NASA scuttling more space missions so it can spend more on global warming

On Wednesday, May 7, 2014 12:03:44 AM UTC-4, RichA wrote:

Fact: He also had 17 tons of uranium oxide which (during the war) was transferred to Canada for processing into nuclear fuel. What do the libs
think Saddam wanted to do with that material?

http://webecoist.momtastic.com/2011/...uranium-glass/

(Libs like that sort of stuff.)

On 5/7/2014 8:38 AM, wrote:
On Wednesday, May 7, 2014 12:03:44 AM UTC-4, RichA wrote:

Fact: He also had 17 tons of uranium oxide which (during the war) was transferred to Canada for processing into nuclear fuel. What do the libs
think Saddam wanted to do with that material?

http://webecoist.momtastic.com/2011/...uranium-glass/

(Libs like that sort of stuff.)




I don't think people know or understand what happened at the end of the
first gulf war.

An armistice was signed. All that meant was a cessation of hostilities,
that's it. The war was NOT over ! Add to that Hussein violated un
resolution 1441 which in and of itself was cause and just grounds for
resumption of hostilities. It's amazing how ignorant of the history of
this fact (s) people are !


We have a similar case wrt N. Korea. The war never ended there, just a
cessation of hostilities.

On Wednesday, May 7, 2014 8:37:34 AM UTC-5, AM wrote:
On 5/7/2014 8:38 AM, wrote:

On Wednesday, May 7, 2014 12:03:44 AM UTC-4, RichA wrote:



Fact: He also had 17 tons of uranium oxide which (during the war) was transferred to Canada for processing into nuclear fuel. What do the libs

think Saddam wanted to do with that material?



http://webecoist.momtastic.com/2011/...uranium-glass/



(Libs like that sort of stuff.)









I don't think people know or understand what happened at the end of the

first gulf war.



An armistice was signed. All that meant was a cessation of hostilities,

that's it. The war was NOT over ! Add to that Hussein violated un

resolution 1441 which in and of itself was cause and just grounds for

resumption of hostilities. It's amazing how ignorant of the history of

this fact (s) people are !





We have a similar case wrt N. Korea. The war never ended there, just a

cessation of hostilities.

The original question was not whether or not this was a war. The original question was whether it was a war over oil or not. Some people would say yes, some would say no. The first and second Gulf wars were over oil, or they were not. Cast your vote.

On Wednesday, May 7, 2014 2:26:46 AM UTC-7, oriel36 wrote:

"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." Eleanor Roosevelt

"I once had a rose named after me and I was very flattered. But I was not pleased to read the description in the catalogue: no good in a bed, but fine up against a wall.
Eleanor Roosevelt"

On Tuesday, May 6, 2014 6:27:21 PM UTC-6, Uncarollo2 wrote:

new forms of electric storage are only about 5 years away.

Do you know how long ago fusion power was only 10 years away?

John Savard

On Wednesday, May 7, 2014 12:57:02 PM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
On Tuesday, May 6, 2014 6:27:21 PM UTC-6, Uncarollo2 wrote:



new forms of electric storage are only about 5 years away.



Do you know how long ago fusion power was only 10 years away?



John Savard

This is not about a new way to create energy. It is about storing energy for use later. Right now Wind and Solar electric energy cannot realistically be stored, so there is a huge market potential for a system to store power economically. Right now batteries take too long to charge and they have low energy densities compared to oil. This limits their ability to be used in practical transportation systems. Right now Nuclear power plants produce a lot of electricity at night, which is wasted because there is a low demand for electricity during nightime hours.

All of these present marketing opportunities for electric storage systems. It is a technology that has been shown to work on a small scale (unlike fusion), but requires large capital investment to bring to fruition. The demand is there, and someone will certainly fulfill it soon enough.

Uncadoodles

On Wednesday, May 7, 2014 4:58:51 PM UTC+1, palsing wrote:
On Wednesday, May 7, 2014 2:26:46 AM UTC-7, oriel36 wrote:



"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." Eleanor Roosevelt



"I once had a rose named after me and I was very flattered. But I was not pleased to read the description in the catalogue: no good in a bed, but fine up against a wall.

