Whats the deal with the price of gas#@#@

[toadermcgee]

answer[/i]. ...and it's here. I'm not even advocating doing anything on a government level to give them some advantage over the competition. I really just want more people to be aware of it so we can start voting with our dollars and buying gas from companies that refine Sapphire's green crude. (and of course I'd like to not put our greatest reserves of fresh water at risk so we can import tar-sand. It just doesn't make sense)

Algae isn't as safe as you might think. In order to maximize production the plants have been "engineered" to grow as fast as they can and have a very short life span. They can suck all the O2 out the area where they are living in a matter of hours maybe minutes. If they get released into the major water ways the only hope is they die off completely in one generation or another red tide style of events will start to happen. But I agree they do show very positive benefits for energy production. I doubt enough farms can be built to supply world energy needs; there is just to many of us who want to live comfortably.

Also our greatest reserves of fresh water are the Great Lakes.

 

[knewsom]

Algae isn't as safe as you might think. In order to maximize production the plants have been "engineered" to grow as fast as they can and have a very short life span. They can suck all the O2 out the area where they are living in a matter of hours maybe minutes. If they get released into the major water ways the only hope is they die off completely in one generation or another red tide style of events will start to happen. But I agree they do show very positive benefits for energy production. I doubt enough farms can be built to supply world energy needs; there is just to many of us who want to live comfortably.

Also our greats reserves of fresh water are the Great Lakes.

That's why they're building their plants in the desert No way to contaminate the ocean when it's a looooong way off and separated by miles of sand. ...and the algae consumes CO2, not O2. They engineered it to have a short lifespan too, so it would die off quickly if it ever got out. I think it's safe enough, certainly safer than pumping billions of gallons of oil from the sea floor...

 

[brian4d]

"Crying wolf"?? LMAO - no, invading half the middle east to "defeat Al Qaeda" and calling them "the greatest threat to our way of life" is fucking crying wolf, Brian.

I too am continually shocked by how few massive catastrophes there are regarding fossil fuels, but those that happen are incredibly devastating - increasing the rate at which we harvest and transport them will only increase the frequency and severity of such events, and as I've said - there's simply no need to. In spite of the fact that the rate of accidents is small, the damage done by those accidents is tremendous.

Your imagination has little to do with the reality of the pipeline. The truth is, the pipelines we have break all the time and spill all the time. Here's one you probably didn't see on Faux News...

http://www.treehugger.com/energy-di...00-gallons-dangerously-close-lake-conway.html

Pollution is a problem too, and yes, I do drive a D1 (which pollutes less than my 2003 Subaru did). I also don't drive a lot. I have a bicycle, I live in a place where most of the things I want to do are within walking distance, and our other car is far more efficient and clean.

You can sit there with your head in the sand all day and deny our effect on global climate and the acidification of our oceans from the DRAMATIC increase in atmospheric CO2, or you can wake up and smell the algae.

This isn't political flag-waving. I've been talking about this for years, and very few politicians say jack about it, in spite of the fact that it's revolutionary, and we're going to see a lot more of it. Algae is the way of the future. It's clean, releases no additional CO2 into the atmosphere, is cleaner to refine, and creates more energy than it takes to produce. There's simply nothing wrong with it. It's the silver bullet. It's the answer. ...and it's here. I'm not even advocating doing anything on a government level to give them some advantage over the competition. I really just want more people to be aware of it so we can start voting with our dollars and buying gas from companies that refine Sapphire's green crude. (and of course I'd like to not put our greatest reserves of fresh water at risk so we can import tar-sand. It just doesn't make sense)

You realize Obama recently played golf with all his oil tycoon buddies? I respect your opinion and do think mankind could do a better job picking up after themselves but Obama (in realty) doesn't give a shit about your global warming. I'd also venture to think his blocking of the pipeline may have nothing at all to do with the environment. If you really want to push your agenda I wouldn't be looking to the democratic party going forward, it's a farce. Just like all his Drone strikes and Guantanamo Bay. You may feel this way already, not sure.

 

[knewsom]

You realize Obama recently played golf with all his oil tycoon buddies? I respect your opinion and do think mankind could do a better job picking up after themselves but Obama (in realty) doesn't give a shit about your global warming. I'd also venture to think his blocking of the pipeline may have nothing at all to do with the environment. If you really want to push your agenda I wouldn't be looking to the democratic party going forward, it's a farce. Just like all his Drone strikes and Guantanamo Bay. You may feel this way already, not sure.

Obama has been a pretty big letdown, let's just put it that way. While I'm DEFINITELY no Republican, I'm not much of a Democrat either. Our two big parties are both a complete farce, and bought and paid for by the same motherfuckers.

 

[toadermcgee]

That's why they're building their plants in the desert No way to contaminate the ocean when it's a looooong way off and separated by miles of sand. ...and the algae consumes CO2, not O2. They engineered it to have a short lifespan too, so it would die off quickly if it ever got out. I think it's safe enough, certainly safer than pumping billions of gallons of oil from the sea floor...

When plants grow (that is consume the sugars they made in part with CO2) they consume O2.

 

[knewsom]

When plants grow (that is consume the sugars they made in part with CO2) they consume O2.

Right, and when they produce those sugars, they produce O2. Overall, the process means more O2, less CO2.

 

[p m]

Even if you doubt anthropogenic global warming, we ARE in a warming trend, and you have to admit that dumping unprecedented amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere must be contributing to it at the absolute minimum... not to mention the acidification of our oceans which can and will have profoundly negative effects on us.

No, I don't have to admit that or agree to that statement. It has been shown countless times that we do not have sufficient understanding of climate mechanisms to make that statement.

Kris, it is so blatantly stupid that it is hard to argue with. Consider CO2 emissions from a single multi-square-mile forest fire of a volcanic eruption. Volcanic is beyond your knowledge, but estimating CO2 emissions from a forest fire is something a high-school student can do using open-source information.

 

[pinkytoe69]

A few years ago when I still lived in the 50th state, we took a little weekend family trip to the Big Island. We went to Kilauea crater, and also down to the shore where it is emptying into the ocean. The lava hitting the water creates a huge smokestack of sulfuric garbage 24-7. It was hard to tell the actual size cause they only let you walk to a couple miles away, but it was still impressive at that distance.

I dont think you can just discount how much big urban areas are pumping out though, especially unregulated ones.

All that being said, I dont know what the actual numbers are. It would be interesting, and probably not all that difficult, to look up some estimates of pollution sources and calculate it.

 

[RBBailey]

$4.27 for 92 here this morning... but I ignored it and didn't notice because no one in the main stream media is talking about it.

 

[seventyfive]

once again, who gives a fuck?

buy a bicycle.

 

[wheelen disco]

$4.50 for premium..... still only 8,½¢ a mile to drive my motorcycle. It would have to get a hell of a lot more expensive before I commute 26 miles a day on foot or bicycle.

 

[kennith]

$4.50 for premium..... still only 8,?? a mile to drive my motorcycle. It would have to get a hell of a lot more expensive before I commute 26 miles a day on foot or bicycle.

My DII gets around 8mpg when I'm playing nice, and given my use of premium fuel and additives, I'm sure the cost per mile is relatively high. Of course, that's not including my religious maintenance schedule.

I've no idea what it costs to run this thing.:rofl:

I fully agree with Seventyfive, here. I've got other things to worry about, like keeping my firearms from starving to death. Now there's something that's a royal pain in the ass, and it's expensive, as well.

I certainly have no issues with people lining their pockets as a result of my automotive habits. Hell, I'd like to be one of those people.

What ticks me off is a line of empty shelves at the gun shop.

Cheers,

Kennith

 

[RBBailey]

once again, who gives a fuck?

buy a bicycle.

Actually, I would. Or I'd by an electric car.

But...

If I buy an electric car, I would still need the Disco for off-road/trailer camper pull/family hauler. I would need to sell the Series to finance it. And then my wife would drive the electric car on her 25 mile commute. Leaving me to stick with the Disco for my 10 mile commute.

Now, I could ride my bike to work. But I would be riding on hilly country roads with no shoulder. And I tote the kids with me to school and back -- a 2nd grader and 5th grader.... so no bike for me.

 

[kennith]

Actually, I would. Or I'd by an electric car.

But...

If I buy an electric car, I would still need the Disco for off-road/trailer camper pull/family hauler. I would need to sell the Series to finance it. And then my wife would drive the electric car on her 25 mile commute. Leaving me to stick with the Disco for my 10 mile commute.

Now, I could ride my bike to work. But I would be riding on hilly country roads with no shoulder. And I tote the kids with me to school and back -- a 2nd grader and 5th grader.... so no bike for me.

You're over-thinking things.

Countless vehicles are available to cure your automotive ailments. No matter what your needs, they have already been met many times over. Fuck electric cars. You can buy an older vehicle, for very little money, and use it without unreasonable compromise.

My old Nissan 720 (had it been an extended cab) would have served all your purposes nicely, and been a great addition to your driveway.

Cheers,

Kennith

 

[wheelen disco]

My DII gets around 8mpg when I'm playing nice, and given my use of premium fuel and additives, I'm sure the cost per mile is relatively high. Of course, that's not including my religious maintenance schedule.

I've no idea what it costs to run this thing.:rofl:

I fully agree with Seventyfive, here. I've got other things to worry about, like keeping my firearms from starving to death. Now there's something that's a royal pain in the ass, and it's expensive, as well.

I certainly have no issues with people lining their pockets as a result of my automotive habits. Hell, I'd like to be one of those people.

What ticks me off is a line of empty shelves at the gun shop.

Cheers,

Kennith

Its time to start reloading!
And 8mpg how is that even possible...

 

[apg]

I'll sit here with my head in sand, thank you.
Even the most crying-out-loud climate scientists seem to be backing off antropogenic global warming.

Not true. A survey of 12,000 recently-published papers by 1,372 individuals researching climate change revealed that 97 to 98% of them agreed that global warming is anthropogenic in origin. Here's the article from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html

The only people still denying global warming - hell, even GWB admitted as much even though using the weasel-words "climate change" - are those ignorant in basic science, others deliberately being obtuse, or those in the employ of the energy companies. This latter group would include the folks at Faux News; ever since big daddy warbucks Rupert Murdock had to start sellin' off stuff for fines and legal fees, that leaves the Koch Bros. making the payroll over at Faux.

Atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide have increased 43% since the Industrial Revolution began, and with studies from the Antarctic and Greenland ice caps, we've got a pretty good image of those levels for the past twelve thousand years. Eight of the 10 warmest years ever recorded were in the past decade, and if you want further evidence of climate change, kudzu, the plant that ate the south, is now found in Canada. But the good ol' US of A ain't #1 anymore for emissions. Since we've cleaned up our act somewhat, China is now in the lead. The only real question is how bad it gets...manageable or catastrophic?

 

[kennith]

annoying stuff

Higgins says it best:

http://youtu.be/oiDwx6N2LaM?t=2m12s

When will you go away?

You're like liberal herpes! You're out of the way for weeks, but as soon as something interesting happens, you jump out and infect the discussion with your overactive information and hyperlink glands!

Without Google, your Kung-Fu would be weak...

Cheers,

Kennith

 

[toadermcgee]

Maybe this has something to do with it... Probably not yet but someday soon.
http://blog.aapg.org/geodc/?p=2988

 

[p m]

Not true. A survey of 12,000 recently-published papers by 1,372 individuals researching climate change revealed that 97 to 98% of them agreed that global warming is anthropogenic in origin.

Out of these 1372, I'd only care for Roger Revelle. Wonder what his opinion was.

Sandy, you are a Google jockey. This article is a complete abomination - four people devoted time, attention, and money to discredit the scientific merits of [what they claim to be] 2-3% of climate researchers.
Take your time to read the fucking article. Likely due to my ever-decreasing eyesight, I could not find the number "97-98%" anywhere else in the paper. What I did find, however, was this paragraph:

"We compiled these CE researchers comprehensively from the lists of IPCC AR4 Working Group I Contributors and four prominent scientific statements endorsing the IPCC (n = 903; SI Materials and Methods). We defined UE researchers as those who have signed statements strongly dissenting from the views of the IPCC. We compiled UE names comprehensively from 12 of the most prominent
statements criticizing the IPCC conclusions (n = 472; SI Materials and Methods). "

472/1372*100% = 34.4%.

The percentage of "dissenters" being less than 50% does not contradict my original statement. Let me remind you that it did not read as this -

Even the most of climate scientists backed off antropogenic global warming.

Go back to Google.

 

[knewsom]

FWIW, Peter...

http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2007/07_02_15.html

"Our studies show that globally, volcanoes on land and under the sea release a total of about 200 million tonnes of CO2 annually.

This seems like a huge amount of CO2, but a visit to the U.S. Department of Energy's Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) website (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/) helps anyone armed with a handheld calculator and a high school chemistry text put the volcanic CO2 tally into perspective. Because while 200 million tonnes of CO2 is large, the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value."