Al Gore

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
carbon credits = the plenary indulgences of the global warming religion.

That's a crock of sh8! :thumbsdown:

Carbon credits are not intended to be anything more than an organized system of incentives to facilitate load balancing carbon emissions while the inhabitants of the planet make the transition away from our current excessive waste and pollution mechanisms.

Unless you happen to know of an instantaneous fix to convert the entire power generation and distribution system to greener operation, you're blowing more smoke and pollution than all of Gore's residences, offices, cars and private jets combined.

 

[zephyrprime]

Global warming is a real issue and I believe in what a lot of Gore says but you all who think he is not being a hypocrite are sticking your heads in the sand.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: zephyrprime
Global warming is a real issue and I believe in what a lot of Gore says but you all who think he is not being a hypocrite are sticking your heads in the sand.

No, they are getting paid well.

 

[QuantumPion]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
carbon credits = the plenary indulgences of the global warming religion.

That's a crock of sh8! Carbon credits are not intended to be anything more than an organized system for load balancing carbon emissions while the inhabitants of the planet make the transition away from our current excessive waste and pollution mechanisms.

Unless you happen to know of an instantaneous fix to convert the entire power generation and distribution system to greener operation, you're blowing more smoke and pollution than all of Gore's residences, offices, cars and private jets combined. :thumbsdown:

According to McAliney, Mike. Arguments for Land Conservationocumentation and Information Sources for Land Resources Protection, Trust for Public Land, Sacramento, CA, December, 1993, from here, one tree will absorb 48 lbs of CO2 per year.

According to the original article, Gore's house consumed 210,000 kW-hrs over the average home. Non-nuclear electric generation creates somewhere in the neighborhood of 0.5 kg of CO2 per kW-hr (according to this article). So that is 105,000 kg of CO2 that Gore must make up for, or ~4800 tree-years. If we assume that it costs $20 to plant a new tree, that is ~$100,000 that Gore must spend in carbon credits, just to make for the electric usage of his house. This doesn't even count his natural gas bill, or his very frequent private airline usage. I can't recall how much Gore claimed he spent on his carbon credits, but I don't think it was $100k.

Carbon-credits are nothing more then a feel-good measure used by guilty-conscious liberals and hypocrite environmentalists.

 

[marincounty]

I think a lot of this is just jealousy. It really pisses off right-wingers that a liberal tree hugger like Al Gore is rich enough to fly around on his own private jet. Didn't you know a real environmentalist should live in a tiny log cabin and walk or take public transportation everywhere?

 

[XMan]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
carbon credits = the plenary indulgences of the global warming religion.

That's a crock of sh8! :thumbsdown:

Carbon credits are not intended to be anything more than an organized system of incentives to facilitate load balancing carbon emissions while the inhabitants of the planet make the transition away from our current excessive waste and pollution mechanisms.

Unless you happen to know of an instantaneous fix to convert the entire power generation and distribution system to greener operation, you're blowing more smoke and pollution than all of Gore's residences, offices, cars and private jets combined.

Nuke plants. Oh, wait, that's right, the Greenies don't like those, either.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: marincounty
I think a lot of this is just jealousy. It really pisses off right-wingers that a liberal tree hugger like Al Gore is rich enough to fly around on his own private jet. Didn't you know a real environmentalist should live in a tiny log cabin and walk or take public transportation everywhere?

Where's Eull Gibbons when you need him

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
carbon credits = the plenary indulgences of the global warming religion.

That's a crock of sh8! Carbon credits are not intended to be anything more than an organized system for load balancing carbon emissions while the inhabitants of the planet make the transition away from our current excessive waste and pollution mechanisms.

Unless you happen to know of an instantaneous fix to convert the entire power generation and distribution system to greener operation, you're blowing more smoke and pollution than all of Gore's residences, offices, cars and private jets combined. :thumbsdown:

According to McAliney, Mike. Arguments for Land Conservationocumentation and Information Sources for Land Resources Protection, Trust for Public Land, Sacramento, CA, December, 1993, from here, one tree will absorb 48 lbs of CO2 per year.

According to the original article, Gore's house consumed 210,000 kW-hrs over the average home. Non-nuclear electric generation creates somewhere in the neighborhood of 0.5 kg of CO2 per kW-hr (according to this article). So that is 105,000 kg of CO2 that Gore must make up for, or ~4800 tree-years. If we assume that it costs $20 to plant a new tree, that is ~$100,000 that Gore must spend in carbon credits, just to make for the electric usage of his house. This doesn't even count his natural gas bill, or his very frequent private airline usage. I can't recall how much Gore claimed he spent on his carbon credits, but I don't think it was $100k.

Carbon-credits are nothing more then a feel-good measure used by guilty-conscious liberals and hypocrite environmentalists.

The average cost per ton is $3. Nowhere close to $20. Care to reexamine your statement?

 

[fskimospy]

I'm amazed. The only way the right wingers have been able to carry on this discussion is by willful denial of reality. No matter how many times you are told that Gore's mission is to reduce carbon emissions, not to reduce global power consumption (although that can be a means to that end), you insist that his house using more power is some measure of hypocricy. All this really shows is your incredible, willful, blindly partisan ignorance.

I'm looking at you JD50.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: XMan

Originally posted by: Harvey
Unless you happen to know of an instantaneous fix to convert the entire power generation and distribution system to greener operation, you're blowing more smoke and pollution than all of Gore's residences, offices, cars and private jets combined.

Nuke plants. Oh, wait, that's right, the Greenies don't like those, either.

Anything that can't be kept from creating an ever growing, ever glowing pile of wates poses more technological safety hurdles than I'm willing to go for.

It takes only one OOPS! to make a large area of the planet uninhabitable forever. That's not imaginary fear. It's already happened more than once, and there are still danger areas all over the world, including in the U.S. And that's before you get to the added dangers posed by a willful terrorist attack.

Unless you're ready and able to provide the technology to guarantee none of that will EVER happen, you haven't said anything useful.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: XMan

Originally posted by: Harvey
Unless you happen to know of an instantaneous fix to convert the entire power generation and distribution system to greener operation, you're blowing more smoke and pollution than all of Gore's residences, offices, cars and private jets combined.

Nuke plants. Oh, wait, that's right, the Greenies don't like those, either.

Anything that can't be kept creating an ever growing, ever glowing pile of wates poses more technological safety hurdles than I'm willing to go for.

It takes only one OOPS! to make a large area of the planet uninhabitable forever. That's not imaginary fear. It's already happened more than once, and there are still danger areas all over the world, including in the U.S. And that's before you get to the added dangers posed by a willful terrorist attack.

Unless you're ready and able to provide the technology to guarantee none of that will EVER happen, you haven't said anything useful.

It hasn't happened in over 20 years in the US. And what is worst in your opinion, 10 degrees hotter across the earth in 100 years or the risk of a few square miles being uninhabitable? The fact of the matter is that nuclear energy is the best form of energy because the energy it produces is immense and the waste is manageable and containable. Nuclear power plants are subject to some of the most strict regulations on earth, and are pretty safe.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: XMan

Originally posted by: Harvey
Unless you happen to know of an instantaneous fix to convert the entire power generation and distribution system to greener operation, you're blowing more smoke and pollution than all of Gore's residences, offices, cars and private jets combined.

Nuke plants. Oh, wait, that's right, the Greenies don't like those, either.

Anything that can't be kept creating an ever growing, ever glowing pile of wates poses more technological safety hurdles than I'm willing to go for.

It takes only one OOPS! to make a large area of the planet uninhabitable forever. That's not imaginary fear. It's already happened more than once, and there are still danger areas all over the world, including in the U.S. And that's before you get to the added dangers posed by a willful terrorist attack.

Unless you're ready and able to provide the technology to guarantee none of that will EVER happen, you haven't said anything useful.

It hasn't happened in over 20 years in the US. And what is worst in your opinion, 10 degrees hotter across the earth in 100 years or the risk of a few square miles being uninhabitable? The fact of the matter is that nuclear energy is the best form of energy because the energy it produces is immense and the waste is manageable and containable. Nuclear power plants are subject to some of the most strict regulations on earth, and are pretty safe.

:thumbsup:

 

[ericlp]

I still don't get it all can you explain it to me AGAIN with another 10 pages of worthless posts please???????

Thanks!

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Harvey
It takes only one OOPS! to make a large area of the planet uninhabitable forever. That's not imaginary fear. It's already happened more than once, and there are still danger areas all over the world, including in the U.S. And that's before you get to the added dangers posed by a willful terrorist attack.

