Gobal Warming would this work to fix it?

[Gen. Volkov]

That effect isn't hard to simulate for yourself either. Passing on a highway definitely requires more power than just cruising. One's accelerating, the other's just compensating for friction.

What are you refering too here?

forgetting meltdowns, which are the result of poor management, Nuclear power still produces persistent toxic waste and is hardly clean

That's why I only support it as a stopgap measure until we can get fusion power going. Because there's no real alternative to coal, other than giant orbiting solar arrays, which aren't practical for a number of reasons. In order to power the planet off solar power, or wind power, or both, you'd have to cover very large areas of the planet's surface in wind farms and solar farms. It's just not practical. Solar and wind power are too variable too. What happens when a storm hits? Or it's a cloudy day? Or there's no wind? There is no single source that can replace everything. All these other technologies can be used to great effect as supplements, but you would still need a main fuel for your cars and a main source of electricity. And the demand for both is going to grow hugely in the coming years. Right now we MIGHT be able to fufill the worlds energy needs with all these supplementary technologies put together. And I stress the word might. But within ten years you simply won't be able to. Not with China, India, and South America rapidly industrializng.

as mentioned, nuclear plants are rather expensive to setup, and then have a fixxed life. after that what do you do with an old nuclear site? and what do you do with the waste? keep hollowing out mountains?

Not really windy, you are thinking of the 10-20 year life span of the fuel rods, but fuel rods are replaced, and the nuclear plant keeps operating. And the spent fuel rods can be reprocessed, like I keep saying, leaving just 10% of the orginal amount to be stored.

its all well and good to discuss how we could make things better, but unless its put into law, thus forcing people to comply, nothing will change

Actually there are laws, but they aren't enforced well enough due to lack of funds. Besides, what are you gonna do? Force people to by halogen bulbs? Laws aren't the solution, we need to create a fundamental change in western culture. We've already done it once with the civil rights movement. It can be done again.

A million crafts capable of extracting the co2 from the atmosphere would make an effect upon one area.
The sea of co2 would slowly fill in the gap, if the vessels stopped harvesting and all landed.

These kinds of craft never have to land; we could launch mother ships to collect the harvest.
Except for repairs and such they would proly out live any one of us.

Now if the human race built millions of 'particle specific harvesters', to not only removed a set percentage of co2.
They could control a vast array of other particles; we would build an industry around the process of cleansing the planet .

I really think we could remove any particle, we can influence with magnetic polar variances or a flat out charge in a small electrical burst.
It would fly effortlessly and slowly re-charging, as it drew in the particles with an alike polarity charge, the craft would again prepare for next burst.

One, it would be prohibitively expensive. Two, it's a quick fix that doesn't address the many other problems with fossil fuels. Three, it may not even be possible to do. You'd have to split the molecules up to get any sort of charge you could influence. Four, it's probably already been thought of and dismissed for the very reasons I have outlined. Five, maintenance on these things would be horrible. And forget flying effortlessly. They'd need a constant power source for years on end that isn't variable like the sun. And they'd have to be able to withstand everything the atmosphere can dish out. It's just not practical or maybe even possible.

[bjornredtail]

hydrid cars are avilible that get 2-3x the gas milage, but cost more.
if you only spend an extra 500 a year on gas for a standard car, and it costs (?) 5000 more for the hybrid, it doesnt make economic sence for most people

The only place a hybread would get anywhere near that kind of advantage on fuel economny is in city driveing aginst vehicles of a totally diffrent weight class. My parent's full-sized sedan can get around 40 miles/gal on the highway, better than most hybread vehicles under those conditions. Diesel cars get even better mileage.

That's why I only support it as a stopgap measure until we can get fusion power going. Because there's no real alternative to coal, other than giant orbiting solar arrays, which aren't practical for a number of reasons. In order to power the planet off solar power, or wind power, or both, you'd have to cover very large areas of the planet's surface in wind farms and solar farms. It's just not practical. Solar and wind power are too variable too. What happens when a storm hits? Or it's a cloudy day? Or there's no wind? There is no single source that can replace everything. All these other technologies can be used to great effect as supplements, but you would still need a main fuel for your cars and a main source of electricity. And the demand for both is going to grow hugely in the coming years. Right now we MIGHT be able to fufill the worlds energy needs with all these supplementary technologies put together. And I stress the word might. But within ten years you simply won't be able to. Not with China, India, and South America rapidly industrializng.

What about Geothermal and Hydroeletric? Both are steady and depending on the size of the application, can generate vast amounts of power.

Actually there are laws, but they aren't enforced well enough due to lack of funds. Besides, what are you gonna do? Force people to by halogen bulbs? Laws aren't the solution, we need to create a fundamental change in western culture. We've already done it once with the civil rights movement. It can be done again.

I think neither laws (existing envriomental protection laws are either enough or too much as it is) nor culture (which has created the best standard of living that the world has ever seen) need to be changed. I see this as a technological issue. Once you enforce anti-dumping laws, I would leave it to market and engineering forces to create more efficent and envriomentally friendly products. It is already happening with very little government intervention. Look at the development of hybred cars and geoexchange home heating.

That's just silly to spend all the effort on, though. The Earth, like Volkov said, is self-healing. The only problem is, we're pumping so much trash into the air, it doesn't have time to regenerate. It is much better to spend the time developing truly clean power (forgetting meltdowns, which are the result of poor management, Nuclear power still produces persistent toxic waste and is hardly clean) and reducing emissions to the point where the Earth can start to self-heal. Humans always want a technological fix for something, and want to keep on going along the same path. The fact is, Global Warming is not the only environmental problem we face - we're pouring tons of crud into the very air we breathe! That's why I refer to it as a lazy solution, if it actually worked - it doesn't actually fix anything, just prevents Global Warming. If we re-engineer our technology and our Western lifestyle, we can fix a lot more. For some reason, people want to keep living like pigs and not actually do anything about the real problem - pollution.

It seems as if you are aginst technologies that can be used to make our (humankind's) quality of life better and more sustainable. Am I correct, or am I just setting up a straw man?

Secondly, why are you singleing out Western culture? Isn't China in its industrilization poluateing far more than the US is today with respect to GDP per capita?

A million crafts capable of extracting the co2 from the atmosphere would make an effect upon one area.
The sea of co2 would slowly fill in the gap, if the vessels stopped harvesting and all landed.

These kinds of craft never have to land; we could launch mother ships to collect the harvest.
Except for repairs and such they would proly out live any one of us.

Why bother with flying machines? Couldn't ground based, solar or wind powered devices do thee job just as well? Even so, wouldn't the amount removed be tiny compaired to what the Earth already removes natraully?

Well, I can't say I have areal answer to this one, because while modern spacecraft are very reliable and accidents few, they do still happen. I suppose there's always the Yucca mountain solution.

I for one wouldn't mind Yucca mountain. Since it's right over a geologically active area, an earthquake would dislodge waste stored, where it will then sink into the water table, thereby poisoning part of Las Vegas' water suppily. Really, the state would be a whole lot better with those south so-called Nevadans anyways. Though we would miss thier gameing revinew...

Let's bump the farmer's up to maximum capacity, the American farm industry working at full bore, add in the cobs and stalks, and you still only replace MAYBE 40%. Ethanol production is just not efficient enough to do much better than that. You'd need alot more land area covered in corn to fuel all of America's cars, and then you've got the rest of the world with nothing still. Corn is 90% starch, the only source of ethanol better than corn is sugar cane, and that only grows in certain areas, and ethanol prodcution from it is still not good enough to fuel all of America's cars. And once again, this leaves the rest of the world with nothing. It would take literally the entire arable land area of Canada, Mexico, and the US all growing some crop JUST for ethanol production to power all of the cars in the US and maybe some in Canada and Mexico. Ethanol is good as a supplement, but not as a replacement.

Of course there could be improvements in technology that could increce the yeild. Perhaps we could geneticly engineer some bacteria capable of digesting an otherwise unusable feedstock (I mentioned municpal garbage as a possibility). Still, when I get home I'll look up the yeilds from other feedstocks.

Yes, only a little more, because you've already mostly broken free of earth. In comparison the gigantic amount of energy it took to get from the ground to orbit, going from there to the moon is a rather small. The Saturn V spent like 80-90% of it's fuel just getting into orbit. The remaining 10-20% percent was used to go to the moon, brake for an orbit around the moon, and get back to the Earth.

Have I forgotten all I learned in AP Physics already? I think I have. You are indeed correct. I forgot to take into account the amount of energy that is "converted" into potential energy in the proscess of getting into orbit. That and the early stages had to lift all that fuel that would burned later too. Although in orbit, gravity is almost the same as on the Earth's surface. Just the crew's frame of refrence is changed.

So why exactly are we arguing then? *laughs*.

It's fun.

[windhound]

as mentioned, nuclear plants are rather expensive to setup, and then have a fixxed life. after that what do you do with an old nuclear site? and what do you do with the waste? keep hollowing out mountains?

Not really windy, you are thinking of the 10-20 year life span of the fuel rods, but fuel rods are replaced, and the nuclear plant keeps operating. And the spent fuel rods can be reprocessed, like I keep saying, leaving just 10% of the orginal amount to be stored.

I was thinking of the plant itself. I cant find the life expectancy of a nuclear plant. I did find that their parts are replaceable / upgradable, and
"In 2005, there were 441 commercial nuclear generating units throughout the world, with a total capacity of about 368 gigawatts. 111 reactors (36GW) have been shut down. 80% of reactors (and of generating capacity) are more than 15 years old."
"The fuel rods will spend about 3 years inside the reactor, generally until about 3% of their uranium has been fissioned, then they will be moved to a spent fuel pool where the short lived isotopes generated by fission can decay away."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power
111 reactors have been shut down world wide. with only 441 operating, thats a significant number.
and that would seem to be 3 years for each fuel rod, not 10-20.. unless you're including the time it spends in the tank
I didnt double check the wiki info, and some of that may be wrong / misleading, so please correct

its all well and good to discuss how we could make things better, but unless its put into law, thus forcing people to comply, nothing will change

Actually there are laws, but they aren't enforced well enough due to lack of funds. Besides, what are you gonna do? Force people to by halogen bulbs? Laws aren't the solution, we need to create a fundamental change in western culture. We've already done it once with the civil rights movement. It can be done again.

florecent bulbs are much more efficent than incandecent (sp) but the 2nd is much cheaper. a way to force people to use halogen is to force the discontinuation of incandecent. the new flor. bulbs will fit into a standard inc. socket anyways. problem with this is obvious though

hydrid cars are avilible that get 2-3x the gas milage, but cost more.
if you only spend an extra 500 a year on gas for a standard car, and it costs (?) 5000 more for the hybrid, it doesnt make economic sence for most people

The only place a hybread would get anywhere near that kind of advantage on fuel economny is in city driveing aginst vehicles of a totally diffrent weight class. My parent's full-sized sedan can get around 40 miles/gal on the highway, better than most hybread vehicles under those conditions. Diesel cars get even better mileage.

damn. that would be a small 4 cyl. engine in a small car. most full sized sedans can now push 30mpg, but I'm skeptical on the 40. what is it?
ofcourse.. I think most cars are small, I currently drive a full sized chevy van with a V8 which gets maybe 20ish highway

a desiel vehical would be spiffy. I saw a forign (import) truck (suzuki) that got 60 mpg. it was a small truck, but still.. 60mpg

What about Geothermal and Hydroeletric? Both are steady and depending on the size of the application, can generate vast amounts of power.

both depend heavily on location. I believe hydroelectric requires damming the source, which creates problems if the area is populated. most places in the us dont have the option for geothermal (?)

[bjornredtail]

It is a Toyota Camery. Not a particularly small car, the wheelbase and overall leignth is a bit longer than a Ford Explorer (and quite a bit longer than the Jeep Charokee). Of course, this compairson isn't really fair as the SUV's were designed for off road use, thereby requireing a shorter wheelbase than might otherwise be expected. Yes, it has the 4 cyl. engine in it. And that 40 MPG is an optimistic number too. Only on the flats, if a slightly slower than normal (normal = speed limit = 75 MPH) speed is held with all windows up, AC and other auxerily power off, and in relatively cool air. Push the speed up to 75, load it down and turn on the AC and the gas mileage plummets to around 33 MPG. City driving puts it around the high twentys... I'll have to see how good of a mileage I can get comeing back from Utah at a more reasonable speed (though the tempature outside might make that kind of mileage impossable to achive).

[The Beatles]

I got a free fluoresent bulb a few months back from the electric company. However, it didn't fit into the standard socket. (One of my other bulbs is fluorescent and that works fine). Marketing, as usual, is important.

I was referring to the acceleration thing. What's that old physics mantra? "Nonaccelerating motion in a straight line is equivalent to rest" I think.

[Gen. Volkov]

What about Geothermal and Hydroeletric? Both are steady and depending on the size of the application, can generate vast amounts of power.

Geothermal is untested on a large scale, and it's not going to last forever, eventually you will drain all the heat and then you need to find another heat source. And of course there's the problem of a geothermal heat source. I'm not sure on the exact length of time it would take to drain the heat, but operating on an industrial scale will certainly drain it pretty quickly. And eventually you drain so much heat that the you start to cool the planet as a whole. Hydroelectric is problematic, because you have to dam rivers. And doing so creates all kinds of problems, plus eventually you just run out of rivers. So Hydroelectric is once again good as a supplement, but not large scale, and Geothermal could be done large scale, but the possible side effects are scary. Plus, who want's to live in a world where all the geysers have these big hulking energy plants next to them. There has to be a place for wilderness, otherwise, what's the point of all this?

I for one wouldn't mind Yucca mountain. Since it's right over a geologically active area, an earthquake would dislodge waste stored, where it will then sink into the water table, thereby poisoning part of Las Vegas' water suppily. Really, the state would be a whole lot better with those south so-called Nevadans anyways. Though we would miss thier gameing revinew...

Forgot to add a word in there, "Yucca mountain TYPE solution" it should read. Does that change anything?

I was thinking of the plant itself. I cant find the life expectancy of a nuclear plant. I did find that their parts are replaceable / upgradable, and
"In 2005, there were 441 commercial nuclear generating units throughout the world, with a total capacity of about 368 gigawatts. 111 reactors (36GW) have been shut down. 80% of reactors (and of generating capacity) are more than 15 years old."
"The fuel rods will spend about 3 years inside the reactor, generally until about 3% of their uranium has been fissioned, then they will be moved to a spent fuel pool where the short lived isotopes generated by fission can decay away."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power
111 reactors have been shut down world wide. with only 441 operating, thats a significant number.
and that would seem to be 3 years for each fuel rod, not 10-20.. unless you're including the time it spends in the tank
I didnt double check the wiki info, and some of that may be wrong / misleading, so please correct

That sounds about right, but the lifetime a fuel rod varies anywhere from 3 to 10 years, then you have an additional 10 or so years spent in the pond before they are safe enough to be taken out and shipped around. You still wouldn't want to be near one though. But the plant itself can last for decades. The decommisioned ones were mostly inefficient, old, unsafe designs.

Of course there could be improvements in technology that could increce the yeild. Perhaps we could geneticly engineer some bacteria capable of digesting an otherwise unusable feedstock (I mentioned municpal garbage as a possibility). Still, when I get home I'll look up the yeilds from other feedstocks.

I factored all that in to my 40% figure. I'll go as high as 50%, but I don't think you can replace any more than that with ethanol or other biofuel. It's simply a matter of space, and the basic inefficiency inherent in converting sugar to alcohol.

I think neither laws (existing envriomental protection laws are either enough or too much as it is) nor culture (which has created the best standard of living that the world has ever seen) need to be changed. I see this as a technological issue. Once you enforce anti-dumping laws, I would leave it to market and engineering forces to create more efficent and envriomentally friendly products. It is already happening with very little government intervention. Look at the development of hybred cars and geoexchange home heating.

I think a technological and a cultural change is necessary. And to be clear, our technology, economy, and natural advantages(like our natural resources I mean, the great plains and such) is what has given us this great standard of living, not our culture. And the cultural change is what has driven this technological change of hybrid cars and geoexchange home heating.

Have I forgotten all I learned in AP Physics already? I think I have. You are indeed correct. I forgot to take into account the amount of energy that is "converted" into potential energy in the proscess of getting into orbit. That and the early stages had to lift all that fuel that would burned later too. Although in orbit, gravity is almost the same as on the Earth's surface. Just the crew's frame of refrence is changed.

I can't tell if you are being serious or not here.

It's fun.

Right then. *laughs*.

I was referring to the acceleration thing. What's that old physics mantra? "Nonaccelerating motion in a straight line is equivalent to rest" I think.

