Hey Lefties: Define "Clean Energy"

[S.J.]

Errr...excuse me all you energy alternative nabobs. Hydrogen for cell applications doesn't occur naturally on our planet. It has to be manufactured...from methane and fossil fuels. That isn't to say I'm not a fan of hydrogen's potential. I am. But let's don't walk a mile around the block just to cross the street.

Furthermore, all modern automobiles and pickup trucks made since the late 80's, at least in Japan and the West, with their electronic fuel injection systems, their sophisticated onboard computers, their lamda sensors, their tuned exhausts and their efficient catalytic converters, mean that pretty much the only thing coming out of the exhaust pipe...is water.

And therein lies the problem. The America hating Democrats don't want to confront the REAL polluters like China, Mexico, and of course, their muslim pals in the M.E. It's easier to just blame the ones they hate - the U.S.

 

[Nosmo King]

Errr...excuse me all you energy alternative nabobs. Hydrogen for cell applications doesn't occur naturally on our planet. It has to be manufactured...from methane and fossil fuels. That isn't to say I'm not a fan of hydrogen's potential. I am. But let's don't walk a mile around the block just to cross the street.

Furthermore, all modern automobiles and pickup trucks made since the late 80's, at least in Japan and the West, with their electronic fuel injection systems, their sophisticated onboard computers, their lamda sensors, their tuned exhausts and their efficient catalytic converters, mean that pretty much the only thing coming out of the exhaust pipe...is water.

Care to back that up? If you google Ford F-150 emissions, you will find the the best seling vehicle in America emits 24 pounds of carbon per mile.

 

[Saigon]

Listen to all these poor deluded left-wing saps tripping over themselves trying to avoid the question I've asked twice. Well they can't answer it, can they? Ignoramuses.

Really Tom, you don't do yourself any favours with this kind of "Guess how childish I can be!" posts.

If you don't understand the difference between transportation fuels and electricity there is little wonder you can't make head or tails of the topic.

 

[Saigon]

And therein lies the problem. The America hating Democrats don't want to confront the REAL polluters like China, Mexico, and of course, their muslim pals in the M.E. It's easier to just blame the ones they hate - the U.S.

There is some truth in that - although obviously it is as true under Republican governments as Democrat ones, if not more so. As per usual, partisanship blinds you from actually seeing the topic properly.

But I agree that both the US and EU are reluctant to put too much pressure of countries like China and Russia, because they are concerned about pissing them off.

 

[S.J.]

And therein lies the problem. The America hating Democrats don't want to confront the REAL polluters like China, Mexico, and of course, their muslim pals in the M.E. It's easier to just blame the ones they hate - the U.S.

There is some truth in that - although obviously it is as true under Republican governments as Democrat ones, if not more so. As per usual, partisanship blinds you from actually seeing the topic properly.

But I agree that both the US and EU are reluctant to put too much pressure of countries like China and Russia, because they are concerned about pissing them off.

Stop trying to equate Republicans with Democrats. That's what you liberals always do, when you get caught with your hands in the cookie jar, you make the claim that it's "both parties" who do it. Bullshit, have some integrity and put the blame where it belongs.

 

[Saigon]

S.J -

Anyone at all objective can see that both Democrats and Republicans have been cuddling up to China since Nixon. And not only China, but to the likes of DR Congo, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia....whoever had the minerals and seemed like they might be a good trading or strategic partner for more than 15 minutes. Unfortunately, most only seemed trustworthy for about six months, before they went on to humiliate the president who had just praised their immense wisdom and sense of justice. I remember Carter toasting the Shah of Iran as our friend in the Middle East - and Nixon praising the notorious Mobutu for his balanced budget!!!

The idea that only one party of president has done that is simply chidlish. It fools noone.

I really have no idea at all who people think they fool when they pretend one party is as pure as the driven snow and the other full of evil devils. It's a ten-year olds view of the world, really.

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

Listen to all these poor deluded left-wing saps tripping over themselves trying to avoid the question I've asked twice. Well they can't answer it, can they? Ignoramuses.

Really Tom, you don't do yourself any favours with this kind of "Guess how childish I can be!" posts.

If you don't understand the difference between transportation fuels and electricity there is little wonder you can't make head or tails of the topic.

Keep back-peddling in avoidance Saigon. As I asked in my original post, and as I've asked repeatedly throughout this thread, I want to know what it is that's going to replace petroleum. Is that so much to ask? And quit pigeon holing petroleum as just a "transportation fuel". You wouldn't have that computer in front of your nose, or probably the clothes on your back, or a thousand other essentials of life, without petrochemicals. For those of us in the 21st century, it isn't just a thing we put in our cars; it's lifeblood, like that red stuff flowing through your veins.

