Global Warming Crisis Even Worse Than Experts Thought - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 12-12-2007, 11:49 AM   #21
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,866
Local Time: 11:06 PM
it's all coming, though.

a good friend of mine has been living in Germany for a while, and he just got a good job with a company that specializes in solar and wind power. and everyone knows that the technology is quite far ahead in Europe, and that the next two big markets is the US and China. the US has been quite resistant to alternative energy due to the current administration, but the general consensus in the industry is that, should a change happen in 2008, the market for these things in the US is going to explode over the next 10 years.
__________________

Irvine511 is offline  
Old 12-12-2007, 09:36 PM   #22
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Ásgarðr
Posts: 11,786
Local Time: 11:06 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by unico
Can you explain further why you think turning to nuclear energy is the best solution? I seriously dumped a guy this year because he believed the same thing (yes, I am that shallow.) I disagree wholeheartedly, but I admit that I am ignorant over the benefits. I only know of the risks...and that is a small amount of knowledge. It's okay though, he was a terrible kisser.

I have a lot of respect for you, and your posts here have really opened up my mind. So now I'm curious to know more about it.
Sure, but I should point out that I don't particularly believe that "respect" should be defined as agreeing with someone 100%. Admittedly, I even have some respect for some people whom I disagree with more than 50% of the time, but I feel contributes positively to the marketplace of ideas.

So with that, nuclear power is the cleanest, most stable, and most mature of the alternative energy technologies out there. Wind power, for instance, requires wind, which isn't always in our control. Solar power isn't very helpful for certain regions of the country that don't get much sun for good parts of the year. Hydroelectric? I shudder at the environmental degradation required to build a dam.

Nuclear? Like current conventional sources of power, it runs constant, no matter what the weather is like outside without all the related air pollution. In terms of nuclear waste, yes, we currently do have a lot of fission waste out there. Yet, much of this has to do with politics than actual science, as nuclear waste can be reprocessed into usable fuel again. Conventional science, however, states that reprocessing spent uranium rods yields a small amount of weapons grade plutonium, so, due to proliferation concerns, the U.S. has banned fuel reprocessing. Yet, Europe, at the same time, never agreed to this, and has been reprocessing its fuel for decades now, including up to today. All it would take is decent oversight to allay proliferation concerns, but even at that, substantial research has gone into creating a newer reprocessing technique that cannot create weapons-grade plutonium at all. As such, much of the concerns about waste have currently been dealt with.

As for nightmarish scenarios on par with Chernobyl or Three Mile Island, most credible scientists laugh off these concerns today. Chernobyl, in particular, was created with an older, inherently unstable reactor design--which was then, on top of it all, implemented poorly. These old reactor designs that created these mishaps are no longer in service, and the science dictates that these kinds of disasters just flat out cannot happen even at a theoretical level anymore. In other words, the fear of nuclear plant meltdowns isn't even warranted anymore. Compare this to coal power plants, which belch a lot of pollution into the air, and probably kill more people around the world indirectly than nuclear power has ever killed, due to the pollution potentially causing fatal diseases.

To me, there is idealism, and then there's the need to temper such idealism with pragmatism. I believe that we are fooling ourselves if we believe that we can get something for nothing. As such, we can either make the sacrifice of substantially reducing our economic output--which flies directly in the face of not only capitalism, but also human nature, which does not handle artificial constraints on freedom very well at all--or we can make such economic output environmentally friendly. Nuclear power is a proven, clean technology that has the best potential to replace not only fossil-fuel driven plants like coal and natural gas power plants, but also the power needed to generate the hydrogen fuel required to free us from oil and grant us energy independence. While solar and wind power are interesting from a theoretical POV, I doubt that either technology will ever provide the majority of the world's energy (a sizable minority, perhaps, and that's not a bad goal).

And, just to reiterate an old point of mine, I disagree with the idea of lumping on a large gas tax, which strikes me as a typically urban liberal response to this crisis (no offense to Irvine, who I quite respect). While some of us do have the luxury of reliable public transportation, a very sizable percentage of Americans (including myself) have no alternative but to drive. Besides, the current commodities-driven oil market, which allows both consumers (refineries) and speculators (investors) to buy into oil was created to prevent shortages from ever truly happening. These prolonged high oil prices are already serving the function of a theoretical "gas tax," as, although we are paying prices on par with the oil shortages of the 1970s, there are no current shortages to speak of. And these prices have driven an awful lot of investment in alternative energy companies, which is, again, precisely what capitalism was meant to drive.

Still, there is only so much that the free market can do on this issue, as much of the work seems rather random and of questionable direction, and so I feel that what we really need, at this point, is apt, visionary political leadership, which we have been sorely lacking in now for a very long time. Voting for those same candidates who pander only to "family values" and "tax cuts" are the exact wrong kind of candidates we need at this point in history. We've heard these same sorry lines now for nearly 30 years straight now, and it's gotten us absolutely nowhere and fast.
__________________

melon is offline  
Old 12-13-2007, 12:11 AM   #23
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 11:06 PM
Quote:
Besides, the current commodities-driven oil market, which allows both consumers (refineries) and speculators (investors) to buy into oil was created to prevent shortages from ever truly happening. These prolonged high oil prices are already serving the function of a theoretical "gas tax," as, although we are paying prices on par with the oil shortages of the 1970s, there are no current shortages to speak of. And these prices have driven an awful lot of investment in alternative energy companies, which is, again, precisely what capitalism was meant to drive.
As a matter of tax policy, I do believe we should seriously consider slapping a tax on speculation (and not give it preferential treatment like capital gains either), along with related tax attribution rules and superficial loss rules. It is irrational in this day and age to allow for speculators to benefit from preferential tax treatment when it is clear that their actions are impacting domestic and foreign policies in mostly undesirable ways.

