The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Humans are using the worlds energy resources in a way no other animal has ever done. We use then to provide light and heating in our homes, to plough the land, to cook our food, to travel, to run our factories and in countless other ways. Whether we are rural workers in a developing country or urban workers in an industrial country, we all need energy, although the sources of the energy and the amounts vary greatly from one society to another.
There are different forms or types of energy. Fuels such as coal, oil (petroleum) and wood contain chemical energy. When these fuels are burnt the chemical energy changes to heat energy and light energy. Electicity is the most important form of energy in the industrial world, becuase it can be transported over long distances via cables and transmission lines. It is also a very convenient form of energy, since it can power a wide range of appliances and industrial machinery. it is produced by converting the chemical energy from coal, oil or natuarla gas in power stations.
Energy resources fall into two broad categories; renewable and nonrenewable. Renewable resources are those which replenish themselves naturally and will either be available always- for example hydroelectric power or will continue to be provided supplies are given sufficient time to replenish themselves.
Non renewable resources are those which there are limited supplies ofone once used up will be gone forever; these include coal, oil, natural gas and uranium.
Coal, oil and natural gas are called fossil fuels because they are the fossilized remains of plants and animals that lived hundreds of millions of years ago. Burning fossil fuels releases chemicals which gradually increase the CO2 concentration in our atmosphere causing global warming.
Oil is the largest energy source in the world and over half of the worlds known oil reserves are in the middles east. Future use will depend on shift from growing to declining supply. Coal is the most plentiful fossil fuel, coal use is growing resulting in icreased acid rain and carbon dioxide problems. Natural gas is likely to replace oil in a number of uses. Uneven distibution and transportation difficulties make it useful to only a few nations.
However what if these reserves ran out sooner than we imagined? Well we have a few tricks up our sleeves to keep energy readily available. Firstly we could use nuclear power, once hailed as the answer to the worlds energy needs, rising costs and public mistrust have hampered its progress. One teaspoon of uranium can generate enough energy when fissioned as 220 tonnes of good quality coal, minus the greenhouse gases.
We could use solar energy, recent years have seen massive increase in investment in technologies to make use of the suns's energy, however solar cells are not exactly efficient and many would need to be erected to sustain energy needs, this would damage landscapes and ecosystems. The suns energy also drives wind and waves, so energy from wind farms is also derived from the sun.
Falling water generates about 25% of the worlds electricity. The most mature of the alternative energy sources, and one of the most underexploited. Energy can also be gained from water from wave power, tidal power, current power and ocean thermal energy conversion.
The contribution solar, wave, tidal and geothermal power can make to the worlds energy resources is currently limited. This is because renewable energy depends on new ways of capturing and concentrating it. Furthermore renewable energy is not always available when needed, rivers can dry up and the wind does not always blow. it is clear that in the future, demand for energy will be higher than at present, because of population growth and increased industrialization. Furthermore, the energy available must be at reasonable cost to avoid limiting economic growth.
In principle, known resources of nonrenewable energy should be sufficient for several hundred years to come. At the present rate of consumtion oil reserves should last for 40 years, gas reserves for 60 and coal for 250 years. Uranium however if used in fast breeder reactors would last for more than 1,000 years. It is also likely however that more fossil fuel reserves will be found as time goes on.
However in practice the outlook is uncertain. Increasing concern about pollution from coal fired power stations may make it unacceptable in the future. One alternative is to make greater use of nuclear power, moving to fast reactors and then developing nuclear fusion plants which would mimic the power producion process of the sun. however anxiety about safety and waste disposal is already limiting the use of nuclear power, so it is unlikely to provide the answer for the future.
There is considerable room for development in the use of renewable resources; but most of the world's energy production based on nonrenewable fuel supplies, the widespread introduction of efficient renewable energy will require a complete restructuring of the ways we produce energy.
Thanks for reading (what turned out to be a slightly longer than planned topic).
There are different forms or types of energy. Fuels such as coal, oil (petroleum) and wood contain chemical energy. When these fuels are burnt the chemical energy changes to heat energy and light energy. Electicity is the most important form of energy in the industrial world, becuase it can be transported over long distances via cables and transmission lines. It is also a very convenient form of energy, since it can power a wide range of appliances and industrial machinery. it is produced by converting the chemical energy from coal, oil or natuarla gas in power stations.
Energy resources fall into two broad categories; renewable and nonrenewable. Renewable resources are those which replenish themselves naturally and will either be available always- for example hydroelectric power or will continue to be provided supplies are given sufficient time to replenish themselves.
Non renewable resources are those which there are limited supplies ofone once used up will be gone forever; these include coal, oil, natural gas and uranium.
Coal, oil and natural gas are called fossil fuels because they are the fossilized remains of plants and animals that lived hundreds of millions of years ago. Burning fossil fuels releases chemicals which gradually increase the CO2 concentration in our atmosphere causing global warming.
Oil is the largest energy source in the world and over half of the worlds known oil reserves are in the middles east. Future use will depend on shift from growing to declining supply. Coal is the most plentiful fossil fuel, coal use is growing resulting in icreased acid rain and carbon dioxide problems. Natural gas is likely to replace oil in a number of uses. Uneven distibution and transportation difficulties make it useful to only a few nations.
However what if these reserves ran out sooner than we imagined? Well we have a few tricks up our sleeves to keep energy readily available. Firstly we could use nuclear power, once hailed as the answer to the worlds energy needs, rising costs and public mistrust have hampered its progress. One teaspoon of uranium can generate enough energy when fissioned as 220 tonnes of good quality coal, minus the greenhouse gases.
We could use solar energy, recent years have seen massive increase in investment in technologies to make use of the suns's energy, however solar cells are not exactly efficient and many would need to be erected to sustain energy needs, this would damage landscapes and ecosystems. The suns energy also drives wind and waves, so energy from wind farms is also derived from the sun.
Falling water generates about 25% of the worlds electricity. The most mature of the alternative energy sources, and one of the most underexploited. Energy can also be gained from water from wave power, tidal power, current power and ocean thermal energy conversion.
The contribution solar, wave, tidal and geothermal power can make to the worlds energy resources is currently limited. This is because renewable energy depends on new ways of capturing and concentrating it. Furthermore renewable energy is not always available when needed, rivers can dry up and the wind does not always blow. it is clear that in the future, demand for energy will be higher than at present, because of population growth and increased industrialization. Furthermore, the energy available must be at reasonable cost to avoid limiting economic growth.
In principle, known resources of nonrenewable energy should be sufficient for several hundred years to come. At the present rate of consumtion oil reserves should last for 40 years, gas reserves for 60 and coal for 250 years. Uranium however if used in fast breeder reactors would last for more than 1,000 years. It is also likely however that more fossil fuel reserves will be found as time goes on.
However in practice the outlook is uncertain. Increasing concern about pollution from coal fired power stations may make it unacceptable in the future. One alternative is to make greater use of nuclear power, moving to fast reactors and then developing nuclear fusion plants which would mimic the power producion process of the sun. however anxiety about safety and waste disposal is already limiting the use of nuclear power, so it is unlikely to provide the answer for the future.
There is considerable room for development in the use of renewable resources; but most of the world's energy production based on nonrenewable fuel supplies, the widespread introduction of efficient renewable energy will require a complete restructuring of the ways we produce energy.
Thanks for reading (what turned out to be a slightly longer than planned topic).
Page:
===SONICRAV---> wrote:
> Which means that either: We are better at combatting radiation
> biologically than thought.
An interesting possibility, as it was 16 years since the incident is it possible that the continued levels of radiation have somehow generated a partial immunity?
> Which means that either: We are better at combatting radiation
> biologically than thought.
An interesting possibility, as it was 16 years since the incident is it possible that the continued levels of radiation have somehow generated a partial immunity?
VenomByte wrote:
> Why post your science essay on the forum?
LOL its not a science essay. I was going to talk about alternatives to fossil fuels when it all got a bit out of hand.
> Why post your science essay on the forum?
LOL its not a science essay. I was going to talk about alternatives to fossil fuels when it all got a bit out of hand.
Oddly enough, have you seen chernobyl recently? It's FULL of life! Outside the plant, cows (by the thousands) graze happily, and inside the plant there live rats that should, by scientific studies of the past, be dead from the radiation levels- they live INSIDE the reactor core!
There are also masses of other animals and flowers, and the area is soon to be a nature reserve! People are going to have to pay to go there! (For short times).
There are even people living in areas of high radiation still, and they're fine!
Which means that either: We are better at combatting radiation biologically than thought, OR radiation isn't as harmful as thought.
Mind you, the initial fallout of thoron and the like did cause massive damage, but once these broke down, leaving other radioactive substances, there have been almost no cases caused as a result of the lasting radiation. Odd really!
There are also masses of other animals and flowers, and the area is soon to be a nature reserve! People are going to have to pay to go there! (For short times).
There are even people living in areas of high radiation still, and they're fine!
Which means that either: We are better at combatting radiation biologically than thought, OR radiation isn't as harmful as thought.
Mind you, the initial fallout of thoron and the like did cause massive damage, but once these broke down, leaving other radioactive substances, there have been almost no cases caused as a result of the lasting radiation. Odd really!
Why post your science essay on the forum?
Well a new power source is gonna happen someday.
I am betting on an exploitation of the suns rays some of you have suggested, though if scientists continue to exploit the elements it is highly likely an all new power source will emerge.
I am betting on an exploitation of the suns rays some of you have suggested, though if scientists continue to exploit the elements it is highly likely an all new power source will emerge.
RastaBillySkank wrote:
> Cernobyl
Chernobyl
> Cernobyl
Chernobyl
===SONICRAV---> wrote:
Already, France is
> mostly nuclear powerred.
33% nuclear powered.
> Oh, and nuclear is a lot cleaner than people seem to think. The ONLY
> biproduct is nuclear waste... and that can easily be dumped in
> radioactively sheilded containers.
Yup, the only reason everyone is so skeptic about it is because of Cernobyl, but what they have to remember is that was a soddy plant with shoddy equipment and shoddy maintenence.
Already, France is
> mostly nuclear powerred.
33% nuclear powered.
> Oh, and nuclear is a lot cleaner than people seem to think. The ONLY
> biproduct is nuclear waste... and that can easily be dumped in
> radioactively sheilded containers.
Yup, the only reason everyone is so skeptic about it is because of Cernobyl, but what they have to remember is that was a soddy plant with shoddy equipment and shoddy maintenence.
I agree that nuclear power should already be the default power source for the developed countries which can afford it, but you have to think about the bigger picture. If a terrorist were to sabotage such a structure there would be extensive immeadiate and long term consequencies.
Well, the immediate future will be nuclear without a doubt. As good as wind and solar power are, to get the same amount of energy as a nuclear reactor required hundreds of square miles! Already, France is mostly nuclear powerred.
Oh, and nuclear is a lot cleaner than people seem to think. The ONLY biproduct is nuclear waste... and that can easily be dumped in radioactively sheilded containers.
In the long term though, we'll have to do better. What I think will happen is that, over time, wind farms (in this country at least) will be built to take some strain off nuclear plants. But these can never replace them. What will be needed is for fission, or something akin to this, to be discoverred. And that won't happen for at least 200 years... if ever...
Sonic
Oh, and nuclear is a lot cleaner than people seem to think. The ONLY biproduct is nuclear waste... and that can easily be dumped in radioactively sheilded containers.
In the long term though, we'll have to do better. What I think will happen is that, over time, wind farms (in this country at least) will be built to take some strain off nuclear plants. But these can never replace them. What will be needed is for fission, or something akin to this, to be discoverred. And that won't happen for at least 200 years... if ever...
Sonic
I thought of a way to get energy, two actually.
First one... get a massive magnifying glass and put it in space then direct using satalites or something to a point on earth where the heat could boil water, turning turbines... dada.
Other is to microwave metal as it causes sparks which generate heat, boiling water.
Althought those suck and I like the solar farms in space, indeed.
First one... get a massive magnifying glass and put it in space then direct using satalites or something to a point on earth where the heat could boil water, turning turbines... dada.
Other is to microwave metal as it causes sparks which generate heat, boiling water.
Althought those suck and I like the solar farms in space, indeed.
Page: