Someone cast Wolven Winter on New Orleans!

[MaxWilson]

Originally Posted by Soyweiser

I personally think that we shouldn't focus on co2 alone. There are a lot more factors that show that we are kinda ruining our planet. Increased smog levels, polluted oceans (the floating plastic, dead spots), the ozone layer, depleting resources, overpopulation etc. Not all of this causes global warming. But it is all the caused by our inability to reduce our production population and our constant need for 'moar'.

Even many of the people who believe that AGW is unsound would agree with that. Although personally I would like to see a more quantitative proposal, I approve of the idea of being a responsible steward of Earth's resources.

-Max

[Soyweiser]

Originally Posted by MaxWilson

Although personally I would like to see a more quantitative proposal

I agree there. But people are always a bit bad at very large scale, long time stuff.

[Executor]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Soyweiser View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radioheart View Post
We are gonna have to stop using fossil fuels eventually. Finite supply after all.
Some people even dispute that. Some say that fossil fuels are created by some strange process in the earth crust.

Yes but it takes thousands and thousands of years for fossil fuels to be created naturaly, and the world just keeps moving faster and more demanding.

[llamabeast]

Max, the point is that burning fossil fuels causes a net increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. With biofuels and all their derivatives, by contrast, the carbon came from the atmosphere very recently, when it was made, so burning it only puts you back where you started.

The two are basically interchangeable, _except_ for the fact that there's no way you're going to synthesis fuel and pump it underground. So, the more we replace fossil fuel usage with biofuel usage, the less the atmospheric CO2 will increase.

[llamabeast]

Windmills will affect wind in the same way as buildings. i.e. not importantly. Think about it, it's not like the wind knows that the thing stopping it is turning it into electricity rather than just wasting it (a building turns the energy of wind that hits it into heat).

[Soyweiser]

Originally Posted by llamabeast

Windmills will affect wind in the same way as buildings. i.e. not importantly. Think about it, it's not like the wind knows that the thing stopping it is turning it into electricity rather than just wasting it (a building turns the energy of wind that hits it into heat).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environ...Climate_change

"One study reports simulations that show detectable changes in global climate for very high wind farm usage, on the order of 10% of the world's land area[8]. In a similar way, there are concerns of micro-climate change, in particular for urban areas nearby, due to changed airflow and reduced wind power."

Sure it is only one study, and a very large amount of landmass. But there is still some effect. (this was a study from 2004, there was also a more recent one, but apparently this one has not reached wikipedia yet )

[thejeff]

Actually thejeff will say he doesn't have a clue how or if the chemical composition of oil and TDP fuel differs.

He will also say that it's more than a semantic quibble though, since both the environmental and geopolitical consequences of the two are so different. (Not to mention the whole "fossil" part of fossil fuels.) I've never heard any refer to any kind of biofuel as a "fossil fuel" before.

Geopolitically the problem changes from paying vast sums of money to potentially unfriendly countries and propping up their dictators with oil wealth and guns to try to buy stability to just using cropland to grow fuel crops (or turkeys, but turkeys are far too inefficient to work on a large scale) instead of food.

Environmentally it's a lot better. Energy input comes from the sun to grow the crops. Any carbon released in burning the fuel is only the carbon that was absorbed in growing. In theory, especially if they can get switchgrass or something similar working, little fertilizer should be needed and land can be used that's not very good for food crops.

[JimMorrison]

So far, the entire biofuel push has been more or less a sham anyways. The amount of energy used to create biodiesel from corn, for example, is greater than the amount of energy released by the resultant fuel.

The economic justifications hold little water, for all intents and purposes. Pushing very hard on the development of renewable energy sources, should yield at least satisfactory results, once a minimum threshhold of funding is introduced.

And to clarify, even if it took solar panels 20 years to recoup their investment in energy costs, compared to the current cost of oil, it is beyond a win-win situation from day 1 (more American jobs in PV-cell fab plants, less reliance on foreign fuel, less reliance on fossil fuel altogether, reduced environmental impact, etc), but it's also a hell of a lot better expenditure of even say $1trillion, than propping up banks whose greed and avarice did nothing for America but highlight how egregiously abusable our free market is, and how abused it has been.

Even if the expense came out to $1trillion every year for the next 5 years, that sort of outlay would create such a stupendous energy surplus as to justify and allow us to rapidly pay off the debt so incurred by the project.

[MaxWilson]

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

And to clarify, even if it took solar panels 20 years to recoup their investment in energy costs, compared to the current cost of oil, it is beyond a win-win situation from day 1 (more American jobs in PV-cell fab plants, less reliance on foreign fuel, less reliance on fossil fuel altogether, reduced environmental impact, etc), but it's also a... better expenditure of even say $1trillion, than propping up banks

That I agree with. Blowing a trillion dollars on solar power panels (or nuclear plants, or hydroelectric dams, or almost *anything* except Tokamaks) would likely have been more cost-effective than blowing a trillion on trying to stabilize the Middle-East politically so we could keep buying oil from them.

I've got my fingers crossed for the Navy's polywell fusion experiments.

-Max

[chrispedersen]

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

So far, the entire biofuel push has been more or less a sham anyways. The amount of energy used to create biodiesel from corn, for example, is greater than the amount of energy released by the resultant fuel.

The economic justifications hold little water, for all intents and purposes. Pushing very hard on the development of renewable energy sources, should yield at least satisfactory results, once a minimum threshhold of funding is introduced.

And to clarify, even if it took solar panels 20 years to recoup their investment in energy costs, compared to the current cost of oil, it is beyond a win-win situation from day 1 (more American jobs in PV-cell fab plants, less reliance on foreign fuel, less reliance on fossil fuel altogether, reduced environmental impact, etc), but it's also a hell of a lot better expenditure of even say $1trillion, than propping up banks whose greed and avarice did nothing for America but highlight how egregiously abusable our free market is, and how abused it has been.

Even if the expense came out to $1trillion every year for the next 5 years, that sort of outlay would create such a stupendous energy surplus as to justify and allow us to rapidly pay off the debt so incurred by the project.

Jim,
you really need to educate yourself on fundamental physics.

Look up, for example, energy density per square meter in new hampshire - and you will find that voltaic cells will *never* be relevent in northern climes.

Which for example, is what field studies confirmed.

Just like ethanol - (unless you are talk cellulosic ethanol which has some real promising developments) solar cells simply *cannot* satisfy our energy demands.

It isn't only a problem of energy density, toxicity in manufacture, limited life, and cost. But the combination is nuts.

Now, I do think we can use tidal, wave, and wind as renewable energy sources. But the costs of these will ALWAYS be higher than nuclear. (Again, energy density).

At least nuclear absent ridiculous political costs. We can game the system anyway we want.