Europe Turns Back to Coal, Raising Climate Fears

[SUBMAN1]

A possible case of do as we say, but not as we do? I don't understand?

http://biz.yahoo.com/nytimes/080423/...148.html?.v=13

-S

[bradclark1]

Clean-coal technologies. Understand?

http://world-nuclear.org/info/inf83.html

[Happy Times]

Finland is building more nuclear reactors, the cleanest energy there is.

http://world-nuclear.org/info/inf76.html

[Stealth Hunter]

Problem with nuclear reactors is that they produce nuclear waste, which is very difficult to properly dispose of. In fact, many nuclear plants in the United States don't even bother to properly dispose of the waste. Most seal it in a concrete container and dump it into the ocean (though it only floats a few hundred feet down; it never fully sinks to the bottom) or they just plain empty it into the ocean, which is a terrible waste for the fish.

I place my bets on solar energy and on wind energy. Both are cheap, effective, and produce NO harmful end products. In fact, they're the cleanest options we have, and if we began building up fleets of windmills and solar panels, we could have plenty of energy to live with in a clean, environmentally friendly world. Then we just need to worry about countries who don't want or are unable to raise the bar... like China or India... especially China...

[Happy Times]

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

Problem with nuclear reactors is that they produce nuclear waste, which is very difficult to properly dispose of. In fact, many nuclear plants in the United States don't even bother to properly dispose of the waste. Most seal it in a concrete container and dump it into the ocean (though it only floats a few hundred feet down; it never fully sinks to the bottom) or they just plain empty it into the ocean, which is a terrible waste for the fish.

I place my bets on solar energy and on wind energy. Both are cheap, effective, and produce NO harmful end products. In fact, they're the cleanest options we have, and if we began building up fleets of windmills and solar panels, we could have plenty of energy to live with in a clean, environmentally friendly world. Then we just need to worry about countries who don't want or are unable to raise the bar... like China or India... especially China...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4948378.stm

http://www.posiva.fi/englanti/loppusijoitus.html

This IS safe and realistic.

Saying that solar and wind are cheap and effective is false! We need atleast 10.000MWe increase of electricity for the future, thats a lot of windmills and panels. We have industry and people that deserve we keep this country competitive in the global market. It isnt that easy position being without our own natural resources, up here next to the arctic circle.
We cant just dream.

[FIREWALL]

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

Problem with nuclear reactors is that they produce nuclear waste, which is very difficult to properly dispose of. In fact, many nuclear plants in the United States don't even bother to properly dispose of the waste. Most seal it in a concrete container and dump it into the ocean (though it only floats a few hundred feet down; it never fully sinks to the bottom) or they just plain empty it into the ocean, which is a terrible waste for the fish.

I place my bets on solar energy and on wind energy. Both are cheap, effective, and produce NO harmful end products. In fact, they're the cleanest options we have, and if we began building up fleets of windmills and solar panels, we could have plenty of energy to live with in a clean, environmentally friendly world. Then we just need to worry about countries who don't want or are unable to raise the bar... like China or India... especially China...

Do you have any links\ facts to backup your first statement.

Or are you just full of the stuff that comes out of the south end of a horse.

[Happy Times]

Originally Posted by FIREWALL

Do you have any links\ facts to backup your first statement.

Or are you just full of the stuff that comes out of the south end of a horse.

Hes admitted he makes them up

[The WosMan]

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

Problem with nuclear reactors is that they produce nuclear waste, which is very difficult to properly dispose of. In fact, many nuclear plants in the United States don't even bother to properly dispose of the waste. Most seal it in a concrete container and dump it into the ocean (though it only floats a few hundred feet down; it never fully sinks to the bottom) or they just plain empty it into the ocean, which is a terrible waste for the fish.

I place my bets on solar energy and on wind energy. Both are cheap, effective, and produce NO harmful end products. In fact, they're the cleanest options we have, and if we began building up fleets of windmills and solar panels, we could have plenty of energy to live with in a clean, environmentally friendly world. Then we just need to worry about countries who don't want or are unable to raise the bar... like China or India... especially China...

I have read about India really investing bigtime in solar energy. Apparently there is some new 3rd generation technology out which is much more efficient and the areas of the country where they are being built get sunny days almost 365 days a year.

I personally have no problem with using the current fossil fuels we have now as we develop new technology. There is over a trillion dollars worth of the cleanest burning coal in the world locked up in a national park in Utah. However, that coal can't be touched because a sweetheart deal was made between the Clintons and an Indonesian family that owns the worlds second largest supply of this coal in exchange for millions of dollars in campaign and other political contributions. Liquifcation and gasification of coal could also relieve pressure on the crude oil and natural gas market.

