|
GET IT OFF YOUR CHEST - Where will we get our energy in the future: nuclear, solar, fossil fuels, some other source?
Notification. Thank you for visiting our Forum pages. We always appreciate your thoughts, but please note that Russia Today reserves the right to edit, exclude or paraphrase any messages. Please be polite - rudeness won't be accepted. Also keep in mind that it takes some time for your posts to appear in the threads.
- dissturbbed August 16, 2008, 14:04
- fusion or geothermal is the only answer anything else is just a pipe dream, you would have to build ten thousand nuclear plants to replace the energy provided from fossil fuels and the supply of uranium wouldnt even last a hundred years
- CRG August 10, 2008, 02:46
- First step: try to save energy, further on a good balance between different sources of energy (solarpower, solarheat, geothermics, and other renewables (wood, biomass and wind). We should try to get that change as fast as possible ! Of this reason i've bought a CO2 reduced car with emission of less than 120 gramm per km !
- DaniYah July 13, 2008, 18:55
- Has anyone here heard of the water powered cars?
Several models are already in use by Japanese and US engineers.
- Dimensions July 9, 2008, 17:12
- I would say Solar is the correct answer. The power is always there and is constant. The only question remains is can we find a way to better get that energy and store it.
- Californian June 21, 2008, 08:57
- Solar Power is the answer. Global Warming's here folks, which means that Solar Power batteries are producing more then they have produced ever before. The only negative of Solar Power is that these plants take too much space. However the energy is unlimited - if the sun's energy runs out, we will have a lot more to worry about then turning on our cars. Combine solar power with electric cars and electric trains, and you have reduced the use of oil on the planet to a more manageble level.
I am against Hydro-power plants being built in Siberia, because Hydros tend to destroy the natural beauty of the rivers thereby negatively affecting Russia's nascent eco-tourism industry, which if Russia plays their cards right could account for 5-10% of Russia's government budget.
- chaingang June 12, 2008, 00:08
- I agree that alternative forms of energy should be exploited but where are massive oil and gas revenues being spent? This money provides a tremendous opportunity to invest for future economic growth and prosperity. In the UK the revenue from North Sea oil and gas was largely wasted on unemployment benefits etc. More imaginative thinking should have been employed.
- Enrique May 19, 2008, 11:09
- Even if the Russian Federation has an increible amount of oil and gas, it shoudn´t forget the hydro electric, wind farm, nuclear and solar systems for several reasons:
1. In far away Siberian regions it would be easier electrical supply by hydro electric or wind farms.
2. Oil and gaz in the Russian Federation has a lot of subsidies so if a larger proportion of Russian use energy produce by other systems more oil and gas could be exported to Western Europe and China for a more realistic prize.
3. Also, the immense Hydro Power of Russia is still mildly developed. Siberian rivers and future hydroelectric dams could be the main electric supply for China in the future.
New hydro electric dams have to be build in Siberia (but with Russian and Ukrainian workers or in the other case that would mean a flood of Chinese workers to stay in Siberia)
- chaingang May 5, 2008, 00:18
- A critical question being asked by all developed nations. However since Russia currently has`surplus`oil and gas which earns a lot of money and this is likely to increase given world energy needs how does Russia intend investing this money - these are the years of `plenty`? Can anyone explain how the energy funds are being used to improve the infrastructure; encourage research and development in domestic production; increase spending on technology education; improving health care provision.
- john April 23, 2008, 20:50
- Geo-thermal power stations !
Simplest, cheapest, enviro 100% friendly and unlimited.
Once drilling technology improves geo-thermal power stations will be feasible on 80% on the land.
And of course .... politicians will need to choose enegry needs before bribes from oil, gas, coal and nuclear interests.
- Gazprom March 24, 2008, 18:44
- Simple- Russia. Taking care of all your energy needs ;-)
- Phil February 4, 2008, 15:29
- Surely we must all look at reducing the amount of energy we use to start with. This will massively lesson the burden on the global science and technology communities to come up with real world solutions. If human beings cannot perceive and own the need for self disipline when it comes to saving energy, and curb the greed, then we just don't care do we? Do not forget, the planet will not die, it will be the human race that will die out or go back to caveman technology. Planet earth is a self healer and will adapt, just like it has many times before. So maybe we do not need to look so hard and find alternative energies so quickly, maybe we need to change our habits.
- Norman January 31, 2008, 02:11
- Solar energy is a good option, provided there are a lot of good days. Safe Nuclear energy-yes. Wiser use of fossil fuels, such as oil, gas and ethanol-yes. Russia has a good source of all these energy options, USE THEM WISELY!
- Cheburashka January 16, 2008, 00:28
- i agree that nuclear power plants should be the main source of energy, but as "clean and safe" as they are, i still say they should be concentrated in desolate places such as a desert. i wouldnt want to have to live anywhere near of those things.
wind turbines, imho are THE cleanest source of energy. they mau not be efficient now, which is exactly why there must be much more effort to improve them.
we will continue to use the oil, of course, but not just plain burning it. as you said, we need it to make other things.
- MihalMihalich January 15, 2008, 06:43
- Dear Ladies & Gentlemen
World doesn’t not care about you or about what is good for you or your land or environment.
If natural gas is more efficient at refining + delivery methods + accessibility + cost + everything other factor then coal government/business/people will use prefer it.
Reason RT talks about it is Energy crisis, that people (6+billions) are too many warn up/power up/ and we need new sources.
The most safe and the most efficient power plant is nuclear power plant…. The solar and Wind are low efficiency and require more tech and lower cost to be accessible. (there is also tide power plant but they too are rear) Theses 3 will be electrical power sources of future.
3 types power for transportation
1. Oil = Accessible, effective, byproducts of oil used from asphalt and tires to a candy wrap.
2. Gas = Low accessibility, effective, low emissions, lower cost.
3. Electric = Most accessible, effective, very low cost, Zero emissions.
Companies like Tesla Motors and Chevrolet has created fully electric cars now they need better Battery technology to make car work in Higher/Lower temperatures and we are in the game paying $0.01-0.02cents per mile. Fully electric powered car will cost about $30.000+ and once they start making series. [As a result oil/gas prices will become cheaper/more affordable and that will stop super inflating every currency in the world.]
And if you see people that talk to you about hydrogen-powered cars - run! IMHO hydrogen cars will never be affordable because of unreal $X00.000 cost of the technology and very low accessibility. It is simply not practical.
This is my very futuristic forecast on power demand.
(but it will not be financed by any offtake or oil/gas distributing government or company due to business profit interest, so it may take awhile)
Best Regards.
- Cheburashka January 14, 2008, 06:45
- really, we are still making cars using early 20th century technology! burning fossil fuels... what a shame! a regular gasoline engine gives what? like only 20% efficiency? the rest is lost as heat! burning coal for electricity!? WOW! i am no tree hugger, but it is 2008 and we should be using something better.
unfortunatelly (and i hope i am wrong about this) there will not be much change untill we run out of oil completely because greedy oil companies will not let us to. not only they will feed us oil untill the last drop, but they will also make some more money on the shortage as well.
the cleanest sourse of energy of course is the wind (and waterfalls), but no, apparently the electric windmills "ruin the view and endanger some species of birds. AWW 8'( and like the oil refineries dont ecxept more.
i say if we build these wind turbines along the coast and nuclear reactors in the desert we will have enough energy supply to get off the oil.
|
