- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 14,551
- Reaction score
- 2,173
- Country
5 olympic swimming pools per second. A couple of decent pumps should do it.
This enviroment saving the
- Thread starter transam
- Start date
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2016
- Messages
- 13,439
- Reaction score
- 540
- Country
Perhaps educating people, a tough ask when they deny facts.
- Joined
- 17 May 2012
- Messages
- 10,784
- Reaction score
- 849
- Country
Doesn't work. When I was studying geography in the early 1990s the concept of the man-made greenhouse effect at its impact on climate was already well understood and covered in school.
Back in the day, even the Daily Mail reported what the government was going - from 2001:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-39195/Prescott-lobby-global-warming-action.html
But nobody listens, it's all too much to ask. The only people that can make a real change are governments - they must intervene and force change upon the planet. But they won't, so we're all doomed.
Back in the day, even the Daily Mail reported what the government was going - from 2001:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-39195/Prescott-lobby-global-warming-action.html
But nobody listens, it's all too much to ask. The only people that can make a real change are governments - they must intervene and force change upon the planet. But they won't, so we're all doomed.
When I was at school in the sixties we were heading for another ice-age - just saying.
Either way, I would question your "well understood".
Sponsored Links
Fun fact, the Great wall of China is in the same scale as the UK coastline. Depending on how you measure it and how many islands you decide to keep or write off its either half again as big or two thirds the size of the UK coast.
It took around 1800 years to build all of it, but just like modern brickes they weren't on site every day.
The cost would be epic. Probably comparable to just buying enough wind turbines for the entire world to drop fossil fuels.
E
EddieM
Nuclear, it's the only was, preferably fusion, when energy positive, 10 years away, as it has been for the last 50+ years, or low waste fusion.
Fission just costs too much. If you try and go cheap then it goes horribly wrong.
In theory it could be done cheaply and safely but that's like saying Brexit could be done without being acrimonious. In theory possible but never going to happen.
In theory it could be done cheaply and safely but that's like saying Brexit could be done without being acrimonious. In theory possible but never going to happen.
E
EddieM
Only in old fashioned reactors, modern designs, produce little low level waste, have low decommissioning costs.
Advantages: Produces 200 times more energy by mass than traditional reactors
Waste is at safe levels after a couple of hundred years as opposed to 10,000s
Material cannot be weaponised
Much more abundant, enough to power the world for over a thousand years.
Reactor cannot go into meltdown, self regulating.
Last edited by a moderator:
E
EddieM
Wind farms ain't cheap and require a huge amount of maintenance. PR be damned.
There is always the tech of generating leccy from urine 
they have bags that u slash in now that can then be used to charge yer phone all they need to do is up scale the tech
no reason why u could not have some sort of slash bag to run yer telly or lights
they have bags that u slash in now that can then be used to charge yer phone
all they need to do is up scale the tech no reason why u could not have some sort of slash bag to run yer telly or lights
Nothing compared to a nuclear plant. Like it or not the armed guards aren't free and they aren't going anywhere. In terms of cost per megawatt they're half the price of nukes and the cost is only falling.
They cant. It goes against good economic policy.
Chop down the trees, open the mines, build the roads etc.
Brazil is a good example. Just keep burning and breeding.
E
EddieM
Impossible to compare an operational lifetime cost of something that's in operation to something that's not been built.
Plus the conveniently avoided costs associated with decommissioning a wind turbine (I.e. removal and restoration) it's a lot of money.
Last edited by a moderator:
Wind power is in heavy use and has been for ages now. In the EU it produced more power last year than nuclear power did. The first wind farms are being decomissioned already. Although restoration isn't needed, they're just replaced with better newer ones.
I'm not sure what operational costs haven't been demonstrated.
The damage to the environment isn't zero but it is a pittance compared to any other power source you'd care to mention.
Sponsored Links
