Greenpeace is being [FILL IN SYNONYM FOR ALARMIST AND ARMAGEDDONIST HERE]

Greenpeace didn't say anything when Ukraine (Was in there?) reopened Chernobyl, Never protested against the poor condition of their nuclear plants before the accident (and here I am supposing it was an accident, I have read some conspiration theories about it being intentional) They didn't say anything when the Chinese government tested nuclear weapons. Nothing I heard about the Aral sea from them. Seems that they focus only on the western world, like they were the only ones who pollute.

That is why I call them Watermelonpeace.
Spoiler :

you know, watermelons are green in the outside and red in the inside


Besides, If they have a better idea, then why don't they implement by themselves? It is so easy to critisize, much easier than to get things done.
 
Greenpeace can't be on everyones ass 100% of the time. They pick and choose their battles like anyone else.

They have accomplished alot. In order to do much of what their agenda is however, they need to be elected.
 
There's no doubt nuclear energy is both safer and cleaner than fossil fuel power. But we have the means today to implement better green technologies and for some reason there is this great reluctance of any western government to take a major step towards creating more of these types of power sources.

Unfortunately in many areas green technologies are not practical as the major (let alone the only) source of power. Wind power is extremely sporadic, many areas are unsuitable, and even in areas like Scotland, which is supposedly the best for wind power in Europe, it requires a huge number of turbines for a significant power output. Fact is you can't have a major percentage of a country's power supplied by a system that won't work in some weather conditions.

A similar problem applies to solar power. Relatively small output for a large area of solar panels, and most areas will have the sun regularly obscured by cloud. Solar panels also contain large quantities of somewhat noxious substances.

Hydroelectric is to be honest one of the very few viable green power sources, which is reliable in all weather. There's still enviromental arguments with flooding large areas, but it does supply large quantities of power under all weather conditions (bar extreme long term drought). Again though, not everywhere has suitable rivers to dam.

Tidal Barrages are another alternative which is actually reliable under all weather conditions, though not all coasts have a high enough tide for its use. it's a viable possibility in the US, UK, Canada and Austrailia though.

Geothermal's quite a nice and reliable power source, but unless you're somewhere like Iceland with lots of volcanic activity it's a bit of a non starter.

Wave power might also one day be viable, but at the moment is still only at the prototype stage, and there are major issues with building something that can withstand storms, but still generate electricity by moving.

Have I missed any? There's plenty of places where none of the above are suitable.
 
:rotfl: Watermelonpeace :rotfl:
 
Alpine Trooper said:
Greenpeace can't be on everyones ass 100% of the time. They pick and choose their battles like anyone else.

Too bad they always pick the same side of the political spectrum.

They have accomplished alot. In order to do much of what their agenda is however, they need to be elected.

Like what? Like paying sailors to kill baby seals in a bloody manner so they can make a nice movie and obtain funds out of it?
 
MrCynical said:
Geothermal's quite a nice and reliable power source, but unless you're somewhere like Iceland with lots of volcanic activity it's a bit of a non starter.
Not everyplace in the world is situated near by high level of thermal activity

I still stand by that Nuclear Power is still the most reliable and safeist form of power in the modern era. We dont have Fusion Power yet so we cant build them.

I guess if we start building Fusion Power Plants, Greenpeace would scream and protest against building one :crazyeye:.
 
CivGeneral said:
Solar and Wind power are good green techologies, but they are not reliable source of power.

Solar Power is totaly dependent on weather conditions. Solar Power Plants are restricted to areas where they recive the most sun shine and/or have less frequent cloud cover. If you plop a Solar Power Plant say in the Northeast of the US, the plant would produce less output during the winter time, plus the region is also frequented by clouds as well as rain and other precipitation.

Wind power too is totaly dependent on weather conditions and would have to be placed in regions where it recives the most wind. Plus another disadvantage is that you need a lot of them to provide power to a small city.


Map of available wind power over the United States. Colorcodes indicate wind power density class.


Also, wind power is also hazardous to birds where they can get caught in the blades and killed.

Hydro Electric is a good and reliable green technology. With constant water flow from a damed up body of water can provide power. For the fish, well there is an option to install a Fish canal specificly for them, especialy for the salmon. But then you have people crying about the enviornmental impacts of a damed up river as well as people crying out about destroyed or ruined flooded property.

I feel that, with Nuclear safety checks, Nuclear Power is both safe and reliable when it comes to producing electricity.
Actually, hydroelectric power is just as situational as wind. Not many countries have big/fast enough rivers to supply a significant % of their energy needs.
 
Not everyplace in the world is situated near by high level of thermal activity

I know, that's what I said!

I still stand by that Nuclear Power is still the most reliable and safeist form of power in the modern era. We dont have Fusion Power yet so we cant build them.

Fusion power's been claimed to be 30 or 40 years away for 30 or 40 years. I don't think we can rely on ever getting it to work.
 
I think Nuclear Power would be a great 'transitional fuel', until we find a totally safe and clean type of power.

.Shane. said:
Not at all. Simply have the boat towed by trained dolphins. You also can put turbines on the sides so that as you drag the boat, the turbines spin and make additional power which you use to power a soy farm, you feed the soy to the dolphins.

Also put wind turbines for wind power. So there would be more power.
 
Where nuclear power is best put to use is when it replaces old dirty-coal powerplants. China link.


I can respect a man who is willing to admit he was wrong:

Greenpeace founder: "I was wrong about nuclear power". Link.
 
.Shane. said:
Not at all. Simply have the boat towed by trained dolphins. You also can put turbines on the sides so that as you drag the boat, the turbines spin and make additional power which you use to power a soy farm, you feed the soy to the dolphins.


Hehe, this reminds me of when I was back in highschool and our liberal world geography teacher had us draw and "spec" out cars for the african outback.

Unfortunately, we all got B- or lower (I must admit, my own group's SUV with roof top hunting chair did not go over well with her)... all of us except the group with the platinum plated hover bus with a solar panel on top. They got an A+.

A+ sir, A+
 
Urederra said:
That is why I call them Watermelonpeace.
Spoiler :

you know, watermelons are green in the outside and red in the inside

:lol: That's genius!
 
Urederra said:
Greenpeace didn't say anything when Ukraine (Was in there?) reopened Chernobyl, Never protested against the poor condition of their nuclear plants before the accident (and here I am supposing it was an accident, I have read some conspiration theories about it being intentional) They didn't say anything when the Chinese government tested nuclear weapons. Nothing I heard about the Aral sea from them. Seems that they focus only on the western world, like they were the only ones who pollute.

That is why I call them Watermelonpeace.
Spoiler :

you know, watermelons are green in the outside and red in the inside


Besides, If they have a better idea, then why don't they implement by themselves? It is so easy to critisize, much easier than to get things done.

Well said.
Many such groups hide a red interior, and really only use environmentalism(or feminism, or minority empowerement, or whatever) to further an unrelated agenda.
 
.Shane. said:
Not at all. Simply have the boat towed by trained dolphins. You also can put turbines on the sides so that as you drag the boat, the turbines spin and make additional power which you use to power a soy farm, you feed the soy to the dolphins.

The dolphins?

Are YOU SERIOUS?
 
:lol:

When will hippies realize that well-built nuclear power plants are perhaps the best source of power we have in the world today?
 
Back
Top Bottom