Curse

freaky naughty · Feb 13, 2008, 02:29 AM // 02:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by jamal

on the matter of nuclear waste, i've always thought, why not just send it into space? Would it be too much cost-effective, or the possibility of the waste slingshotting back to earth? maybe someone can explain it to me.

It costs quite a lot to send things to space, you'd need to put the wastes in a shuttle and just blast it off into nowhere, what a waste of money. What if there are a LOT more nuclear plants? Think of how many shuttles we're gonna just launch up there and waste?

lakatz · Feb 13, 2008, 04:27 AM // 04:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by MMSDome

...Yes I will admit that Al Gore isnt the only one behind this scam so I apologize for giving the other phony scientists out there their well-deserved credit, my apologies...

And I apologize for lowering myself to the level of using a condescending term of endearment in a tit-for-tat with you. I felt so cheap afterward. I have much better ways of responding to control freak behavior than that.

So you know much more about the climate than the scientists eh? Wow... impressive.

EDIT:

Quote:

Originally Posted by lyra_song

...I still vote electric cars please.

I like the electric car too. The technology isn't there yet. No alternative fuel source technology is there yet, but the electric car is the one I'd like to see developed to fruition.

Riotgear · Feb 13, 2008, 04:29 AM // 04:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by quickmonty

It's all the idiot tree huggers that started the ethanol is great movement.

More like interest groups (representing corn farmers) that started it.

Corn, for the amount taken to farm it, produces a very low energy yield compared to switchgrass pellets or rapeseed (a.k.a. canola) biodiesel, the latter of which can be used in existing diesel engines.

Quote:

I'm for putting more money into Hydrogen-powered cars.

The problem with hydrogen fuel cells is the dependence on platinum, nevermind hydrolysis being a horribly-inefficient process.

Let's just say the road to energy independence is not paved with systems that use up so much power to produce that the net gain is still lower than buying cheap oil.

Quote:

I say we cut the global warming bs and get on with life, there is no threat to the environment.

There is so much evidence supporting it at this point that the only reason to deny it is convenience. (After all, it's so much easier to say there isn't a problem). Even the idiots with their heads in the sand at least admit that the problem exists now.

ElinoraNeSangre · Feb 13, 2008, 06:04 AM // 06:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarKaster

meh...democrats, republicans....same difference.

...
Ethanol is a very very viable fuel source....just not Corn Ethanol....Sugar Cane ethanol is more efficient and easier to produce..not to mention sugar cane grows year round with little to no maintenance required.

QFT. Brazil's doing just fine on ethanol. Ethanol is not the problem. Corn ethanol is the problem.

Plus yes, they're all the same thing. :P The joy of politics is that it's the same junk different year no matter who it is.

I'm a pretty big fan of soy based biodiesel, but meh, it's still pretty expensive out here (more expensive then regular diesel).

maraxusofk · Feb 13, 2008, 06:08 AM // 06:08

i say condense nuclear cores into fuel tank sized containers, and surround it with 2ft of concrete/steel/carbon fiber to make it safe. big cars? naw, more like safe cars with infinite energy.

quickmonty · Feb 13, 2008, 01:49 PM // 13:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rexion

Clinton, even though he had his problems, balanced the Economy before his term ended. What did Bush do? Knocked the US into a major debt.
Can't forget to mention Iraq...

The economy was tanking before Clinton's term ended.

Iraq .... Bush, congress and most of the citizens supported it, until soldiers started to die.

lakatz · Feb 13, 2008, 03:40 PM // 15:40

Rexion and quickmonty...

This isn't really a thread about the economy. This is thread is about corn based ethanol and the cost of food. However, quickmonty, you've been making statements here that have no basis in fact and without documentation, so I'd really appreciate it if you'd start a new thread and present documentation that proves "the economy was tanking before Clinton's term ended."

You know... especially since the national debt ceased it's growth under Clinton and is currently growing by approximately $1.48 billion per day under Bush.

I just find this fascinating stuff. Again, any further insight into the US economy (from credible sources) would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you!

quickmonty · Feb 13, 2008, 04:15 PM // 16:15

Sorry for going off topic in an off topic forum.

The floor is yours.

Remember. The thread title is: Further Hints how screwed up the US is

Dragasa · Feb 13, 2008, 05:58 PM // 17:58

Soylent Green is the answer.

Kapral · Feb 13, 2008, 08:00 PM // 20:00

We should just make a car that runs off of CO2, like photosynthesis. Think about it, our cars could be mini greenhouses. It'll take the CO2 from the atmosphere so all the Global Warming fanatics can shut the hell up and then we will replenish the world with Oxygen. There will be so many little greenhouses running around that the need for trees and plant life will be useless so we could cut down the rain forests to make more room for wheat fields which will send the price of wheat down. Win-Win.

Then everyone would be begging companies to use coal because the CO2 supply would be gone and no body's car would start.

lakatz · Feb 13, 2008, 08:59 PM // 20:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by quickmonty

Sorry for going off topic in an off topic forum.

The floor is yours.

Remember. The thread title is: Further Hints how screwed up the US is

I'm serious. I want information about the economy at the end of Clinton's term. I'm very curious. I went googling for documentation to support your assertion that the economy went south during Clinton's term, but I couldn't find any. All I could find was information stating he grew the economy in both Arkansas and the nation.

So if anyone has information from a credible source that supports the assertion that "the economy was tanking before Clinton's term ended," I'd appreciate if you'd either PM me with it or start a new thread. *I* don't want to hijack Winterclaw's thread. It's a very valid train of thought that I don't want to distract from.

Thank you!

MMSDome · Feb 13, 2008, 11:44 PM // 23:44

This sums it up real well for me:

http://www.globalwarming.nottinghams...o.uk/Scam.html

freaky naughty · Feb 14, 2008, 12:49 AM // 00:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by MMSDome

This sums it up real well for me:

http://www.globalwarming.nottinghams...o.uk/Scam.html

Global warming has been blown way out of proportion by the eco-nazis and liberals who blame everything on the U.S. I don't fully agree with Derek Kelly however a volcano is years of man-made carbon emissions. The problem for most however is you can't blame volcanoes on "United States imperialism.''

People are treating global warming as if it were a powerful nuclear weapon on an unchangeable timer, get a grip, we affect the environment but George Bush and the U.S. are not responsible for every evil on the earth. GW is just as much politically based as environmentally

Slaine · Feb 14, 2008, 04:38 AM // 04:38

glad to see posts are deleted in the off-topic section.
yey

Terraban · Feb 14, 2008, 04:51 AM // 04:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slaine

glad to see posts are deleted in the off-topic section.
yey

You went off topic in the off topic section...

Infidel.

Divinitys Creature · Feb 28, 2008, 01:10 AM // 01:10

Here is a little fact for you - making biofuels from corn yields __200 times less__ fuel than you can get from plants like algae that can be grown to feed off sewage! or on sea water or in other places.