Unless you're ready and able to provide the technology to guarantee none of that will EVER happen, you haven't said anything useful.

It hasn't happened in over 20 years in the US.

There are leaking nuclear waste reserves in Hanford, Washington and other current and former nuclear facilities. Consider the last paragraph on this page from National Geographic:

A long deferred cleanup is now under way at 114 of the nation's nuclear facilities, which encompass an acreage equivalent to Rhode Island and Delaware combined. Many smaller sites, the easy ones, have been cleansed, but the big challenges remain. What's to be done with 52,000 tons (47,000 metric tons) of dangerously radioactive spent fuel from commercial and defense nuclear reactors? With 91 million gallons (345 million liters) of high-level waste left over from plutonium processing, scores of tons of plutonium, more than half a million tons of depleted uranium, millions of cubic feet of contaminated tools, metal scraps, clothing, oils, solvents, and other waste? And with some 265 million tons (240 million metric tons) of tailings from milling uranium ore?less than half stabilized?littering landscapes?

That's not a guarantee that an accident won't happen, EVER. In the case of radiation leaks, the ONLY acceptable risk level is ZERO. A nuclear accident would be bad enough, and you haven't begun to address the issue of security against a terrorist attack. Given this administration's abbysmal record of ineptitude in implementing the 9-11 Commission's recommendations about securing even less threatening dangers like chemical and communications facilities, what makes you so sure they've got a handle on protecting us from even ONE attack on a nuclear facility or storage area or any means of transporting waste to as yet unspecified permanent waste facilities?

And what is worst in your opinion, 10 degrees hotter across the earth in 100 years or the risk of a few square miles being uninhabitable?

What makes you think those are mutually exclusive conditions? They're not. Understanding the extreme danger of nuclear power versus any other power source is simply part of addressing the overall problem.

The fact of the matter is that nuclear energy is the best form of energy because the energy it produces is immense and the waste is manageable and containable. Nuclear power plants are subject to some of the most strict regulations on earth, and are pretty safe.

So says you with nothing to back it up. With nukes, the potential danger from a single nuclear event is so catastrophic in terms of number of lives and the size of the area that could be affected that anything less than ZERO tolerance, it isn't good enough.

 

[QuantumPion]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
carbon credits = the plenary indulgences of the global warming religion.

That's a crock of sh8! Carbon credits are not intended to be anything more than an organized system for load balancing carbon emissions while the inhabitants of the planet make the transition away from our current excessive waste and pollution mechanisms.

Unless you happen to know of an instantaneous fix to convert the entire power generation and distribution system to greener operation, you're blowing more smoke and pollution than all of Gore's residences, offices, cars and private jets combined. :thumbsdown:

According to McAliney, Mike. Arguments for Land Conservationocumentation and Information Sources for Land Resources Protection, Trust for Public Land, Sacramento, CA, December, 1993, from here, one tree will absorb 48 lbs of CO2 per year.

According to the original article, Gore's house consumed 210,000 kW-hrs over the average home. Non-nuclear electric generation creates somewhere in the neighborhood of 0.5 kg of CO2 per kW-hr (according to this article). So that is 105,000 kg of CO2 that Gore must make up for, or ~4800 tree-years. If we assume that it costs $20 to plant a new tree, that is ~$100,000 that Gore must spend in carbon credits, just to make for the electric usage of his house. This doesn't even count his natural gas bill, or his very frequent private airline usage. I can't recall how much Gore claimed he spent on his carbon credits, but I don't think it was $100k.

Carbon-credits are nothing more then a feel-good measure used by guilty-conscious liberals and hypocrite environmentalists.

The average cost per ton is $3. Nowhere close to $20. Care to reexamine your statement?

Certainly. Illinois's assessment argues that carbon emissions can be offset by $3/ton via tree planting. If the average american home uses 10,000 kW-hrs per year, generating 5000 kg of CO2 via fossil fuels, this can be offset by a mere $15 per year investment. Given this modest amount, why is there a global outcry and political controversey towards stopping global warming? All the billions of dollars spent in research efforts could have just been planting trees, with assumption "we don't have to worry about whether global warming is really happening or not because it is so cheap to offset carbon emmisions we can just assume that it is and plant a bunch of trees, there's no need for carbon taxes, banning SUV's, etc."

