T1B

http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapit ... od=WSJBlog" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Can you fucking believe this shit?

More:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... d=89538128" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I believe the term "neo-environmentalism" comes into play here.

Manufacture a worldwide panic, ten lie your way to big bucks on the backs of people who have empty lives and are ripe for working a scam on, who desparately want to be in on "saving the planet."

An inevitable result of a "global economy."

Biodiesel is definitely something that should be encouraged, and it's a shame that in the minds of many this will reflect poorly on its proponents. I think they should sew up this loophole and punish those who have cost taxpayers hundreds of millions...not just go all jingo on proponents of biofuels.

PSUFAN wrote:Biodiesel is definitely something that should be encouraged

Unlike the complete and utter scam that is ethanol, biodiesel is a wonderful fuel... simply wonderful.

No question there.

But there is another question -- where you getting the vegtable matter to render the biodiesel from?

Help me out here?

Was there just too much irrigation water left over (even though that aquifer under te Flyover, the largest on the planet, is disappearing faster than it's replenished at resent)?

The US has so muich area that can be farmed in a practical way. Guess what? We use a good chunk of it for just that. Should we import more food so as to import less oil? Seems like a step down on the basic needs scale, plus it takes... following so far?... OIL to ship food.

The problem is overpopulation (although planet overpopulation is, and probably always will be a subjective ruling). Too many people competing for the resources, or the "Law of Scarcity" in action. And it's a sure thing that converting the planet's food supply into fuel for use by the "haves" of the world is a great step towards solving that whole "overpopulation/overconsumption" problem... in grand fashion.


Nice job thinning the herd, Algore. After the earth's population takes a 50% drop due to famine, world peace will be much easier to achieve. RACK the folks at the Nobel Institute for such excellent long range vision.

You're exactly right...at this point the main technological hurdle to a broader use of biodiesel fuel is agricultural. To generate the plants required for replacing our nation's conventional oil consumption, we'd need to allocate 2/3 (rosiest, best case scenario) of our nation's surface area to producing those plants - not going to happen.

mvscal wrote:275 billion tons of coal in the US alone. We can't eat it

Sure we can. Throw in a few sliced carrots and a little mayo, and you got yourself some coal slaw.

The "hook" of vaudevillian fame could possibly be employed here.

PSUFAN wrote:You're exactly right...at this point the main technological hurdle to a broader use of biodiesel fuel is agricultural. To generate the plants required for replacing our nation's conventional oil consumption, we'd need to allocate 2/3 (rosiest, best case scenario) of our nation's surface area to producing those plants - not going to happen.

The problem is with the private sector for rasing money for more plants and production. The limited partnerships behind the funding is offering an investment share, but come liquidation time where the investors get their money back plus capital gains, the shares will be offered as a public stock. A public stock that is far less attractive than the price of oil right now. Investors won't touch biodiesel with a 10 foot poll right now with the way oil is making them a lot more money including tax deductions.

RumpleForeskin wrote:The problem is with the private sector for rasing money for more plants and production.

Yeah, it'sa huge reach that Crisco and Wesson and every other huge rendering outfit would want to cash in by expanding their capacities, since then they might be making profits along the lines of Exxon.


You're on fire today, Rumps.

The reason there isn't large scale private investment is because the people in the know see it for the dead-end investment it is. Nothing more, nothing less.


Starving people don't buy fuel for the car.

Smackie Chan wrote:

mvscal wrote:275 billion tons of coal in the US alone. We can't eat it

Sure we can. Throw in a few sliced carrots and a little mayo, and you got yourself some coal slaw.

What else would we expect from a dude six feet deep? Eat dirt...before it eats you.

Dinsdale wrote:The "hook" of vaudevillian fame could possibly be employed here.

Possibly? I'd say it's pretty much mandatory.

Look alive out there, Smackie.

But there is another question -- where you getting the vegtable matter to render the biodiesel from?

Well, the SCOTUS doesn't want them euthanized, so we can always start in FLA convalescent homes and work our way north...

That woman's alive and aware.

Risa wrote:That woman's alive and aware.

You mean right now?

mvscal wrote:

Risa wrote:That woman's alive and aware.

Didn't the autopsy reveal that her brain resembled a half-empty bowl of oatmeal?

Oh fuck!!

Like I said above, the current challenge is how to provide the plant material. The best case scenario involves rapeseed, but even that would require an unacceptably vast amount of land. I believe biofuel research should proceed aggressively...but I am not presenting it as a solution to the current fuel needs of our nation at this time.

PSUFAN wrote:Like I said above, the current challenge is how to provide the plant material... I believe biofuel research should proceed aggressively.

And therein lies the problem...

You fully admit to biofuels being an impossibility. It's basically in impractical hobby at best, and an evil game of starve-the-poor at worst. It's not viable now, and it's a physical impossibility in the future.

And your take is wonderful in that regard -- you're still a proponent of "aggressive research."

It highlights te entire "energy crisis" -- everyone is looking for the fairy tale ending that isn't coming.

I'm wondering how long it's going to take to fix one heinous "energy crisis" scam thats been perpetrated here in Oregon -- they passed a law that says all gasoline sold in Oregon must be at least 10% ethanol. Didn't take but a few weeks for the cat to come out of the bag, and for people to realize that the typical car sees about a 15% reduction in fuel economy with a 10% ethanol blend.

Yup, it's MATH TIME!

10% ethanol = 15% reduction in fuel economy.

Sounds like a win/win... for everyone except the consumer. It actually INCREASES gasoline consumption (funny how laws that aren't though-out produce unintended consequences), and now ethnol producers get a slice of the scam-pie as well.

It wasn't until after the law went into æffect that it was pointed out to the legislators that most aircraft engines are going to have a hard time running on a 10% blend, but that doesn't matter -- it applies to av gas as well. So what if planes start falling out of he sky -- THE LEGISLATORS WENT GREEN, BABY!

I'm hoping to see a referendum on this fall's ballot repealing this travesty. But the people are sheeple, and they won't say "you voted to scam me out of even more money at the pump. Instead of the legislature, we're voting you into a job at a gas station."

Guess what? Extracting our coal reserves as described above will also take some aggressive research. We're going to have to find a way to get at coal that is more remote, as the "easy" coal is pretty much tapped out. Extracting coal comes with palpable environmental impact...all of which can be productively restrained by emerging technologies, if somehow we can force mining concerns to abide by such a restraint.

Here is a pretty positive look at ways to handle some of that environmental impact. Increasing coal mining and production will require some significant technological advances that will be no more or less achievable than advances that might be made with biofuels.

We've got to find new solutions - be our focus on coal or on biofuel or both.

that photo is not the photo of a person with oatmeal mush brains. that woman is aware. i don't know what happens after you've been medically starved to death, though. it was my own understanding that you weren't really dead until you were brain dead, no brain wave patterns. did Terry Schiavo have brain wave patterns at any point in time, at all times, or was she just paralyzed beyond anyone reaching her or her reaching anyone?

it's shit like this that makes me scared to death of all the living-dead forms of 'surviving' -- as well as operating tables, with all the anesthesiologist mishaps out there. you can't reach anyone, and they can't reach you. because they can't reach you, they assume you're gone and nobody's going to know how inhumane they're being because you aren't in a position to tell anyone. that shit is ripe for abuse. but again: if the victim can't communicate, does it matter if it happened?

looks like google says her brain had withered to half it's size. that's not the same as saying she was dead and that there were no brain wave patterns. what parts of her brain withered? which parts were less withered than others? she couldn't feed herself. so what, that doesn't mean she was dead and unaware.

as for all the arguments about 300 year supplies and whatnot: so fucking what. it's not a renewable resource. how can we work on renewable resources, or at least resources with a longer exhaustion limit than a couple blink-of-the-eye hundred years? if it's all about profit margins............... I don't know what to say.

PSUFAN wrote:Increasing coal mining and production will require some significant technological advances that will be no more or less achievable than advances that might be made with biofuels.

Yes and no.

The coal is there. It sits there... it usable.

Vegtable matter... we'll use soybeans as an example, isn't there. It need to be grown. Plants are the result of a biochemical reaction. There's no "maic science." Even if you could develop a soybean that grows 25 feet high... YOU STILL HAVE TO WATER IT.


Where you getting all this water, PSU? Where you getting the fertilizer for a plant that's going to deplete the soil at an unprecedented rate (if you develop 25 foot soybeans)?


While vegtable oil can certainly be a part of the big picture, it's a very small part. Hell, they've been doing it on Flyover farms for decades, and it has its niche. That niche isn't large-scale production.


But you truly are an evil person. Hell, I can be pretty callous towards the less-fortunate on an occasion, but I can't get behind Algore's Genocide.

Here, Risa, you babbling idiot:

They attempted to resuscitate her, she was defibrillated several times, and she was transported to the Humana Northside Hospital. There she was intubated, ventilated, and eventually given a tracheotomy. The long period without oxygen led to profound brain injury ("anoxic-ischemic encephalopathy" noted at autopsy), severely damaging those parts of the brain[16] concerned with cognition, perception, and awareness.

Throughout the cerebral cortex, the large pyramidal neurons that comprise some 70% of cortical cells – critical to the functioning of the cortex – were completely lost. The pattern of damage to the cortex, with injury tending to worsen from the front of the cortex to the back, is also typical. There was marked damage to important relay circuits deep in the brain (the thalami) – another common pathologic finding in cases of PVS. The damage was, in the words of Thogmartin, "irreversible, and no amount of therapy or treatment would have regenerated the massive loss of neurons."

Now stop hijacking the thread. It was a fucking joke, not an invitation to discuss a years' old debate on a complete vegetable. Any further posts by you on this topic in this thread will be deleted. You want to talk Terry Schiavo? Start a new thread.

Risa wrote:looks like google says her brain had withered to half it's size.

Looks like they should have just moved her to Kansas City.

The coal is there. It sits there... it usable.

The Crandall Canyon Mine disaster of last August is a pretty good point of reference here, for two reasons:

-we have coal reserves, but they are becoming increasingly difficult to extract. The "easy" coal is gone.
-we have mining interests that are willing to engage in unsafe practices, really to ignore clear red flag indicators of danger, in order to avail themselves of coal resources. The debate currently rages over how to force them to change their ways. What do you advocate? More regulation? A more jaded view of the lives of miners? Do tell.

Plenty of coal exists still in SW PA. Plenty of mining takes place there to this day. Where do they have to go to get this stuff? Under towns and cities and private property, with longwall mining techniques, on the basis of old laws that allow the companies to get the coal and just let the land above subside in catastrophic fashion.

You can say we have 300 years of coal to burn, but you have to get the coal out, and you have to process it. There are a lot of genuine issues to resolve with those parts of the process.

Goober McTuber wrote: Looks like they should have just moved her to Kansas City.

Looks like KC should be paying rent for the cavernous, empty space we've carved out in your dome.

Hell with that, we should just claim squatters rights. It's a worthless, dreary, contaminated landscape anyways... kinda' like an Oklahoma EPA Superfund site.

War Wagon wrote: Hell with that, we should just claim squatters rights.

I don't see why not... you've applied for a patent on "I'm in your dome" "smack."