I don't believe in global warming.
I think petrodiesel, then a transition to biodiesel, is the answer.
Regards, Ivan
I don't believe in global warming.
I think petrodiesel, then a transition to biodiesel, is the answer.
Regards, Ivan
Ping!
"To which British motorists can only reply: Diddums."
And Americans can, in turn, reply:
Well... don't want to get banned, so let's stop there.
I don't care who you are - that's funny!
Actually ethanol my be an answer, but in fuel cells. Already have them in small ones, but it will be a while before they are scaled up.
Another is Nuclear power. Solar panels. All good, but the problem with all of them is it just reduces demand for oil and therefor, reduces price so it is more affordable and cheaper than the alternatives.
So do we do as the Brits and increase taxes on it to reduce demand? That would put more money in the US pocket and less in Iran's and SA.
Our consumer-based economy is driven by and dependent upon readily-available, reliable energy-- choke that off, and we'll all be back to using one rotary dial phone in the dining room, watching one TV in the living room, and driving one car per family-- probably a Hudson Hornet or a Nash Metropolitan...
We need to
1) end the nonsensical ban on offshore drilling off California and Florida--read & weep:
Castro Plans to Drill 45 Miles from US Shores, But We Can't
2) build a lot of next-generation nuclear power plants, not just for electricity, but for any process requiring heat, power, or steam.
And if we replaced our existing nuclear plants with this one there would be significant benefits.
3) end Jimmy Carter's idiotic ban on recycling nuclear waste, and reprocess the stuff rather than fighting over where to bury it. Europe has done this for decades.-- what to do with spent nuclear fuel? Answer here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1468321/posts?page=50#50 hattip: Mike (former Navy Nuclear Engineer)
4) use the 300-500 years worth of coal we have on our own land, using the new clean-coal technology.
-Clean Coal Centre--
5) and finally, there's nothing wrong with conservation, we should all practice it- but you can't conserve your way out of a shortage. Nor is there anything wrong with "alternative" energy sources- except they don't supply the vast ( not to mention readily-available ) amounts of power we need at a price competitive to more conventional sources. Then again, there is this to ponder:
Energy From the Gulf Stream
http://www.energy.gatech.edu/presentations/mhoover.pdf
We do need to get serious about this before we get strangled by a bunch of petty thieves and dictators who don't like us much.
My tongue-in-cheek collection of energy-related links:
Sticker Shock-$3 a gallon gas? Click the picture:
And kindly note, and note well-- the first reply to this post ( when gas was $1.45 a gallon ) was derisive... so, who's laughing now?
What is he using? British math? There are less than 4 litres per gallon. That means that "petrol, my dear diddums" is less than $4/gallon.
ANWR (Alaska) was purchased for its oil -- time we followed through on the idea.
Would an economic model suggest that, since the price has increased sixfold in the last eight years, the supply should have declined sixfold during the same period? I don't buy the argument that global demand is driving prices up without a significant reduction in supply......
The author cites that the historic levels of CO2 have been 180 to 280 PPM, notes that they are currently 380 PPM, and points to that as incontrovertible proof. Sure lets me know why he's a journalist and not a scientist.
A couple of simple points, the first being the most obvious:
Correlation is not causation.
Nobody's proved that there IS a variation in the temperatures yet to my satisfaction.
And you're seeing more and more climate scientists breaking ranks with the global warming theory.
Environmentalists decry the destruction of the rainforests, yet they advocate wholescale destruction of the rainforests in Brazil so sugar cane can be planted to supply ethanol for the world.
Everyone knows supply and demand is a myth -- not a law -- designed by capitalist and their political lapdogs to oppress the workers.
[rimshot!]
I disagree that petroleum and other hydrocarbons are "fossil fuels".
Over 40 per cent of new vehicles sold in Europe are diesel.
And that works out to about $3.50 per gallon you Brits are paying for your failed Socialist system!
Most Americans don't buy oil as traded on the commodity exchanges. They buy some refined oil products. Eventually we will see $3 gasoline as essentially free, and that day could be soon or it could be in ten years, somewhere in there. Oil is one of the great bargains on earth. Electricity is another. Water and air will also eventually be seen as bargains on earth, especially if we ever get to the moon to stay, and to Mars.
I'll add a third: You don't need to drive a gas hog to be comfy.
I may have a conflict of interest here (I am managing editor of an agricultural trade magazine these days) but I agree. I've seen figures that indicate that we could not convert to ethanol or any significant mix of ethanol even if we converteds all our arable land to corn. On the other hand, you can make diesel out of almost anything that has plenty of carbon. Here's a post from a blog I contribute to occasionally:
RENEWABLE ENERGY BREAKTHROUGH! [Cosmo ]
Important news! Don't let the mainstream media censor it:
A German inventor says he's found a way to make cheap diesel fuel out of dead cats.
Dr Christian Koch, 55, from Kleinhartmannsdorf, said his method uses old tyres, weeds and animal cadavers.
They are heated up to 300 Celsius to filter out hydrocarbon which is then turned into diesel by a catalytic converter.
He said the resulting "high quality bio-diesel" costs just 15 pence per litre.
Koch said the cadaver of a fully grown cat can produce 2.5 litres of fuel - meaning around 20 cats are needed for a full tank.
He said: "I tank my car with my own diesel mixture and have driven it for 105,000 miles without any problems."
Annelise Krauss of the Dresden Animal Protection Association blasted Koch's new diesel though, saying: "This is as bad as experimenting on animals."
[Your Name Here]Wow! We've gone from "Put a tiger in your tank" to "Put a tabby in your tank!"
Sorry, I just couldn't resist.
Christopher
I have an innate talent for solving several problems simultaneously. With all the drunk-driving laws, I do all my drinking at home, thus saving on gas.