Mother Earth's Day

[Myst42]

What can we do to help our planet?

 

I try to be as careful as I can on trying to prefer natural products, walking instead of using a car, not smoking, not throwing trash anywhere but in the trash can, being respectful and considerate with nature, protecting parks, being a major and very annoying pain in the ass for people I catch contaminating natural places, liking outdoor activities as trekking and hiking and camping...

 

But im no oil company, im not one of those sick fucking bastards that go around killing endangered species such as whales or dolphins

Im no corporation that prefers money over finding a new way of free  renewable non-contaminating energy.

 

And I dont belong or actively participate in Greenpeace activities though I fully intellectually support them

 

What can simple people do?

 

People not working in Greenpeace, doctors, lawyers, office workers, neighbors, market sellers...What can they do? What are you doing and what do you think we should do?

 

Gaia Theory

 

 

Other than proposing a little meditation on this matter and hopefully find some solutions,

Happy Earth's Day to everyone! 

Well... at least for those who care about our Mother...

 

We are not black or white or Europeans, or Americans or Japanese, or Latins or Mid Easterners... we are Citizens of Planet Earth and we can live without oil, without electricity and without gas, but not without air and water.

[formel]

Yeah one can do in this matter feels quite meaning less in  the grand shme of things.

 

What I can think of additional to the things you mentioned is using poplic transportation, reduce the use of oneway products, avoid products with a lot of packaging materials, buy cars with low petrol consumption, buy regenerative energy, buy products that come from your region escpically food, reduce traveling by plane and use the heating during the winter with coution (here is the highst CO₂ production on the privat sector)

 

And one for masochists reduce your consume of milk products and beef (cows produce methane, which is a far more stronger greenhouse gas than CO₂ )

 

At least you can do those things when you have the mens for it, living climate-conscious can also become a luxury good nowadays.

[Something]

We can live without oil or electricity? Well then why don't you start living by example? That computer you're using is probably going to raise the Earth's temperature a few hundred thousand degrees centigrade.

[ChancellorKremlin]

I loved the Google doodle they put out today, it was really cool.

 

Generally, I'm not a believer of bottom-up change when it comes to things like renewable energy and climate change. Governments and corporations are the only ones with the real "capital" to change things on a large enough scale to make a difference - yeah, you can say if everybody cycled to work, and recycled, and had a solar pnnel and bought a Prius .. but everybody doesn't, and that's the problem. 

 

I'm all in favour of nuclear energy. Yes, I hear you. Chernobyl, Fukushima. Two accidents in over 50 years of continuous operation of various nuclear power plants around the world, one caused by a case of neglect and disrepair, the other by an extraordinary set of circumstances caused by a tsunami. Don't build one next to a coast prone to Tsunamis, and take good care of them like the rest of the world has managed in the past five decades.

 

 

[formel]

The problem with nuclear energy is the wast. It radiants over hundered of years and is therefore a danger for every form of live. And untill now no country was able to find a solution on how to handle this waste. Anyway it will cost a lot of money that is for sure.

I think it is also irresponsible towards the generations that follow us to let something like this behind. And we can't foresee if our civilsations in a few hundered years are still capable to handle it, it is even not sure if they remember were it was burrowed.

 

The power production with a nuclear powerplant it self is indeed carbon neutral but the uranium mining is a realy dirty buisness for both the enviroment and the people who work in it. Also the enrichment procedure consumes alot of energy So untill the uranium ends as nuclear full element in the power plant alot of CO₂ and other enviromental damage is caused.

 

Putting all together nuclear energy is not very ecological and economic. If alot of the money nuclear energy was subsidised with over the last decades were spend on the development of regenerative power sources I think at least 50% from our energy demand could be covered from them today.

[Myst42]

We can live without oil or electricity? Well then why don't you start living by example? That computer you're using is probably going to raise the Earth's temperature a few hundred thousand degrees centigrade.

 

Here we go again...

 

You men of little faith...

 

Thats why Im trying to think in alternate solutions

This lifestyle based on electricity and oil...

