>>1583

ARE CANNIBAL PAEDOS LOWERING PROPERTY VALUES IN YOUR AREA? (see more on page 7)

Machetes are much better for mass murder anyway. You can even use them to do the butchering. You wouldn't want to ruin the choicest cuts.

I'm pretty excited for this, actually.

>>1585

I laughed. Well done.

For that I wish you the best in the coming apocalypse. I would split a can of stored beans or stew with you as the ashes fall from the sky.

>>1556

I see you have chosen to ignore that cars at the moment on average do about 23 mpg, but production cars exist in normal use that get close to 80 mpg, and that is before the smoke has been blown up anyones arse to really make them more efficent. Honda has already built cars that work on hydrogen. So no, I don't think they wll be powered on rainbows.

>Someone should have told all those starving people in Africa that they will just have to become more food efficient
Contray to what you believe bono, famines in africa have little to do with lack of food, much more to do with piss poor education (a lot of tribes need westerners to expain to them to dig a hole to get clean water for christ sake), bruital corrupt politics, inter tribe racism and people having more children then they can support.

Although if a lot of contries in africa mastered the art of being more 'food efficent' in agriculture on the same level the rest of the world has, there would be little to no problem.

>>1568

>I really hope not. The return for nuclear power is instant - huge amounts of cheap, clean electricity. The cost, however, entails managing a huge pile of biologically incompatible garbage for a VERY long time. Overall, its a huge loser.

Not really, not on the same kind of scale of the eccological damage the same amount of energies worth of oil generates. It isn't a huge pile at all, nuclear waste is actually tiny compared to the amount of energy produced, I could run your entire life from birth to death on a piece of refined uranium the size of a 1p coin.

> hydrogen production
>from what primary energy source? Hydrogen is for storage and transport only: it is NOT a source.

Take your pick, what ever method you choose to get the electricity to power the refinery.

>>1601

No one "chose" to ignore this. You've either skipped through the posts before and fired off your opinion blind and without bothering your arse to read them or you're just stuffing words, intentions and opinions into someone else's mouth to suit yourself. A pathetic method of attacking someone and their opinions either way.

It was already explained why this was not going to save the day. So did you not read or understand ot did you choose to ignore the points that already addressed these comments? The answers and counters are already there.

People really shouldn't have to constantly repeat themselves in a thread for people like you who don't bother to read and absorb what was written already.

A nasty level of ignorance in your post.

Basically I think that if the world changes so that I am forced to farm for myself, to basically live to survive, to live in fear of hordes of lesser prepared, hungry, angry people, I'd much rather not bother. That's probably pretty bad, but fuck it. I'll stock up enough food for maybe half a year, and if there isn't some sort of government back by then I'll just top myself.

>>1603

Tribal Government. Mr. WrenchWrangler will barge into your house one day and 'offer' you protection... for a small tribute, of course. We all have to share and share alike in these times, after all.

You'll be eating dog food whilst the gangsters get first choice.

>>1601
> Not really, not on the same kind of scale of the eccological damage the same amount of energies worth of oil generates. It isn't a huge pile at all, nuclear waste is actually tiny compared to the amount of energy produced, I could run your entire life from birth to death on a piece of refined uranium the size of a 1p coin.
Got a reference? Sorry but that seems way below estimates.

Don't forget also, you're probably talking about pure U235. The stuff we run in our reactors is only 3% U235 - ie. 97% of it is U238 that absorbs lots of neutrons and becomes highly radioactive.

And that's just the volume of high level waste. What about the steel rods that contained the fuel pellets? They're intermediate level waste and also require a fuckload of shielding.

And then at the end of its lifespan, when the reactor has become too brittle from all the neutrons its absorbed to be safe, it has to be taken apart and stored as intermediate level waste.

And don't forget all the tons of low level waste - pretty much anything that's ever been near intermediate or high level waste. That also needs careful disposal.

Course you can try and reduce volumes of high and intermediate level waste by reprocessing. But that's a messy process and creates lots of low level waste. And leaks happen from time to time, so the plants usually end up pretty polluted. Reprocessing has also been responsible for a whole bunch of criticality accidents, which kill people and generate even more radioactive waste.

> >from what primary energy source? Hydrogen is for storage and transport only: it is NOT a source.
> Take your pick, what ever method you choose to get the electricity to power the refinery.
Hydrogen production requires more than 100% of the energy in the final product. Oil refining requires much less than 100% of the energy in the final product. Not sure what; I'd guess <20%.

>>1603

You shouldn't despair. Your ancestors in the past have lived through worse and they lived well enough to eventually lead to your creation. Perhaps you'll change your mind if it came to it, but keep your chin up. The last thing you want is that attitude even when the "mundane" terrible personal events happen. There's something to be said for the stiff upper lip.

I suspect you'll find your survival instinct is stronger than you believe. I'd be surprised to see someone just give up on living because they were lazy.

>>1605
>Hydrogen production requires more than 100% of the energy in the final product. Oil refining requires much less than 100% of the energy in the final product. Not sure what; I'd guess <20%.
Not >>1601 but this is the main problem, oil production is approaching 100% energy to produce the final product, hence peak oil...
But do feel free to carry on arguing about the pros and cons of nuclear energy until the lights go out and we all starve

We should have been building new nuclear, coal, gas, hydro and other alternatives years and years ago to modernise and supply us for the future. Instead we've got an aging system and plants that are running over their age limit (wasting fuel, giving less energy and with more risks).

>>1609
> oil production is approaching 100% energy to produce the final product, hence peak oil...
what? you best be trolling lad.

>>1611

Not the same person, but I don't see what is wrong with it, unless you've mistaken what he meant by it? I'm sure clarification can be forthcoming if you aren't sure and point out what the problem is.

It's referring to the cost of extraction and processing compared to the value of the end product. There's lots of resources that fall foul of this, regardless of their abundance or lack. I'm sure you can see now what was meant by the statement in question.

>>1612
peak oil is the peak of world oil production. it's when future production levels cannot sustainably (ie. without damaging fields) match current levels. it's got nothing to do with cost or energy of extraction.

> It's referring to the cost of extraction and processing compared to the value of the end product. There's lots of resources that fall foul of this, regardless of their abundance or lack.
Yeah but this financial cost, not energy cost. Financial cost will become relatively less as oil prices rise. Energy cost will remain a constant fraction for any given source and afaik it's not substantial for any currently feasible source.

>>1621

>Yeah but this financial cost, not energy cost. Financial cost will become relatively less as oil prices rise. Energy cost will remain a constant fraction for any given source and afaik it's not substantial for any currently feasible source.

WRONG! Energy costs are increasing too. This is why large amounts of the "reserves" are not really reserves at all. They are shale (gives Canada a large "paper" reserve that isn't nearly so impressive when you break it down in detail) or at the edge (or beyond) the reach of worthwhile drilling and processing. You can't just magic the stuff out or use old methods to reach deep and difficult pockets or to process certain types of sources.

It costs energy to extract. It is NOT costant for all sources. Complete bollocks. Peak oil has everything to do with costs of extraction. This is a huge factor. Read up on the issue and you'll find tons on this problem. It's basic common sense when it comes to business, really.

If it costs 1/10 of a barrel of oil to get a barrel of oil then all is well. If it costs 9/10 or more then you're in deep shit. All is not equal.

>>1506

Where were most of you in 2004? Shit is old. You should know what to do by now. It sounds like I'm boasting and I'm honestly glad more people are 'aware' than they were, but shit, man.

>>1629

Post pictures of your bunker.

>>1622
Fair enough. I have no idea how much of a barrel it takes to extract a barrel.

Do you?

>>1633

I have actually looked into the costs of it and there's been more than enough public information on this from websites to documentaries.

Like has been said, it varies depending on what well you tap. In the old black gold rush days the effort was minimal compared to deep drilling in the gulf coast or hunting pockets in the north sea.

>>1634

I'm pretty sure now I think about it that you'd find something on YouTube or Google too. I can't be arsed to go look it up and copy and paste it or transcribe it from videos for the thread though. I was happy enough to learn for myself at the time. I wasn't planning on making pamphlets.

If you store fuel, especially heating oil, then buy it now. Not for some long term apocalypse, but because it should be clear by now that it won't be going down the unrest in the Middle East and threats to supply. If we get a patch of bad weather this will be used to crank the prices up. Get it while it is cheap and you'll save yourself a few quid down the road.

OP here,

It's ok ladmates, I've got an idea...

http://machinedesign.com/article/thorium-a-readily-available-and-slightly-radioactive-mineral-could-provide-the-world-with-sa

Pic unrelated

>>1656

Two problems -

1. It's still pie in the sky
2. Doesn't replace oil's applications

Researchers at UCLA's Henry Samueli School of Engineering and Applied Science have developed a way to produce normal butanol — often proposed as a "greener" fuel alternative to diesel and gasoline -- from bacteria at rates significantly higher than those achieved using current production methods.

The findings, reported online in the journal Applied and Environmental Microbiology, mark an important advance in the production of normal butanol, or n-butanol, a four-carbon chain alcohol that has been shown to work well with existing energy infrastructure, including in vehicles designed for gasoline, without modifications that would be required with other biofuels.

The UCLA team, led by James C. Liao, UCLA's Chancellor's Professor of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, demonstrated success in producing 15 to 30 grams of n-butanol per liter of culture medium using genetically engineered Escherichia coli — a record-setting increase over the typical one to four grams produced per liter in the past.

Genetically modified E. coli ? Blimey.

>>1658
You're not familiar with E. coli's overwhelming use in all forms of genetic research? It's fucking everywhere. We know more about the E. coli genome than we do our own.

_{I swear to god if I never see another E. coli culture again it will be too fucking soon.}

>>1658
interesting, but how much do they have to feed the e. coli to get their 15 - 30 grams of butanol? is it efficient overall?

>>1660

Exactly. I've (and I'm sure others) have heard these stories come and go along with the regular water powered cars. Until we get more facts and news on viability then it's not worth getting excited over.

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-06/environmental-visionaries-carbon-slayer

Here's one in a similar vein. This process sucks carbon from the air and makes fuel.

>>1662
what a crap idea. designer needs a slap around the chops.

>>1663

Agreed. The man is a crackpot sucking on the government grant teat.

>>1663
Really? If he has an efficient process, does this not represent a way of totally cutting out fossil fuel reliance, but with the one huge advantage that the oil can be used now, without having to totally rework the car, the ship and the plane?

>>1665 I agree. It's probably the best idea man ever had. However, it just seems too good to be possible. Having said that, it's time we had a break.

>>1663
>>1664

Someone's jealoussss

>>1666

>best idea man ever had

Oh come on. Ludicrous pie in the sky and you're giving it this hyperbole?

The idea is absurd, unproven and unworkable.

>>1668

>Ludicrous pie in the sky

On what basis are you saying this?

Ok I've been convinced that I need to grow some stuff to live on. I have very little soil and not much sun. What's my best options?

I have raspberry canes, garlic and a few herbs (mint, chives, tyme) what else does eco think I should grow?

Pic very much related http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1503769/

>>1687
If you have a wall you could do >>1679 does not use up much space, or sun.

I remember reading about growing potatoes, in towers of tires, I presume that would work for other plants aswell.

>>1603

I'm with you, being alive is all well and good during the high times but I don't think I care enough about it to live a lifetime of hardship, better to enjoy what we have left then cast ourselves into oblivion!

I find it hard to imagine how pathetic, weak of character, lazy and shallow someone would have to be to wish to be dead instead of having any hardship. What a terrible human being.

Better such people die off anway, frankly. Best for the species as a whole. We'd have never survived a generation if such poor specimens were allowed to thrive and become the majority. Be sure to post up your address here so the rest can raid your home for supplies before others do. Bagsy the tinned meat.

>>1687

Planters, also consider growing fungi. You can do that underground or inside without needing to go into hydroponics or similar fields.

>>1687
I think that people sometimes grow potatoes in pots, piling up soil as the plant grows. I would also suggest that if you could put up a window-box, you might be able to harvest carrots, chives or even lettuce, depending on how much room you have.
If you like your herbs, keep a pot of basil indoors; it's virtually indestructible.

Indoor planters + LED grow lights.

>>1692

Beware of LED grow lights. Great claims are made but results are there none.

>>1703

I've not seen any complaints about them other than from people trying to buy overpriced ready made panels, maybe I've just missed it. Where are you getting these warnings? It's well worth posting it up for us all to read.

If price is the problem then make up your own panels for a fraction of the cost and for a perfectly tailored product. Use them at the very least as a supplement, you can be flexible.

http://forums.bghydro.com/showthread.php?201-LED-Grow-Light-Opinions

>>1704

From the thread you put up -

>Hi all,

>Time to lay to rest another myth.

>You can only create light that plants can use, PAR light, AKA the visible spectrum, when the light has plasma. The Sun makes plasma, HID lights make plasma, and that's about it. Other lights like LED's and fluorescents make light differently, and they basically are just glowing and burning phosphors, in essence.

>No plasma means no effective light that can have any power, amplitude or proper spectrum that plants need to make photosynthesis. If the light can't penetrate, its ineffective for overall plant growth. LED's deliver light to a linear plane, and can't penetrate.

>You can all research this from this basic bit of science and photobiology.

>Cheers

I was going to say the same myself. Look at the available light spectrum of your LED panel. It's just not there by comparison to HPS or envirolite. If it is cheap you are after, envirolite is the way.

>>1716

I suspected you'd not read past that. Read the rest of the thread.

>>1717

I did read the rest of your thread. I only want to advise you that LED panels can be a mug's game. The cheaper ones do not work at all, there are mixed views on the grand-a-panel jobbies. It's your money I suppose, but it seems shady to me.

>>1717

Oh, and here's the final post in your thread.

>update on this, the haight solid state ppf-400 is okay, but just not enough. i wound up combining 4 sunshine systems glowpanel 45 panels together with the haight solid state ppf-400, all 5 of these panels together are kicking butt. that is a lot of panel for not a whole lot of coverage though, let's see, $110 average for each glowpanel, $165 for the used haight solid state, 202 watts of led that cost a total of $605 and it's doing about as good as my old 250 watt hps, i am saving a little bit on electricity but honestly, when i add up all that was spent on these leds the savings don't make much sense, even with bulb replacements every 6 months it sure takes a long time for the electricity savings to add up enough to off set it

>>1718
>>1719

And the people who disagreed with that earlier quote and others who said they were growing with them?

I guess people are only right and worth quoting when they agree with you.

I realised I am coming far too hostile about this for my tastes and you're only advising caution for the other lad's benefit anyway. I really don't want to go down that path, especially on /eco/. They can read up on these things more if it really interests them, etc. Especially now they've been given some key terms and ideas.

Sorry about that, fellow /eco/warriors.

>>1721
Don't worry, people here generally assume that a post is in good faith.