NationStates Jolt Archive

The current main powersource, oil and coals are damaging the enviroment. Holes in the ozone, creating more risk of skin cancer, and damaging air quality, meanning more lung related troubles are accuring rapidly. Also, if we do not act soon, our children's children will suffer greatly from our mistakes. Nuclear, Hydro, and Areo powersources are the best. Hydropowerplants create power from water falls and so on, while Nuclear takes mother natures atoms and creates power from thier energy, while the areopower sources, or wind plants in the mountains produce enrgy, expecialy in windy areas. An other alternitive is solar powersource, getting energy form the sun's light. All these produce very small waste if any, and is less damaging to the enviroment.

Why we should switch to alternitive powersources:

For nuclear power, there is no real problem. Major amounts of power is released, while very little waste is dumped. Usually, the waste is hot, and is usually sent into a nearby river, which when dumped, can help algae, and then help grow the populations of fish, then birds, then the chain goes on, amny people will however be effected becouse this powersource is limited to mass areas, which is why many other powersources are available.

For Wind and Hydro Powersource, it produces little to no waste, and is totaly enviromental. They do produce enough power if used in massiv amounts, and will harm the enviroment very little.

For the Solar Powerplants, lets give a quick idea of its power. All of France and half of Spain is covered with nothing of Solar Powerplants, all of Europe, most of Asia and north Africa will be also supplied with great amounts of power. Of cource the downfall is night time, no power, there is a lot of rays that fly at us every day, which could produce more energy.

Last but not least, industry would not be effected much. Sure the automobile industry would suffer untill more effective car engines are made with batteries or a nuclear corce, but it would produce very little exhust, and little troubles. Also, the new powerplant would produce more jobs, and in turn, give those workers at oil platforms and coal mines a chance to have a good job without harsh condinitons.





I just submitted it. Don't have the URL, but search Powersource. I hope you guys like it.

It helps to actually say this is your proposal, and not just that its been put into the list. Also, might I add apart from this, the only reason I am replying to this proposal is that the science behind it is astoundingly bad. So in my usual fashion, I've quote tagged the individual bits, and supplied my arguments against.

Description: The current main powersource, oil and coals are damaging the enviroment. Holes in the ozone, creating more risk of skin cancer, and damaging air quality, meanning more lung related troubles are accuring rapidly.

Ummm. Not exactly. In fact, not at all. The pollution out-put of coal burning is related to several factors. These factors begin with exactly what grade of coal you use to start with, power plants I think are usually quite exact with this. Then there is how you burn your coal by this I mean what temperature, and not to mention post burning filtration of the gas emissions. Very important, the last step. Modern coal burning plants do not adversely effect the environment. I should know, most of my region is powered by coal ( I mean in Real Life, by the way, not NS ... and trust me, no big bad black clouds here :) ).

The problem with coal is when people use it for power, and don't mine, process, grade, burn and filter the end remains properly. Many 3rd world countries are the big offenders as they try to build up the economy required to service other "cleaner" sources. Oh, now I can't much speak for oil really, I've little knowing of its properties but assume being a fossil fuel and being burned, is probably used as out-lined above with some slight differences.

Also, coal and oil burning are only part of the green-house effect and damage to the ozone layer, forest fires, natural "coal fires" ( Like in R.L. communist China ) and many industries, in fact, even cows and to an extent sheep burping and farting especially make an impact. In fact, cows farting could be a bloody big concern regarding the environment. But I digress ... ( Results of one too many dives into the tech news of y national news web site I think ... )

Oh, and lung problems are usually resulting from smoking and irritants released from other heavy industries, like chemical production. It all relates to how well the job is done in the end. I also find it interesting your forgetting natural gas burning.

Also, if we do not act soon, our children's children will suffer greatly from our mistakes.

Like ... the atom bomb ... deforestation ... war ... Pop Idol ... ;)

Nuclear, Hydro, and Areo powersources are the best.

Wow, horrifying simplicity ! :)

Hydropowerplants create power from water falls and so on,

Yep, and man made dams, in fact, in regards to water, wave generators are quite good for costal points ... but I think you need a sea wall ... any-way ...

while Nuclear takes mother natures atoms and creates power from their energy,

And leaves behind some lovely highly dangerous waste materials. Not to mention the constant danger of a deadly melt down during plant operation.

while the areopower sources, or wind plants in the mountains produce enrgy, expecialy in windy areas.

Actually, only in windy areas, aero-power is uber-dependant on yearly weather conditions and does not generate much power, you need many, many, many such generators to equal the out-put of a clean coal or oil plant.

An other alternitive is solar powersource, getting energy form the sun's light. All these produce very small waste if any, and is less damaging to the enviroment.

Yes, and you get none at night, not to mention the act you ned a hell of a lot of solar cells to gather energy = to that of the above-said clean coal plants. Even if you use solar reflectors and a focal load point for generation you still need an awful lot of them.

Why we should switch to alternitive powersources:

Judging by what I've seen so far, I'd interested as to what I'll find next.

For nuclear power, there is no real problem.

No ... of coarse not ( cough, Chernobyl, cough )

Major amounts of power is released, while very little waste is dumped.

Ummm, yes, but your ignoring that the waste released is extremely toxic once it or its invisible energised emissions enter the body ( Yay, I just did Nuclear chem at college recently, so I'm not just talking out of my butt ;) ) and will not stop being very dangerous and adverse on the environment for a couple thousand years - at minimum - . If I find my chem text I'll come back and insert the years for the fhalf life of common reactor fuels.

Usually, the waste is hot,

No, usually, the waste has cooled, its only hot while its emitting neutrons, like, in the reactor. When its waste ( E.g. spent, yes, - spent - fuel rods ) its stopped doing this to the degree its no longer useful, and is usually only hot to the degree if you pick it up you'll get what will become a lethal radiation burn.

and is usually sent into a nearby river,

Ummm, I doubt that greatly. You have interesting ... science.

which when dumped, can help algae, and then help grow the populations of fish, then birds, then the chain goes on,

( face -> palm )

This is in no way relevent to how nuclear power is generated or waste disposed, the closest it comes to is the regular water used for cooling a reactor which in an emergency if it becomes too hot ( like in the start of a melt down ) may be flushed out to help drag fresh, cool water in.

amny people will however be effected becouse this powersource is limited to mass areas, which is why many other powersources are available.

Not really, it just depends on how you transport the power to the more remote locations. A power station can be a great distance away from its out-puts "final" destination.

* Also its helps to note many people do not like living near anything nuclear, even the medical isotope reactor is Sydney is protested, despte the fact the bulk of protesters moved there long after the reactor was built and the reactor does not generate the same level or danger of waste ...

For Wind and Hydro Powersource, it produces little to no waste, and is totaly enviromental. They do produce enough power if used in massiv amounts, and will harm the enviroment very little.

Ummm, actually wind-power is not all that effective, takes up massive amount of land, and can only be used in specific areas and points to any useful scale. Hydro is also much dependant on land and water sources ...

For the Solar Powerplants, lets give a quick idea of its power. All of France and half of Spain is covered with nothing of Solar Powerplants,

Ummm, pardon ? Where ? When ? N.S. F + S ? R.L. F + S ?

all of Europe, most of Asia and north Africa will be also supplied with great amounts of power. Of cource the downfall is night time, no power, there is a lot of rays that fly at us every day, which could produce more energy.

Actually, your grammar and science has almost completely dissolved into nothing at this point. Especially your science.

Last but not least, industry would not be effected much. Sure the automobile industry would suffer untill more effective car engines are made with batteries or a nuclear corce,

:headbang:

but it would produce very little exhust, and little troubles. Also, the new powerplant would produce more jobs, and in turn, give those workers at oil platforms and coal mines a chance to have a good job without harsh condinitons.

Ummm, I would actually think these days, especially in developed worlds, people work in such places because they want to for a variety of reasons, but judging from your "proposal", such annoying "realities" don't apply.

Approvals: 11 (Coolet, Nobrainia, Xerxes855, Nireva, Ungomma, Conceptualists, Taraguy, Ritonland, Shadows Lady, Boohbahstahn, Orioni)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 126 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Mon Jul 19 2004

Oh, it gets killed t'moz, ah well, maybe it will stay dead ... or at least the peculiar sciences that birthed it ...

That would have to be one of the most thorough demolition jobs I have ever seen, Komokom. Remind me never to get in your black books.

Truitt: There is one particular section that I do not believe Komokom mentioned, which I feel I must point out.

Usually, the waste is hot, and is usually sent into a nearby river, which when dumped, can help algae, and then help grow the populations of fish, then birds, then the chain goes on, amny people will however be effected becouse this powersource is limited to mass areas, which is why many other powersources are available.
Um, ever heard of algal blooms? I suffered several years of Geography to learn this, so I believe I have at least part of the facts right.
Algae, in particular blue-green algae, respond very quickly to changes in water. This can include temperature (as you mentioned) as well as other things such as the chemicals present in the water. If, as you say, heating the water caused an algal bloom, then there are very bad consequences.
Blue-green algae have very short life-spans. They grow, mature and die very quickly. And when they die, they soak up most of the oxygen in the water. This kills the fish present in the water, and if there are no fish, then the birds dependent upon them will also die. Then the chain goes on, as you said.

And leaves behind some lovely highly dangerous waste materials. Not to mention the constant danger of a deadly melt down during plant operation.


Not true. Chernobyl was a faulty design and at the time they were running experiments on it. Nuclear power is actually very safe and reliable. I'd rather live next to a nuclear plant than coal or oil.

You might add that algal blooms are another source of organic carbon, which while ideal for natural marshes and wetlands, when mixed with bromides and chlorides, form what we call dis-infection by-products ... chief among them are total trihalomethanes (TTHMs). TTHMs are basically carcinogenic and cause problems with human central nervous systems and kidneys. They are regulated in US water supplies.

How I leaped here, I can't remember ... but I think the important thing to keep in mind is that water temperature is an important environmental and urban drinking water consideration. Fortunately there are temperature control devices being designed in some US reservoirs, which work by taking cooler water from the lower levels of a reservoir instead of just releasing the warmer surface water.

I'd like to point out that some fish (salmon for example) can only breed in certain water temperatures.

All that said, though my nation has great hydro power potential, it does not take advantage of this natural resource, due to the other environmental risks. I'd lean towards the other alternative energy sources mentioned.

That would have to be one of the most thorough demolition jobs I have ever seen, Komokom. Remind me never to get in your black books.

Truitt: There is one particular section that I do not believe Komokom mentioned, which I feel I must point out.

1) I have a book ? :confused:

;)

* I only did it becuase of the plain odd-ball science trying to reason for it ...

Bad science = Me going :mp5: at it, :D

2) The reason I neglected the algae stuff was the simple act of dumping radioactive waste into local rivers would quickly make every living thing very sick and soon very dead.

Heavy radiation pollution = scorched earth - the flames ...

Not true. Chernobyl was a faulty design and at the time they were running experiments on it. Nuclear power is actually very safe and reliable. I'd rather live next to a nuclear plant than coal or oil.

The Russians stuffed up ? Never ... ;)

Ahem, but yes, I know, my point was you can't raise one power-source to saint hood, and regardless of procedure and design, there is always the possibility of melt down. I can't remember it right now, but I recall another nuclear incident a while back ... I * think * it was American ... 3 Mile Island ? ( I read about it, happened ... geeez, I'm going to end up looking it up I know it ... ) Can't remember the exact name, also in Japan I think it was only a few years ago there was a case of a plant emitting radio-active material into the surrounding suburban area. Into the atmosphere I think. That turned out to be the fault of people running it I think, not design or experimentation.

Memory lane : Actually, years ago, not too long after Chernobyl, my old mum and dad noticed that there was a marked increase in the sale of imported cherry jam ( I *think* it was cherry ) from ... wait for it ... Russia and that area of Europe. Need-less to say, my parents had the presence of mind not to make a purchase. ;)

Also, to your last point, I'd rather live near none of hem, but after all, in my country ( Australia ) major residential is not usually housed too close to generator plants and even so, I know our coal plants are pretty darned clean. Suffice to say living near one is probably healthier then where I live now ( By the side of a high-way, albeit in the better part of town ) :)

And Mikitivity, I've just reached part of my course regarding some of that stuff, :)

Hydro dams have never been proven to be good for the enviroment.

Hydro dams have never been proven to be good for the enviroment.

That is a pretty simple statement ... care to expand upon that ... perhaps with some evidence?

Because while I've explained the temperature impacts of reservoirs (i.e. dams), it is true that hydro power is not associated with the air quality problems that are associated with the burning of any fossil fuels.

Energy production is always about a tradeoff. I'd argue that population control and energy efficiency are really the most sustainable policies, but I'm sure anybody can poke holes in any single type of energy production. Noting this, *researching* different types of energy and how to improve the technologies is IMHO a noble idea.

I'd much rather see longer replies where we can begin to discuss the pros and cons instead of short unsupported comments.

While not producing pollution in the air, dams cause other problems.

While not the UN report I was looking for this result of a quick google search will do for the enviromental:

http://www.irn.org/index.asp?id=/basics/impacts.html

For the social I'll briefly mention the Aswan Dam as an example:

The dam prevents silt going down the nile. Without silt farmers have to buy fertiliser. Knock on effect is fewer farmers and intensive farming damaging what lands left and resulting chemical spilloff.

Disease has also increased in the lake behind the dam thanks to new creatures thriving in the new enviroment.

While not producing pollution in the air, dams cause other problems.

While not the UN report I was looking for this result of a quick google search will do for the enviromental:

http://www.irn.org/index.asp?id=/basics/impacts.html

For the social I'll briefly mention the Aswan Dam as an example:

The dam prevents silt going down the nile. Without silt farmers have to buy fertiliser. Knock on effect is fewer farmers and intensive farming damaging what lands left and resulting chemical spilloff.

Disease has also increased in the lake behind the dam thanks to new creatures thriving in the new enviroment.

Thank you!

That BTW is an excellent site, and I'd encourage all nations (including those who click yes on the hydro power / flood control NationStates issues) to read the site.

Diseases (human and wildlife) are actually a natural problem ... be it that the dieseases are spawned in artifical lakes or thousands of kilometers later in a natural tidal esturary, I do not feel that is it appropriate to really account for the vector control costs associated with a dam, without accounting for some of the savings elsewhere.

Though your points on silt / erosion are in my opinion completely valid. As for agriculture ... it is possible to reoperate the dam or to plant crops that are less soil intensive. In other words, there is some management flexibility with respect to agriculture based costs and benefits.