Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Community
»
The Flameboard
»
It's offical! W is truly a whore to the oil biz!
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by The_Evil_Lord: [QB] [QUOTE]Sulfur dioxide is a cooling gas, however. Maybe we can just increase our emissions of THAT! Isn't it France that gets most of its power from nuclear plants?[/QUOTE] About 60% of France's power comes from nukes, yes. [QUOTE]Oil, Coal and Gas: efficient, relatively cheap, but dirty. Greens hate it.[/QUOTE] When the fossile fuels really start to run out (they already ARE), it'll stop being cheap. Best to invest in alternative sources, rather than sticking with what we've got until it's too late. [QUOTE]Nuclear: Clean, expensive, considered dangerous, toxic waste. Greens hate it.[/QUOTE] Nucleair fission, yes. Fusion, no. But that, and most of the research into this new source of power, has been put into the fridge. Too expensive. [QUOTE]Solar: Unreliable, so far inefficient, expensive, but very clean. Greens love it, until you mention the acerage you'd need to clear-cut to put up enough collectors to power a city.[/QUOTE] If each building were to be equipped with its own set of solar collectors, the average power consumption of any average city would go down by 30%. Again, expensive. Other possibilty: space-based orbiting solar constructs. But, there's that word again: expensive. [QUOTE]Wind: Cheap, clean, but sparse coverage. Can be noisy. Requires vast coverage for useful amounts of energy. Greens love it, until you mention how many windmills would have to be constructed, and the impact of all that construction plus access roads plus the potential damage to flying animals.[/QUOTE] Very true indeed, I won't deny that. In fact, the efficiency rating of a windmill is only about 0,4%. However, all tiny bits help. Place them in the middle of the Atlantic if necessary, but don't ignore that small contribution. [QUOTE]Geothermal: Clean, but useful exploitation generally requires digging into seismically active areas. Bad for eruptions. Greens love it, until you point out that our best source for geothermal energy is Yellowstone National Park. Care for some massive industrial development there, anyone?[/QUOTE] Also true. Risk is part of the game though, or no-one in their right mind would want to live near/on the San Adreas fault line. Still mostly in its infancy, this technology has a huge potential. But: expensive. Regarding Yellowstone: quite right. It may be the most suitable location, but there are other places where it could be realised. [QUOTE]Hydroelectric: fairly cheap, clean, but requires destruction of acres of habitat. Damages fish migratory patterns (same goes for tidal generators.) Greens hate it, usually.[/QUOTE] Another good point. But personally I prefer a few less fish and tons of cheap, clean energy to the alternative. May not be a very greenish thing to say, but I am not blind to the disadvantages. Nevertheless, there are enough smaller rivers / lakes that wouldn't be "upset in their balance" by a hydroelectric dam. [QUOTE]Conclusion: Unfortunately, Fossil fuels are the best source we've got. Unless you've got some mysterious 'better idea,' in which case you'd do yourself a big favor by mentioning it. Otherwise, you're just flapping your gums.[/QUOTE] I was mainly flapping my gums because I can't stand certain individuals who display an absolute lack of respect for nature. I sometimes cannot believe how narrow-minded people can be... this planet is our future... destroy it, and we destroy ourselves too. [QUOTE] This is the most inane thing I've ever seen. Everyone should demand proof before an action is taken. If made the claim that you kill babies, would you not demand proof that such a thing happens? Or should we just assume that it is true?[/QUOTE] Yes, I would want proof of that. However, this is the environment we're talking about. If I claim that oilspills have a damaging effect, I think *anyone* would agree with me even without seeing it for him/herself. Common sense is a quality we should treasure. Unfortunately, in this society it is common practice to continue with malpractices while direct evidence is pending - then to blatantly ignore that proof afterwards. [QUOTE]How the hell can you believe for even a split second that industry WANTS these things? Oil spills are horribly expensive. Toxic and Nuclear waste cleanup is horribly expensive. WHY would you think that companies what such things? Trust them to prevent these things, and they will. Oil spills, nuclear meltdowns, etc. are very rare, especially when you take into account how many trips tankers take, or just now many nuclear power plants there are. Chernobyl and 3 Mile Island are exceptions, not the rule.[/QUOTE] I'm not saying I believe the industry wants it - I'm saying I'm disgusted by the way these things are handled. As if nothing ever happened. Lessons aren't learned here. [QUOTE]I suppose progress doesn't matter. We should all return back to the forests and live off berries. That's the one thing I don't get about environmentalists. They advocate so much, and yet they ignore the clothes they wear, the cars they drive, the electricity they use.[/QUOTE] Progress does matter, as long as we are willing to pay the price for it. For the record: the roof of my house is equipped with solarpanels, and these provide most of the electricity I consume. I don't own a car - my bicycle will do, and if I can't get somewhere within a reasonable amount of time, I take a bus/train (I know, not clean either). I don't presume to be 100% green, my own common sense tells me that isn't possible. But we should at least try to be cautious when interacting with this planet. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
© 1999-2024 Charles Capps
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3