:shock:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061017/ap_on_hi_te/google_solar
I guess no one informed the leaders of Google that and asteroid and/or a comet is destined to slam into the Earth, causing massive plums of debris and dust to fill into the stratosphere blocking out the Sun's light rays....making Google's solar powered anything quite useless :wink:
Only solar power will work for long term is in space missions.
It would be a fatal flaw/mis-calculation to allow the Earth to have solar powered usage for anything essential to sustaining a society. Google does not qualify for this, but it is insane to me just the same.
For those who feel an asteriod imapct is foolishness, I'd advise you read up on this subject.
-CD
Google should build thier own nuclear powerplant... ;)
Everyone should have one, instand of solar cells. :P
Hey, nuclear energy may be the only thing that saves humans through a nuclear winter? Kind of ironic, no?
-CD
no no dont worry, we still have THOUSANDS of years worth of coal left, and our globe is getting healthier all the time!
</george bush impression>
:mrgreen:
No CD, you also can produce power by wind and water... ;)
And the amount of uranium avaiable for power generation is also very limited.
Quote from: Grimmwolf on October 19, 2006, 10:38:01 AM
And the amount of uranium avaiable for power generation is also very limited.
60-160 years (without building more npp) is more than enought, why we should care... ;)
well lets hope we have some sort of breakthrough with fusion tech, though it doesnt look very promising, tis not very efficient atm.
Well, there already have been some incredible scientific breakthroughs on alternate energy sources. Unfortunately, our corporations baught out all the pattons as the inventions came in over the years, and if any one of the new sources of fuel is used, rest assured, the same who own the oil, will be the same ones who control the future sources as well.
There is no escape from this. There will always be created wars as a result of this as well. War increases profit. I see very few ways out of this Luciferian situation we find ourselves in.
Thinking of nuclear energy always seems to lead me to oil as well. They are the primary sources of fuel at the moment.
So, what to do without oil or nuclear energy? Wind mills PKK....really :lol:
Let us all travel back to the pilgram days on the prarie :P
Get real. :wink:
So then...what?
What source of energy do you possibly think is out there that has not already been consolidated by the higher-ups to control?
Solar? Baught and sold.
Fussion? Baught and sold.
next?
Below is an article Titled: "1980 top censored stories by the media"
The Oil Companies Monopoly on the Sun
SYNOPSIS: In the early seventies, it was said that we wouldn't have solar power until the oil companies got a monopoly on the sun. Now it appears that this is happening.
Within the last five years, a powerful elite of multinational oil companies, aerospace firms, utilities, and other large corporations has been quietly buying into the solar industry. The group's aim appears to be to squeeze out smaller competitors and control development so that alternative energy will never threaten its massive investments in fossil fuels and, nuclear power.
Most of these are the same corporations that for years have been viewed by alternative energy activists as solar's worst enemies. In countless advertisements, political campaigns and conferences, they have branded solar technology as impractical and expensive, a source of power that at best will someday provide one percent of our national energy needs.
Now, however, solar technology appears interesting to companies like Shell Oil, Atlantic-Richfield, Northrop, Amoco, Exxon, and Mobil-all corporate giants that have taken control of solar power firms in the last several years.
Further, the federal government is even helping them in their efforts toward monopolization. More than 90 percent of the federal solar energy budget for research and development has ended up in the coffers of the largest corporations in the United States.
UPDATE: Following the energy crisis in the early 1970s, entrepreneurs rushed to develop solar power projects to free America of its oil dependency. Many of them went broke or were bought out by large corporations, including the big oil companies. By 1994, Time magazine was ready to announce a "sunny forecast" for solar energy and Shell International Petroleum in London predicted renewable power, particularly solar, would dominate world energy production by 2050.
By 1996, the first large, commercially competitive solar power projects were underway. In India, the Rajasthan State Electricity Board signed a 25-year power purchase agreement with Amoco/Enron Solar for power. In China, Amoco/Enron signed an agreement with the State Science and Technology Commission which could lead to a solar cell manufacturing center and 150MW generating facility. Bob Kelly, co-chairman of Amoco/Enron Solar, a joint venture between Amoco, the U.S. oil company, and Enron, North America's largest natural gas company, announced, "We think there is a great big market out there and we are going for it" (Financial Times, 7/3/96). It took some time, but the big oil companies finally got their monopoly on the sun. A stirring account of the battle for the sun is contained in Who Owns the Sun? People, Politics and the Struggle for a Solar Economy by Daniel M. Berman and John T. O'Connor, published by Chelsea Green, 1997.
oh YEAH CD!!!
im gonna defy you all!
/me goes and makes an antimatter reactor
:mrgreen:
really though, CD is right. the oil people will control large stakes in the energy companies, though hopefully Islam will have lost a major source of its diplomatic power in the world with the disappearance of oil. I wonder what will happen to the Middle East then...
The only place in the Middle East that i see really prospering without the oil is Dubai. That Prince of the UAE he is a smart one. He knows that the massive income will stop with oil, this is his alternate source, Dubai. I like him :) Clever guy. As for the rest ... well i guess in 40 years we'll all find out, when you are all old and grizzleh :mrgreen:
If the Muslim nations wish to survive in a coming age that finds the larger countries of the world turning to other sources of fuel, they must embrace some form of capitalism.
Allow their peoples to prosper and the governments will soon find their pockets full. The people will be happy, the government agencies will get the money for their various toys and projects [whatever those might be].
However, it seems alot of Muslims do not desire such things. What is left, is not a very pretty scenerio. I can see a day where the Muslims, having no card left [oil] to play on the international table, will do much like North Korea, and blackmail the world under threat of nuclear attack.
Iran is close to doing this anyways.
The west must face the fact that we are living in an era that is seeing another clash of civilizations. If we are took weak to confront it [sheesh, or even admit it :roll:], then we are dead.
