Archive for the ‘conservation’ Category

Thought for the Day

July 12, 2007

Much like the lottery is a tax on those who are bad at Math, Carbon Offset payments are tax on those who are bad at Science.

democrat Chris Dodd wants to put the breaks on the economy

May 6, 2007

democrat Presidental hopeful Chris Dodd is calling for a “corporate” so-calledcarbon tax.”
The hard cold truth is that those taxes would be passed straight on to the consumer with a profit margin.
That would have a very negative effect on the economy. This is pretty straight forward basic Macro Economics.
Senator Dodd is a smart man and knows this, he just won’t admit it.
If Dodd wants to fund alternate fuel research using tax dollars, he should take the money from the pork laden bills his party keeps passing. Not that the Republicans didn’t have a taste for pork, but the democrats are once again proving themselves the masters of the art.

Now that is funny…

April 24, 2007

…and damn accurate too. I am referring to Rosie O’Donnell’s response to entertainer Sheryl Crow’s suggestion on reducing toilet paper use:

“Have you seen my ass?!”

Rosie may be a raving Moonbat, but let’s give credit where credit is due.
As for Ms. Crow, I offer the advice of Laura Ingraham, Shut Up and Sing.

Getting to know your biofuels

April 10, 2007

Popular Mechanics has an article on the subject.

Keep in mind that the hard far left extremist moonbats consider Popular Mechanics part of the Evil Conspiracy ™.

Better biofuels through chemistry

April 3, 2007

There are very solid reasons for finding alternates to fossil fuels (including reducing the value of Middle Eastern oil reserve).
Amyris Biotechnologies is doing research into alternate biofuels using synthetic biology.

Unlike the conventional genetic engineering currently used in the manufacture of antibiotics and protein drugs such as insulin, synthetic biology involves hacking the entire metabolic system–changing the structure of some proteins, altering the expression of others, and adding in genes from other organisms–to create an efficient microbial machine.

The researchers selected several candidate compounds based on their energy content (ethanol has only 70 percent the energy of gasoline), their volatility (an ideal fuel shouldn’t evaporate too fast), and their solubility in water (unlike ethanol, a water-insoluble fuel could be piped around the country like petroleum). After narrowing the list by determining which fuels could be both produced in the lab and used in today’s engines, they were left with a selection of compounds including replacements for both diesel and jet fuel. “We’ve tested a lot of fuels with fantastic properties,” says Neil Renninger, Amyris cofounder and vice president of development.

It’s a fair bet that somebody will be protesting this and calling it “Frankenfuel.”

Words from an actual Scientist in the field

April 2, 2007

“Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that th early twenty-first century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age.”

Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, MIT; member of the National Academy of Sciences; and former lead author, UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

New technology from MIT would make internal combustion engines more efficent than hybrids

March 27, 2007

The MIT Technology Review reports:

For Daniel Cohn, a senior research scientist at MIT’s Plasma Science and Fusion Center, the century-old internal-combustion engine is still a source of inspiration. As he strides past the machinery and test equipment in the MIT Sloan Automotive Laboratory, his usually reserved demeanor drops away. “An engine this size,” he says, pointing out an ordinary-looking 2.4-liter midsize gasoline engine, “would be a rocket with our technology.”

By way of explaining that technology, he shows off a turbocharger that could be bolted to the 2.4-liter engine; the engine, he adds, uses direct fuel injection rather than the port injection currently found in most cars. Both turbocharging and direct injection are pre-existing technologies, and neither looks particularly impressive. Indeed, used separately, they would lead to only marginal improvements in the performance of an internal-combustion engine. But by combining them, and augmenting them with a novel way to use a small amount of ethanol, Cohn and his colleagues have created a design that they believe could triple the power of a test engine, an advance that could allow automakers to convert small engines designed for economy cars into muscular engines with more than enough power for SUVs or sports cars. By extracting better performance from smaller, more efficient engines, the technology could lead to vehicles whose fuel economy rivals that of hybrids, which use both an electric motor and a gasoline engine. And that fuel efficiency could come at a fraction of the cost.

A turbocharger and a direct-?injection system would add to the cost of an engine, as would strengthening its walls to allow for a higher level of turbocharging. The added equipment costs, however, would be partially offset by the reduced expense of manufacturing a smaller engine. In total, an engine equipped with the new technology would cost about $1,000 to $1,500 more than a conventional engine. Hybrid systems, which are expensive because they require both an internal-combustion engine and an electric motor powered by batteries, add $3,000 to $5,000 to the cost of a small to midsize vehicle–and even more to the cost of a larger vehicle.

Modern Plenary Indulgences

March 18, 2007

I’ve been using the term plenary indulgence to describe those so-called “Carbon Offset” payments for a while. Ace has noticed the striking similarities as well.

Oscar bags contained 10,000 pounds worth of supposed carbon offsets.

From where is this carbon being offset?

Well, for a real offset, you’d have to pay someone to do something he otherwise would not do (such as fill a lot of his land with trees he otherwise would not have planted), or pay someone not to do something they otherwise would have done (such as not fly on chartered private jets).

But it seems these supposed “offsets” are coming from people doing things they were already doing — for example, TerraPass is selling “reduced methane” emissions in its garbage dumps, despite the fact they were already reducing methane before the sale of “carbon offsets.”

Thus, you’re not paying someone to generate less “greenhouse gases.” You’re paying someone to continue generating the same levels of greenhouse gases they were before you paid them.

It’s absurd, but what Al Gore and his Hollywood nitwits are doing, basically, is paying me not to fly on private Gulfstream jets. Well, see, I already wasn’t flying on them. Paying me not to fly on them does pad my pocket a bit, but it doesn’t reduce carbon dioxide emissions, because I already wasn’t flying on them.

Carbon offsets are not carbon offsets at all. They’re hypocrisy offsets at best.

And, of course, they’re really just indulgences for the Church of Gaia.

Update: John Fund of the Wall Street Journal Editorial Page unearthed the following:

The Nashville-based Tennessee Center for Policy Research was skeptical that Mr. Gore had been “walking the walk” on the environment. It obtained public records showing that for years Mr. Gore has burned through more electricity at his Nashville home each month than the average American family uses in a year–and his consumption was increasing. The heated Gore pool house alone ran up more than $500 in natural-gas bills every month.

Mr. Gore’s office responded by claiming that the Gores “purchase offsets for their carbon emissions to bring their carbon footprint down to zero.” But CNSNews.com reports that Mr. Gore doesn’t purchase carbon offsets with his own resources, and that they are meaningless in terms of global warming.

The offset purchases are actually made for him by Generation Investment Management, a London-based investment firm that Mr. Gore co-founded, and which provides carbon offsets as a fringe benefit to all 23 of its employees, ensuring that they require no real sacrifice on the part of Mr. Gore or his family.

Mr. Gore has called the campaign to combat global warming a “moral imperative.” But Mr. Gore faces another imperative: to square his sales pitches with the facts and his personal lifestyle to more align with what he advocates that others practice. “Are you ready to change the way you live?” asks Mr. Gore’s film. It’s time people ask Mr. Gore “Are you ready to change the way you live, as well as the way you lecture the rest of us?”