Hydrogen snafu.

LNG and gasoline or oil...I forget which...are, I believe, pretty close to equally flammable and explosive. With LNG becoming a hot commodity, people have been worrying about shipping in LNG, and there are only four operational plants to convert the LNG from ships into its natural gas form due to concerns over explosions...but shipping oil and gasoline is still a common practice.

 

LNG and LPG, unlike hydrogen, tend to mix with air almost immediately upon release, forming an explosive mixture.

There are a few cities in the US that allow LNG tankers to berth within densely populated areas. Last I knew, one was in Boston, on the Mystic River within two miles of Downtown, Cambridge, and Logan Airport. There is move to build an LNG gasification facility in the Gulf of Mexico about 45 miles south of Mobile, AL. The only contentious issue appears to be that the process, which uses warm water for the process, will raise the temperature of the Gulf. No one appears to be addressing the explosive question. BTW, LPG railcars have been known to fly nearly a 1/2 mile when a tank end was ruptured and ignited.

 

There's currently a plant in southern Louisiana as well, and the only other states with proposals in the works are Texas and Louisiana, I believe.

 

natural gas is very dangerous... but hydrogen isnt a great fuel simply because there isnt much energy in it.

it is desirable only because it is so clean.

 

True...after all, if something can explode, than tends to imply energy we can use, right? :mrgreen:

 

I can afford to live wherever I like. However, most of the places where furnaces are not required have other problems. The gulf coast has suffocating humidity, most equatorial countries have broken economies and poverty that creates dangerous crime levels. I've never been to the South Pacific, and one day I'd like to visit New Zealand, but most of the islands of the pacific are pretty isolated.

I cannot find any place better than Fargo, which has bitterly-cold winters, but is clean, friendly, and safe.

 

If you have an interest in natural beauty and more nature-oriented things to do, New Zealand is a place that you should definatly visit once in your life. It's roughly the same size as California, and is the only country in the world that has every single technical type of terrain. Tons of fun stuff to do there, and a great attitude.

A good example of the attitude could be found in how no nuclear powerplants are allowed either on the islands or in territorial waters. You won't find a US carrier in NZ waters. :mrgreen:

I myself have been there once, when I used to live in Indonesia, and plan on studying abroad there for a year during college. I might even end up living there, who knows.

Of course, climate-wise, it's on the colder side of mild. Your best bet for furnaceless mild living would be more southernly Australia. :mrgreen:

 

I would like to live somewhere that has four equal seasons, three months duration each. Winter temps no cooler than 10 C, Summer temps no warmer than 25 C, Springs with bright green, and Autumns with brilliant colors. I'm beginning to accept that this location is probably a Prius-based motor home with flotation and an unlimited supply of fuel......R I G H T :lol:

 

Hey now, you don't need flotation and unlimited fuel for a hybrid motor home to carry you across the world...you just need to buy a boat to help ferry you across those darn oceans. :mrgreen:

 

A Cajun Swamp Buggy with a Coon-nice person Cap'n...right? 8)

 

That just might work too. :wink:

 

i agree about New Zealand... the Lord of the Rings Extended Platinum version convinced me that the sites are out of this world.

when you consider that the entire trilogy was filmed in New Zealand, you can begin to understand the scope and variety of the Island.

 

Never seen the movies myself...I can't stand fantasy of any kind.

I do know they filmed a recent movie about climbing in the himalayas there...forget the name, but they did film it there. :mrgreen:

 

climbing the himalayas in New Zealand??

that would have to involve some imagination!

 

The mountains are there, though...so I guess it's more about camera angles :mrgreen:

http://www.alpinenz.com/index.html

But as you can see if you visit that page...there are more mountains than you might think. That website pointed out that they took off from a beach, flew over the mountains, then landed on a beach.

I know that from a lot of skiing in Vail, plenty of the instructors are Kiwis who ski plenty and take their off-season fun to the US, where it's the on-season. :mrgreen:

 

I remember when the U.S. wanted to dock a ship in NZ. The government of NZ said, "NO NUKES HERE! You can dock if you have no nuclear weapons." The U.S. replied that it's their policy never to reveal whether a ship has nukes or not, and the upshot was that NZ refused permission.

I have been in love with NZ ever since, though I've never been there.

As for Austrailia, I've read there are more things there per square foot that will kill you, on land, in the air, and in the water, than anywhere else on Earth.

But since I live alone (not by choice) and I'm tired of travelling alone, I'd want to find a suitable group tour (or a suitable companion). I'll have to start looking into it. (A tour that is. A companion does not seem to be in the cards. Lucky in money, unlucky in love.)

 

That's a nice little story that I'd never heard. Quite some fun stuff. Too bad I can make a little plot of land soverign for myself and deny entry to different people. :mrgreen:

 

Partially correct; but there are alternatives to radioactive by-products.

Energy of the Future

Fission:
Current nuclear reactors use uranium or plutonium fission to produce electricity. Uranium and plutonium are both radioactive. This means that occasionally an atom will split apart into two smaller atoms and some high energy neutrons. There are many ways a radioactive atom can split apart so the two smaller atoms, called reaction products, will be from a set of various elements. But these elements all have one thing in common. They are all radioactive.


Fusion:
There is an alternative to nuclear fission called nuclear fusion. Instead of splitting atoms, a fusion power plant takes small atoms such as hydrogen and fuses them together to make bigger atoms. This produces much less radioactive waste, and if the right atoms are chosen it produces none at all.

 

Hmmm. Looks fishy to me. The guy wrote a book called "The Big Bang Never Happened" and his web site solicits "memberships." And he makes it almost impossible to read with those horrid graphics superimposed on the text.

One thing I'll agree with: the comparison of controlled fusion power with the Holy Grail, since it's questionable that the Grail is more than a fantasy.

 

i never said fusion wasnt far off. it is... but i didnt realize that with 78 million $ subs and what not that we were talking reality.

fusion is much safer and it is possible. it has been done several times so it aint theory. comparing it to nuclear fission simply cant be done.

it has no real risks. fission is all risk. you say fusion would have melt down or chain reaction events. that is not true. in fact, creating a chain reaction fusion reactor would instantly solve the entire worlds energy problems for all time. we would truly have completely safe endless power. but sadly, fusion does not work that way. dont confuse similiar spelling with similiar operation because they are not similiar in any way what so ever.