Nuclear Power?

[MichaelXY]

My only question would be economics. How how much energy would be required to do this?

[mith]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor

Not sure about the cost, but here's how you would do it.

[mcar]

Nuclear power is a good alternative. The energy quality is reasonably high and could supply good for every energy consumption. Though the maintenance is very risky and besides the balance in ecological aspects is definitely in great basin of fire. As you wrote astus, expensive though; here comes money matters again--and discipline, regulatory laws must be able to do their intended part.

[volcob]

I agree in a small scale nuclear program but not that of which is being used now...they will not get away with the wastes as a proverb says

"the world belongs to our children we only borrowed it from them"

I've read a recent research it seemed viable it has lesser waste than the nuclear powered one

it runs on a gasoline which turns the turbine

the turbine with the generator provides large amount of electricity

a fraction of the generated power will be used to run again the turbine and so the cycle continous

but the gasoline here is merely a starter and no more

little to no waste

[AstusAleator]

How does that work? There can't just be spontaneous energy being created, so there must be an input somewhere.

I think that wind-farms use that sort of strategy, in that they use a small energy input (gas or recycled electricity) to overcome the coefficient of friction so their blades can spin at optimum efficiency. But in that case, the energy input is wind.

Anyway, I think the original topic is of particular importance right now because both US presidential candidates are discussing building more nuclear reactors across the nation.

[mith]

My material science engineering professor told me this.

If you take the coal that you need to burn to power a city for one year...

Take all the leftover ashes from that coal and get the uranium from it, you can power the same city for 100 years.

Not sure if the scaling is exact, but the point is if you want to save the world for your children--don't have children. Population growth is driving this not people who want to pollute.

[alextemplet]

I think our governments should focus more effort into space programs and try to build colonies elsewhere in the solar system. The technology isn't that far off if we focus our efforts and resources, and before long we won't have a choice anymore.

[AstusAleator]

If we establish colonies off-planet, I highly doubt we're going to ship any significant portion of our population to them. Our earth population will still be burgeoning, and we'll just be expelling more rocket-fuel into our atmosphere.

[mith]

I can't wait for the dyson sphere

[alextemplet]

If we establish colonies off-planet, I highly doubt we're going to ship any significant portion of our population to them. Our earth population will still be burgeoning, and we'll just be expelling more rocket-fuel into our atmosphere.

You're probably right, but I still think it's a better alternative than anything else I can think of, such as starting more wars to kill off the excess population.

[AstusAleator]

Maybe we should all live underground and convert 100% of the surface to agriculture, energy production, and nature reserves

[mith]

Converting 100% to agriculture means killing everything that isn't meat or grain. Are you suggesting mass genocide?