Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (61543)	12/3/2014 11:27:43 AM
From: Thomas A Watson	Respond to of 86355

I have no doubt that anonymous ratie has no problem with the fact that tens of thousands of people including children could be fed with all the food used to create that plane fuel. have a nice day anonymous ratie.

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (61543)	12/3/2014 11:27:53 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86355

Wharfie, there's no need to go to biomass fuels yet. Keep using regular oil. Boost the CO2 levels to 500 ppm or at least 450ppm. By then, Peak People in 2037 will be a done deal and the demand for fossil fuels will be dwindling as other lifestyles and technologies develop. Such as Cyberspace. As crops for food take up reduced space, the new people could grow crops for fuels. The crops would enjoy more CO2 so growth rates would be improved making the economics of biofuels more attractive. Mqurice

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (61543)	12/3/2014 5:37:48 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 86355

A better ship would be bunker-fueled to produce CO2, with iron sprayed into the exhaust to spread over the ocean to enhance algal and radiolarian absorption of CO2 and to feed the fish chain which is delicious and nutritious. Sailing ships went out of fashion in the 19th century. One of my great grandfathers operated one in the south Pacific [Norfolk Island and Melanesia down to New Zealand]. But that was 170 years ago until about the 1890s. Here they are, compliments of the amazing Cyberspace revolution. flickr.com We have modern engines now. They are much better and more reliable. Boeing and Airbus need to keep a weather-eye on the Global Warming mania because they might be banned from using kerosene or it might be taxed viciously, so they need to design their aircraft and engines to run on government-approved pixie powder or unicorn urine. That doesn't mean they believe it. I used to run some R&D programmes in BP Oil which had political bias, because contrary to popular mythology, the oil companies do not in fact run the governments. As BP found, Obama got his foot on their throat and extracted many $billions in loot. That was purportedly to compensate for the cataclysmically catastrophic Gulf of Mexico accident the harm from which is unsurprisingly not evident unless microscopic inspection is done in a few locations and actually had little effect at the time. If pelicans, dolphins and other air breathers were valued at $10,000 each [pretty steep for a pelican] then the cost in wildlife was a few $millions. The loss of the platform was closer to a $billion. The lives lost were worth more than the wildlife. At $2 million each, the lives were worth about $20 million. Big companies have to do research and development work for political reasons, not just technological and economic. Big Government and much of the community is in thrall to environmental religion. So environmental papal decrees, edicts, encyclicals and fatwahs matter. Biofuels have been Big Government aims for decades. I used to argue against them as being uneconomic but various parties argued "energy balances" and other economic tripe to pretend there was some justification. Now they argue environmental externalities and assign arbitrary environmental credits to the "for" side of the biofuel ledger and countervailing penalties on the fossil fuel options. My advice to BP Oil International was to get with the programme and advise governments on what environmentally friendly fuels could be made and what it would cost and what regulations would be needed to enforce cleaner air. In the early 1980s, the oil industry tended to argue against such environmental improvement as it required capital investment in refining, distribution and whatnot. My argument was that BP was in the capital investment business rather than oil production. So BP should research and advise what environmental improvements could be made and at what cost. If everyone incurs that cost, then BP was in a better position than others to make the investment and technological improvements. Competitive advantage leading to better environmental conditions and customer satisfaction. For example, two of my hobby horses - get rid of lead and improve gasoline formulation to reduce emissions and improve vehicle performance and efficiency. My boss's boss told me as I was quitting BP [in 1989] that they were coming around to my way of thinking. I laughed as it was a very gradual process, like watching glaciers grow. But sure enough, they did move in that direction. Airbus is beholden to Big Government so you can be sure that they'll be doing the same. It's not for Airbus or BP to dictate what politicians want for the public good. If the politicians say "Use pixie powder mixed with unicorn urine", Airbus would advise them on the safety of such flights and the environmental consequences if that was adopted. Airbus might say "We have researched that blend and if we add suitably worshipped jojoba bean oil with soya lecithin and fermented marijuana/hemp cellulose we can make a pretty cool diesel fuel which can also act as food and drink for the pilots, crew and passengers. They will be very happy flights. Tranquil. We could load them in like sardines, soporific, with just the right dose for the length of the flight." On second thought, until the airliners are fully automatic, maybe the pilots should have regular food and drink. Eric could advise on the suitability of my patented fuel as pilot fuel as well as engine fuel. Mqurice