Nuclear power is to way to go to save earth?
- Thread starter denniskee
- Start date
- Status
Provided men learn to co-operate and do the things needed to save
the earth. It is history that this seldom succeed.
Why there is a call to stop killing the whales and preserved the
elephants as well as other wild animals?
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nobody can stop China and India from further developing
their industries. There has been serious discussions on the
emission of Co2 and its effect but sad to say people just don't care.
It is always interesting in such discussion, the green/conservation crowd always champion use less, as if using less will solve the problem.
Electricity is the energy of life today, without which nothing, particularily in the developed world, will function.
There are many more demands for electricity today than yesterday, than a year ago, than a decade ago ... from new mega users such as China and India, to new mega usages such as servers, routers, computers of all kinds. More new users and usges will join the fray. Let's not kid ourselves, we have not seen what is around the corner.
All I realise, fossil fuel is not the answer to our energy needs in the future. Conservation alone will not get the job done. Fission is an alternative, but it has its PR problem. I don't have a solution, but we better find one soon.
Btw, all those who dragged out pictures of Chrynobol, what is the enviromental damage burning the tonnes of fossil fuel we do a day, a week, a month and a life time?
Just a thought. There is no right and wrong in this discussion. The sad thing is, none of us have the solution, and I do not see one clearly in the horizon. That said, France is the most nuclear depended economy in the world. Had anyone looked into France's nuclear energy program and it's safety record, and in particular, how does it impact the people and the enviroment? I haven't and that is why I asked the question.
Electricity is the energy of life today, without which nothing, particularily in the developed world, will function.
There are many more demands for electricity today than yesterday, than a year ago, than a decade ago ... from new mega users such as China and India, to new mega usages such as servers, routers, computers of all kinds. More new users and usges will join the fray. Let's not kid ourselves, we have not seen what is around the corner.
All I realise, fossil fuel is not the answer to our energy needs in the future. Conservation alone will not get the job done. Fission is an alternative, but it has its PR problem. I don't have a solution, but we better find one soon.
Btw, all those who dragged out pictures of Chrynobol, what is the enviromental damage burning the tonnes of fossil fuel we do a day, a week, a month and a life time?
Just a thought. There is no right and wrong in this discussion. The sad thing is, none of us have the solution, and I do not see one clearly in the horizon. That said, France is the most nuclear depended economy in the world. Had anyone looked into France's nuclear energy program and it's safety record, and in particular, how does it impact the people and the enviroment? I haven't and that is why I asked the question.
haven't heard doesn't mean don't exist.
scientists elsewhere are researching into using biomass for fuel production instead of digging into the earth. the rationale is to maintain the carbon concentration above ground and reduce the release of carbon materials from underground. biofuels have been successfully developed, one such is biodiesel.
the big question is, is the world ready to give up conventional petroleum? the answer is a clear no as that will upset the current economic system, singapore included.
scientists elsewhere are researching into using biomass for fuel production instead of digging into the earth. the rationale is to maintain the carbon concentration above ground and reduce the release of carbon materials from underground. biofuels have been successfully developed, one such is biodiesel.
the big question is, is the world ready to give up conventional petroleum? the answer is a clear no as that will upset the current economic system, singapore included.
Nobody can stop China and India from further developing
their industries. There has been serious discussions on the
emission of Co2 and its effect but sad to say people just don't care.
the world cannot eliminate environmental problems if the problem of poverty is not solved. and poverty itself is a complex issue.
Biofuel is a great theory, at least for now. The damage to the ecosystem from the massive cultivation of land to produce the biomass needed to produce the biofuels seems to be an afterthought for the biofuel proponents.
I am not ditching biofuels. I am not from the oil lobby. I know little about the nuclear industry. I know that the demands for electricity and other energy sources are going to increase faster and faster. so, what can we do.
I believe we have to take a inclusive approach rather than an exclusive approach.
Source of energy: Biofuels, fossil fuels, fusion, fission, solar, wind, hydro, thermal and whatever new technologies that will be available.
While accessing all the energy sources, we must also educate the mass to conserve, recycle and lead a eco friendly life. We must design buildings and infrastructure to make conservation a possibility. Better insulation is one good example.
We must also have cohesive political and economic strategies to make sure that what is necessary gets done. By alienating one group or another, by favoring one over another, will only prolong the gridlock and push us closer towards the point when the lights will go out.
I am not ditching biofuels. I am not from the oil lobby. I know little about the nuclear industry. I know that the demands for electricity and other energy sources are going to increase faster and faster. so, what can we do.
I believe we have to take a inclusive approach rather than an exclusive approach.
Source of energy: Biofuels, fossil fuels, fusion, fission, solar, wind, hydro, thermal and whatever new technologies that will be available.
While accessing all the energy sources, we must also educate the mass to conserve, recycle and lead a eco friendly life. We must design buildings and infrastructure to make conservation a possibility. Better insulation is one good example.
We must also have cohesive political and economic strategies to make sure that what is necessary gets done. By alienating one group or another, by favoring one over another, will only prolong the gridlock and push us closer towards the point when the lights will go out.
biofuels is not a theory, it's being used in many countries already.
btw you should read up more on biomass and biofuels, many places uses them without damaging ecosystems.
the first hurdle is whether the world can giveup the current political economy deeply based on fossil fuels.
well spoken... unfortunately there governments and industries, even the public, favour the tested and know ie fossile energy and nuclear energy over new energies, such as wind, sun, water (also old and tested), bio-energy and even energy conservation.
It is easier to provide more than to tighten your belt, but as you said rightly it needs both. Providing more without thought will run the tank empty (sooner or later), just tighten the belt is not sufficient in a growing family. Going for "green" energies only is not enough either and many of the so called green ones turn very black if you scale them up... bio-fuel (gas or liquid) from waste products is "green" but it does not produce enough for all... but growing plants to turn them into fuel is not "green" anymore...
a combination of all could save the day... but its needs a lot of re-thinking and re-adjustment.
Just to share a little story regarding energy and waste management:
In Switzerland waste is incinerated in many places. The fuels (paper, plastic etc) and oxigen in the waste requires little additional fuel to burn it.
Now a few years ago "green" people had the idea to reduce waste, hence a huge tax was (S$5/50l) imposed on every garbage bag (got to buy special bag). And really the number of garbage bags collected was less (some people decided to dump the garbage in the forests now, but that is another story). Well done? By no way, people packed the bags tighter, the weight was not reduced just the volume. And this had as a consequence that there was less air in the bag and then they needed to add more fuel to burn it in the incineration plant....
Things are usually more complicated than go nuclear or not....
I know biofuels personally. I used to use it personally in form of mix of gas and alcohol produced from corn, wheat and other crops.
I don't have a problem with the fuel. It's more expansive, but so be it.
However, the strain on the agricultural land to produce sufficient biomass for biofuel is not something one can brush aside. the fossil fuel needed to farm, harvest, transport the biomass is adding to the equation. Biofuel is here to stay, but biofuel is not the complete answer.
On the current energy economic system, here are my thoughts. If you pushed from only one direction, the system will be out of wack. We need to look at all the alternatives. While we are on the topic of cars, electric is hailed as the answer, but we still need to charge the car's batter. How? By pluggin the car into the electric grid, with electricity that needs to be generated. Biofuel is not an answer to such demands.
I do have a solution that many on the green and left side of the spectrum will shoot down, but it is solution that will work. The current energy companies, must be part of the solution for the future. They knew at some point fossil fuel will run out, but if they are part of the "future" energy soloution, they will not stand in the way as they are right now. and beside, they are also the deep pocket that can fund the R&D necessary to find the "future" energy sources. I say source"s" for a reason, becasue on one will be sufficient to satisfy the demand for energy.
I don't have a problem with the fuel. It's more expansive, but so be it.
However, the strain on the agricultural land to produce sufficient biomass for biofuel is not something one can brush aside. the fossil fuel needed to farm, harvest, transport the biomass is adding to the equation. Biofuel is here to stay, but biofuel is not the complete answer.
On the current energy economic system, here are my thoughts. If you pushed from only one direction, the system will be out of wack. We need to look at all the alternatives. While we are on the topic of cars, electric is hailed as the answer, but we still need to charge the car's batter. How? By pluggin the car into the electric grid, with electricity that needs to be generated. Biofuel is not an answer to such demands.
I do have a solution that many on the green and left side of the spectrum will shoot down, but it is solution that will work. The current energy companies, must be part of the solution for the future. They knew at some point fossil fuel will run out, but if they are part of the "future" energy soloution, they will not stand in the way as they are right now. and beside, they are also the deep pocket that can fund the R&D necessary to find the "future" energy sources. I say source"s" for a reason, becasue on one will be sufficient to satisfy the demand for energy.
it's more a political issue than how to charge a car. don't you see? the problem is not with our incapability to come up with alternatives, the problem is with political barriers that prevent alternatives from being developed and used.
That is exactly my point. The political and economic hurdle is a simple one. The current system see alternate fuel source a threat. They are deep pocketed and therefore spend willingly to make sure their agenda is the policy.
However, if we change the economic agenda of the existing players in the energy market, they will no longer erect the barriers.
it's not OT, it's just not efficient (nor effective) to do such discussions in CS.
So you were suggesting the the original questioned posted by the TS in the Kopitiam Sub Forum of CS is infact a waste of time for everyone who had participated in?
Personally, I think it's a good discussion so far.
I really do not see your point.
up to you to see or don't see my point.
since you asked, i do think the original discussion is a waste of time, i didn't want to say that because it's kopitiam anyway. i only want to bring my information in to show that things are not as simple as ''this or that'' or ''hit a switch.''
you can have the best solution, but i don't think the necessary parties involved will drop by CS to pick it up. why don't you start a forum, make public a movement, don't you think your ideas will be better appreciated that way?
Hahaha... I see a few very powerful key words... Michael Porter's "Competition of the Nations"...
I too thought that bio fuel is the way to go. But recently, it has been highlighted that if corn, maize and any other food product such are used for fuel, then it will cause farmers to sell their produce to fuel manufacturers rather than sell it as food, since we all know who can pay more. This will cause a food shortage and effect the less developed countries even worse.
Also, plants will leach the soil of nutrients and as demand goes up, more and more land will be required, hence deforestation will also increase pace.
Hopefully biofuel can be made from non food sources, that also does not need too much nutrient rich soil and does not take up much land space. Scientists have already found a possibly suitable source in a hardy plant that grows in arid and nutrient poor soil. Cant remember the name though.
The key here is energy consumption and a use-and-throw mentality. Reduce consumption, use more energy efficient and lasting products, and hence less products need to be produced, hence less materials need to be sourced, hence less energy required to produce these products.
But after all is said, humans are a self-destructing race. If we don't kill ourselves through our own greed and destructiveness, nature will still take its own course.
The climates will change/reverse no matter what. Its just a matter of when and how fast. A meteorite could finish us all. Another massive volcanic eruption will kill us all.
But till that day comes, we need to change ourselves to safeguard what future our descendants may have. Less greed, less jealousy, less consumption, more understanding and acceptance......u know the rest.
And for me. Nuclear is tempting, but unless its fusion which does not produce radioactive waste, I do not support nuclear fission.
Also, plants will leach the soil of nutrients and as demand goes up, more and more land will be required, hence deforestation will also increase pace.
Hopefully biofuel can be made from non food sources, that also does not need too much nutrient rich soil and does not take up much land space. Scientists have already found a possibly suitable source in a hardy plant that grows in arid and nutrient poor soil. Cant remember the name though.
The key here is energy consumption and a use-and-throw mentality. Reduce consumption, use more energy efficient and lasting products, and hence less products need to be produced, hence less materials need to be sourced, hence less energy required to produce these products.
But after all is said, humans are a self-destructing race. If we don't kill ourselves through our own greed and destructiveness, nature will still take its own course.
The climates will change/reverse no matter what. Its just a matter of when and how fast. A meteorite could finish us all. Another massive volcanic eruption will kill us all.
But till that day comes, we need to change ourselves to safeguard what future our descendants may have. Less greed, less jealousy, less consumption, more understanding and acceptance......u know the rest.
And for me. Nuclear is tempting, but unless its fusion which does not produce radioactive waste, I do not support nuclear fission.
Think you're killing ideas here....and this is kopitiam......allowing a freedom of expression amongst people who share a common interest in taking better photographs. Otherwise kopitiam is a waste of time.
I emailed the NEA in April and put an article, collaborated with another Singaporean, on my website for them to read (won't add it here 'cause think the moderators remove my threads when I add URLs). It's about how Singapore should be using green energy and how others are doing so. Of course the NEA ministers have not replied back (guess I don't expect them to) but hope they might see some suggestions for the future.
"Back to the Future" used anaerobic digestion to create methane gas for the Delorium. Anaerobic digesters are used on a larger scale for farms (China has been using them since the 1970s) and some domestic digesters are being used in Germany however the organisms are sensitive to destructive chemicals (eg bleach down toilets, etc!)
- Status
Similar threads
