biofuel hoax - Page 2 - Electronic Circuits Projects Diagrams Free

27th June 2007, 08:32 PM

Russian reactors were a rushed design, unlike american designs, where if a meltdown were to occur, the incredably massive concrete barrier would block all to most radiation released (concrete housings were around 10ft thick!). Russian Reactors had a basic enclosure, so if a melt down were to occur, the explosion and radiation would not have much of anything blocking its path. I believe in Neuclear power, even though of its downsides. But truely, it is usually operator error in the meltodowns! (aka reactor design: russians)

upand_at_them · 27th June 2007, 08:37 PM

I'm sure we can come up with a better set of choices than: nuclear, coal, ...or peasant farming.

j.p.bill · 28th June 2007, 12:19 AM

rguement that "there must be a beter way" fails to satisfy. The french and canadians have pushed reactor technology way beyond RBMK's and GE water boilers. The human cost of extracting the radioactives of already paid. The environmental damage being done mining coal is truly horrendous. And dealing with hundreds of tons of crud rather than billions of tons seems to be more manageable.

This is not aimed at anybody in particular - can someone explain why there is such a mind-numbing fear of reactor waste? The mess at Hanford came about from corner-cutting during a period when the nuclear war with Russia was felt to be a certainty. That won't happen again. More people have and will die from coal mining and pollution than have died from all the reactor accidents.

philba · 29th June 2007, 04:28 AM

The simple fact is that people have been trained to fear anything nuclear. Nuclear means death, sickness, cancer. Activists spread the fear that radioactive materials are completely unmanageable.

It truly got irrational - there is an effect called Nuclear Magnetic Resonance. Using very strong magnets, you can align the nuclei of atoms in soft tissue and then using their response, you can image the soft tissue. Nobody wanted anything to do with that until they dropped Nuclear from the name and called it Magnetic Resonance Imaging - MRI.

bryan1 · 29th June 2007, 01:42 PM

This bio fuel thread has got way out of context, biofuel like any other type of fuel will never be carbon neutral. As most of you guys know I live totally off the grid yet enjoy all the comforts of suburian(YUK) life. Shortly I'll be getting a D4 dozer for free so yes I will be making my own blend of fuel to run it as diesel is too expensive. In my sticky are some links to guys that make their own bio fuel and it isnt hard on a small scale but when is the mass's going to realise all nukes will do will kill the ground where you live accident or otherwise. Just think of the waste water that comes from a nuke plant, although they tell you its only the cooling water it's still radio active to a small extent. Yet over time people wonder why when living near a river where a a nuke plant is everyone has some diease or some ailment.

My thoughts I'm totally off the grid and loving it

Cheers Bryan

mneary · 30th June 2007, 01:46 AM

If everyone had sufficient surface area to generate their own energy needs, it would be a good start.

Tragically, this is at odds with another goal, which is to live an efficient distance from work.

upand_at_them · 30th June 2007, 02:35 AM

It may also be at odds with how many people are on this planet.

Thunderchild · 30th June 2007, 11:19 AM

nuclear is a no no, sorry but human error if the only supposed cause of problem will never be eliminated and you can't have errors with nuclear.

the waste generated will stay reactive for some thousands of years and even when it has "lost it" wher will have it gone ? into our own environments, forgetting the watse problem is easy for people that forget that we just ship it to a third world country and forget it. if there was to be a nuclear explosion what is 10 ft of concrete going to do apart from more damage when scattered for miles by an explosion - what is left of it, at the moment nuclear looks manageable because we forget the long lasting consequences the risks and the fact that we are not 100 % nuclear yet, and when we are what do we do with all that waste and added accident risk,

i don't think there is a one soluition but we must find a proper combination of solutions, no we can't go 100 % solar, wind, tidal or any other way, the problem is we want to find a one solution and there isn't one,

the solutions are

1: save and economise what we do have make sure we are power efficient
2: implement where appropriate a number of alternative energy forms

biofuels won't be a total solution but could be a part of it,

the article is more than biased it is a total unreasoned rant against something without much space for debate

Hero999 · 30th June 2007, 09:15 PM

I hate the way some environmentalists complain about: fossil fuels, neuclear power and even renewables like wind and hydroelectric; we got to get our energy from somewhere!

