40 replies to this topic

[Moosy Crisp]

Not only is Hydrogen expensive to produce, it also creates much pollution. Instead of saving the environment by using hydrogen, you are polluting it further by mass producing it. So back to square one.

[Eureka Seven]

actually mossy crisp, hydrogen does not creat any pollution, at least u can make it not creat any. And if you dont belive me heres a web site
link:Hydrogen

[Moosy Crisp]

Don't believe it. Plus, that still doesn't solve the problem of cost.

[Eureka Seven]

well over the past couple days watching ethier the history or sci-fi channel, i have found the ultimate power source, it can not be equalled in any way, anti-matter generators. They had said a thing of anti-,atter about the size of a penny could give a car enough fuel for 40 billion miles, the only thing is we havent found a way to make it in large quantites, the cost btw is not that bad, and of corse its clean.

[Nuke General]

Yeah I saw that show on history. Also, HYDROGEN'S ONLY BYPRODUCT IS WATER!

[smooder]

OFF SHORE WINDFARMS???
Noone can see them and their not taking up any space, and theres almost always wind out at sea...

[Eureka Seven]

because the windmills need constant maitnence, so no one reallly want to go 100 miles out to sea to do a 30 min maitnence cheak, and then repairing it if it breaks so... not such a good idea.

[smooder]

maintenence workers would probably live there, like they currently do on oil rigs.

[Eureka Seven]

well then it would cost even more, more than probebly the windmill itself it would also need power cords going under water, and then a generator on the island/rock or close to the shore, and also the cost of makeing a island and or moveing an EXTREAMLY large rock and putting it in the water, well after that you probebly used 5 times as much energy than what it will make in 6 months and then the cost is probebly 8 times the ammount of what a windmill will cost on land.

[smooder]

I only suggested that to shut peopel up saying
'it takes up precious space'

And I'm sure a nuclear power station would cost more anyway.

Plus theyre gonna kill you!

Wow would you rather pay for something to kill ypu or pay for something to not kill you?

[Eureka Seven]

nukelear power plants may cost more but the produse more energy than what was payed for them, and nukelear powerplants rarely explode and even if it was going to explode we have procedures today that can stop it. Id rather have anti-matter generators but that another 500 years in the future, ther clean reliable and produse massive amounts of energy, the next thing to come in energy produseing is hydrogen power plants just that there are complications as i said be4.

[domisgod]

 prophet of the pimps, on 15 Jun 2006, 07:18, said:

the reason i like this idea is because of its value in disaster zones. they can hook this up to the grind and supply vital power to the disaster zones. i hope some one tries and airborne version of this with either a 747 or an il-72. think of the potential benefits but an airborne version is gonna face very stiff resistance from the eco heads.

Sweet Mother of God! you need to lay off of the Crack Prophet of DOOM! the benefits of this would be Nothing! other than a flying nuclear disaster in waiting....The US government experimented with planes powered by nuclear reactions and quickly learned the benifits way out weigh the risk (and I'm talking beyond environmentaly).

as for hydrogen fuel cell technology which only bi-product is WATER, if you choose to not believe it then remain gleefuly ignorant while the modern world leaves you choking in their dust.

But as far as this floating nuke power plant is concerned it sounds ok other then the fact that the Russian Federation is building them. They have a very bad track record for shoty craftsmanship in the feild of civil nuclear technology. other then that it could work very well in practice.

[̀̀̀̀█]

..... I hate retarded people...... (that is aimed at the organization, not anyone on the forums)

First off how old was the power plant that blew up? Im not exactly sure, but it wasnt recent. The nuclear reactors nowadats cost alot more. The reason is, THEY CAN TAKE A DIRECT HIT FROM 2 747's! Look it up, and STFU. Im not exactly sure what happened at the siberia incedent, nor do I care. The reactor plants nowadays are among the safest buildings IN THE WORLD. When the next world war comes, thats where I will go to hide. The present reactors need to be updated, a lot! The only issue we have is the nuclear waste. Guess what? My generation is already working on it. We will have enough brain power to almost achieve a useful fusion reaction....
I am age 16, and can out preform even my physics teacher in nuclear physics and systems. Given the tools, I could make a fission bomb, and probably a fusion bomb. NOW STOP COMPLAINING YOU GREEN PEACE BASTARDS!! (that is aimed at the organization, not anyone on the forums)
And dom, reread you post....

Quote

The US government experimented with planes powered by nuclear reactions and quickly learned the benifits way out weigh the risk (and I'm talking beyond environmentaly).

Good job with that.

And yes, flying fission reactors is stupid. Just wait for fusion engines to be perfect. Thats when we win.

Edited by pyrobob, 04 October 2006 - 20:46.

[BlackBob]

im for windmills at sea. if not than working for antimatter unfortunatly if it touches air and there was a large amount of it we would all be dead

anyone hear of the SRE program instaed of water it used salpwater t cool it was a sucess until it crooded a pubber stopper and nuclearradiation leaked out. teh government covered it up. thaat project put radiation in the air that could still be there today. it happened outside of Los Angles and the area is now full of manisons and subarbs.

[smooder]

Windmills FTW!

[Shirou]

Ah Windmills. Germans are building 5 MW windmills. 400 feet tall and each giant 'wing' (however you call it) makes 150 feet... thats 300 from one to another's top.

And Antimatter..um dude..where the hell are you supposed to get that.....like enough amounts to fuel a planet...oO

 pyrobob, on 4 Oct 2006, 21:42, said:

I am age 16, and can out preform even my physics teacher in nuclear physics and systems. Given the tools, I could make a fission bomb, and probably a fusion bomb. NOW STOP COMPLAINING YOU GREEN PEACE BASTARDS!! (that is aimed at the organization, not anyone on the forums)
And dom, reread you post...

And yes, flying fission reactors is stupid. Just wait for fusion engines to be perfect. Thats when we win.

Honestly I dont believe that. You might be super smart IQ over 130 but you will probably wont out perform the experience of you physics teacher yet. Or you must be studying all day because whatever IQ you have all the knowledge that teacher got was from his college and you r probably not even in that.. (or just in it).

If you are that smart then dont 'wait' for the fusion engines to be perfect, but make them perfect yourself you genius .

Given the tools, any self respecting guy interested in physics can design a fission bomb...the construction of the tools needed for it is the problem.

Green peace honestly should NOT be complaining about Nuclear power..why not? Because if they gonna block Nuclear power. Better fixate on reducing CO² emittion. Way more important than the cans of nuclear waste you can just put in a bunker somewhere.

Edited by Shirou, 30 November 2006 - 20:01.