human powered approaches vs heli, planes, skidoos

[cj001f]

I've never understood why biodiesel is presented as though it's "environmentally friendly".

 

Carry around some crystals and smoke alot more dope and it'll become clear to you.

[tvashtarkatena]

I stand corrected, but the point is the chopper isn't neccessary whereas the car is. Sorry to hear about your girlfriends balls.

 

???

 

The trip itself is 'unnecessary', so neither machine is less or more necessary than the other.

 

Industrial emissions, commuting, and home heating/cooling are, by far, the largest producers of greenhouse gas emissions. Helicopters don't even register on the same scale. Until you've optimized your commute and home heating consumption, I wouldn't preach to others about the occasionally splurging on some heli time.

Edited August 29, 2007 by tvashtarkatena

[ClimbingPanther]

Properly price fuel and carbon emissions and all the "problems" become moot points.

 

increasing taxes & inflating prices for fuel is a tax on the poor. fuel makes up a huge piece of their pie, and the rich don't care because they'll have money to do what they want anyway.

[cj001f]

Properly price fuel and carbon emissions and all the "problems" become moot points.

 

increasing taxes & inflating prices for fuel is a tax on the poor. fuel makes up a huge piece of their pie, and the rich don't care because they'll have money to do what they want anyway.

 

so you are in favor of welfare?

[ClimbingPanther]

I'm in favor of not using price as the sword to cut emissions.

[cj001f]

I'm in favor of not using price as the sword to cut emissions.

 

So non market approaches?

 

In the short term it likely will hurt the poor, but they will adapt like everyone else after some period of disruption.

[tvashtarkatena]

Properly price fuel and carbon emissions and all the "problems" become moot points.

 

increasing taxes & inflating prices for fuel is a tax on the poor. fuel makes up a huge piece of their pie, and the rich don't care because they'll have money to do what they want anyway.

 

THis is a bullshit argument. Price is the only mechanism that will change public behavior for a more sustainable future. That's just the way humans are put together. Government should be playing a central role by providing transportation or tele commuting incentives for the poor and rich alike.

[justplanecrazy]

I don't think biodiesel is significantly more emmission friendly but it definately is enviro friendly. Its already produced and being thrown away, if you're talking about using french fry oil. whereas diesel is just pulling more oil out of massive oil patch. Corn fields are a lot less intrusive then oil patches as well.

[cj001f]

Corn fields are a lot less intrusive then oil patches as well.

 

Now I know you are a retard

[justplanecrazy]

This

 

vs. This

 

 

 

please explain... after all I am retarted.

Edited August 29, 2007 by justplanecrazy

[counterfeitfake]

Corn fields are a lot less intrusive then oil patches as well.

 

Now I know you are a retard

 

I might have just come to the same conclusion...

 

Corn fields are freaking huge. You could probably put a corn field AROUND an oil well. Also consider fertilizer, herbicides, pesticides... farms create a lot of pollution.

 

I also do not concede your point about utilizing a waste product- if McDonalds uses a bunch of cooking oil and throws it away... well who knows where it goes, but it probably stays oil. If you take that oil and burn it, you just liberated all the carbon that was bound up in that oil and put it into the air.

 

Maybe the thing biodiesel has going for it is, when you grow a plant and then burn it, you're binding and then releasing carbon that is in the atmosphere to begin with? Whereas with dino juice you're just liberating carbon that was buried? I would like to hear from someone who knows what they're talking about.

[Bug]

Don't change anything.

We are all OK and will be forever.

[justplanecrazy]

Corn fields are a lot less intrusive then oil patches as well.

 

Now I know you are a retard

 

I might have just come to the same conclusion...

 

Corn fields are freaking huge. You could probably put a corn field AROUND an oil well. Also consider fertilizer, herbicides, pesticides... farms create a lot of pollution.

 

Canada gets the majority of its oil from the oil sands... see pictures previous page. It takes two tons of oil sand to get one 42 gallon barrel of oil and uses an enormous amount of energy to make the conversion. How a cornfield is more destructive that that, is beyond me.

[tvashtarkatena]

I don't think biodiesel is significantly more emmission friendly but it definately is enviro friendly. Its already produced and being thrown away, if you're talking about using french fry oil. whereas diesel is just pulling more oil out of massive oil patch. Corn fields are a lot less intrusive then oil patches as well.

 

A gallon of biodeisel or ethanol (by far the more common fuel product from this source, and one that contains far less energy per gallon than gasoline) made from corn oil grown by conventional agricultural means takes more than a gallon of gas in fertilizer, pesticides, transport, and processing costs to produce. One need not be a 'scientist' to recognize the implications of this simple equation. It's therefore better to just keep drilling and refining oil than to make bio fuels in this manner.

 

As for oil wells, they generally don't destroy the top soil over the long term. Conventional corn production is the most destructive type of agriculture in this sense.

 

What is needed is a way to make ethanol from organisms that do not require intensive and destructive agriculture, such as trees or algae. The technology is not there, yet. For now, we'll have to settle for promoting bio fuels from sustainably grown sources. Unfortunately, this represents a tiny fraction of the total today.

 

The current love affair growing corn for for fuel is a political ploy by agribusiness to boost market share and profits. It's utter bullshit from an environmental standpoint.

[AlpineK]

Here's a link from Science Friday

 

In short there are fuel sources that might be better than the current selection available at the pump, but there are major problems with feed corn based fuels that are the main product available at the biodiesel station.

[ClimbingPanther]

Price is the only mechanism that will change public behavior for a more sustainable future. That's just the way humans are put together. Government should be playing a central role by providing transportation or tele commuting incentives for the poor and rich alike.

 

Government should and must play a central role. City planning is a huge part of overdependence on fuel. Our country is built with cheap fuel in mind. Jacking up prices will just cause recession because there's no viable alternatives at this point. We need alternatives before we price oil out of existence. Maybe we should look at fuel rationing without price increase. Keeps consumption low without screwing the poor.

[wfinley]

Planecrazy: You're talking about two different things. Biodiesal is a fuel generated from waste cooking oils etc. It is not a viable alternative because only a limited amount is available for the public. Once production is pushed to the point where is it viable for many users then it ceases to be energy efficient.

 

If you're referring to alternative fuel like Ethanol again you run into problems. There are conflicting reports about how much fuel is actually being produced when outside factors are included. For example - according to Dept. of Agriculture reports the yield alone is 1.3x - but once other factors such as fuel costs to run machinery, fertilizer, irrigation and equipment maintenance there is a loss - some contend as much as a 65% loss.

 

Furthermore corn is not the most efficient crop - it lags far behind sugar cane and sugar beets; however the lobbyist for the North Dakota sugar beet industry have far less money than Iowa farm lobbyist.

 

[fenderfour]

Corn fields are a lot less intrusive then oil patches as well.

 

Now I know you are a retard

 

I might have just come to the same conclusion...

 

Corn fields are freaking huge. You could probably put a corn field AROUND an oil well. Also consider fertilizer, herbicides, pesticides... farms create a lot of pollution.

 

I also do not concede your point about utilizing a waste product- if McDonalds uses a bunch of cooking oil and throws it away... well who knows where it goes, but it probably stays oil. If you take that oil and burn it, you just liberated all the carbon that was bound up in that oil and put it into the air.

 

Maybe the thing biodiesel has going for it is, when you grow a plant and then burn it, you're binding and then releasing carbon that is in the atmosphere to begin with? Whereas with dino juice you're just liberating carbon that was buried? I would like to hear from someone who knows what they're talking about.

 

Google

 

Reduced Carbon Monoxide and hydrocarbons, increased Nitrogen compounds. Give a little, take a little

 

[G-spotter]

A gallon of biodeisel or ethanol (by far the more common fuel product from this source, and one that contains far less energy per gallon than gasoline) made from corn oil grown by conventional agricultural means takes more than a gallon of gas in fertilizer, pesticides, transport, and processing costs to produce.

 

1) No, it doesn't. The best estimates (from Scientific American article on biofuels) is that a gallon of fossil fuel will get you approximately 1.3 gallons of ethanol from corn. Or 1.9 gallons of biodiesel from soy. or ~20 gallons of ethanol from brazilian sugarcane.....

 

2) you don't get biodiesel from corn. Mazola aside, corn doesn't make a lot of oil. You get biodiesel from oilseed crops like soy, sunflower, etc.

[tvashtarkatena]

Corn fields are a lot less intrusive then oil patches as well.

 

Now I know you are a retard

 

I might have just come to the same conclusion...

 

Corn fields are freaking huge. You could probably put a corn field AROUND an oil well. Also consider fertilizer, herbicides, pesticides... farms create a lot of pollution.

 

Canada gets the majority of its oil from the oil sands... see pictures previous page. It takes two tons of oil sand to get one 42 gallon barrel of oil and uses an enormous amount of energy to make the conversion. How a cornfield is more destructive that that, is beyond me.

 

Canada's oil sands production is uniquely destructive: essentially, Canada is using it's plentiful and cheap natural gas to fuel oil extraction: the result is actually net NEGATIVE energy production, but Canada makes a profit because of the high price of oil verses natural gas. Conventional oil drilling doesn't have this problem.

[counterfeitfake]

The current love affair growing corn for for fuel is a political ploy by agribusiness to boost market share and profits. It's utter bullshit from an environmental standpoint.

 

That is what I have always suspected, and it's sad to see people falling for it. How often do you see a green BIODIESEL sticker on the back of a car? Obviously these people think the're doing something positive. The majority of people just don't have much scientific literacy and we will always have this problem.

[tvashtarkatena]

Corn fields are a lot less intrusive then oil patches as well.

 

Now I know you are a retard

 

I might have just come to the same conclusion...

 

Corn fields are freaking huge. You could probably put a corn field AROUND an oil well. Also consider fertilizer, herbicides, pesticides... farms create a lot of pollution.

 

I also do not concede your point about utilizing a waste product- if McDonalds uses a bunch of cooking oil and throws it away... well who knows where it goes, but it probably stays oil. If you take that oil and burn it, you just liberated all the carbon that was bound up in that oil and put it into the air.

 

Maybe the thing biodiesel has going for it is, when you grow a plant and then burn it, you're binding and then releasing carbon that is in the atmosphere to begin with? Whereas with dino juice you're just liberating carbon that was buried? I would like to hear from someone who knows what they're talking about.

 

Google

 

Reduced Carbon Monoxide and hydrocarbons, increased Nitrogen compounds. Give a little, take a little

 

This report focuses only on the emissions produced from the final burning of the fuel, and does not include the emissions from it's production.

[counterfeitfake]

Google

 

Reduced Carbon Monoxide and hydrocarbons, increased Nitrogen compounds. Give a little, take a little

 

From the executive summary:

 

We were not able to identify an unambiguous difference in exhaust CO2 emissions between biodiesel and conventional diesel. However, it should be noted that the CO2 benefits commonly attributed to biodiesel are the result of the renewability of the biodiesel itself, not the comparative exhaust CO2 emissions. An investigation into the renewability of biodiesel was beyond the scope of this report.

 

Well there you have it.

[justplanecrazy]

wfinley ya I agree that converting all cars to biodiesel would do more harm then good. I was refering to the few hippies running around using the oil already available with no extra production.

 

As far as ethanol blends, I wasn't aware of the conflicting reports. I thought they had determined it to be far less harmful to the environment then the mess in the north we call the oil sands. Sure the pumps are probably the best case scenario but they're running dry in the near future.

[cj001f]

Maybe we should look at fuel rationing without price increase. Keeps consumption low without screwing the poor.

 

:lmao: :lmao: