Exxon Offered $10k to Scientists to Debunk U.N. Global Warming Report

More personal attacks. And I think it's you trying to "win" an argument - an impossible task you know.

Look, your hydrogen power solution is a joke because creating hyrogen gas using more energy then it can release - it's called entropy. Unless you use nuclear energy to supply that energy. Hmmmmmmm.

My stance for the final time: I don't think Global warming is proven. It's merely a possibility. What is certain though, is that wreaklessly conforming to Kyoto will:

1. Make no difference whatsoever since the levels of output will still cause warming according to those who subscribe to that therory.
2. Result in severe economic hardship on the poorest and lower classes.

You can't address these issues, so you attack me. Really, like I said, calling me stupid or dense or whatever may make you feel better, but it doesn't progress the debate. Ya know, it's the whole put up or shut up sorta of thing. Which one are you going to do?

 

Oh my goodness. So this actually came from someone who has 'lightheartenly' joked about nuking another country??? Once again you have shifted position from being an insensitive jerk in the otehr thread to a sensitive soul in this thread. How long does it take for you to switch back to be an insensitive jerk again? You change positions more often than a fat man in a tight chair in order to win arguments on the internet. How sad.

 

I'm no scientist, but I know bullsh** when I see it. Nuclear energy somehow sidesteps one of the most basic laws of physics? Don't use buzz words like "entropy" just to intimidate people. It really hurts your credibility.

Now, you may be right for all I know that the process of harnessing energy from hydrogen actually uses more energy in the process than it produces. If that is your stance, try rewording your argument, and maybe provide a link.

That's like saying, "I don't think the Earth is round. It's merely a possibility." There's a lot of proof for the theory that the Earth is round, but it is certainly conceivable that we could be wrong.

[What is certain though, is that wreaklessly conforming to Kyoto will:

1. Make no difference whatsoever since the levels of output will still cause warming according to those who subscribe to that therory.

...

[/QUOTE]

Who said anything about conforming to Kyoto. Does anybody here advocate that?

Also, it will make a difference. Everything makes a difference when taken together. No one course of action, not even nuclear energy, can solve the problem of global warming.

I'm not advocating Kyoto, so don't bring this red herring up again. I'm simply advocating conservation in general, which you seem to think is pointless.

I don't know how to answer your question without spending quite a bit of time researching this, but what I do know is that our society produces an increadible amount of new technology all the time.

We already have the means to reduce greenhouse gasses cheaply, and without significantly harming our economy. Some have even suggested that intigrating existing conservation technology could actually cause net economic growth, which makes a lot of sense.

You, on the other hand, choose to shoot down ideas and ignore a wide range of possibilities. It is thinking like this that prevents the solution from happening. You mind is closed. You think the only thing we should do is increase the use of nuclear power. Well what a surprise. Your daddy works with nuclear energy so everything else to you is trash.

Reminds me of Hank Hill's obsession with propane (and propane accessories). You're like Bobby.

"What do you mean, wind power? My dad says that nuclear energy is both cleaner and more efficient than all other forms of energy."

 

i shouldn't respond, because you're kind of a tard, who besullies the name of the great magazine.

What you are repeating is oft-stated, but little supported. I used to think the same thing, but the Rocky Mountain Institute (and Amory Lovins) has put out a lot of research indicating that most of what you say "Hydrogen and biofuels increase Co2" is complete bullsh-t.




Do some reading.

 

The RMI does good work in finding market based solutions that doesn't involve draconian measures from the government. Anyone who thinks we need to penalize industry to reach environmental targets should check out that website and their material.

 

Look, it's a fact that bio-fuels and hydrogen gas will push out more CO2. That's because creating H2 from water takes as much energy as H2 can release. And when you factor in entropy (which is the lost of energy to heat or other random processes in a thermodynamic system), you end up with a net loss in energy. So you are actually not conserving energy by going with H2 / biofuels - you're wasting it.

There's a law in physics called the conservation of energy - which basically states it can't be created or destroyed. So you are only left with a few options:

1. Leverage ambient energy: Wind/Solar/Thermal/Sea. Only Thermal and ocean current is predictable enough to serve as a reliable source.
2. Capitalize on materials that have stored energy in them (Petroleum/Nuclear/Biomatter/Minerals) - these are the consumable fuels that generate waste.

Now, nuclear energy can supply all the electricity the world needs. That would impact CO2 levels a great deal. The other sources can't. But you can build electic cars and then they can be powered by nuclear energy too.

It's the only choice if you seriously are concerned about global warming. Otherwise, stop crying. Wind/Solar/Thermal can not meet the needs of 10 billion people - which is where we will be in a few dozen years. The demand is increasing faster then supply - and that's what not being recognized.

It's all flowery and nice to talk about renewable energy - it's another thing to make it happen and have an impact. You admit that you don't know. Now you do.

 

I don't need to do anything to know that you can't violate the basic law of the universe - the conservation of energy. No amount of research will support that. The only way Hydrogen doesn't increase CO2 is if the electricity that's being used to create the hydrogen (it's a process called electrolysis) is coming from a non-Co2 source. But it's a 0 sum game. Hydrogen isn't an energy source - just a way of using energy in a different form. There isn't a stockpile of hydrogen gas. It has to be made, from water. And it gets used up and turned back into water.

Do you think that cycle happens for free?

Do yourself a favor and actually educated yourself before you reply.

 

i shouldn't respond, because you're kind of a tard, who besullies the name of the great magazine.

What you are repeating is oft-stated, but little supported. I used to think the same thing, but the Rocky Mountain Institute (and Amory Lovins) has put out a lot of research indicating that most of what you say "Hydrogen and biofuels increase Co2" is complete bullsh-t.




Do some reading.

 

You moron. First of all, H2, or any other alternative source of energy, can still conserve CO2 emissions by producing less of it (CO2) than burning coal produces to net the same amount of energy. You are misleading people with invalid arguments (I will give you the benafit of the doubt that you aren't just stupid).

Secondly, how can you say H2 isn't an energy source? Just because it takes energy to extract energy from it? So it takes no energy to extract energy from raw uranium?

You seem to think that the renewable nature of H2 is a bad thing. There are limited fossil fuels on the planet, and, like it or not, there is also a limited amount of usable nuclear material. Your one solution is short-term, which is fine, but don't tell me to "stop crying" when you are the one acting like a closed minded baby.

 

My friend, I can't show you the light. H2 is not a renewable energy source because it takes more energy to package it as a fuel then you get out of it. Think about it - there is no perpetual motion machine.

It takes energy to turn H2O into H2. And the energy you get from burning H2 and converting back to H20 is the same. But then you have power loss through entropy and tranportation and shipping. So it's a negative sum game. You need to learn some basic chemistry before you call people stupid, because it makes you look even more ridiculous. Go ask any chemist.

 

Nuclear energy converts mass into energy. When mass is converted into energy, it does it by a factor of the speed of light squared. It could never be converted back into mass without expending even more energy. So nuclear power obeys the 2nd law. Educate yourself before making ad hominem attacks.

 

I wish I could get my dad to post on here. Exxon has tried multiply to come up with alternative energies. They've spent billions on it. There isn't a viable alternative yet, and Exxon's stance these days is to let a smaller company figure it out, and then shove the research dollars into that.

Hard to blame them. As a stock broker, I told my dad to sell roughly 75% of his shares for diversification. He hedged, and Exxon has been blowing up in the past 5 years.

 

In the late 1970s, as oil prices skyrocketed, exxon opened a lab in annondale (1983?) to explore alternative energies. By the end of the 80s, with oil prices falling again, the work was turned off. You are correct fatty - they spent about a billion dollars on it - 20 years ago.

Since then the efforts are focused on more efficient fossil fuel use - noble, but driven by cost savings, not an altruistic sense of responsibility. The 100 million recently pledged by Exxon to the Global Climate and Energy Project at Stanford is less than two days earnings for the giant, but they tout it like it's some sort of massive donation. For the sake of comparison, shell has spent over 1.5 billion on renewables since 1999.

You can't blame Exxon's business strategy - in the short term this makes the most sense, and they have a sense of "been there done that" with alternatives. But it's sloppy in the long term, and betrays a disjoint between their published policies and the realities of their operations.

 

When I worked at ExxonMobil (left in 03), they were putting pretty good money into academics researching fuel cells. They were specifically funding the research of using onboard reforming to get hydrogen out of fossil fuels. That technology would both use ExxonMobil's core products and be clean.

 

As of now, the amount of energy it takes to extract H2 is greater than the amount of energy produced from H2 either a combustion engine or through fuel cells.

Until we develop more efficient fuel cells and combustion engines for H2 or if we develop a better process to extract H2, it isn't sustainable as a major fuel source.

The same logic applies to other concepts like nuclear fusion where we've successfully created controlled fusion reactions but we've done so by using more energy than what the reaction produces.

 

Thanks, Einstein.

I don't particularly care to talk about the science of this, because it's irrelevant. My post was a respons to NewYorker's attempt to impress others with this supposed know-how in effort to support an invalid conclusion.

If you reread his post, you will see that he insinuates that the only way H2 conserves CO2 emissions is if it doesn't use CO2 to produce the H2. Then he says that the same isn't true for nuclear energy, which is bogus. Some sort of energy must be used to begin the nuclear reaction and to control it.

I was attacking the validity of NewYorker's conclusion, not his knowledge of science.

 

Thanks for the clarification.

I was merely stating that it is conceivable that H2 could someday be an efficient fuel source. It's not theoretically impossible, in other words, as NewYorker suggested it was.

 

Well, you missed, and you're still missing.

 

I think what people are missing is that hydrogen isn't an energy source itself but a storage medium for energy. Given that many renewables aren't consistent widespread adoption of them is problematic. If we have a hydrogen infrastructure though renewables like wind and solar could generate electricity that is then used to generate hydrogen for other uses. So while yes while energy is going into generate hyrdrogen that energy is generated from renewable non polluting sources.

 

Well if I missed, then you didn't even step on the court. Your original response was completely irrelevant, and this one isn't anything.