19 Apr 09
Most Governments keep secrets. They can call secret information Classified, Top Secret,... whatever. Much of this secret information (if known to everyone), would have a big impact on our political opinions. In other words, none of us has all the facts to form a truly informed decision on many of the issues of the day. So whatever your political opinions are, don't blame the other side for there's. They could be correct. We just don't have all the facts... 😏
19 Apr 09
3 edits
Originally posted by bill718Speaking of fact, here are a few.
Most Governments keep secrets. They can call secret information Classified, Top Secret,... whatever. Much of this secret information (if known to everyone), would have a big impact on our political opinions. In other words, none of us has all the facts to form a truly informed decision on many of the issues of the day. So whatever your political opinions are ame the other side for there's. They could be correct. We just don't have all the facts... 😏
My country is dependent on foriegn oil. In fact, it is why they have gone to Iraq which has cost countless lives and an untold fortune in tax payer money, Also, according to them, oil and other fossil fuels is destroying to planet so they are talking about a program called cap and trade which will drive up energy prices across the board which will act like a national tax hike the likes of which have not been seen before.
So with all of these problems with oil and fossil fuels you would think they would be wanting alternative viable energy sources to avoid such problems. Nope, other energy sources such as nuclear power is just to "scary" as an alternative even though it is being done safely all over the world. But then again, maybe I just don't have all my facts, eh?
19 Apr 09
Originally posted by bill718I think you've seen "The Pentagon Papers" one too many times.
Most Governments keep secrets. They can call secret information Classified, Top Secret,... whatever. Much of this secret information (if known to everyone), would have a big impact on our political opinions. In other words, none of us has all the facts to form a truly informed decision on many of the issues of the day. So whatever your political opinions are ...[text shortened]... ame the other side for there's. They could be correct. We just don't have all the facts... 😏
19 Apr 09
1 edit
Originally posted by whodey…So with all of these problems with oil and fossil fuels you would think they would be wanting alternative viable energy sources to avoid such problems. Nope, other energy sources such as nuclear power is just to "scary" as an alternative
Speaking of fact, here are a few.
My country is dependent on foriegn oil. In fact, it is why they have gone to Iraq which has cost countless lives and an untold fortune in tax payer money, Also, according to them, oil and other fossil fuels is destroying to planet so they are talking about a program called cap and trade which will drive up energy prices a g done safely all over the world. But then again, maybe I just don't have all my facts, eh?
..…
But nuclear fission isn’t the only ‘alternative’ -what about solar, wind, etc?
And one of the main reasons for rejecting nuclear fission in favour of solar, wind, etc is not on safety grounds but rather because, like coal, it is non-sustainable -even with breeder reactors, the nuclear fuel will eventually be spent and there is only a finite amount of Uranium ore. If the world started producing most of its electricity from nuclear fission then the remaining reserves of Uranium ore that can be economically extracted would be used up even more rapidly.
19 Apr 09
Originally posted by Andrew Hamiltonwhodey doesn't like those facts, so he ignores them.
[b]…So with all of these problems with oil and fossil fuels you would think they would be wanting alternative viable energy sources to avoid such problems. Nope, other energy sources such as nuclear power is just to "scary" as an alternative
..…
But nuclear fission isn’t the only ‘alternative’ -what about solar, wind, etc?
And one of the ...[text shortened]... reserves of Uranium ore that can be economically extracted would be used up even more rapidly.[/b]
Uranium shortgages and pricing aside, there remain legitimate safety concerns both with the operation of nuclear plants and with the storage of spent fuel that will be potentailly deadly for tens of thousands of years. Them's the facts.
19 Apr 09
6 edits
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI once read somewhere that solar energy accounts for less than 1% of the worlds energy sources. In addition, there are environmental issues with creating the panels they use. In fact, wind even kills birds.
[b]…So with all of these problems with oil and fossil fuels you would think they would be wanting alternative viable energy sources to avoid such problems. Nope, other energy sources such as nuclear power is just to "scary" as an alternative
..…
But nuclear fission isn’t the only ‘alternative’ -what about solar, wind, etc?
And one of the ...[text shortened]... reserves of Uranium ore that can be economically extracted would be used up even more rapidly.[/b]
As for wind, do you really think it has the potential to meet anywhere close to their energy demands? If it can, I'm all for it but lets be real for a second. As for nuclear, however, France has proven it can meet a large percentage of their energy demands. In fact, they are exporting their energy to their fossil fuel dependent neighbors. Wouldn't it be nice to sell Canada and Mexico energy? In addition, they seem to be doing it safely. McCain was all set to build a bunch of nuclear power plants and it would have cost a great deal of both money and time, but at least there would be light at the end of the tunnel. As it stands now, we are not investing in our future in terms of known energy demands for the future.
So I guess the answer is cap and trade. I guess the thinking is we will be using less of what we cannot afford.
