Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 81 to 120 of 156

Thread: Can we bomb Iraq now?

  1. #81
    KING BODWAD XXI BodwadUK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Nottingham
    Posts
    2,176
    America will never use nukes unless they are going out with a bang (They are attacked by many nukes), saddam on the other hand has no one to stop him and can do what the **** he likes. If only takes one man in Iraq to press the big red button but in America it takes two. Yes GWB is an idiot when in public but the other members of the cabinate got their jobs because of there skill and intellegence. GWB is a figurehead that is all he knows very little about whats going on.

    Something has American government worked up and we will need to wait in order to find out what it is. As long as the war is against Saddam and not the people then it shoudnt take too long!!!!

    *** happened to assasinations????


    People say that it is moraly wrong but in the case where many other lives are at risk it is the best course of action to take and will prevent the deaths of many innocent people in Iraq and America.




    Even if this war is averted you can bet money on the fact that Saddam wont last another 10 years in charge because war is bound to break out in the that area sooner or later!!!!
    If you dribble then you are as mad as me

    Lost World Creations Website (XBOX Indie games)
    Lene Marlin

  2. #82
    Banned Michael_Kamen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    1,180
    Originally posted by MasterBlaster
    If Saddam had beaten the US last time then you could justify revenge. Saddam got his but kicked, not Bush senior. There is nothing that needs to be avenged. So your trying to tell me that Little Bush has a personal vendetta against Saddam because Big Bush kicked the crap out of Saddam? It makes absolutly no sense. Big Bush called the war off under his terms, not Saddam's.
    I'm telling you little bush has a personal vendetta against Saddam, because he wants to finish what his father didn't finish: Getting Saddam out of office, and if possible, not alive........

  3. #83
    Fanatic Member Ianpbaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2000
    Location
    Hastings
    Posts
    696
    Well, that was an interesting read

    Futt Bucker, your first name wouldn't happen to be alan by anychance ?
    Yeah, well I'm gonna build my own lunar space lander! With blackjack aaaaannd Hookers! Actually, forget the space lander, and the blackjack. Ahhhh forget the whole thing!

  4. #84
    Lively Member Wally Pipp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Carnivàle
    Posts
    79
    Shhh Ian, it's dangerous to show a sign of the wrong intellect around here. Watch your back mate, they're after you !
    A post brought to you by the Grim Reaper Appreciation Society™

    "Buy your lifetime subscription now and save on your coffin"

  5. #85
    PowerPoster Nightwalker83's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Adelaide, Australia
    Posts
    13,344
    Originally posted by Shawn N
    You're joking right?
    Duh, who would be dumb enough to take the president hostage anyway?

    Dont worry Morgan Freeman and Matt Damon will save us Aaron.
    Not actors
    when you quote a post could you please do it via the "Reply With Quote" button or if it multiple post click the "''+" button then "Reply With Quote" button.
    If this thread is finished with please mark it "Resolved" by selecting "Mark thread resolved" from the "Thread tools" drop-down menu.
    https://get.cryptobrowser.site/30/4111672

  6. #86
    Fanatic Member Ianpbaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2000
    Location
    Hastings
    Posts
    696
    Originally posted by Beacon
    Dont worry Morgan Freeman and Matt Damon will save us Aaron.
    Beacon you numwit I think you'll find you wanted to say Ben Afleck, if you are refering to that dissaterous convertion of a great book "Sum of all fears"
    Yeah, well I'm gonna build my own lunar space lander! With blackjack aaaaannd Hookers! Actually, forget the space lander, and the blackjack. Ahhhh forget the whole thing!

  7. #87
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    0
    Originally posted by Ianpbaker

    Futt Bucker, your first name wouldn't happen to be alan by anychance ?
    No, but you do know me!

  8. #88
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    0
    Originally posted by BodwadUK

    *** happened to assasinations????


    People say that it is moraly wrong but in the case where many other lives are at risk it is the best course of action to take and will prevent the deaths of many innocent people in Iraq and America.

    Fair enough, but even I draw the line at assassinating Bush, even if it would save thousands of lives.

  9. #89
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    0
    I think people who argue that Saddam will use WMD are missing a vital point.

    Why?

    If he ever used them, his country would be bombed back to the stone age.

    If he is proved not to have them, Iran is going to arse rape Iraq in revenge for the last war.

    So, he's damned if you do, damned if you don't. He's walking the only line he can, which is saying he doesn't have them, but leaving an element of doubt to keep Iran out of his country.

  10. #90
    Frenzied Member nishantp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Where you least expect me to be
    Posts
    1,375
    Originally posted by BodwadUK

    *** happened to assasinations????

    People say that it is moraly wrong but in the case where many other lives are at risk it is the best course of action to take and will prevent the deaths of many innocent people in Iraq and America.
    The US can't assissinate leaders of forein nations, for any reason. Its the against some code of war that they adhere to. I forget the exact document (if anyone knows, please let us know). In the Iraq situation, its quite possibly the most counterproductive piece of crap ever written. Instead of bombing them (and killing cilvilians), if they were able to take out Saddam directly...it would save some trouble. Of course, the precedent it would set would be very, very dangerous.
    You just proved that sig advertisements work.

  11. #91
    Fanatic Member Ianpbaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2000
    Location
    Hastings
    Posts
    696
    Phone call for an R sole ?
    Yeah, well I'm gonna build my own lunar space lander! With blackjack aaaaannd Hookers! Actually, forget the space lander, and the blackjack. Ahhhh forget the whole thing!

  12. #92
    Addicted Member MasterBlaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    196
    Originally posted by Beacon
    Well:

    1) He wouldnt need them if the USA wasnt threatening to invade.
    2) Why doesnt America give us a nice list of what they have floating around??

    And dont say we would or we have because it's a load of bollocks. The US may release some information but not all.

    Face it America just hates having it's nuts wrapped around a Iraqi dictators little finger.

    To the american ideals. Great i bet they cant wait.

    CF:
    Good point
    1: Sure he would, He's sitting on the Second Largest Oil Reserve in the world. Iran, Saudi, or Turkey would be all over him if he didn't have them as a deterrent. That's why he used them in the past.

    2: What would be the point? Why do you want a piece of paper to confirm what you already know? The United States has enough weapons to for most purposes destroy the entire planet. That has been common knowledge for the past 30 years. It would take you years to read the damn list of weapons anyway, I can think of better ways to spend my time.

    Saddam has no ones nuts wraped around his finger. Wheather you like it or not, weather it's right or wrong, wheather you and I agree or disagree, the US is going to get Saddam out of power. Saddam's days are numbered. The rest of the world needs that Oil. Sorry, fact of life, Your country, my country, all industrial countrys need that oil to survive. If any one is wrapping nuts around their fingers, it is Saudi Arabia, not Iraq. Innocent people will die. Wow, there is a new concept. Innocent people haven't been getting killed Since the beginning of human existance to benifit someone else, have they? My only problem with everything is that my government won't tell me this straight up(I hate Political Bull Sheit). Also, for any one who thinks I should put my money where my mouth is and put on a uniform, Been There, Done That, My body is too beat up to do it any more, Now I have to sit at a desk and program. Dad is there doing that right now. Brother's Leaving in the very near future at a date I can't disclose. Brother in Law is there Now. Crazy British Cousin going too.

  13. #93
    I'm about to be a PowerPoster! kleinma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    NJ - USA (Near NYC)
    Posts
    23,373
    the US doesn't ask for a list of weapons from all countries only those that pose an IMMEDIATE threat to the national security of our nation and other nations...

    the declaration was put forth by the UN.. not the US..

    and you know what.. all you people bitching about it isn't going to change a damn thing...

    what? bush is too stupid to be president? ok the run against him and become president yourself.. then you make decisions that affect millions and millions of people.. see what the croud thinks of you then...

  14. #94
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    0
    I kinda agree with the last point.

    I'd still not want to see a war, but I'd be happier if they were up front and said - We're going in to take over the country so we can seize control of the oil. I can respect that logic (although I don't agree with it).

    I hate all the crap on this forum about, we're liberating the Iraqi people etc.

    Of course, if we could all use a bit less oil to begin with, maybe we wouldn't be in this position.

  15. #95
    I'm about to be a PowerPoster! kleinma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    NJ - USA (Near NYC)
    Posts
    23,373
    Originally posted by Futt Bucker
    I kinda agree with the last point.

    I'd still not want to see a war, but I'd be happier if they were up front and said - We're going in to take over the country so we can seize control of the oil. I can respect that logic (although I don't agree with it).

    I hate all the crap on this forum about, we're liberating the Iraqi people etc.

    Of course, if we could all use a bit less oil to begin with, maybe we wouldn't be in this position.
    the oil is only one thing though...

    i mean think about it like this... we want to oust saddam and help set up a government there and then yes we will get oil from them... but that is good since that is the biggest money maker for iraq.. they can make tons of money selling oil to the US and other countries.. do it at a fair price, and build economy from that... elect their own leaders without fear of being killed if you oppose them.. maybe.. even maybe have more than 1 guy running next time...

    we care about what is going on over there BECAUSE we have an interest in that area.. yes... but the WMD thing is serious.. whether any of you want to believe it or not.. because a guy that will nuke everything in site if he is on the way out.. poses a big problem.. and the nuke will probably get detonated over there not here... so aside from killing lots of our soldiers.. it will take out the people of that land... some great leader they have

  16. #96
    Addicted Member MasterBlaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    196
    Originally posted by Futt Bucker
    I kinda agree with the last point.

    I'd still not want to see a war, but I'd be happier if they were up front and said - We're going in to take over the country so we can seize control of the oil. I can respect that logic (although I don't agree with it).

    I hate all the crap on this forum about, we're liberating the Iraqi people etc.

    Of course, if we could all use a bit less oil to begin with, maybe we wouldn't be in this position.
    Agreed, No one want's a war.

    Agreed, We aren't liberating crap. Another line of political Bullsheit to convince some of the granolas in the US that we are in this to better life for a bunch of poor people. Will The Iraqi people be better off after this war? Sure, Maby the ones that survive will. It really sucks for the ones that won't though.

    Technologically we don't need to use 70 something %(can't remember exactly, read it in popular mechanics) of the oil we use. Toyota's Hydrogen powered motors in automobiles are currently cranking 120 hp with top speed of 100 mph and produce almost no pollution. Only problem, It takes a helluva lot of energy to extract the hydrogen from water and most of that energy comes from burning fossil fuels. Answer, Nuclear Power. Too bad the Granolas who are so concerned about the environment would rather use heavy polluting fossil fuel than low polluting Nuclear energy. I never could figure that point of view out. Oh well, Looks like were going to war.

  17. #97
    I'm about to be a PowerPoster! kleinma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    NJ - USA (Near NYC)
    Posts
    23,373
    well more and more cars are moving to gas electric which will help.. but not stop the problem... once all cars move to that (i give it still another 15 years+) things will start to get a little better...

    i actually read this article about this kid at some school (MIT i think??) well anyways he came up with this way to power a car using alternate means other than oil/gas... now he just got the ball rolling.. it wasn't ready to stick in a car or anything yet... but it could have lead to 0 pollution cars... so exxon bought the idea from the kid for 10 million bucks.. and tucked it away nice and neat in a closet so that they can stay in business selling gas/oil... now the even worse part is... since they own the rights.. when it is necessary to move to these newer technologies.. they will own it... so they win both times... bastards!

  18. #98
    Hyperactive Member maxl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Montréal
    Posts
    384
    Originally posted by MasterBlaster
    Agreed, No one want's a war.

    Agreed, We aren't liberating crap. Another line of political Bullsheit to convince some of the granolas in the US that we are in this to better life for a bunch of poor people. Will The Iraqi people be better off after this war? Sure, Maby the ones that survive will. It really sucks for the ones that won't though.

    Technologically we don't need to use 70 something %(can't remember exactly, read it in popular mechanics) of the oil we use. Toyota's Hydrogen powered motors in automobiles are currently cranking 120 hp with top speed of 100 mph and produce almost no pollution. Only problem, It takes a helluva lot of energy to extract the hydrogen from water and most of that energy comes from burning fossil fuels. Answer, Nuclear Power. Too bad the Granolas who are so concerned about the environment would rather use heavy polluting fossil fuel than low polluting Nuclear energy. I never could figure that point of view out. Oh well, Looks like were going to war.
    I think Tchernobyl and Three Miles Island had really big effects on people's imagination and that'S why many are reluctant to use nuclear power + the wastes it produce also. Nothing beats Hydro power
    COBOL sa suce !!!

  19. #99
    I'm about to be a PowerPoster! kleinma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    NJ - USA (Near NYC)
    Posts
    23,373
    did you know that nuclear power plants produce waste... the energy is actually the byproduct of producing such waste

  20. #100
    Addicted Member MasterBlaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    196
    It's a containable waste though, that can be disposed of without having as dramatic effect on the environment. Have you ever tried sitting on top of a smoke stack with a 55 gallon barrell trying to catch the pollutants coming out?

  21. #101
    I'm about to be a PowerPoster! kleinma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    NJ - USA (Near NYC)
    Posts
    23,373
    Originally posted by MasterBlaster
    It's a containable waste though, that can be disposed of without having as dramatic effect on the environment.
    well that is topic for debate... i mean you gotta put it somewhere... lol right now it is the caves in nevada...

  22. #102
    Addicted Member MasterBlaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    196
    They could always drop it off in my X girfriend's back yard. She won't mind, honest!

  23. #103
    Lively Member Wally Pipp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Carnivàle
    Posts
    79
    All things aside : does anyone honestly believe alternative energy sources are going to get the attention and the effort they require to grow on people in the next 10 years ?

    Not a chance sadly enough. If only you'd get 80 % of the cars running on an engine not requiring oil you'd be less and less dependant on the middle east region. For some reason that doesn't get through to most people ...
    A post brought to you by the Grim Reaper Appreciation Society™

    "Buy your lifetime subscription now and save on your coffin"

  24. #104
    Addicted Member MasterBlaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    196
    Originally posted by Wally Pipp

    Not a chance sadly enough. If only you'd get 80 % of the cars running on an engine not requiring oil you'd be less and less dependant on the middle east region. For some reason that doesn't get through to most people ...
    Unfortunatly, hydrogen motors are the only ones that can perform well enough to win over 80% of the public. The only way to get the hydrogen efficently is from burning Oil, Methane or Nuclear power. 2 out of 3 of them come mostly from the middle east and the word Nuclear freaks everyone out.

  25. #105
    I'm about to be a PowerPoster! kleinma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    NJ - USA (Near NYC)
    Posts
    23,373
    Originally posted by Wally Pipp
    All things aside : does anyone honestly believe alternative energy sources are going to get the attention and the effort they require to grow on people in the next 10 years ?

    Not a chance sadly enough. If only you'd get 80 % of the cars running on an engine not requiring oil you'd be less and less dependant on the middle east region. For some reason that doesn't get through to most people ...
    well GM is releasing 4+ different cars/trucks including SUVs that are gas/electric getting about 50+ miles per gallon.. that should help a good amount.. saturn is doing the same in 04.. so it will happen.. but it is a big change.. that will take some time..

