The energy scam

[badeskov]

Hi Jakelee,

I read the article, wow, poor guy has been driven to the edge of sanity!

Not really. That guy was a lunatic before he started sprouting his drivel, I am sure. It is utter BS. Sorry. He lives in a fantasy world and lives off the gullibility of others that don't know better.

Cheers,

Badeskov

[Jakelee]

Not really. That guy was a lunatic before he started sprouting his drivel, I am sure. It is utter BS. Sorry. He lives in a fantasy world and lives off the gullibility of others that don't know better.

Cheers,

Badeskov

thanks guys! ive been lurking these forums for... ugh 2 years . and just never signed up to post. Im sure there is some truth behind his story in the link i posted. Its all in what you want to believe really. If you choose to beleive it or not Its the same as debating about religion, Some people say god is real some say he/she isnt. To each there own.

Anyways i hope you enjoyed reading that article regardless if you believe it or not!

And im happy to finally be a MEMBER of the forums instead of just lurking it

[badeskov]

thanks guys! ive been lurking these forums for... ugh 2 years . and just never signed up to post. Im sure there is some truth behind his story in the link i posted. Its all in what you want to believe really. If you choose to beleive it or not Its the same as debating about religion, Some people say god is real some say he/she isnt. To each there own.

Anyways i hope you enjoyed reading that article regardless if you believe it or not!

And im happy to finally be a MEMBER of the forums instead of just lurking it

Hi Jakelee, again, welcome. Happy that you decided to become a member and start voicing your opinion - I am looking forward to hearing more from you

Regarding Zero Point Energy, while I hate to be stubborn, I have to disagree. It is not about believing or not believing, it is about basic physics. ZPE is a definition for a system at it's lowest possible energy state, meaning that you cannot possibly extract more energy out of it. It's like deciding that empty doesn't mean empty anymore. You can't do that. If a glass is empty, you can't get anymore out of it no matter what you believe.

Cheers,

Badeskov

[theQ]

You have made money your god and you will be destroy yourselves over it.....nothing you do will change that....the whole world, all humans would have to have a change of attitude.

[badeskov]

You have made money your god and you will be destroy yourselves over it.....nothing you do will change that....the whole world, all humans would have to have a change of attitude.

Eh, ok. But it generally works. But whether capitalism is good or not is not really the point of this thread, is it?!

Cheers,

Badeskov

[jbondo]

While I do agree that there are plenty of whack jobs out there I cannot agree that many technologies have been suppressed.

If you are big oil or big auto and a competitor comes along with with a lower cost feasible alternative do you really think they would allow it to succeed? One example is the battery pack on the EV-1. The gentleman that invented it developed a much better, longer range battery pack that was supposed to be put into the next gen EV-1's.The guy trusted GM and gave them rights to both battery packs. GM then re-payed his trust by giving the patent for the new pack to Shell oil. Now, what would an oil company do with an electric car battery pack design? Nothing! They buried it and no one was ever to see it again.

Anyone that believes that big companies haven't suppressed technology that is a threat to their product is in a dream world. Of course now those decisions are backfiring on the car companies who are no scrambling to introduce electric and hydrogen technologies. Imagine all the technologies that we never knew about prior to the internet. It's getting more difficult to hide things thanks to the WWW.

Furthermore, there are several countries relying on safe, efficient nuclear energy while the US sits on their hands and waits for the next oil shipment. Of course we have plenty of oil but it just sits in the ground untouched as well as no refineries being built. Some estimates claim that there is at least 200 yrs worth of oil still in the ground. Personally I'd prefer a cleaner alternative but claims that oil is running out are more fabricated than Al Gore's Nobel Prize.

Finally, as I alluded to at the beginning, 90% of this subject is in fact a mirage but you can't continue to deny that other 10%.

[badeskov]

While I do agree that there are plenty of whack jobs out there I cannot agree that many technologies have been suppressed.

If you are big oil or big auto and a competitor comes along with with a lower cost feasible alternative do you really think they would allow it to succeed? One example is the battery pack on the EV-1. The gentleman that invented it developed a much better, longer range battery pack that was supposed to be put into the next gen EV-1's.The guy trusted GM and gave them rights to both battery packs. GM then re-payed his trust by giving the patent for the new pack to Shell oil. Now, what would an oil company do with an electric car battery pack design? Nothing! They buried it and no one was ever to see it again.

Nonsense. The EV-1 was produced, but performed horribly and was discontinued. No big secret there or cover-up there. Given that people are developing high efficiency batteries for all kinds of electronic gadgets, are you really telling me that you believe that the Oil companies can suppress battery development for cars, when they are being developed for all kinds of other things?! They cannot. That we do not have an electrical car yet is simply due to battery efficiency, although it is getting there.

Anyone that believes that big companies haven't suppressed technology that is a threat to their product is in a dream world. Of course now those decisions are backfiring on the car companies who are no scrambling to introduce electric and hydrogen technologies. Imagine all the technologies that we never knew about prior to the internet. It's getting more difficult to hide things thanks to the WWW.

The oil companies are always looking for new ways to generate revenue. If they got their hands on new technology, there is no need to sit on it. They would much rather introduce it into their product portfolio and then cash in on it. If they sit on it the danger is that somebody else will introduce it.

Furthermore, there are several countries relying on safe, efficient nuclear energy while the US sits on their hands and waits for the next oil shipment. Of course we have plenty of oil but it just sits in the ground untouched as well as no refineries being built. Some estimates claim that there is at least 200 yrs worth of oil still in the ground. Personally I'd prefer a cleaner alternative but claims that oil is running out are more fabricated than Al Gore's Nobel Prize.

Those estimates vary wildly and oil is most likely running out.

Finally, as I alluded to at the beginning, 90% of this subject is in fact a mirage but you can't continue to deny that other 10%.

If the 10% is as crazy as the 90%, oh yes I can.

Cheers,

Badeskov

[Leah G.]

Ok, let me throw an idea out there. Most of the discoveries from garage tinkery inventions were before the 1940's, weren't they? Why aren't there any new inventions coming out of garages anymore? Could it be that big business gets wind and either squashes it or takes it over? I have more questions than answers, that's for sure.

[badeskov]

Ok, let me throw an idea out there. Most of the discoveries from garage tinkery inventions were before the 1940's, weren't they? Why aren't there any new inventions coming out of garages anymore? Could it be that big business gets wind and either squashes it or takes it over? I have more questions than answers, that's for sure.

There are garage companies still, but not so many anymore. And the explanation is rather mundane and has nothing to do with big companies squashing them, I am afraid. It is cost, basically. It has two components, which is development and certification. To take the latter first, when you market a product it has to go through all kinds of certifications to make sure it isn't toxic or otherwise dangerous. That in itself is a huge undertaking and is very expensive.

The second part is development cost itself. Many products now have a lot higher technological content compared to earlier and the cost of that can be immense. For instance, to develop an ASIC (Application Specific Integrated Circuit), which is a must in many parts runs into millions of dollars. And that is only for the first prototype.

Many technological gadgets also require expensive test equipment, Now that we are talking energy, it would be a tremendous task to design, develop and fabricate a high density energy pack for cars (or even for cell phone), simply because of the complexity of it.

Cheers,

Badeskov

[wilkenator]

I disagree with you badescov.

[wilkenator]

Yeah I don't want to waste my money either pal! I disagree with you too! This kind of mentality is why we are in this predicament.

Face it, there are technologies being surpressed. There are far better ways to become self sufficient and americans are being lied to by

the media. America is not a democracy anymore, sorry.

[badeskov]

I disagree with you badescov.

In what sense, if I may ask?!

Cheers,

Badeskov

[wilkenator]

Dude you have said about enough on this thread, ok? just do other members a favor and shut up! Your condescending attitude doesn't

make you an expert on this topic and I for one, among many, don't like what you say nor believe it. so again ****!

[wilkenator]

You many not ask, but you may shut the ***** up! but really I disagree totally! whatever you say in other words is bullshiat to me! comprende *****er!

[badeskov]

You many not ask, but you may shut the ***** up! but really I disagree totally! whatever you say in other words is bullshiat to me! comprende *****er!

I see So you totally disagree with me?! Care to try and back that up somehow?!

Cheers,

Badeskov

[MID]

You many not ask, but you may shut the ***** up! but really I disagree totally! whatever you say in other words is bullshiat to me! comprende *****er!

Dude you have said about enough on this thread, ok? just do other members a favor and shut up! Your condescending attitude doesn't

make you an expert on this topic and I for one, among many, don't like what you say nor believe it. so again ****!

Pretty over-the-top for a newbie...talking to Bade that way???

Oooohhhh...

Seriously though, it's not a long step to see why you think Bade's words are "bullshiat"...(Christ... ).

It is often difficult for one who has such a short fuse, and who uses words like "bullshiat" (childish variety of the well known phrase...), and various forms of *****, and who reacts to a simple question with such phraseology--to understand superior intellect.

I think you're scared.

You don't have to be. Bade's really a very nice guy. Don't fret. He's merely asking you in what sense you disagree with him..

But your reaction...is TELLING!

[Deathinlife]

It is true that the Ukranian reactor at Chernobyl suffered a meltdown, but this poorly maintained and operated reactor was of a type not used in the West, and the only deaths were among the workers at the plant; it did not produce the kind of global catastrophe prophecied by the fear mongers.

What on earth was this guy on when he wrote this? The reactor at chernobyl melted down because of a test they were preforming on the reactor. The test called for a specific power range and for a power down. The director didn't wait long enough for the fission reaction to stop inside the reactor (wanted to get it over with and produce power again asap) so when they began the test, the power spiked. When it spiked, they did a SCRAM on the reactor (basically putting the metalic rods in the reactor to stop the reaction). Don't remember exactly what happened, I THINK it was that the reaction spiked when the rods were inserted and bam, meltdown.

As for the "only workers died" part, look at birth defect rate and death rates in the areas from before to after the event and you will realise something did happen. They are called records for a reason, books are your friend.

In addition, reprocessing would both eliminate almost all of the waste and, at the same time, allow us to make more efficient use of the fuel...but the same "environmentalists" have forbidden reprocessing.

Actually, the people who forbid reprocessing are the ones who signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, not enviornmentalists. Reprocessed fule can be very easily made into nuclear weapons. Under the treaty no nation who signed it can produce weaponized plutonium. Sadly, that is what reprocessing produces and I, for one, would rather rely on one shot through than having a nuke shot up my ****.

Uranium occurs in several isotopes, varieties having in each atom the same number of electrons and protons, and, hence, the same chemical characteristics, but varying numbers of neutrons in the nuclei. The most common is U238, with a tiny amount of U235, and miniscule quantities of other isotopes. Natural uranium, mostly U238, cannot sustain a rapid enough fission reaction to produce power efficiently, because, when U238 fissions, it does not release any neutrons to sustain the reaction. But a U235 atom, when it fissions, releases two neutrons and can sustain a fission chain reaction. So natural uranium is enriched, producing uranium with a higher proportion of U235, and depleted uranium with almost none (this is used in tank ammunition because of its density).

I wave the BS flag to this. First off, natural uranium can produce a sustained fission reaction. Read up on the CANDU reactor (yes, canada made a nuclear reactor.) The trade off is it needs heavy water (h2o with extra neutrons) to function while ours does not. Its all about which you would rather spend money on. Canada has a lot of natural uranium deposits, they like to take it straight from the mine, where as we like to reprocess it because the power output is higher.

As for the tank ammo, depleted uranium, while not as radioactive, is still deadly over time. Also, there is no way to completly deplete a source of uranium, otherwise we might use it as ammo, as of right now, we don't because we like our troops to live even when not shot.

The enriched uranium is used in reactors. The U235 fissions and releases enough neutrons to fission some of the U238 and convert some of it into plutonium (Pu239) which also can fission and release neutrons. Using this type of reactor, the US has enough proven uranium reserves to produce all of our electricity, if we so choose, for decades. In addition, little effort has gone into exploration for uranium ore, and it is likely that we have enough to last for centuries.

*sigh* If we know of enough to last us for decades, why search for more?...ask yourself the simple questions before jumping to conclusions. Anyway, Nuclear reactors change their fule every 5 years I believe it is (well, US reactors, you can look it up), so yeah, decades is an understatement. Also, it is not the fission of uranium that causes the production of Pu239, it is the decay of neutrons (which have a half life of around 20 minutes).

A breeder reactor is designed to produce even more plutonium from the U238, in essence creating more fuel than it "burns." Breeders could supply all of our power for centuries using proven reserves, or, probably, millenia if we got serious about prospecting. In addition, the element thorium, more common than uranium, can be used in breeder reactors using plutonium or enriched uranium to get the process started. The thorium absorbs neutrons and converts into U233, an isotope almost nonexistent in nature, that will sustain a fission chain reaction. A fast breeder reactor can be started with enriched uranium or plutonium and thereafter be replenished with nothing but natural or depleted uranium. A thermal reactor needs only thorium for replenishment, and an integral fast reactor (IFR) system allows reprocessing on the reactor site.

Wrong, wrong, and oh so very wrong. First off, a breeder reactor takes Thorium and produces U233 (so, kind of right) NOT Pu239, it would be an international felony if we did that. Also, U233 does NOT fission, to the contrary, it absorbs neutrons like a sponge and is very bad for the reaction. It is the amount of U238 that is produced (which, even though there is a decent amount less than there is U233, U233 is smaller than U238 by mass so we can easily seperate them) that we are interested in. Also, breeder reactors could, in theory, produce enough to last us...well...forever but there is the slight issue of what to do with the U233 and what will happen when we run out of Thorium.

On a final note, if big business wanted money, they would build more nuclear reactors. The big man wants the money behind them because, bluntly, they make a TUN of money. The initial investment is effing huge though.

For the currious, I am a nuclear physics and history major (yes, undergrad) who has written both on chernobyl and the CANDU reactor. Its a lot of fun and if anybody is interested just look either up, there is pleanty of info out there at your local library or computer (though the computer isn't as trust worthy as often as a book)