Belgians can't meet Kyoto mandate because they're scared of the atom

http://www.expatica.com/source/site_article.asp?subchannel_id=24&story_id=6477

The following is the most telling:

I was wondering when they were going to figure that part out. Scrapping those seven (or eight) reactors means losing something like 60% of their national power production, especially since they were planning to do it well before the reactors had reached their operating lifetime. All that power has to come from somewhere, and even if the import it, then someone else is generating it.

But never underestimate the power of the enviornmentalists. It's impossible to wage these sorts of arguements against them because they are beleived to have the defacto moral high ground. I knew they were going to have to come back to this issue again, but I think it's far from over. Next up we ought to be seeing the same sorts of things out of Germany. Never the less, my position remains firm:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think that Nuke power should only be an interim measure until we adequately develop renewable resources. I personally believe that modern nuclear power plants should be considered safe enough to build. But in reality they do have their own environmental issues, most poignantly the excess fuel rods. It's a double edged sword; one cannot definitively say it is better. But I agree that nuclear power is better for the environment then coal fired plants.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

...and all around the world, pigs are taking to the sky as ice cubes erupt from the underworld, as Stokes and nico find something to agree on.

Also, as far as I'm concerned, that was a particularly well written response. In all honesty, your writing style has improved dramatically as of late.

PS. To whoever moved the thread, thanks, I wasn't really sure where it belonged.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hmmmm, that assesment was made at least a couple of years ago and now it is being reported again? Why didn't that report you cite also cite the more recent assesment that Belgium could meet its commitment to the Kyoto protocol via energy efficiency improvements? http://www.eceee.org/latest_news/2003/news20030403.lasso

 

Ontario has by far one of the most acute problems with power and a recent commission has stated that nuclear power is that way to go.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...707&call_pageid=968332188774&col=968350116467

The scene is not pretty here, what I fear from nuclear power is its inability/rigidity to change. I mean it is easier to retrofit a coal fired plant then a nuclear one. I don't want nuclear power personally, but it is not like we have much of an option. No one wants to see huge coal plants go up causing more pollution. I wouldn't mind natural gas, but that's expensive and resources seem to becoming scarce in NA. Since Canada singed on to the Kyoto accord it would have meet those targets which dictate that she has to have CO2 levels lower then her 1990 levels. It seems that nuke power is the only way, but I don’t think it’s the best way. Long term it has shown (at least in Ontario) it’s extremely expensive to operate, and maintain.

 

I saw a site today that I forgot to bookmark that stated that Ottawa had the least production per capita via so called green energy sources than the other provinces. I also see estimates that wind has a very large potential in most of Canada. Belgium is turning to wind and if they get smart, they will heed the report I posted immediately before and work to create cogeneration plants, more insulation, LED traffic lights, better public and private lighting and solar/project subsidies etcetera just like Canada should.

I also see that nuclear and coal companies do not want the distributed energy systems that are the low environmental impact, higher security and more employment methods of solar energy harvesting in its many forms. Big money interests can lobby with big money. They manufacture studies and reports. They have hit people long and hard from cradle to crave with propaganda and have many tied to a servile state reminiscent of die-hard religious fanaticism.

I think there is a common global problem, our lack of a functioning social system. So far cultural bias and entrenched powers decide policies. We need to make wise choices in the times ahead. These so-called governments are basically failing miserably. How do we winnow the grain from the chaff, the lies from the truth, the valid from the invalid? I doubt if it can or will happen in an online forum but computerized communications might eventually come up with something that works. We need functional society. All of the nation states are fantasy. We are thinking life on a planet and we are all on the same side. There is more than enough for all to have more long-lived freedom than we can begin to muster or imagine as long as we sustain the illusions.

 

A well balanced view of the issue is found here:

http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/Nuke/solar.html

 

One can also hold the opinion that the book Edufer reviews on his web site presents a very biased view of the issue.

 

Yes, anyone can have his opinion. After all, we live in a decently free society. And who in this matter is not biased? Are the NRDC, EDF, Greenpeace, WWF, Sierra Club, IPCC, etc, free of bias? I would like to hear who in this forum think those organizations give an objective and impartial view of the issues they deal with.

I don't see bias is a sin. Bias is a fundamental part of advertising, religions, sport fans, classic, jazz, rock music enthusiasts, art amateurs, etc. Even scientists are biased when it comes to comment on trheir research.

Somebody said that the primary duty of any scientist is to prove himself wrong. I find a lot of wisdom in there.

 

What does "All You Need to Know to Prove The Renewable Energy Economy Is a Hoax" have to do with belgians meeting the kyoto mandate and nuclear power?

 

In my view, it has a lot to do. Kyoto mandates CO2 emissions reductions. This means electric energy must come from other sources. As nuclear energy is shunned and strongly opposed by powerful organizations that have control to energy policies, the way to go – according to these organizations – is “alternative energy sources”, as solar power and wind generated energy. The Belgian government has made public its intention to foster alternative energies, especially wind (as Belgium is not such a sunny country) for their energy needs.

If people had the chance of knowing what is wrong (and good) about wind and solar energies, politicians in charge of making adequate decisions will see the fruitless efforts of pursuing wind generated energy. I am not too far out of topic. In case you think so, then what should I be posting? Just Belgium not meeting its proposed CO2 emissions reduction? That’s has been said, and there is not much else to say.

Belgium and other countries have a strong need to supply enough energy for their industries and other productive activities, and this means they have to produce it by any means, or buy it elsewhere – mainly from France. French electricity output is around 80% nuclear, some comes also from marine tides generating stations the mouth of the Rhone. If the Belgians are buying French electricity, they would be buying 80% nuclear electricity, something they seem to be against.

I see this as a hypocritical way of seeing things. Their moral forces them to phase out its nuclear station, but they bury their moral when buying nuclear electricity from France. So, are we allowed to speak about the benefits and inherent safety of nuclear power -as opposed to wind and solar energies - or would we be out of topic?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

How about starting some of your own threads to embrace your crusades rather than hijack specific ones for your general purposes, Edufer? This thread is about Belgium meeting its accepted Kyoto agreements. The first post was a reference to a so-called news article that did not mention when the original report was done nor did it mention any of the more recent analysis which appears just plain ole biased in favor of nuclear energy, in short a piss poor piece of journalism or should I say thinly disguised propaganda. Still, Stokes Pennwalt has continually demonstrated more integrity and real ability to inform than yourself, Edufer, who appears to have very little sense of decency, little stomach for real debate and uses every trick in the book to spin, ignore argument and outright lie for your purposes.

I see, Edufer, in order to meet your desired hypothesis you must polarize this thread as being about solar verses nuclear power when the option of just getting more efficient has been brought into the discussion most appropriately.

Edufer, I find you so rude, so inconsiderate, so out of touch, so hegemonic, so outrageous and intolerant, so against science and reason that you bring down the entire quality of sciforums. I do think that in general this is something you would favor as you do not appear to cater to discussion and ignore any real criticisms and continually repeat your arguments even when people bring some fine analysis as to their limitations or outright inapplicability.

I really don't think you would mind if all of sciforums were shut down to help keep people from being aware.

 

Having you in the forum, I will never start any thread, knowing you will jump there just for insulting and absuing me. You are much more intolerant than anyone I have ever seen in many forums (except maybe David Mayes). You are an intolerant nazi. You are against everyone that has an opposing view, and instead discussing the message, you prefer to shoot the messenger. Grow up to democracy man!

 

Edufer: "Having you in the forum, I will never start any thread, knowing you will jump there just for insulting and absuing me."

Hmmm, you've started a number of threads already and I haven't made one comment in any. The evidence does not back up your paranoid claim.

Edufer: "You are against everyone that has an opposing view, and instead discussing the message, you prefer to shoot the messenger."

How does it go, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" or some such? I doubt if that statement could be true about any one but you sure appear to come close with your own behavior. It is really quite amazing how fast you drop the recourse to citing evidence or discussing logic or understanding and instead resort to insult, to character assasination most often with easily apparent, no evidence or reason.

You are really quite an amazing and unique individual Edufer. I do not believe I have ever seen some one who appears to be as enamored with insult and sheer bulk of posting in disregard to logic or reason or facts than what I have witnessed from you. Yes, a most amazing personality, do you have a bio on the web somewhere or something? It would be quite educational to learn more of your life and its motivations. If it would be difficult for you to post such in public, I promise not to share it in any open forum if you wanted to PM me. I do find you to be quite amazing and interesting, Edufer. Your views on things in general I find alarmingly deceptive and extremely biased but yourself, that is a subject that is most intriguing.

I'm quite sure Al Gore is not one of your favorite people but did you happen to catch that recent speech of his "A Coalition of
Fear" where he quotes Senator Edmund Muskie as having stated some 33 years ago, "There are only two kinds of politics. They are not radical and reactionary, or conservative and liberal. Or even Democrat and Republican. There are only the politics of fear and the politics of trust."

 

Gore's speech was given in the context of the present political campaign. We cannot expect it to free of bias.

Had you searched our website, you would have found the "About Us page":

http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/About-Us.html where you'll find pertinet information on who are our members and permanent contributors.

I can only say that is you who's hijacking threads to make your personal attacks on me and my dissenting opinions, while putting yourself in a moral high ground, free of criticism. If you persist in your attacks, you'll end up closing all threads where I participate. You are free to keep doing it.

By the amount of PM I got from sciforums readers I see you are giving yourself an exaggerate importance, showing you have a overinflated ego.

Self rightneousness usually leads to totalitarian behavior.

 

Anyone that has ever read Maquiavelo, von Clausewitz, Marx, Ortega y Gasset, even Plato, knows there are many different types of politics.

Muskie makes a gross simplification for suiting his own means, and Gore quotes him because the claim seems appealing and fulfilling his political agenda. But it is not for me to discuss US internal politics, although it eventually will have catastrophic consequences for us in the Third World. What we see from the outside is that the US is ruled by one unique party (the Corporation’s, or Owners’ Party) with two internal branches: Democrats and Republicans, alternating in the administration according to the corporation’s interests.

But Gore, Muskie, and our personal problems are out of topic.

 

Heck, no worry, seems the moderation here is basically gone. Thank you for leading me to the "About Us" page on your site. I've learned more about Argentina's history and current affairs in the last hour than in perhaps most of the rest of my life.

Seems you came upon being a lieutenant shortly before the dirty war. Hope you didn't have to participate in any of that.

Here's a site that may apply to the subject at hand http://www.nuclear-free.com/english/raul.htm . I find others also that contend that the people of Argentina have lost faith in nuclear power as tenantable due to accidents, cover-up and general mismanagement there in Argentina, not Chernobyl, not TMI, not France. Ever meet Dr. Montenegro? Ah, neat to see some real champions for justice exist even there in Argentina, which incidentally now has quite the reputation for hate and racist web site sponsoring server farms. Must take even more courage to speak against the giants of corporate concerns there in Argentina where some seem to join the ranks of los desaparecidos up until the present time.

 

Mr. Chips, I am sending you my comments on Raul Montenegro by a PM because it has nothing to do with this thread's topic. I hope you enjoy the reading. But I know you will not.

 

I live in central canada, very flat and very windy. I've often wondered why we aren't throwing cash at wind power, it seems obvious. I mean we don't even talk about it, the only alternative I've heard discussed are bio-fuels. From what I've read they're not terribly efficient. Is something wrong with wind that I haven't read? It just seems like an obvious choice considering the geography and weather here.

As far as nuclear goes, now thats the shit. We're practically hemorrhaging uranium here and nuclear allows for a hell of a lot of power but if I recall there's a problem, what is that again? Oh yeah, waste that is so toxic simple physical contact can be fatal ... there's something else ... what is it again? ... right! 10,000 year half life with no safe place to store it.

Believe it or not I'm not totally anti-nuke but as incredible a source of power it is the waste (as of today) is totally unmanageable. There are no options to deal with it, none.

 

Here is a February 2002 study that basically concludes that wind energy holds just about the greatest potential of all possible energy sources for Ontario http://www.newenergy.org/Wind_Power_Task_Force_Report,_February_2002.pdf

Here's the Canadian Wind Energy Association http://www.canwea.ca/en/

Though I will basically agree with your statements, buffys, you will find that some will disagree with the statistics you claim, specifically the danger of nuclear wastes and the time involved for its storage. Good that you are not totally anti-nuke because in the final analysis, that is what solar energy is despite the claims of so-called experts who commonly state that we have yet to know how to use fusion. This general anti-science stance is common and quite telling and frightening when one realizes that fools are playing with high potential energy schemes while embracing such fantasy. Perhaps some of the disregard for wind energy's potentials is the cognitive dissonance that would have to be over come, the realization of the great danger that is embraced and sanctioned by big money currently. Recognizing the good means seeing the bad and this rationality is too distasteful to many.

Consider the economic impact, wind energy is a distributive source. It's development does not support most profits going into few hands. Nuclear and coal impact present profit making relationships more favorably from an oligarchy supporting standpoint than the sources that would employ more and require less specific skilled labor and more immediate public profit. I hold the opinion that the barrier to wind use is more social than technological. It is perhaps some of the worst aspects of our social structures that lead to wind energy not getting the brunt of public relations support or private interest sponsorship.

Edufer, evident with your first post here and in the PM to me and common to perhaps all of your posts in this forum and on your web site, you present interpretation or opinion as fact. For example in the PM to me, you suggest that the time frame of your quasi military service, regretably in your eyes, did not allow you to partake in the anti-communists efforts that were claimed as the justification for the kidnapping and subsequent murdering of what I understand to be anywhere from fifteen thousand to thirty thousand people, los desaparecidos. In my opinion, communism and capitalism are not firm concepts and usually the reasoning of power elites verses public empathy, a ruse, an excuse of those who would consider their general philosophical beliefs as fact rather than opinion. The idea that the "dirty war" was justified as efforts to quash the development of a Cuba type regime in Argentina appears more projection than reality.

Edufer, in light of your common presentation of opinion as fact, it is reasonable and continually demonstrated that one should not trust your often general and wide sweeping pronouncements. It is this same mixing of opinion with fact that perhaps gives you the tendency to lie and promote misinformation as the ends of your efforts become more important than the means, a common fallacious result of someone who has come to have a crusade more than attempting to find joint understanding, communication and education to promote sound and intelligent policy. At least this attitude keeps you off of the hit lists. I dare say, from what I see on the web, the fear mongering, hate industries that are more prevalent in Argentina that other places, are not considered all that profitable over other countries that exhibit similar incidence of sponsorship and hosting for hate/racist web sites. Don't quit your day job.