|
|
Post by redleg on Nov 8, 2013 22:06:07 GMT -5
No, buffalo dung is. That's why all you Leftists want us all to go back to using it. |
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Nov 8, 2013 22:08:16 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? So, what plants would you use to cure a headache? How about pneumonia? How often should crops be rotated? How would you keep bugs and disease from killing all your crops? We are a long way away from the days when the average person could live in the woods by himself for months without any problems. |
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Nov 8, 2013 22:09:19 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. So what? If we can get the Left away from controlling education, future generations will figure out a use for them. |
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Nov 8, 2013 22:10:55 GMT -5
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. 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? So, why are you still using your computer? Are you still driving? How about using coal or petroleum to heat your home? Are you growing your own crops? If not, why not? |
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Nov 8, 2013 22:13:38 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. Okay, what's your alternative? |
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Nov 8, 2013 22:15:33 GMT -5
Well others disagree. Would you also be against fusion if they ever get it to work? 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. I have yet to hear anyone say there are no ramifications for the future. However, those ramifications are far less than the alternative. For one, there WILL BE a future. Without them, probably not. |
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Nov 8, 2013 22:20:59 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. That depends. Which billions of people would you kill just to cut out the energy consumption? Who would you detail to make that choice? The Japan Tsunami was a disaster. So would a meteor strike. And that's just as likely. How big a meteor would it take to make Japan look like a fine spring day? We prepare for the worst as best we can, but Mother Nature has the upper hand. There is nothing at all that we can do to safeguard any power plant from a big enough earthquake, meteor, or tidal wave. So, should we all just commit suicide now, and save the time? |
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Nov 8, 2013 22:24:36 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, but even the Germans are realizing the idiocy of trying to force everyone to use untried, inefficient, and under achieving technology. And we aren't Germany. We are seeing the results of government deciding winners and losers today, with Puppettax, and all the "green" energy companies going bankrupt a year or less after billions in "loans" from our benevolent idiots in government. |
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Nov 8, 2013 22:27:06 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. Europe is about 2/3 the size of the US, and has less manufacturing. They also have far less incentive to work the way we do. They might be able to get by on far less energy, because they simply don't have the use for it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2013 22:28:52 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. Europe is about 2/3 the size of the US, and has less manufacturing. They also have far less incentive to work the way we do. They might be able to get by on far less energy, because they simply don't have the use for it. Germany's experiment has been a disaster. Their energy rates have skyrocketed, and they're building new coal plants to make up for the shortfall. |
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Nov 8, 2013 22:33:17 GMT -5
Europe is about 2/3 the size of the US, and has less manufacturing. They also have far less incentive to work the way we do. They might be able to get by on far less energy, because they simply don't have the use for it. Germany's experiment has been a disaster. Their energy rates have skyrocketed, and they're building new coal plants to make up for the shortfall. When I lived in Baumholder, they had a wind farm that was intended to supply about 70% of the town's energy. It actually supplied about 12-17%, depending on who you asked. And it took up about 100 acres of farm land. Most of the people there hated them. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2013 22:55:07 GMT -5
Germany's experiment has been a disaster. Their energy rates have skyrocketed, and they're building new coal plants to make up for the shortfall. When I lived in Baumholder, they had a wind farm that was intended to supply about 70% of the town's energy. It actually supplied about 12-17%, depending on who you asked. And it took up about 100 acres of farm land. Most of the people there hated them. It's nice supplemental power 12% of power source is nothing to sneeze at---but a far, far cry from being ready to be the nations' primary power source. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2013 6:28:16 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. That depends. Which billions of people would you kill just to cut out the energy consumption? Who would you detail to make that choice? The Japan Tsunami was a disaster. So would a meteor strike. And that's just as likely. How big a meteor would it take to make Japan look like a fine spring day? We prepare for the worst as best we can, but Mother Nature has the upper hand. There is nothing at all that we can do to safeguard any power plant from a big enough earthquake, meteor, or tidal wave. So, should we all just commit suicide now, and save the time? It would be the simplest form of common sense to not build nuclear plants on the Pacific Rim, Ring of Fire. |
|
|
|
Post by howarewegoingtopay on Nov 9, 2013 7:03:18 GMT -5
That depends. Which billions of people would you kill just to cut out the energy consumption? Who would you detail to make that choice? The Japan Tsunami was a disaster. So would a meteor strike. And that's just as likely. How big a meteor would it take to make Japan look like a fine spring day? We prepare for the worst as best we can, but Mother Nature has the upper hand. There is nothing at all that we can do to safeguard any power plant from a big enough earthquake, meteor, or tidal wave. So, should we all just commit suicide now, and save the time? It would be the simplest form of common sense to not build nuclear plants on the Pacific Rim, Ring of Fire. Unless of course that is where you need the power, and don't have an easy endless source of oil. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2013 7:07:56 GMT -5
Who needs a big nuclear power plant when you can buy your own personal nuclear reactor? Just keep the sunscreen handy, just in case. They might want to pick a better name that sounds less like a play toy used in the privacy of one's bedroom. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2013 7:17:53 GMT -5
It would be the simplest form of common sense to not build nuclear plants on the Pacific Rim, Ring of Fire. Unless of course that is where you need the power, and don't have an easy endless source of oil. But someone said that there are billions of years worth of oil... |
|
|
|
Post by howarewegoingtopay on Nov 9, 2013 7:38:50 GMT -5
Unless of course that is where you need the power, and don't have an easy endless source of oil. But someone said that there are billions of years worth of oil... Not at the time they built the plant in japan. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2013 15:26:22 GMT -5
Who needs a big nuclear power plant when you can buy your own personal nuclear reactor? Just keep the sunscreen handy, just in case. They might want to pick a better name that sounds less like a play toy used in the privacy of one's bedroom. My own personal reactor??? That would KICK-ASS!!! I knew I should have gone to mad scientist school..... |
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Nov 9, 2013 15:37:31 GMT -5
But someone said that there are billions of years worth of oil... Not at the time they built the plant in japan. Lol |
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Nov 9, 2013 15:40:27 GMT -5
It would be the simplest form of common sense to not build nuclear plants on the Pacific Rim, Ring of Fire. In general you don't build that sort of dangerous installation on tectonically unstable ground, of course. The Japanese are somewhat limited in their options. The fact that Fukushima happened is not an indictment of nuclear power as much as it is an indictment of poor planning. |
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Nov 9, 2013 20:10:00 GMT -5
It would be the simplest form of common sense to not build nuclear plants on the Pacific Rim, Ring of Fire. In general you don't build that sort of dangerous installation on tectonically unstable ground, of course. The Japanese are somewhat limited in their options. The fact that Fukushima happened is not an indictment of nuclear power as much as it is an indictment of poor planning. Lol. You must be joking. If it were wind farms no one would care if they got flooded. It is all about the fact it is nukes. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2013 20:18:57 GMT -5
It would be the simplest form of common sense to not build nuclear plants on the Pacific Rim, Ring of Fire. In general you don't build that sort of dangerous installation on tectonically unstable ground, of course. The Japanese are somewhat limited in their options. The fact that Fukushima happened is not an indictment of nuclear power as much as it is an indictment of poor planning. And yet still amazing- not one fatality linked to the plant. Japan is almost entirely unstable-- quake just hit Tokyo. If it was Soviet-built, likely thousands would have fried. |
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Nov 9, 2013 20:34:34 GMT -5
In general you don't build that sort of dangerous installation on tectonically unstable ground, of course. The Japanese are somewhat limited in their options. The fact that Fukushima happened is not an indictment of nuclear power as much as it is an indictment of poor planning. And yet still amazing- not one fatality linked to the plant. Japan is almost entirely unstable-- quake just hit Tokyo. If it was Soviet-built, likely thousands would have fried. For some odd reason I get the feeling you have no clue of what you're talking about. but I still loves you. Smooches!!!! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2013 20:37:10 GMT -5
In general you don't build that sort of dangerous installation on tectonically unstable ground, of course. The Japanese are somewhat limited in their options. The fact that Fukushima happened is not an indictment of nuclear power as much as it is an indictment of poor planning. And yet still amazing- not one fatality linked to the plant. Japan is almost entirely unstable-- quake just hit Tokyo. If it was Soviet-built, likely thousands would have fried. I suggest that you read a little more about Fukushima; "Just last week, Dr. David Suzuki, one of Canada's top environmental scientists, stunned the audience when he described what will happen if a massive quake did hit today. "It's bye bye Japan, and everybody on the West Coast of North America should evacuate," Suzuki said. "Now if that isn't terrifying, I don't know what is." Link.The Fukushima problem is far from over. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2013 20:46:06 GMT -5
And yet still amazing- not one fatality linked to the plant. Japan is almost entirely unstable-- quake just hit Tokyo. If it was Soviet-built, likely thousands would have fried. I suggest that you read a little more about Fukushima; "Just last week, Dr. David Suzuki, one of Canada's top environmental scientists, stunned the audience when he described what will happen if a massive quake did hit today. "It's bye bye Japan, and everybody on the West Coast of North America should evacuate," Suzuki said. "Now if that isn't terrifying, I don't know what is." Link.The Fukushima problem is far from over. From your link-- Fatalities remain ZERO. From your link again: "Natural" radioactive substances and "man-made" radioactive substances? Are you really sure that experts/scientists use this classification? Anyway it doesn't matter, the concept is much easier: fukushima released let's say about 50PBq of cs-137 in the ocean. If this is diluted in the 650 millions km^3 of the Pacific Ocean you will have 0.003pCu/l. The cs-137 limit for drinkable water I think is about 0.3pCu/l, so it will be 1/100 of the limit. I am not saying that 50PBq of cs-137 are a nice thing, I am just saying the overall effect is negligible. Good luck with your doomsday campaign. The only truly fact-based comment in the link. Anti-nuke greenies are always up in arms about the end of the world. Chernobyl was far, far worse. And we're all still alive. |
|
