|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 22, 2007 at
02:20:45 PM
|
|
|
Joined:
|
12/07/2005
|
|
Posts:
|
4445
|
|
|
Reply to:
Posted By: Rogue-9 on June 22 2007 at 01:20:31 PM
Ok, if they wanted to get rid of sprint car racing then even i'd object. I actually find that the scarcity of our natural resources is a much bigger issue than global warming. Global warming seems to take center stage, but I feel that the fact that we are at or past our peak in oil production is a much bigger problem. And hey if the sprint cars start to run on ethanol, then we won't have a problem.
|
The problem with ethanol is that it takes fossil fuels to sow, nurture, harvest, distill and distribute. In fact, more energy is spent making ethanol that is provided by the product. And just what do you think the Brazilians are producing on all that rain forest they chopped down?
www.manvelmotorsports.com
|
|
|
|
June 22, 2007 at
03:01:59 PM
|
|
|
Joined:
|
01/08/2005
|
|
Posts:
|
229
|
|
|
|
Many farmers use alternative fuels. My grandfather ran biodiesel in all of his vehicles long before Willie Nelson jumped on the idea. Also - it's a start, isn't it? The "more energy is used" argument is just as highly debated as the original topic of this thread. All depends on which study you cite. Some of the anti-ethanol people even claim the production costs of the tractors into the ratios.
I was just thinking about it, and darned if I can remember the last time one of my friends or family members in the military was sent to Iowa to fight a war over corn.
----
Blog
Facebook
|
|
|
|
|
June 22, 2007 at
03:13:14 PM
|
|
|
Joined:
|
12/07/2005
|
|
Posts:
|
4445
|
|
|
|
We would be hard pressed to generate the necessary fuel supply from ethanol. I certainly am not "anti-ethanol" anymore than I am "anti-global warming". Unfortunately, the facts rarely get any air time.
Let's go racing.
www.manvelmotorsports.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 22, 2007 at
03:52:19 PM
|
|
|
Joined:
|
11/27/2004
|
|
Posts:
|
3751
|
|
|
|
ethanol is a joke. more gallons of petrol are required to make 1 out of corn...plus, how long will it take lawyers to claim that ethanol is an evil plot - designed to drive up the price of Doritos!
Lincoln 1845 ft/.35 mile T1=118MPH
Eldora 2287 ft/.43mile T3=135MPH
Port 2716 ft/.51 mile T3=TBD
Grove 2792 ft/.53 mile T3=135MPH
Selinsgrove 2847 ft/.54 mile T1=136MPH
"I didn't move to PA from El Paso in search of better
weather." Van May
|
|
|
|
|
June 22, 2007 at
04:06:25 PM
|
|
|
Joined:
|
01/08/2005
|
|
Posts:
|
229
|
|
|
|
So, BRR, your official position is "Oil forever!!"? Or what? Because the one thing that repeats itself over and over in your posts here is that you are readily available to insult and shit all over a theory or an idea or a practice, but you never suggest an alternative or a solution.
----
Blog
Facebook
|
|
|
|
June 22, 2007 at
04:52:40 PM
|
|
|
Joined:
|
02/27/2005
|
|
Posts:
|
4443
|
|
|
Reply to:
Posted By: cmakin on June 22 2007 at 10:03:22 AM
Just to interject a little science, of all the Carbon Dioxide emissions into the atmosphere, 51 percent is from plants and trees, 45 percent from the oceans, and only three percent from the burning of fossil fuels. Not only that, CO2 only accounts for 0.035 percent of our atmosphere. But all you hear is that "levels have increased by "X" percent. When compared to the overal volume and percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere, changes are miniscule. Warming originates from other sources, including the varying intensities of the sun. Of course, there is no way to exert political control over the intensity of the sun, so there is no political capital there.
In general, I tend not to believe too much of what I see on TV.
|
Pollution is pretty bad in many places no matter what the numbers are. We even get air quality advisories here in Central PA. No reason not to think if population keeps exploding it's only going to get worse before it gets better unless we change our ways. Call it whatever you want, science, common sense, etc...lol.
Los Angeles
New York 
Shanghai
They don't even know how to spell sprint car
much less chromoly...http://www.ycmco.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 22, 2007 at
05:36:48 PM
|
|
|
Joined:
|
12/07/2005
|
|
Posts:
|
4445
|
|
|
|
"Pollution is pretty bad in many places no matter what the numbers are. We even get air quality advisories here in Central PA. No reason not to think if population keeps exploding it's only going to get worse before it gets better unless we change our ways. Call it whatever you want, science, common sense, etc...lol."
Again, by using scientific methods, you can quantify what pollution is, and what isn't. What we see and what is actually dangerous are two different things altogether. Hey, I live outside of Houston, and have an office in the city. But this thread was seemingly about CO2 emissions and the effect (or not) on the climate. Pollution is different, and not necessarily related to carbon emissions.
www.manvelmotorsports.com
|
|
|
|
June 22, 2007 at
06:16:54 PM
|
|
|
Joined:
|
02/11/2007
|
|
Posts:
|
1163
|
|
|
Reply to:
Posted By: cmakin on June 22 2007 at 02:20:45 PM
The problem with ethanol is that it takes fossil fuels to sow, nurture, harvest, distill and distribute. In fact, more energy is spent making ethanol that is provided by the product. And just what do you think the Brazilians are producing on all that rain forest they chopped down?
|
Corn is one thing, but there are other alternatives to corn that actually are able to produce a better energy output per input ratio. Ever heard of switchgrass?
|
|
|
|
|
June 22, 2007 at
06:18:31 PM
|
|
|
Joined:
|
01/08/2005
|
|
Posts:
|
229
|
|
|
|
I have, Rogue. In fact, I've heard many complaints that we haven't put enough effort into switchgrass ethanol because of the powerful corn lobby.
----
Blog
Facebook
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 22, 2007 at
09:09:12 PM
|
|
|
Joined:
|
04/16/2007
|
|
Posts:
|
182
|
|
|
|
Algea........
|
|
|
|
June 22, 2007 at
10:34:47 PM
|
|
|
Joined:
|
11/29/2005
|
|
Posts:
|
1773
|
|
|
This message was edited on
June 22, 2007 at
11:16:25 PM by team wright-one
Reply to:
Posted By: Rogue-9 on June 22 2007 at 01:20:31 PM
Ok, if they wanted to get rid of sprint car racing then even i'd object. I actually find that the scarcity of our natural resources is a much bigger issue than global warming. Global warming seems to take center stage, but I feel that the fact that we are at or past our peak in oil production is a much bigger problem. And hey if the sprint cars start to run on ethanol, then we won't have a problem.
|
sprint cars already run on methanol. switching to ethonal will not help the oil consumption problem. sprinters still will change 7 to 10 qts of oil every 1 to 2 races,will still use petrolium based brake fluid, gear oil, grease, carbon fiber parts, ect. which brings me to the part where i say that the plastics industry uses MASSIVE quantities of oil but no one is saying we should use less plastic. i know we do not burn plastic for a fuel, but oil is used for a lot of things. makeup, medicine, tires, ect all have a link to petrolium. but since gas and the crude that is used to make it can be made into a more viable political tool they get all the play. i have no objection to cutting down on oil use where we can. i agree with jane on that. Al Gore has had plenty of time to do all the crap he is spouting of doing and he WAS in a position to have more pull. but the libs seem to forget that they thought Gore was a dimwit back then. they did not have much more respect for him than the conservitives. most of the libs did not want him to be president and made fun of him.now he is the freakin jolly GREEN giant.clinton and gore did absolutly NOTHING for this country. that is not to say they did not help or do good for many of the people in this country. there is a difference.
oh! what was it we were talking about. lol.
|
|
|
|
|
June 22, 2007 at
11:05:21 PM
|
|
|
Joined:
|
11/29/2005
|
|
Posts:
|
1773
|
|
|
Reply to:
Posted By: DuchessJane on June 22 2007 at 01:20:48 PM
So if you're really approaching this from the standpoint of personal rights that shouldn't be controlled by the government, couldn't the same argument be applied to many of the other debates you and I have had on here?
For example, if I can't tell you to drive a Prius, why should you be allowed to tell me I can't marry a woman? That she and I can't adopt a baby? That she and I can't be covered on each other's health insurance policies and receive all of the other rights that a married hetero couple receive from the government.
Regulation of sex is just as much of a whack-job Conservative agenda item as environmental control is to the liberals. When an agenda is established, pressure applied for regulation,
taxation, preferential funding to reinforce the proliferation of
consensus "religion" and the ever popular
behavior modification through legislation . . . see my point?
If you fall more to the libertarian side of things, you and I are much closer in belief than you'd think.
|
jane , you should be allowed to co-habitate with anyone you want, male or female. it is the word "marry" or "married" that should not be used to describe same sex unions. in my opinion and that of others those words define the union of opposet sexes. those words define something that has been defined as such for as long as man can remember. "married" defines the union of a man and a woman. choose another word to define same sex unions and i am with you. give the same rights to both and i am still with you. blue describes a color. sky blue descibes a different shade of blue. close but not the same. winged sprint car, non winged sprint car. again it is a definition thing. human describes a species. male, female creates more definition. black,white, asian, indian, ect. gives you more definition. i don't see how that could be such a bad thing do you. to be a little more defining. but some times a word definition evolves and changes need to be made. if you insist on using "married" to describe same sex unions we will have to use another word to describe opposite sex unions. after all not so long ago we happy people lost the word "gay" to describe ourselves.
|
|
|
