Canine
Well-known member
Drove the van to the gym today and filled up for $26.00.Gas is $1.39 here.Who wouda thunk it?
Oil Down Again, Today
- Thread starter gcal
- Start date
Help Support Van Living Forum:
GotSmart said:
Slanted? Dirty energy? Come on now. It's obvious that everything you typed has a bit of a bias, that's OK. I have no issues with other opinions but if you think green energy can supply the worlds needs you are delusional.
Nuke energy is extremely safe. Chernobyl was the idiot Russians running unsafe plants. Fukushima held up way over the design tolerances to basically an act of god. If the US laws were not so backwards we could be building newer safer plants and recycling the waste. Running more efficiently, producing more power, and putting out way less pollution without any down time. The law makers in all their infinite wisdom leave us running older nuke plants, not able to re use "waste"(which actually could produce tons of power for a long time), and cuts down on new tech to a degree.
Green energy is greener than I suppose? Look at what it takes to produce modern batteries. Look at the disposal procedures. Also try powering a city with only green energy during a long cloudy period, a day with no wind, or no water sources close by and get back to me.
The way that the US produces "dirty" energy now a days is pretty clean honestly, add in a lot more nuke power where we do not have laws against recycling the waste and we could literally be a lot cleaner in no time at all.
If we want modern conveniences we will never be "green". There will always be sacrifices for our modern life.
Canine
Well-known member
Nobody,Reading your take on Nuclear energy reminded me of former D.C. mayor Marion Barry's quote"Other than the murders,Washington DC is a very safe place"
Bob Dickerson said:
Well that's very witty of you. And I appreciate you adding to the discussion.
The US would have no issues using nuke power on a larger scale. If someone could prove me wrong I would love to listen. Bonus points for pointing out a solution to our power needs that is clean and safe. Nuclear power is both clean and safe, two incredibly ridiculous events aside.
The only issue I see with nuke power is that politicians have been scared of it for so long that they have been screwing it up for decades. Plus the fact that it's something that people are overly scared and emotional about.
Optimistic Paranoid
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2013
- Messages
- 4,534
- Reaction score
- 10
As a more or less libertarian (note the small "l"), I am somewhat conflicted on the subject of nuclear power.
The United States Navy has been running the worlds safest nuclear systems for over 60 years now.
If there was going to be a nuclear plant in my backyard, I would want it run by them, and not by some private corporation where the bean counters are constantly trying to cut costs to maximize profits.
Regards
John
The United States Navy has been running the worlds safest nuclear systems for over 60 years now.
If there was going to be a nuclear plant in my backyard, I would want it run by them, and not by some private corporation where the bean counters are constantly trying to cut costs to maximize profits.
Regards
John
Optimistic Paranoid
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2013
- Messages
- 4,534
- Reaction score
- 10
gcal said:
That's silly. You've named two submarines out of probably a couple of hundred. Plus all the aircraft carriers. And as far as I know, neither of the subs you named had a problem with their nuke engines, some other systems failed. Submarines are inherently dangerous, and we lost plenty of conventional subs before we went to nuclear power on them.
Regards
John
LeeRevell
Well-known member
Thresher and Scorpion were lost to other reasons, NOT failure of their nuke plants. That dog has long been put to rest. The Russians though, have left a dozen or more nuke subs scattered on the sea floor. Again, most due to other reasons.
Don't forget America's first nuke accident, Three Mile Island. But that was primarily due to human error.
Think of a large oil or coal plant. A major accident has many of the same implications as a nuke plant, without the containment facility.
All can be relatively "safe" if proper protocols are used, and proper maintenance and servicing done.
Now to 'alternate energy'. NONE is anywhere near able to take over national grid power. Simply not enough capacity. And very limited by available resources - lack of wind or sunlight = NO power. A very regional type of system. Great for those areas that have the resources. They could prove useful for small towns and factories to augment grid power. Some are doing it now - I think the new Google building is using a lot of solar.
How about Hydrogen? Lots of seawater for "free power", right? Takes power to make power, a LOT of it. Like..... a nuke plant? Hydrogen, once created, also has containment issues. That tiny molecule has a nasty habit of migrating through most solid materials. And fueling is hazardous. Don't look for Hydrogen fuel stations along Route 66 for your fancy H2 powered jalopy.
Basically, ALL energy sources have their pros and cons, their dangers and rewards. Many are regionally limited. We have to look at the entire Big Picture, not just our favorite Go Juice.
Don't forget America's first nuke accident, Three Mile Island. But that was primarily due to human error.
Think of a large oil or coal plant. A major accident has many of the same implications as a nuke plant, without the containment facility.
All can be relatively "safe" if proper protocols are used, and proper maintenance and servicing done.
Now to 'alternate energy'. NONE is anywhere near able to take over national grid power. Simply not enough capacity. And very limited by available resources - lack of wind or sunlight = NO power. A very regional type of system. Great for those areas that have the resources. They could prove useful for small towns and factories to augment grid power. Some are doing it now - I think the new Google building is using a lot of solar.
How about Hydrogen? Lots of seawater for "free power", right? Takes power to make power, a LOT of it. Like..... a nuke plant? Hydrogen, once created, also has containment issues. That tiny molecule has a nasty habit of migrating through most solid materials. And fueling is hazardous. Don't look for Hydrogen fuel stations along Route 66 for your fancy H2 powered jalopy.
Basically, ALL energy sources have their pros and cons, their dangers and rewards. Many are regionally limited. We have to look at the entire Big Picture, not just our favorite Go Juice.
Optimistic Paranoid said:
Lets make a list of casualties from: Nuke power, car accidents, doctors accidentally killing patients, and accidental drownings since the wide spread usage of nuke power in the US.
Living with a nuke plant in your backyard run by anyone seems statistically safe.
With the amount of nuclear regulation in place US nuke plants are insanely safe.
Canine
Well-known member
If nuclear plants were cost efficient,we would be building nuclear plants.Even though we have no solution to deal with the radioactive waste.To say solar and wind can't do the job is not true.I have been living totally off solar for the past 6 years and partially off solar for 3 years before that.I occasionally use the generator when we have 3 cloudy days in a row.If I were to invest in a small wind generator or a small hydro generator,I would never have to crank my gasoline generator.As it is,I don't use it enough to justify changing.One of the major benefits to rooftop solar is the relief provided to the aging transmission infrastructure,which will needs billions of dollars in repairs very soon.Not to mention the little problem of people dying from breathing dirty air.
Optimistic Paranoid
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2013
- Messages
- 4,534
- Reaction score
- 10
Bob Dickerson said:
It's entirely possible to run a residence off of green energy. It's a whole different problem to run a steel mill or a bauxite smelter off of green energy.
Regards
John
Bob Dickerson said:
You just overplayed hand. I know you are emotional about nuclear energy and green energy but maybe you should just do some quick google searches into it before getting so emotional.
The reason that nuclear plants are not being updated with way WAY more efficient ones is because of the US government. We can design and build them to be way more powerful, efficient, and safe but uncle sam will not let anyone. Look at how many have tried over the years to how many have been built sometime.
The only reason nuclear waste even exists is because.......wait for it..........of the US government restrictions on using the waste in other plants or with newer tech. There will always be some waste, but not nearly as much if we could move into the future.
Solar and wind can do the job huh? Do the math and come up with how much you would need to power the electrical needs of the US sometime. Hint, it's a **** ton. You and your van being powered by solar is great. I love my solar panels for the freedom they give me. Try running a business off of one and you run into problems. How many solar companies run their factories off of 100% solar power? I'm guessing you won't like the answer.
You realize that if we changed to 100% "green" energy in the US that the transmission infrastructure would still need more work right?
All it takes is a little reading to come to these conclusions. I wish I could push a button and cut our emissions to zero but no one can do that. Look up the advances in nuke tech lately and it really blows your mind what we could be doing.
LeeRevell
Well-known member
"Green Energy" is much like Communism. Works very well on a small scale but fails miserably on a large scale.
While I would like to see solar being incorporated into new government, commercial and industrial buildings to help reduce impact on grid power, our infrastructure isn't geared towards it. We would need massive redesign and restructure of it to use on a larger scale. And who is ready for huge "wind farms" sprawling across the land, added to huge swaths of solar panels?
Green energy proponents don't realise the scale of magnitude required.
We really need to get rid of the current inept and "junk science" based EPA department, and reinvest in intelligent nuclear power.
While I would like to see solar being incorporated into new government, commercial and industrial buildings to help reduce impact on grid power, our infrastructure isn't geared towards it. We would need massive redesign and restructure of it to use on a larger scale. And who is ready for huge "wind farms" sprawling across the land, added to huge swaths of solar panels?
Green energy proponents don't realise the scale of magnitude required.
We really need to get rid of the current inept and "junk science" based EPA department, and reinvest in intelligent nuclear power.
i'm pro nuclear right up to radioactive waste for 10000 years and meltdown,the worst case scenario is pretty darn bad
and as far as green,windmills kill birds and a lot of people say electromagnetic fields are unhealthy so electricity is not all it is made up to be
is it o.k. if i just keep using briggs & stratton and chevy sb to power my things? they are kinda efficient,last long and the worst case scenario isnt much at all
Go petro,it seems to work
and as far as green,windmills kill birds and a lot of people say electromagnetic fields are unhealthy so electricity is not all it is made up to be
is it o.k. if i just keep using briggs & stratton and chevy sb to power my things? they are kinda efficient,last long and the worst case scenario isnt much at all
Go petro,it seems to work
Optimistic Paranoid
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2013
- Messages
- 4,534
- Reaction score
- 10
Gary68 said:
Yeah, but eventually, we WILL run out of dead dinosaurs . . .
Regards
John
Canine
Well-known member
Hey Nobody,I remember you.You are the same guy who said ships can't sail across the ocean without falling over the edge.You are the same guy who said the airplane would never fly.You are the same guy who said a man could never go to the moon.You are the same naysayer who has been denigrating progress for a thousand years and you will still be saying"It can't be done" for the next thousand years.Oh yeah,I know you.(Hope I'm not too emotional here.That is usually a statement to try to put women down,But that's o.k.)
Bob Dickerson said:
Resorting to personal attacks when you can't argue your position huh? Right out of Saul Alinsky's play book.
Thanks for adding so much to the argument from your point of view. I'm sure some people are taking notes and it helps a certain side. If you would like to debate a point I'm all for that, but I'm not here to argue with anyone over feelings. Your straw man arguments above are lovely though.
Go ahead and pick anything else I have said on the actual subject apart and get back to me. I mean I'm sure you have some statistics, studies, etc that would reinforce your feelings on the subject. I mean I have done a ton of research into this stuff for fun and for work but I really look forward to your contributions.
