Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive -- Overthrown by OIL -- New Reply

~~(Link to AcmlmWiki)~~ Offline: thank ||bass

Register \| Login
Views: 13,040,846	Main \| Memberlist \| Active users \| Calendar \| Chat \| Online users Ranks \| FAQ \| ACS \| Stats \| Color Chart \| Search \| Photo album	05-02-24 01:03 AM

0 users currently in World Affairs/Debate.

Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - Overthrown by OIL

User name:

Password:

Reply:

[quote=Rom Manic]Brazil also has a large and fragile ecosystem to take care of.  It's interesting, really, all that rainforest area produces so much oxygen for us to breathe...I would imagine, while that amount is significant, the amount of CO and toxins produced by burning any fuel at all may begin to damage it, if only slightly.  But small damage now can be severe in the future.

While we may not see farms coast to coast, making Ethanol use widespread across the globe is not going to be effective enough to be a substitute, which is what alot of people think it will be.

But anyways, lets take a scenario:  All the worlds oil is gone (We know this by the power of magic), and we need a substitute.  There is no oil in the immediate vicinity of the milky way (Also known by magic).  We have Ethanol, but now we have to farm our lands to great extents just to survive on fuel-oil cars.

Allow me to quote myself from another forum a long time ago (In response to a website that was pro-ethanol).

[quote=Blade556]According to that site, it takes one bushel of 56 pounds of grain to make 2.7 gallons (11 liters or so) of fuel.  My car can fill up at about 40 liters, which is 10 gallons, which needs about 168-178 pounds of grain. Multiply that by one million people about to convert to this type of fuel and you have 168 million pounds of grain needed.

Now lets say they fill up their car every 2 days. In a month, we need 2.856 BILLION pounds of grain for every million people that need Ethanol fuel. (Note that I assumed that people filled up their 40 liter tank every month 17 times in a 30 day month)

And thats just for one million people. In a year thats 34 billion pounds of grain needed. [/quote]

So thats out of the picture.  The only other alternative we know of is electricity.  We could use batteries to power our cars, but now we need more power to meet the electricity requirements of such a feat.  So maybe we could park our cars outside during the day and use solar power to charge our batteries, and convert existing gas stations into recharge stations.  But who will foot the bill of that effort?  The government?  But those limits aside, what does a car need to have enough torque to even move the flywheel?  Can a simple battery provide enough amperage to make the car move efficiently?[/quote]

Options:

Disable Smilies - Disable Layout - Disable HTML

Quik-Attach:
Preview for more options

Max size 1.00 MB, types: png, gif, jpg, txt, zip, rar, tar, gz, 7z, ace, mp3, ogg, mid, ips, bz2, lzh, psd

User	Post
SamuraiX Posts: 301/302	Originally posted by Rom Manic Brazil also has a large and fragile ecosystem to take care of. It's interesting, really, all that rainforest area produces so much oxygen for us to breathe...I would imagine, while that amount is significant, the amount of CO and toxins produced by burning any fuel at all may begin to damage it, if only slightly. But small damage now can be severe in the future. While we may not see farms coast to coast, making Ethanol use widespread across the globe is not going to be effective enough to be a substitute, which is what alot of people think it will be. But anyways, lets take a scenario: All the worlds oil is gone (We know this by the power of magic), and we need a substitute. There is no oil in the immediate vicinity of the milky way (Also known by magic). We have Ethanol, but now we have to farm our lands to great extents just to survive on fuel-oil cars. Allow me to quote myself from another forum a long time ago (In response to a website that was pro-ethanol). Originally posted by Blade556 According to that site, it takes one bushel of 56 pounds of grain to make 2.7 gallons (11 liters or so) of fuel. My car can fill up at about 40 liters, which is 10 gallons, which needs about 168-178 pounds of grain. Multiply that by one million people about to convert to this type of fuel and you have 168 million pounds of grain needed. Now lets say they fill up their car every 2 days. In a month, we need 2.856 BILLION pounds of grain for every million people that need Ethanol fuel. (Note that I assumed that people filled up their 40 liter tank every month 17 times in a 30 day month) And thats just for one million people. In a year thats 34 billion pounds of grain needed. So thats out of the picture. The only other alternative we know of is electricity. We could use batteries to power our cars, but now we need more power to meet the electricity requirements of such a feat. So maybe we could park our cars outside during the day and use solar power to charge our batteries, and convert existing gas stations into recharge stations. But who will foot the bill of that effort? The government? But those limits aside, what does a car need to have enough torque to even move the flywheel? Can a simple battery provide enough amperage to make the car move efficiently? Yes. Unless you can prove that batteries cannot produce enough energy and will never be able to, your entire contention about batteries is null and void. I beg you to explain scientifically, why it won't work. Switch grass (pretty sure it's that) can be used for biomass, along with numerous other plants. Efficiency increases with research, to a point, this you completely ignore. When the need comes up, people will be forced to invest in alternative energies. And there's always coal burning for electricity, if nothing else. Which can be improved substantially, in decreasing emissions.
Ziff Posts: 1795/1800	I don't think a single law maker has claimed that it will be a substitute. Everyone sees it more as an augmentation to fuel supplies.
Rom Manic Posts: 554/557	Brazil also has a large and fragile ecosystem to take care of. It's interesting, really, all that rainforest area produces so much oxygen for us to breathe...I would imagine, while that amount is significant, the amount of CO and toxins produced by burning any fuel at all may begin to damage it, if only slightly. But small damage now can be severe in the future. While we may not see farms coast to coast, making Ethanol use widespread across the globe is not going to be effective enough to be a substitute, which is what alot of people think it will be. But anyways, lets take a scenario: All the worlds oil is gone (We know this by the power of magic), and we need a substitute. There is no oil in the immediate vicinity of the milky way (Also known by magic). We have Ethanol, but now we have to farm our lands to great extents just to survive on fuel-oil cars. Allow me to quote myself from another forum a long time ago (In response to a website that was pro-ethanol). Originally posted by Blade556 According to that site, it takes one bushel of 56 pounds of grain to make 2.7 gallons (11 liters or so) of fuel. My car can fill up at about 40 liters, which is 10 gallons, which needs about 168-178 pounds of grain. Multiply that by one million people about to convert to this type of fuel and you have 168 million pounds of grain needed. Now lets say they fill up their car every 2 days. In a month, we need 2.856 BILLION pounds of grain for every million people that need Ethanol fuel. (Note that I assumed that people filled up their 40 liter tank every month 17 times in a 30 day month) And thats just for one million people. In a year thats 34 billion pounds of grain needed. So thats out of the picture. The only other alternative we know of is electricity. We could use batteries to power our cars, but now we need more power to meet the electricity requirements of such a feat. So maybe we could park our cars outside during the day and use solar power to charge our batteries, and convert existing gas stations into recharge stations. But who will foot the bill of that effort? The government? But those limits aside, what does a car need to have enough torque to even move the flywheel? Can a simple battery provide enough amperage to make the car move efficiently?
Arwon Posts: 629/631	Most cars in Brazil can run on anything from 100% gasoline to 100% ethanol and any mixture in between. A lot of newer cars elsewhere in the world run on any mixture as well, simply because it's easier than making separate parts for each fuel type. I'm not sure the land-area argument holds very well, since as I say something like 0.5% of Brazillian land area is needed to run its entire ethanol industry. This is a country roughly half the size of the US popultion-wise and of a similar total area. Even if America can't get a very efficient ethanol thing going because corn syrup doesn't work very well, there's still places they grow sugar and at a pinch they can import from Brazil instead, surely? You're not going to see coast-to-coast farming purely to fuel cars.
Rom Manic Posts: 553/557	Originally posted by Arwon Ethanol is a lot more efficient and cost-effective taken from sugar. America would be better off using all the money it spends to subsidise corn-derived ethanol to import biofuel from Brazil, a country which is now self-sufficient in terms of fuel thanks to its massive ethanol industry. Brazil meets its own needs with less than 1% of its land devoted to sugar. The point I tried to get across was that Ethanol is not a substitute, just a partner to Oil. You cannot realistically switch to ethanol. If what the advertisements say are true, then one radish can fuel a car when converted to Ethanol. So one radish to every car, lets say there's 100 million on earth running. Now, how long does it take to refuel your vehicle? Maybe once every few days? I do not mean to remove Ethanol as a useful substance. Rather, we should be switching to hybrids that can run on both diesel (With Ethanol being it's closest relative) and gasoline.
SamuraiX Posts: 264/302	Originally posted by Metal Man88 More power to the oil fools. They'll use up all the oil in the world and be done with faster that way. It's simple: Switch to different fuels, like biodiesel. Nuclear power as of now is such a hideous figure that oil looks nice by comparison. Radiation, cancer, destruction... do you really want the blood of future generations on your hands? It's been done without oil before, it will have to be done without oil soon enough. Just let those dumb oil companies pump it all out and die from their efficiency. I reject your statement because it's unbacked; your usage of "radiation, cancer, destruction" attempts to equate nuclear weaponry with nuclear power, and you marginalize the cause of nuclear power by doing so.
Metal Man88 Posts: 684/701	More power to the oil fools. They'll use up all the oil in the world and be done with faster that way. It's simple: Switch to different fuels, like biodiesel. Nuclear power as of now is such a hideous figure that oil looks nice by comparison. Radiation, cancer, destruction... do you really want the blood of future generations on your hands? It's been done without oil before, it will have to be done without oil soon enough. Just let those dumb oil companies pump it all out and die from their efficiency.
SamuraiX Posts: 236/302	Originally posted by Ailure Originally posted by Ziff Nuclear power is NOT the way to go. There just aren't enough reprocessing sites for fuel. And for the amount of electricity this damned world needs. Yucky amounts of nuclear waste. But but but but, we need all thoose super heroes. While I'm pro nuclear power, it can't possible cover all energy the civilizations needs. The nuclear fuel would run out in just a few years. That I doubt. Dealing with the byproducts of nuclear energy might be a problem though.
Arwon Posts: 618/631	A recent CSIRO report has said that Australia has the capacity to meet its entire electricity supply with solar energy, the base-load supply, cost-effectively, and within a decade or so, if the government were prepared to invest in it. Meanwhile, Howard continues to claim solar can't meet "base-load" supplies no matter how many times he's contradicted in parliament and elsewhere, and continues to stoke a nuclear debate solely to wedge the Labor Party and tout that "coal is the future". Bah.
Ailure Posts: 2551/2602	Originally posted by Ziff Nuclear power is NOT the way to go. There just aren't enough reprocessing sites for fuel. And for the amount of electricity this damned world needs. Yucky amounts of nuclear waste. But but but but, we need all thoose super heroes. While I'm pro nuclear power, it can't possible cover all energy the civilizations needs. The nuclear fuel would run out in just a few years.
Koryo Posts: 115/122	Ultimately, it would be nice to use hydrogen powered cars. The technology exists, but there are problems. If I am the first person to own a hydrogen powered car in my town, where will I get hydrogen fuel? No businessman would open a hydrogen gas station in a town with only 1 hydrogen car. So I don't buy a hydrogen car until there is a hydrogen gas station, and a hydrogen gas station doesn't move in until many people have purchased hydrogen powered cars. We are at an impasse. How to make them both happen at the same time? It's going to be a slow process. I would like to make a couple of side notes. People get upset now that industrialized economies rely so heavily on oil. There is a reason for this, and it's not because some evil rich billionaire sold his soul to the devil. Oil is an incredibly cheap, incredibly abundant, and incredibly practical fuel source. Also: what's this about the oil companies' moral obligations to help this country stop using oil? That makes no sense at all. A company should teach its customers how to avoid using the very product that made it rich? I suppose McDonald's should be teaching us to stop eating so much fast food, Walmart should show Americans how not to buy cheap clothes and toys, and Bill Gates should convince Americans to stop buying computers? Really, people who talk about the moral obligations of an oil company are just looking for someone to blame.
Arwon Posts: 607/631	I know, and I'm shouting about cars because I want to talk about Brazilian ethanol.
Koryo Posts: 106/122	Not a nuclear powered reactor under the hood of your car, no. But nuclear power that feeds into your house can be used to charge the battery of a car (such as a plug in hybrid without the hybrid part :p ). Still, I'm not advocating a 100% (or even 50%) nuclear economy. I'm only arguing for argument's sake and pointing out logic and flaws.
Arwon Posts: 601/631	NUCLEAR POWERED CARS!?
Koryo Posts: 104/122	While fixing the power grids is something that needs to be done (remember that giant blackout a few years back), that still doesn't speak to the effects of pollution caused by oil, or the billions of dollars being given to terrorist funding dictators.
SamuraiX Posts: 198/302	Originally posted by Koryo True, nuclear power is dangerous, but are the occasional leaks, spills, and meltdowns anymore dangerous than the billions of dollars in oil revenue going to the likes of the Saudi government and the Iranian government? Yes, I should think so. Nuclear power requires a preexisting infrastructure, costing billions of dollars, and ruling out the safety issues, it still takes a good deal of time to put them into usage. Fix the power grids first, since they are pitiable and waste a lot of energy. Since I don't suspect that people will stop using electricity anytime soon.
Koryo Posts: 103/122	Ziff, I wouldn't say SKM "blasted" you at all. He said you were arguing with him, which you were. Indeed, this is the debate forum, so arguing is commonplace. But he didn't say anything out of line to you. You said he was "ignoring everything outside of his blinded little world", which does indeed sound very condescending. He only said that you argue for argument's sake. I'd say his comment was the gentler of the two. If I may argue for argument's sake for a moment: True, nuclear power is dangerous, but are the occasional leaks, spills, and meltdowns anymore dangerous than the billions of dollars in oil revenue going to the likes of the Saudi government and the Iranian government? I don't think that massive nuclear proliferation is the way to go either, because more nuclear material in the world makes it easier for someone like Kim Jong Il or the president of Iran to get their hands on some. But I hardly see how you can view nuclear power as less dangerous overall than oil.
Ziff Posts: 1745/1800	Originally posted by Sweet Kassy Molassy The dangers inherent in a responsible nation switching to nuclear power are minimal. Actually, they're quite dangerous. One failure is deadly. The leakage in Japan in the late 90s is just one example. "Ignoring everything outside?" That was for the sake of the particular argument. How would an industrialized nation starting to rely more heavily on nuclear technology which they already possess have anything to do with the spread of that technology to other countries? You've invented a point to argue about here that wasn't in any of my initial points. Well, you're ignoring the definition of proliferation. Industrialized nations usually sell nuclear technology. Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, Japan, France, US, etc. they all sell it. That is called proliferation. Failures on the user end can be disastorous. And it doesn't matter about your initial point. You want to go nuclear. This is a point you have to deal with. "Blinded little world?" You don't have to be so condescending. I don't blast you for arguing only for the sake of argument. Well, you just blasted me by saying that I'm arguing for the sake of argument (which, although not offensive is untrue...and if it were this is a debate forum. Kind of the point). Also, note what are on the sides of the head. Those are blinders. The saying "blinded little world" implies one track mind. You're ignoring other factors. I pointed this out. Your fault, not mine.
Sweet Kassy Molassy Posts: 784/886	The dangers inherent in a responsible nation switching to nuclear power are minimal. "Ignoring everything outside?" That was for the sake of the particular argument. How would an industrialized nation starting to rely more heavily on nuclear technology which they already possess have anything to do with the spread of that technology to other countries? You've invented a point to argue about here that wasn't in any of my initial points. "Blinded little world?" You don't have to be so condescending. I don't blast you for arguing only for the sake of argument.
Ziff Posts: 1742/1800	Well, you're kind of ignoring everything outside of your blinded little world. Doing so fails to acknowledge the bigger dangers and points of nuclear technology proliferation. In fact, that is exactly what you're doing. You're ignoring the dangers inherent in nuclear technology and a greater amount of materials with a marginally higher amount of oversight.
This is a long thread. Click here to view it.

Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - Overthrown by OIL

ABII
for ever and ever, amen

Acmlmboard 1.92.999, 9/17/2006
©2000-2006 Acmlm, Emuz, Blades, Xkeeper

Page rendered in 0.003 seconds; used 388.55 kB (max 452.47 kB)