BIODIESEL & SVO DISCUSSION FORUMS





Sponsors    Biodiesel and SVO Forums Home    Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Environment  Hop To Forums  General Environmental Discussion    Pros and cons of Fossil Fuels: AGW included-
Page 1 2 3 4 

Moderators: Shaun, The Trouts
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Pros and cons of Fossil Fuels: AGW included-
 Login/Join
 
Member
posted
Anything goes!
 
Location: Vancouver Island, Canada | Registered: September 30, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Gas smels good and makes me hapy!
 
Location: Vancouver Island, Canada | Registered: September 30, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Hey Sub, Nobody seems to worry too much about the last statement with regard to global warming. Jim.
 
Location: Cape Town | Registered: May 17, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Sorry We are more valuable than any of the younger generations.



We have silver in our hair.



We have gold in our teeth.



We have stones in our kidneys.



We have lead in our feet and,



We are loaded with natural gas!
 
Location: Cape Town | Registered: May 17, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Pros Of Fossil Fuels as I see it:

Mature technologies with established production and distribution- widespread acceptance and use.
Large economic activity in the sectors.
High energy density in the heavier liquid and solid fossil hydrocarbons.
Organic.
 
Location: Vancouver Island, Canada | Registered: September 30, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by SUB:
Pros Of Fossil Fuels as I see it:

Mature technologies with established production and distribution- widespread acceptance and use.
Large economic activity in the sectors.
High energy density in the heavier liquid and solid fossil hydrocarbons.
Organic.


An accident with fossil fuel won't contaminate the entire planet in a way that can't be dealt with or poison every living thing on it for eternity.

And as for the radiation some crap on about from fossil fuels, that is nothing more than a spin and lie from the nuke industry that is contorted and misleading as the rest of the bunk they preach and has no factual basis.
 
Registered: July 30, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post



Member
posted Hide Post
Imagine the devastation from a rooftop PV array meltdown- and who hasn't witnessed the horrors of a WVO spill; then there's the alcoholocaust!
Don't joust windmills!!!

This message has been edited. Last edited by: SUB,
 
Location: Vancouver Island, Canada | Registered: September 30, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
CON #1:

Does anyone doubt or deny that control of oil bearing regions- particularly the 'mid east', has led to wars: proxy, asymmetrical and otherwise?
 
Location: Vancouver Island, Canada | Registered: September 30, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
member
2013 Sponsor
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by SUB:
CON #1:

Does anyone doubt or deny that control of oil bearing regions- particularly the 'mid east', has led to wars: proxy, asymmetrical and otherwise?


Yep, you're absolutely correct! Resource Envy has been leading to conflict and war as long as man has been in the world.
 
Location: Cowboy Country | Registered: December 06, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Ttommy:

And as for the radiation some crap on about from fossil fuels, that is nothing more than a spin and lie from the nuke industry that is contorted and misleading as the rest of the bunk they preach and has no factual basis.


Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste
http://www.scientificamerican....e-than-nuclear-waste
By burning away all the pesky carbon and other impurities, coal power plants produce heaps of radiation

By Mara Hvistendahl | December 13, 2007 | 112

The popular conception of nuclear power is straight out of The Simpsons: Springfield abounds with signs of radioactivity, from the strange glow surrounding Mr. Burn's nuclear power plant workers to Homer's low sperm count. Then there's the local superhero, Radioactive Man, who fires beams of "nuclear heat" from his eyes. Nuclear power, many people think, is inseparable from a volatile, invariably lime-green, mutant-making radioactivity.

Coal, meanwhile, is believed responsible for a host of more quotidian problems, such as mining accidents, acid rain and greenhouse gas emissions. But it isn't supposed to spawn three-eyed fish like Blinky.

Over the past few decades, however, a series of studies has called these stereotypes into question. Among the surprising conclusions: the waste produced by coal plants is actually more radioactive than that generated by their nuclear counterparts. In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy.

At issue is coal's content of uranium and thorium, both radioactive elements. They occur in such trace amounts in natural, or "whole," coal that they aren't a problem. But when coal is burned into fly ash, uranium and thorium are concentrated at up to 10 times their original levels.
...

As a general clarification, ounce for ounce, coal ash released from a power plant delivers more radiation than nuclear waste shielded via water or dry cask storage.



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
The headline is misleading, coal ash is NOT more radioactive than nuclear waste, that statement is obviously, quite simply, ABSURD.
"Coal ash is more radioactive than properly contained and shielded nuclear waste" is what the headline should read...
What JG fails to mention is that the fly ash is now scrubbed out of the emissions from coal fired power plants and then buried back in the ground where it came from...
Cheers,
Jon
 
Location: Wellington County, Ontario Canada | Registered: February 07, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
What JH fails to mention is that the fly ash is only scrubbed out of the emissions from a few coal fired power plants in the world.

SciAm has way more credibility than the unsupported opinions expressed by myopic forum members. No doubt those will identify themselves as usual with snarky personal attacks. A little Google searching will locate lots of examples of coal pollution. Another inconvenient truth that some would prefer to conveniently ignore since it does not support their nucophobe religious beliefs.



