Jump to content

Scientists find bugs that eat waste and excrete petrol


magekillr

Recommended Posts

Oy: Once again, they can drill in an environmentally safe way. The area they would drill on is the size of a business card on a basketball court.

 

 

 

Well for one thing, if Al Gore were President we wouldn't be in 9 trillion in debt from the war, and 4,000 people wouldn't be dead. :roll:

 

 

 

Really? The war cost 9 trillion dollars? The debt was like 6 trillion before he took office. But still he should have vetoed a few more things. Al Gore would have spent way more than that even if he didn't go to war which he might have and we probably would have had another terrorist attack.

My carbon footprint is bigger than yours...and you know what they say about big feet.

 

These are the times that try mens souls...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 96
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

 

Well for one thing, if Al Gore were President we wouldn't be in 9 trillion in debt from the war, and 4,000 people wouldn't be dead. :roll:

 

 

 

Really? The war cost 9 trillion dollars? The debt was like 6 trillion before he took office. But still he should have vetoed a few more things. Al Gore would have spent way more than that even if he didn't go to war which he might have and we probably would have had another terrorist attack.

 

 

 

Nope. I never said the war cost 9 trillion, I just said we wouldn't be 9 trillion in debt. Don't try and twist my words into saying something I did not. Oh, and don't let that number continue to creep up to 6, it was 5.6-5.7.

 

 

 

Well we have terrorist attacks on a regular basis over there with suicide bombers, and England had a terrorist attack after our occupation. Please, it's not helping our safety.

 

 

 

Back on topic now :-w

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Well for one thing, if Al Gore were President we wouldn't be in 9 trillion in debt from the war, and 4,000 people wouldn't be dead. :roll:

 

 

 

Really? The war cost 9 trillion dollars? The debt was like 6 trillion before he took office. But still he should have vetoed a few more things. Al Gore would have spent way more than that even if he didn't go to war which he might have and we probably would have had another terrorist attack.

 

 

 

Nope. I never said the war cost 9 trillion, I just said we wouldn't be 9 trillion in debt. Don't try and twist my words into saying something I did not. Oh, and don't let that number continue to creep up to 6, it was 5.6-5.7.

 

 

 

Well we have terrorist attacks on a regular basis over there with suicide bombers, and England had a terrorist attack after our occupation. Please, it's not helping our safety.

 

 

 

Back on topic now :-w

 

 

 

We wouldn't be in debt for 9 trillion from the war

 

 

 

eh?

;>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well for one thing, if Al Gore were President we wouldn't be in 9 trillion in debt from the war, and 4,000 people wouldn't be dead. :roll:

 

 

 

Might as well add in the 1,000,000 innocent Iraqi civilians killed in crossfire, bombing raids or just indiscriminately killed by American / British soldiers.

 

 

 

The real matter is though, how much would Al Gore spend tracking down Manbearpig? :ugeek:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^ Really? 1 million? I thought it was 100000000000000 million billion. Cause you know U.S. death squads just roam the streets going door to door killing women and children.

 

 

 

And you know what I take that back. If Al Gore didn't have anything to gain from promoting climate alarmism he probably wouldn't care about it.

My carbon footprint is bigger than yours...and you know what they say about big feet.

 

These are the times that try mens souls...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was really expecting to click on a "news link" here and hear "we're no strangers to looooveee... you know the rules and so d-".

 

 

 

But yeah, even though this sounds like a magical solution to all our problems, it really isn't. If hydrogen engines are developed soon enough, we'll be in the clear. We don't need new ways to find oil. We need to get off our huge dependency on it. God... if this works, we'll be lose 20 years on alternative fuel development, and we'll have about a teaspoon of the ozone layer left. Sigh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was really expecting to click on a "news link" here and hear "we're no strangers to looooveee... you know the rules and so d-".

 

 

 

But yeah, even though this sounds like a magical solution to all our problems, it really isn't. If hydrogen engines are developed soon enough, we'll be in the clear. We don't need new ways to find oil. We need to get off our huge dependency on it. God... if this works, we'll be lose 20 years on alternative fuel development, and we'll have about a teaspoon of the ozone layer left. Sigh.

 

Exactly. People have got to start realising that even if there are plenty of methods to get oil from waste, the world doesn't need any more oil even if people still seem to crave it.

 

Hydrogen is the better fuel in every way.

~ W ~

 

sigzi.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ANWR: Two Cents a Gallon in a Generation

 

 

 

Menzie Chinn (1) documents the latest pandering from McBush on energy policy and then turns to a recent economic analysis from the Energy Information Administration (2):

 

 

 

//The opening of the ANWR 1002 Area to oil and natural gas development is projected to increase domestic crude oil production starting in 2018. In the mean ANWR oil resource case, additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR reaches 780,000 barrels per day in 2027 and then declines to 710,000 barrels per day in 2030 ... Crude oil imports are projected to decline by about one barrel for every barrel of ANWR oil production ... Additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR would be only a small portion of total world oil production, and would likely be offset in part by somewhat lower production outside the United States. The opening of ANWR is projected to have its largest oil price reduction impacts as follows: a reduction in low-sulfur, light crude oil prices of $0.41 per barrel (2006 dollars) in 2026 for the low oil resource case, $0.75 per barrel in 2025 for the mean oil resource case, and $1.44 per barrel in 2027 for the high oil resource case, relative to the reference case.//

 

 

 

The median case suggests the effect on gasoline prices in 2025 will be a mere $0.02 a gallon. The immediate effect will be zero as well have to wait a decade to see any oil from ANWR. If this is Bushs and McCains answer to todays high gasoline prices, it is no answer at all. Menzie closes with this observation:

 

 

 

//Fortunately, a holiday for the gasoline tax, which works in the wrong direction for reducing energy dependence, has dropped off the table. One has to be thankful for small blessings.//

 

 

 

 

Can we stop talking about opening it up now?

 

 

 

Onto Hydrogen: are you people nuts? Why would we use something as inefficient as hydrogen? hydrogen is always bonded to something, and breaking those bonds requires an enormous amount of energy.

 

 

 

So until you suggest where to get hydrogen, we're stuck.

 

 

 

I say we go to Nuclear and pure electric cars until solar and hydro and other areas are better. France has the right idea...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ANWR: Two Cents a Gallon in a Generation

 

 

 

Menzie Chinn (1) documents the latest pandering from McBush on energy policy and then turns to a recent economic analysis from the Energy Information Administration (2):

 

 

 

//The opening of the ANWR 1002 Area to oil and natural gas development is projected to increase domestic crude oil production starting in 2018. In the mean ANWR oil resource case, additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR reaches 780,000 barrels per day in 2027 and then declines to 710,000 barrels per day in 2030 ... Crude oil imports are projected to decline by about one barrel for every barrel of ANWR oil production ... Additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR would be only a small portion of total world oil production, and would likely be offset in part by somewhat lower production outside the United States. The opening of ANWR is projected to have its largest oil price reduction impacts as follows: a reduction in low-sulfur, light crude oil prices of $0.41 per barrel (2006 dollars) in 2026 for the low oil resource case, $0.75 per barrel in 2025 for the mean oil resource case, and $1.44 per barrel in 2027 for the high oil resource case, relative to the reference case.//

 

 

 

The median case suggests the effect on gasoline prices in 2025 will be a mere $0.02 a gallon. The immediate effect will be zero as well have to wait a decade to see any oil from ANWR. If this is Bushs and McCains answer to todays high gasoline prices, it is no answer at all. Menzie closes with this observation:

 

 

 

//Fortunately, a holiday for the gasoline tax, which works in the wrong direction for reducing energy dependence, has dropped off the table. One has to be thankful for small blessings.//

 

 

 

 

Can we stop talking about opening it up now?

 

 

 

Onto Hydrogen: are you people nuts? Why would we use something as inefficient as hydrogen? hydrogen is always bonded to something, and breaking those bonds requires an enormous amount of energy.

 

 

 

So until you suggest where to get hydrogen, we're stuck.

 

 

 

I say we go to Nuclear and pure electric cars until solar and hydro and other areas are better. France has the right idea...

 

 

 

I wonder if it would take more electricity to run an electric car 100km or to produce enough hydrogen and oxygen gas (through electrolysis) to run a hydrogen fueled care 100km?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oy: Once again, they can drill in an environmentally safe way. The area they would drill on is the size of a business card on a basketball court.

 

 

 

Yeah, I said I knew it was a small area, but I also know that industrial pollution stretches a lot further than just the area they're digging oil in. Read everything I said to know what I mean here. Also, you didn't answer my question about whether you care more about the price of oil or the change of our climat. Personally I use as little energy as possible, I don't drive a car although I can, I do not turn up the heat whenever I feel a little cold etc. I also believe that there are other, more important people, that are concerned about the climate at least as much as I am. Al Gore is one of them, and I don't think he's spent years of research, investigation and asking many a specialist's opinion about the matter just for the sake of getting better from it. I truly think he cares for the continuity of this world, just as millions and millions of others do.

Bill Hicks[/url]":dhj2kan9]Since the one thing we can say about fundamental matter is, that it is vibrating. And since all vibrations are theoretically sound, then it is not unreasonable to suggest that the universe is music and should be perceived as such.

heinzny2.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^ Really? Al Gore cares about the environment? Is that why just one of his houses uses 20 times the electricity of an average house? Not to mention the private jets or how his net worth has gone up 100 million since he left office.

 

 

 

Hoffman: Co2 isn't pollution and the bugs consume more of it than the oil would produce.

 

 

 

Magekillr its not all about anwr and it probably would have an immediate effect because when other countries see that we are done sawing off the branch that we are sitting on they will probably lower prices. And excuse me if I don't believe that because of the Mcbush reference. Obviously unbiased. Would you believe something that said Obama Bin Laden? It would reduce prices by more then 2 cents a gallon. Even Chuck Schumer said that if Saudi Arabia increased production by 800,000 barrels a day gas prices would drop 50 Cents. Is their oil more potent than ours? I could live without drilling in anwr but the democratic congress won't do anything.

 

 

 

Drill offshore? NO!

 

 

 

Clean Coal? Out of the question!

 

 

 

Oil Shale? Are you nuts?

 

 

 

All they can think of is to sue opec. Funny you talk about nuclear. Democrats won't allow it. John Mccain proposed something like 50 new nuclear plants. But then again he also propose a cap and trade system. :wall:

My carbon footprint is bigger than yours...and you know what they say about big feet.

 

These are the times that try mens souls...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay so its okay so say that but if anyone even mentions obamas middle name they are evil?

 

 

 

And I just looked up the department of energy report. It was done when gas prices were like $30 a gallon.

 

 

 

EDIT: Actually I was right.

My carbon footprint is bigger than yours...and you know what they say about big feet.

 

These are the times that try mens souls...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay so its okay so say that but if anyone even mentions obamas middle name they are evil?

 

 

 

The reason for this is simple. McCain is almost 100% assuredly going to operate as if the current president were to get a 3rd term, hence the name "McBush". However, the only prominent person we know of to associate the name "Hussein" with is Saddam. I think that you see the difference. [/obvious]

You never know which rabbit hole you jump into will lead to Wonderland. - Ember3579

Aku Soku Zan. - Shinsengumi

You wanna mess with me or my friends? Pick your poison.

If you have any complaints about me, please refer to this link. Your problems are important to me.

Don't talk smack if you're not willing to say it to the person's face. On the same line, if you're not willing to back up your opinions no matter what, your opinion may as well be nonexistent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No hes not.

 

 

 

And you know what magekillr McCain doesn't want to open anwr to drilling so I don't know why you would just assume that.

My carbon footprint is bigger than yours...and you know what they say about big feet.

 

These are the times that try mens souls...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People should not only focus on the issue of rising fuel prices. There are other major problems associated with it such as degradation of freshwater resources, decline in food production, increase in storm and flood disasters, increase in illegal migration and also threatens international stability and security.

 

 

 

It is true that average surface temperatures have so far increased by 0.8 degrees relative to the pre-industrial value, but recent studies (on current trends) have indicated that the average temperature will rise by 2 - 3 degrees (one estimated 2 7 degrees and another stated a 50% chance of increasing by 5 degrees) by the end of this century (articles shown below). Less than 1 degree has already caused set backs to economic and social development in developing countries. The STERN review has indicated that a delay in reducing carbon emissions will be much more expensive in the future, as more would have to be done to fix the problem in such a short period of time. At higher temperatures the cost will continually rise and residual damages will remain large. It will additionally cost 15 150 billion dollars each year to make new infrastructure and buildings resilient to climate change.

 

 

 

ARTICLES for 2 3 degrees;

 

-Deep Cuts in Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Economic Social and Environmental Impacts for Australia, Executive summary and conclusions. Report by the Allen Consulting Group for the Business Roundtable on Climate Change, March 2006.

 

 

 

-R. Schubert, H. J Schellnhuber, N. Buchmann et al (2007). Climate change and Security Risks, German Advisory Council on Global Change (WGBU), translated by A. Hay, Earthscan London UK and Sterling VA, USA, Summary for Policy Makers.

 

 

 

-Stern, Nicholas (2006). Stern Review on the Economics of Climate change, Executive Summary, HM Treasury, United Kingdom, 30 October.

 

 

 

 

 

It is generally perceived that the economy can only grow by exploiting the environment, while environmental protection will cause a decline in economic growth. But the concept of 'ecological modernisation' has been developed to basically combine both economic growth and environmental protection without negatively impacting the other. This is done by increasing the environmental efficiency of the economy in three ways. (1) Substituting materials with environmentally friendly materials. (2) Efficient use through waste minimisation or recycling. (3) Changing the output from material intensive products to those with lower environmental impact. This would involve changes at both the macro- and micro-economic level. Such changes are necessary as three scenarios indicate; business as usual continual rise in environmental problems. Implement policies (such as taxes) will cause environmental protection but will negatively impact on the economy. And Implementing environmental objectives into macro-economic and sectoral policies such initiatives will improve the environment while the economy will be slightly better than business as usual.

 

 

 

Gouldson, A. & Murphy, J. (1997) Ecological Modernization Theory; restructuring industrial economies, in M.Jacobs (ed.), Greening the millennium? The New politics of the Environment, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 74 86.

 

 

 

Even though oil 2.0 emits less carbon there are still dangers. Certainly such advances in technology will play a major part in improving the environment. But as present circumstance has shown, gains in technological efficiency often encourage increased consumption and use. Also oil 2.0 seems to be an energy producers idea of unlimited energy resource. Cheap and unlimited energy does have problems. Unlimited and cheap energy could simply expand human activity and deplete other natural resources.

 

 

 

Anyway it is not nature in danger, it is us.

"I'd rather bear the comments people say to insult ya, then to poison my skin and erase my culture " - Deep Foundation

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^ Anyone who gets more than 3 degrees of warming is just playing with positive feedbacks. Read the whole thread. Climate sensitivity to a doubling of co2 is 1.1 degrees. That would mean .3 degrees more. And negative feedbacks are as likely as positive feedbacks.

My carbon footprint is bigger than yours...and you know what they say about big feet.

 

These are the times that try mens souls...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read the whole thread. And negative feedbacks are as likely as positive feedbacks.

 

 

 

I did read the whole thread. I just wanted people to know that there are other experts out there who have opposing research results (3 degrees) to that of Stephen Schwartz (1.1 degrees). Schwartz results maybe 1/3 of that predicted by others but still it spells out that global warming is real.

 

I agree that there are uncertainties with science, especially in this instance where scientific tools for forecasting events that are too complex and chaotic to predict are limited. As someone in this thread has pointed out, no one knows for certain what will happen in the next 50 - 100 years.

 

This is where the precautionary principle applies. The precautionary principle is basically 'foresight planning'. "It also absorbed the notion of risk prevention, cost effectiveness, ethical responsibilities towards maintaining the integrity of natural systems, and the fallibility of human understanding" (Tim O'Riordan et al, 2001, The Evolution of the Precautionary Principle, pp11). I would rather live in a world where the risk is fixed early (even if there is uncertainty), rather than waiting for the future and seeing what has to be done.

 

 

 

Sustainability is the key word when it comes to environmental protection. Sustainability, in essence, is the merging of economic enterprise, social well-being and environmental integrity. 'Business as usual' negates both social well-being and environmental integrity. Oil 2.0 is just one small step for a larger problem.

"I'd rather bear the comments people say to insult ya, then to poison my skin and erase my culture " - Deep Foundation

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^ Okay well I skimmed over the first and the last of the three papers. Couldn't find the middle one. They both looked like they were summaries on economic impacts.

My carbon footprint is bigger than yours...and you know what they say about big feet.

 

These are the times that try mens souls...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

1.

Spamming includes posting entire messages using excessive formatting
I.E posting in all caps or irritating font color.

 

 

 

2. You could have gas prices a lot worse, if you're already on a tight budget there is many solutions to it I.E car-pooling or public transport.

 

 

 

Now that I have been told by a mod, I will not use that color

 

 

 

Second, Where I live public transportation is not an option, and no one lives near me to carpool with. Those options are not available to all people. That's something you would have to think about as well.

 

 

 

 

 

exactly, politicians always think that public transport is a viable option for the majority of americans.

 

 

 

for example, a law was being voted on(i heard it passed), that illinois's new drivers could not drive past i think 9 o'clock.

 

 

 

edit: forgot to add, whats the point of not being able to drive during 9-6am? the ideas is that new drivers cant handle night driving, until i believe they were 18. As a Illinois State trooper told our driving class, how do people go on dates and such?

 

 

 

the problem, these people who either passed it or voted on it live in CHICAGO. bus's, trains, cabs... and most the time everything you need is in walking distance.

 

 

 

anyway, i heard this passed, and that new drivers (after my class) had to obey this law, except laws in my town are RARELY enforced. especially such new and ridiculous ones.

 

 

 

and, carpooling is very realistic for alot of people. A good but, flawed idea.

 

 

 

 

 

also this talk about clean energy to, no one has said anything about the Japanese car which, supposedly runs on water.

 

 

 

and the al gore thing, no mystery their that he, might care about the environment. But, fact is he sure isn't a "starving artist" because of it and thats not a fat joke either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.