Slashdot Mirror
The Development of Ecologically Sound Jet Fuel
Roland Piquepaille writes "Researchers at Princeton University are currently working on two projects to reduce jet travel's role in global warming. The first one, a major project funded by the U.S. Air Force with $7.5 million, is focused on developing computational models that accurately simulate the burning of jet fuel, a complex process not well understood today. The second one, funded by NetJets, a company providing business jets, will help to develop new jet fuels with near-zero net greenhouse gas emissions."
as long as they keep creating all those contrails that help keep the temperature down. we don't want to get rid of that.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
Interesting...this is the first "synfuel" I've seen that claims a near-zero greenhouse gas emission (although the CO2 is still extracted and sequestered, making me wonder exactly what the heck they're planning on doing with it); even the ethanol based fuels still emit some in proportion to the gasoline content.
Still, it would be nice if they could eliminate coal usage altogether. I suppose that's the next step.
I assume other teams are working on that other question. Given how much jet fuel is used daily, this small step towards reducing greenhouse gases is certainly welcome.
Unless this fuel meets the exact spec of existing jet fuel.
Each aircraft type will have to be tested and certificated for use with this fuel.
This is very, very costly and time consuming.
Of course, you know, this means the end of the horse-drawn zeppelin!
http://twitter.com/OLDTELEGRAM
You realize you can't sage threads on slashdot, right?
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
But of course: it's salami.
Or in the words of Mythbuster's Jamie: "This may look like a salami, it may smell like a salami, it may even taste like a salami, but it's rocket fuel."
While the exercise seems quite noble it seems partly pointless considering that all the fuel will have run out long before greenhouse effect brings our civilization to its logical conclusion. Effort could be better spent devising methods of rapid transport that weren't reliant on carbon-based fuels.
But haven't I read a number of stories just this week that Ocean Shipping and Cement Production are bigger CO2 emitters than airlines?
It's so obvious, I don't know why they haven't done this earlier. They just need to make a HYBRID plane model! Just load it up with 5000 lbs of batteries. Silly scientists...
"Thank you for using Stop-n-Drop, America's favorite suicide booth since 2008"
$7.5 million is nothing to the military, especially the Airforce. They blow $100 of millions on customized database applications, billions on building single aircraft, and trillions on R&D for Airframes. $7.5 million is like some spare change they give to some college students to work on a project for 5 years that will end up being canned.
BMW have probably invested a lot more into research into alternative fuels like hydrogen and still haven't come up with something that has us all dumping our hydrocarbon ways.
What needs to be worked on is a more novel way of taking in air and forcing it out the back, past that you need to work out how to apply external forces to aircraft. We're looking at a lot more than $7.5 mil for that kind of physics lab experimentation.
Australian running a company that does C# / C++ / Java / SQL / Python / Mathematica
How is better public transportation going to decrease the carbon emissions when I fly from Atlanta to London in a month? The article is about improving the efficiency of Jet transportation, not cars. Those emissions effect the atmosphere much differently because they're injected at a much higher atmosphere.
-Bucky
Good to hear that some people are fixing at least one possible "cause" of "global warming", which doesn't seem to be happening with our fuel for cars.
Several studies have indicated that despite the carbon emissions, the vapor trails of commercial jets actually create a net COOLING effect due to albedo. The conclusion of one research paper from a reputable institution stated that if we want to alleviate global warming due to CO2, we should actively encourage jet travel!
Jesus, people. In our zeal to protect the environment (which I share), let's concentrate on the REAL problems please! And stop all this irrelevant noise which just distracts us from those real problems.
Actually the real solution is their "Border Slingshot" scaled up. Simply winch back your own slingshot and you are gently whisked off to your destination. In a few years we'll look back at how silly we were with this whole airplane thing.
Why don't they better model the public transport systems in many cities and develop better ways of moving dumb people about. Who hasn't noticed the 9-5 suit wearing office junkie driving their SUV in peak hour to the city then complaining about the hour(s) travelling time, the cost of fuel and parking? I'd sure they could do something about those people (possibly involving gasses) and really make the world a better place.
Judging from your comment, I have a hard time believing your own supposed superiority. Btw, that would be VAIN not VEIN Einstein.
I think certain batteries/fuel cells/electrical systems could be used. However, these would likely be extremely slow prop planes with limited capacity. The type of large-scale, cheap, and rapid air transport brought about in the 'jet' age would seem to be impossible.
What I've often wondered is if it's possible to modify a jet engine to directly burn hydrogen, producing thrust directly rather than through a fuel cell -> electric ->propeller based system. The energy obviously wouldn't be free; the hydrogen would have to be produced from nuclear, solar, or some other power source. It would be expensive, but it might still let us keep our planes in the air.
"...in a vein bid..."
And I raise you an artery and two lymph nodes.
Sheesh, and YOU of all people throwing out the whole "dumb people" line. Hah!
Let's not forget this Super Genius (ala Wile E. Coyote) line of yours:
"I'd sure they could do something about those people (possibly involving gasses) and really make the world a better place."
'I'd sure they..." WTF? Where did you learn Engrish? 'All your base belong to us!' style of 'Skool of Interweb Riting'?
As for the gassing these dumb people to make the world a better place-BZZZZT!! Wrong answer! You are courting Godwin's law with that- this specific thing has been tried before, and after the courts got finished with the whole War Crimes deal in the latter 1940's, the MASSAD made a huge impact on the survivors of the trials and those not actually brought to trial.
There was prior art though, so also check out the Spanish Inquisition, most Jihads, etc.- there are many, many more. ( Idi Amin just came to mind- how could we forget him!)
Genocide and massive homicide ALWAYS results in mistrust of 'The Authorities' wherever it occurs, and rightfully so. Who;s next? Me? Why? WTF is going on?
So yeh, crawl back in your Mom's basement and terrorise the spiders or something, you dull troll. Who knows, maybe you can poke around in the basement long enough to find that argoyle sock the dryer ate 4 years ago!
Also, your sig: that may work for you with your narrow point of view, but there may not be enough alcohol for the rest of us to see you as interesting.
I'm only replying because I currently don't have mod points, so I can't mod you -1 Troll. Flamebait, Asshat Clown, or whatever seemed appropriate depending on how much I had been drinking! From painful experience, I already know I can not drink enough to make your post interesting, insightful, or knowledgeable...my first thought about you and your post was actually "kill it before it can breed!"
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
And I suppose that the thick atmosphere of Jupiter makes it warm, too?
I made a valid point. Don't be an ass.
For flights that don't cross the oceans it seems to me that Maglev trains is the way to go. They can actually reach higher speeds than a commercial airliner, and if you want to be really sci-fi you could operate them inside an evacuated tube, effectively eliminating air-resistance, and thus allowing velocities far above the speed of sound. Power would of course come from nuclear reactors, because as we all know, nuclear reactors cure cancer... ( no, really ).
Which is the giant greenhouse elephant in the room, but nobody pays attention to it because it doesn't help the world socialist cause.
Some people would actively seek out the trains given how much of a hassle airport security is. Everything would of course be fine until some nutjob figured out a way to blow up a maglev train...
Currently the average MPG for airline passengers is: 60 miles per gallon per passenger. This is from a Lufthansa brochure. ~~~~
... but not because of global warming.
First off, I am not convinced that global warming is caused by human activity. I think it is caused by solar activity, which should be proven correct or not in the next decade if the predictions of less solar activity comes true.
I think the idea of getting our fuels from local sources is going to become increasingly important for our national security and standard of living. The government, especially the Department of Defense, is quite aware of this. Synthesized hydrocarbons is not a new idea. It's been done. The claim of a net zero effect on the environment just sounds so incredible to me. As long as one is burning hydrocarbons there is still going to be CO2 and, more importantly, water coming out of the tail pipe. I emphasize water because that is a more powerful, plentiful, and seemingly invisible greenhouse gas than CO2. I say invisible because no one is talking about it. I doubt anyone will because as preposterous as it may sound to call CO2 a "pollutant" it would be even more so to claim that water is a pollutant.
While the article mentions that the carbon emissions will be offset by the biomass from which the fuel is derived there is no mention of where the energy is coming from to produce this fuel. What this syhtetic fuel process does is take molecules from a low potential energy state (water, biomass) and turn it into a higher potential energy state (jet fuel). That energy has to come from somewhere. There just is not enough energy density in traditional "green" energy sources (wind, water, solar, biomass) to match what one can get from burning coal, petroleum, or natural gas. The only place to get enough energy for this process to fuel the planes at a price even close to what we have come to expect is to burn that coal to fire that jet fuel plant. All they are doing is shifting the CO2 emissions from the plane in the air to the fuel plant on the ground.
