moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
Fusion and hydrogen would both be nice, but they require completely redoing the energy infrastructure for the world. I think thermal depolymerization has a much better chance since only the plants need to be built. Imagine putting in plastic, paper, everything from tukey guts to tires and getting fossile fuels, carbon, and minerals on the other side. This was just about the most amazing thing Ive ever heard of.
If the plant explodes, only the plant explodes. If a nuclear power plant explodes, radiation is released.
Storing Nuclear waste of excessive amounts of time is also not really a proper option, if we switched to nuclear, in several centuries we'll simply be facing the same problem we have today with fossil fuels.
<!--QuoteBegin--Cronos+Apr 26 2003, 10:59 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cronos @ Apr 26 2003, 10:59 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Explain to me one thing.
How the hell is Fusion Power Dangerous?
If the plant explodes, only the plant explodes. If a nuclear power plant explodes, radiation is released.
Storing Nuclear waste of excessive amounts of time is also not really a proper option, if we switched to nuclear, in several centuries we'll simply be facing the same problem we have today with fossil fuels. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> It has to be extremly hot for fusion to take place. So its extremly hard to store. Hence its dangerous. Also modern Nuclear plants are impossible to explode.
You can recycle nuclear fuel also.
Also if this Taurus works I think it will be to exspensive to maintain.
The superheated gas, AKA Plasma, is easily controlled by magnetic fields. Magnetic fields are easy to produce as any cyclotron or the earths own magnetic field will show you.
Secondly, Nuclear power plants are not impossible to explode. Some may be designed that way, but, just think of one word here. "Chernobyl" (also, "3 Mile Island")
Third, Although Nuclear fuel is recyclable to a degree, (Fast Breeder Reactors) it only produces MORE plutonium, which is posinous as well as radioactive.
Fusion on the other hand requires only Hydrogen, the product is helium which can be used for industrial purposes (Helium being fairly rare on good ol' earth).
Besides, barring a terrorist attack, A fusion power plant will only explode due to complete power failure, now, really, whoever thought of complete power failure in a powerplant? Even then, the plasma will only (worst case scenario) melt through the walls and into a containment chamber.
And since the plasma never touches the walls of the reactor when the magnetic fields are controlling the reaction of the plasma, the walls will never get dirty, the only maintenance costs would be keeping the hydrogen secured.
Unless you meant the hydrogen coming in contact with the air, in which case, there would have to be some major slip ups for that to happen since they are considering reintroducing a smaller unmanned Hydrogen Blimp for scientific purposes (dont remember the exact details, read that somewhere).
<!--QuoteBegin--Cronos+Apr 26 2003, 11:14 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cronos @ Apr 26 2003, 11:14 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Secondly, Nuclear power plants are not impossible to explode. Some may be designed that way, but, just think of one word here. "Chernobyl" (also, "3 Mile Island")
Third, Although Nuclear fuel is recyclable to a degree, (Fast Breeder Reactors) it only produces MORE plutonium, which is posinous as well as radioactive.
Fusion on the other hand requires only Hydrogen, the product is helium which can be used for industrial purposes (Helium being fairly rare on good ol' earth).
Besides, barring a terrorist attack, A fusion power plant will only explode due to complete power failure, now, really, whoever thought of complete power failure in a powerplant? Even then, the plasma will only (worst case scenario) melt through the walls and into a containment chamber.
And since the plasma never touches the walls of the reactor when the magnetic fields are controlling the reaction of the plasma, the walls will never get dirty, the only maintenance costs would be keeping the hydrogen secured.
Unless you meant the hydrogen coming in contact with the air, in which case, there would have to be some major slip ups for that to happen since they are considering reintroducing a smaller unmanned Hydrogen Blimp for scientific purposes (dont remember the exact details, read that somewhere). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Those arent modern nuclear plants I was not refering to those designs. Peeble reactors do not explode silicon carbide coating does not degrade tell it reaches temps of 2000°C. So if there is somehow an explosion it is not gonna get threw the silicon carbide.
Your forgeting Fusion still has yet to be made in a way that is efficient, safe and sustainable. Therefore its not an option in the near future.
<!--QuoteBegin--Salty+Apr 26 2003, 11:51 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Salty @ Apr 26 2003, 11:51 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Though I think Iceland probably has it best out of the 3 with Geothermal. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> my bad, the original thing I had to say was that they weren't gonna be using oil by 2040, forogt they were using geothermal too.
The incident at Chernobyl was a bad fire and containment breach, not a nuclear explosion. One reason it happened the way it did was because that particular plant used graphite for cooling/heat containment instead of water (like most plants). Graphite was probably used due to lack of sufficient quantities of fresh, unfrozen water. The vast majority of nuclear power plants are extremely safe, even more safe than fossil fuel refineries. There is, however, the problem of storing the spent materials.
<a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=28&t=30414' target='_blank'>http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/in...ST&f=28&t=30414</a> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> moultano already posted that. It still won't be enought to power the entire United Sates and its homes.
How not? Besides the facts that you have no idea what the output would be, if you had read the article you would have seen that you could turn the US agricultural waste out ALONE into 4 billion barrels of oil a year. That's the same amount we import already.
Read the article. Expand your mind. Then discuss. It's amazing...
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Apr 27 2003, 12:45 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Apr 27 2003, 12:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> How not? Besides the facts that you have no idea what the output would be, if you had read the article you would have seen that you could turn the US agricultural waste out ALONE into 4 billion barrels of oil a year. That's the same amount we import already.
Read the article. Expand your mind. Then discuss. It's amazing... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> We don't use oil for power as much as we use coal. 55% of our electricity comes from coal. Pretroleum is like 19%. Read the whole thread its not all about cars.
Uhhh, I have read the whole thread. Please, read the supplied article and see what it says about coal. You're not making informed judgements until you read it.
I did all it says is it will make it cleaner not get ride of it and easier to get.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Appel says a modified version of thermal depolymerization could be used to inject steam into underground tar-sand deposits and then refine them into light oils at the surface, making this abundant, difficult-to-access resource far more available. But the coal industry may become thermal depolymerization's biggest fossil-fuel beneficiary. "We can clean up coal dramatically," says Appel. So far, experiments show the process can extract sulfur, mercury, naphtha, and olefins—all salable commodities—from coal, making it burn hotter and cleaner. Pretreating with thermal depolymerization also makes coal more friable, so less energy is needed to crush it before combustion in electricity-generating plants<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
2 side notes teh fire in chernobyl was over 3000 degrees ( im thinking its celcius it was a soviet report i was reading last year by medvedev if you want to look it up called "the truth about chernobyl") this means your lovely pebble bed would still flame into teh night in the worst case.
secondly conclusive testing of reactor containment vessels shows that if you crash a 747 inot one we have a melt down that was through fas.org but the site is down today so i cant give you a link:( this was related to teh vver-1000 designs being built in iran clearly the future is <a href='http://www.orgonomicscience.org/orgoneenergy.html' target='_blank'>orgone energy</a>
i lean to oil and coal till they run out followed by nuclear fusion and soalr mebe wind will make a come back though i really doubt it:)
<!--QuoteBegin--Salty+Apr 27 2003, 02:34 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Salty @ Apr 27 2003, 02:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I did all it says is it will make it cleaner not get ride of it and easier to get.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Appel says a modified version of thermal depolymerization could be used to inject steam into underground tar-sand deposits and then refine them into light oils at the surface, making this abundant, difficult-to-access resource far more available. But the coal industry may become thermal depolymerization's biggest fossil-fuel beneficiary. "We can clean up coal dramatically," says Appel. So far, experiments show the process can extract sulfur, mercury, naphtha, and olefins—all salable commodities—from coal, making it burn hotter and cleaner. Pretreating with thermal depolymerization also makes coal more friable, so less energy is needed to crush it before combustion in electricity-generating plants<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We are still relying on coal. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> True. But now you won't need to rely on as much, as it will be more efficient in its energy return. Not to mention cleaner burning.
Then we can focus on going far more nuclear for regular energy needs, and start feeding green party activists into the new thermal depolymerization plants, so that they can become 94 octane for my Mitsubishi.
I bet the Greenparty still will find something about it they don't like. like "It still realeases CO2! They just hate industry period sometimes I think.
The highest temepratures during normal operation of a nuclear PMBR are 1600 °C. The graphite is stable till 2800 °C chernobyle got to about 2700 °C.
Because the reactor in a PMBR is so small with lose of forced cooling it will not exceed 1600 °C
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I bet the Greenparty still will find something about it they don't like. like "It still realeases CO2! They just hate industry period sometimes I think.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh, how lovely. Green bashing.
It's amazing how people complain constantly about politicians being spineless, but once some people stand up for their ideas (which aren't mine, BTW), they become 'tree hugging nuts'.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--QuoteBegin--Salty+Apr 28 2003, 10:11 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Salty @ Apr 28 2003, 10:11 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I bet the Greenparty still will find something about it they don't like. like "It still realeases CO2! They just hate industry period sometimes I think. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> This technology will increase the amount of CO2 released due to substantially lowered gas prices. It also doesn't deal with the health side effects of car exhaust. This needs to be viewed primarily as a recycling method rather than an energy source. Just because we won't run out of fossil fuels doesn't make it any more wise to use them in abundance.
The Green party does do a lot of bitching about questionably defined issues, and their rhetoric sometimes clouds the waters preventing real discussion, but I'd still vote for Nader over most anyone else.
There also has been no real ubias proof of global warming. Global warming <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> <a href='http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Of the 19,700 signatures that the project has received in total so far, 17,800 have been independently verified and the other 1,900 have not yet been independently verified. Of those signers holding the degree of PhD, 95% have now been independently verified. One name that was sent in by enviro pranksters, Geri Halliwell, PhD, has been eliminated. Several names, such as Perry Mason and Robert Byrd are still on the list even though enviro press reports have ridiculed their identity with the names of famous personalities. They are actual signers. Perry Mason, for example, is a PhD Chemist. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The media does not give you the full story at all.
You're absolutely right - there is not yet a definite proof of global warming. Problem being, the only completely and unquestionabily definite prove would be Lady Liberty being under water. I'm going to quote the argumentation you followed a few topics ago: Ask yourself - do you want to take the chance? This time, we wouldn't even have to kill somebody.
<a href='http://www.disclosureproject.org/' target='_blank'>Ignore the UFO crud and check out propulsion</a>
this site used to be free, and I actually listened to a few webcast about the "new form of energy" essentially "they" eheheh, are keeping a lid on it because it would put all countries on earth on the same level of energy production, that would send us into economic chaos because we couldsnt exploit the 3rd world nations anymore but to summerize they say the Unified Feild (or super string) can actually be harnessed for unlimited energy, and not only that but we already have the means to do it
<!--QuoteBegin--Nemesis Zero+Apr 28 2003, 01:17 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Apr 28 2003, 01:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You're absolutely right - there is not yet a definite proof of global warming. Problem being, the only completely and unquestionabily definite prove would be Lady Liberty being under water. I'm going to quote the argumentation you followed a few topics ago: Ask yourself - do you want to take the chance? This time, we wouldn't even have to kill somebody. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> If the temperatures were raised a little it wouldn't matter. It does that anyways it has done that threw out the earths history.
Actually stoping CO2 production would cause lose of life because nations industrializing would stay poor and the people would continue to starve. Even in the united states if you close a factory because it produces to much CO2 thats thousands of jobs.
You did not just state that switching a factory to CO2 reducing practices will send people starving. I refuse to believe a normally observant and intelligent person could write this.
<!--QuoteBegin--Nemesis Zero+Apr 28 2003, 01:40 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Apr 28 2003, 01:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You did not just state that switching a factory to CO2 reducing practices will send people starving. I refuse to believe a normally observant and intelligent person could write this. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> It will cost more money so there will be less jobs or less paying ones. Poverty is the number one health risk in the world. Why should industrializing nations go threw diffrent hoops to become as prosperous as other nations that did not half to?? Not to mention it would also make thier progress slower.
<a href='http://www.disclosureproject.org/' target='_blank'>Ignore the UFO crud and check out propulsion</a>
this site used to be free, and I actually listened to a few webcast about the "new form of energy" essentially "they" eheheh, are keeping a lid on it because it would put all countries on earth on the same level of energy production, that would send us into economic chaos because we couldsnt exploit the 3rd world nations anymore but to summerize they say the Unified Feild (or super string) can actually be harnessed for unlimited energy, and not only that but we already have the means to do it <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Oh please, every few years some crank says they've come up with some device to extract ambient energy, and every time they're full of it. It violates the second law of thermodynamics in very obvious ways.
second law of thermodynamics: The energy available after a chemical reaction is less than that at the beginning of a reaction; energy conversions are not 100% efficient. In all energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state
unified feild is theorized to have no limit, so the idea of harnessing it violates nothing, becuase if you tap into something that can not be exausted you will never use more of it that you began with
Comments
How the hell is Fusion Power Dangerous?
If the plant explodes, only the plant explodes. If a nuclear power plant explodes, radiation is released.
Storing Nuclear waste of excessive amounts of time is also not really a proper option, if we switched to nuclear, in several centuries we'll simply be facing the same problem we have today with fossil fuels.
How the hell is Fusion Power Dangerous?
If the plant explodes, only the plant explodes. If a nuclear power plant explodes, radiation is released.
Storing Nuclear waste of excessive amounts of time is also not really a proper option, if we switched to nuclear, in several centuries we'll simply be facing the same problem we have today with fossil fuels. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It has to be extremly hot for fusion to take place. So its extremly hard to store. Hence its dangerous. Also modern Nuclear plants are impossible to explode.
You can recycle nuclear fuel also.
Also if this Taurus works I think it will be to exspensive to maintain.
Secondly, Nuclear power plants are not impossible to explode. Some may be designed that way, but, just think of one word here. "Chernobyl" (also, "3 Mile Island")
Third, Although Nuclear fuel is recyclable to a degree, (Fast Breeder Reactors) it only produces MORE plutonium, which is posinous as well as radioactive.
Fusion on the other hand requires only Hydrogen, the product is helium which can be used for industrial purposes (Helium being fairly rare on good ol' earth).
Besides, barring a terrorist attack, A fusion power plant will only explode due to complete power failure, now, really, whoever thought of complete power failure in a powerplant? Even then, the plasma will only (worst case scenario) melt through the walls and into a containment chamber.
And since the plasma never touches the walls of the reactor when the magnetic fields are controlling the reaction of the plasma, the walls will never get dirty, the only maintenance costs would be keeping the hydrogen secured.
Unless you meant the hydrogen coming in contact with the air, in which case, there would have to be some major slip ups for that to happen since they are considering reintroducing a smaller unmanned Hydrogen Blimp for scientific purposes (dont remember the exact details, read that somewhere).
Third, Although Nuclear fuel is recyclable to a degree, (Fast Breeder Reactors) it only produces MORE plutonium, which is posinous as well as radioactive.
Fusion on the other hand requires only Hydrogen, the product is helium which can be used for industrial purposes (Helium being fairly rare on good ol' earth).
Besides, barring a terrorist attack, A fusion power plant will only explode due to complete power failure, now, really, whoever thought of complete power failure in a powerplant? Even then, the plasma will only (worst case scenario) melt through the walls and into a containment chamber.
And since the plasma never touches the walls of the reactor when the magnetic fields are controlling the reaction of the plasma, the walls will never get dirty, the only maintenance costs would be keeping the hydrogen secured.
Unless you meant the hydrogen coming in contact with the air, in which case, there would have to be some major slip ups for that to happen since they are considering reintroducing a smaller unmanned Hydrogen Blimp for scientific purposes (dont remember the exact details, read that somewhere). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Those arent modern nuclear plants I was not refering to those designs. Peeble reactors do not explode silicon carbide coating does not degrade tell it reaches temps of 2000°C. So if there is somehow an explosion it is not gonna get threw the silicon carbide.
Your forgeting Fusion still has yet to be made in a way that is efficient, safe and sustainable. Therefore its not an option in the near future.
<a href='http://www.pbmr.co.za/2_about_the_pbmr/2_about.htm' target='_blank'>Meltdown proof reactor.</a>
my bad, the original thing I had to say was that they weren't gonna be using oil by 2040, forogt they were using geothermal too.
<a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=28&t=30414' target='_blank'>http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/in...ST&f=28&t=30414</a>
<a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=28&t=30414' target='_blank'>http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/in...ST&f=28&t=30414</a> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
moultano already posted that. It still won't be enought to power the entire United Sates and its homes.
Read the article. Expand your mind. Then discuss. It's amazing...
Read the article. Expand your mind. Then discuss. It's amazing... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We don't use oil for power as much as we use coal. 55% of our electricity comes from coal. Pretroleum is like 19%. Read the whole thread its not all about cars.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Appel says a modified version of thermal depolymerization could be used to inject steam into underground tar-sand deposits and then refine them into light oils at the surface, making this abundant, difficult-to-access resource far more available. But the coal industry may become thermal depolymerization's biggest fossil-fuel beneficiary. "We can clean up coal dramatically," says Appel. So far, experiments show the process can extract sulfur, mercury, naphtha, and olefins—all salable commodities—from coal, making it burn hotter and cleaner. Pretreating with thermal depolymerization also makes coal more friable, so less energy is needed to crush it before combustion in electricity-generating plants<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We are still relying on coal.
teh fire in chernobyl was over 3000 degrees ( im thinking its celcius it was a soviet report i was reading last year by medvedev if you want to look it up called "the truth about chernobyl") this means your lovely pebble bed would still flame into teh night in the worst case.
secondly conclusive testing of reactor containment vessels shows that if you crash a 747 inot one we have a melt down that was through fas.org but the site is down today so i cant give you a link:(
this was related to teh vver-1000 designs being built in iran
clearly the future is
<a href='http://www.orgonomicscience.org/orgoneenergy.html' target='_blank'>orgone energy</a>
i lean to oil and coal till they run out followed by nuclear fusion and soalr mebe wind will make a come back though i really doubt it:)
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Appel says a modified version of thermal depolymerization could be used to inject steam into underground tar-sand deposits and then refine them into light oils at the surface, making this abundant, difficult-to-access resource far more available. But the coal industry may become thermal depolymerization's biggest fossil-fuel beneficiary. "We can clean up coal dramatically," says Appel. So far, experiments show the process can extract sulfur, mercury, naphtha, and olefins—all salable commodities—from coal, making it burn hotter and cleaner. Pretreating with thermal depolymerization also makes coal more friable, so less energy is needed to crush it before combustion in electricity-generating plants<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We are still relying on coal. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
True. But now you won't need to rely on as much, as it will be more efficient in its energy return. Not to mention cleaner burning.
Then we can focus on going far more nuclear for regular energy needs, and start feeding green party activists into the new thermal depolymerization plants, so that they can become 94 octane for my Mitsubishi.
<!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
The highest temepratures during normal operation of a nuclear PMBR are 1600 °C. The graphite is stable till 2800 °C chernobyle got to about 2700 °C.
Because the reactor in a PMBR is so small with lose of forced cooling it will not exceed 1600 °C
Oh, how lovely. Green bashing.
It's amazing how people complain constantly about politicians being spineless, but once some people stand up for their ideas (which aren't mine, BTW), they become 'tree hugging nuts'.
This technology will increase the amount of CO2 released due to substantially lowered gas prices. It also doesn't deal with the health side effects of car exhaust. This needs to be viewed primarily as a recycling method rather than an energy source. Just because we won't run out of fossil fuels doesn't make it any more wise to use them in abundance.
The Green party does do a lot of bitching about questionably defined issues, and their rhetoric sometimes clouds the waters preventing real discussion, but I'd still vote for Nader over most anyone else.
There also has been no real ubias proof of global warming. Global warming <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> <a href='http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Of the 19,700 signatures that the project has received in total so far, 17,800 have been independently verified and the other 1,900 have not yet been independently verified. Of those signers holding the degree of PhD, 95% have now been independently verified. One name that was sent in by enviro pranksters, Geri Halliwell, PhD, has been eliminated. Several names, such as Perry Mason and Robert Byrd are still on the list even though enviro press reports have ridiculed their identity with the names of famous personalities. They are actual signers. Perry Mason, for example, is a PhD Chemist. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The media does not give you the full story at all.
This time, we wouldn't even have to kill somebody.
<a href='http://www.disclosureproject.org/' target='_blank'>Ignore the UFO crud and check out propulsion</a>
this site used to be free, and I actually listened to a few webcast about the "new form of energy" essentially "they" eheheh, are keeping a lid on it because it would put all countries on earth on the same level of energy production, that would send us into economic chaos because we couldsnt exploit the 3rd world nations anymore but to summerize they say the Unified Feild (or super string) can actually be harnessed for unlimited energy, and not only that but we already have the means to do it
This time, we wouldn't even have to kill somebody. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
If the temperatures were raised a little it wouldn't matter. It does that anyways it has done that threw out the earths history.
Actually stoping CO2 production would cause lose of life because nations industrializing would stay poor and the people would continue to starve. Even in the united states if you close a factory because it produces to much CO2 thats thousands of jobs.
It will cost more money so there will be less jobs or less paying ones. Poverty is the number one health risk in the world. Why should industrializing nations go threw diffrent hoops to become as prosperous as other nations that did not half to?? Not to mention it would also make thier progress slower.
<a href='http://www.disclosureproject.org/' target='_blank'>Ignore the UFO crud and check out propulsion</a>
this site used to be free, and I actually listened to a few webcast about the "new form of energy" essentially "they" eheheh, are keeping a lid on it because it would put all countries on earth on the same level of energy production, that would send us into economic chaos because we couldsnt exploit the 3rd world nations anymore but to summerize they say the Unified Feild (or super string) can actually be harnessed for unlimited energy, and not only that but we already have the means to do it <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh please, every few years some crank says they've come up with some device to extract ambient energy, and every time they're full of it. It violates the second law of thermodynamics in very obvious ways.
second law of thermodynamics: The energy available after a chemical reaction is less than that at the beginning of a reaction; energy conversions are not 100% efficient. In all energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state
unified feild is theorized to have no limit, so the idea of harnessing it violates nothing, becuase if you tap into something that can not be exausted you will never use more of it that you began with