|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
blade
Joined: 30 Jun 2007
|
 Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2011 6:31 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| Carbon capture is within precisely the same sphere as renewable energy sources; it is still expensive, dependent upon subsidy, but also a necessary aim. |
Again, carbon capture is completely unnecessary. CO2 is not a pollutant. It's a natural gas that plants breath, and an essential part of the life cycle. It's like saying we need to trap the water vapor produced from a power plant, store it, and truck it off to a waste facility somewhere. Absurd.
[/quote]
Yes Carbon dioxide is a natural gas but that doesn't mean you'd want it to build up in your home or the atmosphere for that matter. Oxygen is also a natural gas but again in higher quantiles inflammable objects would burn that much easier, we'd all age a little faster due to it's corrosive action on our bodies cells. Yes the gas that lets allows us to live is also killing us.
Point is you can't change the composition of the atmosphere and not expect any negative consequences for us or the Planet as a whole. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| blade wrote: |
Yes Carbon dioxide is a natural gas but that doesn't mean you'd want it to build up in your home or the atmosphere for that matter. Oxygen is also a natural gas but again in higher quantiles inflammable objects would burn that much easier, we'd all age a little faster due to it's corrosive action on our bodies cells. Yes the gas that lets allows us to live is also killing us.
Point is you can't change the composition of the atmosphere and not expect any negative consequences for us or the Planet as a whole. |
The amount we release is pretty much negligible, but beneficial to plant life if anything. The composition of the atmosphere changes all the time (drastically) with or without us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| blade wrote: |
Yes Carbon dioxide is a natural gas but that doesn't mean you'd want it to build up in your home or the atmosphere for that matter. Oxygen is also a natural gas but again in higher quantiles inflammable objects would burn that much easier, we'd all age a little faster due to it's corrosive action on our bodies cells. Yes the gas that lets allows us to live is also killing us.
Point is you can't change the composition of the atmosphere and not expect any negative consequences for us or the Planet as a whole. |
The amount we release is pretty much negligible, but beneficial to plant life if anything. The composition of the atmosphere changes all the time (drastically) with or without us. |
Sophistry.
| Quote: |
Warming is not the most immediate consequence of CO2 emissions, ocean acidification is a much bigger problem (and gets no media attention). Many ecologists and geochemists have concluded that CO2 emission rates are so high that there is no way to stop the ocean pH from continually dropping. This pretty much guarantees that all coral in the oceans will be bleached out and destroyed by the end of this century. The consequence to fish populations (already under tremendous strain from extreme overfishing practices) will be utterly catastrophic.
The vulnerability of coral to ocean pH is simple chemistry- corals secrete calcium carbonate (a mild base that is insoluble in water), and their shell protects the coral and provides the physical structure of the reef. As water absorbs CO2, CO2 is converted in H2CO3 (carbonic acid), the oceans are basically a CO2 sponge (which actually reduces atmospheric CO2, decreases global warming). So as the oceans absorb CO2, the calcium carbonate dissolves, and corals eventually disintegrate. We are going to see the impact of burning fossil fuels on the global economy and survival and livelihood of millions of people long before the temperature of earth increases. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| blade wrote: |
Yes Carbon dioxide is a natural gas but that doesn't mean you'd want it to build up in your home or the atmosphere for that matter. Oxygen is also a natural gas but again in higher quantiles inflammable objects would burn that much easier, we'd all age a little faster due to it's corrosive action on our bodies cells. Yes the gas that lets allows us to live is also killing us.
Point is you can't change the composition of the atmosphere and not expect any negative consequences for us or the Planet as a whole. |
The amount we release is pretty much negligible, but beneficial to plant life if anything. The composition of the atmosphere changes all the time (drastically) with or without us. |
Sophistry.
| Quote: |
Warming is not the most immediate consequence of CO2 emissions, ocean acidification is a much bigger problem (and gets no media attention). Many ecologists and geochemists have concluded that CO2 emission rates are so high that there is no way to stop the ocean pH from continually dropping. This pretty much guarantees that all coral in the oceans will be bleached out and destroyed by the end of this century. The consequence to fish populations (already under tremendous strain from extreme overfishing practices) will be utterly catastrophic.
The vulnerability of coral to ocean pH is simple chemistry- corals secrete calcium carbonate (a mild base that is insoluble in water), and their shell protects the coral and provides the physical structure of the reef. As water absorbs CO2, CO2 is converted in H2CO3 (carbonic acid), the oceans are basically a CO2 sponge (which actually reduces atmospheric CO2, decreases global warming). So as the oceans absorb CO2, the calcium carbonate dissolves, and corals eventually disintegrate. We are going to see the impact of burning fossil fuels on the global economy and survival and livelihood of millions of people long before the temperature of earth increases. |
|
^ Completely made-up lies and fraud.
http://oxford.academia.edu/MartinBrasier/Papers/422718/Global_ocean-atmosphere_change_across_the_Precambrian-Cambrian_transition
CO2 levels were upwards of 20 times higher during the Ordovician and Cambrian periods, when an explosion of calcium-based life-forms (crustaceans, coral reefs etc.) took place. Much, much higher CO2 levels, no dissolving of shells over a period of millions of years. The fossils exist to this day |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2011 6:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| It makes complete sense to me why a fundamentalist AGW denier (as opposed to a mere AGW skeptic) would oppose nuclear, but why the Green party of Germany? |
To win votes? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2011 6:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| It makes complete sense to me why a fundamentalist AGW denier (as opposed to a mere AGW skeptic) would oppose nuclear, but why the Green party of Germany? |
To win votes? |
True. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2011 9:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
I don't consider myself a fundamentalist AGW "denier"; if you want to put me in a box, that's your issue... I just subscribe to common sense. I do happen to know for an absolute fact the AGW community has engaged in deliberate, mass fraud and been caught red-handed. The agenda is clear as day (it's all about carbon taxes, and has nothing to do with taking care of the environment), and just dropping a couple half-baked BBC propaganda articles is not going to end the debate...
You still haven't even attempted to explain why calcium-based life forms exploded into existence during a time (over tens of millions of years) when CO2 was orders of magnitude higher in concentration than it is now. If carbonic acid formed from atmospheric CO2 dissolves everything in the ocean so easily, then these lifeforms could never have existed, never mind thrived. So much for the "basic chemistry" line. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
johnnyenglishteacher2
Joined: 03 Dec 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2011 10:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| You still haven't even attempted to explain why calcium-based life forms exploded into existence during a time (over tens of millions of years) when CO2 was orders of magnitude higher in concentration than it is now. If carbonic acid formed from atmospheric CO2 dissolves everything in the ocean so easily, then these lifeforms could never have existed, never mind thrived. So much for the "basic chemistry" line. |
It's called RATE OF CHANGE. Life can adapt to slow environmental changes much more easily than it can to fast ones. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2011 10:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| johnnyenglishteacher2 wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| You still haven't even attempted to explain why calcium-based life forms exploded into existence during a time (over tens of millions of years) when CO2 was orders of magnitude higher in concentration than it is now. If carbonic acid formed from atmospheric CO2 dissolves everything in the ocean so easily, then these lifeforms could never have existed, never mind thrived. So much for the "basic chemistry" line. |
It's called RATE OF CHANGE. Life can adapt to slow environmental changes much more easily than it can to fast ones. |
CO2 levels are not changing at a faster rate than usual; the amount added from human emissions is very small (negligible).
Moreover, they don't need to "adapt"; crustaceans and coral etc. evolved under conditions of much, much higher CO2 in the atmosphere. They can withstand it. The alarmist claim that a very slightly lower pH (from a very weak acid), which is actually still an alkaline pH (it would have to drop below 7.0 to even be "acidic") is going to dissolve all calcium based life-forms in the oceans is utterly groundless and absurd. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2011 2:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Germany's nuclear energy blunder
| Quote: |
Bowing to misguided political pressure from Germany�s Green Party, Chancellor Angela Merkel endorsed a plan to close all of the country�s nuclear power plants by 2022.
...
[T]he Breakthrough Institute, a think tank, points out that renewables would have to generate an incredible 42.4 percent of the country�s electricity in 2020 to displace nuclear. The government could bring that number down some with very aggressive reductions in energy use. But, even then, all that will merely hold the German power industry to its current carbon footprint. The country has an ambitious goal to reduce emissions, which will require yet more drastic reforms to its electricity sector � and all, apparently, over the course of a single decade. |
Nuclear and Fossil: Can Germany Shut Down Both?
No. No, it can't.
| Quote: |
[T]o achieve its stated goal of reducing emissions to 20% below 1990 levels by 2020 while also phasing out nuclear power, Germany would need to displace an additional 28 billion to 42 billion kWh of fossil-fuel fired generation from the electricity sector, above the nuclear power generation displaced by renewable energy in the scenario above.
If the country displaced entirely coal-fired generation, it would need to displace 28 billion kWh of electricity generation (about 5% of the country's 2008 electricity generation), while displacing an even mix of coal and natural-gas fired generation would amount to 42 billion kWh (8% of the country's 2008 electricity generation).
To both displace nuclear power and meet its C02 emissions reductions goals with renewable energy, Germany would have to scale the power supplied by renewable energy to at least 48 percent of total projected electricity demand in 2020, and as high as 50 percent if the country were to phase out an equal mix of natural gas and coal-fired generation. The electricity generated by non-hydro renewables would need to increase to 2.95 to 3.12 times today's levels. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2011 2:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
^ Germany is doing the right thing. Seeing the mind-bending cluster#$% that is Fukushima unfold, they should be applauded for shutting down their reactors.
As for making up the difference in electrical output, they should just burn more coal. Problem solved. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jodemas2
Joined: 06 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2011 5:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Maybe because it is just such a massively stupid tempting of fate? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Axiom
Joined: 18 Jan 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
