What's new

Stop Breeding

Joined
Sep 8, 2003
Messages
313
Location
N'awlins
Both Chernobyl and TMI were the almost sole result of operator error. Even if the EXACT same thing that happened at Chernobyl happened in the USA, it wouldn't have had the same effect. All reactors in use in the US are surrounded by 30 foot reinforced concreat walls; the soviet reactors are not. It is estiamted that the explosion that blew apart the number three reactor at Chernobyl would have been compleatly contained by the sheilds of a US reactor.
 
Joined
Apr 19, 2004
Messages
297
Location
Kissimmee Florida
Yes I see your point chernobyl may be the exception rather than the rule - but I still don't want to live down the road in case the one next to me happens to be the next exception. The fact that operator error was to blame doesn't make me feel all that much better or safer, and yes we can contain the nasty little mess in reinforced concrete, but concrete does weather. In the meantime it does have that we'll be dead by then so let the future generations deal with it feel. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for alternate energy sources, but lets put as much energy and $ into making them safe and cost effective as we do with military weapons. If we have the technology to make "smart bombs" I think we can effectively harness the wind, sun, geothermal power, and the like to reduce our consumption of fossil fuels. Thats my energy rant for today, and in deference to my opinion, I'm going to go turn the air conditioner off - and its 94 degrees!
 
Joined
Oct 20, 2003
Messages
8,536
Location
missing, presumed dead
wind energy MIGHT work here, studys have been done and it looks feasible, solar on large scale maybe maybe not, if we have snow like we did this winter prolly not. geothermal.....not in this area. counter point to these is: how much land/habitat do you think a "field" of windmills or solar panels will take up? it may put some housing developments to shame. at this point they are not as efficient as they need to be to be a REAL candidate for taking over fossil fuels and hydroelectric. also in your examples you forgot to mention tidal energy which i dont think is feasible at this point. as to birth rates, they are dropping dramatically, as i think Casper brought up, the population problem has more to do with ppl living longer than with larger numbers being born.

Rattler
 
Joined
Sep 8, 2003
Messages
313
Location
N'awlins
Solar power, as in the photo-electrolys panels, are very expensive, complex, and frankly they arn't very efficient. It would cost roughly 120K to make a home run solely on solar power.

Harnesing the wind doesn't create very much energy either. Several universitys have done extensive research on it, and its just not plausible to even supliment the current powergrid with wind driven power.

Hydro-elec. is great, but as you californians are seeing, the climate has a great effect on the generation of power.

Personally, I think tidal energy has the most potential for future use. There is a huge ammount of energy in a single square mile of coastal waters, we just need better ways of harnessing it.

And Buster1's post just proves my point. He would rather have a coal burning power plant a thousand miles away that pollutes the entire planet, than to have a nuclear power plant, that has a darn near flawless record mind you, a hundred miles away.
 
Joined
Aug 14, 2003
Messages
3,134
Location
Missouri,zone 5b
Lol. I can see where he is coming from with the nuclear reactors though they ARE scary! Here in mo we have mustard,seran,nerve and some other toxic gases just a few miles away! In fact the base here is the ONLY place that trains useing small amoumtsof it! That would make anyone nervouse. I could see it now terorists steal nerve gas and crop duster and spray all over killing everbody! Very scary thought indeed!
smile_h_32.gif
mad.gif
 
Joined
Feb 9, 2003
Messages
3,809
Location
almost Hartford
To understand the reality of nuclear power accidents, as well as failures of other complex systems, find a copy of Normal Accidents, a book from around 1990 (I think).  And California's energy crisis was manufactured by marketers.  It's funny how free market southerners haven't allowed their own utilities to be opened to the sham competition of deregulation.  But little of this energy discussion has any direct relevance to CPs.

The underlying problem is waste, whether of energy or of Sarracenia habitat.  As I mentioned in an earlier post, I think the problem is bad land use.  And bad land use happens because subsidies and government policies encourage it.  Sure, lots of people want more space, but far fewer would choose it if all the costs came out of their pocket instead of society's.  Hopefully, $3 gas will encourage wiser use of resources.  I doubt it, but I do hope.
 

Est

War. War never changes.
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 18, 2004
Messages
4,169
Location
Pasadena, CA
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]It will never happen in Louisiana because we produce our own energy via a nuclear power plant. Something that was proposed in Cali, but shot down because "no one wants to live within 250 miles of a nuclear power plant"

Um, actually I live only a couple hours away from a nuclear plant.  My brother goes to Cal Poly (San Luis Obispo ), which is right next to it (they have emergency plans incase of problems at the plant).  This is in California, of course, so I dunno why you were under the impression that there isn't a nuclear plant here ?  

Next issue: Wind Power.  Window power doesn't go without its environment impacts either.  I can't find the story right now, but I read about a case in Germany (along a coast) where upon the completion of a wind power system, the climate changed durastically.  I think wind power is great and all, I've seen it widley used in Europe, but I don't think it's the answer.

Another alternative that no one has brought up yet is fusion.  I know that it's not possible as of yet (as a controlled source, ie, not an explosive), but if you check news relating it, you'll find that a lot of progress is being made.  I'm not saying that we should just sit around until the day where fusion as a power source is available, but it's in important development to keep in mind.

Ok, so now that I've edited this for acceptable "troll" levels, let me just say that a lot of people simply don't use their common sense, if everbody would just think, then life would be a lot easier.  But then, you already knew that
smile_m_32.gif
.
 
Joined
Apr 13, 2003
Messages
818
Location
Cambridge, MA, USA
Last year, i lived next door to a nuclear reactor.  I mean less than a hundred meters.  Before that, i lived about 100m from a nuclear reactor.  Both of these reactors were research reactors for schools, but the point is, the reactor itself, if properly designed, is almost foolproof.  Almost.

