Woes of Wind Power

[Aristotle]

Originally posted by kestra
You better be careful with that opinion, it's an antique. Please Papa Homer, I want to learn more.

Except for the fact that it isn't, and Green Parties world wide are still fronts for Communism. In fact, the trend is growing rather than subsiding because they've been so effective with it. Most major environmental marches in the US are funded by blatantly communist organizations if you dig deep enough into the funding info.

One of the founders of Greenpeace left for that reason specifically, and wrote about it as recently as last year.

But keep vomiting up what you read on MoveOn.org.

[Malacasta]

As a person who has communist friends in Australia's main green group, let me categorically state that these groups are NOT fronts for communists. There are communists in the groups, and communist groups often lend support to green causes, or back green parties in elections (if you want to read about the complex ins and outs of this, you could visit leftwrites and do a search on the election in australia last year).

The idea that communist parties would actually sabotage green advances om technology so that the greens groups wouldn't become redundant and leave the communists without a cover is one of the funniest things I've ever read.

I mean, you tell Kestra to stop reading Moveon all the time, well with respect to this particular line of attack I suggest you stop reading WND or whatever whacked out source gives you such bizarre ideas.

[Malacasta]

Originally posted by Rosuav
People have mostly stopped calling it 'communist', it's now called 'socialist' but it means exactly the same thing....

No. Communist normally means either stalinist or revolutionary communist (ie, those people who want to overthrow capitalism and have it replaced with a classless society). Socialist is normally (that is, outside of left wing circles) short hand for democratic socialist and they are reformists who have the demeanor of a worker friendly party which is often slightly more socially progressive than their conservative foes, the labor party of old used to be democratic socialist, for example.

but if environmentalism is used for leverage to create a government that's taxing more and giving more to the people, then that's more communist.

It's really not!

One hypothetical example would be a tax on every carbon dioxide producing industry/product/etc that gets put towards carbon credits. Is it hypothetical? Or is it true?

I don't really know anything about carbon credits, but nobody I know seems to like them (from the right OR the left), but, if greens parties (for example) were to call for a tax on petrol, or a tax on air flights (to put those cheap Ibiza holidays out of the reach of the working family), well that's really the opposite of communism, isn't it.

Greens are allies of the left in many things but they are not an inherantly left wing party (me and my mates got expelled from the Monash Greens in the early 90's - a story I could rant about for pages, but wont).

[Deokoria]

Originally posted by Savaric
I think the Yucca mountain project in Nevada has already been approved. I'm also on board with nuclear energy. I saw a thing on modern marvels how they ship that waste. It was all about "canning" (I love modern marvels). They mix that crap with glass and inject it into big steel canisters, it solidifies and is just this virtually un-breakable huge tube of glass fill. It's quite safe.

Yucca Mountain has NOT been approved and if you read the DOE's 8,600-page permit application, you'll see that it's not even viable. Part of the plan calls for the installation of 11,000 titanium drip shields that weigh over 5 tons each. Yeah. So almost $10 billion has been spent in research on this project when people knew in the beginning that this was not a proper location for the repository.

I'm all for the advancement of nuclear power - I think this is a real solution for the future. Unfortunately areas that have been TRULY deemed as real possibilities for the storage of waste tend to be in "pretty" areas that certain groups are trying to protect.

[Gromgor]

It's cool. We're all going to be toast on the Winter solstice of 2012 anyway. I'm not much concerned about a little nuclear waste, or giant fans blocking the view.

Want I want to know is why the Green Party is even being given this much attention in the first place.

Damned hippies.

[Snrrub]

Both US presidential candidates have promised to abandon the Yucca Mountain storage project.

But so that there's no confusion - every country that has nuclear waste will eventually bury it underground or in a mountain. It's not a matter of 'if', just a matter of 'when'.

[kestra]

But so that there's no confusion - every country that has nuclear waste will eventually bury it underground or in a mountain. It's not a matter of 'if', just a matter of 'when'.

I tend to agree with this statement. I think nuclear power, in a fucked up way will save the planet's energy needs.

[Snrrub]

Originally posted by kestra
I tend to agree with this statement. I think nuclear power, in a fucked up way will save the planet's energy needs.

What is fucked up about it? If one considers all costs associated with nuclear energy, from construction to plant maintenance to decommissioning and cleanup, nuclear is the cheapest way to produce electricity (except for coal). Add to that nuclear's excellent safety record, and we have an all-around winner.

[kestra]

Even though the human race will die out long before the waste ever decomposes, I just hate the idea of having to take these extraordinary means of disposing of the waste.
Shit happens, and the fear of the waste leaking or falling into the wrong hands is a real concern.

[Rosuav]

Originally posted by Snrrub
What is fucked up about it? If one considers all costs associated with nuclear energy, from construction to plant maintenance to decommissioning and cleanup, nuclear is the cheapest way to produce electricity (except for coal). Add to that nuclear's excellent safety record, and we have an all-around winner.

Coal has hidden costs associated with it, too, so it mightn't be so cheap after all. I presume by "nuclear" you mean mean fission, so I'll add that fusion, though not here yet, may well be not that far off - in terms of power usage and plant construction, any time in the next 50 years would be "soon". (Marah, no I'm NOT talking about THAT sense of the word "soon"!)