Countries Going "Green"

Quote:

Originally posted by ranging

At least the poor people will die first..............

Not necessarily... The wonderful by-products of nuclear fission leaking from the wrecked plants at Fukushima are leveling the playfield in that now everybody has the same odds of getting various forms of cancer.

http://enenews.com/nuclear-engineer-pieces-unit-3-reactor-core-released-spread-all-place-like-virus-scary-part-finding-one-hot-particle-going-be-lot-video

What happened in Japan was a prime example of Government getting to chummy with Industry. Nuclear plants in Japan should have been made to prepare for the worst case scenario. You see this happening in the USA too where Nuclear plants are given extension after extension when it comes to following stricter regulations. made after the Japan disaster. There is no room for error when it comes to Nuclear power. One reason we probably shouldn't have allowed it. Humans are so error prone. Mother nature can have other ideas to than our safety. Then there is the terror threat. I see that some other countries don't take the terror threat as seriously as we do when it comes to Nuclear power sabotage. Highly trained/armed security forces guard our plants

You can't build and prepare for the worst case scenario, its impossible. Whats the worst situation possible? A 1 in 500 year flood, a 9.0 earthquake, maybe its a nuclear attack? I'm sorry, but there is nothing you can build that would both work as a nuclear power plant and would withstand a nuclear bomb. Regardless of government intervention or not, there will be accidents, there will be natural disasters, there will be terror attacks. Building a better facility isn't the answer, coming up with better ideas how to clean up the mess is.

Quote:

Originally posted by NightCruiser

What happened in Japan was a prime example of Government getting to chummy with Industry. Nuclear plants in Japan should have been made to prepare for the worst case scenario. You see this happening in the USA too where Nuclear plants are given extension after extension when it comes to following stricter regulations. made after the Japan disaster. There is no room for error when it comes to Nuclear power. One reason we probably shouldn't have allowed it. Humans are so error prone. Mother nature can have other ideas to than our safety. Then there is the terror threat. I see that some other countries don't take the terror threat as seriously as we do when it comes to Nuclear power sabotage. Highly trained/armed security forces guard our plants

To many talking heads talking about things they know nothing about just like always

IN the case of Japan, the Nuke plant could have placed the back up generator higher than any Tsunami could reach. I am pretty sure I read where the Japanese government cut them some slack when it came to the placement of the Generators. Nuke plants have lobbies.. Nuke Plants create a lot of jobs. They pump billions into local economies with taxes. They have a lot of influence. Germany was trying to get away from Nuke Plants after Japan happened but then the reality of huge job losses hit. Then there is the dependence on Russia for Natural gas and losing that due to Ukraine.
I agree, they can't prepare for everything. I don't think the first plant should have ever been built. Chernobyl is a prime example of why not. Then there was 3 mile island. Now Japan

Quote:

Originally posted by Sugarpie

You can't build and prepare for the worst case scenario, its impossible. Whats the worst situation possible? A 1 in 500 year flood, a 9.0 earthquake, maybe its a nuclear attack? I'm sorry, but there is nothing you can build that would both work as a nuclear power plant and would withstand a nuclear bomb. Regardless of government intervention or not, there will be accidents, there will be natural disasters, there will be terror attacks. Building a better facility isn't the answer, coming up with better ideas how to clean up the mess is.

What happened in Japan is the only one that was not an operator screw up.

Does Greenland count?

I didnt know Greenland had a problem, I must not have watched the news that night.

Wind and solar are failing all on their own. They are expensive, inefficient technologies at the current time. We've wasted BILLIONS on them.

Quote:

Originally posted by Dronetek

Wind and solar are failing all on their own. They are expensive, inefficient technologies at the current time. We've wasted BILLIONS on them.

The actual power plant of a wind turbine may not be as efficient as a coal power plant, but the thing you're not taking into consideration is that there is no net loss in the efficiency factor. There is no cost to make the wind blow or the sun shine. Unlike oil, gas, or coal in which companies spend billions of dollars in exploration, and then once extracted, they have loss in shipping...either though spills or evaporation. Then there is a loss during refining if its oil. While the end result of burning oil, coal, and gas is quite efficient, the process to extract them is actually quite inefficient.

World must end 'dirty' fuel use - UN

The UN is taking up it's opinion in the climate change debate......

A long-awaited UN report on how to curb climate change says the world must rapidly move away from carbon-intensive fuels.

There must be a "massive shift" to renewable energy, says the 33-page study released in Berlin.

