Election Day 2012

[Regulus]

Not to mention, don't get me started on how bad just about all other forms of alternative energy are. The cleanest alternative fuel? Nuclear.

Never heard of Yucca mountain?

There's a lot better ways to harvest energy than that. If we can harvest 10% of the energy we get from the sun, we'll be good to go.

We have hydroelectric dams and such, but we could generate a lot of energy if we build more in places like New York city. Think about that every time you flush the toilet.

Also, the amount of energy in water is huge. Think about the damage from the recent hurricane to piers near the shore, from storm surge. Every day, there is a constant flow of water, to and away from the coast, provided by the moon and sun. We just need to use it.

Wind energy can also be effective, especially near the coast where there's almost always a nice ocean breeze.

Though this idea might seem a bit crazy, and I have no idea how it would work, but what if we could tap into Earth's magnetic field for power?

[DGFone]

This is relevant because global warming is an issue that Obama is trying to fix, but Romney doesn't care about.

To emphasis it again: He might be trying to do that, but he certainly doesn't know how to. And how I see things getting done, I think Obama is guided by the right motives, and heading down the wrong path.

And now to debunk the more likely solutions:

There is a reason why only Iceland is using geothermal energy as a primary source: It's nearly impossible to do so in places other than where the Earth's crust is very thin. So even if you get all your energy from Yucca Mountain, how are you going to distribute it TO THE ENTIRE WORLD?

Dams: Ever stopped to think what a dam does to a river ecosystem? Avoid dams if at all possible.

Wind energy: I do support wind energy. Unfortunately, it's very unstable, even in Oceans and coasts. All ships used to run on wind, and then an alternative propulsion system was invented. I wonder why they all moved away... So you can use wind energy, just don't rely on it.

Magnetic Field: Don't. Just don't. It's far out in space, and we are not even close to tapping its energy.

You missed these promising fields:

Tidal energy: Near perfect for coastal towns and cities. Problem is how to deal will all the corrosive salts...

Fusion: the not so evil cousin of the nuclear bomb, the only problem we have is that currently, we need to input more energy than we get out.

---

Nevertheless, I think that it's the evil oil companies that will find our solution, because they have the funds to research and the will to succeed. I am rather saddened that they are not spending more on R&D, but when they do, they get results.

So yeah, I am against taxing them for R&D for the simple reason that they do it much better.

[TheRoguePrince]

Hey ladies! If you're done talking science, the first polls are closing. It is Election Night, don't cha know?

[Regulus]

Before we switch back to politics, there is something I was going to say:

There is a reason why only Iceland is using geothermal energy as a primary source: It's nearly impossible to do so in places other than where the Earth's crust is very thin. So even if you get all your energy from Yucca Mountain, how are you going to distribute it TO THE ENTIRE WORLD?

Well, you just answered my question. You have no idea what Yucca mountain is.

The real change in temperature? 0.6%. What's the difference? The pseudoscience scale used a zero of 0C. Real science uses a zero of 0 Kelvin, or -273 C.

That 0.6% increase in kelvin is enough to make a difference between keeping your hands and feet. 273K is cold enough to get frostbite. Multiply it by 1.06, and you get 289K. That's 16 degrees Celsius, or the temperature outside on a nice, refreshing summer night.

The change in actual temperature is small. But we are actually extremely sensitive to changes in heat. That's why, even though Earth's temperatures only vary by a small margin, we can't live in Antarctica, nor can we live in death valley (without technological assistance, and not for prolonged periods of time).

BTW: oil companies only pretend to spend money on research for alternatives so that we'll get off their back. And that's exactly why I'm not buying into their 'we're trying' crap. Give me a billion dollars, and I'll show you some real progress. That is, provided I don't get assassinated by the oil companies for it.

[TheLionPrince]

BTW: oil companies only pretend to spend money on research for alternatives so that we'll get off their back. And that's exactly why I'm not buying into their 'we're trying' crap. Give me a billion dollars, and I'll show you some real progress.

Seems like a big generalization, given that there are over a dozen big oil companies. But whatever, let's talk politics...

So it seems Virginia, Ohio, and Pennsylvania are going to be the states to watch. Especially Ohio.

[Dark Huntress]

OMH! I is ftfo O.O *bursts a blood vessel*

[DGFone]

So i looked into yucca mountain. Its a nuclear waste storage site. Guess what: It's a lot of energy. We can use a total of none of it. It's called nuclear waste for a reason. Using your logic, we can power the world with our dead, because you know:

e=mc^2 that's a lot of energy in one person. But we can't use it.

[Regulus]

Dude... when did I say we could use nuclear waste for power?

What I was implying is that nuclear power is not clean because it generates nuclear waste. In some ways, that's almost worse than coal.

Back on topic:

http://www.google.com/elections/ed/us/results

[Dark Huntress]

I love living in Alabama! It was like Romney: 81% to Obama: 19%
I am so proud of my state, lol, I wish the Republican Party hadn't sabotaged Herman Caine, though...I think he would've made the best President out of all of the candidates...

Oh, and on the global warming or shiz topic: the 0.6% K or so of change in the temperature-that's normal. It's changed regularly since we have had records and probably far before then.

[DGFone]

Dude... when did I say we could use nuclear waste for power?

What I was implying is that nuclear power is not clean because it generates nuclear waste. In some ways, that's almost worse than coal.

That can be argued. Yes, nuclear waste is very bad, but it's bad because of how damaging each small particle is. On the other hand, with better technology, even fission is very viable - just send all the nuclear waste out into space, where it can't harm anyone. Of course, today, that is still not possible, but I think more viable, especially if we finally get that space elevator (or a few), compared to, say, solar and wind, which along with being unreliable, solar is also extremely bad for the environment. Wind is very clean, but the world can't run on wind.

Plus, fusion is also nuclear power, and the only side effect of that once we get the energy output at a desirable amount is helium.

---

And as for the elections: It's still close and can go either way. But I heard something on the radio that is very important, is common sense, but people might forget:

No matter who wins or loses, the day after elections is when tempers are at their worst, so even if your side wins, be respectful. If your side loses, be respectful. Don't be a sore loser, and don't be a sore winner.