March 20, 200719 yr I urge you all to read this. Im trying to find another source: Nuclear energy myths Another site, more up to date. Sig by IkuraiYour Guide to Posting! Behave or I will send my Moose mounted Beaver launchers at you!
March 20, 200719 yr Author before the uranium is mined isnt it already there and giving off radiation anyway??? making the nucleur waste...well kind of a pointless argument
March 20, 200719 yr I would use mostly nuclear power, with limited amounts of other sources, as although nuclear power is expensive in terms of capital costs, running costs are fairly inexpensive in terms of fuel used. As people said before, nuclear waste, if properly regulated and stored, is harmless, provided its locked up in some barren wasteland. also, as said before, the united states and australia combined have more then 5000 years worth of uranium in stores.
March 20, 200719 yr Given the two choices, I'd say nuclear is the lesser of two evils. Frankly, I'd rather use something cleaner still, say solar or tidal power. Here in the UK we're having a pretty big drive on tidal power. Turns out the UK has about 25% of Europe's tidal activity so it's a resource that's screaming out to be exploited. From what I've read, that general powergrid production isn't the biggest contributor to greenhouse emission anyway... it's vehicle emissions. Were I in charge of policy, I'd be more focused on that.
March 20, 200719 yr I'd harness all the hot air emanating from the hippies who like to pontificate about the environment.
March 20, 200719 yr Author Given the two choices, I'd say nuclear is the lesser of two evils. Frankly, I'd rather use something cleaner still, say solar or tidal power. Here in the UK we're having a pretty big drive on tidal power. Turns out the UK has about 25% of Europe's tidal activity so it's a resource that's screaming out to be exploited. From what I've read, that general powergrid production isn't the biggest contributor to greenhouse emission anyway... it's vehicle emissions. Were I in charge of policy, I'd be more focused on that. good point...maybe our governments should give people who have cars that are hybrids/ethanol powered a bit of money to get people to stop using gas powered cars
March 20, 200719 yr good point...maybe our governments should give people who have cars that are hybrids/ethanol powered a bit of money to get people to stop using gas powered cars There are already some incentives for those using hybrids. For example in some states people in hybrids can use the car pool lane. Also, hybrid owners don't have to pay the London congestion charge.
March 20, 200719 yr Author good point...maybe our governments should give people who have cars that are hybrids/ethanol powered a bit of money to get people to stop using gas powered cars There are already some incentives for those using hybrids. For example in some states people in hybrids can use the car pool lane. Also, hybrid owners don't have to pay the London congestion charge. didnt know that...hope they have that in Canada, if they dont they should get it up...and lol, like your comment, hippies will prolly supply us with a few billion years of energy
March 20, 200719 yr Given the two choices, I'd say nuclear is the lesser of two evils. Frankly, I'd rather use something cleaner still, say solar or tidal power. Here in the UK we're having a pretty big drive on tidal power. Turns out the UK has about 25% of Europe's tidal activity so it's a resource that's screaming out to be exploited. From what I've read, that general powergrid production isn't the biggest contributor to greenhouse emission anyway... it's vehicle emissions. Were I in charge of policy, I'd be more focused on that. good point...maybe our governments should give people who have cars that are hybrids/ethanol powered a bit of money to get people to stop using gas powered cars But why? They're no cleaner than regular cars...
March 20, 200719 yr Given the two choices, I'd say nuclear is the lesser of two evils. Frankly, I'd rather use something cleaner still, say solar or tidal power. Here in the UK we're having a pretty big drive on tidal power. Turns out the UK has about 25% of Europe's tidal activity so it's a resource that's screaming out to be exploited. From what I've read, that general powergrid production isn't the biggest contributor to greenhouse emission anyway... it's vehicle emissions. Were I in charge of policy, I'd be more focused on that. good point...maybe our governments should give people who have cars that are hybrids/ethanol powered a bit of money to get people to stop using gas powered cars Yeah, they should use all the money they're raising from "air tax" and various other tax increases that have been created under the guise of "a cleaner environment" towards helping people pay for hybrid cars.
March 20, 200719 yr We use corn or pellets for heat in a pelletstove. And we also burn wood in a fireplace that blows the heat everywhere. Low heating bill FTW! \ Me doing staff.
March 20, 200719 yr Author Viktor, your family owns! how do ethanol and hybrid cars produce the same emissions as normal gasoline run cars??? i thought they were different
March 20, 200719 yr Viktor, your family owns! how do ethanol and hybrid cars produce the same emissions as normal gasoline run cars??? i thought they were different Well for starters, where do you think the electricity to run the hybrid cars comes from? And bio-ethanol fuel is SO unefficient. The amount of conventional fuel needed (like Petrol, etc) to use the tractor to harvest the crop, to sort the crop, to transport the crop, to create the bio-ethanol fuel, to transport the fuel, etc, MASSIVELY outweighs the emissions nd whatnot you save by using it.
March 20, 200719 yr But why? They're no cleaner than regular cars... Comparison of hybrid petrol to normal petrol cars: Prius 1.5 petrol = 104g/km CO2 emissions Other random sample cars, not sport models since that would be biased towards the Prius being better: Renault Megane 1.4 petrol = 165g/km Peugeot 207 1.6 petrol = 166g/km Peugeot 207 1.4 petrol = 152g/km Honda Civic 1.8 petrol = 152g/km Volvo S40 1.6 petrol = 171g/km Skoda Fabia 1.2 petrol = 140g/km Mercedes A Class 1.5 petrol = 148g/km Citroen C4 1.6 petrol = 180g/km Just some examples from http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk In every single one I looked at the Prius had lower CO2 emissions. Take a look here. You'll see that the Prius is the car with the lowest emissions on record in this UK government database. And funnily enough it's got the biggest engine in the list of the top 10 petrol cars too. Another incentive for using hybrids for company cars is the amount one gets taxed on them. Company car owners are taxed on a percentage of the list price of the car they have. The percentage of the list price you are taxed on is dependent on the CO2 emissions of the car you have. This means that those who have a Prius are only taxed on 15% of the list price - compared to say someone who gets an Audi TT 3.2 Quattro who will be taxed on 35% of the list price. Fact me 'til I fart.
March 20, 200719 yr Who am I supposed to beleive??? :uhh: Well you have two choices: - The guy who is saying "but they're no cleaner than regular cars" with no evidence - Me, who says "that's BS - they are cleaner" and has provided evidence from the UK government, specifically the Vehicle Certification Agency, who set up this website with all the evidence you need: http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/ To a person with half a brain, it shouldn't be a difficult choice.
March 20, 200719 yr Author Who am I supposed to beleive??? :uhh: Well you have two choices: - The guy who is saying "but they're no cleaner than regular cars" with no evidence - Me, who says "that's BS - they are cleaner" and has provided evidence from the UK government, specifically the Vehicle Certification Agency, who set up this website with all the evidence you need: http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/ To a person with half a brain, it shouldn't be a difficult choice. are you calling me dumb???
March 20, 200719 yr Initially I wasn't. I implied you were a person with at least half a brain. But having read your last reply, in which you asked if I was calling you dumb: yes. I am now.
March 21, 200719 yr Viktor, your family owns! how do ethanol and hybrid cars produce the same emissions as normal gasoline run cars??? i thought they were different Well for starters, where do you think the electricity to run the hybrid cars comes from? And bio-ethanol fuel is SO unefficient. The amount of conventional fuel needed (like Petrol, etc) to use the tractor to harvest the crop, to sort the crop, to transport the crop, to create the bio-ethanol fuel, to transport the fuel, etc, MASSIVELY outweighs the emissions nd whatnot you save by using it. thank you, i'm glad someone finally said it. and for people still confused, electric cars still need to be plugged into a wall outlet, and where does that come from? most likely a coal burning power plant. something not taken into account in the "emissions" of an electric/hybrid car. also, hydrogen fuel is still so ridiculously expensive to manufacture, it's nowhere near feasible yet.
March 21, 200719 yr Viktor, your family owns! how do ethanol and hybrid cars produce the same emissions as normal gasoline run cars??? i thought they were different Well for starters, where do you think the electricity to run the hybrid cars comes from? And bio-ethanol fuel is SO unefficient. The amount of conventional fuel needed (like Petrol, etc) to use the tractor to harvest the crop, to sort the crop, to transport the crop, to create the bio-ethanol fuel, to transport the fuel, etc, MASSIVELY outweighs the emissions nd whatnot you save by using it. thank you, i'm glad someone finally said it. and for people still confused, electric cars still need to be plugged into a wall outlet, and where does that come from? most likely a coal burning power plant. something not taken into account in the "emissions" of an electric/hybrid car. also, hydrogen fuel is still so ridiculously expensive to manufacture, it's nowhere near feasible yet. But what about the machinery, transport, etc. that it takes to extract and refine oil? I'm sure it's an easy argument to make against E85, but aren't we forgetting the amount of emissions coming from the production of oil. By The_Jeppoz :wink:
March 21, 200719 yr I would use a combonation of power sources provided the country in question is the united states. some nations are too poor to go with anything but coal which is in great supply and very cheep. for one I would use solar power in the deserts, Nucklear power where practible i.e. large city's that can use all that energy. Geothermal power where the vents are, as well as wind and - hydro electric. Nuclear power is quite safe so long as proper standards are upheld in the plants construction and it has good security. also I heer on the moon there is a fourm of hydrogen or something that allows for clean nuclear power- that is to say no radioactive waste. so I would invest in mining operations to harvest this stuff. sadly nuclear waste as it is has a very long half life and is beyond dangourus to the future of the human race. im talking 100 thausand years or more from now when we either have nowheres to put it or the stuff we put under the ground starts leaking into the water. I would also try to shake our addiction to oil from the middle east and go twoards hydrogen and electic cars. since we have cheep power sources from nuclear power plants and the like we can produce hydrogen cheeply and in great quantity's. I heer all you need is water and electricity if you have the generators. and I would have a one billion dollar reward to anyone who can invent a reliable source of energy via perpetual motion generators. You do understand that we don't actually have enough nuclear fuel on this planet to actually have no space to put all of the waste we get from it. Anyway, you do have a good idea in terms of the combination of power sources with a focus on anything but coal. If there is a natural resource nearby, i.e. constant wind, geothermal, constant radiation from the sun, great spot for a hydro electric, I'd utilise it.
March 21, 200719 yr Its worth pointing out that coal poerplants creatae radioactive ash, much of which is shoved up the smokestack to rain down or whaterver city it is in, you just normally dont notice it or hear about it. I'm quite pro nuclear, especily the candu design. I'm also agains major use or solar and wind for various reasons (mainly massive,[for solar thats MASSIVE! habitat disruption/destruction. But ya, nuclear is cleaner by a long shot, and theres plenty of nuclear fuel, esspecily if you count deuterium. There are special reactors that use waste from other plants as there fuel as well, which makes the uranium las way longer and massivly cuts down on potential waste. Using various fules we have enough for millions of years.
March 21, 200719 yr Nuclear, and a combination of other renewables. Problem with nuclear Well if you use nuclear fusion, you are actually using up more energy than you produce. This, obviously, is a waste. It's quite obvious why only the sun can effectively use nuclear fusion With nuclear fission, there are vast amounts of nuclear waste. What do you do with them? It's been a couple of years since I have studied nuclear power. Please inform me if there is a solution to this problem Actually for nuclear fusion, you get more energy back than what you put in unless your making an element hevier than iron (stars dont produce anything heavyer than iron either, once you get to irion the start kinda goes nova)
March 21, 200719 yr Author I personally still find nucleur better because there are no GHG's, and the fact that the uranium fuel is in the ground already giving off radioactive waves, which is what the waste will do. anyone else?
Create an account or sign in to comment