Well, this story from the London Times ought to fire up the debate about them nasty carbon emissions. One responder to the story in the Times commented that this was old news. Well, if that the case, why didn't Al 'Owl' Gore reveal this to us? Maybe one suspects that he was trying to mislead us? Or if a conservative did the same thing it be called lying. Story follows:
A renewable energy source designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is contributing more to global warming than fossil fuels, a study suggests.
Measurements of emissions from the burning of biofuels derived from rapeseed and maize have been found to produce more greenhouse gas emissions than they save.
Other biofuels, especially those likely to see greater use over the next decade, performed better than fossil fuels but the study raises serious questions about some of the most commonly produced varieties.
Rapeseed and maize biodiesels were calculated to produce up to 70 per cent and 50 per cent more greenhouse gases respectively than fossil fuels. The concerns were raised over the levels of emissions of nitrous oxide, which is 296 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Scientists found that the use of biofuels released twice as much as nitrous oxide as previously realised. The research team found that 3 to 5 per cent of the nitrogen in fertiliser was converted and emitted. In contrast, the figure used by the International Panel on Climate Change, which assesses the extent and impact of man-made global warming, was 2 per cent. The findings illustrated the importance, the researchers said, of ensuring that measures designed to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions are assessed thoroughly before being hailed as a solution.
“One wants rational decisions rather than simply jumping on the bandwagon because superficially something appears to reduce emissions,” said Keith Smith, a professor at the University of Edinburgh and one of the researchers.
Maize for ethanol is the prime crop for biofuel in the US where production for the industry has recently overtaken the use of the plant as a food. In Europe the main crop is rapeseed, which accounts for 80 per cent of biofuel production.
Professor Smith told Chemistry World: “The significance of it is that the supposed benefits of biofuels are even more disputable than had been thought hitherto.”
It was accepted by the scientists that other factors, such as the use of fossil fuels to produce fertiliser, have yet to be fully analysed for their impact on overall figures. But they concluded that the biofuels “can contribute as much or more to global warming by N2 O emissions than cooling by fossil-fuel savings”.
The research is published in the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, where it has been placed for open review. The research team was formed of scientists from Britain, the US and Germany, and included Professor Paul Crutzen, who won a Nobel Prize for his work on ozone.
Dr Franz Conen, of the University of Basel in Switzerland, described the study as an “astounding insight”.
“It is to be hoped that those taking decisions on subsidies and regulations will in future take N2O emissions into account and promote some forms of ’biofuel’ production while quickly abandoning others,” he told the journal’s discussion board.
Dr Dave Reay, of the University of Edinburgh, used the findings to calculate that with the US Senate aiming to increase maize ethanol production sevenfold by 2022, greenhouse gas emissions from transport will rise by 6 per cent.
Originally posted by SMSBear716Kudos to London Times for printing this. I fear there are many countries in which these findings will not be in public print.
Well, this story from the London Times ought to fire up the debate about them nasty carbon emissions. One responder to the story in the Times commented that this was old news. Well, if that the case, why didn't Al 'Owl' Gore reveal this to us? Maybe one suspects that he was trying to mislead us? Or if a conservative did the same thing it be called lying. ...[text shortened]... roduction sevenfold by 2022, greenhouse gas emissions from transport will rise by 6 per cent.
It is understandable however, when hysterical fear is promulgated it will cause a leaps to actions not thoroughly thought out.
Originally posted by ZahlanziWhat you say is true. Here in the United States there are some who are pushing electric cars. Well, obviously on the surface thats a wonderful idea. But the Devil is in the details, as the saying goes.
the problem with alternative fuels is far from reaching a solution. all of the so called solutions have advantages and disadvantages that is why none of them has replaced oil yet.
The main question to my mind is how will you generate the electricity to recharge those cars? If everyone in just the Dallas area were to drive a electric car, pretty quickly no one be going anywhere. We already have 'brownouts' during the summer when everyone flips on the air conditioning. Where would we get the additional power need to charge those cars? Nuclear power plants seem to be the answer, but obviously, if that was suggested the enviromental whackos/tree huggers would have a 'meltdown' of sorts. 😲
And lets face it you could never have enough wind farms to produce the electricity needed. And all those crying about we need to get away from American dependence on foreign oil ignore the fact that the United States is probably sitting more oil then the rest of the world combined. Estimated 2 trillion barrels of oil underneath Wyoming and Colorado. How much is US territorial waters yet undiscovered? Who knows, environmentalists block drilling? How much in Alaska that has yet to be tapped? Again who knows?
Originally posted by SMSBear716I agree with you 100%.
What you say is true. Here in the United States there are some who are pushing electric cars. Well, obviously on the surface thats a wonderful idea. But the Devil is in the details, as the saying goes.
The main question to my mind is how will you generate the electricity to recharge those cars? If everyone in just the Dallas area were to drive a electr ...[text shortened]... ronmentalists block drilling? How much in Alaska that has yet to be tapped? Again who knows?
Originally posted by AThousandYoungNot really..I think you missed my point.
That's a possibility - in that we can recharge fuel cells with energy made via nuclear power.
Not nuclear plants to recharge fuel cells. An actual nuclear engine in the automobile itself. Such as nuclear powered ships, except a very tiny version. Fuel in the auto could last a decade or more.
Originally posted by MacSwainI'm not up on my nuclear physics. I know there's a minimum amount of fuel needed for an explosive to go off. I take it that's not true for power plant purposes?
Not really..I think you missed my point.
Not nuclear plants to recharge fuel cells. An actual nuclear engine in the automobile itself. Such as nuclear powered ships, except a very tiny version. Fuel in the auto could last a decade or more.
What about a rich guy who buys 1000 of these cars and makes the engine into an atom bomb?
Originally posted by SMSBear716Have you got a link to these people pushing the use of electric cars?
What you say is true. Here in the United States there are some who are pushing electric cars. Well, obviously on the surface thats a wonderful idea. But the Devil is in the details, as the saying goes.
The main question to my mind is how will you generate the electricity to recharge those cars? If everyone in just the Dallas area were to drive a electr ...[text shortened]... ronmentalists block drilling? How much in Alaska that has yet to be tapped? Again who knows?
Somehow, I don't think anybody in a position of any kind of standing is doing anything of the sort. Either that, or an anti-environment person came up with the idea purely to ridicule environmentalists.
The main question to my mind is how will you generate the electricity to recharge those cars?
I think you're misunderstanding the suggestion, and you're definitely misunderstanding the technology. What people might be pushing is the use of hybrid cars. These don't need to be plugged in and charged. They have a dual engine of standard type + electric. The electric part of the engine gets recharged due to the standard use of the car, ie: braking, etc. There would be no need for extra power stations.
Pure electric cars can be quite handy where there is a surplus of electricity being generated by domestic electricity generators (like photovoltaics/wind). Again, there would be no need for extra powerstations. Instead of uploading the surplus to the national grid for a small payment, use some of the surplus to power your car.
Again, there are plus points and negative points to doing everything. There is an increased initial cost to the earth for the production of the hybrid cars, but considering the amount of wasted energy that is being converted into power and the average lifetime of an automobile, it has to be a heavily pursued technology.
I'm always curious why people are more interested in ridiculing something they know next to nothing about rather than embracing new technologies. Environmentalists have often been regarded as being "anti-progress", but I'd contend that it is those who only think in terms of Industrial Revolution technologies that are truly anti-progress. I mean, you're quite happy to turn Alaska into an industrial wasteland, but heaven forbid you look into some alternate technologies being discussed.
Would anybody like to hazard a guess why the industrialists who own most media outlets are pushing fossil fuels and ridiculing people who try to capture wasted energy?
D
Originally posted by AThousandYoungATY
I'm not up on my nuclear physics. I know there's a minimum amount of fuel needed for an explosive to go off. I take it that's not true for power plant purposes?
What about a rich guy who buys 1000 of these cars and makes the engine into an atom bomb?
The uranium used in power generation is not of the same grade used in bombs. It cannot explode. There has been a meltdown though. In modern power stations the reaction takes place inside a containment building.