Energy and environmental problems

Post Reply New Topic

A few days ago happened in Poland, "ecological disaster", but it is only Greenpece Poland, exaggerating the matter. In one of the largest coal power plant in Poland in Kozienice, mazout spill occurred, fortunately, rather there was no contamination of the water in the river Vistula.

The company ENEA SA, the owner of the collaboration of other Polish energy groups (PGE and Tauron) and several smaller companies with the blessing of the government of Prime Minister Donald Tusk plans to build the first nuclear power plant in Poland, in fact, the first plans to build a nuclear power plant in Poland created at the end of the 70's but due to strong protests ecological disaster in Chernobyl, the construction was stopped at a fairly advanced stage, now you have to start everything from the beginning. When environmentalists began their protests these. Then the government of our then still communist government of President General Wojciech Jaruzelski sent tanks, troops and ZOMO (comunist riot police), you would say that the general did one good thing in his political life, he sent the army against the true threat, eco-freak and not vulnerable workers from factories and Solidarity activist .

Now freaks of Greenpeace Poland exaggerate accident in a coal power plant that what would happen if it be out mazout leakage, but leakage of nuclear fuel.

They propose as eco-freaks that under no not build nuclear power plants, ultimately the government plans to develop three such plants. Environmentalists also propose resignation of fossil fuels, currently 90% of electricity produced in Poland comes from fossil fuels, specifically coal.

Instead, they propose renewable sources in Poland to place wind turbines. I say let them kiss your ass, let him put the damn wind turbines in their own backyard. They do not care that Poland would have to buy electricity from the Germans, Czechs, or the Russians, especially the latter can take a lot of money for it, besides newiadomo you do not really like us Poles, moreover reciprocated anyway I do not know why, never We did not do them any harm.
But if Poland had its own nuclear power, we could all our neighbors, both the bigger and the smaller, show middle finger: D
In terms of energy independence, of course. From importer electrical energy would become the exporter It would be great to do and electricity became cheaper

Your post suggests you don't really understand environmental science. Maybe it could be wise to be little more circumspect.

It may actually have little idea of environmental protection, whereas I know that Poland is forced to procure electricity from our neighbors, and pay them a lot of money, I know that the Czechs have two active nuclear power plants and the two planned to build, the Germans have them even Furthermore, only now have problems with idiots from Greenpece. About Russia, even I will not mention because they have plenty of them.

If Poland opted for nuclear energy could show the middle finger to our "dear" neighbors. I have nothing to Czechs, Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia have very good diplomatic relations. Middle finger and which I mentioned earlier, this is our big neighbors, one from the west and the other from the east , always to f*****g in our affairs, If Poland had its own nuclear power plant could significantly reduce electricity imports from neighbors.

What to conservation, it interests me as much as last year's snow. as we say in Poland, this is what I'm interested in economic calculation, and whether Poland is fully independent from foreign influence.

Is not that what should desire, every lover of his country Patriot?

No successful country is independant of its neighbours. The most economically successful counties have a lot of international trade. On the subject of power, in the UK we produce all the electricity and gas we use, but we currently have a significant problem with high energy prices. So home production is not a panacea.

Great Britain has the disadvantage and advantage at the same time that you are an island, it is an advantage if someone wants to attack your "British Empire" For instance f****d house painter named Hitler But it is also a disadvantage for example, foreign trade, what else can send electricity , by the sea, after the construction of electrical poles in the sea is not feasible.

Nuclear Power uses highly radioactive substances like Uranium. The Uranium produces heat in a set of fuel rods, and the heat travels up and pushes a turbine, producing electricity. In a way, it is environmentally safe because of low emissions, but there are just so many things that can go wrong with a nuclear power plant that the risk is not really worth it. If the water gets contaminated after a nuclear meltdown, it can get pretty ugly very fast.

My region utilizes wind power and hydroelectric, both of which are much better alternatives. Wind has literally zero emissions, and after the initial costs, it costs almost nothing to maintain them, and they can make it extremely cheap for most windy regions. The downside to this is that it can endanger the population of birds in the area.

Hydroelectric is pretty much dams around here. the force of the water turns turbines, producing electricity. The downside to this is that it can affect fish population and cause desedimentation.

Most energy sources have a downside, but renewables are more preferable than conventional methods like coal IMO.

Much less goes wrong with nuclear power than any other form of energy. It is by far the safest, it just has a bad reputation because of a single incident where a few dozen people died.

http://motherboard.vice.com/en_uk/blog/ ... wer-source

Not a big fan of nuclear,but it's a better option than mountain top removal.f**k coal and the thieving coal companies.I'd rather everyone was solar and wind,but that may not be feasible in some areas.And wind has disadvantages,birds get smashed.Hydro also has problems,dams are disruptive to the creatures in the water.A neighbor uses a pelton wheel on a small creek to generate power,so I suppose news ways could be contrived to use water without disrupting the enviroment.

Problems with nuclear power happen more frequently than you think. Remember Fukushima? A lot of irradiated water coming from it hit the west coast of the Americas, and that includes where I live. Something that happened literally an ocean away is affecting where I live.

Not to mention it's had several leaking and power cut problems since the 2011 tsunami. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-26254140

I agree that it can be safe when carefully maintained, but we're only human.

I agree on the Hydroelectric thing. There's a lot of dams here in this state, and it has definitely affected the environment around us a lot. I think one of the most well-known has to be Bonneville: http://www.nwp.usace.army.mil/Locations ... ville.aspx

While it has fish ladders implemented to allow salmon to pass and spawn upstream, it still has issues with sediment buildup that needs to be cleared out frequently. It is definitely not ideal IMO.

I think Wave Power could go places, though, if it weren't so damn expensive. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_power

Hello,

These two discussion-threads may be of interest:

Not Enough Focus on Environmental Issues.
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt257694.html

Environmental-Related News Needs a Focused Discussion Board.
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt258949.html

Enjoy.

I don't know about others, but I'm always suspicious of "environmental science". I generally consider it to be neither environmental nor science.

In what way?