Ethanol increases air pollution in addition to raising food prices!
calde...@yahoo.com
"Politics fueling rising food prices"
http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/322-05082008-1530897.html
"Ethanol increases two of the most dangerous air pollutants — volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) by 4 to 7 percent
over gasoline, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.
Together, VOC and NOx cause thousands of premature deaths each year,
the EPA said."
----------------------
From my own webpage on biofuels at http://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html
"Biofuel advocates falsely claim that ethanol is a "clean fuel" that
will reduce air pollution. Ethanol blended fuels burn cleaner on a
per gallon basis, but not on a miles traveled basis, because ethanol
contains 33% less energy than gasoline. Ethanol blended fuels
actually emit more CO2 per miles driven than ordinary gasoline in
addition to emitting far more CO2 during their manufacture."
"Despite all of this bad news, biofuel fans and many television news
anchors keep mindlessly repeating the false claim that ethanol is
"green" and "renewable." If we dramatically speed up global warming
by producing ethanol, soon we won't be able to "renew" much of
anything."
Christopher Calder
Bob Eld
<calde...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f95f76e5-1af7-45bf...@k1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/322-05082008-1530897.html
Christopher Calder
Total Bull Shit! Ethanol has less energy that gasoline, this is true, but it
also has less CARBON. That's why it has less energy. It ain't rocket surgery
folks! Secondly the carbon in Ethanol is cyclic and biological. It goes from
the air to the plant to the fuel to the air in a cycle. None of it is
fossil. It is fossil carbon released from millions of years ago that adds to
the CO2 unbalance.
Calder is just a nay saying shill for Exxon, Saudi Arabia and others who
want to kill America's ability to become self sufficient in energy. He is
disingenuous at best, follow the money! Who wants to rob American and why?
mcs
wall street journal just wrote a report and said ethanol was not economical
or effecient in green house gases. who to believe? I don't know anymore
Gates even seems to be selling. There are two sides and the side with just
ethanol seems to be losing. From a gut perspective one would think it would
succeed
Rob Dekker
"mcs" <mcsantp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:dGIUj.25700$aA1.23663@trnddc05...
>
> wall street journal just wrote a report and said ethanol was not economical or effecient in green house gases. who to believe? I
> don't know anymore
We have seen similar 'confusing' stories about Global Warming. My advice :
Don't 'believe' anything. Do your research yourself. Check the background info from the Wall Street Journal, and any other story
your hear.
There are always two sides to every story. Go back to the science, and then form your own opinion. Then feel free to test your
opinion here on the NG.
Belief does not get us anywhere on this topic. Too many people with too many interests and too many preconceptions about what they
perceive is the truth.
Media are typically increadably shallow in this country, and their stories are tainted by opions. Go back to science, and find the
facts.
> Gates even seems to be selling. There are two sides and the side with just ethanol seems to be losing. From a gut perspective one
> would think it would succeed
Go back to science, and find the facts. Keep a fair amount of common sense to filter the nonsense from the facts.
>
>
Sri Bodhi Prana
> Go back to science, and find the facts. Keep a fair amount of common sense to filter the nonsense from the facts.
Most people do not have enough understanding of science to understand
what is real science and false science, much less read real scientific
papers and evaluate them. In addition to recommending that people go
to the science, they need to be informed about how to find and
evaluate *real* science in the form of good scientific journalism. It
is a good bet that the science in Science News, for instance, is
generally good and written in a way that literate people can
understand. It is a good bet that the science you find written about
on the Daily Kos or in World Net Daily is not only distorted for
political purposes, but written about by scientific sub-literates, and
thus riddled with misunderstandings. Check the original source to be
sure. If the writer is working on grants from oil, tobacco or ethanol
producers, steer clear because you will not have the scientific chops
to detect the distortion.
Sri Bodhi Prana
mcs
Hi
First off I agree what rob and Sri Bodhi said, I don't assume to believe
everything or even most of what I hear or see unfortunately. About Global
Warming, I see my breathing automatically constict with higher particulate
pollution and I can't counter it because few people care who are not
affected. I then began to form my opinions on at least the consequences from
pollution before the evidence came out.years ago but I can't put a
scientific calculation about the chances of illness due to exposure but I
can make a guess since lawyers are suing from different states and my guess
is the epa is dead wrong by understating the dangers. I often am called an
idiot for trying to prove what I think is true that the pollution affects
cause lots more problems. then even the few studies out recently prove.
Still what good is studies if politicans don't care or listen or if we don't
have alternatives in place to counter our current energy infranstructure.
Whats worse is I can't even get others to agree with me to maybe share in
expenses to escape this mess even with proof so I know the power of the
media to ignore dangers and real problems .
With ethanol its impossible for me to believe or not believe based on what
I have read., Intially I thought the oil was spinning this again and still
I think that.. When our candidates buy the food hype increases due to
ethanol , or at least I think they are buying that argument there is little
room to assume otherwise cause they have the power to make it happen or stop
it, not I .
--
Bob Eld
I did not read the WSJ article so don't know what their pitch is. I think
most agree that corn is not the best source for ethanol, that the yield per
acre is low and it is a food that is better used to feed pigs, cows and
chicken. Most corn is used as animal feed yet some would argue that is not
efficient either.
I don't buy the green house argument because biofuels, no matter what the
source, cycle carbon short term and do not release fossil stuff millions of
years old. I have not heard a viable argument contrary to that view. Most
counter arguments seem to be based on burning tropical forests and not on
American agriculture.
My main point is that America is being ruined by runaway petroleum prices
that will thrust us into a deep depression if we don't get a handle on it.
The only possible way of doing it, in my view, is through biofuels and other
alternatives. We can't drill our way out of this one because petroleum is a
finite resource and most of it left is beyond our control.
The negativity surrounding biofuels and ethanol in particular is injurious
to the goal of American self sufficiency in energy. It's almost treasonous
and one wonders what the real motive is. Most of the arguments are specious
and have no foundation in truth. While corn ethanol has raised food prices
some small degree the dire warnings of impending doom and starvation in
Africa and rice riots in Asia have no connection whatsoever and no one has
proven a connection. Most of it is worry and conjecture based on emotion not
fact or reason.
lora...@cs.com
> "mcs" <mcsantpollut...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
All of that hither and thither...
Lookee here, this is what matters:
- Biofuel comes from US flora - and its pollutants are taken up by US
flora.. closed cycle = no pollution
- Money paid for US biofuel stays in the US.. making US jobs for US
citizens
- Biofuel need not come from food crops (how many times does this need
to be repeated???), weeds will do
- Domestic production of biofuel removes international price-gouging
parasites from our energy sector - we would know instantly what the
fair price of our own domestically produce fuel should be and if
necessary the US government could intervene - unlike the current
situation where we cannot even insure a necessary supply for our
economy or military - nor can we control international price-gouging
that is enebled by the WTO.
- Lastly.. why would any of you want to continue to fund the foreign
dictatorial oil regimes that are either covert or overt enemies of the
US?
Rob Dekker
"mcs" <mcsantp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:gzJUj.86$Gf.82@trndny05...
>
> Hi
> First off I agree what rob and Sri Bodhi said, I don't assume to believe everything or even most of what I hear or see
> unfortunately. About Global Warming, I see my breathing automatically constict with higher particulate pollution and I can't
> counter it because few people care who are not affected. I then began to form my opinions on at least the consequences from
> pollution before the evidence came out.years ago but I can't put a scientific calculation about the chances of illness due to
> exposure but I can make a guess since lawyers are suing from different states and my guess is the epa is dead wrong by
> understating the dangers. I often am called an idiot for trying to prove what I think is true that the pollution affects cause
> lots more problems. then even the few studies out recently prove.
You need to read up on some things.
First off, Global Warming and "difficulty breathing due to pollution" have nothing to do with each other.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_pollution
> Still what good is studies if politicans don't care or listen or if we don't have alternatives in place to counter our current
> energy infranstructure. Whats worse is I can't even get others to agree with me to maybe share in expenses to escape this mess
> even with proof so I know the power of the media to ignore dangers and real problems .
> With ethanol its impossible for me to believe or not believe based on what I have read., Intially I thought the oil was spinning
> this again and still I think that.. When our candidates buy the food hype increases due to ethanol , or at least I think they are
> buying that argument there is little room to assume otherwise cause they have the power to make it happen or stop it, not I .
Start with this :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol
> --
>
>
lora...@cs.com
No.. start with the above.
Use your own logic to determine the proper resolution of the above
five points.
Bob F
"Bob Eld" <nsmon...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:MSHUj.3094
> "Biofuel advocates falsely claim that ethanol is a "clean fuel" that
> will reduce air pollution. Ethanol blended fuels burn cleaner on a
> per gallon basis, but not on a miles traveled basis, because ethanol
> contains 33% less energy than gasoline. Ethanol blended fuels
> actually emit more CO2 per miles driven than ordinary gasoline in
> addition to emitting far more CO2 during their manufacture."
>
> "Despite all of this bad news, biofuel fans and many television news
> anchors keep mindlessly repeating the false claim that ethanol is
> "green" and "renewable." If we dramatically speed up global warming
> by producing ethanol, soon we won't be able to "renew" much of
> anything."
>
> Christopher Calder
>
> Total Bull Shit! Ethanol has less energy that gasoline, this is true, but it
> also has less CARBON. That's why it has less energy. It ain't rocket surgery
> folks! Secondly the carbon in Ethanol is cyclic and biological. It goes from
> the air to the plant to the fuel to the air in a cycle. None of it is
> fossil. It is fossil carbon released from millions of years ago that adds to
> the CO2 unbalance.
>
> Calder is just a nay saying shill for Exxon, Saudi Arabia and others who
> want to kill America's ability to become self sufficient in energy. He is
> disingenuous at best, follow the money! Who wants to rob American and why?
>
>
Funny how they seems to require ethanol in the gas in many cities during the
winter high polution months.
mcs
worse in almost every city then winter
--
the goal when communicating is to rationzlize existence with truth and
facts and what is right coupled with getting what we desire (which might not
always be what is right)
Facts are often hidden so rich control options
Sometimes feelings are not accurate and sometimes they are. Lets learn to do
better based on truth, honesty and facts and the desire to do good
"Bob F" <bobn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:vdWdnaha8PbLA77V...@comcast.com...
mcs
pollution dispersion
*yea I know I have to prove Co2 increased
What I can do is prove that my city keeps getting fewer days with good air
and more commercials for illness.