To me, it is not a question of if this war or atmosphere of hostilities by the East to the West, it is a question of how to handle it.
So far, USA and Europe have failed in this objective.
I still think we have a chance to prevent more countries from attaining nuclear technology, but not all of course. Take Libya as a perfect example of part of a victory from Bush's plan with the Iraq war. A little before the invasion of Iraq, A few intelligence reports were slipped out to a couple of media channels. The reports indicated that the next target for invasion [after Iraq] would not be North Korea or Iran, which are two high-profile cases, but rather, a nation no one was expecting [a suprise attack, to change up military tactics most wisely]...News of this report got back to Libya...we hit Iraq and not even a month later, Libya [thinking they may be that next target & seeing we actually had the balls to go ahead at attack Iraq] gave up all their chemical, biological, and nuclear programs. Allowed the USA to walk right in and take all the stuff away. A result in taking all of Libya's WMD, we traced alot of activity to a certain scientist in Pakistan [thus, breaking open the nuke underworld ring]. All this because others feared us. Feared what we did [are doing] to Iraq, fear, that they will be next. Without setting one soldier on Libya's soil, we did get them to cave. THAT is diplomacy my friends!!!!
In this strategy, I can see how a complete suprise attack on North Korea. I mean complete and total. Devastating to North Korea and striking fear into Asia. This will show the other Muslim nations who were not persuaded [and who are not as wise] like Libya to give up their nuclear quests what it means to play in the nuclear game....WITHOUT attacking another Muslim nation, we would show this example to them. If we just go into Iran or Syria, this will only recruit more terrorist sympathizers using "invasion of islam" as their rallying cry...North Korea not Muslim. This will show alot of people that this goes beyond a religious war, that this is not an attack on islam [it's an attack on their allies too :finger:].
How about this; We wipe out most of the middle east, turn it into a big glass desert, and then we'll give it to the EU to mine the oil. That make you happy? We'll only ask for a discount :wink:
What to do in this insane world but find some humor? :)
-CD
Why does NK need nukes:
- Thier army sucks, it has no change against SK/US forces
- China has nukes, Russia has nukes, USA (SK) has nukes, they are surrunded by contries with nukes
- Nobody did start a war against someone with nukes
- All nuclear powers (excluding India, Pakistan and Israel) don't follow the NPT (article VI), they still have nuclear warheads
dont worry CD if push came to shove India would side up with Europe and USA, them middle easts be surrounded! bahahaha! and im sure Israel can hold her own against the surrounding countries, dunno what will have happened to Iraq by then.
Supporting an attack against the middle east would probably cause a civil war in India. There have been quite nasty incidents of Muslim vs Hindu fights.
sure, but 80% of the population is Hindu and 5% are Sikh or Jain (offshoots of Hinduism)
We have seen in the 90's what can happen if the 80% piss off one of the 5% minorities. Be it Sikh or muslims.
Temples on fire, mosques on fire, hundreds dead.
Sure, but most of the radical muslims in India come from Pakistan.
If the middle east was threatening to nuke countries if the world doesn't bow to their demands, I don't think 5% of any nation is going to decide what that nation's government will do. If anything, they will be treated as a threat and jailed or worse.
India isn't America, and the Indians are Hindu, not Christian. They are not Europeans either. The cultures are totally different. In my general observations [which admitedly, are limited on this matter as far as personal experience] it seems Indians are far less likely to tolerate the things that Americans or Europeans might.
If you point to the riots and religious strife within India, sure, it is there. But I garantuee you that India would go to war with Pakistan regardless of what some minority group may think, or do. So, if this is true, then what would be to stop India from taking on an even greater threat to their nation [in the worst-case-scenerio talked about previously]?
You know, here is an interesting thought. During the first few months of the USA's invasion of Afghanistan [in late 2001], tensions were rising on the Pakistan/India border, India and Pakistan almost went to war. In fact, it is now being said by US diplomats who were negotiating between the two, that this came very close to being a nuclear confrontation, closer than anyone may wish to think about. Anyways, it was estimated that had an exchange of nukes between India and Pakistan actually occured, then Pakistan would be gone, a few Indian cities would be hit and destroyed, but the majority of Indian territory would be intact [IE: India would survive, Pakistan clearly would not], however, China was estimated as to almost certainly becoming involved, possibly even attempting a takeover of a temporarily weakened India. Not to mention, the American forces at the time be centered in Afghanistan and surrounding countries. For about four or five months during this time in history, the world was probably closer to a real nuclear war than at any other time.
Most "inside" US people point to this crisis as the most dangerous. The 1970's Israeli-Arab war was the #1, but it is now #2. This is when a Soviet nuclear weapon was put on a Soviet ship and was sent to Egypt, USA caught wind of it before it got to Egypt, and Nixon threatened that if that nuke weapon reached Egypt, the USA would retaliate with a nuclear attack. The Soviet ship turned around back to the Soviet Union. It wasn't a very publisized crisis as the 1960's Cuban Missile Crisis, but US officials say the 1970's crisis was actually more threatening because Egypt would have certainly used the bomb against Israel once in their possession. I am willing to bet that in the 1960's crisis, the Soviets were merely using Castro to get their missiles up anbd running, as a tool for barter against USA...I'm not so convinced that the Soviets would have actually nuked the USA from Cuba, not right off anyways...perhaps in a later confrontation [which was the big deal in the first place, couldn't allow the Soviets such an upper hand], but it wasn't an immiate threat like the 1970's. Anyways, of the three known major nuclear war threat crisis, the 2001 was the closest to actually happening. Which is kinda scary considering that all the players involved in the 2001 crisis are still very much alive.
We have gone far off the road and into the forest on the "topic", but... :P
-CD