Kyoto Protocol

Anonymous
#481
<snip> Spam
 
Anonymous
#482
<snip> spam
 
Timetrvlr
#483
Rev. Blair posted:
Quote:

The scientists may be debating the specifics, but there is an overall scientific consensus that anthropomorphic climate is happening right now and that we are the seeing the effects of our actions, Jimmy.

We know the causes. Greenhouse gas emissions is the cause. We also know the answer...cut emissions. What to do about it is a political question and which corporations have their paws in the pockets of what politicins is the determining factor there.

Cutting emissions is not all that tough. It will cost money and that money would have to be spent by corporations and governments to reduce emissions. That's why there is a debate, Governments and corporations do not want to spend money to curb emissions Instead, they will spend a lot of money to muddy the waters and create a "debate".

Most of the greenhouse-gas emissions and smog in the US midwest and Ontario is caused by coal-burning power plants dumping all their emissions in the atmosphere. Coal-burning power plants can be retrofitted with emissions capture technology that will capture up to 100% of carbon dioxide, sulphur, and nitrous oxide emissions. US DOE Emissions Free Plant and Australian Emissions Free Plants

Another big source of emissions are our highways, specifically trucks that have no pollution controls at all because the trucking industry deems it too expensive and refineries whine that it's too expensive to produce low-sulphur deisel fuels.

We can only remedy this when we stop electing White Cats and Black Cats to run Mouseland. The Cats we elect only look after the Fat Cats of industry!
 
iamcanadian
#484
Using Nuclear power we would have abundeant cheap energy without emissions.

We should have had them all in place 50 years ago. When you put oil companies in bed with government bureaucrats, the shit they release screwing around with each other covers the whole plannet.
 
FiveParadox
#485
One main point in opposition to nuclear power is the possible threat that the use of nuclear power can pose (such as that of a catastrophic core meltdown or breach); the environment can be damaged in extremely radical and long-term ways when nuclear accidents occur.
 
Timetrvlr
#486
I'm in favour of distributed power rather than centralized power. Another way of putting it is: I'm in favour of a lot of smaller power units of all kinds adding power to a nationwide grid rather than one nuclear plant supplying one city. Centralized power is vulnerable to saboutage and/or catastrophic failure whereas a community of small power producers contributing to a network is much less so.

I'm in favour of many kinds of power producers too, competing with each other for a share of the energy market. That's why I'm in favour of no-emission coal-power plants, biomass, windpower, solar power, wave power, tidal power, run-of-the-river hydro power and a lot of other generating schemes producing power for the grid.

This isn't going to happen anytime soon so we will have to continue to build nuclear plants, hydro dams and gas-fired plants for a bit until we have enough alternative energy generating capacity to shoulder the load.
 
iamcanadian
#487
Hydro dams are very disruptive.
Burning anything but hydrogen produces pollution.
Wind, Solar, Wave and Tide are good but very expensive, not efficient and not available everywhere.

Nuclear is the only non-polluting form of enegry generation that can be technically and econominally managed with the least amount of damaging effect on the environment.

If we had advanced Nuclear Energy starting 50 years ago, we would not have any serious far reaching pollution or energy cost or production problems today.
 
Timetrvlr
#488
iamcanadian wrote:
Quote:

Nuclear is the only non-polluting form of enegry generation that can be technically and econominally managed with the least amount of damaging effect on the environment.

You seem to be very sure of that. Apparently the people of Ontario aren't as convinced as you are. How do you propose to deal with spent fuel rods? Are the new reactors safe enough to build on the waterfront in Toronto? How do we know it won't be a bottomless money pit as they were in the past? Until you can convince the voters on these points, you will have a tough time going forward on building more. I personally believe you are probably correct but the majority are not.

Quote:

Hydro dams are very disruptive.

Agreed. We do however, have a great deal of hydro power that is not being exploited and could be captured with run-of-the-river power generators. These can be designed to have a minimal ecological footprint and not disturb fisheries or tourism.

Quote:

Burning anything but hydrogen produces pollution.

Sorry, not true! Existing coal-burning or gas-fired power plants can be retrofitted with emissions capture technology that is available now. We have the technology to capture all Sulphur, Carbon Dioxide, Nitrous Oxide emissions as well as smoke and fly-ash. Yup, it will cost the power plant operators to do the retrofit, cost them a lot too, but they will pass the costs (and a wee bit more) along to us, the consumers. Of course a lot of asthmatic kids won't die from pollution either, a little side benefit.

Quote:

Wind, Solar, Wave and Tide are good but very expensive, not efficient and not available everywhere.

Europeans have developed wind power turbine technology to the point where it is most certainly cost competative now. Solar, wave, and tidal are all still pretty expensive. World wide energy shortages are focusing a lot of development in these technologies and prices are dropping substantially.

Please, don't write off any form of energy capture. We too face imminent energy shortages. I don't think we are going to find just one answer, but many answers, some small, some big.
 
EagleSmack
#489
*snicker*
 

Similar Threads

44
Kyoto Protocol
by MsMelis | Dec 21st, 2018
8
Kyoto Protocol / Accord
by Reverend Blair | Oct 25th, 2017