Eleanor Roosevelt"

It must be cocktail hour again there Paul because you took the wrong direction with the quote. Great ideas and inspirational ideas come from the same source while social politics amounts to nothing more at present than dueling consumerist tendencies.

"It is the Spirit who gives life, the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are Spirit and life" Jesus

The sorting house for astronomers (as opposed to jargon junkie imitators) is in how much inspiration is carried by an idea,for some it is no more than imaging techniques and a photo itself but others go on to encounter the works of the great astronomers who made sense of the celestial arena,the motions in it and how much it effects terrestrial science and human life.

A spirited life is one that survives in the most hostile environment and among those who have lost heart.

On Wednesday, May 7, 2014 2:20:48 PM UTC-6, Uncarollo2 wrote:

This is not about a new way to create energy. It is about storing energy for
use later.

I was not attempting to imply otherwise. However, forecasts of technological advances in the future - whether a computer program that can play chess well (which was finally achieved), fusion power, batteries good enough for an electric car fully comparable to gasoline-powered vehicles, a cure for AIDS, and so on - must be taken with a grain of salt. Difficulties arise that cannot be anticipated in the development of a technology we do not already have.

John Savard

On Wednesday, May 7, 2014 4:03:53 PM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
On Wednesday, May 7, 2014 2:20:48 PM UTC-6, Uncarollo2 wrote:



This is not about a new way to create energy. It is about storing energy for

use later.



I was not attempting to imply otherwise. However, forecasts of technological advances in the future - whether a computer program that can play chess well (which was finally achieved), fusion power, batteries good enough for an electric car fully comparable to gasoline-powered vehicles, a cure for AIDS, and so on - must be taken with a grain of salt. Difficulties arise that cannot be anticipated in the development of a technology we do not already have.



John Savard

It's true what you say, but when there is a need and a huge market, sometimes this spurs innovation. GM's electric Volt has a 45 mile range, but they are already testing a battery of the same size that will propel the vehicle to over 100 miles. Tesla is building an even more advanced battery along with a production facility.

Non-chemical storage is already a fact and you can buy super capacitors right now in small sizes. It's just a matter of scaling up the architecture, there really is no limit to their size. They can also be stacked like batteries.

Aluminum-air batteries of the size that are in the GM Volt can power the vehicle for 1000 miles, and the concept is quite cheap. A quick Google search will come up with lots of new technologies that did not exist 5 years ago. 20 years ago you couldn't have moved images around on a screen with your finger.

Uncadoodles

On Wednesday, May 7, 2014 4:16:31 PM UTC-5, Uncarollo2 wrote:
On Wednesday, May 7, 2014 4:03:53 PM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:

On Wednesday, May 7, 2014 2:20:48 PM UTC-6, Uncarollo2 wrote:







This is not about a new way to create energy. It is about storing energy for



use later.







I was not attempting to imply otherwise. However, forecasts of technological advances in the future - whether a computer program that can play chess well (which was finally achieved), fusion power, batteries good enough for an electric car fully comparable to gasoline-powered vehicles, a cure for AIDS, and so on - must be taken with a grain of salt. Difficulties arise that cannot be anticipated in the development of a technology we do not already have.







John Savard



It's true what you say, but when there is a need and a huge market, sometimes this spurs innovation. GM's electric Volt has a 45 mile range, but they are already testing a battery of the same size that will propel the vehicle to over 100 miles. Tesla is building an even more advanced battery along with a production facility.



Non-chemical storage is already a fact and you can buy super capacitors right now in small sizes. It's just a matter of scaling up the architecture, there really is no limit to their size. They can also be stacked like batteries.



Aluminum-air batteries of the size that are in the GM Volt can power the vehicle for 1000 miles, and the concept is quite cheap. A quick Google search will come up with lots of new technologies that did not exist 5 years ago. 20 years ago you couldn't have moved images around on a screen with your finger.



Uncadoodles

Check this out:

http://energystorage.org/energy-stor...e-technologies

http://energystorage.org/energy-storage/facts-figures