When latimes says something on the nuclear issues it must be true. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...ion-bottomleft

Nuclear Reactors do pose great benefits, but carry great risk with them. Alternative power sorces (wind, solar, hydro) are very effective, but they lack the volume of power to make demands for our nation.

Wind isn't reliable enough; you can't make the wind blow. But it does work to produce extra energy that can be sold cheaply and save a bit of nuclear waste when the wind is blowing.

Hydro causes eco-issues. Daming up a river makes a lake that greatly alters the surrounding landscape. It also (here in Oregon) is causing the salmon (and other fish) population to take a huge hit indirectly. The dam has a fish ladder, so the fish can still make it up stream, but sea lions are "puppy gaurding" the fish ladder. I can't remember if the sea lions are protected or endangered or what, but animal rights activists are devided on protecting the sea lions (and dooming the fish) or protecting the fish (by killing sea lions).

Solar is still too costly for a major power source. A 10 km by 10 km solar powerplant (built in the deserts or Arizona or New Mexico or somewhere) would provide power for over three million homes, but would cost over 200 billion dollars (that's enough for 50 nuclear ones) and every home would have to have a battery that is charged by the solar power plant so your lights work at night. It's a good idea to do this anyway in case the power goes out, you still have a battery that can hold a month of power. This could be used with wind power coupled with the solar, with would be cheaper for consumers and save billions in the long run (about 6 billion dollars a year per power plant). And solar panels never go bad, they just get dusty, so the investment would last a long time.

P.S. You'll never guess which one I like best.

I'm guessing you like hydro best because it makes it easier to go fishing, thanks to the fish ladder

__________________

I Acually don't fish in the columbia because I DO know what knid of toxic sludge is dumped in it. I prefer the high lakes up in the mountains that you have to hike to.

But I prefer solar, I thought that the fact that I have already run the numbers would have given it away. By the way I gathered and ran all the numbers myself, I didn't just copy them from another website or blogger (I'm not claiming that anyone thinks that, I just want to brag a bit).

have you ever heard of a dyson sphere?

__________________

I take it you've played Freelancer.

Yes, a sphere created around a sun that absorbs all the radiation and turns into into solar energy, losing none at all. Great, but we'd have to construct one outside Earth's orbit so that we all don't freeze to death, that and we don't have enough materials to create a Dyson Sphere that large.

__________________

actually no, i first heard about it on star trek tng..lol..yes its hypothetical, but a very interesting theory

wonder if thered be enough materials if we take apart mars?

__________________

Well, certain solar panels are made almost completely from carbon polymers, so it might be possible but that means trying to reorganize the molecules on Mars to the correct carbon polymers, which requires a bucketload of energy and would probably not be beneficial to begin with.

__________________

yes not yet anyway, Also i have very little knowledge of nuclear mechanics, but is possible to created a self sustaining nuclear reaction inside of a miniaturized dyson sphere? or are we no where near that yet

__________________

It would be possible considering the amount of energy that the sun would be giving it and also because the sun has thousands of nuclear reactions happening in it at any given time (which is how it converts hydrogen into helium)

__________________