Sub's Alternative Energy Thread

[Kung Wu]

I have come to the conclusion that there is an inverse relationship between EPA success and low income people's success. When the EPA wins, the poor lose big.

Example, a) EPA screws up the coal industry , b) drives up costs on energy, c) it's the poor that suffer the most. This is because the costs of one of their critical lifelines, electricity, goes up and up and they are the least able to absorb those increased costs.

The left's attempt to control the wealthy is really just further suppressing the poor -- and that gap keeps on widening. It's disgusting really.

[RoyalShock]

I have come to the conclusion that there is an inverse relationship between EPA success and low income people's success. When the EPA wins, the poor lose big.

Example, a) EPA screws up the coal industry , b) drives up costs on energy, c) it's the poor that suffer the most. This is because the costs of one of their critical lifelines, electricity, goes up and up and they are the least able to absorb those increased costs.

The left's attempt to control the wealthy is really just further suppressing the poor -- and that gap keeps on widening. It's disgusting really.

It should be obvious now that Obama, the left, and the federal government abhor the poor three years out of every four year cycle.

[wu_shizzle]

Fox and their agenda,

[kcshocker11]

As always another classy post

[kcshocker11]

They got it from the AP. Does that mean the AP has an agenda too?

Please link to AP article- sorry I found it


http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/3d281c11a96b4ad082fe88aa0db04305/Article_2013-09-19-Climate Change/id-6a3953197457443693d392c5ce63597f

The IPCC report is expected to affirm the human link with greater certainty than ever, but the panel is under pressure to also address the recent lower rate of warming, which scientists say is likely due to heat going deep into the ocean and natural climate fluctuations.

The IPCC draft report says it's "extremely likely" that human influence caused more than half of the warming observed since the 1950s, an upgrade from "very likely" in the last IPCC report in 2007.The panel also raised its projections for sea level rise to 10-32 inches (26-81 centimeters) by the end of the century. The 2007 report predicted a rise of 7-23 inches (18-59 centimeters).

Continued carbon emissions at or above current rates "would induce changes in all components in the climate system, some of which would very likely be unprecedented in hundreds to thousands of years," the IPCC said in the draft. A final version will be presented at the end of the panel's meeting in Stockholm next week

.

Sorry your wrong again


I sure hope the next coal fired plant is next door to Sub(its only a joke Sub)

[SB Shock]

Capture.JPG

[Kung Wu]

Sorry @SB Shock:. While that research may be peer reviewed, it wasn't done under the umbrella of a UN organization so it's wrong, irrelevant, irresponsible, and dangerous. Please remove your post, Denier.

[pinstripers]

Sorry @SB Shock:. While that research may be peer reviewed, it wasn't done under the umbrella of a UN organization so it's wrong, irrelevant, irresponsible, and dangerous. Please remove your post, Denier.

Can't tell. Serious or sarcasm?

[Kung Wu]

Can't tell. Serious or sarcasm?

Hahaha. Must be a sarcasm fail then. I tried to make it as sarcastic as possible. Ol' @kcshocker11: got a chuckle out of it though. :)

[SB Shock]

Sorry @SB Shock:. While that research may be peer reviewed, it wasn't done under the umbrella of a UN organization so it's wrong, irrelevant, irresponsible, and dangerous. Please remove your post, Denier.

Please don't report me to the Mods and to Obama black shirts!

[Kung Wu]

Please don't report me to the Mods and to Obama black shirts!

I don't need to. There's a fully automated NSA app for that.

[1979Shocker]

Here's the complete commentary.

Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years

[CBB_Fan]

I totally see where climate skeptics come from. As humans, we just aren't programmed to deal with abstract threats 50 years from now. Hell, most of the reasons the US is in a shitty place economically go back to the way tend to prioritize short term profit over long term economic security. It is just very hard to convince someone that their modern conveniences and luxuries are going to come back to haunt them; if it were easy we'd all eat healthy and exercise, and that certainly doesn't happen!

So I try not to argue in favor of global warming, because it is runs against basic human nature to treat it as a threat. It doesn't matter how many articles and facts you throw at someone, as basic human nature prefers to just trust appeals to emotion. That means that science just becomes another opinion to be argued over.

On the other hand, there are very real issues outside of global warming that we should be dealing with. Domestic energy production is something everyone can see and feel; every time we fill our vehicles up with gas we feel the effects of war in the Middle East and trade policies around the world. I think we can all get behind producing more domestic energy, and that means nuclear, wind, and solar.

I for one am a HUGE proponent of nuclear power, to the point that I feel it should be our primary domestic power source (oil can be used for plastic manufacturing and fuel, coal for steel, natural gas for heating). Nuclear is safer than fossil fuel options, and far more efficient than other forms of power. Even hydroelectric power has killed far more people than nuclear has. Hopefully we will eventually get to the point that renewable energy becomes a viable option as well, in terms of efficiency.

[SB Shock]

When was the last nuclear power plant built in the United States? And why won't their be any more built?

[CBB_Fan]

When was the last nuclear power plant built in the United States? And why won't their be any more built?

All nuclear power plants in the US were built between 1974 and 1979. As far as the reasons why more reactors aren't getting built, the main reasons are:

1. Ignorance. I can't put it more nicely. A lot of people believe nuclear power plants are just nukes waiting to blow up, and that is flat out wrong. Despite the fact that less than 5,000 people have died from nuclear accidents, 4000 of those coming from Chernobyl and only 14 in the US (3 physicists that worked on Manhattan Project type projects, 7 from a radiotherapy accident, and only 3 that actually died from a nuclear reactor incident).

In context, over 100,000 coal miners have died in the US alone in the last century. Even hydroelectric power has been FAR more deadly and environmentally challenging than nuclear; the Banquio Dam accident alone killed 170,000 people and left 11,000,000 homeless. And nuclear power itself is virtually foolproof with modern reactors. Outside of Chernobyl no one has EVER died from radiation released from a nuclear plant. Not Fukishma, not Three Mile Island.

Another fact is that coal plants release more radiation than nuclear power plants, along with all sorts of other nasty chemicals (if you don't believe in global warming, at least know that coal plants produce acid rain!)

2. Waste products. Nuclear waste is a problem. But this leads back to #1. Here's a little known fact about the US's nuclear power: We are the ONLY country in the world that doesn't reuse our nuclear waste! That's right, nuclear waste itself produces products that can be used as fuel for reactors, and just throw it away, leading to excess waste (remember that France is mostly nuclear powered and doesn't have close to the same waste problem).

Another little known fact is that coal ash is actually MORE radioactive than nuclear waste. It is a good thing we've never had a coal ash disaster, right? If that was nuclear power, heads would have rolled.

3. Nuclear power needs fossil fuels to mine. True. But a minor issue, as the amount of fossil fuels needed is minimal compared to how much could be replaced by using a nuclear plant instead of a fossil fuel plant.

4. Fear. Restating #1, people fear nuclear reactors, largely because they really don't understand them. They feel that terrorists could make bombs out of them, not knowing that an aircraft could fly into a nuclear power plant without causing problems. They fear an Hollywood-esque explosion, not knowing that a nuclear reactor simply cannot go critical like a bomb. People fear that nuclear power is incredibly polluting, not knowing that they only produce vapor.

So mostly it is because nuclear power is scary to people that don't know much about it. I'll note that though that even though I think nuclear power is better for energy that we still need fossil fuels! Without them we would have no steel, no plastic, and would still be using wood stoves to heat our homes. Until electric cars improve, we have to use natural gas and oil to move our vehicles, and renewable energy is not enough to power a nation (yet).