snommisbor
Premium Member
Something to ponder on the true efficiency of greener homes.
http://tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=764
http://tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=764
Interesting Greener Is Not Better
- Thread starter snommisbor
- Start date
- Status
xJake
Active member
Not sure how this would point to the idea that "greener is not better". The article is simply saying that even after being publicly criticized, redoing his home to make it more "green", and making millions off of his book and DVD sales about climate change, Gore has actually increased his personal electricity use over the past year. The point of the article isn't to say that "green" technologies don't work, but what it is trying to say is that Gore is being hypocritical about his electricity use and despite his increased use in "green" technology he is still using even more electricity.
snommisbor
Premium Member
I just thought it was crazy that after all the things you can do to make your home more efficient it actually ended up using more utilities then less.
chrissreef
New member
Yup, what Rossini said. What's wrong with more power if you're using 100% wind/tidal/solar energy?
If you use coal "clean burning" coal or not, you're still polluting. Nuclear? yea, we still don't have a radioactive waste location for spent chambers... I saw the transportation plan on the Discovery channel of these chambers, right through cities! 1 accident and kaboom!
If you use coal "clean burning" coal or not, you're still polluting. Nuclear? yea, we still don't have a radioactive waste location for spent chambers... I saw the transportation plan on the Discovery channel of these chambers, right through cities! 1 accident and kaboom!
greenbean36191
Premium Member
It would be interesting to see the breakdown of how that energy was produced. TVA gets a huge portion of their energy from hydroelectric and nuclear, so there's a good chance it was produced via "green" sources. It says he paid extra for "green" energy, but being on TVA back home, I know that that doesn't mean that the optional source is any better than the default. Back home all of my energy is from nuclear and hydroelectric, but I can pay TVA extra for "green" energy, which comes from natural gas and incinerating garbage plus a few more sources like wind and solar.
It would also be interesting to see how his total energy use has changed, not just electricity, since they criticized him for his natural gas bill on the first go-round. That data is conspicuously absent this time which makes me suspect we might not be getting the whole story.
It would also be interesting to see how his total energy use has changed, not just electricity, since they criticized him for his natural gas bill on the first go-round. That data is conspicuously absent this time which makes me suspect we might not be getting the whole story.
buck50bmg
In Memoriam
I have to educate you.....They will transport Nuclear Waste....spent fuel assemblies, Highly radioactive material. The material cannot "blow up". Its not a nuclear weapon its just radioactive material. It takes allot of work from us to get it to go BOOM, it doesn't act like an explosive that can be set off. You have to extract material from the waste....purify it......and a whole bunch of other processing before it can even be used, then it needs a perfect shaped charge of high explosives to set it off.
buck50bmg
In Memoriam
You know what? We will never ever reduce our energy usage.....PERIOD...
We have built this society and it will progress.
This Green period is just that....a period. Its a trend, something for the environmentalist to do for a while. All the while gore is making a fortune off the weak minded and stupid out there.
All I can say is do your own research and THINK for yourselves....
chrissreef
New member
No lesson needed... when I said "kaboom" I didn't mean explosion... I meant "kaboom" as in radioactive area the size of a city.
Hazerdous material is transported every day on our roads/trains etc... but is putting the public unknowingly and unwillingly close to material that radioactive with chance to have an accident is terrible and unethical imo. Imagine if a terrorist figures out the path one of these containers will be taking? This is why I don't support nuclear - that and that we have to store it 200+ yrs... which there hasn't been much funding to develop for and current chambers are coming to their life end within a few years =/ To me, it's again passing unnecessary waste to future generations with hopes they can deal with it - and I don't think that's "fair"
Yes, life’s not fair - i know, but some of our wasteful lifestyle is ridiculously unnecessary in my opinion - so many better alternatives out there.
HippieSmell
Occupy Reef Central
You're right, we won't ever reduce energy consumption, but we will change how we get it. And, you're also correct about the Green period being a trend. Eventually, barring a global collapse, societies will be "green" without it being labeled as such, it will simply be called rational. The planet is taking an unsustainable path and will either collapse or restructure, there is no way around it.
chrissreef
New member
You really believe that or are you just trying to stir things up?
Why is wind/solar/thermal/tidal all inferior to nuclear? Please explain why nuclear is "the" solution.
snommisbor
Premium Member
What I think is funny about wind is enviromentalist are all about preserving the beauty of this earth then they want to use things like giant windmills to litter the landscape with their spinning propellors. I would love to have a big windmill in my front yard and solar panels on the roof but I dont think my homeowners association would allow it. Problem with solar is what do people in Seattle do where it rains so much. I think those things are good but until we can find a way to get enough energy that will REALLY change our dependancy we need to use our best resource and drill. I dont know why we cant set a goal like Kennedy did with getting to the moon. There is no reason why America cannot do this as well, it is just a matter of all the politicians stop saying what a dirtbag the other one is and start doing what we elected them to do and if they dont vote them out.
HippieSmell
Occupy Reef Central
So, the biggest obstacle to clean, domestic energy, is...wait for it...your homeowners association. I know what you mean, we can't fight homeowners associations, they're too powerful.
What do people in Seattle do now with no oil wells? I agree with the moon landing analogy though.
Here's what is theoretically possible:
link
link2
Talk about cheap! About $10 billion for that project in the second link.
chrissreef
New member
BigJay! haha, I just realized it was you! did you go on that tank tour this weekend?
Paris is quite a bit smaller than... the USA. Even if you include all of France, it's still quite a bit smaller. Having a few plants is just a wee bit different than what people are proposing.
Some people want 100+ nuclear plants in the US - that's a TON of nuclear waste - more than most people can even fathom and it increases exponentially the chances of disaster.
Nuclear waste being transported safely today? not as much as is about to start from current plants I believe. I thought I heard that they won't start transporting it until 2010 or 2015 or something like that and that the bedrock facility isn't done yet. Survive a train wreck? maybe... but I've also seen pictures of simple hazerdous containers leaking hazerdous waste, space shuttles coming apart, levees and damns crumble, recalls of products in almost every industry, other countries mistakinly receiving nuclear warhead tips and people dieing in cars that were supposed to be safe per crash dummies. Things that "weren't supposed to happen" just seem to happen all the time, ever notice that?
Funny thing is, I work for a government contractor and well... the lowest bidder wins! guess what that lowest bidder does? cut corners...
Electricity moves through wires... plenty of areas not near metropolises perfect for solar (death valley?) - and the ocean is pretty big and perfect for tidal electricity. After living in CA for a few years, I got tired of seeing oil rigs every 3 miles along the coast... tidal plants are waaay less intrusive.
Paris is quite a bit smaller than... the USA. Even if you include all of France, it's still quite a bit smaller. Having a few plants is just a wee bit different than what people are proposing.
Some people want 100+ nuclear plants in the US - that's a TON of nuclear waste - more than most people can even fathom and it increases exponentially the chances of disaster.
Nuclear waste being transported safely today? not as much as is about to start from current plants I believe. I thought I heard that they won't start transporting it until 2010 or 2015 or something like that and that the bedrock facility isn't done yet. Survive a train wreck? maybe... but I've also seen pictures of simple hazerdous containers leaking hazerdous waste, space shuttles coming apart, levees and damns crumble, recalls of products in almost every industry, other countries mistakinly receiving nuclear warhead tips and people dieing in cars that were supposed to be safe per crash dummies. Things that "weren't supposed to happen" just seem to happen all the time, ever notice that?
Funny thing is, I work for a government contractor and well... the lowest bidder wins! guess what that lowest bidder does? cut corners...
Electricity moves through wires... plenty of areas not near metropolises perfect for solar (death valley?) - and the ocean is pretty big and perfect for tidal electricity. After living in CA for a few years, I got tired of seeing oil rigs every 3 miles along the coast... tidal plants are waaay less intrusive.
TomCs
New member
Uanium is a resource just as coal is, one day it's going to run out too, but do we even care about that day? Did we care about the day coal would run out during the industrial revolution? Ofcourse not beacuse common science did not allow us to understand our impact on the globe like the way we do today. Today we have the understanding to step forward in energy production without impact.
Nuclear waste may, for the most part, transport OK, if nothing goes wrong. But its still dug into the ground for 200yrs+. Thats a long time for simply one crack/split/rupture to form. Has anyone ever wondered what nuclear waste intrusion into the water table may cause?
Dont get me wrong i would love Nuclear energy to be the answers to all our prayers, but in today's world for it to be blown out as a national or global energy resource poses too many unanswered questions which we infact have the capacity to one day answer.
True, with alternative measures what works for one communnity/city/nation may not work for another but that's the idea. Each candidate can usually find energy to be harnessed ideal to thier location.
Islans in northern Europe live entirely off wind power and actually sell back surplus energy back to the mainland.
New Zealand and (i think so feel free to correct if im wrong) Iceland are able to harness thermal tectonic power as they both lie on active divergant plate boundaries. there are many more of these examples im sure but my point is only that we have so many other alternatives to look into which do infact work before we surrender to a "lesser evil" of energy production.
Nuclear waste may, for the most part, transport OK, if nothing goes wrong. But its still dug into the ground for 200yrs+. Thats a long time for simply one crack/split/rupture to form. Has anyone ever wondered what nuclear waste intrusion into the water table may cause?
Dont get me wrong i would love Nuclear energy to be the answers to all our prayers, but in today's world for it to be blown out as a national or global energy resource poses too many unanswered questions which we infact have the capacity to one day answer.
True, with alternative measures what works for one communnity/city/nation may not work for another but that's the idea. Each candidate can usually find energy to be harnessed ideal to thier location.
Islans in northern Europe live entirely off wind power and actually sell back surplus energy back to the mainland.
New Zealand and (i think so feel free to correct if im wrong) Iceland are able to harness thermal tectonic power as they both lie on active divergant plate boundaries. there are many more of these examples im sure but my point is only that we have so many other alternatives to look into which do infact work before we surrender to a "lesser evil" of energy production.
- Status
Similar threads
- Sticky
