Foxfyre wrote:miniTAX wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:
I am a strong supporter of nuclear as well as other renewable technologies; were I provided with other options for my power generation, I would take them. In fact, though I cannot control the power usage at my place of business, I voluntarily pay a higher rate for my home power usage in order to subsidize the local wind generation facilities.
Appealing to Extremes is a poor form of argumentation.
Cycloptichorn
Saying that burning fossil fuels cause pollution IS a poor form of argumentation. Because demonizing something while not mentionning its benefits is biased reasonning.
Everybody loves to have an energy without pollution. But like free lunch, there is no such thing.
And if it ever existed, the pollution-free integrists would shoot themselves in the foot since an energy without pollution would encourage to waste MORE of it, mostly among the richest who can afford to "voluntarily pay a higher rate" who happens to be also the most wasteful ones (check out the numbers, the richer you are, how "green" you are, the more you consume energy , that's an inconvenient fact).
Eh he, take pause and ponder, something must be wrong in the logic house of cards.
This is so true. And even if the final product produces 'clean' energy, there is no way to get from the idea to that 'clean' energy without some polluting processes in between and also in the delivery system. Also, it seems logical that energy source "A" that is more polluting but highly efficient may be in the long term be more enviromentally economical than energy source "B" that is less polluting but also less efficient.
I would like you to point out which energy source "A" actually exists; certainly you are not maintaining that burning of fossil fuels is
highly efficient? For it is not. The internal combustion engine is highly inefficient and only a small fraction of the power inherent within actually makes it to the wheels. Large amounts of pollution are in fact indicative of
low efficiencies, not the opposite. The only thing that combustibles have going for them is portability. Better battery technology is going to take care of that soon enough.
If producing energy is 'clean' enough, and there is a large enough source available - say, a sun which never goes out, or tides which never stop moving, or wind which never stops blowing, or radioactive decay which never stops decaying, or geothermal which never stops providing heat - then
it doesn't matter if people use more and more of it. In fact, it's encouraged. The amount of energy available to a society is a limiting factor in both their technological and social development. The more, the better. Also, with many renewable technologies such as solar and wind, the localized nature of power generation leads to MUCH less loss of efficiency due to transmission.
We will never be able to cut out all pollution; and nobody is claiming that we will, or that we should even try. But we can reduce it greatly from our current wasteful ways.
Quote:Eh he, take pause and ponder, something must be wrong in the logic house of cards.
I don't think you could logic your way out of a paper bag. Your posts certainly don't display a deep understanding of the logic behind power generation and the measurements of efficiency and pollution associated with them.
Cycloptichorn
