Originally posted by LazarusTheLong
why couldn't this same method be used to beam down energy in the form of a laser (like military field equipment does) or microwave?
Originally posted by subz
While an orbiting mirror or a circuit between magnetic poles would produce energy for the planet I wouldnt trust the human race as a species with
I gotta agree with subz
yet again. The military or terrorist or accidental application of something like this is far too terrible to think
What I find ironic is that the idea of a giant energy-producing (and potentially globally destructive) "beam" is a perfectly acceptable alternative
to the same people who do not want to expand our use of nuclear power plants.
I'd like to revisit Nuclear Power before proceeding.
There's a lot of myths and fears about these plants that are perpetuated so regularly. People think this are unsafe, radioactive ticking time bombs.
Nothing could be further from the truth. There have only been two "bad" meltdowns in the history of Nuclear Power Plants.
One was at Three Mile Island, Plant #2, on March 28 1979, which was caused by multiple failures on the part of the equipment, and even more failures
as a result of human error. No one was injured. The worst effect was the release of some radioactive hydrogen gas, which to this day has not had any
known effects on the communities surrounding it at the time. The end result was the plant being brought to cold-shutdown (completely dead), and plant
#1 beside it still operates to this day.
The other (and worst one) was at Chernobyl, on April 26, 1986. It happened, largely, once again, due to human error. Only this time, it was
deliberate. There was an experiment taking place at the reactor and as a result, the normal safety guidelines were purposefully disregarded, and then
a chain of human errors afterwards led to the catastrophe. Additionally, the operator who caused the accident was not very familiar with the system,
poorly trained, and the reactor itself was poorly constructed. Too many rods removed, repeatedly, and too much water pumped in to control the heat
caused too much steam, which reacted with the graphite that this particular plant used, to cause an explosion which destroyed the containment lid. To
further make matters worse, the Soviet union attempted to cover it up and few people had any warning of the ensuing cloud of radioactive gas. It
wasn't until 2 days after the event that Sweden's scientists detected large levels of radiation being blown in that the rest of the world was
alerted. 30 lives were lost directly relating to the accident, and another 2600 or so lost to various types of cancer (thanks to no one being
That's it. In the 20 years since the last meltdown, so many training and safety requirements have increased so dramatically that, barring the most
absolute minimal of chances, it would require require deliberate actions on the part of several people within a nuclear plant's control centers to
cause a meltdown. In the event of a meltdown, with modern technology and the experience from the two previous meltdowns, a tragedy can be easily
avoided, and loss of life very unlikely. And in the U.S., graphite plants of the Chernobyl type cannot and have not ever been built.
Coal Power Plants
, on the other hand, are believed to account for 64,000 deaths
each year (some rate it as high as
), 159,000 emergency-room visits
, and 6,000,000
Hydro-electric Dam Failure
actually caused the death of 15,000 people in India, 1979. This is one incident
, hundreds to thousands more
have died from other failures.
accidents account for over 100 deaths per year, worldwide.
As can be easily seen, Nuclear Power Plants have killed less people than any of our other three main sources of electricity. The indirect deaths are
roughly equal to that of Natural Gas, the direct deaths associated with it are miniscule in comparison.
So why do people get so paranoid about it? One word: ignorance
It makes me as furious as Cartman whenever I run across it. I have personally witnessed hundreds of ignorant people protesting nuclear power because
they want safe, non-polluting power instead. What they are truly protesting, due to their ignorance, is the safest, cleanest, and most powerful
energy-producing plant type we are currently capable of making, and I challenge anyone here to prove me wrong.
Originally posted by LazarusTheLong
we could just have orbiting satelites that are converting and sending free energy for as long as the world produces a magnetic field?
(*source numeous discovery programs) or would this be a problem to the earth that we are trying to protect?
Tesla tried to do that, and thank God he failed. Charging the ionosphere would be a potential End Life Event on Earth
. A really good comparison
would be to liken our ionosphere as a hollow globe of C-4 surrounding the planet. If you put too much of a charge into it, it blows up.
Originally posted by Ulvetann
The Worlds First Wave Power Station
So, this is also more than just feasible. And since we already have all this water, why not
Okay, here's what I found about Wave Power:
- Wave Distortion - Wave Generators have the effect of significantly lengthening the wavelength and reducing the height of the waves which
pass through them. This causes the coastline to be less affected by erosion, which is good in some areas, and bad in others. So location is a major
- Surface Current Distortion - Surface-water dwelling species that rely on these currents to feed and breed will have a very bad day indeed,
and the fishing industry would be greatly impacted as well. This can be minimized (though not eliminated) by very carefully studying the area that
would be placed in first.
- Collision Factor - Wave Generators are difficult to detect both by radar and by sight. This risk can be lowered with warning lights and
transponders, but basically shipping would have to be excluded from the area of these devices, thus interfering with shipping routes. Again, careful
placement can minimize the impact, but not eliminate it.
In conclusion, Wave Generators, while non-polluting, still have a significant enough ecological and economic impact that the limited placement of them
will require them to remain a niche energy market. Their effects can be minimized with careful placement, but those places are