Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
News & Current Events (Articles Required)
U.S. has bold plan to stall climate change
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="dgiharris" data-source="post: 67313133" data-attributes="member: 322579"><p>I do not believe in Global Warming, however, I would be remiss if I dismissed those who do. Those who do believe in GW do so with sincerity and some decent science backing them up. So don't make this out to be some conspiracy so that the government can control us more. </p><p></p><p>Secondly, Solar and Wind powered alternative energy are pipe dreams. The amount of pollution that is generated making one solar panel is ridiculous. Chloride, Fluoride, Bromide, and Arsenic are just a few of the environmentally friendly products used in making solar panels and resultant waste. </p><p></p><p>If you are serious about alternative energy and you crunch the numbers, there are only 3 real alternatives, and two of the alternatives have geographic constraints. </p><p></p><p><strong>#1) Nuclear</strong>. The propaganda against Nuclear is insane, most people are clueless to just how beneficial Nuclear is and how much less waste it produces than burning coal or transporting billions of gallons of oil around that spills once every few years and destroys a coastline... Seriously, Nuclear energy is leaps and bounds beyond 3-mile Island and Chernobyl. This is the only technology that could completely replace coal.</p><p></p><p><strong>#2) Hydroelectric Plants</strong>. The cleanest most efficient however has obvious geographical constraints</p><p></p><p><strong>#3) Geothermal</strong>. Likewise equivalent to Hydro in cleanliness and efficiency yet again, obvious geographical constraints. </p><p></p><p>Yes, hydrogen, solar, wind, even Natural Gas all make great brochures for saving the future. But the simple fact is, if you do some number crunching and basic calculations, they all fall short and/or require more energy in their production than they do in their use (namely hydrogen). Natural Gas is decent but there simply isn't enough supply to handle demand. Solar is not efficient, only good half the time and is sporadic based on weather. Wind is the definition of sporadic. </p><p></p><p>So if you want to get serious about alternative fuels, then its Nuclear, Hydro, and Geothermal. Anything else is simply a pipe dream.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="dgiharris, post: 67313133, member: 322579"] I do not believe in Global Warming, however, I would be remiss if I dismissed those who do. Those who do believe in GW do so with sincerity and some decent science backing them up. So don't make this out to be some conspiracy so that the government can control us more. Secondly, Solar and Wind powered alternative energy are pipe dreams. The amount of pollution that is generated making one solar panel is ridiculous. Chloride, Fluoride, Bromide, and Arsenic are just a few of the environmentally friendly products used in making solar panels and resultant waste. If you are serious about alternative energy and you crunch the numbers, there are only 3 real alternatives, and two of the alternatives have geographic constraints. [B]#1) Nuclear[/B]. The propaganda against Nuclear is insane, most people are clueless to just how beneficial Nuclear is and how much less waste it produces than burning coal or transporting billions of gallons of oil around that spills once every few years and destroys a coastline... Seriously, Nuclear energy is leaps and bounds beyond 3-mile Island and Chernobyl. This is the only technology that could completely replace coal. [B]#2) Hydroelectric Plants[/B]. The cleanest most efficient however has obvious geographical constraints [B]#3) Geothermal[/B]. Likewise equivalent to Hydro in cleanliness and efficiency yet again, obvious geographical constraints. Yes, hydrogen, solar, wind, even Natural Gas all make great brochures for saving the future. But the simple fact is, if you do some number crunching and basic calculations, they all fall short and/or require more energy in their production than they do in their use (namely hydrogen). Natural Gas is decent but there simply isn't enough supply to handle demand. Solar is not efficient, only good half the time and is sporadic based on weather. Wind is the definition of sporadic. So if you want to get serious about alternative fuels, then its Nuclear, Hydro, and Geothermal. Anything else is simply a pipe dream. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
News & Current Events (Articles Required)
U.S. has bold plan to stall climate change
Top
Bottom