And roughly the equivalent of 1000 old refridgerators containing chlorofluorocarbons in terms of ozone killer.
One full tank (car tank thingy) of biodiesel = 1 year of food for a human. (seen on TV)
New Tech for the win!
[quote name='Luckless' timestamp='1299502407' post='4782790']
Ah, no. It is a highly unnatural organism (with a completely unknown reaction to a wide range of environments) that directly produces diesel fuel. It Already is a potentially very harmful lifeform, aka "something negative", and the issue in question is its ability to mutate to survive, one of the most basic aspects of life and the foundation of the theory of evolution. Can you, in all your infinite wisdom, actually claim that there is no way such an organism can survive in the wild, and there wreck havoc with ecosystems? (hint, go read "Invasive species" on Wikipedia.)
(And yes, I'm against the general dicking around with genetics in crops. We already have problems with normal natural invasive species, and I have heard several cases of genetically modified crops going beyond their plantings already.)
Invasive species are generally species that easily adapt and quickly reproduce that are transported to an ecosystem they are well suited for where they have no natural predators.
An organism with no natural terrestrial ecosystem will not become invasive, because as soon as it gets out it dies.
[/quote]
1. What is its reproductive rate?
2. What is its ability to change and adapt to new environments?
3. What natural predators does this have?
The ecosystem you described isn't that wildly different from those found on a very large portions of earth's landmass.
I'm not saying that such a development doesn't deserve research, but it really needs to weighed against alternatives already in development. (Such as solar fields generating hydrogen as their storage medium, and tidal generators.) Why on earth would you go after something that could easily be a threat to the environment when we have other options without such risks?
1. What is its reproductive rate?
2. What is its ability to change and adapt to new environments?
3. What natural predators does this have?
these are all unknowns given just the article, but I don't think it's fair to assume they'd design an organism that could so easily take over the globe.
The ecosystem you described isn't that wildly different from those found on a very large portions of earth's landmass. [/quote]
how do you figure? There are almost no places where there are large quantities of nutrient rich high CO2 non-saline water between 30-40 degrees celsius.
I'm not saying that such a development doesn't deserve research, but it really needs to weighed against alternatives already in development. (Such as solar fields generating hydrogen as their storage medium, and tidal generators.) Why on earth would you go after something that could easily be a threat to the environment when we have other options without such risks?
[/quote]
Because this solution works with existing technology. It requires no added investment by the population. It will actually lower their costs with their current investments.
Hydrogen is an ok alternative, but it's also explosive and has to be contained at high pressure. Tidal generators fine, but how is that going to refill my car when I'm on a road trip through montana?
I'm all for alternatives, but a carbon neutral form of gasoline is an AMAZING option till we have the technology to have a power plant in our cars or someone comes up with a better way to store hydrogen. I am aware that they are coming up with better ways to store hydrogen, but it's still a far cry from where it needs to be to gain mass market appeal.
I wonder, if nuclear plants make energy out of heating heavy water. Couldn't the same be done by cooling down some sort of liquid that boils at ambient temperature? It will probably take some energy to cool it down I guess.
I wonder, if nuclear plants make energy out of heating heavy water. Couldn't the same be done by cooling down some sort of liquid that boils at ambient temperature? It will probably take some energy to cool it down I guess.
the problem is that liquids that boil at most ambient temperatures don't exist in normal situations. You would expend more energy collecting/compressing the liquids than you would get from their expansion into a gas.
This whole "If an entire series of things goes wrong, then it could result in a shitstorm the dimensions of which we can't really predict," is the reason we've had a thirty-year moratorium on construction and development of nuclear power.
I would definitely prefer to see a bunch of modern nuke plants, rather than the myriad of coal plants that provide the overwhelming majority of our electrical power. That's the turd in the punchbowl of the electric car argument, from an environmental standpoint.
I would definitely prefer to see a bunch of modern nuke plants, rather than the myriad of coal plants that provide the overwhelming majority of our electrical power. That's the turd in the punchbowl of the electric car argument, from an environmental standpoint.
I would definitely prefer to see a bunch of modern nuke plants, rather than the myriad of coal plants that provide the overwhelming majority of our electrical power. That's the turd in the punchbowl of the electric car argument, from an environmental standpoint.
This is what I hate about nuclear plants. And it is not that it takes a 8º earthquake to break them. Just lack of money and/or human negligence (more than anything) can fuck it up very bad for everyone nearby.
[quote name='EricRRichards' timestamp='1299540217' post='4783023']
I would definitely prefer to see a bunch of modern nuke plants, rather than the myriad of coal plants that provide the overwhelming majority of our electrical power. That's the turd in the punchbowl of the electric car argument, from an environmental standpoint.
This is what I hate about nuclear plants. And it is not that it takes a 8º earthquake to break them. Just lack of money and/or human negligence (more than anything) can fuck it up very bad for everyone nearby.
[/quote]
it anything that is a testament to how nuclear power can be safe. By all accounts, that nuclear power plant should be a lot worse off all things considered.
[quote name='owl' timestamp='1299942965' post='4784827']
[quote name='EricRRichards' timestamp='1299540217' post='4783023']
I would definitely prefer to see a bunch of modern nuke plants, rather than the myriad of coal plants that provide the overwhelming majority of our electrical power. That's the turd in the punchbowl of the electric car argument, from an environmental standpoint.
This is what I hate about nuclear plants. And it is not that it takes a 8º earthquake to break them. Just lack of money and/or human negligence (more than anything) can fuck it up very bad for everyone nearby.
[/quote]
it anything that is a testament to how nuclear power can be safe. By all accounts, that nuclear power plant should be a lot worse off all things considered.
[/quote]
[font=arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif][size=2]At one point, the plant was releasing each hour the amount of radiation a person normally absorbs from the environment each year.
[/font][font=arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif][size=2]Virtually any increase in ambient radiation can raise long-term cancer rates, and authorities were planning to distribute iodine to residents in the area, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency. Iodine counteracts the effects of radiation.[/font][/quote]
By all accounts, it gotta suck to live nearby that plant right now.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
