100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Carbon Trading Scammers close up shop | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Its going to be a while before there is any definitive answer to the question. As far as plants doing better with higher CO2 just makes sense to a point, I'd bet that if CO2 reaches a critical mass it may have the opposite effect. Where do you think we should get our energy? Solar and Wind will never be enough with our current technology. ... and our current demands. If we truly wanted to, we could re-engineer our world for drastic reductions in energy use. We could build more rail lines and haul our freight at a much lower energy cost. We can shift the balance of compromises in home design farther in the direction of 'energy efficiency' (sacrificing other qualities). We can build more light rail systems for public transit, and while doing so also make them pleasant to use and bicycle friendly. If using fossil fuel for our energy is having or will have a negative effect based purely on 'excess CO2 being released into the atmosphere', we'd still not necessarily need to stop using fossil fuels altogether to address this issue. We might only need to slow down our net production to match the ability of natural systems to assimilate the CO2. I am a big proponent of hydrogen myself. Easy to manufacture and the by-product is H20. Hydrogen costs more energy to produce than it can return, so it is a net loss of energy to use Hydrogen. The same is true of Solar and Wind power. It's sort of silly to use X energy from coal to produce a Solar Panel that will produce .80X over it's operational lifetime. Nuclear is the way to go. We could have 1000 years (at today's level of use) of cheap clean energy with our current stores of Uranium. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cities, building, stripping the rain forest are just a few things that make for an imbalance.
Planting trees and gardens will help with the balance. It don't have to be all political and cost billions of dollars to study. Plants and trees. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Its going to be a while before there is any definitive answer to the question. As far as plants doing better with higher CO2 just makes sense to a point, I'd bet that if CO2 reaches a critical mass it may have the opposite effect. Where do you think we should get our energy? Solar and Wind will never be enough with our current technology. ... and our current demands. If we truly wanted to, we could re-engineer our world for drastic reductions in energy use. We could build more rail lines and haul our freight at a much lower energy cost. We can shift the balance of compromises in home design farther in the direction of 'energy efficiency' (sacrificing other qualities). We can build more light rail systems for public transit, and while doing so also make them pleasant to use and bicycle friendly. If using fossil fuel for our energy is having or will have a negative effect based purely on 'excess CO2 being released into the atmosphere', we'd still not necessarily need to stop using fossil fuels altogether to address this issue. We might only need to slow down our net production to match the ability of natural systems to assimilate the CO2. I am a big proponent of hydrogen myself. Easy to manufacture and the by-product is H20. Hydrogen costs more energy to produce than it can return, so it is a net loss of energy to use Hydrogen. The same is true of Solar and Wind power. It's sort of silly to use X energy from coal to produce a Solar Panel that will produce .80X over it's operational lifetime. Nuclear is the way to go. We could have 1000 years (at today's level of use) of cheap clean energy with our current stores of Uranium. that's true of both only because they are new. As far as nuclear goes, I wouldn't trust Russia (been down that road before)or China amongst a host of countries that do not believe in public safety. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cities, building, stripping the rain forest are just a few things that make for an imbalance. Planting trees and gardens will help with the balance. It don't have to be all political and cost billions of dollars to study. Plants and trees. Its already politicized because of money, get politics out of it and you will see innovation shoot forward like a nitro car. We as a species like to think we are so advanced and yet are hell bent on destroying the very planet we live on. If you cut down 400 sq miles of rain forests your not going to replace it by planting trees in a park or with back yard gardens. Need to start looking at alternatives to everything we use, yeah they will be expensive at first but if a majority of the population buys the new products the price will go down. we cannot keep living with the belief that everything will be fine, look at what happened with the Paleo Indians and even later in Chaco Canyon. The same thing will happen today if we don't change our ways. Don't get too comfortable with all the great and wonderful technology, its man made, can and at some point will fail. |
|
|
|
|
