Ha ha ha, I can supply the catIf you have a cat, I have some chicken tikka masala and a cream covered floor! That should keep us going for a while
AL
The end of the world is nigh (well our world)
- Thread starter Markie C
- Start date
AL
True. Is it possible to build some sort of underground complex in a desert? There's not much to create a foundation on, as such.
And even if we can't stash nuclear waste out there, it should still be a suitable spot for solar pannels.
desert doesn't necessarily mean sand. only qualification is the precipitation level.
even the antarctic is a desert.
You lot really have just missed the biggest and simplest resolution to this whole energy issue?
Just use less!
It's not rocket science is it?
If we are going to run out in 20 years then halve our consumption and it lasts 40 years, but oh noes, heaven forbid that we turn off a lightbulb in an empty room, or walk to the corner shop, or drive our cars in the dark using our headlamps only instead of a mass of planet burning streetlights.
I get so sick off people banging on about the energy crisis yet "NO-ONE" (myself included) is taking any significant steps to do anything about it.
I'm affraid a few windmills, solar panels, and a house full of low energy lightbulbs won't be enough to save the world.
My 1961 vw beetle did 35mpg, my 2001 vauxhall zafira does 35mpg.
0% fuel efficency progress over 40 years, so ask the question why?
Simply because they had no reason too, so why bother.
It's only now that cars are becoming more fuel efficient but it's 20 years too late, and are you really going to stop driving to paintball sites across the country until your forced to stop?
Until we are up $hit creek without a paddle, nothing worthwhile will be done!
Just use less!
It's not rocket science is it?
If we are going to run out in 20 years then halve our consumption and it lasts 40 years, but oh noes, heaven forbid that we turn off a lightbulb in an empty room, or walk to the corner shop, or drive our cars in the dark using our headlamps only instead of a mass of planet burning streetlights.
I get so sick off people banging on about the energy crisis yet "NO-ONE" (myself included) is taking any significant steps to do anything about it.
I'm affraid a few windmills, solar panels, and a house full of low energy lightbulbs won't be enough to save the world.
My 1961 vw beetle did 35mpg, my 2001 vauxhall zafira does 35mpg.
0% fuel efficency progress over 40 years, so ask the question why?
Simply because they had no reason too, so why bother.
It's only now that cars are becoming more fuel efficient but it's 20 years too late, and are you really going to stop driving to paintball sites across the country until your forced to stop?
Until we are up $hit creek without a paddle, nothing worthwhile will be done!
I like your logic lol!Is this your own family or someone elses?
You really are wierd Kat
Of course I ment If I die with some random family that happen to be there....of course I wasn't implying that even if we are all dead when it all goes wrong our actions while we are alive ultimately effect our children/grandchildren etc.
I just ment that it's silly not to care about the world just because we probably won't be living when it goes critical. I won't pretend to know much about it but the changes we need to make, 'carbon footprint' and all that, don't seem massive, it's just that no one person can change anything so not many people seem to bother.
Your post still made me laugh though!
And I prefer 'unique' to weird
Indeed. In fact, 90% of the deserts on this planet are made of rock(s), not sand.
Oh, and why would nuclear waste become airborne? Any idea how much the stuff weighs?
could be referring to the fact that there is the potential for the material to irradiate its surroundings, which can then become radioactive enough to irradiate its surroundings and so forth...
the likely hood of this in deep storage is almost nil as the time it would take for the radiation to "spread" like this is counteracted by the halflife of the radioisotopes.
surface contamination could irradiate nearby surroundings - but then if its in an exclusion zone no bugger would be effected anyway. however the spread of the radioactive material itself would be limited because as bhudda points out, these are very heavy radioisotopes - lead for example, at the end of many decay series is approx. 7.5 times "heavier" than aluminium, or a little under 4 times "heavier" than iron. yes it is feasible that individual atoms may become detached form the material, but the energy output form these are practically nonexistant at that kind of number.
the likely hood of this in deep storage is almost nil as the time it would take for the radiation to "spread" like this is counteracted by the halflife of the radioisotopes.
surface contamination could irradiate nearby surroundings - but then if its in an exclusion zone no bugger would be effected anyway. however the spread of the radioactive material itself would be limited because as bhudda points out, these are very heavy radioisotopes - lead for example, at the end of many decay series is approx. 7.5 times "heavier" than aluminium, or a little under 4 times "heavier" than iron. yes it is feasible that individual atoms may become detached form the material, but the energy output form these are practically nonexistant at that kind of number.
I was thinking more in terms of Irradiated sand being blown all over the world. Saharan sand is found in all sorts of places on the planet.