50 things you can do to save the Earth

[Epsilon 5]

Why hydroelectricity is the future? Check those images and stats: http://www.hydroquebec.com/generation/hydr...tric/index.html

The most powerful: http://www.hydroquebec.com/generation/hydr...assa/index.html

The biggest reservoir: http://www.hydroquebec.com/generation/hydr...scau/index.html

And it's markes "intalled capacity", because we could put more power in all station... well all big one. we are not using HALF of our production (including US sales), and we are able to double or triple our output (with more turbines and more dams)

No dams? Here a "run-of-river" generation station on the St-Laurence: http://www.hydroquebec.com/generation/hydr...nois/index.html

Hee hee!

[aramike]

quote:

---

Mike, to have an a and a b you must have a main part. You left that out.

---

Actually, I cut and pasted verbatim.

quote:

---

The fact that debate implies formal discussion does not change the other fact that it is still basically an arguement. Which is the basic definition I used to make my comment to Menchise.

---

I'm talking lexocographal technicality here: argument and debate are slightly different.

[aramike]

quote:

---

That may have been true ten years ago, but the technology has been improving since then.

In fact, homeowners with solar panels powering their houses receive money from electricity companies for generating a surplus in the grid. In other words, their solar panels are not only powering their homes, but other homes as well! This has been happening as far back as the early 90s.

---

They get incentives, but ask anyone of them - it isn't much. Solar panels don't totally power the home, either. Why else would they still be connected to the grid?

quote:

---

I don't get it. Do you have information about why they're not accepted?

---

Sure, because they supposedly damage the envoronment.

Here's some links:

http://home.austin.rr.com/bdg/dams/

http://www.environmentaldefense.org/pubs/N..._damreport.html

http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~ge148/1997C/Re...s/148niled.html

quote:

---

Okay, the deserts are not the best example, but there are still many possibilities. Theoretically, a significant percentage of electricity going to the coastal cities could come from tidal power plants underwater (the technology has existed for over five years). I can just imagine all the California dudes getting their juice from the surf.

---

I'm SURE that would pass off well on environmentalists.

quote:

---

You mean not yet.

---

I mean not in more than 50 years. And, technology gets SAFER, not vice versa.

What, should be not have skyscrapers either, because of the possibility of earthquakes? Or, should we make them as earthquake-proof as possible?

I mean, a skyscraper is more at risk than a nuclear powerplant.

quote:

---

Here is another interesting quote for you to consider. It was said by some guy in 1912: "The Titanic is unsinkable."

---

Sure, but if the same ship was built today, we would have the technology to know that it was indeed sinkable.

quote:

---

As soon as progress becomes complacent in the face of nature's fury, disaster is bound to strike.

---

Who said anything about progress becoming complacent? Progress isn't just moving to the sources of energy that YOU believe is necessary. Progress can be making the energy sources we have safe.

Anyway, what if a heavy wave hit your underwater reactor? What if we used solar energy exclusively and we had a low sunshine year? What if a terrorist bombs that plant?

There are problems with everything. A new solution simply brings new problems. How about tweaking our solutions?

quote:

---

Let's drop the 'definition of debate' thing. It's utterly irrelevant to this discussion, and as I said before, arguing over semantics will only serve to inflame tempers.

---

Than ignore it. I thought it was simply a light hearted goof.

[Menchise]

quote:

---

They get incentives, but ask anyone of them - it isn't much. Solar panels don't totally power the home, either. Why else would they still be connected to the grid?

---

They're not incentives, they're transactions. These people are being paid for the surplus electicity they are generating. How can the homes not be totally powered when they are powering other homes as well? Whether the payments are small or not doesn't matter. The fact is that thanks to renewable energy sources, these homeowners are being paid by the electricity companies instead of the other way around.

quote:

---

I'm SURE that would pass off well on environmentalists.

---

I'm sure they may have a few things to say about the issue that are worth considering. However, just like the environmentalists, I'm more concerned about pulling humanity out of the grave that it's digging for itself. The consumption of fossil fuels is literally poisoning the air we breathe. The holes in the ozone layer have led to a sharp increase in the cases of skin cancer. Deforestation is depriving our planet of its biggest source of oxygen. I could go on and on but I don't think it's necessary.

quote:

---

I mean not in more than 50 years. And, technology gets SAFER, not vice versa.

