All the while plugging our gullets with newest petro chem created FRANKENFOODS SUCH AS GLUCOSE FRUCTOSE HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP nitites sugar now even in table salt genetically modified wheat all canola/thus usafe canola oil;
This challenges a longstanding belief that using wood for energy is a green alternative to fossil fuels.
No nuclear ballistics in orbitgo figure a shot brain adolphhitler! ON lyin jeb bush or cheney noradtag harrp remote control Utah rocket site roads to edwards rocket site road!
G. P. S. WORLD MAP MICROSOFT OR APPLE FORMATWITH REMOTE ROBO HANS BLIXMOUSE click g. e. TEPCO?
TAG ANY 9-11 FEDERALASTRONAUTAND RFEDERAL MAJOR NUCLEAR ATOM BUSTER HANS BLIX! AND ANY 9-11 FISSION SCIENTIST!
opec all bushes crone's! black waters john boehner! prince or saudi any drone withbrennan!
or federal halliburton! you halifax boner! on federal demolitions new yorkmayor every willie brown 9-11govenor!
that know's the term opec! like a pig duck! hung a king in iraq!
OPEC ONLY KNOW'SOR only every federal? for only from 2001 9-11! covert wars and for only willy brown got shellno pest strip's!@.
No nuclear ballistics in orbitgo figure a shot brain adolphhitler! ON lyin jeb bush or cheney noradtag harrp remote control Utah rocket site roads to edwards rocket site road!
G. P. S. WORLD MAP MICROSOFT OR APPLE FORMATWITH REMOTE ROBO HANS BLIXMOUSE click g. e. TEPCO?
TAG ANY 9-11 FEDERALASTRONAUTAND RFEDERAL MAJOR NUCLEAR ATOM BUSTER HANS BLIX! AND ANY 9-11 FISSION SCIENTIST!
opec all bushes crone's! black waters john boehner! prince or saudi any drone withbrennan!
or federal halliburton! you halifax boner! on federal demolitions new yorkmayor every willie brown 9-11govenor!
that know's the term opec! like a pig duck! hung a king in iraq!
OPEC ONLY KNOW'SOR only every federal? for only from 2001 9-11! covert wars and for only willy brown got shellno pest strip's!@.
if we hadn't been burning fossil fuels? We have seen'huge'increases in CO2. That's the argument from the AGW camp.
while he flew around the world in a private jet burning fossil fuel and using many times more energy than the average household.
He was in it for money not for the planet. Why should we believe a word he said?
Olive oil provides the fat; everything else is in powder form. Soylent is not yet commercially available
In four weeks he had more energy he claimed his skin was clearer his sleep better his reflexes improved.
me sleep better give me more energy help me lose weight clear up my skin. Rhinehart cautions me that weight loss is not the goal of Soylent and sure that's only part of its appeal.
chocolate strawberry or plain) olive oil and some water to dilute it and we end up with a blenderful of fizzing frothy liquid a watery beige color like the peeling paint of a high school hallway.
The interesting question will be how much energy (and other resources) does it take to produce a quantity of meat
Ecofys a sort of sustainable energy consultancy firm put together this infographic showing exactly where the greenhouse gases are coming from.
emissions from burning fossil fuels (which amounts to 65 percent of the total) and all other emissions like gassy cows.
Greenhouse gases from fossil fuel burning are broken further down into type (coal oil natural gas) and then even further to specifics like cars airplanes and industries like paper or iron production.
and have your main point be that we should stop cutting down trees instead of reducing reliance on coal
or oil is interesting to me. Overall they all should be addressed in some form or another but if
and there will be fewer people left to use the LAND or the ENERGY. No one can argue that deforestation is bad.
and with more and more people relying on them to hold their photos music etc they will continue to get bigger and consumer more energy.
But tragically China and India's increases in Auto Addiction are one of the major factors leading to their huge increases in usage of dwindling Peak Oil.
If you have more heat energy in the system you'll have more dynamic weather. You know who said there wouldn't be snow with global warming?
and remember that humans are only contributing a small amount compared to natural sources. orbit7er you would be happy to know that peak oil is a myth.
Every time someone sets a limit on known global oil reserves called peak oil more is discovered
or innovation and market forces makes previously difficult-to-extract oil economical to extract. Frostty the earth is indeed accumulating heat
More carbon use by humans (access to cheap energy) is correlated directly to decreasing poverty and sickness. ppardee here's some more ammo for you.
