Global warming denial

Watch
This discussion is closed.
Lemonsoul
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#81
Report 14 years ago
#81
(Original post by Laika)
Is anyone qualified to comment on whether a renewable energy revolution of sorts is conceivable? I'm talking widespread home generation (adapting existing homes to produce energy and making renewable energy generators as standard in new homes) and commitment to large scale renewable energy systems like tidal barrages and building more windfarms. Could this ever come close to covering a significant fraction of our energy needs?
Not according to George Monbiot (http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005...y-do-we-have-/), although to be honest some of the figures in there are dubious and I doubt that he is qualified enough to make an authoritative judgement on the matter. I think that extensive home generation, checks on population growth, and energy conservation on an industrial scale will be needed to solve the problem. Hopefully we will find a technological solution - carbon burial or seeding the ocean sound promising.

Bikerx23, did not realise that solar panels took so long to pay back their original carbon costs, does this apply to all panels? I think I read in the Economist a while back that there were much more energy-efficient solar panels being developed.
0
Vienna
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#82
Report 14 years ago
#82
(Original post by Laika)
Renewable energy sources accounted for one fifth of the world's energy in 2003 (most of it hydro-electricity), which is more than was produced with nuclear power. Granted, this isn't remotely close to meeting the demands of our current lifestyle. But further investment and planning could go some way to meeting these needs. Wind and solar power can be harnessed to power smaller communities and send excess electricity back to the grid. Hydro-electricity can provide the bulk of energy. Now, I'm not saying that this is a plausible replacement for fossil fuels, because I have no idea if it is, but I do think there is something to be said for producing more energy through renewable sources from a grass roots level as well as on a larger scale, rather than shunning these methods entirely.
Nobody is shunning them. I want to see investment directed into new technology, not the state or some international treaty taxing and regulating the private sector.

I'm not certain but I don't think I've stated anywhere that air travel should be prohibited, nor have I contradicted myself or deviated from my original argument.
"The technology exists for us live comfortably and environmentally friendly - at the expense of some modern luxuries like frequent air travel and general wastefulness."

One minute youre telling me we should invest in finding new technologies then youre back to telling me that we should prohibit 'modern luxuries' such as air travel. Where do you think the investment comes from?

And besides, debating over the logistics of future energy consumption is a different area to the aims of the Kyoto Treaty. In spite of it's meagre success and accomplishment, its ideology is rooted in the right place; that is, to reduce omissions of gasses which are harmful to he environment.
Its ideology is totally flawed as Ive pointed out. You would need 40 Kyoto treaties to make any substantial change to emissions and climate change. This would cripple the world economy and investment into the renewable energy sources you believe "could go some way to meeting these needs". You cant punish private investment and then expect technology to turn up out of thin air.
0
bikerx23
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#83
Report 14 years ago
#83
They dont pay it back at all currently...but they do give the lovely illusion of giving a toss about the environment...

I believe there are some more being developed, yes - but unless they are hyper efficient will not be viable, especially as the areas where they are most needed are the least efficient and impose the greatest stress upon the materials.
0
Laika
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#84
Report 14 years ago
#84
(Original post by Vienna)
Nobody is shunning them. I want to see investment directed into new technology, not the state or some international treaty taxing and regulating the private sector.
But it is the private sector which is having the most damaging impact on the environment and without regulation this will go unchecked.

"The technology exists for us live comfortably and environmentally friendly - at the expense of some modern luxuries like frequent air travel and general wastefulness."

One minute youre telling me we should invest in finding new technologies then youre back to telling me that we should prohibit 'modern luxuries' such as air travel. Where do you think the investment comes from?
I didn't say I advocated prohibition of air travel. I said if alternatives cannot be found then it's not realistic for us to continue our current energy use including things like air travel. We must have prepared for the possibility that current renewable energy technology may become essential to our future.

Again, I don't know why you're being so aggressive. I'm not passsionately advocating any specific course of action, I am merely pointing out what I believe are the most sensible changes given our current situation. AT no point have I stated I am opposed to the search for alternative energy sources. I am simply stating that dependance on this scenario may be risky when we could be making positive changes right now.
0
Vienna
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#85
Report 14 years ago
#85
(Original post by Laika)
But it is the private sector which is having the most damaging impact on the environment and without regulation this will go unchecked.
You're against private investment, then you're for it, then you're against it...

I didn't say I advocated prohibition of air travel. I said if alternatives cannot be found then it's not realistic for us to continue our current energy use including things like air travel.
So when do we start cutting back? When the oil has run out?

AT no oint have I stated I am opposed to the search for alternative energy sources.
"But it is the private sector which is having the most damaging impact on the environment and without regulation this will go unchecked."

Again, "regulating" the the private sector and backing the Kyoto protocol are sure fire ways of impeding the search for alternative energy.

