|
Post by howarewegoingtopay on Nov 6, 2013 8:05:52 GMT -5
Exactly- a little pollution, so what? I absolutely care less. Nature is extremely overrated, and I has no real value other than to be exploited for profit.That is the most ridiculous statement that I have heard in an age. Then you haven't been reading much on this forum. Can't you recognise the style of post? It is one that is meant to garner exactly your response. Do you really want to play that game? He clearly is taking a page from your buddy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2013 8:20:39 GMT -5
Exactly- a little pollution, so what? I absolutely care less. Nature is extremely overrated, and I has no real value other than to be exploited for profit.That is the most ridiculous statement that I have heard in an age. Yet its an opinion held by majority of the world. For most of history as well. Nature exists to serve man. Even enjoyment of a park-- that's for humans, not the park.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2013 8:22:47 GMT -5
That is the most ridiculous statement that I have heard in an age. Then you haven't been reading much on this forum. Can't you recognise the style of post? It is one that is meant to garner exactly your response. Do you really want to play that game? He clearly is taking a page from your buddy. It is, however, my sincere opinion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2013 8:39:27 GMT -5
Then you haven't been reading much on this forum. Can't you recognise the style of post? It is one that is meant to garner exactly your response. Do you really want to play that game? He clearly is taking a page from your buddy. It is, however, my sincere opinion. Well, there, HAWGTP, you have it. Oh, I have no buddies here, just some folks who I share some beliefs with and some others that I don't.
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Nov 6, 2013 9:12:43 GMT -5
All these folks of brilliance have not mentioned tsunamis or Japan once. You still will never even think of the concept of us thinking do we need so much energy, and the so many reasons around us our supposed needs are really hurting us. But you have very eloquently stated their case of the beauty of nukes. Sorry I don't buy it.
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Nov 6, 2013 9:24:45 GMT -5
Depends on what you mean by getting it to work. I'm against pollution. I'm also against the way we waste oil gas and electricity. We use it in so many frivolous ways. You know if those cooling rods used in nuclear energy are allowed to get too hot it's a disaster. My whole premise of starting this thread was the point out that man is actually expecting us to believe that they've got a 10,000 year plan it's going to work. I'm sorry but I don't believe them. We don't even begin to even understand 10,000 years. I noticed with people to the right of center that everything energy companies do is great. Nothing they do is wrong. There are no ramifications of the future. There's no pollution and if there is it's okay. They can drill where they want. Everything is good with energy. They can do whatever the hell they want. And anyone that tries the point anything else out about this endless energy addiction they are labeled some kind of radical wacko environmentalist. This is a little bit too one sided to be believable. Y'know, I rarely get off on personalities on the board, but I just have to say this. This post states a position, ie, that pretending humans can safely contain nuclear waste for 10,000 years might be an example of cock-eyed optimism. It's a valid point, worthy of discussion. It's not even something any sentient poster would deny. If you made more posts like this, possibly without claiming proponents of nuclear energy are eager to see more pollution, or, at best indifferent, you might find the board more receptive to your arguments. You might even find it fun to join the conversation, even if it's as a member of "the loyal opposition." Just sayin' [Disclaimer: what I loved about the old SunSpot was the variety of points of view. Nothing of interest can be learned in an echo-chamber. I know it's hard to carry the "leftist" load when HST and Aboutwell are absent, but if you stick to the issues you might find some "far, far right" posters on your side. After all, nuclear power couldn't exist if the companies providing it didn't get special dispensation from Big Brother in the case of horrendous accidents. Just something you might want to think about.] Wow. I guess thanks? This is fun to me. Nothing else. I gain or lose nothing by chatting on a public forum. I don't even mind being wrong or anything. Who cares? Some of you act like this is life and death.
|
|
|
Post by middleoftheroad on Nov 6, 2013 9:28:39 GMT -5
Funny you should ask this question moses, as I asked it of you on an ACA thread. I'll try to answer yours here. The process of keeping the cooling rods cool, be it for 10 minutes or 10,000 years is relatively simple, believe it or not. The commitment to maintain that process is the hard task, which is why I tend to agree with you on nuclear power. I point that out because being able to identify the problem is important. Until we can resolve the waste storage commitment issue, I don't particularly care for nuclear power. Now, some scientist out there is going to solve that issue and will do so well before 10,000 years and probably before the end of the century, but until then, I'm not a big fan. No one wanting to have a real discussion about energy use believes as you write about those right of center above. No one wants to pollute. No one believes the carbon energy economy is without risks, even serious risks, to the environment. The problem is that there is no real alternative in the science today. Neither wind nor solar nor bio can even come close to powering the world's need for energy. And just like you are unwilling to promote the continued growth of a 10,000 year hazard, the world is unwilling to go back to non-air conditioned houses and candles until the science of alternate fuels catches up to the demand. So, what do we mean by "work"? I would say that the carbon energy market is doing a reasonably good job now in terms of generating power for the user. so to that degree, it works better than any other energy market. They are not doing a good job of delivering that power (infra-structure investment must increase) and the need to improve on its pollution record is self-obvious, particularly in CO2 production. Given that scenario, and recognizing that alternate energy is many years away from meeting generation levels effectively, what to do? Ironically, we need to build new more efficient cleaner refining plants, as adding new technology to old plants is neither efficient nor cost effective. We need to build more generating stations, preferably natural gas powered and we need to create more supply to generate the revenue (be it through corporate profit, government taxes or some mix of both) to power research into alternate fuels. Like the cooling rod problem precludes a growth in nuclear energy, the failure of alternate energy en masse to meet cost effective generating goals means it is not going anywhere for a while - and the demand for energy is only going to grow. Very well reasoned post. I do see that you buy into the C02 is a pollutant meme. Since we need c02 to survive i.e. plants like it, it doesn't seem to be driving world temperatures(which having it warmer might also be a good thing), then I am not anti C02, color me a crazy. I see your point. I did not intend CO2 to be presented as a pollutant and apologize for the lack of clarity in my statement. I intended it to serve as an easily recognizable stand-in for the pollutants that do rise from generating energy through oil and I should have been more clear in my point.
|
|
|
Post by rentedmule on Nov 6, 2013 9:39:21 GMT -5
All these folks of brilliance have not mentioned tsunamis or Japan once. You still will never even think of the concept of us thinking do we need so much energy, and the so many reasons around us our supposed needs are really hurting us. But you have very eloquently stated their case of the beauty of nukes. Sorry I don't buy it. The silence of the engineers and scientists and such on the fate of TEPCO and the Japanese energy situation is understandable! It's very awkward for proponents of nuclear energy to come to grips with the reality that it is neither "cheap" nor green. Just as the greenies cannot accept that coal and oil and gas is "solar" energy. ALL our energy comes from the sun. The fact that coal and oil and gas is "stored" by nature for long periods of time just makes it most convenient (a natural battery?).
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Nov 6, 2013 9:44:48 GMT -5
All these folks of brilliance have not mentioned tsunamis or Japan once. You still will never even think of the concept of us thinking do we need so much energy, and the so many reasons around us our supposed needs are really hurting us. But you have very eloquently stated their case of the beauty of nukes. Sorry I don't buy it. The silence of the engineers and scientists and such on the fate of TEPCO and the Japanese energy situation is understandable! It's very awkward for proponents of nuclear energy to come to grips with the reality that it is neither "cheap" nor green. Just as the greenies cannot accept that coal and oil and gas is "solar" energy. ALL our energy comes from the sun. The fact that coal and oil and gas is "stored" by nature for long periods of time just makes it most convenient (a natural battery?). Yeah! A natural battery! That's it! Why didn't I think of that?
|
|
|
Post by howarewegoingtopay on Nov 6, 2013 11:00:35 GMT -5
Very well reasoned post. I do see that you buy into the C02 is a pollutant meme. Since we need c02 to survive i.e. plants like it, it doesn't seem to be driving world temperatures(which having it warmer might also be a good thing), then I am not anti C02, color me a crazy. I see your point. I did not intend CO2 to be presented as a pollutant and apologize for the lack of clarity in my statement. I intended it to serve as an easily recognizable stand-in for the pollutants that do rise from generating energy through oil and I should have been more clear in my point. Thanks, that does clear it up. There are quite a few pollutants in burning fossil fuels so they should be a concern.
|
|
|
Post by zenwalk on Nov 6, 2013 14:00:23 GMT -5
Well you can put it this way, nukes are the cleanest until they're not. Then they're the worst. Sorry I'm not willing to take these chances with such a dangerous and toxic substance. Well it is a good thing that others are. I doubt that's a Japanese saying.
|
|
|
Post by zenwalk on Nov 6, 2013 14:08:57 GMT -5
Middle of the Road~
It may be simple but living as I do in the shadow of Diablo Canyon I also know they have to replace the cooling system and the bill for that is expected to be 12 billion dollars. There comes a tipping point where the cost of the commitment just becomes out of reach. I suspect we're already there. Now is the time to start burying this stuff before it buries us.
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Nov 6, 2013 14:19:34 GMT -5
Middle of the Road~ It may be simple but living as I do in the shadow of Diablo Canyon I also know they have to replace the cooling system and the bill for that is expected to be 12 billion dollars. There comes a tipping point where the cost of the commitment just becomes out of reach. I suspect we're already there. Now is the time to start burying this stuff before it buries us. We 'll be smarter in say, 3125.7 years or so.
|
|
|
Post by zenwalk on Nov 6, 2013 14:27:56 GMT -5
Middle of the Road~ It may be simple but living as I do in the shadow of Diablo Canyon I also know they have to replace the cooling system and the bill for that is expected to be 12 billion dollars. There comes a tipping point where the cost of the commitment just becomes out of reach. I suspect we're already there. Now is the time to start burying this stuff before it buries us. We 'll be smarter in say, 3125.7 years or so. We need to adopt the German solution which is to subsidize the costs of building a solar society, one rooftop at a time. The idea is eventually, the grid becomes not only self-sustaining but pays back the intrepid investor once the initial cost is recouped. The Germans hope to be completely renewable by 2050. We on the other hand will have a nice glow.
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Nov 6, 2013 14:57:34 GMT -5
We 'll be smarter in say, 3125.7 years or so. We need to adopt the German solution which is to subsidize the costs of building a solar society, one rooftop at a time. The idea is eventually, the grid becomes not only self-sustaining but pays back the intrepid investor once the initial cost is recouped. The Germans hope to be completely renewable by 2050. We on the other hand will have a nice glow. Something. And ignore the status quo folks I guess.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Nov 6, 2013 15:35:53 GMT -5
Nukes are a clean source of energy so long as the cores aren't in melt down. Well you can put it this way, nukes are the cleanest until they're not. Then they're the worst. Sorry I'm not willing to take these chances with such a dangerous and toxic substance. At some point you're going to have to allow for some hazard, or else try to devise a society that's based on far less energy consumption.
|
|
|
Post by howarewegoingtopay on Nov 6, 2013 16:39:56 GMT -5
We 'll be smarter in say, 3125.7 years or so. We need to adopt the German solution which is to subsidize the costs of building a solar society, one rooftop at a time. The idea is eventually, the grid becomes not only self-sustaining but pays back the intrepid investor once the initial cost is recouped. The Germans hope to be completely renewable by 2050. We on the other hand will have a nice glow. Sorry they won't be, the sun doesn't shine at night.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2013 17:28:50 GMT -5
We need to adopt the German solution which is to subsidize the costs of building a solar society, one rooftop at a time. The idea is eventually, the grid becomes not only self-sustaining but pays back the intrepid investor once the initial cost is recouped. The Germans hope to be completely renewable by 2050. We on the other hand will have a nice glow. Sorry they won't be, the sun doesn't shine at night. The wind, waves and hydro plants don't stop at night. The point is that Germany and Europe will be much closer to their renewable target than the US will.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Nov 6, 2013 17:42:28 GMT -5
Sorry they won't be, the sun doesn't shine at night. The wind, waves and hydro plants don't stop at night. The point is that Germany and Europe will be much closer to their renewable target than the US will. We keep hearing that. Yet they don't seem to be making much progress.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2013 18:00:12 GMT -5
Well you can put it this way, nukes are the cleanest until they're not. Then they're the worst. Sorry I'm not willing to take these chances with such a dangerous and toxic substance. At some point you're going to have to allow for some hazard, or else try to devise a society that's based on far less energy consumption. Not gonna happen because even the hypocrite tree huggers are gonna love their snowmobiles, electric guitars, electric stoves, gas or electric heat and computers. They use as much as anyone.... sometimes more but still whine like the crying bitches they are.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2013 18:01:55 GMT -5
The wind, waves and hydro plants don't stop at night. The point is that Germany and Europe will be much closer to their renewable target than the US will. We keep hearing that. Yet they don't seem to be making much progress. .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2013 18:02:52 GMT -5
Sorry they won't be, the sun doesn't shine at night. The wind, waves and hydro plants don't stop at night. The point is that Germany and Europe will be much closer to their renewable target than the US will. Good for them, what might be good for them isn't necessarily what is good for the rest of the world.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Nov 6, 2013 18:07:05 GMT -5
We keep hearing that. Yet they don't seem to be making much progress. . You know what's really weird about the left's fascination with solar and wind? They keep pretending this is new technology, and if we just let it mature, soon it would be able to power everything for free. In fact, wind and solar technology are both ANCIENT. Humanity moved away from it after fiddling with it for thousands of years, because we realized that fossil fuels were more efficient.
|
|
|
Post by howarewegoingtopay on Nov 6, 2013 18:29:29 GMT -5
Sorry they won't be, the sun doesn't shine at night. The wind, waves and hydro plants don't stop at night. The point is that Germany and Europe will be much closer to their renewable target than the US will. So you don't care about the ecological damage all these are doing? And at what cost are they going green?
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Nov 6, 2013 18:30:21 GMT -5
The wind, waves and hydro plants don't stop at night. Hydroelectricity can only be generated on rivers and must be shipped elsewhere, which brings in a lot of transmission losses. Wind and wave power can only be generated on coasts, typically inhabited by rich people with the pull to get those projects stopped. And they are implicated in various ecological damage. These are also immature technologies; we can't rely solely on them.
|
|