Green Energy Naysayers
30 May 2012, 3:37 am
DC wrote:
snapcap wrote:
I'm hoping that solar/wind energy will be utilitzed more in the future. Oil isn't going to be around forever, and we could still use it for many other produces besides for our vehicles and nuclear power is increasingly worrying.
Radioactive tuna from Japan found off California coast
Radioactive tuna from Japan found off California coast
Quote:
Los Angeles(KTLA) — Scientists say that migrating Pacific bluefin tuna off California’s coast are carrying radioactive contamination from Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident
From your article:
Scientists say that, even with the increased radioactivity, the levels in the tuna are still within the limits of what is safe to eat.
More unfounded scare mongering.
Tsunami - 28,000 deaths
Fukushima - 0 deaths
I can't recall there ever being such a global media panic over an event that killed zero people...
If there was a death caused by cancer, how could you separate it from someone going to die from cancer anyway, even if the tsunami didn't occur?
_________________
*some atheist walks outside and picks up stick*
some atheist to stick: "You're like me!"
30 May 2012, 6:19 am
AspieRogue wrote:
Oodain wrote:
Tequila wrote:
AstroGeek wrote:
Please tell me this is sarcasm?
Do tell me what happens when it gets a bit gusty, won't you? Oh, yes, that's right - they blow up. And they don't work when it's too windy, either. God save us all.
not taking the amount of turbines in the world into account and the new generation turbines jsut as i told you the last time you started down this road
@snapcap
Quote:
Scientists say that, even with the increased radioactivity, the levels in the tuna are still within the limits of what is safe to eat.
just because you detect it does not make it dangerous, you have several radioactive materials in your body right now and most of it natural.
fruit is radioactive, especially bananas and brazil nuts, they will even set off some on site radiation detectors when they screen the workers at the start of each day.
all this shows is that we need more education and training, it shows little about the actual technology.
besides what alternatives do people have if they dont want green or nuclear energy in the future?, oil is finite and is becoming more and more expensive, not only because of demand but also because of increasing cost of extraction.
ethanol? that would require we use some land for farming it, on a planet where we even today are having trouble feeding people, even in the west, though much of that is down to greed and ego.
Sustained winds over a long period of time has shown to cause the speed brakes to fail. The amount of current generated is directly proportional to the rotational speed. Since the electrical conductors inside the turbine have resistance, part of the energy transduced into electricity is dissipated as heat. Too much current produces excess heat which causes the metallic components to catch fire in the presence of oxygen. So there you go.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u14tBwO5QVQ[/youtube]
_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do
Oodain
Veteran
Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,
30 May 2012, 8:23 am
AspieRogue wrote:
Oodain wrote:
Tequila wrote:
AstroGeek wrote:
Please tell me this is sarcasm?
Do tell me what happens when it gets a bit gusty, won't you? Oh, yes, that's right - they blow up. And they don't work when it's too windy, either. God save us all.
not taking the amount of turbines in the world into account and the new generation turbines jsut as i told you the last time you started down this road
@snapcap
Quote:
Scientists say that, even with the increased radioactivity, the levels in the tuna are still within the limits of what is safe to eat.
just because you detect it does not make it dangerous, you have several radioactive materials in your body right now and most of it natural.
fruit is radioactive, especially bananas and brazil nuts, they will even set off some on site radiation detectors when they screen the workers at the start of each day.
all this shows is that we need more education and training, it shows little about the actual technology.
besides what alternatives do people have if they dont want green or nuclear energy in the future?, oil is finite and is becoming more and more expensive, not only because of demand but also because of increasing cost of extraction.
ethanol? that would require we use some land for farming it, on a planet where we even today are having trouble feeding people, even in the west, though much of that is down to greed and ego.
Sustained winds over a long period of time has shown to cause the speed brakes to fail. The amount of current generated is directly proportional to the rotational speed. Since the electrical conductors inside the turbine have resistance, part of the energy transduced into electricity is dissipated as heat. Too much current produces excess heat which causes the metallic components to catch fire in the presence of oxygen. So there you go.
the speed break on modern turbines are aerodynamic and not by friction, what can fail?
if powert is cut they automatically become aerodynamically inert using hydraulic accumulators.
so please show me some of these new generation turbines where it happened.
_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//
the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.
30 May 2012, 8:24 am
snapcap wrote:
If there was a death caused by cancer, how could you separate it from someone going to die from cancer anyway, even if the tsunami didn't occur?
Statistical monitoring after the event.
After three mile island did a million people die of cancer? No they didn't, cancer deaths were the norm.
