|
Post by Moses on Nov 3, 2013 14:11:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Nov 3, 2013 14:13:10 GMT -5
It is kind of ironic how some hate the government and distrust it, but trust that somehow people are going to come up with a 10,000 year plan to keep radiation rods cool for that long. that's hilarious!
|
|
|
Post by aponderer on Nov 3, 2013 14:21:40 GMT -5
Yeah, I know what you mean. Kinda like, too, predicting that Baltimore will be under 10 feet of water in a 100 years when they can't predict with accuracy what the weather will be a week from now.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Nov 3, 2013 14:30:44 GMT -5
Nothing is without hazard. If you don't want us to use oil, and you don't want us to use nuclear power... what do you want us to use? Keep in mind that anything which involves people sitting in their homes in the dark cold because they get power on odd days only ain't gonna fly. The government would collapse.
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Nov 3, 2013 14:34:10 GMT -5
Nothing is without hazard. If you don't want us to use oil, and you don't want us to use nuclear power... what do you want us to use? Keep in mind that anything which involves people sitting in their homes in the dark cold because they get power on odd days only ain't gonna fly. The government would collapse. It's funny how those who seem to want to stay with the status quo characterize what will happen when we run out of these energies. No I'm not to live in a cave I'm not to forget all the other advancements we've made, I'll be fine I'll be comfortable. Stop with the worst-case scenarios! The government has lasted actually longer without oil than they have with. How do you explain all those people surviving for all those years without basically having huge amount of oil like we do today?
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Nov 3, 2013 14:35:36 GMT -5
Yeah, I know what you mean. Kinda like, too, predicting that Baltimore will be under 10 feet of water in a 100 years when they can't predict with accuracy what the weather will be a week from now. No this is not like global warming which is a theory. It is fact that the cooling rods from nuclear power will take 10,000 years too cool. So that means that humans have to come up with the system this can last for 10,000 years. And you don't trust government! I'm laughing my ass off.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Nov 3, 2013 15:05:16 GMT -5
It's funny how those who seem to want to stay with the status quo characterize what will happen when we run out of these energies. No I'm not to live in a cave I'm not to forget all the other advancements we've made, I'll be fine I'll be comfortable. Stop with the worst-case scenarios! I will, as soon as someone gives me a reason to. What you did here was merely tell me to stop saying things you don't want to hear. The government has lasted actually longer without oil than they have with. How do you explain all those people surviving for all those years without basically having huge amount of oil like we do today? A lot of ways. We burned whale oil - can't do that, now. We used slave labor - can't do that, now. We burned coal - oops, can't do that, either. And perhaps most importantly, we didn't have many devices that required electricity. Flip side of that, people died of toothaches and the flu (and not just old people, either). They were make lame by a broken leg. They starved if they couldn't care for themselves and no family member stepped up. They worked their ass off in the fields, often dying young of it, because there were no machines to help. Life was simpler, but also much more dangerous, much less interesting, and much harder. Energy is the lifeblood of a modern civilization. So we have these choices: use the energy we have now (that we know how to use), develop new ways of generating energy (research is in progress), or revert to a less advanced time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2013 15:18:48 GMT -5
It's funny how those who seem to want to stay with the status quo characterize what will happen when we run out of these energies. No I'm not to live in a cave I'm not to forget all the other advancements we've made, I'll be fine I'll be comfortable. Stop with the worst-case scenarios! I will, as soon as someone gives me a reason to. What you did here was merely tell me to stop saying things you don't want to hear. The government has lasted actually longer without oil than they have with. How do you explain all those people surviving for all those years without basically having huge amount of oil like we do today? A lot of ways. We burned whale oil - can't do that, now. We used slave labor - can't do that, now. We burned coal - oops, can't do that, either. And perhaps most importantly, we didn't have many devices that required electricity. Flip side of that, people died of toothaches and the flu (and not just old people, either). They were make lame by a broken leg. They starved if they couldn't care for themselves and no family member stepped up. They worked their ass off in the fields, often dying young of it, because there were no machines to help. Life was simpler, but also much more dangerous, much less interesting, and much harder. Energy is the lifeblood of a modern civilization. So we have these choices: use the energy we have now (that we know how to use), develop new ways of generating energy (research is in progress), or revert to a less advanced time. No mention of waste, no mention of excess? How about addressing those and other such issues while actively developing new ways of producing energy, instead of just paying lip service to them, and moving on to a more advanced time?
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Nov 3, 2013 15:31:14 GMT -5
Waste is being addressed. There are high SEER furnaces and high efficiency water heaters available to those who care to pay for them. And, incandescent light bulbs are disappearing from store shelves slowly. Computers use less energy every year. Smart grids that can increase distribution efficiency are coming online. But that, alone, will not solve the problem.
Research is being done into new ways of producing energy. Some are limited by physics. You can make solar in places no one wants to live, but how do you get it to where they do want to live? And, it isn't a very efficient way to generate energy, when you consider the laws of quantum mechanics and the space requirements. You can make wind into energy on the coasts, except that all the rich people whose homes are there have the juice to stop you. Fusion? That's still a pipe dream. Geothermal? Maybe. Someday. Right now, it's limited to installations that can heat and cool individual homes and businesses. And it is *expensive*.
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Nov 3, 2013 15:40:42 GMT -5
Nuclear waste is being carried out by storing spent rods in a pool that's going to last 10,000 years! Guaranteed !
No one seems to have much use for suggesting we lower our needs at all. It's not like we are materialistic or anything.
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Nov 3, 2013 15:45:03 GMT -5
Waste is being addressed. There are high SEER furnaces and high efficiency water heaters available to those who care to pay for them. And, incandescent light bulbs are disappearing from store shelves slowly. Computers use less energy every year. Smart grids that can increase distribution efficiency are coming online. But that, alone, will not solve the problem. Research is being done into new ways of producing energy. Some are limited by physics. You can make solar in places no one wants to live, but how do you get it to where they do want to live? And, it isn't a very efficient way to generate energy, when you consider the laws of quantum mechanics and the space requirements. You can make wind into energy on the coasts, except that all the rich people whose homes are there have the juice to stop you. Fusion? That's still a pipe dream. Geothermal? Maybe. Someday. Right now, it's limited to installations that can heat and cool individual homes and businesses. And it is *expensive*. You think having foreign entanglements with rogue foreign countries and actually propping them up by increasing their economy, shipping oil overseas back to America refining it is efficient? I personally think the reason we have soldiers over there is to protect or oil interest. Just think how much that is costing us. The whole infrastructure of oil to America is crazy. It can't go on forever. And ANWR is not going to fix this. I wonder how many terrorists we are fighting over there are actually funded from us buying oil from Middle Eastern countries. Saudi Arabia certainly has a history of not liking us very much. Maybe they're the smart ones here.
|
|
|
Post by middleoftheroad on Nov 3, 2013 16:29:55 GMT -5
Nuclear waste is being carried out by storing spent rods in a pool that's going to last 10,000 years! Guaranteed ! No one seems to have much use for suggesting we lower our needs at all. It's not like we are materialistic or anything. Reducing demand is a great way to reduce our energy use, moses, but like most things you propose, it ignores today's reality. Significant reductions,that is,reductions that will make a real difference in oil consumption, would require the elimination of such things as air conditioning and 24 hour access to even critical services. Less important, but far more difficult to achieve is the elimination of such things as large SUVs and other arguably wasteful but popular consumer products. Consumers have reached the point that they want a certain level of products and services. Unless you can convince them that less is better, they will continue to demand today's products.
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Nov 3, 2013 16:32:24 GMT -5
Nuclear waste is being carried out by storing spent rods in a pool that's going to last 10,000 years! Guaranteed ! No one seems to have much use for suggesting we lower our needs at all. It's not like we are materialistic or anything. Reducing demand is a great way to reduce our energy use, moses, but like most things you propose, it ignores today's reality. Significant reductions,that is,reductions that will make a real difference in oil consumption, would require the elimination of such things as air conditioning and 24 hour access to even critical services. Less important, but far more difficult to achieve is the elimination of such things as large SUVs and other arguably wasteful but popular consumer products. Consumers have reached the point that they want a certain level of products and services. Unless you can convince them that less is better, they will continue to demand today's products. No it ignores your today's reality not mine
|
|
|
Post by howarewegoingtopay on Nov 3, 2013 19:05:24 GMT -5
What is also not mentioned is how many more people there are on the planet now vs when people just burned wood for heat. If you wish to do without energy then you are also in favor of billions of people starving to death. Oil and gas are the current best sources of reliable cheap energy, nuclear is currently pretty dirty, and expensive, but I would bet that fusion is pretty close to being a practical source of energy. Solar, and wind are not reliable enough for the majority of our power needs, currently they are just toys for the rich. Drill baby drill, the more produced world wide the cheaper it will be. Let's also not forget that we are trillions in debt to ourselves and others revenue from oil is welcome.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2013 19:42:43 GMT -5
The former Soviet Union was ENORMOUS and Chernobyl did huge damage..... we could never recover from a disaster that size. Drill the stuff out of it until we have a zillion mills.... yes even in Martha's Vineyard. On top the WH too for all I care.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2013 19:53:26 GMT -5
Yeah, I know what you mean. Kinda like, too, predicting that Baltimore will be under 10 feet of water in a 100 years when they can't predict with accuracy what the weather will be a week from now. No this is not like global warming which is a theory. It is fact that the cooling rods from nuclear power will take 10,000 years too cool. So that means that humans have to come up with the system this can last for 10,000 years. And you don't trust government! I'm laughing my ass off. If we're all still around to care 10,000 years from now to care, let us know!! Not like sites can't be updated and repaired....duh......
