Scientists: Climate-Change 'Time Bomb' About to Go Off

[HK4U]

So what shalll we do to stop the fish from passing gas? What about all the methane that is produced in Washington D.C.

FOXNews.com - Scientists: Climate-Change 'Time Bomb' About to Go Off - Science News | Science & Technology | Technology News

[toreskha]

First Obama, then the mortgage crisis, now a total financial meltdown...hey, a climatological catastrophe would just top it all off, right?

[kwo51]

And a few trillon more to fix this

[tattedupboy]

Global warming, no, pollution, yes. While I'm not sure that we're affecting the planet's climate, pollution does worry me. Whether you believe in global warming or not, I don't think that there's any disputing that the use of fossil fuels is not good for the environment, because of the pollution it causes. Please understand that I'm not a tree hugging wacko environmentalist, but our environmental stewardship does need to improve, if for no other reason, to reduce pollution.

[Jes]

I just wanted to toss in my 2 lincolns on fossil fuels.
I work in the power industry. Specifically for a large german company that does power plant maintenance and builds turbines and generators.

Fossil fuels are the only source of power plentiful enough for current demand. The problem in the US is the EPA will not allow new plants to be built. Almost all of the current fleet was built before 1975. If new plants are built the older less efficient plants will be shut down or only used during peak times. We install turbine upgrades that allow plants to produce more power with the same fuel consumption, but the old boilers are still 1970s vintage.

For you solar and wind proponents, we build those too. Problem is the biggest wind turbine is about 2MW and a big fossil turbine is 800MW. Most plants will have a series of 2 or 4 fossil turbines, so a single big fossil plant equals about 1500 wind turbines. For more perspective, a single nuclear turbine is about 1200MW.

[toreskha]

Originally Posted by tattedupboy

Global warming, no, pollution, yes. While I'm not sure that we're affecting the planet's climate, pollution does worry me. Whether you believe in global warming or not, I don't think that there's any disputing that the use of fossil fuels is not good for the environment, because of the pollution it causes. Please understand that I'm not a tree hugging wacko environmentalist, but our environmental stewardship does need to improve, if for no other reason, to reduce pollution.

My main interest here is in keeping the air clean enough so it doesn't poison us or the things that we depend on. Don't shit where you eat, as they say. If we somehow do manage to screw up things...well, there's 6 billion of us, and it's not like we can just get up and go to Mars or something.

I don't think that our quality of life is defined by our ability to drive around in trucks the size of small yachts. It's nice, but surely we can take one for the team here. Electric cars are not the Mark of the Beast - after all, they're not required to have Obama's face on the front.

[Scarecrow]

I agree with the pollution thing. but I also think that the earth goes through cycles on its own. whether they are effected by pollution or other things done by man is hard to say. but the earth has gone through some things in the past that had nothing to do with either. ice ages and other natural disasters.

Originally Posted by Jes

I just wanted to toss in my 2 lincolns on fossil fuels.
I work in the power industry. Specifically for a large german company that does power plant maintenance and builds turbines and generators.

Fossil fuels are the only source of power plentiful enough for current demand. The problem in the US is the EPA will not allow new plants to be built. Almost all of the current fleet was built before 1975. If new plants are built the older less efficient plants will be shut down or only used during peak times. We install turbine upgrades that allow plants to produce more power with the same fuel consumption, but the old boilers are still 1970s vintage.

For you solar and wind proponents, we build those too. Problem is the biggest wind turbine is about 2MW and a big fossil turbine is 800MW. Most plants will have a series of 2 or 4 fossil turbines, so a single big fossil plant equals about 1500 wind turbines. For more perspective, a single nuclear turbine is about 1200MW.

thanks for the perspective.....I think it shows that we in fact do need to drill (more) to be able to maintain our present position, at the same time making these alternatives more affective at what they do. the newest car from Chevy the Volt only goes 40 miles on a charge.....near useless really. the planet is a living organism constanly changing....I had smoe research that showed growth on the planet in a comparison. it showed that when massive cuts take place say in the rain forest the earth responds by faster and more growth in other areas. not an excuse for destroying the RF just to show how the planet can adapt. Polution is a problem, and certainly fixable. I think I'll go check my tires...

[tattedupboy]

Originally Posted by boyzoi

thanks for the perspective.....I think it shows that we in fact do need to drill (more) to be able to maintain our present position, at the same time making these alternatives more affective at what they do. the newest car from Chevy the Volt only goes 40 miles on a charge.....near useless really. the planet is a living organism constanly changing....I had smoe research that showed growth on the planet in a comparison. it showed that when massive cuts take place say in the rain forest the earth responds by faster and more growth in other areas. not an excuse for destroying the RF just to show how the planet can adapt. Polution is a problem, and certainly fixable. I think I'll go check my tires...

Actually, that's misleading. After forty miles, an internal combustion engine kicks in to resupply the batteries, and the range is increased to about 360 miles on a full charge.