Electricity

[DangerousDave]

Increases in global temperatures caused by increased CO2 in the atmosphere is a theory, it is not fact.

The whole 'green...environmentally friendly...reduce your carbon footprint...' business is worth millions every year (its become a selling point for a whole range of products).

The worlds oceans absorb excess CO2, the higher the global temperature, the more polar ice melts and hence the more surface area of ocean there is to absorb excess CO2. QED

There is a whole bunch of other stuff that could cause global catastrophe;
-gamma ray bursts from deep space
-magnetic pole reversal (its already happening)
-tsunami from small island collapses (e.g. part of tennerife)
etc..etc..

Nuclear power gets my vote, what other fuel can be re-used over and over again?

All just my opinion, could be a load of cr@p

 

[RogerS]

We don't hear much about the hole in the ozone layer anymore. Did it fix itself?

 

[andrewm]

We don't hear much about the hole in the ozone layer anymore. Did it fix itself?

It's still there and still about the same size. Current predications are that it will take about 70 years to heal but it is not getting any bigger because the International Community reached agreements that banned the release of the CFCs that were causing it.

We could still be arguing about the effects of these CFCs, arguing how much we should cut emissions by and arguing about who should cut the most - and the hole would still be growing.

Andrew

 

[Digit]

Except for the one point that the far east still uses CFCs and we still use it in air conditioning plants. The main problem was never fridges etc, it was bloody hair spray!

Roy.

 

[davegw]

Why does this always have to get to a "my Theory/Model is bigger than your Theory/Model" kind of discussion. Personally I think both sides of the argument are far too aggressive. Would anyone disagree that:

1) Fossil Fuels are a finite resource
2) Reliance on Foreign Powers for Fuel sources has caused us problems already
3) Current forms of sustainable energy need to be developed to reduce costs
4) New forms of sustainable energy may exist, research needs to be undertaken
5) It would be good for the country if we were at the forefront of that research.
6) Some theorists believe that reducing the amount of carbon released into the atmosphere will affect the rate of climate change. Looking at New forms of sustainable energy would help them
7) Some theorists Don't believe that there is a problem with climate change that can be affected by Human behaviour - in which case none of the above will do any harm

I consider myself relatively normal - in some ways I am not very green (I drive a 4x4 gas guzzler as I have said before, mostly now becuase it's too difficult to get rid of!) in other ways I am - I recycle, grow my own veg now. I not covinced that what we are doing is affecting climate, I am convinced that climate is changing (and that change might be normal). I don't want the country filled with Landfills, and I'd rather we found a way to reduce vehicle emissions so I don't have to smell exhaust fumes all the time.

I don't believe that anyone wants old people to freeze, the rest of us sit in the dark, and a large number of us to die.

If half as much energy was put into finding solutions to the problems stated as was put into arguing about whether or not we were making the next Venus, and trying to find someone to blame! we really would be living in a better place.

 

[Tusses]

agreed with the above - except that you dont mention the green TAX

we are all caught up in the costs for the CO2 theory. It is now easy to add new tax's (which we all have to pay) because of the global warming 'theory'.

Just think about every day prices, and how much certain things have gone up because they are labelled 'bad for the planet'.

Thats why I dont like the 'green brigade' !

In coventry, we dont have a land fill, they sort and burn the rubish and generate heat / energy - not quite sure what they produce, but I know we get a benifit from the waste rather than a filled hole.

 

[kityuser]

On the subject of computer models, we cannot even predict the molecular trajectories in a cup of coffee over a 1 minute time-span so I'd have very little faith in models built using the sparse data set of past history that we currently have predicting beyond a very short time period. They may describe the past data but that is not validating their predictive capabilities.

Andy

This is a common, but complete fallacy. Because A cannot be proved/explained, then how can we prove/explain B?

That isn't how it works. The tasks are different (in fact the prediction of climate change would be simpler by several levels of magnitude).

what complete piffle!
The analogy is competely valid! we cannot model the cup of coffee, too many variables and very inadequate models... climate change is an order of magnitude more complex with very much worse models. Thus the assumption that the results from a badly modelled very complex simulation are rubbish is quite valid.

Clearly the original poster was pointing out that complex systems are hard to model, and climate change being a MORE complex system means thus its harder to model.

I fail to see your logic, A and B are linked in being complex systems that are trying to be modelled.

How the heck can climate change be "simpler by several levels of magnitude", we are talking about a planetary system here!

modelling molecular trajectory in a cup of coffee, Vs modelling climate change over a significant amount of time for an entire planet.
I think to any rational, intelligent human being its obvious which is the more complex system, and thus which of the 2 is harder to simulate/predict.

Steve

 

[woodbloke]

Agree with Dave here and am in the same position, recycle most household stuff, 4x4 etc. I suppose the in late 19th and all of the 20th century we became totally dependent on fossil fuels of one sort or another and the results of using that fuel (in all it's forms... did you know that there are 43,000 pieces of plastic per square mile in the middle of the Pacific) has to be addressed this century or quite frankly...

we're doomed! - Rob

 

[kityuser]

to add to previous posts,

The only real (feasible) alternative to dino power is Hydrogen.
Produced by focused mirror arrays in the desert, heating water to produce "electric" to then produce H2 form H2O.
Then ship it all round the world. (obviously by hydrogen power).

Only problem is, that now scientists tell us that even solar energy is bad for the environment. Apparently the solar energy (that would get re-radiated from the ground back into space as infa-red) that we absorb will have a net heating effect on the world. (net increase in energy of the planet).

no win scenario, basically humans are bad for the planet.
We have to learn how to live with our effect on our environment. if any

Steve

 

[Tusses]

how about they put a tax on 'disposable crap' anything from clothes to machinery.

My TS is still going strong after 47 yrs, how many 'cheap' chiwanese disposable tsble saws have been made using energy and then ended up in a land fill since then !

hardly anything we buy these days is designed to be sevicable, and labour charges and spares prices make most other things uneconomical to keep going.

there you go - mini rant over !

 

[davegw]

how about they put a tax on 'disposable crap' anything from clothes to machinery.

That's a tax I could get behind! think what it would do for engineering in this country (and others as well).

I used to visit a friend who was extremly environmentally aware, but who consistently bought cheap screwdrivers for a £1 in the pound shop (bear with me here) would use them for the job in hand, and then bin them - no attempt to recycle was made.

When I suggested (after seeing the 5th pack that year go into the bin) that we go to B&Q and he by a (half) decent set that would last he replied "why bother - these are as cheap as chips" when I explained the costs involved (plastic, steel, transport, and packaging etc) a little (low energy of course) bulb appeared above his head! an Epiphany!!!!

 

[lurker]

I'm with you Tusses!

I am busy helping keep our remaining Nuclear reactors going well beyond their design life.

The lads in the 50s & 60s knew how to really design & build stuff.
This was when the UK (strains of "land of hope & glory" in the back ground) was THE world leader in Reactor design.

Then the politicians wrecked the industry.

The froggy stuff we will be getting as the next generation, will not last like them.

 

[Digit]

The only real (feasible) alternative to dino power is Hydrogen.

Plus geothermal.
Southampton university proved the concept as viable in Britain back in the sixties, the plug was pulled on the research during Harold Wilson's 'white heat of technology' claim as being only short term viable as each bore hole would only have a life of thirty years. The life of a nuclear plant being....

Roy.

 

[RogerS]

........
The lads in the 50s & 60s knew how to really design & build stuff.
.......

Really ?? Wasn't there the little question of a near-meltdown at Windscale :wink: Something about slimming down the cooling fins to cram more in...but also politically driven IIRC

 

[lurker]

Windscale don't count that was a test reactor :lol: :lol:

Also the failure was due to skilled operative cutbacks :roll: :roll:
Failure to follow procedures, nothing to do with the design.

Incidentally, they have recently had a look inside and the problems were no were near as bad as they anticipated. Thats a legacy of the over engineered design.

 

[andycktm]

Everybody seem's to think it's cheap electricity.
What happen's to the waste,or sorry i forgot we take everybody's
radioactive waste in the U.K....for a price
What happen's if we have a meltdown,25% of the U.K uninhabitable
for 500 year's!

 

[Digit]

If that possibility is keeping you awake Andy you need to move mate. The world's biggest concentration of reactors is just across the channel, in France.

Roy.

 

[andycktm]

Fortunatly Digit it bothers me not
But chernobyl made me think, nobody understand's
what happens after the norm.It's all a gamble.
What worries me is all the greedy ******** that are at the helm of the country.

 

[RogerS]

Fortunatly Digit it bothers me not
But chernobyl made me think, nobody understand's
what happens after the norm.It's all a gamble.
What worries me is all the greedy ******** that are at the helm of the country.

Aw...c'mon, Andy....I think that we're a bit better engineered than that.

 

[newt]

I thought nuclear was the only logical option, its a no brainer. But I would prefer UK built rather than French ( although they do have a good record,).