Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Make sure to leave your computer on at night!

Last response: in Systems
Share
July 31, 2006 2:56:42 PM

After reading that stupid twitchguru article on solar energy possibly helping reduce the cost of gaming-energy needs I decided to do my own article.

1. Why am I going to spend $10000 on solar panels to save $100 on energy costs.
2. Leave your computers on at night to support the fact that if we have energy let's freakin use it. Leave your computer on 24/7.
3. Buy the old Pentium 4s that use a ton of juice to work and use 21" CRT monitors that have no power-save feature.
4. Club baby seals.

Thank you.

**** yo' energy!
July 31, 2006 3:07:05 PM

Why you hate solar panel so much, what did it ever do to you? :? :( 
July 31, 2006 3:10:38 PM

I hate solar panels because they're expensive, fragile, and do not produce enough energy to warrant the expense. Windmills are far cheaper and produce far more energy but do you see them everywhere? No because they're also stupid.

Let's make some fusion reactors! W00!

I also hate people who throw their biased and uneducated political views into website articles. I don't care if you're conservative or liberal or just plain dumb you don't do that.

Word.
Related resources
July 31, 2006 3:18:37 PM

Yeah because you come off as the cream of the crop education wise. "Solar power is dumb so waste energy as much as possible" :roll:


Solar panels are expensive yes but they are a viable source of energy given enough of them. And theres work being done to create panels that are 2-3x more efficient than current ones. They've already come a long way. Another nice thing is that if you put several panels on top of your house, you can run your house off them during the day, storing the extra energy for the evening, and if the batteries run out, you can still use normal power systems. I've read articles about houses equiped this way and the power bill for such a house is like $25 a month. In places like California, Texas, and Florida(where I live) where your AC is cranked 6-8 months of the year and power bills are $250-300+ that amounts to a huge savings over time. When I build a house if I can afford it and live in an area thats nearly always sunny, I'll do it. And its not like I'm a tree hugger or anything. I'm quite conservative.

Wind energy is the same way. The only limiting factors for wind(as well as solar) is space and finding a place to put them that is always windy(or sunny).

And when you figure out stable fusion let the rest of the world know.

Nuclear energy is the true way to go right now because its proven and tested. With fuel reprocessing its a near endless source of power(its also required since theres not a whole lot of uranium left on the planet).
July 31, 2006 3:25:24 PM

I agree nuclear energy is the BEST option for us at the moment... but the best of what we have.

Someone needs to find a realistic solution for disposing of spent fuel bundles/rods.

Arg.

:evil: 
July 31, 2006 3:26:13 PM

Solar panels maybe expensive now but in the future it will become very useful when there is no oil left we would be relying on the sun and nuclear reactors to produce energy.

I guess scientists are using steam to power satellites because according to you solar panels are stupid.
July 31, 2006 3:33:37 PM

Quote:
I agree nuclear energy is the BEST option for us at the moment... but the best of what we have.

Someone needs to find a realistic solution for disposing of spent fuel bundles/rods.

Arg.

:evil: 


Well unfortunately the US has a law that prohibits the storing of nuclear waste on US soil. But theres currently a deal in progress to build a huge storage complex inside a mountain thats on an indian reservation inside the US. It is not US soil and is a perfect place to put such a facility. There is not that much waste currently. The issue is that you can't store it all together because otherwise it'll all react together and create one gigantic nuclear explostion(depending on how much there is).

The issue against nuclear power isn't so much what to do with spent fuel as it is fear of meltdown. Liberals and environmental groups keep saying that we're all going to die if we solely use nuclear power because the plants are going to blow up like Three Mile Island and Chernobyl (or however its spelled). Also if you reprocess the fuel, theres less waste left over and you turn some of that waste back into fuel. Sure you also get weapons grade plutonium as a byproduct but hey. This is why we don't want India doing reprocessing.
July 31, 2006 3:34:14 PM

Quote:
Weren't computers very expensive some time ago? They're dirt cheap compared to the prices 20 years ago.


Very. A matter of fact ( i can't find the pics) one of the first computers or laptop that comes out don't even have a monitor/display and are only affordable for the rich.
July 31, 2006 3:35:55 PM

Quote:
I also hate people who throw their biased and uneducated political views into website articles.


So you must really fucking hate yourself then.
July 31, 2006 3:39:24 PM

Have you considered the amount of energy that goes into PRODUCING solar panels?

That huge cost the guy was speaking of is high for a reason, do the math and tell me if a solar cell can recover the energy used to make it...within 10 years. That includes energy from mining, refining, and transporting the raw materials, plus energy from the production process, plus energy from the distribution pipeline, and even the energy of us sitting here discussing it.

Solar panels last what, 15-20 years? That's a narrow window of opportunity for it to recover the energy it cost to begin with.
July 31, 2006 3:39:48 PM

Quote:
I also hate people who throw their biased and uneducated political views into website articles. I don't care if you're conservative or liberal or just plain dumb you don't do that.


Exactly. Good Point! :!:
July 31, 2006 3:44:55 PM

I hate to agree with someone this moronic, but he does have a point. Spending money to set up personal solar arrays is kind of a waste from a financial viewpoint, since they are high maintanance, they have a huge up-front cost, and you'll never recoup your losses.

Wasting power to combat the solar industry is retarded, but I suppose everyone can see that. Regardless, using outdated, hot equipment is even stupider, as it requires more expensive equipment to cool it.

On a brighter, lighter side, at least there's no such thing as global warming (well, maybe there is, but as there's no definitive proof, I prefer to use power as I need it).

Just a thought....

Rant as you see fit.
July 31, 2006 3:44:59 PM

I agree that solar panels are useful for some, not all.

I live in San Diego, and there are lots of homes around that use solar panels to heat their pools in the winter and pay for AC in summer. It works out quite well. Me and my Dad bought a solar panel at Home Depot when I was in high school for about $100. We wired it up to a car battery and it has opened the gate at his house, year round, for over 6 years. It is reliable and has never gone out, and most of all besides the innitial investment of 100 dollars and an old car battery we had lying around, free.

So, in short, it may not be viable and cost efficient for all, but for some its great.
July 31, 2006 3:57:29 PM

Quote:
After reading that stupid twitchguru article on solar energy possibly helping reduce the cost of gaming-energy needs I decided to do my own article.

1. Why am I going to spend $10000 on solar panels to save $100 on energy costs.
2. Leave your computers on at night to support the fact that if we have energy let's freakin use it. Leave your computer on 24/7.
3. Buy the old Pentium 4s that use a ton of juice to work and use 21" CRT monitors that have no power-save feature.
4. Club baby seals.

Thank you.

**** yo' energy!

You can get off of that soap box now. You, like so many thousands of people, expect others to consider you politically thoughtful, because you lash out at something for a reason you shouldn't. Well, the fact is, you, like all those others, regardless of political stripe, are just an angry person.

Solar panels don't cost $10,000US to produce $100US of benefits... Perhaps $10,000US of panels might produce that much electricity- In the first week. Or in a poor month.

Quote:
I hate solar panels because they're expensive, fragile, and do not produce enough energy to warrant the expense. Windmills are far cheaper and produce far more energy but do you see them everywhere? No because they're also stupid.

Let's make some fusion reactors! W00!

I also hate people who throw their biased and uneducated political views into website articles. I don't care if you're conservative or liberal or just plain dumb you don't do that.

Word.

Solar panels, when constructed properly, and employed in the right places, can even pay for themselves within their first year; in the sub-tropic areas of the United States, such as Florida, Texas, and California, they can dramatically cut off electricity costs, since they will be running air conditioning very often throughout the summer, which coincidentally, is a very sunny time of year.

As for windmills, perhaps one day you might become educated enough to understand the concept of "NIMBY." Until then...

As for fusion? You're just being rediculous. Potential commercial applications may solve all the world's energy needs, but they are at least 20, if not 50, years away; the shorter estimates rely on some of the proposed suggestions/hypothesises (not to be confused with "scientific theories") pan out to be correct, as to why fusion's failed to result in a net gain of energy.

And as for your "hate," didn't you just say you made your own article? It appears to have a rather biased opinion. And, in fact, one I'd dare say has about zero education to it. The fact that you, like 99.999% of the media, and 90% of Americans, say "liberal or conservative," when both terms have been grossly mis-used for years now, is a dead giveaway.

Quote:
And when you figure out stable fusion let the rest of the world know.

Nuclear energy is the true way to go right now because its proven and tested. With fuel reprocessing its a near endless source of power(its also required since theres not a whole lot of uranium left on the planet).

When it comes to nuclear fusion, it's not how to keep it stable; scientists have done that. Heck, they can throw together miniature reactors for a couple thousand dollars apiece; it's the matter of getting them to produce more energy than they consume that's proven to be the tough part.

As for nuclear fission, (or simply called "nuclear") there's actually quite a bit of uranium left on the planet, certainly enough to out-last fossil fuels. It's the matter of finding a place to STORE all the waste that's created; not just spent reactor fuel, but all the materials from mining and processing it... There are solutions that can be developed, of course.
July 31, 2006 3:58:49 PM

Quote:
I agree nuclear energy is the BEST option for us at the moment... but the best of what we have.

Someone needs to find a realistic solution for disposing of spent fuel bundles/rods.

Arg.

:evil: 

The Japanese have a solution, they recycle spent rods. You know that "spent" rods are actually just rods that have too little usefull "fuel" left to creat an adequat amount of heat to keep the reactors running efficiently.

As uranium decays it produces lighter atoms, such as lead, that don't react, as well as a bunch of "less reactive" isotopes and elemements. Removing the usefull materials is a fairly straightforward process.

Of course, not all of the uranium broke down into smaller atoms, or remained unused: Some of it became highly enriched in the process or fused to become even more dangerous stuff like Plutonium, but still isn't reacting "fast enough" because of all the less reactive materials getting in the way.

The Japanese have lot of solutions, they even have plutonium reactors!

So the solution would be to continously recycle spent fuel rods until there's nearly nothing usefull left in them. The remaining scrap would thereby be far less dangerous, and far easier to store.

In the U.S. we have laws against recycling spent fuel rods, because of the fear that having the material in too many hands could result in some of it disappearing into the wrong hands. For this I have a solution: Recycle spent rods at the same facility that extracts the ore in the first place, using added infrustructure and the same security precautions.
July 31, 2006 4:05:20 PM

The cost is so high right now because its like anything else. They're not being mass produced on a huge scale. If they were needed for say a solar energy farm to power an entire state or even the whole country, the cost would go down. As the price of oil goes up, demand for renewable sources of energy is also going up. So I expect solar energy to take off in the not too distant future. Nothings better than free. If you take into account all the money spent keeping a gas powerplant going and purchasing the fuel, the costs would probably come close to a solar plant. There all you need is mostly maintenance techs to keep the panels and housings maintained and a complex computer system to keep them at the appropriate angle and rotation.

And like I said, they're working on new solar cells all the time to make them smaller and more efficient.
July 31, 2006 4:07:44 PM

You will be "melted cheese" in a few years with that attitude you bird brain
July 31, 2006 4:09:12 PM

Quote:
The Japanese have a solution, they recycle spent rods.


We had that long before the Japanese. They just actually do it. And the plutonium that is resulted from it is just as hard to store as the waste itself.

Quote:
When it comes to nuclear fusion, it's not how to keep it stable; scientists have done that. Heck, they can throw together miniature reactors for a couple thousand dollars apiece; it's the matter of getting them to produce more energy than they consume that's proven to be the tough part.


Actually I wrote that but then deleted it. You are right. We can create it, but it takes far more energy to maintain than it gives back. Thats why I said stable.
July 31, 2006 4:09:28 PM

Word. To all of that, but especially

Quote:
he fact that you, like 99.999% of the media, and 90% of Americans, say "liberal or conservative," when both terms have been grossly mis-used for years now, is a dead giveaway.


Why can't people now a days think for themselves. It's ok to vote conservative but not want guns to be sold to anyone for 50 bucks at Wal Mart, and it's ok to vote liberal and be anti gay marraige. People, think for yourselves. You should base your opinion on an issue based on your opinion on the issue, not whether you consider yourself a republican or a democrat.

Off topic, but I felt that line needed emphasis.
July 31, 2006 4:12:04 PM

I'm afraid I don't. Or were you actually replying to me?
July 31, 2006 4:16:16 PM

Only a fool would say solar cost to much up front! HOW MANY DO YOU PLAN TO BUY? You don't need to cover you whole house with them! And they don't cost that much! I have 3 small pannels on my roof, One for the Attic fan, another for a foutain pump in the back yard. And another power night lights in the back yard. I spent $300 buck for them and I've save a lot of money on engery bills. Also so since we have had a few days this year when the power went out, my house was alot cooler since the attic fans were sucking the heat out of the attic. Hmmm...
July 31, 2006 4:17:04 PM

If you'd read to the bottom, the Japanese have used plutonium reactors. I know this, because I saw an educational program that examined one that had been de-commissioned.

Heck, they might have de-commissioned all their plutonium reactors, but if they had enough plutonium I bet they'd get one up again, just to break down the stuff.
July 31, 2006 4:18:52 PM

Off topic only slightly. It's important when someone says that they are a conservative or a liberal not to make the mistake of assuming they mean Republican or Democrat. These terms are not synonymous. Lots of people feel they are more conservative than Republicans (generally are), or more liberal than Democrats.

Also of note, a person can be conservative or liberal on a number of unrelated subjects. For instance, one can be fiscally conservative and yet be morally liberal. One can be environmentally conservative and yet be politically liberal. This second example is funny, because most so-called conservatives call those that are environmentally conservative "liberal tree-huggers." Well, I think it's funny anyway.

Just a thought...
July 31, 2006 4:20:10 PM

If you wanted to power your whole house you'd need around 2x the solar panels area as you have sun-facing roof area. That could be expensive...

And while you're at it, you should also go to a hydrogen-powered car. You'd better have at least an acre of property to hold the extra solar cells though. And that's just for the typical commute!
July 31, 2006 4:22:43 PM

I see. That was not my intention. I'm sorry if I offended.
July 31, 2006 4:23:04 PM

I could run the entire planet off of the energy of your stupidity!

Why not come up with something original and not spew what we already know is bs!

HA! ZORRO
July 31, 2006 4:23:53 PM

Um, is it just me, or did everyone miss the fact that cheese was being rather ironic here, with the intention of fuelling (presumably in a non-green-way :oops:  ) this debate...
July 31, 2006 4:24:51 PM

You can't even type correct sentences! Why should I take anything you say seriously?

I am short-sighted? You're short-brained!

HAH!
July 31, 2006 4:27:59 PM

Quote:
Solar panels maybe expensive now but in the future it will become very useful when there is no oil left we would be relying on the sun and nuclear reactors to produce energy.

I guess scientists are using steam to power satellites because according to you solar panels are stupid.


Are you seriously that stupid? Do you know how much energy satellites use? Hardly any! In fact, most military satellites transmit signals with 10-20W of energy.

The real problem here is all of your indoctrination!
July 31, 2006 4:30:16 PM

Quote:
I also hate people who throw their biased and uneducated political views into website articles.


So you must really ****** hate yourself then.

Holy crap! I am drowning in dumb! Do you see me publishly an article anywhere with my political views on it? NO! Do you count forum posts as articles? Do you know what the word 'article" even means?

You may reply after your 6th grade class lets out.

HAH!
July 31, 2006 4:31:14 PM

Of course, we could go to an extreme (nationally speaking). How about we set up a geostationary solar satellite that continuously collects solar energy while maintaining a position relative to earth so that it doesn't block our light (or perhaps place it over a section of the uninhabited Pacific). Occasionally, it would beam by microwave its stored power down to a large receiver and this power could be easily distributed to the happy and prosperous citizens of the good old U.S.A. Sounds pretty feasible considering: a) no NIMBY problem, b) possibly low-maintenance due to few interstellar particles, and c) constant source of energy.

Only problems are that the thing would probably have to be the size of surface area of the world, and that it would cost quintillions of dollars and more resources that the earth actually has. But I'm confident our government can pull it off. :wink:
July 31, 2006 4:32:01 PM

Quote:
Have you considered the amount of energy that goes into PRODUCING solar panels?

That huge cost the guy was speaking of is high for a reason, do the math and tell me if a solar cell can recover the energy used to make it...within 10 years. That includes energy from mining, refining, and transporting the raw materials, plus energy from the production process, plus energy from the distribution pipeline, and even the energy of us sitting here discussing it.

Solar panels last what, 15-20 years? That's a narrow window of opportunity for it to recover the energy it cost to begin with.


Yes! Someone with a brain! I didn't even go into that part of it because it's too incredibly horrible to think about.

Word.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
July 31, 2006 4:33:15 PM

am i to assume you are a hard right kind of person you still think "they" are out to get the u.s. i use the word they, as first it was communists and now terrorists. you need to hate people for some reason and always have an enemy.

is everyone who disagrees with you trying to undermine your way of life. sorry but you sound that type of guy who thinks your way is the only way.

i obviously called the wrong person the troll. you are one of the highest order
July 31, 2006 4:33:24 PM

Good points on the republican/democrat, liberal/conservative. I realize all this, I was just trying to point out that there are far too many people who don't consider their own thoughts on issues but rather use their political affiliation to draw conclusions.

I have a roomate from Berkeley...you wouldn't believe some of the stuff he pulls out of his....well....you know. You cant even have a conversation with the guy because everything you talk about he immidiately takes the extreme liberal side and wont budge. Even if you have a liberal view on something, his is so extreme merely because how he was raised I guess that you cant even talk about it. The guy literally would vote for a donkey if it was his only choice vs a guy who had liberal views but was titled a republican.[/quote]
July 31, 2006 4:34:52 PM

Quote:
I hate to agree with someone this moronic, but he does have a point. Spending money to set up personal solar arrays is kind of a waste from a financial viewpoint, since they are high maintanance, they have a huge up-front cost, and you'll never recoup your losses.

Wasting power to combat the solar industry is retarded, but I suppose everyone can see that. Regardless, using outdated, hot equipment is even stupider, as it requires more expensive equipment to cool it.

On a brighter, lighter side, at least there's no such thing as global warming (well, maybe there is, but as there's no definitive proof, I prefer to use power as I need it).

Just a thought....

Rant as you see fit.


Up your ass! I'm not a moron, half of what I say is a joke anyway. Take a joke! You are correct; there is no such thing as global warming. It has been proven to be a fluke for years. From 1900-2000 the Earth warmed by less than 1C! That's a couple of farts and a camp fire.
July 31, 2006 4:36:02 PM

This post is stupid
July 31, 2006 4:36:51 PM

No need to worry about blocking our light. You put something the size of a football field in orbit over the earth, and the light from either side will get diffused into its shadow so much that you won't see the shaddow on the earth.

And the good thing: The light you do block will reduce the impact of global warming.

We could refocus the light through a laser beam, which would only be like 12-feet across when it hits the ground, and use that to heat water for a turbine.

That would take care of what, a small neighborhood? It's a start eh?
July 31, 2006 4:38:58 PM

Quote:
Only a fool would say solar cost to much up front! HOW MANY DO YOU PLAN TO BUY? You don't need to cover you whole house with them! And they don't cost that much! I have 3 small pannels on my roof, One for the Attic fan, another for a foutain pump in the back yard. And another power night lights in the back yard. I spent $300 buck for them and I've save a lot of money on engery bills. Also so since we have had a few days this year when the power went out, my house was alot cooler since the attic fans were sucking the heat out of the attic. Hmmm...


HOLY CRAP! You must save a trillion gigawatts of energy every year! You mean to tell me you can run an attic fan, fountain pump, and NIGHT LIGHTS off of SOLAR PANELS? WOW! Yet the money you save from the energy bills is the heat escaping out your attic. HMMMM...
July 31, 2006 4:42:49 PM

You too are short-sighted. When you tell him to run for Senate as he will probably get elected you are implying that all Americans share his view point and wasteful attitude, way to stereo-type 300,000,000 people.
July 31, 2006 4:46:05 PM

Quote:
Um, is it just me, or did everyone miss the fact that cheese was being rather ironic here, with the intention of fuelling (presumably in a non-green-way :oops:  ) this debate...


YES! You are correct. WOW someone has a sense of humor.

I can solve all of everyone's problems with three easy comments:

1. SOLAR POWER IS DUMB
2. THROW NUCLEAR WASTE INTO SPACE
3. CLUB BABY SEALS
July 31, 2006 4:48:54 PM

Quote:
a 12 foot across laser to heat water. everyone knows that is a stupid idea. have you never played C&C generals. it would obviously be better used as a weapon to wipe defenceless people off the face of the earth :p 


Yes, that is a better use for the 12-foot laser. C&C 3 better have the ion cannon dammit!
July 31, 2006 4:53:05 PM

Quote:
When you'll be drowining in melted ice caps, then you'll wonder why you never got a solar panel. :lol:  :lol: 


Actually yeah thats not going to happen. Melting Icecaps will not cause some supposed 20 30 foot rise in the ocean level. Think about it this way get a cup fill it with ice and the fill it with water to the very top. What is going to happen when the ice melts? Why what do you know the water level is going to go down because water expands when it freezes which means it displaces more water when frozen that it does when it melts. The sea level might rise some from glaciers melting but the whole melting of the ice caps is going to raise sea level is completely bogus.

Matter of fact global warming in general is totally bogus. There is no huge consensus among scientists that it is man made. There have always been chenges in the global temperature, back when the dinosausrs roamed the earth the global temperature was considerably higher than it is today. Hell 10,000 years ago we were in an ice age, in the middle ages there was a period of much lower global temperatures referred to as a mini ice age. Is the planet heating up yes, is it something that we have caused or are able to stop no. Oh and you do realize that the sun is hotter (putting out more sloar radaition) now that it has been in a past due to normal sloar flucuations. There are many natural causes for the temperature moving up and down and there is not a whole lot of anything we can do to stop or control it. The whole environmental movement has been taken over but anti-capitilist communists for the most part who was to stop all progress and have us all live in little mud houses with no electricity or running water.
July 31, 2006 4:53:44 PM

Now let's combine all of the correct points and incorrect points from this post.

Correct:

1. I am right
2. Solar power is worthless for most uses
3. Nuclear waste can easily be discarded in space
4. Most Americans are actually energy-conscious and do not drive SUVs
5. 12-foot lasers are better used for C&C weapons
6. Crashman is cool

Incorrect

1. twitchguru is dumb
2. solar power is going to save the world
3. nuclear power is not the future
4. global warming is going to destroy the universe
5. windmills are cool
6. This post is a credible source of information
July 31, 2006 4:58:47 PM

Since when did hydrongen powered cars need solar panels?
July 31, 2006 4:59:26 PM

Quote:
When you'll be drowining in melted ice caps, then you'll wonder why you never got a solar panel. :lol:  :lol: 


Actually yeah thats not going to happen. Melting Icecaps will not cause some supposed 20 30 foot rise in the ocean level. Think about it this way get a cup fill it with ice and the fill it with water to the very top. What is going to happen when the ice melts? Why what do you know the water level is going to go down because water expands when it freezes which means it displaces more water when frozen that it does when it melts. The sea level might rise some from glaciers melting but the whole melting of the ice caps is going to raise sea level is completely bogus.

Matter of fact global warming in general is totally bogus. There is no huge consensus among scientists that it is man made. There have always been chenges in the global temperature, back when the dinosausrs roamed the earth the global temperature was considerably higher than it is today. Hell 10,000 years ago we were in an ice age, in the middle ages there was a period of much lower global temperatures referred to as a mini ice age. Is the planet heating up yes, is it something that we have caused or are able to stop no. Oh and you do realize that the sun is hotter (putting out more sloar radaition) now that it has been in a past due to normal sloar flucuations. There are many natural causes for the temperature moving up and down and there is not a whole lot of anything we can do to stop or control it. The whole environmental movement has been taken over but anti-capitilist communists for the most part who was to stop all progress and have us all live in little mud houses with no electricity or running water.

Did you know that Saudi Arabia produces over 750 million gallons of water a day from desalination? That's a fact Jack! Look it up. For you dumb people that means turning ocean water into potable water (which means it's drinkable). That's just one country in the Middle East. Several countries are big into this technology and it's very useful. So, all your melted icecaps are being made into Aquafina!

How do I know so much about the Middle East? I'm a contract worker who rips off tax-payers by doing little work in war infested shit-holes but gets paid the big bucks!

HAH

BTW biohazard, excellent post.
July 31, 2006 5:08:54 PM

This thread is out of place.

Pay attention class. As we can observe through Mr. Cheese's demonstrations ... knowledge does not beget intelligence.
July 31, 2006 5:21:39 PM

Guess by original you mean retarded. Since every single one of your posts have been just that. Your first post was a completely stupid comment. Your subsequent ones have been nothing insults designed to try and draw people away from that fact.

Seeing your last post that I missed before.

Reality:

1) You are incorrect.

2) Nuclear waste cannot be shot into space because that would take far more energy than its worth. Do you know how much energy it takes to even launch something into space much less past the Earth's gravitational pull? Sure lets shoot it into space so in a hundred years it can fall back to earth. Then theres the issue of what happens if the rocket explodes while in the atmosphere going into space. Theres plenty of remote locations on this planet to store the little nuclear waste we have.

3) Solar and wind power can't save the world but it doesn't hurt to use them. Better now than to wait till they're some of our only choices left. Research and innovation are constantly making them better. I prefer relatively free energy than counting on a region of the world thats eventually going to destroy itself for our energy needs.

4) Global warming isn't going to destroy the universe(considering the universe is a lot bigger than our planet) and may not be real. We don't know. But that doesn't mean crank up the coal power plants again. I personally think the earth warms and cools naturally. But I'm not going to bet that on future generations livelyhood. I may be dead in 500 years, but I'd like to at least try and make sure humanity won't. Of course this only matters if we don't blow ourselves to hell with nukes first.

I guess you also think that hydroelectric and thermal power are stupid. Or using methane off of landfills. Or building generators along coasts and in rivers to generate power from tidal currents. Tell that to the countries and cities building such power stations. Because they're popping up in a lot of places. If they were so useless then no one would use them.
July 31, 2006 5:25:20 PM

Ok good analogy to ice cubes, but since they're less dense they float and so don't displace as much water as if they were completely submerged.

But for the record I don't believe that global warming is an imminent threat, but it doesn't mean that we're not going to run out of oil, or be forced to pay $10 a gallon. So we should look for alternative energy. I like windmills because I can save money on energy and food from all the birds I'll kill. :twisted:
July 31, 2006 5:30:28 PM

Quote:
When you'll be drowining in melted ice caps, then you'll wonder why you never got a solar panel. :lol:  :lol: 


Actually yeah thats not going to happen. Melting Icecaps will not cause some supposed 20 30 foot rise in the ocean level. Think about it this way get a cup fill it with ice and the fill it with water to the very top. What is going to happen when the ice melts? Why what do you know the water level is going to go down because water expands when it freezes which means it displaces more water when frozen that it does when it melts. The sea level might rise some from glaciers melting but the whole melting of the ice caps is going to raise sea level is completely bogus.

Matter of fact global warming in general is totally bogus. There is no huge consensus among scientists that it is man made. There have always been chenges in the global temperature, back when the dinosausrs roamed the earth the global temperature was considerably higher than it is today. Hell 10,000 years ago we were in an ice age, in the middle ages there was a period of much lower global temperatures referred to as a mini ice age. Is the planet heating up yes, is it something that we have caused or are able to stop no. Oh and you do realize that the sun is hotter (putting out more sloar radaition) now that it has been in a past due to normal sloar flucuations. There are many natural causes for the temperature moving up and down and there is not a whole lot of anything we can do to stop or control it. The whole environmental movement has been taken over but anti-capitilist communists for the most part who was to stop all progress and have us all live in little mud houses with no electricity or running water.

Very good post. I never thought about the ice cubes thing but you are correct. Thats my view on global warming. But I'm not god and don't know so I'm not going to pretend that we might not be affecting things.

One thing out there is that theres some evidence that this isn't the first go humanity has had on this planet. Theres some evidence that we've advanced as far as the 1980s before. Mostly in ruins found under the ocean that appear to be highways and such. If thats at all true, what happened to them last time?

One thing is for sure. We have very little data concerning the history of our planets climate patterns. So I don't think theres a whole lot of evidence of anything because we've only been keeping records on this stuff for about 150 years. Everything else is mostly just guesses and theories. I mean hell we don't even really know how old the Earth is. Some say a few hundred thousand. Some say a few million. Some a few billion. Of course then theres the religious nuts out there who think we just popped into existence a few thousand years ago.
July 31, 2006 5:30:54 PM

It seems my comment on "liberal" and "conservative" have stirred up a lot of debate, and none of it seems to be getting at the point that was mine.

What I meant is that "liberal" and "conservative" are anchored ideologies, that actually haven't changed since they came to be many centuries ago.

In the United States, as well as mirrored in many other countries, there is a "bi-polar" political system, where issues, as a general rule, split the public into two camps.

However, over the years, these issues have always changed; new ones have come that people in older times would've never thought of, and old issues become not even worth thinking about.

Hence, the major political split in society has always changed, even though the REAL meaning of "liberal" and "conservative" have not.

In order to try to leverage these terms, pundits, particularly in the United States, have decided to apply these two terms to whatever current issues provide the "cleavage" in society; one side is seen as "liberal" the other as "conservative." Even in the case of "cross-cutting cleavages," where a new issue comes, and the split has NOTHING to do with previous splits, somehow, these people in the media insist on applying the same terms. Hence, they have lost their meaning, and the public has gained a rather distorted view that all issues are alike; we should all (hopefuly) know that many issues may not mesh; you may, for instance, be against high government spending and taxes, which many would label you as a "conservative" or more specifically a "fiscal conservative" for, but may be in favor of permitting legal abortion and homosexual marriage, and hence be termed a "social liberal."

When, in fact, both terms actually have nothing to do with the original meanings of those terms.

Feel free to ask me more questions on this if you'd like; political science is/was my major, (technically, I'm still a student, but have completed all of my necessary P. Sci studies) so I think on, and talk about, this sort of stuff a lot. :) 
Quote:
The Japanese have a solution, they recycle spent rods. You know that "spent" rods are actually just rods that have too little usefull "fuel" left to creat an adequat amount of heat to keep the reactors running efficiently.

As uranium decays it produces lighter atoms, such as lead, that don't react, as well as a bunch of "less reactive" isotopes and elemements. Removing the usefull materials is a fairly straightforward process.

Of course, not all of the uranium broke down into smaller atoms, or remained unused: Some of it became highly enriched in the process or fused to become even more dangerous stuff like Plutonium, but still isn't reacting "fast enough" because of all the less reactive materials getting in the way.

The Japanese have lot of solutions, they even have plutonium reactors!

So the solution would be to continously recycle spent fuel rods until there's nearly nothing usefull left in them. The remaining scrap would thereby be far less dangerous, and far easier to store.

In the U.S. we have laws against recycling spent fuel rods, because of the fear that having the material in too many hands could result in some of it disappearing into the wrong hands. For this I have a solution: Recycle spent rods at the same facility that extracts the ore in the first place, using added infrustructure and the same security precautions.

Actually, pretty much all nuclear technology that is employed by anybody that's not France, or learned off of Russia, got theirs from the USA. That includes Japan; the US developed what technology they have. The US may even have some plotunium-based reactors in operation; at the very least, they have some such plants shut-down. I found a really good database on this thing a couple years back, but I'll have to dig it up... I think it was on the IAEA's website.

At any rate, one of the chief problems with re-processing the fuels is that there's a substantial portion of material that is still radioactive, but worthless for use as fuel; anything that's around the weight of Uranium or Plutonium, but not one of those two elements, is effectively worthless, but still considered "nuclear waste," and must be disposed of feasibly. Launching it into space actually doesn't pan out; with a 1 in 100 chance of a launch "failing," that's too high a risk for spreading several tons of radioactive waste across anywhere, let alone Florida.

Quote:
Actually yeah thats not going to happen. Melting Icecaps will not cause some supposed 20 30 foot rise in the ocean level. Think about it this way get a cup fill it with ice and the fill it with water to the very top. What is going to happen when the ice melts? Why what do you know the water level is going to go down because water expands when it freezes which means it displaces more water when frozen that it does when it melts. The sea level might rise some from glaciers melting but the whole melting of the ice caps is going to raise sea level is completely bogus.

Matter of fact global warming in general is totally bogus. There is no huge consensus among scientists that it is man made. There have always been chenges in the global temperature, back when the dinosausrs roamed the earth the global temperature was considerably higher than it is today. Hell 10,000 years ago we were in an ice age, in the middle ages there was a period of much lower global temperatures referred to as a mini ice age. Is the planet heating up yes, is it something that we have caused or are able to stop no. Oh and you do realize that the sun is hotter (putting out more sloar radaition) now that it has been in a past due to normal sloar flucuations. There are many natural causes for the temperature moving up and down and there is not a whole lot of anything we can do to stop or control it. The whole environmental movement has been taken over but anti-capitilist communists for the most part who was to stop all progress and have us all live in little mud houses with no electricity or running water.

The first big hole in your argument: the vast, vast majority of the ice caps are located on LAND, such as Antarctica, and the Greenland glacier.

As for the water level in a glas with melting ice, I recommend you check again; it will actually stay close to the same; ice floats because of air trapped in it, and hence, the ammount of ice above the water's surface is, by volume, around the same as that of the air in it. Since melted water is warmer than ice, the water portion will also expand, slightly increasing the water level. And since most of the ice caps are not floating...

Your argument is pretty much all bull. There IS a consensus among scientists, that global warming IS happening. At least, a consensus among scientists that are actually scientists, meaning that they actually follow the scientific method. Since 2001, no scientists that actually deal with climate have disputed it. And this consensus includes the fact that humans are, indeed, influencing it; the number that don't have been listed on one, (rather short) list, found here.

The only arguments is how it might change in the future, and just how much of an impact humans have; estimates range from 30% to 90% of the warming is due to human activities, placing more CO^2, as well as CH^4 into the air. The main things that are left to question is how things might change in the future.

I recommend you actually look at scientific fact, rather than just going with what pundits say. Remember: only rely on someone who is an actual professional in their field to tell it to you straight. They MIGHT be biased, but with everyone else, who does not pay attention to such things for a living, are GAURANTEED to be biased.
!