Biofuel =

1. Forrests being cut
2. Less forrest means more global warming?
3. More gobal warming means....wtf are they talking (brainwashing) about on the news (America's V8's included)?
4. Another trick to steal more money out of our pockets when it comes to food?
5. When does WW3 start.
6. Are people from University really that intelligent?
7. etc...people are no smarter than animals. In fact...animals live more healthy when it comes to non processed food.

never saw it that way Sypher, very interesting. Global Warming is one of those shady areas where I don't really know what to think.

WW3?
I've been talking about that for some time. I predicted about the time Bush leaves office. I'd say 6 months to a year after he leaves office.

Professor Kuntz Jakuf is a pretty damn smart guy!

Dont worry, just go rumage through UTube and some fukctard conspiracy theorist will tell you how to think

And so is Professor Noam Chomsky. In fact, you might see WW3 begin during the McCain or Clinton Administration (as these imperialists will likely win over the heart of the military-industrial-complex) over global resources.

Noam Chomsky is a deer sweet, sweet person.


I couldn't watch what you posted in the other thread.
I don't know you, but I have something to say to you. If you have something to say, say it nicely. Because even if what you have to say is true, you will shut yourself out by being offensive. Does it matter what someone calls you? I think not. It doesn't change who you are, but if you keep your composure, you will improve yourself. This is something I, myself, work on everyday.

Take care.

Thank You so so so much for the fatherly advice. I have learned alot today, and have become more modest for it. Its just not easy being placed on the burning seat and ridiculed, but I will pay it no mind from now on. I will be less pompous and discard the word ignorance. Good to see you are familiar with Noam Chomsky.

Biofuels?
Two types I know of.
One is vegetable oils with the fat molecules removed and used to replace diesel oil. The benefit; used vegetable oils from restaurants, etc. can be recycled into biofuel. The con; there isn't enough used vegetable oil to meet demand. Also it takes energy to remove the fatty acids from the vegetable oils. And biodiesel has less BTU per pound than petroleum diesel.
The second type is ethanol. Ethanol requires a great deal of energy to produce. Thus it's production nullifies any atmosheric polution reduction.
Also ethanol has a lot fewer BTU's per pound than gasoline. Ethanol based fuels used for autombile engines has one bonus. Ethanol fuel produce less NOX and hydrocarbon emission.

Biofuels are more expensive to produce.
Are biofuels better for the environment: No
The benefit of biofuel: It is derived from a renewable resource.

we need a new propulsion system

So speaketh the word of ingnorance itself. Fukctard.

Can't these idiotic green jerks realise that the internal combustion engine has reached the end of it's lifespan? Replace it with a 3-phase induction motor, replace the fuel tank with a set of fuel cells, and bingo! Google the 'Tesla Roadster', and you'll see an example.

As for charging these things, toss out the coal-fired plants, toss out the hydroelectric dams, and run nuclear power plants.

A nuclear plant has less harmful emissions than a coal/oil plant, less impact on natural ecosystems than a dam, and produces far more electricity than either.

And don't give me that nuclear radiation emitting out of these plants, the high background radiation we have now in comparison to, say, 1935, is due to all of these nuclear bomb tests that numerous high-profile nations have been setting off to test. Nuclear power plants are very safe, compared to a government.

Discuss.

1. They do not use wood! I hope you would be aware that a young tree processes far more CO2 than an old one. Sustainable forestry is actually a very good carbon trap. The last time I had a look at the production issues there had been some big improvements on the ethanol front using a new bio conversion process on a native North American grass over many of the traditional crops used for conversion. As for the bio diesel I do know someone that runs a % of their fuel as straight vegetable oil with no processing other than filtration. Not recommended but it works.

2. Correct. Deforestation is a problem. Much deforestation is as a result of land clearing for food production or for mining operations. Think of the forests as acting as a CO2 trap, they do not remove it but convert it. Quite a bit of work was done in Holland growing Willow trees in the cooling ponds for power stations. Being local to the CO2 production they trap much of gas. The young trees were then harvested and burnt in the power station. It's not carbon neutral by any stretch but the results were interesting and I'd recommend you have a look.

3. Global warming is a dubious phrase. Climate change is far more accurate IMHO. To my eye the issues break down as:

3a. Reduction in oil reserves = people fighting for control of what is left.
3b. Movement of weather systems results in lower food production and need to change types of crop grown.
3c. Smaller reserves = shift to bio fuel which increases land use requirements and reduces food production
3d. Ever increasing global population increases demand for all goods and services which are already affected by the above.

4. Actually an overdue adjustment to what has long been a subsidised market. Historically we have lived on far less food than we do now. Waste is huge problem, how much food gets thrown away on a daily basis?

