It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

7.9 BILLION TONS of Fossil Fuels Released in 2005

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by DYepes

Noone is claiming ethanol is the miracle fuel. However, it is most definetly much less hazardous to our environment. It also produces alot more jobs at home. There will be no shortage of corn, your source is just some economist whos bottom line is money and nothing but! I will gladly pay more in tax, because the big farming corporations who will be producing that corn are heavily subsidized by the government. Thats just part of our social responsibility. Taking care of the Earth we live on by takings steps up the hill to less pollution.

A slightly higher price is very little to pay compared to what decades more of the whole of Earth continueing to destroy itself. What will you be willing to pay when 5 billion people have thrown so much carcinogenous, and higher volume of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere (of the burning of fossile fuels as a result of globalization and more people having access to more luxuries) that breathing filtration equipment is required by most?


But what will you say when more and more acres of Wheat, Soy, Rice, Rye, Alfalfa, and Barley land get turned over to corn? And they plant corn year after year?

If not you, someone else will decry the over farming and nutrient degradadation of the soil. And if the farmers apply their own nutrients or hire chemist and biologists to genetically modify their corn, others will sound the alarm for that practice.

See the problem? The environemental purists will always have a gripe with someone unless we go back to hunting and gathering. No...wait...hunting is bad also.... so I hear.




posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 12:13 AM
link   
dbs, if you read my follow-up post you will see that the preferred method of creating ethanol will not have to depend soley on corn, or any edible plant matter for the fact. That method is now bien gfunded heavily, and is making the process cheaper and cheaper everyday. Anything from grass, hay, yard clippings, fast growing trees, hell even drug plants and tobacco! I storngly advise you read the follow-up reply I posted going over it, it is quite informative, and may even lift your spirits.



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 12:27 AM
link   
Ethanol is not any "miracle fuel," far from it actually.

Go to here: www.carbibles.com... and scroll down to the section that says in big letters, "E85 Ethanol - The Magic Bullet?" You'll find ethanol is, for the most part, B.S.



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 02:48 PM
link   
Again noone here EVER stated it was a miracle fuel. EVER. Find me anywhere where that was stated.

First, there isn't enough farmland to grow enough corn to produce enough ethanol to meet gasoline demands, and it wouldn't be a good use of it even if there was. Second, there's a huge hidden cost in water - it takes 10 tons of water to process 1 ton of grain for ethanol


Are you just reading one post and skipping over the rest? The cellulosic process of producing the ethnaol not only produces much cleaner burning ethanol, the process to make it is also cleaner. And by far the biggest advantage is the fact that you do not need any kind of edible crop to produce it. Any kind f plant (obviously some more-so than others) may be utilized.

Cellulose is present in every plant: straw, grass, wood. Most of these "bio-mass" products are currently discarded. Transforming them into ethanol might provide as much as 30% of the current fuel consumption in the US—and probably similar figures in other oil-importing regions like China or Europe. Moreover, even land marginal for agriculture could be planted with cellulose producing crops like switchgrass, resulting in enough production to substitute for all the current oil imports.

Switchgrass is one source likely to be tapped for ethanol production because of its potential for high fuel yields, hardiness, and ability to be grown in diverse areas. Trials show current average yields to be about five dry tons per acre; however, crop experts say that progressively applied breeding techniques could more than double that yield.
Switchgrass’ long root system – actually a fifty-fifty split above ground and below – helps keep carbon in the ground, improving soil quality. It is drought-tolerant, grows well even on marginal land, and doesn’t require heavy fertilizing. Other varieties including big blue stem and Indian grass are also possible cellulose sources for ethanol production.



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 11:24 PM
link   
All the hippy bs aside, oil is cheaper than ethanol. Reducing emissions by .02% is the last thing on any car buyers mind...anyone who knows what car buying is about. Lean burning engines are the way of the future.



posted on Dec, 5 2006 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by DYepes


figured someone would mention hydrogen. The only reason hydrogen may stand a chance is because big oil would be involved but they are not going to want to deal with the hazzardous waste nor will anybody else.

There is no hazardous waste from utilizing hydrogen. The only byproduct is water.

And what are you going to do with the water??? Dump it on the ground I don't think so. So you store it and then what?? Not to mention it's now 22 F here. What do you do with the water??? Can't dump it on the frozen roads. Can't store it in a frozen car??

mikell



posted on Dec, 6 2006 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
I don't think someone on a computer should tell others not to use energy.. seems problematic to me, not to mention contradictory.


I'll step right up to the plate and do it.

For one your computer uses next to no energy in comparison to the car you drive or the HVAC system that heats and cools the average suburbanites home.

My computer is one of two things in my home that run on electric... the other is a 13w light bulb. I have one 20 amp circuit. (in june/july/august we add a box fan)

At work I do use power tools and I do share a refrigerator with a neighbor (at their house) for my family's milk, cheese, and juice.

HOWEVER...

I heat my home with an efficient woodstove
I cool my home with open windows

I generate 12v for lighting and music with a battery bank and a homemade 55 gallon drum savonius wind turbine.

I heat my water with homemade passive solar on the roof and thermosiphon off the woodstove in the winter.

My wife cooks our food on a two burner paint can hobo stove that burns mulch

My family has used less than 50 gallons of diesel this year and 20% was biodiesel

I take cold water showers when I am in a home where I know the water is heated with electricity.

I plant trees; mostly oaks on vacant city lots.

I do not eat food grown with chemical fertilizer because it IS crude oil.

You are what your food eats.

I ain't Amish, I use a computer.
However, my power bill was 28 dollars last month; 20 of which for the connection.

I feel no shame or hypocracy standing here on this digitized platform and asserting:

I am 27 years old, live in downtown America, and operate a computer, there is no excuse; my fellow westerners (sans the Amish) should use less energy.

I am,

Sri Oracle



posted on Dec, 6 2006 @ 12:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruthAs long as people can just "flip a switch" they are going to do it.


That said... isn't there something sinister about City Building Code in the average American city requiring a light switch and a ceiling light in every room for new construction or rewire.

O



posted on Dec, 6 2006 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sri Oracle

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruthAs long as people can just "flip a switch" they are going to do it.


That said... isn't there something sinister about City Building Code in the average American city requiring a light switch and a ceiling light in every room for new construction or rewire.

O


Replace the word "sinister" with the word "civilized" and your interrogative would make sense.



posted on Dec, 6 2006 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sri Oracle
That said... isn't there something sinister about City Building Code in the average American city requiring a light switch and a ceiling light in every room for new construction or rewire.

O


Well,I certainly think that it implies that the powers that be have no intention to change what is going on. All of this talk that many politicians do about converting to alternative sources of power is just that,talk. Talk is cheap. Until someone shows me that they are actually implementing change, I will stick to my assumption that the powers that be are not looking out for neither the welfare of humanity or earth.



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 11:13 PM
link   
Man is noone reading anything I source at all? There are many changes happening already. And how does having a light-switch make anything sinister?

And Mikell, I merely addressed the issue of claiming that the by-product of hydrogen is a hazardous waste. How to store and or dump it is another story. My best guess would be that there would simply be a second tank to where the water becomes stored. I don't know if that means extra weight, but the hydrogen dissapears when it becomes water, and there would not be two full tanks anyways. Thats my best guess so far. Get home and just pull the drain. You could water your lawn with the by-product of your fuel



posted on Dec, 9 2006 @ 07:28 AM
link   

You have voted DYepes for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month.
You have voted Sri Oracle for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have used all of your votes for this month.

TWO - not just enviromental mindeded but - enviromental active people on a thread like this ...not bad at all.


darkbluesky
But what will you say when more and more acres of Wheat, Soy, Rice, Rye, Alfalfa, and Barley land get turned over to corn? And they plant corn year after year?

If not you, someone else will decry the over farming and nutrient degradadation of the soil. And if the farmers apply their own nutrients or hire chemist and biologists to genetically modify their corn, others will sound the alarm for that practice.

I've read through the thread and wondered nobody came up with the loss of energy (kcal), in the transformation of a foodsource into ethanol.

We hear it takes 10 tonnes of water to produce 1 ton of ethanol. But how many kcal is to be given up for human consumption, in use for growing fuel crops on land that else would be allocated to food systems.
How much energy output from ethanol compared to if it was used for human consumption? The answer is about one tenth.

You know a 'probleme nouvel' very little spoken about, but coming up fast is food shortage.

You don't see it in the headlines, don't cause disturbance by sheding light, for the fact not spoken, is grave ...very grave indeed...

The world's food stocks have shrunk by half since 1999, from a reserve big enough to feed the entire world for 116 days then to a predicted low of only 57 days by the end of this year.
---
The miracle that has fed us for a whole generation now was the Green Revolution: higher-yielding crops that enabled us to almost triple world food production between 1950 and 1990 while increasing the area of farmland by no more than ten percent.
...
Since the beginning of the 1990s, crop yields have essentially stopped rising.
www.energybulletin.net...

Under such circumstancies I would like to question the sanity in transforming food objects into gas for cars.



www.copvcia.com...
Human beings (like all other animals) draw their energy from the food they eat. Until the last century, all of the food energy available on this planet was derived from the sun through photosynthesis. Either you ate plants or you ate animals that fed on plants, but the energy in your food was ultimately derived from the sun.

It would have been absurd to think that we would one day run out of sunshine. No, sunshine was an abundant, renewable resource, and the process of photosynthesis fed all life on this planet. It also set a limit on the amount of food that could be generated at any one time, and therefore placed a limit upon population growth.
... There was no other way to increase the amount of energy available for food production. Human population grew by displacing everything else and appropriating more and more of the available solar energy.

Just to set what it is about. Solar energy. Comes direct or transformed, can be collected and stored, it comes as rays, or as nutrition in food grown by them, and as carbonates easy transported or stored.
What you really are using up driving your SUV are the sunshine of some xxx million years ago.

You don't have to study it very deep to see the converging lines sooner or later will crash,
...don't even have to restore to propeganda monger issues, a la 'the 2% use 40%'. Because this is obvious, the car owner will pay more for the corn than the starving destitute.

The solution to the population problem, turn food into gas. Geezz.. it'll work wonders.

And we can cruise for another decade or two.

The formula for sustainability is simpel.
The energy consumption by human operations much not exceed the output produced by his activities. It's more than half a century ago we passed the line of balance and with increasing acceleration now are approaching a triple quota consumed of what is sustained.
We're eating up at a rate never seen before the resources stored over 100s of million years.

The renewable output administered is driven by photosynthesis (and enhanced by oil>>fertilizers, pesticides, processing).


At present, nearly 40% of all land-based photosynthetic capability has been appropriated by human beings. In the United States we divert more than half of the energy captured by photosynthesis. We have taken over all the prime real estate on this planet. The rest of nature is forced to make due with what is left. Plainly, this is one of the major factors in species extinctions and in ecosystem stress.

In the 1950s and 1960s, agriculture underwent a drastic transformation commonly referred to as the Green Revolution. The Green Revolution resulted in the industrialization of agriculture. Part of the advance resulted from new hybrid food plants, leading to more productive food crops. Between 1950 and 1984, as the Green Revolution transformed agriculture around the globe, world grain production increased by 250%.
---
The U.S. food system consumes ten times more energy than it produces in food energy. This disparity is made possible by nonrenewable fossil fuel stocks.

www.copvcia.com...

I think when you start to make priorities like a tankfull for the SUV, to a year worth of nourishment for one person, some things are basically wrong.

Anyway, walking is about ten times more energy efficient than driving on ethanol from corn. Not saying eating the same corn would bring you ten times further. It might, but it would take a little longer.

And you know, somewhere among the 7.9 billion tons of released carbon compounds, the 9-folded energy used in the production of the biofuel for your SUV, will be circulating as CO2.

But at least YOU didn't pollute YOUR local neighbourhood.


Biodiesel is the most destructive of all biofuels. Hydrogen , no matter how it is produced, will only accelerate ecological decline because it will allow the industrial economy to accelerate its destruction of forests and fields through suburban sprawl and commercial development. Hydrogen supports the myth of infinite growth. President Bush supports hydrogen. Think about it.
conev.org...



posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by DYepes
Do any of yall have any idea whether your power company offers the same little program that I posted? a 100 kilowatt bloc of renewable energy dispensed into the grid for 5$ extra a month offsets enough pollution as planting a third an acre of trees, or taking the car of the road for three months.


Why should the customer pay any extra for already overly expensive energy? Do you realise how much of your gas cost is just pure old federal and state taxes? Why do they keep trying to limit our freedom of movement and progress by not spending every and all subsidies on energy and instead focus their subsidy effort on something like farming which depresses food prices all over the world forcing tens of millions of subsistence farmers off their farms and into third world city slums?


If a hundrd thousand people did that in a city, well thats alot of pollution staved off every month
I would say its definetly worth 5$ a month extra, might even go down if enough people get involved.


Where is the guarantee that the money will be used in that way? Who will enforce this?


I thin yall should consider looking into it and see if your power company also offers that service. I figure TECO cannot possibly be the only one out of hundreds of municipilaties across the nation.


I am sorry to be blunt but this does not seem to he a honest effort. Why on Earth should the consumer pay for what they already told their government to enforce in the energy industry? What the hell does our taxes do and why is it not being spent as we clearly want it to be spent?

Stellar



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 06:45 AM
link   
We may have a;ready told our government to enforce such policies, but they have not yet enforced them. Now the few businesses out there are trying to take an initiative which costs them money, and offer us, particularly me and the market im in the opportunity to directly make a positive impact at the mere low cost of 5$ per block. I would rather pay $5 now and immediatley make a small difference, than sit back and continue to complain while doing nothing at all. But that is just me.

The reneweable energy sources they tap into and spread throughout the grid are not owned by TECO, so they have to purchase it themselves. This energy typically costs more due to the relativley new technology involved and therefore why it costs me, which I am more than happy to pay. Wow so I eat one less fast-food meal a month. That is going to kill me and make me broke too I am sure.



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by DYepes
We may have a;ready told our government to enforce such policies, but they have not yet enforced them.


So lets force them? Why are we not forcing them?


Now the few businesses out there are trying to take an initiative which costs them money, and offer us, particularly me and the market im in the opportunity to directly make a positive impact at the mere low cost of 5$ per block.


And why do you believe them? I am just interested why you think this thing is on the level as i do not understand why they would then do it in five dollar blocks?


I would rather pay $5 now and immediatley make a small difference, than sit back and continue to complain while doing nothing at all. But that is just me.


Well why sit back and complain while you can get actively involved in some way or another? Personally i think this is a non issue compared to all the other problems humanity faces but that's me...


The reneweable energy sources they tap into and spread throughout the grid are not owned by TECO, so they have to purchase it themselves.


And what kind of profit do they make after selling it to you?


This energy typically costs more due to the relativley new technology involved and therefore why it costs me, which I am more than happy to pay. Wow so I eat one less fast-food meal a month. That is going to kill me and make me broke too I am sure.


I am in complete agreement that this wont hurt you at all and that's part of what bothers me. Why should you just want to ' do your part' instead of convincing people in your local community to do theirs which would be so much harder and effective if you succeed? This sounds like a 'feel good' for profit scheme to me and i just want to warn good and active activist against spending their resources and time on something like this.

That's just what my experience on these matters tells me but hopefully i am wrong and you found nothing to suggest what i have proposed?

Stellar



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 08:41 PM
link   
What do you suggest Stellar? I do what I can and have done what I can at my level as a private citizen. I do not own a mega-corporation and am not a politician. Short of us all becoming either one of those, how do we force anything? I do what I can with the current resources available to me.

I cannot afford to do anything meaningful except recycle, use less energy, and offset my contribution to air pollution with this program. What are you proposeing? What kind of initiatives must we take? What is your solution?



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 05:34 AM
link   
Pardon me gentlemen, but do I get it right when I from what I here read assume you'll rather burn food in your vehicles than traditionel fossil fuels, just to make your local micro-climate a little less CO2 burdened?

Well, I don't know, when the rest of the Amazonas is cleared -burned- to grow biofuel crops, whether it will affect your local air-quality. My guess is it very well could. Nothing gained then. Definately it will add carbon to the atmosphere that most likely exceed what is saved by these coldhearted biofuels.

Yes, I have to use a emotionally ladden word to get the message through, YOU DON'T BURN FOODS, you eat them.


The trick about biofuels is not that people has become so emotional numb that they without objections accept such a desecration, but the fiddle is to have grain products obtain manyfold higher prices - and it will go for the part that will be for food consumption as well.

It probably will be hard on your budget, but hopfully you won't starve, like most of the world will end up doing when vege products suddenly will be demanded for combustion.

That's the good old mechanism of the market, they say - some even it make the world go 'round.

Maybe it does, cause factual speaking to get a balance between population and food available, a serious reduction of human beings is needed to get a balance to the food grown - which cannot be streatched further (see links in my previous post).

So, go ahead, jump the biofuel wagon if you wanna give a helping hand in the long planned controled die-off of this planet.

But don't be hypocrites.



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 06:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth

ENN FULL STORY
2005 Another Record Year for Global Carbon Emissions

November 22, 2006 — By Earth Policy Institute
WASHINGTON, D.C. — "In 2005, carbon emissions from the burning of fossil fuels climbed to a record high of 7.9 billion tons, an increase of some 3 percent from the previous year. Annual global emissions have been increasing since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in the late eighteenth century, when humans first began burning fossil fuels on a large scale to produce energy. Since the early 1900s, emissions have been rising at an increasingly rapid pace. Annual emissions have grown by a factor of fifteen since 1900, advancing nearly 3 percent a year over that time," says Joseph Florence of the Earth Policy Institute.


This Has To Stop!!

This is beyond ridiculous. We continue to throw these toxic fumes into the atmosphere when it is not even necessary. Global Warming aside, the fact that we are not contributing anything beneficial to the ecosystm cannot be denied.

We are a cancer upon mother earth.


OH REALLY? can you tell me how you get to work? do you ride a bike? i think ive made my point.



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 06:45 PM
link   
khunmoon, like everyone else, you have disregarded or simply chose to ignore the postings and references I made to the cellulosic method of producing ethanol. Non food plants, as well as fast growing trees can and will be grown on even marginal land. Like the kind of land that is not suitable for growing food crops? Not to mention the tons of yard waste, and tree clippings that comes from residential landscaping. No, I am not saying that our fuel needs will now be solved by landscaping waste. I am only mentioning one of the many many non-food options for the cellulosic ethanol production. Not to mention the process uses less energy and puts out less pollution, and reduces the emmissions compared to regular ethanol production and consumption.



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 09:18 PM
link   
Sorry Dyepes, I have neither ignored anything or commented everything - I have merely pointed out that the strongest force to determine the fate of any new method on which money can be made is THE MARKET. And it only has one law, the one of demand of supply, which cannot be regulated without severe ideological consequences.

When the demand for land to grow energy is increasing, the economic incitement to use it as such will prevail. No force on earth except communism can prevent it. You think the farmer will grow foodcrops if he can make an extra buck growing fuelcrops? Only government regulations could prevent it, but then we are in the very ideological conflict that is the sacred of anything sacred on which America operates.

To use the wasteland is a very sound and ecological thought, but again do you think Monsanto and her sisters would approve that without "offering" their chemical solutions?

Why don't they grow much, if any food in Iowa any more? The finest topsoil in the US. Because it pays to jump the biofuel wagon - also politically.

If you want biofuel, you must ask for regulations first, and who can regulate a free market, let alone corporations?

Personally I really would like to see a "green revolution" like that, but I'm afraid a political will be needed first.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join