The colourful tailings ponds from the uranium processing plant.

[Fledermaus]

The colourful tailings ponds from the uranium processing plant. Looks pretty, but it's probably pretty toxic.....


http://www.stolspeed.com/coast-to-coast-by-rans-s7

[Sonoman]

1. The Directors and major stockholders should be require to live on the....

borders of those effluent ponds.

Fuckers....

Sonoman

[Kolesar]

2. Yeah, but Amory Lovins

...never mind...

[NNadir]

3. Actually, Amory Loviins works for, um, Suncor. I wonder whether the

selective attention anti-science crew would like to see a photograph of the tar sands fields strip mines from several miles of altitude, owned by the corporate stripmining business that pays Amory's salary, so he can live in Snowmass with the rest of his friends.



As usual, the vapid, uneducated, uncaring, uninformed, anti-nukes are attempting to isolate nuclear power from its alternatives.

A kg of uranium is the energy equivalent of 600,000 gallons of gasoline, not that there is one misinfomred car CULTist anti-nuke who can manage to do a simple calculation.

As for Suncor, runner of the oil sands filth scam, yes, of course Amory Lovins is on their payroll.

http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Amory+B.+Lovins">Famous Anti-nuke Amory Lovins describes his revenue sources:

Mr. Lovins’s other clients have included Accenture, Allstate, AMD, Anglo American, Anheuser-Busch, Bank of America, Baxter, Borg-Warner, BP, HP Bulmer, Carrier, Chevron, Ciba-Geigy, CLSA, ConocoPhillips, Corning, Dow, Equitable, GM, HP, Invensys, Lockheed Martin, Mitsubishi, Monsanto, Motorola, Norsk Hydro, Petrobras, Prudential, Rio Tinto, Royal Dutch/Shell, Shearson Lehman Amex, STMicroelectronics, Sun Oil, Suncor, Texas Instruments, UBS, Unilever, Westinghouse, Xerox, major developers, and over 100 energy utilities. His public-sector clients have included the OECD, the UN, and RFF; the Australian, Canadian, Dutch, German, and Italian governments; 13 states; Congress, and the U.S. Energy and Defense Departments.

Nuclear energy need not be perfect to be better than everything else. It merely needs to be better than everything else, which, happily it is.

It is very easy to show that in a rational world, the uranium and thorium already mined could easily meet world energy demand for centuries, although this would require the application of the nuclear science, the science that anti-nukes hate much as creationists hate molecular biology, out of complete and total ignorance.

Over 60 nuclear reactors are now under construction around the world. Happily, the world as a whole is consigning stupidity to places like Snowmass, Colorado.

The nuclear reactors that came on line last year easily outstrip all of the wind and solar facilities on earth combined.

Have a nice day.

[madokie]

5. And in working for these people he's keeping tons

and I mean tons of co2 our of our atmosphere. Thats what he does is help them to devise a plan going forward that uses less energy. You all knowing one.
What do you do that is the equivalent, ride your imaginary bicycle or the one in your garage that has no tires that were made for the road on it?
Yea pissed at Amory Lovins because he can make a ton of money and you can't give your wares away. :rofl::rofl::rofl:

In case you weren't aware and something tells me you aren't (why am I not surprised) your spiel about all things Lovins is wearing mighty thin there. :-)

[joshcryer]

14. Seriously?

While energy efficiency is a good goal Amory Lovins has not contributed to one iota of reduced CO2 release by any of the companies he works for.

[madokie]

18. And thats a lie and you know it

[joshcryer]

21. Nope. CO2 usage is up.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Fledermaus]

4. An otherwise scenic view is scarred by the remains of uranium mining.

Superfund 25th Anniversary Photos
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/25anniversary/photo/pages/11hale.htm

[GliderGuider]

6. There are more trees in your pic than in the oil sands one above.

In fact, many of the pics at your link look positively bucolic next to these visions of hell from the tar sands.

I wonder - do people normally drive cars to anti-nuclear protests?

[madokie]

8. In case anyone hasn't informed you

just because someone is against nuclear energy does not coal and oil lovins make
the pun is intended
:hi:

[GliderGuider]

9. True. I was just pointing out

that the damage being wreaked on the planet by the extraction of the tar sands is substantially more egregious than that done by uranium mining. We need a sense of perspective in these discussions, and this is mine.

[Fledermaus]

19. needs compass to see which way the wind shines

http://www.newenergyfocus.com/resources/listimg/news/Bioenergy/[e-mail]

[madokie]

7. Just think what the world will look like after all these supposedly new

reactors come on line in about 50 years. What you see today multiplied multiple times.
At that point co2 will be the least of our worries.

[GliderGuider]

10. And just think what the world will look like after we get finished burning all the oil, gas and coal

We've done an exemplary job of reducing the risk from nuclear weapons and civilian nuclear power, but not one iota of progress in in the last 60 years in reducing the risks posed by our constantly-increasing fossil fuel consumption. Perspective, perspective.

[madokie]

22. If we'd keep things in perspective and each of us do all we can to cut down on our energy usage

and quit throwing money down the big nuclear energy hole and put that money, time and effort towards alternates we could make a difference. I know personally we've cut our energy usage by about a fourth since I've become aware of what we're doing to this planet, oh and this was way back before it was cool too. Years ago we used to use gas to cook and heat with which releases a lot of co2 per meal to electric cooking with some of our electrical energy being produced by wind and a large percent of it is produced by hydro and we use no gas now. We used to use a dirty wood stove, which is a big polluter for supplemental heat, where we've long since went to a bio waste (wood pellets) as our only source of heat and this pellet stove is in the 80's percent efficient and uses a waste product in the process that otherwise would wind up in a land fill somewhere ultimately releasing its gas into the atmosphere and that gas is a lot worse polluter than co2 is too.

You see not all of us sit around writing about how nuclear is our savior instead we're working on cutting down our carbon footprint even when we don't have to. Hell to go to a wood pellet heating stove we had to invest several thousand dollars just to get started but we've since recoup our money many times over. The last time I put a pencil to it we're close to $5000 and climbing to the good even figuring in the money we've spent on the three pellet stoves we've purchased. The pellet stoves were pretty basic when first we embarked on this during the winter of '91 and as they've advanced in technology we've upgraded. We've passed our other two stoves down to our children so they can enjoy the less cost of heat and I'm not figuring that savings in my figures either. Due to our success with using wood pellets for heat several of our friends and family have made the switch to pellets from wood, gas or electric heat also. My advice to you and everyone else is get off your ass and do something rather than trying to convince us that we need to build more nuclear energy plants.

By the way when you're doing your research on these little ditties of how nuclear will save us do a little on just how much of a co2 cut nuclear really is from in the ground up and you'll see that nuclear isn't as clean as you want us to believe it is. I don't keep links to give you but I do a lot of reading and a lot of research and this is what I've found to be true. its been posted here with links by others just how dirty nuclear energy really is so again do something with your time and effort besides blowing smoke.

Peace and have a great day :hi: Love ya but I think you're dead wrong on this nuclear drum you keep beating.

[GliderGuider]

29. I've cut my carbon footprint by 75% in the last 5 years, thanks.

Mostly by downsizing my life and reducing the carbon-producing things I used to do. And I've done it even while writing my little ditties.

My pro-nuclear position is less than a year old. My awareness of CO2 and the dangers of fossil fuels goes back probably 20 years. When I found out about Peak Oil about five years ago I looked in earnest for alternatives, and initially I was very supportive of the renewables industry. Then I looked at the progress wind and solar were making compared to the increase in CO2, and I realized we were losing the race to extinction. That was when I decided we needed all the help we could get in decarbonizing civilization. And looking into nuclear power convinced me that it was actually safe enough and effective enough to play a role. We may not win the race even with it, but we will sure as hell lose without it.

[phantom power]

11. I have a couple things to say about this topic

(in case anybody was dying to know)

1) I'm in favor of requiring this kind of crud to be cleaned up, and internalizing the cost.

2) All metal mines -- copper, aluminum, iron, etc, produce toxic tailing ponds (the interested viewer can bring images of these up with Teh Google).

3) There are actually a lot more copper, aluminum, iron, etc, mines than there are uranium mines. One prominent reason for this is that uranium ore has an energy density 10,000 times the energy density of coal.

4) When we build a million wind turbines and the accompanying energy storage facilities, we can expect more of these from the required iron, copper, aluminum, etc.


There, I said it.

[GliderGuider]

13. Looking just at ore quantities

Compared to the total amount of uranium ore pulled out of the ground (~50 million tonnes per year for 50,000 tonnes of uranium), in one year the world mines:

4 times as much bauxite;
9 times as much gold ore;
30 times as much copper ore;
140 times as much coal;
3200 times as much iron ore.

The snit about uranium mining is strictly a question of inadequate cleanup (as with so many mining operations) amplified by politics and religion.

Mining is one of those activities that are essential to modern civilization, for better or for worse. All mining causes environmental devastation, in direct proportion to the volumes and processes involved. I'm a lot more worried about coal mining, tar sands mining, and iron mining than I am about uranium.

[joshcryer]

17. Tar sands are the worst of the worst, there's no such thing as "cleanup" for them.

Other mines can arguably have zero long term impact because they effectively become grown over once they're exhausted. Tailing ponds are not a necessary condition of mining. But I can bet you that if you made iron or uranium miners minimize their tailing ponds (if not eradicate them completely through smart reprocessing), it'd be damn near impossible to get the oil sands fuckers to do it. Their oil is profitable because they are allowed to leave behind such destruction. Same goes with the fucking natural gas frackers.

[madokie]

23. How do you get religion in this? Politics I understand but religion

Only a small percentage of people of the world claim to be religious and I'm not one of them. Hell I'm not spiritual in any way shape or form and damn sure not religious and theres many more just like me out there so how do you get religion in this. Personally I see religion involved in the lack of worry because the believers believe that the almighty one is coming to take them off to heaven one day so why worry with all this clean up, nuclear waste etc now. Thats where religion figures in this whole ball of wax from my perspective.

[GliderGuider]

27. I'm saying that I think the anti-nuclear position looks religious to me.

Not in terms of a belief in some god, but in the level of blind adherence to a Manichean belief in the face of any physical evidence to the contrary. I have no idea if you have such a mindset (and it's a good bet that you don't think you do) but that's how I see the anti-nuclear position.

Let me ask you this, is there any evidence I could present that would make you change your mind about nuclear power?

[madokie]

28. I'm a pretty open minded person

I don't do bullshit very well though.

[jpak]

12. but...but...but...we are told nuclear power plants have a footprint of only 4 ha!!!11

say it ain't so

and that smoke - that's not from the combustion of fossil fuels - it's a gentle desert mist!

:rofl:

[GliderGuider]

15. And some of the iron from this mine goes to make wind turbines

Footprint that.

[joshcryer]

16. Oh, you're not supposed to externalize the footprint of any of the "green renewable" sources, silly.

Only nuclear gets that treatment (I saw that your point that uranium was 4 times less expansive than the next thing on the list was well ignored).

[madokie]

24. And a large percent of what you have surrounding you today

getting your person from place to place, keeping your food safe and on and on. I guess we could go back to the stone age but personally I'd rather not. I'm not one in favor to using a beast of burden to carry my cross.
footprint.

[GliderGuider]

25. I'm pointing out (with a touch of snark) that everything we do has a cost.

We can't go back to anyone else's age, whether it's stone, bronze or iron. We'll go forward and create our own. And it will have these big holes in it.

Raging over tailing ponds just because they came from uranium mining while ignoring the much greater devastation wreaked by iron mining (not to mention dying oceans and emptying aquifers and disappearing species and environmental toxicity from a hundred million sources) is selective attribution at its finest.

[madokie]

26. The mistake is your thinking that anyone is ignoring anything bro'

No one is ignoring anything simply pointing out one example
I guess I just don't understand you at all. No big deal but