Yes, but like I said, there's already alot of energy put into the system to get it into orbit. The remaining amount to go to moon is just a fraction of what's already gone into it. The main hurdle in any space operation is simply getting free of Earth's gravity well.


Oh and as a note, I have a Dodge Stratus with a 4 cylinder engine, that unloaded without air conditioner with the windows down, gets about 30 mpg city. That's not alot worse then a hybrid car.

[windhound]

the florecent bulbs for my fishtank will plug into my lamp, and I've seen a decent selection of them at homedepot, wally world, etc.

And eventually you drain so much heat that the you start to cool the planet as a whole.

that just seems silly to me. it would take a very very long time before we could ever have even the slightlest difference to the earths' core temp.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_power_plant
nowhere does it mention anything drying up. if anything the equipment cant handle the stress of attempting to harness the power


maybe we should clarify hybird as gas + electric engine
http://www.ronpatrickstuff.com/ gas + jet engine is cooler, but I dont think it gets great gas milage

some of the hybrids are getting 50+ mpg
http://www.greenhybrid.com/compare/mileage/
lets say an avg. of 15mpg higher than their regular gas version. and lets say the avg. person drives 8k miles a year, and a rounded estimate of $3 a gallon
(8000/(50))* 3 = 480
(8000/(50-15))*3 = ~ 686
686-480 = 206 dollars a year a hybrid driver -might- save on gas
http://www.kbb.com/kb/ki.dll/ke.kb.sp?k ... cle/hybrid add $250 to $3,400 in tax incentives it becomes a little better

http://www.kbb.com/kb/ki.dll/kw.kc.ncop ... _HS;060703
http://www.kbb.com/kb/ki.dll/kw.kc.ncop ... DSA;060703
so then figgure about... 23,494.00-15,898.00 = 7,596 extra to buy a hybrid
hybrids dont save money. they may save on gas, but in the life of the car you wouldnt catch up. once the gas+tax inc. began to catch up to the extra you spent buying a hybrid, the batteries die. all of them, depending on the car it could be a few

the small amount of people who buy hybrids do so because
a) they love the enviorment and take comfort in that they are doing a small part
want somthing different, a topic of converstation
c) make themselves think they're saving money in the long run (and maybe in the very long run it may)
they hybrid versions of the new cars look no different than the normal ones, except maybe a sticker or emblem on the back pronouncing it a hybrid

*yawn*
*shrug*

btw, I forget if its been mentioned in this thread.. there's a new electric car about that has a range of 250 miles.. it runs off 6,831 lithium-ion cells
http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/07/19/ ... 4-seconds/
looks decent too. shame its going to cost upwards 80grand
but it shows that electric engines are perfectly capable of gasoline accel. and speed (to a point) and that batteries are slowly getting better.. a 250 mile range isnt all that bad

[Gen. Volkov]

that just seems silly to me. it would take a very very long time before we could ever have even the slightlest difference to the earths' core temp.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_power_plant
nowhere does it mention anything drying up. if anything the equipment cant handle the stress of attempting to harness the power

I said eventually. And maybe not the core temp within the lifetime of our species, but the upper layers of mantle certainly.

some of the hybrids are getting 50+ mpg

Highway, under optimal conditions and with no air conditioner. That's my only real comment.

btw, I forget if its been mentioned in this thread.. there's a new electric car about that has a range of 250 miles.. it runs off 6,831 lithium-ion cells
http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/07/19/ ... 4-seconds/
looks decent too. shame its going to cost upwards 80grand
but it shows that electric engines are perfectly capable of gasoline accel. and speed (to a point) and that batteries are slowly getting better.. a 250 mile range isnt all that bad

Electric cars... wonderful idea, horribly impractical. Sure is goes 250 miles, excellent range, then it has to recharge for hours. I can refill my gas tank in 5 minutes. Also, where's all the electricity to charge the batteries gonna come from?

[Devari]

Actually there are laws, but they aren't enforced well enough due to lack of funds. Besides, what are you gonna do? Force people to by halogen bulbs? Laws aren't the solution, we need to create a fundamental change in western culture. We've already done it once with the civil rights movement. It can be done again.

I think neither laws (existing envriomental protection laws are either enough or too much as it is) nor culture (which has created the best standard of living that the world has ever seen) need to be changed. I see this as a technological issue. Once you enforce anti-dumping laws, I would leave it to market and engineering forces to create more efficent and envriomentally friendly products. It is already happening with very little government intervention. Look at the development of hybred cars and geoexchange home heating.

That's just silly to spend all the effort on, though. The Earth, like Volkov said, is self-healing. The only problem is, we're pumping so much trash into the air, it doesn't have time to regenerate. It is much better to spend the time developing truly clean power (forgetting meltdowns, which are the result of poor management, Nuclear power still produces persistent toxic waste and is hardly clean) and reducing emissions to the point where the Earth can start to self-heal. Humans always want a technological fix for something, and want to keep on going along the same path. The fact is, Global Warming is not the only environmental problem we face - we're pouring tons of crud into the very air we breathe! That's why I refer to it as a lazy solution, if it actually worked - it doesn't actually fix anything, just prevents Global Warming. If we re-engineer our technology and our Western lifestyle, we can fix a lot more. For some reason, people want to keep living like pigs and not actually do anything about the real problem - pollution.

It seems as if you are aginst technologies that can be used to make our (humankind's) quality of life better and more sustainable. Am I correct, or am I just setting up a straw man?

Secondly, why are you singleing out Western culture? Isn't China in its industrilization poluateing far more than the US is today with respect to GDP per capita?

The west, industrialising first, would also be the first to start this mess. Besides which, it is where the change can come from - it is harder to tell bloody China to clean up its act. Right now, we also live more wastefully per capita. Besides which, we can set an example. To say, "Oh, the other guy is doing it too. Why should we change?", is an enormous fallacy.

I'm not against technologies to improve quality of life, but I am against silly projects like this that waste time trying to avoid the actual problem. A cultural change IS needed - look up the ecological footprint thing. The way we live in the west, we would need 4 or 5 planets if everyone lived the same way we do. We do not have a "right" to pollute, and we . So, yes, straw man. You're assuming I'm against technologies that improve QOL - I'm just against us sucking far more than our share of the world's resources. The two are not mutually exclusive - you can have a good quality of life without living like a bloody pig. In fact, isn't health part of quality of life? Green power and sustainable living would increase QOL, as far as I can see. It's just junk like SUVs that I disapprove of.

It is most certainly not a technological issue. As I said, we live as if we own the bloody planet and we think we deserve to live that way. We need a massive shift in cultural values, as well as new technologies to replace our old polluting ones. We NEED to stop living like there are only a couple billion people in this world - there are 6 billion, and most of them live in abject poverty. Besides which, a lot of the "best standard of living" has been created by the West exploiting the undeveloped world - from the British Empire of old to the corporate empires today. We most certainly need to change that cultural value.

I maintain that looking for a technological quick fix is attempting to take the easy way out, so we can continue living wastefully. That is just silly. No one wants to change, to give up their SUVs and green lawns during summer. I call that selfish, myself, since our pollution is messing up the world for a lot more than just ourselves.

[Freenhult]

I thought Tungsten was about to run out anyway...So florecent was the way of the future or what not. (Unfortunately, most of these reserves are not economically workable so far. At our current annual consumption rate, these reserves will only last for about 140 years.) Guess not.

Fussion...Wow...Personally I don't think fussion is something that will come around for a long while, but Nuclear Power is the best option now. 'Cept if you make coal plants way more effective. Dams hurt the ecosystem, so they really shouldn't be build to produce power.

And on a random note, sorry I left...Too much reading. XD

[bjornredtail]

The west, industrializing first, would also be the first to start this mess. Besides which, it is where the change can come from - it is harder to tell bloody China to clean up its act. Right now, we also live more wastefully per capita. Besides which, we can set an example. To say, "Oh, the other guy is doing it too. Why should we change?", is an enormous fallacy.

Once again, with respect to GDP per capita, are we (the Western Nations) in fact some of the most inefficacy users of resources. Sure we consume the most, but we also produce the most for these resources (to include pollution) used.

We do not have a "right" to pollute

I would disagree to a certain extent. The amount of pollution that can absorbed by the planet without excessive (ie, suicidal) harm is a resource, like grazing land fisheries. It can be abused to the point that it can no longer be used in the future. Or it can be used in a thoughtful manner so as to preserve the resource for future use.

