Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it,
follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given
their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
Posts
You think Chernobyl was bad, just wait 'til all those extra forests we're frantically planting come to the end of their life span.
I hear that any more forests in the Northern hemisphere aren't needed anyway.
i'm not saying it's an invalid argument, i'm saying that it was environmentalists that pushed for biofuel adoption in the first place, and now they're complaining because the biolfuel plantations are driving off other organisms
it's like they all want their cake and they all want to eat it too
The problem is, businesses have gotten it into their heads that they can keep emitting carbon so long as they pay to plant more trees to soak it up. But that means planting more and more trees every year to soak up all the extra carbon we're still emitting. And guess what happens when a tree dies? Carbon emission. All the carbon it's soaked up over it's life span. And it emits a lot quicker than new trees can soak it up.
It's a really mixed bag and needs to be done with a bit more intellect than "trees are great, let's plant them everywhere!"
It's mostly the agricultural lobby (in the US at least) that's pushing for biofuel.
No, there isn't always someone who
goddammit
where do most environmentalists plan to get energy from?
Sort of like this?
TreeA --> Energy + Carbon
TreeB + Carbon --> Energy + 2Carbon
TreeC + 2Carbon --> Energy +3Carbon
Lentils
In the future, cars will run on good intentions and love
I don't know what that is, but if it ends in the apocalypse then yes, sort of like that.
That might work. So long as you plant a forest or two to cover the carbon emissions of the rocket fuel.
Wait, that's not going to work at all.
It's a decent stopgap, but yeah you're right.
Hydrogen fuel is the future, or safe nuclear without the wastes.
The issue with hydrogen fuels today is the source. Freaking assholes are getting it from petroleum sources because it's easier and more efficient then electrolysis of water. Like that solves any of the economic or environmental problems associated with gas power.
Specifically, I wonder if you could power a Slaughterplant on Methane fueled generators.
If rubbing permafrost into my groin is wrong, hey, I don't wanna be right.
2) Hunter just answered it. Though, I would also say that clean coal is a better stopgap than biofuel, though neither are ideal.
If only there was a large source of energy in the vicinity of this planet we could tap. Like a solar battery or giant cosmic radiation plant, we could collect its photonic rays and store them for use.
Definitely a step in the right direction.
Bonus: when they die, you can burn their bodies for fuel.
Well, it's an idea. But I'm going to have to see a report on projected carbon emissions from creating the raw materials, transporting them to the place of construction, labour transportation, power consumption at the construction site, transportation of the finished catapult to the launch site and transportation of tree C to the launch site before I sign off on it.
doesn't that also entail destruction of natural environments? to generate decent energy requires vast areas of photovoltaic cells, no?
and nuclear power, i used to be behind it, but recent studies have showed that the net CO2 production is at best only marginally lower than fossil fuel production and at worst can be higher, depending upon the quality of ore extracted
tcallius: i wasn't generalising in a demeaning way, i was asking because i'm genuinely curious; i had to learn about some of the energy alternatives in chemistry, but i don't know which ones are currently favoured
I saw one on Dirty Jobs that created biodegrading planting pots with cowpoop and used methane to power at least part of the operation.
Destruction of habitat (possibly of imperiled(sp) habitat); increased pollution run off due to lack of forest buffer and increased nitrate; less efficient than other forms of fuel (biofuel is notoriously inefficient); amount of energy put into production and transportation of biofuel offsets the benefits greatly; reducing ariable land which can be used to feed people (yes, starvation is still a problem in the world);
The list really goes on, but that's just a brief synopsis.
The sun has been and is the sole source of all our energy already, so I think it would be OK.
"Use Amazon children for labor, and use TreeA and TreeB for materials."
Defender, how are you not a governor or senator or something?
Nuclear: Uh, last I heard nuclear produces absolutely NO CO2, save for the energy used to create and maintain the plant... but if we're able to extract the energy and store it safely for later use then this CO2 emmission would be non-existant since we could power the creation and maintenance on these 0-emmision solutions.
The problem is collection and conversion. Storage is fairly easy. If we spent half as much money in the last 30 years on collection cell technology and conversion technology as say finding new oil sources, then we would have solar powered everything now.
Still, front runners now are Hydrogen and nuclear fusion. Hydrogen is limited by ceramic technologies needed to construct the engines to run the damn stuff to it's highest potential and fusion is still beyond our grasp to control or fully understand. At least we know is that it's physically possible.
Nuclear energy's only output to the environment is steam.