I am simply stating that dependance on this scenario may be risky when we could be making positive changes right now.
I wish you'd stop framing regulation and the likes of Kyoto as being "positive", when there is nothing remotely positive about their outcome and they are unlikely to lead to any form of change.
0
Laika
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#86
Report 14 years ago
#86
(Original post by Vienna)
So when do we start cutting back? When the oil has run out?
Preferably yes. :rolleyes:

"But it is the private sector which is having the most damaging impact on the environment and without regulation this will go unchecked."

Again, "regulating" the the private sector and backing the Kyoto protocol are sure fire ways of impeding the search for alternative energy.

I wish you'd stop framing regulation and the likes of Kyoto as being "positive", when there is nothing remotely positive about their outcome and they are unlikely to lead to any form of change.
The distinction is, I'm not opposed to private investment into finding alternative fuel sources or using fuel more efficiently and cleanly. I am opposed to private companies going unregulated in the way we use fuel currently - that is given a free reign over damage to the environment and CO2 emissions without any limitations.

Kyoto does not impede businesses from using 'green' energy or researching new energy sources - it impedes them from producing excessive amounts of greenhouse gasses. Ethically, that's a psoitive change, whether it will have any realistic impact in the long term is not for me to say. But I would gladly support any change to be more environmentally friendly in spite of any financial losses.

By the way, when referring to 'positive changes now' I was not referring to Kyoto, but commitment to using renenwable energy where possible.
0
LostRiot
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#87
Report 14 years ago
#87
I'm not sure if this has been posted before, but these adverts are being shown in america between the 18th and 28th may.

http://streams.cei.org/

"and as for CO2, it's not smog or smoke. it's what we breath out, and plants breath in!" oh, I get it now, our cars are helping the plants. silly me.

Only in america would an advert like that be put on tv, it's all well and good to tell the country that they're on constant red alert and terrorists could strike at any time, but a real threat, one which has the ability to completely destroy the american way of life, well that's just not real, it's natural.
0
Kalis
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#88
Report 14 years ago
#88
(Original post by Made in the USA)
What makes you think the other side isn't on someone's payroll? I'm sure there are plenty of scientists, lobbyists, and journalists being paid off by the global warming alarmists as well. Everyone is for sale.

The mainstream media also has dollar signs in their eyes. What sells more papers, telling people stories of apocalyptic visions of impending doom conjured up by environmentalists, or running a story telling people everything is fine?
Very good second point. However the first point: 'global warming alarmists' did not just make the greatest annual profits in the worlds history from selling an apparent significant course of global warming. So probably wouldnt pay much!
0
Kalis
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#89
Report 14 years ago
#89
(Original post by Vienna)
So when do we start cutting back? When the oil has run out?
Firstly, however bad the predictions for global warming are, the world needs energy. It does not matter where it is from, but until a new amazing source is found we will continue to use fossil fuels - there are no renewable energy sources which are even close to capable of supplying our current demand. This is why private investment should be free to find new alternatives - not restricted. Think about it: how much money could one make if you found another source of energy? That is why oil companies and other spend hundrends of milions or billions of dollars on finding new such ways. They will not let themselves fall so easily - they will adapt to whatever the new sources are.

Lastly, the oil will not run out. Not only are there massively wild guesses at how much oil there is left - due to people just measuring standard types of oil. In fact if you include all types of oil plus existing fields which are now domant (they have been left because back then it was too expensive to extract oil), plus fields yet to come (we are constantly finding more oil) we have got several decades left.

Even this does not matter either. The stone age ended before we ran out of stone, as did the iron age, the bronze age, the age of steam, etc etc etc because technology is constantly advancing and as increasingly evident from any analysis: exponentially. The oil age will end long before we run out of oil.
0
arkbar
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#90
Report 14 years ago
#90
Lastly, the oil will not run out.
we have got several decades left.
Anyway, I'd love to see the 'steam age' end due to a lack of steam.
0
bikerx23
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#91
Report 14 years ago
#91
Lastly, the oil will not run out. Not only are there massively wild guesses at how much oil there is left - due to people just measuring standard types of oil. In fact if you include all types of oil plus existing fields which are now domant (they have been left because back then it was too expensive to extract oil), plus fields yet to come (we are constantly finding more oil) we have got several decades left.
What a load of rubbish - Oil is a finite resource hence if we continue to use it at the rate we are, it will run out. The area of the earth that has been tested for oil is over 90% now, so there is a well known amount of unresourced oil.
Also - you claim that these oil fields have been "shut down" - the highest yield ever taken from an oil field was 70%, and that is only because the roof of the well was collapsing as the oil was extracted. A better estimate for your average yield would be 40%, about 35% of this being removed by normal suction, the remainder by reverse water drive from a seperate source and use of detergents to decrease oil viscosity and assist in its removal.
Realistically, there will not be a point where oil from these abandoned fields would be viable to re-open until the price of oil is over $200 a barrel (at current inflation.etc.), hence it is highly unlikely they will ever be used.
0
arkbar
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#92
Report 14 years ago
#92
Who's been doing petrology modules then :p:
0
bikerx23
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#93
Report 14 years ago
#93
I do geology - Seismic exploration and mineral extraction is one of the most important factors.
0
Laika
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#94
Report 14 years ago
#94
(Original post by Kalis)
Even this does not matter either. The stone age ended before we ran out of stone, as did the iron age, the bronze age, the age of steam, etc etc etc because technology is constantly advancing and as increasingly evident from any analysis: exponentially. The oil age will end long before we run out of oil.
Well it'd better end quickly then if we only have 'several decades' of oil left, considering in that length of time we need to discover an alternative energy source and build the facilities necessary to harness it. I find the insistence that we will discover a new energy source within a few decade quite alarming. If no such alternative is discovered, what do you propose?
0
deedee8
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#95
Report 14 years ago
#95
Interesting as debates on subjects such as this may be, I believe there is little to be achieved by them. The same applies to most other subjects that should be of concern. There is a common element that ensures that no solution will be found and that is "Money".
Whilst we have a system based on money and individuals can 'profit' by exploiting various industries, including most types of crime, global issues and the destruction of the planet, it matters little what is proposed or said and the situation will only change for the worse.
Money has been a very useful commodity but is now the cause of practically all our concerns.
We have to change our economic system. We can either take money out of the hands of individuals and simply not allow anybody to have more than a certain amount or do away with it all together.

Of course it's easy to por scorn on such an argument but unless we do something along the lines suggested and do away with rampant greed we can talk all we like: the Earth is doomed
0
bikerx23
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#96
Report 14 years ago
#96
Hydrogen fuel generated from geothermal energy is the obvious replacement and has already been implemented in Iceland.
0
bikerx23
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#97
Report 14 years ago
#97
(Original post by deedee8)
Interesting as debates on subjects such as this may be, I believe there is little to be achieved by them. The same applies to most other subjects that should be of concern. There is a common element that ensures that no solution will be found and that is "Money".
Whilst we have a system based on money and individuals can 'profit' by exploiting various industries, including most types of crime, global issues and the destruction of the planet, it matters little what is proposed or said and the situation will only change for the worse.
Ofcourse, you could also argue that companies are likely to be avidly investing in the next big energy source, since they will wish to maintain their market dominance.
0
IainM
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#98
Report 14 years ago
#98
(Original post by bikerx23)
Hydrogen fuel generated from geothermal energy is the obvious replacement and has already been implemented in Iceland.
Hydrogen is certainly an exciting area of research, and we need to invest more in it's research, it is certainly a viable alternative.
0
Kalis
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#99
Report 14 years ago
#99
(Original post by bikerx23)
What a load of rubbish - Oil is a finite resource hence if we continue to use it at the rate we are, it will run out. The area of the earth that has been tested for oil is over 90% now, so there is a well known amount of unresourced oil.
Also - you claim that these oil fields have been "shut down" - the highest yield ever taken from an oil field was 70%, and that is only because the roof of the well was collapsing as the oil was extracted. A better estimate for your average yield would be 40%, about 35% of this being removed by normal suction, the remainder by reverse water drive from a seperate source and use of detergents to decrease oil viscosity and assist in its removal.
Realistically, there will not be a point where oil from these abandoned fields would be viable to re-open until the price of oil is over $200 a barrel (at current inflation.etc.), hence it is highly unlikely they will ever be used.
Of course it's finite but it will not run out because we would have advanced to another energy source. Where did you get 90% from? As the earth is 2/3's water and many areas are km's deep I'm sure 90% have not been tested. Not even all of Russia has been tested, yet alone 90% of the oceans. Your information on the yields proves that there is still much oil to extract but we do not have the technology to extract it yet. Also, if we knew already the vast majority of oil resources how is it that Canada has only relatviely recently started to realise the 180 billion barrels of oil it can extract from its tar sands. Plus the many other tar sand sites around the world. Finally, if oil runs out there are still trillions of cubic metres of gas left! We will pass the need for such fossil fuels as technology advances. I read a oil report from the Economist recently (sadly cant find it now) which lists the many ways moist estimates are inaccurate apart. The US Geological Something [lol cant remember the body] estimates we have over £3 trillion barrels of oil left - we have use £1 trillion so far and 3 is a conservative estimate they say.

Oh yeah I rememeber another new technology discovered recently which means higher yields can be extracted by pumping high pressure gas into the chambers so that there will be no collapse and that the oil pressure rises so that it is easier to pump out.
0
Rusty33
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#100
Report 14 years ago
#100
http://www.dumpalink.com/media/11476...Water_As_Fuel_
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Did you get the SQA results you wanted today?

Yes- I did even better than I hoped! (34)
17.8%
Yes- I got what I was hoping for (53)
27.75%
No- my results weren't as good as I'd hoped (104)
54.45%

Watched Threads

View All