Take the test

[kujito]

What is always failed to be mentioned is that all our energy sources CAN be detrimental to the environment. If you really want to get into it, the truth is that PEOPLE are detrimental to the environment. There's many times more land used up every day for housing and factories than 100 new powerplants or nuclear waste disposal areas would use.

Right, but we can't just go and wipe out all of humanity to protect the environment. I was trying to speak at a slightly more pragmatic level.
We need to quit putting so many eggs in one basket, so to speak, when it comes to new energy technologies.

 

[RichP]

Right, but we can't just go and wipe out all of humanity to protect the environment. I was trying to speak at a slightly more pragmatic level.
We need to quit putting so many eggs in one basket, so to speak, when it comes to new energy technologies.

The problem with new energy technologies are who the development money is aimed at. As an example, if you came up with plan for a small cold fusion generator that a home owner could buy and use and GE came up with the same thing only the size of a stadium guess who would get the funds and it would not be you, you would just be selling a one time product with no long term returns vs GE who would be billing for power and would have stock holders.
Actually if you did come up with something like that your life would not be worth a plugged nickel, you would be threat of global proportions to corporations and governments with that kind of generator.

 

[kujito]

OK, but nobody(that hasn't been silenced :shocked has such a device.
Drilling offshore alone will not change much. Neither will ethanol by itself. Nor nuclear, solar, whatever. To me it seems that the discussions seem to end up looking @ the option on the table as a stand alone solution, not a component in a system. How many things could you fix on your jeep with only one tool?

 

[JNickel101]

Right, but we can't just go and wipe out all of humanity to protect the environment. I was trying to speak at a slightly more pragmatic level.
We need to quit putting so many eggs in one basket, so to speak, when it comes to new energy technologies.

Are you sure? I've got 2 or 3 states in mind that I wouldn't mind wiping out the entire population of....and 4 or 5 countries as well. One rhymes with "China" - eliminating that whole country would probably let us all go outside and burn a big pile of tires, with no worry of damaging the environment

 

[Sherman_thetank]

Man disagreed with him 74% of the time....i must have not read 1/4 of the questions right!

 

[Ray H]

Right, but we can't just go and wipe out all of humanity to protect the environment. I was trying to speak at a slightly more pragmatic level.
We need to quit putting so many eggs in one basket, so to speak, when it comes to new energy technologies.

We wont do it on purpose but its entirely possible by accident. Either way, the planet would be a better place without us.
People have tasted hot food cooked in seconds, they have felt cushy car seats under their asses. We wont be going back to pre-industrial any time soon. We can come up with energy technology out the wazoo and all it will do is postpone the inevitable. We will eventually make this planet uninhabitable for us.
All the people working on enivronmentally safe energy are just like doctors, no matter how hard they try, all their patients are still going to die.

 

[Russ Pottenger]

Disagree with Obama 98%

 

[mavinwy]

disagreed 92% of the time.

Probably about right, I can usually find something, somewhere with a person. But it appears that he is not someone I would want to have a long political discussion with <grin>

Jim