# Gore Wants US to Abandon Fossil Fuels by 2018



## Manuel

> Former Vice President Al Gore said on Thursday that Americans must abandon electricity generated by fossil fuels within a decade and rely on the sun, the winds and other environmentally friendly sources of power, or risk losing their national security as well as their creature comforts.
> 
> The survival of the United States of America as we know it is at risk, Mr. Gore said in a speech to an energy conference here. The future of human civilization is at stake.



Gore Calls for Carbon-Free Electric Power - NYTimes.com


----------



## Charles_Main

Manuel said:


> Gore Calls for Carbon-Free Electric Power - NYTimes.com



Wait a min, I thought Gore said in 10 years it would be to late?


----------



## Skull Pilot

I think we should all abandon Al Gore immediately.  The guy is a fucking hippocrate.

abc13.com: Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth'? -- $30,000 utility bill 2/28/07

And the scam to beat all scams All Gore's carbon credits

Media Ignore Al Gore?s Financial Ties to Global Warming | NewsBusters.org

Creators of carbon credit scheme cashing in on it

Happy Feet? - philadelphia weekly online

Can't anyone else see through this asshole?


----------



## Charles_Main

Yeah, how about all those private Jets he flies around on. I guess he is saying do as I say not as I do.

just one flight on his private jets releases more bad shit into the air than I will in my whole life.


----------



## Ravi

Manuel said:


> Gore Calls for Carbon-Free Electric Power - NYTimes.com



He's right.


----------



## editec

He didn't say he was.

He just wants most of us, to.


----------



## Shogun

QUESTION:


if we had a five year plan that took us completely off of petroleum, both foreign and domestic, but increased Nuclear Energy facilities who would hop on board?


I live less than 30 miles from a full Nuclear Power plant.  the University of Missouri HAS a nuclear reactor in city limits.  I'm aware of three mile island and am all for greener energies to fill in the gaps...  But they are not enough.


thoughts?


----------



## Chris

Shogun said:


> QUESTION:
> 
> 
> if we had a five year plan that took us completely off of petroleum, both foreign and domestic, but increased Nuclear Energy facilities who would hop on board?
> 
> 
> I live less than 30 miles from a full Nuclear Power plant.  the University of Missouri HAS a nuclear reactor in city limits.  I'm aware of three mile island and am all for greener energies to fill in the gaps...  But they are not enough.
> 
> 
> thoughts?



If we took the $700 billion dollars we spent on Iraq and spent it on alternative energy, we could free ourselves of our dependence on foreign oil. We have the technology. All we need is the political will.


----------



## Shogun

i didnt ask about a what if or shoulda.  We are where we are.  Would you trade fossil fuels for nuclear energy with green sources filling in the gaps.


----------



## Chris

Shogun said:


> i didnt ask about a what if or shoulda.  We are where we are.  Would you trade fossil fuels for nuclear energy with green sources filling in the gaps.



Nuclear energy is a disaster, and there is no need for it.


----------



## Charles_Main

Kirk said:


> Nuclear energy is a disaster, and there is no need for it.



LOL figures, To answer your question Shog, I would sign on in a min. there is inherently wrong nothing with Nuclear power IMO.

It would be nice if Kirk would tell us all why Nuclear power is such a disaster, and please don't talk about CHernobal, as that was human error, and poor planning.


----------



## Shogun

I guess im influenced by the fact that ive lived within the blast radius of one my entire life.  Is there risk to Nuclear?  oh yes.  The urban explorer images of wasted radioactive towns are earie.  ARE there also risks with fossil fuels?  Well, go look at a global warming thread and figure it out.  Green sources are no panacea.  I have an idea in my head (but no capital) to turn our vast deserts into a proverbial solar battery..  BUT, with Ted Kennedy fighting wind in quaint Nimby fashion and the very real threat of throwing money at saudi princes I think it's time to step away from 20th century rhetoric and come to terms with actual solutions.  I like hydro.  I like Wave energy creation.  I like Solar.  But we need MORE than that.


----------



## Paulie

Charles_Main said:


> LOL figures, To answer your question Shog, I would sign on in a min. there is inherently wrong nothing with Nuclear power IMO.
> 
> It would be nice if Kirk would tell us all why Nuclear power is such a disaster, and please don't talk about CHernobal, as that was human error, and poor planning.



I think that's his point though.  That human error and poor planning with nuclear reaction can be, and has been, disastrous.

Personally, I think the potential consequences are few and far between enough, that it's a worthwhile venture.  I don't want to see every grid littered with nuclear reactors though.  The more you create, the higher the odds of a disaster.  Keep it minimal and bridge the gap with other alternatives.


----------



## Chris

Charles_Main said:


> LOL figures, To answer your question Shog, I would sign on in a min. there is inherently wrong nothing with Nuclear power IMO.
> 
> It would be nice if Kirk would tell us all why Nuclear power is such a disaster, and please don't talk about CHernobal, as that was human error, and poor planning.



Where are you going to store the nuclear waste?

Radioactive waste - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Wow

Charles_Main said:


> Wait a min, I thought Gore said in 10 years it would be to late?


Gore's energy bills are rising, he needs those carbon credit profits from his Corporation.


----------



## Wow

Kirk said:


> Where are you going to store the nuclear waste?
> 
> Radioactive waste - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The same place the French stores their's. Oh wait, the French are using our technology to reuse nuclear waste. Too bad Democrats will not allow Americans to do the same!

France gets 80% of their power from nuclear energy.


----------



## Chris

Wow said:


> The same place the French stores their's.
> 
> France gets 80% of their power from nuclear energy.



So what? 

Where are you going to store it?


----------



## Wow

Kirk said:


> So what?
> 
> Where are you going to store it?


Oh wait, the French are using our technology to reuse nuclear waste. Too bad Democrats will not allow Americans to do the same!


----------



## Shogun

Kirk said:


> Where are you going to store the nuclear waste?
> 
> Radioactive waste - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



we launch it strait into the sun.


----------



## Charles_Main

The so called waste can actually be reprocessed and reused, but I am sure you will find a reason to call that a bad Idea as well. Fact is Nuclear power can be a perfectly safe and clean source of Power, however I believe there are to many kirks out there, and we will be prevented from using it.


----------



## maneal

Al Gore, dare I say, is a cheap, moronic, hypocritical ultra Liberal. 

I 100% agree with him on ONE thing. We need to get off of oil. The problem with that is that there is no viable replacement that can fully replace oil at the current consumption. Even if we did, we have to realize the infrastructure changes that would have to take place. Every house. Every car. Every plane. Every train. Every boat. Every town, city, or metro area. Every gas station. It is going to take at least 2 decades to make the change. Probably closer to 3. That is why I am for drilling our own oil to reduce both price and our dependence on foreign oil, especially from Middle-Eastern Countries. We, at the same time, should be pouring money into finding alternative energy for both vehicles and for other power needs. Doing one or the other is foolish, but combining both is necessary and required. We CAN NOT forget our current energy situations, current needs, and future needs for both domestic and military issues.


----------



## maneal

Shogun said:


> we launch it strait into the sun.



Not a bad idea


----------



## Charles_Main

maneal said:


> Not a bad idea



Watch a film of the challenger explosion and then say that again


----------



## maneal

Charles_Main said:


> Watch a film of the challenger explosion and then say that again



Yea......


----------



## Tech_Esq

Shogun said:


> I guess im influenced by the fact that ive lived within the blast radius of one my entire life.  Is there risk to Nuclear?  oh yes.  The urban explorer images of wasted radioactive towns are earie.  ARE there also risks with fossil fuels?  Well, go look at a global warming thread and figure it out.  Green sources are no panacea.  I have an idea in my head (but no capital) to turn our vast deserts into a proverbial solar battery..  BUT, with Ted Kennedy fighting wind in quaint Nimby fashion and the very real threat of throwing money at saudi princes I think it's time to step away from 20th century rhetoric and come to terms with actual solutions.  I like hydro.  I like Wave energy creation.  I like Solar.  But we need MORE than that.



Bring them all on. I like all of them. I like wind, nuclear, solar, more oil, gas, hydro, geo-thermal. May the best energy win. 