The only way this process is going to meet the claims of net zero carbon into the air (and still be economically viable) is to power this by nuclear energy. I find it quite aggravating that articles such as these do not make that connection. I guess it is because of the audience they are speaking to, or that the scientists themselves are so caught up in their work (and their funding) that they fail to make a mention of that fact, or are themselves oblivious to where the energy will come from.
If we want to reduce the amount of CO2 going into the air we need nuclear power. We need it now and it great quantities. That is the only solution that I see. All this talk about hydrogen this, solar that, and energy efficient what-cha-ma-call-its only distracts from that very important detail. We need more nuclear power plants.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Seems likely to me this suffers from several serious problems:
(1) I can't easily believe it's more efficient. Granted, you use a fair amount of energy raising a jetliner to 40,000 feet, but it can't be that much, compared to what you need to use to keep it levitated and push air out of the way at 600 knots for hours and hours -- and a maglev train needs to do that, too. Indeed, air resistance is surely much higher on the maglev train, which has to operate near sea level instead of at the significantly lower air pressures in the stratosphere.
(2) You've got an incredible infrastructure problem. Essentially, you've got to build the entire Interstate highway system over again -- only this time it can't be just smooth concrete, it's got to be ultrasmooth, ultrastraight rails kept in alignment to the nearest micrometer along thousands of miles, in rain or shine, snow or mud or hurricane or flood, and with marvelous superconducting magnet windings all along them that have to be kept in absolutely perfect working order all the time, because you can't afford one small booboo in your levitation when you're flying along near the speed of sound 1.5 inches off the ground. I can't even imagine how you're going to switch maglev trains from one track to another while they're blistering along at 600 MPH. Those are going to be some very, very expensive switches.
Thing is, with airplanes you only need to build airports, and that's really only just laying down a big long strip of concrete and installing radar. You don't need to build much stuff between destination cities. You also don't need to lay down power along the entire route of every route they fly, because the motor goes along with the carriage.
(3) You've got an amazing safety issue. In the stratosphere there's not much you can run into at jet speeds, fortunately. But on the ground? Say a 50 pound rock falls off a rock face and dings the marvelous superconducting track, so that when the maglev train comes along 20 minutes later it hits a "dry spot" and the carriage dips down 3 inches and hits the ground at 600 knots. BOOM. You'd have to identify the passengers by DNA analysis of tiny bone fragments.
(4) Noise? I live next to a major rail line, and those things are noisy enough at 60-80 MPH. If they came by at 600, it wouldn't be possible to live within half a mile of the track. How does that square with the fact that most of the travel would be to and through major urban areas? Thing about airplanes is, except for within a few miles of the airport, you can't hear them because they fly two miles or more above us.
Jet turbine power plants have have 2 SIGNIFICANT advantages:
(1)They can operate with just about any type of chemically and thermally stable combustible fluid with a sufficient energy density having consistent and reliable combustion properties.
and
(2) They are not hampered by the well-known significant inefficiencies introduced by exhaust emissions systems such as mufflers, catalytic converters, EGR systems, etc..
NOTE: Modern Jet fuels are hydrocarbon BLENDS. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel
These blends are created as cheaply as possible to meet specific fuel properties and standards, including their energy content, and intended use: http://www.csgnetwork.com/jetfuel.html
There have been many well-intentioned pushes for "replacement" Jet fuels, including a "safer" version which was intended to reduce fire balls when Jets crashed, but it was a flop as it introduced safety concerns as the 'safety' additive increased the possibility of a flame-out (it basically made the flash point of the fuel higher and reduced the flammability of jet fuel mist) and it cost way too much for little if any margin of safety it would have introduced. (Most people in jet crashes do not die from a fireball of jet fuel, but from actually hitting the mountain, crashing into the ground/ocean, or basically some form of 'Aortic Dissection' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aortic_dissection )
I say that this is really a SPIN and a PR campaign.
Everyone looks good waving the environmental flag, but when compared to boats, trains, and trucking, jets are NEVER environmentally friendly. (Jets have to fight gravity continuously when moving goods and people = INEFFICIENT)
TFA ( http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S18/96/92S56/index.xml ) is a Press Release about research into processing "Biomass" into Jet fuel And, oh ya BYW, COAL!! THAT'S RIGHT, COAL!
We are talking about fuel from "other than" OIL Sources = SYNTHETIC FUEL (AKA SynFuel), specifically SYNTHETIC "JET" FUEL. http://www.syntroleum.com/pr_individualpressrelease.aspx?NewsID=907157
This really has EVERYTHING to do with the price of oil being SKY HIGH (pun intended): http://www.peak-oil-news.info/new-synthetic-jet-fuel/
Everyone knows that Aviation drinks fuel of any kind faster than other transportation types (when you realize the efficiency ratio of Distance traveled with quantity of cargo compared to actual fuel used per unit cargo (person, metric ton, etc..) for that given distance)
We are talking about stirring up money to get more research into the conversion of Coal into Synthetic Jet fuel (and other fuels) and we'll get to work with biomass too.
Oil is so expensive these days it is becoming just as cheap to chemically engineer/create (from scratch!) synthetic Jet Fuels from Coal. (which the US still has hundreds of years worth)
Why expensively pump it out of the deep ocean, or the middle east, and then transport around the planet (BYW, they use ships for this because of their efficiency, not jet aircraft) when you can just dig up some local Coal or Bitumen Tar Sand deposit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar_sands and make your own synthetic fuel.
(Now observe the pollutants released and the energy required during the "upgrading" of Coal/Bitumen into the new Synthetic Jet Fuel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upgrader )
FYI: The Germans made Synthetic Jet Fuel during WWII because they had Coal but not so much oil...
"who;s"..."argoyle sock"... "kill it before it can breed"... If I had mod points, I'd mod you -1, Hypocrite. ;)
Care about privacy? Read this!
The energy/mass ratio is not and never really has been the issue with hydrogen. The issue with hydrogen is the energy energy/volume ratio. Hydrogen's big problem is that it takes a lot of energy to squeeze into a small enough space to be worth while. Even if you are willing to burn the energy to compress hydrogen down into something that is tolerably dense, you are now talking about either A) a very heavy and expensive cooling system that is keeping it in liquid form or B) an extremely heavy, expensive, and marginally dangerous high pressure tank or C) both.
There are some potential tricks around this dilemma, but the truth is that we are still a fair ways off. The path towards hydrogen as a fuel source is less than obvious. Hydrogen has a lot of potential, but as it stands, it is a pain in the ass and expensive to make, it is a pain in the ass and expensive to store, and it really while shifts the environmental issues onto the grid where they are perhaps more easily tackled, it is not a silver bullet.
I am not poo-pooing hydrogen. Hell, I WORK for a hydrogen fuel cell company. I am just pointing out that the problem is much harder than it appears, and the golden future much further off than you might think. On top of that, there are lots of competing alternatives to hydrogen that might very well prove to be more utilitarian.
The other point is that airplane travel is usually selected for huge travel distances, of the sort that you would avoid using your car. Quoting passenger miles per gallon or whatever (A380 is about 2.9 litres/100 passenger kilometres) and making comparisons to automobile fuel consumption (10-20 litres/100 kilometres) is a nonsense - you don't jump in your car and fly to the other side of the world quite like you do in a plane. It is quite possible to exceed your annual auto mileage with one international plane trip.
Lost our sense of humour, have we?
I suppose you did not get much exposure to Monty Python or Second City TV.
Oh well, your loss, not mine....mod as you will, I have Karma to Burn(tm), baby! Let 'er rip!
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
Speaking of which, one of the ingredients of Russian solid rocket fuel (for military rockets) was rice husk - a byproduct of rice production. They actually cultivated short grain rice that would have a disproportionate amounts of husk specifically for this, and grew it in Southern Russia near Krasnodar. The grain itself was edible, of course, but it was not particularly good from the culinary point of view.
How is it a sweeping statement? "right-wing California" refers to the right wing parts of California. Pretty much everything but the coast excluding Orange County and parts of San Diego.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
From the article:
Yes, I do understand the net zero of the biomass, but I've yet to see a biomass crop that absorbs twice the amount of CO2 it emits.
What sort of science is this?
HAL.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
Pretty much everything but the coast excluding Orange County and parts of San Diego.
This is confusing. I think we need a Venn diagram I think...
It depends from where to where, I guess.
On one hand, you're indeed not going take a train or drive a car across the Atlantic. That much is obviously true.
On the other hand, flying across the USA or Europe is a whole other thing. I always wondered why don't more countries build their own equivalent of the French TGV (really fast train, basically.) When you consider what joke flying always was, and only got worse, you don't even need _too_ high speed to reach your destination faster than with an airplane.
Just add the whole coming one hour early for the security check and finding your gate, the whole waiting on the runway because the luggage truck didn't come on time, the waiting for your luggage at the other end, etc. Add stuff like that airports are built outside the town and you have to drive there. Now divide the distance by _that_ total time, and you average speed for the whole experience isn't that hot any more.
I mean, I'm too lazy to search for the actual data right now, but let's say an airplane cruises at a generous 1000 km/h, which is transsonic or close enough. Let's say yout travel 1000 km with it. Not a long trip, to be sure, but also high enough for many people to take a plane anyway. Ok, so that plane would spend only 1 hour in the air. From my experience with air travel, however, you're not getting much change out of 3 hours for that trip, once you factor in all the inconveniences of modern air travel. So a train would only need a bit over 300 km/h to compete with that. It's feasible.
Now also consider that travel by train is a _hell_ of a lot more comfortable (unless you pay an arm and a leg for first class on the plane, I guess), doesn't put you through all those inconveniences, is a lot more reliable (it would take a _hell_ of a storm to keep a train from departing), and you don't get your luggage lost or dropped on concrete (or if you do, you only have yourself to blame.) Dunno about you, but I'd prefer that train every time it was possible.
And for the eco-slant, well, trains run on electricity. It is possible to run them on hydro power or nuclear power just as well. Now those have their own debatable downsides, but neither produces any CO2.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Jesus F. Christ... if you use 10-20 litres / 100 km, then you really should consider a smaller car for a change. If nothing else, for how much you pay for fuel.
;)
There are already cars that run on 3 litres diesel / 100 km. The VW Lupo 3L comes to mind, for example, and that wasn't even a hybrid or anything. Just plain old internal combustion engine.
Want something with a bit more power under the hood and acceleration? Toyota claims 4.2l/100km on the highway for their Prius. Or a Honda Civic Hybrid claims 4.3l/100km under the same conditions.
At any rate, the comparison is very much possible. If you have 1 passenger with you, with such a car you're already comfortably below the 2.9 litres/100 passenger kilometres you mention for the A380.
Heck, even an Audi R8 only burns some 10.2l/100km on the highway, or so Audi claims. And that's, you know, their highest end car. It's a V8 engine, a bit over 4 litres. It takes that kind of a motor to reach 10 litres / 100 km on the highway, and even that doesn't come even close to 20 litres / 100km.
I keep talking about fuel use on the highway because, really, that's the only thing worth comparing to an airplane. You wouldn't take a plane around town, so there's no point in comparing the car's fuel use in town to an airplane.
So basically, what I'm saying is:
1. Let's all stop pretending that air travel is soo economic and environment friendly.
2. If your car actually burns 20 litres / 100 km, you might was to consider getting an actual car instead of driving a tank
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
From this comment I must conclude that you obviously haven't been to the south-central states of the US.
Spent a few weeks there and didn't see a single Prius. Compared to the gas guzzlers you see over there, anything is more ecological including 50 year old jet planes.
News about the Kettle Open Source project: on my blog
Reduce, reuse, cycle
No crime at Princeton will go unsolved with Hunter on the job!
Wasn't he the guy that starred in the mostly-lame 80's cop show Hunter? Nice change of careers from washed-up actor to Mech & Aero Engineer at Princeton.
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
Now the Profit of Doom, Al Gore, Scientific Fraud, Scare Mongerer, and Nobel Laureate, doesn't have to feel guilty about being a hypocrit, flying around in a G Star.
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
The current best estimate seems to be that aircraft emissions cause around twice the warming than you would get if the equivalent amount of CO2 was released at ground level, not including the affects of the resulting clouds (which probably makes it significantly worse).
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch02.pdf, as interpreted at http://www.tricoronagreen.com/tricorona/page.php?p=climateimpact
If so, I guess that invalidates the whole approach described in the article.
Thousands of years of cows, eh? You should really do some research on the number of cows living on the planet as compared to date. You'll find that we now have orders of magnitude more cows on our planet than before.
I'm just glad that the economic impacts of global warming will be hurting the cheap-skate deniers before they hit me. Enjoy your expensive food and heating/cool!
Blar.
Who hasn't noticed the 9-5 suit wearing office junkie driving their SUV in peak hour to the city then complaining about the hour(s) travelling time, the cost of fuel and parking?
I haven't noticed this problem. Here's my secret solution. Ignore it and it's no longer a problem. Note I'm not ignoring global warming, I'm ignoring whining people who are completely irrelevant to any global warming issue.I see even higher airline fares.
Add to that, the reason for the change is something that happens naturally (global warming and cooling) - nature takes care of itself in spite of what we do. To think that we (a handful of industrialized nations) can have such an impact as to cause the "out of control" issue that the media portrays, we'd been extinct at the turn of the century - and I'm not talking about the one that happened a few years ago...
If we would just spent half the money researching this kind of junk in planting trees, we'd be better off - 1) Obvious CO2 reference 2) Shade, and 3) Cheaper wood to harvest.
Is CO2 the problem - no, water vapor is the problem. What do catalytic converters do to cars? convert the gases to water vapor. What are we pushing for? Hydrogen fueled cars - what will that produce as a by-product? Water vapor...
References:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/11/1110_051110_warming.html
There are others, but I'm not going to bother, since I bet this will fall mostly on deaf ears...
I would be suprised if jet fuel makes up .01% of CO2 emissions. Heating (35%), Electricity (42%), and Car Traffic (19%) together make up 96% of green house gas emissions.[1] This is just a convienent sales tactic to make people feel about themselves without actually doing anything.
[1] http://www.ytv.fi/ENG/future/climate_change/greenhouse_gas_emissions/frontpage.htm
I thought California was considered left wing.
Crikey, calm down dear! - the parent post was pretty rubbish, but you must be having a bad day!
Well, that they do. Also magical Star Trek transporters, which are about as likely.
Remember the SSC in the late 80s? That needed a mere 50 miles or so of evacuated 6-inch diameter tunnel, in a ring, with very little in the way of switching. Cost was estimated as $14 billion 1985 dollars ($25 billion 2007 dollars) before it was canceled.
Normal interstates cost about an average of $1 million per mile to build, and we have about 55,000 miles of them. Now imagine a mere 10,000 miles, say, of evacuated tunnel, enough to provide main lines from coast to coast, and north and south, more or less duplicating I-5, I-95, I-40, and I-80. Hard to imagine a cost of less than $200 million per mile, about half what the SSC estimated cost was, and a mere 200 times what it costs to just lay down a flat ribbon of concrete (plus the occasional bridge). At that rate, it would cost $20 trillion just to get the network of evacuated tubes built, roughly all of the Federal tax receipts (including Social Security) for the next 10 years.
"There's lots of consensus on our guesses about climate and how it's changing."
Too bad consensus isn't data.
"About the only resistance to the consensus is manufactured by the polluting industries, which aren't going to go along just because we know better what's happening."
That's just a lie and you know it. Unfortunately, you're exactly the kind of individual who will lie when it suits you, like now.
I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.
I thought this was a car analogy
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
Didn't Hitler have to use a shitload of potatoes to make fuel for his V2 rockets?
Didn't Mussolini make the trains run on thyme?
How does knowledge in a different domain than you prefer invalidate the potential benefits of better understanding the combustion dynamics within jet engines.
From the article: "In order to make alternative jet fuel sources feasible, they need to be compatible with petroleum and produce similar combustion performance," Dryer said. "This will only be possible if we fully understand how both petroleum and alternative fuels burn and design engines based on this fundamental knowledge."
Furthermore until an alternative method of travel for large distances with a similar time transit is widely available, Jets remain a reality we must deal with.
"No, you're a lying Greenhouse denier."
Please post evidence that supports you. Show where I have denied global climate change.
Save your time you won;t find any.
"You are the liar."
Then post the quote. I'll wait.
By the way, I called you on your lies and your response was "I'm rubber you're glue."
Which is about all that you're capable of.
"About the only resistance to the consensus is manufactured by the polluting industries"
It was a lie the first time you spewed it and it's a lie now, source it or SHUT YOUR FUCKING LYING MOUTH.
I don't want to labor through another of your ignorant rants until your SOURCE YOUR FUCKING STATEMENT.
Or do what an honest man would and admit you can't. But you won't because it's more important to you to run off at the mouth and lie than tell the truth.
And while you're at it, save the "you're a liar, you're a denier" garbage. I fully believe that the climate is changing. SEE THAT? DO YOU FUCKING SEE THAT YOU COWARDLY FUCKING TROLL? THE VERY THING YOU LIED ABOUT IN ATTACKING ME, I SAY I SUPPORT IN PLAIN SIGHT.
So, go ahead an call me a denier you fucking moron, just make sure you're ready to refute THAT FUCKING STATEMENT RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOUR IDIOT FACE, and deal with the fact that there is not one iota of evidence that I have ever believed otherwise.
I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.
"I don't want to labor through another of your ignorant rants until your SOURCE YOUR FUCKING STATEMENT."
Just admit you can't and get it over with.
I like how you completely shut the fuck up once you realized how stupid your post was though, it's very satisfying to shut a troll like you up.
I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.
First, it was a joke that you failed to get.
Second, go back and reread it until you realize WHAT I was asking for a source for. You'll notice that you didn't get that part either.
I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.
That makes you a loser.
You're a troll.
You shut the fuck up.
--
make install -not war
I agree ignoring them removes the problem of them being annoying. They are, however, not irrelevant to the global warming problem. Greenhouse gas emissions from cars contribute to the problem. Peak hour driving (the 9-5 commuters) is the most inefficient way to use fuel. It's start, stop, start, stop. Big cars are less efficient by virtue of total mass and total wind resistance. Airline travel is just one part of a much larger problem.
A lot of these cars have no place on the road. If you're in an office 9-5 in the city then you should be on the public transport most days. It's more efficient and it's actually less stressful; you don't have to worry about all the other bad drivers. There are obviously cases where a car is needed; if you have an urgent appointment during the day or have to work very early or late.
This is why I say someone really should be investigating ways of improving the public transport systems; during peak hours it's easy enough to get a bus or train where I live, but if you work outside of those hours or need to duck off for a bit then it's nearly impossible to make even a short journey without your car.
I drink to make other people interesting!
"I like how you completely shut the fuck up once you realized how stupid your post was though, it's very satisfying to shut a troll like you up."
I like how you restated your "rubber...glue" argument again, as though it works any better the second way you tried it.
I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.
As I see it, you casting this as a moral argument: big cars are more inefficient; big cars have no place on the road; if you work 9-5 you should be on public transportation. The problem is that it isn't a moral argument. There's more than six billion people and they all have reasons for chosing to use whatever transportation they use. I think it's hubris to think that you know better than these people what transportation modes are best for them. My belief is that it's a terrible idea to assign moral values to something that should be purely an economic decision.
If certain choices generate externalities (like increased CO2 emissions), then the solution is to charge for the externality and use the money to address the externality either by undoing it (that is sending the money directly to the people that experience the costs) or by mitigating the costs. In that way, we need no longer concern ourselves with SUV drivers or other wouldbe carbon emitting miscreants. They pay for the problem they cause. Then we don't need to regulate or punish them. Nor do we need to convert them to some other form of transportation. If something better than SUVs is out there, then people will switch naturally since it'll be cheaper than SUVs. Finally, that means that if someone really wants an SUV, we aren't hindering them out of some petty concern.
In other words, if you turn morality into economics, then you end up with fewer sinners.
I didn't find any reliable sources of information.
Yeah, I know how you feel. You'd think with the number of pages of "begats" he'd have thought to dedicate just 3 or 4 to a detailed count of livestock numbers across the planet through the generations. Ah well, not to worry. You know for a fact that there were only seven pairs in action after the flood, right?
kartune85 : Incapable of reason, observation or learning. A kind of dim, drab, flightless parrot.