The reason is that the global warming debate is not and never was about reducing CO2, carbon credits, or whatever. It is about economic and political control. If Al Gore really believed that humans cause global warming, he wouldn't use hugely extravagant amounts of energy.

 

[QuantumPion]

Originally posted by: Harvey
There are leaking nuclear waste reserves in Hanford, Washington and other current and former nuclear facilities.

Hanford is run by the government, not the private sector, hence why they don't care about their waste. Commercial nuclear power is quite clean.


That's not a guarantee that an accident won't happen, EVER. In the case of radiation leaks, the ONLY acceptable risk level is ZERO. A nuclear accident would be bad enough, and you haven't begun to address the issue of security against a terrorist attack. Given this administration's abbysmal record of ineptitude in implementing the 9-11 Commission's recommendations about securing even less threatening dangers like chemical and communications facilities, what makes you so sure they've got a handle on protecting us from even ONE attack on a nuclear facility or storage area or any means of transporting waste to as yet unspecified permanent waste facilities?

There are no absolute guarantees about anything. There is a 1 in 30,000 chance that a large asteroid will destroy the earth in 2030. There's possibly a 1 in a million chance that some other catastrophe, natural or human caused, could potentially wipe us all out. The probability of a western nuclear reactor suffering an accident which leads to the release of radioactive material is on the order of one in ten billion. For newer generation plants planed to be built, it is one in a trillion.

Keep in mind that at TMI, an inconsequential amount of radioactive gases were released, and these gases were released intentionally with human intervention. You can't really bring Chernobyl into the discussion without a whole mess of caveats because that accident was different on so many levels to the way western reactors are constructed and operated.

So says you with nothing to back it up. With nukes, the potential danger from a single nuclear event is so catastrophic in terms of number of lives and the size of the area that could be affected that anything less than ZERO tolerance, it isn't good enough.


We've already witnessed pretty much the absolute worst case scenario for a nuclear accident at Chernobyl. In that situation, around 65 people died in the immediate aftermath, and somewhere around 3000 people may die prematurely due to cancer. The affected area of the Ukraine is still contaminated, and I wouldn't particularly want to live there for the next hundred years or so, but 100 years is not that long in the big picture of things. It is not a permanently uninhabitable wasteland, wild animals are thriving there just fine.

While I'm at it, I will address some of your anti-nuclear claims, since I happen to be a nuclear engineer and know somewhat about the subject.

 

[Harvey]

I've got to rearrange the sequence of your post to make sense of this reply. To start:

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
While I'm at it, I will address some of your anti-nuclear claims, since I happen to be a nuclear engineer and know somewhat about the subject.

Thanks. I'm an electronic design engineer so I'll appreciate an informed opinion on the subject.

Hanford is run by the government, not the private sector, hence why they don't care about their waste. Commercial nuclear power is quite clean.

That doesn't change anything. Anyone, or any facility, can be competent or incompetent. Again, my concern is the magnitude of the potential danger of ONE major nuclear event.

There are no absolute guarantees about anything. There is a 1 in 30,000 chance that a large asteroid will destroy the earth in 2030. There's possibly a 1 in a million chance that some other catastrophe, natural or human caused, could potentially wipe us all out.

And there's probably a greater chance against mankind being able to do anything about that astriod so our only option is to live with the odds we've got on that and do our best to avoid or eliminate the effects avoid or eliminate the effects from the others we prevent. That's not a reason to volunteer to put humanity in further danger from sources we can avoid.

The probability of a western nuclear reactor suffering an accident which leads to the release of radioactive material is on the order of one in ten billion. For newer generation plants planed to be built, it is one in a trillion.

AFIC, that's one too many, at least without doing our best to come up with less dangerous, viable alternative solutions.

 

[eits]

the average american household isn't a mansion, so of course it'll use more electricity. the average american household could probably fit in his garage.

besides, does anyone know if the area in which he lives offers solar panel energy? fiber optics?

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: eits
the average american household isn't a mansion, so of course it'll use more electricity. the average american household could probably fit in his garage.

besides, does anyone know if the area in which he lives offers solar panel energy? fiber optics?

As it's been explained in this thread, Gore's electrical source is 100% green (renewable sources) since Tennessee allows someone to pay a premium (about 50% more) to get a "Green Switch". So the premise of this whole thread was predicated on lies.

 

[TMoney468]

^Truth, I think its funny that Republicans are already starting to attack Gore, even when he isn't running for President (yet).

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: deepinya

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Tab
I think there's something else we ought to be looking at besides the power consumption of Gore's mansion. He's a millionare and millionares tend to have big homes that take up a lot of juice but Gore on the otherhand is an enviormentalist. Now, I don't think Gore should be living in a mud hut but I do think there's a much better way to criticize the man. Does he leave the lights on when he's not at home? Does he leave his car running? Does he turn down the thermostat when he goes to sleep? Does his mansion use any incandescent lighting?

All in all folks, unlesss we knew a bit more about Gore there really isn't anything to see here but a bunch of mental masturbation for conservatives.

I think that the point is that many of us are fed up with the do as I say, not as I do crowd.

So basically, unless he is living in a cave and walking to and from, he can't have a message and try and raise awarness to a real problem facing our planet. Got it.

:roll:

jfc you are a mental case

The point of this thread, (Ill keep it simple for you since your views are so warped even a monkey can see it)

PRACTICE WHAT YOU PREACH

Is it really that hard to comprehend??

Pst, look in the mirror for the mental case you freaking cook. Here is a for you spanky. Take your spaz pills before you make a bigger ass of yourself.

 

[BarneyFife]

15 page thread on Al Gore's electrical usage LMAO!!!

 

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: BarneyFife
15 page thread on Al Gore's electrical usage LMAO!!!

agreed. this thread is a waste of bandwidth. algore is a loser, let him attatch himself to whichever cause he likes. he can't get it done when it comes to presidential bids, so he resorts to personal causes. Let him be.

What's even funnier than conservatives harping on algore are the looney leftwing extremists in here that still want him to run for president. Now THAT's some funny stuff.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
It is not a permanently uninhabitable wasteland, wild animals are thriving there just fine.
[/b]

He has a point

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Harvey
It takes only one OOPS! to make a large area of the planet uninhabitable forever. That's not imaginary fear. It's already happened more than once, and there are still danger areas all over the world, including in the U.S. And that's before you get to the added dangers posed by a willful terrorist attack.

Unless you're ready and able to provide the technology to guarantee none of that will EVER happen, you haven't said anything useful.

It hasn't happened in over 20 years in the US.

There are leaking nuclear waste reserves in Hanford, Washington and other current and former nuclear facilities. Consider the last paragraph on this page from National Geographic:

A long deferred cleanup is now under way at 114 of the nation's nuclear facilities, which encompass an acreage equivalent to Rhode Island and Delaware combined. Many smaller sites, the easy ones, have been cleansed, but the big challenges remain. What's to be done with 52,000 tons (47,000 metric tons) of dangerously radioactive spent fuel from commercial and defense nuclear reactors? With 91 million gallons (345 million liters) of high-level waste left over from plutonium processing, scores of tons of plutonium, more than half a million tons of depleted uranium, millions of cubic feet of contaminated tools, metal scraps, clothing, oils, solvents, and other waste? And with some 265 million tons (240 million metric tons) of tailings from milling uranium ore?less than half stabilized?littering landscapes?

That's not a guarantee that an accident won't happen, EVER. In the case of radiation leaks, the ONLY acceptable risk level is ZERO. A nuclear accident would be bad enough, and you haven't begun to address the issue of security against a terrorist attack. Given this administration's abbysmal record of ineptitude in implementing the 9-11 Commission's recommendations about securing even less threatening dangers like chemical and communications facilities, what makes you so sure they've got a handle on protecting us from even ONE attack on a nuclear facility or storage area or any means of transporting waste to as yet unspecified permanent waste facilities?

And what is worst in your opinion, 10 degrees hotter across the earth in 100 years or the risk of a few square miles being uninhabitable?

What makes you think those are mutually exclusive conditions? They're not. Understanding the extreme danger of nuclear power versus any other power source is simply part of addressing the overall problem.

The fact of the matter is that nuclear energy is the best form of energy because the energy it produces is immense and the waste is manageable and containable. Nuclear power plants are subject to some of the most strict regulations on earth, and are pretty safe.

So says you with nothing to back it up. With nukes, the potential danger from a single nuclear event is so catastrophic in terms of number of lives and the size of the area that could be affected that anything less than ZERO tolerance, it isn't good enough.

You do realize that nuclear power plants don't "explode" when things go wrong, right?