It hurts most everyone else especially those in developing nations who are told they can only use green (inefficient) energy sources
because its nearly impossible to get access to reliable energy sources where they live thanks to our efforts to save the environment.
And it is a good bet we will shift largely from CO2-energy before we reach that.
but now they've added Dark Matter and Dark Energy in amounts far greater than the known forms.
and housed than most people worldwide who depend on rice for their dietary energy and mineral needs.
The best avenue to a diet of balanced nutrition is to eat a varied diet balanced for protein energy vitamins and minerals.
Pole Shift has started August 18 2012 The Earth s magnetic field is weakening and moving. http://fuel-efficient-vehicles. org/energy-news/?
if oil corporations weren't spending billions on climate change denial. -Comparing temperature records from the past is like comparing Gala to Ambrosia apples.
Bush Sr and Jr were big oil crony's . But saying so doesn't give proof of anything.
if oil corporations weren't spending billions on climate change denial. This is classic the euphemism for it would be a convenient truth.
Oil companies have ZERO incentive to engage in'Global Warming Denial'whatever that is. 1. Oil is the only game in town
My comment above is making the point the current home producing oil obsession will consume the rest of the rest of the water with fracking.
Throw in the fracking further loosening the underlying layers as well as oil and natural gas extraction and you have a lot of empty voids
My comment above is making the point the current home producing oil obsession will consume the rest of the rest of the water with fracking.
Also if you are so against natural gas production/oil production you really should sell your car grow your own food make your own cloths
and oils creating a perfectly nutritious meal. It can actually print from any organic material with the right ingredients inside
the sauce which would be a mixture of tomato powder oil and water; or the ambiguous gross-sounding protein layer which could be made from milk animals or plants.
#Space Tourism's Black Carbon Problemthis story is part of a special Popularscience. com series on the future of energy.
when hurled into the stratosphere builds up for years absorbing visible light from the sun. According to one study black carbon emitted into the stratosphere by rockets would absorb 100000 times as much energy as the CO2 emitted by those rockets.
Formed from the incomplete combustion of fossil fuel biofuel and biomass it is emitted directly into the atmosphere
and absorbs about a million times more energy than CO2. According to one study it is Earth's second largest contributor to climate change after carbon dioxide.
Moroever rockets produce over 1000 times more black carbon per unit of fuel than standard aircraft.
They measured the black carbon's radiative forcing âÂ#Âa metric for how much extra energy the Earth
Andrew Nelson the chief operating officer of XCOR Aerospace which is currently selling $95000 tickets for suborbital flights says that the blend of kerosene
and liquid oxygen in his XR-5k18 rocket engine powering its Lynx suborbital spaceplane will emit much less in the way of aromatic hydrocarbons than traditional kerosene-based rocket fuel.
which burn both solid and liquid propellant. XCOR will have di minimus impact on our environment Nelson says Our fuels are almost completely free of particulate matter.
They have 20-40 times less aromatics than traditional rocket fuels and hundreds if not thousands of times less particulate matter than hybrids or solids.
So the concern about carbon or other particles is moot for us. Toohey still wants to see peer-reviewed studies of the actual interaction of XCOR and other engines with the stratosphere.
(or refute) the claims of particle-free emissions from combustion of any fuel in the upper atmosphere Toohey says.
and escapes into space launch the ion nuclear engines! If black carbon is such a problem why didn't they mention it during NASA flights?
Even if the above mentioned transportation systems are designed not for using hydrogen as a fuel I am happy that the Skylon spaceplane that Reaction engines is developing is.@
and create energy as well thereby paying for the elevator or more once established. After the elevator is clearly establish we can then send back to Earth helium3 for more energy production.
Say maybe we generate electricity right on the moon and beam it back to Earth by the cable.
Spaceship 2 uses a hybrid motor with the solid fuel being rubber. You can practically see the carbon output on that thing so much
Sulfur back in the fuel reflects the sun back into space. Sulfur was in our gas and fuel.
It protected us from global warming but created acid rain. Up this hi it will be even more effective and last even longer
Previously the team conducted this entire process including a technique called somatic cell nuclear transfer in monkeys.
While nuclear transfer breakthroughs often lead to a public discussion about the ethics of human cloning this is not our focus nor do we believe our findings might be used by others to advance the possibility of human reproductive cloning Shoukhrat Mitalipov the clone research's lead scientist said in a statement.
