DEBATE ON GLOBAL WARMING!{Tesla}

By: Fshhead , 7:41 PM GMT on July 12, 2007

Share this Blog
1
+

This is my continuing blog on global warming. If you are new visitor, please look at last couple of blog entrys also on global warming!!!!







"There are so many arguments proving & disputing global warming that people can't seem to agree completly on it. But for all the preperations that we make for hurricanes & other disasters, what do we have to lose if we prepare for global warming as if the worst might come true?
The answer is pure common sense. We should try to eliminate the variables that cause global warming instead of just arguing about it. It's like a hurricane- if we prepare for the worst, it can only save lives & money. If it does not come, no one will have been hurt & we may even have a healthier Earth."


Book I recommend reading:


Videos I recommend:
"Who killed the electric car?"
HBO'S "To hot Not to handle"
"Inconvienent Truth"




Click Me!!!!





Click top of green box!!!!

Visitor Map
Create your own visitor map!


Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Comments Limit Reached

This entry now contains the maximum number of comments and no more comments are allowed.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 101 - 51

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40Blog Index

101. Fshhead
7:16 PM GMT on July 24, 2007
Now Buster, that's the angle of the tunnels that interest me, POWER PRODUCTION. I would love it if they were able to run all the electric cars soon to be coming out.
Member Since: November 19, 2005 Posts: 9 Comments: 9960
100. Patrap
2:12 PM CDT on July 24, 2007
How does one build a tunnel in water?
We have thousands of Real metal structures around the globe in waters.
There call Offshore Oil rigs.
The forces involved are a Million times bigger than any device could make a difference too.Tunnels are a science fiction dream CB just wont let go of.
Hurricanes are a natural part of the Planets cooling and moisture distribution system.They take the heat and moisture from the tropics and transport them north into the temperate Zones.A heat pump mechanism if you will. Tamper with that..and chaos would result.

And to be sure..it would be called a Tube turbine..not a tunnel..
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
99. Fshhead
7:11 PM GMT on July 24, 2007
lol Buster you showing their benefits is getting NOTHING but criticism lol Now you brought up the modeling. Get the models done & THEN if they are successful you can start talking of all the benefits.
Sully, yes that is the worrisome part of taking cyclones out of the picture. They are a necessary evil, another thing they do is clear out red tides & dead spots!
Member Since: November 19, 2005 Posts: 9 Comments: 9960
98. cyclonebuster
7:10 PM GMT on July 24, 2007
sullivanweather,
They can regulate the power of the storm to a Cat 1 or 2. I don't want to eliminate them. They are important. They also produce 1,750,000 MW/hrs 24/7 thus eliminating all the Co2 we produce and will run every one of fishes electric cars!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
97. sullivanweather
7:14 PM GMT on July 24, 2007
Fish, I added my temperature departure forecast for the 1st half of Auguist as well.
Member Since: March 8, 2007 Posts: 273 Comments: 12612
96. sullivanweather
7:04 PM GMT on July 24, 2007
CB is going to have to realize that geo-engineering of the Earth is nothing more than a pipe dream. (pun intended)

Tunnels could possibly weaken a hurricane if one could upwell enough water under a cyclone to rob its heat source. But hurricanes are essential for heat distribution within the planet.

If there were no hurricanes the tropics would get incredibly warm and the poles incredibly cold. The mid-latitude systems that thrive on baroclincy would have a feild day with the extreme temperature differences and we'd have '93 superstorms with regularity.

As far as the other things, such as stopping rain in Britian, or sucking co2 out of the air, that's just silly. Tunnels can't control jet stream winds or CO2 concentration in the atmosphere or build back the ozone layer...let's be somewhat realistic here...
Member Since: March 8, 2007 Posts: 273 Comments: 12612
95. cyclonebuster
7:01 PM GMT on July 24, 2007
Fish I have to show benifits in order to stir interst in them! I already know that they work physically many professional people have told me so at the hurricane center! All I need now is to get them modeled!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
94. sullivanweather
6:56 PM GMT on July 24, 2007
Fish,

It is theoretical crap.

