|
|
Rank: Fuckstick
Groups: {pDs} Member, Server Admin
Joined: 5/9/2006
Posts: 775
Points: 381
|
Lead Salad wrote:I should have read TP's entire post.
We already have a viable alternative energy source. It's called nuclear power. It's the most efficient source on the planet and it produces virtually no waste in comparison to coal, contrary to what most environmentalists (ignorant self-righteous cocksuckers) would have you believe.
Nuclear is definitely part of the solution.
|
|
|
Rank: Fecal Impaction For the Win!
Groups: Ogamer, Registered User
Joined: 5/9/2006
Posts: 1,666
Points: 2,478
Location: La Habra, Orange, CA
|
Dick Cheney's Mechanical Heart wrote:Dude, we sent a man to the fucking moon. In the 1960's. Solving the energy crisis is really not that hard, we live in the most powerful nation in the history of the human species. Increase efficiency to buy us the time and lessen the impact on the economy, invest in the various promising technologies we know of, do the R&D on the more far out stuff. This. silverwasp wrote:Be careful what you wish for... I have 10 younger siblings and I am only 20....
Yes.... Same parents WarMachine wrote:meh...maybe if he hadn't been handed a burning house he could have done great things, but right now he has won the Prize for what? Damage Control?
|
|
|
Rank: Dutchess of Doodoo
Groups: Registered User, Server Admin, WDFNews.com Official Mapper
Joined: 6/3/2006
Posts: 2,239
Points: 330
Location: $L
|
Nuclear sounds good, but I don't think we are completely ready for it. Quote:07/09/2008
While safety agencies in France are playing down the risk to public health from Tuesday's uranium leak at the Tricastin nuclear plant, water-usage bans have worried skeptical residents and environmental organizations. http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,564826,00.htmlQuote:July 18, 2008
PARIS: Uranium-bearing liquid has leaked from a broken underground pipe at a nuclear plant in southeastern France, the national nuclear safety authority said Friday. It was the second leak discovered at a French site this month. http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/18/europe/leak.php
Quote:July. 23, 2008
100 'slightly contaminated' from French reactor
Fourth incident at nuclear facility in recent weeks, second at same plant
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25821078/You wanna take this to Fuck Town?
Oh gadzooks, yes!
|
|
|
Rank: Taco Technician
Groups: Registered User, {pDs} Member
Joined: 5/9/2006
Posts: 3,948
Points: 3,636
Location: Hi-Five City
|
I can do you one better: Chernobyl. Oh yeah, and Three Mile Island. These problems are easily solved by proper planning and safety precautions. There are places where nuclear power can be used and places where it is inapplicable. Same goes for wind, solar, and hydroelectric. Is it a silver bullet? No. But its a step in the right direction.
|
|
|
Rank: Coathanger Abortion
Groups: {pDs} Member, Server Admin
Joined: 5/17/2006
Posts: 3,487
Points: 1,990
Location: Undisclosed Location
|
France seems to have figured out how to do nuclear power, we can just outsource to them. Razor wrote:Killing people is good therapy.  
|
|
|
Rank: Dutchess of Doodoo
Groups: Registered User, Server Admin, WDFNews.com Official Mapper
Joined: 6/3/2006
Posts: 2,239
Points: 330
Location: $L
|
Lead Salad wrote:I can do you one better: Chernobyl. Oh yeah, and Three Mile Island.
These problems are easily solved by proper planning and safety precautions. There are places where nuclear power can be used and places where it is inapplicable. Same goes for wind, solar, and hydroelectric. Is it a silver bullet? No. But its a step in the right direction. Well yeah, I was trying to keep it current. Again, proper planning an safety is key, but I still don't think we are quite ready for it. What the hell do we do with the waste product anyhow? You wanna take this to Fuck Town?
Oh gadzooks, yes!
|
|
|
Rank: Polio Power!
Groups: {pDs} Member, Registered User
Joined: 8/1/2008
Posts: 658
Points: 81
Location: SoCal
|
Dick Cheney's Mechanical Heart wrote:RichardAwesome wrote:Dick Cheney's Mechanical Heart wrote:This is really funny, McCain gets pwned by the dumbest celebrity on earth. Maybe text time he'll think twice about his retarded attack ads.
