Ok,so I had to do a project for my science class and it was about different energy sources and there is an energy source called Biomass now this is kinda stupid but it has parts of the names of my two favorite games that are coming out BioShock and Mass Effect.I know this is kinda stupid so don't laugh.
You hate the Say Anything You Like thread don't you.
I think he's just trying to avoid you hatesink. Your new found super status has us ill at ease.
no it is just there is a different conversation goin on in there now so im not just gonna say it out a the blue and i did not feel like waitingOriginally Posted by Hatesink
You hate the Say Anything You Like thread don't you.
But it's Super Duper!?I think he's just trying to avoid you hatesink. Your new found super status has us ill at ease.
The title of this topic makes reminds me of that robot in judge dread.
"try recycled food, it's good for the enviroment and OK for you"
why did i make this thread nobody gets the POINT of the TOPIC!!!
There's a point to this topic, oh sorry.
Are you saying you find it strange that you automatically try to associate things from real life with games.
If so it's nothing strange, I used to hear game music an hour after shutting off my computer, got well freaked out. Just today I heard a noise and straight away thought it was the sound of a power-up in dx-ball.
Also biomass fuels aren't that good for the enviroment anyway as they still give out C02 and other chemicals, they're just eco-friendly becasue it means we're less likely to run out of natural gas/coal/oil.
Last edited by SPDeath; 04-23-2007 at 03:23 PM.
well first sorry i guess there isn't a point to this topic now that i think about itThere's a point to this topic, oh sorry
Also biomass fuels aren't that good for the enviroment anyway as they still give out C02 and other chemicals, they're just eco-friendly becasue it means we're less likely to run out of natural gas/coal/oil.
second you can tell i don't put alot of effort in researching
Well biofuels are certainly a 'greener' option, but alot of people seem to think that they're cleaner as well. I guess we'll have to wait until they refine the Hydrogen fuel technology.second you can tell i don't put alot of effort in researching
or the second ice age which ever comes first
Hopefully I'll be dead by then. So I probably won't care
since the life expectincy right now for healthy people is like 125 years old i probably won't be dead when the Caps melt, oh ☺☺☺☺Hopefully I'll be dead by then. So I probably won't care
I thought this would happen to the new found discoveries of how computers are so bad for the enviornment...I saw that today at school on CNN student news...
That'd be pretty amazing to achieve, considering the longest life span in recorded history was 122 years. There needs to be advancements in prolonging the entire adult life span, not just the geriatric years, which don't count for much anyways.since the life expectincy right now for healthy people is like 125 years old i probably won't be dead when the Caps melt, oh ☺☺☺☺
hey with new medicines and all that good stuff you never know
wasn't there some dude in the bible who was like 200 years less than the amount of posts HateSink has?
I want my blankie!
I'm not so worried about global warming as I am about sudden global warming? Slow warming gives everything a chance to adjust (more or less). However very sudden warming or localized warming on the ice caps leads to all the bad hurricane and wave stuff people realize, it also leads to a new ice age as now the average temperature of the oceans has dropped.
However I'm covered in a layer of blubber so I'll be fine.
I don't know where to stand on the whole global warming debate. I've heard a lot of strong evidence recently that discounts global warming as a man-made occurence, with evidence pointing to CO2 from volcanoes, solar activity, and what could be a normal cyclical warming trend that has occured before in Rennaisance times. Not to mention how they point to anarcho-communists and say that greenpeace is their new "passion of the week", plus all the reactionary tales of gloom and doom that far-right liberals are spreading nowadays.
Now even if it isn't real, and changing over to alternate fuel sources along with capping industrial emissions will cause some unwarranted economic stress, I still believe that's no pass to continue polluting the air and relying on a limited source of energy thats housed in unstable regions. Compromisation is the key to the future, if only the agitators from both sides would quell their tonguelashing.
one thing i don't get is why those green nutters disagree with using nuclear power. through time and experience, nuclear power plants are safe, give off no bad emissions compared to fossil fuel plants, and provide lots of energy. if only john howard and the cabinet would stop listening to those lunatics, maybe we would advance a little!
I think it's because they've been playing to much stalker: shadow of chernobyl
To be honest with you I think that that kind of thing is more to do with politics than actual common sense. Personally I just don't get involved
As far as global-warming is concerned, I haven't really looked closely enough at it to have an opinion. But apparently whatever's causing it, it's actually worse than has been anticipated —when all the planes were grounded on 9-11 the temperature spiked. It seems the plane exhausts go some way towards blocking the transmission of heat energy (at least that's what the documentary I was watching was suggesting).
That bothers me too. I live in the U.K., and the only thing that keeps it as warm as it is is the atlantic conveyor (that basically streams warm water up from the equator). If the ice-caps melt and disrupt the atlantic conveyor, the U.K. could become about the temperature of the southern tip of Greenland almost overnight, and it seems it could very well happen pretty soon.
Last edited by Hatesink; 04-24-2007 at 06:37 AM.
O.O *gasp* oh-noez!!! even more freezing than normal!!! O.O
OH SHI- We brits are fuxxord.
The global warming thing is just stupid because so much time and energy is debating on what's causing it. It is happening regardless. But nobody can prove one way or the other what causing it and to what degree it's causing it.
Since the only way to prove whether or not its pollution would be to take away the pollution and see if it's still getting worse, more countries (like my own) should try that maybe!
Although I would laugh with a great deal of irony (and flee with a great deal of terror) if whatever everybody finally decides to do just accelerates everything lol. I'll just build myself a lil shack on the moon, complete with rocking chair and shotgun
get off ma' porch, hippie
I agree. Even if all our man-made carbon emmissions are not causing it, they are the only thing we can manipulate in order to find out if it is. If we reduce them drastically, and it cools the Earth back to nominal temperatures, then great. If reducing them does jack ☺☺☺☺, well then there was nothing we could have done anyways, and at least then we would have nice clean, varying sources of energy that rely on local geological capabilities.
The onus is on the first-world nations to try first, especially the leading US, India, China, and EU nations. Nobody should have the gall to demand third-world countries debilitate their already poor economies for the sole purpose of falling in line.
Forcing Vegas to use Energy effiecient bulbs, would probably make a fairly big difference
Forcing Vegas to use Energy effiecient bulbs, would probably make a fairly big difference
it would take a year to take em all out and replace em
Yeah, there's no downside to nuclear energy! ....
Barring the high chances of total and complete meltdown ala Chernobyl (which is still nowhere near cleaned up, or safe, it seems people like to think chernobyl is a thing of the past, but it's still a disaster).
Also the lack of emissions is utterly and completely fantastic, now, where do we bury this giant pile of nuclear waste with a half-life 100x our expected life-span... over there by the farms? Sure... what's the worst than can happen!
Regardless of whether or not "global warming" is real or fictitious, moving away from fossil fuels to green fuels and green energy sources -can't- be bad, so why not do it?
you forgot australia, raveness, we're 1st world too
time for another of my nonsensical technorants!!!
there are plenty of ways we can deal with the nuclear waste that is produced.
1) if the waste is plutonium, chances are it can be reused in the same plant. I read somewhere a couple of years ago that four years of nuclear productivity produces a year's worth of plutonium, which can be used in the plant. this means that with 4 years of enriched uranium, 5 years of power can be produced.
2) for the unuseable waste, our outback is a great place to store it. it is remote, generally unpopulated, and dry (prevents the spread of radiation through the water table).
3) we could learn to contruct a railgun that magnetically fires hypervelocity giant-sized bullets/canisters into space. as long as the railgun can fire a round to faster than escape velocity it would work.
4) the nuclear waste may not be useable in a power plant, but given enough dense-metal casing, nuclear wastes (not things like gloves and saturated clothing, mind you) could be used as UPSes in the case of a power failure.
5) we could always perform experiments with nuclear waste on willing humans or prisoners on death-row, to cause genetic mutations that may be beneficial to the human race; or it could be used as the most horrific method of death for someone on death-row (who did more than just kill a person).
/rant
Australia is a non-factor. You don't even have as many people as Canada. Doesn't mean your governing body shouldn't act on finding alternate sources, but on a planetary scale the four nations (EU countries altogether) mentioned are the largest contributors, and three of them are quite stubborn about changing anything.
I prefer the Superman approach to nuclear waste. Launch it into orbit, have him gather it up in a tether-ball, then he'll chuck it at the Sun, which is a giant nuclear playground anyways.
Last edited by Raveness; 04-24-2007 at 08:22 PM.
yep. but you forget australia has the largest (i think) coal deposit in the world. coal happens to contrbute more emmisions (say, per cubic metre), than any other fossil fuel. also because of our large deposit, for economical reasons, australia is not part of the kyoto accord.
Railgun idea wouldn't work (not from earth anyway). It requires too much power (creating yet more waster) as you have to deal with air friction as well as gravity.
On say a space station or the moon however it becomes much more viable, especially since parts of the moons poles remain in sunlight for most of not all of the year allowing a near continuous supply of power from photovoltaic (solar) cells.
...which doesn't help Earth's trash problem at all.
Dumping is risky business. We've just (in the past century) begun to understand how everything works together to create a stable environment, and how fragile it is. Best bet would be to continue building containment facilities (like out of lead or whatever to prevent radiation).
...I'm also pretty sure our president (maybe future ones but not this dick) will ever curb industry just to make the planet better. However Arnie over in California keeps doing a great job to go ahead and pass green laws despite him
They are also the two games that I'm most looking forward to as well.
some news show said that half of the steel-work stuff for the '08 olympics (china, beijing) is imported from australia. that's why we have guys up in northern western australia who are making small fortunes just by working in the mines and driving the trucks. its soo god cos we just sell them the raw ore in "cakes" and they do the processing.
What does steel supplies have to with Enviromental affects in the short term?
Maybe if certain political leaders would stop spending so much funding on the military (yeah Tony, more nuclear subs we dont need. Great idea
I have no idea, I assume that 'indirectly' steel supplies are being provided to a nation who is the second largest coal user on Earth, and it's being provided for an event that has the purpose of expanding the economic profile of China, leading to the future requirement of more fossil fuels.What does steel supplies have to with Enviromental affects in the short term?
Maybe if certain political leaders would stop spending so much funding on the military (yeah Tony, more nuclear subs we dont need. Great idea
John Stewart made fun of military overspending, saying that having "bunker-buster" missiles were obviously more important than levies for New Orleans
I have no idea, I assume that 'indirectly' steel supplies are being provided to a nation who is the second largest coal user on Earth, and it's being provided for an event that has the purpose of expanding the economic profile of China, leading to the future requirement of more fossil fuels.
John Stewart made fun of military overspending, saying that having "bunker-buster" missiles were obviously more important than levies for New Orleansyou see, china has to refne the ore, through the burning of things to melt the ore.Code:while(australia.export_to_china()){ if(china.raw_ore >= 500000000){ global.averagetemperature += 10} }
We've actually managed to have some sort of energy debate here, which is suprising looking at the first post.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote