ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
Glenn - A-league Mad wrote:ricecrackers wrote:Glenn - A-league Mad wrote:ricecrackers wrote:
do you realise most wind power is supplemented by natural gas co-generation plants either near or on site?
modern coal power plants are clean and only emit water vapour
I really wouldn't want to condense that water vapor down and drink it. Quote:Environment Minister Greg Hunt says the Government's "direct action" plan will underpin research into clean coal technology, which will "significantly" reduce emissions from current coal-fired power generators. "What we have to focus on is reducing emissions and the best thing that we can do is to actually clean up existing power stations. What we're proposing right now is to work with power stations. We have the research of the CSIRO which is talking about a 30 to 50 per cent reduction in emissions from brown coal power stations through their direct injection combustion engine research," he told ABC radio on November 3. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-12/greg-hunt-clean-coal-technology-highly-ambitious-fact-check/5587040 A 30% to maybe 50% reduction in emissions is falling well short of just "water vapor". If Coal could do 100% clean emissions the industry would be shouting it from the roof tops. did you notice I said "modern" as opposed to Australia's outdated infrastructure? it'd be far more prudent to fix them, update them rather than all this wind and solar power pie in the sky bullshit Why, so we can just store all the CO2 below ground and claim we are clean??? Im not saying wind is the answer, but Coal will never be the answer. Edited by glenn - a-league mad: 22/6/2015 04:18:31 PM CO2 is clean you breathe it out, plants require it to photosynthesize this brainwashing you've experienced in your schooling needs to be deprogrammed you should be more concerned with natural gas mining polluting groundwater and sulphur dioxide in the atmosphere than a fucking harmless gas that exists in trace amounts i'll go further, CO2 is part of the lifecycle of every living thing on this planet you are carbon based, plants are carbon based. if you think CO2 is pollution then you are pollution and so is every living thing on this planet so ask yourself, do you want to destroy all life on earth? Edited by ricecrackers: 22/6/2015 04:36:11 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
Yibbidi yibbida ey ricey? 
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
...cue the forum dunce^
|
|
|
|
|
Slobodan Drauposevic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:...cue the forum dunce^ That's you mate, I thought you would've realised. Upgrade coal plants rather than invest in new technology. How much more of a fucking dunce can one be :lol:
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
Draupnir wrote:ricecrackers wrote:...cue the forum dunce^ That's you mate, I thought you would've realised. Upgrade coal plants rather than invest in new technology. How much more of a fucking dunce can one be :lol: you've just answered your own question
|
|
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
draupkick and dunce, quite a pair
if you want to reduce carbon dioxide emissions there's a simple step you can both take.
it may require some sacrifice but you know its for the good of the planet
|
|
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:draupkick and dunce, quite a pair
if you want to reduce carbon dioxide emissions there's a simple step you can both take.
it may require some sacrifice but you know its for the good of the planet Ah a subtle "kill yourself" reference. What a comedian :lol:
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
|
|
Slobodan Drauposevic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:draupkick and dunce, quite a pair
if you want to reduce carbon dioxide emissions there's a simple step you can both take.
it may require some sacrifice but you know its for the good of the planet Dat feeling when ricecrackers actually thinks his own existence is of a benefit to this planet :lol: People are going to look back at his posts in 100 years and face palm at the small-mindedness. Good stuff ricey, you fit in well in ET with notorganic and 433.
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
Draupnir wrote:ricecrackers wrote:draupkick and dunce, quite a pair
if you want to reduce carbon dioxide emissions there's a simple step you can both take.
it may require some sacrifice but you know its for the good of the planet Dat feeling when ricecrackers actually thinks his own existence is of a benefit to this planet :lol: People are going to look back at his posts in 100 years and face palm at the small-mindedness. Good stuff ricey, you fit in well in ET with notorganic and 433. Draupkick, if your cult are correct there wont be any civilisation left in 100 years as per usual, your skewed logic defeats itself
|
|
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
|
|
marconi101
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 16K,
Visits: 0
|
ITT: Political science graduates compare lexicons
He was a man of specific quirks. He believed that all meals should be earned through physical effort. He also contended, zealously like a drunk with a political point, that the third dimension would not be possible if it werent for the existence of water.
|
|
|
|
|
lukerobinho
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
EvergrandeBest wrote:I am happy China is making less coal because so much pollution lately. Pollution is bad for the children and older people. I think Australia has lots of sun power? Yeah china is very concerned about pollution... China builds a new coal plant every week
|
|
|
|
|
Glenn - A-league Mad
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.2K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:Glenn - A-league Mad wrote:ricecrackers wrote:Glenn - A-league Mad wrote:ricecrackers wrote:
do you realise most wind power is supplemented by natural gas co-generation plants either near or on site?
