SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lou Weed who wrote (252379)12/26/2007 4:06:24 PM
From: Bearcatbob  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
"this is where you must be misunderstanding me. Installing filters on our coal burning power plants will be a big help IMO....."

Now Bobby Jones - what kind of filters are there do remove CO2?

This is one of the critical issues of the discussion of cold. I submit there is no practical way to remove CO2 from power plant flue gas. Now - I am a Chemical Engineer - I know how to capture and remove CO2 from a gas stream. It is expensive and not something done on a power plant. Now - if you used O2 instead of air for combustion it would be easier - but hardly practical - ie - where does the O2 come from - errrr - another energy intensive process.

If you want to reduce CO2 in a meaningful manner you need nukes. If you do not want nukes and want to achieve Kyoto - you are either dishonest, uninformed, a radical leftist politico or a fool.

If someone thinks this thing is doable without nukes - in the life time of our youngest kids - they are simply nuts.

Any approach will take decades to make a dent.

Bottom line - if it is happening do to humans - then sit back and watch - it is going to happpen.



To: Lou Weed who wrote (252379)12/27/2007 5:44:52 AM
From: Nadine Carroll  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 281500
 
It IS happening, I'm not disagreeing on that. What we can do is to try and reduce it as much as possible......what's the alternative, do nothing?!?


Maybe. If there are better options than do nothing, there are also worse ones. What's the cost-benefit analysis? I don't see you differentiating between doing something expensive but productive, like going nuclear, and doing something expensive but unproductive, like signing Kyoto.


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News