Discussion About Anti-Nuclear Energy/Arms Protest

Status
Not open for further replies.
But "Peak Oil" still sells books.


http://www.amazon.com/Hubberts-Peak-Impending-World-Shortage/dp/0691141193/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1433490633&sr=1-2&keywords=peak+oil


In 2001, Kenneth Deffeyes made a grim prediction: world oil production would reach a peak within the next decade--and there was nothing anyone could do to stop it. Deffeyes's claim echoed the work of geophysicist M. King Hubbert, who in 1956 predicted that U.S. oil production would reach its highest level in the early 1970s. Though roundly criticized by oil experts and economists, Hubbert's prediction came true in 1970.
 
The costs of extracting oil are increasing, particularly from tar sands. Expect to see a massive hike in the price once the tar sands are exhausted which will be in about 10-15 years if I recall correctly. Once that happens, the world's economy will change irrevocably unless non-fossil, non-nuclear alternatives have been invested in. Essentially we are reaching the Peak Oil cliff edge.
 
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-10/u-s-ousts-russia-as-world-s-top-oil-gas-producer-in-bp-report
 
http://www.space.com/4968-titan-oil-earth.html

Run out of hydrocarbons on earth in a couple hundred years we have Titan to mine.
 
bobbymike said:
http://www.space.com/4968-titan-oil-earth.html

Run out of hydrocarbons on earth in a couple hundred years we have Titan to mine.

The problem is not running out of fossil fuels, it is in their cost to extract...
 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11718550/Why-are-greens-so-keen-to-destroy-the-worlds-wildlife.html

turbine_county_fracking_county_scr.jpg
 
bobbymike said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11718550/Why-are-greens-so-keen-to-destroy-the-worlds-wildlife.html

turbine_county_fracking_county_scr.jpg

Still waiting for KadjaMan/HotBreath to tell us when he's moving to a wind turbine farm. ;)
 
bobbymike said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11718550/Why-are-greens-so-keen-to-destroy-the-worlds-wildlife.html

turbine_county_fracking_county_scr.jpg

Of course, your cartoon ignores the pollution that fracking causes to ground water, which in turn prevents people living anywhere near to the fracked well, and of course, pollutes any agriculture or wild plants/animals nearby to it as well. The problem of birds being killed by Windfarms is over-stated by Windfarm critics. The smart ones survive. Just think of it as evolution in action.

Your cartoon also fails to take into account the CO^2 and other greenhouse gases that are released by the fracking well, as against those that are not released by the Windfarm. This of course has long-term consequences for the environment.
 
I know right?

I remember watching a wind farm documentary where a couple of people walked around planting 'Windmill Seeds" into the dirt and the windmills just grew naturally like a beautiful oak tree.

There were no factories producing them, aluminum or steel smelters and rare earth metal mines in third would hell holes there was just Johnny 'Windmill Seed" skipping through the forest as he 'grew' natural windmills in the wild.

http://www.madehow.com/Volume-1/Wind-Turbine.html
 
http://www.nei.org/News-Media/News/News-Archives/Nuclear-Power-Plants-Are-Compact,-Efficient-and-Re

A nuclear energy facility has a small area footprint, requiring about 1.3 square miles per 1,000 megawatts of installed capacity. This figure is based on the median land area of the 59 nuclear plant sites in the United States. In addition, nuclear energy facilities have an average capacity factor of 90 percent, much higher than intermittent sources like wind and solar.

By contrast, wind farm capacity factors range from 32 to 47 percent, depending on differences in wind resources in a given area and improvements in turbine technology. Solar PV capacity factors also vary based on location and technology, from 17 to 28 percent.

Taking these factors into account, a wind farm would need an installed capacity between 1,900 megawatts and 2,800 MW to generate the same amount of electricity in a year as a 1,000-MW nuclear energy facility. Such a facility would require between 260 square miles and 360 square miles of land.

A solar PV facility must have an installed capacity of 3,300 MW and 5,400 MW to match a 1,000-MW nuclear facility’s output, requiring between 45 and 75 square miles.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why the former founder and head of Greenpeace said, "If you are for reducing carbon emissions and against nuclear power you are not a serious person"
 
http://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/OPEC-Get-Ready-For-The-Second-US-Oil-Boom.html
 
http://digg.com/2015/how-dangerous-is-radiation

To appreciate the measure of our hot-button fixation with radioactivity, recall the events of 2011 in Japan. The magnitude 9 earthquake and subsequent tsunami that hit the country on 11 March was by any measure a disaster. 20,000 people died and more than 500 square kilometers of land were flooded. Families lost their homes, their businesses and their livelihoods.

It didn’t take long for the media to discover that one of the casualties, in pole position when the tsunami struck, was the Fukushima nuclear power station. From that moment the story ceased to be about a natural event and became, in effect, about a man-made one. It became that chilling scenario: a nuclear disaster.

Of the 20,000 deaths, some were directly due to the earthquake itself, while others were caused by drowning. How many deaths were the result of radiation from the damaged plant? None. In its section on the health consequences of the Fukushima tragedy, the report by the UN’s Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation says: “No radiation-related deaths or acute diseases have been observed among the workers and general public exposed to radiation from the accident.”

The dose to the public, the report goes on to say, was generally low or very low. “No discernible increased incidence of radiation-related health effects are expected among exposed members of the public or their descendants.”
 
"Imagine if we treated fire in the same way as all things nuclear: we would have responded to house fires by banning matches."

And that's no lie there. One only has to observe the Gun-Control lunatics.
 
bobbymike said:
The dose to the public, the report goes on to say, was generally low or very low. “No discernible increased incidence of radiation-related health effects are expected among exposed members of the public or their descendants.”
Most of the inhabitants of the affected area were evacuated in a hurry. That helped.
 
