User talk:Hmarcuse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Hmarcuse, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Will (Talk - contribs) 07:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nuclear and coal

Please, in your great wisdom, tell me how a comparison between a coal plant and a nuclear plant could possibly be considered "invideous". Thanks. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 13:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I think your comparison is intended to incite ill will, especially towards the opponents of nuclear power who thought and think that the Seabrook plant brings many more detriments to the environment than benefits. A comparison that selects one of the worst of many alternatives (including renewable power sources and conservation) makes the Seabrook nuke sound like an environmental angel. A discussion of effects should also look broadly at the entire cycle of fuel production and waste disposal. Why is fly ash relevant? Why not dioxin or mercury, or thorium or strontium? Your comparison cherry-picks two impacts (CO2 and fly ash), while ignoring other important ones, including other greenhouse gases, thermal effluent, and the production of highly toxic radioactive materials. Also, please do me a favor and lay off the sarcasm--I make no claim to great wisdom, just to fairness. Hmarcuse 16:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Seabrook was built in 1990. At that time, and even today, less than 1% of our electricity came from solar and wind. Coal and gas are by far the largest sources of energy for the electrical grid in this country. The amount of carbon emissions avoided by a wind farm is commonly, VERY commonly cited. Nuclear has roughly the same life cycle carbon emissions as wind. Solar has about twice the amount of carbon emissions. MANY studies support this, it is the scientific consensus. It is perfectly fair to quote the amount of carbon emissions avoided by hydro, wind, solar, nuclear, and other carbon neutral technologies. But you're not using an argument backed by numbers or science. You're using rhetoric. I do applaud your rhetoric skill, but Wikipedia is not the place for it. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 02:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)