The Internet Pollutes the Atmosphere More Than India, Says Greenpeace

[Grabbin Keelz]

ahahahahaha.....o wait, your serious. Let me laugh even harder.

 

[Dexiro]

1: Greenpeace, my power is hydroelectric and nuclear. So, no CO2.

2: CO2 is harmless. Plants breath it in, see?

3: I can not take anything you say steriously. You've managed to out-bullshit PETA, who I want to remind you asked for people to just donate 20,000 dollar cars because some dime-a-dozen spider was stupid enough to nest in the EVAP canister.

It's impossible to out-bullshit PETA.

 

[olicon]

Oh Greenpeace, some of the things you say makes less sense than the stuff PETA spews on a regular basis.

It's pretty basic. You can see how much electricity the data center use (look at their electricity bill/meter), see the source of energy in that area, find the emission.

I specifically meant the stuff like...

For example, the report claims that Facebook uses dirty coal for 53.2 percent of its power needs.

Now as im sure you can guess, you cant track every last bloody joule of energy running through the grid, so how can you be certain that 53% of Facebooks power is coming from coal-fired plants?

Electricity loses most of its juice when it is being sent from far away. This is why the grids are almost always localized. In almost all cases, this means you know which stations are the ones providing your energy. Also, chances are you won't have multiple resources in the same area--very few places have multiple type of coal (brown and black coal, and shale). I am currently in NSW--I know that every joule of energy used in my house is made from black coal, with loss of 7% from the grid, possibly with a few extra percent from gas turbine at peak hours (those 3 hours a day around noonish).
It's a business worth billions of dollars. Do you really think they didn't math out all the little irks and perks before they start selling that crap to you?
I didn't study this directly. I only have a few courses on it, and I have all these data. I'm sure the big companies has a crap ton more than me.

I would like to point out to you the damage nuclear power has done to mankind in the last 30 years. 50 people have died, with around 2000 effected by nuclear radiation. So just over 2000 all together. So that is the damage nuclear has done 2050 round about.

Another thing, if we used Nuclear instead of Coal, coal would not need to mined because we don't use it for anything but power.

Ok, now on to the damage Coal has done. Lets just look at what it does in 1 year.
Coal kills 350,000 people in china every year due to the pollution
20,000 people are diagnosed with forms of lung cancer ever year in USA due to coal power plants
thousands die every year mining coal to burn at power plants.

Nuclear = 2030 over 30 years
Coal = 400,000+ every year

People who are against nuclear power are killing people, oh, I didn't even mention oil, because I don't know the amount of people killed by that, but I am pretty sure it is lots.

Also, nuclear re-uses 95% of its waste for more power in new reactors, and the 5% that comes out, is so degraded it doesn't last long, 100-200 years.

I never said nuclear is dirty. I said that in the case of catastrophic event, it WILL be much worse.
With that said, nuclear had also displaced a few tens of thousands of people, ruined Japan's economy (granted it ALSO built Japan's economy), which will lead to hundreds of lives lost in the medium term, and tens of thousands of lives and livelihood destroyed in the long run.
Your argument is extremely unsound. You only look at immediate impact of nuclear power, while you look at complete impact of coal. If I want to play your game, I can say that the increased radioactivity in water around the nuclear plant is going to kill loads of marine life, which will eventually cause starvation of millions in the long run. See, two can play that game! But I didn't do it at first because it's just taking things too far, and the impact is very diluted.

Personally I wouldn't say nuclear is a dirty power. I never claim it to be so. I was bringing in the concept of worst case scenario--something you clearly cannot comprehend. As far as macromanagement goes, 1% chance to kill 1 million people is much worse than 100% chance to kill 200. It sucks, but that's how it works. I don't agree with the principal, but that seems to be how it is judged.

With any source of power there's going to be some level of pollution, but in the actual production of nuclear energy there is none. Even wind turbines contribute greenhouse gases by that logic. Where do you think the materials to produce the turbine itself come from? My point is that nuclear is much cleaner and safer than other power sources, especially with coal making up something like 40% of the worlds energy production. It took an 8.9 Richter earthquake to cause the world's third major nuclear accident. It took a poorly produced well cap to cause the BP oil spill. Do you see what I'm getting at?

Also, you may want to sell your home and move inland...

You can be the first to contribute to "buy Xocolatl his new house on higher ground fund". Or better yet, "relocate capital cities of 100 countries around the world fund".
See above for my argument. I never said that nuclear is dirty. I said that in catastrophic events it can be much worse. When you claim that it produces no pollution at all, that is wrong. When you clarify that you meant it produces low pollution--yes, I do agree. I've been agreeing with you since my original post. Granted it was inside a big wall of text that apparently everyone missed anyway.

I don't have anything at all against nuclear energy. I would prefer it in some countries that can handle it. I know I wouldn't want it in my good ol' Thailand because we can't even build the roads right, let alone something that might blow up. But ultimately, I think there are also a lot of energy sources out there. The best thing to do is always going to be a combination of what you have. If you have good wind and lots of land, then wind is excellent. Got plenty of rocky coastline that's not being used? Wave power to the rescue. Have nuclear fuel sitting nearby, and good construction and safety standard? By all means, go nuclear!

 

[Rayne870]

Isn't global warming that thing that tends to happen on the tail end of an Ice Age cycle...which we are currently in?

 

[banksy122]

Oh Greenpeace, some of the things you say makes less sense than the stuff PETA spews on a regular basis.

It's pretty basic. You can see how much electricity the data center use (look at their electricity bill/meter), see the source of energy in that area, find the emission.

I specifically meant the stuff like...

For example, the report claims that Facebook uses dirty coal for 53.2 percent of its power needs.

snip

Neither was I, I was talking about how many people have being killed by Coal running normally vs everybody nuclear has effected.
That is what I mean, ALL incidents of Nuclear = less then 3000, including the 3 major 'crisis' of nuclear.
There is never going to be a nuclear incident that will kill many people, NEVER.

If you don't support nuclear, you are prolonging how long Coal remains dominant, hence, leading to hundreds of thousands of people dieing. All because of your stupid logic of something might happen with nuclear.
Can you please explain to me why you think a very low chance of an actual nuclear crisis killing some people out-ways the impact coal has on humans?