Non-Toxic Energy Sources and Storage

Energy is the main driver of cost for all goods and services, as well as the main barrier to escaping poverty and starvation.

There are many applications in which traditional energy sources are unlikely to be replaced in the near future with anything efficient and reliable enough to make much of a difference but in a lot of cases I think it could be…

I would like to see the government focusing grant money towards alternative energy and energy storage inventions. HHO generators, hydroelectric generation for personal use, kinetic energy capture, nuclear energy, etc.

Anything that works towards making energy cleaner cheaper and more accessible without reliance toxic substances from foreign sources. The monopoly on energy by world superpowers and mega corporations is the largest barrier to freedom for the people.
That same group has endless funds in which to lobby for and litigate people into oblivion for acting against their interests. Trading gasoline engines for lithium EVs is a lateral move that only serves to shift power and control to a new party, it is not in fact better for the environment, it’s even less affordable, and buying those EVs is unconscionable if one looks at the labor practices that go into creating them.

A government of policies for the people would focus on this, no mega corporation or country should have a monopoly on energy sources. Breaking up that dependence on a sole source and moving to self sufficient devices would be best for the people and a free society.

Thoughts, comments, concerns, discourse please?

1 Like

Nuclear energy is far from being green or cheap.

“The U.S. produces as much as 160,000 cubic feet (4,530 cubic meters) of radioactive material from its nuclear power plants annually—a number that spikes higher dramatically when old nuclear plants are decommissioned … Ranging from workers’ coveralls to water filters, some of this stream of nuclear waste no longer has a place for its disposal either—particularly the highly radioactive materials rated as classes B and C, such as reactor vessel heads. “That stuff has only one place it can go,” says Ralph Andersen, chief health physicist at NEI, “a deep geologic repository,” like Yucca Mountain.”
Spent Nuclear Fuel: A Trash Heap Deadly for 250,000 Years or a Renewable Energy Source?

The Staggering Timescales Of Nuclear Waste Disposal

“This most potent form of nuclear waste, according to some, needs to be safely stored for up to a million years. Yes, 1 million years

How would you feel if you were living in the year 5000 something, and you have to keep maintaining the safety and toxicity of all the radioactive waste dumps from the selfish people who enjoyed “cheap and green” power for a few years during the 2000s?

The answer to this is to create reactors that can run off of the waste materials generated from larger utility scale plants. https://www.fastcompany.com/3043099/this-nuclear-reactor-eats-nuclear-waste

I’m with you there, I hadn’t read through that particular company’s details before but there are at least 3 different companies in progress on similar concepts for a better reactor design. At least one has gotten permits for a build at either oak ridge or los Alamos (I am an engineer in the nuclear waste field) but my issue or complaint perhaps with current policy was the budget cuts to that sector of energy by DOE. They cut funding for nuclear by 12%, and the grant allocations are almost all for ‘renewable energy initiatives’ in the solar, wind, and EV sector which are far from environmentally friendly in reality. It’s illogical to me…

Yeah I know, there’s so much energy potential here that it doesn’t justify the cuts. Solar and wind aren’t exactly fully “green” either since you have the blade waste for wind and the disposal fees with solar. Though there are ways to recycle solar materials with great efficiency it’s still not cheap. And the decay rate even with spent fuel is far longer in terms of operational life.