Arjen said:
bobbymike said:
The dose to the public, the report goes on to say, was generally low or very low. “No discernible increased incidence of radiation-related health effects are expected among exposed members of the public or their descendants.”
Most of the inhabitants of the affected area were evacuated in a hurry. That helped.

And yet the headlines are about the "horrors" of the "Fukushima meltdown" not the 20,000 dead from the tsunami.
 
http://www.nei.org/Master-Document-Folder/Backgrounders/Fact-Sheets/Nuclear-Energy-America-s-Low-Carbon-Electricity-Le
 
"Nuclear energy’s high efficiency enabled it in 2013 to avoid nearly five times more carbon emissions than wind power." B)
 
sferrin said:
"Nuclear energy’s high efficiency enabled it in 2013 to avoid nearly five times more carbon emissions than wind power." B)
Why I constantly quote the former founder of Greenpeace.........so I will do it again, Those who are for reducing carbon emissions and against nuclear power are not to be taken seriously.
 
https://pubsecrets.wordpress.com/2015/07/18/green-fail-windfarms-contaminate-the-water-supply/
 
http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/07/lpp-fusion-has-resumed-dense-plasma.html
 
Kadija_Man said:


Thanks for the link. This was interesting:


They might look like deformed victims of a nuclear disaster, but these daisies are likely the result of a rare, but natural condition called fasciation, or crested growth. This can happen when the parts of a growing embryo fuse abnormally, resulting in a flattened-looking stem. And oftentimes, flowers and leaves will develop unusual shapes and show up at odd angles to that stem. As gardeners will tell you, fasciated plants are not exclusive to disaster sites. The causes of this condition range from infections and severe pruning to hormonal imbalances and (run-of-the-mill) genetic mutations.

So, probably not caused by radiation.


FINAL EDIT: I am leaving the markup that the editing process dumps into what should be a simple edit because I am sick of having such crap appear in every post that I have to make an edit on.
 
Huh! And then the markup disappears with my final edit, which did not address the markup at all!
 
starviking said:
Kadija_Man said:


Thanks for the link. This was interesting:

Any time.

They might look like deformed victims of a nuclear disaster, but these daisies are likely the result of a rare, but natural condition called fasciation, or crested growth. This can happen when the parts of a growing embryo fuse abnormally, resulting in a flattened-looking stem. And oftentimes, flowers and leaves will develop unusual shapes and show up at odd angles to that stem. As gardeners will tell you, fasciated plants are not exclusive to disaster sites. The causes of this condition range from infections and severe pruning to hormonal imbalances and (run-of-the-mill) genetic mutations.

So, probably not caused by radiation.

Possibly, possibly but then again, it is unusual for a large number of daisies to all be created deformed just where a radioactive disaster has occurred, don't you think? I would suggest that it is too early to decide that radiation has had no effects on the plants and animals of Japan.
 
Kadija_Man said:
Possibly, possibly but then again, it is unusual for a large number of daisies to all be created deformed just where a radioactive disaster has occurred, don't you think? I would suggest that it is too early to decide that radiation has had no effects on the plants and animals of Japan.


But it's not a large number. And Japan is awash with people with smartphones, snapping pics all the time. 4 years since the accident, and we have pics of a few flowers - pics similar to those which other people take all over the world, of a condition which is not normally attributed to radiation.


There was a British TV show called "That's life!" which had a segment where people would send in pics of deformed fruit and vegetables whose form resembled other everyday things. Same causes, and that segment was as newsworthy as this flowers story, i.e. not very.
 
http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/08/china-will-start-construction-of-600.html
 
Relative footprints

CPdo_D1WIAAJ0yc.png


Is wind and solar even a discussion at this point?
 
bobbymike said:
Relative footprints

You need to take into account their Twitter footprints. Its rather misguided these days just to take into account metrics that exist in the objective, rational (ie real) world. :-[
 
http://www.popsci.com/chernobyl-site-worlds-worst-nuclear-disaster-in-history-has-become-sanctuary-teeming-with-wildlife?image=0%3Fsrc%3DSOC&dom=fb

Scientists and researchers thought the damages to wildlife populations in the area would be long-lasting, but a paper published in Current Biology today suggests otherwise. Extensive field research and data collection carried out over a period of years by a team of international researchers indicates—for the first time—that numbers of mammalian species have bounced back in a big way despite nearly three decades of chronic radiation exposure. What’s more, coauthor Jim Smith of Portsmouth University in the UK says that “We’re pretty confident that before the accident, there weren’t these kinds of wildlife numbers in the zone.”

The study found that the relative abundances of moose, roe deer, red deer, and wild boar in the exclusion zone mimic those of four other uncontaminated reserves in the surrounding region in both Ukraine and Belarus. Populations of wolves are seven times higher than the surrounding reserves. The authors think that the abundant populations of prey species and the absence of humans attracted the large numbers of wolves from other areas. Smith adds that although some of these findings may seem surprising, they weren’t as surprising as you’d think. “What’s important to recognize is that in most of the exclusion zone, we’re down to very low dose rates” he says. So, “In some sense, we weren’t [surprised], because, we wouldn’t necessarily expect to see severe effects that would damage populations—we might expect to see effects on individual animals, but not on populations.”
 
But... but, everybody knows any nuclear accident whatsoever would render the entire region as lifeless as the surface of the moon for millions of years.
 
sferrin said:
But... but, everybody knows any nuclear accident whatsoever would render the entire region as lifeless as the surface of the moon for millions of years.

Only in the popular imagination, fed by 1950s Hollywood B grade movies about nuclear war.

What we are not seeing is long-term analysis of the effects of higher radiation and if any increased rates of cancer are evident as a consequence...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom