Yank is a slang for american in england and the commenwealth.PspRpg-7 wrote:
Where the hell did the term 'yanks' come from, and should I be offended? -.-
Which scientists? The ones with lots of letters after their name who say it violates the laws of Thermodynamics, or the guy who runs a company set up to sell a dated and inviable technology who doesn't have any letters after his name?Konfusion0 wrote:
Hey: if it' a new solution to the modern oil and pollution problem, I'm not going to complain. Prove that it works, spread it around, and everyone can stop polluting so much, and we might still be able to save the world;).
You just have to have some faith in the scientists for once...
Not enough of those to matter.King_County_Downy wrote:
Hydro-electric dams?
Last edited by Burning_Monkey (2006-06-09 05:10:29)
I agree. And I tank biodiesel to my VW. Now keep those hippie accusations coming.Burning_Monkey wrote:
Not enough of those to matter.King_County_Downy wrote:
Hydro-electric dams?
EDIT: Not that I want the world to be slaves to the underground rotted waste from plants that a bunch of terrorists control. This instance just happens to be a crock of shit.
I want some thing better than fossil fuels worse than most people, but 'free' energy from water is a pipe dream that surfaces every once in a while to bilk investors out of money.
I say invest in biodiesel and invest heavy. That is the wave of the future.
Indeed, these men are primarily businessmen, and not so much scientists.UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
Which scientists? The ones with lots of letters after their name who say it violates the laws of Thermodynamics, or the guy who runs a company set up to sell a dated and inviable technology who doesn't have any letters after his name?Konfusion0 wrote:
Hey: if it' a new solution to the modern oil and pollution problem, I'm not going to complain. Prove that it works, spread it around, and everyone can stop polluting so much, and we might still be able to save the world;).
You just have to have some faith in the scientists for once...
i agree with your first statement but burning anything to produce gases and liquids with Carbon and hydrogen in them are NOT the way forward. Global warming may or may not be truely happening as its too soon to say if its a natural change that is starting to happen or human influenced but that doesnt mean we should push our luck, renewables and nuclear are the way forward. Renewable just needs more investment before it becomes truly viable and nuclear is just completly not understood by people that havent done physics or have knowledge on the subject.Burning_Monkey wrote:
Not enough of those to matter.King_County_Downy wrote:
Hydro-electric dams?
EDIT: Not that I want the world to be slaves to the underground rotted waste from plants that a bunch of terrorists control. This instance just happens to be a crock of shit.
I want some thing better than fossil fuels worse than most people, but 'free' energy from water is a pipe dream that surfaces every once in a while to bilk investors out of money.
I say invest in biodiesel and invest heavy. That is the wave of the future.
Yes that was hydrogen gas this is supposed to be something else.Poncho wrote:
Rofl. This is soooo old news. They used water as fuel already on the MOON.
you silly raincoat...Poncho wrote:
Rofl. This is soooo old news. They used water as fuel already on the MOON.
Biodiesel is a renewable resource.Vilham wrote:
i agree with your first statement but burning anything to produce gases and liquids with Carbon and hydrogen in them are NOT the way forward. Global warming may or may not be truely happening as its too soon to say if its a natural change that is starting to happen or human influenced but that doesnt mean we should push our luck, renewables and nuclear are the way forward. Renewable just needs more investment before it becomes truly viable and nuclear is just completly not understood by people that havent done physics or have knowledge on the subject.Burning_Monkey wrote:
Not enough of those to matter.King_County_Downy wrote:
Hydro-electric dams?
EDIT: Not that I want the world to be slaves to the underground rotted waste from plants that a bunch of terrorists control. This instance just happens to be a crock of shit.
I want some thing better than fossil fuels worse than most people, but 'free' energy from water is a pipe dream that surfaces every once in a while to bilk investors out of money.
I say invest in biodiesel and invest heavy. That is the wave of the future.
Or remember Cheynobyl...Vilham wrote:
Renewable just needs more investment before it becomes truly viable and nuclear is just completly not understood by people that havent done physics or have knowledge on the subject.
yes it was hydrogen gas, not exactly water... if we had this tech 40 yrs ago the pollution on the earth wont be as badRosse_modest wrote:
Yes that was hydrogen gas this is supposed to be something else.Poncho wrote:
Rofl. This is soooo old news. They used water as fuel already on the MOON.
I kind of agree. Nuclear fuel should be the way forward, it solves so many problems. Unfortunately one of the problems it raises we are unable to do anything about at the moment, namely nuclear waste. This shit stays around for tens of thousands of years. There's even a consortium getting together to come up with new nuclear waste warning signs because the current ones probably wont be understood so far into the future.Vilham wrote:
Wow you know fuel depots never burn do they... ofcourse they fucking do, and they create crap loads of polution too. Cheynobyl was a nuclear incident that wouldnt have happened if it had been managed correctly. Nuclear tech is not that bad, 1 incident in the world that has fully gone wrong but you know a couple wars and lots of deaths from crude oil is completly ignored, oil spillages create huge enviroment problems.
Burning_monkey my point was we dont want to rely on burning things, i know fully well biodiesel is renewable but it still produces CO2 which is just pushing our luck.
what about all the trash that nuclear energy produces? All the uniforms, all the badges, spent fuel, contaminated water? All that stuff has to be dealt with. Nuclear power is not the end all, be all option that some people make it out to be. And uranium doesn't last that long so you are still consuming a resource that can't be replaced.Vilham wrote:
Wow you know fuel depots never burn do they... ofcourse they fucking do, and they create crap loads of polution too. Cheynobyl was a nuclear incident that wouldnt have happened if it had been managed correctly. Nuclear tech is not that bad, 1 incident in the world that has fully gone wrong but you know a couple wars and lots of deaths from crude oil is completly ignored, oil spillages create huge enviroment problems.
Burning_monkey my point was we dont want to rely on burning things, i know fully well biodiesel is renewable but it still produces CO2 which is just pushing our luck.
You're right about waste creation, but you can significantly extend the nuclear fuel resources. All you need are breeders and reprocessing plants...of course, these come with their own environmental/political problems.Burning_Monkey wrote:
what about all the trash that nuclear energy produces? All the uniforms, all the badges, spent fuel, contaminated water? All that stuff has to be dealt with. Nuclear power is not the end all, be all option that some people make it out to be. And uranium doesn't last that long so you are still consuming a resource that can't be replaced.Vilham wrote:
Wow you know fuel depots never burn do they... ofcourse they fucking do, and they create crap loads of polution too. Cheynobyl was a nuclear incident that wouldnt have happened if it had been managed correctly. Nuclear tech is not that bad, 1 incident in the world that has fully gone wrong but you know a couple wars and lots of deaths from crude oil is completly ignored, oil spillages create huge enviroment problems.
Burning_monkey my point was we dont want to rely on burning things, i know fully well biodiesel is renewable but it still produces CO2 which is just pushing our luck.
I would say that a breeder has it's own environmental problems.irenicus999 wrote:
You're right about waste creation, but you can significantly extend the nuclear fuel resources. All you need are breeders and reprocessing plants...of course, these come with their own environmental/political problems.Burning_Monkey wrote:
what about all the trash that nuclear energy produces? All the uniforms, all the badges, spent fuel, contaminated water? All that stuff has to be dealt with. Nuclear power is not the end all, be all option that some people make it out to be. And uranium doesn't last that long so you are still consuming a resource that can't be replaced.Vilham wrote:
Wow you know fuel depots never burn do they... ofcourse they fucking do, and they create crap loads of polution too. Cheynobyl was a nuclear incident that wouldnt have happened if it had been managed correctly. Nuclear tech is not that bad, 1 incident in the world that has fully gone wrong but you know a couple wars and lots of deaths from crude oil is completly ignored, oil spillages create huge enviroment problems.
Burning_monkey my point was we dont want to rely on burning things, i know fully well biodiesel is renewable but it still produces CO2 which is just pushing our luck.
Yes and another yawn...GeneralDodo wrote:
ever heard of a steam-powered boat?