I'm with you on the junk mail, but it's the only thing keeping public mail systems from being a massive sink hole for your tax dollars, so no one wants to kill it.

All of my conventional billing is now virtual as well... less paper to distribute can only mean expenses control by anyone NOT having to spend it anymore. Seen any costs drop for it? Naaaa, of course - why would a business magically refrain from converting that line in their accounting statements into more profits, once again!

Even consuming by Debit-Cards isn't spread enough yet since Commercial outlets can't stick a fee up the sleeves like what they've been doing for years with Credit-Cards financing. Money in, money out -- exact currency transactions WITHOUT having to pay huge abusive interests for the service.

I have to wonder if nickles & dimes aren't on some smart economist(s) plans for quick extinction, too.

Plastic cash after all, is convenient & possibly, fair; as Banks perpetually huge profit margins have shown us for decades.

Call it a traffic of influence and fraudulent assets gone & done and safely locked away from populations in vaults.

I do not see what the collider as to do with Fusion energy?? The new ITER reactor is being build in france right now and it's evergy output is suppose to be Q=10 which means 10 times more energy then put in. With the sea water we have we should have enough fuel for the next 150 billion years.

It,s true it,s still experimental but from what I read on Wiki it does not pollute the air and the radioactive  leftovers only last like 500 years instead of a few thousand years. Seems to me like Fusion is the way to go.

pluss you can ship the radioactive leftoveres to a station on the moon then launch them into the sun

It was supposed to be at the pinnacle of technological perfection and yet, within two weeks - they lost a huge section of the "tubular" gimmick to multiple bad connection soldering. The mad scientist effect struck again, in that case.

Knowing the above, if a single Fusion Plant on Earth has just an extremely tiny flaw, the Tchernobyl incident will certainly look like a drop in the proverbial bucket (insert your favorite liters amount here) of water.

Rather than complaining, all you enviomentalist mad wo/men should do something about it. Stop puncturing the tyres of hummers and do something to help, help fund renewable energy reserch or something. It would be a much better use of your time.

Well, how much would that cost?

If they can't get rid of the current nuclear waste by burrying it, that tells me production costs would be too high to make it feasible.

And you being critical of such observations by anybody is a solution?

We're NOT complaining, we're stating facts.

Unless you have a renewable energy up your sleeve and demonstrable evidence, don't waste our time.

In the meantime, i'll stick with my tectonics theory.

Why when anybody talks about nuclear power plants do they always reference Chernobyl but never Three Mile Island?

One was a disaster that forced the abandonment of an entire city and killed untold thousands, while the other was a tragedy that possibly killed a few(depends on which reports you read I myself tend to belive that there were indirect deaths as a result) people and eliminated any chance this country had for a widespread nuclear power program.

 Im not yelling, criticising or flaming anyone btw its just a question. Yes I do understand Mr. Murphy likes to come a calling and the worst will generally happen but still.........

Actually not that much sence you can store it on the moon for a while then launch from there, by then our next genration shuttle will take very little fuel just to get to the moon. Also the rockets that we have now that launch shuttles pollute very little compared to cars. It would take millions of launches just to rack up pollution

the average flux of geothermal energy on the continents: 0.07 W/m^2 (here's an excellent paper showing how the number is derived)

the average flux useful of solar energy: 343 W/m^2 at the top of the atmosphere. But some of this energy is reflected, absorbed by air, and used to evaporate water. So what actually hits the surface as harvestable energy is somewhere between 100 and 200 W/m^2 (maybe less depending on how you model the energy distribution).

In any event, geothermal power can work for very specific regions of the planet, but on the whole we receive orders of magnitude more energy from the sun. Furthermore, geothermal energy is not renewable on human timescales. From just above the upper mantle to the surface, conduction dominates as a heat transfer mechanism for most of the planet. Rock is an excellent thermal insulator, so it takes a very long time for heat to reach the surface. Once you deplete the stock of thermal energy, the outflow rate will exceed the inflow rate. Some University of Oregon professor outlines a back-of-the-envelope estimation here.

Rock has a thermal diffusivity of 10^-6 m^2/s. To find out how far heat will travel, we can multiply by seconds and take the square root to leave meters (rough estimate). So in 500 years (1.5*10E10 seconds) heat will have traveled 400 meters.

Chernobyl wasn't a disaster.  It was intentional.  Gee, lets see how much it takes to blow up our reactor.  Oh shit, we actually blew it up!  Not that it was a very major incident anyway.  The media blew the story out of proportions to better than 10x the actual damage.

Three Mile Island was just...

Proof positive that humanity is too stupid to be allowed to breed.  Design a reactor cooling system with a pressure gauge as the indicator that water is still in the cooling tank.  Water.  Heat.  There are kindergarteners that know this much about physics.  When it starts overheating, what do they do?  They look at the pressure gauge that shows the water is still there and decide there's something wrong with the instruments showing the impending meltdown...

True, but this isn't exactly from Earthquake opportunities only.

Miles down, there are forces that drift continental plates until they "snap" -- i think that within a century we will have monitoring robotic stations "waaaayyyy below" that allow us to predict and detect WHERE & WHEN such mechanical pressures can be tackled & transformed into huge energy supply.

That sort_of reasoning.

Do you have proof of this? Or are you implying neglect?

Hydro has a very good chance of being a main power-source

Wind is not worth it in most countries,  The Netherlands just are close to the sea and catch lots of wind

biggest downside of wind energy is that you need a constant "breeze" becuase we can produce energy out of the wind, but cannot.. unfortunatly store that energy  instead it has to be used right away or be wasted...(pumped directly into the power grid)

another "downside" (thoguh i think that's just people that arent happy with anything) horizon pollution.. people say all those windmills are polluting their horizon (what bastards....)

solar energy is also a good candidate as a power source,mainly becuase it is CHEAP

main downsides being where to place all those solar screens, they take up alot of room, + they need to have acces to the sun's rays, and even if they are placed correctly the sun doesnt always shine...

i take it you just wanna post nonesense here?

go tell ure theories to the life's ruined by that disaster, and the people still living in the radioactive waste,  intentional? no way

human-error?  DEFINATLY,  humans tend to be stupid on some (most....) occasions