| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 82955 | 2007-09-14 04:43:00 | Who Has the Oil | zqwerty (97) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 591089 | 2007-09-16 10:56:00 | Read this and learn........ www.nzcpr.com That is more about carbon emissions/environmental strategies than about peak oil. |
vinref (6194) | ||
| 591090 | 2007-09-16 11:18:00 | That is more about carbon emissions/environmental strategies than about peak oil. Interesting none the less,and I am sure you are that much wiser. |
Cicero (40) | ||
| 591091 | 2007-09-16 12:30:00 | Interesting none the less,and I am sure you are that much wiser. Presumably we're all twice that much wiser if we've read the whole thread. The paper is interesting, could be summed up by "that strategy paper sucks". I agree. But the article itself is hardly beyond question. Talking about wind turbines stretching X hundred ks by 2030.......geeze, you'd think it was written by hippies who don't believe technology can progress. Much more efficient wind power is close. About 10 yrs to commercial perhaps. I don't get the trademe carbon credits - they're basically a donation to the windfarm. Nice, but possibly not the best choice for spending a few grand if you really believe 'carbon' is no longer just an element but really Evil. Nuclear. Yeah, if you think the #1 prob is human influenced climate change you must be for nuclear power - the problems of waste and even stray material pale in comparison to the savings in emissions. Think of the children. But NZ is not the place. No-where near commercialy viable, and despite talkback radio, I doubt it'll be popular either. New technology (pebble bed et al) might be viable for NZ though. About 10 yrs to commercial perhaps. Biofuels. This debate has been hijacked by always being referenced back to ethanol from corn in the US. There's so much more to it. Still has a great future for transport fuels in particular. Crops are the least of it, algae is the most promising. Then cellulosic ethanol. About 10 yrs to commercial perhaps. Ok I was being silly about the 10 years, some sooner, some later. But none are pie in the sky stuff like nuke fusion, they all exist. Coal. the elephant in the room. This I agree with. I suspect the most cost-effective near term solution to NZs energy emission probs might be to run Huntly as much as possible - with hienously expensive scrubbers attached. Massively expensive, but possibly cheaper than any alternative if people get over the coal-is-bad thing. Burn coal, clean the output. (only for about 10 years) |
mmmork (6822) | ||
| 591092 | 2007-09-16 20:27:00 | We should go nuclear because we can take the waste down to the Auckland or Campbell islands. I have been there heaps and believe me its a ****hole suitable for a nuke waste dump. tedheath |
tedheath (537) | ||
| 591093 | 2007-09-16 21:02:00 | Presumably we're all twice that much wiser if we've read the whole thread . The paper is interesting, could be summed up by "that strategy paper sucks" . I agree . But the article itself is hardly beyond question . Talking about wind turbines stretching X hundred ks by 2030 . . . . . . . geeze, you'd think it was written by hippies who don't believe technology can progress . Much more efficient wind power is close . About 10 yrs to commercial perhaps . I don't get the trademe carbon credits - they're basically a donation to the wind farm . Nice, but possibly not the best choice for spending a few grand if you really believe 'carbon' is no longer just an element but really Evil . Nuclear . Yeah, if you think the #1 prob is human influenced climate change you must be for nuclear power - the problems of waste and even stray material pale in comparison to the savings in emissions . Think of the children . But NZ is not the place . No-where near commercially viable, and despite talk back radio, I doubt it'll be popular either . New technology (pebble bed et al) might be viable for NZ though . About 10 yrs to commercial perhaps . Biofuels . This debate has been hijacked by always being referenced back to ethanol from corn in the US . There's so much more to it . Still has a great future for transport fuels in particular . Crops are the least of it, algae is the most promising . Then cellulose ethanol . About 10 yrs to commercial perhaps . Ok I was being silly about the 10 years, some sooner, some later . But none are pie in the sky stuff like nuke fusion, they all exist . Coal . the elephant in the room . This I agree with . I suspect the most cost-effective near term solution to NS energy emission probs might be to run Huntly as much as possible - with heinously expensive scrubbers attached . Massively expensive, but possibly cheaper than any alternative if people get over the coal-is-bad thing . Burn coal, clean the output . (only for about 10 years) Sod the professors all we need is mmork |
Cicero (40) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 | |||||