Political Crossfire Forums

[bob.appleyard]

The government of Sweden has declared its intent to be free of oil in 15 years, with regards to energy. While this appears a grand aim, Sweden is probably best placed in industrialised nations to achieve this. 32% of their energy needs come from oil (down from 77% in 1970). 26% of their energy needs are currently supplied by renewable energy. It is this, and not nuclear power (18%) which the Swedes intend to fill the gap with, using hydroelectric and biofuel sources (primarily woodchips, it seems -- Sweden has a lot of forests). Some autarky schemes are also planned for motor fuel and such.

Way to go Sweden!

Link

[Infinite911911]

bob.appleyard wrote: and biofuel sources (primarily woodchips, it seems -- Sweden has a lot of forests

:x :td:

[John Galt]

Infinite911911 wrote: bob.appleyard wrote: and biofuel sources (primarily woodchips, it seems -- Sweden has a lot of forests

:x :td:

You can grow more trees. Pretty easy.

I would like to take the opportunity to point out here that all fuels are bio fuels, including fossil fuels. I would also like to point out that aside from... nope... no... not that either.... aside from capturing the emissions of body heat, I can think of NO type of energy source that enviornmentalists have not had one problem or another with.

[Achilles The Myrmidon]

John Galt wrote: Infinite911911 wrote: bob.appleyard wrote: and biofuel sources (primarily woodchips, it seems -- Sweden has a lot of forests

:x :td:

You can grow more trees. Pretty easy.

I would like to take the opportunity to point out here that all fuels are bio fuels, including fossil fuels. I would also like to point out that aside from... nope... no... not that either.... aside from capturing the emissions of body heat, I can think of NO type of energy source that enviornmentalists have not had one problem or another with. So what's your point?

[John Galt]

Achilles The Myrmidon wrote: John Galt wrote: Infinite911911 wrote: bob.appleyard wrote: and biofuel sources (primarily woodchips, it seems -- Sweden has a lot of forests

:x :td:

You can grow more trees. Pretty easy.

I would like to take the opportunity to point out here that all fuels are bio fuels, including fossil fuels. I would also like to point out that aside from... nope... no... not that either.... aside from capturing the emissions of body heat, I can think of NO type of energy source that enviornmentalists have not had one problem or another with. So what's your point?

I thought it was quite clear: enviornmentalists, since they constnatly find problems with this and that, will never be pleased with allowing humans to do things like keep from freezing to death, you know, using woodchips for fuel. And so there is no sense even trying. The thing that is good for Sweden in regards to the above is that they won't have to care if the oil supplies in the world are disrupted. That is a good thing, but that's in the political realm, and not good or bad for the enviornment, it just is. Of course, it could be a bad thing if this is the government forcing the people to use more expensive fuels, which I find morally repulsive.

[micfranklin]

bob.appleyard wrote: The government of Sweden has declared its intent to be free of oil in 15 years, with regards to energy. While this appears a grand aim, Sweden is probably best placed in industrialised nations to achieve this. 32% of their energy needs come from oil (down from 77% in 1970). 26% of their energy needs are currently supplied by renewable energy. It is this, and not nuclear power (18%) which the Swedes intend to fill the gap with, using hydroelectric and biofuel sources (primarily woodchips, it seems -- Sweden has a lot of forests). Some autarky schemes are also planned for motor fuel and such.

Way to go Sweden!

Link

Another European country that is going to go oil-free. Foreign countries with supposedly less power can do it but not the USA?

[Franklin]

Sounds relatively good. I am not a radical environmentalist but I believe moving away from oil energy will be a plus for humanity. Democratic governments would no longer need to rely on dictatorships and pollution would be significantly reduced.

[Kindred]

John Galt wrote: Infinite911911 wrote: bob.appleyard wrote: and biofuel sources (primarily woodchips, it seems -- Sweden has a lot of forests

:x :td:

You can grow more trees. Pretty easy.

I would like to take the opportunity to point out here that all fuels are bio fuels, including fossil fuels.

Thanks for pointing that out for us John.....Only, did you really need to go to the trouble of pointing out something which is entirely untrue. Fossils fuels are NOT bio-fuels. Bio-fuels are substitute fuels made from renewable, non-fossil, organic materials.

[John Galt]

A.D wrote: John Galt wrote: Infinite911911 wrote: bob.appleyard wrote: and biofuel sources (primarily woodchips, it seems -- Sweden has a lot of forests

:x :td:

You can grow more trees. Pretty easy.

I would like to take the opportunity to point out here that all fuels are bio fuels, including fossil fuels.

Thanks for pointing that out for us John.....Only, did you really need to go to the trouble of pointing out something which is entirely untrue. Fossils fuels are NOT bio-fuels. Bio-fuels are substitute fuels made from renewable, non-fossil, organic materials.

"Bio" means "life." Biofuels come from life. Dinosaurs and other ancient life forms were alive. My point is people making up terms like "bio fuels" really need to consider what they are naming. Bio fuels means "recently deceased life forms which are turned into fuel"? Why does time play a part? I stand by my assertion. Call them "alternative fuels to fossil fuels" or "fuels made from X" but "bio fuels" should rightly include all fuels that are derived from organic substances.

[Kindred]

John Galt wrote: A.D wrote: John Galt wrote: Infinite911911 wrote: bob.appleyard wrote: and biofuel sources (primarily woodchips, it seems -- Sweden has a lot of forests

:x :td:

You can grow more trees. Pretty easy.

I would like to take the opportunity to point out here that all fuels are bio fuels, including fossil fuels.

Thanks for pointing that out for us John.....Only, did you really need to go to the trouble of pointing out something which is entirely untrue. Fossils fuels are NOT bio-fuels. Bio-fuels are substitute fuels made from renewable, non-fossil, organic materials.

"Bio" means "life." Biofuels come from life. Dinosaurs and other ancient life forms were alive. My point is people making up terms like "bio fuels" really need to consider what they are naming. Bio fuels means "recently deceased life forms which are turned into fuel"? Why does time play a part? I stand by my assertion. Call them "alternative fuels to fossil fuels" or "fuels made from X" but "bio fuels" should rightly include all fuels that are derived from organic substances.

Quote: Biofuel is any fuel that derives from biomass — recently living organisms or their metabolic byproducts, such as manure from cows. It is a renewable energy source, unlike other natural resources such as petroleum, coal and nuclear fuels.

[John Galt]

A.D wrote: John Galt wrote: A.D wrote: John Galt wrote: Infinite911911 wrote: bob.appleyard wrote: and biofuel sources (primarily woodchips, it seems -- Sweden has a lot of forests

:x :td:

You can grow more trees. Pretty easy.

I would like to take the opportunity to point out here that all fuels are bio fuels, including fossil fuels.

Thanks for pointing that out for us John.....Only, did you really need to go to the trouble of pointing out something which is entirely untrue. Fossils fuels are NOT bio-fuels. Bio-fuels are substitute fuels made from renewable, non-fossil, organic materials.

"Bio" means "life." Biofuels come from life. Dinosaurs and other ancient life forms were alive. My point is people making up terms like "bio fuels" really need to consider what they are naming. Bio fuels means "recently deceased life forms which are turned into fuel"? Why does time play a part? I stand by my assertion. Call them "alternative fuels to fossil fuels" or "fuels made from X" but "bio fuels" should rightly include all fuels that are derived from organic substances.

Quote: Biofuel is any fuel that derives from biomass — recently living organisms or their metabolic byproducts, such as manure from cows. It is a renewable energy source, unlike other natural resources such as petroleum, coal and nuclear fuels.

Yeah it's a made up term. Yes, all terms are made up. But most terms have roots in other terms. "Bio" is the root of this. You can't change the meaning of "bio" just for this silly little defintion. It's like that "same fear" homophobia... why don't we just all make up words and demand people respect their meanings? Oh wait, that would make conversation unintelligble. I am trying to save humanity from rubes.

[bob.appleyard]

John Galt wrote: Infinite911911 wrote: bob.appleyard wrote: and biofuel sources (primarily woodchips, it seems -- Sweden has a lot of forests

:x :td:

You can grow more trees. Pretty easy.

I would like to take the opportunity to point out here that all fuels are bio fuels, including fossil fuels. I would also like to point out that aside from... nope... no... not that either.... aside from capturing the emissions of body heat, I can think of NO type of energy source that enviornmentalists have not had one problem or another with.

By "bio" fuels I think they are implying that the source of that fuel was alive fairly recently. Technically, you are correct with fossil fuels (though they are not directly from living things, as you well know). Uranium is not a bio-fuel. And capturing body heat sounds like a problem in itself. Other than that, I agree.

In the case of burning wood, because the technology is well established (having been developed a long time ago), there are less problems than there are with, say, wind power.

[bob.appleyard]

John Galt wrote: Achilles The Myrmidon wrote: John Galt wrote: Infinite911911 wrote: bob.appleyard wrote: and biofuel sources (primarily woodchips, it seems -- Sweden has a lot of forests

:x :td:

You can grow more trees. Pretty easy.

I would like to take the opportunity to point out here that all fuels are bio fuels, including fossil fuels. I would also like to point out that aside from... nope... no... not that either.... aside from capturing the emissions of body heat, I can think of NO type of energy source that enviornmentalists have not had one problem or another with. So what's your point?

I thought it was quite clear: enviornmentalists, since they constnatly find problems with this and that, will never be pleased with allowing humans to do things like keep from freezing to death, you know, using woodchips for fuel. And so there is no sense even trying. The thing that is good for Sweden in regards to the above is that they won't have to care if the oil supplies in the world are disrupted. That is a good thing, but that's in the political realm, and not good or bad for the enviornment, it just is. Of course, it could be a bad thing if this is the government forcing the people to use more expensive fuels, which I find morally repulsive.

I think most environmentalists are ok with burning wood. Doesn't release centuries of accumulated carbon in one burn.

[poweRob]

John Galt wrote: A.D wrote: John Galt wrote: A.D wrote: John Galt wrote: Infinite911911 wrote: bob.appleyard wrote: and biofuel sources (primarily woodchips, it seems -- Sweden has a lot of forests

:x :td:

You can grow more trees. Pretty easy.

I would like to take the opportunity to point out here that all fuels are bio fuels, including fossil fuels.

Thanks for pointing that out for us John.....Only, did you really need to go to the trouble of pointing out something which is entirely untrue. Fossils fuels are NOT bio-fuels. Bio-fuels are substitute fuels made from renewable, non-fossil, organic materials.

"Bio" means "life." Biofuels come from life. Dinosaurs and other ancient life forms were alive. My point is people making up terms like "bio fuels" really need to consider what they are naming. Bio fuels means "recently deceased life forms which are turned into fuel"? Why does time play a part? I stand by my assertion. Call them "alternative fuels to fossil fuels" or "fuels made from X" but "bio fuels" should rightly include all fuels that are derived from organic substances.

Quote: Biofuel is any fuel that derives from biomass — recently living organisms or their metabolic byproducts, such as manure from cows. It is a renewable energy source, unlike other natural resources such as petroleum, coal and nuclear fuels.

Yeah it's a made up term. Yes, all terms are made up. But most terms have roots in other terms. "Bio" is the root of this. You can't change the meaning of "bio" just for this silly little defintion. It's like that "same fear" homophobia... why don't we just all make up words and demand people respect their meanings? Oh wait, that would make conversation unintelligble. I am trying to save humanity from rubes.

quit trying to red herring the post with word parsing John. Don't you have some kittens to kill somewhere?

BTW, environmentalist aren't unpleasable irritable beings looking for reasons to gripe about anything as you so kindly like to believe. They look at everything and its reprocussions and weigh the balance in attempts to find a balance.

The true griping whiners are those who either wish to maintain status quo out of fear of change and/or are banking on the current system, or even worse, its those offer nothing and just enjoy griping from the sidelines about any suggestions other's make. Because griping is easy and contagious, the latter is usually the pawns of the former.

[bob.appleyard]

John Galt wrote: Yeah it's a made up term. Yes, all terms are made up. But most terms have roots in other terms. "Bio" is the root of this. You can't change the meaning of "bio" just for this silly little defintion. It's like that "same fear" homophobia... why don't we just all make up words and demand people respect their meanings? Oh wait, that would make conversation unintelligble. I am trying to save humanity from rubes.

Neologisms are coined all the time. Unlike French, there is no government agency responsible for the English language. I consider this a good thing, in principle. I understand exactly where you are coming from though, but only because I'm a pedant too.

[bob.appleyard]

Rob wrote: The true griping whiners are those who either wish to maintain status quo out of fear of change and/or are banking on the current system, or even worse, its those offer nothing and just enjoy griping from the sidelines about any suggestions other's make. Because griping is easy and contagious, the latter is usually the pawns of the former.

If you think something needs to change, then there has to be something wrong with it that can be improved. So, it is important to point out weaknesses, but of course some measure to improve the situation is the corollary. If that is missing, then why bother?

[poweRob]

bob.appleyard wrote: Rob wrote: The true griping whiners are those who either wish to maintain status quo out of fear of change and/or are banking on the current system, or even worse, its those offer nothing and just enjoy griping from the sidelines about any suggestions other's make. Because griping is easy and contagious, the latter is usually the pawns of the former.

If you think something needs to change, then there has to be something wrong with it that can be improved. So, it is important to point out weaknesses, but of course some measure to improve the situation is the corollary. If that is missing, then why bother?

Breaking isn't the only reason for change. Technological advances is another reason to strive to improve.

Stone wheels still work but we improved on them.

[bob.appleyard]

Rob wrote: bob.appleyard wrote: Rob wrote: The true griping whiners are those who either wish to maintain status quo out of fear of change and/or are banking on the current system, or even worse, its those offer nothing and just enjoy griping from the sidelines about any suggestions other's make. Because griping is easy and contagious, the latter is usually the pawns of the former.

If you think something needs to change, then there has to be something wrong with it that can be improved. So, it is important to point out weaknesses, but of course some measure to improve the situation is the corollary. If that is missing, then why bother?

Breaking isn't the only reason for change. Technological advances is another reason to strive to improve.

Stone wheels still work but we improved on them.

I imagine the wheels would have been more likely to be wood from the start -- much easier to work into a circle and lighter -- and so that may not be a good example. But I get your point. However, it is important to highlight problems in any human system. That is not to suggest that the object of criticism is "breaking". But everything can be improved. Some things more than others.

[Random Evil Guy]

John Galt wrote: Achilles The Myrmidon wrote: John Galt wrote: Infinite911911 wrote: bob.appleyard wrote: and biofuel sources (primarily woodchips, it seems -- Sweden has a lot of forests

:x :td:

You can grow more trees. Pretty easy.

I would like to take the opportunity to point out here that all fuels are bio fuels, including fossil fuels. I would also like to point out that aside from... nope... no... not that either.... aside from capturing the emissions of body heat, I can think of NO type of energy source that enviornmentalists have not had one problem or another with. So what's your point?

I thought it was quite clear: enviornmentalists, since they constnatly find problems with this and that, will never be pleased with allowing humans to do things like keep from freezing to death, you know, using woodchips for fuel. And so there is no sense even trying.

that is probably the dumbest thing i've read all day. there is a difference between all the different energy sources. sure they all have their problems, but some are a lot worse than others. for example, coal is a lot worse than natural gas...

[John Galt]

Rob wrote: John Galt wrote: A.D wrote: John Galt wrote: A.D wrote: John Galt wrote: Infinite911911 wrote: bob.appleyard wrote: and biofuel sources (primarily woodchips, it seems -- Sweden has a lot of forests

:x :td:

You can grow more trees. Pretty easy.

I would like to take the opportunity to point out here that all fuels are bio fuels, including fossil fuels.

Thanks for pointing that out for us John.....Only, did you really need to go to the trouble of pointing out something which is entirely untrue. Fossils fuels are NOT bio-fuels. Bio-fuels are substitute fuels made from renewable, non-fossil, organic materials.

"Bio" means "life." Biofuels come from life. Dinosaurs and other ancient life forms were alive. My point is people making up terms like "bio fuels" really need to consider what they are naming. Bio fuels means "recently deceased life forms which are turned into fuel"? Why does time play a part? I stand by my assertion. Call them "alternative fuels to fossil fuels" or "fuels made from X" but "bio fuels" should rightly include all fuels that are derived from organic substances.

Quote: Biofuel is any fuel that derives from biomass — recently living organisms or their metabolic byproducts, such as manure from cows. It is a renewable energy source, unlike other natural resources such as petroleum, coal and nuclear fuels.

Yeah it's a made up term. Yes, all terms are made up. But most terms have roots in other terms. "Bio" is the root of this. You can't change the meaning of "bio" just for this silly little defintion. It's like that "same fear" homophobia... why don't we just all make up words and demand people respect their meanings? Oh wait, that would make conversation unintelligble. I am trying to save humanity from rubes.

quit trying to red herring the post with word parsing John.

Ahem. if you noticed, A.D parsed apart my post and focused on one line. Not my fault we descended down this tangent.

Quote: Don't you have some kittens to kill somewhere?

Is it the weekend? No.

Quote: BTW, environmentalist aren't unpleasable irritable beings looking for reasons to gripe about anything as you so kindly like to believe. They look at everything and its reprocussions and weigh the balance in attempts to find a balance.

As a whole, they cannot be pleased. They have little fractions that get mada bout all sorts of things. Wind power = bird destruction. Hydroelectic = destruction of fish habitat. Nuclear power = doomsday. Wood = quote, ":x :td:". You name it, they gripe about it.

Quote: The true griping whiners are those who either wish to maintain status quo out of fear of change and/or are banking on the current system

I wasn't aware such people griped.

Quote: , or even worse, its those offer nothing and just enjoy griping from the sidelines about any suggestions other's make. Because griping is easy and contagious, the latter is usually the pawns of the former.

Destructive criticism is necessary. Otherwise we end up calling people "deferred sucesses" and other garbage and not telling them how big of a failure they really are and why.