Quote:
Originally Posted by Sithdarth
If only we could. You see neutrons having no charge are really really easy to smack into each other. (They tend not to push each other out of the way.) Unfortunately having no charge there really is no good way to accelerate them. (They don't respond much to magnetic or electric fields which is pretty much the only way of doing it.)
|
Blow on them really, really hard.
On solar, Azi, you DO realize that first off, solar panels, even crappy civilian ones, pay for themselves in roughly eight years, right? That's materials, labor, AND profit there. And yes, they ARE that efficient that it would really take that little area. Add to that that crappy panels have a ~40-year life span and you've got yourself a pretty good energy source.
Also, they can be put nearly anywhere. You don't need blazing sun for them to work. Germany is using them heavily, I hear, and they're not exactly Arizona over there. Solar panels are still capable of generating power even on cloudy days.
To be frank, with thin-film technologies advancing rapidly, there's not a damn reason solar can't power the world. You can put that stuff in SHINGLES, for crying out loud, not to mention windows and even
paint.
On the other hand, people are so stuck on traditional power sources that the public mind is blocking integration. Everyone associates solar panels with hippies. Nuclear, on the other hand, is a black hole of funds which will never be profitable, produces more waste than you give it credit for that is MUCH more dangerous than average, and which has already filled Yucca Mountain, and is very inefficient.
To put it this way, wind and solar are renewable, relatively efficient, and pretty darn cost-effective. I think that makes them a superior option.