Posted on 05/12/2005 2:06:24 AM PDT by Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit
If you aggregate the oil consumption of the EU as one country your consumption figures vanish into thin air. It is a intellectually dishonest statistic - Just pure rhetoric. It is abusd to rank each EU country seperately and then bans together, hands on hiips, pouting like school girls and decry US usage. It is a hoax, just like all the idiocy about GM crops. This is just another socilist hustle designed to reign in capitalism and freedom.
You cannot stop freedom, no matter how hard you try.
The day is coming when all of the European socialist dodges and hustles will be exposed. Do you think the developing world in the end will follow your model. Socialism always fails.
What will you do then?
Take a look at Latin America. That is your future.
So since we have such an ok standard of living in the western world we should just settle down and stop exploring new things?
I am glad to see Europeans joining the forum, as I am very concerned about the group think and collective we that they exhibit. Briefly stated, I think that US energy policy is market driven and moving towards innovation in lots of ways. We do not like collective, coercive government policies, and our Congress seems unable and unwilling to adopt a national energy policy, anyway.
My point being it requires energy to perform electrolysis. Hydrogen hype doesn't create that energy. When the hydrogen and oxygen are recombined that energy is released for use.
There are theoretical economies of scale in the production of hydrogen. Using fossil fuels to generate electricity to perform electrolysis to produce hydrogen for running vehicles over the direct use of that fossil fuel in vehicles MAY produce savings. The cost of new infrastructure also needs to be factored in. Like I said, no panacea.
Oh my freaking lord!
ROFL!!!!
I won't even bother, keep up with what you do bro, It's giving my country a nice bank account, thats why we paid for your UN membership four time, but that probably also agrees with you since thats just another angle for us "socialists" to take over the world.
Btw, I've vote FRP my whole life, if I wanted to be a socialist I would certainly not be on this forum
The amount of energy it takes to split H2O into its respective components is precisely the amount you get when you burn those components. High school thermodynamics tells us that you *can't* do this without losing energy in the conversion process. So the best case scenario is a zero sum game, and we know that even *that* is impossible.
It's like playing on a craps table. The optimal odds are a 99% return on your money. These theories on water being an energy source are ridiculous (fusion research aside).
I'm not sure of the NTNU project you're talking about, but I'd hazard a guess that it was a fuel cell project.
Andrew
What makes you think the game is over? We aren't even losing.
In this country, the last time that Kyoto was voted on, it was soundly defeated by a vote of 99-0. The President of the United States, the most powerful man in the world, is soundly against it. 20,000 reputable climatoligists/scientists/engineers have signed a document that they are against it.
30 years ago, environmentalists were telling us that an ice age was imminent. 30 years ago, they told us that the planet wouldn't be able to feed itself because of overpopulation. Time has proven them wrong. Time has discredited their fear-mongering.
Losing?
Hardly.
We are firmly holding our ground.
No said it would be easy, my favourite car is my 63 vette, she ROARS when she runs but she drinks more gas then my wallet can take in the long run.
I'll still use her in the future, but I'd like to know that we continue to evolve and search for new sciences.
Hydrogen was also the source for the apollo's right?
Bush is a great leader, and without doubt smarter then he wants people to think (also a great tactic) so I won't go against you on anything he's said or means.
Kyoto however is not U.S.A's biggest moment of glory.
I'm seriously confused now.
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050502/full/050502-8.html
Published online: 5 May 2005;
Clear skies end global dimming
Quirin Schiermeier
Earth's air is cleaner, but this may worsen the greenhouse effect.
Hello sunshine: cleaner air could make the world warmer
Our planet's air has cleared up in the past decade or two, allowing more sunshine to reach the ground, say two studies in Science this week.
Reductions in industrial emissions in many countries, along with the use of particulate filters for car exhausts and smoke stacks, seem to have reduced the amount of dirt in the atmosphere and made the sky more transparent.
That sounds like very good news. But the researchers say that more solar energy arriving on the ground will also make the surface warmer, and this may add to the problems of global warming. More sunlight will also have knock-on effects on cloud cover, winds, rainfall and air temperature that are difficult to predict.
