OT Hydrogen economy, not?

[Richard The Dreaded Libertarian]

South of Spain, Tarifa, to the top of Norway is about2700 miles, 4400 Km

Well, that explains American Grandiosity. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Richard The Dreaded Libertarian]

How can that be? California has been the home of environmentalism
forever, and with liberals in control since at least 1966. So 42 years of
"elect us and we will clean up the environment" and "we will keep our
water and air clean and safe from those conservatives that would pollute
everything". California should be the shining example. ( Much like the
same years of social engineering , has eliminated crime and the poor. Not
to mention their great public education system, that turns out such polite
and well educated citizens.)

Say it ain't so!!

Well, for what it's worth, I've lived in California on and off for the
last 25 years or so, "commuting" to/from Minnesota. The one thing I
remember about my last trip here (CA) was that as I was just coming over
the edge of the high desert, where you can see LA off in the distance if
the visibility is good, I saw LA! There was this vast expanse of blue sky!

The last time I had lived in CA (10-15 yrs ago), when you looked toward
LA, the air was brown.

So, evidently _somebody's_ doing something right.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Richard The Dreaded Libertarian]

What pollution ? Have you any idea how clean burning modern engines are ?

If CO2 IS a problem and there's a hell of a lot of doubt about it, despite
the alleged 'consensus', it makes more sense to capture it in large plants
located all over the country for deep burial or whatever.

Why not just capture it in medium and small plants and eat them? ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Martin Griffith]

Well, that explains American Grandiosity. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

No it doesn't, just because your penis is bigger........

White elephant video here
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7510364.stm


martin

 

[Don Klipstein]

Why not just capture it in medium and small plants and eat them? ;-)

That won't sequester it - the carbon stays in the carbon cycle.

- Don Klipstein ([email protected])

 

[Rich Grise]

Lots of people have tried the steam car, both boiler and once-through
systems. HP per unit of fuel is low, and either you have to fill up with
water very often, or you need a thousand pounds or so of very bulky
condenser. The engine itself can be tiny; the real problem is the
condenser.

Well, here's my crackpot idea. Use an instant boiler, like one of those
instant-heat water heaters; fire it with an array of burner nozzles
that are like those little lighters that have a flame like a blowtorch.

Then, for a turbine, you run an ordinary, off-the-race-car-builder's-shelf
blower in reverse (extracting rotary energy from the steam), and for a
condenser use an ordinary car radiator.

How crackpottish is this, exactly? ;-)

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Richard The Dreaded Libertarian]

How 'bout YOU draft a pithy, ironic gibe at the hydrogen economy, fuzzy
thinking, biofuels, carbon-phobia, and gluttony in ten words or less, eh?

Sure!

Idiots.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Eeyore]

Yup. Plants love CO2.

90+ % of them grow BETTER in high CO2.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

That won't sequester it - the carbon stays in the carbon cycle.

Doesn't it take it out of the atmosphere though ?

Graham

 

[James Arthur]

That won't sequester it - the carbon stays in the carbon cycle.

- Don Klipstein ([email protected])

But at any given moment you'd have x gigatons captured, not in the air.

James Arthur

 

[Don Klipstein]

Doesn't it take it out of the atmosphere though ?

The carbon you eat goes back as CO2. Most of it you exhale. Cellulose
and other unexhaled orgainic compounds wait to decompose before their
carbon becomes atmospheric CO2.

If you want to take carbon out of the atmosphere by growing plants, bury
them long term or build permanent things with them. Or do anything to
cause a long term increase in biomass.

- Don Klipstein ([email protected])

 

[Don Klipstein]

But at any given moment you'd have x gigatons captured, not in the air.

That requires biomass increasing. As in growing plants that don't get
eaten.

- Don Klipstein ([email protected])

 

[James Arthur]

That requires biomass increasing.

Yes. Grow big plants, or extra plants.

As in growing plants that don't get
eaten.

No, the plants, while they're in the field, represent
CO2 not circulating.

Burying them keeps the CO2 out of circulation longer,
but either way it's out of the atmosphere for a time.

James Arthur

 

[Vaughn Simon]

How crackpottish is this, exactly? ;-)

Gie it a try and report your findings back to the group.

Vaughn

 

[Richard The Dreaded Libertarian]

No it doesn't, just because your penis is bigger........

Maybe you should check your definitions:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define:grandiosity

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Richard The Dreaded Libertarian]

But at any given moment you'd have x gigatons captured, not in the air.

And what is it that makes you warmingists so dead-set on meddling with
Earth's natural carbon cycle?

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Richard The Dreaded Libertarian]

Gie it a try and report your findings back to the group.

Or, better yet, an LPG burner right at the intake of the blower. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Vaughn Simon]

And what is it that makes you warmingists so dead-set on meddling with
Earth's natural carbon cycle?

1) Do you really think that this group is really about to run out and plant a
new rain forest?

2) Do you really think that the gigatons of naturally sequestered carbon we are
already digging up and spewing into the atmosphere does not constitute "meddling
with Earth's natural carbon cycle"?

Vaughn

 

[Eeyore]

The carbon you eat goes back as CO2. Most of it you exhale. Cellulose
and other unexhaled orgainic compounds wait to decompose before their
carbon becomes atmospheric CO2.

If you want to take carbon out of the atmosphere by growing plants, bury
them long term or build permanent things with them. Or do anything to
cause a long term increase in biomass.

Fair enough.

I'm all for planting new forests where possible. Even if used as fuel it doesn't
increase CO2.

Graham

 

[Vaughn Simon]

On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 11:39:03 -0700 (PDT), James Arthur
But they would quickly on the horns of a dilemma. Cane is cheap
enough for fuel vs. cane sugar for food is so expensive that we must
justify exorbitant price supports.

I have never understood why my tax money is used to support the sugar
industry. Sugar is not a necessary foodstuff, it is more of a human vice like
tobacco. If it became extinct tomorrow, we would all be better off & our taste
buds would ultimately adjust to its absence. Of course, the diabetes industry
would take a heluva hit.

Start reading ingredients and you will quickly see that sugar is added to 80
to 90% of the stuff we eat, but our bodies don't need any of it. For example:
If you want to eat peas without added sugar, you must buy fresh peas, frozen
peas, or perhaps some high-priced "health" brand of canned peas since almost all
canned peas have sugar added. Why? Why not just leave it out?

Vaughn