Lizzie asks…
What is the cleanest and most efficient energy source available for human consumption?
What is out there to light our cities that would produce little or no greenhouse gasses and still be viable? Obviously the sun is a clean source, but it’s not efficient to capture its energy … right? I mean, do we coat the surface of the earth with solar panels? Wind is clean, but again, do we have room for all the windmills it would take to make them meaningful? What is our best source of energy?
admin answers:
Given your criteria of “cleanest and most efficient” its nuclear energy. Commercial nuke plants only release a small amount of waste heat in the cooling waters and zero radiation. Their typical output is One Gigawatt compared to 14 Megawatts of an average wind generator.
Donald asks…
What is the energy source for a windmill? Thanks a lot!!!?
Yeah, I know it’s a dumb question, but I just had to make sure that it was wind!
admin answers:
Peanut Butter…of course
Paul asks…
If Iran needs a new clean energy source?
why doesn’t resident Obama tell them to buy some windmills?
admin answers:
The republican hot air could generate plenty of power, After all they are the self proclaimed party of the power.
Ruth asks…
What is the philosophy behind the thinking that wind energy is expensive and a waste?
It is free. We can put a windmill everywhere. And it is better than solar because you can use it night. Name another energy source that is free and does not pollute. The government should give free windmills to everyone.
admin answers:
Your premise is false
The wind turbines require a great deal of maintenence to keep them operating.
Also the wind turbines require a great deal of capital to buy and install when compared with the amount of energy that you get out of them
Wind energy is not free by any means. Wind energy requires a large amount of capital to install the wind turbines and the wind turbines are very expensive to maintain to keep them operating properly and producing energy.
.
Maria asks…
Why isn’t nuclear energy considered a viable alternative energy source?
It produces more energy more consistently than solar panels, windmills, and hydrogen cell batteries. It would get rid of CO2 emissions caused by coal plants; as a result, people wouldn’t need to worry about electricity use as a pollutant. A good amount of nuclear waste can be reprocessed and reused. The other waste you have left may last for a long time, but isn’t it better to have a small amount in your possession rather than a large amount of CO2 in the air where it cannot be re-obtained?
Don’t give me anything about Chernobyl, the Russians didn’t have the technology to stop a reaction once it went out of control like we do today.
Any counter-arguments? Ideas?
admin answers:
Nuclear has its place. But I wouldn’t call it alternative energy, any more than I would call hydroelectric alternative. It’s mainstream.
As far as what I can put on my house as a consumer, the only clean thing I can do is solar. I have no stream on my property for hydro, and there are too many obstructions for wind. Nuclear is too large for a single household, although it could work for an apartment building. If it were allowed in this country. And security wasn’t an issue.
Thomas asks…
Gravity – an infinite source of energy?
According to Wikipedia, this is the law of conservation of mass: “mass cannot be created/destroyed, although it may be rearranged in space, and changed into different types of particles.”
Gravity causes objects to move, and that kinetic energy can be harnessed. But from what did that energy come from? For example, water flowing down a stream can produce energy. The water only travels down because of gravity. But was energy created in the process without matter being destroyed?
Or another scenario: Temperature differences in the atmosphere cause convection, which causes wind; that wind can then move things on the ground, such as windmills, to produce energy. Again, where did the energy come from?
Does gravity contradict the law of conservation of mass? Or am I missing something?
Thanks
The Sun does not cause Earth’s gravity. The Sun evaporates the water, but it does not cause the water to fall. The reason water rises is because water vapor is less dense than the air around it – which is a result of gravity.
The Sun’s radiation of energy does not pull the water into the atmosphere. It’s gravity doing its job.
admin answers:
In a way you are right, gravity can be used to acquire an infinite source of energy….depending on how you’d use it. And of course, you’d need a prevailing gravity field to pre-exist, so the earth would be needed.
You’d have to have running water or something which can fall forever in order to give you energy. Water will run out eventually, or fall to the lowest point, but of course, evaporation and cloud seeding and rain will replenish the supply. You’d be relying on a natural system to give you constant water. This system could change over time and become less efficient, and then you’d have to move your base of operations elsewhere.
What about isolating gravity into a device which would do this? That is, use gravity in it’s operation and also keep going. Sounds like perpetual motion doesn’t it?
Look up “Weight Into Speed” or WIS, it’s an interesting idea.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers