|
Energy
Mar 15, 2011 8:32:44 GMT -6
Post by lpcalihawk on Mar 15, 2011 8:32:44 GMT -6
If you thought this thread was about the Iowa Energy D-League team.....too bad.
Watching the Japan nuclear countdown has made me wonder why human beings aren't more interested in sources of energy that won't potentially lead to killing a massive amount of human beings and/or environment. Wind and solar do not have the potential for killing people and their harm on the environment is minimal compared to oil, coal, natural gas and nuclear. Yes, I know big oil lobbies and big energy lobbies run our government, but hopefully enough people start biting the bullet and elect to pay more upfront for wind/solar so that eventually the cost can come down.
|
|
|
Energy
Mar 15, 2011 10:41:04 GMT -6
Post by Saggitariutt Jefferspin (ith) on Mar 15, 2011 10:41:04 GMT -6
Unfortunately we live in a reactive world. Nothing will change unless a huge catastrophe happens. Then at that point, more finger pointing happens than solutions.
|
|
|
Energy
Mar 15, 2011 11:08:45 GMT -6
Post by thejesus on Mar 15, 2011 11:08:45 GMT -6
Unfortunately we live in a reactive world. Nothing will change unless a huge catastrophe happens. Then at that point, more finger pointing happens than solutions. Word
|
|
|
Energy
Mar 15, 2011 11:10:54 GMT -6
Post by thunderhawk on Mar 15, 2011 11:10:54 GMT -6
Plants are smarter than humans when it comes to energy production.
|
|
|
Energy
Mar 15, 2011 11:53:54 GMT -6
Post by NotMyKid on Mar 15, 2011 11:53:54 GMT -6
Unfortunately we live in a reactive world. Nothing will change unless a huge catastrophe happens. Then at that point, more finger pointing happens than solutions. Agree and then throw in the fact that even Dems don't want wind farms anywhere that would spoil there nice view. Like Ted Kennedy when he was still around. In saying that I agree 100% with the original post.
|
|
|
Energy
Mar 15, 2011 13:10:54 GMT -6
Post by thunderhawk on Mar 15, 2011 13:10:54 GMT -6
Our politics, it would appear, have landed us in a place where we as a nation don't lead on anything, but instead just clumsily and pathetically react to crises.
I wonder if any of those self-satisfied cocksuckers in DC ever stop, even for a second, to ponder the fact that they are ruining this country and savaging its future.
|
|
|
Energy
Mar 15, 2011 13:43:26 GMT -6
Post by twine on Mar 15, 2011 13:43:26 GMT -6
Our politics, it would appear, have landed us in a place where we as a nation don't lead on anything, but instead just clumsily and pathetically react to crises. I wonder if any of those self-satisfied cocksuckers in DC ever stop, even for a second, to ponder the fact that they are ruining this country and savaging its future. I've had this feeling for quite a while and I'm starting to get the impression that it's getting more and more out of control. The teabaggers are vehemently supporting policies that are not in their best interest and there is general apathy from most of the rest of us. Every day for the past couple of weeks you hear about republican controlled state governments doing closed door deals to eradicate any sort of collective bargaining. The power shift seems to be increasingly concentrated. I also have very little faith in the current young generation or the next generation as we become increasingly dumbed down. Also, by the time anyone is old enough to get a little slice of the pie they can't afford to risk it by trying to do anything about the current state of affairs. I kind of just don't really give a shit at this point.
|
|
|
Energy
Mar 15, 2011 13:57:13 GMT -6
Post by lpcalihawk on Mar 15, 2011 13:57:13 GMT -6
Our politics, it would appear, have landed us in a place where we as a nation don't lead on anything, but instead just clumsily and pathetically react to crises. I wonder if any of those self-satisfied cocksuckers in DC ever stop, even for a second, to ponder the fact that they are ruining this country and savaging its future. I thought you were talking about the Iowa Athletics Department for a moment.
|
|
|
Energy
Mar 15, 2011 20:54:12 GMT -6
Post by socal on Mar 15, 2011 20:54:12 GMT -6
On a side note... I wonder if earthquake prone Iran is rethinking their desire for a nuclear power plant.
|
|
|
Energy
Mar 15, 2011 21:23:37 GMT -6
Post by Saggitariutt Jefferspin (ith) on Mar 15, 2011 21:23:37 GMT -6
On a side note... I wonder if earthquake prone Iran is rethinking their desire for a nuclear power plant. That's a valid fucking point. Or least should be. However I don't think that A - Ahmadinejad has anything close to common sense, or B - really gives enough of a fuck about a potential disaster. Hell, he'd probably embrace it.
|
|
|
Energy
Mar 15, 2011 21:29:28 GMT -6
Post by thunderhawk on Mar 15, 2011 21:29:28 GMT -6
On a side note... I wonder if earthquake prone Iran is rethinking their desire for a nuclear power plant. That's a valid fucking point. Or least should be. However I don't think that A - Ahmadinejad has anything close to common sense, or B - really gives enough of a fuck about a potential disaster. Hell, he'd probably embrace it. The real reason for their nuclear power program is to serve as a front for their nuclear weapons program. So no, they'll not quit, and yes, Barack is going to end up tomahawking the fuckers or eviscerating them by proxy (hello, Israel) because there's no way in hell Barry is gonna let those shitstains get The Bomb on his watch and let his political opponents paint him as soft on terrorism. So I guess the bottom line is that it doesn't matter whether Iran actually pursues nuclear power or not...that fucking facility is gonna get scorched before the earthquakes even have a shot.
|
|
|
Energy
Mar 15, 2011 21:34:36 GMT -6
Post by NOTTHOR on Mar 15, 2011 21:34:36 GMT -6
If you thought this thread was about the Iowa Energy D-League team.....too bad. Watching the Japan nuclear countdown has made me wonder why human beings aren't more interested in sources of energy that won't potentially lead to killing a massive amount of human beings and/or environment. Wind and solar do not have the potential for killing people and their harm on the environment is minimal compared to oil, coal, natural gas and nuclear. Yes, I know big oil lobbies and big energy lobbies run our government, but hopefully enough people start biting the bullet and elect to pay more upfront for wind/solar so that eventually the cost can come down. When a company creates/finds a great energy source, it will shatter the profitability of the oil companies. GE, Honeywell, the big 3 and a host of other giant multinational corps desperately want to own that one patent. The problem is it ain't out there, at least not yet. As for solar power, it ain't a free lunch. It is not efficient and the precious metals that go into making photovoltaic cells destroy the places where they are mined and pose dangers to the miners and the folks who live near the mines. Wind may be able to provide some power, but even with a massive subsidy, it is WAY more expensive than traditional sources and the turbines have limited shelf lives. Additionally, with wind and solar, you have to have backup traditional sources because Americans will not tolerate rolling blackouts or brownouts when it's cloudy or not windy. Even with Japan's situation, if hippies want a carbon free environment, that's far and away the best bet right now. The plant that had problems was 40 years old while several other newer plants just shut down on their own. That's what should scare the fuck out of people - our fucking newest nuclear plants are damn near as old as Japan's oldest and only the oldest got fucked up. But the NIMBYs won't let us do shit in this country.
|
|
|
Energy
Mar 15, 2011 22:21:12 GMT -6
Post by NOTTHOR on Mar 15, 2011 22:21:12 GMT -6
Here's a timely Kurosawa movie Ma just showed me. That guy was the best who ever lived at his art.
|
|
|
Energy
Mar 16, 2011 15:13:59 GMT -6
Post by NotMyKid on Mar 16, 2011 15:13:59 GMT -6
That blows............ An interdisciplinary MIT faculty group decided to study the future of nuclear power because of a belief that this technology is an important option for the United States and the world to meet future energy needs without emitting carbon dioxide and other atmospheric pollutants. web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/
|
|
|
Energy
Mar 16, 2011 15:25:07 GMT -6
Post by lpcalihawk on Mar 16, 2011 15:25:07 GMT -6
I think nuclear can be a viable option. The power plants need to be built in places where natural disasters aren't as likely to occur and built to withstand whatever disaster is possible in a given area.
I still think wind will be what powers us in 20 years. The risk of human life is minimal.....black outs are not a legitimate concern once enough windmills are up and operational. Right now, with limited windmills up and running, windmills in certain areas are providing more than enough energy to grids. It's a matter of national infrastructure investment. Are we going to be a county in 20 years that powers itself using wind and having light rail trains criss-crossing the country OR are we going to reacting to environmental crises on an annual basis because of the energy sources we rely on?
|
|
|
Energy
Mar 16, 2011 17:05:11 GMT -6
Post by thunderhawk on Mar 16, 2011 17:05:11 GMT -6
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Energy
Mar 16, 2011 17:49:57 GMT -6
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2011 17:49:57 GMT -6
but not as much as mesaclown does, I bet
|
|
|
Energy
Mar 16, 2011 18:56:52 GMT -6
Post by Gumbyhawk on Mar 16, 2011 18:56:52 GMT -6
Meth. That's the answer. Meth is ALL about energy, folks. And I live in the fucking "promised land" of that energy source if we can find a way to harness it. I should take over this fucking town Tony Montana style, yo.
|
|
|
Energy
Mar 18, 2011 17:54:24 GMT -6
Post by Master Blaster on Mar 18, 2011 17:54:24 GMT -6
nuclear is the answer in the interim to what our energy needs are going to be met by when oil goes dry. nothing else out there that can carry the load but that. If wind and solar get to 20% of our energy needs (right now it is around 1%), that will be a huge jump. The key is conservation, but we as americans don't go by that idealogy, so don't even try. Nuclear is pretty freaking safe. Think about it, not one amercian has died from domestic nuclear power in the last 40 years. Not one. Even wind power can't make that claim. Oil and oil refineries certainly can't (last year 12 died in the gulf spill). the fuel can be recycled and used several times. If we had Yucca mountain, then we'd be in nuclear heaven for sure. The gay ass hat politicians are only concerned about the immediate future, because they aren't in for longer than that. Oil pays the bills, so oil is king. not common sense. And to replace our aging nuclear infrastructure will require a lot of building very soon. Nuclear provides 20%, no nuclear power plants have come on line in a couple of decades. The lifespan has been extended temeorarily to handle this, but you can't do that forever. Shit breaks and these plants are all over 20 years old. It is time to build new plants. If it takes a 8.4 earthquake and a huge tsunami to cause them to have issues, then I am saying the risk/ reward meter says risk it.
|
|
|
Energy
Mar 31, 2011 7:04:33 GMT -6
Post by Master Blaster on Mar 31, 2011 7:04:33 GMT -6
|
|
|
Energy
Jun 19, 2019 11:21:57 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by Ginger on Jun 19, 2019 11:21:57 GMT -6
So after watching Chernobyl on HBO,anyone still a big proponent of nuclear?
|
|
|
Energy
Jun 19, 2019 13:07:50 GMT -6
Post by Presidential Immunity Cock on Jun 19, 2019 13:07:50 GMT -6
It's safer than those Bird killing, noise cancer causing Windmills!
|
|
Other
Sports Moderator
Interim Master of the Universe
Posts: 5,174
Tits or GTFO: GTFO
|
Energy
Jun 19, 2019 13:09:20 GMT -6
Post by Other on Jun 19, 2019 13:09:20 GMT -6
So after watching Chernobyl on HBO,anyone still a big proponent of nuclear? Yes and no, I think the take away wasn't that nuclear power was bad but that authoritarian regimes that make scientific decisions for political reasons are inherently dangerous. Seems kinda relevant doesn't it?
|
|
|
Energy
Jun 19, 2019 13:42:21 GMT -6
Post by NOTTHOR on Jun 19, 2019 13:42:21 GMT -6
So after watching Chernobyl on HBO,anyone still a big proponent of nuclear? Yes and no, I think the take away wasn't that nuclear power was bad but that authoritarian regimes that make scientific decisions for political reasons are inherently dangerous. Seems kinda relevant doesn't it? I ain't seen it bince I ain't got HBO, but that wouldn't surprise me. Anyway, nuclear shit is one of the most complicated intellectual property pursuits man has ever undertaken. With each accident, it gets safer. Soviet Russia was on a fucking island when it came to IP, though. The US, France and Japan developed and shared all kinds of breakthroughs, but places that are iced out of receiving the intellectual property from the top men developing that shit are totally skullfucked. So some place like Iran, which is subject to all kinds of export controls, should never ever ever think about trying to develop nuclear power. And I would never want to live too close to a GE reactor.
|
|
|
Energy
Jun 19, 2019 23:57:34 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by Stan's Field on Jun 19, 2019 23:57:34 GMT -6
Thorium
|
|