It has no valid argument as towards retorting against my claim so therefor it is spam, and trolling..

Why can you not rebuttal my claims in an adult like manor, and provide substantiated proof of the theory of relativity, so you can 'win' in the argument?

And to publicly announce that you're 'ignoring' me is spam as well.. It doesn't add anything to the thread, and honestly kind of shows the whole site that you wont stick by what you believe...

I'm still waiting for you who claim the theory (because that's all it is, theory not Law) is correct and to provide examples as to why it must be true and that IS how everything works.

Edit: Annnnd good way to go back through and edit your post. Great debate tactics!

Please get back on topic, or there will be locks and warns aplenty. This is about solar energy, not about who's dumb, who's smart, who's the more tactful debater, etc.

All renewable energy, solar, wind, tidal has some fatal flaws, obviously the sun isn't always shining and the wind isn't always blowing, so it wouldn't sustain us completely. I think the main point is to lessen the load on fossil fuels.
I don't know why we don't go nuclear. Oh wait, yes I do.

Lessening the load on fossil fuels is not enough. As long as we continue to burn fossil fuels the problem of global climate change will get worse. We need to develop with the goal of ceasing emissions, because only then will we be able to reverse our folly.

The only reason I can see is baseless fear. Modern nuclear power plants kill less people probabilistically then coal power plants do. Coal power plant emissions kill thousands in the united states alone each year.

Things that affect the climate have been on this planet since the beginning. Natural Forest Fires is a prime example.

One Phrase says it all: Nuclear Meltdown

That kills more than Coal power plants, and devastates a region for years to come.

I don't think its necessarily fear, more so current technological struggles to solidify nuclear technology.. Meaning, making it stable enough to not cause a nuclear meltdown; ever.

In my opinion solar power is not the future. I used to believe that we would advance to create much more efficient solar cells and requiring much less space, meaning that we would create cells that could be added to building exterior materials generating their own required energy and be as stand-alone as it could possibly get. Materials such as concrete additives or mixtures in paint or even the super-awesome solar cells in a really thin material that could be used to cover and create better looking facades, but then I realised that it would take way more time.
I was looking this discovery channel documentary about ideas to "save" the planet. Producing those cells would take at least 20 years for them to reach at least 55% efficiency and counting on that we advance in nanotechnology a lot more just for them to be created.
There are far better systems which are more reliable to "whenever the sun shines" since that's the main idea of solar powering.

There's a certain material which is able to generate power just by you stepping on it and it has already been developed. We could develop it more and cover all of the sidewalks with them on the biggest cities, of course this would almost in no way create the required energy to power that entire city but it would help on creating it reducing the need of other powering systems. People will always need to walk and get to other places so this will make this idea to work non-stop unlike solar energy that requires the weather to be in a perfect condition to work at its full capability.
There's also other ideas such as this "bracelet-like" that you wear and with the power of folding and moving your arms (elbow articulation) or legs it could generate a little ammount of energy. This could be implemented in clothing and you could generate the required power to run, small, but multiplied by a long quantity it doesn't sound that bad, things like your mp3 player, your cell phone, your psp, ds and more small things.

re: Corbo, ya I don't have anything against renewable energy sources. Any fashion of harvesting or recycling energy that doesn't pollute is great. The only problem is when people think renewable energy sources are a realistic alternative to fossil fuels and government money/effort gets thrown into those sorts of technologies, instead of into nuclear power, a power source that actually has the potential to replace fossil fuels.

I would think sidewalk power would be way too costly to implement unless the energy gain was massive.
As far as human movement creating energy, I would think that is doomed to failure as energy needs to be constant to actually power devices. I don't see anything we could do in normal movement to generate enough energy.

Yeah. And profit agendas on fossil fuels. Which is why we will exist on fossil fuels until they are gone .

@Kellimus - The Chernobyl No. 4 meltdown killed 57 people. The worst meltdown ever. The worst meltdown in North America, three mile island, killed no one.

I'd say it's pretty damn safe.

Also, @http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction#The_interactions

Bam. Gravity is a fundamental force.

At the time of meltdown, yes. But how many have been infected by the radioactivity??

4,000, among the 600,000 who were exposed, died of cancer which could be linked to Chernobyl. That's still not even very definite and in the larger scope of things, not really that bad. And even so, Chernobyl isn't even a good example of what could happen with nuclear power since that nuclear reactor was poorly built by the standards during the time. In fact, that seems to be one of our problems now is that we can't really progress with nuclear power because of fearful and ignorant organizations, so we're stuck with outdated nuclear plants.

Yeah, Oil companies.

Well, not just oil companies; I don't think they're truly as worried about nuclear power as some radical environmentalists who carry a lot of misconceptions. They're already raking in billions from a dwindling resource; so I think if anything, the oil company leaders will turn to nuclear power or some other energy source when oil runs out, but that won't be for a while.

Hmm.. Good point. You're probably correct as well

Not everyone agrees on that matter.

Tidal power is actually consistent, unlike wind and solar.



Ah, okay, this answered my question. Tidal power does have entropy. Though, in billions upon billions of years when the Earth stops spinning, would the Moon get it spinning again in the opposite direction? Or would an equilibrium be met?

Yay an Astronomy question.

Over billions of years, the Earths' rotation will continue to slow but will always remain in motion in the same direction (barring the massive impact of a huge celestial body). Luna will eventually leave Earth's gravity well, leaving earth to spin ever so slowly until its either engulfed by the Sun or its particles decay in trillions of years.

No, at the time of the meltdown, 2 people were killed, and the other 55 were from radiation poisoning.

@SCWizard, I'm obviously not counting cancer due to fallout that killed much much later, because everything causes cancer.


Precisely. It was built poorly, blew up, and is the worst possible outcome of a nuclear event.

If America would allow breeder nuclear plants, it'd have much less waste than normal nuclear powerplants, however, since they can be used to make nuclear weapons more easily, they've been banned..

You forgot to mention that NO ONE (except for maybe the few life risking maniacs) lives in Chernobyl. The entire city is deserted because of the fallout. The same thing can happen if any other nuclear reactor near cities decides to go boom.

Also, I'll say this again: THE US WILL NOT GO NUCLEAR ENERGY.