Which type of energy source would you prefer to see installed the most?

[greenforest32]

I prefer solar because it's so modular. What do you prefer?

And speaking of solar, we've had some pretty cool solar installations over here in Oregon though they're not too big in terms of capacity. Our state Department of Transportation has been building some solar projects along our highways: http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/OIPP/inn_solarhighway.shtml

The newest one in a rest area right off I-5 is supposed to be shaped like the state: http://earthfix.opb.org/energy/article/oregon-unveils-newest-solar-highway/



Kind of cute

[opebo]

[Redalgo]

I like nuclear for being a potential source of baseload power to phase out coal. The reactors are almost always online and producing at capacity relative to most energy sources, might be quite a bit cheaper if state funds provided the upfront capital for reactor construction and streamlined the licensing process by building the plants in batches sharing identical designs (whereas now in the States each design tends to be different and requires a lot of burdensome bureaucratic oversight to green-light), and such. The hardest part of this would be overcoming the NIMBY factor involved.

Setting aside my interest in the potential viability of fusion reactors someday, I suspect a lot of the fission plants would run on thorium at some point - which has a much smaller environmental impact and no melt-down potential. Contemporary reactor designs seem to be as they are at least in part because early research was guided toward methods of producing materials suitable for military uses. Mind you, I do not oppose the development and implementation of other sources of energy, but nuclear energy is what I envision as picking up most of the slack that we would be left with from incrementally driving fossil fuels into disuse. *nods*

[courts]

Whatever the market yields? If something isn't commercially viable yet the government shouldn't try to incentivize or subsidize it. Although I'm concerned about the suppression of alternative energy and all that.

[minionofmidas]

Other - manpower.

[tpfkaw]

Whatever the market yields? If something isn't commercially viable yet the government shouldn't try to incentivize or subsidize it. Although I'm concerned about the suppression of alternative energy and all that.

This, essentially.  I think Minty is concerned about the oil companies hiding the infinite energy torus from us.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

Whatever the market yields? If something isn't commercially viable yet the government shouldn't try to incentivize or subsidize it. Although I'm concerned about the suppression of alternative energy and all that.

This, essentially.  I think Minty is concerned about the oil companies hiding the infinite energy torus from us.

Well, if the oil companies had an infinite energy torus, they would certainly hide it.

But anyways, solar and wind.

[dead0man]

Wind.  Little downside, plus they look cooler than the rest.  Obviously they don't fit everywhere, just like solar, hydro and geo.

[angus]

I like the wind as well.  Lots of windmill farms 'round here.  They're ugly, and they kill birds, apparently, but they don't pollute and they keep utility costs fairly low.

[Frodo]

Preferably the most reliable (and clean) regardless of whether the wind blows, or the sun shines: Nuclear.

[Free Palestine]

I like solar power.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Of the available options, wind is the one I like least.  There is a notable problem with the killing of birds and bats. The best places for generating wind power are generally far from where power is needed.  And last but not least, wind power is so unreliable that even when built, you still have to build the other generating capacity you would have built if you'd never built the windmill. Can be useful if used for applications where intermittent power is acceptable and in some remote high latitude locations where solar power is less reliable than wind for year-round power, but those are not common.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Misses the énergie marémotrice:









Put a maximum of it under the sea (France only began it, slowly, around Saint-Brieuc), put a maximum of solar in deserts, and complete with the less polluting ones, continue to look for always more convenient and economical energy sources (algae seem to be interested when it comes to find new fuels), and I'll be fine.

[Gustaf]

Under what conditions? This question doesn't really make much sense to me.

I'd like the energy source that gives us the cheapest, safest and most environment-friendly energy.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Nucular

[Pingvin]

Nuclear, but I prefer using Bieber and Minaj fans as coal.

[ZuWo]

I have always had a soft spot for nuclear energy. Too bad most of my fellow citizens and my government disagree because of the severe incident in Japan.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I have always had a soft spot for nuclear energy. Too bad most of my fellow citizens and my government disagree because of the severe incident in Japan.

Which is a shame.  Granted, nothing is ever foolproof, but known and preventable foolishness at both Fukushima and Chernobyl led to the resulting deaths and damage.  Not only that, but both plants were outmoded and would never have been approved for construction in any competent jurisdiction as of the day before the accidents took place.  So the Kernkraftwerk Niederamt wouldn't have been affected by them.  Besides, if a tsumani ever hits Switzerland, your country will have more serious problems than what happens at its nuclear reactors.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Moreover, and since I've seen this quite good documentary on arte, I'm amazed that in debates about nuclear, at least all what I could have seen, it is never evoked the major environmental disasters that happens with uranium mines...

Just for what struck my mine the most:

10 tones of uranium 'yellow cake' make 30,000 tones of radioactive wasted mud, in the most modern uranium mines exploited nowadays.

And, the documentary notably pointed out the example of the Wismut mine in former Eastern Germany, that the USSR enjoyed exploiting for its nuclear needs, which took about 20 years since people from Western Germany discovered the environmental disaster (it is only almost finished today) to be secured from any radioactive risk, and which did cost about 6,5 billions of euros.

And nowadays, with the development of big countries like China and India, but also with France doubling its exploitation in Niger for example, more and more of giant mines of uranium are being opened...

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Nuclear, but I prefer using Bieber and Minaj fans as coal.

[Is Totally Not Feeblepizza.]

Ideally? All of them. If I had to pick just one, though, I guess I would say nuclear.

[© tweed]

Red Bull