A question about Oil Thread

Hello all, those who remember me I am cheeseyballz (OHMAN) and I have a question for all. Those who drive cars notice that now when you look at the pump the dollar amount rapidly rises while the gallon amount creeps up. There is a slowly diminishing supply of oil in the world both in the Middle East, Canada, South America, North America and the other small oil producing countries. In the U.S. there is a deposit of sediment in Colarado, Utah and Wyoming called the Green River Formation. This sediment is called Shale rock which can be refined into oil. The estimates of the U.S. government (which owns over 70% of this land) come to over a trillion barrels of oil when the estimates are ranging from 800-1,200 billion of them are actually able to be extracted. There are many estimates which I have read of how much it would cost to extract it ranging from 40 dollars a barrel to 60. The fact is this oil is not legal to obtain because of the environmentalists opposition to the extraction techniques which obviously tear up some of the land, (nearly all desert inhabited by some cactus, birds and tumble weeds) In fact this much oil dwarfs the rest of the worlds oil supply by over 3X.

I for one know that oil will be required for the future until some breakthrough happens such as Hydrogen being able to be easily extracted, or the world switching to clean energy. But the fact is Oil is made into dozens of things excluding gas since each barrel of oil only amounts to something like 20 gallons of gas while the rest makes other things we need for every day use. I for one drive a gas guzzling SUV which gets less than 15 miles a gallon. Now I understand why environmentalists may get their panties in a bunch because I don't drive a Prius (I support America, not Japan) but they have no right to make a choice of behalf of all of America that this oil could not be harvested. First of all, the U.S. could cease buying oil from all other countries (the U.S. deficit would once again turn into a surplus since the government owns nearly all the land) and the U.S. could start to sell oil to other countries and in reality have as much if not more power over the price then the rest. More reasons to want this oil able to be extracted.

The fact that these Environmentalists are trying to sue the government because of them trying to open up these lands for oil harvesting disgusts me. Because they can afford to buy new fuel efficient cars (hoorah for them) they get to decide that the rest have to suffer with high oil prices on cars that they can't afford to replace, especially with the price of gas!. I love the outdoors and the enviornment but until everyone can afford to make their house 'green' and buy fuel efficient cars, something should be done and my answer would be the shale oil.

That's my view on the subject of oil (I hope General was the right place to post) Any other thoughts on this?

This should be in the Cosmos section, but good view on oil nonetheless

I think that eventually, the government will screw itself over either by making oil cost so ridiculously high or by going to war with other countries to try and get their oil. The only plausible solution would be to recreate the way we travel (ie. make everyone use bicycles or something) or create trades with other countries for oil in exchange for another commodity (or perhaps military service).

--

~Toyoka's Gaming Channel~

Thread moved to "Cosmos".

One thing that you can research if your bored is the REAL reason about the war in the Middle East. The U.S. government claims that the war is for peace and for stability in the Middle East which is almost 100% true, but in reality this is just a cover up for the real reason. The real reason lies within the oil industry and oil producing countries, and to prevent a domino effect. If there is no stability in the Middle East and the terrorists are allowed to take over the countries (which is their overall goal as everyone knows) they will have control of the oil. Oil goes up because it is treated as if it is a commodity (which should be outlawed) and this creates artificial inflation of the price per gallon. Many people blame the people who sell the crude oil while the price in fact has not only to do with them but our fellow "American" (I use that term lightly) investors who seek to make large profits by using this fake inflation. If there is instability in the Middle East, the terrorist and other extremist groups could cut off the oil supply to the U.S. which would not harm them, but create panic and super inflation of prices at the pump possibly doubling or even tripling the price overnight. The moment the U.S. stops the war, the terrorist groups have the freedom to take over and otherwise create massive chaos and instability in America it's self.