What I could do is bet everything I own that pollution is one of the biggest
factors in determining risk for illness in populations exposed more then
others that are not or not as often.
--
the goal when communicating is to rationzlize existence with truth and
facts and what is right coupled with getting what we desire (which might not
always be what is right)
Facts are often hidden so rich control options
Sometimes feelings are not accurate and sometimes they are. Lets learn to do
better based on truth, honesty and facts and the desire to do good
"Rob Dekker" <r...@verific.com> wrote in message
news:8pKUj.2710$3O7....@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net...
Republican
Newspapers and blogs are the only science that's trustworthy these
days because real scientists are liars controlled by Al Gore.
Bob Eld
"Republican" <caseyte...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2c666930-e132-4ed0...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Spoken by a true republican even as the polar ice continues to melt. It's
all Al Gore's fault! Yeah I know, you had snow on your driveway in March so
you think global warming isn't real. How can it be real if it snowed on me?
Typical republican question. Science by Limbaugh!
Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head
> wall street journal just wrote a report and said ethanol was not economical
> or effecient in green house gases. who to believe?
be using switchgrass]
Harold Burton
"mcs" <mcsantp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"For every problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"
H. L. Mencken
mcs
and this one is not clear. What does Al Gore think?
Cellulose use to be hyped and now I have my doubts about that too.
lora...@cs.com
> "Bob Eld" <nsmontas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:MSHUj.3094
You must live in a warm climate.
The alcohol in winter mixed gas is their to soak up condensed water
that forms in gas tanks as temperatures drop in cold climates..
Else you get what they call 'gas line freeze'.
lora...@cs.com
> In article <dGIUj.25700$aA1.23663@trnddc05>,
>
> > wall street journal just wrote a report and said ethanol was not economical
> > or effecient in green house gases. who to believe? I don't know anymore
> > Gates even seems to be selling. There are two sides and the side with just
> > ethanol seems to be losing. From a gut perspective one would think it would
> > succeed
>
> "For every problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"
>
> H. L. Mencken
..Yeah.. like continuing to buy dinosaur squeezins from price gouging
foreign enemy despots and local neocon crooks.
Bob F
<lora...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:1dd5e934-a698-4273...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
I'll admit it does do that, but that's not the reason the EPA requires it.
Lars Eighner
mcs broadcast on alt.politics.greens:
> and this one is not clear. What does Al Gore think?
Al Gore has been warning about the problems of ethanol for some time.
> Cellulose use to be hyped and now I have my doubts about that too.
Ethanol has a larger carbon foot print than fossil fuels, whatever it is
derived of.
--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> use...@larseighner.com
Countdown: 256 days to go.
mcs
Ok what does that mean?
Does that mean it puts out more pollution, it takes more energy to make then
fossil fuel and ultimately puts out more pollution or carbon dioxide or
carbon? Which
I doubt burning oil is cleaner then burning corn
But if your talking the process of removing the corn versus the process of
refining oil I find that hard to believe
Is the process for refining oil honestly compared in terms to transportation
costs, pollution from refineries, fighting wars and If thats the assumption
how would you know that unless you were privy to every companies
manufacturing process
--
the goal when communicating is to rationzlize existence with truth and
facts and what is right coupled with getting what we desire (which might not
always be what is right)
Facts are often hidden so rich control options
Sometimes feelings are not accurate and sometimes they are. Lets learn to do
better based on truth, honesty and facts and the desire to do good
"Lars Eighner" <use...@larseighner.com> wrote in message
news:slrng27q21...@debranded.larseighner.com...
Bob Eld
snip...
> Funny how they seems to require ethanol in the gas in many cities during
the
> winter high polution months.
Ethanol is an oxygenating additive. It provides oxygen to the combustion
process and improves performance and raises the octane rating. Ethanol does
not harm the environment and ground water like some other oxygenates that
have been used in the past. It's environmenatlly much better.
Lars Eighner
mcs broadcast on alt.politics:
> "ethanol has a larger carbon footprint then fossil fuel"
> Ok what does that mean?
It means when you consider the planting, growing, harvesing, processing into
ethanol, and burning the ethanol, the greenhouse gas output to drive a
vehicle one mile on ethanol is greater than the greenhouse gas output of
driving one mile with fossil fuel.
> Does that mean it puts out more pollution, it takes more energy to make
> then fossil fuel and ultimately puts out more pollution or carbon dioxide
> or carbon?
"Pollution" covers a lot more territory than greenhouse gasses. Lots of
pollution does *not* contribute to global warming. In fact, particulate
pollutions, smog, and similar stuff probably *reduces* global warming.
In other words, most of what you see and smell and think of as "air
pollution" tends to *reduce* global warming. Many of the greenhouse gasses
that *increase* global warming you probably don't notice and don't think of
as "pollution." In particular, carbon dioxide is odorless, colorless, and
harmless to breath (provided it is mixed with sufficient oxygen).
How much noxious pollution reduces global warming is a matter of some
debate, but at present greenhouse gases are winning (that is the net effect
of noxious pollution reducing global warming plus greenhouse gasses
contributing to global warming is on the side of increased global warming).
Just getting rid of the noxious pollution would have an immediate positive
effect on human health, but would be likely to accelerate global warming.
