Comments Rob has made

PEV: Worse than coal

I see you continue your unique style of personal attacks, bad science, and agenda. Despite being warned by the Grist editors.

Have you reconsidered your allegiance to PEHV vehicles, considering recent studies showing increased CO2 footprint for these vehicles? Your "future" solar and wind grid is decades away, and is strewn direct and secondary CO2 and environmental impacts associated with mining, land use, and cost  (not to mention the almost total biodiversity destruction by our local PNW dams- do you support expanded hydro?) With Clean Coal "technologies" and existing base load power projected to be primarily coal derived for the next decade how could you endorse these vehicles that use ZERO renewable energy to power them?  

Comprehensive life cycle studies, underway from ARB and others, will shed light on our mobility options, and from initial reports I have seen, biodiesel does very very well, compared to all other near and mid-term options.

 On Industrial agrofuels: enemy of the entire planet posted 1 year, 7 months ago 9 Responses

What we have today

Total fossil energy input/mile (Thousand BTU/mile)

Toyota Prius on gasoline 3.4
Jetta TDI on biodiesel 0.89
Jetta TDI on petro- diesel 3.7
Jetta 2.0L gas engine 6.0
Toyota Fuel Cell vehicle (hydrogen) 2.4

http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_vehicle_compare.htmlOn Tug of war posted 3 years, 5 months ago 15 Responses

H2

>>"We're getting closer and closer to the day--probably just beyond the end of this decade--when one or more battery companies hit the right formula and lithium batteries for cars are produced in the millions. Engineers in those companies are like modern day alchemists, trying to turn base materials into gold. If they succeed, they could indeed be very rich.">>

Big Auto and Big Oil have been spinning this yarn with press releases re Hydrogen cars for 20 years.

I believe we're past the point of dream solutions, and into the reality of applied solutions.On MIT and me posted 3 years, 5 months ago 16 Responses

caniscandida

caniscandida,

I'm sorry if you don't like my approach. These are serious issues. As for biodiesel- Biodiversivist writes seriously and hastily on subjects that he knows little about. Despite multiple attempts to point him towards scientific data, he rants on. I've found Biodiversivists assertions based on his personal positions, and I responded in kind. Fair warning: I'll continue to challenge his baseless assertions ongoing.On Malysia maligned! posted 3 years, 5 months ago 10 Responses

Dreamland

>>If ten thousand electric cars were charging on Seattle's grid tonight it would have little to no effect on other states.>>

Other than killing tens of thousands of fish and the ecosystems they support.

>>But, you would have ten thousand cars running around the next morning getting about 100 MPG equivalent gas mileage, producing no CO2 and using no imported or home grown liquid fuel (when in all electric mode).>>

As long as the cars never exceed 30 mph, and seriously, if your car commute never takes you over 30mph, shouldn't you walk or ride a (non-electric) bike?

How many dead fish per mile does that car of yours get, Bioidee?On MIT and me posted 3 years, 6 months ago 16 Responses

The bike SUV

>>I was riding my electric hybrid bike>>

They make gears on bikes, Biodee. Pedaling uphill is good for you! On Bicycles are old school posted 3 years, 6 months ago 8 Responses

Biodee is ignorant at best, malicious at worst

Biodiee, your continued ignorant flaunting of basic energy fundamentals and CO2/GHG emissions diminishes Grist as a publication. You really do come off as a tool for Big Oil, in your oh so earnest attempts to spite your biodiesel neighbor and pump your "book."

I find most amusing the corner you've backed yourself into regarding hydropower to support your electric plug in car. Hydro, along with timber industry and urban sprawl, decimate biodiversity in the northwest. An informed biologist would argue that hydro indeed has killed the Columbia ecosystem. Under extreme public pressure to mitigate impacts, hydro power producers have leveled the flow (in some watersheds most notably the Baker and Skagit Rivers). The hydro producers level the flow for the sake of salmon habitat, at the expense of power generation. Yet here you are advocating increasing ecological destruction in order to drive your hypothetical plug-in car:

>> Hydroelectric plants have reserve capacity just like most other plants to meet peak demands. >>

The ultimate irony would be your hypothetical plug-in car running on hydro-electric dam power with a "I'm pro biodivesity" bumper sticker. Have you gone entirely mad?

"It's energy lifecycle, stupid."

>>That last source has data from an actual plug-in and shows the math. >>

The data does not account for the lifecycle inputs that you harp on for biofuels. Fair is fair, your bias isn't flattering you, Biodee.

>>There are two main points to keep in mind on the subject of plug-in cars.>>

1. They have very little range, and become very inefficient over distance vs diesel engine.
   
2. The electricity comes from somewhere, most often C02 emitting fossil resources.

By far, the largest contributor to CO2 emissions is transportation/vehicles. How can you be so far off from the basic facts in this argument, Biodee?

>>so I can bask in the warm glow of smug self-righteousness.>>

Obviously. As deluded as your bathroom mirror reflects.  

As you learn more about the complexities of energy generation Biodee, you'll find much more in common with the biofuels advocates you continue to attack. For the sake of Grist readers, I hope your education happens sooner rather than later.

In the end, it all comes down to eliminating fossil fuels. Help stop global warming by using alternative fuels: http://www.propelbiofuels.com
On MIT and me posted 3 years, 6 months ago 16 Responses

Farts

<<Palm oil plantations are not carbon sinks. The carbon they sequester is put right back into the atmosphere as soon as the oil is burned.>>

As are is all the CO2 from the veggies you eat when you fart.

Some would call this CO2 cycle "renewable" as opposed to "fossil" although this concept continues to elude you.

Biodee, you continue to demonstrate your loose grasp on the subject at hand. I think you'll find, if you bother to look into palm harvest- that the oil producing nut is hardly the totality of the CO sink- palms are trees.

I'm sure the Polar Bears, and entire arctic ecosystem, will be disappointed to learn of your favoritism towards the orangutan. Global warming is real.

Advocating a "do nothing" stance seems oddly familiar... oh yes! Big Oil.

I don't believe you support Big Oil, the Bush Administration and Global Corporate Control as much you advocate for such on these posts. I truly believed you are simply misinformed.  Science and action can be your friend, Biodee. Paranoia is a tool of the oppressors- break free, Biodee! I know you can do it. On Malysia maligned! posted 3 years, 6 months ago 10 Responses

biodiversivist , clowning

"most" "us" "them"
and still no real world solutions.
Killing species one at a time via appathy: biodiversivist

Yeah for Grist comments!On Grain ethanol: wack posted 3 years, 6 months ago 10 Responses

Plug in hybrids: Eco-destruction machines?

Let's look at your plug-in hybrid. Cute and fashionable, no doubt. And hypothetical, like clean Hydrogen power.  Assuming the majority of your fuel is petroleum based gasoline (a non-renewable fuel that is ending it's available lifespan resulting in climate change and political conflict/war)- where does the balance of your "PLUG IN" energy come from? You seem to have no interest in understanding total energy lifecycle, or simply choose not to apply them in your ongoing crusade against biodiesel. For those interested in the facts- here's your source of "plug in hybrid" energy, in order:

1. Non-renewable/fossil Coal (56% of U.S. supply): 2.095 pounds of CO2 are expelled into the atmosphere for every kilowatt produced. This is our most polluting and most plentiful fossil fuel used to generate electricity. In addition, the  particles that come out of the smoke stacks have been proven to cause cancer, acid rain and are not held to vehicle emission standards.

2. Nuclear (22.38%): No CO2 is expelled into the atmosphere directly from nuclear fission, but when...
   

3. Non-renewable/fossil Natural Gas (9.3%): 1.321 pounds of CO2 are expelled into the atmosphere for every kilowatt produced.

4. Hydroelectric (9%): Hyrdoelectric is your primary electricity source in Seattle and the most profound ecosystem-destruction energy available. Using your fast and loose logic- you are killing salmon per mile driving your electric car- just how many? Standing in the Skagit river, with no salmon, thanks to your vehicle choice- blame the messenger or the buyer? The environmental costs of hydroelectric dams are often severely underestimated. Entire ecosystems are destroyed when rivers vital to local habitat for animals and plants become lakes, and cover many square miles of land.

5. Non-renewable/fossil Petroleum (3%): 1.915 pounds of CO2 are expelled into the atmosphere for every kilowatt produced. On a nationwide average, we do not use very much for electricity. However, as an example of it depends where you are, in Hawaii they produce 76.4% of their electricity by burning petroleum.

Biodiesel is the most energy efficient vehicle fuel available. Definitive peer reviewed studies have show a positive net energy balance of +3.5 or more including ALL ENERGY INPUTS OF PRODUCTION.

While you don't consider CO2 a emission of concern, the rest of the world does.

As a "biodiversivist" I would expect you have a grasp of the complexity and entirety of our energy dependencies. Somehow you ignore reality in your ongoing anti-biodiesel crusade.  Utopian do-nothing approaches to our challenges are not valid. Choices are being made. You are doing a disservice to Grist readers, Russ, with this ranting of yours. Please re-think your approach and look more clearly at the information available.
 On Smells like french fries posted 3 years, 6 months ago 33 Responses

Further, Russ...

Further, biodiversivist/Russ, I think you need to be clear on what you're proposing as a biodiesel alternative. Let's look at your plug-in hybrid. Cute and fashionable, no doubt. And hypothetical, like clean Hydrogen power. Assuming the majority of your fuel is petroleum based gasoline (a non-renewable fuel that is ending it's available lifespan resulting in climate change and political conflict/war)- where does the balance of your "PLUG IN" energy come from? You seem to have no interest in understanding total energy lifecycle, or simply choose not to apply them in your ongoing crusade against biodiesel. For those interested in the facts- here's your source of "plug in hybrid" energy, in order:

1. Non-renewable/fossil Coal (56% of U.S. supply): 2.095 pounds of CO2 are expelled into the atmosphere for every kilowatt produced. This is our most polluting and most plentiful fossil fuel used to generate electricity. In addition, the  particles that come out of the smoke stacks have been proven to cause cancer, acid rain and are not held to vehicle emission standards.

2. Nuclear (22.38%): No CO2 is expelled into the atmosphere directly from nuclear fission, but when...
   

3. Non-renewable/fossil Natural Gas (9.3%): 1.321 pounds of CO2 are expelled into the atmosphere for every kilowatt produced.

4. Hydroelectric (9%): Hyrdoelectric is your primary electricity source in Seattle and the most profound ecosystem-destruction energy available. Using your fast and loose logic- you are killing salmon per mile driving your electric car- just how many? Standing in the Skagit river, with no salmon, thanks to your vehicle choice- blame the messenger or the buyer? The environmental costs of hydroelectric dams are often severely underestimated. Entire ecosystems are destroyed when rivers vital to local habitat for animals and plants become lakes, and cover many square miles of land.

5. Non-renewable/fossil Petroleum (3%): 1.915 pounds of CO2 are expelled into the atmosphere for every kilowatt produced. On a nationwide average, we do not use very much for electricity. However, as an example of it depends where you are, in Hawaii they produce 76.4% of their electricity by burning petroleum.

Biodiesel is the most energy efficient vehicle fuel available. Definitive peer reviewed studies have show a positive net energy balance of +3.5 or more including ALL ENERGY INPUTS OF PRODUCTION.

While you don't consider CO2 a emission of concern, the rest of the world does.

As a "biodiversivist" I would expect you have a grasp of the complexity and entirety of our energy dependencies. Somehow you ignore reality in your ongoing anti-biodiesel crusade.  Utopian do-nothing approaches to our challenges are not valid. Choices are being made. You are doing a disservice to Grist readers, Russ, with this ranting of yours. Please re-think your approach and look more clearly at the science available. On The price is right posted 3 years, 6 months ago 3 Responses