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.
wait until that happens and how the fingerpointing and blame would be leveled....
Originally posted by PeteUK
Any one any objections?
PS Please try and stay on topic, I used to work for Cummins (nice new Logo guys) I really do not need a lecture on stoichiometric processes.
Originally posted by sardion2000
I disagree with your hinted at assertion that Biofuels will become dominant and are the be and end all solution(please correct me if I'm wrong, of course! ).
However, I do wholeheartedly believe, with a vast amount of evidence to support the claim, that biodiesel (given a chance) will become the dominant source of fuel for the next few decades, until some other method of propulsion for overland passenger and freight transport is perfected.
Originally posted by Nygdan
Clearly, we're not going to be accepting famines in order to have biodiesel fuel.
Originally posted by Nygdan
And its not even going to replace oil in all industries, the most it can be is a replacement for car gasoline, and even then, probably only a part of the replacement.
Originally posted by LazarusTheLong
you can never find it...
Originally posted by LazarusTheLong
and as the OP stated... making vegatable crops for oil is just bad land planning, so you would never want to use new oil...
Originally posted by longbow
Well, if you would make biodiesel from algae for example, it will take almost no land at all. I've read that it would be less than 1% mostly arid US land, unsuitable for normal agriculture for whole US consumption.
what was this site's motto again?
Originally posted by sardion2000
Deny Ignorance, which your post displays absolutely none because you obviously ignored just about every post in this thread.
Didn't you hear all the stuff about using the fertilizer runoff to grow algae to produce additional biofuel?
It's all location location location.
in every single instance, so far, the greenies failed to consider scale. biomatter is just as limited as any other resource, perhaps even more so.
location. that's nice to hear, unfortunately reality doesn't seem to mirror this kind of understanding, or things like wind turbines wouldn't be used as electric generators (you need full backup capacities, wind is unreliable) and wouldn't have to be subsidized.
electric wind power needs a wide area grid, offers low power density AND is location sensititve. does it get worse? yeah, it's ugly and kills birds. don't know if you consider it a 'green tech' or industry's trojan horse, though.
your village is all nice and dandy, but let me ask you one simple question: is green policy directed towards such projects? would be be having a conversation on biodiesel?
Originally posted by sardion2000
That's why you move it 200 miles offshore You don't see it and it's not in the path of ANY birds.
Originally posted by thelibra
Anyone notice how most of the detractors in this thread seem to have some derivation of the word "Long" in their username? I can't help but wonder if there's either one person using multiple aliases to make their arguement look stronger, or if there's just something about the psychology of one who uses "long" in their username... anyway...
Sardion2000 thankfully continued the point I was trying to make: There's no magic bullet to end all conservation problems.