Please,
elighten me.
Otherwise, you are just calling me stupid...
Stupid.
And if they are not comparable, then we are not storing enough to make a bit of difference, therefore, it is not an answer, or part of, to climate change.
What can we do about Climate Change?
- Thread starter MarquisBlack
- Start date
- Status
elighten me.
Otherwise, you are just calling me stupid...
Stupid.
And if they are not comparable, then we are not storing enough to make a bit of difference, therefore, it is not an answer, or part of, to climate change.
Carbon is inert. (I cook my steak over it) Other than as a greenhouse gas it is harmless.
Spent uranium is poison. Fucking poison. Kills all life exposed to it. poison.
It is enlighten not elighten.
ignorant.
Learn something before you post opinion and speculation, or at the very least, loosely base your speculation on facts.
Nor'Easter
Member
you are an idiot, ya dig?
kidding
You are wrong though. About as far from reality as you can be. It is your beloved Republicans that lie to you and tell you everything is ok so they can keep counting their stacks of oil money. wake up!
Greatful head:
I know about carbon. We use it in our air filters remember?
You know how these scientists can talk about all the stored methane in the Earth that could be released and kill us all...what is the difference about storing carbon (excuse me, Carbon Dioxide...it is just commonplace to abbreviate when it is understood what the subject is, happens a lot in technical writing).
Then all we are doing is planting a big gas bomb under ourselves.
As for being a poison? Well anything can be poisonous if your body gets too much of it, go sit in the sun. We have instruments that can tell us the levels of radiation in a given area, they are called Geiger Counters.
It is fine if you want to dog people that went to college and then some and then kept on learning so that they could be a nuclear scientist. I am not, I knew one...he was one smart motherfucker, and he didn't toke.
He didn't see a problem with nuclear, I don't...
Since you seem to have a hard-on for nuclear, like some cops for mary jane, I will never be able to convince you otherwise.
Don't call my shit propaganda, 'cause only one person is spewing it in this thread.
Tell you mom, Jane Fonda, that I said 'Hi'.
Maybe instead of just storing this deadly gas, we could recycle it?
I know about carbon. We use it in our air filters remember?
You know how these scientists can talk about all the stored methane in the Earth that could be released and kill us all...what is the difference about storing carbon (excuse me, Carbon Dioxide...it is just commonplace to abbreviate when it is understood what the subject is, happens a lot in technical writing).
Then all we are doing is planting a big gas bomb under ourselves.
As for being a poison? Well anything can be poisonous if your body gets too much of it, go sit in the sun. We have instruments that can tell us the levels of radiation in a given area, they are called Geiger Counters.
It is fine if you want to dog people that went to college and then some and then kept on learning so that they could be a nuclear scientist. I am not, I knew one...he was one smart motherfucker, and he didn't toke.
He didn't see a problem with nuclear, I don't...
Since you seem to have a hard-on for nuclear, like some cops for mary jane, I will never be able to convince you otherwise.
Don't call my shit propaganda, 'cause only one person is spewing it in this thread.
Tell you mom, Jane Fonda, that I said 'Hi'.
Maybe instead of just storing this deadly gas, we could recycle it?
Nor'Easter
Member
GH, great post exposing the nonsensical arguments on those insisting on dwelling on emails.
OK not even going to read all that nonsense rednick, it is pure ignorant babble. The only thing you said that is correct is that it is foolish to think man has no impact. Carbon sequestering is just one way we can reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere, I don't know what you are calling "recycling" but it sounds to me that what you describe would only reuse the carbon but would do nothing to reduce carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. So carbon sequestering is just one thing that can be done, better yet is stopping deforestation/encouraging reforestation, and most importantly reducing the carbon dioxide emissions both on corporations and individuals. Individual people cannot just throw their hands in the air and say nothing can be done, that couldn't be further from the truth and is like suggesting someone in a burning house just say "oh well I am going to die" instead of getting out of the house and calling the fire department to try to save the house. It is a deluded way of thinking. The facts are, people can drive less or drive more efficient cars, they can save electricity or weatherstrip their house, install more efficient windows, put up solar panels or wind turbines, and so on. There is plenty that can be done and we better start doing it!
OK not even going to read all that nonsense rednick, it is pure ignorant babble. The only thing you said that is correct is that it is foolish to think man has no impact. Carbon sequestering is just one way we can reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere, I don't know what you are calling "recycling" but it sounds to me that what you describe would only reuse the carbon but would do nothing to reduce carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. So carbon sequestering is just one thing that can be done, better yet is stopping deforestation/encouraging reforestation, and most importantly reducing the carbon dioxide emissions both on corporations and individuals. Individual people cannot just throw their hands in the air and say nothing can be done, that couldn't be further from the truth and is like suggesting someone in a burning house just say "oh well I am going to die" instead of getting out of the house and calling the fire department to try to save the house. It is a deluded way of thinking. The facts are, people can drive less or drive more efficient cars, they can save electricity or weatherstrip their house, install more efficient windows, put up solar panels or wind turbines, and so on. There is plenty that can be done and we better start doing it!
anyone comparing the danger of spent uranium with the dangers of carbon sequestration is ignorant. Anyone getting pissed off over having that pointed out is immature.
Carbon sequestration is nothing at all similar in any way to storage of spent uranium.
CO2 is bonded chemically into whatever is being used to sequester it. Ocean water is already chock full of CO2. It is not dangerous. Carbon is only an issue when it is atmospheric CO2. Everywhere else it is inert. It would be difficult to ingest enough carbon to die. Even CO2 suffocation is really only lack of O2 not CO2 poisoning. Carbonating some old flooded salt mines is a fine idea, with little potential for consequence and no potential for catastrophe.
Spent uranium is HIGHLY poisonous and any exposure will likely result in death.
There is no logical comparison between the dangers inherent in storing spent uranium vs. the dangers of sequestering carbon.
Carbon sequestration is nothing at all similar in any way to storage of spent uranium.
CO2 is bonded chemically into whatever is being used to sequester it. Ocean water is already chock full of CO2. It is not dangerous. Carbon is only an issue when it is atmospheric CO2. Everywhere else it is inert. It would be difficult to ingest enough carbon to die. Even CO2 suffocation is really only lack of O2 not CO2 poisoning. Carbonating some old flooded salt mines is a fine idea, with little potential for consequence and no potential for catastrophe.
Spent uranium is HIGHLY poisonous and any exposure will likely result in death.
There is no logical comparison between the dangers inherent in storing spent uranium vs. the dangers of sequestering carbon.
Last edited:
C
cork144
anybody want to offer up an explanation? while you all sketch out fearing youll boil to death.
The problem with that hypothosis is that according to David Suzki is there are many life forms in those mines that we don't understand yet. So more reasearch needs to be done. Before moving in that direction. peace out Headband707
Nothing I said had anything to do with saltwater cave ecosystems.
I never said sequestration was the perfect solution, only that comparing carbon to spent uranium is ignorance. The CO2 may raise the pH of the salt water in the caves. spent uranium would 100% definitely for sure kill whatever lives in the caves. There is no comparison of the two which can be rationally made. Spent uranium is thousands of times more toxic than carbon or CO2.
I never said sequestration was the perfect solution, only that comparing carbon to spent uranium is ignorance. The CO2 may raise the pH of the salt water in the caves. spent uranium would 100% definitely for sure kill whatever lives in the caves. There is no comparison of the two which can be rationally made. Spent uranium is thousands of times more toxic than carbon or CO2.
no need to go back over that cork. No-one here ever said that CO2 was the only thing that affects our climate... take your straw man argument along now...
Can't say I know enough about it Head lol lol.. You seem to know more then me... seen a couple of shows and I know were fucked if we don't change thats all.. peace out Headband707
love those salt water caves lol
love those salt water caves lol
C
cork144
just trying to put it basicly, because your all fretting about co2 and how its our DOOM!
the climate changes! if it didnt thats when you should be worried.
the climate changes! if it didnt thats when you should be worried.
No, you're trying to spin it. If you were trying to put it basically you would exaggerate less.
C
cork144
just the impression i get from these posts debating over a life giving gas,
anyway ill leave you to it, i gave up debating this along time ago, i realised my energy is better spent elsewhere.
anyway ill leave you to it, i gave up debating this along time ago, i realised my energy is better spent elsewhere.
Filling salt caves with liquid and CO2 will most likely be the least used method of geological sequestration.
I'm not saying that sequestration is the answer, and that no further action need be taken... Obviously there needs to be change, and carbon sequestration should be part of the changes being made.
My main point was how ridiculous it is to equate carbon and spent uranium. I'll eat a chunk of carbon. I dare anyone to eat a chunk of uranium.
So, cork, you don't understand how CO2 absorbs and re-radiates long wave radiation?
No one said CO2 wasn't a necessary part of the environment, and a good thing up to a point, but even you must realize that too much of a good thing is bad...
No one said CO2 wasn't a necessary part of the environment, and a good thing up to a point, but even you must realize that too much of a good thing is bad...
I guess I though sequestering consisted on pumping gas into DRY mines. If they are wet, then yes, that is a form of recycling. But how much can you pump into a salt mine instead of the ENTIRE ocean (that is a much more plausable idea currently being researched), 2/3 of the earths surface...habitable mass, much greater.
You must be right I must be wrong.
I am leaving this thread because you WHorED IT!
You are right, anyone that thinks differently is wrong...What whore does that remind me of???
I would love to know what your specialty is, or if you are just a regular Joe like me who takes and interest in observing our society. Someone around here said it best, 'do you ever look at a car dealer lot and wonder how much you could grow?'.
I am sorry our public school system failed you, maybe Obama can change that for your children.
When you are not open to all options on the table you are doomed to be dependant on the ones you know.
We agree there is a problem, we just don't agree on how to fix it.
Besides the fact that you are storing the spent fuel in a mountain in the middle of fucking nowhere Nevada, what is the problem with the radiation??? Radioactive materials are found naturally in the Earth's crust. They are not made in a lab.
I agree it would be nice to get ALL of our power from renewables...but it just won't happen, not in my lifetime.
Try reading the WHOLE report if you get the time. And this is just our country's projected needs. Not the entire planets.
Well I couldn't get the 2009 full report, so this is the 2010 overview. Our country uses a lot of energy, it has to come from somewhere. Diversified sources are the best.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/overview.html
I agree that the French and English may be retarded (scientific testing is currently underway), but why then do they get soooooo much power from Nuclear....
Evil Corporate Conspiracy?
You must be right I must be wrong.
I am leaving this thread because you WHorED IT!
You are right, anyone that thinks differently is wrong...What whore does that remind me of???
I would love to know what your specialty is, or if you are just a regular Joe like me who takes and interest in observing our society. Someone around here said it best, 'do you ever look at a car dealer lot and wonder how much you could grow?'.
I am sorry our public school system failed you, maybe Obama can change that for your children.
When you are not open to all options on the table you are doomed to be dependant on the ones you know.
We agree there is a problem, we just don't agree on how to fix it.
Besides the fact that you are storing the spent fuel in a mountain in the middle of fucking nowhere Nevada, what is the problem with the radiation??? Radioactive materials are found naturally in the Earth's crust. They are not made in a lab.
I agree it would be nice to get ALL of our power from renewables...but it just won't happen, not in my lifetime.
Try reading the WHOLE report if you get the time. And this is just our country's projected needs. Not the entire planets.
Well I couldn't get the 2009 full report, so this is the 2010 overview. Our country uses a lot of energy, it has to come from somewhere. Diversified sources are the best.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/overview.html
I agree that the French and English may be retarded (scientific testing is currently underway), but why then do they get soooooo much power from Nuclear....
Evil Corporate Conspiracy?
sorry I just prefer fact to speculation or propaganda
I have never once said nuclear was evil, I said your comparison was flawed.
Look into the effect increased CO2 in the oceans will have on the coral (some of the foundations of the ecosystem).
Why would anyone prefer to leave a thread rather than learn something?
I have never once said nuclear was evil, I said your comparison was flawed.
Look into the effect increased CO2 in the oceans will have on the coral (some of the foundations of the ecosystem).
Why would anyone prefer to leave a thread rather than learn something?
I am done arguing with you.
I am sorry my comparison with Yucca mountain to Flooded Saltmines with a pH down near 1, only makes sense to me. And yes I didn't know that the mines were flooded, but it still doesn't change my opposition to sequestering, in my opinion it is just a cop-out so that we can conduct business as usual.
I agree with Nor'Easter that deforestation (especially in tropical regions, e.g. Indonesia, Amazon Basin) is probably our biggest threat.
I am just saying that all sequestering is doing is sweeping a problem under the rug. It fixes nothing. Nuclear, on the other hand, is a clean source of energy. We have really smart scientists in this country that know how to keep it contained. If you have ever seen the train cars that they transport the waste in, you will know that they are virtually indestructible.
Our biggest problem with Nuclear in this country is the propaganda against it. 'Your child will grow three limbs'.
Well, that has happened, but it was in India, and it was among a group of people that traversed the spent uranium tillings on a daily basis to forage for food. Or in Iraq after Operation Desert Storm, when children would scavenge for scrap metal on the remains of Saddam's tanks, which had been pumped full of depleted uranium rounds by AC-10 Warthogs. Saddam didn't give a fuck, in fact he was probably happy they were exposing themselves to such levels, human guniea pigs.
I would be interested to learn about any instances of that happening in the US. I have more fear of living under a major power line than I do of having a Nuclear power plant within 50 miles of me. Three Mile Island released miniscule amounts of radiation.
The second biggest problem facing Nuclear in the country, is none of our reactors are less than 30-40years old. A lot has been learned about Fission in that time, and the US is getting left behind. Under Bush jr, more plants (NGNP) have been commissioned, but they are still in the building phase, and most will just be replacing older ones that need de-commissioning. So the net effect will be a small addition.
It is all right here in the EIA report. When the full one comes out, feel free to read it if you have the time, but I warn you, it is one long and technical piece of work.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/index.html
Or, more technical...changes in assumptions over time.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/analysispaper/retrospective/index.html
Nuclear provides a clean source of energy for the next 300 years, hopefully renewables will be at full swing by then, but it is a transitioning piece to the puzzle, to the Hydrogen and Renewable engergy economy.
The reason I am so hellbent on Nuclear...
d-d-d-d-d-d-da!
Magnitude.
And at the temperatures that a NGNP works at, you can literally seperate the Hydrogen molecules from the Oxygen at around 1600deg Celcius.
Less than 5% of the world's population uses more than 25% of it's energy.
How would a rise in cents/kwh affect your standard of living?
For me, my electricity bill is one of my biggest expenses.
I am sorry my comparison with Yucca mountain to Flooded Saltmines with a pH down near 1, only makes sense to me. And yes I didn't know that the mines were flooded, but it still doesn't change my opposition to sequestering, in my opinion it is just a cop-out so that we can conduct business as usual.
I agree with Nor'Easter that deforestation (especially in tropical regions, e.g. Indonesia, Amazon Basin) is probably our biggest threat.
I am just saying that all sequestering is doing is sweeping a problem under the rug. It fixes nothing. Nuclear, on the other hand, is a clean source of energy. We have really smart scientists in this country that know how to keep it contained. If you have ever seen the train cars that they transport the waste in, you will know that they are virtually indestructible.
Our biggest problem with Nuclear in this country is the propaganda against it. 'Your child will grow three limbs'.
Well, that has happened, but it was in India, and it was among a group of people that traversed the spent uranium tillings on a daily basis to forage for food. Or in Iraq after Operation Desert Storm, when children would scavenge for scrap metal on the remains of Saddam's tanks, which had been pumped full of depleted uranium rounds by AC-10 Warthogs. Saddam didn't give a fuck, in fact he was probably happy they were exposing themselves to such levels, human guniea pigs.
I would be interested to learn about any instances of that happening in the US. I have more fear of living under a major power line than I do of having a Nuclear power plant within 50 miles of me. Three Mile Island released miniscule amounts of radiation.
The second biggest problem facing Nuclear in the country, is none of our reactors are less than 30-40years old. A lot has been learned about Fission in that time, and the US is getting left behind. Under Bush jr, more plants (NGNP) have been commissioned, but they are still in the building phase, and most will just be replacing older ones that need de-commissioning. So the net effect will be a small addition.
It is all right here in the EIA report. When the full one comes out, feel free to read it if you have the time, but I warn you, it is one long and technical piece of work.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/index.html
Or, more technical...changes in assumptions over time.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/analysispaper/retrospective/index.html
Nuclear provides a clean source of energy for the next 300 years, hopefully renewables will be at full swing by then, but it is a transitioning piece to the puzzle, to the Hydrogen and Renewable engergy economy.
The reason I am so hellbent on Nuclear...
d-d-d-d-d-d-da!
Magnitude.
And at the temperatures that a NGNP works at, you can literally seperate the Hydrogen molecules from the Oxygen at around 1600deg Celcius.
Less than 5% of the world's population uses more than 25% of it's energy.
How would a rise in cents/kwh affect your standard of living?
For me, my electricity bill is one of my biggest expenses.
- Status
