Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

The reason we don't have nuclear power in the US

  • Thread starter Thread starter lartinos
  • Start date Start date
If just 104 plants can supply 20% of our energy needs, it makes sense for us make at least 400 more. Then if we were just hell-bent on running our cars from liquid fossil fuels, we could run with coal liquifaction. Personally I'd rather us prime the pump with ethanol from sugars and starch until we crack the nut on cellulose -- that's the most plentiful organic substance on the planet.

i'm no tree-hugger but, isn't that still a carbon-based fuel? so, it only addresses one of the two most pressing issues (independence and pollution), no??
 
If advances in solar power efficiency continue as they are projected, we can have 100% in 25-30 years. I mean, have you guys ever visited the Southwestern US??? Most of it's a fricking barren desolate wasteland..... (No, I cant give you a link to my figures, it was a Kurzweil quote)
 
If advances in solar power efficiency continue as they are projected, we can have 100% in 25-30 years. I mean, have you guys ever visited the Southwestern US??? Most of it's a fricking barren desolate wasteland..... (No, I cant give you a link to my figures, it was a Kurzweil quote)


But is it as immediately profitable as just using oil?



:cow:
 
If advances in solar power efficiency continue as they are projected, we can have 100% in 25-30 years. I mean, have you guys ever visited the Southwestern US??? Most of it's a fricking barren desolate wasteland..... (No, I cant give you a link to my figures, it was a Kurzweil quote)

100%? There is always going to be some loss in changing the form of energy. Entropy guarantees it. Second Law.
 
Michigan is currently beating Penn State, so anything is possible... :p

Go-Away-Nuclear_finger.jpg
 
Top Bottom