>> ^robv:

aka 30 seconds of some guy being nervous on a beach


No one forced you to click play

I generally avoid these shoddy videos. Dramatic music, incredulity, ignorance, and bias runs rampant, unchecked by reason or fact. What can we expect from spinsters who would manipulate people leaning to the right wing in the American paradigm so that large interests can continue to rake in massive profits at the expense of the very people they claim to be looking out for? As far as I am concerned, these events will play themselves out regardless of any action or inaction that people take. There is more than enough evidence and lies out there on both sides to continue the phony culture war, or have legitimate discussions. When the body count starts rising we will see the truth of these matters. There is a third actor in this debate that everyone misses, and that is mother earth, and she will have the final say, and slay libertarians and eco-scientists alike regardless of the time line / influencing factors. I advise you to spend your time being happy, and fully utilizing the amenities / technologies that currently exist, because nothing good lasts forever.

Where do I stand? I believe that man could have something to do with climate change, but if he isn't, we still deserve the technology, industry, and legislation that comes along with potentially fighting the proposed primitive technology future advocated here. Clean, emission free vehicle, to me, stands for "I don't have to pay for fucking gasoline". Solar and wind power, mean to me, "I don't have to pay as much for my electricity and heating bill." Every shitty video, like this one, arguing against modernizing our technology to be more efficient, is a voice calling out to the other Luddites of the world, bitching for an end to innovation and advancement for our species. You are a cancer. You are a tumor. You are literally scum. You type to me on your computer, but by your logic, walking me a stone tablet you chiseled yourself would be preferable, because microchips are a government conspiracy.

To be fair, nuclear's supports are at -least- an order of magnitude higher than those given to the "green" energies. Ever notice that no insurance company would insure a reactor, unless their liability was capped? The Feds capped the insurance company's liability at $500M back in the '70s...I wonder if that's ever been updated for today's markets. The core problem with nuclear power is that the cost in both dollars and lives of mistakes/catastrophes/disasters, no matter -what- causes them, is incredibly high. And since humans both design and run them, and they exist in the real world, such disasters -will- happen eventually. When they do, hundreds of billions will be spent cleaning up, and tens or hundreds of thousands will suffer and/or die...most of whom will be never be attributed to the accident (the cause of cancer is hard to pinpoint, but aggregate totals make the story clear).

Even assuming that we manage a level of superiority in engineering that we've never managed before, the rest of the universe is still out there. Do you really think any nuke we build will be unbreached in a massive earthquake? No Joe Stack will ever fly a plane into one? No Homer Simpson will ever be employed in one?

The cost is simply too high for the risks.

>> ^RedSky:
Double standards galore.
You can't talk about nuclear energy incurring taxpayer liabilities, giving preferential treatment and distorting capital markets without conceding the fact that when you're funding other green energy jobs like wind power, geothermal and tide you're doing the exact same thing.

Double standards galore.

You can't talk about nuclear energy incurring taxpayer liabilities, giving preferential treatment and distorting capital markets without conceding the fact that when you're funding other green energy jobs like wind power, geothermal and tide you're doing the exact same thing.

If what's needed are tighter emission standards among other regulations, then say that, rather than blanketly dismissing it as a possible alternative.

Part of the reason that nuclear energy has had patchy financing in the past is that governmental positions have constantly changed at the whims of those in power. The threat of tighter regulations and a general lack of consistency has created uncertainty.

To me, this stance on energy, and the left's positions on free trade stand out as the two most hypocritical positions of the left.

That was not really a debate, there was only 1 side given in the report.

Also he says that nuclear power is a failed technology from the 20th century, he's wrong in that nuclear energy has huge untapped potential (as long as it's done right), the fact it's from the 20th century means nothing, should we give up food cause that was like, you know, so last century.

Having said that, leaking tritium sounds incredibly bad, substances with a half life of over 12 years shouldn't really be leaking into water supplies.

As far as putting money into this tech and not solar etc, did Obama not sign the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act a while ago which gives $90'ish billion to those kind of techs? Or did solar/wind power tech's get completely overlooked even with that huge investment, maybe someone has more information on that.

Lastly, the liquid flouride thorium reactor talked about at the google tech talk looked promising, i wonder if this kind of tech was even considered
http://www.videosift.com/video/Liquid-Fluoride-Thorium-Reactor-Google-Tech-Talk-Remix

Yeah, but a wind powered human.

The Other countries will want the moon fuel and then we have a need for space weaponry... One things leads to another. If we take too much mass from the moon we fuck up our entire ecosystem and climate since it is so heavily dependent on the pull of the moon's gravity... Probably easier to focus on solar and wind power...
-karl

>> ^blankfist:
And do we really need more superhighways? Where are you pro-green anti-global warming rabble rousers?!

Calling for your house to be knocked down and turned into a solar power plant, wind power farm, high-speed rail stop, or perhaps just a big public compost heap, with A$$ GR@V33!

"That's somewhat faster than any naval fleets can travel. The only vessels that can go 45+ knots are small hydroplaning vessels. The titanic went a measly 23 knots."

...only true for wind-powered craft. Go-fast/cigarette boats go much faster, up to 80kts, for example.

I think Moore is right in that GM needs to start making something other than gasoline-powered cars.

Bullet trains, and solar- and wind-powered devices come to mind.

ahoy! I replied to this note, and attempted to maintain civility. cheers!

