Fascism (play /ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a radical, authoritarian nationalist political ideology. Fascists advocate the creation of a totalitarian single-party state that seeks the mass mobilization of a nation through indoctrination, physical education, and family policy including eugenics. Italian Fascism and German Nazism were the two most significant fascist movements in Europe during the 1920s and 30s. Look at the fascist symbols on the wall on both sides the flag.
Whats with all the clapping? What am I missing here? All I hear is worthless hollowed speaking. Whats with the people smiling in there? What the heck is there to be smiling about? Are not these men and women volunteers? Then why the big paychecks? I doubt a single person in there represents a single logical thought of any rational American...
Does anyone notice that Biden looks waaaaaay too happy for his own good, and Boehner is the polar opposite, with a facial expression that says: "someone get me the hell outta here"
One gallon of hydrogen gas compressed into a liquid takes about $4.33 of electricity to produce. Since it takes 3.584 gallons of hydrogen to equal the energy contained in one gallon of gasoline, this means it would cost over $15.52 to go the same distance, not to mention a fuel tank almost four times the size to contain the same energy content in a gallon of gasoline. Learn the facts...
@Tnoy34rt no sale tnoy34rt, don't believe anything else you have to say LOL. You proved your ignorance the day you started calling people uneducated that you knew little about. You don't hold two Ph. D's and c'mon what educated person wastes his/her time stalking others and playing the same old tactics. Getting old. Just pointing out the obvious and sorry to see you have a problem with that LOL!.
@Tnoy34rt states and local communities would almost have to act independently of a bloated Federal aristocracy that has its hands in everything. Question is can states take control of their own futures for once in absence of heavy Federal oversight? Can of a scary scenario since states and the Feds all went into debt so talk about a lack of fiscal irresponsibility. All states and towns are different and that should be respected. What is good for Maine might not be good for Michigan etc etc
@Tnoy34rt remember tnoy34rt, please keep America looking good and promote more nuclear free zones across America. Give a hoot don't pollute with radioactive waste. Oh yeah riiiight, you don't follow in the footsteps of Woodsy Owl. You simply don't want a cleaner America with more green energy and cleaner burning sources. How sad :)
@Tnoy34rt Thats if you make electricity with a coal fired generator. If you make it with solar or wind it would be free after the initial cost of construction. You would have lower production cost and maintenance while the coal and oil markets will continue to be unstable and dangerous to the environment. That's a fact.
Methane is even cheaper to produce than hydrogen and can run diesel generators to make electricity reducing greenhouse gasses by 22X that's right twenty two times! There is no way coal or oil will ever do that. Just another fact. Coal produces 130,000,000 tons of toxic coal ash (also radio active) per year. (fact) we also store radioactive waste in TENTS in Los Alamos. How safe is that?
Also do you notice the 4 pillars behind Presidet Obama, adjacent between the pilars are two signs almost representing the dollar symbol were used in Occult Nazi Germany councils direct under the authority of Hitler and later adopted by the USA.
If you look hard you can find when this happened.
As a symbol is a representation of a meaning or article,like so is a mathemaical notation is a repreentation of a computing figure.
I wont tell what the symbol represents as its only for a fellowship
@Tnoy34rt suppose you were to tilt it 90 towards the left it makes sense that the flag is displayed on the wrong side. To the ordinary person it is un-noticable, being an MUN delegate, the opposite side of the flag does not represent the united staes of america.
Also if you have studied your constitution becoming a Citizen with a capital C does not consider yourself as citizen non-capital of the United States, so the constitusion does not apply to you.
@nabeelmerchant US flag code states that when the flag is displayed vertically the field of honor (the blue field with the stars) should be on the flags own right, the viewers left. About the only time it isn't displayed that way is when worn on the right shoulder of a service members uniform, because the field of honor should always enter the room first.
@Tnoy34rt And hydrogen is green, its the method of currently extracting it that isn't green. Done with wind/solar/geothermal it is green, and it has the range everyone wants. With an EV if you want to road trip you need another car or more time to do so than I have for a vacation. That and I haven't heard much on the recyclability of those massive battery packs. And currently the energy used to charge those may or may not be derived from clean energy sources, same as hydrogen.
@shaithis80 I haven't heard too much about converting coal to gas, if that's what you are refering to. What is the cost/process? If so that is good for the short term. I'm thinking long term fix on something that shouldn't run out. If we are going to invest, do it in something long term.
@hooahayes coal to liquid technology has been around for quite a while. It is an alternative way to power vehicles and the cost/process would seem to be cheaper assuming gas prices keep rising. Then your other sources involve next-gen ethanol, algal biofuel, hydrogen and natural gas, or cars could go largely electric etc etc. I'd be looking to draw off very sources that can be integrated into a modern day engine design. Depends on which way to go.
@hooahayes assuming the cost of diesel fuel keeps rising thus pushing up transportation costs for goods and services, it is not likely that truckers will accept reduced wages. So a variety of energy sources do need to be implemented to keep things powered and going. Don't mean to sound harsh, but screw all these climate change nuts and start implementing a diversified energy plan that utilzes everything. The tech is out there.
@hooahayes - coal to gas only makes sense around $4.40 a gallon, Canada has the most reserves of this type of coal, the supply is nearly endless. But dropping below $4.40, everything shuts down, it's simple economics.
-
The only thing that is clean, cheap and doesn't screw up the atmosphere is nuclear & lithium ion batteries. Let's stop kidding ourselves, it's the only serious solution.
@Tnoy34rt you lack the intelligence to solve much of anything and you try and sound like an expert but you are obviously not an expert in anything when you resort to calling people dumb and uneducated. Don't give me your climate change bullshit or screwing up the atmosphere because I think you are using it to manipulate whatever it is you want for yourself to further your own agenda and quite possibly line your pockets. I disagree with u based on who ur and how you've misrepresented yourself.
@Tnoy34rt According to most of what I can find on the internet, those batteries might have a life of about five years with delicate charging practices. Then they have to be recycled or thrown into a landfill. There are more people than you think that do road trips though, literally tens of millions in this country alone. So should all of them have to buy two cars? One short range and a road trip car? Nuclear has radioactive waste, always has and until they master fusion, probably always will.
@hooahayes - yes, 5 years is about right, but there is no need for special charging procedures, apple has solved all of that. no, they would obviously be recycled, that's the whole point of going to batteries. and sure! for road trips you'd use another car, these are for town use. lots of people have 3, 4, 5 cars so it's not a problem. yes, but the actual "waste" of a nuke car is tiny, the size of a few peas which can easily be disposed of... yes, fusion is key :)
@Tnoy34rt Those nuclear peas, while small in size are enormous in environmental impact and longevity. Not that many people have that many cars unless they are filthy rich or 2/3 of those vehicles don't work and are on cinder blocks. We are trying to find an environmental solution all the people can use. Utilizing hydrogen derived from renewable energy while not the most effiicient is the most green way to do it, until fusion is solved, with the least impact on driving habits.
@Tnoy34rt you really don't know what you are talking about. Yes the concept has been looked at but a nuke car would be very inefficient and very very heavy because of all the shielding required to protect you from the radiation. Also since when is Apple in the car business, I thought they made computers lol. Now one thing I read briefly is nuclear fueled hydrogen which can possibly provide hydrogen very cheaply. Though I'm still for exploiting all available resources and that is just smart.
@shaithis80 - what? i never said it was easily obtainable, but if we set our minds to it it would solve a whole host of issues (wars, hi gas prices, climate change, etc)
-
no, it wouldn't be heavy, that could be designed out of the solution, radiation of that size is nil. and what? apple is the primary research and development behind lightweight, low cost lithium ion batteries. they now create "battery fabric" that can shaped into any form factor, so apple is the leading light behind batteries.
@Tnoy34rt nuclear powered cars while seeming like a great ideal in concept are unobtainable becaue of radiation exposure and it would take too much protection thus adding too much weight to the design. Wouldn't work. Also please at last check Apple was a computer/tech manufatcturer and nothing more. Coal and hydrogen are probably more easily obtainable and we are sitting on a lot of coal reserves. Include everything.
@Tnoy34rt also hate to burst your bubble but there will always be oil which goes towards making a lot more things. It is not just for autos so please look into how oil is actually used in other forms and used to make other things. Seriously I might add that you are nowhere near a catalyst for a cleaner planet because you use the same shit we do and it is all interlinked to affecting the environment. However there were changes that should've been implemented over the decades but they weren't.
@Tnoy34rt the planet is not going to destroy itself nor are we going to do any major damage integrating multiple forms of technology. However perhaps if you improve the infrastructure making it much more efficient to travel by ground (more bus lines/more rails) then perhaps that would help get people off the road however then we don't have enough in traditional gasoline taxes so you go and tax something else. Cause and effect here tnoy34rt.
@Tnoy34rt I'd love to see in my lifetime and more comprehensive natl grond transit network in place that can compete with the airlines. So what if some airlines go out of business as a result of an improved ground network. Yet we just don't have that yet. As a result of modern day society, we are all users and contribute to this so called climate change myth whenever we buy something that is popular (like computers for instance). It did take energy to produce that apple tech of yours LOL!
@Tnoy34rt to me this so called climate change is paranoia I'm no longer buying into because the world contributes to it. And yes people that don't make enough are priced out from affording cleaner tech so you can't necessarily phase out gasoline. Let' talk better paying jobs/stable wages/etc etc and perhaps the people can progress. Right now its all greed and corruption across the world. Good luck solving much of anything.
@Tnoy34rt perhaps the problem should be solved by the bigger U.S. cities vs. leaving it up to those at the state (okay maybe state) and federal levels to solve the problem. The solution may lie within local communities and how they wish to live. Can we learn from NYC or Boston or LA of SF and how they've managed to opearate and manage for the better? Certainly these cities much have done something right to last this long. Plenty of places to start.
@Tnoy34rt the govt at the national level is not going to solve much because of too much infighting and corruption that is a given. However before they start dictating how people should spend their own money and on what, perhaps they need to clean house internally and fix some major issues before we are asked to make that kind of sacrifice in being forced to engaged in certain commerce activities.
@Tnoy34rt what do I know oh uneducate done, I live and work and try to enjoy life at the best of my abilities and hope to one day die at a ripe young age vs a ripe old age. I've had my fun.Not trying to take the whole enchilada or trying to be rich. I've lived the high life in other ways, dined at great restaurants, traveled, and stayed and good lodging. I'm content with what I have, what I got, and where I'm going.However I don't subject myself to utter greed and corruption or being trapped.
@Tnoy34rt cont being trapped in a corrupted and greedy financial system. I'll make enough to get by but that is probably it. If what I saved for in retirement has been wasted, then that can be cause to start a revolution etc etc and then again we can't avoid inflated costs such as medical/tuition. So someone or everyone has lopsided the system because of their own personal corruption and greed. Don't see hospital rates going down anytime soon or life saving surgery getting cheaper.
@Tnoy34rt people are greedy tnoy34rt. You admit to being greedy and then have this I'm rich and you're not ha ha type of attituded and insult others. You haven't contributed much or taken the lead to get out into the real world and solve problems or run for political office. I guess we all know you are not a leader and neither am I obviously. For real now, Congress and states alike need to get their priorities straight and go down a list and not turn back. Is there common sense to do that?
@Tnoy34rt it just seems to me people can't leave well enough alone and I guess politicians just play the system and get rich off of that. It is that fucked up and no I don't trust any major political party nor do I trust Obama when he goes and thinks he can sign illegal legislation into law requring people to engage in commerce activities. You've posted some useful sites though so kudos to you there however you have nothing to offer when you act childish online per your comment history.
@shaitis80 - i don't think any politicians are in it to get "rich", they do it for love of country and to help people. politicians are some of the lowest paid members of society for they work they do.
-
it was a Republican idea to get everyone included in healthcare (Bob Dole) so don't blame Obama for actually making it happen. It will save millions of people from bankruptcy, save lives and make our entire society happier, so look at the big picture.
@Tnoy34rt helping people does not involve giving money to other countries but that is just my take on the whole thing. Nah they seem to make a six figure salary if I'm not mistaken & all they have to show for it is inflation in some markets of the economy.FYI, it doesn't save anyone that has already chosen not to keep much in the way of assets around. If I go bankrupt I have nothing that can be targeted LOL. Hey you have my views based on my experiences and then some & that is where I stand.
@shaithis80 - "giving" is the best way to "prosper", so us giving to other countries pays us back 10 fold. and you need to remember making in the low 6 figures is a very poor way to live with that many expenses and responsibilities. i say, let's get them up to 7 figures so they can focus on their jobs and not always have to scrounge around for money to make ends meet. i doubt we'll have inflation for awhile, that's a function of over demand.
@Tnoy34rt LOL, making 6 figures is plenty to live on and actually more than you need. A public servant doesn't need six figures and shouldn't be paid that much if the country has degraded over time. Politicians shouldn't be viewed as aristocrats. However I tend to adopt the George Carlin philosophy. We don't have freedom of choice in this country. Just the illusion of choice. We are all owned by the rich LOL and they want their money back from the middle class.
@Tnoy34rt have your fun going into next week. I might not be near a computer so enjoy LOL and perhaps by not commented against you further I may finally lose interest and just live my life and kick ass while I'm at it. Regards, cheers, and fucking get laid already!!!! Geez. That's all for now :)
@Tnoy34rt You need to understand that those batteries, while great in your ipod with low power use, are huge and heavy in a vehicle. Once they are out of energy they take a long time to recharge. A town car and a distance car is not feasible for most families. And just how much nuclear material is available to us. Enough for 100million+ vehicles? Also the longevity of those batteries depaends largely on the way they are used and recharged.
@hooahayes - Well, you need to understand the batteries Apple has perfected are lightweight and don't suffer from a memory effect, that's why the Prius uses the same technology Apple pioneered. You are still thinking of NiCad which are heavy, but go into any Apple Store, pick up a MacBook Air, it's 1.5 pounds, but lasts 7 hours on a single charge. No, you can recharge in 30 minutes to 4 hours depending on your needs.
-
They last about 5 years, so the "battery" problem has been solved.
@Tnoy34rt Memory effect has nothing to do with it. Most lithium batteries have no memory effect. But repeated rapid charging of lithium batteries has a substantial effect on the batteries lifespan. A Macbook pro isn't a car nor does it have the power demands of one, the technology won't necessarily carry right over. So unless you intend to make the entire car out of carbon fiber to keep it lightweight (which won't pass safety standards by the way) you may want to think again.
@hooahayes - i'm simply saying weight is not a problem, all these cars are fully electric, and in production... Tesla Roadster, REVAi, Buddy, Mitsubishi i MiEV, Th!nk City, and Nissan Leaf.
@Tnoy34rt the current system as is will not work unless there is an intention to bring the cost of higher education and medical costs back down. If govt continues to be irresponsible in doing its duties and goes the insurance route (which is not the answer) then the current system stands a good chanc of collapsing under its own greed/corruption/scam whatever. Sure things are cheap in some areas however prices will rise and wages will not keep pace. And govt wants2tell everyone to purchase ins.
@Tnoy34rt it's one big game here in the states tnoy34rt and slavery comes in many forms. Just another form of financial civilized slavery. And in an information age people might become more aware and refuse to accept a system that extorts money from them and cheats them out of a decent way of life. Anything is possible in the 21st century including tearing it all down and building up a better system. And to those countries that think we owe them, I guess we will just have 2go to war LOL!
@Tnoy34rt And all those cars have crap range and heavy batteries. And the hundred year supply is at what usage levels? Our current usage or our projected usage if every car has a reactor in it? Not to mention that while one hundred years is a long time we'll still run out of it as fast as we are petroleum. Thus making us buy it from other markets, sound familiar? Hydrogen is renewable, we don't have to rely on anyone else's supply, ever. Unless they find some way to make it stop raining.
@hooahs - nah, modern batteries aren't as heavy as carrying around an internal combustion engine. the point is to get rid of the "burning" of fossil fuels, cars, airplane, ships are spewing carbon dioxide in the air at an alarming rate. to make hydrogen it requires the burning of fossil fuels, so it's simply not a feasible approach.
-
rain is not "hydrogen", you have to extract the oxygen from it which is highly expensive, currently most hydrogen is made from natural gas so where is the benefit?
@Tnoy34rt Unless you are talking about an eight+ cylinder you are smoking crack. The battery in the Leaf weighs 440lbs. My engine block weighs 300 tops. Hydrogen doesn't have to be made by fossil fuels. It can be made just as easily by renewable energy. And hydrogen is a renewable resource, so we don't have to worry about a 100 years supply. It's an infinite supply. And clearly rain isn't pure hydrogen or a rainstorm would be a natural disaster. How it's extracted now can change quite easily.
@hooahayes - nah, they weigh about the same is the point.
-
currently, the only inexpensive way to make hydrogen is by natural gas or methane, there are some other concepts out there, but until someone figures out how, it will remain very expensive to run a car on hydrogen. you can learn more here:
@Tnoy34rt you do understand that your battery powered cars are getting their electricity for propulsion from those same sources right? The benefit of hydrogen is its power, range an renewability. You keep talking about nuclear cars and you are want to criticize hydrogen for cost?
@hooahayes - yes, obviously... and that's why i'm a huge proponent of getting rid of those sources (coal, oil, nat gas) and going fully to nuclear. we are 20% there in the US, France is 78%, so we have a lot to do to catch up with more advanced countries, replace our electric grid, and move to all electric cars in 30 years. time is of the essence, the planet is warming far too quickly, hydrogen is simply not a solution since it requires fossil fuels.
@Tnoy34rt Hydrogen requires electricity from whatever source, not fossil fuels. The solution to your battery pack is the same solution to hydrogen, renewable energy. And stop with the global warming propaganda. Science has proven that the earth has a normal warming and cooling cycle that is not tied to the amount of CO2 humans produce. The real problem is foreign dependence on fuel for our countries energy needs. The planet already provides an abundance we don't utilize, which needs to change.
@hooahayes - no, it requires the mass burning of fossil fuels to "obtain" the hydrogen, it's inefficient and costly, that's why nuclear to >>> battery is the only cost effective solution for transportation.
-
what? climate change is VERY real, everyone with a brain sees the problem, all scientists agree on the problem... so quit trying to prop up the Koch Brothers by lying.
-
What abundance are you referring to? Have you kept a secret energy source from us? Please tell...
@Tnoy34rt You obtain hydrogen by passing electrical current through water which splits the hydrogen from the oxygen so it can be done with the same nuclear option you propose. If you look at any climate change chart you will see natural highs and lows from before the industrial age. Si either they aren't linked or were breathing too much before the industrial age. And if you haven't heard, electricity can be gotten from flowing water, the wind, the heat of the earth core....and even the sun!
@hooahayes - But what energy source do you use to create that "electrical source?" Currently that costs far more than what you are saving to obtain that "hydrogen".
-
So you are saying if I put a pail of water in the bright sun for 8 hours, when I come back it's full of hydrogen?
-
Dude, you clearly don't have a college education. Bye Bye...
@Tnoy34rt Jus thow much do you think its going to cost to put a reactor in every car retard? Apparently you have not heard of solar energy cells (been around for a few decades now), Hydroelectric power (think Hoover Dam), Geothermal Steam turbines or wind turbines. All these create electricity like nuclear does. All can be used to seperate Hydrogen from oxygen. Clearly you need the education, just look up hydrogen production, it doesn't require pollution.
@hooahayes - i'm not a dreamy eyed person thinking a micro reactor in every car, truck, train is feasible. i'll be the first to admit that. but i do know it's possible... we've done it in ships and submarines for over 50 years, so moving it to smaller devices isn't a problem.
-
the problem is the oil companies, and radical groups like the Koch Brothers who are entirely against our planet and society. Sure, hydroelectric is a fine idea, but do we damn up all the rivers and kill all the fish?
@Tnoy34rt The reactors on those boats and submarines require a team of trained individuals to maintain the safety of those reactors. Are you going to hire a pit crew for every car? Most current engines can run on hydrogen and the conversion is cheap. The government wouldn't even have to subsidize it like it does EV's. If you want to put energy companies out of business, ride a bicycle. So your 110,000 hydrogen car is a myth. Burning hydrogen doesn't destroy hydrogen or release greenhouse gases.
@hooahayes - but those people could all be designed out of the equation. again, let me stress, i don't think a nuclear car is feasible, but it's certainly possible if we ever get serious.
-
where are you going to get $500 Billion to install hydrogen filling stations every 20 miles or so? should we put a $2 tax on every gallon of gas to pay for it? so how "politically" and "economically" are you going to make this happen?
-
don't get me wrong, i'm not against hydrogen, i'm just realistic.
@Tnoy34rt Those people can not be designed out of maintaining a controlled nuclear explosion. Energy companies will gladly foot the bill for installing those filling stations because they can still make money hand over fist on a renewable energy source. Just what do you figure the cost will be of building 280 nuclear reactors in ten years? Since the reactors built in Georgia cost around 8 billion apiece, that's around 2 trillion and some change. What's cost effective now? Who's realistic now?
@hooahayes - There is no explosion in a nuclear plant, it's simply a "reaction" which creates heat, then steam to turn generators.
-
Nuclear plants allow many types of energy usage, (heating, cooling, batteries, manufacturing, etc), while spending $500 billion just for a couple million cars and trucks isn't logical. So think things through before you post.
@Tnoy34rt The optimum endstate for the hydrogen economy is getting the elctricity to make the hydrogen from renewable resources as I have said about a dozen times. Yeah I get that reactors make electricity, but the controlled reaction you refer to is an explosion. Not a hollywood one, but an explosion none the less. What do you think happens when you split atoms? So what happens to your one hundred years domestic supply when we make 280 more reactors. Now we have a 30 year supply .
@hooahayes - and so are fossil fuels and hydrogen. we are talking about "propelling a mass" down a street or highway. hydrogen is 5 times more expensive than refined oil, that's the problem, so unless you are 100% behind Cap & Trade, your argument makes zero sense.
@Tnoy34rt So now we have to buy our nuclear fuel from other countries, thanks for putting me back in the same boat 30years down the road and making America pay 2.2trillion dollars to do it. You need to start thinking long term. Solve the energy problem, don't just put it off for a while. Renewable is the only long term answer. Why waste the energy that mother nature is going to provide anyways. The reason I push hydrogen is that is allows us to use cars the same way we have in a "greener" way
@hooahayes - no, there is enough uranium on earth for thousands of years, we've barely begun to look for it don't forget. the 100 years is just the "known deposits" you moron...
@Tnoy34rt I think we can downgrade your educational level know if you are going to keep calling other users childish names. You are not fooling anyone here :)
@Tnoy34rt Two PhD's my ass. It's called fission...look it up. They just slow down a nuclear explosion so it isn't catastrophic. Stop pushing your level of education if that is the best you can do. Or if I were you I'd ask for my money back because I can find out more than you in five minutes on the internet than your "college education" has ever taught you. You keep pushing your environmental standpoint and then shying away from the answer that would be the best for it.
@hooahayes - no, fission has never been achieved, it's just an academic dream... thanks for proving you are uneducated.
-
why are you SO against intelligent thought? aren't you the guy that thought "hydrogen" was "renewable" and "feasible"... nothing is farther from the truth. hydrogen pollutes and is extremely expensive to make. take care.
@Tnoy34rt First hydrogen is not a fossil fuel. It's one of the most abundant elements on earth. Second, uranium and plutonium are deposits which cannot be renewed. Once we use up our supply we are in the same boat of being dependent on other countries for fuel. Third fission is what all current reactors do, fusion is what we can't make work yet. And you seem stuck on the point of hydrogen having to be created by fossil fuel electricity, also not the truth, it can be made by any electric source.
@hooahayes enlighten me about fossil fuels if you will because what I was taught was that Earth's resources were finite however is it possible the planet produces fossil fuels again over long periods of time? Thanks for clarifying.
@Tnoy34rt Hydrogen is renewable. Clearly you haven't heard of a hydrogen fuel cell. Cap and Trade is a joke, a made up economy to make democrats rich by creating one more thing industry has to pay for. Which is why Al Gore was so invested in the company that was going to help the government regulate it. My argument makes sense even if it is more expensive, which those costs would be driven down by renewable energy anyway, because it doesn't force America to support any economy but its own.
@hooahayes - how is hydrogen renewable when it takes so much natural gas or methane to manufacture it? you keep leaving off that part of the equation. hydrogen doesn't grow on trees, no does it naturally occur, we have to "MAKE" it, and that expense is currently too high.
-
Cap and Trade is the only way we're going to make Hydrogen, or Renewable Fuels feasible, so you seem poorly educated to disagree. Do you even have a college education?
@Tnoy34rt Just how much do you think we are paying in profits to Canada, Mexico, the Middle East and all the others we buy our oil from every year? Put that money toward a domestic source of energy. And the geologic surveys for nuclear sources were pretty extensive because we were looking for more material to make our nukes. I wouldn't bet on them finding much more. And with a fuel cell, you split the hydrogen, put it through the cell and as it recombines with oxygen it makes energy.
@Tnoy34rt LOL obviously you don't have a college education and you are in waay over your head on this post and other multiple posts. You've played the education card one too many times. Unfortunately it has backfired especially when you started calling others uneducated. You don't have any Ph Ds to speak of and that is directly contributed to your behavior online and your comment history. And I'll keep driving that point home until you tire of me LOL!
@Tnoy34rt Thus powering your electric car and producing only drinkable water. It is a liquid battery in essence. Thus it can be refueled quickly which makes it great for transportation. Or you can burn the hydrogen and it will combine with Nitrogen. Not as green but it acts more like gasoline and doesn't require much in the way of engine modification. You keep trying to question my level of education but it really seems you are the uneducated one. Not saying this is easy but it's permanent.
@Tnoy34rt LOL, looks like you flunked your chemistry course. Hydrogen exists in multiple sources. The atmosphere would seem to produce H20 at any given time. Hydrogen is plenty renewable. FYI, if what I'm reading is right, fossil fuels technically never run out as the earth regenerates them over a period of time to my understanding. "Unlike fossil fuels, the hydrogen can be extracted whenever required (fossil fuels need millions of years to produce). Hence hydrogen is considered renewable."
@shaithis80 - But to contain the "H" / Hydrogen it's very expensive, so the only way it can be obtained is to burn natural gas or methane. You can educate yourself here:
-
snipurl. com /234m65
-
Only inexpensive way to currently make Hydrogen.
-
snipurl. com /234n2x
-
Hydrogen sounds simple enough, but it's not a viable solution.
@Tnoy34rt no more expensive than all those nuclear power plants you wanted to build and probably less expensive than building more nuclear power plants. And please, post some real links because I'm tired of dealing with being redirected somewhere I don't know about. Bad form tnoy34rt :)
@hooahayes tnoy34rt goes back a hell of a long way and operates under many aliases. Click on @Tnoy34rt and you'll see what I mean or do a search at the top by keying in Tnoy34rt and it should take you to a post by the user FoodMoTron that documents some of the Tnoy34rt's posts. Also the user hides under the Macinndrew and Gennica aliases and alternates between variations of those same accounts. Based on Tnoy34rt's behavior, the user doesn't hold any degrees and I stand by that assessment
@Tnoy34rt LOL I don't think hooahayes was addressing you and you would seem to mean that last comment of someone seeing through the BS was all about you which is not the case. hh and myself see through your BS tnoy34rt so stop trying to manipulate comments into going for you when they are actually not. Another tactic of yours exposed :)
@Tnoy34rt now about all those nuclear power plants you want to build. Frankly that is just more security we would have to add to each one and don't forget it took domestic terrorists to infiltrate and take over airplanes and ram them into things. So I'd be quite careful as to how many power plants we build and I'd take into account future wars (world wars?) where those same plants could become targets. Had to think about all those meltdowns that could occur. Anything can happen.
@shaithis80 - but what would a terrorist do at a nuclear plant? get arrested? nah, nuclear plants are built to withstand any terrorist attack 20 times over. so quit trying to spread fear. I grew up within 3 miles of a prismatic pebble bed reactor, 18 miles from a four-loop pressurized water reactor, they are well protected. no, you can't have a meltdown, that was just the media making stuff up. geesh...
@Tnoy34rt any military nation that is organized can easily take out any one of our nuclear plants so they are not built to withstand everything. Hmm what happens if a 747 is hijacked and is rammed into a nuclear reactor on our own soil before fighter jets could be scrambled to shoot it down. Meltdowns are alwasy possible especially when people cut corners as was the case with the oil rig explosion in the gulf. Again just how safe are nuclear power plants?
@Tnoy34rt and then by building many more reactors, that is more nuclear waste that needs to be managed and transported to their respective resting places. With today's roadways and irresponsible drivers and what is obviously a bad rail system, hmm that would seem to up the possiblity of an environmental disaster however if govt were to invest in a sound infrastructure that promotes reliable roadways and railways.....
@Tnoy34rt a toast to future nuclear free zones and more hydroelectric, solar, windmill, geothermal, hydrogen, clean coal and gas derived from coal, and to exploiting other resources like petroleum for a more comprehensive energy plan. The only place I want to see reactors are onboard our naval vessels and as far as uranium and plutonium reserves, well I guess we can always add to our missle arsenal. Go green energy, give a hoot don't pollute, and plant a tree today. What say you again?
@Tnoy34rt all I'm doing is keeping America looking good by spreading the word. America wouldn't look good with 280 nuclear power plants so I'm helping Woodsy Owl spread the world alright for more nuclear free zones. I'm also a member of NIMBY. Now excuse while I go destory my health at the local McDonald's in the far north. A triple cheeseburger should do me in just fine. Remember it is not all just in the south. They are all over ready to serve you. Now go out and eat some KFC already.
@Tnoy34rt funny you should mention France. So why didn't the U.S. learn from France and adopt their medical system designed to keep patients out of the E.R. Obama's response: We want everyone to be insured. Ya see that is the problem it was never about insurance. It was about revamping a bloated for profit healthcare system and making it more efficient. So a few ambulance and air lift personnel lose their jobs when victims are treating at the scene by MD's. That's progress.
@Tnoy34rt Obama and Congress slit their own throats when they failed to pass any meaningful reform to the healthcare system and that mandate that people participate or be fined was bogus and Obama signed off on it. Obama went as far to keep on promoting it when interviewed by Stephanoupoulus and O'Reilly and Obama dodged the question as to what his plans were if the courts struck down the legislation because of the mandate.
@Tnoy34rt I have no problem continuing to out you and you should remember that it is easy to research you and your multiple accounts out and also word travels fast across You Tube and more and more users become aware of your tactics. Your biggest mistake: You came across me. So what other bullshit do you got or would you care to dance on other posts I find your comments on. Remember you are easily tracked LOL!
@Tnoy34rt it doesn't take much to realize that a govt in debt such as the U.S. will find ways to scam everyone to make a buck vs. making any realistic strides to solve much of anything. Which is why healthcare was never actually solved and from the way it is looking, they haven't solved the energy mess either. A govt that drags its feet might eventually come tumbling down. Then again that is just my take on today's events in the states :)
@Tnoy34rt LOL you seemed to be telling us all on this post that a nuclear car was possible. Now you don't think it is feasible. Do I detect you doing another 180 LOL
@shaithis80 - No, I've always said it's not likely, it was just more of a dream car that would be inexpensive, safe, and solve our deepening climate change problem. Of course it's possible, anything is "possible", but do we have the "will" to do it, especially with the heavy hand of oil and coal companies controlling our energy agenda. That's when the word feasible is used... do I have to teach you english as well?
@Tnoy34rt well Tnoy34rt I'd call that the fault of a very corrupted system that is not willing put all forms of energy on the table. However if we go the supply and demand route, then once gas gets too high then people stop traveling and will just by the necessary staples of survival. In smaller towns with good mass transit some will have it made while others that commute may suffer. It may take state action or local action (i.e. county) to get things down in absence of a corrupted bureaucracy.
@Tnoy34rt you've also proven my point that the more you post the less likely you hold two PhDs in much of anything and what contributes to that assessment is how you've behaved irresponsibly online against other users. Sorry Tnoy34rt, you might be able to research things out online and manipulate the data to your own bogus conclusions however we just don't take you at your work espcially when you start behaving like a whiny child. Your comment history has outed you through your many accounts:)
@Tnoy34rt hey tnoy34rt why is tuition high for higher education: You ever wonder why college costs so much now? Because the federal government provides grants and loans to everyone. The colleges see this and say, "hey, the government will increase the allowance every year to meet the new costs...let's increase 9% this year and 15% the next." Competition improves the market, government interference kills the market.
How high are medical costs again. Govt interference LOL!
@Tnoy34rt I suppose now you're argument will be the cost of all these green energy sources. But I would also like to point out your idea of putting a nuclear reactor in every car. The point is that hydrogen cars can produce more power and longevity (i.e. road range than your current EV proposal and don't require long fill up periods. Now I suppose you'll say Apple fixed that and the car can be charged in 30 min. That however ruins those batteries almost twice as fast.
@Tnoy34rt The fact is that hydrogen can be used like gas but doesn't ruin the environment and more importantly doesn't come from outside our borders. And when it rains, we get more because the hydrogen can join back with oxygen molecules and the process starts all over. So no paying the Saudi's or Canada or Mexico or anyone else. The money stays here in the good old USA. And we have an infinite supply, which is better than a hundred year supply.
@hooahayes - What? Hydrogen absolutely ruins the environment, how do you think it's made? You have to BURN natural gas or methane to remove the non Hydrogen atoms! Hydrogen is NOT naturally occurring, you have to "manufacture it"... and that takes energy, pollutes the air.
-
I'm beginning to think you are uneducated. Answer this question: How can you cheaply make, distribute and use "hydrogen"??? I bet you will have no answer.
@Tnoy34rt They alread y make and distribute hydrogen just like gas. Just not on as large a scale because there isn't as much of a demand for it. Hydrogen, so you are aware, is on the periodic table of elements. It does occur naturally. It just bonds with other elements normally. Electricity seperates those molecules so the hydrogen can be ignited like gas. But that doesn't destroy the hydrogen. Get a clue kid.
@ho - yes, but you can only get 4-6 miles to the "equivalent" gallon of gas for the price of "hydrogen", plus you have to pay $110,000 for a hydrogen based car. so the economics simply aren't there. the ONLY way to solve this is to build 280 nuclear plants in the next 10 years, go direct to battery / gas hybrids.
-
you can wrestle with the periodic table all you want, hydrogen does not "naturally" occur, to reverse the "binding" takes expensive "energy", gosh, i wish you had a college education.
@Tnoy34rt Hydrogen is the most common element in the universe. It naturally occurs in our atmosphere in small quantities and can be derived from passing electrical current, from any source not necessarily fossil fuels, through water. And is in fact used to create the gas we use in our cars already. So I think you should question the quality of your own education instead of questioning mine. The only thing keeping the price of hydrogen up is that it isn't normally mass produced.
@hooh - Yes, but it's too expensive to collect, so how do you manufacture hydrogen inexpensively? Currently you can't, that's the problem. I agree mass producing it from gas or methane can drive the cost down, but it would still be 3 times more expensive than a gallon of refined oil, so the economics just aren't there.
-
What? I have far more education than you, I have 2 PhDs, and grew up next door to a Chemistry professor that works exactly in this field, he says "biomass" is the current trend.
@Tnoy34rt The fact that you have two PhD's in basketweaving and music theory, respectively, is irrelevant. Hydrogen is the promary component of water, you can collect it out of your kitchen faucet. People can manufacture and compress hydrogen at home. The current trend from Mr. Wizard next door is not necessarily the answer. Biodiesel is a decent short term fix for foreign dependence and that's about all. The economics aren't there for your nucear solution either but you won't shut up about that
@Tnoy34rt you don't fit the criteria of someone that holds 2 PhDs otherwise you would not have bitched and left rude comments on another user's page to going off on extreme tangents calling educated people uneducated. All I'm saying is you are not who you say you are and that is an educated assessment I'm sticking to. You would seem to have lied about who you are and where you are from. Hey if you have PhDs I'm sure you would have written some papers that have been archived at a university.
@Tnoy34rt certainly a person with two PhD's would have written a college paper or two or worked on some project at the university they graduated from. Some would even post books that they've written. However all I see is an uneducated user such as himself that resorts to childish name calling. Sorry not buying your alleged education level. Please try again LOL!!!
@Tnoy34rt the point to be made is that you are not correct but I don't consider you an expert. You can keep saying that phrase all you want but it doesn't make you factual. As far as radiation, yes there are acceptable levels of radiation all around us unfortunate in a modern day society however I think exposure to nuclear radiation from an improperly shielded reactor or cell in a car is an entirely different story. Why not study a nuclear powered ship design the protection required.
@Tnoy34rt the point to be made is that you are not correct but I don't consider you an expert. You can keep saying that phrase all you want but it doesn't make you factual. As far as radiation, yes there are acceptable levels of radiation all around us however I think exposure to nuclear radiation from an improperly shielded reactor or cell in a car is an entirely different story. Why not study a nuclear powered ship design the protection required.
@Tnoy34rt the point to be made is that you are not correct but I don't consider you an expert. You can keep saying that phrase all you want but it doesn't make you factual. As far as radiation, yes there are acceptable levels of radiation all around us however I think exposure to nuclear radiation from an improperly shielded reactor or cell in a car is an entirely different story.
@Tnoy34rt the only user that is really starting to sound like a total dumbass here is you. Your ignorance is pretty laughable. Also yes there is an abundance of other energy sources and we do have the technology to extract what we need if we so choose. Gas derived from coal and the extraction of hydrogen. Also please your nuclear theory is already shot down due to not being able to properly shield the driver from the radiation source which would weigh the car down.
@shaithis80 - quit being so clueless. the goal has to be "get rid of the BURNING of fossil fuels". your solutions still have "burning" in the mix, that won't work if we are going to stop climate change, so learn what the goal is.
-
what? you've been brainwashed, there would be no radiation from a nuclear car, rolling down your window would cause 1000's times more radiation than a nuclear fuel cell in the trunk.
@Tnoy34rt LOL that is the entire point. All you can do is reduce the use of fossil fuels but can't entirely eliminate it 100%. All countries develop differently have utilize their own energy resources and more than likely could give a flying fuck about the United Nations. That sir is reality LOL! Based on my research you'd have to have a substantial shielding between the reactor and the driver and that would literally weigh down the car.
@shaithis80 - Yes, but we could set up a system where if a certain "city" or "region" didn't meet pollution controls in a set time period, we would pinpoint bomb their factories (or whatever source) until the air became clean / heat was dissipated.
-
that would be a solid, fair way to lower the impact of climate change.
-
no, you could design all that out of a micro reactor, a pea size pellet doesn't create much radiation and could easily be contained in a 2x2 foot power module.
@Tnoy34rt so from what you've just related to us, you are for starting wars in other countries? Who the fuck are you really because you are not even sounding educated anymore and sounding more like a complete ignorant asshole. LOL, clearly you are an uneducated troll that is just bored. It kind of gets old after awhile and your credibility was lost a long time ago. That's what you get for fucking with others online smart enough to see through your bullshit LOL!
@Tnoy34rt hmm you say all scientists however I think not all scientists necessarily agree. Though I think govts will use the theory of global warming as a scam to tax people and companies any way they can. LOL, and what has governtment done to make a huge transition towards much of anything like energy reform: ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!! States might have to lead the way in since the Federal govt seems to be pretty irresponsible like in their finances for starters.
@shaithis80 - 99% of scientists agree climate change is caused by man and is a serious problem, we already know that. the disagreement is: what do we do about it? how quickly do we need to move?
-
yes, the deeper problem is oil companies are clearly opposed to any reform, so we might need to "revolt" against refineries, oil wells, etc... (egypt style :) the feds are doing all they can, the cap and trade initiative is what we need, but uneducated people are against it.
@Tnoy34rt LOL your ignorance on energy truly shows. You are never going to eliminate coal/oil/natural gas. Whatever we use or do will always require either a a direct/indirect usage of fossil fuels (consumption of goods and services/transportation of goods and services). The list is endless. It is obvious you lack the education or in depth analysis to be an expert on the issue and you have a lengthy history of trying to mislead and misinform so nothing new there.
@shaithis80 - incorrect, we can go direct to nuclear within 10 years, and that process doesn't involve fossil fuels. yes, yes, we'll still need to pollute the air for airplanes and lawnmowers, but we can make a huge difference to get all ships, trains & trucks on nuclear / batteries. i realize it would take a "manhattan project" type of effort, and considering our addiction to cheap oil it's not realistic, but it's the ideal solution.
-
no, i see all of this clearly, so i'm once again correct.
@Tnoy34rt LOL the point to be made is that you are not correct but I don't consider you an expert. You can keep saying that phrase all you want but it doesn't make you factual. As far as radiation, yes there are acceptable levels of radiation all around us (unfortunate in a modern day society) however I think exposure to nuclear radiation from an improperly shielded reactor or cell in a car is an entirely different story. Why not study a nuclear powered ship design the protection required.
@Tnoy34rt LOL the point to be made is that you are not correct but I don't consider you an expert. You can keep saying that phrase all you want but it doesn't make you factual. As far as radiation, yes there are acceptable levels of radiation all around us (unfortunate in a modern day society) however I think exposure to nuclear radiation from an improperly shielded reactor or cell in a car is an entirely different story. Why not study a nuclear powered ship design the protection required.
@Tnoy34rt the point to be made is that you are not correct but I don't consider you an expert. You can keep saying that phrase all you want but it doesn't make you factual. As far as radiation, yes there are acceptable levels of radiation all around us (unfortunate in a modern day society) however I think exposure to nuclear radiation from an improperly shielded reactor or cell in a car is an entirely different story. Why not study a nuclear powered ship de
This has been flagged as spam show
RON PAUL 2012
netttels 4 days ago
OBAMAS PLAN = BULLSHIT
nutbagbrew102 1 month ago
FOUR MORE YEARS! ;o)
genxxxersize 1 month ago
make college affordable? My UC tuition went from $2700 to $4000 in 3 years. wtf?
rbrtchng 1 month ago
@rbrtchng tell me about it! ;o)
genxxxersize 1 month ago
GOING TO FACE A SEDITION AND A TREASON CHARGE PROSECUTED FOR CORRUPTION
rhersh2011 3 months ago
bla bla bla... clap clap clap... bla bla bla... clap clap clap... bla bla bla... clap clap clap
raultejedor 8 months ago
@raultejedor hehee, u are a comedian, hehee! ;o)
genxxxersize 1 month ago
Fascism (play /ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a radical, authoritarian nationalist political ideology. Fascists advocate the creation of a totalitarian single-party state that seeks the mass mobilization of a nation through indoctrination, physical education, and family policy including eugenics. Italian Fascism and German Nazism were the two most significant fascist movements in Europe during the 1920s and 30s. Look at the fascist symbols on the wall on both sides the flag.
Ragewolf2008 8 months ago
Obama works for Rothschild and the british Banks!
Hail2TheChimp1st 10 months ago
@Hail2TheChimp1st long live the bilderberg group!!!!
genxxxersize 1 month ago
I am Bulgarian, but when I listen Mr. Obama want that we find somebody like him in Europe and particularly in our country Bulgaria.
rumex2529 10 months ago
thanks a lot for posting this.
UnionKid15 10 months ago
Whats with all the clapping? What am I missing here? All I hear is worthless hollowed speaking. Whats with the people smiling in there? What the heck is there to be smiling about? Are not these men and women volunteers? Then why the big paychecks? I doubt a single person in there represents a single logical thought of any rational American...
Intellectual88 11 months ago 3
thumbs up if you watched the whole video
zzzZezima 11 months ago
@azteclikesscreamo :
I absolutely agree 100%
you're spot on with your statement
and I commend you for saying so
Those in charge have it all backwards
Thank you
From a friend in Canada
willypdyer 11 months ago
my president
burundi132 11 months ago
could some1 pleeeeeeeeeeeease help me with this...
I just need the first 10 minutes of this speech but I couldn't find a software to help me cut the video I have :(
could some1 please help me... :(
it's for college :(
livingonmyon 11 months ago
@livingonmyon
keepvid (dot) com
mediaconverter (dot) com
or if you have safari, download it straight from the source. Window->Activity= the video always has the highest bitrate. Double click to download.
squidtantrum 11 months ago
2:15 we haven't debated anything, you have implemented your far left agenda. 2:44 Where do you come from?
bnelms22 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Deaths per year resulting from alcohol: 100,000
· Deaths per year resulting from tobacco: 430,000
· Deaths per year resulting from aspirin: 180- 1000
· Deaths per year resulting from legal drugs: 106,000
· Deaths that have ever occurred in direct result of Cannabis: 0 (that's right zero)
let us smoke WEED!!
COPY N PASTE TO LEGALIZE THIS
Smoke every day all day. ^_^
azteclikesscreamo 1 year ago
investment = more spending = higher national debt = higher taxes
hellfish1007 1 year ago
This speech gave me confidence in America again.
squidtantrum 1 year ago
@squidtantrum Same =)
linkfan22 11 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Obama is just a fucking robot faggot alien
schizoheroes 1 year ago
@schizoheroes stfu kid
BoratISback1 1 year ago 3
Does anyone notice that Biden looks waaaaaay too happy for his own good, and Boehner is the polar opposite, with a facial expression that says: "someone get me the hell outta here"
liberamentis 1 year ago
@liberamentis - Boehner just wants to go have a good cry...
Tnoy34rt 1 year ago
@Tnoy34rt the weeper of the house?
shaithis80 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@liberamentis - Boehner just wants to go have a good cry...
Tnoy34rt 1 year ago
One gallon of hydrogen gas compressed into a liquid takes about $4.33 of electricity to produce. Since it takes 3.584 gallons of hydrogen to equal the energy contained in one gallon of gasoline, this means it would cost over $15.52 to go the same distance, not to mention a fuel tank almost four times the size to contain the same energy content in a gallon of gasoline. Learn the facts...
