Global Warming/Climate Change Discussion Thread

[livemusic]

Well, over here ethanol is more costly effective than gasoline. A liter of ethanol costs around R$1.50 (about U$0.75) while gasoline is R$3.50 per liter. And if a car makes 10 Km/lt. with gas, it will make about 8.5 Km/lt. with ethanol. If it's a car that can handle both fuels, the so called "Flex" models, then it will be around 7.5 Km/lt. with ethanol.

 

[FoolKiller]

Well, over here ethanol is more costly effective than gasoline. A liter of ethanol costs around R$1.50 (about U$0.75) while gasoline is R$3.50 per liter. And if a car makes 10 Km/lt. with gas, it will make about 8.5 Km/lt. with ethanol. If it's a car that can handle both fuels, the so called "Flex" models, then it will be around 7.5 Km/lt. with ethanol.

But see, you are getting 15% less mileage with ethanol, and so over time you will spend more money because you have to buy more of it. You have to use an seven liters of ethanol for every six liters of gasoline you use.

For example. Lightbulb A costs $1. Lightbulb B costs $3. ($2 difference) They both put out the same light, so the initial reaction is to buy Lightbulb A. But after 1 year Lightbulb A quits working and Lightbulb B lasts 5 years. By the time Lightbulb B burns out you will have bought five Lightbulb As and spent $5, while Lightbulb B only cost you $3.

Over the life of a car, even with a $2 difference, gasoline will be cheaper.


It is the same issue with the hybrids. They cost so much more than a car of equal size that even though you buy less gasoline you won't make up the difference over the life of the car.

 

[livemusic]

I don't quite follow your math here... If I buy R$100 of gasoline that will give me 28,57lts, so I can run 285,70Km with R$100. If I buy R$100 of ethanol I will have 66,66lts, which plus 8.5 is 566,61Km.

Or did I miss something?

 

[FoolKiller]

I don't quite follow your math here... If I buy R$100 of gasoline that will give me 28,57lts, so I can run 285,70Km with R$100. If I buy R$100 of ethanol I will have 66,66lts, which plus 8.5 is 566,61Km.

Or did I miss something?

Actually, looking over my math you are right. I wasn't comparing cost difference to efficiency difference. Your gas prices have gotten high enough to balance out the inefficiency, or your gasoline taxes have been set up that way. I do see your oil costs more to ship to you.

Congrats to Brazil for pulling it off. It seems to have been a 30 year plan, which is why I am suspicious of the taxes playing a part. Now if the technology can make it balance out the American cost scheme, and not take all our farmland to feed our consumption then it may be viable.



Of course, there is always the argument of why we wouldn't devote the extra farming needs to feeding third world countries, but I figure if we aren't going to use it for that we never will.

 

[Sureboss]

But see, you are getting 15% less mileage with ethanol, and so over time you will spend more money because you have to buy more of it. You have to use an seven liters of ethanol for every six liters of gasoline you use.

For example. Lightbulb A costs $1. Lightbulb B costs $3. ($2 difference) They both put out the same light, so the initial reaction is to buy Lightbulb A. But after 1 year Lightbulb A quits working and Lightbulb B lasts 5 years. By the time Lightbulb B burns out you will have bought five Lightbulb As and spent $5, while Lightbulb B only cost you $3.

Over the life of a car, even with a $2 difference, gasoline will be cheaper.


It is the same issue with the hybrids. They cost so much more than a car of equal size that even though you buy less gasoline you won't make up the difference over the life of the car.

They'll be a bargain when fuel prices rocket. Our fuel prices are expected to go above a £1 a litre by the end of the year. They'll keep going up too, wouldn't surprise me if in 20 years we are paying £3-4 a litre, maybe more. Alternatives fuels probably aren't the right choice at the moment, but we have no choice in the long run, unless we revert back to donkeys.

 

[niky]

Actually, by historical trending, ethanol in Brazil is cheaper than gas sometimes, but more expensive at others... just now, it happens to be cheaper.

In our country, Liquified Petroleum Gas is the "in" thing... it's cheaper than gasoline by half, and though it has some range problems (about 10-20% less range), the price difference pays for the conversion within about 3-5 years.

 

[FoolKiller]

Actually, by historical trending, ethanol in Brazil is cheaper than gas sometimes, but more expensive at others... just now, it happens to be cheaper.

As technology improves Ethanol will most likely continue becomeing cheaper, although sometimes improvement does require a price increase. Gas on teh other hand is unlikely to really drop unless the instability in the Middle East improves. As that hasn't happened in thousands of years I have little hope of it changing anytime soon.

In our country, Liquified Petroleum Gas is the "in" thing... it's cheaper than gasoline by half, and though it has some range problems (about 10-20% less range), the price difference pays for the conversion within about 3-5 years.

Right now I am watching the outcome of an experimental process deriving fuel from coal. Our state assembly is meeting in special session today to grant incentives to bring the plant to Kentucky. If this technology works out
it will be a great thing locally, as Kentucky has oodles of coal.

While it can lower fuels costs because of the stability in Kentucky (no war here since the Civil War) I figure this will still only be a temporary issue as it is merely replacing one fossil fuel with another. This would do nothing to quiet global warming worries, but as I have yet to be convinced that we are the cause the only problem I see is environmentalists attempting to stop more carbon-based fuel entering the market and the increase in mining this will cause.

Part of my hope is also brought on by personal greed as my in-laws own the land on an mountain that has been tested to show it contains coal. They are undecided about what they will do with this, but as the generation begins to retire they may feel a need to supplement their retirement, and that supplement may be larger if this tyechnology pans out and coal prices increase. As my father-in-law feels his son is wasting his future on acting hopes I don't see him handing over a large part of the inheritance to someone who plays video games when he isn't wasting money on head shots and trying to get parts in small plays, while refusing to get a job because it interferes with play practice.

 

[niky]

Coal-to-gas is one of those things that shows lots of progress, and which will probably play a large role in the twilight of the oil years.

As for ethanol, I'm still unsure as to how well that'll pan out... what I meant about the historical trending is that Brazil's use of ethanol largely depends on price fluctuations in crude. But they're closer to the answer than anyone else, as they've got a more balanced system than the US (corn is not the answer... not yet).

One can imagine a world living off of plant-grown alcohol fuel, but it definitely won't be as rich as this petroleum-fueled one, barring a breakthrough in refining technology or maybe some genetic fiddling with a quick-growing high-yield crop...

 

[livemusic]

I don't quite follow your math here... If I buy R$100 of gasoline that will give me 28,57lts, so I can run 285,70Km with R$100. If I buy R$100 of ethanol I will have 66,66lts, which plus 8.5 is 566,61Km.

Or did I miss something?

I just wanted to apologize because I informed you wrong about our gas price. It's actually R$2,50 per liter, not R$3,50.

But my example still works, only the mileage difference won't be so steep. 566,61Km on ethanol, 400Km on gas.

 

[V1P3R]

Slightly relates...

 

[Thiele]

I haven't posted in this thread for almost a year, but i hope you guys from back then beleive in global warming by now.

I also believe global warming is the reason for our drought.

 

[Jay]

I haven't posted in this thread for almost a year, but i hope you guys from back then beleive in global warming by now.

I also believe global warming is the reason for our drought.

I believe the climate changes, Do I belive in the whole bandwagon of 'global warming'.... Nope.

 

[Joey D]

I haven't posted in this thread for almost a year, but i hope you guys from back then beleive in global warming by now.

I also believe global warming is the reason for our drought.

Global climate change happens because it's a cycle the earth goes through, not because we've been burning fossil fuels for 150 years. But I still don't buy into global warming like it's some sort of doomsday thing.

 

[V1P3R]

When this place turns into a Waterworld situation will you? xD

 

[Joey D]

So the world is going to turn into a really poorly made and not even the least bit entertaining movie?

 

[V1P3R]

Wow... gotta spell it out for you I guess... What do we have and the north and south pole? 💡 Oh yeah... Ice.... and what happens when that melts?? What do we get? 💡 oh, yeah... Water.

Can anyone deny those big chunks of ice aren't melting and melting faster?? hmm... yeah.

 

[Famine]

Wow... gotta spell it out for you I guess... What do we have and the north and south pole? 💡 Oh yeah... Ice.... and what happens when that melts?? What do we get? 💡 oh, yeah... Water.

What displaces more water than it contains? Oh yeah, ice!

Can anyone deny those big chunks of ice aren't melting and melting faster?? hmm... yeah.

Firstly, yes. Secondly, why would we want to? The Greenland glacier is more widespread now than it was in the 1400s (read: contained more ice, locking up more water) and I'm pretty sure the UK wasn't submerged back then.

I haven't posted in this thread for almost a year, but i hope you guys from back then beleive in global warming by now.

I also believe global warming is the reason for our drought.

"Believe in"? You're making out like Global Warming is a religion.


Which, of course, it is. Though at least it submits itself to scientific scrutiny, even if its acolytes don't pay any attention to the results or methodology.

 

[Joey D]

I have to agree with Famine on this one.

 

[V1P3R]

I'd agree too except one problem... Ice can't form if it's warm.

 

[Stevisiov]

What displaces more water than it contains? Oh yeah, ice!

...

Originally Posted by V1P3R
I'd agree too except one problem... Ice can't form if it's warm.

erm...why would that be a problem?

 

[Mark T]

So are we saying that the the sea levels would be lower if all the ice melted? The ice at the moment is actually making the sea levels higher due to displacement?

 

[FoolKiller]

So are we saying that the the sea levels would be lower if all the ice melted? The ice at the moment is actually making the sea levels higher due to displacement?

I think that would depend on whether the displacement caused by floating ice in the ocean is greater than the amount of water frozen in glaciers on land. If there is more water sitting on land as glaciers then when that water melted and ran to the sea it would raise sea levels, but if the displacement caused by ice in the ocean is greater then the sea levels will drop.


No matter what the case it will be far from Waterworld, and not even as bad as The Day After Tomorrow, which suddenly points out how truly bad Waterworld is.

 

[Sureboss]

So are we saying that the the sea levels would be lower if all the ice melted? The ice at the moment is actually making the sea levels higher due to displacement?

I'd never thought of that when thinking of sea ice melting.

 

[Danoff]

Firstly, yes. Secondly, why would we want to? The Greenland glacier is more widespread now than it was in the 1400s (read: contained more ice, locking up more water) and I'm pretty sure the UK wasn't submerged back then.

Antarctica as well appears to be taking on more ice than it's losing. Ice accumulates on the main body of Antarctica and piles up - never thawing. From there the ice flows to the edges, where it starts to thaw and eventually calves off into the ocean. Then it starts over again.

Right now the mass flow balance is such that Antarctica is taking on ice (ie: reducing sea levels).

As Famine points out here, Greenland is still icier than it was when we named it.

You guys get shown some pictures of ice calving off into the ocean (which it has done for millions of years) and a voiceover comes on and tells you about how the earth is warming and ice is thawing (which it is, but it's also freezing, depends on where you're talking about). And from that, you're convinced - because you've SEEN it yourself. You SAW the ice thawing. You SAW it melt. But nobody showed you a video of snowfall to convince you that it also accumulates.

 

[FoolKiller]

You guys get shown some pictures of ice calving off into the ocean (which it has done for millions of years) and a voiceover comes on and tells you about how the earth is warming and ice is thawing (which it is, but it's also freezing, depends on where you're talking about). And from that, you're convinced - because you've SEEN it yourself. You SAW the ice thawing. You SAW it melt. But nobody showed you a video of snowfall to convince you that it also accumulates.

Sounds like when Nancy Pelosi went to Greenland in the spring, saw ice melting, and held a press conference to say that she saw global warming in person.

 

[Alex.]

id like to thank this thread for being Myself and mike's global warming research we did in class on tuesday

 

[KSaiyu]

Firstly, yes. Secondly, why would we want to? The Greenland glacier is more widespread now than it was in the 1400s (read: contained more ice, locking up more water) and I'm pretty sure the UK wasn't submerged back then.

Wait, so it contains more ice now or it did back then but the sea levels didn't change?

Yeah, I'm getting ready to jump on this bandwagon and jump into my G-Wiz tommorow to avoid the congestion char - oh wait....

 

[Famine]

Wait, so it contains more ice now or it did back then but the sea levels didn't change?

I'm sure that sea levels - along with "Global Mean Temperature" - are in a constant state of flux. In the absence of advanced cartography it's quite hard to tell what coastlines were like back in the 1400s - but Britain looks pretty much the same now as it did then.

The fabled Greenland glacier, which is alleged to be receding, was far more extensive during the Little Ice Age (1650-1850) and far less extensive during the Medieval Warm Period (800-1300). When, in fact, it was a green land... And no-one was burning sucked-up, liquefied dead tree back then.

 

[KSaiyu]

The Little Ice Age - why don't we hear about that in ads from EDF energy and Sky....

Thanks for the explanation too.

 

[Sureboss]

Wait, so it contains more ice now or it did back then but the sea levels didn't change?

Yeah, I'm getting ready to jump on this bandwagon and jump into my G-Wiz tommorow to avoid the congestion char - oh wait....

Well you certainly wouldn't have to pay the congestion charge any more.