Wind, Solar or Nuclear???

> 10 years ago
Reply
Register to post, see what you've read, and subscribe to topics.
cisco
cisco
QLD
12365 posts
QLD, 12365 posts
12 Aug 2011 4:41pm
barn said...
CFC was hailed as a environmentally safe product, until we discovered it was destroying the Ozone..


I thought it was Mt Erebus blowing the hole in the ozone. The hole was directly above it.

ikw777
ikw777
QLD
2995 posts
QLD, 2995 posts
12 Aug 2011 4:43pm
cisco said...

GalahOnTheBay said...

ikw777 said...

Yes, most of those articles have come out of the LaRouche organisation, a right wing political organization that one should scrutinise very closely before you decide you like or endorse the claims they make.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaRouche_Movement


Not saying I agree or disagree with the views on LaRouche, but to be fair wikipedia is hardly the gold standard of truth...


Precisely. Nothing is beyond being questioned.

All please note the title to this thread is a question. "Wind, Solar or Nuclear???" or for that matter any of them?
Nothing like a good healthy debate. That is supposed to be what parliament is about........Isn't it?




Don't like wikipedia? Fine. I'll provide actual links for you:

www.larouchepac.com/
www.cecaust.com.au/

These people think that Obama is trying to hand control of the US to the "British Empire" www.larouchepac.com/node/19003

...and that Australia's carbon tax is the Queen's idea and that she has, "devoted her reign to a genocidal imperial strategy of global depopulation, by using her power and influence to direct the rise of "green" fascism..." cecaust.com.au/pubs/pdfs/Ditch_queen.pdf

These people have zero credibility and their publications are highly, highly suspect. But don't take my word for it have a read for yourself.
cisco
cisco
QLD
12365 posts
QLD, 12365 posts
12 Aug 2011 5:08pm
ikw777 said...
Don't like wikipedia? Fine. I'll provide actual links for you:

I wasn't solely referring to wikipedia. I question any published information be it mainstream, alternative or underground. Whoever publishes anything is usually pushing one barrow or another.

www.larouchepac.com/
www.cecaust.com.au/

These people have zero credibility and their publications are highly, highly suspect. But don't take my word for it have a read for yourself.


I have read quite a lot of their material from at least 10 years ago. That does not mean I am a convert. A lot of it is very good and some of it not so good.

As you say "But don't take my word for it have a read for yourself.", you might learn something.


barn
barn
WA
2960 posts
WA, 2960 posts
12 Aug 2011 3:47pm
cisco said...

barn said...
CFC was hailed as a environmentally safe product, until we discovered it was destroying the Ozone..


I thought it was Mt Erebus blowing the hole in the ozone. The hole was directly above it.




The chemistry behind CFC and its effect on O3 is well known, and Wiki has an excellent summary of its effects.. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depleting_substance

Basically, the harmless CFC's float themselves into the upper atmosphere, where they get broken down by UV and release their Chlorine, which catalyzes Ozone..

Scientists caused a fuss over it, and people got upset over the science.. But they saved the F%$king world and everybody forgot how close we came..

Amazingly there is another chemical that was almost used instead of CFCs which was a million times worse at destroying Ozone.. It was an accident of history CFC was chosen, it would all be over if we chose Bromodifluoromethane..

We have come close to destroying our only atmosphere, now it could be happening again and everybody is crying about a Tax.. idiots
SomeOtherGuy
SomeOtherGuy
NSW
807 posts
NSW, 807 posts
13 Aug 2011 12:36pm
FlickySpinny said...

www.withouthotair.com/download.html - this is a UK-centric book that (I believe) has a bunch of flaws in it but is well reasoned and makes some excellent points about the strengths, weaknesses and feasibility of various forms and combinations of energy sources.

This is a recent publication that applies the same concept to Australia:
http://energy.unimelb.edu.au/uploads/Australian_Sustainable_Energy-by_the_numbers3.pdf - this is really good.


Please, anyone who is interested in this field, please please please read these publications so that you can have a rational debate with some of the facts in front of you, instead of doing what Cisco has done.


Thanks for the links, FS. Have just finished reading the Australian one. It's an easy read and not too difficult to get through. It's also good to see some hard numbers for a change. I'd recommend it to anyone interested in the debate.
Please Register, or first...
Topics Subscribe Reply