Notice that CO2 is NOT 'carbon'...Carbon exists as a Particulate and is nearing again 'record' levels in many of those places Particulates are still 'noticed'...rather than 'greenhouse' twiddling. It is Particulates needing to be noticed, not CO2, in both responsible attitude to Health and Environmental 'situations'. CO2 cannot even be considered as 'pollution', i.e. existing in 'unnatural amounts', until is exceeded natural variations that extend to 20x Present levels. Surprisingly (!) such levels did NOT become accompanied by 'extreme heat' or 'radical' changes of any type whilst neither did the 'world end'…indeed it did continue.
Figure 1 from Sunday Telegraph 24-06-07, page 31.
So if perhaps what some claim is concern for 'garden earth' could be more concern for others & was realised by such few, as BILLIONS already do, that Society will not be 'car free' again then those political and ideological musings being 'greenhouse played' might notice how rapidly such mantra is made into a 'growing' Minority within the 'worldwide' political situation seen for 'powering the people'. Then perhaps the effort to produce a Climate 'Disaster' by opinion would subside.
To notice the inanities of potential (local) ‘Carbon Trade’…already is heard questions of ‘when’… might (Mallee) scrub be worth more than Wheat? Odd is such as the ‘scrub’ (of such) was cleared extensively to grow wheat. All this however whilst still is CO2 NOT actually a problem or even yet an ‘unnatural pollutant’.
But is ‘mallee’ the ‘right scrub’ even and is the ‘wheat belt’ region ‘the right place’? Reducing the PRODUCTION of pollution would be a better solution especially if such isn't reliant on demands for ‘radical lifestyle alterations’ to be achieved…
Figure 2 from Daily Telegraph, 2006.
Notice was the recent mention of (retail) sale of 100% Biofuel Oil in Sydney (Australia) & reports of 80% reduction of 'emissions'. This can be also coupled with rapidly increasing fuel efficiency of the compression process combustion engine design.
Sources of biofuel oil are considered as 'weeds' in many 'Western' agronomical regions, but can be grown in conditions unsuitable for 'food crop' relatively easily. 'Poorer Regions' (not only of 'impoverished' soils…) could readily 'grow Fuel' to sell for food...rapidly becoming 'less poor'. This also whilst those 'Western Regions’ see fuel prices rise (dependant on additions of ‘carbon taxation’ accountings) due to the ideological 'spruikers' of 'greenhouse doom' as much as to those pre-existing and otherwise perpetural 'fiscal pressures'.
I hear of one 'diesel process' engine in most 'chinese villages', the 'diesel engine' mechanic is near by, and both are then numerous and obviously practical on a 'Global Basis'.
Figure 3 The 'diesel process' of compression combustion.
- Needing little notice made is then how smaller scale Electricity Generation CAN be fuelled with biofuel oils.
The ‘jet fighters’ of the 'Korean conflict' were fuelled with castor oil and paraffin…and often ‘beat the sound barrier’…the staged (air) compression within the ‘Turbine Engine’ is a similar process to that present within the ‘diesel process’, the fuel capability as versatile in both.
So for initial 'attention' then, what became of the Castor Oil plant (of family: Euphorbiaceae,), such being a ‘shrub’ and a native to Africa and Eurasia? Well in Australia...it is 'a weed' within a range seen in figure 4 (below).
Figure 4 Castor Oil plant range
...Weed Identification Australia > > Plant Form - Shrub > Castor Oil Plant...
http://www.weeds.org.au/cgi-bin/weedident.cgi?tpl=plant.tpl&state=&s=®ion=&form=shrub&card=S05
There are also numerous grasses with high yields of seed (a trait of 'weeds' it seems), the above site is an easy to read source of detail whilst 'seed' is a 'base' source of (biofuel) 'oil base'. Only Human imagination needs be applied to what is already available.
The 'engine technologies' have been ~100 years matured...time perhaps to revist the developmemnt of the 'concept fuel' of the compression process...What to do with the abandoned 'West' then?
Yours, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(TM)
11 comments:
In general response to 'Anonymous':-
It is that reductions of Pollutant emissions has been a long term goal of many, not some 'recent effort' from a 'greenhouse movement' (at 'a grassroots' level or otherwise) as some would pretend.
Such 'greenhouse movement' activities have managed in Reality to INCREASE levels of Pollutants generally with the nonsense of SUPPOSED 'human induced' climate change.
Remediations are Now become unnecessarily complicated, so delaying ANY emplacement...whilst CO2 is still of little REAL concern.
CO2 is not 'carbon', so the 'greenhouse rhetoric' and 'proposals' begin even incorrectly made and placed.
CO2 isn't more than a mild pollutant, even this AFTER a threshold is crossed. Such a threshold is beyond KNOWN Natural Levels.
Such a threshold would be beyond 20 times 'present' levels, and even then CO2 cannot produce a 'greenhouse effect' as 'greenhouse theory' alludes.
Notice EU (again) 'wishes to see made' 20% cuts in 'greenhouse emissions', but this is only more rhetoric following on from (still) unkempt {untidy or disorderly as a result of neglect or a lack of care} previous 'promises'.
Notice, with increased numbers of Motor Vehicles, the 'Pollution' from such (within a specific area of notice in Australia) is REDUCED by 18%. Technology use was began within the (early) 1980's that could be also used in Clean Coal Technologies, as previously detailed.
In the same study period then such Pollutants increased by 5% from 'Industry'.
Wider 'industrial' implementation was deferred at times more appropriate by 'greenhouse rhetoric' as it still 'drones on' Now. There is still then no valid need to consider CO2 as a 'greenhouse agent' and technology that can 'Clean' Coal for use is otherwise available within only a short term development (needed to suit the scale of application).
=
China still has those 300 Million People producing untreated Effluent into Creek and River Systems. This is all into the Environment and its contained Eco-Systems and Habitat. The Food reserves of those 300 Million and all others about them are suffering, disease will only increase in regions associated with the Waterway involved. That Waterway is the Third largest on the Planet (from memory).
=
(This is just ONE problem created persistent by the 'greenhouse drone'. CO2 is of no special interest, there is no ability for 'greenhouse theory' to produced even a warming effect, being only the basis of a PROPAGANDA effort.)
Notice that the EU is to discuss development of Clean Coal Technology with Australia soon, wanting 'near zero emissions' technology.
'Particulates' are however of more concern than CO2 still.
(The EU also has reported that 40% if its expenditure is in Agronomical Subsidy, and 'unsustainable' practice...)
Notice that neither China or India ceased installing necessary Utilities, whilst Africa is not really began such effort yet.
==
Next, 'fiscal' concepts from 'greenhouse policy' might need defined 'greenhouse rhetoric' terms, such as of 'heat', many of such are not expressed validly in SCIENCE (or at all) for such 'greenhouse' based concepts.
==
China has now displaced the USA as the paramount 'investment region'. India is 'moving up' that 'scaling' path.
'Clean' Coal Technology isn't needing to be burdened by pointless demands regarding CO2 as the 'greenhouse fringe' persist with.
'Clean' Coal Technology needs to be built up, as Coal (being cheap and practical) WILL be used regardless for many Decades yet. Such use will be by 'poor' Populations that do occupy ONE HALF of the Worlds present Population, and such use WILL occur regardless of 'greenhouse ideological attitudes' to 'clean coal' or even such technology being available or not.
Better that such WAS available Then (& Now)...
=
Overlooked often by a 'climate cult' is usage of the descriptive UNNATURAL within their phrases 'global warming' and 'climate change'. Change to Climate is otherwise Natural, not needing to be 'stopped' or meddled with otherwise even IF POSSIBLE was such 'meddling'...which it is not. Where then is this UNNATURAL 'climate change' still SUPPOSED existing?
=
All the 'greenhouse drone' does make is more Pollution, a mess that I (and others) continue to TRY to have removed and/or reduced AND in some practical and meaningful manner.
Such practical and meaningful remediations DO NOT include punitive taxations based on productions of ideological 'feel good' attitudes, such already seen only TO INCREASE Pollution in 'Real Terms'..
Yours, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(TM)
My reply (below) was made as response to Catalyst [mailto:catalyst@your.abc.net.au]
==-==
As sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2007 3:07 PM
To: Hartlod
Subject: Re: Micro-generation revisited.
Dear Peter,
Thank you for your email, you raise a number of interesting points. I hope you are able to watch the 'Great Global Warming Swindle' on Thursday 12th July following 'Don't Die Young', as well as the interview and discussion program that will follow directly after the controversial U.K. documentary.
Kind regards, Catalyst
==-==
Notice that the E.U. spends 40% of its revenue in Agronomical subsidy, much paying literally Farmers to NOT take produce to market.
THIS is practice is being rebirthed as 'carbon sequestration', then seen 'sold by opinion' as 'Carbon Offset' share trade schemes.
The result is that now Australian Wheat Farmers would be PAID to revert Wheat Field to the Mallee scrub, that removed initially to plant wheat.
Still is this the SAME unsustainable practice as the E.U produces Now, but 'rebirthed' to sound 'profitable'.
These Australian farmers SHOULD be instead be producing Biofuel Oil crop...not engaged in Environmentally futile 'ideological scheming' and 'diversion efforts' of any 'Political Organisation, be it the E.U. or some other.
It seems easier to sell 'asset poor' shares (paper script without under written value) rather than remediate the problem...until the 'Never Never' does inevitably arrive, that is.
The problem is still NOT of supposed 'unnatural change' to Climate either, such is still not obvious after ~30 years of 'hype'.
The Political Campaigners, those become dependant on 'Climate' to sustain THEIR 'position', these FEW INDIVIDUALS are 'the problem'.
Time then for the Ideology, the attached malpractices of SCIENCE and the growing Fiscal Fraud, to be responded to with greater SILENCE...less 'media noise and hype'...
As the WASTE of Public Monies increases the REAL level of Fiscal Fraud attached becomes more onerous.
The contradictions 'greenhouse science' makes are contradictions towards areas of applications (of those THEORIES 'it' incorporates) which make functional artefacts.
These contradictions invalidate then such 'greenhouse science', with no space then for OPINION to protect such 'climate nonsense' that follows the 'greenhouse agenda'.
There are too many contortions and lies obviously become only agendered 'greenhouse' propaganda.
Notice even initially that CO2 is NOT carbon.
Carbon is a particulate, an Atmospheric Solid.
CO2 exists as a Molecule with both different abilities and properties.
There are known situations where-in 'greenhouse gases' have exceed by 20 times those levels 'of the Present', not seen was ANY situation as some 'greenhouse' allusions attempt still to make, not shown any such 'warming' as the 'greenhouse lobby' supposes in its 'quasi scientific' rhetoric...
I will continue to petition all levels of Government to notice, as they ARE required to notice, such situations of Fiscal Fraud in the responsibilities of the Public Trust within such Offices and responsibilities as Government is granted.
This includes the further activities of the ABC in mis-presenting the 'climate game' as the email I respond to would show as perhaps the Organisation's intention.
The term 'organised crime' is becoming closer to being used far more commonly in regard to the 'greenhouse game'.
Yours, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(TM)
It has been written to me, in various manners presenting similar comment:-
--
Bio-fuel depletes the soil and soil-depletion erodes civilizations. Montgomery, David, Dirty, the erosion of civilizations, Univ California Press., 2007,
The EROEI of biofuel production is a non-starter. To grow biofuel in the Mallee you would need the same amounts of fertilizer as you do for broad-acre farms in the Mallee currently. At the moment farmers in the Mallee grow niche wheats and grains in farming processes which are more sustainable than any of our intensive irrigated farming, but not sustainable in the long-term, of course. When it doesn't rain those farmers fall back on mixed farm components such as stock raising.
I am pleased to hear that the Government is apparently from your comments rewarding those farmers for restoring the original vegetation.
To restore Mallee heath and forest will ultimately restore the soil, which is a great thing, with all the above ground biota which interact with the soil biota, and stop erosion. Erosion releases carbon from the soil where about a third of carbon is stored. Broad-acre farming is a source of massive erosion and uses fossil fuels for nitrogenous fertilizer and for farming machinery and transport. Biofuels cultivation would be done on the same scale using the same fertilizers and the same machinery.
There is a small case for bio-fuel in local economy situations where some product might be set aside to fuel work done by modest combustion engines, but biofuels cannot replace in any significant manner the fossil-fuel use in our industrial economies. They are only popular when they receive government subsidies, since therein lies the only real income.
Sincerely, Sheila Newman
Ed. The Final Energy Crisis 2nd ed due out 2008.
--
I place this here, with my reply following, as some others have made comment of similar style so here (below) I make my reply to all.
Yours Peter K Anderson
Most Biofuel OIL 'sources' are classified as weeds, growing them needs no effort.
There is neither relevance in 'tearing along' a tangent concerning 'mallee'. It is scrub, already replaced with Wheat, which is to be now (perhaps) 'replaced' with ' leased scrub'...for no REAL gain or advantage.
You might detail which 'biofuel' crops you would mention, notice the difference tween Biofuel Oil and a general mention of 'biofuel'.
Notice that diesel fuel in Europe is subsidised (at the 'expense' also of Petrol) and if such policy was made in Australia the compression process engine would be even MORE popular here.
The compression engine process is already more fuel efficient than the 'petrol hybrid' even AND when within larger vehicle forms.
Also relevant is that the most pertinent Biofuel Oil crop, the Castor Oil Plant, is native to Africa and Eurasia.
These regions are presenting around one half of the Worlds Human Population suffering without Electricity generation.
It is also that the Castor Oil Plant is 'a weed' in Australia AND is 'classified' as a 'shrub form' plant. Notice then the RANGE of the Castor Oil Plant ALREADY within Australia, be it 'a weed' or otherwise.
The Castor Oil Plant gave the basis of JET FUEL in the Korean Conflict with the addition of Paraffin Oil.
The Diesel process Engine, as also is the Fuel Turbine (a 'staged compression' combustion process engine), is very 'fuel friendly'...unlike the (gasoline) 'spark ignition' process.
There is NOT anything 'small' about Biofuel Oil fuel crops.
Yours, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(TM)
It has been written to me, in various manners presenting similar comment...
--
The point is not the kind of vegetation, it is the destructive nature of the crop and process. Biofuels destroy soil in order to be produced. It is the soil which is irreplaceable. Weeds or other vegetation protect soil. Row crops like wheat leave the soil unprotected after harvest, which is bad, but at least some of the cellulosic fibre of the roots remains to keep the soil biota alive and to retain some of the soil.
Biofuels use up soil and fossil fuels and do not replace either.
Without soil there is no civilization.
Mallee forest is really beautiful. Have you seen the trees? They are
fantastic.
I am not writing a novel; it is a collection of scientific articles by a variety of international authors which I am editing. The author I cited is a systems biologist.
Sheila N
--
I place this here, with my reply following, as some others have made comment of similar style so here (below) I make my reply to all.
Yours Peter K Anderson
The 'point' Sheila isn't only the crop but its uses. 'The Soil' would seem to be only some part of an Ideology you would tacitly present. Reducing the PRODUCTION of Pollution would be a better solution especially when not reliant on ‘radical lifestyle alterations’ to be achieved.
Mallee forest 'is really beautiful' but that isn't however 'the point' at all. The ORGANISED 'planting' of mallee scrub is however only to facilitate a POINTLESS concept of 'carbon offset' trade, a FISCAL rort already detailed.
Biofuels don't 'use up' soil and/or 'fossil' fuels and CAN replenish BOTH. There is a very large difference tween 'scientific articles' Sheila, and SCIENCE, a point you seem rather weak in realising.
Notice was the recent mention of (retail) sale of 100% Biofuel Oil in Sydney (Australia) & reports of 80% reduction of 'emissions'. This can be also coupled with rapidly increasing fuel efficiency of the compression process combustion engine design. Sources of biofuel oil ARE considered as 'weeds' in many 'Western' agronomical regions, but can be grown in conditions unsuitable for 'food crop' relatively easily.
'Poorer Regions' (not only of 'impoverished' soils…) could readily 'grow Fuel' to sell for food...rapidly becoming 'less poor'.
This also whilst those 'Western Regions’ see fuel prices rise (dependant on additions of ‘carbon taxation’ accountings) due to the ideological 'spruikers' of 'greenhouse doom' as much as to those pre-existing and otherwise perpetual 'fiscal pressures'.
=
China alone still has those 300 Million People producing untreated Effluent into Creek and River Systems. This is all into the Environment and its contained Eco-Systems and Habitat. The Food reserves of those 300 Million and all others about them are suffering, disease will only increase in regions associated with the Waterway involved. That Waterway is the Third largest on the Planet (from memory).
=
I hear of one 'diesel process' engine in most 'Chinese villages', the 'diesel engine' mechanic is near by, and both are then numerous and obviously practical on a 'Global Basis'. Needing little notice made is then how smaller scale Electricity Generation CAN be fuelled with biofuel oils. Notice the Castor Oil plant (of family: Euphorbiaceae) with such being a ‘shrub’ and a native to Africa and Eurasia. In Australia it is 'a weed' within a range seen in;
http://www.weeds.org.au/cgi-bin/weedident.cgi?tpl=plant.tpl&state=&s=®ion=&form=shrub&card=S05
Only Human imagination needs be applied to what is already available. The 'engine technologies' have been ~100 years matured, time perhaps to revisit the development of the 'concept fuel' of the compression process.
What to do with the abandoned 'West' then? Certainly WE need no more Novels as still is CO2 NOT actually a Problem even or an ‘unnatural pollutant’ at all in present levels, or even 20 times such levels. Avoiding What IS Sheila makes your 'effort' more 'into' that Novel, not your 'attitude' within 'the making' of that effort.
Yours, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(TM)
In response to:-
--
How can biofuels replenish soil? And how can they have a positive EROEI when they require huge amounts of fossil fuel based fertilizer?
Sheila N
--
I wrote:-
Well Sheila only the SEEDS are really needed, but otherwise have you heard of the concept of pulp and mulch at all?
Next these ARE indeed Weeds Sheila and there are traits of 'weeds' that extend beyond simply being perhaps 'plants' in the 'wrong place'.
What fertilisers are then needed even, or that you attempt to mention in this discussion, whilst also should you notice the number of seeding grasses also able to grow in ARID conditions.
Most are of an 'African origin' but already present HERE in Australia.
What amazes me is that the CSIRO is efforting to assist the People of PNG in extraction of 'essential oils' when here in Australia we have 'growing' (what WE consider) weeds that could (with some little effort) become (needed) Fuel for BILLIONS of People...including those of PNG.
If perhaps you tossed aside the useless jargon Sheila and LOOKED at what is being spoken of, your comprehension of such would be far faster that it would appear to potentially be currently.
Yours, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(TM)
It has been written to me, in various manners presenting similar comment:-
--
Peter,
You need to learn some biology.
Sheila N
--
I place this here, with my reply following, as some others have made comment of similar style so here (below) I make my reply to all.
Yours Peter K Anderson
Sheila, it isn't Ethanol that is needed, the 'issues' raised against Ethanol ARE NOT RELEVANT and even the E.U. is beginning to be HEARD appreciating the differences REALITY does produce in the situation of Bio Fuel OILS.
Compression combustion 'engined' vehicles are ALREADY as fuel efficient IN LARGER VEHICLE forms as 'petrol hybrid' engines, this WILL only improve AND as the Fuel transitions AWAY from 'fossil' sources.
The Engine Technology has been matured for ~100 years and can combust near ANYTHING suitable with modern engine management allowing even for 'on the fly' alterations to accommodate 'fuel mix' changes on 'refuelling'.
Again, to stress for notice, Bio Fuel OIL is NOT Ethanol, isn't produced as is Ethanol and the effort to 'drop' words and manoeuvre discussion towards generic mention of 'biofuels' shows how inept some few, pretending to 'expertise', are become.
There is NO need to 'crop for ethanol', just drop the 'petrol combustion engine' process. IT began when was realised AT THE TIME that the engines using the diesel process where too large...again as at that time...to be used in smaller vehicles, like mass produced passenger vehicles...the 'car' as it become known.
Realise that Fuel and Engine ARE 'a twin' and the Compression Engine CAN combust fuel only needing to spontaneously combust when a measured amount is placed into Air compressed ~20 times, produced to then ~900 degrees C (see slide in main article).
Please understand Sheila that ETHANOL is NOT the product desired. Having done years ago that already as you 'recommend', notice Sheila that the paucity of comprehension is with you.
The desire of a few seems shown in effort to fabricate a new lexicon, made only to avoid what is known by remaking 'descriptions'.
Your 'words' are the 'failures' Sheila, their only purpose become to facilitate the avoidance of Reality.
Yours, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(TM)
As some comments I have received would confuse still Biofuel and Biofuel Oil do notice the difference in Engine processes. It is well realised and often reported the reduced 'ghg emissions' of the diesel process. This whilst larger cars (~family sized) with Petrol Hybrid engines obtain a similar (as example of report) ~8l/100km as those with diesel process engines fitted.
Then again do notice that Biofuel Oil reduces emissions of Particulates (such as Carbon) which are those Solids within the Atmosphere that the Theories of SCIENCE used within 'greenhouse theory' CAN produce a 'warming effect' with.
The great FARCE then within the 'greenhouse theatre' is to try to LABEL molecules like CO2 as 'carbon' then misuse the Theories of SCIENCE ONLY by trying to RELABEL in rhetoric what 'things are'. The 'original mistake' in the 1890's of the initial efforts of the 'greenhouse theorist' was in trying to use 'the Atom' as being 'a solid', as it was then thought 'to be'. It was not so however, and still is not so.
The atom and molecule are the 'expression form' of an Electromagnetic Field that has 'mass' properties. The Photon is an expression of a discrete Electromagnetic Field that has Wave-like properties. Thus the failed attempts in the early 20th Century of the 'greenhouse science' to gain validation and its becoming a POLITICAL platform trying to a 'sound scientific'.
Photons within the Atmosphere are in FACT the 'safe storage' of Energy, until it can be removed by the outward (trended) motion of Photons. CO2 reduces the conversion rate of that Energy INTO a Kinetic Gain of the System as CO2's interactions retain only a SMALL portion (1/100th that of H2O) of such Energy a Photon presents.
There is no 'greenhouse effect' per sec, as 'greenhouse theory' tries to RHETORICALLY redefine for itself 'what is' whilst doing so with effort to make such manipulation 'sound and look' to be 'science'. The 'debate' of 'how much greenhouse effect' there is has no POINT either, the 'greenhouse theory' is obviously invalid and produced solely as a Political Platform. This is why there is so strong a rhetorical effort, to move past such actual flaws and pretend 'all is science' in the 'greenhouse platform.
Yours, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(TM)
... Super metro buses to be trialled in Sydney ...
www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,22248784-5001021,00.html
'... NEW 'Super Metro' buses carrying up to 115 passengers will be trialled in Sydney early next year...
Each bus will use low emission technology, running on either Euro 5 diesel or natural gas. ...'
Yours, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(TM)
Post a Comment