PDA

View Full Version : What do you think about chernobyl?!


Aurimas
11-01-08, 16:54
.

Draco
11-01-08, 17:05
I don't.

PARANOIA
11-01-08, 17:08
Chernobyl was a lamentable disaster, but nuclear technology has improved since then, and a Russian disaster from bygone years is no reason to picket nuclear plant construction; a cleaner, plentiful, and more efficient source of energy than oil.

Gregori
11-01-08, 17:10
I think an accident like this was inevitable. Nuclear Fission isn't a safe way of producing power. I think its only a matter of time before another major nuclear disaster happens. Its just takes a two or three things to go wrong on tthe same day to cause a nuclear accident.

I think its about time we started putting some hardcore funding and research into Solar, Wind, Geothermal and Wave power. Because of it's potential for producing Nuclear Weapons, the Nuclear industry got enormous funding without parrallel.

If humans want to travel through the solar system and colonise it, we should be developing Nuclear Fusion.

Chernobyl was a lamentable disaster, but nuclear technology has improved since then, and a Russian disaster from bygone years is no reason to picket nuclear plant construction; a cleaner, plentiful, and more efficient source of energy than oil.


Its not more plentiful since the primary fuel for it will be exhausted by the end of the century.
Its also not "cleaner" since they can't properly dispose of the waste which can stay radioactive for thousands and millions of years. I've never heards of any deaths from CO2 exposure. Despite that, Nuclear Energy is much more expensive that oil. No matter how improved nuclear technology gets, the potential for a disasterous accident is always there, so people have pretty good reasons to picket.

Keeping the Nuclear Power industry alive means keeping Nuclear Weapons alive. This increases the potential for disaster for the humans race in the long run. Nobody in the international community would support Iran's civilian nuclear power program because they know Iran's is pursuing it for the same reason as themselves.

PARANOIA
11-01-08, 17:12
Nuclear Fission isn't a safe way of producing power.

Prove it.

scion05
11-01-08, 17:16
Well it was 20+ years ago :rolleyes: It doesn't really bare thinking about :rolleyes:
LOL

Kamrusepas
11-01-08, 17:17
Well around where I live people were worried, because it happened shortly before I was born. Thus mine and many other parents were afraid of giving birth to mutated kids. But, we seem to be more or less fine.

Gregori
11-01-08, 17:24
Prove it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_accident

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_nuclear_accidents

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_nuclear_accidents

PARANOIA
11-01-08, 17:44
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_accident

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_nuclear_accidents

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_nuclear_accidents

Notice that the majority of catastrophic disasters were by Soviet Russia, or any nearby provinces. All later disasters are anecdotal and reach as high as Level 4 from the outside countries (if even that), and no significant level in the United States. Three Mile Island is peanuts compared to Chernobyl. Nuclear power is plentiful because it can be generated by a chemical reaction. Even then, there's always hydrogen power.

If we continue developing on nuclear power, we'll have less accidents, and we'll get hydrogen or even fusion power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power

Wind and solar power: One would need billions and billions and billions of solar and wind power generators to power an entire country. The expenses would be astronomical.

SamReeves
11-01-08, 17:52
"Aye Captain, the future ye know is matter and anti-matter!" :D

http://i10.************/8512ts4.jpg

Until that day, it's coal, natural gas, nuclear, and hydro for us regular folk.

JamesFKirk
11-01-08, 17:54
Chernobyl was a disaster, and the way I see it, it was mainly the fault of a human being. It was simply an experiment that went terribly wrong. However, most nuclear plants that still work today are of a different design, most of them with reactors that in case similar things would happen, would shut themselves down on their own.
Or at least, that's how I understand it, read only about seven or eight books on nuclear physics. (so I can't possibly tell what exactly happens when you overload other types of reactors in the same way).
However, experiments with this kind of nuclear technology are less often in these days.

What is sad is that many people see nuclear energy as downright path to blowing lots to smithereens and irradiating others and creating whole population of disfigured children... I wonder who and WHY creates such myths. (I don't say that it's completely safe, but nothing is, I'd rather have three new nuclear plants in CZ than a whole new set of coal plants with the same energy output...)

JamesFKirk
11-01-08, 17:55
"Aye Captain, the future ye know is matter and anti-matter!" :D

http://i10.************/8512ts4.jpg

Until that day, it's coal, natural gas, nuclear, and hydro for us regular folk.
:D
Fortunatelly, there's still fusion. Hopefuly in next fifty years at least some small reactors (in terms of output, not size :D ) will show up...

PARANOIA
11-01-08, 17:55
Chernobyl was a disaster, and the way I see it, it was mainly the fault of a human being. It was simply an experiment that went terribly wrong. However, most nuclear plants that still work today are of a different design, most of them with reactors that in case similar things would happen, would shut themselves down on their own.
Or at least, that's how I understand it, read only about seven or eight books on nuclear physics. (so I can't possibly tell what exactly happens when you overload other types of reactors in the same way).
However, experiments with this kind of nuclear technology are less often in these days.

What is sad is that many people see nuclear energy as downright path to blowing lots to smithereens and irradiating others and creating whole population of disfigured children... I wonder who and WHY creates such myths. (I don't say that it's completely safe, but nothing is, I'd rather have three new nuclear plants in CZ than a whole new set of coal plants with the same energy output...)
^^^
Words of the wise, my friends. Words of the wise.

JamesFKirk
11-01-08, 17:58
^^^
Words of the wise, my friends. Words of the wise.
Well, I'm afraid those won't stop the protests about the Temelin nuclear plant, that are still occuring... I wonder if those people there even know all the reactors there are of different type.

Gregori
11-01-08, 18:07
Notice that the majority of catastrophic disasters were by Soviet Russia, or any nearby provinces. All later disasters are anecdotal and reach as high as Level 4 from the outside countries (if even that), and no significant level in the United States. Three Mile Island is peanuts compared to Chernobyl. Nuclear power is plentiful because it can be generated by a chemical reaction. Even then, there's always hydrogen power.

If we continue developing on nuclear power, we'll have less accidents, and we'll get hydrogen or even fusion power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power

Wind and solar power: One would need billions and billions and billions of solar and wind power generators to power an entire country. The expenses would be astronomical.


Nuclear power can't "be generated by a chemical reaction".
I don't know where you studied physics, but I sure never leanred that.

Uranium suppies will be exhausted by the end of the century.
Its non-renewable, its super expensive, its a front for producing nuclear weapons.

No matter how much the technology improves, the risk of a catastrophic disaster is always of overhead. Plenty of serious nuclear accidents have happend in places that are not the Soviet Union. Not all of these were catastophic but highlight the imminent danger. It only takes one or two things to go wrong. All nuclear accidents are serious and shouldn't be taken lightly.

If wind, wave, geothermal and solar energy had got the funding nuclear has so far received, those technologies would have advanced to amazing level. You don't need "billions and billion and billion" of generators for these technologies currently, and with development you would need even less.

Developing Nuclear Fusion has absolutely nothing to do with developing Nuclear Fusion Power. They are two completley different technologies.

I strongly support develpoing Fusion because it would be a safe and abundant form of energy. It would allow the human race to travel the solar system and colonise space.

xcrushterx
11-01-08, 18:10
I found it interesting that, even though this disaster was so large, all I had heard of was the name Chernobyl, but didn't know what happened until about... a year ago.

Personally, I think it wasn't an accident, but you never know, do you? :)

Drone
11-01-08, 18:12
Well it was 20+ years ago :rolleyes: It doesn't really bare thinking about :rolleyes:
LOL

just for your only information

The half-life of uranium-238 is about 4.47 billion years and that of uranium-235 is 704 million years Lol and you say that 20 years so long time .... If you don't now Uranium is older than our Earth


Chernobyl was a horrible event of XX century. I am against nuclear energy and always will be against that. Earth safety is much more important than energy development. Rather I will sit without internet in candlelight than using nuclear reactors

JamesFKirk
11-01-08, 18:13
Nuclear power can't "be generated by a chemical reaction".
I don't know where you studied physics, but I sure never leanred that.

Uranium suppies will be exhausted by the end of the century.
Its non-renewable, its super expensive, its a front for producing nuclear weapons.

No matter how much the technology improves, the risk of a catastrophic disaster is always of overhead. Plenty of serious nuclear accidents have happend in places that are not the Soviet Union. Not all of these were catastophic but highlight the imminent danger. It only takes one or two things to go wrong. All nuclear accidents are serious and shouldn't be taken lightly.

If wind, wave, geothermal and solar energy had got the funding nuclear has so far received, those technologies would have advanced to amazing level. You don't need "billions and billion and billion" of generators for these technologies currently, and with development you would need even less.

Developing Nuclear Fusion has absolutely nothing to do with developing Nuclear Fusion Power. They are two completley different technologies.

I strongly support develpoing Fusion because it would be a safe and abundant form of energy. It would allow the human race to travel the solar system and colonise space.

Yup, solar energy could feed the world with enough power, under ideal conditions. However, those by far are not met. Geotermal energy brings risks of hightened vulcanic activity(if used unproperly, just one or two things wrong). Wind energy is not sufficient and water energy has enviromental setbacks of it's own. Unfortunatelly, until we (the humanity) come with something long-term viable (like fusion, for example, or transporting energy from large solar panels in orbit), nuclear energy is the only alternative to using fossil fuels. I'm not saying that nuclear energy is the answer, however, it's the most ecologic possibility for generating power with current level of technology that could be wide-spread.
Or have I missed some great, terrific news about some breakthrough?

JamesFKirk
11-01-08, 18:17
Chernobyl was a horrible event of XX century. I am against nuclear energy and always will be against that. Earth safety is much more important than energy development. Rather I will sit without internet in candlelight than using nuclear reactors

Such a disaster was possible with only the graffite (or how is it spelled) type of reactor. Do I need to repeat myself? The largest possible disaster nowadays is large outtake of irradiated vapor, which in itself is unlikely with types of reactors of these days. Of course, I'm not talking about terrorist attack, but those are disasters in they own nature, not requiring a nuclear plant.

Gregori
11-01-08, 18:19
Yup, solar energy could feed the world with enough power, under ideal conditions. However, those by far are not met. Geotermal energy brings risks of hightened vulcanic activity(if used unproperly, just one or two things wrong). Wind energy is not sufficient and water energy has enviromental setbacks of it's own. Unfortunatelly, until we (the humanity) come with something long-term viable (like fusion, for example, or transporting energy from large solar panels in orbit), nuclear energy is the only alternative to using fossil fuels. I'm not saying that nuclear energy is the answer, however, it's the most ecologic possibility for generating power with current level of technology that could be wide-spread.
Or have I missed some great, terrific news about some breakthrough?

Its the not the only alternative. There are loads of alternatives that could be used in combination to provide our energy. Most of these just need funding, we have most of the technological capacity already.

Unfortunaltey, you can't make weapons out of these or use them to control the world energy market.

PARANOIA
11-01-08, 18:19
Earth safety is much more important than energy development. Rather I will sit without internet in candlelight than using nuclear reactors

You want Earth safety? Kill yourself. In fact, kill as many people as you can. The only way the Earth will be "safe" is if the entire human race commits suicide. Who's going to start?

JamesFKirk
11-01-08, 18:20
Its the not the only alternative. There are loads of alternatives that could be used in combination to provide our energy. Most of these just need funding, we have most of the technological capacity already.
For example? I am curious.

PARANOIA
11-01-08, 18:20
Its the not the only alternative. There are loads of alternatives that could be used in combination to provide our energy. Most of these just need funding, we have most of the technological capacity already.

Hydrogen and fusion power are my favorite things to discuss. I don't tend to focus on nuclear power much. You do say there are disadvantages to nukes; I can't think of any so far for hydrogen and fusion, if that gets developed.

Gregori
11-01-08, 18:22
For example? I am curious.

Would you like me to spend all day posting them?

PARANOIA
11-01-08, 18:22
Would you like me to spend all day posting them?

Yes. You're the one who claims there are alternatives. Defend your position.

Drone
11-01-08, 18:23
You want Earth safety? Kill yourself. In fact, kill as many people as you can. The only way the Earth will be "safe" is if the entire human race commits suicide. Who's going to start?

another rhubarb. Not everyone destroyes the earth. And "kill yourself save the universe" is idiots philosophy

JamesFKirk
11-01-08, 18:24
Hydrogen and fusion power are my favorite things to discuss. I don't tend to focus on nuclear power much. You do say there are disadvantages to nukes; I can't think of any so far for hydrogen and fusion, if that gets developed.
There aren't many disadvantages of fusion power, simply because would the reactor melt, the outtake of radioactivity would be small and mostly of gama-ray type, which is not that harmful as neutron radiation. As with hydrogen as a source of chemical energy, it has two setbacks. First is getting the hydrogen in a viable way (that is, not making it by electrolythic dissolution from water, only to burn it and make water again - the necessary way would be to create hydrogen from water by some yet unknown catalyzed dissolution). Second, it's extremely flamable, and fault of storage tank could cause large explosion of a local kind (nothing on WMD scale).

PARANOIA
11-01-08, 18:27
another rhubarb. Not everyone destroyes the earth.

Yes, everybody destroys the Earth. Every human emits carbon. Therefore, according to Gore, every human is damaging the Earth.

Gregori
11-01-08, 18:27
Yes. You're the one who claims there are alternatives. Defend your position.

Sure no problem. I've to go out and party right now, but when I am back I'll give a comprehensive list of the research and developments in the field!

JamesFKirk
11-01-08, 18:27
Would you like me to spend all day posting them?
I want just one viable option of creating energy by using something else than fossile and nuclear energy, using the way you described - lots of funding and not much of technological research. However, I'd like to hear of a technology that is safe (that is, no possibility of leaks of dangerous materials, explosions of large local scale) and viably usable (that is, it would not cost the US state budget to build one plant).
Just one. Please. I'd be happy if such technology existed - not kidding.

JamesFKirk
11-01-08, 18:29
Sure no problem. I've to go out and party right now, but when I am back I'll give a comprehensive list of the research and developments in the field!
I hope at least some of the research is close to fruiting something viable. I really do.

Gregori
11-01-08, 18:31
I want just one viable option of creating energy by using something else than fossile and nuclear energy, using the way you described - lots of funding and not much of technological research. However, I'd like to hear of a technology that is safe (that is, no possibility of leaks of dangerous materials, explosions of large local scale) and viably usable (that is, it would not cost the US state budget to build one plant).
Just one. Please. I'd be happy if such technology existed - not kidding.

Its never going to be one technology. This is called a "single path fallacy", the belief that one thing is the solution to all your problems. The truth is that you need a combination of many technologies.

If you're interested, there's an improvment in Solar Cells here:

http://www.physorg.com/news119107136.html

Here is Dr Robert Bussard's Fusion Research Talk :

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1996321846673788606

Here is another Fusion Research Talk:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1518007279479871760


I can post a bunch of other stuff tomorrow!

Drone
11-01-08, 18:33
^ sollar sells are great and also wind turbines.

PARANOIA
11-01-08, 18:38
^ sollar sells are great and also wind turbines.

What about when there's no wind or no sunlight?

Drone
11-01-08, 18:43
What about when there's no wind or no sunlight?

90% of all places in 90% time always have either wind or sunlight. And whatever they can store the power for some months

Gregori
11-01-08, 18:46
90% of all places in 90% time always have either wind or sunlight. And whatever they can store the power for some months

Exactly!!

There are solutions to this if you want find them enough. Thats what human ingenuity is for.

Besides that, there is always the possibilty of orbital Solar Cells beaming power back to earth!

Drone
11-01-08, 18:51
Exactly!!

There are solutions to this if you want find them enough. Thats what human ingenuity is for.

Besides that, there is always the possibilty of orbital Solar Cells beaming power back to earth!

of course :) People have million choices how to find safe power sources :)

Vertigo
11-01-08, 19:11
I agree with Salim (Drone). Nuclear energy is scariest thing in this world. Even 100 years ago people haven`t it and life was perfect. Candles? Well why not? I`m totally sure that nuclear energy will destroy Earth some day.

la-la-lara
11-01-08, 19:33
Radiation doesn't magically disappear, but in time it is absorbed by the ground because of the rain.


Well it was 20+ years ago :rolleyes: It doesn't really bare thinking about :rolleyes:
LOL

This isn't smth to make fun of, or to ignore.

Geck-o-Lizard
11-01-08, 19:50
Radiation doesn't dissolve and become harmless once it's in the ground. When radioactive material is absorbed into the ground, that land becomes contaminated and unusable - you can't build on it, live on it, grow things on it or let animals graze on it. Depending on the half life of the contaminant, the land could be tainted for tens of thousands of years.

tampi
11-01-08, 20:19
Precisely the British Labour government yesterday opted for a new generation of nuclear power plants :wve:
.......

Maybe this new solar tecnology can do something :)

Nanosolar: http://www.nanosolar.com/

Nanosolar is on track to make solar electricity:
cost-efficient for ubiquitous deployment
mass-produced on a global scale
available in many versatile forms.
Nanosolar has developed proprietary process technology that makes it possible to produce 100x thinner solar cells 100x faster.

Watch videos by CNN, KQED, CNBC to see how we can simply roll-print thin-film solar cells.

Our first product, the Nanosolar Utility Panel™, is the industry's first panel specifically designed for optimal utility-scale systems economics.

4riNlqZHCTQ Always exists a new way :)

Punaxe
11-01-08, 20:19
I would love to visit Pripyat one day...

Drone
11-01-08, 21:01
Radiation doesn't dissolve and become harmless once it's in the ground. When radioactive material is absorbed into the ground, that land becomes contaminated and unusable - you can't build on it, live on it, grow things on it or let animals graze on it. Depending on the half life of the contaminant, the land could be tainted for tens of thousands of years.

even million/billion/trillion whatever years. And to get rid of depleted uranium plutonium or whatever is very hard and expensive. Also some ignorant people think that nuclear reactions don't heat the atmosphere up even tho it produces very big amount of CO2. I saw one video how several activists gained that their goverment stopped nuclear reactor and removed all radiactive materials. Afterwards all activists went to that factory and exploded with TNT :) It was great how those ugly buildings were destroyed

la-la-lara
12-01-08, 20:45
Radiation doesn't dissolve and become harmless once it's in the ground. When radioactive material is absorbed into the ground, that land becomes contaminated and unusable - you can't build on it, live on it, grow things on it or let animals graze on it. Depending on the half life of the contaminant, the land could be tainted for tens of thousands of years.

Exactly. Radiation at that time was even in your shoes.

Dakaruch
12-01-08, 21:53
Ok so i only saw this thread today, and the incident at Chernobyl happened due to a lack of several stuff...

Lack of security
Lack of technology
Lack of monetary funds, especially this one


And no Nuclear Energy is not the worst thing on the world... The worst thing on the world is the things that can be made with nuclear elements when used to wars etc... Nuclear power was a great development from the old and highly pollutant oil/gas/coal power plants. Nuclear power is a somewhat "cleaner" source of power as long as all the security measures are respected!

