FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[darwin dali]

Because what do they do when the oil runs out.

How much profit did Kodak make, until the chose not to diversify into digital photography.

Sony also decided to ignore flat screen TV's and stuck with trinitron for a bit too long.

Blockbusters (video/did rental) have just all died a death in the UK because of Netflix and Co.

ExxonMobil may be making a lot of profit now but as a business model if the do not look to the futire the writing is on the wall for it.

Oil will always be with us in the form of plastics, chemicals, etc., at least for the foreseeable future and well past its use as fuel.

[CookinFlat6]

The oil companies are addicted to the profits, the lowest to change was investing in this bio fuel nonsense which is pointless when we need to reverse fossil fuel effects not just reduce them

It's interesting that a few years ago they were sold as high tech and Audi showed up in lmp1 with biodiesel and you had the deluded Luca bleating about taking Ferrari to lmp as it was so innovative with ice and all the sheep followers got excited about Ferrari going into lmp and dominating as it was a master engine maker lol

Now Audi have dumped their biodiesel nonsense and the new prototypes are - you guessed it electric hybrids with ERS and flywheels and batteries. Porsche didn't even bother with the dead end

[spankyham]

The oil companies are addicted to the profits, the lowest to change was investing in this bio fuel nonsense which is pointless when we need to reverse fossil fuel effects not just reduce them

It's interesting that a few years ago they were sold as high tech and Audi showed up in lmp1 with biodiesel and you had the deluded Luca bleating about taking Ferrari to lmp as it was so innovative with ice and all the sheep followers got excited about Ferrari going into lmp and dominating as it was a master engine maker lol

Now Audi have dumped their biodiesel nonsense and the new prototypes are - you guessed it electric hybrids with ERS and flywheels and batteries. Porsche didn't even bother with the dead end

I'm a little sad to say that here ends our experimental "discussion-based-on-facts-without-abuse". Unfortunately, when confronted with a clear list of facts, you have reverted to yelling and, in this last post nothing but abuse. Abuse of companies for wanting profits, and calling biofuels nonsense.

[spankyham]

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.

The permafrost is already defrosting and will continue - that's a fact. Under the permafrost is a carbon reservoir of 3 to 4 times the total carbon stored in all the vegetation on the planet today. And, once defrosted, it will decompose thereby releasing directly into the atmosphere or via streams into the atmosphere. Ever increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

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.

Would growing forests back be the solution? Short answer is no. Forests are good, but also have a negative impact. Their negative impact is their excellent ability to absorb heat, thus adding to the "heating" of the planet. What we need is to maintain and recover the frozen sectors of the planet. Some excellent research being done in Russia, headed by Sergei Zimov, well worth a read for anyone interested.

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.

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

[CookinFlat6]

Well done for actually going on Google to research the situation properly before mouthing off

Next time try and do that in the first place to avoid being called out on it over and over again before finally changing the nature of your claims

Hopefully we won't have any more facts that this polluting or forum of sensible adult members

Corn is a relatively inefficient base for bio-fuels, it is however convenient.

Interesting how you have now seized upon the 'tipping point' concept and mention it at least twice in a post. If you had paid attention you will have learnt about this from me in one if the first posts calling you out on your 'knowledge'

I think it's clear now that members have been steered from some of the biggest garbage invented by the oil industry (and I don't mean digestive algae)

[racechick]

In the north. In the north the ice is melting, in the south it's getting thicker..faster than it's melting in the north.
This is a pain in the arse for exponents if the ' global warming all down to man's CO2 production' brigade. They came up with this theory, governments funded them and made 'green' policies based on them and try to ha fig on to it, despite growing evidence that their calculations and theories are flawed. There is a growing body of scientists who suggest much greater forces are at work on our planets climate than mans production if CO2 gasses.

http://notrickszone.com/2014/08/23/dram ... -previous/

But we have to reduce dependency on fossil fuels anyway. They're finite. Is turning vast swathes of the planet over to growing biofuels the answer? When we have a growing population, many still starving? Deforestation to grow crops already produces big problems and valuable plants and medicines are lost from rain forests as farmers burn tres to grow crops.
Evidence also suggests that using biofuels isn't that green and in some cases raises emissions. ( I've posted a link to that previously)
So yes, we need a solution, but biofuels are looking increasingly like their not the right solution.

[CookinFlat6]

Audi of course making major advances, eg their March 2014 announcement that their biofuel exceeded fossil fuel combustion while meeting their zero target.

This does sound a little vague and misleading 'their bio fuel (what) exceeded fossil fuel combustion (what) while meeting their zero target (what)

Now I realise you won't answer or supply any links or proof of this as 'I was SHOUTING earlier and rude about Ferrari

But I am sure other members will be interested in an explanation of this sweeping statement here in the public forum.

[spankyham]

Ridiculous to even consider that Rupert Murdoch's claims in any way refutes the fact that there is global warming. Sheet ice in both the north and south poles are shrinking at ever increasing rates. Immutable facts. As you lose sheet ice, it ends up in the sea. An increase in that ice is a very bad thing.

It is foolish and misleading to peg biofuels to corn based technology from the 90's. I don't understand why people keep pedaling and recycling that.

Anyone that wants to understand the real potential and results of biofuels should read some of the material I have referenced.

Of course if you want to keep your head stuck firmly in the sand then keep believing that we have nothing to worry about and we don't have to find a way to reverse the damage we have done.

[spankyham]

Audi of course making major advances, eg their March 2014 announcement that their biofuel exceeded fossil fuel combustion while meeting their zero target.

This does sound a little vague and misleading 'their bio fuel (what) exceeded fossil fuel combustion (what) while meeting their zero target (what)

Now I realise you won't answer or supply any links or proof of this as 'I was SHOUTING earlier and rude about Ferrari

But I am sure other members will be interested in an explanation of this sweeping statement here in the public forum.

If anyone who can't search it wants to ask here, I'll post the Audi story link. But, as I said previously, you've blown your chance.

[CookinFlat6]

I have to admit it, I enjoy learning about stuff and working out links and tracking down the origins of vague and misleading sweeping statement

Audi commissioned Joule (I have already used their numbers as the best of the a Biofuel solutions several posts ago) and their latest biodiesel is - wait for it- cleaner than conventional fuel - well sh!t Sherlock , go figure, biodiesel is less harmful than conventional

http://chenected.aiche.org/energy/new-b ... lab-tests/

Shame it doesn't explain why they ditched their biofuel nonsense in favour of electric hybrid in their top racing series. That what members on a lb f1 forum understand not vague quotes meaning nothing

In real terms Audi have done something great with biofuel in the lab whopee but the don't use any biofuels anymore for sports they turned hybrid

[racechick]

Rupert Murdoch? He isn't a scientist.

[spankyham]

Rupert Murdoch? He isn't a scientist.

No, he's not, but its him and his media pedaling your posted story about increasing ice (although they fail to mention its sea ice) in the Antarctic.

[CookinFlat6]

It is foolish and misleading to peg biofuels to corn based technology from the 90's. I don't understand why people keep pedaling and recycling that.

Corn is a relatively inefficient base for bio-fuels, it is however convenient.

[CookinFlat6]

Rupert Murdoch? He isn't a scientist.

No, he's not, but its him and his media pedaling your posted story about increasing ice (although they fail to mention its sea ice) in the Antarctic.

Someone spent time on the internet actually researching the stuff he has been arguing about and is now 'holier than thou' and on a mission to educate US that it's too late ( at the same time clinging to biofuels in a new role to save face)

Comdedy gold at it's best

[spankyham]

Rupert Murdoch? He isn't a scientist.

Also..... Rupert Murdoch’s 3 Most Egregiously Ignorant Claims About Climate Change