Fertilised eggs are used NOT for the process described above (somatic cell nuclear transfer SCNT. Only an egg cell is required.
http//www. popsci. com/users/d-j-derrick-vonbraun-horton-remote-munition-drone-hitlersonlike A 1970 MARVEL TOY THERMAC JET PLANE MODEL!
no nuclear ballistics in orbit go figure a shot brain adolph hitler! on lyin jeb bush or cheney norad tag harrp remote control unmanned drone nasa eagle scan like horton hitler remote drones!
G. P. S. WORLD MAP MICROSOFT OR APPLE FOMAT REMOTE ROBO HANS BLIX TEPCO MUNITION DRONE!
TAG ANY 9-11 FEDERAL ASTRONAUT AND NUCLEAR ATOM 9-11 FISSION SCIENTIST! TWIN TOWERS TOO BUILDING SEVEN!
opec all bushes crone's! black waters john boehner! prince or saudi any drone with brennan!
or federal halliburton! you halifax boner on federal demolitions new york mator every willie brown 9-11 govenor!
that know's the term opec! like a pig duck! hung a king in iraq!
and tag bohemians opecs andpuck's! zucker berg's an bilderberg's. SKUNKWORKS NORTHRUP INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX!
OPEC ONLY KNOWS OR only every federal? fir only from 2001 9-11. and for only willy brown got shell no pest strip's!@.
but aren't concerned about the oil and coal companies polluting the Earth to line their pockets.
To answer your excellent question Frostty about oil and coal companies polluting the Earth to line their pockets
The oil and coal companies are providing a service that is invaluable to human progress and prosperity:
energy. It's all about energy. We want it we need it and those dastardly oil and coal companies provide it--the cheaper the better.
It's essential to have cheap energy for humans to progress beyond a merely subsistence society that carelessly pillages its natural resources to a prosperous society that protects
and manages its natural resources and uses them more efficiently. You were lucky enough to be born into an already wealthy society.
In case you hadn't noticed we use oil and coal differently in the U s. than they do in China.
In China coal power plants are filthy as are automobile emissions. In the U s. they are much cleaner.
The difference? Prosperity. Americans are wealthy enough to afford expensive pollution controls to minimize emissions.
because oil companies are doing us a'service'does not take away from the fact that millions of metric tons of pollutants are pumped into the atmosphere daily.
-Yes oil companies have done good things for human progress but they are spending billions of years to get politicians to keep us hooked on fossil fuels rather than progressing to renewables.
-Prosperity doesn't necessarily lead to a cleaner environment. I've dealt with this opinion a lot in university
more efficient use of gasoline and other fossil fuels more efficient use of electricity less air pollution.
The Chinese are investing heavily in green energy btw. Why is that? Are they doing it
or because they know it's a better investment to energy independence for the future?
In the case of a GRB this would measure the total energy contained in the photons received from the event per second
but it might just be an interpretation of the relative energy of gamma light photons vs visible light photons
Just to let you know coconut oil is a'healthy'saturaded fat with medium chain of glycerides.
Google it and find all the good things about cooking with coconut oil! Raynre I wonder if you've had good food to compare against fast food.
or unhealthy and my bp was damn close to 120/80 last time I had a checkup so save the ad hominem for another time if you were planning on using it in retaliation.
but still needed to incorporate fuel she says. From our research it appears that those unconscious circuits that are caring about that energy are alive and well in our brains.
You can find her new study in the journal Current Biology. Much ado about tasting but I get a completely different inspiration watching the person doing the tasting lol.
The lakes can be a type of energy reserve for windmills solar panels any type of solar generating plant.
Last summer you announced new regulations that would double the average fuel economy standard for cars sold in this country
This pipeline which would bring oil from Canada's tar sands to the Texas Gulf Coast needs a presidential permit to move forward.
Polls show that most people support it because of effective arguments from proponents that couch this pipeline in terms of energy security.
and it enables one of the filthiest forms of oil production there is. Energy security is important
but there are better ways to achieve it while safeguarding environmental resources as well as jobs. The New york times put it best:
Are you willing to pay 2x the cost for power transportation and fuel? I don't understand why reversing the effects of the azolla event is seen as such a negative thing.
We'll just linger at our present emissions rate forever rather than potentially surging (though we're already going down) followed by steady decline as we naturally switch to nuclear.
They should share in some of the economic misery they've been thrusting on the rest of America the rest of the world and particularly the starving energy-less third world.
The transition from fossil fuels will go much more smoothly if we allow the actual reserves
They use more energy to produce than they make! Get rid of coal plants? Where will you get your power?
Windmills? Sure lets destroy the ecosystems of ridges and mountain tops because we never see it anyway.
Oh wait that uses more energy than it takes to produce them still have to get power somewhere!
@mike13323 Solar panels pay back there energy usage in two years but last 40+years. About 85%of the oxygen comes from the oceans.
There is also the large energy debt they come with. As far as AGW proponents are concerned that means extra carbon burned
in order to produce this non-carbon energy source. After 30+years of this stuff the solar panels are just starting to break even on that front.
2) Land covered in oil is very sexy I love how it is slick and slimy yet tarry too!
I want the our energy to be cleaner and safer for the environment however until technology catches up with fossil fuels it's prudent to scale back slowly and responsibly.
We are not there yet and this rubbish that we are heading for a man made apocalypse in the near future has been a lie
id=science-behind-climate-changehttp://www. epa. gov/climatechange/science/overview. html#human-causeshttp://www. edf. org/climate/how-we-know-the-earth-is-warmingreally all it takes for
The petroleum folks were the last holdouts on that one. I wonder why...@Frosttty thanks for calling me arrogant.
Starch is a plant's energy source and it's ours too in the form of tasty things like potatoes wheat and corn.
and there will be a period of having no poles or multiple weak poles with massive solar energy hitting Earth.
when Edward Hubble discoverd that the universe was in fact expanding due to some mysterious energy that can't be seen.
Light is a collection of little packets of energy called photons that whiz through the air.
#Over Time, Nuclear power Would Kill Fewer People Than Petroleumusing nuclear power for energy instead of coal has prevented almost 2 million pollution-related deaths around the world
The paper argues that policymakers should increase nuclear power rather than continuing dependence on fossil fuels. The 2011 disaster at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant should not deter governments from expanding nuclear power according to Hansen
and its lead author Pushker A. Kharecha of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
which fuel nuclear power will be replacing.)Nuclear power has prevented already 64 gigatons of greenhouse gas emissions and would prevent the equivalent of another 80 to 240 gigatons again depending on
which fuel it replaces. The paper does acknowledge the serious health and environmental concerns related to storage of nuclear waste.
But the main point is that nuclear power is cleaner and greener than sources that belch carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
The study has some limitations stemming from assumptions about future coal use but the authors think they were actually being conservative:
The safety of nuclear energy is equal to flying an airplane. On a typical day life is good
The same is true of nuclear energy just ask Japan Russia etc..I am not drinking this cool-aid.@
The same holds for nuclear power vs. other energy sources. The*real*risk of a nuclear power disaster is far less than the*(mis) perceived*risk.
If nuclear power was safe we would not need the Priceã¢Â#Ânderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act.@
--and that includes Anyclon who refuses to believe that nuclear power is less risky than most other sources of energy.
Fossil fuels are very dirty even if you ignore CO2 from combustion. I read somewhere that coal fire power plants release more radiation (in the form of radioactive impurities being vaporized) into the atmosphere every year than all nuclear power plants ever (including meltdowns.
but the impurities in fossil fuels are destroying our environment. We used to believe that dilution was the solution to pollution
and SOLAR ENERGY. 3. Hansen and Kharecha and everyone should watch the presentations at the Symposium on the Medical
and in our environment from nuclear meltdowns and nuclear power plants was discussed. The total amounts of deaths birth defects miscarriages heart attacks cancers etc. due to nuclear radiation is in the millions upon millions;
far surpassing any deaths that could be caused by any other energy. That is why nuclear energy is rightly known as the most dangerous energy in the world.
Here is the link to the Symposium: www. totalwebcasting. com/view/?/id=hcf@Listenup 1. Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste http://www. scientificamerican. com/article. cfm?
id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste2. I do agree we shall go for clean renewable energy
however their efficiency is not high enough yet. I think nuclear fission energy will be suitable as a transitional substitution mean
while. 3. Let's hope we can have feasible nuclear fusion energy soon. Why can't they take nuclear fuel rods into space
and drop them to burn up in reentry to atmosphere? Seems like a market for all the space pioneers.@
@Listenup The amount of ignorance and misinformation in your comment blows my mind. You've become trapped in a self-feeding bubble of (mis) information a phenomenon the internet makes possible.
So here's a tip-whatever you believe Google the exact opposite of it and consider what you find as seriously as you do your current beliefs.
You don't seem to realize that there are only TWO events in all of history that actually spread any significant amount of radioactive particles into the atmosphere from nuclear reactors-Chernobyl
and Fukushima. 3 mile island caused less extra radiation than you'd get from a cross-country flight.
By contrast coal-fired power plants release higher quantities of radioactive isotopes directly into the atmosphere than even the oldest nuclear reactors ever did.
and Wind aren't preferable to Nuclear but I*am*saying Nuclear is by far preferable to filthy coal and oil.@
@coachlowe Throw a bunch of nuclear waste into the atmosphere? Do you think burn up in the atmosphere means it just vanishes?
These are basic atomic elements we're talking about not blocks of wood. They won't become any less radioactive just by getting a little hot.
The nuclear dream is fading fast. Solar and amazing energy storage technologies are advancing exponentially.
By the time one more nuclear plant is built the materials based energy revolution will change the face of energy production foreverchernobyl may have caused almost 1 million deaths according to a recent study.
Fukushima is expected by Dr. Helen Caldicott M d. to cause at least 1 million deaths by cancer due to radioactivity already released.
If a Magnitude 8 earthquake strikes Japan before a fuel pool dangling 100 feet in the air is secured the resulting radioactivity is expected to be at least 40 times that of Chernobyl causing untold millions of cancers across the Northern hemisphere.
Fossil fuels can be replaced much faster than might be imagined. See the same site to understand how and why.
and business was energy independent how much stronger free-er society would be in the USA
people what you need to take a look at is energy density. Yes you could replace every watt of energy production with wind and solar...
but you would destroy cover and disrupt 100's millions of acres of forest deserts plains lands mountains beachesetc.
Apparently I am allowed not a negative opinion again the dangers of nuclear energy and or the positive opinion towards solar power.
and about as mature as your avatar. 1. A quick trip to wikipedia shows many many nuclear meltdowns and accidents such as Santa Susana in California and the Urals in Russia which spewed tons of radiation
over unsuspecting populations. 2. Comparing radiation received from an airplane flight to exposure to nuclear radiation
These comparisons are made by pro-nuclear propagandists to try to minimize the dangers of nuclear radiation. 3. Nuclear radiation is highly dangerous
and there is NO SAFE DOSE of nuclear radiation. Dr. Romeo F. Quijano said this about nuclear radiation:
The small amount of radiation claimed to be safe by authorities added to our increasingly fragile environment will cause serious harm to the health of human beings and other living organisms all over the world.
and will contaminate all regions on earth. www. abs-cbnnews. com/insights/04/01/11/nuclear-radiation-there-no-safe-dose4.
coast. 9. Dr. Gofman did studies on the increases of breast cancer due to nuclear radiation. 10.
Even the pro-nuclear World health organization says breast cancer and leukemia will increase after Fukushima and predicts a 70%increase thyroid cancer risk in females exposed to Fukushima radiation as infants. 11.
It's not just cancers and death that nuclear radiation causes. Dr. Wertelecki found teratomos conjoined twins mocrophthalmia NTD microcephaly horrible birth defects and a decrease in cognitive skills due to Chernobyl.
and health effects caused by nuclear radiation. Again I highly recommend everyone watch the speakers at the Fukushima Symposium to learn more. www. totalwebcasting. com/view/?
/id=hcfthe doctors at the Symposium have spent decades studying the effects of nuclear radiation and their grim analysis is in their presentations.
And nuclear radiation is not just affecting humans. Animals are showing signs of radiation exposure.
Man-made nuclear radiation is wreaking havoc on human genetics human health and our environment. NEW Gallup Poll:
Americans Want More Energy From Wind Solar Gasno fewer than two in three Americans want the U s. to put more emphasis on producing domestic energy using solar power (76%)wind (71%)and natural gas (65%.
%Far fewer want to emphasize the production of oil (46%)and the use of nuclear power (37%.
%Least favored is coal with about one in three Americans wanting to prioritize its domestic production. www. gallup. com/poll/161519/americans-emphasis-solar-wind-natural-gas. aspxlistenup regardless of the tone
and warped view on nuclear radiation is balance and perspective. Onihikage was right to call you out on your radiation junk science.
Your claim 3. Nuclear radiation is highly dangerous and there is NO SAFE DOSE of nuclear radiation is also rubbish.
Nuclear radiation is used daily to irradiate foods to prevent spoilage with no adverse health effect whatsoever.
In fact it saves lives by preventing deadly bacteria from forming. Nuclear radiation is used safely countless times every day in numerous ways in medical and diagnostic procedures on humans;
all of which results in the prolonging of life and improving the quality of life for millions of people each year.
The effects of nuclear radiation have been studied carefully for over 60 years and extremely conservative dosage limits set in place to protect the safety of people who work in environments where radiation exposure is commonplace.
The U s. Nuclear Regulatory Commission says Although radiation may cause cancer at high doses and high dose rates public health data do not absolutely establish the occurrence of cancer following exposure to low doses and dose rates âÂ#Âbelow about 10000 mrem (100 msv).
As for the Gallup poll Listenup it says nothing about what forms of energy Americans want to prioritize.
It simply shows that Americans want the country to produce more energy from all of the sources named.
Solar power: 88%Wind: 87%Natural gas: 89%Oil: 67%Nuclear power: 65%Coal: 56%In other words generally speaking Americans want to become energy independent through ALL THE resources at our disposal. http://www. gallup. com/file/poll/161525/Energy sources 130327. pdfthis is absolutely true
and it kills far less people anually then coal. If you leave your solar panel running in your garage no one will die.
Some benefits to health and the environment are just a better trade off. We need to do a lot more development towards solar power.
Besides another product produces on the side is JOBS. It takes more people to maintain solar panels associated power supply systems and power storage systems.
These type of jobs are technical in nature and pay better thereby giving more people a higher level of money and yes medical benefits.
renewable>nuclear>fossil fuel ORRENEWABLE>fossil fuel>nucleardisregarding all money related issues here. But if money were to be put into this equation then most people would support a different one depending on how much of they are of each an environmentalist economist or politician.
and economists would lean toward either fossil fuel or nuclear depending on their viewpoints and info. However a politician would rather go for fossil fuel
or better yet renewable resources as they would want to avoid the somewhat untrue public opinion (Fukushima) on nuclear energy.
My own opinion is that renewable resources trump all but that nuclear would be a little better than fossil fuels.
First of all I would like to point out that without fossil fuels I would think none of us would ever need to question energy production.
Second of all although most of the facts previously stated about radiation and nuclear energy are true you do realize that most of that info is talking about decades old nuclear technology?
Nuclear energy is similar fossil fuels in the way of both safety and efficiency. Fossil fuel usage at its infancy was both dangerous and extremely wasteful.
It is just like that with nuclear energy. Chernobyl and Fukushima were examples of plants built
when scientist didn't even know about all of the elements we have now on the periodic table.
When they were designed nuclear energy was at its infancy. They were practically the prototypes the testing stations for nuclear energy
and even most of those wasteful dangerous first generation nuclear facilities are somewhat better than the most high tech fossil fuels.
Putting plants into use is extensive. Nuclear plants were built with technology research and designed decades ago.
Chernobyl and Fukushima built in the sixties and finished in the seventies used technology invented in the fifties!
That's only a DECADE after the FIRST nuclear fission in human history! The nuclear plants finished recently (within the past decade) were built with technology developed in the seventies and eighties.
Also I believe that fossil fuel technology has been research to almost full potential. Nuclear fission and fusion and combination of the two have yet to reach the potentials
and can be so much better than fossil fuels in both safety and efficiency (with A LOT OF help).
On a side note China has been doing the reverse compared to most of the world building
and researching more into nuclear energy rather that quit because of two major accidents. Not saying that the Chinese are the smartest
if anything is to happen with nuclear stuff China might be in the news. People need to consider our world realities when thinking about alternate energies.
With nuclear some of you on here defending nuclear just want to act like Chernobyl and Fukushima are the whole of world nuclear contamination.
Whether it's the weapons and the nuke plants that create those isotopes or the ones that were built specifically for safer power generation
or the massive shame to humanity that storage is--it's the nuclear issue. No?
I don't know how disposal of nuclear waste is brought about but in one other story that was discussing future concepts of skyscrapers one was harnessing noise pollution to create energy another was using volcanos
I believe there are several more means that exist to create energy with relatively fewer adverse effects on the environment f
Overtext Web Module V3.0 Alpha
Copyright Semantic-Knowledge, 1994-2011