lolgaxe wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
When I say Carbon Neutral I mean what you would think it means,
·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- World Population Reaches 7 Billion
World Population Reaches 7 BillionFollow
You must be new here.
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.
LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
lolgaxe wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
When I say Carbon Neutral I mean what you would think it means,
Dude, this is freaky. Your avatar is dancing in time to the music on the TV (which is Chaz and Lacey doing their farewell dance on The View).
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
Nilatai wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Also, how do you define "alternative energy"?
"Carbon neutral".
I'm honestly not sure what you think that means in this context.
I was just using words you're familiar with. As you're so very politically minded.
I'm familiar with the phrase, just not (as I said) in this context. I've only heard carbon neutral used in the context of a cap and trade scheme. It usually has to do with offsetting the release of carbon dioxide with some approved positive environmental action. It's not really relevant to actual power generation though, since the thing you balance your carbon production with isn't negative carbon production of some kind. It isn't really "neutral". What it's really about is paying for your CO2 production by doing something the government (and their environmentalist lobbyists) like. So I want to operate my factory and I pay for producing carbon by planting some trees or handing over some cold hard cash even.
The idea that someone would answer my question about alternative energy with just that phrase sans explanation just kinda threw me.
Quote:
When I say Carbon Neutral I mean what you would think it means, zero net CO2 emissions. Which, in this case would mean technologies which do not result in a sh*t load of CO2 (or any other greenhouse gas, with the exception of water) being pumped into the atmosphere.
So... would you argue that we should work to eliminate any and all power generation systems on this planet that emit CO2 as a direct result of that power generation? Think carefully, this is a trick question.
Quote:
If I'm not okay with pumping the atmosphere with pollution, why would I be okay with pumping the sea full of it? Seems like a pretty redundant question to me.
I'll give you a hint: EPA silliness or not, I don't consider CO2 to be pollution.
Quote:
I'm being reasonable here, gbaji. We have to implement these measures now, or when we need them we won't have them.
The sun and wind and water and heat in the earth will disappear if we spend say another 20 years researching better and more efficient means of tapping into them? I'm sorry, but I'm going to need a cite for that.
Quote:
It is a much simpler thing to modify an already existing infrastructure than it is to create a whole new one.
False dilemma though. We have to "create a whole new one" no matter when we do it. But spending sufficient time and money on R&D up front prior to creating that new one can save us an absolutely huge amount more time, money, and pain down the line. What you're arguing for flies in the face of what every process development expert in the world will tell you. You are always better off spending time and money early in the development process than waiting to fix the problems that will occur later if you don't. The only counter factor to consider is a "first to market" condition, but that really doesn't apply here.
Drama to the contrary, we really can afford to take our time to do this. We've got plenty of time to continue using fossil fuels for power while we get the alternatives up and running. Let's do it right instead of rushing into things and perhaps making some really bad mistakes.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
So... would you argue that we should work to eliminate any and all power generation systems on this planet that emit CO2 as a direct result of that power generation? Think carefully, this is a trick question.
Just some select ones in the San Diego area.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
So... would you argue that we should work to eliminate any and all power generation systems on this planet that emit CO2 as a direct result of that power generation? Think carefully, this is a trick question.
Just some select ones in the San Diego area.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
I'll give you a hint: EPA silliness or not, I don't consider CO2 to be pollution.
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.
He is, actually, right now. Through his mouth.
Just as Planned.
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I'll give you a hint: EPA silliness or not, I don't consider CO2 to be pollution.
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.
LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I'll give you a hint: EPA silliness or not, I don't consider CO2 to be pollution.
CO2 is an unwanted by-product introduced into a medium incidentally. It doesn't really matter if you consider it a harmful or not. It's a pollutant by definition.
Water is a pollutant when it's in a tank of gas, no?
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
That would be a useful analogy if it was related in any way to the definition of "pollution" in use here.
someproteinguy wrote:
Or you set up a program where people who are willing pay more to subsidize the cost of generating power from renewable sources can do so
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
Elinda wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I'll give you a hint: EPA silliness or not, I don't consider CO2 to be pollution.
CO2 is an unwanted by-product introduced into a medium incidentally. It doesn't really matter if you consider it a harmful or not. It's a pollutant by definition.
Water is a pollutant when it's in a tank of gas, no?
Majivo wrote:
That would be a useful analogy if it was related in any way to the definition of "pollution" in use here.
Actually, Elinda is using the correct definition of pollution. The problem is that CO2 doesn't meet that definition. While water is a pollutant when in a tank of gas, and gas is a pollutant when it's in our drinking water, CO2 is *not* a pollutant when its in our air. It's not an unwanted by-product, it's a necessary by-product. A large portion of life on this planet requires that animals breath in oxygen and release CO2, while plants take in CO2 and release oxygen (super simplified version of course). You cannot label either of those molecules "pollutants" in the air.
The problem is that the word "pollution" has changed over time from the meaning Elinda referred to, to a meaning so broad that it can be applied to darn near anything. And in the case of CO2, the absurd result some of us predicted has finally happened. This is what happens when science is being led by political activism instead of actual science. You end out changing the definition of pollution to mean anything that is harmful when present in a given environment, then stretch the definition of "harmful" to be pretty much anything, and then you end out defining a necessary component of our atmosphere a pollutant when it's in the atmosphere.
I'm just waiting for the ban on Dihydrogen Monoxide. Cause why not?
Edited, Oct 28th 2011 1:58pm by gbaji
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Technically, the problem isn't that there is more CO2, the problem is that the amount is changing faster than the system can react to the change. In the long run, higher CO2 should be balanced by an increase in CO2 usage by organisms, but if the distribution of gasses happens too rapidly, cascading systemic shocks can and will occur. If we engineer the system to either absorb those shocks or mitigate the Δ%.
Just as Planned.
Timelordwho wrote:
Technically, the problem isn't that there is more CO2, the problem is that the amount is changing faster than the system can react to the change. In the long run, higher CO2 should be balanced by an increase in CO2 usage by organisms, but if the distribution of gasses happens too rapidly, cascading systemic shocks can and will occur. If we engineer the system to either absorb those shocks or mitigate the Δ%.
I don't have too much trouble with that. Although it's still questionable whether the amount being produced is actually more than the system can react to. I'm quite sure that the earth can react to anything that happens. The real question is whether that reaction is harmful, and how harmful it may be. The worst case predictions involve runaway greenhouse gas effects, which would be "very very bad", but is also incredibly unlikely. CO2 just isn't that strong a greenhouse gas to create such an effect. Better predictions are slightly higher temperatures, more moisture, and greater plant growth. And while that'll have an impact, it's hard to say whether the net global effect is even negative.
And of course, it's entirely possible that the entire effect of this will end out being within the margin of error of climate predictions even if we didn't assume there was any effect from increased CO2 at all. In other words, pretty much negligible. If you can't be sure that a change is being caused by something, then that something can't really be that significant. I guess the point is that climate changes all the time. The idea that we can look at a specific short term change and even say that humans caused it at all, much less narrow that cause down to such a specific thing, just seems like hubris.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
While water is a pollutant when in a tank of gas, and gas is a pollutant when it's in our drinking water, CO2 is *not* a pollutant when its in our air. It's not an unwanted by-product, it's a necessary by-product.
To biological processes. Dumping it via industrial processes is not the same thing. You're arguing that because beavers chew down trees, clear-cutting a thousand acres of forest is the same thing. It's natural!!
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
While water is a pollutant when in a tank of gas, and gas is a pollutant when it's in our drinking water, CO2 is *not* a pollutant when its in our air. It's not an unwanted by-product, it's a necessary by-product.
To biological processes. Dumping it via industrial processes is not the same thing.
In terms of contribution to greenhouse effects? It is the same. The question isn't how it got there, but whether CO2 in the air is a "pollutant". It's not. Or at least it shouldn't be. The whole thing smacks of using a stronger label in order to make something appear more important. We should be limiting the use of the word "pollutant" to things that are not necessary components of the system they're in. That's not to say that such things can't be in higher or lower concentrations that we'd like, but that's a different concept than something being a pollutant.
A pollutant is supposed to be something that doesn't belong where it is and causes harm by being there. Somewhere long the line, we've lost sight of that and now apply it to pretty much anything.
Quote:
You're arguing that because beavers chew down trees, clear-cutting a thousand acres of forest is the same thing. It's natural!!
Except you have the ratios wrong. It's more like beavers chew down 100 trees each year in a given area, and humans decide to chop down an additional 3 trees in the same area for their own use. Now, if that extra 3 trees happens to tip some balance of nature over, then that's something we can and should look into. But lets not lose sight of the whole picture here.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
In terms of contribution to greenhouse effects? It is the same. The question isn't how it got there, but whether CO2 in the air is a "pollutant". It's not.
Well, if you say so.
Oh, wait.
No, it is. But keep saying it's not because some pouty petulance can't hurt
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Venus used to be pretty much like the Earth. Then the runaway greenhouse effect took hold. Shame.
Edited, Oct 28th 2011 7:47pm by Nilatai
Edited, Oct 28th 2011 7:47pm by Nilatai
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.
LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
Nilatai wrote:
Venus used to be pretty much like the Earth. Then the runaway greenhouse effect took hold. Shame.
Yeah. If only those Venusians had listened when their environmentalists told them to stop burning fossil fuels for power, their planet might still be in great shape.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
I'm just waiting for the ban on Dihydrogen Monoxide. Cause why not?
Water is a natural part of our bodies. Water is necessary for our bodies. Too much water can kill us. We don't ban water, we limit and regulate how much water we ingest. I'm sure many people died of water poisoning before we figured it out, but we don't have that luxury with habitable planets.
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
gbaji wrote:
I'm just waiting for the ban on Dihydrogen Monoxide. Cause why not?
There's some funny websites out there about that.
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
I have a racist ****.
Steam: TuxedoFish
battle.net: Fishy #1649
GW2: Fishy.4129
gbaji wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Venus used to be pretty much like the Earth. Then the runaway greenhouse effect took hold. Shame.
Yeah. If only those Venusians had listened when their environmentalists told them to stop burning fossil fuels for power, their planet might still be in great shape.
Exactly, I hope this has taught you a valuable lesson.
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.
LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
Quote:
I'm just waiting for the ban on Dihydrogen Monoxide. Cause why not?
That Dihydrogen Monoxide thing was pretty clever in 1986 when I first heard it. In junior high. And I doubt the other 7th grader who said it came up with it himself.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Duke Lubriderm wrote:
Quote:
I'm just waiting for the ban on Dihydrogen Monoxide. Cause why not?
Hydrogen hydroxide implies hydrogen is a metal. It's Dihydrogen Monoxide since it's a covalently bonded molecule.
Just as Planned.
Recent Visitors: 171
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (171)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- World Population Reaches 7 Billion
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC