 |
Search Sci.Electronics.Basics |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Sci.Electronics.Basics -> No One Ever Said Post Peak Oil Would Be A Rose Garden
There are 43 messages in this thread.
You are currently looking at messages 1 to 20.
|
|
|
If you don't like my solutions then post your own.
Either lead follow or get out of the way.
Bret Cahill
|
|
|
|
Author: Rod SpeedDate: 19:25 27-07-08
|
|
You wouldnt know what a real rose garden was if you fell into it.
BretCahill@peoplepc.com wrote:
> If you don't like my solutions then post your own.
Or piss on your stupid wanking from a great height.
> Either lead follow or get out of the way.
Let go of your dick before you end up completely blind, child.
|
|
|
|
Author: Rod SpeedDate: 19:37 27-07-08
|
|
BretCahill@peoplepc.com wrote:
> If you don't like my solutions then post your own.
Already did that.
Biodiesel for farming.
LPG and CNG for cars.
Exploit the oil sands and shale oil when the price of oil stays high enough for long
enough to make that economically
viable.
Convert coal to liquid fuel when the price of oil stays high enough for long enough to
make that economically viable.
Replace coal fired power stations with nukes if you care about the CO2 emissions from
power stations.
Heat houses with electricty from nukes so the LPG and CNG can be used as a transport
fuel.
Generate hydrogen using nukes when the price of LPG and CNG is getting high enough to
make that economically viable.
Dont bother with solar when on the grid unless its cheaper than power
from nukes and that has to allow for the fact that is mostly not available
when its most in demand in most modern first world countrys.
Use solar in some non grid situations like RVs running on biodiesel or LPG or CNG to run
the engine.
|
|
|
|
Author: Robert CohenDate: 20:14 27-07-08
|
|
On Jul 27, 7:19=A0pm, BretCah...@peoplepc.com wrote:
> If you don't like my solutions then post your own.
>
> Either lead follow or get out of the way.
>
> Bret Cahill
re: what to do immediately, then asap thereafter
Immediately if not sooner, "explicitly incentivized" carpooling, which
i've pushef for ad nauseam, though here's it again, two-thirds down
the page
http://hometown.aol.com/__121b_jp62FVbkQiq65VmOdYqjhKor5EGWYhVZLB6sTLqP/Ci=
ij9hJ31n6zA=3D=3D
T. Boone Pickens' natural gas conversions for trucks, busses, and
"goods carriers" appeals to me as something radical that can be done
for sure
Pickens' wind energy is ok by me too, tho "not in my backyard" people
do seem to hate the ugly esthetic and whiny noise
the apparently many universities that are concentrating on various
alternative energy ideas is GOOD
infrastructure improvements a-plenty
re ALASKA-ARCTIC, FLORIDA, CALIF, ETAL these oughta at least allow
maximal seismic and other oil & natual gas TESTINGS off their semi
pristine coasts, and plans at least need be readied if the "energy
war" requires such, and it currently appears to me that it certainly
does, as we devolve into recession-depression
<wacky playboy & genius Howard Hiughes should be brought back from the
dead so he could invent some other drilling breakthrough>
an efficient, safe nuclear power plant table model should be ready
too, via virtual puterizing and super-computer fact sorting out and
distilling
it's time to employ quality personnel whom know how to do it w/o all
the corruption, fuckk-ups and over runs
the cost over runs appear to me to be njormative, disingenuous rip-off
by the power companies, contractors and unions involved
coal--->scrubbed semi-clean & gasolene, jet fuel, blah, blah ditto the
similar above b.s.
so,yeah, i am coping out
in other words, i dunno
since the voters have rejecected me (my innocuous ideas) about using
prisoners and the chronically unemployed to make solar stuff two or
three decades ago, then the "energy defense" or "energy war" is not
my
decision to make anyway
as usual, usa society appears to me to be "gridlocked" in endless
argumentation, admittedly all the sides have good ideas with
contradictions
|
|
|
|
Author: Rod SpeedDate: 20:52 27-07-08
|
|
Robert Cohen <robtcohen@msn.com> wrote
> BretCah...@peoplepc.com wrote
>> If you don't like my solutions then post your own.
