A little. I do not agree that [direct] solar and fusion power are our only viable renewable sources.
A little. I do not agree that [direct] solar and fusion power are our only viable renewable sources.Originally posted by: OUCaptain
Allow me to rephrase.
Although the use of current and new technologies to decrease the harmfull emisions from our current use of fossel fuels is a step forward, this is only slowing the inevitable. The earth only has so much stored fuel. If we want to survive as a species, we need to focus on developing methods of extracting energy from renewable sources. Those being either from the sun or safer nuclear (fusion).
Is that a more acceptable reply from someone outside your little circle Howard?
Originally posted by: OUCaptain
Yay!! another fucking reason to keep using fosel fuels. Take that 1.5 billion and develop more efficient solar cells you fucktards.
Originally posted by: Gothgar
Originally posted by: FoBoT
Originally posted by: OdiN
So what are they going to do with these gasses?
they stick them back into the ground, they call it gas sequestration
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage
yeah, that will definitely not have any long term adverse effect.
Originally posted by: torpid
Who says that there isn't as much or more being invested in solar research? A lot of countries are researching that, and a decent amount of progress is constantly being made.
Originally posted by: Howard
A little. I do not agree that [direct] solar and fusion power are our only viable renewable sources.Originally posted by: OUCaptain
Allow me to rephrase.
Although the use of current and new technologies to decrease the harmfull emisions from our current use of fossel fuels is a step forward, this is only slowing the inevitable. The earth only has so much stored fuel. If we want to survive as a species, we need to focus on developing methods of extracting energy from renewable sources. Those being either from the sun or safer nuclear (fusion).
Is that a more acceptable reply from someone outside your little circle Howard?
I said direct solar was not the only viable renewable source. Have you considered indirect solar?Originally posted by: OUCaptain
Originally posted by: Howard
A little. I do not agree that [direct] solar and fusion power are our only viable renewable sources.Originally posted by: OUCaptain
Allow me to rephrase.
Although the use of current and new technologies to decrease the harmfull emisions from our current use of fossel fuels is a step forward, this is only slowing the inevitable. The earth only has so much stored fuel. If we want to survive as a species, we need to focus on developing methods of extracting energy from renewable sources. Those being either from the sun or safer nuclear (fusion).
Is that a more acceptable reply from someone outside your little circle Howard?
Solar is the ONLY true renewable energy source (well long term source anyway). All energy that reaches this planet originates from the sun. Solar, wind, wave energy are all powered by the sun. Although technically even the sun will eventually run out, just not for a REALLY fucking long time. Even Geothermal has a short limited supply unless it is found that a nuclear reaction is actually whats heating the core. Other wise it's just left over heat from the planets formation which will eventually cool off (quite a bit sooner than the sun will burn out). Fusion with current technology will work as long as we can find plenty of helium 3 (only source we can reach is the moon).
So did you have any other sources in mind?
Originally posted by: OUCaptain
Is that a more acceptable reply from someone outside your little circle Howard?
No, but you're obviously referring to it.Originally posted by: OUCaptain
The only indirect solar I can think of that I missed was solar heated steam turbine or a Stirling engine. What else is there? Besides, I didn't specify direct solar in the first place.
Originally posted by: FoBoT
it is awesome
I :heart: coal
Originally posted by: Howard
No, but you're obviously referring to it.Originally posted by: OUCaptain
The only indirect solar I can think of that I missed was solar heated steam turbine or a Stirling engine. What else is there? Besides, I didn't specify direct solar in the first place.
How about biomass?
Carbon emissions do not necessitate a net increase of atmospheric carbon.Originally posted by: OUCaptain
OK since you still don't seem to be getting the point of my argument or you just find pleasure in belittleing a noob, let me further clarify. We need to be exploring renewable energy sources (both direct and indirect solar) that do not release or require disposal of carbon emissions. Is that clear enough?
Originally posted by: YoungGun21
I'm sure you've all heard about it.
Originally posted by: Howard
Carbon emissions do not necessitate a net increase of atmospheric carbon.Originally posted by: OUCaptain
OK since you still don't seem to be getting the point of my argument or you just find pleasure in belittleing a noob, let me further clarify. We need to be exploring renewable energy sources (both direct and indirect solar) that do not release or require disposal of carbon emissions. Is that clear enough?
Originally posted by: Pepsi90919
i have no idea what you're talking about
Originally posted by: YoungGun21
Originally posted by: Pepsi90919
i have no idea what you're talking about
You also must not know how to click links. I gave a few links halfway down first page.
To the people bickering at each other, this is huge progress. This will have 0 emissions. And it will work just like any other coal power plant, no need for solar panels that hardly work yet. We still have hundreds of years of coal left to burn.