Changing environment due to pollution

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Uh...so me and my "lot" are to blame, and whether or not I did anything, it's still my fault.

Ummm..ok.

Are you not a civilized man, are you not using the benefits of Western civilization? The nature of your beast is you want to retain the comfort that you currently have, conserve it for yourself and deny the same comfort to others, not with bad intentions, but with actions.

Or are you a barbarian, with the need to live outside of civilization, devoid of progress. Or perhaps you just want to live off windmills, solar panels, power whole regions with just that; live a stagnant life; because this is what green implies, it is a fraud from the start, but lets say nanotechnology, nuclear power - are they green, or is anything that is similar to that - green?

Or maybe you're a destroyer of civilization?

What are you?

P.S. As long as you people keep talking about windmills, instead of murder of billions of people, you will be walking in circles and never truly understand the basis for green.

Edited August 19, 2009 by Iroquois Pliskin

[Akira 0]

Are you not a civilized man, are you not using the benefits of Western civilization? The nature of your beast is you want to retain the comfort that you currently have, conserve it for yourself and deny the same comfort to others, not with bad intentions, but with actions.

Or are you a barbarian, with the need to live outside of civilization, devoid of progress. Or perhaps you just want to live off windmills, solar panels, power whole regions with just that; live a stagnant life; because this is what green implies, it is a fraud from the start, but lets say nanotechnology, nuclear power - are they green, or is anything that is similar to that - green?

Or maybe you're a destroyer of civilization?

What are you?

P.S. As long as you people keep talking about windmills, instead of murder of billions of people, you will be walking in circles and never truly understand the basis for green.

I really shouldn't feed the troll, but I will anyway.

Honestly, I don't even know what the hell you are talking about. You bust on me for using "the benefits of Western civilization" while doing the same yourself. Or did you get your computer and electricity from a magic tree? You think the forum you are complaining on just appeared?

Second, you basically accuse me of wanting to horde all my comforts for myself. You are welcome to point exactly to where I said anything of the kind. Please feel free to quote any of my posts.

Lastly, because I am talking about solar power and wind power, I'm suddenly against civilization and progress? Please enlighten me on your logic as to why exactly that is.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

I indeed am using the benefits of said civilization, but I am not the one in the green religious sect, you are the follower of it, and certain people are you priests.

Wind power & solar power implies no progress, if you were to replace our current energy suppliers.

You are ignorant, or merely afraid to look beyond your political correctness.

A destroyer of civilization, a barbarian or a civilized man. What are you?

To end this pointless on all levels discussion I would like to state that humanity will continue to exploit this planet as much as possible, unless a cataclysm occurs, be that natural or man-made such as a nuclear war. But still, I did not quite get the point of your position in the religious sect, are you and your lot talking about only the Western civilization, or the whole world? Because our green politics in African are a success, said with no sarcasm; if you wish, we could continue this success with Asia, stabilizing the population of the planet, and in time, reducing it to comfortable levels.

[Akira 0]

Umm...green religious sect? Right...

You still haven't informed us how solar and wind power mean no progress. How does it matter if your power comes from the sun or wind rather than burning fossil fuels? You still get the power. So please enlighten us as to exactly how no progress (however you want to define it) will be made.

So aside from merely attempting ad hominem attacks, please inform us "ignorant" people why progress in non-polluting forms of energy will suddenly send us to the dark ages.

While you are at it, please throw in what "green politics" of Africa you speak of, and to what successes you refer.

[Baff1 0]

A wait and see attitude, could mean making some alternations to world maps and globes.....hope you got plenty of blue markers.

On the plus side, maybe I'll finally own some beach front property.......in Missouri!!!

I find blue markers easier to come by than devices that stop glaciers from moving towards the sea and melting.

I find blue markers easier to come by than coastal defences.

If you want more blue markers, I think that can be arranged. If you want to stop erosion or the tectonic plates moving, good luck with that.

If you are worried about sea levels, don't be. Hire the Dutch they will build you some dykes like they did for us.

Edited August 19, 2009 by Baff1

[csj 0]

Food for thought Piri Reis Map - think about it

[Soldier of Anarchy 10]

If you are worried about sea levels, don't be. Hire the Dutch they will build you some dykes like they did for us.

You might wanna keep them on the speed dial then ;)

[max power 21]

I don't think I gave the most restrictive, but the most inclusive definition. That is why I included "minimize the anthropogenic effects." Solar and Wind are by far more "green" then a coal fired plant. No matter what we do, in some way we alter the environment. Would I rather our energy portfolio include solar and wind? Yes. Do I acknowledge that these forms of energy will also have some environmental effects, whether we know about them or not? Yes. Doesn't mean I don't wish my house had a solar panel on it.

Free-flowing by definition, and included in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (and amendments), means a river not dammed. It is literally...free-flowing.

I'm not anti-hydro...but at the same time you have to include the eco-system destruction that is inherent in dam building.

I certainly didn't imply that you were anti-hydro. I am just of the opinion that increasing the volume of a lake here and there fits the definition of 'minimal anthropogenic influence'.

I'm not sure of what that legal act entails given that I am not a citizen of america and I am not bound by its laws. If a significantly similar amount of liquid water flows down a stream when it is dammed and not dammed I'm not sure what downstream difference the dam is actually making.

[riffleman 20]

Anwhere solar energy in use tell me.i use it to make electricity.no pollution is caused

[Prydain 1]

Anwhere solar energy in use tell me.i use it to make electricity.no pollution is caused

Well. A huge amount in real terms has gone into extracting the materials for it, shipping those materials, constructing the solar device and then shipping it to its outlet and finally being shipped to the consumer.

For solar energy to be anything other than a money saving option we would have to move all production and shipping to a greener form.

[Akira 0]

Well many dams aren't built on lakes, the act of building a dam makes the lake.

The WASR Act basically just says that while we (the U.S.) dam some rivers, other rivers should be protected from development and man-made changes, and should remain un-dammed. Kind of an Endangered Species Act for rivers.

The difference is in the ability of organisms that lived in that river to freely move up and down it. Fish also don't tend to like being shot through turbines. And having a giant wall of concrete can hinder behaviours of certain species (like going upstream to spawn for example).

They have rectified this with varying degrees of success by using fish ladders and by-pass runs and other measures.

[riffleman 20]

As you all live in develop nation so there may be more or less pollution i don't know.in global summit of global warming why USA and CHINA did't agree to other nation proposal for less pollution as far i know.

[Baff1 0]

Because they are the two of the largest industrial nations in the world?

Just a thought.

No one gives a monkey's about curbing industry in the U.K., we haven't got any.

[riffleman 20]

They both can't stop this,because without it they are no superpower?

[riffleman 20]

Whats about rain in world today times.

[GoOB 0]

Well. A huge amount in real terms has gone into extracting the materials for it, shipping those materials, constructing the solar device and then shipping it to its outlet and finally being shipped to the consumer.

For solar energy to be anything other than a money saving option we would have to move all production and shipping to a greener form.

Solar energy isn't even a money saver at this point - It can save money when used in conjunction with other sources of electricity, but hardly if you use it as your one and only source, the purchase of a suffucient ammount of solar panels is just too big an investment when you look at how much power is generated.

As for shipping being a large issue when it comes to introducing alternative sources of energy... What can I say? It's more Co2 efficient for me to purchase my tomatoes and my paprikas from Brazil than it is to buy them from my local farmer, and in the long run, hell, even in the short run it will be more Co2 efficient for a house owner to buy two solar panels to slap onto his roof (that may reduce his useage of electricity with 10-15% tops) rather than getting those 10-15% from say, coal power.

Think of it as an investment in reverse, spend two tonnes of Co2 building a windfarm, cash in on reduced Co2 emmissions that over time will far exceed the measly two tonnes you spent on shipping it all.

Bottom line still is; Alternative energies need to be cheaper and greener than what we have - The moment it gets cheaper to use an alternative, and green energy, people will flock to it like seagulls to a whale carcass.

[Akira 0]

Solar energy isn't even a money saver at this point - It can save money when used in conjunction with other sources of electricity, but hardly if you use it as your one and only source, the purchase of a suffucient ammount of solar panels is just too big an investment when you look at how much power is generated.

Incorrect. Solar energy is a cost saver in the long run...that has already been proven. Yes, you have to make an initial large payment, but in the long run solar energy pays for itself and then some (looking at an individual basis). There are enough stories already about solar energy users selling back energy to electric companies. Coincidently, if it wasn't a long-term investment, electric companies wouldn't be considering charging users for NOT using enough electricity.

As for shipping being a large issue when it comes to introducing alternative sources of energy... What can I say? It's more Co2 efficient for me to purchase my tomatoes and my paprikas from Brazil than it is to buy them from my local farmer, and in the long run, hell, even in the short run it will be more Co2 efficient for a house owner to buy two solar panels to slap onto his roof (that may reduce his useage of electricity with 10-15% tops) rather than getting those 10-15% from say, coal power.

I agree with the first half, but it is NOT more CO2 "efficient" (whatever that means) to get your produce from Brazil. How is it less "efficient" for a farmer to drive 10 miles to a farmers market then to fly and drive your produce from Brazil?

Bottom line still is; Alternative energies need to be cheaper and greener than what we have - The moment it gets cheaper to use an alternative, and green energy, people will flock to it like seagulls to a whale carcass.

Alternative energies are greener. Not cheaper right now, but definitely greener. Wind power is approaching cost competitivness to petroleum/coal based power.

[riffleman 20]

GoOB i think you care about toady not future .solar energy is best source of energy.you have to make investment once and take benefit of it in long run.there is no pollution?

[GoOB 0]

I am discussing solar energy from my own, or rather my fathers (and no doubt, most other Swedes or northern europeans) experience with it - He has two solar panels on his house, the two together were an investment of about three hundred thousand SEK (about thirty thousand euros), the cost to heat the house with electricity prior to the installation of the solar panels was 39000 SEK a year (somewhat more than three and a half thousand euro), the year after the investment it was 31000 SEK, and then I am being generous and saying that the panels reduced cost with 20% as opposed to the maximum 15% that it was in reality. Ofcourse solar panels are a cost saver, but they don't save you (or c02 emmision) much compared to the investment made, atleast not here in Sweden, and I'd say the same for most of central and northern europe. A share in a windfarm or insulating your house with top modern insulation is more cost effective and signing up for a company that uses only green energy (hydro, wind etc.) is far more c02 friendly than solar. That said, the story is obviously much different in Texas or any other place where the big light in the sky shines at a more consistent rate than in Sweden. However, as said, much of Europe, and certainly, all of Scandinavia isn't lucky enough to experience that consistency.

In regards to my tomatoes... When I buy a tomatoe from Brazil, I am responsible for less c02 emissions than if I buy my tomatoe from a farmer ten kilometers from my house. My local farmer has to burn alot of oil to heat his greenhouse up, even during the summer months he can't go completly without assistance. Thus, a pound of Brazilian tomatoes is more c02 efficient (=less c02 emitted) than a Swedish pound of tomatoes. I write this this to point out that it is worthwhile to import (and produce) solar panels, tomatoes, windfarms and whatever else that saves on c02 emissions from overseas.

As for your last point, that was what I was saying - For anyone but individual consumers to actually give a shit about something being greener than what we have today it needs to be cheaper, or rather, the energy doesn't need to be cheaper, it just needs to be more expensive to use dirty energy than green energy (through c02 taxes, subventions on wind or hydroelectic power etc.). The moment it is cheaper to use green energy, it will be used. It happened with Swedish industry and it will happen with other industries aswell. Because the very same moment that it was more expensive to not cut c02 emissions, Swedish companies began doing just that - Reducing c02 emissions and developing products and services that were more c02 efficient.

c02 efficiency once again equaling less c02 used per unit produced. For instance, a coal plant is less c02 efficient per mWH than a hydroelectric plant

I am not arguing against the development of alternative energies - Quite the opposite. The point I am trying to get across however is that no industry will care much about cutting their emissions unless it costs them money to not cut emissions. This requires more funding by governments and more laws and regulations. It also requires the work of economists, because in many instances today, even without heavy subsidies and other motivators to operate industries in greener ways, it can be cheaper to be green than to be dirty. This by increasing efficiency of production, transportation and many other factors.

In response to riffleman, I do care about the future, but caring about the future does not include ignoring the limitations and the obstacles we need to defeat to actually be efficient in doing what we aim to do. As I have said in another post in this thread, the vast majority of people won't care much about reducing the ammount of c02 emitted until they save alot money by doing it. And currently, atleast for my own locality, solar power isn't a measure that saves enough money per mWH to interest people all that much.

[riffleman 20]

Climate change:china with india

UNITED FRONT assures support at forthcoming copenhaen summit.

Both know that there is Attempt in the Western world to label them obstructionist at copenhagen.

All think both do more pollution,let see what happen there.both oppose legal binding emission targets for devloping nations.

Edited August 25, 2009 by riffleman
Re

[Baff1 0]

Incorrect. Solar energy is a cost saver in the long run...that has already been proven. Yes, you have to make an initial large payment, but in the long run solar energy pays for itself and then some (looking at an individual basis). There are enough stories already about solar energy users selling back energy to electric companies. Coincidently, if it wasn't a long-term investment, electric companies wouldn't be considering charging users for NOT using enough electricity.

Alternative energies are greener. Not cheaper right now, but definitely greener. Wind power is approaching cost competitivness to petroleum/coal based power.

Solar power is financially competative if you live in a desert or near the equator, for the rest of the world it's not.

Windpower isn't anything like as cost competative with oil. Oil is the worlds cheapest energy source. Wind is one of the most expensive.

---------- Post added at 07:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:33 PM ----------

I am discussing solar energy from my own, or rather my fathers (and no doubt, most other Swedes or northern europeans) experience with it - He has two solar panels on his house, the two together were an investment of about three hundred thousand SEK (about thirty thousand euros), the cost to heat the house with electricity prior to the installation of the solar panels was 39000 SEK a year (somewhat more than three and a half thousand euro), the year after the investment it was 31000 SEK, and then I am being generous and saying that the panels reduced cost with 20% as opposed to the maximum 15% that it was in reality. Ofcourse solar panels are a cost saver,

Your dad invested 300,000 to save 8,000 a year?

2.6%?

I'm sorry mate but if a 2.6% return on 300,000 is your idea of cost effective, it's not mine.

If I had left the same money in the bank, I would earn 4% in intrest, 12,000.

50% more than what he saved by buying solar panels and I would still have my original 300,000 too.

If I were you I wouldn't let your dad manage your pension funds. Or even his own.

Edited August 26, 2009 by Baff1

[NeMeSiS 11]

EDIT: I cant read

[GoOB 0]

Your dad invested 300,000 to save 8,000 a year?

2.6%? .... I'm sorry mate but if a 2.6% return on 300,000 is your idea of cost effective, it's not mine.

That is what I am saying - For him, or anyone who lives in Sweden (even remotley similar locales) solar power isn't a viable option. I beleive I wrote twice that solar power isn't a money saver. I never stated that it was cost effective, as that was the point I was arguing against;

Solar energy isn't even a money saver at this point.

Ofcourse solar panels are a cost saver, but they don't save you (or c02 emmision) much compared to the investment made...

I also stated that to save money on your heating bill, proper modern insulation and foundation drainage is a better alternative. I also never stated that my father expected his money back fast, it is a way to keep electricity bills in check - Not a very good one, but in '94 options were more limited than today, today there's a viable network of geothermal heating and also long distance heating in the vicinity.

[Akira 0]

Solar power is financially competative if you live in a desert or near the equator, for the rest of the world it's not.

Being in tropical climes is not needed. What is needed is good insolation. However, as members of Sweden and England have pointed out...it ain't for everyone.

Windpower isn't anything like as cost competative with oil. Oil is the worlds cheapest energy source. Wind is one of the most expensive.

Uh maybe in England. But again, here in Texas it has already approached oil competitiveness. If more development is undertaken, it will reach the same cost structure but have its own infrastructure issues (current storage, consistency, etc.)

But both points are well made. Not every country is going to have the same alternative energy sources available based on their physiological characteristics. Iceland has a significant geothermal sector, for example, but that might not be what works in Romania. A solar array is planned for Nevada, and Texas continues to build windfarms but that might not work in New Zealand or India. Every country (and even every region within that country) has its own energy availability to determine whether it be hydroelectric or nuclear (which I consider a necessary evil).

[riffleman 20]

In some places it is not possible to produce hydro energy.what we can do there.what about Nuclear energy for electricity.i did't have an idea about it that due to it there is pollution or not.if anyone have idea tell?