airborne92
Posts: 62
Joined: 1/11/2004 Status: offline
|
Sinergy, The amount of energy required to "zap a bunch of used pampers" and turn them into a plasma state is enormous, and the amount of electrical energy and hydrogen created from that process is less that what is used in the process. What you are talking about is taking matter, in solid form, and converting it into a gaseous form which is ionized. That requires a tremendous amount of energy to accomplish. My point to you and mnottertail is this, I am all for trying to create better sources of energy, but I want to hear realistic ideas and not politcal talking points about ideas that are not realistic in being implemented in 10 or 20 years. We have untapped oil fields up in Alaska that the environmentalists are peventing anyone from fully exploring and utilizing. Is this a long term solution? No, but it could very well be a short term solution until we as a country realize that some of the laws and "crusades" we have in this country concerning energy and fuel are hindering any progress, and set about working on finding a better energy production method. Once we find a reliable and cheap form of energy production that isn't harnful to the environment, then we can alleviate some of the economic problems in this country. Biofuels are not an option since they take away from food production. These electric cars that everyone touts as the greatest thing to be developed are a farce. They have giant batteries that have to be disposed of somewhere and they are extremely toxic, not to mention that lack of real infrastructure to support them. Nuclear plants have their own set of issues. Solar panels and wind turbines are helpful, but take up space and people complain that it ruins their view of nature. No matter what we do there will always be someone that doesn't like it for whatever reason and start a political crusade against it. I am not trying to take any side on the issue, just trying to point out the shortcomings of all of these so called "great" ideas that everyone seems to be latching onto these days. Some of these ideas are completely impractical in certain areas of not only this country but also in certain parts of the world. The bottom line is this, you are going to have make some concessions in your view of how we need to approach this, just as others are going to have to make some concessions in how they view a solution to the problem. Most importantly we have to get the politicians out of the process and work on improving our energy infrastructure. It will not happen overnight, and will take at least 20 years to accomplish this, if not longer. The biggest key is to get everyone to take responsibility for their own actions, instead of saying it is the government's job to deal with that. If you truly believe that the government needs to tell you how to live your life, what to spend your money on, or anything else, then you are not competant enough to considered an adult or live outside of a very controlled environment. Before you get upset at what I just said, I am not accusing you or anyone else of being like that. I am just making a comment based upon my own observations, and not directing it at anyone in particular. It is like saying that a criminal is not responsible for his actions because of mental health issues. If that is the case, then he should not be allowed to be roaming free on the streets. Each one of us has to take responsibility for our own actions or inactions, and hold those that are elected to a political office to an even higher standard than we are holding ourselves to, since they are the ones making decisions for all of us. This applies to both Democrats and Republicans, as well as any other political affiliation anyone has. I don't have the answers, but when a new idea is presented I want to find out about all of the benefits and drawbacks for it. The is no perfect answer to the problem at hand, just ideas.
< Message edited by airborne92 -- 3/1/2008 1:23:42 PM >
|