Go Back   English Forum Switzerland > Off-Topic > Off-Topic > International affairs/politics  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #141  
Old 13.05.2007, 01:28
BeastOfBodmin's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Zürich
Posts: 838
Groaned at 3 Times in 2 Posts
Thanked 320 Times in 215 Posts
BeastOfBodmin has a reputation beyond reputeBeastOfBodmin has a reputation beyond reputeBeastOfBodmin has a reputation beyond reputeBeastOfBodmin has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
1. All matter absorbs certain wavelengths of sunlight.
That is a nonsensical statement. Either you're not thinking abot what you're saying, or worse, you don't understand what you just said. Would you like me to explain?

Quote:
View Post
For gases, water vapour at 4% of air, accounts for 99% of the so called greenhouse gas activity.
You need to aquaint yourself with the difference between the concepts of equilibrium and feedback forcing.

Last edited by BeastOfBodmin; 13.05.2007 at 01:29. Reason: s/acq/aq/
Reply With Quote
  #142  
Old 13.05.2007, 13:07
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Geneva
Posts: 5,531
Groaned at 123 Times in 108 Posts
Thanked 3,297 Times in 1,737 Posts
Shorrick Mk2 has a reputation beyond reputeShorrick Mk2 has a reputation beyond reputeShorrick Mk2 has a reputation beyond reputeShorrick Mk2 has a reputation beyond reputeShorrick Mk2 has a reputation beyond reputeShorrick Mk2 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
I do not agree with Jamesk, but that remark is ad hominem, and demeans you.
Indeed. Do you think I should have approached the problem in a rational way, like this:

Effects of Short-Term (Acute) Exposure


Inhalation: Carbon dioxide (CO2) is naturally present in the atmosphere at levels of approximately 0.035%.(1,2,21) Short-term exposure to CO2 at levels below 2% (20000 ppm) has not been reported to cause harmful effects. Higher concentrations can affect respiratory function and cause excitation followed by depression of the central nervous system. High concentrations of CO2 can displace oxygen in the air, resulting in lower oxygen concentrations for breathing. Therefore, effects of oxygen deficiency may be combined with effects of CO2 toxicity.
Volunteers exposed to 3.3% or 5.4% CO2 for 15 minutes experienced increased depth of breathing. At 7.5%, a feeling of an inability to breathe (dyspnea), increased pulse rate, headache, dizziness, sweating, restlessness, disorientation, and visual distortion developed.(3)Twenty-minute exposures to 6.5 or 7.5% decreased mental performance. Irritability and discomfort were reported with exposure to 6.5% for approximately 70 minutes.(4) Exposure to 6% for several minutes, or 30% for 20-30 seconds, has affected the heart, as evidenced by altered electrocardiograms.(2,5)
Workers briefly exposed to very high concentrations showed damage to the retina, sensitivity to light (photophobia), abnormal eye movements, constriction of visual fields, and enlargement of blind spots.(6) Exposure to up to 3.0% for over 15 hours, for six days, resulted in decreased night vision and colour sensitivity.(7)
Exposure to 10% for 1.5 minutes has caused eye flickering, excitation and increased muscle activity and twitching.(2) Concentrations greater than 10% have caused difficulty breathing (dyspnea), impaired hearing, nausea, vomiting, a strangling sensation, sweating, stupor within several minutes and loss of consciousness within 15 minutes.(3) Exposure to 30% has quickly resulted in unconsciousness and convulsions.(2) Several deaths have been attributed to exposure to concentrations greater than 20%.(1,2)
Effects of CO2 can become more pronounced upon physical exertion, such as heavy work.(8,9)


Skin Contact: CO2 gas is not irritating to the skin. Contact with liquefied CO2 can cause frostbite. Symptoms of mild frostbite include numbness, prickling and itching in the affected area. Symptoms of more severe frostbite include a burning sensation and stiffness of the affected area. The skin may become waxy white or yellow. Blistering, tissue death and gangrene may also develop in severe cases.


Eye Contact: Exposure to very high concentrations of the gas may cause a stinging sensation.(6) Inhalation of high concentrations of CO2 has been reported to produce effects on vision. See "Inhalation" above for details. Direct contact with liquefied CO2 may cause freezing of the eye. Permanent eye damage or blindness could result.

Ingestion: Ingestion is not a relevant route of exposure for gases or for liquefied CO2.


Effects of Long-Term (Chronic) Exposure

Several studies have monitored workers repeatedly exposed to elevated levels of CO2 gas. Exposure to 1-1.5% for 42-44 days caused a reversible acid-base imbalance in the blood and an increased volume of air inhaled/minute (minute volume).(10,11) In another study, harmful effects were not observed in 19 brewery cellar workers repeatedly exposed to average concentrations of 1.1% CO2, with levels occasionally up to 8% for a few moments.(2) Submarine occupants exposed to 3% CO2, 16 hours/day for several weeks experienced flushing of the skin, an impaired response of the circulatory system to exercise, a fall in blood pressure, decreased oxygen consumption, and impaired attentiveness.(12) Adaptation to some of the effects of long-term exposure to CO2 has been reported.(2,9)

(1) Lipsett, M.J., et al. Inorganic compounds of carbon, nitrogen and oxygen. In: Patty's Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology. Edited by G.D. Clayton et al. 4th edition. Volume II. Toxicology. Part F. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1994. p. 4552-4557.
(2) Criteria for a recommended standard: occupational exposure to carbon dioxide. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 1976.
(3) Busby, D.E. Carbon dioxide toxicity. Space Clinical Medicine. Vol. 1 (1968). p. 381-419
(4) Sayers, J.A. et al. Effects of carbon dioxide on mental performance. Journal of Applied Physiology. Vol. 63, no.1 (July, 1987). p. 25-30
(5) Macdonald, F.M. et al. Human electrocardiogram during and after inhalation of thirty per cent carbon dioxide. Journal of Applied Physiology. Vol. 6 (November, 1953). p. 304-310
(6) Grant, W.M. et al. Toxicology of the Eye. 4th edition. Charles C. Thomas, 1993. p. 317-318
(7) Weitzman, E.O. et al. Effect on vision of repeated exposure to carbon dioxide. U.S. Naval Submarine Medical Center Report, 1969. p. 1-6
(8) Carbon dioxide. In: Documentation of the threshold limit values and biological exposure indices. 6th edition. American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, 1991. p. 222-223
(9) Finkel, A.J. Hamilton and Hardy's Industrial Toxicology. 4th edition. John Wright, 1983. p. 154-156
(10) Pingree, B.J.W. Acid-base and respiratory changes after prolonged exposure to 1% carbon dioxide. Clinical Science and Molecular Medicine. Vol. 52, no. 1 (January, 1977). p. 67-74
(11) Schaefer, K.E. Acclimatization to low concentration of carbon dioxide. Industrial Medicine and Surgery. Vol. 32, no. 1 (January, 1963). p. 11-13
(12) Schaefer, K.E. Studies of carbon dioxide toxicity: (1) Chronic CO2 toxicity in submarine medicine. Navy Department, Bureau of Medicine and Surgery, Medical Research Laboratory Report no. 181. Vol. 10 (21 August, 1951). p. 156-176
(13) Scialli, A.R. et al. Reproductive effects of chemical, physical, and biologic agents: REPROTOX. The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995. p. 367
(14) Levin B.C. et al. Toxicological interactions between carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide. Toxicology. Vol. 47 (1987). p. 135- 164
(15) Stephens, W.M The central nervous system changes resulting from increased concentrations of carbon dioxide. Journal of Neuropathology and Clinical Neurology. Vol. 1 (1951). p. 88-97
(16) Ikeda, N. et al. The course of respiration and circulation in death by carbon dioxide poisoning. Forensic Science International. Vol. 41, no. 1,2 (April/May, 1989). p. 93-99
(17) Schaefer, K.E. et al. Effects of prolonged exposure to 1.5% carbon dioxide in air for periods up to 91 days on body weight, carbohydrate metabolism, and adrenal cortical activity in guinea pigs. Navy Department, Bureau of Medicine and Surgery, Naval Submarine Medical Research Laboratory, Report No. 256, 12 October, 1954.
(18) Stein, S.N. et al. The effects of prolonged inhalation of hypernormal amounts of carbon dioxide: I. Physiological effects on 3 percent carbon dioxide for 93 days upon monkeys. Naval Medical Research Institute Report, Bethesda, Maryland. Vol. 17 (31 August, 1959). p. 527-536.
(19) Haring, O. Cardiac malformations in rats induced by exposure of the mother to carbon dioxide during pregnancy. Circulation Research. Vol. 8 (November, 1960). p. 1218-1227
(20) Nagai, A. et al. The effect of maternal CO2 breathing on lung development of fetuses in the rabbit: morphologic and morphometric studies. American Review Respiratory Disease. Vol. 135 (1987). p. 130-136
(21a) Compressed Gas Association. Handbook of compressed gases. 3rd edition. Chapman and Hall, 1990. p. 284-300
(21b) Yaws, C.L. Matheson gas data book. 7th ed. McGraw-Hill, 2001. p. 127
(22) Pierantozzi, R. Carbon dioxide. In: Kirk-Othmer encyclopedia of chemical technology. 4th edition. Volume 5. John Wiley & Sons, 1993. p. 35-53
(23) HSDB record for carbon dioxide. Date of last update: 9508
(24) Chemical safety sheets: working safely with hazardous chemicals. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1991. p. 190
(25) NIOSH pocket guide to chemical hazards. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, June 1994. p. 52-53
(26) Braker, W., et al. Matheson gas data book. 6th edition. Matheson Gas Products, 1980. p. 120-129
(27) Topham, S. Carbon dioxide. In: Ullmann's encyclopedia of industrial chemistry. 5th completely revised edition. Vol. A 5. VCH Verlagsgesellschaft, 1986. p. 165-183
(28) Urben, P.G., ed. Bretherick's handbook of reactive chemical hazards. 5th edition. Volume 1. Butterworth-Heinemann, 1995. p. 220-222
(29) Fire protection guide to hazardous materials. 11th edition. National Fire Protection Association, 1994. NFPA 491
(30) National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). Carbon Dioxide. In: NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods (NMAM(R)). 4th ed. Edited by M.E. Cassinelli, et al. DHHS (NIOSH) Publication 94-113. Aug. 1994. Available at: <www.cdc.gov/niosh/nmam/nmammenu.html>
Reply With Quote
  #143  
Old 28.05.2007, 19:25
Polorise's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: about there
Posts: 2,738
Groaned at 26 Times in 26 Posts
Thanked 2,325 Times in 1,259 Posts
Polorise has a reputation beyond reputePolorise has a reputation beyond reputePolorise has a reputation beyond reputePolorise has a reputation beyond reputePolorise has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

handy cut out stickers for some that took part in this "invigorating" discussion ... DISCLAIMERS

actually, what scares me most is that this is a real site ....
Reply With Quote
  #144  
Old 29.05.2007, 08:52
cyrus's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Emmenbruecke
Posts: 2,956
Groaned at 37 Times in 34 Posts
Thanked 3,373 Times in 1,477 Posts
cyrus has a reputation beyond reputecyrus has a reputation beyond reputecyrus has a reputation beyond reputecyrus has a reputation beyond reputecyrus has a reputation beyond reputecyrus has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
handy cut out stickers for some that took part in this "invigorating" discussion ... DISCLAIMERS

actually, what scares me most is that this is a real site ....
If you look a little closer, it starts with the originals, and moves into subtle parody.

There are too many real sites like this though

Last edited by cyrus; 29.05.2007 at 09:39. Reason: typo
Reply With Quote
  #145  
Old 29.05.2007, 09:36
chemgoddess's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: somewhere, USA
Posts: 1,347
Groaned at 41 Times in 37 Posts
Thanked 950 Times in 459 Posts
chemgoddess has an excellent reputationchemgoddess has an excellent reputationchemgoddess has an excellent reputationchemgoddess has an excellent reputation
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

I didn't realize that science had somehow become a belief. Like belieiving in religion, or in the supernatural, or in reincarnation. I find it mindboggling that even when faced with mounds of scientific data, people can still hold onto their "scientific beliefs" which, btw, beliefs can't be argued with.

However, regardless of how one feels regarding global warming and CO2 emission there is 100% absolutely no reason why alternative, cleaner sources of energy aren't being researched more aggressively. A global society that can double it's computing speed every 18 months and come out with newer smaller more desirable electronic devices annually can't figure out a better way to fuel our automobiles? Even after 100 years fossil fuels are still the main go to energy sources?

I wanna work on solar cells when I grow up.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank chemgoddess for this useful post:
  #146  
Old 29.05.2007, 09:46
Cata1yst
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

I agree with Chemgoddess, regardless of if GW exists or not we should be using technology to provide clean cheap fuels, without choking on car exhausts/power stations etc.

I think the real holy grail is nuclear fusion. But 2bn in research hasn't made a dent in this one yet. Unlimited supply of cheap clean energy.

Then there's hydrogen 100 years of being used as a fuel and burns cleanly.

Hmm maybe time to give up smoking when filling the car me thinks.
Reply With Quote
  #147  
Old 29.05.2007, 09:52
Polorise's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: about there
Posts: 2,738
Groaned at 26 Times in 26 Posts
Thanked 2,325 Times in 1,259 Posts
Polorise has a reputation beyond reputePolorise has a reputation beyond reputePolorise has a reputation beyond reputePolorise has a reputation beyond reputePolorise has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
If you look a little closer, it starts with the originals, and moves into subtle parody.

There are too many real sites like this though
mmmmm .... my subtle irony skills need to be worked on ....

Reply With Quote
  #148  
Old 29.05.2007, 09:54
Cata1yst
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

The reason why we aren't spending money on renewables is there's too much money involved in fat peoples pockets. As usual the mega rich 0.01% have everyone elses interests at heart.

What would the share holders say if BP, Shell etc collapsed overnight? That's what would pretty much happen if fusion was to come to the market.

Reminds me of Chain Reaction the Keanu Reeves film with Morgan Freeman.

Then add good old George W Bush (Seriously is this guy retarded?) who has 2 fingers in the oil co's honeypots and you're on too a no win.. I hate this man. I wonder why we went to Iraq?

Sorry Chemgoddess solar panels are too inefficient to be worth while, well at the moment! So you'd better get your skates on!
Reply With Quote
  #149  
Old 29.05.2007, 10:04
chemgoddess's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: somewhere, USA
Posts: 1,347
Groaned at 41 Times in 37 Posts
Thanked 950 Times in 459 Posts
chemgoddess has an excellent reputationchemgoddess has an excellent reputationchemgoddess has an excellent reputationchemgoddess has an excellent reputation
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

I know the reasons for why more focus isn't put on alternative sources of energy, I just don't understand it.

And yes, at the moment solar cells are too expensive, note not ineffecient. Silicon based solar cells aren't that inefficient I think we're up to about 35% right now which is pretty impressive considering when research began in the 70's we were only at about 1%. Organic based solar cells are only at about 7% right now, but research only really began in ernest about 10 years ago. More efficient cheaper solar cells will come in time, the funding and drive just has to be there.

Quote:
View Post
The reason why we aren't spending money on renewables is there's too much money involved in fat peoples pockets. As usual the mega rich 0.01% have everyone elses interests at heart.

What would the share holders say if BP, Shell etc collapsed overnight? That's what would pretty much happen if fusion was to come to the market.

Reminds me of Chain Reaction the Keanu Reeves film with Morgan Freeman.

Then add good old George W Bush (Seriously is this guy retarded?) who has 2 fingers in the oil co's honeypots and you're on too a no win.. I hate this man. I wonder why we went to Iraq?

Sorry Chemgoddess solar panels are too inefficient to be worth while, well at the moment! So you'd better get your skates on!
Reply With Quote
  #150  
Old 29.05.2007, 10:12
terryhall's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Die Südkürve
Posts: 1,784
Groaned at 11 Times in 10 Posts
Thanked 1,018 Times in 547 Posts
terryhall has a reputation beyond reputeterryhall has a reputation beyond reputeterryhall has a reputation beyond reputeterryhall has a reputation beyond reputeterryhall has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

I was reading a quite entertaining (fictional) book about this over the weekend, Chris Ryan's Ultimate Weapon. Basically a fiction based on a scientist who discovers Cold Fusion and the political machinations in stopping her revealing it from Iraq, US, UK etc etc. due to the global economic instability that would ensue.

Suspension of disbelief strongly recommended, but it's a good book and the politics of it is probably fairly accurate.
Reply With Quote
  #151  
Old 29.05.2007, 10:28
Polorise's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: about there
Posts: 2,738
Groaned at 26 Times in 26 Posts
Thanked 2,325 Times in 1,259 Posts
Polorise has a reputation beyond reputePolorise has a reputation beyond reputePolorise has a reputation beyond reputePolorise has a reputation beyond reputePolorise has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Interesting posts above, was reading over this article this weekend :

General Motors - EV1

which led me to this :



pretty lengthy, but never the less interesting reportage on why this project was failed/canned .....

Please note, not trying to kick of another conspiracy theory here (we have had more than enough of those), but feel it is an important topic for debate, especially with all you "boffins" on tap ....
Reply With Quote
  #152  
Old 29.05.2007, 10:46
Cata1yst
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
I know the reasons for why more focus isn't put on alternative sources of energy, I just don't understand it.

And yes, at the moment solar cells are too expensive, note not ineffecient. Silicon based solar cells aren't that inefficient I think we're up to about 35% right now which is pretty impressive considering when research began in the 70's we were only at about 1%. Organic based solar cells are only at about 7% right now, but research only really began in ernest about 10 years ago. More efficient cheaper solar cells will come in time, the funding and drive just has to be there.
Money is the obvious answer.

35% needs to be 70% really. I'd say that was inefficient if compared to a chemical process. Something for nothing though so I suppose not inefficient!

Hence get your skates on!!!

Saying that they were doing something interesting with a solar farm in Spain. Not solar panels but redirecting suns rays to heat a element up to 4k C. Might be a more viable approach in the short term.
Reply With Quote
  #153  
Old 29.05.2007, 10:55
Cata1yst
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

A question, perhaps someone knows the answer..

How many solar power plants (of average size) does it take to replace......

a) A wind farm (specify numbers of terbines)
b) A nuclear power plant
c) A gas fired power station
d) A coal power station.
e) A tidal based power plant.

I think we need the MW numbers in context to give an idea of where this is going. I have a feeling Nuclear kicks out the most power, per average plant.
Reply With Quote
  #154  
Old 29.05.2007, 11:00
Polorise's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: about there
Posts: 2,738
Groaned at 26 Times in 26 Posts
Thanked 2,325 Times in 1,259 Posts
Polorise has a reputation beyond reputePolorise has a reputation beyond reputePolorise has a reputation beyond reputePolorise has a reputation beyond reputePolorise has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
e) A tidal based power plant.
This is part of a study at Strathclyde University in Glasgow, actually fished it out for a friend a little while back : La Rance Tidal Barrage
Reply With Quote
  #155  
Old 29.05.2007, 11:00
Orla's Avatar
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Ticino
Posts: 91
Groaned at 0 Times in 0 Posts
Thanked 13 Times in 12 Posts
Orla has no particular reputation at present
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

For anyone who is actually interested in the real peer- reviewed science check out this webpage http://www.realclimate.org/

By the way, in response to JamesK "if CO2 in air doubles (ie a 100% increase), then it will be 600 ppm. The chances of this happening a minute"
the average global CO2 concentration has risen from 270ppm since before the industrial revolution to about 370ppm at present. It will be about 550ppm by 2050. And the guys who measure these changes do not even know Tony Blair!

another good website for anyone actually interested in the science, http://www.ipcc.ch/
assuming you don't believe all of us scientists are in a vast conspiracy, personally I think we would be paid better if we were.. the average phd student's salary is $18,000
Reply With Quote
  #156  
Old 29.05.2007, 11:58
AbFab's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Zürich
Posts: 7,293
Groaned at 311 Times in 207 Posts
Thanked 9,650 Times in 3,405 Posts
AbFab has a reputation beyond reputeAbFab has a reputation beyond reputeAbFab has a reputation beyond reputeAbFab has a reputation beyond reputeAbFab has a reputation beyond reputeAbFab has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
Interesting posts above, was reading over this article this weekend :

General Motors - EV1

<snip>
Any 'car' that has a range of 150 miles needs 4 - 8 to 'refill' and runs on electricity that is made from oil, gas or coal (USA produces 50% of its electricty from coal) is doomed to failure.

Not mention the production and eventual recycling of the batteries.

It will take much more to beat the established oil interests...
Reply With Quote
  #157  
Old 29.05.2007, 12:34
Polorise's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: about there
Posts: 2,738
Groaned at 26 Times in 26 Posts
Thanked 2,325 Times in 1,259 Posts
Polorise has a reputation beyond reputePolorise has a reputation beyond reputePolorise has a reputation beyond reputePolorise has a reputation beyond reputePolorise has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
Any 'car' that has a range of 150 miles needs 4 - 8 to 'refill' and runs on electricity that is made from oil, gas or coal (USA produces 50% of its electricty from coal) is doomed to failure.

Not mention the production and eventual recycling of the batteries.

It will take much more to beat the established oil interests...
sure but the battery technology used thern compared to what is available now is completely different ... EV1 ran on lead-acid, hence problems with range & also cold conditions, also fast chargers are available that can boost to 80% capacity in around 10 minutes.

NiHM battery technology can yield a 2-3 magnitude compared to lead-acid.
Lithium-ion technology pushes that even further, I have seen quotes of 300 miles per charge, which is well within most peoples remit.
Lithium ion polymer batteries are the natural follow on, these are already being deployed in consumer devices.

Please note, we are only talking less than 10 years here regards improvement, so canning a project after spending (allegedly) $1B on it, doesn't make too much sense to me.

As I said in my original post, not looking to kick of a conspiracy theory, just think its an area for discussion ... as C02 emissions are near to zero.

Last edited by Polorise; 29.05.2007 at 12:37. Reason: further info on battery tech
Reply With Quote
  #158  
Old 29.05.2007, 12:48
AbFab's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Zürich
Posts: 7,293
Groaned at 311 Times in 207 Posts
Thanked 9,650 Times in 3,405 Posts
AbFab has a reputation beyond reputeAbFab has a reputation beyond reputeAbFab has a reputation beyond reputeAbFab has a reputation beyond reputeAbFab has a reputation beyond reputeAbFab has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
<snip> C02 emissions are near to zero.
But not when the USA (where the cars were made and sold) generates elecrtricity from coal, oil and natural gas. This surely just moves the CO2 emissions up-stream.

(see http://www.cslforum.org/usa.htm)
Reply With Quote
  #159  
Old 29.05.2007, 13:01
Cata1yst
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
But not when the USA (where the cars were made and sold) generates elecrtricity from coal, oil and natural gas. This surely just moves the CO2 emissions up-stream.

(see http://www.cslforum.org/usa.htm)
I agree with ab-fab on this. Hence my previous comments on alternative electrical supply sources. We have to look at the overall picture here. Electircal cars are good in theory, but if the source is dirty then there's no point.

Unfortunately there is only one real viable alternative today that produces enough power for the market and does not produce C02, which is nuclear.

Solar/tidal etc do not produce enough output currently. Lets hope the magic bullet comes soon (nuclear fusion) both clean and cheap.

Saying that I think there's a lot of unfounded stigma about current nuclear power, probably from the 60's and Chernobyl (russian old reactor) todays plants are not the same kettle of fish.

After all this I don't think I would want a nuclear power plant on my doorstep, but I'd rather that than destroy most of the environment via pollution and acid rain.
Reply With Quote
  #160  
Old 29.05.2007, 13:14
Polorise's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: about there
Posts: 2,738
Groaned at 26 Times in 26 Posts
Thanked 2,325 Times in 1,259 Posts
Polorise has a reputation beyond reputePolorise has a reputation beyond reputePolorise has a reputation beyond reputePolorise has a reputation beyond reputePolorise has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

[quote=AbFab;66399]But not when the USA (where the cars were made and sold) generates elecrtricity from coal, oil and natural gas. This surely just moves the CO2 emissions up-stream.quote]

fair point, but removal of C02 & other contaminants from non-use of petroleum (gasoline ) at a local level is obviously admirable. Also fossil powered plants in the US are now seriously looking at capture & sequestration, which has an admitted commercial impact, but not one that is too high in my opinion.

this car was originally marketed in Southern California, having experienced LA at rush hour , I personally would be happy to pay an extra $0.25 per charge to avoid it.

at the end of the day, I know that this is my own personal utopia, but would be interested to hear some feedback from the science dudes on this.

BTW AbFab, did you actually watch the film or just read the Wiki ?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
climate change, climategate, co2, global warming




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT +2. The time now is 21:34.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.1.0