organic fuel is stupid too. we're taking the most consumed grain that billions of people already lack enough of to just live, and shoving it in our hummers. duuurrrhhh
I was thinking more along the lines of engineering self-sustaining buildings with the windmill embedded in the top, with the structure being built with it in mind.
Obviously plopping a windmill on the Empire State Building would be all kinds of crazy.
So you want to rebuild half of Chicago?
I don't recall suggesting quick, drastic changes.
It would need to be phased in as old buildings go down and new ones are built.
MKR on
0
HunterChemist with a heart of AuRegistered Userregular
organic fuel is stupid too. we're taking the most consumed grain that billions of people already lack enough of to just live, and shoving it in our hummers. duuurrrhhh
well heck we're already paying farmers not to grow food while people starve, so why not?
I was thinking more along the lines of engineering self-sustaining buildings with the windmill embedded in the top, with the structure being built with it in mind.
Obviously plopping a windmill on the Empire State Building would be all kinds of crazy.
So you want to rebuild half of Chicago?
I don't recall suggesting quick, drastic changes.
It would need to be phased in as old buildings go down and new ones are built.
Who in their right mind would invest in a power infastructre that is expensive, dangerous in this implementation, not that efficient and what's more will take decades to reach some sort of operating capacity?
Faricazy on
0
HunterChemist with a heart of AuRegistered Userregular
I was thinking more along the lines of engineering self-sustaining buildings with the windmill embedded in the top, with the structure being built with it in mind.
Obviously plopping a windmill on the Empire State Building would be all kinds of crazy.
So you want to rebuild half of Chicago?
I don't recall suggesting quick, drastic changes.
It would need to be phased in as old buildings go down and new ones are built.
Who in their right mind would invest in a power infastructre that is expensive, dangerous in this implementation, not that efficient and what's more will take decades to reach some sort of operating capacity?
The same guys that built giant nuclear reactors all over the country.
Well, my knowledge pertains pretty much only to cars.
Right now a Hydrogen car costs a million dollars, so that's gotta change.
Plus, in order for them to take over the market there can't be any competition/improvements from other alternatives, and there is, bigtime, plugin hybrids are going to increase the mpg from 50 to 150.
Also it's too expensive to produce, and dangerous to transport.
I admit, it's a very clean form of transportation, but the range is limited. And putting refueling stations all over north america will be a very arduous process indeed.
Basically Hydrogen cars are a ploy to keep money in oil company's pockets.
I wish I could site my references, but I can't find them online,
Hybrids are at best a stopgap measure, even plugin hybrids. How are you generating the electricity to recharge that hybrid?
You're asserting hydrogen fuel cells can never work and then as support for your argument you present data that is several years out of date and assume that significant advances in the technology have not and will not contribute to significant reductions in cost, increases in efficiency, and other advances that would make it more feasible. Of course we can't know that such advances will be possible but it seems particularly pessimistic and ignorant to assume they are not.
I'm not assuming that there won't be advances in Hydrogen power as well, heck, go for it! It would be great.
But some people seem to think that it will replace the internal combustion engine and it's not very likely, mainly because in order for that to happen there can't be advances in the other alts.
I saw the Honda FCX review on Fifth Gear, I know we're making leaps and bounds, but how much would it cost me to put one in my driveway right now as opposed to a civic hybrid? And where am I going to charge it up?
Charging up a plugin doesn't seem that big of an issue to me, from what I've seen it'll pretty much be an extension chord. If we need more power, let's make more Chalk Rivers.
organic fuel is stupid too. we're taking the most consumed grain that billions of people already lack enough of to just live, and shoving it in our hummers. duuurrrhhh
well heck we're already paying farmers not to grow food while people starve, so why not?
hurk but the new deal saved us
nah, I'm kidding
also, can we burn the homeless please
I mean let's be honest, it would really solve 2 problems
Geothermal: You need to find a site that makes this plausible (volcanic areas) where the plants need to be constantly maintained because they corrode very quickly.
how many plants do you know of that dont need to be constantly maintained
the only problem i see with geothermal energy is the fact that an area can cool down after awhile (decades)
but that doesnt mean that we cant research and predict these events
Wind: Splendid, We'll just build thousands upon thousands of windmills to provide electricity for every major city. Wait. Where do we put them all? You also need to have a windy enough area to support this. Cape Cod is a pretty good idea to power Boston and Providence, maybe even New York, but where's Chicago or Denver or Sacremento going to get their wind power?
Biodiesel: A great idea but not very efficient. Not a viable replacement for gasoline right now since you'd need much more of it to equal the same amount of power you'd get from a smaller amount of fossil fuel. Plus you'd have to keep growing the resource.
how much of the United states is do you think is urbanized?
shit you could set up a shit ton of windmills and cornfields in kansas, the dakotas, montana and all those other states with 3 people in them
Hydrogen: Another great idea, but it's also something that needs to be produced. Can we produce and store enough hydrogen to supply a significant amount of our power needs? You also need power to separate the hydrogen from water (or whatever your process might be). How efficient is this energy-wise?
electrolysis doesnt take that much energy at all, and water is *gasp* a renewable resource
organic fuel is stupid too. we're taking the most consumed grain that billions of people already lack enough of to just live, and shoving it in our hummers. duuurrrhhh
Actually the overproduction of grains in the US is exacerbating starvation in other parts of the world, especially Africa.
Because we so heavily subsidize corn, wheat, and soybeans and as a result vastly overproduce them, we can export them for less than it costs local farmers in most of Africa to grow their own. That may seem like a good thing but it actually means that local farmers can't compete and are barely able to eke out a subsistence living while our model of farming continues to encourage monocropping, significantly increasing the risk of a single pest or virus wiping out vast swaths of our crops in a short period of time. So they become reliant on our exports (which always makes you vulnerable as a nation), more fossil fuels are consumed shipping that grain overseas, and our crops are vulnerable to pests/disease.
I was thinking more along the lines of engineering self-sustaining buildings with the windmill embedded in the top, with the structure being built with it in mind.
Obviously plopping a windmill on the Empire State Building would be all kinds of crazy.
So you want to rebuild half of Chicago?
I don't recall suggesting quick, drastic changes.
It would need to be phased in as old buildings go down and new ones are built.
Who in their right mind would invest in a power infastructre that is expensive, dangerous in this implementation, not that efficient and what's more will take decades to reach some sort of operating capacity?
The same guys that built giant nuclear reactors all over the country.
somehow those strike me as more efficient than tearing down a skyscaper, taking the time and money to re-engineer and rebuild it to support more weight, and then stick a windmill on top that will probably have trouble powering that one building alone.
Well, my knowledge pertains pretty much only to cars.
Right now a Hydrogen car costs a million dollars, so that's gotta change.
Plus, in order for them to take over the market there can't be any competition/improvements from other alternatives, and there is, bigtime, plugin hybrids are going to increase the mpg from 50 to 150.
Also it's too expensive to produce, and dangerous to transport.
I admit, it's a very clean form of transportation, but the range is limited. And putting refueling stations all over north america will be a very arduous process indeed.
Basically Hydrogen cars are a ploy to keep money in oil company's pockets.
I wish I could site my references, but I can't find them online,
All of that is a red herring anyway. The biggest problem is you can't construct an engine that could contain the hydrogen reaction without severe stress or lose a significant portion of the reaction.
It will take decades of research into cast ceramics or metal alloy hybrids. Amorphous metals have been speculated, but that's highly unlikely and borders on theoretical at best.
As a form of energy though, Hydrogen is near perfect. It's just impractical with regards to material science.
EDIT: Damn you spell check. I wanted herring, not hearing you fuck
Doesn't it also require alot of energy to produce the reaction in the first place?
No, hydrogen burns quite easily. Generating hydrogen can require energy, but it depends on how you want to do that. It's still always net positive, even for straight forward electrolysis of water. I believe companies like Air Products are leaning more towards a Syngas strategy then straight hydrogen anyway. Syngas burns like crazy.
I didn't think we were actually "Burning" anything. Aren't we putting H and O together and the energy produced from that reaction is what makes the wheels go?
organic fuel is stupid too. we're taking the most consumed grain that billions of people already lack enough of to just live, and shoving it in our hummers. duuurrrhhh
Actually the overproduction of grains in the US is exacerbating starvation in other parts of the world, especially Africa.
Because we so heavily subsidize corn, wheat, and soybeans and as a result vastly overproduce them, we can export them for less than it costs local farmers in most of Africa to grow their own. That may seem like a good thing but it actually means that local farmers can't compete and are barely able to eke out a subsistence living while our model of farming continues to encourage monocropping, significantly increasing the risk of a single pest or virus wiping out vast swaths of our crops in a short period of time. So they become reliant on our exports (which always makes you vulnerable as a nation), more fossil fuels are consumed shipping that grain overseas, and our crops are vulnerable to pests/disease.
