Someone cast Wolven Winter on New Orleans!

[llamabeast]

Windmills will affect wind in the same way as buildings. i.e. not importantly. Think about it, it's not like the wind knows that the thing stopping it is turning it into electricity rather than just wasting it (a building turns the energy of wind that hits it into heat).

[thejeff]

Actually thejeff will say he doesn't have a clue how or if the chemical composition of oil and TDP fuel differs.

He will also say that it's more than a semantic quibble though, since both the environmental and geopolitical consequences of the two are so different. (Not to mention the whole "fossil" part of fossil fuels.) I've never heard any refer to any kind of biofuel as a "fossil fuel" before.

Geopolitically the problem changes from paying vast sums of money to potentially unfriendly countries and propping up their dictators with oil wealth and guns to try to buy stability to just using cropland to grow fuel crops (or turkeys, but turkeys are far too inefficient to work on a large scale) instead of food.

Environmentally it's a lot better. Energy input comes from the sun to grow the crops. Any carbon released in burning the fuel is only the carbon that was absorbed in growing. In theory, especially if they can get switchgrass or something similar working, little fertilizer should be needed and land can be used that's not very good for food crops.

[JimMorrison]

So far, the entire biofuel push has been more or less a sham anyways. The amount of energy used to create biodiesel from corn, for example, is greater than the amount of energy released by the resultant fuel.

The economic justifications hold little water, for all intents and purposes. Pushing very hard on the development of renewable energy sources, should yield at least satisfactory results, once a minimum threshhold of funding is introduced.

And to clarify, even if it took solar panels 20 years to recoup their investment in energy costs, compared to the current cost of oil, it is beyond a win-win situation from day 1 (more American jobs in PV-cell fab plants, less reliance on foreign fuel, less reliance on fossil fuel altogether, reduced environmental impact, etc), but it's also a hell of a lot better expenditure of even say $1trillion, than propping up banks whose greed and avarice did nothing for America but highlight how egregiously abusable our free market is, and how abused it has been.

Even if the expense came out to $1trillion every year for the next 5 years, that sort of outlay would create such a stupendous energy surplus as to justify and allow us to rapidly pay off the debt so incurred by the project.

[MaxWilson]

@llamabeast, about non-increasing carbon content from "biofuels" (which I assume includes TDP),

I agree, and that's one of the interesting side-benefits to TDP. Radioheart's statement, though, was not about about carbon ("We are gonna have to stop using fossil fuels eventually. Finite supply after all. Might as well get a headstart.") and neither was thejeff's ("They are not, in any sense of the term, 'fossil fuels'."), so I would still like to understand thejeff's claim.

-Max

[Soyweiser]

Originally Posted by llamabeast

Windmills will affect wind in the same way as buildings. i.e. not importantly. Think about it, it's not like the wind knows that the thing stopping it is turning it into electricity rather than just wasting it (a building turns the energy of wind that hits it into heat).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environ...Climate_change

"One study reports simulations that show detectable changes in global climate for very high wind farm usage, on the order of 10% of the world's land area[8]. In a similar way, there are concerns of micro-climate change, in particular for urban areas nearby, due to changed airflow and reduced wind power."

Sure it is only one study, and a very large amount of landmass. But there is still some effect. (this was a study from 2004, there was also a more recent one, but apparently this one has not reached wikipedia yet )

[MaxWilson]

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

And to clarify, even if it took solar panels 20 years to recoup their investment in energy costs, compared to the current cost of oil, it is beyond a win-win situation from day 1 (more American jobs in PV-cell fab plants, less reliance on foreign fuel, less reliance on fossil fuel altogether, reduced environmental impact, etc), but it's also a... better expenditure of even say $1trillion, than propping up banks

That I agree with. Blowing a trillion dollars on solar power panels (or nuclear plants, or hydroelectric dams, or almost *anything* except Tokamaks) would likely have been more cost-effective than blowing a trillion on trying to stabilize the Middle-East politically so we could keep buying oil from them.

I've got my fingers crossed for the Navy's polywell fusion experiments.

-Max

[MaxWilson]

Originally Posted by thejeff

Actually thejeff will say he doesn't have a clue how or if the chemical composition of oil and TDP fuel differs.

He will also say that it's more than a semantic quibble though, since both the environmental and geopolitical consequences of the two are so different.*snip*

Okay, thanks for explaining.

-Max

[licker]

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

And Licker, we were all having a somewhat rousing, but engaging and (mostly) polite discussion of this subject. It really seems that the only one not worth discussing it with is you, so I wonder why you decided that you had to begin to try to sabotage this thread by trolling and making personal attacks?

roflmao...

Sure whatever, maybe you were late to the thread or maybe you have your blinders on, but me thinks thou doth protest too much. Seriously, what personal attacks are you referring to? The ones where I called someone who was being rude, rude? The ones where I used the same rhetoric 'your side' was using on me on you?

I dunno, I'm not complaining about anything anyone has said to me, and it was likely much more personal than anything I've said to you. Jeez, lets see, you make a post calling me a)an idiot, or b)an idiot... wowsers Jim, you sure got your internet etiquette down.

Did you look at the last link I provided? Do you care to actually look at research which doesn't fit with your view of GW? Do you actively seek it out on your own?

Like I said, you want a real discussion on this topic take it to PM, this thread isn't going to get it done anymore.

[AdmiralZhao]

Oh man, I can't believe I've missed out on this discussion for the last few weeks. All this time I kept seeing it on the front page, and thinking "Wow, how long can they talk about a little snow?"

Ok, time for my data point. I work for an oil company, and while I'm not exactly management material, I have managed to attend two conferences for company big-wigs. Both have had talks on global warming, and the position presented is that man-made GW is real, and if unchecked, runs a significant risk of an OMG-BBQ-Apocalypse scenario. I'm not sure what the marketing and PR departments are saying/promoting with their share of the revenue, but at least internally to the company it is considered a real danger. Fortunately, there is a solution to global warming. By using carbon capture technology, liquefied C02 can be pumped back into underground reservoirs, preventing it from afflicting our atmosphere. Essentially, after paying oil companies for 100 years to pump the carbon out of the earth, people would pay oil companies for the next 100 years to pump the carbon back into the earth. I encourage you all to write your senators in support of this technology, since A) it will do wonders for my job security, and B) I would find this scenario hilarious.

[chrispedersen]

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

The average temperature of the world is gradually, and consistently increasing.

No its not Jim. Data has scatter - with up years and down years.
This year, the temperature will be down.