Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2011 19:29:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by 90GTVert on Dec 22, 2011 20:57:09 GMT -5
That's cool. If they'd pay me as a test rider, I'd do 15,000km on the whole fleet for 'em. ;D I promise I'd make sure they were tested under harsh treatment and everything.
|
|
|
|
Post by Enviromoto on Dec 23, 2011 19:41:25 GMT -5
That tech to me is crazy on two wheels.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2011 20:25:25 GMT -5
That tech to me is crazy on two wheels. Nasa didnt start off with the Saturn IV rocket, it evolved. |
|
|
|
Post by Pony66 on Dec 24, 2011 10:40:25 GMT -5
Technology is awesome. Thanks for the link.
|
|
|
|
Post by Enviromoto on Dec 24, 2011 11:31:34 GMT -5
That tech to me is crazy on two wheels. Nasa didnt start off with the Saturn IV rocket, it evolved. True but you did see the hydrogen explosion at Fukushima right? Those who know me I'm 100% behind clean and cheap energy. IMO nuclear and hydrogen is going in the wrong direction. Sure it offers cheap energy but it has been proven to be very unsafe. Not trying to argue, or discredit, just making a point. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 24, 2011 13:04:51 GMT -5
At a properly designed modern nuke plant there are thousands of fail-safes that would have to fail all at once for there to be a problem. I know this because I was in one. When I was 12 I had the wonderful and rare opportunity to take a very informative tour in a new nuke plant before it went online. Sharon Harris here in NC. It was built by what was then CP&L (now Progress Energy) and my father was an employee. We got to go all through the control room (it was like mission control at NASA) and got to look down into the reactor vessel in the containment building that was awesome. The walls of the dome shaped containment building are 10ft thick steel reinforced concrete to withstand a f-5 tornado, a 747 jet crash and 7.0 earthquake all at once. Also to keep any explosions inside contained. The plant in the video above did not any have that. There are plants in USA designed like the one above also. Chernobyl the worst nuke disaster in history was like the above too. Plants like Sharon Harris I would live right next door and not think twice. Actually I am only 20 miles from S.H. my power comes from there  That being said, a fuel cell consists of the same things the Saturn 5 and Space Shuttle used to get into orbit. Oxygen and Hydrogen=Rocket fuel. It was mixed and ignited in a totally different way from how fuel cells work though and the chances of any explosions are slim in a fuel cell. auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/alternative-fuels/fuel-cell.htm |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 24, 2011 13:45:13 GMT -5
before 9/11 you could drive right up to the cooling tower and park right there beside it. Now you would never make it that close alive. In this photo you can see the security checkpoint... farm2.staticflickr.com/1240/1295211258_002a510f91_z.jpgbefore 9/11 there wasnt even a gate. |
|
|
|
Post by reveeen on Dec 27, 2011 3:36:16 GMT -5
Those who know me I'm 100% behind clean and cheap energy. IMO nuclear and hydrogen is going in the wrong direction. Sure it offers cheap energy but it has been proven to be very unsafe.
And really: how clean?
Is this, yet not another case, of sweeping the dirty stuff under the rug, and putting a clean face on something?
And can we not simply call this "technology for the sake of technology"?
Scooters seem to give between 80-100mpg (ok count on 50mpg). Is making one (or a hundred) more fuel efficient of greater benefit than say, banning ALL gasoline powered Hummers (or ALL Hummers)?
|
|
