Focus Hybrid: Petrol/Electric version

Page 2 of 2  
Hardly an "independent" view point regarding the graph.
Even if it is true, I'd be hard pressed to call nuclear power the solution. I don't want that waste around me and I can't imagine my
children, grandchildren, great grandchildren and etc (How many generations do we have to go out here? I can't count that high!!!) want to be dealing with waste created during MY lifetime.
If you want to push for a clean environment, great. Just concentrate on something like wind, solar or wave powered. Something that can actually minimize our impact on the environment, not increas it.
Matt Focus owner (to balance the V-10 Super Duty sitting in the other half of the driveway)
On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 21:08:54 -0000, "Robin Smith"

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Matt, I feel we are going around in circles here:
Radioactivity is around us already, its what heats the earth Fossil is expected to exacerbate ice cap melt, so your offspring will be seeing the results of your nice liefstyle in about 200 years. That aint nice Wind and Solar, too late
I would welcome nuclear, its less of a risk than fossil when you look at the big picture
The web site is an NGO so yes it has its own opinion, but backed up by great scientists, some of whom discovered the extent if the ozone/CFC and how much pollution talk is largely green propaganda. I feel you are a victim of this if you dont mind me saying
rgds
wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Well, I suppose that is true. You are of the belief that it is OK to create deadly nuclear waste, a whole lot more than has already been created, that is going to be a problem for our civiliation THOUSANDS of years from now. You don't seem concerned that we have yet to come up with a containment system that can last a fraction of the time the waste is dangerous.

This is pretty irrelevant to the discussion. (Unless you are trying to say that the nuclear waste is going increase global warming too!)

The problem is the best scientists disagree on global warming and its actual cause. Yes, a lot of them like to blame the buring of fossil fuels, but our studies of environmental effects is in its infancy. We don't know what kind of cylces are natural to the earth. We don't know how long they last, how extreme they are, and what the frequency is. And then you have natural effects like volcanos spewing ungodly amounts of pollutants into the air.
But what we know for sure is nuclear waste is dangerous for THOUSANDS of years.
And technology has come along way, and can go a lot farther, in making the use of fossil fuels eco-friendly.
You seem awfully quick to dismiss solar and wind. If we invested the billions you seem willing to spend on nuclear into solar and wind, we could accomplish quite a bit. And once the equipment is build and installed, it is CLEAN. Cleaner than Nuclear. (And it doesn't leave problems for our civilizations THOUSANDS of years in the future.)

If you don't mind me saying? Gee that sounds a bit condescending....
Hey, you are entitled to your own opinion on nuclear power. But I don't think you are disputing the fact that nuclear waste is going to be a problem to be dealt with for THOUSANDS of years. And I can't imagine you will dispute that global warming problems (over and above what is occurring naturally - I'm talking attributed to fossil fuels) is just a scientific theory at this point.
Matt Focus owner
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Matt, its pretty clear your argument is an emotional one, so I'll not go any further discussing the logic of the issue on this forum and how it relates to Cars.
I cant really agree with most of what you say in terms of logic, but feel free to email me, I'd like to listen to you and understand your case better
rgds

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Emotional? Yeah, whatever. Bottom line is you can't dispute the fact that nuclear waste is going to be a problem for THOUSANDS of years.
When you have an answer for dealing with it, (a way to neutralize or a containment system that can last thousands of years), we can continue the discussion.
Oh, and when you want to discuss this further, lose the condescending tone. It's not appreciated and weakens your credibility.
Matt Focus owner
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Matt Mead wrote:

Sure you can. Why is it a fact?
I previously provided links about the Oklo natural reactors. I'll repeat one quote from my previous post:
"Remarkably, despite abundant groundwater, the plutonium and fission fragments drifted through the rock less than 10 meters over the next 1.7 billion years."
It wasn't stored in any way, it was in porous rock with groundwater drifting through it. And it moved about 30 feet in 1.7 billion years.
We can do better than just digging a hole iun the ground and tossing the stuff in there. I don't recommend it. But that would probably enough all by itself.

Okay, dig a hole in the ground in soil similar to Gabon, Africa and toss the stuff there. Proven solution.

Et tu?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Well goodbye from this forum Matt, even if you dont want to open up yet, please drop me an email off thread. I'd be delighted to continue there
BTW, I used to hold your exact opinion on the topic... since then I've read a lot, researched a lot and tried to form a balanced opinion from all angles. The result is my current position which I feel quite secure about. I can only suggest you think about that
rgds

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Take care and have a nice life.
Matt Focus owner
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

There is now growing evidence that wind power isn't the green solution.
When it only accounts for a small proportion of a countries energy needs conventional power stations can cope for the times when it isn't windy. When greater proportion is supplied by wind power what do you need for the times when there is no wind?
The majority of people want electricity when it suites them and not when the weather says they can have it.
How much of the countryside do you have to pollute with a forest of noisy windmills to provide electricity for a small village?
--
Alan
mailto:news2me_a snipped-for-privacy@amacleod.clara.co.uk
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Michael Heiming wrote:

Why? It's been succesfully done for thousands of millions of years.
The naturally occuring Oklo breeder reactors ran for about one million years. The reactors created Plutonium and U-235. This sat in in porous rock with water flowing through it. After two billion years, we are able to see that most of it has been retained on site.
http://www.curtin.edu.au/curtin/centre/waisrc/OKLO/Why/Periodic.gif
Main page for above is at: http://www.curtin.edu.au/curtin/centre/waisrc/OKLO /

"Remarkably, despite abundant groundwater, the plutonium and fission fragments drifted through the rock less than 10 meters over the next 1.7 billion years."
http://muller.lbl.gov/teaching/Physics10/chapters_Jan_2005/Chapter05.htm
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yeah from nature, mankind doesn't seem to be this clever with the technique until now. Sure this is something we need to investigate further, energy savings is another great area. But sadly we'll go nowhere until we fix our broken monetary system.
[..]
--
Michael Heiming (X-PGP-Sig > GPG-Key ID: EDD27B94)
mail: echo snipped-for-privacy@urvzvat.qr | perl -pe 'y/a-z/n-za-m/'
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I disagree but appreciate your comments. I believe most of them are the public perception I speak of, no offence intended:
Limited fissile material - true but I believe we have a few hundred years from currently known stock. By the way do you know where nearly all the energy that fuels plate techtonics and the heat in the earth comes from, yep its radioactive decay in the crust and mantle. So there is plenty of it somewhere
Storage - We can store it more safely than the public perception has been led to believe and we would get better if we did more of it. But the key here is the relative comparison of global warming effects with nuclear accidents/storage leaks. The latter will be limited and to a large extent under our control. Sea level will not. Nuclear waste issues will be "Tiny" compared to what global warming is expected to bring in terms of loss of environment, ecosystem and life of nearly all types
Solar energy - Granted I would prefer to use this too, but its too little, too late. tell me how we harness that 2Kg/s of suns pure energy falling on the earth. Technology does not exist yet, cheaply enough. Not the case with Nuclear. Ditto for wind. We could develop it but how long would that take.
I'd take a look here for some pretty compelling reading, its much easier than explaining http://www.ecolo.org/base/baseen.htm
Rgds
| perl -pe 'y/a-z/n-za-m/'

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In Sweden they sell a Focus Flexifuel for methanol and/or petrol in any mixed proportions: http://www.ford.se/ie/focus/flexifuel/foc_flexi /-/-/-/- It has been on the market for some years now, and because of some tax reductions it has become quite popular. The engine drives exactly like the petrol cars. It was only available with the 1.6 litre engine, but the new model will have the 1.8 which is more powerful. Volvo is also planning to introduce the same Flexifuel engines in the S40/V50 series for Sweden. /per

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    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.