Electric Car?

[GG]

HA,

That is one post with so many wrongs that I don't know where to start. At the beginning perhaps.

 

I guess you haven't been following this board for a while.

[Ramius]

I'm not sure about any conspiracies myself, but I do think companies act in their own economic self-interest. The fact that an oil company bought up the rights to that new battery technology doesn't exactly please me.

 

The biodiesel generator you mentioned is a good idea on a small scale. It's better to have old cooking oil put to use than it is to throw it away. But ultimately, there's only so much old cooking oil to go around; and our energy needs far exceed what cooking oil can give us.

 

There are four main sources of energy: the sun, nuclear power, tidal energy, and geothermal energy. Wind power is really solar, because the sun provides the energy for the wind to blow. Likewise, all non-tidal hydroelectric power is really solar, because the sun provides the energy for the water cycle. Fossil fuels are really solar, because you're just harvesting solar energy from millions of years ago.

 

What I'm getting at here is that most energy sources are simply a way to convert the sun's energy into something we can use. Biodiesel is no different: corn plants soak up sunlight in order to grow. You turn those plants into cooking oil, and use that oil to power your generator.

 

That's fine, but it's not necessarily the only means we should be employing to turn solar energy into electricity or kinetic energy. What about the corn stalks? Why not burn them to generate more electricity? Why not burn yard waste or other bio-debris? I admit this isn't the cleanest energy source one could hope for, but at least it's renewable. And it doesn't contribute to the greenhouse gas problem, because you're just releasing back into the atmosphere whatever carbon those plants absorbed during their lifetimes.

 

Holy sh--. Someone took basic science, strapped on dildo, !@#$ it 40 ways from sunday, finished, and then this post dripped out.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Something I don't have a good handle on is how the logistics of such a system will work. Not all bio-diesel generation methods are same and not all bio-diesel is the same (unlike gasoline which has small variation in its properties and performance). There are processes based on making this from cooking oil, bio waste, cellulosic material (pulp) etc. My question is how does a manufacturing facility for bio-diesel maintain a steady, predictable supply of raw material that is both similar in quality and has a cost-effective transportation system ??? Right now, liquid & gaseous products are shipped primarily by pipeline which is very efficient in the long run. How will it work for the above raw materials ?? I can understand small facilities or proof-of-concept type factories but large, dependable producers ? I think not. Atleast not enough to make a significant dent in the supply of overall diesel product.

 

I never understood why large fast-food joints don't recycle their frying oil to power their delivery trucks. It could save them a lot in fuel costs.

[Orton's Arm]

HA,

That is one post with so many wrongs that I don't know where to start. At the beginning perhaps.

1. I don't know which oil company bought which battery company. But if you are referring to fuel cells, then it is hardly classified as a battery. I do know that several oil companies are investing in research for future fuel sources because they know that oil will end someday. This is a political and long term business decision. I am sure if an oil company did NOT invest in such technologies, they would be bashed for attempting to let those technologies die due to lack of funding

2. Agree on the cooking oil concept - we just do not consume enough cooking oil in an average household to make any significant amount of energy

3. Classifying everything as based on solar energy is very weird. We exist due to the sun - that does not mean we are solar life forms. Typically, the issue is time related - how much time does it take to convert said source into usable energy. If the runs rays hit a photovoltaic cell and make current, that is solar energy. Waiting for a tree to die, decompose in the sun and then get converted to oil does not classify as solar energy. So your entire classification of 'main sources of energy' is outright wrong.

4. Burning debris and saying that it is CO2/CO neutral is also a weird argument. The goal is for all incremental sources of energy to produce less emissions than the one they are replacing. Whether you agree with global warming or not, it is irrefutable that any means that increase the amount of CO2 is not acceptable. The worls is slowly going out of balance with respect to greenhouse gases. You have to look at the global picture and not a microcosm such as a biome with corn stalks.

1. The movie "Who Killed the Electric Car?" described an electric car GM had been manufacturing. The battery for that car had a longer-than-usual endurance. They're no longer making that car, and the company that owns the patents to the battery has since been purchased by an oil company.

3. My point in classifying most energy forms as "solar" was to underscore the fact that most energy sources involve some mechanism for converting sunlight into something we can use. Whether it's a photovoltaic cell, or photosynthesis, or some other process, we're still using the sun's energy. I agree that this (broader) definition of "solar" can be confusing if used in a shorthand way, which is why I normally only apply the word "solar" to electricity harvested directly from sunlight.

4. If you're taking carbon out of the ground and putting it in the air, you're doing something that makes the CO2 situation worse. That's what we're doing whenever we burn coal, oil, or even natural gas. Fossil fuels are not CO2 neutral: they make the carbon situation worse. In contrast, say you plant something, wait for it to grow, and then burn it. The plant took carbon out of the air when it grew, and put that carbon right back into the air when it was burned. The acres of land you're using for this aren't helping the carbon situation any, but neither are they harming it.

 

If we switched from fossil fuels to plant/grow/burn, the amount of carbon in the earth's atmosphere would begin to slowly decline. This is because we'd no longer be taking carbon out of the ground, anywhere. But there would be the occasional forest where old trees or other plant matter would gradually get buried, and thereby put new carbon into the ground.

[Orton's Arm]

Holy sh--. Someone took basic science, strapped on dildo, !@#$ it 40 ways from sunday, finished, and then this post dripped out.

What did I ever do to be thus plagued by DC Tom/Bungee Jumper, his wife Ramius, and their puppy jzmack?

[DC Tom]

1. The movie "Who Killed the Electric Car?" described an electric car GM had been manufacturing. The battery for that car had a longer-than-usual endurance. They're no longer making that car, and the company that owns the patents to the battery has since been purchased by an oil company.

3. My point in classifying most energy forms as "solar" was to underscore the fact that most energy sources involve some mechanism for converting sunlight into something we can use. Whether it's a photovoltaic cell, or photosynthesis, or some other process, we're still using the sun's energy. I agree that this (broader) definition of "solar" can be confusing if used in a shorthand way, which is why I normally only apply the word "solar" to electricity harvested directly from sunlight.

4. If you're taking carbon out of the ground and putting it in the air, you're doing something that makes the CO2 situation worse. That's what we're doing whenever we burn coal, oil, or even natural gas. Fossil fuels are not CO2 neutral: they make the carbon situation worse. In contrast, say you plant something, wait for it to grow, and then burn it. The plant took carbon out of the air when it grew, and put that carbon right back into the air when it was burned. The acres of land you're using for this aren't helping the carbon situation any, but neither are they harming it.

 

If we switched from fossil fuels to plant/grow/burn, the amount of carbon in the earth's atmosphere would begin to slowly decline. This is because we'd no longer be taking carbon out of the ground, anywhere. But there would be the occasional forest where old trees or other plant matter would gradually get buried, and thereby put new carbon into the ground.

 

"Still going... <bang> <bang> <bang>"

 

Wow, you actually reference a movie. Apparently Wikipedia was just too credible for this discussion.

[Ramius]

What did I ever do to be thus plagued by DC Tom/Bungee Jumper, his wife Ramius, and their puppy jzmack?

 

you claimed that burning plants, which 1) releases carbon dioxide, and 2)destroys the carbon sequestering abilities, was somehow better than burning fossil fuels alone.

 

Also, you forgot GG, ec-bills, syhuang, dave b, coli, and pretty much everyone else who has read one of your posts (with the exception of kurt godel)

 

Now if you'll excuse me, i hafta go. I am working on building a hydro-electric plant in my backyard so i can convert solar energy into electricity.

[Orton's Arm]

"Still going... <bang> <bang> <bang>"

 

Wow, you actually reference a movie. Apparently Wikipedia was just too credible for this discussion.

Whereas you are not credible enough for this discussion.

[Orton's Arm]

you claimed that burning plants, which 1) releases carbon dioxide, and 2)destroys the carbon sequestering abilities, was somehow better than burning fossil fuels alone.

 

Also, you forgot GG, ec-bills, syhuang, dave b, coli, and pretty much everyone else who has read one of your posts (with the exception of kurt godel)

 

Now if you'll excuse me, i hafta go. I am working on building a hydro-electric plant in my backyard so i can convert solar energy into electricity.

You were obviously too stupid to understand my earlier post, so I won't waste time trying to explain it to you. Of the people you've mentioned, syhuang and I see eye-to-eye a lot better today than we once did. Unlike you, he readily understood the test/retest effect (a.k.a. regression toward the mean). While dave b and I have sometimes disagreed with things, I respect his intelligence, and hope he feels the same way about me. And a lot of what we disagreed on may have been communication errors versus fundamental disagreements.

 

Coli is a pompous, arrogant pinko whose opinion about anything has no interest for me. GG manages to represent a unique combination of arrogance, complacency, and intellectual shallowness all his own. His sole contribution to these discussion boards was to ask--repeatedly--how one would go about selecting contestants for "America's Stupidest Woman." The joke wasn't funny the first ten times he said it.

[Ramius]

You were obviously too stupid to understand my earlier post, so I won't waste time trying to explain it to you. Of the people you've mentioned, syhuang and I see eye-to-eye a lot better today than we once did. While dave b and I have sometimes disagreed with things, I respect his intelligence, and hope he feels the same way about me. And a lot of what we disagreed on may have been communication errors versus fundamental disagreements.

 

Coli is a pompous, arrogant pinko whose opinion about anything has no interest for me. GG manages to represent a unique combination of arrogance, complacency, and intellectual shallowness all his own. His sole contribution to these discussion boards was to ask--repeatedly--how one would go about selecting contestants for "America's Stupidest Woman." The joke wasn't funny the first ten times he said it.

 

<searches for the part of the post where this concern is addressed:>

 

you claimed that burning plants, which 1) releases carbon dioxide, and 2)destroys the carbon sequestering abilities, was somehow better than burning fossil fuels alone.

 

<no surprise when it is found that it hasnt been addressed, like almost every other question posed to HA>

[DC Tom]

Whereas you are not credible enough for this discussion.

 

Okay, how about:

 

Maybe - maybe - if you burn plants in place your net carbon increase/decrease over time (i.e. a few growing seasons) is zero...but usable energy isn't just created, it's transported. What's the carbon budget for transporting your "carbon-free" corn stalks from the fields to point-of-use, bozo? Most estimates show a larger carbon budget for producing biofuels than we currently have for producing and using petrochemicals. So try again, telling everyone how plant matter and waste materials are a net wash in the carbon cycle.

 

And while we're dwelling in reality and not your little idiot fantasy-land, what of all the nutrients you're taking out of the soil...and burning? How sustainable is the growth? Or do you know of some magic source of nitrates that will keep us growing corn indefinitely? I think I read about one in Wikipedia, right next to every other fictitious point you've brought up...

 

Stop talking about topics you don't understand, fool. Stick to the theory and practice of large-scale hamburger bun preparation.

[Orton's Arm]

<searches for the part of the post where this concern is addressed:>

<no surprise when it is found that it hasnt been addressed, like almost every other question posed to HA>

Your concern was answered in my earlier post. You just didn't understand it.

[Ramius]

Stop talking about topics you don't understand, fool. Stick to the theory and practice of large-scale hamburger bun preparation.

 

3.5 sesame seeds per square inch of big mac bun

[DC Tom]

His sole contribution to these discussion boards was to ask--repeatedly--how one would go about selecting contestants for "America's Stupidest Woman." The joke wasn't funny the first ten times he said it.

 

Did we ever get an answer to this question? Or did we just agree to put HA in a dress?

[Orton's Arm]

Okay, how about:

 

Maybe - maybe - if you burn plants in place your net carbon increase/decrease over time (i.e. a few growing seasons) is zero...but usable energy isn't just created, it's transported. What's the carbon budget for transporting your "carbon-free" corn stalks from the fields to point-of-use, bozo? Most estimates show a larger carbon budget for producing biofuels than we currently have for producing and using petrochemicals. So try again, telling everyone how plant matter and waste materials are a net wash in the carbon cycle.

 

And while we're dwelling in reality and not your little idiot fantasy-land, what of all the nutrients you're taking out of the soil...and burning? How sustainable is the growth? Or do you know of some magic source of nitrates that will keep us growing corn indefinitely? I think I read about one in Wikipedia, right next to every other fictitious point you've brought up...

 

Stop talking about topics you don't understand, fool. Stick to the theory and practice of large-scale hamburger bun preparation.

I didn't specifically advocate the use of biofuels, except on a small scale. Imagine this scenario: all cars are electric, and all electricity is produced with the plant/grow/burn method I described earlier. If you just stuck to burning corn oil, the transition to biofuels probably wouldn't work. But if you burned everything--stalks, yard waste, wood that would normally be consumed in forest fires, everything--then maybe you'd have enough biomass to meet our energy needs.

 

I don't know if anyone's done a study on this, but let's say you could only meet 40% of relevant energy needs in this way. The nice thing about this particular 40% is (a) that it's carbon-neutral, and (b) that you get to choose the timing of the energy. You could save the fuel for calm, windless nights when your solar cells and wind farms weren't producing anything.

[Orton's Arm]

3.5 sesame seeds per square inch of big mac bun

It's cute to see a wife be this loyal to her husband DC Tom.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Listen here you !@#$ity !@#$s! GET OUT OF MY !@#$ING THREAD!!

[DC Tom]

I didn't specifically advocate the use of biofuels, except on a small scale. Imagine this scenario: all cars are electric, and all electricity is produced with the plant/grow/burn method I described earlier. If you just stuck to burning corn oil, the transition to biofuels probably wouldn't work. But if you burned everything--stalks, yard waste, wood that would normally be consumed in forest fires, everything--then maybe you'd have enough biomass to meet our energy needs.

 

What's the energy density of all that biomass? Do you even know what energy density is?

 

I don't know if anyone's done a study on this, but let's say you could only meet 40% of relevant energy needs in this way. The nice thing about this particular 40% is (a) that it's carbon-neutral, and (b) that you get to choose the timing of the energy. You could save the fuel for calm, windless nights when your solar cells and wind farms weren't producing anything.

 

Yeah, that's completely carbon neutral. The processes to build infrastructure and plant, grow, harvest, and ship fuel have absolutely no carbon footprint. You didn't read a word I said, did you?

[DC Tom]

Listen here you !@#$ity !@#$s! GET OUT OF MY !@#$ING THREAD!!

 

[Orton's Arm]

What's the energy density of all that biomass? Do you even know what energy density is?

Yeah, that's completely carbon neutral. The processes to build infrastructure and plant, grow, harvest, and ship fuel have absolutely no carbon footprint. You didn't read a word I said, did you?

Yes, I know what energy density is. Obviously, the energy density of wood or leaves or such is lower than that of coal. So these power plants would have to be smaller and more dispersed than today's coal plants.

 

If cars and trucks are electric, the transportation of this fuel would create no carbon footprint beyond the needed electricity. And if electricity's generated without fossil fuels, there's no carbon footprint for the entire system. Except for installing it in the first place. But given the nature of our present infrastructure, installing anything in the first place will create some kind of carbon footprint.

 

You also mention the carbon footprint involved in farming. But that's with us already. I simply want to burn existing sources of plant waste, and use the ash as fertilizer. (Ash makes excellent fertilizer by the way.)