5. There will not be a WW3. There will however be a massive shift in the balance of power. I'll avoid dragging this one down into conspiracy land but have a look at some of the big money men that already have massive control over the global picture.

6. I went to Uni so I'll take that one as a no. Seriously though they tend to have a little more about them than average but I've found plenty of none degree educated folks that would leave them standing in terms of understanding.

7.If their dumb enough to let us exploit them then they are not that smart.

Other issues that I see affecting food production are those evil Monsanto fockers. They are already selling grain types that do not produce seed, forcing farmers to continually buy new seed stock from them rather than setting aside and growing on next season. If those manage to cross bread with native strains then we really are going to be focked. Interesting that we now have a global seed bank in place in Norway to preserve pure genetics in seed strains.

Mugs makes a valid comment on moving to Nuclear production. If you had asked me 10 years ago I would have said it was a bad idea but where we are at the moment it's making a lot more sense. The big issue is the nasty waste. It may be small but fock is it nasty. We also have the whole fuel conversion to weapons grade material issue to contend with. I was reading about plans to make what were effectively sealed reactor units that could be used by developing nations which could negate part of the second issue but the spent reactors are still a disposal issue.

Ultimately we are focked, human nature and greed will eventually destroy us.

no, i think we need a fresh approach to fuel sources, not bio-fuel. I think we won't see anything till the oil starts to run out and those that would obstruct progress out of greed will be forced to develop new ways of making money, hell it wouldn't surprise me if people with investments in oil are the ones doing the most research to cover there arse's.

what we need to do in the mean time is conserve what we have, not the most popular of idea's but i think the government should do more to force people into other modes of transport and i do not mean by taxation, gun point would be a better start, too many people could bus and walk or cycle to their work, it is really only those who live in rural or semi rural places that would need a car and even then a better public transport infrastructure would be needed.

Of course the obvious answer is to give everyone a cyanide tablet and be done with us all.

I agree Audiovoodoo, they do not use wood but instead they would cut them down to make more room for farm grounds. That's the main issue. They need more space for being able to provide enough biofuel for all the vehicles in the world to drive on. Talking about biofuel.....what would happen if yellowstone park explodes and the plants stop growing by lag of sunlight while earth is allready overpopulated as we brainless sheep can't think of birthcontrol. Millions of people will die of starvation worldwide while America will be inhaling those dangerous dust particles that would also kill most of them. Vehicles will stop running as biofuels can't be produced anymore. Everything will come to a hold. It's only the question when will this supervulcano errupt. It's breathing (ground goes up and down).
And yes, humanity is some failing Virus living on a spinning electron or neutron destroying itself.

I agree with Mugs about Nuclear Powerplants and the energy they deliver.
Hopefully space is nice enough not to trow any large chunks of rock at them.
Also I hope they are not planning on building one in San Fransisco. That would be a ticking timebomb if mother earth needs a huge superquake. Sure they have methods to create anti quake buildings nowadays but superquakes are another level. They bring great risk.

A solution for Nuclear waste?

A plan by the nuclear industry to build a £1bn fuel processing plant at Sellafield is being backed by the government's chief scientist. The plant would turn the UK's 60,000 tonnes of high-level nuclear waste into reactor fuel that will provide 60 per cent of this country's electricity until 2060, it is claimed.

Check it out:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/ [...] matechange

Well, I like the idea of Hydrogen fuel cells. In normal petro chemical plants (CTL - Coal to liquids or GTL - Gas to liquids) you have quite alot of hydrogen from the first phase up until the last phase (refining), and with todays plants you get hydrogen as part of the extraction process - not a hard designed requirement. So tapping hydrogen off these lines isn't hard at all - and it's darn pure, 99%.

Here where I work, the internal vehicles (taxi's) run off CMG, compressed methane rich gas and they go quite the distance. They even work with dual fuel sorce - petrol and CMG.

Even though its not extremely viable right now, the path will follow.

Please note I'm on the topic of gas and coal fuel - oil is dead in my view and coal is the second last to gas - depending on what runs out first.

I have the perfect solution and its very simple. Remove the alternator from cars.

You have to pedal to charge your battery. People will lose weight and the obese epidemic will go away. Next, people will drive less because they're lazy bastards, thus saving gasoline costs dramatically.

While we still might be dependent on oil, not as much since no one will be driving as much.

LMAO Great plan!

Sometimes we need to take a step back to take two steps forward.

I don't believe in regulating the automobile industry. I believe you should be able to purchase anything you want.. and you also have to pay for your gasoline.

I firmly believe that if you want to b*tch about gas prices, you better not have any luxuries like Cable/Satellite TV, a 42" plasma TV, a V6 or large of an engine, or even a cell phone.

We value our luxuries more than we value our needs. This is wrong on every level.