Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« Back In Newtown... | Main | When You Ain't Got Nothing... »

March 29, 2013

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b2aa69e2017ee9d5f350970d

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Cow Power:

Comments

matt

That's not natural gas, per se, but moo-gas, methane.

boris

"The US uses roughly 3 billion barrels of gasoline per year, or 126 billion barrels ..." Gallons?

DrJ

I noticed that too, boris.

I'm a little dubious.

Almost 170 pounds of cowshit daily per cow?
===============

narciso

What is that in Avlons, in the LUN

Rob Crawford
Almost 170 pounds of cowshit daily per cow?

Yeah, that sounds high.

MarkO

Please refer to e.e. cummings on cows.

Ignatz Ratzkywatzky

--which is fine as one more way to nibble around the edges of our hydrocarbon usage--

It might be a way to nibble around a bale of hay, but replacing gasoline with methane does not on its face appear to do much to hydrocarbon usage other than swap one for another.

AliceH

"Who run Bartertown?"

narciso

Now taking the piece, seriously, this is where he comes from;

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/cleancities/m/dennis_smith.html

Clarice

HEH, Happy Easter , TM.

Captain Hate

Still, not everyone is convinced that the time is ripe for more manure-powered vehicles, particularly when regular natural gas remains abundant and cheap.

Fracking really screwed with their energy plans; no wonder so many of the herd of independent thinkers are independently outraged about it.

Threadkiller
maryrose

CH: You are so right. They just can't handle the fact that fracking could be a good thing.
TK; lol about cow patties.

gmax

You have got to be shitting me...

Jack is Back

Talk about a dichotomy of interests: The Federal Government is subsidizing the emission of methane gases?? Methane (CH4) is the 2nd largest contributor of Greenhouse Gases. Per the EPA themselves:

Pound for pound, the comparative impact of CH4 on climate change is over 20 times greater than CO2 over a 100-year period.

Read it and laugh your derierre off:)

Threadkiller

CH4 and CO2 are soooo yesterday, JiB.

Reducing sulfur in gasoline and tightening emissions standards on cars beginning in 2017, as the Obama administration is proposing, would come with costs as well as rewards. The cost at the pump for cleaner air across the country could be less than a penny or as high as 9 cents a gallon, depending on who is providing the estimate.

http://news.yahoo.com/epa-taking-aim-auto-emissions-sulfur-gas-071021486--finance.html

bgates

Iggy, the biofuel argument is that they're drawn from the pool of carbon that is already cycled between the atmosphere and the biosphere. Gasoline uses carbon that had previously been safely sequestered (for carbon, sequestration is held to be a good thing).

Ignatz Ratzkywatzky

--Iggy, the biofuel argument is that they're drawn from the pool of carbon that is already cycled between the atmosphere and the biosphere. Gasoline uses carbon that had previously been safely sequestered (for carbon, sequestration is held to be a good thing).

Posted by: bgates | March 29, 2013 at 05:59 PM --

Agreed bgates, so what he should have said was, it is a way to nibble around the edges of recyclables vs fossil fuels, not hydrocarbon use.
Pedants-R-Me.

narciso

It's just Methane, sounds much more sophisticated then plain C0 2.

narciso
Captain Hate

Gasoline uses carbon that had previously been safely sequestered (for carbon, sequestration is held to be a good thing).

Somebody's gonna have to 'splain this further to me. Gasoline comes from organic matter which has been entombed for a long time because of geologic upheaval, I guess, and/or maybe something else. Other than the time factor, what's the difference?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Amazon

  • Lee Child, Kindle short story
  • Lee Child
  • Gary Taubes

Traffic

Wilson/Plame