By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - They myth that is man made global warming.

Sardauk on 03 July 2009
Final-Fan said:
elprincipe said:
Sardauk said:
 

Nuclear cold fusion ? In 10 it might be too late, in 200 we won't be there anymore.. 

You don't seriously believe that global warming will destroy humanity in 200 years, do you?  I've been amazed by what nonsense people accept on this issue, but this takes the cake.

I'm presuming he didn't actually mean that the human species would be extinct, which is the literal interpretation of what he said.  Anything less is varying degrees of exaggeration, which you should ask him about instead of assuming. 

You didn't mean that, did you, Sardauk? 

Of course not...

I meant we have 10 years in the roadmap to turn around the tendency.

 

I have been checking how my country is doing btw :

- Still big on Nuclear power but more in favor of progressively shutting them down

- Half-coal Half-Biomasse centrale is in construction (min -25 % CO2), older ones are modified

- Lots of Windpower at the coast (more offshore constructions on their way)

- Houshold are (fiscally) encouraged to invest in home isolation and solar panel

- There is some discussion on how to penalize car that emit more than 146 gr CO2 per km (146 or around it maybe 136)

   Car which already consume less have fiscal advantages.

 

...little solutions make a big one... Target for Belgium is 13% of green energy for 2020.

 



 

Evan Wells (Uncharted 2): I think the differences that you see between any two games has much more to do with the developer than whether it’s on the Xbox or PS3.

Around the Network
Squilliam on 03 July 2009
mrstickball said:
The other aspect of this is that ground-based renewables won't work. They aren't scalable to what we need.

If we wanted enough windmills to power the globe, we would need so many, we would probably change global wind patterns that may effect global warming/cooling, as we're directly altering how our planet works.

Likewise, with thousands of square miles of solar arrays, who is to say that it won't effect the energy that is sent to earth by the sun, causing unnatural global cooling? Hydroelectricity is a totally renewable source. That doesn't mean that it hasn't killed wildlife like salmon and harmed the earth. Us being here, at all, is hurting the earth. Sometimes the right solution isn't the solution that's best for right now...Which some of the people like Sarduk are advocating. It's better to have strong longterm solutions, rather than knee-jerk on fears about the end of the world. If you vouch that GW will end the earth, your as loony as the 2012 people.

As others have said, the best 2 options are:

- Nuclear Fission based on H3 mined from lunar regolith or other sources
- Dyson arrays in the Lagrange points that do not directly effect earth

...And how the heck are we going to get either technology by funding solutions like windmills and geothermal energy? Such solutions are going to require multi-billion dollar investments from major companies. As I've been advocating: That US Stimulus money should have gone to a carbon nanotube or artificial diamond space elevator, and then look for otherworld solution(s)....We could easily have renewable or near-renewable energy for 100% of the earth if we were smart by putting money that'd go toward inefficient renewables into efficient renewables, and super-efficient non-renewables.

Bold 1: Solar power isn't going to cool the Earth. Isn't the first law of thermodynamics stating that energy is neither created or destroyed'? Since Solar panels tend to capture energy by design it would heat up the planet if anything as more energy is retained and transmitted elsewhere from the desert to areas which have far more water vapour which retains the heat. Deserts get very cold at night and that energy is lost, but if you transmit that energy to say Florida where theres a high humidity that energy will be retained for longer.

Bold 2: Geothermal plants are 90-95% capacitance, meaning they are running flat out almost all of the time. As renewable energy they would probably be the best right now if it wasn't for the limited availability of good sites. Windmills in my country run at 42-46% capacitance, so if you've got a good site you can be sure to get good power from them half the time. They are actually beating out a few thermal projects for funding without subsidy and without incentives. The only issue with their deployment is really NIMBYism. Furthermore if you're looking at it on the longer term once the site is set up the maintenence/capital cost diminish to miniscule levels over a 50 year timespan (assuming 2-3 replacements with more efficient turbines) because once the nacelles are up and the cables are laid your electrical cables you're done.



Tease.

mrstickball on 03 July 2009

Squilliam - With Bold 1, that still doesn't change the fact your changing weather patterns by capturing energy in one area, and using it elsewhere.

Sarduk - Fusion isn't renewable with HE3. However, it's far more efficient and will be very cheap when it comes online. I also think that mining 10 tons of material to power the entire United States would be less invasive than thousands of square kilometers of terrestrial-based solar arrays.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

Sardauk on 03 July 2009
mrstickball said:
Squilliam - With Bold 1, that still doesn't change the fact your changing weather patterns by capturing energy in one area, and using it elsewhere.

Sarduk - Fusion isn't renewable with HE3. However, it's far more efficient and will be very cheap when it comes online. I also think that mining 10 tons of material to power the entire United States would be less invasive than thousands of square kilometers of terrestrial-based solar arrays.

Yeaa of course but Nuclear fusion is still a (under-development) dream right ?

You can't count on that in short/medium-shot



 

Evan Wells (Uncharted 2): I think the differences that you see between any two games has much more to do with the developer than whether it’s on the Xbox or PS3.

Squilliam on 03 July 2009

They are building a 2nd much bigger fusion reactor in France btw! They believe it will have a net output of energy.

@Mrstickball, I don't doubt it but I suspect that whether the energy comes from fossil fuels or solar it won't have a significant enough effect to worry about it.



Tease.

Around the Network
mrstickball on 03 July 2009

Sarduk - HE3 powered reactors will come online within the next 30-40 years. Even with currently available efficiency ratings, 50 tons of HE3 (the moon has about 100,000,000 megatons of the stuff, FYI) could meet the energy needs of the world for a year. Don't you think it'd be more environmentally-friendly to mine 50 tons of material as opposed to thousands of kilometers of solar arrays?

Just because something is non-renewable doesn't automatically make it less friendly. Afterall, the material used in windmills or solar arrays are non-renewable. Conservation > Renewable. It'd be better to use a small, non-renewable amount of product for something that can take care of billions as opposed to a much larger amount of material needed for a renewable source. Even if we did use solar to power everything, the arrays would constantly need replaced by non-renewable materials.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

Final-Fan on 03 July 2009

Fusion has been 30 years away for 30 or 40 years. Where's my Mr. Fusion dammit? [edit: my dad says that in 1970 it was 20 years away! Woot!  That must have been the cold fusion guys.]



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

finalrpgfantasy on 03 July 2009
Slimebeast said:
Man made global warming is a mith just like the story about humans evolving from slime in a primordial soup.

is a myth just like religion.



TheRealMafoo on 03 July 2009
mrstickball said:
Sarduk - HE3 powered reactors will come online within the next 30-40 years. Even with currently available efficiency ratings, 50 tons of HE3 (the moon has about 100,000,000 megatons of the stuff, FYI) could meet the energy needs of the world for a year. Don't you think it'd be more environmentally-friendly to mine 50 tons of material as opposed to thousands of kilometers of solar arrays?

Just because something is non-renewable doesn't automatically make it less friendly. Afterall, the material used in windmills or solar arrays are non-renewable. Conservation > Renewable. It'd be better to use a small, non-renewable amount of product for something that can take care of billions as opposed to a much larger amount of material needed for a renewable source. Even if we did use solar to power everything, the arrays would constantly need replaced by non-renewable materials.

Everything is renewable, it's just a question of time.



Squilliam on 03 July 2009

France will get to host the project to build a 10bn-euro (£6.6bn) nuclear fusion reactor, in the face of strong competition from Japan.

The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (Iter) will be the most expensive joint scientific project after the International Space Station.

It would be the first fusion device to produce thermal energy at the level of conventional electricity-producing power stations, and would pave the way for the first prototype commercial power station.

In a fusion reaction, energy is produced when light atoms - the hydrogen isotopes deuterium and tritium - are fused together to form heavier atoms.

One kilogram of fusion fuel would produce the same amount of energy as 10,000,000 kg of fossil fuel.

For the full story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4629239.stm



Tease.