NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6289367.stm

Thoughts?

i really want to see how market/competition pollution control would work out... it sounds like an intriguing idea

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6289367.stm

Thoughts?

Futile efforts. As a photosynthesizing organism, Bush lacks the personal motivation to reduce the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Holy crap :eek: -- you know the environment's going in the shitter when megacorps are asking the government for more regulation...

Futile efforts. As a photosynthesizing organism, Bush lacks the personal motivation to reduce the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

YAY! :D

Holy crap :eek: -- you know the environment's going in the shitter when megacorps are asking the government for more regulation...

Heh, my thought exactly. :p

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6289367.stm

Thoughts?

old news.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6289367.stm

Thoughts?

Best wait for his replacement....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6289367.stm

Thoughts?

As long as he doesn't say anything about 'clean, safe, nuclear energy'. That's just bullshit.

As long as he doesn't say anything about 'clean, safe, nuclear energy'. That's just bullshit.

Nuclear's a lot cleaner and less radioactive than coal. I'd rather have that than a coal plant any day, especially considering how much more electricity can be produced for less money.

Nuclear waste can mostly be reclaimed, and the rest of it we can just bury in the middle of nowhere and forget about it. Or, we could do what France does and sell it to Russia to bury in Siberia.

Nuclear's a lot cleaner and less radioactive than coal.

What the fuck?

As long as he doesn't say anything about 'clean, safe, nuclear energy'. That's just bullshit.

We worked out in my physics A level class that 1g of uranium produces more energy than 3,000,000 tons of coal.
And we shouldn't have nuclear energy? It is MUCH cleaner. Not necessarily as safe, but if you treat it properly then it's fine. The scientists at Chernobyl were over-ambitious.

What the fuck?
I assume coal contains some radioactive minerals which would be released into the atmosphere when burned. Radon can be nasty if it gets into your house, but I only thought it diffused through he ground.

What the fuck?


Coal and coal waste products including fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag, and flue gas desulfurization contain many heavy metals, including arsenic, lead, mercury, nickel, vanadium, beryllium, cadmium, barium, chromium, copper, molybdenum, zinc, selenium and radium, which are dangerous if released into the environment. Coal also contains low levels of uranium, thorium, and other naturally-occurring radioactive isotopes whose release into the environment may lead to radioactive contamination.

Unlike nuclear, this stuff is released in to the environment by the process itself, whereas a nuclear plant's waste is safely stored and the waste products released in to the environment have little or no radiation in them. The only time a nuclear plant is more dangerous than coal is if something goes wrong, and given that that is next to impossible in modern reactors, there's not a lot to worry about. Not to mention that the CO2 produced is negligible compared to coal and the fuel is far more abundant.

Some points on nuclear:

1)France gets 75% ish of their energy from nuclar and have had no majour mess ups.

2)New generations of nuclear power offer passive safety features that make it (almost) imposible for a meltdown to occour without tammpering.

I read this thread title one time as "Bush 'must fight change'"

What the fuck?

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.02/nuclear.html

Coal produces almost 100 times more radioactive materials than nuclear.

I'm a huge advocate of safe, clean, and efficient nuclear energy.

The scientists at Chernobyl were over-ambitious.

Nuclear energy:Chernobyl::Air balloons:Hindenburg