Welcome To P8ntballer.com
The Home Of European Paintball
Sign Up & Join In

The end of the world is nigh (well our world)

Cook$

Just the tip....
Jul 7, 2001
5,749
1,000,920
348
41
Championsville
I'm gonna start a Facebook group to highlight this energy plight. That ought to get something done about it. Just like it got all the paedophiles caught/cancer sent to prison.
 

Skeet

Platinum Member
Yes, but aren't they all utterly sh*t and inefficient?

We have to build these things, transport these things.... I can't see how air travel is going to work, solar powered planes just aren't going to cut it.

Still, I'm working on a paedophile/asylum seeker powered engine that you are all welcome to buy shares in.
I like the idea of the paedo/asylum seeker one. Granted, we are fortunate to have a lesser amount of paedo's, but bung em all together in a Matrix style "battery" and we would be sorted.

Actually, Cook$ has a point. With what would you suggest we lubricate the bearings etc in these electric machines?
 

Buddha 3

Hamfist McPunchalot
Nuclear is not in my very humble opinion the answer. It's a dirty fuel with far too many drawbacks and hazards. How do you justify the non proliferation to a developing country when it's your main power source!?!. The answer has to be geothermal as it's totally free and totally clean.
Where do you store and very importantly secure the spent nuclear fuel? I know that I don’t want it anywhere bl00dy near me! Small quantity of waste goes missing and attached to a conventional bomb….well you can guess the outcome, it’s not going to be pretty.
Dirty bombs are a myth. They are no more dangerous than the conventional load they are attached to. Just another ploy of the Bush clan to keep you scared, that's all.
 

Mikey D

I suck
Sep 14, 2002
2,087
57
83
39
Birmingham
no some are quite good, most people's roof tops solar panels cut there electric by something like 79% or something stupid

and a small turbins cut your electricity bill by the 16% , not totally sure about the percentages, but tbh the solar panels are only that god if you have a rof that gets lots of heat on it
67.62% of stats on the internet are made up :rolleyes:

Solar and wind power really dont save that much energy at all at least not with roof sized panels or turbines. Maybe up to around 10% for an average household or else everybody would have them!!!

And it isn't heat which they conduct, it's in the name, solar. Light waves from the sun being processed by photovoltaic cells are what makes the energy so even on a cloudy day energy can be stored.

Dissertations are good for something! :eek:

http://home.howstuffworks.com/question418.htm ;)
 

spangley_special

Free Agent
Sep 26, 2006
2,810
134
98
Bristol
www.iamjackfranklin.co.uk
Dirty bombs are a myth. They are no more dangerous than the conventional load they are attached to. Just another ploy of the Bush clan to keep you scared, that's all.
well i wouldn't say they are a myth but i get what you mean. The principle behind them is that the explosion spreads nuclear material, which exposure to causes cancerous mutation with cells.

In practice however in most eventualities concerning a dirty bomb there is very little radioative material spread over an area, which would more than likely be cornered off after the initial explosion. So exposure past the moments that follow directly after the blast are unlikely.

So basically a car mechanic is more likely to develop skin cancer from his exposure to oil and other associated cancerous chemicals.
Radiation only really is a major issue over prelonged or repeat exposure.
 

Rider

scottishwarriors.co.uk
And it isn't heat which they conduct, it's in the name, solar. Light waves from the sun being processed by photovoltaic cells are what makes the energy so even on a cloudy day energy can be stored.
depends on the type of panel. some are photovoltaic (generate electricity) other merely pass water through capillary tubing to provide hot water.

oil supplies - well depends on what you listen to. current estimates put north sea supplies at 30ish years - better technology in the near future will increase the extraction so give some more time - some old fields are currently being reopened. alska/north canada - ooooo - oily sand - and trillions of barrels worth by the last estimation. west of shetland - another new source - uncertain quantites or production life. siberia - same deal. khazakstan - same deal. the oil companies are very shrewd at this game.

other technologies other than oil.....

coal - fine to make synthetic oils and oil-based products through the reformation process, but coal is given a life expectancy of 300 years.

gas - same deal, only around 50 years. unless we use biogas (see below)

nuclear - an alternative, yes, but not clean or renewable - approx 3000 years of use at current levels

biofuels - fine and dandy - carbon neutral (same amount of CO2 released on fermentation and/or combustion as is absorbed during growth) - but need to give up arable and livestock land to provide the crop space - difficult with an ever growing world population.

geothermal - way, way too expensive to be even remotely feasible in most places as a method of producing electricity rather than just hot water. the drilling depths to get the water to vapourise are unfeasible.

biogas - fine if we can find enough organic waste to decompose. in theory each plant would provide enough power to run a small village.....or heat a farm as is the current practical use.

hydroelectric - works incredibly well in the correct geographical location. but there is an environmental trade off. look at the three gorges dam. the supply lake was created by flooding an area roughly two thirds the area of mainland britain....

wave - great if we can ever get the stupid generators to actually work properly and produce a sensible output. however with these things dotted all over the seascape its asking for trouble from shipping/sailing...

tidal - not many places provide a decent tidal current to produce a decent power output using current technologies.

wind - turbines are getting better all the time. but again people argue that they spoil the look of the environment (probably the same folk that drive discoverys and shoguns round the city centre....)

fusion - the answer to huge power supplies, from a tiny powerstation, realtively cheaply (the running, not the building...). however potentially hugely catastrophic if it goes BOOM - and it still doesn't work... now cold fusion - that's a whole different kettle of fish....

hydrogen fuel cells - as developed by BP and Shell......no more oil required, just water, and away of ionising/electrolysing it to produce H+ ions.....clean, cheap and the end of oil - but........when will they actually release said technology? it'll be dribbled out for little uses here and there (already is...) and will avoid the obvious consumers - the drivers.....
 

Kat

I'm a love Albatross.
Aug 18, 2006
1,048
0
0
34
Carlisle/ Leeds
Finally someone said it...In 100 years all of us on the forums will be dead, or bordering on it anyway so who cares?
If I'm lucky enough to die with a family I'd like to think my actions didn't screw them over. :rolleyes:

It'd probably all have happened anyway...
 

Buddha 3

Hamfist McPunchalot
well i wouldn't say they are a myth but i get what you mean. The principle behind them is that the explosion spreads nuclear material, which exposure to causes cancerous mutation with cells.

In practice however in most eventualities concerning a dirty bomb there is very little radioative material spread over an area, which would more than likely be cornered off after the initial explosion. So exposure past the moments that follow directly after the blast are unlikely.

So basically a car mechanic is more likely to develop skin cancer from his exposure to oil and other associated cancerous chemicals.
Radiation only really is a major issue over prelonged or repeat exposure.
I didn't mean myth as in non-existent. I admit, I could have been a little clearer. But what I meant was that dirty bombs are no more dangerous than normal bombs.

Why?

Most of the nuclear material will simply burn up in the explosion, but some will be scattered around. However, it will only be scattered over an area which is in danger of the blast anyway, so you stand far more risk from the blast itself than from any nastiness attached to it.
Exposure is no real risk. The materials that are really dangerous in an exposure sort of way can't be handled without massive infrastructures, so that kinda rules that one out. Anything else would have to be present in stupid amounts...

The reason why depleted uranium can be dangerous, despite it's relatively low radioactivity, is because when it is fired as part of a discarding sabot anti tank round (as fired by the M1 series of tanks, British tanks have access to some of it, but like most smart people, you guys rather rely on good old tungsten carbide rounds, as this is more than sufficient to knock out most Warsaw Pact designed armour), it gets superheated on impact, causing the material to earosol on impact. These tiny particles can cause cancer when entering the body. This can happen by inhaling them, just like any other heavy metals.
But guess what? Strapping nasty stuff like that to a bomb will not cause it to aerosol... The material will remain relatively chunky and will be easy to clean up. And it will not "give off" sufficient radiation to it's surroundings to be dangerous.

Moral of the story, you should only start worrying when you see tanks rolling down the highstreet... ;)