Next time someone says -Global Warming- you should say -Not Any More-.

All that Big... Bad... Evil... Carbon Dioxide....
coming out of your tail pipe...

can now be used to create.... Fuel!
LINKED HERE

First - Carbon Dioxide is .039 percent of the atmosphere, so if we doubled it tomorrow - it would still be less than 1 percent!

Second, thanks to the article above, we now have a way of converting any carbon dioxide coming out of an engine tail pipe, into more fuel!

If this doesn't shut up Al Gore and the idiot environmental "carbon credit" socialists, nothing will. Because for them it's not really about saving the earth, it's about holding mankind back.


[edit on 14-3-2010 by ATS4dummies]

ok, you have me going from thread, to another thread thathas the actual link, then whenI click the actuallink in the second thread, it takes me toNewsScientist, THEN I have to register to even read it.

EDIT-
NM...
The link works now...
For some reason, it sent me to the "register with news scienist" page the first time, andhe second time, but then I refreshedit for the third time and now the article pops up..
I will let you know my opinion when I am done reading.
(still need to fix the thread situation though)

EDIT- OH I SEE WHAT YOU DID. You started TWO threads, why? So nobody else could hijack the other one?
You are runnin a monopoly on ATS! Ilove it.
Sorry, I will be back with my comments.

EDIT TO ADD-
This has some potential! Im no expert by any means in the science industry, but even a guy like me can see that this has WAY MORE positives then negatives. Actually theres only one negative that I see so far, this part....
" The energy provided by the sunlight transformed the carbon dioxide and water vapour into methane and related organic compounds, such as ethane and propane, at rates as high as 160 microlitres an hour per gram of nanotubes. This is 20 times higher than published results achieved using any previous method, but still too low to be immediately practical."
So it wont be efffective immediately from my understanding because they havent gotten it JUST right yet. There are smarter people than me working on it though; thank God. So it should only be a matter of time.

BEST PART IS....
"If the reaction is halted early the device produces a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen known as syngas, which can be converted into diesel."

A fuel that swings both ways.

You are Right, the Left will LOVE this!

(Sorry, I had to be the first to say it)



[edit on 14-3-2010 by Common Good]

reply to post by ATS4dummies


Why would I do that? I don't want people to think I am stupid.

you know what, maybe one day it might be all thats needed if enough people have this kind of system and that all those systems can match the Co2 rates that are being added at the time.
there still are easier ways in getting fuel from other sources than just the 160 microlitres an hour that this system produces, how many hours would that be for a full tank of gas. too many.

There seems to be something that this article just jumped out and bit me when I read it.


Think about it, they were able to create methane, ethane, syngas (CO&H) and propane from just CO2 and having compounds like copper, platinum, titanium dioxide acting as catalysts.


Now what does that say people? Fuel or compounds of oil were created by simple chemical reactions.


Anyone getting my point yet?


Where does oil come from, how about natural gas, how about coal?

What I am getting at is this, since we were just little tykes were taught that oil and such comes from ancient deposits of animals(plankton mostly) and plants. Now, a few years back a Russian scientist posited that oil is abiogenic in nature or abiotic. Well it seems to me that this may prove this thesis.

Abiogenic Oil origon


Some big bull is being and has been posited by our scientists for quite some time. They say that because methane is on Mars, this proves that life must existed there at one time.

Now let me ask you this, if we have a theory that explains the methane, why would we not use it, instead of positing that it came from life?

Because someone either has blinders on OR that someone does not want us to know that fuel is created by the Earth and Planets themselves.

I wonder why that would be?

any idea just how much energy is needed to produce platinum?
i can tell you know, it takes 6 months from mining to becmoing ingots for platinum, (saw it on discovert channel:lol, it takes vast amounts to refine the stuff to the grade needed for this, id guess the same purity as cat converters.
and, as it is a catalyst, doesnt that mean it will get 'used up' meaning, short term use only?
looks good on paper, but im willing to bet its of interest in a lab and not actually viable for mass market
S&F for the thread tho, i find all these things interesting

Originally posted by babylonstew
and, as it is a catalyst, doesnt that mean it will get 'used up' meaning, short term use only?

*snip*
A catalyst [like platinum - already mined for - and easily recovered from trillions of automobile catalytic converters] does not get used up.

The presence of a catalyst [like platinum] makes the reaction easier to take place. The catalyst stays where it is and never gets absorbed in the reaction.




Mod Note: Courtesy Is Mandatory – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 3/14/2010 by JacKatMtn]

Click here for more information.

DEBUNKING DENIERS OF GLOBAL WARMING
www.abovetopsecret.com...&addstar=1&on=8006434#pid8006434

counterpoint

Originally posted by babylonstew

Originally posted by ATS4dummies

Originally posted by babylonstew
and, as it is a catalyst, doesnt that mean it will get 'used up' meaning, short term use only?

I don't like to make anyone look stupid, so sorry...

im completely wrong ?
i asked a question, didnt make a statement, so i cant be completely wrong
and as for looking stupid...
Edit, I notice you didnt reply to everything else i said, or you too stupid to have the answers

[edit on 14-3-2010 by babylonstew]

Yeaghh Righhhht. Here's a hint... Scroll up a bit:

Originally posted by rusethorcain
reply to post by ATS4dummies

 

Why would I do that? I don't want people to think I am stupid.

OK... So can we get this thread back on track please?
It's not about kindergarten, and it's not about imaginary monsters (like evil government or military) but it is about a way to deflate the hot air balloon of "carbon credits" and alleged "Fossil" fuels - made without fossils - in the Lab.

Are we back on track now?

reply to post by ATS4dummies


What people don't seem to understand is that carbon credits won't really effect most corporations in the US in a very significant way?

They are designed to simply show support and cooperation that the US is on board with a cleanup of the planet. That's all. It is the US putting their 2 cents into a possible solution. Putting their money where their mouth is.

Because we can't say sh_t to India and China and get any cooperation out of them unless we take a first step ourselves.

Because ...if China and India don't curb the insane amount of pollution they are spewing out - one day soon, here in America you will not be able to see your hand in front of your face.

Do you think a parent who smokes is going to have much effect in trying to get their kid to quit? Same thing here. We need to at least appear as if we are doing something ourselves before we can feasibly order the rest of the world to decrease emissions.... before they kill us.

If I'm a trillionare and I buy [from someone - I'll get to that] $1,000,000,000,000 dollars in carbon credits right now, will that make the carbon dioxide levels lower today? OK how about tomorrow, or better yet in a year, or to be fair the next century?

No? But I spent a trillion dollars! Why didn't the carbon dioxide go down?
Who took my money? I want it back. This smells like a scam to me.
(Get it folks?)

reply to post by ATS4dummies


It won't make the CO2 levels lower, but it means you'll be the only person in the market in which you bought your credits who can dump CO2 into the atmosphere.

You might want to read up about carbon credits before poo-pooing them, as clearly there are still some gaps in your understanding

reply to post by ATS4dummies


No because with carbon credits you are buying permission to pollute.
The theory being only so much pollution is going to be allowed into the atmosphere.

If you divided that pollution among all corporations equally it would work out. But some corporations pollute much more than others do. The least polluters get to sell "their permission to pollute" to corporations already pushing the limits of what they are allowed to expel into the atmosphere.

This prevents unending escalation of pollution as some companies get larger.
It also gently and painlessly encourages big polluters to cut back whenever, wherever, and however possible.


Otherwise why would these corporations bother? I don't see much of a conscious among them. Not much regard for anything other than "the profits of the present" certainly no concern for the implications and consequences of the future. I mean eventually, nobody will be able to live in Jersey.

This measure is to big corporate polluters what the catalytic converter was to cars.


One word you need to incorporate into your predictions: exponentially. This is how pollution and global warming will catch up to the worst case scenarios faster than you might imagine from all those charts and graphs.







[edit on 14-3-2010 by rusethorcain]

Originally posted by Trevor McNuggets
reply to post by ATS4dummies

 

It won't make the CO2 levels lower, but it means you'll be the only person in the market in which you bought your credits who can dump CO2 into the atmosphere.

You might want to read up about carbon credits before poo-pooing them, as clearly there are still some gaps in your understanding

You have accidentally proved my point. Somebody collects money for carbon credits, while it does nothing to reduce carbon dioxide. In otherwords, it's a SCAM.
Case closed. Thank you.

reply to post by ATS4dummies


Are you just refusing to get the facts of this program down?

It will incentive's corporations not to pollute any more than they already are.
And place a CAP on the allowable pollution over all.

This will lower carbon emissions more than if we said, hey capitalist pig spit out whatever you want into the atmosphere as long as it helps your bottom line.

You would have to prove 'global warming' first before you imposed a worldwide tax along with a cap and trade system. Prove it.

Global Warming Final Debate

Originally posted by rusethorcain
reply to post by ATS4dummies

 

It will incentive's corporations not to pollute any more than they already are. And place a CAP on the allowable pollution over all.
This will lower carbon emissions more than if we said, hey capitalist pig spit out whatever you want into the atmosphere as long as it helps your bottom line.

Really? Then who gets to pocket this money? We all breath the same air, and we all pay the increase in production costs when they pass it on to the consumer, so we should all get the money, right? Ehhh well, not really. Somebody will get that money, and it will not be you and I. Who then?


[edit on 15-3-2010 by ATS4dummies]

What I want to know is, why is all this fraudulent stupidity focused on carbon DIOXIDE? A completely natural element. YOU ARE ALL PRODUCING IT BY BREATHING RIGHT NOW. All animals breathe it OUT. All plants breathe it IN. It's kind of a necessity of life, much like oxygen. Carbon MONOXIDE is the poison coming out of your tailpipe, not carbon DIOXIDE.

Why is everything so focused on carbon DIOXIDE instead of MONOXIDE? Can anyone explain this for me?

Originally posted by ATS4dummies

Originally posted by rusethorcain
reply to post by ATS4dummies

 

It will incentive's corporations not to pollute any more than they already are. And place a CAP on the allowable pollution over all.
This will lower carbon emissions more than if we said, hey capitalist pig spit out whatever you want into the atmosphere as long as it helps your bottom line.

Really? Then who gets to pocket this money? We all breath the same air, and we all pay the increase in production costs when they pass it on to the consumer, so we should all get the money, right? Ehhh well, not really. Somebody will get that money, and it will not be you and I. Who then?


[edit on 15-3-2010 by ATS4dummies]

What money????
They are moving around carbon credits. Credits is not money.