[Prometheus The Supremo]

i wouldn't classify CO2 as dirty, it's more a persistent greenhouse gas.

 

[EnviroTO]

In 2006, nuclear and fossil fuel generation made for 68 percent of total power generation. Because the waste products of both types of generation are dangerous to human health they are "dirty".

Nuclear is close to 50% so only about 20% is fossil fuel. Nuclear isn't dirty as virtually no waste is being released back into the environment. The worst part about nuclear is the fact it is non-renewable but as a solid which looses some of its radioactivity in the creation of electricity and can be returned to the mines where it was originally found mixed with other solids in an encasement, it need not create much "dirty waste" at all. How are you defining "dangerous to human health"? Are you defining it based on fatalities like thousands of people died in car accidents this years? Are you defining it based on number of people harmed similar to number of people with reduced breathing function due to smog, asbestos, particulate matter kicked up at construction sties, etc.? Nuclear power is only dangerous if completely mismanaged... but many other things become dangerous if completely mismanaged as well. With the number of checks and balances plus the amount of public scrutiny the nuclear industry receives it is arguably one of the safest industries around. Not safer than wind, solar, or hydro (although flooding vast tracts of land is a bit of an environmental impact), but far safer than fossil fuel power, chemical industry, manufacturing industry, etc... it probably has a less measurable environmental impact than non-organic farming.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

it's because of the public scrutiny that we have such safety standards. the public scrutiny should never stop because it has a positive effect.

 

[Hydrogen]

i wouldn't classify CO2 as dirty, it's more a persistent greenhouse gas.

And C02 is essential to life! The problem with automobiles are the other emissions that can persist. Actually, as far as automobile engines go, the elimination of sulfur and lead from fuel has been a huge benefit. Nevertheless, electric cars could be integrated now and replace many gasoline powered vehicles - even with present-day battery technology.

With respect to generating electric power from coal, the problem is that plants such as Nanticoke are not particularly clean in terms of smog-causing emissions. Because they have been slated to close (again and again) no investment has been made to reduce these emissions. Nanticoke could be alot more cleaner.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

And C02 is essential to life!

so are UV rays. what's your point?

 

[Hydrogen]

^That carbon dioxide is essential to life. Which word is confusing you?

 

[afransen]

Excess CO2 is a problem, on the other hand. It seems like you're engaging in the obfuscating rhetoric used in the US when attempts were made to classify CO2 as a pollutant.

 

[Hydrogen]

^Actually I am stating a fact. If you'd bothered to have followed the thread you would see that. So you can skip the sophistry.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

^That carbon dioxide is essential to life. Which word is confusing you?

and you felt that you had to make a point of that because.....

 

[afransen]

^Actually I am stating a fact. If you'd bothered to have followed the thread you would see that. So you can skip the sophistry.

I'm surprised you're accusing me of sophistry. I was merely calling bullshit on your statement that CO2 emissions aren't a problem, but rather that associated pollutants (nitrous oxides, ozone, etc., I'm guessing) were the true worry. Because CO2 is necessary for life? That is the sophistry industry in the US has used to pull the wool over the eyes of dumbass consumers with their ad campaign "some call it pollution, we call it life". I was dumbfounded when I first saw that, and that they had the gall to put that on the air. They honestly take the American public as a pack of morons, which might evidently be a fair characterisation.

 

[ShonTron]

They actually have a commerical with "some call it pollution, we call it life"? That's worse than the late 1980s pro-nuclear ads!

Water: You need it to live, but too much, you drown. Or end up like New Orleans.

I Googled it to see if afransen wasn't bullshitting us, because I found it hard to believe. He's not.

Go Exxon!

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

bahahhahhahahhahahhaha!!!!!

 

[Hydrogen]

That's odd Prometheus, you yourself indicated earlier that C02 was not "dirty." I was merely adding to your stated point. If you are concerned about "greenhouse" gases, then you should be far more concerned with water vapour, as it is the dominant infra red absorbing constituent of the atmosphere.

What I was pointing out that it (C02) is essential to life - as in its crucial roll in photosynthesis both on land and in the oceans. Unfortunately it is all too typical for many people who claim an interest in the environment to not understand much about it. Each year, the forests of the world emit far more C02 into the atmosphere than humans do. The oceans emit even more than forests. The fact is that there is a global cycle for carbon dioxide and it has existed for billions of years. Numerous plant species thrive in environments with higher C02 levels. That is one reason why some types of greenhouses are constructed.

If carbon dioxide is essential to life, then how can it be a pollutant? We all exhale carbon dioxide. Are we polluting by being alive? Is water a pollutant as well because it is a persistent "greenhouse" gas?

It is interesting how one molecule can illicit so many emotional responses. I think there are other molecules that deserve more attention than this one. Other people would differ in their opinion. But be that as it may...

I'm hoping there is no need from some protracted debate on the issue, so would it be possible at this time to get back to the thread on the electric car?

 

[doady]

CO2 is essential to life, but excess CO2 will destroy life and therefore is it is pollutant.

Nitrogen and phosphorous are also essential to all life but too much of these due of agriculture and factories kills our rivers and lakes. This is called eutrophication and it is a serious problem too. Lake Erie is a dead lake for this reason.

So should we also not worry about excess nitrogen and phosphorous just because they are essential to life?

 

[Hydrogen]

How can atmospheric C02 destroy life? It makes up about 0.038% of the atmosphere. In the past it has appeared at a considerably higher concentrations and life did not vanish. It becomes toxic at ranges of 20% of air volume and above.

Nitrogen makes up about 78% of the atmosphere. That is different from how you are describing the use of nitrogen.

Electric cars, anyone?