are you a solar-topian?

noodles_jefferson

http://www.solartopia.org/AreYou.php

just want to get the word out about this very important movement. some politicians lately are promoting nuclear power as an alternative to fossil fuels. This is terribly inaccurate. nuclear power uses a ton of fossil fuels to generate power. it is in no way a green fuel like some, including jim cramer from CNN, have suggested. There are plans to build two new nuclear power plants in the US. This must not be allowed. It is far too dangerous.

A lot of people don't know this, but the second airplane that crashed into the pentagon on 9/11 flew over a nuclear power plant. Can you imagine what would have heppened if it had gone down a bit earlier? this is not safe at home and it s certainly not safe abroad with nations starting nuclear programs that thay insist are only for domestic power. It's kind of hard to tell Iran they can't have a nuclear plant while we are building them here and oh yeah, we also happen to have more nukes than every other nuclear power combined. We need to get over our addiction to king CONG (Coal, Oil, Nukes, Gas ). renewable-resource technology — wind, solar and biomass, along with extreme techno-efficiency — can and will power the human race to a sustainable, prosperous and democratic future, in which healing can begin.

Just visit the site and take a gander. This is not pie-in-the-sky stuff, solar power is available, cheap, and effective. and there's more demand right now that the industry can meet. A TON of money can be made by companies supplying technologies such as solar panels, sloar roof shingles, etc. It could be a real boon for our economy but the energy powers that be would have you belive otherwise. visit the site and see for yourself. make up your own mind after you review the facts.

onelongsong

noodles_jefferson wrote:

http://www.solartopia.org/AreYou.php

just want to get the word out about this very important movement. some politicians lately are promoting nuclear power as an alternative to fossil fuels. This is terribly inaccurate. nuclear power uses a ton of fossil fuels to generate power. it is in no way a green fuel like some, including jim cramer from CNN, have suggested. There are plans to build two new nuclear power plants in the US. This must not be allowed. It is far too dangerous.

A lot of people don't know this, but the second airplane that crashed into the pentagon on 9/11 flew over a nuclear power plant. Can you imagine what would have heppened if it had gone down a bit earlier? this is not safe at home and it s certainly not safe abroad with nations starting nuclear programs that thay insist are only for domestic power. It's kind of hard to tell Iran they can't have a nuclear plant while we are building them here and oh yeah, we also happen to have more nukes than every other nuclear power combined. We need to get over our addiction to king CONG (Coal, Oil, Nukes, Gas ). renewable-resource technology — wind, solar and biomass, along with extreme techno-efficiency — can and will power the human race to a sustainable, prosperous and democratic future, in which healing can begin.

Just visit the site and take a gander. This is not pie-in-the-sky stuff, solar power is available, cheap, and effective. and there's more demand right now that the industry can meet. A TON of money can be made by companies supplying technologies such as solar panels, sloar roof shingles, etc. It could be a real boon for our economy but the energy powers that be would have you belive otherwise. visit the site and see for yourself. make up your own mind after you review the facts.

nuclear power has a problem with waste. what do you think is going to happen when the ocean rises and floods that nuke plant? i've been 100% solar and power companies accross the us and europe have; and are building wind farms. the technologies are here but people don't like being inconvienced. they'll think more about it when they're wading through sea water mixed with sewage and nuclear waste.

Kel Varnsen

noodles_jefferson wrote:

A lot of people don't know this, but the second airplane that crashed into the pentagon on 9/11 flew over a nuclear power plant. Can you imagine what would have heppened if it had gone down a bit earlier?

If the plane flew into the nuclear plant probably nothing would have happened. You do realize that the building materials used to build a nuclear plant are a lot stronger than those used to build an office building like the pentagon. If a nuclear plant is dangerous because a plane could fly into it so is every hydroelectric dam in the world. Plus there would be a lot more damage if a plane flew into the Hoover dam and it burst than if one flew into a nuclear plant.

polaris

http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=262605&highlight=sign

they still haven't figured out what to do with the waste after all these years

Kel Varnsen

polaris wrote:

http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=262605&highlight=sign

they still haven't figured out what to do with the waste after all these years

The waste is less radioactive than it was when we took it out of the ground. What is wrong with putting it back in the ground.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

It has to happen. Otherwise the economic system will collapse when oil inevitably goes through the roof via supply and demand. Oil prices are nipping at our heels already.

onelongsong

Kel Varnsen wrote:

The waste is less radioactive than it was when we took it out of the ground. What is wrong with putting it back in the ground.

but when an ounce of uranium produces thousands of gallons of heavy water; it doesn't really matter. that water contains enough radiation to kill. sure; we can bury it and contaminate our drinking water. most of it is already polluted with chemicals.

Kel Varnsen

onelongsong wrote:

but when an ounce of uranium produces thousands of gallons of heavy water; it doesn't really matter. that water contains enough radiation to kill. sure; we can bury it and contaminate our drinking water. most of it is already polluted with chemicals.

But in a heavy water you reuse the deuterium as your moderator. It is highly vaulable and not waste. Plus by itself deuterium isn't even toxic, unless you drink a ton of it in place of regular water.

polaris

Kel Varnsen wrote:

The waste is less radioactive than it was when we took it out of the ground. What is wrong with putting it back in the ground.

i don't think that is necessarily true ... spent fuel doesn't necessarily mean less radioactive - just that the particular composition no longer supports nuclear fission ... i think the reaction also alters the nature of the uranium to the point that it creates isotopes that don't exist in nature without the reprocessing ...

onelongsong

Kel Varnsen wrote:

But in a heavy water you reuse the deuterium as your moderator. It is highly vaulable and not waste. Plus by itself deuterium isn't even toxic, unless you drink a ton of it in place of regular water.

i've been trying to reach a friend who used to work in a nuke plant. i don't have enough knowledge to discuss this and i'd rather keep my mouth shut and not look foolish. at this point; all i can say is i don't know enough about the subject matter to discuss it intelligently.

soulsinging

onelongsong wrote:

i've been trying to reach a friend who used to work in a nuke plant. i don't have enough knowledge to discuss this and i'd rather keep my mouth shut and not look foolish. at this point; all i can say is i don't know enough about the subject matter to discuss it intelligently.

this is a first. i'm impressed. maybe we can start having civil conversations and real debate sometime.

onelongsong

soulsinging wrote:

this is a first. i'm impressed. maybe we can start having civil conversations and real debate sometime.

this is not a first by any means. pay attention more often and you'll be surprised at what you learn.

soulsinging

onelongsong wrote:

this is not a first by any means. pay attention more often and you'll be surprised at what you learn.

i will try. but if i hear you claiming you were a pioneer in building the space station, we're right back where we started.

noodles_jefferson

polaris wrote:

i don't think that is necessarily true ... spent fuel doesn't necessarily mean less radioactive - just that the particular composition no longer supports nuclear fission ... i think the reaction also alters the nature of the uranium to the point that it creates isotopes that don't exist in nature without the reprocessing ...

you guys obviously know a lot more about the chemistry of nuclear power than I do, however, I don't think the realissue is how toxic spent nuclear fuel is, but rather the fact that we need to move toward cleaner sources of power which are available and ultimately far better for us economically, politically, and ecologically.

polaris

noodles_jefferson wrote:

you guys obviously know a lot more about the chemistry of nuclear power than I do, however, I don't think the realissue is how toxic spent nuclear fuel is, but rather the fact that we need to move toward cleaner sources of power which are available and ultimately far better for us economically, politically, and ecologically.

for sure ... however, we are dealing with humanity governed by selfishness and ruled by ignorance ...

godpt3

polaris wrote:

http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=262605&highlight=sign

they still haven't figured out what to do with the waste after all these years

nothing says "I love you" like something with a half-life

godpt3

noodles_jefferson wrote:

http://www.solartopia.org/AreYou.php

just want to get the word out about this very important movement. some politicians lately are promoting nuclear power as an alternative to fossil fuels. This is terribly inaccurate. nuclear power uses a ton of fossil fuels to generate power. it is in no way a green fuel like some, including jim cramer from CNN, have suggested. There are plans to build two new nuclear power plants in the US. This must not be allowed. It is far too dangerous.

just remember... free energy is only a myth.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

godpt3 wrote:

just remember... free energy is only a myth.

Says the sun to the solar panel.

godpt3

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Says the sun to the solar panel.

and how much energy do we humans expend trying to harness, store and transport that supposedly "free" source of energy?

noodles_jefferson

godpt3 wrote:

and how much energy do we humans expend trying to harness, store and transport that supposedly "free" source of energy?

nobody said they are totally free. you can't make energy out of nothing. but there are fuel types that are biodegradable such as biodeisel, and types who's production does not pollute the environment at all such as wind and solar. Hell, even the panels can be recycled. but like with any recycling, there is still some waste. Completely eliminating all waste is probably not a reality, but we can reduce it by a hell of a lot. obviously there will still be industries for cleaner energy, somebody has to produce the materials needed to harness solar and wind enery, to manufacture panels, fuel cells, etc..

the price of oil will get to be too prohibitive for economies to sustain so we have no choice but ween ourselves off of it. The big oil companies have to see this coming and they can transition to producers and servicers of cleaner fuels but they will not do it until can no longer profit from oil.

a similar thing happened around the time of the industrial revolution when it became unviable to keep using whale oil to supply the increasing demand for oil. Companies that were profiting for years on whale oil had to switch to petrolium. They will have to transition again at some point as the price of oil get's too prohibitive. It would be nice if they would just do it now because it's the right thing to do, but there will come a point where they will do it because it makes economic sense for them to do it.

It's our responsibility to get awareness out there now that we can begin transitioning. and the solartopia website offers good energy tips and things we can do to start living cleaner right now.