How do you rationalize fossil fuels? How do you feel about them?

[NNadir]

I do realize that most of the earth is bathed in radiation and as a result of this fact, everyone on earth will die and therefore nuclear power must be stopped.

Even so I am mystified about the "debate" about nuclear energy, since I have yet to hear of a detractor who can produce one dead body caused by commercial nuclear power in the United States, despite the existence of a dull squad with a rad radar for the location of every single radioactive particle in every nuclear operation on earth, every particle of which they tirelessly demand accounting without demonstrating a single case of actual harm.

It is very mystifying really, and in my view irrational that we never ask the same questions about, say, coal as we do about nuclear energy. How come we never have a poll that says, "How do you feel about coal plants?" unless that stupid guy with the two N's in his name does it?

How is it that we all pretend that we care about global climate change, but no one is willing to do anything about it except wait for the evanescent renewable Godot who will magically arrive in 2050 along with Jesus?

How is it that the indiscriminate dumping of a billion tons of acid into the atmosphere and water would never get the attention of a leaky pipe at Sellafield?

How is it that our atmosphere deserves so much less attention than Yucca Mountain?

Although we could in theory talk for hours about the real dead bodies from air pollution, we know no one tracks coal waste: 75 miles of the destroyed Big Sandy River in Tennessee would never get as much attention as a stick of so called "nuclear waste" the size of a broken number two pencil.

And speaking of rivers destroyed by fossil fuels - since we don't give a shit about people's lungs or any other parts of their bodies -let's close with a link to the McCrystal Creek in New Mexico - about to be destroyed - like lots of unknown places - for a coal bed natural gas mining operation: http://amr.convio.net/site/DocServer/armer.2.mccryst.05.pdf?docID=1301

And now let's have a poll that asks why we are so stupid.

Everyone who types a post on this board is using dangerous fossil fuels. How do YOU rationalize it?

[NAO]

1. "Fossil Fuels" is of Evolution, not of the Bible...

therefore it is not real and is a trick of the devil. There is no such thing as "fossils", so how could there be fuel made from a lie of Satan? This is just a trick of the secular humanists, to try to get you to believe that evolution THEORY. Do you really think your grandpa was a monkey?

God gave us oil! It is part of HIS plan. He gave it to us so we could travel to other countries and tell the about Jesus.

"Global Warming" is what your ass is going to feel when you are cast into Hell at the Last Judgement (if you don't accept Jesus Christ as your personal lord and savior.)

****

Free Yourself and Others
http://ffrf.org

[Dead_Parrot]

2. I try not to...

...It's part of the reason I moved to New Zealand (Mainly hydro power). Seriously, I nearly moved to Kyrgystan (only export is hydro power). But, based on my past, I'll plump for "we all know what to do with CO2" - dump it into the atmosphere and hope it goes away.
Hope springs eternal...

[H2O]

3. I believe

That there are alternatives available to us and I have even used one in my own vehicle.

[NNadir]

4. Well, I would suggest you keep moving.

New Zealand produced 12.37 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity by conventional thermal electrical generation in 2003 or roughly 45 petajoules.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/table61.xls

Via hydroelectric means, it produced 23.55 billion kilowatt hours or 84 petajoules.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/table26.xls

Even with it's huge geothermal resources, New Zealand only produced 3.9 billion kilowatt-hours (14 petajoules) from the so called "renewable" resources (geothermal, solar, wind, wood, and "waste") combined.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/table28.xls

Now, like meat eaters who claim to be animal lovers and don't want to think about from where the meat comes, most people don't want to know from where their electricity comes either. New Zealanders are apparently no different. A quick calculation will show that even with all this hydroelectric capacity, New Zealand, a relatively small country, is injecting 6.5 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere just to produce electricity. This is 1.5 metric tons for every citizen, and that's before they drive a car or heat a home. Now I don't know how many rivers in New Zealand are left to trash for hydroelectric dams, but I would expect that it not enough to reduce those millions of tons. The fact is that New Zealand still generates a very close to a third of it's electricity from means involving global climate change. A fellow who tells me that he only eats meat every third day is no vegetarian.

New Zealand produced and burned it domestically 4.9 million tons of coal in 2002, and imported about 130,000 barrels of oil per day.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/world/country/cntry_NZ.html

New Zealand indicates that the total per capita discharge of CO2 into the atmosphere is 8.6 metric tons.

http://www.stats.govt.nz/products-and-services/nz-in-the-oecd/environment.htm

One of the more distinguishable reasons why I believe that the world will now almost certainly face a global climate change catastrophe on a scale that it cannot even now imagine is that many people hold the mistaken belief that doing something is the same as doing everything one can. Part of the argument seems to be "I'm not as bad as that guy." Saying "I'm not as bad as that guy" is quite different however than saying "I am good."

In any case, with its mountains and its hot springs, New Zealand is hardly a representative place through which to address the realities of global climate change. One can move there to pretend one has no responsibility, but if everyone were to avail themselves of that strategy of absolving themselves, New Zealand might not hold up quite so well. The islands may well sink under the load of a few billion people. Bangladesh (pop 144,000,000) has no such resources. Neither does Mali. The United States has already destroyed most of its rivers, and the some of America's older geothermal fields are already tapped out and suffering reductions in production. I note of the hydroelectric panacea that many mountain glaciers are disappearing world wide. This problem will not represent a negative feedback on global climate change when the rivers - like the river behind the Glen Canyon dam - stop being so fecund with their gravitational energy.

[Dead_Parrot]

13. All true...

...I also had a "For fucks sake" moment reading the paper the other day, to discover one the power companies had applied to build a brand-spanking new coal-powered plant.

And, NZ is one of the most SUV-happy places on the planet (Although with the recent hikes in fuel prices and the government slapping carbon tax on top, this might start to reverse a bit).
Those who don't drive SUVs drive cars so old and leaky you might just as well have a crude-fired barbecue and be done with it (A category that includes myself: I'd love to have a nice new NZ$43,500 Prius, but seem to be about 42k short at the bank: So I have a $2,000 Nissan Pulsar that consists entirely of badly-repaired gaskets).

But, at least we should still have affordable power when the oil dries up. According to the climate chance office, we can expect increased precipitation from global warming, so as long as the hydro lakes don't silt up to buggery, we can rely on them for a while yet. The government is pushing for more wind & geothermal, even if getting the power companies to play is a pain.

The potential of a rush of people trying to get here is a worry. The government has already promised to house the population of Tuvalu when they give up (about 12,000, IIRC): I hope they don't do the same for half of Indonesia as well. It's bad enough trying to find a parking space in town...

No, NZ isn't perfect. But then, there's no weird genetic difference between kiwis and the average Californian: They still want big houses with big TVs and rooms full of toxic landfill crap from China. A lot of them want cars with loud engines and even louder stereos, or speedboats, or quad-bikes. Being a "developed" country, they can have them. But they have them for less than half the CO2 Australia or the US churns out, which helps me sleep a little at night. And at least, here, there might be enough remaining to be habitable for my daughter when the last SUV grinds to a halt with an empty tank.

In my nuclear option poll, I was impressed by the number of people who think we can cut back on consumption: You'd have to ask the Easter Island Forestry Commission how that'll pan out.

[NNadir]

14. I think that we can cut back on consumption.

I'm very much for that.

On the other hand, I do not believe that we will cut back on consumption. There is a difference.

There is a conundrum here. The vast world population lives because of an achievement in civil engineering - but that same civil engineering is unsustainable with the world population created by it.

I report the fact that nuclear energy is the safest and cleanest form of energy known not because I believe that it will magically make the vast problems of environmental degradation go away - it most certainly won't - but because I think we must buy time to become truly sustainable, if that is now achievable, if an alternative to Easter Island exists. My nuclear enthusiasms aside, I'm not convinced that it does.

By the way, I don't fault you for living in New Zealand. As you say, you are protecting your children, much as most people on earth would like to protect their children. I just note that living in New Zealand does not disconnect you - or your children - from the world. If the atmosphere collapses here in New Jersey, it shall certainly do so in New Zealand. If the rivers stop flowing here, they will also most likely do the same there.

Maybe some folks escaped Easter Island in some of the last boats. We'll never know. But the option of becoming a refugee is hardly available to any but the smallest minority of humanity. Should the worst come to pass, most everyone will die in place.

[Dead_Parrot]

15. It'll be interesting, either way...

...I'll have to stock up poporn while I've got the chance. It feels a bit like sitting on a rooftop, watching the floodwaters rise all around: I just have to hope the roof is high enough. That'll be a question for my grandchildren, if I get any...

I'm reminded of the end of Ben Elton's "Stark":

"So what we do now?"
"I reckon we should sell the car and buy some beer."
"But it's not really the time for a party is it?"
"Sure it's the right time. It's time to party like there's no tomorrow."

:beer::popcorn:

Ho hum...

[htuttle]

5. I rationalize it the same way I 'rationalize' smoking cigarettes

...I don't. I know I'm addicted to petroleum, it's bad for me and the planet, and I use as little as I can until I can find something better. And I don't mean 'ideas' and 'plans'. I mean something I can use to heat my house with, cook with, and use to get to work (not to mention powering my workplace).

At this point, it hardly matters if I'm 'pro-nuke', 'anti-nuke' or 'grudingly accepting the necessity of nukes' -- nobody is asking for my opinion about it anyway. The only 'voice' I have in this is my vote and my pocketbook -- and there aren't many choices for me there, either. In other words, I'll use whatever energy is available to me, but I'll try to use as little of it as possible. What other option do I really have?

I will say this -- if it comes to it, I'm far more likely to be able to build some sort of ethanol still in my backyard than a nuke plant. I have no idea where I'd find uranium around here...

[NNadir]

6. I think you are mistaken.

People are listening to you.

Attitudes about energy are very much word of mouth.

Most people don't know doodly squat about the subject, and rather blithely accept the common parlance. For instance, there is the myth that "nuclear waste is dangerous." You can get a large crowd of people to nod approvingly if you say this.

Almost everybody believes this until you press them, and ask, "Really? Can you show me a case in which someone has been injured by it?" If you then point out how many people are injured by, say, air pollution, you really can start the wheels turning. I've been doing this for years, and it is remarkable the number of people who will - so challenged - will actually begin to think about the question. I've seen it lots and lots and lots of times.

Of course there are a number of religious dunderheads who will go on rather blithely reciting the rote renewable rosary while they breathe in the mercury laden fly ash and inhale the nitrogen oxides as they wait for their private Godot. There are also people who will tell you that disease is caused by vaccines or life exists because of the will of God, or any other number of dubious things. (One can even find people who will tell you they thing George W. Bush is a great President.)

It is not necessary (or possible) to convince these people of anything. It does not matter if people who believe absurd things exist, however - or even if they are as dumb as the stumps of trees processed into biofuel - it only matters that these people are in the minority. Public attitudes are more determined by small private conversations than we generally think.

I am proud to be a liberal. Part of liberalism is, in my view, a belief in personal responsibility, particularly a responsibility to the future. As we are now seeing on the national stage, one thing that defines responsibility is to insist on identifying the truth and to insist on stating the truth as we see it - as often as we can do it. We are all compelled to use fossil fuels. Me too. However if we merely throw up her hands and "this is how it must be!" we will not only fail the future, but we may also erase the future.

[YankeyMCC]

7. Not in a position to do much else

and to be brutally honest with myself I wasn't educated or aware of the issues as much as I should've been throughout most of my life.

I do what I can now. I ride my bike to shop even in the coldest weather, I work from home as much as possible, we don't turn on the heat until there's no other choice, when appliances need replacing we buy energy efficient ones.

I support efforts locally and globally for renewable energy. I'm not 100% opposed to Nuclear energy I think there is a place for it, although I'm probably nowhere near as enthusiastic about is as some :)

In short I'm only human, I came admittedly late to understanding the importance and the problem and I do what I can but I still have to live in the world as it exists today. My best plan is to do what I can as an individual, encourage others to do the same (including ensuring my son doesn't come as late to this understanding as I did) and with everyone moving forward in their small ways we can (because if we don't there's no hope) move the world into a better path in regards to energy usage.

[Coastie for Truth]

8. Keeps poor urban and rural youth off the street

and in Iraq fighting for oil.

Better in dessert camies then in gang colors.

(I guess that Bush's rationalization)

[NNadir]

10. Yeah, let's focus on the good points.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

[Coastie for Truth]

12. A ltlle bit of bitterness ( A LOT OF BITTERNESS AND ANGER)

After our local Veterans' Day Parade (large VVAW contingent - after all, it's Northern California), a bunch of us VietNam era vets had a few beers - and were bitchin' and moanin' about killing another generation of young Americans for OIL.

[Dogmudgeon]

9. Little time. Few options. And winter is coming.

In a very short time (geologically), we are going to be pressuring our Leaders to build nuclear reactors by the gross. The climate will whipsaw from tropical to glacial, stable food-producing areas will simply not exist, and there won't be enough oil left for us to produce fertilizer, anyway. Nuclear energy production will be the better solution, rather than allowing the die-off to progress.

Suppose that each year, one of these hastily-constructed nukes melts down or suffers a "catastrophic loss of integrity", and 100,000 people die -- on the average. We will weigh that against the five billion or more people who would die without the available energy from the nuclear power infrastructure as a whole. We will need to be able to conduct agriculture and warm our houses, which will become much more difficult to do as global warming reverses itself in a massive, human-initiated Heinrich Event.

I do not like this prospect one bit. I don't trust modern leaders to ensure that the nukes which are built will be up to spec, safe, secure, and productive. But the losses from a blown nuke are far smaller and easier to deal with than the genocide that will result from the collapse of civilization, even with all its flaws.

There may be other ways out of this; other forms of energy, and maybe one of the new exotic energy solutions will work out. But we can't depend on a last-minute rescue. We've been scraping our heels since the early 1960s, when M. King Hubbert first informed us of the reality we faced. To think that cold fusion or zero-point vacuum flux energy will save us when we're ambivalent about fission reactors is unrealistic. In somewhere between ten and forty years from now, we will be cold, hungry, sick, miserable, and dying by the millions -- UNLESS we have enough energy to deal with the changes our planet faces.

I would like to think that we have a way out of this mess without resorting to energy sources that are potentially hyper-toxic and put us under the thumb of plutocrats. But we will probably have to depend on political action for that, since the choice between death and nukes makes nukes indispensable.

If you know for certain of a better energy solution than nuclear energy, please let me know -- in thirty years of experience, I have not seen one other than space-based solar power, transmitted to the Earth as microwave energy. And that's now un-doable, since it required a 20-year lead time and a several trillion dollar capital investment.

My sole argument for supporting nuclear power is this and this alone: The death of most of the Earth's people would be a tragedy of unimaginable horror, a thousand times as profound as the Nazi Holocaust, and echo across a thousand human generations if our extinction is not complete.

Right now, facing the wolf, we have little time and fewer options.

--p!

[NNadir]

11. It is very doubtful "100,000 people will die," in any case.

I obviously agree with your statements for the most part, but 100,000 dead from a reactor failure is not a likely event.

We have experimental evidence of the release of the volatile fraction of the radioactive core of a large scale commercial nuclear reactor under uncontrolled conditions at the end of a fuel cycle. Moreover, this event occurred in a reactor that - unlike most reactors in the world - had a flammable (graphite) core.

Nowhere near 100,000 people died from this unanticipated event. In fact the death toll will likely not even rise to 5% of this figure - even when one includes those who lived thirty years before succumbing to the accident's effects.

In fact the ordinary operations of fossil fuel plants in what passes for their "safe mode," kills much more than 100,000 people every year. http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/Update17.htm As global climate change accelerates this number is likely to increase very dramatically, not from the traditional causes like cancer and heart/lung disease, but from events like catastrophic storms, flooding, and famine.

In spite of what you hear, the worst commercial nuclear event in history will not kill anywhere near 100,000.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7951

[GumboYaYa]

16. I would become an advocate for nuclear power if two things would happen.

First, there needs to be a real committment to using nuclear power to increase the standard of living of the least amongst us across the world. Nuclear has that potential. The power available to a society is one of the greatest predictors of standard of living available. If people across the globe have access to nuclear power and the improvement in their lives that it represents, there would be far less competition for resources and concerns about nuclear materials falling into the wrong hands would be eased.

Second, there has to be a stronger emphasis on conservation and reduced consumption. If we simply start building more power plants without recognizing that all of the devices and "technology" we run off that extra power contribute greatly to the overall pollution in the world, we are only extending the runway to our demise.

[NNadir]

17. I agree with both of your statements.

To some extent, your first demand is already taking place. Two countries in the world where nuclear expansion is taking place rather rapidly are China and India. Both of these countries have huge populations who still have very low standards of living.

Your second statement cannot be emphasized enough. One of the greatest risks of the use of nuclear power is that it can create complacency and a feeling of entitlement to waste energy.

It is my opinion that it is very important to replace, in the first world - as France did - almost all of fossil fuel electrical generation with nuclear generation. The first world must also look at reducing consumption of energy however.

[aztc]

18. Oil is Organic

Petroleum is organic. It is a naturally occurring substance found in concentrated deposits worldwide.

Technology has found ways to extract and refine this natural substance into a safe, versatile and low cost energy carrier that works fantastic. The problem is the gluttonous consumption. The entire political discussion is always about how to use more rather than less of anything. This is the exact wrong direction to be setting policy in.

We do not need more solar energy, we have more than we can ever use already.

We do not need more wind energy; we don’t use a fraction of what is already there.

We do not need more of anything, what we need is to learn how to use less of everything, and the first step is to simply quit wasting it. The paradigm shift must punish those who ‘Waste to Impress’ and reward those who conserve resources.

To simply say some percentage of consumption needs to be this or that type of energy carrier while allowing consumption to grow is still just using more. Using more will not change the direction; only using less will have a real effect.

After years of study I have come to the conclusion that petroleum is not the problem, consumption is. In fact, fossil fuel is really solar energy in a very concentrated form, and technology allows us to do amazing things with this abundant, organic substance. I have come away disgusted at the corruption and selfishness that seems to be a requirement for success in the halls of legislation and meeting rooms of business people. Individuals are consistently offended by the prospect of personal responsibility and will eagerly band together to cast blame on some untouchable entity, thus seemingly absolving themselves.

We don’t need more, we need less.

Download YOUR Real World Vehicle Efficiency Report at http://Drive55.org

[GumboYaYa]

19. Well, yes if we never consume oil (or coal) then the carbon trapped

inside never escapes to the atmosphere. So if we leave it in the ground and don't use it, no problem. Once you use it in any way that lets the trapped carbon escape, it most certainly is a problem unless you like it really hot.

[aztc]

22. Normal vs human induced

I believe the environment can tolerate moderate releases but we have found ways to concentrate waste that change the world, usually in undesirable ways. The answer is moderation, live within our means, reduce waste, lighten our footprint.

[GumboYaYa]

24. Do you understand the "moderation" in use of hydrocarbon

energy that would be required to stop the damage to the atmosphere from progressing beyond the current damage? Do you also understand that the amount of energy available to a society is the number one predictor of standard of living? How do those two fit together? What is it that you propose?

No one here will argue that conservation is not a giant piece of the puzzle, but when you step back and look at the whole picture, there are several more pieces to put in place.

[aztc]

26. That is my point - moderation

A heavy foot on the typical 1 per SUV American's gas pedal and jet air travel are responsible for 25%-50% of the waste. As much as we import. This is not moderate consumption. It is stupid and a root cause for war.

[GumboYaYa]

27. It is foolhardy to thing that using air travel less, removing SUVs

from the road (even if we did it for all SUVs) and having people drive more slowly, will save us from the global climate disaster that is upon us. All those are good steps in the right direction, but as long as we use hydrocarbon fuel to power any part of our society, we are adding to an existing bad problem.

I am not eschewing conservation. I am a big proponent of conservation. I just don't think that conservation alone gets the job done, unless you mean by conservation going back to a time when technology meant banging stones together.

[aztc]

28. Waste is the problem

Who said remove all the SUV's? I said 1 person with a heavy foot in a 6 ton SUV is the problem. But so is the prius driver that races from red light to red light and insists on driving 70 or 80...

I am offering that this is a big planet and we can live on it sustainably if we learn how to moderate and focus on how to use less rather than how to use more of anything.

The crack dealer today has station on nearly every corner and addicts on both sides of the political aisle. The product fuels lazy boys on wheels with DVD players to ease the discomfort of long commutes.

Step 1: Learn how to live within our means
Step 2: Will include bio-fuels and alternative sources of energy

[GumboYaYa]

29. I agree with the caveat that, most people worldwide are not

willing to live the moderate lifestyle required to achieve that. As a result, alternatives that do not pollute the atmosphere are a necessary part of the picture.

[aztc]

32. This is dangerous thinking...

Willing or not, it is unsustainable to continue consuming the way we do. To simply shrug and say oh well is the sort of thinking that got us where we are today. Each trip to the gas pump, each jet flight taken, bury us deeper in dependency.

Seek a life of comfort, joy and ease by reducing dependencies and increasing conservation - the bonus will be to de-throne the bush crime family and their oily friends.

[NNadir]

20. So after "years of study" your opinion of oil is what?

Stop using it because we have enough of it and because its origin was solar?

I am trying to find out how people rationalize the use of fossil fuels as a way of elucidating policy. We all have a personal policy on the use of oil, and most of us have a public policy that we support. I, for instance, would like public policies that lead to the ultimate banning of fossil oil while at the same time making the transition with sufficient time so that wholesale famine is not created. Toward this end I support advanced nuclear power. I also try to keep my thermostat down, wear sweaters, use blankets, use my bicycle, burn wood when trees on my property come down, walk when I can do so without driving, and take mass transit whenever possible. These are my policies.

"Use less," is a policy, I guess, but its rather vague and diffuse. How, specifically do you "use less?" One can say "use less" just as one can say the "Pledge of Allegiance," but saying and doing are quite different things. (I, for instance, often find myself saying the Pledge, but I really do not have allegiance to fabric, even red, white and blue fabric.) Have you, for instance, ever tried to estimate your personal greenhouse gas output? Do you know what the per capita greenhouse gas output would be in order to stablize the atmosphere?

A statement of natural history of oil is not a policy, personal or public. Neither is a commentary on how wondrous it is.

[aztc]

23. It would be foolish to ban fossil fuel

Again, fossil fuels are concentrated solar energy and work great! There is no better energy carrier available at this time. More importantly are the myriad of co-products derived from petroleum. Remember, the oil industry pretty much breaks even on fuel sales, the real profits are found in the PETROCHEMICALS that are left over to be further refined.

Almost every bit and item of plastic in your life is derived from petroleum, the asphalt roads, roofs, the nylon carpet, everything, comes or includes petrochemicals. Do you want to get rid of all the plastic stuff you have come to rely on too? And do what, replace the consumption of petroleum with the consumption of stuff made from plants instead? As if that will somehow make it better. What I am saying is that CONSUMPTION and WASTE is the real issue, not the substance being wasted and consumed.

[Dead_Parrot]

30. Huh?

The summation of your years of study into hydrocarbons is...
Fossil fuels are concentrated solar energy and work great!

OK, I have some minor reservations about your "years of study" here. A couple of minor points you may have missed:

1)Oil is not just concentrated solar energy: It's solar energy tied up in carbon bonds. When the energy is then released, those carbon atoms wander off into the air to raise merry hell. Google "climate change", in case you hadn't heard about it.
Coal is even better: Amaze your friends by dropping "pneumoconiosis" into casual conversation, or by describing the ways a foetus' brain will deform when subjected to mercury.

2)Almost every bit of plastic in my life is indeed derived from petroleum. Almost every bit of plastic in my life will still be derived from petroleum when I've been dead for 1,000 years. It'll be sitting in a landfil somewhere, or floating around in the ocean choking fish. Am I supposed to be happy about this? I'll take a wool carpet, if it's all the same to you.

3)Where there is no choice, consumption of stuff made from plants is indeed better, since plants take carbon out of the atmosphere to make that concentrated solar fun. The problem comes when you have to level a rainforest to grow your high-oil-yeild crop.

Oh, and there is a better energy carrier: I tried having BP deliver crude oil to my house, but it made a mess on the nylon carpet. I now get my energy in the form of electricity.

Say hi to your mates at Exxon for me.

[aztc]

31. Crude oil delivered to your house?

First off, I have no mates at Exxon.

Secondly, when did you try to have BP deliver crude oil to your house and why? What would you do with it even if they would? You are aware that a great many people still heat their buildings with oil, right? The oil they use is a bit like diesel or kerosene, the first crack from crude. The efficiency of using oil to heat your home vs electricity is about 10 fold better, and besides electricity is mostly made from burning the fossil fuels natural gas and coal with a great deal of the energy lost in the generation and transmission. 38% is considered stellar performance making electricity with natural gas while there are gas furnaces available that deliver well over 90% efficiency.

Who asked you to be happy about the toxic mess we have allowed to happen? I just pointed out how dependent we are on it and how foolish it would be to stop using fossil fuels as there is no better energy carrier at this time, certainly not electricity, and the stream of co-products from petroleum made the computer you are reading this on possible.


Visit http://Drive55.org and http://PeaceTrainToDC.com to learn how to do something about this illegal war, climate change and a diminishing quality of life.

[Dead_Parrot]

33. OK, next time...

...I'll add a ;), just you you know. I've never really had crude oil delivered to my house. On your other points:

Yes, lots of people heat their home with oil. My parents, for two. But you can't say "Lot's of people do it, so it must be OK" - around 200 million barrels of heating oil get used in the US each year: That's a hell of a lot of shite being pumped into the atmosphere. The same goes for the gas, oil and Coal power production: More shite for my daughter to deal with.

Solution? Get rid of them. We don't need to be burning fossil fuels at all to get heat, light and power. We can use hydro, wind & geothermal where possible, and nuclear everywhere else: Damn near 0 emissions. There's not many people - in the US, at least - that don't have an electricity supply. Clean that up - and use it - and were making a start. Same goes for China, and India, and the rest of the "developed" world. NZ manages on mainly hydro, France manages on mainly nuclear. We don't need it.

And yes, my computer is mainly plastic. I'm not so rabidly environmental to suggest we go back to the stone age. But the desk it sits on is plastic coated. Why? I can rationalise that slightly by saying I got it second hand, but why isn't it just wood? The shops are filled with plastic-wrapped goods. More waste.

You mentioned in http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x34641 that you took a 180-mile round trip to "do some shopping and visit a client". Kudos for using an efficient car, but does your client not have a telephone? Are there no shops in Sacramento? That's four gallons of a finite resource that at this very moment is trapping heat and warming the planet.

I appreciate that that particular trip may have been necessary. But it's a nice example of the American car culture: "What the hell. let's drive to the mall."

The trick is not, driving at 55, although that will help.
The trick is, not driving.

At present, I stay at home while my wife goes to work:
We have a car, but she gets the bus. Go figure.

[aztc]

34. Normally, I take the train

Electricity to heat? That is crazy man! Electricity is great for running your computer and such, NEVER for heat.

Zero waste with nuclear? Are you uninformed about Yucca Mt in Nevada? Well, maybe this motorcycle tour will help clarify things:
http://www.hempusflag.com/gallery/chernobyl

As to the 180 mile business trip, I had a specific reason to rent a car, I normally take this train: http://capitolcorridor.org/ , but as I said, I needed a car so I combined the trip to document and demonstrate 45 MPG in a $10,000 car available NOW.

I agree the trick is not driving, I mostly use one of my true zero pollution vehicles: http://www.awebiz.com/gallery/Bikes

Nevertheless, it is not all or nothing, black or white, it is a question of moderation. I really hope you nuclear advocates take a close like at that russian motorcycle ride....http://www.hempusflag.com/gallery/chernobyl

[Dead_Parrot]

35. Good for you...

It wasn't meant as a personal attack, but it was too juicy a quote to resist :). But I hope you take my point that the western world in general is addicted to the car, with no consideration as to the enviromental cost: Getting people out of this mindset is critical, if it isn't too late already.

As this is NNadir's thread, I'll give him a chance to comment on Yucca and Chernobyl first, as he's got most of the facts in his head: But as mentioned, the French use a lot of nuclear power without these problems. It's a question of doing it right, rather than quickly or cheaply. But I should like to point out I said emissions. Waste is a different issue, since at least you have the ability to contain it (although not everyone does - see http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=35001).

But I'm intrigued: Explain to me how using hydro-electric power to heat my house is crazy, compared to digging up oil and burning it?

[aztc]

36. Not so fast...

If you want to promote nuclear be prepared to defend your position, not dump it off on the local expert.

Good news, Elena just updated her site Nov 15th!

http://www.angelfire.com/extreme4/kiddofspeed/cherlinks.html

Nuke lovers, look carefully at what you are promoting.

[Dead_Parrot]

37. Ooh, are we playing the game...

...where you list the casualties from Chernobyl, and I list those from the gulf war and mercury poisoning and lung disease? Then you talk about the environmental impact, and I start listing oil slicks and ground water contamination? Then you talk about all the people who had to move, and I do the same with global warming? OK, Sounds like fun, you go first. NNadir can catch up later.

Don't forget the bit about how heating my house with hydro-electricity will cause me drop dead of cancer. ;)

[aztc]

38. NOT a game

[Massacure]

41. How do you know that is a result of radiation and not of something else?

Can you prove that it is not mercury, lead, arsenic, dioxin, and VOCs, as well as a whole plethora of chemicals?

[Dead_Parrot]

42. Really? Not a Game?

Then how about we don't get our information from Elena Filatova, because quite frankly she seems to be full of shit.

Instead, let's get our information from a joint report by the IAEA, WHO and UNDP. It came out a few weeks ago, and maybe you missed it in your 15-second google. Here's some key figures:

Chernobyl radiation fatalities:
To Date (last 20 years): 50
Predicted (next 50 years): 4,000
Average per year: 58

I've inserted the 50 years based on the average Ukrainian life expectancy of 70. Now, one thing we can all agree on is that Chernobyl was a tragic accident that shouldn't - indeed, needn't - have happened: I hope we can also see that it was not quite the total annihilation of all life between the Urals and the Alps that some people like to claim. It's nothing compared to the number of Iraqi's who have died in the last couple of years.

Shall we compare it to deaths from fossil fuel pollution?

Fossil fuel pollution fatalities:
Last 20 years: 14,000,000
Predicted for next 50 years: 35,000,000
Average per year: 700,000

Does anything strike you about those numbers? Because I'll tell you what strikes me: They're fucking enormous!

Would you like a little perspective on that?
Since you posted your pictures, more people have died from fossil fuel pollution than will ever die from the Chernobyl disaster.
Or, if you prefer,
more people die in 36 hours of "business as usual" for fossil fuels than died in the September 11 attacks.

One person every 45 seconds. Day and night, for ever and ever, Amen.

And that isn't including casualties from climate change who find their farmland or water supply has dried up, or their house has been washed away in a flood, or been buried under a freak landslide.

The half-million who've died this year did not do so in an accident: it's "Normal".

So here's what you do:
-Keep up the fuel efficiency. It might save a life or two.
-You stop telling people it's crazy not to heat your house with oil.
-You spend a few more years researching fossil fuels.
-The next time you find the words "concentrated solar energy" converging on your lips, you imagine a line of coffins, head to toe, stretching all the way along the route from Sacramento to Flagstaff, AZ.
-You start demanding more renewable energy sources: And if they aren't available, you damn well better start demanding nuclear energy.

Enjoy.

[aztc]

45. Fossil fuels don't kill...

It is gluttomous irresponsible use of fossil fuels that kills. Remember, they are organic, and used responsibly, in moderation, are safe, efficient carriers of concentrated solar energy.

It is the wasteful, gluttonous, mindless consumption that results in all this mayhem, this is done by people, not fossil fuels.

[Dead_Parrot]

46. You mean...

...like using them to heat your house when you don't need to? Another 640 have died while I've been asleep. Hope you're nice and warm.

BTW, what the hell does "They are organic" mean? because they're carbon based? Do you think we should be spreading cyanide throughout the atmosphere? After all, it's 'organic' and, used in moderation, perfectly safe.

[Massacure]

40. Kiddofspeed was a hoax.

There was a story about it sometime back, she actually took a tour bus with her husband to view parts of the exclusion zone.

[aztc]

43. Really? Share some proof please.

This is the first I have heard of that, and you may be right. I don't think Chernobyl was a hoax. I don't think 3 mile Island was a hoax. I don't think Hiroshma was a hoax, nor the marshall islands that are no longer habitable, so with all these things that I know are not hoaxes, you can see how vulnerable I am to propaganda.

I will be most grateful for your reference proving your allegation.

Thanks!

[htuttle]

21. If you take the view that fossil fuel is really 'solar energy'

...then by that same token, solar energy is actually NUCLEAR ENERGY! The Sun is a giant nuclear reactor, you know! (and then by extension, fossil fuels are really nuclear energy).

I'm not saying that fossil fuels don't represent STORED solar energy, but again, that is a somewhat meaningless distinction. It's not the "storing" part that's the problem -- it's the "releasing and burning" part that causes the problems.

There are very few primary sources of energy in the universe. Almost all of it is nuclear originally, especially if you consider that even the stored heat of the deep Earth represents stored energy from the stellar nova that once took place here. But again, none of that makes one whit of difference. It's how you use the energy that's critical to it's environmental effects -- the details are important.

[aztc]

25. Yes, I think you understand

Plants absorb solar energy and convert it to carbohydrates that animals eat or the plants build leaves and stems and trunks and this stuff then got all trapped in a natural process that converted it into a handy source of energy for smart people to use to enhance their life.

Unfortunatley, fools have found ways to waste far too much and are destroying the very things we need most to live: AIR, WATER & LAND.

