Oil drop.

One that involves people running in treadmills BECOZ IT MAEK REQUIRE BIGGER INTENTSIVE WORKFORS!

:roll:
 
This is an old topic, but I'll just say this against nuclear plants.

- Increases risk of terrorists acquiring highly enriched uranium for making bombs. I'm no fear-monger, but this is a very real threat, and it's bound to happen eventually if we don't protect our uranium.

- The pollution actually can last from 10,000 to 1,000,000 years! The US alone has already produced many millions of gallons -- billions of pounds of such waste with nuclear power production at their current "low" levels.

- Most importantly! Nuclear power keeps the control of electric power CENTRALIZED. It remains either privately owned or controlled by the state. The best way for a stable energy source to be created is de-centralized -- spread out across the areas that consume the energy using solar panels or wind generators. This has many advantages 1) no risk of collapse of the energy network -- there'd have to be damage across the entire network. 2) no possibility of terrorist attack on energy infrastructure. 3) encourages responsible consumption of energy because the people are producing their own energy and monitoring their own energy usage. 4) NO ENERGY BILLS!

Nuclear power is a DEVIL'S BARGAIN. We can't afford the real price of this technology.
 
Ozymandias said:
- Increases risk of terrorists acquiring highly enriched uranium for making bombs. I'm no fear-monger, but this is a very real threat, and it's bound to happen eventually if we don't protect our uranium.
Click to expand...
Teorrorosits :/ Poor argument and, yes it is fear-mongering. It's unlikely to happen because it doesn't archive their goals at minimal cost.

Most terrorists that don't like the US want the government to fall, not see the people burn. Most of them don't give two shits about the people since they believe the people will turn to their side after the "oppression" is gone. Neo Nazis, radical Muslims, and the like.

Flying planes into the wtc was an attack on the american economic system. Blowing up the USS Cole was an attack on american military power in the gulf. Embasy bombings, attacks on the pentagon, bombing of government buildings.

See a pattern?

Yes, they could. They could also use chemical weapons and biological weapons far easier. All you need is a crop duster and a chemist.

But they haven't, nor will they likely do it because it doesn't achieve their goals.

Ozymandias said:
- The pollution actually can last from 10,000 to 1,000,000 years! The US alone has already produced many millions of gallons -- billions of pounds of such waste with nuclear power production at their current "low" levels.
Click to expand...
Pollution could last from 100 -1000 years if we were allowed to reprocess the spent fuel. But no, that would create plutonium and if we have that we'll build more bombs! Which is absurd since we can at any time build more if we wanted to. The more radioactive the material the shorter the half-life. The longer the half life the less radioactive it is.

Truth is, radioactive material, while dangerous, isn't as dangerous as the mind makes it out to be. My chemistry teacher keeps a chunk of trinitite on his desk he took from the trinity site. Yes it's radioactive and will remain radioactive for hundreds or thousands of years. But it only increases his exposure by a tiny bit.

Ozymandias said:
- Most importantly! Nuclear power keeps the control of electric power CENTRALIZED. It remains either privately owned or controlled by the state. The best way for a stable energy source to be created is de-centralized -- spread out across the areas that consume the energy using solar panels or wind generators. This has many advantages 1) no risk of collapse of the energy network -- there'd have to be damage across the entire network. 2) no possibility of terrorist attack on energy infrastructure. 3) encourages responsible consumption of energy because the people are producing their own energy and monitoring their own energy usage. 4) NO ENERGY BILLS!
Click to expand...

First off. I looked into putting a mini windmill in my back yard. The government said no.

I could go on but I don't have time nor really care enough. That and I would love to have my own windmill in my back yard.
 
Update: Geothermal most efficient new energy source now. Abandon idea of nuclear power. You can't cause a nuclear meltdown with geothermal, and all you need for it's operation is water. You funnel it down, bring up boiling water (heat=energy, remember?) and whala.
 
Ah-Teen, I'm really far on the left in almost any argument. But the threat of nuclear terrorism IS actually real. I just got done reading the book "The Way of the World" by pulitzer prize winner Ron Suskind. He interviews at great length the head of WMD intelligence for the CIA who has worked int that field for over 20 years.

The man is probably the most educated on the topic of nuclear proliferation and the odds of a WMD strike. In 1996 they caught some guys trading highly enriched uranium across the afghanistan/pakistan border. then in 2004 they caught men with the same group still doing the same thing! the odds that these were the only 2 transactions in 8 years are pretty slim. In both instances the HEU came from nuclear plants.

You're right that "most" terrorists don't want to see people suffering or dying in the masses. But there are terrorist groups with both the money, desire, and ability to assemble and utilize a nuclear bomb if they can acquire the materials, and nuclear plants abroad AND in the US increase this risk because it has to be transported and stored in so many areas.

