Energy and carbon.

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • chairrock
    replied
    Wow,gotta turn the generator off now otherwise I would reply.

    Leave a comment:


  • Neil
    replied
    Ever heard of Jeffrey Dukes?

    He made some calculations and determined 100 metric tons (metric ton = 1000 kg or 2200 lbs)of plant matter make up a gallon of gasoline. Then he did some more calculations and determined that in 1997 we used up 422 years worth of (Carboniferous period) sunlight by burning coal, oil and natural gas.

    That period was about 70,000,000 years long. 70 million divided by 500 = 140 000 so the percentage of solar radiation which became stored as fossil fuels could yield up an estimate as to how much is down there under the ground.

    Leave a comment:


  • sp_nyp
    replied
    I just posted this in a thread on gas prces... but It fits in here just as well

    water/hydrogen

    www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=hydrogen-house

    Leave a comment:


  • chairrock
    replied
    Now multiply this by a few thousand.....

    A contract to build what is being called the nation's first offshore field of wind turbines was announced Monday by a Delaware utility and a firm that will build the generators off the Atlantic coast.



    Leave a comment:


  • chairrock
    replied
    Coal reserves outweigh oil reserves with conversion to liquid fuel http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...-D56217D4F6B4l

    Leave a comment:


  • chairrock
    replied
    I know this has been discussed before but here is an updated forecast on those pesty pine beattles.....and carbon sequestration

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...mg0&refer=home

    Leave a comment:


  • chairrock
    replied
    Originally posted by Neil
    Interesting graphic:


    Seems that is what we should be not eating, as far as beef is concerned anyway....it all fits.....

    Leave a comment:


  • chairrock
    replied
    Way Offshore Wind Turbines

    These cant be seen from shore and wouldnt upset anyones feelings about THEIR view being ruined....I say run with it! Check out the Economist,too.
    http://www.economist.com/science/tq/...ry_id=11482484

    Leave a comment:


  • Neil
    replied
    Interesting graphic:

    Leave a comment:


  • Neil
    replied
    Selected text from: http://energy.probeinternational.org...ive-precaution

    United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

    2500 SCIENTIFIC EXPERT REVIEWERS
    800 CONTRIBUTING AUTHORS AND
    450 LEAD AUTHORS FROM
    130 COUNTRIES
    6 YEARS WORK
    1 REPORT
    2007

    There is no consensus of 2,500 scientist-endorsers. Moreover, many of those 2,500 reviewers turned thumbs down on the studies that they reviewed -- I know this from my own interviews with them, conducted in the course of writing a book about scientists who dispute the conventional wisdom on climate change.

    “So what?” many say. “Even if there is great uncertainty about the science of climate change, what harm will come of reducing our emissions of carbon dioxide? If it turns out that global warming is a natural phenomenon, we will have gained for ourselves cleaner air and less dependence on foreign oil.”

    The problem is that far from being an insurance policy, Kyoto represents the single greatest threat to the global environment today and its scheme for using carbon credits and carbon offsets to reduce CO2 emissions comes with horrible human costs.

    When we in the West purchase carbon offsets, typically someone, or some government, in the third world is paid for providing a “sink” for the carbon we’re emitting. Often that sink will be an industrial eucalyptus plantation, planted on what had been farmland or old-growth forest.

    he former inhabitants of that land -- either peasant farmers or forest peoples -- will have been evicted from their lands, generally without fair compensation. Mass evictions are also the rule with new large-scale hydro dams, which can appear to become economically feasible only because of carbon credit schemes. China’s Three Gorges Dam, touted for being carbon-free, is uprooting some two million peasants and townsfolk.

    The third-world suffers from Kyoto in other ways. With farm lands in the west converted to ethanol and other biofuels, world grain prices have doubled, leading to food riots in Mexico, Egypt, Indonesia, and elsewhere.


    The author is the director of Canada's Energy Probe. Who the heck are they?


    Energy Probe was founded in 1969 as a project of the Pollution Probe Foundation, and soon became one of the country's most influential voices on energy policy. Energy Probe was first to recognize that nuclear power was uneconomic in a report produced in 1974, and has been successful in stopping the construction in Canada of all nuclear plants proposed since then. Energy Probe was also first to recognize -- also in 1974 -- that market prices were necessary to induce energy conservation, and succeeded in convincing the federal government to let oil prices rise to the World Oil Price. Energy Probe also helped create the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Inquiry (the Berger Commission), which led to the scrapping of uneconomic and unenvironmental Arctic pipelines. For achievements such as these, The Canadian Encyclopedia singled out Energy Probe among environmental groups for being effective in influencing our country's policies. The Canadian Encyclopedia added: "despite its low budget, Energy Probe is respected for its scrupulous research."

    Leave a comment:


  • chairrock
    replied
    But fuel prices lowered carbon emissions.......

    http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sto...-29277,00.html

    Leave a comment:


  • chairrock
    replied
    Water shortages as a result of carbon......

    Check out the replies on the blog after the article,mostly from Brits.....

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/mai...ccwater105.xml

    Leave a comment:


  • chairrock
    replied
    This seems like a good idea!

    Syndicated news and opinion website providing continuously updated headlines to top news and analysis sources.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hobbitling
    replied
    one thing I noticed is all the state vehicles I've seen are gas guzzlers.
    The state vehicles I have to drive for work are all giant SUV's. The staff where I work all hate the things. We keep asking them to get some smaller cars, since most of the time we're not hauling anything. And they keep buying these huge trucks and vans and stuff. I feel like a jerk driving a Ford Expedition to go do ecology research.

    Leave a comment:


  • backwoodsman
    replied
    Originally posted by chairrock
    And as the population grows here and around the globe(mostly), the new global citizens become more affluent and release more carbon....In China they have a one child policy...In the good old US of A we promote population growth thru our progressive income tax laws with deductions for having more children that become consumers of govt. services and carbon producers.There has to be some drastic changes, and unfortunatly the only thing the unwashed masses understand is increased prices....When I drive my econobox to work and I am surrounded by huge SUVS with one male in them, or by one woman going to the grocery store 1000yards away from home, I am quite frankly sickened by my fellow man. ( or maybe they just have very small you know whats)Maybe its because of my suburban NYC location, but if it is the norm around the nation and world, we are scre#$%@d!
    Becoming a hermit looks better and better!
    Fortunately the sun will eventually swell into a red giant and barbeque this place,unfortunately we'll screw it up long before that.Is that depressing enough?

    Leave a comment:

Working...