One thing I don't like about this though is that it perpetuates the whole drilling propaganda bullshit. Drilling is not a solution to the energy crisis, it will barely boost oil production and it will take a long ass time to do it. It's not like turning a faucet on. Down the road a decade it will boost domestic production by something like 1% of daily demand. Despite McCain and the Republicans mocking the whole idea of having a properly maintained car the cost/benefit on properly inflated tires is about three times that of raping our coasts for oil profits. There's no reason not to drill domestically. None at all. Give me a good reason not to drill domestically. And Paris Hilton is nasty. She opens her mouth and I instantly tune out. Do you know how much taxpayer land the oil companies have drilling rights on that they haven't even touched yet? I don't remember the number but it's huge. What we're talking about here is opening up off-shore coastal drilling to them so that in roughly ten years we can see a roughly 1% boost in domestic oil production. Assuming they go whole hog on developing the fields, which they may very well not since they are sitting on so much land already that they could invest in if they want. So we sacrifice our coasts to the oil companies and we get barely anything, but gas prices won't be lowered (or if they are it will be insignificant and not for years) and we run the risk of serious environmental destruction (not to mention the negative effects on tourism that come with having an ugly ass derrick ruining the lovely view of the ocean). That's the reason the prohibition went into place originally, pumping oil out of the ocean gets messy and when you're doing it right off the coast the risks are pretty damn obvious. Go ask anyone who lived in Santa Barbara in the '70s how they feel about coastal drilling. If you actually look at what Obama has said he isn't saying don't drill, he's said you can't drill your way out of the crisis. Which is unfortunately true, certainly it would be nice to boost domestic production, but the easiest solution is to increase efficiency so that we can go further with what we've got. If you gave everyone a $200 tax credit for tuning up their car you would have a significantly greater effect without any sort of risk AND you would simultaneously boost the economy way more effectively than handing over our coastal waters so the oil companies can boost their record profits even further. Coming from someone who apparently thinks this country is so powerful, awesome, and innovative that we can simply solve our energy problem by going nuclear in a short period of time, I am holding my sides they hurt so much from the lulz. You think it would be any quicker building new plants and rennovating old ones? You think the legislative nightmare would be any less? It was the same people that don't want us to drill that don't want us to use nuclear energy. Furthermore, mining for the necessary materials for nuclear energy causes extreme environmental damage and is itself a non-renewable resource. It's just not made from fossils. However, I don't have a problem with that. Why can't we simultaneously upgrade our energy production while at the same time taking the handcuffs off our own industries so they can compete more effectively in the open market? I live in Southern California. The only time you see those rigs is at night and it doesn't ruin the view. It actually looks pretty neat. I used to love counting the lights out on the sea when I was a kid. Much of the oil off the coast of Santa Barbara is leaking and washing up on shore anyway without the rigs. Do you consider that environmental damage? Oil simply going to waste? And how would you feel if instead of our companies drilling, foreign companies decided to do it like they are in the Gulf where we refuse to allow our own businesses to explore and develop, but happily watch foreign entities do it instead. If an eye sore is part of your argument for why we shouldn't drill, I shake my head. You would choose vanity over necessity?
|
|
|
Rank: Taco Technician
Groups: Registered User, {pDs} Member
Joined: 5/9/2006
Posts: 3,948
Points: 3,636
Location: Hi-Five City
|
Business wrote:Lead Salad wrote:I can do you one better: Chernobyl. Oh yeah, and Three Mile Island.
These problems are easily solved by proper planning and safety precautions. There are places where nuclear power can be used and places where it is inapplicable. Same goes for wind, solar, and hydroelectric. Is it a silver bullet? No. But its a step in the right direction. Well yeah, I was trying to keep it current. Again, proper planning an safety is key, but I still don't think we are quite ready for it. What the hell do we do with the waste product anyhow? Bury it. When we have a failsafe method of leaving the atmosphere, we send it out of orbit.
|
|
|
Rank: Coathanger Abortion
Groups: {pDs} Member, Server Admin
Joined: 5/17/2006
Posts: 3,487
Points: 1,990
Location: Undisclosed Location
|
RichardAwesome wrote:Dick Cheney's Mechanical Heart wrote:RichardAwesome wrote:Dick Cheney's Mechanical Heart wrote:This is really funny, McCain gets pwned by the dumbest celebrity on earth. Maybe text time he'll think twice about his retarded attack ads.
One thing I don't like about this though is that it perpetuates the whole drilling propaganda bullshit. Drilling is not a solution to the energy crisis, it will barely boost oil production and it will take a long ass time to do it. It's not like turning a faucet on. Down the road a decade it will boost domestic production by something like 1% of daily demand. Despite McCain and the Republicans mocking the whole idea of having a properly maintained car the cost/benefit on properly inflated tires is about three times that of raping our coasts for oil profits. There's no reason not to drill domestically. None at all. Give me a good reason not to drill domestically. And Paris Hilton is nasty. She opens her mouth and I instantly tune out. Do you know how much taxpayer land the oil companies have drilling rights on that they haven't even touched yet? I don't remember the number but it's huge. What we're talking about here is opening up off-shore coastal drilling to them so that in roughly ten years we can see a roughly 1% boost in domestic oil production. Assuming they go whole hog on developing the fields, which they may very well not since they are sitting on so much land already that they could invest in if they want. So we sacrifice our coasts to the oil companies and we get barely anything, but gas prices won't be lowered (or if they are it will be insignificant and not for years) and we run the risk of serious environmental destruction (not to mention the negative effects on tourism that come with having an ugly ass derrick ruining the lovely view of the ocean). That's the reason the prohibition went into place originally, pumping oil out of the ocean gets messy and when you're doing it right off the coast the risks are pretty damn obvious. Go ask anyone who lived in Santa Barbara in the '70s how they feel about coastal drilling. If you actually look at what Obama has said he isn't saying don't drill, he's said you can't drill your way out of the crisis. Which is unfortunately true, certainly it would be nice to boost domestic production, but the easiest solution is to increase efficiency so that we can go further with what we've got. If you gave everyone a $200 tax credit for tuning up their car you would have a significantly greater effect without any sort of risk AND you would simultaneously boost the economy way more effectively than handing over our coastal waters so the oil companies can boost their record profits even further. Coming from someone who apparently thinks this country is so powerful, awesome, and innovative that we can simply solve our energy problem by going nuclear in a short period of time, I am holding my sides they hurt so much from the lulz. You think it would be any quicker building new plants and rennovating old ones? You think the legislative nightmare would be any less? It was the same people that don't want us to drill that don't want us to use nuclear energy. Furthermore, mining for the necessary materials for nuclear energy causes extreme environmental damage and is itself a non-renewable resource. It's just not made from fossils. However, I don't have a problem with that. Why can't we simultaneously upgrade our energy production while at the same time taking the handcuffs off our own industries so they can compete more effectively in the open market? I live in Southern California. The only time you see those rigs is at night and it doesn't ruin the view. It actually looks pretty neat. I used to love counting the lights out on the sea when I was a kid. Much of the oil off the coast of Santa Barbara is leaking and washing up on shore anyway without the rigs. Do you consider that environmental damage? Oil simply going to waste? And how would you feel if instead of our companies drilling, foreign companies decided to do it like they are in the Gulf where we refuse to allow our own businesses to explore and develop, but happily watch foreign entities do it instead. If an eye sore is part of your argument for why we shouldn't drill, I shake my head. You would choose vanity over necessity? I don't think we can go completely nuclear, but it's certainly something we should look into. It's not the best solution and can't be the only solution, but it's something that we know works and we know what we'd be getting into. The real issue with nuclear (besides the obvious) is that the US nuclear industry is pretty fucked and has fucked itself over with their "too cheap to meter" BS. Re: Drilling, my points were that the oil companies already have a fuckload of land they can drill on if they wanted to, that drilling off the coasts has various negative consequences (including but not limited to aesthetics, which are serious - tourism is big biz), and that the benefits of coastal drilling are minimal, and that those benefits will not be seen for many years. It's a stupid made up "debate" foisted on the public by the oil companies who are just trying to exploit the crisis. The whole BS about tire pressure perfectly illustrates this: The costs are minimal, the benefits are greater, and it will have an immediate impact. We could see something like an immediate 3% to 10% reduction in gasoline consumption if people would properly inflate their tires and get their car tuned up, or we can give our coasts away and see a 1% increase in production a decade from now. Which idea is worthy of mockery? Re: Foreign companies drilling - we are talking about domestic waters, you're gonna need a citeation to make the claim that foreign companies are drilling in places where "American" companies can't. You could maybe make the claim about a few places (e.g. pre-Debacle Iraq), but even there the ownership and partnership invariably leads back to the same group of big oil companies which are more accurately described as transnational than "American" or "foreign". Even in OPEC nations that nationalized oil companies are cozied up with them. Razor wrote:Killing people is good therapy.
