08 Dec 07
Originally posted by MerkThe palm oil isn't technically renewable if it depends on a finite resource. Also, it helps if you don't wreck up the planet that everyone has to live one
In one thread, we're supposed to get off oil and onto renewables, but in another thread, we're supposed to reduce our usage of this renewable or that other one because the poor Mexicans can't make tacos or whatever.
Is their any fuel source that the greens are okay with?
08 Dec 07
Originally posted by MerkWell, it's about not jumping from the frying pan into the fire. I'm fine with GMOs and their use in crops and energy, some aren't. Of course, there's other alternatives, Titanium dioxide is a catalyst which uses sunlight to convert water into hydrogen and oxygen. Though it would need solar refectors to be efficient. My money is on fusion, though sulf sustaining reactions have only lasted about 30 seconds in the past, the new ITER reactor, when built, should have enough power (according to the graphs I've seen) to be in the net energy gain region and while not designed to be a prototype reactor, but rather a research reactor, should its reactions do what the theory says, we could have reactors on the power grid within a decade or two.
In one thread, we're supposed to get off oil and onto renewables, but in another thread, we're supposed to reduce our usage of this renewable or that other one because the poor Mexicans can't make tacos or whatever.
Is their any fuel source that the greens are okay with?
Runs off water, can't be used to make bombs, what radiation there is is short-lived and easily handled (mainly just alpha particles, a sheet of paper stops them), a meltdown destroys the reactor but doesn't do anything else (provided it's a tokamak design, once the plasma breaches its walls, it melts the magnets, automatically killing the plasma) and one reactor should be able to last a few decades before needing a cool-off period.
Not to mention the cool factor, literally using donut shaped artificial stars to get all the energy we need.
If there's one thing we can thank Tony Blair for it was when he convinced (with great difficulty by all reports) G. W. Bush to get America back into the program. (As Britain is the yo yo of Europe, America is the yo yo of sensible energy policies)
08 Dec 07
Originally posted by agrysonAre you telling me that the only acceptable energy source to the greens is none!?
Well, it's about not jumping from the frying pan into the fire. I'm fine with GMOs and their use in crops and energy, some aren't. Of course, there's other alternatives, Titanium dioxide is a catalyst which uses sunlight to convert water into hydrogen and oxygen. Though it would need solar refectors to be efficient. My money is on fusion, though sulf sustain ...[text shortened]... . (As Britain is the yo yo of Europe, America is the yo yo of sensible energy policies)
They can't possibly be so stupid as to expect the world to wait for the off chance that some new reactor that doesn't produce any useable power is going to someday lead to reactors that provide perpetual motion+.
08 Dec 07
Originally posted by MerkHmm... maybe you didn't read right. What I'm saying is that you'll find the majority of "greens" are in favour of the bioconverters, but still have reservations and wish to see further development in cleaner sources, such as solar, tidal and fusion, as well as wind, though there are problems with local wildlife when it comes to wind.
Are you telling me that the only acceptable energy source to the greens is none!?
They can't possibly be so stupid as to expect the world to wait for the off chance that some new reactor that doesn't produce any useable power is going to someday lead to reactors that provide perpetual motion+.
It's a sensible policy actually, not putting all your eggs in one basket as opposed to now.
Also, we have gotten usable power from them, but for short bursts in experimental reactors. It's not perpetual motion, it relies on fusing hydrogen atoms to make helium ones. The reverse of a fission reaction and mass to mass, it produces more power than nuclear fission.
To put it into terms you might understand, compare a fission bomb to a fusion bomb. If as much money was put into these reactors as was put into bombs (the current reactor is only about $5 billion) we'd probably have them by now.
It's exactly what's going on in the sun, all we need to do is contain it, which we're pretty sure we can do now. All we're doing with ITER is proving it.
09 Dec 07
Originally posted by agrysonNo offense, buddy. That sounds a bit over the top. Perhaps you've simplified it too much.
Hmm... maybe you didn't read right. What I'm saying is that you'll find the majority of "greens" are in favour of the bioconverters, but still have reservations and wish to see further development in cleaner sources, such as solar, tidal and fusion, as well as wind, though there are problems with local wildlife when it comes to wind.
It's a sensible policy ...[text shortened]... it, which we're pretty sure we can do now. All we're doing with ITER is proving it.
I'm not seeing the whole gravity/swirling gas compression thing happenin without a lot of energy consumption.
09 Dec 07
Originally posted by MerkOh, there's kilowatts of energy consumption, it's a really power hungry system. But at the right temperatures and pressures (gravity isn't involved too much) the reaction provides much more power than it uses. Think of it like a gas fire, you need a pilot light to keep it lit, but the total energy gained compared to the energy lost is greater.
No offense, buddy. That sounds a bit over the top. Perhaps you've simplified it too much.
I'm not seeing the whole gravity/swirling gas compression thing happenin without a lot of energy consumption.
It's only an experimental system, I only mention them to point out that while bioconverters and wind turbines are better than coil or oil, there's even better alternatives past that. Me, I'm for the bioconverters, but fusion will be pretty sweet when it happens.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power
09 Dec 07
1 edit
Originally posted by WajomaWow, that's two years worth of Americas cheeseburger consumption!
Yes well then there was an estimated 110 000 tonne carbon footprint for the anti-carbon footprint conference on Bali.
http://openthefuture.com/cheeseburger_CF.html
We've explained this to you... short term cost for long term gain... also, they never said you have to be carbon neutral, just carbon minimising if possible.
Edit: The OP specifically said that this was to be a discussion of the alternatives, not a discussion of global warming, if you want to keep whinging about the Bali conference, there's a thread specifically for it, bump that one up if you want to keep grinding your axe.
09 Dec 07
Originally posted by agrysonAwww, lay off him, he wanted to contribute to the conversation.
Wow, that's two years worth of Americas cheeseburger consumption!
http://openthefuture.com/cheeseburger_CF.html
We've explained this to you... short term cost for long term gain... also, they never said you have to be carbon neutral, just carbon minimising if possible.
Edit: The OP specifically said that this was to be a discussion of the alternatives ...[text shortened]... there's a thread specifically for it, bump that one up if you want to keep grinding your axe.
09 Dec 07
Originally posted by agrysonSo they all flew economy class then. That would be "minimising if possible".
Wow, that's two years worth of Americas cheeseburger consumption!
http://openthefuture.com/cheeseburger_CF.html
We've explained this to you... short term cost for long term gain... also, they never said you have to be carbon neutral, just carbon minimising if possible.
Edit: The OP specifically said that this was to be a discussion of the alternatives ...[text shortened]... there's a thread specifically for it, bump that one up if you want to keep grinding your axe.
BTW Its 10 000 politicians, bureaurats, environmentalists and civil servants. Not scientists wanting too "eyeball" other scientists.
BTW BTW it is not me politicizing the issue because 10 000 politicians, bureaurats and civil servants have already done that.
09 Dec 07
Originally posted by WajomaEconomy class wouldn't change the amount of carbon the plane spits out. Funny that you infer that it's mainly bureaucrats and politicians now, whereas before it was environmentalists only. Like I said, and I stick to it, there's a thread open for this discussion already, take it there.
So they all flew economy class then. That would be "minimising if possible".
BTW Its 10 000 politicians, bureaurats, environmentalists and civil servants. Not scientists wanting too "eyeball" other scientists.
BTW BTW it is not me politicizing the issue because 10 000 politicians, bureaurats and civil servants have already done that.
09 Dec 07
Originally posted by WajomaHoly cow. Every time people need to have a giganctic discussion they hold a conference so people can talk face to face. It doesn't matter if it's for the environment, a car show, deleloping economies, or a WHO meeting about how to control the Bird flu.
So they all flew economy class then. That would be "minimising if possible".
BTW Its 10 000 politicians, bureaurats, environmentalists and civil servants. Not scientists wanting too "eyeball" other scientists.
BTW BTW it is not me politicizing the issue because 10 000 politicians, bureaurats and civil servants have already done that.
If you have an alternative to a worldwide conference then say so. Sometimes big conferences are neccesary. You do understand that right? No one on the green side is saying everyone has to have a 0 carbon footprint in everthing they do. It's impossible.
That's like ridiculing a person who is eating food when they are trying to lose weight. They still have to eat!
This shouldn't require an explanation.
09 Dec 07
Originally posted by uzlessWell, if it's all the saem to you I'm still going to try to get the greens to tel us what kind of energy we can use between now and when fusion may become widespread in another century or so.
Holy cow. Every time people need to have a giganctic discussion they hold a conference so people can talk face to face. It doesn't matter if it's for the environment, a car show, deleloping economies, or a WHO meeting about how to control the Bird flu.
If you have an alternative to a worldwide conference then say so. Sometimes big conferences are necces ...[text shortened]... e trying to lose weight. They still have to eat!
This shouldn't require an explanation.