In fact, isn't health part of quality of life? Green power and sustainable living would increase QOL, as far as I can see. It's just junk like SUVs that I disapprove of.

Once again, what's with the SUV bashing? I really do not see anything that isn't economical or anything that is particularly environmentally harmful about a properly designed four-wheel-drive vehicle. Why do you want to take away my recreation and my access to what is my public lands?

As I said, we live as if we own the bloody planet and we think we deserve to live that way.

We (humankind) do own the planet. Of course in the end, this means we are stuck holding the tab if a major resource is abused to the point that it can no longer be productive.

We NEED to stop living like there are only a couple billion people in this world - there are 6 billion, and most of them live in abject poverty.

And you want to drop the rest of the world into such poverty?

I maintain that looking for a technological quick fix is attempting to take the easy way out, so we can continue living wastefully. That is just silly. No one wants to change, to give up their SUVs and green lawns during summer. I call that selfish, myself, since our pollution is messing up the world for a lot more than just ourselves.

Regardless, does this mean we should not be looking for a technological "quick fix"? No matter what happens culturally, any technology may be useful in improving the efficacy of human activity. Why is this a bad thing?

And, why should us (again, humankind) care about anything other than ourselves? Are human lives and livelihoods far more important than those of animals and plants? Yes we must be careful to consider the long-term survival and quality of life for human kind, but how does environmentalism for the sake of environmentalism help us to meet that goal?

Ps. I must also ask, what's wrong with green lawns? In desert areas I can see your complaint, but elsewhere where water is plentiful, why does it matter?

Electric cars... wonderful idea, horribly impractical. Sure is goes 250 miles, excellent range, then it has to recharge for hours. I can refill my gas tank in 5 minutes. Also, where's all the electricity to charge the batteries gonna come from?

Three words: Micro Capacitor Array.

I can't tell if you are being serious or not here.

I was being serious... I forgot the potential energy of the whole lot.

I think a technological and a cultural change is necessary. And to be clear, our technology, economy, and natural advantages(like our natural resources I mean, the great plains and such) is what has given us this great standard of living, not our culture. And the cultural change is what has driven this technological change of hybrid cars and geoexchange home heating.

Our culture has allowed and encouraged the development of technology and our economy as it is now. Secondly, there is quite a bit of economic advantage long-term to a geoexchange heating system. It is a capital investment that saves quite a bit of money in the long run.

Forgot to add a word in there, "Yucca mountain TYPE solution" it should read. Does that change anything?

Not all that much. I doubt such an appropriate site can be found for an underground site like that. If properly maintained, an above ground storage site might make since, depending on where you put it. Of course, when dealing with something this dangerous, you have to consider what would happen in the case it is not properly maintained...

Plus, who want's to live in a world where all the geysers have these big hulking energy plants next to them. There has to be a place for wilderness, otherwise, what's the point of all this?

The point is long-term human survival. And there are plenty of geothermal sites that are not in the wilderness. For example, there is a geothermal power and onion drying plant at the Nightingale/Hotsprings exit of I-80 in Nevada. Used to go four-wheeling out there in one of those eeeeeeeeevil SUV's. There's another a couple miles to the south of the school I used to attend in Reno.

[The Beatles]

Quick note -- the Earth currently produced enough resources to properly house, feed, supply with energy the population of several Earths. It's just

a. the distribution of reosurces is unequal for historical reasons
b. most resources are utilized very efficiently, again for historical reasons.

Given a clean slate and 16 billion people, the Earth would be fine. The problem is the historically-evolved social order. (Not that anarchy would work -- a new order is needed, and that's damn hard to create properly -- see Communism...)

[Gen. Volkov]

Three words: Micro Capacitor Array.

Question: Is there a functioning version of this yet?

I was being serious... I forgot the potential energy of the whole lot.

K then, thanks for clearing that up. Like I said, wasn't sure.

Our culture has allowed and encouraged the development of technology and our economy as it is now.

Isn't that what I said? That's why I think we need a cultural change. What the culture encourages is what will be developed.

Secondly, there is quite a bit of economic advantage long-term to a geoexchange heating system. It is a capital investment that saves quite a bit of money in the long run.

But they do require that initial capital investement, which is quite large, I agree that they are a great technology, so my only thought is cost. How many people can afford one? And do they pay for themselves before maintenance costs start stacking up? Also, are they as good at heating and cooling as an air-conditioner and heater? Especially in climates like mine, which range from 100 in the summer to 20 below 0 in the winter.

Not all that much. I doubt such an appropriate site can be found for an underground site like that. If properly maintained, an above ground storage site might make since, depending on where you put it. Of course, when dealing with something this dangerous, you have to consider what would happen in the case it is not properly maintained...

Yeah, that's the problem with nuclear power, even with reprocessing. Still, it's probably the only real solution for providing the mass amounts of electric power we will need in the future.

The point is long-term human survival. And there are plenty of geothermal sites that are not in the wilderness. For example, there is a geothermal power and onion drying plant at the Nightingale/Hotsprings exit of I-80 in Nevada. Used to go four-wheeling out there in one of those eeeeeeeeevil SUV's. There's another a couple miles to the south of the school I used to attend in Reno.

You do realize that in order to get the necessary amount of electricity to run the country, we'd have to install geothermal plants at every geothermal site in the continental United States? Yellowstone would suddenly become some of the most valuable real estate on Earth. Fully 75%(The numbers vary depending on who's doing the counting) of our power generation comes from fossil fuels. The rest is from nukes and hydroelectric. I like Geothermal power, it's a good idea, and before I talked to my friend's dad, who is a physics professor at Notre Dame University, I thought geothermal might be the answer as well. Then two friends of mine, the one guys dad, and me, had a long discussion on this very topic, and I became convinced that the solution was nuclear power. Besides, I just don't want to see Old Faithful dissapear under a geothermal plant.

[The Beatles]

Oh btw Nev. We don't actually have the right to pollute the planet, because it violates the moral principle of live and let live. If country A wants to outlaw smiling, fine, people can emigrate. If country A pollutes the air, country B will know too, even if it is strongly opposed to a polluted environment.

[bjornredtail]

Oh btw Nev. We don't actually have the right to pollute the planet, because it violates the moral principle of live and let live. If country A wants to outlaw smiling, fine, people can emigrate. If country A pollutes the air, country B will know too, even if it is strongly opposed to a polluted environment.

We have the same problem with various other reasources that are shared internationally, like fisheries. Though it would be worse regulateing the acceptable amount of poulation that a nation's industry can output and in what form. For one there would be an agreement over what exactly is toxic and how to measure output.

Question: Is there a functioning version of this yet?

Errr... Sortof. If you look at those RAM chips in your computer...

Okay, not really. Still there is some inital reacerch into capisitor powered cars going on out there. The neat thing is the capisitors can be recharged far, far faster than batteries can be safely charged.

But they do require that initial capital investement, which is quite large, I agree that they are a great technology, so my only thought is cost. How many people can afford one? And do they pay for themselves before maintenance costs start stacking up? Also, are they as good at heating and cooling as an air-conditioner and heater? Especially in climates like mine, which range from 100 in the summer to 20 below 0 in the winter.

My former Physics teacher had one. He says that it costs around 30-40% more than a standard heating and airconditioning system and that it will pay for itself in 2-4 years. Similarly, a number of resorts up at Tahoe use geoexchange systems to cut their heating and cooling costs.

You do realize that in order to get the necessary amount of electricity to run the country, we'd have to install geothermal plants at every geothermal site in the continental United States? Yellowstone would suddenly become some of the most valuable real estate on Earth. Fully 75%(The numbers vary depending on who's doing the counting) of our power generation comes from fossil fuels. The rest is from nukes and hydroelectric. I like Geothermal power, it's a good idea, and before I talked to my friend's dad, who is a physics professor at Notre Dame University, I thought geothermal might be the answer as well. Then two friends of mine, the one guys dad, and me, had a long discussion on this very topic, and I became convinced that the solution was nuclear power. Besides, I just don't want to see Old Faithful dissapear under a geothermal plant.

Why must it replace ALL the power? There are dozens of other power sources. Hydroeletric, Wind, Solar, Tideal, perhaps even various types of biomass (charcoal or wood anyone?). This in addation to our existing fossil fuel generateing capacity (at least for the time being). There is no reason we have to decomission every coal plant at once.

Back in Nevada, around 10% of power is generated by Geothermal plants, like the two I described.