Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Community Forums
 General Discussion
 Hydrogen
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  

Dude
SFN Die Hard

USA
6891 Posts

Posted - 06/25/2005 :  14:41:25  Show Profile Send Dude a Private Message
Was thinking of putting this in the Health folder, due to the health implications mentioned in the Science abstract.... but General seems better, since it is not strictly limited to health.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3217961/

I'll link to the actual paper published in Science, but unless you have a subscription you'll only be getting the abstract.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/308/5730/1901

And here is another link with a bit more info.

http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2005/july13/hydrogen-071305.html

Seriously, we need to get the president's head out of the oil industry's ass, and get moving on new sources of power.

Think about it. Oil will be exausted at some point. Current estimates from 20-60 (a few say longer, but are betting on new oil mining technology) years. That's within the lifetime of most of us here.

If we don't have a solid, functional alternative in place before that event happens, can you see anything good happening?

I have to say that I like the idea of an "Apollo Program" approach for new energy. If the US is the country to come up with a functional alternative to oil, we will have taken a huge step in securing our wellbeing and safety for a while to come.


Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson

"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin

Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth

Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend

Sweden
9688 Posts

Posted - 06/25/2005 :  16:10:13   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Dr. Mabuse an ICQ Message Send Dr. Mabuse a Private Message

Please remind me...

How many dollars have the US goverment spent on the war in Iraq, that could have been spent on the development of alternatives to oil? (A matter of National Security my ass...)

Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3

"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse

Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder.
Go to Top of Page

woolytoad
Skeptic Friend

313 Posts

Posted - 06/25/2005 :  22:00:07   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send woolytoad a Private Message
This is kinda old news. Scientists have been pushing for more funding in energy research for years and years and years. Not just to find new sources, but how to make current sources more efficient.

Between running out of energy to global warming. We're all screwed.
Go to Top of Page

Dude
SFN Die Hard

USA
6891 Posts

Posted - 06/25/2005 :  22:18:33   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Dude a Private Message
quote:
How many dollars have the US goverment spent on the war in Iraq, that could have been spent on the development of alternatives to oil? (A matter of National Security my ass...)


No shit Doc.... There are alot of us here who feel the same way, we were just beaten at the election polls by the unthinking red-state masses.

If the US took just half of what we have wasted on this mess in Iraq (half, I think, would be somewhere around 70-100 billion) we could have (as I activate my psychic powers) functional commercial fusion reactors within 10 years, or if my powers of specific prediction are off... certainly sooner than some estimates. (the G8 looks like they are planning on spending only $12B over 20 years, with a goal of commercial fusion by 2050)

To me it seems as if we should be investing alot more money into new energy research. At the moment nobody wants to rock the oil-boat, it seems.

quote:
This is kinda old news. Scientists have been pushing for more funding in energy research for years and years and years. Not just to find new sources, but how to make current sources more efficient.



While we do spend alot of money on energy research, I am of the opinion that we don't spend nearly enough.


Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson

"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin

Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth
Go to Top of Page
  Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.06 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000