70 replies to this topic

[Japofran]

Here you can watch the Channel 4's documentary on global warming:

http://video.google....665474899458831

All I say is, if like most people you think man-made global warming is rational, the least you can do, after learning there ever is a sceptic side with prestigious scientifics and all, is hearing what they have to say. This documentary is a good start, it says plenty of things I didn't know about. Global warming is something most people give his opinion about, and nearly all that people hasn't heard the alternatives, IMO it wouldn't be honest refusing to hear them but still having a strong and militant position.

[DakaSha]

i love animals but i sure as hell am going to eat meat

[Juni Ori]

Japofran, exactly.

Juni Ori, on Mar 6 2007, 07:23 AM, said:

In any case I'm even still stunned how fanatics can be blind. Some of them have never even really dug into the issue (not saying all) and have only taken their share of propaganda and start taking part into protests, consider as enemies everyone who isn't believing to their agenda, etc. I guess I'm just too old and cynical to understand such a behavior.

I have to make a small addition to my post I quoted here, wherein I also said:

Juni Ori, on Mar 6 2007, 07:23 AM, said:

No, it has risks, which may lead to local disaster. Nowadays it's still very unlikely.

What I have apparently forgot to mention there, is that the possible disaster would be not only unlikely, but also far less dangerous than the disasters we've seen so far.

Also, I'm not too eager to blindly rush into alternative energy sources. Think about history: what happened when hydropower plants were invented? For long green parties and different organizations demanded more hydropower plants, as they were more "ecological". What the history has taught us? Everything's relative. First of all, the local environmental disaster when the dam is built. Then the effects to rivers wildlife. Then the suddenly growing mass of the area - which is significant. You don't hear anyone speaking of hydropower plants greatness anymore, do you? Same was with the nuclear energy, ill effects were discovered later. As is with every new technology we discover! I have some fears about all new alternatives, and thus they should be carefully studied and tested locally in long term before building them everywhere. Meanwhile, we can support our growing need of energy with relatively most secure source: nuclear energy.

[Japofran]

You're quite right about renewable energy sources also having "impact", Juni. First of all, ecologists are already complaining that solar panels and windmills spoil too much surface, and landscape. So they provide extremely expensive energy, and we knew they just can't provide all the energy we need by far, but it seems that they can provide even less if we are to control its "impact". But what most people haven't thought about is that sure, solar panels and windmills work in a clean way --apart from occupation and landscape impact-- but are NOT manufactured in a clean way. With one cheap and relatively little gas or vapour turbine you can generate loads of energy for a very long time. But solar panels and windmills have to work in groups because each one generates very little power. (And then again they produce power only when it's sunny or windy, and most times they are hardly working precisely when the demand is at its highest, and storing great quantities of electricity is simply a no can do. They can provide some backup when the conditions are right if they're heavily subsidized, but it's just not possible for them to replace the sources we are using now.)

But what I mean is that you have to manufacture immense numbers of windmills or solar panels to produce any significant amount of energy, and to manufacture them you're going to use energy, create waste and pollution, etc. These components are specially sofisticated and costly; only to get the silicon needed for solar panels, humongous amounts of heat are required in the process, and that kind of energy can't be produced with renewable sources. And these components don't last forever so they must be replaced every so often. If you divide the energy you get by the pollution and impact created when manufacturing the generating components, renewable sources are by far the dirtiest ones. Ironic eh?

Not to talk about bio-mass, that's the greatest fraud of all. Not only is it incredibly inefficient, expensive, and also means going back to the Middle Ages. It's also quite obviously the dirtiest energy source on Earth, way dirtier than fossil fuels in every aspect. The EU is heavily involved in it to fight global warming --which is also a fraud--, and their argument to say it's clean is that the plants it's taken from have absorbed CO2 during their lifetime. That's simply stupid, I can't believe people are actually buying it. First they concentrate on inocuous CO2 because of the supposed man-made global warming, and not in real pollution such as acid rain or aerosols. But most important, their idea that the same energy source has absorbed the same amount of CO2 generated during its use is stupid because if those extensions of land were not dedicated to bio-mass they would still be farmed and the plants there would still absorb CO2 regardless of the fact that they wouldn't be destined to energetic use. So it's simply a lie that the CO2 balance is even with bio-mass. Not to mention that, as every elementary student knows --or used to know because nowadays they're only taught about the Ultimate and Unquestionable Scientific Truth of man-made global warming--, fossil fuels come from bio-mass trapped deep below the surface eras ago, and that bio-mass already absorbed CO2 at the time, so the same fallacious argument could be used in favour of fossil fuels. Well the sheer truth is that fossil fuels are way cleaner than bio-mass in every aspect, and they're also cheapest and more efficient. And still the EU is spending millions in this nonsensical moronic parade, it's not science, it's not even environmentalism per se, it's politics, and more sinister the more you think about it.

[Juni Ori]

So much truth in that. However, I still prefer nuke over fossil fuel, though some fossil fuel is definitely needed.

[BeefontheBone]

The initial and especially ongoing costs of nuclear power are massive - uranium mining, transport, storage and preparation, not to mention the enormous problem of disposing of waste and other byproducts safely and securely. I expect offshore wind and wave power is going to be the way to go, once the practicalities are sorted out - no problem with land usage or visual impact, and relatively low maintainance costs with (next to) no pollution.

[Japofran]

Yes Juni, I only mentioned fossil fuels because they're referred to as dirty compared to renewable sources.

Beef, I don't think your data are correct, nuclear energy has worked and works without need of subsidies, unlike renewable sources. The only reason why some countries aren't using it any longer is because it got banned to please ecologists. Among the costs of nuclear energy the ones related to the raw materials are close to insignificant, considering that you can get 15,000 times as much energy from 1 kg of uranium than from 1 kg of fossil fuel. Nuclear energy is not experimental and is profitable, renewable sources aren't, this has been proven by experience for decades and there's no point in discussing something you can see for yourself.

If the energy sources you mention are some day practical then let's use them, but they're not so right now and I don't think they will. What I said about huge manufacturing cost and impact still applies, and I think you fail to fathom that no piece of machinery lasts forever. A windmill or wave turbine won't last longer than your average car, and won't last witout needing maintenance longer either, it does need maintenance. Once their lifespan is expended, you'll need new ones, and each will have generated an insignificant amount of the energy generated by a turbine in a thermal plant (nuclear plants are thermal also) during the same span.

[BeefontheBone]

Quote

A windmill or wave turbine won't last longer than your average car

... and you know this because? It's not like a nuclear reactor requires zero maintenance either, not to mention security, emercency backup  and so on. What I was really getting at was what you do with the waste afterwards - how can you measure the potential costs of rogue states/terrorist organisations getting access to plutonium, the potential environmental impact of the waste and so on, even after you've added up the cost of disposing of that material? Nuclear power may CURRENTLY be the only viable option, but building new reactors strikes me as extremely shortsighted, dangerous and potentially disasterous. The profitability of nuclear power I regard as an irrelevance - if avoiding destroying the planet and ourselves and providing clean, renewable power for the future requires public investment, so be it. Call me an environmentalist (which you seem to regard as an insult) if you like, but you're not going to convince me that fossil power or nuclear power are safe and clean, that we should drop research into alternative, RENEWABLE sources, that global warming is an invention (of who, exactly? to what end?), or that "there's no point in discussing something" simply because you disagree with me and seem to think I'm a moron.

[greywolf]

I don't think Japo is trying to imply that fossil fuels and nuclear energy is clean, just that they get overhyped for the amount of pollution they produce compared to other supposedly green energy sources. Of course windmills and the like should be refined to be more energy efficient, but the amount of energy they produce (even in large quantities) pales in comparison to the amount of energy a coal or oil electric plant can produce. They simply aren't a practical choice for a switch, unless everyone is willing to use electric "rations" until the amount of windmills and solar panels equal the current energy output.

I have mentioned several times the motivations behind the global warming crowd (which I'm still waiting to hear your explanations for, by the by).

You're not a moron, and I don't think Japo was even coming close to hinting at that.

[Tulac]

What about the posibillity of recycling nuclear waste(this will soon be reality), or disposing it far better than today. You are also extremely shortsighted because you do not take into account the research and posibilities of NE in future.

[Doubler]

Nuclear:
First off, risk comes in all singular parts of the process. There's not just a reactor explosion to worry about. A single 'oilspill' does enough damage in itself.
That wouldn't be as much a problem, but the risks taken are beyond a timeframe we can take responsibility for:

If one wants to go the way of nuclear energy, one has to be able to guarantee continued knowledge, skill, interest and financial means to keep up maintenance and safe usage, even after expirement of any singular powerplant. The timeframes are far beyond anything anyone can guarantee, though.

When any of those things becomes problematic, safely dismanteling nuclear reactors and safe depositing of residue will be the last thing on everybody's minds. Moreover, if we focus on nuclear power, taking a step away from it when needed will be the last thing on anybody's minds, and critical situations will occur, even if they're incredibly unlikely now (which I'm prepared to admit to a certain extent). People always stretch, when we cannot operate like we're used to within former bounderies, we stretch them, relativating the risks we're taking. It's common practice, nuclear power is itself an example.

[BeefontheBone]

I don't believe there are any other motivations for trying to prevent global warming - isn't saving the planet we inhabit enough? It's not like we've even found any others we could live on, even if we could get there. Clearly it forms part of other political agendas for left-leaning and green politicains - why wouldn't it?

[Japofran]

@Beef. First I certainly didn't intend to insult you and I'm sorry if you feel that way. "I know that because" I'm about to get a degree in engineering if that's really a requirement, anyway it's a pretty obvious fact everyone can obserb that machines must be replaced every so often, from a washing machine to a space station. The turbine in a thermal plant won't last much longer, but the energy generated by a windmill during its lifespan is nothing compared to the energy generated by one turbine in a thermal plant. So if you're comparing wind energy for example with thermal energy from an environmentalist point of view, you'll have to take into account the impact done while manufacturing the huge number of wind turbines which generate the same power as a single turbine in a thermal plant. And even that won't be a proper comparison because wind energy depends on wind and won't work when there's an electricity demand peak but there's no wind.

Anyway I think there are two points which seem pretty obvious to me, and maybe you won't agree on them:

1.- Nuclear power is not experimental. It's been around for half a century and is proven safe. Okay if terrorists sabotaging plants is ever an argument, it can be used against planes because terrorists can hijack them and crash them into the World Trade Center, let's ban flight. And terrorists can also sabotage hydroelectric plants and thus cause floods which can kill more people than a nuclear meltdown, let's ban hydroelectric plants. You can follow banning cars because they can be used to run over people, electricity because people can electrocute. Let's ban progress, that's what this is all about.

And okay Chernobyl happened. A single accident during half a century. In the USSR, in thirdworldish, negligent, criminal maintenance conditions. No other nuclear plant among the dozens or hundreds that exist suffered a meltdown during half a century. What does this tell us? That nuclear power has been proven safe.

And nuclear waste has been disposed of safely during this half a century, and it wouldn't be a problem either disposing of the waste generated in the future. Regardless of the alarm generated from the beginning, nuclear waste hasn't caused any ecological disasters during all these decades.

2.- Wind power is not experimental either. Industrially it's been around for a couple of decades already and is proven unable to satisfy our needs. Fifty years in the future we'll still be hearing that wind generation needs to be researched further, even though the scientific and technological principles behind it were fully undestood a century ago.

As for global warming I already linked the documentary, it even talks about some motivations behind it, and I recommend you to watch it anyway. I also talked previously about Enron, Acciona and the like. In the EU there's a whole industry sector dedicated to generate renewable energy, formed by companies founded only because otherwise non-profitable activities are heavily subsidized. When the EU reviews its energy policies it asks the associations formed by these companies their opinion, I read one of those reports, not surprisingly it amounted to "just keep giving me money".

Anyway it's not about who invented the theory, testing wrong theories is part of the scientific method. It's about who's saying that it's proven with the aid of state-funded propaganda and the media and NGOs, who's interested in it, who attacks anyone that disagrees, who turned a scientific debate into one of the main concerns of the UN and governments worldwide, etc.

[greywolf]

You just said it yourself - it forms agendas. It would be nice if everyone that had an agenda believed that global warming was harmful, that way they wouldn't be such hypocrites (much like Nancy Pelosi, Al Gore, numerous hollywood stars, John McCain, and Arnold), but I don't think that's the case. While I'm a personal optimist, I'm also a general realist (if that makes any sense), and I don't think that everyone is out to save the planet. They're out to make some money and further their own personal agendas, many of which tie in with socialism. If you think that's a bit much, look at this - TerraPass is a company that promotes the use of "carbon credits" to reduce your carbon footprint and thus help save the environment, et cetera. They take your money and use it to buy more credits from eco-friendly power companies, like Ainsworth Wind (using the amount of power the windmills make proportionate to power with carbon pollution side effects as a guide to how much the credits cost). They say:

Terrapass said:

TerraPass purchases and retires Green-e certified renewable energy credits from wind farms across the country. These wind farms generate electric energy that might otherwise come from the burning of coal or oil.
...
In the last year TerraPass has purchased credits for nearly 1,800 tons of CO2 from the McNeilus Wind Farm alone. That's equivalent to the amount carbon emitted by about 400 mid-size cars in a year.

This is absolutely ridiculous: it does absolutely nothing for the environment, since the person buying the credits (aka rich people that have the money and can afford it like Al Gore) doesn't actually have to change anything. They can drive the same giant SUV's as before, eat the meat they ate before, and can have huge houses that consume 20x the amount of electricity that the average person uses.

Let me put this whole TerraPass deal in average person terms. The average person's carbon footprint (in a 1st world country like the US) is around 18 tons. So, say I have a 21-ton footprint and you only have a 15-ton footprint. TerraPass is essentially the same as selling me your 3 spare tons so that my footprint can go down to 18 tons. Nothing has changed environmentally - I still drive my gas-guzzling car, and the total carbon output remains the same. The only thing that has changed hands is money.

Now, do you really think that developing countries like China and India will have CO2 stipulations put on them? Did you know that the UN is considering a global carbon tax that will undoubtedly target 1st-world nations? There is plenty of motivation for people to promote "green" technology and the idea that New York will be 20 feet underwater by 2100 if the world (read: the US and other 1st-world nations), and it revolves around money.

Edit: Japofran beat me to posting.

Quote

And nuclear waste has been disposed of safely during this half a century, and it wouldn't be a problem either disposing of the waste generated in the future.

There'll be no problems there when we invent a giant planet-based railgun that will shoot nuclear waste into the heart of the sun.

2nd Edit: By the by, Beef, love the hat.

[Juni Ori]

@Beefy: First of all, we do not know the possible drawbacks of wave power. Then, the real costs with the renewable energy to the nature are - as Japo already mentioned - surprisingly high. But it is true, that uranium mining, transportation etc. causes pollution. Ever thought how much does alternatives? Not a single other source is totally clean. Uranium mining is actually only real point you have there, as it does have environmental effect. However local, but it's always the same when digging up the resources. And uranium is - which was also said - easily number one in efficiency. About nuclear waste getting into hands of "rogue-states" or terrorist organizations: very unlikely. And what would they do with it? Easy to detect, very difficult to build actual bomb. Only choise would be nuclear waste bomb. Wasted effort, I say. Much more easier to get, smuggle and detonate conventional explosives. And those terrorists aren't stupid... (Well, not all of them.)

@Tulac: Excellent point, which I had forgotten for some reason. Soon we will be recycling our nuclear waste. Nowadays the expectations are pretty high. What, about 70% as unused uranium?

@Doubler: About oilspill: which is better, to take a small chance to locally  pollute environment, or guaranteedly pollute atmosphere, thus affecting everyone's environment? You were clearly speaking of outdated nuclear plants. Modern, fourth generation plants are far more safer - one could say idiotic proof - compared to second generation (not to mention first). And reactor explosion is pretty much out of the question. (Okay, you mentioned about all of it in the end.) Even though they happened a major accident - very unlikely - fourth generation plants would seal most of it - if not all. There are also three projects (Finland, Sweden and USA) going on to storage nuclear energy safely.

@Beefy: As long as there's politics, there are personal motives. Some of them may be for the best of the planet - but I bet most of them aren't.

@Japo: Very strong reply, I couldn't had dreamed to give such an answer.

@Greywolf: There'll always be fools to pay... Carbon footprint...