Extinction Rebellion

Chippy_boy said:
Please stop being stupid.
Click to expand...
If they haven't built and tested it, it's a proposal. They're also proposing something that's been tried before and failed (magnets melt well below the thermic energy thresholds of fusion as well) so forgive my scepticism. I hope they succeed, I really do, but I highly doubt it and I'd rather see the energy go into large scale solar, wind and wave. Things that we know for certain work and work reliably.
 
Chippy_boy said:
Honestly mate, what ridiculous melodrama.

There are no credible predictions which could lead to human extinction. In fact I would go so far as to say that human extinction as a result of climate change is actually completely impossible.

Worst case, absolute worst case, we see very significant sea level rise, loss of low-lying regions and changes in habitat. And that assumes that faced with such catastophe, we decided to just sit back and let it happen. As opposed to deciding to do something about it - such as truly enormous carbon sequestration plants; algae farms on truly gigantic scale, for example - which of course we would do if things became truly calamitous.

It took one country less than a decade to put a man on the moon when they put their mind to it. And yet we're belng asked to believe that the combined efforts and resources of the entire human race could not find a solution to fix an impending climate catastrophe?

It's a ridiculous suggestion. We are not just going to sit back and watch ourselves become extinct. The reason more is not being done (yet) is because it isn't an impending catastrophe yet, and may well never be. If it becomes so, we'll deal with it.
Click to expand...
That's what the Venusians thought.
 
@Chippy_boy and @aguero93:20 you are both correct. The magnetic field in a magnetic confinement fusion reactor is indeed used to keep the plasma contained and away from the walls of the vacuum containment vessel. There are however still significant challenges around the materials.
The vacuum vessel is subjected to high neutron loads which over time causes neutron damage to the atomic structure of any material from which the vessel is made I.e it becomes brittle and prone to mechanical failure.
ITER is only designed for a maximum power output of 500MW, that is less than one turbine at somewhere like Drax power station so everything needs to be scaled up to make it viable and there in lies the problem. Higher energy densities mean higher neutron emissions.
You also need to control the fusion process which means you have to remove alpha particles which are produced. The alpha particles follow the magnetic field lines and collide with the walls of the containment at the diverter, but particles are still incredibly hot and over time cause damage. ITER uses carbon composite materials and tungsten for the diverter but they are degrading too quickly.
That’s just a couple of the issues, not insurmountable, but they need to be resolved before commercial magnetic confinement fusion reactors can be used to solve our power needs. But we will get there.
 
aguero93:20 said:
If they haven't built and tested it, it's a proposal. They're also proposing something that's been tried before and failed (magnets melt well below the thermic energy thresholds of fusion as well) so forgive my scepticism. I hope they succeed, I really do, but I highly doubt it and I'd rather see the energy go into large scale solar, wind and wave. Things that we know for certain work and work reliably.
Click to expand...
Sorry for the delay, I took a break from your nonsense.

"Magnets will melt long before the thermic energy thresholds"? What sort of funny talk is that? Honestly mate, you're sounding more and more bonkers by the minute.

And the plasma doesn't go anywhere near the magnets (liquid helium-cooled superconducting electromagnets, to be a bit more accurate). Er that's what the magnets are for, no shit Sherlock.

Melting magnets??? Good grief. You might as well have said it can't work because the custard is too lumpy. Give it up before you make yourself sound more silly... if that is indeed possible.
 
Closing down Deansgate for four days from this Friday, might be viewed as drastic but Mankind is fucking up the planet big style
 
Shouldn't these people be protesting outside the Chinese/usa/Indian and Russian embassies as there're the country's with the most co2 pollution
 
Really supportive of this, I think it's great timing to highlight the climate again with what's going on in the Amazon plus I'm going away this weekend so the traffic jams won't affect me in the slightest.
 
East Level 2 said:
I'm sure the increase in wasted fuel caused by people finding alternative routes will bring down emissions. Or isn't that how these twats work?
Click to expand...
Everything these crackpots do causes more emissions, it happened in London, it will happen in Manchester.
Thousands travelling by car, bus, train, and in the case of the latest vacuous virtue signalling actress, air.
To have a group causing loss of livelihood, mass disruption and chaos, actually exacerbating the problems they
say they care about, is crazy and now needs seriously looking at.
 
For example, look at this bollocks (the sort of bollocks we are subjected to multiple times a day, every day on the British Bullshit Corporation and god knows where else:

"Sea level rise could hit 2 metres by 2100 - much worse than feared"

https://www.newscientist.com/articl...-hit-2-metres-by-2100-much-worse-than-feared/

And then you read the article you find that in order for this to happen, temps would have to rise by 5C, which way more than the models predict based on our current CO2 reduction plans (let alone on any more aggressive plans). And that there's a 95% (even according to the alarmists, so god knows, it's probably 99%) that this will NOT happen.

And you read the IPCC, who are supposedly the custodians of expert opinion on this, and they say that (within a 95% confidence level) the likely sea level rise by 2100 will be between 26cm and 55cm.

So the New Scientist headline is yet again alarmist shite.

The media is SO full of crap about all of this stuff, it's completely off the scale with the amount of utter BS being banded about. Is it any wonder we have the gullible believing we'll all be extinct? (Which of course is more or less impossible).
 
Chippy_boy said:
Mixed with a huge dose of politics, alarmist nonsense and propaganda.[/QUOTE}
The Amazon rain forest is currently being burnt, deliberately, until it more or less disappears. The reason for this (aside from the nice little touch of neo-fascist racism from Bolsonaro in getting rid of the indigenous tribes that live there) is to create grazing ground for cattle to satisfy, in the first instance, the neo-liberal desire to make money at any cost. The Amazon rain forest provides 20% of the earths oxygen. It also contains a shit load of Co2 that is currently rising into the atmosphere further adding to the warming of the planet. Facts.
Click to expand...
 
Bert Trautmann's Parachute said:
The Amazon rain forest is currently being burnt, deliberately, until it more or less disappears. The reason for this (aside from the nice little touch of neo-fascist racism from Bolsonaro in getting rid of the indigenous tribes that live there) is to create grazing ground for cattle to satisfy, in the first instance, the neo-liberal desire to make money at any cost. The Amazon rain forest provides 20% of the earths oxygen. It also contains a shit load of Co2 that is currently rising into the atmosphere further adding to the warming of the planet. Facts.
Click to expand...
Plus, the increase in new cattle stocks will greatly increase the amount of methane in the atmosphere, an even more effective greenhouse gas. Then you have the carbon footprint of slaughtering, producing and transporting the beef, an area in which Brazil are very inefficient.

The 55cm rise is based on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We're not, we're increasing them.
 
Bert Trautmann's Parachute said:
The Amazon rain forest is currently being burnt, deliberately, until it more or less disappears. The reason for this (aside from the nice little touch of neo-fascist racism from Bolsonaro in getting rid of the indigenous tribes that live there) is to create grazing ground for cattle to satisfy, in the first instance, the neo-liberal desire to make money at any cost. The Amazon rain forest provides 20% of the earths oxygen. It also contains a shit load of Co2 that is currently rising into the atmosphere further adding to the warming of the planet. Facts.
Click to expand...

I never said otherwise. Fact.

But you really have bought ALL the horseshit, haven't you. You only have to read "neo liberal" to realise you've drunk in the Jeremy Corbyn bollocks as well. Why didn't you just say, "the desire to make money"? Why did it have to be "the neo-liberal desire to make money"?

Shame you've been so roundly brainwashed.
 
aguero93:20 said:
The 26cm to 55cm rise is based on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We're not, we're increasing them.
Click to expand...

Conveniently omitted. And I am not even sure you're correct. I believe the 26cm to 55cm prediction is based on a 2C temperature rise, which is what we're currently headed for. The IPCC want to increase CO2 reduction measures in order to hit only 1.5C. AFAIAA.

But either way, it's not really the point. The point I made was that people are exaggerating the risks and sensationlising things for political purposes, and there you go, proving my very point by missing the 26cm figure out and going only with 55cm. You chose to distort the quote to exaggerate the risks, even within the context of a silly forum discussion!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top