Tnoy34rt 1 year ago
@Tnoy34rt no sale tnoy34rt, don't believe anything else you have to say LOL. You proved your ignorance the day you started calling people uneducated that you knew little about. You don't hold two Ph. D's and c'mon what educated person wastes his/her time stalking others and playing the same old tactics. Getting old. Just pointing out the obvious and sorry to see you have a problem with that LOL!.
shaithis80 1 year ago
@Tnoy34rt states and local communities would almost have to act independently of a bloated Federal aristocracy that has its hands in everything. Question is can states take control of their own futures for once in absence of heavy Federal oversight? Can of a scary scenario since states and the Feds all went into debt so talk about a lack of fiscal irresponsibility. All states and towns are different and that should be respected. What is good for Maine might not be good for Michigan etc etc
shaithis80 1 year ago
@Tnoy34rt remember tnoy34rt, please keep America looking good and promote more nuclear free zones across America. Give a hoot don't pollute with radioactive waste. Oh yeah riiiight, you don't follow in the footsteps of Woodsy Owl. You simply don't want a cleaner America with more green energy and cleaner burning sources. How sad :)
shaithis80 1 year ago
@Tnoy34rt Thats if you make electricity with a coal fired generator. If you make it with solar or wind it would be free after the initial cost of construction. You would have lower production cost and maintenance while the coal and oil markets will continue to be unstable and dangerous to the environment. That's a fact.
JakeEvilclown 7 months ago
Methane is even cheaper to produce than hydrogen and can run diesel generators to make electricity reducing greenhouse gasses by 22X that's right twenty two times! There is no way coal or oil will ever do that. Just another fact. Coal produces 130,000,000 tons of toxic coal ash (also radio active) per year. (fact) we also store radioactive waste in TENTS in Los Alamos. How safe is that?
JakeEvilclown 7 months ago
Glad we finally have an intelligent President.
Tnoy34rt 1 year ago
Also do you notice the 4 pillars behind Presidet Obama, adjacent between the pilars are two signs almost representing the dollar symbol were used in Occult Nazi Germany councils direct under the authority of Hitler and later adopted by the USA.
If you look hard you can find when this happened.
As a symbol is a representation of a meaning or article,like so is a mathemaical notation is a repreentation of a computing figure.
I wont tell what the symbol represents as its only for a fellowship
nabeelmerchant 1 year ago
They put the American flag upside down. A coincidence ? I doubt it.
nabeelmerchant 1 year ago
@nabeelmerchant - no, the flag is presented correctly.
Tnoy34rt 1 year ago
@Tnoy34rt suppose you were to tilt it 90 towards the left it makes sense that the flag is displayed on the wrong side. To the ordinary person it is un-noticable, being an MUN delegate, the opposite side of the flag does not represent the united staes of america.
Also if you have studied your constitution becoming a Citizen with a capital C does not consider yourself as citizen non-capital of the United States, so the constitusion does not apply to you.
nabeelmerchant 1 year ago
@nabeelmerchant US flag code states that when the flag is displayed vertically the field of honor (the blue field with the stars) should be on the flags own right, the viewers left. About the only time it isn't displayed that way is when worn on the right shoulder of a service members uniform, because the field of honor should always enter the room first.
hooahayes 1 year ago
@Tnoy34rt I know this does not make sense but you have to study law, or what I am saying to you is all jibberish.
nabeelmerchant 1 year ago
Namaste.
Simple, Straight. Strong.
Ideal stage for proposing and offering to work jointly with both parties -
democrats and republicans.
Lesson to learn for all governments.
Love. God Bless.
Dr. Prakash Vakil
Coach--Productivity
profprakash 1 year ago
I think Kahn said it best: "Time is one luxury you don't have...."
shaithis80 1 year ago
@Tnoy34rt And hydrogen is green, its the method of currently extracting it that isn't green. Done with wind/solar/geothermal it is green, and it has the range everyone wants. With an EV if you want to road trip you need another car or more time to do so than I have for a vacation. That and I haven't heard much on the recyclability of those massive battery packs. And currently the energy used to charge those may or may not be derived from clean energy sources, same as hydrogen.
hooahayes 1 year ago
@hooahayes I think converting coal to gasoline is another way to go and we are sitting on coal deposits.
shaithis80 1 year ago
@shaithis80 I haven't heard too much about converting coal to gas, if that's what you are refering to. What is the cost/process? If so that is good for the short term. I'm thinking long term fix on something that shouldn't run out. If we are going to invest, do it in something long term.
hooahayes 1 year ago
@hooahayes coal to liquid technology has been around for quite a while. It is an alternative way to power vehicles and the cost/process would seem to be cheaper assuming gas prices keep rising. Then your other sources involve next-gen ethanol, algal biofuel, hydrogen and natural gas, or cars could go largely electric etc etc. I'd be looking to draw off very sources that can be integrated into a modern day engine design. Depends on which way to go.
shaithis80 1 year ago
@hooahayes assuming the cost of diesel fuel keeps rising thus pushing up transportation costs for goods and services, it is not likely that truckers will accept reduced wages. So a variety of energy sources do need to be implemented to keep things powered and going. Don't mean to sound harsh, but screw all these climate change nuts and start implementing a diversified energy plan that utilzes everything. The tech is out there.
shaithis80 1 year ago
@hooahayes - coal to gas only makes sense around $4.40 a gallon, Canada has the most reserves of this type of coal, the supply is nearly endless. But dropping below $4.40, everything shuts down, it's simple economics.
-
The only thing that is clean, cheap and doesn't screw up the atmosphere is nuclear & lithium ion batteries. Let's stop kidding ourselves, it's the only serious solution.
Tnoy34rt 1 year ago
@Tnoy34rt you lack the intelligence to solve much of anything and you try and sound like an expert but you are obviously not an expert in anything when you resort to calling people dumb and uneducated. Don't give me your climate change bullshit or screwing up the atmosphere because I think you are using it to manipulate whatever it is you want for yourself to further your own agenda and quite possibly line your pockets. I disagree with u based on who ur and how you've misrepresented yourself.
shaithis80 1 year ago
@Tnoy34rt According to most of what I can find on the internet, those batteries might have a life of about five years with delicate charging practices. Then they have to be recycled or thrown into a landfill. There are more people than you think that do road trips though, literally tens of millions in this country alone. So should all of them have to buy two cars? One short range and a road trip car? Nuclear has radioactive waste, always has and until they master fusion, probably always will.
hooahayes 1 year ago
@hooahayes - yes, 5 years is about right, but there is no need for special charging procedures, apple has solved all of that. no, they would obviously be recycled, that's the whole point of going to batteries. and sure! for road trips you'd use another car, these are for town use. lots of people have 3, 4, 5 cars so it's not a problem. yes, but the actual "waste" of a nuke car is tiny, the size of a few peas which can easily be disposed of... yes, fusion is key :)
Tnoy34rt 1 year ago
@Tnoy34rt Those nuclear peas, while small in size are enormous in environmental impact and longevity. Not that many people have that many cars unless they are filthy rich or 2/3 of those vehicles don't work and are on cinder blocks. We are trying to find an environmental solution all the people can use. Utilizing hydrogen derived from renewable energy while not the most effiicient is the most green way to do it, until fusion is solved, with the least impact on driving habits.
hooahayes 1 year ago
@Tnoy34rt you really don't know what you are talking about. Yes the concept has been looked at but a nuke car would be very inefficient and very very heavy because of all the shielding required to protect you from the radiation. Also since when is Apple in the car business, I thought they made computers lol. Now one thing I read briefly is nuclear fueled hydrogen which can possibly provide hydrogen very cheaply. Though I'm still for exploiting all available resources and that is just smart.
shaithis80 1 year ago
@shaithis80 - what? i never said it was easily obtainable, but if we set our minds to it it would solve a whole host of issues (wars, hi gas prices, climate change, etc)
-
no, it wouldn't be heavy, that could be designed out of the solution, radiation of that size is nil. and what? apple is the primary research and development behind lightweight, low cost lithium ion batteries. they now create "battery fabric" that can shaped into any form factor, so apple is the leading light behind batteries.
Tnoy34rt 1 year ago
@Tnoy34rt nuclear powered cars while seeming like a great ideal in concept are unobtainable becaue of radiation exposure and it would take too much protection thus adding too much weight to the design. Wouldn't work. Also please at last check Apple was a computer/tech manufatcturer and nothing more. Coal and hydrogen are probably more easily obtainable and we are sitting on a lot of coal reserves. Include everything.
shaithis80 1 year ago
@Tnoy34rt also hate to burst your bubble but there will always be oil which goes towards making a lot more things. It is not just for autos so please look into how oil is actually used in other forms and used to make other things. Seriously I might add that you are nowhere near a catalyst for a cleaner planet because you use the same shit we do and it is all interlinked to affecting the environment. However there were changes that should've been implemented over the decades but they weren't.
shaithis80 1 year ago
@Tnoy34rt the planet is not going to destroy itself nor are we going to do any major damage integrating multiple forms of technology. However perhaps if you improve the infrastructure making it much more efficient to travel by ground (more bus lines/more rails) then perhaps that would help get people off the road however then we don't have enough in traditional gasoline taxes so you go and tax something else. Cause and effect here tnoy34rt.
shaithis80 1 year ago
@Tnoy34rt I'd love to see in my lifetime and more comprehensive natl grond transit network in place that can compete with the airlines. So what if some airlines go out of business as a result of an improved ground network. Yet we just don't have that yet. As a result of modern day society, we are all users and contribute to this so called climate change myth whenever we buy something that is popular (like computers for instance). It did take energy to produce that apple tech of yours LOL!
shaithis80 1 year ago
@Tnoy34rt to me this so called climate change is paranoia I'm no longer buying into because the world contributes to it. And yes people that don't make enough are priced out from affording cleaner tech so you can't necessarily phase out gasoline. Let' talk better paying jobs/stable wages/etc etc and perhaps the people can progress. Right now its all greed and corruption across the world. Good luck solving much of anything.
shaithis80 1 year ago
@Tnoy34rt perhaps the problem should be solved by the bigger U.S. cities vs. leaving it up to those at the state (okay maybe state) and federal levels to solve the problem. The solution may lie within local communities and how they wish to live. Can we learn from NYC or Boston or LA of SF and how they've managed to opearate and manage for the better? Certainly these cities much have done something right to last this long. Plenty of places to start.
shaithis80 1 year ago
@Tnoy34rt the govt at the national level is not going to solve much because of too much infighting and corruption that is a given. However before they start dictating how people should spend their own money and on what, perhaps they need to clean house internally and fix some major issues before we are asked to make that kind of sacrifice in being forced to engaged in certain commerce activities.
shaithis80 1 year ago
@Tnoy34rt what do I know oh uneducate done, I live and work and try to enjoy life at the best of my abilities and hope to one day die at a ripe young age vs a ripe old age. I've had my fun.Not trying to take the whole enchilada or trying to be rich. I've lived the high life in other ways, dined at great restaurants, traveled, and stayed and good lodging. I'm content with what I have, what I got, and where I'm going.However I don't subject myself to utter greed and corruption or being trapped.
shaithis80 1 year ago
@Tnoy34rt cont being trapped in a corrupted and greedy financial system. I'll make enough to get by but that is probably it. If what I saved for in retirement has been wasted, then that can be cause to start a revolution etc etc and then again we can't avoid inflated costs such as medical/tuition. So someone or everyone has lopsided the system because of their own personal corruption and greed. Don't see hospital rates going down anytime soon or life saving surgery getting cheaper.
shaithis80 1 year ago
@Tnoy34rt people are greedy tnoy34rt. You admit to being greedy and then have this I'm rich and you're not ha ha type of attituded and insult others. You haven't contributed much or taken the lead to get out into the real world and solve problems or run for political office. I guess we all know you are not a leader and neither am I obviously. For real now, Congress and states alike need to get their priorities straight and go down a list and not turn back. Is there common sense to do that?
shaithis80 1 year ago
@Tnoy34rt it just seems to me people can't leave well enough alone and I guess politicians just play the system and get rich off of that. It is that fucked up and no I don't trust any major political party nor do I trust Obama when he goes and thinks he can sign illegal legislation into law requring people to engage in commerce activities. You've posted some useful sites though so kudos to you there however you have nothing to offer when you act childish online per your comment history.
shaithis80 1 year ago
@shaitis80 - i don't think any politicians are in it to get "rich", they do it for love of country and to help people. politicians are some of the lowest paid members of society for they work they do.
