A cleaner future!

[baggygreen]

Zach,

I reckon I'm in what you'd class as the 'denier' category, though I'd like to clarify I don't deny the climate is changing - I just have doubts on our influence on that, and especially the proposed fixes, like your Cap and Trade scheme, or our Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme

You've made mention of CO2 in your wall of text.

How does Gore's admission this week to Newsweek that CO2 is not actually the driving force behind alleged AGW impact on your argument?

FWIW, I agree with you completely on fusion and on the need to find greener tech. I'm just very cranky that down under, our baseload will be provided by wind and solar, with a few "clean coal" plants thrown in. 2 power sources providing baseload power to our country, completely at the whim of the weather. how irresponsible is that!

[Zachstar]

Im not going to debate with you on basic science that Co2 is a greenhouse gas and man is putting great amounts of Co2 out there. Now you can debate the extent. You could say our children or great grandchildren will feel the effects. But the science is sound.

Pushing complete baseload with wind and solar would require storage systems. I hope they included that in the cost analysis.

[NeonSamurai]

I have to say I don't care what Gore says or not, he is not a scientist and it is not his field of expertise. He is just a mouthpiece nothing more (and thus utterly irrelevant to real discussion). Here are some scientific facts (note these are not theories or the like, these are dependable, repeatable, and observable facts)

1. Co2 is a greenhouse gas, it helps trap radiated heat in our atmosphere. Light passes through it but radiant heat does not.

2. Man is pumping massive amounts of Co2 into the environment (along with of course what nature itself produces). This also is readily quantifiable and measurable with a reasonable degree of accuracy.

3. We know more or less what will happen when there is too much Co2 in the atmosphere and oceans because it has happened before in earth's history. Again this is readily observable and even quantifiable with the right knowledge and tools.

Now of course nature has its own effects on all of this, but I don't see how we can rationally deny that we have any part in it, given the massive impact our species is having on the ecosystem (which is also scientific fact and readily observable).


As for algae I am still a bit wary, You can bio-engineer something with out actually directly modifying it genetically, humanity has done that for thousands of years. Also there is still the risk of it getting loose in a non native environment and causing havoc (something we have done plenty of). We have had a long history of implementing technology with out fully considering all the ramifications it will have.

[AVGWarhawk]

I have to say I don't care what Gore says or not, he is not a scientist and it is not his field of expertise. He is just a mouthpiece nothing more (and thus utterly irrelevant to real discussion).

I love you man! It had to be said and you did it in fine style! Nothing like calling it like it is!

[Zachstar]

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

I have to say I don't care what Gore says or not, he is not a scientist and it is not his field of expertise. He is just a mouthpiece nothing more (and thus utterly irrelevant to real discussion). Here are some scientific facts (note these are not theories or the like, these are dependable, repeatable, and observable facts)


As for algae I am still a bit wary, You can bio-engineer something with out actually directly modifying it genetically, humanity has done that for thousands of years. Also there is still the risk of it getting loose in a non native environment and causing havoc (something we have done plenty of). We have had a long history of implementing technology with out fully considering all the ramifications it will have.

Have to agree about Gore. He is great at bringing GW down to human terms but his opinion on the effect man has on it is irrelevant. He put his money where his mouth is in investing in clean energy but he is not one of the scientists who worked their butt off to get real data to the govs quickly on the issue.

Even Bush admitted it. Its here and its real.

As for algae. most that are being selected are ones designed to grow prolifically in certain conditions. In nature where there is not as much Co2 PPM or perfect light conditions they would quickly die off. Risk is minimal. On top of that they are not using advanced versions of algae (The ones that produce toxins or the like) Just very simple ones that get fat on CO2 and sunlight.. Make oil reproduce and die.

[SS107.9MHz]

Great post ZS, I'm completely with you on this one; Algae Biofuels are a potencial fuel and waste problem solvers... This technology has to be supported by the governments just the same has the oil industry was when it first began. But there're also other effective sources for these, like sugar cane.. part of the bio-fuel failure in the US was the choice of maze as a ethanol fuel, which is a terrible option in terms of cost/benefit... I don't know how things are looking up in Sweden for example, weren't they launching a program to have 100% biofuel-only car market?

[Zachstar]

Originally Posted by SS107.9MHz

Great post ZS, I'm completely with you on this one; Algae Biofuels are a potencial fuel and waste problem solvers... This technology has to be supported by the governments just the same has the oil industry was when it first began. But there're also other effective sources for these, like sugar cane.. part of the bio-fuel failure in the US was the choice of maze as a ethanol fuel, which is a terrible option in terms of cost/benefit... I don't know how things are looking up in Sweden for example, weren't they launching a program to have 100% biofuel-only car market?

We want to move away from food based biofuels completely. If you want to go the route of sunlight-starch-algae-diesel cycle there are certain types of algae that will consume even heavy materials like sawdust and crap grass without sunlight or Co2 to make lipids for fuels. It works but requires boatloads of material to make enough fuel because you are not utilizing energy from the sun or CO2 from smokestacks.