b3ta.com board
You are not logged in. Login or Signup
Home » Messageboard » XXX » Message 10094846 (Thread)

# Nuclear power: also heavily subsidised. (Too cheap to meter, they said... Pah!)
Solar power in the UK has potential, I reckon. You don't need much direct light, after all. Even in winter, there ought to be enough daylight to make a big difference, technology pending.

Wind power: beautiful. I'd much rather watch a field of turbines than a DRAX power station.


But... yeah.

I'd add to the list GM algae farms producing biofuels, and geothermal heat exchange.

EDIT: Ooooh, and vacuum energy. Sod the fact that it's merely hypothetical and I'm having trouble keeping sci-fi from reality. It's still infinite.
(, Thu 17 Jun 2010, 14:52, archived)
# Geothermal is wonderful. But is nicking energy from the Earth itself really the way to go?
(, Thu 17 Jun 2010, 14:54, archived)
# There's a lot of energy there to be tapped.
The planet's core is in no danger of solidifying for as long as humanity's around.
(, Thu 17 Jun 2010, 14:56, archived)
# Not while we're not POURING COLD WATER INTO THE EARTH'S HEART there isn't.
(, Thu 17 Jun 2010, 14:59, archived)
# Fair point.
But there'd be fewer volcanic ash clouds, so, y'know, swings and roundabouts...

:)
(, Thu 17 Jun 2010, 15:02, archived)
# Drop in the ocean (ho ho)
The amount of energy extracted is incredibly tiny compared to how much is down there.
(, Thu 17 Jun 2010, 15:17, archived)
# They said something similar about oil.
(, Thu 17 Jun 2010, 15:26, archived)
# We could certainly do some awesome stuff if we used all the earth's geothermal energy.
It mostly comes from decaying radioactive elements. I don't think the Earth is doing anything useful with it.
(, Thu 17 Jun 2010, 16:05, archived)
# prettiness is an integral part of efficiency, I find.
(, Thu 17 Jun 2010, 14:58, archived)
# YES.
And anyone who denies this is a boring nay-sayer with a dessicated soul, or summink.
(, Thu 17 Jun 2010, 15:03, archived)
# wind power would be much more sensible if the turbines were out at sea really
but it's pricey, so 20-30% efficiency for the on-land ones is apparently cool with the government, because they don't have to spend much money in order to look greener.
(, Thu 17 Jun 2010, 15:10, archived)