The Environment: Quit taking the party line!

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Stunt
I'd rather a few ponds of nuclear waste than the crap coal plants spew out!
I'd like to know where you get the figure of "a few pounds" and whether you have any idea how deadly "a few pounds" of nuke waste can be and how long it will stay that way.

I'd also be interested in your ideas about what it would cost to make sure it never gets loose, seeps into the soil where it can migrate into water tables or making 100% sure it never falls into the hands of a dirty bomber.

The bad news is, there isn't any one solution that solve the world's energy needs. The good news is, if we're lucky, we have time to go after viable alternatives.

That will have to include a lot more recycling than we're doing, now. Like metal cans and plastic bottles, some energy can be recycled, as well. It's as much about efficient energy usage as well as generation.

Any one technology won't be enough, but combinations of wind, solar, and other "green" technologies, along with some further out possiblities I only read about and hope for in publications like Nasa Tech Briefs and others, can make a difference.

The point is not to give up or give into the idea that we're doomed to continue consuming ourselves into oblivion. Take the clue from the OP's title:
The Environment: Quit taking the party line!
:cool:


Nuclear waste is more easily delt with than spewing stuff inthe air....
 

Stunt

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,717
2
0
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Stunt
1)I'd rather a few ponds of nuclear waste than the crap coal plants spew out!
I'd like to know where you get the figure of "a few pounds" and whether you have any idea how deadly "a few pounds" of nuke waste can be and how long it will stay that way.

2)I'd also be interested in your ideas about what it would cost to make sure it never gets loose, seeps into the soil where it can migrate into water tables or making 100% sure it never falls into the hands of a dirty bomber.

3)The bad news is, there isn't any one solution that solve the world's energy needs. The good news is, if we're lucky, we have time to go after viable alternatives.

That will have to include a lot more recycling than we're doing, now. Like metal cans and plastic bottles, some energy can be recycled, as well. It's as much about efficient energy usage as well as generation.

Any one technology won't be enough, but combinations of wind, solar, and other "green" technologies, along with some further out possiblities I only read about and hope for in publications like Nasa Tech Briefs and others, can make a difference.

4)The point is not to give up or give into the idea that we're doomed to continue consuming ourselves into oblivion. Take the clue from the OP's title:
The Environment: Quit taking the party line!
:cool:
1)ponds...as in waste storage tanks...not pounds.

2)Obviously you have no clue how difficult it is to make a nuclear bomb, terrorists can't just take it and become a "dirty bomber". Time for alternatives is precious and shouldn't be wasted with burning coal, use that time for much cleaner nuclear.

3)Nuclear is a step in the progression to cleaner fuels. Just as hybrids are a step towards elec/fuel cell cars. Are you about to denounce hybrids now, because they use gas? No...you have to progress to new technologies when they are sustainable. This has been shown many times in history...ie. itanium (to be a nerdass).

4)Where did i state a party line?!...nice twisting of my words around.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,784
6,343
126
Originally posted by: Stunt
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Stunt
1)I'd rather a few ponds of nuclear waste than the crap coal plants spew out!
I'd like to know where you get the figure of "a few pounds" and whether you have any idea how deadly "a few pounds" of nuke waste can be and how long it will stay that way.

2)I'd also be interested in your ideas about what it would cost to make sure it never gets loose, seeps into the soil where it can migrate into water tables or making 100% sure it never falls into the hands of a dirty bomber.

3)The bad news is, there isn't any one solution that solve the world's energy needs. The good news is, if we're lucky, we have time to go after viable alternatives.

That will have to include a lot more recycling than we're doing, now. Like metal cans and plastic bottles, some energy can be recycled, as well. It's as much about efficient energy usage as well as generation.

Any one technology won't be enough, but combinations of wind, solar, and other "green" technologies, along with some further out possiblities I only read about and hope for in publications like Nasa Tech Briefs and others, can make a difference.

4)The point is not to give up or give into the idea that we're doomed to continue consuming ourselves into oblivion. Take the clue from the OP's title:
The Environment: Quit taking the party line!
:cool:
1)ponds...as in waste storage tanks...not pounds.

2)Obviously you have no clue how difficult it is to make a nuclear bomb, terrorists can't just take it and become a "dirty bomber". Time for alternatives is precious and shouldn't be wasted with burning coal, use that time for much cleaner nuclear.

3)Nuclear is a step in the progression to cleaner fuels. Just as hybrids are a step towards elec/fuel cell cars. Are you about to denounce hybrids now, because they use gas? No...you have to progress to new technologies when they are sustainable. This has been shown many times in history...ie. itanium (to be a nerdass).

4)Where did i state a party line?!...nice twisting of my words around.

"Ponds" hehe, I read it as "pounds" too. :D

Ah well, good thread and good point! The problem here is a result of the whole "liberal bad"/"Conservative bad" labeling that has taken over Political discussion. Conservatives pride themselves on Pro-Business Low-Regulation and as such Environmental issues require(so it seems) Regulations that work against Business. Thus you have the extreme Rush Conservatives and even the more Ideological though non-Rush Conservatives labeling the Environmental issues as "Liberal". Of course, as others have mentioned, certain Environmental groups haven't really helped the cause with their extremism(terrorist activities aside). Many Environmental Extremists a little more than modern Luddites whose philosophy seems to be to scrap everything Modern.

That said, the extreme seriousness of current Environmental issues(Global Climate Change, low level Ozone, Lead/Mercury/other nasty chemicals in the Air, etc) is far too important for anyone to just ignore as crazy ideas from "them". Business/Industries have been totally unable to address the issue on their own and it seems that in the few cases where Self-Regulation has actually been successful(can't think of any, but assume some has occurred) has only come about after very serious threat of Government Regulation or Actions spurred by Environmentalists that have successfully rallied the Public to a cause.

Which brings me to this point: As Citizens and the Electorate, it is extremely Foolish to align ourselves exclusively with any Philosophy, Movement, or Organization(Political, Issue orientated, Corporate, etc). It is us above all others who must be Pragnatic, Reasonable, and Weigh the Facts/Issues for the betterment of all. Unfortunetly we have failed in our Responsibilities and have chosen to be part of a Team and let others with their own Selfish Agendas determine our views and opinions on issues. We are the ultimate Fools and as Fools we will make Foolish decisions that ultimately lead to our own destruction.

Yet I am not a Pessimist! :D
 
Aug 14, 2001
11,061
0
0
George Bush has explicitly acknowledged that global warming is real and human activities are contributing to the problem. That is progress of sorts, but the president is holding stubbornly to his position thta greenhouse gas emissions can be reduced without setting standards and timetables for measuring performance - a curious stance for someone with an MBA degree. His classroom work at Harvard Business School should have taught him that any enterprise must set targets if it's going to deliver anything of value. Mr. Bush should review his textbooks, then develop meaningful climate policy that sets measurable benchmarks for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions.

I thought that Bush already has set some targets.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
George Bush has explicitly acknowledged that global warming is real and human activities are contributing to the problem. That is progress of sorts, but the president is holding stubbornly to his position thta greenhouse gas emissions can be reduced without setting standards and timetables for measuring performance - a curious stance for someone with an MBA degree. His classroom work at Harvard Business School should have taught him that any enterprise must set targets if it's going to deliver anything of value. Mr. Bush should review his textbooks, then develop meaningful climate policy that sets measurable benchmarks for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions.

I thought that Bush already has set some targets.



Yes he has. New cap and trade targets for nox and sox and funding towards co2 reduction.
 

Stunt

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,717
2
0
What are the numerical targets and what is the punishment for not conforming to his targets?
 
Aug 14, 2001
11,061
0
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
George Bush has explicitly acknowledged that global warming is real and human activities are contributing to the problem. That is progress of sorts, but the president is holding stubbornly to his position thta greenhouse gas emissions can be reduced without setting standards and timetables for measuring performance - a curious stance for someone with an MBA degree. His classroom work at Harvard Business School should have taught him that any enterprise must set targets if it's going to deliver anything of value. Mr. Bush should review his textbooks, then develop meaningful climate policy that sets measurable benchmarks for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions.

I thought that Bush already has set some targets.



