MolotovCocktail

Actually, now I think this guy is now using sock puppets.... lock this please I think this guy is just spamming.

Why do you have to do all of this with Microsoft Paint? Why can't you just use small diagrams and write out what you have to say on this forum? <edit> I think we have a post-whore....

No, there is always going to be waste when refining any product. I'll admit that I was a bit off in the amount of waste from petroleum products, but there is waste, of which includes greenhouse gases and toxins. BUT ANYWAYS.... to move on...

You know something I've noticed, there are some people, like this one, who would come in the pseudo-science section to post some crackpot thread, and then leave and never come back. Why is that? Why do they waste their time on something like this? This is a discussion forum after all. One notable example is this guy known as "-I-": http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=25831

Well, from what I understand, biofuels is suggested as a way to power automobiles. I'm not sure about power plants, though I've read an article on some website (can't find it though) that England is experimenting with a "Wood" power plant, meaning they use wood from various trees to use at power plant to help power a local city. The benefit of it is that any carbon emissions off of that could be reabsorbed by natural processes because you aren't reintroducing carbon from millions of years ago. <edit> actually, I googled the wood fired power plants and found an interesting article about it: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/renewable.energy.annual/backgrnd/chap6d.htm

Are you sure about that? From what I have been reading and hearing, much less than that is converted into gasoline. And there is less material that can be used for other products than you think.

1. I'm not sure if there are any other processes to get gasoline. Distillation is used because crude oil has a whole bunch of chains that vaporize at different temperatures. Crude oil is mixed with water so that it can boil. From what I read and understood, the percentages that you can get from crude oil means that if you were to convert crude oil into purely gasoline, you will only get at most 67% of it, and the rest will probably go to waste. Since the oil is refined to get a whole bunch of other products such as polymers for plastic or kerosene as KBL pointed out, it is logical to conclude that you probably get even less gasoline per gallon of oil. The other chemicals, as far as I understand, that they put in it are used to keep it from vaporizing and to give it a smell. 2. I don't know how much of it is wasted to be honest. I know that the byproducts usually include sulfur and carbon byproducts such as carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and gases usually found in volcanoes. The crude oil does include greenhouse gases and other toxic chemicals, and when refined they get released into the atmosphere and the environment. However, I know that in every process in which you have to refine materials and chemicals for useful products, there is quite a bit that is usually lost from the original material either as residue, gases, toxins, chemical byproducts, etc. But just think about it for a moment. While I can see this process being useful for making stuff like plastics, how can we claim that this is an efficient way to get energy? First, less than .01% of the original plant matter is converted into crude oil, which means that a lot of energy was lost from what was originally stored in the plant matter. Second, we have to use a lot of energy using drills powered by oil and gasoline (both from crude oil) to tap into the source. Then, we have to use even more fossil fuels like coal to refine it. I will use a power plant for my example here; the fuel, whether it be coal, natural gas, or oil, it has to be burned releasing god knows what into the atmosphere to heat the steam to drive the turbines. A whopping 65% of the stored energy is lost to heat right at the power plant! It then has to travel hundreds of miles of wire and a few transformers, where it loses more energy to resistance and sound and friction, to get to the buildings. Less than 30% of the original energy actually reaches the houses, commercial buildings, and industry. This rather inefficient process is more than enough to convince me, at least ,to start the switch to alternative fuels such as hydrogen, nuclear, solar, bio-fuels, etc. right away!

It doesn't get converted into anything else. The 98 tons, if you read correctly, is referring to how much of the orignal plant matter actually ends up as crude oil. In order to convert crude oil into gasoline, you have to, well, boil it (which releases CO2 into the atmosphere). You boil it because when you do you force the carbon molecules to form longer chains. The higher the temperature, the longer the chain (Gasoline is a mix of C7H16 through C11H24 Source: science.howstuffworks.com/gasoline2.htm). Of course, since different carbon chains form at different temperatures, they get gasoline through distillation by dumping a bunch of crude oil into a boiler. But then, you have to think about where it gets the energy to burn all of that (hint: coal). So while you may get other products from crude oil, you lose more material through the distillation process and in useless byproducts (which by the way is very common). Energy-wise, it isn't a very efficient process. I didn't say that it would be the ideal source, but that it was more efficient mainly due to the fact that you don't need to use up as much in order to produce useful fuels and products. Also, you aren't reintroducing carbon that was in the environment millions of years ago, therefore the carbon emissions from carbon fuels can be reabsorbed through natural processes. <edit> About how 1 gallon of oil = .67 gallons of gasoline, I may have not been clear about where the rest of it goes. The rest of it goes to waste, not to the formation of other products. The same holds for other petrolum products.

I don't think so. While we can certainly increase the energy efficiency of moving parts of a vehicle as well as the energy from fossil fuels they can convert, there is only so much you can get from fossil fuels because in order to harness any energy from them you have to burn it. Most of the energy, whether it would be from the engine, or in the case of powerplant from steam, is converted into heat which would be converted into mechanical energy. Most of the energy is lost through heat, and in the case of fossil fuels, more than 70-80% of that energy is lost. And then even more is lost through sound, friction, etc. Fossil Fuels are very inefficient to begin with, as you lose a lot of the original crude oil to refine it to gasoline or petrolum or other liquid fuels. For an example, take this chart from a study at the University from Utah which shows just how much it takes to get gasoline: "Dukes calculated ancient plant matter needed for a gallon of gasoline in metric units: -- One gallon of oil weighs 3.26 kilograms. A gallon of oil produces up to 0.67 gallons of gasoline. So 3.26 kilograms for a gallon of oil divided by 0.67 gallons means that at least 4.87 kilograms of oil are needed to make a gallon of gasoline. -- Oil is 85 percent carbon, so 0.85 times 4.87 kilograms equals 4.14 kilograms of carbon in the oil used to make a gallon of gasoline. -- Since only about one-10,750th of the original carbon in ancient plant material actually ends up as oil, multiply 4.14 kilograms by 10,750 to get roughly 44,500 kilograms of carbon in ancient plant matter to make a gallon of gas. -- About half of plant matter is carbon, so double the 44,500 kilograms to get 89,000 kilograms – or 89 metric tons – of ancient plant matter to make a gallon of gas. In U.S. units, that is equal to a bit more than 196,000 pounds or 98 tons." Source: (University of Utah, 2003 http://web.utah.edu/unews/releases/03/oct/gas.html) In other words, you need a huge amount of crude oil or coal matter in order to produce a gallon or pound of useful fuel, whether it would be natural gas, oil, or gas. And you can only get about 15-30% of the potential energy stored in that fuel that has been produced. In other words, you are losing a huge amount of net energy. Fossil fuels are very inefficient. With biofuels on the other hand, since it comes directly from plant (as opposed to fossil fuels which has lost a lot of its matter to become crude oil or coal), you can get far more matter needed to convert it into useful fuels. Also, you can turn it into ethanol, which produces far less CO2 emissions than gas.

Here is another thing that is impossible: try to visualize or construct a hypercube (a 4 spatial dimensional object).

Why would it have the opposite affect? If you increase fuel efficiency that means you would be using less coal, oil and gas which would then release less CO2 into the atmosphere. The problem with increasing fuel efficiency with regards to fossil fuels, if memory serves correctly, is that there is a limit to how efficient fossil fuel based technology can get. Of all the energy that is stored in, say, coal or gasoline, our engines can only harness less than 30% of it because more than 70% of the energy is lost as heat. The best way is to start switching over to other fuel sources right now and increase research that will find ways that we could make them more reliable. Right now, nuclear power (for powerplants that is) is our best alternative, and it is much safer to use than some people think. Research into nuclear fusion is also starting to show results. Biofuels can also be pretty good. Most of them come from sugar or corn starch and can be grown pretty cheaply in almost any part of the world.

This was actually a response to my belief that he was another sock puppet of Socrates.

I suppose its because how we perceive time is very different from how physics defines time. For instance, time is psychologically relative to each observer, for example a day feels long to some people but short to others. Also, perception of time does affect psychological states (e.g. you've ever been bored out of your ass and wanted to bang your head on a wall hoping that it would end?)

Well, I've been offered an internship at BAE Systems, do I qualify?

They never claimed that man was responsible for what nature does, not anywhere close! They were arguing that man was responsible for the sudden increase in greenhouse gases and as a consequence led to the current increase in temperatures and climate changes.

Just because it is a popular science magazine doesn't mean that everything they put in it is rubbish. They do have a lot of valid points and empirical data to support their claims regarding climate change in this case. Popular science may not be the most reliable source, but it isn't rubbish.

Yeah, but the point I'm trying to make is that sometimes they rely too much on drugs to solve all of their problems. Drugs are supposed to be used as treatments for their symptoms such as Obsessive Compulsiveness should they be severe, not as a way to shut them up as they are doing. It is very detrimental to their physical health if they receive medication that they don't need. Also, there are some parents or people out there who will try to push an ADD or ADHD diagnosis in order to drugs. That means a child may not have anything at all but still be on drugs simply because of convenience. It is similar to the problems we are having with antibiotics; people get a little sick such as catching a cold, they call the doctor to get medicine that would be otherwise used for more serious illnesses, and then after they take it they find that it doesn't work and their bodies are now facing more serious problems, and the resistant strains of bacteria live on to propagate and make the medication useless all together.

Also, "Carl Sagan", you and your sock puppets (Yes, I am that confident) never seem to contribute to or discuss any other subject on this forum.

I don't think "tobekilled" will be coming back. After all, if he does come back, he will probably "be killed". Anyways, there are some creationalists that are very well educated in science, I know because one of my science teachers was one. Didn't know much about biology, but she had a degree in physics and economics. I think the stereotypical creationalists that we are used to are those crazy uneducated religious fanatics that just come around and bash anybody who seems to show any form of independent thought. These guys are the ones who are the loudest and voice their beliefs the most without even attempting to show any proofs *cough*-tobekilled-*cough*. Also, about artificial selection, its not only the fruit and vegetables that are evolved only for human use, it is also livestock and pets. One example is the mule, though they didn't evolve in any sense they are completely sterile, so you have to keep cross breeding horses and donkeys. Many livestock animals such as cows are also artifically evolved for their meat, and recently we are injected various hormones and genetically altering them so that they can grow really really fat very quickly. Kinda scary when you think about it.

Welcome to SFN! I also have some interest in psychology, though my knowledge of it is limited to say the least!

How come I can't see mine?

Its probably just a person trying to start a flame war, or one of those people who come by just to throw insults and then leaves. It kinda reminds me of the "who created God" or "where did God come from" questions.

Another thing I've been wondering is that if we are going to pump gases into the atmosphere to increase pressure, how do we go about reducing radiation levels on the planet? We could probably pump out ozone in order to block out the UV rays but what do we do to protect the planet from being bombarded by gamma and cosmic rays from space. On Earth, we have a magnetic field protecting us from such radiation, but there is no such magnetic field on Mars. Even if we did find a way to make the Martian atmosphere similar to Earth's, you still need to find a way to block out harmful radiation to make it as habitable as Earth, otherwise it would still be devoid of life and hostile for humans.

No, there are a lot of jerks that I've met that were not fairly intelligent at all. I'm not really sure that you can define a jerk since it is often based on personal taste rather than any defined set of behaviors. I do have to say though that people who are malicious toward other people just for the sake of it would qualify as a jerk. Why some people are like that is beyond me.

Well, the strength of Earth's magnetic field is only about .6 Gauss (Source: http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:ufQf0O6RRGUJ:science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast20may98_1.htm+How+strong+is+Earth%27s+Magnetic+Field&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us), and MRI scanners can generate magnetic fields thousands of times stronger than that. The hard part would be putting it around an entire planet. I would have to say that Sayonara's suggestion about pumping Mars brand atmosphere to be best, and probably much easier to do.