Too bad it is a fool's dream. But I dream it nonetheless.
anitram is offline  
Old 12-13-2007, 08:25 AM   #24
Blue Crack Addict
 
unico's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Rage Ave.
Posts: 18,749
Local Time: 10:06 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon
As for nightmarish scenarios on par with Chernobyl or Three Mile Island, most credible scientists laugh off these concerns today. Chernobyl, in particular, was created with an older, inherently unstable reactor design--which was then, on top of it all, implemented poorly. These old reactor designs that created these mishaps are no longer in service, and the science dictates that these kinds of disasters just flat out cannot happen even at a theoretical level anymore. In other words, the fear of nuclear plant meltdowns isn't even warranted anymore. Compare this to coal power plants, which belch a lot of pollution into the air, and probably kill more people around the world indirectly than nuclear power has ever killed, due to the pollution potentially causing fatal diseases.

For the record, I didn't say I agreed with you 100%, just that you have opened my mind to a lot of things in this forum. Regardless of whether or not I agree, one can't deny your educated and well articulated responses. Thus I knew I'd get a very informed response from you if I asked.

As for the nuclear energy, it is comforting to know that there isn't any more potential for future meltdowns for new and improved reactors, but there are still other catastrophic risks. Didn't a leak cause an earthquake in Japan just this summer? Furthermore, what of the opposite? We have seen how human error can be dangerous, what if natural disasters themselves caused these leaks? Yes, to an extent, this hazardous material can be contained and, even like you pointed out, reused. But I'm just so weary of handling the hazardous material at all.
unico is offline  
Old 12-13-2007, 09:36 AM   #25
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,744
Local Time: 05:06 AM
As far as I know in Japan it was the other way round, the earthquake caused the leak.

Nuclear power reall is a two-sided sword. Just this year we had some really frightening incidents here in Germany and in Sweden, though those are older plants built in the 1960's. But nevertheless, in both cases a chain of incidents that shouldn't have happened, caused by laziness and recklessness from the company that runs these plants, lead to situations that were too close to just brush over. Theoretically, those situations should never have happened.

On the other hand, even with the best filter systems we can't run coal power plants clean enough to really compete with nuclear power plants, and we cannot set up enough windmills, solar panel fields, tidal power plants or whatnot to satisfy our need for electricity, even if we reduced our energy consumption to a minimum. And as pointed out, those means of energy production are relying on certain factors that aren't always there, like wind, sunlight or a strong enough tide. Or, especially in the case of wind power, there's too much wind, i.e. a storm.

Hence, we have to find a way to produce a reliable enough energy in capacities that satisfies our needs.

European Union members are aiming for a 20 per cent share of renewable energy in the countries' energy mix, which is deemed realistic. For some countries that's no problem, and they can even aim at 30 per cent. For others it's not that easy. And still, this is just one fifth of overall production.

Additionally, Germany for example will have to import electricity in future as we are shutting down our nuclear power plants and can't substitute that loss with renewable energy. Currently, one of our electricity providers is constructing the largest coal power plant in the world, which is nearly as expensive as a nuclear power plant, but has a lower capacity, and won't have an emission of zero tons CO2 per year as most nuclear power plants have.

On the other hand, the EU is investing up to €50 billion for constructing a fusion power plant, but it is not yet known if this will ever be working.

It should also be considered that in future developing countries will have a greater demand of power, and while many of them could produce a good share of their energy by solar energy, those countries will still be in need of conventional means of power production. And as long as we don't get our coal power plants emission free there is no real alternative to nuclear plants to reduce the overall CO2 emission.
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 12-13-2007, 10:08 AM   #26
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
ntalwar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 4,903
Local Time: 11:06 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon

These prolonged high oil prices are already serving the function of a theoretical "gas tax," as, although we are paying prices on par with the oil shortages of the 1970s, there are no current shortages to speak of. And these prices have driven an awful lot of investment in alternative energy companies, which is, again, precisely what capitalism was meant to drive.
Oil inventories do continue to fall however. Worldwide oil production for the past 2-3 years has been flat at 83-85 million barrels per day, while demand has started to exceed that amount and is projected to grow.
ntalwar is offline  
Old 12-13-2007, 10:39 AM   #27
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
ntalwar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 4,903
Local Time: 11:06 PM
An alternative approach to wind power:

Quote:
Traditional wind turbines can be unreliable sources of energy because, well, the wind blows where it will. Not the case 1,000 feet up. “At a thousand feet, there is steady wind anywhere in the world,” says Mac Brown, chief operating officer of Ottawa-based Magenn Power.

To take advantage of this constant breeze, Brown has developed a lighter-than-air wind turbine capable of powering a rural village. “Picture a spinning Goodyear blimp,” Brown says. Filled with helium, outfitted with electrical generators and tethered to the ground by a conductive copper cable, the 100-foot-wide Magenn Air Rotor System (MARS) will produce 10 kilowatts of energy anywhere on earth. As the turbine spins around a horizontal axis, the generators convert the mechanical energy of the wind into electrical energy, then send it down for immediate use or battery storage.

Planning for the MARS has been under way for a few years, but this fall Magenn got the $5 million it needed to build prototypes from a California investor. In October, the MARS received its U.S. patent. Already, larger models — ones that might light a skyscraper — are in the works. Brown says he hopes his floating wind turbines will power off-the-grid villages in the developing world. He says the governments of India and Pakistan have expressed interest.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/ma...in&oref=slogin
ntalwar is offline  
Old 12-13-2007, 12:32 PM   #28
The Fly
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 272
Local Time: 03:06 AM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22226310/

I absolutely fucking hate this. Other countries are waiting for us. How embarrassing.
__________________

Lally1011 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:06 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×