Printable View
With all this rabbting on, what is the alternative? All these people who are anti coal, anti neuclear, anti solar, ant wind are all harping on about their pet hate. Just like most soap box additcs, no one has the solution.If you want to be critical then you must also be constructive. Otherwise SHUT UP!!
Since I've continually posted my solution, does that mean I don't have to shut up?
:D :D :D
P
Speak up I can't see you
Tas Devils are unique in their ability to smell decaying objects, but they are rare and will shortly only exist in Denmark.
Denmark now has a strong affilliation with you Tassies......What was that song by the Beatles, something about Scandanavian wood?
It burns well, so maybe timber plantations will solve the problem and we won't need coal or Uranium any more.
Stop being rational. It will stifle this thread and we don't want those with a loose bias to lose their therapy here.
Greg
Computer says NO.Quote:
Originally Posted by ernknot
*Cough*
I can't see the constructive part of your post. If you ignore your own advice, what do you expect us to do with it? :confused:
Why don't we sticky tape plastic bags to all the cows bums, then burn the methane.
Now that my friends is a solution I bet none of you thought of. Just call me Mr ideas.
Elbow power should solve it all and have energy to spare.... all we have to do is hook a generating system up to the elbows of all the wankers on here and the energy crisis would be solved!
Good idea Mr Gigawatt..Quote:
Originally Posted by Christopha
Al :p
What? Which watt is what you mean Head Wanking person..... we know how you train the trowel hand!!!!
Wouldn't there be a problem with premature electrocution?Quote:
Originally Posted by Christopha
P
:D :D :D
or this problem :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by bitingmidge
Ernknot
I thought for a moment no one would ask. You have restored my faith in human nature (well, partially in that human nature is ultimately predictable.) If you look at my first post on this subject, I did mention
before I get in too deep.
The first and easiest solution is that we just use less electricity. Easy but often not palatable. Many years ago someone asked me how to reduce his electricity bill. I said you can start by turning off lights when you are not in the room. His attitude was "bu**er that" and that was the end of the conversation. If everybody used 10% less electricty our initial targets of reduction in greenhouse gases would be met immediately. Incidently, the power producers would probably freak out.
Another example:- If you only need a cup of boiling water, don't fill the kettle to the brim, only fill a quarter of the electric kettle. Apply these principles to most of your electical needs and you will use less electricity and save money too.
OK, I hear you. Soon we will be back to the current situation so the best that electricity reduction does is buy time. That is what we need. Whatever the solution is, we need time, not to put off the dreaded moment but to develop alternatives.
At this time, I believe there is not an economic or sustainable alternative to coal-fired thermal stations. However, particularly in Australia, I think solar power with further development could become viable. Perhaps we will see it initially as an addition to our houses which feeds back into the grid when we generate a surplus. We already have solar heating for water.
Solar only produces during daylight hours, but that is OK. We probably use twice as much power through the day as we do at night. The base load thermal stations will continue to produce through the night hours. The possibility of storing solar power in batteries is an absolute non starter. Visions of huge parabolic, sun tracking collector plates in the desert is just not economic...yet.
Wind power only produces when the wind blows and does not seem to be really economic so far. Proposed wind farms are being knocked on the head because investors cannot get government subsidies. We talk about polution. Windmills (in the hundreds) are an eyesaw and noisey too. Now we are concerned about birds flying into them as well. Have those people who complain not heard about bird strike in aircraft engines?
I am wary of boring you good folks, but the initial way to go for me is to clean up our existing act. The CO2 emissions from the stacks have to be reduced. This will not come cheaply either and nor is the technology there yet. Hence my earlier comment about buying time and conserving electricty (and indeed other fuels). CO2 sequestration is a possibility, particularly if could be used to force other fuel, such as natural gas, back out of the ground thus getting a double benefit.
Incidentally gas is a much cleaner fuel than coal but not normally able to compete on price. Consequently it is used for peaking power plants (they only generate when wholesale prices are around ten times the norm and then perhaps only for an hour). They are often gas turbines. The other use for them is when a political move is being made to create jobs.
Enough.
Back to you folks.
Regards
Paul
Shut up?Quote:
Originally Posted by woodbe
You're a friendly coot aren't you? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by ernknot
No, that's not constructive. It's an attempt to censor the debate, which has been quite friendly when you consider the subject matter.
Anytime, anywhere this subject gets discussed publicly, there always seems to be a polarisation of views. It's the same here. It's a problem with no 100% easy and 'correct' answer. If you find it annoying to read a thread with a lot of discussion and few solutions, save your click and don't read it, your blood pressure will thank you :)
woodbe.
You lot
need to
(put on Dr Evil Voice)
"get a freaking room"
:p :p :p