Guest Commentary: Global warming worriers need to go nuclear

Jul 28, 2009 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Denver Post Economy/Real Estate

Sen. Mark Udall claims he's worried about global warming. He wants human production of carbon dioxide radically reduced.

Comments

Showing posts 1 - 20 of122
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Global Warming Fraud

Gilbert, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Jul 29, 2009
 

Judged:

3

2

2

Global warming is a fraud - when will our politicians catch up to our scientists?
http://www.petitionproject.org/
Earthling

Spain

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Jul 29, 2009
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Many of us realise this fraud and our number is steadily growing, but we're up against a few religious fanatics who will not budge from their belief.
We continue telling them that their science is flawed, but they refuse to consider that as a possibility, clinging to their dogma and mantra that, "We must cut CO2 now, before it's too late to save the world."

Many of these cult followers claim knowledge of science, but appear to be blinded because of that.
koz

Akron, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Jul 29, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

Replacing coal power plants with nuclear power plants is a great benefit, even if there is no human contribution to global warming. Displacing a coal plant with a nuclear power plant saves about 30 lives a year and also reduces other health hazards and reduces long-term pollution hazards.
Earthling

Spain

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Jul 29, 2009
 

Judged:

2

2

1

koz wrote:
Replacing coal power plants with nuclear power plants is a great benefit, even if there is no human contribution to global warming. Displacing a coal plant with a nuclear power plant saves about 30 lives a year and also reduces other health hazards and reduces long-term pollution hazards.
And we all hope that future generations will not be affected more by nuclear waste than we have been by CO2 and any other pollutant.

It's very rare for mankind to take a step forward without committing some serious error.

Dot all the Is and cross all the Ts, measure three times before cutting the cloth, look both ways, then look again and listen before crossing the road.
koz

Akron, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Jul 29, 2009
 
Earthling wrote:
It's very rare for mankind to take a step forward without committing some serious error.
Nuclear power has been proven to be such a rare exception.
Not Told

Butte, MT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Jul 29, 2009
 
Earthling wrote:
<quoted text>And we all hope that future generations will not be affected more by nuclear waste than we have been by CO2 and any other pollutant.
Uranium Milling and the Church Rock Disaster Church Rock, New Mexico, would seem an improbable spot for a nuclear disaster.
koz

Akron, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Jul 29, 2009
 
Not Told wrote:
Uranium Milling and the Church Rock Disaster Church Rock, New Mexico, would seem an improbable spot for a nuclear disaster.
Things that haven't happened are often improbable.
BDV

Decatur, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Jul 31, 2009
 
More NT nonsequiturs...
Earthling

Spain

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Jul 31, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

1

koz wrote:
Nuclear power has been proven to be such a rare exception.
You're talking about decades of waste fuel from a few hundred plants, not the thousands that are needed to replace coal, natural gas etc.
koz

Akron, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Jul 31, 2009
 
Earthling wrote:
You're talking about decades of waste fuel from a few hundred plants, not the thousands that are needed to replace coal, natural gas etc.
Waste fuel that is mostly a valuable resource while the rest of it slowly decays away to non-radioactive elements. Compare that the huge volume of non-dacaying waste that is produced from a coal-burning plant. Each time that a nuke replaced a coal plant, the volume of waste drops by a large factor. The only fuel resource in coal waste is the tramp uranium that could be recovered to fuel more nuclear power plants. As long as there is a single coal-burning plant operating, it is absurd to claim that nuclear spent fuel is a significant problem.
Idiot Spotter

Lutz, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Jul 31, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

koz wrote:
<quoted text>Waste fuel that is mostly a valuable resource while the rest of it slowly decays away to non-radioactive elements. Compare that the huge volume of non-dacaying waste that is produced from a coal-burning plant. Each time that a nuke replaced a coal plant, the volume of waste drops by a large factor. The only fuel resource in coal waste is the tramp uranium that could be recovered to fuel more nuclear power plants. As long as there is a single coal-burning plant operating, it is absurd to claim that nuclear spent fuel is a significant problem.
You are such an idiot who will not quit. You are so proud of it.
koz

Akron, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Jul 31, 2009
 
Idiot Spotter wrote:
You are such an idiot who will not quit. You are so proud of it.
Hopefully, someday you will see reality.
Earthling

Spain

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Jul 31, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

1

koz wrote:
Waste fuel that is mostly a valuable resource while the rest of it slowly decays away to non-radioactive elements. Compare that the huge volume of non-dacaying waste that is produced from a coal-burning plant. Each time that a nuke replaced a coal plant, the volume of waste drops by a large factor. The only fuel resource in coal waste is the tramp uranium that could be recovered to fuel more nuclear power plants. As long as there is a single coal-burning plant operating, it is absurd to claim that nuclear spent fuel is a significant problem.
Has anyone actually calculated the amount of nuclear waste that would be produced by an ever increasing number of nuclear power stations?

What is your basis for claiming a "large factor" drop in waste?
How slow is the decay rate compared to production and future demand rate?
And can you guarantee that spent nuclear fuel is, "insignificant" to the future of mankind?
Algernon Sidney

Lakewood, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Jul 31, 2009
 
Earthling wrote:
Has anyone actually calculated the amount of nuclear waste that would be produced by an ever increasing number of nuclear power stations?
Yes.
Algernon Sidney

Lakewood, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Jul 31, 2009
 
Idiot Spotter wrote:
You are such an idiot who will not quit. You are so proud of it.
Now that you have spotted an idiot, would you please point out why he is an idiot? That is, what in his postings convinced you?
DCK

Lakewood, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Jul 31, 2009
 
Earthling wrote:
You're talking about decades of waste fuel from a few hundred plants, not the thousands that are needed to replace coal, natural gas etc.
Let's just replace the coal plants. Coal plants create millions of tons of waste and pump radioactive material into the air. The solid waste from coal plants is toxic and has no half-life.
Earthling

Spain

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Aug 1, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

1

DCK wrote:
Let's just replace the coal plants. Coal plants create millions of tons of waste and pump radioactive material into the air. The solid waste from coal plants is toxic and has no half-life.
What, "radioactive materials" do coal plants produce?

What, "solid waste" that is, "toxic" do coal plants produce?

I suggest you stick to playing computer games.
Algernon Sidney

Lakewood, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Aug 1, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Earthling wrote:
What, "radioactive materials" do coal plants produce?
Uranium and radium, hundreds of tons of it.
What, "solid waste" that is, "toxic" do coal plants produce?.
Cadmium, barium and mercury compounds; to name a few.
I suggest you stick to playing computer games.
Then who would teach you about reality? I was truly amazed that you didn't know about the toxic solid wastes that coal plants produce.
DCk

Lakewood, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Aug 1, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Earthling wrote:
What, "radioactive materials" do coal plants produce?
Algernon's answer was a bit flip. Few people know that coal smoke is radioactive. Here is a link to a "Scientific American" article on the subject:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm...

"Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste
By burning away all the pesky carbon and other impurities, coal power plants produce heaps of radiation"

"In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy."
DCk

Lakewood, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21
Aug 1, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Earthling wrote:
What, "solid waste" that is, "toxic" do coal plants produce?
I suggest you stick to playing computer games.
Here are some details about the toxic waste from coal plants:
http://www.cejournal.net/...
"High levels of toxins found in coal ash spill"

"The toxic heavy metals found in the water, which in addition to arsenic include barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, nickel and thallium, pose a risk not only to human health but also to aquatic life as well"
Those heavy metals are all solid waste.

I don't play computer games.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1 - 20 of122
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••