Global Warmists back off on prediction

[Aliantha]

They don't burn the cane always these days do they? In fact, they have machinery which basically 'chips' the useless leaves which forms a trash blanket which in turn regenerates the soil (to a degree) for the next crop.

I could be wrong, but I believe there's less than 5% of cane crops being burned in Australia these days.

Aside from that point, you're right about everything else you've said about sugar cane dave. (and I bow to your superior knowledge)

[bluesdave]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

They don't burn the cane always these days do they? In fact, they have machinery which basically 'chips' the useless leaves which forms a trash blanket which in turn regenerates the soil (to a degree) for the next crop.

Yes, but not all burning has ceased:

Firing of sugar cane has also become less common with the rapid introduction of green cane mechanical harvesting. Sugar cane crops are now burnt once every three or four years at the end of the sowing/ratoon cycle.

That was taken from a CSIRO link, which I admit is now quite old, but the page has not been removed or updated, so I assume that it is still correct information. It is good to see that the sugar industry is trying to clean up its act. I found many links at the CSIRO, and the Sugar Institute, that show they are serious. That is good news.

[bluesdave]

tw, I offered the hydrogen celled buses as an example of new technology being tested. It is only a pilot scheme. I have no control over whether the people involved, release figures - I said that I tried to find some information, and could not.

I have said repeatedly that the solution will come out of current and future research. How can anyone produce figures on technology that does not exist yet? I also said that I do not mind if hydrogen does not end up being the solution. If someone finds a better solution, then that is great.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Save your breath Dave, he doesn't want to hear anything but, "Yes, tw", "You're absolutely right, tw", "Whatever you say, tw", preferably with a lot of genuflecting.

He'll seize on a point from TV or magazine, put on the blinders and write 8 paragraphs talking about everything but the point he's found. Then he'll get pissed because you didn't understand what the hell he was babbling about.

If he wasn't warm and fuzzy, we'd have lynched him long ago.

Hey relax, I just saved you 6 billion tons of CO2 per year.

[bluesdave]

Hey Bruce, I think I have found a solution to tw's problem. He is always complaining about MBAs, and I just came across this link for the University of Phoenix. He can do his MBA online! Then he won't feel so left out.

BTW, thanks for the CO2. How about we split the carbon credits (and sell them), and deposit the money into our bank accounts?

[tw]

Originally Posted by bluesdave

tw, I offered the hydrogen celled buses as an example of new technology being tested. It is only a pilot scheme.

But before it was "I hate to rain on your parade, but ... they are working OK". Which is it? A pilot scheme that is vastly inefficient? Or a demonstration of something that is "working OK".

Aliantha offered a BP color glossy propaganda sheet with some numbers - vague numbers. It implies hydrogen costs at $6 per gigajoule. That comes to something like $5500 per megawatt-hour. Current technology electricity sells for about $40 per megawatt-hour on the wholesale market. Suddenly a pilot program that costs 140 times more is an example of greater efficiency? Only when rationalizing SUVs.

A gallon of gas is maybe $82 per megawatt-hour. Hydrogen costs may 70 times more?

BP's color glossy also claims CO2 outputs that apparently ignore CO2 generated to produce that hydrogen.

Numbers still make no sense for hydrogen as a fuel - which should have been obvious the minute George Jr promoted it. At 140 times more money for same energy, this is viable? This is "working OK"? Clearly not. Sydney's pilot program demonstrates that hydrogen is not a solution. Increased efficiency does not exist. Increased efficiency is what all solutions must achieve.

As Bruce notes:

That presentation is clearly not designed to inform, but to sell the concept and pat themselves on the collective back, as one of the good guys.

When extracting numbers, the color glossy's real conclusions are completely opposite of that presentation's 'feel'. If one reads it like an english major, then BP is doing good things. If a reader ignores personal biases (trageted by that presentation) and instead grasps the numbers, then that hydrogen program is a disaster.

Another interesting number - they are only using hydrogen at 4000 psi which keeps costs lower. GM has already stated that 10,000 PSI hydrogen is still insufficient energy for automobiles.

Bluesdave - there is no problem. You posted in error. The error was corrected. That bottom line conclusion is the only point made. So why do you impose you emotions into what was posted? As The Eschaton accurately notes:

Hydrogen is not and energy source!!
Hydrogen is simply an energy storage and transmission method and a very inefficient one.

A conclusion in direct contradicton to what George Jr promoted in his State of the Union Address and in direct contradiction to those who believe that lying president. Hydrogen as a fuel - long ago obviously rediculous. Hydrogen is so bad as to even be a poor 'energy storage and transmission' medium.

We will remain a petroleum dependant society for probably as long as all Cellar dwellers live. Time to start burning the stuff using responsiblity - a comment also directed right at those who remain in denial and even promote obsolete technology in SUVs.