But hydrogen can explode, biomass pollutes, nuclearsplit produces radioactive waste and they can't be disposed easily. Nuclear fusion doesn't produce any radioactive waste but it can't be applied in the world fr its high temperature. We must resolve this bugs.

I vote Nuclear power. If properly used and disposed of it's absurdly efficient and cost effective.

And if anyone prattles on about Chernobyl I may remind you that was over 20 years ago where the scientists were actively trying to see how fast their puppy would go. We have a little thing called regulations now.

Wings of Fire, we don't know too much about storing nuclear power, sure it sounds safe, but you can't burry your problems forever, sooner or later we'll run out of room to store it, and some human will come back to earth, which is now an asteriod feild, and mine it and he get's blown up, as does the last remains of earth, did I mention that he was the last human?
Seriously, nuclear power is realy dangerous, and we shouldn't use it if we can avoid it, solar power and hydro power all of the way :)
And if bloody bush tries to convince Rudd to use nuclear power, like he did to Howard... grrrr

I don't think nuclear energy is always as bad as it's made out to be, but still we aren't 100% sure on all the radiation and effects it causes, and considering we have the option of 100% free electricity in theory, I don't see the point of messing around with dangerous chemicals. Effective, yes, but why risk it when it's not remotely necessary?

In the world there are a lot of radiation and we don't know much about them. For example in New Mexico, when UE tested their nuclear stuff, radiation destroyed and modified a lot of species and actually they continue to do it. In the Azov Sea, radiation modified unique species of fish and of other animals because of Cernobyl. Have I to mention Japan?

Solar power, water power and wind power have the inherent problem of being situation dependent. Plus all three of them are woefully innefficent
You are talking about nuclear weapons testing, I am talking about nuclear power. The subject matter is totally different and shouldn't be confused. Make sure you read my post fully before answering next time. RULES and REGULATIONS are there for a reason.
No you haven't because I'm not ignorant and I did my research before talking about nuclear energy (which I was originally opposed to). Sadly mistakes have been made, mostly due to the arrogance and greed of plant owners, but you can only learn from these. Do you know how many nuclear power stations there are in the world that have never had an accident? Japan have more than 50

Wow you do you do your research before posting?
Something I should do but never do (and it shows)
Yay, we're having an itellictual debate
anyways, we're screwed in the long run, even trapping gasses won't exatcly help, becuase as with nucler radiation, we'll run out of room.

Five minutes and Wikipedia and you've automatically won an argument against 95% of the population of the world.

I thought solar power was fairly decent. We can improve on these things, but I am aware that houses and cars can run off of their own solar units alone with energy to spare (roof of house covered in panels will give it more energy than it needs), so I don't see why this option is not taken. Some people are doing it already themselves, and certainly beats paying an electric bill all the time. I also, when I get a car, want an electric one so I can solar panel it to death as well. Don't forget solar panels work at night as well, obviously not as well but 12 hours give-or-take of charging up energy each night seems good to me.

Rudd is a moron.
http://tn3-1.deviantart.com/fs23/300...y_Zefyr158.jpg
Girly hands

Wow, thank you for that baseless argument.

I have girly hands. Watch as they infract you.

So now nuclear power is a problem that can be laid at the feet of Bush, as well? Do you think Bush actually cares about what sort of power other people use? If asked he might give an opinion but other than that I don't think it's one of his priorities. I can see it now. Bush calls up Howard and says "Look here, Howard. You know America is the best and I know it's the best. Now, I'm gonna nuke your little country and steal all your oil unless you use nuclear power. What's that? Why do I care? I don't. But I can do it and that's all that matters". You people and your anti-american propoganda are quite hilarious.

For you upper-echelons (god, that's an obnoxious phrase), this is not me being a bully. This is not me flaming. This is me making a response to a post that annoyed me. That it happened to be Mudling again is not my concern or fault.

Stupid.
Anyway, we won't be able to find an alternative fuel source before the weather goes completely beserk. We have put too much strain on the planet with our pollution. The world is as good as dead...Though maybe it will turn into a Red Giant then super nova and start all over again. As long as it doesnt go black hole we will be fine...sorta, but its over. :/ okay, that sounded emo...

I'm okay with Nuclear power, it's pretty good and safe, except for all that damn waste.

BTW, what does Nuclear waste actually look like?

It's green and it glows. Jesus, don't you know anything?

