I had a very long discussion with some friends last night about the merits of Nuclear Energy, and how it would be GREAT to invest more in this.
We also talked about how Coal Mining, and it's subsequent product that produces energy, has gotten out of hand. How West Virginia and Kentucky mountains are stripped; how "coal slurry" is one of the most harmful by-products of any resource; how communities and their environments are simply destroyed after years of coal harvesting, etc.
It seems to me that Nuclear Energy is safer, MUCH less harmful to the environment and more cost effective than it was even a decade ago.
Why can't we start switching to Nuclear Power? France seems to be doing fine, as are many other countries who have invested in it. I think it's time that we made the switch before our energy problems get out of control.
http://www.occupationalhazards.com/News/Article/79385/Study_Coal_Mining_Pollution_May_Affect_Public_Health.aspx
http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/TheBenefitsOfNuclearPower
What's going on in West Virginia and Kentucky is a disgrace and nothing short of an environmental and human disaster of epic proportions - and I feel that my province and its hunger for more power in the hot summer is partially at fault. The only reason why the mountains are being levelled instead of mined the old fashioned way, is because the companies can get away with it, and it's cheaper. Coal has to be phased out as a power source and soon (and it has been on the way out in Canada for many years).
As for nuclear power, sure it's efficient and "clean", but what do you do with the radioactive waste? You can't keep burying it forever (and who actually believes this is a safe and good idea as the generations roll on). And what about radiation the plants themselves give off? I live in Toronto and there's a massive nuclear plant not far from the city, in a suburb called Pickering. The rates of cancer are far higher in Pickering than in Toronto. Coincidence? No, but difficult to prove in court. Hell, the law still can't prove that smoking is bad for you. Nuclear power and its bi-products are potentially far more harmful in the long-run than coal.
However, I also don't think damming up rivers is the answer for cheap power either. Rivers take millions of years to develop and evolve. Damning rivers causes irreparable damage to water flow, ecosystems, communities and inevitably our FUCKING WATER SUPPLY. Look at California and New Mexico: because of giant river diversions and dams, they are drying up before our eyes. Of course, I don't care about California, but since Canada has a ton of water and the U.S. thirst for more will eventually look north (and eyes and hands are already focussing as I write), we need healthier solutions. Solar and wind power are no-brainers. Bio-fuel? Don't even start with that bullshit. The destructive baggage bio-fuel brings is appalling and the supporters of that alternate fuel source are extremely short-sighted due to their political and financial agenda amongst other things.
So, nuclear power? I'd say: Use At Your Own Risk.
i occasionally drive through pike county, kentucky and see the destruction of what at one time was some of the most beautiful land in the area. now it looks like the surface of the moon. its grinds on one's soul to see it. its also astonishing that the people who live in the area look at what has been done and are ok with it. i know that its for economic reasons and that coal mining is their livelyhood, but wow. blinded by the all mighty dollar i guess.
anyway, my suggestion is solar power. although it is expensive up front, it can pay itself off within 5 years or so. plus, no harmful pollutants are released into the air or water. i would like to see the government promote solar energy with tax breaks (im sure there already is one), and maybe grants or even loans to people who are interested in using solar. oh wait, i forgot that all that money could be used towards something better, like maybe a war in iraq.
Quotei occasionally drive through pike county, kentucky and see the destruction of what at one time was some of the most beautiful land in the area. now it looks like the surface of the moon. its grinds on one's soul to see it. its also astonishing that the people who live in the area look at what has been done and are ok with it. i know that its for economic reasons and that coal mining is their livelyhood, but wow. blinded by the all mighty dollar i guess.
The people that are ok with it don't know any better. How could they be ok with coal dust leading to severe health problems not to mention flooding, landslides and economic relocation and unemployment.
The coal mining companies know exactly what to do or say to these people to get them on their side - of course there are groups of protestors and dissenters that fight the companies, but if the state governments aren't helping them out - and they aren't - the people get screwed. The coal mining companies know exactly the economical and educational demographics of the areas they are exploiting.
What kills me is that, at any time, the government could step in and DEMAND that the coal companies switch to solar, nuclear or ANY alternative energy source. The coal companies have hundreds of millions of dollars that they could easily spend to switch over to whatever was mentioned in the ultimatum.
They would, presumably, make the same profits but wouldn't hurt the environment like they are now. Why isn't this happening?
They are destroying the region of the American Appalachian Mountains (the range extends into the Maritime Canadian provinces too) for all eternity, one mountain at a time. Mountains aren't a renewable resource. But if it's coal you want, these companies employ a fraction of the miners they used to and their work is far more efficient and and inevitably destructive. This has nothing to do with employment and the economy.
i dont understand why our society is based on a non-renewable energy source anyway.
Quotei dont understand why our society is based on a non-renewable energy source anyway.
Most energy sources aren't renewable. Wind, solar, and hydroelectric are the exceptions.
Quotei dont understand why our society is based on a non-renewable energy source anyway.
It's hereditary/historical, plus no leader has the balls and vision to impliment a new energy-efficient infrastructure and convince the masses that this is a good thing. Our forefathers used wood, peat and then coal for fuel and then oil etc...... and now, certain governments don't want to be the scapegoat for making changes that may or may not affect their economies negatively in the short-term.
Oil will run out in 20 years or less. Fresh water is drying-up and their will be a huge water crisis (and there are pockets of water crisis's all over the world right now, thanks to the control of The World Bank and massive water companies like Nestle and Coke) in 15-20 years. Fact. If we don't switch to wind, nuclear (and I'm no fan, but for now it's the most useful) and solar soon, man, the future is bleak. Water will be the new oil.
QuoteQuotei dont understand why our society is based on a non-renewable energy source anyway.
It's hereditary/historical, plus no leader has the balls and vision to impliment a new energy-efficient infrastructure and convince the masses that this is a good thing. Our forefathers used wood, peat and then coal for fuel and then oil etc...... and now, certain governments don't want to be the scapegoat for making changes that may or may not affect their economies negatively in the short-term.
Oil will run out in 20 years or less. Fresh water is drying-up and their will be a huge water crisis (and there are pockets of water crisis's all over the world right now, thanks to the control of The World Bank and massive water companies like Nestle and Coke) in 15-20 years. Fact. If we don't switch to wind, nuclear (and I'm no fan, but for now it's the most useful) and solar soon, man, the future is bleak. Water will be the new oil.
I'm glad someone else is recognizing the water problem. Nearly all the meltwater in the world will be gone in the near future and much of the world will suffer from extreme thirst.
I saw the film Flow at the Hot Docs Festival in Toronto a few weeks ago (considered the most important documentary festival in the world). Flow is a documentary about the world's fresh water (and a bit about salt water too) and how it is exploited by big water companies, governments and the omnipotent World Bank. If I can leave everyone with one simple way to fight the world's water shortage (and the corruption of water companies as a whole), DO NOT BUY OR DRINK BOTTLED WATER (if you have a choice). Check out the film's link below (and make sure to check out the film clips too):
http://flowthefilm.com/about.php
Quote... and massive water companies like Nestle and Coke) in 15-20 years.
I wish people would quit buying bottled water. I work for Nestle and absolutly refuse to buy bottled water and will only drink it if I absolutly have to.
EDIT- I do not drink soda/pop. Sadly many eating establishments have switched to bottled water which makes it ruff.
i took a class last fall that discussed the overuse and abuse of fresh water. it is scary to think about that there is a good possibility war will break out over water. examples in the US are the colorado river basin and there is a battle between georgia and florida over water as well. the govt is trying to screw indian tribes out of water so las vegas can have enough to run its water fountains and such.
QuoteQuote... and massive water companies like Nestle and Coke) in 15-20 years.
I wish people would quit buying bottled water. I work for Nestle and absolutly refuse to buy bottled water and will only drink it if I absolutly have to.
EDIT- I do not drink soda/pop. Sadly many eating establishments have switched to bottled water which makes it ruff.
thats funny because i am drinking a bottle of nestle water right now. i dont drink tap water in dayton because apparently there have been traces of mood enhancing drugs and hormones found in the city water. i dont need the government adding things to my water to try and numb me and turn me into a woman.
speaking of the damage mining does:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080510/ap_on_re_us/farewell_to_a_town
QuoteQuoteQuote... and massive water companies like Nestle and Coke) in 15-20 years.
I wish people would quit buying bottled water. I work for Nestle and absolutly refuse to buy bottled water and will only drink it if I absolutly have to.
EDIT- I do not drink soda/pop. Sadly many eating establishments have switched to bottled water which makes it ruff.
thats funny because i am drinking a bottle of nestle water right now. i dont drink tap water in dayton because apparently there have been traces of mood enhancing drugs and hormones found in the city water. i dont need the government adding things to my water to try and numb me and turn me into a woman.
Dude, water companies aren't regulated (especially Nestle) and thus don't have to answer to anyone. Often bottled water companies mine water right out of a city's tap-water system. Enjoy your hormone-infested bottled water. And governments aren't the one's dumping the mood enhancers and hormones into the water system. It's us - we dump the drugs and hormones through our urine, blood, spit etc... down the drain far more than any hospital or slaughterhouse does. Oh yeah, you ingest more through your skin than you do by drinking tap water, so say goodbye to showering.
