71
   

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

 
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Mar, 2007 01:08 pm
Greenies are rather left here, left of the Social-Democrats, at least.

The use and the production of biofuel isn't seen really politically here.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Mar, 2007 01:40 pm
Foxfyre wrote:

I am definitely a 'greenie' and I am pretty conservative in many areas (not all). But the greenies also include some of the most militant leftwing wacko groups and some of these are huge admirers of Castro and socialist policies they pretend are wonderful in Cuba.


C'mon. Be fair. If you include the greatst of ideologs on the left you can't ignore the extremists on the right. I'm fairly positive that the KKK votes republican, but I'm smart enought to know that they don't represent any real valid claim of the republican base. I'm sure republicans would agree that those people are so far off, they have fallen of the wing all together. If their are some crazies that link biofuel to support of castro, whatever. It means nothing for me and how I feel about either.

Nor should it.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Mar, 2007 01:42 pm
Diest TKO wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:

I am definitely a 'greenie' and I am pretty conservative in many areas (not all). But the greenies also include some of the most militant leftwing wacko groups and some of these are huge admirers of Castro and socialist policies they pretend are wonderful in Cuba.


C'mon. Be fair. If you include the greatst of ideologs on the left you can't ignore the extremists on the right. I'm fairly positive that the KKK votes republican, but I'm smart enought to know that they don't represent any real valid claim of the republican base. I'm sure republicans would agree that those people are so far off, they have fallen of the wing all together. If their are some crazies that link biofuel to support of castro, whatever. It means nothing for me and how I feel about either.

Nor should it.


Nor do any of your observations here have anything whatsoever to do with what I said on the subject of greenies and Castro.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Mar, 2007 01:51 pm
Okay, If I'm off. If I'm misunderstanding you, please clarify. It seems like your linkiing support of castro to support of bio-fuels. be more clear. If I'm making irrellavant observations about extremists on either end of the spectrum, explain the significance of us knowing that their are extremists that view the support for one means the supprt of another.

Be more clear. I thought I understood what you posted, here's your chance to clarify.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Mar, 2007 01:59 pm
Diest TKO wrote:
Okay, If I'm off. If I'm misunderstanding you, please clarify. It seems like your linkiing support of castro to support of bio-fuels. be more clear. If I'm making irrellavant observations about extremists on either end of the spectrum, explain the significance of us knowing that their are extremists that view the support for one means the supprt of another.

Be more clear. I thought I understood what you posted, here's your chance to clarify.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Mar, 2007 02:08 pm
Foxfyre wrote:


1. I am both a greenie and a conservative.


Well, if you say so.

Quote:
Green politics or Green ideology is the ideology of the Green Parties, mainly informed by environmentalism, ecology and sustainable economics and aimed at developing a sustainable society. It is considered by its advocates to be an alternative to socialism, conservatism, and liberalism, although adherents of the traditional ideologies tend to view Greens as representing "one of the others." Certainly it is true that Green parties advocate measures that appear to conventional politicians different from those grouped into labour and capital by economic interests. Even so, Green Parties are, in general, modern left-wing parties, and most Greens see themselves as being more leftist than the social democratic parties.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Mar, 2007 02:08 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Greenies are rather left here, left of the Social-Democrats, at least.


Sure, but not because the Greenies are so far on the left, but because the Social-Democrats have moved so far to the right in recent years that they are barely distinguishable from the Conservatives!

Twisted Evil
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Mar, 2007 02:09 pm
Embarrassed

Yes.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Mar, 2007 02:12 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:


1. I am both a greenie and a conservative.


Well, if you say so.

Quote:
Green politics or Green ideology is the ideology of the Green Parties, mainly informed by environmentalism, ecology and sustainable economics and aimed at developing a sustainable society. It is considered by its advocates to be an alternative to socialism, conservatism, and liberalism, although adherents of the traditional ideologies tend to view Greens as representing "one of the others." Certainly it is true that Green parties advocate measures that appear to conventional politicians different from those grouped into labour and capital by economic interests. Even so, Green Parties are, in general, modern left-wing parties, and most Greens see themselves as being more leftist than the social democratic parties.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Mar, 2007 02:19 pm
I suspected that you used an own terminolgy here.

I would have considered "libertarian and green" in one sentence as a good joke .... if I hadn't found now that green libertarianism is a political philosophy established in the United States.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Mar, 2007 03:15 pm
From the NYT Circuits newsletter, online as well here:

Quote:
http://i12.tinypic.com/47vprop.jpg

The Future of Hydrogen Cars

Over on my blog, I'm wrapping up my notes on the 2007 TED conference (Technology, Entertainment, Design), a reality-altering, four-day series of 50 speakers, most of whom are absolutely brilliant.ยด



But for me, one of the most enlightening talks this year took place "off-campus."

On the second day of the show, attendees were invited to attend a lunch-hour presentation by Dr. Frank Ochmann, the head of BMW's clean-energy development project, who had flown in from Munich for the event.

BMW believes that liquid hydrogen is the best bet as the next-generation fuel for cars. A memorable opening slide depicted a timeline of human history, in the middle of which was a narrow, tall spike showing our relatively brief fossil-fuel-burning period. The blank area to the left was labeled, "First solar civilization," and the one to its right, "Second solar civilization."

It reminded attendees that no matter what you believe politically, fossil fuels are finite. Period.

Anyway, BMW has the first fleet of hydrogen-powered cars (100, a quarter of which are in the U.S.). Other car companies, of course, are experimenting with hydrogen as fuel, but these 100 cars aren't hand-built prototypes or concept cars; they were factory built like any other BMW model, which is a significant milestone.

Anyway, the advantage of hydrogen cars is that they don't pollute. The only thing coming out of their tailpipe is pure water vapor. In fact, each audience member was given a bottle of bottled water--whose label, instead of "Evian" or "Dasana," was "EXHAUST." (Dr. Ochmann took a swig from it to make the point.)

Afterward, attendees were invited to test drive one of the hydrogen cars. I did. It was just exactly like driving any other car (well, any other BMW 7 series)--after all, the engine was the same. The only thing different was the fuel system.

Actually, there are two; like many alternative vehicles these days, this one is a hybrid. If you're far from a hydrogen tank (and you will be for years), you can press a button on the steering wheel, labeled H2, that switches seamlessly between hydrogen and gasoline.

Some car companies are experimenting with hydrogen gas; BMW's fleet uses liquid hydrogen, which must be kept at -423 degrees Fahrenheit. That's pretty cold; -459, after all, is absolute zero. The fuel is kept in a superthick insulated tank at the back of the car--a tank so bulky, it makes a visible bulge behind the rear seats.

A video illustrated how you fuel up one of these cars. The "gas pump" hose doesn't just slip into your tank's opening; you actually lock it on, creating a seal. Inside the tube, two spherical valves rotate 90 degrees; each of these balls has a hole drilled through it to permit the passage of a second, thinner, inner hose. This inner hose passes through the two valves and all the way down into your car's tank to "rain" the hydrogen.

After the talk, I asked if hydrogen could explode (think Hindenburg). The engineers responded that in Germany, they've tried shooting bullets at the tank, slamming a construction girder into it, and so on; liquid hydrogen may burn, but it doesn't blow up. In that regard, it's actually safer in a spill situation than gasoline.

Now, I'm well aware of how hostile some critics are to the concept of hydrogen cars. Their primary objection, of course, is the amount of energy that's consumed (and pollution generated) in producing hydrogen in the first place.

BMW agrees that hydrogen cars are pointless unless the hydrogen itself is produced using clean, renewable energy sources: solar, wind, geothermal and so on.

"At the beginning, some of it's going to be nonrenewable," said Dr. Ochmann, "but the percentage will increase." (In the meantime, even if fossil fuels are used in the short term, at least the byproducts of burning them can theoretically be controlled at a single source.)

Another objection raised by an audience member: What about getting fillups? Our government is making a big push toward ethanol as a new fuel (despite dubious environmental prospects), but there are still only several hundred ethanol filling stations in the entire country. Isn't the situation even worse for hydrogen pumps?

BMW reiterated that moving to hydrogen will be a long-term proposition. At the moment, in fact, there are only three hydrogen pumps in the U.S. at the moment (California and Washington, D.C.) "It will be a difficult process," Dr. Ochmann said: "station by station, gas company by gas company."

The point is that, as he put it, "This is a marathon, not a sprint." Many pieces have to be put in place: governmental, public, technological and legal. "We all have to move together at the same time," he concluded.

But BMW's point, and I agree, is that at least the technology part of the auto-fuel problem has been solved.

Yes, yes, of course, taking hydrogen to the mainstream still requires staggering amounts of investment, legislation, policy, and political will. But from a purely technological standpoint, using today's renewable power sources and liquid hydrogen, the balance sheet for the entire cycle, from hydrogen production to driving the cars, could reduce carbon-dioxide emissions by at least 90 percent, by BMW's calculations.

Of course, BMW's way isn't the only way. There are many approaches to using hydrogen in cars, each with pros and cons, each exhibiting both recent breakthroughs and significant obstacles. (The Wikipedia.com entry on "hydrogen cars" offers an excellent, balanced and up-to-date presentation on the issue.)

Most car companies, in fact, are pursuing hydrogen fuel cells instead; they transform hydrogen into electricity, which then powers the car--or, in their current incarnation, underpowers it. Plenty of people positively spit on BMW's approach (here's an example).

But people like this are completely ignoring the fact that all of these experiments are in their earliest stages, and will improve.

Meanwhile, the biggest obstacles are presented by people's attitudes, not technology: "Oh, that'll never work."

Guess what? It's going to have to work. Sooner or later, hydrogen, or something like it, is all we'll have to work with.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Mar, 2007 03:31 pm
Just as an aside, I wonder why those who so strongly object to nuclear because of Chernobyl are so gung ho on hydrogen despite the Hindenburg?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Mar, 2007 03:34 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Just as an aside, I wonder why those who so strongly object to nuclear because of Chernobyl are so gung ho on hydrogen despite the Hindenburg?


I suggest, Foxfyre, you read the text in my above quote.

Walter Hinteler wrote:
Quote:
After the talk, I asked if hydrogen could explode (think Hindenburg). The engineers responded that in Germany, they've tried shooting bullets at the tank, slamming a construction girder into it, and so on; liquid hydrogen may burn, but it doesn't blow up. In that regard, it's actually safer in a spill situation than gasoline.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Mar, 2007 03:43 pm
I read it Walter. But I was discussing irrational fears, not facts. There is a difference.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Mar, 2007 03:53 pm
In that case I don't understand your response at all.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Mar, 2007 04:03 pm
You rarely do, Walter. You rarely do. But that's okay. It's not important. Carry on.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Mar, 2007 04:44 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Just as an aside, I wonder why those who so strongly object to nuclear because of Chernobyl are so gung ho on hydrogen despite the Hindenburg?


Hydrogen is no more dangerous than gasoline. Under atmospheric conditions it is a gas, not a liquid. However even a small puddle of gasoline readily yields sufficient vapor for combustion.

Hydrogen fuel cells run fairly hiot - but no hotter than the combustion temperatures in your present automobile. These are all rather unremarkable engineering issues - no big deal.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Mar, 2007 04:54 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Just as an aside, I wonder why those who so strongly object to nuclear because of Chernobyl are so gung ho on hydrogen despite the Hindenburg?


Hydrogen is no more dangerous than gasoline. Under atmospheric conditions it is a gas, not a liquid. However even a small puddle of gasoline readily yields sufficient vapor for combustion.

Hydrogen fuel cells run fairly hiot - but no hotter than the combustion temperatures in your present automobile. These are all rather unremarkable engineering issues - no big deal.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Mar, 2007 05:12 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
Okay, If I'm off. If I'm misunderstanding you, please clarify. It seems like your linkiing support of castro to support of bio-fuels. be more clear. If I'm making irrellavant observations about extremists on either end of the spectrum, explain the significance of us knowing that their are extremists that view the support for one means the supprt of another.

Be more clear. I thought I understood what you posted, here's your chance to clarify.


1. I am both a greenie and a conservative.
2. I have no problem with bio fuels if it is practical, efficient, and effective to use these within the grand scheme of things.
3. Greenies by and large approve of and support bio fuels.
4. Fidel Castro is on the record as opposing bio fuels.
5. There is one leftwing wacko group among the greenies who admire and champion Fidel Casto.
6. I observed that those greenies who admire and champion Fidel Castro may feel quite conflicted re his stance on bio fuels.

That's all I said though most people probably didn't need it spelled out for them in this much detail.

Capiche?


Ok. Relavance? So what if some radical group champions Castro? Don't steal the hole out of my donut when I reply to this. I don't see the relavance in even making people aware of crazies.

After you have clarified, I realize I understood the whole time, my original post was plenty relavant.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Mar, 2007 06:22 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
[Oh well. I see that it was a lame joke. Good thing I don't make my living being a comedian huh?
.


Sorry - I was a bit literal & pedantic.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 09/21/2024 at 05:43:20