I was just wondering how many lethal doses are contained within the gases we vent to atmoshere each day from "safe" coal and oil fired power stations.Quote:
Originally Posted by vnx205
NOTE TO SELF: Must do further research on our safe power.
Printable View
I was just wondering how many lethal doses are contained within the gases we vent to atmoshere each day from "safe" coal and oil fired power stations.Quote:
Originally Posted by vnx205
NOTE TO SELF: Must do further research on our safe power.
Apology accepted.:DQuote:
Originally Posted by vnx205
I am not advocating Nuclear power simply for the sake of it.
We have a problem..........Global warming, rapidly diminishing fossel fuels, increasing population etc.
Even if we all cut back in power consumption, then we are still left with the need to generate more as our population grows increasing the demand on power supplies. When I left PNG in 1990 the population was 4 million, now it has risen to 6 million, I have not checked India or China but could guess that they have increase their population by that each year.
When I started school we had a population of 7 million, when I finished school it had risen to 14 million, it now stands around the 20 million mark, certainly has slowed over the past few years, which has the Government worried, hence the baby bonus to encourage the production of more babies to offset our aging population.
For decades we have relied on fossel fuels to generate electricity, as has industry in the production of plant and equipment, food stuffs etc with the result that we have seriously upset the balance of the eco-system we all live in. FACT, The world is getting warmer. FACT. Polar ice caps/glaciers are melting. FACT. World population is spiraling out of control.
What do we do? I am not sure, I certainly do not have the answers, if I did I would be running the joint :twisted: .
I do know that what i have read and seen for myself in relation to global warming, melting of the ice and subsequent rise in sea levels has scared the pants off of me. I can show you where an Island once was, Oh its still there..... only its under water now.
What I do know is we have to break ourselves of this habit of relying on fossel fuels and the subsequent release of carbon and other pollutents into the atmoshere. If we give the earth a break, she will heal herself.( Hopefully)
Electricity and the reliance on it is here to stay, and the demand will grow given that the population will grow.
All other eco-friendly methods of generation are really only stop gap and certainly the infrastructure required to generate anywhere near what is required would be enormous. Renewables would only add to our problem and besides I rather suspect could not be sustained. Takes 15 - 25 years to grow a tree to the size and quality needed to be consumed in the furnace in ....20 minutes. Other methods rely upon burning something to create heat, to create steam to dive turbines....its this burning we have to eliminate.......its burning things that is causing the problem.
I am not a great believer in thermo generated power. I think if we start sucking heat from the earth's core, we are going to finish up with even greater problems....I read on this forum... that such a plant in Swissland resulted in an increase in earthquakes.....this could have the potential to be earthshattering (no pun intended).
So what do we do........the lesser of all the evils...to my mind...is go nuclear......someone wrote here that since the nuclear age started we have generated 1500 ton of waste........how many tons of polutents have we pumped into the atmoshere from burning fossel fuels ? Got to be more than that. I have an airconditioner outside and if I was to go out and release the gas in it I would put the equivalent of 40 tons of carbon into the atmosphere...according to the tech. who installed it. So 1500 tons of waste that can be controlled is very minimal in the scheme of things.
This is obviously going to be a very emotional subject and I will add no more after this post.
But we need to start to consider what to replace our present system with because what we have at the moment is destroying our home.
Because of this,Quote:
Originally Posted by drivesafe
http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/front/d...=1168251552000
When are we ever going to learn??? Take no more than you need, Leave it as you find it.
See my comments above about reserves - there is no prospect of a coal shortage. There is some evidence to support the prospect of a real oil shortage by analysing discovery rates, but the methodology suffers from the problem that a lot of the numbers going into it are suspect.Quote:
Originally Posted by RobHay
In any case, the way things work, we will not "run out". Once demand exceeds supply (and we are a fair way from that), what happens is twofold - prices go up, and buyers start finding ways to use less. Again, the effect of increase in prices on available commodity is twofold - as soon as the price goes up, the reserves increase because more money can be spent on producing each barrel or tonne (in a typical oil field only 10-50% of the oil in place is recoverable - but the actual figure is very price dependent); and more is found because it is worth more so more money is spent on exploration. And note that since the proportion of the price going to the producer is small (in most places most of it is tax - up to 90% or even higher in some places, typically around 70% in Australia) there is a lot of scope for this effect to increase dramatically.
In summary - it won't run out, ever! It just gradually gets more expensive, eventually to where it is rarely used.
John
I'd settle for the latter on this one.Quote:
Originally Posted by vnx205
It was established about 100 years ago that the central heat of the earth is sustained by radioactivity, and is not a result of the heat of formation of the earth. It is inconceivable that anything we do with geothermal will affect the rate of cooling - the deepest hole man has ever dug or drilled is way under 1% of the earth's radius, so even if we reduced the temperature worldwide at this depth to the surface temperature, the earth's heat loss would still be over 99% controlled by the rest of the crust and mantle and outer and inner core.Quote:
Originally Posted by RobHay
Surface temperature is hardly affected by the internal temperature of the earth - what we have to worry about is the sun and the atmosphere, not the interior of the earth. Even if the core was cool and solidified the only way we would know is by the lack of earthquakes and volcanoes. Eventually the continents would wear down and the oceans get shallower - ultimately the earth would be uniformly covered in water, but this would be a very slow process once the mountains had gone.
John
Yes, yes, yes n yes! (Does that make me a"yes" man:o)Quote:
Originally Posted by RobHay
This is what I was trying to articulate in my first post which now reads like Goom n Gloom.
Please, this is the results of tests carried out in one single location.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevo_62
I take it then by your post we will never be able to use geothermal heat to produce electricity.
Boy are you about one hundred years behind the times.
A number of countries have been using geothermal heat for many many years and New Zealand is planning to expand their operations even further so you better let them know they are going to cause an earthquake by doing so, oh that’s right, they already had earthquakes BEFORE they started using the geothermal power.
Oops there goes your theory.
Geothermal electricity production is not readily available to many places at this time, but most definitely has the potential to provide large amounts of pollution free power.
I don't really want nuclear power, but it may need to be forced upon us.
The geothermal idea is very interesting, and is probably the ultimate answer to our energy problems.
Some of the comments on this topic seem to imply that the earth's core is cooling, but this is not necessarily the case. When I studied earth sciences in my student days, it was fascinating to read some of the work that has been done, which suggests that the earth could be heating up from the inside!
Maybe we are only looking at half the global warming problem!
While I agree that we need to reduce CO2 emissions, it is very likely not the complete cause of global warming. There are so many periodic, climate-influencing things happening, such as solar particle emissions, that we are in the awful situation that, even if we spend billions in reducing CO2, we may find that it makes very little difference!
The other depressing thing is that whatever we do in Australia is insignificant. Until the US comes to its senses we will get nowhere, and China & India may have other ideas as well! All we will do is shoot ourselves in the foot, like we did with free trade in the 80's
The fact that it was only comparatively recently that the Australian states could agree on speed limits (partially!), makes it impossible that any agreement can be reached on where to place nuclear stations, or even large numbers of wave generators, or solar collectors. Look at wind farms - these are controversial enough. It will take major power shortages before people will come their senses on these matters. Meanwhile, the Greens continue to oppose everything, with obvious determination to return us to the Stone Age.
I remember arguing with a Green door-knocker before the last federal election about their obstructive attitude to power generation, and the best she could suggest was legislation to force industry to reduce energy consumption, plus carbon taxes (which I DO agree with). She seemed flabbergasted when I said that all the attack on industry would do would be to force them offshore to China, who couldn't give a rat's ar*e about global warming!
Until multi-national corporations accept the need to reduce CO2, then nothing will happen. Legislation will NOT fix the problem.
Cheers,
Lionel
Lionell, there is a good point to ponder, in the theory that the core is heating up. In a post here a couple of days ago, I alluded to a theory I have been pondering for a few years now. The oil we pump from the ground now, is much deeper down than any water aquifer belt. That oil is also generally found in regions of little or limitted ground water.
Oil is used as a high temperature coolant, in many applications, because it has a higher stable boiling point, than plain old water. Suzuki Moter Company sold a Rotary engined motorcycle the RE5, during the seventies, that ran so hot, it actually had an oil cooling jacket, close around the combustion chambers, and oil radiator, then, the more conventional water cooling jacket outside of that, with its own radiator.
I wonder if we have gone and unwittingly drained the Earth's core cooling system?:(
If we have, I think we may see little need for nuke or anything else if the Earth throws a leg out of bed. But, I am an optomist, and this is a fear factor five scenario.
And I agree absolutely, with your sentiments on legislation. What ever we do here, having been forced on us for what ever reasons, is nothing, nothing at all in the world picture. No tree hugging greeny myself, they bother me somewhat, but, my home is as green friendly as I can make it, short of actually turning off the electricity. All light globes are the new low watt flouro's, new eco friendly Infinity hot water, all greywater drains feed the orchard and garden plots. I even run my S3 on Bio-Premium ethanol blend. Little bugger is going like a rocket. But, if I am the only one, in God only knows how large an area, it makes no difference at all overall. If Australia is the only place in the region to make changes, then we have made none at all.
Shorty.