Results 1 to 33 of 33
  1. #1

    The US makes the most Co2 and doesnt want to stop... Way to go Bush >-(

    Kyoto Protocol problems

    It is the release of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2) that is causing the global warming.

    Before industrialisation, the atmosphere contained 280 parts per million (ppm) of CO2. At present it stands at 370 ppm.

    The study in Nature considered scenarios in which the CO2 is stabilised at 450, 550, 650, 750 and 1,000ppm.

    The only international agreement on cutting greenhouse gases is the UN's Kyoto Protocol, which requires industrial countries to make a small cut in global emissions by a timeframe of 2008-12.

    But the pact is in limbo. It still needs ratification by Russia to take effect and in any case has been abandoned by the United States, the world's biggest CO2 contributor.

    <<<END SNIPET

    Another reason all you americans should be anti-bush in the next election! He doesnt seem to care about the planet... More intrested in ruling the world than keeping it green.

    No thanks bust. No thanks

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    1,435
    Well, without the release of Co2, there would be no power or gas, etc., etc.......the list is longer than my arm.

    Regards,
    Waylon

  3. #3
    Yes, but that doesn't stop you producing solar energy? Which is a lot more "nature efficient". He wnats to spend billions to go to Mars, this "Bush guy" cracks me up sometimes.

    I agreed with his decision to go to war, although all for the wrong reasons, but this and the Mars thing, he needs to go back to Uni.
    ServeYourSite
    Web hosting done right
    ██ Shared, Reseller and Dedicated web hosting
    An Easy Web Presence Company

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Hot, hot Michigan...
    Posts
    3,506
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol

    "On June 25, 1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was to be negotiated, the U.S. Senate passed by a 95-0 vote the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98), which stated the sense of the Senate was that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations or "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States". Disregarding the Senate Resolution, on November 12, 1998, Vice President Al Gore symbolically signed the protocol. Aware of the Senate's view of the protocol, the Clinton Administration never submitted the protocol for ratification."

    And:

    "The Kyoto Protocol limits emissions to a percentage increase or decrease from their 1990 levels. Since 1990 the economies of most countries in the former Soviet Union have collapsed, as have their greenhouse gas emissions.

    Because of this, Russia should have no problem meeting its commitments under Kyoto, as its current emission levels are substantially below its targets. Indeed, it may be able to benefit from selling emissions credits to other countries in the Kyoto Protocol, which are currently using more than their target levels of emissions. For these reasons, Russia was initially expected to ratify the treaty, which would have been sufficient to bring the accord into force. "

    So basically it wasn't signed/ratified because it'd hurt our economy, by driving business overseas. More outsourcing anyone?

    Go bush! In this case it looks like bush is looking out for what the american people want.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    1,435
    Call me a bit hot-headed at the moment, but it really annoys me when those of other countries criticize MY President. You don't see me saying anything bad about Tony Blair or the Queen...let's be respectful for crying out loud! When we lose respect, we lose ourselves.

    Forgive me if you take this the wrong way, I'm just a bit fed-up with this whole thing. A person can take only so much.

    Regards,
    Waylon

  6. #6
    I honestly, couldn't care less if you say anything bad about Tony Blair or The Queen. I disagree with them more than Bush, feel privilidged I like your President more.
    ServeYourSite
    Web hosting done right
    ██ Shared, Reseller and Dedicated web hosting
    An Easy Web Presence Company

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    1,435
    I wasn't directing this towards you specifically 4 Degrees, but I'm just saying in general. When did we lose respect for the leaders of our respective countries? Sure they're not perfect, but who is? Things get rough, then we just have to hold on and do what we can to help or change things. So many people resort to complaining, but yet offer no real solution.

    Anyways, I'm done ranting, and this is heading off topic anyway.

    Regards,
    Waylon

  8. #8
    I know, but I always like to say my piece. I think it's because they are not doing things "the people" want. For instance, where I live in the UK, Tony Blair doesn't do $%&* about the poverty, crime and so on, even our police force is in debt 7 million.

    Back to topic, I think every country should do its bit, after all it's OUR world, not one organisations.
    ServeYourSite
    Web hosting done right
    ██ Shared, Reseller and Dedicated web hosting
    An Easy Web Presence Company

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Hot, hot Michigan...
    Posts
    3,506
    It's not so much bagging on foriegn leaders that I don't like... Bag on bush for whatever you want, so long as you have the facts in hand.

    But when people point out things like kyoto without actally researching the topic, merely as fodder for 'bush sucks' statements, it bugs me.

    More about kyoto:
    http://www.cato.org/dailys/05-10-01.html

    Yeah, the environment is important. But a sense of balance is important too.

  10. #10
    Facts, how nice.

    To be honest, Nato, and those "European Leaders" ANNOY THE LIVING HELL OUR OF ME!!

    Although, I agree that our climate is important (not that i care to much, I'll be long gone), but some decisions go over board. It must be a political thing, because it happens everywhere, not just the US, UK, EU and so on.
    ServeYourSite
    Web hosting done right
    ██ Shared, Reseller and Dedicated web hosting
    An Easy Web Presence Company

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Canada/Brazil
    Posts
    265
    Originally posted by 4 Degrees
    I think it's because they are not doing things "the people" want.
    The People Elected him....and the last polls I saw he still has majority support...even more than when he was first elected.
    Dimensity Web Enterprises - ..::host.exception.dimension::..
    dimensity.net | dimensity.biz | dimensity.info | support[at]dimensity.net

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Hot, hot Michigan...
    Posts
    3,506
    Just wait. Polls are gonna be dropping for him after this iraq uprising stuff. I've read some blogs and such today from iraqis - people over there are genuinely ticked. Specially about the 'mosque bombing' that's been going on.

    It's almost like the tet offensive in vietnam. Sure, we 'won' that one, but it was part of the 'turning point' in the war as well. I just hope that the fighting in the sunni triangle dies down long enough for calm heads on both sides to take over.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Hot, hot Michigan...
    Posts
    3,506
    Found the blogs I referenced:
    http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/
    http://raedinthemiddle.blogspot.com/

    Interesting reading, whether you agree or not.
    Last edited by thedavid; 04-07-2004 at 07:40 PM.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,026
    I think the US has no excuse whatsoever for not signing up to this.

    If it is possible for major players in the world's economy to do it, why can't the US? It's not fair to be such a selfish nation - it would be fine if the actions of the US only affected the US, but they don't. They affect the whole world.
    Gone.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Hot, hot Michigan...
    Posts
    3,506
    Originally posted by phision.com
    I think the US has no excuse whatsoever for not signing up to this.
    Did you read what I posted above?

    Originally posted by phision.com
    If it is possible for major players in the world's economy to do it, why can't the US?
    Again
    1) It's unfairly stacked towards the US
    2) It'll end up doing nothing but hurting the US economy for little gain
    3) It'll serve countries like russia well in that they can sell their 'kyoto credits' to other kyoto countries. Or they can import more industrialization. This is not about clean air, it's about cold, hard, cash.
    4) The people of american have elected leaders who are representing their interests by going against such hurtful accords/protocols.

    Originally posted by phision.com

    It's not fair to be such a selfish nation
    It's not fair to ask another country to give more than you're willing to.

    Originally posted by phision.com
    it would be fine if the actions of the US only affected the US, but they don't. They affect the whole world.
    As bush officials have stated, they're for the environment. Clean air, water, et al. But they're not willing to sell out america to appease everyone else.

    Basically, reading between the lines, the current administration and government have basically said 'come back when you have a fair protocol, and we'll talk'.

    What's the harm in that?

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    3,100
    The problem is, and not only in US, with short term goals. Only important things seem to be the next elections and not something that might not take effect for another 5 or 50 years. Personaly I despize that kind of attitude. My son is very important to me and I have hard time understanding people who would trade their child's future for a few cents savings on a gas.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Western Canada
    Posts
    1,888
    Damn pro environment people.. always causing problems.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    London, Britannia.
    Posts
    3,077
    Some of you may have noticed but GM, Stem Cell research and Environmental policy are the 3 main areas that i disagree with the America/Bush on.

    Before i say my main piece, i feel we need to stop something before it starts, targeting America as the main culprit for not signing Kyoto is a bit simplistic don't you think?

    These other really big players on the global stage are also yet to agree and sign up to the treaty >>

    Canada
    Australia
    Canada
    Russia
    China


    I wouldn't want this important subject to be misrepresented and only focusing on the US, if one or two of the others depending on which one from the list chose to sign up America could sit it out for now.

    This all said, America, Japan, Britain and many other major powers in the world have invested billions in the fusion power research program which will solve many of these problems alongside green and renewable fuels.

    I agree with Velostream that we shouldn't be disrespectful or show malice toward other leaders, disagree sure but no need to get too personal is there, well not normally

    _______________

    On to Kyoto, i found this link from a previous thread i did on the subject >> http://unfccc.int/resource/kpstats.pdf

    It will show you a full list of Kyoto signatories signed up and otherwise and their percentage worth of emissions. For instanc the UK is about 4.9% i believe. There is an interesting little note in the small print of terms and conditions near the end of the document, France i believe has its former colonies or protectorate islands or association nations outside mainland France exempt if memory serves.

    Let me put it to you like this, not only do i feel ti is the best interests of the developed nations to sign up when it comes to the environment but also and more importantly at the end of the day for some, ECONOMICALLY.

    Tell an economist this, is it better to stay as we are relying on a dwindling resource not doing much to prepare and when the natural resouces runs out, or extraction just becomes not financially viable on a mass scale; thus being left up **** creek without a paddle and unable to adapte to the situation on many levels creating economic meltdown and falling behind? I don't think so.

    Two areas which i take an interest in, wind power and fusion are progressing on a national and global level. With the latter there are the plans to construct the worlds largest and most advanced fusion reactor probably in Japan.This i see as one of the most important advances in technology for humankind in years. With the former a company i take an interest in called Offshore Wind Power Ltd are in the middle of building of planning to build wind farms off the coast of the British Isles to allow us to meet certain environmental targets. We will also need to turn to nuclear power on a far larger scale than now until fusion is ready for public use but these 3 forms of energy are all better than keeping the blinkers on and not preparing for the future.

    Also "bio mass" is something that should be considered if practical, developing countries would benefit more than the others i think but rural settlements in other places could also apply it from what i recall.

    Either way, i heard a report that Natural Gas reserves that remain untapped are less than we first thought, so on that front the decision maybe forced upon us.

    We don't need to ditch Cars and such necessarily, however advancement in power cell technology or plain old batteries will pave the way for a new generation of electric or greener fule based vehicles.

    I said this little quote in another thread on this subject and it is a nice way to close this post.

    "This is not about clearing up our past but adapting to our future."

    Critic,
    The 9 words of life quote -
    "Act with honour, seek justice, die true, remembered well."
    GO LDN 2012 ~ AIM = Critic News Info

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Hot, hot Michigan...
    Posts
    3,506
    1st off - good post

    Originally posted by Critic
    Some of you may have noticed but GM, Stem Cell research and Environmental policy are the 3 main areas that i disagree with the America/Bush on.

    Before i say my main piece, i feel we need to stop something before it starts, targeting America as the main culprit for not signing Kyoto is a bit simplistic don't you think?

    These other really big players on the global stage are also yet to agree and sign up to the treaty >>

    Canada
    Australia
    Canada
    Russia
    China
    Indeed. But it's not as catchy to say 'Way to go Canada >-(', which I think is the sole reason for this post.

    Originally posted by Critic

    Let me put it to you like this, not only do i feel ti is the best interests of the developed nations to sign up when it comes to the environment but also and more importantly at the end of the day for some, ECONOMICALLY.
    Which is one of the arguing points against kyoto. I don't think anyone would have a problem with it if it didn't negatively affect the GDP of the US in such a manner, nor hold undeveloped countries less accountable for their actions. As it is, it may as well be called the 'weath redistrobution protocol'.

    If a reasonable protocol/treaty could be developed that would simultaniously be economically feasable as well as good for the environment, I think that'd be a great thing. I think the world community would accept such a thing withough second thought, and be proud of it.

    But so long as money is involved to the level that it is in kyoto, don't expect it to get far.


    Originally posted by Critic
    Tell an economist this, is it better to stay as we are relying on a dwindling resource not doing much to prepare and when the natural resouces runs out, or extraction just becomes not financially viable on a mass scale; thus being left up **** creek without a paddle and unable to adapte to the situation on many levels creating economic meltdown and falling behind? I don't think so.
    True. I don't know how much nuclear you guys have going on over there in the UK, but here in america there's a huge case of 'NIMBY'. Note the issues with dealing with the storage of nuclear waste in the nevada desert under a mountain, for example. I hope fusion power helps this, but....
    Add on the cost of the build of a nuclear power plant (fission or fusion) and it's unclear whether or not either will be economically viable while our non-renewable resources are available.

    I have hope for fusion power, but also don't have high hopes of it coming anytime soon.

    Originally posted by Critic
    With the former a company i take an interest in called Offshore Wind Power Ltd are in the middle of building of planning to build wind farms off the coast of the British Isles to allow us to meet certain environmental targets.
    Ah yes, windfarms. California added some of these recently, I believe. Common complaints I've heard/read from residents there are pretty well summarized at the bottom of this page:
    http://www.energy.ca.gov/wind/overview.html

    But, better to have them then to not. The more renewable energy we can find, the better.

    Originally posted by Critic
    Either way, i heard a report that Natural Gas reserves that remain untapped are less than we first thought, so on that front the decision maybe forced upon us.
    What's more scary to me is 'peak oil'. Google that for some intriguing issues. Sure, there's a ton of 'the apocolypse is coming!' pages about it(ignore those), but in between that noise is a real issue.

    I'd like to see more hybrid cars out there, with the possibility to move more to electric if/when the fusion power revolution takes off. And they don't necessarily need to be all econo-boxes that are the size of the current toyota prius. There's some serious performance advantages to electric motors, most notably gobs of torque.

    In any event, better environmental policies across the globe are needed. Kyoto is not it though.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    220
    Damn pro environment people.. always causing problems.

    Not everyone is selfish like you. I actually care about our future's children having to be stuck with this mess they didn't create.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    London, Britannia.
    Posts
    3,077
    thedavid,

    You are right to bring up the other economic factors, the likely possibility that an unknown amount of time the GDP of a nation like American could be effected in a negative way. In some way i can see whta the US is afraid of, it doesn't want to sign up until it is sure that its main rivals in the economic world act likewise. They fear being restricted by the environmental regs and someone like China not signing up and jumping ahead of them.

    For this reason a totally united approach by world powers is required but for some nations like Russia, China, etc they might need the words "sign up now before things get critical" and all the other writing on the wall as encouragement.

    I just hope a united decision can be made in time or we might be caught in an uncomfortable limbo when it comes to certain resources.

    I still think there is economic sense to it, maybe that side of things should be used to push some sort of policy treaty to the world as well as the obvious environmental problems. Might makr for a more receptive audience.

    There should be some pretty bid developments on the fusion reactor front in the next few months. A decision is to be made as to where to build our most advanced and largest prototype reactor, it will be in France or Japan and take about a decade to construct i believe. It is a long raod but like you i have high hopes for fusion power and this will hopefully pave the way for civilian and industrial use.

    I believe electricity in the UK is reliant on nuclear power for 10-20 percent of its needs. We are closing a few of our plants though, i had a tour round one while it was being decommissioned. That siad, i have hear from environmental analysts and inustry officials alike, they agree that current nuclear technology must be used alongside green renewable fuels to some extent. Better that than fossil fuels.

    Ah yes, windfarms. California added some of these recently, I believe. Common complaints I've heard/read from residents there are pretty well summarized at the bottom of this page:
    http://www.energy.ca.gov/wind/overview.html

    But, better to have them then to not. The more renewable energy we can find, the better.
    I was looking at some of the con's listed on the page that link goes to. Noise pollution and the other things are valid and could be why offshore wind power is seen as the wind power way over here instead of the land alternative. I saw about 20 or so wind turbines in Wales in the UK, wasn't much noise but i was a far enough away not to hear, the only thing that puzzled me was a couple od days when it appeared to be good conditions for them [quite windy] they weren't moving; must've been down for routine checks i guess.

    There was quite a bid deal made out of wave power not too long back but it hasn't come to much. I don't know how econmically viable or efficient it was compared to the other forms of power, not as good i don't think.

    Solar power for heating water is being touted around also in Britain, they put the panels on your rrof and everything, they use light to charge up and that doesn't mean you need clear blue skies either. Not sure about the cots exactly but some utility firms were offering it with a subsidy of some sort.

    All these things are on a small scale now though relatively speaking.

    I'd like to see more hybrid cars out there, with the possibility to move more to electric if/when the fusion power revolution takes off. And they don't necessarily need to be all econo-boxes that are the size of the current toyota prius. There's some serious performance advantages to electric motors, most notably gobs of torque.
    I agree, America took the lead on this one a couple of months ago. The hybrid engine Toyota Prius is it? well anyway it was awarded car of the year if memory serves at the Detroit Motor Show. That kind of publicity can only help its case. Might prove quite popular with the rising gas/petrol prices at the pumps in many countries right now.

    In any event, better environmental policies across the globe are needed. Kyoto is not it though
    You might br right about Kyoto, i still think there is enough life in it for one more try before they seriously think about creating a new treaty and timeframe for it. They can't keep trying to sell an idea that won't get total approval.

    I still feel, Kyoto or not that if nation's can afford it that they should try and make domestic improvements and upgrade their environmental policy whereever possible.

    I'm trying to get a recycling program going in my house, a couple of compost bins and all that. Not quite got there yet though.

    No matter which side of the fence you are on for this debate, one thig is for sure, it won't be simple to agree on an approah on a global level and definetely no cake walk to implement. The past years and the near future tell us that much.

    Oh and on the "good post" thing as i think you aimed that at me, thanks, well i have my moments now and then. Most times someone out there i'm sure feels like reaching into the monitor and ringing my neck, who knows, someone might feel that way right now on this issue.

    Critic,
    Last edited by Critic; 04-07-2004 at 10:00 PM.
    The 9 words of life quote -
    "Act with honour, seek justice, die true, remembered well."
    GO LDN 2012 ~ AIM = Critic News Info

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    1,700
    Solar/Wind power is not even close to being able to produce the same amount of power that a gas power plant can produce. The cost/production ratio is way to high for it to be considered a viable alternative. I don't like Bush, but then again, it's easy to criticize from the outside.

  23. #23
    Im supprised nobody came up with an Idea I had:

    Compress water so it becomes steam, then let it force teh piston up compressing water on the other side. This forms like a cars engine, and both the steam and motion can generate power.

    Oh, and im not just in hate of Bush - I hate Blair aswell!

  24. #24
    It amuses me how people act like the United States is so evil for being the world's primary producer of CO2.

    The fact is, the United States has very stringent emissions standards. "What? Impossible!" you say. "If that was true, you wouldn't produce more CO2 than everybody else." Yes we would, and it's pretty obvious why we would.

    We're the most developed country on earth. We drive more cars and fly more planes than any country on earth. Our emissions are higher because our industry is larger and more productive. And yet people in other countries snipe about the Evil Polluting United States whose emissions should be on the level of countries a fraction our size and far less productive.

    The fact is, when our productivity and wealth (which is how everyone can own cars) are taken into account, CO2 emissions in the United States are very modest. If any other country in the world was in a similar economic situation to our own (and I use "economic situation" broadly to encompass all industry/manufacturing/overall productivity/wealth), I highly doubt they would have lower emissions than we do.

    There are third-world countries whose individual manufacturing plants pollute worse than some of the largest coal-fired power plants in the United States. I know this because of my work with the Tennessee Valley Authority, the largest power producer in the United States. The degree to which harmful emissions (both CO2 and otherwise) have been reduced in these plants is staggering. They take emissions very seriously, too, since as a Federal agency they are always among the first to comply with new EPA legislation.

    People need to look at the big picture when discussing issues like this. It isn't as simple as "your country pollutes more than my country." Yeah, we pollute more than your country. And with good reason. Just because we pollute more doesn't mean we don't care. There are many other factors to consider.

  25. #25
    While nuclear power plants are expensive, the cost of energy per unit must be taken into account. Here are the most recent stats from the U.S. Department of Energy:

    Natural gas: 5.69 cents per unit

    Oil: 5.28 cents per unit

    Coal: 1.79 cents per unit

    Nuclear fission: 1.76 cents per unit

    And nuclear fission is also the only method that doesn't actively pollute (nuclear waste can be a problem, but not to the extent the media reports). Chernobyl hardly counts, as Russian reactors were built very differently (quality and safety weren't exactly the primary concerns) from American BWRs and PWRs.

    There are four nuclear plants within a 120 mile radius of where I live. The result is that my region boasts the cheapest electricity in the United States. My power costs less than 1/3 of what many people are paying, particularly in the Winter months. In fact, we have so much of it, we're trying to sell it to California, where extreme environmentalism has taken its toll.

  26. #26
    Not wishing to urinate on anyones bonfire, but co2 levels over a grander time scale (i.e. 100's of millions of years) rise and fall quite naturally, the current thinking is that humans actually have very little effect on the natural peak and trough pattern (established from carbon despoits in old lake beds and other similar methods), that any action we take is self limiting anyway and that we are having more drastic effects elsewhere in the environment.
    Nature is fairly self limiting in this respect, you pump out more of gas X , plant Y thrives and uses it producing more of Z which happily eats humans and the whole shebang levels out It doesnt always work perfectly as you can offbalance ecosystems but looking at histroical data humans arent actually affecting the overall picture.
    --
    Rich

  27. #27
    btw most airy fairy reknewable sources are devastating to the environment and its fairly laughable they are referred to as ecologically friendly power sources. Flooding an entire valley killing everything in it that cant get out is not friendly, sticking a great big tidal barrage across an estury blocking alluvial deposits is not exactly friendly etc etc.

    Nuclear power is the way to go in the medium term and hot fussion in the long term once funding is allocated for projects. JET was a sucess and ITER (sp?) looks like once it gets funding it will show great results and lead the way for self sustaining fussion reactions.
    --
    Rich

  28. #28
    Thanks for the thought-provoking posts, richy. They are refreshing.

  29. #29
    We have a nuclear power station over the bay from us, its a big square building, blends in with the dock land type area. Been on a tour there and its pretty impressive. Yes nuclear waste isnt nice but no power generation method fulfills two criteria, is environmentally sound AND can generate a sensible useable amount of power. Im all for not harming the environment, I just dont think some of the methods are as great as they are mentioned. I did a summary somewhere of a paper I wrote on the alternative sources, Ill see if I can dig it up.
    --
    Rich

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    London, Britannia.
    Posts
    3,077
    I don't disagree that it is part of a pletary process to have these cycles of temperature, spends thousands of years getting warmer and then does a 180 and gets cooler.

    but..

    Richy and jpayne, are you both saying that we should not make attempts become a greener society where possible?

    jpayne, you shouldn't compare the US with a less advanced country technologically spealking, it is the responsibility of all leading world powers to rise to the occasion in my view.

    Would it not be a bit foolish to just stay as we are and then find out all of a sudden that we lack the fossil fuels to meet our needs?

    Surely we shouldn't fob this dilema off for another generqation but get the ball rolling now?

    richy, on the ecological disadvantages of some of the greener alternatives being proposed, well HEP can be quite damaging but is necessary where the others aren't always viable. The damage caused by offshoer wind farms or solar panels or bio mass is very minimal leaning toward microscopic when compared with the alternatives.

    Also what do you two think about the economics of nation waiting too long to act, would it not be of benefit to the continuing prospeity of the leading economic powers to not try and create a united effort on the issue now?

    I totally agree with the fusion/ITER project, has my full support, i think it is going to Japan.

    Critic,
    The 9 words of life quote -
    "Act with honour, seek justice, die true, remembered well."
    GO LDN 2012 ~ AIM = Critic News Info

  31. #31
    ok have to dash off to a party but briefly

    To some extent yes we should try and be environmentally concious. To me this doesnt mean quite what it means to others, I do agree we should minimise our impacts but Id like to see more attention paid to maintaining biodiversity rather then strict capping on industry. Im a paid up greenpeace member, I try and do sensible things like recycle cans but Im also a realist. We cant do everything and more important topics are getting pushed under the carpet while attention is diverted to reducing a figure for co2 and sulphur emissions. Wow, its a natural cycle, we arent making a huge dent, I cant back this up but I believe from memory the only actual evidence of a temperature rise was a 0.5 degree rise of 50 years off near Australia. If more energy was spent preserving and maintaining biodiversity rather then on engineering GM crops then the environment would be better off. Theres far too much we understand too little, the workings of the NAO, true global cycles, a great number of species as yet un found or unstudied. Nature has great potential itself which we should understand more then we do. However of course I do agree that we should better understand our effect on the environment and reduce it. We have bugger all effect on global warming, BUT we have a great effect on extinction levels.

    We definately need to consider fossil fuels running out and fission and fusion are the way forward.

    --------

    The future of power

    With natural reserves of fossil fuels presumeably going to run out sometime in our lifetime or that of our children so its important to start to realise where the future of power lies. There is a great deal of stead set by so called environmentally friendly forms of power generation (which ironically do a great deal of damage to eco systems). So what is availible?

    Tidal

    - This works by blocking off a river \ estury and trapping water behind a barrage and then releasing it. Pros - not too expensive, Cons - generates about as much power as a hampster on a wheel, silts up and requires periodic cleaning, destroys the ecosystem. In summary its not eco friendly and if you blocked off every river and estury youd fall far short of the power requirements of one city let alone a country. I believe this was tried on the continent and it generated enough power to give hot water to a town.

    Wind

    - A giant turbine on a mast, either situated in a field or in the sea. Pros sea based ones are a fairly decent idea, low investment and low maintenance, not dangerous Cons, eyesores, noisy as hell, and again we have the hampster thing. You would need a hell of a lot of turbines to supply the demand and they would be dependant on wind conditions. Thats just asking for brownouts when the wind drops. Summary, part of the problem but they dont half spoil the landscape. Best build down wind of a large population of vegetarians.

    HEP

    - take a nice valley with a river and dam it then let water through turbines. Pros - leccy on demand, cheap, Cons- destroys an entire valley and any ecosystem dependant on the river on the other side as alluvial desposits arent carried through and eventually have to be removed from the dam.

    Solar

    - either by photovoltaic cells or by using mirrors to boil water and drive turbines. Pros , cheap cons, takes up a lot of space, seasonal, only generates during the day, basically puts us back in the hands of the arabs as they have all the sun. Summary, great technology but doesnt generate enough and it tends to be generated in areas with no people or few people and you get wasteage in transport of power.

    Nuclear

    - U-235 atoms are split in a controlled fission process which releases heat which boils water to turn turbines. Pros - generates a fair amount of electric, very little impact (excluding that directly related to radioactivity) on the environment. Cons, expensive to build and dismantle, expensive to get rid of or recycle waste, when it goes wrong it really goes wrong. Fuel can be recycled providing a seemingly endless supply of energy but at expense.

    Geothermal

    - Find a lake near a thin patch of the earths crust or fault line. Pump water down get back steam to drive turbines. Nice side line is a very warm lake, downside is hello earth quakes and bye bye anything that ever lived in the lake.

    Wave

    - Bouys are turned by waves generating a miniscule amount of electric. Still very experiemental due to problems making a system which can withstand the force of the waves.

    Sustainable forrests

    - grow lots of trees and plant more as they are cut down and burn wood to make steam yadda yadda, pros environmentally friendly and sustainable, cons, slow to realise the energy and there isnt enough space for enough trees.


    -------- extract from a summary of a paper i did years ago so some things may have changed.


    Offshore wind farms are great but expensive, the minimise the quite substantial environmental impact of plonking a great number of bleedin huge and noisy wind turbines in countrysides. Solar power tends to be such that it produces power where it is least needed, i.e. its most effective in the middle of a desert and the power loss assoicated with transporting energy that far isnt very encouraging.

    There was something in Australia where a large glass greenhouse focussed the sun and geenrated lots of power but again its not 24 7 and you need lots of lake batteries which are destructive to the environment.


    Countries shoudl deinfately act now but opil companies dont want their product to be outdated before they run out, but at least all the oil companies have nice patent based pension plans, they own most of the alternate technologies, the irony being in 100 years shell will be based around environmentally friendly products like electric cars lol

    ITER will probably go where there is most money, probably an Arab or Asian country tbh. It really needs to happen soon though as ITER is only the start and will take 25 years to realise its goal and only then can we start making a few real world scale reactors. One serious issue stalling it is countries dont want to admit how much d2O they have , which is required for the process, as it gives an idea of their nuclear weapons capability.
    --
    Rich

  32. #32
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    London, Britannia.
    Posts
    3,077
    A paid up greenpeace member? oh the irony of it all..

    I agree with and support many of your green/environmental policies but when you get involved with things like Iraq it turn me against your organisation by default but i go off topic so we'll leave that.

    _______________

    You appear to be more informed than i on some of this but this is what i have to say.

    You accept that the planet goes throuh these cycles where it cools and warms all by itself and its own rate but feel strongly about biodiversity which is no bad cause. However as the climate changes in certain areas there is going to be some damage to species and habitats with some being terminal i expect.

    Would you like some Eden Project style biome(s) to be created that hold both wildlife and not just vegetation as with the ones in Cornwall, a micro environment of sorts? For endangered species in particular....

    I believe i heard not too long back that scientists were trying to compile a database with DNA samples for all species or as many as possible so that with some they might attempt to bring them back. Jurassic Park like i suppose, your probably already know of it but just in case.

    I am opposed to GM crops in Britain and lean more tward Organic produce and for reasons as much as green/environmental ones.

    I take it that when you talk about biodiversity though you are more interested in deforestationand marine pollution and the loss of native and local species and habitaats [wetlands and the like yes?

    I agree that nulcear power will need to be harnaced on an increasing scale with the reduction of fossil fuels and whilst we wait for some of our other sciences and technology to advance. Although i see no reason why wind power and solar cannont be used in conjunction with nuclear. Yes to be totally dependent on them would be a bit risky but i've heard some encouragin efficiency and financing news recently for wind in particular. Centrica recently bought two offshore platforms and or the rights to them at quite a high cost, 100 and something million from British Energy i believe.

    Interesting little fact or that is what i heard - Britain is the windiest Country in the whole of Europe.

    Taling about Solar heating for a minute, a representative of a company called Spectrum was on the radio a whl eback and he was explaining that current technology charges the heats the water throught light and cloud cover is not the problem it used to be. Speaking of which there was someone in Wales who was also on the radio as it happens who heats her water and house through solar panels and she reported no problems from what i can remember.

    ITER and Fusion power, i take quite an interest in and i can tell you that it won't be going to an Arab country for one. There is a shortlist of two nations and it will go to the Country that is mostpolitically acceptable. The two candidate sites are in France and Japan. The US won't support the French proposal and frankly neither do i, for political reasons i can see it going to Jpaan without a hitch and i also personally hope that Japan gets chosen.

    The final decision is expected any time now as it was delayed from December, once the proposal is approved it should take around 10 years to build and and become fully operational usnign current methods and technology. Adding on a further 15 years before we can turn it into a civilian and industrial applicaation is an awfully negative outlook IMO, i'd put it at 5-10 after completion.

    I also expect some advances in power cell and engine tech on the ground to come from a new "ion drive" that is being tested on an ESA [BRITISH] lunar probe in Space right now, called START-1 i think...hmm is that right.

    There are a couple of threads that i've got lined up in the very near future that i think you might be interested in.

    Critic,
    The 9 words of life quote -
    "Act with honour, seek justice, die true, remembered well."
    GO LDN 2012 ~ AIM = Critic News Info

  33. #33
    lol greenpeace dont belong in Iraq I agree. My contributions are made in the hope theyll buy a few ex russian nuclear subs and go help the whales do some research on how many whaler captains you have to blow up before they stop whaling.

    I think organisations like that loose a lot fo credibility when they loose track of their real goals and get too political. Last time I checked , despite saddams best efforts, Iraquis are not an endangered species, Horrid little Japanese men do not sail round the desert in tonking huge ships harpooning passing Iraquis. Problem is the core of greenpeace is made up of the great unwashed who in the absense of any sucess in one area will run off in a stupid tangent they shouldnt have. Shame.

    As regards biodiversity, I believe yes we need to maintain species, it doesnt have to be in a live specimen, we arent that far off being able to clone animals so dna and seed banks (seed banks do exist but are woefully incomplete when it comes to rare species, hell we havent even discovered millions of species in places like the Amazon) at the very least, and yes look at maintaining artificial habbitats. Its very true that nature uses tragedy to weed out the unfit, but we should be retaining lessons learned. Someone is going to be pretty pissed when they find out the dodo could have cured aids or something similar.

    GM crops need to be kept well under wraps, theres no need for a commercial deployment, use the technology, learn the technology but for proper reasons, not to fund monsantos pension bill but figure out how to use it for more decent reasons, medical and scientific research under proper controlled conditions. Normal (call it organic if you wish but most of the supermarket organic stuff is horrible compared to what I can buy at the farm down the road) food is definately a hell of a lot better then mass produced junk. Take three eggs, a supermarket normal one, a supermarket organic one and a proper farm fresh one. The normal one is large but tasteless, the 'organic' one is small and they didnt bother to wash the cack off it and it still tastes of nowt and the farm fresh ones are hug, taste great and have proper colour to them.

    Conventional solar power in england is a dead loss, my old home ec teacher had them on her roof for heating water, according to her they kept them there to save face with the neighbours, they got about two hot tanks a year. Not a bright idea in england really. My geog teacher had two wind turbines on his farm, noisy as hell but yes they generated a fair bit of juice. I think the maths we did meant one wind turbine on the top of a windy hill for approximately every 20-40 houses. Offshore wind platforms are great tho, they get round the nasty issue of the noise and uglyness but at the cost of well lol increased cost. Its great to use some things to supplement nuke power, then french use an awful lot of nuclear power in their country quite efficently, the Japanese also use a fair amount. We also have an enron phillips power station nr us that use waste steam from an industrial complex which is pretty successful when contractors arent blowing themselves up by being retarded. Theyre adapting it to burn wood as well, and planting some sustainable forrests using some ultra fast growing tree, although this has an obvious environmental impact. We shouldnt rely totally on any one source, nor should we ignore environmentally friendly methods, that aussie plan for using a giant greenhouse mirror lense arrangement is a stonking idea, might even work in england.

    Forgot also that ITER could also go to canada since they have loads of D2O to use which is a critical factor.

    I remember reading about the ion drive, its good for space travel, a variation on the same theme is used in silent subs using em pulsing to move water rather then using charged grates to slingshot ions through, but the concept is fairly cool and it will be interesting to see if any of it makes it into everyday life.

    btw regarding your comment , I dont know that much, the paper was for a computing degree where Id happen to make a comment about one of our lecturers having views on the environment that must have gained their inspiration from Alice in Wonderland. He was a full on tree hugging great unwashed type who thought we should all cycle everywhere and how public transport was environmentally unsound and that we needed to revert to living in small villages and living off the land. He'd have us all etted by T rex's in a week.
    --
    Rich

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •