Quote:
Originally Posted by sniper
... to being abstinent on nuclear power.
|
Oh jeez man, don't get me started on that one! I am right there with you... I still see bumper stickers around here that say split wood not atoms - dumbsh!ts. It is amazing just how clueless this society is in general about nuclear power being essentially a big nuclear warhead ready to go off

or somehow being worse for the environment than coal.
Search out how much of this country's energy is derived from fricken coal for crying out loud (especially bad here in CO and I was blown away after I moved here to realize how much of it is coal energy). Roughly a fourth of the nations energy and some sources claim almost 90% of the Rocky Mountain region's energy is from burning coal
Weren't we over that about 100 years ago!
And along with Bill's notation about everything relying on petroleum, a quote I ran across double checking the stat on the CO useage of coal
Quote:
"I'd love for you to tell everybody that we're all in the oil business," says Tom Wilmeth, a retired oil industry worker cited in the report. "Sometime, if you can, sit down and name 10 things that aren't petroleum related. Everything in this room is petroleum related. It took petroleum to bring it to us for us to enjoy. People just don't realize."
|
edit - forgot about the corn ethanol thing - another farce I shouldn't get started on. What a joke that has been played on this society. Even the price of beer is going up because farmers that would grow hops are changing over to corn to make a fuel that is worse that just burning gasoline when it is said and done from production to higher volume required to make the same power. Burning corn makes as much sense to me as burning coal. The only potential for E85 is if cars start coming out at 14:1 compression (or whatever the highest CR that mixed alcohol fuel is good for) as the efficiency of an engine can be tied 100% to CR. Figure out a way to essentially inject it like a diesel engine so it has no butterfly and efficiency will increase even more (as a gas engine is max efficiency at WOT because the throttle restriction is removed - diesels have no restriction). Then maybe, somehow it would be better to burn corn.
Ultra low sulfur diesel is about the only decent step in the right direction this country has made in decades IMO. If we worked on highly efficient turbo diesel hybrids with onboard regenerative systems I would think we were onto something for a real, near-term fix for pollution, fuel dependency, etc. My dad had a 1984 Ford Escort diesel that got 55mpg around town and 57 highway. No turbo so somewhat gutless and being a small 4-cyl in 1984 somewhat new technology in a small package (alum head IIRC) trying to get the weight down for small car useage, but 55mpg. With high pressure injection, huge advancements in electronic engine mgmt, way more efficient engine and turbo designs, etc etc. we should be there no problem in a Ford Focus. Add a hybrid concept and not get 75mpg someone stepped on their ding ding.
But not in this country. That car lasted one year (only made in 1984) and was clearly just too efficient for the US. Look at how many "World" cars are diesel v. gas. Finally we are starting to get some VWs and so forth with TDIs over here with the increasing fuel costs. Too bad VWs are such POS or I would consider it for my fiancee's next car.