Not signed in (Sign In)

Welcome, Guest

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

Vanilla 1.1.3 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

    •  
      CommentAuthorStBPegger
    • CommentTimeMay 14th 2008 edited
     
    From the freep:
    When the Bush government gleefully announced it was getting behind biofuels, agriculture experts knew the program had nothing to do with helping out the planet: It was just another massive subsidy for Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland, the monstrous food-processing conglomerates who've been driving U.S. farm policy for decades.

    So when the news broke that the production of biofuels was doing more harm to the planet than helping it -- and making life painful for the most impoverished people on Earth to boot -- who did the opinion-makers and policy wonks criticize?

    Amazingly, the U.S. agriculture lobby got off remarkably easy.

    The biofuels debacle was blamed on "global-warming alarmists" and "climate-change scarecrows" who somehow forced the governments of the world to mess with the global food supply.

    True enough, the move toward biofuels was always sold to the public as an environmentally responsible idea. And some elected officials swallowed this hooey themselves, since creating more subsidies for food processors (note that actual farmers rarely benefit) is always a popular legislative practice.

    But the worldwide price of food is also on the rise because the cost of creating food is ballooning with the price of oil. It takes an ocean of fossil fuel to manufacture fertilizers, drive tractors and harvest crops off any field -- and another ocean of oil to ship those crops around the world and keep them cool in refrigerator trucks and containers.

    http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/subscriber/columnists/b_kives/story/4172206p-4760585c.html
  1.  
    If we can get a billion people to pass on from these tornadoes, floods, shooting each other for religious reasons, then that will cut the demand for food by 15% or so! Then we have to get the crops back for food only, and then the prices will lower because of supply and demand.

    So now we have to get all the Al Gore idiots to undue the harm that they have caused. We have to cancel all bio-fuel subsidies, and get back to making Fuel Efficient vehicles, with vehicles running on batteries for 40 mile outings, and recharging overnight using electricity produced by water, not coal or gas.
    Anyone agree??
  2.  
    Posted By: rosencrentzAl Gore idiots


    Do you have other boogy men?
  3.  
    Does Bush count?


    How about the politicians who preach "family values", whatever that is, and are sleeping around, get caught, and then apologize to the world, with their poor wife and children just off to the side of the cameras?
    •  
      CommentAuthorjim
    • CommentTimeMay 15th 2008
     
    Boy, it is a good thing that we have an unlimited supply of water!

    To bad its not true as there have been dry wells all over the area when I lived out there a few years back. Look at Alberta running out of water to run the tar sands so they will or want to dam the North Sask river believe it is that one . Now the farmers are screaming in Sask as they won't have water to spray on there chemical induced crops, which will flow down river into Lake Wpg where The UofM tries to figure out the health of the lake. God we humans are stupid we always think we can do better then nature use and never look at replace just think it is endless.
    One of the largest means of clean water we drained to give more land to grow more corn, swamps and slews got rid of them. Farmers were convinced to do that by a petrochemical industry ready to make their crops grow better . water was a small part just pump it up . There's my rant
    • CommentAuthorMr. Nobody
    • CommentTimeMay 15th 2008
     
    Jim on the water point , Imperial was just denied a permit for tar sands in Northern Alberta.
  4.  
    Posted By: rosencrentzDoes Bush count?


    How about the politicians who preach "family values", whatever that is, and are sleeping around, get caught, and then apologize to the world, with their poor wife and children just off to the side of the cameras?


    What is this, "family values day"? Are these your "boogey men"?
    •  
      CommentAuthorsmjpilot
    • CommentTimeMay 15th 2008
     
    Is corn-sourced ethanol an acceptable stepping stone to other technology? If corn fuel is necessary to get the infrastructure to convert to ethanol fuel, then deriving ethanol from other sources becomes more feasible, right? If this can be a transitional situation, is it worth it?
    • CommentAuthorMr. Nobody
    • CommentTimeMay 15th 2008
     
    NO, electric cars are the future. Using R&D money in that area would be better spent.
    • CommentAuthorDeanK
    • CommentTimeMay 15th 2008
     
    why electric? Why not hydrogen powered cars?
    • CommentAuthorMr. Nobody
    • CommentTimeMay 15th 2008 edited
     
    Electric is easier and the infrastructure is in place. besides they do the same thing, I guess the struggle will be which of the two comes in cheaper. batteries are developing at a good clip. I'm impressed with tesla's performance.
    • CommentAuthorDeanK
    • CommentTimeMay 15th 2008
     
    most everyone has a tap in their house... so why not Hydrogen again?
    • CommentAuthorMr. Nobody
    • CommentTimeMay 15th 2008
     
    Electrolosyis ...sure, here brush up ..http://witcombe.sbc.edu/water/chemistryelectrolysis.html

    i'll go with the 110 outlet and charge my battery.
    • CommentAuthorDeanK
    • CommentTimeMay 15th 2008
     
    your heavy batteries... why not just plug your hydrogen car into water and electricity at night and get more power for less weight?
    • CommentAuthorMr. Nobody
    • CommentTimeMay 15th 2008
     
    Did you miss the tesla Dean. Come on, your a computer guy, you've seen how far and fast we've come in the last 20 years.

    Batteries will get lighter just like laptops went from 30 lbs to under 2 lbs. Tesla proves the technology. A range of 350 K's on a charge with a top speed of 130 MPH. Forget the Jap car name, but it hit 350 Kmph before they throttled down, they think it could hit 425 plus. impressive don't you think, all on batteries.

    Seems to me its a whole lot more efficient to chase that path then trying to figure out the "hydrogen' solution.

    But, if hydrogen is what you fancy, all good, just as long as the envelope is pushed and we get off oil.
    • CommentAuthorDeanK
    • CommentTimeMay 15th 2008
     
    Oh I know batteries are an okay one.. but I am not discounting hydrogen..

    Now if we could just get those pesky environmentalists to stay quiet everyone could be drivign nuclear powered cars.
    • CommentAuthorMr. Nobody
    • CommentTimeMay 15th 2008
     
    well nuke's for homes would be great, then charge your batt's.
    •  
      CommentAuthorsmjpilot
    • CommentTimeMay 15th 2008
     
    Mr. Fusion would be ideal
    •  
      CommentAuthorSputnik
    • CommentTimeMay 15th 2008
     
    I wonder what the evironmentalists viewpoint is when it comes to hydrogen cars that emit water vapour from their tailpipes.

    Since it is a known fact that water vapour is the most abundant and most powerful GHG out there right now.
    • CommentAuthorDeanK
    • CommentTimeMay 15th 2008
     
    nah sput... you just add on a water collector and the vapour is cooled and put straight into a tank in your car so you can enjoy refreshing fresh made water while you drive.