37637598 on 25/1/2010 at 03:20
But of course it is. All the lead conspiracy guys from all of the different oil trading countries got together and unanimously decided that they were gonna work together to pretend the world is running out of oil so they could get more money from their people. That's what's going on right therrr.
Sulphur on 25/1/2010 at 05:53
I'd post a picture of Hubbert's pimple, but I don't have that kind of fetish. Plus who wants to see a goddamn pimple, amirite?
Fragony on 25/1/2010 at 08:46
Quote Posted by frozenman
As reasonable human beings, it shouldn't matter if the earth is actually warming or not, we should still be doing everything we can to limit pollution, use renewable energy, and generally not shit on the planet. RIGHT?
Sure it's called nuclear power, but that gets them all hysterical as well.
Namdrol on 25/1/2010 at 09:01
Well, how interesting.
How much do you know and understand about nuclear power?
How it actually works? What it does and what it takes to make it?
I mean really know? Not some reactionary nonsense.
And how much do you know about cost benefit analysis?
Life cycle costs? Primary, secondary and tertiary cost?
Now it's true that the really, really, really bad stuff wouldn't even fill a small hall (but don't put even a fraction of it next to another fraction of it).
But there's a whole range of nasties produced
And it's also true that nuclear power stations built with todays technology are very different beasts than the ones of old.
But you go on about tax dollars (yawn). How would you feel if a part of your wages were being taken to pay for the pyramids? And it's not a stupid analogy.
Do you have any clue what half life means except for a best selling game?
And why should we put ourselves through this when there are cheap, efficient alternatives?
Unless there is a weird clinging to idealogical standpoints. (And a need for the byproducts so we can kill more efficiently.)
Fragony on 25/1/2010 at 09:06
Alternatives like what? Over here they want to build windmills, but they are not worth it they are a nightmare to maintain, hardly any ouput, and ironically bad for nature as they chop up birds according to bird-protection.
Namdrol on 25/1/2010 at 09:20
Total lies but I wouldn't expect anything less.
The RSPB have estimated 1 or 2 birds per year per turbine if sited properly or off shore.
Hardly any output? That is one of the biggest total fucking bags of shite you've said so far in this thread and that really is saying something.
I'd provide references but what's the point?
Nightmare to maintain? What the fuck are you talking about?
You are seriously trying to say that a wind turbine is difficult to maintain compared to a fucking NUCLEAR POWER STATION.
SHUT THE FUCK UP
Fragony on 25/1/2010 at 09:35
according to bird-protection. <- read
They did a study here and it came out that they are not worth the trouble, conclusion was that they run on money not on wind, high costs, low output, dunno about the birds it's normal nature clubs scream bloody murder never checked the story. Can better put that money somewhere else, something that has use. And which incidently also isn't polluting the horizon. France is doing fine on nuclear.
SubJeff on 25/1/2010 at 09:59
Russia was doing fine on communism, the World was doing fine on the banking infrastructure 2 years ago, the Chinese were doing fine on the "melt all the metal" drive during the cultural revolution.
Get a brain.
I'm of the opinion that, in the right place, turbine and solar farms are spectacular and beautiful and I'm all for farming massive remote areas. Get the wave power going too and farm the seas.
Nuclear power is a nice idea but the type of pollution it produces is nasty shit. And we can't even launch it into space for fear of a launch malfunction.
Fragony on 25/1/2010 at 10:17
The chance one does the boom thing is soooo incredibly small, and if the concrete is thick enough it can easily be stored. One or two of these plants is enough for us, while we would need thousands of windmills. They also have to be made, these fuckers are huge and don't want to know how much metal we would need, and big moving parts are always high maintenance.
solar is an option for individual households though.
Muzman on 25/1/2010 at 10:20
(
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Fast_Reactor) These kinds of things coupled with the fifth generation techniques they're talking about (if they're compatable. Dunno myself) sound quite promising. The main concern is that it will want a base of enriched uranium to get going which will come out of the ground, and any large scale deployment will need lots (on the bright side Canada and Australia will have the world economy by the balls and we can make everyone chill the fuck out).
Domestically there's hope for removing houses from the grid altogether with some better solar. Industry still wants heaps, of course, but anyway. Geothermal is also pretty promising for large slabs of the world.
Maybe we can spend some of that ECONOMY DESTROYING EMISSIONS
TAX money, that the "we only want to stop hysteria and help people not be afraid" crowd go on about all the time, on develping these things.