Nuclear energy is probably our best alternative right now even though it produces nuclear waste. It also solves the issue of creating hydrogen for fuel-cell technology. You can run the reactors at 100% where they are their most efficient and use any excess power for electrolysis of water to hydrogen. The US has a solution for the nuclear waste issue in the mojave desert. You seal it in zirconium containers and bury it so deep under a mountain in the middle of a desolate desert deep deep under the water table. In the mean time you figure out how to recycle that material. The containers they can put it in are nearly unbreakable. I have seen tests where they ran them over with a freight train and the containers don't open up.

[baggygreen]

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

I place my bets on solar energy and on wind energy. Both are cheap, effective, and produce NO harmful end products. In fact, they're the cleanest options we have, and if we began building up fleets of windmills and solar panels, we could have plenty of energy to live with in a clean, environmentally friendly world.

erm, the biggest problem i have with statements like this is that sure, the power itself is nice and clean but the processes required to build the wind turbines and particularly the solar panels, aren't. they're shocking!

I would say google it, but googles dominated by "solar is our saviour" pages, i cant for the life of me find the link to some lovely photos, but i'll keep looking

[August]

Originally Posted by Happy Times

It isnt that easy position being without our own natural resources, up here next to the arctic circle.
We cant just dream.

I thought global warming was going to open the arctic circle up to exploitation? Who knows? You may soon be richer than an Alaskan who owns property along the pipeline.

[The WosMan]

Originally Posted by baggygreen

erm, the biggest problem i have with statements like this is that sure, the power itself is nice and clean but the processes required to build the wind turbines and particularly the solar panels, aren't. they're shocking!

I would say google it, but googles dominated by "solar is our saviour" pages, i cant for the life of me find the link to some lovely photos, but i'll keep looking

Very true. The acreage of the land required for them is insane and it is harmful to wildlife, especially windfarms. The most modern form of oil drilling does much less land damage. There really is no true safe, harmless, or clean energy. Whether you build hydroelectric dams, wind farms, solar farms, drill, plant and raise bio-fuels, mine for coal, split the atom........it all has a big environmental impact in some way. I just want to see more people being honest about it. If it comes to my lifestyle, my job, my wallet or a few trees or a unproven theory of planetary warming which may or may not be happening anymore and may or may not be even caused by humans I am going to pick myself and my family's welfare every time. Drill, build refineries, mine coal, do what you have to do to make the economy work and keep people working and providing jobs.

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by FIREWALL

Do you have any links\ facts to backup your first statement.

Or are you just full of the stuff that comes out of the south end of a horse.

http://www.history.rochester.edu/class/EZRA/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_waste
http://www.earthmountainview.com/yucca/yucca.htm

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by Happy Times

Hes admitted he makes them up

Not quite, jackass. See my above post. There's some information about nuclear waste and nuclear waste dumping. Rumors also state that the moon has been seen as a possible nuclear waste dump (Google it).

And also note that nuclear power is safe... as long as you don't count on mishaps and mistakes. Chernobyl ring a bell? How about Three-Mile Island? Three-Mile Island was prevented, but if it wasn't stopped in time... it could have been a catastrophe. Chernobyl... well, we all know the story. Mass radioactivity all over the area and sickness from it. Horrible deaths from the radiation, and the crap that remained floating around in the atmosphere long after the event.

Wind power damaging wildlife? Mm, yes. Might we see evidence of damage to wildlife (don't give me any of that "Birds Are Hitting the Fans" crap). Well, if that's the case, move them out into the ocean (and this has been done before, by the way, quite successfully). Not much problem now, now is there? I mean, unless you're concerned about fish and the possibility of them colliding with the beam that descends into the deep. Although, the only problem you're faced with then is the rich complaining that the mills are blocking their view.

And you're right. We shouldn't just dream... we should get off our sodding asses and start focusing less and less on what's going to make us more money and start focusing more and more on what's going to keep the Earth intact for future generations.

My, my. I never knew this forum had so many opinionated little twits on it. Quite the bees, aren't we? Spoil your sweets and we'll be attacked.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

I place my bets on solar energy and on wind energy. Both are cheap, effective, and produce NO harmful end products. In fact, they're the cleanest options we have, and if we began building up fleets of windmills and solar panels, we could have plenty of energy to live with in a clean, environmentally friendly world. Then we just need to worry about countries who don't want or are unable to raise the bar... like China or India... especially China...

Germany is world market leader for technology regarding solar energy installations - but believe me, it only is becasue of heavy subsidies, and massive financial investements whose profits are enjoyed from investors outside Germany. In other words: it is ridiculously expensive for the tax-payer. If Germany would go solar energy all the way, running that would form the greatest expense post in germany's GNP. Up to almost the half of the GNP would be needed to spend on the energy system for installation and maintaining and keep the according industry running. Even the optimists with their more friendly calculations cannot show to press the costs below at least one quarter if the yearly GNP.

Windmills, another german strength, are not energy-efficient enough to ever take over electricty production completely.

In other words: a combination of solar energy and wind energy alone is both unaffordable and not sufficient enough in energy production to satisfy the energy hunger of modern industrialised hitech societies. So, adressing things by solar and wind energy alone is unrealistic to be acchieved in just some decades. A completely new, energy-passive kind of architecture is neeeded (it exists, but only people with a reasonable - and stable! - income can afford it), it would need to decosntruct all existing cities, including metropoles, and replace the buildings with such new ones, and it would need to completely decinstruct the industrial structures and replace current factories with new ones with an energy-efficiency that currently does not exist.

Germany's solar industry has full books for the next 14-15 years, the industry was almost exploding - but still business is not self-supporting and needs to be heavily subsidised. Hard to imagine that within the next couple of decades it every becomes if not a profitable then at least cost-neutral business. But good business perspectives are needed, if you try to chnage the world without allowing people to make a reasonable profit by that, you can forget it. Business leaders are no monks. On anothe rhand, a bsuiness that only lives by every third buck or so of the national taxes being pumped into it, is no healthy business-doing. even more so when these tax investements do not stay in Germany, but flow to investors in foreign countries.

We simply consume too much energy - trend pointing upwards. the IPCC has just been criticised for having assumed in it'S projection that the demand for energy would considerably fall over the next years. But it is rising in the West, and is exploding in Asia. - People may want to keep that in mind when buying their next computer combo with that mega-super-wonder power supply and that hyper-wonder grahics card that eats the Watts like a formula one car eats the meters. running your system over night or equip it with power-intensive items like mention, spares you of any argument in favour of energy-saving light bulbs, of course.

Deleting solar and wind energy completely, is not needed. but leaving it to these, is stupid, and unaffordable. Both should be considered as regional, small-scale solution, maybe with the exceptions of wind parks on the ocean, but if this idea survives in the face of growing storm activity remains to be seen. We need both a massive reduction of energy consummation in West and East alike, and we need very new technologies used in the industry, we need a new idea of traffic, and a new architecture. Plus new, passive energy production methods, whatever will work. Adding the global warming and the rise of sea levels, we also need to orient towards the idea of living not by the sea, but living on the sea, which is true for major areas in the flat parts of europe, the coastal areas anyway here and in the US, and SE Asia as well. Quite some Dutch architects currently are working in rhich Dubai, where they are busy in projects of artificial island, and floating cities. Floating houses is a trend - for the rhich - in dutch architecture, too. The Netherlands will get it from several sides: from the rising sea level, the spiking precipitation during more excessive storms, and the increase in water delivered by the rivers, carrying all the water masses from Europe into the Netherland. So it is understandable that the Dutch have become a global centre and trendsetter in adaptive architecture building. Saw some docu on it some days ago on TV, and saw some very impressive design studies. these will not be of any use for the poor, of course - it is a very exclusive party being raised. But the sea levels are rising, the ice is melting, the glaciers are disappearing, and the weather becomes more extreme, and we know from sediment analysis that in ages of Earth's history where the mean temperature was around 3°C warmer than today, sea levels sometimes were 25m +/-10m above the levels of today. In the long perspective, and considering that it is a lot of work and consumes both ressources and time to build cities like the ones we have now, it makes sense not to stay by the ocean, but to move onto the ocean. And this will see a very different way of energy production, we can assume.

That are longer time perspectives, I know. But short-sightedness is what has brought us to where we are, and I would say: it is a mess. If there will be a next time, we should not repeat that mistake.

[HunterICX]

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

And you're right. We shouldn't just dream... we should get off our sodding asses and start focusing less and less on what's going to make us more money and start focusing more and more on what's going to keep the Earth intact for future generations.

Some problems there

1st of all, Economy and Climate do not mix, our human greed is to be thanked for.

Dreaming for a cleaner enviroment is for the ones that care, the ones that make profit while they harm the climate dont give a damn.

Earth will be FINE, what we do is warming it up a bit and polute it here and there..the planet is OK, it has suffered worse....it are the PEOPLE that are going to be screwed in the future if we dont do something.

HunterICX