Now I don't think we should sacrifice our economic development for carbon emissions or any of that bull but fossel fuels won't be around for ever so we need to look for alternatives. Neuclear isn't a bad idea providing the waste is managed correctly and burried in geologically stable areas but it still isn't renewable so we need to continiue to develop solar wind and hydroelectric. I can see the argument against neuclear power but as technology improves it's becomming less of an issue.

philba · 1st July 2007, 04:55 AM

yeah, I agree with you. The knee-jerk environmental community would have us living in the dark ages if they got their way. The nulear problems can be solved. The French have proven that it's not impossible though the Russians are the counter example.

I think there will have to be a patchwork quilt of solutions - conservation coupled with nuclear, wind, solar, clean coal (co2 sequestration), biofuel, ... until fusion power becomes a reality. I'm not holding my breath, though.

Thunderchild · 1st July 2007, 09:46 AM

sorry but nuclear is nuclear you won't change what it is by advancing the tech and when industrialized countries have it how do you prevent crackpots like iran having it, the recent incident with the kidnapping and mistreatment of british soldiers just goes to show that we have another hitler on our hands and we all know that they will do anything to get their own way so what next we will have a nuclear war on our hands, getting rid of the waste will always be a problem and I don't think that we will ever have nuclear fusion because well look at the sun that is nuclear fusion but how can we control something like that we don't even have a material that can withstand the heat it makes, like I said we need to develop a number of alternative resources according to the area we need the power in not to mention learning to save power rather than be lazy

Hero999 · 1st July 2007, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thunderchild

sorry but nuclear is nuclear you won't change what it is by advancing the tech and when industrialized countries have it how do you prevent crackpots like iran having it, the recent incident with the kidnapping and mistreatment of british soldiers just goes to show that we have another hitler on our hands and we all know that they will do anything to get their own way so what next we will have a nuclear war on our hands

That's got nothing to do with the argument against nuclear power, even if nuclear power is banned, people will still continiue to develop nuclear weapons.

Quote:

we will ever have nuclear fusion because well look at the sun that is nuclear fusion but how can we control something like that we don't even have a material that can withstand the heat it makes

Never say never, ask the same question about powered flight over 200 years ago and you would have got a similar answer.

Quote:

I said we need to develop a number of alternative resources according to the area we need the power in not to mention learning to save power rather than be lazy

That makes sense providing it doesn't stifle economic or technological development.

Thunderchild · 1st July 2007, 11:56 AM

well having a current nuclear technology makes it easier to find people to work on weapons it leaves doors open for sensitive materials and equipment to be stolen, I mean i don't think iran started from scratch on learning nuclear,

I forget the suns temperature but well its not a joke I know progress is made but finding a material that will withand the temperatures is not an easy task,

why should multiple solutions stiffle economic development there is feild for many do develop multiple solutions what more stimulus for development do you want than that ?

HarveyH42 · 1st July 2007, 07:35 PM

Why isn't there other nuclear power schemes, other than the reactor type (heat water/steam generator). I would think there would a more direct and efficient means of using radioactive materials. Isn't there some way to catch those charge particles being eternally thrown off, and making use of them. Maybe there is, but it would kind of put a dent in the weapons grade conversion, military probably would like to keep a production going, even though no sane government would actually use a nuke. How do you profit, if eventually anybody could have a nearly eternal supply of power? Wonder just how much mis-information we are being fed.

Thunderchild · 1st July 2007, 07:50 PM

yep if the material throws that much off theree must be another way of collecting it i think it is because nuclear weapons made nuclear power not the reverse we had a nuclear bomb before a nuclear power station we learnt first like always how to use it for destruction: such is the human race

29th June 2007, 01:42 PM	(permalink)
bryan1 Experienced Member	This bio fuel thread has got way out of context, biofuel like any other type of fuel will never be carbon neutral. As most of you guys know I live totally off the grid yet enjoy all the comforts of suburian(YUK) life. Shortly I'll be getting a D4 dozer for free so yes I will be making my own blend of fuel to run it as diesel is too expensive. In my sticky are some links to guys that make their own bio fuel and it isnt hard on a small scale but when is the mass's going to realise all nukes will do will kill the ground where you live accident or otherwise. Just think of the waste water that comes from a nuke plant, although they tell you its only the cooling water it's still radio active to a small extent. Yet over time people wonder why when living near a river where a a nuke plant is everyone has some diease or some ailment. My thoughts I'm totally off the grid and loving it Cheers Bryan __________________ " The only way to avoid human error is to avoid the use of humans"

30th June 2007, 11:19 AM	(permalink)
Thunderchild Experienced Member	nuclear is a no no, sorry but human error if the only supposed cause of problem will never be eliminated and you can't have errors with nuclear. the waste generated will stay reactive for some thousands of years and even when it has "lost it" wher will have it gone ? into our own environments, forgetting the watse problem is easy for people that forget that we just ship it to a third world country and forget it. if there was to be a nuclear explosion what is 10 ft of concrete going to do apart from more damage when scattered for miles by an explosion - what is left of it, at the moment nuclear looks manageable because we forget the long lasting consequences the risks and the fact that we are not 100 % nuclear yet, and when we are what do we do with all that waste and added accident risk, i don't think there is a one soluition but we must find a proper combination of solutions, no we can't go 100 % solar, wind, tidal or any other way, the problem is we want to find a one solution and there isn't one, the solutions are 1: save and economise what we do have make sure we are power efficient 2: implement where appropriate a number of alternative energy forms biofuels won't be a total solution but could be a part of it, the article is more than biased it is a total unreasoned rant against something without much space for debate __________________ I AM the exeption that disproves the rule in many ways but the rules still apply (unfortunately) my site:www.simons-photography.com http://rushdenrotaract.org.uk see also http://www.bigstockphoto.com/account...fid=m2URATYch5 http://www.redbubble.com/people/simonsphotography

30th June 2007, 09:15 PM	(permalink)
Hero999 Experienced Member	I hate the way some environmentalists complain about: fossil fuels, neuclear power and even renewables like wind and hydroelectric; we got to get our energy from somewhere! Now I don't think we should sacrifice our economic development for carbon emissions or any of that bull but fossel fuels won't be around for ever so we need to look for alternatives. Neuclear isn't a bad idea providing the waste is managed correctly and burried in geologically stable areas but it still isn't renewable so we need to continiue to develop solar wind and hydroelectric. I can see the argument against neuclear power but as technology improves it's becomming less of an issue. __________________ What's so bad about Microsoft? Get Opera it's simply a superb browser.

1st July 2007, 09:46 AM	(permalink)
Thunderchild Experienced Member	sorry but nuclear is nuclear you won't change what it is by advancing the tech and when industrialized countries have it how do you prevent crackpots like iran having it, the recent incident with the kidnapping and mistreatment of british soldiers just goes to show that we have another hitler on our hands and we all know that they will do anything to get their own way so what next we will have a nuclear war on our hands, getting rid of the waste will always be a problem and I don't think that we will ever have nuclear fusion because well look at the sun that is nuclear fusion but how can we control something like that we don't even have a material that can withstand the heat it makes, like I said we need to develop a number of alternative resources according to the area we need the power in not to mention learning to save power rather than be lazy __________________ I AM the exeption that disproves the rule in many ways but the rules still apply (unfortunately) my site:www.simons-photography.com http://rushdenrotaract.org.uk see also http://www.bigstockphoto.com/account...fid=m2URATYch5 http://www.redbubble.com/people/simonsphotography

1st July 2007, 11:56 AM	(permalink)
Thunderchild Experienced Member	well having a current nuclear technology makes it easier to find people to work on weapons it leaves doors open for sensitive materials and equipment to be stolen, I mean i don't think iran started from scratch on learning nuclear, I forget the suns temperature but well its not a joke I know progress is made but finding a material that will withand the temperatures is not an easy task, why should multiple solutions stiffle economic development there is feild for many do develop multiple solutions what more stimulus for development do you want than that ? __________________ I AM the exeption that disproves the rule in many ways but the rules still apply (unfortunately) my site:www.simons-photography.com http://rushdenrotaract.org.uk see also http://www.bigstockphoto.com/account...fid=m2URATYch5 http://www.redbubble.com/people/simonsphotography

