Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Finn illustrates why he is not an Engineer.

T
K
O

Diest TKO wrote:

Finn illustrates why he is not an Engineer.

T
K
O

Cute, but what is the answer?

Engineers find solutions to impossible tasks, while politicians make excuses.

Diest TKO wrote:

Engineers find solutions to impossible tasks, while politicians make excuses.

Engineers have never found the solution to any impossible task. They have, however, managed to find ways to exaggerate their importance to society, as have almost any body of professionals.

Engineers have never found the solution to any impossible task. They have, however, managed to find ways to exaggerate their importance to society, as have almost any body of professionals.

Meanwhile, coal, oil, and other known usable sources of energy are the fuel of freedom, prosperity, and hope for billions of people on Earth now. Let's focus our energies on that reality and do what we must to make it work to our benefit even as our dreamers and visionaries and engineers work on better things for future generations.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

How about you re-read what I just posted. It pretty well covers it.

Yeah, let us know when they get on top of catching all the uranium and sulfuric acid produced by coal smoke.

And whenever you're ready to address the fact that coal mining is environmentally destructive, go right ahead; you didn't do so in your last post.

Cycloptichorn

What is the answer then?

We can't use fossil fuels because of greenhouse gas emissions.

We can't use nuclear energy because of waste concerns

We can't use bio-energy because it will result in global hunger.

We can't use wind power because it disturbs Walter Cronkite's Cape Cod views and because it poses a threat to migratory birds.

We can't use hydro-electric power because it messes with salmon spawning patterns (not to mention birds).

If solar power is ever to serve as our primary source of energy we will require enormous solar energy collectors situated in pristine deserts or pristine space. The former will undoubtedly endanger a small lizard or arachnid, and the latter will eventually be accused of blocking sunlight that belongs to pristine portions of the world.

Geothermal energy -- that's the ticket! No wait, hot water from geothermal sources will contain dangerous trace elements. The water must somehow be disposed, but who wants arsenic, mercury et al in their rivers or agricultural fields?

Tidal power? No, the turbines are bound to spoil the pristine view of someone important, and all sorts of aquatic life will get caught up in the turbine blades.

So unless someone discovers a perpetual motion machine, dylithium crystals or fusion power, it looks like we'll just have to stop using energy.

http://www.able2know.org/forums/posting.php?mode=reply&t=44061&sid=a31613c9c451fbdc588081e96c3309cd

GE to supply first 3.6 MW wind turbines for Irish offshore location
18 June 2003 - GE Wind Energy and Airtricity, Ireland's largest renewable energy company, plan to develop a 25 MW wind farm in the Irish Sea to provide power for the Irish electricity grid using 3.6 MW wind turbines.

The project was announced by GE Tuesday at the European Wind Energy Conference and is to be located about 10 km off the coast of Arklow, Ireland. It will feature seven of GE Wind Energy's new, 3.6 MW wind turbines. This will be the first offshore application of this technology and the first offshore wind project with turbines above 3 MW rated capacity. The project is expected to generate enough electricity to serve approximately 16,000 Irish households.

Nuclear energy is the obvious short-term answer.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

Finn illustrates why he is not an Engineer.

T
K
O

Cute, but what is the answer?

I'll put it this way. Shortly after the Wright brothers achieved powered heavier than air flight they went on record saying that planes would never be used for the transport of goods or people; that the task of taking that on would simply be too great, too difficult, impossible. Decades later Wilbur after seeing the developments acknowledged how they were wrong.

The answer is that if we were to say that it's not possible now, it does not mean that it is impossible. Further, more can be done by trying than debating whether or not to try.

Engineers find solutions to impossible tasks, while politicians make excuses.

T
K
O

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

How about you re-read what I just posted. It pretty well covers it.

Yeah, let us know when they get on top of catching all the uranium and sulfuric acid produced by coal smoke.

And whenever you're ready to address the fact that coal mining is environmentally destructive, go right ahead; you didn't do so in your last post.

Cycloptichorn

What is the answer then?

We can't use fossil fuels because of greenhouse gas emissions.

To me, the problems are twofold, and neither has anything at all to do with greenhouse gases: pollution and inefficiency. The thermal efficiency of fossil fuels is terrible. The amount of pollution their creation, transport, refinement, and burning creates is significant. Now, it is true that this pollution is localized; many people don't see the effects of it. But others do and it is in many cases quite toxic.

Quote:

We can't use nuclear energy because of waste concerns

Poppycock. The amount of radioactive material put out by burning coal makes nuclear waste look like a joke.

And yet we have stopped building nuclear power plants

Quote:

We can't use bio-energy because it will result in global hunger.

Also ridiculous. The problem lies in the difficulties creating Cellulosic ethanol; when we get on top of that, all those useless corn stalks will be making energy for us.

In addition, there are many other forms of bio-energy, as you put it; here are some bacteria that eat wood chips and straw, and **** out diesel -

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article4133668.ece

And yet in the meantime eco-activists have soured on ethanol

Quote:

We can't use wind power because it disturbs Walter Cronkite's Cape Cod views and because it poses a threat to migratory birds.

I agree that nimbys are a serious problem that needs to be addressed.

Goody for you

Quote:

We can't use hydro-electric power because it messes with salmon spawning patterns (not to mention birds).

Ridiculous. Salmon spawn in a relatively small amount of rivers and streams available for hydro power.

And yet eco-activists cite it has a reason not to expand this source of energy.

Quote:

If solar power is ever to serve as our primary source of energy we will require enormous solar energy collectors situated in pristine deserts or pristine space. The former will undoubtedly endanger a small lizard or arachnid, and the latter will eventually be accused of blocking sunlight that belongs to pristine portions of the world.

Or, say, the gigantic number of roofs which currently are doing exactly nothing. Localizing generation also cuts down on transmission costs, which can rob 1/3 to 1/2 of the energy actually generated. Build solar shingles and you don't even have to have additional panels added.

The idea that solar panels in space will block a significant amount of sunshine; well, you're just sort of reaching at this point.

No doubt, but you don't seem to have a problem with elsewhere overreaching of eco-activists.

Quote:

Geothermal energy -- that's the ticket! No wait, hot water from geothermal sources will contain dangerous trace elements. The water must somehow be disposed, but who wants arsenic, mercury et al in their rivers or agricultural fields?

To the best of my knowledge, there is no actual data to support this contention of yours.

And yet eco-activists argue this contention.

Quote:

Tidal power? No, the turbines are bound to spoil the pristine view of someone important, and all sorts of aquatic life will get caught up in the turbine blades.

I'm pretty sure that tidal power doesn't use turbines. Might want to look into that.

No you might want to because I am sure you are dead wrong on this score.

Quote:

So unless someone discovers a perpetual motion machine, dylithium crystals or fusion power, it looks like we'll just have to stop using energy.

Or you could remove your head from your rear for a while, and take a more realistic look at the options available.

Apparently there is a filter that blocks sarcasm from the rectal cavity in which your head resides, and young Diest is a neighbor of your head.

Cycloptichorn