Fracking can slow global warming admit UN scientists... and so can nuclear power

Perhaps its good that BO has taken an interest in cows. First to do something about their flatuance (which contributes more than co2) and rustling some steak on the hoof I suppose for white house galas where MO can eat anything that wont eat back. Heef is as expensive as its ever been you know.
 
josh_frack_nuke.jpg


Wow, is this a first? I have been thanked by both DY and the Dude for the same post!!
 
Last edited:
Abraxas said:
Some good advice finally from the IPCC.

World’s leading experts say fracking will cut greenhouse gas emissions
UK should away from ‘dirty’ coal and contribute to saving the environment
Unexpected endorsement will be a welcome boost to David Cameron
Blow to green activists who are concerned about the effects of fracking
Click to expand...

Burning natural gas is an improvement to coal burning, but there still concern about the water fracking pollutes and the earthquakes it may trigger. We've seen an increase of tremors/earthquakes. This can mean two things. 1) Fracking 2) End times. lol

I laugh when people compare cow farts to fossil fuel burning pollutants. True ignorance and talking points made for the truly gullible and stupid.

Nuclear energy is the cleanest. Especially now that they have learnt to recycle most of the waste it leaves.

We've been having wild temperature swings. From unseasonably hot in the afternoon to below freezing nights.

I say living grid free is the future but the elites who get rich off polluting the earth don't want that to happen. With the advancing solar and wind technology. it will soon be possible. Heck there are books out there, to show you how to make your own ethanol gas from the leaves from your tree, grass or anything else. Even your organic garbage. Might need a little acetone for some kick. Also in Washington D.C. they are using human waste from bathrooms to generate electricity.
 
Only addressing the clean emissions from the industries mentioned above, without addressing the other environmental issue with same, is nothing but smoke and mirrors.
 
Althea said:
Only addressing the clean emissions from the industries mentioned above, without addressing the other environmental issue with same, is nothing but smoke and mirrors.
Click to expand...


It's risk shifting (and localization), not risk elimination. And my memory is that the 2007 report was pretty favorable to nuclear, which pissed off a lot of environmentalists at the time.
 
Here's What Fracking Can Do to Your Health

Abraxas said:
Some good advice finally from the IPCC.

World’s leading experts say fracking will cut greenhouse gas emissions
UK should away from ‘dirty’ coal and contribute to saving the environment
Unexpected endorsement will be a welcome boost to David Cameron
Blow to green activists who are concerned about the effects of fracking
Click to expand...

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/04/heres-what-fracking-can-do-your-health

WATER-AFTER-FRACKING.jpg
 
Abraxas said:
Some good advice finally from the IPCC.

World’s leading experts say fracking will cut greenhouse gas emissions
UK should away from ‘dirty’ coal and contribute to saving the environment
Unexpected endorsement will be a welcome boost to David Cameron
Blow to green activists who are concerned about the effects of fracking
Click to expand...

Strange you posting this when you think global warming is a hoax anyway! If it isn't occurring how can anything make it less so! And why would it matter whether there was less or more greenhouse gas emissions? Perhaps you should make up your rather confused mind, rape apologist!
 
Abraxas said:
I wonder why Taichiliberal is so quiet?
Click to expand...

I wonder why you're so obsessed with me and when I leave here again how many days it will be before you are running around writing my name in every third post you make begging me to come back and slap you around some more, you poor masochist. How many days will it be tommy? I'm betting less than ten. We'll see won't we. I have one poster stalking me, and another who can't seem to live without me. How much longer can I stay. My stalker will just have to learn to live with the anxiety of my absence and tommy will just have to learn to live without me. As for me, in the paradoxical words of Dave Edmonds, "(I'm gonna start) Living Again If It Kills Me!" You two fools have more in common than either of you will ever admit! Obsessional neurosis and repetition compulsion are both treatable conditions. Good Luck you two!


 
Dantès said:
I wonder why you're so obsessed with me and when I leave here again how many days it will be before you are running around writing my name in every third post you make begging me to come back and slap you around some more, you poor masochist. How many days will it be tommy? I'm betting less than ten. We'll see won't we. I have one poster stalking me, and another who can't seem to live without me. How much longer can I stay. My stalker will just have to learn to live with the anxiety of my absence and tommy will just have to learn to live without me. As for me, in the paradoxical words of Dave Edmonds, "(I'm gonna start) Living Again If It Kills Me!" You two fools have more in common than either of you will ever admit! Obsessional neurosis and repetition compulsion are both treatable conditions. Good Luck you two!
Click to expand...

If this means you are leaving then all I can say is good riddance to bad rubbish.
 
Last edited:
Bonestorm said:
It's risk shifting (and localization), not risk elimination. And my memory is that the 2007 report was pretty favorable to nuclear, which pissed off a lot of environmentalists at the time.
Click to expand...
Citing any energy related claims during the Bush admin. is like asking the fox what the thinks about security in the henhouse.

Nuke used to be win/win. Cheap energy (once the Feds spent vast sums to build the plant), and excellent weapons grade plutonium from spent fuel rods.

Now that we don't need any more weaponry, we've got the nagging disposal problem. Water storage as well.


Whereas there is technology that uses the plutonium until it's 'less' radioactive before disposal, I'm not aware of this newer system being used anywhere on a large scale.
 
Althea said:
Citing any energy related claims during the Bush admin. is like asking the fox what the thinks about security in the henhouse.

Nuke used to be win/win. Cheap energy (once the Feds spent vast sums to build the plant), and excellent weapons grade plutonium from spent fuel rods.

Now that we don't need any more weaponry, we've got the nagging disposal problem. Water storage as well.


Whereas there is technology that uses the plutonium until it's 'less' radioactive before disposal, I'm not aware of this newer system being used anywhere on a large scale.
Click to expand...
It's not used in America because waste reclamation is illegal but France, Switzerland, Russia, and just about every other nuclear nation do it.
 
Althea said:
Citing any energy related claims during the Bush admin. is like asking the fox what the thinks about security in the henhouse.

Nuke used to be win/win. Cheap energy (once the Feds spent vast sums to build the plant), and excellent weapons grade plutonium from spent fuel rods.

Now that we don't need any more weaponry, we've got the nagging disposal problem. Water storage as well.


Whereas there is technology that uses the plutonium until it's 'less' radioactive before disposal, I'm not aware of this newer system being used anywhere on a large scale.
Click to expand...

I posted on here just the other day about a company funded by Bill Gates to develop new reactors that use nuclear waste as fuel.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/07/25/bill_gates_nuclear_firm_plans_hot_salty_push_into_power/

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/25/b...-of-power-from-waste.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
 
Abraxas said:
I posted on here just the other day about a company funded by Bill Gates to develop new reactors that use nuclear waste as fuel.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/07/25/bill_gates_nuclear_firm_plans_hot_salty_push_into_power/

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/25/b...-of-power-from-waste.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Click to expand...

So you admit that the idea is still in the developmental stage and hasn't started producing anything so far. I guess since Gates is funding it it must be the thing of the future. But Bill Gates also funded the group that developed the intelligent design doctrine. Yeah, he's not exactly what most people think. So he isn't infallible that Bill Gates!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top