After Chernobyl did millions die of cancer? No they didn't. There was a cluster of leukaemia that can be attributed to Chernobyl which is a cancer with a very high survival rate only a handful of people died. The default response of 'Soviets lie' to things that happened during the cold war doesn't apply in this case, there were international monitors present.
Despite all the media attention, zero deaths.
'Fukushima' has entered the global conciousness as a great disaster compare that to Sayano-Shushenskaya. Never heard of it?
Doesn't ring any bells or jog any memories?
74 people died when the dam turbine flooded, but no worldwide panic. That single event killed more people than have died because of all the nuclear accidents put together, get some perspective...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Sayan ... o_accident
30 May 2012, 8:44 am
DC wrote:
snapcap wrote:
If there was a death caused by cancer, how could you separate it from someone going to die from cancer anyway, even if the tsunami didn't occur?
Statistical monitoring after the event.
After three mile island did a million people die of cancer? No they didn't, cancer deaths were the norm.
After Chernobyl did millions die of cancer? No they didn't. There was a cluster of leukaemia that can be attributed to Chernobyl which is a cancer with a very high survival rate only a handful of people died. The default response of 'Soviets lie' to things that happened during the cold war doesn't apply in this case, there were international monitors present.
Despite all the media attention, zero deaths.
'Fukushima' has entered the global conciousness as a great disaster compare that to Sayano-Shushenskaya. Never heard of it?
Doesn't ring any bells or jog any memories?
74 people died when the dam turbine flooded, but no worldwide panic. That single event killed more people than have died because of all the nuclear accidents put together, get some perspective...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Sayan ... o_accident
I strongly agree with your view that Fukushima was overhyped by the media.
It's an old plant that was already scheduled to be taken offline, it is decades behind modern safety standards. It was extremely close to the most severe natural disaster in Japans recorded history and other than some areas being evacuated as a precaution, nothing really happened.
If anything, Fukushima is a demonstration of the safety of nuclear power and not the dangers, as the media portrayed it.
30 May 2012, 8:55 am
Well, the problem with this "green energy" thing is that it might damage the ability of our oil and gas companies to create jobs for everyday Americans by expanding drilling and fracking operations. The liberals are using this "green energy" scheme as just another excuse for them to raise taxes on Americans who contribute the most to the economy by earning most money from it! If Obama doesn't learn to respect the real movers in our economy, they will have to increase their prices even more, and the American people will make sure that he is replaced with someone who knows who his real master is!
30 May 2012, 12:50 pm
DC wrote:
After three mile island did a million people die of cancer? No they didn't, cancer deaths were the norm.
After Chernobyl did millions die of cancer? No they didn't. There was a cluster of leukaemia that can be attributed to Chernobyl which is a cancer with a very high survival rate only a handful of people died. The default response of 'Soviets lie' to things that happened during the cold war doesn't apply in this case, there were international monitors present.
After Chernobyl did millions die of cancer? No they didn't. There was a cluster of leukaemia that can be attributed to Chernobyl which is a cancer with a very high survival rate only a handful of people died. The default response of 'Soviets lie' to things that happened during the cold war doesn't apply in this case, there were international monitors present.
People are still dying from the effects of the bombs dropped on Japan during WW2.
A difference between Fukushima and Chernobyl is that Fukushima wasn't encased because it wasn't deemed cool enough to do. In the mean time, what problems will be faced in the future?
_________________
*some atheist walks outside and picks up stick*
some atheist to stick: "You're like me!"
30 May 2012, 12:58 pm
I think a clean environment is important, but at the same time so is the economy. Germany has come to the same realization as I recall the government there has decided to stop subsiding the solar industry. Factories are closing down.
"The Sun Is Setting on Eastern Germany’s Solar Industry"
http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/ ... -industry/
What I believe is a more realistic energy driver, that is plentiful and decently clean, is natural gas.
Oodain
Veteran
Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,
30 May 2012, 1:16 pm
Jojoba wrote:
I think a clean environment is important, but at the same time so is the economy. Germany has come to the same realization as I recall the government there has decided to stop subsiding the solar industry. Factories are closing down.
"The Sun Is Setting on Eastern Germany’s Solar Industry"
http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/ ... -industry/
What I believe is a more realistic energy driver, that is plentiful and decently clean, is natural gas.
"The Sun Is Setting on Eastern Germany’s Solar Industry"
http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/ ... -industry/
What I believe is a more realistic energy driver, that is plentiful and decently clean, is natural gas.
natural gas is as much of a fossil fuel as coal is, in fact many european countries already use it as one of their primary power sources, probably elsewhere as well.
_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//
the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.
30 May 2012, 1:46 pm
snapcap wrote:
People are still dying from the effects of the bombs dropped on Japan during WW2.
There is a difference between a nuclear generator and a nuclear bomb. It has never been the case for a nuclear reactor to go critical. That is because there is not enough uranium in the plant to form a critical mass.
The Fukushima Daichi plants were shielded. Where they failed was the loss of secondary electric power to run the cooling pools. The Tsunami took out the diesel backups.
Three Mile Island was a totally shielded light water reactor and zero radioactivity made it out from the shielding to the outside air. More people died in Senator Ted Kennedy's car than from the TMI accident.
ruveyn
techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,194
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi
30 May 2012, 3:26 pm
Solar will be revolutionary energy tech once its fully cooked, however it still needs a good 5 to 10 years in the oven before it gets cheap enough to start powering most homes and businesses. Even then; the next challenge is making sure that we have batteries compact enough and powerful enough to make it practical to go full electric as opposed to hybrid.
_________________
“Love takes off the masks that we fear we cannot live without and know we cannot live within. I use the word "love" here not merely in the personal sense but as a state of being, or a state of grace - not in the infantile American sense of being made happy but in the tough and universal sense of quest and daring and growth.” - James Baldwin
30 May 2012, 3:39 pm
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
Solar will be revolutionary energy tech once its fully cooked, however it still needs a good 5 to 10 years in the oven before it gets cheap enough to start powering most homes and businesses. Even then; the next challenge is making sure that we have batteries compact enough and powerful enough to make it practical to go full electric as opposed to hybrid.
What solar and wind generators need is an economical battery that can hold vast amounts of energy. Then the intermmittant base line problem will be solved. Until then, Go Nuke! Zero carbon foot print. High energy density. No base line problem.
ruveyn
30 May 2012, 3:46 pm
Green energy is the future, however in the present green energy is overly expensive, less effective and quite frankly an eyesore for the most part. Nuclear power is the most sensible way to ween humanity off fossil fuels. There are plenty of mountains that can be built within where the plant going boom (which is extremely unlikely based on statistics, google is your friend.) and it produces quite a bit of energy at a low level of waste.
Solar plants in the middle of the desert, wind turbines at sea or large tundra areas makes sense, solar and wind fields in agricultural land in a world with a food shortage is like selling your TV to buy a DVD player.
30 May 2012, 4:13 pm
Oodain wrote:
Jojoba wrote:
What I believe is a more realistic energy driver, that is plentiful and decently clean, is natural gas.
natural gas is as much of a fossil fuel as coal is, in fact many european countries already use it as one of their primary power sources, probably elsewhere as well.
This ticks me off so much. Natural gas IS NOT GREEN! It still emits CO2. It is cleaner than oil and coal and as such it should be the last fossil fuel to be phased out for electricity production. But to call it environmentally friendly and act like it is the solution to climate change is perhaps the single worst case of greenwashing seen yet.
30 May 2012, 4:16 pm
AstroGeek wrote:
Oodain wrote:
Jojoba wrote:
What I believe is a more realistic energy driver, that is plentiful and decently clean, is natural gas.
natural gas is as much of a fossil fuel as coal is, in fact many european countries already use it as one of their primary power sources, probably elsewhere as well.
This ticks me off so much. Natural gas IS NOT GREEN! It still emits CO2. It is cleaner than oil and coal and as such it should be the last fossil fuel to be phased out for electricity production. But to call it environmentally friendly and act like it is the solution to climate change is perhaps the single worst case of greenwashing seen yet.
You still emit CO2. Therefore, no matter how hard you try; you will never be GREEN. Oh noes!!
Oodain
Veteran
Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,
30 May 2012, 4:27 pm
AstroGeek wrote:
Oodain wrote:
Jojoba wrote:
What I believe is a more realistic energy driver, that is plentiful and decently clean, is natural gas.
natural gas is as much of a fossil fuel as coal is, in fact many european countries already use it as one of their primary power sources, probably elsewhere as well.
This ticks me off so much. Natural gas IS NOT GREEN! It still emits CO2. It is cleaner than oil and coal and as such it should be the last fossil fuel to be phased out for electricity production. But to call it environmentally friendly and act like it is the solution to climate change is perhaps the single worst case of greenwashing seen yet.
kind of my point,
its a fossil fuel.
_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//
the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Aspergers & Energy |
07 Apr 2024, 5:11 pm |
| Solar Energy Milestone: Thoughts? |
07 Apr 2024, 4:48 pm |