|
|
|
Rank: Fuckstick
Groups: {pDs} Member, Server Admin
Joined: 5/9/2006
Posts: 775
Points: 381
|
Ok, let's see what we have. What I see here are people at different ends of the political spectrum seeming to come together and present some good starting points.
1.) Nuclear power is a limited option and new plants should be built in appropriate places.
2.) Increased domestic drilling in places there is actual oil. Exploratory drilling to find new sources.
3.) Proper vehicle maintenance.
4.) Electric commuter cars.
Just these items listed have reduced our dependence on foreign oil by some percentage. How about balancing out the energy stream by adding solar, Geo-thermal, natural gas and wind to the mix. And I'm going to throw out that only American workers be allowed to build the new refineries, power plants, wind farms, solar panels, natural gas pipelines, oil platforms, etc..
Just think we are just some nerds on a gaming website and we already have a good start and with no politicians. Keep em coming.
|
|
|
Rank: Polio Power!
Groups: {pDs} Member, Registered User
Joined: 8/1/2008
Posts: 658
Points: 81
Location: SoCal
|
Dick Cheney's Mechanical Heart wrote:RichardAwesome wrote:Dick Cheney's Mechanical Heart wrote:RichardAwesome wrote:Dick Cheney's Mechanical Heart wrote:This is really funny, McCain gets pwned by the dumbest celebrity on earth. Maybe text time he'll think twice about his retarded attack ads.
One thing I don't like about this though is that it perpetuates the whole drilling propaganda bullshit. Drilling is not a solution to the energy crisis, it will barely boost oil production and it will take a long ass time to do it. It's not like turning a faucet on. Down the road a decade it will boost domestic production by something like 1% of daily demand. Despite McCain and the Republicans mocking the whole idea of having a properly maintained car the cost/benefit on properly inflated tires is about three times that of raping our coasts for oil profits. There's no reason not to drill domestically. None at all. Give me a good reason not to drill domestically. And Paris Hilton is nasty. She opens her mouth and I instantly tune out. Do you know how much taxpayer land the oil companies have drilling rights on that they haven't even touched yet? I don't remember the number but it's huge. What we're talking about here is opening up off-shore coastal drilling to them so that in roughly ten years we can see a roughly 1% boost in domestic oil production. Assuming they go whole hog on developing the fields, which they may very well not since they are sitting on so much land already that they could invest in if they want. So we sacrifice our coasts to the oil companies and we get barely anything, but gas prices won't be lowered (or if they are it will be insignificant and not for years) and we run the risk of serious environmental destruction (not to mention the negative effects on tourism that come with having an ugly ass derrick ruining the lovely view of the ocean). That's the reason the prohibition went into place originally, pumping oil out of the ocean gets messy and when you're doing it right off the coast the risks are pretty damn obvious. Go ask anyone who lived in Santa Barbara in the '70s how they feel about coastal drilling. If you actually look at what Obama has said he isn't saying don't drill, he's said you can't drill your way out of the crisis. Which is unfortunately true, certainly it would be nice to boost domestic production, but the easiest solution is to increase efficiency so that we can go further with what we've got. If you gave everyone a $200 tax credit for tuning up their car you would have a significantly greater effect without any sort of risk AND you would simultaneously boost the economy way more effectively than handing over our coastal waters so the oil companies can boost their record profits even further. Coming from someone who apparently thinks this country is so powerful, awesome, and innovative that we can simply solve our energy problem by going nuclear in a short period of time, I am holding my sides they hurt so much from the lulz. You think it would be any quicker building new plants and rennovating old ones? You think the legislative nightmare would be any less? It was the same people that don't want us to drill that don't want us to use nuclear energy. Furthermore, mining for the necessary materials for nuclear energy causes extreme environmental damage and is itself a non-renewable resource. It's just not made from fossils. However, I don't have a problem with that. Why can't we simultaneously upgrade our energy production while at the same time taking the handcuffs off our own industries so they can compete more effectively in the open market? I live in Southern California. The only time you see those rigs is at night and it doesn't ruin the view. It actually looks pretty neat. I used to love counting the lights out on the sea when I was a kid. Much of the oil off the coast of Santa Barbara is leaking and washing up on shore anyway without the rigs. Do you consider that environmental damage? Oil simply going to waste? And how would you feel if instead of our companies drilling, foreign companies decided to do it like they are in the Gulf where we refuse to allow our own businesses to explore and develop, but happily watch foreign entities do it instead. If an eye sore is part of your argument for why we shouldn't drill, I shake my head. You would choose vanity over necessity? I don't think we can go completely nuclear, but it's certainly something we should look into. It's not the best solution and can't be the only solution, but it's something that we know works and we know what we'd be getting into. The real issue with nuclear (besides the obvious) is that the US nuclear industry is pretty fucked and has fucked itself over with their "too cheap to meter" BS. Re: Drilling, my points were that the oil companies already have a fuckload of land they can drill on if they wanted to, that drilling off the coasts has various negative consequences (including but not limited to aesthetics, which are serious - tourism is big biz), and that the benefits of coastal drilling are minimal, and that those benefits will not be seen for many years. It's a stupid made up "debate" foisted on the public by the oil companies who are just trying to exploit the crisis. The whole BS about tire pressure perfectly illustrates this: The costs are minimal, the benefits are greater, and it will have an immediate impact. We could see something like an immediate 3% to 10% reduction in gasoline consumption if people would properly inflate their tires and get their car tuned up, or we can give our coasts away and see a 1% increase in production a decade from now. Which idea is worthy of mockery? Re: Foreign companies drilling - we are talking about domestic waters, you're gonna need a citeation to make the claim that foreign companies are drilling in places where "American" companies can't. You could maybe make the claim about a few places (e.g. pre-Debacle Iraq), but even there the ownership and partnership invariably leads back to the same group of big oil companies which are more accurately described as transnational than "American" or "foreign". Even in OPEC nations that nationalized oil companies are cozied up with them. At the very least I continue to thump the nuclear power tree. It's our best option at the moment along with perhaps clean coal(yes there's such a thing). Nuclear waste is no longer the way it was in the past and they're finding new ways of recycling the depleted rods. However, gestating in the back of my mind, is that I think we need to invent a new way of generating energy. Regardless of the resource you use, the primary objective is generating power by spinning turbines done mostly through steam power generated by creating heat(burning coal, gas, oil..using the nuclear reactions to heat up water, solar power to heat up water, geothermal to heat up water, etc). I'm no physicist, but is there any other way than the old copper and magnets?
|
|
|
Rank: Dutchess of Doodoo
Groups: Registered User, Server Admin, WDFNews.com Official Mapper
Joined: 6/3/2006
Posts: 2,239
Points: 330
Location: $L
|
Why aren't we doing more stuff like this?? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/sci/tech/1032148.stmYou wanna take this to Fuck Town?
Oh gadzooks, yes!
|
|
|
Rank: Dutchess of Doodoo
Groups: Registered User, Server Admin, WDFNews.com Official Mapper
Joined: 6/3/2006
Posts: 2,239
Points: 330
Location: $L
|
Lead Salad wrote:Business wrote:Lead Salad wrote:I can do you one better: Chernobyl. Oh yeah, and Three Mile Island.
These problems are easily solved by proper planning and safety precautions. There are places where nuclear power can be used and places where it is inapplicable. Same goes for wind, solar, and hydroelectric. Is it a silver bullet? No. But its a step in the right direction. Well yeah, I was trying to keep it current. Again, proper planning an safety is key, but I still don't think we are quite ready for it. What the hell do we do with the waste product anyhow? Bury it. When we have a failsafe method of leaving the atmosphere, we send it out of orbit. Your placing a lot of bets on risky option then, since currently, space travel is fueled by finite resources. If we can not ascertain a failsafe method of leaving the atmosphere before we run out of these resources, aren't we risking contaminating large areas of our planet with this waste? You wanna take this to Fuck Town?
Oh gadzooks, yes!
|
|
|
| Users browsing this topic |
|
Guest
|