backtop

Print 165 comment(s) - last by oTAL.. on May 7 at 2:54 PM

The GidroOGK 1.5MW test generator leaving its Sevmash production line
...that's gigawatts, not "jiggawatts"

In Russia's Mezen Bay, the difference between high and low tide is more than 20 feet. Lifting billions of tons of water this high involves huge amounts of energy... energy that Russia plans to harness. The nation is moving forward with plans to build a massive tidal power plant at the location. A turbine for the pilot project was delivered earlier this year and is slated to begin operation within the next few months. The pilot is only 1.5 MW capacity, but if the design is succesful, a 10,000 MW station will be built in its place.

Several other locations around the world are even more suited for tidal power. Canada's Bay of Fundy holds the record for greatest tidal variance (55 feet), but plans to build a large tidal station there have been stymied by objections from environmentalists, fearing it would harm sea mammals and increase shoreline erosion. 

GidroOGK, the company responsible for the new facility, is in a much different position than the Bay of Fundy proposition.  The Russian Polar Institute of Fisheries and Oceanography revealed findings that show fish pass through tidal plants practically undeterred.  Specifically. "field tests on the Kislogubskaya TPP failed to find killed or damaged specimens."

France currently operates the world's largest tidal power station, a 240MW plant located in the Rance Estuary.  Like solar power stations, tidal plants can only operate for about half of each day.

Russia currently has a 400 kW tidal station at Kislogubskaya, near where the GidroOGK plant is to be installed. 


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Environmentalists
By rmaharaj on 4/18/2007 8:02:19 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Canada's Bay of Fundy holds the record for greatest tidal variance (55 feet), but plans to build a large tidal station there have been stymied by objections from environmentalists, fearing it would harm sea mammals and increase shoreline erosion.

It funny how environmentalists are probably doing more than any other group to keep us dependant on fossil fuels. Their opposition to nuclear power as a means of replacing coal-fired power plants is nothing short of ludicrous.




RE: Environmentalists
By Hyperlite on 4/18/2007 8:06:30 PM , Rating: 2
wow, thats a good point, i have never thought about that.


RE: Environmentalists
By Ringold on 4/18/2007 8:47:51 PM , Rating: 2
Fossil Fuels: Destroys the atmosphere
Wind: Slaughters birds
Nuclear: Three Mile Island killed millions.
Tidal: Destroys.. beaches?

The only one they tend to spare? Solar, the least practical for powering large parts of civilization out of the lot of them, except perhaps for wind.

Hydroelectric they tend to decry too, though typically not quite the same groups as the ones decrying fossil fuels. It's development can cause huge political battles, either between states or nations, over water rights.

The only conclusion that can be drawn is that they want the economy to tank to further their political motives, but I've said that before. That, or they're astoundingly dumb. I prefer to think the former, as I like to think we've advanced beyond the intelligence of our chimp cousins.

But somehow I don't think Russia would give a damn what the environmentalists think anyway. Good for them. :) They're just about the only country getting much done these days anyway.


RE: Environmentalists
By TomZ on 4/18/2007 9:10:45 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Nuclear: Three Mile Island killed millions.

Huh? Millions of what?


RE: Environmentalists
By mendocinosummit on 4/18/2007 9:13:26 PM , Rating: 5
bacteria


RE: Environmentalists
By Samus on 4/18/07, Rating: -1
RE: Environmentalists
By masher2 (blog) on 4/19/2007 1:06:45 AM , Rating: 5
Your figures of 30 deaths are roughly correct for Chernobyl. No one died (or was even injured) at Three Mile Island.

Indeed, there have been zero fatalities in the entire US nuclear power industry, despite several thousand reactor-years of operation.


RE: Environmentalists
By markitect on 4/19/2007 9:57:25 AM , Rating: 2
The only reason anybody died Chernobyl was because it was based on an experimental reactor designed as a proof of concept. The plans they stole involved graduate students dumping cadmium on top of it if it starts to melt down (and was taken apart immediately after the test). It had no separation of operators from the reaction and no shielding against a meltdown (or a way to stop a meltdown once it started).

The only reason three mile island had a melt down (which was completely contained do to being a permanent design, which is actually pretty unsafe compared to modern reactor design) is because the operators decided to push the ignore button to a critical warning, during routine testing.


RE: Environmentalists
By Grast on 4/19/2007 10:59:22 AM , Rating: 5
Mark,

To be fair to the three mile island operators, they performed the actions which were stated in their operating manuals. They had instruments which were unreliable. They were constrained by issues of a lack of communication and poor design for monitoring systems.

In retrospect, three mile island was a good thing!!! It identified aspects of reator design and operation which needed to be corrected. As a result, the U.S. and the Navy have not had one incident related to operations of their nuclear power plants.

Suck on that environmentalist!!!!!!!!!!


RE: Environmentalists
By TheGreek on 4/19/07, Rating: 0
RE: Environmentalists
By Hoser McMoose on 4/19/2007 2:58:20 PM , Rating: 2
There have actually been a few deaths (maybe 10?) in the history of US nuclear power industry, but only in military test reactors. Most of the early development for nuclear power was done through the military, so by the time it came to commercial use it was much more stabilized.

The 30-some odd deaths from Chernobyl's meltdown is correct though. Almost all of those were firefighters who rushed to the scene to put out the blaze without knowing of the real danger. All the front-line firefighters died pretty shortly after from severe radiation poisoning.

There has thusfar been only ONE death that can reliably be attributed to the aftereffects of the Chernobyl reactor meltdown (ie someone who wasn't on-site and killed from acute radiation poisoning). In the immediate aftermath Thyroid cancer rates soared for those living nearby at the time of the accident. Fortunately thyroid cancer is pretty treatable, so only one person died.

All other deaths that have been blamed on Chernobyl are based off of guesswork on fractions of percentages changes in cancer rates. Of course, there are a million other factors that affect this and the VASTLY different economic and social conditions that exist in the Ukraine now vs. 1984 mean that any such estimates going to have a huge margin of error. Current estimates range from about 0 to 15,000 people.


RE: Environmentalists
By masher2 (blog) on 4/19/2007 4:10:36 PM , Rating: 2
> "There have actually been a few deaths (maybe 10?) in the history of US nuclear power industry..."

I know of only three deaths total...all of which occurred during a single accident in 1961, at a research facility, not a power generation reactor.

> "The 30-some odd deaths from Chernobyl's meltdown is correct though. Almost all of those were firefighters who rushed to the scene..."

True.

> "In the immediate aftermath Thyroid cancer rates soared... "

As you point out, its an extremely treatable and rarely fatal disease. But I have to add that, even those cases which did occur, were mainly due to the Soviet government's failure to evacuate people in a timely manner (people were still fishing in the reactor's cooling pond for three DAYS following the explosion), and their further failure to make available iodine pills to those exposed, which would have drastically reduced the effects.


RE: Environmentalists
By Ringold on 4/19/2007 4:32:06 PM , Rating: 2
Thyroid cancer; I've got a months supply of iodine pills in my cabinent I bought after 9-11 to shield against that for 10 people. I got them on the cheap; more than enough for my direct family, but I figure there would be many people wishing to leach off of my foresight. (I'm not paranoid; Orlando is just a giant juicy target. If I lived almost anywhere else I wouldn't of bothered)

At least I think that's the type of cancer the iodine pills protect against. It stops one of those important organs from absorbing the radioactive material anyway.


RE: Environmentalists
By Hoser McMoose on 4/19/2007 5:47:40 PM , Rating: 2
Yup, iodine pills are indeed supposed to help prevent thyroid cancer, though I'm not sure how well proven their effectiveness is. It has been widely speculated that if the Soviet government had rapidly distributed potassium iodide pills like after Chernobyl like the Polish government did then hundreds of possibly thousands of cases of thyroid cancer could have been averted.

One important side note to this: the iodine-131 isotope that caused thyroid cancer after Chernobyl has a half-life of only 8 days. This means that it very quickly reduces to completely harmless levels. It's almost mainly just young children that are affected by this, the uptake of radioactive iodine into the thyroid in adults is pretty low, especially among most of us in North America who have a fair bit of (non-radioactive) iodine already in our thyroid from our diet.


RE: Environmentalists
By Sahrin on 4/19/2007 5:30:25 PM , Rating: 2
I would be shocked to learn that there were not dozens if not hundreds of deaths in the history of nuclear power. The DoE (Atomic Energy Commission back in the day, I believe) covered up and suppressed many incidents of severe contamination at so called "research" reactors. I think the biggest over-concern people have is with radiation and radiation poisoning.

Radiation is, by itself, not all that dangerous. I wouldn't stand in my microwave, nor would I want to spend a lot of time as a fuel rod inspector. But radiation is very rarely fatal rapidly (extremely high doses are required over prolonged periods). The danger from radiation is cancer - which every day we get a little closer to being able to cure/treat/make chronic.

So while yes, you may develop cancer as a result of radiation exposure - the cancer is likely to be treatable. If global warming truly does yield the kind of catastrophes predicted by environmentalists - a slight increase in the cancer rate is greatly preferrable to losing hundreds of millions of lives to flooding.


RE: Environmentalists
By Zoomer on 4/20/2007 7:41:08 AM , Rating: 2
Oh no! I'm standing in the sun, and I'm going to die because of all that radiation that's hitting me!!!

Seriously, how many deaths have there been in the coal / oil power plant industry? From coal/oil mining?

It's meaningless to say that x died from in, therfore it *must* be unsafe.


RE: Environmentalists
By Ringold on 4/19/2007 10:42:40 AM , Rating: 2
I was being sarcastic.


RE: Environmentalists
By masher2 (blog) on 4/18/07, Rating: -1
RE: Environmentalists
By Steve Guilliot on 4/18/2007 11:14:46 PM , Rating: 4
Ehrlich is famed because he was extreme, controversial, and outspoken. He isn't typical of environmentalists, nor does he speak for them. He's just famous, that's it.

Living in Seattle, I know plenty of environmentalists, and none of them agree with what you quote from Ehrlich.

I would be suprised if more than 1% of environmentalists decry economic growth and developement apart from the environmental impact of burning fossil fuels. We're talking about tidal power, so...


RE: Environmentalists
By grenableu on 4/19/2007 12:00:14 AM , Rating: 2
Ehrlich isn't the only one by a long shot.

"If you ask me, it'd be a little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy because of what we would do with it..."
-- Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute.

"The only real good technology is no technology at all. Technology is taxation without representation, imposed by our elitist species (man) upon the rest of the natural world"
-- John Shuttleworth, founder of Mother Earth News.

"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't our responsibility to bring that about?"
-- Maurice Strong, Secretary General 1992 UN Earth Summit

"We have wished, we ecofreaks, for a disaster or for a social change to come and bomb us into the Stone Age."
-- Stewart Brand

"Everything we have developed over the last 100 years should be destroyed."
-- Pentti Linkola

"Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental"
-- David Foreman, founder of Earth First!

"If there is going to be electricity at all, I would like it to be decentralized, small, solar-powered"
-- Gar Smith

"The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States..."
-- Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund

"Man is always and everywhere a blight on the landscape."
-- John Muir, founder of the Sierra Club.


RE: Environmentalists
By TechLuster on 4/19/2007 12:42:52 AM , Rating: 2
Alright, so of course I disagree with MOST of these comments you list (I'd just like to see a nutty environmentalist TRY to take away the sweet X2 3800+ EE system I just built).

But there are some valid points here scattered among the outlandish statements. For example:
quote:
"The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States..."
It's well known that the planet simply cannot sustain lifting the rest of the world's population to the US's level of consumption (I've heard this would require the resources of ~5 planet earths!).

[Full disclosure: I'm a member of Environmental Defense.]


RE: Environmentalists
By masher2 (blog) on 4/19/2007 1:15:32 AM , Rating: 3
> "It's well known that the planet simply cannot sustain lifting the rest of the world's population to the US's level of consumption (I've heard this would require the resources of ~5 planet earths!)"

A little research should convince you this isn't even close to the truth. With the exception of fossil fuels, we aren't even using 1% of the Earth's resources...much less any of the ones available to us throughout the rest of the Solar System.

Replace fossil fuels with nuclear power, extend modern agriculture to the Third World, along with a few other minor changes, and the world can support a population three times the current figure...all of them healthier, better fed, and with a higher standard of living than we in the US have today.

Most land on Earth is still wholly undeveloped...a fact we tend to forget when we live 99% of our lives always within 50 meters of a road.


RE: Environmentalists
By Jaramin on 4/19/2007 3:36:23 AM , Rating: 2
Well, I don't know what kind of ressources you're talking about, but in terms of available ressources, fuel and non-fuel alike, we are extracting much more than what the planet can handle without ecological collapse. There is broad concensus in environmental studies that we'll reach a deficit of taking twice what we should in terms of ressources by 2050, and that could be the tipping point. Ecosystems are quite fragile (by our standards) and so tightly integrated that they can unravel quite rapidly. We depend entirely on this system for our survival, we can't think of wild space as space just waiting to be "developed", that's just not how things work.

Considering the hubris of actual quantitative development (and thus ressource consumption and pollution creation), I can understand why one would consider an increase in energy availability, in our current context, a poisoned gift. We simply don't have the right habits, social and economical structures for sustainable development right now, and that's were's the fixing need to be done.

A word on modern agriculture, if you mean intensive monoculture, as it is practiced in america and exported in third world countries, it is directly linked with soil depletion and desertification.


RE: Environmentalists
By masher2 (blog) on 4/19/2007 4:02:23 AM , Rating: 4
> "I don't know what kind of ressources you're talking about"

Energy, food, water, renewables like wood, metals, and major minerals. We've not even begun to tap the earth's full potential in any of these.

> "we are extracting much more than what the planet can handle..."

A widespread belief that isn't backed by the facts.

> "modern agriculture as practiced in America...is directly linked with soil depletion and desertification."

And yet despite decades of sky-is-falling pronouncements like this, US agricultural productivity continues to increase year after year, and desert regions are not expanding. 40 years ago, environmentalists claimed millions would be starving before now, and yet today, our biggest problem is we're all eating too much food.

> "I can understand why one would consider an increase in energy availability, in our current context, a poisoned gift..."

And another environmentalist reveals he doesn't really want cheap, clean, abundant energy.


RE: Environmentalists
By redbone75 on 4/19/07, Rating: -1
RE: Environmentalists
By alifbaa on 4/19/2007 8:01:51 AM , Rating: 3
First of all, I dispute your assertion that "Millions" die of famine each year. Of course one person starving is too much, and malnutrition is a huge problem in the developing world.

Unfortunately, a fact you seem to fail to realize is that the vast majority of these problems do not stem from agricultural or environmental roots. In literally every case I have ever come across, these problems stem from governmental corruption or human conflict. In other words, people who choose not to place priority on food production.

Look all over Africa, South America, Southwest Asia, and North Korea. In every location you will see copious examples of severe and widespread chronic malnutrition. In rare cases you will see what could be considered famine. I defy you to show me an example of any of it being caused by environmental degradation.

Heck, BBC did a report on a set of islands literally getting swallowed into the sea as a result of global warming. Even those people weren't starving!


RE: Environmentalists
By redbone75 on 4/19/2007 8:49:58 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
First of all, I dispute your assertion that "Millions" die of famine each year. Of course one person starving is too much, and malnutrition is a huge problem in the developing world.

Hey, where's the second of all. I feel cheated. I was getting so into your rebuttal I only naturally expected it. Second of all does follow first of all, doesn't it?
Anyway, I already mentioned that politics are involved in many cases of famine, often compounding already severe situations. What you fail to realize is that particular part of my post was aimed at the high level of agricultural productivity of today as mentioned my masher2. Oh, and you "defy" me to show an example of any of it being caused by environmental degradation? I defy you to do a simple search on famine and look at the conditions leading up to famine over the past couple decades in some countries. Many of those countries you'll find are in Africa simply because of the environment they live in, what with drought threatening practically every year (Ethiopia, anyone?). And how about that drought combined with the poor sustainability of lands cleared in those areas for crops and cattle grazing? The deforestation of the Amazon springs to mind also when thinking of that. My whole point with that was that we're producing so much food, but so many are not being fed. There's a little clarification for you.


RE: Environmentalists
By masher2 (blog) on 4/19/2007 9:19:35 AM , Rating: 4
> "Rates of deforestation are much, much higher than rates of replenishing forests..."

Oops, incorrect. The US is more heavily forested today than it was in the year 1900. A surprising fact to some people, but true.

> "millions die yearly of famine."

This is a wildly inflated figure, but more to the point, the only people suffering from starvation today are in areas torn of civil war or under a repressive government. Hunger today is a political problem, not a technological or environmental one, which maks your point moot.

> "There is a place for environmental concern"

Of course. But when it grows to the point of silliness, and we begin banning clean nuclear, hydro, and tidal power to keep coal plants in existence, it has to stop.


RE: Environmentalists
By MonkeyPaw on 4/19/2007 10:23:16 AM , Rating: 3
Thank you for pointing out the myth of deforestation in the US. I would like to add that while many assume that cutting down trees is bad, they fail to realize that new forests are far more productive (in terms of CO2 removal, especially) than old, mature forests. Not to say that old forests don't have a value, but such ecosystems are frequently destroyed by forest fire because of thier lack of productivity. That's the kicker when it comes to forests, unless you harvest the wood of a tree, the CO2 that the tree fixed from the atmosphere ends up back in the sky when the wood is decomposed or when it burns up. I'm not saying that all trees should be harvested, but most ecosystems have a "break even" approach. It's not in a plant's best interest to consume all CO2 from the atmosphere.

Also, there's no doubt that logging is unsightly, but so is the end result of a forest fire, tornado, hurricane or ice storm (I've seen all of the above). Such disturbances actually encourage species diversity through new opportunity. Nature is very good at "destroying" itself for its own sake, yet when man cuts down a tree, he is a monster?


RE: Environmentalists
By Jellodyne on 4/19/2007 9:50:12 AM , Rating: 2
> Yeah, Americans and other developed nations have the
> luxury of being overweight, but millions die yearly of
> famine.

The ones dying are the ones without access to cheap, abundant energy...


RE: Environmentalists
By Oregonian2 on 4/19/2007 3:21:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yes, technology has enabled our agricultural productivity to feed masses upon masses of people, but that food really doesn't get to where it's very sorely needed in the quantities it's needed, now does it? Yeah, Americans and other developed nations have the luxury of being overweight, but millions die yearly of famine. So, how can we continue to boast about agricultural productivity in the face of that?


Are you saying that we can only boast of agricultural productivity if we not only can, but DO feed the rest of the world in addition to ourselves (and feeding ourselves, is, btw, the main objective of our agriculture -- everything else is a bonus)? Alternatively, are you boasting that the agriculture of those countries with starving people is superior to ours and that we should follow their lead? What exactly is your point? If productivity is high, it's high.


RE: Environmentalists
By geddarkstorm on 4/19/2007 4:23:10 PM , Rating: 2
Do realize, that the countries that cause the most environmental damage are developping countries, not the US. Infact, forest cover in the US and Europe is on the rise. We have clearner water than almost anywhere in the world; and huge swaths of the US are left open purely to the environment by the way of National Parks.

Now realize, a developping country doesn't have the luxury to put aside land to National Parks, nor does it have the luxury to worry about the consequences of burning acres of the rainforest every day. As technology develops beyond the industrial revolution, the impact of people on the environment decreases. The only way to help the environment, is to increase technology, or do away with technology absolutely! There is no middle ground really (though humanity as a whole is very ingenius so perhaps it could find one).

Also, the US is such a consumer of world resources, because it is also one of the largest producers of refined resources. The planet has more than enough raw materials for us; and the better our technology gets, the better we are at making synthetic materials and thus decreasing our use of raw materials (synthetics can come from recycling and biological origins as well as from much more abundant resources like silicon and alluminum which make up the vast majority of the earth's crust). Seriously, look at geology and you'll see the world is in no danger at all of running out of resources: easy resources yes, but not resources as a whole.

Dude, as long as materials on earth aren't being sent out into space, we can always get them back. Chemistry works wonders you know; and the biospheres do nearly all the work for us. Getting back metals? Some bacteria do that; they take metals from the environment and stick them all in one place as part of how they detoxify and metabolize. Where are all the materials of the earth going? They are still on the planet, sometimes simply in harder to harvest forms than others.


RE: Environmentalists
By Jaramin on 4/19/2007 12:51:59 PM , Rating: 3
Take a look at the studies provided by the Millenium Ecosystem Assessment. It is co-produced by the White House, U.N. and World Bank, not the most eco-friendly organisations by any means, and still paint the picture you refuse to acknowledge.

If your "facts" strictly come from how much food the US has been producing in the last decades, then I suggest you dig deeper, get involved in real world agriculture and take a little trip to developing countries.

Please don't distort my words by restating them out of context, I said I would be wary of cheap, clean, abundant energy in a context where it will be used in an unresponsible way that would fuel more environmental damage. We need greener energy, but we need the institutions to make a responsible use of it even more.


RE: Environmentalists
By TheGreek on 4/19/2007 12:03:17 PM , Rating: 2
"Most land on Earth is still wholly undeveloped..."

And why? Because 6 billion missed the opportunity?


RE: Environmentalists
By James Holden on 4/19/2007 1:20:07 AM , Rating: 2
There was a fact, I'm pretty sure I read it on DailyTech, that said if the entire world's population lived in single family homes on 1/4 acre (single story) plots, the infrastructure and housing would not fill the state of Texas.

I think the world can support a heck of a lot more than what it does now, assuming we can cut out waste, corruption and start living efficiency. And efficiently includes things like reusing and recycling.

In my opinion there's nothing that says environmentalism and capitalism need be mutually exclusive, though the agendas of both parties have proven there's room for improvement.


RE: Environmentalists
By James Holden on 4/19/2007 1:21:09 AM , Rating: 2
Damn masher pretty much said what I meant to say in a more eloquent manner. Nice article btw :)


RE: Environmentalists
By rklaver on 4/19/2007 12:03:27 PM , Rating: 2
There was a documentary probably on the Discovery Channel that I saw that said you can take every single person on the planet and put them in Texas and it would be similar to living in Manhattan today.


RE: Environmentalists
By TheGreek on 4/19/2007 1:25:51 PM , Rating: 4
But with their use of the death penalty zero population growth would be easily achieved.


RE: Environmentalists
By otispunkmeyer on 4/19/2007 4:49:55 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
"The only real good technology is no technology at all. Technology is taxation without representation, imposed by our elitist species (man) upon the rest of the natural world" -- John Shuttleworth, founder of Mother Earth News.


thats just grand

without technology he wouldnt even be able to get that quote out, or have people listen to him. infact, he'd probably be dead after catching the flu or something...because without technology there would be no treatment.

i cant believe there are people like this, and even more so that there are people who listen.


RE: Environmentalists
By Hoser McMoose on 4/19/2007 3:12:39 PM , Rating: 2
Nice way to totally remove all context from these quotes so as to change their potential meaning. Just a couple of examples:

quote:
"If you ask me, it'd be a little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy because of what we would do with it..."

The last source of cheap and abundant energy we "discovered" was nuclear, and what was the first thing we did with it? Figure out how to kill a whole lot of people with it! We came dangerously close to starting wars that would have killed off a significant portion of the world before we bothered to really start using nuclear power to improve our lives.

quote:
"Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental"

In a very morbid way, this comment is 100% true. I somehow doubt that David Foreman was actually advocating this as a solution though!


RE: Environmentalists
By masher2 (blog) on 4/19/2007 4:15:30 PM , Rating: 2
> "Nice way to totally remove all context from these quotes so as to change their potential meaning"

Sorry, but the meaning was not changed in the slightest. He was not fearing a new source of abundant energy because we might "build a bomb" out of it, but because it would enable additional economic growth and expansion.

Which ties in so well with another of Ehrlich's famous quotes-- "We’ve already had too much economic growth in the U.S. Economic growth in rich countries like ours is the disease, not the cure".


RE: Environmentalists
By Zoomer on 4/20/2007 7:48:34 AM , Rating: 2
"Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental"

And we'll start by eliminating you!


RE: Environmentalists
By creathir on 4/19/07, Rating: 0
RE: Environmentalists
By TheGreek on 4/19/2007 1:32:35 PM , Rating: 2
We need to return to being led around by the nose by oil company lobbyists as soon as possible.

Perhaps you can get a programming job at Diebold to help us all out?


RE: Environmentalists
By grenableu on 4/19/2007 1:33:36 PM , Rating: 2
Argument ad hominem works well when you can't formulate a real argument, eh?


RE: Environmentalists
By TheGreek on 4/19/2007 1:51:46 PM , Rating: 2
It seems to work without problems when it backs your argument.


RE: Environmentalists
By ZmaxDP on 4/19/2007 3:15:31 PM , Rating: 2
Statements to the opposite never help your argument. In fact, I can't tell what your argument is from your statements. Unless, of course, your statement is that you simply choose to disagree.

I assume you are aware that you're serving no purpose in this forum with the remarks you have made. You are presenting nothing quite eloquently. Way to stick your neck out for your beliefs.

Then again, believing in nothing is simple. You just disagree with everything...


RE: Environmentalists
By TheGreek on 4/19/2007 5:00:50 PM , Rating: 2
Well unfortunately my last instructor, with a PhD in geology, who's testified before congress and in federal trials, is not here to address all the little details of your group "pat each other on the back" session here. I retain only some facts of this "not my major" course because of everything else that's going on. But he would certainly tell you you're all about as far off base as you could possibly be.

So if you think I've been amusing, well, I haven't even scratched the surface of this groups abilities, not even close.

Please continue with your group delusion.


RE: Environmentalists
By TheGreek on 4/19/2007 5:36:14 PM , Rating: 2
Since you feel my statements have no purpose perhaps you can explain what purpose this statement has and why you did not find it objectionable.

"Suck on that environmentalist!!!!!!!!!! "


RE: Environmentalists
By ZmaxDP on 4/19/2007 8:19:10 PM , Rating: 2
I did find it objectionable in the sense that it was also pointless. However, the preceding two paragraphs by the author of that post did make an interesting point, whether I agree with it or not.

You posts on the other hand lacked the "interesting point" part and so earned my ire...

"Well unfortunately my last instructor, with a PhD in geology, who's testified before congress and in federal trials, is not here to address all the little details of your group "pat each other on the back" session here."

If you want to talk credentials, I've attended on of the best architectural institutions in the country and specialized in my Masters degree on Sustainable Building. I've built a completely self sufficient solar home from the ground up, installed green roofs, and helped assemble a combination evacuated cylinder/tankless water heater hot water system that was a first of its kind and has since been used as a model in who knows how many energy efficient homes across the nation. I have not testified before congress or federal trials, but then again that doesn't say anything about what your professor's credentials are to talk about this subject.

"I retain only some facts of this "not my major" course because of everything else that's going on. But he would certainly tell you you're all about as far off base as you could possibly be."

Somehow I doubt this if he is a true scientist. If he is a political scientist, then he might say anything. The "truth" is that we know so bloody little about all the millions of factors which affect our environment that any climatologist worth his degree will tell you we have no clue what "Man's" affect on our climate is. When you talk about deforestation, at least there are some hard facts. Technically, all the facts about the US are true. We do have more forest now than in 1900. I think this is a little deceitful to say when we're talking about the environment which is at a global scale. Globally we are deforesting, and at a very fast rate. This is also a fact. But most of all, I think that since it is not even "your major" and that you can't remember most of the "facts" from the course you did take you should probably stop trying to talk for someone who supposedly has vastly more knowledge about the subject than you do.

"So if you think I've been amusing, well, I haven't even scratched the surface of this groups abilities, not even close."

I don't think you've been amusing, even vaguely. I think you've been pretentious, patronizing, and irrelevant, all because you took one class from one professor. I've taken a good 30+ hours of courses that are "on topic" on this issue, and quite a few more that related to it at least vaguely. After all that I at least have the intelligence to admit I still know very little about the subject. And yet here you are Mr. 1 class acting as if you know it all... (I don't suppose your professor was Al Gore?)

"Please continue with your group delusion."

Thank you, I think we will. Our "delusion" is certainly a lot closer to reality that yours is, so I'll stick with it instead.

There is nothing more annoying that someone who is of the opinion that they know everything there is to know about a subject. You don't, I don't, Masher doesn't, no one does. Try to remember that next time you get ready to waste a few minutes of someone else's life...


RE: Environmentalists
By TheGreek on 4/20/2007 11:39:38 AM , Rating: 2
"Try to remember that next time you get ready to waste a few minutes of someone else's life... "

How is that any different that reading this pseudo-intellectual cluster copulation?


RE: Environmentalists
By TheGreek on 4/21/2007 9:27:01 PM , Rating: 2
Add this to your clean and safe energy solution.

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jul2004/2004-07-26...


RE: Environmentalists
By TheGreek on 4/19/2007 11:59:44 AM , Rating: 1
"Giving society cheap, abundant energy...would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun."

Cheaper = more waste.


RE: Environmentalists
By geddarkstorm on 4/19/2007 4:28:45 PM , Rating: 2
How so? What about recycling that waste? It takes a huge load of energy to recycle waste (unless you use one of those newely invented plasma reactors that use garbage to generate energy and output glass), so cheap energy means easy recycling systems! Moreover, I see no connection between cheap energy and waste, other than it puts more money in the pockets of you and I so we can buy things, eh?


RE: Environmentalists
By Ringold on 4/19/2007 4:38:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
other than it puts more money in the pockets of you and I so we can buy things, eh?


As others have pointed out that is of course "waste", to them. Having more things is somehow bad, having to spend less on food and basic transportation to and from work and powering our homes is bad because then we consume more things. Never mind it makes us collectively live a better, happier lifestyle with ever-improving technology, it's "waste" because the lazy, the poor can't partake and because some trees get whacked down some place.

That must be it because nothing in economics can make sense of it, but the OP is welcome to try. :P


RE: Environmentalists
By TheGreek on 4/19/2007 5:18:59 PM , Rating: 2
People simply don't respond that way. Human behavior doesn't require a logical explanation. Nobody repairs cheap electronics, they simply end up right in the dump, where indirect costs associated with them continue to be "out of sight", "out of mind."

It would be great of the recycling actually worked the way you speak.


RE: Environmentalists
By AntiV6 on 4/18/2007 10:49:08 PM , Rating: 2
I think you mean Chernobyl. Three Mile Island got close, but they saved it.


RE: Environmentalists
By KaiserCSS on 4/18/2007 11:01:29 PM , Rating: 3
Regardless, millions of lives were never lost as a result of any nuclear catastrophe.

Now if you don't mind, I've got to go find some guy named Strelok and kill him.


RE: Environmentalists
By bpurkapi on 4/19/2007 3:01:03 AM , Rating: 3
They get a lot done alright, like a declining average lifespan and growing levels of alcoholism, and don't forget arresting billionaires and stifling democracy. Russia is a terrible place and if you like it so much I recommend you move there before you post nonsense again.
BTW: I hope you like your winter cold.


RE: Environmentalists
By masher2 (blog) on 4/19/2007 3:48:50 AM , Rating: 1
> "Russia is a terrible place...I hope you like your winter cold."

I've lived in Russia; have you? Every nation has its problems, and they certainly have their share. They have far more alchoholism than the US, but far less of a problem with hard drugs. Their literacy rate is higher than ours, and per-capita, they graduate far more scientists and engineers. Obesity is much lower, and the streets of their capital at night are certainly far safer than those of Washington D.C...and it has perhaps the best public transit system in the world.

Their recent actions concerning protestors are troubling, but you can't judge an entire nation from a few recent events. Do the events at Virginia Tech present an accurate view of life in the US?

Oh, and the winters aren't nearly as cold as the stereotype. Certainly the winter I spent there was far more comfortable than the one I spent in Chicago.


RE: Environmentalists
By Jellodyne on 4/19/2007 9:53:30 AM , Rating: 2
> the streets of their capital at night are certainly far
> safer than those of Washington D.C

Yeah, their capital and everyone else's -- D.C.'s not exactly a shining beacon...


RE: Environmentalists
By TheGreek on 4/19/2007 5:21:46 PM , Rating: 2
All that pro-corporate propaganda has to come from somewhere.


RE: Environmentalists
By Sahrin on 4/19/2007 10:33:10 AM , Rating: 2
Darn commies think everything's better on the pink side of the fence.

;)


RE: Environmentalists
By rklaver on 4/19/2007 12:14:37 PM , Rating: 2
I just got back from St. Petersburg a few weeks ago. I thought Russia was an amazing country. I did happen to be out on the streets during one of the protests and what was shown on the news was blown out to be a little more dramatic than what actually happened...and I do like cold winters :-)


RE: Environmentalists
By Ringold on 4/19/2007 10:57:31 AM , Rating: 1
Nice blanket statement but containing not a thing to really discredit my assertion that they, and countries like them, are the only ones in the world able to get things done today.

It's been brought up elsewhere, but unfettered democracy has slowed progress to a grinding stop in places across America (and Europe) which should be speeding rapidly along (like, where this was originally raised recently, building refineries to lower the cost of gasoline). Russia, with its slight disdain for democracy, I believe is closer to a more perfect mix of government than we are. They've got far too much corruption than what is healthy, and we've got far more obstructionism than is healthy.

The fact that the government there can realize the need for, say, a nuclear power plant and can then immediately begin planning and construction of this power plant instead of spending 10 or 15 years in fierce legal battles with every peacenik tree-hugger in a hundred mile radius and still be vulnerable to legislative action the whole way is a huge advantage. The future of the world will partly be in the hands of Russia, India, and China, with Europe in the peanut gallery, and I'm just saying I'd rather be friends with the winners, not the losers, regardless of any of their respective morals.

Besides, we've got a communist streak in us as well; our eminent domain laws and its current usage would make Putin proud.


RE: Environmentalists
By TheGreek on 4/19/2007 11:56:12 AM , Rating: 2
"...which should be speeding rapidly along... "

Doing what?

"The fact that the government there can realize the need for, say, a nuclear power plant and can then immediately begin planning and construction of this power plant instead of spending 10 or 15 years in fierce legal battles with every peacenik tree-hugger in a hundred mile radius and still be vulnerable to legislative action the whole way is a huge advantage."

Would you still feel that way if the government stuck it in your back yard? Its always easy to volunteer other people's property.


RE: Environmentalists
By grenableu on 4/19/2007 12:24:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
"Would you still feel that way if the government stuck it in your back yard?"
Open mouth, insert foot. He's already said he DOES have one in his backyard.


RE: Environmentalists
By TheGreek on 4/19/2007 1:14:41 PM , Rating: 2
No he didn't, he just said his government doesn't listen to people. Not the same thing.


RE: Environmentalists
By grenableu on 4/19/2007 1:24:30 PM , Rating: 2
He said, quote, "for the record, I've lived in the relative shadow of a nuclear power plant here in Orlando since I was born" Scroll down, you'll find it.


RE: Environmentalists
By TheGreek on 4/19/2007 1:38:05 PM , Rating: 2
Equally unbalanced, he's never known life without a nuke, so he couldn't say what it's like have one jammed down your throat or not.


RE: Environmentalists
By grenableu on 4/19/2007 1:40:13 PM , Rating: 2
ROFL, whether he likes nukes or hates them, either way you still feel it supports your statement. Talk about a circular argument!


RE: Environmentalists
By TheGreek on 4/19/2007 1:46:07 PM , Rating: 2
No, it simply doesn't support yours. Which is not the same thing.


RE: Environmentalists
By TheGreek on 4/19/2007 1:54:45 PM , Rating: 2
Any reason you don't let others speak for themselves?


RE: Environmentalists
By geddarkstorm on 4/19/2007 4:38:04 PM , Rating: 2
Lol, you are amusing! Assuming that a person has lived with the presense of something suddenly makes it impossible for that person to speak with authority about the liveability of having that presense around.. is absolutely arse backwards. Obviously, someone who's never had a nuclear reactor in their backyard can't speak with authority on if it'll be a bad thing or not, now can they? But, I'd certainly trust someone who has lived around one when it comes to if they are ok to have around or not, long before I'd trust someone who knew nothing about them, wouldn't you? It only stands to reason, now doesn't it?

Immanent Domain is what you're trying to get at, so don't confuse it with the authority of speaking form personal experience (or lack there of)! And in the US, there have been alot of battles lately with the Government claiming Immanent Domain and taking people's land. Just in Washington State there was a guy who shot a police officer (which was totally wrong of him to say the least) because the officer was coming onto his land to drag him off since the state had decided they would take their land and use it to build a highway. So, if you think the US is any different, you aren't paying any attention. If the your state government decided your backyard was the best place for a nuclear reactor, they'd build it there, and there's nothing you can do if they claim Immanent Domain.

(and perhaps he is speaking for him because he isn't around to reply to you yet?)


RE: Environmentalists
By nekobawt on 4/20/2007 6:32:13 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, I believe it's "eminent domain" you're talking about.


RE: Environmentalists
By geddarkstorm on 4/19/2007 4:44:34 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, and for the record, I'm not trying to attack you or sound condescending. Your comments just really did ammuse me.

I don't agree with everything Ringold said (I don't think the way Russia is running its government is necessarily best by any means) to say the least; and I seriously don't agree with Immanent Domain, as much as there are times when it is valid apparently for the communities benefit. It's a complex issue, but just realize, it's happening in your country and (probably) every other country out there as well.