Look, one of the results of a warmer world that's always touted by GW theorists is stronger storms and stronger winds.

A stronger storm will upwell cooler waters and stronger winds will cool things off by evaporational cooling.

There's many things that the Earth does to keep itself in balance. Many things that are overlooked or little understood, or even haven't been discovered yet.

Dr.Masters said himself that SST's would have to warm to 122F to have such a storm.

I don't believe this at all.

The Earth isn't large enough to have the capacity to hold such a storm. One reason why a storm develops and strenghtens is that it has balance. A cyclone can maintain itself as long as it's in balance with its surrounding environment. A storm that large cannot simply find that balance because it'll run into too many things to disrupt that balance - land, shearing winds, dry air ect...
Member Since: March 8, 2007 Posts: 273 Comments: 12612
93. Fshhead
6:56 PM GMT on July 24, 2007
Buster Buster Buster.... I told you before stop trying to show benefits of them here. What would be really good is if you actually got some feedback from professional people to find out if they do indeed do what you say. One thing for sure I told you. I DO think that they would be good power producers, as far as stopping cyclones Mmmmmm I would have to see ALOT more data on this!!!
Member Since: November 19, 2005 Posts: 9 Comments: 9960
92. Fshhead
6:55 PM GMT on July 24, 2007
Hey Sully, did you notice the article Dr. Masters is featuring in his blog????? That is the article I was telling you about a week or so ago.....
Member Since: November 19, 2005 Posts: 9 Comments: 9960
91. cyclonebuster
6:55 PM GMT on July 24, 2007
Fish I have a 157 benifits now for the Tunnels check em out!!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
90. Fshhead
6:53 PM GMT on July 24, 2007
Cruc, I hope you got caught up here. We found some really good info. while you were gone. Also my home state of Fla. is going green as we speak!!!!!!
Member Since: November 19, 2005 Posts: 9 Comments: 9960
89. crucilandia
6:47 PM GMT on July 24, 2007
There is an up and down of 6ppm, it is the uptake of photoautotrophs,

but this does not mean that natural emissions balance the uptake.
Member Since: March 6, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 2212
88. crucilandia
6:46 PM GMT on July 24, 2007
Hey fish!!!

I missed our discussions. glad to be back!
Member Since: March 6, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 2212
87. sullivanweather
6:42 PM GMT on July 24, 2007
Cruc,

If that's the case, would you care to explain where 6ppm of atmospheric CO2 goes between June and October??
Member Since: March 8, 2007 Posts: 273 Comments: 12612
86. Fshhead
6:41 PM GMT on July 24, 2007
well well well, look at who is back from their trip!!! Welcome back Cruc!!!!!!!
Member Since: November 19, 2005 Posts: 9 Comments: 9960
85. crucilandia
5:14 PM GMT on July 24, 2007
point should be realized that this CO2 is re-absorbed during the spring as plants grow in the northern hemisphere

not true.

we have poor data on flux between sources and sinks of CO2. A small inbalance can cause an increase in CO2 in the ATM. Terrestrial biomass is not well understood regarding its role in global CO2 budgets

the amount of human emitted CO2 should have increased the temperature by 1.2C but temperature has only increased 0.6C since 1900
Member Since: March 6, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 2212
84. Fshhead
9:12 AM GMT on July 24, 2007
Wow, Sully good statement there for sure!!!
Member Since: November 19, 2005 Posts: 9 Comments: 9960
83. sullivanweather
4:35 AM GMT on July 24, 2007
Simon,

Hopefully everyone will read your link so they could stop using the volcanoes produce more CO2 than humans do nonsense.