See this comment:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=34807&mesg_id=34991

[Dogmudgeon]

39. I think a lot of us still don't understand the scope of the problem

Edited to include link to earlier post

Getting energy for residential household use is not all that difficult, compared to getting enough to keep our civilization and population alive. Current power needs for our homes can be met by windmills, solar panels, local biogas or biodiesel, and other "alternative" technologies. In fact, since some of these technologies (like thermal depolymerization) also ease pollution problems, it would be advantageous in any situation to use them. The main problem now with the alt-tech is the need for startup capital for new enterprises to supply them or the means to capture them. Thermal (in contrast to Electrical) solar energy, for example, is still a lot more expensive than it would be with a thriving thermal solar market.

But these are the details in a laregly irrelevant energy sector. We can survive warm, with TV and hot meals; or cold, without so much as radio, eating cold food and sleeping under piles of blankets in the winter. But we will need food -- and water. And medical services would help. And these things will stop being available if there is a massive "energy crunch", or even a gradual power-down.

The main threats to life and civilization come from three big energy supply problems:

First, since it takes about eight calories of energy (other than the Sun) to produce one calorie of food, what will happen when those eight calories cease to be avavilable? And they WILL cease to be available in an energy price run-up.

Second, how much labor will be put into solving these problems when there is no longer enough energy to sustain an economic world and its ability to generate wealth? When a country's financial system is destroyed, no work gets done beyond that which is required for survival -- unless workers are dragooned into slave labor by the authorities.

Third, when there is no longer enough energy available (for any reason), how will our society continue to function? The side-effects of the loss of mass transportation -- and I include private automobiles in that definition -- will be an immediate crash back to the early 1900s. And keep in mind, since most food is transported by truck, even locally, food distribution will be as big a problem as growing the stuff, mentioned in the first point.

These are the reasons why I eventually, and reluctantly, accepted the need for nuclear power. It's the only thing that is ready now that can "tide us over" until longer-lasting solutions to our species' several problems can be found. With current designs, we have enough fissile material for at least thirty years at higher consumption rates; with a recycling program, that availability is extended several hundred years with even an inefficient program. And I have posted (above) that even several melt-downs and accidents per year would be preferable to a mass die-off. Losing a million people per year to nuclear energy is 1/500th as lethal as a decade-long die-off of five billion people due to the failure of the economic and agricultural systems. (And note that even highly pessimistic estimates of potential nuclear-related deaths are far lower than one million per year.)

I may be over- or under-estimating the value of non-nuclear technologies, but probably not by an order of magnitude. Yet, combined with our growing need for energy, our growing population, and the prospect of a 5% per year energy production dropoff, the problem will quickly evolve from annoyance to mass death.

There are several issues and decisions involved that will not be easy, cheap, or altogether satisfactory. I strongly believe that after 40 years of foot-dragging, dithering, and making nasty jokes about granola and singing "Kumbayah", we will soon be at the point where our survival will be at stake.

I'm certain that we can deal with this looming catastrophe, and perhaps even benefit from it. But it will take a world-wide effort with a time frame of at least two generations, and possibly over a century. Nuclear power can significantly reduce the pain, destructiveness, and lethalness of these changes in the way we live.

I'm not so much pro-nuclear as pro-survival. I would love to hear that I am somehow wrong, and that the road to survival will be lower-tech and much more efficient than I have forseen -- as well as very quick to implement. But time is one commodity that we have even less than, than conveniently usable energy.

This year's energy use will be around 450 EJ (exajoules). Growth in energy requirements are about 2.5% per year, so next year, we'll need about eleven or twelve more EJ. Those are the numbers we need to keep in mind as goals for energy production just to stay where we are.

Where do we go from here?

--p!

[aztc]

44. You are right IF...

and only if, we insist on continuing the gluttonous, wasteful choices we make. To maintain 'status quo' and in fact to spread the western version of 'civilization' as we now know it is not sustainable without turning to increasingly complex, dangerous systems to keep it all running.

I offer a solution will be found in a return to an agrarian economy. Perhaps a mass die off will be required to rid the planet of the parasites that refuse to live in harmony with other life, and perhaps the remnant will be wiser about these things.

[Dogmudgeon]

47. My mind is playing tricks on me

I just thought I read you proposing that upwards of six billion people dying of starvation would be a good thing, because you don't like "civilization" and would prefer an agrarian economy.

I believe you referred to those soon-to-be-dead people as parasites. I must have done a ton of acid that I don't remember. (They say it destroys memory, you know.) I could have been having a flashback to a bummer, man.

Age must be catching up with me. For a moment there, I thought you were proposing the equivalent of FIVE HUNDRED SIMULTANEOUS HOLOCAUSTS (of Jews and Gentiles alike).

In an age of mass inhumanity, the mind plays tricks on a man. Sometimes, I can't even believe what I read.

--p!

[dcfirefighter]

48. I think you read right

I've noticed a lot of similar posts around here. I'm not too thrilled about it.