A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Social Issues
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Hydrogen economy looks out of reach



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old October 11th 04, 11:28 PM
Mike DeMicco
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
John David Galt wrote:


Let's hope so - we're going to be in a world of hurt if the fossil
fuels run out before there is a good alternative.


There already is: biofuels. They'll last as long as the sun.


No,

1. biofuels can not be produced in enough quantity to totally replace
fossil fuels, and

2. they cause just as much global warming and air pollution.

--
Mike DeMicco
(Remove the REMOVE_THIS from my email address to reply.)
Ads
  #12  
Old October 12th 04, 12:40 AM
223rem
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

John David Galt wrote:
Fusion is still in the realm of science fiction,


LMAO. Are you working your way through the science fiction from
the thrities or something?
  #13  
Old October 13th 04, 04:38 AM
Jack May
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Mike DeMicco" wrote in message
...

No,

1. biofuels can not be produced in enough quantity to totally replace
fossil fuels, and

2. they cause just as much global warming and air pollution.


Bio fuels are claimed to be carbon neutral because plants convert the CO2
from their combustion back into carbon and oxygen when they grow. It is
claimed to be a closed cycle so that there is no net increase in CO2 in the
atmosphere.

If biofuels can't replace all fossil fuels, there are several options being
developed that also have the potential to replace fossil fuel.

One estimate is that when we create a practical fusion system, there is
enough fuel on earth to last about twice the time until the Earth is burned
up in the death process of the sun.


  #14  
Old October 13th 04, 07:52 PM
Jym Dyer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Bio fuels are claimed to be carbon neutral because plants
convert the CO2 from their combustion back into carbon and
oxygen when they grow. It is claimed to be a closed cycle
so that there is no net increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.


=v= What's generally left out of this claim is the length of
time CO2 spends in the atmosphere. Also kept vague is just
how much of our energy demand (or even actual needs) can
be handled with biomass, and thus how much supposed carbon
neutrality can help. I want to see numbers, not just vague
back-of-envelope scenarios.

=v= I'm certainly glad biomass lends a hand, and even gladder
that we've finally figured out how to make a biomass fuel
(biodiesel) that actually produces more energy than it takes
to be produced. Yet all I'm seeing it used for is idiotic
pilot projects such as biodiesel fuel cell "green" Hummers.

=v= Shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic would actually be
a better use of time.

If biofuels can't replace all fossil fuels, there are several
options being developed that also have the potential to
replace fossil fuel.


=v= I've been hearing vague promises about these "several
options" ever since the Energy Crisis in the 1970s. Aside from
Amory Lovins, few have bothered to work out real numbers. It's
been 30 years; let's see something other than vague scenarios.
_Jym_
  #15  
Old October 13th 04, 09:12 PM
Jack Dingler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Jym Dyer wrote:

snip
=v= Shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic would actually be
a better use of time.



If biofuels can't replace all fossil fuels, there are several
options being developed that also have the potential to
replace fossil fuel.



=v= I've been hearing vague promises about these "several
options" ever since the Energy Crisis in the 1970s. Aside from
Amory Lovins, few have bothered to work out real numbers. It's
been 30 years; let's see something other than vague scenarios.
_Jym_


The arguments for doing nothing, have remained essentially unchanged for
decades. What has changed is the argued trigger point for when alternate
fuels will save us.

It's been argued that these alternatives will kick in when the price of
crude reaches...
$15/barrel
$20/barrel
$25/barrel
$30/barrel
$35/barrel
$40/barrel
$45/barrel
$50/barrel
$55/barrel
......

And we've also heard it argued that some other guy, not us, is about to
invent a technology that will fix everything. Yet we never hear who he
is or have a clue what that technology will be.

And as we've waited the price of oil has risen through...
$15/barrel
$20/barrel
$25/barrel
$30/barrel
$35/barrel
$40/barrel
$45/barrel
$50/barrel
......

And still we wait for the future to come and fix the problems of the
past. Because now it's a bit late. How much longer do we do nothing
while waiting for a miracle of faith to occur?

Jack Dingler


  #16  
Old October 13th 04, 09:28 PM
Matthew Russotto
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Jack Dingler wrote:


Jym Dyer wrote:

snip
=v= Shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic would actually be
a better use of time.



If biofuels can't replace all fossil fuels, there are several
options being developed that also have the potential to
replace fossil fuel.



=v= I've been hearing vague promises about these "several
options" ever since the Energy Crisis in the 1970s. Aside from
Amory Lovins, few have bothered to work out real numbers. It's
been 30 years; let's see something other than vague scenarios.
_Jym_


The arguments for doing nothing, have remained essentially unchanged for
decades.


And each time the predicted End of The World As We Know It passes
without neither a bang nor a whimper, they're strengthened.
  #17  
Old October 13th 04, 09:45 PM
Jack Dingler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Matthew Russotto wrote:

In article ,
Jack Dingler wrote:


Jym Dyer wrote:



snip
=v= Shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic would actually be
a better use of time.


=v= I've been hearing vague promises about these "several
options" ever since the Energy Crisis in the 1970s. Aside from
Amory Lovins, few have bothered to work out real numbers. It's
been 30 years; let's see something other than vague scenarios.
_Jym_



The arguments for doing nothing, have remained essentially unchanged for
decades.



And each time the predicted End of The World As We Know It passes
without neither a bang nor a whimper, they're strengthened.


You've seen no change in the world over the last few decades? Is the
world of the 1960s still with us intact and whole? Or has the world as
we know it, actually changed?

I see it as the frog in the pot syndrome, you slowly turn up the heat
and the frog dies without ever realizing it's being cooked.

At what price for crude would you argue, will kick in alternatives? Or
do you think that oil production will keep rising through 2060 with ever
rising costs, while wages remain constant?

Or what scenario do you think is playing out?

Jack Dingler

  #18  
Old October 13th 04, 10:48 PM
John David Galt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Let's hope so - we're going to be in a world of hurt if the fossil
fuels run out before there is a good alternative.


There already is: biofuels. They'll last as long as the sun.


No,

1. biofuels can not be produced in enough quantity to totally replace
fossil fuels, and


Sure they can. There are farmers going broke all over the US Midwest
because prices for their products are so low. Growing grain for alcohol
(for example) would cure that problem too.

2. they cause just as much global warming and air pollution.


It isn't proven that global warming is even happening, and if it is, human
activities are probably not to blame.
http://www.sepp.org/statment.html

But even if all those scientists are wrong, global warming is trivial to
undo.
http://reason.com/9711/fe.benford.shtml

Save these clues! Collect the whole set!
  #19  
Old October 13th 04, 11:53 PM
Jack Dingler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

The world's biggest oil companies are failing to get value for money
when they explore for new reserves, according to research by Wood
Mackenzie, the energy consultant.

The report shows the commercial value of oil and gas discovered over the
past three years by the 10 largest listed energy groups is running well
below the amount they have spent on exploration.

snip

Wood Mackenzie says the top-10 oil groups spent about $8bn combined on
exploration last year, but this only led to commercial discoveries with
a net present value of slightly less than $4bn. The previous two years
show similar, though less dramatic, shortfalls.

http://nytimes.com/financialtimes/bu...35_200375.html

Jack Dingler

  #20  
Old October 14th 04, 04:50 AM
Mike DeMicco
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Jack May" wrote in
news:fr1bd.236229$D%.61792@attbi_s51:

Bio fuels are claimed to be carbon neutral because plants convert the
CO2 from their combustion back into carbon and oxygen when they grow.
It is claimed to be a closed cycle so that there is no net increase
in CO2 in the atmosphere.


I don't believe that because the crop grown to be converted to biofuel has
displaced other plants that were there before that were probably pumping
just as much CO2 from the atmosphere. It's also been proven that plants can
not keep up with all the CO2 we're pumping out into the atmosphere - hence
the current problem we're having with global warming.

--
Mike DeMicco
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
on Bush and his crashes Boris Foelsch Techniques 1152 November 12th 04 04:33 AM
"Nobel laureate (in Economics) calls for steeper tax cuts in US" Steve Racing 223 November 8th 04 12:36 AM
How Is Brake Reach Measured? Question Man Techniques 2 April 14th 04 09:31 PM
Bike Fit - Reach Ed General 7 October 2nd 03 03:52 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.