[Golden Legacy]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080214/ap_on_...f_stream_energy

This is an absolutely genius idea for alternative energy. Great read.

[Eugine]

Are the 'liberals' for it? If yes, then it is terrible. If not, then it's awesome! [/end sarcasm]

Yeah. It's great to see different sources of energy. This is actually a great source of energy for coastal areas and islands.

[Golden Legacy]

Ha, amusing Eugine.

Indeed, this could prove very useful. Not necessarily as the primary source of energy, but definitely as a "part of the energy mix" for alternative energy. I also like this point that's made for developing nations:

... and could be used to great advantage off the coasts of Third World countries, where entire towns have no connection to electrical grids ...

[Eugine]

Yeah! I was thinking this would be awesome for the Caribbean, since we wouldn't have to depend on Venezuela's oil! Plus, it would be sustainable!

http://wps.prenhall.com/wps/media/tmp/labe...2131168_dyn.jpg

If you watch this picture we access the Gulf Steam, and also another stream from the Atlantic ocean.

[Toasty]

.eugine, on Feb 14 2008, 03:03 PM, said:

Are the 'liberals' for it? If yes, then it is terrible. If not, then it's awesome! [/end sarcasm]

Yeah. It's great to see different sources of energy. This is actually a great source of energy for coastal areas and islands.

I could care less if the Liberals are for it or against it. I care more about whether this will hurt or help our economy and keep us from funding our enemies.

Truth be told, I've known about this for quite some time. There's been many other devices that have been proposed in the past, but so far this one seems to be the most efficient. Still, even though it's more efficient, it's still impractical. Nuclear fusion/fission is still the most abundant and energy dense resource we have. I just don't see why we have to put more R&D into alternative fuels/energy sources when the answer to our problems is right under our noses.

[Platinum Sun]

Same reason as before. Liberals, environmentalists... and other lower forms of life.

[Folcon]

this is kinda of cool. I hope it works out.

[Golden Legacy]

Toasty, on Feb 14 2008, 08:34 PM, said:

I could care less if the Liberals are for it or against it. I care more about whether this will hurt or help our economy and keep us from funding our enemies.

Truth be told, I've known about this for quite some time. There's been many other devices that have been proposed in the past, but so far this one seems to be the most efficient. Still, even though it's more efficient, it's still impractical. Nuclear fusion/fission is still the most abundant and energy dense resource we have. I just don't see why we have to put more R&D into alternative fuels/energy sources when the answer to our problems is right under our noses.

This is something I'm not understanding - why rely on just one source? How can it be bad to have a number of alternative fuels at our disposable? They may not all be efficient on their own, but they all add up, and missing out on an opportunity to utilize a constant and steady supply of energy, no matter how much, is impractical.

At any rate, I wonder if there are other such currents worldwide that can be used as such? The Gulf Stream is supposed to be the most prevalent, but there are certainly others. Eugine, do you know which ones from the map you posted have more water volume flow?

[Toasty]

It's not bad to have numerous energy sources. But how about we put more research into making things that we know work, work better and more efficiently? Everything from electic producing dams like the Gand Coule (lolsp?) to nuclear power plants can be improved, and we KNOW they work and produce a LOT of electricity without taking up dozens of square miles of either land or water.

I actually think that it wouldn't be a bad idea to put a solar panel on the roof every home. Unfortunately, solar panels STILL aren't exactly cheap, and they still don't produce enough electricity to be practical unless we designate a decent amount of land to put them on. Even then, places more towards the north aren't going to get as much sun as places closer to the equator.

I've actually got a few designs for (possibly) better (or worse, dunno) wind and water turbines that could be used instead of what we use now. Though I have no way to test them or render them into 3D models to be tested.

Why not research more efficient turbines for the dams? Or even more efficient designs for electricity generating windmills? Though personally, I'd really, REALLY like to see more research into helium3 based nuclear reactors. They'll be able to produce even more electricity than what we currently use. Plus, no radioactive waste, and the reactions generate electric currents themselves, so there's practically no loss in energy from the transition between the reaction and the electric current. It's a REALLY efficient way to get electricity.

The only problem with the helium3 thing, though, is that we'd need to mine for it on the moon. It's not very abundant on earth due to earth's magnetic field, which repels most of the helium3 that the sun produces.

[Sea of Time]

At the very least, this idea is smarter than that of using ethanol as a primary source for fuel. The demand for corn is high enough in the US and its providers, why increase demand for an alternative fuel that isn't necessarily that much safer?

[Laharl]

i;m curious how they didnt think this up when they invented hydroelectricity. Scientists are SMRT.

it also amuses me Toasty links this with terrorists, better be careful Poseidon'll put a jihad on you