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote... and massive water companies like Nestle and Coke) in 15-20 years.
I wish people would quit buying bottled water. I work for Nestle and absolutly refuse to buy bottled water and will only drink it if I absolutly have to.
EDIT- I do not drink soda/pop. Sadly many eating establishments have switched to bottled water which makes it ruff.
thats funny because i am drinking a bottle of nestle water right now. i dont drink tap water in dayton because apparently there have been traces of mood enhancing drugs and hormones found in the city water. i dont need the government adding things to my water to try and numb me and turn me into a woman.
Dude, water companies aren't regulated (especially Nestle) and thus don't have to answer to anyone. Often bottled water companies mine water right out of a city's tap-water system. Enjoy your hormone-infested bottled water. And governments aren't the one's dumping the mood enhancers and hormones into the water system. It's us - we dump the drugs and hormones through our urine, blood, spit etc... down the drain far more than any hospital or slaughterhouse does. Oh yeah, you ingest more through your skin than you do by drinking tap water, so say goodbye to showering.
good point, but i do think the govt "enhances" our drinking water. sounds awfully bushy to me.
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote... and massive water companies like Nestle and Coke) in 15-20 years.
I wish people would quit buying bottled water. I work for Nestle and absolutly refuse to buy bottled water and will only drink it if I absolutly have to.
EDIT- I do not drink soda/pop. Sadly many eating establishments have switched to bottled water which makes it ruff.
thats funny because i am drinking a bottle of nestle water right now. i dont drink tap water in dayton because apparently there have been traces of mood enhancing drugs and hormones found in the city water. i dont need the government adding things to my water to try and numb me and turn me into a woman.
Dude, water companies aren't regulated (especially Nestle) and thus don't have to answer to anyone. Often bottled water companies mine water right out of a city's tap-water system. Enjoy your hormone-infested bottled water. And governments aren't the one's dumping the mood enhancers and hormones into the water system. It's us - we dump the drugs and hormones through our urine, blood, spit etc... down the drain far more than any hospital or slaughterhouse does. Oh yeah, you ingest more through your skin than you do by drinking tap water, so say goodbye to showering.
good point, but i do think the govt "enhances" our drinking water. sounds awfully bushy to me.
Isn't your government's fear of "enhanced" drinking water the reason why LSD is still categorized as a major capital offence?
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote... and massive water companies like Nestle and Coke) in 15-20 years.
I wish people would quit buying bottled water. I work for Nestle and absolutly refuse to buy bottled water and will only drink it if I absolutly have to.
EDIT- I do not drink soda/pop. Sadly many eating establishments have switched to bottled water which makes it ruff.
thats funny because i am drinking a bottle of nestle water right now. i dont drink tap water in dayton because apparently there have been traces of mood enhancing drugs and hormones found in the city water. i dont need the government adding things to my water to try and numb me and turn me into a woman.
Dude, water companies aren't regulated (especially Nestle) and thus don't have to answer to anyone. Often bottled water companies mine water right out of a city's tap-water system. Enjoy your hormone-infested bottled water. And governments aren't the one's dumping the mood enhancers and hormones into the water system. It's us - we dump the drugs and hormones through our urine, blood, spit etc... down the drain far more than any hospital or slaughterhouse does. Oh yeah, you ingest more through your skin than you do by drinking tap water, so say goodbye to showering.
good point, but i do think the govt "enhances" our drinking water. sounds awfully bushy to me.
Isn't your government's fear of "enhanced" drinking water the reason why LSD is still categorized as a major capital offence?
well, as long as they can "enhance" it to the point to where people wont think for themselves and believe everything they say, its cool with them. of course we all know LSD promotes free thinking and open mindedness for some folks, therefore, it is illegal.
my wrestling nickname is Nuclear Power.
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote... and massive water companies like Nestle and Coke) in 15-20 years.
I wish people would quit buying bottled water. I work for Nestle and absolutly refuse to buy bottled water and will only drink it if I absolutly have to.
EDIT- I do not drink soda/pop. Sadly many eating establishments have switched to bottled water which makes it ruff.
thats funny because i am drinking a bottle of nestle water right now. i dont drink tap water in dayton because apparently there have been traces of mood enhancing drugs and hormones found in the city water. i dont need the government adding things to my water to try and numb me and turn me into a woman.
Dude, water companies aren't regulated (especially Nestle) and thus don't have to answer to anyone. Often bottled water companies mine water right out of a city's tap-water system. Enjoy your hormone-infested bottled water. And governments aren't the one's dumping the mood enhancers and hormones into the water system. It's us - we dump the drugs and hormones through our urine, blood, spit etc... down the drain far more than any hospital or slaughterhouse does. Oh yeah, you ingest more through your skin than you do by drinking tap water, so say goodbye to showering.
good point, but i do think the govt "enhances" our drinking water. sounds awfully bushy to me.
Isn't your government's fear of "enhanced" drinking water the reason why LSD is still categorized as a major capital offence?
well, as long as they can "enhance" it to the point to where people wont think for themselves and believe everything they say, its cool with them. of course we all know LSD promotes free thinking and open mindedness for some folks, therefore, it is illegal.
I'm sure everyone's heard of this fact:
The fear the US government had with LSD back when they originally made the drug illegal was the fear that the Soviet Union or some other perceived enemy could dose the US water supply leaving millions incapacitated and thus leaving the country open to attack.
Anyway, with this kind of inherent paranoia, I highly doubt the US government would adhere to dosing its own people when using various media tools for propaganda purposes is far more efficient and longer-lasting.
Cool thread Triple G!
Nuclear plants cost more to operate. Not counting the purchasing of the fuel of choice for a comparably sized plant, just to operate a nuke plant costs more. PLUS, most communities are scared of having a nuclear plant nearby, and through local gov't, have often shut down existing plants, or halted proposed plant development. Between cost and fear, I can understand why coal is still preferred by the energy companies. Why build an expensive new plant when there is no penalty for operating your disgusting old one, and it's cheaper anyway?
I think nuclear is a great energy option though. The uranium does need to mined, but not nearly to the extent that coal or natural gas does. The heat producing nuclear reaction is all done in a closed system, so there is no fuel combustion byproduct released to the atmosphere. The spent uranium does need to be properly stored, but it's not like it's just tossed into a muddy pond, and then out on to desert sand somewhere - there are highly controled and monitored facilities set up to safely contain the waste while it decomposes. The penalty for failure is high with nuclear, but it is also better understood now, and regulations can be developed to responsibly build and operate future plants. I'm a BIG fan of renewable energy, and as technology is developed, and production cost comes down, the percentage of energy that comes from these sources will increase - we won't need to be as reliant on coal, gas or nuke plants. Nuclear should be a larger part of our overall energy production though...people just need to learn that it's not as scary as they may think!
QuoteNuclear plants cost more to operate. Not counting the purchasing of the fuel of choice for a comparably sized plant, just to operate a nuke plant costs more. PLUS, most communities are scared of having a nuclear plant nearby, and through local gov't, have often shut down existing plants, or halted proposed plant development.
That's the thing. I feel like people are basing their fear of nuclear power on the events of 25 years ago (Three Mile Island, Chernobyl). I feel like if everyone were just better educated on the advances that have been made, they might warm up to the idea a little bit more. Also, if the destruction that coal mining produces were more publicized, I think there would be a major outcry for SOME sort of alternative energy.
But I think this may take a while... :-/
There isn't a legitimate environmental scientist that will endorse nuclear energy as a viable and safe power source. The scientists that do support this type of energy are on the take. Oh yeah, in Canada, mining companies have the freedom to dig on anyone's land to find uranium. I bet ya the States has something similar.
solar and wind power=the future.
only problem? and why 'the government' isn't in any big hurry to do anything with it?
our power grids would have to be completely overhauled. there are people in my neck of the woods that are harnessing enough wind power to fuel entire towns. the issue is that the outdated grid doesn't have the capacity to transmit what has been harnessed. so, it seems that the first thing that needs to be done is r&d of power transmission.
just my two cents.
This is a great thread. Very interesting. I love the idea of wind power and solar power. The entire solar system gets it's energy (at least to start) from the sun so essentially all of our power is related directly or indirectly to the sun. We just need a good way to get a more direct tapper.
Jamoie, where did you get the idea that we will run out of oil in less than 20 years. I'm not doubting the info, it just seems a bit extreme. If that's the case, I may just have to make my next car purchase be the last.
Quote
but what do you do with the radioactive waste?
That's whet we have a space program for--blast those spent rods into space--at least NASA would be providing something useful to us finally.
Quotei dont understand why our society is based on a non-renewable energy source anyway.
$$$
QuoteQuotei dont understand why our society is based on a non-renewable energy source anyway.
$$$
I've heard some talk recently about using wave power to produce energy. Why isn't there more talk about this?
Quote
I've heard some talk recently about using wave power to produce energy.
Do they use miss america pageant contestants?
[size=20]"NUKE - U - LER"
[/size]
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/02/Homer_Simpson_2006.png)
I actually have been considering adding ass tons of solor cells to the house to take over for my energy needs. I need to read up on that and using an all electric furnace instead of a natural gas on. When my hot water heater dies, I'm switching to a tank less that doesn't use gas.