Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Which alternative fuels do you support?

  1. Jun 29, 2007 #1

    Mk

    User Avatar

    There's solar, wind, fusion, fission, plant oil biofuels, biomass burning, hydroelectricity, tide & wave power, and more. There is much talk of fuels alternative to the old fossil fuels, which do you think are superior?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 29, 2007 #2

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Fission.

    kghjfhjh
     
  4. Jun 29, 2007 #3

    G01

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    I have to support fission since it is the only one(other than solar, which needs to become more efficient for people to accept) that can be used for power anywhere on the globe.(Since fusion can't be used for power anywhere on Earth, at least not yet.)
     
  5. Jun 29, 2007 #4
    Solar seems to be taking off & it's decentralized
     
  6. Jun 29, 2007 #5
    Aye, I would have to go with fission as well.
     
  7. Jun 29, 2007 #6

    Kurdt

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Fission, solar, fusion.
     
  8. Jun 29, 2007 #7
    cookies...
     
  9. Jun 29, 2007 #8
    They all sound good to me. Solar, Wind and Wave are great for some places that can accommodate them, and for everywhere else there's fission (and Fusion!?)
     
  10. Jun 29, 2007 #9

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I have a woodlot full of trees and an efficient wood stove. I am burning carbon that is currently in-cycle and that has not been sequestered for hundreds of millions of years.
     
  11. Jun 29, 2007 #10

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    It's a no brainer - biodiesel is the solution.
     
  12. Jun 29, 2007 #11

    mheslep

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Fission for everyone? You rightfully deleted the thread from the meltdown crank last week, but what about proliferation?
     
  13. Jun 29, 2007 #12

    dlgoff

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Fission, fission, and more fission.
     
  14. Jun 29, 2007 #13

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Fission: Terrorism; proliferation of nuclear materials; too much regulation needed to build the plants in time; the public and will never allow it.

    Never gonna happen to a significant degree.
     
  15. Jun 29, 2007 #14
    Gasoline and dirty coal.
     
  16. Jun 29, 2007 #15
    I've always thought the best solution is a little of everything. Dependance on a single fuel can turn ugly, and they all have their up sides and downsides anyway.
     
  17. Jun 29, 2007 #16
    :rofl::rofl:
     
  18. Jun 29, 2007 #17

    Mk

    User Avatar

    Doesn't France get 80% of it's electricity from nuclear and export more of it?

    What did you say again when we had the following conversation?:
     
  19. Jun 29, 2007 #18
    I've never been too scared of a nuclear war. it's a measure too grandiose and is sure to alienate and harm the attacker; I doubt a country would want to engage in nuclear war unless they have a suicide wish.

    now bio-weapons... those scare the **** out of me.
     
  20. Jun 29, 2007 #19

    Mk

    User Avatar

    Have they ever been used?
     
  21. Jun 29, 2007 #20
    A mixture of different energy sources would be the best solution. So as not to rely on only one thing.
     
  22. Jun 29, 2007 #21
    yea, I know... but it's the silence of a bio-weapon that scares me. A virus can spread fast, not show any symptoms for weeks, and be next to impossible to trace to know who the attacker was.
     
  23. Jun 29, 2007 #22

    Mk

    User Avatar

    Well, I wasn't being offensive, I was just asking if they were really.

    Bio is the scariest I think too :eek:
     
  24. Jun 30, 2007 #23

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    What percent of their total energy usage comes from nuclear, including petro energy?
    QED

    So you don't see a difference between buildings and dirty bombs? Buildings are a target - you know, like nuclear reactors are a target - and not weapons.
     
    Last edited: Jun 30, 2007
  25. Jun 30, 2007 #24
    There are some viable alternatives, but I wish the world would focus on a few, rather than a huge amount.

    Fusion, hydrogen cells combined with wind and solar power for the rich nations.
     
  26. Jun 30, 2007 #25

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    The Uk could be powered by wave power and bio fuel.
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook