Okay, WTF?

Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by Wlck742, Apr 24, 2008.

Okay, WTF?

Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by Wlck742, Apr 24, 2008.

  1. EonMaster

    EonMaster Eeveelution Master

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    4,154
    Likes received:
    4
    Trophy points:
    0
    From:
    Black City, Unova
    Also, the warming of the ocean's waters can quickly send the global climate spinning out of control. If the water temperature increases by only a few more degrees, it can cause massive amounts of gases(methane, etc) that have been trapped under the ocean floor for thousands of years to be released.

    These gases are strong greenhouse gases. With thier release, the earth's temperature would continue to rise. As that happens, the ocean's will continue to get warmer, releasing even more trapped greenhouse gas. Thus, starting a continuous cycle that only natural forces can stop.

    Evidence shows that it had happened before, and increasing earth temperatures could quickly cause the cycle to restart again.
     
  2. TheWorker

    TheWorker Guest

    Well that will happen eventually. Its only up to us if its going to be in 40 years or 400.
    Personally I think its a little late for that now. Yeah people rant about shutting down fossil fuel dependancy but are they willing to give several zillion dollars? Nah not really.

    Personally I am big fan of nuclear energy and fusion reactors (but until they get invented Ill stick to the fission ones :p)
    I dont understand why do people whine about them all the time. Its clean way to get energy with minimal enviromental damage. Yeah sure, HEP are also effective but there is only a certian amount of rivers :p
     
  3. ijffdrie

    ijffdrie Lord of Spam

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2007
    Messages:
    5,725
    Likes received:
    17
    Trophy points:
    38
    i agree abouth the nuclear energy
     
  4. Space Pirate Rojo

    Space Pirate Rojo New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2007
    Messages:
    3,067
    Likes received:
    6
    Trophy points:
    0
    From:
    Canada, eh?
    It's April 24.

    When I look outside.
    There's snow.
    I'll trade it for your 50 degree weather.
     
  5. EonMaster

    EonMaster Eeveelution Master

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    4,154
    Likes received:
    4
    Trophy points:
    0
    From:
    Black City, Unova
    What people don't like about nuclear is the waste. Nuclear waste stays radioactive for millions of years.

    With governments now transporting the waste to large facilities for storage, people are worried because the transports use the same roads and rails normal people use. If an accident were to occur and the waste spills out, it would be extremely hazardous to clean up. No matter how strong and plyable the storage containers are, spills are still a possibility
     
  6. Chax424

    Chax424 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2007
    Messages:
    411
    Likes received:
    1
    Trophy points:
    0
    From:
    A
    I think the term global warming isn't appropriate.
    I prefer to call it:
    Global weather-on-acid-ing

    In Idaho was 80 one day, snowed the next. Bipolar weather. Make up your mind, eh.

    If we could find an affordable way to launch it into space, say into the sun, that would be ideal.
    in the mean time, I think we should instead focus on more solar and wind power! Tidal generators! Etc...
     
  7. Wlck742

    Wlck742 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2007
    Messages:
    2,867
    Likes received:
    0
    Trophy points:
    0
    From:
    In your head
    Solar/wind power is generally ineffective on a cost/performance ratio. Tidal generators work well but are only found in a few areas. We should stick to nuclear power. Its startup cost is high but of makes up with efficiency and no pollution. People are overreacting about waste management and meltdowns. Neither of them are very serious. Nuclear waste is generally stored underground, where the radiation can't reach most humans and other animals. And there hasn't been a single meltdown for decades now. The core's design makes that impossible. Frankly, I think the media overexaggerates the side risks. And biofuels aren't the solution either. Using food for fuel in a world that already has a food shortage is just a bad idea. Even gasoline would be a better solution. Sad thing is, a lot of people think this is the right approach, and the fact that all the presidential nominees are pushing for biofuels worries me.
     
  8. BirdofPrey

    BirdofPrey New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2007
    Messages:
    4,985
    Likes received:
    5
    Trophy points:
    0
    From:
    Arizona
    @ Eon

    The problem with nuclear waste is that fuel rods become unusable after only 10% of their fuel is burned and instead of reprocessing the rods to extract the remaining fuel and any usable byproducts such as Pu239 they throw it away. If they actually reprocessed the fuel then they would have a waste reduction upwards of 80%.

    If they took measures to fix that problem there wouldn't be a waste issue. As it stands though Nuclear power is the cleanest most efficient power source. its also relatively safe. When people think nuclear power they think Chernobyl but most reactors have very thick walls and a leak is unlikely even with a meltdown.
     
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2008
  9. Chax424

    Chax424 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2007
    Messages:
    411
    Likes received:
    1
    Trophy points:
    0
    From:
    A
    I don't feel stockpiling nuclear waste is not an acceptable way of "dealing" with it. True, meltdowns are uncommon, that doesn't worry me as much as having numerous nuclear plants producing tons nuclear waste a piece.
    Aside from that, nuclear is fantastic.
    Lets take a little cash out of the US's military budget and start investing in efficient ways to launch nuclear waste into the sun.
    Huzzah!
     
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2008
  10. BirdofPrey

    BirdofPrey New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2007
    Messages:
    4,985
    Likes received:
    5
    Trophy points:
    0
    From:
    Arizona
    Do you know how heavy uranium is?
     
  11. TheWorker

    TheWorker Guest

    Exactly. If you talk to someone about nuclear power plant, the first thing they imagine is Chernobyl. Its unbelivable how ignorant some people are.

    Oh and I think its better to have few very deep holes in the ground where to hide the nuclear waste than burning all the fossil fuels or covering half of your country with wind turbines.
     
  12. Wlck742

    Wlck742 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2007
    Messages:
    2,867
    Likes received:
    0
    Trophy points:
    0
    From:
    In your head
    In fact, nuclear waste produces less total pollutants than coal burning plants. Burning coal releases fly ash, which contains uranium and thorium, as well as other harmful metals. Fly ash has 100 times the radioactive materials as nuclear waste. But even those aren't enough to harm nearly all people who come in contact with it.

    The US should just end the damn Iraq + Afghanistan Wars and try to spend some of the $12 billion per month on something constructive, like preventing global warming. If there was more funding fusion core reactor designs may have been made practical already, or much sooner than it will now. What good is rooting out some terrorists if all we have left of the planet is a barren wasteland?
     
  13. paragon

    paragon Guest

    Today is the last day of April. The average temperature here for this day is a high of 70 and a low of 48. The high for today is 58 and the low is 45. The record high here for this day is 88 set in 1974. The record low here for this day is 34 set in 1961. Why such fluctuation in temperatures? Warm and cold fronts. These have a far more significant effect on the temperature than any global climate change.

    Now I'm not saying that global warming is not happening as there is evidence that it is happening. However, is it the fault of humans? Maybe not. And it definitely isn't entirely our fault. It has been scientifically proven that the sun has been burning brighter in the past 100 years than at any point in the last 1000 years. This is due to an increase in sunspot activity. Obviously this would increase the average temperature of the earth slightly and any other side effects that may occur are so far unknown but scientists are still working those out.

    This does not mean that we should not pursue cleaner and more renewable power sources. I think the best bet would be hydro-power plants much like a dam except instead of damming up a river we can harness the power of the ocean currents. That is a 100% renewable and clean source of power. There are at least 4 powerful ocean currents surrounding the United States. The same currents that carried the European explorers to the new world can carry us into the future.

    As for the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, there is a bit of history that everyone should know before they shout for any withdrawal. In 1989 the Soviet Union was driven out of Afghanistan by Afghan Mujaheedin funded by the United States, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan. In 1992 the Soviet puppet government in Afghanistan finally collapsed. By this time the United States had ended all aid to the Mujaheedin. The moderate Mujaheedin commander Ahmed Shah Massoud tried to create a democracy in Afghanistan. However, the Pakistani backed radical Hekmatyar wanted power for himself. Even with no international backing, Massoud's forces were able to defeat Pakistani backed Hekmatyar. In 1994 Pakistan backed a new group known as the Taliban. The Taliban came from the tribal regions of Pakistan and had not fought in the Soviet-Afghan War. They came bearing brand new weapons and bought most of their victories. When they approached Kabul in 1996, Massoud's forces withdrew from the city because they did not want the city subject to any more destruction. They pulled back to Bagram Air Base where they held the line against the Taliban until the United States again became involved in Afghanistan following September 11th. Massoud had the charisma and desire to unite the Afghans and create a democracy. He was assassinated by two agents of al Qaeda two days before September 11th.

    The Taliban ruled with brutality from 1996 to 2001. People were beaten for trivial offenses. The Hazaras were massacred in one city. Womens rights were taken away. Under their rule Afghanistan was called a country filled with children with no childhood because many of the older people had been killed in the previous wars and by the Taliban and the conditions were so poor in that country that children could not really experience childhood.

    Many of the militias of Iraq have shown many of the attributes that the Taliban portrayed. They implement the same strict version of Sharia law that the Taliban did and the same brutal punishments for anyone breaking those laws. If the United States pulls out of either Iraq or Afghanistan this brutality will be able to reign almost unchecked. Their governments are not yet strong enough to stand on their own. If the United States were to announce today that they would pull out of Iraq and they stopped conducting all missions except for those related to leaving Iraq it would take 18 months for all of them to leave. In that time tens of thousands of Iraqis would die. Do you want their blood on your hands?
     
  14. MeisterX

    MeisterX Hyperion

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2007
    Messages:
    4,949
    Likes received:
    17
    Trophy points:
    38
    From:
    New Port Richey, FL
    So, Paragon arrives. Was wondering how long that would take.

    Don't screw up this chance.

    Also, that was a random jump to an off-topic subject, but we'll let it fly. ;)

    Welcome back. Kinda.
     
  15. MarineCorp

    MarineCorp New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2007
    Messages:
    2,047
    Likes received:
    0
    Trophy points:
    0
    From:
    England, United Kingdom
    that was a really long text wall from paragon :D i have seen longer though....

    Welcome Back by the way........
     
  16. EonMaster

    EonMaster Eeveelution Master

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    4,154
    Likes received:
    4
    Trophy points:
    0
    From:
    Black City, Unova
    short post, short post, short post, hmm.. paragon? AHHH! My eyes! Text wall!!

    Good post though. Whenever paragon posts, you can always expect it to be well writen and thought out.

    I just hope we can soon stop using coal and natural gas power plants. Nuclear, solar, hydro, and even wind are better ways to go as they have very few harmful effects compared to coal.

    The only thing I don't like about daming up rivers for hydroelectric power is the fact that it alters the environment both above and below the dam.

    The Mississippi River Delta is a good example. Due to reduced sedement deposits, the delta has been continuously shrinking as current sedements get washed out into the Gulf. As a direct result, marshlands that are necessary for different kinds of birds and fish are being destroyed.

    The decrease in sedement is caused by the dams on the Mississippi reducing it's speed. The now slowed Mississippi River is unable to carry as much sedement downstream. Compine that with levys not allowing rivers to carry sedements usually collected in floods, and the problem is clear.

    Meanwhile, above the dam, massive lakes are created from the slowing of the river. This alters the environment marine animals live in. Fish designed for fast waters get beat out by those that wouldn't be able to live in the river before it was damed.


    Back onto about global warming. The sooner we switch off using coal power, the better. If the US government spent less time and money on a stalemate war, and more time on domestic issues, then maybe they would be able to actually get things done faster. Even as a US citizen, I know the gov't has gotten too powerful for it's own good and takes too long to make desicions.
     
  17. josh

    josh New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2007
    Messages:
    1,062
    Likes received:
    0
    Trophy points:
    0
    From:
    In Our House
    Fusion Power should be invented if not sooner, later. This is probably the best source of energy yet. Much cleaner than nuclear fission. Although I dunno if there's a risk of a fallout of something worse. Any of you guys know?
     
  18. paragon

    paragon Guest

    The first fusion reaction was of course in 1952 with the first testing of the hydrogen bomb. The first fusion reaction for the purpose of creating power was the Joint European Torus which produced just over 16 MW for half a second. While not enough to be a viable power source, various projects are underway to increase the net energy output. The biggest of these projects is ITER which is projected to produce 500 MW for 6 minutes and 40 seconds.
     
  19. TheWorker

    TheWorker Guest

    Errrr? Fallout in nuclear fusion? No.
    As far as I am concerned, there are very little hazards to this methods of getting energy. Maybe appart from the fact that the temperature has to be atleast 10-15 million kelvin, 100 million if you dont want to rely on HUP.
     
  20. Babmer

    Babmer Guest

    google post more please people? :]