First Germany, now Belgium: Nuclear energy to be phased out by 2015

World energy consumption according to wiki - thsi is for everything, including transport, not just electricity.

World electricity consumption is here

Enjoy

A group good folks tell it like it is.

reply to post by Northwarden

Our ancestors survived on much, much less, and did so for thousands of years.

You forgot to add two words to the end. "In Poverty".

Millions upon millions of megawatts are part of what makes living standards so high today. What a silly post. "Are you even remotely suggesting that we need nuclear power to survive as humans, or even coal?"... uhm, merely surviving isn't good enough. I'd rather have humanity consume enormous amounts of power so that we can be economically and technologically developed so we can pay for and power things like hospitals. I'd rather not live like humanity for the last several thousands of years just surviving.

and could not adapt to a much more conservative lifestyle without the industry excesses,

OH PLEASE.

You're from CANADA. The per capita power consumption of Canada is 1910 watts of electricity constantly. Do you know what the world average is? 297 watts. In other words, you're likely consuming 6.5 times the electricity of the average human on earth and you're sitting here on your computer (powered by nuclear power stations and hydro-electric dams) telling us that humanity doesn't need much electricity and we should just consume less and use magical technologies that you haven't specified. What an utterly selfish viewpoint.

(You then go off on a tangent about food production.)

Yeah, maybe Canada can use less power. The rest of the world however, like the 7 billion people using 1/6 the electricity you do, need a heck of a lot more of it, fast, if they want something that can even come close to your style of living. Yes, efficiency will play a role. So will renewables such as solar and wind. But realistically, the goal of greater electrification around the world will be much harder to accomplish if we take options off of the table.

Most deaths from Fukushima are not from radiation. Instead they are from people like you using it as evidence the world should somehow stop building power stations.

Originally posted by C0bzz
reply to post by Northwarden

 

Our ancestors survived on much, much less, and did so for thousands of years.

You forgot to add two words to the end. "In Poverty".

Millions upon millions of megawatts are part of what makes living standards so high today. What a silly post. "Are you even remotely suggesting that we need nuclear power to survive as humans, or even coal?"... uhm, merely surviving isn't good enough. I'd rather have humanity consume enormous amounts of power so that we can be economically and technologically developed so we can pay for and power things like hospitals. I'd rather not live like humanity for the last several thousands of years just surviving.

I think you're missing out on a spiritual side of things that always gets left out of these "intensive" energy arguements, such as relying on God for healing over the so-called doctors, but don't get me wrong - there's a place for modern doctors in emergency situations, but it's ever-so-often in emergency situations that we created, such as car accidents, through our technology. Do you truly think that technology is "our saving grace", and that we could not make do without it? That's a whole thread in itself. It's PATHETIC how dependant you assume we are upon it. Just pathetic.

Were people "just surviving" in the renaissance of the 15-1600's, one of the most enlightened ages we have seen? They were thriving, and they certainly had organic produce. Let's not forget there were powers over them back then who manipulated them the same as they are now, only it dealt with superstition over technological influences. How many literary resources do we teach and treasure from those days? Did people just reach thirty or forty, or were there all sorts of centurions living? Correct, all sorts of people had long lifetimes, and managed healthy old ages. Are you suggesting that modern medicine, with all its drugs, and phony disorders, and radiation treatments, and pill therapies is somehow a better arrangement? Hey, it was your example.

We have many advantages and opportunities these days, but have become somewhat less as human beings in many resourceful ways, and lack the classical education that would have preserved an ethical and solidified culture which was resiliant to so much misinformation and garbage. What a degraded, crappy culture and society people try to defend. How can it possibly compare to what the ancients held together??

and could not adapt to a much more conservative lifestyle without the industry excesses,

OH PLEASE.

You're from CANADA. The per capita power consumption of Canada is 1910 watts of electricity constantly. Do you know what the world average is? 297 watts. In other words, you're likely consuming 6.5 times the electricity of the average human on earth and you're sitting here on your computer (powered by nuclear power stations and hydro-electric dams) telling us that humanity doesn't need much electricity and we should just consume less and use magical technologies that you haven't specified. What an utterly selfish viewpoint.

Typical. You create a mind-numbing composition from the closest available facts which somebody provided at the top of the page, and expect us to applaud your hard-working conclusions. We use computers to communicate here on ATS, or else your post would not have arrived as a response to mine, so please don't berate the medium through which our words and channel arrive at each other. I personally live in a tent for six months of the year (absolute truth) and use very little power except during winter-times, when it becomes a benefit to survive, so you truly are barking up the wrong tree.

I've fully specified the technologies I'm supporting - Quantum energy, wind energy, wave energy, and solar power - I'm surprised anyone gave your post support given that this fact is so clear, and you lacked the reading comprehension to see it. Apparantly so did they.

I'm all for other countries to find the means to produce their own power, and in abundance of their needs. I'm saying do it with respect to the resource detriments, and if they can't use renewable, minimal-damage means, then conserve and do without. Don't use nuclear, thermite, petroleum, or coal, use those methods which are minimal impact and minimal risk. It really is a statement of hope for the future, in which I presently don't have a lot of hope in for Canada. Don't get me wrong, I'm not supporting my country under their current practices, and I am decidedly not a patriot, under present governance. Neither am I a rebel to our laws, to the degree that they are sane. I'm not going to consider us "selfish" for using more power when the sources can be approved of. To the rest, will be said "catch up", hopefully with our help.

reply to post by Northwarden

Do you truly think that technology is "our saving grace", and that we could not make do without it?

I for one, mostly do. I can say that even if nuclear is as dangerous as anti-nuclear activists would want us to believe, I would prefer to live a modern high-energy consumption lifestyle with more cancer than trying to achieve some (nonexistent) luddite utopia.

Talking about conserving energy, "spiritual" environmental BS and luddite utopias sounds nice in theory, but if you actually try to take cars, i-phones and all that high-energy jazz from modern society, anti-nuclear movement will be finished in no time. Mark my words.

Its cheap fossil fuels that allow anti-nuclear sentiment to exist.

Originally posted by Northwarden
I've fully specified the technologies I'm supporting - Quantum energy, wind energy, wave energy, and solar power - I'm surprised anyone gave your post support given that this fact is so clear, and you lacked the reading comprehension to see it.

Northwarden, I am not sure how you support technologies such as "...quantum energy, wind energy, wave energy, and solar power...." when the first doesn't exist as something we can harness yet (and maybe never will); the third is in its infancy and is yet to be feasible on a large scale (especially inland); and the second and fourth are simply not cost-effective against subsidized hydrocarbons (coal, oil, and natural gas), hydro, and nuclear power.

Wave power (hydrokinetic) has been shown to work in places like Scotland, but they are still in the technology-demonstration or LRIP phase. There are some serious issues involved in the economics of deploying and retrieving the equipment, transferring the power to shore to use the existing grid infrastructure, and, of course, the difficulties of building and maintaining devices in the extremely harsh marine environment.

Tidal-bore hydroelectricity has tremendous potential, but outside of a few demo locations off the Arabian peninsula, it hasn't been proven on a large-scale basis. If you're interested in that, you might want to see what Voith is doing with their submarine horizontal-axis turbines which use seawater instead of oil for lubrication. I attended a tidal-bore hydro seminar in San Diego a couple of years ago, and the big driver there is money. The only folks who have the dough to spend of such are some of the oil states like Kuwait, Qatar, UAE, etc.

The advantages and disadvantages of PV have been beaten to death; I'm sure you're as aware of them as I am. Although i never worked in wind turbines, when i worked in pricing hybrid systems back in the eighties, we were faced with three tough choices when it comes to wind power.

• Power varies as the cube of the wind velocity. With the same size turbine, if you wanted to double your power output, you'd have to have the wind blow eight times as hard; to triple the output, your wind speed would have to increase by a factor of 27.
  
  
• You can't have a one-size fits all turbine. Any turbine able to stand and extract energy from a light breeze would be destroyed by a gale; and turbine robust enough to extract energy under high wind conditions would not be effective in lighter airs. And wind, of course varies in velocity as well as duration, direction, and season.
  
  
• Wind turbines are chock-full of moving parts, including the turbines, clutch, bearings, rudder (if that's what your design has), and, of course, the rotor of the generator itself. If you're an engineer, moving parts are not your friend.

My point is that just because something works in theory doesn’t mean it works in practice; just because it works in practice, doesn't mean it's feasible; and just because it's feasible doesn't mean that it can compete with competing power sources that enjoy both the benefits of an in-place infrastructure, mass production, and a friendly political environment.

You and my brother are fortunate; you live in Canada, he lives in Costa Rica, chock-full of hydroelectricity and a net exporter. But for most of us, the reality of existence means that we cannot afford to be without either massive hydrocarbon or nuclear fission power-generation technology; indeed, we can't even choose between them. Right now we need both, and the fact that both of them have severe environmental drawbacks is irrelevant to the problem of power usage today.

reply to post by Northwarden

Do you truly think that technology is "our saving grace", and that we could not make do without it? That's a whole thread in itself. It's PATHETIC how dependant you assume we are upon it. Just pathetic.

*sigh*

There is a reason we have developed technology, and will continue to develop it further. One of the most obvious and important is the electric light (its various forms) - which allows us to function independent of daylight and in areas where sunlight never reaches, normally.

Other things, such as heaters, allow us to function in areas much colder than we would, normally. Better methods of insulating clothing and buildings also do this.

Now, personally - I don't believe we currently make the most of our technological innovations; we try and build our own 'caves' above ground to live in, exposing them to elements and temperature differentials that make climate control quite a challenge (hot in summer; cold in winter). Building underground or in caves is a far better alternative - and now much more practical given our engineering advances that make building underground structures just about as difficult as it is to build a standard house above-ground (which has not always been the case - hence the tradition of building homes above ground).

Another example is in medicine - where we have developed a bit of a fixation on using chemical compounds to address our every ailment... when we are only really beginning to learn about our body's natural methods of healing and how we adjust and develop with age (treating kids for psychological disorders can often be a bad idea, because the problems will often self-correct as they age, treating with compounds tends to interfere with this process and is not advised in all but the most extreme of cases).

It also doesn't help that people just want the 'quick fix' - they want technology to offer them a miracle cure for their problem... that doesn't really exist.

I'm all for other countries to find the means to produce their own power, and in abundance of their needs. I'm saying do it with respect to the resource detriments, and if they can't use renewable, minimal-damage means, then conserve and do without. Don't use nuclear, thermite, petroleum, or coal, use those methods which are minimal impact and minimal risk.

Request ignored.

/Thread.

reply to post by Maslo


Please get this out of your head that opposing nuclear makes you a "luddite"

I'm personally a fan of decentralized solutions to our power concerns, and smart homes make this entirely possible. Please have a scan of an amazing thread by VonDoomen entitled The Future Is Coming 3: Bionics & Optimizing Nature. It's very inspired, and illustrates a number of compelling options for sustaining communities that are entirely symbiotic with nature.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Another sustainable, and successful utopia creation is the Biodsphere 2 in Arizona.

Biosphere 2 is a 3.14-acre (12,700 m2)[1] structure originally built to be an artificial, materially-closed ecological system in Oracle, Arizona (USA) by Space Biosphere Ventures, a joint venture whose principal officers were John P. Allen, inventor and Executive Director, and Margret Augustine, CEO. Constructed between 1987 and 1991, it was used to explore the complex web of interactions within life systems in a structure that included five areas based on biomes and an agricultural area and human living/working space to study the interactions between humans, farming and technology with the rest of nature.[2] It also explored the possible use of closed biospheres in space colonization, and allowed the study and manipulation of a biosphere without harming Earth's. The name comes from Earth's biosphere, Biosphere 1. Earth's life system is the only biosphere currently known.

en.wikipedia.org...

Perhaps all you need is some inspiration/vision to see what's possible?

Originally posted by Northwarden
Another sustainable, and successful utopia creation is the Biodsphere 2 in Arizona.

Biosphere 2 is a 3.14-acre (12,700 m2)[1] structure originally built to be an artificial, materially-closed ecological system in Oracle, Arizona (USA) by Space Biosphere Ventures, a joint venture whose principal officers were John P. Allen, inventor and Executive Director, and Margret Augustine, CEO. Constructed between 1987 and 1991, it was used to explore the complex web of interactions within life systems in a structure that included five areas based on biomes and an agricultural area and human living/working space to study the interactions between humans, farming and technology with the rest of nature.[2] It also explored the possible use of closed biospheres in space colonization, and allowed the study and manipulation of a biosphere without harming Earth's. The name comes from Earth's biosphere, Biosphere 1. Earth's life system is the only biosphere currently known.

Since one of my favorite early morning motorcycle rides is from home to Oracle via Pinal Pioneer Parkway then spending the afternoon in Tucson, I have passed Biosphere at least twenty times and have visited it four times, once while the "researchers" were in it and three times since then, since it's one of the places that out-of-town visitors like to see.

As a matter of fact, when they were designing the place in 1986, my employer at the time bid on the photovoltaic system for powering it; the state-of-the-art in PV then (and maybe even today) was simply incapable of providing cost-effective power, so they ended up going with grid power.

If their original goal was to provide for a closed ecosystem, they failed in that it was not able to sustain a balance with people in it -- although they ended up with a very strong and large (billions) colony of ants. The scince was simply not there, although recently B-2 has proven to be a great tourist draw and demonstration area for intensive aquaculture.

reply to post by Northwarden

Perhaps all you need is some inspiration/vision to see what's possible?

There's a bit of a disconnect in your thinking.

I want to build my home to be pretty darn impressive and utilizing technology that hasn't even really hit the market at the time it is built (and build my home to be as efficient as possible).

It's a different issue to replace current urban landscapes with "Biosphere 2" and the like.

You're looking at a considerable change to everyone's way of life, and incalculable expenses to implement.

Sure: "Oh, wouldn't it be nice if we could just build this stuff." Yeah - it would be. The reality is that it takes time, resources, and manpower that are going to be difficult to muster for such an initiative.

I'm personally a fan of decentralized solutions to our power concerns, and smart homes make this entirely possible. Please have a scan of an amazing thread by VonDoomen entitled The Future Is Coming 3: Bionics & Optimizing Nature. It's very inspired, and illustrates a number of compelling options for sustaining communities that are entirely symbiotic with nature.

I've explored a number of these solutions and the reality is rather harsh.

For starters - you're looking at incredibly expensive front-end investments for these facilities. For single families - they are realistically impractical. When applied to commune-type complexes (such as apartments or other forms of communal living) - the picture changes, considerably - but you are still looking at a very high front-end investment and the employment of technologies that may or may not be regulated by local governments and fire codes.

You're looking at a social change - where individuals and families live together as opposed to seeking their individual little homesteads (for the most part). You would want to centralize food storage and preparation, areas for activities (one big living room shared by a few families as opposed to one for each apartment) - the list goes on.

Dominion Virginia Power seeks permission to lease space for solar panels

By: PETER BACQUÉ | Richmond Times-Dispatch

Published: November 02, 2011

www2.timesdispatch.com/business/2011/nov/02/tdbiz01-dominion-virginia-power-seeks-permission-t-ar-1427915/

Dominion Virginia Power has asked the State Corporation Commission for permission to lease space at commercial businesses and public facilities to put up electricity-generating solar panels.

If the project is approved, the panels would generate enough electricity to power about 6,000 homes during peak daylight hours, the Richmond-based electric utility said.

Part of Dominion Virginia Power's exploration of alternative energy technologies, the initiative would be a multiyear demonstration program to expand the company's understanding of community-based solar energy's impact on its distribution system.

In all, the company said it plans to install solar panels on 30 to 50 sites in its service area. Dominion Virginia Power has not identified specific locations for the panels yet.

"They're going to be large, 500 kilowatts to 2 megawatts," said the company's Dianne Corsello.

Solar panels producing that much energy would require 75,000 square feet to 300,000 square feet of area for installation. For example, a large retail store's area would be about 150,000 square feet, said Corsello, Dominion Virginia Power's manager of customer solutions and new technology.

(...)

reply to post by Off_The_Street

Northwarden, I am not sure how you support technologies such as "...quantum energy, wind energy, wave energy, and solar power...." when the first doesn't exist as something we can harness yet (and maybe never will); the third is in its infancy and is yet to be feasible on a large scale (especially inland); and the second and fourth are simply not cost-effective against subsidized hydrocarbons (coal, oil, and natural gas), hydro, and nuclear power.

Greetings again. It's enough for now to know that quantum energy plants have been invented and could be used in the future, if not for the politics involved, and the cost to the "pay-for" industry. That's one to tuck into the backburners until the political environment of the future can accomodate such advances, and simply knowing that provides a scope to work with for our meantime : it's the vision of where we could, even should be at, and it cuts through a lot of the various industries negative backtalk, of what's possible and what's not.

On the other three renewable sources I mentioned, I agree with you about the limited scope of tidal power, but mention it as a completely feasable alternate source. I'm seeing figures ranging from 10MW to proposed plans for a 1320MW array in Korea by 2017. It's pretty much choosing a viable location, and deciding how big they want to engineer them in regards to output.

Although not yet widely used, tidal power has potential for future electricity generation. Tides are more predictable than wind energy and solar power. Among sources of renewable energy , tidal power has traditionally suffered from relatively high cost and limited availability of sites with sufficiently high tidal ranges or flow velocities, thus constricting its total availability. However, many recent technological developments and improvements, both in design (e.g. dynamic tidal power, tidal lagoons) and turbine technology (e.g. new axial turbines, crossflow turbines), indicate that the total availability of tidal power may be much higher than previously assumed, and that economic and environmental costs may be brought down to competitive levels.

www.absoluteastronomy.com...

My point is that just because something works in theory doesn’t mean it works in practice, ...

When it comes to wind power, I think we really need to fix the theory, and create a better design. Besides the limitations you mentioned, they are noisy, kill many birds, and are coated with toxic chemicals to protect their structures. I'll propose a better theory, a hollowed honeycomb array that rotates with the wind that spins small turbines within, and powers alternators for energy generation. I've never thought too much of the massive turbine designs as they have a poor self-weight which requires so much wind velocity to keep them in constant motion, which in turn constantly drains from their potential output. An enclosed design that utilizes wind tunnels and smaller, spinning parts could solve many of the present problems. A small devotion of energy could be used to keep parts from freezing, similar to wires in a car window, and the angles themselves could keep water draining from the comb grid.

Solar power is a joy to consider, and there is so much potential to improve designs, and keep incorporating them on a decentralized basis home-by-home. It'll take years and years, but with each home or building that becomes self-supporting, the drain on the grid is that much less. It's simply a game to catch up and afford the infrastructure.

The fact is, the 350,000,000 tera watts of power available from the sun is so huge that an exposure to a full sun in only 15 minutes will be enough to generate the world's energy requirement

Compare that with energy that is generated by nuclear and fossil fuel. Presently, the available data for fossil and nuclear fuel is 10,800,000 tera watts which we all know to be non renewable.

According to the Wall Street Journal (in an article that was released in its August 2008 issue), there are groups, backed by political groups that are lobbying against the putting up of transmission lines for solar power. The construction of distribution lines for solar energy is also being blocked by environmental activists that restrict the delivering of solar energy to those who want it in their homes.

Another obstacle is that the power grid in the United States which was designed more than 100 years ago is now so congested in many regions. To deliver the solar power to consumers, scientists and engineers will have to come out with another cost efficient plan to transfer huge amounts of energy from one location to another.

www.renewable-sources.info...

reply to post by Off_The_Street


Putting it together on a home-by-home, neighbourhood-by-neighbourhood basis, we can put that technology to good use and eventually regulate the grid to an emergency system only. Add to the mix other smart advents most generating less than a MW - and individual structures and complexes can find their needs met without relying on the government for power support. A number of counties in ontario require that those producing their own power must sell it back to the grid at a reduced rate, and continue to buy discounted power from the grid - but let's face it, that's simply greed, over-control, and backwards politics.

There's geo-thermal systems for homes at a cost of about ten thousand to install, compost systems that heat entire restaurants, electric bikes with modified alternator systems which endlessly recharge themselves, magnetic engines which produce endless energy (I have a .pdf design for a 50hp magnetic generator for example), etc. Then comes sensible design for homes : using rock and dark colours in sun-rooms, with south-facing windows will apparantly provide enough warmth to heat a home all winter long, in -35C mountain temperatures. That fact was proved in a documentary named "Garbage Warrior", by a man who builds experimental homes and utilizes recyclables to amazing effect. It all comes down to our ingenuity.

www.garbagewarrior.com...
(slide presentation)

reply to post by Aim64C


Good points Aim64C.

You're looking at a considerable change to everyone's way of life, and incalculable expenses to implement.

Sure: "Oh, wouldn't it be nice if we could just build this stuff." Yeah - it would be. The reality is that it takes time, resources, and manpower that are going to be difficult to muster for such an initiative.

I agree completely ... this isn't a next week solution, but an eventual solution. I'm suggesting what I am as a bright look at a possible future, and the more the vision is shared, the more supportive everyone could become to see it happen for each other.

I appreciated your points in regards to underground construction too, it makes a lot of sense to work with that concept in tectonically safe areas. Or another example, if you constructed a greenhouse alongside a (secure / smoothed) rock face, the stone would absorb the sunrays and keep the interior warm during nights and even the winter.

reply to post by Northwarden


Says we don't need technology to survive. Suggests we cover the Earth with wind turbines and live in technologically advanced biospheres to survive.

Says we should "rely on God" instead of modern medicine.

Thinks that people in the Renaissance didn't have technology or modern medicine.



lolololol, this is what anti-nuclear activists actually believe?

/thread



Edit: Also the Bubonic plague is a great example of what happens when you "rely on God" instead of modern medicine.


Edit:

Were people "just surviving" in the renaissance of the 15-1600's, one of the most enlightened ages we have seen?

The Renaissance was one of the most enlightened ages we've seen because of their embrace of technology and science, trading science and rationalism for the superstition and sensationalism of the Dark Ages.

reply to post by Nosred


That was weak.

Says we don't need technology to survive.

I made no such claim. I claimed we don't need all of today's modern technology to survive.

Suggests we cover the Earth with wind turbines and live in technologically advanced biospheres to survive.

I suggested we seed NA with seed, improve the design of wind power, but didn't suggest we plant wind power across the entire earth. Reading comprehension please, or you're just being a useless troll.

Says we should "rely on God" instead of modern medicine.

In a word, Allopathy.
www.Whale.to

Thinks that people in the Renaissance didn't have technology or modern medicine.

Idiocy. I made no such claim in regards to technology in the renaissance : even the wheel is "technology". People in that period didn't have "Modern" medicine, what you smokin', Willis?

lolololol, this is what anti-nuclear activists actually believe?

No. That's what bored posters invent about them.

Also the Bubonic plague is a great example of what happens when you "rely on God" instead of modern medicine.

And AIDS, influenza, avian flu, and MS are all cured by modern medicine? Fallable and corrupt Human Science sounds like your "god".

To your edit : It was a period of high faith, and a breakaway from the dark ages, But, I'm celecrating it in terms of the literary advancements, and ethical strength of peoples interactions based on a comprehensive classical education. Are you truly claiming medieval scientists knew more than we do today??? It was fledgling. Today, medicine could be highly beneficial, but it's all been highjacked by WHO, the FDA, and other druglords who have no use for people after the age of retirement (in a nutshell).

Originally posted by Northwarden
I made no such claim. I claimed we don't need all of today's modern technology to survive.

Just "surviving" is not enough. Humanity is destined to be more than another species of animal in the forest merely "surviving".

I suggested we seed NA with seed, improve the design of wind power, but didn't suggest we plant wind power across the entire earth. Reading comprehension please, or you're just being a useless troll.

You're saying we should rely entirely on wind power and solar power. Wind power is so inefficient that vast tracts of land would have to be filled with turbines just to meet even our most basic electrical needs.

In a word, Allopathy.
www.Whale.to

Find a reliable site to support your claims here. You seem to hate modern medicine for no good reason. Open a history book please and see what the world was like before it. Again: Bubonic plague. That's what happens when you "rely on God" instead of modern medical practices.

Idiocy. I made no such claim in regards to technology in the renaissance : even the wheel is "technology".

You were implying that people in the Renaissance were practically living in the stone age and weren't making use of modern technology. The Renaissance was, in fact, marked by the rapid scientific and technological advancements. These people were not rejecting technology and medicine. The Renaissance was a golden age in history precisely [i[because people embraced modern technology.

The society you seem to be envisioning in your posts above appears to be closer to what we saw in the Dark Ages. Again, open a history book.

People in that period didn't have "Modern" medicine, what you smokin', Willis?

Lol, the Renaissance was where "modern medicine" began. Before that people used your method of "relying on God" and look where it got them *cough cough* black death *cough cough*.

No. That's what bored posters invent about them.

No, it's what you've said in your posts above.

And AIDS, influenza, avian flu, and MS are all cured by modern medicine? Fallable and corrupt Human Science sounds like your "god".

Confirmed for not understanding how medicine or viruses work. Are you still in High School? You appear not to have taken Biology yet.

Please take a look at either Small pox or Polio and tell me that modern medicine doesn't work.

It was a period of high faith, and a breakaway from the dark ages, But, I'm celecrating it in terms of the literary advancements, and ethical strength of peoples interactions based on a comprehensive classical education. Are you truly claiming medieval scientists knew more than we do today???

The Renaissance was when the foundations of modern science were laid. Again, open a history book.

Originally posted by Nosred

Originally posted by Northwarden

I made no such claim. I claimed we don't need all of today's modern technology to survive.

Just "surviving" is not enough. Humanity is destined to be more than another species of animal in the forest merely "surviving".

I'm referring to the lower layers of Maslow's chart when I say surviving. I'm well aware there are love and fulfillment needs for us, as a species, as well. Thanks for stating the obvious. It doesn't hinge on technology to achieve these, as our ancestors proved to us.

I suggested we seed NA with seed, improve the design of wind power, but didn't suggest we plant wind power across the entire earth. Reading comprehension please, or you're just being a useless troll.

You're saying we should rely entirely on wind power and solar power. Wind power is so inefficient that vast tracts of land would have to be filled with turbines just to meet even our most basic electrical needs.

That's only part of what I hope we will rely on in the future, and I already stated that wind power designs could use an improvement. If you read what I sourced in regards to Solar, which I'm advocating more than wind, you would see that 15 minutes of sunlight and enough panels (prisms/dark absorbant materials, etc) to collect them will meet the entirety of the worlds energy needs. Further, there is enough to meet them approx. 35 times over, which is approximately enough power for ... almost 250 billion peoples' power needs on earth from solar power alone.

In a word, Allopathy.
www.Whale.to

Find a reliable site to support your claims here. You seem to hate modern medicine for no good reason. Open a history book please and see what the world was like before it. Again: Bubonic plague. That's what happens when you "rely on God" instead of modern medical practices.

That's an excellant source, try reading before you critique. Garbage in the streets, excrement, rats, low or nil health standards on food supplies, malnutrition and crowded, dirty cities caused the plague brainiac, perhaps proving that I "opened a history book" before, you ignorant #$%#^.

Idiocy. I made no such claim in regards to technology in the renaissance : even the wheel is "technology".

You were implying that people in the Renaissance were practically living in the stone age and weren't making use of modern technology. The Renaissance was, in fact, marked by the rapid scientific and technological advancements. These people were not rejecting technology and medicine. The Renaissance was a golden age in history precisely [i[because people embraced modern technology.

The society you seem to be envisioning in your posts above appears to be closer to what we saw in the Dark Ages. Again, open a history book.

Modern Technology In The Renaissance Period is Ancient Science To Us.

People in that period didn't have "Modern" medicine, what you smokin', Willis?

Lol, the Renaissance was where "modern medicine" began. Before that people used your method of "relying on God" and look where it got them *cough cough* black death *cough cough*.

Faith and the plague are mutually exclusive. If people relied on God`s good advice from the bible, they would realize that `cleanliness is next to Godliness`, and would have used their God-given wisdom, and moved from filthy cities where disease broke out. I think you`re missing a few steps in your analysis there.

No. That's what bored posters invent about them.

No, it's what you've said in your posts above.

Utter BS. Disinfo on your part. The proof is above : it`s your integrity on the line when you speak provable lies about someone, not the recipients.

And AIDS, influenza, avian flu, and MS are all cured by modern medicine? Fallable and corrupt Human Science sounds like your "god".

Confirmed for not understanding how medicine or viruses work. Are you still in High School? You appear not to have taken Biology yet.

Please take a look at either Small pox or Polio and tell me that modern medicine doesn't work.

I didn`t say Small pox or Polio, I specifically cited AIDS, influenza, avian flu, and MS. Where`s your cures from modern medicine ? There`s lots to suggest that all are man-made viruses, and lots to suggest that your precious vaccines are deadly.

Get a life.

edit on 7-11-2011 by Northwarden because: (no reason given)

reply to post by Northwarden

And AIDS, influenza, avian flu, and MS are all cured by modern medicine? Fallable and corrupt Human Science sounds like your "god".

We have medications against influenza and AIDS. People of today have much better chance to be cured / survive much longer with these conditions.

reply to post by Northwarden

Please get this out of your head that opposing nuclear makes you a "luddite"

Then stop advocating return to renaissance lifestyle, curing by God or spiritual BS and similar nonsense.

I'm personally a fan of decentralized solutions to our power concerns, and smart homes make this entirely possible.

I dont believe it will be economical, not in foreseeable future. When you show me a modern (read: high energy usage per capita) post-oil economy reliably powered by renewables and/or your nonexistent quantum power plants, then I will be the first to advocate phasing out of nuclear. Not a second sooner.