[learnin to learn]

who thinks that solar power would be a better form of energy compaired to nuclear power?
fell free to commit!!!!

[rockytriton]

you can get energy for your lightbulbs only during the day with solar power.

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by learnin to learn

who thinks that solar power would be a better form of energy compaired to nuclear power?
fell free to commit!!!!

It's all Solar ultimately as the Earth is a product of dead Suns. To your point, I think nuclear generators have by far a greater efficiency & new designs - pebble bed reactors - make it adequately safe. Let's see - what is the ratio of people last year killed in automobiles over those killed by nuclear power plants?
___The night issue of solar is mediated with storage systems - batteries, flywheels, etc.

[C1ay]

Perhaps I should point out that solar energy is nuclear energy, it's just that the reactor is 93,000,000 miles away. It would be more efficient to use on we could connect to directly than to simply attempt to collect the byproduct of such a distant reactor.

[rockytriton]

maybe we should build our own nuclear reactor in space that's just a little closer and not as big as the sun?

[Rincewind]

I think that a realistic energy supply has to include several forms of energy generation. We should be setting up solar energy collectors and wind farms to supplement to the maximum extent possible the generation of power through non-renewable sources like nuclear.

There is also some very good research being done into wave power generation.

With these inconsistently available energy sources such as solar, wind and wave, there has to be a method of storing the power or using it straight away. In parts of Australia, many people have solar panels on their houses, and actually, during peak generation times, they sell the excess power that they're not currently using back into the grid, and get credits for it on their power biils.

A few people (like, single digit) have sometimes had negative electricity bills, so it is possible even today to produce more energy through natural sources than certain households may need. This can only get better as the technology improves.

Energy (the human type) must be put into the development of constantly available energy sources, as the non-renewable uranium, gas, coal and oil powered ones will just eventually run out of fuel. Solar, wind and wave power has to be made to work for society before this happens.

[Jay-qu]

although technically both forms of energy are equally as good - it really comes down to how we havest it and the efficency that we can obtain. Undoubtably the sun is a great source of energy and although our techniques of harnessing solar energy are becoming more advanced I think that nuclear is a bit more convinent. My only problem with nuclear is having all the waste...

[CraigD]

Which is better – nuclear (fission) power or solar power, depends on a lot of complicated factors.

Short term - ~ 2*10^13 W – ordinary 21st century human power needs
Using current commercial reactors and U-235 mining and extraction plants, which currently supply about 7% of the worlds energy, there’s only about a 70 year supply of fuel remaining. New designs are clearly required (allowing the use of nearly 200-times more naturally abundant U-238), as well as safe way to store fission wastes. Such designs appear achievable, and should be capable of supplying tens of thousands of years of terrestrial human energy needs. It’s reasonable to assume that nuclear fission power can ultimately be very, very safe, despite the danger inherent in the handling of its fuel.

Current solar power generation technology is certainly inadequate for it to supply even a substantial fraction of the world’s energy needs. It’s reasonable to assume that improved designs could make it as adequate as nuclear power.

Both solar and nuclear power are ill-suited to all power generation applications, in particular vehicles and other portable, power-consuming devices. So, for either technology to replace fossil fuels (oil, coal), effective, high-energy-density storage systems (battery/capacitor, flywheel, hydrogen, etc.) is needed.

So, short term, there appears to be no compelling technical reason to prefer solar power over nuclear, or nuclear over solar.

Politically, it is an unfortunate reality that nuclear power capability also confers the technology necessary for the manufacture of nuclear weapon. Since it appears likely that political instability and war will persist into at least the near future, when considering the safety of nuclear power, it’s necessary to factor in the possibility of it being used to produce weapons that kill many millions of human beings.

So, short term, there appear to be compelling social and political reasons to prefer solar power over nuclear.

Long term - 10^17+ W – Ability to accelerate 100+ metric tons to .75 c each year
For this need, neither nuclear (fission or fusion) nor Earth-based solar power will be adequate. The only source of power currently envisioned that could satisfy these power requirements is space-based (eg: closely orbiting the Sun) solar power.

So, in the long term, solar power appear best, although of such an advanced nature that it bears little resemblance to current solar power technology.

[UncleAl]

Area necessary to generate 1 GW electrical, theoretical minimum

mi^2
Area, Modality
==============
1000 biomass
300 wind
60 solar
0.3 nuclear

[alexander]

we could always just send 2 satellites up in space and connect them with a wire and harness the power of the earth's magnetic field...