Are Greenies the new fundamentalist nutjobs?

[manarak]

And don't forget the nutters who claim that cars needing to reload for 6 hours before being able to cover another 300 Km are a great thing!

Hydrogen seems to be the most promising alternative to fossil fuels to me, since it is 100% clean.

Now we only need to find enough energy to make the hydrogen.

I too see no other solution than nuclear power at the moment, but we better the damn thing right.
Radiation is nasty, the risk is real at the moment, as well as the unsolved problem of what to do with the waste.

[Tomcat]

(manarak @ Mar. 28 2011,17:53) Radiation is nasty, the risk is real at the moment, as well as the unsolved problem of what to do with the waste.

Coal related diseases and such kill around 9,000 in the USA alone per year and in China it must be 50,000. Nuclear comes out bottom for deaths per year and... Thorium does not give so much spent waste and most of the energy is released in the fusion ( or fission , i cant remember now , maybe the reactors are Hybrid) and so its cleaner. ( thats assuming the Thorium reactors get built en masse)

Actually you need a small amount of Uranium 233 to kickstart the Thorium but lets not get into to detail

The most abundant fuel is methane locked up in the ice. Once they figure how to cap the emissions its almost certain this will figure.. the Russians have most of it as well. it seems like Capture is the name of the game

Some big fortunes will be made in the next two decades thats a fact for those that get it right. Energy is the buzzword in many businesses now.

[manarak]

methane is still carbon-based and will release CO2

and... I don't need to explain how easier it is to clean up coal than radiation, do I?

[Tomcat]

If you read further you will that i stated " Capture" ( carbon capture) is the name of the game

The Capturing technology is where the big bucks are and The Russians and i think most countries with ice reserves are spending huge sums on this. Once this is solved there is huge potential

Of course they may start using it anyway and go fuck the planet..im not sure

[f0xxee]

I went to the trouble of researching deaths last year in the production of coal.
What I found was horrifying:
42 deaths in the USA alone.
29 deaths in NZ
China had over 2500 deaths.

That is production only. Since the year 2000 China has racked up over 20,000 deaths... or at least the recorded deaths.

I am a happy hydrocarbon worker. I work in Oil production offshore.

There are cleaner fuels than Coal, as Manarak has noted Methane (Natural Gas) is one of them. But as he rightly states, its still a hydrocarbon.

Steam from geysers and thermal reservoirs has potential but again it takes massive amounts of superheated steam to drive industrial capacity turbines.

Nuclear seems to be the only option. While I salute those trying to derive power from water, I still think of hydrogen as dangerous.

[Bumpa STIKKA]

I think that the only way we can really save our planet is to buy a bag with "I'm going green!" written on it.

[Tomcat]

(f0xxee @ Mar. 28 2011,19:17) I went to the trouble of researching deaths last year in the production of coal.
What I found was horrifying:
42 deaths in the USA alone.

Thats in the mine itself, related diseases account for 9,000. It was in the news yesterday...unless i heard it wrong

[f0xxee]

Hi Tomcat,

Yes I am sure you are right re the 9000 related deaths. I chose the deaths during production figures simply because they are hard numbers, and cannot be argued. (As in there was a physical body count.)

I dont want to be morbid about this, but after 250 years of coal production we haven't come far since the Davy Lamp of the early 1800's, given that the disaster in NZ that claimed 29 lives was the result of methane. As for figures in China?

Deaths peaking 2002-2003 with 6700 odd deaths per year (note these are directly due to mining activities, not knock on diseases) and still stands at around 2500 REPORTED deaths in 2010, although it appears it could be as high as 10,000.

Now as catastrophic as Nuclear appears.... compare the cost in lives of mining coal alone against that of the worst Nuclear disasters to date, and the figures point to Nuclear as being the safer and more practical alternative.

As for the waste issue? That one I really dont know about. Can only hope.

[Tomcat]

The problem with the Green Movement is that they have tacked somekind of moral crusade onto an issue to which they have skewed the facts. Most science journals do not in fact exaggerate, its the ultra green loonies and others that are responsible

anway
David Hume famously said " you cant get an ought from an is" and i 100% agree. I understand some of the science but i have no big axe to grind. My Carbon footprint is huge and i dont lose sleep

Personally i am a bit green when it comes to Animals or Forests... but not people, far to many of them im afraid. Population growth is the biggest problem of all.

[manarak]

(f0xxee @ Mar. 28 2011,20:25) Now as catastrophic as Nuclear appears.... compare the cost in lives of mining coal alone against that of the worst Nuclear disasters to date, and the figures point to Nuclear as being the safer and more practical alternative.

I hope you are right...

The main difference with nuclear power is of course that if there is an accident in a coal mine, the thing can be rebuilt or at least the space used for something else, and we are able to filter out most pollution caused by mining coal.
With nuclear power, the problem would be that disasters STACK, i.e. each disaster adds to the radiation contamination, we can't filter it out very well and must wait about 20.000 years for some isotopes to reduce their rediation by half.
So, with every disaster we would add the radiation contamination of water, oceans, etc.

Not only that, but there are also the inhabitable zones as well as the waste problem.

Japan will be a nice demonstration of what can happen.

[strocube]

(f0xxee @ Mar. 28 2011,05:58)

(strocube @ Mar. 28 2011,01:04) Foxxee, your post flat out states that anyone who suggests that we need to take into account the effects of our actions on the environment is somehow a deranged fundamentalist fear monger pushing dubious science in the interest of maintaing their own authority. That position is clearly an oversimplification of the facts.

Hi Strocube,

Actually no I didn't. What I suggested was that many greenies brook no argument contrary to thiers, a point you have just made more than adqequately for me.

Can you refute the fact that while greens arrive in parliment on an environmental platform, they are unfortunately allowed to take their crayons and mark ballot papers on issues such as economics and defense?

No you can't. You have immediately ignored the whole point of my post to take the "If they are not with me they are my enemy" stance.

Re: Tomcat: Fossil Fuels are running out for sure: but not in my lifetime, or the next generations either.
And what will make the change to cleaner fuels will not be scarcity but the accompanying economic truth that scarcity leads to an increase in value. It will be capitalism that drives a green revolution, not weird beards in badly knitted cardigans.

The fact is, if you want to have a transport infrstructure, manufacture anything bigger than a tin of beans, smelt steel and for that matter, build wind generators, then wind and solar power are NOT going to cut it. It takes real electricity to achieve the above, MegaAmps not milliAmps.

So guys get used to it. Nuclear is the future. Unless you think wooden ships and ox carts are the way to travel the globe. And kiss air-travel goodbye. As I see it air travel will be the domain of the rich, who can afford ticket prices driven by the last remaining hydrocarbons.

Where to begin?

I see, because I take exception to your sweeping generalizations that somehow means that [i]"Like religious fundamentalists cannot ever be contradicted in public by a public official without crying foul, rape, and bunny-hater, and they demand to be pandered to."
I have not made a your point for you. I simply disagree.

I cannot refute any facts that I am unaware of. I have no idea about Australian politics. This is not something I have ever bothered to research.

Can you refute the fact that you would rather breath clean air than toxic shite?

I have never called you any enemy; dude, I don't even know you. I thought we were having a discussion about an issue that you posted. FFS, it was you who asked, "what do you think?" I told you what I thought, and you accuse me being fundamentalist, environmental extremist. Really, who is being irrational here?

I have seen the benefits of environmental regulations with my own eyes, in my own lifetime. Shitty as it is, our air here in LA has gotten cleaner due to the efforts of environmentalists. This is an irrefutable fact.

I realize that smog is a different issue than global warming, but nonetheless, it is an environmental issue that has been positively affected by environmental interventions.

[strocube]

(Bumpa STIKKA @ Mar. 28 2011,07:31)

(strocube @ Mar. 28 2011,01:04) the fact is, the planet is getting warmer...

No it isn't.

Yes it is.

I don't know why I bother, but here's a link form well known group of tree-hugging, smelly hippie, nature obsessed, fear mongering fundamentalist, buzz-kill extremists, who just wanna take away all your conveniences because they hate to see anyone enjoying themselves. The National academy of Sciences.


http://culturekitchen.com/mole333...._option

Oh yeah, I almost forgot, we can't take them seriously because we all know facts have a liberal bias.  

[manarak]

(strocube @ Mar. 29 2011,03:19)

(Bumpa STIKKA @ Mar. 28 2011,07:31)

(strocube @ Mar. 28 2011,01:04) the fact is, the planet is getting warmer...

No it isn't.

Yes it is.

actually I believe the correct stance on this question is "we don't really know".

there has been a trend of warming, but as far as I understood, the trend is not statistically significant within the history of temparatures.

[manarak]

I just had another thought: the best location to build a new reactor in Japan would be right on top of the old one once that one in encased in concrete!

Not only would the building be higher, so it would be protected against Tsunamis, but there would be less ground wasted, and if there is again a similar accident, the new radiation will just cover the old one.

that's a win-win situation

[f0xxee]

(manarak @ Mar. 29 2011,04:37)

(strocube @ Mar. 29 2011,03:19)

(Bumpa STIKKA @ Mar. 28 2011,07:31)

(strocube @ Mar. 28 2011,01:04) the fact is, the planet is getting warmer...

No it isn't.

Yes it is.

actually I believe the correct stance on this question is "we don't really know".

there has been a trend of warming, but as far as I understood, the trend is not statistically significant within the history of temparatures.

Again I agree with Manarak. (Scary for both of us no doubt!)

The fact is we don't really know.

Is the earth gettting warmer in 2011? Undoubtedly yes. But is this a caused by mans impact, or is it part of a cooling/heating cycle that has been occuring for eons?

And that is my point. The earth has a history or warming and cooling, of creating high levels of CO2 and then high levels of O2... if it hadn't you and I would be mere bacteria in a pond somewhere.

Face it: we are inordinately lucky to be here at all, in the perfect time where the balance is just right to sustain human life.

Strocube, dont mean to piss you off. But I still feel you are missing my point, which is that a Green Platform does not make a rounded polititcian capable of having a vote on important matters other than the environment.

The first anti-pollution movie I ever saw was in the International School of Kuala Lumpur in 1973, and it talked about the pollution in Lake Eerie and dioxins. Heady stuff for its day, and I have never forgotten it. And yes, I agree that pollution is an issue, and every time I drive into BKK and note that I cannot see across the city more than 2 kilometers I curse the deisel trucks in this country.

Do I hate the green movement? NO. Only the fundamentalist mentality.

Let me give you an example. Sea-Sheppard.

I am a third generation merchant seaman. I have also spent my career on the ocean. And I believe that what SS do in the Antartic to save the whales is piracy. Pure and simple.

Now I also happen to like whales. I doubt there is a sea-farer alive that doesn't rush to grab binoculars and take time out to enjoy their regal passing. I also like sharks, sea birds and the rest and deplore the amount of plastic I see in growing abundance everyday.

What I don't like is fat cunts like that Captain breaking the law, an old, immutable law created for the safety of those on an innocent passage. He is involved in an extremely dangerous game, one where his bright eyed crew of bushy bearded young radicals on the whole don't have a clue (or from what I seen on Teev, a certificate of competancy) between them of the dangers.

Two wrongs dont make a right. The Japanese whalers are morally wrong but unfortunately acting within the law. Sea Shepard is not.

Just because you drive a Prius doesnt give you the right to board my ship.