Grand Mal
-
Posts
58 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Grand Mal
-
-
On 09/09/2017 at 4:35 PM, blackbird said:
Yes, this country is going to hell in a handbasket!
When was it not? All of society has been going to hell in a handbasket since handbaskets and hell were invented.
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, taxme said:
So, the question I ask again is why have they not gone back since? They were suppose to have landed on the moon in the sixties. By now America should have bases there by now.
Just wondering why.
They probably went to the moon alright by circling around it. Some believe that no one walked on the moon. We all go by what the media and politicians tell us. But those two are well known for shooting the bull. So, why have they not gone back since their last landing? Are they bored with going to the moon now? You tell me.
I don't know. Seems kinda pointless now though. In retrospect, if you called the whole exercise since the first successful landing a waste of money I'd be hard pressed to make an argument against you. Like climbing Everest, the first time was an achievement but who remembers the name of the second one to do it?
No question in my mind that they did land there, though, and I'll be cheering as loud as anyone when they land on Mars.
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, taxme said:
The typical reply from a snowflake liberal who believes that if the media says it is true then we should all believe what they say is true without question, and just wimp off. Sorry snowflake, but not all people are like you who lack having an open mind and who also lack any kind of common sense and logic, and who will believe what they are told without at least taking the time or the effort to check out as to whether it is true or not.
So what or why do you think is the reason for America to not have gone back to the moon after all these decades? Should be an easy answer for you to reply to, I hope.
They went to the moon several times, and the point was made. Is there more to it than that?
-
On 14/07/2017 at 10:32 AM, Boges said:
Yeah because the defences in the CFL are largely bad.
The NFL is far more strategic. It's like severals games of rock, paper, scissors.
The defense in CFL is at a disadvantage compared to NFL. The Canadian fieldis about 50% bigger than the American field- 9810 sq.yds. versus 6360 sq.yds. That's a huge amount of ground and it gives a big advantage to the offense. That's why CFL games are higher-scoring than NFL despite the fewer downs.
George Hallas, one of the founders of the NHL, said the Canadians had a better game.
-
49 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:
It's so simple. Who woulda thought.
Who woulda thought? The guy who'll swap out your dead battery for a recharged one, he woulda thought. Or, diesel engines will never replace steam because diesel fuel will always be expensive and unavailable.
-
20 hours ago, Bonam said:
Electric cars are a sure thing at this point. "Cheap and viable" are vague enough terms that one can always argue about whether they've been met but in many other countries electric models are already very popular. Within 10 years, electric cars that cost cheaper and have comparable range to similar gasoline models will be a given, and charging infrastructure will be prevalent. However, charge times will likely remain an issue (it won't be as fast to fully recharge your battery as it is to refill your gas tank). But more electric cars only strengthens the case for nuclear power - we'll need a lot more energy to charge all those cars. 100% conversion of cars and trucks to electric would increase electricity demand by ~50% over current levels. But nuclear faces essentially insurmountable opposition from all levels of the public and government.
Fortunately, electric cars work fairly well with a grid powered by a larger fraction of solar energy, since they function as distributed energy storage. Drive your car to work in the morning, plug it in to charge during the day while its sunny, drive it home, plug it in there and its your battery for the night. Right now it'd be hard to load balance the power grid with more than 10-15% of the power coming from intermittent renewables like wind and solar. If 100% of cars were electrics and we had a "smart grid" that knew to charge those cars when power is abundant and to use their batteries to supplement generation when power is low, we could probably up that fraction from 10-15% to 30-50%. That means most/all new generation needed to accommodate the power needs of electric cars could potentially be solar/wind.
Overall, converting all land transporation from gas/diesel to electric and using renewables for that extra generation would lower worldwide GHG emissions by ~25%. Converting freighter ships to use nuclear reactors similar to navy ships would cut another ~5%. After that, you have to go after base load power generation (coal and natural gas).
Charge times aren't an issue for my screwgun. I just swap the dead battery for a recharged one. I don't know why you one day couldn't drive into a station and have your dead battery swapped for a recharged one. Or even have one of your own on the charger, ready to change out. Might be a difficult thing today but I'm willing to bet that it's an easily solvable problem, and if experience has taught us anything, it's that the market finds a way.
-
1
-
-
19 hours ago, OftenWrong said:
You are absolutely correct, nuclear power is the best option we have available for producing substantial amounts of reliable power, with the least carbon footprint. In terms of air pollution, the reactor produces only steam. Nuclear waste from reactors can be safely stored, and their materials (depleted uranium, other activated metals) are of great potential value in the future. Breeder-reactor technology is improving, and there is considerable interest in fusion reactor research, some being done in Canada.
There's a better option, though it's not available to everyone. Out here in BC our electricity is hydro, which basically is solar. The sun lifts all those water droplets out of the ocean and drops them on the mountains. As they run downhill back to the ocean we make them turn turbines and generate electricity. Works so well we sell electricity to Americans. True, there's issues around disrupting the river flow and providing access for migrating fish and whatnot but they're relatively easily dealt with. Relative to nuclear waste and hydrocarbon combustion byproducts, I mean.
But, as I said, it's not an option that's available to everyone yet. And, actually, I suspect that some of the schemes for using tidal flow will be more interesting for large-scale electricity generating, with no waste or byproducts.
Freedom of speech
in Moral & Ethical Issues
Posted
Hell wasn't invented?