In reply to this comment by BansheeX:
Forget about stupidity on both sides, you people always pick a punching bag who can't defend their position to make your own dumb viewpoint seem like the right one.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/co2_fairytales_in_global_warmi.html

CO2 is a fundamental building block of life, and current levels are NOWHERE NEAR where they have been in the past. Moreover, the correlation of CO2 and Earth temperature is deeply flawed. It's far more likely that temperatures rise and fall in the short term as a result of solar cycles or some other phenomena, and that increased CO2 levels are a corresponding RESULT of temperature change rather than the cause. That's what gives the idiots that nice correlating graph where they can claim the opposite. A more detailed look at ice core graphs show us that temperature changes occur BEFORE changes in CO2 levels. The global warming crowd has it completely reversed that CO2 is driving temperature.

Moreover, the last century's warming trend has been a mere .8 celsius, well within natural expectations given the last 1000 years. I suppose the vikings were also somehow responsible for the even larger climactic swing in temperature known as the Little Ice Age from 1000 to 1200 AD? From 1940 to 1970, there was a cooling trend which led to a global cooling scare. We were all supposed to be frozen in ice by now.

The idea that mankind is capable of affecting earth's temperature is just laughable. If it was even possible to have globally banned coal and oil the last 200 years, the only thing you'd have accomplished is a complete eradication of 200 years of human progress towards cleaner, more efficient technologies like nuclear (which you luddites have also blocked while countries like China and France kick our freaking asses).

http://www.dailytech.com/Chinas+Nuclear+Power+Efforts+Surge+Ahead/article14911.htm

So what exactly are we supposed to do? We can't do nuclear because you boneheads don't want to recycle or store the voluminously small captured waste, you'd rather burn your fuel and disperse it into the atmosphere than put something in a single mountain for a thousand years until we jettison it into the sun. You herald wind power, which takes massive amounts of steel, land, and maintenance for relatively little power output. You'd have to cover an area the size of Montana with windmills just to meet TODAY'S domestic power demands. That's how bloody inefficient it is relative to nuclear, and unless you magically discover a magical material like steel that is way cheaper and 1% as heavy, it's going to hit a wall pretty soon. Wind is fine for the wind belt and rural areas in Iowa, solar is fine for the desert in Arizona. But to say that wind and solar can themselves provide even a majority of our national need for cheap power is pure insanity. It's pure insanity, and anyone who's looked at the numbers knows it.

Forget about stupidity on both sides, you people always pick a punching bag who can't defend their position to make your own dumb viewpoint seem like the right one.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/co2_fairytales_in_global_warmi.html

CO2 is a fundamental building block of life, and current levels are NOWHERE NEAR where they have been in the past. Moreover, the correlation of CO2 and Earth temperature is deeply flawed. It's far more likely that temperatures rise and fall in the short term as a result of solar cycles or some other phenomena, and that increased CO2 levels are a corresponding RESULT of temperature change rather than the cause. That's what gives the idiots that nice correlating graph where they can claim the opposite. A more detailed look at ice core graphs show us that temperature changes occur BEFORE changes in CO2 levels. The global warming crowd has it completely reversed that CO2 is driving temperature.

Moreover, the last century's warming trend has been a mere .8 celsius, well within natural expectations given the last 1000 years. I suppose the vikings were also somehow responsible for the even larger climactic swing in temperature known as the Little Ice Age from 1000 to 1200 AD? From 1940 to 1970, there was a cooling trend which led to a global cooling scare. We were all supposed to be frozen in ice by now.

The idea that mankind is capable of affecting earth's temperature is just laughable. If it was even possible to have globally banned coal and oil the last 200 years, the only thing you'd have accomplished is a complete eradication of 200 years of human progress towards cleaner, more efficient technologies like nuclear (which you luddites have also blocked while countries like China and France kick our freaking asses).

http://www.dailytech.com/Chinas+Nuclear+Power+Efforts+Surge+Ahead/article14911.htm

So what exactly are we supposed to do? We can't do nuclear because you boneheads don't want to recycle or store the voluminously small captured waste, you'd rather burn your fuel and disperse it into the atmosphere than put something in a single mountain for a thousand years until we jettison it into the sun. You herald wind power, which takes massive amounts of steel, land, and maintenance for relatively little power output. You'd have to cover an area the size of Montana with windmills just to meet TODAY'S domestic power demands. That's how bloody inefficient it is relative to nuclear, and unless you magically discover a magical material like steel that is way cheaper and 1% as heavy, it's going to hit a wall pretty soon. Wind is fine for the wind belt and rural areas in Iowa, solar is fine for the desert in Arizona. But to say that wind and solar can themselves provide even a majority of our national need for cheap power is pure insanity. It's pure insanity, and anyone who's looked at the numbers knows it.

>> ^jwray:
Actually, you probably need to change the circuitry that converted the electricity from 120V AC to whatever form is used in the motor. Rectifiers don't work in reverse, but transformers do.

As mentioned in the video, the presence of an AC motor in the wind turbine will generate AC current, just as your electrical sockets provide. There would have to be some gadgetry to match the phase of the wall power, and to not draw current from it. I'm also curious how it would affect your energy meter, whether it would show up as a reduction in energy usage.

>> ^buzz:
Ummm..... Is it me? It obviously uses electricity from the wall so if I understand it correctly, you need electricity to then "create" electricity.
Have I missed the gag here???


.................

>> ^spawnflagger:
the robot has the same eyeballs as the money you could be saving with geico.
also, there is an artist that makes these walkers of all shapes and sizes, usually puts them on the beach, and they are wind powered. I'll try to find a link later...


Theo Jansen's 'Strandbeest'