Not Evil Just Wrong

[2112]

This has already been proven in parts of France and Europe where vineyards have had to change the type of wines and champagnes they have produce in the past (and are well known for) because the growing season is no longer optimal.

Um..I believe it is commonly referred to as soil depletion, not a change in growing season and is seen in every cultivated crop world wide. :USA:

Still not knocking your efforts to waste less but be careful, those who preach this stuff would love to take our boats away yesterday and are making efforts to do exactly that.
.

 

[fund razor]

Still not knocking your efforts to waste less but be careful, those who preach this stuff would love to take our boats away yesterday and are making efforts to do exactly that.
.

Yep.

 

[Perlmudder]

Um..I believe it is commonly referred to as soil depletion, not a change in growing season and is seen in every cultivated crop world wide. :USA:

Still not knocking your efforts to waste less but be careful, those who preach this stuff would love to take our boats away yesterday and are making efforts to do exactly that.
.

Soil depletion and a change in growing season are different. Soil depletion results from minerals and nutrients being taken from the soil (depleted) and not returned. It happens most commonly in scenarios where intense cultivation takes place, where slash and burn techniques are used (like in the rain forest of Brazil), and ranching (also common in Brazil). Most farmers expect this to happen, that is why they rotate crops and fields, and give them rest years, although organic farmers do not suffer from this issue as much. When I say a change in growing season I mean that the actual length of the season is not as long. If a specific type of grape for a wine needs 60 days to ripen and only receives 50, it is not able to produce the desired taste the wine maker wishes for.


I LOVE boating just as much as the everybody else on here. I clock 150+ hours a year. I just don't see the problem with implementing energy saving techniques to reduce our impact on the environment in other areas of our life.

 

[Perlmudder]

Greenhouse Studies

....tests have shown that increasing the level of carbon dioxide in a greenhouse to 550 ppm will accelerate plant growth by 30 - 40 %. The natural level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is around 450 ppm, having increased from about 250 ppm in the last ice-age, so this slight increase may not appear significant at first sight. The point of the matter is that the level of carbon dioxide in the average greenhouse with the ventilation system closed will drop sharply due to uptake by the plants and will lie around 150 - 200 ppm if nothing is done about it.....

In the Wild Studies

....Both trees and poison ivy grew faster, when exposed to higher concentrations of CO2, than their oxygen-only counterparts. But poison ivy grew faster than the trees--150% faster, in fact, compared to a 20% increase in tree growth. The difference, according to Jackie Mohan, is that poison ivy, like all vines, is a bit lazy.

"Vines don't need to devote so much of their CO2 resources to growing these big, woody trunks," she says. "Instead, they can devote that to growing more green leaves, which increase photosynthesis some more. And it becomes a cycle."

This study was the first time the effects of CO2 had been researched like this in the wild. ....

If you want to look at it like that, carbon dioxide is a positive factor plant life, but what about all of the other greenhouse gases that come along with it? Those do not benefit plant life.

This is a section of a paragraph I wrote for an essay:
----
Buildings represent approximately 50% of all green house gas emissions in The United States of America. Most of these greenhouse gasses are formed by the electricity consumed to light the buildings as well as cool and heat them. In 2006, 37% of all electricity produced in the U.S.A. was consumed by residential buildings, while 36% was consumed by the commercial sector (Buildings Energy Data Book, Page 28).
----

With that amount of electricity being consumed between residential and commercial buildings, I would say implementing energy saving appliances is not a bad idea (although I'm not sure if it was you who was arguing against that).

 

[PatriYacht]

Most appliances produced in the U.S. in ther last 10 years have been of the energy efficient kind. My house was built about 10 years ago and it has all of them including high efficiency furnace and water heater and about 16 inches of insulation in the attic. There isn't much I can do to increase efficiency except to move to a smaller house. I am sure that there are many in my situation given the number of house built in the last 10 years. My energy bill for one year is about 10,000.00. About 3000.00 goes to gasoline to get to work. Another 3000.00 goes in the boat. I use 3000.00 in natural gas to heat the house, about 3500 sq. feet, water and cook. About a thousand goes to electricity. I am already doing everything practical to save because it is so expensive. The house is kept fairly cool in the winter and the air is set about 78 in the summer. There is no way in hell I can cut more than 10% of my energy use without selling my house or my boat. That is what coming legislation is going to do to us. They will make it so expensive that we will have to downsize everything. Like I said, it's not just a matter of walking occasionally or using less toilet paper or even buying a new appliance. It means wholesale lifesyle changes some of which we won't like.

 

[PatriYacht]

Climate change is the ultimate weasel word. Maybe you are too young to remember how all of this started. Originally global warming was going to cause the oceans to rise, coastal plains would flood, all of the major citties in the world built near shipping ports would be covered with water. Remember Al Gore's movie showing the Staue of Liberty half covered with water? After 10 years with no warming and many signs of cooling actually, global warmists decided they needed a new term that would cover up the fact that they were wrong. So global warming became climate change. How could they lose, after all the climate has been changing ever since there was a Planet Earth.

Btw, I'm old enough to remember when some of these same scientists warned of a coming ice age if we didn't change our consumption etc, blah blah....

 

[Ratickle]

Btw, I'm old enough to remember when some of these same scientists warned of a coming ice age if we didn't change our consumption etc, blah blah....

That was on the cover of TIME Magazine in the 60's I think......

 

[PatriYacht]

Good morning Paul :USA:

 

[Ratickle]

This is a section of a paragraph I wrote for an essay:
----
Buildings represent approximately 50% of all green house gas emissions in The United States of America. Most of these greenhouse gasses are formed by the electricity consumed to light the buildings as well as cool and heat them. In 2006, 37% of all electricity produced in the U.S.A. was consumed by residential buildings, while 36% was consumed by the commercial sector (Buildings Energy Data Book, Page 28).
----

Nobody argues against energy inproved appliances. The argument is that it will make some big difference.

Look, you guys all know I blame our stupid politicians for almost all of this. And once again, I do. What's happened is that no one is elected anymore with any experience, smarts, business sense, or common sense.

France, a country with basically zero natural resources, coal or otherwise, has been completely self sufficient for years on their electricity requirements through the use of Nuclear Energy. But, because we allow pacs to control part of our politicians through bribes designed as donations, we don't have any Nuclear Plants to speak of as a percentage of electrical requirements. And Nuclear Plants are basically pollution free.

Germany, during WWII, was refining coal to fuel their war machine. How much do we refine here or in Canada? Not exactly new technology.

Natural gas and Propane. My grandfather worked for a gas company in Portland Oregon. We had vehicles that could run on natural gas or propane back in the 60's. I had a 454 modified 3/4 ton Chevy 4x4 pickup. Ran great, no pollution. We have an abundance of natural gas in the US and Canada. How many vehicles do you see running around on that? It is actually easier to convert a vehicle with a carb over to natural gas than to convert one over to E85. Again, almost no pollution and very little expoense per vehicle.

We could do all of these things within 20 years and halve the US's carbon footprint. If you combine these things worldwide with a comprehensive, far reaching, birth control supply and education program, the issue is solved.

Instead, through the use of bribes and payoffs, we do moronic things like Alcohol in gas by subsidizing farmers, conversion plant builders, distribution systems, etc. And what do we get in return? More expensive fuel and a food shortage around the world to produce a product with a Larger Carbon Footprint than just burning gas would have.....

In the future, that would not be the case if you had Nuclear Plants to make the energy to convert the corn or ? to alcohol.

But, until we stop allowing bribes to career politicians, this will not change and we will continue to decline as a nation, and a world.

 

[Ratickle]

Good morning Paul :USA:

Morning Ian. I was busy on a rant.....:sifone:

 

[cuda]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I read it takes more in fossil fuel to grow the crops for E85 than we save by using it, not to mention the loss of mpg.

 

[Ratickle]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I read it takes more in fossil fuel to grow the crops for E85 than we save by using it, not to mention the loss of mpg.

It takes more in fossil fuel to grow and convert it, than just burning the fossil fuel. It's a big scam.....

 

[PatriYacht]

I agree on the nuclear part. If we had enough of these we could even heat our homes with electricity. Once they are built and fueled they make electricity almost for free. I read a story in a business mag. saying all of the nuke plants built are paid for now and are making about a million dollars a day profit for their owners. A number of them would like to expand but Washington can't even decide on the standards for how to build them. Useless. Population control's not a bad idea but we'll be long gone before anything noticable happens. The developed world already controls their population anyway. Russia and Japan are already shrinking, Europe will be soon and the U.S is at replacement rate and only grows because of our porous southern border.

 

[Ratickle]

That's why I say Worldwide......

 

[Perlmudder]

Most appliances produced in the U.S. in ther last 10 years have been of the energy efficient kind. My house was built about 10 years ago and it has all of them including high efficiency furnace and water heater and about 16 inches of insulation in the attic. There isn't much I can do to increase efficiency except to move to a smaller house. I am sure that there are many in my situation given the number of house built in the last 10 years. My energy bill for one year is about 10,000.00. About 3000.00 goes to gasoline to get to work. Another 3000.00 goes in the boat. I use 3000.00 in natural gas to heat the house, about 3500 sq. feet, water and cook. About a thousand goes to electricity. I am already doing everything practical to save because it is so expensive. The house is kept fairly cool in the winter and the air is set about 78 in the summer. There is no way in hell I can cut more than 10% of my energy use without selling my house or my boat. That is what coming legislation is going to do to us. They will make it so expensive that we will have to downsize everything. Like I said, it's not just a matter of walking occasionally or using less toilet paper or even buying a new appliance. It means wholesale lifesyle changes some of which we won't like.

Well then IMO you are doing a good job.

 

[Perlmudder]

Nobody argues against energy inproved appliances. The argument is that it will make some big difference.

Look, you guys all know I blame our stupid politicians for almost all of this. And once again, I do. What's happened is that no one is elected anymore with any experience, smarts, business sense, or common sense.

France, a country with basically zero natural resources, coal or otherwise, has been completely self sufficient for years on their electricity requirements through the use of Nuclear Energy. But, because we allow pacs to control part of our politicians through bribes designed as donations, we don't have any Nuclear Plants to speak of as a percentage of electrical requirements. And Nuclear Plants are basically pollution free.

Germany, during WWII, was refining coal to fuel their war machine. How much do we refine here or in Canada? Not exactly new technology.

Natural gas and Propane. My grandfather worked for a gas company in Portland Oregon. We had vehicles that could run on natural gas or propane back in the 60's. I had a 454 modified 3/4 ton Chevy 4x4 pickup. Ran great, no pollution. We have an abundance of natural gas in the US and Canada. How many vehicles do you see running around on that? It is actually easier to convert a vehicle with a carb over to natural gas than to convert one over to E85. Again, almost no pollution and very little expoense per vehicle.

We could do all of these things within 20 years and halve the US's carbon footprint. If you combine these things worldwide with a comprehensive, far reaching, birth control supply and education program, the issue is solved.

Instead, through the use of bribes and payoffs, we do moronic things like Alcohol in gas by subsidizing farmers, conversion plant builders, distribution systems, etc. And what do we get in return? More expensive fuel and a food shortage around the world to produce a product with a Larger Carbon Footprint than just burning gas would have.....

In the future, that would not be the case if you had Nuclear Plants to make the energy to convert the corn or ? to alcohol.

But, until we stop allowing bribes to career politicians, this will not change and we will continue to decline as a nation, and a world.

You hit the nail on the head there, its the government that is pushing this way out of perspective. There are definitely negatives to using nuclear (think Chernobyl, three mile island, etc) but with the amount of money wasted in other parts of government, I have no doubt that the kinks could easily be worked out.

 

[Perlmudder]

I think you guys think that I am a global warming activist, but in reality I am a sustainability activist. Its not that I want to stop boating or driving SUV's, I do both of those quite a bit. I just feel that after reading everything I have, that reducing our ecological footprint by implementing energy saving techniques in our home is a good idea (which everybody else here also agrees with).

It is actually quite refreshing to debate a topic with other people rather then other students in my classes.

 

[Ratickle]

You hit the nail on the head there, its the government that is pushing this way out of perspective. There are definitely negatives to using nuclear (think Chernobyl, three mile island, etc) but with the amount of money wasted in other parts of government, I have no doubt that the kinks could easily be worked out.

They use those as excuses as to what "could" happen. How many accidents in France or South Africa where the newest Nuclear Technology is used and the most powerplants exist?

Compared to how many people die from mining and processing coal each year over the same period of time???? Or working in oil fields???? It's a joke to even think that there is an issue with safety overall for the US population.....

But we teach this crap in our schools and universities because of the rhetoric, and money, that comes out of Washington. Do you think it's an accident that many Universities have some of the few budgets, supported largely by the government, which have outpaced inflation over the past few years?

 

[Wobble]

It takes more in fossil fuel to grow and convert it, than just burning the fossil fuel. It's a big scam.....

Not really, people point to it as being green, they dont get that this was the last way to maintain octane. MTBE, LEAD and all the other octane/anti-knock additives commonly used to maintain the octane we want have been proven to end up in our ground water or our food supply.

I'm not saying that alcohol is the right answer but it's a better one than the alternatives

 

[Ratickle]

Not really, people point to it as being green, they dont get that this was the last way to maintain octane. MTBE, LEAD and all the other octane/anti-knock additives commonly used to maintain the octane we want have been proven to end up in our ground water or our food supply.

I'm not saying that alcohol is the right answer but it's a better one than the alternatives

According to those who have been paid off. It is not smart to use something which takes more fossil fuel to grow and process than just usinf the fossil fuel. Take a look at the fuel efficient turbo diesels used in Europe for years. How much octane booster do they use?????

Anyway, here are the most common octane boosters currently used in fuel.

MMT, Ferosene, Alcohol, and Toluene

Methyl cyclopentadienyl manganese tricarbonyl (MMT) and ferosene are used in limited amounts in off-the-shelf boosters. The majority of commercial boosters use MMT. Another type of booster uses alcohols or aromatics as the active ingredient. Many tuners use toluene as a home-style octane booster. Toluene, an aromatic circular hydrocarbon chain, is a regular component of pump gas and is available in various grades at chemical supply stores. Premium street gasoline carries roughly 3- to 5% toluene, which partially helps octane characteristics. Unocal's 100-octane race gas has almost 25% toluene.