The Stern Report (aka Global Warming)

[JohnD]

Joe, as you know very well, I said
"Please explain why you think bio fuels cost more energy than they give, for example:

- vegetable oil used to fuel a diesel car
- wood chips used to fuel a steam boiler
- dried straw or reeds used to heat a house"

You failed to explain, although I gave you three chances.

No point in your trying to pretend that you did explain your belief.

You failed.

 

[oilman]

So can we assume the case is closed again, as you missed that bit.

 

[empip]

Interesting outlook on the situation, 'Current positions of governments' ref. Kyoto Here
Looks like some are looking after their own ... German coal, mmm..

Overall carbon dioxide emissions by country

Per capita output of crud?? Ok, grow the population - quick !! (I guess we may be doing so)... Is that why our outputs are quite flat?
Co² emissions per capita

Effective economies earning lots of dosh in relation to Co² output?? Or just making loadsa service money and not many goods !
Ratio of GDP to Co² emissions

Never mind old Kenny L will put the world to rights ... London anyway !!

 

[joe-90]

Joe, as you know very well, I said
"Please explain why you think bio fuels cost more energy than they give, for example:

- vegetable oil used to fuel a diesel car
- wood chips used to fuel a steam boiler
- dried straw or reeds used to heat a house"

You failed to explain, although I gave you three chances.

No point in your trying to pretend that you did explain your belief.

You failed.

Read the link I gave you. I don't have the time to educate you - and you don't want to hear anyway.

 

[hermes]

oilman why don't you read joe's link, or if you've read it then acknowedge that you have? He's providing you with information and you don't seem to want to know.

Personally I believe that biofuel is not the answer. As global warming increases and droughts cause crops to fail across much of the globe, there will be mass immigration to areas that can still produce crops. It is far more efficient to grow crops to feed yourseld than it is to grow crops to feed livestock to feed yourself. I can't remember the figures but it takes something like 8 kilos of vegetable protein to produce 2 kilos of meat protein.
The upshot is that countries that can still produce crops in years to come will need to produce as much as they can to feed the population. Imports will decrease hugely as countries will need to feed themselves from their own produce.
Biofuel would mean diverting crops away from the food supply to provide for transport and this will be unsupportable.
Large quotas of the US crop supply is now being earmarked for biofuels and this means that for the first time, the US is ceasing to be a net exporter of grain. This will push up the price of foodstuffs in deleloping countries, leading to more hunger and thus greater emigration.
Things will change on a big scale before too many years.

 

[JohnD]

Joe, as you know very well, I said
"Please explain why you think bio fuels cost more energy than they give, for example:

- vegetable oil used to fuel a diesel car
- wood chips used to fuel a steam boiler
- dried straw or reeds used to heat a house"

You failed to explain, although I gave you three chances.

No point in your trying to pretend that you did explain your belief.

You failed.

Read the link I gave you. I don't have the time to educate you - and you don't want to hear anyway.

Joe, now you're being silly. If you think you can find evidence in that link of the three points I specifically asked you to demonstrate, go and look again. And if you think that explaining your belief means scattering web links, you are wrong (again). As I've said before, you have failed.

 

[securespark]

Get rid of cows, the amount of farting the do they are killing the o-zone layer. and some on here are doing their very best as well.

Nah, just get them to trump in specially constructed Methane Holding Tanks where it can be piped to heat schools etc...

 

[securespark]

Imagine if the guy's name was Silly....

 

[joe-90]

Joe, as you know very well, I said
"Please explain why you think bio fuels cost more energy than they give, for example:

- vegetable oil used to fuel a diesel car
- wood chips used to fuel a steam boiler
- dried straw or reeds used to heat a house"

You failed to explain, although I gave you three chances.

No point in your trying to pretend that you did explain your belief.

You failed.

Read the link I gave you. I don't have the time to educate you - and you don't want to hear anyway.

Joe, now you're being silly. If you think you can find evidence in that link of the three points I specifically asked you to demonstrate, go and look again. And if you think that explaining your belief means scattering web links, you are wrong (again). As I've said before, you have failed.

Read the link, it will explain why bio-fuels are a waste of time.

 

[JohnD]

The link does not address the three questions I asked you. You have failed.

 

[joe-90]

The link does not address the three questions I asked you. You have failed.

The three questions don't give any information for making a calculation.

What sort of fertilizer is used?
What sort of pesticide?
What sort of transport is involved?
What sort of processing is involved?
How is the waste treated?
What sort of storage is used?
What sort of mechanical eqipment is used (built using oil technology).
What are the distribution processes?


If you'd read the link you'd know about EROEIs.
You just don't want to know do you John? Head in the sand.

 

[pickles]

I think you should all read this link.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6115644.stm

Personally I don't know much about global warming, but I do know a bit about human nature. I think this article has a ring of truth to it, bearing in mind the authors credentials as a climate scientist.

 

[JohnD]

Joe, you asserted that "Hydrogen and bio fuels both take more energy in production than they give back"

I gave three examples, and asked you to explain your belief.

You have failed to do that.

 

[Kes]

Hi,

You two are an obstinate pair. Why don't you just Google for some info (and then decide if it's true)?.

F'rinstance, from http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/hydrogen.html (which may or may not be a reliable source) we get

'Hydrogen does not occur free in nature in useful quantities. It has to be made, usually by splitting water H2O to get the hydrogen. This requires all the energy you are going to get from burning the hydrogen and a bit more on account of inefficiencies. Therefore, hydrogen is an energy transfer medium rather than a primary source of energy. Hydrogen is obtained by splitting water (H2O) into hydrogen and oxygen. The energy to split the water should be nuclear or solar. Nuclear is cheaper.'

So I read that as obtaining hydrogen from water is bound to use more energy that the resultant hydrogen can contain. Only if we can have amounts of energy to spare, i.e. lots of nuclear power stations, can it be produced relatively cheaply as an alternative to oil.

There's probably info about biomass if we look. I would say that biomass too takes more energy to produce than it releases, but some of that has come from the sun so it isn't counted, just as it has done to produce oil.

Anyway, we can't get more energy from anything than has been put into it, can we?

Rgds.

 

[Gary_M]

Pity they couldn't harness lightning. From what I recall, there is an immense amount of energy from just one bolt

.