Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kyoto Tax

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Kyoto Tax

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3296819.stm

    Why anyone would think it would cause economic growth in the US to stop is beyond me considering exports to Europe account for only 3% of our economy.

    Oh and how more rediculus could this be...

    "But many scientists say cuts of around 60-70% will be needed by mid-century to avoid runaway climate change."

    Maybe pseudo-scientists say that but anyone that actually knows about science would not say this.



    These people so obsessed with Global Warming forget to tell you that there is actually a COOLING trend in the lower 5 miles of the Atmosphere(AKA the part were we live). NASA readings shows an average drop of 0.19ºF from 1979.

    They take readings from land stations and it shows 1 degree increase in tempature, but they also ignore the fact that 90% of the increase happened before 1945 and almost ALL of the readings were taking in dense urban region, which means Urban areas are getting warmer.
    Last edited by Praxus; 08 Dec 03,, 00:53.

  • #2
    The United States MUST develop clean energy sources, and get rid of dependence on fossil fuels.

    Oil and coal need to be made obsolete. I hope I see the day when each home and business can be disconnected from the power grid, all of them becoming totally self-sufficient in power production, and cars no longer consume gasoline.
    "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

    Comment


    • #3
      The United States MUST develop clean energy sources, and get rid of dependence on fossil fuels.

      Oil and coal need to be made obsolete. I hope I see the day when each home and business can be disconnected from the power grid, all of them becoming totally self-sufficient in power production, and cars no longer consume gasoline.
      It's called Fussion and that's the only feasable option. Windmills are BS, where ever we build them
      people will bitch about losing their view or cutting down trees to build them, and of course there is no way you can generate enough power for major cities. Photoelectric cells won't work if there is long periods of storms.

      We have enough coal to power this country for the next 250 years. We just need to get the sulfar out of the coal, which we are doing.

      I can understand dependence on fourign oil but that can be solved by drilling off California, Alaska, and in the Gulf of Mexico.

      Comment


      • #4
        No, I'm not thinking of fusion.

        Imagine this. A home with a couple of solar panels on the roof. Power cables connect it to a device that houses 4 batteries. During the day, electricity produced by the solar panels is used to power the home, with any excess produced charging the batteries, which will power the home at night.

        What I envision for the unit housing the batteries is something the size and shape of an average central air conditioner outside an average suburban home.

        I think it is highly probable in the near future that we will be able to produce technology capable of doing such a thing. Once the technology is affordable, everybody will hop on board.

        We could then begin the task of dismantling the power grid.

        These are the benefits as I see them:

        1) Reduced dependence on foreign fossil fuels.
        2) Decentralized power grid, not susceptible to blackouts or catastrophes.
        3) No energy bills once purchased and installed.
        4) Creation of thousands of jobs manufacturing, installing, and repairing the devices.
        5) People would be able to use appliances with the best performance (i.e. most power usage)
        6) Cost-saving for employers, it would free up money for other uses (hiring, acquiring capital goods, etc.)
        "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

        Comment


        • #5
          There would be no need to dismantle the grid because you would have the option of selling your excess power to the energy company. It would be really bad to not have a grid if it's cloudy for a week. Batteries wouldn't be able to last that long. Then of course you would still need Coal and Natural Gas plants to power cities.

          Fussion would be the best sollution possible.

          However the point of this post is to say that Global Warming IS NOT happening at least to the extent the left wants you to believe.

          Comment


          • #6
            If the necessary advancements were made in solar panel and battery technology, they very well could hold enough to supply a home with power for a week or more during gray periods.

            I believe the future lies with self-sufficient power sources for each and every home and business. A future without energy companies.

            As far as selling energy back to power companies, the amount you'd get in return as opposed to what you would pay for it would probably be like what I get for my college books at the end of the semester as opposed to what I pay for them.

            Power grid infrastructure is massive, obstructive, and downright ugly. Better to get rid of it.

            In 1983 Apple introduced the Apple IIe. 1Mhz processor, 64KB RAM, and a 140KB 5.25" floppy drive.

            Look where we are at now.

            I don't see any reason similar gains in areas such as solar energy, photovoltaics, and superconductors can't be made by 2023.
            "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

            Comment


            • #7
              Now just imagine this, in order to provide power for every man women and child on this planet for their ENTIRE lives it would only require 70,000,000 Kg's of Deuterium and 105,000,000 Kg's of Tritium. This means 7 billion people using as much energy as the average american does.

              It would take 1000 years to deplete known Lithium reserves(where they get the Tritium from).

              I would rather take this route instead of photoelectric cells.

              Energy would be dirt cheap for developing countries, this means they along with the rest of the world can produce goods cheaper. People spend less money on each product they buy therefor they can buy more and the standered of living rises.
              Last edited by Praxus; 08 Dec 03,, 02:06.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Kyoto Tax

                Originally posted by Praxus

                Why anyone would think it would cause economic growth in the US to stop is beyond me considering exports to Europe account for only 3% of our economy.


                Trade tarrifs are back in fashion sadly. Any excuse seems better than none.

                They take readings from land stations and it shows 1 degree increase in tempature, but they also ignore the fact that 90% of the increase happened before 1945 and almost ALL of the readings were taking in dense urban region, which means Urban areas are getting warmer.
                Ah yes, but what you forget is that the industrial revolution had been happily dumping extreme levels of rubbish into the environment for over two hundred years by then.

                The general consensus is that we have been polluting our planet to levels were we are having an impact. It does indeed depend how you measure it. For example, the seas may warm and expand, but my island will get colder as the Gulf Stream (which keeps us warmer than poland for example) will move and bypass it completely.

                The major issue though is one of leadership. The west is responsible for 55% of the world's Carbon Dioxide, Russia 17% and the US 24% (41%) but only have 6% of the world's population. The developing countries (China, India - 30% of the world's population) are now growing in their industrialisation.

                The argument is fairly simple. The developed nations are trying to encourage the third world to NOT make the same mistakes we made during our development because they may now make them on a much bigger scale. However the third world is pointing at the US and saying "But they aren't having to comply with these protocols why should we?"

                Sometimes you have to be seen to be doing the right thing.

                The other argument is that being more energy efficient etc can't hurt the US too much. After all i bet California would like to be better organised.
                at

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Praxus
                  Now just imagine this, in order to provide power for every man women and child on this planet for their ENTIRE lives it would only require 70,000,000 Kg's of Deuterium and 105,000,000 Kg's of Tritium. This means 7 billion people using as much energy as the average american does.

                  It would take 1000 years to deplete known Lithium reserves(where they get the Tritium from).

                  I would rather take this route instead of photoelectric cells.

                  Energy would be dirt cheap for developing countries, this means they along with the rest of the world can produce goods cheaper. People spend less money on each product they buy therefor they can buy more and the standered of living rises.
                  Capacitors and solar panels are existing technologies. Fusion power plants are not.

                  To build fusion power plants would require a massive investment, along with all of the infrastructure to accompany it.

                  Even then there would be the possibility of blackouts, and even worse, nuclear meltdowns.

                  The system I forsee would cost a small fraction of what a new building (about as much as a dryer, a fridge, a washer, and an air conditioner), in fact, if the technology advanced far enough (which it most likely will) the systems could be incorporated into newly constructed buildings and homes, much like toilets were a couple hundred years ago (something completely unimaginable prior that that time).

                  In the end, the power supply is highly decentralized, there are no energy bills, there is no risk of massive blackouts or nuclear meltdowns. Billions upon billions would not need to be invested to build and maintain the infrastructure.

                  The biggest benefit all would be independence, independence from fossil fuels, independence for the consumer from the energy company.
                  "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Capacitors and solar panels are existing technologies. Fusion power plants are not.

                    To build fusion power plants would require a massive investment, along with all of the infrastructure to accompany it.
                    We are talking about a time when we don't have enough coal and oil to sustain us because this is the only time we would change.

                    It produces electricity just like any other powerplant, thus it can be relitivly easily adapted to our present system

                    Even then there would be the possibility of blackouts, and even worse, nuclear meltdowns.
                    If the Electromagnetic Field Collapses and the Plasma melts the surronding metal, contact with the air will cause it to rapidly cool. Since there is no radiation involved, there is no problem for the surronding inhabitants and it is not likely to harm the workers in the plant either.

                    The system I forsee would cost a fraction of what a new building, in fact, if the technology advanced far enough (which it most likely will) the systems could be incorporated into newly constructed buildings and homes, much like toilets were a couple hundred years ago.

                    In the end, the power supply is highly decentralized, there are no energy bills, there is no risk of massive blackouts or nuclear meltdowns. Billions upon billions would not need to be invested to build and maintain the infrastructure.
                    You still have not said how you can provide power for major cities where over 75% of the world's populution live. What you are saying is good for the suburben people but not for major cities.

                    Eventually more energy will be required then what solar panals can provide if there is to be continued economic progress.
                    Last edited by Praxus; 08 Dec 03,, 02:59.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      We are talking about a time when we don't have enough coal and oil to sustain us because this is the only time we would change.

                      It produces electricity just like any other powerplant, thus it can be relitivly easily adapted to our present system
                      No, we'd be talking about a time when solar power becomes less costly than coal and oil.

                      If the Electromagnetic Field Collapses and the Plasma melts the surronding metal, contact with the air will cause it to rapidly cool. Since there is no radiation involved, there is no problem for the surronding inhabitants and it is not likely to harm the workers in the plant either.
                      All of the nuclear fusion techniques I am aware of produce radiation.

                      We should take into account this is a technology that does not exist at this time, there are no fusion power plants, there are, however, solar panels and capacitors.

                      You still have not said how you can provide power for major cities where over 75% of the world's populution live. What you are saying is good for the suburben people but not for major cities.

                      Eventually more energy will be required then what solar panals can provide if there is to be continued economic progress.
                      You fail to take into account future advances in solar panel technology. 20 years ago the average microprocessor ran at 1Mhz, today it is 3200Mhz. 17 years ago the warmest temperature at which superconductivity could be achieved was -432 F, today it is 200 or 300 degrees warmer, if not more.

                      Today, the average home has enough roof area where if it were covered with solar panels it would produce twice as much as the average homes needs. These solar panels run at 12% efficiency, meaning of all of the energy they receive from the sun, 12% becomes electricity.

                      Now this is an increase of 3 or 4 times in just the past few years. There are already experimental solar panels that operate at 24% efficiency.

                      Now given time, let's say 20 years, solar panels could potentially operate at 70-80%, even 90% effiency. This means that far less of an average rooftop would need to be covered with solar panels, perhaps 10% of the area that would be needed to generate 100% of the power for a home with current technology.

                      Now, let's take the following apartment:


                      Put highly efficient solar panels on top, and capacitors in the attics areas.

                      Here is a picture of Minneapolis:

                      The two skyscrapers on the left side would be perfectly suited for solar panels, both at the top, as well as photovoltaic windows.

                      This Minneapolis skyscraper would also be a perfect candidate:


                      Mall of America in Bloomington, convert roof windows to photovoltaic windows:

                      And install more on empty areas of the roof.

                      The focus of my posts has never been the world. Remember, I was talking about reducing OUR dependence on fossil fuels, not the world's dependence. The focus here is the United States.

                      75% of the US population DOES not live in major cities, approx. 75% of the US population lives in metropolitan areas, and most people who live in metropolitan areas live in suburban houses.
                      "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        All of the nuclear fusion techniques I am aware of produce radiation.

                        We should take into account this is a technology that does not exist at this time, there are no fusion power plants, there are, however, solar panels and capacitors.
                        The amounts of deuterium and tritium in the fusion reaction zone will be so small that a large uncontrolled release of energy would be impossible. In the event of a malfunction, the plasma would strike the walls of its containment vessel and cool.

                        There is also no waste products like there is with Fission reactors.



                        75% of the US population DOES not live in major cities, approx. 75% of the US population lives in metropolitan areas, and most people who live in metropolitan areas live in suburban houses.
                        I did say the "World" by the way.

                        The two skyscrapers on the left side would be perfectly suited for solar panels, both at the top, as well as photovoltaic windows.
                        What about buildings that can't have photovaltaic windows, there just wouldn't be enough surface area to provide power.

                        This solar panal crap is nothing more then a pipedream.
                        Last edited by Praxus; 08 Dec 03,, 15:31.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I did say the "World" by the way.
                          Read above the part of the post you just quoted.
                          I said:
                          The focus of my posts has never been the world. Remember, I was talking about reducing OUR dependence on fossil fuels, not the world's dependence. The focus here is the United States.
                          What about buildings that can't have photovaltaic windows, there just wouldn't be enough surface area to provide power.

                          This solar panal crap is nothing more then a pipedream
                          Rooftop.

                          As I said before solar panels currently used operate at 12% efficiency.

                          Once costs are reduced and efficiency reaches 70-80-90% then it would be very viable.

                          Considering that solar panels at 12% efficiency covering the entire can supply far more than the power needs of the average dwelling, perhaps enough for 3 or 4, solar panels operating at 70-90% effiency would use FAR LESSER SPACE.

                          And as I also said before, fusion power plants are a NON-EXISTING TECHNOLOGY.

                          Solar panels and capacitors ARE.

                          Fusion power plant crap is nothing but a pipe dream.
                          "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            And as I also said before, fusion power plants are a NON-EXISTING TECHNOLOGY.
                            LOL, there have been like 12 Fusion reactors made that have created fusion. The problem is they require more energy then they produce. This problem is likely to be solved with ITER about 7 years from now.

                            http://www.jet.efda.org/

                            http://www.iter.org/
                            Last edited by Praxus; 08 Dec 03,, 16:38.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Now what party of the country is this fusion power plant providing power to?
                              "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X