>> Either lead follow or get out of the way.
> re: what to do immediately, then asap thereafter
> Immediately if not sooner, "explicitly incentivized" carpooling,
No need to do that, it will happen when the price of gasoline gets high enough.
> which i've pushef for ad nauseam, though here's it again, two-thirds down the page
>
http://hometown.aol.com/__121b_jp62FVbkQiq65VmOdYqjhKor5EGWYhVZLB6sTLqP/Ciij9hJ31n6zA==
> T. Boone Pickens' natural gas conversions for trucks, busses, and "goods
> carriers" appeals to me as something radical that can be done for sure
Not practical with diesel engines.
> Pickens' wind energy is ok by me too,
No thanks, complete waste of time if you're on the grid.
> tho "not in my backyard" people do seem to hate the ugly esthetic and
whiny noise
> the apparently many universities that are concentrating
> on various alternative energy ideas is GOOD
Nope, makes a lot more sense to move to nukes instead.
> infrastructure improvements a-plenty
> re ALASKA-ARCTIC, FLORIDA, CALIF, ETAL these oughta at least
> allow maximal seismic and other oil & natual gas TESTINGS off their
> semi pristine coasts, and plans at least need be readied if the
> "energy war" requires such, and it currently appears to me
> that it certainlydoes, as we devolve into recession-depression
That last isnt going to happen.
> <wacky playboy & genius Howard Hiughes should be brought back
> from the dead so he could invent some other drilling breakthrough>
Too dead.
> an efficient, safe nuclear power plant table model should be ready too,
Its here now.
> via virtual puterizing and super-computer fact sorting out and
> distilling it's time to employ quality personnel whom know how
> to do it w/o all the corruption, fuckk-ups and over runs the cost
> over runs appear to me to be njormative, disingenuous rip-off
> by the power companies, contractors and unions involved
What we do need is nukes that cant be used for producing
weapons and those can be sold to the countrys that cant be
trusted with nukes that can be used to produce weapons.
> coal--->scrubbed semi-clean & gasolene, jet fuel, blah, blah ditto the
similar above b.s.
> so,yeah, i am coping out
> in other words, i dunno
> since the voters have rejecected me (my innocuous ideas)
> about using prisoners and the chronically unemployed to
> make solar stuff two or three decades ago,
Nukes made a hell of a lot more sense then.
> then the "energy defense" or "energy war" is not my decision to
make anyway
> as usual, usa society appears to me to be "gridlocked" in endless
> argumentation, admittedly all the sides have good ideas with contradictions
And it will all get sorted out when the oil price gets high enough.
|
|
|
|
Author: Robert CohenDate: 21:44 27-07-08
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
> You wouldnt know what a real rose garden was if you fell into it.
I'll have you know that phosphoric acid is good for roses which thrive
in low pH soil..
Bret Cahill
|
|
|
|
|
|
If some farmer balks at electric tractors I just pull out my team of
oxen and say, "go crazy."
Then I stagger around behind the oxen for a few minutes.
Then I tell them,
"Cheap oil = easy street"
"Expensive oil = full employment"
You can get middle school students to shut up with that one.
Bret Cahill
|
|
|
|
Author: V for VendicarDate: 22:56 27-07-08
|
|
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
> Or piss on your stupid wanking from a great height.
Oh look, another RepubliKKKan Turd with a sexual Fetish.
This one for water sports, and probably scat too.
So Pissboy ROD, if that is your real name.... Which do you like better,
EuroScat, AmeriKKKanScat, or JapScat?
Fatherland Security needs to know.
|
|
|
|
Author: Rod SpeedDate: 23:41 27-07-08
|
|
BretCahill@peoplepc.com wrote:
>> You wouldnt know what a real rose garden was if you fell into it.
> I'll have you know that phosphoric acid is good for roses which thrive in low pH
soil..
Pathetic.
|
|
|
|
Author: Rod SpeedDate: 23:43 27-07-08
|
|
Robert Cohen <robtcohen@msn.com> wrote:
> "Oil price maintenance" is as constitutional as everything
> else, so it's not per se a legalistic thing; thoough wouldn't
> the public de-ball any politician that endorses such ?
Unlikely that any politician would actually be that stupid.
> though this article seems very sensible, it ain't gonna be, unless
> by intellectual subtefuge thru p.r. with convoluted machinations
>
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_31/b4094000658012.htm?chan=magazine+channe
l_top+stories
Taint gunna happen anyway.
|
|
|
|
Author: Rod SpeedDate: 23:44 27-07-08
|
|
BretCahill@peoplepc.com wrote:
> If some farmer balks at electric tractors I just pull out my team of oxen and say,
"go crazy."
> Then I stagger around behind the oxen for a few minutes.
Been having those pathetic little drug crazed fantasys long, child ?
> Then I tell them,
> "Cheap oil = easy street"
> "Expensive oil = full employment"
> You can get middle school students to shut up with that one.
Been having those pathetic little drug crazed fantasys long, child ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
> Taint gunna happen anyway.
Sticking yer head in the sand and denying reality does _not_ change
reality.
Bret Cahill
|
|
|
|
Author: Rod SpeedDate: 00:25 28-07-08
|
|
BretCahill@peoplepc.com wrote:
>> Taint gunna happen anyway.
> Sticking yer head in the sand and denying reality does _not_ change reality.
You wouldnt know what reality was if it bit you on your lard arse, child.
|
|
|
|
Author: ImmortalistDate: 00:48 28-07-08
|
|
On Jul 27, 4:37 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> BretCah...@peoplepc.com wrote:
> > If you don't like my solutions then post your own.
>
> Already did that.
>
> Biodiesel for farming.
>
> LPG and CNG for cars.
>
> Exploit the oil sands and shale oil when the price of oil stays high enou=
gh for long enough to make that economically
> viable.
>
> Convert coal to liquid fuel when the price of oil stays high enough for l=
ong enough to make that economically viable.
>
> Replace coal fired power stations with nukes if you care about the CO2 em=
issions from power stations.
>
> Heat houses with electricty from nukes so the LPG and CNG can be used as =
a transport fuel.
>
> Generate hydrogen using nukes when the price of LPG and CNG is getting hi=
gh enough to make that economically viable.
>
> Dont bother with solar when on the grid unless its cheaper than power
> from nukes and that has to allow for the fact that is mostly not availabl=
e
> when its most in demand in most modern first world countrys.
>
> Use solar in some non grid situations like RVs running on biodiesel or LP=
G or CNG to run the engine.
I like your approach man. Some of your response styles if tweaked
could help you win alot of debates easily with the facts and clear
persuasive arguments. Maybe build up a text database with responses
and data supporting arguments. How would you defend your position on
nuclear when someone comes up with these attacks?
=2E..Critics claim that nuclear power is a potentially dangerous and
decline [66]energy source, with decreasing proportion of nuclear
energy in power production, and dispute whether the risks can be
reduced through new technology. Critics also point to the problem of
storing radioactive waste, the potential for possibly severe
radioactive contamination by accident or sabotage, the possibility of
nuclear proliferation and the disadvantages of centralized electrical
production...
=2E..The primary environmental impacts of nuclear power include Uranium
mining, radioactive effluent emissions, and waste heat...
=2E..Greenpeace has produced a report titled An American Chernobyl:
Nuclear =93Near Misses=94 at U.S. Reactors Since 1986 which "reveals that
nearly two hundred =93near misses=94 to nuclear meltdowns have occurred in
the United States". At almost 450 nuclear plants in the world that
risk is greatly magnified, they say. This is not to mention numerous
incidents, many supposedly unreported, that have occurred. Another
report produced by Greenpeace called Nuclear Reactor Hazards: Ongoing
Dangers of Operating Nuclear Technology in the 21st Century claims
that risk of a major accident has increased in the past years...
=2E..Nuclear proliferation is the spread of nuclear weapons and related
technology to nations not recognized as "Nuclear Weapon States" by the
Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Since the days of the Manhattan
Project it has been known that reactors could be used for weapons-
development purposes=97the first nuclear reactors were developed for
exactly this reason=97as the operation of a nuclear reactor converts
U-238 into plutonium. As a consequence, since the 1950s there have
been concerns about the possibility of using reactors as a dual-use
technology, whereby apparently peaceful technological development
could serve as an approach to nuclear weapons capability...
=2E..An additional concern with nuclear power plants is that if the by-
products of nuclear fission=97the nuclear waste generated by the plant=97
were to be unprotected it could be used as a radiological weapon,
colloquially known as a "dirty bomb"...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power
|
|
|
|
Author: Steve ThomasDate: 01:27 28-07-08
|
|
On Jul 28, 9:56=A0am, "V for Vendicar"
<Execute_The_Traitor_In_The_White_Ho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>
> > Or piss on your stupid wanking from a great height.
>
> =A0 Oh look, another RepubliKKKan Turd with a sexual Fetish.
>
> =A0 This one for water sports, and probably scat too.
>
> =A0 So Pissboy ROD, if that is your real name.... =A0Which do you like be=
tter,
> EuroScat, AmeriKKKanScat, or JapScat?
>
> =A0 Fatherland Security needs to know.
You are a congenital LLLLLLLLLLLLLIIIIIIIIIIAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRR
and URAH FUCKIN
=20
MMMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!=
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Author: zzbunker@netscape.netDate: 01:55 28-07-08
|
|
On Jul 27, 7:37=A0pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> BretCah...@peoplepc.com wrote:
> > If you don't like my solutions then post your own.
>
> Already did that.
>
> Biodiesel for farming.
>
> LPG and CNG for cars.
>
> Exploit the oil sands and shale oil when the price of oil stays high enou=
gh for long enough to make that economically
> viable.
>
> Convert coal to liquid fuel when the price of oil stays high enough for l=
ong enough to make that economically viable.
>
> Replace coal fired power stations with nukes if you care about the CO2 em=
issions from power stations.
>
> Heat houses with electricty from nukes so the LPG and CNG can be used as =
a transport fuel.
>
> Generate hydrogen using nukes when the price of LPG and CNG is getting hi=
gh enough to make that economically viable.
>
> Dont bother with solar when on the grid unless its cheaper than power
> from nukes and that has to allow for the fact that is mostly not availabl=
e
> when its most in demand in most modern first world countrys.
We don't bnother. That's why we built laser-guided bombs for the
idiots in the
first world counties, cruise missiles for the shale wanks, AI++++
for the
morons in washington, robots all the gas morons, and Wind Energy
that works
for the GM stooges, rather than solar.
>
> Use solar in some non grid situations like RVs running on biodiesel or LP=
G or CNG to run the engine.
|
|
|
|
Author: Uncle BenDate: 02:08 28-07-08
|
|
On Jul 28, 12:48=A0am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 27, 4:37 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > BretCah...@peoplepc.com wrote:
> > > If you don't like my solutions then post your own.
>
> > Already did that.
>
> > Biodiesel for farming.
>
> > LPG and CNG for cars.
>
> > Exploit the oil sands and shale oil when the price of oil stays high en=
ough for long enough to make that economically
> > viable.
>
> > Convert coal to liquid fuel when the price of oil stays high enough for=
long enough to make that economically viable.
>
> > Replace coal fired power stations with nukes if you care about the CO2 =
emissions from power stations.
>
> > Heat houses with electricty from nukes so the LPG and CNG can be used a=
s a transport fuel.
>
> > Generate hydrogen using nukes when the price of LPG and CNG is getting =
high enough to make that economically viable.
>
> > Dont bother with solar when on the grid unless its cheaper than power
> > from nukes and that has to allow for the fact that is mostly not availa=
ble
> > when its most in demand in most modern first world countrys.
>
> > Use solar in some non grid situations like RVs running on biodiesel or =
LPG or CNG to run the engine.
>
> I like your approach man. Some of your response styles if tweaked
> could help you win alot of debates easily with the facts and clear
> persuasive arguments. Maybe build up a text database with responses
> and data supporting arguments. How would you defend your position on
> nuclear when someone comes up with these attacks?
>
> ...Critics claim that nuclear power is a potentially dangerous and
> decline [66]energy source, with decreasing proportion of nuclear
> energy in power production, and dispute whether the risks can be
> reduced through new technology. Critics also point to the problem of
> storing radioactive waste, the potential for possibly severe
> radioactive contamination by accident or sabotage, the possibility of
> nuclear proliferation and the disadvantages of centralized electrical
> production...
>
> ...The primary environmental impacts of nuclear power include Uranium
> mining, radioactive effluent emissions, and waste heat...
>
> ...Greenpeace has produced a report titled An American Chernobyl:
> Nuclear =93Near Misses=94 at U.S. Reactors Since 1986 which "reveals that
> nearly two hundred =93near misses=94 to nuclear meltdowns have occurred i=
n
> the United States". At almost 450 nuclear plants in the world that
> risk is greatly magnified, they say. This is not to mention numerous
> incidents, many supposedly unreported, that have occurred. Another
> report produced by Greenpeace called Nuclear Reactor Hazards: Ongoing
> Dangers of Operating Nuclear Technology in the 21st Century claims
> that risk of a major accident has increased in the past years...
>
> ...Nuclear proliferation is the spread of nuclear weapons and related
> technology to nations not recognized as "Nuclear Weapon States" by the
> Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Since the days of the Manhattan
> Project it has been known that reactors could be used for weapons-
> development purposes=97the first nuclear reactors were developed for
> exactly this reason=97as the operation of a nuclear reactor converts
> U-238 into plutonium. As a consequence, since the 1950s there have
> been concerns about the possibility of using reactors as a dual-use
> technology, whereby apparently peaceful technological development
> could serve as an approach to nuclear weapons capability...
>
> ...An additional concern with nuclear power plants is that if the by-
> products of nuclear fission=97the nuclear waste generated by the plant=97
> were to be unprotected it could be used as a radiological weapon,
> colloquially known as a "dirty bomb"...
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
IIRC the leader of Greenpeace has come out in favor of nuclear electrc
power.
No power source is without its downside, but if we don't come up soon
with something other than oil, the civilization of the world is going
to be set back 100 years, and the world's population is gong to shrink
correspondingly.
Many, many people are going to starve to death!
Balance the risks against that possibility.
Uncle Ben
|
|
|
|
Author: Rod SpeedDate: 02:12 28-07-08
|
|
Immortalist <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> BretCah...@peoplepc.com wrote
>>> If you don't like my solutions then post your own.
>> Already did that.
>> Biodiesel for farming.
>> LPG and CNG for cars.
>> Exploit the oil sands and shale oil when the price of oil stays
>> high enough for long enough to make that economically viable.
>> Convert coal to liquid fuel when the price of oil stays high
>> enough for long enough to make that economically viable.
>> Replace coal fired power stations with nukes if you
>> care about the CO2 emissions from power stations.
>> Heat houses with electricty from nukes so the
>> LPG and CNG can be used as a transport fuel.
>> Generate hydrogen using nukes when the price of LPG and
>> CNG is getting high enough to make that economically viable.
>> Dont bother with solar when on the grid unless its cheaper than power
>> from nukes and that has to allow for the fact that is mostly not available
>> when its most in demand in most modern first world countrys.
>> Use solar in some non grid situations like RVs running on biodiesel
>> or LPG or CNG to run the engine.
> I like your approach man. Some of your response
> styles if tweaked could help you win alot of debates
> easily with the facts and clear persuasive arguments.
Dont need any of that, the list above is fine.
> Maybe build up a text database with responses and data supporting arguments.
Dont need any of that either.
> How would you defend your position on nuclear
> when someone comes up with these attacks?
Point them at the French that have been doing it for a long time now
and currently generate around 75% of their electricity that way.
> ...Critics claim that nuclear power is a potentially dangerous
The french havent even had a major nuclear accident.
> and decline [66]energy source,
Irrelevant to what is clearly possible.
> with decreasing proportion of nuclear energy in power production,
Irrelevant to what is clearly possible.
> and dispute whether the risks can be reduced through new technology.
The french havent even had a major nuclear accident.
> Critics also point to the problem of storing radioactive waste,
Completely routine to do that.
> the potential for possibly severe radioactive contamination by accident or
sabotage,
The french havent even had a major nuclear accident.
> the possibility of nuclear proliferation
Irrelevant when used in the first world.
> and the disadvantages of centralized electrical production...
No such animal. Its the national grids that make it work so well.
> ...The primary environmental impacts of nuclear power include Uranium mining,
No worse than coal mining it replaces.
> radioactive effluent emissions,
Coal burning power stations emit even more
because of the radioactive stuff in the coal they burn.
> and waste heat...
Thats not a bad thing, its a good thing in areas what heat anyway.
> ...Greenpeace has produced a report titled An American Chernobyl:
> Nuclear “Near Misses” at U.S. Reactors Since 1986 which "reveals that
> nearly two hundred “near misses” to nuclear meltdowns have occurred in
> the United States".
Just more utterly silly Greenpiss lies.
> At almost 450 nuclear plants in the world that risk is greatly magnified, they say.
Just more utterly silly Greenpiss lies.
> This is not to mention numerous incidents, many supposedly unreported, that have
occurred.
Just more utterly silly Greenpiss lies.
> Another report produced by Greenpeace called Nuclear Reactor Hazards:
> Ongoing Dangers of Operating Nuclear Technology in the 21st Century
> claims that risk of a major accident has increased in the past years...
Just more utterly silly Greenpiss lies.
> ...Nuclear proliferation is the spread of nuclear weapons and related
> technology to nations not recognized as "Nuclear Weapon States" by
> the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
Irrelevant when used in the first world and places like china and india that have those
already.
> Since the days of the Manhattan Project it has been known
> that reactors could be used for weapons- development purposes
> —the first nuclear reactors were developed for exactly this reason
> —as the operation of a nuclear reactor converts U-238 into plutonium.
Like I said, its desirable to develop nukes that cant be used for weapons production.
> As a consequence, since the 1950s there have been concerns
> about the possibility of using reactors as a dual-use technology,
> whereby apparently peaceful technological development
> could serve as an approach to nuclear weapons capability...
Like I said, its desirable to develop nukes that cant be used for weapons production.
> ...An additional concern with nuclear power plants is that if the
> by- products of nuclear fission—the nuclear waste generated
> by the plant— were to be unprotected it could be used as a
> radiological weapon, colloquially known as a "dirty bomb"...
Replacing the first world use of coal in electricity generation
with nukes and the two most populous countrys, wouldnt make
any difference to that because they have nukes already.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power
|
|
|
|
Author: ImmortalistDate: 02:23 28-07-08
|
|
On Jul 27, 11:12 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
>
>
> > Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
> >> BretCah...@peoplepc.com wrote
> >>> If you don't like my solutions then post your own.
> >> Already did that.
> >> Biodiesel for farming.
> >> LPG and CNG for cars.
> >> Exploit the oil sands and shale oil when the price of oil stays
> >> high enough for long enough to make that economically viable.
> >> Convert coal to liquid fuel when the price of oil stays high
> >> enough for long enough to make that economically viable.
> >> Replace coal fired power stations with nukes if you
> >> care about the CO2 emissions from power stations.
> >> Heat houses with electricty from nukes so the
> >> LPG and CNG can be used as a transport fuel.
> >> Generate hydrogen using nukes when the price of LPG and
> >> CNG is getting high enough to make that economically viable.
> >> Dont bother with solar when on the grid unless its cheaper than power
> >> from nukes and that has to allow for the fact that is mostly not avail=
able
> >> when its most in demand in most modern first world countrys.