modern coal power plants are clean and only emit water vapour
I really wouldn't want to condense that water vapor down and drink it. Quote:Environment Minister Greg Hunt says the Government's "direct action" plan will underpin research into clean coal technology, which will "significantly" reduce emissions from current coal-fired power generators. "What we have to focus on is reducing emissions and the best thing that we can do is to actually clean up existing power stations. What we're proposing right now is to work with power stations. We have the research of the CSIRO which is talking about a 30 to 50 per cent reduction in emissions from brown coal power stations through their direct injection combustion engine research," he told ABC radio on November 3. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-12/greg-hunt-clean-coal-technology-highly-ambitious-fact-check/5587040 A 30% to maybe 50% reduction in emissions is falling well short of just "water vapor". If Coal could do 100% clean emissions the industry would be shouting it from the roof tops. did you notice I said "modern" as opposed to Australia's outdated infrastructure? it'd be far more prudent to fix them, update them rather than all this wind and solar power pie in the sky bullshit Why, so we can just store all the CO2 below ground and claim we are clean??? Im not saying wind is the answer, but Coal will never be the answer. Edited by glenn - a-league mad: 22/6/2015 04:18:31 PM CO2 is clean you breathe it out, plants require it to photosynthesize this brainwashing you've experienced in your schooling needs to be deprogrammed you should be more concerned with natural gas mining polluting groundwater and sulphur dioxide in the atmosphere than a fucking harmless gas that exists in trace amounts i'll go further, CO2 is part of the lifecycle of every living thing on this planet you are carbon based, plants are carbon based. if you think CO2 is pollution then you are pollution and so is every living thing on this planet so ask yourself, do you want to destroy all life on earth? Edited by ricecrackers: 22/6/2015 04:36:11 PM Why store it then? I mean there are the reasons I can think of, but using your line of logic why store this harmless chemical that we all need to live?
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
Glenn - A-league Mad wrote:ricecrackers wrote:Glenn - A-league Mad wrote:ricecrackers wrote:Glenn - A-league Mad wrote:ricecrackers wrote:
do you realise most wind power is supplemented by natural gas co-generation plants either near or on site?
modern coal power plants are clean and only emit water vapour
I really wouldn't want to condense that water vapor down and drink it. Quote:Environment Minister Greg Hunt says the Government's "direct action" plan will underpin research into clean coal technology, which will "significantly" reduce emissions from current coal-fired power generators. "What we have to focus on is reducing emissions and the best thing that we can do is to actually clean up existing power stations. What we're proposing right now is to work with power stations. We have the research of the CSIRO which is talking about a 30 to 50 per cent reduction in emissions from brown coal power stations through their direct injection combustion engine research," he told ABC radio on November 3. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-12/greg-hunt-clean-coal-technology-highly-ambitious-fact-check/5587040 A 30% to maybe 50% reduction in emissions is falling well short of just "water vapor". If Coal could do 100% clean emissions the industry would be shouting it from the roof tops. did you notice I said "modern" as opposed to Australia's outdated infrastructure? it'd be far more prudent to fix them, update them rather than all this wind and solar power pie in the sky bullshit Why, so we can just store all the CO2 below ground and claim we are clean??? Im not saying wind is the answer, but Coal will never be the answer. Edited by glenn - a-league mad: 22/6/2015 04:18:31 PM CO2 is clean you breathe it out, plants require it to photosynthesize this brainwashing you've experienced in your schooling needs to be deprogrammed you should be more concerned with natural gas mining polluting groundwater and sulphur dioxide in the atmosphere than a fucking harmless gas that exists in trace amounts i'll go further, CO2 is part of the lifecycle of every living thing on this planet you are carbon based, plants are carbon based. if you think CO2 is pollution then you are pollution and so is every living thing on this planet so ask yourself, do you want to destroy all life on earth? Edited by ricecrackers: 22/6/2015 04:36:11 PM Why store it then? I mean there are the reasons I can think of, but using your line of logic why store this harmless chemical that we all need to live? the critical difference between outdated and modern coal power plants isnt about CO2 emissions. modern efficiency will reduce those in any case, the important difference is the reduction in the emission of particulates, ash etc to negligible amounts. that is the real pollution, not CO2.
|
|
|
|
|
Slobodan Drauposevic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:that is the real pollution, not CO2. I suppose it's all good and dandy if you think climate change is a scientific hoax :lol: You are a fucking joke.
