FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[CookinFlat6]

To cookin credit, although he didn't realise, he reference a really great article (by Johannes Lehmann) in support of these sorts of carbon negative effects generated through the right biofuels. It provided one of many excellent solutions for how the excess carbon from the process can not only be permanently stored terrestrially, but how it can also contribute in waste management and agriculture. Other solutions see the excess used in construction. There is no end of potential for the left over carbon as a cheap source, the only criteria is to use it in a way that locks it up.

Mate, you were given 3 seperate chances to step away from this useless twisting and lying through your teeth and each time you clung on in the hope you paid for article would allow you to stretch it out with selected tidbits - You dont have a leg to stand on, yet continue to dig as you just dont understand that its generally better to lose with honour than to grind a stalemate that shreds all your credibility

Never mind whats to my credit or not here is the bottom line about biofuels, address these points now please

Plants extract and store carbon
If we dont grab them to use the carbon remains extracted from the air
Why would we want to grab that plant and burn it, releasing all the carbon, and then capture part of that carbon to expensively store deep down in the earth and call it negative carbon emission?
The plant has already done 100% extraction
If we leave it its negative extraction already
We dont start at zero as long as there is a plant doing what nature intended
If we listen to the useless idiots grabbing the plant is starting at zero, then after as long as we only release less that the plant stored plus what it cost to grab - then they say thats negative emission
they have to store the extracted carbon - thats the problem no one has cured yet
Storing it back in the earth takes up resources and affects or already fragile system
why not leave the fkn plant and its stored carbon in first place
They say we need the energy cos its better than oil tho it brings a world of new issues
Solar is to grab the same energy but bypass the plant, the plant can stay with its stored carbon
we just grab energy without carbon emission or having to store it

WHY BIOFUELS THEY ARE NOT REALLY NEGATIVE - WE CAN NEVER REMOVE CARBON BY DRIVING AROUND IN ICE CARS

[CookinFlat6]

Plants extract and store carbon
If we dont grab them to use the carbon remains extracted from the air

Another one for me Are you really that dumb?

Ever heard of decomposition? Or do the flowers and grass around your neck of the woods last forever

Let me say it really reallyreally slowly so even you get it. Plants decompose, and when they do, where do you think the carbon goes. Oh yeah, I forgot, it goes to cookins magical mystery "remove carbon from the planet" trick box

it DOESNT END UP BACK IN THE AIR - thats the ecosystem, its used by other things etc

carbon is taken in by plants and converted to carbohydrates and other compounds by plants. There is always a "store" of carbon in the living and recently dead plant material. That carbon typically gets back into the system after it is eaten or decomposes. A wild fire releases lots of stored carbon.

Even if it goes directly back in the air - your silly biofuel process emitted carbon to extract the energy, therefore grabbing a plant in the ecosystem WILL ALWAYS BE positive carbon emitting unless you can capture that carbon and store it far away - NONE CAN DO THIS TODAY ON ANY THING APPROACHING A SCALE - YOU ARE NOT BRIGHT ENOUGH TO AVOID FALLING FOR PROMISES OF DOING THIS IN FUTURE

Use in construction??? hahaha - how many buildings do you see with walls of carbon extracted by the spankee algae method which even the owners of admit CANT BE SCALED UP WITH TODAYS TECH

WHY ARE YOU BRINGING THE FORUM INTO DISREPUTE WITH YOUR

[racechick]

I havent been blasé about people being used for slave labour, I haven't mentioned it, it's a different issue. But I did mention oragutans as did DD. We should be protecting wildlife not making them extinct in the pursuit of biofuels I don't think that's being hypocritical.

[CookinFlat6]

Plants extract and store carbon
If we dont grab them to use the carbon remains extracted from the air

Another one for me Are you really that dumb?

Ever heard of decomposition? Or do the flowers and grass around your neck of the woods last forever

Let me say it really reallyreally slowly so even you get it. Plants decompose, and when they do, where do you think the carbon goes. Oh yeah, I forgot, it goes to cookins magical mystery "remove carbon from the planet" trick box

Can you please stop with the twisting around and diverting focus, please address the the following if you can

Plants extract and store carbon
If we dont grab them to use the carbon remains extracted from the air
Why would we want to grab that plant and burn it, releasing all the carbon, and then capture part of that carbon to expensively store deep down in the earth and call it negative carbon emission?
The plant has already done 100% extraction
If we leave it its negative extraction already
We dont start at zero as long as there is a plant doing what nature intended
If we listen to the useless idiots grabbing the plant is starting at zero, then after as long as we only release less that the plant stored plus what it cost to grab - then they say thats negative emission
they have to store the extracted carbon - thats the problem no one has cured yet
Storing it back in the earth takes up resources and affects or already fragile system
why not leave the fkn plant and its stored carbon in first place
They say we need the energy cos its better than oil tho it brings a world of new issues
Solar is to grab the same energy but bypass the plant, the plant can stay with its stored carbon
we just grab energy without carbon emission or having to store it

WHY BIOFUELS THEY ARE NOT REALLY NEGATIVE - WE CAN NEVER REMOVE CARBON BY DRIVING AROUND IN ICE CARS

[CookinFlat6]

Spankee, please address these points if you are capable of continuing in a debate

Plants extract and store carbon
If we dont grab them to use the carbon remains extracted from the air
Why would we want to grab that plant and burn it, releasing all the carbon, and then capture part of that carbon to expensively store deep down in the earth and call it negative carbon emission?
The plant has already done 100% extraction
If we leave it its negative extraction already
We dont start at zero as long as there is a plant doing what nature intended
If we listen to the useless idiots grabbing the plant is starting at zero, then after as long as we only release less that the plant stored plus what it cost to grab - then they say thats negative emission
they have to store the extracted carbon - thats the problem no one has cured yet
Storing it back in the earth takes up resources and affects or already fragile system
why not leave the fkn plant and its stored carbon in first place
They say we need the energy cos its better than oil tho it brings a world of new issues
Solar is to grab the same energy but bypass the plant, the plant can stay with its stored carbon
we just grab energy without carbon emission or having to store it

WHY BIOFUELS THEY ARE NOT REALLY NEGATIVE - WE CAN NEVER REMOVE CARBON BY DRIVING AROUND IN ICE CARS

[CookinFlat6]

This will continue till you answer

Plants extract and store carbon
If we dont grab them to use the carbon remains extracted from the air

Another one for me Are you really that dumb?
Ever heard of decomposition? Or do the flowers and grass around your neck of the woods last forever
Let me say it really reallyreally slowly so even you get it. Plants decompose, and when they do, where do you think the carbon goes. Oh yeah, I forgot, it goes to cookins magical mystery "remove carbon from the planet" trick box

it DOESNT END UP BACK IN THE AIR - thats the ecosystem, its used by other things etc

carbon is taken in by plants and converted to carbohydrates and other compounds by plants. There is always a "store" of carbon in the living and recently dead plant material. That carbon typically gets back into the system after it is eaten or decomposes. A wild fire releases lots of stored carbon.

Even if it goes directly back in the air - your biofuel process emitted carbon to extract the energy, therefore grabbing a plant in the ecosystem WILL ALWAYS BE positive carbon emitting unless you can capture that carbon and store it far away - NO ONE CAN DO THIS TODAY ON ANY THING APPROACHING A SCALE
Your promised solution - Useful in construction??? hahaha - how many buildings do you see with walls of carbon extracted by the spankee algae method which even the owners of admit CANT BE SCALED UP WITH TODAYS TECH

Ok, I have answered your questions and objections, your turn spankee

Now please address my points if you are capable of continuing in a debate

Plants extract and store carbon
If we dont grab them to use the carbon remains extracted from the air
Why would we want to grab that plant and burn it, releasing all the carbon, and then capture part of that carbon to expensively store deep down in the earth and call it negative carbon emission?
The plant has already done 100% extraction
If we leave it its negative extraction already
We dont start at zero as long as there is a plant doing what nature intended
If we listen to the useless idiots grabbing the plant is starting at zero, then after as long as we only release less that the plant stored plus what it cost to grab - then they say thats negative emission
they have to store the extracted carbon - thats the problem no one has cured yet
Storing it back in the earth takes up resources and affects or already fragile system
why not leave the fkn plant and its stored carbon in first place
They say we need the energy cos its better than oil tho it brings a world of new issues
Solar is to grab the same energy but bypass the plant, the plant can stay with its stored carbon
we just grab energy without carbon emission or having to store it

WHY BIOFUELS THEY ARE NOT REALLY NEGATIVE - WE CAN NEVER REMOVE CARBON BY DRIVING AROUND IN ICE CARS

[CookinFlat6]

I think we need to move all theses posts over to the Poll thread. That will make it easier for anyone who reads it later to vote

I hope it wont give spankee an excuse that he refuses to post replies on polls or something, maybe wait till his next reply before moving them all

[CookinFlat6]

Algae is basically a simple, natural, organic, yet very efficient solar energy process and source. It can provide the negative atmospheric carbon effect we need.

Algae does not need much in terms of nutrients, a positive, it grows easily and there are many types each with different particular features. Where there is an abundance of nutrients, algae will take it up, commonly known as "algal blooms". Unfortunately, these generally go unharvested, and then decompose and release carbon back to the atmosphere. This is a reality of farming, and, with the growing global population, there will be more pressure here.

No link or proof, should we take your ord for it?? oh hold on, here is the New Statesman article you referred us to for proof

Algae Systems is now constructing a pilot plant covering several hectares in Mobile Bay, off the coast of Alabama, which should be operational early next year. If all the component processes work as well as they have in the research lab, the result should be carbon-negative fuels, says company president Matthew Atwood. This fuel should be able to undercut fossil petroleum prices within three or four years, he adds.

However, they will need to solve another problem for algal biofuels: fertiliser. Algae are gorge on expensive nutrients like nitrogen and phosphorus. At relatively small scales, wastewater from cities and croplands can easily supply these, as in Algae Systems's design. But scale up and there simply isn't enough wastewater to go around. "Human nutrient loading is simply not sufficient," says Stefan Unnasch, an energy analyst and engineer at California consultancy Life Cycle Associates. "You put more in your car every day than into your toilet." Indeed, producing even a tenth of the US's liquid fuel from algae would consume more than the entire US supply of both nitrogen and phosphorus, according to calculations by Ronald Pate, an algal biofuels specialist at Sandia National Laboratory in New Mexico (Applied Energy, vol 88, p 3377).

Liar liar, pants on fire

YOU ARE A LIAR LYING SPANKEE - TWIST AND SHOUT BABY

explain yourself moderator of

[LRW]

Cookin' - please don't have a heart attack.

DD would have so much paperwork to fill in if you did.

[CookinFlat6]

Cookin' - please don't have a heart attack.

DD would have so much paperwork to fill in if you did.

hehe, im just getting warmed up, I havent brought out my trump cards yet, just coaxing spankee to keep building up its the impact when I am ready to leave my desk for a nice cold black Erdinger.

[CookinFlat6]

I promise not to SHOUT anymore, please come back Spankee, your arse will be getting withdrawal sypmptoms

[What's Burning?]

You guys are ---> <--- this close to making me want to support BIG OIL!

[CookinFlat6]

Whatever you do, don't let Spankee give you any investment ideas, he is one of the ever reliable 'liquity opportunities' that support the markets. He spends hours reading old and outdated stuff and by the time he works up the courage to buy, everyone is selling, to him. And a year later when his stocks have turned to sh!t, you will hear him screaming 'no way I'm right, I'm holding on, the PE indicator said it was a good buy, I'm not quitting this stock, then he says, wow look how cheap it is - what a bargain I need to buy even more, hehe those other idiots didn't see the pe indicator and don't know what they are missing hehe I was the only one who did my homework so when the price goes back up I'll get all my losses and even cover everything I seem to lose each time I tried this. And finally everyone will see how smart I really am

Big Ron would call Spankee a Macro Utilitisation Gain, AKA - I CAN TYPING, NEGATIVE CARBON AND PRICE EARNING RATIOS!!!!

[CookinFlat6]

ActionAid

There are a few different biofuels,
commonly referred to as first,
second and third generation.

First generation industrial
biofuels use conventional
technology and compete for
land with food crops. They also
include used cooking oil, but this
is impossible to generate on a
large scale.

Second generation biofuels are
made using new technological
processes and often non-food
crops. These include biofuels
from forestry and agricultural
by-products, such as stalks from
wheat and maize, or wood waste.

Third generation biofuels
include those made from algae.
However, they are still being
researched and are nowhere
near commercially ready to be
produced, let alone to meet
our huge energy needs

Industrial biofuels are diverting
much-needed political attention
and financial support away from
genuine ways of reducing our
greenhouse gas emissions.
As well as the obvious
investment in public transport
and reducing transport demand,
there are many options available
to the government that would
not require dramatic changes to
people’s lifestyles.

• doubling the fuel efficiency
of new cars – the biggest
single action the EU could
take to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions from transport.
This could save 95 million
tonnes of carbon dioxide a
year by 2020 across the EU.
• supporting the use of
electric or hybrid cars if
the electricity comes from
renewable sources.

viewtopic.php?f=25&t=13656

[sagi58]

Liar liar, pants on fire

YOU ARE A LIAR LYING SPANKEE - TWIST AND SHOUT BABY

explain yourself moderator of

WoW! Such articulation! Such skill! No one debates better!