This forum is in read-only mode for archive purposes, please use our new forum at https://community.justflight.com
Forum Home Forum Home > Just Chat > Just Chat - General Discussion
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Contradiction
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Contradiction
 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
Message Reverse Sort Order
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
MartinW View Drop Down
Moderator in Command
Moderator in Command
Avatar

Joined: 31 Mar 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Points: 26722 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MartinW Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Contradiction
    Posted: 12 Jul 2010 at 8:48am
Wink I disappear for a few days, and upon my return you're at it again.
 
Strange that no-one has tackled the carbonated drinks industry yet.
 
they would have banned it from drinks as it is a non-essential, totally avoidable source of atmospheric CO2...
 
Why would they do that, when the source of the CO2 used by the drinks industry is the power Stations and they would emit the CO2 anyway?  Confused It's not totally avoidable. Confused
 
 
The CO2 does escape from the water in drinks. However...  as you said, it comes from the waste streams of power plants, so it's essentially a by-product that would have made it's way into the atmosphere anyway.  Therefore, it's the power plants that are the issue, simply because cutting CO2 from drinks wouldn't make any difference to the CO2 released into the atmosphere, because the power plants would do it anyway.
 
In context,  you emit a minuscule amount of CO2, when you drink a can of coke. Whereas when you burn a gallon of petrol you emit 20 pounds of CO2 that wouldn't have gone into the atmosphere by any other means. 
 
However, any consumer product involves manufacturing and shipping, which does use up fossil fuels and release CO2 into the atmosphere.  So giving up carbonated drinks could help reduce climate change, just as giving up any product could.
 
If you think the nuclear power industry can some how recycle their CO2, then perhaps you should email them and tell them how.
 
...because it isn't about the CO2, or global warming at all - it is to do with the O-I-L.
 
I see, the peak oil conspiracy again. Sleepy
 
I see you haven't taken any notice at all of the comments I posted last time you spouted this, no counter argument. So no point in me responding.
 
There's no point in you posting stuff in an attempt to validate your claims, without first countering past responses.

 
 
Back to Top
VulcanB2 View Drop Down
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Avatar

Joined: 02 Apr 2008
Points: 13365 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote VulcanB2 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jul 2010 at 2:26am
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/10592433.stm

Quote The advisory group said it recognised the "essential" needed to invest in green measures.

But it said that the principle of paying for these through bill savings would "not deliver for the poorest energy customers".


Uhhhhmmmmmmm - last time I looked, if the customers of a company spent less, the company made less, and had less cash, so how the hell do they propose to spend money they don't have?

I don't actually expect an answer to that question. As with all things climate change, it is $$$ and saving energy to delay the day we run out of oil that is the real point, not anything else.

Strange that no-one has tackled the carbonated drinks industry yet. CO2 is CO2, no matter the source. Of course, CO2 isn't the problem though else they would have banned it from drinks as it is a non-essential, totally avoidable source of atmospheric CO2...

Before you say it comes out of the atmosphere and so have a zero net effect, you'd be wrong...

http://www.banthebomb.org/archives/scotland/hunacc.shtml

Quote Carbon dioxide in the power station had become contaminated during maintenance work at the reactor. Tankers visited the plant to top up supplies. But some of the radioactive carbon dioxide blow back into the tankers. The vehicles then went on to supply the gas for soft drinks manufacturers and breweries including the producers of Coca Cola and Irn Bru. Most of the main Scottish drinks companies were potentially affected. A telephone line was set up for members of the public and it had taken 700 calls within the first few hours.

"It is astonishing that our soft drinks can so easily be contaminated. Yet again the nuclear industry has shown a callous disregard for public safety. There are many strange things in our fizzy drinks, but we don't expect to find bubbles of gas which have come out of a nuclear reactor."

It is worrying that after the incident both Scottish Nuclear and the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate said that they had never considered this as a route through which radioactive material could enter the food chain. There are also concerns that there were delays in publicising the incident. In particular the operators failed to disclose the incident to a visit of inspectors on 28 February.

Anyone remember this happening? Why does the CO2 have to go into drinks afterwards? Why isn't it simply recycled back into the reactor?

This is turning into a rant - never mind!

http://www.climatecamp.org.uk/get-involved/get-educated/whats-wrong-with-nuclear-power

Quote CONCLUSION: Nuclear is not a cost-effective, or viable, solution to global warming problems. It is also a highly unsustainable energy source.

...because it isn't about the CO2, or global warming at all - it is to do with the O-I-L.

When we run out of oil, we will be returning to 1750.

Best regards,
Vulcan.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down