  26. #106
    I'm about to be a PowerPoster! kleinma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    NJ - USA (Near NYC)
    Posts
    23,373
    Originally posted by MasterBlaster
    Methane
    instead of gas stations you will just go to the drive through at taco bell

  27. #107
    Lively Member Wally Pipp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Carnivàle
    Posts
    79
    Or burn landfills ...
    A post brought to you by the Grim Reaper Appreciation Society™

    "Buy your lifetime subscription now and save on your coffin"

  28. #108
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    0
    For generating needs, solar power is the way to go. But not big fields of it. I worked for a power gen company that did research into this stuff. They worked out that sticking Solar Panels on office blocks could provide enough power to run Air Conditioning on warm days and heating on cold days. This results in less consumption for each office block. Which means less electricity has to be pumped through the grid (there is a large amount of loss in transporting electricity). So less Electricity is produced by Coal/oil/Nuclear plants. Of course this will only work in sunny parts of the world.

    Hydro is great as part of an over all electricity plan (it can be started up very quickly - when another plant trips off the grid), but is not very good at providing large sustained electricity, unless you want to use up massive amounts of land (for reservoirs). It also ceases to work in sub-zero temperatures or areas with low to medium rainfall. Also non-mountainous areas are out.

    For main power plants, then Nuclear is excellent. The waste is (as has already been mentioned) containable, and modern plants are far safer the Chernobyl or Three Mile island ever were (both operator error) in that computers or mechanical devices can trip the reactor - and cannot be over-ridden.

    The major problem with Nuclear, is that it is pretty much on or off. So either you're generating 600-900 MegaWatts or your generating nothing. So they're great for the base load, but useless for peak loads like superbowl (you can't just get rid of the surpless energy, it has to go somewhere). This is where Oil, gas and Coal come in.

    Of these coal is by far the worst pollutant, and in my opinion should be phased out straight away. This is Industrial revolution technology we are talking about....

    Well, thats my view on power gen. Don't know if it helps any.
    Last edited by Futt Bucker; Jan 21st, 2003 at 03:50 PM.

  29. #109

    Thread Starter
    PowerPoster Arc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Under my rock
    Posts
    2,336
    I guess you guys havent heard of the 2 guys that made an engine that runs on French Frie grease. They drove accross the United States stoping at fast food restaurants to refill thier tank of grease. Was just an Old van with a modified Deisel engine..
    -We have enough youth. How about a fountain of "Smart"?
    -If you can read this, thank a teacher....and since it's in English, thank a soldier.


  30. #110
    Frenzied Member Shawn N's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,631
    Originally posted by nishantp
    The US can't assissinate leaders of forein nations, for any reason. Its the against some code of war that they adhere to. I forget the exact document (if anyone knows, please let us know). In the Iraq situation, its quite possibly the most counterproductive piece of crap ever written. Instead of bombing them (and killing cilvilians), if they were able to take out Saddam directly...it would save some trouble. Of course, the precedent it would set would be very, very dangerous.
    I remember watching some show with a title along the lines of "5 Questions of War with Iraq" on CNN not to long ago. One of the questions actually posed what to do with Sadam and assasination was an option.

    The American policy on policitical assasination is full of loopholes and Wolf Blitzer pointed them all out along with ex-CIA operatives that backed up facts. I don't remember exactly what the end-result was, but killing Sadam was definately an option, one way or another.

  31. #111
    Frenzied Member nishantp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Where you least expect me to be
    Posts
    1,375
    In that case, it is probably the best option. Its sure as hell better than a war.
    You just proved that sig advertisements work.

  32. #112
    Fanatic Member spud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Munster (Germany)
    Posts
    542
    Is Mr Bush/Blair sending in the troops to Iraq just to prove that he has WMD or for Saddam to use them against him?
    Haven't got anything to say that is the least bit interesting.
    www.tartan-underground.com

  33. #113
    Frenzied Member nishantp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Where you least expect me to be
    Posts
    1,375
    I doubt it, but Britain is sending 1/4th of its army to Iraq (countries in the region).
    You just proved that sig advertisements work.

  34. #114
    Fanatic Member spud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Munster (Germany)
    Posts
    542
    Dont I know it!
    Haven't got anything to say that is the least bit interesting.
    www.tartan-underground.com

  35. #115
    Hyperactive Member maxl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Montréal
    Posts
    384
    Originally posted by Futt Bucker
    Hydro is great as part of an over all electricity plan (it can be started up very quickly - when another plant trips off the grid), but is not very good at providing large sustained electricity, unless you want to use up massive amounts of land (for reservoirs). It also ceases to work in sub-zero temperatures or areas with low to medium rainfall. Also non-mountainous areas are out.
    Hydro works even in sub -zero areas, here in Québec most of our plant are hydro and ost are located in the north and it can get pretty cold in the winter. Dams are usually build on high flow rivers which freeze less and I think that's why they can continue even in the winter.
    COBOL sa suce !!!

  36. #116
    PowerPoster Beacon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Pub Floor
    Posts
    3,188
    Originally posted by MasterBlaster
    1: Sure he would, He's sitting on the Second Largest Oil Reserve in the world. Iran, Saudi, or Turkey would be all over him if he didn't have them as a deterrent. That's why he used them in the past.

    2: What would be the point? Why do you want a piece of paper to confirm what you already know? The United States has enough weapons to for most purposes destroy the entire planet. That has been common knowledge for the past 30 years. It would take you years to read the damn list of weapons anyway, I can think of better ways to spend my time.
    1) Yeah you have a point there but whats the big deal everyone else has them.

    2) Exactly my point. The US is a total hypocrit. We have em but your not allowed to because we want your oil cheap. And if you have what we have then we cant invade you and get the oil cheap.

    So yes the US's nuts are in a vice because if it were somewhere like Mali they wouldnt even bother.

    IAN:
    Yeah well read the book didnt see the movie. I hate ruining what i saw when you read a book. If ya know what i mean.

  37. #117
    Addicted Member MasterBlaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    196
    I'm guessing your definition of "nuts in a vice" is different than mine. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say by your definition It means the US will have to go to war to get the oil.

    By my definition "Nuts in a vice" would mean The US couldn't win a war to get the oil or even come up with an excuse to justify going to war.

  38. #118
    Addicted Member MasterBlaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    196
    Oh yea, You answered point 1 with the last sentance of point # 2.

  39. #119
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    0
    Originally posted by maxl
    Hydro works even in sub -zero areas, here in Québec most of our plant are hydro and ost are located in the north and it can get pretty cold in the winter. Dams are usually build on high flow rivers which freeze less and I think that's why they can continue even in the winter.
    Sorry, but you may find that your hydro's work in the summer, or that they are in warmer parts of the country. If they are salt water, then they will work a little bit below zero, but as soon as they start to freeze you have a problem.

    The fact that it is a high flow river is irrelevant. Even Niagra falls freeze's up every now and again. Sure it takes a more sustained cold to freeze a moving river, but it will freeze. Either way, most hydro stations work on a reservour principle. So water is stored in a man made lake ready for release. This water is static and will freeze like any other lake. If you tried to release the water on this lake, a vacum would form between the surface layer of ice and the lower unfrozen water as it sperated. This would shatter the top layer of ice, again causing the large junks of ice to go ripping through your expensive machinery.

    As soon as you have large chuncks of ice in the water, you can't send it through the Hydro station as it will either jam the turbines or rip them to shreds.

    Of course, on top of this you have all the other water based problems, water freezing in valves etc - it would be uneconomical to heat that volume of water to above freezing before passing it through the pipes.

  40. #120
    Addicted Member MasterBlaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    196
    Originally posted by Futt Bucker

    Of course, on top of this you have all the other water based problems, water freezing in valves etc - it would be uneconomical to heat that volume of water to above freezing before passing it through the pipes.
    Break out the nuclear waste, we'll have that lake hotter than a hottub in 5 seconds flat.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  



Click Here to Expand Forum to Full Width