Think of the poor Corporate Ginormous Farms that would lose profits if they had to really compete, and the poor senators that would lose all those kickbacks and lobbying dollars by saying "hey, let's be smart about farming".
RankenphilePassersby were amazedby the unusually large amounts of blood.Registered User, Moderatormod
edited September 2007
It isn't like this is the limit of renewable sources either. Methods like Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion, especially done in areas like the Arctic where temperature differences can be as vast as 40 degrees in contrast with air temperatures, could easily become great sources of power if they can get beyond the United Nations zoning restrictions for ocean construction.
I was thinking more along the lines of engineering self-sustaining buildings with the windmill embedded in the top, with the structure being built with it in mind.
Obviously plopping a windmill on the Empire State Building would be all kinds of crazy.
So you want to rebuild half of Chicago?
I don't recall suggesting quick, drastic changes.
It would need to be phased in as old buildings go down and new ones are built.
Who in their right mind would invest in a power infastructre that is expensive, dangerous in this implementation, not that efficient and what's more will take decades to reach some sort of operating capacity?
The same guys that built giant nuclear reactors all over the country.
somehow those strike me as more efficient than tearing down a skyscaper, taking the time and money to re-engineer and rebuild it to support more weight, and then stick a windmill on top that will probably have trouble powering that one building alone.
Solar panels as windows isn't too far off. The two combined could handle the power needs of a building.
MKR on
0
PiptheFairFrequently not in boats.Registered Userregular
because our excess crops are then sold in other countries, where the overhead for their native farmers is higher than the price we can sell ours on.
thus, they can't sell their crops unless they make the prices of their good even lower, and take a hit to their profits, and more likely, take a tremendous loss, just to sell the product.
organic fuel is stupid too. we're taking the most consumed grain that billions of people already lack enough of to just live, and shoving it in our hummers. duuurrrhhh
Actually the overproduction of grains in the US is exacerbating starvation in other parts of the world, especially Africa.
Because we so heavily subsidize corn, wheat, and soybeans and as a result vastly overproduce them, we can export them for less than it costs local farmers in most of Africa to grow their own. That may seem like a good thing but it actually means that local farmers can't compete and are barely able to eke out a subsistence living while our model of farming continues to encourage monocropping, significantly increasing the risk of a single pest or virus wiping out vast swaths of our crops in a short period of time. So they become reliant on our exports (which always makes you vulnerable as a nation), more fossil fuels are consumed shipping that grain overseas, and our crops are vulnerable to pests/disease.
actually, sugarcane is a much more efficient organic fuel source than corn, as you don't end up with nearly the starch byproduct. And it is just as plentiful, if not moreso, although a hybrid use between the two could easily provide substantial power supplements to remove our dependence on fossil fuels. The real problem in doing so is lack of funding and the current power structure, industry and installed consumer base that is so dependent on fossil fuels, and the inherent cost in changing over to the new methods.
Rankenphile on
0
PiptheFairFrequently not in boats.Registered Userregular
edited September 2007
we also burn excess crops as well to maintain artificial supply levels rather than redistributing it to, say, people who need it to not die
Well, my knowledge pertains pretty much only to cars.
Right now a Hydrogen car costs a million dollars, so that's gotta change.
Plus, in order for them to take over the market there can't be any competition/improvements from other alternatives, and there is, bigtime, plugin hybrids are going to increase the mpg from 50 to 150.
Also it's too expensive to produce, and dangerous to transport.
I admit, it's a very clean form of transportation, but the range is limited. And putting refueling stations all over north america will be a very arduous process indeed.
Basically Hydrogen cars are a ploy to keep money in oil company's pockets.
I wish I could site my references, but I can't find them online,
All of that is a red herring anyway. The biggest problem is you can't construct an engine that could contain the hydrogen reaction without severe stress or lose a significant portion of the reaction.
It will take decades of research into cast ceramics or metal alloy hybrids. Amorphous metals have been speculated, but that's highly unlikely and borders on theoretical at best.
As a form of energy though, Hydrogen is near perfect. It's just impractical with regards to material science.
EDIT: Damn you spell check. I wanted herring, not hearing you fuck
Doesn't it also require alot of energy to produce the reaction in the first place?
No, hydrogen burns quite easily. Generating hydrogen can require energy, but it depends on how you want to do that. It's still always net positive, even for straight forward electrolysis of water. I believe companies like Air Products are leaning more towards a Syngas strategy then straight hydrogen anyway. Syngas burns like crazy.
I didn't think we were actually "Burning" anything. Aren't we putting H and O together and the energy produced from that reaction is what makes the wheels go?
You're confusing fusion with the burning of hydrogen. Hydrogen power literally burns hydrogen gas. The discussion about separating hydrogen from water was due to the need to produce hydrogen if you're going to burn it in significant quantities.
Druhim on
0
HunterChemist with a heart of AuRegistered Userregular
Well, my knowledge pertains pretty much only to cars.
Right now a Hydrogen car costs a million dollars, so that's gotta change.
Plus, in order for them to take over the market there can't be any competition/improvements from other alternatives, and there is, bigtime, plugin hybrids are going to increase the mpg from 50 to 150.
Also it's too expensive to produce, and dangerous to transport.
I admit, it's a very clean form of transportation, but the range is limited. And putting refueling stations all over north america will be a very arduous process indeed.
Basically Hydrogen cars are a ploy to keep money in oil company's pockets.
I wish I could site my references, but I can't find them online,
All of that is a red herring anyway. The biggest problem is you can't construct an engine that could contain the hydrogen reaction without severe stress or lose a significant portion of the reaction.
It will take decades of research into cast ceramics or metal alloy hybrids. Amorphous metals have been speculated, but that's highly unlikely and borders on theoretical at best.
As a form of energy though, Hydrogen is near perfect. It's just impractical with regards to material science.
EDIT: Damn you spell check. I wanted herring, not hearing you fuck
Doesn't it also require alot of energy to produce the reaction in the first place?
No, hydrogen burns quite easily. Generating hydrogen can require energy, but it depends on how you want to do that. It's still always net positive, even for straight forward electrolysis of water. I believe companies like Air Products are leaning more towards a Syngas strategy then straight hydrogen anyway. Syngas burns like crazy.
I didn't think we were actually "Burning" anything. Aren't we putting H and O together and the energy produced from that reaction is what makes the wheels go?
Hydrogen combustion is possible now, with efficiency improving based on material science catching up with the reaction
A hydrogen-fuel cell that combines H and O to make electricity and water are even more fragile and have problems due to cost and whatnot.
Well, my knowledge pertains pretty much only to cars.
Right now a Hydrogen car costs a million dollars, so that's gotta change.
Plus, in order for them to take over the market there can't be any competition/improvements from other alternatives, and there is, bigtime, plugin hybrids are going to increase the mpg from 50 to 150.
Also it's too expensive to produce, and dangerous to transport.
I admit, it's a very clean form of transportation, but the range is limited. And putting refueling stations all over north america will be a very arduous process indeed.
Basically Hydrogen cars are a ploy to keep money in oil company's pockets.
I wish I could site my references, but I can't find them online,
All of that is a red herring anyway. The biggest problem is you can't construct an engine that could contain the hydrogen reaction without severe stress or lose a significant portion of the reaction.
It will take decades of research into cast ceramics or metal alloy hybrids. Amorphous metals have been speculated, but that's highly unlikely and borders on theoretical at best.
As a form of energy though, Hydrogen is near perfect. It's just impractical with regards to material science.
EDIT: Damn you spell check. I wanted herring, not hearing you fuck
Doesn't it also require alot of energy to produce the reaction in the first place?
No, hydrogen burns quite easily. Generating hydrogen can require energy, but it depends on how you want to do that. It's still always net positive, even for straight forward electrolysis of water. I believe companies like Air Products are leaning more towards a Syngas strategy then straight hydrogen anyway. Syngas burns like crazy.
I didn't think we were actually "Burning" anything. Aren't we putting H and O together and the energy produced from that reaction is what makes the wheels go?
You're confusing fusion with the burning of hydrogen. Hydrogen power literally burns hydrogen gas. The discussion about separating hydrogen from water was due to the need to produce hydrogen if you're going to burn it in significant quantities.
Ya I understand the electrolysis thing to produce the hydrogen for the fuel cells.
But I thought the cars were powered on taking that hydrogen and combining it with oxygen and using that reaction to power the car, hence why clean, even drinkable water comes out of the tailpipe. Isn't that the whole point of Hydrogen cars?
we also burn excess crops as well to maintain artificial supply levels rather than redistributing it to, say, people who need it to not die
Actually we do send a lot of grain to the third world, however as well intentioned as that is it would be much more efficient and stable for them if we instead funneled resources into helping them farm locally. Instead of encouraging them to buy genetically modified crops that were engineered for industrial farming in the US and require intensive use of pesticides and water, we should be further helping them develop methods for growing local crops that are already used to those conditions, but growing them more efficiently and sustainably while removing the pressure of our artificially cheap grains on their markets.
Well, my knowledge pertains pretty much only to cars.
Right now a Hydrogen car costs a million dollars, so that's gotta change.
Plus, in order for them to take over the market there can't be any competition/improvements from other alternatives, and there is, bigtime, plugin hybrids are going to increase the mpg from 50 to 150.
Also it's too expensive to produce, and dangerous to transport.
I admit, it's a very clean form of transportation, but the range is limited. And putting refueling stations all over north america will be a very arduous process indeed.
Basically Hydrogen cars are a ploy to keep money in oil company's pockets.
I wish I could site my references, but I can't find them online,
All of that is a red herring anyway. The biggest problem is you can't construct an engine that could contain the hydrogen reaction without severe stress or lose a significant portion of the reaction.
It will take decades of research into cast ceramics or metal alloy hybrids. Amorphous metals have been speculated, but that's highly unlikely and borders on theoretical at best.
As a form of energy though, Hydrogen is near perfect. It's just impractical with regards to material science.
EDIT: Damn you spell check. I wanted herring, not hearing you fuck
Doesn't it also require alot of energy to produce the reaction in the first place?
No, hydrogen burns quite easily. Generating hydrogen can require energy, but it depends on how you want to do that. It's still always net positive, even for straight forward electrolysis of water. I believe companies like Air Products are leaning more towards a Syngas strategy then straight hydrogen anyway. Syngas burns like crazy.
I didn't think we were actually "Burning" anything. Aren't we putting H and O together and the energy produced from that reaction is what makes the wheels go?
You're confusing fusion with the burning of hydrogen. Hydrogen power literally burns hydrogen gas. The discussion about separating hydrogen from water was due to the need to produce hydrogen if you're going to burn it in significant quantities.
Ya I understand the electrolysis thing to produce the hydrogen for the fuel cells.
But I thought the cars were powered on taking that hydrogen and combining it with oxygen and using that reaction to power the car, hence why clean, even drinkable water comes out of the tailpipe. Isn't that the whole point of Hydrogen cars?
when you burn most things you burn them with air and the oxygen in the air combusts with the product youre burning
like this
H2 + O2 -> 2H2O
except its a combustion reaction that ends up with water
we also burn excess crops as well to maintain artificial supply levels rather than redistributing it to, say, people who need it to not die
Actually we do send a lot of grain to the third world, however as well intentioned as that is it would be much more efficient and stable for them if we instead funneled resources into helping them farm locally. Instead of encouraging them to buy genetically modified crops that were engineered for industrial farming in the US and require intensive use of pesticides and water, we should be further helping them develop methods for growing local crops that are already used to those conditions, but growing them more efficiently and sustainably while removing the pressure of our artificially cheap grains on their markets.
I am aware of those and I didn't mean to imply that we burnt everything that was not used or sold, but the concept of burning grains simply to create artificial supply levels is idiotic.
we also burn excess crops as well to maintain artificial supply levels rather than redistributing it to, say, people who need it to not die
Actually we do send a lot of grain to the third world, however as well intentioned as that is it would be much more efficient and stable for them if we instead funneled resources into helping them farm locally. Instead of encouraging them to buy genetically modified crops that were engineered for industrial farming in the US and require intensive use of pesticides and water, we should be further helping them develop methods for growing local crops that are already used to those conditions, but growing them more efficiently and sustainably while removing the pressure of our artificially cheap grains on their markets.
I am aware of those and I didn't mean to imply that we burnt everything that was not used or sold, but the concept of burning grains simply to create artificial supply levels is idiotic.
Posts
I don't recall suggesting quick, drastic changes.
It would need to be phased in as old buildings go down and new ones are built.
I think it's a great idea until some assclown like Kim Jong Il or Ras Al Guhl decides to aim it at an ocean for ransom.
Secret Satan 2013 Wishlist
well heck we're already paying farmers not to grow food while people starve, so why not?
The same guys that built giant nuclear reactors all over the country.
Secret Satan 2013 Wishlist
I'm not assuming that there won't be advances in Hydrogen power as well, heck, go for it! It would be great.
But some people seem to think that it will replace the internal combustion engine and it's not very likely, mainly because in order for that to happen there can't be advances in the other alts.
I saw the Honda FCX review on Fifth Gear, I know we're making leaps and bounds, but how much would it cost me to put one in my driveway right now as opposed to a civic hybrid? And where am I going to charge it up?
Charging up a plugin doesn't seem that big of an issue to me, from what I've seen it'll pretty much be an extension chord. If we need more power, let's make more Chalk Rivers.
Dear satan I wish for this or maybe some of this....oh and I'm a medium or a large.
I say we install giant hamsterwheels in all jails as well.
hurk but the new deal saved us
nah, I'm kidding
also, can we burn the homeless please
I mean let's be honest, it would really solve 2 problems
and poorhouses
how many plants do you know of that dont need to be constantly maintained
the only problem i see with geothermal energy is the fact that an area can cool down after awhile (decades)
but that doesnt mean that we cant research and predict these events
how much of the United states is do you think is urbanized?
shit you could set up a shit ton of windmills and cornfields in kansas, the dakotas, montana and all those other states with 3 people in them
electrolysis doesnt take that much energy at all, and water is *gasp* a renewable resource
STEAM!
Because we so heavily subsidize corn, wheat, and soybeans and as a result vastly overproduce them, we can export them for less than it costs local farmers in most of Africa to grow their own. That may seem like a good thing but it actually means that local farmers can't compete and are barely able to eke out a subsistence living while our model of farming continues to encourage monocropping, significantly increasing the risk of a single pest or virus wiping out vast swaths of our crops in a short period of time. So they become reliant on our exports (which always makes you vulnerable as a nation), more fossil fuels are consumed shipping that grain overseas, and our crops are vulnerable to pests/disease.
I didn't think we were actually "Burning" anything. Aren't we putting H and O together and the energy produced from that reaction is what makes the wheels go?
Dear satan I wish for this or maybe some of this....oh and I'm a medium or a large.
Think of the poor Corporate Ginormous Farms that would lose profits if they had to really compete, and the poor senators that would lose all those kickbacks and lobbying dollars by saying "hey, let's be smart about farming".
Secret Satan 2013 Wishlist
maybe I'm stupid, but explain again how making too much food is starving people?
Solar panels as windows isn't too far off. The two combined could handle the power needs of a building.
government induced monopolization
thus, they can't sell their crops unless they make the prices of their good even lower, and take a hit to their profits, and more likely, take a tremendous loss, just to sell the product.
actually, sugarcane is a much more efficient organic fuel source than corn, as you don't end up with nearly the starch byproduct. And it is just as plentiful, if not moreso, although a hybrid use between the two could easily provide substantial power supplements to remove our dependence on fossil fuels. The real problem in doing so is lack of funding and the current power structure, industry and installed consumer base that is so dependent on fossil fuels, and the inherent cost in changing over to the new methods.
Hydrogen combustion is possible now, with efficiency improving based on material science catching up with the reaction
A hydrogen-fuel cell that combines H and O to make electricity and water are even more fragile and have problems due to cost and whatnot.
The wiki entry actually isn't half bad.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_vehicle
Secret Satan 2013 Wishlist
Ya I understand the electrolysis thing to produce the hydrogen for the fuel cells.
But I thought the cars were powered on taking that hydrogen and combining it with oxygen and using that reaction to power the car, hence why clean, even drinkable water comes out of the tailpipe. Isn't that the whole point of Hydrogen cars?
Dear satan I wish for this or maybe some of this....oh and I'm a medium or a large.
holy shit MKR, you were serious.
-edit- well, actually you were being silly, but you know.
when you burn most things you burn them with air and the oxygen in the air combusts with the product youre burning
like this
H2 + O2 -> 2H2O
except its a combustion reaction that ends up with water
STEAM!
He actually explained it as simply as possible. Just read it.
Secret Satan 2013 Wishlist
I am aware of those and I didn't mean to imply that we burnt everything that was not used or sold, but the concept of burning grains simply to create artificial supply levels is idiotic.
No, I'm serious.
you have a mighty interesting textbook, because mine was 10 years old and often lied to me
I read it, it's just not coming together in my head
What I got was that we make a ton of food so farmers in africa can't make money growing food and that makes people starve
But wouldn't the food we're taking over there offset the food lost from local farmers or even surpass it?