Thank you Al Gore

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

So instead of doing something about solving the problem, like carpooling, walking instead of driving, looking at Hybrid cars instead of SUVs, doing dishes by hand instead of running a dishwasher, replacing lightbulbs with CFL/LED lightbulbs....we sit and blame Al Gore and debate his personal energy useage. It's much easier to do, I give you that, but it does precisely nothing towards making America more energy efficient.

That's what I find silly in this whole issue. We put other people on the spot instead of ourselves.

Let me emphasize something here on the human issue - YOU and Al Gore ARE DESCRIBING A BAND-AID SOLUTION TO THE BIGGER PROBLEM

The main problem from a human perspective is COAL FIRED POWER PLANTS which accounts for 80% of the pollution and particulate matter in the atmosphere.

Your solutions that you list here are not the answer. Some thoughts on each one - I hate the light produced by your CFL and LED light bulbs - they are un-natural light and give me a headache personally. I want my dishes sterilized and clean, and with all the bacteria that is built up in the average sink, thrust me, you need this - dishwashers are not for good looks alone! Hybrid cars are killing Canada with the massive increasing in nickel production (and the coal output to produce nickel and the toxicity of it is a worse trade off), and Lithium is not the answer because they are much more unstable and prone to fire if shorted or over charged - not a good thing in a car, especially in an accident.

If you did all these things, energy use would still rise due to population increase, leaving us in the same boat as before.

The point being, to get rid of all the things you describe is not the answer. Cars are the least of the problems since 80% of all pollutants are coal fired power plants. So the answer is sitting with a technology that everyone hates, yet is the cleanest and most efficient way of making power - Nukes. There is no other power source that comes close to making a power of a nuke reactor. Only one dam in the entire world can make as much power as a reactor, and that is the Grand Coulee dam in Washington. That comes at the expense of destroying the river system it is on for salmon runs and the like, so building dams like this is not the answer - it is worse for the environment. Yes, you have waste material, but this only effects one tiny area of the continent, and is contained at that location. I am still not sure why we have so many coal fired plants in place of nukes, but I can tell you that the FUD (Fear uncertainty doubt) campaign surrounding nukes is very effective at not cleaning up our country and reducing our emissions.

Al Gore should be campaigning to build more of these nukes to fix our problems instead of blaming the common person, since it would truely remove the human elelment from the equation of global warming. Then we can concentrate on what else we can do to the environment to fix the other 80% of the cause, that is if anything can be done - which it probably can't. Soemthing tells me that with the messed up logic of this world that the FUD campaign will continue and our band aid wound will never be healed. So quit worrying about 5 watts on your light bulb and start concentrating on what needs to be done to fix the real problem.

And guess what? With a Nuke, you get 0 pollutants into the atmosphere! Imagine that! Problem solved.

-S

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

The main problem from a human perspective is COAL FIRED POWER PLANTS which accounts for 80% of the pollution and particulate matter in the atmosphere.

Agreed that power generation is part of the problem. Isn't that what the whole environmentalist movement is about? Finding greener and more sustainable energy alternatives? So far you're on our side...

Some thoughts on each one - I hate the light produced by your CFL and LED light bulbs - they are un-natural light and give me a headache personally.

Doesn't mean they're not better for the environment

want my dishes sterilized and clean, and with all the bacteria that is built up in the average sink, thrust me, you need this - dishwashers are not for good looks alone!

My fiance is a health and safety inspector for a corporate foodservice kitchen and will tell you that you're full of it on this one. Hot water and antibacterial dish soap are all you need.

Hybrid cars are killing Canada with the massive increasing in nickel production (and the coal output to produce nickel and the toxicity of it is a worse trade off), and Lithium is not the answer because they are much more unstable and prone to fire if shorted or over charged - not a good thing in a car, especially in an accident.

Have not read about this but it sounds interesting. link please?

If you did all these things, energy use would still rise due to population increase, leaving us in the same boat as before.

Is that a reason not to do what we can to reduce the problem now? Of course not.

The point being, to get rid of all the things you describe is not the answer. Cars are the least of the problems since 80% of all pollutants are coal fired power plants.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Originally Posted by The EPA

The process of generating electricity is the single largest source of CO2 emissions in the United States, representing 39 percent of all CO2 emissions...The transportation sector is the second largest source of CO2 emissions in the U.S. Almost all of the energy consumed in the transportation sector is petroleum based, including gasoline, diesel and jet fuel.

These quotes are taken from an EPA report here: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emi...co2_human.html

I think you're not making the connection here...reducing energy useage at home reduces the need for coal fired plants. Reducing the amount you drive, or buying more fuel efficient cars means you can go further on less fuel...reducing the overall demand for it.

So the answer is sitting with a technology that everyone hates, yet is the cleanest and most efficient way of making power - Nukes.

I agree.

But Algore's people hate nuclear power also. Think of the children!!

I for one have no particular dislike for nuc power. I think it is probably the best way to go when it comes to a sustainable energy source. Of course the Chernoble/Three Mile Island incidents have to be overcome, psychologically, but they were both local events. The French have been using nuclear for quite some time without great hardship, no green-eyed, purple-skinned, people-eaters so far.

But, again, the enviromentalists are apposed to the idea. That is the rub in the whole thing. The 'enviros' want to be less dependent on so called fossil fuels, but are also resistant to nuc energy, and probably hydrogen also Subman. That is the flaw in their agrument, they want to have it both ways. Less fossil fuel and no nuclear energy. Once again the left is myopic to consequences.

[XLjedi]

I don't mind the save the planet crusade an all...

But if you're gonna self-appoint yourself planetary savior you better darn well get your own house in order before tellin me I gotta ride my bicycle to work.

I think it's the gross hypocracy that most people find so distasteful. Comes across as being more of a self-serving role he's chosen to create and fill rather than something he legitimately believes in. ...or believes in enough to at least take some action himself.

As for the Nobel prize... I think in recent history it's lost all credibility. I s'pose a very loose connection could be made by avoiding a war that might ensue to grab up the shrinking warm areas of the Earth? Was that actually their reasoning?

[XLjedi]

Originally Posted by waste gate

I for one have no particular dislike for nuc power. I think it is probably the best way to go when it comes to a sustainable energy source. Of course the Chernoble/Three Mile Island incidents have to be overcome, psychologically, but they were both local events. The French have been using nuclear for quite some time without great hardship, no green-eyed, purple-skinned, people-eaters so far.

Unfortunately, nukes are just too expensive to build new ones in the US right now, and no banks are willing to finance the things.

You'll see wind energy in the US continue to grow into the next decade. There will be some new solar, but areas conducive to large-scale solar are limited. You can anticipate new power plants to be either the newer 'clean' coal plants or more nat gas powered combined cycle facilities. Probably not too much in the realm of new hydro or geo-thermal either.

Not sure I'd refer to Chernoble as a "local event" our first notion that something bad happened is when radiation detectors at a nuke plant in Sweden started going off. 3-Mile island was a contained accident, Chernobyl let loose a radioactive cloud that spanned several countries.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Agreed that power generation is part of the problem. Isn't that what the whole environmentalist movement is about? Finding greener and more sustainable energy alternatives? So far you're on our side...

Yes I am, but not entirely in the same manner as you.

Doesn't mean they're not better for the environment

Try simply turning off the light for once. Does wonders for energy conservation. I practice this daily.

My fiance is a health and safety inspector for a corporate foodservice kitchen and will tell you that you're full of it on this one. Hot water and antibacterial dish soap are all you need.

Well, ask her about this one - http://www.aces.edu/dept/extcomm/newspaper/feb5a04.html - Just one example. Anything Anti-Bacterial in that manner I would rather not eat either, and anything that kills is probably not good for your environmental cause as well.

Have not read about this but it sounds interesting. link please?

No problem. There is a reason NASA tests moon rovers here - it is because it is so destroyed an barren that it resembles the moon. Anyway, see below for pics.

Is that a reason not to do what we can to reduce the problem now? Of course not.

I am not after a band-aid solution. Our energy needs are going to go way way way up and a light bulb is not going to help, and will be massively dwarfed by the electronic gadgets you will have in the future, if not already. We will need massive more power down the road that we cannot provide today. No other way to look at it. Changing the light bulb vs. shutting it off - doesn't take rocket science to figure out which is more efficient. Computers are actually much much more the cause of our energy problems. Offices should try turning these off at night, only leaving critical systems operating. That will have a much larger impact - probably 100 fold.

The point being, to get rid of all the things you describe is not the answer. Cars are the least of the problems since 80% of all pollutants are coal fired power plants.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

The process of generating electricity is the single largest source of CO2 emissions in the United States, representing 39 percent of all CO2 emissions...The transportation sector is the second largest source of CO2 emissions in the U.S. Almost all of the energy consumed in the transportation sector is petroleum based, including gasoline, diesel and jet fuel. These quotes are taken from an EPA report here: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emi...co2_human.html

I think you're not making the connection here...reducing energy useage at home reduces the need for coal fired plants. Reducing the amount you drive, or buying more fuel efficient cars means you can go further on less fuel...reducing the overall demand for it.

I'm talking particulate matter here (I worry about this more for my health over energy savings), not CO2, which may be a greenhouse gas, but the trees love it! And I will say again, it is a band-aid solution. Just covers the wound. Doesn't fix the problem. THe problem is, we will need massive amounts more power in the future - on the scale of 10x. Changing ones energy habits to reduce power consumption by 2% is not going to affect the problem - because you are going to go fire up your computer and it draws more power than all the lights on in your entire house right now! You are needing PSU's upwards of 600 to 700 Watts, or even 1000 Watts of power!!! This is where energy conservation must focus - 250 Watt consuming video cards are the problem. And this is just your computer. ALl electronic devices now seem to have a stand-by mode - all consuming more electricity than your light bulb you are talking about, and how many devices do you have in standby right now? THe light bulb is not the answer. On the car - I usually drive my SAAB that gets 30 MPG, and I don't worry about lead acid spilling out from the floorboards! My Land Rover gets 17 MPG on the highway, but I need it for utility tasks or off road, or snow. It fits the bill for many problems. The problem is, many people can't afford 2 cars for themselves, so what should they do if they need to roll up everything into one car? I hate SUV's, but I also understand they are a necessary evil as well for many people.

And now my last question - where do you live? It is not practical to walk to any one place in America. We are so spread out as compared to Europe. I work 25 miles away. I shop 5 miles away. I mean, some relatives came over not long back, and they couldn't understand that such large swaths of land that were many miles long are not owned by anyone! THey don't grasp the concept.

Anyway, my whole point is, I don't see Al Gore's solutions more than for what they are. That is my major complaint. There is a problem from a health perspective. I discount that this is the major cause of the warming perspective. This is where I stand.

So the answer is sitting with a technology that everyone hates, yet is the cleanest and most efficient way of making power - Nukes.

I agree.

Good we agree on this point. I only wish more people could see the light. It would fix a ton of man made environmental problems, but would of course not be able to fix whatever the Earth decides to do on warming.

-S

PS. Here is some pics what processing Nickel does to the landscape, especially one with high sulfur content:

June 16, 2005

The Inco Mine at Sudbury, Ontario




The Inco mine at Sudbury, Ontario - digging into a layer of sulfuriferous rock to reach the remains of an ancient metallic bolide rich with copper and nickel. This image clearly shows what is the largest smokestack in North America, and the second tallest on earth.



It spews out sulfur dioxide produced by Inco's Copper Cliff smelting operation — and is probably the single largest point-source for acid rain-causing emissions on the entire continent.

[bradclark1]

Here is whats happening with nuclear energy presently. There is a lot of renewed interest in it world wide.

Six US power-plant operators are preparing combined construction and operating license (COL) requests to the NRC that could restart construction in the next five years.

http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-59/iss-2/p19.html
I think it's a good thing. The only problem is what to do with the spent fuel. As soon as a storeage sites are constructed they get filled and no one wants a storeage facility in their back yard.

[SUBMAN1]

Oh - I forgot to mention - I did buy a couple mountain bikes this year! So I am doing my part on that point, but they are not the best way to get anywhere in which case I need to haul something home!


-S

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by bradclark1

Here is whats happening with nuclear energy presently. There is a lot of renewed interest in it world wide.

http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-59/iss-2/p19.html
I think it's a good thing. The only problem is what to do with the spent fuel. As soon as a storeage sites are constructed they get filled and no one wants a storeage facility in their back yard.

Well, hopefully Batelle will fix that problem for all of us. Their glass rod storage is working OK, but they need to bring the costs down. THis is a minor problem compared to what coal fired plants do however.

-S

[bradclark1]

Originally Posted by Arnoldo

I don't mind the save the planet crusade an all...

But if you're gonna self-appoint yourself planetary savior you better darn well get your own house in order before telling me I gotta ride my bicycle to work.

Actually it's not such a bad thing. Because of who he is and what he is and what he does it polarizes the subject thereby making more people aware who otherwise might not have been interested. The media wouldn't be as interested if it was professor Smutley from Whatever University.

Originally Posted by bradclark1

I think it's a good thing. The only problem is what to do with the spent fuel. As soon as a storeage sites are constructed they get filled and no one wants a storeage facility in their back yard.

My point exactly. Decisions must be made. Which do you want bc, nuc waste in your backyard or fossil fuel byproducts in the atmosphere?

Enviros ( see i didn't say liberal) want neither. This is our only means at this time, pick one.

[bradclark1]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Well, hopefully Batelle will fix that problem for all of us. Their glass rod storage is working OK, but they need to bring the costs down. THis is a minor problem compared to what coal fired plants do however.

-S

True, but it is a problem. As more plants come on-line more thought will be given to storage or destruction probably.

[XLjedi]

Originally Posted by Beavis

Actually it's not such a bad thing. Because of who he is and what he is and what he does it polarizes the subject thereby making more people aware who otherwise might not have been interested. The media wouldn't be as interested if it was professor Smutley from Whatever University.

Arnoldo?

...I guesso, if you believe it. I think there's a lot of truth to it... and probably a lot of creative exageration.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

You're still not getting it. So WHAT if it's natural or not? You can throw all the charts and graphs in the world at me, but at the end of the day, I'll ask you the same question: is living cleaner and reducing dependance on oil a good thing or not?

It is a good thing for the environment but economically speakin oil drives the economy around the world. We will never see it go away in your and my lifetime.

Originally Posted by aaronblood

Not sure I'd refer to Chernoble as a "local event" our first notion that something bad happened is when radiation detectors at a nuke plant in Sweden started going off. Chernobyl let loose a radioactive cloud that spanned several countries.

No extra arms or ears on me. Local, you know like Kosovo.