In a nutshell the allowance of shale oil will let America end the war, and save lives instead of the environmentalists goals which are to save some cactus and indigenous animals which obviously hold importance over American lives in their eyes.

cheeseyballz wrote: One thing that you can research if your bored is the REAL reason about the war in the Middle East. The U.S. government claims that the war is for peace and for stability in the Middle East which is almost 100% true, but in reality this is just a cover up for the real reason. The real reason lies within the oil industry and oil producing countries, and to prevent a domino effect. If there is no stability in the Middle East and the terrorists are allowed to take over the countries (which is their overall goal as everyone knows) they will have control of the oil. Oil goes up because it is treated as if it is a commodity (which should be outlawed) and this creates artificial inflation of the price per gallon. Many people blame the people who sell the crude oil while the price in fact has not only to do with them but our fellow "American" (I use that term lightly) investors who seek to make large profits by using this fake inflation. If there is instability in the Middle East, the terrorist and other extremist groups could cut off the oil supply to the U.S. which would not harm them, but create panic and super inflation of prices at the pump possibly doubling or even tripling the price overnight. The moment the U.S. stops the war, the terrorist groups have the freedom to take over and otherwise create massive chaos and instability in America it's self.

In a nutshell the allowance of shale oil will let America end the war, and save lives instead of the environmentalists goals which are to save some cactus and indigenous animals which obviously hold importance over American lives in their eyes.

i thought it was because of racism :o

Go to a republican dominated state (like Missouri, Nebraska or Alabama for instance) and ask them why they think we should fight this war and how should we end it, you get these responses:
"Because we need to stop the terrorists. Iraq is tons of terrorists and stuff."
"Drop a bomb on the place"

Can any of you see where I'm going with that?

OT: If you actually go into a republican state, I also hear the term "terrorist kid" (incorrect) instead of "innocent Iraqi child civilian" (correct) being flung around too :o

I doubt this war has anything really to do with oil or restoring order in Iraq, its more like getting vengeance against Al-Qaeda for blowing up our two big buildings.

"Nooooo! You blew up our towerz! You're gonna pay for this you meaniehead! We're going to kill a bunch of civilians in your cities, steal ur oil, claim you have WOMDs, then force our opnions on our citizens, making them fear and distrust Obama because he's not white like all da other guyses. Oh, and if we eventually get around to it we'll kill you."

Edited by: eezstreet

eezstreet wrote: i thought it was because of racism :o

Go to a republican dominated state (like Missouri, Nebraska or Alabama for instance) and ask them why they think we should fight this war and how should we end it, you get these responses:
"Because we need to stop the terrorists. Iraq is tons of terrorists and stuff."
"Drop a bomb on the place"

Can any of you see where I'm going with that?

OT: If you actually go into a republican state, I also hear the term "terrorist kid" (incorrect) instead of "innocent Iraqi child civilian" (correct) being flung around too :o

Some people in some places are just narrow minded in that way, unfortunately!

Orion wrote:

eezstreet wrote: i thought it was because of racism :o

Go to a republican dominated state (like Missouri, Nebraska or Alabama for instance) and ask them why they think we should fight this war and how should we end it, you get these responses:
"Because we need to stop the terrorists. Iraq is tons of terrorists and stuff."
"Drop a bomb on the place"

Can any of you see where I'm going with that?

OT: If you actually go into a republican state, I also hear the term "terrorist kid" (incorrect) instead of "innocent Iraqi child civilian" (correct) being flung around too :o

Some people in some places are just narrow minded in that way, unfortunately!

I'd have to PM you with all kinds of horror stories that I hear at school, if you're interested.

If you go to a republican they might say BOMB THE PLACE but funny for them, setting the oil fields permanently ablaze will render the use of the F150s completely useless based on gas will cost 20 dollars a gallon.

woah ... this took a bad political turn somewhere ...

a) I'm from Nebraska
b) I'm a registered republican
c) I do not act like a total ignorant douche
d) you just stereotyped ENTIRE states based on general political views ...

Don't fall into this political mob BS where you blame everything on the republicans or democrats ... they are both extremist views that does not accurately reflect the american population or its interests ... you'd be a dumbass if you actually think that the american population is that segregated in general opinion ...

Also about the shale oil thing ... If it does exist, i honestly hope the enviromental nutjobs can prevent that oil from being extracted ...

If that oil gets out of the ground, any alternative fuel research will be completely blasted away by research budget cuts ...

Don't kid yourself, the only reason people are looking to alternative fuels is because they don't wanna pay for the high gas prices ... its not because they are actually worried about the impact it would have on the enviroment ...

Infact, thats pretty much what has been going on the past 40 years ... OPEC has fluctuated prices to milk all the money they can out of other countries ...

They steadily raise prices to rake in money and then they drop the price before any alternative fuel research starts to become promising ...

I was talking to a guy from NPPD (Nebraska Public Power District) the other day about windmill farms and he told me that due to the low price of oil and the maintainance the windmills need, they are actually cheaper to have around when they are not running ... all the windmills that have been put up around nebraska were all products of goverment grants, high oil prices, and pressure from the public for alternative energy sources ...

But now that the oil prices are relatively down again the public pressure has let up a bit and the windmills run at a loss now ...

So imagine what would happen if the oil did get extracted ... everyone would ditch things like public transportation, drive around for fun, buy gas guzzling sports cars and SUVs. Meanwhile, the enviroment is busy getting kicked in the balls by global warming ...

Edited by: Assaultman67

Fact is: if you drive an SUV you don't love the environment. Put yourself in your garage with that engine running for one minute and imagine what you're doing to the world outside - that is if you are still alive. The reasoning behind creating cars that weigh two tons to move a human being of 16o pounds weight, escape me and should escape you as a moral and logical being.

What Fromm coined as the "marketing ideal" is what determines what we do, in our everyday lives. We want to present ourselves in a positive way and as long as white teeth and a big car are paramount in ethical thinking, I guess there is no way to ever become truly individual. We might have started to think we are individiual, because of the choices we make, but as long as this refers to products we buy to create our identity and we feel satisfied, we failed the course.

The Club of Rome has been releasing a study called, "The Limits of Growth" every decade, for 30 years now. Which is based upon different consumer models, in order to find out when our natural ressources will be depleted and how much of the world's populace is bound to suffer from it. Turns out we will be the first generation to witness the end of oil (around 2050). Instead of using oil to create valuable ressources, e.g. recycleable polymeres and low-energy materials, we first of all burn it in our cars. Fossil Oil is quite unique in structure and whatever will be refined from this ditch you mentioned will probably not have all the same properties. Even if it does, you have to take into account that making oil that way requires a laboratory and chemists, rather than a pump and some workmen. It will force your country to invest more into nuclear power plants, in order to satisfy the need for energy; same goes for hydrogen btw. They all depend on secondary energy sources and honestly, my favorite concept is that of using compressed air as a drive for vehicles.

It's hard to live in the western civilisation and blame others for doing bad things. Here in Germany we are pretty much top polluters of the air. There's also a rising amount of poverty and a lot of personal and business failure, while on the other hand the new media and music industry booms. It is always a give and take and I am convinced that man is a highly adaptable species and will wiggle its way out of any crisis at hand. Yet, it also seems sure to me that there are already wars for ressources going on around the world. Alliances are being made, coutries secure the route of their energy and build up large reserves.

Yet, every government is far too short sighted. They look at their election period and try giving the voter what they want. And the voter wants windmills, even if they can never amount to more than 8% of the actual power supply and cost a lot to maintain, they are pretty simple to build and set up. It would be much better to invest Billlions into Fusion Technology, instead of maintaining a large mililtary force. It would actually be best for the world, if there were no states, no borders and countries. Yet humans aren't ready to work together as a species for one goal, yet. We still think nationalistic, even though that's a concept that already died in WWII. Our governments and the people too, are short-sighted and believe in someone else making decisions and finding solutions. That is a failsafe way to provoke the next energy crisis and to cause great damage to the earth and to relations between people, who should all see they are much more powerful, when they act as one whole.

If you are reading this you are the resistance, John SinKing

Edited by: SinKing

SinKing wrote: ... It will force your country to invest more into nuclear power plants, in order to satisfy the need for energy; same goes for hydrogen btw.

I don't care, im pretty Pro-Nuclear power ...

There is just ... soooooooo many safety precautions taken in reactor design and regulation since the 3-mile-island fiasco and the Chernobyl incident that i doubt there will ever be a nuclear reactor breach in our lifetime (well at least in the US) ...

If you coupled the french breeder reactors with the next-generation nuclear plant designs ... It's a damn good solution to the growing energy problem because there would be very little waste ... and any waste that is generated can be contained easily ...

But the US population is pretty stigmatic towards nuclear power and the NRC makes it a pain to build new plants ... even though there are quadruple backup systems for everything, strict procedural regulations, extreme amounts of security precautions taken (the nuke plant in nebraska i know has surface to air strike capabilities, more razor wire than a prison, guards with modified M16's, a 5 mile no-fly zone, patrols, 6 layers of concrete barricades, and their own shooting range ... security after 9/11 was a little over the top ...)

Edited by: Assaultman67

The humorous thing is though is when people will tell me I hate the environment, when I got the car handed to me by a friend. The fact I attend college and I am unable to buy a new one because of debt and paying over 500 dollars a semester in books alone is another teller. Hoorah for the people who think they're saving the environment by buying new cars. I applaud those who can afford them but to me and millions of other Americans this is not an option. Unless the government is willing to buy me a new fuel efficient car I cannot possibly drive one.

Second is I do not dislike republicans, only ignorant ones. I also dislike the tree hugging democrats who believe they're saving the environment. Now let's look at this realistically. I believe that the ignorant on both sides are a shame to the country. I am neither a Democrat or Republican as I choose to not vote.

Now let's look at this realistically. Sure having battery powered cars will help the environment but look into the long term. Many places do not have access to sufficient wind power, Solar panels are still relatively inefficient and do not even pay for them selves in a semi reasonable amount of time. A true fix does not really exist until it can be applied to the masses and not the select few who believe they're making a 'change'. If they truthfully believe in being 'green' they will be bike riding to work instead of riding in their Prius.

Oil is going to be required no matter what, and the only thing we can change is the way we use it, and where we get it from. Shale oil is still being pursued by a lot of people, however the environmentalists are trying to shield the masses from it's existence and mount lawsuits to stop it's production. I am hoping that the government has the common people in mind, and not just the ones who can afford 'green' living.

Another fact, Shale oil will allow us to add over 100 years onto the current expectation for running out of oil.

Edited by: cheeseyballz

Even if it does add more time before we run out, why would we want to delay the switch over to other more long term energy sources. If suddenly gas prices go down and stay low for the next 100 years then you can bet all the investment and funding into alternate energy will reduce a lot. So in 1 century we will be back where we are now.

The extraction of shale oil wont just dig holes in the ground to get it either, it creates a lot of pollution (more than existing oil refinerys). So if you were to power everything for the next 100 years on it I would bet it wouldnt do the world much good. It also uses upto 5 barrels of water for each barrel of oil produced which would be a rather large issue for extracting it in the middle of a dry arid desert.

For the oil we do need, when we do finally get rid of oil consuming vehicles and energy plants I expect that the amount of oil required to make plastics and the like would be orders of magnitude lower. We can probably get by using artificial oil or a small amount of extraction over a much longer period. Theres no need to rip apart huge swaithes of land to fuel an oil addiction that has already gone on too long.

Nuclear power (both fusion and fission) produce a lot more energy and a lot less pollution, in my opinion it would be better to use nuclear fission to sustain us until we have realistic nuclear fusion technology. If everything relied on the single energy transfer system of a national grid then by the time fusion is available the infrastructure is already there to support it. Thin film solar should also be used to suplement the supply each house draws so that homes and buildings can never be completely cut off from energy and always at least have some supply,on its own however it is not capable however of providing enough energy.

Assaultman67 wrote: woah ... this took a bad political turn somewhere ...

a) I'm from Nebraska
b) I'm a registered republican
c) I do not act like a total ignorant douche
d) you just stereotyped ENTIRE states based on general political views ...

Don't fall into this political mob BS where you blame everything on the republicans or democrats ... they are both extremist views that does not accurately reflect the american population or its interests ... you'd be a dumbass if you actually think that the american population is that segregated in general opinion ...

Also about the shale oil thing ... If it does exist, i honestly hope the enviromental nutjobs can prevent that oil from being extracted ...

If that oil gets out of the ground, any alternative fuel research will be completely blasted away by research budget cuts ...

Don't kid yourself, the only reason people are looking to alternative fuels is because they don't wanna pay for the high gas prices ... its not because they are actually worried about the impact it would have on the enviroment ...

Infact, thats pretty much what has been going on the past 40 years ... OPEC has fluctuated prices to milk all the money they can out of other countries ...

They steadily raise prices to rake in money and then they drop the price before any alternative fuel research starts to become promising ...

I was talking to a guy from NPPD (Nebraska Public Power District) the other day about windmill farms and he told me that due to the low price of oil and the maintainance the windmills need, they are actually cheaper to have around when they are not running ... all the windmills that have been put up around nebraska were all products of goverment grants, high oil prices, and pressure from the public for alternative energy sources ...

But now that the oil prices are relatively down again the public pressure has let up a bit and the windmills run at a loss now ...

So imagine what would happen if the oil did get extracted ... everyone would ditch things like public transportation, drive around for fun, buy gas guzzling sports cars and SUVs. Meanwhile, the enviroment is busy getting kicked in the balls by global warming ...

Both sides are pretty wrong when you think about it. War is bad, mmkay? Free healthcare for all is bad, mmkay? I'm on the fence on the whole "Pro-life/Pro-choice" stuff. Pro-life is bad because what happens if a person cannot afford a child, or the mother gets raped and cannot support the child? On the flip side, you have rich people who don't want a child, so the child deserves a chance.

A lot of ignorant Republicans, and a lot of tree-hugging Democrats. I've lived with both, but I find the Democrats to be at least a bit more...idk...intelligent/sensible about politics, simply because they don't go about saying how Obama is going to get shot, or Obama is gonna ban guns, or . I agree with cheeseyballs on this.

Yes, I made a stereotypical view, and I apologize if I have offended you.

----

Now, back to oil.

I think we should get alternate fuel sources, because oil is a very limited resource.
Gas wouldn't reduce prices and then send the investment into alternate energy lower. That's not how it would work. Use your oil to make plastic / other stuff you need. Why waste money making unnecessary gas-guzzling trucks when we would already have 'clean' trucks that could run on Solar Energy (which is free)?

I'd rather use Wind energy than Nuclear energy. Nuclear generates Nuclear waste, but Wind doesn't give off any pollution. I live in a 100% wind-powered community and I've never had issues with brownouts or anything of the like. Windmills can be planted anywhere, because everywhere has wind. Nearly everywhere at least.

One thing about nuclear power is the fact that fusion is not really usable since it is only able to be preformed under experimental conditions and is decades away from practical use. Although Fission is relativly 'clean' the amount of water that is needed to cool the reactor is simlar to that needed to make the shale oil. Let alone discarding of the waste rods which take centuries to degrade . The thing that I was looking at is what Shale can do, here are some Pros and Cons I know of (feel free to add more)

Pros:
-Stop the war in the Middle East (No need to waste American lives and resources)
-Bring down gas prices almost 1/2
-Defeat the deficit (largest in U.S. history)
-Local, and reliable (less transportation costs = lower prices and larger efficiency)

Cons:
-Adds more pollution
-Keeps our dependence

Neutral view point?
If the government regulates most of the sale of this oil, they will in theory be able to provide it at a completely affordable price. This in turn will help everything in our lives from the prices of the food we buy to the prices of the electronics we buy. The first thing is if you half the price of gas the shipping costs of EVERYTHING we use will be lessened. Americans will have more money to spend on material property (which in turn helps businesses across the U.S. AND over seas) The addition to global warming is a drawback for sure, (I don't want to get into a global warming discussion) but I believe that the quality of American life, and the lives of the soldiers outweighs anything.

Edited by: cheeseyballz

I live in an urban area, so I don't have a car at all. If I wanted one, I could use a shared car service at roughly one third more month than a monthly bus ticket would cost me. If there is political goodwill and support for solutions like this, they can happen.

Cheesyballs - your neutral point is as short sighted as our governments view on energy. We can rationalize it and keep economy going, for a limited time-span...but whatfor? The economical system as we have it now is based on exploitation on the one hand and overconsumption on the other. In order to keep the system running, we have to consume more goods of the same and additionally lots of new products, which don't yet have a market.
Example: a majority of U.S.Americans today believe that it is necessary to have a third TV-set in their house. Twenty years ago they said the same about a second TV set, and soon, we will need TVs in the restroom and on our sleeping room ceiling. The markets create a demand, it is not the other way around, as should be in a reasonable state of economy. It is like newspapers creating the news headlines, which is (to some extend) also the case today, if you look at the importance of the yellow press.
So what we are doing is contradictory. We waste energy, while trying to preserve it. Trying to make big engines run on little fuel, etc. There is some reason in doing so, but in the end we are just postponing a decision, which has to be made and which many democratic thinkers will blemish as "communist". We need to get used to sharing ressources, even though that means that people, who are rich today get no more than avarage or poor people, in the future.
That's something very hard to understand for puritan thinkers and for people, who demand more for themselves than they will grant to others. First of all we need our governments to act responsible towards the development of not economy and not banking, but to the development of humankind.

Edited by: SinKing

However, if we continue to use the oil from other countries and it spikes again (we can't rely on it going down) the prices of everything for you will increase as well. The electric you use to run your residence, the oil you use to heat your residence, the food you eat. Everything will rise in price, with no real fix. If the government tried to raise the salaries, that would just create massive inflation (so they would not do it). The only logistical real time answer I see for the short term, which does matter as much as the long term because a collapse now will carry into the future, is a steady and reliable source of oil. With the massive amounts of money the government will save from transporting the oil, buying the oil and setting up deals with other countries can be used to develop more clean sources. The massive influx of money would be larger then anyone would know. The idea of shale oil is nothing more then a short term fix so that a fix for the long term could be reached.

eezstreet wrote: ... I've lived with both, but I find the Democrats to be at least a bit more...idk...intelligent/sensible about politics, simply because they don't go about saying how Obama is going to get shot, or Obama is gonna ban guns, or . I agree with cheeseyballs on this.

Because absolutely no one has critized president bush ... or clinton ... or the other bush (actually that's before my time but i would bet some good money there was some strong critizism floating around about him) as much as Obama ...

My bias sense is tingling ...

Come on, the two parties have more in common than you think ... they're both controlled by a bunch of stubborn jackasses ... Generally one party likes to make the other party look by a bunch of retards by putting their fanatical jackasses on the news ...

I give obama about 6 years (if he still is in office ... im guessing he will be though) before people start going ape shit about the stuff he did ...

SinKing wrote: ... Cheesyballs - your neutral point is as short sighted as our governments view on energy...

You mean everything ...

"Sure let's increase minimum wage to appease the blue collars"
"Sure lets bail out banks that took out bad loans from people who didn't need them"

The national debt will never be fixed ... the countries economy will just break first because no politician wants to be the one to take the blame (or assassination )...

If you're a good president president you get assasinated ... that's pretty the trend american history taught me ... because it means they were ballsy enough to step on the bad guys toes ...

As for fusion reactors ... hehe ... there are alot of people that are trying to commercialize it ... and they are crazy ... i mean ... shit ...

A regular nuclear (which uses fission) reactor at operating temperature is around 300 degrees ...

A fusion reactor would operate at a couple million degrees ... and it doesn't really have a easily implementable failsafe system like a nuclear reactor does ...

if something went wrong it would burn/melt ... everything ...

Your right in the temperature requirements being high however theres no truth the idea that fusion reactors are dangerous, in fact they would be far safer then fission reactors. Fusion needs to be sustained with continually energy input to get energy output and it would not be able to get out of control to cause a thermonuclear explosion, at most the building which contains it might be destroyed. The heat issue is dealt with in the alternate fusion area usually by using pulse rather than sustained fusion, so you only reach 100 million degrees for a few nano seconds and you repeat this cycle thousands of times a second. If theres no physical contact with the heated substance theres no way the heat can transfer.

Nuclear reactors on the other hand are constantly on a knife edge and have to maintain the level of reactions with the cooling rods very precisely to make sure the sustained reaction merely continues at the same rate and does not cascade. With modern computer control this is maintained safely but the opportunity is there for a meltdown. With fusion there is no such possibility. Also the heavy elements that fission rely upon are relatively rare, theres about enough for a few thousand years of power at current usage, however this would obviously fall drastically if it was used exclusively.

Rich_Zap wrote: Your right in the temperature requirements being high however theres no truth the idea that fusion reactors are dangerous, in fact they would be far safer then fission reactors. Fusion needs to be sustained with continually energy input to get energy output and it would not be able to get out of control to cause a thermonuclear explosion, at most the building which contains it might be destroyed. The heat issue is dealt with in the alternate fusion area usually by using pulse rather than sustained fusion, so you only reach 100 million degrees for a few nano seconds and you repeat this cycle thousands of times a second. If theres no physical contact with the heated substance theres no way the heat can transfer.

But this temperature is still so hot they have to use a "magnetic field" vessel to contain it if something would happen to that, you would have a mess ...

Rich_Zap wrote: Nuclear reactors on the other hand are constantly on a knife edge and have to maintain the level of reactions with the cooling rods very precisely to make sure the sustained reaction merely continues at the same rate and does not cascade. With modern computer control this is maintained safely but the opportunity is there for a meltdown. With fusion there is no such possibility. Also the heavy elements that fission rely upon are relatively rare, theres about enough for a few thousand years of power at current usage, however this would obviously fall drastically if it was used exclusively.

It is true that the reactor is controlled by the rods that are inserted into the reactor, but the way they build that system itself makes it very hard for the control rods to be completely pulled out of the reactor ...

what they do is they have the rods inserted from above the reactor and lowered down into it ... and the system is designed in a way that it has to constantly apply force to hold the rod up so if the system gives out the rod slides into the reactor and stops the reaction ... or if that doesn't work they can flood the reactor with boron to stop all fission reaction in the reactor ... (I believe there is some way they can actually stop the reaction by using the water that goes through the reactor itself ...) ... and if that doesn't work you have a contained meltdown within a 10ft thick concrete building ...

so in the worst case scenario, the radioactivity would be at least be contained ...

Mix waste with liquid nitrogen and then freeze to -1000 you can no doubt destroy the radioactive charge, for whats to take less time to die a natural death, with some playing around you make most charges hibinate

Edited by: p0rt

p0rt wrote: Mix waste with liquid nitrogen and then freeze to -1000 you can no doubt destroy the radioactive charge, for whats to take less time to die a natural death, with some playing around you make most charges hibinate

How would somebody do this though?
Aside from probably liquid nitrogen

eezstreet wrote:

p0rt wrote: Mix waste with liquid nitrogen and then freeze to -1000 you can no doubt destroy the radioactive charge, for whats to take less time to die a natural death, with some playing around you make most charges hibinate

How would somebody do this though?
Aside from probably liquid nitrogen

the same way people, sperm and eggs are frozen, you can freeze everything with a charge, that is what labs are for, then it comes to cost when achieved, you can make it into a bomb, and you can nodoubt nutralize it or set it in a hibination state, which would make it non radioactive faster, as the atom nuleaus n shit wouldnt be active

I'm also getting bored of being the "hippie-environmentalist" and always painting things black. I think it's time for a new era and I embrace it. In the nineties there was an invention labeled "cold-fusion". Even though that's a contradiction in itself the experiment itself proved working and now more and more companies are producing reactors, which actually produce a lot of surplus energy. The explanations to why this happens have moved into the quantum realm and even though we may not completely understand what's happening, I think this shows that mothern physics is at a breaking point, where we can either stay true to our beliefs and carry on as we always have, or we can create entirely new ideas and follow a new science, which may still be regarded esotherical and outlandish by many watchers, today.

SinKing wrote: I'm also getting bored of being the "hippie-environmentalist" and always painting things black. I think it's time for a new era and I embrace it.

*cough* Green Day */cough*