It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Dr. Michio Kaku - Fukishima Daiichi Nuclear Facility is a "Ticking Time Bomb"

page: 3
18
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by burdman30ott6
These ideas of solar, wind, and digester/methane power production do work, on a micro scale. We're not talking about a micro scale here, we're talking about a macro level. There is a HUGE difference between a small plant producing their own power or a home generating enough electricity for themselves and providing enough electricity to support a city, their industry, and their commercial power needs. Those are the problems I'm not seeing the naysayers offering legitimate solutions to.


Originally posted by Flatfish
I realize that's "nonsensical science" to you, but I truly believe that; "Out Of The Chaos, Comes Order."


I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and not accuse you of intentionally misquoting me to make me appear like a nut. I said "nonsensical science FICTION" not "nonsensical science." There's a huge difference between the two.


I sincerely apologize for the mis-quote, you're right, there is a big difference between science and science fiction.

Now for the bigger picture; When I speak of placing vertical axis generators on top of every steel and/or concrete power line pole in America, I am talking about a "macro scale" application of "micro scale" technology. I can't even begin to imagine the number of existing power line poles that would be suitable for this application but I know there are literally tens, if not hundreds, of millions of them already in place across this nation. There are also millions of other places that this technology could be applied, like on top of high rise buildings across the country.

On another note, I grew up in a city where oil refining is the predominant industry and I can't even begin to describe the amount of wasted energy that each of these refineries burn off in gas flares. Growing up, the interior of our house was lit day and night by these huge flares burning off excess gas. I realize that this excess gas pressure has to be burned off or released from the system, but why do we just burn it off in flares instead of recapturing that fuel and utilizing it to generate electricity. I mean, would it be that much trouble to pipe that gas through a boiler and produce steam during this process of flaring it off? There are a million ways that individuals and/or industries waste energy and a good first step at energy independence would be to rethink some of these extremely wasteful processes.

I've noticed that some here seem to think it's noteworthy to mention the fact that wind power is economically feasible primarily due to the fact that the industry currently receives tax payer subsidies. FYI, there is no method of producing energy that is more heavily subsidized by tax dollars than the nuclear industry. Just like Michio Kaku stated, nuclear power plants are un-insurable and it's the taxpayer who picks up this unlimited tab.

"Micro scale" technologies can indeed have "macro scale" applications if we don't allow ourselves to be limited by those who holler that we can't. IMO, it's the lobby of nuclear & fossil fuel energy producers are the ones holding us back by constantly stating that we "can't" meet our energy needs by any other means than the continued use of harmful fuels.

I am by no means advocating that we just turn off all nuclear and coal fired power plants tomorrow and work in the dark but we have to start to look somewhere for our future energy needs and I believe it's a mistake for us to just keep on walking down the same path that we've been on since the dawn of the industrial age.




posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 10:26 AM
link   
Just a thought on what you say which I agree with BTW

At the dawn of the industrial age the energy to power it was local. Often involved wind and water power.

We have rooftops that even here in the uk can make use of solar energy. Wind turbines at sea can also be adapted to harness tidal and wind power as well but that is not where our leaders are (nice description) enticed to invest more than token effort.

Landfill sites that produce methane that is burnt off. What is worse burning this rubbish or letting it rot in land fill sites? I expect the worse choice would be to supply it locally, no huge profit in that.

We pay more if we use less to protect the power generators. We pay more if we use power to excess to limit our use and we pay more if we maintain a balance due to raw materials.

The one thing we do not have is a say in is how we fund, produce, use it or oversee it. Thought the customer is always right?

Edit
Link:www.peep.ac.uk...
Clip
During the 1970's and 80's almost all of the funding for research into renewable energy came from a organisation that was part of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority. In other words, wave research was funded by the regulators of the Nuclear industry


edit on 15-4-2011 by colin42 because: Salters Duck



new topics
 
18
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join