Tom:
I'm guity as charged. I used your words and some descriptive ones of my own to describe you and others filling up space here without advancing the mercedes diesel community or some good approximation of it. Proceed with sentencing...
Your assumption of my love for petroleum is false. It just so happens to be the best option for the majority of people in today's society.
All energy is a subset of solar. It is just a matter of how well refined, for how long and how it is stored. I applaud research to find better ways to turn sunlight into useful energy and better methods of storing it. We still have a long way to go.
I have a problem with the biofuels of today because they have negative net energy content. I would rather burn the food supply from a million years ago as end user fuel than to burn it to get a smaller amount of energy from today's food supply. It is my OPINION that biofuels are being falsely promoted as the solution. I do believe using waste bio sources for fuel is a very wise thing to do, however the supply does not exist for it to be feasible on any useful scale for the public.
The answer is to conserve energy and to be more efficient with the energy we do use. Sadly this bodes poorly for our beloved Mercedes diesels. While they are more efficient than their gas counterparts, they still have the achilles heel of the inefficient internal combustion engine. If technology can triple the efficiency of our engines we survive, else it looks like electric energy with some more advances is our next short maybe long term bet. But in our reality we will be able to use our Benz's as long as we live or can keep them running. And that is what I love about this yahoo group - it provides knowledge to help attain that goal.
Let's just focus on our passion for MB diesels here and leave the other crap for venues better suited for it!
Thanx, Paul
--- In
diesel_mercedes@yahoogroups.com, audiolaw@... wrote:
>
> Paul:
>
> Let's take in small bites, shall we:
>
> In a message dated 6/12/2012 9:39:34 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
> schulzpaul@... writes:
>
>
> Well, insults and name calling seem to be the main tactic of those who
> can't win on facts or truth....
>
>
>
>
> So that explains your use of:
>
> "your continued pollution of this wonderful yahoo group;"
>
> "your continued babbling;"
>
> "your philosophical phantasies;"
>
> " junk science."
>
> And those just from one paragraph of one of your posts! We needn't go
> over all of them to establish the truth of your admission that insults and
> name calling are your substitute for facts and truth.
>
>
>
> "There is just no energy benefit to using plant biomass for liquid fuel,"
> says David Pimentel, professor of ecology and agriculture at Cornell.
> "These strategies are not sustainable."
>
> This is a particularly trenchant observation, notably because, unless
> my education was all wrong, the petroleum with which you are so deeply in
> love was at one time mostly plant biomass. We call it "dino diesel" because
> that's so much more manly than thinking of our great cars as loping along
> on palm frond diesel.
>
> But even back in the eons ago days when Teahadist philosophies were
> being hatched, there was vastly more plant biomass than dinosaur biomass.
>
> So maybe what Professor Pimental is saying is that it really is
> ridiculous to keep pretending that we can live forever by overgorging on the
> limited stock of ancient biomass sourced fuels.
>
>
>
> Tom
>
No comments:
Post a Comment