It is amazing that the US has done so little to avoid the oil calamity that has now befallen it. It is hard to understand how the representatives we send to Congress, or the people we put in the White House, or the American public in general, can be so numb from the neck up. While it is true that there is no silver bullet for our energy woes, it is also true that we could have made substantial progress in getting this problem under control, while cutting down green-house gases, creating many high paying hi-tech jobs, and avoiding the need to get involved in wars that both drain our resources and grind down our armed forces.
The US imports about 17% of its oil from the Middle-East. In the last few decades Brazil has virtually eliminated the need to import oil by introducing Ethanol in a big way. Brazil consumes about 10% the oil the US does, and a similar program in the US would have almost replaced Middle-East oil. Ethanol can be made from any material that has celluloid, i.e. virtually any plant. The trick is finding organisms to ferment these various plants--which is well within the capability of chemistry today--grass, woodchips, whatever. Cars can easily be converted to use gas and ethanol (alcohol)--GM knows how to do this right now. If we had used the past two decades installing infrastructure instead of involving ourselves in destructive wars or propaganda campaigns by feuding oil industry lobbyist, maybe this wouldn't be a problem right now, and a lot of entrepreneurs and their employees would be a lot richer.
Here is an article on fermentation agents:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070414/ap_ ... d_vs__fuel
And here's one on Brazil:
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=6817
Ethanol for Cars--And the Energy Crisis
-
Specfiction
- Posts: 88
- Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 12:51 pm
-
Specfiction
- Posts: 88
- Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 12:51 pm
Ethanol for Cars--And the Energy Crisis
I think the problem is that people are too easily manipulated by people "they put" in authority. The public in the US must educate itself--and not by listening to talk-radio or commercials on TV from lobbying groups. The people do have the power, but only if they choose to use it.
Ethanol for Cars--And the Energy Crisis
The only bad thing about ethanol is that it is really harsh on motors. Or that is what hubby told me.
"Girls are crazy! I'm not ever getting married, I can make my own sandwiches!"
my son
my son
Ethanol for Cars--And the Energy Crisis
Specfiction;593264 wrote: It is amazing that the US has done so little to avoid the oil calamity that has now befallen it. It is hard to understand how the representatives we send to Congress, or the people we put in the White House, or the American public in general, can be so numb from the neck up. While it is true that there is no silver bullet for our energy woes, it is also true that we could have made substantial progress in getting this problem under control, while cutting down green-house gases, creating many high paying hi-tech jobs, and avoiding the need to get involved in wars that both drain our resources and grind down our armed forces.
The US imports about 17% of its oil from the Middle-East. In the last few decades Brazil has virtually eliminated the need to import oil by introducing Ethanol in a big way. Brazil consumes about 10% the oil the US does, and a similar program in the US would have almost replaced Middle-East oil. Ethanol can be made from any material that has celluloid, i.e. virtually any plant. The trick is finding organisms to ferment these various plants--which is well within the capability of chemistry today--grass, woodchips, whatever. Cars can easily be converted to use gas and ethanol (alcohol)--GM knows how to do this right now. If we had used the past two decades installing infrastructure instead of involving ourselves in destructive wars or propaganda campaigns by feuding oil industry lobbyist, maybe this wouldn't be a problem right now, and a lot of entrepreneurs and their employees would be a lot richer.
Here is an article on fermentation agents:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070414/ap_ ... d_vs__fuel
And here's one on Brazil:
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=6817
Interesting perspective.
Are you aware that ethanol creates Co2 just like gasoline?
Are you aware that creation of ethanol to fuel cars actually costs more greenhouse gases than oil, since you have to both produce it and use it?
Are you aware that if all farmable land on earth were used to make ethanol, then only 10% of the energy needs would be satisfied, plus, there would be no food?
I suggest that there are several more practical solutions to the problem. Ethanol is definitely not one of them. Although, ethanol can work in certain small, localized places, but only as a small, partial solution.
The US imports about 17% of its oil from the Middle-East. In the last few decades Brazil has virtually eliminated the need to import oil by introducing Ethanol in a big way. Brazil consumes about 10% the oil the US does, and a similar program in the US would have almost replaced Middle-East oil. Ethanol can be made from any material that has celluloid, i.e. virtually any plant. The trick is finding organisms to ferment these various plants--which is well within the capability of chemistry today--grass, woodchips, whatever. Cars can easily be converted to use gas and ethanol (alcohol)--GM knows how to do this right now. If we had used the past two decades installing infrastructure instead of involving ourselves in destructive wars or propaganda campaigns by feuding oil industry lobbyist, maybe this wouldn't be a problem right now, and a lot of entrepreneurs and their employees would be a lot richer.
Here is an article on fermentation agents:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070414/ap_ ... d_vs__fuel
And here's one on Brazil:
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=6817
Interesting perspective.
Are you aware that ethanol creates Co2 just like gasoline?
Are you aware that creation of ethanol to fuel cars actually costs more greenhouse gases than oil, since you have to both produce it and use it?
Are you aware that if all farmable land on earth were used to make ethanol, then only 10% of the energy needs would be satisfied, plus, there would be no food?
I suggest that there are several more practical solutions to the problem. Ethanol is definitely not one of them. Although, ethanol can work in certain small, localized places, but only as a small, partial solution.
Ethanol for Cars--And the Energy Crisis
Specfiction;593282 wrote: I think the problem is that people are too easily manipulated by people "they put" in authority. The public in the US must educate itself--and not by listening to talk-radio or commercials on TV from lobbying groups. The people do have the power, but only if they choose to use it.
As has been proven, the people have no immediate power to force their government to do anything. If the oil lobby pays enough then the government will block the development of bio fuel / ethanol (through setting appropriate tax breaks etc) instead of encouraging it.
They are no longer worried about backlash in the elections now that they have their enemy at the door to use as the major policy issue.
So what if 200,000 gather in Trafalger Square to protest and 1,700,000 sign a petition when the government knows best and has no imperative to listen - and the best of green issues would not even gather that much support.
Until it becomesin the government's own interest (rather than the country's interest or the world's interest) then nothing will be done.
As has been proven, the people have no immediate power to force their government to do anything. If the oil lobby pays enough then the government will block the development of bio fuel / ethanol (through setting appropriate tax breaks etc) instead of encouraging it.
They are no longer worried about backlash in the elections now that they have their enemy at the door to use as the major policy issue.
So what if 200,000 gather in Trafalger Square to protest and 1,700,000 sign a petition when the government knows best and has no imperative to listen - and the best of green issues would not even gather that much support.
Until it becomesin the government's own interest (rather than the country's interest or the world's interest) then nothing will be done.
-
Specfiction
- Posts: 88
- Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 12:51 pm
Ethanol for Cars--And the Energy Crisis
Are you aware that ethanol creates Co2 just like gasoline?
Are you aware that creation of ethanol to fuel cars actually costs more greenhouse gases than oil, since you have to both produce it and use it?
Are you aware that if all farmable land on earth were used to make ethanol, then only 10% of the energy needs would be satisfied, plus, there would be no food?
I suggest that there are several more practical solutions to the problem. Ethanol is definitely not one of them. Although, ethanol can work in certain small, localized places, but only as a small, partial solution.
I don't think you have your facts straight. This is from Argonne Lab, a primer national lab with whom I've worked. They are recognized throughout the world and were responsible for a lot of the nuclear tech we now have:
Ethonal Reduces Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Are you aware that creation of ethanol to fuel cars actually costs more greenhouse gases than oil, since you have to both produce it and use it?
Are you aware that if all farmable land on earth were used to make ethanol, then only 10% of the energy needs would be satisfied, plus, there would be no food?
I suggest that there are several more practical solutions to the problem. Ethanol is definitely not one of them. Although, ethanol can work in certain small, localized places, but only as a small, partial solution.
I don't think you have your facts straight. This is from Argonne Lab, a primer national lab with whom I've worked. They are recognized throughout the world and were responsible for a lot of the nuclear tech we now have:
Ethonal Reduces Greenhouse Gas Emissions
-
Specfiction
- Posts: 88
- Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 12:51 pm
Ethanol for Cars--And the Energy Crisis
Bryn Mawr;593300 wrote: As has been proven, the people have no immediate power to force their government to do anything. If the oil lobby pays enough then the government will block the development of bio fuel / ethanol (through setting appropriate tax breaks etc) instead of encouraging it.
They are no longer worried about backlash in the elections now that they have their enemy at the door to use as the major policy issue.
So what if 200,000 gather in Trafalger Square to protest and 1,700,000 sign a petition when the government knows best and has no imperative to listen - and the best of green issues would not even gather that much support.
Until it becomesin the government's own interest (rather than the country's interest or the world's interest) then nothing will be done.
Here in California the Tabacoo Lobby spent million to reject non-smoking initiatives. They out spent the opposition 10:1--guess what--they lost! It can happen but people have to stop buying policy from used-car salespeople--and bad ones at that.
They are no longer worried about backlash in the elections now that they have their enemy at the door to use as the major policy issue.
So what if 200,000 gather in Trafalger Square to protest and 1,700,000 sign a petition when the government knows best and has no imperative to listen - and the best of green issues would not even gather that much support.
Until it becomesin the government's own interest (rather than the country's interest or the world's interest) then nothing will be done.
Here in California the Tabacoo Lobby spent million to reject non-smoking initiatives. They out spent the opposition 10:1--guess what--they lost! It can happen but people have to stop buying policy from used-car salespeople--and bad ones at that.
Ethanol for Cars--And the Energy Crisis
We are supposed to have an ethanol plant built just outside our town. And several more built in other towns in my area. this is great because it will produce jobs and boost the towns economy with new people moving in. It's also great because corn prices will go back up and the farmers will return to growing corn in my area.
"Girls are crazy! I'm not ever getting married, I can make my own sandwiches!"
my son
my son
Ethanol for Cars--And the Energy Crisis
Bryn Mawr;593300 wrote: As has been proven, the people have no immediate power to force their government to do anything. If the oil lobby pays enough then the government will block the development of bio fuel / ethanol (through setting appropriate tax breaks etc) instead of encouraging it.
They are no longer worried about backlash in the elections now that they have their enemy at the door to use as the major policy issue.
So what if 200,000 gather in Trafalger Square to protest and 1,700,000 sign a petition when the government knows best and has no imperative to listen - and the best of green issues would not even gather that much support.
Until it becomesin the government's own interest (rather than the country's interest or the world's interest) then nothing will be done.
Simplest way would be to make it illegal for political parties to accept large donations from individuals or companies. e.g. If it's wrong for unions to fund the labour party it is equally wrong for big business to do it instead. Can't see it happening any time soon though
We the electorate control government by electing them or not. The government does not exist in isolation from the rest of us.
They are no longer worried about backlash in the elections now that they have their enemy at the door to use as the major policy issue.
So what if 200,000 gather in Trafalger Square to protest and 1,700,000 sign a petition when the government knows best and has no imperative to listen - and the best of green issues would not even gather that much support.
Until it becomesin the government's own interest (rather than the country's interest or the world's interest) then nothing will be done.
Simplest way would be to make it illegal for political parties to accept large donations from individuals or companies. e.g. If it's wrong for unions to fund the labour party it is equally wrong for big business to do it instead. Can't see it happening any time soon though
We the electorate control government by electing them or not. The government does not exist in isolation from the rest of us.
Ethanol for Cars--And the Energy Crisis
gmc;593533 wrote: Simplest way would be to make it illegal for political parties to accept large donations from individuals or companies. e.g. If it's wrong for unions to fund the labour party it is equally wrong for big business to do it instead. Can't see it happening any time soon though
We the electorate control government by electing them or not. The government does not exist in isolation from the rest of us.
But we elect them based, mainly, on a single major issue of the parties choosing.
We have no way of indicating our approval / disapproval on a policy by policy basis - all we can do is vote for the pary we object to least and that vote is taken as a mandate for every policy the have and for every policy the goverment puts forward during their next term of office.
That, to me, is not control over the government.
Tony Blair has shown that the government can exist in isolation from the people and can totally ignore their wishes.
eta - I totally agree that the funding of political parties by large donations, whatever their source, is wrong and is effectively buying favour for the donor or his cause, therefore an injustice.
We the electorate control government by electing them or not. The government does not exist in isolation from the rest of us.
But we elect them based, mainly, on a single major issue of the parties choosing.
We have no way of indicating our approval / disapproval on a policy by policy basis - all we can do is vote for the pary we object to least and that vote is taken as a mandate for every policy the have and for every policy the goverment puts forward during their next term of office.
That, to me, is not control over the government.
Tony Blair has shown that the government can exist in isolation from the people and can totally ignore their wishes.
eta - I totally agree that the funding of political parties by large donations, whatever their source, is wrong and is effectively buying favour for the donor or his cause, therefore an injustice.
Ethanol for Cars--And the Energy Crisis
Specfiction;593301 wrote: I don't think you have your facts straight. This is from Argonne Lab, a primer national lab with whom I've worked. They are recognized throughout the world and were responsible for a lot of the nuclear tech we now have:
Ethonal Reduces Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Perhaps not, but the paper i provide here does back up my facts. Check out the table on page 8, end result, ethanol puts our 511 grams per mile, gasoline puts out 459 grams per mile.
I do not want to quibble, though, about which one is a bit higher. I just want to help people understand that ethanol does not solve the so called "mammade global warming problem".
http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/pur ... 138066.pdf
Ethonal Reduces Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Perhaps not, but the paper i provide here does back up my facts. Check out the table on page 8, end result, ethanol puts our 511 grams per mile, gasoline puts out 459 grams per mile.
I do not want to quibble, though, about which one is a bit higher. I just want to help people understand that ethanol does not solve the so called "mammade global warming problem".
http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/pur ... 138066.pdf
-
Specfiction
- Posts: 88
- Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 12:51 pm
Ethanol for Cars--And the Energy Crisis
The latest and best work on alcohol fuel is what I've given (Argonne also looked at Aluminum tubes the Admin said were for centifuges and said they were not--Argonne was right, of course). Even the car companies now agree that alcohol is a CO2 emission cutter. Many of the assumptions in the 1994 paper cited heavily depend on how the crop is grown. In thier best practice senario they state:
We strain the veracity of both analyses to suggest that they concur that, when compared
with standard gasoline, the ethanol fuel cycle results in a small decrease in net CO2 emissions when we examine average current practice and a decrease that may approach 30% when we examine the best of current practice. M&T did not examine the processes now under development which would allowproduction of ethanol from cellulosic feedstocks, but the DeLuchi analysis isclear that production of ethanol from wood by these processes would yield a substantial decrease in greenhouse gas emissions.
We have to stop promoting issues by bad data or worest case assumptions. I could also present papers by the AEI that back-up Cheney’s assertion that Al Qaeda was in Iraq (a war for oil) before the war, but all respectable sources now know that this is rubbish.
Also, there is no single solution for global warming. There is a general strategy that includes many components. Getting as much off oil as possible is at the top of the list. The sooner we start being responsible, the sooner we can get this thing under control.
We strain the veracity of both analyses to suggest that they concur that, when compared
with standard gasoline, the ethanol fuel cycle results in a small decrease in net CO2 emissions when we examine average current practice and a decrease that may approach 30% when we examine the best of current practice. M&T did not examine the processes now under development which would allowproduction of ethanol from cellulosic feedstocks, but the DeLuchi analysis isclear that production of ethanol from wood by these processes would yield a substantial decrease in greenhouse gas emissions.
We have to stop promoting issues by bad data or worest case assumptions. I could also present papers by the AEI that back-up Cheney’s assertion that Al Qaeda was in Iraq (a war for oil) before the war, but all respectable sources now know that this is rubbish.
Also, there is no single solution for global warming. There is a general strategy that includes many components. Getting as much off oil as possible is at the top of the list. The sooner we start being responsible, the sooner we can get this thing under control.
Ethanol for Cars--And the Energy Crisis
Specfiction;593666 wrote: The latest and best work on alcohol fuel is what I've given (Argonne also looked at Aluminum tubes the Admin said were for centifuges and said they were not--Argonne was right, of course). Even the car companies now agree that alcohol is a CO2 emission cutter. Many of the assumptions in the 1994 paper cited heavily depend on how the crop is grown. In thier best practice senario they state:
We have to stop promoting issues by bad data or worest case assumptions. I could also present papers by the AEI that back-up Cheney’s assertion that Al Qaeda was in Iraq (a war for oil) before the war, but all respectable sources now know that this is rubbish.
Also, there is no single solution for global warming. There is a general strategy that includes many components. Getting as much off oil as possible is at the top of the list. The sooner we start being responsible, the sooner we can get this thing under control.
I agree, a few very good points. like using bad data.
For instance, many people in the world today believe that global warming is primarily man made, due to CO2 emissions. This is an example of bad data.
Thus, if someone were to want to use an ethanol car to help solve global warming, they are wasting their time. Ethanol cars generate about the same in CO2 emissions as gas cars, or a little more, or a little less, depending on which set of data that you believe. Bottom line, since manmade CO2 has almost nothing to do with global warming, it does not make any difference what fuel you pour into your car.
Another good point that you make is that getting off oil should be a goal. I agree. But, what are YOU willing to give up? Will you give up using the internet, since the internet uses fuel. How about you limit your posting to 1 post per day, to save energy.:guitarist I will look for your answer tommorrow.
We have to stop promoting issues by bad data or worest case assumptions. I could also present papers by the AEI that back-up Cheney’s assertion that Al Qaeda was in Iraq (a war for oil) before the war, but all respectable sources now know that this is rubbish.
Also, there is no single solution for global warming. There is a general strategy that includes many components. Getting as much off oil as possible is at the top of the list. The sooner we start being responsible, the sooner we can get this thing under control.
I agree, a few very good points. like using bad data.
For instance, many people in the world today believe that global warming is primarily man made, due to CO2 emissions. This is an example of bad data.
Thus, if someone were to want to use an ethanol car to help solve global warming, they are wasting their time. Ethanol cars generate about the same in CO2 emissions as gas cars, or a little more, or a little less, depending on which set of data that you believe. Bottom line, since manmade CO2 has almost nothing to do with global warming, it does not make any difference what fuel you pour into your car.
Another good point that you make is that getting off oil should be a goal. I agree. But, what are YOU willing to give up? Will you give up using the internet, since the internet uses fuel. How about you limit your posting to 1 post per day, to save energy.:guitarist I will look for your answer tommorrow.
Ethanol for Cars--And the Energy Crisis
aristotle;593688 wrote: I agree, a few very good points. like using bad data.
For instance, many people in the world today believe that global warming is primarily man made, due to CO2 emissions. This is an example of bad data.
Thus, if someone were to want to use an ethanol car to help solve global warming, they are wasting their time. Ethanol cars generate about the same in CO2 emissions as gas cars, or a little more, or a little less, depending on which set of data that you believe. Bottom line, since manmade CO2 has almost nothing to do with global warming, it does not make any difference what fuel you pour into your car.
Another good point that you make is that getting off oil should be a goal. I agree. But, what are YOU willing to give up? Will you give up using the internet, since the internet uses fuel. How about you limit your posting to 1 post per day, to save energy.:guitarist I will look for your answer tommorrow.
A sweeping statement - could you back this up with some reasoning?
In what way will limiting posting to one per day save energy?
For instance, many people in the world today believe that global warming is primarily man made, due to CO2 emissions. This is an example of bad data.
Thus, if someone were to want to use an ethanol car to help solve global warming, they are wasting their time. Ethanol cars generate about the same in CO2 emissions as gas cars, or a little more, or a little less, depending on which set of data that you believe. Bottom line, since manmade CO2 has almost nothing to do with global warming, it does not make any difference what fuel you pour into your car.
Another good point that you make is that getting off oil should be a goal. I agree. But, what are YOU willing to give up? Will you give up using the internet, since the internet uses fuel. How about you limit your posting to 1 post per day, to save energy.:guitarist I will look for your answer tommorrow.
A sweeping statement - could you back this up with some reasoning?
In what way will limiting posting to one per day save energy?
Ethanol for Cars--And the Energy Crisis
Pinky;593738 wrote: I reckon it uses more leccy to turn the thing on and off than it does to leave it on!
Especially mine, it takes a few goes these days.:rolleyes:
Constantly turning it on and off shortens its life as well - I use mine for far more than posting anyway.
Your PC sounds a bit shakey if it refuses to power up reliably - what's it complaining about?
Especially mine, it takes a few goes these days.:rolleyes:
Constantly turning it on and off shortens its life as well - I use mine for far more than posting anyway.
Your PC sounds a bit shakey if it refuses to power up reliably - what's it complaining about?
Ethanol for Cars--And the Energy Crisis
Bryn Mawr;593689 wrote: A sweeping statement - could you back this up with some reasoning?
In what way will limiting posting to one per day save energy?
The attached paper shows data about where greenhouse gases come from.
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFoss ... _ages.html
Total human contributions to greenhouse gases account for only about 0.28% of the "greenhouse effect" (Figure 2). Anthropogenic (man-made) carbon dioxide (CO2) comprises about 0.117% of this total, and man-made sources of other gases ( methane, nitrous oxide (NOX), other misc. gases) contributes another 0.163% .
Approximately 99.72% of the "greenhouse effect" is due to natural causes -- mostly water vapor and traces of other gases, which we can do nothing at all about. Eliminating human activity altogether would have little impact on climate change.
Now for your second question.
Well, posting costs energy due to all the computers, servers, cooling, construction of the buildings that servers go in, etc. So, as of today, i emplore all forums to conserve posting, we shall call this the aristotle posting act.
The aristotle posting act (APA) states that, for conservation purposes, post as litttle as possible, plus, make your posts as small as possible. This should conserve on disk space, therefor saving energy. Additionally, dont use capitalization, as capital letters use more energy than small letters. I see that on this forum, many people abhor the APA.:guitarist
In what way will limiting posting to one per day save energy?
The attached paper shows data about where greenhouse gases come from.
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFoss ... _ages.html
Total human contributions to greenhouse gases account for only about 0.28% of the "greenhouse effect" (Figure 2). Anthropogenic (man-made) carbon dioxide (CO2) comprises about 0.117% of this total, and man-made sources of other gases ( methane, nitrous oxide (NOX), other misc. gases) contributes another 0.163% .
Approximately 99.72% of the "greenhouse effect" is due to natural causes -- mostly water vapor and traces of other gases, which we can do nothing at all about. Eliminating human activity altogether would have little impact on climate change.
Now for your second question.
Well, posting costs energy due to all the computers, servers, cooling, construction of the buildings that servers go in, etc. So, as of today, i emplore all forums to conserve posting, we shall call this the aristotle posting act.
The aristotle posting act (APA) states that, for conservation purposes, post as litttle as possible, plus, make your posts as small as possible. This should conserve on disk space, therefor saving energy. Additionally, dont use capitalization, as capital letters use more energy than small letters. I see that on this forum, many people abhor the APA.:guitarist
Ethanol for Cars--And the Energy Crisis
aristotle;593783 wrote: The attached paper shows data about where greenhouse gases come from.
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFoss ... _ages.html
Firstly, if the link you provided actually pointed to a site (rather than an unloadable page) and if that site provided verifiable data (rather than the propaganda sites you've used before) then it would still prove nothing - have you never heard of non-continuous functions.
Secondly, CO2 emissions are only a single factor in a complex equation - it's not even the only greenhouse gas, just the one most ameanable to short term control. You have claimed that global warming is based on false data, please show where data claimed by a mainstream paper on global warming is shown to be false by a reputable source.
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFoss ... _ages.html
Firstly, if the link you provided actually pointed to a site (rather than an unloadable page) and if that site provided verifiable data (rather than the propaganda sites you've used before) then it would still prove nothing - have you never heard of non-continuous functions.
Secondly, CO2 emissions are only a single factor in a complex equation - it's not even the only greenhouse gas, just the one most ameanable to short term control. You have claimed that global warming is based on false data, please show where data claimed by a mainstream paper on global warming is shown to be false by a reputable source.
