12 Jan 14
Originally posted by wolfgang59As if the fossil fuel industry has no maintenance requirements!
Your argument is becoming flimsy now!!
I guess someone in the future will have to invent a device for getting rid
of dust. Maybe they could give it a snappy name ... like ... a duster!
We could put coal stoves in every house and business, I suppose. Oh, but wait! Occasionally more coal would have to be shoveled into them!
12 Jan 14
5 edits
Originally posted by SoothfastNot necessarily. It depends on both the type and the source of the biofuel. If it is processed from waste organic matter such as waste food (which it sometimes already is in some places ) then it would not compete with food production. Similarly, if it is processed from grass harvested from land currently too infertile or harsh for food production o ...[text shortened]... kweed that once grew between crop rows and on buffer strips separating fields and roads.
.... and your proposition to plough under even marginal lands and canvas them with sterile tracts of grass monocultures would ..... (spelling corrected )
I neither made nor support any such proposition nor did I say anything about growing biofuel crops (if anything, I think I may have rather indirectly implied that we should NOT grow biofuel crops! ) thus the whole of your post is based on a falsehood of what I said or would support. Read my post again but much more carefully and try and check if I implied or proposed "to plough under" any land -you will find I clearly did not. I have just doubled checked to make sure I didn't make a edit error -no error made. Nothing I would propose would effect butterflies in particular.
12 Jan 14
1 edit
Originally posted by humyI crafted my post based on what you said here:.... and your proposition to plough under even marginal lands and canvas them with sterile tracts of grass monocultures would ..... (spelling corrected )
I neither made nor support any such proposition nor did I say anything about growing biofuel crops (if anything, I think I may have rather indirectly implied that we should NOT grow biofuel ...[text shortened]... ake a edit error -no error made. Nothing I would propose would effect butterflies in particular.
…if it [biofuel] is processed from grass harvested from land currently too infertile or harsh for food production other than rough grazing with very low productivity (such as on cold tall mountains with thin soil ), it would have only trivial impact on food production at most.I understand that you did not explicitly say "plow under" or "monoculture," but that is precisely what "[harvesting grass] from land currently too infertile or harsh for food production" entails.* Perhaps you may think you're bandying about hypotheticals, but why bother? If you don't believe in doing what you're saying in your quote above, what is the point of saying it? Do you or do you not advocate exploiting biofuels as part of a diverse array of renewable energy sources that collectively would supplant the current fossil fuel infrastructure? More specifically, do you believe in using grasses to produce fuel? My guess is that you do, because you recently started a whole thread on the topic, where you said this:
This should be one step closer to making cheap economically viable biofuels from cheap biomass (such as grass ) closer to reality by economically separating out the lignin in the biomass that would otherwise normally gets in the way of turning the biomass into biofuel…The idea of cheap biomass from grass seems to excite you, but if you don't believe in it, then what's the point of the thread? Just to blow smoke rings and dream of the possibilities? And one would have to be naive to not appreciate that the raison d'être for using grasses as a source of biofuel is that grasses can be planted in terrain that is not suitable for food crops! The entire avenue of research is geared toward exploiting tens of thousands of square miles of land that corn growers are unable to till. Thousands of square miles of native plant species are in the crosshairs here, ripe for another environmental holocaust in the name of profit and fueling SUVs (or what the Brits sometimes call Chelsea tractors).
The only biofuel scheme that makes sense is biofuel from garbage and waste. That's it. And if that's what you believe, then we're in agreement.
* I use the term "plow under" loosely here, to mean that whatever was growing natively will be eradicated for the purpose of introducing a foreign and/or genetically modified grass species. To harvest the grass, however, will require some kind of reaping machine, unless one envisions that individual blades of grass shall be plucked betwixt thumb and forefinger by droves of minimum wage workers.
12 Jan 14
4 edits
Originally posted by Soothfast
I crafted my post based on what you said here:…if it [biofuel] is processed from grass harvested from land currently too infertile or harsh for food production other than rough grazing with very low productivity (such as on cold tall mountains with thin soil ), it would have only trivial impact on food production at most.I understand that ...[text shortened]... blades of grass shall be plucked betwixt thumb and forefinger by droves of minimum wage workers.
I understand that you did not explicitly say "plow under" or "monoculture," but that is precisely what "[harvesting grass] from land currently too infertile or harsh for food production"
You have taken that out of context: The WHOLE of my statement ACTUALLY was:
“, if it is processed from grass harvested from land currently too infertile or harsh for food production OTHER THAN rough grazing with very low productivity (such as on cold tall mountains with thin soil ) , it would have only trivial impact on FOOD production at most. (my emphasis ) “
so I CLEARLY was not talking about land for wildlife but rather land used for rough grazing by animals but where there is very low productivity (low productivity of meat, presumably ) . Why would harvesting such grass for biofuel be any harmful to the butterflies than let it be grazed by sheep or goats for meat production? -either way, the grass will be cropped!
The idea of cheap biomass from grass seems to excite you, but if you don't believe in it
WRONG! Of course I believe in it! Don't know where you got that from.
None of your post makes much sense.
13 Jan 14
3 edits
Originally posted by humyI understand that you did not explicitly say "plow under" or "monoculture," but that is precisely what "[harvesting grass] from land currently too infertile or harsh for food production"
You have taken that out of context: The WHOLE of my statement ACTUALLY was:
“, if it is processed from grass harvested from land currently too infertil ...[text shortened]... excite you, but if you don't believe in it [/quote]
Your post doesn't make much sense.
You have taken that out of context: The WHOLE of my statement ACTUALLY was:Don't be naive. There are lots of grasslands suitable for "rough grazing" that currently are not used for rough grazing because it isn't profitable. On the other hand if grass were to become gold, you can be sure lots of those lands, to date unmolested, would find themselves subject to exploitation. That's what has happened with corn ethanol: it caused the price of corn to triple, so now farmers are rushing to grow corn in wildlife reserves that formerly were unprofitable. Also, once you convert a large swath of land into a grass monoculture, it would take decades for native plant species, by themselves, to take the land back, which is not true of grazing pastures in general.
“, if it is processed from grass harvested from land currently too infertile or harsh for food production OTHER THAN rough grazing with very low productivity (such as on cold tall mountains with thin soil ) , it would have only trivial impact on food production at most. (my emphasis ) “
so I was not talking about land for wildlife but rather land used for rough grazing by animals. Why would harvesting such grass for biofuel be any harmful to the butterflies than let it be grazed by sheep or goats for meat production?
WRONG! Of course I believe in it! Don't know where you got that from.I believe I asked you whether you do believe in it. I even guessed that you do believe in it, as evidenced by my saying this:
More specifically, do you believe in using grasses to produce fuel? My guess is that you do, because you recently started a whole thread on the topic...I have to say, you are the most bewildering and slippery non-Creationist on this forum with whom to have a discussion about anything. You're probably not being a weasel, and the problem stems from my own inability to perceive when you're playing devil's advocate.
EDIT: Your practice of editing a post up to 14 times also doesn't help when discussing anything with you. It's like conversing with someone who keeps hopping into a time machine to change previous lines of dialogue.
EDIT 2: I still agree with you on most matters, though. 😉
13 Jan 14
2 edits
Originally posted by Soothfast
[quote]You have taken that out of context: The WHOLE of my statement ACTUALLY was:
“, if it is processed from grass harvested from land currently too infertile or harsh for food production [b]OTHER THAN rough grazing with very low productivity (such as on cold tall mountains with thin soil ) , it would have only trivial impact on food production at m ...[text shortened]... nge previous lines of dialogue.
EDIT 2: I still agree with you on most matters, though. 😉[/b]
There are lots of grasslands suitable for "rough grazing" that currently are not used for rough grazing because it isn't profitable.
how can it be both “suitable” for grazing and not "profitable" for grazing thus not used for grazing? Anyway, I clearly wasn't referring to such land NOT currently used for grazing -so no killing butterflies proposed.
14 Jan 14
Originally posted by humy"simple; if all the road vehicles are electric, then, as a greater and greater proportion of the electricity is generated from renewables, the energy that powers those vehicles becomes less dirty. Eventually, of course, ALL of the electric vehicle energy will come from renewables."61% of the world's electricity is produced by burning fossil
that may be true now but what barrier is stopping this being false in ten years time?
In addition, even in the mean time, having SOME of the electricity coming from renewables is better than nothing -it is still an improvement and one that generally reduces the net carbon footp ...[text shortened]... less dirty. Eventually, of course, ALL of the electric vehicle energy will come from renewables.
So you are saying put your faith in the possibility that most electricity that is generated by fossil fuels now will be generated by renewables in the future? That is like me saying burn coal now because it will be replaced by renewables later. You sound like a retard trying to defend previous stupid statements.
14 Jan 14
Originally posted by humy"How do you know this will always be true?"Hydrogen will come from fossil fuels
How do you know this will always be true?
What BARRIER would make it impossible for a way to make hydrogen from renewable energy?
In fact, a way to do this has already been found albeit it needs an improvement in energy efficiency; solar panels can generate electricity that is then used for hydrolysi ...[text shortened]... eve to be a deeply flawed strategy in most cases -just not flawed for the reasons you give here.
I never claimed it would. You are being silly here. Your position is that fossil fuels will be replaced with renewables soon so abandon any plans to continue burning fossil fuels. By your own logic global warming will be reduced so there is no reason to concern yourself with it...yet you are still concerned. 🙄
14 Jan 14
Originally posted by Metal BrainNo, it isn't. We should be ABLE to replace them relatively soon, that doesn't mean we WILL. Where did I say we WILL replace ALL fossil fuels soon? I would only claim that we will may be ABLE to relatively soon and probably sooner than you think but, thanks to people like you, we may not do so.
[b]. Your position is that fossil fuels will be replaced with renewables soon so /b]
14 Jan 14
Originally posted by Metal Brain
"simple; if all the road vehicles are electric, then, as a greater and greater proportion of the electricity is generated from renewables, the energy that powers those vehicles becomes less dirty. Eventually, of course, ALL of the electric vehicle energy will come from renewables."
So you are saying put your faith in the possibility that most electric ...[text shortened]... placed by renewables later. You sound like a retard trying to defend previous stupid statements.
So you are saying put your faith in the possibility that most electricity that is generated by fossil fuels now will be generated by renewables in the future
No “faith” required; just logic. Fossil fuel burning and other unsustainable energy sources are not sustainable therefore one day in the future it will not be done and that just leaves renewables to take its place -how is that “faith” and NOT logic? -please explain....
14 Jan 14
Originally posted by humyYou said this:
No, it isn't. We should be ABLE to replace them relatively soon, that doesn't mean we WILL. Where did I say we WILL replace ALL fossil fuels soon? I would only claim that we will may be ABLE to relatively soon and probably sooner than you think but, thanks to people like you, we may not do so.
"Because, if only if you have, you would know just like the experts already know that it will get a lot cheaper within the next ten years and probably cheaper than fossil fuels."
First you say that within 10 years renewables will probably be cheaper than fossil fuels. Now you are saying that doesn't mean we will. Apparently you are not very confident they will be cheaper as you expressed earlier.
You are being contradictory and are just too stubborn to admit it.
14 Jan 14
Originally posted by humySo you are saying put your [b]faithin the possibility that most electricity that is generated by fossil fuels now will be generated by renewables in the future
No “faith” required; just logic. Fossil fuel burning and other unsustainable energy sources are not sustainable therefore one day in the future it will not be done and that just leaves renewables to take its place -how is that “faith” and NOT logic? -please explain....[/b]I never debated "if". It is "when" that is in question and you know it. You are being deliberately misleading.
14 Jan 14
1 edit
Originally posted by Metal Brain
You said this:
"Because, if only if you have, you would know just like the experts already know that it will get a lot cheaper within the next ten years and probably cheaper than fossil fuels."
First you say that within 10 years renewables will probably be cheaper than fossil fuels. Now you are saying that doesn't mean we will. Apparently you are n ...[text shortened]... as you expressed earlier.
You are being contradictory and are just too stubborn to admit it.
First you say that within 10 years renewables will probably be cheaper than fossil fuels. Now you are saying that doesn't mean we will. Apparently you are not very confident they will be cheaper as you expressed earlier.
How do you equate renewables being cheaper than fossil fuels hypothetically, say, 10 years from now, with renewables haven replaced ALL fossil fuels 10 years from now?
Even when renewables become cheaper than fossil fuels, we may have continual resistance against renewables by some people (mainly ignorant or delusional ) that could slow things down a lot and, in addition, it would take at least a few more years to switch over completely to renewables because it would take TIME to manufacture and install all those solar panels, wind turbines etc even when those renewables become cheaper.
You are being contradictory
See above response to see my self-consistency.
14 Jan 14
5 edits
Originally posted by Metal Brain
I never debated "if". It is "when" that is in question and you know it. You are being deliberately misleading.
I never debated "if".
I thought you just clearly and very explicitly did!
You just said:
So you are saying put your faith in the possibility that most electricity that is generated by fossil fuels now will be generated by renewables in the future?
Are you not clearly saying in the above statement that it is just “faith” that this “possibility” will EVER happen “in the future”?
I mean, you CLEARLY just say in the above “in the future” and NOT, for example, “ in the near future” (or words of that effect ) and THAT is why I assumed (and quite reasonably I think ) you meant renewables will not dominate at ANY time in the future -clarify; was that a misprint then? -that would at least make sense in the light of what you are now saying.