Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 61 to 70 of 70
  1. #61  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    With all due respect, but the turnover or productivity per area is not the main factor. The area of forests is far greater than that of agricultural land, the biomass per area is much larger in woods, so you could still harvest much more biomass from woods when compared to crops, even if the productivity of forests is lower (which does not have to be the case when using fast-growing trees). Forests have the great advantage that they grow almost all by themselves, so the input needed is small (in contrast to crops).
    How would wood (heheh) become a transportable / usable form of energy?
  2. #62  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    With all due respect.
    I didn't know I was due any.
  3. #63  
    Quote Originally Posted by KRamsauer
    How would wood (heheh) become a transportable / usable form of energy?
    Wood is a usable form of energy, just as coal, only renewable, not growing in the Middle East, and CO2 neutral if coming from sustainable production. You can burn it, use the heat directly, and/or use the heat to generate power, make H2 out of water, etc.

    I am not saying wood will solve everything, I only said IF biomass, then wood (not algae, corn, soy, etc.).
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  4. #64  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    There's very little oil there.
    True but irrelevant. The significance of ANWAR is not in its oil but in its symbolic value. For almost a decade emotional appeals to ANWAR have been used by all sides to resist any change to energy policy. After all this time, we now get a non-bill.
  5. #66  
    I dont think clulup liked the idea of wood
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  6. #67  
    in keeping with my tradition of Official thread-crapper ...


    Bush Vows to Liberate Vice President

    Enormous reserves of petroleum rivaling those found in such oil-rich nations as Saudi Arabia and Djibouti have been discovered inside Vice President **** Cheney, the White House confirmed today.

    Doctors at Walter Reed Hospital made the discovery of the massive reserves during a routine physical exam Wednesday, sending the price of crude tumbling by eight dollars a barrel.

    The discovery of bountiful petroleum reserves in Mr. Cheney’s body could not come at a better time for the U.S., which had been facing the specter of soaring gas prices during the Labor Day weekend.

    The White House, which had been reluctant to tap the nation’s Strategic Petroleum Reserves to ease the staggering price rise, seemed more amenable to exploiting the massive reserves inside Vice President Cheney.

    “The time has come for a coalition of the willing to liberate **** Cheney,” President Bush said from the Rose Garden today. “If **** Cheney becomes democratic and free, democracy and freedom will spread to vice presidents everywhere around the world.”

    But even as President Bush told reporters he was considering exploratory drilling in the southern region of oil-rich Cheney, the Vice President used an official statement to suggest he would balk at any proposal to insert an oil spigot into his body.

    “You can’t drill me if you can’t find me,” the statement read.

    Elsewhere, an Indiana man sued the makers of the computer game “Grand Theft Auto,” claiming that sexual scenes hidden in the game were too difficult to find.
    Palm m505 -> Treo600 (GSM ATT) -> Treo650 (Cingular) -> BB8700g -> BB Pearl
    "The point of living and of being an optimist, is to be foolish enough to believe the best is yet to come."
  7. #68  
    Quote Originally Posted by KRamsauer
    A great idea but it does not solve the problem. The problem is not simply that we will run out of hydrocarbons but that we consume more energy than we can trap from the sun, more than we can grow trees. We consume energy stored over millenia. We may have consumed half of all that stored energy in only a hundred years. Soria's idea is to make dense and portable that energy stored in wood by photosynthesis. The problem is two fold. First his process is not very efficient. Second, energy is not being stored in wood at a rate equal to, much less greater than, our consumption.

    Of course we already know how to make stored energy portable using hydrogen. That process is also inefficient; it takes more energy to recover the hydrogen than can be recovered from the hydrogen. The trick is to use cheap energy to recover hydrogen for high value applications. For example, Iceland has a lot of cheap geo-thermal energy. It is cheap because it is not portable and they have more of it than they can use. They are using this cheap geo-thermal to extract dear hydrogen from water. They are the world's first hydrogen export economy.

    We have perhaps another century's worth of energy stored, available, and recoverable in hydrocarbons. When that is gone, we will have no choice but to go to nuclear power, perhaps fission (small scale?), hopefully fusion. We will use hydrogen to store this energy in a portable form for transportation.

    That the sun deposits energy on the surface of the earth that we can recover using photosynthesis (i.e., wood), wind, hydro, geo-thermal photo-electric-cells, etc. at a rate greater than our consumption is simply wishful (green) fantasy.

    The recent increases in the price of oil are very helpful. They will encourage efficiency and reduce consumption. They will make alternatives more competitive. They will cover higher cost of recovery of the remaining hydrocarbons (We have already used the that portion that was cheap to recover). They will ensure that portable hydrocarbons are allocated to transportation while stationary applications use alternatives.

    The only long term alternative to the use of nulcear power is to drastically cut our consumption. To do so we will have to consume less energy per person and we will have to have fewer people. Get used to it.
    Last edited by whmurray; 08/04/2005 at 02:02 PM.
  8. #69  
    Where can I find an analysis of projected energy consumption vs. potential to capture extra planetary (read: solar) energy?
  9. #70  
    Another voice:

    "This assessment of alternate technologies confirms that solar energy alternatives to fossil fuels have the potential to meet a large portion of future US energy needs, provided that the United States is committed to the development and implementation of solar energy technologies and that energy conservation is practiced. The implementation of solar technologies will also reduce many of the current environmental problems associated with fossil fuel production and use."
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Posting Permissions