View Poll Results: Do You Support Green Energy?

Voters
31. You may not vote on this poll
  • I support green energy and I wish to see it more fully implemented.

    13 41.94%
  • I support green energy in theory, but think it needs more research to live up to expectations.

    17 54.84%
  • I don't really support green energy, because I don't believe we need it.

    0 0%
  • I actively dislike green energy, because I like the energy sources I use now.

    0 0%
  • Green energy? Is that like when you eat your vegetables?

    1 3.23%
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 36 of 36

Thread: Do You Support Green Energy?

  1. #31
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    12-03-17 @ 03:32 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,568
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Do You Support Green Energy?

    "Green energy" and "environmentally friendly" energy are not exactly the same. It's the "If all As are Bs, that does not mean all Bs are As."

    For example, I support clean exhaust from cars. But that does not mean I think cars must get 50 mpg.

    When they added CO2 to the definition of "green," they RADICALLY altered what "clean" energy means as - as in the case of nuclear power - to a 180 degree exactly opposite meaning. Sure, nuclear power can render entire areas uninhabitable for thousands of years, create huge death-zones, cause a billion birth defects, kill countless people - but since it doesn't emit CO2 then it's "clean" and "green."

  2. #32
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Britain, Mother of Civilisation
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    468

    Re: Do You Support Green Energy?

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    Nuclear Power is not Green energy.
    There's a lot of debate over that, actually.

    Proponents of nuclear energy cite how energy efficient and clean it is, as it doesn't contribute to air pollution, produces vastly less waste, and if disposed of properly, creates no ground or water pollution -- all in addition to being the most stable and efficient energy we know of.

    Detractors of nuclear energy cite how catastrophically bad nuclear energy can become on the extremely small off-chance that something bad DOES occur -- and they always cite Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima.

    They're valid points -- nuclear energy is great, but it also requires a lot of responsibility.

    Personally, I think that the pros outweigh the cons by an astronomical unit, both in energy efficiency and in safety/cleanliness.

    It's a vast understatement to say that nuclear energy has caused the fewest deaths and destruction of any major form of energy (coal, petrol, hydroelectric, etc.).

  3. #33
    Professor
    iacardsfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Last Seen
    11-24-17 @ 09:51 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,981

    Re: Do You Support Green Energy?

    I do not support the government incentive's of green energy. Pumping tax payer dollars into companies that have no business with our money in order to become "more green" does not excite me in the slightest. Especially when half the time that money doesn't get as effectively used as if somebody was investing their own money into green energy. Private green energy is good though.
    "Conservatism is the blind and fear-filled worship of dead radicals."
    - Mark Twain
    Run your own nation, play Cybernations.

  4. #34
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    12-03-17 @ 03:32 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,568
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Do You Support Green Energy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ad_Captandum View Post
    There's a lot of debate over that, actually.

    Proponents of nuclear energy cite how energy efficient and clean it is, as it doesn't contribute to air pollution, produces vastly less waste, and if disposed of properly, creates no ground or water pollution -- all in addition to being the most stable and efficient energy we know of.

    Detractors of nuclear energy cite how catastrophically bad nuclear energy can become on the extremely small off-chance that something bad DOES occur -- and they always cite Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima.

    They're valid points -- nuclear energy is great, but it also requires a lot of responsibility.

    Personally, I think that the pros outweigh the cons by an astronomical unit, both in energy efficiency and in safety/cleanliness.

    It's a vast understatement to say that nuclear energy has caused the fewest deaths and destruction of any major form of energy (coal, petrol, hydroelectric, etc.).
    Nuclear power is astronomically expensive and is the only power source that can make an entire region uninhabitable essentially forever.

    It is going to take 60 YEARS to shut down the old broken nuclear power plant here - and a couple billion just to turn it off permanently - though it's been off a few years now due to a big crack in it - that would cost over $1 billion to fix. And it's "waste" will have to be stored for THOUSANDS of years.

    They cancelled the two replacement reactors - after collecting a couple billion for it and raising electric rates 50% to finance doing so - as the costs just kept increasing by billions and billions, now raising rates to pay for permanently retiring the broken one.

    Nuclear power is the ONLY energy source that you have pay on for THOUSANDS of years. Thousands of years to store the massive qualities of liquid death and genetic destruction. Thousands of years if there is a melt down. The radiation going into the oceans NOW from Japan will be in our oceans all over the world for THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS of years.

    Just the financial loses of just Chernobyl and Fukushima goes off the chart.

    Nor is nuclear power a renewable energy source.

    Even if a person doesn't care about the massive genetic damage and massive levels of birth defects, the financial costs of nuclear power are so high in the long run as to be virtually impossible to calculate. It is ONLY nuclear power that could destroy the human race. It is ONLY nuclear power that could kill our oceans - and in doing so kill nearly every upper form of life on this planet.

  5. #35
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:28 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,289

    Re: Do You Support Green Energy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ad_Captandum View Post
    There's a lot of debate over that, actually.

    Proponents of nuclear energy cite how energy efficient and clean it is, as it doesn't contribute to air pollution, produces vastly less waste, and if disposed of properly, creates no ground or water pollution -- all in addition to being the most stable and efficient energy we know of.

    Detractors of nuclear energy cite how catastrophically bad nuclear energy can become on the extremely small off-chance that something bad DOES occur -- and they always cite Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima.

    They're valid points -- nuclear energy is great, but it also requires a lot of responsibility.

    Personally, I think that the pros outweigh the cons by an astronomical unit, both in energy efficiency and in safety/cleanliness.

    It's a vast understatement to say that nuclear energy has caused the fewest deaths and destruction of any major form of energy (coal, petrol, hydroelectric, etc.).
    Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima and seven nuclear submarines sunk in our oceans. There are also huge quantities of nuke waste dumped before they made it illegal. It's just a slow death industry for the people.

  6. #36
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Port Jarvis NY
    Last Seen
    03-22-14 @ 02:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    1,039

    Re: Do You Support Green Energy?

    First cars were electric. Steam cars built before the mid 30's. Petrol just push them out of the market because give more energy per unit weight. When electric motors achieved surplus in their favor, we all immediately transfer to them. Now it would be correct to divide the transport system by fuel. Big trucks might use compressed gas in their engines. Pickup trucks and large cars go on diesel. Heating, natural gas and coal briquette, which does not give a large amount of CO2.
    And never forget that in order to charge your electric car, you need to burn a lot of coal to power plants because wind turbines and solar cells are not able to be constant sources of energy.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •