Goodyear tires going green

Godfather.

goodyear tires going green,this is cool.
http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2012/07/ ... p=features

Godfather.

brianlux

Nice! Thanks for posting it, Godfather. Good news is always welcome!

BinauralJam

What do tires and tofu have in common? Besides being soft and mushy, not much. But that’s about to change.

Goodyear is developing a new rubber compound that uses soybean oil instead of petroleum-based products, and it could be on the road in just a few years.

The project, funded in part with a grant from the United Soybean Board, is moving from the lab to Goodyear’s proving grounds in San Angelo, Texas, where it will be evaluated to determine if it’s ready for some prime wheel time.

Mike Kearns, Manager of Global Materials Technology for Goodyear, says that early testing at the factory where it is produced indicates that the compound could increase tire tread life by as much as 10 percent over conventional materials, and that it has been found to improve the dispersion of additives used in modern rubber formulations, such as silica, which could lead to more efficient manufacturing processes.

But the main advantages to switching to locally-sourced soybean oil are sustainability and less pricing volatility compared to the petroleum products currently in use. The United States is the world’s largest producer of both soybeans and soybean oil.

If the testing goes well, Kearns says that Goodyear could begin selling the new tires as early as 2015.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2012/07/ ... z21eEp9Xdn

Neat!

JonnyPistachio

Yum, edible tires!

That is an interesting development. Where else is a lot of rubber used that could take advantage of this? Maybe shoes?

Godfather.

brianlux wrote:

Nice! Thanks for posting it, Godfather. Good news is always welcome!

can you imagine the possibiltys with this stuff as JP pointed out ? shoes, gaskets pretty much any petrolium bassed products we use every day..cynthitic motor oil ? plastics ? this is good news.

Godfather.

peacefrompaul

Good!

keeponrockin

This shit is awesome! Love seeing good news on the train!

DriftingByTheStorm

Guess it depends on your definition of "green":
Industrial Soy Production Destroying the Amazon

Also see Vandana Shiva's Stolen Harvest under Chapter 2: "Soy Imperialism" for a broader discussion of patented mono-cropping, destruction of local bio-diversity, and what is essentially the "enslavement" of indigenous workers to Western Imperial Agriculture. ::shrugs::

Why soy is bad for you and the planet

Over 80% of all soybeans grown in the U.S. (and two-thirds worldwide) are genetically-modified to withstand the herbicide glyphosate, which is usually sold under the trade name Roundup. Because so much Roundup is used on these crops, the residue levels in the harvested crops greatly exceed what until very recently was the allowable legal limit. For the technology to be commercially viable, the FDA had to triple the limit on residues of glyphosate that can remain on the crop. Many scientists have protested that permitting increased residues shows that corporate interests are given higher priority than public safety at the FDA, but the increased levels have remained in force. Glyphosate can now be easily detected in our water supply and in the bloodstreams of most Americans.

Soybeans are arguably the most environmentally offensive agricultural crop in the world.

"amazing" information on glyphosate

Roundup doesn’t destroy plants directly. Its active ingredient glyphosate cooks up a perfect storm of conditions that promote disease-causing organisms in the soil and wipe out plant defenses against those diseases (see selected reading list). Glyphosate:

1. Chelates vital nutrients, which both removes them from the food supply and dismantles plants’ defenses against disease.

2. Annihilates beneficial soil organisms, which makes the plant weaker and the pathogens even stronger.

3. Interferes with photosynthesis, reduces water use efficiency, lowers lignin content, damages and shortens root systems, causes plants to release important sugars, and changes soil pH—all of which can negatively affect crop health.

4.Dramatically promotes disease-causing organisms present in almost all soils, which in turn overrun the weakened crops with deadly infections.

In recent years, corn plants and entire fields in the Midwest have been dying earlier and earlier due to various diseases. Experts believe that the increased use of glyphosate is the primary contributor to this disease trend. They also blame Roundup for the rise in SDS and other soybean diseases on the rise.

There are actually more than 40 crop diseases reported to increase with glyphosate, and that number keeps growing. Some of those diseases are due to massive growth of fungal pathogens, which can produce toxins that are harmful for humans and animals.

Roundup persists in the environment. Based on conditions, the half-life of the herbicide is as high as 22 years. Farmers are finding that crops planted in years after Roundup is applied suffer from weakened defenses and increased soilborne diseases.

Glyphosate has been linked to sterility, hormone disruption, abnormal and lower sperm counts, miscarriages, placental cell death, birth defects, and cancer, to name a few

cincybearcat

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Guess it depends on your definition of "green":

oh jeez, that is crazy.

More proof nothing will make everyone happy!!!!!


Seriously though, that is some crazy crap I never knew about soybeans.

DriftingByTheStorm

cincybearcat wrote:

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Guess it depends on your definition of "green":

oh jeez, that is crazy.

More proof nothing will make everyone happy!!!!!


Seriously though, that is some crazy crap I never knew about soybeans.

To be fair, a lot of what i pasted there is just about glyphosate\roundup which is problematic for almost ALL conventional agricultural crops, not just soybean. Soy just happens to be the largest offender because it is used commercially not just for food production, but for its oil in industry, and for things like automotive paint, and a lot of other stuff you would never think of. Thus it is planted "excessively".

However the fact that soybean is one of the primary crops they are tearing down rainforest for is problematic, Roundup use or not.

Jason P

I didn't think we would make it to page 2 before the ag industry was attacked.

My money was on that or how this doesn't contribute to getting more cars off the road.

DriftingByTheStorm

Jason P wrote:

I didn't think we would make it to page 2 before the ag industry was attacked.

My money was on that or how this doesn't contribute to getting more cars off the road.

My point wasn't really to attack the ag industry (they get enough of that without me piling on) as much as I was attempting to make a commentary on how many "layers" there are to something being "green".

Although i have to confess that i'm not really sure how using soy is INHERENTLY any greener than using synthetics in the first place (?why?), even if it were ... you still have to reconcile that the switch to a "natural" base material is still (in this case: soy), in and of itself, inherently environmentally destructive.

This is the same principle as people building "green homes" in typical suburban tracts. Sure you may be using green products, but your living quarters is still inherently not truly that "green" in that you still (by code) are required to have road access (what's "green" about roads?) and probably use them in conventional fashion ... you still live in a giant housing tract (not really green, unless specifically sited as such, and then i would still start asking questions) ... you are probably still on standard sewer and power (neither are "green") etc etc etc ... it would probably, in truth, be "greener" to simply rent an existing apartment in the city next to a bus line. Your net *contribution* to environmental destruction would be much less than building something new that is "green".

I'm just trying to get people's brains thinkings,
wasn't necessarily trying to curse modern ag.

DS1119

cincybearcat wrote:

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Guess it depends on your definition of "green":

oh jeez, that is crazy.

More proof nothing will make everyone happy!!!!!


Seriously though, that is some crazy crap I never knew about soybeans.

We are a World of consumers. For that to happen things need to consumed. Am I missing something? :?

polaris_x

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

My point wasn't really to attack the ag industry (they get enough of that without me piling on) as much as I was attempting to make a commentary on how many "layers" there are to something being "green".

Although i have to confess that i'm not really sure how using soy is INHERENTLY any greener than using synthetics in the first place (?why?), even if it were ... you still have to reconcile that the switch to a "natural" base material is still (in this case: soy), in and of itself, inherently environmentally destructive.

This is the same principle as people building "green homes" in typical suburban tracts. Sure you may be using green products, but your living quarters is still inherently not truly that "green" in that you still (by code) are required to have road access (what's "green" about roads?) and probably use them in conventional fashion ... you still live in a giant housing tract (not really green, unless specifically sited as such, and then i would still start asking questions) ... you are probably still on standard sewer and power (neither are "green") etc etc etc ... it would probably, in truth, be "greener" to simply rent an existing apartment in the city next to a bus line. Your net *contribution* to environmental destruction would be much less than building something new that is "green".

I'm just trying to get people's brains thinkings,
wasn't necessarily trying to curse modern ag.

all your points are legitimate ... i would have posted similar thoughts but peeps don't really want to hear it ...

riotgrl

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Jason P wrote:

I didn't think we would make it to page 2 before the ag industry was attacked.

My money was on that or how this doesn't contribute to getting more cars off the road.

My point wasn't really to attack the ag industry (they get enough of that without me piling on) as much as I was attempting to make a commentary on how many "layers" there are to something being "green".

Although i have to confess that i'm not really sure how using soy is INHERENTLY any greener than using synthetics in the first place (?why?), even if it were ... you still have to reconcile that the switch to a "natural" base material is still (in this case: soy), in and of itself, inherently environmentally destructive.

This is the same principle as people building "green homes" in typical suburban tracts. Sure you may be using green products, but your living quarters is still inherently not truly that "green" in that you still (by code) are required to have road access (what's "green" about roads?) and probably use them in conventional fashion ... you still live in a giant housing tract (not really green, unless specifically sited as such, and then i would still start asking questions) ... you are probably still on standard sewer and power (neither are "green") etc etc etc ... it would probably, in truth, be "greener" to simply rent an existing apartment in the city next to a bus line. Your net *contribution* to environmental destruction would be much less than building something new that is "green".

I'm just trying to get people's brains thinkings,
wasn't necessarily trying to curse modern ag.

I guess on the one hand, we can applaud the attempt to make it "greener", but at what price. I understand that most people don't like to criticize our modern industrial ag. system but I would argue that soybeans, as they exist right now, probably verge on being synthetic. I certainly think we need to consider how bioengineered crops, like soybeans, create destruction of the environment. Is this that radically different than the destruction of the environment caused be excessive use of petroleum products?

And to qualify, the vast majority of our ag. subsidies go to the farms that produce these bioengineered crops, with the big two being corn and soybeans. Seems like a way to keep Monsanto and soybeans farmers in business by continuing to ensure that soybean crops continue to have a market.

brianlux

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Guess it depends on your definition of "green":

This brings up an excellent point, Drifting, one I hesitate to mention because I never want to bring a negative vibe to anything that promotes environmental health. Never-the-less, I have to say the soy tire issue is only mildly helpful in an environmental sense. A "green" tire on an automobile doesn't make the automobile "green". I'm not convinced it is possible to produce a sustainable automobile. I know the word "sustainable" gets thrown around a lot but it is a key word and one that is misunderstood. Wikipedia defines sustainability as "the capacity to endure". Merriam-Webster defines it as "of, relating to, or being a method of harvesting or using a resource so that the resource is not depleted or permanently damaged". I don't believe we've developed an automobile that is truly part of a sustainable way of living. I'm not sure most of what we do is truly sustainable but every step closer gives us more opportunity carry on which is why I give soy tires a hesitant thumbs up.