|
LA Blackout | by VivianC | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
| A non-biased question |
by Kickstart |
2005-09-12 13:41:03 |
But for years now there have been major events that raise the question of U.S. infrastructure falling apart. From brownouts to highways to the issues DR66 raises with not enough refineries, it seems that infrastructure is falling apart. Most of these issues are state issues it appears, so I don't know if there is a possible federal solution. Any thoughts on the real cause or a possible solution?
KS |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
In California's case | by DesertRat66 | 2005-09-12 13:45:03 |
|
So volunteer your background | by SnappingTurtle | 2005-09-12 14:11:52 |
|
I don't know for sure | by altordwm | 2005-09-12 14:25:09 |
|
He doesn't live in CA. | by JPaganel | 2005-09-12 16:53:52 |
|
Can't give a non-biased answer. | by VivianC | 2005-09-12 13:59:00 |
|
What's needed is a *new* energy producer. | by kahuana | 2005-09-12 14:04:39 |
|
The cost of entry is very high. | by VivianC | 2005-09-12 14:07:55 |
|
Uh, why reactors? | by mortaine | 2005-09-12 14:12:51 |
|
Plus, reactor fuel has doubled in cost | by Arachnid | 2005-09-12 14:16:44 |
|
It earned itself back over 10 years. | by Esteis | 2005-09-12 14:20:31 |
|
Reactors ARE safe, cheap and environmentally sound | by RetiQlum2 | 2005-09-12 14:17:01 |
|
Storage isn't a problem. In 40-50 years | by kahuana | 2005-09-12 14:18:22 |
|
Chernobyl, Three Mile Island | by Arachnid | 2005-09-12 14:19:38 |
|
Chernobyl and Three Mile Island | by Pic | 2005-09-12 14:21:50 |
|
There's no real way of telling that | by Arachnid | 2005-09-12 14:23:15 |
|
Chernobyl was human error. | by kahuana | 2005-09-12 14:26:17 |
|
They did? I'd say "Darwin Award", but unfortunatel | by Esteis | 2005-09-12 14:27:45 |
|
Not entirely | by Arachnid | 2005-09-12 14:30:02 |
|
RetiQlum2's found links regarding Chernobyl. | by kahuana | 2005-09-12 14:34:36 |
|
See here | by Arachnid | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
|
Chernobyl failed because... | by RetiQlum2 | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
|
Not really, | by run.dll | 2005-09-12 18:00:16 |
|
Windscale... | by LionsPhil | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
|
Huh, I'd never heard of that one. | by Arachnid | 2005-09-12 15:04:06 |
|
It since got renamed to Sellafield. | by LionsPhil | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
|
Or | by LionsPhil | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
|
TMI was a non-event | by run.dll | 2005-09-12 18:05:35 |
|
NIMBY applies to wind power, too. | by esbita | 2005-09-12 14:19:46 |
|
Solar? | by VivianC | 2005-09-12 14:25:28 |
|
Up here of course there's no way. | by esbita | 2005-09-12 14:38:58 |
|
Solar B&B | by VivianC | 2005-09-12 15:02:41 |
|
Every power source has its drawbacks | by DevinUll | 2005-09-12 14:55:19 |
|
Hydro dams. | by Arachnid | 2005-09-12 14:56:51 |
|
Drawback | by VivianC | 2005-09-12 15:04:26 |
|
That's true, however | by Arachnid | 2005-09-12 15:07:14 |
|
well, ecept for the clyde village anyway | by astro-g | 2005-09-12 19:19:58 |
|
James Bay hydroelectric project in Quebec | by kahuana | 2005-09-12 15:10:16 |
|
Just ask the residents of the Grand Canyon | by altordwm | 2005-09-12 15:06:27 |
|
Cost, Build time, Worker deaths, breaches, | by DevinUll | 2005-09-12 15:08:08 |
|
Beleive me, the random ground shaking here is | by astro-g | 2005-09-12 19:21:58 |
|
They cause the destruction of the river ecology. | by RetiQlum2 | 2005-09-12 16:35:32 |
|
Entry cost is prohibitively high. | by kahuana | 2005-09-12 14:14:26 |
|
The UF Power Plant | by VivianC | 2005-09-12 14:21:40 |
|
If your *cooling towers* are glowing, | by LionsPhil | 2005-09-12 15:28:17 |
|
Let me guess... | by LionsPhil | 2005-09-12 15:28:52 |
|
Oh no, quite the opposite. ;) (n/t) | by kahuana | 2005-09-12 16:15:06 |
|
The secret to wealth in this country has been... | by esbita | 2005-09-12 14:09:21 |
|
I think that is a pretty non-biased answer (n/t) | by evilsysadmin | 2005-09-12 14:08:48 |
|
You mean a president in his second term? | by Arachnid | 2005-09-12 14:15:17 |
|
Yes, but... | by VivianC | 2005-09-12 14:20:24 |
|
Leeches, too. Or annelids, as Illiad says | by Esteis | 2005-09-12 14:23:14 |
|
I read recently | by spiffikins | 2005-09-12 14:30:53 |
|
I've heard the same thing. | by VivianC | 2005-09-12 14:44:46 |
|
Well, how about a non-biased suggestion from the o | by mortaine | 2005-09-12 14:10:04 |
|
Yes but... | by VivianC | 2005-09-12 14:17:22 |
|
Luckily, electricity travels near the spd of light (n/t) | by Kickstart | 2005-09-12 14:25:28 |
|
Through wires that can break. | by VivianC | 2005-09-12 14:26:46 |
|
but it looses an incredible amount of energy... | by emtieswall | 2005-09-12 14:34:21 |
|
Small solar plants are prohibitively expensive... | by RetiQlum2 | 2005-09-12 14:23:04 |
|
mmmmmm . . . solar pants. (n/t) | by hadji | 2005-09-12 14:36:20 |
|
Way out there :-) | by MatthewDBA | 2005-09-12 14:46:44 |
|
Why polar orbit? (n/t) | by Arachnid | 2005-09-12 14:51:10 |
|
Less down time | by MatthewDBA | 2005-09-12 14:53:43 |
|
You can't put a satellite into geostationary polar | by Arachnid | 2005-09-12 14:55:19 |
|
Polar requires tracking the beam. | by kahuana | 2005-09-12 15:00:52 |
|
DISASTER! Microwave beam misaligned! | by LionsPhil | 2005-09-12 15:26:13 |
|
It's both a power, and a weapons system! (n/t) | by raptor_87 | 2005-09-12 16:27:36 |
|
why no L3/L4? | by astro-g | 2005-09-12 19:30:07 |
|
Here's a brilliant idea for an energy source! | by Esteis | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