It has been finalised after a week of negotiations between scientists and government officials.


http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-27008352

All I know is that we're dirty bastards and we need to clean up our act, it's not rocket science.

Quote:

Originally posted by Poida

All I know is that we're dirty bastards and we need to clean up our act, it's not rocket science.

That's one way to put it, I cant say that what you say is inaccurate...

Of course humans are having an impact on the environment, however I have a few that need to be answered
1. Does this really sounds like a guy you can trust [Greylisted] (appears my links are not being displayed, this link was an article on the head of the IPCC lying about his diploma, he claimed he had two one in engineering one in economics, he had two because of a clerical error, he actually only has one degree, im not sure what either of them has to do with climate change? Also showed that he mistakinly emailed all his scientists saying they could call themselves noble lauriettes after winning half of the nobel prize in 2010 i think it was, again, he lied.)
2. Why in the last 10-15 years has the earth actually gone through a cooling trend?
3. Why did the IPCC change the name of Global Warming to Climate Change if Global Warming is whats going on?
4. Why have none of the predictions about mass global devistation and massive heat changes happened, in fact the data shows they have been way off, not even close (We still have both poles for a start which were supposed to dissapear in 2012)
5. That rot at the start about solar and wind farms, they're a cute notion but the fact remains, they are hugely expensive and provide very little return energy wise, especially wind farms. I would also suggest you look into the construction of solar panels, hmmm real globe friendly. They're kind of like your green Toyota Prius, cute theory, but just a sad joke.
6. Most scientists no longer agree with Climate Change, they have all abandoned ship. Also the head of the council against climate change is from MIT, are you smarter then the head of mathmatics and climate research at MIT? I didnt think so, dont worry though, neither are most of those saying climate change is an issue.
7. Seriously, cages of over the wind turbines?? Please sit in the corner with crayons so you dont hurt yourself. From a strictly engineering point of view that is simply not going to happen, the weight on the top of the spire would simply bring it down in a mass heap, also think about how tight the grill would need to be, it would restrict air flow, making them even more inefficient.
8. Where is the impartiality in the IPCC? If its funded by governments, and the funding keeps coming if they say climate change is real, then why would they say otherwise?

[Greylisted]
[Greylisted]

Josh

Quote:

Originally posted by lambie_49

Of course humans are having an impact on the environment, however I have a few that need to be answered
1. Does this really sounds like a guy you can trust [Greylisted] (appears my links are not being displayed, this link was an article on the head of the IPCC lying about his diploma, he claimed he had two one in engineering one in economics, he had two because of a clerical error, he actually only has one degree, im not sure what either of them has to do with climate change? Also showed that he mistakinly emailed all his scientists saying they could call themselves noble lauriettes after winning half of the nobel prize in 2010 i think it was, again, he lied.)

Agreed that someone who lies about credentials certainly hurts his chances of being taken seriously, but you don' necessarily have to have a degree in environmental studies to be an expert on the subject. Oh, and for the record, your links will show up when a mod reviews them, as a precaution members with 100 posts or less, links must be reviewed.

Quote:

Originally posted by lambie_49

2. Why in the last 10-15 years has the earth actually gone through a cooling trend?
3. Why did the IPCC change the name of Global Warming to Climate Change if Global Warming is whats going on?

Because like I mentioned, we've only been able to study a minuscule fraction of time the earth has been in existence. The global warming theory is just that...a theory, truth be told, we have no idea whats really happening. As for the change from Global Warming to Climate Change...same reason.

Quote:

Originally posted by lambie_49

4. Why have none of the predictions about mass global devistation and massive heat changes happened, in fact the data shows they have been way off, not even close (We still have both poles for a start which were supposed to dissapear in 2012)

Ummmm...I think that was a movie, based on the Mayan calendar, and not an actual theory, but I could be wrong.

Quote:

Originally posted by lambie_49

5. That rot at the start about solar and wind farms, they're a cute notion but the fact remains, they are hugely expensive and provide very little return energy wise, especially wind farms. I would also suggest you look into the construction of solar panels, hmmm real globe friendly. They're kind of like your green Toyota Prius, cute theory, but just a sad joke.

