FOX: Collapse of Chicago Climate Exchange Means a Strategy Shift on Global Warming Curbs - Polidicks

[QUOTE=fenwick;25983654]Hydroelectric power. .[/QUOTE] I am not a huge fan of hydroelectric for a few reasons. It is terrible for not only the ecosystem but for the geologic systems as well.

[QUOTE=Warhol;25981143]this was altready established you tool. [/QUOTE] I am sorry you were so offended by my post that you had to resort to insults.

[QUOTE=Bluesummers;25983290] name one other power source that can provide as much power, as quickly, and as efficiently as nuclear power. [/QUOTE] Goethermal energy

[QUOTE=imasillypiggys;25984083]Geothermal energy[/QUOTE] I think there are some problems with drilling, and the cooling rate which makes that a bit harder to maintain.

[QUOTE=mrryanchisholm;25983738]:foxnews: [B]THIS JUST IN: GLOBAL WARMING IS TAKING EFFECT. DEATH TOLL IS APPROXIMATELY 14 BILLION PEOPLE. More at 11 [/B] :foxnews:[/QUOTE] i dont think you know how that joke works and really, solar power is probably going to be what we're using. What with it constantly doubling in efficiency.

I'm 100% for Nuclear power. We should have been running off that shit 50 years ago. As said before, Hydroelectric is nice, but causes problems with ecosystems. Nuclear is the cleanest, most efficient method to date. Though If I had anything worth investing I'd invest in ITER.

[QUOTE=OvB;25987269]I'm 100% for Nuclear power. We should have been running off that shit 50 years ago. As said before, Hydroelectric is nice, but causes problems with ecosystems. Nuclear is the cleanest, most efficient method to date. Though If I had anything worth investing I'd invest in ITER.[/QUOTE] what do you suggest we do with the waste?

tide power and geothermal both work great, and since about every country has a power source that works great for them why not just use the ones that they are good at

[QUOTE=Lambeth;25988553]what do you suggest we do with the waste?[/QUOTE] The waste will eventually be reprocessed/repurposed, most of these storage sites are only temporary. Temporary meaning anywhere around five to twenty thousand years.

Hydroelectric power pollutes the water downstream. Nuclear energy is the best technology available right now. And worse comes to worse, we can always launch the spent rods into the Sun.

[QUOTE=Bluesummers;25983290]I was not saying anything to the contrary, I was simply stating the world will go on after a mass extinction with more wildlife and planet life surviving then you think. [editline]11th November 2010[/editline] name one other power source that can provide as much power, as quickly, and as efficiently as nuclear power. And before you say solar power, we are still in the process of developing the technology to make it a viable solution and at present it is not cost effective.[/QUOTE] Windmills. And nuclear power is A: filthy and B: expensive, time consuming and not reliable in the future. [editline]11th November 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=Bluesummers;25983772]I am not a huge fan of hydroelectric for a few reasons. It is terrible for not only the ecosystem but for the geologic systems as well.[/QUOTE] uhh and nuclear power isn't?

It boggles my mind that some people still don't believe in climate change/man-made climate change. A future society will laugh at them.

[QUOTE=smurfy;25995912]It boggles my mind that some people still don't believe in climate change/man-made climate change. A future society will laugh at them.[/QUOTE] I blame politics, religion, and a general ignorance of science. Some people still believe in Geocentrism so take that as you may.

[QUOTE=Warhol;25993916]Windmills. And nuclear power is A: filthy and B: expensive, time consuming and not reliable in the future. [editline]11th November 2010[/editline] uhh and nuclear power isn't?[/QUOTE] Problem is windmills aren't great sources of power, you need to build a shit-tonne of them and they only work in good geological locations, so it's limited. If jet streams change direction over the course of a hundred years, that's not really a hardcore guarantee either. Nuclear is probably the best future proof solution, as we have thousands of years of nuclear material that can be used in rods. Yes, it's expensive, yes it's dangerous, but until fission comes around we need to work nuclear with wind and hydro power to atleast get rid of our reliance on oil, gas and coal.

Nuclear power is not dangerous. In fact, it's one of the safest forms of generating electricity.

i don't get this

[QUOTE=Atchell;26004663]i don't get this[/QUOTE] Oh my God, would you please stop posting?

[QUOTE=OvB;25987269]I'm 100% for Nuclear power. We should have been running off that shit 50 years ago. As said before, Hydroelectric is nice, but causes problems with ecosystems. Nuclear is the cleanest, most efficient method to date. Though If I had anything worth investing I'd invest in ITER.[/QUOTE] Nuclear energy is great, only problem is the waste left over. If we can find a way to recycle it then I'm 100% for it as long as we know it's [b]safe.[/b]

who gives a fuck about animals

[QUOTE=Moose;26004747]who gives a fuck about animals[/QUOTE] One should respect animals, they are very important.

honeybees are important, birds are not

[QUOTE=Moose;26004786]honeybees are important, birds are not[/QUOTE] Birds spread seeds and prevent overpopulation of certain species.

[QUOTE=Moose;26004747]who gives a fuck about animals[/QUOTE] Well, people with an education, for one Failing that, people with empathy

Save us, fusion power!! [IMG]http://www.theitp.org/UserData/root/Images/Nuclear-fusion-reactor.jpg[/IMG] seriously, though, I don't know why there's wars when money could be put into research for fusion reactors. Its going to need a fuck of a lot of money to come to fruition, but the money put into iraq and afghanistan by America alone could have easily funded it.

[QUOTE=hypno-toad;26005199]Save us, fusion power!! seriously, though, I don't know why there's wars when money could be put into research for fusion reactors. Its going to need a fuck of a lot of money to come to fruition, but the money put into iraq and afghanistan by America alone could have easily funded it.[/QUOTE] Well, apparently politicians seem to think involving ourselves in a country half-way across the world to "give them democracy" is more important than pushing us towards the future. Oh by the way, Message for Reaver1991 [sp]umadbro?[/sp]

I think every shithole terrorist-breeding country should be left to fester. If every penny of what had been spent on wars in the last 20 years had been put into technological research I think we would have seen some huge strides in all forms of technology. I don't want to sound careless but I think having a few *possible* terrorist attacks that may kill a very small number of people is not worth the money when compared to the fast-track advancement of the human race, people come and go all the time. Especially since the kneejerk invasion of iraq and afghanistan has likely caused more terrorist breeding, I think my point is fairly valid. Why more money isn't being granted to large-scale technological research is beyond me. I'm sure I'll take flak for my remark by people saying "we've got [I]real[/I] problems to deal with :downs:" as if a 10-year combat squabble is more important than the progress of the fucking human race...

[QUOTE=hypno-toad;26005199]Save us, fusion power!! [img_thumb]http://www.theitp.org/UserData/root/Images/Nuclear-fusion-reactor.jpg[/img_thumb] seriously, though, I don't know why there's wars when money could be put into research for fusion reactors. Its going to need a fuck of a lot of money to come to fruition, but the money put into iraq and afghanistan by America alone could have easily funded it.[/QUOTE] This is what I'm saying. We should have used Nuclear up until we could have gotten this going. As far as storing the nuclear waste; I think stores like Yucca mountain could have worked decently. There's no real efficient clean energy. You're joking if you think we can run the whole country off windmills. All I know is: The ocean temperatures are increasing every year and some speculate a mass-extinction of ocean life in the not so distant future if nothing is done about it. This will lead to the collapse of economically important fish stocks and oxygen producing plankton. The greenhouse effect is to blame. We're to blame. We're killing ourselves here. You can argue the pro's and con's of nuclear all you want, But until Fusion is ready for mass production it's the best thing we got if we ever want to get rid of our use of dirty energy. [editline]11th November 2010[/editline] If I remember correctly, Fusion torus' like ITER only produce Helium.

I agree. Though I'm positive that nuclear refuse will come back to bite people on the ass, it's an important gamble to make. As of now, nuclear power is the cleanest and most efficient source of power. Provided Fusion Reactors come to fruition in at least 20-30 years, I think the nuclear refuse from Fission reactors is an acceptable gamble. Who knows, in 100 years it may be a very simple process to dispose of nuclear waste.

[QUOTE=hypno-toad;26005395]I think every shithole terrorist-breeding country should be left to fester. If every penny of what had been spent on wars in the last 20 years had been put into technological research I think we would have seen some huge strides in all forms of technology. I don't want to sound careless but I think having a few *possible* terrorist attacks that may kill a very small number of people is not worth the money when compared to the fast-track advancement of the human race. Especially since the kneejerk invasion of iraq and afghanistan has likely caused more terrorist breeding, I think my point is fairly valid. Why more money isn't being granted to large-scale technological research is beyond me. I'm sure I'll take flak for my remark by people saying "we've got [I]real[/I] problems to deal with :downs:" as if a 10-year combat squabble is more important than the progress of the fucking human race...[/QUOTE] Couldn't have said it better, and for those who do say " we've got [i]real[/i] problems to deal with..." Well that's a bit stupid, because the only real problem I see right now is - Global Warming - Over-Population - Poverty - And More. If we would've invested more into technology, I think we'd be a whole lot better off in today's society.

[QUOTE=hypno-toad;26005488]I agree. Though I'm positive that nuclear refuse will come back to bite people on the ass, it's an important gamble to make. As of now, nuclear power is the cleanest and most efficient source of power. Provided Fusion Reactors come to fruition in at least 20-30 years, I think the nuclear refuse from Fission reactors is an acceptable gamble. Who knows, in 100 years it may be a very simple process to dispose of nuclear waste.[/QUOTE] How many tons of refuse have we even produced in the history of nuclear power compared to the tons of co2 we've pumped into the atmosphere in the same time?