> Which I doubt burning oil is cleaner then burning corn
It depends upon what you mean by "cleaner." In theory burning ethanol will
reduce noxious pollution (athough when you figure in the petroleum and other
fossil fuels used in fertilizer manufacture and processing into ethanol,
this is not clear cut). But burning ethanol increases greenhouse gas
emissions.
Of course, the only real solution is to eliminate the "car culture."
> But if your talking the process of removing the corn versus the process
> of refining oil I find that hard to believe Is the process for refining
> oil honestly compared in terms to transportation costs, pollution from
> refineries, fighting wars and If thats the assumption how would you know
> that unless you were privy to every companies manufacturing process
Let's see. You think there won't be wars fought over food if rich Americans
feed food to their cars?
There is no free lunch, and there will never be a good car. America's "car
culture" will always be destructive. There are carbon-neutral energy
sources, but there is not a technology on the horizon that will provide
sufficient carbon-neutral energy to maintain the car culture.
Your SUV will always be an insult and injury to the earth, whatever you feed
it.
--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> use...@larseighner.com
Countdown: 255 days to go.
mcs
says that , I tend to not care what else he says its so flawed.
Second if oil is so expensive how much more is average person going to have
to expend or use or work to pay for that extra costs?
Lars Eighner
broadcast on alt.politics:
> first off I disagree about pollution reducing global warming. Anyone who
> says that , I tend to not care what else he says its so flawed.
You are a moron. There are two kinds of pollution. There is not one
solution to both except getting rid of cars.
I did not say pollution reduces global warming. Some kinds of pollution do.
It's a fact. Particulate pollution and smog reflect the sun's energy. The
net effect at present is still on the global warming side. If the
particulate and smog-producing pollution were removed, global warming would
increase.
If you cannot deal with an issue in which two factors have opposite effects,
you cannot deal with ecological issues.
> Second if oil is so expensive how much more is average person going to have
> to expend or use or work to pay for that extra costs?
If you don't understand "pollution" you probably won't understand "non
sequitor."
Stop driving. It isn't earth-friendly and it cannot be made earth-friendly.
mcs
--
and facts and the desire to do good
"Lars Eighner" <use...@larseighner.com> wrote in message
news:slrng296gt...@debranded.larseighner.com...
> In our last episode, <6D0Vj.25$ll1.16@trndny06>, the lovely and talented
> mcs
> broadcast on alt.politics:
>
>> first off I disagree about pollution reducing global warming. Anyone who
>> says that , I tend to not care what else he says its so flawed.
>
> You are a moron. There are two kinds of pollution. There is not one
> solution to both except getting rid of cars.
>
> I did not say pollution reduces global warming. Some kinds of pollution
> do.
HUH?
This is what you said,
In fact, particulate
pollutions, smog, and similar stuff probably *reduces* global warming.
The only reason some pollution doesn't actually increase global warming is
because so much gases eventually build up, that they block the sum from
warming but that don't mean we need to keep increasing it!!!!!!!.
Lars Eighner
broadcast on alt.politics:
>and facts and the desire to do good
>"Lars Eighner" <use...@larseighner.com> wrote in message
>news:slrng296gt...@debranded.larseighner.com...
>> In our last episode, <6D0Vj.25$ll1.16@trndny06>, the lovely and talented
>> mcs broadcast on alt.politics:
>>
>>> first off I disagree about pollution reducing global warming. Anyone who
>>> says that , I tend to not care what else he says its so flawed.
>>
>> You are a moron. There are two kinds of pollution. There is not one
>> solution to both except getting rid of cars.
>>
>> I did not say pollution reduces global warming. Some kinds of pollution
>> do.
>HUH?
So, you would be, what?, about eight-year-old. Or are you one of the
brilliant Naderite greens?
>This is what you said,
>> In fact, particulate pollutions, smog, and similar stuff probably
>> *reduces* global warming.
And it is a fact.
>The only reason some pollution doesn't actually increase global warming is
>because so much gases eventually build up, that they block the sum from
>warming
No. The reason some pollution does not increase global warming is because
some pollutants are not greenhouse gasses. Simple, absolute answers is the
way fascist politics works, not the way the way the world works. Some
pollutants reflect the sun's heat while allowing heat from the earth to
radiate out. They act a bit like a two-way mirror. That is why they tend
to reduce global warming. (There are also natural pollutants like volcanic
ash which act the same way.)
> but that don't mean we need to keep increasing it!!!!!!!.
And I have not suggested that. Many of the pollutants which tend to reduce
global warming *do* have adverse health effects on human and other animal
health and plant life. Those pollutants certainly should be reduced, but
doing so will not reduce global warming. What counts for global warming are
greenhouse gasses, which comes down to carbon footprint. Ethanol has a
per-mile larger carbon footprint than fossil fuels.
Ethanol is a scam cooked up by ADM (Archer-Daniels-Midlands) and flat-state
Republicans. It is designed to increase profits for ADM and flat-state
farmers. It is based on the con job of a "clean car." The hope is that you
will believe, as apparently you do, that you can have your cake and eat it
too --- that Americans can have both cars and a better world. It is a lie.
Actually, ADM gets $30 in federal subsidies for each $1 of profit it
produces. It would be cheaper and reduce global warming just to pay off ADM
not to make ethanol. Runs-on-hydrogen/water is a similar scam.
You want an easy answer that will allow you to maintain the car culture
without screwing up the world, and there is no easy answer.
lora...@cs.com
> <lorad...@cs.com> wrote in message
Gas companies (back when they were concerned with customer
satisfaction) did it way before the EPA required anything.
lora...@cs.com
It may or may not.. in either case I won't take your unsubstantiated
belief as fact.
But it don't matter if it even did (which I don't think it does)
because..
- Money paid for US biofuel stays in the US.. making US jobs for US
citizens
- Biofuel need not come from food crops (how many times does this
need
to be repeated???), weeds will do
- Domestic production of biofuel removes international price-gouging
parasites from our energy sector - we would know instantly what the
fair price of our own domestically produce fuel should be and if
necessary the US government could intervene - unlike the current
situation where we cannot even insure a necessary supply for our
economy or military - nor can we control international price-gouging
that is enabled by the WTO.
- Lastly.. why would any of you want to continue to fund the foreign
dictatorial oil regimes that are either covert or overt enemies of
the
US?
... all these considerations OUTWEIGH whether or not your neocon snoot
gets an extra snort of CO2 now and then.
Lars Eighner
<a66d3e51-124f-4bc1...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, the
lovely and talented lora...@cs.com broadcast on alt.politics:
> On May 8, 11:01 pm, Lars Eighner <use...@larseighner.com> wrote:
>> Ethanol has a larger carbon foot print than fossil fuels, whatever it is
>> derived of.
> ... all these considerations OUTWEIGH whether or not your neocon snoot
> gets an extra snort of CO2 now and then.
What in the world do you think "neocon" means?
--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> use...@larseighner.com
Countdown: 255 days to go.
Bob F
<lora...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:97be7977-b2de-442d...@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
*********************************************
And you could buy cans of ethanol as "dry gas". But that's not the reason the
EPA requires it.
Rob Dekker
"Lars Eighner" <use...@larseighner.com> wrote in message news:slrng294u8...@debranded.larseighner.com...
> In our last episode, <wdYUj.1466$Vd.1020@trndny06>, the lovely and talented
> mcs broadcast on alt.politics:
>
>> "ethanol has a larger carbon footprint then fossil fuel"
>> Ok what does that mean?
>
> It means when you consider the planting, growing, harvesing, processing into
> ethanol, and burning the ethanol, the greenhouse gas output to drive a
> vehicle one mile on ethanol is greater than the greenhouse gas output of
> driving one mile with fossil fuel.
As far as I know, that is really not true.
Where did you get this info ?
Rob
Rob Dekker
"Bob Eld" <nsmon...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:fVZUj.3233$nl7....@flpi146.ffdc.sbc.com...
Not just environmentally friendly.
MTBE causes cancer, and that is the reason it was phased out in the first place (starting in California).
Five years ago, California's 5% ethanol oxygenater requirement in gasoline really kick-started the ethanol business. We have over 30
million cars in this state.
Eastern states are also phasing out (or already did) MTBE, and we will thus continue to see increase use of ethanol as MTBE
replacer.
So the ironic thing is that, dispite the (media) positioning of ethanol as alternative to gasoline, so far ethanol has had very
little to do with 'alternative fuel'.
Since MTBE is made from natural gas, we so far are only replacing natural gas.
Funny huh ?
Rob
bsr...@my-deja.com
> "Bob F" <bobnos...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Yes, and the EPA mandated oxygenates to lean out the air/fuel mixture
on older cars with carbs which it assumed to generally run rich.
Problem is when the mixture was right to start off with it caused them
to run lean which not only results in poor performance and occasional
skipping but increases nitrogen oxides. Cars that have modern fuel
injection, which means most cars on the road today, automatically
richen the mixture to compensate for the ethanol. So ethanol no
longer serves the function for which it was mandated.
Bruce
Lars Eighner
lovely and talented Rob Dekker broadcast on alt.politics:
I cannot understand why anyone would doubt it. Well, actually I can.
ADM absorbs $30 in taxpayer subsidies for every $1 of profit it makes,
so spreading ethanol propaganda is essential to their business. Ethanol is
just the "green" Enron.
> Where did you get this info ?
<http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/08/science/earth/08wbiofuels.html?_r=3&scp=2&sq=rosenthal+ethanol&st=nyt&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin>
Biofuels Deemed a Greenhouse Threat - New York Times
By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL
Published: February 8, 2008
Almost all biofuels used today cause more greenhouse gas emissions than
conventional fuels if the full emissions costs of producing these
"green" fuels are taken into account, two studies being published
Thursday have concluded.
***
For a start. But of course you would have turned up much more if you had
googled for yourself.
In real vehicles available today the situation is even worse. While the
theoretical yeild of ethanol has a worse carbon footprint than gasoline,
hybrid vehicles that can actually be purchased today are less efficient than
gasoline-only vehicles that are really comparable. Sure, if you compare
a hybrid sedan with a gasoline SUV, the hybrid is better, but when you
compare it with a gasoline vehicle of similar size and type, hybrids are
worse.
--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> use...@larseighner.com
Countdown: 254 days to go.
mcs
Where ? They paid someone to say it. Just like the guy who says pollution
don't cause global warming. They say we had 200 good air days in my city,
which of course is not true. They say anything. The media will ignore coal
and other pollution but tell you about ethanol negatives without a reporter
asking important question. In my city we have miles (got that miles of
refiniers pumping out smoke day and night). Where is the outrage of not only
the pollution , but the prices we pay.Its not like we have allot of healthy
people in our area. When they compare this black smoke to ethanol you got a
long time to wait. Then the transportation costs! from mideast via trucks
and ships . This is soo crazy but hey if you want to put more Americans out
of work and pay more for Mideast Gas and not care about that pollution from
diesel until 2040 knock your self out. Outlaw it now.
Lars Eighner
broadcast on alt.politics:
> Where ?
For two the Science (magazine) articles cited in the NYT article the link to
which I posted in reply to Rob. Snipping is a good thing, but it is a good
idea to quote a *little* bit when following up in a thread.
> They paid someone to say it. Just like the guy who says pollution don't
> cause global warming.
Now how exactly are articles which say ethanol has no smaller carbon
footprint than fossil fuels in any way related to denying that pollution
contributes to global warming? The point is that the kind of pollution that
contributes to global warming is as bad for ethanol as it is for gasoline.
> They say we had 200 good air days in my city,
Air quality indexes do not measure greenhouse gasses. Air quality indexes
have nothing whatsoever to do with global warming.
> which of course is not true. They say anything. The media will ignore coal
> and other pollution but tell you about ethanol negatives without a
> reporter asking important question.
Until you can show ethanol has a smaller carbon footprint than fossil fuels,
in regard to global warming, it is a wash.
> In my city we have miles (got that miles of refiniers pumping out smoke
> day and night).
You cannot see or smell most greenhouse gasses. None look like smoke.
> Where is the outrage of not only the pollution , but the prices we pay.Its
> not like we have allot of healthy people in our area.
Global warming and effects on human health of non-greenhouse-gasses are two
different issues.
> When they compare this black smoke to ethanol you got a long time to wait.
Black smoke actually retards global warming. That doesn't make it healthy.
It just means global warming and individual health issues are two different
things. Carbon dioxide won't make you sick. It will contribute to global
warming.
> Then the transportation costs! from mideast via trucks and ships . This is
> soo crazy but hey if you want to put more Americans out of work and pay
> more for Mideast Gas and not care about that pollution from diesel until
> 2040 knock your self out.
You obviously haven't heard me. It is the car culture that is the problem.
Ethanol is not okay. Fuel cells (hydrogen) is not okay. Petroleum is not
okay. I'm not defending fossil fuels, I am saying ethanol is no improvement
so far as global warming is concerned. The one thing that can make a
difference is for more people to learn to live without personal vehicles.
Ethanol promises people they can have their cake and eat it too. That is a
lie.
> Outlaw it now.
--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> use...@larseighner.com
Countdown: 254 days to go.
lora...@cs.com
No.. ethanol is simply a far more optimal energy source than is the
currently over-inflated foreign (dictator-sourced) oil.
You go live in your mud-hut, haul logs by rickshaw, hitchhike to
vacation in Europe, and heat and light you house with whale blubber..
and then let us know how it worked out for your dumbass, ok?
Lars Eighner
<b4b7acb9-bc59-4890...@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, the
lovely and talented lora...@cs.com broadcast on alt.politics.greens:
> You go live in your mud-hut, haul logs by rickshaw, hitchhike to
> vacation in Europe, and heat and light you house with whale blubber..
> and then let us know how it worked out for your dumbass, ok?
Unlike you, I know and care that whales are endangered.
lora...@cs.com
> lovely and talented lorad...@cs.com broadcast on alt.politics.greens:
>
> > You go live in your mud-hut, haul logs by rickshaw, hitchhike to
> > vacation in Europe, and heat and light you house with whale blubber..
> > and then let us know how it worked out for your dumbass, ok?
>
> Unlike you, I know and care that whales are endangered.
Since every else about you is retrograd.. it only seems proper that
you would be using medieval energy sources too.
PS: Be sure that you ambulance service is also bicycle or horse
powered.
Bama Brian
Ethanol/methanol are types of alcohol. As a fuel, alcohol has less
energy content than does gasoline. IIRC, alcohol provides somewhere
around one-half the mileage than gasoline does.
Here's one minor study:
http://www.edmunds.com/advice/alternativefuels/articles/120863/article.html
Just from this standpoint, alcohol is not good as a motor fuel.
Right now ethanol has become a huge boondoggle funded primarily with
crop incentives paid by the fedgov to the farmers. This has certainly
caused a huge rise in the costs of corn-based food products.
It is insane for us to burn food to drive our cars.
--
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
George Santayana, 1863 - 1952
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
hanson
news:odWdndeDM8CKlLrV...@earthlink.com...
> Rob Dekker wrote:
>> "Lars Eighner" <use...@larseighner.com> wrote in message
>> news:slrng294u8...@debranded.larseighner.com...
>
>>> In our last episode, <wdYUj.1466$Vd.1020@trndny06>,
>>> broadcast on alt.politics:
>>>> "ethanol has a larger carbon footprint then fossil fuel"
>>>> Ok what does that mean?
>
>>> It means when you consider the planting, growing,
>>> ethanol, the greenhouse gas output to drive a vehicle
>>> one mile on ethanol is greater than the greenhouse
>>> gas output of driving one mile with fossil fuel.
>>
>> As far as I know, that is really not true.
>> Where did you get this info ?
