alt.energy.renewable

On Mar 26, 5:14=A0pm, Yer Pal Al wrote:
> On Mar 25, 10:33=A0pm, Fran wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 26, 4:12=A0pm, Yer Pal Al wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 25, 7:50=A0pm, Fran wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 26, 11:12=A0am, "calderh...@yahoo.com" =

> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > If the average American citizen knew all the true facts about the
> > > > > possibility of drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife
> > > > > Refuge, they would be very angry at Congress and the so-called
> > > > > "environmental lobby" for opposing it. =A0See all the pertinent an=
d
> > > > > laughable facts at ...
>
> > > >
>
> > > > It took you a while, but you finally got to the top of your agenda -=
-
> > > > the global polluters cartel agenda. Let's vandalise the arctic
> > > > wilderness to people can drive their guzzling outsized cars more
> > > > cheaply.
>
> > > How many cartpoolers do you drag behind your ox?
>
> > What's a cartpooler? I have no ox.
>
> They make great hamburger. Sorry that you'll never know that - and
> thankfully you won't hold it against me - because fortunately you have
> no ox to grind.
>

That's true.

> You've taken a position against exploration for new oil. I was asking
> you how you get to work that is petroleum free.

That's wrong on at least two counts.

1. I haven't 'taken a position against exploration for new oil'. I've
taken a position against messing with the Arctic wilderness.

2. Even if I had taken a position against exploration for new oil,
there'd be no logical contradiction between that position and fuelling
my car with fossil oil derived products. It might be my view that one
should use crude oil while it's available.

If it had been my view that everyone everywhere should stop combusting
fossil fuels immediately, then you'd be entitled to wonder how I was
going to fuel my car. Of course, my view is that policies that foster
sharp downward pressure on demand for fossil fuels should be
instituted. This would almost certainly mean that the cost to the end
user per unit of fossil fuel energy would rise, and thus encourage
more careful consideration befoe using energy, and also make renewable
or non-fossil based energy sources more economically viable.

Hence my sarcastic comment: "Let's vandalise the arctic
wilderness to people can drive their guzzling outsized cars more
cheaply."


> An ox cart is one of
> the few options and the riders you pick up to share the ride wouldn't
> be "carpoolers" they'd be "cartpoolers."
>

If you think there are few options, you're egregiously underinformed.
Mass transit, especially powered by electricity is an excellent
option. So too are PHEVs and PEVs. So is biodiesel from algae and
butanol from sugar cane or switchgrass. Nuclear, wind, hydro and
geothermal are also possibilities. Effectively, 100% of Iceland's
stationary power comes from renewables.


> > > > Ha ... 'biofuel hoax' indeed!
>
> > > Maybe we can ferment tundra?
>
> > In depends on what you mean by 'tundra'. How is this relevant anyway?
>
> Tundra is composed of shrubs, grasses, moss and lichens. It's probably
> not a good source for biofuels but it is organic and Alaska's tundra
> region is larger than most countries.

That's possible, but almost certainly undesirable.


> Wouldn't it be ironic if it were
> a viable source for biofuel?

Not so much ironic as astonishing.


> Instead of a postage stamp sized scar in
> the earth it would be 800K square kilometers.
>

One good oil spill would be bigger than that. And you're also
forgetting the port facilities and road infrastructure.

Fran