Ways to solve global warming
POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Sunday, June 16, 2024 03:19
VIEWED: 6297
PAGE 5 of 13
France doesn't try to bury it, they just try to import it into my state so WE can bury it instead.
I'm not entirely sure how something that produces hazardous radioactive waste can be considered "clean power."
And I don't think I'll be taking the advice from the President of our beloved local nuclear waste importer when he says we can go ahead and eat yellow cake and be just fine. The stuff's not going to blow up, but it's not as safe as I'd like, either.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello Rap,
Solar power can provide the energy you need to move a car just fine, as long as you can store it efficiently.
Electric vehicles are actually capable of doing everything your dinosaur burner can do.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
I do think Nuclear power is better for the environment than coal or oil. Nuclear waste is still waste, but its volume is astoundingly less than the amount of waste we carelessly disseminate throughout the globe with combustion powerplants. People worry rightly over containment of nuclear waste, but no one seems to worry about containing the waste you take big lungfulls of each day.
Given a choice between the two, I'll take nuclear power. Fortunately, it's not just a choice between those two.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello Rap,
Solar power can provide the energy you need to move a car just fine, as long as you can store it efficiently.
Electric vehicles are actually capable of doing everything your dinosaur burner can do.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
'as long as you store it efficiently'
Neither solar or battery power matches gas, and it's not even close.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, over here in the west, the pollution from the coal power isn't as bad as what you get out east. In the east, nuclear might actually be a half good idea... If the east wasn't always suggesting Utah and Nevada to store the waste for them. 9_9
We do have our bad days... That's mostly the sulfur from the smelter, nitrates-to-ozone from the livestock and our cars, and a sort of regrettable air-trapping topography.
Nuclear power here in the west isn't the best idea. We got FAULTS, everywhere, geologic feature called the Great basin. And we get enough sunshine that solar power and wind power actually could reasonably be expected to meet our energy needs. That is, if California got off our grid and invested in some deep ocean turbines or something.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
But surely Mr. Raptor, you support research and development into the field. I mean, when you tout combustion as the power generation technique of the 21st century, I can't help but think...
"Really? 91 more years of R&D, and you're not striving to do better?"
We can only improve by doing. So lets do more. The 20th century took us from the Model-T to the Prius. Maybe the 21st century can take us from the Prius to the Electro-zoom-whoosh. :-)
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
*Imitates Jetsons car noise*
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,
I do think Nuclear power is better for the environment than coal or oil. Nuclear waste is still waste, but its volume is astoundingly less than the amount of waste we carelessly disseminate throughout the globe with combustion powerplants. People worry rightly over containment of nuclear waste, but no one seems to worry about containing the waste you take big lungfulls of each day.
Given a choice between the two, I'll take nuclear power. Fortunately, it's not just a choice between those two.
So did I, until a few things came to my attention. It's not just radioactive waste, but the reactor and components as well, they're all left highly radioactive after use, and will stay deadly to all life and the environment for thousands of years. There are no long term ways currently of storing this waste, consider that the storage facilities in the US are all nearing or over capacity, and they're all only designed for temporary storage. Who knows what's going to happen in the next 10,000 years, it would be silly to assume that these storage facilities will remain closed and safe. Seems to me that some future civilisation is almost guaranteed to crack them open in the name of Archaeology.
Promises of curses in some long dead language didn't stop the mummy hunters in Egypt, why would it stop people in the future?
As for you AURaptor, if you ever start thinking for yourself, rather than blindly following whatever lies Rush Limbaugh shovels down your gullet, and lying about what people say in order to be contrary, maybe some one would care about what you're saying. Since you don't think for yourself, and since you do claim other people are stupid and sheep, while proving yourself the stupidest authoritarian follower on this or damn near any site, it's hard to see how you could possibly think anyone could take anything you say seriously. If I wanted to know what some insane drug addicted fascist twat thought about a subject, I'd ask Rush myself, I don't need you to parrot every word he says.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Hey, I'm all for efficiency. I laugh at the stupidity of city folks who drive SUVs that never come closer to the wild frontier than rolling over the dirt spilled by a dump truck. But let the public choose what they want to drive, and dont' try to guilt us into driving crap cars that don't come anywhere near " saving the planet " unless that's what they truly want to drive.
Quite clearly you're not, since you felt the utter irresistible need to lie about what I said when I pointed out certain pros to using renewable sources that had nothing to do with global warming.
Quote:
So, sure, there's some things we can do, but the hard core truth about power in the 21st century is that oil gives more bang for the buck than any other source, and it's not even close.
The core truth is that this is another RapFact (lie) spouted by someone too stupid and sheep like to think for "himself".
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello Rap,
Solar power can provide the energy you need to move a car just fine, as long as you can store it efficiently.
Electric vehicles are actually capable of doing everything your dinosaur burner can do.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
'as long as you store it efficiently'
Neither solar or battery power matches gas, and it's not even close.
It's quite a bit closer than you might think:
http://video.google.com/videosearch?client=safari&rls=en&q=top%20gear%
20elise%20vs%20tesla&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wv#
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME