chat about any thing ie gobal warming,natrual history,space ect,ect
so any one would like to kick it off can do
science debate
Moderator: Community Team
Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.
-
WL_southerner
- Posts: 314
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 7:25 pm
- Location: friends :- come and go _ i have loads of them
-
WL_southerner
- Posts: 314
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 7:25 pm
- Location: friends :- come and go _ i have loads of them
umm
well easy answer to that you dont have to come in here
any one like have a go how gobal warming is really happening
any one like have a go how gobal warming is really happening
Last edited by WL_southerner on Sat Mar 10, 2007 7:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
My dad was telling me the other night, while we were watching I,Robot, that some place was trying to set the rules for Robots and Humans, when Human-looking robots come to exist. That Robots won't hurt Humans, and Humans won't hurt Robots. I don't really believe that Humans won't hurt Robots. If the Robot pisses a person off, most likely it will be punched or anything else.
I also think it will be quite scary to see human-looking Robots around one day, if they come around soon enough. It will just be weird to finally see another human product look like a human, but not actually be human, just metal and artificial intelligence.
I also think it will be quite scary to see human-looking Robots around one day, if they come around soon enough. It will just be weird to finally see another human product look like a human, but not actually be human, just metal and artificial intelligence.
KraphtOne wrote:when you sign up a new account one of the check boxes should be "do you want to foe colton24 (it is highly recommended) "
-
WL_southerner
- Posts: 314
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 7:25 pm
- Location: friends :- come and go _ i have loads of them
robot
i wonder if man would go that far, then you will all ways have them that will go that far
i did like the idea in the film blade runner and in allien the bots in them films would be very errie
i did like the idea in the film blade runner and in allien the bots in them films would be very errie
-
flashleg8
- Posts: 1026
- Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 10:21 am
- Gender: Male
- Location: the Union of Soviet Socialist Scotland
Only the Japanese are seriously trying to make a human-like robot. The rest of the world accepts that this would be pointless. It is much better to create robots who’s form fits their function. The addition of human-like qualities would be redundant for the majority of situations a robot would be useful. For example is there any point in putting legs on a robot? Wheels or tracks would be much more efficient in nearly all applications.
-
unriggable
- Posts: 8036
- Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 9:49 pm
Robot prostitutes?flashleg8 wrote:Only the Japanese are seriously trying to make a human-like robot. The rest of the world accepts that this would be pointless. It is much better to create robots who’s form fits their function. The addition of human-like qualities would be redundant for the majority of situations a robot would be useful. For example is there any point in putting legs on a robot? Wheels or tracks would be much more efficient in nearly all applications.
-
unriggable
- Posts: 8036
- Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 9:49 pm
Nobody could handle the weight of a robot prostitute. Also, the robot would HAVE to be programmed to say 'have a nice day' when finished.Stopper wrote:Robot prostitutes?flashleg8 wrote:Only the Japanese are seriously trying to make a human-like robot. The rest of the world accepts that this would be pointless. It is much better to create robots who’s form fits their function. The addition of human-like qualities would be redundant for the majority of situations a robot would be useful. For example is there any point in putting legs on a robot? Wheels or tracks would be much more efficient in nearly all applications.
-
WL_southerner
- Posts: 314
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 7:25 pm
- Location: friends :- come and go _ i have loads of them
gobal warming
who seen the latest reports on gobal warming
Re: gobal warming
I'm taking a class this semester on global warmingWL_southerner wrote:who seen the latest reports on gobal warming
The popular opinion among the world's scientist these days is that the planet will be UNINHABITABLE in approx 40 year!
The general population is completely clueless!!
-
WL_southerner
- Posts: 314
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 7:25 pm
- Location: friends :- come and go _ i have loads of them
gobal warming
it seems that list of names the 2,500 experts that sign that bit of papper that went to the un on gobal warming, most of them are saying that co2 gas is not the main cause but only a very minor,
there names endded up on that list because they are being paid by goverments to do research into gobal warming
there names endded up on that list because they are being paid by goverments to do research into gobal warming
-
unriggable
- Posts: 8036
- Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 9:49 pm
Re: gobal warming
I'm recording something on the discovery channel on global warming right now.WL_southerner wrote:who seen the latest reports on gobal warming
-
BOREDGIRL
- Posts: 336
- Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 6:00 pm
- Location: If you're a stalker, some little igloo north of 60. If not, I'm in Ontario.
Well Canada has a solution of sorts:
Take your carbon and stuff it
Comments (4)
Friday, March 9, 2007 | 04:26 PM ET
By quirks
What do you do with the billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide that are spewing out of industrial chimneys into the atmosphere?
Stuff it underground.
That’s the $155-million plan our Prime Minister announced this week, as part of an effort to reduce this country’s carbon emissions. Think of it as turning those big stacks upside down, so the offending greenhouse gasses go into the Earth, rather than into the atmosphere. It’s an out-of-sight, out-of-mind approach to the problem, but it can work in certain parts of the country…for a price.
Carbon capture and storage, or carbon sequestration, takes advantage of a technique already used by the oil and gas industry, where liquids or gasses are pumped deep underground into natural reservoirs that have already been tapped. When a well is dug and oil or natural gas is pumped out, the reservoir can be re-filled with other material. Often it’s water that is pumped down to force more oil out, which is a huge waste of another precious resource.
These underground reservoirs are not holes in the ground or empty caves that used to be filled with oil, but they are natural formations where porous rock, filled with lots of nooks and crannies where fossil fuels can hide, is capped by non-porous, or leak-proof rock that forms a domed roof. Geologists believe that if these natural underground storage tanks were able to trap natural gas for hundreds of millions of years, they can hold onto another gas, carbon dioxide, indefinitely. And Canada has a lot of room underground to hold that CO2. Our natural oil and gas fields are so vast we would probably run out of fossil fuels to burn before we’d run out of underground space for storage.
This idea is popular in Alberta because it doesn’t threaten the fossil fuel industry. If anything, it encourages more business as usual. They can keep drilling, digging and burning the stuff without polluting the atmosphere. Even the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change endorses the concept because almost half of the carbon emissions world wide come from power generation, so capturing and storing that would go a long way to reducing the impact on the climate. It doesn’t, by the way, deal with emissions from millions of tail pipes on vehicles. That’s another story. Still, there are a lot of good reasons to pursue carbon capture and storage, and best of all, the technology to do it already exists.
Two issues come out of this: cost and risk.
Carbon dioxide is a natural product, much loved by plants, but hazardous to humans in large quantities. So while the geologists are confident that the gas will stay a kilometre underground once it’s put there, handling the stuff on the surface involves local safety issues. On the other hand, we’ve been piping natural gas across the country in reasonable safety for decades, so that should be manageable as well.
But capturing and storing carbon dioxide comes with a cost. Power plants have to be modified to replace the chimney with a system to extract the gas, and either compress it or liquefy it. This adds about 50 per cent to the cost of building a new generating station. Then the gas must be transported to the storage site, either by pipeline or tanker truck, and when it reaches the site, pumped underground. All that uses energy, often in the form of burning more fossil fuels. The net result is about a 10-20 per cent rise in the cost of electricity for the consumer. That, by the way, puts fossil fuel energy at about the same cost as some of the alternatives.
So the question is, who is going to pay for this?
Already, the government is using tax dollars to support a feasibility study, which could be interpreted as a pre-election campaign to go green. Consumers are paying high prices for gasoline at the pumps, while the oil companies are raking in record profits. In most other cases of polluting industries, the industry itself is charged with the cleanup. Why does the oil industry need help when they’re making more money than some entire countries, and will continue to make more if carbon capture encourages more fossil fuel use?
Burying our waste underground is not a new idea. We already throw our garbage, toxic waste, and possibly in the future, even nuclear waste, deep in the Earth, with the hopes that it will just go away in time. But it’s a short term, end-of-pipe solution that doesn’t really address the source of the problem. Like a boat captain who discovers a leak and uses a bigger pump to keep the vessel afloat, sure it works, but there could be problems in the long run when the pump dies.
Carbon capture and storage has the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions dramatically, which this planet’s atmosphere desperately needs. But we must be careful that it doesn’t become a license to continue with a dirty, inefficient technology that lies at the root of a much larger problem.
— Bob McDonald
Val
Take your carbon and stuff it
Comments (4)
Friday, March 9, 2007 | 04:26 PM ET
By quirks
What do you do with the billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide that are spewing out of industrial chimneys into the atmosphere?
Stuff it underground.
That’s the $155-million plan our Prime Minister announced this week, as part of an effort to reduce this country’s carbon emissions. Think of it as turning those big stacks upside down, so the offending greenhouse gasses go into the Earth, rather than into the atmosphere. It’s an out-of-sight, out-of-mind approach to the problem, but it can work in certain parts of the country…for a price.
Carbon capture and storage, or carbon sequestration, takes advantage of a technique already used by the oil and gas industry, where liquids or gasses are pumped deep underground into natural reservoirs that have already been tapped. When a well is dug and oil or natural gas is pumped out, the reservoir can be re-filled with other material. Often it’s water that is pumped down to force more oil out, which is a huge waste of another precious resource.
These underground reservoirs are not holes in the ground or empty caves that used to be filled with oil, but they are natural formations where porous rock, filled with lots of nooks and crannies where fossil fuels can hide, is capped by non-porous, or leak-proof rock that forms a domed roof. Geologists believe that if these natural underground storage tanks were able to trap natural gas for hundreds of millions of years, they can hold onto another gas, carbon dioxide, indefinitely. And Canada has a lot of room underground to hold that CO2. Our natural oil and gas fields are so vast we would probably run out of fossil fuels to burn before we’d run out of underground space for storage.
This idea is popular in Alberta because it doesn’t threaten the fossil fuel industry. If anything, it encourages more business as usual. They can keep drilling, digging and burning the stuff without polluting the atmosphere. Even the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change endorses the concept because almost half of the carbon emissions world wide come from power generation, so capturing and storing that would go a long way to reducing the impact on the climate. It doesn’t, by the way, deal with emissions from millions of tail pipes on vehicles. That’s another story. Still, there are a lot of good reasons to pursue carbon capture and storage, and best of all, the technology to do it already exists.
Two issues come out of this: cost and risk.
Carbon dioxide is a natural product, much loved by plants, but hazardous to humans in large quantities. So while the geologists are confident that the gas will stay a kilometre underground once it’s put there, handling the stuff on the surface involves local safety issues. On the other hand, we’ve been piping natural gas across the country in reasonable safety for decades, so that should be manageable as well.
But capturing and storing carbon dioxide comes with a cost. Power plants have to be modified to replace the chimney with a system to extract the gas, and either compress it or liquefy it. This adds about 50 per cent to the cost of building a new generating station. Then the gas must be transported to the storage site, either by pipeline or tanker truck, and when it reaches the site, pumped underground. All that uses energy, often in the form of burning more fossil fuels. The net result is about a 10-20 per cent rise in the cost of electricity for the consumer. That, by the way, puts fossil fuel energy at about the same cost as some of the alternatives.
So the question is, who is going to pay for this?
Already, the government is using tax dollars to support a feasibility study, which could be interpreted as a pre-election campaign to go green. Consumers are paying high prices for gasoline at the pumps, while the oil companies are raking in record profits. In most other cases of polluting industries, the industry itself is charged with the cleanup. Why does the oil industry need help when they’re making more money than some entire countries, and will continue to make more if carbon capture encourages more fossil fuel use?
Burying our waste underground is not a new idea. We already throw our garbage, toxic waste, and possibly in the future, even nuclear waste, deep in the Earth, with the hopes that it will just go away in time. But it’s a short term, end-of-pipe solution that doesn’t really address the source of the problem. Like a boat captain who discovers a leak and uses a bigger pump to keep the vessel afloat, sure it works, but there could be problems in the long run when the pump dies.
Carbon capture and storage has the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions dramatically, which this planet’s atmosphere desperately needs. But we must be careful that it doesn’t become a license to continue with a dirty, inefficient technology that lies at the root of a much larger problem.
— Bob McDonald
Val
AT THE END OF MY TANTRUMS SOMEBODY GETS BURIED.....YOU WERE WARNED.
-
WL_southerner
- Posts: 314
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 7:25 pm
- Location: friends :- come and go _ i have loads of them
science debate
very intresting seem a good idea to, just like factorys fitting a scubber unit to there chimmeys, i only know of one place where a scubber unit is fitted the exhaust is steam then they condest the steam and let it soak into the ground
-
Guiscard
- Posts: 4103
- Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 7:27 pm
- Location: In the bar... With my head on the bar
Re: gobal warming
Errm... any single source to back that up? uninhabitable in 40 years? You idiot. Even if sea levels rise significantly (which is probably gonna cause the majority of the damage due to climate change), there will still be plenty of inhabitable planet. The planet has been habitable for billions of years.Kid_A wrote:I'm taking a class this semester on global warmingWL_southerner wrote:who seen the latest reports on gobal warming
The popular opinion among the world's scientist these days is that the planet will be UNINHABITABLE in approx 40 year!
The general population is completely clueless!!
Seriously, where did you get that 'popular opinion' thing from?
qwert wrote:Can i ask you something?What is porpose for you to open these Political topic in ConquerClub? Why you mix politic with Risk? Why you not open topic like HOT AND SEXY,or something like that.