RE: Environmentalists
By TheGreek on 4/19/2007 5:09:35 PM , Rating: 2
Who said it wasn't happening here?

My implication was simply that he didn't have a nuke placed in his backyard during his lifetime and the implications of how it got there. He lived with it the whole time, and losing something (life without it) is not the same as never having it to begin with.

Just as person who's lived on a busy street and sleeps with constant traffic noise his whole life doesn't have the same response as someone who's lived in a quiet environment and then all of a sudden has to go to the city to put with the same traffic noise.


RE: Environmentalists
By TheGreek on 4/21/2007 9:41:34 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, I'm sorry, I just assumned that humans were having this conversation, so they would understand human behavior.

My mistake.


RE: Environmentalists
By Ringold on 4/19/2007 4:50:36 PM , Rating: 2
Okay..

1) I've lived around nuclear power, but that didn't satisfy you because that somehow makes me biased. An interesting fact is that there is actually several reactors even closer to me than the one I'm aware of, but because it doesn't have huge cooling towers and my local utility corp website says its co-located with a coal plant, I have no idea which it is. Whats that mean? Nuclear power plants dont interfere with your life in any way whatsoever. Besides all that, I've vacationed at different places around the country and when I flip light switches, maybe I'm stupid but I can't really tell how those electrons got there.

2) "speeding rapidly along" was refering to.. well, could've been two different things. I mentioned both stalled refinery construction and nuclear power plants (with that floating russian reactor in mind there). Which precisely I had in mind I can't recall now but either way it was clear that I was refering to either one of the two.

Like somebody else said, you disagree just to be disagreeing; or at least, that appears the case, as you raise no points of your own.


RE: Environmentalists
By TheGreek on 4/19/2007 5:32:02 PM , Rating: 2
I have no issues with wind or ocean waves. But why exactly does one need to have a solution in order to point out errors with other solutions? Suppose there are no right solutions(or even close), people should just keep quiet? I realize I'd be more accepted if I did what everybody else was doing, merely patting each other on the back.

If solar is such a problem why not collect solar radiation as heat, why does it have to be electricity? Even if it only reduced a home's fossil fuel consumption by 25% is that not decent start?


RE: Environmentalists
By masher2 (blog) on 4/19/2007 7:02:19 PM , Rating: 2
> "why exactly does one need to have a solution in order to point out errors with other solutions? "

If you don't see why this is so, I don't think anyone point it out will make a difference, but here goes. There is no such thing as a "error free solution" in any aspect of our lives. Everything is a complex mix of benefits and drawbacks.

So simply "pointing out errors" is like pointing out the ocean is wet. The question is never whether problems exist, but rather which particular solution has the least amount of them.


RE: Environmentalists
By Rookierookie on 4/19/2007 3:57:57 AM , Rating: 2
Large scale solar power plants would probably be worse for the environment than any nuclear fallout you can think of.


RE: Environmentalists
By grenableu on 4/19/2007 4:04:28 AM , Rating: 2
Thats true. Covering millions of acres with solar panels is bad enough. When you figure out what it takes to mine the resources needed for those panels, its a major disaster.


RE: Environmentalists
By otispunkmeyer on 4/19/2007 4:45:19 AM , Rating: 2
yeah lol, i can imagine the scene.

eco-hippies stage a mass protest.

a week later, KGB or spetsnaz have quietly burried the lot of them in russias simply vast back yard.


RE: Environmentalists
By mendocinosummit on 4/18/07, Rating: -1
RE: Environmentalists
By Mojo the Monkey on 4/18/2007 9:42:55 PM , Rating: 5
I thought the discussion was about environmentalism. Personal rights issues are a far cry from environmental issues. Besides, since when is this a forum for "conservative vs liberal" flaming/bashing.

Make a comment about the article next time... and take your political flame-bait elsewhere.


RE: Environmentalists
By TheGreek on 4/19/2007 12:07:06 PM , Rating: 2
What you see is one extremist attempting to justify his stance using another extremist as his excuse. Apparently his own actions and belief fail to hold water.


RE: Environmentalists
By TechLuster on 4/19/2007 12:49:08 AM , Rating: 2
I'm very liberal, but I just had to laugh at that because I know too many people that this quip describes perfectly!

(By the way, mendocinosummit, when you're calling someone else stupid, you should try to avoid making four grammatical errors in a single line of text.)


RE: Environmentalists
By mendocinosummit on 4/19/07, Rating: 0
RE: Environmentalists
By CheesePoofs on 4/19/2007 12:01:44 AM , Rating: 2
That's not all environmentalist, just the less sane ones.

I consider myself and environmentalist, and I strongly support nuclear and wind power, and this seems to be quite a good idea to me as well.


RE: Environmentalists
By Whedonic on 4/19/2007 11:20:33 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed. Environmentalism is a cause near and dear to my heart, but there clearly are people who are nuts. I like technology, and I love the idea of clean power for all. But we also have a long ways to go before we as a species are balanced with our environment...I really hope someone gets fusion reactors working so all the old coal plants can finally be retired.


RE: Environmentalists
By glitchc on 4/19/2007 1:27:31 AM , Rating: 2
A tidal power plant is highly likely to be hydro-electric, not nuclear.

I admire the comment, but don't follow the reasoning.


RE: Environmentalists
By James Holden on 4/19/2007 1:32:34 AM , Rating: 2
Well if you want to get technical, Hydro, Nuclear and Tidal all operate on the same principle of passing copious amounts of water (sometimes in steam form) over a turbine to generate electricity. :)


RE: Environmentalists
By bpurkapi on 4/19/2007 2:56:22 AM , Rating: 2
Blame environmentalists for us being reliant on fossil fuels all you want, but that is nonsense. The fact is that we are reliant on fossil fuels because it is easy and still economical. Nuclear power plants are not the cure to the fossil fuel problem. I am irked every time I hear someone say that nuclear power can save us. The fact is that it can't. If it was so great you would be begging to have a plant built in your city, even in your backyard.
The fact is that environmentalists are not to blame, but everyday joes are. Nuclear power plants are not built because normal people do not want to live next to one, even within 5 miles of one. Environmentalists bring up valid points when considering options for power generation, they are playing devil's advocate. This process is what creates sane energy policy. Making the best decision is more difficult than making the easy decision.


RE: Environmentalists
By masher2 (blog) on 4/19/2007 3:25:28 AM , Rating: 2
> "If it was so great you would be begging to have a plant built in your city..."

I AM begging....and have been for many years now.

> "Nuclear power plants are not the cure to the fossil fuel problem."

Certainly they are. They're clean, safe, incredibly cheap to run, and we have enough fuel to last thousands of years.

> "environmentalists are not to blame, but everyday joes are.."

The Average Joe isn't the one chaining himself to a fence or throwing himself in front of a bulldozer every time we try to build a new power plant in the US.

> "Environmentalists bring up valid points when considering options for power generation"

Valid points, like the frivolous lawsuits which have stymied the Yucca Mountain Waste Disposal site for decades? Like halting dam construction in the US and thereby preventing new hydroelectric power stations? Like halting nearly all research on nuclear power, while demanding we pour hundreds of billions of dollars into 'alternatives' that are worse for the environment and far less practical?


RE: Environmentalists
By theapparition on 4/19/2007 7:36:25 AM , Rating: 2
I believe another reason for the "suppresion" of nuclear power, which I rarely see discussed, has been a calculated political agenda.
It is hard to make the argument, that the US and allies, need nuclear power, while other nations do not, and therefore should not build their own reactors. Look at the current situation in Iran.
So it's part enviromentalists, part political, and part unrationalized media fear mongering.
The simple mention of a new nuclear plant being built causes immediate public panic, despite the fact that its cleaner and safer than any other methods. Not a single death in this country due to nuclear power. But its kinda like airplanes; more people die each day from auto accidents than a year of airplane accidents, but people rarely think twice about getting in their car. Shame.


RE: Environmentalists
By nah on 4/19/2007 9:26:48 AM , Rating: 2
masher nuclear power plants are OK--i used to think they were 2 dangerous, but you have solved that prob for me--I always thought that the energy of the future would be a mix of solar/wind/hydro/geothermal/tidal-- but not nuclear

i just want to know how do you propose to get the technology across to third world nations and to rogue states like Iran--mind you, the new nuclear tech you talk about, not the old stuff

also, do countries like Iran have the capability to enrich uranium in sufficient quantities to address their power for the future ? this is a question --would western countries allow new and improved nuclear tech to fall into the hands of these countries


RE: Environmentalists
By masher2 (blog) on 4/19/2007 9:51:48 AM , Rating: 2
> "i just want to know how do you propose to get the technology across to third world nations and to rogue states like..."

The Energy Amplifier. It can use thorium as fuel, and doesn't generate plutonium, so it isn't a proliferation risk.


RE: Environmentalists
By Hoser McMoose on 4/19/2007 3:40:13 PM , Rating: 2
Neat concept, but considering that no one has even built a prototype I think it might be a wee bit premature to propose this as a solution just yet!

Let's also not forget that this is expected to be a rather expensive solution, not very suitable for cash-strapped 3rd world countries.


RE: Environmentalists
By masher2 (blog) on 4/19/2007 4:00:34 PM , Rating: 2
The point is the technology is there today...and we're not even building prototypes, because of emotional overreaction to anything with the word "nuclear" in it.

As for expense, per megawatt its far cheaper to operate than a solar or wind plant...and we don't hesitate to ask those cash-strapped nations to consider those alternatives.


RE: Environmentalists
By retrospooty on 4/19/2007 11:40:52 AM , Rating: 3
"Certainly they are. They're clean, safe, incredibly cheap to run, and we have enough fuel to last thousands of years."

sometimes you make fairly good points with your "rape the earth" mentality, but this one is rediculous. How can you say its clean? What happens to the waste that remains toxic for thousands of years and eventually winds up in the earth somewhere? Forget the nuclear plant in your city, where are you putting the waste, and what would you think when your ondy child develops cancer?


RE: Environmentalists
By masher2 (blog) on 4/19/2007 12:01:28 PM , Rating: 2
> "What happens to the waste that remains toxic for thousands of years."

Most waste is toxic forever-- mercury, lead, cadmium, etc...are just as toxic in a billion years as they are today. Nuclear waste is unique in that it decays. The "thousands of years" figure is a PR scare tactic, nothing more.

Do you realize that most COAL plants release more radioactivity than nuclear ones...from the uranium found naturally within coal? Or that, if you live in a Rocky Mountain or New England state, you have several dozen pounds of radioactive elements in your own backyard-- nuclear waste left over from when the Earth was first created.

Nuclear waste is a political issue, not a technical one. The more radioactive a substance is, the faster it decays...this is basic physics. Six months in a holding pond eliminates all the fast-decaying actinides. Whats left over is dangerous still...but very, very compact. Put it anywhere safe, or even just glassify it and drop it in a trench in the ocean. Compared to the countless billions of tons of radioactive elements already in the ocean, its not even a drop in the bucket.

As politically unsavory as that is, we have even better alternatives...things like Yucca Mountain, which to be dangerouns would require a simultaneous string of highly unlikely events, including a massive earthquake, diversion of underground aquifers...all of which would have to be followed by years of total inaction on our part. All of this to bring about the remote possibility of endandering anyone.

And yet its not safe enough to environmentalists, who continually file legal challenge after challenge to block it. The real reason, of course, is they just don't want nuclear power period. As long as they can generate the perception of a problem, they've won the PR battle.


RE: Environmentalists
By retrospooty on 4/19/2007 12:10:39 PM , Rating: 3
There really are no good alternatives are there... =(

One thing I truly beleive is that Earth will live on. We may screw it up and make it less habitable for ourselves and other species, but this planet will live on.


RE: Environmentalists
By TheGreek on 4/19/2007 1:13:03 PM , Rating: 1
And what good is that logic to you or anyone else?


RE: Environmentalists
By retrospooty on 4/19/2007 7:55:02 PM , Rating: 4
Not logic, its a fact.

This planet has been here for 5 billion years, and has survived heat ages, ice ages, earthquakes, super-volcanoes, tidal waves, tectonic shifting of plates, whole continents breaking apart, countless comets, bombardment from cosmic radiation and on and on and on... Life survives, that is my point. We may at some point make earth less hospitable for life, but life will survive.


RE: Environmentalists
By TheGreek on 4/20/2007 11:27:20 AM , Rating: 1
"Not logic, its a fact."

"I have my pointless point of view".
Bill Joel


RE: Environmentalists
By somerset on 4/20/2007 11:00:04 PM , Rating: 3
you certainly do.


RE: Environmentalists
By Hoser McMoose on 4/19/2007 4:48:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Most waste is toxic forever-- mercury, lead, cadmium, etc...are just as toxic in a billion years as they are today.

The same is also true of uranium, and for the same reasons It's perhaps somewhat ironic that the most potentially dangerous waste product from nuclear reactors has nothing to do with radiation but is simply a toxic heavy metal that is also found in coal ash.

quote:
The "thousands of years" figure is a PR scare tactic, nothing more

Plutonium is indeed "toxic" (using the term somewhat loosely) for thousands of years. Pu-239 has a half-life of ~24,000 years and it can pose a major health hazard in quantities of only a few milligrams if inhaled.

Fortunately only a relatively small quantity of Pu-239 is made in a normal reactor. Most of the rest of the stuff either has very long half-lives or very short (so they decay fast and aren't dangerous after a short storage period) or very long (so the amount of radiation they give off is small enough to not be a health hazard).

quote:
Nuclear waste is a political issue, not a technical one.

Agreed. The solutions exist, we know how to implement them and we know how to do it SAFELY. It's also MUCH better than with fossil fuels were our solution is simply to pump the waste into the air and water!


RE: Environmentalists
By masher2 (blog) on 4/19/2007 7:11:59 PM , Rating: 2
> "Plutonium is indeed "toxic" (using the term somewhat loosely) for thousands of years."

But plutonium isn't radioactive 'waste'. Its highly valuable in its own right, and is removed from those reactors which produce it Or was, rather, until President Carter banned reprocessing of fuel. Reagan lifted the ban, but the damage was done and today little reprocessing is done. But again, thats a political issue, not a technical one.

Once removed from the waste, plutonium can be reinjected into the fuel cycle, and used as a source of additional energy.


RE: Environmentalists
By Ringold on 4/19/2007 11:14:23 AM , Rating: 2
Just to prod at your assertion that nuclear can't save us (as Masher covered it all quite well), I'd point out that countries like France have already largely been "saved" by nuclear power, which provides a huge portion of their energy needs. Their energy costs are probably heavily insulated from the cost of oil and if not for the economic carnage that would be wrought elsewhere in the world they could get by almost without notice if OPEC fell over tomorrow. If socialist France, one of the lowest-growth countries in the developed world, can manage such relative energy independence, then the rest of us assuredly can as well.

And for the record, I've lived in the relative shadow of a nuclear power plant here in Orlando since I was born. Quite happy about it, too, it looks awesome from the highways.


RE: Environmentalists
By otispunkmeyer on 4/19/2007 4:39:51 AM , Rating: 2
you are right

you know the wings from the Airbus A380? made in england...they are put on a barge, in some dock, then floated down an esturary, down the irish sea, to france.

wanna know why there are delays? environmentalists wont let the authorities dredge the bottom of the esturary, so the barges can only go when the tide is fully in.

why wont they dredge? to protect some species of worm.

what a freaking joke.

eco-mentalists, enviro-mentalists....are just that...mentalists. their ideas and veiws seem completely devoid of logic.

i believe they are part of the reason why developing nations like africa cant develope quickly, they are told not use their oil/gas/coal reserve. ecofairies wont let them...they must use, expensive, unreliable and horribly inefficient solar panels an the like instead.

same with animal rights morons.... for the sake of a white rat, they are prepared to break and enter, terrorise, use violence and intimidation just so it wont be tested on.

wheres the cure for cancer? and the common cold? my guess is these idiots have prevented it from happening just to save a few mice.


RE: Environmentalists
By masher2 (blog) on 4/19/2007 9:48:37 AM , Rating: 3
> "wheres the cure for cancer? and the common cold? my guess is these idiots have prevented it from happening just to save a few mice."

A quote for you.

quote:
Even if animal research were to produce a cure for AIDS, "We'd be against it
-- Ingrid Newkirk, co-founder PETA


RE: Environmentalists
By TheGreek on 4/19/2007 11:57:53 AM , Rating: 2
"Their opposition to nuclear power as a means of replacing coal-fired power plants is nothing short of ludicrous. "

Suppose on 9-11 the jet that flew down the Hudson River decided to crash into the nuke plant instead of the WTC. Would you still feel the same way?


RE: Environmentalists
By SigmaHyperion on 4/19/2007 12:28:29 PM , Rating: 2
Actually destroying the WTC was itself far more of an environmental disaster than flying a plane into a nuclear power plant would be.

Destroying the WTC released hundreds of tons of asbestos into the air. Tons and tons of highly toxic chemicals burned within the wreckage for months, releasing God knows how much crap into the air. Levels of dioxin and mercury have been recorded in the surrounding area at the highest levels ever recorded anywhere. It was a far greater disaster than Three Mile Island and, arguably, will effect more people than even Chernobyl.

If you flew a plane into a nuclear plant nothing would happen. Well, nothing any more different than flying it into any other random building.

So, yes, I'd feel the same way if they flew their jets into a nuclear power plant. In fact I would have PREFERRED it, because a whole lot less people would be dead today if they had.


RE: Environmentalists
By TheGreek on 4/19/2007 1:20:11 PM , Rating: 2
A mere measurement of just short term results. But no problem there's still time and opportunity to test it.

As if many people would not have been killed trying to flee the area if the jet had crashed into the nuke.

" Levels of dioxin and mercury have been recorded in the surrounding area at the highest levels ever recorded anywhere."

And the area was deemed safe by the safe government that assures all our safety, nuclear included.


RE: Environmentalists
By grenableu on 4/19/2007 1:29:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
As if many people would not have been killed trying to flee the area if the jet had crashed into the nuke
Don't be silly. When the area around Three Mile Island was evacuated when the core melted, no one was 'killed trying to flee'.

You got owned, just admit it. If they would have crashed a jet into a nuke plant instead of the WTC, we would have had no deaths and no leakage, rather than the 3000 dead and environmental disaster we did. Thats WHY they didn't choose a nuke plant because, unlike you, they were smart enough to realize it wouldn't accomplish anything.


RE: Environmentalists
By TheGreek on 4/19/2007 1:41:48 PM , Rating: 2
Assuming facts that do not even exist. Isn't that like a delusion? Like the safety of Wall St air after 9-11?


RE: Environmentalists
By geddarkstorm on 4/19/2007 5:08:35 PM , Rating: 2
Stratagetically, a nuclear power plant is one of the last targest you'd ever want to hit other than to disrupt power supply. They have as much shielding as a bunker; their only danger is the heavy metals they contain and the small supply of radioactives--and even then, hitting a normal chemical production plant would release far more dangerous material into the enviroment, thousands of gallons more!


