Wow, theres so much loon in your statement I'm convinced you're drunk posting again.
Quote:Surely you can't be that ignorant to understand that the flawed design of that Soviet-era plant is not the design of modern fission power plants?
And how the event was handled in a Communist dictatorship versus a free society like ours?
And how nuclear energy is cleaner, cheaper, safer and more effective than any known green alternative?
And how the poorest are the ones who benefit the most from the availability of energy?
Nah... we need base policy on enviro-wacko pipe dreams like AGCC and Green Energy.
Quote:Surely you can't be that ignorant to understand that the flawed design of that Soviet-era plant is not the design of modern fission power plants
We paid a billion dollars over 14 years to clean up a partial meltdown at Three Mile Island..
You think the public has any clue the damage Fukushima did? Wait a decade and see how the people who are in that area are doing. Caesium-137 has a 30 year half life.
There are cleaner alternatives which we are only scratching the surface on, but lobbyists and controlling parties in the US will continue to obstruct.
Wind power, photovoltaic solar power, hydroelectricity, etc.. would never have the mess that comes with meltdowns, fracking, oil drilling.
Quote:We paid a billion dollars over 14 years to clean up a partial meltdown at Three Mile Island..
Just out of curiosity, were you alive then?
Quote:I was.
So you do recognize the incredible technological advances we've made in this area and the false comparison you're making when you reference 3MI much less Chernobyl?
Advancements in technology do not contain the carnage that comes with our main energy sources when the [BLEEP] hits the fan.
Fukushima, Deepwater Horizon, etc. Whether it's a nuclear power plant, an oil rig, fracking which contaminates water.. all technological advancement in design has done is make catastrophic events less likely. They still happen in modern times and [BLEEP] up the planet.
It's not that there aren't alternatives. We choose not to pursue them as a government.
There were statewide protests this week to protect the underwater rivers in Florida. You didn't hear about them. Standing Rock protested the building of a pipeline across sacred Native American burial grounds in part because it could threaten drinking water. Sure enough 150 miles away a pipe burst and polluted the river.
Why does it make better sense to continue on a path we know is not the safest or the cleanest? What's the worst thing that can happen if we moved to an energy solution that is more solar/wind/hydro based? Nobody is starting wars over that like they do oil. There are no emissions or pollutants. You don't think other major cities can have similar water supplies to Flint, MI? You like that oil speculators hold you and I by the short and curlies with what we pay at the gas pump? What could we do to the economy of countries that truly hate us like Saudi Arabia if we weaned ourselves off our oil addiction?
There's always gonna be another catastrophe if we maintain our existing energy plan. Another Exxon Valdez. Another pipe burst. Another fracking gone wrong. God forbid another meltdown.
It's ignorant and arrogant to think this cycle will not continue just because we have advances in technology. We need to be smarter and more honest with ourselves about what we can do differently.
Quote:Wind power kills eagles and other endangered and threatened bird species. It also kills bats from the sound. The neodymium used to make the generator magnets left an ecological disaster far worse that 3MI. But that's in China, so I guess that's OK with you. Wind also takes a lot more land area than either nuclear or fossil fuels, destroys scenic vistas, and creates noise pollution. All this, and it's not even a dependable source of energy so it has to be backed up by either fossil fuel generators, nuclear, or hydro.
Almost a billion birds are killed each year by hitting buildings. High end estimates of bird fatalities of hitting fast moving blades is still less than half a million.
I trust the U.S. to do things in a smarter and safer way than the Chinese if they ever actually got behind such an effort on a large scale. There are huge sections of the country that are sparsely populated where I think we could establish wind farms. I don't dispute that there are challenges. But there are clearly possible benefits.
The impact of wind turbines on wildlife, most notably on birds and bats, has been widely document and studied. A recent National Wind Coordinating Committee (NWCC) review of peer-reviewed research found evidence of bird and bat deaths from collisions with wind turbines and due to changes in air pressure caused by the spinning turbines, as well as from habitat disruption. The NWCC concluded that these impacts are relatively low and do not pose a threat to species populations [5].
Additionally, research into wildlife behavior and advances in wind turbine technology have helped to reduce bird and bat deaths. For example, wildlife biologists have found that bats are most active when wind speeds are low. Using this information, the Bats and Wind Energy Cooperative concluded that keeping wind turbines motionless during times of low wind speeds could reduce bat deaths by more than half without significantly affecting power production [6]. Other wildlife impacts can be mitigated through better siting of wind turbines. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services has played a leadership role in this effort by convening an advisory group including representatives from industry, state and tribal governments, and nonprofit organizations that made comprehensive recommendations on appropriate wind farm siting and best management practices [7].
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/renew...GsjKYE8KEc
I'm sure Malabarjag will come back with some InfoWars article because 99% of all scientists and scientific organizations are secretly libtards
Quote:You must think you can run a car by putting a windmill on the roof!
You might enjoy the documentary "Who Killed The Electric Car."
Quote:So now it's a billion! Each time I hear that claim the number increases by another order of magnitude. Funny, I've been around a lot of buildings and I don't remember ever seeing a dead bird. Even if that's true, by that logic it's OK to kill elephants because a million rats are killed each year.
Not all birds have the same value, just like not all mammals have the same value.
And you call yourself a scientist!
When did I call myself a scientist?
How many animals were killed when Deeepwater Horizon went to [BLEEP]? How many humans were impacted? The entire Gulf Coast was decimated. That was one event. Almost forgotten.
And your elephant/rat argument is just word salad.
Quote:It's not that there aren't alternatives. We choose not to pursue them as a government.
As a small government fiscal conservative I have to ask you, why must government do this if it's such a great and wonderful idea? Why isn't someone using these masterful new ideas to make a profit? And please don't say the oil companies are preventing it, that's silly. If wind/solar/hydro and all the other greenie pipe dreams are so much better than fossil fuels for energy (never mind the dozens of other essential uses of them) why haven't they superceded the FFs by now?
Because the one thing I do know is that if the only way for something to be done is for government to force or require it then it's not going to be a good thing.