Power plant based on environment power such as wind power, water power, etc. doesn’t mean it is greener then nuclear technology. As being research by Jesse Ausubel from Rockefeller University, New York, She claimed that building wind power also require environment sacrifice, in the meaning of area of those power plant to be build are more destructive to environment if you compare it to nuclear power plant.

Based on amount and capacity and also the output of power are less then what produce by nuclear power plant. And of course it would be less destructive to the environment using nuclear power plant then others, but you should noted that the data taken when nuclear power are in cool situation, no leaks that cause radiation, etc.

Ausubel has analyzed the amount of energy sourced from renewable energy to produce a few watts of electrical power, will use land per 1 square meter. He also compares the destruction of nature by renewables with the demand for space nuclear power plants. Nuclear energy is environmentally friendly. Consider the electric power generated from an area of ​​1 square meter, nuclear has the advantage that is not owned renewable energy.

According to him, renewable energy has no advantages from economies of scale. The greater the electrical power generated, the more area of land is also required.

He also pointed Hypothetically flooding the entire province of Ontario in Canada, covering an area of approximately 900,000 square km, with its entire 680,000 billion liters of rainfall, and then store them in a 60-meter-high dam, will only generate 80% of the total electrical power generated by 25 power plants in Canada.

In conclusion, although uranium also require more resources to dig, more budget to spend, and environment sacrifice, but yet it is the best solution to decrease the destruction of environment than using other similar power plant.

Nuclear power plants do not take up much space. This allows them to be placed in locations that have been developed and the power can not be transferred over long distances. It does not pollute with a very direct way. It is cleaner than other forms of energy production. This refers to the emission of greenhouse gases being released into the atmosphere. Other advantages of nuclear power is that nuclear energy is by far the most concentrated form of energy, so it can be produced in large quantities over short periods of time.

The possibilities for great long-term production because of the new reactor, which can be expensive when the old one obsolete. Oil and other fossil fuel types tend to run out at some point. One of the most significant benefits of nuclear energy is that nuclear plants will produce energy even after coal and oil become scarce. Thus, nuclear plants play a major role in energy production.

A ton of uranium could produce more power then burning fuel from fossil or coal in the same amount. And of course pollution that are worried are less with nuclear technology. That is the benefit, but what about the lost?

Compared to coal and oil, nuclear energy is by far the most concentrated form of energy. One major disadvantage is that the explosion of nuclear energy produces nuclear radiation, radiation is detrimental to cells of the body that can make humans sick or even cause their death. The disease can occur years or hitting people after they were exposed to nuclear radiation.

People who are susceptible to disease and even years after they were exposed to nuclear radiation. High levels of radioactivity emitted from nuclear energy is very dangerous. Once released, it lasts for tens of thousands of years before decaying to a safe level. So it is pretty destructive when it leaks, the recent issues also occurs in Japan as the cause of tsunami strike on nuclear power plant.

Some sources also claimed that nuclear power only last around 40-50 years, so its a bit risky, but saving lots of budget during the time.

Speaking of bio ethanol, currently we do know that ethanol are commonly produced from corn process, or sugar cane process. But how about diesel fuel? it could be get from jatropha oil. Why Jatropha, because in some countries jatropha are available in big numbers, and previously being used as city decoration or green area purpose only.

Jatropha (Jatropha curcas L) which is a bush plant family Euphorbiaceae. Within five months of drought resistant plant that is starting to bear fruit, earning a full time five years old, and reach 50 years of productivity lives.

The fruit can not be consumed because it can cause poisoning. People in rural areas often make use of this plant to treat a bowel obstruction in children under five years old (toddlers) or eliminate dental pain with distance tree sap dripping into a hollow tooth.

Jatropha oil could replace petroleum diesel to power generators. Because jatropha can be grown in almost all regions in Indonesia, the castor oil helps generate electrical energy to remote locations and this oil can be produced by the community that require electricity.

The process making of the oil is not too complicated and could be done by anyone with proper equipment, lets find out how:
* Steam the pieces for an hour distance.
* Then, the fruit meat could be destroyed with blender.
* After that, the fruit flesh and seeds that have been destroyed inserted into the forging machine oil.
* With an emphasis hydraulic jack, pulp squeezed to produce oil.

Every 10 pounds of crushed castor beans to produce 3.5 liters of castor oil as a diesel substitute. This oil intangibles such as cooking oil, which is thick, smooth, and the smell is not noticeable.

Loss of use of fossil fuels is in addition to damaging the environment, as well as non-renewable and unsustainable. Fossil fuels are getting depleted and soon the fuel itself will run out. Now its time for looking for alternative energy out there.

An alternative energy from seawater could be applied, especially in country with lots of sea as one of their resources. Basically seawater not only producing food, but also fuels. Sea current are effected by earth and moon interaction. Based on that fact, we could build alternative energy from it.

Earth-Moon interaction energy is estimated to generate tidal currents every day by 3:17 TW, slightly larger than the installed power generation capacity worldwide in 1995 amounting to 2.92 TW (Kantha & Clayson, 2000).

The advantage of energy use in addition to ocean currents is environmentally friendly, energy intensity also has a large kinetic energy compared with other renewable energies. This is due to the density of sea water 830 times the density of air, so with the same capacity, ocean current turbines will be much smaller than the wind turbine. Another advantage is no need to design structures such as redundant power wind turbines that are designed to allow for the hurricane because of the physical conditions at a particular depth tends to calm and predictable.

Lack of energy of ocean currents are output to follow a sinusoidal graph according to the response of the tidal interaction due to motion of the Earth-Moon-Sun. At spring tide, the flow velocity will be very heavy, at high tide, the flow velocity will be reduced by approximately half of the tide. Another downside is the cost of installation and maintenance are quite large. Yet when the turbine is designed with the ocean currents tide conditions, i.e. when the flow velocity at which the smallest, and is designed to work continuously without reparations for five years, then this deficiency can be minimized and a huge economic advantage.

From PL studies Fraenkel (J Power and Energy Vol 216 A, 2002) an ideal location for the installation of power current flow velocity has two directions (bidirectional) a minimum of 2 meters per second. The ideal is 2.5 m / s or more. If one-way (river / stream geostropik) minimum 1.2-1.5 m / s. Depth of not less than 15 meters and not more than 40 or 50 meters. Relatively close to shore so that energy can be supplied at low cost. Sufficiently broad that it can be mounted more than one turbine and not the shipping or fishing.

As a matter of fact, as is argued in detail further on, neither investors nor politicians have lost their minds. The profits of big companies lobbying for agro-biofuel production are soaring and political decisions on agro-biofuels as in the case of the European Parliament are often determined by intense lobbying activities by powerful industrial groups trying to secure their future.

Politicians are claiming to protect national interests by preserving the economic assets of their countries. But these two things do not fully explain the agro-biofuel folly. It is also about bad science and misguided public opinion.

In fact, the hundreds of scientific papers published each year on how to improve existing agro-biofuel technologies in order to substitute a relevant fraction of fossil fuels indicate that the academic establishment has ignored available knowledge accumulated over more than a hundred years in the fields of energetics and bio-economics, and that there is a serious failure in the quality control of scientific inputs used for decision-making.

Ideological lock-in refers in general to ideological biases that affect decision-making, including in relation to sustainability issues, and in particular policies such as agro-biofuels. The other two forms, academic and economic lock-ins, are direct consequences of ideological lock-ins and deal with the two most important decision-making processes in our society with regard to sustainability issues. Academic lock-in refers to the interface between the bureaucracy of scientific academia and public administrations where decisions are made about the allocation of funds for research and development. Economic lock-in refers to the actions of powerful lobbies that tend to stabilize the existing economic power structure.

What is common to all these forms of lock-in is the innate reluctance of humankind to change. This profound ideological bias aimed at the preservation of the status quo is manifested at all levels: the individual (for example, the profound fear of death typical of Western civilization), the community (the desire to maintain current cultural identities and lifestyles) and the society.

At the level of society, this ideological bias is manifested in the form of processes and filters (bureaucracy) guaranteeing the survival of existing institutions. For this reason, social institutions easily bend under the pressure of lobbies working to preserve existing power structures.