I Am Bored

Loads of viral videos, games, memes, lists and social networking for when you're bored. Updated every day, so visit often.
LatestPopularMost BookmarkedMost EmailedTop RatedMy FavoritesRandomChat
AllGamesFunnyEntertainmentQuizzesWeirdTechLifestyle, Arts & Lit.News & PoliticsScienceSportsMisc
Submit Content  





rss

friendsmore friends | add your site
Asylum

Holy Taco

Funny Videos

BuzzFeed

NothingToxic

Oddee

Mousebreaker

Online Games

Eat Liver

Online Games

Gorilla Mask

Full Downloads

Norway Games

Damn Cool Pics

Kontraband

Extreme Humor

X Hollywood

I Dont Like You

123 Games

Hollywoodtuna

Funny Games

Cool Stuff

Viva La Games

X - Vids

Smit Happens

Funny Videos

Funny Stuff

ebaumsworld



Back to Listing

What If? [Pic]

Hits: 9514 | Rating: (3.1) | Category: Community & Lifestyle | Added by: Cy
Page: 1 2 3 Next >   Jump to: Bottom    Last Post
Xprez
Male, 30-39, Western US
 676 Posts
Thursday, April 04, 2013 8:02:57 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.

randomxnp
Male, 30-39, Europe
 1237 Posts
Wednesday, April 03, 2013 11:46:20 AM
5Cats

My great pleasure :D

As you might guess, I do like a debate.

randomxnp
Male, 30-39, Europe
 1237 Posts
Wednesday, April 03, 2013 11:43:48 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.

5Cats
Male, 50-59, Canada
 24999 Posts
Wednesday, April 03, 2013 6:44:12 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!

5Cats
Male, 50-59, Canada
 24999 Posts
Wednesday, April 03, 2013 6:42:35 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*

YugureKage
Female, 18-29, Midwest US
 1211 Posts
Wednesday, April 03, 2013 4:58:01 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.

randomxnp
Male, 30-39, Europe
 1237 Posts
Wednesday, April 03, 2013 12:50:51 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!

randomxnp
Male, 30-39, Europe
 1237 Posts
Wednesday, April 03, 2013 12:49:47 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?

randomxnp
Male, 30-39, Europe
 1237 Posts
Wednesday, April 03, 2013 12:47:18 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.

randomxnp
Male, 30-39, Europe
 1237 Posts
Wednesday, April 03, 2013 12:44:09 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.

randomxnp
Male, 30-39, Europe
 1237 Posts
Wednesday, April 03, 2013 12:42:35 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

randomxnp
Male, 30-39, Europe
 1237 Posts
Wednesday, April 03, 2013 12:36:48 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.


madduck
Female, 50-59, Europe
 5621 Posts
Tuesday, April 02, 2013 11:40:12 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...

chalket
Male, 50-59, Southern US
 2481 Posts
Tuesday, April 02, 2013 10:46:49 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.

5Cats
Male, 50-59, Canada
 24999 Posts
Tuesday, April 02, 2013 10:44:06 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...

5Cats
Male, 50-59, Canada
 24999 Posts
Tuesday, April 02, 2013 10:37:26 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!

5Cats
Male, 50-59, Canada
 24999 Posts
Tuesday, April 02, 2013 10:31:12 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...

5Cats
Male, 50-59, Canada
 24999 Posts
Tuesday, April 02, 2013 10:04:40 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...

chalket
Male, 50-59, Southern US
 2481 Posts
Tuesday, April 02, 2013 9:41:55 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.

chalket
Male, 50-59, Southern US
 2481 Posts
Tuesday, April 02, 2013 9:30:27 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.

chalket
Male, 50-59, Southern US
 2481 Posts
Tuesday, April 02, 2013 8:44:33 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!

Howler81
Male, 30-39, Southern US
 298 Posts
Tuesday, April 02, 2013 8:41:06 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.

5Cats
Male, 50-59, Canada
 24999 Posts
Tuesday, April 02, 2013 3:48:45 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...

5Cats
Male, 50-59, Canada
 24999 Posts
Tuesday, April 02, 2013 3:42:38 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

chalket
Male, 50-59, Southern US
 2481 Posts
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 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.

Page: 1 2 3 Next > 

You Must be Signed in to Add a Comment

If you've already got an I-Am-Bored.com account,
click here to sign in.

If you don't have an account yet,
Click Here to Create a Free Account
 

Back to Listing ^top


Bored | Suggest a Link | Advertise | Contact I Am Bored | About I Am Bored | Link to I Am Bored | Live Submission | Privacy | TOS | Ad Choices | Copyright Policy |
© 2014 Demand Media, Inc. All rights reserved.