Ok, I don't know whether to reply or not, well I'll just say this America needs Nuclear power, Australia doesn't use enough power to need it, they have to slow down the reacters or whatever becuase it emits so much power, and therefore it's dangerous and unnecerary to use it.
Now this is a discussing, if it goes anything above that I'll be quiet.

I neither said you should use it or that it wouldn't be dangerous. I said the anti-american propoganda that certain members spout is ridiculous and laughable.

Well, there is no doubt that neclear power is far more powerful and not to mention easier to get (even if it is incredibly dangerous). With those big fan things, whatever the hell they are called, you need to place them in windy areas, not to mention they make a ton of noise. And with hydro (ha, got one) you need a big river, to cram the dam in, and that screws up all the land behind it, as it 'floods'. And with solar, you need a good deal of sunlight. I mean, you can wedge them all in the dersert or something...

Nuclear power is actually really safe. It is the ultimate of PR failures.

Hydro dams suck. I was thinking more of those wave things in the sea. And I'm sure there must be somewhere better to put the wind turbines. Shove some on oil rigs at least (and hopefully those same oil rigs will become disused soon too).

Solar panels can work at night off of moonlight too, and thus spend virtually 100% of their rime charging up energy. More sunlight obviously works better, but considering one long house can get all the electrical energy it needs and more from only one half of it's roof being covered in solar panels...you figure it out.

Solar panels rule.

The problem with this idea is too much wind e.g. a storm will destroy said turbines and if they're in the middle of the damn sea they're gonna require a heck of a lot of maintenance and repair work.
Its not just nightfall that would pose a problem, the biggest problem I see solar panels facing is geometry. For instance if a house was covered in panels like everyone imagined in the 90's the only part of your house which would receive an efficient amount of energy would be the eastern side in the morning and the western side in the evening and this would be very dependent on cloud cover and the like.

The best totally renewable energy source we have at the moment is undoubtedly Geothermal yet unfortunately that has the negatives of only working in regions with a thin crust so Iceland and Hawaii should in theory have an renewable source of energy ad infinitum.

Hmmm...then, instead of having one whole side of the roof covered, half half of each side of the roof covered in panels.

I can't remember the exact layout from that science video, but it obviously worked pretty damn well from what I saw.

Solar panels on every house will probably never be efficient; especially considering they produce DC electricity that would then have to be converted to AC. The latest advances in industrial solar generation involve arrays of mirrors that move with the sun to focus light on a tower filled with water. The water boils, turns a turbine a boom... gigawatt level electricity.


I'm discovering at the moment that solar water heating, on the other hand, is surprisingly good. The boiler is only ever turned on in the morning; I can have a shower at midnight and still have piping hot water.

A little bit: in the UE, modern technologies are developing new kind of motors that don't pollute. The last one is Euro 5 motor. With its filters, Euro 5 does not pollute much, it doesn't enter much carbon dioxide and the smoke that leaves the car isn't visible. Then in the UE, there some kinds of fuel that don't contain lots of pollutant elements. I don't know what's going on in other continents, I just know that in America there aren't these kind of new motors and fuels.

EDIT: I forgot the image of an enormous factory.

Hm. Well, I'm just not sure why they're allegedly not particularly efficient after what I saw. I really don't know enough about the inner depth mechanical workings, but this is just one example. Considering how many resources that are available, our current efforts are rather pathetic.

Abe is now!, that's still fairly poor, considering we could easily run cars off of virtually anything these days, such as chicken faeces, and I'm sure we could easily come up with another somewhat more accessible source. There is absolutely no reason why cars need to pollute the atmosphere at this point in time. They'd still make money from selling cars and whatnot, so that makes no sense. Retards.

You forget, the financial power of the oil companies is absolute.

Do you think, Zerox, cars' pollution has not to be considered now, and we must resolve big factories' pollution? Sincerely, I didn't understand very well your last post. My idea is that big factories in the world (for example this sample photo attached here) are the most pollutant factors. That problem must be resolved before. In Italy I can see new thermoelectric powers that leave steam and not smoke and pollution. If every factories use filters, the problems can be resolved. Or at least relieved.

If it were a matter of filters, there would be no problem.

They already use filters to clean out the poisonous exhausts, but there's nothing to be done about the safer fumes such as Carbon Dioxide and water vapour.

About Carbon Dioxide, my teacher (he is an expert about technology) told me that recent, modern and equipped factories (for example the thermoelectric powers that I mentioned) can keep dioxide into special rooms where a strange species of algae breathe dioxide. Those algae grow and then they will be used to develop new fuels less polluting than normal fuels.