one more thing ... i believe we should also seriously show some interest(at least) in the ideas of the greens ... not necessarily must be in a kind of "political" thing ... i guess that not all greens share the same shades of green ...


.

Ilike wind-generators.The only problem is that they are very expensive now in Greece.But they are a very good solution.So,if a country like Germany could sell them cheaper in Greece, I would buy one for my house.

This article is an interesting one about nuclear energy:

http://anthropik.com/2006/02/the-nuclear-option/

There's such an incredible amount of information that I know now the convenience of a belief in just "one religion" and of forming groups and blaming all of them: greens, reds (communists), etc. It's the choice of colors that frightens me. Let's blame white people too. :jawa:

Is it possible to correctly assess this amount of information and not get drown in it ?

The information is there. What I look for is the factual and scientific evidence, not the political agenda. Sift through the evidence - the science of Nuclear technology is very well documented...

However, it's obvious to the meanest intelligence that Nuclear Technology is going to become prohibitively expensive due to the costs of security, shielding and protection and pollution/waste management rather than the actual process itself.

We will soon run out of natural Uranium, but that's not a big deal at all. The alternatives will always be available as far as Nuclear technology is concerned. However: is it worth it? That's the question.

Those who claim that the amount of pollution generated by nuclear reaction is much less actually don't understand the qualitative difference between ten pounds of (normal) coal ash and one pound of radioactive uranium. The latter is an actively harmful pollutant... Also, don't think that radioactive waste cannot spread! Radon, which is a by-product of many nuclear reactions, is very much a radioactive gas and it can spread in the atmosphere, causing havoc if a large amount is released as a result of some mishap.

The key to understand it is to understand the risks very clearly. The people who have a fair idea of the risks, dangers and the costs of Nuclear technology in the long run (including scientists) are the very ones who are opposed to it strongly.

The conclusion they all make? It's not worth it...

I am baffled by India's initiative in building more nuclear power plants. I know that with our indigenous reactor technology that we are looking for self-sustenance in Energy as well as national pride, but there are no winners or losers in a nuclear race.

There was a report in the UK yesterday news about a Nuclear waste handling company taken to court because they had left a bung out of a waste container. The "beam" of radiation emitted from this coin sized hole was considered to be lethal, and the only reason no fatalities occured was that the hole was pointing directly downwards.

I think that nuclear energy should be considered as a stop-gap until we have the renewables sorted out, but long term, its just not worth it.

Oh, only a tiny weeny little hole? :D

Anyway I bet the many of the people who support nuclear energy based on the fact that it's supposedly "clean" are the first ones to panic when they read in the paper about some leakage of radioactive material into the environment.

i'm not sure i see the corelation.
a gas cenrifuge to seperate out u235 seems like works equally as well with
lower grade ore and unlike oil lower grade uranium is easy to get at.

oil on the other hand is a thick mess

there is also something else confused about this post.
oil is not getting more and more expensive because we have used up some item called "cheap oil". oil prices are going up because the demand is outstipping the supply of exactly the same thing we have been using all along.
other types of oil like coal shale and coal tar and such simply take more energy to recover than they generate making them pointless.

in fact theres another problem which we could observe ... probably the differences between "the employing" and "the employed"(for these they better kept themselves busy at all time in researching , experimenting , improving and improvising) ... i mean the definations of "long term" from both sides , whether by our definations of "long term" is it something dynamic(phasing out un-needed tech. at some points or another) or is it logically static(unchanged "doom in the end" conclusion) , i believe both have an important role to work out together , probably a "blending" of both ideas ... i mean i cant really see any contradictions between those who advocate for "nuclear" developments and those who are on the greens/enviromentalists/anti-nuclear/enviromental_issues side , probably thats the advantage of started out at a much later time , maybe we are able to ensure that our fishes could still swim in cooler streams this time ... and also dont forget about technological exploration in space which somehow means the same thing ...


seriously ...

>> "There's such an incredible amount of information that I know now the convenience of a belief in just "one religion" and of forming groups and blaming all of them: greens, reds (communists), etc. It's the choice of colors that frightens me. Let's blame white people too. "

nay ... many of those yellow , brown and black(i mean the african ones) could be worser then white color ones ... :jawa:"damn !! i'm a traitor !! :jawa:


.

another point is generating energy from plutonium does not add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere and since we are about to exterminate ourselves by releasing all fossile fuel carbon into the atmosphere....

since we had talked earlier about brazil and the use of ethanol i was fascinated to find brazil on this massive media blitz about the "success" of ethanol and now they no longer are going to import oil and what not.
the same media blitz US is beginning on.
Propaganda at its worse.
Looked up the numbers for Brazil.

turns out brazil domestic oil production is on the rise with second largest oil reserves in south america.

nothing fancy or mysterious going on there with ethanol -- just on the upside not the downside of huberts oil peak (for now)
in 2003 brazil had increased its domestic oil production 21% over 2000 levels.
the rest of us just can't do that anymore.

i found an energy consumption chart for brazil from 2002 (old yes) but still
not that old.
oil 51%
hydro 33%
natural gass 6%
coal 5%
nuclear 2%

certainly doesn't look like ethanol is a big player despite all the advertising.

foo_bar_foo: The reasoning you're making about feasibility of alternative fuels is relevant only on a corporate context that I expect will be a thing of the past. In the immediate future, there must be sacrifices to put less stress on the environment and I'm sure that the consequences of global warming, pollution, etc will have their effect on numbers.

On Brazil and ethanol: I'm gonna spend some time searching data that can be trusted and I will post them as well.

Sad Story
 

What a sad story. These are people that should know better. I can't imagine anyone actually believing that they could get away with falsifying data. Absurd.