183 replies to this topic

[Sharpnessism]

There are few proven solutions that'll work realistically. We COULD reduce the amount of cars everyone uses but realistically this won't happen. We COULD reduce the dependence on petroleum but big business would likely kill that idea. You COULD plant a shitload of plants but without governments FORCING the people to do so (non democratically in other words), it's unlikely this'll happen. Most solutions that I can think of that may work are untested and unproven to work. The other solution is to wait for advances/refinements in science for better energy producing sources that are also reliable, meaning the best anyone could do is try to reduce their daily output of CO2 and encourage kids to be scientists.

[Cryptkeeper]

the best solution is for us to leave the earth completely and let the earth sort its self out while we make are self sustaining ships to take advantage of the entire universes resources including plentiful hydrogen fuel but no one dreams this big or has the money to go this way xD

[Chyros]

Quote

One of the most recent New Scientists has an article on CO2 as a fuel, IIRC.

Dauth, on 7 Mar 2008, 1:30, said:

C02 will not burn in the presence of oxygen alone, however you could in theory strip the oxygen from the carbon and react that with another substance, leaving that oxidised and the carbon in its pure form.

Leaving aside that CO2 is relatively stable and much more entropically favourable than (solid) carbon and thus will have a big energy barrier to cross before CO2 will be reduced. So, it would require energy input before it would give any output. And carbon in pure form is a nasty pollutant; I'm curious to see who wrote that article .

[Dr. Strangelove]

You know-there's been a technology around for about 50 years that could have solved this already.

Most people don't realize that nuclear power is really a wonderful energy source. For the same amount of energy the waste that nuclear power provides is much easier to deal with. Think about it-you could vhoose between having to bury a boxcar full of a very heavy metal for 500 years or somehow recapture 1,000,000,000 cubic meters of CO2 and somehow stop it from reaching the atmosphere.

A not-so-new technology called fast breeder reactors could make nuclear power even more efficient.I'm going to skip all of the technical speak and just ay it makes unusable portions of uranium-i.e. depleted- usable and this can be done several times until the sample is fully tapped out.THis has several advantages.It allows the same fuel to be reused many times thus saving tons of money and natural resources.THe waste that cannot be reused anymore is a huge amount less toxic and therefore doesn't need to be stored as long.

Nuclear Power is the only "green" techology that can provide enough power for a first world country.France gets 75% of its power from nuclear power plants and Japan gets 2/3s.America only gets 10% from fission.

If all of the globe's power needs were provided for using nuclear power, fuel supplies would probably last a century or wo.With fast breeders, it could be a millenia.

[CommanderJB]

Or even better, have you heard of thorium reactors? They don't have a chain-reaction effect because energy must be supplied to keep the reaction going, but the energy output is much greater than the use, so you have a large reactor that simply cannot melt-down and that doesn't produce highly radioactive waste. 'Course, no-ones bothered to build any yet (they would be extremely expensive and are only in the very early planning stages), but we've got to look at options other than uranium fission, impractically-scaled current renewable projects (wind, solar, hydro) and (definitely this last) fossil fuels.

[Umbrella Secrets]

I think that there is nothing we can do about global warming because the Earth is changing and the Earth can fix itself. Its nature, that is what I think. The Earth has cycles.

Edited by U-W-SAtomicarmy, 12 March 2008 - 22:41.

[Dauth]

*Sighs*

From the opening post.

Quote

I don't want dogmatic preachings I want an actual sceintifically viable solution.

Sometimes I worry about reading skills, do you prehaps have any evidence for this unbounded statement?

[Umbrella Secrets]

Sorry, I have a confusing disorder, I get direations messed easy.

[Penguin_Pyromaniac]

Here's one idea.
It's basically hydrogen power that uses near limitless (and usually useless) sea water.
It's rather unlikely, but hey, it's a possible solution, that if totally developed, will totally solve the energy crisis and create 100% green, cheap power.
But, it seems that the oil companies have "taken care" of this guy.
No more news of this sort.

[Cryptkeeper]

oh that the problem there is getting the radio waves at that frequency and in large enough quantities to make sustainable burn with little energy along with totally overhauling engine and generator design it would be quite the undertaking and would cost billions to even market not to mention the factories needed to produce it then you gotta worry about oil company who will probably try to sue or other wise undermine your operations its a big job.

[Dauth]

How much energy is being put in? How much is being generated? Because if the second is smaller than the first it is a load of codswallop anyway.

[Penguin_Pyromaniac]

Dauth, on 20 Mar 2008, 1:25, said:

How much energy is being put in? How much is being generated? Because if the second is smaller than the first it is a load of codswallop anyway.

Helloooooooooo? Radio waves from a homemade generator? Flame of 3000 degrees F?
Did you even read it? Radio waves are low-energy waves, and it produces an insanely high temp. flame. From a vial of salt!
Still, I have doubts as to the veracity.

@cryptkeeper: Yeah, you're right about the effort needed to mass implement it, but the same thing could go for switching total nuclear power or sugarcane ethanol.

[SolidSpartan117]

Well, I think the way to go is Nuclear Fussion. In 50 years we will be there, it's stable and produces alot less toxic waste.

[Dauth]

How odd a portmandeau of Fusion and Fission, creating Fussion

What makes you think we will be there in 50 years? I agree with this fact, but then again I've read dissertations on fusion, and a rather long research paper by a group of undergrad physicists.

[SolidSpartan117]

same here, I have read alot on the subject and I truly believe that Fussion is the future. We are getting more and more advanced as time goes, a couple of years ago a scientist almost created Fussion but was unsuccessful. Saying that they have almost cracked it, the only reason they cant do it faster is safety.

[Zero]

What about putting some funding into learning how to produce Ozone (not normal oxygen, just Ozone oxygen) and release it in moderation into the air. Also, how about switching to Hydrogen power?

[Dauth]

Ozone at ground level is a pollutant, getting a significant amount to the right altitude would cost a fortune and probably do a lot of damage in the process

[Mbob61]

I did an exam talking about this today
For me, nuclear fusion is definately the way to go.
Huge amounts of energy and no pollutants at all. Perfect. Just shit hard to do

Mike

[Beta9]

Two words: alternative energy

As many politicians have said, oil gives us life. What's pretty amazing and sad is that we have depleted nearly all the readily accessible oil in just a meager 200 or so years since we first gained the technology of drilling. We need to develop alternate sources of energy and embrace the benefits of nuclear energy.

One should watch The 11th Hour if you want extremely viable and plausible ways for green construction and green energy.

[The Wandering Jew]

1. Are we using synthetic fuels (i.e. straight from the lab-type) nowadays?

2. Nuclear fusion has a looong way to go. The tokamak have produced energy in a short span so far.

3. Wind farms are good, but not to birds. Wind farms chop birds to pieces. So we may have an issue with RSCPA or something. Besides, the mechanical efficiency of wind farms is considerably lower than coal-fired plants. Another loong way to go.

4. Solar energy will take the entire Texas (or more than that) to generate daily power requirements. Another loooong way to go.

5. Proper resource management IS BADLY NEEDED. All we do is waste energy worse than having sex all willy-nilly.

6. Some places experience "global warming". Others "global freezing". Kindly read Michael Crichton's State of Fear. I have checked the references he cited. And I was confused about the scientific facts he presented. Read it to discover for yourselves. And don't forget to check the websites.

[Dr. Strangelove]

The Wandering Jew, on 16 May 2008, 0:15, said:

1. Are we using synthetic fuels (i.e. straight from the lab-type) nowadays?

2. Nuclear fusion has a looong way to go. The tokamak have produced energy in a short span so far.

3. Wind farms are good, but not to birds. Wind farms chop birds to pieces. So we may have an issue with RSCPA or something. Besides, the mechanical efficiency of wind farms is considerably lower than coal-fired plants. Another loong way to go.

4. Solar energy will take the entire Texas (or more than that) to generate daily power requirements. Another loooong way to go.

5. Proper resource management IS BADLY NEEDED. All we do is waste energy worse than having sex all willy-nilly.

6. Some places experience "global warming". Others "global freezing". Kindly read Michael Crichton's State of Fear. I have checked the references he cited. And I was confused about the scientific facts he presented. Read it to discover for yourselves. And don't forget to check the websites.

What's wrong with chopping birds to pieces?

[Waris]

Nothing, if they go straight into your dinner plate

[Dr. Strangelove]

Waris, on 16 May 2008, 0:28, said:

Nothing, if they go straight into your dinner plate

My point exactly.

[Dauth]

I know the problems, that's why I started the thread, I was just wondering if anyone had come up with decent solutions.

[̀̀̀̀█]

Nanobot technology in about 30 years, just send them into the atmosphere to pick apart the molecules. Have it make...... Diamonds or something. It would rain diamonds...... Whoa.

As for now? An entire plant that makes CO2 cartridges with CO2 from the atmosphere. And then storing them. It would probably produce more pollutions, but most likely not CO2.