FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[darwin dali]

Tesla is fantabulous

[What's Burning?]

Tesla is fantabulous

Yeah yeah, and Elon Musk is schmexy, what else?

[darwin dali]

Tesla is fantabulous

Yeah yeah, and Elon Musk is schmexy, what else?

It's the future and it's already here!

[CookinFlat6]

Yes, we certainly missed a trick. France is 75 % nuclear and is the biggest exporter of electricity in the world making 3 billion euro a year from this. They undertook their nuclear programme back in the seventies while we copped out.

France is a world leader in nuclear energy and export their technology all over the world.

Anyone wanting to read more might find this interesting, it's very detailed and long.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Count ... -F/France/

I'm glad the Super Phenix was finally closed - we fought hard for that!



Switzerland and Germany decided to get out of nuclear power due to ^
I wish France would smarten up as well.

What about thses disasters that have caused more damage to our environment and ecosystem and hence to our lives (like killed people, except its not so visible)
These fellas dont count because they are not human? But they do get their own back never fear








Please spare me the photos of nuclear disasters until we are ready to discuss the numbers involved in both types of disaster over the last 200 years

[darwin dali]

Thing is nuclear disasters when they happen are enormous and the consequences last for an eternity with half-life of plutonium 239 being 24,100 years.

[CookinFlat6]

I hear you, but are they any riskier than our 50 year nuclear deterrent?

(apologies WB, its all DD)

Japan had 2 nukes dropped on it once, they are still around - we have the technology - its a big scare campaign, think about it

[Jabberwocky]

About the free electric car points. Most of the major car parks in Oxford have designated parking spaces for electric cars with power hook up points next to them

[spankyham]

..Japan had 2 nukes dropped on it once, they are still around - we have the technology - its a big scare campaign, think about it

Another classic to go with:-
F1 will be dust in a few years
Formula E will replace F1 in a few years
We should remove carbon from our planet
and now:-
Nothing to fear about radiation

I have a great idea for you cookin, start up some eco-tours to Fukushima and Chernobyl, and prove to us all how safe they are by camping there overnight

[spankyham]

I think I must be missing something here. Spanky, are you and the scientists you quote saying we can produce biofuel without creating any emissions and we can then take this fuel to run a car and no emissions come out of the exhaust pipe? Because I don't believe that......

My understanding of Spanky's posts...

For ever two tonns of Co2 the algae absorbes out of the atmosphere, we use 1.15tonnes to produce and burn as a biofuel. Meaning we are still extracting 0.85 tonnes of Co2.

Something like that.

But to be honest Im not sure.

You got it

[CookinFlat6]

I think I must be missing something here. Spanky, are you and the scientists you quote saying we can produce biofuel without creating any emissions and we can then take this fuel to run a car and no emissions come out of the exhaust pipe? Because I don't believe that......

My understanding of Spanky's posts...

For ever two tonns of Co2 the algae absorbes out of the atmosphere, we use 1.15tonnes to produce and burn as a biofuel. Meaning we are still extracting 0.85 tonnes of Co2.

Something like that.

But to be honest Im not sure.

You got it

What about the 800kg C02 left over from the extraction spankee, you didnt inform us how that would be removed from the equation today if all cars used this fuel. You also didnt explain how to fix the problem of the algae requiring the entire amount of Nitrogen and phosperous in the environment to produce even 10%

Please explain

[spankyham]

As far as damage to the planet, oil, coal and nuclear are all pretty crappy solutions. Which brings up back to this.... Solar is the best course forward, period.

And now back to our regularly scheduled argument.

Correct. I already posted a while back that we have gone past a tipping point. Even if we went globally carbon neutral today (in terms of human contributions to GHG is the atmoshpere) GHG will still increase. We have already massively uncovered thousands of years of carbon previously locked under permafrost. Now, as it thaws, it will decompose and return carbon to the atmosphere. Also, the more we farm, the more we will add even more GHG to the atmosphere.

What is need are schemes that have negative effects on atmospheric carbon.

I completely agree that solar is the way to achieve this. I support using organic batteries rather than toxic manufactured ones to not only store, but also to create the energy.

[CookinFlat6]

While we wait for the forum spankee to respond (he might have connectivity issues again) let me represent the facts

Plants extract and store carbon
If we dont grab them to use the carbon remains extracted from the air
Why would we want to grab that plant and burn it, releasing all the carbon, and then capture part of that carbon to expensively store deep down in the earth and call it negative carbon emission?
The plant has already done 100% extraction
If we leave it its negative extraction already
We dont start at zero as long as there is a plant doing what nature intended
If we listen to the useless idiots grabbing the plant is starting at zero, then after as long as we only release less that the plant stored plus what it cost to grab - then they say thats negative emission
they have to store the extracted carbon - thats the problem no one has cured yet
Storing it back in the earth takes up resources and affects or already fragile system
why not leave the fkn plant and its stored carbon in first place
They say we need the energy cos its better than oil tho it brings a world of new issues
Solar is to grab the same energy but bypass the plant, the plant can stay with its stored carbon
we just grab energy without carbon emission or having to store it

This is not rocket science is it????

[CookinFlat6]

As far as damage to the planet, oil, coal and nuclear are all pretty crappy solutions. Which brings up back to this.... Solar is the best course forward, period.

And now back to our regularly scheduled argument.

Correct. I already posted a while back that we have gone past a tipping point. Even if we went globally carbon neutral today (in terms of human contributions to GHG is the atmoshpere) GHG will still increase. We have already massively uncovered thousands of years of carbon previously locked under permafrost. Now, as it thaws, it will decompose and return carbon to the atmosphere. Also, the more we farm, the more we will add even more GHG to the atmosphere.

What is need are schemes that have negative effects on atmospheric carbon.

I completely agree that solar is the way to achieve this. I support using organic batteries rather than toxic manufactured ones to not only store, but also to create the energy.

YEAHHH BABY TWIST IT SPANKEE

[youtube]DJiExfGevNg[/youtube]

COME AND TWIST A LITTLE CLOSER NOW!!!!!!!

[spankyham]

Some points have been made about palm oils and the damage those plantations have had on the ecology, including moving the orangutan to the brink of extinction. Whilst I find it highly hypocritical for some to be so blase about the plight of humans in slave labour conditions and communities being forced to live in extreme contamination and yet express concern for the orangutan, I do nonetheless agree. I would point out that palm oil is primarily the cooking oil or Asia and has been farmed since the 60's for that purpose. It has gained in popularity for cooking around the world as we seek to replace trans fats. For me, it falls into the same category as corn. Biofuels should NOT compete for arable land, and, personally, I've made it clear that I only support those that in no way compete for arable land. The examples I have given, algae and perrenial or switch grasses both do not compete for arable land. In fact, with algae in particular, as I have mentioned many times, it can grow in non-arable areas, with salt water or even in the ocean.

Algae is basically a simple, natural, organic, yet very efficient solar energy process and source. It can provide the negative atmospheric carbon effect we need.

Algae does not need much in terms of nutrients, a positive, it grows easily and there are many types each with different particular features. Where there is an abundance of nutrients, algae will take it up, commonly known as "algal blooms". Unfortunately, these generally go unharvested, and then decompose and release carbon back to the atmosphere. This is a reality of farming, and, with the growing global population, there will be more pressure here.

To cookin credit, although he didn't realise, he reference a really great article (by Johannes Lehmann) in support of these sorts of carbon negative effects generated through the right biofuels. It provided one of many excellent solutions for how the excess carbon from the process can not only be permanently stored terrestrially, but how it can also contribute in waste management and agriculture. Other solutions see the excess used in construction. There is no end of potential for the left over carbon as a cheap source, the only criteria is to use it in a way that locks it up.

[spankyham]

Plants extract and store carbon
If we dont grab them to use the carbon remains extracted from the air

Another one for me Are you really that dumb?

Ever heard of decomposition? Or do the flowers and grass around your neck of the woods last forever

Let me say it really reallyreally slowly so even you get it. Plants decompose, and when they do, where do you think the carbon goes. Oh yeah, I forgot, it goes to cookins magical mystery "remove carbon from the planet" trick box