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2013 20:01:19 GMT -5
Total fatalities from Fukushima..currently ZERO and counting...this is all junk science and fear mongering....link to a very biased, anti-nuke libby site that links to others. Considering the plant was hit by a tsunami and an earthquake, pretty darn impressive. Chernobyl is simply an example of why leftists should not be enigneers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2013 20:06:23 GMT -5
No this is not like global warming which is a theory. It is fact that the cooling rods from nuclear power will take 10,000 years too cool. So that means that humans have to come up with the system this can last for 10,000 years. And you don't trust government! I'm laughing my ass off. If we're all still around to care 10,000 years from now to care, let us know!! Not like sites can't be updated and repaired....duh...... I like gas guzzlin, smog spewing, noise polluting, tire burning cars and I approve this message!
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Nov 3, 2013 20:41:49 GMT -5
Chernobyl is simply an example of why leftists should not be enigneers. This statement makes no sense at all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2013 20:54:58 GMT -5
Chernobyl is simply an example of why leftists should not be enigneers. This statement makes no sense at all. Chernobyl was poorly built and designed- by the ultimate leftists at all, the USSR. Allow ideology to dictate what should be based upon mathematics, and you get results like Chernobyl.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2013 20:59:32 GMT -5
This statement makes no sense at all. Chernobyl was poorly built and designed- by the ultimate leftists at all, the USSR. Allow ideology to dictate what should be based upon mathematics, and you get results like Chernobyl. You also get results like being the first into space.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2013 21:13:43 GMT -5
Chernobyl was poorly built and designed- by the ultimate leftists at all, the USSR. Allow ideology to dictate what should be based upon mathematics, and you get results like Chernobyl. You also get results like being the first into space. Being first is far from being the best. And as to who had the better system--- which government still exists, and which government was unable to make it 70 years?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2013 21:14:59 GMT -5
Chernobyl was poorly built and designed- by the ultimate leftists at all, the USSR. Allow ideology to dictate what should be based upon mathematics, and you get results like Chernobyl. You also get results like being the first into space. Yes, we can thank Eisenhower, a conservative American called JFK and Von Baun. NONE of which liked the Soviet Bloc.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Nov 3, 2013 21:35:27 GMT -5
Chernobyl was poorly built and designed- by the ultimate leftists at all, the USSR. Allow ideology to dictate what should be based upon mathematics, and you get results like Chernobyl. Chernobyl was poorly designed, sure, but I doubt that had much to do with them being leftists. It was more about cost cutting, which is what you'd get over here if someone wasn't watching corporations constantly. We've already seen that happen in the pharmaceutical industry and other places. No reason it wouldn't happen in nuclear power. You don't like leftists, and that's what's making you say that leftist philosophy led to Chernobyl, not the facts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2013 21:40:12 GMT -5
Chernobyl was poorly built and designed- by the ultimate leftists at all, the USSR. Allow ideology to dictate what should be based upon mathematics, and you get results like Chernobyl. Chernobyl was poorly designed, sure, but I doubt that had much to do with them being leftists. It was more about cost cutting, which is what you'd get over here if someone wasn't watching corporations constantly. We've already seen that happen in the pharmaceutical industry and other places. No reason it wouldn't happen in nuclear power. You don't like leftists, and that's what's making you say that leftist philosophy led to Chernobyl, not the facts. Were the Three Mile Island nuclear reactors built by leftists?
|
|