April 27, 2005
"If we had simply built all the [nuclear power] plants that were in the pipeline at the time of Three Mile Island, then we would have reduced current coal combustion sufficiently to satisfy the Kyoto treaty." -- Peter Huber
This is what Kyoto is all about.It's not about not polluting but rather WHO gets to pollute how much.
Simple solution to the whole gas and pollution mess?Legalize hemp production for the production of methanol.Old cars could be exempt.New cars would cost zilch to build differently.Higher compression,larger cam and larger injectors with more squirt is essentially it.It takes roughly twice the amount of methanol to make the same power as gasoline but it can be produced for squat with hemp or some other bio mass rich crop.The same can't be said when it is made from the worlds most inefficient cash crop which is corn.Other side benefits are that methanol produces almost no emissions and is much easier on engine parts due to it's smooth burn characteristics.
On the subject of nukes,I'm very pro-nuke.Screw the hippies!So what if mistakes where made in the past.Sometimes the biggest mistakes are the ones that you remember the longest and clearest.Three Mile Island cops a belly fart and the libs use that to justify shutting down the whole industry?Some idiot with a gun in one hand and a crack pipe in the other pops a cap in somebody's ass and now some dad and his kid can't go huntin'?Why are libs such pussies?Are they so Godless that they feel a need to shelter themselves so completly from everything that's even a bit harmful,feeling a need to extend their lives by every second that they can because they are convinced that nothing awaits afterwards?Or,are they just so useless and/or arguative that they feel need things like this to make them feel useful?
Posted by: Russ at April 27, 2005 10:09 AM (ObxzR)
Ted: That would be perfect ! Reactors for everyone! And in a few hundred years, what with all the permanent nuclear waste around you could perform your own x-ray standing next to a "waste storage" facility. (ala Simpsons on Sunday)
Posted by: Oorgo at April 27, 2005 11:18 AM (lM0qs)
Oorgo, I understand those concerns. Now let's hear some ideas from you. I know you don't care for the current petroleum-based world, and you've got a problem with nuclear. What's left? Something viable and reasonable please. And if you claim that solar will do it with more research, well, I could say the same for the problems of nuclear waste.
Don't just say "no". Give me some alternatives to think about.
Posted by: Ted at April 27, 2005 01:31 PM (+OVgL)
For example, Honda is going to be selling a cube that runs off of natural gas that will both heat and power your house with less of an environmental impact. I believe fuel cells will also work this way, and they're even making them so small now that you could power your house with something the size of a six pack of pop cans (not in production I don't think).
I follow this great webblog called "Green Car Congress" daily, they have non-reactionary news items about groundbreaking advances in "sustainable mobility" they call it. Making vehicles that have little impact environmentally, or making conversions to current technologies to avoid massive expense.
Posted by: Oorgo at April 27, 2005 03:06 PM (lM0qs)
Posted by: nic at April 27, 2005 05:37 PM (Sx8zO)
In general alternative energy isn't up to the job yet. Get me a cost effective, efficiant energy source that doesnt' harm the ecosystem and by golly, i'll jump on the band wagon. But until then I'm going to stick to the tried and true.
Posted by: Mookie at April 27, 2005 06:14 PM (+OVgL)
Funny thing with all of the technology mentioned is the US and Canada have JUST recently been testing this stuff but other countries have had them implemented for decades. That's what happens when you run out of natural resources like Europe has started to, you work harder at other self-sustaining means.
I read somewhere that China itself is screwed unless it really starts working at 0 environmental impact. They have so much backpaddling to do if they want to reverse the damage done so they continue to live on the land.
Posted by: Oorgo at April 27, 2005 07:24 PM (lM0qs)
Another problem with wind power is the old "not in my backyard" attitude. The obvious place for windmills are along the coastlines, but since the rich own homes there, they raise hell about their view being spoiled.
And IIRC, it wasn't just bats, but all kinds of birds being killed by the windmills. And lots of them.
As for China, they're so like the old Soviet Union that it's tragic. Absolute disregard for the environment, and they're already paying for it. The Yangtze river, one of the major rivers of the world, dries up at the mouth to the sea for some months of the year because of over-diversion upriver. And when it is flowing, it's so silted up that it's nearly unnavigable. Russia is paying heavily for their past sins. China is approaching that point rapidly.
Bottom line, and my opinion only, is we're going to have to go nuclear, and in the next 20 years fuel cells and battery technology will advance enough to make significant contributions. Solar needs a breakthrough, and you can't predict that. Wind and geothermal will be niche at best, and hydroelectric will actually decline some as old dams reach the end of their viable lifespans.
We're making huge advances in efficiency, even for petroleum-based products. We need to quit advancing enough to meet demand and make that leap that allows us to reduce dependence on oil.
Posted by: Ted at April 27, 2005 08:44 PM (SyWxE)
Maybe all we need to do, to quell the fears of nuclear disaster, is "entomb" all of the nuclear plants. If disaster happens, it's already prevented from spreading any further than the plant itself!
Either that or all of the efficient natural energy sources will be gone in a few centuries and we'll have to revert to slave labor. At least we'll have some nifty pyramids to entomb our masters in.
Posted by: Tuning Spork at April 27, 2005 10:10 PM (ipCPe)
Oh, and on top of that apparently most or many of the current nuclear facilities are nearing the end of their lives.
Posted by: Oorgo at April 28, 2005 11:25 AM (lM0qs)
70 queries taking 0.155 seconds, 197 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.