Ethanol for Cars--And the Energy Crisis
Pinky;593785 wrote: It'll crash first time, take ages to boot all the icons up and now takes about twenty minutes to find the net, it's really annoying! It probably needs defragging tbh. Like you, I use mine for more than the net.
Apart from defrag and making sure you're not virus laden, try running :-
http://vipmeister.com/dl/aspy/aspy.html
to see what is being autoloaded on startup and then get rid of the garbage that has built up over time. (for each process do a google search to get an idea of what it's there for) Remember that after you have deleted all of the redundant processes then you need to save your position to make it permanent.
You could also run :-
http://www.belarc.com/free_download.html
and send me a copy of the output - I could suggest a few things that might help.
Apart from defrag and making sure you're not virus laden, try running :-
http://vipmeister.com/dl/aspy/aspy.html
to see what is being autoloaded on startup and then get rid of the garbage that has built up over time. (for each process do a google search to get an idea of what it's there for) Remember that after you have deleted all of the redundant processes then you need to save your position to make it permanent.
You could also run :-
http://www.belarc.com/free_download.html
and send me a copy of the output - I could suggest a few things that might help.
Ethanol for Cars--And the Energy Crisis
Pinky;593786 wrote: I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN!!!!:wah:
which part, the green house gases part?
which part, the green house gases part?
Ethanol for Cars--And the Energy Crisis
Pinky;593856 wrote: Sorry, I'm a facetious little bugger sometimes!:D
Don't you need a certain amout of equipment for that?
Don't you need a certain amout of equipment for that?
Ethanol for Cars--And the Energy Crisis
Pinky;593856 wrote: Sorry, I'm a facetious little bugger sometimes!:D
Ok, Congratulations on your 17,000 post. Obviously, you are completely against the ACA.
Ok, Congratulations on your 17,000 post. Obviously, you are completely against the ACA.
-
Specfiction
- Posts: 88
- Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 12:51 pm
Ethanol for Cars--And the Energy Crisis
Perhaps the greatest misinformation campaign of all time has been waged on the legitamacy of Global Warming--that it is real, that it is in large part man-made, and that there is a point of no return.
Every reputable scientific group in the World has determined: that it is real, that it is in large part man-made, including NAS, NASA, NOAA, Scripps, IPCC and many more. In general the following sums up the situation:
The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].
IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].
Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).
What comes to mind is this, by the late Kurt Vonnegut: "There is no doubt man is a bad animal and the Earth's immune system is trying to fix the problem."
Every reputable scientific group in the World has determined: that it is real, that it is in large part man-made, including NAS, NASA, NOAA, Scripps, IPCC and many more. In general the following sums up the situation:
The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].
IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].
Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).
What comes to mind is this, by the late Kurt Vonnegut: "There is no doubt man is a bad animal and the Earth's immune system is trying to fix the problem."
Ethanol for Cars--And the Energy Crisis
posted by scrat
How long and wide is the average car 13x8ft?,
Good grief that's bigger than our vans and wider than our lorries. Some poseur along the road from me has a left hand drive Dodge Ram pick up. When he parks it he still takes up most of his side of the road causing congestion as people queue to pass. Cool it most definitely is not. Daft and completely impractical it most definitely is.
For most of our town roads 8ft is actually wider than most of the lanes.
How long and wide is the average car 13x8ft?,
Good grief that's bigger than our vans and wider than our lorries. Some poseur along the road from me has a left hand drive Dodge Ram pick up. When he parks it he still takes up most of his side of the road causing congestion as people queue to pass. Cool it most definitely is not. Daft and completely impractical it most definitely is.
For most of our town roads 8ft is actually wider than most of the lanes.
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
Ethanol for Cars--And the Energy Crisis
Scrat;594027 wrote: We need to start building more nuclear reactors to produce electricity. The plants we can build now are nothing like the ones built 30 years ago. The Russians are building them on ships, floating power plants that if need be can be taken out to sea and scuttled.
That sounds like a Really Good Idea.
That sounds like a Really Good Idea.
-
Specfiction
- Posts: 88
- Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 12:51 pm
Ethanol for Cars--And the Energy Crisis
The good news is that we're having a lively debate--apparently people are concerned and that's good. The bad news is the whole global warming--energy crisis--and I should add water crisis (the lack of fresh water will join the other two big problems to form the perfect storm in the next few decades) have become so divisive because of the money at stake that the internet has become a machine of propaganda for various interest groups. It's much the same as talk radio in the US has driven the oil war in Iraq.
Here are some realities we will be forced to face--rhetoric can get you just so far:
1) Global Warming is real and will cause massive disruptions if we don't act soon.
2) Nuclear Power is NOT a viable energy source, not because we can't build safe reactors--we can, but because we can never get rid of the lethal poison they produce. There is no way to get rid of nuclear waste. It will eventually show up in ground water, then in the air no matter what we do. If you factor in the price of containing these poisons, even temporarily, which is all we can do, the price of nuclear power is prohibitive.
3) A combination of approaches, including conservation, world wide planned parenthood, and recycling can lead to a solution.
I think we'll probably see a world-wide catastrophe in our lifetimes--famine, war, ecologic collapse, vast extinctions. People, as a group, are too susceptible to manipulation to act on a problem of this complexity, stretching over decades, effectively. It will be sad to see the finger pointing when we’re about to go over the edge—someone should hold up a mirror.
Even the military gets it, they're going to have to clean it up:
Global Warming--a Military point of view
But we can always hope.
Here are some realities we will be forced to face--rhetoric can get you just so far:
1) Global Warming is real and will cause massive disruptions if we don't act soon.
2) Nuclear Power is NOT a viable energy source, not because we can't build safe reactors--we can, but because we can never get rid of the lethal poison they produce. There is no way to get rid of nuclear waste. It will eventually show up in ground water, then in the air no matter what we do. If you factor in the price of containing these poisons, even temporarily, which is all we can do, the price of nuclear power is prohibitive.
3) A combination of approaches, including conservation, world wide planned parenthood, and recycling can lead to a solution.
I think we'll probably see a world-wide catastrophe in our lifetimes--famine, war, ecologic collapse, vast extinctions. People, as a group, are too susceptible to manipulation to act on a problem of this complexity, stretching over decades, effectively. It will be sad to see the finger pointing when we’re about to go over the edge—someone should hold up a mirror.
Even the military gets it, they're going to have to clean it up:
Global Warming--a Military point of view
But we can always hope.
Ethanol for Cars--And the Energy Crisis
Scrat;594588 wrote: I just found this today. They have been working on them for some time, mainly putting the parts together ect on land, apparently they are starting the second phase now, actually building the plant on the water. It will be a boon to the northern cities cleaner energy because they can shut down the oil coal and gas stations. They will also be able to generate less energy because they won't have to transmit it so far across the taiga. They are also working on a smaller version that can be used on the larger rivers. Both kinds are mobile and can be moved if something goes wrong. Utilising this kind of technology can help us a lot.
MOSCOW: Ignoring concerns, Russia works on nuke plant at sea
THE NEWS TRIBUNEPublished: April 16th, 2007 01:00 AM
Russia began building its first floating nuclear power plant Sunday, and it plans at least six more despite long-standing environmental concerns that they are vulnerable to accidents at sea, Russian news agencies reported.
Russia justifies the program as a way to bring power to some of the country’s most remote areas, also saying some of the plants could be sold to other nations.
The head of Russia’s atomic energy agency, Sergei Kiriyenko, said the plants will be safe.
The Associated Press
Yes, the Russian safety record with things nuclear does inspire confidence...:rolleyes:
don't drop that Vladimir!!!!!!!!!!
MOSCOW: Ignoring concerns, Russia works on nuke plant at sea
THE NEWS TRIBUNEPublished: April 16th, 2007 01:00 AM
Russia began building its first floating nuclear power plant Sunday, and it plans at least six more despite long-standing environmental concerns that they are vulnerable to accidents at sea, Russian news agencies reported.
Russia justifies the program as a way to bring power to some of the country’s most remote areas, also saying some of the plants could be sold to other nations.
The head of Russia’s atomic energy agency, Sergei Kiriyenko, said the plants will be safe.
The Associated Press
Yes, the Russian safety record with things nuclear does inspire confidence...:rolleyes:
don't drop that Vladimir!!!!!!!!!!
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
-
Specfiction
- Posts: 88
- Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 12:51 pm
Ethanol for Cars--And the Energy Crisis
Again, we've known for a long time how to make safe nuclear plants with passive safety systems--that's not the problem. People seem to have a hard time with this idea. The kind of nuclear power we have today is a non-starter. Nobody in their right mind should be building fission plants. Nobody knows what to do with the wastes--poisons that take centuries to become less toxic. In fact there is no solution. These wastes are piling up today and nobody knows what to do about it. The European glass program has been shown to be flawed, Yucca Mountain is a total catastrophe--this problem is not solvable.
The only kind of nuclear power that has even a slim chance of working is Fusion. The Europeans and Japanese are working hard on it. ITER, the first experimental break-even large-scale reactor is almost ready--we'll see how that goes. The US, of course, is asleep at the switch (a minor player) as usual, with energy company propaganda for the current, unworkable nuclear power all over the internet. This reminds me of the US car companies insisting on building polluting, gas-guzzling muscle cars, and now having very little market share as a result—exactly what they deserve. Too bad the employees had to pay for bad management and government lobbying—if they’d spent as much creating good products maybe they’d be thriving. If we did innovation the way we do propaganda, maybe we'd have products we could sell.
The only kind of nuclear power that has even a slim chance of working is Fusion. The Europeans and Japanese are working hard on it. ITER, the first experimental break-even large-scale reactor is almost ready--we'll see how that goes. The US, of course, is asleep at the switch (a minor player) as usual, with energy company propaganda for the current, unworkable nuclear power all over the internet. This reminds me of the US car companies insisting on building polluting, gas-guzzling muscle cars, and now having very little market share as a result—exactly what they deserve. Too bad the employees had to pay for bad management and government lobbying—if they’d spent as much creating good products maybe they’d be thriving. If we did innovation the way we do propaganda, maybe we'd have products we could sell.
Ethanol for Cars--And the Energy Crisis
zinkyusa;594749 wrote: Yes, the Russian safety record with things nuclear does inspire confidence...:rolleyes:
don't drop that Vladimir!!!!!!!!!!
And Three Mile Island was a model of how things should be done?
We should not be harking back to the reactors built in the 60s when the technology was less than 10 years old when assessing the potential usefulness of nuclear power now - neither in terms of safety nor in terms of the amount of contaminated waste produced over the reactor's lifetime.
Tempus Fugit and all that, we know a damn'd sight more now than we did when those old fossils were built.
don't drop that Vladimir!!!!!!!!!!
And Three Mile Island was a model of how things should be done?
We should not be harking back to the reactors built in the 60s when the technology was less than 10 years old when assessing the potential usefulness of nuclear power now - neither in terms of safety nor in terms of the amount of contaminated waste produced over the reactor's lifetime.
Tempus Fugit and all that, we know a damn'd sight more now than we did when those old fossils were built.
-
Specfiction
- Posts: 88
- Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 12:51 pm
Ethanol for Cars--And the Energy Crisis
Tempus Fugit and all that, we know a damn'd sight more now than we did when those old fossils were built.
No we don't. We know no more about how to handle the waste now than we did then. And time won't help. This is a problem of physics--fission produces highly toxic unstable waste that takes centuries to decrease in toxicity--that's reality--you can't do anything about it. Further, because this waste is so radioactive, it is chemically very corrosive. There is no container you can put it in it can't eat through in much less time than its half-life. That's reality and no amount of rhetoric will change it.
The sooner we stop debating solutions that won't work, the sooner we can creat solutions that do.
No we don't. We know no more about how to handle the waste now than we did then. And time won't help. This is a problem of physics--fission produces highly toxic unstable waste that takes centuries to decrease in toxicity--that's reality--you can't do anything about it. Further, because this waste is so radioactive, it is chemically very corrosive. There is no container you can put it in it can't eat through in much less time than its half-life. That's reality and no amount of rhetoric will change it.
The sooner we stop debating solutions that won't work, the sooner we can creat solutions that do.
