![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 2006-03-07, Jay Honeck wrote:
You're not answering the question. Sigh. I did answer it. So, again, why worry about it? What IS the point of all this hand-wringing? Perhaps because some of us are interested in the long-term survival of a human civilisation that has a reasonable quality of life? -- Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Recently, Jay Honeck posted:
I find it supremely ironic that the ultimate solution to our problems in the Middle East, as well as the ultimate solution to our so-called climate crisis, is being politically quashed by the same people who are screaming the loudest against burning petrochemical fuels. I find off-hand comments about "ultimate solutions" a bit concerning. Care to elaborate? Neil |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Doing environmental harm is stealing from the future. The world does
not belong to us. It is on loan to us by our children. Bull**** - the world belongs to the living. We are doing things to it that benefit us in the near term, but cause harm in the far term. We've even made a business out of it, and in doing so, think that this business is legitimate, and rightfully ours. That's what humans do to survive and prosper. Interstingly, the same ones that want to collectivize the earth have never grasped the ultimate consequences of the actions, known as "the tradgedy of the commons". |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Neil Gould" wrote in message
et... I find off-hand comments about "ultimate solutions" a bit concerning. Care to elaborate? His comments seemed pretty clear to me... He was talking about nuclear energy and the fact that the anti-oil eco-nuts also stand in the way of the development of new nuclear plants... |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
wrote in message
oups.com... Ya know, at a high enough orbit the Venutian blind (sp intentional) would probably only have to be the size of a football field or three. Okay, I have absolutely no way of rationalizing this, but I just latched on to the idea of a NASA/Home Depot collaboration and went off on a tangent... If the sun was a point source of light, then you could put a smaller body between the Earth and it and cover the entire planet with the shadow... Since the sun is larger, that doesn't work... You would need an object the size of the Earth and close to it to cover the entire planet... For 75% coverage, you would need an object at least 75% the size of the Earth... Even when we have a solar eclipse, the moon's shadow is only going across a portion of the planet... If the moon orbited at a greater distance (I'm don't remember of the exact distance off the top of my head), all we would see of the eclipse would be the silhouette of the moon obscuring a part of the sun -- the edges of the sun not obscured by the moon would still be providing light... Although we would still be getting light, it would be at a reduced energy level, so theoretically it should affect the warming of the planet... On the other hand, since polar warming and the subsequent melting of the polar ice packs is seen as a concern by certain individuals, perhaps we should just shadow these areas and let them build up more ice... Of course, while we're at it, maybe we can provide a partial shadow for Houston during the summer months so that the temperature would be more bearable... |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Electricity created with nuclear fission
Considering the care with which people handle dangerous things (including airplanes, an endless topic of discussion here), and considering the number of people with evil intent, both enemies and citizens, and considering the misplaced priorities and total lack of understanding we have about security, and considering all the economic and short term incentives we have to take shortcuts, I am not all that comfortable with increased use of intense nuclear products. Jose -- Money: what you need when you run out of brains. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
You are coming at it from the wrong direction, Jay. Nuclear fission
requires some rather scarce chemistry (U235 doesn't come out of the faucet when you turn it on) but FUSION does come out of the faucet. While "ultimate" solutions are yet to be found (what happens some several millenia down the road when all our water is turned to helium?), if we had spent one tenth of one percent of what we spent on foreign oil over the last fifty years, we could tell the middle east to EAT its oil, we don't need it. Jim Electricity created with nuclear fission can be used to create all sorts of alternative fuels |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Interstingly, the same ones that want to collectivize the earth have never
grasped the ultimate consequences of the actions, known as "the tradgedy of the commons". I am well aware of the tragedy of the commons, and am not advocating "collectivizing the earth". But the attitude that we can do what we want with impunity is counterproductive. We are doing things to it that benefit us in the near term, but cause harm in the far term. We've even made a business out of it, and in doing so, think that this business is legitimate, and rightfully ours. That's what humans do to survive and prosper. That worked when there weren't many humans, and their tools were weak. Our abilities are now far stronger than the environment's ability to recover, and we need to use discretion in a way that we didn't a thousand years ago. Jose -- Money: what you need when you run out of brains. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Recently, Jay Honeck posted:
I find it supremely ironic that the ultimate solution to our problems in the Middle East, as well as the ultimate solution to our so-called climate crisis, is being politically quashed by the same people who are screaming the loudest against burning petrochemical fuels. I find off-hand comments about "ultimate solutions" a bit concerning. Care to elaborate? Electricity created with nuclear fission can be used to create all sorts of alternative fuels, from clean-burning hydrogen, to ethanol. For reasons that are clear only to the activists themselves, dirty and dangerous coal -- and politically unstable oil and natural gas -- are seen as "safer" than nuclear energy. Thanks for the clarification! Not that I think that the solution is all that simple. Technically speaking, I agree that nuclear fission offers a more efficient and less poluting source of energy than burning fossil fuels. However, practically speaking, the process of obtaining nuclear fuel and containing the waste (we have no real way to "dispose" of it) is problematic, even disregarding issues presented by those with malicious intent. At this point in time, these problems more than offset the benefits. Lest someone gets the wrong impression, I am not an "anti-nuclear" activist. But, I *do* live in Ohio, downwind from the plant that nearly had a hole eaten through the reactor lid, and therefore have an interest in the way that situation is being dealt with (yes, it's not over yet, folks!). Thus, when these very same "environmentalists" protest against the use of non-renewable energy (oil, coal, gas) and "global warming" it's impossible to take them seriously. Their actions speak far louder than their words. Is this really an either/or issue, though? We could solve our problems in the same way that they're solved in other countries; tax the heck out of gas. How many Hummers with one person in them would we see on the road if gas was $7.00 a gallon? As I see it, our biggest problem is that we squander non-renewable energy sources. Neil |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"RST Engineering" wrote in message
... what happens some several millenia down the road when all our water is turned to helium? We all end up talking in squeaky voices, of course... snicker |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FA: The Winnie Mae of Oklahoma airplane decanter | cowboy67 | Owning | 0 | February 12th 05 06:09 AM |
Oklahoma City - Flight Planning Question | Art Varrassi | Piloting | 10 | November 23rd 04 03:06 AM |
CVS AnyWhereMap in Eastern Oklahoma | sidk | Home Built | 0 | October 22nd 04 12:40 AM |
CVS AnyWhereMap in Eastern Oklahoma | sidk | Piloting | 0 | October 22nd 04 12:40 AM |
Registration of Aircraft in Oklahoma City | Larry Smith | Home Built | 2 | November 10th 03 05:07 PM |