Speaking of the dangers of nuclear, who else here has been irradiated by a nuclear disaster besides me? It's been 22 years now and counting. So far no cancer. Little less hair, but who knows if that's related?


----------



## Tech_Esq

Paulitics said:


> I think that's his point though.  That human error and poor planning with nuclear reaction can be, and has been, disastrous.
> 
> Personally, I think the potential consequences are few and far between enough, that it's a worthwhile venture.  I don't want to see every grid littered with nuclear reactors though.  The more you create, the higher the odds of a disaster.  Keep it minimal and bridge the gap with other alternatives.



France is super high in nuclear. Where is the usual chant that we ought to do what the super-smart Europeans do? Or is it no nukes unless we do socialized health care? Should we link them in case of an accident? 

Sorry, feeling a little cynical just now.


----------



## Chris

Charles_Main said:


> The so called waste can actually be reprocessed and reused, but I am sure you will find a reason to call that a bad Idea as well. Fact is Nuclear power can be a perfectly safe and clean source of Power, however I believe there are to many kirks out there, and we will be prevented from using it.



Yes, it's so great the insurance companies won't insure it.


----------



## Charles_Main

Tech_Esq said:


> Bring them all on. I like all of them. I like wind, nuclear, solar, more oil, gas, hydro, geo-thermal. May the best energy win.
> 
> Speaking of the dangers of nuclear, who else here has been irradiated by a nuclear disaster besides me? It's been 22 years now and counting. So far no cancer. Little less hair, but who knows if that's related?



Was it 3 mile Island? Because if so you most likely received about as many rads as you would having 3 Xrays. What happened at 3 mile has been totally blown out of proportion by people looking to demonize nuclear power I am afraid.


----------



## Shogun

Charles_Main said:


> Watch a film of the challenger explosion and then say that again




Radioactive waste - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


It's not a new idea, yo.  You point at challenger, THEY point at three mile island and were right back at the starting square.


----------



## jillian

Charles_Main said:


> Was it 3 mile Island? Because if so you most likely received about as many rads as you would having 3 Xrays. What happened at 3 mile has been totally blown out of proportion by people looking to demonize nuclear power I am afraid.



You might want to ask my neighbor who just lost his throat to cancer he got in Chernobyl what he thinks of nuclear power.


----------



## Shogun

Charles_Main said:


> Was it 3 mile Island? Because if so you most likely received about as many rads as you would having 3 Xrays. What happened at 3 mile has been totally blown out of proportion by people looking to demonize nuclear power I am afraid.




Chernobyl then.


----------



## DiamondDave

Kirk said:


> Where are you going to store the nuclear waste?
> 
> Radioactive waste - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Shove it up a liberal's ass


----------



## Shogun

Im a liberal, motherfucker.  Read my posts.


----------



## DiamondDave

Shogun said:


> we launch it strait into the sun.



And when a rocket explodes in the atmosphere just after launch, what will the enviro-nazis start screaming about then?

Sounds good until you see that the risks of doing this are much worse than storing the waste in old mines FAR underground


----------



## Tech_Esq

Charles_Main said:


> Was it 3 mile Island? Because if so you most likely received about as many rads as you would having 3 Xrays. What happened at 3 mile has been totally blown out of proportion by people looking to demonize nuclear power I am afraid.



No, it was Chernobyl. I was out in the field in Germany when the radiation cloud came over. The Army told us it was "fine" don't worry about it. Just don't eat any fresh fruits or vegetables for a week. And....uh....might want to skip the meat too. But everything is "just fine." Carry on. 

LOL.


----------



## Tech_Esq

jillian said:


> You might want to ask my neighbor who just lost his throat to cancer he got in Chernobyl what he thinks of nuclear power.



Your neighbor is a pussy. I got hit with the Chernobyl radiation and it didn't affect me none. Well, 'cept for this extra head I started to grow, but they say more radiation will fix that.


----------



## Tech_Esq

Kirk said:


> So what?
> 
> Where are you going to store it?



Alright you flat-Earth, Luddite mother-fucker, you better start making some god damned energy cuz we're not going back to horse and fucking buggy. If you say renewables can do it, then damn it, I spent 2 years in Missouri, you're gonna have to "Show me" cuz I haven't seen it yet. 

We need to start doing something we *KNOW* will work RIGHT NOW. Nuclear is our current BEST option. Now do something that produces energy or get the fuck out of the way!


----------



## editec

maneal said:


> Al Gore, dare I say, is a cheap, moronic, hypocritical ultra Liberal.
> 
> I 100% agree with him on ONE thing. We need to get off of oil. The problem with that is that there is no viable replacement that can fully replace oil at the current consumption. Even if we did, we have to realize the infrastructure changes that would have to take place. Every house. Every car. Every plane. Every train. Every boat. Every town, city, or metro area. Every gas station. It is going to take at least 2 decades to make the change. Probably closer to 3. That is why I am for drilling our own oil to reduce both price and our dependence on foreign oil, especially from Middle-Eastern Countries. We, at the same time, should be pouring money into finding alternative energy for both vehicles and for other power needs. Doing one or the other is foolish, but combining both is necessary and required. We CAN NOT forget our current energy situations, current needs, and future needs for both domestic and military issues.


 
A sensible approach to the problem.

But if we drill every source of oil, I fear all we'd be doing is putting off the starting to find a real long term solution.

that is essantially what we've been doing for the last thirty years, so I expect that exactly what will happen when this spike in prices problem passes, too.


----------



## Bern80

jillian said:


> You might want to ask my neighbor who just lost his throat to cancer he got in Chernobyl what he thinks of nuclear power.



Awesome logic.  Let's ban guns because a person got shot.  Let's ban coffee because someone spilled on their lap.  Let's ban cars because someone's brakes failed and the died.


----------



## Ravi

Tech_Esq said:


> Alright you flat-Earth, Luddite mother-fucker, you better start making some god damned energy cuz we're not going back to horse and fucking buggy. If you say renewables can do it, then damn it, I spent 2 years in Missouri, you're gonna have to "Show me" cuz I haven't seen it yet.
> 
> We need to start doing something we *KNOW* will work RIGHT NOW. Nuclear is our current BEST option. Now do something that produces energy or get the fuck out of the way!



Horses and buggies are out, too. Do you have any idea of the extent of trouble cities had with horse manure back before cars became common? Even in my state, in horse farm territory, getting rid of all the manure is a major headache.


----------



## jillian

Bern80 said:


> Awesome logic.  Let's ban guns because a person got shot.  Let's ban coffee because someone spilled on their lap.  Let's ban cars because someone's brakes failed and the died.



Gee... let's talk about "awesome logic"... use something dangerous and not have a means to dispose of the waste or prevent catastrophic occurrences.

Ask the population of Belarus which has to walk around with those radiation detector things what they think of it.

That's what I love about you guys, you're so sure that you and yours will be just peachy keen that you couldn't give a rats' patoot about risk to others. 

And tell me, what do you think happens to the terrorist threat in areas that the waste passes through?

Thanks anyway. I'll pass. There are other alternatives until the safety issues are worked out.


----------



## Shogun

Tech_Esq said:


> Alright you flat-Earth, Luddite mother-fucker, you better start making some god damned energy cuz we're not going back to horse and fucking buggy. If you say renewables can do it, then damn it, I spent 2 years in Missouri, you're gonna have to "Show me" cuz I haven't seen it yet.
> 
> We need to start doing something we *KNOW* will work RIGHT NOW. Nuclear is our current BEST option. Now do something that produces energy or get the fuck out of the way!



YES!

*The SHOW ME STATE.*


You got that shit right.


----------



## Shogun

Ravi said:


> Horses and buggies are out, too. Do you have any idea of the extent of trouble cities had with horse manure back before cars became common? Even in my state, in horse farm territory, getting rid of all the manure is a major headache.



yea.. but just to be the debils advocate... think of all the rich composting material we could create so that when we put controlled envorinmental farms in the desert we can have lots and lots of growing material!


----------



## busara

Tech_Esq said:


> Alright you flat-Earth, Luddite mother-fucker, you better start making some god damned energy cuz we're not going back to horse and fucking buggy. If you say renewables can do it, then damn it, I spent 2 years in Missouri, you're gonna have to "Show me" cuz I haven't seen it yet.
> 
> We need to start doing something we *KNOW* will work RIGHT NOW. Nuclear is our current BEST option. Now do something that produces energy or get the fuck out of the way!



hope youre a nuclear technician, cause we'll need a lot of those under mccains plan. also need a shedload of material and $$ we dont have.

Europe Insight Europe's Nuclear Energy Woes - BusinessWeek


----------



## Bern80

jillian said:


> Gee... let's talk about "awesome logic"... use something dangerous and not have a means to dispose of the waste or prevent catastrophic occurrences.
> 
> Ask the population of Belarus which has to walk around with those radiation detector things what they think of it.
> 
> That's what I love about you guys, you're so sure that you and yours will be just peachy keen that you couldn't give a rats' patoot about risk to others.
> 
> And tell me, what do you think happens to the terrorist threat in areas that the waste passes through?
> 
> Thanks anyway. I'll pass. There are other alternatives until the safety issues are worked out.



Nuclear power is far safer then it ever has been.  The way things were at chernobyl or three mile island aren't the way they are now in terms of safety, yet you use incidents that occurred many years ago as your basis for calling the technology unsafe now.  Again, very logical.


----------



## AllieBaba

Gore is a complete idiot. And I dare some sniveling lib to tell me I hate him because he's black.


----------



## Tech_Esq

jillian said:


> Gee... let's talk about "awesome logic"... use something dangerous and not have a means to dispose of the waste or prevent catastrophic occurrences.
> 
> Ask the population of Belarus which has to walk around with those radiation detector things what they think of it.
> 
> That's what I love about you guys, you're so sure that you and yours will be just peachy keen that you couldn't give a rats' patoot about risk to others.
> 
> And tell me, what do you think happens to the terrorist threat in areas that the waste passes through?
> 
> Thanks anyway. I'll pass. There are other alternatives until the safety issues are worked out.



Ok Jillian I'll take you up on your offer. Just what alternative do you have that produces as much clean energy as nuclear and is ready to go right now? 

Don't divert with some inane discussion about how if we can't get rid of that waste in some way you approve of it isn't clean. The production of the energy does not pollute. What way do you have that is ready tomorrow if we said go?


----------



## Shogun

Id say creating wide scale solar farms in all the frown desert area would be a great start.







And wave energy gives me a hardon.


----------



## busara

Bern80 said:


> Nuclear power is far safer then it ever has been.  The way things were at chernobyl or three mile island aren't the way they are now in terms of safety, yet you use incidents that occurred many years ago as your basis for calling the technology unsafe now.  Again, very logical.



do you have a source showing how safe it is.

i dont feel that it is extremely unsafe (though i live near 3 mile island). i'm just making sure you arent making baseless claims


----------



## Tech_Esq

Shogun said:


> Id say creating wide scale solar farms in all the frown desert area would be a great start.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And wave energy gives me a hardon.



Like I said I love all those ideas and a nuclear and oil too. Heading in a direction of dropping oil out of the mix. 

If you were answering Jill's question for her, do those energy types produce as much electricity as nuclear? Are they ready to go July 19, 2008? If not, then by all means let's get started developing them while we build a few nuclear power plants.


----------



## busara

Tech_Esq said:


> Ok Jillian I'll take you up on your offer. Just what alternative do you have that produces as much clean energy as nuclear and is ready to go right now?
> 
> Don't divert with some inane discussion about how if we can't get rid of that waste in some way you approve of it isn't clean. The production of the energy does not pollute. What way do you have that is ready tomorrow if we said go?



are you aware of any of the challenges we would face building massive amounts of nuclear plants? look whats happening in finland with just 1 plant.

Finnish plant demonstrates nuclear power industry&#039;s perennial problems - International Herald Tribune
Nuclear power in Europe  Archive  Finnish reactor delays slow nuclear renaissance

and go read the link i posted earlier


----------



## Tech_Esq

busara said:


> do you have a source showing how safe it is.
> 
> i dont feel that it is extremely unsafe (though i live near 3 mile island). i'm just making sure you arent making baseless claims



Well, let's see....France is 80% nuclear. Have you heard of any accidents? The last incident we had here was 3 mile island and that was 1979. Nearly 30 years ago. Chernobyl happened in 1986, over 20 years ago. Has anyone heard of another incident or accident at a nuclear plant foreign or domestic since 1986?


----------



## Tech_Esq

busara said:


> are you aware of any of the challenges we would face building massive amounts of nuclear plants? look whats happening in finland with just 1 plant.
> 
> Finnish plant demonstrates nuclear power industry's perennial problems - International Herald Tribune
> Nuclear power in Europe  Archive  Finnish reactor delays slow nuclear renaissance
> 
> and go read the link i posted earlier



Do you think we are inexperienced in this country at building nuclear plants?

U.S. Nuclear Reactors 

We currently have over 104 operating reactors in this country. I think we've figured out how to safely make nuclear reactors. That, of course, is aside from all the nuclear reactors we power our naval ships with.


----------



## busara

Tech_Esq said:


> Well, let's see....France is 80% nuclear. Have you heard of any accidents? The last incident we had here was 3 mile island and that was 1979. Nearly 30 years ago. Chernobyl happened in 1986, over 20 years ago. Has anyone heard of another incident or accident at a nuclear plant foreign or domestic since 1986?



so your source is all subjective. well, three mile island started commercial operation in 74. worked fine for 5 years. since there were no accidents in those first 5 years, there wouldnt be one in the 6th year, right? oops.

dont get me wrong, its great that there havent been any recent accidents. but to declare that it is completely safe now, without a source, isnt true. there will always be risks. should that alone deter us from using it? no. i am against opinions being told as if they were fact.


----------



## Wow

Ravi said:


> Horses and buggies are out, too. Do you have any idea of the extent of trouble cities had with horse manure back before cars became common? Even in my state, in horse farm territory, getting rid of all the manure is a major headache.


Manure is now being used to create methane gas, that is turned into energy.

Environmentalists are backward, hillbilly hicks!


----------



## busara

Tech_Esq said:


> Do you think we are inexperienced in this country at building nuclear plants?
> 
> U.S. Nuclear Reactors
> 
> We currently have over 104 operating reactors in this country. I think we've figured out how to safely make nuclear reactors. That, of course, is aside from all the nuclear reactors we power our naval ships with.



did you read the article?

it is a french company building the finnish plant. yeah, france has no idea what they are doing building nuclear plants


----------



## Tech_Esq

Tech_Esq said:


> Well, let's see....France is 80% nuclear. Have you heard of any accidents? The last incident we had here was 3 mile island and that was 1979. Nearly 30 years ago. Chernobyl happened in 1986, over 20 years ago. Has anyone heard of another incident or accident at a nuclear plant foreign or domestic since 1986?



Never mind, I answered my own question.

Nuclear Accidents

Since Chernobyl, its mostly been exposure of workers and safety issues in the plants. Not wearing protection etc.


----------



## Ravi

Tech_Esq said:


> Well, let's see....France is 80% nuclear.



And we are 20%.

Exactly how big do you think France is?


----------



## Wow

Tech_Esq said:


> Never mind, I answered my own question.
> 
> Nuclear Accidents
> 
> Since Chernobyl, its mostly been exposure of workers and safety issues in the plants. Not wearing protection etc.


In addition, France is using the technology developed in the US to reuse spent nuclear fuel/waste.

Gee, when will Americans be allowed by their Govt. to use their own nuclear technology?


----------



## Tech_Esq

busara said:


> did you read the article?
> 
> it is a french company building the finnish plant. yeah, france has no idea what they are doing building nuclear plants



I didn't say they don't. I said we do. Do you think we could teach France and Finland anything about nuclear reactors or do you think they are the heavy weights in this field?


----------



## Tech_Esq

Wow said:


> In addition, France is using the technology developed in the US to reuse spent nuclear fuel/waste.
> 
> Gee, when will Americans be allowed by their Govt. to use their own nuclear technology?



That depends. Does Jillian get to decide?


----------



## Ravi

This is getting pretty funny. Pretty soon the righties are going to claim they've always loved the French.


----------



## busara

Tech_Esq said:


> I didn't say they don't. I said we do. Do you think we could teach France and Finland anything about nuclear reactors or do you think they are the heavy weights in this field?



it's been almost 7 years since 9/11 and the freedom tower, supposed to be a sign of american strength, resilience, resolve, a memorial, etc, has hardly had any construction done. look at what the middle east, china, russia, etc have built in that time. you really think we'll have absolutely no problems building many nuclear plants while places like finland are having massive delays, overcosts, lack of labor, etc? take off the red/white/blue glasses


----------



## Tech_Esq

busara said:


> so your source is all subjective. well, three mile island started commercial operation in 74. worked fine for 5 years. since there were no accidents in those first 5 years, there wouldnt be one in the 6th year, right? oops.
> 
> dont get me wrong, its great that there havent been any recent accidents. but to declare that it is completely safe now, without a source, isnt true. there will always be risks. should that alone deter us from using it? no. i am against opinions being told as if they were fact.



I never said it was completely safe. I don't know of much that is "completely safe." It is, however, reasonably safe. It's at least as safe as an oil refinery or other heavy industrial plant and probably safer. 

Come on Busara, no guts, no glory! Go for the nukes! Enough hand wringing already. We're running 100 already, what's another 10 or 20?


----------



## Ravi

btw, kids, France is about twice the size of Colorado.


----------



## busara

Tech_Esq said:


> I never said it was completely safe. I don't know of much that is "completely safe." It is, however, reasonably safe. It's at least as safe as an oil refinery or other heavy industrial plant and probably safer.
> 
> Come on Busara, no guts, no glory! Go for the nukes! Enough hand wringing already. We're running 100 already, what's another 10 or 20?



my point is it would be extremely difficult and costly to build 1, let alone 20. we can build wind towers and solar plants and further develop ethanol and geothermal with those resources.


----------



## Charles_Main

busara said:


> my point is it would be extremely difficult and costly to build 1, let alone 20. we can build wind towers and solar plants and further develop ethanol with those resources.



You do realize Ethanol released co2 and other bad things when burnt too right.


----------



## Tech_Esq

busara said:


> it's been almost 7 years since 9/11 and the freedom tower, supposed to be a sign of american strength, resilience, resolve, a memorial, etc, has hardly had any construction done. look at what the middle east, china, russia, etc have built in that time. you really think we'll have absolutely no problems building many nuclear plants while places like finland are having massive delays, overcosts, lack of labor, etc? take off the red/white/blue glasses



Non-sequitur much? Not answering the question? The US have a lack of labor? Really? I thought we had high unemployment? Or maybe that's high unemployment when it's convenient.

You're a big time lover of the absolute huh? Does that really work for you a lot here? People all the time falling for the absolute "Yes, We're the US we are infallible, everything always comes up roses for us." Come on. Have a serious discussion.


----------



## Wow

Tech_Esq said:


> That depends. Does Jillian get to decide?


LOL
Ohhhhhh nooooooo


----------



## busara

Charles_Main said:


> You do realize Ethanol released co2 and other bad things when burnt too right.



"bad things." very scientific.

you do realize the plants grown for ethanol absorb C02, right? it would be close to a net 0 of carbon being absorbed and released (with further research, at least). far betting than fossil fuels, which is just release


----------



## Tech_Esq

busara said:


> my point is it would be extremely difficult and costly to build 1, let alone 20. we can build wind towers and solar plants and further develop ethanol and geothermal with those resources.



One problem with that. Nuclear is a PROVEN quantity. We know what we will have before we build it. It is not the sole solution, it is part of a mix. There is plenty of room for solar, wind, hydro, geo-thermal and running in place on a generating mat if you want to. 

I don't really think building more plants that burn crap is necessarily the way to go, but if you can get the whole coal sequestration thing to work, I'm listening. But, I put that right there with solar and wind and alternatives that aren't ready to go RIGHT NOW.

Develop them sure, but let's don't sit with our thumb in our collective asses while we wait for those to ready.


----------



## Tech_Esq

busara said:


> "bad things." very scientific.
> 
> you do realize the plants grown for ethanol absorb C02, right? it would be close to a net 0 of carbon being absorbed and released (with further research, at least). far betting than fossil fuels, which is just release



I hate to put a damper on the ethanol love fest, but what's the other 80-90% or ethanol? You know the part that didn't used to be a plant?


----------



## Wow

I have had a nuclear power plant 50 miles from my home for over 30 years.

The only incident was when these Greenpeace monkeys were trying to make a terror attack.
They did not realize that the concrete walls are 8 to 12 feet thick!


----------



## busara

Tech_Esq said:


> Non-sequitur much? Not answering the question? The US have a lack of labor? Really? I thought we had high unemployment? Or maybe that's high unemployment when it's convenient.
> 
> You're a big time lover of the absolute huh? Does that really work for you a lot here? People all the time falling for the absolute "Yes, We're the US we are infallible, everything always comes up roses for us." Come on. Have a serious discussion.



are you impared of just stupid? of course it is related. you think all the unemployed can suddenly become nuclear technicians? or that europe has no unemployed and that is causing their labor shortages? why hasnt our unemployed built the freedom tower?do you think that we'll be able to come up with resources far easier than europe? that it will somehow be cheaper for us to build? why not back up what you say with facts, instead of your 'we can teach france about nuclear.'


----------



## busara

Tech_Esq said:


> I hate to put a damper on the ethanol love fest, but what's the other 80-90% or ethanol? You know the part that didn't used to be a plant?



do you really think ethanol cannot burn without adding gas? you have no idea what youre talking about now


----------



## Tech_Esq

Ravi said:


> btw, kids, France is about twice the size of Colorado.



Thanks mom! 

By the way, there are 59 nuclear power plants in France. We have 104.


----------



## Tech_Esq

busara said:


> do you really think ethanol cannot burn without adding gas? you have no idea what youre talking about now



I know what I'm talking about. I may not know what you are talking about. But, if you wanted me to know, you'd tell me.


----------



## Tech_Esq

Tech_Esq said:


> Thanks mom!
> 
> By the way, there are 59 nuclear power plants in France. We have 104.



France is in the process of building 20 more. I'll bet if France can build 20, we can build 20. What do you say Busara? You think we can do it if they can or is it still too expensive for us? Not for the juggernaut French economy, but too much for sluggish down-trodden US economy?


----------



## Ravi

busara said:


> do you really think ethanol cannot burn without adding gas? you have no idea what youre talking about now


Producing ethanol is hurting a lot of people. The price of corn and soybeans has rocketed and people are paying through the nose for food because so many big farmers, like ADM, jumped on the ethanol band wagon.


----------



## busara

Tech_Esq said:


> I know what I'm talking about. I may not know what you are talking about. But, if you wanted me to know, you'd tell me.



wow. just, wow. 

do i really have to teach you about ethanol? can a regular gasoline engine (non diesel) run off of pure ethanol? no. that is why it is merely an additive in gas. now what about diesel? research what brazil has done. and heres a link for a car that will run on biodiesel and a very small amount of diesel.

Fiat to launch new ethanol/diesel engine in Brazil - AutoblogGreen

our current mix isnt because of ethanol. it is a result of the engines in use, which can easily change within 10 yrs


----------



## busara

Ravi said:


> Producing ethanol is hurting a lot of people. The price of corn and soybeans has rocketed and people are paying through the nose for food because so many big farmers, like ADM, jumped on the ethanol band wagon.



thats why we shouldnt be using corn to make it. that doesnt mean we shouldnt make it at all


----------



## Ravi

busara said:


> thats why we shouldnt be using corn to make it. that doesnt mean we shouldnt make it at all


Maybe. I'm not totally convinced the other ideas are feasible, but I'm willing to look into it.


----------



## busara

Ravi said:


> Maybe. I'm not totally convinced the other ideas are feasible, but I'm willing to look into it.



algae and sweet sorghum are very realistic, as is using hemp and fast growing trees once a better way is developed for breaking down cellulose.


