FORUMula1.com

[CookinFlat6]

With a name like Musk, he'd better smell sexy as the alternative for a Civets glandular secretion is unthinkable

he is a very cleaver and brave bloke

[What's Burning?]

Mr Musk is gonna be seriously rich

I think he passed Seriously rich when he sold PayPal.

[CookinFlat6]

Just to conclude this lively if somewhat thick debate, my posts at the start are now regurgitated after someone has actually done some reading up about the subject

The situation
The environment is seriously in danger/already endangered by greenhouse gasses leading to climate change and the etreme weather, spoil erosion, tidal level rise and other woriies. A big part of this is proven to be man made burning of carbon rich fossil fuels especially in transportation
The debate
Car usage is exponentially rising as new regions develop further following the model of the so called 1st world. Therefore the cumulative effect of the increase in damage were things to carry on as they are is unthinkable. Something has to be done
There are many different approaches all governed by cost, price of implementation and logistical, social and political drivers
Zero emissions is the obvious end result to strive towards, although if that is not feasible immediately then the next best thing is to take steps now towards it - but something must be done and is been done
No need to go into all the options as a google search is available to those interested

I think everyone sensible is happy to see more and more electric vehicles available with increasing range, more performance, and lower and lower prices, and that ICE's and then Hybrids can become a thing of the past soon. Could all be too late, we are past the environmental tipping point, however the last thing anyone needs is misinformation about the the damage burning fossil fuels do, and the last thing anyone bright wants to hear is a regurgitation of the petroleum lobby psuedo scientific claims that there is no greenhouse effect, no global warming, and that its all a big scam

And regurgitated along with the 'holier than thou' bit

There's no doubt the world is in trouble because of greenhouse gases. Humans are currently transferring 35+ Billion tonnes of CO2 from terrestrial locations into the atmosphere.

The sad thing I get from reading this thread is the lack of understanding of the problem, and therefore understanding what needs to be done.

There is the "here and now" and there is the "future". We need to take positive steps now and for the future.

Let's be clear about electricity and charging batteries. When you derive your battery recharge by plugging into the grid, you have just added to the biggest contribution made to CO2 to the atmosphere from coal and the power generation industry. That is the fact of things today. Therefore, charging cars via the grid adds to the CO2 in the atmosphere - that is an immutable fact, so today's electric cars are nowhere near true zero emissions.

The short term solutions are to reduce emissions as much as possible and to have a plan to reverse emissions. If we only went down the electric path, and someone was magically able to replace all electrical power generation with solar, wind tidal power, the reality is we are still in dire trouble. We are in that dire trouble because we have already passed the tipping point. Global warming is happening, and, even with zero car and factory emissions, C02 conversion from terrestrial to atmospheric will now continue unabated even with zero human emissions. As I said we have already crossed the tipping point. Plus the reality is, we will go beyond that tipping point for quite a while with any solutions taking years, perhaps decades to take effect and come on-stream.

And after the ephiphany, the telltale signs of still clinging onto biofuels to save face - except now biofuels are the solution to NEGATIVE emissions????? So lets use biofuels that emit carbon and other nasty stuff so we can benefit from their side effect of negigible NEGATIVE emissions elsewhere

There needs to be a solution to reverse the CO2 we have pushed into imbalance in the atmosphere. Carbon negative solutions need to be sought asap.

And in the meantime lets use biofuels that emit 60% while waiting for them to deliver a theoretical negative emision effect in the FUTURE? what about zero emms electric for now even if charged by existing coal stations - still 100 x better than 60% emission of current level right - so lets agree on the problem yet not mention electric as the short term solution?
whats next?

I commend companies like Google, Audi and, now even Mercedes (a member of ASFE), getting behind biofuel research. Audi of course making major advances, eg their March 2014 announcement that their biofuel exceeded fossil fuel combustion while meeting their zero target.

They are getting behind electric not biofuels, Audi have dumped biodiesel in their most adavanced racing cars, the ASFE is a commitment for les emissions fuels - WHILE WE HAVE FUEL AT ALL - their real research is in electric

IMO Without negative emission goals we cannot succeed - the quicker we get them underway the better.

There are many projects underway reversing carbon emissions in other areas and 100x more effectively than yet to be invented ALGAE, zero emissions electric + some coal fired/nuclear charging etc for mass transport is better than 60% reduced emissions with a vague theoretical notion of negative emmisions from biofuels - because solar will soon be available to charge the battery

[spankyham]

ROFL

You may as well walk around a science convention with a sandwich board saying "I have no idea what negative emissions means"

[CookinFlat6]

But tell us einstein - how does using bio fuels NOW - TODAY have any negative emission effect???

How are using biofuels NOW TODAY even a fraction comparable to electric cars charged by fossil fuel stations as far as reducing emissions?

How are biofuels that emit carbon and other harmful stuff better TODAY or in the next 10 years than zero emission electric cars soon to be charged by non fossil fuel sources for a total zero emission

3 questions 3 answers - you keep making a fool of yourself on this quest to save face and clinging on to a WRONG fundamental position

and you cant suddenly refuse to answer because I was rude as you are the one who refuses be sensible

[darwin dali]

- I professionally school guys much much smarter than you about hedging Carbon emission permit derivatives within a diversified portfolio

But tell us einstein - how does using bio fuels NOW - TODAY have any negative emission effect???

How are using biofuels NOW TODAY even a fraction comparable to electric cars charged by fossil fuel stations as far as reducing emissions?

How are biofuels that emit carbon and other harmful stuff better TODAY or in the next 10 years than zero emission electric cars soon to be charged by non fossil fuel sources for a total zero emission

3 questions 3 answers - you keep making a fool of yourself on this quest to save face and clinging on to a WRONG fundamental position

and you cant suddenly refuse to answer because I was rude as you are the one who refuses be sensible

Never gonna happen. Ever heard of Grey Energy? Same with emissions.

[What's Burning?]

We don't need zero emission, just enough so that the planet is able to absorb it. You know, the way it's been doing it for four billion years. We've been cutting down one of the primary forms of absorption through a couple of hundred years of deforestation. And since the industrial age we've been releasing ever increasing amounts. Once China and India became affluent enough to parrot the west's consumerism, all hell broke loose.

[spankyham]

You are totally determined to to demonstrate how you just don't get it.

Go back, look at the calculations provided in my previous posts along with the explanation of negative emissions. If you can't understand Doctors Tilman and Holmes then I suggest you stick with your sandwich-board.

[spankyham]

We don't need zero ...

Egads! You and Rupert are completely right. All this global warming is a heap of codswallop

[CookinFlat6]

- I professionally school guys much much smarter than you about hedging Carbon emission permit derivatives within a diversified portfolio

But tell us einstein - how does using bio fuels NOW - TODAY have any negative emission effect???

How are using biofuels NOW TODAY even a fraction comparable to electric cars charged by fossil fuel stations as far as reducing emissions?

How are biofuels that emit carbon and other harmful stuff better TODAY or in the next 10 years than zero emission electric cars soon to be charged by non fossil fuel sources for a total zero emission

3 questions 3 answers - you keep making a fool of yourself on this quest to save face and clinging on to a WRONG fundamental position

and you cant suddenly refuse to answer because I was rude as you are the one who refuses be sensible

Never gonna happen. Ever heard of Grey Energy? Same with emissions.

Of course there will be the fractional cost of production and other considerations, however in the context of this debate I had assumed that in the scheme of things the term zero emissions (i.e zero avoidable ongoing emission) could be used amongst adults as a polar if not absolute opposite to avoidable emission such as fossil fuel and bio fuel burning and their direct and ongoing contribution via the exhaust pipe.

If we are going to now argue about wether zero emission is possible - i.e looking into nano technology then we are back in the realms of the future and departed from the sensible debate of the short term mass transport solution of electric cars instead of bio fuel ICE

I am willing to have either a nano technology or even a pedantic debate later, in the meantime we cannot offer an escape route for any dufuses out there who might now think because theoretical zero emision is not possible because of the fractional cost of production etc then its ok to laugh about it and claim bio fuels are better because in futre they will produce a negligible negative effect

[CookinFlat6]

You are totally determined to to demonstrate how you just don't get it.

Go back, look at the calculations provided in my previous posts along with the explanation of negative emissions. If you can't understand Doctors Tilman and Holmes then I suggest you stick with your sandwich-board.

why dont you explain it to us in simple English, stop running away, once and for all lets end this. I cant understand your Doctors - so please explain as you obvioulsy do understand

1) How do we achieve negative emission TODAY using bio fuels?

2) How are using biofuels NOW TODAY even a fraction comparable to electric cars charged by fossil fuel stations as far as reducing emissions?

3) How are biofuels that emit carbon and other harmful stuff better TODAY or in the next 10 years than zero emission electric cars soon to be charged by non fossil fuel sources for a total zero ONGOING LIFETIME OF THE CAR USAGE DISCOUNTING THE EMISSION COST OF PRODUCTION emission

3 questions 3 answers

explain please

[spankyham]

You are totally determined to to demonstrate how you just don't get it.

Go back, look at the calculations provided in my previous posts along with the explanation of negative emissions. If you can't understand Doctors Tilman and Holmes then I suggest you stick with your sandwich-board.

why dont you explain it to us in simple English, stop running away, once and for all lets end this. I cant understand your Doctors - so please explain as you obvioulsy do understand

1) How do we achieve negative emission TODAY using bio fuels?

2) How are using biofuels NOW TODAY even a fraction comparable to electric cars charged by fossil fuel stations as far as reducing emissions?

3) How are biofuels that emit carbon and other harmful stuff better TODAY or in the next 10 years than zero emission electric cars soon to be charged by non fossil fuel sources for a total zero ONGOING LIFETIME OF THE CAR USAGE DISCOUNTING THE EMISSION COST OF PRODUCTION emission

3 questions 3 answers

explain please

You're not satisfied with the sandwich-board you want to add some highlights
1) every litre of biofuel created as per my previous posts creates negative emissions - exactly according to the calculations of the professors I have verbatim quoted - sorry if you can't do the math, and I'm even sorrier for the people you give any advise dependent on math
2) using biofuel today is not equal to using electricity. If you use the biofuel I have explained you create negative emissions, if you use electricity in, say the UK today, you are "adding" to CO2 in the atmosphere because today nearly 80% of electricity in the UK is fossil fuel generated. Can you really be that .......
3) learn to do math and you will understand

[CookinFlat6]

You're not satisfied with the sandwich-board you want to add some highlights
1) every litre of biofuel created as per my previous posts creates negative emissions - exactly according to the calculations of the professors I have verbatim quoted - sorry if you can't do the math, and I'm even sorrier for the people you give any advise dependent on math
2) using biofuel today is not equal to using electricity. If you use the biofuel I have explained you create negative emissions, if you use electricity in, say the UK today, you are "adding" to CO2 in the atmosphere because today nearly 80% of electricity in the UK is fossil fuel generated. Can you really be that .......
3) learn to do math and you will understand

okokok, so you have conlusively put all your credibility on the calculations/claims of these scientists, and this will explain conclusively to everyone once and for all the answers to these questions;
1) How do we achieve negative emission TODAY using bio fuels?

2) How are using biofuels NOW TODAY even a fraction comparable to electric cars charged by fossil fuel stations as far as reducing emissions?

3) How are biofuels that emit carbon and other harmful stuff better TODAY or in the next 10 years than zero emission electric cars soon to be charged by non fossil fuel sources for a total zero ONGOING LIFETIME OF THE CAR USAGE DISCOUNTING THE EMISSION COST OF PRODUCTION emission

Can you please reply, reposting your scientists calculations etc for each question. I cant find this post you mention although I am sure you did post it, so please, to avoid confirming that you are indeed the forums self appointed f!ckwith or spankee - please repost

[spankyham]

1) Biofuel removes 1 unit of GHG in creation. Biofuel takes 0.575 units of GHG to create and use. 0.85 units of GHG have been removed from the atmosphere. GHG in the atmosphere are now LESS than they were before the biofuel was used. God help the people you advise based on any number system
2) Biofuels are created today. They conform to the above equation - yes, I know you can't do the math, but others can Compare to the electricity used "today" in an electric car recharged in the UK. Today, about 80% of that electricity is generated by fossil fuels, meaning you are "adding" to GHG in the atmosphere. SO, today, your electricity "adds" to GHG while today a litre of biofuel used "subtracts" from GHG in the atmosphere.
3) See question 1) ... and please keep asking me to explain simple math, I love how you don't get it

[CookinFlat6]

I found your 'evidence' and after I stopped laughing, I cut and paste it below

A little more info is available in this article from sciencemag.org which, although published in 2006 and a little early for algae data, it still shows the benefits of switchgrass which, as demonstrated in the quote is also carbon negative and does not compete for arable lands.

Carbon-Negative Biofuels from Low-Input High-Diversity Grassland Biomass

Biofuels derived from low-input high-diversity (LIHD) mixtures of native grassland perennials can provide more usable energy, greater greenhouse gas reductions, and less agrichemical pollution per hectare than can corn grain ethanol or soybean biodiesel. High-diversity grasslands had increasingly higher bioenergy yields that were 238% greater than monoculture yields after a decade. LIHD biofuels are carbon negative because net ecosystem carbon dioxide sequestration (4.4 megagram hectare−1 year−1 of carbon dioxide in soil and roots) exceeds fossil carbon dioxide release during biofuel production (0.32 megagram hectare−1 year−1). Moreover, LIHD biofuels can be produced on agriculturally degraded lands and thus need to neither displace food production nor cause loss of biodiversity via habitat destruction.

please note specifically where the spankees negative emision stuff comes from

LIHD biofuels are carbon negative because net ecosystem carbon dioxide sequestration (4.4 megagram hectare−1 year−1 of carbon dioxide in soil and roots) exceeds fossil carbon dioxide release during biofuel production (0.32 megagram hectare−1 year−1)

Yes they are carbon negative DURING the agricultural prioduction phase, a certain thicko has FORGOTTEN to add the BURNING FOR FUEL stage

so I will now answer the questions I asked you as you may be unable to for some reason

1) How do we achieve negative emission TODAY using bio fuels?
Spankees Scientist Answer) Biofuels derived from low-input high-diversity (LIHD) mixtures of native grassland perennials can provide more usable energy, greater greenhouse gas reductions, and less agrichemical pollution per hectare than can corn grain ethanol or soybean biodiesel LIHD biofuels are carbon negative because net ecosystem carbon dioxide sequestration (4.4 megagram hectare−1 year−1 of carbon dioxide in soil and roots) exceeds fossil carbon dioxide release during biofuel production (0.32 megagram hectare−1 year−1). Moreover, LIHD biofuels can be produced on agriculturally degraded lands and thus need to neither displace food production nor cause loss of biodiversity via habitat destruction[/i]
Translation - Biofuels can provide energy and greater reductions than oil and less pollution per hectacre THAN CORN or SOYBEAN BIODEISEL -
They are negative emission during the growing phase, HOWEVER when you burn them as fuel - YOU ARE EMITTING ONLY 60% less than oil.
If we switch to them TODAY, we would have NO space for growing crops AT ALL BECAUSE EVERYONE KNOWS THAT TODAYS BIOFUELS produce energy for 2,000 miles in one car per hectacre (10,000 square meters) compared to 2.6 MILLION miles in one car per hectacre of land for FREE solar charging
So TODAY we cannot even think about replacing oil with biofuels EVEN if they are theoretically zero emission WHICH THEY ARE NOT
Big Fail SPANKEE

2) How are using biofuels NOW TODAY even a fraction comparable to electric cars charged by fossil fuel stations as far as reducing emissions?
Spankees Scientist Answer) Biofuels derived from low-input high-diversity (LIHD) mixtures of native grassland perennials can provide more usable energy, greater greenhouse gas reductions, and less agrichemical pollution per hectare than can corn grain ethanol or soybean biodiesel. High-diversity grasslands had increasingly higher bioenergy yields that were 238% greater than monoculture yields after a decade.
Translation - To replace oil with bio fuels today would deliver only a small reduction advantage over oil because of the vast amounts of farmland needed and the energy needed plus they would still emit. Food prices would go up and we would have many many more problems - we cannot turn over all farmland to growing crops
Big Fail Spankee

3) How are biofuels that emit carbon and other harmful stuff better TODAY or in the next 10 years than zero emission electric cars soon to be charged by non fossil fuel sources for a total zero ONGOING LIFETIME OF THE CAR USAGE DISCOUNTING THE EMISSION COST OF PRODUCTION emission

Answer - Because the biggest dumbarses on the planet today say so