Hackers 'expose global warming con'

[GommeInc]

I didn't comment on wind and solar?

Ok so if you know "basic science" and "common sense" then answer me this.

We're losing fuels. Fast.
So we should keep guzzling them up until they're all gone, then panic?

Or hows about this.
We act on CO2 right now and find new alternatives, then develop them for use in the future.

I don't wanna sound cheeky, but I think it's a no brainer.

Acting on CO2 and finding renewable sources of fuel are different One targets lowering CO2, and the other looks for a different type of fuel that can work instead of gas and oil

Both are interconnected, indeed, liking using hydrogen in cars as an alternative to petrol or diesel. But finding an alternative to petrol, which should last longer, doesn't necessarily require a low CO2 emissions rating, it just helps a country look more caring

But I do agree with you, there seems to be little work going on finding a new type of energy that the world can use that is cheaper and better than oil, gas and petrol. At the end of the day, it probably comes down to money. Petrol costs alot (usually down to high taxes) so it's a financial goldmine while water or just plain hydrogen (which comes out as pure H2O in Hydrogen Powered Cars) isn't, as it's not hard to find

Not forgetting car manufacturers will have to look into perfecting the hydrogen engine, when they're spending, or have spent, billions attempting to perfect the petrol and diesel engines. Not forgetting Hybrid Engines. Making the swap would cost alot, and it would require people buying newer cars, so it would have to be a slow transition, which would anger alot of people - why do they HAVE to buy a new car, when they're already wasted money on one (whether it was bought a 100 years ago, or a few minutes ago, it would still be pretty annoying). The government and car companies cannot give money off converting the cars, it would cost both alot of money and some cars might need more than the engine system to change - electrical systems might need changing too :.

[-:Undertaker:-]

and why do you think that is? Because they dont support it. theyre hardly going to go on about the european union taking our sovereignty away if they dont think they are.

They support a federal European superstate, thats why they go along with Labour and so on. They all know its happening, are aiming for it, MEPs across the continent openly admit the aim is to create one nation, just in this country because we are already very europsceptic they like to keep it a secret.

[Ardemax]

Acting on CO2 and finding renewable sources of fuel are different One targets lowering CO2, and the other looks for a different type of fuel that can work instead of gas and oil

Both are interconnected, indeed, liking using hydrogen in cars as an alternative to petrol or diesel. But finding an alternative to petrol, which should last longer, doesn't necessarily require a low CO2 emissions rating, it just helps a country look more caring

But I do agree with you, there seems to be little work going on finding a new type of energy that the world can use that is cheaper and better than oil, gas and petrol. At the end of the day, it probably comes down to money. Petrol costs alot (usually down to high taxes) so it's a financial goldmine while water or just plain hydrogen (which comes out as pure H2O in Hydrogen Powered Cars) isn't, as it's not hard to find

Not forgetting car manufacturers will have to look into perfecting the hydrogen engine, when they're spending, or have spent, billions attempting to perfect the petrol and diesel engines. Not forgetting Hybrid Engines. Making the swap would cost alot, and it would require people buying newer cars, so it would have to be a slow transition, which would anger alot of people - why do they HAVE to buy a new car, when they're already wasted money on one (whether it was bought a 100 years ago, or a few minutes ago, it would still be pretty annoying). The government and car companies cannot give money off converting the cars, it would cost both alot of money and some cars might need more than the engine system to change - electrical systems might need changing too :.

Well yeah, taking hydrogen, maybe if the Gvmt. offered car users 50% or even a brand new hydrogen car then it could work? Perhaps something similar to the current scrappage scheme.

Once the fuel crisis thing is over (hopefully in the next 15 years we will have a permanent new fuel for cars and buses etc.) we can start working on new energy for household appliances.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Well yeah, taking hydrogen, maybe if the Gvmt. offered car users 50% or even a brand new hydrogen car then it could work? Perhaps something similar to the current scrappage scheme.

Once the fuel crisis thing is over (hopefully in the next 15 years we will have a permanent new fuel for cars and buses etc.) we can start working on new energy for household appliances.

The government is already strapped for cash, if the government wants to help us it could reduce its disgusting fuel tax which is the actual thing that makes fuel expensive, not really the fuel itself.

On the household energy, the answer is simple; nuclear.

[Black_Apalachi]

Yes, it is the Earth's natural cycle. We are however speeding it up. Fact.

Therefore we can't and shouldn't try to stop it.

... Ever since The Sun reported on that snotty woman who didn't take an act of common courtesy to heart like any courteous human being would when receiving a personal letter from the Prime Minister, I've lost all respect for them. ...

That's why you have no respect for The Sun? ROFL!!!!!!!!!!

[Ardemax]

The government is already strapped for cash, if the government wants to help us it could reduce its disgusting fuel tax which is the actual thing that makes fuel expensive, not really the fuel itself.

On the household energy, the answer is simple; nuclear.

Ok let's go along with this idea, nuclear.

How many should we build? 10? 50?
What are we going to do with the nuclear waste?
The environment will be ruined and you can't use the area again after a nuclear power plant has been there.

Therefore we can't and shouldn't try to stop it.

That makes no sense

[Black_Apalachi]

If it's a natural occurrence which cycles every few thousand years, why the hell should we randomly try to prevent it? :S Nature does its thing for a reason. Altering it just ***** up the rest of nature.

Even if we want to prevent it, I really don't see how we possibly can.

[Ardemax]

If it's a natural occurrence which cycles every few thousand years, why the hell should we randomly try to prevent it? :S Nature does its thing for a reason. Altering it just ***** up the rest of nature.

Even if we want to prevent it, I really don't see how we possibly can.

And a natural cycle suddenly crops up rather quickly in the last 25 years does it?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Ok let's go along with this idea, nuclear.

How many should we build? 10? 50?
What are we going to do with the nuclear waste?
The environment will be ruined and you can't use the area again after a nuclear power plant has been there.



That makes no sense

We should build enough to power the country by 100%, France at the moment gets 80% of its energy from nuclear power. We would be looking at around the 40 to 60 mark of nuclear power plants being built, with the extra with the potential to be exported just as France exports its own.

The nuclear waste is managed and stored thousands of feet underground where it will remain until a solution in the future is perhaps found to dispose of it fully. The United States currently buries its own in old converted mines in the mountains.

No you cannot you are right, but the land used that a nuclear power plant uses is far, far, far, far, far smaller than that of the amount of turbines that would be needed to make even half the electricity that a nuclear power plant does. We have plenty of land that we can use for them, especially in the Scottish highlands (although population in a problem there).

And a natural cycle suddenly crops up rather quickly in the last 25 years does it?

It hasn't sprouted up in the past 25 years though, don't make quick statements which have no truth behind them to support your argument.

[Ardemax]

Yeah, nuclear is one of the best solutions at the moment, however nuclear is dangerous and could be targetted by terrorists as such.

Also I think we need to research into more hydrogen and water power.