The results suggest that a downward trend in the amount of sunlight reaching the surface, which has been observed since measurements began in the late 1950s, is now over.
The researchers argue that this trend, commonly called 'global dimming', reversed more than a decade ago, probably following the collapse of communist economies and the consequent decrease in industrial pollutants.
The widespread brightening has remained unnoticed until now simply because there wasn't enough data for a statistically significant analysis, says Martin Wild, an atmospheric scientist at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich and an author on one of the reports.
Sunny days
Wild and his team looked at data on surface sunshine levels from hundreds of devices around the planet. They found that since the 1980s there has been a transition from decreasing to increasing solar radiation nearly everywhere, except in heavily polluted areas such as India and at scattered sites in Australia, Africa, and South America1.
A second study, led by Rachel Pinker from the University of Maryland, College Park, found a similar trend by looking at satellite data, although their research suggests the extent of the brightening is smaller2. Unlike ground stations, satellites can sample the whole planet, including the oceans. However, satellite data are difficult to calibrate, and so are considered less accurate than measurements from the ground.
Surprisingly, Wild's study shows a brightening trend in China, despite the fact that there is a booming, fossil-fuel-intensive industry in that country. Wild says he can only speculate that the use of clean-air technologies in China might be more widespread and efficient than has been thought.
In contrast, India's vast brown clouds of smog, which result from wildfires and the use of fossil fuels, have reduced the sunlight reaching the ground.
Just warming up
Researchers will now focus on working out the long-term effects of clearer air. One thing they do know is that black particulate matter in the air has been contributing a cooling effect to the ground. "It is clear that the greenhouse effect has been partly masked in the past by air pollution," says Andreas Macke, a meteorologist at the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences in Kiel, Germany.
Uncertainties remain part of the game because scientists have only a limited ability to track cloud cover and particulates, says Macke. Increased cooperation in programmes such as the NASA-led International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project should help to close the gaps in our knowledge of how dirty air affects climate, he says.
Mr. Paul Anderson is a businessman. Duke owns many nuclear power plants. They are the fore-runner for new nuclear power plants in this country. Placing a tax on carbon would only hurt his competitors and thus improve his bottom line. He is not an enviromentalist - he is a businessman.
Hey, that's a long time ago. I seem to recall that the lunar lander used hydrogen. The other components used hydrogen-tetra-something.
You omit the possibility that any action taken may actually worsen a situation. For example, suppose the real danger is global cooling, and we spend billions of dollars trying to make thing cool down even more. Even if nothing changes as a result of proposed efforts, the cost alone is a total waste. Can we afford to waste billions upon billions in the name of 'what might occur'?
Show me the proof. First they say there is a consensus in the scientific community (as if they had put 'it' to a vote). Later we learn that the evidence is mounting. I think what the guy meant is that he hopes some real evidence will soon emerge. Meanwhile, it is a sacred assumption of the global alarmists that "the time has come to act." Never is it explained why that time is now and not yesterday or tomorrow. Nor is it explained just how they know that. Nor are we ever told why we should expect taxes and reduction of ONE single component -- carbon dioxide -- should hold the key to solving this not-so-well-documented menace.
'Global warming' is never defined, and all the scenarios are based on 'what would happen'. This is botched logic coupled with a lack of clear and convincing evidence. Computer models only verify the assumptions fed into them, and by necessity the data is selective and incomplete. Heck, show me a climatologist who can predict the weather two weeks ahead!
The reason I make note of the "global warming" vs. "climate change" label is it's political use rather than scientific, although the unscientific use of these terms has been at the crux of this argument for the last 15 - 20 years..
Originally, there were claims of global warming..
Many scientists, IMHO, in search of grant money, signed on to the GW hypocrisy.. claiming imminent catastrophe..
When it was pointed out that the so called GW was simply a naturally occurring warming trend that had been going on for the last 20,000 years, scientists tried to manipulate data...
They were caught, and their "hockey stick" warming trends were found to be false.. proven to be false...
