Human Caused Global Warming

[elektra]

flacaltenn,
Yes, I would say that it is time to panic. Seeing the rate at which humans are causing atmospheric CO2 to rise. But I think you're missing the whole point. What happens if people like me are wrong. Our whole economic system needlessly gets restructured to a more sustainable, fair and ecologically friendly framework. Which it is badly in need of anyway. But what if people like you are wrong. (Which you are) Most of the creatures get to go through hell before they get to go hang out with Jesus in heaven. (I say sarcastically)

Yet the solution requires an increase in heavy industry, alternative energy has used more hydrocarbons, by a factor of 10,000 or more, to produce less energy. But, alternative energy has managed to destroy more acres of land than any other source of energy in history.

Green energy is canard, it's like using 15 "green", Cadillacs to get to work, no pollution after they are produced, but you used the largest amount of hydrocarbons possible to make that little journey.

Yes you are wrong and the consequences are everyw gere, highest price of gas ever, highest price of food ever, highest electrical rates ever, inability to provide energy in a state of emergency, the growth of heavy industry outside the pollution laws in the usa.

elektra,
You are kind of all over the place. But I will try to make some sense out of what you said. First of all, the solution isn't heavy industry. The solution lies in efficency and not having a waste based economic system. It would also be a great help to limit the growth of the human population. China recently came up with a solution. Instead of limiting couples to one child, they are now allowing them to have two children instead. One of the problems humans face is that if you are insane, you aren't likely to solve any problem.

Next, in a way, I can't really agree with what you said about green solutions causing more environmental problems. No matter what industry does, it is going to cause pollution. If it is going to do so, it would be better if the end product caused less pollution. Right now, it would be better if all cars were completely electric. Because from what I have heard, power plants can produce electricty more efficently than a gasolene engine can produce power. If people can't drive as far, too bad. It would be nice if we could all wipe our butts with mink pelts. But you can't have everything.

What I can agree with is that using farm land to grow corn to convert into fuel is a really bad idea. Then there is the nuclear industry. That is a nightmare on many levels. With coal, you mine it and burn it. The end. But with nuclear power, you have to mine uranium ore. Then you have to refine it into a form of uranium that you can use. Which no doubt takes quite a bit of power. Then quite a bit is needed in building the power plants. Which themselves don't have a very long lifespan. When you tack onto that all of the costs involved in controling raidoactive waste, nuclear power isn't all that efficient anymore. Other things I have problems with are fracking and the Canadian oil sands.

As for the last part of your statement,you really loose me. Gas prices in the U.S. aren't the highest they've ever been. Other countries pay more for it than we do. People in the U.S. probably pay less for food than any other industrialized country.

All over the place, hardly, you simply do not have the knowledge to fathom the amount of hydrocarbons heavy industry uses in the manufacture of alternative energy.

First and foremost, solar and wind are the large, the biggest things in the world ever produced as a source of energy.

Can you grasp the magnitude of what is being built. If it's the largest power plant built, it used the largest among of hydrocarbons in its manufacture.

Further, the life of solar and wind power generators is 20% of the life of any non-renewable source of power.

hell, renewable is a term misused, a ten year life for the world's largest solar or wind power source is not renewable, it .a be recyclable, much different than, "free", "green", or "alternative".

Alternative, bullshit, how does alternative apply to solar and wind that are 100% dependent on the increase use of hydrocarbons..

100% of my post us relevant, which to those who do not think past headlines would seem, "all over the place".

Green or Alternative energy activists must have a narrow view, the truth and facts show Green and Alternative to be fraud.

 

[elektra]

flacaltenn,
Yes, I would say that it is time to panic. Seeing the rate at which humans are causing atmospheric CO2 to rise. But I think you're missing the whole point. What happens if people like me are wrong. Our whole economic system needlessly gets restructured to a more sustainable, fair and ecologically friendly framework. Which it is badly in need of anyway. But what if people like you are wrong. (Which you are) Most of the creatures get to go through hell before they get to go hang out with Jesus in heaven. (I say sarcastically)

Yet the solution requires an increase in heavy industry, alternative energy has used more hydrocarbons, by a factor of 10,000 or more, to produce less energy. But, alternative energy has managed to destroy more acres of land than any other source of energy in history.

Green energy is canard, it's like using 15 "green", Cadillacs to get to work, no pollution after they are produced, but you used the largest amount of hydrocarbons possible to make that little journey.

Yes you are wrong and the consequences are everyw gere, highest price of gas ever, highest price of food ever, highest electrical rates ever, inability to provide energy in a state of emergency, the growth of heavy industry outside the pollution laws in the usa.

elektra,
You are kind of all over the place. But I will try to make some sense out of what you said. First of all, the solution isn't heavy industry. The solution lies in efficency and not having a waste based economic system. It would also be a great help to limit the growth of the human population. China recently came up with a solution. Instead of limiting couples to one child, they are now allowing them to have two children instead. One of the problems humans face is that if you are insane, you aren't likely to solve any problem.

Next, in a way, I can't really agree with what you said about green solutions causing more environmental problems. No matter what industry does, it is going to cause pollution. If it is going to do so, it would be better if the end product caused less pollution. Right now, it would be better if all cars were completely electric. Because from what I have heard, power plants can produce electricty more efficently than a gasolene engine can produce power. If people can't drive as far, too bad. It would be nice if we could all wipe our butts with mink pelts. But you can't have everything.

What I can agree with is that using farm land to grow corn to convert into fuel is a really bad idea. Then there is the nuclear industry. That is a nightmare on many levels. With coal, you mine it and burn it. The end. But with nuclear power, you have to mine uranium ore. Then you have to refine it into a form of uranium that you can use. Which no doubt takes quite a bit of power. Then quite a bit is needed in building the power plants. Which themselves don't have a very long lifespan. When you tack onto that all of the costs involved in controling raidoactive waste, nuclear power isn't all that efficient anymore. Other things I have problems with are fracking and the Canadian oil sands.

As for the last part of your statement,you really loose me. Gas prices in the U.S. aren't the highest they've ever been. Other countries pay more for it than we do. People in the U.S. probably pay less for food than any other industrialized country.

You have no understanding of nuclear power, nuclear power plants do not have a long life? Please tell, how long does a nuclear power plant last?

I know so much more about this than most on these boards, so go ahead with the simple, the life of Nuclear Power Plants. How long you think they last. I am sure with such brazen posts you will have the answer off the top of your head.

 

[Old Rocks]

You have no understanding of nuclear power, nuclear power plants do not have a long life? Please tell, how long does a nuclear power plant last?

I know so much more about this than most on these boards, so go ahead with the simple, the life of Nuclear Power Plants. How long you think they last. I am sure with such brazen posts you will have the answer off the top of your head.

LOL. About 30 years.

The Life Span of U.S. Reactors - BusinessWeek

Most solar panels have a gaurantee of 20 to 25 years. Windmills? Probably about 20 years, then you just pull off the turbine for rebuilding, and put a new one on. A nuke, when it is done, it is done, and you have a toxic mess to clean up.[/QUOTE]

 

[Old Rocks]

Hmmm............ now why did that post that reply like that?

 

[flacaltenn]

flacaltenn,
Yes, I would say that it is time to panic. Seeing the rate at which humans are causing atmospheric CO2 to rise. But I think you're missing the whole point. What happens if people like me are wrong. Our whole economic system needlessly gets restructured to a more sustainable, fair and ecologically friendly framework. Which it is badly in need of anyway. But what if people like you are wrong. (Which you are) Most of the creatures get to go through hell before they get to go hang out with Jesus in heaven. (I say sarcastically)

Yet the solution requires an increase in heavy industry, alternative energy has used more hydrocarbons, by a factor of 10,000 or more, to produce less energy. But, alternative energy has managed to destroy more acres of land than any other source of energy in history.

Green energy is canard, it's like using 15 "green", Cadillacs to get to work, no pollution after they are produced, but you used the largest amount of hydrocarbons possible to make that little journey.

Yes you are wrong and the consequences are everyw gere, highest price of gas ever, highest price of food ever, highest electrical rates ever, inability to provide energy in a state of emergency, the growth of heavy industry outside the pollution laws in the usa.

elektra,
You are kind of all over the place. But I will try to make some sense out of what you said. First of all, the solution isn't heavy industry. The solution lies in efficency and not having a waste based economic system. It would also be a great help to limit the growth of the human population. China recently came up with a solution. Instead of limiting couples to one child, they are now allowing them to have two children instead. One of the problems humans face is that if you are insane, you aren't likely to solve any problem.

Next, in a way, I can't really agree with what you said about green solutions causing more environmental problems. No matter what industry does, it is going to cause pollution. If it is going to do so, it would be better if the end product caused less pollution. Right now, it would be better if all cars were completely electric. Because from what I have heard, power plants can produce electricty more efficently than a gasolene engine can produce power. If people can't drive as far, too bad. It would be nice if we could all wipe our butts with mink pelts. But you can't have everything.

What I can agree with is that using farm land to grow corn to convert into fuel is a really bad idea. Then there is the nuclear industry. That is a nightmare on many levels. With coal, you mine it and burn it. The end. But with nuclear power, you have to mine uranium ore. Then you have to refine it into a form of uranium that you can use. Which no doubt takes quite a bit of power. Then quite a bit is needed in building the power plants. Which themselves don't have a very long lifespan. When you tack onto that all of the costs involved in controling raidoactive waste, nuclear power isn't all that efficient anymore. Other things I have problems with are fracking and the Canadian oil sands.

As for the last part of your statement,you really loose me. Gas prices in the U.S. aren't the highest they've ever been. Other countries pay more for it than we do. People in the U.S. probably pay less for food than any other industrialized country.

You have no understanding of nuclear power, nuclear power plants do not have a long life? Please tell, how long does a nuclear power plant last?

I know so much more about this than most on these boards, so go ahead with the simple, the life of Nuclear Power Plants. How long you think they last. I am sure with such brazen posts you will have the answer off the top of your head.

I'm facing that question with one of my clients that provides gauges and read-outs for these aging plants. They last only until you can't get parts and components for them anymore and you can't change the design without an act of Congress. We need to face up to the fact that ALL of our reactors have the computing power of a PlaySchool toy.. And that they NEED to be refurbished soon. Bigger issue than installing more wind that doesn't deliver on Tues, Wed, and part of next Fri..

 

[flacaltenn]

You have no understanding of nuclear power, nuclear power plants do not have a long life? Please tell, how long does a nuclear power plant last?

I know so much more about this than most on these boards, so go ahead with the simple, the life of Nuclear Power Plants. How long you think they last. I am sure with such brazen posts you will have the answer off the top of your head.

Hmmm............ now why did that post that reply like that?

Tried to fix it for you. Did I get it right?

How can it be only 30 years if MOST of them are going on 60 years?
Hmmmmmm ?

 

[elektra]

You have no understanding of nuclear power, nuclear power plants do not have a long life? Please tell, how long does a nuclear power plant last?

I know so much more about this than most on these boards, so go ahead with the simple, the life of Nuclear Power Plants. How long you think they last. I am sure with such brazen posts you will have the answer off the top of your head.

LOL. About 30 years.

The Life Span of U.S. Reactors - BusinessWeek

Most solar panels have a gaurantee of 20 to 25 years. Windmills? Probably about 20 years, then you just pull off the turbine for rebuilding, and put a new one on. A nuke, when it is done, it is done, and you have a toxic mess to clean up.

[/QUOTE]
Gee, about 30 yet the average life of our Nuclear reactors is 33 years old and still running. Most are running on licences good for 40 years. Heck some of our plants have been running since 1970, over 44 years. So you are wrong again Old Crock.

Now we see that Solar Panels have a guarantee of 20-25, that is for HOMES? Not commercial Solar, so again Old Crock failed by comparing a tiny panel to a Industrial size Solar Farm.

Wind Turbines, the last 7 years. I am speaking of the Turbine itself, not the tower which it sits on, the towers do last 20 years.

Of the three which one provides energy 24 hours a day, for 500 days or more straight, without a hiccup, with shutting down. Nuclear Power.

A nuclear power plant that is 20 years old easily runs 500 days in a row, all day long. Talk about perfection.

 

[elektra]

500 days, I bet some reactors, expensive ones run much longer.

 

[cultsmasher]

flacaltenn,
Yes, I would say that it is time to panic. Seeing the rate at which humans are causing atmospheric CO2 to rise. But I think you're missing the whole point. What happens if people like me are wrong. Our whole economic system needlessly gets restructured to a more sustainable, fair and ecologically friendly framework. Which it is badly in need of anyway. But what if people like you are wrong. (Which you are) Most of the creatures get to go through hell before they get to go hang out with Jesus in heaven. (I say sarcastically)

Yet the solution requires an increase in heavy industry, alternative energy has used more hydrocarbons, by a factor of 10,000 or more, to produce less energy. But, alternative energy has managed to destroy more acres of land than any other source of energy in history.

Green energy is canard, it's like using 15 "green", Cadillacs to get to work, no pollution after they are produced, but you used the largest amount of hydrocarbons possible to make that little journey.

Yes you are wrong and the consequences are everyw gere, highest price of gas ever, highest price of food ever, highest electrical rates ever, inability to provide energy in a state of emergency, the growth of heavy industry outside the pollution laws in the usa.

elektra,
You are kind of all over the place. But I will try to make some sense out of what you said. First of all, the solution isn't heavy industry. The solution lies in efficency and not having a waste based economic system. It would also be a great help to limit the growth of the human population. China recently came up with a solution. Instead of limiting couples to one child, they are now allowing them to have two children instead. One of the problems humans face is that if you are insane, you aren't likely to solve any problem.

Next, in a way, I can't really agree with what you said about green solutions causing more environmental problems. No matter what industry does, it is going to cause pollution. If it is going to do so, it would be better if the end product caused less pollution. Right now, it would be better if all cars were completely electric. Because from what I have heard, power plants can produce electricty more efficently than a gasolene engine can produce power. If people can't drive as far, too bad. It would be nice if we could all wipe our butts with mink pelts. But you can't have everything.

What I can agree with is that using farm land to grow corn to convert into fuel is a really bad idea. Then there is the nuclear industry. That is a nightmare on many levels. With coal, you mine it and burn it. The end. But with nuclear power, you have to mine uranium ore. Then you have to refine it into a form of uranium that you can use. Which no doubt takes quite a bit of power. Then quite a bit is needed in building the power plants. Which themselves don't have a very long lifespan. When you tack onto that all of the costs involved in controling raidoactive waste, nuclear power isn't all that efficient anymore. Other things I have problems with are fracking and the Canadian oil sands.

As for the last part of your statement,you really loose me. Gas prices in the U.S. aren't the highest they've ever been. Other countries pay more for it than we do. People in the U.S. probably pay less for food than any other industrialized country.

All over the place, hardly, you simply do not have the knowledge to fathom the amount of hydrocarbons heavy industry uses in the manufacture of alternative energy.

First and foremost, solar and wind are the large, the biggest things in the world ever produced as a source of energy.

Can you grasp the magnitude of what is being built. If it's the largest power plant built, it used the largest among of hydrocarbons in its manufacture.

Further, the life of solar and wind power generators is 20% of the life of any non-renewable source of power.

hell, renewable is a term misused, a ten year life for the world's largest solar or wind power source is not renewable, it .a be recyclable, much different than, "free", "green", or "alternative".

Alternative, bullshit, how does alternative apply to solar and wind that are 100% dependent on the increase use of hydrocarbons..

100% of my post us relevant, which to those who do not think past headlines would seem, "all over the place".

Green or Alternative energy activists must have a narrow view, the truth and facts show Green and Alternative to be fraud.

elektra,
Of what I said, did you only read what you wanted to? Green is always going to be better than non-green. But all that wasn't the important part of what I said. What is needed besides curbing population growth is efficiency and moving away from a waste based economic system. You can talk about what you want. But any other topics about energy apart from these are a useless load of crap.

 

[elektra]

flacaltenn,
Yes, I would say that it is time to panic. Seeing the rate at which humans are causing atmospheric CO2 to rise. But I think you're missing the whole point. What happens if people like me are wrong. Our whole economic system needlessly gets restructured to a more sustainable, fair and ecologically friendly framework. Which it is badly in need of anyway. But what if people like you are wrong. (Which you are) Most of the creatures get to go through hell before they get to go hang out with Jesus in heaven. (I say sarcastically)

Yet the solution requires an increase in heavy industry, alternative energy has used more hydrocarbons, by a factor of 10,000 or more, to produce less energy. But, alternative energy has managed to destroy more acres of land than any other source of energy in history.

Green energy is canard, it's like using 15 "green", Cadillacs to get to work, no pollution after they are produced, but you used the largest amount of hydrocarbons possible to make that little journey.

Yes you are wrong and the consequences are everyw gere, highest price of gas ever, highest price of food ever, highest electrical rates ever, inability to provide energy in a state of emergency, the growth of heavy industry outside the pollution laws in the usa.

elektra,
You are kind of all over the place. But I will try to make some sense out of what you said. First of all, the solution isn't heavy industry. The solution lies in efficency and not having a waste based economic system. It would also be a great help to limit the growth of the human population. China recently came up with a solution. Instead of limiting couples to one child, they are now allowing them to have two children instead. One of the problems humans face is that if you are insane, you aren't likely to solve any problem.

Next, in a way, I can't really agree with what you said about green solutions causing more environmental problems. No matter what industry does, it is going to cause pollution. If it is going to do so, it would be better if the end product caused less pollution. Right now, it would be better if all cars were completely electric. Because from what I have heard, power plants can produce electricty more efficently than a gasolene engine can produce power. If people can't drive as far, too bad. It would be nice if we could all wipe our butts with mink pelts. But you can't have everything.

What I can agree with is that using farm land to grow corn to convert into fuel is a really bad idea. Then there is the nuclear industry. That is a nightmare on many levels. With coal, you mine it and burn it. The end. But with nuclear power, you have to mine uranium ore. Then you have to refine it into a form of uranium that you can use. Which no doubt takes quite a bit of power. Then quite a bit is needed in building the power plants. Which themselves don't have a very long lifespan. When you tack onto that all of the costs involved in controling raidoactive waste, nuclear power isn't all that efficient anymore. Other things I have problems with are fracking and the Canadian oil sands.

As for the last part of your statement,you really loose me. Gas prices in the U.S. aren't the highest they've ever been. Other countries pay more for it than we do. People in the U.S. probably pay less for food than any other industrialized country.

All over the place, hardly, you simply do not have the knowledge to fathom the amount of hydrocarbons heavy industry uses in the manufacture of alternative energy.

First and foremost, solar and wind are the large, the biggest things in the world ever produced as a source of energy.

Can you grasp the magnitude of what is being built. If it's the largest power plant built, it used the largest among of hydrocarbons in its manufacture.

Further, the life of solar and wind power generators is 20% of the life of any non-renewable source of power.

hell, renewable is a term misused, a ten year life for the world's largest solar or wind power source is not renewable, it .a be recyclable, much different than, "free", "green", or "alternative".

Alternative, bullshit, how does alternative apply to solar and wind that are 100% dependent on the increase use of hydrocarbons..

100% of my post us relevant, which to those who do not think past headlines would seem, "all over the place".

Green or Alternative energy activists must have a narrow view, the truth and facts show Green and Alternative to be fraud.

elektra,
Of what I said, did you only read what you wanted to? Green is always going to be better than non-green. But all that wasn't the important part of what I said. What is needed besides curbing population growth is efficiency and moving away from a waste based economic system. You can talk about what you want. But any other topics about energy apart from these are a useless load of crap.

What you wrote was not true.
Just cause you built it and can use Google to find countless websites reprinting the same rant does not make what you wrote factual.

Your post just shows your understanding of the matter is shallow.

Can't build your idea without a trillion dollars, 500 billion admitted in the last two years attributes to that fact.

 

[cultsmasher]

flacaltenn,
Yes, I would say that it is time to panic. Seeing the rate at which humans are causing atmospheric CO2 to rise. But I think you're missing the whole point. What happens if people like me are wrong. Our whole economic system needlessly gets restructured to a more sustainable, fair and ecologically friendly framework. Which it is badly in need of anyway. But what if people like you are wrong. (Which you are) Most of the creatures get to go through hell before they get to go hang out with Jesus in heaven. (I say sarcastically)

Yet the solution requires an increase in heavy industry, alternative energy has used more hydrocarbons, by a factor of 10,000 or more, to produce less energy. But, alternative energy has managed to destroy more acres of land than any other source of energy in history.

Green energy is canard, it's like using 15 "green", Cadillacs to get to work, no pollution after they are produced, but you used the largest amount of hydrocarbons possible to make that little journey.

Yes you are wrong and the consequences are everyw gere, highest price of gas ever, highest price of food ever, highest electrical rates ever, inability to provide energy in a state of emergency, the growth of heavy industry outside the pollution laws in the usa.

elektra,
You are kind of all over the place. But I will try to make some sense out of what you said. First of all, the solution isn't heavy industry. The solution lies in efficency and not having a waste based economic system. It would also be a great help to limit the growth of the human population. China recently came up with a solution. Instead of limiting couples to one child, they are now allowing them to have two children instead. One of the problems humans face is that if you are insane, you aren't likely to solve any problem.

Next, in a way, I can't really agree with what you said about green solutions causing more environmental problems. No matter what industry does, it is going to cause pollution. If it is going to do so, it would be better if the end product caused less pollution. Right now, it would be better if all cars were completely electric. Because from what I have heard, power plants can produce electricty more efficently than a gasolene engine can produce power. If people can't drive as far, too bad. It would be nice if we could all wipe our butts with mink pelts. But you can't have everything.

What I can agree with is that using farm land to grow corn to convert into fuel is a really bad idea. Then there is the nuclear industry. That is a nightmare on many levels. With coal, you mine it and burn it. The end. But with nuclear power, you have to mine uranium ore. Then you have to refine it into a form of uranium that you can use. Which no doubt takes quite a bit of power. Then quite a bit is needed in building the power plants. Which themselves don't have a very long lifespan. When you tack onto that all of the costs involved in controling raidoactive waste, nuclear power isn't all that efficient anymore. Other things I have problems with are fracking and the Canadian oil sands.

As for the last part of your statement,you really loose me. Gas prices in the U.S. aren't the highest they've ever been. Other countries pay more for it than we do. People in the U.S. probably pay less for food than any other industrialized country.

You have no understanding of nuclear power, nuclear power plants do not have a long life? Please tell, how long does a nuclear power plant last?

I know so much more about this than most on these boards, so go ahead with the simple, the life of Nuclear Power Plants. How long you think they last. I am sure with such brazen posts you will have the answer off the top of your head.

elektra,
The information I had heard about the life expectancy nuclear power plants came from quite a while ago. So I double checked. It is about forty years. But those who care more about money than safety would like to operate them for over 100 years. Though this topic is beside the point. Because only a severely misinformed or delusional mind could view nuclear energy as an acceptable form of power production. I know of a doccumentary you should watch. Really! Its called, "Waste: A Nuclear Nightmare."

 

[jc456]

flacaltenn,
Yes, I would say that it is time to panic. Seeing the rate at which humans are causing atmospheric CO2 to rise. But I think you're missing the whole point. What happens if people like me are wrong. Our whole economic system needlessly gets restructured to a more sustainable, fair and ecologically friendly framework. Which it is badly in need of anyway. But what if people like you are wrong. (Which you are) Most of the creatures get to go through hell before they get to go hang out with Jesus in heaven. (I say sarcastically)

Yet the solution requires an increase in heavy industry, alternative energy has used more hydrocarbons, by a factor of 10,000 or more, to produce less energy. But, alternative energy has managed to destroy more acres of land than any other source of energy in history.

Green energy is canard, it's like using 15 "green", Cadillacs to get to work, no pollution after they are produced, but you used the largest amount of hydrocarbons possible to make that little journey.

Yes you are wrong and the consequences are everyw gere, highest price of gas ever, highest price of food ever, highest electrical rates ever, inability to provide energy in a state of emergency, the growth of heavy industry outside the pollution laws in the usa.

elektra,
You are kind of all over the place. But I will try to make some sense out of what you said. First of all, the solution isn't heavy industry. The solution lies in efficency and not having a waste based economic system. It would also be a great help to limit the growth of the human population. China recently came up with a solution. Instead of limiting couples to one child, they are now allowing them to have two children instead. One of the problems humans face is that if you are insane, you aren't likely to solve any problem.

Next, in a way, I can't really agree with what you said about green solutions causing more environmental problems. No matter what industry does, it is going to cause pollution. If it is going to do so, it would be better if the end product caused less pollution. Right now, it would be better if all cars were completely electric. Because from what I have heard, power plants can produce electricty more efficently than a gasolene engine can produce power. If people can't drive as far, too bad. It would be nice if we could all wipe our butts with mink pelts. But you can't have everything.

What I can agree with is that using farm land to grow corn to convert into fuel is a really bad idea. Then there is the nuclear industry. That is a nightmare on many levels. With coal, you mine it and burn it. The end. But with nuclear power, you have to mine uranium ore. Then you have to refine it into a form of uranium that you can use. Which no doubt takes quite a bit of power. Then quite a bit is needed in building the power plants. Which themselves don't have a very long lifespan. When you tack onto that all of the costs involved in controling raidoactive waste, nuclear power isn't all that efficient anymore. Other things I have problems with are fracking and the Canadian oil sands.

As for the last part of your statement,you really loose me. Gas prices in the U.S. aren't the highest they've ever been. Other countries pay more for it than we do. People in the U.S. probably pay less for food than any other industrialized country.

All over the place, hardly, you simply do not have the knowledge to fathom the amount of hydrocarbons heavy industry uses in the manufacture of alternative energy.

First and foremost, solar and wind are the large, the biggest things in the world ever produced as a source of energy.

Can you grasp the magnitude of what is being built. If it's the largest power plant built, it used the largest among of hydrocarbons in its manufacture.

Further, the life of solar and wind power generators is 20% of the life of any non-renewable source of power.

hell, renewable is a term misused, a ten year life for the world's largest solar or wind power source is not renewable, it .a be recyclable, much different than, "free", "green", or "alternative".

Alternative, bullshit, how does alternative apply to solar and wind that are 100% dependent on the increase use of hydrocarbons..

100% of my post us relevant, which to those who do not think past headlines would seem, "all over the place".

Green or Alternative energy activists must have a narrow view, the truth and facts show Green and Alternative to be fraud.

elektra,
Of what I said, did you only read what you wanted to? Green is always going to be better than non-green. But all that wasn't the important part of what I said. What is needed besides curbing population growth is efficiency and moving away from a waste based economic system. You can talk about what you want. But any other topics about energy apart from these are a useless load of crap.

I agree, what you posted is a useless load of crap, thanks for pointing it out to us.

 

[cultsmasher]

flacaltenn,
Yes, I would say that it is time to panic. Seeing the rate at which humans are causing atmospheric CO2 to rise. But I think you're missing the whole point. What happens if people like me are wrong. Our whole economic system needlessly gets restructured to a more sustainable, fair and ecologically friendly framework. Which it is badly in need of anyway. But what if people like you are wrong. (Which you are) Most of the creatures get to go through hell before they get to go hang out with Jesus in heaven. (I say sarcastically)

Yet the solution requires an increase in heavy industry, alternative energy has used more hydrocarbons, by a factor of 10,000 or more, to produce less energy. But, alternative energy has managed to destroy more acres of land than any other source of energy in history.

Green energy is canard, it's like using 15 "green", Cadillacs to get to work, no pollution after they are produced, but you used the largest amount of hydrocarbons possible to make that little journey.

Yes you are wrong and the consequences are everyw gere, highest price of gas ever, highest price of food ever, highest electrical rates ever, inability to provide energy in a state of emergency, the growth of heavy industry outside the pollution laws in the usa.

elektra,
You are kind of all over the place. But I will try to make some sense out of what you said. First of all, the solution isn't heavy industry. The solution lies in efficency and not having a waste based economic system. It would also be a great help to limit the growth of the human population. China recently came up with a solution. Instead of limiting couples to one child, they are now allowing them to have two children instead. One of the problems humans face is that if you are insane, you aren't likely to solve any problem.

Next, in a way, I can't really agree with what you said about green solutions causing more environmental problems. No matter what industry does, it is going to cause pollution. If it is going to do so, it would be better if the end product caused less pollution. Right now, it would be better if all cars were completely electric. Because from what I have heard, power plants can produce electricty more efficently than a gasolene engine can produce power. If people can't drive as far, too bad. It would be nice if we could all wipe our butts with mink pelts. But you can't have everything.

What I can agree with is that using farm land to grow corn to convert into fuel is a really bad idea. Then there is the nuclear industry. That is a nightmare on many levels. With coal, you mine it and burn it. The end. But with nuclear power, you have to mine uranium ore. Then you have to refine it into a form of uranium that you can use. Which no doubt takes quite a bit of power. Then quite a bit is needed in building the power plants. Which themselves don't have a very long lifespan. When you tack onto that all of the costs involved in controling raidoactive waste, nuclear power isn't all that efficient anymore. Other things I have problems with are fracking and the Canadian oil sands.

As for the last part of your statement,you really loose me. Gas prices in the U.S. aren't the highest they've ever been. Other countries pay more for it than we do. People in the U.S. probably pay less for food than any other industrialized country.

You have no understanding of nuclear power, nuclear power plants do not have a long life? Please tell, how long does a nuclear power plant last?

I know so much more about this than most on these boards, so go ahead with the simple, the life of Nuclear Power Plants. How long you think they last. I am sure with such brazen posts you will have the answer off the top of your head.

I'm facing that question with one of my clients that provides gauges and read-outs for these aging plants. They last only until you can't get parts and components for them anymore and you can't change the design without an act of Congress. We need to face up to the fact that ALL of our reactors have the computing power of a PlaySchool toy.. And that they NEED to be refurbished soon. Bigger issue than installing more wind that doesn't deliver on Tues, Wed, and part of next Fri..

flacalern,
You talk about times when renewable energy might not be available. But batteries and even capacitors could be built to gigantic porportions anywhere there is a large solar or wind farm. Though on a smaller scale, having solar pannels on most people's roofs would help a lot. Recently I heard about a big failure with the government providing money to a solar pannel manufacturer. Which sounds like a load of horseshit to me. Maybe this company just couldn't make a profit. Though in such a case, given what is at stake, the government should have jumped in with both feet and made it work. But no doubt oil, coal, natural gas and nuclear power plant owners wouldn't have been verry happy about that.

 

[cultsmasher]

flacaltenn,
Yes, I would say that it is time to panic. Seeing the rate at which humans are causing atmospheric CO2 to rise. But I think you're missing the whole point. What happens if people like me are wrong. Our whole economic system needlessly gets restructured to a more sustainable, fair and ecologically friendly framework. Which it is badly in need of anyway. But what if people like you are wrong. (Which you are) Most of the creatures get to go through hell before they get to go hang out with Jesus in heaven. (I say sarcastically)

Yet the solution requires an increase in heavy industry, alternative energy has used more hydrocarbons, by a factor of 10,000 or more, to produce less energy. But, alternative energy has managed to destroy more acres of land than any other source of energy in history.

Green energy is canard, it's like using 15 "green", Cadillacs to get to work, no pollution after they are produced, but you used the largest amount of hydrocarbons possible to make that little journey.

Yes you are wrong and the consequences are everyw gere, highest price of gas ever, highest price of food ever, highest electrical rates ever, inability to provide energy in a state of emergency, the growth of heavy industry outside the pollution laws in the usa.

elektra,
You are kind of all over the place. But I will try to make some sense out of what you said. First of all, the solution isn't heavy industry. The solution lies in efficency and not having a waste based economic system. It would also be a great help to limit the growth of the human population. China recently came up with a solution. Instead of limiting couples to one child, they are now allowing them to have two children instead. One of the problems humans face is that if you are insane, you aren't likely to solve any problem.

Next, in a way, I can't really agree with what you said about green solutions causing more environmental problems. No matter what industry does, it is going to cause pollution. If it is going to do so, it would be better if the end product caused less pollution. Right now, it would be better if all cars were completely electric. Because from what I have heard, power plants can produce electricty more efficently than a gasolene engine can produce power. If people can't drive as far, too bad. It would be nice if we could all wipe our butts with mink pelts. But you can't have everything.

What I can agree with is that using farm land to grow corn to convert into fuel is a really bad idea. Then there is the nuclear industry. That is a nightmare on many levels. With coal, you mine it and burn it. The end. But with nuclear power, you have to mine uranium ore. Then you have to refine it into a form of uranium that you can use. Which no doubt takes quite a bit of power. Then quite a bit is needed in building the power plants. Which themselves don't have a very long lifespan. When you tack onto that all of the costs involved in controling raidoactive waste, nuclear power isn't all that efficient anymore. Other things I have problems with are fracking and the Canadian oil sands.

As for the last part of your statement,you really loose me. Gas prices in the U.S. aren't the highest they've ever been. Other countries pay more for it than we do. People in the U.S. probably pay less for food than any other industrialized country.

All over the place, hardly, you simply do not have the knowledge to fathom the amount of hydrocarbons heavy industry uses in the manufacture of alternative energy.

First and foremost, solar and wind are the large, the biggest things in the world ever produced as a source of energy.

Can you grasp the magnitude of what is being built. If it's the largest power plant built, it used the largest among of hydrocarbons in its manufacture.

Further, the life of solar and wind power generators is 20% of the life of any non-renewable source of power.

hell, renewable is a term misused, a ten year life for the world's largest solar or wind power source is not renewable, it .a be recyclable, much different than, "free", "green", or "alternative".

Alternative, bullshit, how does alternative apply to solar and wind that are 100% dependent on the increase use of hydrocarbons..

100% of my post us relevant, which to those who do not think past headlines would seem, "all over the place".

Green or Alternative energy activists must have a narrow view, the truth and facts show Green and Alternative to be fraud.

elektra,
Of what I said, did you only read what you wanted to? Green is always going to be better than non-green. But all that wasn't the important part of what I said. What is needed besides curbing population growth is efficiency and moving away from a waste based economic system. You can talk about what you want. But any other topics about energy apart from these are a useless load of crap.

What you wrote was not true.
Just cause you built it and can use Google to find countless websites reprinting the same rant does not make what you wrote factual.

Your post just shows your understanding of the matter is shallow.

Can't build your idea without a trillion dollars, 500 billion admitted in the last two years attributes to that fact.

elektra,
I'm not too sure who you're talking to here. But I will answer you. When it comes to the nuclear industry, you can't believe what they say. There was an episode of Modern Marvels called "Engineering Desasters 19." In it they talked about nuclear accidents that were covered up. You then bring up the topic of money. First of all, ask the Japanese what it will cost to clean up their nuclear mess. And when it comes to war, apparently the U.S. has trillions of dollars to throw around. Also, between the U.S. trade deficit and what we have to pay in interest each year on our national debt, the cost to the U.S. is nearly a trillion dollars a year. But the cost of doing nothing will end up costing us much more than can be measured by money. You might end up having to live in a cave with very little to eat. With people like Mexicans and Chinese outside the cave yelling "Racist!" for not letting them in. Count your money then.

 

[elektra]

[QUOT soE="ltsmasher, post: 9823141, member: 50409"]

flacaltenn,
Yes, I would say that it is time to panic. Seeing the rate at which humans are causing atmospheric CO2 to rise. But I think you're missing the whole point. What happens if people like me are wrong. Our whole economic system needlessly gets restructured to a more sustainable, fair and ecologically friendly framework. Which it is badly in need of anyway. But what if people like you are wrong. (Which you are) Most of the creatures get to go through hell before they get to go hang out with Jesus in heaven. (I say sarcastically)

Yet the solution requires an increase in heavy industry, alternative energy has used more hydrocarbons, by a factor of 10,000 or more, to produce less energy. But, alternative energy has managed to destroy more acres of land than any other source of energy in history.

Green energy is canard, it's like using 15 "green", Cadillacs to get to work, no pollution after they are produced, but you used the largest amount of hydrocarbons possible to make that little journey.

Yes you are wrong and the consequences are everyw gere, highest price of gas ever, highest price of food ever, highest electrical rates ever, inability to provide energy in a state of emergency, the growth of heavy industry outside the pollution laws in the usa.

elektra,
You are kind of all over the place. But I will try to make some sense out of what you said. First of all, the solution isn't heavy industry. The solution lies in efficency and not having a waste based economic system. It would also be a great help to limit the growth of the human population. China recently came up with a solution. Instead of limiting couples to one child, they are now allowing them to have two children instead. One of the problems humans face is that if you are insane, you aren't likely to solve any problem.

Next, in a way, I can't really agree with what you said about green solutions causing more environmental problems. No matter what industry does, it is going to cause pollution. If it is going to do so, it would be better if the end product caused less pollution. Right now, it would be better if all cars were completely electric. Because from what I have heard, power plants can produce electricty more efficently than a gasolene engine can produce power. If people can't drive as far, too bad. It would be nice if we could all wipe our butts with mink pelts. But you can't have everything.

What I can agree with is that using farm land to grow corn to convert into fuel is a really bad idea. Then there is the nuclear industry. That is a nightmare on many levels. With coal, you mine it and burn it. The end. But with nuclear power, you have to mine uranium ore. Then you have to refine it into a form of uranium that you can use. Which no doubt takes quite a bit of power. Then quite a bit is needed in building the power plants. Which themselves don't have a very long lifespan. When you tack onto that all of the costs involved in controling raidoactive waste, nuclear power isn't all that efficient anymore. Other things I have problems with are fracking and the Canadian oil sands.

As for the last part of your statement,you really loose me. Gas prices in the U.S. aren't the highest they've ever been. Other countries pay more for it than we do. People in the U.S. probably pay less for food than any other industrialized country.

You have no understanding of nuclear power, nuclear power plants do not have a long life? Please tell, how long does a nuclear power plant last?

I know so much more about this than most on these boards, so go ahead with the simple, the life of Nuclear Power Plants. How long you think they last. I am sure with such brazen posts you will have the answer off the top of your head.

elektra,
The information I had heard about the life expectancy nuclear power plants came from quite a while ago. So I double checked. It is about for(ty years. But those who care more about money than safety would like to operate them for over 100 years. Though this topic is beside the point. Because only a severely misinformed or delusional mind could view nuclear energy as an acceptable form of power production. I know of a doccumentary you should watch. Really! Its called, "Waste: A Nuclear Nightmare."[/QUOTE]
Waste, how much waste can we state Green/Renewable Solar and Wind generated, that you will never admit. Size matters, you can see Solar from space, how much hydrocarbons and oil does it take to cover 100's of square miles of earth?

Commercial nuclear power in the USA, how much waste is created, just enough to fill a football field. Of course we could do what the French do and recycle our spent nuclear fuel.

Our commercial nuclear power plants are about the best source of power on earth. Solar and Wind are a complete waste of money that just cost us so much, not just in money but in the amount of power we could now enjoy.

Had we spent that money on oil and nuclear power, gas would cost a 1$ . But instead we literally threw money in a. endless hole.

I do like your idea about the population needing to be smaller, go ahead and start that personally so we can see you are not a hypocrite.

 

[cultsmasher]

flacaltenn,
Yes, I would say that it is time to panic. Seeing the rate at which humans are causing atmospheric CO2 to rise. But I think you're missing the whole point. What happens if people like me are wrong. Our whole economic system needlessly gets restructured to a more sustainable, fair and ecologically friendly framework. Which it is badly in need of anyway. But what if people like you are wrong. (Which you are) Most of the creatures get to go through hell before they get to go hang out with Jesus in heaven. (I say sarcastically)

Yet the solution requires an increase in heavy industry, alternative energy has used more hydrocarbons, by a factor of 10,000 or more, to produce less energy. But, alternative energy has managed to destroy more acres of land than any other source of energy in history.

Green energy is canard, it's like using 15 "green", Cadillacs to get to work, no pollution after they are produced, but you used the largest amount of hydrocarbons possible to make that little journey.

Yes you are wrong and the consequences are everyw gere, highest price of gas ever, highest price of food ever, highest electrical rates ever, inability to provide energy in a state of emergency, the growth of heavy industry outside the pollution laws in the usa.

elektra,
You are kind of all over the place. But I will try to make some sense out of what you said. First of all, the solution isn't heavy industry. The solution lies in efficency and not having a waste based economic system. It would also be a great help to limit the growth of the human population. China recently came up with a solution. Instead of limiting couples to one child, they are now allowing them to have two children instead. One of the problems humans face is that if you are insane, you aren't likely to solve any problem.

Next, in a way, I can't really agree with what you said about green solutions causing more environmental problems. No matter what industry does, it is going to cause pollution. If it is going to do so, it would be better if the end product caused less pollution. Right now, it would be better if all cars were completely electric. Because from what I have heard, power plants can produce electricty more efficently than a gasolene engine can produce power. If people can't drive as far, too bad. It would be nice if we could all wipe our butts with mink pelts. But you can't have everything.

What I can agree with is that using farm land to grow corn to convert into fuel is a really bad idea. Then there is the nuclear industry. That is a nightmare on many levels. With coal, you mine it and burn it. The end. But with nuclear power, you have to mine uranium ore. Then you have to refine it into a form of uranium that you can use. Which no doubt takes quite a bit of power. Then quite a bit is needed in building the power plants. Which themselves don't have a very long lifespan. When you tack onto that all of the costs involved in controling raidoactive waste, nuclear power isn't all that efficient anymore. Other things I have problems with are fracking and the Canadian oil sands.

As for the last part of your statement,you really loose me. Gas prices in the U.S. aren't the highest they've ever been. Other countries pay more for it than we do. People in the U.S. probably pay less for food than any other industrialized country.

All over the place, hardly, you simply do not have the knowledge to fathom the amount of hydrocarbons heavy industry uses in the manufacture of alternative energy.

First and foremost, solar and wind are the large, the biggest things in the world ever produced as a source of energy.

Can you grasp the magnitude of what is being built. If it's the largest power plant built, it used the largest among of hydrocarbons in its manufacture.

Further, the life of solar and wind power generators is 20% of the life of any non-renewable source of power.

hell, renewable is a term misused, a ten year life for the world's largest solar or wind power source is not renewable, it .a be recyclable, much different than, "free", "green", or "alternative".

Alternative, bullshit, how does alternative apply to solar and wind that are 100% dependent on the increase use of hydrocarbons..

100% of my post us relevant, which to those who do not think past headlines would seem, "all over the place".

Green or Alternative energy activists must have a narrow view, the truth and facts show Green and Alternative to be fraud.

elektra,
Of what I said, did you only read what you wanted to? Green is always going to be better than non-green. But all that wasn't the important part of what I said. What is needed besides curbing population growth is efficiency and moving away from a waste based economic system. You can talk about what you want. But any other topics about energy apart from these are a useless load of crap.

I agree, what you posted is a useless load of crap, thanks for pointing it out to us.

jc456,
Nothing I have ever written is useless crap. Though trying to get people to listen to reason does seem useless most of the time.

 

[cultsmasher]

[QUOT soE="ltsmasher, post: 9823141, member: 50409"]

flacaltenn,
Yes, I would say that it is time to panic. Seeing the rate at which humans are causing atmospheric CO2 to rise. But I think you're missing the whole point. What happens if people like me are wrong. Our whole economic system needlessly gets restructured to a more sustainable, fair and ecologically friendly framework. Which it is badly in need of anyway. But what if people like you are wrong. (Which you are) Most of the creatures get to go through hell before they get to go hang out with Jesus in heaven. (I say sarcastically)

Yet the solution requires an increase in heavy industry, alternative energy has used more hydrocarbons, by a factor of 10,000 or more, to produce less energy. But, alternative energy has managed to destroy more acres of land than any other source of energy in history.

Green energy is canard, it's like using 15 "green", Cadillacs to get to work, no pollution after they are produced, but you used the largest amount of hydrocarbons possible to make that little journey.

Yes you are wrong and the consequences are everyw gere, highest price of gas ever, highest price of food ever, highest electrical rates ever, inability to provide energy in a state of emergency, the growth of heavy industry outside the pollution laws in the usa.

elektra,
You are kind of all over the place. But I will try to make some sense out of what you said. First of all, the solution isn't heavy industry. The solution lies in efficency and not having a waste based economic system. It would also be a great help to limit the growth of the human population. China recently came up with a solution. Instead of limiting couples to one child, they are now allowing them to have two children instead. One of the problems humans face is that if you are insane, you aren't likely to solve any problem.

Next, in a way, I can't really agree with what you said about green solutions causing more environmental problems. No matter what industry does, it is going to cause pollution. If it is going to do so, it would be better if the end product caused less pollution. Right now, it would be better if all cars were completely electric. Because from what I have heard, power plants can produce electricty more efficently than a gasolene engine can produce power. If people can't drive as far, too bad. It would be nice if we could all wipe our butts with mink pelts. But you can't have everything.

What I can agree with is that using farm land to grow corn to convert into fuel is a really bad idea. Then there is the nuclear industry. That is a nightmare on many levels. With coal, you mine it and burn it. The end. But with nuclear power, you have to mine uranium ore. Then you have to refine it into a form of uranium that you can use. Which no doubt takes quite a bit of power. Then quite a bit is needed in building the power plants. Which themselves don't have a very long lifespan. When you tack onto that all of the costs involved in controling raidoactive waste, nuclear power isn't all that efficient anymore. Other things I have problems with are fracking and the Canadian oil sands.

As for the last part of your statement,you really loose me. Gas prices in the U.S. aren't the highest they've ever been. Other countries pay more for it than we do. People in the U.S. probably pay less for food than any other industrialized country.

You have no understanding of nuclear power, nuclear power plants do not have a long life? Please tell, how long does a nuclear power plant last?

I know so much more about this than most on these boards, so go ahead with the simple, the life of Nuclear Power Plants. How long you think they last. I am sure with such brazen posts you will have the answer off the top of your head.

elektra,
The information I had heard about the life expectancy nuclear power plants came from quite a while ago. So I double checked. It is about for(ty years. But those who care more about money than safety would like to operate them for over 100 years. Though this topic is beside the point. Because only a severely misinformed or delusional mind could view nuclear energy as an acceptable form of power production. I know of a doccumentary you should watch. Really! Its called, "Waste: A Nuclear Nightmare."

Waste, how much waste can we state Green/Renewable Solar and Wind generated, that you will never admit. Size matters, you can see Solar from space, how much hydrocarbons and oil does it take to cover 100's of square miles of earth?

Commercial nuclear power in the USA, how much waste is created, just enough to fill a football field. Of course we could do what the French do and recycle our spent nuclear fuel.

Our commercial nuclear power plants are about the best source of power on earth. Solar and Wind are a complete waste of money that just cost us so much, not just in money but in the amount of power we could now enjoy.

Had we spent that money on oil and nuclear power, gas would cost a 1$ . But instead we literally threw money in a. endless hole.

I do like your idea about the population needing to be smaller, go ahead and start that personally so we can see you are not a hypocrite.

[/QUOTE]
elektra,
You just don't get it. Obviously you don't know that human caused global warming is a fact. As for the rest, do the letters F O hold any significance for you? Our conversation is done. Anything else you write I will just ignore. But maybe that's what you want. So you can spout any nonsense you want that others following this disscussuin can read. Without not having me to put you in your place.

 

[jc456]

[QUOT soE="ltsmasher, post: 9823141, member: 50409"]

flacaltenn,
Yes, I would say that it is time to panic. Seeing the rate at which humans are causing atmospheric CO2 to rise. But I think you're missing the whole point. What happens if people like me are wrong. Our whole economic system needlessly gets restructured to a more sustainable, fair and ecologically friendly framework. Which it is badly in need of anyway. But what if people like you are wrong. (Which you are) Most of the creatures get to go through hell before they get to go hang out with Jesus in heaven. (I say sarcastically)

Yet the solution requires an increase in heavy industry, alternative energy has used more hydrocarbons, by a factor of 10,000 or more, to produce less energy. But, alternative energy has managed to destroy more acres of land than any other source of energy in history.

Green energy is canard, it's like using 15 "green", Cadillacs to get to work, no pollution after they are produced, but you used the largest amount of hydrocarbons possible to make that little journey.

Yes you are wrong and the consequences are everyw gere, highest price of gas ever, highest price of food ever, highest electrical rates ever, inability to provide energy in a state of emergency, the growth of heavy industry outside the pollution laws in the usa.

elektra,
You are kind of all over the place. But I will try to make some sense out of what you said. First of all, the solution isn't heavy industry. The solution lies in efficency and not having a waste based economic system. It would also be a great help to limit the growth of the human population. China recently came up with a solution. Instead of limiting couples to one child, they are now allowing them to have two children instead. One of the problems humans face is that if you are insane, you aren't likely to solve any problem.

Next, in a way, I can't really agree with what you said about green solutions causing more environmental problems. No matter what industry does, it is going to cause pollution. If it is going to do so, it would be better if the end product caused less pollution. Right now, it would be better if all cars were completely electric. Because from what I have heard, power plants can produce electricty more efficently than a gasolene engine can produce power. If people can't drive as far, too bad. It would be nice if we could all wipe our butts with mink pelts. But you can't have everything.

What I can agree with is that using farm land to grow corn to convert into fuel is a really bad idea. Then there is the nuclear industry. That is a nightmare on many levels. With coal, you mine it and burn it. The end. But with nuclear power, you have to mine uranium ore. Then you have to refine it into a form of uranium that you can use. Which no doubt takes quite a bit of power. Then quite a bit is needed in building the power plants. Which themselves don't have a very long lifespan. When you tack onto that all of the costs involved in controling raidoactive waste, nuclear power isn't all that efficient anymore. Other things I have problems with are fracking and the Canadian oil sands.

As for the last part of your statement,you really loose me. Gas prices in the U.S. aren't the highest they've ever been. Other countries pay more for it than we do. People in the U.S. probably pay less for food than any other industrialized country.

You have no understanding of nuclear power, nuclear power plants do not have a long life? Please tell, how long does a nuclear power plant last?

I know so much more about this than most on these boards, so go ahead with the simple, the life of Nuclear Power Plants. How long you think they last. I am sure with such brazen posts you will have the answer off the top of your head.

elektra,
The information I had heard about the life expectancy nuclear power plants came from quite a while ago. So I double checked. It is about for(ty years. But those who care more about money than safety would like to operate them for over 100 years. Though this topic is beside the point. Because only a severely misinformed or delusional mind could view nuclear energy as an acceptable form of power production. I know of a doccumentary you should watch. Really! Its called, "Waste: A Nuclear Nightmare."

Waste, how much waste can we state Green/Renewable Solar and Wind generated, that you will never admit. Size matters, you can see Solar from space, how much hydrocarbons and oil does it take to cover 100's of square miles of earth?

Commercial nuclear power in the USA, how much waste is created, just enough to fill a football field. Of course we could do what the French do and recycle our spent nuclear fuel.

