Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Il Palazzo]

And forest growth takes CO2 out of the atmosphere. So as long as the forest you're harvesting has a constant volume of lumber (and all properly managed forests do), the net output of CO2 is zero.

Ah, but what if everyone switched to burning wood? Would you be able to maintain your forests in the face of ever growing demand?
Also, burning firewood is a quick process, so you have to actively maintain the fire. I say, this is an inconvenience that most of our spoiled population will not embrace easily.

[DJ]

There is a staggering amount of unused forests, especially in North America. But you're right about maintaining the fire - it's the main reason why people aren't using firewood much even though it's the cheapest way to heat your home.

[Qmarx]

Then we run into the problems of deforestation. Now American forests can be forested just fine, as we are capable of replanting our trees and cutting them down the next generation. However, rainforests like in South America cannot be replanted as they largely consist of a few inches of rich soil that is basically just decomposing bio matter over a bed of useless sand. Once you strip away the trees, there is no more energy in the system to sustain itself. You end up with swampy sand dunes.

 I'm all for logging, just from renewable areas.

Well, there are occasional stretches of Terra Preta, which we can thank the natives of the Amazon Basin for.




If we use breeder reactors, we shouldn't worry that much about radioactive waste disposal.  Using an IFR system, the amount of fuel needed for a 1 gigawatt reactor is about one and a half cubic feet (40 litres for you non Americans).  For a month. 

Storage is pretty much a non-issue.  It's a small quantity of fuel, and after 200 years it's less radioactive than the uranium ore we started with.  Breeder reactors are awesome that way.  And since the design makes it more difficult to get plutonium out of the reactor than it is to refine plutonium from scratch, no worries about weapon buildup (not that it's particularly likely to begin with, but it's a hot button issue with a lot of people).


Also, most fireplace designs actually cool the rest of the house.  Hot air goes out the chimney, so cold air gets dragged in through the rest of the house.  Dedicated wood burners are somewhat different.

[PTTG??]

I have a woodstove and it's like they say- it warms you twice, once when you burn it, and once when you cut it. I wonder if we can have crews collect downed wood from forests and convert it to fuel, since we're so dedicated to avoiding forest fires.

Also, of course if EVERYBODY switched to burning wood, it would be difficult to keep up the forests, but it's not likely that that would happen. The solution is that many systems need to be used and that these should be what is available in the local area.

Wood works best in rural areas. Cities should certainly not- old wood-burning cities where suffused in smog and ash. For cities, electrical power and geothermal is best. Wood works best in rural areas.
Suburbs... well, they should all be disassembled for resources and the residents sent to be either in the cities or the villages. Those Suburbs are possibly the greatest mistakes of modern culture.

[JoshuaFH]

Suburbs... well, they should all be disassembled for resources and the residents sent to be either in the cities or the villages. Those Suburbs are possibly the greatest mistakes of modern culture.

Can you elaborate on that PTTG??? I want to know why.

[DJ]

I guess it might have something to do with the fact that driving to and from work adds up to a lot of miles a year when you live ten miles from the city. Europeans spend comparatively little gas not only because they drive cars with smaller engines, but also because they live close to work.

That, and it's impossible to have a meaningful public transportation system when people are so scattered.

[PTTG??]

I should not have put it like that; whenever someone says "X is the worst X ever" then they will be wrong.

Thank you for more understanding than I deserved, chaoticjosh. I do think that Suburbs are not efficient social structures. There are several reasons:

-As DJ stated, the very wide-open nature of Suburbs increases commute times and makes Mass Transit much less efficient. Even trips to the store require driving. Dense cities means shorter, more efficient commutes. Rural areas have longer travel times, but are non-centralized, meaning no rush hour as every body moves into commercial areas and back out.

-Neighborhoods and communities do not form as readily; there is an isolating feeling, though this varies significantly depending on the architecture and culture of an area. Rural communities are generally more close knit. Suburbs do, however, have the advantage over cities, which can be even more alienating.

-Resource inefficiency; grouped dwellings, such as apartment buildings or other dense housing, looses much less waste heat. Lower-density housing in rural areas does not rely on water or heating grids. Suburbs keep large green lawns year-round as a matter of course.

-Aesthetics: Rural homes are unique, built with character and growing with families (though I admit the results are sometimes not pretty). Urban areas can also have their own charm. Indeed, a single suburban home is normally lovely. But when they're all made out of ticky-tacky and they all look just the same...

As that last one shows, this is an objective thing in many ways. I am no expert at modern social organization, and I am certainly bigoted to prefer the rural climate. I would be very interested in hearing from an expert, and I'd like to hear your view.

[Little]

CO2 emissions don't matter. Carbon dioxide is such a small part of the atmosphere that it can't be responsible for global warming(which I don't believe in). It's seriously less then one percent, and even if you take the trigger arguement into effect, it's still too small.

[PTTG??]

CO2 emissions don't matter. Carbon dioxide is such a small part of the atmosphere that it can't be responsible for global warming(which I don't believe in). It's seriously less then one percent, and even if you take the trigger argument into effect, it's still too small.

Congratulations, you have just proved thousands of scientists and studies wrong. Go get yourself a Nobel prize, you simian regress. Once you get into high school and take a basic ecology class, then you can join us adults in conversation.

NO! I SEE! IT MAKES SENSE NOW! YOU ARE RIGHT!
1% or less is far too small to be important! Everyone, feel free to drink a few cups of bleach with dinner- it's less than one percent of your mass, so it can't hurt you!

3,000 gigatonnes of CO2 is nothing!

Must just be a coincidence, then, that study after study has found basically this:
*Images removed for the sake of peace

Well, I apologize for all that bile. It won't happen again. Perhaps I took this too harshly- on reflection, I see your statement is so staggeringly ignorant it must be a joke. But I can't stand for the chance of such blatant lies to go by quietly.

[Duke 2.0]

 I would point out thousands of studies that have proven these very charts inaccurate, but I won't bother. They won't matter. Indeed, nobody can argue with data or what it shows. However, we can argue with the integrity of the data itself.

 Alright, how he phrased it was a little silly. However, know that not all people who doubt Global Warming are morons. Alas, I don't want this to go down into that road. We all know that road. Lets not touch it. This thread is about solutions, because no matter who is right on this issue we really do need a new energy source. Sure there may be some bickering on the timescale and urgency, but we all want a better energy source.

 That being said, cow could we automate a wood burning oven as to require the owner to have minimal contact to provide heat and make sure of none of that colling effect. I forsee the smoke pipe going through the building, but what with soot and smoke, who knows how quickly that will be clogged. That us, unless there is an automated filter that will regularly shake itself to clear said soot into a collection bin...

[A_Fey_Dwarf]

About this whole global warming thing, as the English proverb goes "hope for the best but prepare for the worst". Even those who doubt global warming is caused by us or it even exists, should at least prepare by trying to releasing less CO₂. Then if/when it starts effecting the biosphere, everyone's preparation will help.

[umiman]

Denial is such a powerful force. That several billion people have to suffer because a handful would rather rationalize their actions than see reason in the face of countless empirical mounds of evidence, that is the power of the human race.

It's a poor skeptic who denounces everything because he doesn't know otherwise. By closing his mind to new information and violently lashing out at anything remotely against his beliefs, he dooms us all.

If it's any consolation, changes in the environment usually only take effect decades after the damage has been done. So more likely than not, our children are all already fated to live in a world... quite distinct from this. Contrary to what you've been taught, we really have no real idea how the world and people will adapt to a changing ecosystem. Also remember that these changes would take place over years and years. We might not even notice it.

Then there's also the chance that we'll all die in 30 years, but who's to say?

[sneakey pete]

If it's any consolation, changes in the environment usually only take effect decades after the damage has been done. So more likely than not, our children are all already fated to live in a world... quite distinct from this. Contrary to what you've been taught, we really have no real idea how the world and people will adapt to a changing ecosystem. Also remember that these changes would take place over years and years. We might not even notice it.

So wait, at first you start saying that we're all doomed, then you go onto say how it will be a gradual change that we might not even notice?

The one thing that gets me irritated about all this global warming talk is that everyone seems to think its this horrible horrible thing that we must stop, but really, noone actually knows what is going to happen.

[Il Palazzo]

The one thing that gets me irritated about all this global warming talk is that everyone seems to think its this horrible horrible thing that we must stop, but really, noone actually knows what is going to happen.

Oh, but it's easy. It's not like predicting winning numbers at the lottery, here, there are but three options: it gets warmer, it gets colder, it stays the same way it is now. It's not that difficult to imagine the effects of the first two outcomes, and get prepared/scared.

[codezero]

Everyone who's posted in this thread has to go for a walk today/tomorrow, to offset what you fucking burned while preaching.

Also, I agree with sean mirrson (magna-motors, they're not the solution tho), and may attempt some sketches soon.

And +1 trees/wood, if anyone can be bothered..