Smog Kills - REDUCE FOSSIL FUEL USE
- Thread starter Karlin
- Start date
Let them rot a bit...they would be perfect.
You could probably make a little something to compliment
a cold Manitoba day too....
Even old bananas, or any grocery type vegetation would serve the propose for non-consumption type alcohol.
It would be interesting to see if one could purchase a truck load of corn syrup…..
You could probably make a little something to compliment
a cold Manitoba day too....
Even old bananas, or any grocery type vegetation would serve the propose for non-consumption type alcohol.
It would be interesting to see if one could purchase a truck load of corn syrup…..
We were discussing using nuclear energy earlier in this thread and I came across this interview with Helen Caldicott. The first part of the interview she talks about nuclear energy and has a few interesting tidbits of information regarding it's use.
http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2005/05/03/dicum-caldicott/
Here's another article, this time written by Helen Calicott, that is more fact based.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,12835747^12332,00.html
http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2005/05/03/dicum-caldicott/
Here's another article, this time written by Helen Calicott, that is more fact based.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,12835747^12332,00.html
Geothermally -generated electricity is clean...
Iceland, or is it Greenland, has all that geothermal sources, and THEY could start right now making Hydrogen with electricity and water, and quickly become the world leader in hydrogen production, without any greenhouse gas effect at all!
I wonder if they could ramp up to supply enough?
It could be a start at least, so why are they not starting?
- no markets.
Really, we just have to commit to it, and it will get done
Iceland, or is it Greenland, has all that geothermal sources, and THEY could start right now making Hydrogen with electricity and water, and quickly become the world leader in hydrogen production, without any greenhouse gas effect at all!
I wonder if they could ramp up to supply enough?
It could be a start at least, so why are they not starting?
- no markets.
Really, we just have to commit to it, and it will get done
RE: Smog Kills - REDUCE F
Iceland is already developing hydrogen production from geothermal power, Karlin. They also provide a lot of their heating and electricity needs with it.
They've been away ahead of the curve on a lot of things for a long time though...they were also the first western democracy to choose a female leader. I can't remember her name, but she was (is, I guess) also a single mother.
Iceland is already developing hydrogen production from geothermal power, Karlin. They also provide a lot of their heating and electricity needs with it.
They've been away ahead of the curve on a lot of things for a long time though...they were also the first western democracy to choose a female leader. I can't remember her name, but she was (is, I guess) also a single mother.
It's kinda funny to see people using the internet to discuss reducing fossil fuel use....turn off your computer if you want to reduce fossil fuel use.
Nuclear power is a viable alternative. Hydro power causes major environmental destruction. Fossil fuels are non-renewable. Solar, wind, and geothermal have limits. I have read that studies have actually shown that crops downwind of wind turbines have lower pollenation rates.
You can be scared of nuclear power if you wish, but it isn't that bad.
Nuclear power is a viable alternative. Hydro power causes major environmental destruction. Fossil fuels are non-renewable. Solar, wind, and geothermal have limits. I have read that studies have actually shown that crops downwind of wind turbines have lower pollenation rates.
You can be scared of nuclear power if you wish, but it isn't that bad.
I'd be interested in that evidence. Got any to hand? How many people have been killed by Candu reactors, vs. how many people have been killed by thermal and/oil hydro plants?
The 'evidence' against nuclear power is based on fear of a new technology, lack of accurate safety information (the truth is not just the disasters that the news sensationalizes), and incorrect association with nuclear weaponry. Every method of power generation has environmental impacts, and human dangers, but when objectively considered, nuclear power is a very viable alternative. Check the death rate in the oil&gas industry vs nuclear. Those stats will tell you which is actually safer.
Besides those that I've already posted:
http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/p...ear-free/reactors/nuclear-subsidies-at-50.pdf
http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/p...r-free/reactors/ngo-cernavoda-ea-comments.pdf
http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/p...clear-free/reactors/bruce-nuclear-9-2003.html
http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/nuclearreactorhazards.pdf
I confess that I havn't had the time to read through all of these, cover to cover, myself; however, this remains besides my point. There will always be some level of "danger" associated with nuclear evergy. With this understanding, why even go down that road when viable, and far safer, options exist? I'm not argueing in favour of oil/hydro plants here. Let's do away with those as well, as soon as we can.
http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/p...ear-free/reactors/nuclear-subsidies-at-50.pdf
http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/p...r-free/reactors/ngo-cernavoda-ea-comments.pdf
http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/p...clear-free/reactors/bruce-nuclear-9-2003.html
http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/nuclearreactorhazards.pdf
I confess that I havn't had the time to read through all of these, cover to cover, myself; however, this remains besides my point. There will always be some level of "danger" associated with nuclear evergy. With this understanding, why even go down that road when viable, and far safer, options exist? I'm not argueing in favour of oil/hydro plants here. Let's do away with those as well, as soon as we can.
You're claiming that we should use "safer" methods to generate power...and they would be what, exactly?
Fossil fuesl pollute and kill people on a continuous basis, and deplete non-renewable resources...hydro developments destroy the environment.
How do you define 'safer' power? Can you name one type?
And by the way, the Sierra Club and Greenpeace have very little credibility in my mind, no more than Ontario Hydro does. Their whole reason for existing is that they hate nuclear power and other causes du jour, and therefore they will only provide one viewpoint, filtered through carefully crafted wording.
They should preface everything they say with a disclaimer that they are scared by nuclear power, and then everyone would know where they're coming from.
Fossil fuesl pollute and kill people on a continuous basis, and deplete non-renewable resources...hydro developments destroy the environment.
How do you define 'safer' power? Can you name one type?
And by the way, the Sierra Club and Greenpeace have very little credibility in my mind, no more than Ontario Hydro does. Their whole reason for existing is that they hate nuclear power and other causes du jour, and therefore they will only provide one viewpoint, filtered through carefully crafted wording.
They should preface everything they say with a disclaimer that they are scared by nuclear power, and then everyone would know where they're coming from.
RE: Smog Kills - REDUCE F
Hydro power does far less damage than nuclear power, which produces waste that we have no safe way of storing, and to compare it to electricity generated by fossil fuels is laughable. It is far safer and cleaner than nuclear power.
There are other methods as well. Tidal generators, wind power, and solar power are all in use right now. So is geo-thermal power in areas where the earth provides it.
To ignore or denigrate these alternate sources, or try to paint them or the people who promote them as "causes du jour" does nothing to add to the solutions.
The promotion of nuclear power without first finding a solution to the problem of nuclear waste is not only less than responsible, it perpetuates the search for a single magic bullet that will solve all of our energy needs. No such thing exists though, so the use of multiple forms of alternate energy makes far more sense.
Hydro power does far less damage than nuclear power, which produces waste that we have no safe way of storing, and to compare it to electricity generated by fossil fuels is laughable. It is far safer and cleaner than nuclear power.
There are other methods as well. Tidal generators, wind power, and solar power are all in use right now. So is geo-thermal power in areas where the earth provides it.
To ignore or denigrate these alternate sources, or try to paint them or the people who promote them as "causes du jour" does nothing to add to the solutions.
The promotion of nuclear power without first finding a solution to the problem of nuclear waste is not only less than responsible, it perpetuates the search for a single magic bullet that will solve all of our energy needs. No such thing exists though, so the use of multiple forms of alternate energy makes far more sense.
passpatoo said:
With all due respect, the sierra club and greenpeace are from from objective. Other than Chernobyl, what nuclear accidents have taken place? Please do not use three mile island, the safeguards worked exactly as they were intended.
Face it, almost any energy source has downsides. Hydro is bad for the environment in some ways, wind power is now being criticized as visual pollution, nuclear does have waste, etc. The real issue is how to deal as best we can with the negatives of each source.
Yes, of course they are objective and hate nuclear power. But why is that? I think that the answer to that is that, they, have come to the conclusion that nuclear power generation is inherently a bad thing for people/earth.
I disagree with you here Blue. I think the issue should be "What level of negatives are we willing to accept". And I don't know why we shouldn't be using 3 mile island or cherynoble (sp) as examples. These are examples of what can and did go wrong with this energy source.
While I was scanning through the reports that I linked one listed 20 accidents at the Bruce Generating station alone. I think that says alot about the potential that can happen with these things. I know that improvements are always being made to improve safety etc. but neither can we be so arrogant to believe that we can prevent further, catastrophic, accidents from occuring. Afterall, the Titanic was unsinkable in it's day. And I'm sure that the 3 mile island and Cherynoble generating stations believed safe prior to what happened to them.
Yes some consider windmills visual pollution but how does that or the risk of bird strikes or the windmill falling over compare to the consequences of the nuclear options? Hardly worth comparing in my mind.
RB has already done this so I won't bother repeating but will add that no solution can come without reduced consumption. I have also heard that we have to start changing how we think about our electricity production. Rather than just large scale generating stations producing for all consumers there needs to also be large numbers of macroproducers (I think that is the correct term). For example if homes and businesses had solar panels attached to the roofs etc. A portion of the electricity produced would be used at the site/house and another portion would be sent out onto the grid for others to use. Hydro One, here in Ontario already has a program to encourage this. http://www.hydroonenetworks.com/en/electricity_updates/renewable_technologies/
Have you done research on accidents that have happened at NON-Nuclear plants? No, I didn't think so. You say you've found over 20 accidents at Bruce. And how many people were killed/injured? Define "accident" at a Nuclear plant.