----------



## Charles_Main

Tech_Esq said:


> Thanks mom!
> 
> By the way, there are 59 nuclear power plants in France. We have 104.



We should have about a 1000, if we did this whole energy Crisis BS would not even be an issue.


----------



## Chris

Ravi said:


> Maybe. I'm not totally convinced the other ideas are feasible, but I'm willing to look into it.




Pond-Powered Biofuels: Turning Algae into America's Newest Alternative Energy Source - Popular Mechanics


----------



## busara

Tech_Esq said:


> France is in the process of building 20 more. I'll bet if France can build 20, we can build 20. What do you say Busara? You think we can do it if they can or is it still too expensive for us? Not for the juggernaut French economy, but too much for sluggish down-trodden US economy?



source? last i saw they recently announced one and in may a plant was delayed, but thats it.


----------



## Shogun

New nuclear plant chief leads expansion project

by David Reed

July 11,2008

Adam Heflin started his new job this month as AmerenUE&#8217;s chief nuclear officer and head of operations at the Callaway Nuclear Plant. If company objectives are reached, he will preside over the biggest building project in Missouri&#8217;s history and witness an economic boom in Callaway and Boone counties.

In late July or early August, AmerenUE will submit a license application for Callaway No. 2 to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

New Nuclear Plant Chief Leads Expansion Project  Columbia Business Times



AmerenUE ponders state law as it looks to add a nuke plant







When Union Electric Co. pulled the plug on a second nuclear reactor in Callaway County in October 1982, few could have guessed that a new generation of executives would be back 25 years later with plans for another plant. But that's exactly what's happening.

The St. Louis-based utility, now called AmerenUE, and its partner, Baltimore-based UniStar Nuclear LLC, will seek a construction and operating license as soon as next month for a $6 billion, 1,600-megawatt plant next to the existing Callaway nuclear plant.

AmerenUE executives won't decide whether to go forward with the project until 2010, but they want to make sure that everything is in place if they do. Among the items on their agenda: reversing a 1976 law that prohibits Missouri utilities from charging customers for power plants while they're being built.

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/bu...b6d01162fab4a0f7862574630004a9f8?opendocument




As to the whole bit about Corn prices and ethanol, the solution is to contract corn production that is held outside of the food market.  We do a similar thing when paying people NOT to grow on their land in order to facilitate stable market prices.  Nix the payoffs for not farming land and make a distinction between profitable food corn and profitable energy corn.


damn, im good.


----------



## Shogun

Apparently, not good enough to circumvent a double post!


----------



## Charles_Main

Kirk said:


> Pond-Powered Biofuels: Turning Algae into America's Newest Alternative Energy Source - Popular Mechanics



Umm, doesn't ethanol, now matter where it comes from only release less CO2 than Oil, not none?


----------



## Chris

Charles_Main said:


> Umm, doesn't ethanol, now matter where it comes from only release less CO2 than Oil, not none?



Algae LOVE CO2.

Nice try though.


----------



## Chris

Charles_Main said:


> We should have about a 1000, if we did this whole energy Crisis BS would not even be an issue.




Contamination fears after leak from French nuclear waste plant - Europe, World - The Independent


----------



## Charles_Main

Kirk said:


> Algae LOVE CO2.
> 
> Nice try though.




so you are actually telling me when you burn ethanol no CO2 is released?

However I am glad you finally admit that all plant life, including algae needs CO2 to live


----------



## busara

Charles_Main said:


> so you are actually telling me when you burn ethanol no CO2 is released?



no, he is saying that when it is growing it absorbs CO2. therefore no new CO2 is realeased, just what it absorbed. it is close to cancelling each other out


----------



## Charles_Main

busara said:


> no, he is saying that when it is growing it absorbs CO2. therefore no new CO2 is realeased, just what it absorbed. it is close to cancelling each other out



LOL I see. so we can save the world by planting more plants. 

Glad you finally agree 

One problem though, the links he keeps giving us about the dangers of CO2 talk about how it gets trapped high in the atmosphere. So unless we are going to raise the algae up there, I am not so sure your grand idea will work


----------



## busara

Charles_Main said:


> LOL I see. so we can save the world by planting more plants.
> 
> Glad you finally agree
> 
> One problem though, the links he keeps giving us about the dangers of CO2 talk about how it gets trapped high in the atmosphere. So unless we are going to raise the algae up there, I am not so sure your grand idea will work



finally agree? what are you talking about? 

the problem is that CO2 is getting caught in the atmosphere because it is being released faster than it can be absorbed. if we stop burning fossil fuels, we're not releasing more CO2.


----------



## Chris

For all its advances, nuclear power still poses grave dangers - MarketWatch


----------



## Ravi

I'm not a scientist, but don't plants give off oxygen during the day and give off C02 at night? That would mean whatever emitted during the burning of the fuel wouldn't be affected...there is no canceling out.


----------



## Shogun

Shogun's drive-by solutions episode 549


Cattle colostomy bags which collect their gaseous and solid waste for composting matierial and plant growth is sold to the new burgeoning market of environmentally controlled Desert farms.  Paired with a new market of selling access water to inland waterless locations (Thanks global warming!) we could turn wasted desert land into miles of usable land to produce both energy and consumption foods, create jobs AND feed the world.  Practice in our back yard and then take the knowledge and technology STRAIT to the saraha.


This has been a Drive-by solution brought to you by your friendly neighborhood shogun.


----------



## Chris

Charles_Main said:


> LOL I see. so we can save the world by planting more plants.
> 
> Glad you finally agree
> 
> One problem though, the links he keeps giving us about the dangers of CO2 talk about how it gets trapped high in the atmosphere. So unless we are going to raise the algae up there, I am not so sure your grand idea will work



Did you even read the link I provided?


"The reality is more complex. Trying to grow concentrations of the finicky organism is a bit like trying to balance the water in a fish tank. Its also expensive. The water needs to be just the right temperature for algae to proliferate, and even then open ponds can become choked with invasive species. Atmospheric levels of CO2 also arent high enough to spur exponential growth. 

Solix addresses these problems by containing the algae in closed photobioreactorstriangular chambers made from sheets of polyethylene plastic (similar to a painters dropcloth)and bubbling supplemental carbon dioxide through the system. Eventually, the source of the CO2 will be exhaust from power plants and other industrial processes, providing the added benefit of capturing a potent greenhouse gas before it reaches the atmosphere. 

Given the right conditions, algae can double its volume overnight. Unlike other biofuel feedstocks, such as soy or corn, it can be harvested day after day. Up to 50 percent of an algas body weight is comprised of oil, whereas oil-palm treescurrently the largest producer of oil to make biofuelsyield just about 20 percent of their weight in oil. Across the board, yields are already impressive: Soy produces some 50 gallons of oil per acre per year; canola, 150 gallons; and palm, 650 gallons. But algae is expected to produce 10,000 gallons per acre per year, and eventually even more. "


----------



## busara

Ravi said:


> I'm not a scientist, but don't plants give off oxygen during the day and give off C02 at night? That would mean whatever emitted during the burning of the fuel wouldn't be affected...there is no canceling out.



they release O2 when they produce photosynthates, and release CO2 when they metabolize those photosynthates. but plants also take up carbon and use it for cellular building, so they sequester more carbon than they release through cellular respiration. 

in other words, they take in much more CO2 during photosynthesis than they emit during respiration, and it really isnt very close


----------



## Ravi

busara said:


> they release O2 when they produce photosynthates, and release CO2 when they metabolize those photosynthates. but plants also take up carbon and use it for cellular building, so they sequester more carbon than they release through cellular respiration.
> 
> in other words, they take in much more CO2 during photosynthesis than they emit during respiration, and it really isnt very close



How much is the difference?


----------



## busara

Ravi said:


> How much is the difference?



depends on the plant, light, temperature, soil, moisture, etc. i likely will be away from the computer for a few days, so cant get too specific. but do a search for plant maintenance respiration. that should give you some answers


----------



## Ravi

busara said:


> depends on the plant, light, temperature, soil, moisture, etc. i likely will be away from the computer for a few days, so cant get too specific. but do a search for plant maintenance respiration. that should give you some answers


I read about it on wikipedia and it didn't give the exact difference. So I'm not sure. Say a plant respires half as much C02 as it takes in...then you make it into fuel and it releases more when burned...I can almost see where it'd be better to keep using oil if c02 is the only argument.


----------



## Charles_Main

Ravi said:


> I read about it on wikipedia and it didn't give the exact difference. So I'm not sure. Say a plant respires half as much C02 as it takes in...then you make it into fuel and it releases more when burned...I can almost see where it'd be better to keep using oil if c02 is the only argument.



Or we could try to developing something that releases no CO2 when used. 

just sayin


----------



## Ravi

Charles_Main said:


> Or we could try to developing something that releases no CO2 when used.
> 
> just sayin



heh. I keep thinking about my little fish pond...if I didn't have an aerator for it all the fish would be dead after one night of being blasted with co2.


----------



## Charles_Main

Ravi said:


> heh. I keep thinking about my little fish pond...if I didn't have an aerator for it all the fish would be dead after one night of being blasted with co2.



OMG you are wasting electricity on a fish pond. Damn you!!!!


jk


----------



## Shogun

is it a koi pond?


Texas approves major new wind power project
 Email this Story

Jul 17, 5:05 PM (ET)

By JIM VERTUNO
My Way News - Texas approves major new wind power project


----------



## Bern80

busara said:


> do you have a source showing how safe it is.
> 
> i dont feel that it is extremely unsafe (though i live near 3 mile island). i'm just making sure you arent making baseless claims



No.  How do you quanitify how safe something is?  Apparently the standard is if we can't show that nothing will ever happen, it's unsafe.  Besides I used the word 'safer'. I never attempted to quantify it.  If you can prove they aren't in fact safer, more power to you.  I'm sure absolutely nothing was done or learned to prevent a repeat of said events.


----------



## Bern80

busara said:


> so your source is all subjective. well, three mile island started commercial operation in 74. worked fine for 5 years. since there were no accidents in those first 5 years, there wouldnt be one in the 6th year, right? oops.
> 
> dont get me wrong, its great that there havent been any recent accidents. but to declare that it is completely safe now, without a source, isnt true. there will always be risks. should that alone deter us from using it? no. i am against opinions being told as if they were fact.



Saying something is safe and trying to garuntee nothing bad will ever happen are two very different things.  No matter what alternative option we choose, there are going to be negatives.  If you're looking for no risk cure, no problem cure you're gonna be looking awhile.


----------



## BrianH

Manuel said:


> Gore Calls for Carbon-Free Electric Power - NYTimes.com



What's he sellin?


----------



## editec

Get us off the hydro-carbon addiction entirely.

Corn, oil, algae, wood, I don't care what.

We have to get off this addiction and find nonpolluting energy sources


----------



## AllieBaba

However, until you find a worthy substitute, we're stuck with oil.

So far nobody has. But you expect us to suffer because you just don't like oil. It's idiotic.


----------



## Charles_Main

Yeah, but the left will say we have the alternatives already. which may be true, but it ignores the fact that we can not just switch over to something else over night. It is going to take time. You can't expect everyone to wake up tomarrow and go buy windmills and electric cars. Can you even image how much it would cost. It is going to take time to make a transition and during that time. We will need oil.


----------



## Chris

Charles_Main said:


> Yeah, but the left will say we have the alternatives already. which may be true, but it ignores the fact that we can not just switch over to something else over night. It is going to take time. You can't expect everyone to wake up tomarrow and go buy windmills and electric cars. Can you even image how much it would cost. It is going to take time to make a transition and during that time. We will need oil.



And the right always whines, "We can't switch because it's hard!"

This is a national emergency of the highest order. If we had a real president, he would call in all the experts including my boy T. Boone Pickens, and make a plan and present it to the country and the Congress. And believe me, the people would pitch in to help.

Instead we have a mildly retarded frat boy president who does nothing. We need real leadership. We will get it starting January 20, 2009.


----------



## Charles_Main

double post


----------



## Charles_Main

Kirk said:


> And the right always whines, "We can't switch because it's hard!"



Maybe they do maybe they don't. 

I have never said that. all I said was it will take some time, and in the meantime we need oil.

But feel free to lump me in with whomever you wish.


As far as the rest of your post, I can not argue with it at all.


----------



## Chris

Charles_Main said:


> Maybe they do maybe they don't.
> 
> I have never said that. all I said was it will take some time, and in the meantime we need oil.
> 
> But feel free to lump me in with whomever you wish.
> 
> 
> As far as the rest of your post, I can not argue with it at all.



If the is how you feel, that's cool. But this is a national emergency, and we desperately need leadership. I pray that we get it from the next president.


----------



## Charles_Main

Kirk said:


> If the is how you feel, that's cool. But this is a national emergency, and we desperately need leadership. I pray that we get it from the next president.



How many chickens are in the barn kirk?


----------



## busara

Bern80 said:


> No.  How do you quanitify how safe something is?  Apparently the standard is if we can't show that nothing will ever happen, it's unsafe.  Besides I used the word 'safer'. I never attempted to quantify it.  If you can prove they aren't in fact safer, more power to you.  I'm sure absolutely nothing was done or learned to prevent a repeat of said events.



if you cant quantify it, maybe you shouldnt say it. or at least add 'IMO' to the sentence.

im not looking for a no risk or problem cure. but it should be remembered that the potential damage caused by a nuclear plant malfunctioning are far far greater than those of any other type of plant. 
im pointing out the drawbacks to nuclear. with the lovefest that was happening in here someone had to do it.


----------



## busara

Charles_Main said:


> Yeah, but the left will say we have the alternatives already. which may be true, but it ignores the fact that we can not just switch over to something else over night. It is going to take time. You can't expect everyone to wake up tomarrow and go buy windmills and electric cars. Can you even image how much it would cost. It is going to take time to make a transition and during that time. We will need oil.



no one thinks we can switch over immediately. not even al gore thinks that. and of course we'll still need oil in the meantime. but we need to start somewhere, and people saying 'well it will cost $$ and take awhile' are simply delaying the transition. but then, i guess the abu dhabi investment authority doesnt have enough money and property yet. we should keep waiting


----------



## Charles_Main

busara said:


> no one thinks we can switch over immediately. not even al gore thinks that. and of course we'll still need oil in the meantime. but we need to start somewhere, and people saying 'well it will cost $$ and take awhile' are simply delaying the transition. but then, i guess the abu dhabi investment authority doesnt have enough money and property yet. we should keep waiting



I am not saying it will cost a lot to delay it. In fact I see it as all the more reason to start right now. The only way we will be able to do it, is to spread the massive costs of it, over a period of years, or even Decades. So start now, but in the meantime For gods sake, lets stop sending so much money over seas for oil, and start drilling for our own oil reserves.


----------



## BrianH

Charles_Main said:


> I am not saying it will cost a lot to delay it. In fact I see it as all the more reason to start right now. The only way we will be able to do it, is to spread the massive costs of it, over a period of years, or even Decades. So start now, but in the meantime For gods sake, lets stop sending so much money over seas for oil, and start drilling for our own oil reserves.



It's either all or nothing with some people....

I see your point.


----------



## busara

BrianH said:


> It's either all or nothing with some people....
> 
> I see your point.



very true. for the most part the dems only want to use alternates and the repubs only want to drill more. why cant we do both and stop playing games in congress?


----------



## editec

busara said:


> very true. for the most part the dems only want to use alternates and the repubs only want to drill more. why cant we do both and stop playing games in congress?


 
Political posturing.

When they arrive at "the fix" that makes both sides rich, they're let us know and castigate any who object as radicals.

But you are overstating both parties positions here, I suspect.

I don't doubt some Ds will vote for drilling and I don't doubt some Rs will be supporting alternative energy.


----------



## busara

editec said:


> I don't doubt some Ds will vote for drilling and I don't doubt some Rs will be supporting alternative energy.





> very true. *for the most part *the dems only want to use alternates and the repubs only want to drill more. why cant we do both and stop playing games in congress?


----------



## Charles_Main

busara said:


> very true. for the most part the dems only want to use alternates and the repubs only want to drill more. why cant we do both and stop playing games in congress?



Because all both parties care about is Power, Not you, not me, and for damn sure not what is best for the county.


----------



## Huoliuhi

I'm going to bump the tread up.


----------



## sparky

Al Gore? isn't he the Jimmy Swaggart of enviromentalism?


----------



## elvis

sparky said:


> Al Gore? isn't he the Jimmy Swaggart of enviromentalism?



yeah he and his fucking private jet.


----------



## Old Rocks

Shogun said:


> QUESTION:
> 
> 
> if we had a five year plan that took us completely off of petroleum, both foreign and domestic, but increased Nuclear Energy facilities who would hop on board?
> 
> 
> I live less than 30 miles from a full Nuclear Power plant.  the University of Missouri HAS a nuclear reactor in city limits.  I'm aware of three mile island and am all for greener energies to fill in the gaps...  But they are not enough.
> 
> 
> thoughts?



I think a ten year plan would be more realistic. The major problem I have with Nuclear is the fact that it is very expensive. Were we to sell solar with electric, or plug in hybrids, the homeowner would buy his car, and most of the fuel he would use in the future in one package. Most, probably over 80% of the use of personal vehicles are for trips of less than 20 miles from home. A 50 mile range on pure electric would cover that kind of trip. The hybrid function would cover cross country trips.

As for the alternative energies not being enough, that is correct if one considers only the present grid. Were we to build a real distributed grid, we have many times the energy we use available in the form of wind, solar, and geothermal. While solar is still rather expensive, there are some pioneering projects that have real promise. A 2.5 Mw on the roofs of warehouses in San Diego. And here in Portland, Oregon, a 1.1 Mw project, also on the roof of a set of warehouses. They showed them applying the solar panels and it was most impressive. They were in the form of rolls that glued to the roof. They just rolled them out and plugged them in. Very quick, and required very little labor.

What is lacking for a switch to alternatives, including nuclear, is not technology, but a lack of imagination and leadership.


----------



## jeffrockit

maneal said:


> Al Gore, dare I say, is a cheap, moronic, hypocritical ultra Liberal.
> 
> I 100% agree with him on ONE thing. We need to get off of oil. The problem with that is that there is no viable replacement that can fully replace oil at the current consumption. Even if we did, we have to realize the infrastructure changes that would have to take place. Every house. Every car. Every plane. Every train. Every boat. Every town, city, or metro area. Every gas station. It is going to take at least 2 decades to make the change. Probably closer to 3. That is why I am for drilling our own oil to reduce both price and our dependence on foreign oil, especially from Middle-Eastern Countries. We, at the same time, should be pouring money into finding alternative energy for both vehicles and for other power needs. Doing one or the other is foolish, but combining both is necessary and required. We CAN NOT forget our current energy situations, current needs, and future needs for both domestic and military issues.



That is what I have been trying to get my lib friends realize. Obama wants to force us off our dependency on oil without any immediate alternative. By creating these standards for the oil companies that will only drive gas prices even higher than they were this past summer. 
Excellent post!


----------



## auditor0007

There is a big problem with wind and solar power.  They don't provide a steady stream of power, and you can't just turn them on and off when you need them.  Everyone says the technology is already here, but it is not.  Until we have a way to store electicity, alternative sources can only be used in limited form.  

The problem is that electricity must be produced and supplied when it is needed.  Adding wind power to the mix is a great idea, but too much and you will blow the grid, because it can only handle so much at one time.  

In order to move to these alternate sources of energy, battery technology will need to improve a great deal.  The most likely solution is to have every home, building, etc... have it's own storage facility (battery).  As excess energy is being produced, storage facilities would pull the extra power into storage for use when less energy was being supplied to the grid.  The biggest problem would be finding a way to determine when the grid was at maximum capacity and how to tell the storage facilities to pull and store the electicity versus when not to do that.


----------



## DavidS

When Gore abandons using fossil fuels, I'll worry about what he says. When you look up hypocrite in the dictionary, you find his face right next to it. For his speeches on global warming, he flies back and forth using private jets and travels in a lomousine. He's a fraud.


----------



## Andrew2382

Tennessee Center for Policy Research
Al Gore&#8217;s Personal Energy Use Is His Own &#8220;Inconvenient Truth&#8221;
Gore&#8217;s home uses more than 20 times the national average

Last night, Al Gore&#8217;s global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, collected an Oscar for best documentary feature, but the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has found that Gore deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy. 

Gore&#8217;s mansion, located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).

In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.

The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh&#8212;more than 20 times the national average.

Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh&#8212;guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore&#8217;s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359. 

Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore&#8217;s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006. 

Gore&#8217;s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore&#8217;s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year. 

&#8220;As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk the walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use,&#8221; said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson.

In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006.


----------



## DavidS

Andrew2382 said:


> Tennessee Center for Policy Research
> Al Gores Personal Energy Use Is His Own Inconvenient Truth
> Gores home uses more than 20 times the national average
> 
> Last night, Al Gores global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, collected an Oscar for best documentary feature, but the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has found that Gore deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy.
> 
> Gores mansion, located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).
> 
> In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.
> 
> The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWhmore than 20 times the national average.
> 
> Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWhguzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gores average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.
> 
> Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gores energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.
> 
> Gores extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gores mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.
> 
> As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk the walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use, said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson.
> 
> In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006.



I don't have a problem with Natural Gas. It comes from our own soil and burns much cleaner than oil.


----------



## Andrew2382

O I agree,

Natural gas burns a lot cleaner however, it is a fossil fuel, and we should be off it according to Gore.  I linked it because he is a hypocritical fuck an dwith all the green renovations he has done to his home he still uses more juice then anyone in the state


----------



## Navy1960

Al Gore is chairman and founder of a private equity firm called Generation Investment Management (GIM). According to Gore, the London-based firm invests money from institutions and wealthy investors in companies that are going green. &#8220;Generation Investment Management, purchases -- but isn&#8217;t a provider of -- carbon dioxide offsets,&#8221; said spokesman Richard Campbell in a March 7 report by CNSNews.

GIM appears to have considerable influence over the major carbon-credit trading firms that currently exist: the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) in the U.S. and the Carbon Neutral Company (CNC) in Great Britain. CCX is the only firm in the U.S. that claims to trade carbon credits.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22663

Take this along with his private jet usage and his  own lifestyle that does not match his own talk and policies that he is pushing that he wants the rest of us to adhere to then you have some idea as to the real motives of Al Gore.  Al Gore has been pushing the environmental agenda for  Al Gore's own profit and nothing more, he could care less about  the environment.  In fact  I don't recall during his presidential campaign in 2000 any of this huge push for environmental change because of the  global warming emergency.  It seems the emergency became a emergency since Al Gore became a private citizen. Further this issue is so ripe with hypocracy it's not even funny, if all these  environmental policies are put into place it still will only stop those countries willing to participate in any programs to limit  carbon emissions.  While other countries, China, India, Russia, and many others keep on building at a record pace. So what is this agenda really? IMHO it is a financial one that puts money into the pockets of people like Al Gore that are in the environmental business and much to our nations chagrin as we are the ones who suffer over this stupidity.


----------



## Navy1960

Al Gore is chairman and founder of a private equity firm called Generation Investment Management (GIM). According to Gore, the London-based firm invests money from institutions and wealthy investors in companies that are going green. Generation Investment Management, purchases -- but isnt a provider of -- carbon dioxide offsets, said spokesman Richard Campbell in a March 7 report by CNSNews.

GIM appears to have considerable influence over the major carbon-credit trading firms that currently exist: the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) in the U.S. and the Carbon Neutral Company (CNC) in Great Britain. CCX is the only firm in the U.S. that claims to trade carbon credits.
The Money and Connections Behind Al Gore&#146;s Carbon Crusade - HUMAN EVENTS

Take this along with his private jet usage and his  own lifestyle that does not match his own talk and policies that he is pushing that he wants the rest of us to adhere to then you have some idea as to the real motives of Al Gore.  Al Gore has been pushing the environmental agenda for  Al Gore's own profit and nothing more, he could care less about  the environment.  In fact  I don't recall during his presidential campaign in 2000 any of this huge push for environmental change because of the  global warming emergency.  It seems the emergency became a emergency since Al Gore became a private citizen. Further this issue is so ripe with hypocracy it's not even funny, if all these  environmental policies are put into place it still will only stop those countries willing to participate in any programs to limit  carbon emissions.  While other countries, China, India, Russia, and many others keep on building at a record pace. So what is this agenda really? IMHO it is a financial one that puts money into the pockets of people like Al Gore that are in the environmental business and much to our nations chagrin as we are the ones who suffer over this stupidity.


----------



## WillowTree

The last I read on the subject is that he had earned 100 million dollars.. I will believe him when he lives what he preaches..


----------



## cunclusion

Putting Al Gore to the side, we should try to move away from fossil fuels but you are right he should set a better example if he plans on saying something like that. 

But we should strive for this one by one anyways no matter who said it. We already know alot of the world is anti american especially areas where an abundance of fossil fuels deposits are located. Its should be less about being green and more about our security if he had just said that i bet everyone would have took it differently.


----------



## Old Rocks

cunclusion said:


> Putting Al Gore to the side, we should try to move away from fossil fuels but you are right he should set a better example if he plans on saying something like that.
> 
> But we should strive for this one by one anyways no matter who said it. We already know alot of the world is anti american especially areas where an abundance of fossil fuels deposits are located. Its should be less about being green and more about our security if he had just said that i bet everyone would have took it differently.



Interesting point there. Every single step to put us on alternative energy for our grid and transportation increases the security of this nation. For one thing, alternative energies are far more distributed and less prone to being totally down because of a regional disaster, manmade or natural.


----------



## chloe

Gore's a nancy boy


----------



## Chris

Navy1960 said:


> Al Gore is chairman and founder of a private equity firm called Generation Investment Management (GIM). According to Gore, the London-based firm invests money from institutions and wealthy investors in companies that are going green. Generation Investment Management, purchases -- but isnt a provider of -- carbon dioxide offsets, said spokesman Richard Campbell in a March 7 report by CNSNews.
> 
> GIM appears to have considerable influence over the major carbon-credit trading firms that currently exist: the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) in the U.S. and the Carbon Neutral Company (CNC) in Great Britain. CCX is the only firm in the U.S. that claims to trade carbon credits.
> The Money and Connections Behind Al Gores Carbon Crusade - HUMAN EVENTS
> 
> Take this along with his private jet usage and his  own lifestyle that does not match his own talk and policies that he is pushing that he wants the rest of us to adhere to then you have some idea as to the real motives of Al Gore.  Al Gore has been pushing the environmental agenda for  Al Gore's own profit and nothing more, he could care less about  the environment.  In fact  I don't recall during his presidential campaign in 2000 any of this huge push for environmental change because of the  global warming emergency.  It seems the emergency became a emergency since Al Gore became a private citizen. Further this issue is so ripe with hypocracy it's not even funny, if all these  environmental policies are put into place it still will only stop those countries willing to participate in any programs to limit  carbon emissions.  While other countries, China, India, Russia, and many others keep on building at a record pace. So what is this agenda really? IMHO it is a financial one that puts money into the pockets of people like Al Gore that are in the environmental business and much to our nations chagrin as we are the ones who suffer over this stupidity.



Sounds like someone is jealous.

No, Al Gore believes in what he is doing, he has been talking about this long before he ever became vice president. How cynical you are.


----------



## Chris

After joining the United States House of Representatives, Gore also held the "first congressional hearings on the climate change, and co-sponsor[ed] hearings on toxic waste and global warming."[49][50] He continued to speak on the topic throughout the 1980s.[51][52][23] In 1990, Senator Gore presided over a three-day conference with legislators from over 42 countries which sought to create a Global Marshall Plan, "under which industrial nations would help less developed countries grow economically while still protecting the environment."[53]

Al Gore - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Old Rocks

LOL. No use trying to tell these people anything. Unable to argue the facts of global warming, they simply resort to ad hominem and name calling.


----------



## dilloduck

Old Rocks said:


> LOL. No use trying to tell these people anything. Unable to argue the facts of global warming, they simply resort to ad hominem and name calling.



If you read my posts under the methane thread you will find that isn't true.


----------



## jakbo

I like that so many take this issue very seriously.  The fact of the matter is that none of the solutions currently on the table (nuclear, wind, biofuels) offer anything more than a stopgap solution (I use the word "solution" loosely as I believe none of these technologies will solve our long term energy problems).  I do believe they all will play their roles in providing a little relief in reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, but none of these "solutions" will carry humanity for the next 200-300 years.
If we really want to solve the problem, and make it last, the human race will have to somehow come together and embark upon the biggest infrastructure project ever concocted.  I like the idea of a world electrical grid consisting of solar receivers that collect and distribute concentrated solar energy that is beamed down from gigantic solar collectors strategically placed near the sun.  I'm not sure about all of the details involved with this, but we have the greatest power source man has ever known just 2 planets away from us and we haven't even begun to harvest it yet.  That just goes to show how primitive we really still are.  Until we're harvesting the power of the sun on a grand scale, we haven't even begun to master our environment (surroundings).
The sun is an energy source that could possibly last for millions or even billions of years and we've barely even looked at it.  I think that's probably a product of our corrupt politicians pandering to special interest groups (oil, farmers, yes farmers who stand to gain from higher prices as demand for biofuels increases the demand for the produce they grow, our small-minded masses who think we can't come together as a race and do something great that could benefit humanity indefinitely, and I'm sure there are others who benefit from no progress being made).
I don't know if this is the correct solution (I'm just one opinion) and maybe I'm living in some sort of la la land to think that we can come together and overcome monumental challenges to do something great for the future of our species, but I really don't think we can consider ourselves members of an advanced civilization until we can.  That is all.


----------



## elvis

I want to see Dee Snider kick Al Gore's ass. Pompous fuck.


----------



## KittenKoder

Here's the thing, politicians use band wagons to lure in the extremists on one side of any issue or the other, to gain political weight. Gore chose the environmentalist extremists since it was an open market for followers. He doesn't really care about the issues he backs (like almost all politicians) he just wants the votes or attention (like all politicians). Anything he says is just to rally the troops (like all politicians).


----------



## cunclusion

jakbo said:


> I like that so many take this issue very seriously.  The fact of the matter is that none of the solutions currently on the table (nuclear, wind, biofuels) offer anything more than a stopgap solution (I use the word "solution" loosely as I believe none of these technologies will solve our long term energy problems).  I do believe they all will play their roles in providing a little relief in reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, but none of these "solutions" will carry humanity for the next 200-300 years.
> If we really want to solve the problem, and make it last, the human race will have to somehow come together and embark upon the biggest infrastructure project ever concocted.  I like the idea of a world electrical grid consisting of solar receivers that collect and distribute concentrated solar energy that is beamed down from gigantic solar collectors strategically placed near the sun.  I'm not sure about all of the details involved with this, but we have the greatest power source man has ever known just 2 planets away from us and we haven't even begun to harvest it yet.  That just goes to show how primitive we really still are.  Until we're harvesting the power of the sun on a grand scale, we haven't even begun to master our environment (surroundings).
> The sun is an energy source that could possibly last for millions or even billions of years and we've barely even looked at it.  I think that's probably a product of our corrupt politicians pandering to special interest groups (oil, farmers, yes farmers who stand to gain from higher prices as demand for biofuels increases the demand for the produce they grow, our small-minded masses who think we can't come together as a race and do something great that could benefit humanity indefinitely, and I'm sure there are others who benefit from no progress being made).
> I don't know if this is the correct solution (I'm just one opinion) and maybe I'm living in some sort of la la land to think that we can come together and overcome monumental challenges to do something great for the future of our species, but I really don't think we can consider ourselves members of an advanced civilization until we can.  That is all.



This would be a great idea but unfortunately no one trusts anyone. That is why the world is in its current state. Even when there is a general peace people are still being killed in various parts of the world. U.N. to weak to push anyone to do anything from the small to the large countries then corruption this is happening everywhere. But it is a good idea maybe for a global type government


----------

