• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Global Warmers Promote Dark Ages, Permanently

JonathanQuick said:
The cost of light rail construction varies widely, largely depending on the amount of tunneling and elevated structures required. A survey of North American light rail projects[23] shows that costs of most LRT systems range from $15 million per mile to over $100 million per mile. Seattle's new light rail system is by far the most expensive in the U.S. at $179 million per mile, since it includes extensive tunneling in poor soil conditions, elevated sections, and stations as deep as 180 feet (55 m) below ground level.[24] These result in costs more typical of subways or rapid transit systems than light rail. At the other end of the scale, four systems (Baltimore MD, Camden NJ, Sacramento CA, and Salt Lake City UT) incurred costs of less than $20 million per mile. Over the U.S. as a whole, excluding Seattle, new light rail construction costs average about $35 million per mile.[23]
Click to expand...

So, do you have the per-mile costs of the new Narrows Bridge and all the improvements to the intersection of SR-16 with I-5?

Do you think that this is the last time we have to condemn property and damage the environment to abosrb increased traffic?

Funny thing about highways. If you build them, the cars come...

And come...

and come...

ad nauseum.
 
JonathanQuick said:
1. I asked SPECIFICS. HOW will you fly to Mumbai without creating tons of carbon dioxide? Answer that please.
Click to expand...
I particularly enjoy(?) when purity is demanded of those who advocate for a cause, the logical extension of which is we're going to need to enlist some Mennonites to advocate for CO2 reduction. I've even seem dimwits who demand purity from climate scientists! The Mennonites are going to really need to hit the books here or we're all screwed.
 
JonathanQuick said:
1. People who demand 87% reductions in carbon emissions are terribly irrational.
Click to expand...

These are your, as yet unsupported rants, not facts. As pointed out so far by numerous people, they seem to be not just devoid of factual support but actually contrary to what the actual facts and findings indicate.

2. IF, in fact, all these carbon emissions are SOOOO terrible and critical, then WHY do hundreds of thousands of enviro-hypocrites fly and drive around the world endlessly to conferences? Why don't THEY practice what they PREACH?

Please, don't answer. Leftists never answer honestly.
Click to expand...

IOW, don't waste the bandwidth responding to your rants as you aren't interested in facts or truth, you know what you believe and don't care about reality? Easy enough to comply with.

Oh, and do YOU have a car that runs on "firewood," TShaitanaku?

I'm betting you don't. Nor a firewood stove in the kitchen, nor a firewood furnace and water heater...
Click to expand...

No, but I do have a plug-in electric that I use around town, and a european diesel engined Cadillac tuned to run on biodiesel for longer trips. We have fireplaces, firewood stoves and a wood-burning furnace, though the furnace isn't used as much since we installed all the solar panels and connected the solar heating system to the radiant floor heating system.
 
AlBell said:
I love a question I can answer: No. No, I don't. Nor do you. And we are both aware of various estimates.
Click to expand...

Obviously there is a substantial gap between providing an answer, and providing an accurate, factually supported answer.

I think you need to worry first about peak oil, gasoline unavailable at any price (except to the military and the connected), and economic chaos.

You'll wish AGW was the problem.
Click to expand...

If we begin an orderly and timely conversion to alternatives (which also help address the climate issues) we side-step peak oil issues pretty much entirely.
 
The OP seems to have the attitude of "I like my Humvee, so screw the environment."
 
TShaitanaku said:
If we begin an orderly and timely conversion to alternatives (which also help address the climate issues) we side-step peak oil issues pretty much entirely.
Click to expand...

C'mon, that's just too obvious. Since when do people think that becoming non-dependent on a substance avoids the issues with not having that substance? :)

But seriously, we do need to find other sources rather than oil. Oil is more than just energy, it's used in very many products that we've taken for granted as well. It would be nice to just use oil for the non-energy products and have alternative energies as well.

Then again, many on the Right seem to think there is an unlimited amount of oil in the earth.
 
TShaitanaku said:
Obviously there is a substantial gap between providing an answer, and providing an accurate, factually supported answer.
Click to expand...
Nor did you provide an accurate, factually supported answer, I noticed. Yes, as we both know, regarding either 2025 or 2050, speculation, not answers, is what exists.

If we begin an orderly and timely conversion to alternatives (which also help address the climate issues) we side-step peak oil issues pretty much entirely.
Click to expand...
I hope you are correct, but greatly doubt it.
 
JonathanQuick said:
...First, I made no such assumption. Please stop lying. You discredit yourself in so doing. Eighty-five percent of America's energy use is from fossil fuels. (Annual Energy Review, 2007)...
Click to expand...

at first I was rather curious why you referenced in such general terms and without linkage,...that curiosity was quickly sated:

according to - http://www.eia.doe.gov/aer/pdf/pages/sec1_7.pdf -

2007 total numbers are:
fossil fuels 56.447 (quadrillion) BTUs (78.8%)
nuclear 8.455 (11.8%)
Renewables (9.4%)

2009 numbers: 77.9% - 11.4% - 10.6%

According to: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/perspectives_2009.pdf

~20 Quadrillion BTUs of energy generated (nearly a third of all energy produced) are lost to inefficiencies in the generation, transmission and distribution of the energy. This would seem a juicy, low hanging fruit means of making some improvements. Recovering even a fraction of this waste enhances our situation and options meaningfully.
 
AlBell said:
...I hope you are correct, but greatly doubt it.
Click to expand...

If you mean that you doubt we will come to our senses as a society, and do what is necessary to save our society and the biodiversity and environmental systems we depend upon for thriving and surviving,...I, unfortunately, share your cynicism.

It's not that we can't do it, it's that we depend upon the cooperative actions of most in order to accomplish what needs to be done, and I just don't see that level of character or intelligence in the vast majority of our species. Most won't commit, much less act until confronted with dramatic circumstances and by the time such is apparent, it will be far too late to affect change, rather like trying to stop an avalanche at the bottom of the slope instead of taking preventative steps and measures.
 
Travis said:
Remember when we needed to stop using firewood as the power for our society because forests were disappearing causing society to regress into an unending hell......no wait we invented new technologies and never really looked back.

Funny how that happens.
Click to expand...

No we didn't. We simply moved onto burning the next pile of treasure (detritus) - fossil carbon.
 
mhaze said:
Sure, in your dreams. Planes (jet) are going to be running on kerosene because that makes total sense, economically, practically, and in terms of availability and safety. For jet fuel grades, there are several varieties for specific applications. These are delivered to airports and stored in tank farms there. But dream on, don't let me stop you.
Click to expand...

I'd prefer the dream than the nightmare you people would have us sleepwalk our way into. Behold, the power of human dreams:

Researchers at Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, N.M. and Livermore, Calif., are part of a Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) -funded team led by UOP, LLC, a Honeywell company, looking at the production of military Jet Propellant 8 (JP-8) fuel based on the use of renewable biomass oil crop feedstocks, including microalgae.

http://www.science20.com/news/biofuel_for_military_jets
Click to expand...


Jan. 7 (Bloomberg) -- Continental Airlines Inc. conducted a demonstration flight today using biofuel, the first such test in the U.S. with a commercial jet, as the industry experiments with ways to curb pollution that leads to global warming.

A fuel blend made from algae and jatropha scrub plants powered the unmodified twin-engine Boeing Co. 737-800, Continental said. The flight, which took off without incident about 12:15 p.m. Houston time at George Bush Intercontinental Airport, lasted about 90 minutes.

“It all went according to plan,” said David Messing, a Continental spokesman. “The initial observations are that there’s no difference in terms of the performance of the airplane.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=ayiWn9Z4EwIM
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
bit_pattern said:
I'd prefer the dream than the nightmare you people would have us sleepwalk our way into. Behold, the power of human dreams:
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, many of the current generation of synfuels depend upon natural gas or coal for at least a part of their production. Research has shown, however, that alternative sources of energy and bio-feedstocks are not only more than capable of replacing these fossil fuel sources, but also that the resultant product has several desirous qualities lacking in both the fossil fuel varients and the fossil fuel derived varients.

BioButanol

http://www.butanol.com/

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/ar/archive/jul01/jet0701.htm

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/4299105


Mostly pop-sci and worse references, but this is a political discussion board.
 
On the OP: Why do you think most of us want to expand nuclear power by 400-500%?

Don't worry, you'll keep your lights on, but the coal company stock you own will be worthless unless your stock is in a company that has deposits of Cannel coal or high quality metallurgical coal.
 
BenBurch said:
On carbon-neutral aircraft fuel;

http://www.energyboom.com/biofuels/us-air-force-warthog-flies-friendly-skies-plant-derived-fuel

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com...7/solazyme-delivers-algae-jet-fuel-to-us-navy

These can scale up considerably.

And there are also direct synthesis methods that involve captured CO2, water and either solar energy or electrical energy, these are in the prototype stage, producing fuel in the small number of gallons, and will be a few years to market.
Click to expand...

A few years?

The complete and utter lie in your presentation, Ben, is that there will be NO switch to biofuels for jet aircraft unless and until a standardized system of production and delivery exists to fill airport tank farms with a fuel other than what they currently deliver. And those are Jet-A and 110LL.

If I or anyone took your logic, in presenting some preliminary technical and research results, and applied to different fields


  • nanotech - we'd have cornocopia generators tomorrow
  • cancer - it'll be gone tomorrow
  • spacecraft - we'll all be going to Mars tomorrow
The fact that you are discussing a politically correct subject to your EcoFascist religion church choir doesn't mean that the leap from pure research to applied industry should be done less rigorously.

And no, we are not going to be deconverting CO2 from the atmosphere to produce fuel.

Side Note: We're in agreement on nuclear, but you are in the Party of NoNuclear. Cheers!:)
 
leftysergeant said:
There is, however, no reason that air travel has to remain as important a part of the overall transportation infrastructure.....
Click to expand...

Yes, there certainly are reasons why it is important, and will expand in importance.

Last I heard those wonderful inventions you called "rail" didn't run across the Atlantic.

The next JREF convention in Vegas, why don't you suggest everyone go there by rail? It's a largely liberal crowd, that should go over really well.

No...wait....It wouldn't go over well at all....
 
BenBurch said:
On the OP: Why do you think most of us want to expand nuclear power by 400-500%?

Don't worry, you'll keep your lights on, but the coal company stock you own will be worthless ...
Click to expand...

Literal Translation to Real World Economics:

Buy coal company stock.:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom