Can technology solve the problems we face as human population rises? Maybe it would better to return to the 11th century and do away with all the "stuff" that is ruining the earth.
Here is just one little idea that we don't even have to guess about. A typical small automobile requires about 15,000 watts of energy to operate. That amount of electricity can by supplied by about 5 square meters of membrane area in an advanced technology fuel cell.
Then we produce the hydrogen exclusively with wave and tide action, wind action and solar energy. The solar energy part can be done with latent ground based sites or with space based sites using microwave technology to transmit and receive.
All of this is available now. All that is lacking is the will to do it.
And if we were serious and had the will, we as a civilization would spend a few trillions of dollars doing research on cheap manufacturing methods and materials science devoted to nothing but these advanced, mobile, portable fuel cells. Then a few more trillions building automated plants to build them. Then a few more trillions deploying the technology to cars, trucks and buildings of all types.
Right now they are worried that the temperature of the average fuel cell ( 1300 degrees F. ) will prevent it from being used. Hmmm... 1,300 degrees just wasting away. How about a steam turbine to suck off the heat and generate additional electricity?
There are problems. There are also answers. We are content to let a few hundred egg heads "study" the thing and not put it into use in a serious way.
In short, we have the means of eliminating most greenhouse gas. Airplanes are and always will be a problem. Can't generate enough energy to move 500 people across an ocean without carbon.
Then again, I was raised without running water and indoor plumbing and have logged with horses and grown crops with horses. There in nothing wrong with a lot of good old fashioned work. I might even enjoy it. How about you?
we might not have a choice. no way humanity is heading to extinction like the Gore said. humanity will definitely survive. how we survive depends and what we are willing to do.
computers and planes and pharmaceuticals are overrated. plowing the future wasteland with two headed cows is much more fun.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyI'm just curious why we haven't heard more demand for nuclear power plants. Only country that screwed things up were the Soviets. The French have no problem with nuclear power plants, and in this country, place like the Calvert cliffs nuclear power plants in Maryland have been functioning for decades. The Clintons didn't have a problem with nuclear power when they were running Arkansas, my wife's parents live in Russelville, Arkansas and the nuke plant there has been around for 30 or 40 years.
Can technology solve the problems we face as human population rises? Maybe it would better to return to the 11th century and do away with all the "stuff" that is ruining the earth.
Here is just one little idea that we don't even have to guess about. A typical small automobile requires about 15,000 watts of energy to operate. That amount of electricit nothing wrong with a lot of good old fashioned work. I might even enjoy it. How about you?
And the liberals/enviromental types don't seem to have a problem with Iran having some ....
I love all the talk about hybrid cars and electric cars, and how wonderful they will be (once they can go more than 40 miles on a charge). My question to the advocates of electric cars is this ... where you going to get the electricity to power the darn things? In Texas we have brownouts each summer due to lack of generating capacity .. but the environmental nutjobs block ever attempt to correct the problem by building electric generation facilities, whether they burn oil, clean coal or use nuclear power. Go figure....
Originally posted by StarValleyWyHoly smokes! Finally...a post from you that I am in whole hearted agreement. *checks to see if the planets are in alignmnet...scans post for sarcasm...checks to see if Armeggedon has started...hmmmm?*
Can technology solve the problems we face as human population rises? Maybe it would better to return to the 11th century and do away with all the "stuff" that is ruining the earth.
Here is just one little idea that we don't even have to guess about. A typical small automobile requires about 15,000 watts of energy to operate. That amount of electricit ...[text shortened]... nothing wrong with a lot of good old fashioned work. I might even enjoy it. How about you?
Originally posted by SMSBear716I agree, nuclear power is a viable alternative. France has an excellent safety record, and their plants are very efficient. We should hire away some of their engineeers.
I'm just curious why we haven't heard more demand for nuclear power plants. Only country that screwed things up were the Soviets. The French have no problem with nuclear power plants, and in this country, place like the Calvert cliffs nuclear power plants in Maryland have been functioning for decades. The Clintons didn't have a problem with nuclear power ...[text shortened]... eneration facilities, whether they burn oil, clean coal or use nuclear power. Go figure....
Originally posted by duecerHoly God! I think us agreeing completely will lead to the start of something bad (smiles). But didn't we agree about illegal immigrants in a earlier thread somewhere? Maybe it wasn't a 100% thing
Holy smokes! Finally...a post from you that I am in whole hearted agreement. *checks to see if the planets are in alignmnet...scans post for sarcasm...checks to see if Armeggedon has started...hmmmm?*
Originally posted by uzlessDifference between TMI and Chernobyl are quite significant, its not really possible to compare the two.
How many Nuke plants were built in the US after the Three Mile Island incident?
As for how many Nuke power plants were built after.. don't know, have to research it. I do know they are discussing 3 or 4 here in Texas.