California is NOT Brazil

[machievelli]

For the last month, the backers of prop 87 hav been hitting the 'Brazil did it' button to convince California voters to back their scheme.

 

You see, Brazil had switched to ethanol fuels there, and in so doin cut their importation of oil by massive marigns.

 

All well and good.

 

But do these tree hugging itjits tell you how they have grown the massive amounts of crops that are converted to ethanol? After all, Brazil has the same area approximately of both Nevada and California combined, right?

 

They did it by ripping up the rainforests, causing a measurable drop in the oxygen production for the planet, and that act has caused the same treehugging injits to condemn Brazil. We have been trying for thirty years to stop them yet the fools think we should emulate them?

 

Any comments?

[coupes.]

Not sure what all the fuss is about, but California and Nevada are far from being as big Brazil. Brazil is easily 10 times bigger with an area of over 2 800 000 square miles.

[Jae Onasi]

Ethanol production would be great for the Midwest, however, and we wouldn't have the same environmental issues as Brazil does. Put some of the vacant farmland to good use, and farmers might actually be able to make a decent living. I'm tired of OPEC gripping the US by the groin by manipulating oil prices. Who knows--maybe it'd be cheap enough for Brazil to import ethanol from us and let the rainforests grow back.

 

The oxygen loss isn't the only bad thing--loss of habitat for rare animals and loss of rare plant species (some of which could have tremendous medicinal value) are also bad.

[machievelli]

Iam not saying telling the Mideast to take a hike is a bad thing. However when it was suggested in 1975 that we build power transfer satellites (Which can take electricity from say India during their down times and transfer it to say New York or LA at Peak and vice versa) it was the same environmental lobby that blocked it because of wild claims that the microwave beam (Which is about as dangerous as living near a transformer)would be taken over by the government to use as a death ray.

 

Besides,

1: having Iowa or Kansas grow corn for ethanol will not make it that much cheaper for California to buy fuel.

2: A crop of any time takes time to grow.If those farmer planted today it would be six months before the crop could be harvested, and a year before the alcohol could be distilled. It would be easier (And cheaper) to use methanol which can be made from any waste, not just food crops.

 

Not sure what all the fuss is about, but California and Nevada are far from being as big Brazil. Brazil is easily 10 times bigger with an area of over 2 800 000 square miles.

 

Actually thesize was incorrect on both our counts. Brazil is 8,514,877. while both California and Nevada are only 268,969. However 200+ thousandsquare miles is the area of Rain forest destroyed during the first 15 years of that deforestation.

[Bimmerman]

the grand irony in all of this is that while switching to ethanol fuels will lessen the dependence on foreign oil, it won't save the consumer any money unless there's a vast increase in corn production. Ethanol is projected to cost as much per gallon(if not more) as gasoline, while ethanol has less energy content per gallon than gasoline, not to mention the performance hits due to the less energy content. Another way of putting it is that it costs the same and takes more gallons to go the same distance as much less gasoline. Where exactly is the logic that this is a good idea?

[Emperor Devon]

Pretty inconsistent. Thankfully, people have the sense not to listen to those tree-huggers.

[coupes.]

Actually thesize was incorrect on both our counts. Brazil is 8,514,877. while both California and Nevada are only 268,969. However 200+ thousandsquare miles is the area of Rain forest destroyed during the first 15 years of that deforestation.

I'm not sure why I wrote 2 800 000, I meant to say 3 200 000, whis is even bigger. I did say over 2 800 000 though, so technically I was correct .

[JediMaster12]

You know we do have to have some concern for the environment. We have to care for our environment because it supports us. However some of the measures that have been proposed are perposturous. Oil, which we used for fuel is nothing but decayed organic matter. It is the liquified remains of Pleistocene animals and humans. It takes hundred of years in the right conditions to get this resource and we are running out of it. Alternative fuel sources are good but most seem to be backed by political agenda or something of that matter. Yes it will cost to switch. I am not denying that. At what cost though are we willing to pay to have the same fuel source or even an alternative fuel source?

[machievelli]

Yes it will cost to switch. I am not denying that. At what cost though are we willing to pay to have the same fuel source or even an alternative fuel source?

 

In the1970s as I said above (Around the time of the first energy crunch) they already had the technology for power transfer and solar power satellites. Either would have helped (Since a generator lasts something like ten times as long if you don't have to cycle between low and peak) and Solar satellites would have obviated the need for ANY generating capability groundside.

 

It would have been expensive, I will admit. 286 billion in 1975 when it was suggested. But the US has spent 8 trillion dollars building eight of the Nimitz class Aircraft carriers, 2.5 on 20 B2 bombers, 1.8 for one squadron of F22 raptors, and is spending a million dollars plus an hour even now on welfare.

