|
View Poll Results: Climate Change: Manmade or Natural? | |||
Global Warming - Burning Fossil Fuels is going to kill the planet! | 21 | 75.00% | |
Global Warming - It's a natural climate cycle, Manmade CO2 is not causing it. | 0 | 0% | |
Global Cooling - Chlorofluorocarbons from your fridge are killing the enviroment! | 0 | 0% | |
Global Cooling -It's a natural climate cycle, Manmade chemicals are not causing it. | 0 | 0% | |
Climate Change - Does not exist. | 0 | 0% | |
Climate Change - Exists but mankind is not causing it/can not do anything to stop or change it it. | 7 | 25.00% | |
Acid Rain - Human Emissions are going to kill the enviroment, certainly a problem back in the 80s. | 0 | 0% | |
Voters: 28. You may not vote on this poll |
|
Thread Tools |
08-30-2011, 02:22 PM | #26 |
Banned
|
I agree, the politicization is definitely a major issue. Many companies stand to profit greatly as far as Global Warming is believed, many Climatologists are given expensive grants to research into global warming (with the expectation that they will tout the same "Crisis" mantra everyone else believes in), and Government is given a huge excuse to dip it's hands into private lives, by regulating numerous aspects of general living and companies that it should never be touching. IMO, trying to fix global warming is more disastrous to people then the purported effects of the warming itself.
Last edited by unownmew; 08-30-2011 at 02:28 PM. |
08-30-2011, 03:43 PM | #27 |
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
|
Actually, Wind power is extremely cheap to use, and pays for itself. The problem is trying to transport that energy to place, as it is much harder than other forms of electricity generation.
Solar is becoming much cheaper than in the past, and soon, it will become economically viable as a form of electricity. Nuclear is iffy, it can be dangerous but is generally safer than fossil fuels. The only problem with it that does not involve nuclear meltdown is where to store nuclear waste. If nuclear fusion ever kicks off, which is getting closer thanks to advances in how to control plasma with magnets, then that most likely will become the main source of power period, as it creates no nuclear waste, the only potential problem would be with neutrinos, which do not react with matter anyways.
__________________
|
08-30-2011, 03:45 PM | #28 | |
Aroma Lady
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,760
|
Quote:
|
|
08-30-2011, 03:48 PM | #29 |
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
|
And yet, the same happens with fission, correct? I meant no waste thanks to immediate stuff, unlike fission which automatically creates waste.
__________________
|
08-30-2011, 04:20 PM | #30 | ||
Banned
|
Quote:
It takes more energy to build a solar cell, or wind turbine (from the base materials), transport to location, and set up, then those instruments will ever be able to pay back after installed. And besides that, both are unreliable. Solar Cells can only charge when the sun is shining, and turbines will only move and generate energy when the wind is blowing. Over all, it's a net energy Loss to use these forms of energy, at the moment, at least. Quote:
|
||
08-30-2011, 09:07 PM | #31 | |||
beebooboobopbooboobop
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
|
|||
08-30-2011, 09:12 PM | #32 |
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
|
That, and the media. Chernobyl was old, and wasn't kept on. The plant in Japan was not built to take a Mag 9 Earthquake. Not many, if any, buildings are.
__________________
|
08-30-2011, 09:25 PM | #33 |
The hostess with the mostess
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 226,522
|
I'm pretty sure Chernobyl wasn't stopped being used by choice. >___>
|
08-30-2011, 09:26 PM | #34 |
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
|
I meant maintained. :P
__________________
|
08-30-2011, 09:49 PM | #36 |
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
|
Considering it is a sarcophagus now, I don't think there is much to maintain now. Before the accident, people were not maintaining the plant correctly. And, tons of radioactive cesium spread all across Europe.
__________________
|
08-31-2011, 04:03 AM | #37 |
Fog Badge
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
|
|
08-31-2011, 05:36 AM | #38 | |
The hostess with the mostess
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 226,522
|
Quote:
|
|
08-31-2011, 06:52 AM | #39 | |||
Banned
|
Quote:
Quote:
Yes, Windmills are usually placed where it's normally windy, however, it takes a certain amount of wind to get them turning (otherwise they won't move), and then, the power generated does not scale with the wind speed. Also, as I said, it costs more energy to produce the Windmills and Solar cells, transport them on site, and set them up, then those impliments will likely ever repay in their lifetime Quote:
I highly doubt getting close to actual plant is, or ever was, fatal. It's all a scare about Mutations in your genes, possibly cancer or mutated offspring, but not insta-death. Otherwise every animal and plant nearby would have keeled over and died by now. |
|||
08-31-2011, 07:15 AM | #40 | |
The hostess with the mostess
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 226,522
|
Quote:
I'm not sure you actually understand how radiation works. |
|
08-31-2011, 07:39 AM | #41 | ||
時の彼方へ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
|
There are a lot of false claims being bandied about about the efficacy of solar cells. In particular, T-dos comments that:
Quote:
One of my professors has a friend who lives in a net-zero energy consumption home in Colorado. According to the professor, the home will be paid off in 10 years' time at which point the friend will begin making $2,500/yr (at current energy pricings) by selling energy back to the power companies. He's already making that $2,500/yr now, of course, but since the home isn't paid off yet, we're not going to say that the home is yet turning profit for him. But he expects that it will. And that's pretty cool. In New York state, there is a community called Green Acres which, according to Wikipedia: Quote:
You can read more about zero-energy buildings here on Wikipedia. But to make a long story short, solar cells are already generating more energy than people are taking out of them for household living. The real issue, of course, is industry. Industry consumes ginormous amounts of energy. But a small victory is still a victory and we mustn't allow the dissemination of misinformation to stem that tide.
__________________
|
||
08-31-2011, 08:07 AM | #42 | |
beebooboobopbooboobop
|
^ mew said that not me.
Quote:
__________________
|
|
08-31-2011, 08:19 AM | #43 |
Dominator of Bike Levels
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,321
|
Just popping in to say I seriously love nuclear power, especially in places which are well sheltered from the majority of natural disasters. The fact that there is not a serious nuclear power movement in Australia- and that the only nuclear plant in the country is purely for research and not for power generation- makes my eye twitch if I think about it for too long.
__________________
The Kim Il Sung of ASB. |
08-31-2011, 08:27 AM | #44 |
時の彼方へ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
|
Sorry. I'll fix that later. Not really worth a Picard facepalm though.
__________________
|
08-31-2011, 08:36 AM | #45 |
beebooboobopbooboobop
|
The Picard facepalm was to unownmew saying that no fatal injury would occur standing next to the Chernobyl plant and at any time (which, presumably means during the meldown as well).
__________________
|
08-31-2011, 10:27 AM | #46 | |
プラスチック♡ラブ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: 蒸気の波の中
Posts: 14,766
|
Quote:
Radiation poisoning is miserable and grave. It won't kill you outright, but it will dehydrate you and wreak havoc on all your organ systems. Sure, cancer is a likely outcome, but that's often not the actual thing that kills you - the dysentery-like symptoms and just the body-screwing-with that occurs is what will cripple you very quickly. |
|
08-31-2011, 05:15 PM | #47 | |||||
Banned
|
Quote:
Quote:
It seems though, it's all dictated by how much and how long, you are exposed to high levels of radiation. Also interesting: Quote:
Quote:
IMO though, Net Zero should only mean, your house relies entirely on the implements on it's territory for power generation (completely off the grid, and unwired to any power generator besides it's own), and does not have blackouts when unfavorable conditions arise (numerous cloudy days). Anything else is simply a word trick to make you think a certain way. Quote:
The problems I've heard about with "Green" energy though, last I checked, is, it's not profitable for an electric "producing" company to use it, they require subsidies (loans) from our government to stay in business. That's our tax dollars, paying for someone else's electricity, that already costs them more to buy from then general fossil fuel power plants, and the only reason the green energy companies can stay in business, is by government regulations forcing fossil fuel company's costs to go up to so that prices are "comparable" and people don't outright refuse to pay the higher costs. In fact, despite Government "help" in being made compete-able with Fossil Fuel energy companies, Green energy is seemingly going bankrupt anyway. $535 million of our tax dollars down the tube. $58 Million of our tax dollars gone Last edited by unownmew; 08-31-2011 at 05:29 PM. |
|||||
08-31-2011, 05:16 PM | #48 | |
Banned
|
Interesting Comment about solar panels I found here:
Quote:
|
|
08-31-2011, 09:02 PM | #49 |
Golden Wang of Justice
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,936
|
So much cancer in this thar thread
GOOD FOR YOUUUUUUUUU
__________________
Mozz's Van, named after Bulbagardens creditor, was a hidden forum section where staff members could share pictures of their tiny penises and engage in homosex. Sadly, HAVA media, Bulbagardens new corporate overlord, forced it's closure. Can't have porn on a children's website. |
08-31-2011, 09:46 PM | #50 |
Banned
|
|
Lower Navigation | ||||||
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
|
|