Korean Job Discussion Forums

[nathanrutledge]

Nuclear - too unstable and unpredictable

Ethanol - impractical due to large energy inputs to produce a fuel that yields a comparatively small energy output

Wind/Solar - technology still has a long ways to go.

So I guess he is saying that the oil will run out faster than we will create a new technology that will replace all of the oil-driven combustion engines. [/quote]

The whole topic was based on shipping goods from China by boat, right? Wind technology has a long way to go? What about the Mayflower/Ni�a/Pinta/Santa Maria/Constitution/etc.......??? There is a company in Germany that just launched a modern sail powered cargo vessel. It's currently being tested, but the technology is centuries old. They are now working on using modern components with the old technology and it's looking quite promising.

Coming from a fairly self sufficient family, if the day comes that rubber dog poop and melamine laced food becomes too expensive, I won't lose any sleep.

[youtuber]

I'm just guessing here, but they probably switched from using sails to engines for a reason right? Engines probably get you to the destination much faster. Engines probably allow a boat to travel to/through places where sails wouldn't work as well? Due to rough seas or whatever? And they would probably need massive sails on a scale never seen before to transport an equivalent amount of cargo.

It would be cool if it happens, but it seems like the run up on oil costs will happen much quicker than that technology could be implemented on a world-wide scale.

And don't get me wrong, I would be incredibly happy if products were made in Canada again.

High oil prices may end up having many more benefits than drawbacks (ie cleaner air, less traffic, regional manufacturing)

[Joe666]

youtuber wrote:

[youtuber]

And since China is very energy inefficient in their production, they will be having big problems in the near future I think.

Europe has implemented a cap and trade system for emissions. The rest of the West will probably follow. And if there is cap and trade, a tariff on emissions on goods that are imported will probably follow.

So China will have high transportation costs to deal with AND imposed emission tariffs on their exports.

They can't keep burning coal forever. The West won't stand for it. Why should the west have to abide by Kyoto and reduce emissions while China continues their dirty ways?

[blackjack]

[youtuber]

Ah ok. Hybrid ships. A cool idea.

[Joe666]

[jhuntingtonus]

[youtuber]

[jhuntingtonus]

[Konglishman]

[youtuber]

[mua'dib]

I ripped this from an article on examiner.com=
Because a nuclear core demands fresh, refined uranium, there is a constant use-cycle � an unstoppable appetite � that, ultimately pollutes in manifold ways:

1. The diesel burned in extracting the ore produces CO2, CO, NOX, SOX, dioxins, VOCs among the other expected particulates from incomplete combustion of fossil fuels.
2. The dust produced from mining becomes airborne and settles on downwind communities, increasing the cancer rate noticeably.
3. The diesel burnt in shipping the heavy rock to processing produces the same slew of pollutants as the heavy mining machinery, while trailing radioactive dust along the way.
4. The mill itself burns up millions of KWh every year, KWh generated, in this day and age, almost exclusively from burning coal � high SO2, H2SO3 and H2SO4 meet heavy metals like Hg with the clouds of greenhouse gases.
5. The mill must vent many toxic gases as it processes the ore. It must store radioactive slurry in the ground, hoping it will evaporate so the tailings can be capped. Groundwater and runoff pollution occurs. Once capped, the tailings are radioactive for billions of years. Future contamination becomes a certainty. (Just, the mill operators hope, not in their lifetime.)
6. Shipping the yellow cake to market. There are only two enrichment plants in the Northern United States, and one of them is in Canada. Long trips equal large emissions. Much of the yellow cake will be shipped overseas, adding emissions from large container vessels and potential maritime spills to the list.
7. The enrichment facility then vents toxic gases from the reagents used in reducing the yellow cake to weapons-grade uranium.
8. The rods are shipped to power plants, necessitating the fourth round of distribution-related emissions.
9. The rods are used, then spent, sealed up, and transported to a nuclear waste dump � more emissions, more radioactive decay along public roads and waterways.
10. Countless emissions result from policing the waste site.

Of course, none of this includes the emissions from the industrial-scale production of the reagents needed by the uranium refining cycle. Not to mention their weekly delivery to processing mills and enrichment facilities.

And this just scratches the surface. The Japanese and French plants are no exception they look emissions free on paper but the reality is far more frightening. Nuclear power was not, is not and will never be a solution to our energy woes, it is most certainly not emissions free. (plus there are some who believe that the whole nuclear energy program was started as a front to manufacture weapons grade uranium and plutonium but that is a conversation for a different thread)

Also the whole thing about "wind and solar technology not being up to par" isn't entirely accurate, it isn't being taken full advantage of because we are still using all of the other 'dirty' energy like there's no tomorrow.

Do the world a favor, get on your bike!

[tzechuk]

And I believe everything I read in black and white............

[mua'dib]