Jump to content


Global Warming


70 replies to this topic

Poll: Global Warming

Is global warming real?

You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.

Is it possible to reverse the effects?

You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.
Vote Guests cannot vote

#61 Doubler

Doubler

    A regular Llama

  • Admin
  • 2740 posts

Posted 13 March 2007 - 04:29 PM

Quote

@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 You were clearly speaking of outdated nuclear plants.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.
I'm not talking about any powerplant. I'm talking about a train, or a ship, or a truck, or whatever :)
And I don't worry about reactor safety NOW. I would worry about it in a future where it can no longer be guaranteed, but where people are still stuck to it. Like people are stuck to power now, you can stick them to nuclear energy, and a like future will happen somewhere.

Also, don't pretend nuclear energy is the only solution to pollution.

Wonderfull sig and avvie by Taikara :D

#62 Juni Ori

Juni Ori

    Gaming Guru

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4277 posts

Posted 13 March 2007 - 04:35 PM

Oh, small misunderstanding on my behalf. But what do you mean by reactor safety in future? Why would evolution go backwards? They are getting safer and safer day by day.

I'm not pretending it's only solution. I'm saying it's best for now. Best solution however is unreachable: reducing use of energy.
...70 years... LOL

#63 Japofran

Japofran

    A Usual Suspect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 412 posts

Posted 13 March 2007 - 05:58 PM

Uranium mining/extraction is way way less poluting than... iron mining/extraction. Seriously.

And about nuclear fuel ending in the hands of terrorists... It's just easier to get it from African countries with uranium resources, or even better from Pakistan, North Korea and Iran along with the know-how. Nuclear energy and weapons are proliferating, but not because of its use by some 1st world countries, even though most of them banned it. It is already in the hands of terrorists considering that Iran is the boss of Hezbollah and other groups.
..oO Mustached Crusader of the PEEKOCKSWOOZZLE Order Oo..
"STFU and show me your screenies!!"

#64 Doubler

Doubler

    A regular Llama

  • Admin
  • 2740 posts

Posted 13 March 2007 - 07:03 PM

Quote

Why would evolution go backwards? They are getting safer and safer day by day.
Money, ability, interest, power... It's not evolution, it's not fixed in stone. Powerplants grow old and eventually (that's carefully put) somewhere someone will end up without the economy, ability or interest to replace them (safely) - Especially when one becomes dependant on them. Again, multiply by a million only to take into account the full chain to and from actual production of power. Then multiply it again to apply it to the world.

Quote

Uranium mining/extraction is way way less poluting than... iron mining/extraction. Seriously.
I'm talking about large scale usage; Accidents along the way, where they're most likely, will increase in frequency and scale. And this risk can not be downplayed (oil-spill example).

Also, there's little comparisson with iron mining/extraction, and moreover I'm not prepared to believe that statement just like that :P
I'd think you'd better use 'coal' instead of 'iron' there. That's a point that'd work and is pretty probable too :)

In the end the biggest problem is the extremely long term decission making with drastic consequences. That's my biggest gripe and not a small moral problem, imho.

Wonderfull sig and avvie by Taikara :D

#65 Japofran

Japofran

    A Usual Suspect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 412 posts

Posted 14 March 2007 - 12:55 AM

It's been more than two centuries since the Industrial Revolution started, and half a century since we started using nuclear power, and I'm suposed to be afraid about some Mad Max-like future when nuclear plants will melt down? Sorry, just no. :)

Besides I think most people, when thinking about nuclear fuel, picture some luminiscent green goo like in The Simpsons. Well it's nothing like that. Uranium is a metal, here's an image of a chunk of uranium ore:

Posted Image


You can hold it in your hands and absolutely nothing will happen. Even once extracted and enriched, unless you put together a critical mass, uranium doesn't unleash more radiation than your TV. I myself have held in my hands a uranium rod that had been part of a nuclear plant's core.

It's true that iron processing is more poluting than uranium processing, just think about the ridiculous quantities of uranium necessary to generate loads of energy. Actually iron processing is indeed more poluting than coal processing. Once you get the ore you must refine it to get steel or cast iron, and for that you need huge furnaces tens of metres high that emit loads of CO2 and other nastier gases. During the process you must burn as much coal as the iron you're refining.
..oO Mustached Crusader of the PEEKOCKSWOOZZLE Order Oo..
"STFU and show me your screenies!!"

#66 Juni Ori

Juni Ori

    Gaming Guru

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4277 posts

Posted 14 March 2007 - 04:49 PM

I dare to disagree with you Doubler. Many nuclear plants have been modernized, increasing their lifespan. Many nuclear plants can be modernized again. And if something would go terribly wrong, it would probably be humane mistake, very limited area would pollute and the consequences would be small. Compared to coal plant, that is polluting, less effective, and thus more plants are needed - even more polluting. Until we have truly green energy source, I support full-heartedly nuclear energy. I don't understand how cold war era fears can even still play so big role?
...70 years... LOL

#67 DakaSha

DakaSha

    Happy Little Tree-hugger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2013 posts

Posted 14 March 2007 - 06:46 PM

im all for nuclear power  too (for now). i still think more money should be invested in new energy sources though as its like the most important thing we need.

i know alot of money is invested already but i mean more. space for instance isnt as important as new energy sources even though it is interesting as heck

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

#68 Japofran

Japofran

    A Usual Suspect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 412 posts

Posted 14 March 2007 - 06:57 PM

Juni, it's not that a nuclear plant necessarily generates more power than a coal one, vapour turbines in both are alike. Rather it's that the coal one will consume tens of tons of coal whilst the nuclear one will need some kilograms of uranium during the same time. Of course the uranium has to be extracted, enriched, given proper shape, carefully arranged in the core.
..oO Mustached Crusader of the PEEKOCKSWOOZZLE Order Oo..
"STFU and show me your screenies!!"

#69 greywolf

greywolf

    The Wanderer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 684 posts

Posted 14 March 2007 - 09:07 PM

@Daka: Why not combine the two!? I'm sure you've played SimCity and bought the microwave power plant... :)

Seriously, though - that idea would solve all the energy problems on earth, with the added bonus of *zero* pollution. I think that's what scientists should be researching, not ways to make windmills more efficient.

#70 Juni Ori

Juni Ori

    Gaming Guru

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4277 posts

Posted 15 March 2007 - 05:47 AM

Well Japo, I'm not always best to explain in English what I mean, but you are correct. Though we are speaking of the very same thing. Thank you for the correction.
...70 years... LOL

#71 RodCroxton

RodCroxton

    Forum Peon

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts

Posted 02 April 2014 - 05:22 AM

View PostJapofran, on 12 March 2007 - 04:54 PM, said:

You're quite right about renewable energy sources also having "impact", Juni. First of all, ecologists are already complaining that solar panels and windmills spoil too much surface, and landscape. So they provide extremely expensive energy, and we knew they just can't provide all the energy we need by far, but it seems that they can provide even less if we are to control its "impact". But what most people haven't thought about is that sure, solar panels and windmills work in a clean way --apart from occupation and landscape impact-- but are NOT manufactured in a clean way. With one cheap and relatively little gas or vapour turbine you can generate loads of energy for a very long time. But solar panels and windmills have to work in groups because each one generates very little power. (And then again they produce power only when it's sunny or windy, and most times they are hardly working precisely when the demand is at its highest, and storing great quantities of electricity is simply a no can do. They can provide some backup when the conditions are right if they're heavily subsidized, but it's just not possible for them to replace the sources we are using now.)

But what I mean is that you have to manufacture immense numbers of windmills or
peimar solar 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.


We need to best use of alternative sources of energy and try to cut down our energy demands..We need to be serious about global warming..

Edited by RodCroxton, 02 April 2014 - 05:34 PM.




Reply to this topic