The End.

biofuels are a big con, and if you think about it logically for a moment you can easily see why: there is energy expenditure in growing the crop which has to be overcome before the crop has even broken even, let alone supplied any energy "profit". All the farm eq involved, all the transport involved, refining and manfacturing processes all already depends on diesel. using diesel to.. make diesel, and the process is nowhere near efficient. Biofail.

Yup, refer to EROEI (energy return on energy invested) of biofuels that I've mentioned countless times before on this thread as well as the new buzzword, EROWI (energy return on water invested) where biofuels and most unconventional fuels look particularly bad.
 
That was not implied. Alternative energy sources to fossil fuels comprise a mixture of alternative sources, depending on the application. Biofuels promise to take-up a lot of the slack IMO.

Your crude syntax makes your point less than clear but if you mean that a combination of unconventional oil sources will offset the decline in production of conventional sources then you need to explain to me where you're going to come up with the equivalent of 40 mbpd from unconventional sources because that is what is required within the next 20 years just in order to maintain current production levels (according to the IEA). That figure does NOT take into account any of the expected economic growth from the developing nations. It would be interesting to see you try.

Graphs confirm NOTHING. I can make a graph pushing my agenda and refer you to it. Will this make it an irrefutable fact?

I see, so you're refuting the IEA's projections. That's all fine and well because you are entitled to your opinion but if you want to do that you'll have to come up with some pretty heavyweight arguments if you want to maintain your credibility. Saying that I'm merely pushing my agenda by showing the IEA's projections is like saying that the earth is flat - I'll only respect your opinion if you can come up with some serious evidence to back your claim. If that was merely a graph that I "made", as you put it, then you might want to debate its validity but you'll have to do much better than a sweeping statement in order to refute the IEA. :D

By your defence of fossil fuels I assume that you (and WASP companions?) are heavily invested in oil. As soon as the oil stocks are unloaded, the moral ground is assumed and fossil fuels are demonised.

Wow! I never thought that I'd see the day that I'd be accused of defending fossil fuels. Maybe I didn't make myself quite clear: Our addiction to fossil fuels over the last 100 years is to be deplored. People understood very early on that the formation of fossil fuels in the earth's crust is a very slow geological process and that our consumption of a full half of the ultimately recoverable reserves thereof within a century is akin to hitting the jackpot and then blowing all your millions within 6 months - as people are wont to do, in fact. Light sweet crude is an amazing energy source, the likes of which humans have never used on a wide scale before. Everything that you see around you right now is dependent on our unsustainable use of this once in a lifetime jackpot.

Lastly, I'm perplexed by your comment about "me and my WASP companions". Pardon my ignorance but please would you clear up for me by what you mean with WASP? The only abbreviation that I know of that goes by that acronym is White Anglo-Saxon Protestant and I sincerely hope that this is not what you're referring to because to bring racism into this debate would be ludicrous.
 
biofuels are a big con, and if you think about it logically for a moment you can easily see why: there is energy expenditure in growing the crop which has to be overcome before the crop has even broken even, let alone supplied any energy "profit". All the farm eq involved, all the transport involved, refining and manfacturing processes all already depends on diesel. using diesel to.. make diesel, and the process is nowhere near efficient. Biofail.

No. If **you** think about it logically for a moment you can easily see on what biofuels would be based. Alcohol-for-fuel technology has existed for years in embryo form – it’s just been too expensive to develop it as biofuel when you had fossil fuels. This is changing and with the amount of talent, resources and money thrown at it, it will be far more volatile and energy dense (rivalling oil) than simple alcohol. Consider alcohol (a [one of many] projected baseline). It’s a fermentation process (pretty simple if a Tennessee hillbilly can make moonshine). Alcohol (or something very similar) is the fuel. The ‘proof’ (strength of the alcohol) will be much greater than commercially available drinks. The greatest ‘poison’ is the fuel itself for those wanting to give their orange juice an extra zing (they will die from alcohol poisoning or become alcoholics). The way to get around this, is to include an additive that makes the fuel taste truly vile.

Fuel from algae shows promise. Easy to grow.
 
Lastly, I'm perplexed by your comment about "me and my WASP companions". Pardon my ignorance but please would you clear up for me by what you mean with WASP? The only abbreviation that I know of that goes by that acronym is White Anglo-Saxon Protestant and I sincerely hope that this is not what you're referring to because to bring racism into this debate would be ludicrous.

The majority of your post is an hysterical defence of fossil fuels and I will not get bogged-down in promoting the obvious.

The WASP comment was because I visualised ex-president Bush holding a power-meeting with his WASP buddies on a golf course – all of whom are heavily invested in oil. “So we are agreed then (my war is not working), we shall pooh-pooh any fossil fuel link to global warming until we have unloaded our oil investments. Then we shall assume the moral high ground and demonise fossil fuels.”
 
If the majority of my posts are characterised by a "hysterical defense of fossil fuels" then I really ought to brush up on my debating skills because nothing could be further from the truth and I thought I made that quite clear a long time ago.
 
I don't think you defend oil, but you give it way too much credit, as in feeling that the whole world needs a massive transformation, but there is no solution exactly like oil...well f**k oil. It won't be missed.

The page you referred to for the graph, also tells you to start promoting gas...

At 1000 ppm we are essentially guaranteed to experience catastrophic climate change.

The WEO-2009 report recommends massive investments, worldwide, in infrastructure changes and changes to energy usage. These investments are required to avoid not only climate change but also energy security. Transportation system change is perhaps the largest part of that investment, and they recommend a large-scale switch to less carbon intensive vehicles. They describe todays transportation system as 100% internal combustion fossil fuel burning vehicles with a carbon intensity of "205", and to meet the 450 ppm scenario requires a switch to 40% internal combustion fossil fuel vehicles with a carbon intensity of "90".

Stop trying to find a solution you brag there is no answer for.

Move on... Install a DIY biogas generator to create your own methane.

Tell the Hummer driver to replace his carburetor and install a DIY biogas generator to create his own methane. It's that easy to switch to biogas.

Tell others.

Do something to make the world a better place.

Hug your cat. :)
 
Yeah, yeah. No matter which way you spin this, you'll have to tell me how you're going to maintain the status quo with the dismal EROEI and EROWI ratios of biofuels and if you can answer that one then you'll also have to tell me how you're going to ramp up biofuels production from a mere 1% of total production to at least 25% of total production given the required 20 year time frame while not destroying food production in the process. Even if you can do all of that then you still need to tell me how you're going to deal with the twenty fold increase in CO2 emissions that your methane generators are going to produce. This thread is now 28 pages old and I have yet to see anybody answer any of the above.

Also, you are mistaken for assuming that I've done nothing to reduce my personal dependence on fossil fuels so you ought to reconsider who you preach to next time you get the urge to tell me to do something instead of just moaning. I will not at all be surprised if my carbon footprint if far smaller than yours. In fact, the very PC that I'm typing this on should be powered 100% off PV panels in about 3 weeks' time. How many forumites do you know of that can claim that?
 
You are trying to maintain the status quo...That's why you cannot get an answer...

I'm showing that things are changing...We're in for some shake ups, but those that are prepared, will feel it less. A range of renewable energy options are available.

I'm sure you are doing your bit, insofar as your carbon footprint. However, now you've changed yourself, you need to change others.

You cannot do that, going on about the impossibility, of trying to maintain the status quo.

The world is aware. The world is taking action.

http://www.energyafricaexpo.com/about.php
 
...how you're going to ramp up biofuels production from a mere 1% of total production to at least 25% of total production given the required 20 year time frame while not destroying food production in the process.

Me
Fuel from algae shows promise. Easy to grow.

Algal blooms have been detected in the waters round about Florida? Warm, coastal and with shallow topsoil (run-off into **salt water** [plenty of that])?

My reasoning for this phenomenon goes thus:

Florida = desired destination for aged American’s in their ‘twilight years’ = death statistics are above normal as the oldies go to their ‘just reward’ = complaints by grave diggers that they cannot easily dig the graves deep enough to meet health regulations before hitting clay or other water impermeable layers (I believe cremation is becoming popular). The depth of the typical grave is dug in ‘shallow’ topsoil (geologically speaking).

This implies a high water table. This hypothesis is supported by the alligator infested, swampy / marshy ‘Everglades’ area. This hypothesis is further supported by when e-TV used to run a program every Saturday at 18:05 - 'Seconds from Disaster'. This is a forensic reconstruction of events leading up to major disasters. On the 6/9/2008 they detailed the disaster of an American airliner which crashed in the Everglades. They made the point that the airliner destruction was so complete because it hit the limestone bedrock under the Everglades swamp surface.

So, phosphate-rich water from rain and irrigation drains into the closest river. The river flows into a coastal lagoon. The lagoon opens-up periodically to the sea.

My geography gets a bit shaky here. The ‘sea’ is the Gulf of Mexico. The Gulf has warm waters and is not particularly rough (there is little dilution). So when the lagoons open-up to the sea, it provides good conditions for algal growth (nutrients & warm water) = algal blooms.

Thus fuel can be derived from algae. There is plenty of salt water – areas of the sea can be ‘fenced’ with those booms used to contain oil slicks (a positive contribution of oil pollution). The tons of algae can be harvested for fuel. This is in addition to other alternative sources. Q.E.D.
 
Me
Fuel from algae shows promise. Easy to grow.

But how to provide feedstuff to these vast areas of algae?

Chicken poop (usually free) provides the phosphate component on which algae thrives. The extent of the algal area requires a strategy for distributing the phosphate-rich chicken poop. I suggest micro-light aircraft fitted with ‘mini-ag’ systems (similar to a crop duster plane) and rigged with floats – like a sea plane. The plane flies over the algal area ‘spraying’ the feedstuff. Flying a micro-light aircraft for this purpose is not difficult – about a weeks training (I have flown them for years). A smelly, outdoor job.
 
Wait, wait, Palomino. You're having me on, aren't you? Surely you can't be serious? :sick:

So lemme get this straight: You think these algae blooms are a good thing despite the fact that they have created oxygen starved dead zones in the gulf of Mexico (and many other places) that are a direct result of pollution caused by agricultural runoff form the Mississippi that cover more than 10 thousand square kilometers and in which hardly any organism - apart from your algae - can survive?!

What's more, you want to actively feed these algae blooms by dumping vast quantities of chicken sh*t in the ocean using swarms of microlights so that we can harvest this toxic green slime in a desperate attempt to sustain our SUV addiction? Holy mother!

Did I get that right, more or less? Well, ok then. Let's hope for the sake of all living organisms that somebody that shares this fantasy with you never gets appointed into a position where such destructive practices could actually be implemented.
 
Wait, wait, Palomino. You're having me on, aren't you? Surely you can't be serious? :sick:

I’m serious. Your incisive display of comprehension has cut to the quick of the matter. There’s no fooling you.

So lemme get this straight: You think these algae blooms are a good thing despite the fact that they have created oxygen starved dead zones in the gulf of Mexico (and many other places) that are a direct result of pollution caused by agricultural runoff form the Mississippi that cover more than 10 thousand square kilometers and in which hardly any organism - apart from your algae - can survive?!

What's more, you want to actively feed these algae blooms by dumping vast quantities of chicken sh*t in the ocean using swarms of microlights so that we can harvest this toxic green slime in a desperate attempt to sustain our SUV addiction? Holy mother!

You’ve got it straight. An emotional trashing of the subject doesn’t help. Have you got any valid criticism? ‘A desperate attempt to sustain our SUV addiction’ is a bit OTT. There won’t be enough surplus for that – economy in previous fuel-greedy habits should also be cultivated.

Did I get that right, more or less? Well, ok then. Let's hope for the sake of all living organisms that somebody that shares this fantasy with you never gets appointed into a position where such destructive practices could actually be implemented.

Why do you need constant reassurance that you’ve ‘got it straight? A bonus - the oxygen-starved ‘dead zone’ along coast lines will also form a natural shark barrier. No more shark nets.
 
Nah, I know you're really having me on here. There's no way that any sane person could seriously entertain such a crackpot idea. * Nudge Nudge *
 
Why do you need constant reassurance that you’ve ‘got it straight? A bonus - the oxygen-starved ‘dead zone’ along coast lines will also form a natural shark barrier. No more shark nets.

So even though with what we know so far algae 'fields' will cause problems, we should go ahead and trash the oceans? What about down-the-line problems we only find out once we've implemented this algae solution?

Palimino said:
This is changing and with the amount of talent, resources and money thrown at it, it will be far more volatile and energy dense (rivalling oil) than simple alcohol.

If there was some magical way to simply "pack in more energy", we'd be doing it - you can't make alcohol more energy dense than its chemical structure allows. The only thing you could do is design machines that use the fuel more efficiently.

Palimino said:
The ‘proof’ (strength of the alcohol) will be much greater than commercially available drinks.

Not sure why you're waffling on about proofs, but it looks like your knowledge on alcoholic fuels extends about as far as "woohoooo beer is fuel! w00t! me and my engine can share a drink!", lots of hand-waving and excited "but in the future they'll..." but you seem to overlook that passage of time between now and the wondrous day when we're all growing algae and sipping martinis out of our car's petrol tanks, the time in which we're stuck with extant technology requiring an increasingly expensive energy source.
 
So even though with what we know so far algae 'fields' will cause problems, we should go ahead and trash the oceans? What about down-the-line problems we only find out once we've implemented this algae solution?

We must know quite a lot (‘natural’ algal blooms). Trashing the oceans? Isn’t that OTT? ‘Down-the-line’ problems will undoubtedly occur, but combined with existing knowledge, they should be solvable. Any ‘problems’ which occur will be related to the extent of the algae cultivation area – everything else is low-risk and known (not to discount the odd curve ball). It’s not as if we [humanity] had a choice. Current speculation favours the virtual extinction of humanity after a horrible period of famine and drought. The algae solution can be implemented fairly quickly and speed is essential. The only sufferers are those heavily invested in fossil fuels. Are you heavily invested?

If there was some magical way to simply "pack in more energy", we'd be doing it - you can't make alcohol more energy dense than its chemical structure allows. The only thing you could do is design machines that use the fuel more efficiently.

This [alcohol] is the only method I know (that’s why I wrote on it) but it is not the only bio-fuel method (I hope). Besides, what about additives?

Not sure why you're waffling on about proofs, but it looks like your knowledge on alcoholic fuels extends about as far as "woohoooo beer is fuel! w00t! me and my engine can share a drink!", lots of hand-waving and excited "but in the future they'll..." but you seem to overlook that passage of time between now and the wondrous day when we're all growing algae and sipping martinis out of our car's petrol tanks, the time in which we're stuck with extant technology requiring an increasingly expensive energy source.

This is just verbal diarrhoea. There is nothing constructive in this rhetoric.
 
We must know quite a lot (‘natural’ algal blooms). Trashing the oceans? Isn’t that OTT? ‘Down-the-line’ problems will undoubtedly occur, but combined with existing knowledge, they should be solvable.

That's the kind of attitude that's landed us in the environmental mess we're already in, some magician-chemist in the future will fix everything for us and in the meantime we can make merry with whatever we like however we like.

not the only bio-fuel method (I hope). Besides, what about additives?

There is biodiesel, but as previously noted this is not really viable. As for additives, ask your future magician-chemist if he foresees any miracles in chemistry.


This is just verbal diarrhoea. There is nothing constructive in this rhetoric.

So, you’ve got nothing.

;)
 
Big financial bust leading to war

I can honestly not fault this guy's logic. We've long passed the point of no return and a complete financial collapse is all but certain.

But look on the bright side: He has also offered some very sound investment advice. Commodities will always retain their physical value, irrespective of what inflation does to our fiat currencies. Got silver?

Marc Faber, the Swiss fund manager and Gloom Boom & Doom editor, said eventually there will be a big bust and then the whole credit expansion will come to an end. Before that happens, governments will continue printing money which in time will lead to a very high inflation rate, and the economy will not respond to continued stimulus.

Speaking at a conference in Singapore on Wednesday, Faber said: "The crisis has not solved anything. On the contrary there is less transparency today than there was before. The government's balance sheet is expanding, and the abuses that have led to the one cause of the crisis have continued".

"I think eventually there will be a big bust and then the whole credit expansion will come to an end," Faber added.

"Before that happens, governments will continue printing money which in time will lead to a very high inflation rate, and the economy will not respond to stimulus".

In one of his Gloomiest predictions, Faber, referred to as Dr Doom, said "the average family will be hurt by that, and then in order to distract the attention of the people, the governments will go to war".

"People ask me against whom? Well, they will invent an enemy," Faber said.

"At some stage, somewhere in future, we will have a war - that you have to be prepared for. And during war times, commodities go up strongly,” said Faber.

"If you want to hedge against war, you don't want to own derivatives in UBS and AIG, but you have to own them physically, like farmland and agricultural commodities. That is something to consider for you as a personal safety and hedge. You have to own some commodities," he added.

In a Bloomberg Television interview in Singapore Wednesday, Faber said "What will continue to happen is that the S&P 500 and the Dow Jones will go down relative to gold.

"I think gold will go up more," he added.

“Will it go US$2,000, US$200,000 or US$2 trillion? I don’t know,” Faber said. “But if you have money printing in the world, then the price will over time rise. It will go up more for things that you just can’t increase the supply, and the supply of precious metals is very limited.”

Faber expects the US government to increase its stimulus spending should the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index fall toward 900. The US budget deficit under President Barack Obama’s administration reached a record US$1.4 trillion in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30. Debt amounted to 9.9% of the nation’s economy, triple the size of the 2008 shortfall.

“I don’t think the S&P will drop below 800 or 900, and eventually will go higher in nominal terms, but not necessary in real terms,” he said, predicting a correction in the measure in the “near term.”

Faber has been warning about a collapse of the capitalistic system 'as we know it today,' massive government debt defaults and the impoverishment of large segments of Western society.

In a May interview with CNBC, he said central banks will continue to print money at full speed, but long-term this strategy will lead to a fall in purchasing power and living standards, especially in developed countries.

The years 2006 and 2007 were "the peak of prosperity" and the world economy is not likely to return soon to that level, he added.

Unless the system is cleaned out of losses, "the way communism collapsed, capitalism will collapse," according to Faber. "The best way to deal with any economic problem is to let the market work it through."

"I repeat what I have said in the past," Faber said. “No decent citizen should trust the Federal Reserve for one second. It’s very important that everyone own some gold because the government will make the dollar (in the long term) useless."

http://www.bi-me.com/main.php?id=42214&t=1&c=35&cg=4&mset=1011
 
The Great American Bubble Machine

A few extracts from a recent article on Goldman Sachs:

The first thing you need to know about Goldman Sachs is that it's everywhere. The world's most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money. In fact, the history of the recent financial crisis, which doubles as a history of the rapid decline and fall of the suddenly swindled dry American empire, reads like a Who's Who of Goldman Sachs graduates.

I particularly like this bit:

What you need to know is the big picture: If America is circling the drain, Goldman Sachs has found a way to be that drain — an extremely unfortunate loophole in the system of Western democratic capitalism, which never foresaw that in a society governed passively by free markets and free elections, organized greed always defeats disorganized democracy.

...and this bit:

All that money that you're losing, it's going somewhere, and in both a literal and a figurative sense, Goldman Sachs is where it's going: The bank is a huge, highly sophisticated engine for converting the useful, deployed wealth of society into the least useful, most wasteful and insoluble substance on Earth — pure profit for rich individuals.

I've been reading up a lot on Goldman Sachs and its role in both precipitating as well as massively benefiting from the credit bubble. This story is the best I've seen for anyone who wants to understand the why and how those despicable Goldman bankers engineered this whole thing. I know it's a full seven pages long but it's an excellent read well worth the time. Enjoy.
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X