Hey Marvin

[EricMM 0]

This is what I spent all day rallying in Annapolis and meeting state representatives to try and pass.

 

I dunno if it will succeed, but I sure hope it does.

 

http://mlis.state.md.us/2008rs/bills/sb/sb0309f.pdf

 

http://mlis.state.md.us/2008rs/bills/hb/hb0712f.pdf

 

25% reductions by 2020, 90% by 2050

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

The only way im for this is if we build a giant dome over the State of Maryland to keep all of our clean air from naturally moving to Delaware.

 

Maryland "The New Dome State"

 

Seriously though, theres absolutely no way that those levels can be reached without wrecking Maryland's economy.

 

In Australia, they are suggesting that automobile travel could be reduced by 80% and they still won't be able to meet the CO2 reduction demands (similar to those discussed here).

 

As if to rub salt in the wound, Associate Professor Damon Honnery, of Monash University said, "The car is doomed. People are going to have to fundamentally change the way they think about travel and make much more use of non-motorised travel such as cycling and walking." Cycling and walking? Ah, but what of hybrids, electric cars and ethanol and such? "Our calculations show that not even the best combination of fuel efficiency, hybrid and electric cars, alternative fuels and car pooling could provide the reductions needed to meet the 2050 targets for avoiding dangerous climatic change," he continued, dashing all hopes of avoiding sacrifice.

 

Im gonna go buy a bike now and get Lance Armstrong to train me for the 15 mile bike ride I'll have to make every day to work..get in on the ground floor before people who have to go 50 and 60 miles a day are looking for his help. At least the good thing is I'll probably lose about 100 lbs in the first oh..month of having to bike 15 miles a day. Everyone will lose weight! YES! Kill 2 birds with one stone! Cure global warming and national obesity! Alright !

 

 

[EricMM 0]

Oh we surely could by 2050.

 

Shit, there's renewable energy in MD counting offshore wind and solar to power most of MD.

 

If we build it, it will come.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Oh we surely could by 2050.

 

Shit, there's renewable energy in MD counting offshore wind and solar to power most of MD.

 

If we build it, it will come.

 

except we wont build it because the people in Ocean City dont want their oceanfront property marred by the site of huge wind turbines. And if you ignore that then you get the Econazis who are afraid the turbine blades will kill a few birds that are stupid enough to fly into them. And if you ignore them, then you have the huge cost of the offshore projects and the fact that its more expensive to produce the same amount of energy using wind turbines.

 

Take your pick as to the reason it wont happen in maryland or anywhere else.

[EricMM 0]

The waterview is not marred in any appreciable way.

 

Coal kills more birds than turbines.

 

And if wind got the subsidies that coal got from the government it would be a much closer thing. Plus the uncounted external costs of pollution. Which you're not counting. Because you're dumb.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

The waterview is not marred in any appreciable way.

 

Coal kills more birds than turbines.

 

And if wind got the subsidies that coal got from the government it would be a much closer thing. Plus the uncounted external costs of pollution. Which you're not counting. Because you're dumb.

 

Im not dumb. They were trying to build offshore wind in Delaware and they went through the same list of problems and stopped on the money one because people dont want to spend even MORE for energy than they already are...actually..the Energy company here (Delmarva Power) doesn't want to pay more for the energy..but same principle because they've said if they were forced into the deal with Bluewater they'd have to raise rates and people don't want that.

 

Bluewater Wind

 

newspaper article

 

University of Delaware engineering professor Charles Boncelet said in contrast that offshore wind turbines would still require conventional fuel backup and would drive up consumer costs. A report issued last year estimated that the project could increase Delmarva Power's "standard offer" customer rates by $14 a month at first and more than $6 per month over the long term. Costs could be lower if spread to other Delmarva and Delaware customers.

"Wind power does not help us reduce our dependence on foreign oil, does not reduce our need to build conventional power plants, does not reduce pollution and is more expensive than other choices," Boncelet said.

[Dandy 0]

Why don't we kill the economy (especially in the state of West Virginia) by getting rid of coal companies. We'll put hundreds of thosands of coal miners out of jobs, get rid of thousands of trucking companies, etc. so we can use the wind. Great idea, hippie. Maybe I can tell all the coal miners that make a living for their families to hope they can get a job with the wind company.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Coal can be turned into natural gas..and in the 70's there were many projects run to turn it into other kinds of liquid fuel but they were abandoned..

 

and we have one of the worlds largest supplies of Coal..but that only touches on the issue of sources of energy and not reducing greenhouse gases to save the planet from natural heating and cooling cycles..

 

 

[Dandy 0]

I was talking to Eric.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I come from a coal producing state and recognize its important to the economy here, but the shit is fucking poison. Mountaintop removal is destroying the environment in Eastern Kentucky.

 

You can take a "virtual flyover" of a MTR site here.

 

http://www.vimeo.com/610726/

[snuffbox 0]

We need to keep people in the asbestos factories, too.

[Dandy 0]

I don't disagree that mountaintop removal is bad for the environment at all.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

We need to do more with turning coal into natural gas..its cheaper than turning corn into ethanol.

 

 

[Guest Beastalentier]

Eric and Marvin should ride a bus off a cliff.

[Jingus 0]

Im not dumb.

Ah, the irony of making a typo in that sentence.

 

And if you ignore that then you get the Econazis who are afraid the turbine blades will kill a few birds that are stupid enough to fly into them.

I've actually seen that happen. It was fucking hilarious.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

We need to do more with turning coal into natural gas..its cheaper than turning corn into ethanol.

 

Hows about neither?

 

...a recent analysis by the Energy Department found that coal-to-liquid fuel could generate roughly twice the carbon emissions that regular gasoline does.

-The New Republic

[treble 0]

Im not dumb.

Ah, the irony of making a typo in that sentence.

Marvin doesn't use apostrophes.

[Dandy 0]

Bad for the environment?

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

We need to do more with turning coal into natural gas..its cheaper than turning corn into ethanol.

 

Hows about neither?

Why does everyone want to completely abandon our #1 natural resource? Coal is cheap and plentiful in America and can be turned into clean burning natural gas. What better alternatives do we have?

 

Ethanol is a waste of time unless they can get away from using corn to make it and thus driving up food prices substantially.

 

Im all for alternative energy sources, which is a completely seperate topic from global warming and reductions in greenhouse gases.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

We need to do more with turning coal into natural gas..its cheaper than turning corn into ethanol.

 

Hows about neither?

Why does everyone want to completely abandon our #1 natural resource? Coal is cheap and plentiful in America and can be turned into clean burning natural gas.

 

...a recent analysis by the Energy Department found that coal-to-liquid fuel could generate roughly twice the carbon emissions that regular gasoline does.

 

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Helpful chart:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/05/...AL_GRAPHIC.html

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

We need to do more with turning coal into natural gas..its cheaper than turning corn into ethanol.

 

Hows about neither?

Why does everyone want to completely abandon our #1 natural resource? Coal is cheap and plentiful in America and can be turned into clean burning natural gas.

 

...a recent analysis by the Energy Department found that coal-to-liquid fuel could generate roughly twice the carbon emissions that regular gasoline does.

 

Gasoline =/= natural gas

 

try again

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I didn't say that they were the same thing. I said that coal to liquid fuel is very bad for the environment.

 

With any kind of coal gasification or liquification, the carbon in the coal isn't going to suddenly disappear. It will have to be either released into the atmosphere or sequestered:

 

In theory, carbon dioxide can be captured and sequestered underground in tapped-out oil fields or deep saline aquifers. But this method will work only in regions where the geology is suitable, and even there, good sequestration space is limited. Moreover, injecting carbon dioxide underground can set off earthquakes. And the gas is an asphyxiant: we risk deadly accidents should the millions of tons we would need to bury escape their underground prisons. In 1986, at Lake Nyos in Cameroon, 300,000 tons of naturally occurring carbon dioxide that had been trapped in the lake suddenly rose to the surface and formed a misty cloud, suffocating 1,700 people.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/23/opinion/...and&emc=rss

[Gary Floyd 0]

Bad for the environment?

Why yes, Marvin is bad for the environment.

[EricMM 0]

Marvin you are an idiot.

 

Who gives a shit whether you turn the coal into gasoline or natural gas? The carbon is in the coal, it has to go someplace. Yes, turning it into natural gas and then burning it will cause less sulfur to go into the atmosphere and reduce acid rain.

 

But comparing acid rain to global warming is like comparing an M-80 to a Daisy Cutter, at least when it comes to potential impact and DIFFICULTY TO PREVENT.

 

How about another one, wise guy? The only advantage coal has over anything else is price.

 

THAT'S IT. It is one of the most polluting things we can do as a country. Don't worry, the Canadian Tar Sands may come for the title, but either way they're both absolutely disgusting. They put HUGE amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere every year, along with sulfur, mercury, and particulate matter. The more work you put into getting the pollution out of coal, the less valuable it is. When you take into consideration the economic damage that will either be caused by global warming or (HOPEFULLY) preventing and undoing global warming, coal's costs skyrocket.

 

Do you know how hard it is to trap a gas underground? This is not like radioactive rods which hopefully stay put. This is a MASSIVE amount of gas. Thousands and thousands and thousands of tons of gas.

 

And you are unwilling to work at energy solutions that have NONE of these side effects because your energy bill might go up as much as 50%. Yes, we need to work on our energy storing technologies. Absolutely. But I nominate that it will be easier to do so than it will be to store the carbon gas that we produce in the ground, and keep it there.

 

Meanwhile, Czech is lol'ing, oh Eric, there he goes again. Whatever. This is a concrete and scientific undebated issue that has only the basest political hacks still arguing against it. But you have people so convinced that wind power is somehow going to be worse for them than coal is (did you see the movie smitty posted?) or oil is (did you see 9/11? Iraq war?) And they cannot appreciate how a decentralized DOMESTIC source of energy that does NOT cause asthma, does not cause global warming, and will not be ever increasing in price is a good thing!

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Solution to both CO2 and Gasoline problems this is where we should be going with research..ways to deal with the excess CO2 pumped out instead of trying to completely cut back..

 

[EricMM 0]

...

 

Turning CO2 into CO is not a solution to our energy problems.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

...

 

Turning CO2 into CO is not a solution to our energy problems.

Did you just read the first word and stop?

 

Chemists have shown that it is possible to use solar energy, paired with the right catalyst, to convert carbon dioxide into a raw material for making a wide range of products, including plastics and gasoline.

 

..

 

The UCSD system shows that it is possible to use solar energy to make carbon monoxide that then, together with hydrogen, can be converted into gasoline.

 

Solves 2 problems (less greenhouse gases and creates a source of gasoline) and since CO2 is so cheap and plentiful(companies will pay to get rid of their CO2) it seems pretty obvious to be heading in that direction..

[EricMM 0]

Marvin I assure you there is more to this process than shining sunlight onto CO2 somehow.

 

But I'm kind of sick of doing this right now.

[Guest Beastalentier]

Eric and Marvin should ride a bus off a cliff.