Who believes in Global Warming?

“Sale...Iraq is part of a " WAR" I know that most people tend to forget things but if you travel to New York you can visit the World Trade Center...Wait...it is GONE. Winning a war on a group no different than the Fascists of Nazi Germany or the Japanese Tojo Government. We have two choices...either we WIN or we WILL DIE.”

“Errr? XL, you are on the wrong tread buddy.”

“War Against Improper Posting”

“WARonWARS??? travel to NY??”

“These freaks ... LOL!

http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0506/328405.html

Others attending included snowboarder and Olympic gold medalist Shaun White, who said he was interested in global warming because he believed it had reduced snow pack.

"The lower elevation mountains are not getting as much snow," said White, known as the "Flying Tomato" because of his red hair.

White said the sport would suffer if "you can't go to your local mountain and ride."”

“I saw a good show on HBO, I believe it was called "Too Hot Not To Handle". Very Interesting....
last edited: 5/17/06 4:03:31 PM”

“The teaser text blames fossil fuels. Too bad the liberals protested against nuclear power plants all those years. It's their fault we're all going to die.”

“Would you want one in your town?”

“I have one in my town. I can see it from my wife's work. We moved here knowing it was there. So, "yes". I appreciate how it's saving the environment.


last edited: 5/17/06 4:14:39 PM”

“I know there's one at Indian Point in NY, but I didn't know of one in PA?”

“I believe there is 3 in PA.”

“I was wrong, there are 5 plants - 9 reactors in PA.”

“Wow, I never knew....”

“The oldest one is in East Stroudsburg, PA. Hopefully they'll get around to updating that one someday.”

“Tons of CO2 is created from the mining, conentration and transportation of the fuel rods. Tons of CO2 is created from all the concrete and other contruction material needed to house just one single reactor. Heck, concrete has one of the worst embodied energies of any contruction material.

So scratch "no emmissions" from the list of plusses for nukes.

Nuclear plants get billions (thats with a B) in subsidies during all phases of operations. That's for planning, building, operating, and decommissioning. Then it needs to be guarded 24/7, and the spent fuel needs its own storage facilities for, oh, about a million years. More costs. Once all those costs are added in it actually costs much more per killowatt than any other electric source.

So scratch "cheaper than any other electric source" from the list of benefits.

Uranium has a 4.5 billion year half-life so it takes several multiples of that number before it isn't deadly anymore. We still can't figure out how to store it just for the next 10,000 years. Yucca mountain won't stay stable that long. Even if it did, somewhere down the line someone of bad intent will get control of that waste and use it for nasty purposes. Once that stuff gets into the environment it kills thousands of people. Many thousands have or will be killed by the single accident at Chernobyl.

Scratch "safe" from the list of benefits.

It hardly saves the environment, or saves money, or lives.”

“techntrek - Please post:

1. the amount of CO2 released from fossil fuel sources vs. the equivalent of 1 power plant. That is what matters. Be sure to include the construction and transportation cost to the fossil fuel sources.

2. Do you think cost is more important than saving the environment?

3. Chernobyl (a) was a poorly managed OLD technology, (b) resulted in very few deaths and human contamination other than initial responders. So, Is it better to have a problem in 10,000 years, or for all of us to die before that from the Global Warming we seem to be experiencing according to a red-headed skier?
last edited: 5/17/06 4:32:58 PM”

“I'll answer #1 for you. Studies show that nuclear power plants result in 0.5% to 4% of the release of CO2 as compared to fossil fuel equivalents.

#2 and #3 are subjective, so have at it...”

“This guy takes issue with all of your points, by the way ...

In the early 1970s when I helped found Greenpeace, I believed that nuclear energy was synonymous with nuclear holocaust, as did most of my compatriots. That's the conviction that inspired Greenpeace's first voyage up the spectacular rocky northwest coast to protest the testing of U.S. hydrogen bombs in Alaska's Aleutian Islands. Thirty years on, my views have changed, and the rest of the environmental movement needs to update its views, too, because nuclear energy may just be the energy source that can save our planet from another possible disaster: catastrophic climate change.

(keep reading ...)
last edited: 5/17/06 4:41:08 PM”

“Feel free to find the numbers yourself, I'm getting ready to leave for home. Just pointing out that all the people that claim its so emmission-free forget all the prep work that is needed to create the plants and the fuel rods. It isn't easy (or fossil fuel friendly) to sift through all that ore to get a few ounces of uranium. We're talking tens of thousands of gallons of oil per ounce of uranium.

Didn't you read the part about cost? Its cheaper to build truly environmentally friendly sources of energy (PV, solar thermal, geothermal, hydro) than it is to build, run, or shut down one single nuke plant (which isn't environmentally friendly at all). So yes, you are right, environment trumps cost any day of the week. And nukes loose on both counts.

I guess you didn't see all the reports released last month during the anniversary of the accident? Many groups are now saying the long-term death toll will top 100,000. That's a bit more than a "very few deaths". Sure, only a few dozen died fighting the fire, but you have to add in ALL the deaths from the accident. http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/chernobyl-deaths-180406
Edit: even the UN, which disputes the Greenpeace report, agrees that upwards of 10,000 have or will die. Still more than a few.

There are other much better options to stop global warming than nukes.
last edited: 5/17/06 4:44:57 PM”

“Wasn't there a pretty serious accident resulting in a partial meltdown at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania?”

“read the article violin - it's in there”

“Feel free to find the numbers yourself, I'm getting ready to leave for home. - techntrek

I found and reported the numbers. I asked subjective questions on 2 and 3.

Apparently you didn't read the article I posted for you. It talks about costs, etc..

Groups were saying since the beginning 100,000 deaths will result. The reality: About 56 people. Big difference.”

“Wasn't there a pretty serious accident resulting in a partial meltdown at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania? - Violin

Short answer is "no". Nobody died or got hurt or contaminated any more than what you find in a glass of drinking water every time you're thirsty from expelling all that hot air.”

“Anybody who believes techntrek's opinions - please read the article above in full. Click "Keep reading ..."



last edited: 5/17/06 4:48:18 PM”

“This guy takes issue with all of your points, by the way ...

In the early 1970s when I helped found Greenpeace, I believed that nuclear energy was synonymous with nuclear holocaust, as did most of my compatriots. That's the conviction that inspired Greenpeace's first voyage up the spectacular rocky northwest coast to protest the testing of U.S. hydrogen bombs in Alaska's Aleutian Islands. Thirty years on, my views have changed, and the rest of the environmental movement needs to update its views, too, because nuclear energy may just be the energy source that can save our planet from another possible disaster: catastrophic climate change.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401209.html”

“The oldest one is in East Stroudsburg, PA. Hopefully they'll get around to updating that one someday.”

I suppose you're trying to be funny?”

“Americans all at once want to be just like those FRENCH. Gona use the space shuttle to take the waste out and dump it in the sun?Why not build a border fence out of it.After the illies climb over it their laker hats will glow for weeks for satellite tracking.”

“What's the giva way $200 million each for the first two? Hell you could buy a head lamp for ever visior of Lost Wages for that kind a bucks. Image no lights in scuzzy hole.”

“BackSlacker - Yes. Haha. (just the e. stroudsburg thing)
last edited: 5/18/06 5:16:12 AM”

“From that article: "Nuclear energy is the only large-scale, cost-effective energy source that can reduce these emissions while continuing to satisfy a growing demand for power. And these days it can do so safely."

Apparently you have misinterpreted my posts above as just my opinion and not for what they are - fact (and my opinion).

Nukes are the most expensive electric option out there, hardly "cost-effective". See my post above.

The article implies that "reduce emissions" means "no emissions". Again see my posts above. Hardly a low-emission option. Sure, its lower than those coal-fired plants, but I'm not talking about firing up 600 coal-fired plants. I'm talking about firing up a small factory in Massachussets (see http://www.evergreensolar.com for videos of the plant in action) and shutting down all those coal-fired plants. Now that's reducing emissions!

I can buy enough PV panels to run my house for less than all my tax dollars that have gone to subsidize nukes, and do it with something that doesn't even cover half my roof. No billion-year death issue when its done its job in 30 years, no 24/7 security needed, no 100 tons of concrete bunker material, no high-priced engineers to run it, and the silica in the panels can be recycled into new panels. The embodied energy that went in to making those panels is generated back by those panels in their first 2 years of use.

No chance of nasty waste falling into the hands of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - which your own article mentions is a problem!

"What nobody noticed at the time, though, was that Three Mile Island was in fact a success story: The concrete containment structure did just what it was designed to do..." Our best engineers and equipment couldn't even stop a nuclear meltdown right here in the great US. Real safe. It was only dumb luck that the radiation didn't escape and kill tens of thousands like Chernobyl. "There hasn't been a nuclear plant ordered up since then." Because we got smart. I like how when I point you to multiple sources on the death toll you stick your head in the sand and still claim only a few dozen were killed. Go check out that Greenpeace report which gives a number of up to 100,000, and the one from the UN that refutes it but still says up to 10,000. 56 doesn't fall in that range.”

“You're all over the place. First you quote my article as saying "Nuclear energy is the only large-scale, cost-effective energy source that can reduce these emissions while continuing to satisfy a growing demand for power. And these days it can do so safely."

Then you claim it is not cost effective!?!?

Then you cite the article as right when it mentions the Iranian president ... of course leaving off is point which is "And although I don't want to underestimate the very real dangers of nuclear technology in the hands of rogue states, we cannot simply ban every technology that is dangerous."

And you say my head is in the sand on certain points??? LOL.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

The reality is multiple sources say very few people died as a result of Chernobyl. Your sources claim people will die, but it hasn't happened. Regardless, like was mentioned, Chernobyl was a relic of a plant that was mismanaged. No plant made today even closely resembles that plant. (you knew that though, didn't you?)”

“Cost is not an issue when it's the deep pockets of the great american tax payer that will again take the risk. Tech , Karl Rove didn't receive his free green peace'T' shirt.”

“Sarge is right, Chernobyl was a Soviet Design ( in keeping with their constitution which mandated respect for the enviornment) it had not Containment building etc etc...Three Mile Island proved ONE THING. It proved we COULD control the genie.”

“Sarge, I made a quote and then refuted it. I didn't go both ways. I was pointing out one of many outright lies in that article. Another is the claim of only a few dozen deaths.

Here's another biggie. It claimed "Within 40 years, used fuel has less than one-thousandth of the radioactivity it had when it was removed from the reactor."

Amazing, but check out any reference on the half-life of either uranium-235 or plutonium-239 and you'll see they have half-lives of 704 million and 24,000 years, respectively. So let's say only the plutonium is used in a fuel rod. In 24,000 years it will still have HALF of its original radioactivity - still highly deadly - and not 1000th of its radioactivity after just 40 years like the article states. If uranium is in the fuel rod we're talking thousands of billons of years before it isn't deadly anymore.

The article is so full of lies it truly is "junk science". Not even worth my time to refute any more of it when you won't consider the FACTS I have presented for just a few of the lies.”

“Doesn't the fear factor halo these plants?
It's not easy for the many that drive bumper stickers for years to have these plants in the back ground of family photos.”

“If a "lie" is that less CO2 is released by the nuke reactors, let's see the proof. My proof (cited above) says otherwise. Your only "pointing out of lies" was to express your opinion. Let's see the math.

I don't give a crap about half life. What matters is how the half life is managed, and when. By letting Nuke reactors go unbuilt, by your argument, the world will be destroyed way before 24,000 years from now. You'd rather destroy the world now rather than when we have better technology in the future?? Wow!

That "junk science" as you casually categorized it is found in many other sources. I can say yours is junk science too by that standard.

You have no argument, just opinion based on WAY OUTDATED scare tactics. Join us in the 21st Century. We welcome you.”

“Hey Krunk, you've got mail.”

“LOL, I gave you facts and I backed them up. You gave me an article full of lies and when I knocked it out from under you suddenly things like half-life don't matter to you. Too funny.

I proved that nukes aren't low emissions.
I proved that nukes are the most expensive option - not the cheapest.
I proved that nuke waste will be around for so long that even the nuke industry's darling Yucca mountain isn't a good place for it.


Your proof is an article that I proved was wrong.”

“Ok, you can believe that if you want techntrek. Just be careful that you're not fighting too hard for the demise of mankind.”

“I'm not. I'm pushing hard for renewable energy sources that won't destroy the world with a massive radioactive explosion. I can put enough solar on my house to give me all the power I need, with only a few months of planning, sourcing, and installation. In fact, within the next few years I'm going to do exactly that.

I guess you're putting a nuclear reactor in your back yard this year?”

“If I could, I would.”

“And sleep with an AK 47?”

“They tried to put a nuclear power plant in my back yard.
(2.5 miles from my front door)

Known as Midland 1 and Midland 2, the dual-reactor complex was abandoned as a nuclear facility July 16, 1984, before it was completed because of a variety of construction and financing issues. Part of it later was converted to a natural gas plant.

Read: The reactor structure sank in the soft soil and developed irreparable cracks.

It’s difficult for me to have much confidence in the engineering of these facilities, considering the stakes.”

“What was that, salebored?”

“Boyz and girlz.

There are new technologies that are perfectly safe. The Chinese invented one where the radioactive material is encased in rock-like enclosures. It's impossible to have a meltdown with them. Someday, these may even make it to our own homes for personal generators, unless the environmental whackos who never left the 1970s keep up their horrific fight to hold back this nation.”

“I live in the middle of the Mojave desert and haven't solarized yet.I live in a home owner owned and operated community that think those panels are ugly and don't belong on houses. They can kiss my ugly-----the fight goes on. 350 clean and clear days a year and not a watt to burn.”

“I just finished a project for a company that manufactures solar panels. When complete, they will have increased their production x5.
It's an expensive and technical process. The major obstacle is the high cost of raw materials, but that will come down with increased volume.
That's where I'm placing my hope.”

“"Someday, these [nuclear reactors] may even make it to our own homes for personal generators..."

Not mine. I'll stick with solar thermal for all my heating needs, solar PV for my electric needs, and a geothermal heat pump for my summer cooling needs.

No nukes necessary with that existing technology, and it can all be installed during the normal building cycle like any other household accessory. I'll leave the radioactive stuff in the smoke detectors where it belongs.
last edited: 5/18/06 11:04:43 AM”

“You'll have the goofiest looking house on the block.

So, when are you going to do this?”