The so-called "naysayers" used the term "climate change", as a differentiation from the claim of GW..
Their point was that this was a natural occurrance, not a man-made disaster.. and there had been plenty of evidence of CC in geological history as well as more recent history.. i.e., the last 150,000 years, as well as the last 20,000, or even more recently, the last 1,000 years..
It is only recently, (within the last 1-2 years) that suddenly the GW crowd has shifted their agenda's label..
Now, they have "pre-empted" the label of CC as their own war cry.. GW is forgotten, CC is the new enemy..
Actually it's just the new label..
The real enemy is those that would destroy funding and grants for a non-existant problem..
Does the the term "Hegelian dialectic" mean anything to you?
Environmental scientists have "created" a problem.. for which they already have formulated a solution.. a solution that requires large amounts of money .. for environmental scientists..
WHO, (the World Health Organization) did a study some 10-12 years back, concerning GW/CC and concluded that global temperature was indeed rising..
When those scientists undertaking the study were asked what could be "done" about it, they were quite blunt..
They told WHO that even if every nation on earth devoted all resources to completely eliminating any pollutants or greenhouse gasses, it would have no effect whatsoever.. NONE..
Mankind has not advanced to the point where they can control Global Climate..
Global Warming as a label is/was used in the US just as it was in other nations.. But just as in other nations, GW as a label has gone by the wayside, and CC is now the new banner word.. in the US as well..
I have read the latest reports on the reduction of the cold water "sinks" in the arctic, and the interpolation of those observations as a conclusion that it will effect the Gulf Stream..
Let us remember that the first measurements of those cold water "sinks" were made in the 1970's..
This recent foray and measurements are only the 2nd measurement ever taken.. and only in the arctic, not in the antarctic..
Once again, minimal data is being extrapolated to reach what may very well be an erroneous conclusion...
It is a hypothesus, and a very general one at that..
It will have to be reviewed, and more data will have to be obtained in order to validate it..
It would seem to me that if present weather data is correct, Britain has been somewhat warmer, and wetter, but not colder..
Someone wise and witty once said, " Everybody talks about the weather but nobody does anything about it.. "..
I keep wondering (can't help myself!) that IF carbon dioxide is such a threat, why don't we burn down the rain forests?
The HOAX is claiming that humanity is responsible..
And, that humanity can do something about it..
No matter how hard they try, environmental scientists cannot explain how humanity's industrial activity and pollution has caused the polar ice caps on MARS to shrink..
They cannot explain how man is responsible for global warming on another planet..
Spock? what makes you so sure you're right? Even Vulcan's can make mistakes.
That's my point.
If then, why not now.
I'm not saying remove fossil fuels all togheter, all your eggs etc. but to say that there are NO alternatives down the road (let's say 50 years) that are valid is simply ignorant, ignorance is not a sin, just a pitty
Kyoto is a failure by almost anyone's definition.
It will not accomplish what it seeks to. It will not achieve the desired change in CO2. Not even close. It will not significantly alter the temperature trends. Any reputable environmentalist will agree to that.
Kyoto does not include the biggest producers of CO2 on the planet (China and India).
Kyoto refuses to give CREDIT for CONSUMPTION of CO2 (mainly by trees and plants). In reality, the United States is a net CONSUMER of CO2. Yes, we produce a lot of CO2, but our large forests use everything we produce, plus some of the CO2 that the rest of the world produces.
Kyoto provides no discussion of other means of mitigating global warming. Other, far cheaper, methods are ignored. Only CO2 reduction is considered.
Kyoto is a failure.
Even our liberal democrats in the Senate saw through this. In a rare show of unanimity, our leaders saw that Kyoto had nothing to do with the environment. Its all about money.
They rejected this turkey. Big time. And it wasn't rejected while Bush was in office. It was rejected while Bill Clinton was in office.
I disagree with you. Our firm rejection of Kyoto is one of our finest moments in recent times.
We would build nuclear plants, but the threat of lawsuits and the environmental terrorists would make the jihadists look like pikers if we tried.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.