Is society and civilization the things that subsist on it, NOT people

The human body machine requires only oxygen, water and food, NOTHING more

 

If you think people cant live without oil or electricity, you would probably go insane when facing the fact that for more than 5000 years people lived without it.... its just not possible that these people existed at all according to your reasoning

 

Just because society depends on electricity doesnt mean we have to, for all I care society can go to hell

If I dont live in another way is because currently i dont know of a better way to live a city life. I could still go to exile and live as a hermit, but one person would not make the required difference, no, I need to stay in society and try to make a difference from within

 

Now being reasonable, yes I use electricity, but if there was a better method I would not. For now it is impossible to live a city life without it, but it is not impossible to live without it. And the only hope is that this mentality reaches someone in the right place to create an alternate way.

It has been said that there are already existing methods of getting energy without destroying the planet, but the large companies prefer to keep making money and it has been said that there are even conspiracies to hide this facts... greedy fucking bastards... the world can end but they will have their money... stupids as fuck too. What good is all the money in the world it theres no world to spend it in?

 

I always try to use it the least I can. For example:

Formel mentioned using heating in winter.

I dont even use heating, I suck it up to the cold, moving raises your body temperature and good isolating clothing and lots of blankets help too

Or do you think the vikings or other ancient cultures used heating for enduring winter? heating is for pussies  (no offense)

[demonse]

I loved the Google doodle they put out today, it was really cool.

 

Generally, I'm not a believer of bottom-up change when it comes to things like renewable energy and climate change. Governments and corporations are the only ones with the real "capital" to change things on a large enough scale to make a difference - yeah, you can say if everybody cycled to work, and recycled, and had a solar pnnel and bought a Prius .. but everybody doesn't, and that's the problem. 

 

I'm all in favour of nuclear energy. Yes, I hear you. Chernobyl, Fukushima. Two accidents in over 50 years of continuous operation of various nuclear power plants around the world, one caused by a case of neglect and disrepair, the other by an extraordinary set of circumstances caused by a tsunami. Don't build one next to a coast prone to Tsunamis, and take good care of them like the rest of the world has managed in the past five decades.

 

May I also add using old outdated reactor designs. 

[Myst42]

Yeah we have more power then mother nature the sun and meteors combined don't we.

Of course we dont

Stupid humans have thought that for centuries "man is the master of nature" "the superior species" "the one adn only jewel in the whole universe, the only species capable of thought" and all that kind of shit

 

If one thing is true is that Nature ALWAYS FINDS HER BALANCE, and this is a mathematical certainty

Humans are doing no favor to her with the way they conduct their existence

It is now a matter of survival. The damage humans have done to this ecosystem, to this large entity known as Gaia by the old ones, its going to eventually find a counter reaction, a way to balance the equation, or do you think the climatic instability, the earthquakes and the whole set of changes the Earth is going through are a mere coincidence?

 

Man cannot control Nature, Nature is wild and free, but if we hurt her, she WILL retaliate, not out of evil, or revenge, but out of simple mathematical balance, and against such a force, there is absolutely nothing a silly, proud, thinking species could do to defend themselves.

 

Gaia has been kind to us, but her patience is running low, and man cannot destroy it, but it can destroy its own ecosystem, is in a certain way, a suicide. A suicide that after it happens, the Earth will still be there and find her balance again long after we are gone

[Kamen Rider Kuuga]

As it stands, humanity can fuck the Earth up pretty badly, but unless we actively dump every nuke we have, we're NOT going to render the Earth uninhabitable. We can cause a lot of pollution, we can cause the sea level to rise pretty high, we can force a lot of species to go extinct... but we're not gonna kill the planet; if we go out, the Earth will march on and recover in the blink of a geological eye.

 

That's not to say we should do whatever we want; we should obviously do what we go best, which is adapt and make better tools. We have better access to technology than every in the history of our species; we should be able to find an energy source that wasn't once plants and animals we dug out of the ground.

 

But no matter how fucked up society gets, I'll not abandon it. Our civilization has brought so many advances and has revealed far too much about the universe to up and get rid of. I refuse to be dragged back to an era when we though disease could be cured by bleeding and doctors didn't wash their hands, then wondered why their patients died.

[gregathit]

There is nothing wrong with research into alternative fuels and methods of energy.  It is only being prudent to spend "some" money on trying to find those alternates\methods.  HOWEVER, it is silly to NOT use what you have on the table. 

 

Kansas, I have driven through this state on numerous occasions.  It is about as flat a state as you are ever going to find (and boring as shit too).  One thing it does have is wind.  A shit load of it.  So logically folks have built wind farms.....A LOT OF THEM!!!

 

Nothing at all wrong with this, but just for reference, all of the wind farms together in Kansas put out less than what some nuclear reactors do.

Kansas has 2,000+ turbines and investors from the world over own bits and pieces. 

 

Reference Data:

Wolf Creek Nuclear Power station: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_Creek_Generating_Station

Kansas Windmill farms:  http://www.kansasenergy.org/wind_projects.htm

Nationwide wind electricity output: http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/update/?scr=email

 

Bottom line, use what you have and try find something better.  Also it is worth noting that oil\gas should be the FIRST targeted for replacement as they produce far more waste and destruction than Nuclear ever will (properly maintained of course).

[Something]

Perhaps, you know, instead of having renewable energy sources imposed on us by people who have no right to make such decisions, before the technology has been perfected (or at least advanced to the point where more energy is generated than is consumed in building and maintaining the infrastructure) we can wait until said technology HAS been perfected. As it stands right now, Solar Power hasn't quite figured out how the whole "nighttime" thing works, and Wind requires MASSIVE swathes of land to generate even a fraction of what a single Nuclear plant, hell, even a single Coal plant can produce with 1/100th the space. God Forbid someone gets decapitated by the

 

Bottom line: Wind and Solar aren't economical yet. I'm fine with investing (PRIVATE investing! I don't want a DIME of my tax dollars to unconstitutionally pay for corporatist green-energy scams like Solyndra  ) in renewable energy but we must recognize that it's a supplemental power source. Would Wind and Solar replace Coal and Oil the same way those replaced Wood? Possibly, yes. But it's just not feasable to meet a first-world economy's energy demand on primarily those sources in this day and age. In ten years, who knows?

 

And elalquimista, what you're proposing is downright destructive if not completely evil. And I do mean evil. The amount of human misery and destruction that would result from your idea of scrapping electricity completely seeing fruition is incalculable, I sincerely hope you realize that.

[kingkong]

i know the solution to help earth

 

the solution is to continue to live as we are living!!!    polution, toxic discharge, nuclear staff etc...

our grand children will have to adapt or die (nature low) .

Earth will recover from what we are doing no mater what we do!!!

it will take may be a million years to a complete recovery to be beautifull again.

 

what ?      i didn't say i have a solution for humanity !!!

[DoctaSax]

Perhaps, you know, instead of having renewable energy sources imposed on us by people who have no right to make such decisions, before the technology has been perfected (or at least advanced to the point where more energy is generated than is consumed in building and maintaining the infrastructure) we can wait until said technology HAS been perfected.

 

 

The reverse of the medal there is that as long as we invest in less ecofriendly solutions there's no incentive to start perfecting the ones that are because nobody assumes we're ever gonna have to rely on them. This sort of thing needs a nudge every now and then, which is an area where government can and has a right to occasionally try and do something useful.

[Something]

The reverse of the medal there is that as long as we invest in less ecofriendly solutions there's no incentive to start perfecting the ones that are because nobody assumes we're ever gonna have to rely on them. This sort of thing needs a nudge every now and then, which is an area where government can and has a right to occasionally try and do something useful.

I don't see anywhere in the Constitution this is authorized.

 

Regardless there's something I gotta ask: "As long as we invest in less eco-friendly solutions there's no incentive..."

 

erhm...who's "we?"

[Myst42]

 

And elalquimista, what you're proposing is downright destructive if not completely evil. And I do mean evil. The amount of human misery and destruction that would result from your idea of scrapping electricity completely seeing fruition is incalculable, I sincerely hope you realize that.

Seems like youre imagining things and twisting my words into what you think im saying and fitting your convenience

 

Youre hearing what you want to hear and not listening at all

That happens when people take radical position opposing something

 

I never said "scrap electricity"

Good lord, the ideas people can get out of twisting words are sometimes unbelievable...

 

I said

 

We are not black or white or Europeans, or Americans or Japanese, or Latins or Mid Easterners... we are Citizens of Planet Earth and we can live without oil, without electricity and without gas, but not without air and water.

 

FACT: the human body functions at a cellular level on metabolizing complex molecules into lesser ones and using the released energy of said rupture to function. Whether if its carbohydrates, lipids, or protein, energy gets stored in cells in form of ATP. All molecules and proteins, and enzymes and vitamins needed for these processes come from FOOD

FACT: for metabolic cellular respiration, cells need oxygen which is obtained in human respiration using the lungs, which inspire AIR

FACT: every cell and almost every process in human body is formed by WATER

 

FACT: Humans lived for thousands of years WITHOUT oil wells and gas canisters, sure it was another time, another society, but people DONT DIE if electricity gets cut down, social order may crumble and a lot of chaos could happen but thats because some people panic, some people are stupid and some are just evil. But that is related to society's problems NOT to the lack of electricity.

Society DEPENDING on electricity is another thing

But humans are NOT their society, humans are LIVING CREATURES that by some strange conjunction of events DEVELOPED a society and now think themselves dependent on it.

 

Conclusion: People CAN LIVE without oil or water, and should make efforts on finding a way to stabilize society that DOESNT DEPEND on electricity, because given all the natural catastrophes is too weak a pillar to sustain the whole building.

 

If the world ended tomorrow and electricity was no more, sure it would be a lot of chaos and a terrible world, but do you think the survivors would die just because they dont have a TV?

 

I NEVER said "scrap electricity"

I said we need a better way, and in the meantime we must do all we can to maintain balance

 

Ancient civilizations lived without it and their world didnt crumble, ours would if that comes to happen. We should remember the old ways and thus be prepared in case something like it happens, again given the rate of catastrophes that could leave civilization without it in any second

[DoctaSax]

 

I don't see anywhere in the Constitution this is authorized.

 

Regardless there's something I gotta ask: "As long as we invest in less eco-friendly solutions there's no incentive..."

 

erhm...who's "we?"

The US constitution again? Just that one? And only the most restrictive reading of it? C'mon, you can do better.

 

We = humanity.

[gregathit]

There is no need for the government to collect from us to give money to others for research.  That type of thing is just plain silly as only pennies per dollar actually get to where they are supposed to be going (the US Gov has VERY sticky fingers).  Granting tax credits\breaks is more than enough incentive for companies to do their own research.  After all, when they do hit on something that is profitable.....do they give back those research dollars plus interest????  Of course not.

 

As to wind energy, while it is only practical in certain areas that meet the criteria (constant winds of a high enough pressure and low population density), those area's do exist and it only makes good sense to use them.  The area's that the Kansas wind farms are on isn't being used for jack shit and does in fact have massive private backing so it is a win-win for everyone.

 

With foresight and the proper incentives hydro damns, wind farms and other eco friendly solutions can help meet some of the burden until we can phase out those systems which are the least eco friendly.  

 

One thing that would go a very long way towards removing the need for fossil fuels is a safe and practical way to store large amounts of energy.  This would help things across the board.

[Something]

 

<snip'd for space>

 

You didn't need to say it. Everybody on Earth and the International Space Station knows that the human body can function without oil or electricity. But you wouldn't be making such a strong case for it if it wasn't your conclusion. One needs to only review your prior posts to notice a pattern. At one point you talked about Gaia trying to wipe us out because of the damage we're supposedly doing to it. Quite frankly you contradicted yourself when you talked about how not-a-superior-species we are yet you think our impact on the world is significant enough to demand the attention of the world seeking equilibrium.

 

Regardless, i'm not stupid. I know the difference between being cautionary and being dogmatic. I can tell from here you're the latter.

 

@DoctaSax

If you wanna have a top-down regime pick winners and losers, fine, i'm just pointing out that's not in my country. Besides, I recall Spain's attempt at picking winners and losers with green energy was a huge success 

 

Besides, "Humanity?" Again that's very vague. What if I don't want to invest money in green energy?

 

Here's what i'm getting at: Wood became profitable because entrepreneurs were willing risk their fortunes on whether or not this new technology would work. If it didn't they would be poorer. They were putting their money where their mouth is.

Oil and Coal became profitable because entrepreneurs were willing to risk their fortunes on whether or not this new technology would work. If it didn't they would be poorer. They were putting their money where their mouth is.

Solar and Wind should become profitable because entrepeneurs would be willing to risk their fortunes on whether or not this new technology would work. If it didn't they'd be poorer. They would be willing to put their money where their mouth is.

 

The entrepreneurs have every incentive to make sure that their investment, which is inherently a risk, turns out a profit, because otherwise they're down a large sum of money. When government makes these investments, it's risking other people's fortune on whether or not this new technology would work. If it didn't work it wouldn't affect their finances in the slightest. The government is only willing to put someone else's money where their mouth is. As the government's income is guaranteed since it has the power of coercion, the incentives to see these investments turn a profit is nearly gone. The worst part is that when they play with other people's money, that money gets taken out of the marketplace, where it could have been used in a setting where the players have incentives to create the most wealth and productivity with that money.

[Myst42]

@Something: Still think you didnt get a word of what im saying and are inventing contradictions and twisting words, congratulations you know how to twist things

About that supposed "contradiction" I think everything requires balance and even the works of a non-superior species can cause a reaction

The human body can get a cold and it can be a common cold, probabilities of dying from it are too small, yet the immune system still responds and wipes out the bacteria

Some other bacteria live in cooperation with the system are are not attacked by it though such as digestive bacteria.

 

Here you are, twisting words and accusing me of evil and dogmatic when i merely pointed out a historical fact and mentioned about how we should not threat ancients like dumbass ignorants but try to learn a thing or two from them who lived in harmony with Nature

 

Honestly I think youre just trolling

Therefore it is my last reply to you

Im concerned about environmental care and social conscience, you just want to invent ways to attack people and im not doing this.

 

Any other person wants to contribute positively? 

[RitualClarity]

http://www.tva.com/power/xmission.htm

An example of clean effect use of power. There are some nuclear plants but those supplement the renewable power plants (dams) in fact they even "pump back"the water on low power consumption times to gain power back later when needed. There are many dams and pumps that work to provide power for 9 million customers some are high power customers. It has a very reliable 99.999 reliability rate.

 

http://www.triplepundit.com/2012/06/geothermal-energy-pros-cons/

An other example that can provide for many of our electrical needs. Society still need to product more efficient means of transportation and electronics etc. They would have to respect the power requirements and limitations and work to prevent those. It is another option. low emissions and those can be managed with equipment and that can even be improved with a little R & D.

 

We were more effective and environmentally forward thinking in the 19th century by need not convenience. Anyone that lives in a city and watched any city workers breaking up streets can see train or trolley tracks. Almost each and every Street had a trolley. First horse driven then electric. The advent of the auto and buses caused the closure of many of these trolleys. Now it with better electric creation electric trollies would be more "green" by by eliminating the emissions of Buses. Sure the source might not be as "green" but it usually is better than hundreds of cars and buses running.

 

Trains. Trains supplied most of all the goods through America. (not sure of other countries) Trains have always been a workhorse. they can move tons of product for ounces of gas or fuel. They are massively more "green" than the alternative trucking industry. Again many cities like mine have train tracks that have been blocked. In some cases even built over with homes or parks preventing transportation of goods except by trucking. congesting streets and highways and contributing to traffic congestion further adding to pollution.

 

1900's many locations had canals to help transport the product as well using barges. This is another very effect low energy transportation option. Now those canals are overgrown with growth and filled with silt. Their only contribution is flooding the neighboring communities because they can no longer hold the water they were designed to move when heavy rains come down or thaws during winter.

 

 

[DoctaSax]

@DoctaSax

If you wanna have a top-down regime pick winners and losers, fine, i'm just pointing out that's not in my country.

Under a regime you fear for the men that come take you in the night, never to be heard from again. There's nothing tyrannical, unconstitutional, wrong or even unusual about government stipulating an energy policy. Not even if you don't like what it is.

Besides, "Humanity?" Again that's very vague.

"Humanity" is not vague at all. It means people, as a collective. "We" invest in some energy sources more than others.

What if I don't want to invest money in green energy?

You get to invest your money, after taxes, in whatever you want that's not green energy.

[ChancellorKremlin]

You know, the attitude some people on this board have towards the government, taxes, progress and general human wellbeing is just astounding.

 

If at some point in your history, the "government" hadn't come and taken a small portion of your money, you wouldn't have things like NASA, man wouldn't have ever left this planet or touched the moon, among a myriad of other things, like public transport, an army, microwaves, the internet - all that brought to you by people on government payrolls, payed for by the taxes you begrudgingly pay.  People with that kind of mentality would still have us living in caves. I imagine a similar argument being made millions of years ago about fire. "Fire! What nonsense! Nowhere does the Shaman say this is authorized! There's nothing wrong with rubbing two rocks together and then using them for warmth! Bah, all the effort necessary to get this "fire" of yours going, getting all that wood and cinder, then having to get an extra pair of rocks, and then having to repeat the banging process again to make a spark... it's just not worth it!" ...

 

"What do you mean 'come together and form a nation?' Under who's authority? This nation of yours sounds highly tyrannical and a waste of my berries and the meat I've hunted! We're doing perfectly just fine as a tribe, what a silly idea, joining in with other tribes to form a larger entity capable of things bigger than either of us can achieve alone! You know, Agrog, you've never been quite the same ever since you touched that monolith..."

 

It's this single minded hatred of government and dissociation with other human beings and their welfare that gets you tribalism and makes you (I won't say us, because apparently some people don't like that word - fuck everyone else, right?) never advance or change. If you had to run everything you do as a person by that sacred constitution of yours you'd still be living in 18th century America. 

 

The sooner this kind of mentality dies off the sooner "We" not as neighbors or countrymen or liberals or conservatives, but as human beings, can come together and help usher "us" into a new era of civilization, where hopefully that kind of ignorance and paranoia will one day be looked down and laughed upon. We can't be too far off; people already laugh at it...

[FallenWarrior]

The problem with nuclear energy is the wast. It radiants over hundered of years and is therefore a danger for every form of live. And untill now no country was able to find a solution on how to handle this waste. Anyway it will cost a lot of money that is for sure.

I think it is also irresponsible towards the generations that follow us to let something like this behind. And we can't foresee if our civilsations in a few hundered years are still capable to handle it, it is even not sure if they remember were it was burrowed.

The Pebble bed reactor solves the problems with nuclear waste.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor

 

[formel]

 

The problem with nuclear energy is the wast. It radiants over hundered of years and is therefore a danger for every form of live. And untill now no country was able to find a solution on how to handle this waste. Anyway it will cost a lot of money that is for sure.

I think it is also irresponsible towards the generations that follow us to let something like this behind. And we can't foresee if our civilsations in a few hundered years are still capable to handle it, it is even not sure if they remember were it was burrowed.

The Pebble bed reactor solves the problems with nuclear waste.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor

 

 

 

How? In this reactor type the same nuclear reactions take place as in other types, therefore you have the same radiaktive products. Additional neutron capture happens in the graphite layer and longliving ¹⁴C is generated.

The waste it self may be a bit easier to handle but i has a greater volume so more space is needed to store it.

 

And Quote from the article you linked

 

Since the fuel is contained in graphite pebbles, the volume of radioactive waste is much greater, but contains about the same radioactivity when measured in becquerels per kilowatt-hour. The waste tends to be less hazardous and simpler to handle. Current US legislation requires all waste to be safely contained, therefore pebble bed reactors would increase existing storage problems. Defects in the production of pebbles may also cause problems. The radioactive waste must either be safely stored for many human generations, typically in a deep geological repository, reprocessed, transmuted in a different type of reactor, or disposed of by some other alternative method yet to be devised. The graphite pebbles are more difficult to reprocess due to their construction, which is not true of the fuel from other types of reactors. Proponents point out that this is a plus, as it is difficult to re-use pebble bed reactor waste for nuclear weapons.

[FallenWarrior]

True, but what the article doesn't mention is this part.

With regard to the management of spent nuclear fuel, the new technology also changes. Rolling stones many layers of carbon and super strong silicon carbide protects the nuclear waste to the ravages of time. The carbon in the rolling stones are composed of so-called
pyrolytic graphite that can not burn, and which dissolves in water after a million years. Because the radioactive material in the innermost shell is completely gone after 250,000 years and very little polluting after 10,000 years, enough carbon utmost to protect the environment from leakage. If a single ball is nonfunctional, there are still several protective layers, before entering into the uranium.

Another thing to take into consideration is that the balls are about the size of a tennis ball.