I think where everyone gets confused is that the natural world produces many times more CO2 than humans do through decay. But the point should be realized that this CO2 is re-absorbed during the spring as plants grow in the northern hemisphere, whereas human contribution to CO2 is excess, i.e. taken from a carbon sink
Member Since: March 8, 2007 Posts: 273 Comments: 12612
82. Fshhead
3:03 AM GMT on July 24, 2007
Hmmmm very interesting link you found there Simon!!! Thank you very much!
Well another thing that has been debated many times here. Hopefully like all our other ongoing topics, this finding will be challenged & all that & once again get down to the real facts. Man I am still waiting anxiously for Judith Curry to do a revised study on the most famous topic, Are severe cyclones on the rise due to anthropogenic global warming.....
I still say after all this time, how can everything that we release into the enviroment like Co2 not have negative consequences?????
Member Since: November 19, 2005 Posts: 9 Comments: 9960
80. Fshhead
7:07 PM GMT on July 23, 2007
TROUPER MY FRIEND,
Things are really good here & YES it IS amazing the progress that has been made in the last year or so!!!! Really big news man, your governor & our governor got together & now our state(Fla) is following Cali's. You have no idea how happy I was that day. They are talking of implementing solar roof project similar to you guys!!! I cannot wait!! Tesla should start appearing in a couple months, yea ALOT of progress seen. So good to hear from you & I hope all is well with you & yours!!!!
Member Since: November 19, 2005 Posts: 9 Comments: 9960
79. Trouper415
6:57 PM GMT on July 23, 2007
YOOYYOYOYOYOYOY!!!

FSHHEAD my man how are you doing? Great things are happening my friend. Look at the progress since we first started chatting it up in this blog. Absolutely amazing.

From people beliefs on Global Warming, to personal action taken, the mandates and laws being passed, to Worldly action to George Bush Acknowledging Climate Change.

Keep pushing my friend. Keep up the great work.

All our actions make big differences. it's all about planting the seeds, they will be water and we will see the wonderful benefits.

Here's to a healthy, peaceful and sustainable World for ourselves and our children to enjoy!!

Patrick
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
78. Fshhead
6:51 PM GMT on July 23, 2007

Click Me!!!!
Member Since: November 19, 2005 Posts: 9 Comments: 9960
77. sullivanweather
6:56 AM GMT on July 23, 2007
Fish, I added new ones...lol

Plus the first half of August outlook
Member Since: March 8, 2007 Posts: 273 Comments: 12612
76. Fshhead
6:48 AM GMT on July 23, 2007
Another note on the oil shortage article. The biggest thing is we need to get off the oil for transportation & energy. A few people over the time brought up the many many other things that are produced with petroleum. Well if we don't get away from the transportation & energy oil usage, we may just run out of it for all the others. That in itself is a huuuge reason to make the switch!!!!

BTW... that article is really big news considering the source of it!!
THE TECHNOLOGY IS HERE, THE TIME IS NOW!!!!!
Member Since: November 19, 2005 Posts: 9 Comments: 9960
75. Fshhead
6:37 AM GMT on July 23, 2007
There will be other ways of making a vehicle travel down a road than powering it with a gasoline engine--we just haven't seen them widely used yet.
Well soon we will, TESLA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Member Since: November 19, 2005 Posts: 9 Comments: 9960
74. Fshhead
6:36 AM GMT on July 23, 2007
Sully, I checked those out the other day when you told me lol Nice garden for sure.....
Member Since: November 19, 2005 Posts: 9 Comments: 9960
73. Fshhead
6:33 AM GMT on July 23, 2007
Buster, ahhhh yea about a month ago!!! No offense but, this is now old news here. Just look at the date of the story, it is from June 15.
Member Since: November 19, 2005 Posts: 9 Comments: 9960
72. cyclonebuster
12:55 AM GMT on July 23, 2007
What's up over here? Any news yet over here about china exceeding the USA in CO2 emissions??
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
71. Snowfire
11:44 PM GMT on July 22, 2007
Notice that the alarmism exhibited by the oil industry group is of a particular kind--it seeks to perpetuate in the public mind the idea that without oil there can be nothing, a kind of apocalyptic "no oil=TEOTWAWKI" vision. This may serve their interests, but most of us know that the truth is more complex and nuanced than this. There will be other ways of making a vehicle travel down a road than powering it with a gasoline engine--we just haven't seen them widely used yet.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
70. sullivanweather
7:59 PM GMT on July 22, 2007
Fish, I added some garden pics to my blog if you'd like to check them out.
Member Since: March 8, 2007 Posts: 273 Comments: 12612
69. Fshhead
7:40 PM GMT on July 22, 2007
Oil and gas may run short by 2015, say industry experts
Source: Copyright 2007, Independent (UK)
Date: July 22, 2007
Byline: Geoffrey Lean
Original URL



Humanity is approaching an unprecedented crisis when not enough oil and gas will be produced to keep industrial civilisation running, the world's top oilmen warned last week.

The warning which is being hailed as a "tipping point" on both sides of the Atlantic marks the first time that the industry has accepted that it may soon no longer be able to meet demand for its products. In Facing the Hard Truths about Energy, it gives authoritative support to concern about impending shortages, following a similar alert by the International Energy Agency less than two weeks ago.
The 420-page report, the most comprehensive study ever carried out into the industry, has been produced by the National Petroleum Council, a body of 175 authorities that reports to the US government. It includes the heads of the world's big oil companies including ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Occidental Petroleum, Shell and BP.It is also remarkable for the conversion of its chairman, Lee Raymond, the recently retired chief executive of ExxonMobil, who led opposition against action to tackle global warming, and became environmentalists' most prominent bogeyman. The report argues for "an effective global framework" to manage emissions of carbon dioxide "incorporating all major emitters" and urges the US to cut the pollution that causes climate change.

The report concludes that "the global supply of oil and natural gas from the conventional sources ... is unlikely to meet ... growth in demand over the next 25 years". It says that "many observers think that 80 per cent of existing oil production will need to be replaced by 2030" to keep up present supplies "in addition to volumes required to meet existing demand." But, it adds, there are "accumulating risks to replacing current production and increasing supplies".

Though vast amounts of oil and gas remain underground, "complex challenges" and "global uncertainties" are likely to put an end to "the sufficient, reliable and economic energy supplies upon which people depend". And the crunch could come sooner, with oil production becoming "a significant challenge as early as 2015". This chimes with the International Energy Agency's prediction that oil supplies could become "extremely tight" in five years.

The predictions should send a shiver down humanity's collective spine as a shortage of oil and gas has been predicted to cause industrial collapse, market crashes, resource wars and a rise in poverty. Some forecast that fascist regimes will rise out of the chaos.Chris Skrebowski, editor of the Energy Institute's Petroleum Review, said the report's publication showed the industry "'fessing up that it really has a problem on its hands". Until now, he said, "companies, full of share options, have been terrified of frightening the markets" by revealing the truth.The report says the fuel efficiency of cars should be increased "at the maximum rate possible" and there should be a crackdown on 4x4s. It calls for "aggressive energy efficiency standards for buildings, and measures to "set an effective cost for emitting carbon dioxide" to combat global warming.
Link
Well there it is ladies & gent's!!! Now you know we need to get our act together if the oil companies are saying this in an official report!!!! Even more reason to really start implementing green technologies.

Member Since: November 19, 2005 Posts: 9 Comments: 9960
68. Fshhead
7:21 AM GMT on July 22, 2007
Snow, I totally understand your point of view. Like I keep telling people though, I think the people are starting to get it(fossil fuel use) & companys are starting to realize that if they do not invest in alot of this greener technology they are going to be left out. This is going to be what switches it towards greener energy & to shy away from oil & coal.
Member Since: November 19, 2005 Posts: 9 Comments: 9960
67. Snowfire
11:51 PM GMT on July 21, 2007
I'm not trying to claim that there might not be factors which make coal power cheaper than we think it "ought" to be, though I think that has more to do with externalized costs (pollution, land degradation, etc.) than with explicit subsidies. My point is that from the utility's standpoint, it is moot whether the markets are free or rigged. They can only play the hand they are dealt, and if we expect differently of them, we must see that they are dealt different cards.