What, should be not have skyscrapers either, because of the possibility of earthquakes? Or, should we make them as earthquake-proof as possible?

I mean, a skyscraper is more at risk than a nuclear powerplant.

---

When a skyscraper goes down, it doesn't take half a city down with it.

quote:

---

Sure, but if the same ship was built today, we would have the technology to know

that it was indeed sinkable.

---

Just as we have the technology to know what an uncontrolled nuclear chain reaction can do.

quote:

---

Who said anything about progress becoming complacent? Progress isn't just moving to the sources of energy that YOU believe is necessary. Progress can be making the energy sources we have safe.

---

Why waste time reducing the pollution levels of current energy sources by token numbers when you can use a renewable energy source that barely pollutes at all? The fact that we are still using Petroleum in our motor vehicles when we know what Carbon Monoxide does to haemoglobin is nothing more than fatal complacency.

[Steve Schacher]

quote:

---

In case anyone noticed the reply I wrote about Steven Schacher's reply to Korono's post, I decided to delete it. In retrospect, it was a bit childish.

---

I'm sorry I missed it.

The reason that gasoline prices rise and fall have more to do with seasonal driving habits, local refinery capacity, and fuel regulations, than for profit gouging by Big Oil. Holiday weekends, such as Memorial Day and Labor Day are big driving vacation weekends, so the laws of supply and demand kick in (air fares work the same way -- try flying at Christmas or Thanksgiving). Last year, during the campaign, Al Gore was attacking the oil companies for price gouging even though his own DOE report showed that mid-west gasoline price spikes were related to a refinery fire and a pipeline shutdown, not collusion. Also, with local "boutique" formulas for gasoline, it is not possible to shift supply from one region to another to keep prices down. Finally, do you realize that about 50 cents of the gas price is taxes?

Remember last year when President Clinton released emergency oil supplies from the strategic oil reserve in order to combat high heating oil prices? What happened? He awarded the contracts to cronies, two of whom were single-person minority companies that were not equipped to manage the oil and had to give the contracts back. The whole things was a PR stunt to boost Al Gore's campaign.

Also, America has fallen in love with SUV's. I just bought my wife a Toyota RAV4, which is a mini-SUV that gets 24-27 mpg, but full-size SUV's get 15-17 mpg. When you trade in your economical car that get 30 mpg for an SUV that gets 15, you are in effect putting two cars on the road for every one that you take off. That means that you are doubling the consumption of gasoline within a few years. That is where gasoline is going and why the prices are rising.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) recently concluded an internal investigation into western states gasoline pricing and determined that their was "no evidence of conduct by the refiners that violated federal antitrust laws.

Here's their link: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2001/05/westerngas.htm

The whole thing is political. The Democrats need an enemy in order to rally their constituents because they are really a conglomeration of special interest groups (NOW, African-Americans, labor unions, and teachers unions). If they really stood for anything, they would be putting forth their own proposals instead of just attacking Republican positions and demonizing people. Their current plan is to stall Bush until 2002 when they hope to take over Congress. Until then, they will look for easy targets like the oil companies to try to sway public opinion against Bush and Republicans.

[ 05-24-2001: Message edited by: Steve Schacher ]

[aramike]

[Epsilon 5]

quote:

---

And we are moving away from petroleum powered vehicles, slowly but surely.

---

You know why?

A couple of years ago, Hydro-Qu├®bec develloped a kind of wheel-motor that would save space and energy. They tested the system on modified chrysler intrepids, and it was great. "In a few months, we will start manufacturing the new technology", they said. Guess what: it don't exist anymore. The program was shutdownned. "total failure", they said. Funny isn't it? Well, some people learned that the big oil companies paid Hydro-Qu├®bec a lot of money to abort the project.

Synonym = corruption

[ 05-23-2001: Message edited by: Epsilon 5 ]

[Steve Schacher]

Many many years ago, the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge was a light rail bridge. Three companies (Standard Oil of California, General Motors, and Goodyear) conspired to lobby the city to convert the bridge to a passenger car bridge (more cars, more tires, and more gasoline).

[Steve Schacher]

quote:

---

Steve, oil tycoons do not have energy experience. They are the ones who sell the fuel to some of the people who have energy experience. Oil tycoons also tell just as many lies as politicians do (if not more).

---

I guess it depends on the definition of "oil tychoon." Back in the early 1980's, there was a guy name T. Boone Pickens who owned a small petroleum company named Mesa Petroleum. It was more of a stock brokerage than a petroleum, since all he did was buy up small companies and then sell off the pieces. Is he a "tychoon?"

My CEO heads up the company, and he gets his money in the form of stock options and bonuses, although he doesn't actually own land or receive royalties. Does that make him a tychoon? BTW, I don't think that he's ever lied to any of us.

A land owner who receives royalty checks each month might be considered as a tychoon since they are the people who actually own the rights to the oil and sell to the refiners. However, that's as far as that goes -- a royalty owner doesn't influence gasoline prices, so being a tychoon has no real value.

When you look at other industries, like Big Media for instance, then you get their form of tychoon like Ted Turner and Rupert Murdoch, Michael Eisner and Steven Spielberg. The price of a movie ticket is now $9.00 in New York City, but are people complaining (well, maybe a little).

How come people have no problem paying $2.00 for a bottle of water but they balk at paying $2.00 for a gallon of gasoline? Water falls from the sky, but gasoline has to be explored, extracted, refined, distributed, and sold. Think about how many jobs that bottle of water provides versus how many jobs that gallon of gasoline provides?

Actually, think about how many jobs the plastic bottle that holds the water provides versus how many jobs the water provides? Who makes the plastic bottles? Where does the plastic come from? The Big Oil companies create the plastic.

So why is $2.00 for a gallon of gasoline bad, but $2.00 for a bottle of water good?

[Menchise]

quote:

---

During times of heavy sunshine, our home produces enough electricity to power itself, and any surplus goes into the system. However, during nighttime and overcast days, we use the electric company to power our home. We receive incentives for producing slightly more electricity during sunny days, but we STILL pay an electric bill.

---

OK. So instead of eliminating all consumption of non-renewable sources of electricity, it's reduced by half. It still sounds good to me. I'll bet it's a good financial investment too.

quote:

---

do you know ANYTHING about current nuclear technology?

---

I know a few things about nuclear fission, but that's it. I would like to read your descriptions about the current technology and failsafes.

quote:

---

Who says we can use those resources effectively and efficiently?

---

Who says we can't? Be more specific.

quote:

---

And we are moving away from petroleum powered vehicles, slowly but surely.

---

I have seen no evidence of such a change. In fact, I have read more evidence stating that significant movements away from Petroleum have been crushed by powerful private interests that would lose a lot from this change.

Epsilon 5's reference to the corruption of Hydro-Quebec is just one small example. Here is another one for you:

A man in Australia invented a new type of engine for automobiles that used water as fuel (even salt water was usable). The invention was never released for production thanks to the efforts of oil producers. That was twenty years ago!

We have engine designs that run on Water, Ethyl Alcohol, Coconut Oil, even body waste! Some of these designs have been around for decades. If there was any REAL effort to move away from Petroleum, it would have been done already.

[Epsilon 5]

Well... we have hybrid vehicules coming out...

[Steve Schacher]

Remember all the hype over "IT" a few months ago? "IT" is supposed to be an invention (a personal scooter) that will revolutionize the way people travel about? They said that cities will be redesigned to accomodate "IT" because of its revolutionary ideas?

"IT" is supposed to be introduced to the public next year.

[aramike]

[Charles Lindsey]

Menchise, it's the same as LMSAO but I just use Y for "you" instead of "m". I meant you are probably sitting there giggling at me.

quote:

---

Actually, I cut and pasted verbatim.

---

True, but you left out the core definition which I italicized and is the basis of my proof.

quote:

---

I'm talking lexocographal technicality here: argument and debate are slightly different.

---

I know that. I was told a debate was not an argument. It is. That's my entire point. All squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares kind of thing. You said "simply" (solely) a formal discussion. No it is not solely a formal discussion. You said "technically" ( a fine point) a formal discussion. If you can debate with yourself then it's not formal and cannot be solely.

I was afraid you were taking my use of the word argument to take the scream-fest we most often think of. I was not. Lawyers argue cases and people argue points. I did not mean a hollering match.

At it's core a debate is an argument. However, it is a specialized type of argument that most often implies formal discussion. Is that better?

quote:

---

Than ignore it. I thought it was simply a light hearted goof.

---

Same here. Mike and I are having a very nice discussion. And since we are the only ones discussing it do what Mike said and ignore us.

[Menchise]

[aramike]

[Sunanta]

The government actually looked into collecting solar power in space. There was a research project that dealt with it, but it was nixed when projected costs for such a system spiraled up towards a trillion dollars. The only environmental impact I've heard of here might be caused by (as Menchise pointed out) the microwave radiation used to transmit the energy back to earth. There is little information that says how, exactly, this would affect the ecology (not to mention the people) near a recieving station. This is a fair objection, and in my opinion, research should be done to determine the effects of prolonged exposure to microwave radiation before any such system was built.

For fission reactors: Meltdowns are always a possibility. Even today's reactors run the risk (however infintesimally tiny) of irradiating the surrounding area. Of course, talk of a nuclear accident in a modern plant is not realistic at all, and you'd probably have a better chance of getting a kidney stolen in Las Vegas than hearing of a meltdown. Waste, as I mentioned earlier, is always a problem. Currently, the only real option is to bury it in underground caverns and leave it there for 10,000 years. Of course, in who's backyard would you build such tombs? Well, we have remote locales such as the deserts of Nevada, but look at the fuss people are making about even that place.

Let's not give up on fusion yet. It is getting closer and closer to reality. Fusion power has nearly boundless possibilities once harnessed.

[ 05-26-2001: Message edited by: Sunanta ]

[Menchise]

quote:

---

First off, I've got to say that I'm enjoying this debate/discussion/blah.

---

So am I.

quote:

---

First, the SDI is not flawed. Sure, while a "suitcase" bomb is probably more likely than a ballistic missile, if we didn't have to worry about ballistic missiles, we could cut our arsenal down as well as sending a message to future nuclear powers. That message is a peaceful one. I'd rather that they send the message that if you attack us, you will be unsuccessful rather than if you attack us we will wipe you off the face of the earth.

---

Somehow, I think MAD is a more effective deterrent to nuclear attack than SDI could ever be. There is always a way around an anti-missile system. There is no way around Mutally Assured Destruction. Telling other nuclear powers that they no longer have power is a very poor message of peace. It would only anger them, and motivate them to either build their own SDI facilities, or develop a new weapon that can punch through them.

quote:

---

Let's not give up on fusion yet. It is getting closer and closer to reality. Fusion power has nearly boundless possibilities once harnessed.

---

Let's not give up on solar power either. Ground based solar technology is also improving and getting closer and closer to full reliability. Solar panels built a year ago can generate more than four times the energy capable of solar panels built eight years ago. With the current advances being researched and developed, the 'cloud barrier' will soon be broken, and more energy will be gathered from indirect sunlight and other elements such as Ultra Violet Rays.

[aramike]

quote:

---

Somehow, I think MAD is a more effective deterrent to nuclear attack than SDI could ever be.

---

Sure, but if it doesn't deter someone, then WE are destroyed as well as the transgressors.

quote:

---

There is always a way around an anti-missile system. There is no way around Mutally Assured Destruction.

---

Put both together and...

quote:

---

Telling other nuclear powers that they no longer have power is a very poor message of peace. It would only anger them, and motivate them to either build their own SDI facilities, or develop a new weapon that can punch through them.

---

They'd probably build their own SDI, which is fine by me. If nuclear weapons become antiquated, there aren't any losers there.

quote:

---

Let's not give up on solar power either. Ground based solar technology is also improving and getting closer and closer to full reliability. Solar panels built a year ago can generate more than four times the energy capable of solar panels built eight years ago. With the current advances being researched and developed, the 'cloud barrier' will soon be broken, and more energy will be gathered from indirect sunlight and other elements such as Ultra Violet Rays.

---

Yep, I'm on the wait and see policy.