Would you like some oil with that oyster?

[gslack]

There is nothing more efficient than energy conservation.

And that is the reality none who back your garbage want to face.

Thats alright believer, you go on and pretend its not so.... Stick your fingers in your ears and chant the mantra all you want, but the truth is still there...

Burning Bio-matter releases CO2 and water vapor, true or false?

 

[konradv]

We need to stop making our focus out-moded 19th(oil) and 20th(nuclear) century technologies. Something akin to the Space Race to develop fusion power. Not only would it provide nearly unlimited cheap energy, it would negate the carbon emissions AGW believers worry about and nuclear waste that everybody worries about.

For more info:

ITER - the way to new energy or Department of Energy - Fusion

 

[konradv]

Ethanol? organic.. Methane? Organic... Coal? Organic... oil? you got it, organic.... Whichever you burn for fuel will still release CO2 and water. So all of this is just a way to squeeze money from unsuspecting people.
----------------------------------------

Burning it is only one aspect of the story. There's also the carbon cost of finding it, exploiting it, refining or manufacturing it, transporting it. That's why I believe the ONLY long term answer is fusion power.

 

[Si modo]

There is nothing more efficient than energy conservation.

And that is the reality none who back your garbage want to face.

Thats alright believer, you go on and pretend its not so.... Stick your fingers in your ears and chant the mantra all you want, but the truth is still there...

Burning Bio-matter releases CO2 and water vapor, true or false?

It doesn't matter. We all know that the issue is NOT the CO2 emissions upon combustion of organic matter, it's the fact that oil supports more Republicans than Democrats. Having issues with CO2 emissions is just bullshit for the propagandists.

 

[konradv]

Having issues with CO2 emissions is just bullshit for the propagandists.
---------------------------------

It's the deniers that are the propagandists. They've turned a scientific question into a political one.

 

[MaggieMae]

Okay.... Okay all kidding aside for a moment......

That might work in small populations and rural areas, but how is that going to work in places like New York city? Chicago, Indianapolis, cleveland, atlanta, LA, etc etc...

Not a lot of cows in those places, and coincidentally those places use the most electricity..

And you should read what you claim you bought into a little more carefully.... I think you have been misled....

from the link you provided in the faqs section on renewable energy... The question asked if I (customer) will be buying renewable energy.... The reply....



LOL, see that? yeah ya do.... Whats that telling you? Well its telling you, that you are paying them to do something you cannot see the effects of or prove its even doing anything at all. And you have to just trust them.... uh huh......

Also it explains how your money will be used by them and at their discretion to use any way they see fit. All they have to do is show it could be used for renewable energy or that they are working to create renewable energy....

THen the best part, they tell you how your money is going to help create a new market for such and give incentives for farmers to participate..... New market like a carbon trade market the next wall street. And incentives like subsidizing farmers and guaranteeing against losses they may accrue in this endeavor....

WOW! you just bought into the next thing we will see all over the media for corrupt business practices mark my words....

BTW, Got a sweet deal on a barely used bridge in brooklyn to sell.......

"trust me"

P.S. Burning methane creates CO2 and water vapor... Both greenhouse gases.....

Cow power isn't meant to be THE energy source that will supplant all others; it's only one of many, and you are correct that it works best in rural areas for obvious reasons. I'm also well aware that the cows aren't providing the electricity, duh... and I never SAID that. Again, pay attention to what's written.

That said, ANY alternative solutions are going to need subsidized incentives at the outset. Quit burying your head in the sand. Hell, even the Big Three got subsidies for alternative energy technology until the Dems put the lid on that and redirected that money to growing organizations that actually NEEDED the subsidies.

I didn't say it was the one to supplant all others, I told you the honest problems and limitations of it...... HUH? No one implied any such thing, maybe you should read it again...

LOL subsidies..... Like the Carbon trade market? yeah maybe you need to remove your head from al gore's butt now.... ANd whether you like to admit it or not, the reality is theat oil companies contribute more money to alternative energy research than perhaps any other private business.... BP, Shell, Exxon, are all prime investors in the carbon trade market, and they are the ones will control things like ethanol. You really need to stop getting your information from the media and do some research.

Uh no, maybe YOU should read what YOU said, again:

That might work in small populations and rural areas, but how is that going to work in places like New York city? Chicago, Indianapolis, cleveland, atlanta, LA, etc etc...

Not a lot of cows in those places, and coincidentally those places use the most electricity..

^Certainly looks like an "implication" to me. But, semantics aside, by subsidies, I'm talking about entrepreneurs other than Big Oil who are ready and waiting for seed money to get going on the actual building of plants and systems. Why should oil companies reap all the business and all the benefits? I thought you people were all about competition and small business opportunities. Guess not.

Are we supposed to wait around while China, Brazil, Germany, Japan take the lead in developing alternative energy systems? Who will build new grids to even carry the added energy? Will the U.S. be purchasing technology from other countries?

And who the fuck even mentioned Al Gore, 'cept you, of course... Your extreme bias is showing, pal. I don't pretend to be an "expert," and I don't rely on Al Gore to advise me on squat. All I do is try to keep up with the progress via publications written more or less in lay terms. If you're such an expert, then why are you wasting time on a political message board? I'm sure your "expertise" is in great demand by Exxon.

Renewables Global Status Report 2009 Update | Renewable Energy World

 

[MaggieMae]

P.S. Burning methane creates CO2 and water vapor... Both greenhouse gases.....

?Cow Power? Program Converts Animal Waste into Electricity

The process used is a relatively simple one: manure and other agricultural waste is held in underground concrete tanks and kept at 101 degrees Fahrenheit (about 38 degrees Celsius) -- the temperature of a cow’s stomach.

Bacteria digest the stored material, creating methane even as they kill pathogens and weed seeds. The methane, some 20 times more harmful than carbon dioxide in trapping heat in the atmosphere, fuels an engine-generator.

And the burning of that methane creates CO2 and Water vapor just as I said. Both of those gases are number 1 and 2 greenhouse gases...... The process of methane extraction isn't what I was talking about.... now please try and keep up...

The production is all done underground, genius.

 

[MaggieMae]

There is nothing more efficient than energy conservation.

And that is the reality none who back your garbage want to face.

Hear hear... Must be the Big Oil Magnates continue to stuff the pockets of the GOP members dripping with oil connections, such as Jim Inhofe.

 

[JBeukema]

A Hope For Oil Spill Bioremediation

 

[gslack]

Cow power isn't meant to be THE energy source that will supplant all others; it's only one of many, and you are correct that it works best in rural areas for obvious reasons. I'm also well aware that the cows aren't providing the electricity, duh... and I never SAID that. Again, pay attention to what's written.

That said, ANY alternative solutions are going to need subsidized incentives at the outset. Quit burying your head in the sand. Hell, even the Big Three got subsidies for alternative energy technology until the Dems put the lid on that and redirected that money to growing organizations that actually NEEDED the subsidies.

I didn't say it was the one to supplant all others, I told you the honest problems and limitations of it...... HUH? No one implied any such thing, maybe you should read it again...

LOL subsidies..... Like the Carbon trade market? yeah maybe you need to remove your head from al gore's butt now.... ANd whether you like to admit it or not, the reality is theat oil companies contribute more money to alternative energy research than perhaps any other private business.... BP, Shell, Exxon, are all prime investors in the carbon trade market, and they are the ones will control things like ethanol. You really need to stop getting your information from the media and do some research.

Uh no, maybe YOU should read what YOU said, again:

That might work in small populations and rural areas, but how is that going to work in places like New York city? Chicago, Indianapolis, cleveland, atlanta, LA, etc etc...

Not a lot of cows in those places, and coincidentally those places use the most electricity..

^Certainly looks like an "implication" to me. But, semantics aside, by subsidies, I'm talking about entrepreneurs other than Big Oil who are ready and waiting for seed money to get going on the actual building of plants and systems. Why should oil companies reap all the business and all the benefits? I thought you people were all about competition and small business opportunities. Guess not.

Are we supposed to wait around while China, Brazil, Germany, Japan take the lead in developing alternative energy systems? Who will build new grids to even carry the added energy? Will the U.S. be purchasing technology from other countries?

And who the fuck even mentioned Al Gore, 'cept you, of course... Your extreme bias is showing, pal. I don't pretend to be an "expert," and I don't rely on Al Gore to advise me on squat. All I do is try to keep up with the progress via publications written more or less in lay terms. If you're such an expert, then why are you wasting time on a political message board? I'm sure your "expertise" is in great demand by Exxon.

Renewables Global Status Report 2009 Update | Renewable Energy World

Uh no, maybe YOU should read what YOU said, again:

That might work in small populations and rural areas, but how is that going to work in places like New York city? Chicago, Indianapolis, cleveland, atlanta, LA, etc etc...

Not a lot of cows in those places, and coincidentally those places use the most electricity..

^Certainly looks like an "implication" to me. But, semantics aside, by subsidies, I'm talking about entrepreneurs other than Big Oil who are ready and waiting for seed money to get going on the actual building of plants and systems. Why should oil companies reap all the business and all the benefits? I thought you people were all about competition and small business opportunities. Guess not.

An implication? WTF is wrong with you? Do you understand the difference between what I said and what you tried to claim I said? Or have you shut down logic and reason in favor being emotional? Because thats the vibe I'm getting here...

The rest of your rambling seems like more of the same... I will try and respond to it...

Renewable alternatives we have currently like; ethanol (from corn), methane (including cowpower), bio-diesel (from used cooking oils) and all the other bio-matter sources still produce virtually the same and in some cases more CO2, Water vapor, and other GHG's.

This makes the entire premise of bio-matter renewable energy a complete and total scam as far as AGW and greenhouse gas reduction.

This, all of it is still burning bio-matter... Burning bio-matter creates more GHG's. Adding to the problem you try and prevent....


When you post like you did above, its easy to see how people are duped into this. Its an emotional response and not a logical one. They tell you"do this or you kill the planet" you turn into an emotional loon and follow them. You don't ask questions, you don't look into any of it, you follow and in doing sell the rest of us out.... Thanks, now can't we get some sort of test to weed out emotionally-based followers? That would make the world a much better place....

All of this crap boils down to one question.....

Bio-matter burning releases CO2 and water vapor true or false?

I asked that question before and it was ignored. And I bet it will be this time as well.

 

[gslack]

?Cow Power? Program Converts Animal Waste into Electricity

The process used is a relatively simple one: manure and other agricultural waste is held in underground concrete tanks and kept at 101 degrees Fahrenheit (about 38 degrees Celsius) -- the temperature of a cow’s stomach.

Bacteria digest the stored material, creating methane even as they kill pathogens and weed seeds. The methane, some 20 times more harmful than carbon dioxide in trapping heat in the atmosphere, fuels an engine-generator.

And the burning of that methane creates CO2 and Water vapor just as I said. Both of those gases are number 1 and 2 greenhouse gases...... The process of methane extraction isn't what I was talking about.... now please try and keep up...

The production is all done underground, genius.

So you are telling me they keep the entire thing sealed in? How do they get rid of all that CO2 and water vapor? THey couldn't just keep it down there because...

1. CO2 concentrations effect the PH levels of standing water, which according to your side causes water acidification. Also Oxygen is required for bacteria involved to live and to do their thing oxygen and other gases are required. So they would have to remove the methane and replace it with fresh air at points to keep the process going.... Meaning they couldn't just leave the CO2 down there....

2. How could they get in there to test it and oversee it in an entirely closed in system?


Again you have not thought this out at all. They told you "save the planet" and you went right on ahead like an emotional moonbat.....

