Ethanol/gasoline quiz -- how much do you know?
Uncle Ben
Each answer is either Ethanol or Gasoline or No Difference.
1. Which fuel has the greater chemical energy per unit volume?
2. Which fuel gives a car the greater range on a tankful of it?
3. Which fuel make a car easier to start on a cold day?
4. Which fuel costs the least per gallon in almost all states of the
US?
5. Which fuel can be produced at the least energy cost per unit energy
in the fuel?
6. Which fuel when burned completely in a car engine produces the
least CO2 per mile?
7. Which fuel when burned completely in a car engine produces the
greater horsepower?
8. Which fuel when burned completely in a car engine produces the
greater torque?
9. Which fuel poses the least pollution danger when spilled?
10. Which fuel is most likely to be available in 50 years at a
reasonable price?
11. In some cars, such as the Chevrolet Tahoe, the distance the car
can go on a given amount of chemical energy in the fuel is the same
whether the energy is in ethanol or gasoline. In other cars, such as
the Toyota Camry, one fuel can go farther. Which fuel?
12. The useful life of a car is limited for some owners by the
deterioration of its engine, and by and large, the cooler the engine
runs, the longer it will last. Which fuel burns cooler?
There is no prize for the best score on this quiz except your pride in
knowledge of a hot subject in today's transportation crisis. Check
your answers below.
Answers: 1-3. gasoline, 4-12, ethanol
If you want a citation, post a challenge and I will dig it up. We'll
duke it out in a fair fight.
DB
> Here is a little quiz for you:
I'm going to see you get some corn husk pompoms. Your little quiz is
meaningless because crop fuels are meaningless.
The world produces some half a quad/year net of crop fuels. The world
demands 175 quads/year in liquid fuels.
DG
Which fuel can you create with fermentation/distillation?
Which fuel requires less than 200 degrees of heat to "refine"?
Sure ethanol requires about 14 pounds of sugar to create a gallon of
ethanol but the world price for sugar closed today at $0.13 per pound.
Now if we could just get that pesky government to remove the import
taxes and price support for sugar we could get to something good.
That would be $1.82 for the sugar to create a gallon of ethanol, plus
it's got a Net Energy Gain (NEG) of 8x.
Drilling for more oil would take years (I've seen 10 years quoted in
articles) to see a reward. Opening the USA to world sugar prices
would help fuel the alternative to gasoline immediately.
btw, I just bought a ten pound bag of sugar at Sams for $5. That's
3.8 times the world price.
Spaceman
Nice quiz,
but unless I am blind,
you forgot one real important question.
Which fuel is 100% renewable parlty every year in most
places and year round in some places.
I think the answer is Ethanol.
:)
Uncle Ben,
Do you know the expansion rate/limit of ethanol in the
best burn conditions? (if best fuel/air ratio is achieved)
In other words, if you placed the normal amount in a
2 inch bore piston under 150psi (or if needed higher please specify)
how far would the piston travel and still have at least 150psi pressure
pushing behind
it?
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
Uncle Ben
Well, if we don't have some replacement for oil as a base for liquid
fuels after oil gets too exspensive, then 349 out of 350 people will
just have to stay home. That will put a crimp in things, won't it?
What's your solution?
Ben
Uncle Ben
> Now if we could just get that pesky government to remove the import
> taxes and price support for sugar we could get to something good.
I'll sign your petition.
Ben
Uncle Ben
wrote:
If it all burns before the expansion starts, which is what I think you
mean, the answer is zero, because as the expansion starts, the
pressure will go down immediately. If the burning continues as the
expansion starts, it depends on the details and is beyond my scope.
I think a better way to look at it if you really want to analyze it is
to ask how much work will be done on the piston during the expansion.
Experimentally, the burning ethanol executes work on the piston more
efficiently than gasoline. In other words, in my car at least,
ethanol drives the car 85% as far as the same volume of gasoline but
uses only 70% as much thermal energy.
Ben
Ben
Spaceman
> If it all burns before the expansion starts, which is what I think you
> mean, the answer is zero, because as the expansion starts, the
> pressure will go down immediately. If the burning continues as the
> expansion starts, it depends on the details and is beyond my scope.
Ok,
I was wondering and I am not worried about it all burning before
the expansion starts. (that is a timing problem that should be no problem)
:)
But I was looking for the details of it burning as it is expanding.
:)
But thanks for the answers.
> I think a better way to look at it if you really want to analyze it is
> to ask how much work will be done on the piston during the expansion.
> Experimentally, the burning ethanol executes work on the piston more
> efficiently than gasoline. In other words, in my car at least,
> ethanol drives the car 85% as far as the same volume of gasoline but
> uses only 70% as much thermal energy.
I really need the distance it would push and still be able to
keep the original pressure used to detonate it to begin with.
:(
If it does anything like I think it does (and pretty much like gas does)
then it could be used in this engine by building the engine more
designed for ethanol than designed for gas.
http://realspaceman.spaces.live.com
It would be mostly for electrical generation but if
small enough bore and placed correctly in a car,
it may make a super hybrid motor to produce electricity
for batteries better than a normal ICE of today.
I am also now thinking an even smaller bore might be even better
for a use in a car.
the length of the piston stroke is the thing that is needed to be figured
out
for best performance.
DG
Would you care what the world uses if you could produce a gallon of
ethanol in your garage for $2.00 a gallon?
Spaceman
> DB wrote:
>>
>> Uncle Ben wrote:
>>> Here is a little quiz for you:
>>
>> I'm going to see you get some corn husk pompoms. Your little quiz is
>> meaningless because crop fuels are meaningless.
>>
>> The world produces some half a quad/year net of crop fuels. The world
>> demands 175 quads/year in liquid fuels.
>
>
> Would you care what the world uses if you could produce a gallon of
> ethanol in your garage for $2.00 a gallon?
Once all the oil refineries and such were torn down space
would expand for more "farm area" and like you say some people
could start thier own crops for fuel too.
and once the world accepted ethanol or at least the US, more farmers would
grow
it to make money instead of grow "nothing" to make money as it
is now.
Of course the money for growing nothing would have to stop
to give the farmers incentives.
:)
Dean Hoffman
"Growing nothing" payments ceased with the 1996 Freedom to Farm
Bill. There are no set asides except for some that are conservation
related.
Those might be ending also. I don't know what the new farm bill is.
It was passed over the President's veto recently.
Dean
----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Spaceman
> "Growing nothing" payments ceased with the 1996 Freedom to Farm
> Bill. There are no set asides except for some that are conservation
> related.
> Those might be ending also. I don't know what the new farm bill is.
> It was passed over the President's veto recently.
Thanks for the info.
:)
Eeyore
Uncle Ben wrote:
> Here is a little quiz for you:
Piss Off.
Graham
DB
Today it is GTL and sand oil making somewhat of a dent.
> What's your solution?
You ask that like there should be a solution. The real world numbers say
it will be too little too late. We are going on 7 billion people and
they all want the luxury of what cheap energy brings.
The frivolous nature of this civilization is about over. Get use to it.
Spaceman
> The frivolous nature of this civilization is about over. Get use to
> it.
LOL
2012 is the last year I suppose huh?
LOL
Uncle Ben
I am afraid you may be right, but I'm not quite ready to give up.
Uncle Ben
wrote:
Eeyore, you hurt my feelings!
Ben
DB
Oh, I'm not giving up. I'm getting ready. So is my son and his family.
So are some friends here on the mountain. When you take the red pill, it
is about a rational assessment of the future, not hopes and wishes.
Eeyore
Uncle Ben wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> > Uncle Ben wrote:
> > > Here is a little quiz for you:
> >
> > Piss Off.
> >
> > Graham
>
> Eeyore, you hurt my feelings!
Sorry, but it really was a very stupid quiz,
Graham
Uncle Ben
wrote:
Christopher Robin would not approve. But we love you anyway.
DG
>
>DG wrote:
>> DB wrote:
>>>
>>> Uncle Ben wrote:
>>>> Here is a little quiz for you:
>>>
>>> I'm going to see you get some corn husk pompoms. Your little quiz is
>>> meaningless because crop fuels are meaningless.
>>>
>>> The world produces some half a quad/year net of crop fuels. The world
>>> demands 175 quads/year in liquid fuels.
>>
>>
>> Would you care what the world uses if you could produce a gallon of
>> ethanol in your garage for $2.00 a gallon?
>
>Once all the oil refineries and such were torn down space
>would expand for more "farm area" and like you say some people
>could start thier own crops for fuel too.
Don't think we need to tear down anything. Sugar beets are simple and
pack the sugar.
>and once the world accepted ethanol
You should read up on Brazil and what has happened since 1979 with
ethanol.
>or at least the US, more farmers would
>grow it to make money instead of grow "nothing" to make money as it
>is now. Of course the money for growing nothing would have to stop
>to give the farmers incentives.
>:)
Let them grow profitable crops...
rlbell...@gmail.com
Make gasoline from coal. It will happen anyways, as we will start
burning coal for electricity, when natural gas runs out. Once we go
back to burning coal, we will keep doing it; until the enviro-nazis
allow us to build nuclear plants. Once the nuke plants are up and
running, we can finally start that hydrogen fuel cell transportation
system.
Let's face it, we live in a democracy and our choices will soon be a
drastic reduction in our standard of living as energy prices rise, a
massive ramp up in nuclear power, or burning millions of tonnes of
coal. Only a fool would bet against people voting for coal if the
nuclear option is disallowed.
If you want to prevent global warming caused by massive coal
consumption, promote nuclar power!
DB
>
> You should read up on Brazil and what has happened since 1979 with
> ethanol.
What? With all their land, they produce, gross, 10% of their demand for
liquid fuels with ethanol, gross.
What is your point?
DB
>
> Make gasoline from coal. It will happen anyways, as we will start
> burning coal for electricity, when natural gas runs out. Once we go
> back to burning coal, we will keep doing it; until the enviro-nazis
> allow us to build nuclear plants. Once the nuke plants are up and
> running, we can finally start that hydrogen fuel cell transportation
> system.
>
> Let's face it, we live in a democracy and our choices will soon be a
> drastic reduction in our standard of living as energy prices rise, a
> massive ramp up in nuclear power, or burning millions of tonnes of
> coal. Only a fool would bet against people voting for coal if the
> nuclear option is disallowed.
>
> If you want to prevent global warming caused by massive coal
> consumption, promote nuclar power!
Nuclear is not bad. But you have no understanding of the numbers. Have
you graduated from high school yet????
Uncle Ben
I read that it is not 10% but 40% and growing. I'll search for the
citation.
Uncle Ben
DB
News articles can be worthless, just telling you what you want to hear.
Looking up hard numbers is always more reveling.
200 million people that use 10% of the liquids we do to start with.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/br.html
Population:
191,908,598
Oil - consumption:
2.1 million bbl/day (2006 est.)
2.1E6 * 5.6E6 * 365= 4.3 quads/year
They produce 5E9 gallons of ethanol a year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_Brazil
5E9 * 85E3= .42 quads/year
rlbell...@gmail.com
What numbers have I missed?
Nazi Germany made much of their fuel by the Fisher-,and aparthied era
South Africa used to make all of their fuel that way. The US has
enough coal to satisfy its synthetic crude requirement for centuries.
However, we should start ramping up nuclear now.
If you are complaining that I am innocent of the numbers of nukeplants
needed, I am assuming that it is still only about fifty-thousand of
them. That is a large number but the utilities that have them have
found them to be a license to print money, so there is no need for
subsidies. All that is needed is to fix the regulatory structures
that made them more expensive than needed. The added benefit of all
those reactors is that such accidents as do occur will be with enough
frequency that private insurers will be able to predict losses and
offer rates commensurate with the risk, allowing the repeal of the
much-derided Anderson Act.
DG
No. They mandate at least 20% ethanol blended into gasoline.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_Brazil
The success of "flex" vehicles, as they are popularly known, together
with the mandatory use of E25 blend of gasoline throughout the
country, allowed Brazil in 2006 to achieve more than 40% of fuel
consumption from sugar cane-based ethanol for the light vehicle fleet,
>What is your point?
Biofuels are cheap and will stick around as long as oil is over
$50/barrel.
Uncle Ben
> Uncle Ben wrote:
> > On Jun 21, 3:02 am, DB <a...@some.net> wrote:
> >> DG wrote:
>
> >>> You should read up on Brazil and what has happened since 1979 with
> >>> ethanol.
> >> What? With all their land, they produce, gross, 10% of their demand for
> >> liquid fuels with ethanol, gross.
>
> >> What is your point?
>
> > I read that it is not 10% but 40% and growing. I'll search for the
> > citation.
>
> News articles can be worthless, just telling you what you want to hear.
> Looking up hard numbers is always more reveling.
>
> 200 million people that use 10% of the liquids we do to start with.
>
>
> Population:
> 191,908,598
>
> Oil - consumption:
> 2.1 million bbl/day (2006 est.)
>
> 2.1E6 * 5.6E6 * 365= 4.3 quads/year
>
> They produce 5E9 gallons of ethanol a year.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_Brazil
>
> 5E9 * 85E3= .42 quads/year
According o the National Coucil on Policy Analysis
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba614/
"In 2006, ethanol made up about 48 percent of the fuel used by
gasoline-powered passenger vehicles in Brazil.
But including both gasoline-and-diesel-powered vehicles, ethanol
supplied only 20 percent of the total fuel consumed by automobiles and
trucks on Brazilian highways. "
Ben
DG
22 years later and Chernobyl is still not inhabitable. It will take
300 years for the caesium-137 to dissipate:
http://stuckincustoms.com/2007/02/02/nuclear-winter-in-chernobyl/
> The added benefit of all
>those reactors is that such accidents as do occur will be with enough
>frequency that private insurers will be able to predict losses and
>offer rates commensurate with the risk, allowing the repeal of the
>much-derided Anderson Act.
Mr. Insurance man, please tell me how much money I get when that
nuclear plant melts down. Tell me how much money my kids get for
having irradiated babies.
DB
> On Jun 21, 1:06 am, DB <a...@some.net> wrote:
>> rlbell.ns...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> Make gasoline from coal. It will happen anyways, as we will start
>>> burning coal for electricity, when natural gas runs out. Once we go
>>> back to burning coal, we will keep doing it; until the enviro-nazis
>>> allow us to build nuclear plants. Once the nuke plants are up and
>>> running, we can finally start that hydrogen fuel cell transportation
>>> system.
>>> Let's face it, we live in a democracy and our choices will soon be a
>>> drastic reduction in our standard of living as energy prices rise, a
>>> massive ramp up in nuclear power, or burning millions of tonnes of
>>> coal. Only a fool would bet against people voting for coal if the
>>> nuclear option is disallowed.
>>> If you want to prevent global warming caused by massive coal
>>> consumption, promote nuclar power!
>> Nuclear is not bad. But you have no understanding of the numbers. Have
>> you graduated from high school yet????
>
>
> What numbers have I missed?
>
> Nazi Germany made much of their fuel by the Fisher-,and aparthied era
> South Africa used to make all of their fuel that way.
So?
> The US has
> enough coal to satisfy its synthetic crude requirement for centuries.
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4061
> However, we should start ramping up nuclear now.
Sure. And a few thousand plants later and we might be making a dent.
> If you are complaining that I am innocent of the numbers of nukeplants
> needed, I am assuming that it is still only about fifty-thousand of
> them.
Gee, that's all!?
DB
So, did you miss the numbers I posted?
DB
>
> 22 years later and Chernobyl is still not inhabitable...
What does Chernobyl have to do with our nuclear industry?
> Mr. Insurance man, please tell me how much money I get when that
> nuclear plant melts down. Tell me how much money my kids get for
> having irradiated babies.
You're a dummy.
DG
>
>DG wrote:
>>
>> 22 years later and Chernobyl is still not inhabitable...
>
>What does Chernobyl have to do with our nuclear industry?
Everything... That's the downside to nukes.
>> Mr. Insurance man, please tell me how much money I get when that
>> nuclear plant melts down. Tell me how much money my kids get for
>> having irradiated babies.
>
>You're a dummy.
I nominate your neighborhood for a nuclear power plant.
Eeyore
DG wrote:
> 22 years later and Chernobyl is still not inhabitable.
Irrelevant.
No western nuclear reactor is even remotely as badly designed, constructed or
operated as the Russian RBMK design.
It didn't even have a proper *containment building* and it suffered inherent
design flaws. Plus the cause of the incident was procedural faulire, i.e they
were doing things they shouldn't have been.
Now tell me about a western reactor problem.
Graham
DG
>
>DG wrote:
>
>> 22 years later and Chernobyl is still not inhabitable.
>
>Irrelevant.
You mean you want it to be irrelevant. It's certainly relevant when
discussing nuclear power as the downside is disaster.
>No western nuclear reactor is even remotely as badly designed, constructed or
>operated as the Russian RBMK design.
Human error is not included in the design, eh?
>It didn't even have a proper *containment building* and it suffered inherent
>design flaws. Plus the cause of the incident was procedural faulire, i.e they
>were doing things they shouldn't have been.
>
>Now tell me about a western reactor problem.
>
>Graham
Three Mile Island was enough for the USA.
Wind is a much more cost efficient and has very little downside.
Eeyore
DG wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> >DG wrote:
> >
> >> 22 years later and Chernobyl is still not inhabitable.
> >
> >Irrelevant.
>
> You mean you want it to be irrelevant. It's certainly relevant when
> discussing nuclear power as the downside is disaster.
NO western reactor could fail like Chernobyl. It's a straightforward technical
impossibility through vastly superior design features.
> >No western nuclear reactor is even remotely as badly designed, constructed or
> >operated as the Russian RBMK design.
>
> Human error is not included in the design, eh?
Not in the Soviet RBMK design, certainly. Nobody's planning to build any unsafe
Soviet era reactors.
> >It didn't even have a proper *containment building* and it suffered inherent
> >design flaws. Plus the cause of the incident was procedural faulire, i.e they
> >were doing things they shouldn't have been.
> >
> >Now tell me about a western reactor problem.
> >
> >Graham
>
> Three Mile Island was enough for the USA.
The emissions were not significant. It was all media hype. Read the FACTS.
Emissions of the hazardous Iodine 131 was a realtively tiny 20 curies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident#Health_effects_and_epidemiology
The scientific community is largely agreed on the effects of the Three Mile Island
accident. The consensus is that no member of the public was injured by the
accident. "The average radiation dose to people living within ten miles of the
plant was eight millirem, and no more than 100 millirem to any single individual.
Eight millirem is about equal to a chest X-ray, and 100 millirem is about a third
of the average background level of radiation received by US residents in a year."
Flue gases from coal fired power stations are FAR more toxic.
> Wind is a much more cost efficient and has very little downside.
Except when it doesn't blow.
Graham
DG
>
>DG wrote:
>
>> Eeyore wrote:
>> >DG wrote:
>> >
>> >> 22 years later and Chernobyl is still not inhabitable.
>> >
>> >Irrelevant.
>>
>> You mean you want it to be irrelevant. It's certainly relevant when
>> discussing nuclear power as the downside is disaster.
>
>NO western reactor could fail like Chernobyl. It's a straightforward technical
>impossibility through vastly superior design features.
0% of catastrophic failure? Please...
>> >No western nuclear reactor is even remotely as badly designed, constructed or
>> >operated as the Russian RBMK design.
>>
>> Human error is not included in the design, eh?
>
>Not in the Soviet RBMK design, certainly. Nobody's planning to build any unsafe
>Soviet era reactors.
I understand there is a new design. So what?
>> >It didn't even have a proper *containment building* and it suffered inherent
>> >design flaws. Plus the cause of the incident was procedural faulire, i.e they
>> >were doing things they shouldn't have been.
>> >
>> >Now tell me about a western reactor problem.
>> >
>> >Graham
>>
>> Three Mile Island was enough for the USA.
>
>The emissions were not significant. It was all media hype. Read the FACTS.
>Emissions of the hazardous Iodine 131 was a realtively tiny 20 curies.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident#Health_effects_and_epidemiology
>
>The scientific community is largely agreed on the effects of the Three Mile Island
>accident. The consensus is that no member of the public was injured by the
>accident. "The average radiation dose to people living within ten miles of the
>plant was eight millirem, and no more than 100 millirem to any single individual.
>Eight millirem is about equal to a chest X-ray, and 100 millirem is about a third
>of the average background level of radiation received by US residents in a year."
>
>Flue gases from coal fired power stations are FAR more toxic.
The thought of a major metro area being poisoned for 300 years was
enough for Americans to reject new nuclear power plants.
>> Wind is a much more cost efficient and has very little downside.
>
>Except when it doesn't blow.
>
>Graham
Yes, the wind will quit blowing tomorrow...
Eeyore
DG wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> >DG wrote:
> >> Eeyore wrote:
> >> >DG wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> 22 years later and Chernobyl is still not inhabitable.
> >> >
> >> >Irrelevant.
> >>
> >> You mean you want it to be irrelevant. It's certainly relevant when
> >> discussing nuclear power as the downside is disaster.
> >
> >NO western reactor could fail like Chernobyl. It's a straightforward technical
> >impossibility through vastly superior design features.
>
> 0% of catastrophic failure? Please...
Correct. 0%.
Why ? How ? Every western reactor has multi-level shielding between the reactor core and the
environment. The Soviet RBMK had very little.
Critical to this (and the last item in a long chain of safety measures is the 'containment
building', built typically of 3-4 foot thick heavily steel re-inforced concrete.
The RBMK at Chernobyl had NO containment whatever (other than superficial from the weather
etc), so when it went bang, it spewed its guts everywhere.
This information is READILY available. Why are you so unaware of it ?
Graham
Eeyore
DG wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> >DG wrote:
> >>
> >> Human error is not included in the design, eh?
> >
> >Not in the Soviet RBMK design, certainly. Nobody's planning to build any unsafe
> >Soviet era reactors.
>
> I understand there is a new design. So what?
Merely 'A' new design ? Western reactors NEVER have had anything remotely in common with the
fatally flawed Soviet RBMK at Chernobyl.
It's totally chalk and cheese. There is no similarity AT ALL.
Graham
Eeyore
DG wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> >
> >Flue gases from coal fired power stations are FAR more toxic.
>
> The thought of a major metro area being poisoned for 300 years was
> enough for Americans to reject new nuclear power plants.
Flue gases have killed far, far more people than any nuclear reactor has ever done.
INCLUDING Chernobyl.
> >> Wind is a much more cost efficient and has very little downside.
> >
> >Except when it doesn't blow.
> >
> >Graham
>
> Yes, the wind will quit blowing tomorrow...
Yes, it often does. Haven't you ever noticed this on the weather reports. For every wind
turbine you have to have an equivalent capacity of fast-response back-up generation
(basically that means natural gas fired turbines) to cover those awkward times when the wind
simply doesn't want to blow.
Graham
Spaceman
> Flue gases have killed far, far more people than any nuclear reactor
> has ever done. INCLUDING Chernobyl.
Lets be silly about banning stuff and ..think....
Water has killed even more than both of those put together.
We should ban water and swimming and boating etc..!
ELOL
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
calde...@yahoo.com
To be 'patriotic' means to be inspired by love of country. Patriots
want the best for their nation, and do not support policies that
damage their country's economy, environment, or the welfare and safety
of their fellow citizens. Ethanol biofuel production harms everything
that true patriots wish to protect.
Certain television networks, government officials, and biofuel
manufacturers are misleading the American people with propaganda that
biofuels are somehow "patriotic" and freeing us from dependence on
foreign oil. They say that if biofuels cause rapid food price
inflation, then Americans should suffer with a smile because ethanol
is good for our "national security." This argument is nonsense, and a
rationalization used to take money from ordinary American citizens to
subsidize large agricultural corporations that make our biofuels. Big
business makes ethanol, not Mom and Pop, and ethanol production is
equivalent to a new tax on food that starves the poor to feed the
rich. Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul, the German Government Development
Minister, stated ahead of a recent World Bank meeting in Washington
D.C. that increasing production of biofuels is "30 to 70% responsible
for the rapid rise in food prices."
We have to use substantial amounts natural gas, coal, and oil just to
manufacture ethanol, and it takes more fossil fuel derived energy to
produce ethanol from corn than it does to make ordinary gasoline from
crude oil. America needs real energy solutions, not a destructive
product that yields no positive net energy gain. To add insult to
injury, ethanol is subsided by our hard earned tax dollars through a $.
51 per gallon federal tax credit, so we are paying more money for less
energy.
The other false argument is that ethanol is a "clean" fuel that will
reduce air pollution. That would only be true if ethanol had the same
energy content as gasoline and yielded the same gas mileage, which it
does not. Ethanol inherently has 30% less energy per gallon than
gasoline, so you have to burn much more ethanol per miles traveled.
On a per mile basis, which is the only basis that counts, ethanol does
not reduce automobile exhaust emissions.
Ethanol speeds global warming because ethanol production releases more
greenhouse gases than gasoline, and the added corn farming causes
water shortage and water pollution due to fertilizer run-off. Farming
for ethanol erodes topsoil and eliminates essential food surpluses, so
we have no food safety net when we need it the most, which is NOW!
American food banks are running low on supplies, and many low income
Americans are going hungry because our politicians wanted the
financial and political backing of the powerful biofuel lobby, a
monster they created by their own scientific ignorance and myopic
political selfishness.
The ethanol con men are acting in an "unpatriotic" way by shrinking
the human food supply as they turn countless warehouses of our own
precious food into inferior quality fuel. Our politicians have
created a world food crisis, and millions are going hungry, from
Tibet, to Indonesia, to Haiti, to Louisiana. President George W.
Bush's Katrina style mishandling of the United States food supply may
be the biggest man made disaster of the 21st century.
- - - - - - - - - -
THE GREAT BIOFUEL FAMINE
How many deaths per gallon are you getting in your SUV?
Using United Nations global poverty statistics as a base, it is now
clear that United States and European Union biofuel policies will
significantly contribute to the early, avoidable deaths of between 10
and 20 million people in the year 2008 alone. Only a post-disaster
assessment by future scientific studies and historians can give a more
exact figure for the body count of The Great Biofuel Famine, which may
continue for many years to come. Of the earth's 6.66 billion
residents, 4 billion live in poverty, and those at the bottom of that
group are already very skinny and without sufficient food to be able
to function normally. The biofuel famine will push millions of those
poorest families into the clutches of death, thanks to our leaders
turning mountain's of food into biofuel.
When humans don't get enough food to eat over a prolonged period of
time, their immune systems get stressed and weakened, and they become
vulnerable to common illnesses which the well fed can easily fight
off. That is the main, indirect way that a lack of sufficient food
kills people, but many will die of direct, emaciating starvation as
well. Even in the "wealthy" USA, the homeless, veterans, the disabled,
the elderly, and all those living on low fixed incomes are going to
have a tough time surviving our new "GREEN" policies, which John
McCain, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama currently support.
World leaders attending the recent Progressive Governance Summit in
England heard testimony from experts about the growing global food
crisis and the destructive impact of turning food into fuel. Former US
President Bill Clinton spoke frankly at the meeting, stating that
"What's really hurting the food markets is America moving into
ethanol. People there are moving into corn and you have pasta riots in
Italy related to what some people are doing in farming in America."
The USDA states that by the end of May, US wheat supplies will be
lower than at any time since 1948 because so many wheat farmers
switched to growing corn for biofuel. This spring, US farmers are
planting more wheat but less corn, so next year corn prices will be
even higher, with devastating effects on food prices around the world.
Biofuels are a dead end technology that can only lead to more human
misery, hunger, and environmental destruction no matter what biofuel
crops we grow. Two years ago the price of corn was only $2 bushel, but
expanding ethanol production has pushed corn prices up to over $6 a
bushel today, which raises the price of chicken, eggs, beef, and diary
products, as corn is our main animal feed. In the year 2007, the USA
alone turned enough corn, soybeans, and rapeseed into biofuels to
satisfy the yearly caloric needs of over 250 million people. The World
Bank states that staple food prices have increased by an incredible
80% in the 3 year period from 2005 to 2008, and that 33 nations now
face political instability as a result. There have been food riots in
at least 22 different countries, even in wealthy Italy. In Haiti, some
of the poor have resorted to eating cookies made of mud, and Haitian
food riots are beginning to look more like outright revolution.
There is no safe way to make biofuels in sufficient quantity to have
any significant positive effect on our economy. Objective, industry
independent studies show that ethanol from cellulose (switchgrass,
wood chips, crops waste, etc.) will never be cost effective.
Affordable biodiesel fuel from algae is a pipe dream that has wasted
research money since the 1970s. Making ethanol from corn takes so much
natural gas, coal, and oil to produce that it is not energy efficient,
and certainly not worth the disastrous environmental and human life
destruction it causes.
- - - - -
Respected scientific studies have shown that biofuel production is
torture for wildlife and the biosphere, and speeds global warming
faster than using ordinary gasoline, so what justification is there
for biofuel production at all?
For all the details on biofuels and far better alternatives, SEE "The
biofuel hoax is causing a world food crisis!" at:
http://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html
SEE the "Thermodynamics of the Corn-Ethanol Biofuel Cycle"
http://petroleum.berkeley.edu/papers/patzek/CRPS416-Patzek-Web.pdf
Christopher Calder http://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html
DG
>
>DG wrote:
>
>> Eeyore wrote:
>> >DG wrote:
>> >> Eeyore wrote:
>> >> >DG wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> 22 years later and Chernobyl is still not inhabitable.
>> >> >
>> >> >Irrelevant.
>> >>
>> >> You mean you want it to be irrelevant. It's certainly relevant when
>> >> discussing nuclear power as the downside is disaster.
>> >
>> >NO western reactor could fail like Chernobyl. It's a straightforward technical
>> >impossibility through vastly superior design features.
>>
>> 0% of catastrophic failure? Please...
>
>Correct. 0%.
Nonsense...
>Why ? How ? Every western reactor has multi-level shielding between the reactor core and the
>environment. The Soviet RBMK had very little.
>
>Critical to this (and the last item in a long chain of safety measures is the 'containment
>building', built typically of 3-4 foot thick heavily steel re-inforced concrete.
>
>The RBMK at Chernobyl had NO containment whatever (other than superficial from the weather
>etc), so when it went bang, it spewed its guts everywhere.
>
>This information is READILY available. Why are you so unaware of it ?
>
>Graham
Why are you so gullible as to believe that there is 0% of catastrophic
failure?
DG
Except for that pesky waste that takes hundreds of years to reach safe
levels for humans...
DG
>
>DG wrote:
>
>> Eeyore wrote:
>> >
>> >Flue gases from coal fired power stations are FAR more toxic.
>>
>> The thought of a major metro area being poisoned for 300 years was
>> enough for Americans to reject new nuclear power plants.
>
>Flue gases have killed far, far more people than any nuclear reactor has ever done.
>INCLUDING Chernobyl.
Thought we were discussing nuclear power?
>> >> Wind is a much more cost efficient and has very little downside.
>> >
>> >Except when it doesn't blow.
>> >
>> >Graham
>>
>> Yes, the wind will quit blowing tomorrow...
>
>Yes, it often does. Haven't you ever noticed this on the weather reports. For every wind
>turbine you have to have an equivalent capacity of fast-response back-up generation
>(basically that means natural gas fired turbines) to cover those awkward times when the wind
>simply doesn't want to blow.
We already have enough power plants to supplement the wind. There is
a reason that Texas oil man T Boone Pickens is heavily invested in
wind.
DG
>
>UNPATRIOTIC ETHANOL CON MEN
>
>To be 'patriotic' means to be inspired by love of country. Patriots
>want the best for their nation, and do not support policies that
>damage their country's economy, environment, or the welfare and safety
>of their fellow citizens. Ethanol biofuel production harms everything
>that true patriots wish to protect.
That Henry Ford was into harming america... So are all the hard
liquor makers. Biodiesel from waste oil sure is unpatriotic.
In case you don't get it, I'm kidding.
>Certain television networks, government officials, and biofuel
>manufacturers are misleading the American people with propaganda that
>biofuels are somehow "patriotic" and freeing us from dependence on
>foreign oil.
Iowa corn, fermented in Iowa, distilled in Iowa, ethanol for Iowans.
Does this make us more dependent on foreign oil?
>They say that if biofuels cause rapid food price inflation,
Nah... The irresponsible fed and the fact that oil has gone up seven
fold from it's low under bushie are the cause of the inflation.
>then Americans should suffer with a smile because ethanol
>is good for our "national security." This argument is nonsense, and a
>rationalization used to take money from ordinary American citizens to
>subsidize large agricultural corporations that make our biofuels. Big
>business makes ethanol, not Mom and Pop, and ethanol production is
>equivalent to a new tax on food that starves the poor to feed the
>rich.
How do you figure that? I have traded corn futures and know that all
the corn used for ethanol was less than the increased planting over
the past few years.
><SNIP>
>We have to use substantial amounts natural gas, coal, and oil just to
>manufacture ethanol, and it takes more fossil fuel derived energy to
>produce ethanol from corn than it does to make ordinary gasoline from
>crude oil.
Iowa corn, fermented at room temperature in Iowa, distilled less than
200 degree F in Iowa and you have ethanol for Iowans.
-vs-
Middle oil transported to the coast, loaded on a tanker, moves through
the persian gulf with US warship protection, through the Arabian sea,
through the Red sea, through the Mediterranean sea, across the
Atlantic to a refinery in Texas. There it is "cracked" with 1800
degrees of heat. Put on a tanker truck and taken to Iowa so that a
farmer can use it.
Please explain which uses more energy.
>America needs real energy solutions, not a destructive
>product that yields no positive net energy gain.
You lose many people when you cite propaganda that is proven wrong in
the real world. There is a US govt paper from the early 2000's that
states that corn ethanol NEG is positive. There are numerous ethanol
companies that prove your assertion incorrect.
>To add insult to
>injury, ethanol is subsided by our hard earned tax dollars through a $.
>51 per gallon federal tax credit, so we are paying more money for less
>energy.
How much does big oil get per gallon of gas? Please be sure to factor
in the US military protection for their tankers and the tax breaks.
>The other false argument is that ethanol is a "clean" fuel that will
>reduce air pollution. That would only be true if ethanol had the same
>energy content as gasoline and yielded the same gas mileage, which it
>does not.
Wrong. Ethanol reduces air pollution even when it's mixed in with
gasoline.
>Ethanol inherently has 30% less energy per gallon than
>gasoline, so you have to burn much more ethanol per miles traveled.
>On a per mile basis, which is the only basis that counts, ethanol does
>not reduce automobile exhaust emissions.
Yes it does.
><SNIP>
>How many deaths per gallon are you getting in your SUV?
Good question. How many people have been killed by oil mercenaries?
><SNIP>
>Biofuels are a dead end technology
Fermentation and distillation are dead end technology?
><SNIP>
>Two years ago the price of corn was only $2 bushel, but
>expanding ethanol production has pushed corn prices up to over $6 a
>bushel today, which raises the price of chicken, eggs, beef, and diary
>products, as corn is our main animal feed.
What has the US dollar done in that period? What about the massive
expansion of acreage planted during that same period?
><SNIP>
>There is no safe way to make biofuels in sufficient quantity to have
>any significant positive effect on our economy.
Please... Every gallon of ethanol offsets gasoline usage.
>Objective, industry
>independent studies show that ethanol from cellulose (switchgrass,
>wood chips, crops waste, etc.) will never be cost effective.
This from the same ivory tower quacks (probably paid off by the oil
lobby) who claimed that ethanol had a negative net energy gain.
>Affordable biodiesel fuel from algae is a pipe dream that has wasted
>research money since the 1970s.
How about the algae that they grow using CO2 from power plant tower
flue gases? Is that wasted research money?
Micro-algae are the fastest growing photosynthesizing organisms on the
planet. To think that we will be unable to harness their power is
ignorant.
With the prices of oil these days, biofuels are here to stay.
Eeyore
Spaceman wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> > Flue gases have killed far, far more people than any nuclear reactor
> > has ever done. INCLUDING Chernobyl.
>
> Lets be silly about banning stuff and ..think....
> Water has killed even more than both of those put together.
> We should ban water and swimming and boating etc..!
You're absolutely right.
If anything is or even *might be* even slightly enjoyable, it should be
banned instantly upon pain of death.
That's how modern politics is going.
Graham
Eeyore
"calde...@yahoo.com" wrote:
> UNPATRIOTIC ETHANOL CON MEN
Too long post. But sounded interesting.
Could you trim it to so you keep to the fundamentals without 'going over
the top' ?
Graham
Eeyore
DG wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> >DG wrote:
> >> Eeyore wrote:
> >> >DG wrote:
> >> >> Eeyore wrote:
> >> >> >DG wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> 22 years later and Chernobyl is still not inhabitable.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Irrelevant.
> >> >>
> >> >> You mean you want it to be irrelevant. It's certainly relevant when
> >> >> discussing nuclear power as the downside is disaster.
> >> >
> >> >NO western reactor could fail like Chernobyl. It's a straightforward technical
> >> >impossibility through vastly superior design features.
> >>
> >> 0% of catastrophic failure? Please...
> >
> >Correct. 0%.
>
> Nonsense...
Prove otherwise.
And get an education will you whilst you're at it ? Simple naysaying like yours is worthless.
Graham
Spaceman
> Why are you so gullible as to believe that there is 0% of catastrophic
> failure?
Because he is not really an engineer and knows nothing about nuclear
power plants.
He seems to forget they have to be operated by humans
and I do not know a human with 0% failure rate, Do you?
Eeyore
DG wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> >DG wrote:
> >> Eeyore wrote:
> >> >DG wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Human error is not included in the design, eh?
> >> >
> >> >Not in the Soviet RBMK design, certainly. Nobody's planning to build any unsafe
> >> >Soviet era reactors.
> >>
> >> I understand there is a new design. So what?
> >
> >Merely 'A' new design ? Western reactors NEVER have had anything remotely in common with the
> >fatally flawed Soviet RBMK at Chernobyl.
> >
> >It's totally chalk and cheese. There is no similarity AT ALL.
>
> Except for that pesky waste that takes hundreds of years to reach safe
> levels for humans...
So you're also equally incompetently unaware of very sensible modern nuclear 'waste' storage
methods' eh ? The best option currently ? Dry storage. Works a treat.
Stupidity is endemic I see.
Graham
Eeyore
DG wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> >DG wrote:
> >> Eeyore wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Flue gases from coal fired power stations are FAR more toxic.
> >>
> >> The thought of a major metro area being poisoned for 300 years was
> >> enough for Americans to reject new nuclear power plants.
> >
> >Flue gases have killed far, far more people than any nuclear reactor has ever done.
> >INCLUDING Chernobyl.
>
> Thought we were discussing nuclear power?
In what way is NUCLEAR 'not' POWER ?
FWIW, I was once a mild sceptic about nuclear power. Then I saw how well it worked in the real
world. As a design engineer, I respect that. Those guys actually got it right ! OK, there are
some caveats, but overall, more success than failure by a huge margin.
Graham
Eeyore
DG wrote:
> That Henry Ford was into harming america...
Oh God.
LOONIE ALERT !
Eeyore
DG wrote:
> Biodiesel from waste oil sure is unpatriotic.
I think you need to take the medications you forgot yesterday.
Graham
Eeyore
Spaceman wrote:
> DG wrote:
> > Why are you so gullible as to believe that there is 0% of catastrophic
> > failure?
>
> Because he is not really an engineer
Damn well am and a bloody fine one.
> and knows nothing about nuclear power plants.
I have numerous books on the subject here. I first recall studying nuclear
power around age 10. Something I very much doubt YOU do.
> He seems to forget they have to be operated by humans
> and I do not know a human with 0% failure rate, Do you?
That's why TMI was so important. MAJOR lessons were learnt from it both at
the personal and technical levels. I'd compare it to the role of CRM in
aviation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crew_Resource_Management
PLEASE read it. Seriosuly PLEASE. It says it all. It illustrates exactly
where systems can break down due to human foibles.
Graham
Eeyore
DG wrote:
> Why are you so gullible as to believe that there is 0% of catastrophic
> failure?
Show me just ONE catastrophic failure (as in life theatening) of a western nuclear power reactor.
According to YOU it shouldn't be hard to find, so I look forward to seeing your response.
Graham
Eeyore
DG wrote:
> Except for that pesky waste that takes hundreds of years to reach safe
> levels for humans...
So keep it away from humans you bloody IDIOT.
No different from other industrial waste.
Graham
Eeyore
DG wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> >DG wrote:
> >> Eeyore wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Flue gases from coal fired power stations are FAR more toxic.
> >>
> >> The thought of a major metro area being poisoned for 300 years was
> >> enough for Americans to reject new nuclear power plants.
> >
> >Flue gases have killed far, far more people than any nuclear reactor has ever done.
> >INCLUDING Chernobyl.
>
> Thought we were discussing nuclear power?
Just POWER.
Coal kills thousands ever year.
Nuclear, maybe one or two.
Graham
Spaceman
> Spaceman wrote:
>
>> DG wrote:
>>> Why are you so gullible as to believe that there is 0% of
>>> catastrophic failure?
>>
>> Because he is not really an engineer
>
> Damn well am and a bloody fine one.
>
>
>> and knows nothing about nuclear power plants.
>
> I have numerous books on the subject here. I first recall studying
> nuclear power around age 10. Something I very much doubt YOU do.
Ever heard of 3 mile island?
> That's why TMI was so important. MAJOR lessons were learnt from it
> both at the personal and technical levels. I'd compare it to the role
> of CRM in aviation.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crew_Resource_Management
>
> PLEASE read it. Seriosuly PLEASE. It says it all. It illustrates
> exactly where systems can break down due to human foibles.
That alone shows you really need to think about humans again.
and so does whoever wrote that...
There is no system that can predict a human mistake in any
part of any machine.
To make such a system would have to have the brain capacity
of every human ever born plus some and also every machine design
that has ever been made and will ever be made.
It will never be a 0% failure rate.. ever as long as
it even works "for humans" even if it worked without them
operating them.
Even mother nature could screw stuff like a Nuke plant up.
:)
Just get rid of the 0% rate and think about a more logical one
such as only about 5 % or something at least doable in reality.
DG
>
>DG wrote:
>
>> Eeyore wrote:
>> >DG wrote:
>> >> Eeyore wrote:
>> >> >DG wrote:
>> >> >> Eeyore wrote:
>> >> >> >DG wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> 22 years later and Chernobyl is still not inhabitable.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Irrelevant.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You mean you want it to be irrelevant. It's certainly relevant when
>> >> >> discussing nuclear power as the downside is disaster.
>> >> >
>> >> >NO western reactor could fail like Chernobyl. It's a straightforward technical
>> >> >impossibility through vastly superior design features.
>> >>
>> >> 0% of catastrophic failure? Please...
>> >
>> >Correct. 0%.
>>
>> Nonsense...
>
>Prove otherwise.
You are the one claiming 0% chance. Not me. So an attack on a
nuclear power plant in the USA would still result in nothing
happening? Compare that to an attack on a windmill?
>And get an education will you whilst you're at it ?
I have a degree from the University of Illinois. The CIS department
was number one in the country the year I got in.
>Simple naysaying like yours is worthless.
Saying "0% of catastrophic failure" is worthless.
DG
Treat? Not if you live in Kentucky:
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/Pre_96/July95/373.txt.html
>Stupidity is endemic I see.
>
>Graham
You could learn instead of fighting it. Sure, I'm stupid but know
more about this subject than you.
DG
>
>In what way is NUCLEAR 'not' POWER ?
>
>FWIW, I was once a mild sceptic about nuclear power. Then I saw how well it worked in the real
>world. As a design engineer, I respect that. Those guys actually got it right ! OK, there are
>some caveats, but overall, more success than failure by a huge margin.
>
>Graham
Problem is those failures are catastrophic.
DG
Why exclude Chernobyl? It's the current worst case scenario and that
land won't be inhabitable for at least 300 years.
Here's a map for you to ponder:
http://tinyurl.com/59zk8g
DG
>
>Spaceman wrote:
>
>> DG wrote:
>> > Why are you so gullible as to believe that there is 0% of catastrophic
>> > failure?
>>
>> Because he is not really an engineer
>
>Damn well am and a bloody fine one.
Did you degree from a University? What University? What type of
engineer is listed on your degree?
>> and knows nothing about nuclear power plants.
>
>I have numerous books on the subject here. I first recall studying nuclear
>power around age 10. Something I very much doubt YOU do.
Assimilating knowledge is different than having words appear before
your eyeballs.
>> He seems to forget they have to be operated by humans
>> and I do not know a human with 0% failure rate, Do you?
>
>That's why TMI was so important. MAJOR lessons were learnt from it both at
>the personal and technical levels. I'd compare it to the role of CRM in
>aviation.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crew_Resource_Management
>
>PLEASE read it. Seriosuly PLEASE. It says it all. It illustrates exactly
>where systems can break down due to human foibles.
>
>Graham
How does this(CRM) leads you to believe that humans have a 0% chance
of failure?
DG
>
>DG wrote:
>
>> Except for that pesky waste that takes hundreds of years to reach safe
>> levels for humans...
>
>So keep it away from humans you bloody IDIOT.
I'm certainly an idiot but just want to know where humans are not?
>No different from other industrial waste.
>
>Graham
Except for that pesky halflife...
DG
>
>DG wrote:
>
>> Eeyore wrote:
>> >DG wrote:
>> >> Eeyore wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >Flue gases from coal fired power stations are FAR more toxic.
>> >>
>> >> The thought of a major metro area being poisoned for 300 years was
>> >> enough for Americans to reject new nuclear power plants.
>> >
>> >Flue gases have killed far, far more people than any nuclear reactor has ever done.
>> >INCLUDING Chernobyl.
>>
>> Thought we were discussing nuclear power?
>
>Just POWER.
OOOOohhhhhh..... Just power....
>Coal kills thousands ever year.
So?
>Nuclear, maybe one or two.
Do birth defects from depleted uranium count or do we just count dead
people?
Eeyore
Spaceman wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> > Spaceman wrote:
> >> DG wrote:
> >
> >>> Why are you so gullible as to believe that there is 0% of
> >>> catastrophic failure?
> >>
> >> Because he is not really an engineer
> >
> > Damn well am and a bloody fine one.
> >
> >
> >> and knows nothing about nuclear power plants.
> >
> > I have numerous books on the subject here. I first recall studying
> > nuclear power around age 10. Something I very much doubt YOU do.
>
> Ever heard of 3 mile island?
I have a book on the subject here by IIRC, 'The American Academy of
Sciences'.
It was mostly media hype. All covered in the book. No-one died.
Graham
Eeyore
DG wrote:
> You are the one claiming 0% chance. Not me. So an attack on a
> nuclear power plant in the USA would still result in nothing
Attack with what ?
Bows and arrows ?
Graham
Spaceman
But it kills your 0% failure rate.
simple as that.
:)
Eeyore
DG wrote:
> I have a degree from the University of Illinois.
Lucky you.
I have an IQ of 154.
> The CIS department was number one in the country the year I got in.
CIS ?
WTF is that ? Wikipedia doesn't seem to know. At least not in any relevant discipline.
Graham
DG
Eeyore
DG wrote:
> Saying "0% of catastrophic failure" is worthless.
Provide evidence of even a SINGLE catastrophic failure of ANY western nuclear power
reactor.
Hint: there isn't one.
Graham
Eeyore
DG wrote:
> Treat? Not if you live in Kentucky:
> http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/Pre_96/July95/373.txt.html
"Approximately 4.75 million cubic feet of low-level
radioactive waste is buried at the Maxey Flats landfill, which
operated from 1963 to 1977."
LOW LEVEL meaning almost certainly medical waste.
NOTHING TO DO with power reactors.
Damn, you're
A. Stupid.
B. Gullible.
Graham
Spaceman
> I have an IQ of 154.
tiny partial IQ test.
1:) The shortest distance between two points is
A) a straight line
B) a curved line
C) a space-time curved line.
D) all of the above.
C,mon Eeyore.
Let me partially test your IQ.
and answer that one question above.
Eeyore
DG wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> >
> >In what way is NUCLEAR 'not' POWER ?
> >
> >FWIW, I was once a mild sceptic about nuclear power. Then I saw how well it worked in >the real
> world. As a design engineer, I respect that. Those guys actually got it right ! OK, > there are
> some caveats, but overall, more success than failure by a huge margin.
> >
> >Graham
>
> Problem is those failures are catastrophic.
Utter NONSENSE.
People as stupid as you should be removed from the decision-making process, because you haven't the
tiniest idea what you're on about.
It's called meritocracy.
Graham
Eeyore
DG wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> >DG wrote:
> >
> >> Why are you so gullible as to believe that there is 0% of catastrophic
> >> failure?
> >
> >Show me just ONE catastrophic failure (as in life theatening) of a western nuclear power >reactor.
> >
> >According to YOU it shouldn't be hard to find, so I look forward to seeing your response.
>
> Why exclude Chernobyl?
Because it's nothing even remotely like ANY reactor built in the West.
It was a totally FUCKED design from the START.
DO SOME BLOODY RESEARCH and READING instead of continuing to whinge like a crybaby.
Graham
Eeyore
DG wrote:
> Eeyore <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Spaceman wrote:
> >> DG wrote:
> >
> >> > Why are you so gullible as to believe that there is 0% of catastrophic
> >> > failure?
> >>
> >> Because he is not really an engineer
> >
> >Damn well am and a bloody fine one.
>
> Did you degree from a University? What University?
University of London. My school was encouraging me to apply to CAMBRIDGE.
You've heard of Oxford and Cambridge ???
Now FUCK OFF.
Graham
Eeyore
DG wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> >DG wrote:
> >
> >> Except for that pesky waste that takes hundreds of years to reach safe
> >> levels for humans...
> >
> >So keep it away from humans you bloody IDIOT.
>
> I'm certainly an idiot but just want to know where humans are not?
>
> >No different from other industrial waste.
>
> Except for that pesky halflife...
Vastly over-rated. The actinides decay MUCH faster.
Graham
Eeyore
DG wrote:
> Do birth defects from depleted uranium count or do we just count dead
> people?
Have you even the tiniest clue what *depleted* Uranium IS and what it's used for ?
I await your response with great interest.
Graham
Eeyore
Spaceman wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> >
> > It was mostly media hype. All covered in the book. No-one died.
>
> But it kills your 0% failure rate.
It wasn't a catastrophic failure. End of story. The fail safes, failed
safe.
Graham
Eeyore
DG wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> >DG wrote:
> >
> >> You are the one claiming 0% chance. Not me. So an attack on a
> >> nuclear power plant in the USA would still result in nothing
> >
> >Attack with what ?
> >
> >Bows and arrows ?
>
>
> How about a bomb placed by an employee?
And how would the employee get a bomb in ? What kind of bomb that could
do any serious damage ?
Have you ever heard of psychological profiling btw ?
Graham
Eeyore
Spaceman wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> > I have an IQ of 154.
>
> tiny partial IQ test.
Piss off
Spaceman
Afraid?
A normal person with an IQ of 154 would have jumped on that and
answered a straight line and would be proud of knowing such a
simple geometrical fact.
:)
you failed.
Your IQ is not 154.
so..
you and your lie about your IQ should....
PISS OFF.
rlbell...@gmail.com
> "rlbell.ns...@gmail.com" <rlbell.ns...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jun 21, 1:06 am, DB <a...@some.net> wrote:
> >> rlbell.ns...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >> > Make gasoline from coal. It will happen anyways, as we will start
> >> > burning coal for electricity, when natural gas runs out. Once we go
> >> > back to burning coal, we will keep doing it; until the enviro-nazis
> >> > allow us to build nuclear plants. Once the nuke plants are up and
> >> > running, we can finally start that hydrogen fuel cell transportation
> >> > system.
>
> >> > Let's face it, we live in a democracy and our choices will soon be a
> >> > drastic reduction in our standard of living as energy prices rise, a
> >> > massive ramp up in nuclear power, or burning millions of tonnes of
> >> > coal. Only a fool would bet against people voting for coal if the
> >> > nuclear option is disallowed.
>
> >> > If you want to prevent global warming caused by massive coal
> >> > consumption, promote nuclar power!
>
> >> Nuclear is not bad. But you have no understanding of the numbers. Have
> >> you graduated from high school yet????
>
> >What numbers have I missed?
>
> >Nazi Germany made much of their fuel by the Fisher-,and aparthied era
> >South Africa used to make all of their fuel that way. The US has
> >enough coal to satisfy its synthetic crude requirement for centuries.
> >However, we should start ramping up nuclear now.
>
> >If you are complaining that I am innocent of the numbers of nukeplants
> >needed, I am assuming that it is still only about fifty-thousand of
> >them. That is a large number but the utilities that have them have
> >found them to be a license to print money, so there is no need for
> >subsidies. All that is needed is to fix the regulatory structures
> >that made them more expensive than needed.
>
> 22 years later and Chernobyl is still not inhabitable. It will take
> 300 years for the caesium-137 to dissipate:http://stuckincustoms.com/2007/02/02/nuclear-winter-in-chernobyl/
>
> > The added benefit of all
> >those reactors is that such accidents as do occur will be with enough
> >frequency that private insurers will be able to predict losses and
> >offer rates commensurate with the risk, allowing the repeal of the
> >much-derided Anderson Act.
>
> Mr. Insurance man, please tell me how much money I get when that
> nuclear plant melts down. Tell me how much money my kids get for
> having irradiated babies.
>
> -= http://www.flickr.com/photos/rosepetal236/ =-
The problem with insuring nuclear reactors, right now, is that there
are not enough of them and they are too safe. The reason we have
affordable car insurance is that we have statistically meaningful
numbers on the frequency and severity of the accidents, so insurers
can plan out how much money they have to have available. Enough
people take out policies that the premiums paid by all drivers is more
than enough to match the payouts of all the accidents, in any given
year.
For eletrical power reactors neither designed, nor operated by idiots,
the safety record is just too good (even the other russian built
RBMK1000's have a good safety record). There have not been enough
accidents to build up a statistically significant model to predict the
future and there are not enough reactors for an affordable premium
that would allay the underwriters' fears if an accident happened
tomorrow, instead of a hundred years from now.
My bad: It is the Price-Anderson (sp?) act that has the US federaal
government underwrite the nuclear power industry.
rlbell...@gmail.com
> rlbell.ns...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Jun 21, 1:06 am, DB <a...@some.net> wrote:
> >> rlbell.ns...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >>> Make gasoline from coal. It will happen anyways, as we will start
> >>> burning coal for electricity, when natural gas runs out. Once we go
> >>> back to burning coal, we will keep doing it; until the enviro-nazis
> >>> allow us to build nuclear plants. Once the nuke plants are up and
> >>> running, we can finally start that hydrogen fuel cell transportation
> >>> system.
> >>> Let's face it, we live in a democracy and our choices will soon be a
> >>> drastic reduction in our standard of living as energy prices rise, a
> >>> massive ramp up in nuclear power, or burning millions of tonnes of
> >>> coal. Only a fool would bet against people voting for coal if the
> >>> nuclear option is disallowed.
> >>> If you want to prevent global warming caused by massive coal
> >>> consumption, promote nuclar power!
> >> Nuclear is not bad. But you have no understanding of the numbers. Have
> >> you graduated from high school yet????
>
> > What numbers have I missed?
>
> > Nazi Germany made much of their fuel by the Fisher-,and aparthied era
> > South Africa used to make all of their fuel that way.
>
>
> > The US has
> > enough coal to satisfy its synthetic crude requirement for centuries.
>
>
> > However, we should start ramping up nuclear now.
>
>
> > If you are complaining that I am innocent of the numbers of nukeplants
> > needed, I am assuming that it is still only about fifty-thousand of
> > them.
>
Unlike wind turbines and other "green" energy, they pay for themselves
while lowering the price of energy, aa win-win scenario.
rlbell...@gmail.com
>
> 22 years later and Chernobyl is still not inhabitable. It will take
> 300 years for the caesium-137 to dissipate:http://stuckincustoms.com/2007/02/02/nuclear-winter-in-chernobyl/
>
They moved back a number people whose depression at being displaced
from their homes was causing worse health effects than the radiation
ever would.
Saying that the caesium-137 will take 300 years to dissipate is
meaningless without also stating te current concentration.
The deer population does seem to be thriving.
rlbell...@gmail.com
> DB wrote:
>
> >DG wrote:
>
> >> 22 years later and Chernobyl is still not inhabitable...
>
> >What does Chernobyl have to do with our nuclear industry?
>
> Everything... That's the downside to nukes.
>
> >> Mr. Insurance man, please tell me how much money I get when that
> >> nuclear plant melts down. Tell me how much money my kids get for
> >> having irradiated babies.
>
>
> I nominate your neighborhood for a nuclear power plant.
>
> -= http://www.flickr.com/photos/rosepetal236/ =-
Can I get one, too?
Can I also get a cask of shielded high level waste to use as a free
hot water heater, via a heat exchanger?
Bill Ward
> Eeyore <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>DG wrote:
>>
>>> Except for that pesky waste that takes hundreds of years to reach safe
>>> levels for humans...
>>
>>So keep it away from humans you bloody IDIOT.
>
>
> I'm certainly an idiot but just want to know where humans are not?
>
>
>>No different from other industrial waste.
>>
>>Graham
>
>
> Except for that pesky halflife...
What's the half-life of ordinary mercury?
rlbell...@gmail.com
>
> Three Mile Island was enough for the USA.
>
> Wind is a much more cost efficient and has very little downside.
>
Have you read any of the stats on numbers of people killed in wind
turbine servicing accidents?
Three Mile Island killed nobody. Three Mile Island injured nobody.
The only noticeable change for anyone living in the area after the
accident was their electricity rates went up as the plant was too
badly damaged to restart.
Chernobyl was not just a result of a bad design, it was the result of
deliberate sabotage. To set up the experiment ordered from some
apparatchik in Moscow, they had to deactivate many of the reactor's
safety systems.
Three Mile Island was a non-event for anyone not actually financially
involved with the plant, even though poor control layout managed to
get the operators to always do the worst possible thing at the worst
possible moment.
rlbell...@gmail.com
wrote:
> DG wrote:
> > Except for that pesky waste that takes hundreds of years to reach safe
> > levels for humans...
>
> So keep it away from humans you bloody IDIOT.
>
>
> Graham
You forgot that other industrial waste never stops being a threat.
After a few hundred years, nuclear waste stops being a problem.
More importantly, aftr a few hundred years, the whole earth is less
radioactive than before. If radiation is dangerous to the
environment, we have been sadly negligent in our duty to convert long
lived isotopes to shortlived ones.
DG
DG
>
>DG wrote:
>
>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >Spaceman wrote:
>> >> DG wrote:
>> >
>> >> > Why are you so gullible as to believe that there is 0% of catastrophic
>> >> > failure?
>> >>
>> >> Because he is not really an engineer
>> >
>> >Damn well am and a bloody fine one.
>>
>> Did you degree from a University? What University?
>
>University of London. My school was encouraging me to apply to CAMBRIDGE.
So they wanted to rid themselves of you. Guess you didn't get a
degree. Guess you didn't have a discipline.
>You've heard of Oxford and Cambridge ???
My cousin is a professor of physics at Oxford.
>Now FUCK OFF.
>
>Graham
LOL... You are a treat to communicate with...
DG
That's great but the area is contaminated for three hundred plus
years...
DG
>
>
>DG wrote:
>
>> Do birth defects from depleted uranium count or do we just count dead
>> people?
>
>Have you even the tiniest clue what *depleted* Uranium IS and what it's used for ?
Yes.
>I await your response with great interest.
>
>Graham
DG
>
>
>DG wrote:
>
>> Eeyore wrote:
>> >DG wrote:
>> >
>> >> You are the one claiming 0% chance. Not me. So an attack on a
>> >> nuclear power plant in the USA would still result in nothing
>> >
>> >Attack with what ?
>> >
>> >Bows and arrows ?
>>
>>
>> How about a bomb placed by an employee?
>
>And how would the employee get a bomb in ?
Walk through the front door.
>What kind of bomb that could do any serious damage ?
C4.
>Have you ever heard of psychological profiling btw ?
>
>Graham
Of course, I also have an undergrad degree in psychology.
DG
>
>
>DG wrote:
>
>> Eeyore wrote:
>> >
>> >In what way is NUCLEAR 'not' POWER ?
>> >
>> >FWIW, I was once a mild sceptic about nuclear power. Then I saw how well it worked in >the real
>> world. As a design engineer, I respect that. Those guys actually got it right ! OK, > there are
>> some caveats, but overall, more success than failure by a huge margin.
>> >
>> >Graham
>>
>> Problem is those failures are catastrophic.
>
>Utter NONSENSE.
Chernobyl was catastrophic. It still is. Birth defects are a reality
to those exposed...
>People as stupid as you should be removed from the decision-making process, because you haven't the
>tiniest idea what you're on about.
>
>It's called meritocracy.
Is that what bushie calls it? Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense,
Alberto Gonzalez as Attorney General...
DG
>
>Unlike wind turbines and other "green" energy, they pay for themselves
>while lowering the price of energy, aa win-win scenario.
Wind is the win/win. Nukes have tons of waste that takes years to
reach a safe level.
DG
>
>On Jun 21, 10:17 am, DG <d.j.good...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> 22 years later and Chernobyl is still not inhabitable. It will take
>> 300 years for the caesium-137 to dissipate:http://stuckincustoms.com/2007/02/02/nuclear-winter-in-chernobyl/
>>
>
>They moved back a number people whose depression at being displaced
>from their homes was causing worse health effects than the radiation
>ever would.
Who is "they" and why should I trust them? Relocating hundreds of
thousands of refugees is a horrible problem.
>Saying that the caesium-137 will take 300 years to dissipate is
>meaningless without also stating te current concentration.
Look it up then...
>The deer population does seem to be thriving.
Toxic deer, how wonderful! Have some stew... Those radioactive bones
made the stock...
DG
What industrial waste comes from a wind mill? What industrial waste
comes from ethanol?