Whistle blowing on Global Warming

[gunnss]

So where does the energy to move the train come from?

Fuel gets burned some where, if nothing else, H₂ on the sun. Electrification would just about double the infrastructure, and triple the maintenance. And the power still has to come from somewhere.

The best guess from the industry, is that wind and solar will never amount to more than about 12% of the power produced, and that the energy needed to produce the systems and preform the maintenance will always cost more than the systems produce. (I run a power plant for a living) That is unless we get some unobtainium from Pandora.

My suggestion is thorium package nukes, like Finland is having made here in NM.

The infrastructure rebuild is still a problem, not even considering the distribution and collection of the cargo loads. Are you willing to pay twenty dollars a gallon for milk, and fifteen or more per pound of hamburger? The cost will come from some where, and taxing the company just means that they will charge more for the transportation to the end user.

Regards,
Kevin

Then the question becomes, where do we get the synthetic oil from? 

That statement is a non-sequitur.  Having an infrastructure does not require the combustion of fuel.  If we can build bullet trains, freight can be moved without burning a single drop of fuel.  The third point in your argument is simply a falsehood, as there are many other forms of transportation used (subway system, trams).

-Penguin

[Penguin]

I said the third point (Where you said "nothing moves without it") .  Hydrogen was the fourth one.  For that, I am sorry to have confused you.

Electric trucks can get it to the stores.

Windmills aren't the only source.  Where I come from we have only one gas turbine in for power, the rest is hydroelectric.  Add in nuclear power too, that stuff is much cleaner.

You still didn't answer my question though, what are we debating about, exactly?

-Penguin

[CAP1]

I said the third point (Where you said "nothing moves without it") .  Hydrogen was the fourth one.  For that, I am sorry to have confused you.

Electric trucks can get it to the stores.

Windmills aren't the only source.  Where I come from we have only one gas turbine in for power, the rest is hydroelectric.  Add in nuclear power too, that stuff is much cleaner.

You still didn't answer my question though, what are we debating about, exactly?

-Penguin

nono..it's ok. i just missed it........worked all day goin nuts tryin to find parts for cars that broke the day before christmas.

anyway,

 electric trucks would be ok. but you'll see what gunnes posted.

 electric anything is more expensive to build, and more expensive to maintain. and then you still need to burn fuel somewhere along the line to build that more expensive electric stuff, which is still going to require fuel to be burned to recharge it.

as for nuclear? well......try and get that one past a public that's terrified of it.

[E25280]

We've already passed that point.  We have gone there and three times over.  If the graph continues to show an exponentialy increasing amount of CO₂, we can see some very strange things going on.

(Image removed from quote.)

As you can see, the curve is exponential.  And the end of that curve is past even y=x².  So as we keep pumping it in, we can see some pretty weird things happening.

No, we haven't.  The graph you posted is in parts per million.  340 parts per million on that graph is 0.034%.  Not even a tenth of a percent.  Not even half a tenth.

You will also note that it uses a baseline at 270 rather than 0 so that the rise seems much more dramatic.

And, it doesn't even go that far back geologically speaking. Using a quick google search, here is one going farther back.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html

And if you read the text accompanying it, here is one salient point that the global warming alarmists don't want people to know about.
 

For example, during the Ordovician Period 460 million years ago CO2 concentrations were 4400 ppm while temperatures then were about the same as they are today.

4400 is 12 times higher than the current CO2 concentration. 

Now, this guy seems to have his own agenda so, like everything else about the subject of climate, it should be taken with a healthy dose of salt.  Truth is, mankinds experience of actually studying the interactions of all these factors is absolutely miniscule compared to the long history of this planet.  Despite their claims, they can't and don't know with any certainty what a small rise in the concentration of CO2 will do.

By the way, do some reading on the snowball earth theory.  While not proven, the reason I bring it up is that their conclusion was that the atmosphere would have to have a concentration of 13% (that's 130,000 parts per million compared to our 380 today) to hold enough heat to "melt" the snowball.  If it takes that much to keep temps above freezing, then again, please wake me when our current concentration gets to a tenth of a percent.

[33Vortex]

Hydrogen is definately not a falsehood, on the contrary. We can use natural sources of energy (water, wind, solar) and improve our technology to use energy more efficiently with less waste. The energy crisis we have is completely artificially created by those seeking to profit from it. It's a huge scare factor in the equation which together with GW and other propaganda numbers are specifically used to control the populace.

[CAP1]

Hydrogen is definately not a falsehood, on the contrary. We can use natural sources of energy (water, wind, solar) and improve our technology to use energy more efficiently with less waste. The energy crisis we have is completely artificially created by those seeking to profit from it. It's a huge scare factor in the equation which together with GW and other propaganda numbers are specifically used to control the populace.

exactly. pretty much the same as in 1973.

[Angus]

Hydrogen requires energy to be extracted in the first place. If I recall right, a powerplant extracting hydrogen which in return is used to power...say a car...may still be slightly more efficient than using petrol directly. So, no big solution.
One good thing though, hydrogen being used in that way gives a better angle on cleaning fossil fuel exhaust (power plants do have their merits above millions of small engines), so basically urban area air could be a lot cleaner.
Same goes with electricity.

[33Vortex]

This was in the 1980s. I'm posting this, not saying it's true because I've not seen it myself nor can I verify the theories behind it. But it is based on a enhanced form of electrolysis which allegedly give 3 times as much energy than what is put into the reaction. Water has many unique properties, why could this not be true as well when water behave contradictory in so many other ways?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJ3juM6vHwg

[Penguin]

You guys speak of how little time we have spent on this earth, and then complain how weak our technology is. 
99% of our history had stone tools as cutting edge technology.  We can't just say that we can't do it because our tools aren't good enough yet. 

Oops, my bad on the graph guys.  But which graph did I mess up on?

Hydrogen requires energy to be extracted in the first place. If I recall right, a powerplant extracting hydrogen which in return is used to power...say a car...may still be slightly more efficient than using petrol directly. So, no big solution.

From where do you recall such a fact?  Why do we use Hydrogen to power our rockets?  Because it carries much more energy than petroleum does.  Petroleum will eventually become well nigh impossible to extract, and we hydrogen will never run out, since burnt hydrogen is pure water.

-Penguin

[CAP1]

You guys speak of how little time we have spent on this earth, and then complain how weak our technology is. 
99% of our history had stone tools as cutting edge technology.  We can't just say that we can't do it because our tools aren't good enough yet. 

Oops, my bad on the graph guys.  But which graph did I mess up on?

From where do you recall such a fact?  Why do we use Hydrogen to power our rockets?  Because it carries much more energy than petroleum does.  Petroleum will eventually become well nigh impossible to extract, and we hydrogen will never run out, since burnt hydrogen is pure water.

-Penguin

do you realize they said all the same things back in the 70's?

[Widewing]

From where do you recall such a fact?  Why do we use Hydrogen to power our rockets?  Because it carries much more energy than petroleum does.  Petroleum will eventually become well nigh impossible to extract, and we hydrogen will never run out, since burnt hydrogen is pure water.

-Penguin

Note that Hydrogen must be generated. That requires energy.

Then there's the issue with hydrogen fuel cells. This technology is at least 20 (30 is probably closer) years from being mature enough to be used on a general scale. I know this as my company is one of the prime developers of the hydrogen gas regulators and solenoid valves required. Of course, we also face the vast infrastructure problem as well as the safety issues of dealing with high pressure hydrogen (between 10,000 and 15,000 PSI).

Hydrogen is a long-term alternative, and the cost of getting it into general world-wide use will be in the trillions of dollars. Short term, the better solution is natural gas. Most gasoline powered vehicles can be adapted to burn natural gas for a relative pittance. Moreover, much of the required infrastructure is already in place. This fuel burns cleaner and there are estimates of at least enough to last 300 to 400 years. The down side is that natural gas is primarily methane, which is a far more potent greenhouse gas that CO2. Thus, the AGW mafia will resist it at every turn, despite evidence that natural emission of methane would dwarf human emissions by a factor of 1000/1. As of 2007, there were over 64 million consumers of natural gas in the United States alone for heating and cooking.


My regards,

Widewing

[indy007]

From where do you recall such a fact?  Why do we use Hydrogen to power our rockets?  Because it carries much more energy than petroleum does.  Petroleum will eventually become well nigh impossible to extract, and we hydrogen will never run out, since burnt hydrogen is pure water.

More PE? If that were the case, Project Suntan would've gone ahead, instead of the petrol fuel based SR-71.

[CAP1]

Note that Hydrogen must be generated. That requires energy.

Then there's the issue with hydrogen fuel cells. This technology is at least 20 (30 is probably closer) years from being mature enough to be used on a general scale. I know this as my company is one of the prime developers of the hydrogen gas regulators and solenoid valves required. Of course, we also face the vast infrastructure problem as well as the safety issues of dealing with high pressure hydrogen (between 10,000 and 15,000 PSI).

Hydrogen is a long-term alternative, and the cost of getting it into general world-wide use will be in the trillions of dollars. Short term, the better solution is natural gas. Most gasoline powered vehicles can be adapted to burn natural gas for a relative pittance. Moreover, much of the required infrastructure is already in place. This fuel burns cleaner and there are estimates of at least enough to last 300 to 400 years. The down side is that natural gas is primarily methane, which is a far more potent greenhouse gas that CO2. Thus, the AGW mafia will resist it at every turn, despite evidence that natural emission of methane would dwarf human emissions by a factor of 1000/1. As of 2007, there were over 64 million consumers of natural gas in the United States alone for heating and cooking.


My regards,

Widewing

the infrastruture for hydrogen is part of what i was meaning when i said that it wasn't there.......i only meant that i'd like to see that go forward, as it seems pretty viable if it's slowly phased in.

 didn't norway have some sort of hydrogen generators set up, that worked off of solar energy?

[Penguin]

I have nothing against natural gas, since we're better off burning it than letting the stuff leech into the atmosphere.  Bear in mind, oil was still plentiful in the days of the SR-71's production.

Now I think that you are getting the point, oil is better off being used for other purposes, and hydrogen is a great clean burning (oxymoron?) fuel. 

Fusion would be an even better alternative, but that's hard to make happen here on earth.

-Penguin

[CAP1]

I have nothing against natural gas, since we're better off burning it than letting the stuff leech into the atmosphere.  Bear in mind, oil was still plentiful in the days of the SR-71's production.

Now I think that you are getting the point, oil is better off being used for other purposes, and hydrogen is a great clean burning (oxymoron?) fuel. 

Fusion would be an even better alternative, but that's hard to make happen here on earth.

-Penguin

oil is still plentiful

they tried to tell us 30 years ago that we were almost out.

they're saying the same stuff now, 'cept they've got more people that don't question authority now.