RE: Environmentalists
By TheGreek on 4/19/2007 5:12:55 PM , Rating: 2
So what part of "Assuming facts that do not even exist." did your repsonse address?


RE: Environmentalists
By Ringold on 4/19/2007 5:14:41 PM , Rating: 2
Okay, a fact that does exist.

Direct from the worlds most reliable source of factual data ever, Wikipedia:

quote:
In 1988, Sandia National Laboratories conducted a test of slamming a jet fighter into a large concrete block at 481 miles per hour (775 km/h) [7] [8]. The airplane left only a 2.5-inch deep gouge in the concrete.


The reference links Wiki has includes videos of this experiment. What a waste of an F-4 Phantom.

And from the NEI:
quote:
The EPRI study demonstrates that the critical structures of a nuclear power plant will not be penetrated by a aircraft crash. The results of the EPRI study demonstrate that no parts of a Boeing 767—the engine, the fuselage, or the wings, nor the jet fuel—will enter the containment building, used fuel storage pool, used fuel dry storage facilities, or the used fuel transportation containers. This means that no radiation will leak from these structures even if hit by a Boeing 767 at the maximum plausible force and vulnerability.


Maximum plausible force likely means a long nose-dive from a high altitude at full throttle, which is both extremely difficult to aim and to pull off without having the plane rip apart on the way down.

Plus, the containment buildings apparently call their thickened walls "missile shields", which suggests to me.. a design with holding off military bombardment, not just civilian planes.

So, to go back to your original post, yes, I for one would've much rather of had a nuclear powerplant to have ate 767's for lunch all day on 9-11 rather than the swiss-cheese nature of a building like the WTC. Lots of dead passengers, and lots of really, really annoyed nuclear engineers.

Besides, I've got $100 that says the first terrorist to try to ram a plane in to a nuclear plant goes after the cooling tower rather than the containment building.


RE: Environmentalists
By geddarkstorm on 4/19/2007 5:01:55 PM , Rating: 2
If they did that, it wouldn't have been nearly as large a disaster. Nevermind the fact that a nuclear reactor's core is buried under many feet of concrete and shielded in water; nuclear plants CANNOT explode (at least the nuclear reactor part). A melt down is when they over heat and it starts melting into the earth; or their steam pipes heat to much and start rupturing; but a nuclear power plant cannot cause a nuclear explosion, it is physically impossible. So, if they had done that, then 3,000+ lives would have been saved, so too bad they didn't.


Save the Moon!
By borowki on 4/19/2007 4:06:27 AM , Rating: 6
Listen people, this development is a course that leads inevitably to catastrophe. There is no such thing as free energy. Tidal power stations basically extract potential energy from the moon. Unchecked exploitation of this limited source will slowly cause the moon's orbit to decay. Eventually it will fall onto the Earth--an event that would surely annihilate all lifeforms here. And long before that happens, changes to tidal patterns would have caused unimaginable human suffering and economic losses. Imagine to yourselves such coastal cities as San Francisco and New York being completely submerged during high-tide.

Is it not enough that the human race has wrecked our own planet? Do we have to lay waste to the rest of the Solar System too? Please join me and other progressive lunatists in oppose the Mezen Bay project and others like it.




RE: Save the Moon!
By andrinoaa on 4/19/2007 4:16:32 AM , Rating: 2
I think I will put Pink Floyd on the turntable and sing along.
"The lunatics are on the grass" LOL LOLO LOL.
I couldn't resist, I'm hyperventilating, I have tears. Brilliant, just brilliant!!
Of course this is big news ! Tidal power and wave power have been neglected for far too long. There is more than enough energy to go around for everybody on this planet just with these two "solar energy systems"


RE: Save the Moon!
By Dactyl on 4/19/2007 4:37:42 AM , Rating: 2
When the moon hits earth, you can bet NASA will make sure it lands in the Southern hemisphere.

Unless they mix up their imperial/metric units...


RE: Save the Moon!
By Jellodyne on 4/19/2007 10:00:06 AM , Rating: 2
Check the radial vector of the moon! What do you find? The moon out of orbit?

> By more than 12 degrees. This must be some sort of mistake.

No, it's no mistake... IT'S AN ATTACK! I've been right all these years!


RE: Save the Moon!
By MonkeyPaw on 4/19/2007 11:58:07 AM , Rating: 2
This comment was so funny that is somehow earned a plus 6!When did this become possible anyway?


RE: Save the Moon!
By edge929 on 4/19/2007 12:23:59 PM , Rating: 2
From wikipedia:

"... the moon does not lose energy just because energy is extracted from tides. In fact, even if all kinetic energy in the oceans were depleted until not a single molecule is moving (which is impossible), the moon will continue to orbit the earth. This is not only because the moon is extremely large and has a vast potential energy, but also that it can orbit a large mass (in this case the Earth) forever, as long as there is no friction or change in the mass that it is orbiting."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_power


RE: Save the Moon!
By SigmaHyperion on 4/19/2007 12:31:05 PM , Rating: 2
I can't believe someone had to write that in Wikipedia. That means that someone out there, more than one person, actually thought that was a realistic argument.


RE: Save the Moon!
By masher2 (blog) on 4/19/2007 12:37:55 PM , Rating: 2
> "the moon does not lose energy just because energy is extracted from tides..."

Wiki is unfortunately wrong on this point. Tidal bulges do extract potential energy from the system. The moon is actually moving away from the Earth at the rate of a couple centimeters a year. Also, the same effect results in an extremely slow decrease in the rotational speed of the Earth itself. All due to tidal interactions.

The process will continue for a few billion years, until the moon's orbit is substantially larger, and the Earth tidally locks with it (neither rotating with respect to each other). Tidal power plants actually would act to slow the process very slightly....but its such a slight effect as to not even be measurable. Ten thousand such plants might add a year or two onto each billion.


RE: Save the Moon!
By oTAL on 5/7/2007 2:54:14 PM , Rating: 2
What you say is mostly correct.
The shape-shifting of the orbited body (Earth) makes the system loose energy. The energy here come from the different speeds of rotation of the earth and orbit of the moon. The equilibrium in such a system is achieved when the orbiting body accelerates and the orbited body decelerates (its rotation) so that eventually no further energy can be extracted from that system. That would mean that the Moon would be on some sort of geostationary orbit, maintaining its position in the sky and effectively freezing the tides.

There are, of course, two very important factors not being taken into account:
1 - The moon's rotation around the Earth is not at a fixed distance. It is marginally widening over time and changes in the system could make it go further or closer to the Earth (though I don't see the human race ever causing such a huge effect).
2 - The moon isn't the only body affecting tides. The Sun, amongst other minor bodies, has a huge influence on tides.

The Earth-Moon tidal system functions similarly to an electromagnetic induction motor (or generator). You have a field dragging another as those two fields try to converge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_motor


RE: Save the Moon!
By rcc on 4/19/2007 1:11:21 PM , Rating: 2
Much has I hate to inject science into someone's humor, currently the moon is moving away from the earth at a rate of 1 inch per year. So, this could be a good thing.

However, you are aiming at the wrong target. : ) That energy is already spent and there is no direct link back. However, any time you extract energy from something, a river, tidal basin, whatever, you are removing energy that was doing something else. Perhaps it was erosion, or keeping a channel clear, etc. Man, you'd think the environmentalists would be all over this tidal stuff.


It's heartening that all the young NeoCons...
By Toebot on 4/19/2007 12:14:28 AM , Rating: 2
will be alive to see the results of industrialization (aside from the 1 or 2 that had the courage of their convictions and died in Iraq). The next 50 years should make for interesting times. So carry on, if you are lucky, you may be rich enough that you can buy your way out of the misery that the rest of humanity will suffer. I wonder how much money that will take?




By masher2 (blog) on 4/19/2007 12:28:31 AM , Rating: 3
> " if you are lucky, you may be rich enough that you can buy your way out of the misery that the rest of humanity will suffer..."

That reminds me of a couple other quote:
quote:
In ten years, all important animal life in the sea will be extinct...Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs to save them..."
Earth Day, 1970.

quote:
[Global] Cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, chaos, and world war and this could all come about before the year 2000
Lowell Ponte, 1976.


By otispunkmeyer on 4/19/2007 5:10:32 AM , Rating: 2
i like how it was global cooling in the 70's and now, merely 30 odd years later its all about global warming.

they just pick up what evers the over glorified big concern and run mindlessly with it


By theapparition on 4/19/2007 7:41:08 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, but with movies like "Day After Tommorrow" we can have both at the same time!


By Spartan Niner on 4/19/2007 8:19:07 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
So carry on, if you are lucky, you may be rich enough that you can buy your way out of the misery that the rest of humanity will suffer. I wonder how much money that will take?


As long as they don't realize that Soylent Green is made out of pe... damn, I've said too much. Moving on to "furniture"...


By James Holden on 4/19/2007 1:37:09 PM , Rating: 2
PEOPLLLLLLLLLLE. The Baba ghanoush is made of PEOPLLLE!

Oh wait, it's eggplant.


By Ringold on 4/19/2007 11:22:08 AM , Rating: 3
First of all, 'neo con' isn't really 'neo'; if you look at the free-market personal-liberty positions of "neo cons" you'd realize they are quite similar to the classical definition of 'liberal', where as 'liberals' today are much closer to the classical definition of "socialist". How we've completely inverted the meaning of everything since the Civil War and World Wars, I don't know, but there is nothing "neo" about any of it.

Second, all those that suffer? Like the hundreds of millions that'll be joining the middle class in China thanks to capitalism and industrialization of a country that has seen nothing but abject poverty for god knows how many decades? All the while growth around the world continues unabated? What a lame comment, man. Go back to worshipping Thomas Malthus or Trotsky.


Damn hippies
By OddTSi on 4/18/2007 8:07:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
...but plans to build a large tidal station there have been stymied by objections from environmentalists...

It's gotten to the point now that I would've been surprised had they NOT complained.




RE: Damn hippies
By derwin on 4/18/2007 8:52:40 PM , Rating: 2
albeit their complaint in this instance is unfounded, would you rather people not bring objections up at all? thats how we really get into trouble. I am glad their position has brought consideration to this aspect to attention, and I am also glad that this aspect will not be a major problem in regards to tidal power generation.


RE: Damn hippies
By grenableu on 4/18/2007 9:32:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
would you rather people not bring objections up at all?
When their objections are sily and groundless--- YES!


RE: Damn hippies
By wien on 4/19/2007 3:26:32 PM , Rating: 2
How do you know they are groundless without even looking into the issue? You read about it in an article Dailytech, but still you know better than them?


RE: Damn hippies
By grenableu on 4/19/2007 4:03:51 PM , Rating: 2
I read about this long before Dailytech. Proposals for tidal plants here in the US have been blocked for many years over just this sort of crap.


holy tidal generators batman
By Hyperlite on 4/18/2007 7:31:14 PM , Rating: 2
This sounds like it will be quite an undertaking...how much space would a project like this cover? is Russia just afraid of nuclear power now or what? =P i kiiiid...




RE: holy tidal generators batman
By Cogman on 4/18/2007 7:47:50 PM , Rating: 2
Thats not too bad of an idea. Unlike Solar power, you at least always know that this thing is working :) (0r not working). As well, further development of this product are bound to leak into other means of power generation as it uses a turbine.


RE: holy tidal generators batman
By rcc on 4/19/2007 1:57:21 PM , Rating: 2
Well, not alway. There are a few hours approximately twice a day when it won't output any more than a solar plant at night.


Michael must be psychic
By Kakumba on 4/18/2007 9:48:42 PM , Rating: 2
'Coz jiggawatts was exactly what went through my head when I saw the title..




RE: Michael must be psychic
By bodar on 4/18/2007 11:25:48 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe Michael should have realized that gigawatts can also be pronounced "jigawatts". It is just not the standard one used.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/gigawatts (click the sound icon)


RE: Michael must be psychic
By rcc on 4/19/2007 1:52:03 PM , Rating: 2
But that wouldn't be racially sensitive, now would it.


Nice
By BMFPitt on 4/19/2007 12:02:28 AM , Rating: 4
That thing could power 18 Flux Capacitors, or 6 DX10 cards.




RE: Nice
By TheGreek on 4/19/2007 12:08:07 PM , Rating: 2
Or .0000000000002% of a Hummer.


way to go russia!
By kattanna on 4/19/2007 10:37:50 AM , Rating: 2
i read this yesterday in the BBC

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6562925.stm

quote:
Russia has started building the world's first floating nuclear plant, designed to provide power for remote areas.


im glad to see SOMEONE is exploring in earnest alternative means of power generation




RE: way to go russia!
By tmarat on 4/19/2007 10:43:27 AM , Rating: 2
Just wanted to add that a lot more people died due to Chernobyl disaster than 30 mentioned above. It must be at least several thousand. Most of them became ill and died slowly.

But it was because their lifes were ignored, sent to handle this disaster without any proper equipment or protection. They were literally sent to death.


RE: way to go russia!
By Hoser McMoose on 4/19/2007 6:12:20 PM , Rating: 2
Other than thyroid cancer, there have been no easily seen increases in cancer rates. The estimates of "several thousand" people being killed are making guesstimates of less than 1% increases in cancer rates which are affected by thousands of different things. Just as an example, a 1% change in the smoking rate over the 20 years since the incident would have a FAR larger effect than the reactor meltdown.

I'm not saying that there weren't people who died due to cancer from the reactor failure, but rather that their numbers are (relatively speaking) low and impossible to get anything close to an accurate estimate of. I'd say that 5000 people is probably about the best guess one could make.

Note that 5000 people is totally dwarfed by the deaths from other sources of power. Coal power in London is estimated to have killed about 12,000 people in December 1952 and pollution from coal plants continues to cause a few thousand deaths a year in North America. The Banqiao Dam failure in China killed at least 75,000 people and possibly over 200,000 people.

Fact is, nuclear has BY FAR the best safety record of any of the 3 widespread methods of electricity generation (fossil fuels, hydro and nukes), even with Chernobyl and it's brain-dead reactor design.


NOT "stymied" by environmentalists!
By Hoser McMoose on 4/19/2007 2:42:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Canada's Bay of Fundy holds the record for greatest tidal variance (55 feet), but plans to build a large tidal station there have been stymied by objections from environmentalists, fearing it would harm sea mammals and increase shoreline erosion.

While some of those objections have been brought up, that is NOT what has thusfar held up many projects in the Bay of Fundy.

The REAL problem is that the damn things silt up in no time flat! They work all well and good for a few months, but the maintenance costs are high to keep them running. A lot of the moving parts also corrode quickly because since they're sitting in salt water with of gunk swishing back and forth.

Add in the high capital costs and the fact that even in the Bay of Fundy you can usually only get a few megawatts per generator (vs. hundreds of megawatts per generator in traditional hydro-electric dans) and all of a sudden this source of "free" energy isn't nearly so free.

Now combine the fact that it can cause a mess for coastlines (very big tourist areas, so we're talking negative economics for the region) and it can negatively affect fish and other sea creatures (fishing is another major source of employment in the region) and you should see why these projects have stalled in the Bay of Fundy.

I wish the Russians luck on their attempts at tidal power, they're going to need it!




RE: NOT "stymied" by environmentalists!
By masher2 (blog) on 4/19/2007 3:54:43 PM , Rating: 2
> "The REAL problem is that the damn things silt up in no time flat!"

There is already a pilot tidal turbine at the Bay of Fundy, which has been succesfully operating with no serious problems for many years....except for objections from environmentalists, who blame even this tiny station for numerous problems. This is from the Gulf of Main Environmental Council:

quote:
Those opposed to the Annapolis project have blamed the tidal station for excessive fish kills...it was found that this particular shoreline was unable to regain sediment lost to erosion due to the causeway...the mud flats in the [Bay] are essential to millions of Arctic nesting shorebirds....A tidal barrage would compromise this critical habitat and potentially cause the collapse of this global population...
There were many more objections; I just grabbed a few.

> "all of a sudden this source of "free" energy isn't nearly so free..."

You're right that tidal power isn't a panacea. The stations are cheap to operate, but very expensive to build, so they have a lengthy payback. And they aren't the most atractive things to look at either, which can impact tourism.


By Hoser McMoose on 4/19/2007 5:26:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There is already a pilot tidal turbine at the Bay of Fundy, which has been succesfully operating with no serious problems for many years

It's been operating for many years, but it hasn't been without problems. The environmental concerns are only one of the many reasons why this hasn't moved much past the pilot stage and this style has been abandoned by NS Power (who operate the Annapolis Generating Station). You had an expensive solution that isn't as reliable as desired and with valid environmental concerns (alarmingly high fish kill rates in particular) about it. The current tidal power project being undertaken by NS Power involve using large floating turbines.

Of course, different environments require different solutions. Just because one solution has proven to be rather unsuccessful in the Bay of Fundy does not mean it won't be successful in Russia or France or Ungava Bay in Northern Quebec (roughly tied with the Bay of Fundy for highest tides in the world, but faces additional problems related to the fact that it's iced in for several months of the year). There is no one-size-fits-all when it comes to electricity generation.


In Soviet Russia
By Hypernova on 4/18/07, Rating: 0
RE: In Soviet Russia
By BudgetGamer2006 on 4/18/2007 9:09:01 PM , Rating: 2
Oh... dear...God...


RE: In Soviet Russia
By behemothzero on 4/18/2007 10:58:10 PM , Rating: 2
I can't believe you did it wrong.


1.21
By xelpmoc on 4/19/2007 12:26:00 PM , Rating: 2
"Jiggawatt" is actually a correct pronounciation of gigawatt.




RE: 1.21
By grenableu on 4/19/2007 12:49:00 PM , Rating: 2
but an incorrect spelling:
quote:
But while "jigawatt" is a correct pronunciation, it is an incorrect spelling; Robert Zemeckis and Bob Gale were unfamiliar with the term and misspelled it in the script [of Back to the Future].

The spelling "jigawatt" is used in the novelizations of films 2 and 3, but the book of the original film uses the correct spelling "gigawatt"...


10 jiggawatts
By feelingshorter on 4/18/2007 10:43:09 PM , Rating: 2
You'd need like 10 Jiggawatts! Where are we going to get that kind of power?




Confused nuts
By mindless1 on 4/19/2007 6:13:15 AM , Rating: 2
we get an article for a relatively clean source of power and it brings out discussions of environmental issues? You guys are nuts, the cause of problems not the solution while most rely on less clean power. Irony.

What did you think the environmental nuts wanted? For you to spend time spewing over what they said. You played into their agenda totally.




By sapiens74 on 4/19/2007 3:31:23 PM , Rating: 2
I was thinking that too




"This is from the DailyTech.com. It's a science website." -- Rush Limbaugh











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki