Nothing good about Ethanol

On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 23:09:59 -0400, "Juan Jimenez"
wrote:


"Roger" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 13:15:29 -0500, Greg Copeland
wrote:

On Sat, 03 Jun 2006 15:43:09 +0000, Aaron Coolidge wrote:

PS, in this widely spread out country purely electric cars are not
useful
until they have the same performance as gasoline cars, particularly in
their recharge time. My gasoline car recharges in 10 minutes and goes
450 miles per charge. Each charge costs $55. It's really pretty cheap,
all things considered.

For what it's worth, they are making huge strides in battery
technology...at least in the lab. They are working on using nanotubes in
capacitors which vastly increase their surface area. The result is a
"battery" which can be charged like a capacitor (means fast charge) and
can survive hundreds of thousand charge cycles. Currently, making them are
painful and costly...but research and technology is heading in the right
direction.

They are also starting to create ICE which create steam from its heat
byproduct, which in turn, turn turbines attached to generators, which can
keep batteries fully charged. This means, in the short term, better
hybrid technology may help out until better battery technologies allow for
a pure (or nearly so) electric solution can be found.

But where will the electrical energy come from? We do not have the
electrical grid capacity to power more than a small fraction of the
cars.

Huh? You're kidding, right? You think we can power all the ACs but not the
battery chargers?

sigh

No, I'm not kidding. They aren't going to turn off the air
conditioners to charge the batteries.

BTW, cars are second in CO2 production only to our power plants.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

"Roger" wrote in message
...

Huh? You're kidding, right? You think we can power all the ACs but not the
battery chargers?

sigh

No, I'm not kidding. They aren't going to turn off the air
conditioners to charge the batteries.

BTW, cars are second in CO2 production only to our power plants.

Which is a good thing. CO2 makes plants and trees grow.

And cars and power plants are way down on the list compared to natural
sources.

On 2006-06-29, Matt Barrow wrote:
Which is a good thing. CO2 makes plants and trees grow.

And cars and power plants are way down on the list compared to natural
sources.

Human CO2 is something like only 3% of global CO2 emissions.

It's not absolute quantities in this context that are important - it's
the relative addition of man made CO2. If (as an example) the Earth's
system could keep a steady concentration of CO2 for a natural output of,
say, 100 units - and man made sources then started adding just 1 unit,
instead of a steady concentration (all things being equal) you start to
get an increase of 1 unit per unit of time.

The evidence is conclusive that recent rises in CO2 concentrations (from
280ppm in 1900 to 320ppm now) are entirely caused by human activity. We
can see that CO2 levels have only varied between 270 and 290ppm for a
good 10,000 years prior to this point. Carbon dating the CO2 in the
atmosphere shows that the recent additions of CO2 (i.e. the change from
~280ppm to 320ppm) are from the burning of fossil fuels.

It may all be well if we increased the carbon dioxide sinks by 3% also,
but generally the kind of activity that leads to the burning of fossil
fuels also leads to a reduction in the CO2 sinks.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

Dylan Smith wrote:

The evidence is conclusive that recent rises in CO2 concentrations (from
280ppm in 1900 to 320ppm now) are entirely caused by human activity. We
can see that CO2 levels have only varied between 270 and 290ppm for a
good 10,000 years prior to this point. Carbon dating the CO2 in the
atmosphere shows that the recent additions of CO2 (i.e. the change from
~280ppm to 320ppm) are from the burning of fossil fuels.

More likely, the increase is due to the decrease in forests which absorb
the CO2 and release oxygen in exchange. Still it can be traced back to
human activity, but not due to emissions...the decrease in the scrubbing
capacity due to deforestation is much greater than the small percentage
increase in emissions due to human activity. Same is likely true of
global warming.

Ray Andraka wrote:
More likely, the increase is due to the decrease in forests which absorb
the CO2 and release oxygen in exchange. Still it can be traced back to
human activity, but not due to emissions...the decrease in the scrubbing
capacity due to deforestation is much greater than the small percentage
increase in emissions due to human activity. Same is likely true of
global warming.

Just FYI, the impact of deforestation on atmospheric CO2 content is
discussed he
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=160

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...
On 2006-06-29, Matt Barrow wrote:
Which is a good thing. CO2 makes plants and trees grow.

And cars and power plants are way down on the list compared to natural
sources.

Human CO2 is something like only 3% of global CO2 emissions.

It's not absolute quantities in this context that are important - it's
the relative addition of man made CO2. If (as an example) the Earth's
system could keep a steady concentration of CO2 for a natural output of,
say, 100 units - and man made sources then started adding just 1 unit,
instead of a steady concentration (all things being equal) you start to
get an increase of 1 unit per unit of time.

The evidence is conclusive that recent rises in CO2 concentrations (from
280ppm in 1900 to 320ppm now) are entirely caused by human activity. We
can see that CO2 levels have only varied between 270 and 290ppm for a
good 10,000 years prior to this point. Carbon dating the CO2 in the
atmosphere shows that the recent additions of CO2 (i.e. the change from
~280ppm to 320ppm) are from the burning of fossil fuels.

It may all be well if we increased the carbon dioxide sinks by 3% also,
but generally the kind of activity that leads to the burning of fossil
fuels also leads to a reduction in the CO2 sinks.

Regarding the environmentalists' concern over CO2, here are some facts
nobody argues with:





1. Atmospheric pressure is about 15 psi (pounds/in./in.).



2. Earth's radius is about 4,000 miles.



3. CO2 constituted about 0.04 per cent of the atmosphere in 1950--.



4. CO2 now constitutes more like 0.06 per cent of the atmosphere.



From #2 we calculate that the Earth's surface area is 0.8 billion billion

square inches. And from #1 that the atmosphere weighs 11.9 billion billion
pounds. This is 6 million billion tons. Now take fact #3; 0.04 per cent is
2,400 billion tons of CO2. Half (the change since 1950) is 1,200 billion
tons. Let's call this fact #5:



5. There were 2,400 billion tons of CO2 in the atmosphere in 1950; 3,600
billion tons now, give or take a psi or two--.



6. Human activity currently releases 6 billion tons of CO2 per year.



7. Non-human activity (oceans, trees, Pinatubo, Mauna Loa, etc.) releases
200 billion tons of CO2 per year--.



Now compare fact #5 with fact #6. Simple division tells you that if every
molecule of human-released CO2 at the current rate of production stayed in
the atmosphere, it would take another 200 years for the post-1950 change to
be matched. Or looking at it backward, since minus 200 years takes us back
to before the Industrial Revolution, it means that if every CO2 molecule
from every factory, car, steam engine, barbecue, campfire, and weenie roast
that ever was since the first liberal climbed down out of a tree right up
until today was still in the atmosphere. It still wouldn't account for the
change in CO2 since 1950.



Fact #7 has been going on for a long time, a lot longer than any piddling
200 years. Comparing #5 and #7 means it takes about 12 yearsfor the average
CO2 molecule to be recycled back out of the atmosphere.



Given the above, here are some conclusions that nobody can argue with and
still claim to be a reasoning creatu



8. Human activity, carried out at the present rate indefinately (more than
12 years) cannot possibly account for more than 6 per cent of the observed
change in CO2 levels.



9. Entirely shutting off civilizationor even killing everybodycould only
have a tiny effect on global warming, if there is any such thing--.



That leaves two questions that no one knows how to answer:



Q-1. Why do all these supposedly educated, supposedly sane people want to
end civilization?



Q-2. Since humanity can't possibly be causing the CO2 level to go up, isn't
it time to start wondering about what is?



L. Van Zandt, Professor of Physics,

Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana

"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .
Ray Andraka wrote:
More likely, the increase is due to the decrease in forests which absorb
the CO2 and release oxygen in exchange. Still it can be traced back to
human activity, but not due to emissions...the decrease in the scrubbing
capacity due to deforestation is much greater than the small percentage
increase in emissions due to human activity. Same is likely true of
global warming.

Just FYI, the impact of deforestation on atmospheric CO2 content is
discussed he
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=160

Interesting...especially the comments! (Many sound like someone just
finished a High School book report :~) )

"z" wrote in message
oups.com...

Matt Barrow wrote:

Michael Mann? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....

What else can you pull out of your ass.

Another impeccably unimpeachable piece of scientific logic. Curses!
Foiled again!

What's next, how sheep's bladders can be used to prevent earthquakes?
Here's your Michael Mann and his Hockey Stick:

www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm

The Hockey Stick has got to be the joke of the 90's environuts.

"NobodyYouKnow" wrote in message
...

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

Some of the "refutations" of the IPCC findings have initially sneaked
past peer review, only to be caught later:


http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...t-do-not-post/

Here's your thoroughly discredited Michael Mann
http://www.john-daly.com/peerrev1.htm
Whoops, this too http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm

Michael Mann continues to be a respected scientist.

He continues as a discredit fraud! Like you!

On the other hand, John
Daly, the school teacher funded by big oil to provide pseudoscience, is
dead, though his industry sponsored propaganda site lives on.

Liar!

"Roger" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 13:15:29 -0500, Greg Copeland
wrote:

They are also starting to create ICE which create steam from its heat
byproduct, which in turn, turn turbines attached to generators, which can
keep batteries fully charged. This means, in the short term, better
hybrid technology may help out until better battery technologies allow for
a pure (or nearly so) electric solution can be found.

But where will the electrical energy come from? We do not have the
electrical grid capacity to power more than a small fraction of the
cars. Solar will not be a viable option until the power grid can
undergo a great increase in its size. Solar is still expensive on
any but a small scale.

Nuclear would take a considerable time to bring on line.

I take it you're factoring in the EPA 20-years-worth-of-paperwork rules?