If global warming caused by CO2 were true, would it matter?
Posted by Cynical on Wed, 08/20/2008 - 06:27 in Isn't it both naive and irresponsible to think that reducing 10-20% of your carbon footprint would be either sufficient or significant?
If global warming caused by CO2 were actually true, shouldn't we think about DEPOPULATION as more serious means?
Think about it, what good is reducing 10-20% of your CO2 emissions by never driving your car, never using your stove when your redneck anti-choice neighbor or Catholic Mexican lawnmower just had another baby? Wouldn't these families quickly undo whatever effort you put in?
Global warming propagandists are afraid to admit it that humans are the source of destruction and there's no bandaid solution to environmental problems. The real problem is humans themselves. We either do have problems we need to address, or we don't and we shouldn't worry. Acknowledging problems but not taking serious action for it is both irresponsible, and HARMFUL.
So either CO2 has been a serious problem and we need to CURB IT TODAY, or it is uncurbable and we have to live with it. We are not going to change anything by buying Home Depot products here and there, or driving hybrid vehicles, it'll only make opportunists rich!
This is what upsets me the most, that people think doing little things means doing everything and go back to their "normal lives". Seeing Ron Paul supporters still using credit cards, still paying taxes even when they think there's no law, funding corporate America while hating it, preaching alternative medicine but still seeing real doctors.
Subscribe to this thread- Flag as offensive
- Login or register to post comments
- 287 reads
As far as I know there has never been a loss of life accident related to radiation at any US nuclear power plant including 3 mile island. That's an enviable safety record.
I have nothing against solar power but I think there are some obstacles that have to be overcome before it can provide a significant amount of our electric power. FPL is part owner of the SEGS solar plants in California. In their FAQs section they explain some of those problems:
"The initial cost of constructing solar energy facilities is high, so the overall cost of solar energy is also high compared to more traditional forms of power generation. In addition, energy from the sun is intermittent and varies from region to region. Solar energy also requires quite a large area of land for installation to achieve a good level of efficiency. This would not be practical in providing for the energy needs of large numbers of consumers. Finally, no solar energy can be produced during nighttime although some relatively small applications may have battery backup systems." http://www.fplenergy.com/portfolio/solar/faq.shtml
Those are the people who actually run solar plants today, so I think they know what they're talking about.
If we want to be an industrial nation we need electric power. For the time being most of that power will have to come from conventional sources, mainly coal or nuclear. If I had to live next to one or the other I'd take the Nuke. Coal plants are still pretty stinky and smokey even with good emission controls. Nukes are clean.
In digging around their site, it's interesting to note that Solar makes up only 1% of FPL's total power distribution portfolio and have a majority ownership in 3 nuclear power plants in the US. It's nice to see that they recognize that while alternative solutions for energy production are important to find (specifically for renewable sources such as hydro, wind and solar), that nuclear power is a safe and viable source of energy as well...
I would love to see a comparison of efficiency and waste between conventional nuclear plants vs solar power plants. Anyone have any info on that? Ill try and find some, there is one here in California.
"free thinkers are dangerous, and beautiful"
I don't have a breakdown, but solar is VERY inefficient. They have a new kind of solar panel which is less efficient, but a LOT cheaper, so it's being seen as a better alternative.
In either case, the waste is minimal. It's creating them that's the problem. With nuclear, you have to mine the nuclear material and enrich it; with solar, you have to make the silicon-cadmium photovoltaic cells, which produces a lot of toxic waste.
But we can make incredibly efficient nuclear reactors and make most of our power with it RIGHT NOW. Solar's at least twenty years away from any kind of large-scape implementation.
The Chernobyl disaster was a nuclear reactor accident in the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in the Soviet Union. It was the worst nuclear power plant accident in history and the only instance so far of level 7 on the International Nuclear Event Scale, resulting in a severe release of radioactivity into the environment following a massive power excursion which destroyed the reactor. Two people died in the initial steam explosion, but most deaths from the accident were attributed to fallout.
Chernobyl's main issue was that the vessel's lid design had the control rod-motors mounted to it, so when the reactor over pressurized and the lid blew off, it caused the fuel rods to eject thus pushing the reactor into an even more super-critical state... It was a very poor design - and one that has been learned from and never duplicated since.
When automobiles were first created, they weren't exactly eco-friendly during operation or when accidents occurred. Heck, look at America's driveways and seehow much oil is dripping from our cars and seeping into our groundwater today even...
BUT, engineers learned from flaws in the designs and created vehicles (and in this case, nuclear vessels) that are inherently safer and more eco-friendly.
We don't have to do anything about it other than try to clean up after ourselves when we concentrate in small areas. It is not the Governments job to control people or the land at a national level. If local people feel unanimously to agree on certain things then fine but not a small group of 565 people making decisions for all 300 millioin.
Only true problem is the suppression of ideas and technology!!
I do believe the earth cleanes itself no matter what. All 'old' cultures believe this and that is what the mayan calendar 2012 is all about. THE GREAT PLANETAL CLENSE!!!
I don't know if CO2 levels are affected by population. I've never seen anything that says that they are. It's energy use that seems to be the key.
I don't accept your false dichotomy. I think it is likely that CO2 emissions are causing problems, but I see no cause for alarmism. I think that there are many things we can do to reduce our CO2 emissions--such as more nuclear power (I've NEVER understood why environmentalists are so against that)--that are also good things to do even if anthropogenic climate change is false.
It's about what works. Neither alarmism nor denial works.
but I can tell you what my environmental conservation professor taught us few years ago about why nuclear power is not a great solution. Well first, I believe it takes about 10 yrs to get a plant up and running and he told us they are quite inefficient when it comes to how much energy and resources go into making and keeping the plants running(not including the security risks). The toxic waste from the air,land and water runoff from the plants would be an issue too. The old rods get cooled off in vast ponds and a lot of water comes into contact through the operations from what I remember. There was a problem with figuring out a place for the waste longterm, not to mention the chance of genetic mutation. Geez, yeah all the folks who want nuclear go get your own island and have them build the plant near your kids school or your house!lol
Me, I am a fan of simpe living. I believe if we wish to sustain ourselves we're going to have to learn how to be a bit more compromising when it comes to using our natural resources--or kill A LOT of people:)
"free thinkers are dangerous, and beautiful"
Did your professor offer alternative viewpoints to the fearful propaganda he gave you? My guess is that he probably didn't and as such has cornered you into believing that nuclear power is an unsafe alternative. Historically speaking, nuclear power has a safe history of energy production when operated within the toleances established. Three Mile Island, Chernobyl - both were examples of failed operatinos where the operators either did not understand their indications or they did not trust their indications - both mentalities that have been addresssed by the Atomic Energy Commission by way of training and technology design enhancements (producing safer reactors).
Toxic waste and genetic mutations are 1950's fantasy world beliefs... On nuclear powered submarines, for example, the containment of nuclear radiation is sufficient enough to allow people to walk in shielded corridors that are a mere 10 feet from the vessel.
Long-term disposal is not the issue you were led to believe because as has already been pointed out, recycling the material for post-consumer use is an affordable goal.
The long-term costs associated with nuclear power are actually lower to you, the consumer, because you are no longer dependent on the finding and mining operations of coal and other fossil fuels to create the energy... fuel replacement is lower because reactors are designed to operate for long periods of time without refueling and refueling can be done with the reactor running critical.
The reactor coolant system is a closed loop system - the heat produced by the reactor is transferred to the secondary system (steam system), but the radiation is not.
I'm afraid your environmental conservation professor needs to stick to environmental conservation instead of matters of nuclear power if all he's going to do is bash it's alternative viability when compared to coal... Nuclear power is not at all what he wants you to believe. He taught with an agenda and you fell right into it.
Look, like I said, I am no expert on the subject but I could understand him giving me the viewpoint he did considering the class was environmental conservation. Actually the mining for uranium the processes of enrichment and refining and producing plutonium are quite harmful to the environment. And hey, maybe you're right, they probably dont need as much to run them now and they might be a bit safer now, but what about the initial minings? Also, the tons of gas,coal and oil that would be used to create this great "clean"energy are something to consider. Maybe these aren't important points??
The one thing that I dont really like from the freedom movement,is an overwhelming lack of concern for environmental issues and a knee jerk response to lump people that criticize conventional ideas if it has anything to do with being environmentally conscience. I could argue that you "fell right into an agenda" that is pro nuclear power plants my friend, but I DONT know you. So, please spare me the condescending remarks fam. I dont even believe most of the global warming business necessarily, although regardless I am disgusted with the amount of waste and environmental neglect by our species. We are biting the breast that feeds us,lol. The question should be about how are we going to change our habits/lifestyles also, not just what is our new means of technology, but I know nobody wants to hear that. You have got to admit also that because of things like human error and if there were an attack or meltdown the toxic isotopes that would be released for generations to come, yes producing cancers and mutations have disastrous potential. I was actually born in Harrisburg,Pennsylvania(3 mile island accident) so maybe you're right I am biased against the use of nuclear plants.
I still say, all you folks that are so willing to start up nuclear plants, have them be near your child's school or near your house, I highly doubt anyone want to live in the towns they will put them in. So, the smartest people in America genuinely believe that nuclear plants are our best and only hope?? I think we can, (and we ALWAYS can) do things a better way. If it was as simply as steam being the only biproduct of plants of course I would be cheering right along side you guys, shoot, Id try and work there myself:)
I appreciate the people responding to this threads and although my position right now is against nuclear power being the BEST solution to our energy problems I am open to consider your thoughts on the issue as I hope you are to mine.
"free thinkers are dangerous, and beautiful"
"I still say, all you folks that are so willing to start up nuclear plants, have them be near your child's school or near your house, I highly doubt anyone want to live in the towns they will put them in."
I live within two miles of a nuclear power plant. This area is growing VERY fast for housing. There are also three government schools, one charter school, and one private school within 10 miles of the plant.
Maybe you'd better start looking at the reality of nuclear power plants, and not the propaganda the environmentalists dish out.
in your retorts?:) thanks delta, I look forward to your information sir.
"free thinkers are dangerous, and beautiful"
I'm open to other sources of energy. My defense was not to suggest that is is the BEST or even the ONLY alternative to fossil fuels. My point is that we have a safe and established method of creating energy and fear tactics like those employed by your professor won't give it a fair shake... and they suck you all right in with them becuase they don't even explore ALL of the alternatives. They use there authoritative position there to bash that which someone else told them makes it unfriendly to the environment.
My entire family is from Steelton, Elizabethtown, Harrisburg, and Camp Hill AND I was living in E-Town at the time of the accident, so I'm more than aware of how people who lived near TMI at the time of the accident feel about nuclear power - I was there. In any respect, I'm not sure how or why you have such a disdain for TMI being that you are only 24 years old anyhow... but that's s subject for a different topic I guess.
I am curious to know just how open-minded you are to nuclear power as a viable source of power... I mean really. Because I can give you mounds and mounds of data that supports the eco-friendly nature of nuclear power... as long as you are really ope-minded enough to accept it.
you're from the area, were basically family:) Oh, and the reason I am more biased is because I have had a lot of reminders about the dangers of Nuclear power via my teachers and family from small. I would love to hear how safe nuclear energy is, you should make a new post about it to share your info. Wait a minute, so what about the mining for uranium and such?
"free thinkers are dangerous, and beautiful"
I'll tell you what. I'll pull out my info and post some data before the weekend's out in a new thread (in regards to the safety of nuclear power, and in regards to the mining operations that support nuclear power). When was the last time you heard about a Uranium mine collapse again?!? No matter... we'll get to that point before Monday.
I know you don't know me or my background, so I'll enlighten you a little bit. I was stationed on board a fast attack nuclear-powered submarine in the US Navy. I was a Reactor Operator (Nuclear trained electronics technician). I was the guy at the "switch" so-to-speak... My understanding about the safety involved with the production of nuclear power does not come from the "propaganda brainwashing" or anything like that - it comes from my own experience as one who actually operated a nuclear power and propulsion plant. I walked in that tunnel to which I eluded earlier. I maintained reactor criticality. I studied the operations and maintenance manuals, and I practiced recovery efforts in the event of catastrophic failure (Never really happened - just drilled on the actual steps to recovery). For every "unsafe" and "eco-unfriendly" report you show me, I'll show you the other side of the coin. It is a safe and eco-friendly source of power...
The only reason that's a problem is because of the stupid treaties that are based on the idea that nuclear enrichment = making bombs. ALL of this waste can be re-enriched and used again. It's only government that stops it.
The only output of nuclear power is steam.
Yes, indeed it's energy use, but that's definitely caused by population.
3rd world countries will eventually die out, stay the same, or advance, so either they'll be using the same energy, or more, unless they die.
"The government should be afraid of its people, not the other way around".