I think you need to think a little more outside the normal consumer/economic
envelope to get my question. As you can see its based on nuclear. Nuclear
power has major amounts of bad press and public opinion is now against it.
So the big hurdle is resetting public perception. Greenpeace are struggling
with this already as they know its true, but their story for the past 20
years has been on the contrary. They will be in a lot of trouble with the
world community...I'd say in the next 5 years or so. So
Nuclear power is safer than Fossil for the environment - net effect
Nuclear power on a large scale creates the hydrogen from water
Nuclear power means no or little CO2
Nuclear power is the only power source able to limit the global warming
The amount of usable nuclear material on our planet is limited,
it might reach longer then gas/oil, but we'll have used it all
one day. If you think of the perhaps about 2*10^9 people in
India + China, it won't take that long, once they start using as
much energy as people in western countries since decades.
Leaving us with the problem, how to ensure that we can safely
store the hazardous garbage, for a few ten thousand years, we
Questionable, our sun delivers much more energy to our planet on
any day then we need, with a reliability beyond our imagination
and looking at our lifetime we can safely assume it's endless
available. With a solar constant of 1.35 kw/h per m^2, minus a
little loss through our atmosphere.
Just a matter of using it where it's most effective (deserts)
making hydrogen out of it and transport it (pipeline/ships) where
people need it.
The only real problem global energy company face, this damn
nuclear fusion reactor doesn't send any bills.;)
IMHO before we can get to this point we need firstly fix our
completely broken financial system, based on interest/ compound
interest. This can't work out, since we are trying to work
against an exponential function and need permanent exponential
grow to keep up. But there's no such thing as exponential grow in
nature, only for short time, ending with death, sure you know
which cancer is meant.
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 17:22:30 +0100, Michael Heiming
This is the problem with nuclear.
It isn't safe in the long run and who are we to create such a
dangerous problem for civilization in the future? We are talking
THOUSANDS of years. (I suppose the same argument can be made about
global warming and such if you want to believe man is causing
significant harm, but I think the scale of the problem is much larger
Find a way to neutralize the waste, and I will support nuclear 100%.
It may be a good idea to quantify the scale of danger between:
* nuclear waste
* polar ice cap melts(7-15m rise in MSL)
The latter will put 75% of the worlds major cities under water. Remember
what that tiny Tsunami did not long ago! I guess we could move billions of
people to higher ground if we have the time, resources and economy for it.
Not sure the economy is even an issue under these circumstances though
This thread sounds like scare mongering...but there are some very credible
scientists talking seriously about it, there are other opinions of course, I
believe the nuclear soltution after having looked at the data. Fision
technology may also give us enough time to develop efficient Fusion power
Sorry, I'm not buying into the notion that man is significantly
speeding up what is a natural occurance. The planet has been in a
state of change since the beginning of time. When it comes to "global
warming", we can't stop it. We just have to adjust for it.
But why add nuclear waste storage issues to the problems future
The problem, from measuring weather we just have usable data for
150 years or so, this isn't a reliable base.
Take a look at geologic available climate date, which is
available for million of years, earth is in a permanent change.
There was a theory, that even if we would burn all oil/gas left
on earth at once, we couldn't influence the system.
We are just lucky to live in a short suitable period between some
Curious why people don't buy into we could easily, without
losing comfort, get most of our energy out of the sun, without
there would be zero live on this planet and zero oil, which is
nothing more then captured solar energy.
If only I could get my hands on a circuit diagram, to try out
reseting wiper-washer to acceptable mode.
Sorry, Mike, but naive and poorly informed.
Solar remains far more expensive. More expensive means less resource which
ultimately means lots of people die, far more, repeat, far more than any
conceivable environmentalist scare-mongering scenario based on pollution or
I too love Star Trek and "The Day After" but don't get them confused with
Well, I *did* say I was sorry, and there *were* arguments, not thin, but
overwhelming. I again apologize for your hurt feelings, but the bottom line
on fossil fuels is that they cause undeniable net *gains* in human happiness
and prosperity, and even lives.
Why did you think the world hasn't gone solar or wind? Because they're all
stupid? Global corporate conspiracy?
It's infinitely more mundane. The cost of energy (including any cleanup
necessitated by by-products such as pollution) pretty much sets the agenda
for what type of stuff gets used.
The real issues surrounding pollution are actually "theft" issues, in the
sense that the energy producer sells the product artificially cheap by
getting others to unjustly do the cleanup, which should be part of the
energy cost in the first place.
Of course, getting back on topic, we Focus owners have pretty efficient
economical and clean-burning vehicles. And pretty fun to drive, too. A
My sole concern/regret: I'm nearing 36K/3 years and I don't feel the
confidence in future reliability that I used to have with former Hondas and
Energy density of petrol is very high, it's pretty easy to store
and has been cheap enough until now and perhaps a few more years.
In addition as mankind started with cars there had been lots of
electric cars, but they weren't sold that much, men thought they
couldn't impress women with them at all.;)
The real problem, oil/gas won't last forever, it's captured solar
energy from million of years, we burn in only 100 years. Think
about the 2*10^9 people in India + China, once they start wasting
as much oil per habitant as we do today, it won't take very long
and we'll have burned almost any oil.
So we have to research alternatives or walk one day....;)
I don't have a crystal ball for you, but I'll tell you my experience.
My 2001 is nearing 4 years with almost 91,000 miles on it. I have a
number of issues in the first 36K that were taken careof under
warrenty. After that, it's been pretty smooth sailing.
Thanks for that, it does help a bit to allay my fears. I'm still concerned
however, basically because of the mixed data coming from places like
Consumers Union and the like. (Mine's 2002, BTW.)
I've actually spent years now agonizing over whether to do the extended
warranty. (I have just a few months and a few thousand miles left on my
It's definitely a close call because such warranties are well-known
"profit-centers" for companies that sell them The Focus warranty will cost
me at least 12 to 15 hundred dollars, a serious bit of change. As always,
comments and advice are welcome.
My feeling is the unless you have a trans or engine replaced under the
warranty, you'll lose money. Wait, don't the 2002 have extended
warranties on the drive train? I'm not sure. Anyway, the Zetec
engines seem to be pretty durable.
I'd plan on replacing the rotors with the EBC grooved rotors and
Greenstuff brake pads. Big difference and probably cheaper than the
Ford parts. I got mine from tirerack.com but you can find them all
over the net.
Dont be sorry, first check out the graph at the botton of this page :
Its not absolute proof but compelling enough to explore further if you have
an open mind
Also pollution from fossil is already way worse than the waste issues we
might face with nuclear
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.