 

[Old Rocks]

Gsuck, you silly dumbass, you obviously have no concept of the differance between cyclic CO2 and sequestered CO2.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Don't eat oysters in a month that has an "R" in it.

We're good until September

 

[editec]

Accidents happen... nothing is completely safe... as long as the proper precautions were taken, it has to be considered just one of those things... does not mean we like the result of the accident... but we can't live as chicken littles

That is a valid argument.

But one must also balance the potential harm of a project against the potential benefits of it, too.

In this case, some of us begin to suspect that the potential harm is vast (both environmental and economic ..they really are the same thing) and the potential benefit (more oil) might not be so great.

How this is going to play out really depends on why the accident happened.

What we should all be hoping for is this.. we find that BP was negligent. That will mean that had they done due diligence, this would not have happened, that offshore drilling (done properly) is safe enough.

Alternatively, if we discover that BP was not at fault, that this was just an unavoidably accident, then we're looking at a situation where offshore drilling is NOT safe.

In that case, we're kinda hosed.

But I certainly can NOT blame states which are on the block to start drilling from taking pause to ask themselves if this drilling is really worth it to THEM.

A major spill like this does NOT clean up, folks.

The negative outcomes resonate on the land that is effected and the waters where it happened for a mighty long time.

Prudo bay never really recovered its fishing industry.

That IS an economic consequence that the shoreline states need to take into account when they study this problem.

They'd be FISCALLY irresponsible NOT to take that into account when considering offshore drilling.

 

[gslack]

Gsuck, you silly dumbass, you obviously have no concept of the differance between cyclic CO2 and sequestered CO2.

What bullshit excuse!

Cyclic/sequestered = you're dumb I'm smart so do what I say....

Bite me liar, you have no credibility here...

You assholes cry about it being science then we give you science, only then you tell us its about common sense. When we give you common sense you cry about that and tels us bullshit like that.

Listen liar boy, the fact is CO2 made is CO2 made. If that CO2 enters the atmosphere, than it is increasing atmospheric CO2. And all the semantic little punk excuse you make amount to nothing.

now go get a chart you can lie about now...

 

[Si modo]

Accidents happen... nothing is completely safe... as long as the proper precautions were taken, it has to be considered just one of those things... does not mean we like the result of the accident... but we can't live as chicken littles

That is a valid argument.

But one must also balance the potential harm of a project against the potential benefits of it, too.

In this case, some of us begin to suspect that the potential harm is vast (both environmental and economic ..they really are the same thing) and the potential benefit (more oil) might not be so great.

How this is going to play out really depends on why the accident happened.

What we should all be hoping for is this.. we find that BP was negligent. That will mean that had they done due diligence, this would not have happened, that offshore drilling (done properly) is safe enough.

Alternatively, if we discover that BP was not at fault, that this was just an unavoidably accident, then we're looking at a situation where offshore drilling is NOT safe.

In that case, we're kinda hosed.

But I certainly can NOT blame states which are on the block to start drilling from taking pause to ask themselves if this drilling is really worth it to THEM.

A major spill like this does NOT clean up, folks.

The negative outcomes resonate on the land that is effected and the waters where it happened for a mighty long time.

Prudo bay never really recovered its fishing industry.

That IS an economic consequence that the shoreline states need to take into account when they study this problem.

They'd be FISCALLY irresponsible NOT to take that into account when considering offshore drilling.

[Emphasis added] True. With respect to this aspect of environmental concern, which has a worse track record and worse impact of spills, offshore rigs or transport from shore drilling?

Spills ARE bad and reasonable and diligent attention to prevention is called for. But we must balance with need. It's considered pragmatism and we cannot allow this to enable militant anti-offshore attitudes. Look where nuclear energy is because of that. We need nuclear now more than ever but unreasonable fears decades ago have set us far behind the energy curve.

I think many of us are on the same page, though.