Debate : 5642


Off-Topic / Debate / 5642	5641 \| 5643

Subject:	Re: Global Warming (was: Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?)
Newsgroups:	lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date:	Thu, 11 May 2000 06:37:12 GMT
Viewed:	627 times

Heck yeah fission is cleaner. We always seem to be worried about what to do with the spent rods - why not drop them into the sun? It's not like it's going to pollute the sun or anything, and the canisters wouldn't need much of a boost at all. I was watching something on PBS a couple weeks ago stating that covering the entire surface of the earth with current solar technology wouldn't meet our needs, and we'd need a TON of fusion reactors to even come close to replacing hydrocarbons. I think the main lesson was that we need to keep looking for higher efficiency alternatives (fusion being one of the most obvious). BTW, using alcohol based fuels to run cars? Nuh-uh - we'd need more biomass than we currently could produce to keep all of our autos running, and that wouldn't leave any biomass for, uh, FOOD. Larry Pieniazek wrote: > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher Tracey writes: > > > there are some other good reasons to give up on carbon based fuels... > > Reason number one being that burning hydrocarbons is a huge waste of precious > chemical feedstocks... the stocks used to make ABS, for example. Every mile you > drive is a brick not made, or something like that. :-) > > ...and number two being that hydrocarbons are so dirty in other ways. I say, > lets use (comparably) clean technologies like nuclear fission(1) for now, and > fusion and space based solar power ASAP, wherever we can. > > ++Lar > > 1 - debate bait. Who'll take it. Fission IS cleaner than, say, coal. -- Tom Stangl ***http://www.vfaq.com/ ***DSM Visual FAQ home ***http://ba.dsm.org/ ***SF Bay Area DSMs

Message has 4 Replies:

		Re: Global Warming (was: Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?)
(...) Back in college, I was researching power technologies a bit for SF RPGs. I remember that there was some theoretical maximum efficiency for solar panels which I'm pretty sure was less than 50% (might have even less than 25%). It's pretty clear (...) (24 years ago, 11-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: Global Warming (was: Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?)
(...) Part of the objection to this scheme stems from the (currently) prohibitive expense of such launches, as well as the perceived potential for wide scattering of radioactive waste in the event of a disastrous launch. Granted, both of these (...) (24 years ago, 11-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: Global Warming (was: Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?)
(...) Booster blows up - you now have radioactive material spread over an extremely wide area. And to make the launch somewhat econonomically feasible, you packed it to the max. Thankfully, it took off from Florida (which if we recall, is going to (...) (24 years ago, 11-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: Global Warming (was: Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?)
(...) Maybe we use too much energy then. We waste so much electricity. Many of the modern TV's use energy to keep the picture tube warm will it is off. I don't know how much this is but, since I began to unplug my television when I am not using it, (...) (24 years ago, 15-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:

		Re: Global Warming (was: Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?)
(...) Reason number one being that burning hydrocarbons is a huge waste of precious chemical feedstocks... the stocks used to make ABS, for example. Every mile you drive is a brick not made, or something like that. :-) ...and number two being that (...) (24 years ago, 10-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

228 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)

Entire Thread on One Page:: Nested: All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear: All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:: Nested: All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear: All | Brief | Compact

Custom Search