The real problem is the disposal of the radioactive waste, something that nobody brought up.  That's a problem that was delegated to 'the future' when nuclear generators were first built, and unfortunately the future hasn't solved it yet.

A few years ago i took an intensive upper-division biology class called Rainforest Ecology.  It was incredibly educational and interesting, but i realize now that the explosive mood i was in for months afterwards was a result of the dislike i acquired for the human race and impatience with the wasteful way we often live.  My family teases me for being rabidly waste-phobic and conservation-minded.  

Anyway, i have learned to be careful which battles i pick and how much i get involved when it comes to conservation, because i'm prone to have it affect me too much. So i agree with those that say the problem is our attitudes, and not our population.
 
Joined
Sep 8, 2003
Messages
313
Location
N'awlins
That just proves the backwardness of the Cali's. They will let educational establishments have a nuclear reactor, but as soon as a power plant wants to open the doors people come out of the woodworks to sign the petition. Personally, the energy bills that ya'll recieve are the faults of your neighbors.

As far as the pollution caused by them, yes that is true. Taken as a whole though, every single PLAUSIBLE energy production system that we have now creates pollution. All others pollute the ENTIRE world, nuclear power contains its pollution to an extremely small level that can be contained untill such time that we can dispose of it. I know the options suck, but whats better polluting the entire world, or polluting 5 square miles of un-inhabitable desert land?

Sounds like a no-brainer to me, but hey, I could be wrong.
 

Est

War. War never changes.
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 18, 2004
Messages
4,169
Location
Pasadena, CA
Ok Casper, one known California nuclear reactor down, but the one in El Diablo Canyon still supplies power, and something tells me, that it's probably not the only one out here.  Now, I think you need to watch your temper and check yourself a little bit, maybe it's just me, but the term "backwards" is not only outdated, but offensive.  I for one, currently live in California, now, do I not appear to agree with you?  Am I raving against nuclear power?  Am I still living in a little straw hut raging against technology?  ... So, can we please keep terms like "backwards" on the "no-no list" for now?  They may be Californian, but they're people too, despite what the movies portay them as.
 
Joined
Sep 8, 2003
Messages
313
Location
N'awlins
Wow, I am sorry Est. I have never known anyone to take offense to being called backword, and it was truely not my intent to offend. I guess living in the South all of my life has gotten me used to it. EVERYONE calls us N'awlins folks backwards. I don't see where I have a temper or am showing anger at all, just pointing out my view. What the west does will sooner or later have an affect on me. Cali will require more energy to be pumped in, then it moves west. Sooner or later someone wants to buy MY energy.
 
Joined
Feb 9, 2003
Messages
3,809
Location
almost Hartford
I heard the "socialized" power systems of a couple California cities were unafffected by the price crisis. The energy pirates couldn't attack their customers.

But the fundamental problem is how much energy we use, not how we create or distribute it. Forgive me for reciting numbers, but annual non-industrial energy use here in CT increased from 338 trillion BTU in 1960 to 663 trillion BTU in 2000, while the population increased from 2.5 million to 3.4 million. On a per capita basus, we went from 135 million BTU/person in 1960 to 163 million in 1970 to 175 million in 1980 to 185 million in 1990 to 195 million in 2000. Thanks to OPEC, primarily, the 20% increase in per capita consumption during the 60s hasn't continued, but we still see energy use racing ahead of population growth by 5% per decade. Land conversion is increasing even more rapidly.

Sarracenias and other living things don't have a chance if we don't use land and other resources much more efficiently. A lot of that increased energy use supports bigger homes in more distant locations, with all the transportation and commercial development needed to support them. We can't pretend to support Sarracenia conservation if we're unwilling to see the role of unfettered development in their destruction
 
Joined
Feb 9, 2003
Messages
3,809
Location
almost Hartford
I have the worst possible background - a degree in geological engineering.  So I have a geologist's comfort with huge numbers and an engineer's desire to  play with them
smile_k_ani_32.gif
 
Joined
Oct 20, 2003
Messages
8,536
Location
missing, presumed dead
where did you get your degree in geological engineering? i was going for that for a short period of time before i found out college didnt agree with me.

Rattler
 
Joined
Feb 9, 2003
Messages
3,809
Location
almost Hartford
From the University of Mississippi.  I didn't go to school to become a geological engineer, but ended up one after quitting once, changing schools once, and changing majors three times.
 

Est

War. War never changes.
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 18, 2004
Messages
4,169
Location
Pasadena, CA
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]I have never known anyone to take offense to being called backword, and it was truely not my intent to offend.

I know you didn't mean to offend (well, I was hoping atleast), I was just letting you know about the situation, the term has a bad track record, just look at (especially European) history.  Don't worry about it, I know you're a good guy.  
smile_m_32.gif


As for the issue at hand:
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]But the fundamental problem is how much energy we use, not how we create or distribute it.

A very, very nice point.  That's the problem with people today, they'd rather sit around with their thumbs up various body-cavaties and wait for some major breakthhrough in Fusion technology, then have to give up their precious SUC -I mean SUV (or do I?), turn off a bloody light when their not using it, or maybe not have their pool filled during winter, and so on.  Conservation is so easy, I'm just amazed at the way that some people waste....  Oh boy, so, to prevent a rant, and to make sure that I get myself to bed, I'll cut it off here, and assume that everyone know what I'm saying.

So to sum, before we sit around and wait for the answers of the future to solve the problems of today, why not do something constructive with our time?
 
Top