PS- for my use of the word 'they' in the previous post read "those who propose to replace traditional power sources with solar power". Hope that clarifies.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
66. Fshhead
7:38 PM GMT on July 21, 2007
First I want to say that I don't recommend this type of action & for them to claim that this was an act of terrorism is a stretch lol Good article though talking about the Hummer that got trashed recently!
Link
Member Since: November 19, 2005 Posts: 9 Comments: 9960
65. Fshhead
7:09 PM GMT on July 21, 2007
lol Snow, I am not sure who "they" is BUT, I know they blocked it. Also you said the power companies would only do this if it was required. MisterPerfect's article there says how FPL(our power company) is investing in oarnge peels for ethanol. Hmmm I am still trying to figure that one out but, it would appear that they are NOT being required to do this!!
Member Since: November 19, 2005 Posts: 9 Comments: 9960
64. sp34n119w
11:17 AM PDT on July 21, 2007
Snowfire, I was going to ask you the same question! In your post that I quoted above you said "They will have to do better than that" and I was wondering "Who is 'they'?" lol. It's funny how we all have a notion of who "they" are and we may not be talking about the same "they".
I absolutely agree that publicly held companies are obligated to maximize benefit for their shareholders. Two questions come to mind. 1)Is it in shareholders best financial interests to continue on an ultimately money-losing plan, and, 2)How much of that financial benefit is from actual profit gained through efficient use of resources and how much of it is simply from redirected tax-payer monies? Do you see my point?
If the use of coal for power generation were subject to true capitalist, free-market economics, I'm not sure that it would remain viable. With governments world-wide subsidizing the extraction, refining, transportation, distribution, and ultimate use of coal, oil, and natural gas, it seems to me impossible to make a watt-for-watt dollar-for-dollar comparison with any alternative energy source which is subject only to the forces of the free-market economy.
Unless, of course, those costs that you quoted take those factors into consideration.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
63. Snowfire
11:57 AM GMT on July 21, 2007
Interesting, Fish, but who is the "they" who blocked the coal stations and who profess to be interested in the alternatives? I'll warrant it isn't the power companies--they will only do this sort of thing if it is required of them.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
62. Fshhead
8:18 AM GMT on July 21, 2007
Funny thing though Snow, here in Fla. they just blocked 2 coal-fired plants from being built. This happened shortly before Crist's green announcement.They are aiming at wind & solar roofs. You know this is an exciting time for me, living in the state that it is happening in!
Member Since: November 19, 2005 Posts: 9 Comments: 9960
61. Snowfire
3:33 AM GMT on July 21, 2007
Posted By: sp34n119w at 5:41 PM GMT on July 20, 2007.
Is that the true cost of coal?


From the utility company's perspective, yes it is. That is what they will have to shell out to build a new facility, and that is what gets reckoned on their bottom line; and ultimately, they are who decides what kind of facility gets built. Never forget this. They have an obligation to their stockholders to operate a business in a financially solvent and responsible manner, and their leadership can be sacked or worse if they are seen to be "squandering" the company's assets on "extravagances."
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
59. Fshhead
7:18 PM GMT on July 20, 2007
Perfect, (sp?) would be citrus Canker disease. Yea I already thought of that angle. Think of all the citrus trees cut down cause of this. Alot of that was wasted & burned. Man that sure was ALOT of potential fuel that they wasted, from the fruit peels down to the cellulose from the tree itself!!!
Member Since: November 19, 2005 Posts: 9 Comments: 9960
58. Fshhead
7:12 PM GMT on July 20, 2007
SP, THANX for pointing out those tax breaks & subsidies that fossil fuel enjoys!!! I am really hoping that the new congress can start to sway some of those to alternative energy so that the playing field is leveled a little. Then let's see how those figures add up. Also like I said Johannesburg solar film will also bring costs down!
Member Since: November 19, 2005 Posts: 9 Comments: 9960
57. MisterPerfect
5:44 PM GMT on July 20, 2007
What's next? Citrus peels to ethanol

True Fish. But imagine all of the trees that develope "Citrus Kanker (sp?) Disease" can be used for fuel instead of just burning them or turning them into compost...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
56. sp34n119w
10:33 AM PDT on July 20, 2007
Posted By: Snowfire at 1:47 PM PDT on July 19, 2007.


cost $2.8 billion to install and can generate a maximum of 336 megawatts of electricity

That's $8.33 a watt! As long as coal-fired power is freely available for 40 cents a watt, ideas like this will be DOA. They will have to do better than that.


Is that the true cost of coal? In the U.S. we pay for "cheap" coal power (and oil and natural gas) through our taxes by providing tax breaks and subsidies to the various industries that produce that power. Although there are some incentives for developing and using alternative sources of power, it's hard for alt-energy companies to compete with the power of those subsidies.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
55. Fshhead
7:37 AM GMT on July 20, 2007
BTW..... Crist, being a "little" smarter than you know who..., already has installed solar panels on the Governors mansion!!!!
Member Since: November 19, 2005 Posts: 9 Comments: 9960
54. Fshhead
7:36 AM GMT on July 20, 2007
Sharp Corp. Sees Shiny Solar Business in Florida
NEW YORK - Solar panel sales in Florida could soon take a chunk out of California's dominance of the business as the Sunshine State moves ahead in the battle against greenhouse gas emissions, the head of Sharp Corp.'s solar business in the Americas said.

"Florida has the same sunshine capability as California," Ron Kenedi, vice president for Sharp's Solar Energy Solutions Group, the world's largest solar panel manufacturer, told Reuters in an interview.

"Only one area is better, the southwestern (US) desert. Other than that you are in the prime real estate for the solar game," he added.

Sharp currently sells about 65 percent to 70 percent of its solar panels in California, the country's most populous state. Kenedi estimated that less than 5 percent of its panel sales are in Florida, the country's fourth most populous state.

Florida's Gov. Charlie Crist signed several executive orders concerning greenhouse emissions last week, one of which seeks to force utilities in the state to generate 20 percent of their power from the sun, wind and other renewable sources by an unspecified date. He also signed mandates on tough greenhouse emissions reductions.

Kenedi said Sharp is working with Florida to provide a package of incentives for solar power that could help growth of the alternative energy source.

Florida solar power would blossom if the state allowed incentives for installing panels on new homes in addition to existing homes.

The incentives could be powerful, he said, because the cost of systems would be wrapped into the mortgage of new homes, which could potentially be more appealing to consumers than the large cost of placing panels on existing homes. Building the systems into new homes also cuts installation fees.

Florida should also mimic California's long-term incentive program which offers continuous benefits to solar customers that last more than a decade, Kenedi said. He said year-by-year incentives in some states cause potential customers to hesitate to buy the alternative source of energy.

Solar would do well in Florida if it also set up a robust renewable energy credit market such as the one in New Jersey, the country's second largest buyer of solar panels after California.

Beyond Florida, Kenedi expects other big states to increase incentives for solar including New York, Arizona, Texas, Maryland and Pennsylvania.

With the new US markets, as well as potential for more sales in Latin America, Kenedi said there was little danger of a solar panel supply glut once supplies of solar cell feedstock refined silicon bounce back in coming years.

"It will be a very, very long time before all the demand is met, if it ever is," he said.


Story by Timothy Gardner
Link
Member Since: November 19, 2005 Posts: 9 Comments: 9960
53. Fshhead
6:12 AM GMT on July 20, 2007
Snow, they are basing those figures on panels that are available NOW. If things work out right, solar film will drive the costs down. Also the govt. could have helped a little by passing the bills helping solar along!!!!!!!!
Member Since: November 19, 2005 Posts: 9 Comments: 9960
52. Fshhead
6:12 AM GMT on July 20, 2007
Perfect only one slight flaw in their plans. Ahhh, has to be a few PUMPS around to disperse this fuel. I STILL to this day am awaiting a station with ethanol here in Miami!!!!!
AS ALWAYS PEOPLE, THANX FOR READIN' & POSTIN'!!
Member Since: November 19, 2005 Posts: 9 Comments: 9960
51. MisterPerfect
9:00 PM GMT on July 19, 2007
What's next? Citrus peels to ethanol

BY MARC CAPUTO AND PHIL LONG
MiamiHerald.com

TALLAHASSEE -- Florida oranges might not just be for breakfast any more -- they could soon help fuel cars.

Florida Power & Light announced plans earlier Thursday to partner with a citrus processor and a new energy firm to build one of the world's first processing plant that would convert citrus peels into the gasoline additive ethanol. A likely spot for the plant: U.S. Sugar's Hendry County citrus facility.

If built in the next two years, the processing plant could produce about four million gallons of ethanol, 10 percent of which is right now blended into every gallon of gasoline motorists buy at the pump. Eventually, the technology could yield upward of 60 million citrus-to-ethanol gallons.

While the amount of fuel produced would be small, the plant's backers say it's a first step toward producing cleaner fuel, bolstering a struggling agricultural industry and weaning the state and nation off its addiction to foreign oil.

''The idea is we would have the land produce both our food and our fuel,'' said David Stewart, president of Citrus Energy, a new Boca Raton-based firm that will help FPL build the plant with about $3 million in state financial aid. ``We're turning a liability for the citrus industry into an asset.''

Stewart said the idea of turning citrus peels into ethanol has been around for 20 years, but it has only become more financially viable as the cost of oil has risen while the costs have greatly declined for the enzymes used to break down the peels of oranges and grapefruits into sugar. Once converted into sugar, the citrus mash is spiked with yeast to make ethanol.

Unlike corn, citrus peel is relatively easy to convert into ethanol and doesn't turn food into fuel, since it uses a waste product, Stewart said.

Gov. Charlie Crist, who bashed FPL recently for its failed bid recently to build a coal plant, lauded FPL for exploring more alternative fuels. Still, the process will entail using existing power supplies, which include coal and nuclear power.

A spokesman for FPL Energy, the FPL subsidiary involved in the plant, said this ''first-of-its-kind project'' shows the company is actively interested in alternative energy sources. ''No one has done this on a commercial scale,'' spokesman Steve Stengel said, declining to name the citrus processor because of ongoing negotiations.

A spokeswoman for U.S Sugar, which owns the state's largest citrus processing plant through its Southern Gardens facility, acknowledged the company is involved in the discussions. Sugar companies are also looking into ways to convert sugar-cane stalks into ethanol, though currently it's not profitable to convert food sugar into ethanol.

Last year Florida harvested about 110 million 90-pound boxes of oranges, nearly all of which went to processing plants. About half the 27 million boxes of grapefruit also went to processing plants, said Doug Bournique, executive director of the Indian River Citrus League, a grower-shipper organization based in Vero Beach.

''From my perspective this news is good,'' Bournique said. `It is a Florida-produced renewable resource that can produce energy, and it provides a potential income stream for growers throughout the state.''

What an ethanol plant will mean financially to the grower is not yet clear, Bournique said. The grower sells fruit to a processor who may sell the peel to an ethanol plant. Whether or how much individual grower benefits from the sale of peel toan ethanol plant depends on the grower's contract with the processor.

``I think it is fantastic,` said Steve Rogers, a Polk County citrus grower and scientific coordinator for the Florida Citrus Production Research Advisory Council, an industry funded research organization.

``Any movement in that direction, I think, is a good thing,` Rogers said, `because it opens up doors to new markets and essentially gives growers a shot in the arm and some optimism in the face of a lot of diseases we have been dealing with lately.''


Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 101 - 51

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40Blog Index

Top of Page

About Fshhead

Local Weather

Scattered Clouds
90 °F
Scattered Clouds

Fshhead's Recent Photos

Hurricane Andrew August 24, 1992
Hurricane Andrew August 24, 1992
Hurricane Andrew August 24, 1992
Hurricane Andrew August 24, 1992