As a former USN reactor operator, and former employee in the industry after my service, I know a little about the issues related to power production. What most of us overlook when discussing the current methods of producing power vs. the alternate methods, there is one very big item not often considered.
The absolutely most effective thing we can do is to stop wasting it.
Conservation of power will do more than all the alternative methods combined toward the effort of having enough power to satisfy our future needs, AND it is almost all low tech! I took a college class some time back that discussed these issues, and that was the final determination after a whole semester of discussion/study.
Back in the 70's and since, Detroit was told by congress to make our cars burn cleaner, get better fuel efficiency, and be safer. The auto makers screamed, then whined, then complained, but finally put their heads together and did it. This is not an invitation for any of you old car nuts (includes me) to say that their 1953 Hupmobile is better than todays cars, spare us that.
If the same effort was applied next to our houses, we would reduce the need for future power plants enough to pay for the effort. A lot has been accomplished, but the computer models used by utility companies are often based on consumption, not conservation. The larger home builders go part way down the energy-wise road, but it is superficial, and sometimes an outright lie. You have to build a custom home to get a builder to do this kind of thing.
Tax credits enacted during the Carter administration (I think) were based on the dollar amount spent, which was inflationary of course! There was little incentive toward making the solar home/water systems cheap, or durable.
I believe that there is legislation being considered now that would have the tax credits based on performance, and that should work to get the industry started.
I know a LOT about this and hope to build our retirement home using passive solar methods with lots of internal mass storage built in such a way that the casual observer won't even notice it. My goal is to have the electric company employees pulling their hair out trying to determine why their meter shows so little usage of thier product.
Anybody else out there into this?

It's not clear what you want to debate. This looks like you reposted the same post from the nuclear energy thread.

Please PM me with a clear question to debate so that I may reopen this.

Question to debate:




Bill- if I didn't get that quite right, PM me & I'll fix it

yes, but the big hurdle thier would be to get people to one care about it, that in turn could be used to black mail companies if you will into change. the impact on new equipment being designed would have to take this into effect, i always wondered why the lightbulb for some reason cant do what it does on lower juice but you also have to take into what is sensibel in this, that could be another good selling point, maybe home excersise machines that generate watts.

Pulte Homes is currently advertising their energy sense homes in Houston. Guaranteeing electrical bills under $60 a month. In Houston that is pretty cheap. Radiant barriers, double paned windows, ridge vents, window tints, more effficient A/C and heating systems are available, and usually have a relatively quick payback period. Homebuyers need to look at the total costs of living in a home, not just the mortgage payment.

What has always baffled me is the poor spread of solar technology. The cost of installing solar panels on the roof of a house is under $3,000 and they pay for themselves extremely quickly. In an area like Houston or LA if even 15% of the homes were to have them the savings would be extraordinary.

Do you mean solar electric? This is an alternative method of producing, but it still fosters consumption, it adds little to actual conservation. One of the considerations when the class discussed the Alternate Energy methods was the contribution to pollution. Overall expense per KWH was the ultimate consideration, but handlling the raw materials and processing the waste products are a big part of that. Once electric solar panels are made, there is no pollution, but the mining, processing, refining, disposing of waste byproducts, etc. of some of the materials used to manufacture the cells is very polluting. The company I used to work for used them a lot for remote communications sites. An additional problem was theft of the panels!
Likewise batteries if used with solar panels, they are very polluting to make and dispose of. At least solar cells have a fairly long life, battery technology still has a long way to go.

I think we should conserve energy, no matter where it comes from.

as to whether conservation a viable alternative to finding alternative energy sources, I don't think so. the oil that is RECOVERABLE cannot last forever. it WILL run out, so will all fossil fuels, eventually. al conservation will do is instead of running out in lets say 5 years, it would run out in 15. using less fossil fuels still pumps large amopunts of hydrocarbons into the air, which are not fun to breath in. (CO2 isn't that big a deal, earth itself expells more than we do)

we should be looking at alternative sources of energy, such as methane hydrate, "shipstones" (motionless electromagnetic generators) or the most immediatly viable, liquid hydrogen from water (using wind turbines for initial energy for electrolisys. after which it can power natural gas power stations) whatever we do we should try to find something that is highly renewable, if not endless.