Global Warming...the true facts ?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Trashman

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 15, 2005
Messages
3,544
Location
Covina, California
Re: Global Warming...the true facts.

Gunner12 said:
Whatever the reason for global warming is, us humans and our food supply can only live in a certain range of temperature. If it gets too hot or cold, we will die off. So even if it isn't caused by us, we should still stop global warming unless people are willing to let the human race die.


Bah. The human race would build a nuclear temperature controlled growing environment the size of Texas, before it would let itself die.
 

Greta

Flashaholic
Joined
Apr 8, 2002
Messages
15,999
Location
Arizona
Re: Global Warming...the true facts.

Or there's always the Biospheres here in AZ... *snicker*
 

TorchMan

Enlightened
Joined
Aug 7, 2005
Messages
805
Location
Texas
Re: Global Warming...the true facts.

Sasha said:
Or there's always the Biospheres here in AZ... *snicker*

Yeah, but I'd rather perish than be stuck in a Biodome with Pauly Shore! :grin2:
 
Last edited:

raggie33

*the raggedier*
Joined
Aug 11, 2003
Messages
13,759
Re: Global Warming...the true facts.

i got a fax on the subject once but my machine was out of papper.
 

turbodog

Flashaholic
Joined
Jun 23, 2003
Messages
6,425
Location
central time
Re: Global Warming...the true facts.

Tinfoil hats. We should all wear tinfoil hats.

They will reflect the sunlight back into outer space.


Sasha said:
... how do you propose that *WE* stop it? Again, I feel it's arrogant for us to assume we have that much influence one way or another...
 

mobile1

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 20, 2003
Messages
1,133
Location
Switzerland&San Francisco
Re: Global Warming...the true facts.

If global warming is not caused by humans, why would the European Union than implement strict reductions in CO2 emissions until 2020. Each one of the countries within the EU has millions and millions of $ invested in research, if that is really true what this movie said, I doubt it the EU nations would do that... because economically its much cheaper and efficient to NOT do anything about it.

So the question is who do you believe, one film, or 30 countries where each one of them had done tons of research with hundrets of university, government funded projects.
 

BB

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 17, 2003
Messages
2,129
Location
SF Bay Area
Re: Global Warming...the true facts.

I just finished watching "The Great Global Warming Swindle" (TGGWS) and found it to dovetail pretty well with, what I know, about all of the odds and ends concerning climate research and the politics that go with it...

This program cuts no slack to the Human Caused Global Warming thesis. They quote scientists, politicians, a founder of Green Peace, and journalists. They tie Margaret Thatcher with her desire for nuclear power (from the oil shocks of the 1970's and her distrust of the Middle East / British Coal miner unions) with the fall of the USSR/Eastern Europe and activists/radicals looking for a new anti-capitalist cause.

TGGWS only addresses CO2 (not a cause for Global Warming, but actually a lagging indicator of the temperatures of the world's oceans--water warms, releases CO2, water cools, absorbs CO2) and that the sun, solar activity, cosmic rays, and water transport (clouds/rain) and water vapor as the main global warming gas are the true drivers of (an always changing) global climate... The program does not even talk about conservation, pollution control/avoidance, etc. (in the positive or negative).

If you are a skeptic--TGGWS is the show for you...

It would be interesting to hear from the folks that disagree with TGGWS and where they would quibble with the presentation... (I have not seen ""An Inconvenient Truth--I have only read the counter discussions to the points raised

TGGWS also reminded me of what happen with earlier versions of the IPCC reports (and even one scientist that had threatened to sue if his name was not removed from the final report):

[size=-1] The Clinton Administration's claim that there is a scientific consensus about a global warming threat is also belied by several polls that have been conducted since the release of the IPCC report in 1996. The Science and Environmental Policy Project conducted a survey of American climate scientists, which included some of the 100 climate scientists who allegedly endorsed the IPCC report. The survey found that about half did not support the report's conclusion that global warming was a fact and posed a threat to the environment. Surveys of other scientists, climate and non-climate, who participated in developing the report have shown similar levels of disagreement about the report's assertions. 19

So why do so many people believe that IPCC scientists are in agreement on global warming? Because the 1995 IPCC report was altered after the IPCC endorsed it. In November 1995, an IPCC scientific panel met in Madrid where they reviewed and accepted a version of the report entitled "The Science of Climate Change." While this scientific panel included few climatologists, the scientists at the Madrid conference - mainly biologists, physicists, geographers and oceanographers - did faithfully represent the skepticism regarding global warming voiced by the climatologists and other scientists who had assisted in developing the report. The report was subsequently approved in December in Rome by the full IPCC.

This version of the report, which was supposed to be the final version, contained numerous statements questioning the legitimacy of the global warming theory. Members of the scientific panel as well as the full IPCC had every reason to believe that "The Science of Climate Change" would be the final version of the 1995 report. IPCC rules explicitly prohibit any further changes in such reports after approval by the scientific panel and the full IPCC.

But changes were made anyway. When it was released in May 1996, key sections of the IPCC report had been deleted. More than 15 sections of Chapter 8 of the report, the chapter that laid out the evidence for and against human influence on the climate, had been removed. The culprits were IPCC officials who were determined to make the report support the conclusion that man-made influences were contributing to global warming. 20

Frederick Seitz, President Emeritus of Rockefeller University and former president of the National Academy of Sciences, wrote in the Wall Street Journal that "I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report." 21 Had the unauthorized edits not been made, there is no way that President Clinton or anyone else could have asserted that the report represented a scientific consensus on global warming.

The following are just some of the passages that were in the original report but deleted in the final version:
[/size]
[size=-1]
* "None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases."

* "No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man-made] causes."

* "Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced."
[/size]


[size=-1]
Other surveys of scientists have revealed widespread skepticism of man-made warming. A survey of 400 German, American and Canadian climate researchers conducted by the Meteorologisches Institut der Universitat Hamburg and the GKSS Forschungszentrum found that 67 percent either disagreed or were uncertain about the proposition that global warming will occur so quickly that lack of preparation could prove disastrous. In 1996, nearly 100 climate scientists signed the Leipzig Declaration in which they expressed their doubts about the validity of global warming forecasts. A 1997 survey by American Viewpoint found that state climatologists believe that global warming is largely a natural phenomenon by a margin of 44 to 17 percent. 22 In May 1998, more than 17,000 scientists - including 2,388 specialists in the field of climate change - signed a petition to Congress questioning the theory of human-induced climate change.
[/size]


US Climate Science funding went from $170,000,000 per year to $2,000,000,000 per year in the very early 1990's (Bush I)... To now more than $4,000,000,000 per year today (just Climate Studies)--There are a very large number of people today making a good living off of just government funding of climate studies.

-Bill

PS: Compare the documentary TGGWS with this doom and gloom today in an article from AP:

[font=Verdana,Sans-serif] Tropical diseases like malaria will spread. By 2050, polar bears will mostly be found in zoos, their habitats gone. Pests like fire ants will thrive.[/font]

But, malaria has never been a only a tropical desease... As mentioned in TGGWS and confirmed here from Rueters' in 2004:

OSLO, Norway - Malaria-carrying mosquitoes were once a scourge of Shakespeare's chilly England and even Arctic regions of the Soviet Union. With malaria's history of surviving in the cold, experts are at odds about how far modern global warming may spread one of the planet's most deadly diseases which kills a million people a year in poor countries.

U.N. reports say rising temperatures linked to human burning of fossil fuels are likely to widen malaria's range in the tropics because mosquitoes and the parasite they pass on when sucking human blood thrive best in hot, wet climates.

But some insect experts swat those reports as simplistic.

"Temperature is only one of many, many factors in malaria, and in many cases it's totally irrelevant," said Paul Reiter, professor of medical entomology at the Pasteur Institute in Paris.

"Many climate scientists don't know anything about the complexities of malaria," he said, adding that the same applied to mosquito-borne diseases like dengue fever or West Nile virus.


...

In 1923-25, 600,000 people died in the Soviet Union from a malaria epidemic that reached the Arctic port of Archangelsk.

Reiter and eight colleagues including Harvard professor Andrew Spielman, author of the best-selling book "Mosquito," wrote a letter to the British medical journal "The Lancet" in June urging more accuracy in linking malaria to climate change.
 
Last edited:

Quickbeam

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 19, 2001
Messages
4,329
Location
FlashlightReviews.com
Re: Global Warming...the true facts.

BB said:
And now the corn shortages/price increases are going to hit our food prices just like they did in Mexico a few months ago:

Demand for ethanol driving up meat prices (March 9th, 2007):


As from another thread--the Law of Unintended Consequences will get you every time...

-Bill

Gee wiz... I wonder if the politicians from the grain and meat producing areas of our country voted in support of ethanol (energy) legislation or against it... Let's see... it benefits their constituants by increasing the income of farmers and ranchers because as prices go up, profits go up.... hmmmm...... I'd bet these consequences weren't "unintentional" at all, or at least were not unexpected... :shrug:

Some reading reference regarding the Ethanol swindle...

http://www.businessweek.com/autos/content/apr2006/bw20060427_493909.htm

Oh, and there IS something we can do to stop the temperature increase known publicly as "global warming". A simple idea, but so are most brilliant ones.... Will the politicians follow through on this one? Never. Too much political capital at stake to actually do something EFFECTIVE about it.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/07/060727180326.htm

GreenLED - I'll bring the lights, you bring the batteries and the solar charger! :D
 

DonShock

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Dec 28, 2005
Messages
1,641
Location
Belton Texas
Re: Global Warming...the true facts.

mobile1 said:
If global warming is not caused by humans, why would the European Union than implement strict reductions in CO2 emissions until 2020.
Because they are politicians and bureaucrats! Their whole reason for being is to tell people what to do. They get into that line of work because they are convinced that they are infallible and know what's "best for the people". Their goals are to get re-elected and to accumulate power. And the Global Warming predictions are perfect for that purpose. They get to say: Elect us and we'll save the world, elect the other guys and we're all dead. That's powerful electioneering rhetoric. And as for power, just look at some of their recent proposals. Since they predict a "global" catastrophe, what better excuse to expand their regulatory and taxing abilities to the entire world, not just their own individual countries. Of course, at the same time they are proposing an involuntary global tax on greenhouse gas emissions, their own countries don't meet the Kyoto Protocol limits that they voluntarily agreed to.


mobile1 said:
Each one of the countries within the EU has millions and millions of $ invested in research, if that is really true what this movie said, I doubt it the EU nations would do that... because economically its much cheaper and efficient to NOT do anything about it.
The concept of maximum results at minimum costs is totally foreign to their way of thinking. After all, how many times do you hear them say "If it helps just one person, then it's worth any cost." And from their way of thinking, it makes sense. After all, they don't have to make money, they just have to take it from somebody else through higher taxes. They ignore the fact that if they raise taxes to help one person, they may cause other problems for two more people. They probably think that just proves how much they are needed, because now there are even more people in trouble. After all, what are the vast majority of proposals being put forward by government: increased taxes and punative fees for companies and individuals. Of course, they usually exempt themselves from the regulations. And even if they don't, they just pay the money using your tax dollars.


mobile1 said:
So the question is who do you believe, one film, or 30 countries where each one of them had done tons of research with hundrets of university, government funded projects.
I'll believe whichever one can produce scientifically verifiable results and not just dire predictions of doom and gloom which can never be verified in our lifetimes.
 

karlthev

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Nov 19, 2004
Messages
5,206
Location
Pennsylvania
Re: Global Warming...the true facts.

Sasha said:
Or there's always the Biospheres here in AZ... *snicker*


Yeah, I flew over that in a two-seater plane a couple of years back Sasha. As I recall, that venture didn't fare so well......


Karl
 

ikendu

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 30, 2001
Messages
1,853
Location
Iowa
Re: Global Warming...the true facts.

Ah... the ethanol "swindle" or "boondoggle" or "scam" or...

Yeah. Hmmm.

Taking money we would normally spend on lovely imported oil from the Middle East or Nigeria or Venezuela and sending it instead to our farmers here in the U.S. (darn greedy American farmers ...we'd be WAY better off if we simply imported all of our food).

Hey, wait a minute! We've been subsidizing those farmers for decades with American tax dollars for corn price supports and now... the price support cost is disappearing as market demand for ethanol has raised corn prices. Hmmm.... I'll have to think about that.

But wait a minute. I heard once that it takes more energy to make ethanol than you get out!

Well, there have been a variety of studies on that. There are two researchers that issue "new reports" every year that are based on the same basic data and same basic premise dating from the 90's; Pimental and Patzek. They refuse to include any of the by-products of ethanol production (like distillers grains ...about 1/3 of the original food value) and want to include energy inputs like the fuel for the workers cars, their lunches and the energy to create the farm machinery in the first place ...into their "overall energy balance" equations.

The most recent study by Dr. Kammen of Berkley shows that you get 30% more energy out than you put in when you create ethanol.

Although, all of the studies show that very little oil is used to make corn ethanol. Most of the fossil fuel inputs come from natural gas (fertilizers) and coal (process heat and electricity). The USDA study shows that for every BTU of oil that goes in ...you get 13.2 BTUs of ethanol out.

So... if getting off of imported oil is important (and I do believe that it is), corn ethanol gets you a 13:1 leverage.

BTW... that most recent study also shows that you only get .8 BTUs out of every 1 BTU of oil you find by the time you pump, transport and refine the crude oil. If you look at oil from the Alberta Tar Sands you only get .6 BTUs out and if you convert coal to diesel fuel you only get .5 BTUs out. That's before you even start the refining process.

Of all of those petroleum fuel alternatives, ethanol looks pretty good. Funny, we don't ever hear stories about the "Alberta Tar Sand swindle". Most of the extra energy that is used to cook Tar Sand oil out of the sand is natural gas. Hmmm... I wonder if using all of that natural gas to cook oil out of sand will have an effect on natural gas prices for heating our homes. Oh well, at least with gasoline from tar sand, we don't have to worry about those darn ethanol "swindlers".

Now, seriously, corn ethanol isn't the ideal substitute either. No one wants to be put into the position of choosing food over fuel. Even if we converted every kernel of corn into ethanol, we'd only displace about 15% of our gasoline. It won't get us all the way to imported oil independence. We do need to continue research on other biofuels (cellulose conversion of mixed prairie grasses that don't need to be replanted or tilled or fertilized every year looks promising but requires more study and demonstration projects).

We will need more energy efficiency. Savings from efficiency (higher mileage) is the quickest way to save the most energy the soonest. The CAFE standards have been frozen since the early 90's. We should have raised then already and we certainly should raise them now; right now.

In the end, we should be switching to Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEVs) like the Chevy Volt concept car unveiled this year. A PHEV with 25 mile battery range will shift 60% of our petroleum usage for transportation from imported oil to domestically produced grid electricity. Electricity for PHEVs is like buying gasoline at less than $1/gallon. Even central production of electricity from our variety of sources (including coal) pollutes less and sends less CO2 into the atmosphere than using gasoline in millions of vehicles. A study released by the DOE in Dec. 2006 shows that if ALL vehicles were PHEVs, we could charge 84% of them with existing generating and grid capacity.

We have solutions within our grasp for ending our dangerous dependence on imported, foreign oil. We could be off of foreign oil within 10 years if we were really serious about it. While we quibble about global warming and who's study shows what ...our addiction to foreign oil just continues to roll along. We are in the middle of fighting our second war in the Persian Gulf area to ensure our access to Middle East oil. Once the demand for oil from China and India ramps up (and it is), will we be fighting Gulf War #3? Only then, it won't be with insurgents with roadside bombs, it will be with a nuclear armed opponent that is just as serious about protecting their economy and lifestyle as we are about protecting ours.

Don't forget this. The people that make billions selling us that imported oil do not mind about the danger to our economy or our national security that it represents. They care about next quarter's profits.

And to come back around to the original point... I can't get too worked up about the "ethanol swindle" when I consider the danger of addiction to imported oil.
 

Quickbeam

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 19, 2001
Messages
4,329
Location
FlashlightReviews.com
Re: Global Warming...the true facts.

Ah - the Ethanol lovers strike back.

It just so happens that our city newspaper just ran a nice article about Ethanol.

Let's take a look at the real costs of that wonderful fuel, based on the info in the article, shall we?

that most recent study also shows that you only get .8 BTUs out of every 1 BTU of oil you find by the time you pump, transport and refine the crude oil.

ONLY .8? ONLY??? That's 80% efficiency! So this means that it takes 20 gallons of gasoline equivalent energy to get 100 gallons of gasoline to your tank.

Our paper reports closer to 94% efficiency, not 80%, which would cost 6 gallons of gasoline equivalent energy to get 100 gallons gasoline to your tank. But hey, we'll use the worse numbers just for the sake of argument.

From farm to pump, as reported, it takes about 75% of the energy of the gallon of ethanol to get it to your tank. Farm equipment uses fuel, fertilizer is produced in plants that use energy, trucks that transport ethanol use diesel (can't use the more efficient existing pipelines - ethanol's too corrosive), the refineries use huge amounts of natural gas and energy. The result? 75 gallons of ethanol worth of energy to get 100 gallons to the tank. Not 20 gallons as with gasoline, but 75 gallons! Not so rosey.

Interesting that the USDA has much more optimistic numbers... considering they have the most to gain if more money is pumped into the ethanol scheme... no bias there either, I suppose...

Add to the fact that the only way the ethanol plants in the midwest can actually make a profit is because of our lovely govenment pumping millions of our tax dollars into these plants to keep the cost of the end product fuel down to the point where it is actually competitive with gasoline, and you start to see that it really is a boondoggle.

Oh yes, and I believe this was mentioned somewhere else... 30% less miles to the gallon on ethanol than gasoline, but at the same price as gasoline (with government subsidies, AKA your tax dollars, used to keep the price down that low, that is...). So on a tank of gasoline that would get you 100 miles, you'll only go 70 miles on a tank of pure ethanol. But at the SAME cost per gallon (again thanks to your tax money being pumped into the pockets of the manufacturers, othewise it would cost much more per gallon at the pump). This results in a net cost INCREASE of 30% per energy unit if ethanol is sold at the same price as gasoline. It's like an instant 30% tax per gallon of ethanol.

The government should NEVER get involved in these schemes because it becomes a political imparitive to make it work no matter what the cost in order to prevent political backlash and the bad press that comes along with it. Private industry and the market forces should be the decider. If it was, ethanol would go nowhere until some enterprising inventor figures out how to produce ethanol at a MARKETABLE price. If they can't, then the idea should go away just like so many other infeasable, foolish, and unmarketable options.

I'm not saying dependence on foreign produced oil is a good thing, but ethanol is a joke as auto fuel. Switching to a more expensive, less efficient, fuel which jeopardizes the worlds food supply in order to lessen (not REMOVE) our dependence on foreign oil is doing the wrong thing for all the right reasons. It's still wrong, regardless of the motivation behind it.

However ethanol will always be welcome in my martini. :drunk:

GreenLED: I'll bring the martinis if you bring the olives!

P.S. Oh, and subsidizing our farmers for years prior falls under the same "wrong thing for the right reasons" umbrella.

PPS. This is fun! It's also why I try not to post in the Cafe much - I get too involved. I'll shut up now, eat some popcorn, and watch.

:popcorn:
 
Last edited:

DonShock

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Dec 28, 2005
Messages
1,641
Location
Belton Texas
Re: Global Warming...the true facts.

EDIT: I see Quickbeam beat me to the punch on some of these issues while I was typing, so pardon the repeats.

Ikendu: I don't get it. What difference does it make where the energy comes from to process the various fuels? You are only shifting the pollution burden to other sources. This does not result in a net benefit. Maybe ethanol production uses less oil than oil production but it uses a lot of non-oil energy. What is the total energy efficiency of each source? That should be the question. I find it difficult to believe that ethanol is more efficient than oil since you have to convert the grain to sugar and the sugar to alcohol before it is usable. Whereas oil already has the various fuels present in the raw product and requires only seperating out the various types of fuels which each have their own uses. And that's not even taking into account the fact that the end product is a less efficient fuel due it's lower combustion temperature. And what about the increased transportation costs for the end product since the alcohol is too corrosive to be pumped through pipelines and must be shipped by tanker vehicles?


As for raising the CAFE standards being a quick solution: TANSTAAFL (There Aint No Such Thing As A Free Lunch)
It's not as though there is some answer to increased mileage that is not being used just out of meaness by the car companies. Several of the US auto makers are on the verge of bankruptsy. Don't you think if they had a way to make more fuel efficient cars that people would buy, they would be making them? Given the current state of technology, you can only get so much energy out of a gallon of gas. And I think the fact that most of the cars on the road only have minor variations in their body shapes shows that aerodynamics is near it's maximum efficiency. There are a few places, like regenerative braking, that show some promise at capturing some current losses in the energy cycle, but even these would only provide miniscule improvements. However, barring some major innovation in technology, the only way to increase efficiency is to make vehicles lighter and more compact. But as this has been done in the past to meet the earlier CAFE standards, more and more people have migrated to trucks and SUVs because their comfort and needs were no longer being satisfied by the new smaller vehicles. Now the government is trying to eliminate these choices as well by applying the car CAFE standards to trucks and SUVs. The only way to meet them will be to make the trucks as small as cars.

As for hybrids: once again, that only shifts the burden around. It doesn't actually increase efficiency. However, the increased use of electricity does make it more likely that nuclear technology will be more widely adopted. Nuclear is the one area where I think the technology exists but is just not being used for irrational reasons.

I do understand that your main point is that we need to get off of foriegn oil, so just shifting to another fuel regardless of efficiency helps further that goal. But it's not like we live in isolation and can forget about the cost associated with less efficient fuels. If we force people and industry to use a less efficient fuel, their costs will go up, and they will not be able to compete against those using a more efficient fuel source. I believe the free market will govern these issues, not government dictates. Every new technology gets started by the dreamers and early adopters who pay a premium for the latest and greatest. But as the technology matures, it becomes available to larger numbers of people because of increased ease of use and lowering prices. This development takes finite amounts of time and is governed by peoples behaviour. Reasonable regulations can discourage certain behaviours, but they can't create answers to problems.
 
Last edited:

ikendu

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 30, 2001
Messages
1,853
Location
Iowa
Re: Global Warming...the true facts.

Quickbeam, I'm trying to follow your numbers.

Here are the numbers as I understand them:

Start with 100 BTUs of energy.

Oil:

Find 100 BTUs of oil.
Spend 20 BTUs to drill, refine and transport it.
80 BTUs get delivered to your tank.

A losing equation over time. Always spending more of what you find.
Coal to diesel ...makes this worse.
Tar sands ...also makes this worse.
Drilling ultra deep waters in the Gulf of Mexico ...again, makes this worse.

Ethanol:

Start with 100 BTUs of various fossil fuels (some oil, coal and natural gas).
Spend all 100 BTUs plant, harvest and convert to ethanol.
Deliver 130 BTUs to your tank.
(BTUs... not gallons so the "mileage" consideration is the same)
Solar energy allowed you to start with 100 BTUs of energy and end up with 130 BTUs of energy.

Every BTU of imported oil replaced with 13 BTUs of ethanol.

With oil, every 100 get you 80 and it only gets worse as we drill deeper or convert other fossil fuels to gasoline.

As far as subsidies go, after reading this forum, are you still thinking that our government doesn't subsidize petroleum?

If we need subsidies to help us jump start a new source of fuel to replace 15% of our gasoline ...I'll take it. What will Gulf War #3 cost us? We already see the cost of Gulf War #2.

I will agree with you on this. Corn ethanol is no magic bullet that makes our oil dependence go away. Although, finding a new source of transportation fuel that is equivalent to 15% of all of the gasoline we use ...is not insignificant.

If you don't like the energy balance of ethanol, use biodiesel. I do. :)

Instead of 1 to 1.3 ethanol balance, soy biodiesel is 1 to 3.2

And... since this started about global warming:

Corn ethanol is 27% less CO2 added to the atmosphere than gasoline.
Soy biodiesel is 78% less CO2 added to the atmosphere than petroleum diesel.

Every gallon of U.S. produced biofuel makes us more secure an we get a CO2 benefit that rides along too.
 

ikendu

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 30, 2001
Messages
1,853
Location
Iowa
Re: Global Warming...the true facts.

DonShock wrote:

I do understand that your main point is that we need to get off of foriegn oil, so just shifting to another fuel regardless of efficiency helps further that goal. But it's not like we live in isolation and can forget about the cost associated with less efficient fuels.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Ok. Let's talk about the cost.

We import about 65% of this "efficient" energy source; oil.

There once was a time when we had plenty of it. We could find a gallon of it and refine it into gasoline. We'd find 100 gallons and deliver something less to our tanks. Since 1982, we've been finding less oil than we consume every year; finding less, consuming more. At one time, we were the world's biggest exporter of oil (prior to WWII). In fact, we had such power and influence, we declared an oil embargo against Japan to protest their occupation of China. Japan decided it had to have oil so... attack on Pearl Harbor to knock our out fleet so they would have free reign to capture oil from Indonesia (darn societies that are highly dependent on a critical, imported resource).

Hmmm. What does it cost us to import 65% of our transportation energy?

Well, whatever cost you want to agree on, it is going to get worse every year.

We keep finding less (not because we aren't looking). Other economies are now demanding more of the world-wide oil pie; finding less, demanding more.

I wonder what that will do to the cost of this efficient energy source?

The free market (as though petroleum exists in a free market), will put us right where we are today. 65% dependent on outside sources for a resource critical to our economy and our national security.

Japan decided they had to tackle the U.S. or be strangled by our oil embargo.

What will we decide when faced with a similar choice?

The Middle East has something like 66% of the world's remaining oil reserves. The big find in Alaska's Prudhoe Bay is already dwindling away, the big find for Britain in the North Sea is also dwindling away. We can't drill our way out of this.

I've decided that our best shot of avoiding a very expensive Gulf War #3 is ending our dependency on imported oil. If you see some other way of doing it, I'm very interested in your ideas.
 

James S

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Aug 27, 2002
Messages
5,078
Location
on an island surrounded by reality
Re: Global Warming...the true facts.

heh, but we dont need ethanol or foreign oil. It's not necessary that we subsidize either one! The electric companies could go nuclear and it would pay for itself just like an investment in any other plant.

And if you didn't have to subsidize anybody, imagine what you could spend all that money on then! Why, you could give all politicians pay raises. You could buy all US children a PlayStation to improve their hand/eye coordination. You could pass laws about the mandatory serving of asparagus at breakfast giving that industry a huge boost! Mostly you could get back to business as usual for the government which is making laws about things they can't change and dont understand that wont have the effect that they think ;)
 

Quickbeam

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 19, 2001
Messages
4,329
Location
FlashlightReviews.com
Re: Global Warming...the true facts.

Actually, it looks like the numbers have become twisted.

"With oil, every 100 get you 80 and it only gets worse as we drill deeper or convert other fossil fuels to gasoline."

"....it takes 20 gallons of gasoline equivalent energy to get 100 gallons of gasoline to your tank."

These two statements are not equal. You are implying that it takes 100 gallons worth of energy to get 80 gallons of fuel to the tank.

Stated your way, 100 gallons worth of energy would get 500 gallons of gasoline fuel to the tank. 20% of the energy equivalent amount arriving at the tank would have been expended on production. 100 is 20% of 500. This would be an 80% return, as suggested earlier.

The next statement: "Spend all 100 BTUs plant, harvest and convert to ethanol. Deliver 130 BTUs to your tank."

100 gallons of ethanol energy equivalent would get 130 gallons to the tank? That's about a 30% energy return. Close to the 25% efficiency quoted in the papers today.

:shrug: I don't know. :stupid:
 
Last edited:

ikendu

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 30, 2001
Messages
1,853
Location
Iowa
Re: Global Warming...the true facts.

Quickbeam said:
:shrug: I don't know. :stupid:

What we have here, is a lack of communication.
(Cool Hand Luke)

I agree. Seems like we aren't calculating in a manner that makes sense to the other person.

You start with 100 BTUs of oil in the ground. By the time it gets to your tank, there is only 80 BTUs left. You can express the percentages any way you feel comfortable.
 
Last edited:

BB

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 17, 2003
Messages
2,129
Location
SF Bay Area
Re: Global Warming...the true facts.

Note: There are a bunch of replies posted as I was writting this--I will have to take a little time reviewing them... But I think much of what I posted is a different take on the issues so I don't believe there is much overlap. -BB

ikendu said:
Taking money we would normally spend on lovely imported oil from the Middle East or Nigeria or Venezuela and sending it instead to our farmers here in the U.S.
...
So... if getting off of imported oil is important (and I do believe that it is), corn ethanol gets you a 13:1 leverage.
...
Now, seriously, corn ethanol isn't the ideal substitute either. No one wants to be put into the position of choosing food over fuel. Even if we converted every kernel of corn into ethanol, we'd only displace about 15% of our gasoline. It won't get us all the way to imported oil independence.
...
We will need more energy efficiency. Savings from efficiency (higher mileage) is the quickest way to save the most energy the soonest.
...
A study released by the DOE in Dec. 2006 shows that if ALL vehicles were PHEVs, we could charge 84% of them with existing generating and grid capacity.
...
We have solutions within our grasp for ending our dangerous dependence on imported, foreign oil. We could be off of foreign oil within 10 years if we were really serious about it. While we quibble about global warming and who's study shows what ...our addiction to foreign oil just continues to roll along. We are in the middle of fighting our second war in the Persian Gulf area to ensure our access to Middle East oil. Once the demand for oil from China and India ramps up (and it is), will we be fighting Gulf War #3? Only then, it won't be with insurgents with roadside bombs, it will be with a nuclear armed opponent that is just as serious about protecting their economy and lifestyle as we are about protecting ours.
...
And to come back around to the original point... I can't get too worked up about the "ethanol swindle" when I consider the danger of addiction to imported oil.

OK... So should one be worried about global warming or importing oil, or protecting (or exploiting) farmers??? I guess we can do this all without links to backup documentation...

The quibble about Anthropogenic Global Warming is allowing world governments to force massive new taxing and trading schemes (and giving some of that money to China, India for carbon offsets--forcing local people off of their lands to plant trees, building cheap polluting chloro-florocarbon chemical plants so that they can sell the right to stop the "global warming" pollution--and then start all over again--About 8 chemical companies in China and Inda are responsible for absorbing at least 40% of the current carbon offset funds (go see the Australian Bulb Ban thread for links). There is at least a 10x leverage in the current system biased towards limiting these "specialty global warming gases" than the cost to actually reduce CO2 production.

OK--if you are not too worried about CO2 and global warming then we can look at "...I consider the danger of addiction to imported oil."

It looks like the US is now just like a junkie changing from one injectable drug to another to achive the same high:

If this alliance is consolidated it will erode the Bolivarian plan to integrate the continent with a model of state-regulated economies and Venezuelan oil. It would also undermine efforts to strengthen the Southern Common Market.In the deal, Brazil gains capital to develop ethanol-producing technologies within its own borders and export them to Central America and Caribbean nations. In addition to investment and credits, the São Paulo industrialists are assured policies to extend agribusiness into the Amazon and other regions now populated by small farmers.

The United States gains greater independence from Middle East oil by importing more of the cheap Brazilian ethanol. It also begins to redraw the map of energy integration in Latin America based on Brazilian ethanol rather than Venezuelan oil and Bolivian gas, thus neutralizing the power of nations it considers uncooperative.

Cargill, one of the largest owners and operators of ethanol production in Brazil, and other agribusiness corporations, expands in the south while continuing to protect its corn interests in the north by maintaining U.S. import tariffs on ethanol. As mono-cropping for biofuels takes over huge tracts of land, small food farmers who have always resisted international market control of land and resources will become a species in danger of extinction.

None of these changes are really in the interests of Latin America's poor or the U.S. public. Setting aside Chavez's anti-American hype, Latin American countries helping each other out is not necessarily contrary to U.S. interests, if these are redefined in terms of stable, long-term relationships with its southern neighbors rather than by the destructive trade and security agendas that now dominate.


And who just started a new organization "...Interamerican Ethanol Commission to promote the use of the alternative fuel throughout the Americas and slowly wean the region off gasoline..."

In one of his last initiatives as governor, Jeb Bush on Monday announced the creation of the Interamerican Ethanol Commission to promote the use of the alternative fuel throughout the Americas and slowly wean the region off gasoline. Bush said his support for ethanol was shaped by watching the suffering of Floridians through eight hurricanes in the past two years and the resulting damage caused by a temporary loss of fuel supply.

"Wouldn't it be nice to have alternative sources of fuel as we prepare for hurricanes?" he told reporters.

Also launching the commission was Luis Alberto Moreno, head of the Interamerican Development Bank, and former Brazilian agriculture minister Roberto Rodrigues, who now heads the country's agribusiness council.

So, now we have "big ethanol" with government officials first creating the organizations then sliding into them for a nice job... All on the back of "Global Warming"... Notice the nice allusion to "hurricanes" and the myth that violent weather is associated with global warming--which is false as weather models require a temperature difference between the equator and the poles to drive weather systems. And, in all of the "global warming" science (from both "sides") show the poles warming while the temperatures at the equator remain relatively stable--taking the energy away and preventing the formation of violent weather patterns.

So, now we are in the toppsy turvy world of trying to substitute our foreign dependence on oil with a foreign dependence on ethanol (ironically destroying the Amazon Rain Forests, destroying the small farmer, driving up world food prices, and creating huge mono-culture farms) to stop violent weather which would have been fixed by dumping more CO2 into the atmosphere (most cost effectively creating CO2 by burning coal)...

If anything, human history has shown major human and cultural developments during warming trends (many that where warmer than they are today) and massive problems during cooling trends (dark ages).

Worrying about Iran getting nuclear weapons funded by what is left of their oil industry (slowly declining due to sanctions) is probably not near the issues that we are facing with an already nuclear armed China being fueled by money and technology from the US and the 1st world (and, by the way, China is setting up deals with Iran for deeply discounted oil--So, even if the west does avoids Iranian oil, they will still get the money and China will still have cheap energy sources)...

Followed your link Shoot Up And Cool Down: Fighting Global Warming By Injecting Sulfur Into The Atmosphere suggesting to inject sulfur into the atmosphere to cause global cooling--And just who will be responsible for the damage and destruction when those violent storms begin to rampage around the world again...

Here is a nice paper from 1995 (a little dated regarding CO2 and ice core research which had not be completed at that time) that talks about previous times when the earth was warmer than it is today...

In any case, if you are after a "twofer"--both reduce "green house gases" and "increasing world food supplies" then take the world towards mandatory vegetarianisms... That would 1) reduce global warming gas production better than if we 100% eliminated all forms of fossil fuel transportation and 2) dramatically increase the amount of calories available for human consumption (grain to meat production cycle is, at best, roughly only 10% efficient).

Farm to people ratio:


According to the British group Vegfam, a 10-acre farm can support 60 people growing soybeans, 24 people growing wheat, 10 people growing corn and only two producing cattle. Britain -- with 56 million people -- could support a population of 250 million on an all-vegetable diet. Because 90 percent of U.S. and European meat eaters' grain consumption is indirect (first being fed to animals), westerners each consume 2,000 pounds of grain a year. Most grain in underdeveloped countries is consumed directly.

In the end, tell us which problem(s) we are trying to solve and address them directly... Don't just throw things on the wall and see what sticks (politically derived science and economics). Making a mistake affecting only a hand full of people is one thing--Making a mistake affecting billions of people is a whole different problem.

-Bill
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top