Beantown
Well-Known Member
Air pollution is not a hoax so it doesn't matter. We should be moving to clean energy no matter your beliefs on climate change.
Why do you assume that nobody would still be driving a 3 year old electric car?
Air pollution is not a hoax so it doesn't matter. We should be moving to clean energy no matter your beliefs on climate change.
Why do you assume that nobody would still be driving a 3 year old electric car?
DutchJazzer
Banned
because we live in a disposable society. appliances and technology has a limited life.
ussually desktop computers had a limited live but now with intel, cpu's are longer current. you could for example still use a sandybridge wich isabout 5 generations old, and it is still current. so thats a good thing
but other appliances shorted their life span. and these climate change liberals get a new phone every year or 2.
that's just wrong.
air pollution is not a hoax, for sure not. but co2 is not a pollutant. there are other things polluting air like Carbon monoxide.
but people confuse these two.
maybe its because government classifies co2 as an airvpollutant. co2 has nothing to do with quality of AIR. IT IS NOT A POLLUTANT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Back of the line, pal.
Last edited:
These alarmists do not tell you anything true. I know you are a cow farmer so take new government proposals for example. They want make farmers control cow farting cause they claim methane is greenhouse gas an like 50 times more radiant then CO2.
What they do not tell you is that methane is highly reactive an quickly oxidizes in to water an CO2.
The NWO government wants to put in costly regulations that will double or triple the price of are steaks, roasts an hamburger all to control .0005 % of all CO2 creating emissions.
I hope you like eating tripe an boiled cowhide cause that is where the alarmist liberals are taking us. You will not be able to afford anything when they turn us in to Mexico an then Guatemala.
Holy crap California liberals are dense. Apparently they are gonna waste $50 million taxpayer dollars to harvest cow farts an make electricity. Electricity creates all CO2 an POLLUTANTS like nitrogen dioxide.
The atmosphere created some CO2 an some water so California is choosing CO2 over water an wasting $50 million cause they want to feel good policy.
The atmosphere created some CO2 an some water so California is choosing CO2 over water an wasting $50 million cause they want to feel good policy.
DutchJazzer
Banned
pun intended
On the surface I do not love the policy of limiting methane gas cow farmers can produce. If the other part (helping farmers get machines that convert cow turds into electricity) ends up working and is improved over time, eventually it might be a cheap source of energy (or already is?). Developing renewable and cheap sources of energy seems like a good long term plan not just for the environment but financially.
I have not looked into the actual costs of these machines (since I do not farm and do not live in California) and how much electricity they produce but I imagine that they could pay for themselves eventually or at least if the machines are improved and mass produced they will be able to when the costs of the machines are lowered.
Environmental impact aside using your own resources to generate more money seems smart for farmers. I wonder how [MENTION=3073]JustTheTip[/MENTION] feels about these digesters and if they have any long term ability to generate more money or at least be more efficient for dairy farmers. It sounds like plenty of farms have these already. A quick google search said that these machines can pay for themselves in an average of 7 years. That seems well worth it to me and if the government can help make farms more self sustaining and profitable that is good for the economy.
https://www.farmpower.com/Digester operation.html
https://www.electrigaz.com/faq_en.htm
So you are saying you are cool with increasing atmospheric CO2 if it helps farmers? Cool.
RandyForRubio
Well-Known Member
I'm not a rancher, don't deal with cattle. Sorry.
Initial thoughts are pretty skeptical. Most places require a lot of land to feed a fairly small amount of cattle. Dairies are different than beef cattle though, have to keep them all pretty contained to harvest milk appropriately. As a farmer, I just see it as one more way for a bunch of people who don't understand agriculture telling us how to run agriculture, bc farmers have a reputation as not caring about the environment. I would be surprised if this ever worked on a large scale,seems like a waste of time and money to me.
RandyForRubio
Well-Known Member
Fwiw, on that farm power digester, those guys haven't been in the news for several years. Pretty strong indication their product didn't work.
There is one immediate revolution happening, the technological and economical breakthrough going on with solar. Nobody will not want solar on their roof inside five years. Electric cars plugged in at home will become a thing.
We should be doing nuclear power, really, already.
But LENR.... cold fusion.... is alive and attracting serious investment. Bill Gates is looking at putting millions into it, and some others, already. Inside two years there will be results coming from commercial pilot plants.
Well, there are quite a few power plants running on trash heaps built to enable gas recovery.. Why not? I am a rancher, but not the feedlot sort. Those feedlots are huge piles of dung. They should do something with it.
Overall, cows eat grass and produce food and gas, and some fertilizer. They are beneficial grazers on most types of forage, even forests. In forests they eat the accumulating undergrowth that sustains huge wildfires, and it could be argued they could reduce actual greenhouse gas emissions by temporarily confining some of the fuel in body mass, food, or fertizer. In grassland areas of California, Nevada and Utah, they are effective at reducing wildfire potential.
Feedlot production operations use a lot of grain produced with lots of machine work, lots of artificial, chemical-origin fertilizer, and the cows have to be heavily dosed with antibiotics. I think there is a good argument for turning back to range grazing, grass-fed beef production.