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post



Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
What JH fails to mention is that the fly ash is only scrubbed out of the emissions from a few coal fired power plants in the world.

More fabricated drivel. Have anything to support your statement?
quote:
SciAm has way more credibility than the unsupported opinions expressed by myopic forum members.

So exactly what did I say that contradicts anything in that SciAm article?
Did my pointing out the alarmist title of that article somehow erode my so called credibility? Roll Eyes
Coincidently, SciAm seems to support some ideals that, right or wrong, you routinely claim are not credible:
http://www.scientificamerican....cient-climate-secret as well as many others...
Perhaps, now you may understand that the articles are only as credible as their author?
Perhaps you just got confused?
quote:
Another inconvenient truth that some would prefer to conveniently ignore since it does not support their nucophobe religious beliefs.

That sounds like you are assuming I have some sort of phobia of nuclear power? Not sure what your new word "nucophobe" means, exactly.
I do work in a local nuclear plant here called "The Bruce" at least twice a month and I used to do quite a bit of work at the Lake Erie Nanticoke coal power plant as well. I have worked in radioactive environments where my intake of radiation had to be measured to make sure I didn't get overdosed. I have seen the needle on a hand held Geiger counter flex while pinned to the maximum pin on its dial, while being held in my hand... Eek All that was before I had kids too....
I am sure I have forgotten more about power generation, both nuclear and coal, than you will ever know...
In any event, there is simply no debating where the greater hazard lies. As proven at Fukashima, when mother nature rears her head, or when man gets involved, as proven at Chernobyl, there is no telling what might go wrong...
I bet more radiation is emitted from one spent fuel rod from the Bruce in an hour, than has been released by all the coal plants in the world for the last 10 years combined... Of course, I am just pulling that statement out of my ass... Must be something in the air... Wink
Jon
 
Location: Wellington County, Ontario Canada | Registered: February 07, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
I'll respond to your sensationalist crap galt the same way I replied to it the last time you quoted this flawed attempt to support your fabricated drivel.

From the article you quoted....

"McBride and his co-authors estimated that individuals living near coal-fired installations are exposed to a maximum of 1.9 millirems of fly ash radiation yearly. To put these numbers in perspective, the average person encounters 360 millirems of annual "background radiation" from natural and man-made sources, including substances in Earth's crust, cosmic rays, residue from nuclear tests and smoke detectors.

Dana Christensen, associate lab director for energy and engineering at ORNL, says that health risks from radiation in coal by-products are low. "Other risks like being hit by lightning," he adds, "are three or four times greater than radiation-induced health effects from coal plants."

So the upshot is, a person has a better chance of being hit by lightining than suffering any health risks from radiation from a coal power plant.

It's just beyond my comprehntion how anyone can be so blinded by their need to prove their flawed point that to realise the truth. All the coal fired plants in the world could blow up and they are still not going to produce a fraction of the contamination that Fukushima has that will last for eternity in practical effect nor cause people to die from radiation related dieses like cancer or any of the other devastating impacts these nuke disasters cause.

You argue ad nauseum about mixing a percentage of bio in with diesel to cut polloution and emissions but then you champion Nuclear reactors that wipe out vast tracts of land, cover the earth with a layer of deadly poison which is detrimental to nearly every living thing on the planet. Clearly your just a person that puts more importance on making yourself look important and informed and causeing an argument than what you are about reality.

You are truly a person without credibility nor anything you say is believeable in any way.
 
Registered: July 30, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Dirty air is associated with not only a number of cancers, but also heart disease, stroke, and respiratory disease, which together account for over 80 percent of deaths countrywide. According to the Chinese Centre for Disease Control and Prevention, the burning of coal is responsible for 70 percent of the emissions of soot that clouds out the sun in so much of China; 85 percent of sulfur dioxide, which causes acid rain and smog; and 67 percent of nitrogen oxide, a precursor to harmful ground level ozone. Coal burning is also a major emitter of carcinogens and mercury, a potent neurotoxin. Coal ash, which contains radioactive material and heavy metals, including chromium, arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury, is China's number one source of solid industrial waste. The toxic ash that is not otherwise used in infrastructure or manufacturing is stored in impoundments, where it can be caught by air currents or leach contaminants into the groundwater.

Australia is the biggest exporter of coal in the world, with about a 50-50 per cent split between coking coal, which is used as a raw material in steel mills, and thermal coal, which is burned in power stations.

Of course we can expect our Pommie friends to defend their coal exports and the worldwide pollution it creates. Credibility of vested interests is zip, nada. Far more people die from coal fired air pollution than die from nuclear power plant incidents. The overwhelming factual evidence speaks for itself.

One can always tell when a troll is backed into a corner: the strident personal attacks increase and the factual evidence to support their unfounded opinions drops to insignificance.



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Coal burning is also a major emitter of carcinogens and mercury, a potent neurotoxin. Coal ash, which contains radioactive material and heavy metals, including chromium, arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury, is China's number one source of solid industrial waste. The toxic ash that is not otherwise used in infrastructure or manufacturing is stored in impoundments, where it can be caught by air currents or leach contaminants into the groundwater.