27th June 2007, 08:32 PM	(permalink)
Souper man Guest	Russian reactors were a rushed design, unlike american designs, where if a meltdown were to occur, the incredably massive concrete barrier would block all to most radiation released (concrete housings were around 10ft thick!). Russian Reactors had a basic enclosure, so if a melt down were to occur, the explosion and radiation would not have much of anything blocking its path. I believe in Neuclear power, even though of its downsides. But truely, it is usually operator error in the meltodowns! (aka reactor design: russians)

27th June 2007, 08:37 PM	(permalink)
upand_at_them Experienced Member	I'm sure we can come up with a better set of choices than: nuclear, coal, ...or peasant farming.

28th June 2007, 12:19 AM	(permalink)
j.p.bill Experienced Member	rguement that "there must be a beter way" fails to satisfy. The french and canadians have pushed reactor technology way beyond RBMK's and GE water boilers. The human cost of extracting the radioactives of already paid. The environmental damage being done mining coal is truly horrendous. And dealing with hundreds of tons of crud rather than billions of tons seems to be more manageable. This is not aimed at anybody in particular - can someone explain why there is such a mind-numbing fear of reactor waste? The mess at Hanford came about from corner-cutting during a period when the nuclear war with Russia was felt to be a certainty. That won't happen again. More people have and will die from coal mining and pollution than have died from all the reactor accidents.

29th June 2007, 04:28 AM	(permalink)
philba Experienced Member	The simple fact is that people have been trained to fear anything nuclear. Nuclear means death, sickness, cancer. Activists spread the fear that radioactive materials are completely unmanageable. It truly got irrational - there is an effect called Nuclear Magnetic Resonance. Using very strong magnets, you can align the nuclei of atoms in soft tissue and then using their response, you can image the soft tissue. Nobody wanted anything to do with that until they dropped Nuclear from the name and called it Magnetic Resonance Imaging - MRI.

30th June 2007, 01:46 AM	(permalink)
mneary Experienced Member	If everyone had sufficient surface area to generate their own energy needs, it would be a good start. Tragically, this is at odds with another goal, which is to live an efficient distance from work.

30th June 2007, 02:35 AM	(permalink)
upand_at_them Experienced Member	It may also be at odds with how many people are on this planet.

1st July 2007, 04:55 AM	(permalink)
philba Experienced Member	yeah, I agree with you. The knee-jerk environmental community would have us living in the dark ages if they got their way. The nulear problems can be solved. The French have proven that it's not impossible though the Russians are the counter example. I think there will have to be a patchwork quilt of solutions - conservation coupled with nuclear, wind, solar, clean coal (co2 sequestration), biofuel, ... until fusion power becomes a reality. I'm not holding my breath, though.

1st July 2007, 07:35 PM	(permalink)
HarveyH42 Experienced Member	Why isn't there other nuclear power schemes, other than the reactor type (heat water/steam generator). I would think there would a more direct and efficient means of using radioactive materials. Isn't there some way to catch those charge particles being eternally thrown off, and making use of them. Maybe there is, but it would kind of put a dent in the weapons grade conversion, military probably would like to keep a production going, even though no sane government would actually use a nuke. How do you profit, if eventually anybody could have a nearly eternal supply of power? Wonder just how much mis-information we are being fed.

1st July 2007, 07:50 PM	(permalink)
Thunderchild Experienced Member	yep if the material throws that much off theree must be another way of collecting it i think it is because nuclear weapons made nuclear power not the reverse we had a nuclear bomb before a nuclear power station we learnt first like always how to use it for destruction: such is the human race __________________ I AM the exeption that disproves the rule in many ways but the rules still apply (unfortunately) my site:www.simons-photography.com http://rushdenrotaract.org.uk see also http://www.bigstockphoto.com/account...fid=m2URATYch5 http://www.redbubble.com/people/simonsphotography

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Latest
Evil hoax videos	Oznog	Alternative Energy	37	13th July 2007 09:13 PM
The Loch Ness Monster Hoax	ThermalRunaway	Robotics Chat	9	11th October 2005 11:01 AM