Jump to content

Climate Change & Global Warming


Atomic
 Share

How important is Global Warming to you in the Grand Scheme of Things?  

246 members have voted

  1. 1. How important is Global Warming to you in the Grand Scheme of Things?

    • Give me a break, I've enough on my plate
      17
    • I suppose there's something in it, but it's for the Politicians/Corporations/Those in power to sort out
      4
    • Yes I think it is important and I try to do my bit.
      79
    • If we don't stop it, the Planet dies in a few years, it's as simple as that.
      34
    • I think it is all hype and not half as bad as they make out
      108
    • I don't know what to think
      17

This poll is closed to new votes


Recommended Posts

The cruelty that comes with the Climate Change Religion.

 

It's so evident with my own child, the conditioning that's going on in his school.

 

An example of the madness which probably isn't so uncommon:

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/quebec-boy-punished-bringing-eco-unfriendly-ziploc-sandwich-bag-school/story?id=12815697

 

here to

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1350811/In-China-true-cost-Britains-clean-green-wind-power-experiment-Pollution-disastrous-scale.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^^^ I've addressed the reasons why this Daily Fail article is complete rubbish here.

 

There is little doubt that the manufacture of the turbines will produce a certain amount of pollution, including CO2. If they are made in China, or any developing country, government regulation to control emissions associated with the manufacturing process is unlikely to be as stringent as we in the West are used to. I was wondering if the VE environmental impact statement included in its carbon payback models the carbon cost associated with manufacturing the actual turbines, and even more so the concrete foundations. The manufacture of cement is very energy intensive and results in the release of large amounts of CO2. I don’t know the figures off the top of my head but they are easily looked up. I suppose each of the turbines will need a fairly robust concrete foundation. Does anyone know if the environmental impact statement considered how much cement would be used in the turbine foundations and the amount of CO2 which would be released in the cement manufacturing process?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and what papers would you respect AT

I'm not sure I really respect any of them, bob, they all have their flaws. The ones I read most often are the Independent and The Guardian, and occasionally the Telegraph to see what "the other side" are saying. Every newspaper has a political slant, but as long as you are aware of this and can read between the lines, you'll be ok.

 

Basically, anything owned by Murdoch is out as it is just a right wing propaganda machine, and the tabloids are just scandal rags, as happy and likely to print lies as anything else.

 

How about you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^^^ I've addressed the reasons why this Daily Fail article is complete rubbish here.

 

There is little doubt that the manufacture of the turbines will produce a certain amount of pollution, including CO2. If they are made in China, or any developing country, government regulation to control emissions associated with the manufacturing process is unlikely to be as stringent as we in the West are used to. I was wondering if the VE environmental impact statement included in its carbon payback models the carbon cost associated with manufacturing the actual turbines, and even more so the concrete foundations. The manufacture of cement is very energy intensive and results in the release of large amounts of CO2. I don’t know the figures off the top of my head but they are easily looked up. I suppose each of the turbines will need a fairly robust concrete foundation. Does anyone know if the environmental impact statement considered how much cement would be used in the turbine foundations and the amount of CO2 which would be released in the cement manufacturing process?

Due to the global warming danger, we need to replace our coal and eventually, our gas fired generating capacity, and on top of that, all of our nuclear stations are at or approaching the end of their lives as well, so the whole lot needs replaced.

 

Whatever we replace it with will have an environmental cost of some sort, so it's a case of choosing the least worst option. Nuclear stations use vast quantities of concrete and high quality metals, so do hydro (how much concrete goes into your average dam). Solar uses less concrete, but it uses large quantities of rare-earth metals and other expensive and environmentally costly materials.

 

Of all the options, wind is probably the least resource intensive. On the other hand, you need more wind to provide the backup capacity due to winds intermittency. The eventual solution will inevitably be a mix.

 

The thing is, I doubt whether the environmental cost of building carbon neutral generating sources will be any more or less than simply replacing like for like, but with carbon neutral sources we avoid the additional damage done by carbon emissions over the plants operational lifetime, so even if carbon neutral energy sources are slightly more costly to initially build, the total lifetime costs will be much lower.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of all the options, wind is probably the least resource intensive.

 

Is wind the least resource intensive of the lot though? If you look at the amount of carbon released per mega watt of generating capacity over the lifetime of a third generation nuclear power station versus the amount of carbon released per mega watt of generating capacity of a windfarm over its lifespan I think that you will see far better returns from the nuclear power station.

 

On the other hand, you need more wind to provide the backup capacity due to winds intermittency. The eventual solution will inevitably be a mix.

 

I agree that is what will likely happen but I don't see it as the best solution. Why even bother with low output intermittent generating systems like windfarms, solar parks and tidal turbines which occupy vast swathes of countryside? Why not just build nuclear power stations and provide ample generating capacity with zero CO2 emissions from a discrete and isolated location?. The environmental 'issues' with spent fuel etc are, imo, vastly overstated. I agree that the mining operations for uranium fuel are most certainly not carbon neutral, however this will be a non issue within the next 20 years when fourth generation reactors are commercially available. By then enough uranium will already have been extracted to power the planet earth for the next 10000 years.

Once fossil fuels are taxed into extinction the only hope we have of supplying our electricity needs in the west is by nuclear generation, so why dont we just start building them now and in 2020 or there about we can shut down every coal, gas and oil fired power station in Europe and be done with it. No quantity of windmills will ever let us do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of all the options, wind is probably the least resource intensive.

 

Is wind the least resource intensive of the lot though? If you look at the amount of carbon released per mega watt of generating capacity over the lifetime of a third generation nuclear power station versus the amount of carbon released per mega watt of generating capacity of a windfarm over its lifespan I think that you will see far better returns from the nuclear power station.

 

On the other hand, you need more wind to provide the backup capacity due to winds intermittency. The eventual solution will inevitably be a mix.

 

I agree that is what will likely happen but I don't see it as the best solution. Why even bother with low output intermittent generating systems like windfarms, solar parks and tidal turbines which occupy vast swathes of countryside? Why not just build nuclear power stations and provide ample generating capacity with zero CO2 emissions from a discrete and isolated location?. The environmental 'issues' with spent fuel etc are, imo, vastly overstated. I agree that the mining operations for uranium fuel are most certainly not carbon neutral, however this will be a non issue within the next 20 years when fourth generation reactors are commercially available. By then enough uranium will already have been extracted to power the planet earth for the next 10000 years.

Once fossil fuels are taxed into extinction the only hope we have of supplying our electricity needs in the west is by nuclear generation, so why dont we just start building them now and in 2020 or there about we can shut down every coal, gas and oil fired power station in Europe and be done with it. No quantity of windmills will ever let us do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...