Another thing about global warming. Am I the only one that doesn't really give a damn if we caused it or not? I realize this may be a very ignorant thing to say but allow me to explain. People are debating whether our pollution caused global warming or is this just the last ice age still ending. What I do know is that we have damaged this planet immensely since industrialization. I also know I like to breathe clean air and drink clean water. In my opinion, pollution is bad whether it's causing global warming or not and the rate at which we pollute needs to be reduced one way or another. Having said that, if global warming is due to the last ice age ending, there isn't anything we can do about it. What I'm getting at is, is it really important which group is right? We certainly cannot undo the damage already made, but we can prevent more damage from being inflicted, which is what we should do anyway...so does it matter whether we caused it or not? am I missing something here?
Well, perhaps a little perspective is in order.:smile:
It's important to settle the issue of whether global warming is natural or caused by man because the answer determines what approaches are open to us. Most of us would agree that that we should stop messing things up. The problem is how do we do that and still keep our lights on?
A2T has a good point about nuclear power. The green movement DID successfully block new atomic reactors! Yet we got more and more people who needed power so we turned to dirty things like coal-fired generators instead. The amount of carbon released by a nuclear power plant is a spit in the wind compared to that of a coal burning generator even with modern scrubbers, which incidently we did NOT install on the old ones!
Personally, I think it's a case that non-scientific people find nuclear scary because they don't know much about it except for bombs and things like coal ok because they can relate better. Maybe I'm wrong.
The big problem with many in the green movement is that they seem to be against ANY practical solution! They trumpet for things like solar or wind but those sources have problems themselves. Wind needs backup power available and solar is still far more expensive. So they can help but they have nowhere near the capacity to replace what we're using now. Most people have no idea how much power can be drawn from the average solar cell and what that cell costs. Try powering your stove from that backpack solar cell sold by Canadian Tire and you'll starve pretty quickly!
The biggest mug's game they sell is conservation! To hear some of them talk we can provide more power with conservation than we generated in the first place!
Conservation is really just another word for efficiency. If we waste 50% of what we generate then if we improved efficiencies we'd have more power available without building new generators.
Now, efficiency is always worthwhile but stop and think about it for a moment. First, how much improvement in efficiency is possible? At what cost?
Consider a simple analogy. We have a farm of 100 acres that is worked in a rather old-fashioned and inefficient manner. The farm feeds a clan of 40 people but everybody is a little hungry. There never seems to be quite enough food.
Now, up comes a graduate of the Green Agricultural College. He quickly shows them how they've been growing in an inefficient manner. He improves crop yields so that less effort is wasted yet produces more food. Everybody has a bit more leisure time and gains a little weight.
The next day 5 babies are born and 10 long lost relatives show up at the door and are now part of the clan! They all have to be fed!
So the Agri grad scratches his head, consults his textbooks and improves efficiencies yet again. Of course, he doesn't get the same amount of improvement as before. The first 80% of improvement is always easy but the next 20% is always far harder.
The clan population then grows some more.
You see where we're going? You can only get so efficient. Sooner or later you need some new acres added to the farm, no matter how efficiently you farm it.
This puts the lie to the constant cries to raise prices on things like gasoline and heating fuels in order to encourage conservation. Most folks have long ago given up driving for the sheer pleasure of it. They drive because they have little or no choice. They have to get to work, buy groceries and whatever. Public transit rarely is practical for most commuters and bringing home the family groceries on a bus is a joke!
People can always buy a car with better gas mileage the NEXT time they buy a car but few can afford to make the purchase today. Yet they have to pay any price increase today! Most folks have already sealed up their windows and door frames and put more insulation in their attics. Are they supposed to sell the old house and buy a more modern energy-efficient one?
Maybe I'm the only one too poor to do so and everybody else is more than rich enough. I dunno.
So we get bans on incandescent light bulbs. Does everybody understand how many watts of the total electricity usage in the average home is used by incandescent lamps? Do you understand what percentage is used by stoves, refrigerators, furnace motors, washers/dryers and such?
The savings are mice nuts! It's just more smoke and mirrors! It just LOOKS like the government is doing something! Meanwhile they're using this as an excuse to tax us more, pretending it's for our own good and they're going to use all the extra money to save the planet for us.
Or am I the only one who doesn't believe what politicians tell us?
Another misconception about electricity that many folks have is that it is not store-able! It doesn't matter that you saved a 100 watts from your new compact lamps on your total bill. The electricity company can't use that savings when it has to supply your electric stove. You see a saving from not having to provide a little bit more watts for old bulbs and your stove AT THE SAME TIME but that's it! You have to have enough generating capacity to handle peak loads, period. Savings must be spent immediately, they cannot be stored.
So as our population grows the idea that we can supply everyone with the power they need without ever adding new generators is just a fallacy. To think we can do it with wind and solar alone with no backup facilities is just bonehead engineering. Whether you like it or not, nuclear is the ONLY choice that will work without making everyone much more poor and hungry! We can argue about whether we should go with a British or German reactor 'cuz we Canadians can never build one one time and on budget but that's about all.
Not a single soul died or was hurt at Three Mile Island, despite all the hoopla from the anti-nuke crowd. All the safeties worked.
And if someone is going to trot out that tired old example of Chernobyl then I"ve got a Lada or a Yugo to sell them. After all, a car's a car and they're all the same, right?
:food-smiley-004:
