The best in arts & entertainment, news, pop culture, and your mom since 2002.

[Total: 29    Average: 3.8/5]
63 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 9530
Rating: 3.8
Category:
Date: 04/02/13 08:18 AM

63 Responses to What If? [Pic]

  1. Profile photo of Cy
    Cy Male 18-29
    870 posts
    April 2, 2013 at 8:21 am
    Link: What If? - If it is all a hoax, would that be so bad?
  2. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32761 posts
    April 2, 2013 at 8:31 am
    Um? Because trillions of dollars of "taxpayer" money will go to huge corporations?
    >Because electricity and fuel bills will DOUBLE or TRIPLE and harm the poor far more than pollution would?
    >Because "bio-fuel" raises the price of FOOD which will cause millions of deaths due to starvation?
    >Because the ONE clean, safe source of "green power" is utterly ignored by the AGW crew? Nuclear = less greenhouse gas than ANYTHING and works 24/7/365, unlike ALL the other "green power" scams...

    That was easy! Got any more "paper tiger" for me to slay?
  3. Profile photo of MrPeabody
    MrPeabody Male 30-39
    1920 posts
    April 2, 2013 at 8:36 am
    The only flaw with this argument is that it`s not for Nothing, there is a real cost. I am not arguing that we should not be environmentally responsible, but we should also be sure we are fixing real problems before spending billions on them, putting people out of work etc.
  4. Profile photo of MrPeabody
    MrPeabody Male 30-39
    1920 posts
    April 2, 2013 at 8:42 am
    It is odd that energy independence would be on top of that list as it is in the name of the environment that technologies that would give us energy independence are being blocked.
  5. Profile photo of Forplay2k
    Forplay2k Male 50-59
    648 posts
    April 2, 2013 at 9:09 am
    Because Nuclear power is not safe. 3 mile island, Chernobyl, fudgeushima I Nuclear Power Plant, Japan.
    Then you have the waste that has to store for about as long as man has been walking the earth. If the could get Nuclear fusion to work then it would be green.
  6. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15841 posts
    April 2, 2013 at 9:14 am
    Right, it`ll only cost about $100 trillion per degree Celsius. That`s pretty close to nothing.
  7. Profile photo of thubanstar
    thubanstar Female 50-59
    822 posts
    April 2, 2013 at 9:25 am
    5Cats, speaking as a person who recently married a man with a degree in Environmental Science, and who spends her days hearing about this kind of thing, I can tell you this is bull that you are spouting. Bio-fuel is NOT going to raise the price of food, that`s propaganda from oil companies as is most of the B.S. you hear about alternate fuel.
  8. Profile photo of thubanstar
    thubanstar Female 50-59
    822 posts
    April 2, 2013 at 9:29 am
    One more thing. The root of EVERY ONE of these problems is OVERPOPULATION which is caused by 1. Backwards countries and religions who still think having all the babies they can is a great idea, and 2. The capitalist ideal which wants to Grow GROW GROW!!! and never takes a hard look at what all that growth will cost in the long run. Yeah, I know, you may disagree, but it really does not matter since, if we don`t fix this stuff, we are totally screwed anyway, which is why I`m laughing at MrPeabody`s comment. "Real problems" Please, these problems are about as real as it gets, silly man.
  9. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32761 posts
    April 2, 2013 at 9:57 am
    @thubanstar: Bio-Fuels already DID raise the price of staple foods: namely rice!
    That`s because they`re doing it ass-backwards! Using "food grade" corn instead of "non-food byproducts". Why? Because it`s CHEAPER! (more efficient actually, which increases output a LOT thus making it "cheaper" while still costing TWICE as much as oil...)
    The increased demand for corn cause it`s price to rise sharply. That in turn caused ALL other grains to rise. But rice was hardest hit, since a small increase in price makes a big % difference in Asian nations, it really hurt the poorest of the poor the WORST.
    I saw rice go from $11 a bag to $25 literally overnight... It`s "back down" to about $17 now...

    Overpopulation is indeed humanity`s #1 problem. Along with Capitalism`s "always expand" doctrine. You certainly have that correct!
  10. Profile photo of FoolsPrussia
    FoolsPrussia Male 30-39
    3446 posts
    April 2, 2013 at 9:58 am
    "Because trillions of dollars of "taxpayer" money will go to huge corporations?"

    Like that`s not already happening in an oil economy.
  11. Profile photo of randomxnp
    randomxnp Male 30-39
    1293 posts
    April 2, 2013 at 10:11 am
    Cy, you are a sick racist. This is causing starvation for millions, but they are black Africans so that is OK, I suppose?
  12. Profile photo of randomxnp
    randomxnp Male 30-39
    1293 posts
    April 2, 2013 at 10:13 am
    Forplay2k

    Since 1971 not a single person has died in the USA due to nuclear power (this period includes 3-Mile Island). 35 have died due to wind power.

    Overall wind power kills perhaps 200 times as many per unit energy as nuclear.
  13. Profile photo of randomxnp
    randomxnp Male 30-39
    1293 posts
    April 2, 2013 at 10:14 am
    thubansatar

    Hahahaha

    Your wife has a pretend degree so you can spout proven nonsense!
  14. Profile photo of randomxnp
    randomxnp Male 30-39
    1293 posts
    April 2, 2013 at 10:15 am
    FooolsPrussia

    It is not in the oil sector. Where are millions of dollars going from government to fuel companies apart from to buy oil-based products?
  15. Profile photo of FoolsPrussia
    FoolsPrussia Male 30-39
    3446 posts
    April 2, 2013 at 10:25 am
    "Where are millions of dollars going from government to fuel companies apart from to buy oil-based products?"

    I take it you`ve never heard of an oil subsidy.
  16. Profile photo of chalket
    chalket Male 50-59
    2712 posts
    April 2, 2013 at 10:32 am
    @randomxnp
    Don`t be such an ass! (I almost said "stupid ass" before realizing you can`t do much about your stupidity.) Despite your derision, thubanstar has every right to her opinion; and since she has close contact to the actual branch of science under discussion, her opinion is more valid than most here, especially yours, numbnuts.

    Since 1971 not a single person has died in the USA due to nuclear power
    But many thousands have died worldwide. Since we`ve been so lucky so far, we should keep tempting fate with a very dirty and very dangerous technology? Until we convert to LFTR (or similar) technology, your argument for nuclear is invalid.
  17. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    April 2, 2013 at 10:47 am
    Yeah, let`s just keep throwing good money after bad into `green energy` companies that go bankrupt then get bought by the Chinese.

    To name a few:

    Evergreen Solar ($24 million) SpectraWatt ($500,000) Solyndra ($535 million) Beacon Power ($69 million) Eastern Energy ($17.1 million) Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million) SunPower ($1.5 billion) First Solar ($1.46 billion) Babcock and Brown ($178 million) Ener1 ($118.5 million) Amonix ($5.9 million) National Renewable Energy Lab ($200 million) Fisker Automotive ($528 million) Abound Solar ($374 million) A123 Systems ($279 million) Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($6 million) Johnson Controls ($299 million) Schneider Electric ($86 million) Brightsource ($1.6 billion) ECOtality ($126.2 million) Raser Technologies ($33 million) Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million) Range Fuels ($80 million) Thompson River Power ($6.4 million) LSP Energy ($2.1 billion) UniSolar ($100 million) Azure Dynamics ($120 million)
  18. Profile photo of randomxnp
    randomxnp Male 30-39
    1293 posts
    April 2, 2013 at 10:54 am
    Chalklet

    Should have read more carefully and said husband, however apart from that my comment stands.

    " her opinion is more valid than most here, especially yours"

    Right, so marrying an environmental "scientist" is so much better than studying actual hard science yourself, in the form of my Earth Sciences degree from a world-class university.

    She is perfectly entitled to her opinions, but not her own facts in the old saying.

    Food prices have, in some cases, doubled. People are therefore starving, many dying early. This is the truth.

    "But many thousands have died worldwide"

    No they haven`t. If you disregard Chernobyl (which was nothing to do with power generation, it was a stupid, unauthorised experiment that caused a disaster due to a design flaw the Soviets lied about even to their own people running the plants).

    Your argument is invalid being based on incorrect assumptions on your pa
  19. Profile photo of randomxnp
    randomxnp Male 30-39
    1293 posts
    April 2, 2013 at 10:56 am
    FoolsPrussia

    Your problem is that I have heard of oil subsidy, and so I know that it is a lie. What government subsidises oil apart from a few despotic regimes with tiny economies?
  20. Profile photo of randomxnp
    randomxnp Male 30-39
    1293 posts
    April 2, 2013 at 11:01 am
    Chalket

    Another hint: environmental "sciences" degrees include very little actual sciences. In the hard sciences, especially the Earth Sciences which actually studies the environment, it is not considered worthwhile.
  21. Profile photo of madduck
    madduck Female 50-59
    7552 posts
    April 2, 2013 at 11:10 am
    No- my point about climate change exactly- good housekeeping. As it happens they know that the numbers are panning out, and- if a few over privileged people have to lower their lifestyle- tough. If not- then we are screwed....
    Stop giving oil companies money to wreck the place, force them to divert money from their obscene profits to getting solar etc up and running.... not hard- good sense and preferable to the alternative.
  22. Profile photo of randomxnp
    randomxnp Male 30-39
    1293 posts
    April 2, 2013 at 11:30 am
    madduck

    "...if a few over privileged people have to lower their lifestyle..."

    Only they are not, are they? It is the wealthy who are claiming this is a panic, and none is willing to have less of a lifestyle. Instead they insist (as do you) on policies that will reduce the lifestyle and lifespan of the poor, but you racists don`t care about that because the worst hit will be black people in Africa and Brown people in Asia.

    Poverty kills, after short lives of backbreaking toil and agonising hunger. The only way out of poverty is economic development based on cheap, abundant energy; the only source for that at the moment is fossil fuel.
  23. Profile photo of kvetcher
    kvetcher Male 50-59
    213 posts
    April 2, 2013 at 11:38 am
    Worth repeating, and I know the French are no-one`s favourite country, but they get over 75% of their electricity from nuclear (plus they export some to the UK and Benelux) and it`s never killed anyone.
  24. Profile photo of madduck
    madduck Female 50-59
    7552 posts
    April 2, 2013 at 11:46 am
    Randonxnp- bollocks. Reducing energy usage, mass transit, refusal to consume, relying on local produce- how exactly does this prevent brown people from living? Perhaps if we stop shoving our poo in their direction, give them access to decent low cost technology and start by cleaning up things like the Niger Delta (because that does them a lot of good). What you mean is- you want to keep your car, want to walk around your house in a tshirt when it is December, want cheap fish fingers , want want want want want.... well- hard luck- as the climate alters, the oceans crash you will indeed want. The west needs to learn the difference between want and need.
  25. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32761 posts
    April 2, 2013 at 12:00 pm
    But many thousands have died worldwide.
    @chalket: Aside from Chernobel? No one has died from Nuclear power. Even those brave souls in Japan who fought to save Fu-kishima didn`t get "lethal doses".

    Meanwhile, TENS of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands have dies world wide from... hydro electric dams! Want to compare Apples? How do you like THEM apples?

    (I have to use a hyphen or it will say "fudgeishima" eh?)
  26. Profile photo of madduck
    madduck Female 50-59
    7552 posts
    April 2, 2013 at 12:22 pm
    Have to say I agree on this one. Nuclear is far from ideal, but it is a damn sight safer than fossil fuel as an interim measure. We need to be damn careful and build the latest, safest reactors and be excessively careful about waste... but as a temporary measure to keep things going until solar and renewables get sorted it is an idea. Electric cars work well, but can we get more efficient electric heating please??
  27. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15841 posts
    April 2, 2013 at 12:46 pm
    Bio-fuel is NOT going to raise the price of food
    It already has.
  28. Profile photo of markust123
    markust123 Male 40-49
    3889 posts
    April 2, 2013 at 12:58 pm
    "Meanwhile, TENS of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands have died world wide from... hydro electric dams! Want to compare Apples? How do you like THEM apples?"

    You`re going to need to explain this one. All of Seattle is powered from hydroelectric dams. Except for the random accident during construction I have no idea what you are talking about. I can`t think of a safer energy source.
  29. Profile photo of chalket
    chalket Male 50-59
    2712 posts
    April 2, 2013 at 1:14 pm
    @randomxnp
    You can keep putting your cute little "quotes" around other people`s science (and not your own) but it doesn`t diminish the validity of her opinions which are based on her own experience, as are yours.

    The facts she shared haven`t really been refuted, whereas you shared no facts, just derision.

    "If you disregard Chernobyl..."
    What?! In a discussion of nuclear power deaths why the hell should we disregard Chernobyl?? Just because YOU claim the Chernobyl Nuclear POWER PLANT was not power generation? You`re approaching tin-foil-hat territory, dude. Chernobyl estimates range from 4,000 (World Health Org) to 200,000 (Greenpeace) to an extreme of 985,000 (Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment) premature deaths. fudgeushima is still a HUGE unknown, but certain rare cancers appear to be increasing in the area. Yeah, lets just disregard the very real dangers of Gen II reactors, sure why not?
  30. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32761 posts
    April 2, 2013 at 1:29 pm
    Dam Failures - Wiki

    I thought there were more, but still there`s a couple over 1,000. It does note that some places count dams burst by earthquakes as "earthquake deaths" and not flooding/ dam deaths...

    @chalket: The power station was destroyed by human error. Compounded by poor design. Yes thousands died, mostly the poor souls who had to go in and try to put the fire out (I think it`s 90% of them dead now).
    Again, I repeat myself: it`s STILL safer than ANY other form of electrical generation, PERIOD.
    + Safer
    + Less pollution
    + works 24/7/365
    + can be built almost anywhere
    + cheaper than ANY "green power"

    BUT the "AGW Crew" absolutely refuses to even consider it...
  31. Profile photo of chalket
    chalket Male 50-59
    2712 posts
    April 2, 2013 at 1:34 pm
    @5Cats
    "Aside from Chernobel?"
    Again, WHY aside from Chernobyl? From Wiki: "4,000 fatalities – Chernobyl disaster, Ukraine, April 26, 1986. 56 direct deaths (47 accident workers and nine children with thyroid cancer) and it is estimated that there were 4,000 extra cancer deaths among the approximately 600,000 most highly exposed people."

    There were thankfully no direct deaths from Fu-kushima, but no one knows how many premature deaths the contamination will cause. And death is not the only factor to consider. It`s hard to imagine a SOLAR or WIND disaster forcing the semi-permanent displacement of over 160,000 people.
  32. Profile photo of randomxnp
    randomxnp Male 30-39
    1293 posts
    April 2, 2013 at 1:40 pm
    chalket

    "it doesn`t diminish the validity of her opinions which are based on her own experience, as are yours"

    Hahaha

    I said she could have her opinion (based on her husband`s non-scientific degree; of course I don`t put quotes around mine, I studied an actual science). I object to her making up her own facts. She did not share facts, but easily refuted lies. You want to know what has happened to prices of basic foodstuffs that are used for fuel? http://bit.ly/17bAGdU
  33. Profile photo of lauriloo
    lauriloo Female 40-49
    1803 posts
    April 2, 2013 at 1:46 pm
    I`d love to hear from the european countries that have all the wind farms I see from my train seat when I visit. And I`d love to see solar panels and wind turbines in all that unused land I see when I fly over the land on the way to Vegas. I know there are issues with getting that energy to places efficiently but it would be great if we could figure that out and use all that apparently uninhabitable land rather than run oil pipelines through places where people actually live.
  34. Profile photo of randomxnp
    randomxnp Male 30-39
    1293 posts
    April 2, 2013 at 1:54 pm
    chalket

    Why on Earth would anyone honest (hmmmm, I think I answer my own point there) include Chernobyl in a discussion of the safety of nuclear energy production in the free world in 2013? Not only was the accident unrelated to power generation (it was an unauthorised and pointless experiment) but it could never happen in any other design or any other country, let alone in modern times.

    Even if you do include them nuclear power is still far safer than wind power of course. Considering the total energy produced worldwide from nuclear power, compared to the infinitesimal energy generated in the USA from wind for those 35 deaths, those 8000 deaths are a rounding error in statistics.

    For each death due to wind power in the US less than 20 GWh were produced. For each of those 8000 Chernobyl deaths over 6000 GWh was produced worldwide (very rough but conservative estimates, but you get the idea).

    All power generation is dangerous; my point is that nuclear
  35. Profile photo of chalket
    chalket Male 50-59
    2712 posts
    April 2, 2013 at 1:56 pm
    + Safer
    - Only when all goes well. When something fails, and eventually something will, it is MUCH more harmful for a MUCH longer time.

    + Less pollution
    - Still no good disposal for the 2000-3000 TONS of high-level nuclear waste produced every year in the U.S. alone.

    + works 24/7/365
    - So does hydro and geothermal. Wave and tide generators show promise. Cleaner, safer molten-salts nuclear is viable.

    + can be built almost anywhere
    - NIMBY

    + cheaper than ANY "green power"
    - "Nuclear Power: Still Not Viable without Subsidies"
  36. Profile photo of randomxnp
    randomxnp Male 30-39
    1293 posts
    April 2, 2013 at 2:10 pm
    " It`s hard to imagine a SOLAR or WIND disaster forcing the semi-permanent displacement of over 160,000 people"

    Your poverty of imagination is not a great argument, is it? Many more than this displaced by hydro, and the damage (including ill health) caused by wind is bound to displace far, far more before it will produce as much power as nuclear.
  37. Profile photo of randomxnp
    randomxnp Male 30-39
    1293 posts
    April 2, 2013 at 2:16 pm
    Chalket

    It is safer. Statistics prove it.

    2-3000 tons is trivial. Do you know how big the Earth is? Hint from an Earth Sciences graduate, 3000 tons is a very, very small amount. Hydro causes widespread environmental damage; it has its place, but it cannot replace fossil fuel or nuclear. There is no geothermal technology even close to replacing fossil fuel or nuclear in wide areas.

    "+ cheaper than ANY "green power"
    - "Nuclear Power: Still Not Viable without Subsidies""

    Great argument for fossil fuel and new nuclear technology (thorium, uranium or plutonium); lousy argument for green power.
  38. Profile photo of chalket
    chalket Male 50-59
    2712 posts
    April 2, 2013 at 2:19 pm
    @randomxnp
    Her FACTS were about overpopulation and it`s causes. She DISMISSED 5Cats biofuel claims as propaganda, and you have yet to prove her wrong.

    "Not only was the accident unrelated to power generation..."
    Bullspit. The Chernobyl nuclear POWER STATION held four operating 1,000-megawatt power reactors with a fifth under construction. How is that "unrelated to power generation?"

    "...let alone in modern times."
    Russia still has 10 RBMK reactors, just like Chernobyl, still in operation.

    All current nuclear power stations operate on the edge of disaster, counting on a careful dance of control rods and water pumps to avoid major catastrophe. Any one of literally thousands of tiny failures could start a cascade, then kiss your ass goodbye, along with thousands others. That is an unnecessarily stupid way to get electricity.
  39. Profile photo of chalket
    chalket Male 50-59
    2712 posts
    April 2, 2013 at 2:49 pm
    "Your poverty of imagination is not a great argument"
    So, you CAN imagine a solar or wind disaster of that magnitude? I think we`re beginning to see the problem here.

    "2-3000 tons is trivial"
    In global terms, but that`s just U.S. waste production. For only one year. I know, the U.S. is quite large, but it starts adding up. How about we try stuffing it all inside your house? It wouldn`t quite fit, and with a half-life of somewhere around 24,000 years, I hope you don`t plan on entertaining any time soon.

    "lousy argument for green power"
    But I`m not arguing for "green power." I`m arguing against Gen II (and II+ & III) nuclear power. I`d love to see more research into bringing "green" alternatives to market, and some Gen IV designs are promising, but I just can`t back our current outdated nuclear program.

    Safer, cleaner energy is not only possible but will at some time become absolutely crucial.
  40. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32761 posts
    April 2, 2013 at 3:42 pm
    "She DISMISSED 5Cats biofuel claims as propaganda"
    @chalket: That`s correct, "dismissed" as opposed to "refuted" or "disproved" or even "argued against".
    ALL she said was "your wrong!!" And that`s good enough for you? Sickening double standard you have there, boyo.

    Banqiao Dam Killed about 150,000 people and left 11 MILLION homeless. You are aware that people still LIVE in the "Chernobyl Radioactive Zone" right? That they have NO higher rates of cancer than anywhere else in the Ukraine...

    But, as usual, don`t let "mere facts" stop you!

    "3000 tons" is the TOTAL amount of "Nuclear Waste" the VAST majority of it isn`t radioactive as, for example, coal! You know the stuff that "smokestack scrubbers" clean so it doesn`t KILL PEOP
  41. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32761 posts
    April 2, 2013 at 3:48 pm
    Look up "black lung" sometime eh @chalket?
    The stuff that comes out of coal powered smokestacks is JUST as radioactive, but it gets dumped on the ground!

    Now the "core rods" from power stations ARE seriously "hot"! But they`re changed ever 5 years? 10? And there`s a couple of tons MAX every year. Peanuts! Compared to ANY other source of power, Nuclear is far and away the safest.
    And again: it works 24/7/365. Can any "green power" do that? No? Then STFU.

    Nuclear power is too expensive? But it`s 5X MORE costly to build "wind farms", if you count the long power lines (which cause as much "damage" as a pipeline, FYI) AND the "back-up" generators which must be on constant stand-by...

    Seriously, you`re just being silly.

    NIMBY applies to EVERYTHING, only an idiot would argue otherwise...
  42. Profile photo of Howler81
    Howler81 Male 30-39
    322 posts
    April 2, 2013 at 8:41 pm
    5Cats, if you`re going to point out flaws in other people`s arguments (or lack thereof), you might not want to use the "only an idiot would argue otherwise" tactic. That`s a classic ad hominem fallacy.
  43. Profile photo of chalket
    chalket Male 50-59
    2712 posts
    April 2, 2013 at 8:44 pm
    Yes, 5Cats, DISMISSED... as in unworthy of consideration. Maybe all she said was "your wrong" but all YOU said is "I`m right." She proved and cited just as many facts as you did, boy-o, NONE. It just happens that HER facts coincide with the preponderance of evidence and yours don`t. You`re not feeling sick from any "double standard", I`m betting its just a bad case of cognitive dissonance.

    "Banqiao Dam Killed about 150,000 people"
    I`m gonna steal your "Aside from Chernobel?" argument here. ASIDE FROM CHINA, there have been just 2605 dam failure fatalities WORLDWIDE since 1960. Not that bad after all, eh?

    As usual, you choose which facts you like and discard the rest!
  44. Profile photo of chalket
    chalket Male 50-59
    2712 posts
    April 2, 2013 at 9:30 pm
    Damn, 5Cats, there are so many factual errors in your last post, I can`t even keep up:
    "VAST majority of it isn`t radioactive as, for example, coal" WRONG. We`re talking HIGH-LEVEL WASTE. 100 double-decker buses worth worldwide every year.

    "stuff that comes out of coal powered smokestacks is JUST as radioactive" Uh, no, not even close.

    "there`s a couple of tons MAX every year"
    See link above, specifically "A 1000-MW nuclear power plant produces about 27 tonnes of spent nuclear fuel (unreprocessed) every year.

    "Can any "green power" do that?"
    Yes, several, as I said before.

    "Then STFU."
    Bite me.
  45. Profile photo of chalket
    chalket Male 50-59
    2712 posts
    April 2, 2013 at 9:41 pm
    "5X MORE costly to build "wind farms"
    Where do you come up with this stuff? Hilarious!

    "power lines which cause as much "damage" as a pipeline"
    LOL! Who ever heard of a power line spill?

    "Seriously, you`re just being silly."
    Maybe. It IS pretty silly hoping you might open your mind even the slightest bit.

    "NIMBY applies to EVERYTHING"
    Yeah, it kinda does, only MUCH MORE SO with nuclear reactors. I wouldn`t live within 100 miles of one myself.
  46. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32761 posts
    April 2, 2013 at 10:04 pm
    @chalket: Why you continue to "flail away" with your false flags is beyond my comprehension.

    FROM YOUR OWN LINK:
    "Technology Cost (US$/MWh)
    Advanced Nuclear 67
    Coal 74 - 88
    Gas 87 - 346
    Geothermal 67
    Hydro power 48 - 86
    Wind power 60
    Solar 116 - 312
    Biomass 47 - 117
    Fuel Cell 86 - 111
    Wave Power 611

    Note that the above figures incorporate tax breaks for the various forms of power plants. Subsidies range from 0% (for Coal) to 14% (for nuclear) to over 100% (for solar)."

    OK? So Solar Power is OVER 100% subsidized to get that "low cost" of 120+. It`s REAL cost is higher, it`s a FACT!
    But that`s not all! You can only build wind farms in certain places, often FAR from customers, so that costs more too.
    AND MORE: For every kw/h of "new wind power" you need a kw/hour of fossil fuel "backup" so add 87 - 364...
  47. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32761 posts
    April 2, 2013 at 10:31 pm
    Nuclear: 67 + 14% = 76
    Wind: 60 + 60 + 100 (fossil backup) = 220

    But wait there`s more!
    N-power lasts 50+ years! Wind farms lose 30% of their capacity after apx 12 years, and may need replacing after 15-17. About HALF as long as the 25-30 prediction (it`s even worse for off-shore ones). So Wind needs replacing 3 times as fast as N-power:
    120 +120 +120 +100 =460
    460 > 76!

    Did you read the REST of that Wiki link? OR your other link? It no where suggests that coal dust is less radioactive. In FACT it`s rated between 1-5% of an INCREASE in background radiation! vs 0.0 for outside a N-power plant.

    Which is bigger? +5% +1% or +0%?
    Go on, take your time, use a calculator if you need to...
  48. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32761 posts
    April 2, 2013 at 10:37 pm
    The number the Government of Manitoba came up with was about $300 kw/h for wind, but that`s counting it`s "down time" as not being productive, so it doesn`t need to count the backup (because we have TONS of Hydro for that!) It`s also getting Federal money, so it`s even higher than that...

    Hydro is the cheapest, but there`s literally NO MORE big hydro places left that aren`t VERY far from customers. Every 100 miles you lose power, so a 3GIGw Hydro dam might only get 2GIGw to the end user, that needs to be factored. Plus the LONG powerlines, which are just as disrupting as pipelines are... and cost extra.
    And hydro ponds are great at: producing greenhouse gasses! Huzza!
  49. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32761 posts
    April 2, 2013 at 10:44 pm
    @Howler81: That was on purpose by me ;-) Because @chalket is too dense to notice it... The point is that "wind farms" are just as NIMBY as anything else. Unless you like freight trains running beside your house all night long (noise pollution of wind turbines).

    @chalket: So 0 > 2605? Ok then!
    Just like +1.0% (coal) is SMALLER than +0.0% (nuclear).

    It`s "New Math" they teach in those liberal public schools! I should have known...
  50. Profile photo of chalket
    chalket Male 50-59
    2712 posts
    April 2, 2013 at 10:46 pm
    Holy phuk, 5Rats, obviously that`s not all that`s beyond your comprehension. How do you always manage to misunderstand EVERYTHING??

    First, try the chart I linked to, not the one 4 charts down which you cited (which incidentally shows wind to be CHEAPER than nuclear, $60<$67/MWh).

    Second, you claimed "it`s 5X MORE costly to build WIND FARMS" and now you`re talking about solar subsidies? "Flail away" much? lol! The wiki link amply proves your statement wrong, just admit it. In all the data there, nothing comes anywhere near your ridiculous "5X MORE" nonsense.

    Lastly, I`ve never claimed that wind or solar or any one current technology will serve all our needs. I just know that a) current nuclear technology is woefully inefficient and needlessly risky, and b) there is no doubt at all that at some point in the future, whether distant or soon, we absolutely MUST get off of all fossil fuels.
  51. Profile photo of madduck
    madduck Female 50-59
    7552 posts
    April 2, 2013 at 11:40 pm
    i like wind farms- I think they are pretty, but they go on places where the rich want to be greedy. There is one proposed off Swanage- all the complaints come from Yacht owners.. Solar is a possibility- a lot of people here have solar panel they got done with a subsidy and it is really surprising how much they put out even in winter. Bio fuels are something I am really wary of, simply because of the land grab...
  52. Profile photo of randomxnp
    randomxnp Male 30-39
    1293 posts
    April 3, 2013 at 12:36 am
    Chalket

    "So, you CAN imagine a solar or wind disaster of that magnitude?"

    It is already happening. People are being displaced by wind farms, some by the horrible health effects of low-frequency sounds (which I asked our own government about; they state categorically in an email to me that it is not even considered)

    Where did I say "in global terms"? You are, again, dishonest in your arguments, putting words in my mouth. You are the one who has no idea of the scale of the Earth.

    "Her FACTS were about overpopulation and it`s causes. She DISMISSED 5Cats biofuel claims as propaganda, and you have yet to prove her wrong."

    1. Overpopulation is opinion not fact. Malthus was wrong, Ehrlich was wrong, I think she is wrong.

    2. Did you see the graph? Corn prices have more than doubled. Therefore people will starve, and die early. Poverty kills, not CO2.

  53. Profile photo of randomxnp
    randomxnp Male 30-39
    1293 posts
    April 3, 2013 at 12:42 am
    "Russia still has 10 RBMK reactors, just like Chernobyl, still in operation."

    The reactor is safe now. The accident relied on a design flaw that the operators had not been told about that would not matter in normal operations, but made their bizarre experiment catastrophic.

    "All current nuclear power stations operate on the edge of disaster, "

    Utter, utter bulls##t.

    "Tuesday, April 02, 2013 2:49:05 PM
    "Your poverty of imagination is not a great argument"
    So, you CAN imagine a solar or wind disaster of that magnitude? I think we`re beginning to see the problem here.

