Atomix Posted January 17, 2009 Report Share Posted January 17, 2009 Yes, it would be a brilliant energy source, if only.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragnarok1945 Posted January 17, 2009 Report Share Posted January 17, 2009 that's why for now we can only do geothermal (which is similar, but nowhere near) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atomix Posted January 18, 2009 Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 If it is no where near then why is similar? Also it will be a job to turn heat into fuel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragnarok1945 Posted January 18, 2009 Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 yeah but I'm talking in terms of drilling that deep into the earth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atomix Posted January 18, 2009 Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 Yeah well untill then we better keep making new ideas, how about CO2? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragnarok1945 Posted January 18, 2009 Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 Yeah well untill then we better keep making new ideas' date=' how about CO2?[/quote']Â Is that at a practical use yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atomix Posted January 18, 2009 Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 No but it would be a good idea. Get rid of some of the CO2 in the atmosphere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragnarok1945 Posted January 18, 2009 Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 We already are trying that, that's why the ozone holes are getting smaller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atomix Posted January 18, 2009 Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 They are, isn't there only one over antartica? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragnarok1945 Posted January 18, 2009 Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 I thought there was one over the north pole too. Maybe that was just a thin layer but still holding Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atomix Posted January 18, 2009 Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 Well as long as it's not over cities then I don't really care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragnarok1945 Posted January 18, 2009 Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 Well as long as it's not over cities then I don't really care. you DO know why it's over the poles, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atomix Posted January 18, 2009 Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 Yeah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragnarok1945 Posted January 18, 2009 Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 good. Though in terms of fuel, what would be best is if we can use water. I hope you know water was the among the first sources of energy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atomix Posted January 18, 2009 Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 Yeah I know but the bad thing is that it is limited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragnarok1945 Posted January 18, 2009 Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 Yeah I know but the bad thing is that it is limited. true. We need the water in the right form. Again, all of this still comes down to conversion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atomix Posted January 18, 2009 Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 And it will be hard to covert it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragnarok1945 Posted January 18, 2009 Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 Well, that's not the real issue. It's not how hard it is to convert it or not, it's how much energy is needed to convert it. What's the point of capturing energy if most of it is going to be used up to convert it into the form that's useful to us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrometheusMFD Posted January 18, 2009 Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 No but it would be a good idea. Get rid of some of the CO2 in the atmosphere.Ummm... CO2 is good. Plants use a process called photosynthesis that converts CO2 in the air into O2. As the levels of CO2 increase' date=' so does the availability of life for plants. Also, the increase in CO2 has been miniscule (about .05%), and CO2 is further dialated by NItrogen, Oxygen, Water Vapor, and the Toxic Ozone. We already are trying that, that's why the ozone holes are getting smallerThere have always been, and always will be, holes in the Ozone layer. If we were surrounded by a complete sphere of Ozone, we would all suffocate because any increase in it would thicken the layer, therefore carry it down to the surface.The Ozone layer is more of a net than a shield, catching the worst of the UV and IR rays, and sending the rest down to fuel plants and solar energy *snort* panels. They are' date=' isn't there only one over antartica?[/quote']So? I thought there was one over the north pole too. Maybe that was just a thin layer but still holdingAgain' date=' so? Well as long as it's not over cities then I don't really care.Actually, I would prefer no Ozone anywhere near cities, since Ozone is toxic Well as long as it's not over cities then I don't really care. you DO know why it's over the poles' date=' right?[/quote']For a third time, so? good. Though in terms of fuel' date=' what would be best is if we can use water. I hope you know water was the among the first sources of energy[/quote']Wait, what? If you are talking about a water wheel, we already use that. It's called Hydro and Tidal electric power plants Yeah I know but the bad thing is that it is limited.true. We need the water in the right form. Again' date=' all of this still comes down to conversion[/quote']... Wait, you do realize that the Earth is 75% water, right? That doesn't include ice caps, the atmosphere, sub terrainian, and in organismsAnd what kind of forms of water are there? You have Ice, Water, Water Vapor, Plasma, and that's it. Well' date=' that's not the real issue. It's not how hard it is to convert it or not, it's how much energy is needed to convert it. What's the point of capturing energy if most of it is going to be used up to convert it into the form that's useful to us?[/quote'] ... That is why I say we should go nuclear.Energy Produced by Uranium>Energy Used to convert waste back into Uranium Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atomix Posted January 18, 2009 Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 No but it would be a good idea. Get rid of some of the CO2 in the atmosphere.Ummm... CO2 is good. Plants use a process called photosynthesis that converts CO2 in the air into O2. As the levels of CO2 increase' date=' so does the availability of life for plants. Also, the increase in CO2 has been miniscule (about .05%), and CO2 is further dialated by NItrogen, Oxygen, Water Vapor, and the Toxic Ozone. We already are trying that, that's why the ozone holes are getting smallerThere have always been, and always will be, holes in the Ozone layer. If we were surrounded by a complete sphere of Ozone, we would all suffocate because any increase in it would thicken the layer, therefore carry it down to the surface.The Ozone layer is more of a net than a shield, catching the worst of the UV and IR rays, and sending the rest down to fuel plants and solar energy *snort* panels. They are' date=' isn't there only one over antartica?[/quote']So? I thought there was one over the north pole too. Maybe that was just a thin layer but still holdingAgain' date=' so? Well as long as it's not over cities then I don't really care.Actually, I would prefer no Ozone anywhere near cities, since Ozone is toxic Well as long as it's not over cities then I don't really care. you DO know why it's over the poles' date=' right?[/quote']For a third time, so? good. Though in terms of fuel' date=' what would be best is if we can use water. I hope you know water was the among the first sources of energy[/quote']Wait, what? If you are talking about a water wheel, we already use that. It's called Hydro and Tidal electric power plants Yeah I know but the bad thing is that it is limited.true. We need the water in the right form. Again' date=' all of this still comes down to conversion[/quote']... Wait, you do realize that the Earth is 75% water, right? That doesn't include ice caps, the atmosphere, sub terrainian, and in organismsAnd what kind of forms of water are there? You have Ice, Water, Water Vapor, Plasma, and that's it. Well' date=' that's not the real issue. It's not how hard it is to convert it or not, it's how much energy is needed to convert it. What's the point of capturing energy if most of it is going to be used up to convert it into the form that's useful to us?[/quote'] ... That is why I say we should go nuclear.Energy Produced by Uranium>Energy Used to convert waste back into Uranium No more so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrometheusMFD Posted January 18, 2009 Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 No but it would be a good idea. Get rid of some of the CO2 in the atmosphere.Ummm... CO2 is good. Plants use a process called photosynthesis that converts CO2 in the air into O2. As the levels of CO2 increase' date=' so does the availability of life for plants. Also, the increase in CO2 has been miniscule (about .05%), and CO2 is further dialated by NItrogen, Oxygen, Water Vapor, and the Toxic Ozone. We already are trying that, that's why the ozone holes are getting smallerThere have always been, and always will be, holes in the Ozone layer. If we were surrounded by a complete sphere of Ozone, we would all suffocate because any increase in it would thicken the layer, therefore carry it down to the surface.The Ozone layer is more of a net than a shield, catching the worst of the UV and IR rays, and sending the rest down to fuel plants and solar energy *snort* panels. They are' date=' isn't there only one over antartica?[/quote']So? I thought there was one over the north pole too. Maybe that was just a thin layer but still holdingAgain' date=' so? Well as long as it's not over cities then I don't really care.Actually, I would prefer no Ozone anywhere near cities, since Ozone is toxic Well as long as it's not over cities then I don't really care. you DO know why it's over the poles' date=' right?[/quote']For a third time, so? good. Though in terms of fuel' date=' what would be best is if we can use water. I hope you know water was the among the first sources of energy[/quote']Wait, what? If you are talking about a water wheel, we already use that. It's called Hydro and Tidal electric power plants Yeah I know but the bad thing is that it is limited.true. We need the water in the right form. Again' date=' all of this still comes down to conversion[/quote']... Wait, you do realize that the Earth is 75% water, right? That doesn't include ice caps, the atmosphere, sub terrainian, and in organismsAnd what kind of forms of water are there? You have Ice, Water, Water Vapor, Plasma, and that's it. Well' date=' that's not the real issue. It's not how hard it is to convert it or not, it's how much energy is needed to convert it. What's the point of capturing energy if most of it is going to be used up to convert it into the form that's useful to us?[/quote'] ... That is why I say we should go nuclear.Energy Produced by Uranium>Energy Used to convert waste back into Uranium No more so? I said "so" every time you didn't explain the importance of your postThe others were just my rebuttles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragnarok1945 Posted January 18, 2009 Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 No but it would be a good idea. Get rid of some of the CO2 in the atmosphere.Ummm... CO2 is good. Plants use a process called photosynthesis that converts CO2 in the air into O2. As the levels of CO2 increase' date=' so does the availability of life for plants. Also, the increase in CO2 has been miniscule (about .05%), and CO2 is further dialated by NItrogen, Oxygen, Water Vapor, and the Toxic Ozone. We already are trying that, that's why the ozone holes are getting smallerThere have always been, and always will be, holes in the Ozone layer. If we were surrounded by a complete sphere of Ozone, we would all suffocate because any increase in it would thicken the layer, therefore carry it down to the surface.The Ozone layer is more of a net than a shield, catching the worst of the UV and IR rays, and sending the rest down to fuel plants and solar energy *snort* panels. They are' date=' isn't there only one over antartica?[/quote']So? I thought there was one over the north pole too. Maybe that was just a thin layer but still holdingAgain' date=' so? Well as long as it's not over cities then I don't really care.Actually, I would prefer no Ozone anywhere near cities, since Ozone is toxic Well as long as it's not over cities then I don't really care. you DO know why it's over the poles' date=' right?[/quote']For a third time, so? good. Though in terms of fuel' date=' what would be best is if we can use water. I hope you know water was the among the first sources of energy[/quote']Wait, what? If you are talking about a water wheel, we already use that. It's called Hydro and Tidal electric power plants Yeah I know but the bad thing is that it is limited.true. We need the water in the right form. Again' date=' all of this still comes down to conversion[/quote']... Wait, you do realize that the Earth is 75% water, right? That doesn't include ice caps, the atmosphere, sub terrainian, and in organismsAnd what kind of forms of water are there? You have Ice, Water, Water Vapor, Plasma, and that's it. Well' date=' that's not the real issue. It's not how hard it is to convert it or not, it's how much energy is needed to convert it. What's the point of capturing energy if most of it is going to be used up to convert it into the form that's useful to us?[/quote'] ... That is why I say we should go nuclear.Energy Produced by Uranium>Energy Used to convert waste back into Uranium there is still only so much uranium, you know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrometheusMFD Posted January 19, 2009 Report Share Posted January 19, 2009 No but it would be a good idea. Get rid of some of the CO2 in the atmosphere.Ummm... CO2 is good. Plants use a process called photosynthesis that converts CO2 in the air into O2. As the levels of CO2 increase' date=' so does the availability of life for plants. Also, the increase in CO2 has been miniscule (about .05%), and CO2 is further dialated by NItrogen, Oxygen, Water Vapor, and the Toxic Ozone. We already are trying that, that's why the ozone holes are getting smallerThere have always been, and always will be, holes in the Ozone layer. If we were surrounded by a complete sphere of Ozone, we would all suffocate because any increase in it would thicken the layer, therefore carry it down to the surface.The Ozone layer is more of a net than a shield, catching the worst of the UV and IR rays, and sending the rest down to fuel plants and solar energy *snort* panels. They are' date=' isn't there only one over antartica?[/quote']So? I thought there was one over the north pole too. Maybe that was just a thin layer but still holdingAgain' date=' so? Well as long as it's not over cities then I don't really care.Actually, I would prefer no Ozone anywhere near cities, since Ozone is toxic Well as long as it's not over cities then I don't really care. you DO know why it's over the poles' date=' right?[/quote']For a third time, so? good. Though in terms of fuel' date=' what would be best is if we can use water. I hope you know water was the among the first sources of energy[/quote']Wait, what? If you are talking about a water wheel, we already use that. It's called Hydro and Tidal electric power plants Yeah I know but the bad thing is that it is limited.true. We need the water in the right form. Again' date=' all of this still comes down to conversion[/quote']... Wait, you do realize that the Earth is 75% water, right? That doesn't include ice caps, the atmosphere, sub terrainian, and in organismsAnd what kind of forms of water are there? You have Ice, Water, Water Vapor, Plasma, and that's it. Well' date=' that's not the real issue. It's not how hard it is to convert it or not, it's how much energy is needed to convert it. What's the point of capturing energy if most of it is going to be used up to convert it into the form that's useful to us?[/quote'] ... That is why I say we should go nuclear.Energy Produced by Uranium>Energy Used to convert waste back into Uranium there is still only so much uranium, you know We are not going to run out of uranium. It is easily accessed and pretty abundant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragnarok1945 Posted January 19, 2009 Report Share Posted January 19, 2009 yeah, in its U-238 form. We need the U-235 form Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atomix Posted January 19, 2009 Report Share Posted January 19, 2009 Wait if we go nuclear what happens if something goes wrong, the planet will go nuclear won't it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.