And if it was ME who can change the feauture of the planet..

[Miszczu]

The best solution for energy production for now stays nuclear energy, everyone is so scared about that buts its far better and productif then all the other things. Blazing you talked about windenergy... windenergy has a energy gain off 0%! The energy needed to construct it and to maintain it is so high that the windmill should stay a very long time, but yeah they can only work 10 years... Coal can have a futer because its a ressource that is spread through the whole world and in rather great amounts. And since we can with new technologie do CO2 captation and "roet"(dont know the english word) filtering, the coal will be a rather clean energysource.

+1 Harp. Nuclear Energy is our future. Clean and effective, no need to use resources so can be build almost everywhere. PPl re scared because of lack of knowladge about it.

Like for example Blaz:

maybe productif but effective?

http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernramp_van_Tsjernobyl

it's dutch but every1 knows it from russia
want to have that again?
don't think so?
so many people died of it and still dieing because of the nuclair reactor that exploded

Ehm, maybe read better about nuclear eenergy first If u rly think that atm is using same technology as in czarnobyl then we rly can end discussion here...

to be honest i don't know
but we can make it alot better with simple things you know
like what warren said shoot all americans to the moon:)
imo a human can change the world

We can, but firstly we need to know how. Read more about it and dont write such craps like in previous posts, because it's more similiar to guys who shout most about ecology but they dont know what realr ecology is

And dont f*cking send food to Africa, thats the worst thing you can do for them, ok if its a temporally foodcrisis, but if its for a long time you ar just blowing up the regional economy. Th local farmers cant concurrate against those food dumps of europe....

It aint a secret that on one of the latest Live8 action (U2 were playing) some ppl form Africa protested to stop it, cause it rather cause more trouble than make their life better.

[Harpix Profile]

maybe productif but effective?

http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernramp_van_Tsjernobyl

it's dutch but every1 knows it from russia
want to have that again?
don't think so?
so many people died of it and still dieing because of the nuclair reactor that exploded

Ehm, maybe read better about nuclear eenergy first If u rly think that atm is using same technology as in czarnobyl then we rly can end discussion here...

In Tsjernobyl they putted allmoust all the protection systems off just to see if it would go too... they removed some off the most important protections... well then offcourse there is a high risk of explosion. But we learned from there mistakes... We make them secure, we can stop 'het kernsplijten' any time... Explosions like Tsjernobyl aint the problem its the nuclear waste... (thaugth you would tell that in fact ) We just need to find a way to make that waste no longer nuclear. Till then we put them in highly secured bases

[Mobius Profile Website]

The best solution for energy production for now stays nuclear energy, everyone is so scared about that buts its far better and productif then all the other things.

True, but to bad America would't let every country do something with Nuclear. I hate that America should have the world peace on their controls.

And Blazing, the news have reported that wikipedia isn't a site with trusteble soureces

[blazing Profile]

you gotta be kidding right mobius?
i get all my information off it and also for school alot of information?
so they giving me some stupid trash that isn't true?
jeeszzz

ok then my information isn't correct:(

still i want to change the world into better world that i didnt get from that wikipedia
so all my facts that i got from wikipedia are just false?

pffff

[icefrost]

well, wikipedia informations are mostly from users around which are free to add news they got about. sure some u can trust, but also some are just trash.

[Miszczu]

you gotta be kidding right mobius?
i get all my information off it and also for school alot of information?
so they giving me some stupid trash that isn't true?
jeeszzz

ok then my information isn't correct:(

still i want to change the world into better world that i didnt get from that wikipedia
so all my facts that i got from wikipedia are just false?

pffff

Which informations? Is in Wikipedia wrote that nowdays there re still using technology from previous epoc to bulid nuclear powerplants? Where? :O

Is there wrote that solar energy, and wind energy can truly replace 100% of coal plants? Where? :O

About what facts re talking? Where u pointed them?

Most informations written in Wiki u can trust, but u just wrote somethin about Czarnobyl and based on this argument u conclude that nuclear energy is too dangerous... If they rly teach u that in school then there must be weird teachers :O

[blazing Profile]

Windenergie wordt ook wel beoordeeld op de hoeveelheid CO2-uitstoot die ermee wordt vermeden. Reductie van de CO2-uitstoot draagt bij aan het afremmen van het broeikaseffect. Dit is de belangrijkste reden dat de regering vanuit het Kyoto klimaatverdrag de bouw van windparken stimuleert. De redenering is dat kolen- en gascentrales minder hoeven te produceren en de daarbij behorende CO2-uitstoot dan ook minder is. Die berekening is arbitrair: kolencentrales geven bij dezelfde energieproductie bijvoorbeeld meer CO2 dan centrales op aardgas. Verder kan windenergie natuurlijk ook kernenergie vervangen, in welk geval de verminderde CO2-uitstoot erg klein is. In 2004 werd door de toepassing van windenergie de reductie van CO2-uitstoot op 6,1 promille geschat.

Windenergie heeft ten opzichte van bijvoorbeeld kernenergie het voordeel dat er geen schadelijk afval geproduceerd wordt.

Inzet van windenergie maakt onafhankelijker van de leveranciers van fossiele brandstoffen. Het belang hiervan neemt toe naarmate fossiele brandstof schaarser wordt, waarmee de aanvoer onzekerder en duurder wordt. Dat geldt overigens ook voor uranium, een grondstof voor kernenergie. Daarom is naast het rendement van een windmolen ook het hernieuwbare karakter van belang.

there you go:

but it's dutch and can't translate it very good

Windenergy get's rated from the amount of CO2 that get's lower
so the broeikasteffect??? (that earth will get warmer) will be alot reduceded.
also windenergy makes the people who deliver more independant and it's important that because of the fuel and coal that lowers very fast then prices will raise and every1 get's nerveus.
also windenergy doesnt give nucleartrash.

dont understand you're first question miszczu

[Miszczu]

Blazing u still do not understand the point, do u?

Every1 knows that windenergy is clean and friendly to enviorment...

But u can not replace all powerplants with it, becasue teyr re too less effective. As i wrote somewhere above: do u even imagine how much windpower plants u have to build to provide electricity to even half Europe population? Do u? No u dont. I dont even wanna think how will change it the climat. Its impossible.

Nuclear energy is now safty and clean. Nuclear trash is a problem but ppl also learned how to solve it mainly. U rly belive that nuclear plants re same dangerous as was that one in Russia? U rly think they still use that technology from previous epoc, which was used in USSR? Because of ppl who thinks like u, we still in Poland dont have nuclear power plant and need to use coal as a source to energy. They shouted so loudly (pseudo - ecologists) its so dangerous that we still have to poison our air here

And same goes to every ur point (almost). U read somethin in Wiki and put illogical ideas, U seems to dont undertand that economical problems (so hated by ya) re as important as ecological. Wake up, its not a dream, its a reality.

Read more about it, im sure u can find in the net, but also in books a lot more info about Ecology if u rly wanna be active person on that field. And dont posts so stupidness.

[Mobius Profile Website]

well, wikipedia informations are mostly from users around which are free to add news they got about. sure some u can trust, but also some are just trash.

Some?
Well here in holland on RTL4 a newsreporter said that more then 40%-50% of the information there isn't true.
Dunno if it exactly was around thr 40%-50% but something around that.

And Blazing & Wumpy, let's just fire a EMP blast on the whole world that should save our climate

Argeu about that^^

[Miszczu]

Some?
Well here in holland on RTL4 a newsreporter said that more then 40%-50% of the information there isn't true.
Dunno if it exactly was around thr 40%-50% but something around that.
Argeu about that^^

Im wondering how they checked it? Hard to belive that its so high percent. From my own expoerience i can say that i almost never fing article which has intruth informations. In my opinion Wiki is very useful and rather trusty source, but very general. If u rly wanna find some much info about a topic, Wiki is good for start, then u need to search for more details.

[Mobius Profile Website]

Well i don't know Wumpy, and like i said something LIKE that perent.
It was like 4 months ago, but yea i use wiki to sometimes on school to check little things
But i rather use google, because my teacher hates wiki

But why dind't u quoted that EMP blast plan?
It will work i guarantee you

[Repta Profile]

Some?
Well here in holland on RTL4 a newsreporter said that more then 40%-50% of the information there isn't true.
Dunno if it exactly was around thr 40%-50% but something around that.
Argeu about that^^

Im wondering how they checked it? Hard to belive that its so high percent. From my own expoerience i can say that i almost never fing article which has intruth informations. In my opinion Wiki is very useful and rather trusty source, but very general. If u rly wanna find some much info about a topic, Wiki is good for start, then u need to search for more details.

For general stuff like history science its ok, but you dont want to search for stuff about windows apple etc there have been reports that they change the stuff of there enemy many times.

Wind energy isnt the solution, it doesnt bring in enough energy for the world. It ruins the horizon, you also need to watch out around airports.
It also costs to much you need to pump a lot of subsidies in it.

Nuclear energy looks as a good option to me. yes you have nuclear waste but this amount is so low and the energy you receive is huge. It could be used as a temp solution for globalwarming until we have developed a better way to generate electricity. I have in the past made the calculations for different kinds of materials to produce energy but not in the mood to check it out.

[blazing Profile]

Well i don't know Wumpy, and like i said something LIKE that perent.
It was like 4 months ago, but yea i use wiki to sometimes on school to check little things
But i rather use google, because my teacher hates wiki

But why dind't u queted that EMP blast plan?
It will work i guarantee you

little things?
right why i don't believe you?
because all scholars in holland are to lazy to make their homework and rip it of the site called scholieren
yesyes i was that way to (even now>:) )
EMP lol maybe only skip holland>:)

maybe nuclear reactor will be best thing for now
but there must be a better solution somehow