19 Apr 09
Originally posted by whodeyYou ignored his main point. Like oil and natural gas, uranium is a finite resource. Greater demand for it will raise prices and use up the limited supply more quickly. The European Nuclear Society says:
I once read somewhere that solar energy accounts for less than 1% of the worlds energy sources. In addition, there are environmental issues with creating the panels they use. In fact, wind even kills birds.
As for wind, do you really think it has the potential to meet anywhere close to their energy demands? If it can, I'm all for it but lets be real for ...[text shortened]... wer is cap and trade. I guess the thinking is we will be using less of what we cannot afford.
The global uranium resources with mining costs up to US $ 130 per kilogram amount to about 3.3 million tonnes. With 3.3 million tonnes, all 436 world-wide operating nuclear power plants can be supplied for several decades.
http://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/u/uranium-reserves.htm
The building of more nuclear power plants would use up known reserves even faster. So, your "solution" to the limited supply of oil and gas would be to rely on a source that will be depleted even faster if McCain got his way (of course, stock in uranium companies would probably go up).
19 Apr 09
1 edit
Originally posted by whodey…In addition, there are environmental issues with creating the panels they use.
I once read somewhere that solar energy accounts for less than 1% of the worlds energy sources. In addition, there are environmental issues with creating the panels they use. In fact, wind even kills birds.
As for wind, do you really think it has the potential to meet anywhere close to their energy demands? If it can, I'm all for it but lets be real for wer is cap and trade. I guess the thinking is we will be using less of what we cannot afford.
..…
Currently, yes; because of the carbon emissions when manufacturing them -but that is in part because most of our energy for manufacturing industry currently comes from burning fossil fuels 😛 -but if most of it came from solar power then this wouldn’t be such an issue now would it?
If most of our electric energy came from solar power then there would be an incentive to develop economic ways to use this electric energy rather than oil/coal to heat the furnaces to manufacture the components of the solar panels.
+there is a great deal of ongoing research to reduce manufacturing energy costs and thus reduce CO2 emissions during manufacture.
+EVEN taking account of the current carbon emissions when manufacturing them, less carbon would generally be released overall by manufacturing and using a solar panel over its lifetime than to get the same amount of electric energy by directly generating it directly through burning of the fossil fuels.
….In fact, wind even kills birds.
.…
Oh come off it. I don’t think this is a major threat to birds but, even if it was, remember that global warming is a major threat to some of the wildlife anyway. Besides, does it really mater if we loose a few seagulls? -I think there are many more pressing issues at the current time.
Isn’t pollution from burning fossil fuels or the accidental release of radiation from nuclear power stations a potential threat to wildlife?
….As for wind, do you really think it has the potential to meet anywhere close to their energy demands?
…
I just heard on TV that on some days in Spain, it provides as much as 40% of their electricity! -so yes, this has already been proven.
…. France has proven it can meet a large percentage of their energy demands.
…
If every country did this then we would quickly use up all of the nuclear fuel that can be realistically mined out of the ground and then we would have no more nuclear fission -thus this isn’t the solution to this problem. The only sustainable solution in the long run is solar, wind etc.
19 Apr 09
Originally posted by FMFway too subtle an argument. better still why don't we embrace decentralised power generation where instead of spending millions to build each new 100+MW facility, why don't we find a way to get each household to be more independent of the energy grid?
If we were to use more of it, would that 1% figure go up, do you think?
20 Apr 09
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonUsing up uranium ore would be a good thing. It makes it harder to make nukes!
[b]…So with all of these problems with oil and fossil fuels you would think they would be wanting alternative viable energy sources to avoid such problems. Nope, other energy sources such as nuclear power is just to "scary" as an alternative
..…
But nuclear fission isn’t the only ‘alternative’ -what about solar, wind, etc?
And one of the ...[text shortened]... reserves of Uranium ore that can be economically extracted would be used up even more rapidly.[/b]
20 Apr 09
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFThe real question is, if it is such a good alternative, why are people not choosing it? It is because of cost and effeciancy. The cost is far too high and it is still too inefficiant form of energy to implament on a large scale.
If we were to use more of it, would that 1% figure go up, do you think?
I am in favor or pretty much any alternative form of energy and if solar was more viable, I would be in favor of it as well. It just boggles my mind why people demonize other alternative forms of energy and in the same breath proclaim that fossil fuels are the worst threat to our existence. The reason I bring up nuclear is simply that it is the one alternative energy source that has proven to be both viable and can be used on a large scale and resonable safe. To be sure, ALL alternative forms of energy need to be explored in conjunction with each other. I am not completely sold on the "sky if falling so lets get off fossil fuels", but I am sold on the fact that OPEC owns us unitl we do het off it. For me, that is enough of a reason. I just cringe, however, when people poo poo alternatives which will both get us off fossil fuels and will not help destory us economically.