Our commercial nuclear power plants are about the best source of power on earth. Solar and Wind are a complete waste of money that just cost us so much, not just in money but in the amount of power we could now enjoy.

Had we spent that money on oil and nuclear power, gas would cost a 1$ . But instead we literally threw money in a. endless hole.

I do like your idea about the population needing to be smaller, go ahead and start that personally so we can see you are not a hypocrite.

elektra,
You just don't get it. Obviously you don't know that human caused global warming is a fact. As for the rest, do the letters F O hold any significance for you? Our conversation is done. Anything else you write I will just ignore. But maybe that's what you want. So you can spout any nonsense you want that others following this disscussuin can read. Without not having me to put you in your place.

Well this is sure useless. See you can't prove human caused warming. Please, all of us skeptics have been waiting on that. See I did post my sides, here I'll post it again: The Discovery of Global Warming February 2014

Skepticism (1900-1940s)
Experts could dismiss the hypothesis because they found Arrhenius's calculation implausible on many grounds. In the first place, he had grossly oversimplified the climate system. Among other things, he had failed to consider how cloudiness might change if the Earth got a little warmer and more humid. A still weightier objection came from a simple laboratory measurement. A few years after Arrhenius published his hypothesis, another scientist in Sweden, Knut Ångström, asked an assistant to measure the passage of infrared radiation through a tube filled with carbon dioxide. The assistant ("Herr J. Koch," otherwise unrecorded in history) put in rather less of the gas in total than would be found in a column of air reaching to the top of the atmosphere. The assistant reported that the amount of radiation that got through the tube scarcely changed when he cut the quantity of gas back by a third. Apparently it took only a trace of the gas to "saturate" the absorption — that is, in the bands of the spectrum where CO2 blocked radiation, it did it so thoroughly that more gas could make little difference

 

[elektra]

[QUOT soE="ltsmasher, post: 9823141, member: 50409"]

flacaltenn,
Yes, I would say that it is time to panic. Seeing the rate at which humans are causing atmospheric CO2 to rise. But I think you're missing the whole point. What happens if people like me are wrong. Our whole economic system needlessly gets restructured to a more sustainable, fair and ecologically friendly framework. Which it is badly in need of anyway. But what if people like you are wrong. (Which you are) Most of the creatures get to go through hell before they get to go hang out with Jesus in heaven. (I say sarcastically)

Yet the solution requires an increase in heavy industry, alternative energy has used more hydrocarbons, by a factor of 10,000 or more, to produce less energy. But, alternative energy has managed to destroy more acres of land than any other source of energy in history.

Green energy is canard, it's like using 15 "green", Cadillacs to get to work, no pollution after they are produced, but you used the largest amount of hydrocarbons possible to make that little journey.

Yes you are wrong and the consequences are everyw gere, highest price of gas ever, highest price of food ever, highest electrical rates ever, inability to provide energy in a state of emergency, the growth of heavy industry outside the pollution laws in the usa.

elektra,
You are kind of all over the place. But I will try to make some sense out of what you said. First of all, the solution isn't heavy industry. The solution lies in efficency and not having a waste based economic system. It would also be a great help to limit the growth of the human population. China recently came up with a solution. Instead of limiting couples to one child, they are now allowing them to have two children instead. One of the problems humans face is that if you are insane, you aren't likely to solve any problem.

Next, in a way, I can't really agree with what you said about green solutions causing more environmental problems. No matter what industry does, it is going to cause pollution. If it is going to do so, it would be better if the end product caused less pollution. Right now, it would be better if all cars were completely electric. Because from what I have heard, power plants can produce electricty more efficently than a gasolene engine can produce power. If people can't drive as far, too bad. It would be nice if we could all wipe our butts with mink pelts. But you can't have everything.

What I can agree with is that using farm land to grow corn to convert into fuel is a really bad idea. Then there is the nuclear industry. That is a nightmare on many levels. With coal, you mine it and burn it. The end. But with nuclear power, you have to mine uranium ore. Then you have to refine it into a form of uranium that you can use. Which no doubt takes quite a bit of power. Then quite a bit is needed in building the power plants. Which themselves don't have a very long lifespan. When you tack onto that all of the costs involved in controling raidoactive waste, nuclear power isn't all that efficient anymore. Other things I have problems with are fracking and the Canadian oil sands.

As for the last part of your statement,you really loose me. Gas prices in the U.S. aren't the highest they've ever been. Other countries pay more for it than we do. People in the U.S. probably pay less for food than any other industrialized country.

You have no understanding of nuclear power, nuclear power plants do not have a long life? Please tell, how long does a nuclear power plant last?

I know so much more about this than most on these boards, so go ahead with the simple, the life of Nuclear Power Plants. How long you think they last. I am sure with such brazen posts you will have the answer off the top of your head.

elektra,
The information I had heard about the life expectancy nuclear power plants came from quite a while ago. So I double checked. It is about for(ty years. But those who care more about money than safety would like to operate them for over 100 years. Though this topic is beside the point. Because only a severely misinformed or delusional mind could view nuclear energy as an acceptable form of power production. I know of a doccumentary you should watch. Really! Its called, "Waste: A Nuclear Nightmare."

Waste, how much waste can we state Green/Renewable Solar and Wind generated, that you will never admit. Size matters, you can see Solar from space, how much hydrocarbons and oil does it take to cover 100's of square miles of earth?

Commercial nuclear power in the USA, how much waste is created, just enough to fill a football field. Of course we could do what the French do and recycle our spent nuclear fuel.

Our commercial nuclear power plants are about the best source of power on earth. Solar and Wind are a complete waste of money that just cost us so much, not just in money but in the amount of power we could now enjoy.

Had we spent that money on oil and nuclear power, gas would cost a 1$ . But instead we literally threw money in a. endless hole.

I do like your idea about the population needing to be smaller, go ahead and start that personally so we can see you are not a hypocrite.

elektra,
You just don't get it. Obviously you don't know that human caused global warming is a fact. As for the rest, do the letters F O hold any significance for you? Our conversation is done. Anything else you write I will just ignore. But maybe that's what you want. So you can spout any nonsense you want that others following this disscussuin can read. Without not having me to put you in your place.[/QUOTE]
And there you go, challenge one person to a count or admit the amount of energy that solar and wind power consume and all the can reply, is a rant how the are smarter.

Not one scientist has wrote one paper or study stating there is man made global warming, yet cultsmasher DICTATES that there is man made global warming!

The only reply cult master can muster is to dictate what is and tell those who know he is liar and activist to F.O., literally telling me to, fuck off.

When challenged, the challenger is told to "fuck off".

Is there bipartisan compromise on this issue, no. Because this is a political movement we fight, not science.

Cultsmasher is a baby, so much emotion when challenged, dummies get mad when forced to explain.

 

[Billy_Bob]

flacaltenn,
Yes, I would say that it is time to panic. Seeing the rate at which humans are causing atmospheric CO2 to rise. But I think you're missing the whole point. What happens if people like me are wrong. Our whole economic system needlessly gets restructured to a more sustainable, fair and ecologically friendly framework. Which it is badly in need of anyway. But what if people like you are wrong. (Which you are) Most of the creatures get to go through hell before they get to go hang out with Jesus in heaven. (I say sarcastically)

Temperature trend is now cooling... CO2 trend unabated... Divergence from preapproved flight plan sending alarmists crazy... while showing the link does not exist. (if you studied the past this would have been obvious)....