-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harle-Quin
Use the excess energy to pump water up a hill. Then use HEP to create more energy by letting that water run back down the hill
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Harle-Quin
I still think my method is ultra-win.
Pumping water uphill then re-using it on the way down won't generate extra energy... :p basic physics comes into play: you can't get something from nothing; pumping water uphill for re-use it too much like perpetual motion. I suppose it'd work if you could use a phenomenally efficient means for pumping that water up, though...
There's another form of energy that is truly worldwide and never runs out or diminishes: that energy is the difference in air pressure at sea level, that occurs between high tide and low tide. Problem is, it's a fairly subtle change and hard to harness. But if there *was* an easy way to do it, you'd have the cleanest possible energy source, one that'll never diminish. I think there have been experiments with using this source of power, but without substantially beneficial results.
-
Solar, wind and hydro power probably. It's best to use the materials that aren't man made. :)
-
whatever you all might say and think about green energy. Go study physics for 8 years then come back.
Every physicist agrees that the best bet next to oil is nuclear.. whether fission or fusion, depends on when its put into place., as fusion isnt perfected yet.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Aerith's Knight
whatever you all might say and think about green energy. Go study physics for 8 years then come back.
Every physicist agrees that the best bet next to oil is nuclear.. whether fission or fusion, depends on when its put into place., as fusion isnt perfected yet.
Fusion will be great once it's made practicable. Fission is indeed efficient, and for the overwhelming majority of the time it's safe and clean... but there's still the issue of storing large amounts of unspeakably volatile waste products. And besides - when something does go wrong with a nuclear reactor, the results can be devastating beyond compare. Yes, Chernobyl was a freak accident resulting from a series of incompetent and mismanaged failures, but it still took place. Over twenty years later, people are still dying and a vast area is still uninhabitable. That's from a single accident. By eschewing nuclear power, we're reducing the risk of further such incidents, and avoiding the buildup of radioactive waste products.
-
Plus wind turbines are pretty.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Big D
Over twenty years later, people are still dying and a vast area is still uninhabitable.
Aren't the flora and fauna thriving there since there aren't any people to get in the way? Or was just more lies from the solitary motorcyclist fraud? xD
-
The ecology's doing ok in the radiation zone, I think. Plant life especially, since trees cope pretty well with mutation.
Quote:
solitary motorcyclist fraud?
That was a hoax? I had no idea...
-
Solar and Wind Power seem like the most effective choices, and the simplest. Either of those would work just fine.
I'd much rather just modify work-out equipment to power my home, though. :monster:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Big D
The ecology's doing ok in the radiation zone, I think. Plant life especially, since trees cope pretty well with mutation.
Quote:
solitary motorcyclist fraud?
That was a hoax? I had no idea...
The jury is out, but some people think she was.
-
wind power is nothing.
Even for a country as small as the netherlands. We have lots of turbines.. all along the coast.. thousends and thousends.. and still they generate nearly nothing. One turbine is what? 12.5 kWh?
solar power has potential, but it would have to be pretty sunny for it to be comercially useful.
If there was such a thing as a clean a good solution, it wouldve been put in practise already. Although.. i think the oil companies would buy those up..
Quote:
Originally Posted by
qwertyxsora
Also, a controlled fusion reactor would be great, even though we have one already. (The sun)
We have those on small scale, and building them on large scale.
I think what you mean is cold fusion.
-
Perpetual Motion Engine (Mar, 1933)
-
A real perpetual mobile does not excist. The reason for this is usually the disappation of energy through heat due to friction.
btw a perpetual mobile creates more work(energy) then you put into it. (or just keeps going forever)
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Aerith's Knight
wind power is nothing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
qwertyxsora
Also, a controlled fusion reactor would be great, even though we have one already. (The sun)
We have those on small scale, and building them on large scale.
I think what you mean is cold fusion.
I know of a bunch of fission reactors, but I've never heard of an actual fusion reactor being built. They run kinda hot.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rubah Lapah
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Aerith's Knight
wind power is nothing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
qwertyxsora
Also, a controlled fusion reactor would be great, even though we have one already. (The sun)
We have those on small scale, and building them on large scale.
I think what you mean is cold fusion.
I know of a bunch of fission reactors, but I've never heard of an actual fusion reactor being built. They run kinda hot.
If i remember correctly ranging from 17000-23000 K
i went on a college field trip to a research facility
they use magnetic confinement
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Aerith's Knight
A real perpetual mobile does not excist. The reason for this is usually the disappation of energy through heat due to friction.
btw a perpetual mobile creates more work(energy) then you put into it. (or just keeps going forever)
Give it up for Captain Obvious!
