Moderator: Community Team

You could generate electricity from your Nuclear power to charge fuel cell cars...Stopper wrote:The idea of producing fuel from plants, either as a way of reducing fossil fuel usage or avoiding global warming, strikes me as a crock of shite.
The amount of land we'd need to completely replace petrol and other fuels currently in use would probably preclude, er, feeding people.
Nuclear fission is the only way to go, people. (Don't ask me how that could be used to replace fuel in cars. My ideas are generally only half-baked.)
I didn't completely forget about your first point, but I was reluctant to mention it because some organisations, including the Bush administration, had in the past been dishonestly pushing hydrogen fuel cells as a solution for global warming/fossil fuel depletion. But they never talked about how the hydrogen would be produced - they often implied that the hydrogen itself was the fuel, rather than a fuel carrier.flashleg8 wrote:You could generate electricity from your Nuclear power to charge fuel cell cars...
In the UK at least the use of biofuels would be a godsend the struggling agricultural industry. Large amounts of dairy farms can no longer stay economically viable, this land could be changed to growing plant crops for biofuels. Possibly a government subsidy could be used to kick start this drive - but this could be financed from the VAT on existing hydrocarbon fuels.
Assuming you meant appropriate, appropriate for what?Marvaddin wrote: I really hate Bush, and I think a swastika is very appropriated.
Anyway, Im happy because US fucking government is not awaiting for more natural catastrophes before think a bit about save the planet.

Why? The swastika as you are thinking is associated with Nazi Germany and Hitler. Hitler wanted to exterminate a race of people and be the sole ruler of Europe and the world if possible. What race of people is Bush trying to exterminate? Where are the concentration camps where people are being rounded up and executed? Do you really think Bush wants to rule the world?Marvaddin wrote:Swastika is very well placed on Bush name.
Sorry, the US has made great strides in the last several decades in cutting emissions and improving the environment. Blaming droughts, forest fires and floods on the US is crazy. We are not the only people in the world using energy and we are nowhere near close to being worst in our governmental control of emissions.Marvaddin wrote: The US government cant prevent catastrophes, but many of them, like droughts (well, dunno if its the correct name... I mean a long time with no rain) and so fire and desertification, and floods are being caused by the increase of global temperature, so we cant wait, we need act to stop it as soon as possible. And US government wasnt cooperating until now. Im talking about catastrophes that are caused by humankind.
Maybe so, but being that he is from Brazil and that government should be able to control what happens to its own land I thought it worth pointing out seeing as the US is at fault for everything else.areon wrote:To be fair, the West and it's high demands for mahogany wood plus other products just might be impacting the destruction of rainforests some.
In NZ if we were to harvest the left over stalks and chaff after the wheat, barley etc was harvested , from just one little town alone (am thinking of Ashburton), we would have enough ethanol to run at leat 50% of our cars for a year.Stopper wrote:The idea of producing fuel from plants, either as a way of reducing fossil fuel usage or avoiding global warming, strikes me as a crock of shite.
The amount of land we'd need to completely replace petrol and other fuels currently in use would probably preclude, er, feeding people.
Nuclear fission is the only way to go, people. (Don't ask me how that could be used to replace fuel in cars. My ideas are generally only half-baked.)
In the bolded, do you mean just Ashburton's cars? The thing is, and it is one thing that never ceases to amaze me about NZ, is the sheer amount of people (something like 10%) that still work in agriculture. I don't know, but I bet New Zealand exports more food than it consumes. If so, that suggests that New Zealand has far more land than its people needs, and perhaps biofuels would be plausible, but only within New Zealand itself.nunz wrote:In NZ if we were to harvest the left over stalks and chaff after the wheat, barley etc was harvested , from just one little town alone (am thinking of Ashburton), we would have enough ethanol to run at leat 50% of our cars for a year.
ethanol doesn't preclude feeding people. In fact the two can go hand in hand.
My lawn mower is getting ready to runon the grass it mows .... now I just need to perfect my brewing technique to make it drinkable as well so I can mow the lawn, feed my mower nad fgeel no pain while doing so
I swear my brother runs his van off 50% cooking oil 50% ordinary diesel, it works perfectly fine (stinks like a chip shop when he's driving though!). It's perfectly legal as long as you declare and pay fuel duty on the 50% cooking oil (although that kind of defeats the point a bit so non-one does thatStopper wrote:
BTW, sometimes I wish I still had a diesel car. A number of people in Wales had been caught a while back using vegetable oil to run their diesel cars and tractors. Chips and environmentalism at the same time. If only...