26 Sep 08
Originally posted by theprotectorsI think as if the looming environmental disaster wasn’t bad enough, the environment may be the least of our worries when considering our dependence on fossil-fuels! I don’t know if you have already seen this but I have written a huge article on this matter that you can see if you scroll towards the bottom of:
Here is my two cent´s on the matter.
We are polluting our self and so te very earth it self as well.
We know how to do other kinds of fuel to cars and trucks.
Usally some of us when we are going to work or to town or just go to the shop to buy food, we are aloone in the car. That does not make any sence at all at least not for the economy.
Their a ...[text shortened]... orary action.
Sun power or even wind power looks like a good idea.
What are you ideas on this?
http://www.politic.co.uk/planet/10266-world-famine-coming-before-oil-runs-out.html
26 Sep 08
Originally posted by joe shmoAlthough newer technologies are being brought online, glassification of nuclear waste, the big problem is that waste. It's millions of times worse than any chemical spill. All you have to do is look around Chernoble to figure that one out. Disposing of waste is one of the big gotcha's. Another is these idiots who build nuclear plants on active earthquake fault zones, there are several like that, one in southern california. Another issue is, suppose a Bin Laden type gets a hold of a small nuke, briefcase size and sets on off by a nuke station. You think a single atomic bomb would be bad? You haven't lived till you imagine the horror inflicted on some unsuspected city with that. It would be worse than Chernoble by far, making thousands of square miles totally uninhabitable. Of course all this you could put down to paranoia but look at the difference if a small nuke was set off inside a coal burning power plant vs Three mile Island for instance. We may have no choice but build more nuke plants but there are major major downsides also. There are already thousands of tons of waste so radioactive it will be a killer 10,000 years from now, a nice legacy for our grandkids. That is just the start. Suppose we go into nukes big time like they are doing in France and now, Germany. They are going to have big time problems getting rid of the waste safely. That is the key word there, safely. I am sure in China or Russia, if nuclear wastes needs to be gotten rid of, dump the stuff down the drain. Russia already has, they decommissioned old nuclear subs and now what to do with the old reactors, radioactive as hell. AH, I know, some enterprising young engineer says, dump them in the Black Sea, nobody will ever know.
noone ever say nuclear energy? Its always this go green crap. Why not go nuke?
So now there about 3 bare nuclear reactor cores on the bottom of the Black sea. You want that multiplied by a thousand? Those governments don't give a rats asss what happens to the people in the vacinity, so what if a few thousand kids get cancer, there is more where they came from. Outside of that, I have no issue with nukes.
26 Sep 08
Originally posted by joe shmoUnless you are talking here about nuclear fusion as opposed to nuclear fission, I would say that nuclear is the worst alternative to fossil fuels you could choose.
noone ever say nuclear energy? Its always this go green crap. Why not go nuke?
This is because it is the least sustainable alternative (-certainly much less sustainable than nuclear fusion) and, although I think the problem of disposing of the waste is generally rather hyped-up and exaggerated by environmentalists and although I think there are practical ways of dealing with the waste problem, nuclear fission reactors are just too dangerous because there are too many things that can go wrong that can cause the core to meld down and cause an accidental release of radioactive fallout and I don’t think it is likely that a way will be found to make the risk of that happening acceptably small in the foreseeable future.
If we are to go nuclear, I think nuclear fusion power rather than nuclear fission power is the only good way forward here. Of course, we could also go solar and wind power and wave power etc -what it wrong with these options? -in particular, solar power has the potential to generate far more power world-wide than what nuclear fission could realistically generate! -and it would be both sustainable and safe.
26 Sep 08
1 edit
Originally posted by EladarBut one year does not make a 'trend' a fact you are conveniently ignoring. I am still curious as to why you deliberately spread lies about global warming.
There is more Arctic Ice this year than there was last year.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Is it someone you work for? A religious reason? Love of conspiracy theory? Or maybe you just love a good argument?
26 Sep 08
One problem with nuclear power not yet mentioned is that we don't necessarily want every country in the world getting their hands on nuclear technology - because some have a tendency of using it for other things.
In general it is harder to discourage other countries from pursuing it if it is your own main source of power, and it is harder to keep the technology under wraps the more power stations you have.
- Joined
- 10 Dec 06
- Moves
- 8528
26 Sep 08
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadactually sonhouse mentioned something to that affect in his post above...
One problem with nuclear power not yet mentioned is that we don't necessarily want every country in the world getting their hands on nuclear technology - because some have a tendency of using it for other things.
In general it is harder to discourage other countries from pursuing it if it is your own main source of power, and it is harder to keep the technology under wraps the more power stations you have.
As for Fusion, Isn't it technolgically impossible as of yet...I know we are working on it, but it is not sustainable because of ultra massive forces and ungodly temperatures?
26 Sep 08
But one year does not make a 'trend' a fact you are conveniently ignoring
I never said it did. What I said was the the CO2 wasn't causing the climate change. If the sun continues in its quiet cycle, then according to the scientists I've read, the earth will continue to cool.
26 Sep 08
Originally posted by EladarAnd the problem with that is people will get complacent, go back to business as usual and say, 30 years or whatever, down the line, when we are dumping even more CO2 THEN the sun goes back to its normal output, things will be hit even harder than they are now because it will happen really fast. The fact that the sun is maybe in a cooling trend is just dumb luck and is just another cycle within a cycle within a cycle. The CO2 in the atmosphere may actually keep things warmer if the sun heads for a real dump like it did in the 'little ice age' 500 odd years ago where the Thames froze over solid. If it were to get that bad with the sun we will be thankful for the CO2 blanket. But that lowering of solar energy will not last forever. That is the problem I think. When it heats up we will have hot sun PLUS heavy amounts of CO2 which is not a cooling gas, however much you may want to believe it.
[b]But one year does not make a 'trend' a fact you are conveniently ignoring
I never said it did. What I said was the the CO2 wasn't causing the climate change. If the sun continues in its quiet cycle, then according to the scientists I've read, the earth will continue to cool.[/b]
27 Sep 08
1 edit
This thread is about global warming. I'm glad to see that you agree that CO2 is not the main factor in global warming.
Discussions about how we can help to keep the world as cool as possible simply lead people to believe that man is the reason for global warming. So I'm afraid I'm going to have to avoid that discussion in this thread. Too many people have been brain washed to have a useful discussion of the real issues.
. When it heats up we will have hot sun PLUS heavy amounts of CO2 which is not a cooling gas, however much you may want to believe it.
You aren't the brightest bulb in closet now are you? I guess some people require more repetition than others, so I'll say it again:
I do not claim that CO2 is a cooling gas.
27 Sep 08
Originally posted by EladarI try to stay away from Ad Hominem's, it might be wise for you to do so also. One thing I was thinking about CO2, it lets in visible light but tends to block IR. Right now, we make double pane glass filled with argon, but I wonder if it would be better to use CO2, it seems to be a perfect match, it would slow down IR through the windows in summer and keep in the IR in the winter. Seems like a no-brainer to me.
This thread is about global warming. I'm glad to see that you agree that CO2 is not the main factor in global warming.
Discussions about how we can help to keep the world as cool as possible simply lead people to believe that man is the reason for global warming. So I'm afraid I'm going to have to avoid that discussion in this thread. Too many people ...[text shortened]... repetition than others, so I'll say it again:
I do not claim that CO2 is a cooling gas.
Did you understand what I meant by the complacency factor? Right now it is just a hint the sun may be in a cooling trend and we have a bit of headroom as far as the tipping point for CO2, right now about 380 PPM, 0.4 parts per thousand and the tipping point is somewhere around 600 Parts per million so the planet is not in terrible trouble yet but if it goes back to business as usual, we will have double trouble if the sun actually is dropping in output. That has yet to be proven. There are other effects from the sun, UV affects the upper atmosphere and cloud cover so the whole story has yet to be totally sussed out, news at 11.
The only thing that concerns me is if it is totally proven we are in deep doo doo, the warnings will be ignored as they are now, albeit with less sure data but when the real data comes in and if it says, we are close to a tipping point, personally, I think there will not be a real response, everyone wants their cars and cell phones so it will come as a real shock when it turns 140 degrees in downtown NYC, for instance.
28 Sep 08
Originally posted by EladarIt sounded to me like you were endorsing that link where it said CO2 may be a 'cooling' gas, which is a huge crock. I assumed you believed that line of BS. Sorry for making assumptions.
[b]I try to stay away from Ad Hominem's,
Perhap, but you have absolutely no problem trying to say that a person says something he never said.[/b]
28 Sep 08
That just goes to show that you aren't too good a mind reading. Then again, it might be that you aren't too good at reading in general since I corrected you the first time you said it.
It seems to me that you are more interested in blowing smoke than actually understanding what the other person says. There are alot of people like that on internet boards and this board definitely has its share. It is a total waste of time trying to discuss things with people who only want to argue.