> >> Use solar in some non grid situations like RVs running on biodiesel
> >> or LPG or CNG to run the engine.
> > I like your approach man. Some of your response
> > styles if tweaked could help you win alot of debates
> > easily with the facts and clear persuasive arguments.
>
> Dont need any of that, the list above is fine.
>
> > Maybe build up a text database with responses and data supporting argum=
ents.
>
> Dont need any of that either.
>
> > How would you defend your position on nuclear
> > when someone comes up with these attacks?
>
> Point them at the French that have been doing it for a long time now
> and currently generate around 75% of their electricity that way.
>
> > ...Critics claim that nuclear power is a potentially dangerous
>
> The french havent even had a major nuclear accident.
>
> > and decline [66]energy source,
>
> Irrelevant to what is clearly possible.
>
> > with decreasing proportion of nuclear energy in power production,
>
> Irrelevant to what is clearly possible.
>
> > and dispute whether the risks can be reduced through new technology.
>
> The french havent even had a major nuclear accident.
>
> > Critics also point to the problem of storing radioactive waste,
>
> Completely routine to do that.
>
> > the potential for possibly severe radioactive contamination by accident=
or sabotage,
>
> The french havent even had a major nuclear accident.
>
> > the possibility of nuclear proliferation
>
> Irrelevant when used in the first world.
>
> > and the disadvantages of centralized electrical production...
>
> No such animal. Its the national grids that make it work so well.
>
> > ...The primary environmental impacts of nuclear power include Uranium m=
ining,
>
> No worse than coal mining it replaces.
>
> > radioactive effluent emissions,
>
> Coal burning power stations emit even more
> because of the radioactive stuff in the coal they burn.
>
> > and waste heat...
>
> Thats not a bad thing, its a good thing in areas what heat anyway.
>
> > ...Greenpeace has produced a report titled An American Chernobyl:
> > Nuclear =93Near Misses=94 at U.S. Reactors Since 1986 which "reveals th=
at
> > nearly two hundred =93near misses=94 to nuclear meltdowns have occurred=
in
> > the United States".
>
> Just more utterly silly Greenpiss lies.
>
> > At almost 450 nuclear plants in the world that risk is greatly magnifie=
d, they say.
>
> Just more utterly silly Greenpiss lies.
>
> > This is not to mention numerous incidents, many supposedly unreported, =
that have occurred.
>
> Just more utterly silly Greenpiss lies.
>
> > Another report produced by Greenpeace called Nuclear Reactor Hazards:
> > Ongoing Dangers of Operating Nuclear Technology in the 21st Century
> > claims that risk of a major accident has increased in the past years...
>
> Just more utterly silly Greenpiss lies.
>
> > ...Nuclear proliferation is the spread of nuclear weapons and related
> > technology to nations not recognized as "Nuclear Weapon States" by
> > the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
>
> Irrelevant when used in the first world and places like china and india t=
hat have those already.
>
> > Since the days of the Manhattan Project it has been known
> > that reactors could be used for weapons- development purposes
> > =97the first nuclear reactors were developed for exactly this reason
> > =97as the operation of a nuclear reactor converts U-238 into plutonium.
>
> Like I said, its desirable to develop nukes that cant be used for weapons=
production.
>
> > As a consequence, since the 1950s there have been concerns
> > about the possibility of using reactors as a dual-use technology,
> > whereby apparently peaceful technological development
> > could serve as an approach to nuclear weapons capability...
>
> Like I said, its desirable to develop nukes that cant be used for weapons=
production.
>
> > ...An additional concern with nuclear power plants is that if the
> > by- products of nuclear fission=97the nuclear waste generated
> > by the plant=97 were to be unprotected it could be used as a
> > radiological weapon, colloquially known as a "dirty bomb"...
>
> Replacing the first world use of coal in electricity generation
> with nukes and the two most populous countrys, wouldnt make
> any difference to that because they have nukes already.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power
Just checking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contact | Electronic Portal
|
|
|
