Global "Warning"

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by AKA_Monet

It won't change until humankind, meaning all of us, find something to do with our carbon emissions... Maybe a loss in food stuffs? Many countries, 2nd and 3rd world ones are switching to ethanol to drive their vehicles. Why the US is so resistant when we generated much of this technology is beyond me...

I dunno, I don't think US has a clean environment to be one of the most richest and industrialized nations in the world... And although, China is catching up quickly and will surpass us in 50 years with money and other things, they are doing more to switch than we are...

Making US back into the stone ages...

I think the U.S. has a cleaner environment than most countries though. Yes, I agree. China is catching up to us with a lot of things, not just in regards to a clean environment.

Yes, ethanol is what we need to switch to. I think this will help dramatically. Turning plants into fuel is a growth industry, and I don't think any biofuel is coming on stronger than ethanol. I think it's imperative that we make the switch ASAP because it burns much more cleanly than ordinary gasoline, plus ethanol obviates the need for a widely used gas additive. It's a toxic substance called MTBE. I'm sure you've heard of this.

It also helps car engines run more smoothly, but the thing about MTBE is, I think it may pollute ground water though, but don't quote me on that.

[AKA_Monet]

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

Yes, ethanol is what we need to switch to. I think this will help dramatically. Turning plants into fuel is a growth industry, and I don't think any biofuel is coming on stronger than ethanol. I think it's imperative that we make the switch ASAP because it burns much more cleanly than ordinary gasoline, plus ethanol obviates the need for a widely used gas additive. It's a toxic substance called MTBE. I'm sure you've heard of this.

It also helps car engines run more smoothly, but the thing about MTBE is, I think it may pollute ground water though, but don't quote me on that.

Both Biofuels and Ethanol has pros and cons, from gasoline. Somewhere in the Seattle Times the issue with crude oil is we are about tapped out on the available areas and other areas require destruction of natural forest preserves or are too deep to drill in the ocean.

Aside from the reliance of other countries for our oil, it does not do right by our carbon emissions...

I think Ethanol burning does some things to public health in animals or insects. So, those options need to be weighed.

I have not heard anything yet about biofuels except that it is expensive to process an no one wants to pay $10 per gallon for it although you would be doing it once a month or less.

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by AKA_Monet

Both Biofuels and Ethanol has pros and cons, from gasoline. Somewhere in the Seattle Times the issue with crude oil is we are about tapped out on the available areas and other areas require destruction of natural forest preserves or are too deep to drill in the ocean.

Aside from the reliance of other countries for our oil, it does not do right by our carbon emissions...

I think Ethanol burning does some things to public health in animals or insects. So, those options need to be weighed.

I have not heard anything yet about biofuels except that it is expensive to process an no one wants to pay $10 per gallon for it although you would be doing it once a month or less.

I think corn based ethanol would be a good replacement for gasoline, once it's perfected. Right now, the use of ethanol as a fuel remains financially viable only because of a 51 cents/per gallon tax exemption granted by the Federal Government to refiners who produce a gasoline ethanol blend. Another problem with ethanol right now, is it has to be transported to refining plants by trucks and trains, burning emissions producing hydrocarbons in transit.

Personally, I do think we should make the switch ASAP, even though it's not the end all be all to America's fuel problems, but I think for the time being it would be a temporary fix, at least until it's perfected.

[AKA_Monet]

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

I think corn based ethanol would be a good replacement for gasoline, once it's perfected. Right now, the use of ethanol as a fuel remains financially viable only because of a 51 cents/per gallon tax exemption granted by the Federal Government to refiners who produce a gasoline ethanol blend. Another problem with ethanol right now, is it has to be transported to refining plants by trucks and trains, burning emissions producing hydrocarbons in transit.

Personally, I do think we should make the switch ASAP, even though it's not the end all be all to America's fuel problems, but I think for the time being it would be a temporary fix, at least until it's perfected.

It will take time to get the distribution across the US. Ethanol is a good option for certain areas of the country, not the entire country. Corn ethanol will not catch up to the level of demand--especially for my area. Most folks here sell biodiesel from used frying oil. There are other alternative fuels, like coal, some depleted nuclear materials and plenty of unused wood products.

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by AKA_Monet

It will take time to get the distribution across the US. Ethanol is a good option for certain areas of the country, not the entire country. Corn ethanol will not catch up to the level of demand--especially for my area. Most folks here sell biodiesel from used frying oil. There are other alternative fuels, like coal, some depleted nuclear materials and plenty of unused wood products.

I agree, there are other alternatives of fuels, like hydrogen. It's in plain sight as we know it. It's everywhere we look, but it's almost always chemically locked in compunds like water, which binds hydrogen together with oxygen, and is sort of tricky to undo. I think our best way right now to get power from hydrogen is by burning oil, coal and natural gas. Their concentrated hydrogen content is what gives them energy in the 1st place. What causes the problems is the actual hydrocarbon.

Running a vehicle on hydrogen without using carbon involves using either hydrogen fuel cells or ordinary engines modified to burn hydrogen.

If you really look at it, this technology isn't really new. Over 100 years ago, the fuel cells combined hydrogen and oxygen, producing heat and water, the heat was used to create electricity, and the water was like a waste product. As in ethanol, fuel cells are still kind of pricey though.

Maybe engineers can retool a vehicle's engine to run on hydrogen. I'm not sure how expensive or complicated this would be though.

[AKA_Monet]

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

I agree, there are other alternatives of fuels, like hydrogen. It's in plain sight as we know it. It's everywhere we look, but it's almost always chemically locked in compunds like water, which binds hydrogen together with oxygen, and is sort of tricky to undo. I think our best way right now to get power from hydrogen is by burning oil, coal and natural gas. Their concentrated hydrogen content is what gives them energy in the 1st place. What causes the problems is the actual hydrocarbon.

Running a vehicle on hydrogen without using carbon involves using either hydrogen fuel cells or ordinary engines modified to burn hydrogen.

If you really look at it, this technology isn't really new. Over 100 years ago, the fuel cells combined hydrogen and oxygen, producing heat and water, the heat was used to create electricity, and the water was like a waste product. As in ethanol, fuel cells are still kind of pricey though.

Maybe engineers can retool a vehicle's engine to run on hydrogen. I'm not sure how expensive or complicated this would be though.

All I know is I have heard of the Hindenberg blimp and the way folks drive these days, I would be freaked out if there H2 fuel cells in them...

Well, there are several bonds that when broken will give several levels of energy. From what I remember from chem, is that H2O is an ionic bond with dipole moments on the oxygen. It is H-O--H that has resonance from one H to the other. When protonation occurs due to stronger ions, like salt, the furthest H+ or proton will leave. The only other way to break that bond is through a radical formation either by HOOH or HO(.) or a straight nuclide attack (fission). That is how I understand it, and I could be wrong...

When we use H2CCHOH, in a combustible system, because the m.p. is lower, even due to some level of evaporation, we burn steam. But the octane in gas is what gives us the power generation to put through the cylinders in the engine. Other oil products, besides gas, will still need to be used, such as motor oil, transmission, brake fluid, coolant, etc. Coolant is something else, I think--Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) they smart chemists have probably changed it now...

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by AKA_Monet

All I know is I have heard of the Hindenberg blimp and the way folks drive these days, I would be freaked out if there H2 fuel cells in them...

Well, there are several bonds that when broken will give several levels of energy. From what I remember from chem, is that H2O is an ionic bond with dipole moments on the oxygen. It is H-O--H that has resonance from one H to the other. When protonation occurs due to stronger ions, like salt, the furthest H+ or proton will leave. The only other way to break that bond is through a radical formation either by HOOH or HO(.) or a straight nuclide attack (fission). That is how I understand it, and I could be wrong...

When we use H2CCHOH, in a combustible system, because the m.p. is lower, even due to some level of evaporation, we burn steam. But the octane in gas is what gives us the power generation to put through the cylinders in the engine. Other oil products, besides gas, will still need to be used, such as motor oil, transmission, brake fluid, coolant, etc. Coolant is something else, I think--Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) they smart chemists have probably changed it now...

It sounds dangerous, but if it's perfected I don't think it will be. Yes, this is true to an extent. If we were to use this method right now as we speak, yes, a lot of the additives we currently use in our engines would still have to be used, but that could also possibly change with technology. Hydrogen is a fuel we wouldn't run out of. It's the most abundant element in the universe, and it burns far more cleanly than fossil fuels.

[ISUKappa]

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

I think corn based ethanol would be a good replacement for gasoline, once it's perfected. Right now, the use of ethanol as a fuel remains financially viable only because of a 51 cents/per gallon tax exemption granted by the Federal Government to refiners who produce a gasoline ethanol blend. Another problem with ethanol right now, is it has to be transported to refining plants by trucks and trains, burning emissions producing hydrocarbons in transit.

Personally, I do think we should make the switch ASAP, even though it's not the end all be all to America's fuel problems, but I think for the time being it would be a temporary fix, at least until it's perfected.

I honestly don't think corn-based ethanol is the answer, and I live in the Midwest and have felt the direct benefit of the current ethanol boom. It is a highly inefficient way to create ethanol and the toll it takes on the natural resources (especially the water table) isn't worth it, IMO. We'd be better off focusing on switchgrass or other forms of cellulose.

[bluefish81]

Originally Posted by ISUKappa

I honestly don't think corn-based ethanol is the answer, and I live in the Midwest and have felt the direct benefit of the current ethanol boom. It is a highly inefficient way to create ethanol and the toll it takes on the natural resources (especially the water table) isn't worth it, IMO. We'd be better off focusing on switchgrass or other forms of cellulose.

I agree. I think that there has to be a better resource available besides corn-based ethanol, perhaps one that our society isn't so dependent upon for a food resource? The price of corn on a bushel basis has gone up significantly over the past few years, great for farmers selling the corn, not so good for consumer looking to buy a product that uses corn as its base. There's also a lot of farmers that are opting to plant corn instead of what they probably should be planting in their respective areas. So the quality of the product may not be as good because the soil where it's being planted may not be right for corn. Like trying to grow peaches in Nebraska, you'd probably just end up with crappy peaches.

Cheerfulgreek as far as your hurricane analogy regarding the present day intesity vs. the 70s. I think your comparison is both a frequency and severity concern. You're seeing stronger storms (severity) more often (frequency). Do I think that they're happening stronger and more often? Yes. Did we luck out in 2006 due to a weather system that was parked over FL and pushed everything back out to sea? Yes. And I'm very thankful for it. As far as last year I didn't watch the hurricane season as closely so I have no idea why there wasn't much activity.

[AGDee]

There was a good special on HBO a while back where they talked about all the things that they could be using to make ethanol that we just toss away now. They suggested things like: Having an ethanol production facility next to an orange juice production facility and using the orange peels that get tossed and things like that. I don't get why they're pushing corn so much either. It's not the best thing to be making ethanol from, from everything I've read.

There are many reasons to move to alternative fuels whether Global Warming is really happening or not. Wouldn't it be nice to be less dependent on foreign oil? Wouldn't it be nice to breathe cleaner air? Have asthma rates go down? Eliminate ozone action days?

Wind and solar is where I think we should really be focusing our attention.

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by bluefish81

I agree. I think that there has to be a better resource available besides corn-based ethanol, perhaps one that our society isn't so dependent upon for a food resource? The price of corn on a bushel basis has gone up significantly over the past few years, great for farmers selling the corn, not so good for consumer looking to buy a product that uses corn as its base. There's also a lot of farmers that are opting to plant corn instead of what they probably should be planting in their respective areas. So the quality of the product may not be as good because the soil where it's being planted may not be right for corn. Like trying to grow peaches in Nebraska, you'd probably just end up with crappy peaches.

Cheerfulgreek as far as your hurricane analogy regarding the present day intesity vs. the 70s. I think your comparison is both a frequency and severity concern. You're seeing stronger storms (severity) more often (frequency). Do I think that they're happening stronger and more often? Yes. Did we luck out in 2006 due to a weather system that was parked over FL and pushed everything back out to sea? Yes. And I'm very thankful for it. As far as last year I didn't watch the hurricane season as closely so I have no idea why there wasn't much activity.

Local events like this are not the same as global climate change, but they do appear to be apart of a larger trend. Since the 70s, ocean surface temperatures worlwide have risen about +1F. Those numbers have moved in sequence with global air temperatures, which have also risen up a degree. I think the warmest year ever recorded may have been in 2006, followed by 2005, with a few previous years close behind. Does this mean more hurricanes? Perhaps. Maybe not, which is why it's so hard to pin down these trends. Infact the past 10 stormy years in the North Atlantic were preceded by many quiet ones. This all happened the same time global temperatures were rising. I'll explain it this way. Worldwide, there's like an equilibrium. When the number of storms in the North Atlantic increases, there's usually a corresponding fall in the number of storms in other regions, but frequency is not the same as intensity. Also, I think I said earlier in a previous post that there have been two recent studies that demonstrate the difference and prove my point.

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by ISUKappa

I honestly don't think corn-based ethanol is the answer, and I live in the Midwest and have felt the direct benefit of the current ethanol boom. It is a highly inefficient way to create ethanol and the toll it takes on the natural resources (especially the water table) isn't worth it, IMO. We'd be better off focusing on switchgrass or other forms of cellulose.

I never said it was the answer. I just said it was an alternative. Plus we wouldn't be able to survive on corn based ethanol alone, because even if we were to convert the entire U.S. corn crop to fuel, it would only offset about 10% of America's gasoline consumption, which is why I also mentioned hydrogen power as another alternative. This we have PLENTY of.

[RACooper]

Originally Posted by SECdomination

Not that I don't believe you, but as far as the global warming argument goes, all I have to do is look at a list of people who think it's real for me to know it's not.

Yeah... crazy science and environmental people, bunch of no-nothings when it comes to the science and the environment - all hail are glorious politicians!

I could of course say the opposite since interestingly many of those who don't believe in Global Warming/Climate Change believe in Creationism or Intelligent Design - not exactly the hallmarks of rational thought when it comes to science (or reality really).

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by RACooper

Yeah... crazy science and environmental people, bunch of no-nothings when it comes to the science and the environment - all hail are glorious politicians!

I could of course say the opposite since interestingly many of those who don't believe in Global Warming/Climate Change believe in Creationism or Intelligent Design - not exactly the hallmarks of rational thought when it comes to science (or reality really).

I dunno, the idea that extreme complexity comes from nothing isn't a hallmark of "rationality" either.

[UGAalum94]

I think global warming from greenhouse gases and other human behavior is a real possibility or a likely reality.

But I think many of the current events pointed to as evidence of global warming are more likely to be the product of long term climate cycles than they are directly attributable to the human policies and behaviors that are frequently pointed to.

I think we'd be better off doing everything we can to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, partially because of how they may contribute to global warming, but even more because of the effects in making us less dependent on other countries for energy.

I don't think that the US should generally agree to international protocols that put US business and industry at a relative disadvantage.