|
Electric or Hybrid Card or something car, suggestions?
In uk.rec.cars.misc, you wrote:
"Doki" wrote in message ... Theres a simple solution: Nuclear power. Of course thanks to witless "greens" there won't be anymore built and we'll rely incresingly on fossil fuels now but it would be the solution (unlike renewables with are unreliable). current nuclear technology is not fossil burning (obviously) but it's not renewable either. There's nothing witless about 'greens' pointing out that this is a dangerous and expensive game to play, with nasty waste to deal with at the end. Roll on fusion... .... and there's nothing unreliable about hydro. -- u n d e r a c h i e v e r |
Electric or Hybrid Card or something car, suggestions?
... and there's nothing unreliable about hydro.
Greens don't like Hydro. Or Windmills. Or Tidal Barriers. Or Fossil. Or Nuclear. What makes you think they'll be happy about fusion? |
Electric or Hybrid Card or something car, suggestions?
On 1 Apr 2004 11:28:25 -0800, Paul Weaver wrote:
... and there's nothing unreliable about hydro. Greens don't like Hydro. Or Windmills. Or Tidal Barriers. Or Fossil. Or Nuclear. What makes you think they'll be happy about fusion? *some* people who might call themselves green might like or dislike all sorts of things. I don't call myself a green. The things I dislike most in power generation are pollution from fossil burning, rubbish incineration and nukes. And the bills I have to pay. No doubt if fusion ever becomes a reality it will have some huge disadvantage I can't yet imagine... :) -- u n d e r a c h i e v e r |
Electric or Hybrid Card or something car, suggestions?
In article slrnc6p76h.9v2.takeme2yourNOMORESPAMPLEASE@scratc h.garylaw.net, u n d e r a c h i e v e r writes:
On 1 Apr 2004 11:28:25 -0800, Paul Weaver wrote: ... and there's nothing unreliable about hydro. Greens don't like Hydro. Or Windmills. Or Tidal Barriers. Or Fossil. Or Nuclear. What makes you think they'll be happy about fusion? *some* people who might call themselves green might like or dislike all sorts of things. I don't call myself a green. The things I dislike most in power generation are pollution from fossil burning, rubbish incineration and nukes. And the bills I have to pay. No doubt if fusion ever becomes a reality it will have some huge disadvantage I can't yet imagine... :) -- u n d e r a c h i e v e r Probably :( Talking to someone in the field in the fifties, Nuclear power was generally seen as *the* future solution then. Fusion has been on the horizen for a long time. I wonder if it will ever deliver? David -- ****** David Round - EMail Tel (01248) 382416 ***** *****These are my own views, I represent nobody (Well maybe myself)***** ***********I guarantee nothing - Particularly the spelling************** |
Electric or Hybrid Card or something car, suggestions?
|
Electric or Hybrid Card or something car, suggestions?
In message
slrnc6nhn0.buc.takeme2yourNOMORESPAMPLEASE@scratc h.garylaw.net, u n d e r a c h i e v e r writes Roll on fusion... ... and there's nothing unreliable about hydro. -- Fusion has been 10 years away for at least the last forty. Hydro? Not enough to go round. -- Clive |
Electric or Hybrid Card or something car, suggestions?
Sales! wrote [...] was generally seen as *the* future solution then. Fusion has been on the horizen for a long time. I wonder if it will ever deliver? It's been delivering for about four billion years, why would you doubt it works? The problem with * that * fusion reactor is that it can't be switched off, can't be refueled and will explode as a nova when the fuel runs low. It would never pass Greenpeace's checks, sorry. -- Mike D |
Electric or Hybrid Card or something car, suggestions?
Apparently on date 3 Apr 2004 23:28:41 GMT, "Michael R N Dolbear"
said: Sales! wrote [...] was generally seen as *the* future solution then. Fusion has been on the horizen for a long time. I wonder if it will ever deliver? It's been delivering for about four billion years, why would you doubt it works? The problem with * that * fusion reactor is that it can't be switched off, can't be refueled and will explode as a nova when the fuel runs low. It would never pass Greenpeace's checks, sorry. The sun isn't really the same thing as a fusion plant, though, no fusion plant will weigh the same as a million planets so the issues of it going nova don't apply, it will never be a gigantic object with so much mass it implodes into a gravity well, once the fusion no longer prevents this. Similar logic, you can refuel the sun and you can switch it on and off, by adding or removing various constituent parts, e.g. suck the helium out of the core and the sun can carry on for another four billion years without maintenance. Remove enough hydrogen, and the sun stops being massive enough to initiate fusion by gravity pressures alone. The real reason fusion plants don't exist, is because they don't know yet how to make them produce more energy than it costs to make them work. This is a practical barrier as the sun is a working demonstration that the theory is fine, and the fusion process does work in the lab. Just, you have to have it show you a profit or there's no point in doing it in the first place. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 03:07 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk