The 18 Most Suppressed Inventions Ever

[New England]

We DO not have anything that replaces Oil if the presumption is that it can support billions of driving cars in Industrial Society. Nothing.

sure we do. electricty. we need to figure out ways of producing it through means outside of burning finite fuels.


wind, sun, water, heat from the earth. it is not rocket science, mostly very powerful lobbying from the largest industry on the planet, energy (many of the largest companies in the world are oil companies.)

[cupocity303]

sure we do. electricty. we need to figure out ways of producing it through means outside of burning finite fuels.


wind, sun, water, heat from the earth. it is not rocket science, mostly very powerful lobbying from the largest industry on the planet, energy (many of the largest companies in the world are oil companies.)

I don't believe it. It's just a talking point from politicians. If we ever run out of oil OR outlaw oil for climate change reasons, a mass reduction in Automobiles will follow suit. Oil for automobile/cars is like water for drinking on a mass level. Like the organic food lunatics who think they can mass produce without any pesticide/chemicals. Maybe we could if everyone gave up their modern day jobs and went back to agriculture in their own backyard. It aint gonna happen. I've got no ready facts ready to back this up, just empirical intuition.

Once the Oil is gone, it's over.

[Barn]

nuclear power iwll almost certainly never directly power a car, though. batteries are where it's at. store that pow in your whip after you get it out of your wall socket, and generate it at a nuclear plant many miles away.

nuclear > electricity > electric car

electric cars need a way to get electricity, most electricity is harnessed in coal power plants, which of course is a finite resource with only about 300 years left.

nuclear is 10000 times better than coal for a multitude of reasons. stupid people don't understand how little waste is produced and freak out for no reason.

[BartBears]

Wilhelm Reich...learn about this guy...genious.....too bad they destroyed all of his books

[New England]

nuclear > electricity > electric car

electric cars need a way to get electricity, most electricity is harnessed in coal power plants, which of course is a finite resource with only about 300 years left.

nuclear is 10000 times better than coal for a multitude of reasons. stupid people don't understand how little waste is produced and freak out for no reason.

you are missing the point of my post, young burner. nuclear power is electricity... i've got a nuclear power plant about five miles from my house. seabrooke NH. you don't see me bugging over it. i get some of my power from it. i'm all for whatever most easily facilitates the production of electricity over the long term.



you won't have a nuclear reactor in a car, the way you do in a submarine. the technology will never get there. it will never be affordable to power a single automobile with a nuclear reactor, at least not while either of us is alive. the power plant will be many miles away, sending electricity to your home through power lines, where it will be stored in your car.


it's all about battery technology. once an affordable car can store the power, however it is made, the switch will start to take place. it's slowly taking place now, with the advent of the lithium battery. that's the capitalist way.

[New England]

I don't believe it. It's just a talking point from politicians. If we ever run out of oil OR outlaw oil for climate change reasons, a mass reduction in Automobiles will follow suit. Oil for automobile/cars is like water for drinking on a mass level. Like the organic food lunatics who think they can mass produce without any pesticide/chemicals. Maybe we could if everyone gave up their modern day jobs and went back to agriculture in their own backyard. It aint gonna happen. I've got no ready facts ready to back this up, just empirical intuition.

Once the Oil is gone, it's over.

where i live a middle class person cannot exist without a car. you can't do it. you can do it if you live in the city, but if you're like me in a 25K small city with zero public transit it would be completely impossible.

it would be a much smaller undertaking to figure out a way to power a car with a battery than to completely overhaul the transportation system to compensate for that.

you guys don't seem to recognize just how far batteries have come in the last 5-10 years. they CAN power your car right now. it's only a matter of the technology developing to the point where they are affordable to a middle class bloke, like me.

[Barn]

you are missing the point of my post, young burner. nuclear power is electricity... i've got a nuclear power plant about five miles from my house. seabrooke NH. you don't see me bugging over it. i get some of my power from it. i'm all for whatever most easily facilitates the production of electricity over the long term.



you won't have a nuclear reactor in a car, the way you do in a submarine. the technology will never get there. it will never be affordable to power a single automobile with a nuclear reactor, at least not while either of us is alive. the power plant will be many miles away, sending electricity to your home through power lines, where it will be stored in your car.


it's all about battery technology. once an affordable car can store the power, however it is made, the switch will start to take place. it's slowly taking place now, with the advent of the lithium battery. that's the capitalist way.

sorry I missed the bit at the end of one of your posts, the bit about powering electric cars with a nuclear plant, that's what I was trying to get across.

once we get nuclear fusion power we're good to go anyway, just need someone to find out a reasonable way to get that done.

[TensionKiller]

We will be forced by our Governments to ride bicycles if we have to. I am prepared.


Posted from Boxingscene.com App for Android

[New England]

sorry I missed the bit at the end of one of your posts, the bit about powering electric cars with a nuclear plant, that's what I was trying to get across.

once we get nuclear fusion power we're good to go anyway, just need someone to find out a reasonable way to get that done.

you'd have to educate me on some of the finer/specific points of the production of nuclear power, but are you implying that you believe a small nuclear engine will power a car?

if you've got an affordable nuclear reactor in a personal vehicle, why not fly? it's a much lesser undertaking to design a personal aircraft than to make a nuclear reactor that fits in a car.

i'll want an R2 unit. gonna need a protocol doid as well.

[Barn]

you'd have to educate me on some of the finer/specific points of the production of nuclear power, but are you implying that you believe a small nuclear engine will power a car?

no i mean it will produce the electricity to power a car. i didn't see you had said that previously so mentioned it, that's what caused the confusion.

Nuclear power as it stands just now isn't too difficult as a process, it's just making sure nothing goes to *****.

The process used at the minute is called "Fission"

Basically you get a heavy nucleus of an atom, such as Uranium (Mass number of 235). Turns out if you fire a neutron into one of these heavy nuclei it splits it into two smaller nuclei and more neutrons, these neutrons cause more nuclear reactions to happen and you get a chain reaction.

If you look at the masses of the reactants in the Nuclear reaction, and then the products of the smaller nuclei produced. There is a difference in mass, and this mass is converted into pure energy by virtue of E=mc^2.

Now since "c" is 300 million and it's being squared, from a tiny mass defect you can get a lot of energy. So if lots of heavy nuclei go through the process, lots of energy can be produced. This energy is carried away through produced electromagnetic radiation and the speed of the emitted neutrons. This is usually transferred into heat at some point, most of the time turning water into steam that can power a generator, much like a traditional coal power plant.

However obviously you can't have a crazy chain reaction taking place, so this has to be moderated very carefully. You also have the issue of the smaller nuclei being radioactive and taking 100's of years for their radioactivity levels to decrease to a safe level.

Fusion is the opposite of atomic splitting, it's atomic joining. It works on a similar principle except it's small nuclei joining together to get large ones with the release of energy, this is what happens in stars such as the sun.

Humans haven't managed to make it so they can get more energy out of this process than they put into it. The conditions required are crazy and the stuff ends up as a highly unstable plasma at crazy high temperatures that has to be held by a magnetic field. We can get fusion going but not efficiently.

The good thing about fusion is it produces light nuclei that aren't a problem in terms of radioactivity, and the reactants are easily acquired. For example there is one cycle called the Deuterium Tritium cycle. Deuterium is found in sea water, and tritium is easily made from Lithium, a very abundant metal on the earth.

So once we get that going it's basically plain sailing for ever, but it's a hard job.