Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Xoon

Contributing Members
  • Content count

    216
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by Xoon

  1. This is actually really good, and I REALLY hope feminists don't latch on to this and distorts this. And as mentioned by Jeep, a male role model is extremely important for a child's development, the higher risk of crime, drop out and poverty is extreme. This is what gangs thrive on, as they act as a "male role model" for the young men seeking a masculine role model.
  2. Honestly I feel like this entire gun control thing has went off the rails. People have no idea what they want. They want it black and white. So why don't we try and map out what people want and how this can be accomplished with gun control. First off, gun control activist want to reduce the deaths and damage caused by guns every year I presume. Let's take take the 11 000 figure rounded down because I am lazy. This is the biggest and easiest problem to fix, as the others are user faults and requires prohibitively expensive and complex solutions. Suicides are irrelevant since the reason of suicide is not the gun, take the Netherlands where 40% are done with death by tram, are trams the issue here? No. Ok, now, what type of guns kill people the most? According to you guys, 90% deaths are caused by handguns. This equates to 9 900 deaths, the only way to reduce this by removing guns is the ban all gun sales, which is not doable, since I am pretty sure no country has ever done this, and since we are talking about Murica, the land of guns, this is in practice impossible. What about banning all other guns? Machineguns, ARs, shotguns, etc. You would then reduce deaths by 10%, or 1100 deaths. Honestly, not really a impressive figure, and lets think about this realistically, how did actually a more powerful firearm aid the killer in these 10%? Not much, and the actual reduction would be much lower. What other solutions do we have? Licence regulations. Most mass shootings are caused by unstable or mentally ill individuals, scrubbing them out of the system would make a impact, banning semi-automatic guns, not sure how. A license regulation if properly done should be happily accepted by gun rights activist, since it still allows legal gun owners to own almost anything they want, if they qualify for it. Yes, licenses could be regulated like cars. A hunting licence for a proper rifle, either semi or bolt action depending on hunting regulations, and regulations regarding magazine size, since you do not need a 100 rounds drum mag to shot that one bullet through the dear's heart and lungs. Sub classes would exist, like small game and large game. A self defense carry license, for handguns only. Why? Because out of practicality, you want something small with enough power to scare away the attacker, a semi 9mm pistol (or 45. ACP and similar) should do, having a MG3 on your back that you want to deploy and cock before use is not. For target shooting, shotguns, rifles and pistols manufactured for this purpose would be allowed in a target shooting licence, with sub classes for each type of weapon. For joy shooters, basically the people that buy a MG with a ammunition back pack just for the joy of shooting it downrange, you could have a collectors licence. It would again come in sub classes depending on the type of weaponry. Licences would be renewed every so often, require membership in a club, allow random check ups, regular use and to be revoked by the club or government if the individual is not deemed fit to operate the firearm. In a very pro gun activist version of this, we could reduce gun related deaths, and allow gun owners to own machine guns, rifles, shotguns, ect. If we legalize many banned guns, we could effectively kill the black market. Though, some guns should be soft banned, no using a 14,5mm HMG to hunt, or a anti-material rifle for self-defense, or a automatic AR as something you can carry around on your back anywhere. This is honestly up to you guys, since you know what type of guns people want. Lastly, i have to say this biometric safety thing sounds like bullshit. How is the sensor supposed to stop the owner from firing the gun? With a small lock or restricting the firing pin? This can easily be bypassed by removing the lock. The only reason this works in cars is because they have a computer inside that requires a specific code, or else they won't unlock the steering wheel, spray fuel into the engine, open the throttle body, and such. I have maintained a few rifles and they are simply too simple to have such a system, it could work on a railgun or a coilgun, but not on a chemically operated gun.
  3. The point is, cars provide economic growth. They allow people to travel, earn and spend money. Transport goods and such. A gun does not, since they not the same. Of course, this is not how it is represented, because saying to the public "Yes, we are going to kill more people a year because we want more economic growth in this area" does not really catch on well. I am not sure what the problem is with automatic weapons and semi-automatics. The problem is not the weapon, it is the shooter. Why not just improve the licence process? In Norway, you have to store the weapon in a weapons locker, separate from the ammunition, remove the bolt when storing it. You have to be a in a hunting club to have a hunting rifle, a shooting club to have a shooting rifle. And you have random checkups, mandatory tests. Mental issue tests and criminal background check. If you stop hunting or shooting, you lose your licence. Gun murders here are very rare. Basically, you need a reason to own a firearm here. This makes it hard however to own ridicules weapons like a AR15 for hunting. But you can legally own a MG42 and shoot with it, but those needs a collectors licence. My friend got one.
  4. The claim that videogame violence desensitize you is complete bullshit. Actually, statistics actually show a reduction in aggression and violent behavior. Videogames are a medium that people can act out their fantasies in, meaning they are not incentivzed to do it in real life. Want to go on a killing spree? Do it in a videogame for the same rush, with no downsides. Videogames tend actually to show humanities dark sides. Take a game DayZ, a a horror shooter about surviving a zombie apocalypse. People kidnap people, break their legs, make them bleed, force feeds them rotten food, poisons them and dumps them in the wilderness. They force people to fight for their life, or they are shot. And the average player also tends to go on a killing spree, killing newly spawned people that have no way of defending themselves. Basically a heavily armed soldier with hundreds of rounds mowing down people with just their fists or a shovel. These same people are perfectly working people that live normal lives and don't hurt a fly. About why politicians ban guns, but don't care about automobiles? Simple, money. Automobiles makes a lot of money directly for the country, guns make a small sum. This is how road speed is regulated, how much profits you want to earn, compared to how lethal you want the road.
  5. Colonization Of The Solar System

    East of the shackleton craters seems like the best spot for a lunar base: It has near constant sunlight throughout the lunar summer. Also a light map made by NASA, brighter means more sunlight throughout the six months. The most illuminated ares marked here: A and B seems like the best location, since they receive the most sunlight of them all (81-85% of the day). Building a colony in this general location would be the best from a power standpoint. Cabeus and shoemaker crater are the best spots for mining water that can be refined to for example fuel. Lastly, flyover of the moon: https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/3686 Source: http://www.nature.com/news/2007/071023/full/news.2007.182.html https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/lroc-20101215-south.html
  6. Colonization Of The Solar System This thread is for discussing the colonization of the solar system, mainly focusing on Mars and the Moon since they are the most relevant. Main topics include transportation, industry, agriculture, economics, civil engineering, energy production and distribution, habitation, ethics and politics. First order of business, our glories tech messiah Elon Musk has set his eyes on Mars: Reason stated? Because being a interplanetary species beats being a single planetary species. How does he plan to do this? By sending two cargo ships by 2022 to Mars for surveying and building basic infrastructure, then two years later in 2024 sending 4 ships, two cargo ships and two crewed ships to start the colonization. First thing would be to build fuel refineries and expanding infrastructure to support more ships, then starting to mine and build industry. This could mark a new era in human history, a second colonization era, this time without the genocides. The economic potentials are incredible, a single asteroid could easily support the entire earths gold, silver and platinum production for a decade. The moon holds a lot of valuable Helium 3, which right now is worth 12 000 dollars per kilogram! Helium is a excellent material for nuclear reactors. Speaking about the moon, several companies have set their eyes on the moon, and for good reason. In my opinion, the moon has the possibility of becoming a mayor trade hub for the solar system. Why is this? Simply put, the earth has a few pesky things called gravity, atmosphere and environmentalists. This makes launching rockets off the moon much cheaper. The moon could even have a space elevator with current technology! If we consider Elon Musk's plan to travel to Mars, then the Moon should be able to supply cheaper fuel and spaceship parts to space, to then be sent to Mars. The Moon is also rich in minerals that have not sunk to the core yet, and also has a huge amount of rare earth metals, which demands are rapidly increasing. Simply put, the Moon would end up as a large exporter to both the earth and potentially Mars. Importing from earth would almost always be more expensive compared to a industrialized Moon. Now how would we go about colonizing the moon? Honestly, in concept it is quite simple.When considering locations, the South pole seems like the best candidate. This is because of it's constant sun spots, which could give 24 hour solar power to the colony and give constant sunlight to plants without huge power usage. The south pole also contain dark spots which contains large amount of frozen water, which would be used to sustain the agriculture and to make rocket fuel. It is true that the equator has the largest amounts of Helium 3 and the best location for rocket launches. However, with the lack of constant sunlight and frequent solar winds and meteor impacts, makes to unsuited for initial colonization. If the SpaceX's BFR successes, then it would be the main means of transporting materials to the moon until infrastructure is properly developed. Later a heavy lifter would replace it when transporting goods to and from the lunar surface, and specialized cargo ship for trans portion between the Moon, Earth and Mars. A space elevator would reduce prices further in the future. Most likely, a trade station would be set up in CIS lunar space and Earth orbit which would house large fuel tanks and be able to hold the cargo from cargo ships and heavy lifters. Sun ports would be designated depending on their amount of sunlight. Year around sunlight spots would be dedicated to solar panels and agriculture. Varying sun spots would be used for storage, landing pads and in general everything. Dark spots would be designated to mining to extract its valuable water. Power production would be inistially almost purely solar, with some back up and smoothing out generators. Later nuclear reactors would take over, but serve as a secondary backup energy source. The plan: If we can assume the BFR is a success, then we have roughly 150 ton of payload to work with per spaceship. The first spaceship would contain a satellite to survey colonization spot. Everything would be robotic at first. Several robots capable of building a LZ for future ships, mining of the lunar surface for making solar panels for energy production, then mining and refinement for fuel for future expeditions. The lunar colony would be based underground, room and pillar mining would be used to cheaply create room that is also shielded from radiation and surface hazards. Copying the mighty tech priest, a second ship would come with people and more equipment. With this more large scale mining and ore refinement would be started. Eventually beginning to manufacturing their own goods. Routinely BFRs would supply the colony with special equipment like electronics, special minerals and advanced equipment and food until the agricultural sector can support the colony. The colony would start to export Helium 3 and rocket fuel, as well as spacecraft parts and scientific materials. Eventually becoming self sustaining, it would stop importing food and equipment, manufacturing it all themselves to save costs. I am not the best in agriculture, so if some knowledge people could teach us here about closed loop farming, or some way of cultivating the lunar soil. Feel free to do so. Mining: I found a article here about the composition of the lunar soil and the use for it's main components: In short, the moon has large amounts of oxygen, silicon, aluminum, calcium, iron, magnesium and titanium in it's soil. How do we refine them? By doing this. Aluminum could be used for most kinds of wiring to requiring high conductivity to density ratio. Meaning power lines, building cables and such. Aluminum is not very suited for building structures on the surface because of the varying temperatures causing it to expand and contract. Iron or steel is better suited here. Aluminum could however be used in underground structures where temperatures are more stable. Aluminum would also most likely end up as the main lunar rocket fuel. Yes, aluminum as rocket fuel. Just look at things like ALICE, or Aluminum-oxygen. Aluminum-oxygen would probably win out since ALICE uses water, which would be prioritized for the BFRs, since I am pretty sure they are not multi-fuel. More on aluminum rocket fuel here: https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/88130-aluminum-as-rocket-fuel/& http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/realdesigns2.php#umlunar https://blogs.nasa.gov/Rocketology/2016/04/15/weve-got-rocket-chemistry-part-1/ https://blogs.nasa.gov/Rocketology/2016/04/21/weve-got-rocket-chemistry-part-2/ Believe it or not, but calcium is actually a excellent conductor, about 12% better than copper. So why do we not use it on earth? Because it has a tendency to spontaneously combust in the atmosphere. In a vacuum however, this does not pose a problem. I does however need to be coated in a material so it does not deteriorate. This makes it suited for "outdoor" products and compact electrical systems like electric motors. Yes, a calcium electric motor. Lastly, a few articles about colonizing the moon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_the_Moon https://www.sciencealert.com/nasa-scientists-say-we-could-colonise-the-moon-by-2022-for-just-10-billion https://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/topnav/materials/listbytype/HEP_Lunar.html NASA article about production of solar panels on the moon: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20050110155.pdf Map over the south pole: http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/images/gigapan Feel free to spam the thread with news regarding colonization.
  7. Colonization Of The Solar System

    Phobos and Deimos could be used for the same purpose as the moon, for cheaper materials and fuel to space. Since Mars has stronger gravity and a atmosphere, it take more power to transport materials to space.
  8. When I speak of empathy, I mean a persons ability to emulate others emotions. Not how caring you are or something like that. You can be strong in empathy and still don't give a crap about someone dying, this comes down to perceptions as you mentioned. However, a person low in empathy is less likely to be affected by the death, while a person high in empathy is more likely to be affected. And then we come down to the definition, a psychopath is extremely low in empathy. This means they have a really hard time understanding others feelings. Which is why they end up not giving a shit. A sadist is extremely high in empathy, ironic right? To the point where they feel it stronger than the actual person, they also confuse pain with sexual pleasure. This means they can be caring and loving of people. However, if they are narcissistic, or low in consciousnesses they are likely to hurt others for their own pleasure. A psychopath would not torture someone to death unless it was to prove a point, or for deterrence. It is simply illogical and a waste of time. A sadist would, regardless of how logical it is.
  9. You said psychopath/sadist, making it seem like they are similar, so I just explained to make sure everyone here was on the same track. Media tends to portray mental disorders and personality disorders pretty poorly. Examples like Sociopathy, mania, psychopathy, psychosis and schizophrenia. The new film "Kingsmen 2" is a great example here. They really love to romanticize a hybrid psychopath/sadist, which per definition is almost impossible to be.
  10. A psychopath is a person that lacks or is low in empathy. A sadist has exaggerated empathy, meaning they feel other peoples emotions more strongly than normal people, and gets sexual pleasure from others pain, and in some cases their own pain. In this case a sadist would probably do the killing out of pure pleasure. A psychopath would have to have motivation, like fame, money or ideological. In their eyes, murdering a few people does not seem like a big price to accomplice their goals. Both can go under the radar simply because people are not diagnosed unless they deviate from the norm. Meaning, if a sadist keeps their desires in check, they could appear as just another person. For squarehead: They are the polar opposite because they can't technically be both, as explained above. Psychopaths put their gratification first, and will do anything to get it, thinking if you are dumb enough to be fooled, you deserve it. A sadist just loves pain. They both fall under the "Evil triad" though, pretty much evil aspects of humans.
  11. Sadists and psychopaths are the polar opposite. And they both can function well in society. CEOs and journalists are popular choices for psychopaths. Psychopaths are very good at hiding under the radar, even managing to convince psychologists into not diagnosing them. He might be motivated by the fact that he is 60. He might want fame or to be remembered.
  12. Why does a shooter need a proper reason to preform mass murder? Many mass murderers can be classified as sadists. People that mistake pain for pleasure, and has much stronger empty than the average person. Just think about how you feel when the bad guy in a movie is finally taken down, and make that feeling much stronger, that is how a sadist feel. Also, the feeling of orchestrating such a big thing, the feeling of being in control of thousands of people's life. Many people murder just because of pleasure alone. To make things worse, is the amount of romanticizing from the media. Just think about the amount of prestige this person gets from pulling off the US's deadliest shooting. The media loves it and spreads it far and wide. He gets marked in history. Playing right into his hand. This song pretty much shows a mass murder in a nutshell for the media: And the amount of people exploiting the event for fame, attention and virtue signaling makes me puke. If these kinds of evens were played down and kept covering to a minimum, they would massively drop in popularity.
  13. Colonization Of The Solar System

    The economic prospects are enormous, it's just that the risk and very long term investment is not seen as worth it for business. Example: Why should I risk billions on a something that might only make huge profits in 25 years? Also, by doing it, you basically pave the way for the rest, meaning they can do the same at a much lower risk. Simply put, humans are prefer more short term and quick solutions with instant gratification, and are egoistical, not wanting to share with others. Capitalism is supply and demand. Unless sufficient demand is there, they would rather make money of what they have. Why waste R&D on something that is not guaranteed to be hugely profitable? This is why Tesla is a pain in the ass for car manufacturers. He keeps pushing the bar up, forcing the car companies to actually invest in R&D. Same goes with space. There is a reason why war and conflict causes such huge leaps in technology and advancements, because it creates a huge demand.
  14. Colonization Of The Solar System

    From what I have heard, the reason NASA wants to go to Mars is because the public cares a great deal more about a Mars mission than a Moon mission, meaning more funding to do more stuff. If they could chose they would take the moon. Elon Musk said he wanted to make our species interplanetary, and since he needs to keep up his achievements, he chose Mars. Currently, only India, Japan, Russia, China and to some extend the US plans to colonize the moon by around 2020-30. But those are small scale and not close to what Elon Musk is planning.
  15. It's actually supposed to be a CIS-Lunar space station, meaning a space station orbiting the moon. On that matter, would the people here be interested in starting a thread about colonizing the solar system, focusing the most on the moon and mars?
  16. It seems to me that the left attracts a lot of closet racists, supremacists, masochists and sexist people. Sexist examples being how one can say that woman and men are equal, for then to demand support for woman so that they can end up with the same result. And example here is a gender quota. It was enforced here to improve equality. But when you think about it, it is actually extremely sexist, demeaning the woman that climbed to the top the proper way and being a passive way to state that woman are not capable of reaching leader positions without aid. And it hurts business. I have a friend that is a storage worker. The company used to only hire boys around the age of 16-17, because they were just as hardworking and efficient as men. They would also guarantee to make more value than say a 18 year old, since they would leave for collage a year later. People under 18 are also paid 4,5 dollars less an hour, which makes them cheaper too. They hired no woman. Why? Because woman in general er less physically fit for the job. It requires a lot of upper body strength and stamina, which males already have over 40% more of when they hit puberty on average. This causes woman to be less efficient and cost the company more. Also all the guys I talked to that worked there loves the job, excellent pay and a lot of work hours, while the woman hates it, too exhausting and too much work. Of course when the feminists got to know that this company was almost 100% male at the storage they attacked the PR of the company, calling them sexist. This forced the company to selectively not hire boys until they could reduce the gender difference. Which is ironic, since it is also sexist. They now hire woman between the age of 18-25 because they are more physically fit than underage girls. When it comes to closet racists I see it in the way people treat black people for example. I have a friend that likes to pull the "black card" as he calls it, basically, if the person that accuses him of something is not black, he will call them racist, which makes them instantly try to convince him that they are not, then he goes free, since he is black. I also see a lot of people treating black people like they are kids, letting them get away with ludicrous things because they are black, and society is racist apparently. One big irony is in the US, where these people claim that there is nothing wrong with black communities, and the outcry every time a policeman arrests a black guy. It is a fact that black people disproportional make up most violent crime and homicides. This is why we should focus on fixing the problems in the communities, rather than focusing on their race as many closet racists do. Parenthood and seems to actually be the biggest problem here. To specify supremacists: People that believe that since we are so rich and developed we have to intervene and force ourselves on others. We must go to poor countries to help the poor people there, since they can't support themselves. We must build schools and give them food and shelters that collapse the moment the camera crew leaves. But of course we are not going to improve their infrastructure or help them create jobs, because who would could we help then and take in as refugees? My former teacher works to help the Nepal people, they have done great things to improve the society there. Built power plants, factories, hospitals, psychiatrics and much more. When the earthquake hit Nepal, all the mayor humanitarian organisations came with wide news coverage and cried about how horrible it was. They set up temporary shelters and claimed that they helped out people. But when the news coverage died off two weeks later, they all left and the shelters collapsed since they were simple wood and plastic constructions. My former teacher almost fell into despair because of that, how little the "humanitarians" actually cared. We also have the got damn white helmets, a "non-profit" humanitarian organisation that happens to be funded by the US and Britain, that just happens to aid terrorist organisations like Al-Qaida. They travel in convoys with them, and when Russia bombed this convoys, media screamed about Russia bombing humanitarian convoys. Just ignore they fact that they actually participate in the fighting and preform war crimes on camera, which can be found all over the web. They also stage propaganda, a good example is where a person has a huge smile on his face in a hospital scene, thinking he is off cam, but but then he realizes he is on cams and suddenly acts all depressed and despaired. Aleppo boy is also a great example, his father admitted that it was all fake. Russia is so fed up with the white helmets that they do a second strike on their target later, so that they take out the Al-Qaida supporters. That's enough ranting for me today .
  17. 1. What I am afraid of is a hot spot in the coolant circuit going back into the motor and demagnetizing the permanent magnets. 2. This is probably the best solution, though a bit heavier.
  18. I created this topic for sharing, learning and discussing electric motors and their associated systems. First thing I want to discuss is cooling systems for EV electric motors. To get the most power out of the motor you can simply overvolt the motor, since more current=more power, this however decreases the lifespan of the motor. The reason why is because electric motors have magnet wire isolation rate to last 20 000 hours at their rated temperature. Let's take the cheapest type, which is usually rated at 150 degrees Celsius. Let's say it operates at 150 degrees, and you overvolt it and increase the temperature to 160 degrees, you have now halved the life of the motor to 10 000 hours. Increase it to 170 degrees and it halves again to 5 000 hours, and this continues to the motor burns. How do you counter this? You can wind the motor with thicker wires, which creates less resistance, and less heat, but this also hurts the power density of the motor, since thinner wires can be more compact. Thinner wires also increase the amount of turns you can do per pole, increasing the power. You can have the case be a heatsink, though this gets to ridicules levels quickly, making the motor extremely heavy. We have for example a 5hp motor at 140kg, a complete no-go for EVs. You can use a higher grade isolation, being rated as high as 500 degrees Celsius in some cases. The issue here? Higher cost and a thicker wire for the same resistance. It also has some implications. If you are using a PM motor you have magnets inside, which demagnetize at a certain temperature. You want PMs for compact motors, and the stronger the better. Neodymium magnets are the strongest, but they also demagnetize at 60-80 degrees Celsius, which means that having higher grade wire does not really do anything. You can of course use weaker ferrite magnets that work up to 250 degrees C, but then you lose power density. If you are a incredibly rich person that wants to make his own toy you can use sliver, which weights less, has less resistance and conducts heat better, at about 77 times the price, compared to copper. Now lastly the best solution in my opinion is cooling. This can be done in two different ways, air cooling and liquid cooling. Air cooling requires the motor to have a lot of surface area, be open and therefor not water or dust proof and to have a powerful fan blowing over it, a bigger fan, means a more cool motor. This however, is about as effective as in cars. Now lets get to the point. Liquid cooling. There are several approaches, we can give the motor a water jacket, and simply pump the water through it. We can have channels than run through the stator and rotor. Or we can (simplified) fill the motor with transmission oil, like they did in the Toyata Prius. Here the rotor circulates the oil as far as I have understood. The method I prefer is using channels that run through the stator, closely touching the wingdings. This is simply because copper is good at conducting heat, while steel is not. Though, I have no idea to circulate cooling fluid through the rotor. Which brings me to my question. How do you circulate the coolant? I was thinking about putting a pump right on the axle. This seemed like the good idea, until I realized that the electric motor also has to spin in the other direction, which would make all the coolant flow in the other direction too. I guess you can use a valve system to make sure it always flows one direction, but then you need a bidirectional pump which is not as efficient. Alternatively, you can use this: Does anyone have a better idea of how to solve this? And how to cool the rotor? Also, would it be possible to use a vortex tube to cool the air before it passes through the radiator?
  19. How long is the education in the US? Here it is 3 years in police college. 5 for a master. We haven't had armed police until recently (because of the homegrown terrorism and the terrorist threat abroad). Crime is very low here in Norway, to the point where criminals traveling from abroad is a bigger problem where I live.
  20. General news thread

    Very interesting sense of fashion, dressed up for a peaceful protest here: And what flag is that? The emblem looks like anonymous, but the brown and black part is weird.
  21. When it comes to the salmon migration, it should not really pose a problem. Just look to Norway. If it was really a big problem, we would not have such a huge fishing industry (In comparison to other sectors in the country.
  22. Nuclear power seems like the best bet here.
  23. Again, this is why hydropower is so damn good. Use whatever renewable you want, and supplement the rest with hydropower, and when you have excess, pump the water up in the dams again.
  24. I find it funny how solar and wind is the most popular renewable energies in media. First of all, even if we could be make perfect solar panels, they would still be too unreliable because of weather. Really sucks when your city breaks down because of a cloudy day isn't it? You know what the best part is? My bloody country is trying to build out solar power, the got damn hydropower king, with 90% hydropower. Just looking at a solar map shows how ludicrously stupid this is. All this because we built a few gas powerplant/refineries in case we need urgently more power. We are also building out windpower here, because a damn makes our valleys look too ugly, ironic isn't it?: Honestly, solar is very good in a private or individual setting, but it is bloody useless in a national sense unless your country is located in the optimal solar locations. Same goes for windpower, it varies widely, and has to break to avoid the generator from overloading in strong winds. Both need a energy storage medium to be effective, like , I don't know, hydropower! Funny isn't it? Or you can supplement it with fossil fuels or nuclear power. I honestly only see a future in hyrdopower because of its ability to store potential energy, and thermal power since it is pretty much constant. Supplement this with nuclear power and you pretty much has the cleanest possible power generation. You could of course exploit local geography with solar, wind or tidal current power. But they will never become mainstream. I really love the irony of the transport sector too. Regular folks has to be taxed for fuel and the cars has to be efficient and media panics about emissions. But in comparison to the shipping industry, the worlds car pollution is a drop in the ocean.
×