Page 7 - Nuclear Power

they haven't. It's a fallicy, a farce. People BELIEVE it's "more efficient", but it's really just slightly tweaked and advertising so cleverly deployed that convinces people that it's better for the environment. Hybrids still run on gas, which means that we've only paired old tech (magenets and coils and electricity) with even older tech (gas) to make something new? Of course it hasn't.

just google "the oil we eat". there's a plathora of info about it.

an in the 40s it was 2000 some odd calories for every one of focil fuels. how? because there were no oil based fortilisers, no pesticides, no this no that, no other.

o and FYI, using non-oil based substitutes for deisel will still contribute to global warming. it's still a carbon based exothermic reaction producing CO2.

the only way forward is hyrogen and oxygen burning. no carbon involved means no CO2. it also has the practical upshot of producing water... . huraa for hondaa!! [say it so it rhymes ].

Ok I'll look into that.



I don't know what these "oil based" fertilizers are. Here they take cow manure and spread that on the fields. They've been doing that since they first started farming here so I don't know the change.

Everybody keeps talking about alternate energy supplies fails to understand a few things:
* no current alternate energy source come near the cost of fossil fuels
* very few alternate energy sources has been shown the capability of being produced in the large quantities needed
* the few alternate energy sources that may be produced in quantity have not shown to be practicle yet
* the cost to switch to a totally new energy source would probably run in the trillions of dollars

An example is hydrogen. In theory hydrogen looks good but when you get down to practicle matters then that is another matter.
* hydrogen is very difficult to transport.
* hydrogen is very dangerous handle
* hydrogen in a safe form as a fuel for a vehicle is very bulky compared to fossile fuels
* refuelling vehicles have yet to be worked out in safe convenient manner

You hear a lot in the news about hybrid cars. At best this is only a stopgap approach. In theory they sound like a good idea. In practice some reports have shown that the savings gained are not much considering there high cost.

so the alternative is...

there are problems yes, but for goodness sake, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. trillions is nothing compared to the collapse of society as we know it.

and cody_e. you said you live in dairy country... so it would be natural to use the cow's own fertiliser on the fields that feed them.

but take a second, just one second, to think about all the thousands of farms that DON'T HAVE FREEKING COWS! how do they fertilise their land, to grow their crops, to sell to make a profit?

they use every and any chemical they can get their hands on. true, not all of them are oil based. some are nitrates. but even those arent good for the land.

Well they should use Wisconsin as a model

Society is not going to collapse. They said the same thing 30 years ago. Research is going on with hydrogen powered vehicles right now in several countries. There has been no commitment by any government to move things forward any faster. History has shown that things will only change when the economic and political factors pressures are great enough to make it happen. We are just not there yet.

Here is another example for you. Look at all the fossil fuels that would be saved if we had built all the nuclear power plants that were planned. The problem has that too many are afraid of anything nuclear. No logical reasoning can change that.

I agree with you, Ed...but the world was a very different place now then it was 30 years ago. Look what you're on right now - a computer! The media has gone to shit since then, computers have made everything smaller, faster, etc.