Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Zigrat on May 22, 2001, 11:50:00 PM
-
well first of all i think the USA should stop relying on coal for power. the idea of building new coal fired plants is idiotic IMO. I would build all nuke plants, which are in fact, other than relatively low output solar or difficult to place hydroelectic (which also cause environmental damage, if not pollution), the "cleanest" form of energy we have.
the initialtive for electric vehicles is rediculous as it stands now. plug in your car to an outlet at home and charge it up, but where does that energy come from? burning coal. how does that save the environment?
if they want to give tax cuts (which are imo a good idea) why not give REAL incentives. eliminate sales tax on vehicles with better than 40 miles per gallon city/highway average and put more tax incentives for development of methanol as a fuel source, which reduces our dependance on foriegn countries.
I consider myself republican and voted for bush because many of my views are conservative (vouchers, pro life, want elimination of estate tax) but the republicans handling of environmental issues makes me mad.
isnt there a party that is republican-like while still being pro environment? what happened to the teddy roosevelts of the party?
-
nuclear is by far the best choice. it would be even better if we recycled fissable waste - which we dont and never have. which is just plain greedy.
unfortunately they are not cost effective to build. there are so many safety features and redundancies and regs required that they dont pay off well. additionally, they only have a lifespan of 40 years but require management expense far beyond that time due to radioactivity
-
Let's solve this problem just like we have over the past ten years.......
bury our collective heads in the sand and rejoice that the environment is pure!!
Turn off all computers for 10 days each month....Ground all aircraft 10 days each month.......Close all government offices for 2 weeks each month(course pay the employees (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) )......Ride the bus to and from work 5 days a month.....ride a bike.....walk....eat veggies only.....spread peace, love, and good vibes (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Oh, what a happy world we would be (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Everyone one sing,"this is your land......this is my land......etc"
BAH!!!! I want STEAK, an eight cylinder musle car, air conditioning at 72 in summer and heat at 75 in the winter. If the precious environment needs to take a hit to provide the above, so be it!!!
GIVE US OUR FREEDOM!!!
Ok, libs, ya can go back to dope smoking now (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) (dope smokin=pollution)
[This message has been edited by 1776 (edited 05-23-2001).]
[This message has been edited by 1776 (edited 05-23-2001).]
-
Cumbaya my love, cumbaya....
-
jesus zig your read my mind...
we have the same thing up here.. everyone is crying for electric cars, heat, stoves (well we all have those) etc...
and once we have those we are all giddy because we are saving the environment from hydrocarbons and ozone depleting gasses.
yet the power is still coming from horrible natural gas plants, oil and coal burining plants, and the worst of all hydroelectricity.
however i must disagree on the nuclear power plants. the process of digging for, collecting, transporting, and refining radioactive material has the same problem as the above. the work involved and the materials expended doesnt really pay off in the end. (environmentally) besides , you dont want to give all your money to Canadians for our plutonium.
-
1) Using 1 fossil fuel fired power station to power 1000 electric cars is less enviornmentally damaging than having 1000 conventional cars, with 1000 conventional engines. It's all about efficiency and scale.
2) Nuclear power-plants cost an absolute fortune to build. It requires huge capital with a long term investment. Money has to be put aside for its de-commissioning too - which is very expensive.
3) Long-term considerations in a democratic system are equal to about 4 or 5 years; nuclear power plants require a committment for funding over at least 70 years. It's far easier for a government to build Gas Turbine generators for instance - they are cheap, easy and fast to build and burning gas does not produce as many emissions as coal or oil. This is a policy currently in operation across Western Europe.
4) The idea behind environmental protection is to reduce impact as far as is practicable - using 'Best Available Techniques'. Not some zero impact dreamland that 1776 seems to use as a counter argument to any environmental protection measure.
Do some reading 1776, you'll find that most environmentalists want to limit impact, rather than eliminate it (which will never happen).
-
Environmentalism is the new home of communists. Get your head out of the sand and take a look around ya. The greenies don't want anything at all that burns any kinda fuel!!! The greenies even want to tear down dams in the US because of fishies, boo hoo!!
The greenies hate capitalism and want to put a stop to the unique American lifestyle!!
I don't beleive anything they have to say as it is a political movement that has duped so many. The people that donate to these organizations are suckers. Ralph Nader is a greenie, Big time socialist too!!
Sure they sound nice, but the result the greenies are striving for is communism!!
[This message has been edited by 1776 (edited 05-23-2001).]
-
Originally posted by Dowding:
1) Using 1 fossil fuel fired power station to power 1000 electric cars is less enviornmentally damaging than having 1000 conventional cars, with 1000 conventional engines. It's all about efficiency and scale.
By about 15%. Much easier to improve fuel efficiency by another 15% with current technologies then rig the country-wide infrastructure for new kind of cars.
As for republicans and democrats, the government is not supposed to produce elecricity.
They can outlaw some cheap and harmfull sources and the natural market forces will make energy prices rise. That would make alternatve sources more viable and concervation important.
But you cannot ask politicians to restrict energy output, keep energy prices low and not raise taxes at the same time. Those three are zero-sum game. If energy gets scarce, it is paid for by consumer or taxpayer.
miko
[This message has been edited by miko2d (edited 05-23-2001).]
-
We ( the USA) should go Nuclear.
-
Zig, you realize that being a college student, that you are indeed a rare breed don't you?
Colleges: where people like Dowding get brainwashed into thinking socialized medicine would actually work. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Nice that you revert to a characature, 1776. Good form, old bean. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Miko - 15% is a huge amount, especially considering the hundreds of millions of cars our countries use.
Maybe the technology isn't at the right level now, but in 10 years, considering the progress in the last 20 years, electrically powered cars might become a real alternative. Probably in the urban environment at first.
Yeah, Ripsnort, possibly true. Except for the fact I didn't do a degree in 'Socialised Medicine' and I very, very rarely sat around discussing current afairs at any point during my time there. Strangely enough, I had ideas of my own, well before going to uni. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
[This message has been edited by Dowding (edited 05-23-2001).]
-
1776,
You have got to be deluded if you actually believe a lick of what you say.
Environmentalists are commies?
Hallelujah, thank the Lord that we can destroy the biosphere in good, God-fearing, capitalist American way. Hallelujah, friend, hallelujah!!! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif)
You know, there is such a thing as moderate views and doing what is best rather than going all out for some extremist doctrine.
------------------
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother
Bring the Mosquito FB.MkVI Series 2 to Aces High!!!
Sisu
-Karnak
-
Originally posted by 1776:
Let's solve this problem just like we have over the past ten years.......
bury our collective heads in the sand and rejoice that the environment is pure!!
Turn off all computers for 10 days each month....Ground all aircraft 10 days each month.......Close all government offices for 2 weeks each month(course pay the employees (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) )......Ride the bus to and from work 5 days a month.....ride a bike.....walk....eat veggies only.....spread peace, love, and good vibes (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Oh, what a happy world we would be (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Everyone one sing,"this is your land......this is my land......etc"
BAH!!!! I want STEAK, an eight cylinder musle car, air conditioning at 72 in summer and heat at 75 in the winter. If the precious environment needs to take a hit to provide the above, so be it!!!
GIVE US OUR FREEDOM!!!
Ok, libs, ya can go back to dope smoking now (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) (dope smokin=pollution)
[This message has been edited by 1776 (edited 05-23-2001).]
[This message has been edited by 1776 (edited 05-23-2001).]
(Steps up to the podium. Raises his eyes slowly, looks around the room, and begins to rant ...)
1776, I think you already have your head buried in the sand and it is exactly this kind of thinking that really pisses me off. I see it when a teenager tosses his trash out of his car window. I see it when big businesses toss their waste into our rivers. I see it when GM produces gas-guzzling boats for our higways and biways. And I see it when people sit down to their mega-steak dinners only to end up throwing half of it away because their greed was bigger than their guts. People whose only interest is in themselves and their own pleasure with no thought to any further out in the future than when their next gratification is going to come.
Come on, guys, do any of us think that relying on a non-renewable source of energy is going to do us any good? Sure it will in the short-term, but what about in the future. What about for our kids and their kids and their kids? What about 100 years from now? Or a 1000 years from now? Or 10,000 years from now? How many of you ever think about that far into the future?
I, for one, think that we, as a civilization, are on this planet for the long haul. I don't believe this isn't just some religious playground we can use up and throw away. It's our HOME, for god's sake, and we'd better start acting like we care about where and how we live or we're going to lose it. Maybe not in our life time, but eventually. If we keep bickering and ignoring our impact on this planet WE'RE going to be the ones responsible for denying some future generation their "right to life", and that would be a genuine shame.
You know, the vets of WW-II that we so revere put their lives on the line so that "future generations" would be guaranteed precious freedom. We need to put our lives on the line so that future generations from now will be guaranteed a precious environment in which to be free. If any of us think that we are not f**king up this world big-time, we are only deluding ourselves.
Oh, you can think like 1776 and "live for the moment" if you want, but in my mind that only makes you a fool and does a lot more harm than you can even imagine. To you I say "pfpfpfpfpfpt".
But, from what I've read here on this thread, I see that most of you care about what's going to happen to our progeny in future generations. Maybe you don't agree on the exact solution, but at least you're talking. At least YOU'RE saying something constructive and thinking about the problem. To you I say, "Thanks!".
Have a nice day!
(smiles, slowly closes his notes, turns away, and walks away from the podium shaking his head in disbelief)
Buhdman, (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Originally posted by -ammo-:
We ( the USA) should go Nuclear.
yes that's true, but first we will have to get people like 1776 to say it right: nuke-you-ler wrong - new-kleer good
hey 1776 maybe i'm wrong after all. i got a new idea: burn trees for fuel!! we got lots of em ever'whur and all they do is spoil yer shot at a nice fat squirell dinner so lets chope em n' burn em,i will invite cletus over an' we havun errrselfs a regler hoedown yeeeeeeeeehawwwww
-
I agree, properly done (see France) nuclear power + conservation (just for you 1776) would see us through the foreseeable future.
Most of the power "gain" that we've had over the last 20 years has come from conservation.
Conservation, contrary to what 1776 will tell you, does not mean turning off you heater, water heater AC or not driving your car. Conservation works via methods such as better insulation on houses and water heaters, lighting that is more efficient and automobiles that go further per gallon of gas. The best energy conservation methods work transparently.
The fact that they work transparently now comes to haunt us as people like 1776 rant and rage against anything that is labeled "Conservation" even though they themselves have, unknowingly, been using conservation methods for years.
------------------
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother
Bring the Mosquito FB.MkVI Series 2 to Aces High!!!
Sisu
-Karnak
-
I agree Karnak.
Environmental protectionism and conservation involves using technology to replace or improve as many environmentally damaging processes as possible.
It does not mean returning to the ice age (now there's irony for you).
-
First of all, I too am a college student. I'll be graduating in less than a year with a degree in Electrical Engineering. As you can imagine I have a good deal of knowledge on this subject by now.
Here's what I think should be done:
1. Electric vehicles are not an ideal solution at all. The efficiency of current lead-acid batteries is terrible. They have improved little since electric vehicles were first tried - in the 1900 - 1910 period. They are FAR too heavy and current charging/current rectification systems waste a lot of energy as well.
2. In the past 10 years or so advances have been made in permanent magnets and the efficiency of steam turbine power plants as whole. (This would include gas/coal/oil/nuclear, etc.) Natural gas plants in particular are relatively efficient. Building them right now is not a bad idea.
3. Much research is being done (and more money should be allocated to do) work in the areas of fuel cell and fusion power. These methods of energy conversion rely mainly on hydrogen, which can easily be extracted from water. Current fuel cells are not very efficient and are very heavy, but their only exhaust product is pure water. Given some time (within the lifespan of the above gas plants) they should be much more efficient and lighter/smaller. If you pair fuel cells up with electric motors (permanent magnet advances, mentioned above, give you more powerful motors with less weight), you have a nearly perfect solution.
Fusion power is the next logical step in powerplants. Some research has been done in this area in the UK, but much more needs to be done to make this a practical option. Fusion (not to be confused with fission) is when you force hydrogen to combine into helium, generating enormous amounts of energy. (Think H-bomb.) Once again, the fuel is easily created.
4. Wind and solar power are currently not really viable options. Too little power is generated for the costs of the materials used to contruct them. Sure, wind and solar energy are free, but the energy used to constuct the power plant is not. Current methods for collecting solar energy require HUGE amounts of land space for mirrors or solar cells. In addtion these plants can only be placed in remote locations (like a desert) where it is rarely cloudy. The cost of servicing and maintaining these plants is also very high. (Mirrors/solar cells don't clean the dust of themselves.) You must also consider that because location is everything, new roads and power lines must be made to service the plant. Wind power suffers from similar limitations. It is expensive and requires a lot of land. The wind is also not present all the time, so if large portions of our nation's energy came from wind it could be a disaster if there is no wind on a particular day.
Hydro power also suffers if there is a drought (like now in the Pacific Northwest). It is a "clean" source of energy as far as air polution, but there are drawbacks in that large areas of land are swallowed up to create reservoirs. Fish are also affected. Perhaps the worst thing is the potential for disaster should a major dam fail. (These dams don't have infinite lifespan you know. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) ) Have any of you heard of China's 3 Gorges Dam? Do you have any idea how many lives would be lost if this thing were to burst. (It is built across an active fault line you know. Large dams have been known to cause earthquakes as well. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/eek.gif) ) Several million lives would be lost if this dam were to ever fail, in addition the loss of property would be a catostrophic blow to the nation's economy.
Well, I've got work to do, but I may write more later.
------------------
bloom25
-MAW-
(Formerly of the)
THUNDERBIRDS
-
Wow, sounds like right wing conservatives have discovered acid. Kind of like listening to drug-addled tree-huggers in reverse. Far out.
Mk
-
Originally posted by mrfish:
yes that's true, but first we will have to get people like 1776 to say it right: nuke-you-ler wrong - new-kleer good
Hehe... mrfish, you listen to Rewind?
(NPR news spoof show, is recorded at KUOW Seattle)
-
Why is it that California now has a shortage of electricity??
Could it be extreme environmental policies??
Or is it the "greedy corporations"???
I would like to hear only from the people who live in California.
-
Would a native who lived there 50 odd years, saw the "handwriting on the wall", and bailed count?
I believe that the average Californian will just whine about it being the governments fault, or use the refrain "but no one told me".
It's all BS!
In 1960 gas was selling in the U.S.of A. for around 25 cents a gallon and "price wars" often dropped it much lower. (can you name any other commodity that has risen 800% in the past 40 years?) The easy solution would have been to put a $2.00 a gallon tax on gas, (This would have still made U.S. gas the cheapest in the world) and earmark the money for energy research and mass transit. The results, here 40 years later, would have been a lot less cars to deal with and a culture NOT intoxicated by the automobile. We would still have and use cars, but in a more responsible manner.
This option is still available ... but there is no politician alive who is going to attempt to tell joe 6 pack he has to choose between his 6 MPG big wheels and beer (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Three years ago (I was still working in the silly con valley) I proposed this to a group of friends at a convention. To a man they all agreed that the economy would collapse if gas went up a dollar a gallon. <sic> Well 18 months later gas prices in the bay area had gone up a dollar a gallon and ... darn the economy was doing just fine! Well here it is 18 months later and the forecast is that prices will top $3.00 this summer, (U.S. Gas will still be the cheapest in the world) anyone want to bet if the economy will collapse (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Sure there are people that will suffer a temporary setback. This requires a change of lifestyle for most of us ... but in the end, the beat goes on, and we will all be better off in the long run, as will our children and our grandchildren. (gunna be tough to make that 6 block walk or ride the bus to school)
Hard choices and tough love ... let the whining begin (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
PS and read Cadillac Desert, then do some research and see if there is really a painless solution, good luck.
PPS in the 50's I had to walk 6 miles to school ...
in the snow ...
uphill ...
both ways. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
------------------
OhNooo
smile awhile
[This message has been edited by MrBill (edited 05-24-2001).]
-
You are all full of toejam!
But hey, that's not a bad thing.
If we collect all that toejam in a big tank, it will produce methane which can be burned and transformed into electricity.
Just think what kind of an amount of toejam is created in an average city daily..
Properly used we could generate 50% of it's energy use from that alone.
They are testing this at farms at the moment and the results are very good.
Now, if we could generate electricity out of roadkill on these BB's.. We'd never need another nuclear powerplant again.
-
1776,
Environmentalism actually has little or nothing to do with our power shortage.
The California power shortage stems from two places, so far as I can tell:
1) NIMBYs. These people, while sometimes motivated by enviornmental concerns, are nearly always motivated by what the proposed power plant will do to their property values. It isn't always people either, a major tech company that has its campus near where the city of San Jose has been trying to build a power plant is fighting it tooth and nail because it will detract from the working atmosphere that they want on their campus.
2) The power companies, PG&E up here in N.California and Edison Bell (I think)in S.California declined to build new power plants and instead decided that they would push for this quasi deregulation (they proposed it) we have and buy cheap power from out of state providers (power was cheap at the time). Because they assumed that power would remain cheap, they did not wish to build new, expensive power plants and were more than happy to divest themselves of the power plants that they had (part of the idiotic-quasi-deregulation).
Thus we in California find ourselves where we are.
BTW, transparent conservation efforts staved this problem off for quite a while. We'd have hit it years ago with the energy efficiency measures that have peen developed.
------------------
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother
Bring the Mosquito FB.MkVI Series 2 to Aces High!!!
Sisu
-Karnak
-
HALLELUJAH!!!!
Dowding, i thought i was the only conservative college student in the world. It's good to see another one.
I agree completely--we need nuclear plants.
And global warming is NONEXISTANT!!
Heating and cooling is a natural process--it moves in cycles, just like the economy.
-
er....not Dowding....Zigrat...dowding=lib
Anyway, nice to see another conservative college student, zig.