Global Warming SOLAR-made not MAN-made

[Angus]

Thank you for the info.
Can I now use Icelandic slang to make things clearer?

Things like:

"Eins og hrafnar á hræi"

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by Rotax447
Starve a child...feed a Saab.

Sig material.

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by Angus
Thank you for the info.
Can I now use Icelandic slang to make things clearer?

Things like:

"Eins og hrafnar á hræi"

Sure you can, but homey don`t swim.

[Angus]

But a carcass with gulls on it will, untill the air goes out, hehe  

[Angus]

And the escaping one would be...methane

[Angus]

....starting at 15c per barrel....

[lazs2]

retro... I admit that I don't know much about how sweden does it...  I have to think that it would not transfer over well to our economy and scale tho... If they have to buy all their ethanol I don't see how they can be used as an example.

Brazil is a better one.  It has been explained why they are able to do it on such a grand scale and how it would not work here the way they are doing it.

I have nothing against adding alcohol to the mix for the reasons I have stated but if that is your entire cure for what you call "man made global warming" then the "crisis" can't be much.

lazs

[lazs2]

angus... with high temps you get some increase in co2.. a minor greenhouse gas..  estimate show that up to 800 ppm of co2 will be not only not harmful to humans but will increase crop production

As the temp goes down co2 will go down.   It will be re-absorbed into the oceans but crop production will of course... go down.

We can only hope that the current cooling trend does not get to bad.

lazs

[Rotax447]

Originally posted by Angus

They got booted off, - mostly.

Dino's got discoed entirely by a big rock.  So whats the point?

The climate in ancient times was swinging indeed, and for some odd reason there was no intelligent life spawning properly untill the climate settled. Our logistics could definately never cope with a proper dino 1400 ppm climate.

No, the climate remained relatively stable, and much warmer than it is today.

For some odd reason, no mammal could develop a body size large enough to support a three pound brain, until the dinosaurs died off.

Sure it could...when your grandchildren go to the Icelandic beach, they will sit under a palm tree, wax  their surf board, and wait for The Big Kahuna.

Now put 315 and a 377 on a timescale  1959 to 2007 and extend that for...only a thousand years. What do you get? Use excel, or a paper and a ruler.

At the present burn rate we have what, 100 to 200 years of fossil fuel left?  I don't need Excel for that, only my brain.

[lazs2]

yep... much as I like to think that someone will be driving my 69 el camino or 55 Healey 1,000 years from now...  even 100 years from now... it isn't gonna happen...

As we run out of oil something else will come up.   No big deal...  nothing to worry about.

lazs

[Charon]

The USA would also like to do this, but continues to import most of its oil from OPEC countries. As for oil being relatively cheap as Rotax said, that's probably true in part because not enough flex-fuel/ethanol is being produced to realise economies of scale. And, I read today that the price of oil is nudging $78/bbl. As long as demand stays high, so will the price. But the rising price will stimulate the development of alternative fuels.

That is accurate in spirit, but the limiter still comes down to current ethanol production technologies, climate/crop choices and raw land. There is a current ethanol mandate for an increase in ethanol in gasoline to 7.5 billion gallons per year by 2012 with a current consumption of 140 billion gallons of gasoline per year. The ethanol folk folk are comfortable with meeting this quantity. This should, I believe, allow for national e-10 or thereabouts and patches of e-85 like today, primarily in the Midwest.

The Bush proposal to up that to 35 billion gallons (still well short of total gasoline demand) by 2017 is seen by most parties, even folk in the ethanol lobby, as being unobtainable without cellulosic ethanol. At best this would displace about 5 percent of fossil motor fuels which would not significantly impact our dependence on foreign oil. Also, for cars equipped with oxygen sensor technology (virtually all today) ethanol is an environment wash -- reducing some emissions while making gasoline more volatile leading to vapor pollution issues. Even California has backed off of the environmental angle.

The real choice to both reduce our dependence on foreign oil and our greenhouse gas emissions is to radically change our living, working and commuting infrastructure model. Not easy, and at this point (and likely for many decades) not absolutely necessary. Gas prices at $3 per gallon seem to be manageable and in line with the inflation adjusted prices of 1981. Not pleasant by any means, and adding inflationary costs but manageable.  I don't see a will for that kind of change.

Charon

[AWMac]

All Praise the Sun Goddess

[Sikboy]

Originally posted by Charon
There is a current ethanol mandate for an increase in ethanol in gasoline to 7.5 billion gallons per year by 2012 with a current consumption of 140 billion gallons of gasoline per year.  

I'm more ignorant of Energy policy than I am of the Duke Lacrosse trial. So help me out here.

1 gallon of Ethanol does not equal the energy output of 1 gallon of gasoline does it? I mean even in this thread there is talk about the disparity between the two. So Perhaps we should find a better indicator than gallons produced to demonstrate the fulfillment of energy needs in the country? I mean, if we consume 140 billion gallons of gasoline per year does that mean that we would have to consume MORE gallons of ethanol for the same result?

Anyhow, it would be nice to have a single unit that could cross over each of the various ways that we push a car down the street.

-Sik

[Charon]

1 gallon of Ethanol does not equal the energy output of 1 gallon of gasoline does it? I mean even in this thread there is talk about the disparity between the two. So Perhaps we should find a better indicator than gallons produced to demonstrate the fulfillment of energy needs in the country? I mean, if we consume 140 billion gallons of gasoline per year does that mean that we would have to consume MORE gallons of ethanol for the same result?

A gallon of ethanol has about 70 percent of the energy content of a gallon of gasoline, leading to a similar 30 percent reduction in mileage at e-100 which makes the loss in mileage most noticeable at the common highest e-85 concentration. So yes, you do have to produce about 30 percent more for an equal displacement.

On a side note, ethanol is an octane enhancer, which provides horsepower benefits but not mileage benefits. These benefits are best realized at lower e-10 concentrations.

Where energy balance is concerned, crude oil tends to deliver a 5 to 1 ratio -- five units of energy produced for each unit of energy consumed in production and distribution. Biodiesel is actually somewhat comparable, with most of the cost coming from feedstock prices and transportation. Transportation issues are easier to overcome with biodiesel. Ethanol produces either a .75 or 1.35 to 1 energy balance (depending upon which research you accept).

Charon

[McFarland]

Originally posted by Jackal1
Jesse would be amazed at the new, improved, self-robbing society.
It would take all of the fun out of it, but he would still be amazed.
Angus, "jack up" or"jacked up"........=robbing, hijacking.
Not to be confused with Gretchen`s "All Jacked Up'. That`s a whole new ballgame and I`m on first.

If you're referring to Jesse James, he was no thief. Sure, he got money, but he wasn't in it just for money. He was in it to get back at the yankees. To take away their money. He was in it at the last to get the men responsible for the murder of his little brother who was crippled, and the injury to his mother when they threw an explosive in the window of his mother's house. But that's off the subject. As for self robbing society, you are right. We are robbing our future generations of clean air and a better place to live.

Yes, CO2 goes up after the temperature. But it also causes the temperature to rise, which releases more, and that causes the temperature to go up again. It's a natural cycle there. But then we add to it with our factories and our cars. Which puts even more into the air, more than the plants can take in. As we burn the rainforests, it produces more CO2, and also gets rid of the plants that would take in CO2.