Quoted from the article above, which shows that even in China they are scrubbing the fly ash out of the stacks... If they are in fact not burying it, well, you can lead a horse to water...
So JG, I guess you struck out finding anything to back up your BS claim of "fly ash is only scrubbed out of the emissions from a few coal fired power plants in the world." ??
Jon
 
Location: Wellington County, Ontario Canada | Registered: February 07, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
491 coal-fired power plants in the US emit 78,367 lbs. of toxic mercury each year

Coal plants are one of the largest sources of man-made mercury pollution in the U.S. Every year 300,000 infants are born at risk for developmental defects because of their mother's exposure to toxic mercury pollution.

This toxic pollution causes serious health problems, including brain damage. Almost 2/3 of US coal-fired plants lack the needed modern pollution controls to keep toxic air pollution, like mercury, acid gases and arsenic, out of our air and water.

Check out the map to find out where a polluting coal plant is upwind of you in the USofA
Coal fired pollution

Keep in mind that N.America prides itself on it's oxymoronic 'clean coal' technology. The rest of the world is much much worse.

Australia -> Polluting the World for Profit
Australia is the biggest exporter of coal in the world, and therefore one of the biggest polluters in the world. It makes no difference who burns it. The Pommie's Coal Pollution kills more people than all the nuclear incidents in history. Any bleatings from the Pommies which criticize the pollution from other countries is pure unadulterated hypocrisy.



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by john galt:

Of course we can expect our Pommie friends to defend their coal exports

]
Australia is the biggest exporter of coal in the world,
The Pommie's Coal Pollution kills more people than all the nuclear incidents in history.
Any bleatings from the Pommies which criticize the pollution from other countries is pure unadulterated hypocrisy.


Interesting.

Neither yourself or your sources even know what a pommie is. I'm sure all the rest of you drivel is just as reliable and trustworthy.

The biggest coal buyer of Australian coal is Japan.

I wonder how much land Australian coal has rendered uninhabitable for the next decades or how many people will never be able to return to their homes or how many people there will die from cancer caused by coal emissions or how much of the food chain has been contaminated to levels fit for consumption as compared to oh, say the nuke fallout from Fukushima??

Perhaps Galt you could find some facts and figures on that to put up and prove your Point?

Maybe Australia should just stop selling coal to japan seeing nuke power is working out so well for them. I'm sure given the way that is going, they will soon be canceling all the coal contracts to go to the perfectly clean, green, Nuke option that has just proven to be so much cleaner than coal and kept their country in the pristine condition it finds itself in today.
No doubt the citizens there and on the west coast of the US will also be calling for a stop to coal generated power and will be just as dismissive of events in Japan as you are Galt?

I am sure they are all feeling perfectly happy and confident that Nuke is every bit as wonderful as you it is and would also be more than prepared to back up any assertions you have about the terribly detrimental effects on the daemon Coal given the nuke alternative.



Oh, wait, not likely to go like that is it?? Roll Eyes
 
Registered: July 30, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post



Member
posted Hide Post
Right, I never made a claim that coal was clean or friendly. I simply pointed out that your statement that "fly ash is only scrubbed out of the emissions from a few coal fired power plants in the world." was fabricated BS. And I also pointed out the headline from SciAm was sensationalist hyperbole...
While you champion nukes and continue to ignore the obvious dangers of what could go wrong at a nuke plant and the subsequent catastrophe, Fukashima and Chernobyl as an example. I would suggest you educate yourself about how they operate and the amount of pollution involved in mining the uranium that feeds them... While nuke power is clean burning the entire process certainly is not.
Someone is bound to jam some of those facts and stats up your ying yang while you spout your misinformed BS around here...
Jon
 
Location: Wellington County, Ontario Canada | Registered: February 07, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
I wonder what part of "Almost 2/3 of US coal-fired plants lack the needed modern pollution controls to keep toxic air pollution, like mercury, acid gases and arsenic, out of our air and water." the trolls couldn't grasp? The pollution is in the stack effluent. Got it now?

Obviously most coal fired plants don't have adequate stack scrubbers, and that's just in the US. It's much worse elsewhere in the world. We share a common atmosphere. Australian coal, burned in China with inadequate pollution controls pollutes the Canadian Arctic. Anyone with a functioning brain should be able to grasp that. Of course people in Oz and Ontario rely on dirty coal electricity for their comfortable lifestyles so we can't really expect unbiased opinions from such people can we?

The simple fact remains that pollution from burning coal is orders of magnitude more injurious and deadly than the nuclear pollution from all the nuclear incidents in history, including the huge amounts of nuclear radiation the US and the Soviet Union spewed into the atmosphere with their Cold War posturing.

Nuclear's pollution track record is still cleaner than Coal's by a wide margin; it's really that simple. Of course we can't expect myopic nucophobes to grasp that, as they've so clearly demonstrated.



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2 3 4  
 

Sponsors    Biodiesel and SVO Forums Home    Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Environment  Hop To Forums  General Environmental Discussion    Pros and cons of Fossil Fuels: AGW included-

© Maui Green Energy 2000 - 2014