmental impact, but is very region-specific. Not conducive to country-wide energy production.
Wind and solar are both good as local, low-yield sources, but like Hydroelectric are unsuited to broad distribution due to their inability to transfer charge farther than 12 miles. Better suited to small towns and rural settings, especially since their production involves a lot of industrial wastes and hazards.
Biomass is not functionally very different from coal, except that the energy yield is much lower and a vague argument that the carbon that would be released on burning it is already a part of the current ground/atmosphere balance. Though that's not necessarily the case when applied on a global scale, since the necessary farmland to grow enough biomass to meet current (and growing) energy demands would mean a FUCKTON of deforestation.
Wave or tidal energy production are consistent, but suffer from the same low-yield limitations as solar and wind, not even getting in to the costs and dangers of regular maintenance.
Nuclear is pretty solid as a power generator in output, reliability, range, and safety (despite the media hysteria that every nuclear power plant is basically Chernobyl waiting to happen), with a rather small volume of waste material, it's just that the waste material is an ENORMOUS problem with virtually no solutions. The current strategy of dumping them down a mine-shaft is short-sighted, but the technology to unbind and neutralize dangerously radioactive material doesn't exist, yet, and any storage facility would fill up long before the radiation peters out on its own.
Geothermal suffers from pretty much the exact same problems as hydroelectric as far as distribution, with a substantially greater risk of harmful or polluting gases being leaked into the atmosphere. But at least it's virtually zero maintenance.
All said and done, coal really isn't that bad.
Michael Bailey
And how many windmills/solar panels does it take to output the same power as one reactor? Thousands? Tens of thousands? And what of the time there is no wind or extremely heavy cloud cover? Are you willing to just sit in the dark and wait?
Camden Bailey
There are 60 nuclear power plants in the USA. They don't meltdown unless the people managing them are horribly negligent (chernobyl) or unless they get double slammed by natural disasters before anybody can shut them off or cool them down (fukushima).
Andrew Mitchell
thorium reactors are theoretically super easy, the funding for nuclear just isn't there right now because everyone is scared of nuclear because they are idiots and only know the shitty ones we currently use. The rest are bait
Benjamin King
>thorium reactors are theoretically super easy
Okay. I have like $600. Tell me how to build such a reactor.
Dylan Edwards
The funding? The production of electricity in the United States generates a revenue stream of $400 billion per year. If thorium was a cheap, versatile, and safe alternative such that it CAN monopolize electricity production, YOU CAN BET YOUR ASS someone would have created a working model for sale.
Jeremiah Johnson
Slavery.
Andrew Perry
All of the above please so I can just leave my lights on. Reduce is the lamest part of reduce, reuse and recycle.
Bentley Harris
Kayden Allen
They built a thorium reactor over 40 years ago. They just gavent had much investment, but they are apperantly bulding one in india.
Hunter Morgan
create flurothorium salt
put it in a large sphere
surround it with a noble gas
have an exhaust vent on top that goes to a turbine then to a return vent on the bottom
for safety put an, iirc, iodine plug on the bottom so if it gets close to going critical it melts the plug and drains into a giant pan spreading out into a less than critical mass
you can also pulverize other radioactive materials and suspend it in the flurothorium salt
Anthony Lopez
it's just a fucking molten salt reactor they'v been theorized for ages
Jaxon James
>They built a thorium reactor
Um, whom? Where are the pictures of it?
Sounds like you know how to do this, where is your thorium reactor? Post pics
Jonathan Fisher
Sounds like a bunch of bullshit. I'll believe it when I see it.
Brody Bennett
The energy cost of separating and igniting the hydrogen is much higher than the potential yield. Maybe on a micro-scale it's viable, since in small amounts it wouldn't take that much energy to separate a small amount of hydrogen from air, but if you scale it up, the amount of energy you need to introduce to generate a proportional amount of hydrogen just makes it COST energy.
Brody Anderson
I don't have access to thorium
or a couple thousand dollars to spare to build one
Liam Phillips
Why are you baiting for pics?
Nicholas Sanchez
thorium has no critical mass. The vat is there to get it away from the plutonium which is the sole reason it produces energy. If it is no longer in contact with that the reaction just stops.
Ryder Jones
Look it up it was a small one built for proff of concept. They wont fund it becouse of fear and ypu cant make bombs from it.
Aaron Rivera
and fyi
thorium is a rare earth metal
but is currently considered tailings in the mining of lithium, aka the metal that almost every modern battery is made from
Tyler Moore
Thorium is about as common as lead.
Andrew Sanchez
China has heaps. Should keep a 5m distance though. It gives of radon
Ayden Hughes
basically the same as biomass, you need farms to feed workers
Benjamin Lee
So instead of a lead-lined shell of ceramic coated uranium that boils water, the thorium just absorbs energy from plutonium?
How is this a a more eco-friendly solution than traditional nuclear energy? Plutonium is WAY WORSE than uranium, so while the chance of a meltdown might, hypothetically be less, the chances of meltdown are ALREADY really low, and plutonium is harder to dispose of than uranium.
John Harris
First of all, thorium is freely available. It's everywhere. Second, let's start a fundraiser thingy to build a reactor. A couple thousand dollars shouldn't stop us from having access to this technology.
Getting hard to post. captcha is being a bitch
John Wood
I also don't have a license from the AEC to build a fusion reactor
Parker Barnes
Probably because fusion reactors don't exist.
Jackson Collins
Chernobyl was a gen 1 reactor designed with 1950's tech, even Fukushima was using tech from the late 50's.
It may have escaped your attention but technology has come a long way since then...
Ethan Allen
China should have a LFTR online in 2025
William Taylor
look it up retard
Lincoln Hernandez
Nuclear yo
Elijah Gonzalez
dyac
f i s s i o n
Hudson Robinson
That and Chernobyl only failed because the Soviet Government absolutely refused to address its problems, and Fukushima was hit by a massive earthquake immediately followed by a massive tsunami, and the cleanup was basically over and done with about a year later.
Daniel Young
nuclear, if done correctly would be the most effective
Ian Brooks
Yeah intrested to see how that goes.
Christian Rogers
No, shithead. The burden of proof is on you, not me. You asserted something and I asked you to back up your bullshit with evidence.
YOU look it up, retard.
Blake Powell
Try telling people that they still will be sacred of it. Even if it is the safest form of energy with the least amount of deaths.
Jaxson Walker
dude they can't even build a motorcycle properly
Wyatt Gray
you only need a tiny amount of plutonium, and it last basically for ever since it isn't the material that produces the heat. It is just there to keep it going.
Jonathan Lee
but they are one of only a handful of nations that have put something on the moon
and in a smaller group that have put something on the moon without crashing it *cough*india*cough*
Easton Martin
Think you can get it from china or maybe Africa for a decent price. The consider it a waste material.
Joseph Hill
Can you help me find this? I'm a huge fucking retard, I'm using google and I can't find what you're talking about. Do you remember any details? Who built it? Where? When?
James Gonzalez
Joseph Richardson
no u
Justin Lee
Ill have to see saw it on a couple youtube vids. Know that india are suposed to be trying to build a bigger one.
Ian Foster
Reminder: India sent a probe to Mars on their very first try. Slack much, America?
Samuel Martinez
I'll respect India when they clean up their waterways and stop shitting in the street.
Christian Bennett
Nolan King
less than a week till india is a superpower
Eli Gray
You do know that fluoride salts are pretty fucking corrosive. There are engineering limitations to using it.
Jayden Robinson
What? Fluoride is good for you and you should put it inside your body.
Aiden Hernandez
Jaxon Allen
Nuclear reactors don’t explode moron. The only reason nuclear hasn’t taken off in the US like it should is because of morons like you.
Michael Clark
i also like my pineal gland not being slowly destroyed.
Charles Butler
Gabriel Edwards
Samuel Gonzalez
Yang needs to get more attiontion