"jim" wrote in message
news
Frank Gilliland wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 15:36:26 -0500, jim wrote
in :


Dave wrote:

"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
m...


We just got dumped with a butt-load last night, way more than the
amount that was forecast. It's still snowing. And it's all heading
East.



And which part of the world would you be in? You know, but unless you
say, no one else will.



Frank's up in the North West. Finally saw snow yesterday morn and it
melted within a couple of hours here on Long Island.



Weren't you in the 70's just a couple weeks ago?


The city was but out here on the island temps are much colder especially
near the Pine Barrens which is devoid of pavement which retains heat.


I see Bush is finally admitting to the existance of global warming but
said **** all to the Kyoto agreement. Big business has him in their
pocket. When will business figure out they can make money protecting the
environment?



At the risk of sounding like a Republican, business follows the
markets, and the current markets are driven by the "buy-now-pay-later"
mentality of the current generation. So if you want to change business
priorities you need to change consumer priorities. And cheap gasoline
has a higher priority than the environment.

Funny though, the solution is so simple: fusion. The government should
be dumping every last penny into research into fusion research. It
would be like having a chunk of the Sun right here on Earth, to tap
for as much energy as we need for the next thousand years. That's the
future if the human race is going to survive; the only question is
whether we will choose to do it now or later.
Agreed with fusion. The Brookhaven National Laboratory is right around the
corner but I doubt they are doing anything in that regards. I do know they
have a 1/2 mile underground ring doing atom smashing.

The problem with fusion is containing it. It takes more energy to contain it
than it generates.

"Jimmie D" wrote in message
...

"jim" wrote in message
news
Frank Gilliland wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 15:36:26 -0500, jim wrote
in :


Dave wrote:

"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
m...


We just got dumped with a butt-load last night, way more than the
amount that was forecast. It's still snowing. And it's all heading
East.



And which part of the world would you be in? You know, but unless you
say, no one else will.



Frank's up in the North West. Finally saw snow yesterday morn and it
melted within a couple of hours here on Long Island.



Weren't you in the 70's just a couple weeks ago?


The city was but out here on the island temps are much colder especially
near the Pine Barrens which is devoid of pavement which retains heat.


I see Bush is finally admitting to the existance of global warming but
said **** all to the Kyoto agreement. Big business has him in their
pocket. When will business figure out they can make money protecting
the
environment?



At the risk of sounding like a Republican, business follows the
markets, and the current markets are driven by the "buy-now-pay-later"
mentality of the current generation. So if you want to change business
priorities you need to change consumer priorities. And cheap gasoline
has a higher priority than the environment.

Funny though, the solution is so simple: fusion. The government should
be dumping every last penny into research into fusion research. It
would be like having a chunk of the Sun right here on Earth, to tap
for as much energy as we need for the next thousand years. That's the
future if the human race is going to survive; the only question is
whether we will choose to do it now or later.
Agreed with fusion. The Brookhaven National Laboratory is right around
the
corner but I doubt they are doing anything in that regards. I do know
they
have a 1/2 mile underground ring doing atom smashing.

The problem with fusion is containing it. It takes more energy to contain
it
than it generates.

(kind of like Mark Morgan's posts...)

On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 23:56:39 -0500, "Jimmie D"
wrote in
:

snip
The problem with fusion is containing it. It takes more energy to contain it
than it generates.


If it were easy we'd be doing it already.

"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 23:56:39 -0500, "Jimmie D"
wrote in
:

snip
The problem with fusion is containing it. It takes more energy to contain
it
than it generates.


If it were easy we'd be doing it already.



No, not until we have used the oil up. But in this case it may be impossible
to do. It has been suggested that controling a fussion reaction would take a
new technolgy that would actually make fussion obsolete.

On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 13:19:31 -0500, "Jimmie D"
wrote in
:


"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 23:56:39 -0500, "Jimmie D"
wrote in
:

snip
The problem with fusion is containing it. It takes more energy to contain
it
than it generates.


If it were easy we'd be doing it already.



No, not until we have used the oil up. But in this case it may be impossible
to do. It has been suggested that controling a fussion reaction would take a
new technolgy that would actually make fussion obsolete.


All the more reason to get moving on the research.