Confused malcontents swilling Chardonnay while awaiting the Zombie Apocalypse.
5028 messages in 114 discussions
Latest 4/29/21 by Jenifer (Zarknorph)
17247 messages in 760 discussions
Latest Sep-10 by D Finkle (mahjong54)
Latest Sep-8 by D Finkle (mahjong54)
Latest Sep-7 by D Finkle (mahjong54)
Latest Sep-2 by D Finkle (mahjong54)
4884 messages in 208 discussions
Latest Sep-8 by PTG (anotherPTG)
744 messages in 13 discussions
Latest Sep-7 by ElDotardo
BTW, wind generators kill birds too . . . big ones like our national symbol . . .
A bird flew into the spare bedroom window 2 days ago.
Hit it so hard it died instantly. I was honestly relieved at that - I didn't want it to suffer.
I read the water shortage story earlier.
Flood or drought, flood or drought - Australia can never find a happy medium.
But hey - we have plenty of uranium!
Just need a forward thinking Australian government prepared to take the nuclear plunge...
So that's a no...
Fusion is the answer to everyone's complaints. RRBud has been an advocate for as long as he posted - he could give you an engineer's perspective, but it's safe, clean and cheap.
The only problem thus far is that no one knows how to harness it for our use.
Oh, and it wouldn't drive away the tourists either . . .
Tourists Shun Scottish Regions Hit By Wind Turbine ‘Blight’
More than half of tourists to Scotland would rather not visit scenic areas dominated by man-made structures such as wind farms, a YouGov poll suggests.
A survey carried out on behalf of the John Muir Trust (JMT) found that 55% of respondents were “less likely” to venture into areas of the countryside industrialised by giant turbines, electricity pylons and super-quarries.
Just 3% said they were “more likely” to visit such areas, while 26% said such large-scale developments would make “no difference”.
The poll has rekindled calls for Scottish ministers to increase protection for wild and scenic areas that, it is argued, will protect rural tourism businesses.
It follows a recent decision to approve the 22-turbine Creag Riabhach wind farm in Altnaharra, the first to win consent within a designated wild land area. Each turbine will stand 125m high.
“As schools across England break up for the summer this week and many families flock to Scotland, we must remember that, for many, it’s the ability to enjoy being outdoors in Scotland’s unique, unspoilt natural landscapes that brings them north,” said Andrew Bachell, JMT’s chief executive.
“When a clear majority of people say they’d be put off visiting wild and scenic areas by the existence of large-scale wind farms, giant pylons, super-quarries and other developments, policymakers have to pay attention, before it’s too late.”
Another reason to go geothermal!
It's all underground!
Fine for limited applications, but try using it to power an energy hungry 21st century economy.
The answer to energy is simple. Coal and oil.
Especially as fracking has made a joke of 'peak oil.'
The answer to energy is simple. Coal and oil.
Simplest answer, yes. No one is disputing that doing what we are already doing is the easiest thing to do.
But both are finite resources with ecological downsides.
Also, there's the rather stark reality that the Middle East is fucked up enough - could you imagine what would happen if the Western World no longer needed their oil?
Sure, all the troops would come home but only until World War III started.
The Philippines garners 27% of their national power usage from geothermal energy. That's the highest rate I could find.
And while California has the biggest geothermal power station - it's only 0.3%.
Nuclear power, on the other hand, has much greater results.
France has the highest at 80%!
And while the US produces the most Nuclear energy, it only covers 19% of consumption.
So... the most obvious thing to factor in is the size of the country.
Also, ALL of the US is filled. Sure, there's some desert in Nevada and Texas, but it's nothing like Australia where 90% of the population is around the coast.
There is also a huge difference of power requirements from megacities like NYC and Tokyo, compared to rural areas.
The answer is diversity. Yes, the staples of coal and oil will always be there. But with the population growing everyday with projections that we will hit 8.5 billion by 2030 (thank you India), sustainability is not just about coal and oil.
Soon we won't have the luxury of feeling superior as we buy our free range eggs, as it just isn't practical for chickens to run free. More forests will have to be cut down for farmland.
Future wars will be about resources, not religious ideology.
Oh God this is depressing!
I need wine and veal!
Jenifer (Zarknorph) said:
Simplest answer, yes. No one is disputing that doing what we are already doing is the easiest thing to do. But both are finite resources with ecological downsides.
Totally incorrect. There is enough oil and coal to meet the demand for hundreds of years. But, think about it. Within 50 to 100 years we will be using energy that we cannot even imagine right now.
As far as ecological, that is also bullshit.
But, think about it. Within 50 to 100 years we will be using energy that we cannot even imagine right now.
This may well be the most intelligent thing you've ever said! But that's not saying much.
It may well be the manufacturing industry that creates 'green' appliances and TVs and computers!
We may have 'smart tables' that download the daily newspaper while we make our breakfast.
But in order for this to happen we need leaders who don't cut funding to scientific research.
Australia and the US are screwed in that department right now. And just as Aussie scientists stumbled upon the cure for the common cold!
I guess the corporate sector is our only hope for any forward thinking.