19 Мај 2012 од страна на експерт
Поднесе под ветерот и сончевата Q & A

Џејмс бара ...
Сакам да знам што мислат луѓето за користење на нуклеарната енергија како главен извор на енергија во нас Зошто се луѓето толку против него? Знам дека отпадот може да се користи за креирање на оружје, но нуклеарната енергија е сега толку ефикасна што е речиси никаков отпад. Тоа е чиста извор, и го овластувања најмалку 2/3 од Франција, како и многу други нации. И на крај знам имало случаи како што се 3 километри островот и Чернобил, која создаде маса количини на зрачење и руинирани животи, но тие технологија го смени и сега на нуклеарни централи се безбедни. Па тогаш зошто се луѓето толку се спротивстави?

Ако ние треба да се направи овој масивен префрлиш од гас автомобили на сите електрични plug-in како Roadster Тесла, а потоа дека електричната енергија мора да дојде од некаде. Ние треба да имаат начин повеќе нуклеарни централи, ако ние го очекуваме електричен автомобил да биде мејнстрим начин на транспорт во иднина.

Џорџ прашува ...
Ако може да одговори на било кој од овие тоа би било одлично! ![]()
Ми треба еден за нуклеарна централа
(Не е Фосилните поткрепен) и на Сонцето.
Im толку збунети со ова!
1. Кои се извори на гориво?
2. Како е горивото кое се користи за да се произведе / release енергија?
3. Кои се сличностите во начинот на кој тие се произведуваат енергија?
4. Дали постојат било какви здравствени опасности поврзани со начинот на кој тие произведуваат енергија?
5. Зошто е енергијата ослободена кога нуклеарните реакции се одржи? Зборува за тоа со користење на вашето истражување на силите кои се одржи на јадрото на атомот заедно.

Татко ми знае нуклеарни централи. Ќе го прашам ...
Edit: 1. Нуклеарни централи: Ураниум 236. Нејзината керамички топчиња 1.5 "долга од околу 3/8ths. Сонцето: Водород осигурувачи со други водородни атоми да се создаде хелиум.
2. Предизвикува верижна реакција од страна на забавување реакција со модератор кој е светлина вода. Тогаш станува тешка вода. Таа има многу на водород во неа. Движењето на атомите предизвикува топлина, се загрева водата, се создава пареа и пареата се врти на турбината.
3. Нуклеарни централи ги користат нуклеарна фисија (атоми излитането на изотоп), сонцето користи нуклеарна фузија.
4. И двете се штетни за вашето здравје! Нуклеарна Електрана: радијациона доза може да направи да болни. L50/30: ако населението добива смртоносна доза која ништо повеќе од 650 rankins, 50% од населението ќе умре во 30 дена. Ова никогаш не се случило. Дури и не Чернобил. Сонцето е многу помоќна. Ние се уште добиваат големи количества на сончево зрачење, која ја нарушува нашата сателити и мобилните телефони меѓу другите нешта. А животот на сончање може да ве убие, долго време пред нуклеарна централа.
5. Атомите се забави, па тие да имаат согласност верижна реакција. Без вода, атомите ќе летаат насекаде и ослободување на енергија ќе биде непостојана. Со повеќе конзистентност, можете да добиете повеќе енергија во сигурен стапка. Водата е главната безбедностна црта на нуклеарните централи. Вие не може да се одржи една верижна реакција без неа. Има врска со јони.

Mandy прашува ...
Како што јас го сфатам тоа нуклеарна отсекогаш имале проблем со потрошеното гориво и нуклеарна отпад. Знам дека ниски зрачење отпад може да се чуваат и до педесет години и безбедно да се disgarded со редовни отпадоци. Но, тогаш имате на високиот радио активни работи (Plutomium, ураниум и што и да) дека имаат полуживот од над 100.000 години.
Дали има некој таму се објасни ако трансмутацијата работи?
И она што се некои од основите зад тоа?
Во суштина она што го прави е безбедно да се извршуваат Нуклеарна енергија?

Кинеската производство за продажба машина која transmutes нуклеарен отпад со горење со hydrogen.Basically предизвикува блуден честички dimensionally fold.Check од Browns гас.

Jenny прашува ...
А високо-придвижуван влада Комитетот за планирање се препорачува употребата на нуклеарната енергија за да се задоволат долгорочните потреби за енергија на Сингапур. Што мислите? Е нуклеарната енергија е одржлива опција за Сингапур? Кои се вашите интереси, доколку ги има?

Сигурен сум дека еден познат настан во историјата ќе докаже дека има нуклеарната енергија е добра како има темпирана бомба во Сингапур. Во Чернобил нуклеарна несреќа на 26 април 1986: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster_effects, опасноста од радиоактивен несреќа е тоа што ќе има долгорочни негативни пропратен ефект и тоа дури и може да spead во земји како Индонезија , Малезија и Тајланд па дури и сл, а ние може да се изложени на рак, тумори, и генетско оштетување за да именува неколку.
Всушност, Сингапур не претрпеле сериозна индустриска несреќа еднаш: Еден грчки танкер, Спирос, експлодира во Jurong бродоградилиште во 1978 година. Останува најлош Сингапур индустриска несреќа, при што загинаа 76.So ако ти рече Сингапур е многу ефикасен место за нуклеарна централа, размислете повторно.

Шарон бара ...
Франција добива речиси 80% од нејзината електрична енергија од нуклеарни централи, но тоа е мала земја, па како многу електрични централи ќе САД треба да се добие околу 80-90% од својата електрична енергија од нуклеарната енергија.

Користејќи личности за 2007 година од www.eia.doe.gov, вкупниот електрични излез во САД е,
4.156.745 [илјада Megawatthours]
806.425 [илјада Megawatthours] е обезбедена од страна 104 нуклеарни централи (19.4%)
Сега правиме на следните претпоставки,
Преземе растенија се изградени моментално (Б / Ц енергетскиот капацитет расте секоја година и тогаш ќе мора да играат со геометриски серии итн сметководство за колку време е потребно на растенијата да бидат изградени и др)
Сите растенија се направи истата излез (ова варира многу и понови растенија се добива се повеќе ефикасни).
Значи,
Намисли енергија излез од нуклеарни централи (85%)
3.533.233 [илјада Megawatthours]
7754 [илјада Megawatthours] на нуклеарни централи
455 растенија се потребни
455-104 = 351 растенија треба да се изградат.
Сега би се обложуваат ова е прилично блиску бројка, бидејќи ние всушност треба помалку од поновите растенија се многу поефикасни но надвор побарувачката расте.
Како од страна на белешка, би можеле да ги поддржи овие многу реактори ако ние повторна обработка на гориво и се користи одгледувачот реактори и напредни реактори со она што ние го нарекуваме потешко неутронска спектар да се консумираат други lanthanides и actinides кои не се користат во типичен термички реактори.

Даниел прашува ...
Како е нуклеарна фисија се користи во нуклеарните централи. Како да нуклеарни централи работат? Тоа е хартија за училиште. Дали имате предлози за веб-сајтови да се користи?

Се користи со голема претпазливост и заштита.
Но, за да вашата точка. Она што го имаме е еден синџир на енергија конверзии, почнувајќи со нуклеарната енергија и завршувајќи со електрична енергија. Накратко синџирот изгледа нешто како:
СИ -> QE -> KE -> ЕЕ; каде што нуклеарната енергија од фисија се претвора во топлинска енергија, која потоа се претвора во кинетичка енергија и, конечно, електрична енергија од страна на генератори.
Нуклеарна енергија доаѓа од масата дефицит е = (М - М) в ^ 2 каде М> m е масата на нуклеарно гориво пред фисија и м е на масата на како резултат на честички по фисија. Постои секогаш помалку маса по фисија отколку порано, а тоа масовно дефицит се претвора во топлина.
На топлина е фатен од страна на течност, обично вода под голем притисок, но понекогаш други течности, како течен натриум (Na) ќе се користи. На топлина се врши преку цевките до ДДВ на вода под висок притисок каде што топлината произлегува дека водата во прегреана пареа.
На пареа потоа се пренасочени во пареа управувано електрични генератори, каде што на топлинска енергија се претвора во кинетичка енергија од турбини. Турбините ротирање на генератори, кои го создаваат висок напон на електрична енергија.
На електрична енергија е дистрибуиран од страна на т.н. висока тензија жица мрежи, кои се дистрибуираат на енергија на големо корисници. Овие корисници, како PG & E или NY Едисон, за возврат го дистрибуирате енергија со пониски тензија жици за напојување на вашиот компјутер.
Browse “san onofre nuclear power plant” and you'll get a long list of sites that explain how the San Onofre nuke plant works. There are also photos on some of the sites you can insert into your paper.

Charles asks…
In Bangladesh power crisis create lots of problem. So that Nuclear power energy might help to rid out this problem. But i need strong logic & also counter argument too .

Yes.Below are the best places to learn more about the benefits of Nuclear Power and the counter arguments to any counter arguments as well.

Крис прашува ...
Јас го правам проект во областа на науката и треба да се знае: Ако некој требаше да се создаде нуклеарна централа во централна Калифорнија, тоа би можело да се создаде црна дупка? И ако може, какви услови ќе бидат потребни за да се создаде и како би можеле случајно да се создаде?
Сите други информации во врска со негативните ефекти од нуклеарните централи ќе биде корисно. Исто така било извори кои ги знаете на би било одлично!

Не, нуклеарни централи не може да креирате црни дупки. На Large Hadron Collider може да се - всушност, тоа е една од причините што го изгради. Google за повеќе.
Еден негативен ефект на нуклеарните централи (под претпоставка дека не кренат во воздух) се радиоактивни biproducts, како што се потрошени ураниум што треба да се чуваат безбедно за илјадници години.

Дејвид прашува ...
Читам дека нуклеарната фисија се користи за разделување атоми и произведуваат топлина за нуклеарни централи, но она што не нуклеарна фузија правиме тогаш? Дали тоа има некаква врска со тоа?

Фузија навистина се случува само во нуклеарни бомби наречен Водород бомби, или H-бомби. Овие оружја всушност употреба нуклеарна фисија да се започне со фузија реакција помеѓу Водород и Литиум.
Од друга страна нуклеарни реактори во моментов во употреба само работат на фисија, или разделување на атомите даваат топлината на нацистичката нуклеарни научници, всушност, од овој процес во текот на WW2 како ураниум горилници, или Уран печки, иако еден нуклеарен реактор може да се користат и други фисија " гориво ", покрај ураниум.
Напојува од страна на Yahoo! Одговори
19 Мај 2012 од страна на експерт
Поднесе под ветерот и сончевата Q & A

Laura прашува ...
Либералите во Франција и други европски земји прегратка нуклеарната енергија, електрична енергија се напојува 80% во Франција од страна на Nuke моќ.
Е тоа страв, како и во островот Три Милји, или Џејн Фонда филм синдромот Кина?
Зошто Европската еколозите се допаѓа она што мразам САД еколозите?
Супер човек-не за француската новинска медиуми се направи што е позната на француската јавност, или пак Французите не нега?

Економија, најмногу. Образование, делумно.
Проблемот со евтини, обновливите извори на гориво е тоа што е евтин и обновливите. Тоа е еден вид на како Џон Хенри приказна. Кога машина доаѓа заедно и ги зема вашата работа како сексуално развратен човек чекан, нема замена за леб и грав. Тоа е исто кога на нуклеарна централа доаѓа заедно и ги зема вашата работа како јаглен централа.
На друг проблем е тоа што нуклеарната енергија бара висок степен на образование и доверба. Секој може да дознаам како да горат јаглен. Но, нуклеарни науки е покриена со многу тајност и сопственички информации, делумно да го задржи бројот на нуклеарно оружје сведува на минимум.
Тоа исто така значи дека јаглен моќ е решение кое е достапно за да не се научници. Исто така, потребно помалку научници да се најдат на јаглен и нафта сам по себе, вие треба еден геолог, а од 80-тите години беа само пред 20 години се уште има многу од оние околу себе. Но вие не се потребни никакви безбедносни сертификати или црвена лента минатото дефинирање на "мелница сајт" за отстранување, и не треба тим од генијалци за одржување на работите за вас.
Во Европа, обичните луѓе не се обидува да се натпреварува со владата и им обезбеди на луѓето енергија. Европа се потпира врз остатокот од светот за таков вид на иновации. Затоа, тоа е помал проблем таму. Во третиот свет, нуклеарните програми се чекор кон нуклеарно оружје, што сме глобална валута и го прават истото за земја која диплома прави за еден човек во потрага по работа во смисла на легитимитетот и се сфатени сериозно во глобални прашања . Така, додека полесно средство за генерирање на енергија постојат за нив, тие се уште ќе биде повеќе про-нуклеарна од Америка.
Конечно, кога јагленот и нафтата да стане премногу скапо да се профитира исклучување на, ние ќе престане да го користи, а веќе постојат други решенија таму. Нуклеарна е една од нив, и ние сме конечно изградба на нови реактори повторно бидејќи тоа почнува да се случи.

Ричард прашува ...

А ситуацијата од онаа во Чернобил е невозможно во секоја САД реактор. Не помалку веројатно.
За еден, на реакторот дизајни се различни. На наједноставно ниво, постои инверзен односот меѓу температурата и излезна моќност. Чернобил видов скок на температурата, која шилеста форма на моќ, која шилеста форма на температурата, која шилеста форма на моќ ... И така натаму. Американски реактори работат во спротивна насока. Вие не може да има што се случуваат.
Исто така, постојат многу други безбедносни чувари во место уверувајќи дека реакторот не можат да постигнат брзо критична состојба. Scrams (затвори падови) се автоматски за секоја недоследност, вклучувајќи тотално и нагли губење на власта.
Надвор од сето тоа, Чернобил немаше задржување. Ништо. Задржување во американската реактори е одлична. Видовме дека во островот Три Милји инцидентот, каде што неуспешно работи напорно и реакторот основни стопи. Но, практично нема зрачење излезе во јавноста, и секако никаде во близина на штетни нивоа.
Има многу малку реактори остави во светот со дизајн од онаа во Чернобил, и јас не мислам дека има било какви лево без задржување. И таму се апсолутно нула на било вид во САД.

Дејвид прашува ...
Од опасни инцидентот што се случува во Јапонија, мислиш дека треба да ги затвори или не? Какво е вашето мислење?

Да, затвори ги сите надолу и стави крај на оваа токсичен отпад што тие го нарекуваат безбедно. Нуклеарни централи не се безбедни тука во САД или во која било друга земја, сите тие се ранливи на штета од земјотреси, цунами, вулкани, итн Оние кои велат дека е безбедно мора да биде луд или има коефициент на интелигенција на -100, бидејќи Секој може да види колку опасно зрачењето е и токсичен отпад го остава. Ефектите на оваа нуклеарна катастрофа во Јапонија ќе се почувствува за годините што доаѓаат во нашата снабдувањето со храна, бројот или луѓе добивање на рак (тоа може да потрае и до 20 години по изложеноста на зрачење), непогодна за живеење земјиште, како и други здравствени проблеми.
Постојат безбедна и чиста форми на бесплатна енергија од таму, но тоа е се потиснати од страна на силите што се. Ладна фузија е еден од нив, но има и други како нулта точка на енергија, хидро, соларна, итн, кои би имале корист на планетата и човечката раса.

Марија го прашува ...
Тоа е 20-30 години од Чернобил и три километри островот. Дали ние во текот на синдром Кина?

Чернобил не бил изграден на некоја од повисоки стандарди кои се користат во остатокот од светот. Тоа беше катастрофа чекаат да се случи.
Три Миле островот не беше катастрофа. Многу повеќе од тоа беше дека беше заслужена.
Тоа е секако можно да се изгради безбедно нуклеарна централа. Исто така, треба многу добро обучени и платени оператори. Тоа е една работа на француски прават многу добро. Да се биде нуклеарна централа оператор во Франција се одржува надвор, како на работа од голема вредност.

Марија го прашува ...

Никој не знае со сигурност, затоа што таму не е еден изграден од 3 километри остров се случило. Па, да бидам попрецизен, не е еден започна од 3 километри островот (Tmi). Комонвелт Едисон (енергетска компанија во северниот 1/4th на Илиноис, вклучувајќи ги и Чикаго) имаше 4 фабрики во изградба во тоа време, кои беа завршени.
Тие беа регулирани од страна на Илиноис Конгресот комисија. "? Треба ние фински овие растенија", кога Tmi се случи, добредојдени отиде до Комисијата и побара од нив, Комисијата рече, "Ти си трошат толку многу пари на нив, тоа ќе биде отпад да не се - ние ќе ги нарачате на фински нив ". Сега тоа е важно - тие им беше наредено да заврши градењето на нив. Ова го направи некои луѓе во Илиноис луд. Па тие гласаа во нови комесари, анти-енергетска компанија комесари. Сега дојде времето за да додадете цената на растенија за стапката база. Новите членови на комисијата е одбиено. Истата комисија дека наредил да се изгради на растенијата сега одби да ги споделите со нив се платени за растенија.
Комонвелт Едисон откачи го матична компанија, Unicom. Подоцна тие се спои со Поени за да стане Excelon. Значи, било студија која референци Комонвелт Едисон наместо Exelon не е "последните".
Комуналните одбор на граѓаните е група во Чикаго, кој редовно го тужи комунални претпријатија од било која причина тие да мислам на (моќ, гас и др.) Луѓе, всушност, даваат пари за оваа група, мислејќи дека тие се некои непрофитна дека се бори за да се урне цените на нивните услуги. Двојката на момците кои се задолжени за комунални одбор на граѓаните се правници. Тие се обидуваат на сите случаи. Кога тие освои класа акција пресудата, тие се нивните адвокати такси - 50% на пресудата. Овие момци не се алтруистички - тие се во него, за парите. Кога тие ја тужат енергетска компанија, ако тие победат, парите за таа тужба нема да дојде од некаде. Тие не се вози на намалување на цените, тие ги вози до.
Прв назад на вашето прашање, што треба да направите доста инженерство за да се докаже дека вашиот дизајн за централа ќе издржат велат земјотрес, итн Тоа не е евтин. НРЦ (нуклеарна Регулаторната комитет за) ги има сите видови на правилата за да има да се соберат податоци на времето (па ако имате излегуваат во јавноста, можете да дознаам како, каде што тоа би можело да се шири за да), и така со која се бара компјутерската инфраструктура да управуваат и да се прикаже сите тие информации. Мора да се изгради оф-сајт (околу 15 милји далеку) инцидентот центар за управување.
Океј, јас сум подготвен да се обложи дека јас сум веројатно се хранат малку компанија propoganda на патот, но од она што го прочитав од независен извор, нуклеарната се уште е поевтина од јаглен или мазут. Добредојдени се користат да се термо централи, што ги добија ослободи, бидејќи тие се премногу скапи. Тие се 'уште има некои дизел geneators за "врв" употреба во текот на летото (не само да рампата горе / долу на нуклеарна централа во краток временски период, така што овие единици клоца на време на шпицот на употреба пати - па оттука и нивното име "ѕирка единици "). Добредојдени исто така, не "ко-генерација", каде што компаниите кои имаат свои генератори (голем број на компании да ги купи за Y2K), дека за време на шпицот на летната употреба, тие може да го повикате на компанијата и да ги отпушти своите генератор и се сечат исклучување на енергија од енергетска компанија. Во замена за тоа, тие добие мало пауза на нивната цена на електрична енергија. Ова заштедува добредојдени од морале да купат и одржување како многу генератори.
PS: Главната причина поради која цената на decomissioning еден нуклеарен реактор стана поскап е тоа што тие го затворија само објект во САД, кои се високо радиоактивен отпад. Тие беа случува да се отвори нов, но тоа е пролонгиран години. Сите овие мотори имаат да ги чувате своите отпад во подрумот на растенијата себе. Значи, вие не може да навистина го decomission. Мора да нека седат таму, а сепак го заштитат, а тоа носи во никакви приходи.

Џорџ прашува ...
Се чини дека како и со користење Nukes како демонстрација на Токио Залив беше идеја предложена од страна на режимот Труман. Nukes може да се користи за да се демонстрира моќ САД со Ал-Каеда?
Што ако Ал Каеда имале уште еден напад во САД. САД ќе користи nukes тогаш?

Те молам! Како што ако Ал Каеда би можела да нападне на нуклеарна централа. Поголемиот дел од луѓето немаат идеја како масивни нивната безбедност е. Имав можност да ја посетите фабриката еднаш, и тоа беше неверојатно колку безбедност што те гледам, а уште помалку на безбедност, кои не го гледате.
Но, тоа настрана, само ќе има мир преку супериорен оган моќ. Се разбира, ние треба да се разгледа nukes како опција. На тешка работа е, сепак, е дека Ал Quaeda крие под камењата и во пештери од целиот свет. Значи, ние треба да ги извлече да се бори против сите на едно место пред да може успешно да ги Nuke. Тоа е причината зошто Ирак е како гениј. Секако, ние подигна гнездо Хорнет во текот на Блискиот Исток, но сега на терористите не се крие под нивна карпи во нивните села веќе.
Ние убив над 12.000 непријателските сили во Ирак само од јануари годинава. Тоа е неверојатно, бидејќи не биле главно Ирачани, но странски борци.

Donna прашува ...
Why are most of the US nuclear power plants located only in the eastern side of the country? Does this have something to do with half the country not being downwind of the reactors?

I think there are many reasons, mostly economic.
1. Denser population hence greater demand for electrical power.
2. Available cooling source of water for efficiency.
3. Infrastructure in place to get the power from the plant to the end user
4. More heavy industry which uses more power.
5. Political environment more people accept nuclear energy.
6. Workers available to operate the plants with required skills concentrated in the east.
7. Heavy industry to manufacture large components more concentrated in the east.

Јован прашува ...
Please also mention if you're registered as Dem, Rep or Ind.

Independent – Yes.
France has had what, 70%+ of their electricity supplied via nuclear energy and have done so for a long time. It's one thing to be ruled by caution but another to be ruled by fear.

James asks…
Each plant will cost tax payers 6 to 8 billion dollars and McCain wants 45 plants . In the mean time the Companies will rank in the profits. So why would I want to pay for that? How is that going to benefit me and my family?
http://www.money.cnn.com/2008/08/07/news/economy/ nuclear /index.htm

They won't.
Http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20080808/cm_huffpost/117767
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
May 18, 2012 by The Expert
Filed under Wind And Solar Q & A

Роберт бара ...
and where are they located?

4 operating nuclear power reactors – 2 in Glen Rose (40 miles South of Fort Worth) and 2 in Bay City (90 miles SW of Houston)
3 research and test reactors but it won't say where for security reasons
4 power reactors but again won't specify where
3 projected new nuclear power reactors (sort of in the same vicinity of the 4 we already have)
it goes on and on. Very interesting.

Laura прашува ...
I heard some time ago that they were considering building one in Bay City, but what other cities in Texas already have them?

There is one in Somerville County and one in Matagorda County

Joseph asks…
The NRG Energy company has applied for permit to build a nuclear power reactor in Bay City, Texas . It will be the first new reactor in the US in 30 years.

Well….I am not sure about that. Do you really believe that a nuclear power plant would be such a good idea so close to home? Probably would be a good idea if it was built in Alaska in the middle of no where.
SSG Schramm
US Army 15 years

Mandy прашува ...
Ok So Tokyo Electric Power Company builder and operator of the failed nuclear power plants in japan. Can't wait until the first Hurricane… Then they can try to use the emergency Generating systems to shut these down. The emergency generating systems for this Texas power plant were designed by Toshiba. The same folks who designed the emergency generating systems that failed with the tsunami. But it gets better. The engineers who will certify this plant for Operation Stone & Webster are the same guys who faked certification tests for the Shoreham Nuclera Plant in NY.

Ако правото дланки се подмачкан тоа ќе биде изграден без оглед на тоа што се случува. Ако Републиканската партија е сериозен за нови работни места тие ќе имаат гласаа за градење на голема брзина шини и поправка на патиштата во Америка!

Стивен прашува ...
на I, исто така, сакал да видам големи рафинеријата за нафта изградена во Kennebunkport. кога тие ќе почнат да зграда?

Секое место дека има доволно вода и е тектонска смисла стабилна е добро место за нуклеарна централа. И секое место во близина на океанот е добро место за рафинеријата.
Мислам дека националните шуми ќе биде добро место за било. Ние не правиме ништо друго со тоа земјиште.

Доналд прашува ...
САД добива 50% од својата електрична енергија од јаглен.
Индија добива 70% од својата електрична енергија од јаглен.
Кина добива 80% од нејзината електрична енергија од јаглен.
Спротивно на тоа, Франција добива 80% од нејзината електрична енергија од нуклеарната.
Ние би можеле да се покаже Кина начинот на кој од исклучувам нашите загадувачките јаглен растенија штом имаме изградено на следната генерација нуклеарни централи за да го заземат своето место.
Ние треба да се постави добар пример за Индија и Кина.
Кина е активирање барем еден нов јаглен централа секоја недела!
Тие сакаат да се изгради 55 јаглен растенија годишно за најмалку 5 години по ред.
Ние, исто така треба да биде градење со голема брзина maglev железнички мрежи во целата земја со цел да се обезбеди одржлива алтернатива за воздух и автопатот патување.
Со оглед на најновите во пред-стрес конкретни структурни компоненти, ние може да се изгради покачена maglev железнички систем кој ќе се избегнат опасностите и сообраќај пореметувања поврзани со железнички премини на површинските улици.
Тексас и Вајоминг се најлоши прекршители на јаглен емисии!
Maglev железнички возови се управувани од електрична струја. Како електрична енергија произведуваат CO2 емисии?
Ве молиме да се види на 60 минути сегмент која се емитуваше на Велигден. Ја покриваше нуклеарната индустрија и укажа на француски нуклеарна индустрија. Франција е земја со големина на Тексас со население од 64 милиони евра.
Тие имаат 58 нуклеарни централи, кои создаваат најниска цена на електрична енергија во Европа. Тие имаат најчист воздух на која било индустријализираните земја поради ова. За разлика од САД, тие повторно да обработиме нивните потрошеното гориво прачки и да ги користите одново и одново да се изгради ново гориво прачки. Поради ова, долгорочно складирање на нуклеарен отпад воопшто не е проблемот тоа е тука во САД
На "камче кревет" реактор е криза без реактор што е помал, модуларни реактор што е далеку поевтино и побрзо да се изгради од последниот реактори ќе гради пред 20 години.
Што ги презела 42 месеци за да се добие лиценцата одобрено да се изгради нов реактор, а друг 48 месеци да ја изгради. Ова се менува.
Имаме доволно јаглен за нас трае стотици години, ако не и илјадници. Проблемот е на емисиите на CO2 ние создаваме со горење на јаглен. Имаме многу ураниум во Канада и други земји, но ние дури и не мора да продолжи рударството ураниум толку многу ако почнеме преработка нашите потрошеното гориво прачки.
Нашата фиксна железнички транспортен систем, практично остана таму каде што беше пред 80 години!
Maglev железничкиот сообраќај е следната генерација на железничкиот сообраќај и ќе биде најчист начин на транспорт по километар од било кој друг начин на механизирана патување, освен велосипед!
Проверете INDUCTRACK maglev технологија која е развиена тука во САД во Лоренс Ливермор Labs во Калифорнија.
На морнарицата е во потрага на користење на тоа да го лансира својот авиони исклучување на палубите на своите носачи на авиони и се стави крај на употребата на традиционалните пареа катапулти.
НАСА се обидува да го користите овој особено maglev технологија за да обезбеди дека првичните нафрли кога лансирање на сателити и заштеда на 35-45% на ракетно гориво.
САД има околу 103 оперативни нуклеарни централи кои произведуваат околу 20% од електричната енергија се користат во САД!
20%!!
Ова е срам, бидејќи тоа е во САД, што доведе на остатокот од светот
во нуклеарната возраст.
Ве молам разберете дека Чернобил беше графит ладење реактор и операторите работеа на растенијата при полн гас со сите на заштитни мерки и заштитни системи кои привремено исклучена!
Ние немаме графит ладење реактори во регулативите САД и Сојузна се спречи каква било американски нуклеарни реактори од кои работат во wreckless начин што на операторите во поранешниот Советски Сојуз работеа Чернобил!
Ве молиме направите вашето истражување и ова ќе ве спречи од несвесно споредување на јаболка да портокали.
На нуклеарната индустрија е комплексни и различни еден.
Ние треба да се изгради на следната генерација на нуклеарни централи на истиот начин ние во моментов се изгради на следната генерација на автомобили, машини за перење, бојлери,
итн
Природен гас термоелектраните се вкупно шега! Тие го претставуваат повеќето екстравагантни употреба на ограничените природни ресурси со цел да бидат политички коректни, но сосема погрешен и во секоја друга смисла.
На цената на природниот гас веќе има и ќе продолжи да оди нагоре, како што ја осиромашуваат ограничен ресурс.
Природниот гас е толку корисни за толку многу други нешта како производство на пластика.
Користење на природниот гас за гориво електрани е нерационалната употреба на ограничен ресурс.
Нуклеарна енергија помага да ги содржи цената на електричната енергија далеку поефикасно од природен гас го прави тоа!
Само види на цената на природниот гас одат нагоре и вашиот сметките за електрична енергија, заедно со неа, ако вашата електрична енергија доаѓа од природен гас погон фабриката!
Ако ги следиме примерот на Франција, ќе имаме една нуклеарна централа за секој милиони луѓе.
Ако ги следиме примерот на Франција, ќе почнеме повторно обработка на нашите потрошеното гориво rods.They се толку многу попаметни од нас кога станува збор за нуклеарна енергија. Тие мораа да одат на тој начин првично, бидејќи тие имаат многу малку хидроелектричната извори на енергија и многу малку јаглен депозити. Неопходност беше нивниот поттик да ги прифатат нуклеарната енергија и тоа е главната причина зошто тие ни ги надмина во развојот на нуклеарната енергија.
Новиот "камче кревет" реактори се некои од оние кои Кина е во процес на градење, како и.
САД конечно ќе започне со градење на некои нови нуклеарни реактори и само во настанатиот стисок на времето затоа што ние треба да започне исклучувам најстарите и демонтажа нив како што се донесе нова оние на line.If да одите во Куба ќе видите автомобили од 30-тите, 40-ти, и 50 години се чуваат по ред, но никој од последните 50 години!
Ние сме речиси толку лош со нашите нуклеарни централи!
Глен Б прави некои одлични поени и не можам да се сетам на подобар земја погодна за изградба на национална мрежа на високо-брзински maglev железничкиот транспорт од Австралија!
Австралија е место каде што најдолго пругата веднаш постои. Да заборавам колку сто милји тоа оди натаму.
Тие мора да се задржи замена на нивните дрвени железнички врски поради обилно видови на мравки или термити кои јадат далеку во нив.
Кина има првиот светски maglev железничка линија од Пудонг аеродром во Шангај кој е само 17 километри рок.
Таа била изградена од страна на германски конзорциум Transrapid, но не ги користат нашите INDUCTRACK технологија.
Што убава глетка би било да се види покачена голема брзина maglev железнички систем пренесување на луѓе од целиот огромен прекрасните пејзажи на Австралија.
Еден сет на песни случува во секоја насока со возови оставајќи секои 10 минути, а некои одлуки туристички запира на различни места на патот! Остатокот од возовите ќе продолжи како алтернатива на воздушниот сообраќај.
Стравот е крадец!
Тој е најголемиот крадец ние некогаш ќе се знае!
Кога сме неуки за некој или нешто, имаме тенденција да се верува негативни информации, изјави ни за тоа непознато лице или нешто.
Ние проектот се издвојува како празно чеша, и одеднаш, 100% од она што го знаеме е негативен. Оваа негативна "впечаток" станува знамето под кои ние ги собираме повеќе негативни информации дека само ја потврдува валидноста на тој бајрак.
Гласина и inuendo негативно боја нашите впечатоци на историски личности, како Арон Burr и Ворен Хардинг Г кога и двете завршуваат се фрлија во многу подобро светло врз уште цел контрола.
Како што оцени дадена наука или индустрија, трчаме во ист вид на стапици на искривена перцепција како резултат на негативни информации што беше формирана пред се од unobjective и невешт оценки.
Јас го предизвикувам секого да учат на најновите случувања во нуклеарната индустрија, како и оние на јаглен, соларна енергија, ветер, и океанот отече енергетската индустрија.
"Кина е изградба на првиот светски комерцијален Сончана Кревет Модуларна реактор (PBMR).
PBMRs радикално се разликуваат од светлина вода реактори. Тие користат хелиум наместо вода да ги апсорбира топлината од нуклеарно гориво, елиминирање на потребата да се лоцира PBMRs во близина на главните снабдувањето со вода.
Наместо користење на ураниум гориво прачки, PBMRs користат илјадници керамички покриени со ураниум "камчиња" спакувани во графит сфери. На задржување објекти типични за другите реактори се непотребни бидејќи керамички црева направи криза практично невозможно.
Вкупната цена по единица енергија произведена се пресметува да биде помалку од половина од порано реактор дизајни.
Исто така, PBMRs треба да бидат способни да ја извадиме неколку пати повеќе енергија од секоја тон на гориво -., Што значи помалку радиоактивен отпад "
Зарем не би било прекрасно да се види една земја како Австралија се опреми со соодветен број на овие PBMRs на власт бигор растенија сите заедно на австралиската бреговата линија и за напојување на национално maglev железнички систем.

Може да бидат заинтересирани во речиси нов областа на чиста горат јаглен технологија. Постојат јаглен станици да се конвертира во оваа технологија во моментов. (Краткорочни судење). Кога се покажа ова е веројатно да се догради на постоечките јаглен погон централи и вградени во новоизградените оние.
Http :/ / www.csenergy.com.au / research_and_development / oxy_fuel.asp
Едноставно како што можам да го стави. На CO2 произведува во текот на согорувањето на јаглен (C14) е извлечена течен тогаш фрли назад под земја. Во основа поставување на јаглерод повторно таму каде што дошле.
Има доволно резерви на јаглен во светот за снабдување на нашите потреби за моќ илјадници години, па дури и со пониски ефикасност дека чистата толпата технологија бара.
Just another note. Both coal and uranium are finite resources while both will solve the power needs for now another solution will eventually be needed. Neither can be replenished at the rate that we are using them. Clean coal technology can produce virtually no co2 emissions , like nuclear power. The bigger advantage is that the waste does not stay as toxic as long.
Electric trains are considered to produce co2 base on the fact that they draw power from the grid. Of course if there where no co2 producing power plants in the grid then electric trains could not be considered co2 producers. Either way I agree that electric train transport is far cleaner than internal combustion and should be developed world wide.

Мајкл прашува ...
"Guns сега за федерално кривично дело на нуклеарните централи во Тексас и пошироко"

Ya! Ова е БС! Следна ќе биде да ги кажувам тие не можат да имаат пушки на авионите! Чекај малку!?!? Зошто е никој freaking за тоа пречка за слобода? Дали е ова нацистичка Германија сега?

Томас прашува ...
Алекс Џоунс интервјуирани оваа личност, Ive никогаш не слушнале за него, но она што тој го вели поврзува катастрофа Јапонија со прес Обама и Тексас договори за изградба на повеќе нуклеарни централи.

Your link didn't show much. Greg Palast is an investigative reporter. He has published a book called “The best democracy money can buy.” Alledgedly the same company that safety tested the diesel generators in Japan is contracted ($4bill) to build nuclear power stations in Texas.

Mary asks…
Денес нафтата хит $ 100/wet барел. Таму обично е 1-2 месец згура до хитови Американците директно.
Under the Obama administration the USlost the respect [fear] it had under the Bush
administration. Rouge countries see Obama aa weakling, and dauntlessly act as if Obama gave them free license to.
So,countries saw Bush as a power -drunk Texas Yokel just itchin for another war. Maybe he was. But, I could care less. Countries “behaved.” No rouge state wanted to commit actions to instigate the “Cowboy” to “bomb the hell out of them.” Now these renegade states commit actions that will very likely have very harsh economic repercussions for America and its
people.True,France,Sweden,Switzerland,& other benign countries like us better. Big deal? they- “Don't walk the dog.”- It's amazing how “casual” Americans are regarding this,frightening actually. Americans have an arrogant laze faire attitude about this. “This is America”,and our President.[our commander in chief]. will keep things right. Right is the right word,as in “Yeah..Right!” ?-Me-?[ I have first hand dealings with oil traders] – I see “no light at the end of the tunnel” regarding oil price hikes. Economically, a sustained price of $120/wet barrel is unsustainable for maintaining the “American” Life-Style for very long. Prices of $150+ are not out of the question? And,4-6 months of that, “re-arranges,”?”changes” dramatically the US Food prices now astronomical,electricity rationed, things as air-conditioning are bygones. Memories of gas rationing/lines re-emerge,or to younger folks, are instilled. In 2+ years a president promising an energy independent America focused upon ramming a Health Bill the people didn't want, and desire even less now. This may sound like a screed,but embedded with fact. America could have taken advantage of the enormous supplies of natural gas and,perfected a new generation of nuclear power plants — the existing ones have proved they can deliver reliable,reasonably priced electricity. America could have focused upon adopting conservation and efficiency strategies,because the cheapest energy is energy that 'isn't' used. The nation could have done all this, and more. Lots more than waste away 2+ years that have lead America /s to where it/they is/are now. Yes,right now. Keep tally on what you pay for food,gas,everything; you'll see,it's already started. The promise, “change” has arrived. Question is? is it welcomed?
“He lies….!” a shout from a US congressman-name unknown to me.
Thalia, nice talk.but?” The dog need a walk.”
*
I respet your intent-
But you are absent
As to the content?
I have had my “welcome” to the world economy nearly 3 years ago. Long enough, plenty long to have seen?the..”change.”
Ushie Mayna, Hedge Fund Manager.
Commodities trading & Investment.

0bama should have kept the change and re-invested it into alternative energy sources like he claimed he would do. Then again, the only promise he kept was the “change”. The change that is currently f**king up our country. I believe it's time to just capret bomb these countries just to calm them down.
“where have all the cowboys gone?”
Напојува од страна на Yahoo! Одговори
17 мај 2012 година од страна на експерт
Filed under Wind And Solar Q & A

Томас прашува ...
I personally support it.
Because:
Here in Australia, we have a lot of Uranium therefore we can also make money exporting it to other countries.
It does not generate as much Carbon Dioxide as, say, coal which is also a non renewable source.
You can produce a great amount of electricity in a single plant.
But I am not ignoring the fact that nuclear energy is, like everything else, not perfect.
The storage of the waste is an issue, and so is the fact that it is a risky operation.
But if we set the waste problem aside for a moment, the risky operation thing is really not of a great deal.
I mean if you look at everyday life, there is a greater chance of people dying in car crashes (something you do almost everyday is ride in a car) than being killed by the meltdown/accidents of a nuclear plant.
Even though Uranium is not renewable and it will only be available for maximum 100 years, I still think it is a better option compared to coal etc, because it really makes a difference to the emission of Carbon Dioxide.
Share your opinions please and give reasons. ![]()
@little
I understand where you're coming from, but in comparison to coal, which would you choose?
I myself would prefer if we used wind power or solar power because they are risk-free renewable sources but right now we are relying on coal mostly.
It is producing a LOT of Carbon Dioxide which is contributing towards global warming.

I agree with you, for all the same reasons.

Laura прашува ...
Everyone seems to be getting very hyped up about the supposed hydrogen revolution that is just around the corner. Fuel Cell powered cars, we are promised, will be 100% with only water as a waste product. We are told fuel cells are going to power everything from cars to laptops.
Does anyone else see problems with this proposal? Firstly, hydrogen is an incredibly volatile gas, so filling up cars etc. with it will be far more dangerous than filling them with petrol. Also, if a car full of hydrogen gas crashes and it ruptured the storage tank, the whole thing will explode at the first sign of a spark.
Second, hydrogen does not occur in vast quanities naturally, so we have to produce it. This requires energy , and surely this energy is just going to come from burning more fossil fuels in power stations. And if it doesnt, if we set up a renewable energy infrastructure, why do we even need hydrogen? everything (including vehicles etc.) could just be plugged into a mains outlet…

The efficiency of fuel cell-to-motor energy conversion is undeniably much greater than that of internal combustion engines or steam engines. The cost of the fuel cell system is also undeniably much greater than that of IC or steam engines.
From Vision Engineer:
“Many automobile companies launch fuel cell test vehicles to show people the latest fuel cell technology edge. A good example is the Daimler Chrysler NECAR. The latest NECAR is NECAR 5. On 4th June 2002, NECAR 5 completed a 16-day historical journey from San Francisco to Washington, DC It was the first ever attempt to drive a fuel cell vehicle across the US.”
From New York City, New York to San Francisco, California is about 2930 miles. At an average speed of 50 mph and average driving day of 10 hr. (500 mi/da), this thip should take 6 days to drive in relative comfort.
The Fuel Cell car averaged 184 mi/da, so considerable time must have been spent on promotion, or the car was painfully slow given real driving conditions. You could achieve this average with a Model T.
The production of hydrogen as a large scale fuel is incredibly expensive and inefficient using today's technologies. The most popular proposal is reduction of hydrocarbon fuels, which continues the same pollution problems we have today, albeit easier to deal with. The oxides of carbon, nitrogen, sulfur, and other contaminants have to be scrubbed out and safely disposed of. To be effective, the hydrogen must be compressed and stored in high pressure cylinders, then distributed to “gas stations”. That technology exists, and need be only expended. The danger posed by the H2 gas cylinders is no greater than that posed by existing LPG (propane or butane) or LNG (methane) tanks, and is actually much less than that afforded by a half-full petrol tank.
Eventually we will resort to electrolosys of water to produce hydrogen. Our choices of energy sources will be nuclear, solar, wind, geothermal and tides. Of these, only nuclear has any hope of providing the necessary energy without irreparable destruction to our ecosystems. Hopefully, by the time we reach this pass we will have mastered controlled fusion reactions.
Totally electric vehicles are unacceptable as they are limited in range, speed, and endurance. Hybrids are being produced, and test vehicles have recieved broad acceptance (One test subject refused to relinquish his vehicle after the test.).

Lisa asks…
Designed by Peter Poulet and Michael Harvey, the Concrete House celebrates concrete as a strong material. Од страна на
using readily available and transportable components this house is affordable, quick to construct, and doesn't rely on
very specialized workers. Concrete is a durable material requiring very little maintenance.
Living in this house would be a commitment to living sustainably, using renewable energy , harvesting rainwater
and minimizing waste. Rain water storage is integrated into the design using the pre-cast concrete columns
— almost any volume of water could be stored using this simple method. A solar hot water system can be installed
on the roof. Concrete's natural thermal mass is used to keep the house cool in summer and warm in winter.
Find in the text.
a) The opposite of cold:
b) A synonym for build:
c) One modal verb:
d) One auxiliary verb (negative):

A hot
b constuct
c would
d doesn't

Daniel asks…
Somehow its assumed by many people that ending the war will improve our lives in some way .
Did we spend 20 billion dollars for a cancer cure or invest in the production of renewable energy , or even provide good foster care for children to ensure none of them got abused .
I think not .
What did we spend the money on .
Bridges to nowhere , renaming post offices , private airports , Fema trailers that sit empty rotting away and rent on storage space to store donated goods for relief efforts that should have been dispersed to hurricane victims .
We spent millions on studies to determine how best to rebuild the devastated Gulf coast and yet to this day only a few thousand residences have been rebuilt .
For people to think the government would have spent this money on anything other then itself and the needs of the wealthy is foolish .
I think war provides work for many who would not have any .
Life is dangerous and more people die in traffic accidents then in war .

Here's the actual stats from the Dept of the Treasury, Bureau of Public Debt. It seems that people don't really know what they are, or even have a clue.
(Year/Total National Debt/Interest Paid)
2000/$5.7 Trillion/$362 Billion
2001/$5.8 Trillion/$359.5 Billion
2002/$6.2 Trillion/$333 Billion
2003/$6.8 Trillion/$318 Billion
2004/$7.4 Trillion/$321.6 Billion
2005/$7.9 Trillion/$352 Billion
2006/$8.5 Trillion/$410 Billion
2007/$9.0 Trillion/$430 Billion
This is interesting, budget deficits as percent of GDP. From the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development. There are a lot more countries I could have put in here, but i just wanted to show a few.
(Country/1990/1995/2000/2006)
USA/-4.2/-3.1/1.6/-2.3
Austria/-2.5/-5.7/-1.6/-1.2
Norway/2.2/3.2/15.4/19.3
United Kingdom/-1.8/-5.8/4.0/-2.9
–just added for the guy below me–
Notice I said “below” me. Maybe I should have said beneath…anyways. I have done 2 tours in Iraq and one each in Kosovo, Macedonia, and Bosnia. Don't pretend to talk to me about the military. If someone has a family member or friend who has died in war, do no do them such a disservice by saying these things. Have a little respect. Just cause you're too much of a pansy to sign up and fight for yourself. Are you that naive that you don't know that soldiers signed up for war? I'll explain it to you, that is what soldiers do, they fight wars. I hope at least that part makes sense. We've freed 24 million innocent people. We HAVE WON the war in Iraq. The media just doesn't want the ignorant masses, like you, to know about it until after you've voted for Obama. Don't be so naive.
As far as the budget defecit and debt goes, it's dictated by the economy. The economy does as it pleases and doesn't care who the president is.

Susan asks…
A) nuclear power plants were first developed commericially in the 1950s
B) it is government subsidized because it is very expensive compared to fossil fuels
C) it is considered a renewable energy source
D) nuclear power results from a controlled chain reaction splitting apart atomic nuclei called fission
E) 20% of US electricity is from nuclear power
F) releases less greenhouse gas emissions than fossil fuel use
G) usually has fewer occupational health and safety risks for plant workers than at coal-fired plants
H) Pennsylvania doesn't have any high-level radioactive waste storage sites from nuclear power generation

B and C

Рут прашува ...
Hydroelectricity is produced by hydropower. Hydropower aka hydraulic power means the force or energy of moving water. It is a renewable source of energy produces no waste and carbon dioxide which helps greenhouse gases (gases present in the atmosphere which reduce the loss of heat). Hydroelectricity comes from the potential energy of dammed water driving a water turbine (engine that takes energy from moving water) and generator (a device that converts mechanical energy to electrical energy ). The energy extracted from the water depends on the volume and the difference in height between the source and the water's outflow. This height difference is called the head. Pumped storage hydroelectricity produces electricity to supply high peak demands by moving water between reservoirs (a place or hollow vessel where something (usually liquid) is kept in reserve, for later use) at different elevations. At times of low electrical demand, excess generation capacity is used to pump water into the higher reservoir. When there is higher demand, water is released back into the lower reservoir through a turbine.

There's a Hydro-electric Power Plant in North Wales, UK That does more or less what your write-up says.
There are 3 huge water turbines taking the water from a dam 600 feet above the Plant to drive their respective generators.
On leaving the turbines, the water flows to another lake just below the plant.
During the Day (6.0am to 8.0pm), the generators are producing power to the National Grid at Peak Cost to the consumers.
During the night, when electricicty costs are much less, the generators are converted to motors and their rotation reversed. The turbines are lined up in series. The system is started up, the turbines become pumps and, the water from the lower lake is pumped back to the higher lake overnight.
So what, if you did cut and paste the text you have.
I have visited the above installation (I'ma Brit), and it's nothing short of an amazing place to visit.
The whole turbine generation plant with all facilities are built into a mountain…A bit 'James Bond-ish' but, it's a fact…a fantastic set-up.

Линда прашува ...
Everyone today has heard of how important it is to recycle and most cities offer a recycling program, but what exactly is recycling and how beneficial is it really to us and the environment?
What are the recycling facts and benefits?
Recycling is the process of turning one products useful parts into a new product; this is done to conserve on the consumption of resources, energy and space used in landfills.
By recycling 1 plastic bottle not only saves anywhere from 100 to 1000 years in the landfill but also saves the environment from the emissions in producing new bottles as well as the oil used to produce that bottle.
For every 1 ton of plastic that is recycled we save the equivalent of 2 people's energy use for 1 year, the amount of water used by 1 person in 2 month's time and almost 2000 pounds of oil.
Approximately 60% of our rubbish thrown away today could be recycled. A survey was done and 9 out of 10 people surveyed said they would recycle more if it was easier.
Odd as it seems there are many people who do not realize that plastic bottles our water comes in is made out of oil. This is the same oil that is used to make gasoline. It's the same oil that is in such high demand and is not an unlimited resource.
Today the most common products in cities recycling programs are paper products, cardboard, plastic, glass and aluminum.
Taking just a moment to put your newspaper, soda can and glass spaghetti jar in the recycling bin will save everyone years in environmental harm from production of new materials, over crowded landfills and the depletion of our natural resources.
4000 Years
When we do not recycle at least our glass or aluminum we cost the earth in power usage, water and oil usage and landfill usage; glass takes up to 4000 years to decompose in a landfill yet can be recycled indefinitely.
Earn Money
Recycling can be done at home as well as in conjunction with city programs. Many scrap yards pay for scrap metal including the soda cans and soup cans we use every day.
Be Creative
Many useful items can be made from our everyday trash; the cardboard tubes left over from paper towel and toilet paper can make useful storage containers for our extra extension cords and prevents a tangled mess in the Christmas lights. If your going to throw these out don't just throw it in the rubbish bin, put it the recycling bin.
Baby jars can become snow globes the kids can make and give as gifts, old Christmas cards can become new hand made cards and a glass or plastic bottle along with some clear oil and food coloring and a few other common household items can become a groovy lava lamp!
The possibilities are endless and instructions can be found in books and on the internet.
Start Today
Recycling is a very environmentally green activity; however, there are ways that you can make it greener as well as building a strong beginning if you do not currently recycle.
Many people beginning a recycling program look around and wonder what they can put in the recycling bin; there is so much information available on this site, so don't panic.
By reusing your recycled storage containers you save on the environmental impact as well. Paper and plastic bags are good for recycling storage ; however, a plastic reusable bin is even better.
Spread The Word
Share what you know. If you notice abundant trash in your neighborhood start spreading the word and your experience with recycling and if there isn't already one in place strive to get a city recycling pick up program started.
The fact is many of our resources as well as our Earth is not renewable and we have to start taking control of our selves beginning with the world we live in.
Global warming is no longer viewed as a theory by scientists and has sadly become a fact. The change needed must be in your actions today in order to ensure a bright (not too hot) tomorrow.

Well, I cut my littering by 50% !!
I started drinking beer from 24 oz. Cans, so now I only throw THREE cans out of the car window instead of six!
Don't thank me…I'm just doin' my part.

Шарон бара ...
I got the folowing mail is it scam or frod or is it true i can not understnad there are sending me offer later how can i know this is true form HP or not?
Attention:Mr. Udaysinh C. Vaghela,
Greetings from HEWLETT PACKARD (HP)
This is an affirmation that you have emerged Successful and being appointed for the position stated in your appointment document.
The mode of selection was based on the following;
1. CV and qualification
2. Mode in which your data is being presented on the employment data sheet.
3. Work experiences.
We employ staff based on four core values namely;
Productivity, Talent, Ambitions and Character and we expect all our newly recruited staff to exhibit these core values.
Also we ensure that all our staff especially our International employees are comfortable.
Please find attached herewith, relevant document containing the Soft Copy of your Contract Package for your perusal and approval.
Your Job Offer Summary is as follows;
CONTRACT DURATION: 5 YEARS CONTRACT TERM ( RENEWABLE )
JOB DESIGNATION: SOFTWARE DEVELOPER
STARTUP DATE: 26TH AUGUST, 2010
LEAVE PERIOD: TWICE EVERY 12 MONTHS
JOB REF: RADUK/COL/543AB
JOB CODE AP/S2653
JOB LOCATION: LONDON, UNITED KINGDOM
NOTE: You are to report your duty to Human Resource Manager.
SOFT COPY OF YOUR EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT,
THIS AGREEMENT is made today between HEWLETT PACKARD (HP) of the 1st party and you as a 2nd party.
For good consideration, HEWLETT PACKARD (HP) employs the Employee on the following terms and conditions.
ARTICLE 1: CONTRACT PERIOD
The contract period shall be for Contract duration: The contract shall last for duration of 60 consecutive months; 5 years and could be renewed based on employee's satisfactory services to the Company.
ARTICLE 2: SALARY
HEWLETT PACKARD (HP) shall pay Employee on satisfactory performance of the services the sum of (£ 7,200) Seven Thousand, Two Hundred Great Britain Pounds. Basic (Tax inclusive) MONTHLY. ie after Tax monthly, equivalent depending on employee's home country.
The employee will be reimbursed by the employer for reasonable moving expense incurred only as a result of relocation or early termination of leases, storage charges; procurement of travel documents. Reimbursements shall be made before employees embark on journey not later than Five (5) working days after submission of employee's expense report and receipts, this after the acquisition of relevant travelling papers through the assistance of the company's legal adviser on Immigration Matters..
Employer shall also take care of employees' air ticket including that of employees' family only on employees' early notification to employer and as shall be requested by employee (ONLY TWO FAMILY MEMBERS ARE ALLOWED)
ARTICLE 3: Duties and Position.
HEWLETT PACKARD (HP) hires the Employee in the capacity of Employee's duties may be reasonably modified at HEWLETT PACKARD (HP) discretion from time to time.
ARTICLE 4: Employee to Devote Full Time to HEWLETT PACKARD (HP).
The Employee will devote full time, attention, and energies to the production of the computers, and, during this employment, will not engage in any other business activity, regardless of whether such activity is pursued for profit, gain, or other pecuniary advantage. Employee is not prohibited from making personal investments in any other businesses provided those investments do not require active involvement in the operation of said companies.
ARTICLE 5: Confidentiality of Proprietary Information.
Employee agrees, during or after the term of this employment, not to reveal confidential information from rendering any services to any entity to whom said information has been or is threatened to be disclosed, the right to secure an injunction is not exclusive, and the COMPANY may pursue any other remedies it has against the Employee for a breach or threatened breach of this condition, including the recovery of damages from the Employee.
ARTICLE 6: Disability.
In the event that the Employee cannot perform the duties because of illness or incapacity for a period of more than 1 month, the compensation otherwise due during said illness. The Employee's full compensation will be reinstated upon return to work. However, if the Employee is absent from work for any reason for a continuous period of over 2 months, the COMPANY may terminate the Employee's employment, and the Hewlett Packard obligations under this agreement will cease on that date.
ARTICLE 7: Termination of Agreement.
Without cause Hewlett Packard may terminate this agreement at any time upon 6 days' written notice to the Employee, the Employee will continue to perform his/her duties and may be paid his/her regular salary up to the date of termination. In addi

That is a scam – neither of those are legitimate Hewlett Packard email addresses. If it doesn't end in @hp.com you are not dealing with the real company
This is nothing but a scam to eventually steal all of your money and commit identity theft with your information. They will ask you to send a copy of your passport to some “agency” to process the visa, then ask for money. Then ask for more money for another certificate. Then more money then more until you finally wake up and realise it's been a scam all the time
Delete this or report it to whichever agency in your country deals with internet crime
A major global company like HP is NEVER going to offer a job over the internet. If you were not flown to the UK for an interview at their head office in Bristol (they aren't in London) then the job doesn't exist. A company cannot get a visa for a person they've never met in person. That's one of the requirements the company has to prove – that they have either flown to meet you or flown you in to meet them for at least 2 interviews before they can offer you the job and sponsor a visa

Joseph asks…
Is it possible to get a giant mobile wind turbine on wheels that can be placed in hurricanes in order to collect large amounts of energy ?
For example, how about a very rugged turbine(like propeller you would use for planes going 500 MPH) and a energy storage device that converts aluminum oxide to aluminum(high energy potential material/released energy = thermite reaction) for example. With hydrogen, you waste energy compressing… so preferrably some energy conversion system that gives solids or liquids. Then just pump the fuel to anywhere and convert it to electricity.
YEAH???
Of course you take the wheels off and lock in down once on location… materials for construction can be very cheap I think if they REALLY REALLY tried to build using already made parts.

It is not possible to make strong enough and big enough turbines that are also portable, and any way, hurricanes do not happen often enough. And just imagine the amount of fuel and number of workers and the time that would be needed to move these giant machines! Far better to build thousands of turbines permanently installed in locations that see moderately strong winds most of the year. Winds strong enough to make lots of power but not so strong as to damage the turbines. Winds than blow almost every day and not only one or two days out of the year. That is being done already.
And your energy storage ideas sound like they would store very little energy and require a great deal of trouble to implement.
Напојува од страна на Yahoo! Одговори
May 16, 2012 by The Expert
Filed under Wind And Solar Q & A

Јован прашува ...
is it either BWR or PWR?

Turkey Point nuclear plant is a PWR ( Pressurized Water Reactor ) facility but on June 30th 2009 they submitted an application to build 2 1,550-MWe ESBWR ( Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactors ) so upon completion of those reactors around 2017. Turkey River would be both a pressurized water reactor ( PWR ) and a boiling water reactor ( BWR )

Betty asks…
In the most recent example of staggeringly expensive new nuclear plants ,
“The Ontario government put its nuclear power plans on hold last month because the bid from Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., the only “compliant” one received, was more than three times higher than what the province expected to pay [at $13 billion per reactor].
It means a single project would have wiped out the province's nuclear - power expansion budget for the next 20 years, leaving no money for at least two more multibillion-dollar refurbishment projects.”
“Much of the dramatic price increase relates to the cost of labour and materials, which have skyrocketed over the past few years. Nuclear suppliers and their investors also have less tolerance for risk.”
http://www.thestar.com/comment/columnists/article/665644
Similarly, Turkey couldn't get any bids below 21 cents per kWh for a new nuke (their average energy cost is currently under 8 cents per kWh).
http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=164556&bolum=105
A new nuke in Finland went over budget by more than $2 billion (50% over the original estimate) and 3 years over schedule.
http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssIndustryMaterialsUtilitiesNews/idUSLS56745220080828
In the USA new nuclear energy is on track to cost 15¢ to 20¢ per kilowatt-hour. And no nuclear plant has ever been completed on budget.
http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1869203,00.html
Florida Power and Light concluded that two new units totaling 2,200 megawatts would cost $12 billion to $18 billion.
Progress Energy informed state regulators that the twin 1,100-megawatt plants it intends to build in Florida would cost $14 billion, which “triples estimates the utility offered little more than a year ago.” and its cost estimates are “nonbinding” and “subject to change over time.”
http://climateprogress.org/2008/06/13/ nuclear - power -part-2-the-price-is-not-right/
With these incredibly high costs for new nuclear power plants all over the world, do you think we'll see any new nukes built in the near future?

I think it depends on how much the federal government subsidizes it. The US Has already put out over $100 billion (Time article). The rational originally was to promote a fledgling industry. But the nuclear 'wings' still don't support its weight.
And that's not counting the cost of permanent disposal of nuclear waste, which is very expensive. The Yucca Mountain facility is on hold, because Nevadans don't want the waste 'in their backyard'. So it's kept a lot closer to you than Yucca Mountain is to most Nevadans.
Who computes the end-to-end cost of nuclear fuel? It takes a lot of oil to produce the fuel ready to go into the reactor, and leaves behind a mess of radioactive tailings.
Three Mile Island accident discouraged banks from financing industry. The costs overruns and political uproars in the 70s and 80s..
So unless the idea of Uncle Sam subsidizing power plants heavily gets traction, I don't think there will nuclear plants built here.
Oh, and Germany just had an accident (Krummel), including core damage.

David asks…
This has always puzzled me, because most proponents of global warming are skeptical because they're afraid of the lower cost and efficiency of nuclear power .
But you would think if that were the case, they would mostly favor the change to lower the consumption of cheap fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas. Yet most proponents seem to wholeheartedly resist an increased use of nuclear power .
This seems to contradict their ecological motivations, because new nuclear power is extremely efficient and clean. One of the few new nuclear power plants proposed to be built in the US in the last 30 years – in San Antonio – was originally estimated to cost $13 billion for 2 reactors. The price tag just went up another $4 billion due to unions and unfounded EPA regulations.
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/ Nuclear …
The same story can be applied to proposed nuclear plants in Florida , North Carolina, and abroad in Canada and Finland. Due mainly to the EPA and the proponents of global warming, nuclear power is highly suppressed viable alternative.
Yet we constantly hear questions from proponents of global warming about why non-believers don't support algore and the church of global warming more strongly.
What's the deal? Do they not understand the reality of clean, efficient nuclear power ? Do they resist it just because non-believers know nuclear power is better than coal and natural gas? Are they just parroting what they hear from the liberal media and political websites?

They're afraid that a nuclear power plant will be built where they can see it, and they don't look very good. Obviously, the solution is to build them in AGW skeptic's backyard, which alarmists see as fair. However, the rest of us don't agree with the alarmists, so they feel the need to eliminate all the nuclear power plants, as not everyone agrees with alarmists over them.
You all think I'm joking, don't you? Ted Kennedy refused to have a wind farm built near his property, because it would disrupt his view. Same thing with liberal Sen. John Warner, who tried to bar the Army Corps of Engineers from permitting offshore windfarms, as he and his relatives all live on the coast. Clearly, all the alternative power plants belong in the west, so that they can disrupt the view of people that don't matter (particularly conservatives).
Just imagine what it'd be like if you replaced the windmills with a massive nuclear power plant belching clouds of steam.

Стивен прашува ...
This has always puzzled me, because most AGW deniers are 'skeptics' because they're afraid of the economic costs of carbon regulation.
But you would think if that were the case, they would mostly favor the status quo of relying on cheap fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas. Yet most 'skeptics' seem to wholeheartedly support an increased use of nuclear power .
This seems to contradict their economic motivations, because new nuclear power is extremely expensive. One of the few new nuclear power plants proposed to be built in the US in the last 30 years – in San Antonio – was originally estimated to cost $13 billion for 2 reactors. The price tag just went up another $4 billion.
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/Nuclear_cost_estimate_rises.html
The same story can be applied to proposed nuclear plants in Florida , North Carolina, and abroad in Canada and Finland. Due mainly to increased construction costs, nuclear power is an expensive alternative.
Yet we constantly hear questions from deniers about why “alarmists” don't support nuclear power more strongly.
What's the deal? Do they not understand the reality of nuclear costs? Do they support it just because environmentalists used to object to nuclear power ? Are they just parrotting what they hear from the right-wing media?
Looks like it's indeed a combination of my suspicions.
1) They're purely anti-environmentalists.
2) They're purely anti-liberal, and view renewable energy as “liberal” and nuclear as “conservative”.
3) They're stuck in the 1970s and think nuclear power is still cheap.
Or some combination of the three.

I think history plays a role in this. Most global warming deniers are on the political right. In the 1970′s-1980′s, many environmentalists had concerns over nuclear power, which eventually lead to stricter regulation. Environmentalists had been supporting renewable energy. Many on the right were angered that environmentalists were successful at influencing policy and blamed them for slow growth of nuclear power, even though much of the reason for that was rising nuclear costs, and plunging fossil fuel prices. So US Republicans believe they “own” nuclear power and see renewables “owned” by liberals. Their support for nukes is like cheering for a team. The fact that nuclear power is quite expensive eludes them. They want to push nuclear power so they can feel like they finally beat those pesky environmentalists that thwarted them in the 1970′s. In other words, they are living too much in the past.
Nuclear power is an effective global warming solution and independent of that, has much fewer environmental problems than coal. If they can get the costs down and economically compete with renewables such that they are clearly and consistently cheaper (nukes no doubt have more environmental and national security costs than renewables), more “power” to them.

Шарон бара ...
Florida Power & Light estimated that building a new nuclear plant in that state would cost $12-18 billion. A new study concluded that generation costs from a new nuclear power plant would cost 25-30 cents per kWh – three times the current average US electrical rates. A June 2008 report by Moody's Investor Services Global Credit Research concluded that any utility engaging in the risky venture of building a new nuclear power plant would experience a severe decline in its credit rating.
http://climateprogress.org/2009/01/07/ nuclear - power - plants -troubled-assests-credit-risk/#more-4585
Now I want to point out that I'm not suggesting we shut down all nuclear plants and never use nuclear power again. However, many people seem to feel that nuclear power is a silver bullet which will solve all our energy problems. Given the costs and risks of new nuclear plants , it seems more like a diamond-encrusted platinum bullet to me.
So how can we rely on increased nuclear power production to solve our energy problems given its cost and risks?
Ben – solar and wind (and geothermal) are cheaper, as discussed here:
http://greenhome.huddler.com/forum/thread/975/new- nuclear - power -plant-costs-appear-staggering

How safe do you want your nuclear power station to be:
very safe
very very safe
very very very safe
add more verys as you feel like
The cost goes up in proprtion to the number of verys.

Линда прашува ...
Located in Florida ?

Ever had a double down?

Jenny прашува ...
“Republicans say, build 100 new nuclear power plants during the next twenty years”
http://www.gop.com/News/NewsRead.aspx?Guid=92504368-37ec-4d4e-94bb-9edc4fc33250
But as they push for a massive number of new nuclear plants , this is what's happening around the world.
Finland: “After four years of construction and thousands of defects and deficiencies, the reactor's 3 billion euro price tag, about $4.2 billion, has climbed at least 50 percent. And while the reactor was originally meant to be completed this summer, Areva, the French company building it, and the utility that ordered it, are no longer willing to make certain predictions on when it will go online.”
Turkey: “The only company bidding…offered a price of 21.16 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh). Current electricity prices in the country vary between 4 cents and 14 cents per kWh.”
http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=164556&bolum=105
Even here in the USA, in Florida : “Progress Energy offered its revised estimate Tuesday: $14-billion for two new nuclear reactors…The utility said its 200-mile, 10-county transmission project will cost $3-billion more. The total cost triples estimates the utility offered little more than a year ago.”
http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/energy/article414653.ece
Idaho: “Consumers expect reasonably priced energy, and the company's due diligence process has led to the conclusion that it does not make economic sense to pursue the project at this time,” Bill Fehrman, President of MidAmerican Nuclear Energy Co, said in the letter to Payette County residents.
http://www.reuters.com/article/companyNews/idUSN2957446620080129
The list goes on. Why does the GOP want 100 new nuclear power plants when currently they're so expensive and having so little success in the USA and around the world?

Well, call me a crazy conspiracy theorist, but I think it has something to do with the centralization of power. Read whatever you like into that statement. What other possible explanation can there be for their vehement opposition to distributed [anything]?
We could actually have clean efficient nuclear power with gen IV designs that can actually burn nuclear “waste”. But this type of nuclear infrastructure would turn nuclear power into a kind of public trust – the last thing they want.
When you can't centralize and control and take all the profits and funnel them upwards – they want nothing to do with it. More than that, they want to quash distributed infrastructure of any sort, lest the little people get the idea that they can have some measure of control over their own lives and destiny. I think people are starting to wake up to what happened in the last century. I think it's telling that the new administration gave more of GM to the unions than to the bondholders. It's a beginning of a return to some sort of balance.
I like your explanation from before – nuclear is pointless when renewables (even centralized renewables) are cheaper. However, if we don't do demand management in a big way, like an Apollo program that cuts energy use in half in 10 years, the demand growth for energy coupled with realization that carbon is destroying the climate may make nuclear inevitable – because without demand management renewables can't satisfy the load. Or can they?
Light water reactors are one of our most dangerous, inefficient, wasteful and unsustainable technologies. We mine the uranium at tremendous (social and environmental) cost. We only have enough uranium for 70 years anyway. We use it once leaving 99% of the energy behind turning it into a 100,000 year nightmare of highly radioactive, highly toxic waste. All the light water reactor waste ever created is still there, in holding ponds, at the power plants where it was created.
“…some form of molten-salt thorium breeder could be the most efficient well-developed energy source known, whether measured by cost per kW, capital cost or social costs.”
But we don't do it. The party of dumb wants more light water reactors. Зошто? See above and some of the other salient answers.

Даниел прашува ...
In California, we have one nuclear reactor, on half the time. We still have coal burning power plants . How many tens of thousands of kids and adults have to get asthma before CLEAN nuclear power is established? Florida has 5, their rates are 1/4 of California. Even tiny Switzerland has 5.
There have never been any nuclear 'accident's in the United States. No one was ever injured, no plant or animal of any kind was injured. We had a scare only with Three Mile Island. Russia had catastrophes with poorly designed reactors.
Nuclear reactors have zero emissions unlike even 'clean' natural gas or so called 'clean' coal plants .

Because the world is full of really uninformed, and sadly stupid, people. If they pulled their head out of the sand and really found out how safe and clean and cost effective nuclear is we would have lots.
By the way, it is possible to have clean coal plants. We need them also.
We need a diversity of nuke, coal, wind, water, solar. Each has it's place. We need to educate people that 3-mile island was a success! The operators did every stupid thing possible and the controls still shut down without anyone geting hurt, miniscule radiation leakage and only damage to one reactor. Modern ones are even safer, cheaper and more efficient. Media “hyped” Chernobal. It was a cheap plant put up by stupid government. Had no “containment” building (such as the one at 3-mile island). No wonder it was a disaster.
Simple answer. Media has talked “sheep” in this country into believeing nuke is unsafe. Blame Jane Fonda for one more thing “meltdown”. It was only a MOVIE folks, not real life!

Павле бара ...
I was just visiting family in Florida , and I was driving back to the Orlando International Airport on 528-W, and I saw a big power plant with two big cooling towers from the highway. I also flew right over the power station and could see it all from the window of my plane. I'm pretty sure it's not a nuclear plant, but I was just wondering what the name of it is. Can anyone give me any information/websites/etc? Ви благодариме.

I think that you are referring to the Stanton Power Plant. Formally named the Curtis H. Stanton Energy Center.
Напојува од страна на Yahoo! Одговори
May 15, 2012 by The Expert
Filed under Wind And Solar Q & A

Mary asks…

Thor missed one renewable; Biomass
So biomass is usually woody debri that is ground up and buned in large plant that creates electricity. I am in the Tahoe area small trees are are chipped and used for biomass, by doing this we prevent or slow catastrauphic wildfires. The trees themselves store the energy while growing and it is renewable.
I'ma lumberjack that supplies biomass to a local power plant.

Даниел прашува ...
A company claims to have solved the problem of storing energy from renewable sources using giant gravel batteries:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/apr/26/gravel-batteries- renewable - energy - storage
Што мислите?

What do I think?
Well, when I first read the article, I thought it had to be a joke.
I then had to look at the date of publication of the article, just to make sure that this was a current article, and not an 'April Fools' day joke which I had not heard of before, and then when I realized that it was only published yesterday I had to dismiss the 'April Fools' aspect, and since it is the 'Guardian' then it MUST be TRUE!
There are many things about this story which would actually be funny if it were not so extremely sad.
Without going into any real and 'boring science' (to far too many people), One thing which interested me which really is worth noting was the comment, “Isentropic claims a round-trip energy efficiency of up to 80% and, because gravel is cheap, the cost of a system per kilowatt-hour of storage would be between $10 and $55.”!
I have to ask anyone with a modicum of intelligence to be able to justify that in any way whatsoever.
Or am I missing something?
It seems to me that none of this makes any sense at all (either scientifically, or financially).

Nancy прашува ...
New energy storage systems are able to store so much renewable energy ….so….
HURRICANE ENERGY CAN BE STORED!! So…1 day hurricane would give much more
usable…. energy than a good constant 1 year 6 m/s wind….
Results are evident!

I love the idea. God bless you!

Џорџ прашува ...
Let's say one uses 100 kilowatt generating capacity to produce hydrogen from water using electrolysis, and runs the process for one hour. If he then turns around and uses the hydrogen to generate electricity, how much can he generate? Can he then produce 25 kilowatts for one hour? 50 kw? In other words, is the return from electrolysis 25%? Is it 50%? I am interested in the storage capacity from hydrogen produced with renewable energy . Благодарност.

Depends how you get your energy from hydrogen. Lets say you burn it to generate heat to make steam to drive a turbine. That's a lot of steps. Lots of places for inefficiency. Probably 25% is a reasonable figure.
Might be 60% with a fuel cell?

Томас прашува ...
Tomorrows Horizon Inc is a start up nonprofit dedicated to the advancement of knowledge regarding the problems our world faces, developments in renewable energy production and storage , and breakthroughs in sustainable living systems.
Our website is still under construction but please take a few minutes to check out our homepage and if you would like updates please join our mailing list.

I think this website is pretty good but how are the people going to know thats the only problem we want people to know these ways of going green …….so i think people should start buying books with recycled paper …..green edition people ……

Лиса прашува ...
is there a way we could use lightning arresters and storage devices to store energy from lightning and use it as a renewable source of electricity?

Fortunately, there is not a terribly large amount of energy contained in a lightning discharge.
Consider, for instance, the voltage, current, and time characteristics of a 'standard' lightning waveform.
This standard waveform is what electrical equipment is designed to withstand, so it actually uses conservative (overly large) values.
On a 35 kV ac distribution system, a 20 kA lightning surge (20 kA is larger than 90% of all lightning discharge currents) would produce about 100 kV crest. The typical waveform has an 8 microsecond risetime and 20 microsecond tail.
Thus, the total energy is not more than (20 000 A) x (100 000 V) x (28 x10^-6 seconds) = 56 000 J.
56 kJ corresponds to 15.56 Wh (Watt-hours). Considering the amount of equipment involved in somehow capturing the energy of the charged cloud-to-ground capacitor, this just isn't enough energy to make it worthwhile.

Lizzie asks…
I've read many questions and answers about power generation and how the US energy crisis could be solved by renewable resources such as wind or solar cells. While wind, solar cells, hydro, landfill gas and other types of renewable generation all have their place in an overall mix, due to their variability and diffuse nature, none are a viable source of reliable base load power. I emphasis the importance of reliability since there are no practical methods of storing energy that do not have a steep price in efficiency.
The first method of effectively increasing the supply of renewable energy is to use less. Next, if and until fusion power becomes a reality, the only other answer, and I know there will weeping, arm flailing and talk of doomsday, is the use of fail safe nuclear reactors (they will shut down before melting down) with fuel reprocessing to alleviate the spent waste storage problem. 80% of France's power is nuclear. What do they know that we don't?

Far be it from me to suggest emulating the French, but….
In this we should. We should stop coddling an irrational segment of our population, and get some new nuke plants up and running. Preferrably hundreds.
The whiners can whine in comfort, thanks to nuke powered air conditioning.

Вилијам прашува ...
When it comes to discussing what is going to happen
when oil runs out, the loudest argue adopting renewable energy
is a horrifying prospect – it's inadequate etc.
But if we turn our attention to:
What will solar energy / collectors and storage devices
be like in the year 3000…
maybe we'd move the debate,
and our reality, on
cos, once identified ~
we could produce now…
Што мислите?
I've made a start, putting down my design ideas.
Please take a look:
http://www.the-alternative.org.uk
See: Chapter 6: Energy / Solar

I've always wondered why there seems to be so much hostility towards people who want to find a way to pollute less. How can this be a bad thing. Yes, some of the alternatives we have are stop gap measures, but their designs will improve and guide others to designs that can be a true solution.
I don't understand most of the technical things that go into the production of energy, but it only takes common sense to understand that if we can make electricity from something that doesn't have to be forced from the ground and doesn't release large amounts of pollution it has to be better than what we are doing now.

Helen asks…
I am doing a project on energy . It consists of 12 different types of energies. I just need information on some of them because they are hard to find. They are:
1) Ethanol/Methanol
2) Bio-mass
3)Lithium Ion Battery
4) Pumped storage reservoirs
5) Geothermal
The information I need on them are:
A) Is it efficient?
B) Is it renewable , why or why not?
c) Is it reusable
d) can it be used anywhere?
e) where is it best used?
*Thanks for your help!!

I can tell you about Geothermal Energy!
Geothermal energy is pretty much energy inside the earth.
Steam and hot water is geothermal energy.
What happens is the steam/hot water is usually located in a place called a geothermal reservoir, which is a very hot area underground ranging from 300-700 degrees Fahrenheit.
The steam/hot water is sucked through pipes and into a turbine. The steam/hot water causes the curved vanes of the turbine to spin, thus creating energy. That energy is not fully developed though. It goes through a generator, and then the power can be used to heat homes and other buildings.
For ethanol, use these websites:
http://www.drivingethanol.org/
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/may2006/tc20060519_225336.htm
For Bio-Mass energy, use this:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/sources/renewable/biomass.html
For Lithium Ion Battery, use this:
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/lithium-ion-battery.htm
And for Pumped storage reservoirs, use these:
http://www.darvill.clara.net/altenerg/pumped.htm
http://www.obg.com/solutions/water/utility.aspx
Hope this helped!
-Tom C
Напојува од страна на Yahoo! Одговори
May 13, 2012 by The Expert
Filed under Wind And Solar Q & A

Helen asks…
I just don't understand?, republicans whine and complain when things go wrong; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_rating
Then all of a sudden their republican presidential nominee chooses a female as his running mate for vice presidency. They forget all about the major issues they so annoyingly complained about over the past few years. Health Care, Education, National Security, Immigration, Abortion, Same-Sex Marriage, Social Security, and the Economy.
Which of these do John McCain and George W Bush disagree about OH YEAH!, none:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/06/17/us/politics/20080617_POLICY_GRAPHIC.html
Sure they do disagree on a few issues but just answer me this in the past 100 years(and not in the last 20 to 30 or so years) which of these: Climate Change, Energy and Oil, Renewable Energy , Interrogation Tactics, and Arms Control. Can you say was brought up as an important issue related to the american people?. I would have to say NONE!.
Is Obama the answer I don't know and i don't really care. Is McCain the solution to our problems sure, if hell freezes over.
Jeez, are you serious when you don't see proof you complain. “where are you facts blah blah blah”. I give you actual facts from reliable sources and it's not enough that's amazing how insanely stuborn you people can be.
I don't follow politics but it's laughable how easy it is to correct some of you like ricky there,
McCain/Palin supporters are those that believe in the American dream…
Do you honestly think republicans are the only one's who dream of that, what person in the world doesn't believe in the american dream; it's what most of us dream of it's what we strive for. Do
Those supporteres haven't forgotten about health care and education…
How are thes not your opinions?, it's completely contradictory bush and McCain agree on the same policy. FOR CHRIST SAKE AHHH!!!.
They haven't forgotten about National Security….
The last attack on American soil before 9/11 occurred 60 years prior, how is that any different than the past 7 years?.
They haven't forgotten about immigration, because they want the illegals to stay out and welcome the documented….
This is why republicans disgust me this wonderful country you love so much was founded on a single basis, Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses. We are a nation of immigrants how we've deluded ourselves into believing that were not natives of this country is beyond any kind of normal comprehension.
They haven't forgotten about abortion. They remember that, “Thou shalt not kill.” They haven't forgotten about same-sex marriage, they ignore it because it's not a natural union.
Once again how does this not differ from what I said about health and education
They haven't forgotten about Social Security. They believe that putting money into the people's pockets and letting them invest it in private funds is better than having government do it for them. Finally, the economy is in better shape than it was in the Clinton years, but a Democratic Congress has made it difficult for the President these past two years.
Why would anyone in the past 100 years bring up climate change, energy and oil, renewable energy , interrogation tactics, or arms control? Global warming wasn'ta concern. Energy and oil were what made the Rockefellers rich. Renewable energy didn't exist. Interrogation tactics included beating the bejesus out of someone until the talked. And arms control was I dare you to pry this gun from my cold dead fingers.
EXACTLY!, does this person have a brain? I clearly stated that.
Is Obama the answer? No. Is McCain? That's the way I'm voting.
How does this final statement even make sense?.

Look at this “we haven't be attacked in 8 years”. No, seriously…read that again. Maybe a couple times until it actually sinks in. It's only been 8 years. It took over 200 for the 1st attack. Are you people actually that frigging stupid? Honestly, you act like 8 years is long. 8 years is nothing. We ARE going to get attacked again. We figured this right after the attacks. When did you think we were going to get attacked, the next day? We are no safer now than we were 9/10/01. If you believe that, you are ignorant and I hope that it's bliss. But, it's not true. We are no safer now than 9/10/01.

Lizzie asks…
Obama awards $2B for solar power, hails new jobs
Obama hands out $2 billion for new solar plants, says money will help create thousands of jobs
The government is handing out nearly $2 billion for new solar plants that President Barack Obama says will create thousands of jobs and increase the use of renewable energy sources.
Obama announced the initiative in his weekly radio and online address Saturday, saying the money is part of his plan to bring new industries to the US
“We're going to keep competing aggressively to make sure the jobs and industries of the future are taking root right here in America,” Obama said.
The Obama administration says those projects will create more than 2,000 construction jobs and 1,500 permanent jobs.
Obama said that while it may take years to bring back all the jobs lost during the recession, the economy is moving in a positive direction.
The unemployment rate dropped to 9.5 percent.
Obama has said that to bring the nation's economy back from the brink of a depression, it was necessary to add to the country's debt in the short term.
Everyone is talking about CUT SPENDING. But Is this SPENDING bad?

According to conservatives, yes. Because Obama did it. If anyone else had done it, it would have been fine.

Крис прашува ...
Entries for Issuing and Calling Bonds; Gain
Vidovich Corp. produces and sells renewable energy equipment. To finance its operations, Vidovich Corp. issued $1,334,000 of 10-year, 13% callable bonds on January 1, 2012, with interest payable on January 1 and July 1. The fiscal year of the company is the calendar year.
Journalize the entries to record the following selected transactions:
2012
Jan. 1 Issued the bonds for cash at their face amount.
July. 1 Paid the interest on the bonds.
2018
July. 1 Called the bond issue at 96, the rate provided in the bond indenture. (Omit entry for payment of interest.)

Hahahaha

Joseph asks…
To name but a few, the USA scores lowly in all of the following compared to countries like Japan or Scandinavia (and most of western Europe to a lesser extent):
1) Crime
2) Teenage pregnancy
3) Health/life expectancy
4) Poverty and low income
5) Long working hours culture / less paid hoilday
6) Educational achievement/literacy rates
7) Obesity
Environmental pollution eg CO2 per capita, recycling
9) Public transport and renewable energy
by richest country i just meant total not per capita
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)
I don' think you can argue over population is the cause of these problems when the countries that perform best are generally more densely populated (japan and western europe) than the usa.
I would suggest government has a big role to play in most of these as many of them are linked – particularly to inequality, education, healthcare and environmental regulation. With the exception of japan, most of western europe has a bigger public sector than the usa.
Personally I would suggest higher taxes on fuel, higher taxes for the rich, less defence spending, and more education, healthcare and public transport spending.

Rich country doesn't always equate rich people. In other words, just because a country is rich, it doesn't mean the riches are trickled down to the masses.
Government and corporate officials are very rich and can afford the best in healthcare, education, environment.
Over the last 20 years the US Has become less “government of the people, by the people” and more “government of the corporations and for the corporations”
Americans do not have the same resolve as Americans from say world war 2.
United we stand, divided we fall…
Dominos

Линда прашува ...
I'm new to the topic of renewable energy with solar panels. I've been doing some research and I think I have a general idea of what is required in a DIY scenario. However, most of the guides have very limited information regarding the use of an enclosure, box, etc. The information that I have found usually points to some home-made enclosure or leaving the batteries exposed. I'd rather not do that if possible.
The closest I have gotten is the Xantrex PH-1800, but it is not officially offered to the general public, so their website does not have any documentation posted on this. Here is some info on my scenario and the type of system I'd like to set up:
Portable:
I live in a house with plenty of space in the yard, and a spare bedroom, however, I don't plan on living here for much longer, so I'd like a small enough system that can be moved to the next house (possibly apartment) I move to.
Here's a picture of one that I found, although again, this one is only sold in bulk:
http://image.made-in-china.com/6f3j00lCf…
I'd like the container to allow for battery replacement. If it's a small container/enclosure, I'd like for it to be scalable so that I can add more batteries down the line if need be. The xantrex enclosure seems to offer that feature, but I'm not sure if that might be too advanced for me. I have a strong tech background, but limited electrical.
Scalable:
To begin with, I would like to simply power just an AC for 4hrs that uses 600 watts. If I'm calculating this right, then I would need 6 deep marine cycle batteries so that I don't drain them past 50%. I would also need an inverter rated at 600watt minimum.
Going back to the enclosure, ideally, the enclosure would have hookups that allow for adding/removing batteries without changing the solar panels. If the charging speed slows down, that's not a big deal for my scenario. Is there a such thing out there?
These requirements are not set in stone, so if I missed anything, feel free to subsititute numbers where necessary. The most important feature I'm interested in is scalability so that I don't have to throw away components down the line. I'd rather buy a 1000watt inverter now even if I would only use 600watts, assuming this doesn't produce another inefficiency. If it does, please let me know.
Update:
Thanks for the feedback. However, does anyone have information regarding a container that does not involve some kind of DIY process?
Also, since this is more of a starter project for me, I wouldn't be planning on using the AC and charging the batteries at the same time. In fact, I generally get home late from work and might only use this during the weekend.
Also, does higher wattage from the solar panels mean faster charging? I was under the impression that the controller's job is to pretty much take whatever electricity is coming from the solar panel and then “standardize it” to whatever the battery can handle, kind of like a funnel so to speak.
One other related question, would this change if I were to connect say 6 batteries in parallel or woudl it still require the same amount of wattage for the charging process?

Your 600 watt AC will need about 1800 watts of power for start-up. This surge is only about 2-3 seconds. Then the running watts at 600 is okay. These motors take a lot of extra power during start-up. So your inverter needs to be able to accommodate that surge. The batteries can fill in that surge, so your solar panels don't have to be that big in that sense.
But here's the kicker. You'll probably use your AC during the day time, the same time your solar panels are charging the batteries. The battery system would normally provide power during the night or cloudy days when the solar panels are not effective. The solar panels would normally provide power to the AC and recharge the batteries during the daytime when they are effective. The solar panels should be able to provide a minimum of 2400 watts during the time they are effective. They can charge the batteries when the AC isn't running. Depending upon where you live, solar panels may be effective for about 5-6 hrs per day unless you can orient the panels directly toward the sun as the earth rotates on its axis.
120 vac @ 5 amps = 600 watts
12 vdc @ 50 amps = 600 watts. You'll need solar panels that can provide 50 amps just to run the AC during the day. Then additional capacity of about 40 amps to recharge the batteries. 40 amps @ 12 vdc = 480 watts for 5 hrs will give you 2400 watts
So, unless my numbers are wrong, your solar system may have to be as much as 100 amps at 12 vdc = 1200 watts in order to run your AC off grid and still recharge the batteries.

Betty asks…
Ok. I'm 13, and basically am just trying to figure out the political party my views fit in with best. I think I'ma Democrat, and that's what most quizzes I've taken have said, but I want a larger amount of people to take a look at it. Without further ado, here are my views on certain subjects.
I generally think that abortion is wrong, but I would NEVER take away a woman's right to choose.
I believe that Obamacare is a good thing.
I believe in welfare programs.
Gay marriage should definitely be legalized.
Affirmative action should be perfected. I believe that someone more qualified should have the job, not the minority.
I believe in a progressive tax rate. The highest bracket should be at almost 50%, with the lowest near 0%.
As for prayer in schools, I think that a student should have the right to be excused from class if he/she wants to pray, but no school should ever mandate prayer.
I would like us to move towards more renewable energy and hybrid cars.
I believe in an absolute separation of church and state. I don't even like it when candidates say, “God bless this land,” at the end of a speech.
Thanks for all the answers. Oh, and to the person talking about socialism and evolution, I am not a socialist, and I believe in evolution. We are humans because of a series of mutations over millions of years, NOT because God created a bunch of different animals.

I would say you are on the Left. You seem to hold a lot of positions that are really easy to hold as long as you don't have to pay for them. It would be interesting to see if your views change at all once you start paying taxes. Good luck to you in any case.

Рут прашува ...
Obama awards $2B for solar power, hails new jobs
Obama hands out $2 billion for new solar plants, says money will help create thousands of jobs
The government is handing out nearly $2 billion for new solar plants that President Barack Obama says will create thousands of jobs and increase the use of renewable energy sources.
Obama announced the initiative in his weekly radio and online address Saturday, saying the money is part of his plan to bring new industries to the US
“We're going to keep competing aggressively to make sure the jobs and industries of the future are taking root right here in America,” Obama said.
The Obama administration says those projects will create more than 2,000 construction jobs and 1,500 permanent jobs.
Obama said that while it may take years to bring back all the jobs lost during the recession, the economy is moving in a positive direction.
The unemployment rate dropped to 9.5 percent.
Obama has said that to bring the nation's economy back from the brink of a depression, it was necessary to add to the country's debt in the short term.

It is an excellent idea … Solar energy is the way to go … 2 billion dollars is a great start to put us at the forefront of an energy source which is clean and green and which can't be carted offshore for cheap labour … !
We have sunshine in abundance in states like Arizona, California, new Mexico, Texas etc etc so not only would we not have to rely on other countries but existing manufacturers IN the US would cut down on production costs AND we could sell the results of any scientific breakthroughs overseas … So it's a WIN WIN WIN situation.
The only fly in the ointment will be the powerful oil lobby groups who won't like the status quo being upset at the expense to their obscene profits … !

Мајкл прашува ...
-what items can be recycled (as in when you take your recycling bins curbside) what goes to landfill? I know pizza boxes, hangers, paint cans, anything contaminated either with food or chemicals can't be… I don't think. Why is it better to put it in the landfill?
I've heard if you throw a plastic bottle in the land fill it can last a thousand years?! Is that true. I read there is a new thing called bio-reactor landfills. These types of landfills use moisture as a method to enhance the waste degradation process. Have you heard of a bio-reactor? How does it work?
Studies carried out by EPA have suggested that by operating a landfill as a bio-reactor there is an increase in settlement of the solid waste as well as an enhancement in the methane generation rate of approximately five times that of conventional landfills. Overall, technologies developed under this program can extend the utility of municipal solid waste landfill space and produce a viable source of renewable energy .
I'm looking for information of how landfills today are economical and efficient.
I keep finding a ton of info on recycle, and zero-waste. But everything can't be recycled can it? What happens to those materials/items? What would happen to America if we didn't have landfills.

Landfills are likely a necessary part of life – at least for the foreseeable future.
You mentioned pizza boxes, things with food on them – these can actually be composted, as opposed to “recycled” or landfilled. There are a growing number of companies that are latching onto this niche – especially in large suburban/urban areas where there is a need/market for such services – and a healthy supply of compostible material. Some government agencies are setting goals for a certain percentage of their waststreams being diverted for composting – significantly reducing the actual trash haul.
Bio reactor landfills do provide a benefit – as in the methane gas they produce which can be collected and utilized.
Someone mentioned planting trees to help stabilize landfill areas – I'd caution against this, as tree roots may penetrate liner layers of the landfill, allowing for unwanted releases or inputs of of percolating liquids.
Grass and small shrubs can hold soil pretty well – hence the standards for maintaining vegetated landfill caps.

Роберт бара ...
By now, most scientists are beginning to realize large scale renewable energy (such as solar, wind, etc) isn't going to be possible (at least not before we run out of carbon based fuels). So, what the hell are we going to do? What will America be like when the people who live in the suburbs don't have the gas to make it to the city? What will New York City be like with sky high food prices and shortages? How will YOU survive the Apocalypse if it comes in your lifetime? We've already passed our peak for oil and natural gas, and with consumption at the rate it is, it is likely we will run out soon or begin to see amazingly high gas prices.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_peak_theory#Natural_gas
You all realize of course that ignoring the problem or saying it probably won't happen won't keep it from happening right?

The environmental consequences of continuing to use fossil fuels will claim human civilisation before carbon fuels run out completely, assuming that the world continues to consume such energy resources it at its current rate. At the moment, that looks like a pretty safe assumption.
Renewable energy sources are indeed feasible, (http://www.bullfax.com/?q=node-renewable-energy-feasible-group-says) but their implementation would require a gigantic change in the way that the resources of the world are managed, a change that the powers that be are basically not willing to make. By “the powers that be”, I mean the world's most powerful industrialists and corporations.
In any case, I think there are some tough times for the human race coming up this century. Civilisation as we know it may well fall deeper into chaos, famine and war, but perhaps at least some of humanity may be able to survive and eventually see better times. At the moment, most people in the world are just trying to survive day to day, and are unaware that our global society is about to casually walk over the edge of a cliff.
Напојува од страна на Yahoo! Одговори
May 13, 2012 by The Expert
Filed under Wind And Solar Q & A

Рут прашува ...
In CA, you can lease a system, for only the cost of your electric bill at today's rates . That certainly affordable. You lock in the rate you pay today, no power rate increases. The system is warranted for 25 years, is connected to the crid and sized so the power company provides your power in bad weather and at night. Or you can buy the system, pay it off in 8-12 years and have free power from then on. Why do people say solar PV is not viable? Solar is more efficient in colder temperature. Voltage increases as temperature goes down. There are a lot of misunderstandings about solar. The federal tax refund, is like tax deductions for mortgage interest, allowable and your right to use. Renewable energy is not Partisan, it's sensible and saves you money. Why not get a few estimate and find out what it really costs, and how it really works?

Republicans would rather we subsidize already profiting industries like oil. Then oil/military contractors lobby our government to get us mixed up in wars in the middle east. Irresponsible oil regulations lead to oil spills. It's a giant clusterfu*k proving conservative economic policy is a failure.

Laura прашува ...
8. Between 1930 and 2000, human population rose by _______.
A) 50%
B) 150%
C) 300%
D) 500%
9. At current production and use rates , it is estimated that all of the known oil in the world will be used up in approximately _____ years.
A) 15
B) 40
C) 85
D) 140
10. The United States consumes approximately ____ more energy per person than the global average.
A) 2 times
B) 4.5 times
C) 8 times
D) 9.5 times
11. Which of the following is NOT a renewable energy resource?
A) Solar
B) Wind
C) Clean Coal
D) Tidal
E) Hydrothermal
12. Which of the following is NOT a fossil fuel?
A) Coal
B) Nuclear
C) Gas
D) Oil

8. Between 1930 and 2000, human population rose by _______.
A) 50%
9. At current production and use rates, it is estimated that all of the known oil in the world will be used up in approximately _____ years.
B) 40
10. The United States consumes approximately ____ more energy per person than the global average.
A) 2 times
11. Which of the following is NOT a renewable energy resource?
C) Clean Coal
12. Which of the following is NOT a fossil fuel?
B) Nuclear
Hope this Helps!

Керол го прашува ...
A serious freeze on 17% of the budget while the big spending items like the military are not frozen? Is that a real serious approach to deficit reduction?
What about returning income tax rates to what they were about 30 years ago or so on the top 1%?
The other issue is …..how does stopping domestic spending help create jobs? I thought it was common knowledget that one way to stimulate spending and therefore the economy is to have public works projects..like road and highway building and repairs, and same for bridges, dams, and other infrastructure? what about the renewable energy type projects they talked so much about during the election campaign of 2008?
Anyone else like me think that the Obama administration seems to have not conviction…no real belief? certainly not belief in the reform rhetoric they were shouting out during last campaign season. Since when is a 59 to 41 majority in the senate a handicap? since when is a huge election victory last election a handicap? And why the heck is Joe Lieberman chairman of anything right now anyway?
I voted for Obama and Democrats last election…….and like many people who did am getting pretty pissed off. Before you Republicans get too excited, yes I am bashing Obama and Democrats, but it will be cold day in hades before a Republican gets my vote…cause they are even worse.

The military is only $600 billion out of a $3.2 trillion budget. The other $2.6 Trillion is for unconstitutional domestic programs like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc. Our deficit for the year will be more than $1.4 trillion, so even if you cut the military budget to $0, we would still have an $800 billion deficit.
I don't know you liberals always want to cut the military, when it is a tiny fraction of our spending and it is actually authorized by the Constitution (article 1).
Domestic spending does not create jobs, it just relocates them. Those public works projects are paid for by tax dollars taken out of the community. In other words, the government takes $1 billion in taxes out of 1 community, and then uses that money to build a bridge in the next community over. They didn't create any jobs by doing that, they just moved them from 1 place to another.
You sound like you are making an attempt to be objective, which is more than I can say for most Democrats. However, you are seriously misinformed and need to educate yourself.
Step 1: read the Constitution. Pay special attention to the 9th and 10th amendments.
Step 2: take into consideration how the government works. Everything the government does is done by law, and law is backed by the use of force.

Означи ги прашува ...
this is a little hypothecitcal – would you rather live in a world without money? Imagine if we could harness technology to produce our food and housing and basic needs, used 100% renewable energy such as heat from the earths core. Having no money would also change the schooling system, instead of teaching children to pass exams, to earn passage to university, to earn more money, we could school children to be good human beings and inventors.
Do you think this would reduce crime and war in the world or do you think that humans would find something else to fight about?
Beart in mind that poorer areas of cities and towns ALWAYS have higher crime rates than richer areas, and that all wars are fundemently wars to get control of resources which equal, money.
Maybe a better question would be – does money cause the crime and suffering in the world

Omg I feel the same way in a certain point. I have a dream that one day we will make robots and machines that start by planting the seeds to the food and delivering to our laps. There would be no money because everyone will have everything they want on demand. In school we learn to make more things for the future. All people will do is hang with family and have fun and vacation 24/7. This is a true dream of mine that i believe could happen, its not even difficult.
My idea comes from that true human happyness comes from the most simple and primal things. Food family love freindship relaxation and being with groups, comunication and learning. So have life revolve around that. People do as they wish, with simple rules that protect. And the machinary will take care of the work.

Шарон бара ...
I genuinely do not know.
They have targeted the housing sector heavily; HIPS, Energy Asset Rating and the constant drives for us to have renewable forms of energy and energy efficient light bulbs.
The problem is, energy wastage in homes is absolutely dwarfed by the wastage in other sectors.
Does anyone have any idea at all how insignificant fitting energy efficient (compact fluorescent) lamps are, when the massive Debenhams in Bond Street has it's entire facade covered in what appears to be standard GU bulbs for Christmas? (one of thousands of such stores)
Heated stores always having their door open; Lights on 24 hours even when the stores are closed. And do not get me started on Transport and Industrial sectors.
Am I the only one who thinks the heavy targetting by the government of energy efficiency in homes is totally misdirected? Focus on the retail sector at least!!!!

Hi oms
not sure of the specifics on the government measures
but i take your point
i did read about a new energy efficient paint… Keeps homes cool in the summer and warm in the winter…
Science is there anything it can't do!!! Yes loads but nevermind lol

Вилијам прашува ...
Why are we not drilling our own non- renewable resources while developing new technologies that will enable energy independence in the future?
We have a vast supply of Natural gas.
http://www.naturalgas.org/overview/resources.asp
We have a vast amount of land we can use for wind energy .
http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/wind_maps.asp
We have areas of the US mainland where drilling is prohibited. Why not use these? (with regulations, we can keep both tourism and the oil industry safe)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/758Syms2006OCSMapWithPlanni.png
Are we developing new weapons? At the rate China is developing, a nuclear warhead will be like TNT in the future.
We have a vast amount of deserts where no one lives, where the sun's energy could be harnessed for miles.
Compare the ISS with China's new space station to be completed in 2020.
China: http://i.space.com/images/i/12419/original/china-space-station-design-art.jpg
The ISS: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/37/STS-135_final_flyaround_of_ISS_1.jpg
Theirs looks a little bigger. And they will have it completed in only 8 years. The ISS (which is not ours) was completed in 14 years.
Soon China will become the world leader in technology (if their not already!).

Unfortunately, the US is still caught in historical uses of energy only. We are not as progressive because we are an older country with vast common resources. Any progressive energy used must rely on observing actions of poorer third world countries. The greatest country to study is Brazil.

Donald asks…
Solar energy is one of the most important components of a renewable energy future. Your parents are considering installing photovoltaic cells, which convert the sun's energy directly into electricity, on their roof, and have asked for your help. You do some research and learn that, on a sunny day in Idaho, sunlight at the earth's surface provides about 0.75 kilowatt/m2. Solar panels have an area of 0.5 square meter, operate at 10% efficiency, and cost $63. Your parents use electricity at a rate of 2 kW.
1. If your parents want to rely on solar electricity exclusively, how many solar panels will they need to buy? How big must their roof be (in feet) to hold the array of panels?
2. If electricity costs $0.08 per kilowatt-hour, how long will it take your parents to recoup their initial investment?

Since there are 24 hours in a day, to be completely off-grid you also need battery back-up, a charge converted, and an inverter.
Buut I digress.
I think the questin is asking how to generate peak power of 2 kw
1 solar panel generate
.5*0.75*0.10 kw
0.0375 kw
for 2 kw
2/0.0375
54 panels
the square footage is 27 m^2
291 square feet.
The cost is 54*63
$3,402
at 2 kw/hr
3402/(2*0.08) hours
21262 hours
_____________________-

Јован прашува ...
. The European Union, 27 member nations with a half billion people, has become the largest, wealthiest trading bloc in the world, producing nearly a third of the world's economy — nearly as large as the US and China COMBINED. Europe has more Fortune 500 companies than either the US, China or Japan.
European nations spend far less than the United States for universal healthcare rated by the World Health Organization as the best in the world, as US health care is ranked 37th. Europe leads in confronting global climate change with renewable energy technologies, creating hundreds of thousands of new jobs in the process. Europe is twice as energy efficient as the US and their ecological “footprint” (the amount of the earth's capacity that a population consumes) is about half that of the United States for the same standard of living.
Unemployment in the US is widespread and becoming chronic, but when Americans have jobs, we work much longer hours than our peers in Europe. Before the recession, Americans were working 1,804 hours per year versus 1,436 hours for Germans — the equivalent of nine extra 40-hour weeks per year.
People in the countries that are in trouble now economically were the ones willing to go to Iraq — and there is a connection. These are the countries that were much more inclined to go the American route, going into debt heavily, using housing speculation as the engine of the economy, and opening their economies big time to global bank debt and finance.
Goldman Sachs poured tons of money into Greece, and other New York, London and German banks poured money into Spain. None of the bubbles occurred in Germany and in the “old Europe” that Donald Rumsfeld wrote off. Part of Europe is in trouble to the extent — and only to the extent — that it's involved in the American model. Those countries most resistant to the American model are doing fine.

Sophie's right. But I don't think we're suckers and I think if you want to be Europe, move there.
If we are correct about the danger of radical Islamic terrorism, we are right to mortgage our future to rid our world of this danger. Unless you think you would look good in a burka.

Сузан го прашува ...
Considering the fact that Conservatives and Libertarians largely support Nuclear energy – a vital importance to solving climate change– unlike liberals who still think renewable energy is the way to go (lol).In the 1980s, we were commissioning 40 new nuclear power plants a decade. If we kept building at approximately that rate, we would have the share of electricity generated by coal and nuclear almost reversed today. Instead of it being 20 percent nuclear and 50 percent coal, it would be 50 percent nuclear and 20 percent coal. Who would argue that from an environmental point of view that wouldn't be a better situation?
I don't care about what that idiot Glenn Beck said.

The worst polluters in modern times have been socialists: the USSR and China are the best proof of that.
Liberals ban us from using the most environmentally friendly scource of energy known to mankind: nuclear power. They pounce on every nuclear mishap, such as is occuring Japan, to condemn nuclear power regardless of evidence like this:
-For over 40 years after WW2 we tested nuclear weapons — in Nevada! Atom bombs, hydrogen bombs, ground level explosions, under and over ground explosions, high altitude explosions. Other than a few health anomalies for those who lived near the test sites THERE WERE NO CALAMITIES IN THE SURROUNDING STATES RESULTING FROM NUCLEAR FALL-OUT! No mass radiation poisoning, no fingers falling off – nothing!
-The harm resulting from Chernobyl, it turns out, was only in the immediate area, even though the nuclear fallout reached hundreds of miles beyond. Today the “no-go” zone around Chernobyl is 19 miles, leaving Russians with a mere 6,600,000 square miles to live in. Presently the no-go zone around Japan's damaged nuke plants is 13 miles — 13 miles! Oh, my God, how will they survive? It's hopeless!
-Seen any pictures of Hiroshima and Nagasaki lately? Both are thriving metropolises, right on top of their “Ground Zeroes.”
-Casualties resulting from the Three Mile Island leak? Zero. (More people have died in Ted Kennedy's car than all US Nuclear mishaps combined)
Socialists regard us as witless children, spring-loaded to panic, at their self-serving command. They use panic (over manmade global warming, second hand smoke, overpopulation) and now Japan's nuclear power situation, to banish clear thinking. Then they assume their self-righteous role of savior, growing government as fast as they can. Their goal? One world socialist government ruled by rapacious elitist seekers of ultimate power.
Socialism is religion. There can be no reasoning with religious zealots.
Напојува од страна на Yahoo! Одговори
May 12, 2012 by The Expert
Filed under Wind And Solar Q & A

Sandra asks…
I haven't been able to find any reviews and would appreciate any opinions from people who've either tried to sign up or are with them now, or have had them and switched. They seem to have the best rate, especially for the 100% renewable plans so it seems too good to be true.
thanks!

I have had Spark for 3 years and I have no issues with them. My bill is automatically deducted from my checking account and I have never had a problem with billing.

Sandy asks…
Households that get their power from the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power could see their electric bills go up between 8.8% and 28.4%, depending on where they live and how much energy they use, under a plan unveiled Monday by Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.
Appearing with labor and environmental leaders, Villaraigosa said the proposed increases would ensure that the DWP meets his goal of securing 20% of its energy from renewable sources such as wind and solar by Dec. 31. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-dwp-rates16-2010mar16,0,7870063.story

What effect will a thirty percent increase in energy costs to the average hospital be?
An increase in the cost of medical care?
Everything this administration has done or is proposing to do increases cost for every American.
And just wait for the massive inflation when they start to monetize the debt.

Ричард прашува ...
Only once the non- renewable energy sources are depleted will the science of renewable energy thrive. Drive large vehicles, waste electricity, you will help get us there sooner.
Selfishness and greed are not answers or excuses.

IN a convoluted way, you are making a very good point. Isn't it sad that we change only when forced to? Our consumption of oil is/has produced profound changes to our world…a world that we have no choice but to live in. The greenhouse effect is growing daily, the powers-that-be are so short sighted they do nothing in the serious face of reality. WE are in for some very drastic consequences of our use of oil, and the entire planet will pay heavily for it shortly. In our lifetime, absolutely.

Лизи прашува ...
This is mine. Please comment on yours.
-First, a flat tax is the dumbest idea ever and the Bush tax cuts were terrible.
-I am in favor of cutting taxes for everyone. However, 35% should be the minimum government should tax millionaires.
-I feel that the corporate tax rate should be lowered. American businesses need to get competitive with other countries tax codes. Therefore, I'd lower it to 25% and companies involved in renewable energy projects should get a tax rate of 0%.
2nd, I'd lower interest rates , dividends, and capital gains tax on middle income families making $100,000 or less.
3rd, I favor the current capital gains tax. I think America needs to encourage investments. Therefore, I wouldn't change that.
Што мислите? It's a mix of republican values and democrat values.

I like your list. As far as the corporate tax rate, the reason it's 35% is because loopholes prevent anyone from paying even close to that. So 25% is SUPER low, unless you toss out a bunch of the loopholes. I'd also support a minimum corporate tax rate. Even a 5% minimum would mean some tax revenue from companies that haven't paid in quite a long time.
The capital gains tax is hard. I definitely think we should encourage retirement investments. Especially since, in the last decade, market philandering has left some of us quite short in our savings. Sigh. On the other hand. Mitt Romney makes more money in a day, doing nothing, than most Americans make in an entire year. It seems unfair that he pays so little taxes. So maybe raise capital gains taxes at an elevated income. I'm not suggesting that he pay as much taxes as a working American, but under 15% seems drastically unfair.
Just because something is simple, doesn't make it better. But just thinking about tax code makes me want to burn it all and start over. As president, I would want taxes to be more accessible.
ADD: Iron_Plague, why is it so stupid? What would your tax policy be if you were president.

Џејмс бара ...
I support unborn rights and would support a pro-life amendment to the constitution, with the only acceptation for the mother's life.
I would abolish the department of education because it's a local and state level responsibility.
I support the right to bear arms, concealed weapons licenses, hunting, stand your ground laws, etc.
I support a 2 strikes and your out drunk driving law.
I support a his body his choice law banning infant circumcision unless it is to treat a legitimate medical condition.
I support the decriminalizing of marijuana because it is less harmful than alcohol.
I think the drinking age should be 18 to match the age of adulthood.
I think it is of the highest urgency to become and stay energy independent.
I support nuclear power and increasing the number of nuclear power plants across America.
I would push the auto makers to make electric cars available for drivers who want them.
I would set and push for goals of energy independence, curing cancer, and paying down the nation debt.
I oppose the endangered species act because it has failed to protect one species and has only given government control of people's land.
I would raise the levels of fines on employers hiring illegal aliens.
Homeland security should only be used as an anti-terror agency and criminal law enforcement should be handled by other agencies.
I don't believe there is such thing as a gay marriage and think we should give them the same privileges that comes with marriage but call it something else.
I think capitalism is the greatest antipoverty tool the world has ever seen and encourage the economy, not put outrageous taxes on it.
I don't believe humans are warming up the Earth but I think we need to clean up some of the messes we are making such as air quality.
I believe in a small federal government. I don't think the general public should even notice the federal government unless they visit their local military recruiter or post office.
No more ethanol, it causes higher grocery bills and less MPG.
I support Boone's plan.
I support the rights of nudists to live their lifestyle on their privately owned property without the government telling them they must put clothes on.
I am a Christian but don't think it's the government's job to push morality, I think morality must come from the people up. Not the government down.
I support net neutrality, and oppose bandwidth caps.
I would revert our copyright laws back to that of the Webster and Benjamin Franklin years: An item can be copyrighted for 14 years, renewable once, then falls into public domain.
We allow men to go out in public shirtless. I support amending the law allowing both genders to do the same. One gender shirtless is discrimination. I support women's rights to breast feed in public. That is the function of the breast. I don't think anyone has ever been harmed for seeing a breast.
I think smokers should be required to pay their own way when they get cancer and heart disease. Not get public money to fight a self imposed condition.
I would allow people to own their social security accounts and allow them to invest in a Roth IRA within their social security account so the people may build a nest egg to retire on. Each person will own their account and congress may never dip into it.
I would make it illegal for credit card companies to raise interest rates , at will, with no delinquent activity: banning universal default.
Absolutely, no more national debt. No more borrowing.
I believe terminally ill patients should be allowed to take experimental drugs that have yet to receive FDA approval.
Lets get rid of the IRS, replace tax system with flat tax or national sales tax. The IRS and current tax code only exists to control people.
I oppose taxes on broadband internet access, sales tax on in items bought online, and regulation of online content.
I don't believe our government is up to the task of providing national heath care and it's much better off left in the hands of the private sector.
I think adults should legally be able to take steroids for body building if he is not competing in competitive sports.
I think daylight savings time should be expanded to a year round project.
I oppose the government regulating the content of literature, films, video games, etc.

Well im not sure what to call it, but
I agree with 80% of that.

Јован прашува ...
I have been researching and reading a lot about Finland lately and I have made almost a 100% decision that I want to move there for my Master's degree and to pursue an Engineering career (after I'm finished with a few years in the States for my Bachelor's degree). I already know a lot about Finland from the things I have read, such as:
How technologically advanced it is
How the people are very shy and quiet but also are very friendly and cooperative with one another
How little corruption it has
How effective their education system is
Their excellent fluency in the English language
Their scientific and mathematic literacy
Their fairly low poverty rate
Their use of renewable energy and preservation of their environment
Their civil rights, including freedom of press, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, democracy…
Their national pride
etc. etc.
However, I have just recently become interested in Iceland and I have to say I am very impressed with it. Of the things I listed above, how does Iceland compare with Finland? I would also like to know how their job openings in the engineering field compare with Finland (since from what I've heard, there aren'ta lot in Finland at the moment). I'd also be curious to know their relationship with the rest of the world (since I know Finland generally keeps to themselves) and the climate there (yes, I know it's cold as hell, but I've heard that the summer months in Finland are usually fairly nice).
Final note: I know the Icelandic language is extremely difficult to learn, and how most people say it's one of the most difficult in the world. That's why I'm interested in their fluency in English because I want to know how long I can get with English alone (I'm usually not bad with picking up languages through immersion).

Hey there
All Icelanders speak English more or less fluently. They start studying the language when they're 10 and it's their 1st foreign language of 2-3 (depending on their level of education).
I would expect the Icelandic language to be easier to learn for an English speaker as both languages are Germanic and share a certain vocabulary and grammar while Finnish is Finno-Ugric and has little or nothing in common with the Indo-European languages (French, English, German, Russian, Indian, Icelandic etc.).
I'm not entirely sure I'm qualified to compare Iceland to Finland as I'm much better informed about my own country than the other.Therefore, I think I will describe Iceland in accordance to the list and give you the opportunity to compare them.
How technologically advanced it is
World innovation champions ![]()
http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/next/archives/2010/03/once_upon_a_tim.html
How the people are very shy and quiet but also are very friendly and cooperative with one another
Icelanders are generally more outspoken than shy in my opinion, but I have heard both things from tourists; that Icelanders are closed and not very talkative and that they are open and friendly. I guess it's very different between individuals and hard to declare something about a whole nation.
How little corruption it has
The whole financial sector used to be very corrupt (and more corrupt than people generally realized), but it has changed a lot after the crisis.
How effective their education system is
Around or over 30% of working people have a university degree and a lot of emphasis is put on maintaining equal opportunities for everyone, “irrespective of sex, economic status, residential location, religion, possible handicap, and cultural or social background”.
Their excellent fluency in the English language
Considerable excellency, if that's any sort of an answer.
Their scientific and mathematical literacy
Well below Finland actually. According to statistics Iceland ranks similar to Denmark.
Their fairly low poverty rate
Like in other Scandinavian countries poverty is almost non-existent.
Their use of renewable energy and preservation of their environment
Around 81% of primary energy is derived from renewable sources, hydro power and geothermal and the country's goal is to be carbon and oil free by 2050.
Their civil rights, including freedom of press, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, democracy…
Http://www.nationmaster.com/red/country/ic-iceland/dem-democracy&all=1
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_eco_fre-economy-economic-freedom
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/12/iceland-haven-freedom-speech-wikileaks
Their national pride
Icelanders are big on national pride (perhaps profusely). A part of the Wikipedia article about the culture of Iceland says: “Yet, an important key to understanding Icelanders and their culture (and which differentiates them from the majority of their contemporary Nordic peoples) is the high importance they place on the traits of independence and self-sufficiency.”
Icelanders are generally very proud of their language, history, nature, culture, music, handball team etc.
To demonstrate that pride I will finish my answer with two videos ![]()
Best wishes to you ![]()
Edit:
I wouldn't say there were no jobs in Iceland. Unemployment rate is approx. The same in Iceland as in Finland (8.5%) – which is actually 4 times what it used to be. And the government is trying to restore the economy by investing in education and innovation.

Линда прашува ...
If your electric bill is $200. you can lease a Solar PV system in CA, and pay $200. for 20 years. No raising of rates !!! No C02 or pollution to offset. The Panels are warranted for 25 years. Yet, so many here buy into the ignorant idea, solar is not viable, it's too far off, why is that? Glen Beck said so? Check rates in your area. 21 states have incentives. If Oil and Defense get corporate welfare solar incentives are fair. The main components are silicon (same as computer chips), metal and glass. It's a no brainer. The ones trying you to convince you it's not realistic are Petroleum companies, ever wonder why?
Database of State Incentives for Renewable Energy

That is all relatively new many people are not aware of the incentives.

Шарон бара ...
Ok i have almost finished my report but there are a few things that i need to include but i don't know the answers.I have tried browsing the internet but i can't find anything.The report is based on Fossil fuels and renewable energy sources…
1. Explain how animal waste can be used as a source of energy .Write a balanced equation for the reaction that produces the energy .(you don't have to write out the equation but a few facts and notes would help for this one please)
2.Which of these are renewable sources of energy ? a) the sun, b) rainfall, c) the wind, d) the tide, e) hot rocks, f) biomass.
3.the importance of fossil fuels and their products in life
4.How long fossil fuels are likely to last at the present rates of consumption.
5.Pollution problems involved in the use or fossil fuels.
6.How recycling plastics etc can help us to save fossil fuel.
Thanks if you just know the answer to one it really would help.

Hey i hope these help
1. Combustion, you know burning it to create heat that boils water and then the steam turns turbines
2. All are sources of renewable energy
3.Fossil fuels have fuelled our growth from the industrial revolution to plastics and oil for cars and power stations.
4.Natural Gas and oil will last for another 50 years or so and Coal has alot longer as we don't use so much of it.
5. Carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere causing green house effect and sulphur dioxide also released which causes acid rain
6.We can use less oil to make the fractions we need to make plastics meaning that we can save the reserves of oil we have by reusing what has already been made.

Роберт бара ...
Seems to me that when cars were first invented and people owned horses, and buggies and carriage houses, they denied that cars were reliable and worth the investment. Here in CA you can buy a solar PV system, it's connected to the power company with a bi-directional meter, it's sized so that you get your power from the power company at night and bad weather, and they buy your excess power when your family is at work and school. NO BATTERIES unless you want back-up power from the grid. Most don't have batteries. Then there is CSP, those giant trough-like concentrated solar power plants in the desert. I square mile of CSP could power the country. Sure we'd have to update the grid. The biggest resistance is coming from the Nuclear and Petroleum industries. They want you to think those are better options. Nuclear is a dead end game, we don't need it and it's too dangerous. There is a 30% Federal tax rebate — NOT A SUBSIDY — no more than any other allowable deduction is a subsidy. The power company in many states like CA, NJ, NY and 21 States will also pay a big portion of your initial cost? Зошто? They get to buy the excess power from your roof cheaper and locally. It's win/win. If we manufactured here, and people bought the systems like they do cars, the market would drive the industry. Solar, Wind, Hydo, Tidal these are the future of energy and they are renewable . Oil is half gone refered to as “Paek Oil” they will squeeze every dime of profit before it's gone. Would be better to see to it petroleum lasts longer. Corn ethanol is a loser but switch grass ethanol is a winer, made from weeds. Why is corn ethanol pushed instead? The corn industry. It's corporatism driving what is really best into the ground with misinformation and propaganda to head off the emergence of Renewable Energy which is the best way to go. Solar PV on your roof is distributed solar (not a huge power plant) depending on where you live and your local power rates the payback can be 8 years, warranted for 25 years, that's 17 years of free power. The current energy industry is dead set against US buying into that reality, hence all the misinformation. I know a family who has solar and wind turbines. The turbines work great in winter and the solar work great in summer, they sell excess power to the power company and get power when the solar and wind systems are not at their best. Works great and saves them a bundle. That's in CO.

Yes I think solar panels will be the new and upcoming thing, My uncle was a roofer and has upgraded to installing solar panels once people catch on to how much better they are for our earth and cheaper they are in the long run everyone will be getting them, hopefully that answers your question I just ready the title.
Напојува од страна на Yahoo! Одговори
May 12, 2012 by The Expert
Filed under Wind And Solar Q & A

Хелен прашува ...
And that's just my bill. No telling what it will do to businesses whose energy bills are more than 10 times mine.
The governor of California is mandating that energy companies provide electricity that is produced by 30% renewable sources such as solar panels and wind turbines.
These companies will raise energy rates so they can collect the money needed to invest in these additional energy sources. By the way, it would cost me $15,000 to solarize my house. Given my current energy bills, it would take more than ten years for my panels to pay themselves.
Roadrunner: You bring up another point. The governor promised 500 thousand “GREEN JOBS”, which were supposed to include solar panel factories.
He promised the jobs, but I guess he didn't promise them in California

I love everything about California, except the political culture and they are the FUTURE!? California will be left by workers and businesses alike…leaving the scum behind. Maybe some of them will leave and this state will be great again!…here's to hoping.

Мајкл прашува ...
Also, when will it all run out if we continue drilling at the rate we are now and which renewable energy source is most likely to rule supreme once petrol and diesel is no longer an option?

According to peak oil theory we have about half of the available supply left to us. Like some slush drink so far we have sucked out about 1/2 the available liquid. Now increasingly what is left is mixed with the ice and may be harder to remove.
But how long it will last will depend upon our usage. We could switch to alternative modes of transportation and heating for our buildings. This would eliminate 90% of our oil usage. The remaining 10% of our usage would then have about 10 times the supply to draw from and may last ten times as long as our present usage.
Or as we could continue to use oil as the primary fuel for transportation and a significant fuel for heating. If India and China try to pursue an oil economy like the US, each with 4 times our population the supply may last only 1/10th as long as our present rate of usage assuming we could sufficiently increase the flow.
Increasing the flow (adding more wells ie “drill baby drill”) is like putting more straws into our slush drink. It does not increase the ultimate supply, only the flow. The amount of liquid remaining in our drink is constant, but we can be conservative or use it as fast as possible.
The world has been moving to electrical based energy usage for over 100 years and away from fuel based energy usage. Electrical energy storage and wireless energy transfer are the technological hurtles that will soon be resolved and implemented. Electric vehicles are inevitable. Wireless energy transfer could expand their usage even today: http://www.iav.com/us/index.php?we_objectID=15760

Mandy прашува ...
In its first 40 hours, the new majority of the House of Representatives kept their promise to voters and passed legislation—increasing the minimum wage for the first time in a decade, empowering Medicare to negotiate lower prices on drugs, cutting interest rates on student loans in half, revoking big oil subsidies and using the money to invest in renewable energy —that provided a down payment for a new direction for this country.
These bills are overwhelmingly popular, and are simply common sense reforms. Yet every one of them—and many more—got held up in the US Senate.
Conservatives boast about the “success” of their strategy in discrediting the new majority. As Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott, R-Miss., put it, “the strategy of being obstructionist can work or fail. So far it's working for us.”
How is it working? It's dragging the reputation of the Congress down to the level of the failed president. Conservatives lie in the road of progress and then complain that nothing is moving.
This values partisan posturing over reforms vital to the country. It must be challenged.
It's time to take the gloves off.
The first step is to expose the obstruction to the American people. Let's urge Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to force a real filibuster. Keep the bills on the floor and force vote after vote, exposing the obstructionists. We'll organize in states across the country to insure that their constituents know exactly who is standing in the way of progress.
Proud Conservatives need to learn how to read, the freaking point is that the Senate has obstructed the bills , what a freaking tard
All idiots like the Proud Conservative please refer to paragraph 2 before you open your pie hole and make a fool of yourself
Yeah it tells me that a bunch of mindless idiots who can't see past the REAL problem forgot to vote straight ticket to get a REAL majority that could effect change
Indeed, Hendrix also sang
With the power of love anything is possible
Band of Gypsys………..absolutely GREAT RnR
DC John are you really that stupid? The American people VOTED for this agenda so if that's ram rodding something it's the DAMN WILL OF THE PEOPLE , what an idiot

Politics should absolutely be for the benefit of the people, because that is the only way that is right and moral and just! But, this is not the case. Politics is actually a big game, and the people are the losers. The people have the numbers, but the people are kept in the dark, and divided, so we are not standing up, as one, against those who have hijacked our government. Until we do, we cannot defeat them. We are all one, and our true power is in realizing this fact…en mass!
Jimi Hendrix once said….When the power of Love, overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace!
*sm*

Крис прашува ...
“In 2007, McCain missed all 11 energy -related Senate votes considered key by the League of Conservation Voters, including votes related to automobile fuel economy, offshore Virginia drilling, refinery construction, renewable electricity mandates, energy efficiency, liquefied coal and support for biofuels. The absences prompted the League to give McCain a “zero” rating for the year.”
And Inflating your tires is a tip recommended by all energy experts, Obama merely endorsed it, he never said anything about making that his energy policy.

He knows he has nothing,even his supporters know it. Thats why he has to remain on the offensive with all these false ads and lame gimmicks,mccain is a joke.

David asks…
In 2007, McCain missed all 11 energy -related Senate votes considered key by the League of Conservation Voters, including votes related to automobile fuel economy, offshore Virginia drilling, refinery construction, renewable electricity mandates, energy efficiency, liquefied coal and support for biofuels. The absences prompted the League to give McCain a “zero” rating for the year.
JonChicago – he has received $200 million from oil companies… he is bought and paid for. how does this make him independent or a maverick?

He wouldn't be!! Instead of building solar power towers he wants to build 43 new nuclear plants which cost 3 times the price and put out nuclear waste which nobody wants around them. Also his chief economic adviser is Phil Gramm, who is the former senator that slid the Enron Loophole into the 2000 Energy Bill. To Paulofhouston!! Currently Canada doesn't reprocess it's spent nuclear fuel and it is highly radioactive. Also if it did reprocess, it would be less radioactive but would still have to be disposed of. The cost of Candu nuclear plants are extremely high, even though they are more efficient, they would still produce radioactive waste. Why are you so against solar power tower technology?? Maybe you should check out this website http://www.solarmissiontechnologies.com
before you spout off your McCain ignorance.

Роберт бара ...
To name but a few, the USA scores lowly in all of the following compared to countries like Japan or Scandinavia (and most of western Europe to a lesser extent):
1) Crime
2) Teenage pregnancy
3) Health/life expectancy
4) Poverty and low income
5) Long working hours culture / less paid hoilday
6) Educational achievement/literacy rates
7) Obesity
Environmental pollution eg CO2 per capita, recycling
9) Public transport and renewable energy

Interesting Question!! I think it's because in poorer countries people keep to themselves. For example, in the phillipines where i lived, parents would get mad if a teen had a baby because they can't afford it. Obesity occurs in America because people have enough food and people usually take for granted their health. As for Pollution, In phillipines our pollution was so bad I couldn't find a spot of soil that did not have a plastic bag buried or on top of it!

Вилијам прашува ...
I have read that since about 2006, China has been 'retiring' many of its smaller, older, less efficient coal-fired plants. To offset the closure of these plants, they are building new, more efficient coal-plants that don't put out as much in the way of pollutants.
As China is rich in coal resources, don't you think that it is wise for them to make the most out of their cheap, readily available energy resource?
China closing down small coal-fired plants
Yvonne Chan in Hong Kong, BusinessGreen, 31 Jul 2009
“Facilities with a total generating capacity of 54GW have been shut from 2006 to June this year, Sun Qin, deputy director of the National Energy Administration, said yesterday.
The announcement follows the release of a Greenpeace report earlier this week that called for China to phase out outdated facilities with a generating capacity of less than 100MW and set a renewable energy target of 30 per cent by 2020.
Sun said the number of plants with a capacity below 100MW comprised 14 per cent of the total proportion of energy -generating units, down from 30 per cent in early 2006.
However, in the meantime new coal-burning plants are still being built at a rate of 70GW per year, although Sun said most of the new facilities have significantly higher levels of energy efficiency than those they replace.
China is the world's largest coal producer and consumer. The fossil fuel accounts for at least 70 per cent of its energy needs – a factor that has led to its top ranking in global greenhouse gas emissions.”

We have 2 and half times as much coal as China, yet we don't utilize ours. China is utilizing their resources as are every other country in the world so yes they are taking a more sensible approach IMO.
Http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Coal_reserves#Worldwide_Reserves

Марија го прашува ...
1. Should the government tax income earners making more than $250,000 annually at a higher rate or the same rate as income earners making less?
2. Should government provide tax incentives for businesses and individuals who use wind, solar or other renewable energy sources instead of nuclear, oil, coal or other fossil fuels?
3. Should the US government support Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip or should the US government support an independent Palestinian state in those territories?
4. Should the government legalize same sex marriages, civil unions, or neither?
5. Should the government keep abortion legal or criminalize it?

1. Only tax GOVERNMENT Employees higher that make over $250,000 annually. Flat tax on all the rest.
2. No Renewable Energy is unlikely to be directly econoically viable. The energy required to create the renewable energy infrastructure cost too much energy.
3. Yes! If you give Palestine an independent state either they have to stop the terrorist or be attacked by the Isreal. Do the rulers of Palestine wish to put targets on their house?
4. No! Why should the single taxpayer subsidize others?
5. Over turning Roe V Wade gives the option to the states.

Sandra asks…
The topic is “The greatest evil facing our world today”
It is actually a speech to be given in front of a massive crowd
The greatest evil facing the world today is the footprint left on this planet by mankind. The earth is the only one of its kind that we have. Our planet is being worn out by the unnecessary actions that we take each second, minute, hour, day and year. The ridiculous amounts of greenhouse gases that we emit into our once clean atmosphere are going to result in the earth punishing us at anytime she wants. Our survival could be lost in as little as twenty-five years if our behavior towards the environment doesn't change for the better.
The depletion of the ozone layer will be complete within 200 years at the rate it is being depleted now. If this occurs, no life will be able to live on the surface of the earth. There are already some holes in the ozone layer which have caused immense skin cancers and blindness in animals. Frogs all over the world are becoming dreadfully deformed. In addition, over fifty-one acres of rainforest are destroyed by the developed world per minute.
Currently, twenty-five percent of western pharmaceuticals derive from rainforest ingredients although less than one percent of all rainforest materials have been scientifically tested. This shows that the rainforest could have the cure to the vast majority of the diseases that cause troubles in this world. It could have probably been easily ALL the diseases if the extinction rate of all species was not as high as it is now. Currently, over 130 species are lost per day and more than 99.999% of all species that once lived on this earth are now extinct. Nearly half of the world's existing species will be eliminated in the next twenty-five years due to rainforest deforestation.
The amazing thing is that we still consume non- renewable energy much more than we use renewable energy . We consume almost 1.4 million barrels of oil every forty minutes whilst the solar energy that hits the earth's surface in forty minutes is enough energy for the whole world for a whole year. But this does not make us think about the vast amount of energy that has less effect on their world. If we did, the earth would be a much healthier and cleaner place to be in.
Politicians are actually accepting the reality of our situation and are taking actions. They have been given the irritating wake-up call of land loss due to the rising sea levels. Some people are thankful that they are starting to realize our problem. I for one am not. It shouldn't be economic problems that influence their actions, but moral beliefs.

Very Good!
I'd use while instead of whilst (4th paragraph)
Use “our” world instead of “their” world (4th)
Напојува од страна на Yahoo! Одговори