F**cking Gas Prices
- 08-21-2005, 03:33 PM
Originally Posted by size
- 08-21-2005, 03:35 PM
Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00
- 08-21-2005, 03:37 PM
Well...that's not too horrible...because, now the ratio of reg to premium is only slightly premium heavy....its practically nothing now
08-21-2005, 04:06 PM
One of my friends just ditched his old Mustang because anything other than premium would make the engine ping. V8 too, had tobe balls to the wall expensive these days. I lovemy Civic more and more every day. and I swear a ybrid is next most likely, despite high dealer service costs. A high repair bill every now and then is easier to deal with and absorb than constantly high fuel costs.Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00
08-21-2005, 04:50 PM
You might want to check out diesel engines. My Jetta is getting 45 mpg. So yeah, take the housewife cruising around all day in the Sequoia, divide her gas prices by 3, and that's what I'm paying.
I think Mercedes makes a diesel that gets mid to upper-30s for those going highend. Even my Dad's gigantic diesel Dodge Ram gets about 22 mpg. Way better than a gas burner. Plus, with a diesel your engine runs forever.
As for the politcs of all of this, I'm personally a fan of our two party system. It's a bit unweildy at times, as we've discussed in this thread, but it keeps the kooks out of power and it keeps things stable. I'd rather have industry control things than see fringe factions striking out on some crazy new initiative to revolutionize society. Looking at Europe and other nations with multiple parties, I'm fairly convinced that the end result it almost always more government intervention. Keep it simple.
08-21-2005, 04:52 PM
I'm rockin' a base-model civic lol Down from a tundra, but now my pocket love me...Originally Posted by CDB
08-21-2005, 05:18 PM
To be fair to Bush and the Republicans, they were able to push through an energy bill that is going to construct new nuclear reactors (by far the cleanest energy source around) and new oil refineries, all which have been historically heavily resisted by the left for decades.Originally Posted by Brooklyn
08-21-2005, 05:33 PM
Do you actually have a source on this because I simply don't buy it. At all.Originally Posted by MaynardMeek
Here you have a nation where oil sales account for 80% of its exports. And this nation is using government funding (obtained from selling oil) to undermine the backbone of its economy?
Right now Iran is sitting on one of the largest oil caches in the world. And unlike technology, not every nation on earth can have access to oil reserves. So you're telling us Iran (whose people can already get gas dirt cheap) is going to give up its monopoly to invest in a technology that is just going to be utilized by other nations more efficiently?
I just don't think so. A nation sitting on essentially unlimited oil supplies is interested in supplying its fuel needs with nuclear energy. Sounds like a translucent smokescreen if I've ever seen one (or NOT, as it was).
08-21-2005, 08:11 PM
The problem with nuclear is that is only clean at the beginning because you have tons of waste materials that you have to sit on for thousands of years...
08-21-2005, 08:18 PM
08-21-2005, 09:23 PM
Yet folks want to piss and moan about not building new refineries.
Last edited by jmh80; 05-28-2006 at 03:34 AM.
08-21-2005, 10:05 PM
The waste from nuclear isn't that bad. It's usually solid, so just store it somewhere safe, like the Yucca Mt. Plan. It's not like it's going to explode, seep into ground water or anything else for that matter.
Eventually, we will have the technology to minimize even this, what I consider, small problem.
08-21-2005, 10:44 PM
08-21-2005, 10:53 PM
The problem with radioactivity is that it is nearly-eternal. A radioactive substance will remain radioactive for a VERY long time, millenia in some cases. You can't spread it around. There is enough radioactive waste today that if you spread it EVENLY on the whole surface of the globe, the entire place would be a wasteland. It is THAT bad. The idea would be to spread this waste evenly in the whole VOLUME of the earth. Now the guy who invents the technology to do that isn't born yet.
08-21-2005, 10:54 PM
Send it to the moon, I tells ya! God already gave us a nuclear waste dump. Yeah, it's going to mess up some love songs, but it's time we put the moon to some use.Originally Posted by Matthew D
08-21-2005, 11:02 PM
Originally Posted by Matthew D
No it won't. Look I worked with this stuff for 10 years. A solid isn't going anywhere, especially after it is encased in concrete and then shielded in depleted uranium. You put in a secure place like Yucca, and keep tabs on it. So what if it lasts thousands upon thousands of years, it's under a mountain, shielded and well away from people. Plus the technology to minimize even this small problem is at most 25 years away. The research reactor I worked at is/was working on this problem themselves and had developed a way to separate the and reuse the radioactive part of spent fuel rods. You can store this stuff safely and effectively.
08-21-2005, 11:08 PM
It depends on what isotope you're talking about. Some are only radioactive for a few hours, some hundreds of thousands of years. There is a wide range of half-lives among isotopes. The ones that last a long time are usually the safest to store due to what type of radioactive energy is being released(alpha, beta, gamma, x-ray, etc.) Most of the stuff that lasts a long time are alpha-emitters, which means that a piece of paper or your skin can block the radioactivity. You just don't want to get the stuff in your system, where it can do some major damage. Now if you had gamma or x-ray emitters, then there would be some issues, but this isn't the case. Even then, stored under a mountain, away from people, it would be perfectly safe. Some you need to stop looking at "The China Syndrome" for your knowledge on this subject and start looking at from a real fact perspective.Originally Posted by ss01
08-21-2005, 11:23 PM
I don't know how many times I have hear absolutes turn into... well we didn't think it could happen.. AND No I don't base my information from a damn movie.. I do remember hearing when I was a kid that asbestoes was the next best thing to sliced bread and other BS.. alpha-emitting particles do have the ability to mutate DNA and that my friend is a very serious thing.. Someone refresh my memory why did we abandon more than a few nuclear reactor construction sites?
25 years away on dealing with a waste problem.. umm.. I will have to see that to believe that one, not that I think you are lying but I know how that things we thought were coming down the pipe suddenly didn't materialize in the time frame we thought they would.
I know it is stored under a mountain in a area that has not be seismically active for as long as we have been recording but the whole thought of all that waste stored in one area gives me the willies...
I personally wish that Oak Ridge would be able to solve their problems with fusion reactors and then I wouldn't mind nuke power as much..
08-21-2005, 11:27 PM
Relatively Short Half-Lives
Strontium-89 54 days
Zirconium-95 65 days
Niobium-95 39 days
Ruthenium-103 40 days
Rhodium-103 57 min.
Rhodium-106 30 seconds
Iodine-131 8 days
Xenon-133 8 days
Tellurium-134 42 minutes
Barium-140 13 days
Lanthanum-140 40 hours
Cerium-141 32 days
Year to Century-Scale Half-Lives
Hydrogen-3 12 years
Krypton-85 10 years
Strontium-90 29 years
Ruthenium-106 1 year
Cesium-137 30 years
Cerium-144 1.3 years
Promethium-147 2.3 years
Plutonium-238 85.3 years
Americium-241 440 years
Curium-224 17.4 years
Technecium-99 2 x 10^6 y
Iodine-129 1.7 x 10^7 y
Plutonium-239 24,000 y
Plutonium-240 6,500 y
Americium-243 7,300 y
08-22-2005, 07:35 AM
Originally Posted by Matthew D
Alpha-emitters are only harmful if they enter the body. On the outside, there is no danger at all. Unless you plan on eating some, I don't see the problem. DNA mutation is only problem if you exceed the body's ability to repair, which is around 1000mutations per second. That takes a lot millirem to achieve that, plus it would have to be beta, gamma or x-ray emitters or godforbid a neutron emitter(which if that happened, mutation would be the least of your worries.) Like I said in my earlier post, at the research reactor I worked at, they have achieved separating the radioactive part of a spent fuel rod(5% of the rod) from the the rest(95% inert material) and can reuse it. That cuts down tremendously on the waste.
As far as why reactors have been abandoned? Well, because the laws and regulations are so ridiculous when it comes to reactors, they became economically not feasible. Treat it like other industries with sane and logical regs, they would have been completed.
08-23-2005, 01:57 PM
08-23-2005, 05:01 PM
The reactor I worked at can take a direct hit by a 747 and still be intact. You do realize the kind of containment built around these things don't you? 6 to 18 ft of reinforced concrete, 1 to 2 ft of steel, another couple of feet of lead, just to name a few. The outer building(s) will be toast, but the reactor itself will be just fine.
08-27-2005, 11:08 AM
08-27-2005, 11:21 AM
When I saw how much shielding the newer generation of reactors had, I wasn't worried about terrorists. Tracking waste might still be an issue, the reactors aren't.Originally Posted by Sir Foxx
08-27-2005, 11:49 AM
I'll bet that when the exterior buildings of the reactor are all smashed to bits and the inside of the reactor gets shaken HARD by a thousand-ton object flying into it at hundreds of miles an hour, that some part of the management system fails, and the whole thing goes meltdown.
That's the worrisome part. Oh, and if the 9/11 attacks really wanted to REALLY rattle america, they would have tried something like that.
08-27-2005, 01:30 PM
I would doubt it from what I've seen. The things are built like small mountains with Christ knows how many safeties. Plus, there's always risk vs reward. If there's a major chance it could help reduce dependence on petroleum products and a very minor chance a few hundred to a few thousand people might get irradiated, I say build them. Stick one right in the middle of my neighborhood if they want, I'm game.Originally Posted by ss01
08-31-2005, 09:46 AM
check this out
Amazing, what $2.69 a gallon gas can buy, isn't it?
In case you're wondering where this hotel is, it isn't a hotel at all. It is a house!
It's owned by the family of Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan, the former president of theUnited Arab Emirates and ruler of Abu-Dhabi. Wonder what the CEO of Exxon/Mobil house looks like??
08-31-2005, 09:48 AM
08-31-2005, 10:58 AM
hahahaha-that's crazy!!! Ill do whatever I can to decrease my dependance on petroleum products. First step was getting rid of my truck and buying an Accord. Next summer maybe Ill run all my errands on a motorcycle.
08-31-2005, 11:04 AM
The US is pretty behind and finally now understands what other countries have done for years and years. We want our conveniences and at all costs and when things get harder, we bitch. You all know how it goes... gotta have those cabins and weekend trips hours away, or gotta pull those boats with a truck, or have that room, etc, etc.
Bah, I just bought an SUV a few months ago... but my wife and I carpool to work now and save TONS of money. It's too bad we didn't wake up sooner and demand different cars running on different energy sources. It's also too bad we don't use public transportation nor put the money we should into developing it.
And yeah, I can say that and I'm just as bad as everybody else... but getting better.
Originally Posted by BigVrunga
Similar Forum Threads
- By MystikalSoul in forum PoliticsReplies: 4Last Post: 12-23-2008, 04:18 PM
- By DGSky in forum General ChatReplies: 74Last Post: 06-16-2008, 10:59 PM
- By SufferingEd in forum SupplementsReplies: 25Last Post: 05-14-2008, 10:29 PM
- By slanginweight in forum General ChatReplies: 68Last Post: 03-18-2008, 07:13 PM
- By anabolicrhino in forum PoliticsReplies: 70Last Post: 07-07-2007, 08:28 AM