And this isn't a matter to ignore or laugh about... There are still people suffering the effects of the radiation due to contaminated food,water or even because of the proximity to the nuclear reactor! Yes because the nuclear reactor was not deactivated, which means that it is still emitting radioactivity and will continue for many years...

danitiwa
12-01-08, 22:08
I think it's horrible, and that people should not tamper with such powerfull things as nuclear science.

PARANOIA
12-01-08, 22:10
I think it's horrible, and that people should not tamper with such powerfull things as nuclear science.

That's a fairly ambiguous statement. Do you mean to say that we should not develop nuclear science to be more efficient and safer?

danitiwa
12-01-08, 22:13
That's a fairly ambiguous statement. Do you mean to say that we should not develop nuclear science to be more efficient and safer?

Yes, because we can sacrafice way too much doing it.

PARANOIA
12-01-08, 22:14
Yes, because we can sacrafice way too much doing it.

I'm afraid I don't follow your logic.

Dakaruch
12-01-08, 22:17
Dani look... Chernobyl was a case of negligence! From the government to the responsible of the Nuclear plant. They did not had the monetary resources to deal with something like that... Nuclear power is one of the most powerful and cleaner energies we can get, for a fair price!
Nuclear technology is not dangerous if it's treated with the responsibility and security it demands! ;)

danitiwa
12-01-08, 22:20
Whatever guys, it still doesn't smell good to me. (Not literally.)

thecentaur
12-01-08, 22:59
what is chernobyl? :o

sorry for my not being astute with these events

Dakaruch
12-01-08, 23:16
Chernobyl is a town known for an incident with a Nuclear power plant! It blew off, spreading radiation to the surroundings and also to other countries... The solution found to "stop" the radiation from spreading was to build a massive tomb of cement with various meters of thickness...

You can see more in here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster)

:wve:

Drone
12-01-08, 23:17
Yes, because we can sacrafice way too much doing it.

right!

I think it's horrible, and that people should not tamper with such powerfull things as nuclear science.

very simple and very good direction :)

Nuclear power is one of the most powerful and cleaner energies we can get, for a fair price!
Nuclear technology is not dangerous if it's treated with the responsibility and security it demands! ;)

fusion-type reactor is much cheaper and absolutely non-radiactive. People just don't go in right direction and still can't develop it. Thermonuclear reactor doesn't need any radiactive materials and gives x10000 times more energy than nuclear reactor (thermonuclear reactions progress on the sun and other stars you could see how giant, beautiful and amazing power is that). Whilst using nuclear reactors u need uranium U235 and plutonium. And what to do with deplated uranium afterwards? How to get rid of it? Bury them means to ***** up all Earth's ecosystem becasue when it's in ground it "poisons" (literally and not literally at the same time) everything. If you pack it and send to space then you **** the space and btw it would be very expensive. So unless people didn't invent thermonuclear reactions they need to refuse of using nuclear reactors :)

tizerist
12-01-08, 23:20
i know quite alot about this subject.

terrifying. to think it will be about 900 years before its safe to live there again. if you fell onto the grass there, you're in big trouble. the roads are safer because they dont "soak up" the radiation as much as grass and trees.
even then, you're in grave danger if you spend more than a few hours there

Dakaruch
12-01-08, 23:22
That's correct Drone, but we still need to develop much more the fusion reactions... As far as i know it is still too unstable and at a very low development! Am i wrong? I am not much informed about that technology anymore...

Anyway i also think that the future is the fusion-type reactor, after all it uses non pollutant components, which are later transformed also into non pollutant components!

