Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
no the latest pop culture cureall is OPEC and Chevron.
energy independence makes sense. altamonte pass is not new
been there long time-- low maintenance, cranks enough juice to light up a city and no oil wars
and spills. chevron and opec just hates em.
Last edited by Huckleberry3911948; 10-01-2009 at 11:16 AM..
<sigh> Does anybody actually research topics? tYou could take picture like this of nuke plant which of course has 0 emissions. When someone uses imagery like this to show "pollution" it just goes to show how little they know about the subject. Just to add this image was probably taken using HDR processing to make the clouds stand out. Yes, I said clouds because that is what you see.
What you see in these images is almost entirely water vapor. The wide cooling towers in the image above for example to the right or the left where most of the "pollution" is coming from is 100% water. The single skinny stack in the middle is only stack in this image that produces emissions and the high visibility indicates they are using a wet scrubber which is used to trap particualte matter and other pollution. The heat produces.......... water vapor.
Ironic but when someone uses an image like this to show pollution what they are actually showing is pollution control.
-------------
As far as the mining images yes that is what mining looks like but that would apply to any mine such as those that produce the iron ore to build your car, or those producing sand and gravel to build roads and buildings or practically any other product you can think of. As I mentioned above when they mine they need to set aside funds for reclaiming the land. That includes backfilling, contouring with soil and seeding.
As I also mentioned for every ton of coal mined X amount is collected as tax that goes towards reclaiming abandoned mine sites that they have no responsibility for, many that may have been abandoned for more than a century. In effect new mining activity is actually beneficial to the enviromnet in those regards as there is no one to hold responsible for these sites as the comapnies that created them have long since folded.
I'm fully aware of the fact that said picture is of a nuclear power plant. It is just another example of a highly subsidized energy source that is actually EXTREMELY risky.
By the way, have they ever figured out what to do with the spent depleted uranium, that is highly radioactive? Are they going to shoot it into space?
And why are you ignoring all the other pictures, depicting the absolutely horrid environmental disasters that are a DIRECT RESULT of the coal industry?
no the latest pop culture cureall is OPEC and Chevron.
energy independence makes sense. altamonte pass is not new
been there long time-- low maintenance, cranks enough juice to light up a city and no oil wars
and spills. chevron and opec just hates em.
And they spend millions of dollars on anti-wind energy propaganda.
I'm fully aware of the fact that said picture is of a nuclear power plant.
I said it could be taken at nuke plant, I didn't say it was a nuke plant. It's probably coal plant, cooling towers are used to conserve water and are not exclusive to nuclear plants.
Quote:
And why are you ignoring all the other pictures, depicting the absolutely horrid environmental disasters that are a DIRECT RESULT of the coal industry?
I'm assuming you are referring to ones depicting the coal ash spill, no excuse for that. Should have never happened.
Last edited by thecoalman; 10-01-2009 at 11:54 AM..
I'm fully aware of the fact that said picture is of a nuclear power plant. It is just another example of a highly subsidized energy source that is actually EXTREMELY risky.
By the way, have they ever figured out what to do with the spent depleted uranium, that is highly radioactive? Are they going to shoot it into space?
And why are you ignoring all the other pictures, depicting the absolutely horrid environmental disasters that are a DIRECT RESULT of the coal industry?
No it's a coal fired plant you can see the stack emitting tons of SOx, NOx, Hg, and CO2 right in the middle of the cooling stacks. Yeah when I see a sight like that I think, Wow where is Gollum, he would love this place.
I'm assuming you are referring to ones depicting the coal ash spill, no excuse for that. Should have never happened.
My whole point is this: While I respect you and your opinions (I really do), it needs to be admitted that there is NO source of energy that is without lots of problems. There is no energy industry in the United States that has existed without subsidies.
And until we can find or develop an ideal energy source that is efficient, cost effective and environmentally friendly, we're going to have to keep improving the sources we have - and that includes wind power.
My whole point is this: While I respect you and your opinions (I really do), it needs to be admitted that there is NO source of energy that is without lots of problems. There is no energy industry in the United States that has existed without subsidies.
And until we can find or develop an ideal energy source that is efficient, cost effective and environmentally friendly, we're going to have to keep improving the sources we have - and that includes wind power.
Actual what we know now, but haven't faced up to it in our energy policy is that coal and oil are dead end fuel sources. The oil is too concentrated in politically unstable regions of the world to ever rationally try to prolong the oil based transportation system. The coal resource is too dirty and there is no credible technology to clean it up. "Clean coal" is an oxymoron.
Rather than throw hundreds of millions of dollars are year after carbon capture and sequestration, which will not work, we should embark on a 20 year program to phase out oil and coal consumption in this country. BTW the economic boom for doing that would be enormous. Instead of sending hundreds of billions a year to the Middle East, it would be spent at home. Instead of dealing with the environmental costs of coal, we would be spending the money on new advanced technology that the rest of the world would buy from us.
^ Of course, there's always that pesky little issue of conservation. There's absolutely no question that Americans could easily drop our demand for electricity by 10% if we were willing to take some simple steps in that direction.
Why, for instance, do most skyscrapers stay completely lit all night long? Why not cut down to 25% lighting after midnight? Security would still be fine.
^ Of course, there's always that pesky little issue of conservation. There's absolutely no question that Americans could easily drop our demand for electricity by 10% if we were willing to take some simple steps in that direction.
Why, for instance, do most skyscrapers stay completely lit all night long? Why not cut down to 25% lighting after midnight? Security would still be fine.
Germany consumes on a per capita basis 1/4 or the liquid fuel that we do and the Germans are as car crazy as we.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
