It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Sustainable energy sources

page: 1

log in


posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 01:21 AM
I have no problem with sustainable technologies to generate

Using fossil fuels today is stupid, when diligent use of bio mass
could supply the fuel needs of the world. For example HEMP is
a fast growing plant, utilizes sunlight efficiently in converting
carbon from carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, into plant
material. Using waste plant material after HEMP is used for
making paper, fiber products, and food, to fuel power plants
would return only carbon dioxide taken from the air, back into
the air when the plant material is burned to generate electricity,
or for heat (think wood burning stoves using pressed HEMP
logs), and so on. For more about the wonders of HEMP see:

So maybe you have a problem with the best source of bio mass?

Then let us look at nuclear power. What a wonderful source of
energy. Compared to all others it is the safest, most compact,
and the fuel is unlimited. Uranium is present in the oceans of the
world sufficient to power the world "forever" at thousands of
times the worlds present energy use. The waste product is very
compact and easily disposed of.

Now maybe your saying.. hold it, wait a minute, THAT isn't
what the experts say..

Sorry but if you have been led to believe other than what I just
posted, you have been a victim of political agenda being forced
upon you by people who never had your interests at heart.

See these sites for more information about nuclear power:

If you read even one book about nuclear power, read this one:
The Health Hazards of Not Going Nuclear by Petr Beckmann.

Ok, Ok. So maybe you don't like the best bio mass or the best
other source of sustainable energy like nuclear fission using
uranium, which for all practical purposes will never run out as a
fuel especially when it is used in breeder reactors, that make
more nuclear fuel than they use.

So let us start a national program to make space power
satellites. The same money spent for war in Iraq could be
redirected to do something constructive like rebuild the
manufacturing and energy generating infrastructure of the US,
and this country can lead in the development of technology to
free the world from reliance on fossil fuels, and incidentally also
develop "inexpensive" space access, space tourism, space
colonization using space habitats, and so on. And provide
sustainable energy.

Hmm, so maybe you don't like that either, for whatever reason..

A pity the subjects in this post have been politicalized.
Have you ever heard the expression "..nothing ever happens in
politics by accident.." Think about that the next time you are so sure
you understand why you live in this primitive world, thinking it is so
great, maybe the next time you are filling the gas tank of your car...

posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 11:53 AM
[edit on 3/12/04 by Atomix]

posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 11:54 AM
Here we have built this hydroelectric power station on the river Shannon and its supplying a lot of the electricity in Ireland. And we cut a lot of turf/peat/bog but theres plenty left...........................or is there?

I HATE THOSE DOUBLE POSTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[edit on 3/12/04 by Atomix]

posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 01:58 PM
I think the current energy crisis is because energy has been so incredably cheap, it basically cost nothing. The economic return on oil was so great that for minimal investment tons of cash could be made and oil could still be sold cheaply and used for just about everything.

Hemp and Nuclear can unfortunatly never replace it

we would have to spend so much land area growing hemp wed have considerably less room to grow food. plus growing food takes energy to do as does harveting hemp.

nuclear is just way to exspensive and it dosnt solve the problem of transportation. i wouldnt want to get in a fender bender in a nuclear powered car.

posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 11:24 AM
I don't believe that there is any one alternative energy source which can replace oil.

The links to the sites you have posted are very interesting to me because, as you state, this isn't what we have heard about nuclear power plants.

How can you reconcile the two viewpoints? Is there a conspiracy? (I'm not trying to be funny)

posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 09:11 PM

Originally posted by Mahree
How can you reconcile the two viewpoints? Is there a conspiracy? (I'm not trying to be funny)

What people think is a result of the information they access and
their inclinations. The viewpoints are not limited to (2) but cover
a large range, and often depend on if the information people have
are based on lies, or based on facts. Is there a conspiracy?
Actually many of them, but that is not to say there are not sound
reasons for not having more nuclear power. Economics and politics
do apply, and as the total cost of using fossil fuel technology
increases, the nuclear option may be viewed more positive.
I would like to see progressive action taken to implement more
power generation using nuclear power, rather than have it come
about through reactionary response to increased environmental
deterioration, but it seems to be a failing of people to not want
change until the cost (however measured) of continued
inaction exceeds that of action. Fossil fuel technology still has
a ways to go, and if the population can ever be reduced to
some sensible level from the billions of people presently living
on the world, then the biosphere would be better able to
absorb the effects of pollution (all kinds) from fossil fuels,
if used by a much smaller number of people to power their
vehicles, and generate electricity. On the other hand if
the population continues to increase and we have 10 billion,
or 50 billion, whatever, number of people on the world then
nuclear power is one of the few ways of supporting them
in an energy intensive civilization.

posted on Dec, 6 2004 @ 12:53 AM
Pollution from fossil fuels is certainly happening and a danger for our earth. It does seem to me that the earth will run out of fossil fuels before the pollution ends the world.

Finding and using other energy sources seems the only answer before it is too late. We need to start now and conserve the fossil fuels left.

posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 10:16 PM



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 09:41 PM

Originally posted by Mahree

Finding and using other energy sources seems the only answer before it is too late. We need to start now and conserve the fossil fuels left.

I agree. There are many forms of renewable energy scources all around us that not even thought of being used. Too many of the people in power in the past were to tied to the oil industry, that's why we have such an oil mentality in this country today. Some of the first automobiles run on steam. The first diesel engine was run on peanut oil. Thousands of acres of crops go to waste every year that could be used to produce ethanol, waste wood could be used to produce methanol. There are other ways to produce electricity from the wind than windmills and other ways from water than dams. There are many ways if to produce power from alternative forms if somebody had the money and will to get started.

top topics


log in