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
Draupnir wrote:ricecrackers wrote:that is the real pollution, not CO2. I suppose it's all good and dandy if you think climate change is a scientific hoax :lol: You are a fucking joke. man made climate change is a hoax there's nothing scientific about it however debating this topic with someone like you is like trying to explain calculus to a baby chimpanzee
|
|
|
|
|
Glenn - A-league Mad
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.2K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:Glenn - A-league Mad wrote:ricecrackers wrote:Glenn - A-league Mad wrote:ricecrackers wrote:Glenn - A-league Mad wrote:ricecrackers wrote:
do you realise most wind power is supplemented by natural gas co-generation plants either near or on site?
modern coal power plants are clean and only emit water vapour
I really wouldn't want to condense that water vapor down and drink it. Quote:Environment Minister Greg Hunt says the Government's "direct action" plan will underpin research into clean coal technology, which will "significantly" reduce emissions from current coal-fired power generators. "What we have to focus on is reducing emissions and the best thing that we can do is to actually clean up existing power stations. What we're proposing right now is to work with power stations. We have the research of the CSIRO which is talking about a 30 to 50 per cent reduction in emissions from brown coal power stations through their direct injection combustion engine research," he told ABC radio on November 3. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-12/greg-hunt-clean-coal-technology-highly-ambitious-fact-check/5587040 A 30% to maybe 50% reduction in emissions is falling well short of just "water vapor". If Coal could do 100% clean emissions the industry would be shouting it from the roof tops. did you notice I said "modern" as opposed to Australia's outdated infrastructure? it'd be far more prudent to fix them, update them rather than all this wind and solar power pie in the sky bullshit Why, so we can just store all the CO2 below ground and claim we are clean??? Im not saying wind is the answer, but Coal will never be the answer. Edited by glenn - a-league mad: 22/6/2015 04:18:31 PM CO2 is clean you breathe it out, plants require it to photosynthesize this brainwashing you've experienced in your schooling needs to be deprogrammed you should be more concerned with natural gas mining polluting groundwater and sulphur dioxide in the atmosphere than a fucking harmless gas that exists in trace amounts i'll go further, CO2 is part of the lifecycle of every living thing on this planet you are carbon based, plants are carbon based. if you think CO2 is pollution then you are pollution and so is every living thing on this planet so ask yourself, do you want to destroy all life on earth? Edited by ricecrackers: 22/6/2015 04:36:11 PM Why store it then? I mean there are the reasons I can think of, but using your line of logic why store this harmless chemical that we all need to live? the critical difference between outdated and modern coal power plants isnt about CO2 emissions. modern efficiency will reduce those in any case, the important difference is the reduction in the emission of particulates, ash etc to negligible amounts. that is the real pollution, not CO2. When the method of reduction is just catch and store, it is not really reducing anything. While I welcome the newer cleaner stations and think they are an important bridging technology until real clean energy can be efficient, they are still not a long term solution.
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
Glenn - A-league Mad wrote:ricecrackers wrote:Glenn - A-league Mad wrote:ricecrackers wrote:Glenn - A-league Mad wrote:ricecrackers wrote:Glenn - A-league Mad wrote:ricecrackers wrote:
do you realise most wind power is supplemented by natural gas co-generation plants either near or on site?
modern coal power plants are clean and only emit water vapour
I really wouldn't want to condense that water vapor down and drink it. Quote:Environment Minister Greg Hunt says the Government's "direct action" plan will underpin research into clean coal technology, which will "significantly" reduce emissions from current coal-fired power generators. "What we have to focus on is reducing emissions and the best thing that we can do is to actually clean up existing power stations. What we're proposing right now is to work with power stations. We have the research of the CSIRO which is talking about a 30 to 50 per cent reduction in emissions from brown coal power stations through their direct injection combustion engine research," he told ABC radio on November 3. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-12/greg-hunt-clean-coal-technology-highly-ambitious-fact-check/5587040 A 30% to maybe 50% reduction in emissions is falling well short of just "water vapor". If Coal could do 100% clean emissions the industry would be shouting it from the roof tops. did you notice I said "modern" as opposed to Australia's outdated infrastructure? it'd be far more prudent to fix them, update them rather than all this wind and solar power pie in the sky bullshit Why, so we can just store all the CO2 below ground and claim we are clean??? Im not saying wind is the answer, but Coal will never be the answer. Edited by glenn - a-league mad: 22/6/2015 04:18:31 PM CO2 is clean you breathe it out, plants require it to photosynthesize this brainwashing you've experienced in your schooling needs to be deprogrammed you should be more concerned with natural gas mining polluting groundwater and sulphur dioxide in the atmosphere than a fucking harmless gas that exists in trace amounts i'll go further, CO2 is part of the lifecycle of every living thing on this planet you are carbon based, plants are carbon based. if you think CO2 is pollution then you are pollution and so is every living thing on this planet so ask yourself, do you want to destroy all life on earth? Edited by ricecrackers: 22/6/2015 04:36:11 PM Why store it then? I mean there are the reasons I can think of, but using your line of logic why store this harmless chemical that we all need to live? the critical difference between outdated and modern coal power plants isnt about CO2 emissions. modern efficiency will reduce those in any case, the important difference is the reduction in the emission of particulates, ash etc to negligible amounts. that is the real pollution, not CO2. When the method of reduction is just catch and store, it is not really reducing anything. While I welcome the newer cleaner stations and think they are an important bridging technology until real clean energy can be efficient, they are still not a long term solution. it depends what you're referring to with "catch and store" if you're talking about CO2 then this would only be done for PR, political, financial reasons if the system set up by the bankers provides incentives for that. nothing to do with the environment if you're talking about genuine pollutants then there's a big difference between shooting something into the air/atmosphere via burning and storing waste in a controlled manner. this technology isnt particularly new, Australia has just been slow to catch on because of all the money wasted on wind and solar
|
|
|
|
|
Glenn - A-league Mad
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.2K,
Visits: 0
|
Wind, solar, thermal, hydro. They all have draw backs but they all need to be researched and refined to replace burning shit to make stuff go.
I am by no means a greenie and I'm sure my Eco footprint is giant size but investing in renewables and clean energies doesn't require my input, but I recognise that it is fundamentally important to do so.
|
|
|
|
|
Eastern Glory
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 20K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:Glenn - A-league Mad wrote:ricecrackers wrote:Glenn - A-league Mad wrote:ricecrackers wrote:
do you realise most wind power is supplemented by natural gas co-generation plants either near or on site?
modern coal power plants are clean and only emit water vapour
I really wouldn't want to condense that water vapor down and drink it. Quote:Environment Minister Greg Hunt says the Government's "direct action" plan will underpin research into clean coal technology, which will "significantly" reduce emissions from current coal-fired power generators. "What we have to focus on is reducing emissions and the best thing that we can do is to actually clean up existing power stations. What we're proposing right now is to work with power stations. We have the research of the CSIRO which is talking about a 30 to 50 per cent reduction in emissions from brown coal power stations through their direct injection combustion engine research," he told ABC radio on November 3. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-12/greg-hunt-clean-coal-technology-highly-ambitious-fact-check/5587040 A 30% to maybe 50% reduction in emissions is falling well short of just "water vapor". If Coal could do 100% clean emissions the industry would be shouting it from the roof tops. did you notice I said "modern" as opposed to Australia's outdated infrastructure? it'd be far more prudent to fix them, update them rather than all this wind and solar power pie in the sky bullshit Why, so we can just store all the CO2 below ground and claim we are clean??? Im not saying wind is the answer, but Coal will never be the answer. Edited by glenn - a-league mad: 22/6/2015 04:18:31 PM CO2 is clean you breathe it out, plants require it to photosynthesize this brainwashing you've experienced in your schooling needs to be deprogrammed you should be more concerned with natural gas mining polluting groundwater and sulphur dioxide in the atmosphere than a fucking harmless gas that exists in trace amounts i'll go further, CO2 is part of the lifecycle of every living thing on this planet you are carbon based, plants are carbon based. if you think CO2 is pollution then you are pollution and so is every living thing on this planet so ask yourself, do you want to destroy all life on earth? Edited by ricecrackers: 22/6/2015 04:36:11 PM That's a science.
|
|
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
Some quality school yard taunts from the boy wonder. 
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
|
|
Slobodan Drauposevic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:CO2 is clean
you breathe it out, plants require it to photosynthesize
this brainwashing you've experienced in your schooling needs to be deprogrammed
you should be more concerned with natural gas mining polluting groundwater and sulphur dioxide in the atmosphere than a fucking harmless gas that exists in trace amounts
i'll go further, CO2 is part of the lifecycle of every living thing on this planet
you are carbon based, plants are carbon based. if you think CO2 is pollution then you are pollution and so is every living thing on this planet
so ask yourself, do you want to destroy all life on earth?
Holy fuck I missed that :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: I'm sorry but Ricey has got to be a multi after that :lol: :lol: :lol: Edited by Draupnir: 22/6/2015 06:43:07 PM
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
Glenn - A-league Mad wrote:Wind, solar, thermal, hydro. They all have draw backs but they all need to be researched and refined to replace burning shit to make stuff go.
I am by no means a greenie and I'm sure my Eco footprint is giant size but investing in renewables and clean energies doesn't require my input, but I recognise that it is fundamentally important to do so. simple matter of efficiency, cost and the Australian economy. coal wins hands down on all fronts until such time the international banking system makes another fuel source more economically viable the way things are headed that appears to be natural gas, however natural gas comes with many problems particularly in the extraction process of fracking which is more environmentally damaging than coal mining I'm not against researching alternatives however until such time they become cost effective, its pointless as we'll only destroy our own economy germany, with its abandonment of nuclear power shall discover this shortly
|
|
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
u4486662 wrote:damonzzzz wrote:I just don't get the point of the wind turbine comments. Surely they could of come up with a better way of bashing them then 'they are ugly'.
Abbott tried to use the wind turbine on Rottnest Island as an example. It has never been complained about before and saves the island hundreds of thousand dollars a year ffs. It just comes across as appealing to the lowest common denominator. Wind turbines are clearly not ugly. They appear tranquil. A coal power plant is ugly as sin, however. Yeh but I wonder how pretty digging Neodymium out of the ground for the magnets in wind turbines is?
|
|
|
|
|
Slobodan Drauposevic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
benelsmore wrote:u4486662 wrote:damonzzzz wrote:I just don't get the point of the wind turbine comments. Surely they could of come up with a better way of bashing them then 'they are ugly'.
Abbott tried to use the wind turbine on Rottnest Island as an example. It has never been complained about before and saves the island hundreds of thousand dollars a year ffs. It just comes across as appealing to the lowest common denominator. Wind turbines are clearly not ugly. They appear tranquil. A coal power plant is ugly as sin, however. Yeh but I wonder how pretty digging Neodymium out of the ground for the magnets in wind turbines is? I think we both know that the negative impact of acquiring something that will be used to renewable purposes is good progress from digging up coal and burning it forever. ricecrackers wrote:germany, with its abandonment of nuclear power shall discover this shortly Why aren't you in parliament son? Edited by Draupnir: 22/6/2015 09:00:11 PM
|
|
|
|
|
Glenn - A-league Mad
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.2K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:Glenn - A-league Mad wrote:Wind, solar, thermal, hydro. They all have draw backs but they all need to be researched and refined to replace burning shit to make stuff go.
I am by no means a greenie and I'm sure my Eco footprint is giant size but investing in renewables and clean energies doesn't require my input, but I recognise that it is fundamentally important to do so. simple matter of efficiency, cost and the Australian economy. coal wins hands down on all fronts until such time the international banking system makes another fuel source more economically viable the way things are headed that appears to be natural gas, however natural gas comes with many problems particularly in the extraction process of fracking which is more environmentally damaging than coal mining I'm not against researching alternatives however until such time they become cost effective, its pointless as we'll only destroy our own economy germany, with its abandonment of nuclear power shall discover this shortly your sentence is contradictory "your not against research, BUT it's pointless" it has a very important point. The point is to harness energy in a manor that does not further the damage we are doing. Point in case natural gas is a successor but is also very damaging. This is why you research the alternatives other wise you will never evolve. It will be hard but so is many things in life.
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
ALP sits by and passes those bullshit piracy laws. ALP can fuck right off. -PB
|
|
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
paulbagzFC wrote:ALP sits by and passes those bullshit piracy laws.
ALP can fuck right off.
-PB And once again the Greens rather than flatly opposing the bill offered completely sensible amendments that were dismissed by the torrie parties.
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
Glenn - A-league Mad wrote:ricecrackers wrote:Glenn - A-league Mad wrote:Wind, solar, thermal, hydro. They all have draw backs but they all need to be researched and refined to replace burning shit to make stuff go.
I am by no means a greenie and I'm sure my Eco footprint is giant size but investing in renewables and clean energies doesn't require my input, but I recognise that it is fundamentally important to do so. simple matter of efficiency, cost and the Australian economy. coal wins hands down on all fronts until such time the international banking system makes another fuel source more economically viable the way things are headed that appears to be natural gas, however natural gas comes with many problems particularly in the extraction process of fracking which is more environmentally damaging than coal mining I'm not against researching alternatives however until such time they become cost effective, its pointless as we'll only destroy our own economy germany, with its abandonment of nuclear power shall discover this shortly your sentence is contradictory "your not against research, BUT it's pointless" it has a very important point. The point is to harness energy in a manor that does not further the damage we are doing. Point in case natural gas is a successor but is also very damaging. This is why you research the alternatives other wise you will never evolve. It will be hard but so is many things in life. My point is not contradictory of anything. I'm not against research into alternatives, I am against investing money into infrastructure that doesnt provide a cost beneficial alternative. Capisce?
|
|
|
|