[hurley_108]

DerbyX wrote:

BartSimpson wrote:

No matter how clean the energy source is the alarmists will oppose it.

That's because they really don't give a crap about carbon or the environment, they just want to destroy Western industrial capitalism.

Not quite true. Its just that the "alarmist" are different each time. There are those opposed to nuclear energy because it produces long term toxic waste. There are those that opposed to fossil fuel reactors because of its particulate pollution. Wind has its disadvantages also. The detractors are usually people who who are directly affected by the particular power generation method.

I can't think of anything that doesn't have its "detractors" of one sort or another.

Those detractors do care about the enviornment. Its just that "their environment" will be more adversely affected by whatever it is they are protesting".

I'm a strong supporter of nuclear power, and of investing heavily in developing fusion into a viable energy source. The energy density of the fuel is enormous, the waste from nuclear is a solid not a gas and therefore mush easier to control, the GHG emissions are vastly reduced. I also like the idea of tidal power.

[DerbyX]

hurley_108 wrote:

DerbyX wrote:

BartSimpson wrote:

No matter how clean the energy source is the alarmists will oppose it.

That's because they really don't give a crap about carbon or the environment, they just want to destroy Western industrial capitalism.

Not quite true. Its just that the "alarmist" are different each time. There are those opposed to nuclear energy because it produces long term toxic waste. There are those that opposed to fossil fuel reactors because of its particulate pollution. Wind has its disadvantages also. The detractors are usually people who who are directly affected by the particular power generation method.

I can't think of anything that doesn't have its "detractors" of one sort or another.

Those detractors do care about the enviornment. Its just that "their environment" will be more adversely affected by whatever it is they are protesting".

I'm a strong supporter of nuclear power, and of investing heavily in developing fusion into a viable energy source. The energy density of the fuel is enormous, the waste from nuclear is a solid not a gas and therefore mush easier to control, the GHG emissions are vastly reduced. I also like the idea of tidal power.

I agree. I am a strong supporter of nuclear power. Its waste products are easy to concentrate and safetly sequestor and we will deveop the proper technology to deal with it.

[hurley_108]

Wullu wrote:

Well Hurley, a couple points. First,the shield is not the only stable rock formation on the planet (you can't really be this dense). Lots of places we can hide the horrible CO2!! Second, you do realize that are already a fair number of holes in the shield? They are called mines. Tens of millions of tonnes of rock removed over the last 100 odd years. I am the one who was miner for five years, I don't need any lessons from you about the process. Third? Someone will have to convince me that CO2 is somehow dangerous to the planet but I am more than willing to bury it if it will just shut up the global warming chicken littles.

The real benefit of this technology is that gets rid of REAL polutants like SO2, Mercury etc. You know, the ones that have proven to be an actual hazard to human beings and the environment. Well that and the fact that the electricity it produces appears to be nice and cheap!

Well Canada produces hundreds of millions of tonnes of CO2 every year (6 hundred million tonnes to put a number on it). The density of CO2 even as a solid is less than granite so the same mass will take up a greater volume, and that's not to mention any volume occupied by storage containers.

So if we reduce our emissions by 1%, and we've excavated 100 million tonnes, and the densities are equal, we'll exhaust that capacity in under 20 years. If we want to make meaningful reductions, we'll exhaust it even faster.

Now, I freely admit I'm no expert in the goings on in the Canadian Shield, but you simply have no appreciation for the magnitude of the CO2 problem.