GWB wants to send it down here. You can keep it, thanks very much. :3eye:

We have to become smarter with our energy production and use, but some of the ideas going around are crazy (like using wind power in areas with erratic, and unpredictable wind conditions). I favour nuclear energy as long as the disposal of waste is worked out, and so far what I have read (not here - I mean in press releases), sounds more like Disneyland, than reality. Hydrogen cells for cars also sounds good - cost is the problem for cars, but the cost/benefit for public transportation is not bad.

What about solar?

Yes, I should have mentioned solar. We are using it more and more down here, but it is still expensive.

I'm told you'd get methanol from fermentation of cellulosic corn waste -- the stalks and shucks. Makes sense to me -- there's a reason they called it wood alcohol once upon a time.

Popular Mechanics once mentioned something called "dissociated alcohol" -- using the waste heat going out the exhaust manifold (c. 20% of the energy evolved from burning the fuel, used to expel the burnt charge from every combustion and not available at the crankshaft) to crack alcohol into two gases, CO and H2, and burning these in the cylinders without even needing the engine up to temp. It was supposed to up the mileage by quite a bit. Anything to this?

FWIW, somebody patented the process.

Solar: high installment cost, low running costs. Helpful to have a nice big desert handy... make photovoltaic units as immortal as you can and you'll see a steady long-term increase.

The ultimate in photovoltaic by any process is a Dyson sphere, however. Sci-fi types have wondered just how much such artifacts would resemble red-giant phase stars from a long way off.

Solar power works exceptionally well in places like the Meditteranean, but in the UK we dont get enough sunlight to power the generators. There are other alternatives though, which Govts overlook because theyve always been considered "kooky". Well, the kooks were right all along, and unless something changes drastically, the planet is fucked.

1. Just for the record, the US (rightfully) never signed the Kyoto treaty - as it was ONLY aimed at bringing the standard of living of the "haves" down to that of the "have-nots". The only limits were to be placed on the "wealthy countries".

A question for you, what percentage of CO2 emitted during 2006 do you suppose was emitted by natural emitters (volcanoes, etc), and what percent was emitted by the people of the USA?
Why do you suppose most "liberals" oppose any of the many possible alternative energy sources available (Teddy Kennedy opposed a wind farm near the "Kennedy Compound"). Could it be an overwhelming sense of guilt for having more than many other countries?

2. The Geneva Convention rules for treatment of POWs do not apply to people not in uniform (non-combatants) except to authorize their execution as spies when they are apprehended acting as combatants. Al Qaeda did not have a representative at the Geneva Convention, and are not signatories of that treaty.

Where did you get that idea????
 

One group of my ancestors came to Texas in 1834, and another group in 1852. The entire country was settled LONG before the invention of the automobile. My Grandfather (who lived until I was 29 years old), never saw an automobile until he was a grown man.

This is a "chicken or egg" argument. The reason we took to the automobile as we did was the already existing open space in the country

Jerry Murdock

Incorrect. June last year the US Supreme Court decided by a 5-3 vote that in effect granted al- Qaeda terrorists the same rights as American soldiers.

How does the Supreme Court get the authority to unilaterally alter the Geneva Convention? :right:

The manufacturing process for solar cells needs to be improved markedly before it becomes a viable option for mass production. At the moment the expense and the detrimental environmental aspects are the main problems. Once they're up and running they're great though. We never pay for hot water in our house. That's the only solar device we have atm though.

Do they address hydrogen's diffusion through metals concerns? This link is to a technical paper, not necessarily clear to a layman like me, but there does seem to be a real problem with storage, especially at elevated temperatures (cryo has less of a problem this way), of gaseous hydrogen.

What I make of it is that in simple terms, the H2 molecule reacts with the surface of the metal of its storage container to break apart into single hydrogen atoms whose minuscule size permits them to diffuse into the metal's crystalline structure and eventually to head right on out.

Too, there's metal-hydride storage, trying to take advantage of this property of gaseous hydrogen, but questions of weight and of energy density need to be answered satisfactorily.

I have no problem with the assertion that there are kinks to work out with it currently.
The same is true with most plans.
Bio-fuels, per-gallon put more contaminants into the environment than regular fuels because the manufacturing is not up to speed yet.

What was missing in the president's list of alternative energy? Hydrogen. The myth about hydrogen fuels even got to the White House. Hydrogen as a medium such as a battery? Maybe. Hydrogen as a fuel - it was a myth.

Meanwhile alternative energy sources - the solution to global warming - have been recently demonstrated in solar cells. Solar cells tend to be only efficient at particular frequencies. Solar cells are typically 10% and sometimes as high as 22% efficient. However a recent demonstration has managed to convert more frequencies into electricity. Efficiencies of up to 40% may be coming.

Brazil already demonstrates bio-fuel that is economically viable. US does not have that process for ethanol. Therefore the US imposes massive tariffs to keep Brazilian ethanol out of America. Again politicians making science decisions not in the interest of science or the economy.

One need only visit the attic on a winter day to appreciate how much energy is available - dissipated by a roof. Solutions exist. Just not where politicians somehow know science - scientists be damned. Hydrogen as a fuel - total myth. Nations who solve gobal warming by doing science will have more jobs and the new products. Even George Jr's State of the Union speech no longer listed the hydrogen myth.

Why does everyone speak of these tariffs as if we cannot just get rid of them in one day?
Just get rid of the damn things.

Dictators and those who love those dictators fear free markets and love the resulting corruption. A perfect example is the current president and those who share his political agenda. They talk lies. In reality, one can get too rich (ie Rush Limbaugh) and reap massive campaign funds (ie DeLay, K-street Project) by acting against the free market and in favor of corruption.

American ethanol can only exist with massive government socialism. We have serious citrus shortages and we want ethanol. Brazil could provide both in significant amounts. But because so many American now in power hate free market concepts (so love dictatorships and socialism), America has massive tariffs. This is also the reason why the Doha round of GAAT had failed – maybe the first international trade convention to fail.

I'm sorry if I confused you. Probably the correct word in this case should be irrelevant instead of incorrect.

What I was trying to say is that it's irrelevant whether al Qaeda has signed the Geneva Conventions or not, US Surpreme Court decide to give them the same rights as US soldiers.

China to pass US in greenhouse gas emissions
 

How fast they are rising:
Does China give a shit: no, this article talks about how bad it is, and man it's really, really fucking bad:
So did China sign the Kyoto Protocol?

Yes.

Why?

As a "developing country", the Kyoto Protocol does not limit China's emissions.

It's OK though, India has found a solution to keeping cool after global warming:
So did India sign the Kyoto Protocol?

Yes

Why?

If you've read this far, I don't have to tell you.

I swear I already have the lungs of a lifetime smoker.

Just from three years in Beijing.

I think we should just eat all the cows today

Since the vultures are dwindling rapidly, they have about 20,000 cattle carcases they'd gladly have to consume.

I wonder if the China numbers include the scores of underground coal fires they can't put out and are laying a path of soot across the Arctic snow? :eyebrow:

Well, not bad with 4 times as much inhabitants. Are you complaining that China is going to make as much greenhouse emissions as the US, doesn't that sound like pot and kettle?

And yes, Kyoto is a hoax.

I'm saying that, at the rate China's going, burning dirty coal and growing at 10% a year, they will make the rest of us look like pikers.

I'm told the worst pollution in the 1970s-80s was in eastern Europe. People who visited Poland said that the skies were gray and the river water was so foul it stank. The collectivists in China have no reason to keep their ass clean.

There's a river right outside the place I used to live in Beijing that all the lao wais (fer'n'ners) named Chou He - literally, stinky river. It was about half raw sewage, a quarter chemical waste, and maaaybe, at best, a quarter actual water.

We all had to hold our breaths crossing it.

When inspecting goods I bought in NE China, I also inspected the galvanisation. The walls of the room, or better the dungeon, where this happened were completely galvanised, the operators worked there without any protection and the chemical waste was dumped directly in the little river behind the factory. Yet this company managed to obtain ISO 9001...

What this has to do with Kyoto, probably nothing...

If they care so little as to directly dump the shit in the river, they sure aren't gonna install scrubbers on their coal smokestacks!

Easy...besides the organizational crap, ISO 9001 is nothing more than, say what you do - do what you say. I'm going to dump the toxic shit in the river - I dumped the toxic shit in the river....no sweat. :D

I know how easy it is to get ISO through Shanghai.

Here's completely different in the "new" ISO 9001:2000 human resources and enviroment are very important and have to be documented all the way through.

That's wrong. The purpose of ISO was to guarantee your company had the capability, to complete a contract with acceptable quality, before you could place a bid. That's an admirable goal and makes it easier for companies to out source, when they are reassured the prospective supplier is qualified.

It also helps the little guy, the unknown bidder in that by being ISO qualified he can get into the game and compete against the big dogs.

But when they start adding environment and human resources it becomes political. When a good company in Alaska can't get ISO compliant because they can't find enough black and/or Puerto Ricans to make their quota, that sucks. If you think that is a preposterous example, then you're out of touch with today's corporate culture.

I should have expected it would not be practical for long before someone would start using it for social blackmail. The end justifies the means to these clowns regardless of harm. Damn them. :mad:

You are quite correct UT. As I pointed out once in one of our earlier discussions on Global Warming, China and India are huge producers of greenhouse gases, and neither shows any serious moves towards cleaning up their industries. We had the results from models produced by other scientists that showed alarming predictions for the World, if these countries did not act now. China and India claim that we - the West - had our chance at economic growth, and it is only fair that they have their chance now. People from my own group tried to convince Chinese authorities the insanity of what they were saying, but they are determined to press ahead, and clearly do not care what effect they have on the Earth.

I should point out that it is not just greenhouse gases. They pollute rivers, land, anything that stands in their way.

Individuals should not be the main issue. Every individual could reduce our carbon footprint to 0 and made exactly that impact.
Industry puts 99.999% of the greenhouse gasses into the environment. That is where the attack HAS to begin & where the radical change must be made to start.
Al Gore, a hypocrite that owns a mine, giant non-green mansions and flies around in a private jet, is just selling guilt and nothing else. There is no logic to it.
It is not "liberal", against progress (quite the opposite), or against your nation to feel that industry must be responsible for their trash.
Even if you do not believe that this has to do with Global Warming, it is what is the right thing to do and is the first step in moving toward eliminating needless pollution and removing our dependence on foreign oil and eventually on oil and coal as a fuel source.
_________________

No. Not until all parties, including so called "emerging economies" like China and India have to install and implement the same protections they expect of me. Those are two of the most polluted nasy smokey countries I have ever visited. When the Chinese and Indians insall multi-million dollar scrubbers on all their power plants and factories we may consider involvement, till then screw em.

You got that right. All gore uses the same amount of energy per month that my all electric 3000 square foot house uses in a year. Hipocrites everyone of them.:mad:

Who is the "em" you are referring to there? Everybody?

Everybody else who thinks we should sign. It obviously can't be everybody in general.:blush: :p :) :3eye:

Unfortunately, it is.

You think "everybody" thinks we should sign??? :worried: Obviously that is not true to we already would have...:3eye:

No, everybody gets screwed.

If "everybody" gets screwed it will not be because the US failed to sign the treaty. I promise you that. No matter how hard people want to believe that all the ills of the world are our fault.

Merc, you may appreciate this old thread.

thats exactly the "we dont give a shit cuz we're allright" attitude that made me want ask the question in the first place, because while i agree about China and India, America is just as big a polluter and wastes more energy than countries who havent even got it to waste.

nobody so far has said whether they "do their part", by recycling paper, cardboard, glass, plastic etc.

i also agree that big polluting industries need to take the reins and set an example to the public, and even thought the treaty may seem to be a farce to some people, it has to be the first step to international concern and co-operation.

But the stuff we do is the stuff we can do something about.

Bottom line is this. The developing economies like India and China would like nothing more than to see our country sign on to kyoto and sit back and watch as we further outsource and spend billions nation wide to meet the double standards they will never have to meet or spend money on to achieve ANY level of CO emissions that we will have to do. When the playing field is level I would agree to it. But I am not going to sit back and watch people point fingers at us as they expand and build thier economies on our back as we further spin down the toilet economically and as a nation. So yea, screw them.

To what end and at what cost. Say over the next 50 years we make this the cleanest place in the world, cutting say 50% of emissions. And the world still continues to slide toward and on the same path as the developing nations would so like to see us go, down. As thier output increases and doubles or triples. What was gained? Our destruction? How about this, we cut off all overseas payments of monetary aid to all developing nations so we can pay to clean up our house. I would agree to that. Cut off the money we send to the UN as well.

This is the type of attitude that makes everyone hate America. Instead of working to find something we can both do and compromise we just say fuck them. This is why they want to see us fall, not because we are on top.

As surprised as you might be RR, I have been pushing that same line for years, and I agree with you 100%. If you missed my old posts on Global Warming, I am a scientist, and have worked on a project for years, that collects all sorts of climate data and other scientist's research, and I have argued for years that it does not matter if cleaning up our daily waste creation and energy usage actually has a measurable affect within our life-time, it is still worth doing. I would rather live on a cleaner planet, than a trashed one. :thumb:

So you don't think we'll be here by the time emerging economies have emerged?

I wonder why that might be.

Yes I know that's not exactly what you said, but really, why would they never have to meet the same standards? People in emerging economies are not the enemy. They're just doing the same thing developed countries have been doing for centuries...and in most cases still are.

Wow! You have not a clue. You never once bothered to learn from history. Those nations that innovated - that created solutions to previous environmental problems - then reaped massive profits both from less waste (more efficient industries) and from selling those innovations to all other nations. Amazing how TheMercenary so loves the status quo as to disparage innovation. Well, TheMercenary, innovation (not 'big dic' thinking) defined the patriotic American. You have just advocated communism - the stifling of innovation and maintaining status quo. Shame on you for posting without even learning from history. You have just advocated the destruction of the American economy. You actually hate innovation - or somehow know without first learning reality.

Well lets see how much knowledge your opinions are based in. Please tell us what the catalytic converter does. Since you so know India and China would love to see us innovate, then you learned from history – you can even tell us what a catalytic converter does. I await your demonstration of greater knowledge.

I think that's a pretty easy question to answer tw. You could have picked something a bit less simple to google.

I hope you caught the last part.