I thought of another possible solution to global warming. Find an oil that when dumped into the sea, it would cause a reflective surface on the sea that would reflect sunlight back into space, and decrease the amount of heat from the sun that is being deposited on the Earth.
This should also be a bio-degradable oil that would only last for a few days or a week, or so, to prevent it from harming the environment. This oil could be poured into the middle of the oceans, by ships at sea, in large quantities every month or so. This would make large parts of the oceans like temporary mirrors, reflecting sunlight and heat back into space, causing a cooling of the planet. It should also prevent things like hurricanes from happening by tending to interfere with water evaporation in the hurricane's path.

fantastic idea, lets kill all the sea faring birds and many fish, oli only takes a day to kill birds by smothering the birds wings so it cant fly, your idea would cause massive destablement in the environment and would probably cause more harm than it would prevent

I've got a better idea, lets use self-replicating nano-assemblers that use carbon from the air to build diamond structures for humans. Think about it; diamond buildings, bridges, air and space craft, we could even make a diamond skyhook for orbital access without rockets.

Better yet let's invent something so incredibly preposterous that it just might work; Giant Planet Sized Robot That Will Eat The Sun.

Nah, let's just start throwing blankets on the sea. Ohhh or maybe we can build a refrigerator box around the north pole

or we could plant forrests

-MT.

I've got a better idea, lets use self-replicating nano-assemblers that use carbon from the air to build diamond structures for humans. Think about it; diamond buildings, bridges, air and space craft, we could even make a diamond skyhook for orbital access without rockets.

The bottom would fall out of the diamond market--Harry Winston would send the Mafia to find you and kill you over a number of days. ;)

or we could plant forrests

-MT.


and waste space for over populated areas? sounds like a risky move to me because if evolution kicks in maybe we can adapt without breathing.

uhh... diamonds... as an undergrad in aerospace engineering, i can tell you that diamond is not a very good structural material. sure, it's hard, but that's its weakness. it has no flexibility so any strong shock can fracture it. plus, since diamond is just carbon, it's flamable!

the ocean is already reflecting heat back into space. ever see a pic of the earth where the sun shimmers off the ocean like it's made of glass? that's the water reflecting over 75% of the radiation hitting it back into space.

Ironically, water also happens to be by far THE MOST INFLUENTIAL GREENHOUSE GAS, surpassing carbon-dioxide both in sheer quantity in the atmosphere and by having per-kg heat absorbtion a full magnitude higher than co2. Also, water droplets (clouds) reflect heat back into the planet due to the nature of water being very reflective. So to cure global warming, we have to hide this horrible, horrible substance known as water! And methane? Doesn't even have an absorbtion rate at most temperatures seen on our planet, nor are we producing as much as, say, every cow and horse patty on earth.

We're not going to "cure" global warming anymore than I think we can induce it's comming. I mean, we make "greenhouse gasses", but do we really make enough to compete with that which is already eminating from every single plant, animal, and micro-organism on this planet? It's speculated to be a natural cycle and thus inevitable, we just have to put up with it.

And do natural biological sources of "greenhouse gasses" produce enough to compete with techtonic venting, volcanoes and the like? Not likely.

lol the irony of it

So a robot eating the sun is still a feasible option, yes?

....water droplets (clouds) reflect heat back into the planet due to the nature of water being very reflective....Your point is well taken, but technically not correct. Water is not "very reflective" - Only about 4% is reflected at each water air interface. None the less the cumulative effect of many refractions and reflections is to return much of the sunlight incident upon a cloud back out of the cloud.

It is interesting but the best reflectors are many very clean (non absorbing) small transparent particles. A pile of clean salt is a good reflector despite the fact there is not one good reflector in it!

I'm not sure if Billy T is saying the same thing, but it wouldn't work. Greenhouse gasses trap heat in the atmosphere wether the surface of the ocean is reflective or not.

Giant mirror. In space.

As a bonus, install solar panels in space and *insert new technology here* the ensuing, clean energy down to earth.

Billy T, thanks, I wasn't sure if what I said there was entierly accurate, thanks for clearing it up.

Spidergoat, I think the theory behind greenhouse gasses is they trap infared radiation, not the heat itself. To my knowledge, it would trap a portion of the infared comming off the surface of the earth. If the radiation comming off is more intense, the remainder of the radiation leaving the earth after passing through the gasses would be greater than if the earth gave off a smaller ammount of radation. It also means that a larger portion is reflected back onto the earth, but since it's more reflective (for some reason or another, it's water, it's a mirror, whatever) a large portion is reflected back up for another go before it is absorbed into the earth and atmosphere as heat.