Ethanol for Cars--And the Energy Crisis
Specfiction;594824 wrote: Again, we've known for a long time how to make safe nuclear plants with passive safety systems--that's not the problem. People seem to have a hard time with this idea. The kind of nuclear power we have today is a non-starter. Nobody in their right mind should be building fission plants. Nobody knows what to do with the wastes--poisons that take centuries to become less toxic. In fact there is no solution. These wastes are piling up today and nobody knows what to do about it. The European glass program has been shown to be flawed, Yucca Mountain is a total catastrophe--this problem is not solvable.
The only kind of nuclear power that has even a slim chance of working is Fusion. The Europeans and Japanese are working hard on it. ITER, the first experimental break-even large-scale reactor is almost ready--we'll see how that goes. The US, of course, is asleep at the switch (a minor player) as usual, with energy company propaganda for the current, unworkable nuclear power all over the internet. This reminds me of the US car companies insisting on building polluting, gas-guzzling muscle cars, and now having very little market share as a result—exactly what they deserve. Too bad the employees had to pay for bad management and government lobbying—if they’d spent as much creating good products maybe they’d be thriving. If we did innovation the way we do propaganda, maybe we'd have products we could sell.
I think you're stretching a point in saying that ITER is almost ready - even their optimistic prediction shows the first generation of plasma at 2016 with a 21 year experimantal life after that to learn how to generate power.
With a projected date for the first operational fusion power plant penciled in for 2050 we need some form of intrim solution to move away from the burning of fossil fuels and a modern, well designed fusion reactor is the only realistic alternative for your base platform on which you support eco-generation from wind, waves etc.
The only kind of nuclear power that has even a slim chance of working is Fusion. The Europeans and Japanese are working hard on it. ITER, the first experimental break-even large-scale reactor is almost ready--we'll see how that goes. The US, of course, is asleep at the switch (a minor player) as usual, with energy company propaganda for the current, unworkable nuclear power all over the internet. This reminds me of the US car companies insisting on building polluting, gas-guzzling muscle cars, and now having very little market share as a result—exactly what they deserve. Too bad the employees had to pay for bad management and government lobbying—if they’d spent as much creating good products maybe they’d be thriving. If we did innovation the way we do propaganda, maybe we'd have products we could sell.
I think you're stretching a point in saying that ITER is almost ready - even their optimistic prediction shows the first generation of plasma at 2016 with a 21 year experimantal life after that to learn how to generate power.
With a projected date for the first operational fusion power plant penciled in for 2050 we need some form of intrim solution to move away from the burning of fossil fuels and a modern, well designed fusion reactor is the only realistic alternative for your base platform on which you support eco-generation from wind, waves etc.
Ethanol for Cars--And the Energy Crisis
Bryn Mawr;594888 wrote: And Three Mile Island was a model of how things should be done?
We should not be harking back to the reactors built in the 60s when the technology was less than 10 years old when assessing the potential usefulness of nuclear power now - neither in terms of safety nor in terms of the amount of contaminated waste produced over the reactor's lifetime.
Tempus Fugit and all that, we know a damn'd sight more now than we did when those old fossils were built.
It was said tongue in cheek, I do hope they have improved;)
We should not be harking back to the reactors built in the 60s when the technology was less than 10 years old when assessing the potential usefulness of nuclear power now - neither in terms of safety nor in terms of the amount of contaminated waste produced over the reactor's lifetime.
Tempus Fugit and all that, we know a damn'd sight more now than we did when those old fossils were built.
It was said tongue in cheek, I do hope they have improved;)
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
-
Specfiction
- Posts: 88
- Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 12:51 pm
Ethanol for Cars--And the Energy Crisis
I think you're stretching a point in saying that ITER is almost ready - even their optimistic prediction shows the first generation of plasma at 2016 with a 21 year experimantal life after that to learn how to generate power.
I agree with everything you said (about ITER--it's a long shot), except if you meant fission instead of what you said, fusion. There is no magic bullet. We've done all the easy stuff. But fission should not be considered for the reasons I gave. A terrible solution (even an interim one) is no replacement for many better solutions, including clean coal technologies, alcohol, solar, wind, geothermal, wave, methane, conservation, recycling, and last but not least vigorous planned parenthood--world-wide. At the base of most of our problems is the fact that there are too many people wanting too much. At some point nature takes care of it, but her solution will be very harsh. Nature gave us brains to avoid that, let's use them.
I agree with everything you said (about ITER--it's a long shot), except if you meant fission instead of what you said, fusion. There is no magic bullet. We've done all the easy stuff. But fission should not be considered for the reasons I gave. A terrible solution (even an interim one) is no replacement for many better solutions, including clean coal technologies, alcohol, solar, wind, geothermal, wave, methane, conservation, recycling, and last but not least vigorous planned parenthood--world-wide. At the base of most of our problems is the fact that there are too many people wanting too much. At some point nature takes care of it, but her solution will be very harsh. Nature gave us brains to avoid that, let's use them.
Ethanol for Cars--And the Energy Crisis
Specfiction;594912 wrote: I agree with everything you said (about ITER--it's a long shot), except if you meant fission instead of what you said, fusion. There is no magic bullet. We've done all the easy stuff. But fission should not be considered for the reasons I gave. A terrible solution (even an interim one) is no replacement for many better solutions, including clean coal technologies, alcohol, solar, wind, geothermal, wave, methane, conservation, recycling, and last but not least vigorous planned parenthood--world-wide. At the base of most of our problems is the fact that there are too many people wanting too much. At some point nature takes care of it, but her solution will be very harsh. Nature gave us brains to avoid that, let's use them.
Firstly, coal (no matter how "clean"), alcohol, and methane are still just as much producers of CO2 as petrol.
Secondly, solar, wind and wave are not base sources - you must have a "flick of a switch" source to underly them.
Conservation and recycling are givens - an absolutely basic necessity.
As for vigorous planned parenthood - look at the consequences when they tried it in China and India. We need to change the life conditions in those countries that are overbreeding with the natural consequence that the birth rate will drop rather than trying to force peolpe to act against nature.
Firstly, coal (no matter how "clean"), alcohol, and methane are still just as much producers of CO2 as petrol.
Secondly, solar, wind and wave are not base sources - you must have a "flick of a switch" source to underly them.
Conservation and recycling are givens - an absolutely basic necessity.
As for vigorous planned parenthood - look at the consequences when they tried it in China and India. We need to change the life conditions in those countries that are overbreeding with the natural consequence that the birth rate will drop rather than trying to force peolpe to act against nature.
-
Specfiction
- Posts: 88
- Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 12:51 pm
Ethanol for Cars--And the Energy Crisis
Firstly, coal (no matter how "clean"), alcohol, and methane are still just as much producers of CO2 as petrol.
Secondly, solar, wind and wave are not base sources - you must have a "flick of a switch" source to underly them.
You might not be aware of new coal technology--it is far cleaner than coal or oil power plants on line today and is the equivalent of natural gas. Alcohol process for cars is 40% cleaner than gas, methane is very clean when used to power fuel cells. Solar and wind electric energy can be stored--there are new techs for doing this, we should be working on them. There are others I haven't mentioned--the reason they're not popularized is because the oil companies will do whatever it takes to sell you that last drop of oil no matter what: wars, pollution, ecologic disaster—whatever.
Family planning--what I'm referring to is incentives. Something as simple as the Catholic Church to stop telling people that birth control is a sin and the US to stop withholding money for PP if anything other than abstinence is practiced would be a nice start.
These issues can not be reduced to absurd simplicities—these are not simple problems. We will not get down to zero emissions, but a good target would be to try to cut our emissions in half in the next ten years. BTW, I appreciate the fact that you realize cutting green-house gas emission is VERY important.
Secondly, solar, wind and wave are not base sources - you must have a "flick of a switch" source to underly them.
You might not be aware of new coal technology--it is far cleaner than coal or oil power plants on line today and is the equivalent of natural gas. Alcohol process for cars is 40% cleaner than gas, methane is very clean when used to power fuel cells. Solar and wind electric energy can be stored--there are new techs for doing this, we should be working on them. There are others I haven't mentioned--the reason they're not popularized is because the oil companies will do whatever it takes to sell you that last drop of oil no matter what: wars, pollution, ecologic disaster—whatever.
Family planning--what I'm referring to is incentives. Something as simple as the Catholic Church to stop telling people that birth control is a sin and the US to stop withholding money for PP if anything other than abstinence is practiced would be a nice start.
These issues can not be reduced to absurd simplicities—these are not simple problems. We will not get down to zero emissions, but a good target would be to try to cut our emissions in half in the next ten years. BTW, I appreciate the fact that you realize cutting green-house gas emission is VERY important.
Ethanol for Cars--And the Energy Crisis
Specfiction;594955 wrote: You might not be aware of new coal technology--it is far cleaner than coal or oil power plants on line today and is the equivalent of natural gas. Alcohol process for cars is 40% cleaner than gas, methane is very clean when used to power fuel cells. Solar and wind electric energy can be stored--there are new techs for doing this, we should be working on them. There are others I haven't mentioned--the reason they're not popularized is because the oil companies will do whatever it takes to sell you that last drop of oil no matter what: wars, pollution, ecologic disaster—whatever.
Family planning--what I'm referring to is incentives. Something as simple as the Catholic Church to stop telling people that birth control is a sin and the US to stop withholding money for PP if anything other than abstinence is practiced would be a nice start.
Please don’t reduce everything to absurd simplicities—these are not simple problems.
Whilst the new technologies may be clean, that is clean as in reduced emissions of sulpher, nitrogen and particulates - not clean as in reduced emissions of greenhouse gasses. At the end of the day CH4 + 2O2 = CO2 + 2H2O however "clean" the process is.
Ask Sanjay Ghandi about "incentives" for birth control
To me, it's you that's glossing over the difficulties and if they were simple problems we'd not need to discuss them.
To suggest that getting the Catholic Church to embrace birth control is simple whilst accusing me of "reduce everything to absurd simplicities" is laughable.
Family planning--what I'm referring to is incentives. Something as simple as the Catholic Church to stop telling people that birth control is a sin and the US to stop withholding money for PP if anything other than abstinence is practiced would be a nice start.
Please don’t reduce everything to absurd simplicities—these are not simple problems.
Whilst the new technologies may be clean, that is clean as in reduced emissions of sulpher, nitrogen and particulates - not clean as in reduced emissions of greenhouse gasses. At the end of the day CH4 + 2O2 = CO2 + 2H2O however "clean" the process is.
Ask Sanjay Ghandi about "incentives" for birth control
To me, it's you that's glossing over the difficulties and if they were simple problems we'd not need to discuss them.
To suggest that getting the Catholic Church to embrace birth control is simple whilst accusing me of "reduce everything to absurd simplicities" is laughable.
-
Specfiction
- Posts: 88
- Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 12:51 pm
Ethanol for Cars--And the Energy Crisis
CH4 + 2O2 = CO2 + 2H2O however "clean" the process is.
The CO2 can be removed and sequestered in deep strata. Los Alamos pioneered the technique and there are startups trying to develop the technique on a large scale. It's the same thing the deep ocean does by depositing CO2 in limestone on the ocean bottom.
To suggest that getting the Catholic Church to embrace birth control is simple whilst accusing me of "reduce everything to absurd simplicities" is laughable.
The CC also tells people that sex before marrige is a sin but pop culture has nullified that effectively with marketing--we could do the same for birth control. Does anyone doubt marketing works. Like I said, these are not simple problems, but bad solutions like fission energy is not a solution. And poorer countries are not the big polluters, the more advanced countries are.
The CO2 can be removed and sequestered in deep strata. Los Alamos pioneered the technique and there are startups trying to develop the technique on a large scale. It's the same thing the deep ocean does by depositing CO2 in limestone on the ocean bottom.
To suggest that getting the Catholic Church to embrace birth control is simple whilst accusing me of "reduce everything to absurd simplicities" is laughable.
The CC also tells people that sex before marrige is a sin but pop culture has nullified that effectively with marketing--we could do the same for birth control. Does anyone doubt marketing works. Like I said, these are not simple problems, but bad solutions like fission energy is not a solution. And poorer countries are not the big polluters, the more advanced countries are.