terrorist?

[TugaTweaker]

I am all for the use of nuclear bombs in Hiroshima. To me, they saved a lot of lives (Japanese, Americans and others) by bringing the war to a speedy end. My only regret is that it was used earlier. I would point to Hiroshima as examples where if properly used WMD can save lives.

Then only USA are trusted to have such a power , God gave it .
God and Alah . Alah and God . God loves America . God bless America . What the hell is Allah supposed to do , will he do the same ? Maybe Bin Laden got the power from Alah ... as compensation .

People let the show begin !!! God vs Allah .

We know God is good , he moved to USA .

Allah supports Bin Laden take care . And the rule is :

" An eye for an eye , a teeth for a teeth "

No winner , no problem lets build a giant wall just because

different lifestyles create terrorists .

[ace3000_1]

the bulk of the electricity is generated via either coal (a huge pollutant generator) or oil fired power plants (petro in other words), or gas turbines (a petro-like product). It is ignorant to say that we don't need petro because we have electricity,

Not realy cos its ignorant of those governments who dont support wind generaters, solar power and hydro plants.

The sun, water and air is all we need to create electricity, and there are other ways aswell, ie: volcanic heat.

I dont know where you got gas turbines from, (typicaly a jet engine), they are steam turbines and run from steam produced by boilers that are gas powerd, nuclear powerd, and coal powerd.

[millwood]

Originally posted by ace3000_1
Not realy cos its ignorant of those governments who dont support wind generaters, solar power and hydro plants.

The sun, water and air is all we need to create electricity, and there are other ways aswell, ie: volcanic heat.

sure. there are other forms of electricity. How much are you willing to pay?

here are some numbers from a research report (for cost of generating electricity in the US. Of course, those numbers are average and rough estimates):

gas: 6 cents / kwh;
coal (lagacy): 7-8 c;
oil: 7-8c;
coal (new): 11-15 c;
wind: 85c+;
solar: 3-4 dollar and over;

in the northeast, electricity ranges from 8 cents / kwh to about 25 cents /kwh depending on usage.

so if we were to switch to wind for all of our electricty, we are essentially 3x - 10x of our electricty costs; solar? 10x - 50x.

How much more are you willing to pay for your electricity? how about your neighbors?

It is nice to be able to use wind, or solar power (volcanic power would be even cooler). But at what price?

Nuclear power is the only viable long-term solution. It is safe, clean and recycalable. and there is an abundance of nuclear fuels. we understand fission very well. we are making headways towards controled fussion. Rather than littler our beautiful landscape with ugly windmills, let's put that money into building better and more efficient nuclear power plants and fussion research.

Originally posted by ace3000_1
I dont know where you got gas turbines from, (typicaly of a jet engine), they are steam turbines and run from steam produced by boilers that are gas powerd, nuclear powerd, and coal powerd.

most of the merchant power plants in the us are on gas tubines. Those are essentially land-based jet engines on gas. They can be quickly turned on and off and built in the remote desert to fill peak demands. GE and Sun are two of the largest suppliers in this business. and that had been GE's growth engine until the market crashed in 2001.

I suggest seriously that you update your knowledge on this.

[ace3000_1]

Those are essentially land-based jet engines on gas.

Huh, never knew that, that cant be very eficient as jet engines chew gas like you wouldnt believe it, not to mention speed and wear and tear.

As regards to money, yep your dead right, money is the issue, but if there wer more solar generators, more wind generaters and more hydroplants, the power would be cheaper OVER TIME. But then we have the argument of the cost for switching all over from current power stations over to the new, and beleive me thats not a small operation.

My question is, when the world does run out of crude oil, are we prepared to take the next step? in my eyes no, we are un prepared.

Getting back to money, if no country had to build bombs, there would be more then enough money to maybe fix our roads, and have beter/ cheaper services, maybe a few less homless to boot.
But its not like this now, and we cant change the evolution back, however we can plan our future somwhat.

[millwood]

Originally posted by ace3000_1
As regards to money, yep your dead right, money is the issue, but if there wer more solar generators, more wind generaters and more hydroplants, the power would be cheaper OVER TIME.

even that, there is no assurance that they will be cost competitive with existing technology.

But then we have the argument of the cost for switching all over from current power stations over to the new, and beleive me thats not a small operation.

the biggest problem with alternative energy sources, even if we could get it cost competitive, is dependability. We not only need electricity. More importantly, we need electricity 24x7. That would simply eliminate wind, solar and hydro as the primary source of electricity for us.

Originally posted by ace3000_1
Getting back to money, if no country had to build bombs, there would be more then enough money to maybe fix our roads, and have beter/ cheaper services, maybe a few less homless to boot.

but that's not realistic. it is like saying that if we are all 100% healthy, we could save all those money in healthcare and R&D,

a nice picture to dream about but not exactly useful in our every day life.

[millwood]

for hydro, don't forget about its environmental costs.

and the same can be said about wind power as well (it is a different kind of environmental pollution).

[SY]

Nuclear power is the only viable long-term solution. It is safe, clean and recycalable. and there is an abundance of nuclear fuels. we understand fission very well. we are making headways towards controled fussion. Rather than littler our beautiful landscape with ugly windmills, let's put that money into building better and more efficient nuclear power plants and fussion research.

Have you ever read John McPhee's "Curve of Binding Energy"?

[ace3000_1]

but that's not realistic. it is like saying that if we are all 100% healthy, we could save all those money in healthcare and R&D,

Well put it this way and this is what i meant, if no one did build bombs then they obviously would have more money to go on more useful resorces, thats a fact.

the biggest problem with alternative energy sources, even if we could get it cost competitive, is dependability. We not only need electricity. More importantly, we need electricity 24x7. That would simply eliminate wind, solar and hydro as the primary source of electricity for us.

Tides and dams run at night, so does wind, wind and the sun are debatible, even tides are debatible at some point, but certainly the sun can be used during the day to somwhat cut the cost of the fuel in the current systems, weather this being money or resources.

Put it this way, the sun is free, oil isnt, it isnt on production nor for our breathable air supply. Its the companies who charge for the solar panels and maintence that makes solar power more exspensive, again, governments and globilisation.

Nuclear power is the only viable long-term solution. It is safe, clean and recycalable. and there is an abundance of nuclear fuels. we understand fission very well. we are making headways towards controled fussion. Rather than littler our beautiful landscape with ugly windmills, let's put that money into building better and more efficient nuclear power plants and fussion research.

Well so you say, ever heard of nuclear waste dumped at sea? oh yeah, this still goes on and we eat this waste in our fish, along with manny lubricants that come from the cooling system in the plant.

Windmills are no more of a polution than a building in your city, or a house, the human kind is a polution to this earth on its own, and is getting worse everyday.

At that note im going to leave it at that as i beleive we are going off topic.

[millwood]

Originally posted by SY


Have you ever read John McPhee's "Curve of Binding Energy"?

haven't. What does it say?

[SY]

It really centers around Ted Taylor, one of the Manhattan Project gurus. Taylor's obsession is the idea that the dangers from the physics of nuclear power can be engineered out. The dangers of security are much more profound. The book was written probably 35 years ago, and is truer today than McPhee could have imagined.