SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: tejek who wrote (184701)3/15/2004 11:49:11 AM
From: hmaly  Read Replies (1) of 1574060
 
Ted Re...Three oil shale plants were built in the US and abandoned by the 90s. It took huge amounts of shale to make just a little oil. The process is hardly cost competitive. In addition, it left big gaps in the landscape and large mounds of crushed rock after the kerogen had been squeezed out.

Which is why I said nuclear is the better alternative. There is enough uranium in seawater, to last us forever, you don't make a worse mess mining it, carbon dioxide levels are reduced,and in the end, there is less radiation in the seas, all at competitive costs. Nonetheless, shale oil and tar sands will guarantee we won't run out of oil, it just costs more environmentally.

The facts don't support your position re nukes

What facts?

Yes, all of those are do able but we need to really focus on them now. Japan and other countries continue to be way ahead of us on alternative fuels. They know what its like to be short. Ford should not have to buy its hybrid engines from Toyota.

First off, the toyota hydrids, aren't alternative fuel cars, they are alternative power supply. They all use gas, just more efficiently. They are cars which specialize in conservation of energy, and efficiency of energy. Secondly, if you read my article on uranium, from seawater, Japan leads the world in that research. While not cost effective now, it will be, and unless the US gets going, we will let Japan have the lead in the next big thing.

PS As a side note to the seawater article, Cohen states that the seawater is saturated to its maximum concentration now, and the excess floated to the bottom. Mining uranium, won't actually lower uranium levels, just release a comparable amount sitting on the bottom, to stabilize the uranium at a certain parts/bln level, what ever that is. Just as taking uranium out, won't make a difference in radiation levels, putting radiation in won't raise that level either. Therefore the sea bottom could be a good place to dispose of waste, as that would just add a minute amount to the uranium already there, on the bottom.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext