Page 52 of 111 FirstFirst ... 242474849505152535455565762102 ... LastLast
Results 1,021 to 1,040 of 2209
  1. #1021  
    "Do as I say, not as I do" <---Gore invented that saying after inventing the internet.
  2. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #1022  
    Quote Originally Posted by aairman23 View Post
    Gore invented that saying after inventing the internet.
    CORRECTION: After inventing "the Internets" .
  3. #1023  
    After doing a search on "the google" , I found you are correct sir
  4. #1024  
    Quote Originally Posted by sblanter View Post
    And methane is considered "renewable"?
    Yes, if generated by the fermentation of organic matter such as manure, wastewater sludge, municipal solid waste, or any other organic sources, under anaerobic conditions.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  5. #1025  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup View Post
    Yes, if generated by the fermentation of organic matter such as manure, wastewater sludge, municipal solid waste, or any other organic sources, under anaerobic conditions.
    In Vermont they already have a public utility, Cowpower, that generates electricity from methane from cattle. This is a great strategy. It burns a greenhouse gas from a major source. They have more cows than people in Vermont.

    (I do not know how they capture the farts.)
  6. #1026  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray View Post
    (I do not know how they capture the farts.)
    Whoever is the official fart collector should be exclusively featured on the season finale of Discover Channel's Dirty Jobs.
  7. #1027  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    Whoever is the official fart collector should be exclusively featured on the season finale of Discover Channel's Dirty Jobs.
    lol
  8. #1028  
    And this methane, if burned, turns to what?
  9. #1029  
    Energy?
    Oh, and that dangerous air pollutant that we also make by breathing.
  10. #1030  
    Bingo.
  11. #1031  
    Just curious; how much methane is produced from "renewable" sources vs. drilled, etc?
  12. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #1032  
    Thanks for making it painfully obvious that this is not the place for a sober discussion on this subject.
  13. #1033  
    backbeat, hope you're okay. Who the heck was that post directed to?
  14. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #1034  
    As stated, it's painfully obvious.
  15. #1035  
    Okay, I'll be back when there's something worth reading.
  16. #1036  
    Well, I take that back. I have to return just to see if there is something worthwhile.

    But I won't bother wasting time rereading posts because someone implies "if you don't know I'm certainly not going to tell you".
  17. #1037  
    Quote Originally Posted by sblanter View Post
    And this methane, if burned, turns to what?
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    Energy?
    Oh, and that dangerous air pollutant that we also make by breathing.
    Quote Originally Posted by sblanter View Post
    Bingo.
    Two people, making fun of things they obviously have no clue of, thus making fools of themselves. A public display of ignorance, how telling.

    I wonder if at least either of you two, assuming good will, would have the capability of discerning between CO2 ADDED to the atmosphere by the process of burning fossil fuels (thus increasing the level of atmospheric CO2, thus increasing the greenhouse effect, thus increasing temperature), and CO2 merely cycling from CO2 built into carbohydrates by plants to CO2 released again by respiration or other forms of oxidation, such as burning methane from a renewable source (thus NOT resulting in net CO2 added to the atmosphere)...

    You two clearly don't even know the most basic facts of the carbon cycle and CO2 emissions, and yet you feel competent to doubt global warming? Why don't you leave this to people who know at least something about it?
    Last edited by clulup; 04/12/2007 at 03:57 AM.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  18. #1038  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup View Post
    Two people, making fun of things they obviously have no clue of, thus making fools of themselves. A public display of ignorance, how telling.
    *Sigh* Read on.

    I wonder if at least either of you two, assuming good will, would have the capability of discerning between CO2 ADDED to the atmosphere by the process of burning fossil fuels (thus increasing the level of atmospheric CO2, thus increasing the greenhouse effect, thus increasing temperature), and CO2 merely cycling from CO2 built into carbohydrates by plants to CO2 released again by respiration or other forms of oxidation, such as burning methane from a renewable source (thus NOT resulting in net CO2 added to the atmosphere)...
    You might have sounded really smart there if you weren't wrong. You're confusing CO2 with carbon. When you burn methane from manure, you add CO2 to the atmosphere. The argument for it is that methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.

    You two clearly don't even know the most basic facts of the carbon cycle and CO2 emissions, and yet you feel competent to doubt global warming? Why don't you leave this to people who know at least something about it?
    You clearly don't even know the most basic facts of the carbon cycle and CO2 emissions, and yet you feel competent to talk about global warming? Why don't you leave this to people who know at least something about it?

    Btw, after all this time, you still don't know my position on global warming. Please respond to just what I say, not what you infer.
  19. #1039  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    You might have sounded really smart there if you weren't wrong. You're confusing CO2 with carbon. When you burn methane from manure, you add CO2 to the atmosphere. The argument for it is that methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.
    Dear samkim, as you may know by now, I am very, very, VERY rarely wrong, and certainly not this time.

    Also, I would never, ever confuse carbon with CO2. As most people know, the carbone atom C in the methane molecule CH4 is, like the vast majority of organic carbon, ultimately derived from atmospheric CO2. Burning the methane CH4 simply releases the CO2 again. It is a closed circle, hence no net addition of CO2 into the atmosphere. Burning methane from renewable sources (such as manure) or breathing do not result in net addition of CO2 because that CO2 has been removed from the atmosphere only weeks or so before, and it will be taken up by plants again in a short time - it is a closed circle, CO2 is just recycled (assuming biomass is constant, which is more or less the case because crops, from which the manure is derived from, are grown at a more or less constant rate).

    Burning fossil fuel (=fossil carbohydrates, e.g. methane from geological deposits) is different because that carbon is not part of the currently living biomass, it is additional CO2 which cannot be absorbed fast enough by the current biomass - that is why the CO2 level is rising due to the use of fossil fuels. Got it now?
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  20. #1040  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup View Post
    Dear samkim, as you may know by now, I am very, very, VERY rarely wrong, and certainly not this time.

    Also, I would never, ever confuse carbon with CO2. As most people know, the carbone atom C in the methane molecule CH4 is, like the vast majority of organic carbon, ultimately derived from atmospheric CO2. Burning the methane CH4 simply releases the CO2 again. It is a closed circle, hence no net addition of CO2 into the atmosphere. Burning methane from renewable sources (such as manure) or breathing do not result in net addition of CO2 because that CO2 has been removed from the atmosphere only weeks or so before, and it will be taken up by plants again in a short time - it is a closed circle, CO2 is just recycled (assuming biomass is constant, which is more or less the case because crops, from which the manure is derived from, are grown at a more or less constant rate).

    Burning fossil fuel (=fossil carbohydrates, e.g. methane from geological deposits) is different because that carbon is not part of the currently living biomass, it is additional CO2 which cannot be absorbed fast enough by the current biomass - that is why the CO2 level is rising due to the use of fossil fuels. Got it now?
    A closed circle?, perhaps, but not very tidy. It's still a worthwhile project (IMHO) because it reduces the need to manage the manure with older diesels like the 20 year old front-end-loader, etc.
    I would argue, though, that our idea of CO2 cycles it pitifully short sighted. Using planted forests with 100 year life-spans to sink carbon into so that Gore can fly his private jet to his next global warming meeting instead of video-conferencing. A good volcanic eruption can release more greenhouse gases than we can try remove or prevent by legislation in a lifetime...
    Not saying that effort isn't warranted, just wonder about the true intent of the effort..

Posting Permissions