Green will cost.

[alva]

Yeah, cuz looking at an traditional powerplant is such fun.

Who gives a toss about two people who live on the coast? They can't handle a couple of windmills build 20 miles off-shore..dammit they need binoculars to even spot them.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Kamrat X
As General Ludd said earlier. If the energy isn´t wasted the will be no shortage. Don´t waste energy, dagnammit

And nuclear power is not pure or clean! It´s just corporate bull**** propaganda...

Sure, conservation is good but you can conserve all you want there will still be energy demands. Do you really think the UK is more energy wasteful then the rest of Europe? I'd guess that compared to each pound of GDP their energy usage is pretty efficient.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by alva
Yeah, cuz looking at an traditional powerplant is such fun.

Who gives a toss about two people who live on the coast? They can't handle a couple of windmills build 20 miles off-shore..dammit they need binoculars to even spot them.

20 miles off sore is likely to deep and would suffer from transmition loses. The ones pictured in the article were less then 100 meters off the coast.

Tidal generators would be better but traditionally those things get gummed up with san and sea weed so they require huge amounts of maintaince. They never generate more energy then they use.

[Starchild]

There's no point in the UK that's more than 200 miles from the coast. Might even be less than that. Coasts we have in abundance. We have too many coasts. We've got vast tracts of coast up in Northern Scotland where barely anyone lives. There's everything to the east of East Anglia where I'm sure the dying Suffolk towns would love to cash in on any jobs building wind farms would bring.

Besides, living by the coast in the UK doesn't mean sun and fun. In the summer, seaside towns are brilliant places. I used to live in one. In the winter, they are cold, windy and wet. Hell, five months out of the year you avoid the coast and beach.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by General Ludd
Why not just wait for jesus's second coming so that he can turn it into wine?

Because one's far more likely to happen than the other.

[Odin]

Tossing nuclear waste into subduction zones:

[Japher]

whatever happen to the idea of launching our garbage into space?

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Because one's far more likely to happen than the other.

Not by any reasonable magnitude.

I think I'd rather have faith in Jesus, actually. For some reason it seems a bit less silly than having faith in a science fiction novel.

[Cruddy]

A study came out of the US a couple weeks ago showing that the cheapest way to reduce CO2 levels... is plant more trees.

Hardly rocket science, is it?

[Mr. Harley]

The ooze is a subduction zone is highly stable except to green alarmists. That's why we take cores out of it going thousands of years - it forms very even nicely undisturbed layers. The depths we are talking about are typically at four-seven miles, and the movement is inches per year. It will take several thousand years to subduct into the trench, then circulate around the mantle, and then maybe get into a volcano. By the time those rocks start eroding, you are looking at realistic depletion by time.

Because it is both cold and anaerobic, I did not say a biological dead zone. A desert environment has specific implications of low biological activity, normally due to lack of water. Since the only thing living in that kind of environment is going to be anaerobic (no free oxygen) microbes, that is not going to produce the turnover of sediments that the greens prattle on about.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by General Ludd
I think I'd rather have faith in Jesus, actually. For some reason it seems a bit less silly than having faith in a science fiction novel.

Science fiction has been a lot better with its predictions than Christians have. And the idea of a space elevator doesn't come from a novel.When we figure out how to make carbon nanotubes, we can build an SE.

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Sure, conservation is good but you can conserve all you want there will still be energy demands. Do you really think the UK is more energy wasteful then the rest of Europe? I'd guess that compared to each pound of GDP their energy usage is pretty efficient.

This isn´t a UK question. I´m talking energy conservation on a global scale.

[Zoid]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Science fiction has been a lot better with its predictions than Christians have. And the idea of a space elevator doesn't come from a novel.When we figure out how to make carbon nanotubes, we can build an SE.

But on the other hand; when we have the level of science required to build a space elevator, we surely also have a more efficient and clean energy source than nuclear fission. Go future!

[Sandman]

Wind farms

[Odin]

Originally posted by Cruddy
A study came out of the US a couple weeks ago showing that the cheapest way to reduce CO2 levels... is plant more trees.

Hardly rocket science, is it?

This is correct, in theory, but the problem is that you would have to end deforestation in the tropics, otherwise you are just fighting a loosing battle.