Jump to content

Stargazers Lounge Uses Cookies

Like most websites, SGL uses cookies in order to deliver a secure, personalised service, to provide social media functions and to analyse our traffic. Continued use of SGL indicates your acceptance of our cookie policy.

stargazine_ep2_banner.thumb.jpg.e37c929f88100393e885b7befec4c749.jpg

Sign in to follow this  
G1ZmO

Great Global Warming Swindle (Ch4 last night)

Recommended Posts

That's a good point. Even more ironic is that at a power station, they burn coal (or oil) to boil water, to turn a generator, to generate electricity, which then runs along a few thousand feet of cable, and is transformed at least three times, before it runs into your home and into your kettle to boil your water!!! In the process, most of the energy is lost in heat, transformation of the electricity, resistance in the wires and friction from the generator. The fact is we could do a hell of a lot more with our energy than we do with a few good new ideas.

Sorry, I went a bit off topic there. However, more efficient use of energy would also cut CO2 considerably.

Andrew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Such as use the coal in your home to boil the kettle and get rid of 75% of the lost energy for example?

All the losses by the way end up as heat.

Captain Chaos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

power station, they burn coal (or oil) to boil water, to turn a generator, to generate electricity,

Ahhh, at last a subject I know something about!!!

Used to work as a Health Physicist at a Magnox Nuclear Power Plant, Just for your interest each reactor produced approx 750MW Thermal but only 220MW Electrical! The loss went, as heat, straight into the cooling water and out to sea! Nice warm water and some decent fish though - Bass all year round (no three eyed jokes please :)).

Bill£

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It can't be true as it's mid March and last night I was blumming cold and had to put a fire on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Bill & CC

That helps confirm my view.

I still have not read anything that takes this into effect in the calculations.

Cheers

Ian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Used to work as a Health Physicist at a Magnox Nuclear Power Plant...

Bill£

Where do you stand on the great debate about nuclear power :

ie zero emissions and cheap vs accidents like chernobyl and what do we do with

waste?

Personally I 'm beginning to think that if nuclear can bail us out of a tight spot

we should risk it. Let's face it after 50 years we are all still here and its not like

a reactor can blow the world up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are two sides to every story and to go into them all would be impossible on this thread (it would cure any insomniacs amongst you though).

The plants are intrinsically safe - they can't afford not to be - and are very tightly regulated by the HSE (Nuclear Installation Inspectorate) and the Environment Agency. The down side to Nuclear Power is the waste legacy. Whilst it might be small amounts by comparison to the energy produced it is still very toxic and costs a lot to store safely. Maybe some genius will come up with a reverse fission process and we can recycle it!! However, even a Coal fired station emits radioactive discharge from the natural Uranium in the coal (one of the constituents being the now infamous Polonium-210). The petrochemical/oil industry is the same!

I am afraid we are far to late to react now and even if we go for Nuclear rebuild it will be years before they are commissioned - the French are way ahead and will probably be supplying our electricity needs in a few years. In my region EDF (Electricite du France) are already one of the main electricity companies!

Hope that's not too depressing!!!

Bill £

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm.. Dounray (sp?) fast breeder anybody? I understand that the system employed there would recycle the uranium but accidentaly produce enough plutonium to be very interesting to the future "big bang" people.

The waste from the fossil fuels seems to be hanging about and messing up the environment according to some people at least. The difference is?

Captain Chaos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am finding this review article in the London Review of Books useful:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n06/lanc01_.html

My personal favourite energy source is geothermal. The oil companies will still get to do a lot of drilling and it's really nuclear energy in disguise. No emissions, no waste, constant as you like, yields low temperatures for industrial applications, medium temperatures for home heating and high temperatures for electricity generation. I was looking at a US report and the doubling of existing capacity required a very modest sum compared to the multi-tens of billions one hears about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You hit the nail on the head CC. Good for Bombs!!! That is what our Nuclear industry was built on. Electricity was initially a by product. (Sellafield was was a munitions factory in WW2 before it became a Nuclear Site).

Bill£

P.S From what I recall (and I am happy to be corrected) fast breeders don't recycle Uranium but produce more Plutonium per reaction cycle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All Governments need SOMETHING to frighten their people with,Iminent ice age, reds under the bed,weapons of mass destruction, gods wrath, my philosophy is:

1. Who is telling me this ?

2. Why are they telling me this ?

3. How much of it can I verify ?

Look for the Agenda.

Cheers Frank

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All Governments need SOMETHING to frighten their people with,Iminent ice age, reds under the bed,weapons of mass destruction, gods wrath, my philosophy is:

1. Who is telling me this ?

2. Why are they telling me this ?

3. How much of it can I verify ?

Look for the Agenda.

Cheers Frank

I think you've hit the nail on the head there Frank - same tactics as Parents used to use with the "Bogey Man" to keep their children under control.

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know I'm talking to enlightened beings here so;

Too much unnecessary tat is being made. S'being made cause there's a market for it, so that means...

...too many people are buying unnecessary tat. Everyone is guilty of it.

Everyone! Stop buying tat you don't need! It'll help, honest.

Spread the word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I blame the vegetarians! :)

If we ate more beef there would be fewer cows generating methane which, while only 1.7ppm, has a atmospheric life of 10 years and about 11 times more global warming potential of CO2

(Foot firmly in mouth lol)

Paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I blame humankind. Check the forum rules for instance - the orange lines.

The fact that we still need to be told how to behave is very poor indeed. There are reasons why this is so - but I cannot explain them without breaking said rules. WE WROTE long ago that we were told to go forth and multiply. So we have - we have procreated virtually to the point of self destruction. The beast is now too big to control.

Be proud of our race if you like. Whatever problems we have here, we have created ourselves and are continuing to do so - each and every one of us.

Heheheh :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Foot firmly in mouth lol)

Oi!!!!!! Thats my job... :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I came late to this thread, but here are a few of my thoughts:

I researched global warming after reading the book "State of fear" by Michael Crichton. After reading that one single good sized volcano releases more carbon dioxide, sulpher dioxide and other "nasty" gasses than the whole human species has EVER released in it's entire existence kind of put things into perspective for me. Look up at the sun, it's 150 million kilometres away and yet we can feel the heat of it on our faces. To think that ANYTHING we do can have any affect on the whole system seems to me to be very conceited of the whole human race. As CC pointed out earlier, if we were to burn EVERY SINGLE TREE, OIL FIELD AND COAL FIELD at the same time, we still wouldn't have as much affect to the climate that a single sun spot or volcano does.

Now there are a number of other issues I have with this. One is: "We are killing the earth". No we are not. The earth has been around a long time, long before we were even small shrew like creatures with a gleam in our eye. Before then the plants decided to kill the earth by releasing poisonious gas into the atmosphere. Nasty corosive stuff called oxygen. In fact theres so much O2 in the atmosphere now that other creatures have evolved to make use of it. Did it kill the earth? No. Things just got on thank you very much. I have no doubt that we could seriously mess things up for the human species, but once we are gone, things will happily carry on and maybe the cockroaches will have their chance. Or the hedgehogs maybe. I dont beleive we have the ability to "kill the earth" even if we released all of our nuclear weapons at once, and just poured all of our nuclear waste into the sea. Give it a billion years and nobody would be any the wiser. All that uranium was DUG UP FROM THE EARTH IN THE FIRST PLACE! Sheesh, it's not as if we made it! I appreciate that we concentrated it together but even so, it's nothing in the grand scheme of things. We dont have the ability to "kill the earth" just ourselves, and to think otherwise is conceited beyond belief.

Another issue I have with this is political, I dont spout too much as this is not a political forum. However, it goes along the lines of 3rd world countries ofsetting our carbon emissions so 1st world countries dont feel so guilty about what their governments are telling them they are doing wrong.

When the president of the USA didn't sign the Koyoto agreement most people boo'ed and hissed. I thought "damn right! Why should he cripple his economy for something that doesn't actually matter". Carbon emissions this and carbon offsetting that. IT'S WELL KNOWN THAT CARBON HAS LITTLE EFFECT ON THE CLIMATE COMPARED TO WATER VAPOUR! Should we all drink less water too?

Now despite all my spouting thats not to say I dont beleive in the human race doing it's best to not pollute. I actually believe in recycling (mostly via ebay!) and think that it's a GOOD THING. Reducing carbon emissions is also a good thing, mostly because we breath a lot of it in at ground level. Reducing CFC's is also a good thing (when was the last time you heard someone mention CFC's? It's not trendy any more, carbon dioxide is the new CFC!). Reducing ozone is also a good thing (yes ozone). Lots of things are good, but unless their is political pressure, nothing seems to be done. And even then, unless their is FINANCIAL pressure nothing is done. It's all down to economics, not environmentalism. We will recycle and emit less carbon only if it's cheaper to do so. Thats the final word. Solar panels take DECADES to recoup the cost of buying them. Wind turbines are so inefficent if you brought one for your house you would NEVER generate the purchase price in electricity. Hell, even double glazing takes 100 years to recoup the cost in energy efficency, yet we've all got it.

Anyway, enough spouting. I dont think that it's a bad thing that we are trying to "save the planet", I just think that it's conceited that we think the planet actually cares about anything we do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well spouted Gordon , indeed!!!!!

Apart from the mention of politicians :nono:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I came late to this thread, but here are a few of my thoughts...

I'm not going to pick apart everything you said in that post, I just want to say that

bear in mind everything that humans do is on top of what occurs naturally.

Not only are we adding to emissions and pollutants we are also destroying environments like

rain forests and oceans which help to counteract the effects of natural pheonomena like

volcanoes and solar activity. Who is to say that we won't tip natural systems into

some catastrophic cycle that it, and we, can't escape from?

Whatever the causes of GW, humans need to start altering their attitudes and behaviour

radically, and sooner rather than later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those are some great thoughts Gordon, and though I agree with you on most points, 10x50 is also right. I think it's the attitude that doesn't help anything. We treat this place like it's our never-ending dinner plate and take what we want, which will at this rate lead to our peril. Not only ours, but as 10x50 rightly points out, many unique and special habitats around the world.

I think that humans need not make unnecessary measures to try and "save the earth" from something as powerful and unstoppable as the sun (which in my opinion is the main cause of GW), but rather save ourselves from ourselves. We have the technology and resources to pull the entire population out of poverty and much more besides, but we just don't bother, because us lucky people in the 1st world have the power and the comfort to just sit back and not give a poo about anyone else.

Again, I'm straying from the subject, but I think we have other concerns than getting taxed for something that can't really be changed and doesn't need to be.

Andrew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

....We dont have the ability to "kill the earth" just ourselves, and to think otherwise is conceited beyond belief.

Actually Gordon this is one point I would like to take issue with.

For a start viruses have no problem killing whales and trees so the fact that we're small compared with the earth is not an issue.

Secondly, how much experience do you have of species destroying their own planets?

How do you know for sure its not possible - how do you know the galaxay isn't littered

with the dead husks of planets left by its irresponsible, and now extinct occupants.

Occupants, for example , who might have believed that if they released all of their nuclear weapons at once, and just poured all of their nuclear waste into the sea the planet would still recover!!!!!!!

The fact is we don't know, we can't know and therefore we have to exercise extreme caution

going into the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the earth has been through a hell of a lot, and can go through a hell of a lot more.

Even if we actually nuked the entire earth with all the nuke we have (which would be the worst (and stupidest) thing we could do for the planet), radiation would probably spare some bacteria somewhere which would respawn life eventually.

In the worst case scenario (which we wouldn't be able or stupid enough to cause) the earth would pull through.

Andrew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if 99.999999% of all life on earth was destroyed by the human species (including itself) the small amount of extremophiles that were left would happily refill the ecological niches in a matter of a few million years. If the dinosaurs had not been wiped out by a meteor (and the sudden climate change that caused) then there would have been no niche left for the mamals to take advantage of. I dont believe that we have the power to destroy the planet. I do believe that we have the power to destroy our own environment and with it the environment of other species. Whilst that may or may not be a good thing, what ever is left will think it's a good thing as they then get there chance at the crack of the whip. Look at the permian extinction for information on how fast the earth "bounces back" from complete annihilation. Just to qualify my thoughts, I am not a climatologist, these are purely my personal beliefs based on what I have read. I have no primary research to quote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe that we have the power to destroy the planet. I do believe that we have the power to destroy our own environment and with it the environment of other species. Whilst that may or may not be a good thing, what ever is left will think it's a good thing as they then get there chance at the crack of the whip.

Yup, that's the stuff. Life has had to come back from the brink quite a few times apparently. But it's our turn at the moment and we have had a chance for greatness.

We have put in place certain systems to live within (forum rules; orange line 1, points 2 & 3) but from very early on failed to manage said systems correctly. Our true potential has not been realised. Our efforts have not been sufficiently channelled in the proper directions, and we have not grown as we could have done. We have persued leasure with abandon.

From not being allowed to work on a sunday for so long we have cost ourselves about 60 years worth of productivity :)

If points 2 and 3 of line 1 had been managed correctly, points 1 and 4 would not be a problem. Line 2 wouldn't be necessary at all.

We did it ourselves heheheheh :)

Edit: this lot won't make any sense now as the forum rules have had a re-hash :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.