And just for clarity, why don't we stick to Candu reactors, because PWRs are a whole different beast, and if you want to examine the dangers of Chernobyl and 3MI, you should know they are about as similar to Candu reactors as a 10ft sailboat is to a 12m racing boat.
That is, incidentally, one of the reasons that China doesn't want Candu reactors this time around. The end products of other reactors are more "useful" to other countries.
Greenpeace and the Sierra Club are like any organized group - their mission in life is now to keep themselves going, and if that means having a reporter write an article in the Boston Globe describing the seal hunt, written totally from a hotel room in Halifax, only to discover later that the seal hunt hadn't started yet, well, let's not let facts get in the way here, we're fundraising!!!!!!
And just for clarity, why don't we stick to Candu reactors, because PWRs are a whole different beast, and if you want to examine the dangers of Chernobyl and 3MI, you should know they are about as similar to Candu reactors as a 10ft sailboat is to a 12m racing boat.
That is, incidentally, one of the reasons that China doesn't want Candu reactors this time around. The end products of other reactors are more "useful" to other countries.
Greenpeace and the Sierra Club are like any organized group - their mission in life is now to keep themselves going, and if that means having a reporter write an article in the Boston Globe describing the seal hunt, written totally from a hotel room in Halifax, only to discover later that the seal hunt hadn't started yet, well, let's not let facts get in the way here, we're fundraising!!!!!!
RE: Smog Kills - REDUCE F
First of all hydro power is not evil. If you want to paint it that way, Ten Penny, then go ahead. If you did some research you would find that the neccessary footprint is growing smaller all of the time and that a properly developed and managed project quickly becomes part of the eco-system. You can choose to compare it to what was done in the 1950's or the Three Gorges project in China if you want, but that simply isn't accurate in Canada anymore.
Hydro-power does have an ecological cost. It has a lower ecological cost than any other source capable of producing equivalent power though.
When it comes to nuclear plants, accidents are not really the problem, at least not with the technology used. To use the lack of serious accidents as proof that nuke plants do no damage is misleading. There will be a large accident eventually, there always is, but it hasn't happened with our technology yet so that is not considered a valid argument. Fair enough.
What do you do with the waste? That's the real question that needs answering. How do you transport it safely? How do you store it safely? In the past it has been dumped in the oceans or jammed into caves, but the containers have rusted away and it has leaked out. What happens if a truckload of nuclear waste tips over on the 401? What do you do then? Even if none of the containers burst, the extra safety precautions will have the highway shut down for a very long time.
First of all hydro power is not evil. If you want to paint it that way, Ten Penny, then go ahead. If you did some research you would find that the neccessary footprint is growing smaller all of the time and that a properly developed and managed project quickly becomes part of the eco-system. You can choose to compare it to what was done in the 1950's or the Three Gorges project in China if you want, but that simply isn't accurate in Canada anymore.
Hydro-power does have an ecological cost. It has a lower ecological cost than any other source capable of producing equivalent power though.
When it comes to nuclear plants, accidents are not really the problem, at least not with the technology used. To use the lack of serious accidents as proof that nuke plants do no damage is misleading. There will be a large accident eventually, there always is, but it hasn't happened with our technology yet so that is not considered a valid argument. Fair enough.
What do you do with the waste? That's the real question that needs answering. How do you transport it safely? How do you store it safely? In the past it has been dumped in the oceans or jammed into caves, but the containers have rusted away and it has leaked out. What happens if a truckload of nuclear waste tips over on the 401? What do you do then? Even if none of the containers burst, the extra safety precautions will have the highway shut down for a very long time.
Hydro has a small footprint....especially in Quebec and Labrador. No enviromental damage there, of course. Since you don't know anything about me, you have no idea how much I might or might not know about hydro developments. "if you've ever done some research" is a patronizing insult. But I forgive you.
"when it comes to nuclear plants, accidents are not really the problem"...so let's stop talking about accidents, then.
What do you do with the waste? How about, put it back where it came from? It's not that hard to do. What about the 401???? Why build the gd plants near the 401? Why does the whole world revolve around the 401????
It's easier to transport electricity over wires than to transport heavy material over the roads. Location, location, location.
"when it comes to nuclear plants, accidents are not really the problem"...so let's stop talking about accidents, then.
What do you do with the waste? How about, put it back where it came from? It's not that hard to do. What about the 401???? Why build the gd plants near the 401? Why does the whole world revolve around the 401????
It's easier to transport electricity over wires than to transport heavy material over the roads. Location, location, location.