Energy...

[Homan13PSU]

If Fusion becomes unnecessary, then why.

Why on earth would fusion ever become unnecessary?

 

[cipher6]

If Fusion becomes unnecessary, then why.



Biogas... not natural gas.

Biogas comes from waste. For instance, the biggest producers of methane (which is several times more harmful than Carbon Dioxide) are livestock.

This method takes human waste (or livestock waste)... extracts the methane and creates Electricity and carbon dioxide (also high quality fertilizer).

Sure, releasing CO2 into the air isn't ideal (if you listen to the Global Warming Quacks), but releasing Methane into the atmosphere is a much WORSE idea.

BioGas IS natural gas, that comes from the breakdown of organics instead of the ground.

 

[byteware]

Why on earth would fusion ever become unnecessary?

Why would it be necessary if our energy needs are already met?

BioGas IS natural gas, that comes from the breakdown of organics instead of the ground.

I stand corrected.

However, I stand by my statement that the by products are much less harmful (according to Global Warming Nuts) than allowing them to just release into the atmosphere.

 

[ElasticNinja]

(according to Global Warming Nuts)

look, its fine for ye Americans when you are moving closer to the North pole, but seriously, for everyone elses sake, get a grip

 

[cipher6]

However, I stand by my statement that the by products are much less harmful (according to Global Warming Nuts) than allowing them to just release into the atmosphere.

Agreed, I've read cow farts are the number one source of greenhouse gases. Natural gas (Methane) is the cleanest burning fossil fuel around. current coal burning plants can easily be converted to NG. You can transport it in pipelines vs trucks which means transport uses less fuel as well. And if you bring biogas online, you can pipe it to plants to generate electricity.

Only problem with biogas is, its dirty are requires more processing than NG before it can be used, and typically has a lower BTU output. Thats why currently its used mainly for generating power on-site, as opposed to injecting it into the gas grid.

But methane in general is a perfect bridge between coal and "green" energy generation.

There is enough NG is Louisiana to power the US for 100 years... if it was utilized to its fullest. We currently don't have a lot of NG power plants.

You could also convert cars to run on NG, greatly reducing demand for oil.

 

[byteware]

look, its fine for ye Americans when you are moving closer to the North pole, but seriously, for everyone elses sake, get a grip

Lol... shadow, you can't defend what they are trying to pass as Global Warming science.

It has been so dirtied by political agendas that it's not even funny. No one has ever proven that Carbon dioxide or any of the other "Greenhouse" gases cause Global Warming, and they are more than happy to accept sketchy information as fact in order to push their view that Global Warming is caused by man.

I don't argue that the world is warming. I would just like someone to do a little scientific research as to the cause.

 

[byteware]

Agreed, I've read cow farts are the number one source of greenhouse gases.

That's a crude attempt to joke off that Cattle are the number one producers of methane. It's not farts, it's waste (although, I'm sure they pass a good bit via farts as well).

Natural gas (Methane) is the cleanest burning fossil fuel around. current coal burning plants can easily be converted to NG. You can transport it in pipelines vs trucks which means transport uses less fuel as well. And if you bring biogas online, you can pipe it to plants to generate electricity.

Biogas isn't IN gas form. Compression of cow crap creates methane which is burned to produce electricity. It makes absolutely no point to separate the electricity generation from the compression system. And it's far easier to transport electricity than the waste material.

But methane in general is a perfect bridge between coal and "green" energy generation.

We have three choices.

1) We use biogas digesters, and release CO2 into the air.
2) We leave the waste on the ground, and release methane into the air.
3) We transport and bury all of the waste in a facility to prevent methane from escaping.

I like number 1 personally. I think it gives us the best bang for our greenhouse buck.

It IS a green energy generation. The very use of it reduces the effects of Greenhouse gases on climate change.

 

[ElasticNinja]

Lol... shadow, you can't defend what they are trying to pass as Global Warming science.

It has been so dirtied by political agendas that it's not even funny. No one has ever proven that Carbon dioxide or any of the other "Greenhouse" gases cause Global Warming, and they are more than happy to accept sketchy information as fact in order to push their view that Global Warming is caused by man.

I don't argue that the world is warming. I would just like someone to do a little scientific research as to the cause.

I dont see why i should trust oil backed skeptics over 97% of climate scientists, and general evidence that people learn in school

 

[cipher6]

Biogas isn't IN gas form.

Yes, it is, hence the name bioGAS. Solid waste (before its converted to gas) is refereed to as a bioMASS.

Compression of cow crap creates methane which is burned to produce electricity.

bioMASS is used to generate bioGAS (and other bio fuels) that is then used to generate electricity (or some other power source)... I've never heard about "compression" though. Typically its a biochemical reaction, using micro-organisms to naturally break it down and release gas, like a digester or compost pile. I guess compression might facilitate the process, but I've never read anything about it.

It makes absolutely no point to separate the electricity generation from the compression system.

Depends on what your using it for. If your using it for on-site electrical generation then no. If you want to use it to power the nation, then yes it does.

And it's far easier to transport electricity than the waste material.

And even easier to transport gas. Gas pipelines have a loss of somewhere around 1%-5%, electricity transport is somewhere closer to 10%. (off the top of my head)

If your generating large amount of electricity with biogas, you would want to do that near population centers, where the electricity will be used. Instead of producing it and many many points scattered around, and then distributed with wires that loose more.

You can pipe the biogas from landfills and dairy farm digester to NG power plants, essentially injecting it into the gas grid, then distribute that electricity using existing power-line infrastructure. No need to have a power plant at every location, or loose more in the distribution, saving cost.

We have three choices.

1) We use biogas digesters, and release CO2 into the air.

Technically, thats a bioMASS digester that generates biogas... no need to digest gas, this is essentially what our landfills are, large biomass digesters.

It IS a green energy generation. The very use of it reduces the effects of Greenhouse gases on climate change.

biomas/biogas/methane is not "green" its just "greener" than coal and oil. CO2, black carbon and many other pollutants are released all along the process chain.

 

[cipher6]

I dont see why i should trust oil backed skeptics over 97% of climate scientists, and general evidence that people learn in school

So only oil has a financial stake in Global Warming science? What about the thousands of scientist that built their careers on it? If they put out evidence its no big deal, the millions in grants they get every year will vanish and now they have no job.

But, if its a big deal, and future of the world depends on it, more and more money will flow to them.

 

[ElasticNinja]

So only oil has a financial stake in Global Warming science? What about the thousands of scientist that built their careers on it? If they put out evidence its no big deal, the millions in grants they get every year will vanish and now they have no job.

But, if its a big deal, and future of the world depends on it, more and more money will flow to them.

yet how many confessions have there been? Most people are not corrupt
certainly 90+% of a highly educated portion of the population would not be

 

[cipher6]

yet how many confessions have there been? Most people are not corrupt
certainly 90+% of a highly educated portion of the population would not be

So then why to you assume people working in oil are? The large oil companies employ the top of the top educated people as well. Is there something about the molecular makeup of oil that makes people that deal with it evil?

 

[ElasticNinja]

So then why to you assume people working in oil are? The large oil companies employ the top of the top educated people as well. Is there something about the molecular makeup of oil that makes people that deal with it evil?

duh.. they sell oil, which when burned causes worsening of AGW

besides, would these scientists benignity from increased confusion rather than the sure as hell approach?

 

[cipher6]

duh.. they sell oil, which when burned causes worsening of AGW

So your argument as to the authority of pro-AGW scientists over anti-AGW scientists, is that oil people lie because they produce a product that contributes to AGW?... Then unproven thing your trying to establish who is a better authority on?

Do you understand the failure of that logic?

 

[ElasticNinja]

So your argument as to the authority of pro-AGW scientists over anti-AGW scientists, is that oil people lie because they produce a product that contributes to AGW?... Then unproven thing your trying to establish who is a better authority on?

Do you understand the failure of that logic?

fistly, most aren't highly educated, however many oil geologists do accept AGW (a lot more than 3%)

even your skeptics

many oil propagandists don't give a crap even if they know what's happening

climateprogress.org/2010/08/16/pat-michaels-global-warming-denier-cato-big-oil/

 

[cipher6]

fistly, most aren't highly educated, however many oil geologists do accept AGW (a lot more than 3%)

Uhh... Yes they are, geologists, as well as engineers, computer/IT geeks, Lawyers, the top oil companies employ the cream of the crop in all these fields and more.

Whats your evidence most geologists working in oil and gas accept AGW? I know many of them, have a few in the office next to me, and most don't.

many oil propagandists don't give a crap even if they know what's happening

Look, your just making statements of your personal opinion, that doesn't really mean much. So you hate oil people, think their evil in some way. Fine. Why don't you stop using their product.

You've failed to explain why only oil has a financial stake, and therefore lies, while pro-AGW researchers (who get millions even billions a year to do what they do) are somehow immune from a financial incentive to twist the facts.

 

[Homan13PSU]

Why would it be necessary if our energy needs are already met?

There is no form of energy generation that is as clean, self sustaining and would provide the amount of energy that fusion would. Sure, we're still a ways off. But fusion IS the future, hands down.

 

[ElasticNinja]

Uhh... Yes they are, geologists, as well as engineers, computer/IT geeks, Lawyers, the top oil companies employ the cream of the crop in all these fields and more.

Whats your evidence most geologists working in oil and gas accept AGW? I know many of them, have a few in the office next to me, and most don't.





Look, your just making statements of your personal opinion, that doesn't really mean much. So you hate oil people, think their evil in some way. Fine. Why don't you stop using their product.

You've failed to explain why only oil has a financial stake, and therefore lies, while pro-AGW researchers (who get millions even billions a year to do what they do) are somehow immune from a financial incentive to twist the facts.

even 47% of oil geoligists, whos livelyhoods at risk, agree
Why on Earth, do so many members of the public think they know so much better just because its convientiant for them

YOUR "OPINION"?IS THE ONE THATS PERSONAL
you just dont want to care
I'm backed up by facts of figures, ye are backed up by closed mindedness, ignorance, lack of care for others and general M

 

[Mac_Leod]

I can't wait until I can mount a Mr.Fusion on the back of my car. Oh, and a hover conversion. Four more years.

 

[cipher6]

even 47% of oil geoligists, whos livelyhoods at risk, agree

Says who?

Are the other 53% just evil and telling lies, or is there also evidence to the contrary, and people in good faith can disagree?

YOUR "OPINION"?IS THE ONE THATS PERSONAL
you just dont want to care
I'm backed up by facts of figures, ye are backed up by closed mindedness, ignorance, lack of care for others and general M

 

[Homan13PSU]

I can't wait until I can mount a Mr.Fusion on the back of my car. Oh, and a hover conversion. Four more years.

Dude, don't forget hover boards.

 

[ElasticNinja]

yet rural temps have increased in parralell

CO2 is an insulator
its increasing rapidly in the atmosphere
temperatures are increasing rapidly (relatively)

being ignorant or believing what is convinient does not neccesserally make you evil

BTW peer review is a bitch, have your conspiracy theories being peer reviewed?
Because everytime someone checked them, they disproved them

 

[byteware]

I dont see why i should trust oil backed skeptics over 97% of climate scientists, and general evidence that people learn in school

Here is where political rhetoric has no place in science.

Some skeptics have been financed by "oil" companies.

Most have not been. Most have looked at the science and found it lacking.


If the fact that "oil" backed scientists have a financial stake in finding AGW science lacking means you dismiss their work, do you apply the same standard to those who support AGW science?

If their livelihood depends on AGW being real... then wouldn't you also dismiss THEIR claims?

Or is that just only a standard you apply to those you disagree with?



Political rhetoric has no place in science. The fact that you are using it shows just how much it has been used by AGW "scientists", and how shaky their science is.

 

[cipher6]

CO2 is an insulator
its increasing rapidly in the atmosphere
temperatures are increasing rapidly (relatively)

Causation is still an assumption.

BTW peer review is a bitch, have your conspiracy theories being peer reviewed?
Because everytime someone checked them, they disproved them

You remember all that came out in the Climate-Gate? Many "peer reviewed" publications have been compromised.

And the IPCC has lost all authority because of the crap they've been putting out.

 

[byteware]

Yes, it is, hence the name bioGAS. Solid waste (before its converted to gas) is refereed to as a bioMASS.




bioMASS is used to generate bioGAS (and other bio fuels) that is then used to generate electricity (or some other power source)... I've never heard about "compression" though. Typically its a biochemical reaction, using micro-organisms to naturally break it down and release gas, like a digester or compost pile. I guess compression might facilitate the process, but I've never read anything about it.




Depends on what your using it for. If your using it for on-site electrical generation then no. If you want to use it to power the nation, then yes it does.

A couple of things... We're on the same page, just different places on the page.

BioGas is extracted from BioMass. There is no reason to separate the extraction from the electricity generation process.

Electricity created "on-site" is fed right into the power grid. So, it's available to anyone on the grid.

There's NO need to ship biogas anywhere.

And even easier to transport gas. Gas pipelines have a loss of somewhere around 1%-5%, electricity transport is somewhere closer to 10%. (off the top of my head)

If your generating large amount of electricity with biogas, you would want to do that near population centers, where the electricity will be used. Instead of producing it and many many points scattered around, and then distributed with wires that loose more.

You can pipe the biogas from landfills and dairy farm digester to NG power plants, essentially injecting it into the gas grid, then distribute that electricity using existing power-line infrastructure. No need to have a power plant at every location, or loose more in the distribution, saving cost.




Technically, thats a bioMASS digester that generates biogas... no need to digest gas, this is essentially what our landfills are, large biomass digesters.

While it may be more efficient to pipe the gas around for centralized electricity generation, the infrastructure requirements are FAR steeper than just generating electricity on site.

Dairy farms aren't far removed from population centers anymore. Heck, There's farm across the street from my house. It's not like current power plants that are located long distances from populations.

biomas/biogas/methane is not "green" its just "greener" than coal and oil. CO2, black carbon and many other pollutants are released all along the process chain.

You're only looking at one half of the equation.

You're looking at the pollutants expelled generating electricity from biogas.

I put to you that the pollutants put into the environment from generating electricity from biogas, are less harmful than the pollutants released into the environment by leaving the bioMass alone and NOT generating electricity with it.