Originally Posted by xyzdonna  Hi Geof,
You said: But again, because we can replace less than half of a percent of our diesel use, we can only reduce our CO2 production by half of that, making CO2 reduction about a quarter of one percent.
I'm lost, why can we only replace less than one half of a percent of our diesel?
I really thought ya'll would be easier to convince, this is proving much harder than I envisioned. Here's a plan, build a nuke plant on the west coast next to a desalinization plant. Nuke plant powers the desalinization plant and pump the water into the desert to make biodiesel out of algae. Why is it I can here Mariss laughing all the way from the west coast and I'm almost deaf? Well you could run the numbers and see how it came out, might be feasible. Might yield $5 a gal gas as well. But that would give you a baseline for figuring what it was going to cost.
Donna |
No I did not 'say' anything. I took a section from the article you referenced in support of your points and made it bold and italised. I was pointing out that you cherry picked numbers to support your points but the very article you used has conclusions that support the points Mariss and I make.
I have not bothered to check whether the person I quoted was correct in their analysis; you can do that if you want to dispute it, after all it is your link.
Does it not occur to you that the reason Mariss and I are hard to convince is because we do understand the technology, the energetics, the thermodynamics? I do not need to run numbers to know that using nuke power to desalinate sea water for irrigation of deserts is totally unfeasible.