| Off Topic > Off Topic |
| [NEWS] Republican bill will reduce free school lunch |
| << < (23/46) > >> |
| Cappytaino:
--- Quote from: PhantOS on February 24, 2017, 07:35:01 PM ---we can't force china to limit their impact on the environment, but that doesn't mean we should wait on them to do something before we start making changes. we produce half as much pollution as china, but that's still a great amount, and we should at least start somewhere. i'm not educated in environmental sciences like you are, but i'm sure there's something that can be done to limit our impact on various ecosystems --- End quote --- Transitioning to nuclear power is the best thing we can do in the interim to reduce our carbon footprint but every time a nuclear plant is proposed, Greenpeace and similar folks come out and screech about Chernobyl and Fukushima-Daiichi and how "OMG the plant could melt down REEEEE" but nuclear energy, while technically not "sustainable" is VERY clean, with the only notable emission being the steam used to power the turbines. Nuclear disasters happen because of mismanagement and incompetence. The Chernobyl plant meltdown was because the Soviets were running it and were conducting tests of the failsafe mechanisms, and in typical communist fashion the failsafe failed spectacularly and caused a meltdown. The Fukushima-Daiichi plant should NEVER have been built in the first place. Nuclear power plants never should be built in areas prone to natural disasters, and the Fukushima-Daiichi plant is on the intersection of the Eurasian, Pacific, and Philippine plates, making the area highly active in terms of tectonic activity and volcanism. The plant melted down after being damaged by an earthquake and the following tsunami and shocker, the failsafe didn't work again. When run competently in areas not prone to these kinds of disasters, these plants have next to no chance of melting down in their life cycle. Advances in fuel types (Thorium isotopes in particular) allow for fuel rods which are much more difficult to induce into a state of meltdown. Increased use of nuclear energy would greatly cut carbon emissions but would require politicians and activist groups to stop collectively stuffting themselves over the idea of new plants. This decision should be a no-brainer but some people are literal no-brainers and would rather oppose than support expansion of nuclear power generation in the US. See France for a country that is able to effectively generate power via nuclear plants and to my recollection has never had a major incident at a plant. |
| PhantOS:
what about windpower? i know germany has a whole array of wind-powered turbines and stuff |
| Cappytaino:
--- Quote from: PhantOS on February 24, 2017, 07:55:56 PM ---what about windpower? i know germany has a whole array of wind-powered turbines and stuff --- End quote --- Wind power is really expensive in general as the turbines required cost a lot of money to install initially. They can't even be installed near homes since they're so noisy. Wind turbines are also inconsistent sources of power because the output of any given turbine is dependant on having consistent wind. Wind power can't be the sole provider of power for an area because in the case of less wind than usual, there has to be a backup in place to generate or store enough power. Wind power is clean in its operation but the manufacture, construction, and maintenance of turbines all is expensive and creates emissions anyway. While the emissions generated aren't that great, wind power is overall too expensive and inconsistent to be used as a primary source of power. Solar power is similar in that it's great when it works, but photovoltaic panels are expensive and on cloudy days or at night they will generate no power at all. Wind farms also require a large amount of relatively open space, which is common in the US, but much of it is privately owned and the government will have a hard time arguing that using eminent domain to purchase land to put up a wind turbine is "for the public good" unless the turbine will be owned by the government and the people by proxy and this likely will cause disputes between land owners and the government that will waste tons of time and money. Basically wind power is way more trouble than it is worth at this point. It may work for Germany but Germany has vastly different infrastructure and therefore power consumption than the US. New York, California, and Texas alone have about the same population as Germany. Take into account the difference in land area, overall lower population density, and loss of power when transferred over long distances and you'll see that the situations aren't really comparable |
| TableSalt:
#Home-schooled it's a joke don't punch me aaaaa |
| Tactical Nuke:
--- Quote from: PhantOS on February 24, 2017, 07:55:56 PM ---what about windpower? i know germany has a whole array of wind-powered turbines and stuff --- End quote --- the birds, phantos think of the birds |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |