Global Warming
#46
Posted 12 March 2007 - 05:01 AM
http://video.google....665474899458831
All I say is, if like most people you think man-made global warming is rational, the least you can do, after learning there ever is a sceptic side with prestigious scientifics and all, is hearing what they have to say. This documentary is a good start, it says plenty of things I didn't know about. Global warming is something most people give his opinion about, and nearly all that people hasn't heard the alternatives, IMO it wouldn't be honest refusing to hear them but still having a strong and militant position.
"STFU and show me your screenies!!"
#47
Posted 12 March 2007 - 05:32 AM
For all you artists here... and we have enough. Please draw me something :D Click Here. If possible include your nick. A simple Test. dunno of the PICKLEWAESEL order!!1!2
#48
Posted 12 March 2007 - 05:54 AM
Juni Ori, on Mar 6 2007, 07:23 AM, said:
Juni Ori, on Mar 6 2007, 07:23 AM, said:
Also, I'm not too eager to blindly rush into alternative energy sources. Think about history: what happened when hydropower plants were invented? For long green parties and different organizations demanded more hydropower plants, as they were more "ecological". What the history has taught us? Everything's relative. First of all, the local environmental disaster when the dam is built. Then the effects to rivers wildlife. Then the suddenly growing mass of the area - which is significant. You don't hear anyone speaking of hydropower plants greatness anymore, do you? Same was with the nuclear energy, ill effects were discovered later. As is with every new technology we discover! I have some fears about all new alternatives, and thus they should be carefully studied and tested locally in long term before building them everywhere. Meanwhile, we can support our growing need of energy with relatively most secure source: nuclear energy.
#49
Posted 12 March 2007 - 04:54 PM
But what I mean is that you have to manufacture immense numbers of windmills or solar panels to produce any significant amount of energy, and to manufacture them you're going to use energy, create waste and pollution, etc. These components are specially sofisticated and costly; only to get the silicon needed for solar panels, humongous amounts of heat are required in the process, and that kind of energy can't be produced with renewable sources. And these components don't last forever so they must be replaced every so often. If you divide the energy you get by the pollution and impact created when manufacturing the generating components, renewable sources are by far the dirtiest ones. Ironic eh?
Not to talk about bio-mass, that's the greatest fraud of all. Not only is it incredibly inefficient, expensive, and also means going back to the Middle Ages. It's also quite obviously the dirtiest energy source on Earth, way dirtier than fossil fuels in every aspect. The EU is heavily involved in it to fight global warming --which is also a fraud--, and their argument to say it's clean is that the plants it's taken from have absorbed CO2 during their lifetime. That's simply stupid, I can't believe people are actually buying it. First they concentrate on inocuous CO2 because of the supposed man-made global warming, and not in real pollution such as acid rain or aerosols. But most important, their idea that the same energy source has absorbed the same amount of CO2 generated during its use is stupid because if those extensions of land were not dedicated to bio-mass they would still be farmed and the plants there would still absorb CO2 regardless of the fact that they wouldn't be destined to energetic use. So it's simply a lie that the CO2 balance is even with bio-mass. Not to mention that, as every elementary student knows --or used to know because nowadays they're only taught about the Ultimate and Unquestionable Scientific Truth of man-made global warming--, fossil fuels come from bio-mass trapped deep below the surface eras ago, and that bio-mass already absorbed CO2 at the time, so the same fallacious argument could be used in favour of fossil fuels. Well the sheer truth is that fossil fuels are way cleaner than bio-mass in every aspect, and they're also cheapest and more efficient. And still the EU is spending millions in this nonsensical moronic parade, it's not science, it's not even environmentalism per se, it's politics, and more sinister the more you think about it.
"STFU and show me your screenies!!"
#50
Posted 12 March 2007 - 05:03 PM
#51
Posted 12 March 2007 - 06:57 PM
QUOTE (gregor)
also consider this - the turkey *male genital*ula is called little asia on some geographical maps maps.
I'm your solar-powered princess/Your technological soulmate.
#52
Posted 12 March 2007 - 08:12 PM
Beef, I don't think your data are correct, nuclear energy has worked and works without need of subsidies, unlike renewable sources. The only reason why some countries aren't using it any longer is because it got banned to please ecologists. Among the costs of nuclear energy the ones related to the raw materials are close to insignificant, considering that you can get 15,000 times as much energy from 1 kg of uranium than from 1 kg of fossil fuel. Nuclear energy is not experimental and is profitable, renewable sources aren't, this has been proven by experience for decades and there's no point in discussing something you can see for yourself.
If the energy sources you mention are some day practical then let's use them, but they're not so right now and I don't think they will. What I said about huge manufacturing cost and impact still applies, and I think you fail to fathom that no piece of machinery lasts forever. A windmill or wave turbine won't last longer than your average car, and won't last witout needing maintenance longer either, it does need maintenance. Once their lifespan is expended, you'll need new ones, and each will have generated an insignificant amount of the energy generated by a turbine in a thermal plant (nuclear plants are thermal also) during the same span.
"STFU and show me your screenies!!"
#53
Posted 12 March 2007 - 08:32 PM
Quote
QUOTE (gregor)
also consider this - the turkey *male genital*ula is called little asia on some geographical maps maps.
I'm your solar-powered princess/Your technological soulmate.
#54
Posted 12 March 2007 - 09:09 PM
I have mentioned several times the motivations behind the global warming crowd (which I'm still waiting to hear your explanations for, by the by).
You're not a moron, and I don't think Japo was even coming close to hinting at that.
#55
Posted 12 March 2007 - 09:46 PM
DakaSha:if you go into a kindergarden and give all the kids rubber schlongs they will prob just hit each other over the head with them
DakaSha:and you have a class of little kids hitting eachother with rubber dongs which must be quite funny (also Picklweasel knight I am)
#56
Posted 12 March 2007 - 09:50 PM
First off, risk comes in all singular parts of the process. There's not just a reactor explosion to worry about. A single 'oilspill' does enough damage in itself.
That wouldn't be as much a problem, but the risks taken are beyond a timeframe we can take responsibility for:
If one wants to go the way of nuclear energy, one has to be able to guarantee continued knowledge, skill, interest and financial means to keep up maintenance and safe usage, even after expirement of any singular powerplant. The timeframes are far beyond anything anyone can guarantee, though.
When any of those things becomes problematic, safely dismanteling nuclear reactors and safe depositing of residue will be the last thing on everybody's minds. Moreover, if we focus on nuclear power, taking a step away from it when needed will be the last thing on anybody's minds, and critical situations will occur, even if they're incredibly unlikely now (which I'm prepared to admit to a certain extent). People always stretch, when we cannot operate like we're used to within former bounderies, we stretch them, relativating the risks we're taking. It's common practice, nuclear power is itself an example.
Wonderfull sig and avvie by Taikara :D
#57
Posted 13 March 2007 - 12:01 AM
QUOTE (gregor)
also consider this - the turkey *male genital*ula is called little asia on some geographical maps maps.
I'm your solar-powered princess/Your technological soulmate.
#58
Posted 13 March 2007 - 01:45 AM
Anyway I think there are two points which seem pretty obvious to me, and maybe you won't agree on them:
1.- Nuclear power is not experimental. It's been around for half a century and is proven safe. Okay if terrorists sabotaging plants is ever an argument, it can be used against planes because terrorists can hijack them and crash them into the World Trade Center, let's ban flight. And terrorists can also sabotage hydroelectric plants and thus cause floods which can kill more people than a nuclear meltdown, let's ban hydroelectric plants. You can follow banning cars because they can be used to run over people, electricity because people can electrocute. Let's ban progress, that's what this is all about.
And okay Chernobyl happened. A single accident during half a century. In the USSR, in thirdworldish, negligent, criminal maintenance conditions. No other nuclear plant among the dozens or hundreds that exist suffered a meltdown during half a century. What does this tell us? That nuclear power has been proven safe.
And nuclear waste has been disposed of safely during this half a century, and it wouldn't be a problem either disposing of the waste generated in the future. Regardless of the alarm generated from the beginning, nuclear waste hasn't caused any ecological disasters during all these decades.
2.- Wind power is not experimental either. Industrially it's been around for a couple of decades already and is proven unable to satisfy our needs. Fifty years in the future we'll still be hearing that wind generation needs to be researched further, even though the scientific and technological principles behind it were fully undestood a century ago.
As for global warming I already linked the documentary, it even talks about some motivations behind it, and I recommend you to watch it anyway. I also talked previously about Enron, Acciona and the like. In the EU there's a whole industry sector dedicated to generate renewable energy, formed by companies founded only because otherwise non-profitable activities are heavily subsidized. When the EU reviews its energy policies it asks the associations formed by these companies their opinion, I read one of those reports, not surprisingly it amounted to "just keep giving me money".
Anyway it's not about who invented the theory, testing wrong theories is part of the scientific method. It's about who's saying that it's proven with the aid of state-funded propaganda and the media and NGOs, who's interested in it, who attacks anyone that disagrees, who turned a scientific debate into one of the main concerns of the UN and governments worldwide, etc.
"STFU and show me your screenies!!"
#59
Posted 13 March 2007 - 02:20 AM
Terrapass said:
...
In the last year TerraPass has purchased credits for nearly 1,800 tons of CO2 from the McNeilus Wind Farm alone. That's equivalent to the amount carbon emitted by about 400 mid-size cars in a year.
Let me put this whole TerraPass deal in average person terms. The average person's carbon footprint (in a 1st world country like the US) is around 18 tons. So, say I have a 21-ton footprint and you only have a 15-ton footprint. TerraPass is essentially the same as selling me your 3 spare tons so that my footprint can go down to 18 tons. Nothing has changed environmentally - I still drive my gas-guzzling car, and the total carbon output remains the same. The only thing that has changed hands is money.
Now, do you really think that developing countries like China and India will have CO2 stipulations put on them? Did you know that the UN is considering a global carbon tax that will undoubtedly target 1st-world nations? There is plenty of motivation for people to promote "green" technology and the idea that New York will be 20 feet underwater by 2100 if the world (read: the US and other 1st-world nations), and it revolves around money.
Edit: Japofran beat me to posting.
Quote
2nd Edit: By the by, Beef, love the hat.
#60
Posted 13 March 2007 - 09:38 AM
@Tulac: Excellent point, which I had forgotten for some reason. Soon we will be recycling our nuclear waste. Nowadays the expectations are pretty high. What, about 70% as unused uranium?
@Doubler: About oilspill: which is better, to take a small chance to locally pollute environment, or guaranteedly pollute atmosphere, thus affecting everyone's environment? You were clearly speaking of outdated nuclear plants. Modern, fourth generation plants are far more safer - one could say idiotic proof - compared to second generation (not to mention first). And reactor explosion is pretty much out of the question. (Okay, you mentioned about all of it in the end.) Even though they happened a major accident - very unlikely - fourth generation plants would seal most of it - if not all. There are also three projects (Finland, Sweden and USA) going on to storage nuclear energy safely.
@Beefy: As long as there's politics, there are personal motives. Some of them may be for the best of the planet - but I bet most of them aren't.
@Japo: Very strong reply, I couldn't had dreamed to give such an answer.
@Greywolf: There'll always be fools to pay... Carbon footprint...