 

[Saigon]

Tom -

If you ask a coherent question, I'll be more than happy to answer it.

Alternatively, you can continue to post meaningless and contradictory drivel. As has been pointed out to you a dozen times already, what replaces oil as a transportation fuel is NOT what replaces oil as a source of electricity, and is NOT what replaces oil as a component of plastics etc. Those are three very separate issues. If you do not understand this, and I think it's clear now that you don't, then ask someone to explain it to you and then start a new thread.

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

Errr...excuse me all you energy alternative nabobs. Hydrogen for cell applications doesn't occur naturally on our planet. It has to be manufactured...from methane and fossil fuels. That isn't to say I'm not a fan of hydrogen's potential. I am. But let's don't walk a mile around the block just to cross the street.

Furthermore, all modern automobiles and pickup trucks made since the late 80's, at least in Japan and the West, with their electronic fuel injection systems, their sophisticated onboard computers, their lamda sensors, their tuned exhausts and their efficient catalytic converters, mean that pretty much the only thing coming out of the exhaust pipe...is water.

Care to back that up? If you google Ford F-150 emissions, you will find the the best seling vehicle in America emits 24 pounds of carbon per mile.

Let me see. 18 miles a gallon for most F-150's, and one gallon of gasoline weighs 8 lb., so 1/18 of a gallon (1 mile of travel ) = less than eight ounces of gasoline, that's producing 24 pounds of carbon???? Care to back that up, you incredible dumbass.

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

Tom -

If you ask a coherent question, I'll be more than happy to answer it.

Alternatively, you can continue to post meaningless and contradictory drivel. As has been pointed out to you a dozen times already, what replaces oil as a transportation fuel is NOT what replaces oil as a source of electricity, and is NOT what replaces oil as a component of plastics etc. Those are three very separate issues. If you do not understand this, and I think it's clear now that you don't, then ask someone to explain it to you and then start a new thread.

You're confused, child. And you're backsliding. You have no answers and nothing to ad. See you around the forum.

 

[Nosmo King]

Errr...excuse me all you energy alternative nabobs. Hydrogen for cell applications doesn't occur naturally on our planet. It has to be manufactured...from methane and fossil fuels. That isn't to say I'm not a fan of hydrogen's potential. I am. But let's don't walk a mile around the block just to cross the street.

Furthermore, all modern automobiles and pickup trucks made since the late 80's, at least in Japan and the West, with their electronic fuel injection systems, their sophisticated onboard computers, their lamda sensors, their tuned exhausts and their efficient catalytic converters, mean that pretty much the only thing coming out of the exhaust pipe...is water.

Care to back that up? If you google Ford F-150 emissions, you will find the the best seling vehicle in America emits 24 pounds of carbon per mile.

Let me see. 18 miles a gallon for most F-150's, and one gallon of gasoline weighs 8 lb., so 1/18 of a gallon (1 mile of travel ) = less than eight ounces of gasoline, that's producing 24 pounds of carbon???? Care to back that up, you incredible dumbass.

Ford f150 MPG Fuel Consumption Emissions

 

[rightwinger]

Listen to all these poor deluded left-wing saps tripping over themselves trying to avoid the question I've asked twice. Well they can't answer it, can they? Ignoramuses.

Really Tom, you don't do yourself any favours with this kind of "Guess how childish I can be!" posts.

If you don't understand the difference between transportation fuels and electricity there is little wonder you can't make head or tails of the topic.

Keep back-peddling in avoidance Saigon. As I asked in my original post, and as I've asked repeatedly throughout this thread, I want to know what it is that's going to replace petroleum. Is that so much to ask? And quit pigeon holing petroleum as just a "transportation fuel". You wouldn't have that computer in front of your nose, or probably the clothes on your back, or a thousand other essentials of life, without petrochemicals. For those of us in the 21st century, it isn't just a thing we put in our cars; it's lifeblood, like that red stuff flowing through your veins.

Is it going to totally replace petroleum?
Maybe not for 100 years or more

Can new energy sources reduce the need for petroleum?
Yes, they can do it right now

Why do you feel the need to defend petroleum? Why wouldn't you want to encourage new technologies?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I have no idea what you mean by 'lefties' in this context - I judge forms of energy production by its cost efficiency and productivity, not by its politics. So should you.

But to answer your question, clean energy for me is: nuclear, hydro, solar thermal and solar, tidal and wind.

Most countries can generate more than enough electricity from these forms of energy to not need fossil fuels of any kind. A few do already, and another dozen will within ten years or so.

How far down the road will any of those energy sources get you?

 

[Old Rocks]

Put up or shut up. Without petroleum, our transportation and industrial base shuts down, and without petrochemicals almost nothing you own can be manufactured any longer, including synthetic-based medicines. You bitch and moan (especially the global warmies) about petroleum, but you have nothing to replace it with. Where is this miracle substitute? Tell me about it. Now I'll sit back and await the deafening silence.

Sweetie Pie, you dumb fuck, we are creating those materials as we speak. Not only that, petroleum is far to valuable to be burning in the atmosphere. We should be using it for the industrial products, not as something to burn.

Essentially, you OP is simply a red herring. No one has suggested ceasing to use petroleum as an industrial feedstock. What they have suggested it that we cease to waste by burning it. We are not opposed to the use of petroleum as an industrial feedstock, we are opposed to wasting it by burning it and creating CO2, which is changing our climate in a manner that will harm our descendents.

 

[Old Rocks]

Let me be more specific. Tell me what I can use to run my truck and my tractor? What can airliners use for fuel? Locomotives? Semi's? Humongous container ships? What is this "renewable clean fuel" of which you speak? I think it's a figment from the LSD trashed minds of geriatric marxist hippies, but you an set me straight on that.

You do seem to be incredibly confused....are you talking about energy production as in producing electricity, or you mean oil and fossil fuels used in transportation?

Your thread titlle is "clean energy", which I think most people would take to mean the former, no?

Only incredibly confused? You're a sweetheart. I think I'm far more befuddled than that...and so do 300 mental health specialists here at USMB who are always so ready to pass on their therapeutic conclusions as to my state of mental health. They're such nice people.

I've already got solar and I'm building a much bigger grid. The area of the SanLuisValley where I live is called "Windy Point". Guess why? I've experimented with wind generators but they're too impractical unless they're enormous, and then you pay $2 for $1 worth of energy. A democrats dream child in other words.

Nobody around here uses wind-powered generators. Many of us use solar however. Nuclear? Absolutely, but the geriatric hippies with zero understanding of nuclear energy say no, so there you have it.

What I want to hear about is this, and I’ll whittle it down to as few words as possible so that even a mental health specialist/renewable energy expert like you can understand it. Quit stalling:


WHAT IS THIS MAGIC RENEWABLE CLEAN ENERGY MIRACLE THAT WILL REPLACE PETROLEUM???

LOL. Tesla has already started the movement to replace petroleum as a fuel. And the technology that will replace petroleum as a fuel is being developed as we post. Don't worry, Sweetie Pie, you might even live to see it, provided you don't have a heart attack at the thought of not smelling gasoline anymore.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Put up or shut up. Without petroleum, our transportation and industrial base shuts down, and without petrochemicals almost nothing you own can be manufactured any longer, including synthetic-based medicines. You bitch and moan (especially the global warmies) about petroleum, but you have nothing to replace it with. Where is this miracle substitute? Tell me about it. Now I'll sit back and await the deafening silence.

Sweetie Pie, you dumb fuck, we are creating those materials as we speak. Not only that, petroleum is far to valuable to be burning in the atmosphere. We should be using it for the industrial products, not as something to burn.

Essentially, you OP is simply a red herring. No one has suggested ceasing to use petroleum as an industrial feedstock. What they have suggested it that we cease to waste by burning it. We are not opposed to the use of petroleum as an industrial feedstock, we are opposed to wasting it by burning it and creating CO2, which is changing our climate in a manner that will harm our descendents.

Why do you insist on making a claim that isn't true?

The key test of a hypothesis is whether it can stand up to real world observations. Real observations reveal that the "CO2 is a major cause of global climate change" hypothesis is FALSE!

Myth: The close correlation of CO2 and temperature, as temperature has gone up and down over the last 400,000 years, proves that CO2 is causing the climate changes.
Fact: Since 1999, multiple technical, peer reviewed articles have been available that demonstrate exactly the opposite conclusion. CO2 changes lagged temperature changes as temperature increased or decreased. Temperature changed and then, several hundred years later, CO2 levels changed. Since a cause does not follow an effect, this indicates that CO2 is not a primary driver of climate change.
Empirical Tests Myths - CO2 and Climate Change

 

[Old Rocks]

I have no idea what you mean by 'lefties' in this context - I judge forms of energy production by its cost efficiency and productivity, not by its politics. So should you.

But to answer your question, clean energy for me is: nuclear, hydro, solar thermal and solar, tidal and wind.

Most countries can generate more than enough electricity from these forms of energy to not need fossil fuels of any kind. A few do already, and another dozen will within ten years or so.

How far down the road will any of those energy sources get you?

In a Tesla, 275 miles, at present. Probably four times that within a decade.

 

[Old Rocks]

Put up or shut up. Without petroleum, our transportation and industrial base shuts down, and without petrochemicals almost nothing you own can be manufactured any longer, including synthetic-based medicines. You bitch and moan (especially the global warmies) about petroleum, but you have nothing to replace it with. Where is this miracle substitute? Tell me about it. Now I'll sit back and await the deafening silence.

Sweetie Pie, you dumb fuck, we are creating those materials as we speak. Not only that, petroleum is far to valuable to be burning in the atmosphere. We should be using it for the industrial products, not as something to burn.

Essentially, you OP is simply a red herring. No one has suggested ceasing to use petroleum as an industrial feedstock. What they have suggested it that we cease to waste by burning it. We are not opposed to the use of petroleum as an industrial feedstock, we are opposed to wasting it by burning it and creating CO2, which is changing our climate in a manner that will harm our descendents.

Why do you insist on making a claim that isn't true?

The key test of a hypothesis is whether it can stand up to real world observations. Real observations reveal that the "CO2 is a major cause of global climate change" hypothesis is FALSE!

Myth: The close correlation of CO2 and temperature, as temperature has gone up and down over the last 400,000 years, proves that CO2 is causing the climate changes.
Fact: Since 1999, multiple technical, peer reviewed articles have been available that demonstrate exactly the opposite conclusion. CO2 changes lagged temperature changes as temperature increased or decreased. Temperature changed and then, several hundred years later, CO2 levels changed. Since a cause does not follow an effect, this indicates that CO2 is not a primary driver of climate change.
Empirical Tests Myths - CO2 and Climate Change

Yet every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has policy statements that state the AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. Are all of these, from all the differant nations and political systems, in on a grand conspiracy? Or are you just a really dumb sucker for the energy corperations?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I have no idea what you mean by 'lefties' in this context - I judge forms of energy production by its cost efficiency and productivity, not by its politics. So should you.

But to answer your question, clean energy for me is: nuclear, hydro, solar thermal and solar, tidal and wind.

Most countries can generate more than enough electricity from these forms of energy to not need fossil fuels of any kind. A few do already, and another dozen will within ten years or so.

How far down the road will any of those energy sources get you?

In a Tesla, 275 miles, at present. Probably four times that within a decade.

The cost of the car is what? 100 grand? Oh and probably not four times that within a decade.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Put up or shut up. Without petroleum, our transportation and industrial base shuts down, and without petrochemicals almost nothing you own can be manufactured any longer, including synthetic-based medicines. You bitch and moan (especially the global warmies) about petroleum, but you have nothing to replace it with. Where is this miracle substitute? Tell me about it. Now I'll sit back and await the deafening silence.

Sweetie Pie, you dumb fuck, we are creating those materials as we speak. Not only that, petroleum is far to valuable to be burning in the atmosphere. We should be using it for the industrial products, not as something to burn.

Essentially, you OP is simply a red herring. No one has suggested ceasing to use petroleum as an industrial feedstock. What they have suggested it that we cease to waste by burning it. We are not opposed to the use of petroleum as an industrial feedstock, we are opposed to wasting it by burning it and creating CO2, which is changing our climate in a manner that will harm our descendents.

Why do you insist on making a claim that isn't true?

The key test of a hypothesis is whether it can stand up to real world observations. Real observations reveal that the "CO2 is a major cause of global climate change" hypothesis is FALSE!

Myth: The close correlation of CO2 and temperature, as temperature has gone up and down over the last 400,000 years, proves that CO2 is causing the climate changes.
Fact: Since 1999, multiple technical, peer reviewed articles have been available that demonstrate exactly the opposite conclusion. CO2 changes lagged temperature changes as temperature increased or decreased. Temperature changed and then, several hundred years later, CO2 levels changed. Since a cause does not follow an effect, this indicates that CO2 is not a primary driver of climate change.
Empirical Tests Myths - CO2 and Climate Change

Yet every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has policy statements that state the AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. Are all of these, from all the differant nations and political systems, in on a grand conspiracy? Or are you just a really dumb sucker for the energy corperations?

No that's not true either. It has been shown that global warming is a hoax

Sorry Global Warming Alarmists The Earth Is Cooling - Forbes

The official position of the World Natural Health Organization in regards to global warming is that there is NO GLOBAL WARMING! Global warming is nothing more than just another hoax, just like Y2K and the global freezing claims in the 1960's and 70's were. Global warming is being used to generate fear and panic. Those behind this movement are using it to control people's lives and for financial gain.

THE GLOBAL WARMING HOAX