A different point of view?

[Pete McCluskey.]

This was sent to the editor of a newspaper in OZ. I thought it was interesting.

To: 'Letter to the Editor, The Australian (ACT!)'​

Subject: Carbon Phobia​

Sir


“Carbon Phobia”.

To be anti-carbon is to be anti-life. Carbon is the essence of life and carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is the ultimate source.

Plants extract this life essence from the atmosphere and use solar energy to combine it with water, nitrogen and minerals to create every bit of protein and carbohydrate that sustains all life on earth.

Eons of geologic history, as well as all human experience, show that a warm, moist, carbon-rich, Greenhouse atmosphere encourages all life on earth. The long, cold, barren Ice House eras are to be feared as they have always been associated with massive loss of life on earth.

Carbon taxes, and burying carbon in carbon cemeteries, are anti-life. They are not sensible or sustainable.



Viv Forbes
153 Schneider Road
Rosevale QLD 4340
[email protected]

Phone: 0754 640 533

 

[ChrisL]

That is funny and I shouldn’t get too serious but just in the unlikely chance that someone reads this and thinks that it's for real, let me explain my understanding of all this....

If we were to listen to the science on climate change, the main fear is that we are turning back the clock to what the earth's atmosphere was at about the beginning of life on earth which is quite different to, say, the Jurassic age.

Yes it’s true that trees thrive on CO2 but when they die they take some of that carbon with them down under ground (so the CO2 levels in the air are slowly reduced over time) and eventually after many many millennium that carbon turns to oil. Then many many millions of years later we dig it up again, burn it and release that same CO2 back into the air (much) quicker than the trees can put it back into the ground. The fear as I said is that we are turning the clock too far back.

Now on the other hand, if we were to use bio fuels made from say sugar, the sugar plant would take the CO2 out of the air and turn it into carbon. We would then extract that carbon from the sugar cane and turn it into fuel. We would then burn that fuel in our combustion engines and release that same CO2 back into the air, so no net change in the CO2 levels in the air. The thing that really amuses me about all this though is that the energy gained in the sugar cane is energy captured 100% from the sun, so effectively we are talking about combustion engines that run on solar energy. I recon that’s pretty nifty

Now I'll sit back and take the flack because I dared to suggest that a GT40 might run on bio fuel one day...

 

[Keith]

Nature is infinitely bigger & cleverer than man and will probably have an answer to it all.....

It will either kick his ass or help him along...

It is written.....

 

[Simon]

Now I'll sit back and take the flack because I dared to suggest that a GT40 might run on bio fuel one day...

The way I understand it is that bio fuels give much more power than petrol. See here... PistonHeads Headlines

Simon

 

[Joey Dean]

My theory on how life is a crazy balance:

Scientist have stated that the major contributor to greenhouse gasses today is ungulate flatulance (cow farts) with up to 2/3rds of the daily output. It is also a historical fact that the North American Bison was nearly driven into extinction by meat and fur hunters in the 19th century. The heards were so enormous that they could take hours to pass and you could hear them and feel the ground shake for long periods of time before and after they actually were in sight.

I figure we are way ahead of where nature would have had us in the normal cycle of things. I am not sure how many autos it would take to replace a bison, but I am willing to do my part in restoring the natural order. Now if I could just get some higher octane ratings....

 

[Doug S.]

Interesting thread--here in the US, and particularly in the midwest where farming is so prevalent, there is a move afoot to promote the use of a form of bioethanol called E-85. It appears to be 85% ethanol made from fermented celluloid material (the best of which appears to come from sugar cane at the present) and 15% regular gasoline. IMHO it seems like a good way to reduce our use of petroleum products and at the same time put our farmers back to work. As for power, the manufacturers claim reduced power output and reduced miles per gallon, but that might be a wash when you take into account the reduced cost of the blend. If we can figure out how to get greater power out of an ethanol rather than reduced power, like Volvo claims to have done in the thread above, well, we may well be on the way to becoming an energy self-sufficient nation once again.

Doug

 

[Chris P.]

The problem I have with that letter is that it is ignorant of how systems work. There can always be too much of something. Even water. Remember the radio show contestant who died in a water drinking contest? The theory of relativity, the uncertainty principal, and yin-yang are examples that employ the idea of balance, where a gain here affects a loss there. I mean hell, the way that guy is talking, we might as well burn up more fuel (and subsequently exhaust more carbon into the atmosphere) in plants whose purpose it is just to create MORE carbon for the atmosphere! I did a paper in my thermodynamics class in college (this was around 1990) concerning CO2 in the atmosphere. Boy was it difficult coming up with data back then that would give any indication towards a carbon rich atmosphere or otherwise. The only sure thing that I got out of it was that the major carbon sinks of the world (like the rain forests) are being destroyed at an alarming rate, and the carbon sources are increasing at an alarming rate. The problem is finding when the point of no return is at our current rates of source increases and sink decreases, and what we need to do about it. Even if the Earth would be going through a hot cycle without man's help right now, there's a good chance that we could be making things even worse. Hell, people laugh at the cow flatulance thing, not just because it sounds like a silly theory, but also like it's out of man's control and "in-your-face" to the environmentalists. These people forget that it is man that created the situation by breeding so many cows. Population density takes on huge responsibilities. Look at what happens with cancer cells. There's only so much life that this planet can support, when will we find that limit, and what will that limit be? I don't want to be around when it bites us in the ass.

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

Frankly the Global warming hysteria amazes me, as does the arrogance af mankind that thinks it's miniscule contribution has an effect.
Climate change has been happening since the dawn of time and changes are due, but IMHO man's input is minor and there is little he can do to alter the climate cycles.
We just need to do what our ancestor's did-maximise our ability to cope with whatever nature throws at us. Wasting our resources on stupidities like carbon taxes and carbon sequestration does nothing to assist our survival.

Flame suit donned.

 

[David Morton]

Global Warming? It was probably all my fault......
During the late 1970's I was involved in a project which was an attempt to take a very large and powerful radar radar system into the air and get it to work.Airliners.net Photos: UK - Air Force De Havilland DH-106 Comet C.4
The transmitter was immersed in a bath of Fluorocarbon (for cooling and the Fluorocarbon heat was exchanged in a matrix with Water glycol which was then cooled outside the aeroplane - you can see the external radiator underneath the fuselage towards the rear of the mainplanein the picture abover))
I don't have accurate records -I don't think the junior engineers kept any - but I would hazard a guess that we burned/boiled off about 20 to 25kg
of Fluorocarbon every time we switched the radar on.
My next project (80 to 84) parly involved the BAS (British Antartic Survey)
and during that timne I started taking an interest in what the Scientists were doing down there (the Antartic). It was apparent that one of their major concerns was Ozone Depletion and in particular, the hole in the layer over the Antartic that was getting larger with each passing season.
Now, most of the trials flying with the aforementioned radar were above the North Sea and the South Western Approaches around the UK and the way that the upper air circulates around the globe means each hemisphere has its own circulation and very little from the north will get into the southern hemisphere and vice versa (those of you in the S Hemisphere - remember the red sunsets after Mt Pinatuba erupted - and that dust went around it the upper atmosphere for a long time - well, we never saw them in the North)
So it was unlkely that 'my' fluorocarbon was affecting the S Hemisphere but
I guess there is a guilty feeling, with hindsight, that I was involved in causing such damage at the time. But, hell, the project was cancelled anyway and we (the UK) bought American aeroplanes equipped with Westinghouse Radars so maybe some good came out of it.
Dave M

 

[Dalton Veitch]

Pete,
I think you are just stirring again, now that the cricket is over.
However, if it turns out that we do have to encapsulate carbon safely, I vote that some of it gets turned into carbon fibre GT40 bodies. Not too many, we want some exclusivity.

Dalton.

 

[ChrisL]

Joey Dean,
The cow fart theory sounds credible on the surface until you examine it closely. The grass that cattle eat get the carbon from the air, the grass is processed by the cow and returns the gas back to the air through farts. No net gain in greenhouse gasses.

Pete,
Sorry mate. There are no reputable climate scientists with any credibility left that believe that our contribution is miniscule. The evidence is just way too strong. Even right wing skeptic Andrew Bolt has conceded this. Those left arguing that this climate change is not man made fall into the same bucket as those scientists paid by the tobacco industry to say smoking doesn’t cause cancer.

David M,
Don’t Fluorocarbons cause ozone damage as opposed to climate change?

I personally don’t think that there should be any panic at all about climate change. I just think that it’s a no-brainer to close your eyes to the inevitable change just because it’s outside our comfort zone. Oil will eventually run out and the temporary oil based economy will end. So the sooner we start building the new REAL economy, the less painful the transition will be. So on the contrary, I am quite excited that I will see a new enduring world economy in my lifetime, and in all likelihood it will be just as good as the one we have now except that we will have designed it, so it will work with us instead of against us.

 

[David Morton]

Chris,
Ozone damage and climate change [Ministry for the Environment]
Dave M

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

Dalton.

You got me..

 

[David Morton]

David M,
Don’t Fluorocarbons cause ozone damage as opposed to climate change?
I am quite excited that I will see a new enduring world economy in my lifetime, and in all likelihood it will be just as good as the one we have now except that we will have designed it, so it will work with us instead of against us.

Chris,
IMHO you were mistaken on two points in your last post. Ozone, global warming, and carbon are all inter related. Carbon in it's various forms has been with us forever and will remain so. If Hydrocarbon fuels dwindle, they will become the reserve of the rich (supply,demand, and capitalism will ensure that). Look at the current trend in airliners under construction (a380, b787) all use AVTUR and those machines will be with us long after I lose useful concsiousness (some would argue I already have!). To my knowledge, there is no jet engine on the drawing boards of GE and Rolls to substitute the for the current big fans and hybrid technology does not lend itself easily to aeroplanes.
The so called third world, without fossil fuels adapts to other ways - look at N Korea - currently using coal/steam powered army trucks as a small example. Alcohol - from sustainable sources still manages to produce carbon, albeit much less and the Brasilian model 'seems' to be making large inroads there.
Flying around the skies in Europe, I am amazed at the high number of power stations I see that are still using fossil fuels and there is still a strong anti nuclear power station lobby over here (maybe not so much in France where they just build them anyway).
Green projects - wind farms for example are a great way forward and northern Europe (Germany and Denmark) seem to have embraced the technology - or at least their environmental lobbyists don't jump up and down the way they do in the UK. I quite like them but NIMBY (not in my back yard).
Road pricing: here in the UK it seems we are going to have to tolerate it whether we like it or not. Eventually capitalism will make sure that driving becomes the preserve of the 'have's'[ money] and the rest of us can take a hike (or the bus).
Sure, everthing has to change and the sooner the better but it took a long time to get everybody to some sort of agreement to the Kyoto protocol of 1997.
Kyoto Protocol - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Some interesting reading.
But I digress - as I usually do anyway. I cannot support your notion though I wish it were true - for my childrens sake.
Dave M

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

There is hope, the hydrogen engine for instance, I know F*all about the way it works, but my limited understanding is that it uses water, burns the hydrogen, or uses the energy produced by the hydrogen and exhausts oxygen. If this is not correct I am sure that the Forum will correct me.

I liked this little story.....

[SIZE=-1]A very self-important college freshman attending a recent football game,
took it upon himself to explain to a senior citizen sitting next to him
why it was impossible for the older generation to understand his
generation. " You grew up in a different world, actually an almost
primitive one," the student said, loud enough for many of those nearby to
hear. "The young people of today grew up with television, jet planes,
space travel, man walking on the moon, our spaceships have visited
Mars...We have nuclear energy, electric and hydrogen cars, computers with
light-speed processing..."and," pausing to take another drink of beer...
The senior took advantage of the break in the student's litany and said,
"You're right, son. We didn't have those things when we were
young........so we invented them. Now, you arrogant little shit*t head,
what are you doing for the next generation?"

I love Senior Citizens!

Don't give up hope David, none of us are dribbling yet. Though I may be if I pull another cork.
[/SIZE]

 

[Dalton Veitch]

With hybrid or electric cars one can generally recharge the batteries when braking, turning the velocity (kinetic energy) into stored, re-usable energy. There is also a truck system that uses tail shaft torque when braking to drive a compressor and increase the pressure in a pressure vessel, which can then be used to help accelerate the truck again.
However in your everyday car such as a GT40, the velocity when braking is simply turned into wasted heat by the friction at the brake pads.
So our contribution to minimise global warming could be to use the brakes as little as possible. Try to get around that bend at high speed without braking, trust that someone else will give way on the roundabout. Don't brake unless absolutely necessary. Just a thought.

Dalton

 

[ChrisL]

Pete you sod, seems you have played me all the way

IMHO you were mistaken on two points in your last post. Ozone, global warming, and carbon are all inter related.

Yes, you are correct David in as far as everything is interrelated. We need to be sure that we don't replace the ozone depleting chemicals with greenhouse producing solutions etc. But I believe they are two separate issues... but maybe I've misunderstood something. Won't be the first time

Carbon in it's various forms has been with us forever and will remain so. If Hydrocarbon fuels dwindle, they will become the reserve of the rich (supply,demand, and capitalism will ensure that).

As far as road cars go, who says that we must replace the current situation with an exact copy. I think that there will be a variety of propulsion units and there will be groups of people who swear by one over the other in the same way we now ague between V8s and turbos. As for cost, if we all had electric cars right now in Australia and the infrastructure to charge them, in today’s money it would cost one tenth to run an equivalent car (according to the Catalyst program on ABC TV this evening), so the argument of rich v poor doesn’t apply. And as far as making them go fast, have a look at this prototype electric car that makes it to 100kmh in under 5sec… and its still a prototype.
Go to http://www.teslamotors.com/
And there are prototype vehicles built now that will take you to work and back on the sun. You have a home solar cell that charges a battery that is then used to charge your car overnight. They will cost nothing to run. Don’t think that they won’t be taken up in a very short period when they arrive as were motor scooters here in Aus.

Look at the current trend in airliners under construction (a380, b787) all use AVTUR and those machines will be with us long after I lose useful concsiousness (some would argue I already have!). To my knowledge, there is no jet engine on the drawing boards of GE and Rolls to substitute the for the current big fans and hybrid technology does not lend itself easily to aeroplanes.

Yes, I understand this to be the case too but again, who says that we must replace this lifestyle with an exact copy. Flight was the domain of the wealthy right up until the 70s but who would argue that the general western lifestyle in the 70s was anything other than affluent.

Sure, everthing has to change and the sooner the better but it took a long time to get everybody to some sort of agreement to the Kyoto protocol of 1997.

... but who needs it. People will buy new technology over old if it’s cheaper, and all you need is the sale numbers to make it cheap. The big pro-oil lobby groups are losing their hold and less and less will believe the scare tactics that they foisted upon us once the new technology becomes commonplace.

Even if I was a pessimist, I would argue that the absolute worst case would be no worse than the 1950s here in Aus. One car per household that did 0-100kmh in 20sec and was very basic.. no air con, no power windows, etc. Manufacturing and holidays would be local with the very rare overseas trip, and fruit and vegs would be seasonal again…. No show-stoppers here, but I would doubt that it would come to that anyway.

I think the trick here is to not get bogged down with the idea that the new world will be a copy of the old. Home fueling units for example might do away with the need to replace all petrol stations and the second car might be little more than a four wheeled scooter. We will adapt as market forces demand it. As I said, the pro oil interest groups are losing the battle to influence governments so we will see an explosion in R&D this decade.

 

[David Morton]

Dream On. We don't all live in a sunny paradise. I lived and worked in Sweden and Norway thoughout 2 long winters and up in Umea and Andoya we had about one hour of Twilight per day. (Engines were invariably never switched off 24/7) Battery carswith Solar charging - not in the real world in my lifetime.
'Cheap' and 'New Technology' do not go hand in hand and never will.
Battery cars with the infrastructure to charge them - big power stations again. Accepted, battery technology is rapidly changing but to drive meaninful motors mean big amp lead batteries for a while to come.

Look again at the number of cities in the USA that wanted to be associated
with the Kyoto protocol despite their governments policy at the time. Could be considered a defiant attitude ? IMHO
Kyoto is not case of who needs it. There will be 'son of Kyoto, the sequel'
and whilst many countries in the world may only pay lip service to the current protocols, the sequel may just be mandatory. Watch the price of petrol then......

 

[Scott Calabro]

KYOTO?.... BAH HUMBUG! BURN PETROLEUM TILL ITS GONE AS FAST AS WE CAN ! I worked with the TOP levels at one of the worlds largest oil exploration and refining companies, don't listen to all the socialist tree hugging Earth nuggets. We aren't going to run out of oil or approach peak production anytime soon !!!!

Batteries? I don't think so either, just think of all the fossil fuel needed just to manufacture them, let alone the real environmental nightmare of proper disposal.

When oil finally passes peak production you will see oil companies (read energy companies) find and market a replacment.

So go out and fill up the GT40 with AV-GAS and FEEL GOOD about it !!!


LOL,
S

 

[ChrisL]

Yep I totally agree. It’s all a dream. The human species is not known for its resourcefulness or innovation and tends to curl up and die in the face of adversity and would rather find problems than find solutions. This species has never prospered, ever, and never will because we can’t mentally adapt to anything new. Oh yes, and let’s also ignore the fact that the sums do actually work out, because I have actually witnessed people with furrowed brows say that we are all doomed, and furrow browed doom sayers are always far more believable than science. In fact why don’t we just write a political anthem to the current way of life and sing it loudly whenever somebody tries to point out that something could be done differently. Then we will all be happy. After all, progress and innovation was the farthest thing from the minds of the designers of the GT40.