Will you temporarily stop purchasing Japanese Greens?

[JBaymore]

Some might say that the Japanese greens get "glowing" reviews...... but I would not be that someone.

Still buying and drinking Japanese gereens... and recently visiting Japan ....and heading back in 2 1/2 months... and heading back all next summer.

best,

...........john

[a.serrao]

Energy can be effectively produced with the sun power. Even hydrogen can be produced from water effectively with this technology. I can post sources but they are in italian. If you don't mind translating here they are:

1) Progetto Archimede (ENEA): http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progetto_Archimede

2) Thermodynamic solar power:
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impianto_s ... modinamico

Renewable sources are the way to go, in the long term. Of course they can't be an immediate replacement for current power sources.
I'm not advocating burning coal or fossil fuels, they aren't renewable by definition.

[Chasm]

Uh, you do understand the kind of scale we're talking about here, right?

In the near term, if you're against nuclear power, you're agitating for burning fossil fuels. That's simply the reality of how much of what is available where. Unless, of course, you just shout about using less, which amounts to deciding that people in developing countries can just go die for lack of the technologies that would save them.

Using less energy where possible is good, developing renewables is good, but pretending that these are enough to get away from needing either fossil fuels or nuclear in large quantities helps no one, since that's merely a fantasy for the time being. Unless you want to kill a lot of people, that is.

[Chasm]

Some might say that the Japanese greens get "glowing" reviews...... but I would not be that someone.

Hey, my coworkers have been complaining for years that my matcha looks like nuclear waste...

[a.serrao]

Uh, you do understand the kind of scale we're talking about here, right?

In the near term, if you're against nuclear power, you're agitating for burning fossil fuels. That's simply the reality of how much of what is available where. Unless, of course, you just shout about using less, which amounts to deciding that people in developing countries can just go die for lack of the technologies that would save them.

Using less energy where possible is good, developing renewables is good, but pretending that these are enough to get away from needing either fossil fuels or nuclear in large quantities helps no one, since that's merely a fantasy for the time being. Unless you want to kill a lot of people, that is.

If you had the will to visit one of those links I put on my post, you should have seen that Carlo Rubbia (have you heard of him?) said that:

"Secondo il fisico italiano Rubbia un ipotetico quadrato di specchi di 40 mila km² (200km per ogni lato) basterebbe per sostituire tutta l'energia derivata dal petrolio prodotta oggi nel mondo, mentre per alimentare un terzo dell'Italia basterebbe un'area equivalente a 15 centrali nucleari: vasta, in pratica, quanto il Grande Raccordo Anulare[1].

[1] http://www.telefree.it/news.php?op=view&id=54374

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrated_solar_power

I'm tired of repeating the same story over and over: I'm not advocating the use of fossil fuel as a substitution for nuclear power.

[chingwa]

Nuclear energy is simply not a sustainable endeavor. It never was. The technology was pushed onto the world before it left it's infancy, before we understood how to handle the toxic by-products that are far more dangerous for both the long-term and short-term than "traditional" sources of power generation. As it stands once a nuclear plant is decommissioned, the resulting waste products and materials still have to be managed in a controlled environment... in perpetuity. This may seem fine for now but we are dooming future generations to life with radioactive waste, and the responsibility to manage these sites indefinitely.

Not to mention the entire endeavor is only "profitable" because of gigantic public subsidies in the creation, management, and decommissioning process.

The disaster in Japan should be a wake-up call, and an opportunity to really review this issue on a world-wide basis. I am no expert on nuclear energy or waste. Nor do I need to be in order to see the looming potential for a disaster of massive proportions. This issue is in fact simply too important to leave to the experts.

...now, all that being said, I happily just placed an order for some sencha including shincha from the Uji area. I will be gulping it down without a worry in the world. ^_^

[JBaymore]

This issue is in fact simply too important to leave to the experts

[Chasm]

"Secondo il fisico italiano Rubbia un ipotetico quadrato di specchi di 40 mila km² (200km per ogni lato) basterebbe per sostituire tutta l'energia derivata dal petrolio prodotta oggi nel mondo, mentre per alimentare un terzo dell'Italia basterebbe un'area equivalente a 15 centrali nucleari: vasta, in pratica, quanto il Grande Raccordo Anulare[1].

Okay, so you're off in fantasyland. That's nice, but not helpful for the people who don't have access to the power they need. Theoretical possibilities and viable technology (on the scale required) aren't the same thing.

I'm tired of repeating the same story over and over: I'm not advocating the use of fossil fuel as a substitution for nuclear power.

You keep saying that, but you have yet to offer a viable alternative, which is starting to make it sound like you're voting for the "kill a lot of people" option, which I assume can't be right.

[Chasm]

Fixed this for ya:

Fossil fuel energy is simply not a sustainable endeavor. It never was. The technology was pushed onto the world before it left it's infancy, before we understood how to handle the toxic by-products that are far more dangerous for both the long-term and short-term than "renewable" sources of power generation such as nuclear. As it stands once a fossil fuel source is decommissioned, the resulting waste products and materials still have to be managed in a controlled environment... in perpetuity. This may seem fine for now but we are dooming future generations to life with radioactive waste produced in staggering quantities by the coal industry along with all the other toxic waste from coal and other fossil fuel production, and the responsibility to manage these sites indefinitely.

Not to mention the entire endeavor is only "profitable" because of gigantic public subsidies of the coal industry and corporate welfare for the petrochemical industries.

The disaster in Japan should be a wake-up call, and an opportunity to really review this issue on a world-wide basis. Careful examination of the damage done by anything having to do with energy production, divided up by fuel type, makes it clear that if we were to draw lessons from this one disaster alone, it would be clear that nuclear is not nearly so harmful to ourselves and the environment as, say, petroleum production and use.

[brlarson]

Following this thread has been like running through a fun house on Halloween: there are plenty of thrills here but no danger. Many good cautionary points have been raised, but ultimately the systems that are already in place have resolved issues as they have arisen and have kept the consumers (us) safe.

Is the sky really falling? No, it isn't. Are we going to continue to watch the situation? Yes, we are. Are we still going to shriek every time Japanese green tea is featured as a news product? God, I hope not.

(When can we retire this thread?)

[AdamMY]

(When can we retire this thread?)

I vote Yay, though I imagine a similar thread would be opened up, but I will say lately we have been dipping dangerously into the Political zone which is a mostly avoided topic on Teachat for good reason.

[Drax]

(When can we retire this thread?)

I vote Yay, though I imagine a similar thread would be opened up,

+1....

At least it has seemed to stop all the other threads from being created; that was definitely happening.

How about we promise each other to post a lot in the "ordering" or "review" topics and drown this one out? (Okay, it's stickied, so that won't happen, but I think it's a shame this thread has so many posts while the one actually about enjoying teas has so few).

[Chasm]

I'd be happy either way, really. It's a tea board, so keeping it to just tea is a nice enough idea.

But I do love it when people care enough to get worked up about injustices that can harm and kill other people. That rocks. It does get frustrating when there's widespread misinformation, because in general people are smart and people like fairness, which means if you give everybody good information, good things tend to happen.

[chingwa]

chasm, please, why do you insist that is not possible to criticize one form of energy without implying that another form is the only viable option. perhaps that is true in the short term, but in the long-term I have no doubts that human beings can find much better and viable answers to this question... unless of course they are stuck being satisfied with nuclear / fossil fuel of which neither are optimal ways forward.

a little more open imagination is in order and is probably vital. otherwise we'll all be stuck with both these killers forever.

as to my other comment on not relying on experts, I am simply implying that a little collective wisdom can beat narrow expertise any day.

(currently sipping on a bit of nissaka fukamushi from Hojo)

[a.serrao]

"Secondo il fisico italiano Rubbia un ipotetico quadrato di specchi di 40 mila km² (200km per ogni lato) basterebbe per sostituire tutta l'energia derivata dal petrolio prodotta oggi nel mondo, mentre per alimentare un terzo dell'Italia basterebbe un'area equivalente a 15 centrali nucleari: vasta, in pratica, quanto il Grande Raccordo Anulare[1].

Okay, so you're off in fantasyland. That's nice, but not helpful for the people who don't have access to the power they need. Theoretical possibilities and viable technology (on the scale required) aren't the same thing.

You should have more respect for Rubbia, who obviously you don't know (or care to know) who is.
I will not dispute, since this topic's starting to go way OT.