The solutions to Global Warming include. . .

[Michaelangelica]

Number 1. Reduce population- we may have already exceeded the number of people the world can support.

Both Japan and Australia have "baby bonuses"

In Australia it is $4,000. (US c 3,250?).

The previous treasurer enjoined people to have a baby "for dad, one for mum, and one for the country".

With the number of international refugees around looking for a home I think such a bonus is racist. Quite apart from being ecologically unsound.

 

The new labor government is talking about a carbon tax on the third child.

 

What a difference a day makes.

[Boerseun]

Don't participate in the "disposable culture".

 

When it's broken, FIX IT!

 

Even simple things: I've got a "disposable" Clipper lighter now for more than two years. On average, people use them till they're empty, chuck them and get a new one. Well, my little Clipper has had plenty refills, and I've even scavenged spare parts from other lighters that have been thrown away! I made a point of keeping it for as long as possible, and it's been going for a good 2 years now.

 

I'm sure there are lots of other so-called "disposable" consumer items that can be repaired at little or no cost instead of just throwing it away. Also, the "MacGuyver" feeling you get after figuring out how to fix the unfixable, repair the unrepairable, or even just to disassemble the thing and scavenge parts for repairing other "disposable" or "non-fixable" items, is priceless.

 

I reckon by not willy-nilly throwing things away like our modern culture would like us to believe, we can make quite a difference!

[questor]

As with any problem, first figure out what is causing it, figure out the part that man can control, eliminate the things that man is doing to cause the problem. Is the problem man made or is it tiny changes in the attitude of the earth vis a vis the sun? If it is man made, then why was the earth much warmer in the age of the dinosaurs? We have had at least 4 major ice ages followed by warming trends before man was using any machinery. If man is the cause, the only way is to drastically cut birth rates, have an agrarian society where each man raises food for his own family, and prevent China and India from entering the 21st century.

[InfiniteNow]

As with any problem, first figure out what is causing it, figure out the part that man can control, eliminate the things that man is doing to cause the problem. Is the problem man made or is it tiny changes in the attitude of the earth vis a vis the sun? If it is man made, then why was the earth much warmer in the age of the dinosaurs? We have had at least 4 major ice ages followed by warming trends before man was using any machinery.

 

--> IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Working Group I Report "The Physical Science Basis"

 

 

Now that your questions above have been answered, what next?

[Turtle]

Stop all tourism out of walking distance. Period. Stop all transportaion to and from sporting events; elementary school to professional sports. Stop all entertainment based waste of resources; no flying the film crew to the Arctic to make movies on global warming. :)

 

Either there's a problem we can fix and we get serious, or not. :hihi:

 

Safe to say, these activities will continue apace. :hihi:

ftp://ftp.eia.doe.gov/pub/oiaf/1605/cdrom/pdf/ggrpt/057304.pdf

[InfiniteNow]

Stop all tourism out of walking distance. Period. Stop all transportaion to and from sporting events; elementary school to professional sports. Stop all entertainment based waste of resources; no flying the film crew to the Arctic to make movies on global warming. :eek:

 

Either there's a problem we can fix and we get serious, or not. :evil:

 

Safe to say, these activities will continue apace. :shrug:

 

In terms of relative impact, how does all of that compare to all of this:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

???

[HydrogenBond]

Nuclear power would have been the answer if the "green" people of 40 years ago didn't save us all from the threat of nuclear winter. Nuke would have made power without CO2. With the power industry making huge profits, the push and financial backing would have been on for fusion. It would be here now. Then the risk would decline as the old Nukes get mothballed for cleaner fusion. We have the best of both worlds. Instead one green panic led to the current one. Part of the blame for our current predicament has to be shared by the green people of the past. They acted on short term panic and weren't able to see the long term picture. Nothing has change. It will be interesting to see the next disaster caused by this round of short term panic.

[InfiniteNow]

Nuclear power would have been the answer if the "green" people of 40 years ago didn't save us all from the threat of nuclear winter. Nuke would have made power without CO2. With the power industry making huge profits, the push and financial backing would have been on for fusion. It would be here now. Then the risk would decline as the old Nukes get mothballed for cleaner fusion. We have the best of both worlds. Instead one green panic led to the current one. Part of the blame for our current predicament has to be shared by the green people of the past. They acted on short term panic and weren't able to see the long term picture. Nothing has change. It will be interesting to see the next disaster caused by this round of short term panic.

 

You still would have the problem of disposal of nuclear waste, which is precisely why the "green" people didn't like it then, and still don't now.

 

 

Why not suggest solar instead of bash people who speak out openly against agents which cause harm to our shared home...

 

The pale blue dot http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p86BPM1GV8M.

[Buffy]

Uh...do you need a reminder of:

• Windscale
  
• Three Mile Island
  
• Chernobyl
  

...just to name a few...need more examples? There are plenty to choose from...

 

And of course there are all those stockpiles of plutonium-laced spent fuel rods with a half-life of a quarter of a million years still waiting for Yucca Mountain or some other safe place to store stuff, only a few micrograms of which is necessary to kill you.

 

It would appear from your post that these "issues" are irrational rantings not even worthy of their "short term panic 40 years ago."

 

Can we dump those fuel rods in your back yard Hydro? I'm sure they'll be no tribble at all...

 

It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds, :)

Buffy

[freeztar]

Uh...do you need a reminder of:

• Windscale
  
• Three Mile Island
  
• Chernobyl
  

...just to name a few...need more examples? There are plenty to choose from...

 

And of course there are all those stockpiles of plutonium-laced spent fuel rods with a half-life of a quarter of a million years still waiting for Yucca Mountain or some other safe place to store stuff, only a few micrograms of which is necessary to kill you.

 

It would appear from your post that these "issues" are irrational rantings not even worthy of their "short term panic 40 years ago."

 

Can we dump those fuel rods in your back yard Hydro? I'm sure they'll be no tribble at all...

 

It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds, :)

Buffy

 

Nice. I like the troublesome tribble remark. ;)

 

While I don't feel that nuclear energy is the "right" way forward, I don't think it is abandon-able at this point in time. My hope is that more investment in alt energy will yield more energy efficient and lower cost options that will inspire pollutant-ridden businesses to change their business models and adapt to the shifting market.

 

You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one ;)

[Buffy]

While I don't feel that nuclear energy is the "right" way forward, I don't think it is abandon-able at this point in time.

Me neither. In fact I'd love to think that some of the "safer" nuclear technologies like the Pebble Bed Reactor, and heck maybe even some form of fusion might turn out to be a reasonable alternative energy source.

 

I just get livid when *some* people blithely imply that there's nothing to worry about with nuclear technology and all the "problems" are solved. They didn't call it "“tickling the dragon" at Los Alamos for nothing...

 

So...

You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one ;)

...you're not alone, but some here might slime us as *Republicans* for saying so! :)

 

We know what happens to people who stay in the middle of the road. They get run over, ;)

Buffy

[freeztar]

We know what happens to people who stay in the middle of the road. They get run over, :)

Buffy

 

Oh, so you've seen the tread marks on my back. No worries, it was a Big Coal exec driving a Prius. ;)

[Buffy]

No worries, it was a Big Coal exec driving a Prius. ;)

Speaking of which...little noted newsitem today:

 

During Monday’s State of the Union address, Bush said, “Let us fund new technologies that can generate coal power while capturing carbon emissions.”

 

Yet just 24 hours after his SOTU declaration, Bush’s Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman indicated the White House was pulling the plug on the ambitious FutureGen project, a clean coal plant that was touted as “the cleanest fossil fuel fired power plant in the world.”

 

How's that for securing his legacy of legislative achievements?

 

One who, professing virtues that he does not respect, secures the advantage of seeming to be what he despises, :)

Buffy

[Michaelangelica]

One who, professing virtues that he does not respect, secures the advantage of seeming to be what he despises, :hihi:

Buffy

Do you have Irish genes?

I'm 50% Irish and even I don't get that

 

Pity about coal really.

It seemed like such a good idea at the time.

Perhaps we can use it as a garden soil amendment?

(See TP sub forum)

 

A friend who knows heaps about electricity said I could repost this as long as I didn't use his name. I have edited it as it was in response to a local pollies press release

The only real way to provision for more power is to increase generation, however, savings may be made using energy efficiency systems such as new fluro lights instead of incandescent

, however, the globes are full of mercury and they dont even recyle it, just dump it at the tip!!!

The state of electricity generation is abominable.

Putting in hot water systems only replaces energy consumption during the evening since we already have off peak, so it will do nothing to decrease daytime peak demand, which is where the shortage occurs.

I have no idea who would be dumb enough to buy coal fired generation stations when there is no carbon trading scheme yet designed, but it is well known one is coming.

Coal fired stations put out more radioactive material than nuclear stations of the same capacity.

They are Dickensian in nature, so I agree that we shouldn't be building more coal fired or thermal power stations,

 

I find it humbling, that for all our technology and cleverness, we cannot replicate what happens in every leaf, on ever tree, every day.

[freeztar]

How's that for securing his legacy of legislative achievements?

 

Great imho!

 

One who, professing virtues that he does not respect, secures the advantage of seeming to be what he despises, :hihi:

Buffy

 

"Instead of trusting in the judgement of people, they trust in the fedral government" - GWB SOTUA

[Erasmus00]

I just get livid when *some* people blithely imply that there's nothing to worry about with nuclear technology and all the "problems" are solved.

 

Many of them are far better understood problems then they used to be. Smarter reactor design makes disasters of like three mile island nearly impossible, and also dramatically reduces the amount of radioactive waste. Breeder reactors could be built that produce little waste, and would quench safely in emergency situations.

 

Unfortunately, its not viable for mostly political reasons. For the most part, no nuclear reactors is something upon which green peace and "big energy" can agree, hence unlikely to ever be built. Reactions against even the word "nuclear" are strong enough in the general public that (for instance) NMR was rebranded MRI.

 

Which is unfortunate, because personally I believe the comparatively small amount of radioactive waste that would be produced is a small price to pay for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Plus, its technology we are already familiar with thats fairly well understood, and assuming we started building plants today, could provide a reasonable portion of our power.

 

This contrasts with other proposed ideas, like hydrogen cars and fusion. Hydrogen cars are a shell game (it takes more power to make hydrogen from water then you get out of the hydrogen. You can't burn water). And any realistic fusion scenario creates MORE nuclear waste then fission, very hot neutrons turn any first wall material into radioactive slag very quickly.

 

In short- nuclear is (as of now) the only thing we have thats viable, and we need to start taking measures now, not decades from now.

-Will

[Michaelangelica]

I guess it depends on the coal you use,

but this amazed me

"Dr. Karl's" reaction to coal power stations

In his book "Sensational Moments in Science", ABC Press, 2001.

He has an interesting take on coal power:-

 

"In 1982, some 111 (US)nuclear-fired power plants consumed about 540 tonnes of nuclear fuel.

In the same year, coal-fired power plants released over 800 tonnes of uranium." into the atmosphere.

"If a single nuclear-fired plant released 8K of uranium into the bio-sphere. there would be . .an enormous outcry."

 

He says the nuclear content of coal has not yet reached general public awareness in the same way that the greenhouse effect AIDs, or the ozone hole have.

There are no nuclear regulations about the disposal of coal ash

 

Coal apparently contains a heap of uranium and thorium

He concludes that you will get three times more radiation from a coal fired power plant than a nuclear fueled power plant! That's if you include the complete nuclear fuel cycle mining, processing operating, disposal(!?)

If you don't include these your average coal-fired power plant puts out 100 times more radiation than a nuclear-fired plant.

p103-104

Dr Karl is a professor at Uni NSW and a local media /science person.

I have never heard him mention this on any media other than his books.

 

Then the Nuclear Industry's treatment of waste has been atrocious ( mendacious?)

Up until 1990 the USA was dumping it at sea!!!!!!!!!!!

 

We still have not dug a hole deep enough in the earth's core which does not contain some form of life that radioactive waste could possible affect/ effect?