Energy Alternatives

[bigmack]

Years ago I invested in wind mills here in CA. Currently we have enough to power about 1.5% of the state. Turned out to be a lousy investment and pound for pound, they're rather unsightly on the landscape. While wind sounds viable, nuclear wins hands down.

Why ain't we building mo' nuclear PP's?

Love Canal means the same thing it ever did for me. :cool:

http://www.pickensplan.com/media/

[ArlJim78]

wind is not a great alternative, many drawbacks for a limited return.

it can be one of the pieces of the puzzle, but its not our savior.

we need new modern plants, nuclear, coal, refineries, etc.

[46zilzal]

wind is not a great alternative, many drawbacks for a limited return.

it can be one of the pieces of the puzzle, but its not our savior.

we need new modern plants, nuclear, coal, refineries, etc.
half life of nuclear material? Where does one safely put it?

You have got to have fallen for that PR crap of Clean burning coal?
from Wikipedia:The burning of coal, a fossil fuel, has been shown to be one of the principal causes of anthropogenic climate change and global warming, according to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (See the UN IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.) The concept of clean coal is said to be a solution to climate change and global warming by coal industry groups, while environmental groups maintain that it is greenwash, a public relations tactic that misrepresents coal as having the potential to be an environmentally acceptable option. Greenpeace is a major opponent of the concept because emissions and wastes are not avoided, but are transferred from one waste stream to another.

[ArlJim78]

half life of nuclear material? Where does one safely put it?

You have got to have fallen for that PR crap of Clean burning coal?
from Wikipedia:The burning of coal, a fossil fuel, has been shown to be one of the principal causes of anthropogenic climate change and global warming, according to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (See the UN IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.) The concept of clean coal is said to be a solution to climate change and global warming by coal industry groups, while environmental groups maintain that it is greenwash, a public relations tactic that misrepresents coal as having the potential to be an environmentally acceptable option. Greenpeace is a major opponent of the concept because emissions and wastes are not avoided, but are transferred from one waste stream to another.
Wikipedia to the rescue once again!!
so you've fallen for the PR crap from Greenpeace? what is their energy plan, burning dung? nuclear is by far the best option going.

[46zilzal]

Wikipedia to the rescue once again!!
so you've fallen for the PR crap from Greenpeace? what is their energy plan, burning dung? nuclear is by far the best option going.
The poor take the major portion of danger Here too.
http://www.serve.com/gvaughn/prairieisland/dumps.html

[bigmack]

I should have looked it up before posting. The first filing for a new nuclear facility in over 30 years took place last year and there has been 28 more applications for new reactors in the US since.

Hippie Kai Yay.

[Valuist]

We have heard both Obama and McCain say very little about natural gas, which is the logical "bridge" energy between oil and alternative forms like wind and solar. We certainly have plenty of it and its a cleaner alternative than oil or coal.

[DJofSD]

We have heard both Obama and McCain say very little about natural gas, which is the logical "bridge" energy between oil and alternative forms like wind and solar. We certainly have plenty of it and its a cleaner alternative than oil or coal.Very true but I believe Pickens is touting CNG vehicles. Also, I heard recently that Iran is converting all of their vehicles to CNG.

[Tom]

The scare tactics about Nuke power is embarrassing for those who believe them. France gets 80% of it's power from nukes. The waste material is by far smaller than it used to be. The new technology makes reactors very safe and effective. There is NO reason not to be building at lest 20 of them right now, other than the dems are hell bent on taking us back to the 1800's, the last time thier ideology made any sense.

People give off waste, get over it. Greenpeace are idiots.

[boxcar]

People give off waste, get over it. Greenpeace are idiots.

Talking about waste...since Zilly is frightened to death over the environmental state of our planet, one is led to wonder why he doesn't do his part and simply stop breathing. He can go out as a tree-hugging martyr in good standing and spend eternity in bliss on 2 acres planting 70 trees. :D

Boxcar

[Tom]

The environmental movement is a political money-making fraud.

[equicom]

Coal and nuclear are both very bad options environmentally and economically. Nuclear power costs much more to produce than the majority of other power sources, historically there has never been a nuclear power station that cost less to run than the power scheme that it replaced (they have always cost significantly more, with the costs being passed on to consumers), and it costs a lot of money to treat and dispose of the waste.

Even more importantly, they use a lot of water, which is rapidly becoming a rare commodity (except in Florida). Using water to cool nuclear reactors means water that is being diverted from other uses and which cannot be in turn used for anything else.

In order to keep spent nuclear fuel "safe" or at least stable, it needs to be constantly kept submerged in water (unless adequately contained) and that water needs to be constantly replenished due to the effects of evaporation etc.

If you believe that nuclear power is safe, so did the people of Chernobyl. Nuclear power is always inherently unsafe and it doesn't matter how much safety is employed, it will never be enough. Scientists are not even 100% certain that they completley understand the physics involved. It is still largely a theoretical science.

Coal is also very bad for the environment, and costs a lot to produce and when you burn it, a lot of carbon is produced. We don't need to burn more.

Hydro electricity is the cleanest energy available for mass consumption. Even that is a poor choice. It would be far better if instead of a power-grid system, all of the electricity for each household was produced by that household.

In the future this will be possible. In fact it is possible now, but it's not being promoted for some reason (hmmmmm..... wonder why?).

Doing that, we could get rid of all those unsightly power poles and transformers, etc., and put thousands of decent Americans (not to mention countless indecent ones) out of work.

Tom, if the environmentalists are on the wrong track, then why have there been more frequent and powerful hurricanes during the past few years? They can't all be due to the hot air you produce.

[Tom]

Global warming, no way..global dumbing, could well be true.
A mind is terrible thing to lose.