Nuclear power : how visions change

kinger101

cells wrote: »

Also ocean fertilisation might be capable of mass carbon capture and storage for virtually nil cost. Actually probably for a profit as fish stocks massively increasee. Read up on it its fascinating

The experiments conducted thus far using the approach have not provided strong evidence to suggest that this would work.

kinger101

cells wrote: »

How should humanity stop an ice age?

They have happened before and will happen again

Or is thaybsort of destruction and loss of life OK cos you know its organic

---

Food isn't a problem and never will be (unless we get a monster ice age)

Wild life can be further enhanced by humanity be it greening deserts or fertilising oceans. Humans aren't evil we are the saviours of this planet. We will alter its orbit in a few hundred million years and save it from the suns expansion

Is the polar bear or three eyed newt or aby other part if gia capable of that?

What the **** are you talking about. This is the point where the discussion ends. For reasons mentioned by Mark Twain and George Carlin.

cells

kinger101 wrote: »

The experiments conducted thus far using the approach have not provided strong evidence to suggest that this would work.

What makes you say that.

In 2012 the biggest experiment was done off Canada and lots of people cried the sky would fall and the man that did it said just wait two years we will see

http://www.nature.com/news/ocean-fertilization-project-off-canada-sparks-furore-1.11631

Two years later the stock of Salmon caught when from 50 million to over 200 million

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/376258/pacifics-salmon-are-back-thank-human-ingenuity-robert-zubrin


Should be repeated to confirm the result's but it seems a sound principle. We fertilize land to increase crop production this is fertilising oceans to increase plankton and further down the line fish

cells

dang edited this post by mistake

cells

zagubov wrote: »

What will we use instead?

That's the thing there is no real alternative to fossil fuels even nuclear is difficult however its the most capable out of Wind PV and Nuclear at displacing the maximum amount

The UK if it wanted to go low coal/gas/oil would need in excess of 1,000 TWh (electrify heating industry and transport). That could potentially be achieved with 100 reactors sited at 20 stations.

PV and wind (together or separately) is low energy density and would take a huge quantity of land more than I think is likely to be viable.

Maybe 400 giant 1GW offshore wind farms plus a few TWh of storage