Does anyone actually pay attention to things happening in politics? Like the environment and stuff? This should hopefully open your minds to our current issues:

Key Points:
- Population Explosion
- Energy Crisis
- Greenhouse Gases
- Ozone Layer


Population Explosion:

In an analogy by David Suzuki(a famous environmentalist) states that if there were a test tube(representing our planet) that is filled with food, and a single microbe(us humans) that would split in two(double in numbers) every minute, running out of food and dying after an hour, and we compare this with our current situation, we are on the last minute. The time it will take for our population to double: 48 Years(shorter than you expected, wasn't it).

Continuing with the analogy, even if after an hour passed, scientists resupplied us with four new tubes, we would still die in 3 more minutes.
The solution? Put bluntly, kill people, but the Humans Rights groups would go crazy, so thats out of the question. What now? Limit babies, of course! China's done it, so why can't the rest of the world?


Energy Crisis:

~Excerpt from Wikipedia~
"At current consumption levels, and assuming that oil will be consumed only from reservoirs, known reserves would be gone around 2039, potentially leading to a global energy crisis. However, this ignores any new discoveries, rapidly increasing consumption in China & India, using oil sands, using synthetic petroleum, and other factors which may extend or reduce this estimate."

Coal reserves are expected to last 157-285 years with the current consumption rate. This will probably leave you thinking "What's so bad about that?" to which I will reply: "If coal was used to produce electricity for the entire world, the reserves would only last 57 years."

Did you know that "Green Energy" accounts for less than 5% of electricity produced WORLDWIDE? Nuclear Energy produces about 25% whereas the burning of fossil fuels(coal, oil) accounts for more than 70% of electricity produced. The really optimistic scientists estimate that within 50 years, "Green Energy" plants will produce 18-20% more energy than the current plants(big whoop people, now they're going to make 18-20% more than <5%! That's like <5.09-5.1%! We're saved!!!!! NO! It doesn't work that way).

Subsection: Alternative Fuel Vehicles

Do you actually think alternate fuel vehicles are that good? Well, in a sense they do help the environment, but it's pretty much pointless if they're inefficient. What do I mean by inefficient? I mean that they simply don't make sense. For example, Ethanol fuel sources could replace gasoline, as they can be made with just about any kind of plant, but how do we grow and harvest these plants? I suppose farmers pick millions of crops from their own farms every harvest without any gas powered machines right? No, because that would be stupid(why grow that many crops if you can't harvest them all?) and time consuming(It would take 96 years for the average person to just count to 1 million, so how long do you think it will take a farmer to rip a plant out of the ground that many times).

"Well, maybe other cars are better." Um, well thats what a lot of people would like to think but I will provide the following unbiased facts to those who read this thread.

Characteristics of Fuels:
Air
- Fuel is cheap
- Can be refuel wherever there is electricity
- Takes longer to refuel than gasoline
- Low Mileage(100-200 miles/161-322 km)

Battery Energy
- Fuel is easily distributed
- Batteries are changed more easily than other fuels
- Batteries capacity(lifetime) lowers with each charge, if only by a little(depends on the battery)
- Longer battery life and shorter recharge times are required for this type of vehicle to be practical

Alcohol/Ethanol
- Fuel can easily be produced
- Can be mixed into gas pumps(in low proportions) to cut down on gas consumed
- Does not produce as much energy as oil fuels(lower mileage)

Bio-Diesel
- Low awareness(have you heard of them before reading this)
- More than twice the efficiency of the highest grade gasoline power engines(23% as opposed to the average diesel's 50%)
- Is produced from natural oils(not fossil fuels, I'm talking about the stuff you put on a frying pan when you make eggs)

Hybrid
- Just a combination of multiple fuel sources
- Most hybrids use battery and gasoline
- Batteries have low mileage, then charged with relatively small gas tank or charged at home(by coal-burning plants, no doubt)

Hydrogen
- Versatile(can be burned or used in fuel-cell conversion)
- Only exhaust is H2O(Water)
- Current speed record for Hydrogen Cars: approximately 186 mph(300km/h)

Nitrogen
- More than 50% of normal air is composed of Nitrogen(N2)
- Impractical(requires a 93 gallon/350 litre sealed tank, as opposed to a 13 gallon/50 litre tank)
- Extremely expensive to produce

Solar
- Impractical design(in order to produce enough energy, the driver will lay down in the relatively cramped car, with a glass dome over his head to watch the road, and the rest of the car's surface is relatively flat and covered in solar panels. We're talking about a car less than a yard(91.44 cm) high
- Not very fast (Fastest vehicle so far can go up to 84mph/140km/h)

Steam
- Impractical (It takes time to boil something to make steam, and then get the turbines going)
- Can achieve speeds of over 100mph/161km/h
- A secondary fuel source must be used to heat the water


Greenhouse Gases

In essence, greenhouse gases are necessary for life as we know it. Without them, the average temperature of the Earth would be -2°F or -19°C, as opposed to 59°F, or 15°C.

However, the use of combustion engines has severely altered the composition of our atmosphere, to the point where greenhouse gases have reached more than 4 times the natural levels, even during natural peaks. This environmental trend began in the late 1800's and has been continuing up until now, and will continue in the near future. The current level of Greenhouse gases means that the temperature is actually going up every year. In some areas it has more impact on the climate(such as the polar regions, where the mean temperature can rise more than 7.5°F annually, or more than 4°C annually). This trend is also changing precipitation levels in many regions, intensifying global extremes(dry areas are now being hit with droughts that locals were never prepared for, places used to frequent flooding hit with disastrous floods). If this isn't enough to raise your eyebrows, this should be: The increase in temperature has recently made deadlier hurricanes that can travel farther North or South of the Equator without losing energy(AKA Katrina). Furthermore, our methods of dealing with domestic waste are contributing to the greenhouse effect, as they release methane(Methane has 25 times the effect of Carbon Dioxide on the environment) fumes while decomposing.

Did you know that if half(that's right only half) of the ice caps and glaciers prone to melting in the Northern(I'm not even counting the South yet) Arctic regions, that more than a third of the world's land will be submerged in seawater? Take your emissions seriously or suffer the consequences(or imagine the other half + the Antarctic, that'll give you some motivation).


Ozone Layer

Important Terms:

Chlorofluorocarbons: (CFC) are compounds containing chlorine, fluorine and carbon only, that is they contain no hydrogen. They were formerly used widely in industry, for example as refrigerants, propellants, and cleaning solvents. Their use has been regularly prohibited by the Montreal Protocol, because of effects on the ozone layer. They are also a powerful greenhouse gas, in terms of carbon dioxide equivalence (over a time period of one hundred years) between 5000 and 8100 per kg.

Hydrochlorofluorocarbons: (HCFCs) are of a class of haloalkanes where not all hydrogen has been replaced by chlorine or fluorine. They are used primarily as chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) substitutes, as the ozone depleting effects are only about 10% of the CFCs.

Basically speaking, the Ozone Layer is a very thin layer of our atmosphere that partially blocks incoming rays from the sun. Its key function for supporting life is the fact that it blocks UV(Ultra-Violet) rays from the Sun. UV rays are damaging to organisms as it can cause irregular and/or destructive growth in cells(more commonly known as cancer tumors). UV ray levels intensify as one climbs higher in altitude, like mountains and highlands.

In-Depth Explanation of UV rays (Quoted from Wikipedia):
UVA, UVB and UVC can all damage collagen fibers and thereby accelerate aging of the skin. Both UVA and UVB destroy vitamin A in skin which may cause further damage. In general, UVA is the least harmful, but can contribute to the aging of skin, DNA damage and possibly skin cancer. It penetrates deeply and does not cause sunburn. Because it does not cause reddening of the skin (erythema) it cannot be measured in the SPF testing. There is no good clinical measurement of the blocking of UVA radiation, but it is important that sunscreen block both UVA and UVB.

UVB light can cause skin cancer. The radiation excites DNA molecules in skin cells, causing covalent bonds to form between adjacent thymine bases, producing thymidine dimers. Thymidine dimers do not base pair normally, which can cause distortion of the DNA helix, stalled replication, gaps, and misincorporation. These can lead to mutations, which can result in cancerous growths. The mutagenicity of UV radiation can be easily observed in bacteria cultures. This cancer connection is one reason for concern about ozone depletion and the ozone hole. UVB causes some damage to collagen but at a very much slower rate than UVA.

As a defense against UV radiation, the body tans when exposed to moderate (depending on skin type) levels of radiation and UVA in particular triggers the release of the brown pigment melanin from melanocytes; while UVB mostly triggers de novo production. This tan helps to block UV penetration and prevent damage to the vulnerable skin tissues deeper down.

Back to the Ozone Layer...

CFCs are compounds often found in older refrigeration units and had a variety of industrial uses. Unfortunately, though they seemed un-reactive(with a long half-life), this allowed them to reach the stratosphere, where the UV rays could split off the chlorine atom, which is highly reactive on its own, which would then form compounds. Common reactions were Cl· + O3 --> ClO· + O2 and ClO· + O3 --> Cl· + 2 O2. Usually the Chlorine would still split off and compound many times, damaging thousands of Ozone Molecules in the process(This is one atom Vs. millions of molecules, and this is the havoc it wreaks). However newer models of such devices now use HCFCs, which are less damaging, as they only have 1/10th of the impact of CFCs, but as you can see, people are unwilling to get new appliances, and even then the problem isn't solved.

Yeah, that's right. Your old refrigerator could kill someone else who will get skin cancer, and that's one more problem to plague your conscience.


Raise awareness. Copy this into a forum, blog, myspace, facebook, etc.
These problems won't fix themselves. People have to get involved NOW.

Post has been edited 9 time(s), last time on Oct 16 2007, 8:39 pm by SCORPIONOX.

With all the chemicals people put in food nowadays life expectancy should drop substantially.

Energy Crisis.. There isn't one, we'll eventually adapt to renewable energy sources after we run out of nonrenewable.

Please read this over again. You may not have read before I updated it. Although if every single human being on this planet cut down on a whopping 70% of the electricity they currently consumed, then there wouldn't be. But my question is, would you be willing to?(If your answer is no Akar, then you're a f**king hypocrite)
Before I forget to tell you, life span has nothing to do with how many of your kids survive and have kids. Do not try to escape reality, it only makes it harder for you when it slaps you in the face.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Oct 15 2007, 1:54 am by SCORPIONOX.

I read a while ago that France created a car that runs on air. It goes at about 70 mph, I don't know about the mileage, and all you need to do to refuel is to plug it to your home and the compressor will do the rest.
Sounds crazy, but I think it's a good idea. It debuts it I think around mid 2008.

The faster people die, the less people there will be. Maybe people have gotten super horny over the past 100 years or something, but two things are always for sure: taxes and death.

Whoops, I forgot to add those. Thanks, Flying Hat.
The mileage is actually 100-200 miles with the current technology with a carbon fiber tank holding 3,000 lbf/in². However, with newly available 10,000 lbf/in² tanks this range could easily triple in the next few years.

To Akar: I think you forget to factor in China and India in your hypothesis. A what I am posting is a collection of statistics and scientific estimates. I cannot put in exact numbers for everything. But what you are saying is mostly opinion, or am I wrong about that? You forget to factor in India as its population is increasing rapidly, and this isn't the end of our problems. As the population increases, a country will "develop", and the death rate will drop substantially, but not the birth rate. Anyone who knows what undeveloped countries are like would know that it was unusual for families there to have less than 5 kids. They usually had more than 10 in a family. Now how fast do you think India's population will double after it develops?

