1 I'm not gonna let you get my blood pressure up today,Ted.I do,however,have a favor to ask of you.I would like to dump my trash on my front lawn for the next couple of weeks.If you would be good enough not to dump yours I will pay you for your "trash credits".
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?

2 Two words Russ, Spacebar, Lithium.

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)

Whee!

3 Russ, I'm glad you didn't get excited. LOL

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.

4 Heh, I was being quippy I left that comment, but yeah there are many other wickedly cool technologies and fuel alternatives out there right now.

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.

5 I'm a cautiously pro-nuke liberal myself...and one of the things I always keep in mind is that nothing is without impact. Even wind power...aren't bats being chopped up in the windmills?

6 Part of my Governor School essay was on wind power. In Oklahoma on one of the wind farms they noticed actual climate changes, where the people down wind of the farm was experiencing a drought, while those up wind were having abnormal levels of rain. They even built underwater-mills, and while they didn't harm as much, they wern't practical for one turbine cost a good 10 million dollars, and could only power 70 homes.

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.

7 Nic: yeah, I heard about the problems they've been having with windmills and birds in North America. From what I've also heard is that in Europe they've been using it for a long time with little problem. I believe they're studying what the problem/difference is.

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.

8 The European Greens party has a lot more influence than environmentalists in North America, and the Germans in particular are very environmentally aware. I remember that even the fishing licenses were incredibly restrictive. Your permit allowed you to fish in a limited stretch of a stream or river. If you wanted to fish 10 miles up or downriver, you needed another permit for that area.

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.

9 Well, isn't Chernobyl entombed in concrete or something so that the radiation within doesn't leak out?

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.

10 What we really need is a way to process and break down the waste that comes from nuclear power, the heavy water and ... I can't remember what the other thing is, but it has a half life of hundreds of years.

Oh, and on top of that apparently most or many of the current nuclear facilities are nearing the end of their lives.