 

So the environmentalists have got to think of a way to help instead of being part of the problem right along with the oil industry.

 

As for alternative fuels, BP came up with the most stu[pid I had ever heard. They wanted to create hydrogen fueling stations so the Detroit would build hydrogen fuel cars.

 

The problem was, they were going to break down oil to make the hydrogen.

[JediMaster12]

Now that is dumb since oil is a carbon based compound. It's made from dead animals.

[Jae Onasi]

Oil is actually a hydrocarbon--depending on what kind you have, there are lots of carbons, lots of hydrogens, and occasionally assorted other various atoms attached. But it's mostly carbon and hydrogen.

Your organic chemistry lesson for the night.

[machievelli]

The thing about the solar satellites would mean you can supply enough electricity to make hydrogen by breaking down sea water for it.

 

You can't do it efficiently using generated electricity because it costs you more energy to break down the water, than is achieved from burning the hydrogen.

 

You chemical engineering lesson for the night.

[Jae Onasi]

Oh, no doubt we'd have to find a way to create hydrogen without using oil to do it--that's just nuts.

[machievelli]

Oh, no doubt we'd have to find a way to create hydrogen without using oil to do it--that's just nuts.

 

That was the method suggested just last year.

 

The best way to create hydrogen so far is breaking down water.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

I recommend that everyone watches An Inconvenient Truth.

 

So the environmentalists have got to think of a way to help instead of being part of the problem right along with the oil industry.

We are, you just aren't listening. Watch the movie above and go to its web site.

 

And a nice blog post by SkinWalker over at the Senate.

[machievelli]

We are, you just aren't listening. Watch the movie above and go to its web site.

 

 

Actually I not only accept, but agree witrh the global warming advocates. But it was the Sierra club which screamed the loudest when NASA pointed out that the best location for the groundside solar was away from populated areas in sections of the country that are flat and have maximum open skies (Little cloud cover, since the clouds would reduce supply from the satellites by as much as fifteen percent). But the Mojave where they wanted to set up the pilot program has too many advocates.

 

Also, the two best known political cards with the envrionmentalist lobby are the ones pushing prop 87. Both of whom rejected starting the solar satellite system in the 90s for the same reason I gave above.

[JediMaster12]

Maybe we should try antimatter as a fuel source. A single miligram can power New York for a week and is clean burning.

[machievelli]

Maybe we should try antimatter as a fuel source. A single miligram can power New York for a week and is clean burning.

 

 

JM, considering the problems we have with safety issues even in coal burning plants, you want to give these idjits something equal to a four kiloton bomb per milligram?

 

Besides, the technology necessary to manufacture anti-matter in bulk would cost a lot more that the solar systems i have suggeted above.

[JediMaster12]

I know that mach. I have read up a bit on antimatter and I know that the same amount can wipe out a place the size of New York because it is an unstable molecule that even air can make it go poof. I wouldn't trust antimatter with a politician.

 

As to solar energy, I know we utilize some of it. I find that it would be an effective way for energy. There is also hydroelectricity and geothermal power for the volcanic regions. The problem is that it always comes down to cost and most of these big bad businessmen like to keep costs down and max out profits-the goal of economics.

 

Jae: I know that oil is a hydrocarbon but the substance itself comes from decomposing matter and waste. So our primary fuel source comes from dead animals and plants and their poop.

[machievelli]

As I pointed out, NASA had plans to begin orbiting power transfer satellites during the Nixon Adminsitration, and had proven the technology. The next step would have been to build a habitat/ factory on the moon to use materials for construction of the solar satellites which would have been the next step.

 

The figure of almost 300 billion would have put the first tier of solar power satellites in operation, which would have reduced our dependency on oil by over 40 percent. The electricity would have made it possible to shift from oil to hydrogen which would have rid us on the remainder.

 

Oh, BTW, ethanol is better known as alcohol. It is also a product of decomposition and is also a hydrocrabon.

[JediMaster12]

I can see someone shares my sense of humor.

Hydrogen is not a bad way to go either. I think that the problem deals with the fact that it is a highly combustible element. If you ever tried the balloon trick with fire in chem class you would see. I know that it tends to burn cleaner than CH4 and is abundant. How else to we get the thing that makes up 96% of our body (H2O)?

[Point Man]

The problem with ethanol is that it curently costs more to produce than gasoline. Money talks, and nobody is going to pay more for ethanol.

[machievelli]

The problem with ethanol is that it curently costs more to produce than gasoline. Money talks, and nobody is going to pay more for ethanol.

 

 

The worse problem is that it still releases poisons into the air. The primary reason for shifting from coal to oil was it produced less pollution.

 

Hydrogen is the best choice because it releases no pollution because hydrogen becomes water when it burns. But if you want to talk expensive hydrgoen is something like fifteen times as expensive because you need to use electricity to make it.