Biofuels:maybe not so enviromentally friendly?

[sosullivan]

Hi,

I know there's a seperate thread going on about global warming, so I though there might be some people interested in these articles:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6636467.stm (see also the links on the right hand side)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5369284.stm

Maybe renewable energy is not as good as we thought? I think the only solution to this problem is to decrease the world population, and for people to get off their fat a$$e$ and walk/cycle to where they're going.

Stephen.

[Plossl]

I think the only solution to this problem is to decrease the world population...
Stephen.
This will be your last post, I presume?

[schwim]

hehe... that was a good one plossl...

thanks,
json

[lazlow]

The thing that confuses me is why they have steered aways from the electric cars. If you look at the EV1, almost all the test drivers wanted to keep their cars. No one wants to keep a car they do not like. While the price of the Tesla ($100K) is off the planet for most of us, so are the exotic sports cars that it competes with. They talk about Hydrogen based cars, but then we have to develop the entire infrastucture to support it (not cheap). If we used electrics we already have the infrastucture in place. While there is (or is coming) overload on the current electrical grid, it is really a non issue because almost everyone would recharge their cars at night(in most areas demand drops to less than 50% after 11pm).

[Plossl]

The thing that confuses me is why they have steered aways from the electric cars. ..
The problem with electric cars is they're wasteful. They increase emissions unnecessarily - not emissions at the vehicle, which are zero, but emissions at the power plant.

Most electricity is still generated by burning fossil fuels, and is received at your home at about a 70% loss. Burning fuel at the vehicle is much more efficient.

The future for electric cars is probably more along the line of hybrids.

[lazlow]

Plossi

They increase emissions unnecessarily - not emissions at the vehicle, which are zero, but emissions at the power plant.


That is simply not true. Think about it. A car is concerned with weight. A power plant could care less about weight. With the scrubbers and other technology, the power plants put out a lot less pollution(per energy unit) than a tailpipe does. The other thing is that power plants are monitored. If something goes wrong they fix it before the regulators catch it. If something goes wrong with our cars most of us just think about fixing it (look at some of the stuff on the road). Even if it were true, it still moves the pollution away from population centers (less concentration of pollutants in highly populated areas).

Most electricity is still generated by burning fossil fuels, and is received at your home at about a 70% loss. Burning fuel at the vehicle is much more efficient.

When you look at efficiency you have to look at overall efficiency. If we assume most power is coal/natual gas, you have to haul the coal from (say Wyoming) to the power plant (gas is mostly piped) where it gets burned. With gasoline you have to put it in a ship and go to a port (requires energy), pipe it to a refinery, refine it (requires a lot of energy), pipe it to a distrobution center, put it on a truck and deliver it to the gas station(requires energy). There is a reason why most power plants do not run on oil(price/ unit). On top of all that, the internal combustion engine is just plain inefficient. I forget the exact numbers but only a small percentage of the energy in a gallon of gas turns the wheels( heat generation etc). Yes, power lines do loose a ton of power (maybe 70% is correct, something that we can work on) but with electric we have options as to source. Put solar panels on rooftops (not disconnect from the grid) is just one option( 0 trasmission loss). We are also starting to see wind and solar farms(as fossil fuel continue to climb in price these are becoming more and more attractive).

In the short term you are pobably right about the hybrids. The time it currently takes to recharge batteries makes electric not feasible for trips over 300 miles per day. For me this is one of the last (known) issues that has to be dealt with. The price issue will be handled in the same way new technology's price issues are always solved (mass production/ competition). Even if the recharge issue takes a while, how many trips do most people take per year that are over 300 miles? For vacations RV/whatever rental is an option that will become more attractive as fuel price continue to climb(for day to day travel).

[martin.sourada]

Hi guys,

not read the thread but in reply to the initial post: global warning is a serious problem and cannot be solved as easy. It's far more complex than that carbon dioxide polution. Though it is sped up by humans, it has natural causes as well. We cannot stop it, we can only slow it down. We should learn how to outstand it, or the human race is finished (well, it is more probable, than we vipe out ourselves sooner). But the polution itself is dangerous, it's killing our health already. It's only good thing that gas, coal and oil is running out. Maybe will people finally realize that we can use clean energy, but that is future. And to make this better future happen the scientists need more funds (and people more wits). I hope for cleaner and safer future, but do not believe in it... Seems to me, if the earth got rid of men it would be lot better place to live in... Hm... seems that the manga Nausicaa I recently read left some traces in me... :D

[Dan]

This will be your last post, I presume?

Well said. Consider this a knuckle-bump.

The future for electric cars is probably more along the line of hybrids.

Aye. For efficiency, I think you're right. However I don't think the reciprocating engine has any place in this equation. I'd put my money on a small flexible-fuel turbine for power generation.


Dan

[schwim]

you will pry my horizontally opposed, air cooled four cylinder 1200cc engine from my cold, lifeless fingers.

thanks,
json

[Plossl]

laz,

Current electric cars won't be reducing fossil fuel consumption any time soon. New technology may change that, and I certainly hope it does.

It's my completely subjective opinion, but with 70% off the top, the benefits of the current electric car had better be extremely good - such as curing cancer and heart disease. :D

[lazlow]

schwim

Electric does not have to mean a dog. Take a look at the tesla, zero to 60 mph in 3.8 seconds:

http://www.teslamotors.com/index.php?js_enabled=1

[schwim]

hehe, I was talking about my VW :D

I've read about the Tesla. I don't even have internal organs worth enough to get me into one of those.

thanks,
json

[lazlow]

Schwim

Me either. But I can dream. I am stilll driving my 98 sc2. It still makes 36mpg out on the interstate at speeds exceeding 75mph (unless there is a cop near by) and 28 running around the metro. I would love to replace it, but I cannot find anything that is as fun to drive and matches the mileage.

If someone offers to let you drive their tesla DO NOT DO IT. It just makes it that much harder to drive home(in your own car). It was a little tight for my big butt and legs but not much tighter a squeeze than my sc2. The last thing that I drove that was a match for the tesla was a 1970 Daytona Spyder. Head to head the Ferrari would win hands down, but you have to keep a mechanic in your back yard just to keep it running.

[lazlow]

I had an old CX 500 that I would roll into my living room to warm it up for our first ride of the year. 7 am on Jan 1, in South Dakota. Riding in sub zero temperature (raw temp not wind chill) is an experience that sticks with you (especially the frozen stuff trailing from your nose).

Tesla is supposed to be coming out with a sedan (2009?) for $50k. Still outa my price range but you have to love the slope of the decline in price. Two or three generations and I may be able to afford one.

[Coolerthanyou]

To the comments about overpopulation: I know you were joking when you told him off himself (or maybe not, who knows), but it's pretty common to know the only real solution is to not breed so much, not to eliminate any amount of people already living. The worst part in all this is that the biggest idiots are having the most children, and most will be just like their parents. Where is that going to lead us?

[lazlow]

Remember the LNG prices do not usually have the road taxes included. A buddy of mine used to run his pickup on propane. The reduced mileage made the price of the taxed propane about the same as using regular gas (in the 1980s). However those people who have a regular propane tanks (like the ones used for heating), discovered that you could take an old air conditioning pump and transfer propane to the trucks tank in about 15 minutes. One should be very careful doing this, as one spark can be very bad (just like filling up at a station). As it would be illegal to run a vehicle down the road without paying the road tax, this could only be used for off road vehicles.

[Seve]

To the comments about overpopulation: I know you were joking when you told him off himself (or maybe not, who knows), but it's pretty common to know the only real solution is to not breed so much, not to eliminate any amount of people already living. The worst part in all this is that the biggest idiots are having the most children, and most will be just like their parents. Where is that going to lead us?
Hello:
Do you live alone it that Cave ?

Seve

[Coolerthanyou]

Hello:
Do you live alone it that Cave ?

Seve

Yo:
Rosebud...!

Me

[Plossl]

Two topics relevant to the "idiots having the most children" theme:

Regression towards the mean

The history of Europeans in Australia

edit: typso

[lazlow]

No, it is not illegal to drive a LNG car down the road. It is illegal to drive a car down the road burning a fuel that has not been road taxed. When gasoline was $0.90 a gallon at the pump our farm gas used to be $0.30 a gallon(as best I can remember). The only difference was the farm gas had a dye in it that made it a different color, to indicate that the road tax had not been paid. It burned just fine in all of my vehicles (used off road only of course). Later I started drinking with the fuel delivery guy. He said it all came out of the same tank (he just added a vial of dye to the stuff going to the farms).

[Seve]

To the comments about overpopulation: I know you were joking when you told him off himself (or maybe not, who knows), but it's pretty common to know the only real solution is to not breed so much, not to eliminate any amount of people already living. The worst part in all this is that the biggest idiots are having the most children, and most will be just like their parents. Where is that going to lead us?
Hello:
Well now upon some reflection .... you may have a point there afterall ...

Someone had you ... :p

Seve

[Coolerthanyou]

Have you phoned your politicians yet to get them to pass legislation restricting who is allowed to breed, when and how often?

No, because we're not at the point where the upper class is affected enough to care yet. When it is bad enough, it will be done on their own, just as today they tax us more as necessary without asking. This is likely to happen one day if the problem keeps growing, much like China already did. How far in the future, who knows. In the developed "democracies" though, perhaps not in our lifetime, though I'd say the road there will cause suffering anyways. But one thing is for sure, the population growth rate as it is is not sustainable.

Furthermore, have you prepared your bona-fides for proving you are worthy of being licensed to breed?

I wouldn't need to because as it stands I plan to go out of my way to not pollute the planet further in this way.

[lazlow]

To a certain extent the problem takes care of itself. Look at Euorpe. Most of those countries have declining populations. Will the under developed countries hit this stage in time is another question. Even in the US this can be seen. That is why social security is in trouble. It used to be a lot of young people paying for a few peoples retirement. We are now in the opposite situation. A few young people are paying for a lot of people to retire.

[Wayne]

To a certain extent the problem takes care of itself. Look at Euorpe. Most of those countries have declining populations. Will the under developed countries hit this stage in time is another question. Even in the US this can be seen. That is why social security is in trouble. It used to be a lot of young people paying for a few peoples retirement. We are now in the opposite situation. A few young people are paying for a lot of people to retire.

Same things is happening here, there is a definite decline. You can see it quite clearly in the building trade. There are small farms around my area where the owners are now too old to continue working so they have decided to build on the land. Once upon a time they would have built apartment blocks but just nearby they've built an old peoples' home and are now working on a second. There is a lovely old Japanese one storey house about 5 minutes' walk away, it's being demolished to make way for..... an old peoples' home. There are empty apartments all over town that once would have been filled with students. To make up the pension shortfall the government introduced a 3% consumption tax a few years' ago. It's now 5% and there is talk that it would need to increased to at least 10% over the next few years to ease the burden.

Wayne

[Plossl]

Oh my... looks like someone has just fallen into the "idiot" category they previously were carping about.
...
The main problem of the doom-n-gloom crowd
Thumbs up, eureka.trek. I would add only a search on demographic transition for those wishing to know more. It's currently going on in the developing countries; it's intimately related to the change in economies from agricultural subsistence to services and knowledge work; the UN Population Council has for decades repeatedly lowered its population estimates, and continues to do so.

The doom-n-gloom schtick was old 25 years ago.

[Coolerthanyou]

Oh my... looks like someone has just fallen into the "idiot" category they previously were carping about.

First, if you care to look at the current research results[..]

For every pompous conjecture-laden certainty you can reference to support your view, I can reference just as many in rebuttal.

Second, the idea that population growth isn't sustainable (e.g. the postulation originally put forward by Thomas Malthus) has been proven to be wrong.

I guess I missed the invention of the time machine trek peeking into the future. My apologies.

When people say that growth is not sustainable what they really mean to say is that it's not sustainable assuming current things remain constant.

Oh, nice idea. It's not "proof" though. And how are you defining "sustainable"? Keeping the planet from literally blowing up, or maybe the total extinction of the human race? Heh. No. Certainly our lifestyle and quality of life would not be sustainable on the average.

Assuming current things remain constant? Well bub, philosophical conjecture of your source 's belief in the human spirit aside, the cold hard fact today is that the world's population is growing tremendously.

If you want to believe that someone pointing out that "humans adapt" is proof positive that overpopulation should be ignored as an issue, that's your choice:

Assumptions being the mother of all screw-ups...

Exactly.

The main problem of the doom-n-gloom crowd is always a complete failure to recognize that human beings while being the "source" of the "problem" are also the very same ones who will find a way around it.

And the problem with comfort-dwellers is that they believe that any interest in awareness of a potential problem is automatically preaching doom-n-gloom.

The desire to live... the desire to make things easier... the desire to make things better are what makes human beings... well, human beings.

Kind of like when some of them point out how people are idiots for their own good instead of waiting for the bubble to burst and cause a grievous mess further down the line, as often as has happened in history as doom and gloom false alarms.

Or is it your contention that the world should go back to using string and tin cups to communicate. Or going back to solving computational problems using pen, paper and an abacus?

Huh? When did I propose going backwards in the ages. Healthy population count ≠ technological retrogradations. If anything, it's the opposite.

In fact in a fantasy scenario of doom-n-gloom, big brother might use technology to render all people sterile by default, maybe put something in the food or water to only target humans. You'd then grow up and when you were ready you'd have this process removed after getting a license. Happy breeding. Sounds like paradise doesn't it? No? Well then, I think taxation is just as brutal. Where can I start a revolution?

[bob]

People; this SHOULD be a civilized discussion on a topic that may not have any 'proof' available. I am concerned that we have now started using personal attacks on each other. That's not going to be tolerated (by me, for one). So, if you'd like to continue this thread, please use some restraint. Thanks.

[schwim]

Yeah, listen to Bob, you bunch of inbreeding, moronic bastards.

thanks,
json

Dear Bob. I'm very sorry for this. I tried to stop myself, but I didn't listen to me.

[bob]

Fortunately, Schwim, nobody does... :D

[schwim]

I knew you would understand sir.

thanks,
json

[Dan]

... ... Ouch!

[Plossl]

Yeah, listen to Bob, you bunch of inbreeding, moronic bastards.

thanks,
json

Dear Bob. I'm very sorry for this. I tried to stop myself, but I didn't listen to me.
Best post of the thread, json.

Bob's not taking votes, but I'm casting mine anyway - closed!

[schwim]

I exist on this forum solely to improve Bob's karma rating. He's obviously done something incredibly crappy in the past... like slaughtering thousands or something maybe...

thanks,
json

[sosullivan]

When I suggested that there is too many people on the planet, I wasn't suggesting anyone should be killed (although it concerns me that people suggested this, a very "USA" mentality I think ), I think that procreation should be curbed. People suggested that government can't legislate for this, and this is true, but I didn't suggest this either. I was suggesting that people have repsonsibility for their own actions, and this should be exercised. Government can't eliminate this global warming problem through legislation alone. People have to realise that individuals have the power, and all of us working together, can solve this. We all have our part to play.

Stephen

[Dan]

Sorry Stephen,

That one just doesn't pass the stink test!

... or the think test either.


Dan

EDIT: Not exactly the same words, but that kind of thinking got pretty popular back in 1938 too. And it doesn't make any more sense now than it did then. To +80% of the world, as many children as they can muster is the only retirement plan/legacy package they will ever have. And on such a slippery slope, the step between "willing compliance" and "You shall not" is vapor thin. Behold China.

D.

[bob]

My apologies to Schwim; that was a low blow (yet so tempting....). :D The thousands that I have slaughtered turned out to be spammers, so there was no violation of even a local ordinance involved....perhaps dumping trash.....

[sosullivan]

Sorry Stephen,

That one just doesn't pass the stink test!

... or the think test either.


Dan

EDIT: Not exactly the same words, but that kind of thinking got pretty popular back in 1938 too. And it doesn't make any more sense now than it did then. To +80% of the world, as many children as they can muster is the only retirement plan/legacy package they will ever have. And on such a slippery slope, the step between "willing compliance" and "You shall not" is vapor thin. Behold China.

D.

I don't understand? Are you saying people don't have responsibility for their own actions?

Also, this having more children to support older generations idea, where does it stop? What happens if the population goes to 12 billion or greater? When have a limited or resources on this planet, and there are starving people already. How are we going to cope with greater numbers? Global warming could also also reduce the amount of arable land also due to droughts, flooding and soil erosion.

Stephen.

[schwim]

a very "USA" mentality I think


I told them to kill you while we had the chance.

thanks,
json

[schwim]

My apologies to Schwim; that was a low blow (yet so tempting....)

No problem sir... I would have taken it, were I in your shoes...

thanks,
json

[Dan]

I don't understand? Are you saying people don't have responsibility for their own actions?

Also, this having more children to support older generations idea, where does it stop? What happens if the population goes to 12 billion or greater? When have a limited or resources on this planet, and there are starving people already. How are we going to cope with greater numbers? Global warming could also also reduce the amount of arable land also due to droughts, flooding and soil erosion.

Stephen. *Sigh! Not again?!*

Stephen ... you're scaring me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party

Ok. Gotcha! However, in my understanding of human nature and history, people with that kind of an agenda are never happy with a passive solution that may take longer than they, as individuals, will live to accomplish their goals.

So! In this nifty little utopian "living space" picture of yours ... Once you figure out it will take better than 50 years to see the changes you want, so you will not likely live to see the fruits of your dreams, who do you plan to start eliminating first?

*Reaches for an old but well maintained M1 Garand.*


Dan

[sosullivan]

"who do you plan to start eliminating first?"

I never suggested this, that was others.....

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you can tell me how to grow enough food for a greatly increased population, given that there are millions of starving already?

Have a good weekend.

Steve

[Coolerthanyou]

"Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you can tell me how to grow enough food for a greatly increased population, given that there are millions of starving already?

I'll tell you how buddy. Send in Amartya Sen!

[lazlow]

Steve

Globally there is no current shortage of food. It is money and transportation that allows people to starve. In the US there are millions of acres that the government pays the farmers NOT to grow crops on.

[sosullivan]

Just one last point before I dissappear for the weekend. Please view http://dieoff.org/page136.htm

by David Pimentel and Marcia Pimentel
from the Department of Entomology and Division of Nutritional Sciences, respectively, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.


If I can just make one quote from the conclusion,

"For the United States to be self-sustaining in solar energy, given our land, water, and biological resources, our population should be less than 100 million -- significantly less than the current level of 246 million. "

But, I guess that's just the Nazi in him.

Have a good weekend everyone.

Steve.

[JN4OldSchool]

Mein Gott! I sure miss all the fun! Thats what I get for taking care of my 5 Christian kids. If I werent so old I would have three or four more. But that is ok, I can support them, in fact we eat rather well, Praise the Lord. I believe it is about time to pile into our 4x4 jacked up V8 SUV and head to Wallmart so we can further advance the Chinese economy. Then, when we get home we will fire up the charcole grill and cook hamburgers while the kids turn every light in the house on and crank the stereo. Hey, you guys be sure to wear condoms, you people are crowding us out!

[Plossl]

Politics has been the cause of starvation since the Green Revolution in the 1960s. International aid agencies contribute food - of which there is a global surplus - and the corrupt leaders accept it and distribute it to their favorite segments of the population and/or sell it on the black market, leaving others with nothing.

Short of invading the countries militarily, there's nothing else that can be done. That's what causes starvation.

[schwim]

But, I guess that's just the Nazi in him.

Not the Nazi. That's the moron in him.

Have a superb next 15 minutes,
json

[Dan]

Steve

Globally there is no current shortage of food. It is money and transportation that allows people to starve. In the US there are millions of acres that the government pays the farmers NOT to grow crops on. Aye! And the sickest part of this is, that for the first time in our history, in 2007, the United States has become an over-all food and food product importing nation.

The capacity is still there to feed the world, but you can only bleed and mistreat a cow so long, before it will start to fail to give milk.

And the trouble with deciding to have a nice fried chicken dinner on Sunday, is the lack of eggs on Monday.

Welcome to the socialist utopian dream. <..:cool:..>

Anybody remember how to plant a Victory Garden?


Dan