Agreed that production of solar panels isn't exactly clean, but neither is production of gasoline. A solar panel produces zero emotions or toxicity during its daily operation, the "dirty" process only potentially during production, and at the end of the panels life span. However, if proper precautions are followed and recycling techniques are used, environmental impact could, and should be negligible. As for wind energy, again, I stand by my argument that all things considered, the efficiency/cost to operate is not all that bad. Both of these solutions are perfectly suited for powering the grid. The real problem though is not the environmental impact from powering your home or mine, its vehicles on the road. You mention the Prius, and while I don't know much about cars I can say that operation of the car is extremely environmentally friendly, but production is not. What I don't know, is HOW MUCH WORSE is it than a normal gasoline car, and does it offset one another. Keep in mind that new technologies will develop in coming years to recycle batteries better.

Quote:

Originally posted by lambie_49

6. Most scientists no longer agree with Climate Change, they have all abandoned ship. Also the head of the council against climate change is from MIT, are you smarter then the head of mathmatics and climate research at MIT? I didnt think so, dont worry though, neither are most of those saying climate change is an issue.

Thats hardly true. Not ALL scientists have abandoned the theory of climate change.

Quote:

Originally posted by lambie_49

7. Seriously, cages of over the wind turbines?? Please sit in the corner with crayons so you dont hurt yourself. From a strictly engineering point of view that is simply not going to happen, the weight on the top of the spire would simply bring it down in a mass heap, also think about how tight the grill would need to be, it would restrict air flow, making them even more inefficient.

Yeah...cages won't work, they would restrict airflow too much. As the weight, if they did work, something could always be engineered to keep them from collapsing.

Quote:

Originally posted by lambie_49

8. Where is the impartiality in the IPCC? If its funded by governments, and the funding keeps coming if they say climate change is real, then why would they say otherwise?

I don't think they need to be impartial. Their mandate is to inform about the current state of knowledge in climate change, as well as potential future impacts. They're like a watchdog group so to speak. There are groups that monitor the oil industry, the hydro industry, pretty much every industry....the IPCC just happens to look at the bigger picture. There is no doubt that our actions are effecting the planet, but to what extent, we don't really know. We do know that pollution is bad, we found out in the 70's and 80's that we couldn't just let untreated pollutants out into the air and water, we learned that it created acid rain, and in some cases damn near killed off bodies of water like the Great Lakes. Panels like the IPCC helped us realize these mistakes. I don't particularly believe that our actions today are going to create another ice age, or heat the planet up to where it can't sustain life, but I believe that more research needs to continue.

The IPCC was set up originally to investigate global warming, they predicted (the IPCC and Al Gore that the poles would melt by 2013, sorry i was a year off) "in Gore’s Dec. 10, 2007 “Earth has a fever” speech, Gore referred to a prediction by U.S. climate scientist Wieslaw Maslowski that the Arctic’s summer ice could “completely disappear” by 2013 due to global warming caused by carbon emissions."

As for the prius "Toyota admits that the production of its lightweight Prius requires more energy and emits more carbon dioxide than the production of its gas-only models [source: Williams]. The major reason is because hybrids like the Prius include more advanced components than a conventional car, including a second electric motor and heavy battery packs.
Batteries are an essential component of hybrids. Regenerative braking lets hybrids generate and store their own energy to power the vehicle at low speeds and while idling. Unfortunately, both nickel-hydride batteries and the newer lithium-ion batteries rely on the mining of nickel, copper and so-called rare earth metals. The production of lithium-ion batteries account for 2 to 5 percent of total lifetime hybrid emissions and nickel-hydride batteries are responsible for higher sulfur oxide emissions, roughly 22 pounds (10 kilograms) per hybrid compared with 2.2 pounds (about 1 kilogram) for a conventional vehicle [sources: Samaras and Burnham et al]." Not to mention what is needed to actually make the batteries, mined in africa, super tanked to china, smelted, super tanked to, i think its somewhere else in china or south africa for construction of the battery, then super tanked again to japan for the car. Then there is the live expectancy of the battery, they last 10-15years, It takes roughly 10years of city driving before you will get any sort of benefit financially from driving one, then you need to replace the batteries again. Its a great concept, still needs alot of refining before it could be considered environmentally friendly.

I would think that any organisation that is asked to provide answers on any subject, should be providing the information, not the solution. The IPCC is making a shedload of cash out of saying that there is a warming trend, and then the individual scientists involved are selling their solutions to individual governments, it happened big time here in Australia under the Gillard government. We spent a fortune on a complete nutcase.

There is plenty of evidence to support that Wind farms simply do not produce enough power to be a viable alternative to mainstream power and this point. The size of the farms required are simply A. Not sustainable and B. Far to expensive.

Im not saying we should not be cognisant of what we are doing to the environment, im all for fixing the place up and like you pointed out, you cannot argue that we are not doing some degree of damage. However at this stage I cannot see that there is an epic crisis of biblical preportions looming on our doorstep, when everything that is being said by the IPCC is just wrong.

Josh

Josh I don't believe the doomsday advocates either, but a whole lot of people do, I grew up on a farm as a kid. And now the say barnyard animals passing gas are a source of pollution also. It stinks but it's not pollution either, besides I like bacon and eggs, and milk to much to give them up.

Quote:

Originally posted by lambie_49

The IPCC was set up originally to investigate global warming, they predicted (the IPCC and Al Gore that the poles would melt by 2013, sorry i was a year off) "in Gore’s Dec. 10, 2007 “Earth has a fever” speech, Gore referred to a prediction by U.S. climate scientist Wieslaw Maslowski that the Arctic’s summer ice could “completely disappear” by 2013 due to global warming caused by carbon emissions."

As for the prius "Toyota admits that the production of its lightweight Prius requires more energy and emits more carbon dioxide than the production of its gas-only models [source: Williams]. The major reason is because hybrids like the Prius include more advanced components than a conventional car, including a second electric motor and heavy battery packs.
Batteries are an essential component of hybrids. Regenerative braking lets hybrids generate and store their own energy to power the vehicle at low speeds and while idling. Unfortunately, both nickel-hydride batteries and the newer lithium-ion batteries rely on the mining of nickel, copper and so-called rare earth metals. The production of lithium-ion batteries account for 2 to 5 percent of total lifetime hybrid emissions and nickel-hydride batteries are responsible for higher sulfur oxide emissions, roughly 22 pounds (10 kilograms) per hybrid compared with 2.2 pounds (about 1 kilogram) for a conventional vehicle [sources: Samaras and Burnham et al]." Not to mention what is needed to actually make the batteries, mined in africa, super tanked to china, smelted, super tanked to, i think its somewhere else in china or south africa for construction of the battery, then super tanked again to japan for the car. Then there is the live expectancy of the battery, they last 10-15years, It takes roughly 10years of city driving before you will get any sort of benefit financially from driving one, then you need to replace the batteries again. Its a great concept, still needs alot of refining before it could be considered environmentally friendly.

I would think that any organisation that is asked to provide answers on any subject, should be providing the information, not the solution. The IPCC is making a shedload of cash out of saying that there is a warming trend, and then the individual scientists involved are selling their solutions to individual governments, it happened big time here in Australia under the Gillard government. We spent a fortune on a complete nutcase.

There is plenty of evidence to support that Wind farms simply do not produce enough power to be a viable alternative to mainstream power and this point. The size of the farms required are simply A. Not sustainable and B. Far to expensive.

Im not saying we should not be cognisant of what we are doing to the environment, im all for fixing the place up and like you pointed out, you cannot argue that we are not doing some degree of damage. However at this stage I cannot see that there is an epic crisis of biblical preportions looming on our doorstep, when everything that is being said by the IPCC is just wrong.

Josh

All that info on the Prius is great, and it clearly points that the Prius is much more harmful to the environment to produce, and more harmful to recycle after the lifespan of the car. However, where you lost me a bit is when you started talking about the cost and damage done by mining, shipping, smelting the materials needed to produce the car. These same factors exist in a traditional car, plus in a traditional car you'd have to consider the exploration, drilling/fracking, shipping, refining, more shipping for the fuel needed to run the car. I realize we're talking about a hybrid, and they still use some fuel, but they do use less, and also there are now 100% electric options on the market. So while I have no doubt that a hybrid is more toxic to produce, over they entire life span of the car compared to a conventional vehicle, who knows what is better...considering ALL factors.

There may not be "biblical" examples of climate change happening, but there certainly are some large examples, perhaps even epic examples. They may not support a global warming theory, and thus probably why they've changed it climate change. The acidity level of our oceans is higher than its ever been since we've been recording it, there are holes in the ozone layer that never used to be there as long as we've been able to tell, and glaciers and polar ice caps are at their lowest level in recorded history. These examples could potentially be events of so called biblical proportion, OR, they simple could be part of the natural evolution and lifecycle of the earth. My point is that, we simple don't know, but we do know that things have changed, we may or may not have contributed to them, and if those things continue to change, its not good for life on this planet.

Sorry !!!
Just thought this was : WHATBOYSWANT site - not what worries - male/feel woman like issues ??

Quote:

Originally posted by Smileydoe

Sorry !!!
Just thought this was : WHATBOYSWANT site - not what worries - male/feel woman like issues ??

Not everything in life is about porn.