Living an Oil Free Life Style (Fossil Oil That is Not Food Oil)

[Geof]

Originally Posted by fizzissist .....http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...=1205102781064

fizzissist; Did you really read through all that crap? Or did you skim it like I just did? What is the writer getting at? Pro or Con?

There is a saying I recall: "If you cannot blind them with science, baffle them with bull****". Which applies here?

[DSL PWR]

I think biofuels and atomic energy will be the power sources of the future. There are serious problems facing the biofuel market. I'm not even going to touch the energy in/out ratio for producing ethanol, as no one can give good solid numbers. The general pulse is that biodiesel gives net energy after production so I will shoot it down right now.

In the last week the price for canola was over $17 a bushel. One can only get about 12 liters of oil out of a bushel of canola, so just the feed stock costs 1.42 a liter. One has to crush the seed, filter it, reform it (which is done with methanol, since it is still CHEAPER to make it from natural gas than it is to distill ethanol from corn or small grains), and distribute it.

Now the supporters of biofuel will tell you that the processed grains and oilseeds can be sold for animal feed to offset the cost of the feed stock. This is true, but the price for livestock is depressed when the grain market is high. This means the feedlots don't feed out as many animals because the returns aren't there for them (too much money is spent on feed), and if the prices remain low long enough the primary producers (family cow/calf producers) liquidate their herd, which means there are fewer animals for the feedlot to buy and the price will come up in a normal market. Now that the market isn't normal because of the demand for food grains for fuel is growing. So if the biofuel plants sell off the "used" grain for less than they need to balance the books the price of their fuel is no longer viable because of the cost. It's an endless circle...

Any way I feel once methods for producing biofuel from WASTE products (straw, bark, grass) products come of age they will be a very economical, and benificial energy source.

To make a real dent in carbon outputs electricity production needs to be shifted away from fossil fuels to wind, solar, hydro, and nuclear. Out of all these nuclear is the only one that is mature enough to have a chance of meeting demand.

Out of all this we still have all of this carbon in the atmosphere to deal with (that they say will doom us all). The earth is a closed ecosystem, so the carbon that is here has always been here, so how much harm will it really cause?


Just some food for thought.

[ImanCarrot]

Hah! with all these new fangled renewable resources, 'tis refreshing to know that we in the UK are at the forefront in maintaining traditional methods of generating electricity.

The UK plans to open a £1bn Coal Powered Plant in Kent, the first in 20 years. The Govt has signaled it's approval.

I always liked a coal fire. Wonder if we'll open cast mine the coal in the reserves left under England's natural beauty spots or import it from poorer countries whos coal has a higher sulphur content hehe

Oh well, at least they've told us to change over to energy efficient house light bulbs, so we're doing something.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...d=networkfront

[Geof]

Originally Posted by DSL PWR .... It's an endless circle... Any way I feel once methods for producing biofuel from WASTE products (straw, bark, grass) products come of age they will be a very economical, and benificial energy source. ... Out of all these nuclear is the only one that is mature enough to have a chance of meeting demand. Out of all this we still have all of this carbon in the atmosphere to deal with (that they say will doom us all). The earth is a closed ecosystem, so the carbon that is here has always been here, so how much harm will it really cause? Just some food for thought.

Yes the biofuels from potential food crops is a circle spiralling down into inanity. But producing fuel from 'waste' products is also not practical, there simply is not enough waste to produce more than a few percent of current petroleum consumption.

Nuclear is the most energy abundant option but even then to replace electrical energy derived from hydrocarbon fuels (natural gas, oil or coal) would require hundreds of new nuclear plants across North America. Roughly speaking across the whole continent about 20% of current electricity is from nuclear, about 55% from hydrocarbon fuels and the rest from hydro, wind, solar. Certainly in some locations sources such as hydro are far more important but it is necessary to take a broad view. I think these numbers are close enough, I am going from memory. If you find better ones all you need to do to get the increase in the number of nuclear plants is divide the hydrocarbon percent by the nuclear percent; 55/20 = 2.75 and multiply this by the number of existing nuclear plants. And is merely replacing electrical generation. When you take into account that hydrocarbon energy consumed in transportation, both personal automobiles and commercial transport, and consumed directly in industrial processes exceeds that used for electricity generation the number of new nuclear plants needed is not 2.75 what already exists, it gets into two figures. There simply is no way to replace current energy consumption from hydrocarbon sources by any other source, there isn't one.

And while it is true CO2 has been around ever since life has existed on the earth it has varied widely. If the Global Warming (Whoops, now it is Climate Change)doomsayers are correct, and the increase in atmospheric CO2 is going to cause catastrophic changes, we are stuck. There is no way to remove what is there, there is no way to stop adding more, and because of the lag time in climate response even if by some magical method we could stop adding more the changes predicted for the next 50 to 100 years will still occur. There is no choice if and/or when the changes occur it will be necessary to adapt.

[xyzdonna]

Originally Posted by Geof Yes the biofuels from potential food crops is a circle spiralling down into inanity. But producing fuel from 'waste' products is also not practical, there simply is not enough waste to produce more than a few percent of current petroleum consumption. Nuclear is the most energy abundant option but even then to replace electrical energy derived from hydrocarbon fuels (natural gas, oil or coal) would require hundreds of new nuclear plants across North America. Roughly speaking across the whole continent about 20% of current electricity is from nuclear, about 55% from hydrocarbon fuels and the rest from hydro, wind, solar. Certainly in some locations sources such as hydro are far more important but it is necessary to take a broad view. I think these numbers are close enough, I am going from memory. If you find better ones all you need to do to get the increase in the number of nuclear plants is divide the hydrocarbon percent by the nuclear percent; 55/20 = 2.75 and multiply this by the number of existing nuclear plants. And is merely replacing electrical generation. When you take into account that hydrocarbon energy consumed in transportation, both personal automobiles and commercial transport, and consumed directly in industrial processes exceeds that used for electricity generation the number of new nuclear plants needed is not 2.75 what already exists, it gets into two figures. There simply is no way to replace current energy consumption from hydrocarbon sources by any other source, there isn't one. And while it is true CO2 has been around ever since life has existed on the earth it has varied widely. If the Global Warming (Whoops, now it is Climate Change)doomsayers are correct, and the increase in atmospheric CO2 is going to cause catastrophic changes, we are stuck. There is no way to remove what is there, there is no way to stop adding more, and because of the lag time in climate response even if by some magical method we could stop adding more the changes predicted for the next 50 to 100 years will still occur. There is no choice if and/or when the changes occur it will be necessary to adapt.

Yeoww Geof,
This seems to contradict what you wrote me in the other forum, now you say we're doomed! You finally brought me around to thinking GW was a dead issue, now this.
Take care,
xyzdonna

[fizzissist]

http://www.foeeurope.org/publication...ial_Impact.pdf

...and Geof, yes I did read the WHOLE loooonnnnggggg and drawn out article... I got a sense the author was actually trying to be unbiased.

One thing certain, you don't get something for nothing.

[Geof]

Originally Posted by xyzdonna Yeoww Geof, This seems to contradict what you wrote me in the other forum, now you say we're doomed! You finally brought me around to thinking GW was a dead issue, now this. Take care, xyzdonna

You still do not read things completely'

I do not deny Global Warming.

I do not even deny that some portion of it is anthropogenic; I say it is not proven and the magnitude of the anthropogenic effect, if it exists, is unknown.

I do say nothing can be done about the warming, and outline why CO2 emissions cannot be cut back whether or not cuts would have any affect.

I do say humans will have to adapt.