Japan energy policy: What will they do next?

#51
#51
Coming from a science background, I'm used to hearing all sorts of things being called a pollutant in the context of substances in the body and things like that. I'm just not seeing the problem with the term. Things don't mean the same when used in the context of science as they do in every-day speaking. Like theory.
 
#52
#52
I think this debate has to be put into context with the "Radiation is good for you!" declarations. Orwell pats himself on the back.

Despite ever more troubling news from Fukushima, the reports on it have become less and less, and the thrust of the editorial boards across the independent (sic) media has been to pimp the nuclear future. To me this is the most fascinating - and potentially the most scary - part of watching this little part of history unfold.

CO2 is the Archimidean pivot around which we must "move the world." As bad as Fukushima is, coal plants are much worse. It's not as quick as eating irradiated spinach (although I seem to recall an episode of Gilligan's Island where Gilligan received the Popeye effect after eating radioactive spinach), but the effects are no less deadly and terrible for the planet.

Perhaps the real lesson is the deep need to create a society with an orientation capable of assuming the responsibilities of a nuclear future. An orientation focused on the needs of people and not the needs of Capital.
 
#53
#53
I haven't seen a "pimping" of the nuclear future, by any means. Far from it.

The problem for Japan is, there really is no alternative for them and their power plan will have to continue to include nuclear..


I'm not willing to say that a properly operating coal plant is worse than a nuclear meltdown.
 
#54
#54
NEOCON said:
Marcellus Formation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

BS.
Click to expand...

droski said:
google haynesville shale and get back to me
Click to expand...

VolsNSkinsFan said:
We have massive supplies of Nat Gas. The only people who would sell us NatGas is Canada and that because we have the infrastructure to move it easily around to homes and businesses and store it when not needed. If they didnt sell it to us, then they would just flare it off at the well site.

There is a reason why NatGas went from $15 to $3.5 in 18 months
Click to expand...

droski said:
point being is domestic supply is no problem anytime soon.
Click to expand...

TennTradition said:
I know for a fact (well, a stated fact by an energy department official) that we became a net exporter in roughly 2008. That could have switched again since then, but we made huge gains near the end of the 2000s.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

us-natural-gas-consumption.png


Here is the graph look at 2010. I think what you are missing is what we actually have reserves, and what we are actually producing.

http://ourfiniteworld.com/2011/02/07/dont-count-on-natural-gas-to-solve-us-energy-problems/
 
#57
#57
IPorange said:
I haven't seen a "pimping" of the nuclear future, by any means. Far from it.

The problem for Japan is, there really is no alternative for them and their power plan will have to continue to include nuclear..


I'm not willing to say that a properly operating coal plant is worse than a nuclear meltdown.
Click to expand...

I have. And I've certainly seen a gradual downplay of what is happening at Fukushima, at a time when the worst is happening.

Nuclear will, no doubt, continue to be a big part of their energy portfolio. Let's hope, then, they lead the way in transparency, honesty, and discipline. Their record to date has been shockingly poor on all three.

As far as coal vs nuclear, it's a matter of degrees (pun). A meltdown will have unthinkable consequences for a huge area, but it still won't be global.
 
#58
#58
volinbham said:
An interesting read:

How Carbon Dioxide Became a 'Pollutant' - WSJ.com



This is where I see the semantic problem. Enough of something can have polluting effects but that doesn't mean that by it's very nature it is a "pollutant" in the common use of that term.

Like a ball of twine could be used as a weapon, it is not by it's nature a weapon.
Click to expand...

what do you know? you're just a yahoo.
 
#61
#61
MG1968 said:
I drive a truck for one of the country's largest food service companies.

I suppose I would be one of those people you consider "yahoos".
Click to expand...

What if I were to tell you the way you hold your steering wheel and the way you drive your truck is complete crap, and further more endangering lives-- you knowing full well I've never driven anything larger than a F-150? I'd be an ass, wouldn't I?
 
#62
#62
And don't think I am disrespecting truck drivers. It isn't easy constantly dealing with the idiocy all over our roads, and the deadlines I'm sure you have. Driving straight from Knoxville to Denver gave me a profound appreciation for people who get up and do long hauls every day.
 
#63
#63
IPorange said:
What if I were to tell you the way you hold your steering wheel and the way you drive your truck is complete crap, and further more endangering lives-- you knowing full well I've never driven anything larger than a F-150? I'd be an ass, wouldn't I?
Click to expand...

so disagreeing with you regarding CO2 is that insulting to your intelligence? I may not have the same level of formal education that you have, but I am far from some ignorant rube pissing himself on a street corner.

I respect the fact that you're an expert in the field, the problem I have is that overseasorange2 is an expert in the field as well, and you belittle and condescend when he disagrees with you as well. I believe you once called him little more than a mouthpiece for big oil.
 
#64
#64
MG1968 said:
I respect the fact that you're an expert in the field, the problem I have is that overseasorange2 is an expert in the field as well, and you belittle and condescend when he disagrees with you as well. I believe you once called him little more than a mouthpiece for big oil.
Click to expand...

:salute:
 
#65
#65
MG1968 said:
so disagreeing with you regarding CO2 is that insulting to your intelligence? I may not have the same level of formal education that you have, but I am far from some ignorant rube pissing himself on a street corner.

I respect the fact that you're an expert in the field, the problem I have is that overseasorange2 is an expert in the field as well, and you belittle and condescend when he disagrees with you as well. I believe you once called him little more than a mouthpiece for big oil.
Click to expand...

What is he an expert in the field in? Geology. Particularly, the harvesting of petroleum products. So what credibility does he have concerning atmosphere and climate? That's the real question you should be asking, rather than wondering why I wouldn't take what he says at face value because it jives with your best hopes and wishes.
 
#67
#67
IPorange said:
You always shy away from direct confrontation on these issues, then just reemerge to make comments to the aside later. Man up.
Click to expand...

My god... how many times do I have to point out to you that CO2 has been shown to be less of a cause of "global warming" than water vapor or solar cycles? We've always gone through this. I show you the data, and you still dispute it.
 
#68
#68
Rasputin_Vol said:
My god... how many times do I have to point out to you that CO2 has been shown to be less of a cause of "global warming" than water vapor or solar cycles? We've always gone through this. I show you the data, and you still dispute it.
Click to expand...

Want to make a bet on who has a post that says water vapor is a stronger greenhouse gas first? How about which poster mentioned Milankovitch cycles first?

How many times do I have to tell you I know that, but that isn't remotely the point? Your brain and heart are your two most critical organs, but you'll still die without several others. "The most" doesn't matter in the context of this discussion. Methane is the strongest naturally occurring greenhouse gas of all. So what?

I could bore you to tears on this subject.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top