    "2-3000 tons is trivial"
    In global terms, but that`s just U.S. waste production. For only one year. I know, the U.S. is quite large, but it starts adding up. How about we try stuffing it all inside your house? It wouldn`t quite fit, and with a half-life of somewhere around 24,000 years, I hope you don`t plan on entertaining
  54. Profile photo of randomxnp
    randomxnp Male 30-39
    1293 posts
    April 3, 2013 at 12:44 am
    "How is that "unrelated to power generation?" "

    That is not. That is your straw man. I said the accident was not related to power generation, which it was not. It was caused by an experiment which was not related tot he power generation by the plant.
  55. Profile photo of randomxnp
    randomxnp Male 30-39
    1293 posts
    April 3, 2013 at 12:47 am
    "Yes, 5Cats, DISMISSED... as in unworthy of consideration. "

    You and she are racist scum. Why are people unworthy of consideration just because they are black people living in Africa or brown people living in Asia? They are starving, they are dying because of food prices.
  56. Profile photo of randomxnp
    randomxnp Male 30-39
    1293 posts
    April 3, 2013 at 12:49 am
    "Second, you claimed "it`s 5X MORE costly to build WIND FARMS" and now you`re talking about solar subsidies?"

    Another straw man from the one who struggles to read!

    He also showed that, over its lifetime cost (not the wind-industry propaganda you like) nuclear is 1/5th the cost of wind. Why should he not also talk about solar?
  57. Profile photo of randomxnp
    randomxnp Male 30-39
    1293 posts
    April 3, 2013 at 12:50 am
    "...a lot of people here have solar panel they got done with a subsidy and it is really surprising how much they put out even in winter."

    Yes, surprisingly little madduck! I cannot afford the subsidy! You like them, you pay. Don`t be so selfish!
  58. Profile photo of YugureKage
    YugureKage Female 18-29
    1205 posts
    April 3, 2013 at 4:58 am
    So randomxnp seems to have spammed the ever living drat out of this thread. Just throwing that out there. Though the points spammed were interesting...

    My college started getting solar panels put up on roofs and such while I was in my senior year. I loved them, and they were worked so well! We also have wind farms in my state, which are very cool. I think, even if it is all a hoax, it`s still important to take the environment into consideration whilst we still live on Earth. You clean your house, why not clean your planet as well? I know that the efforts of an individual may not have that significant of an impact, and that mostly it is a "feel good" placebo but once enough individuals get going, as a group, as a whole nation etc, then we really can make a difference and all that jazz.
  59. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32761 posts
    April 3, 2013 at 6:42 am
    Subsidies range from 0% (for Coal) to 14% (for nuclear) to over 100% (for solar)."
    Again @chalket: You question MY reading comprehension with POOR comprehension of your own:
    Where does it say Wind gets 0%? No where. It says "up to over 100%" and you can bet the farm wind is around 100% subsidized! I know for a fact it`s HUGELY subsidized here, and the USA is what we based it on.
    ffs: making a comprehension ERROR and using it to SMEAR me? You`re really something @chalket. Really.

    Yes, several, as I said before.
    Which "green energy" can produce close to the customer, low environmental damage, 24/7/365 & cheap? You claim you`ve already said which, but I sure cannot find it. One will do, but if you know of "several" please to enlighten us!

    *shakes head in pity*
  60. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32761 posts
    April 3, 2013 at 6:44 am
    Thanks for the backup @randomnxp! When @chalket gets to repeating himself (as he does every time) it eventually wears me down...

    But then he says something REALLY stupid and I snap out of it! :-)

    Wind farms aren`t subsidized, LOLZ!
  61. Profile photo of randomxnp
    randomxnp Male 30-39
    1293 posts
    April 3, 2013 at 11:43 am
    "We also have wind farms in my state, which are very cool"

    Wow, you think they are cool. Why should other people pay for you to have something cool? Why should other people have their health destroyed? Why should rare birds die?

    " I think, even if it is all a hoax, it`s still important to take the environment into consideration whilst we still live on Earth."

    Yes, hence we should oppose wind turbines, and encourage economic development (wealth is the only factor that consistently improves the environment). This needs abundant, cheap energy.
  62. Profile photo of randomxnp
    randomxnp Male 30-39
    1293 posts
    April 3, 2013 at 11:46 am
    5Cats

    My great pleasure :D

    As you might guess, I do like a debate.
  63. Profile photo of Xprez
    Xprez Male 30-39
    676 posts
    April 4, 2013 at 8:02 pm
    Create a better world. But at what cost? There is still someone getting filthy rich from that scheme too. There are drawbacks to some of these "perfect solution" ideas. If they really wanted to make a difference, they would mass produce alternative fuel vehicles. But they won`t do that, oil money fuels some of these ideas. Ironic.

Leave a Reply