harlock

Howere if plastic products are banned, their alternatives'd fill the market.

No project about it. I'm suggesting it to everybody because humans probably need it to save Earth planet from pollution. My idea is to use renewable energy to melt NaCl in order to store it. Then humans can use molten Sodium Chloride to have constant electrical energy from changeable renewable energy... p.s. Wind, Sea and hydro energy are largely availabe on the Earth and can directly be converted into thermal energy by Foucault currents without using electrical resistances...: I think it's the key to have cheap renewable energy. if it's cheap, it grows and replaces pollutant energy sources.

The required thermal energy needed to liquefy 1 m3 of NaCl is about 300 kwh(at least), infact its heat of fusion value is about 30 kj/mol ---> 300 kwh/m3, consequently 1 m3 of molten NaCl stores about 300 kwh of thermal energy at the same temperature(about 800°C)..before becoming solid again. The working Temp is around 800°C(T.fus of NaCl), so thermal to electric energy conversion is potentially efficient.

Take a look at a RAD(Rapid Application Devolopment) programming language. An example is Lazarus/Delphi. It's good for personal use...

Why not to ban plastic products if it's replaceable?! If only Trump bans them including import of plastic products, the world'd be saved from plastic...

- Solar Energy, Wind Energy, Sea Energy ----> Thermal Energy ---> molten Sodium Chloride - 1 m3 of solid Sodium Chloride + 300 kwh of Thermal Energy -----> about 1 m3 of molten Sodium Chloride - 1 m3 of molten Sodium Chloride ---> 300 Kwh of Thermal Energy(--->100 Kwh of Electric Energy + 200 kwh of lost heat) + solid Sodium Chloride - In a single salt mine usually there're several billion m3 of NaCl. Storing energy with Sodium Chloride?

Does it exist or are we too much enthusiastic for these things? There would need less than 1 cm thickness of tungsten(or lead --> about 1.5 cm) in the coverall to have the same terrestrial weight. What do you think about?

Uninhabited by human doesn't mean it is uninhabited by other life forms such as microorganisms.. Antarctica(Surface: 14e6 kmq) is almost completely uninhabitated. Only liquid water can give some kind of life. Surely we can find a location without life where to free living beings from nuclear waste!

A no-living-being environment as healthy as possible while people're exposed to radiation or have this risk: is it logical?

Why don't world govs decide to move all of their nuclear waste in Antarctica?

Animals're instinctive living beings. Especially for sex...

It's what I said: 'we need to rationalise sex also' because we all can be better than animals. Religion is a way but rationality is the best way because of impartiality.

I've no source about it however it's understandable: governments call them refugees escaping from war but for the most part they're all young and strong guys who harass society for sex. What about no women and children? It's only an understandable situation.

Air ionization is a limit to the maximum possible Electric field. It seems to be around 3e6 Volt/m! Surely on the Moon this value's more high, it's important because the stored energy depends on the square of Voltage... Photoelectic effect depends on the presence of light so it's not a problem, maybe it can be useful to discharge it very slowly...

How much voltage'd can a Van de Graaff generator reach on the Moon? I mean...completely without air!