Nome utente : Password :
Registrazione di un nuovo utente
Moderatore: Vikings 
 Politics

Forum for discussing local and world politics and issues. All views are welcomed. Let your opinions be heard on current news and politics.


All standard guidelines apply to this board, No Flaming, No Taunting, No Foul Language,No sexual innuendos,etc..

As politics can be a volatile subject, please consider how you would feel if your comment were directed toward yourself.

Any post deemed to be in violation of guidelines will be deleted or edited without warning or notification. Any continued misbehavior will result in a ban or hidden status, so please play nice!!!


*"Moderators are here for a reason. If a moderator (or Global Moderator or Fencer) requests that a discussion on a certain subject to cease - for whatever reason - please respect these wishes. Failure to do so may result in being hidden, or banned."


Messaggi per pagina:
Lista delle discussioni
Non ti è possibile inserire messaggi in questo forum. Il livello minimo di sottoscrizione per linvio dei messaggi è {0}.
Modalità: Chiunque può inviare messaggi
Cerca nei messaggi:  

28. Giugno 2011, 07:27:30
Übergeek 바둑이 
Argomento: Global warming
People don't get the problem with global warming. It is not floods, or tornadoes, or temperture extremes, or melting of ice caps, or sea levels. All of that is important, but not the key. The real problem is one of the vapor pressure of water. Near room temperature (25 degrees celcius) an increase of 1 degree leads to an increase of 5 to 8% in the vapor pressure of water. That means that water evaporates at a rate 5 to 8% higher just by increasing the temperature 1 degree Celcius. If the entire atmosphere of the planet increases in temperature by 1 degree Celcius, then evaporation of water from the top soil will increase by 5 to 8%. That means that the soil will become drier than it already is. That spells a catasprophe in agricultural terms because some of the most fertile areas of the Earth (the Prairies) will yield a lot less grain if soil humidity decreases. This will lead to a terrible shortage of grain worldwide. As it is, grain prices are already at an all time high. A furthe increase will leave hundreds of million of people hungry. We will see famine on a scale that has not been seen since the 19th century. That is the real problem with global warming, the spectre of famine. Sea levels and ice caps are nice to worry about, but nobody seems to worry much about the poor of the world who will go hungry if something is not done. The problem is that those who speak of global warming do it from their own comfortable middle calss stance, and those oil, gas and coal companies that oppose global warming do it thinking only of their profit without caring about the fate of the poor. Nobody wants to talk about this because in our capitalist world thinking of the poor goes against individualistic, selfish profits for individuals.

28. Giugno 2011, 08:07:36
Übergeek 바둑이 
Argomento: Re: top soil
Artful Dodger:

> The reason is sounds like a hoax is because it is a hoax.

OK, let's say that global warming is a hoax. Does that mean that it is ok to continue to release carbon dioxide and other pollutants in the way we are doing now? Is it OK to continue to increase gas emissions from fossil fuels? It is a hoax, does that mean it is OK to continue polluting?

28. Giugno 2011, 20:09:54
Übergeek 바둑이 
Argomento: Re: top soil
Artful Dodger:

> I know that there are BILLIONS of dollars just waiting for green energy producers. They are no different than other so-called greedy fossil fuel energy companies. And in spite of what the Geek claims, the question isn't between an energy source that produces LESS pollution, it's about one energy source that works, and another that is yet to prove it can meet demand (it can't - and you'll be dead before it can).

Are green energy producers greedy? Sure they are. It is greed that drives capitalism.

The question is, can green energy meet the demand?

In the UK 7% of electricity consumes is produced from renewable sources. In the USA electricity generation from renewable sources has now reached 10%. Japan also produces 10% of its electricity from renewable sources. Germany produces 18% of its electricity from renewable sources. France produces 14%.

In Denmark 29% of the energy is produced from wind power and renewable energy sources. The Danish transition occurred in the last 15 years or so, and "Green" energy generation is increasing at a rate of about 1% per year. It might seem like slow progress, but then their reliance on fossil fuels decreases every day.

In Canada 64.5% of the electricity consumed is produced from renewable energy sources. Considering Canada's long, dark winters, it is a good record. However, the public perception among Canadians is that the government is not doing enough.

Then, we look at Iceland where 100% of its electricity generation is from renewable resources with geothermal energy being the dominant form of green energy. Iceland can do this on account of high volcanic activity, high incidence of geisers and other surface geothermal vents, and a low population. Hower, it shows that where there is a will there is a way.

The myth that renewable (i.e. green) sources cannot meet the demand is probbly more true in motor vehicles. It is in this big sector that fossil fuels still dominate. However, if more electricity is generated from renewable sources, then consumers will slowly switch to electrical vehicles for daily transport while slowly phasing out gasoline-powered vehicles.

We should also note that the USA consumes a lot more electricity per person than many other countries. Renewable sources do have a difficult time meeting the high demand in the USA. Renewable energy will become the dominant form of energy production as oil becomes more expensive and North Americans begin to rethink their energy consumption habits.

China is another country that has a hard time adopting renewable energy. The fast rate of economic expansion has meant that demand for electricity is far in excess of the supply. To meet that demand China uses their main natural resource, coal, and imports vast quantities of oil from neighboring Kazakhstan and Russia.

What we can learn from this is that the situation is complex. The viability of green energy sources is affected by population distribution, weather patterns, geological patterns, geography, water availability, economic growth, etc. Under some circumstances green energy has worked very well. In other cases fossil fuels can meet the demand.

I suppose it is a matter of willingness to change and willingness to invest. One thing is certain. Whether global warming is true factor or not, we should make every effort to reduce pollution.

29. Giugno 2011, 07:47:07
Übergeek 바둑이 
Argomento: Re: The question is, can green energy meet the demand?
Artful Dodger:

> Not at 100% levels. And it won't drive our cars. At the moment, you need both types of energy. And you can't stop producing oil when you don't have in place a replacement. It's that simple.

Not with the current technology. We still need oil for motor vehicles. There is no current technology that can replace the diesel engine in a tractor-trailer carrying tons of cargo. The day might come when we will. In the meantime we still need oil.

But electricity is something else. The problem is that people think in very selfish, nationalistic terms.

If Iceland can make 100% of its energy from geothermal sources, North America should aim at developing a similar source in places where it is viable. It would be impossible to do that in Saskatchewan or Florida, but it might be viable in volcanic regions. Electricity could be generated in Guatemala (a very volcanic country) and redistributed north through Mexico and the USA. It would help Guatemala and Mexico develop thier economy while the USA would get a respite from some of the oil dependence.

Unfortunately, everybody gets nationalistic. The USA has the capital to invest, but not the willingness to do so while oil remains cheap. Mexicans will want to make a big profit, as will Guatemalans. Guatemala completely lacks the infrastructure and the capital. All in all everybody will keep using oil until it becomes so expensive that building geothermal plants in Central America becomes cheaper.

Once energy is generated efficiently from a renewable source, it can be used to generate synthetic fuels. For example, electricity can be used to power a Fischer-Tropsch catalyst and make hydrocarbons from carbon dioxide and water. Methanol can be synthesized too and used in fuel cells to power motor vehicles.

The big challenge right now is the lack of infrastructure and capital. Many of the technologies are there, but their cost is too great when compared to oil extraction and refining. We could replace oil at this point, but the cost would be too great. Nobody wants to pay $2000 per month for an electricity bill.

Data e ora
Amici in linea
Forum preferiti
Gruppi
Consiglio del giorno
Copyright © 2002 - 2024 Filip Rachunek, all rights reserved.
Torna all'inizio