|
Bush to Outlaw Greenpeace (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| slIpitUpnglIde |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
Greenpeace was apparently funnelling tax exempt funds thru illegal means. (money laundering) |
Where did you hear this? That sounds pretty bad, and I'd like to know more. I know a lot of these supposedly good orgs are being caught in scandals these days, like the UN and Food for Oil. It's hard to believe, but I can't argue with you since I don't know.
| quote: | | Thats besides the fact their guerilla tacticts have become steadily more overt and have always been illeagal. |
I don't know much about Greenpeace, but I don't see this particular instance as having much to do with Guerilla tactics. From what I read, all they did was trick the boat into taking them in and then try to unfurl a banner onboard. Did I miss something?
| quote: | | But please lets bash Bush for Ashcroft doing his job. |
You well know that a lot worse things are going on on a daily basis than people putting banners on lumber boats. You can't convince me that this is energy well spent, nor that the fact that they did spend energy on this instead of something more important isn't mildly fishy, so to speak. |
|
|
| jlosada |
These "green" organizations are completely against the progress, and here in Spain there is an example. The Electrical Power Debate, these are the arguments of the ecologists:
- Nuclear Power Stations: They contamine and are very dangerous.
So what is contamine, contamine for me is producing a waste and NOT manage the waste. All we know that the nuclear standards are very high in the waste fact.
Dangerous? What is more dangerous? A nuclear power station or an earthquake? What is more probable a nuclear power station accident or an earthquake?
- Combined cycle power stations: They contamine a lot.
But, if nuclear power stations contamine and are very dangerous, the next stage in mass power production is combined cycle technology, that is true that contamine more than nuclear power stations because they can¡t manage their waste (CO2). So what?
- Wind Power stations: They kill the birds.
So what can we do?
....
And the hipocresy of these integrists:
- The ecologists have electrical power in their homes: Yes, so they must admit that they help to contamine.
- They wear clothes made with plastic fibers: Yes, so they must admit that they help to contamine.
- They drive cars: Yes, so they must admit that they contamine as the same way as a combined cycle power station.
- So, what are they?... |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by jlosada
These "green" organizations are completely against the progress, and here in Spain there is an example. The Electrical Power Debate, these are the arguments of the ecologists:
- Nuclear Power Stations: They contamine and are very dangerous.
So what is contamine, contamine for me is producing a waste and NOT manage the waste. All we know that the nuclear standards are very high in the waste fact.
Dangerous? What is more dangerous? A nuclear power station or an earthquake? What is more probable a nuclear power station accident or an earthquake?
- Combined cycle power stations: They contamine a lot.
But, if nuclear power stations contamine and are very dangerous, the next stage in mass power production is combined cycle technology, that is true that contamine more than nuclear power stations because they can¡t manage their waste (CO2). So what?
- Wind Power stations: They kill the birds.
So what can we do?
....
And the hipocresy of these integrists:
- The ecologists have electrical power in their homes: Yes, so they must admit that they help to contamine.
- They wear clothes made with plastic fibers: Yes, so they must admit that they help to contamine.
- They drive cars: Yes, so they must admit that they contamine as the same way as a combined cycle power station.
- So, what are they?... |
Agree here. The greens just want to cut back on nuclear power without any real alternative. Regular power plants pollute much more than nukes, and clean power plants don't give out nearly as much power as needed. |
|
|
| DaveSZ |
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle....storyID=5197580
Greenpeace was lucky they didn't go before one of W's appointed judges.
He appointed some nut the other month to the 11th circuit who had given a speech with Roy Moore in support of his 10 Commandments monument.
:haha::nervous: |
|
|
| slIpitUpnglIde |
| quote: | Originally posted by jlosada
These "green" organizations are completely against the progress, and here in Spain there is an example. The Electrical Power Debate, these are the arguments of the ecologists:
- Nuclear Power Stations: They contamine and are very dangerous.
So what is contamine, contamine for me is producing a waste and NOT manage the waste. All we know that the nuclear standards are very high in the waste fact.
|
Yes, their standards are high, but it's a fact that it is impossible to do anything with nuclear waste. You can bury it but it doesn't go away. The argument against nuclear power plants is that we shouldn't be using materials that we have no way of disposing of.| quote: |
Dangerous? What is more dangerous? A nuclear power station or an earthquake? What is more probable a nuclear power station accident or an earthquake?
|
Can we prevent an earthquake? No, but we can avoid building nuclear power plants.| quote: |
- Combined cycle power stations: They contamine a lot.
But, if nuclear power stations contamine and are very dangerous, the next stage in mass power production is combined cycle technology, that is true that contamine more than nuclear power stations because they can¡t manage their waste (CO2). So what?
|
What do you mean, so what?| quote: |
- Wind Power stations: They kill the birds.
So what can we do?
|
True, reactionaries will make a stink about anything. It doesn't matter what it is: it won't please them and they have to get up-in-arms. On the other hand, if it weren't for reactionaries, we would all sit around on our asses not questioning anything, because it is human nature to take things for granted and try not to think about the bad side.| quote: |
And the hipocresy of these integrists:
- The ecologists have electrical power in their homes: Yes, so they must admit that they help to contamine.
|
We have become dependant on these things, and it would be nice to think we could all unhook ourselves over night, but these transitions take time. The point is that they are trying to move away from bad practice energy sources.| quote: |
- They wear clothes made with plastic fibers: Yes, so they must admit that they help to contamine.
|
I bet alot of them wear cotton, a very natural fiber, but I'm not defending them. The reaping and weaving of cotton requires factories, too, so they're still contributing to waste. But do you think they should go naked? The solution is to grow your own cotton in your own back yard and weave your own clothes. But again, transitions like that take time. And under current zoning laws, not just anybody can have a cotton plantation in their back yard.| quote: |
- They drive cars: Yes, so they must admit that they contamine as the same way as a combined cycle power station.
|
See above two points. It takes a lot of people working together to invent and produce new means of transportation, and until they acheive that they'll have to deal with what they've got. One thing I can guarantee is that there are very few of them driving around in SUVs or Mini-Vans and consuming so much gasoline as most people feel entitled to do.| quote: |
- So, what are they?... |
Dreamers who like to get upset over everything and believe in an impossible eutopian society. They should step back and moderate their goals and means of acheiving them, but where would we be without slightly crazy dreamers? We'd still be living in the feudal age, digging in the dirt. Society must progress, and though neither conservatives nor radicals can acheive it, it takes both to come to a middle ground and get things done. |
|
|
| Dervish |
| quote: | Originally posted by slIpitUpnglIde
[COLOR=orange][SIZE=2]Yes, their standards are high, but it's a fact that it is impossible to do anything with nuclear waste. You can bury it but it doesn't go away. The argument against nuclear power plants is that we shouldn't be using materials that we have no way of disposing of.[SIZE=2]
|
And how do you supose we get rid of the 1000 wind turbines which you'd need to replace one nuclear power plant with then? Becuase they will break doen in the end..... more likely be replaced by new tech.
Much of the greens understanding of nuclear energy is based upon and preys upon old plants. New plants could deal with the waste, obviously there is some but it's much less than any other form. Yes in an ideal worl d wind or whatever would be great, but it's not. Maybe once it matures a bit better but not yet. |
|
|
| smokeape |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
Finally Ashcroft is doing something right!
:toothless |
Amen, bro!
:p
[[[smoke]]] |
|
|
| slIpitUpnglIde |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dervish
And how do you supose we get rid of the 1000 wind turbines which you'd need to replace one nuclear power plant with then? Becuase they will break doen in the end..... more likely be replaced by new tech.
|
There's a big difference between leftover metal and leftover nuclear waste. Leftover metal is bad, admittedly, but it doesn't contaminate the surrounding environment and cause mutations and cancer the way that nuclear waste does.| quote: |
Much of the greens understanding of nuclear energy is based upon and preys upon old plants. New plants could deal with the waste, obviously there is some but it's much less than any other form. Yes in an ideal worl d wind or whatever would be great, but it's not. Maybe once it matures a bit better but not yet. |
How do new plants deal with the waste? The only method I've heard of is shipping it to somewhere where not too many people live and burying it, but that doesn't mean it's gone, nor does it mean that the environment won't be affected by it. If you've heard of a new method of dealing with it, by all means share it with me. You're right, wind power has a long way to go before it's realistic for everyone, but think of it this way: computers once filled whole rooms and were only affordable by institutions and agencies. Now, nearly everyone has a computer or at least has access to one... they are common place. So I agree with you that when wind power "matures a bit" it may be a practical solution. But that won't happen if it doesn't get the support of the general public. There's a lot of money in nuclear plants, and until politicians see that they could get money by switching to wind power, they will continue in their old-fashioned ways. That's why we need activists to try to educate the people about the benefits of alternate energy sources. |
|
|
| Dervish |
| quote: | Originally posted by slIpitUpnglIde
There's a big difference between leftover metal and leftover nuclear waste. Leftover metal is bad, admittedly, but it doesn't contaminate the surrounding environment and cause mutations and cancer the way that nuclear waste does.
How do new plants deal with the waste? The only method I've heard of is shipping it to somewhere where not too many people live and burying it, but that doesn't mean it's gone, nor does it mean that the environment won't be affected by it. If you've heard of a new method of dealing with it, by all means share it with me. You're right, wind power has a long way to go before it's realistic for everyone, but think of it this way: computers once filled whole rooms and were only affordable by institutions and agencies. Now, nearly everyone has a computer or at least has access to one... they are common place. So I agree with you that when wind power "matures a bit" it may be a practical solution. But that won't happen if it doesn't get the support of the general public. There's a lot of money in nuclear plants, and until politicians see that they could get money by switching to wind power, they will continue in their old-fashioned ways. That's why we need activists to try to educate the people about the benefits of alternate energy sources. |
Well firstly the stuff wind turbines is made out of isn't just metal and stuff. Its mostly complex composite. And I assure you the waste material is not recyleable and wheres that gonna go..... you guessed the ground. Same place but about 10000 as much per unit of electricity.
Secondly the waste produced by a new nuclear plant is an order of magnitude less than old plants mainly dealing with the HLW rather than any LLW. That is through control and the type of contamination and control of contamination and reprocessing. Obviously you still need to enrich material, and obviously you have to look after it beyond it's useful life.
Thirdly if you wanted to make for example the UK run on renewables firstly you'd need to cover the whole place in wind farms.... litrally. Secondly the materials and energy expened in the construction of the turbines would be obsene.
Forthly wind farms are sesonal in their supply characteristic even coupled with other forms of alt ennergy the supply is unrealiable without substantual overdesign (more waste).
Fithly out of the non-renewable sources nuclear is by far and the way more enviormentally friendly, and in my humble opinion actally more enviomentally friendly than most of the alt energy sources. Firstly because of the complex and energy expensive materials used in turbine, and other forms actually, contruction. But also because to say provide electricty for a town you'd need to have the whole outsirts filled with windfarms, which at certain times wouldn't supply enough.
Sixthly as mentioned before due to the sesonal nature of all alt energy sources unless you plan on making huge batteries (actually flywheels are better storage devices, more efficent) to cover for the times when the network (unless its hugles and I mean hugely overdesigned)doesn't supply enough, even a composite alt energy network. You will need another form of supply. Of which nuclear is best. Enviromentally and jobs wise and space wise.
EDIT: Alt Energy great for subsidies, not so great for supply :stongue:
Also
My school of engineering at uni research group CLICK
and I've worked in two seperate nuclear installations and I'm a degree qualified electrical engineer. So when I say things like 'matures a bit' I know exactly what it means.
Also power generation progression is nothing like computer tech progression.
EDIT no.3... lol
btw I'm not bashing at you or anything it's just I'm passionate about the subject, and dispeling any myths around the subject. |
|
|
| smokeape |
Great. So was that for or against Greenpeace?
:conf:
[[[smoke]]] |
|
|
|
|
