Author Topic: About carbon dioxide and energy sources  (Read 637 times)

Offline DingHao2

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 227
About carbon dioxide and energy sources
« Reply #15 on: July 31, 2001, 10:16:00 AM »
First of all Ghost, I do use accurate sources, not my opinion.

My sources--

Accuweather--a leading provider of weather and weather related information. www.accuweather.com

Various Time Life weather books--about 5 in all.

Second, I will ONLY buy one of those hydrogen powered cars IF they have 200+ horsepower AND MAYBE if they have a tape recording of an old Hemi engine sounds.

Third, all of us seem to be forgetting--we have a clean, safe, cheap, abundant, and efficient power source sitting right in front of us--NUCLEAR POWER--IT'S THE WAVE OF THE FUTURE.  And France is on the crest of the wave--so lets give France a little competition.

Offline DingHao2

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 227
About carbon dioxide and energy sources
« Reply #16 on: July 31, 2001, 10:21:00 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Gh0stFT:


Ding you know something even our teachers dont know  



That's not quite true.  Our teachers very well know the truth about all this environmental nutjobbing--it is nonsense.  What they are teaching is POLITICALLY CORRECT information, which is usually biased to the left (liberalism) and sometimes the top (authoritarianism--aka fascism and socialism) of the political map.  In effect, they are slowly, subtlely brainwashing us into thinking that the earth is in mortal danger--which it isn't.

Offline -lynx-

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 340
About carbon dioxide and energy sources
« Reply #17 on: July 31, 2001, 10:56:00 AM »
Blimey - that's what studying "Science" at school gets you to - we know something and Green and other demagogs with catchy slogans explore it to the full :D.

Thank you Miko for pointing out that a single volcanic eruption generates more pollution in one go than the whole humanity managed since pre-historic times.

It also helps to know that recycled paper is more damaging to the environment that the freshly made stuff - bleach etc used in recycling is highly toxic...

There's no need to pollute without need - no-one in his right mind would propagate completely ignoring the danger of pollution, especially with chemicals that are not naturally present. But please get a life and stop saying that we will all die off like dinasaurs if the US don't stop producing energy at the current level, it's just nonsense.

Why is it every time temperatures reach 90s there's an abundance of "scientists" on TV explaining how we all are going to be extinct soon through global warming, ice caps melting and such like? Where do they all disappear when it's barely 50-60 in the middle of July?  ;)

I've been to Norway recently - I would recommend to anyone who thinks that the humanity affects ice meling and stuff to go there and visit the fiords. Nothing shows you how insignificant a human being really is than a mile and a half of solid rock going almost vertically up from the sea level. On both sides. Carved by ice. Pushed by it's own sheer weight into the sea.(Grunherz - calm down, ice really did this!  ;))

Yes, if we put our mind to self destruction we (the humanity) can do it. But we need to be pretty determined about it. I don't know anyone who would be determined to kill the life on this planet, including him/herself. Do you?  :)

[ 07-31-2001: Message edited by: -lynx- ]

Offline Jammer

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 64
About carbon dioxide and energy sources
« Reply #18 on: July 31, 2001, 11:36:00 AM »
Yeah, its all a conspiracy to rob the americans of their life style.

Please go on as before.

There's no end to the resources on this planet. Whan damage can we, small humans, do to a place so big?

*laughs*

Oh, the irony.

Offline Yoj

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 168
About carbon dioxide and energy sources
« Reply #19 on: July 31, 2001, 12:18:00 PM »
One of the problems with talking environment is that people always tend to look at individual processes and facts as though they exist by themselves - which they don't.  The environment is a single process in which everything that happens affects everything else, often in extremely subtle ways.

I noticed the following comments:  From Miko
"First, a slight increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration causes great increase in photosynthesis.  Second, ocean (algae) absorbs more carbon then land plants. That algae gets eaten by plancton and considerable part of that carbon sinks to the bottom where, for the lack of oxygen, it gets taken out of circulation pretty quickly. Ocean is the greatels regulator of CO2 in the atmosphere."

This is, of course, true on its own.  However, the ocean and particularly algae and plankton growth is highly sensitive to weather, ocean temperatures, pollutants, any a range of other factors.  The ocean does act as a regulator - but one that is itself regulated by many other things.

And from Lynx - "It also helps to know that recycled paper is more damaging to the environment that the freshly made stuff -
 bleach etc used in recycling is highly toxic..."

Simple to say, but it overlooks entirely the effect of removing the trees themselves, as well as how the materials used in recycling are handled.  If the recycling materials are dumped into the river then yes, obviously, they are damaging.  If they are properly handled it is not an issue.  Deforestation however is a major concern (not that the paper industry is much of the problem - land clearance in the rain forest is a much bigger question), since along with algae in the ocaens, land based biomass is the main source of the oxygen we breathe.  

Everything hooks into everything else, and none of it is easy to unravel.

- Yoj

[ 07-31-2001: Message edited by: Yoj ]

Offline Jammer

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 64
About carbon dioxide and energy sources
« Reply #20 on: July 31, 2001, 01:47:00 PM »
Thank you Yoj for pointing that out. This partial-view methodology when discussin holistic processes makes any worthwhile exchange impossible.

It's easy to find single facts taken out of context and use them as a tool to 'ridicule' the whole subject or 'prove' by a single or a few examples that the whole problem is non-existing...

*sigh*

Offline miko2d

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3177
About carbon dioxide and energy sources
« Reply #21 on: August 01, 2001, 11:45:00 AM »
Couple of additional pieces of info:

 1. The ocean fish like tuna, shark, swordfish contain so much mercury that pregnant women and children should not eat them.
 The source of that mercury is coal-burning power plants.

 2. All that hydrogen used for fuel is derived from methaine or oil, so it produces cleaner air in the cities but no net sevings in CO2 or other emissions.
 It would make sence to use hydrogen (which can be stored and transported with less loss then electricity) if it was produced by nuclear plants electrolyzing water. Otherwise it is just moving pollution aroung at enormous expense. Remember, creating the whole new infrastructure causes a lot of pollution too. Of course developing countries would never be able switch from gasoline to hydrogen anyway.

 As for people not being able to resist pleasure of driving powerfull cars, we have laws limiting noise pollution. We limit people's freedom of shooting firearms or fireworks in populated areas.
 Classify ICE exaust as poison an limit it too. Drive any car you want as long as you are not emitting any poisons.

 Here is an idea. Pollution should be allocated not (only) per country but per person. Let poor people sell their pollution allocations to those who want to drive overpowered cars!

 I was driving 105 hp Honda Civic for 6 years (ans still keep it) and recently upgraded to 165 hp Subaru Outback. That is plenty for all practical reasons.

 miko

Offline miko2d

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3177
About carbon dioxide and energy sources
« Reply #22 on: August 01, 2001, 12:41:00 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Jammer:
Yeah, its all a conspiracy to rob the americans of their life style.

 It is no secret now that KGB had considerable links with many western "protest movements" - personal, finanscial, etc.

 It would be plain stupid for a former KGB resident who became a president of Russia not to influence the green movement a little bit so that Kyoto accord gets pushed through.
 Because of Kyoto accord being based on pre-1990 numbers and dismal state of Russian economy in the last decade, Russia would suddenly find itself in a posession of $10 billion a year worth of pollution allocations it cannot use itself. So he will sell it back to US and line the pockets of his cronies.

 There is one interested party.

 There are many other countries that stand to benefit if some production in US shuts down or becomes more expensive.

 I am not saying that americans should not make sacrifices for the environment. It's just that those of us who are ready to do so, do it anyway without any treaties.

 miko