|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 $4bn. The previous two years show similar, though less dramatic, shortfalls. http://nytimes.com/financialtimes/bu...35_200375.html Jack Dingler |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"Jack May" wrote in
news:fr1bd.236229$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 | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
on Bush and his crashes | Boris Foelsch | Techniques | 1152 | November 12th 04 03:33 AM |
"Nobel laureate (in Economics) calls for steeper tax cuts in US" | Steve | Racing | 223 | November 7th 04 11:36 PM |
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 |