Scams to the environment or energies: escrology?

[Christophe]

How could we forget the agrofuel escrology?

Related links: differentiation between biofuel and biofuel

Ecobank of agrofuels

I just received news about the catastrophic balance of ethanol made from corn (0.88 !! So it's better to burn gasoline than corn ethanol !!!). I pass them to you as soon as I dissected all this!

[denis]

I think it is the place for this link to the arnac and the dictatorship made on the peasant world:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1ds9p_alerte

[Christophe]

Yes denis is the right place!

It's an "excellent" video (it's been in my favorites for a while) too bad we don't see more ...

For the bottom it's really crying! I hope it's a little too catastrophic ...

[Gregconstruct]

We are seeing more and more advertising for low temperature detergents.

If it is true that it saves energy, are these detergents really ecological?

What about the composition of these products to allow washing at such low temperatures?

[Christine]

What about the composition of these products to allow washing at such low temperatures?

I don't know if these products are really "stronger" (implying more polluting) than the others because when it comes to laundry it is especially the psychology that makes the difference. Let me explain: 30 ° and a beast liquid soap is already sufficient for the bulk of the laundry.

But women feel so guilty at the idea that they could endanger the life of their tribe and ESPECIALLY horror, damnation, eternal shame, if the NEIGHBOR HAD A WHITE LAUNDRY !!! that they prefer to put more laundry and warmer to "be sure". Of course, the detergents comforted them in this way by assuring them that their towel would remain flexible and soft even at 80 ° - although a good dose of fabric softener "to be sure" will not hurt, and presto -.

On the other hand, laundry consumers get bored quickly and look for even better - and it seems to me that the neighbor's laundry is a little whiter than usual: I have to find a better detergent if I don't want to pass for a slut -. So it's the race for pseudo-novelty among the washers: with "Marseille soap", "the heart of Marseille soap", "built-in stain remover", "built-in stain remover but not too much otherwise your colors get the hell out of it "etc.

You will understand that:
1- the housekeeping gives me - and female behaviors also sometimes
2- I do not want to work today
3- I think these 30 ° detergents are more or less hypocritical. It's a bit like the equivalent of the car 2.l ecologist for sir.

[Remundo]

Where there is escrology, it is to say that there are no sufficiently energetic alternatives to nuclear and oil, now and tomorrow.

Already, simply covering desert areas with solar photovoltaic can provide much more than global and current energy needs.

Certainly the PV technology is not free of any reproach. But it has the merit to exist and to be able to exploit the immense solar potential (10 000 times the needs, Christophe even speaks of 40 000, but I find it optimistic). Anyway basically, we easily 100 times what it takes with solar!

As for the demonization of nuclear, personally, I do not like to take part in it. It is clean energy compared to CO2 releases. His main problems are:
- warming of rivers harming the "fish-rich" ecosystem
- and of course the waste.

These can be conditioned and buried under conditions that are never ideal, but sufficiently safe.

Anyone walking down a street full of exhaust fumes takes a chemical "cancer dose" far greater than what they will take in their lifetime with radioactive waste.

@+

[Christophe]

10 000 times the needs, Christophe even talks about 40 000, but I find him optimistic

Explanation: the 2 figures are "correct" and coherent ... one takes into account the emerged surfaces and not the other ...

In other words: 40 000 is for all the globle (ocean included) and 10 000 is for the lands ...

Interesting theoretical calculation to be made: to what extent (% increase) global warming will increase (GHG radiative forcing) this value in 10, 50 or 100 next years ... in relation to the increase in demand.

What I mean by this is that the greenhouse effect improves, in theory, the performance of solar systems. I say in theory because for certain region it could be worse (more precipitation and increased cloud cover) ...

[Remundo]

OK Christophe!

Thank you for that clarification. If you have a small precise link on this figure of 40, I am interested, because I have not "nosed around" on all the docs (very numerous, interesting and relevant) that you list on the site.

For radiative forcing, this accentuates terrestrial radiation in the far infrared (as a first approximation, that of a black body of 20 ° C "to break everything").

I am not sure that this has any effect on the performance of photovoltaic cells that are basically designed on solar radiation, centered on the yellow and containing near-infrared.

On the solar direct concentration, then there, very smart one who can answer you. That is to say that the warming results with certainty either on an increase of the cloud cover, the opposite ... Is there in the room a meteorologist who wants to grill on this question?

Anyway, I think that these phenomena are minor before the energy potential to extract ...

@+

[Christophe]

On the solar direct concentration, then there, very smart one who can answer you. That is to say that the warming results with certainty either on an increase of the cloud cover, the opposite ... Is there in the room a meteorologist who wants to grill on this question?

Toutafé is what I meant ...

Anyway, I think that these phenomena are minor before the energy potential to extract ...

Yes, but scientifically it can be interesting ... solar thermal systems recover well from infrared, so their potential can evolve ... (better or worse depending on the region ... more heat = more water in the atmosphere = less radiation)

Here I think I have a start of calculation in one of my books now that I think ... if you're interested I'll look.

[Remundo]

Oh sure it's scientifically, all maybe exciting

Now, for the economic vision, it is the preponderant phenomena that control things.

To go in your direction, and that of econologists, it would be very good news that the cloud cover increases with global warming: it would be a stabilizing feedback.

If it's the opposite, not good at all, because the methane hydrates that incubate at the bottom of the oceans are a sacred destabilizing feedback to threshold effect and as much as not to engage the schmilblick!

Now, personally for the clouds, I do not know, and I'm afraid our climatologists either ... it's not that I'm questioning their skills, but it's all a huge difficulty to put in equations and demand astronomical computing capabilities.

@+