-
it was a Republican idea to get everyone included in healthcare (Bob Dole) so don't blame Obama for actually making it happen. It will save millions of people from bankruptcy, save lives and make our entire society happier, so look at the big picture.
-
have a good trip, just don't break a leg :)
Tnoy34rt 1 year ago
@Tnoy34rt helping people does not involve giving money to other countries but that is just my take on the whole thing. Nah they seem to make a six figure salary if I'm not mistaken & all they have to show for it is inflation in some markets of the economy.FYI, it doesn't save anyone that has already chosen not to keep much in the way of assets around. If I go bankrupt I have nothing that can be targeted LOL. Hey you have my views based on my experiences and then some & that is where I stand.
shaithis80 1 year ago
@shaithis80 - "giving" is the best way to "prosper", so us giving to other countries pays us back 10 fold. and you need to remember making in the low 6 figures is a very poor way to live with that many expenses and responsibilities. i say, let's get them up to 7 figures so they can focus on their jobs and not always have to scrounge around for money to make ends meet. i doubt we'll have inflation for awhile, that's a function of over demand.
Tnoy34rt 1 year ago
@Tnoy34rt LOL, making 6 figures is plenty to live on and actually more than you need. A public servant doesn't need six figures and shouldn't be paid that much if the country has degraded over time. Politicians shouldn't be viewed as aristocrats. However I tend to adopt the George Carlin philosophy. We don't have freedom of choice in this country. Just the illusion of choice. We are all owned by the rich LOL and they want their money back from the middle class.
shaithis80 1 year ago
@Tnoy34rt I'll let you go on your merry way then after this and you do as your will as we all do. L8tr.
shaithis80 1 year ago
@Tnoy34rt have your fun going into next week. I might not be near a computer so enjoy LOL and perhaps by not commented against you further I may finally lose interest and just live my life and kick ass while I'm at it. Regards, cheers, and fucking get laid already!!!! Geez. That's all for now :)
shaithis80 1 year ago
@Tnoy34rt You need to understand that those batteries, while great in your ipod with low power use, are huge and heavy in a vehicle. Once they are out of energy they take a long time to recharge. A town car and a distance car is not feasible for most families. And just how much nuclear material is available to us. Enough for 100million+ vehicles? Also the longevity of those batteries depaends largely on the way they are used and recharged.
hooahayes 1 year ago
@hooahayes - Well, you need to understand the batteries Apple has perfected are lightweight and don't suffer from a memory effect, that's why the Prius uses the same technology Apple pioneered. You are still thinking of NiCad which are heavy, but go into any Apple Store, pick up a MacBook Air, it's 1.5 pounds, but lasts 7 hours on a single charge. No, you can recharge in 30 minutes to 4 hours depending on your needs.
-
They last about 5 years, so the "battery" problem has been solved.
Tnoy34rt 1 year ago
@Tnoy34rt Memory effect has nothing to do with it. Most lithium batteries have no memory effect. But repeated rapid charging of lithium batteries has a substantial effect on the batteries lifespan. A Macbook pro isn't a car nor does it have the power demands of one, the technology won't necessarily carry right over. So unless you intend to make the entire car out of carbon fiber to keep it lightweight (which won't pass safety standards by the way) you may want to think again.
hooahayes 1 year ago
@hooahayes - i'm simply saying weight is not a problem, all these cars are fully electric, and in production... Tesla Roadster, REVAi, Buddy, Mitsubishi i MiEV, Th!nk City, and Nissan Leaf.
Tnoy34rt 1 year ago
@Tnoy34rt the current system as is will not work unless there is an intention to bring the cost of higher education and medical costs back down. If govt continues to be irresponsible in doing its duties and goes the insurance route (which is not the answer) then the current system stands a good chanc of collapsing under its own greed/corruption/scam whatever. Sure things are cheap in some areas however prices will rise and wages will not keep pace. And govt wants2tell everyone to purchase ins.
shaithis80 1 year ago
@Tnoy34rt it's one big game here in the states tnoy34rt and slavery comes in many forms. Just another form of financial civilized slavery. And in an information age people might become more aware and refuse to accept a system that extorts money from them and cheats them out of a decent way of life. Anything is possible in the 21st century including tearing it all down and building up a better system. And to those countries that think we owe them, I guess we will just have 2go to war LOL!
shaithis80 1 year ago
@Tnoy34rt And all those cars have crap range and heavy batteries. And the hundred year supply is at what usage levels? Our current usage or our projected usage if every car has a reactor in it? Not to mention that while one hundred years is a long time we'll still run out of it as fast as we are petroleum. Thus making us buy it from other markets, sound familiar? Hydrogen is renewable, we don't have to rely on anyone else's supply, ever. Unless they find some way to make it stop raining.
hooahayes 1 year ago
@hooahs - nah, modern batteries aren't as heavy as carrying around an internal combustion engine. the point is to get rid of the "burning" of fossil fuels, cars, airplane, ships are spewing carbon dioxide in the air at an alarming rate. to make hydrogen it requires the burning of fossil fuels, so it's simply not a feasible approach.
-
rain is not "hydrogen", you have to extract the oxygen from it which is highly expensive, currently most hydrogen is made from natural gas so where is the benefit?
Tnoy34rt 1 year ago
@Tnoy34rt Unless you are talking about an eight+ cylinder you are smoking crack. The battery in the Leaf weighs 440lbs. My engine block weighs 300 tops. Hydrogen doesn't have to be made by fossil fuels. It can be made just as easily by renewable energy. And hydrogen is a renewable resource, so we don't have to worry about a 100 years supply. It's an infinite supply. And clearly rain isn't pure hydrogen or a rainstorm would be a natural disaster. How it's extracted now can change quite easily.
hooahayes 1 year ago
@hooahayes - nah, they weigh about the same is the point.
-
currently, the only inexpensive way to make hydrogen is by natural gas or methane, there are some other concepts out there, but until someone figures out how, it will remain very expensive to run a car on hydrogen. you can learn more here:
-
wikipedia. org /wiki/Hydrogen_production#From_ hydrocarbons
-
if you know of an easier way to do it, let us know, but until then, you must be on crack (just kidding)
Tnoy34rt 1 year ago
@Tnoy34rt you do understand that your battery powered cars are getting their electricity for propulsion from those same sources right? The benefit of hydrogen is its power, range an renewability. You keep talking about nuclear cars and you are want to criticize hydrogen for cost?
hooahayes 1 year ago
@hooahayes - yes, obviously... and that's why i'm a huge proponent of getting rid of those sources (coal, oil, nat gas) and going fully to nuclear. we are 20% there in the US, France is 78%, so we have a lot to do to catch up with more advanced countries, replace our electric grid, and move to all electric cars in 30 years. time is of the essence, the planet is warming far too quickly, hydrogen is simply not a solution since it requires fossil fuels.
Tnoy34rt 1 year ago
@Tnoy34rt Hydrogen requires electricity from whatever source, not fossil fuels. The solution to your battery pack is the same solution to hydrogen, renewable energy. And stop with the global warming propaganda. Science has proven that the earth has a normal warming and cooling cycle that is not tied to the amount of CO2 humans produce. The real problem is foreign dependence on fuel for our countries energy needs. The planet already provides an abundance we don't utilize, which needs to change.
hooahayes 1 year ago
@hooahayes - no, it requires the mass burning of fossil fuels to "obtain" the hydrogen, it's inefficient and costly, that's why nuclear to >>> battery is the only cost effective solution for transportation.
-
what? climate change is VERY real, everyone with a brain sees the problem, all scientists agree on the problem... so quit trying to prop up the Koch Brothers by lying.
-
What abundance are you referring to? Have you kept a secret energy source from us? Please tell...
Tnoy34rt 1 year ago
@Tnoy34rt You obtain hydrogen by passing electrical current through water which splits the hydrogen from the oxygen so it can be done with the same nuclear option you propose. If you look at any climate change chart you will see natural highs and lows from before the industrial age. Si either they aren't linked or were breathing too much before the industrial age. And if you haven't heard, electricity can be gotten from flowing water, the wind, the heat of the earth core....and even the sun!
hooahayes 1 year ago
@hooahayes - But what energy source do you use to create that "electrical source?" Currently that costs far more than what you are saving to obtain that "hydrogen".
-
So you are saying if I put a pail of water in the bright sun for 8 hours, when I come back it's full of hydrogen?
-
Dude, you clearly don't have a college education. Bye Bye...
Tnoy34rt 1 year ago
@Tnoy34rt Jus thow much do you think its going to cost to put a reactor in every car retard? Apparently you have not heard of solar energy cells (been around for a few decades now), Hydroelectric power (think Hoover Dam), Geothermal Steam turbines or wind turbines. All these create electricity like nuclear does. All can be used to seperate Hydrogen from oxygen. Clearly you need the education, just look up hydrogen production, it doesn't require pollution.
hooahayes 1 year ago
@hooahayes - i'm not a dreamy eyed person thinking a micro reactor in every car, truck, train is feasible. i'll be the first to admit that. but i do know it's possible... we've done it in ships and submarines for over 50 years, so moving it to smaller devices isn't a problem.
-
the problem is the oil companies, and radical groups like the Koch Brothers who are entirely against our planet and society. Sure, hydroelectric is a fine idea, but do we damn up all the rivers and kill all the fish?
Tnoy34rt 1 year ago
@Tnoy34rt The reactors on those boats and submarines require a team of trained individuals to maintain the safety of those reactors. Are you going to hire a pit crew for every car? Most current engines can run on hydrogen and the conversion is cheap. The government wouldn't even have to subsidize it like it does EV's. If you want to put energy companies out of business, ride a bicycle. So your 110,000 hydrogen car is a myth. Burning hydrogen doesn't destroy hydrogen or release greenhouse gases.
hooahayes 1 year ago
@hooahayes - but those people could all be designed out of the equation. again, let me stress, i don't think a nuclear car is feasible, but it's certainly possible if we ever get serious.
-
where are you going to get $500 Billion to install hydrogen filling stations every 20 miles or so? should we put a $2 tax on every gallon of gas to pay for it? so how "politically" and "economically" are you going to make this happen?
-
don't get me wrong, i'm not against hydrogen, i'm just realistic.
Tnoy34rt 1 year ago
@Tnoy34rt Those people can not be designed out of maintaining a controlled nuclear explosion. Energy companies will gladly foot the bill for installing those filling stations because they can still make money hand over fist on a renewable energy source. Just what do you figure the cost will be of building 280 nuclear reactors in ten years? Since the reactors built in Georgia cost around 8 billion apiece, that's around 2 trillion and some change. What's cost effective now? Who's realistic now?
hooahayes 1 year ago
@hooahayes - There is no explosion in a nuclear plant, it's simply a "reaction" which creates heat, then steam to turn generators.
-
Nuclear plants allow many types of energy usage, (heating, cooling, batteries, manufacturing, etc), while spending $500 billion just for a couple million cars and trucks isn't logical. So think things through before you post.
Tnoy34rt 1 year ago
@Tnoy34rt The optimum endstate for the hydrogen economy is getting the elctricity to make the hydrogen from renewable resources as I have said about a dozen times. Yeah I get that reactors make electricity, but the controlled reaction you refer to is an explosion. Not a hollywood one, but an explosion none the less. What do you think happens when you split atoms? So what happens to your one hundred years domestic supply when we make 280 more reactors. Now we have a 30 year supply .
hooahayes 1 year ago
@hooahayes - and so are fossil fuels and hydrogen. we are talking about "propelling a mass" down a street or highway. hydrogen is 5 times more expensive than refined oil, that's the problem, so unless you are 100% behind Cap & Trade, your argument makes zero sense.
Tnoy34rt 1 year ago
@Tnoy34rt So now we have to buy our nuclear fuel from other countries, thanks for putting me back in the same boat 30years down the road and making America pay 2.2trillion dollars to do it. You need to start thinking long term. Solve the energy problem, don't just put it off for a while. Renewable is the only long term answer. Why waste the energy that mother nature is going to provide anyways. The reason I push hydrogen is that is allows us to use cars the same way we have in a "greener" way
hooahayes 1 year ago
@hooahayes - no, there is enough uranium on earth for thousands of years, we've barely begun to look for it don't forget. the 100 years is just the "known deposits" you moron...
Tnoy34rt 1 year ago
@Tnoy34rt I think we can downgrade your educational level know if you are going to keep calling other users childish names. You are not fooling anyone here :)
shaithis80 1 year ago
@Tnoy34rt Two PhD's my ass. It's called fission...look it up. They just slow down a nuclear explosion so it isn't catastrophic. Stop pushing your level of education if that is the best you can do. Or if I were you I'd ask for my money back because I can find out more than you in five minutes on the internet than your "college education" has ever taught you. You keep pushing your environmental standpoint and then shying away from the answer that would be the best for it.
hooahayes 1 year ago
@hooahayes - no, fission has never been achieved, it's just an academic dream... thanks for proving you are uneducated.
-
why are you SO against intelligent thought? aren't you the guy that thought "hydrogen" was "renewable" and "feasible"... nothing is farther from the truth. hydrogen pollutes and is extremely expensive to make. take care.
Tnoy34rt 1 year ago
@Tnoy34rt First hydrogen is not a fossil fuel. It's one of the most abundant elements on earth. Second, uranium and plutonium are deposits which cannot be renewed. Once we use up our supply we are in the same boat of being dependent on other countries for fuel. Third fission is what all current reactors do, fusion is what we can't make work yet. And you seem stuck on the point of hydrogen having to be created by fossil fuel electricity, also not the truth, it can be made by any electric source.
hooahayes 1 year ago
@hooahayes enlighten me about fossil fuels if you will because what I was taught was that Earth's resources were finite however is it possible the planet produces fossil fuels again over long periods of time? Thanks for clarifying.
shaithis80 1 year ago
@Tnoy34rt Hydrogen is renewable. Clearly you haven't heard of a hydrogen fuel cell. Cap and Trade is a joke, a made up economy to make democrats rich by creating one more thing industry has to pay for. Which is why Al Gore was so invested in the company that was going to help the government regulate it. My argument makes sense even if it is more expensive, which those costs would be driven down by renewable energy anyway, because it doesn't force America to support any economy but its own.
hooahayes 1 year ago
@hooahayes - how is hydrogen renewable when it takes so much natural gas or methane to manufacture it? you keep leaving off that part of the equation. hydrogen doesn't grow on trees, no does it naturally occur, we have to "MAKE" it, and that expense is currently too high.
-
Cap and Trade is the only way we're going to make Hydrogen, or Renewable Fuels feasible, so you seem poorly educated to disagree. Do you even have a college education?
Tnoy34rt 1 year ago
@Tnoy34rt Just how much do you think we are paying in profits to Canada, Mexico, the Middle East and all the others we buy our oil from every year? Put that money toward a domestic source of energy. And the geologic surveys for nuclear sources were pretty extensive because we were looking for more material to make our nukes. I wouldn't bet on them finding much more. And with a fuel cell, you split the hydrogen, put it through the cell and as it recombines with oxygen it makes energy.
hooahayes 1 year ago
@Tnoy34rt LOL obviously you don't have a college education and you are in waay over your head on this post and other multiple posts. You've played the education card one too many times. Unfortunately it has backfired especially when you started calling others uneducated. You don't have any Ph Ds to speak of and that is directly contributed to your behavior online and your comment history. And I'll keep driving that point home until you tire of me LOL!
shaithis80 1 year ago
@Tnoy34rt Thus powering your electric car and producing only drinkable water. It is a liquid battery in essence. Thus it can be refueled quickly which makes it great for transportation. Or you can burn the hydrogen and it will combine with Nitrogen. Not as green but it acts more like gasoline and doesn't require much in the way of engine modification. You keep trying to question my level of education but it really seems you are the uneducated one. Not saying this is easy but it's permanent.
hooahayes 1 year ago
@Tnoy34rt LOL, looks like you flunked your chemistry course. Hydrogen exists in multiple sources. The atmosphere would seem to produce H20 at any given time. Hydrogen is plenty renewable. FYI, if what I'm reading is right, fossil fuels technically never run out as the earth regenerates them over a period of time to my understanding. "Unlike fossil fuels, the hydrogen can be extracted whenever required (fossil fuels need millions of years to produce). Hence hydrogen is considered renewable."
shaithis80 1 year ago
@shaithis80 - But to contain the "H" / Hydrogen it's very expensive, so the only way it can be obtained is to burn natural gas or methane. You can educate yourself here:
-
snipurl. com /234m65
-
Only inexpensive way to currently make Hydrogen.
-
snipurl. com /234n2x
-
Hydrogen sounds simple enough, but it's not a viable solution.
Tnoy34rt 1 year ago
@Tnoy34rt no more expensive than all those nuclear power plants you wanted to build and probably less expensive than building more nuclear power plants. And please, post some real links because I'm tired of dealing with being redirected somewhere I don't know about. Bad form tnoy34rt :)
shaithis80 1 year ago
@shaithis80 Good to know there is someone on here who can see through the BS.
hooahayes 1 year ago
@hooahayes tnoy34rt goes back a hell of a long way and operates under many aliases. Click on @Tnoy34rt and you'll see what I mean or do a search at the top by keying in Tnoy34rt and it should take you to a post by the user FoodMoTron that documents some of the Tnoy34rt's posts. Also the user hides under the Macinndrew and Gennica aliases and alternates between variations of those same accounts. Based on Tnoy34rt's behavior, the user doesn't hold any degrees and I stand by that assessment
shaithis80 1 year ago
@hooahayes - Thanks!
Tnoy34rt 1 year ago
@Tnoy34rt LOL I don't think hooahayes was addressing you and you would seem to mean that last comment of someone seeing through the BS was all about you which is not the case. hh and myself see through your BS tnoy34rt so stop trying to manipulate comments into going for you when they are actually not. Another tactic of yours exposed :)
shaithis80 1 year ago
@Tnoy34rt now about all those nuclear power plants you want to build. Frankly that is just more security we would have to add to each one and don't forget it took domestic terrorists to infiltrate and take over airplanes and ram them into things. So I'd be quite careful as to how many power plants we build and I'd take into account future wars (world wars?) where those same plants could become targets. Had to think about all those meltdowns that could occur. Anything can happen.
shaithis80 1 year ago
@shaithis80 - but what would a terrorist do at a nuclear plant? get arrested? nah, nuclear plants are built to withstand any terrorist attack 20 times over. so quit trying to spread fear. I grew up within 3 miles of a prismatic pebble bed reactor, 18 miles from a four-loop pressurized water reactor, they are well protected. no, you can't have a meltdown, that was just the media making stuff up. geesh...
Tnoy34rt 1 year ago
@Tnoy34rt any military nation that is organized can easily take out any one of our nuclear plants so they are not built to withstand everything. Hmm what happens if a 747 is hijacked and is rammed into a nuclear reactor on our own soil before fighter jets could be scrambled to shoot it down. Meltdowns are alwasy possible especially when people cut corners as was the case with the oil rig explosion in the gulf. Again just how safe are nuclear power plants?
shaithis80 1 year ago
@Tnoy34rt and then by building many more reactors, that is more nuclear waste that needs to be managed and transported to their respective resting places. With today's roadways and irresponsible drivers and what is obviously a bad rail system, hmm that would seem to up the possiblity of an environmental disaster however if govt were to invest in a sound infrastructure that promotes reliable roadways and railways.....
shaithis80 1 year ago
@Tnoy34rt a toast to future nuclear free zones and more hydroelectric, solar, windmill, geothermal, hydrogen, clean coal and gas derived from coal, and to exploiting other resources like petroleum for a more comprehensive energy plan. The only place I want to see reactors are onboard our naval vessels and as far as uranium and plutonium reserves, well I guess we can always add to our missle arsenal. Go green energy, give a hoot don't pollute, and plant a tree today. What say you again?
shaithis80 1 year ago
@Tnoy34rt all I'm doing is keeping America looking good by spreading the word. America wouldn't look good with 280 nuclear power plants so I'm helping Woodsy Owl spread the world alright for more nuclear free zones. I'm also a member of NIMBY. Now excuse while I go destory my health at the local McDonald's in the far north. A triple cheeseburger should do me in just fine. Remember it is not all just in the south. They are all over ready to serve you. Now go out and eat some KFC already.
shaithis80 1 year ago
@shaithis80 - What? France has the most nuclear power, around 72%, and they are the most sophisticated society in the western world.
Tnoy34rt 1 year ago
@Tnoy34rt funny you should mention France. So why didn't the U.S. learn from France and adopt their medical system designed to keep patients out of the E.R. Obama's response: We want everyone to be insured. Ya see that is the problem it was never about insurance. It was about revamping a bloated for profit healthcare system and making it more efficient. So a few ambulance and air lift personnel lose their jobs when victims are treating at the scene by MD's. That's progress.
shaithis80 1 year ago
@Tnoy34rt Obama and Congress slit their own throats when they failed to pass any meaningful reform to the healthcare system and that mandate that people participate or be fined was bogus and Obama signed off on it. Obama went as far to keep on promoting it when interviewed by Stephanoupoulus and O'Reilly and Obama dodged the question as to what his plans were if the courts struck down the legislation because of the mandate.
shaithis80 1 year ago
@Tnoy34rt I have no problem continuing to out you and you should remember that it is easy to research you and your multiple accounts out and also word travels fast across You Tube and more and more users become aware of your tactics. Your biggest mistake: You came across me. So what other bullshit do you got or would you care to dance on other posts I find your comments on. Remember you are easily tracked LOL!
shaithis80 1 year ago
@Tnoy34rt it doesn't take much to realize that a govt in debt such as the U.S. will find ways to scam everyone to make a buck vs. making any realistic strides to solve much of anything. Which is why healthcare was never actually solved and from the way it is looking, they haven't solved the energy mess either. A govt that drags its feet might eventually come tumbling down. Then again that is just my take on today's events in the states :)
shaithis80 1 year ago
@Tnoy34rt LOL you seemed to be telling us all on this post that a nuclear car was possible. Now you don't think it is feasible. Do I detect you doing another 180 LOL
shaithis80 1 year ago
@shaithis80 - No, I've always said it's not likely, it was just more of a dream car that would be inexpensive, safe, and solve our deepening climate change problem. Of course it's possible, anything is "possible", but do we have the "will" to do it, especially with the heavy hand of oil and coal companies controlling our energy agenda. That's when the word feasible is used... do I have to teach you english as well?
Tnoy34rt 1 year ago
@Tnoy34rt well Tnoy34rt I'd call that the fault of a very corrupted system that is not willing put all forms of energy on the table. However if we go the supply and demand route, then once gas gets too high then people stop traveling and will just by the necessary staples of survival. In smaller towns with good mass transit some will have it made while others that commute may suffer. It may take state action or local action (i.e. county) to get things down in absence of a corrupted bureaucracy.
shaithis80 1 year ago
@Tnoy34rt you've also proven my point that the more you post the less likely you hold two PhDs in much of anything and what contributes to that assessment is how you've behaved irresponsibly online against other users. Sorry Tnoy34rt, you might be able to research things out online and manipulate the data to your own bogus conclusions however we just don't take you at your work espcially when you start behaving like a whiny child. Your comment history has outed you through your many accounts:)
shaithis80 1 year ago
@Tnoy34rt hey tnoy34rt why is tuition high for higher education: You ever wonder why college costs so much now? Because the federal government provides grants and loans to everyone. The colleges see this and say, "hey, the government will increase the allowance every year to meet the new costs...let's increase 9% this year and 15% the next." Competition improves the market, government interference kills the market.
How high are medical costs again. Govt interference LOL!
shaithis80 11 months ago
@Tnoy34rt I suppose now you're argument will be the cost of all these green energy sources. But I would also like to point out your idea of putting a nuclear reactor in every car. The point is that hydrogen cars can produce more power and longevity (i.e. road range than your current EV proposal and don't require long fill up periods. Now I suppose you'll say Apple fixed that and the car can be charged in 30 min. That however ruins those batteries almost twice as fast.
hooahayes 1 year ago
@Tnoy34rt The fact is that hydrogen can be used like gas but doesn't ruin the environment and more importantly doesn't come from outside our borders. And when it rains, we get more because the hydrogen can join back with oxygen molecules and the process starts all over. So no paying the Saudi's or Canada or Mexico or anyone else. The money stays here in the good old USA. And we have an infinite supply, which is better than a hundred year supply.
hooahayes 1 year ago
@hooahayes - What? Hydrogen absolutely ruins the environment, how do you think it's made? You have to BURN natural gas or methane to remove the non Hydrogen atoms! Hydrogen is NOT naturally occurring, you have to "manufacture it"... and that takes energy, pollutes the air.
-
I'm beginning to think you are uneducated. Answer this question: How can you cheaply make, distribute and use "hydrogen"??? I bet you will have no answer.
Tnoy34rt 1 year ago
@Tnoy34rt They alread y make and distribute hydrogen just like gas. Just not on as large a scale because there isn't as much of a demand for it. Hydrogen, so you are aware, is on the periodic table of elements. It does occur naturally. It just bonds with other elements normally. Electricity seperates those molecules so the hydrogen can be ignited like gas. But that doesn't destroy the hydrogen. Get a clue kid.
hooahayes 1 year ago
@ho - yes, but you can only get 4-6 miles to the "equivalent" gallon of gas for the price of "hydrogen", plus you have to pay $110,000 for a hydrogen based car. so the economics simply aren't there. the ONLY way to solve this is to build 280 nuclear plants in the next 10 years, go direct to battery / gas hybrids.
-
you can wrestle with the periodic table all you want, hydrogen does not "naturally" occur, to reverse the "binding" takes expensive "energy", gosh, i wish you had a college education.
Tnoy34rt 1 year ago
@Tnoy34rt Hydrogen is the most common element in the universe. It naturally occurs in our atmosphere in small quantities and can be derived from passing electrical current, from any source not necessarily fossil fuels, through water. And is in fact used to create the gas we use in our cars already. So I think you should question the quality of your own education instead of questioning mine. The only thing keeping the price of hydrogen up is that it isn't normally mass produced.
hooahayes 1 year ago
@hooh - Yes, but it's too expensive to collect, so how do you manufacture hydrogen inexpensively? Currently you can't, that's the problem. I agree mass producing it from gas or methane can drive the cost down, but it would still be 3 times more expensive than a gallon of refined oil, so the economics just aren't there.
-
What? I have far more education than you, I have 2 PhDs, and grew up next door to a Chemistry professor that works exactly in this field, he says "biomass" is the current trend.
Tnoy34rt 1 year ago
@Tnoy34rt The fact that you have two PhD's in basketweaving and music theory, respectively, is irrelevant. Hydrogen is the promary component of water, you can collect it out of your kitchen faucet. People can manufacture and compress hydrogen at home. The current trend from Mr. Wizard next door is not necessarily the answer. Biodiesel is a decent short term fix for foreign dependence and that's about all. The economics aren't there for your nucear solution either but you won't shut up about that
hooahayes 1 year ago
@Tnoy34rt you don't fit the criteria of someone that holds 2 PhDs otherwise you would not have bitched and left rude comments on another user's page to going off on extreme tangents calling educated people uneducated. All I'm saying is you are not who you say you are and that is an educated assessment I'm sticking to. You would seem to have lied about who you are and where you are from. Hey if you have PhDs I'm sure you would have written some papers that have been archived at a university.
shaithis80 1 year ago
@Tnoy34rt certainly a person with two PhD's would have written a college paper or two or worked on some project at the university they graduated from. Some would even post books that they've written. However all I see is an uneducated user such as himself that resorts to childish name calling. Sorry not buying your alleged education level. Please try again LOL!!!
shaithis80 1 year ago
@Tnoy34rt the point to be made is that you are not correct but I don't consider you an expert. You can keep saying that phrase all you want but it doesn't make you factual. As far as radiation, yes there are acceptable levels of radiation all around us unfortunate in a modern day society however I think exposure to nuclear radiation from an improperly shielded reactor or cell in a car is an entirely different story. Why not study a nuclear powered ship design the protection required.
shaithis80 1 year ago
@Tnoy34rt the point to be made is that you are not correct but I don't consider you an expert. You can keep saying that phrase all you want but it doesn't make you factual. As far as radiation, yes there are acceptable levels of radiation all around us however I think exposure to nuclear radiation from an improperly shielded reactor or cell in a car is an entirely different story. Why not study a nuclear powered ship design the protection required.
shaithis80 1 year ago
@Tnoy34rt the point to be made is that you are not correct but I don't consider you an expert. You can keep saying that phrase all you want but it doesn't make you factual. As far as radiation, yes there are acceptable levels of radiation all around us however I think exposure to nuclear radiation from an improperly shielded reactor or cell in a car is an entirely different story.
shaithis80 1 year ago
@Tnoy34rt ?
shaithis80 1 year ago
@Tnoy34rt the only user that is really starting to sound like a total dumbass here is you. Your ignorance is pretty laughable. Also yes there is an abundance of other energy sources and we do have the technology to extract what we need if we so choose. Gas derived from coal and the extraction of hydrogen. Also please your nuclear theory is already shot down due to not being able to properly shield the driver from the radiation source which would weigh the car down.
shaithis80 1 year ago
@shaithis80 - quit being so clueless. the goal has to be "get rid of the BURNING of fossil fuels". your solutions still have "burning" in the mix, that won't work if we are going to stop climate change, so learn what the goal is.
-
what? you've been brainwashed, there would be no radiation from a nuclear car, rolling down your window would cause 1000's times more radiation than a nuclear fuel cell in the trunk.
Tnoy34rt 1 year ago
@Tnoy34rt LOL that is the entire point. All you can do is reduce the use of fossil fuels but can't entirely eliminate it 100%. All countries develop differently have utilize their own energy resources and more than likely could give a flying fuck about the United Nations. That sir is reality LOL! Based on my research you'd have to have a substantial shielding between the reactor and the driver and that would literally weigh down the car.
shaithis80 1 year ago
@shaithis80 - Yes, but we could set up a system where if a certain "city" or "region" didn't meet pollution controls in a set time period, we would pinpoint bomb their factories (or whatever source) until the air became clean / heat was dissipated.
-
that would be a solid, fair way to lower the impact of climate change.
-
no, you could design all that out of a micro reactor, a pea size pellet doesn't create much radiation and could easily be contained in a 2x2 foot power module.
Tnoy34rt 1 year ago
@Tnoy34rt so from what you've just related to us, you are for starting wars in other countries? Who the fuck are you really because you are not even sounding educated anymore and sounding more like a complete ignorant asshole. LOL, clearly you are an uneducated troll that is just bored. It kind of gets old after awhile and your credibility was lost a long time ago. That's what you get for fucking with others online smart enough to see through your bullshit LOL!
shaithis80 1 year ago
@Tnoy34rt hmm you say all scientists however I think not all scientists necessarily agree. Though I think govts will use the theory of global warming as a scam to tax people and companies any way they can. LOL, and what has governtment done to make a huge transition towards much of anything like energy reform: ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!! States might have to lead the way in since the Federal govt seems to be pretty irresponsible like in their finances for starters.
shaithis80 1 year ago
@shaithis80 - 99% of scientists agree climate change is caused by man and is a serious problem, we already know that. the disagreement is: what do we do about it? how quickly do we need to move?
-
yes, the deeper problem is oil companies are clearly opposed to any reform, so we might need to "revolt" against refineries, oil wells, etc... (egypt style :) the feds are doing all they can, the cap and trade initiative is what we need, but uneducated people are against it.
Tnoy34rt 1 year ago
@Tnoy34rt LOL your ignorance on energy truly shows. You are never going to eliminate coal/oil/natural gas. Whatever we use or do will always require either a a direct/indirect usage of fossil fuels (consumption of goods and services/transportation of goods and services). The list is endless. It is obvious you lack the education or in depth analysis to be an expert on the issue and you have a lengthy history of trying to mislead and misinform so nothing new there.
shaithis80 1 year ago
@shaithis80 - incorrect, we can go direct to nuclear within 10 years, and that process doesn't involve fossil fuels. yes, yes, we'll still need to pollute the air for airplanes and lawnmowers, but we can make a huge difference to get all ships, trains & trucks on nuclear / batteries. i realize it would take a "manhattan project" type of effort, and considering our addiction to cheap oil it's not realistic, but it's the ideal solution.
-
no, i see all of this clearly, so i'm once again correct.
Tnoy34rt 1 year ago
@Tnoy34rt LOL the point to be made is that you are not correct but I don't consider you an expert. You can keep saying that phrase all you want but it doesn't make you factual. As far as radiation, yes there are acceptable levels of radiation all around us (unfortunate in a modern day society) however I think exposure to nuclear radiation from an improperly shielded reactor or cell in a car is an entirely different story. Why not study a nuclear powered ship design the protection required.
shaithis80 1 year ago
@Tnoy34rt LOL the point to be made is that you are not correct but I don't consider you an expert. You can keep saying that phrase all you want but it doesn't make you factual. As far as radiation, yes there are acceptable levels of radiation all around us (unfortunate in a modern day society) however I think exposure to nuclear radiation from an improperly shielded reactor or cell in a car is an entirely different story. Why not study a nuclear powered ship design the protection required.
shaithis80 1 year ago
@Tnoy34rt the point to be made is that you are not correct but I don't consider you an expert. You can keep saying that phrase all you want but it doesn't make you factual. As far as radiation, yes there are acceptable levels of radiation all around us (unfortunate in a modern day society) however I think exposure to nuclear radiation from an improperly shielded reactor or cell in a car is an entirely different story. Why not study a nuclear powered ship de