Global Warming Thread

MonsterMark

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
9,225
Reaction score
3
Location
United States
Yet another acclaimed scientist debunks Al Gore

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070407/D8OBK1DG0.html

NEW ORLEANS (AP) - A top hurricane forecaster called Al Gore "a gross alarmist" Friday for making an Oscar-winning documentary about global warming.

"He's one of these guys that preaches the end of the world type of things. I think he's doing a great disservice and he doesn't know what he's talking about," Dr. William Gray said in an interview with The Associated Press at the National Hurricane Conference in New Orleans, where he delivered the closing speech.

A spokeswoman said Gore was on a flight from Washington, D.C., to Nashville Friday; he did not immediately respond to Gray's comments.

Gray, an emeritus professor at the atmospheric science department at Colorado State University, has long railed against the theory that heat-trapping gases generated by human activity are causing the world to warm.

Over the past 24 years, Gray, 77, has become known as America's most reliable hurricane forecaster; recently, his mentee, Philip Klotzbach, has begun doing the bulk of the forecasting work.

Gray's statements came the same day the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change approved a report that concludes the world will face dire consequences to food and water supplies, along with increased flooding and other dramatic weather events, unless nations adapt to climate change.

Rather than global warming, Gray believes a recent uptick in strong hurricanes is part of a multi-decade trend of alternating busy and slow periods related to ocean circulation patterns. Contrary to mainstream thinking, Gray believes ocean temperatures are going to drop in the next five to 10 years.
 
Bingo... They are just as bad as the "world is flat" people
 
Rather than global warming, Gray believes a recent uptick in strong hurricanes is part of a multi-decade trend of alternating busy and slow periods related to ocean circulation patterns. Contrary to mainstream thinking, Gray believes ocean temperatures are going to drop in the next five to 10 years.

Yep, on a prayer and a hope, GW must be BS. :rolleyes:

Gray BELIEVES ocean temperatures are going to drop without providing any facts to support his BELIEF. I believe I'll have a beer.
:Beer
 
Ive thought alot about this... And let me ask you one question.

Push all this global warming stuff aside for a minute, all the politics, all the bs... And consider this...

How could it hurt us by taking steps to improve the air quality and reduce things like emissions, co2 and what not?

In the end - itsnt that better even if global warming is a farce?

Now, before someone goes off on me about the cost.. Let me pose another question on that side of the issue...

Dont you think that if the government had invested 5+ years and a trillion dollars on finding a way to not use oil..... Wouldnt we be better off all the way around? The middle east would have no more money to fund their terror crap, we would have better air quality, etc etc.

I would bet that for that trillion dollars, we could have converted the entire country to solar energy. Imagine - the USA doesnt need to burn any more fossil fuels to heat homes or generate electricity. How would that affect the air? How would that change world politics? Domestic Politics? Wow...
 
How could it hurt us by taking steps to improve the air quality and reduce things like emissions, co2 and what not?
There's nothing wrong with attempting to reduce the pollutants and reduce emisions. What's at issue is HOW we go about doing it. Does the government impose economy destroying restrictions and regulations on the public based on junk science and the "religion" of environmentalism as it's been embraced by the socialist left? Or do we find real world solutions, honest discussion and debate, and market forces to improve the situation?


In the end - itsnt that better even if global warming is a farce?


Dont you think that if the government had invested 5+ years and a trillion dollars on finding a way to not use oil..... Wouldnt we be better off all the way around? The middle east would have no more money to fund their terror crap, we would have better air quality, etc etc.
You presumptions are always so gleefully naive. The government has invested a fortune into alternative fuels for many years. And we are making advancements. Are you ready to abandon your Lincoln and purchase a new car with untested technology?

But YES, we will all be better off when we have alternative fueling options that eliminate our dependency on foreign oil.

This has nothing to do with the "Global Warming Debate." That debate has become a political debate basically pitting capitalist against anti-capitalists and the well-intentioned people that they have tricked into believing them.


I would bet that for that trillion dollars, we could have converted the entire country to solar energy. Imagine - the USA doesnt need to burn any more fossil fuels to heat homes or generate electricity. How would that affect the air? How would that change world politics? Domestic Politics? Wow...
That would be a suckers bet, and you'd be lose.

A trillion dollars would not even begin to cover the cost, nor does the technology exist, nor is solar power a viable solution.

But there's little debate that we'd all be better off making less pollution, burning less fuel, and relying less of foreign oil. The issue is HOW do we arrive at that outcome. The "Global Warming" crowd isn't say, "Hey guys, maybe you should buy more fuel efficient cars." They are saying that we need to put ridiculously restrictive regulations on business on American business, while looking the other way in China and India.

Again- I have no issue with attempting to clean up the environment. I support that. When my Lincoln is replaced, I fully intend to replace it with a car considerably more efficient, in the over 30 mpg range, because I'm confident that it's the right thing to do.

But I don't buy the junk science and propaganda coming from the socialist, anti-capitalist, anti-American, left that are conning the well intentioned public in an effort to impose their agenda on the U.S. under the guise of "environmentalism."
 
See, really, I think we almost focus on automobiles too much when it comes to cleaning up the air.

There are so many things that could be done that would have a significant impact. How much electricty is used by things like streetlights, commercial and retail buildings, etc? Convert them to solar and watch the air quality improve.

Would it kill us to have - say - 10% less airline flights in the air? I have been on many planes that had a significant number of open seats so its not like we couldnt travel.

How about focusing on the things thats easier to manage? I dont know the science on this one, but for example, what if police departments switched to electric cars? Not necessarily all of them, but I know here in the suburbs of chicago there aren't a whole lot of high speed chases, so the switch shouldnt cause law inforcement issues at least for many departments.

On that note, go after fleets for alternative fuels. Trucks, trains and buses make sense to me. Why? Because they are generally all refueled at specific places, so we wouldnt have to start with an entire infrastructure. We could start smaller.

Everything I jsut said may not be perfect, but think about it. What are we really doing to reduce fossil fuel usage? And a biggie for me is that if we could use less oil, for example, then the middle east problems would probably minimize, at least somewhat.

IM jsut saying, I would like to see things actually HAPPEN instead of being 'developed'. No, we dont all ahve to convert our cars to run on rat droppings, but we can do many things that we dont.
 
u guys are more like a cult than a political group
u must bash every little thing that comes from a democrat
u mean to tell me in all these years they havent done 1 thing right
and how is something fake if its happening right in front of ur eyes
caps melting wild life in the poles is on a decline and water levels are rising
momma always said if it taste like :q:q:q:q ..smells like :q:q:q:q than uh it must be :q:q:q:q right???
 
See, really, I think we almost focus on automobiles too much when it comes to cleaning up the air.

There are so many things that could be done that would have a significant impact. How much electricty is used by things like streetlights, commercial and retail buildings, etc? Convert them to solar and watch the air quality improve.
Or convert the power grid to nuclear and eliminate the air pollution all together. But the environmentalist oppose Nuclear power in this country. This is due, in large part, to the fact that the environmentalist movement is less about improving the environment and more about destroying capitalism.

Would it kill us to have - say - 10% less airline flights in the air? I have been on many planes that had a significant number of open seats so its not like we couldnt travel.
Yeah, that would do serious damage to our economy. You seem to think that the airlines just love to send up empty planes. They are trying very hard to make sure every flight is booked solid. Infact, these tight bookings are why the snow storms have been so devastating to the airline industry in recent months.

But airline travel isn't particularly "inefficient." It's a form of mass transportation, moving hundreds of people, and thousands of pounds of stuff from thousands of miles in a short period of time.

Of course, when Al Gore flies a private jet around the country, that IS an inefficient use of resources.

How about focusing on the things thats easier to manage? I dont know the science on this one, but for example, what if police departments switched to electric cars? Not necessarily all of them, but I know here in the suburbs of chicago there aren't a whole lot of high speed chases, so the switch shouldnt cause law inforcement issues at least for many departments.
Not practical right now. Electrical cars don't have the range, the size, nor are they cost effective.


On that note, go after fleets for alternative fuels. Trucks, trains and buses make sense to me. Why? Because they are generally all refueled at specific places, so we wouldnt have to start with an entire infrastructure. We could start smaller.
WHAT ALTERNATIVE FUELS? I can't buy E85 around here. There are no hydrogen pumps. You're not speaking about reality.

Everything I jsut said may not be perfect, but think about it. What are we really doing to reduce fossil fuel usage? And a biggie for me is that if we could use less oil, for example, then the middle east problems would probably minimize, at least somewhat.
What you're doing is presenting ideas that are worth thinking about, but they are not ready to implemented. You're brainstorming, but those aren't solutions, and they sure aren't applicable POLICY.

IM jsut saying, I would like to see things actually HAPPEN instead of being 'developed'. No, we dont all ahve to convert our cars to run on rat droppings, but we can do many things that we dont.
Developed by who? The government should go into the business of alternative fuels or should the free markets do it?

The easiest things the public and country could do would be
A. Buy cars that get in excess of 30mpg.
B. Build nuclear power plants.

Those two things alone would mean that we were energy independent in this
country.
 
u guys are more like a cult than a political group
u must bash every little thing that comes from a democrat
You take issue with that? Explain.

u mean to tell me in all these years they havent done 1 thing right
You tell me, what policy or philosophy embraced by the DNC has proven to be "right" in recent years?

and how is something fake if its happening right in front of ur eyes
caps melting wild life in the poles is on a decline and water levels are rising
momma always said if it taste like :q:q:q:q ..smells like :q:q:q:q than uh it must be :q:q:q:q right???
You saw all this with your eyes? With your highly developed critical thinking skills and application of the scientific method? Using your anecdotal evidence, does the current Cold weather throughout the country prove you wrong?

And secondly, just because there may be a warming or cooling trend on the Earth, how do you conclude that it's the result of man made causes? We do know that temperature fluctuations have happened throughout the history of the earth.

Was the manufacturing sector of the U.S. responsible for the Ice Age and subsequent increases in temperature, or did that happen naturally? Do emissions have something to do with solar flairs, or are they independent.

And do you solve the "problem of man made global warming" by destroying the free market economy of the United States.
 
Ill agree - nuclear power plants are much better then coal or other fossil fuel burning plants. But I think we could really go one step better.

And honestly, I think utility such as power generation almost should be part of the government instead of private interests. Not because im anti capitolist, quite the contrary. But something such as that has many many repurcussions for the country as a whole.

Thing about how much we REALLY spend on a barrel of oil. Forget what we pay at the pump. Add on all the costs for the political side, the wars, the peacekeeping forces, the cost of having the ever present battle groups in the gulf (even during 'peacetime') -

And I agree about things like AL Gore's Private Plane. Although, its not really fair to focus only on him. I dont see Bush Sr flying coach much. But I agree in principal, many people who have the means waste TONS of energy.

But so do many other entities. I mentioned police departments for a specific reason. I dont know the actual numbers, but how many police cars do we really need that have the speed and power that they have today? I mean, really. Hell, we dont even need back seats in most police cars in actuality.
My point of all this is that we need to start DOING things. We can talk and talk and talk, but we need to actually DO some things. And I think going after the larger scale is going to be easier and faster then going after the individual automobile.
 
And do you solve the "problem of man made global warming" by destroying the free market economy of the United States.

Not that I side with them -- but...

The US economy wont do too well if they are right either. I mean, NY and FLA under water might hurt the economy a bit.
 
And honestly, I think utility such as power generation almost should be part of the government instead of private interests. Not because im anti capitolist, quite the contrary. But something such as that has many many repurcussions for the country as a whole.
Where has this model ever been more successful? Venezuela?

You have to remember, that Government is incompetent. It can't respond to market forces, it has no profit motive, it's inefficient, more expensive, and it limits innovation. Nothing positive. This notion that government has answers is really very misguided. The government does virtually nothing right.

The only argument, ever, for government involvement is because the scope is so large that it needs to become involved. IE. Military, roads, or space program.


And I agree about things like AL Gore's Private Plane. Although, its not really fair to focus only on him. I dont see Bush Sr flying coach much.
Al Gore is on a global crusade about global warming. Bush Sr. is not. It's completely justifiable to focus on him because the behavior is both elitist and hypocritical.

I dont know the actual numbers, but how many police cars do we really need that have the speed and power that they have today? I mean, really. Hell, we dont even need back seats in most police cars in actuality.
Actually we need more of them. And all the cruisers need room to store all their gear, to keep the officer comfortable, and to transport those in custody. And they need bigger cars for their safety.

You can ADD electric vehicles to the fleet, much like they add bicycles or segways, but not replace the fleet with them.

My point of all this is that we need to start DOING things. We can talk and talk and talk, but we need to actually DO some things. And I think going after the larger scale is going to be easier and faster then going after the individual automobile.
The private sector, responding to market forces, are increasingly buying more efficient cars. Fleets will do so based on economic motivation. And $3.15/gal gas for my car is quite a motivator. And that gas price is only going to go up as tension in the Mid East increases.

The market will adapt MUCH faster than the government ever will.
 
Those market forces are exactly why a utility needs to have government involvement.

I dont know all the facts, but several nuclear reactors here in Illlinois are no longer in use, replaced by coal burning I believe. Why? Start up cost. Why should a utility care about long term energy issues. It doesnt cost them anything. They have no competition. So unless doing it another way is a significant savings, they wont bother. Although, I will grant you though, the government is incompetant.

As far as replacing police cars, I didnt mean replace all of them. But you dont need a full fledged crown vic to catch people doing 40 in a 30mph zone or writing parking tickets, or to send the officer to a K-Mart to deal with a teenage shoplifter. Know what im saying?
 
Not that I side with them -- but...

The US economy wont do too well if they are right either. I mean, NY and FLA under water might hurt the economy a bit.
New York and Florida are not going to be underwater. And if they are going to be, at the rate of a few inches a year, I'm sure there will be some scientific data to demonstrate this fact long before it's a problem.

But to presume this is the case, or that we have any ability to influence this trend if it is naturally occurring, is foolish. To just blindly go on the word of anti-capitalist, America-hating, environmental kooks is madness.



Those market forces are exactly why a utility needs to have government involvement.
Government is fat, inefficient, slow to react, slow to respond, and offer horrible service. People who think government is the answer clearly don't understand how government manages to screw up everything they get involved in.

Government can not control market forces, they simply are unable to respond to them.


I dont know all the facts, but several nuclear reactors here in Illlinois are no longer in use, replaced by coal burning I believe. Why? Start up cost.
I'd be more inclined to believe that the anti-nuke lunatics pressured the local governments and had the reactors closed. After releasing few movies in the late 70s and early 80s designed to scare the public from nuclear power, enough political pressure was created to shut down existing plants and make it virtually impossible to build any new ones.

Why should a utility care about long term energy issues. It doesnt cost them anything. They have no competition. So unless doing it another way is a significant savings, they wont bother.
NO, Government has made it impossible for these power companies to build nuclear powerplants. Regulation, restrictions, and other costs have made it so. Government needs to GET OUT OF THE WAY and make enable companies to build these plants and not restrict them.

Although, I will grant you though, the government is incompetant.

As far as replacing police cars, I didnt mean replace all of them. But you dont need a full fledged crown vic to catch people doing 40 in a 30mph zone or writing parking tickets, or to send the officer to a K-Mart to deal with a teenage shoplifter. Know what im saying?
But police don't spend all day just camping in a 30mph zone.
And what are they going to do when they go to arrest the shoplifter and they need to take him to jail?

Or what if it's an armed robbery at the the KMart, should the guy in the little electric car wait for the "real" police to show up in their big cars with their supplies? What if the robber opens fire? The new Crown Vics are coming with some ballistic armor in their doors. You can't put that in a little electric car.

The police already utilize bicycles, some use segways, but to change their cars would be short sighted. It's not worth it. The police need to be flexible. Don't experiment with them.

Not to mention, how do you expect all these local police departments to afford gimicky, expensive, new technology? They can barely afford the police cars in some towns, now you want them to buy electric cars too?
 
Article from today

It starts at home
Suburban companies, residents among those taking initiative to cut energy use

BY MARNI PYKE
Daily Herald Staff Writer
Posted Tuesday, April 10, 2007

The prognosis on the fate of the earth is not a healthy one.

Melting glaciers. Prolonged drought. Flooding of coastal areas. Rock avalanches. Intense precipitation. Acidic oceans. Declining fish populations. Increased disease and death.

These are some of the existing and future problems projected by hundreds of scientists in a report released last week on global warming by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The group concluded with a high degree of certainty humans are warming up the planet by burning fossil fuels.

It's a warning that's catching the attention of state and federal leaders.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Energy chiefs outlined a program Tuesday to cut petroleum use by 3.9 billion gallons in 2012 by converting to alternative fuels, such as ethanol.

In Illinois, if pollution levels remain the same, meteorologists anticipate shorter winters, less rainfall in summer, intense heat waves, increased smog, and temperatures rising by 7 to 13 degrees Fahrenheit in the winter and 9 to 18 degrees in the summer by the end of the century.

But before you dive into your bunker, take heart.

There's a host of ways to save the planet by reducing energy consumption. Even better, people and businesses in the suburbs are showing the way.

Green buildings
Forty-seven percent. That's how much energy Judson College's new academic center and library in Elgin will use compared to a traditional building.

Set to open next month, the Harm A. Weber Academic Center features a natural ventilation system that sucks in nighttime air to cool the building, uses solar panels to produce electricity and uses natural light.

"It's going to be a regional model for energy efficiency," Judson architecture professor Keelan Kaiser said.

"The spring, summer and fall is when the building will perform at its optimum. The reason it will stay cool is because there's a lot of exposed concrete. When that is cooled overnight it will retain (the coolness) for several hours. Even if it's really warm, the building may not need air-conditioning until late afternoon."

A system will turn on artificial lights only when necessary, taking advantage of sunshine.

"Twenty percent of a building's energy consumption is related to lighting," Kaiser said. "And studies show natural daylight in workspace increases productivity."

Other examples of green structures include Prairie Crossing Charter School in Grayslake and the Lake County Forest Preserve District's new welcome center at the Ryerson Conservation Area.

One feature of the Ryerson center is its geothermal technology, which applies the earth's temperatures for heating and cooling using buried piping. Even though the center's natural gas pipes froze during a cold spell in March, "We were toasty warm," environmental education manager Nan Buckardt said.

"The cost for heating and cooling is a fraction of what it could be."

Green fleets
The DuPage County Forest Preserve District is saving money and the ozone layer by converting its gas-guzzlers to an ecofriendly fleet.

The district aims to run all vehicles on alternative fuels by 2011 and is at more than 75 percent of the goal, Fleet Services Manager John Walton said.

That means using cleaner-burning options such as E-85, a mixture of 15 percent gasoline and 85 percent ethanol made from corn; natural gas; biodiesel, which comes from soybeans; and liquid propane gas.

"Gasoline's horrible," Walton said. "The pollution is killing people; the exhaust emissions are going to destroy the ozone."

Currently, 107 district vehicles run on alternative fuels.

"We can burn much cleaner fuels in much better ways by using alternative fuels and technologies," Walton said.

Besides fuels that emit less carbon dioxide, the district has hybrid pickups and electric-powered golf carts and utility vehicles. Officials also hope to soon purchase electric all-terrain vehicles for police.

Green industry
Scientists sounding alarms about global warming got a shot in the arm from a surprising source in February: corporate America.

The Global Roundtable on Climate Change, which includes CEOs from such companies as JP Morgan Chase, Google and Ford Motor Co., urged governments to set limits on greenhouse gas emissions.

That attitude is reflected a little closer to home by companies that recently won state pollution prevention awards.

GE Healthcare in Arlington Heights manufactures chemicals for detecting diseases and medical devices to treat cancer.

The business was honored for revising its production schedules to use machines more efficiently, cutting power by more than 900,000 kilowatt hours a year. That equals the annual electric consumption of 40 single-family homes.

"There's a sense of pride, but it's only one step on the way. We identified most of the low-hanging fruit; now the tough thing is to continue striving to reduce waste and emissions," said Jeff Snyder, senior environmental health and safety manager for GE Healthcare.

Abbot Laboratories Inc. also received an award for fixing leaks of compressed air at its plant used to operate equipment.

By making those repairs, the Libertyville Township company, which sells drugs and medical devices, was able to conserve 2 million kilowatt hours a year of energy.

Green congregations
Religious organizations are another force in lobbying for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions by developing "green" congregation strategies.

Diverse groups such as St. Paul Lutheran Church in Villa Park and Fox Valley Presbyterian Church in Geneva will participate in separate rallies Saturday as part of the "Step it Up 2007" effort to persuade Congress to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 80 percent in 2050.

Fox Valley Presbyterian layman Linda Sonner got interested in the environment 20 years ago as a result of the infamous garbage barge that traveled from New York City to Belize looking for a site to deposit its load of trash.

She now is coordinator of the church's Healing our Planet Earth task force.

Fox Valley Presbyterian uses low-energy light bulbs and programmable thermostats, and offers parishioners a conservation tip of the month.

Instead of driving to meetings, task force members convene by conference call.

The next step is an energy audit.

"There's always an ongoing project," Sonner said.

St. Paul's is just getting started, but it's committed to the idea of being a steward of God's creation, said parishioner Mary Hershoff, co-chairman of the church's Green Team.

The earth "is not just for our use, but it's entrusted to our care," she said.

Green government
Naperville is providing its residents and businesses with a way to invest in clean energy.

Two years ago, the city offered individuals the chance to purchase electric power from wind, water and solar sources.

Households can pay $5, $10, $15 and $20 more monthly for corresponding amounts of pollution-free electricity. An extra $5 will pay for 200 kilowatt hours while $20 gets 800 kilowatt hours - the equivalent of an average user's energy consumption in Naperville.

The Renewable Energy Program, done in cooperation with Community Energy Inc., a nationwide power supplier, also includes businesses.

So far, 2,800 customers are taking advantage of the program, said Public Utilities Director Allan Poole.

"Renewable energy is clean energy," Poole said. "This is a growing field and it keeps growing."

Green products
Ted Lowe describes himself as "the least consuming human in DuPage County."

The Wheaton resident is the proud owner of an electric small truck, which he charges with juice from the solar panels he installed on his roof.

Lowe paid about $12,000 for the panels but received a $5,000 rebate from the state. The federal government offers tax credits as well, he said.

Using the panels to produce electric power and heat water dropped his energy bills "drastically," Lowe said.

"They do pay themselves off over time. Electric used to be $75 to $80 a month; my highest bill last summer was $25."

If it sounds tempting, Lowe recommends attending one of the workshops offered by the nonprofit Illinois Solar Energy Association, of which he is a member. Information can be obtained at www.illinoissolar.org or by calling (630) 260-0424.

The association also will recommend solar panel vendors and contractors to help with other energy-saving ideas such as geothermal systems.

"We have lots of visions," Lowe said. "One is that you could open the Yellow Pages and find as many solar energy installers as you do lawyers or dentists."

http://www.dailyherald.com/story.asp?id=300307
 
I would bet that for that trillion dollars, we could have converted the entire country to solar energy.

No. Solar energy is highly ineffecient, taking over 50% of the energy absorbed to run the equipment to produce energy.The problem is, there is almost no energy source (short of nuclear) that is any where near as efficient as gas. Even at three dollars a gallon, gas is still cheaper then water. Ethenol is much more inefficent then gas, and in the end would cost the individual more money, in both the short and the long term. In the end it comes down to a cost benifit analysis at the individual level. If it can be sold there, an alternative energy might have a chance. Thus far nothing has been able to compete with gas because of that. The moment u try to take the cost out of the equation and just talk about social benifits, u have marginalized yourself and lost the argument.
 
Corn based ethanol has been pushed by the Corn lobby on the government. l, as I understand it, ethanol and some biodiesel can be produced out of damn near anything organic.

Orange peels for example. Or Corn husks. Food byproducts. This kind of process would expand the available fuel supply, make it less susceptible to any single crop, and it would prevent the cost of fuel from sky rocketing, as corn based ethanol reliance will.

There are some trials going on in Florida to do this (make fuel from citrus peels) right now.
 
The moment u try to take the cost out of the equation and just talk about social benifits, u have marginalized yourself and lost the argument.


Sometimes cost isnt easy to measure. Yes, we pay about $3 a gallon today. How much is spent in taxes dealing with the middle east to protect that oil supply? Thats part of the cost as well. Add in the cost of enviromental cleanup resulting from the usage of that oil/gas as well. Lets also include the cost of the anti terror efforts because the terror groups would have less motivation and less money to attack us with if we wernt there protecting the oil supply.

So $3 a gallon is an inaccurate number. Which makes it really difficult to look at the cost.

However. In ths particular discussion, Im thinking more long term and globally then today's dollars and cents. Im thinking of enviromental impact, homeland security enviromental concerns and a variety of other issues including economic costs 20 years from now.

At least as I look at it, this isnt about which is cheaper.
 
I run biodiesel in the summertime. I've about completed my biodiesel reactor (I know, it sounds funny, but I promise you. No control rods are involved).

I broke it down, and it costs me a little over 50 cents a gallon to make bio. That includes gathering the oil from local restaurants - I know most of the owners, so when I told them I could save them money, they asked me when I could start collecting their used cooking oil-, buying the Lye, (580lbs for $460, IIRC), and the methanol.

Now granted, I am likely not going to have to pay for the Methanol, as I have a source that can get me all the Methanol for free... Well, maybe buy the guy lunch now and then.

Biodiesel is a viable fuel source. Diesel motors run better, (bio has a lot of cetane), they run smoother and quieter, and are cleaner ( bio is an excellent cleaning agent). First time I ran B100 in my powerstroke, I had to change the main filter after about 200 miles because the biodiesel started emulsifying all the crud that had accumulated in the fuel tank over the years.

Sure, I lose about 10% fuel economy, and about 10% power, but at 50 cents a gallon, do you honestly think I care? When I pull something with the truck, and I need the power, then hell. I can fill up with regular diesel, and truck down the highway at full power.

Hell, one time for experiments' sake (I know "You experiment on a $10K engine?" Yeah I do), I ran a blend of 16 gallons diesel, and 5 gallons of straight soy oil I bought from Sam's club. Guess what? The motor rand great.

Now I know, not everyone has diesels, but come on... The Diesel powered truck is the new status symbol in some states. Damned everyone wants a diesel now. I on the other hand, actually work my truck, I don't just drive it around to show people I have a diesel powered truck.
 
When I say cost, I mean what we r going to be paying at the pump (or whatever equivelant of the pump dependent on the proposed alternative fuel). It comes down to how it effects the average american's pocket book. Whatever power supply takes the least out of the average americans wallet is going to win the day. It may not be the most logical alternative, or "enviromently friendly" but it is the one that will prevail. Right now that is still gas. To try to add in the cost of the war isn't neccessarily accurate, because it is not accurate to say this war is purely about oil. As too "environmental clean up" (which is a farce; the environment does a better job of cleaning itself up than humans do), there isn't much 'need' for environmental cleanup anymore because governments already force companies to use 'clean' procedures. Since that adds to the cost, the companies build it into the final price; so it is already part of the calculated price.
 
Expecting any real solutions on alternative energy from the government is not going to do anything. Democrats, Republicans, both are in the pockets of the oil companies. They'll suggest something, but it'll be something ridiculously expensive and impossible to do in the mainstream, or that will take decades to develop.

What this is going to take is people like Frogman, my dad's friend(who converted his house to solar power for elect., heat, hot water, washer, dryer, etc.), and other "regular Joe's" like them. Regular people making a change. When enough people do it an the "others", see it working(and in those 2 cases at least, the people actually saving $$$$) You'll get more and more people. It's going to be a very gradual thing, whatever does happen. We can't expect politicians who get so much money from "big oil" to give a rational solution.

Biodiesel is great mostly because there's no special equipment needed. What we need is something similar to run in gas engines.(i saw a setup for LP that replaces a carb, i'm gunna look into it further) Here's a thought nugget that I cant figure out, biodiesel is cheap and relatively easy to make, right?. Why isn't there a company out there, at least one that i've heard of, selling it. Frogman said it costs him $.50 a gallon, so if i make it at that and sell it at, i dunno, $2 a gallon(half the price of diesel), every body wins. Well everybody except the oil companies.....hey....wait a.....

just my .02

Ron
 
Please provide proof if u r gonna claim 'all' or even 'most' politicians are in the pocket of 'big oil'. Yes, they may function as a lobbying group in washington, but the environmental lobby is just as big, if not bigger. Plus the Environmental lobby is already somewhat institutionalized in the form of the EPA (an organization which functions under the assumption that we are doing harm to the environment).
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top