Here ya go - the Pope wants mmgw to fix the global economy and help the poor
-
-
They hypocrisy of elite liberals (especially the Hollywood ones) is one of the things that bother me in this debate. The Barbara Streisand's of the world want everyone else (the little people) to ditch their air conditioners and do without while she has an air conditioned barn with all her Hollywood memorabilia as well as a huge air conditioned mansion that she keeps nice and cool. She wants the rest of us to use clotheslines to dry our clothes but I doubt if there are any clotheslines to be found on her property. These elites fly around in their private jets and drive in their limos and tell everyone else how to live.
Another thing that makes no sense is if we ditch our coal industry and raise energy prices on people here in this country how is that affecting anything as long as China and India are constantly building more coal powered plants? This would have to be done world wide to make a difference otherwise we are putting burdens on the people in this country and possibly wrecking our own economy for no good reason.
-
Meanwhile, China and India will be saying 'if the US, with all its money, aren't finding a way to make this economically viable, why should we even bother looking?' and there'll be a lovely standoff where neither side moves and the rest of the world suffers.
Bear in mind also, America is the second highest emitter of carbon behind china (with India third), but streets ahead of them in terms of carbon per capita. Of the more highly populated countries - excluding netherlands antilles, qatar and the like - Americans and Australians have the highest carbon footprint, about five times higher than China, and ten times higher than India.
So yes, it's important for those emerging super-powers to find alternative ways of powering their economy, let's not forget that we all have a responsibility here.
-
They hypocrisy of elite liberals (especially the Hollywood ones) is one of the things that bother me in this debate. The Barbara Streisand's of the world want everyone else (the little people) to ditch their air conditioners and do without while she has an air conditioned barn with all her Hollywood memorabilia as well as a huge air conditioned mansion that she keeps nice and cool. She wants the rest of us to use clotheslines to dry our clothes but I doubt if there are any clotheslines to be found on her property. These elites fly around in their private jets and drive in their limos and tell everyone else how to live.
Another thing that makes no sense is if we ditch our coal industry and raise energy prices on people here in this country how is that affecting anything as long as China and India are constantly building more coal powered plants? This would have to be done world wide to make a difference otherwise we are putting burdens on the people in this country and possibly wrecking our own economy for no good reason.
Another thing that makes no sense is if we ditch our coal industry and raise energy prices on people here in this country how is that affecting anything as long as China and India are constantly building more coal powered plants? This would have to be done world wide to make a difference otherwise we are putting burdens on the people in this country and possibly wrecking our own economy for no good reason.
I know that Obama is being made out to be the bad guy on coal but what is killing coal in this country is the price of natural gas and the fact that the coal is running out. In WV alone, my office knows for a fact that we have five years left at the most of quality coal. That is only with production cut down. There is much more coal but it is very low quality and would not be worth the effort to mine. Other states are facing the same issues but are not being vocal about it.
As it stands, many of the coal companies are now moving towards natural gas to make more money but blaming it on the EPA. I just got done assisting a large energy company with setting up gas pads near Belmont, OH. This same company used to be primarily coal focused. They see the writing on the wall but don't want to be the bad guy so they blame regulations. Gas pads are cost intensive in the beginning but can be ran on far less labor after setup. You don't have to pay people to saw off a mountain top or keep burrowing into the ground. Once tapped, it is a self sustaining operation.
-
Nuclear Power
-
Nuclear Power
No thanks. Solar & hydroelectric.
-
Nuclear Power
No thanks. Solar & hydroelectric.
No thanks. Solar & hydroelectric.
Too large of a footprint. Not enough energy produced.
-
Too large of a footprint. Not enough energy produced.
Safer, no waste material that as yet can't really be dealt with safely.
-
solar should be used to extract hydrogen from water. There was fascinating research done in the 80's on lowering the input requirements for electrolysis by frequency variation.....basically being able to use less amps to draw the same amt of hydrogen out of water. Some shady stuff surrounding the research, dude who was pioneering it died mysteriously and his machinery disappeared from his facility.
-
Too large of a footprint. Not enough energy produced.
Safer, no waste material that as yet can't really be dealt with safely.
Safer, no waste material that as yet can't really be dealt with safely.
Yet*. I'm all for putting money into continued research of waste reclaim and fusion. I just think nuclear provides the best long term power solution. It has the most meat to it. And as long as you don't build them on a fault line on the coast...they're pretty safe.
This isn't to say solar and other green sources should be ignored. I think, for now, they can be very good supplemental sources of energy. Though solar roads everywhere may take care of it.
-
I'm led to believe the science behind solar freaking roadways is iffy, and it's not cost effective. But if there were a legitimate alternative I'd be all for it.
I did add yet - if there's a way to make use of the leftovers then great, but it's not happening any time soon, and we need to be realistic about things. Long term, maybe, but there are viable alternative available now with little-to-no waste products.
-
Safer, no waste material that as yet can't really be dealt with safely.
Yet*. I'm all for putting money into continued research of waste reclaim and fusion. I just think nuclear provides the best long term power solution. It has the most meat to it. And as long as you don't build them on a fault line on the coast...they're pretty safe.
This isn't to say solar and other green sources should be ignored. I think, for now, they can be very good supplemental sources of energy. Though solar roads everywhere may take care of it.
Yet*. I'm all for putting money into continued research of waste reclaim and fusion. I just think nuclear provides the best long term power solution. It has the most meat to it. And as long as you don't build them on a fault line on the coast...they're pretty safe.
This isn't to say solar and other green sources should be ignored. I think, for now, they can be very good supplemental sources of energy. Though solar roads everywhere may take care of it.
Do a bit of research on solar roads and you will see they are not economically viable. Also, can they be banked? Do they generate as much frictional force as asphalt which was created for friction and ease of repair? Ease and price of repair? Etc etc..
I did a report for a class of mine that shows that while there are uses for them they are not viable as of today.
-
But they're solar freakin roadways, lol.
In a perfect world, they'd be great though. Not saying they're viable now. Why I am saying nuclear.
-
Which equally isn't completely viable now. It's also not going to get loads of public support after chernobyl/fukushima. Solar, on the other hand, is providing a nice 7% return for local community investors
-
I agree with Chris. Nuclear power waste is a gigantic problem.
It causes global warming, and we can't have that.
And the safety isn't guaranteed, and what happens with accumulated waste
buried deep underground? Let's not poison our entire planet over time.
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/tritium/sites-grndwtr-contam.html
-
I agree with Chris. Nuclear power waste is a gigantic problem.
It causes global warming, and we can't have that.
And the safety isn't guaranteed, and what happens with accumulated waste
buried deep underground? Let's not poison our entire planet over time.
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/tritium/sites-grndwtr-contam.html
-
Which equally isn't completely viable now. It's also not going to get loads of public support after chernobyl/fukushima. Solar, on the other hand, is providing a nice 7% return for local community investors
Which equally isn't completely viable now. It's also not going to get loads of public support after chernobyl/fukushima. Solar, on the other hand, is providing a nice 7% return for local community investors
Did you see some of the public opinion polls I've posted? I'm talking in a perfect world here. I don't want to public's misconceptions influencing scientific issues.
France is doing a pretty good job with Nuclear power, right?
-
Which equally isn't completely viable now. It's also not going to get loads of public support after chernobyl/fukushima. Solar, on the other hand, is providing a nice 7% return for local community investors
Did you see some of the public opinion polls I've posted? I'm talking in a perfect world here. I don't want to public's misconceptions influencing scientific issues.
France is doing a pretty good job with Nuclear power, right?
Did you see some of the public opinion polls I've posted? I'm talking in a perfect world here. I don't want to public's misconceptions influencing scientific issues.
France is doing a pretty good job with Nuclear power, right?
It's doing ok, and they, along with china, are investing in nuclear power in the UK.
While in an ideal world we shouldn't be swayed by public opinion on these matter, we need to be realistic about what is achievable. If you get $1bn for nuclear funding, or $5bn for solar funding, it would be irresponsible to go with the former if the latter can produce better returns.
-
I agree with Chris. Nuclear power waste is a gigantic problem.
It causes global warming, and we can't have that.
And the safety isn't guaranteed, and what happens with accumulated waste
buried deep underground? Let's not poison our entire planet over time.
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/tritium/sites-grndwtr-contam.html
I agree with Chris. Nuclear power waste is a gigantic problem.
It causes global warming, and we can't have that.
And the safety isn't guaranteed, and what happens with accumulated waste
buried deep underground? Let's not poison our entire planet over time.
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/tritium/sites-grndwtr-contam.html
Pack it in rockets and send it to Mars
-
No, in a few million years, mankind will have left earth and
moved there. Send it into the sun so it will keep burnin....
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login