Go Back   Computer Forums > Welcome To Computer Forums .org > Social Lounge | Off Topic
Click Here to Login
Join Computer forums Today


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-11-2006, 08:14 PM   #31
Golden Master
 
ArrizX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 16,073
Send a message via MSN to ArrizX
Default Re: Alaskan Pipeline shutdown

Quote:
Originally Posted by PerfectSK
Because hydrogen is the most promising. It has the least side effects. Nuclear powered energy is not even an option. Dude, do you know how long it takes for the half life of a radioactive substance, to become less hazardous? You wouldn't have enough storage for it, and besides it could leak, polluting people's water supplies, and etc. You have to bury that stuff deep underground. It's just like another trash landfill, except it would be more dangerous. The one thing I found kind of interesting is reusing oil from fast food chains, cleaning it, and using it for car fuel. Seems kind of smart idea, but its expensive to clean it.

Edit - Windfarms, solar power, and hydroelectric are good alternatives, but can only provide so much energy. They take a lot of money to invest in, and the products aren't enough to keep them in working order in many countries.
Well, the thing is the Nuclear, which is far fetched now might not be so much in the future. But remember, this change has to be done in the next 10 years.

Anyways, it is thought of to send trash to the sun. Because our landfills are just getting to be and are becomming over whelming. It was thought the best way to deplete it would be to send it to the sun, and instantly incenerate it. Same can be done to Nuclear waste.
__________________

__________________
. ()()()()
./l ,[_\_\ ],
l---L ()lllllll()-
()_) ()_)--o-)_)
ArrizX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2006, 09:32 PM   #32
Fully Optimized
 
mongoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,021
Send a message via AIM to mongoman
Default Re: Alaskan Pipeline shutdown

ther over exagerating and they dont want hydgrogin cars out. think about it.it would bring the oil industrie to a close and they wouldn't be able to suck our wallots drie.they want you to think theres almost no oil left so they can suck all of your moneyout of your wallet. think about it.
__________________

mongoman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2006, 05:48 AM   #33
Golden Master
 
Brookfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 10,056
Default Re: Alaskan Pipeline shutdown

Quote:
Originally Posted by boardordi3
LOL LOL Steam powered
Not so far-fetched, a UK firm, well into the R & D, of a steam-powered car, mainly driven by the heat from the exhaust, I just learnt this from google, entered "steam powered cars", we Brits are good at steam technology, I think it's because in all the big yarn spinning factories in Yorkshire, the looms were driven by steam in the 1800's, incidentally, did you know the steam catapult in use by aircraft carriers all over the world, was a British invention?
Brookfield is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2006, 11:35 AM   #34
Daemon Poster
 
mayorredbeard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,246
Default Re: Alaskan Pipeline shutdown

Quote:
Originally Posted by PerfectSK
Because hydrogen is the most promising. It has the least side effects. Nuclear powered energy is not even an option. Dude, do you know how long it takes for the half life of a radioactive substance, to become less hazardous? You wouldn't have enough storage for it, and besides it could leak, polluting people's water supplies, and etc. You have to bury that stuff deep underground. It's just like another trash landfill, except it would be more dangerous. The one thing I found kind of interesting is reusing oil from fast food chains, cleaning it, and using it for car fuel. Seems kind of smart idea, but its expensive to clean it.

Edit - Windfarms, solar power, and hydroelectric are good alternatives, but can only provide so much energy. They take a lot of money to invest in, and the products aren't enough to keep them in working order in many countries.
Other countries? Other countries aren't the problem here, its mainly the United States. Lets fix our problem before we worry about the rest of the world. Brazil now runs off completly domestic oil, e85 ethanol. Which comes from their sugar cane. The United States currently contributes to just under 1/3 of the worlds C02 emmision, but our population represents less than %5 of the total population in the world.

Nuclear power is an option. European nations have recognized this. Modern countries like England produce 2500 barrels of nuclear waste each year, which is enough to provide %36 of their energy. In the United States not only is our nuclear energy program more efficent (less nuclear waste per energy generated), but we also have much more storage space. Their have been several proposed long term storage options, such as one in the middle of the Sonoran desert (which is the 9th largest desert in the world). A designated up to 25,000 square miles would be devoted to a long term storage option costing 2.4 billino dollars. Which would allow nuclear power plants to store stabilized nuclear waste in a facility 100 feet under the ground, with 2 feet thick cement walls. The proposal also includes 2 inch lead walls, and a third layer of steel. A long term facility such as this is designed to outlast mankind. A facility 25,000 square miles yes would probably cost more then 2.4 billion dollars, but it would allow for over 6.6 million barrels of nuclear waste. Even if we produced 5,000 barrels of nuclear waste a year, the facility would serve as an open storage area for over 1,000 years.

I say that 1,000 years is a long time off, and by that time im sure we'll have harnessed hydrogen energy.

--------------

Lol, as far as steam power goes, its highly impractical. Sure it seems clean, but if steam were ever used as a major power we'd probably use something like coal or something else just as enviromentally bad to provide the heat source.
__________________
Karma/rep is always appreciated
01010010011001010110010001100010011001010110000101 11001001100100
010011110111010101110100

There are only 10 kinds of people in this world. Those who can read binary, and those who can't.
mayorredbeard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2006, 07:25 PM   #35
Daemon Poster
 
PerfectSK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 982
Default Re: Alaskan Pipeline shutdown

Quote:
Originally Posted by mayorredbeard
Other countries? Other countries aren't the problem here, its mainly the United States. Lets fix our problem before we worry about the rest of the world. Brazil now runs off completly domestic oil, e85 ethanol. Which comes from their sugar cane. The United States currently contributes to just under 1/3 of the worlds C02 emmision, but our population represents less than %5 of the total population in the world.

Nuclear power is an option. European nations have recognized this. Modern countries like England produce 2500 barrels of nuclear waste each year, which is enough to provide %36 of their energy. In the United States not only is our nuclear energy program more efficent (less nuclear waste per energy generated), but we also have much more storage space. Their have been several proposed long term storage options, such as one in the middle of the Sonoran desert (which is the 9th largest desert in the world). A designated up to 25,000 square miles would be devoted to a long term storage option costing 2.4 billino dollars. Which would allow nuclear power plants to store stabilized nuclear waste in a facility 100 feet under the ground, with 2 feet thick cement walls. The proposal also includes 2 inch lead walls, and a third layer of steel. A long term facility such as this is designed to outlast mankind. A facility 25,000 square miles yes would probably cost more then 2.4 billion dollars, but it would allow for over 6.6 million barrels of nuclear waste. Even if we produced 5,000 barrels of nuclear waste a year, the facility would serve as an open storage area for over 1,000 years.

I say that 1,000 years is a long time off, and by that time im sure we'll have harnessed hydrogen energy.

--------------

Lol, as far as steam power goes, its highly impractical. Sure it seems clean, but if steam were ever used as a major power we'd probably use something like coal or something else just as enviromentally bad to provide the heat source.

The point I made previously was that the ends don't justify the means. You're just creating another landfill, a radioactive landfill if I might add.
__________________
Rig -- Emachines T5026, 3.06ghz P4, 300W Bestec PSU, 160 sata hd, 512mb dual channel 3200 ram @ 3-3-5-8, ATI Radeon 9250 pci, dual layer 16x dvd+/-rw.
PerfectSK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2006, 07:56 PM   #36
Fully Optimized
 
troy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,410
Default Re: Alaskan Pipeline shutdown

Nuclear power is an option. European nations have recognized this. Modern countries like England produce 2500 barrels of nuclear waste each year, which is enough to provide %36 of their energy. In the United States not only is our nuclear energy program more efficent (less nuclear waste per energy generated), but we also have much more storage space. Their have been several proposed long term storage options, such as one in the middle of the Sonoran desert (which is the 9th largest desert in the world). A designated up to 25,000 square miles would be devoted to a long term storage option costing 2.4 billino dollars. Which would allow nuclear power plants to store stabilized nuclear waste in a facility 100 feet under the ground, with 2 feet thick cement walls. The proposal also includes 2 inch lead walls, and a third layer of steel. A long term facility such as this is designed to outlast mankind. A facility 25,000 square miles yes would probably cost more then 2.4 billion dollars, but it would allow for over 6.6 million barrels of nuclear waste. Even if we produced 5,000 barrels of nuclear waste a year, the facility would serve as an open storage area for over 1,000 years.

I say that 1,000 years is a long time off, and by that time im sure we'll have harnessed hydrogen energy.

--------------

Lol, as far as steam power goes, its highly impractical. Sure it seems clean, but if steam were ever used as a major power we'd probably use something like coal or something else just as enviromentally bad to provide the heat source.[/QUOTE]
The E85 ethanol option isn't a bad idea. That seems like a decent option for me because we'd be using less fuel, emissions would cut down, the price would go down.... everybody's happy! Of course it would take awhile for E85 vehicles to become popular but some vehicles out there are already compatible and ready for it.
__________________
Desktop: Dell Dimension E510, 2.5GB RAM, Intel P4 3.0GHZ, 250GB HDD, Windows Vista Premium. Might not be the best, but the old girl is still running good.
troy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2006, 02:05 AM   #37
Golden Master
 
Brookfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 10,056
Smile Re: Alaskan Pipeline shutdown

Quote:
Originally Posted by troy272
Nuclear power is an option. European nations have recognized this. Modern countries like England produce 2500 barrels of nuclear waste each year, which is enough to provide %36 of their energy. In the United States not only is our nuclear energy program more efficent (less nuclear waste per energy generated), but we also have much more storage space. Their have been several proposed long term storage options, such as one in the middle of the Sonoran desert (which is the 9th largest desert in the world). A designated up to 25,000 square miles would be devoted to a long term storage option costing 2.4 billino dollars. Which would allow nuclear power plants to store stabilized nuclear waste in a facility 100 feet under the ground, with 2 feet thick cement walls. The proposal also includes 2 inch lead walls, and a third layer of steel. A long term facility such as this is designed to outlast mankind. A facility 25,000 square miles yes would probably cost more then 2.4 billion dollars, but it would allow for over 6.6 million barrels of nuclear waste. Even if we produced 5,000 barrels of nuclear waste a year, the facility would serve as an open storage area for over 1,000 years.

I say that 1,000 years is a long time off, and by that time im sure we'll have harnessed hydrogen energy.

--------------

Quote:
Lol, as far as steam power goes, its highly impractical. Sure it seems clean, but if steam were ever used as a major power we'd probably use something like coal or something else just as enviromentally bad to provide the heat source.
The E85 ethanol option isn't a bad idea. That seems like a decent option for me because we'd be using less fuel, emissions would cut down, the price would go down.... everybody's happy! Of course it would take awhile for E85 vehicles to become popular but some vehicles out there are already compatible and ready for it.
I'm replying to this as a member, not a mod, [this is just an observation ] perhaps you should have used quotes?, at first I thought you were "parroting" what the previous member said, but of course you weren't, your views are part of a valid discussion, lol.
Brookfield is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2006, 02:08 AM   #38
Fully Optimized
 
troy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,410
Default Re: Alaskan Pipeline shutdown

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brookfield
I'm replying to this as a member, not a mod, [this is just an observation ] perhaps you should have used quotes?, at first I thought you were "parroting" what the previous member said, but of course you weren't, your views are part of a valid discussion, lol.
oops sorry... I was trying to quote one post but I guess it had another quote in it or something. I still have to figure out how to work with the quote thing when quoting someone who's already quoted someone else.
__________________
Desktop: Dell Dimension E510, 2.5GB RAM, Intel P4 3.0GHZ, 250GB HDD, Windows Vista Premium. Might not be the best, but the old girl is still running good.
troy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2006, 02:24 AM   #39
Golden Master
 
Brookfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 10,056
Default Re: Alaskan Pipeline shutdown

Quote:
Originally Posted by troy272
oops sorry... I was trying to quote one post but I guess it had another quote in it or something. I still have to figure out how to work with the quote thing when quoting someone who's already quoted someone else.
That's OK, just hit quote, then make sure in your reply to make it clear who you are quoting, that'll be fine, end of!
Brookfield is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2006, 02:41 AM   #40
Golden Master
 
Brookfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 10,056
Default Re: Alaskan Pipeline shutdown

A lot of excuses are at present being made here in England by our government, they are saying in effect; oh, we'd love to build more reactors, but it would cost too much, & taxes would rise by x%, this is the same government, only a little while ago, were saying no no, we're dead against atomic energy, only because the previous Conservative government were for it, also, tiny England was inviting countries worldwide, to send their atomic waste here for processing, even from Japan, I believe, how mad was that???
__________________

Brookfield is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0