Drone
12-01-08, 23:25
i know quite alot about this subject.

terrifying. to think it will be about 900 years before its safe to live there again. if you fell onto the grass there, you're in big trouble. the roads are safer because they dont "soak up" the radiation as much as grass and trees.
even then, you're in grave danger if you spend more than a few hours there

There are some freaks who like extreme. They make some expeditions in Chernobyl zone. They wear special suits and take Geiger counter to spend few hours there to get some adrenaline feeling. I bet they played STALKER too much

Drone
12-01-08, 23:28
That's correct Drone, but we still need to develop much more the fusion reactions... As far as i know it is still too unstable and at a very low development! Am i wrong? I am not much informed about that technology anymore...

Anyway i also think that the future is the fusion-type reactor, after all it uses non pollutant components, which are later transformed also into non pollutant components!

You're informed very good Nuno :) Everything's right :tmb:. All development is very weak atm I suspect that countries who have too much oil and coal can somehow to disturb to all this development otherwise when it's all done they can't sell oil/coal/gas or whatever anymore. Everything in this world depends on politics aargh

Dakaruch
12-01-08, 23:36
You're informed very good Nuno :) Everything's right :tmb:. All development is very weak atm I suspect that countries who have too much oil and coal can somehow to disturb to all this development otherwise when it's all done they can't sell oil/coal/gas or whatever anymore. Everything in this world depends on politics aargh

Indeed! Many of our problems are due to the countries who have the oil and etc monopolies and due to that other non pollutant and cheaper energies can't be correctly developed! You can see that on the problem we will soon have with our cars... Our cars use the extracted oil that at this rate will end in a short time, but still nothing is being made to develop other reliable ways of make a car start... Hybrids are not the solution, can be a temporary one, but never permanent! We should develop ways to get our cars moving without any oil at all! Unfortunately the countries who have the monopoly of the oil do not want such a thing, because they would stop making the millions of dollars they make everyday!

Drone
12-01-08, 23:42
Indeed! Many of our problems are due to the countries who have the oil and etc monopolies and due to that other non pollutant and cheaper energies can't be correctly developed! You can see that on the problem we will soon have with our cars... Our cars use the extracted oil that at this rate will end in a short time, but still nothing is being made to develop other reliable ways of make a car start... Hybrids are not the solution, can be a temporary one, but never permanent! We should develop ways to get our cars moving without any oil at all! Unfortunately the countries who have the monopoly of the oil do not want such a thing, because they would stop making the millions of dollars they make everyday!

I agree it's very sad they dig Earth to get all that natural resources, then sell it, other people buy it and burn it. First ones pollute Earth and second ones pollute atmosphere. Some kind of competition who will first **** the world lol :D Electro cars would be great they could work on sun energy and could solve two problems with ground and air. Just sad we nothing can do just discuss and protest

PARANOIA
12-01-08, 23:47
I agree it's very sad they dig Earth to get all that natural resources, then sell it, other people buy it and burn it. First ones pollute Earth and second ones pollute atmosphere. Some kind of competition who will first **** the world lol :D Electro cars would be great they could work on sun energy and could solve two problems with ground and air. Just sad we nothing can do just discuss and protest

Sun's energy? You mean solar powered cars?

:vlol:

This forum is turning into Socialist City.

Gregori
12-01-08, 23:50
The very nature of the Fission reaction and Heavy Radioactive Isotopes makes Nuclear Power a disaster waiting to happen. It just takes a few simple things to go wrong.

Don't be deluded into thinking that Nuclear Power is cheap either. It requires massive goverment subsidies and funding. Storing the waste is a logistical nightmare. Because of its potential for making a deadly weapon, countries poured trillions into developing it. If the same had been provided for other technologies, we would be using them right now.

The solution to world energy problems is a combination of many things at the same time, there is no single solution.

Drone
12-01-08, 23:51
Sun's energy? You mean solar powered cars?

:vlol:

This forum is turning into Socialist City.

Nobody holds you :) You could go and swim in palladium pool and then you could post in TRF what you felt :) You could become a very popular then

thecentaur
12-01-08, 23:51
quite depressing... :(

kinda reminds me of "the hills have eyes" and the beginning cutscene of TR1 (with the explosions)