UN analysis suggests a plateau around 9-12 B people, while ecology theory suggests we are in for a hefty population drop.

Either way, we will know within 50 years.

This is what increased our life expentancy substantially from around 40-50 being a long-lived man to 80-90s easily.

Don't be so optimistic about the case, as Energy Crisis is a BIG crisis. Running out of gas and oil in 50 years means alot of work ahead of us. We can't be so dependant on geothermal energies, dams, tidal waves to generate electricity, winds, and sun to provide 24/7 energy since they are none-the-less terrain dependant and will not generate enough for the demands we currently have.
Well this leaves us URANIUM for FISSION NUCLEAR REACTORS! Well big news, it's not a everywhere-possible energy source. It's highly sensitive to surrounding environment and is a big issue with environmentalists. Although nuclear reactors are highly efficient, (not cheap) but profittable, it cannot be built around fault lines since it is like I said, sensitive to surrounding environment. Which means a tremor might cause leaks and meltdowns of radioactive materials. Which is a big deal, since people get cancer from contaminations like that.

Also, greenhouse gases will naturally be reduced by the depletion of fuels and coal. Simple as that aint it? But we really gotta use the stuff up. -- Naw really. We gotta have a vacuum that sorts out CO2 from other gases since theres still volcanoes and craters that emit a ton of CO2 at a time. Maybe we could launch it to mars and make it warmer there. Its good to have a GLOBAL WARMING on mars.

Although for futuristic options, although costly for developement and construction is, -- FUSION REACTORS! YAY!
In theory, saying that we can increase its efficiency to 100%, any fusion reaction will generate enough electricity to supply the entire world of its current demands and have left overs. It doesn't use up barrels, a canister or so will do for a year. Although since we will only gain about 10-13% of its generation, about 10 fusion reactors will serve as the entire world's generation of electricity. But, thats adding them ONTO the already renewable resources. So more electricity for us.

I would like to see more development into plutonium as a fuel source, right now it is basically being thrown away, due to politics and a fearmongering media.

Plutonium? As a fuel source? Practically, you need enriched uranium for nuclear reactors. But they have a reason why plutonium is not used for as, because of safety regards to instability of such material.

Otherwise it's good for nuclear bombs.

Both of you(BeDazed and AntiSleep) have a good point, however you guys/girls(I don't know your genders in real life) forget to mention how the government will ship away the toxic rocks after we have depleted them(one use is to make them into armor piercing slugs, this is no joke). Although the current percentages don't project a very good outcome in the future(1/4 of electricity is nuclear, that's not a lot).

One more thing, there is no such thing as 100% efficiency for energy, as a small percentage(less than 5%) is absorbed by extremely small(even through a microscope) neutrinos.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Oct 17 2007, 8:29 pm by SCORPIONOX.

Actually solar power looks better than anything but fusion reactors. Right now energy panels are around 15% efficient for high grade ones. If we can develop around 80% efficient solar panels we would draw an insanely large amount of energy from them. Currently the highest scientists have been able to get is around 40%

You might want to read the rules and quote a source for all your information in the first post.


Laser printers produce ozone. If we all switch, maybe we can replenish the ozone layer.

Thanks for the guilt trip. Not the best motivator.

The Confederates were environmentalists, who knew!

Anyway, the best idea I can come up with is solar power + batteries. Solar power for power and charging batteries when the sun is shining, and stored energy for when it isn't.
Or cold fusion, still waiting for that.

Post has been edited 5 time(s), last time on Oct 16 2007, 1:31 am by Mini Moose 2707.

I think they have cold fusion already, but it's energy inefficient. They're hoping that they can get warm fusion to be energy efficient, but they need to have massive magnetic structures to keep the material at millions of degrees without harming anything.

Population explosion: developed countries have less children because families know that infant mortalities are the exception. Only in developing countries do we get the population booms that spread fear on the news. I'm more worried about getting a steady supply of water to grow the necessary food.

Energy crisis: recently, radioactive solar dust was discovered on our moon, and it's believed that a prototype nuclear reactor which uses this fuel will be built within a few years. After that, we'll have a nearly endless amount of nuclear fuel to harvest. Also, we're developing far more efficient solar panels than we had from just a few years ago, and they will undoubtedly become even better. Not only that, but newer energy standards and improving technology is lowering energy consumption across the board from heating and cooling to lighting and electronics. New types of batteries can store hundreds of miles worth of electricity in cars, and I believe BMW already has a hydrogen fuel cell car available (if those commercials are to be believed).

I hate to say it, but it really seems like you didn't know what you were talking about. Hybrid cars use a gasoline engine just like any other car, except that they have an electric motor which can draw electricity from the battery during acceleration or create electricity by using the momentum of the car during braking to turn the turbine inside. That is to say that hybrid cars recharge when they brake, but I believe a large part of the energy efficiency also comes from using smaller engines. It's a more efficient form of the compact car, which of course gets better mileage than a pickup truck or SUV.

Also, it's estimated (from the wiki article now) that the sea level will rise 9 to 88 cm by 2100 C.E., mostly from global warming. That presents some new problems for coastal cities, but it doesn't particularly endanger them, and it certainly doesn't condemn them. The cities will simply have to spend some millions more to protect against the sea, that's about all. The biggest effects of global warming are climate and hydrological systems change, which can affect the food and water supplies around the world.

For the ozone holes, present and future, new policies are expected to return the ozone layer to pre-1980 levels by... 2068. Most of this info was grabbed off of wikipedia.

Fusion is the way of the future, fission is what we have now, nuclear, fusion is the merging of 2 hydrogen atoms together to form 1 helium molequle... omg cant spell, which creates massive energy, just like the sun.

Based of the UN charts we will have 9-12Billion People... um... yea, wont take to long either
Based of ecology we will lose much of our population

Now take this into account. For years now, prepartation for the colonization and research of MARS has begun. Projects have been made and many new ideas are being thrown in. Perhaps within 10 years we will begin our colonizatoin of mars.

Greenhouse gases are screwing with our lives, yes, but I wonder if there is a way to restore it. People say its irreplaceable, but what if (again) we fuse 3 oxygen atoms together? That could restore the atmosphere and crapply supply us with fuel? Just a guess though

Google/Wiki much?

No, it sounds more like hearsay. He did misunderstand the discrepancy between ecology theory and UN demographics. Ecology theorists are pretty convinced that humans have already exceeded the carrying capacity of the planet, the only reason we haven't died off yet is because of massive scope enlargement and drawdown of resources. The UN demographics seem to think that the worldwide birth rate will slow considerably within the next decades, due primarily to an improved standard of living(loss of fertility by choice). While the ecology theory points to dieoff, or loss of fertility due to malnutrition and lack of water.

[sarcasm]Well there's only one person who can fix all of this. Captain Planet![/sarcasm]

Population Boom: All though with all these statistics I'm not really scared of this one. Pretty much the population will constantly go up and down because of several causes. 1.War. Yup war. Remember WW1 and WW2. Particularly that dramasticly effected the planets pop big time. Not to mention an older war. Thirty years war. Reduced the germanic population by 30%(I think). 2.Disease and Sickness. Now a days theres cures and vaccines for them. But there fighting back the anti-biotic and developing countries are hit hard by them. Such as H.I.V-A.I.D.S,Tetanus,Typhoid ect.

Enviromental: Now that's something to worry about. Using air,solar-battery and water fuel seem like the best ideas to me.

Fission/Fusion Reactors seem entirely inefficient. Seeing all they use is the thermal energy generated by these reactions to make superheated steam to turn turbines which in turn makes electricity.

It is far more efficient than burning coal to make steam to run turbines to make electricity.