Environmentalists are hypocrites

[Saiwania]

It is to be expected that environmentalists are often hypocritical because living a modern lifestyle with electricity and transportation is often diametrically opposed to what is good for the environment. The simple fact is that it is very difficult to use energy in a way that isn't polluting to some degree. Wind, solar, and nuclear all have their problems and can't be relied on to provide power 24/7.

[Imperializt Russia]

It is to be expected that environmentalists are often hypocritical because living a modern lifestyle with electricity and transportation is often diametrically opposed to what is good for the environment. The simple fact is that it is very difficult to use energy in a way that isn't polluting to some degree.

Not especially. Just that the present electrical grid infrastructure is very polluting which is a factor sadly out of control of almost all people.

[Immoren]

...and nuclear all have their problems and can't be relied on to provide power 24/7.

What?

[Saiwania]

What?

Can nuclear power get airplanes and road vehicles moving in all weather conditions? I think not. Having everything require rechargeable batteries is more trouble than trying to make hydrogen power feasible, which in itself is too challenging to produce, store, and transport to be worthwhile.

[Immoren]

What?

Can nuclear power get airplanes and road vehicles moving in all weather conditions? I think not. Having everything require rechargeable batteries is more trouble than trying to make hydrogen power feasible, which in itself is too challenging to produce, store, and transport to be worthwhile.

I do believe there've been prototypes and/or designs for airplanes and road vehicles with nuclear power. They've not been mass produced for some reason.

[Luziyca]

I see this argument come up countless times. A story about a prominent environmentalist, and people come out condemning them as being hypocritical because they use oil either for fuel or use plastics. I think it's silly to expect environmentalists to be naked forest dwellers in the wilderness, because it is possible to try to change a system within it. While we shouldn't overlook egregious polluters who say they are pro-environment, it still doesn't invalidate what they say.

What do you think NS? Can you be an environmentalist but still use fossil-fuel based products?

Yes. However, being an environmentalist and owning a coal mine/plant and/or an oil rig is hypocritical.

Amen.

[Tule]

What?

Can nuclear power get airplanes and road vehicles moving in all weather conditions? I think not. Having everything require rechargeable batteries is more trouble than trying to make hydrogen power feasible, which in itself is too challenging to produce, store, and transport to be worthwhile.

You can run aircraft on biofuels.

They aren't by any means a universal replacement for fossil fuels, but considering how rarely the average person flies and the remarkable fuel efficiency of aircraft in terms of miles per passenger gallon (Better than most cars), I don't think it would take too much land to keep humanity flying.

And how on earth are rechargeable batteries more trouble than hydrogen? We already have electric infrastructure, we don't have hydrogen infrastructure. Then there is also the substantial inefficiency of splitting water with electrolysis compared to just reloading a battery directly.

[Immoren]

You can run aircraft on biofuels.

They aren't by any means a universal replacement for fossil fuels, but considering how rarely the average person flies and the remarkable fuel efficiency of aircraft in terms of miles per passenger gallon (Better than most cars), I don't think it would take too much land to keep humanity flying.

Obviously we ought to build nuclear passengerliner fleets anyway. *nods*

[Tule]

You can run aircraft on biofuels.

They aren't by any means a universal replacement for fossil fuels, but considering how rarely the average person flies and the remarkable fuel efficiency of aircraft in terms of miles per passenger gallon (Better than most cars), I don't think it would take too much land to keep humanity flying.

Obviously we ought to build nuclear passengerliner fleets anyway. *nods*

The only scenario worse than a plane in a reactor: A reactor in a plane.

[Carrasastova]

Obviously we ought to build nuclear passengerliner fleets anyway. *nods*

The only scenario worse than a plane in a reactor: A reactor in a plane.

Amen. That's a disastor waiting to happen.

[Tule]

The only scenario worse than a plane in a reactor: A reactor in a plane.

Amen. That's a disastor waiting to happen.

I generally think the public is overly scared of radiation and nuclear power, but even with the improving safety in the airline industry it's probably not good to have nuclear 747's crashing into Amsterdam apartment buildings or Scottish villages every year or two.

[Esternial]

It depends from person-to-person.

I'm green on certain topics. I feel we shouldn't waste valuable oil or other non-renewable energy sources on things we can acquire through more renewable means.

Theoretically we could provide the entire world with enough energy if we covered a fraction of the Sahara desert in solar plants.

[Benuty]

It depends from person-to-person.

I'm green on certain topics. I feel we shouldn't waste valuable oil or other non-renewable energy sources on things we can acquire through more renewable means.

Theoretically we could provide the entire world with enough energy if we covered a fraction of the Sahara desert in solar plants.

Ugh the expense!
-Sayeth the Republican party on helping other nations along with US.

[Esternial]

It depends from person-to-person.

I'm green on certain topics. I feel we shouldn't waste valuable oil or other non-renewable energy sources on things we can acquire through more renewable means.

Theoretically we could provide the entire world with enough energy if we covered a fraction of the Sahara desert in solar plants.

Ugh the expense!
-Sayeth the Republican party on helping other nations along with US.

We're still a long road ahead before the whole of humanity will start looking out for its own collective interests.

[Fanosolia]

It depends from person-to-person.

I'm green on certain topics. I feel we shouldn't waste valuable oil or other non-renewable energy sources on things we can acquire through more renewable means.

Theoretically we could provide the entire world with enough energy if we covered a fraction of the Sahara desert in solar plants.

I heard something like that before. What fraction, and are only talking solar panels or like those plants with the big cylinder?

[Esternial]

It depends from person-to-person.

I'm green on certain topics. I feel we shouldn't waste valuable oil or other non-renewable energy sources on things we can acquire through more renewable means.

Theoretically we could provide the entire world with enough energy if we covered a fraction of the Sahara desert in solar plants.

I reheard something like that before. What fraction, and are only talking solar panels or like those plants with the big cylinder?

I've been told the latter is more efficient, but I haven't read any studies on either so I can't say for sure.

I can try to look up the specific, but I think it was below 10 or even 5%

[Tule]

I reheard something like that before. What fraction, and are only talking solar panels or like those plants with the big cylinder?

I've been told the latter is more efficient, but I haven't read any studies on either so I can't say for sure.

I can try to look up the specific, but I think it was below 10 or even 5%

The former is cheaper and scales down much better, the latter is slightly more efficient and more dependable. Some solar towers can even run 24/7 as long as conditions are favourable.

The former is growing extremely fast worldwide and is by now competitive with fossil fuels. The latter isn't, but that's largely due to limited experience. Most solar towers to this day have been unique designs that haven't benefited from economies of scale.

I think the latter has great potential, largely because of the high capacity factor (Reliability basically) One solar power plant in Spain has been running for 3 years with a capacity factor of 75%. That makes it more consistent than the average coal or gas power plant in the US.

[Immoren]

Obviously best place to put solar panels is moon. Then have the power broadcasted from there as EM-radiation.

[Tule]

Obviously best place to put solar panels is moon. Then have the power broadcasted from there as EM-radiation.

TUNING IN

TO PIRATED

ELECTRIC RECEPTION

IS STEALING

[Immoren]

Obviously best place to put solar panels is moon. Then have the power broadcasted from there as EM-radiation.

TUNING IN

TO PIRATED

ELECTRIC RECEPTION

IS STEALING

I was thinking that EM would be collected with satellites on Earth's orbit and then broadcasted into terrestrial receivers either as LASER or MASER radiation, but I guess everyone sestting up their own tiny receivers might work too.

[New DeCapito]

You know what I always found funny? Environmentalists who are against nuclear energy. Uranium is natural too, guys.

[Fanosolia]

Obviously best place to put solar panels is moon. Then have the power broadcasted from there as EM-radiation.

whoa, now. We're getting Tesla up in here XD

[Imperializt Russia]

What?

Can nuclear power get airplanes and road vehicles moving in all weather conditions? I think not. Having everything require rechargeable batteries is more trouble than trying to make hydrogen power feasible, which in itself is too challenging to produce, store, and transport to be worthwhile.

Well...
http://forums.spacebattles.com/threads/ ... 01.219823/

Amen. That's a disastor waiting to happen.

I generally think the public is overly scared of radiation and nuclear power, but even with the improving safety in the airline industry it's probably not good to have nuclear 747's crashing into Amsterdam apartment buildings or Scottish villages every year or two.

I like the idea that you could recover the 1201's reactor from a devastating crash.

[Imperializt Russia]

You know what I always found funny? Environmentalists who are against nuclear energy. Uranium is natural too, guys.

So are petroleum products.
And?

Technically uranium isn't natural. It's naturally forming, but it's not stable. Much too large an atom.

[Socialist Czechia]

You know what I always found funny? Environmentalists who are against nuclear energy. Uranium is natural too, guys.

So are petroleum products.
And?

Technically uranium isn't natural. It's naturally forming, but it's not stable. Much too large an atom.

It doesn't have to be always uranium, though. There were experiments and some functional stuff with another radiactive elements. Uranium is 'just' most efficient one.

We should built as many reactors as is possible, and every possible resource, technicians, scientists, every international, private or government fund take into thermonuclear reactor development in the meantime, before fossile fuels will dissapear. Uranium is limited resource as well and true is, fission reactors can't fully replace coal and gas.

Only deuterium can give humanity enough energy plus it would be clean source: only waste would be non-radioactive helium.