I think that nuclear power would have to replace oil. Maybe just launch spent waste into space.
And what happens if NASA screws up their calculations (it happens every once in a while) and the waste comes back into the atmosphere or the rocket explodes in our atmosphere? Launching it into space is just stupid IMO.
Take away oil and tell me we can/will only use solar/wind/tide power. Where do you get the resources to mine for raw materials that go into those projects. Better be thinking new discovery or nuclear. Rockets are freakin crazy anyway, maybe NASA screws things up, but I bet the Chinese could launch a payload into space on paper and black powder.
hahaah oh they prolly could... or a huge catapult that just flings it into space...
were not going to see flying cars for a long time i dont think...i could see cars getting alot smaller and possibly one or 2 seat economy cars, but that would require some insane ammount of politicain bickering to make the safety requirements way down...
sometimes i wish they would put driver safety in the hands of the driver, not in the hands of the car designers...
lol they need to make it alot more strict driving tests/more costly/not so leaniant on tickets. it make you think twice about driving liek a jackass
88, you make it sound like we will just suddenly run out, which could not be further from the truth.
Wind power generators require comparably little resources to implement. We've got enough copper floating around this country in pennies to build thousands of them. We are at the breaking point now where the copper in pennies is almost worth more than the value they arbitrarily represent, so that is an easy source for copper right there.
PV arrays require considerably more resources to manufacture, but it's not likely that they will dry up instantly either. Likewise there are other means to extract energy from the sun that are actually more efficient than photovoltaics on a large scale.
Wave and tidal power is on the same level as wind aside from the challenges of placing the collectors/generators.
Barring a nuclear weapon exchange, we will NOT be going back to the dark ages. Energy will probably be more expensive for a time, but once more renewable sources become ubiquitous, they will actually end up being cheaper both to operate, and in terms of impact to the environment.
I'm pretty sure the idea from 'personal vehicle' will change from SUVs to little commuter vehicles once the prices go up a lot more. Things like the Insight which were cut due to "no one wants a commuter car" will certainly change when it costs more to drive the SUV to work than someone can make in a day of work, if you know what I mean.
On the NIMBYs, those people are downright stupid. If you don't want a wind turbine in your back yard, would you rather have mercury float a few hundred miles into your backyard from the coal plant? Would you rather risk a nuclear reactor destroying your entire city? I don't give a shiznit if you don't think a wind turbine looks pretty! If you are using energy, than you should be aware of where it comes from.
I went to a discussion from an audobon society member that supports wind turbines, but doesn't want them put on ridges where migratory birds and turbines collide. Well guess what, that's the only place where it's worth putting a turbine to make power, and more birds die indirectly from coal plants than directly from wind turbine collisions. That's the part they all miss, the indirect consequences. Sure, you can see the dead birds under the turbines, but what about all the ones that sucked down mercury and NOx and SOx and CO2 and O3 and CH4? Who's counting those? I would bet that 100x more animals die from those than the turbines. I once saw a study that said housecats kill more birds than turbines. Cars was high on the list too.
they need to make it alot more strict driving tests/more costly/not so leaniant on tickets. it make you think twice about driving liek a jackass
Driving tests would be easy. Just make people re-take the written and road tests every 10 years or so. The DMV can already require it when you renew your license... It would merely require an internal policy change, not legislation.
I don't see how increased expense would weed out those with poor driving habits.
Tickets... eh. An officer has to be present when somebody's driving like an *** in order to give them a ticket. Given the number of questionable laws that the officers are charged with enforcing, I would rather not see the increase in officer presense required to ticket the few really bad drivers.
I agree with you about the cops bob. There are way to many of them already as it is. I just got back from Ireland, and I was shocked to see that the Gardai was almost nonexistent. I went for days on end without seeing a single Gardai at some times, and guess what? They have a lower crime rate than we do.
I do agree with repete86 about there being too many lawmen. Too many laws, too. We need to scrap it all and start again, maybe the first law being something like "if there are more than 10 laws governing something, the eleventh law can be enacted ONLY if one of the prior 10 is repealed". Simplify. Read the DMV code governing something as elementary as headlights. It'll make you puke with despair. We CAN'T drive micro-compact speck-of-a-cars here in the USA because someone in a giant penis, uh, SUV might hit me. Can I decide that on my own? Noooo. Can't ride a motorcycle without a helmet, either. Sucks. Now that my skull's shaved, I wouldn't have to worry about my hair getting all jacked. We need to be allowed to take responsibility for our actions and stop pointing the finger of blame at others when we step on our own private parts.