Conferences Series Events
SPACE   |   EVOLUTION   |   PHYSICS   |   SOCIAL SCIENCES   |   NATURAL SCIENCES   |   DNA   |   PSYCHOLOGY   |   BIOTECH   |   MEDICINE   |   ANTHROPOLOGY   |   ASTRONOMY
INTERNET   |   NEW MEDIA   |   START-UPS   |   PERSONAL TECHNOLOGY   |   WIRELESS   |   COMPUTING   |   ENGINEERING   |   CEOS
RELIGION   |   GAMING   |   FILM   |   FASHION   |   SEX   |   PHILOSOPHY   |   EDUCATION   |   HISTORY   |   ARTS   |   MUSIC   |   TRAVEL   |   PHOTOGRAPHY
Watch Now

2050: A Hypothetical Future

2
Likes
0
Dislikes
RATE
8,688 Views

  • Info
  • Bio
  • Chapters
  • Highlights
  • Transcript
  • Download
  • More
Please or register to post a comment.

Wolfrich Avatar
Wolfrich
Posts: 11
Posted: 01.11.11, 09:16 PM
First of all, nuclear power plants are far from being safe. There are around 7 incidents per years in Europe. The fact that most of them go unnoticed doesn't mean that they are not happening. Energy providers do not want you to know about it. Forsmark in Sweden was shut down 3 minutes before meltdown. And they have been very fortunate that auxilliary power came to life 3 minutes before it was too late. Until today, the engineers don't know, why the aux-power at Forsmark has restarted. This is the ingenuity by which hyper-dangerous technology is run.

Have you ever considered to ask for WHAT the power is used? We are wasting 80& of it to fill the wallets of the power providers. Around 70% gets of the energy gets lost on its way to transformation. Light, cooking ovens, heating systems, air condition, etc. All build in a way to waste as much energy as possible.

Another point is the energy-intense processing of uranium. Nobody seems to take the energy into account when talking about the efficiency of uranium fuel. In my opinion 50% of the energy bound to a uranium pellets (around 20 tons of coal) has been invested to create the pellet. Nobody mentions that.

Last but not least the uranium reserves would barely cover 2050's demands, because all effectively extractable uranium will be gone by 2040.

Geo-thermal is the way to go. The earth provides power in our reach in zetawatts dimension. One year of our planets heat in the upper crust would provide fuel for 7 billion people and for 10,000 years. And you can harvest it everywhere on the planet, making villages and cities independent from energy delivered from outside. This is what I call modern.
Wolfrich Avatar
Wolfrich
Posts: 11
Posted: 01.11.11, 08:48 PM
I agree with you. Given the ancient technology of using steam, nuclear power plants are not modern. Safety regulations are embarrassingly blind to 80% of possible failures.

Our inability to cope with the consequences of a disaster is the second problem. A third issue is the imposibility to store nuclear waste for 200 million years in a safe place. Nobody knows what political circumstances will pop up within the next 5 years. How could one know what will happen in 500 or 10,000 years? Anyone who claims to know that nuclear waste dumps are safe is simply mad.

If one want to heat water it'd be much cheaper and safer to use geo-thermal energy. There is a reactor in the core of our planet. Why not using this one? Geothermal energy also makes the transport of energy via cross-conutry lines obsolete. Each city or village can have its own power plant. The exhaust consists of water-steam. No radioactivity, no fire, no danger. In my opinion there is absolutely no case for nuclear power. Nuclear power plants is a male madness. They just want to have it - at any price.
Annalee Halkett Avatar
Annalee Halkett
Posts: 1
Posted: 07.09.10, 02:38 PM
Actually, modern nuclear power plants are quite safe. All new plants are designed so that they are incapable of the kind of spectacular failures they are associated with in the public perception.

However, I would agree that we don't need nuclear power, since conventional renewable sources can more than meet energy demand, and a combination of different technologies allows stable baseload power to be maintained.

There are a lot of interesting ideas in this programme, but nanotechnology and human-applied biotechnology were conspicuous by their absence. Plus, it seems like a device that could interface globally with the nervous system would have deep implications in other fields, not least in artificial intelligence and reverse-engineering of the human brain.

A resurgance of religious fundamentalism seems peculiar, especially since free flow of information has been seen to encourage non-religious and liberally religious viewpoints.
Carol Moore Avatar
Carol Moore
Posts: 7
Posted: 05.23.10, 02:19 PM
I disagree about having nuclear power for the future. The power plants age, and they can have accidents that affect the planet world wide with radiation. So, let the young people develop a safe and sustainable technology. And as far as women being better educated throughout the world, that is great, but not to reduce world population. The men are the ones who should get vasectomies or take pills to slow down their swimming sperm which are the ones that impregnates the egg. The collapse itself, rather than nature, will come by the electrosmog pollution and the diseases it causes to all living things. Best...natural, organic foods, make sure that chip is not a metal, as then you will become EHS presenatly due to the radiation from non-ionizing radiation. A lot of the concepts are interesting for the year 2050...but ask the younger generation for their ideas please.
merany Avatar
merany
Posts: 4
Posted: 01.12.10, 08:49 AM
What a pile of trash! Be very careful when people automatically assume that more humans equals devastation and misery. Humans are now seen in the west as a virus that needs to be erradicated, the problem is that Africa has the fastest growing poulation so they will be the first to get a bullet in the head not the west.
Advertisement
NO ADS + DOWNLOADS + HQ VIEWING
UPGRADE TO FORA.tv PLUS
Advertisement