If a meterologist could share his opinion here that'd be great cause I'm basically going off what I've read in articles and honestly may have screwed up several details already.

Billy T, thanks, I wasn't sure if what I said there was entierly accurate, thanks for clearing it up....You welcome. Perhaps a few more words about the physic of electromagnetic radiation’s interaction with matter may help. I not really speaking of very short (Gamma rays) nor very long (radio waves) but of those generally considered to be “photons” IR and UV definitely included.

The fraction of set of identical photons (every thing is a function of the wavelength, so we are speaking of some particular wavelength) that is absorbed, a, or transmitted,t, or reflected, r, must obey: a + t + r = 1 because generally speaking* that is all there is.

All materials (not at absolute zero) radiate. Solids and liquids radiate a continuum of wavelength with a peak in the distribution generally**directly proportional to the absolute temperature. At any given wavelength, the emissive coefficient, e is equal to a. (If this were not so, it would be possible to make net energy from less than you started with - a violation of conservation of energy, but will not prove this now.) this is useally expressed as “A good absorber is a good radiator” but often wrongly applied as the fact that it is true wavelength by wavelength is usually forgotten.

Another useful concept is “optical thickness” - A mass of matter is said to be optically think if t =0 for it and a > > r. If that mass is all at the same temperate and optically thick, fro all wavelengths of interest, then it does not matter what it is made of - the radiation coming from it will always have the relative distribution of wavelengths and only depends upon the temperature. This distribution is called black (if a=e=1) body radiation and gray (if a=e< 1) body radiation. And the function of temperature was first given by Planck and thus also called Planck radiation.

Must quit now, but that is enough for now.

--------------------------------------------------------
*Not strictly true as with intense flux passing thru reasonable transparent material the absorption may heat it enough to make new photons. (This happens inside already molten. “dirty” glass to some extent.) Also, and more interestingly, in some crystals where the polarization (dynamic distortion of the locations of the “bound” electrons) the electric field of the photon produces is non-linear, the incident photon can be converted to two of half the energy, or even two of them can be come one with twice the energy, but that is much harder to achieve.
**Strictly true except for the fact that the emissive e may be function of wavelength. For isolated (low density) gas and molecules, it is an extremely rapidly changing function of wavelenght. For most wavelengths, a = e = ~0, that is they absorb and radiate such narrow wavelengths that we call them "spectral lines." In the IR from molecules these lines can be so close together that they appear to be "bands" of radiation.

fantastic idea, lets kill all the sea faring birds and many fish, oli only takes a day to kill birds by smothering the birds wings so it cant fly, your idea would cause massive destablement in the environment and would probably cause more harm than it would prevent

I'm not talking about crude oil. I'm talking about some kind of light oil, like a vegetable oil, that is edible to the sea life, biodegradable and won't harm the environment. It will prevent warming of the water for as long as it lasts which would be about a few days. Some birds like ducks, that use water already have a light oil coating to prevent their feathers from becoming water soked. A shiny additive might be added if a suitable one can't be found. - an additive that also won't hurt the environment. The oil can be rotated from one ocean to another, like crop rotation, to allow ocean life to fully recover in the last ocean it was used in, while it is being used in another ocean.

Billy T, thanks, I wasn't sure if what I said there was entierly accurate, thanks for clearing it up.

Spidergoat, I think the theory behind greenhouse gasses is they trap infared radiation, not the heat itself. To my knowledge, it would trap a portion of the infared comming off the surface of the earth. If the radiation comming off is more intense, the remainder of the radiation leaving the earth after passing through the gasses would be greater than if the earth gave off a smaller ammount of radation. It also means that a larger portion is reflected back onto the earth, but since it's more reflective (for some reason or another, it's water, it's a mirror, whatever) a large portion is reflected back up for another go before it is absorbed into the earth and atmosphere as heat.

If a meterologist could share his opinion here that'd be great cause I'm basically going off what I've read in articles and honestly may have screwed up several details already.

Consider a greenhouse, - garden variety. Sunlight comes in through the glass or clear plastic and heats up the soil and surfaces at the bottom of the greenhouse. The hotter bottom surface then heats up the air in the greenhouse by convection; molecules vibrating hitting the air molecules causing them to have more kinetic energy and move faster, causing higher air temperature. The glass or plastic prevents the hotter air molecules, that are moving faster, in the greenhouse from colliding with air molecules outside of the greenhouse. So the heat energy is trapped in the greenhouse air and it cannot be transmitted to outside air.
Now, if the bottom surface of the greenhouse is a mirror, and not dark earth, then it will not heat up. The mirror will just reflect the sun's radiant energy right back out through the glass or plastic. So the greenhouse air won't heat up either.
That is the same effect you would get if you made the surface of the ocean more reflective. It would cause lower water temperatures, which would also result in lower air temperatures as water and air molecules collide.

>> I mean, we make "greenhouse gasses", but do we really make enough to compete with that which is already eminating from every single plant, animal, and micro-organism on this planet? >>>

definitely not..... a green house world is what we normally live in.... remove the "greenhouse effect" of water, and you will live in death valley.


>> I'm not talking about crude oil. >>>

well your theory is not necessary, the oceans etc are already covered with petroleum oil (crude)
and it is decreasing the H20 in the atmosphere...

Death Valley social anyone ?

I heard of two possible measures to combat global warming, from an interview with James Lovelock. One is a giant shield in space, another is to re-introduce sulfur to aircraft fuel, which would replicate the effects of a volcano.

If we disbanded the UN, there'd be a LOT less hot air pumped into the atmosphere!

Baron Max

what exactly would sulphur do?

If we disbanded the UN, there'd be a LOT less hot air pumped into the atmosphere!

Baron Max
So you want to cut and run?

what exactly would sulphur do?
I guess it would be a particulate in the air? Maybe it would seed clouds? I didn't catch the reasoning.

wouldnt sulphur be damaging to humans in the amounts that you are describing

NEW SOLUTION FOR GLOBAL WARMING

In Australia 200 mw power plant is being constructed.

It is nothing but a Solar Chimney , having chimney at the centre and solar panel surrond it.
Air enters from surronding gets heated due to solar panels and moves upward through the central chimney.
Wind turbines are provided in the central chimney that generates power.
The chimney is so high that it generats draft of air during night time also.
Thus this power plant utilises solar as well as wind ernergy concept.

As this solar chimney requires large area , floating solar chimney on sea surface can be considered.

P.J.LAKHAPATE
plakhapate@rediffmail.com

NEW SOLUTION FOR GLOBAL WARMING
In Australia 200 mw ...a Solar Chimney , having chimney at the centre and solar panel surrond it. Air enters from surronding gets heated due to solar panels and moves upward through the central chimney. Wind turbines are provided in the central chimney that generates power....I doubt 200 MW is possible, and also wonder how it compares to solar thermal tower (high target also on tower, which is surely less tall than the chimmey and much cheaper,) with well insulated* thermal salt storages for power generation during the night. - This system, at least without the thermal salt storage, was built in SW USA (California I think) about 20 years ago. Both systems require sun tracking mirrors to be cheap, if to be economical. Ideas, for solar energy number in the 1000s, economic system, perhaps are 0 in number, except for std wind turbines or in special locations with out access to the power grid. - Economics is the porblem, not lack of new ideas.
-------------------------------------
*Chimmey will lose heat to local surounding air (most of it - I think) and more power will thus go up on outside than is captured inside, even in the day. - I think. Also note that all wind machines can only capture a faction (less than half I seem to recall) of the energy in the wind as there must be wind on the "back side" if there is wind coming to the machine. In this case, even if the tower top is as big as the base ID the wind leaving has same speed as the wind entering the turbine. (For economic reasos the exit is probably smaller ID than the blade diameter and thus for same mass flow leaving the tower even faster than that passing thru the turbine. Energy "thrown away" in the exit wind is proportional to the square of the exhaust speed.) Thus, for both these reasons, it will be a very low efficiency system and very costly power system.

If we disbanded the UN, there'd be a LOT less hot air pumped into the atmosphere!

Baron Max
:p

a Dropcash campaign
sciforums '06

a Dropcash campaign
sciforums '06

I heard of two possible measures to combat global warming, from an interview with James Lovelock. One is a giant shield in space, another is to re-introduce sulfur to aircraft fuel, which would replicate the effects of a volcano.
Global warming seems to be cyclical. Not going to work

This is a joke, right? If we cover the ocean with vegetable oil, how will oxygen dissolve to provide nutrients to photoplankton and zooplankton - our primary producers?

This is a joke, right? If we cover the ocean with vegetable oil, how will oxygen dissolve to provide nutrients to photoplankton and zooplankton - our primary producers?

This is not a joke. Oil molecules on water spread out very fast and cover a large area. A large area mirror is needed to reflect enough radiant energy from the sun back into space to effect cooling off the climate and air. The tiny microorganisms you refer to in the sea, multiply very fast and the ocean organisms would recover quickly enough using the idea of rotating what oceans it is used in like crop rotation. [Use it in one ocean, and allow that one to recover while you use it in another ocean.]
It isn't going to cover the whole ocean. Healthy microorganisms would quickly move back into the areas after the oil dissipates.
Being biodegradable no permanent damage to the plankton should occur.

Ummm, why would the oil molecules reflect energy back into space? What wavelengths are given off, and what absorbs them?
Also, how much oil would be required, per thousand square kilometres, and how often would you have to carry out spraying operations?

Don't you idiots know that global warming is happening on mars!!!!! There isn't any burning of fossil fuels and pollution is not increasing there unless there are crazy conservative aliens that love to heat up their planet. Give me a break. If you want to control greenhouse gasses like CO2 and methane you'd better stop me from breathing driving and farting.

I am seriously all for the Giant Planet Sized Robot That Will Eat The Sun. Do you think we could start production on this right away?

I guess it would be a particulate in the air? Maybe it would seed clouds? I didn't catch the reasoning.
No. Sulphur creates a "shadow". It cools down the planet (in global quantities). It was the cause of at least one ice age...

I heard of two possible measures to combat global warming, from an interview with James Lovelock. One is a giant shield in space, another is to re-introduce sulfur to aircraft fuel, which would replicate the effects of a volcano.
I heard of 5.

1) Trillions of tiny mirrors in space (most expensive)
2) Sulphur
3) Multiplication of Phytoplankton (the best one, in my opinon)
4) Artificial trees
5) Cloud making from several ships in the oceans

Sulphur is an idiotic idea, btw. It would destroy the ozone layer, would cause an ice age AND it would cause respiratory problems worlwide to humans and all other aerobic living beings (the anaerobic ones would rejoice though... LOL!) :D

This is not a joke. Oil molecules on water spread out very fast and cover a large area. A large area mirror is needed to reflect enough radiant energy from the sun back into space to effect cooling off the climate and air. The tiny microorganisms you refer to in the sea, multiply very fast and the ocean organisms would recover quickly enough using the idea of rotating what oceans it is used in like crop rotation. [Use it in one ocean, and allow that one to recover while you use it in another ocean.]
It isn't going to cover the whole ocean. Healthy microorganisms would quickly move back into the areas after the oil dissipates.
Being biodegradable no permanent damage to the plankton should occur.
I have a very important question to you...

Does this "oil" actually exist?

I am seriously all for the Giant Planet Sized Robot That Will Eat The Sun. Do you think we could start production on this right away?
Yes. That is a great idea. Reminds me of another idea- invading Iraq... :rolleyes:

uhh... diamonds... as an undergrad in aerospace engineering, i can tell you that diamond is not a very good structural material. sure, it's hard, but that's its weakness. it has no flexibility so any strong shock can fracture it. plus, since diamond is just carbon, it's flamable!


He was joking,

And diamond only burns when catalized in large quantities of oxygen, a reaction can't happen in atmospheric temperatures, and in atmospheric consentrations of oxygen.

Edinburgh university has made a Nano-bot which seperates water molecules into Hydrogen and oxygen, If another can be designed which separates co2 into carbon and oxygen, we can combine both processes, and turn the whole thing into glucose, and oxygen.

Making a nanobot which can generate a carbohydrate chain is easier than making one which separates water molecules, it's a very generic process.

If the process can be altered we can create cellulose, and turn it into furnishings and cigarette rolling papers. Combined with legalized weed, I predict a bright future.

Lol! :d

This oil ... would make large parts of the oceans like temporary mirrors, reflecting sunlight and heat back into space, causing a cooling of the planet. It should also prevent things like hurricanes from happening by tending to interfere with water evaporation in the hurricane's path.

Sounds like a novel I read way back, the Drought
http://www.amazon.com/Drought-J-G-Ballard/dp/014002753X

horrible, oily pollution cover on the seas stoppd clouds forming and left all the land bone dry. :( You want to stop water evaporating, where will it end? Theres to much desert already, millions of people short of water. I got to say your idea is HALF EEDIAT! :mad:

If the process can be altered we can create cellulose, and turn it into furnishings and cigarette rolling papers. Combined with legalized weed, I predict a bright future.

But YOU got the right idea :m: Bring it on!

Here is the wikipedia entry on the Solar Updraft Tower mentioned by plakhapate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_updraft_tower
In 1982, a medium-scale working model of a solar chimney power plant was built under the direction of German engineer Jörg Schlaich in Manzanares, Ciudad Real, 150 km south of Madrid, Spain; the project was funded by the German government. The chimney had a height of 195 metres and a diameter of 10 metres, with a collection area (greenhouse) of 46,000 m² (about 11 acres, or 244 m diameter) obtaining a maximum power output of about 50 kW. During operation, optimisation data was collected on a second-by-second basis. This pilot power plant operated for approximately eight years, but "encountered severe structural instability close to the tower due to induced vortices", and was decommissioned in 1989.
so not without problems evidently.

Here is the wikipedia entry on the Solar Updraft Tower ...Interesting. At peak solar flux there is approximately 1kw thermal / m^2 near Madrid at noon on clear summer day. Thus got at best 50kw electric out from 46,000kw input or at best 0.001 conversion efficiency factor. Somehow I am not very excited by this approach.

Edinburgh university has made a Nano-bot which seperates water molecules into Hydrogen and oxygen, If another can be designed which separates co2 into carbon and oxygen, we can combine both processes, and turn the whole thing into glucose, and oxygen.

Making a nanobot which can generate a carbohydrate chain is easier than making one which separates water molecules, it's a very generic process.

If the process can be altered we can create cellulose, and turn it into furnishings and cigarette rolling papers. Combined with legalized weed, I predict a bright future.

So where's the power going to come from?

There is no power production, this is a solution to the CO2 in the atmosphere. Power can come from clean energy means, such as solar, wind, and soon fusion.

But if you want a possibility, the glucose can be fed to oxygen producing fungi, the oxygen can be used to power cars.

Instead of using fossil fuel , Geothermal Energy is good solution.
Recently in California will be using Geothermal Energy for Power Plant.

P.J.LAKHAPATE
plakhapate@rediffmail.com

Solar Chimney being constructed in Australia for 250 mw power plant.
Chimney height is one km and Solar Mirror diameter is 6km.

P.J.LAKHAPATE
plakhapate@rediffmail.com

Solar Chimney being constructed in Australia for 250 mw power plant. Chimney height is one km and Solar Mirror diameter is 6km....thus collection area is about 28e6m^2. When have max solar flux of 1000W/m^2 the thermal input is 28e9Watts or 28,000mw. Better, but still less than 0.01 conversion factor. Multitude of smaller towers with hot tops and thermal engines can surely do much better.

What is the max "30year wind speed" it surely must be designed to widthstand? Is it projected to be economically competitive with set of these smaller hot-top tower thermal converters? Will not the induced ground level wind quickly cover the mirrows with sand etc?

Instead of using fossil fuel , Geothermal Energy is good solution.

Not everyone lives near a volcano though, or a hot spot in the crust. to replace fossil fuel we should grow lots more bio fuels like rape seed oil. burnin that only gives out the same carbon as the plants store when they grow, so the CO2 level in teh air wont be increaed.
Use parts of the American bread basket lands to grow fuel instead of wheat - or turn Texas cattle ranches into GREEN oil fields! The oil barons could learn to use combine harvesters instead of wells & derriks. Yanks are all too fat, they could do with less burgers..

The global warming does not exist, except in newspapers.

Don't you idiots know that global warming is happening on mars!!!!! There isn't any burning of fossil fuels and pollution is not increasing there unless there are crazy conservative aliens that love to heat up their planet. Give me a break. If you want to control greenhouse gasses like CO2 and methane you'd better stop me from breathing driving and farting.

I'm such an idiot that I know the warming on Mars is happening due to winds clearing lighter colored dust from the surface, revealing darker colored dust underneath. The heating then causes more winds and more heating until there is a huge windstorm that redistributes the light colored dust over the surface. This has been going on for a long time. One planet's heating is not like another's.

Is Geothermal Energy a possible solution for Global Warming?

P.J.LAKHAPATE
plakhapate@rediffmail.com

You know, i just thought of something I read a long while ago in "The Prefect Storm" (although a good movie, the book was much more detailed and fairly fun for a maritime buff like me to read). I don't have the book near me so I could get a quote, but I remember reading something about how a thin film of oil on the ocean's surface (apparently, an extremely thin layer exists naturally) correlates in thickness to wave height during large sea-storms. Something about how the presence of more oil coresponds to smaller waves due to a stronger surface tension or something...

Maybe pumping out some reflective oil could hit two birds with one stone, dampen global warming AND soften the seas during storms? When I get near the book again in a few days, I'll look for the paragraph on it.

Is Geothermal Energy a possible solution for Global Warming? P.J.LAKHAPATE...If most of man's energy came from geothermal I suspect that there would be a terrible water pollution problem. As far as I know, the only practical way to bring the heat to the converter (for steam generation and turbine etc.) is in ground water. This water typically comes with a lot of undesirable chemicals in it, including toxic heavy metals, radioactive gases like radon, arsenic, etc. Where would you put them? If re-injected (when cold) it must be some other well and there is both the energy cost and risk of contamination of the aquifer you drink from - either directly from a well or indirectly as it keeps the rivers flowing to the intake of a public water company, if it uses river water instead of wells.

I am not well versed in this area. - These just my "water pollution" concerns.

I do not know, but would bet, that the average of all geothermal plants releases much more radioactivity per kWH generated than the worst of the French or US nuclear plants does. After all, where does the heat come from? Answer: Mainly radioactive decay,especially if near the surface. (Earth's core may be primordial heat also. Again I am not an expert in this area, but it would take some strong supporting evidence to make me much of a supporter of geothermal power.

Possibly geothermal power is even greater source of radiation release than average US coal / kWH. Green Peace has blocked nuclear plants and forced the use of coal in the US so Green Peace's ignorant actions have added to the cancer deaths in US by radiation etc.

Green Peace has blocked nuclear plants and forced the use of coal in the US so Green Peace's ignorant actions have added to the cancer deaths in US by radiation etc.

I couldn't agree with you more, Green Peace generally has very little idea of what it's doing. This was made obvious to me for at least one friend of mine who's part of the group: drove near a coal power plant and she says it's a nuclear plant because of the "nuclear towers" (for those not fluent in idiot-speak, she was pointing at the plant's cooling towers). She then went on to say that these towers pumped radiation into the atmosphere. I then explained that a cooling tower does not pump anything more than water vapor into the air, and that this wasn't even a nuke plant as shown by a few massive smoke stacks directly adjacent to the cooling towers. To her horror, she found herself trying with all her wit to convince me that smoke stacks don't mean it's not nuclear. Simply, unbelievably, amazing...

Yuck....

Solution to global warming:
Kill all humans.

Spend billions for research on a space craft that can take off and fly to the moon easily and cheaply and fast. Then we could tanks of liquid co2 to the moon every month. Go to surrounding planets and collect needed materials for an atmospshere. Nitrogen and take the tanks to the moon as well. First dump the Nitrogen tanks and then dump the C02 tanks. Also make and build underground water supplies that act like geysers when heated by the sun.

We would need the calculations on how much gas it would take for the moon to have enough gas to create a big enough gravity that the gases compress and form more layers of an atmosphere. After that we could build green houses on the moon to convert the Co2 to Oxygen.

After a long time the moon will become a mini-planet. Able to have self-sustainable life.

Solution to global warming:
Kill all humans.

Actually some AI might consider that as most effective since it's the root of the problem. Hahahaha.

If most of man's energy came from geothermal I suspect that there would be a terrible water pollution problem. As far as I know, the only practical way to bring the heat to the converter (for steam generation and turbine etc.) is in ground water. This water typically comes with a lot of undesirable chemicals in it, including toxic heavy metals, radioactive gases like radon, arsenic, etc. Where would you put them?

Thats bullshit mon. You get LOADS more water polution form the oil industry and from nuclear plants. Beside, ground water is used everywhere, those chemicals are in their natural levels and dont harm anyone. Its only when industry concentrates the heavy metals and radio active gas that its dangerous.

After all, where does the heat come from? Answer: Mainly radioactive decay,especially if near the surface.

Right, and we are ON the surface. Normal radiation from the Earth is just fine. Its the HEAT that goethermal power brings up and focuses for us to use, not the radiation.

Solution to global warming:
Kill all humans.
Isn't that the solution for everything?

Well, besides the survival of our species of course....


Wait a minute. I juts realized how ironic that is!!! ROFLMAO!!!!!!

:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:

ROFLMAO!!!!!!

Wot's that mean..?

^ Rolls on floor laughing my ass off

...You get LOADS more water polution form the oil industry and from nuclear plants. Beside, ground water is used everywhere, those chemicals are in their natural levels and dont harm anyone. Its only when industry concentrates the heavy metals and radio active gas that its dangerous....Speaking of "bull shit" there is plenty in your post. I do no know much about the water poplition caused by the oil industry, but doubt what you say is true, and I am against using oil as a fuel so not trying to defend that industry. (Oil should be saved as a chemical feed stock and lubercant mainly.)

On nuclear power plant water polution you are so wrong it is silly. In fact some potential sites are unacceptible to the nuclear industry because the local water is very slightly radioactive. If it were to be used for nuclear plant cooling they would need to pass it thru ion exchange filters to clean it up before they could retun it to the river it came from! That is how stiff the water discharge regulations are in the US!!! Many of your better bottled "mineral waters" have more radiativity in them than the nuclear plant is allowed to dump into the river!

My daughter sold home about 100 miles west of Philadelphia a few years ago and I sold one in Maryland. Both had basements and need to pass radon tests. I cheated (covered the canister with sheet of plastic for half the time it was collecting sample) and was relieved to see that it was only 40% (less than 50%) of the way towards the limit where I would need to have sealed all cracks in the cement, installed fan, etc. My more scruplous daughter ignored my advice and ended up paying more than $1000 to reduce the radon concentration in her basement. Many, many wells have significant radon disolved in their water. Some brick houses in the southwest USA are very "hot" radioactively. In fact there are nearly zero locations in US where the soil radiation is not easily detected and many where it is as great as the cosmic radiation. - like living in "mile high Denver" but at sea level.

The only economically feasible way partially to clean up the natural radiation in sites where it is a real danger is to mine it and transmute the radioactive elements* into harmless ones (or some with half lifes of a year or less that can be stored and then burried.) The long lived radio-active by-products of spent nuclear fuel (which is not recyclable) that come from an entire lifetime of an American's electric power consumption (assume all his power were nuclear in origin) can be concentrated in a glassified disk that is slightly larger than a hockey puck!

In old post I have explained that one simple cheap and safe way to get rid of these "hot** hockey pucks" is to just slowly dump them over the side of boat traveling over one of the deep ocean trenches, where tectonic flow will take them deep into the Earth for at least 100 billion years and melt them in deep laval.
------------------------
*Use nuclear power plant to transmute this natural radioactivity.
** they would be hot both thermally (<150degrees C) and radioactively so automatic handeling would be required. I recommend a "disk hurler," sort of like those used for shoot gun clay pigeons, disperse them in an arc from the stern of the boat.

The problem with geothermal power is that it relies on heat coming through rock; solid rock is a good insulator so it cools down around the heat collection equipment, giving diminishing returns. Only in certain geothermally active regions is the heat transferred through the surrounding rock fast enough to avoid this; Iceland is a good example.

Hmm; this approach looks promising;
Hot Dry Rock Geothermal Energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_Geothermal_System)...
eventually the end of the bore would cool down, but you can always drill another one.

HDR might cause minor earthquakes, according to that site.

Oh well.

So build the HDR plant well away from the city its powering.. minor quakes arent a problem for a strong, well built bunker. And if the hot rock is in earthquake country anyway (like Basel, in your link) people shouldnt be eediat enough to build a town there.

reduce energy consumption in fact reduce consumption generally
encourage communities to grow/produce their own food or eat locally produced food
outlaw plastic
reduce cow's milk production and consumption
make polluting industries responsible for cleaning up their own waste products
leave excess packaging on the floor of the supermarkets
encourage and reward innovation for biodegradable products, renewable energy sources, etc
introduce population controls (particularly in countries that consume highest most resources)
promote organic
educate

Just Stop Some Extremism.

outlaw plastic

Nah, that would just mean more paper and cardboard needed - more trees cut down. Cannot be good for the climate.


Just Stop Some Extremism. Not sure this will afect climate change, unless you call George Dubya Bush an extremist...