Michael More's Planet of the Humans

Watch
MonkeyChunks
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 3 days ago
#1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk11vI-7czE

I was surprised that so much rubber and plastic is allowed to be burnt in bio mass generators. That is truly shocking.

The Drax power station in the UK is fed on US wood chip (biomass), so this is very relevant to us, and it is shocking that entire forests in the US are being destroyed, milled into chips, shipped across the world, driven to the Drax plant and burnt (mixed with plastics), and we think this is better?

Apart from wood producing more mercury than coal (about 12 times as much apparently) the obvious fossil fuel cost of cutting, milling and shipping this wood chip is surely substantial.

And then I saw pictures of landfills stuffed full of plastic turbine blades, and realised wind is a bad polluter too.

I think nuclear is the solution. It is relatively cheap, compared to the total cost of renversables, though not as cheap as fossil fuels, and is fairly safe, given the actual impacts of the worst nuclear disaster, Chernobyl, have been very limited.
0
reply
Euan McAllen
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#2
Report 3 days ago
#2
I do not care about plastic, some things were better when made out of it, such as McDonald's straws, because the paper ones are an absolute joke.
0
reply
MonkeyChunks
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 3 days ago
#3
(Original post by Euan McAllen)
I do not care about plastic, some things were better when made out of it, such as McDonald's straws, because the paper ones are an absolute joke.
Cant you drink it direct from the cup?
0
reply
Euan McAllen
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#4
Report 3 days ago
#4
(Original post by MonkeyChunks)
Cant you drink it direct from the cup?
That's besides the point, plastic straws were much better.
0
reply
MonkeyChunks
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 3 days ago
#5
(Original post by Euan McAllen)
That's besides the point, plastic straws were much better.
Why not take your own baby bottle, with a spout, that you can reuse?
0
reply
Euan McAllen
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#6
Report 3 days ago
#6
(Original post by MonkeyChunks)
Why not take your own baby bottle, with a spout, that you can reuse?
Or they could make stronger straws...
0
reply
MonkeyChunks
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#7
Report Thread starter 3 days ago
#7
(Original post by Euan McAllen)
Or they could make stronger straws...
Buy a metal straw.
0
reply
Euan McAllen
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#8
Report 3 days ago
#8
(Original post by MonkeyChunks)
Buy a metal straw.
It isn't my responsibility to take a straw with me to McDonald's, it's their duty to serve customers with better ones than *****y paper ones.
0
reply
anarchism101
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#9
Report 3 days ago
#9
Moore's film has been widely denounced by climate scientists as total garbage, and many of its statistical claims as outdated or unreliable, so I'd take anything from it with more than a pinch of salt.
0
reply
gjd800
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#10
Report 3 days ago
#10
(Original post by anarchism101)
Moore's film has been widely denounced by climate scientists as total garbage, and many of its statistical claims as outdated or unreliable, so I'd take anything from it with more than a pinch of salt.
Standard fare for a Moore film, then!
0
reply
MonkeyChunks
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#11
Report Thread starter 3 days ago
#11
(Original post by anarchism101)
Moore's film has been widely denounced by climate scientists as total garbage, and many of its statistical claims as outdated or unreliable, so I'd take anything from it with more than a pinch of salt.
Have you seen the film? It doesnt say anything about climate science. It is about the funding of renewable energy (wind and solar) and its returns so I dont see how a climate scientist could refute it, it is not in their field of expertise.
0
reply
Napp
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#12
Report 3 days ago
#12
(Original post by MonkeyChunks)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk11vI-7czE

I was surprised that so much rubber and plastic is allowed to be burnt in bio mass generators. That is truly shocking.

The Drax power station in the UK is fed on US wood chip (biomass), so this is very relevant to us, and it is shocking that entire forests in the US are being destroyed, milled into chips, shipped across the world, driven to the Drax plant and burnt (mixed with plastics), and we think this is better?
Well it evidently is, maybe not by every single metric but hey ho.
Apart from wood producing more mercury than coal (about 12 times as much apparently) the obvious fossil fuel cost of cutting, milling and shipping this wood chip is surely substantial.
Why do you think that?
And then I saw pictures of landfills stuffed full of plastic turbine blades, and realised wind is a bad polluter too.
Since when are turbine blades made of plastic...?
Either way, the point is not to not pollute at all it is to reduce the relative amount and not spew gasses into the atmosphere.
I think nuclear is the solution. It is relatively cheap, compared to the total cost of renversables, though not as cheap as fossil fuels, and is fairly safe, given the actual impacts of the worst nuclear disaster, Chernobyl, have been very limited.
Ho ho ho. It is far from cheap these days. As far as pollution goes as well this is second to none in the worst ways, there is no safe way to dispose of any of the by-products (nor the plant itself) our nuclear submarines have yet to be properly decommissioned and what nuclear waste we do have we stick in drums... hardly good.
Equally, one of the main problems with nuclear is due to diverting the resources (or stealing them) and making a weapon.

Fusion looks much more attractive, if only people would invest in it. The US, for example, spends more on subsidising peanut production than it does here :lol:
0
reply
Napp
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#13
Report 3 days ago
#13
(Original post by Euan McAllen)
It isn't my responsibility to take a straw with me to McDonald's, it's their duty to serve customers with better ones than *****y paper ones.
If you want to drink with a solid straw it is :lol:
0
reply
MonkeyChunks
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#14
Report Thread starter 3 days ago
#14
(Original post by Napp)
Well it evidently is, maybe not by every single metric but hey ho.

Why do you think that?
Because wood produces more mercury than coal, cutting, processing, and shipping it uses fossil fuels. Petrol/diesel for the machinery used to cut it and ship it. To chip it some kind of plant running off the electricity grid, which currently is 95% fossil fuel.

(Original post by Napp)
Since when are turbine blades made of plastic...?
GRP. Glass reinforced plastic.

(Original post by Napp)
Either way, the point is not to not pollute at all it is to reduce the relative amount and not spew gasses into the atmosphere.

Ho ho ho. It is far from cheap these days. As far as pollution goes as well this is second to none in the worst ways, there is no safe way to dispose of any of the by-products (nor the plant itself) our nuclear submarines have yet to be properly decommissioned and what nuclear waste we do have we stick in drums... hardly good.
I think nuclear waste should be put in drums and dumped in the ocean at a subduction zone where it gets sucked into the earths core and reprocessed. That is where it came from originally after all.

(Original post by Napp)
Equally, one of the main problems with nuclear is due to diverting the resources (or stealing them) and making a weapon.

Fusion looks much more attractive, if only people would invest in it. The US, for example, spends more on subsidising peanut production than it does here :lol:
The film though isnt about new solutions, it is about the corruption of the existing 'solution'. Wind and solar are a joke, you know that, as stated in the film clearly, you need a fossil fuel plant running 24/7 ready to step in when the wind/sun dies.

So you need to build double the capacity. Understand?

The fact is that without subsidies fro the tax payer none of these schemes would have got off the ground, because they cant stand on their own two feet financially.
Take shale oil. It took an oil price of lets say, over $70 a barrel to make developing it viable economically. Once done, and the initial cost is paid for, it can produce oil competitively at $40 a barrel.

At no stage has electric or solar been viable without huge tax payer subsidies. So the plants, as More points out, are just ways to get tax payer cash into Bloods, Gores, Bransons, etc pockets, with no long term intent or ability to provide competitive electricity.

Thats the thrust of Mores film. You dont need to find a replacement before you criticise something that is wrong. Especially when what it is replacing is looking to be less and less of a risk anyway.
0
reply
Napp
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#15
Report 3 days ago
#15
(Original post by MonkeyChunks)
Because wood produces more mercury than coal, cutting, processing, and shipping it uses fossil fuels. Petrol/diesel for the machinery used to cut it and ship it. To chip it some kind of plant running off the electricity grid, which currently is 95% fossil fuel.
As i said, one metric is not an excuse to count it out. Given coal 'produces' more thorium and uranium.

GRP. Glass reinforced plastic.
Can't say i've heard of any turbines of note use this... given they're made of metal.

I think nuclear waste should be put in drums and dumped in the ocean at a subduction zone where it gets sucked into the earths core and reprocessed. That is where it came from originally after all.
Yeah, because polluting the oceans with highly toxic waste is such a brilliant idea -.- You cant whine about a bit of petrol being used and then suggest this...
Never mind the fact spent nuclear fuel decidedly does not come from the center of the earth.

The film though isnt about new solutions, it is about the corruption of the existing 'solution'. Wind and solar are a joke, you know that, as stated in the film clearly, you need a fossil fuel plant running 24/7 ready to step in when the wind/sun dies.
I havent watched the film. I am familiar with issues of the two technologies though. but given no one has suggested completely replacing fossil fuelled plants with wind/solar your point seems moot.

So you need to build double the capacity. Understand?
No you don't... since noone is advocating this ridiculous binary choice you're suggesting.
The fact is that without subsidies fro the tax payer none of these schemes would have got off the ground, because they cant stand on their own two feet financially.
Take shale oil. It took an oil price of lets say, over $70 a barrel to make developing it viable economically. Once done, and the initial cost is paid for, it can produce oil competitively at $40 a barrel.
What's your point?
And no, no it can't :lol: There are bugger all, if any, shale wells operating a breakeven price of $40. Hence why the industry is in deep deep ****.
At no stage has electric or solar been viable without huge tax payer subsidies. So the plants, as More points out, are just ways to get tax payer cash into Bloods, Gores, Bransons, etc pockets, with no long term intent or ability to provide competitive electricity.
Ah so your view is its all but a conspiracy? :rolleyes:
I mean, aside from the fact prices have been reducing irrespective of any piddling tax payer subsidy (and make no mistake it is piddling)
Fact of the matter is both wind and solar have been declining for quite some time now in price thanks to mass production in china and the technology maturing.
Thats the thrust of Mores film. You dont need to find a replacement before you criticise something that is wrong. Especially when what it is replacing is looking to be less and less of a risk anyway.
sounds like half baked pseudo science if his only points are;
1) Only Solar and or wind can't entirely replace fossil fuels
2) It's not but a scam to enrich a couple of families
3) Since what we're doing isnt completely effective we should give up and burn as much coal as possible.
0
reply
MonkeyChunks
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#16
Report Thread starter 3 days ago
#16
(Original post by Napp)
As i said, one metric is not an excuse to count it out. Given coal 'produces' more thorium and uranium.


Can't say i've heard of any turbines of note use this... given they're made of metal.


Yeah, because polluting the oceans with highly toxic waste is such a brilliant idea -.- You cant whine about a bit of petrol being used and then suggest this...
Never mind the fact spent nuclear fuel decidedly does not come from the center of the earth.


I havent watched the film. I am familiar with issues of the two technologies though. but given no one has suggested completely replacing fossil fuelled plants with wind/solar your point seems moot.


No you don't... since noone is advocating this ridiculous binary choice you're suggesting.

What's your point?
And no, no it can't :lol: There are bugger all, if any, shale wells operating a breakeven price of $40. Hence why the industry is in deep deep ****.

Ah so your view is its all but a conspiracy? :rolleyes:
I mean, aside from the fact prices have been reducing irrespective of any piddling tax payer subsidy (and make no mistake it is piddling)
Fact of the matter is both wind and solar have been declining for quite some time now in price thanks to mass production in china and the technology maturing.

sounds like half baked pseudo science if his only points are;
1) Only Solar and or wind can't entirely replace fossil fuels
2) It's not but a scam to enrich a couple of families
3) Since what we're doing isnt completely effective we should give up and burn as much coal as possible.
Arrogance and ignorance. It is an interesting mix.

You really ought to look into things more.

Just a starter for you: Turbine blades
0
reply
Napp
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#17
Report 3 days ago
#17
(Original post by MonkeyChunks)
Arrogance and ignorance. It is an interesting mix.

You really ought to look into things more.

Just a starter for you: Turbine blades
Coming from you of all people? Tsk tsk.
Oh dear :rofl: I didn't say that material was never used i said metal is infinitely more common. You ought to read my post before making silly comments.

I note you had no riposte to the rest of my comment outlining your scientific illiteracy in this field though? Ignorance indeed.
0
reply
MonkeyChunks
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#18
Report Thread starter 3 days ago
#18
(Original post by Napp)
Coming from you of all people? Tsk tsk.
Oh dear :rofl: I didn't say that material was never used i said metal is infinitely more common. You ought to read my post before making silly comments.

I note you had no riposte to the rest of my comment outlining your scientific illiteracy in this field though? Ignorance indeed.
Oh dear oh dear oh dear.

No, you said (in response to me saying turbine blades are made of plastic) "Can't say i've heard of any turbines of note use this... given they're made of metal."

No, metal is not 'infinitely' more common for making blades, in fact it is unknown, since they would be massive expensive, heavy, and difficult to make, almost impossible to make in fact.

GRP is the material of choice for all turbine blades.

There isnt any point responding to any of your points in detail because you will just change them from one post to the next, as you have done with this one.

I am wise enough to know to suffer a fool gladly.
0
reply
Napp
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#19
Report 3 days ago
#19
(Original post by MonkeyChunks)
Oh dear oh dear oh dear.

No, you said (in response to me saying turbine blades are made of plastic) "Can't say i've heard of any turbines of note use this... given they're made of metal."
Ahem...
No, metal is not 'infinitely' more common for making blades, in fact it is unknown, since they would be massive expensive, heavy, and difficult to make, almost impossible to make in fact.

GRP is the material of choice for all turbine blades.
My mistake for byperbole however the point stands. 'plastic' is not the go to material when there are things such as carbon composites and so on.
There isnt any point responding to any of your points in detail because you will just change them from one post to the next, as you have done with this one.
So your issue is i respond to each of your points directly? That's cute. A bit dimwitted of you but cute all the same.
I am wise enough to know to suffer a fool gladly.
Given your posting history i'm not sure anyone would describe you as 'wise'. With your inane ramblings on barbary slave trade tickling quite a few it seems.

Either way, if you want to ignore a debate be my guest. Forever believe that coal is more environmentally friendly than wood chips and dumping nuclear waste willy nilly is good :rofl:
0
reply
MonkeyChunks
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#20
Report Thread starter 3 days ago
#20
(Original post by Napp)
Ahem...

My mistake for byperbole however the point stands. 'plastic' is not the go to material when there are things such as carbon composites and so on.

So your issue is i respond to each of your points directly? That's cute. A bit dimwitted of you but cute all the same.

Given your posting history i'm not sure anyone would describe you as 'wise'. With your inane ramblings on barbary slave trade tickling quite a few it seems.

Either way, if you want to ignore a debate be my guest. Forever believe that coal is more environmentally friendly than wood chips and dumping nuclear waste willy nilly is good :rofl:
Oh ffs, a carbon composite is a plastic. So is a kevlar composite, so is an E glass or S glass composite. Some composites uses polyester as the plastic, cheap and bonds well to fiber glass, others use epoxy, more expensive, more rigid, bonds well to carbon fiber.

The plastic is the body, reinforced with fibers of varying kinds depending on whether you want stiff or strong etc. Much like metal reinforces concrete, the fibers change the mechanical properties of the plastic.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
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

How are you finding researching unis for 2021 entry?

I have been able to get all the information I need from online research (46)
20.35%
I have tried virtual events and found them useful (51)
22.57%
I have tried virtual events and did not find them useful (43)
19.03%
I would be interested in trying socially distanced or scaled down in person events (46)
20.35%
I want to but don't know where to start with researching unis for 2021 entry (22)
9.73%
I haven't started researching yet (18)
7.96%

Watched Threads

View All