yossarian22
Resident Schizophrenic
Maybe in the days of Apollo 1. We launch stuff into space routinely.The problem is, spacecraft are notoriously unreliable.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Maybe in the days of Apollo 1. We launch stuff into space routinely.The problem is, spacecraft are notoriously unreliable.
Ah, so 'holding their breath' shows a high failure rate? Please....And what percentage of spacecraft fail? NASA engineers hold their breath every time a spacecraft lifts off. Even when it make it off Earth problems/failures are common.
The laws of physics.
The problem is, spacecraft are notoriously unreliable. Spaceflight is a developing, largely experimental technology, and a sizeable load of high-level waste crashing to Earth could make Chernobyl look about as consequential as an infestation of crabgrass
Quantum tunneling.
Maybe in the days of Apollo 1. We launch stuff into space routinely.
totally different. Launching people is different from launching plain old mass. With people you have to worry about all sorts of things like life support, space, etc. With plain old junk, you are basically launching a box with as low a volume as possible.What if we replaced people with nuclear wastes?
Define clean. Emissions would go down. An old Russian Proton Rocket could launch a few tons of the stuff into space, but the cost per pound is somewhere around $300 or $400. But there is the problem of wasting resources. We aren't gonna get that rocket back. It'll probably fall into the ocean.It'd still cost a lot. And how much fuel would we all end up using to fling the wastes into space? Wouldn't that defeat the whole point of having a cleaner alternative?
Wind power's fine... until the wind stops blowing. You still need some sort of continuous base supply of power to keep the lights on and the computers working on windless, overcast days.I'd think it was too expensive. Wind power seems to be the most efficient in my boat...
Wind power's fine... until the wind stops blowing. You still need some sort of continuous base supply of power to keep the lights on and the computers working on windless, overcast days.
Certainly, shut off or turn down a few of those continuous power sources when you've got the wind power to cover it, but you still have to recognize that wind and solar are only intermittent power sources - they don't solve all our problems.
Good luck getting Ted Kennedy to go for that wind farm off the coast of Martha's Vineyard, where he goes sailing.
True, at least at current estimates. It would be easy to store it however. Especially as 1000 tomes generate much more trash in a year than 30 tonsIn the US, powering one thousand peoples' homes for a year with nuclear power, produces thirty tonnes of radioactive watse. I've got a source for that listed a few pages back.
Considering the sheer amount of people in the US, it'd be reasonable to predict that launching a planet's worth of waste into space, would ultimately be harder than launching people up there.
I didn't define clean as cost efficient either. Reread my post. It would not be efficient in the slightest. It would reduce emissions, if that is all you care about. But there are other issues besides emissions to worry about. Namely all the nasty industrial byproducts which rocketry creates.Also, I wouldn't define clean as cost efficient. Although your interpretation of my words says a lot about your way of thinking, I never made reference to money. By clean, I mant fewer greenhouse gas emissions.
Sounds great if they can get it to work. I don't know much about this sort of thing, but from what I gather from a quick Google search, it seems these ideas are generally small-scale and in the very preliminary conceptual and testing stages (one site I found announced plans to test a 240 kW flying electric generator), and they don't work well in parts of the planet that don't have a jet stream.Actually, scientists have developed high-altitude "windmills" that float above and are tethered to the ground. At the height in the atmosphere they extend to, there is a always a constant source of "energy".
True, at least at current estimates. It would be easy to store it however. Especially as 1000 tomes generate much more trash in a year than 30 tons
I didn't define clean as cost efficient either. Reread my post. It would not be efficient in the slightest. It would reduce emissions, if that is all you care about. But there are other issues besides emissions to worry about. Namely all the nasty industrial byproducts which rocketry creates.
Friends,
Every action has a reaction and they will both be acting on both ends of the pole.
Take hydro power - We make big dams for that and these dams stop the flow of the rich alluvial soil required for farming [without using fertilisers] and also are a cause of floods downstrams.
Wind farms - good and green power but the blades are killing birds in the area.
Nuclear Popwer- could be we do not know how to dispose the waste properly but still is worth trying as fossil fuels are now getting over. MAy be a cheaper source of hydrogen for fuels?
Anycase the wheel will keep moving including me.
Love & rgds