A couple of key paragraphs drawing on the implications of the equation above:
There is only so much energy we can draw from renewable sources. They are limited, either by the velocities attained, or by the distance that solar energy must travel to reach the earth. So is there anyplace in nature where we can take advantage of that “c2” co-efficient and tap transformations of matter into energy? There is one that we have used through history. It is called “chemistry.”
coupled with:
When we burn a gallon of gasoline, one-billionth of the mass of the gasoline is completely transformed into energy. This transformation occurs in the electron shells. The amount is so small that nobody has ever been able to measure it. Yet the energy release is large enough to propel a 2000-pound automobile for 30 miles – a remarkable feat when you think of it.Read the whole thing and impress your friends with your ability to use Einstein's Theory of Relativity to explain the foolhardiness of wasting money developing vast arrays of wind farms or solar farms, or even hydros when we have plenty of coal and natural gas as well as the ability to develop clean, safe nuclear plants.
Still, electrons make up only 0.01 percent of the mass of an atom. The other 99.99 percent is in the nucleus of the atom. And so the question arose, would it be possible to tap the much greater amount of energy stored in the nucleus the way we tap the energy in the electrons through chemistry?
Well all of this logic is leading to releasing of carbon into the atmosphere and this is causing climate change. We need to increase the power and the size of the government and create some global government to enforce the policies that need to be implemented to fight this crises.
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting article, but sadly facts don't matter in this debate. It has nothing to do with saving the climate.
Most people are unaware of the facts though. Most people see the smog, see the traffic jams, feel the stress, and imagine how sweet life would be with out these. I used to be fooled in to believing that humans were horrible.
ReplyDeleteI like how he makes Coal plants (how much energy is wasted moving the shit around) seem almost as ridiculous as 20 miles of tidal generators.
ReplyDeleteGO NUCLEAR POWER!
Also, that article blew my mind.
ToeJamm, people are blinded by their emotions. The EM uses these negative aspects of modern technology as a reason to do something other than save the environment. The question is what would life be like without this technology--do the benefits out way the negatives--and what are the alternatives to polluting technology. Sadly nothing exist to replace it as of now. But with the rate that technology is improving, it is only a matter of time before a new engery source is discovered or developed.Same thing with health care. We need to help out the poor and provide health insurance to everybody. But people fail to look at the consequences of these policies.
ReplyDeleteNuclear energy is dangerous and can poison us with radiation. It is a interesting thing as to why we aren't using more nuclear energy. It is good for the environment but we cant use it. It makes you wonder what the real purpose of the EM is.
Yeah, now if we only had a leader interested in pushing Green Power...maybe we'd have something to Hope for. Unfortunately, our current president has shown no interest in nuclear power. Our last one didn't either, a legitimate criticism of GWB.
ReplyDeleteWhat are the arguments against nuclear power? It seems that there are none, but there has to be something.
ReplyDeleteThe EM has some argument against nuclear power. I don't know what it is, but the fact that they would argue against such a clean energy source states a lot about the EM and its real agenda. We can't drill, we can't go nuclear. We must use inefficient wind and solar and some fantasy power source. This power source does not exist as of yet, so in the mean time we are suppose to go back to the dark ages and do without modern technology.
ReplyDeleteThe real purpose of the EM being against America having its own energy source is to redistribute the wealth around the world which will help to build the rest of the world up; or in America's case, bring America down to the level of the rest of the world. It is some globalist agenda or something. Whether it is on purpose or not, the end result and the effect of the EM's agenda is the same. Got to save the Earth though.
I agree almost completely with your assessment, Jeff. The one other thing I think you have to take into account is the vestigial revulsion of atomic weapons, as well as Chernobyl. People are justifiably afraid of those things, but a government propoganda effort to promote how safe nukes are now has not been done to change their opinion. As we have seen, a government supported media blitz can make people believe anything! Obama hasn't done that, and he, if anyone, could do that.
ReplyDelete