antartic ice cap not melting after all

UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
also, it's spelled "compliment".

i can't believe you want us to believe that you work alongside nobel prize winners. just priceless. you come off like a 14 year old kid or a senile old crank. senility is known to revert old folks back into that juvenile stage of intellect.
 
B

budleydoright

Well-Known Member
Starting to look like the paid republitards are here to plant their talking points.

It's no surprize you don't believe in climate change.

Go back to yahoo news comments and leave us alone.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
desert dude said:
Here is a question:

How do we get off of fossil fuels? Society will literally collapse without enough energy to sustain the 7 billion people on earth. We can't simply pass a law that outlaws internal combustion engines. "Renewable energy" sources account for only a few percent of total energy needs.
Click to expand...
I think fossil fuels will be cheaper to bring to the consumer than any other source of energy right up until the day they are depleted. The economy is bad for the environment.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
abandonconflict said:
I think fossil fuels will be cheaper to bring to the consumer than any other source of energy right up until the day they are depleted. The economy is bad for the environment.
Click to expand...
Actually, they'll never be entirely depleted, but there will come a point when recovering oil and gas will simply be too expensive to use them the way we do now. Not unlike the hundreds of grams of gold in a cubic mile of seawater.
At some point, the unit energy cost will cross that from various sources: biofuel, wind, solar, nuclear (including fusion, one hopes). For heavy industry, reliable concentrated energy, like fuel-based or nuclear, will be necessary unless/until a radically new energy generation andor storage technology opens up. For transport, I imagine the burden will be shared by electricity (from above sources and solar/wind, which scales well to distributed demand) and biofuel for things like aircraft and over-the-road trucking, which may be diminished by new interest in rail.

Oil will be reserved as the premier feedstock for industrial chemistry. There's no truly good substitute for making plastics and food/drug feedstocks. If we have the time, biotech processes may make inroads here as well, or we'll return to distilling coal tar.
 
Harrekin

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
Actually, they'll never be entirely depleted, but there will come a point when recovering oil and gas will simply be too expensive to use them the way we do now. Not unlike the hundreds of grams of gold in a cubic mile of seawater.
At some point, the unit energy cost will cross that from various sources: biofuel, wind, solar, nuclear (including fusion, one hopes). For heavy industry, reliable concentrated energy, like fuel-based or nuclear, will be necessary unless/until a radically new energy generation andor storage technology opens up. For transport, I imagine the burden will be shared by electricity (from above sources and solar/wind, which scales well to distributed demand) and biofuel for things like aircraft and over-the-road trucking, which may be diminished by new interest in rail.

Oil will be reserved as the premier feedstock for industrial chemistry. There's no truly good substitute for making plastics and food/drug feedstocks. If we have the time, biotech processes may make inroads here as well, or we'll return to distilling coal tar.
Click to expand...
Fusion is weak sauce, we need a matter/antimatter generator. Now that'd be clean power.

Pity antimatter doesn't just grow on anti-trees ;)
 
ginjawarrior

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
Harrekin said:
Fusion is weak sauce, we need a matter/antimatter generator. Now that'd be clean power. Pity antimatter doesn't just grow on anti-trees ;)
Click to expand...
from what i understand anti matter takes more energy to produce and store than released there isnt the tipping point of more energy produced than put in that fusion promises
so while we may use antimatter in future it's role will be a glorified battery
 
ginjawarrior

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
MuyLocoNC said:
The naysayers aren't holding back advances in solar technology or in battery technology. Maybe there will be a breakthrough in the near future, maybe it will be in twenty years, taxing our population into the ground and/or limiting our access to current energy sources will not speed up the process. That's a pie in the sky philosophy that will absolutely harm people in reality. We do need to drill, we need to frack and we need to "nuke up". Then when the economy is humming, wealth is flowing and scientific coffers are overflowing, that's when advances will be made.
Click to expand...
nukes are the important ones you should concentrate on them. theres enough fuel for thousands of years, only co2 comes from building plant, and modern reactors waste will have halflife of hundreds of years instead of hundreds of thousands.people need to get over the stigma and stop waiting for the magic bullet and realise its staring them in the face. nuclear is not the monster people think it is
 
B

beenthere

New Member
desert dude said:
That interpretation might be a stretch, but it sure doesn't help the global warming fear mongers to have their "models" churning out the wrong answer. This whole global warming thing has really been political at its core from the beginning, just an excuse to fear monger and put on new taxes like "carbon credits".
Click to expand...
Speaking of carbon credits, I just found $15,000 worth of carbon credits in the barter section of Craigslist.
The add says, will trade for nice used mountain bike or refurbished iPhone.

I guess they're not worth what they used to be! LOL
 
ginjawarrior

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
Canna Sylvan said:
Godzilla only exists in Japan.
Click to expand...
japan is an example of nukes saftey. even with one of oldest design of plant, one of the biggest earthquakes ever known, a tsunami, and repeated human error no one has died due to radiation, the sky didn't fall and the world didn't end

fact is every other form of energy production kills many more people than nuke
 
Canna Sylvan

Canna Sylvan

Well-Known Member
beenthere said:
Speaking of carbon credits, I just found $15,000 worth of carbon credits in the barter section of Craigslist.
The add says, will trade for nice used mountain bike or refurbished iPhone.

I guess they're not worth what they used to be! LOL
Click to expand...
He probably broke even, or a little more. He got a tax break, and liberal cred amongst peers and customers. The carbon credits were a gift to an underling or client from a rich boss. Now the current owner gets more value in bartering to some sucker liberal wanting bragging points. So everyone wins, just some more than others. The only losers are those against it, like me, who know it's a scam.
 
Harrekin

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
ginjawarrior said:
from what i understand anti matter takes more energy to produce and store than released there isnt the tipping point of more energy produced than put in that fusion promises
so while we may use antimatter in future it's role will be a glorified battery
Click to expand...
That's why the trick is to find it somewhere. Who's to say the other side of the universe isn't composed entirely of antimatter and matter is rare there?

Antimatter is the greatest source of pure energy in the universe, Einstein figured that one out and didn't even know it existed ;)
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
ginjawarrior said:
japan is an example of nukes saftey. even with one of oldest design of plant, one of the biggest earthquakes ever known, a tsunami, and repeated human error no one has died due to radiation, the sky didn't fall and the world didn't end

fact is every other form of energy production kills many more people than nuke
Click to expand...
Japan is in a HEAP of trouble, this disaster is going to be many times worse than Chernobyl. Already a huge amount of land is uninhabitable for the next 20 generations. You don't hear much about it because Japan is very hush hush.
 
FlyLikeAnEagle

FlyLikeAnEagle

Well-Known Member
ginjawarrior said:
japan is an example of nukes saftey. even with one of oldest design of plant, one of the biggest earthquakes ever known, a tsunami, and repeated human error no one has died due to radiation, the sky didn't fall and the world didn't end

fact is every other form of energy production kills many more people than nuke
Click to expand...

How some of you are able to turn on a computer is a marvel of nature.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top