Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
There is nothing more efficient than energy conservation.
And that is the reality none who back your garbage want to face.
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.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?
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.
gslack said: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 cows 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...
There is nothing more efficient than energy conservation.
And that is the reality none who back your garbage want to face.
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.
?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.
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
Gsuck, you silly dumbass, you obviously have no concept of the differance between cyclic CO2 and sequestered CO2.
[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?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.