You're also right that some radioactive material is not hazardous, but the same could not be said for millions and millions of pounds of what comes out of nuclear plants. Many people want to take depleted uranium and make it into slugs for blowing up bunkers and tanks. The rest of it is so hazardous that the only places to store it are in a handful of locations around the country --- half a mile underground! The transportation of such materials from plants to remote storage facilities makes it doubly-hazardous.

You're right that current legislation makes decentralization of the energy production untenable, but THAT is what needs to change in this country. We could create millions of green jobs in manufacturing green technologies, as well as small businesses for maintaining and installing such technologies for everyone around the country. This would lessen pollution of ALL energy production, create more jobs, and not be dependent on any central institution (ie companies or govt) for its functionality.

Edit:
http://thismodernworld.com/4569 Obama talks about energy a few days before the election -- it's the bottom quote in this article.
 
spread out across the areas that consume the energy using solar panels or wind generators
Click to expand...

You must be shitting me. Wind Power is a joke. Solar has potential, but Wind Power? Go sell that bridge somewhere else.

Nuclear Power has problems? YES. Meltdown, nuclear waste, etecetera. But since Chernobyll, everyone and their dogs are scared of nuclear power. Come on, people, it was a SOVIET nuclear plant, it was only a question of time. But Fusion Power has a immense, untapped potential. You can see fusion power working all the time. Look at your window after 6 AM. There, you can see one of the greatest nuclear power plant that there are. Not the biggest, but its pretty big. Time to find a way to harvest this energy source.

But it's either nuclear power or a energy crisis. I hope that fusion power is ready and good by 2050, or we're FUCKED. Massively.
 
Why limit ourselves to just one kind of renewable energy. Different regions have greater abundance of different resources. You could do wind in Alaska, but not solar. Geothermal also is good. Hydroelectric though tends to be too ecologically disruptive.
 
Maybe this will help GM. Since gas prices go down maybe the car sales will go up. I doubt it since lots of people have such money problems, but I had to say it.
 
Herr Mike said:
No, it's true, profits for Ford and GM seem to directly correlate with gas price.
Click to expand...
Well GM is now asking for government money and prices has been falling pretty steadily for some time.

Pope Viper said:
I've never understood why coastal cities don't take advantage of tidal technology to generate power. Seems to be a good alternative.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_power
Click to expand...
Think this is mostly because of lack of technology and the fact that it might ruin the view from those expensive beach villas. Also tide is acting differently from place to place in the world and as a result it is not easy to develop something that can be massporduced.
 
Pope Viper said:
I've never understood why coastal cities don't take advantage of tidal technology to generate power. Seems to be a good alternative.
Click to expand...

Fishing. Fishnets. Problems.

We have them awesome windmills in the Northsea before our coast and they had just began erecting the masts and ka-boom a ship crashed on one of them.

Alternative energy sources are scams. It'll take a few more years before this knowledge hits people and societies in the face. I bet 3 more years.

Then: bitumen bath. Taste the waste. Back to the stone age.

I can't wait. :twisted:
 
I have always been curious as to why the generator technology hasn't been improving.

And the fact that nobody has built a car engine that can use 100 % of the power produced from gasoline.
 
Starseeker said:
I have always been curious as to why the generator technology hasn't been improving.

And the fact that nobody has built a car engine that can use 100 % of the power produced form gasoline.
Click to expand...

Because Combustion is pretty inefficient. In Formula One, they are trying to tap into it with a kinetic energy recovery system. They basically take the heat from the engine and convert it to electrical energy which then can be reused. This is years from being put into road cars though.
 
Starseeker said:
I have always been curious as to why the generator technology hasn't been improving.

And the fact that nobody has built a car engine that can use 100 % of the power produced from gasoline.
Click to expand...

Energy conversion is 40% maximum. The 'average' engine gets about 25% to 30%. I'm told the diesel electrics are about 35%. Thats as good as the engine gets.

Anyway, there's lots of things we could be doing as a race. We don't.
 
There are a lot of misconceptions in this thread about the state of renewable energy. Today just happens to be a deadline for an renewable energy/resource project that I am working on so I am not going to spend too much energy trying to educate folks here.

Slaughter Manslaught said:
You must be shitting me. Wind Power is a joke. Solar has potential, but Wind Power? Go sell that bridge somewhere else.
Click to expand...
You should seriously check out JEDI.

Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency

Alternative vehicles and fuels

Wood-fueld vehicles

Green Jobs Act of 2007

The power plant serving my region is currently 50% local biomass and will be 100% by 2012.

Renewable/Efficient/Conserved Energy is the proven future. Fusion is still a fantasty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top