Horizon BBC 2

[philmarks]

Jimi's right, to be more specific, the ONLY long term answer (in the absence of say 90% reduction in World's power demands is nuclear fusion, which is clean.

If we don't reduce our demand and we start converting the sun's input into significant amounts power for consumers worldwide using wind, tide etc, then that in itself will upset the climatic balance eventually. This is becuase we are abstracting power that would otherwise go into the biosphere in one way or another.

The only way around this is to use energy that is reflected back into space by the earth, or capture power from the sun, using earth orbit collectors.

Realistically, it's got to be fusion; the only problem is making it work economically. (Let's not get into a discussion about the full economic equation here or we'll be here for ever)

Where's the wine?

 

[T_S]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't you wish these scientists would make up their minds!?

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree George.....but don't you think though after watching that doc, in a scary way these bods could be right?

Dave

 

[T_S]

What worries me....I have two sons one of 23 the other 20, I yearn for them to settle down to make me a proud grandfather. After watching the facts presented.......its now placed me in a different frame of mind!

 

[Peppermint]

Re: The one thing it proves

is there are no simple answers.

We used to talk about "the balance of nature". Clearly if you take something off one end you'd need to either replace it or remove something from tuther end. In almost any field.

I'm thinking that natures balancing away and we're tinkering.

 

[roger]

Nuclear waste is either highly active - decays fast - short tem problem
Or long life - little radiocativity - not much of a problem.
At least 30 years ago Scienticic American showed the incredibly rapid reduction in nuclear waste radiation intensity. Its a short term problem -not long term.

 

[jonjo]

Re: Complete tosh

> I've been alive now for 51 years and there is no difference!

I wish this was true, unfortunately you forget the record UK summer temperatures last year.

As scientists analyze ice core samples further back in time they are finding evidence that the global climate can flip in a 30 year timeframe. Even worse, mankind has recreated some of the conditions that precede such climatic convulsions.

 

[[2068]]

At last, some politicians are at least talking about Nuclear as the long term solution. Trouble is, bearing in mind the huge startup/decommission costs, this is a program that needs to start very shortly, as in NOW, with renewables making up the final few percent.

Countries like China are not examining their navels and wringing their hands, they are simply building power stations. The way we are currently heading, we will either go back several hundred years to candles and horses, or become slowly bankrupt as we pay increasing prices for imported power from those that have invested...

dv.

 

[snappy]

I agree re reinvesting in nuclear but it has to be done quickly and under present privatised set up I can't see any commercial utility being prepared to make the investment at least without some major fiscal incentive. There is also a massive negative PR legacy to overcome; the old nuclear industry was irresponsible, not safe and power was a by-product of the arms business. Now there are alternative technologies like the accelerator driven sub-critical reactor which can genuinely fail-safe but require major investment. The sad thing is that the environmental/energy crisis actually gives us the opportunity to develop or redevelop some really exciting new solutions-helium filled airships that ride the jetstream, modern sailing clippers and so forth. We just need the venture capitalists, engineers and fiscal incentives and we could be world leaders again.

 

[Seven Spades]

The sad fact is that to few people actually believe that global warming either a) exists or b) is a bad thing ("Hey I don't like the cold weather").

Before we get hit by the floods, there will be a mass stampead and huge global emigration if the programme is right. 3-4 billion people inhabit parts of the World that could not support life if their predictions are correct. No one will be unaffected, they didn't even mention the gulf stream.