Yes he has. New cap and trade targets for nox and sox and funding towards co2 reduction.

For some reason I think the author was whining about something else instead. :laugh:
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Stunt
What are the numerical targets and what is the punishment for not conforming to his targets?

the nox, sox and mercury reduction is based on trading market, much like kyoto does carbon trading.

linkage

but I also found this while browsing the epa site

linkage

There is a worldwide methane emission trading group which the US and Canada are part of. Methane is has a much larger green house effect than co2.

By 2015 the Methane to Markets Partnership has the potential to deliver annual reductions in methane emissions of up to 50 million metric tons of carbon equivalent or recovery of 500 billion cubic feet of natural gas. If these projections are achieved, they could stabilize or reduce global atmospheric concentrations of methane. This would be equivalent to cutting the greenhouse gas emissions of 33 million cars, planting 55 million acres of trees, or eliminating emissions from 50 500 megawatt coal-fired power plants; or providing enough energy to heat approximately 7.2 million households for one year.
 
Aug 14, 2001
11,061
0
0
I've talked about Methan to Markets here before. I believe it was the first global emissions reduction agreement. For some reason people don't like to talk about it.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,784
6,343
126
CO2 is a much more serious problem than Methane, though decreasing Methane is certainly good.
 
Aug 14, 2001
11,061
0
0
Originally posted by: sandorski
CO2 is a much more serious problem than Methane, though decreasing Methane is certainly good.

In which sense is it more serious? Are you talking about total emissions right now or on a per particle basis - because I believe methane is far more serious than CO2 on a particle per particle basis.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Originally posted by: sandorski
CO2 is a much more serious problem than Methane, though decreasing Methane is certainly good.

In which sense is it more serious? Are you talking about total emissions right now or on a per particle basis - because I believe methane is far more serious than CO2 on a particle per particle basis.



You are correct methane is a much stronger in green house effects.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,059
73
91
Originally posted by: charrison
Nuclear waste is more easily delt with than spewing stuff inthe air....
Sorry, but I can't take that seriously. You're going to have to prove that with more than a statement.

"Spewing stuff into the air" isn't the only way to deal with smokestack materials. You can learn a lot about alternatives by searching for smokestack scrubber, and that's just one of many approaches to dealing with exhaust byproducts.
Originally posted by: Stunt
1)ponds...as in waste storage tanks...not pounds.
OK. I'll take ponds for $1,000, Alex.

Nuclear waste can escape from storage ponds through natural phenomena such as seepage, evaporation, earthquakes, hurricanes and other weather effects, or less natural events such as a man made explosion, either intentional, such as a bomb, or accidental, such as a plane crash.

If you think Yucca Mountain is an answer, think again:
Yucca Mountain could leak nuclear waste, says scientist

Source: Copyright 2004, Associated Press
Date: February 19, 2004
Byline: Scott Sonner, Associated Press

RENO, Nevada ? The U.S. nuclear waste dump proposed for Nevada is poorly designed and could leak highly radioactive waste, said a scientist who recently resigned from a federal panel of experts on Yucca Mountain. Paul Craig, a physicist and engineering professor at the University of California-Davis, said Wednesday that he quit the panel last month so he could speak more freely about the waste dump's dangers.

Yucca Mountain, about 90 miles (145 kilometers) northwest of Las Vegas, is planned to begin receiving waste in 2010. Some 77,000 tons of highly radioactive waste at commercial and military sites in 39 states would be stored in metal canisters underground in tunnels.

"The science is very clear," said Craig before his first public speech about the Energy Department's design for the canisters. "If we get high-temperature liquids, the metal would corrode and that would eventually lead to leakage of nuclear waste," Craig said. "Therefore, it is a bad design. And that is very, very bad news for the Department of Energy because they are committed to that design," he said.

Craig, who was appointed to the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board by President Bill Clinton in 1997, planned to speak Wednesday night at a forum sponsored by the Sierra Club. He said he's convinced the Energy Department will have to postpone the project and change to metal less liable to corrode.

"It would require years of delay and my guess is that is what is going to happen. The bad science is so clear they will be unable to ignore it forever," Craig said.

The 11-member technical review board outlined its concerns about the potential for corrosion in a report to the Energy Department in November about the metal for the canisters, called Alloy-22 ? "an upscale version of stainless steel," Craig said. It was the most important report the board has produced since Congress created the panel in 1987, he said, but largely has been ignored by Congress and the department.

"The report says in ordinary English that under the conditions proposed by the Department of Energy, the canisters will leak," Craig said. "It was signed by every single member of the board so there would be no confusion."

Energy Department spokesman Allen Benson defended the design plans for the repository and the metal in the storage casks. "We stand by our work," he said Wednesday in Las Vegas.

In Washington, D.C., officials with the industry's Nuclear Energy Institute did not immediately return telephone calls seeking comment. The board's report in November said the government had failed to take into account "deliquescence" ? a phenomenon regarding the reaction of salt to moisture ? in its plans to operate the dump at temperatures well above boiling water, or about 200 degrees Fahrenheit (93 degrees Celsius). At those temperatures, the metal canisters would heat up, causing salts in the surrounding ground to liquefy, thus leading to corrosion, Craig said.

"It turns out the metals which look like they act pretty good at temperature levels below boiling water ? those same metals act badly with temperatures that could exist" at Yucca Mountain, he said.

Craig, who also has served as a member of National Academy of Sciences National Research Council Board on Radioactive Waste Management, said he sent his resignation letter to the White House in January before his term was to expire in April so he could shine more light on the government's plans.

"When you serve as a member of one of those boards, you cannot talk about the political consequences of the science or the big picture. You are supposed to stick to the science and you should stick to the science," Craig said. "You cannot have the kind of conversation we are having now if I was still on the board."
If you don't think seepage is a problem, ask the residents around Hanford, Washington:
Hanford Area Tests Find Plutonium in Fish, Mulberry Trees

SEATTLE, Washington
, June 15, 2005 (ENS) - Radioactive contamination in public areas surrounding the Hanford Nuclear Site in Richland, Washington is higher and more geographically widespread than previously thought, according to a report today from a government watchdog group and a chemical data firm.

The Government Accountability Project (GAP) and Boston Chemical Data Corporation issued a study that includes the first reports of plutonium in clams and fish in the Columbia River.

The report includes evidence that radiation levels in mulberry trees are higher than previously reported, and that strontium-90 has entered the ecosystem in high levels.

"This is hard evidence that points to past Department of Energy reports as being inadequate to protect the people of southwest Washington and northern Oregon," said Tom Carpenter, GAP Nuclear Oversight Campaign Director.

The data collection and written report was completed by Marco Kaltofen, a registered professional engineer and environmental scientist with more than 19 years of experience in environmental investigations. He is the president of Boston Chemical Data, a corporation specializing in environmental investigations. The company is a member of the American Chemical Society and the American Society of Civil Engineers.

Samples were analyzed by Pace Analytical Services, Inc. of Madison, Pennsylvania and PASC/Maxxam of Burlington, Ontario, Canada.

The report, "Citizens Monitoring of Columbia River Radionuclides," was peer reviewed by a retired Hanford scientist and reviewed by the Oregon Office of Energy.

In addition to plutonium being found for the first time in fish, increased levels of strontium, mercury, beryllium, uranium, and cesium were detected in aquatic creatures. Short and long term effects of this exposure remain unknown, the report states.

It was also found that mulberry leaves from the shoreline of the Columbia River at the Hanford perimeter are toxic, indicating that the mulberries themselves may be contaminated.

Strontium 90 levels in mulberry leaves in the area tested "are 875 times higher than levels found near Richland," the report states. "At this level ingestion of 0.05 ounces per day of similarly-contaminated food would exceed EPA's maximum allowable risk level of 4 mRem [millirem] per year."

While the mulberry contamination shows "increased environmental risk via transfer of groundwater hazards into the biosphere," Kaltofen writes that the uptake of strontium 90 by mulberry plants may offer a potential method of remediation for groundwater cleanup in the root zone of mulberry plants.

Rodent scats from the test area showed greater than 13-fold elevated levels of strontium 90 compared to downstream areas, "showing that the material has entered the food chain for higher organisms," according to the report.

An area of the Columbia River 20 miles upstream from the Hanford site showed high uranium readings, according to testing conducted for this report. "There is no explanation for this finding at this time, though possible explanations could include that the uranium comes from natural sources, from a source upstream of Hanford, or that contamination was either windblown or carried up the river by aquatic organisms," the report states.

Possible windblown contamination was also measured in attic dust collected from homes in Richland. One sample showed levels of radiation six times higher than samples taken from attics in houses in other parts of the country.

The 586 square mile Hanford Site is located along the Columbia River in southeastern Washington state. A plutonium production complex with nine nuclear reactors and processing facilities, Hanford played a pivotal role in the nation's defense for more than 40 years, beginning in the 1940s with the Manhattan Project.

Today, under the direction of the U.S. Department of Energy, Hanford is engaged in the world's largest environmental cleanup project, "with a number of overlapping technical, political, regulatory, financial and cultural issues," the Hanford Office of River Protection states.

The Hanford Site includes more than 50 million gallons of high-level liquid waste in 177 underground storage tanks, 2,300 tons of spent nuclear fuel, 12 tons of plutonium in various forms, about 25 million cubic feet of buried or stored solid waste, and about 270 billion gallons of groundwater contaminated above drinking water standards, spread out over about 80 square miles, more than 1,700 waste sites, and about 500 contaminated facilities, according to Hanford officials.

Included in this report is a reproduced graphic by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that shows the regions which were sampled for this study. "The Corps' original graphic directs the reader to conclude that the Columbia River marks the end of the portions of the Hanford Reservation which are not yet cleaned of radionuclide wastes," Kaltofen writes.

"One purpose of this study has been to determine whether the Columbia River truly represents the point where contamination ends," he writes.

"In reviewing the test results, the data do not show that the river is a barrier or boundary to Hanford-related contamination. Instead," Kaltofen writes, "the Columbia River is both a sink and a transport mechanism for these wastes."

Decision makers from the Department of Energy, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Washington State Department of Ecology host the Fourth Annual "State of the Hanford Site" Public Meeting tonight at the Red Lion Hanford House in Richland.

Carpenter and Kaltofen attended that meeting to publicize the results of their study.

"The DOE does not place a priority on testing conditions outside of the Hanford perimeter in places where the public is allowed to fish and recreate. Our findings call for increased scrutiny on all levels regarding this area that is of grave public concern," Carpenter said.

GAP is requesting Congressional funding for a Natural Resources Injury Assessment, independent of the Energy Department, to examine contamination around the Hanford site, said Carpenter.

"We need to find out what this data means for public health concerns immediately. At a time when the government is planning to import nearly double the amount of contaminated waste already at Hanford, it is crucial to have credible environmental data," he said.

The report is available at GAP?s website at: www.whistleblower.org.
If you don't like my sources, or if you think I'm wrong, go searching on your own sources to prove otherwise.
2)Obviously you have no clue how difficult it is to make a nuclear bomb, terrorists can't just take it and become a "dirty bomber". Time for alternatives is precious and shouldn't be wasted with burning coal, use that time for much cleaner nuclear.
Dirty bombs don't require being able to build a nuclear device or any other high level technology. All that's needed is a relatively small amount of radioactive material and a conventional explosive or other means of dispersement. A rented single engine plane would do.
3)Nuclear is a step in the progression to cleaner fuels. Just as hybrids are a step towards elec/fuel cell cars.
There is nothing clean or cleanable about nuclear byproducts. Some of them are dangerously radioactive for thousands of years. Either you bury them in a secure facility that is leakproof longer than the materials remain radioactive, or you are building a death system with known, forseeable failure paths.
Are you about to denounce hybrids now, because they use gas? No...you have to progress to new technologies when they are sustainable. This has been shown many times in history...ie. itanium (to be a nerdass).
What makes you think I'm opposed to hybrid cars? They're not an end point, but they are a fine example of the point I made, earlier. They're much more efficient, and, in addition to their gas/electric drive system, they recycle braking energy by using the drag inherant in turning a generator as part of the braking system.
4)Where did i state a party line?!...nice twisting of my words around.
I wasn't twisting your words. I was agreeing with the OP's point that solving the problem will require creative thinking outside of any party line boxes.

The biggest problem with nukes is, Oops! is a word where just one event can have potentially catastrophic consequenses that can last for centuries. :shocked: Have you visited Chernobyl lately? :(
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
Well, the current admin follows in the footsteps of James Watt, Reagan's secretary of th interior, no less, who told Congress with a straight face that Jesus would return when the last tree was felled... so we might as well have at it...

http://www.annistonstar.com/opinion/200...ditorials-0116-bayerscol-5a14p5551.htm

Or are simply exploiting the whack-fringe, believing that there will always be someplace nice for the uber-wealthy to live... so it really doesn't matter what's destroyed in the process of getting that way...

Part of the problem, of course, is that the Right has divided the enemy, driven a wedge between hunting enthusiasts and other outdoors types...

Or I could just take the attitude that, living at the top of every western watershed here in Colorado that it won't get too bad here, so I'll just go down and piss in Cherry Creek, send it downstream for the rest of you to drink... add some heavy metals from mining and a little industrial effluent to go along with it- bottoms up, chumps!
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: charrison
Nuclear waste is more easily delt with than spewing stuff inthe air....
Sorry, but I can't take that seriously. You're going to have to prove that with more than a statement.

"Spewing stuff into the air" isn't the only way to deal with smokestack materials. You can learn a lot about alternatives by searching for smokestack scrubber, and that's just one of many approaches to dealing with exhaust byproducts.


smokestack scrubbers still allow pollution to escape. There is research on complete scrubbing and carbon sequestering, but it aint cheap or easy. Nuclear waste is easy to manage as it is not emitted out of smoke stack. Do a search for dry cask storage on how waste is safely stored today.


Originally posted by: Stunt
1)ponds...as in waste storage tanks...not pounds.[/quote]OK. I'll take ponds for $1,000, Alex.

Nuclear waste can escape from storage ponds through natural phenomena such as seepage, evaporation, earthquakes, hurricanes and other weather effects, or less natural events such as a man made explosion, either intentional, such as a bomb, or accidental, such as a plane crash.

[/quote]

You are once again terribly misinformed. Storing nuclear waste above ground is not a problem. Heck we can ever recycle it.
[/quote]

If you think Yucca Mountain is an answer, think again:
Yucca Mountain could leak nuclear waste, says scientist

Yes it could, but it is unlikely with all the precautions taken.


Take some time and educate yourself.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Or I could just take the attitude that, living at the top of every western watershed here in Colorado that it won't get too bad here, so I'll just go down and piss in Cherry Creek, send it downstream for the rest of you to drink... add some heavy metals from mining and a little industrial effluent to go along with it- bottoms up, chumps!

You hit it.. that's exactly where the mindset comes from.. Most reds, like us, live in relativly pristine areas who are like WTF are people complaining about? My air is clean. My water is clean.

Same goes for thier unflatering trust of police and state..they've never seen police brutality up close..a corrupt police force like the NOPD and are probably good buds with the local sherrif so what the hell do people fear if a few rights are taken if you have nothing to hide?
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,784
6,343
126
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Well, the current admin follows in the footsteps of James Watt, Reagan's secretary of th interior, no less, who told Congress with a straight face that Jesus would return when the last tree was felled... so we might as well have at it...

http://www.annistonstar.com/opinion/200...ditorials-0116-bayerscol-5a14p5551.htm

Or are simply exploiting the whack-fringe, believing that there will always be someplace nice for the uber-wealthy to live... so it really doesn't matter what's destroyed in the process of getting that way...

Part of the problem, of course, is that the Right has divided the enemy, driven a wedge between hunting enthusiasts and other outdoors types...

Or I could just take the attitude that, living at the top of every western watershed here in Colorado that it won't get too bad here, so I'll just go down and piss in Cherry Creek, send it downstream for the rest of you to drink... add some heavy metals from mining and a little industrial effluent to go along with it- bottoms up, chumps!

All the city folk are peeing in the snow on top of the mountains! :eek: So in effect, they already got you, not them. :D
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,784
6,343
126
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Originally posted by: sandorski
CO2 is a much more serious problem than Methane, though decreasing Methane is certainly good.

In which sense is it more serious? Are you talking about total emissions right now or on a per particle basis - because I believe methane is far more serious than CO2 on a particle per particle basis.



You are correct methane is a much stronger in green house effects.

It might be stronger, but CO2 takes much longer to remove from the Atmosphere, thus making it much more urgent to deal with now.
 

Stunt

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,717
2
0
Volumes of CO2 make it much more of a threat as compared to methane, SOX, NOX and CFC's.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,059
73
91
Originally posted by: charrison
[Yes it [Yucca Mountain] could, but it is unlikely with all the precautions taken.

Take some time and educate yourself.
You made my point. As I said, when the possible consequenses of Oops! can reasonably be seen as catastrophic, unlikely just isn't good enough.

To make things worse, there's considerable evidence that government scientist working on Yucca Mountain submitted fraudulant data to support the project, and they have been less than cooperative about providing the documentation:
Government scientist denies falsifying Yucca Mountain data

By Erica Werner
ASSOCIATED PRESS

3:03 p.m. June 29, 2005

WASHINGTON -- A government scientist subpoenaed over possible paperwork fraud on the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump insisted before Congress on Wednesday that his work was sound and he didn't change documents or data.

"I have never falsified any documents related to Yucca Mountain or any other project," Joseph Hevesi, a U.S. Geological Survey hydrologist in Sacramento, told a House Government Reform subcommittee.

The panel is investigating e-mails written by Hevesi and other scientists that, according to Yucca Mountain critics, suggest they changed their work to support the project.

The e-mails, written from 1998 to 2000 and released earlier by the subcommittee, are the subject of a scientific review and criminal investigations by the inspectors general of the Energy and Interior departments.

The controversy has contributed to delays on the project 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, where the government wants to bury 77,000 tons of the nation's most radioactive waste. The Energy Department has postponed a planned 2010 opening.

John Arthur, Yucca Mountain project deputy director, told the subcommittee Wednesday that reviews have found nothing that undermines the scientific basis for the dump.

"Preliminarily, we believe there is ample corroborating data ... that validates the technical basis for the project," Arthur testified.

Because of the criminal investigations Hevesi, identified as the principle author of the e-mails, refused to meet with congressional staff until he was subpoenaed to appear Wednesday before the panel chaired by Rep. Jon Porter, R-Nev. Other USGS scientists agreed to voluntary interviews.

Before testifying, the thin, gray-haired scientist sat alone at the witness table with his hands clasped, occasionally shifting in his seat, as Porter read portions of e-mails Hevesi had written.

Among them: "In the end I keep track of two sets of files, the ones that will keep QA happy and the ones that were actually used." QA refers to quality assurance.

Explaining that message, Hevesi said the only difference between the two sets was their formats.

"All the numbers in those files are identical, so in essence they are identical files," Hevesi said.

In another e-mail he wrote: "I don't have a clue when these programs were installed. So I've made up the dates and names. ... This is as good as it's going to get. If they need more proof, I will be happy to make up more stuff."

Hevesi said the e-mail reflected his surprise that a few nonessential programs were being required to go through quality assurance protocols.

"I'm making an off-the-cuff remark to identify I may not know the exact date. My wording here is poor, and I should have used 'educated guess,'" Hevesi said.

He said he never felt pressure from his managers to reach a specific result, and defended the work he and his colleagues did.

"I feel the work is sound, and I realize it doesn't seem that way with these e-mails," Hevesi told lawmakers, characterizing the messages as "water-cooler talk."

I would not do that again in hindsight," he said.

Hevesi and others were studying how water moved through the underground desert site where the dump is planned. The USGS validated Energy Department conclusions that water seepage was relatively slow, so radiation would be less likely to escape.

Hevesi said he could not remember what he meant by statements in some e-mails. In several he instructed the recipient to delete or destroy the message after reading it.

Asked about one, he said it was because it was a personal conversation and "I realized that this is a not professional memo."

"I placed things in e-mails out of emotional response," Hevesi said.

He said he felt pressure to meet deadlines, wished for more resources and was frustrated at having to devote time to quality assurance requirements -- a central topic of the e-mails -- rather than science.

But he appeared to back off some of the stronger sentiments he expressed in his e-mails. In one he had written "I've never felt well-managed" and often felt "abandoned" by project managers.

On Wednesday, Hevesi said he did not believe he and colleagues were poorly managed, and he described his frustration as a natural conflict between the different approaches of scientists and project managers.

"As a scientist, we have a tendency to put too many resources into a problem because we're after the right answer, which is the true answer, and in many cases you can never get to that point," Hevesi said.

He encountered skepticism from Porter, who like the rest of Nevada's congressional delegation is trying to stop the project. Other subcommittee members were more sympathetic.

"Even members of Congress, if someone had to look at all our e-mails they might have a field day," said Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md.
In the context of as much proven recent corporate greed and corruption as we've seen with Enron and so many others, even the thought of trusting the energy companies to put public safety ahead of immediate profits doesn't leave me with any sense of security.

The difference is, if another Enron rips off California (which they did) during a power crisis, the worst that could happen is, the state goes dark. If a nuclear storage facility fails, the state could go BOOM!.

< sarcasm >

At least, we wouldn't have to worry about jobs or being left in the dark when everyone could get jobs as nightlights. :shocked:

< /sarcasm >
 

zendari

Banned
May 27, 2005
6,558
0
0
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA. Those evil energy corporations, trying to make a few dollars.

Harvey, are the liberals willing to pay more for cleaner energy and more expensive consumer products that comes with environmental regulation? You can talk the talk, now walk the walk.

Dave constantly whines about the price of gas.
 

totalcommand

Platinum Member
Apr 21, 2004
2,487
0
0
Originally posted by: zendari
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA. Those evil energy corporations, trying to make a few dollars.

Harvey, are the liberals willing to pay more for cleaner energy and more expensive consumer products that comes with environmental regulation? You can talk the talk, now walk the walk.

Dave constantly whines about the price of gas.

some environmental inprovements will actually SAVE consumers money. Yep. It's hard to believe huh?

Example: Raising the Fuel Efficiency of cars. Jeez, with the prices of gas today, we could really have used better fuel efficiency. The technology exists, and the prices of cars would not be raised significantly at all.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
52,676
46,387
136
Originally posted by: Harvey
In the context of as much proven recent corporate greed and corruption as we've seen with Enron and so many others, even the thought of trusting the energy companies to put public safety ahead of immediate profits doesn't leave me with any sense of security.

The difference is, if another Enron rips off California (which they did) during a power crisis, the worst that could happen is, the state goes dark. If a nuclear storage facility fails, the state could go BOOM!.

Nuclear waste does not explode.

Nuclear power stations have been run by companies under NRC regulation for decades and there has only been one serious problem (which was contained by the plant's saftey systems).

 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Originally posted by: zendari
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA. Those evil energy corporations, trying to make a few dollars.

Harvey, are the liberals willing to pay more for cleaner energy and more expensive consumer products that comes with environmental regulation? You can talk the talk, now walk the walk.

Dave constantly whines about the price of gas.

Sadly many of them would. The GM EV was a huge hit with liberals who faught tooth and nail to keep thier cars after GM recalled them. .. we're talking about pretty well off people here.. had to have annual income over 120K to even get one..had to have two gas cars.. and they were 35K for basically a tin box. Sued GM and everything to keep them
 

zendari

Banned
May 27, 2005
6,558
0
0
Originally posted by: totalcommand
Originally posted by: zendari
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA. Those evil energy corporations, trying to make a few dollars.

Harvey, are the liberals willing to pay more for cleaner energy and more expensive consumer products that comes with environmental regulation? You can talk the talk, now walk the walk.

Dave constantly whines about the price of gas.

some environmental inprovements will actually SAVE consumers money. Yep. It's hard to believe huh?

Example: Raising the Fuel Efficiency of cars. Jeez, with the prices of gas today, we could really have used better fuel efficiency. The technology exists, and the prices of cars would not be raised significantly at all.

Hybrids are more expensive vehicles, the money you save on gas doesn't outweigh the price of the car.