EXAGON Posted January 2, 2003 Share Posted January 2, 2003 A great israelian engineer has invented an "air tower power plant", clean, simple, 100% ecologic. You need only 36 towers to serve USA + Europe and only 130 to serve the whole world The need to control the major oil reserve of the world is not worth 1 LIFE! and it's OBSOLETE. For the first time in modern history, USA is behind the others, ethically, and technically. Shame. Every war comes out from a need. The need for gold, black gold or any other precious thing. So question like "Why just Iraq" is a shame for a "christian" nation. YOUR WAR IS OBSOLETE Features Are Not An Opinion. (John Hope, 2003) http://johnhope.blogspot.com/ Addresse: UIPLPPICDSS Ufficio Internazionale Per La Presa Per Il Culo Dei Sbruffoni Statunitensi Att. Tua Sorella Codice Mavapigliatelindomo Pirla Chi Legge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip OKeefe Posted January 2, 2003 Share Posted January 2, 2003 Not to doubt you Tron, but I'd love to see a link describing this new technology. Sounds a bit farfetched to me... BTW, "need" isn't the only motivation for war... "greed" and "want" are also on the list, as are more lofty motivations such as prevention of genocide, liberty and self defense / preservation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sign Posted January 2, 2003 Share Posted January 2, 2003 Yeah, I can't wait, show us the "link" please. The alchemy of the masters moving molecules of air, we capture by moving particles of iron, so that the poetry of the ancients will echo into the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip OKeefe Posted January 2, 2003 Share Posted January 2, 2003 Is this the type of thing you're referring to tron? http://bulletin.ninemsn.com.au/bulletin/eddesk.nsf/All/A7BD712D34AE25B3CA256B12001BA833!open Old technology. As in 1982, and the principles behind it go back to the greenhouse, windmill and Sure, it has promise, but a kilometer high tower...? Who's going to want THAT near their house? ;) Not to mention a 200 m high version only puts out 50 kW. If scaled up to the "full size", that would be about 250 KW. We'd need a lot more than 36 towers to meet the energy needs of the USA. But the article states a maximum sustained output of 200 MW. Must be using a larger interior volume. Anyway, we'd still need a lot of them... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zenfreud Posted January 2, 2003 Share Posted January 2, 2003 [b]"more lofty motivations such as prevention of genocide, liberty and self defense / preservation."[/b] Prevention of genocide? Do you really think Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Bush etc. give a fig about the safety of the Kurds? If that's the case, why didn't the U.S. step in when the Hutus were massacring the Tutsis in Rwanda? Do you need other examples? As for "self defense / preservation", I'm not aware Iraq is capable of fielding an attack against the U.S. Hussein is a killer and a creep, no arguments here. But if you really believe the drumbeats from the U.S. press in favor of military action against Iraq are motivated by compassion and/or self-defense, you are quite naive. True, alternatives to petroleum are not yet widely implemented. Perhaps our government should allocate more resources to renewable energy before starting another war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael saulnier Posted January 2, 2003 Share Posted January 2, 2003 For the US, the MW needs are probably enormous. The artice says that Victoria in Australia has current power capacity of 7672 MW that could be replaced... Imagine what NY or CA uses... The other challenge is that for every 1km tower, you need a base of 28 km on a side. That limits the location to "out of the way" places far from urban centers. I'd be curious to know the math though... What's the intitial cost including land construction, and maintence compared to alternate power plants and their cost plus the cost of consumables... The oil companies are among the most powerful economic forces in the world, and they crave access to Iraq's oil reserves. It's nice for them that Saddam has accomodated them so well by being such a potential threat... It seems that this war is inevitable, hopefully it will be over quickly. guitplayer I'm still "guitplayer"! Check out my music if you like... http://www.michaelsaulnier.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip OKeefe Posted January 2, 2003 Share Posted January 2, 2003 [quote]Originally posted by zenfreud: [b] Prevention of genocide? Do you really think Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Bush etc. give a fig about the safety of the Kurds? If that's the case, why didn't the U.S. step in when the Hutus were massacring the Tutsis in Rwanda? Do you need other examples?[/b] I was speaking of war in general and not addressing the Iraq situation specifically. [b]As for "self defense / preservation", I'm not aware Iraq is capable of fielding an attack against the U.S.[/b] Don't apply for a job with an intelligence agency. I think 9/11 proved conclusively that it doesn't take all that much to mount a devestating attack on the USA. The resources and capabilities of a nation state - ANY nation state, far exceed those of the Al Qaeda terrorists. [b]Hussein is a killer and a creep, no arguments here. But if you really believe the drumbeats from the U.S. press in favor of military action against Iraq are motivated by compassion and/or self-defense, you are quite naive. True, alternatives to petroleum are not yet widely implemented. Perhaps our government should allocate more resources to renewable energy before starting another war.[/b] No argument from me regarding the need for our country to invest more heavily into clean, renewable alternative energy sources. But I do disagree with you regarding the "self defense" motivations behind our concerns over Iraq. At least they are a partial reason behind things - along with oil, "sending a message", etc. There's plenty of historical animosity against the USA on Hussein's part, as well as his record of actually USING WMD on his enemies, or even on his own people if it suited his agenda. Do you REALLY think the Iraqi intelligence services and military couldn't falsify documents and passports, train operatives and then smuggle WMD's into the USA and use them successfully? If so, I respectfully submit that YOU are the one who is either uninformed and / or naive. [/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zenfreud Posted January 2, 2003 Share Posted January 2, 2003 [b]I was speaking of war in general and not addressing the Iraq situation specifically.[/b] Phil, I am specifically referring to what you call the "Iraq situation". Please remember, Iraq is the country we are about to bomb into oblivion. [b]Don't apply for a job with an intelligence agency. I think 9/11 proved conclusively that it doesn't take all that much to mount a devestating attack on the USA. The resources and capabilities of a nation state - ANY nation state, far exceed those of the Al Qaeda terrorists.[/b] I was not thinking about applying for a job with an intelligence agency. My politics are probably not in complete alignment with them, as yours seem to be. Also agreed about it not taking too much to mount a devastating attack on the USA (or any country for that matter). We only have to look at the horror unleashed by Timithy McVeigh's sick mind to comprehend that sad fact. [b]But I do disagree with you regarding the "self defense" motivations behind our concerns over Iraq. At least they are a partial reason behind things - along with oil, "sending a message", etc.[/b] "Along with oil"? Phil, it's their oil, right? It is very important not to gloss over such important concepts. Also, please illuminate who we are "sending a message", etc. to? Other countries that may decide to stop selling the USA oil? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nursers Posted January 2, 2003 Share Posted January 2, 2003 Israelian????? Are they the dudes who claim they have cloned a human? :) The Keyboard Chronicles Podcast Check out your fellow forumites in an Apple Music playlist Check out your fellow forumites in a Spotify playlist My Music: Stainless Fields Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EXAGON Posted January 2, 2003 Author Share Posted January 2, 2003 PLEASE COMPARE PROS AND CONS WITH A NUCLEAR PLANT http://home.earthlink.net/~zwirnm/arubot.htm Features Are Not An Opinion. (John Hope, 2003) http://johnhope.blogspot.com/ Addresse: UIPLPPICDSS Ufficio Internazionale Per La Presa Per Il Culo Dei Sbruffoni Statunitensi Att. Tua Sorella Codice Mavapigliatelindomo Pirla Chi Legge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jotown Posted January 2, 2003 Share Posted January 2, 2003 Well the fact is that if the US made alternate energy sources a priority we would already be there. Sadly too many big corporations are too invested in the current technology and until most of the oil and gas are gone will they get with a new program. Thats how it always seems to go I guess. Jotown:) "It's all good: Except when it's Great" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.