>
> Ethanol/methanol are types of alcohol. As a fuel, alcohol
> has less energy content than does gasoline. IIRC, alcohol
> provides somewhere around one-half the mileage than
> http://www.edmunds.com/advice/alternativefuels/articles/120863/article.html
> Just from this standpoint, alcohol is not good as a motor
> fuel. Right now ethanol has become a huge boondoggle
> funded primarily with crop incentives paid by the fedgov
> to the farmers. This has certainly caused a huge rise
> in the costs of corn-based food products.
>
hanson wrote:
Aside from the self-serving "carbon foot print" issue which is
proselytized in these enviro NGs by by hordes of little Green
idiots who act unwittingly, in their stupid enviro fanaticism,
as unpaid enablers and facilitators for enrichment of the
Green turds and Green shits, let us pay attention to the
energy delivered from EtOH or MeOH as motor fuel.
There are no major or minor studies required to do that,
if all those little green idiots would have paid attention
in high school-chem where it was explained like this:
Methanol: CH3-OH can be written as CH2 + H2O
Ethanol: CH3-CH2-OH can be written as 2 CH2 + H2O
CH2 is the chief ingredient of the fuel Octane: H-(CH2)8-H
H2O is water. -- The Molweights: CH2 = 14 -- H2O =18.
So in
100% Methanol we carry 18/32 = 56% water & burn as 44% fuel.
100% Ethanol we carry 18/46 = 40% water & burn as 60 % fuel.
100% Octane we carry 0% water and burn 100 % as fuel.
>
So, all you little green idiots you just don't know badly you are
letting yourself be fucked by the green sharpies who gladly let
you buy 50% water at $ 4/gallon at "gas pump"... ahahahaha...
because you and them believe in the green bible that says:
>
= "It doesn't matter what is true ... it only matters what people
= believe is true. -- Paul Watson, Sea Shepard/ex-Greenpeace, &...
= "A lot of environmental [sci/soc/pol] messages are simply not
= accurate. We use hype." -- Jerry Franklin, Ecologist, UoW, and...
= "If you don't know an answer, a fact, a statistic, then .... make it
= up on the spot ... for the mass-media today ... the truth is irrelevant."
= -- Paul Watson in Earthforce: An Earth Warrior's Guide to Strategy.
= "We make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little
= mention of any doubts we may have [about] being honest."
= -- Stephen Schneider (Stanford prof. who first sought fame as
= a global cooler, but has now hit the big time as a global warmer)
= "It is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presen-
= tations" -- Al Gore, Chairman, Gen. Investment Management Bank
and more here:
<http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/c385a6d1f3f7f9dd>
>
But thanks for the laughs, guys!.... ahahaha.... ahahanson
Bret Cahill
compression ratio possible with alcohol may increase NOx
Bret Cahill
Frank
trees I grow.
First $2,000 gets them for a year. I'll even provide the green
stickers that you put on your luggage when you fly.
Frank
mcs
--
the goal when communicating is to rationzlize existence with truth and
facts and what is right coupled with getting what we desire (which might not
always be what is >
>> Where ?
>
> For two the Science (magazine) articles cited in the NYT article the link
> to
> which I posted in reply to Rob. Snipping is a good thing, but it is a
> good
> idea to quote a *little* bit when following up in a thread.
>
>> They paid someone to say it. Just like the guy who says pollution don't
>> cause global warming.
>
> Now how exactly are articles which say ethanol has no smaller carbon
> footprint than fossil fuels in any way related to denying that pollution
> contributes to global warming?
how ? you said it or implied it.
The point is that the kind of pollution that
> contributes to global warming is as bad for ethanol as it is for gasoline.
Sure it is but there is no magic answer. I guess but a. one is cheaper ,
cleaner in some ways, produced at home, gives farmers jobs and is renewable
>
>> They say we had 200 good air days in my city,
>
> Air quality indexes do not measure greenhouse gasses. Air quality indexes
> have nothing whatsoever to do with global warming.
I used that as an example how status quo energy and studies made can mask
truth
>
>> which of course is not true. They say anything. The media will ignore
>> coal
>> and other pollution but tell you about ethanol negatives without a
>> reporter asking important question.
>
> Until you can show ethanol has a smaller carbon footprint than fossil
> fuels,
> in regard to global warming, it is a wash.
Ho you look it up. I am sure its there somewhere even though big oil ain't
paying for it
>
>> In my city we have miles (got that miles of refiniers pumping out smoke
>> day and night).
>
> You cannot see or smell most greenhouse gasses. None look like smoke.
so that smoke from refineries is not going to increase greenhouse gas and
other fossil fuels?
Are you sure? Don't answer that and guess what not only does refining or
buring fossil fuel increase global warming, it produces worse pollution
>
>> Where is the outrage of not only the pollution , but the prices we
>> pay.Its
>> not like we have allot of healthy people in our area.
>
> Global warming and effects on human health of non-greenhouse-gasses are
> two
> different issues.
There are related issues of course. If global warming produces higher seas
that affects the winds and weather and hello pollution dispersion
Finally I bet green house gas and pollution are quite connected even though
your saying its not
>
>> When they compare this black smoke to ethanol you got a long time to
>> wait.
>
> Black smoke actually retards global warming. That doesn't make it
> healthy.
> It just means global warming and individual health issues are two
> different
> things. Carbon dioxide won't make you sick. It will contribute to global
> warming.
Bullshit the buildup of gases ( they don't NEGATE pollution) is one of the
main causes for global warming. If so much gets builtup that it eventually
blocks the sun that can't be good. its like so much fat in the artiers gets
builtup that makes the heart beat faster! faster beating heart good? Not at
all in that case!
>
Ps It doesn't really matter, if big oil and business want tosabotage ethanol
I am sure others will build better ethanol and maybe in other countries and
we will sabotage our health and our production yet again while other
countries pass us just so people like you could get richer.. until we use
electric and see the same things play out with our dependence on electical
grid, its my opinion we need many forms of energy including ethanol.
hanson
news:cc33be84-8a99-4f84...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.chem/msg/a22fea255c48e3a3
... ahaha... AHAHAHA... Good one!... Hay'a Frank, old chum.
Listen... never mind the sticker or the carcreds. That's pea nuts.
You as a chemist, become a fabled and enormously revered
class 2 enviro fat cat by simply inventing a coupler that combines
the 50% water with regular old gasoline. The little green idiots are
buying that mandated 50/50 green mix right now. See below.
>
"Bama Brian" <eddy...@mindspring.com> wrote
> **** It is insane for us to burn food to drive our cars.****
>
hanson wrote:
hanson
news:dHGVj.49332$6a2....@newsfe17.ams2...
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
"Bama Brian" <eddy...@mindspring.com> wrote
>
> **** It is insane for us to burn food to drive our cars.****
>
hanson wrote:
Androcles wrote:
Seems to me that automobile engines waste a lot of energy
pumping nitrogen from nowhere to nowhere, heating it as it
goes, so why not use pure oxygen instead of air?
That way the fuel becomes less important.
>
hanson wrote:
The class 1 enviros and the class 3 enviros will sue you
over that but for different green reasons. But the class 2
enviros will be enthused and even steal that idea from you
as that could move'em into the big league, like the ETOH
did it for ADM. The Enviros will help you promote anything
that can be labeled green, be it a scam or not... ahahaha..
As I see it the following technical bagatelles will have to be
solved first.
>
-- Produce pure O2 at a price/cost that is smaller then the
loss from heating the Nitrogen... ahahaha...
-- Engineer the required engine alterations to accommodate
the use of p-O2, and then fuck the use of fossil or renewable
carbon fuels altogether. Drive with a zero carbon foot print.
>
You have a big time green winner on your hands, dude: You've
got now the ultimate eco friendly propulsion system. Buy into
the ongoing ultra green Hydrogen scam... and you are in like
green Flint... providing, as another green bonus, gallons and
gallons of precious & scarce clean drinking water as you drive.
The more you drive the better. Go for it man! Be Green!
Thanks for the laughs... ahahahaha... ahahahanson
Lars Eighner
mcs broadcast on alt.politics:
(missing attributution, Lars wrote):
>> Now how exactly are articles which say ethanol has no smaller carbon
>> footprint than fossil fuels in any way related to denying that pollution
>> contributes to global warming?
>how ? you said it or implied it.
No. I didn't. Global-warming deniers claim either 1) global warming is not
happening, or 2) human activity is not contributing to global warming.
Saying that ethanol fuel has a larger carbon footprint that gasoline does
not support either claim. Indeed, it is a pointless observation unless you
already agree that 1) global warming does exist and 2) that human activity
contributes to it.
>>> In my city we have miles (got that miles of refiniers pumping out smoke
>>> day and night).
>>
>> You cannot see or smell most greenhouse gasses. None look like smoke.
> so that smoke from refineries is not going to increase greenhouse gas and
> other fossil fuels?
What makes smoke visible is mostly particulate matter. The major
greenhouses gases are water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane. All of
those are odorless and colorless. Sure, refineries release these gases in
some amount --- whether they are making gasoline or fertilizer for crops
(athough they will do their best to capture methane before it is released).
Distilleries that convert food to ethanol also release such gases.
>> Black smoke actually retards global warming. That doesn't make it
>> healthy. It just means global warming and individual health issues are
>> two different things. Carbon dioxide won't make you sick. It will
>> contribute to global warming.
>
> Bullshit the buildup of gases ( they don't NEGATE pollution) is one of the
> main causes for global warming.
First, not all gases contribute to global warming. Second, what makes
smoke, smoke is particulate matter, which tends to reduce global warming.
Of course, where there are smoke emissions, greenhouse gases are also likely
to be emitted. But often greenhouse gases are emitted where you do not see
smoke. So just getting rid of the smoke is not necessarily going to help
the problem of global warming.
> Ps It doesn't really matter, if big oil and business want to sabotage
> ethanol I am sure others will build better ethanol and maybe in other
> countries and we will sabotage our health and our production yet again
> while other countries pass us just so people like you could get richer..
> until we use electric and see the same things play out with our dependence
> on electical grid, its my opinion we need many forms of energy including
> ethanol.
Fist, the subsidies for ethanol are so lucrative that most oil companies are
in the ethanol business. Second, so far as global warming is concerned,
there cannot be a better ethanol. Combustion produces greenhouse gases.
--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> use...@larseighner.com
Countdown: 253 days to go.
Fran
> In our last episode, <wdYUj.1466$Vd.1020@trndny06>, the lovely and talented
> mcs broadcast on alt.politics:
>
> > "ethanol has a larger carbon footprint then fossil fuel"
> > Ok what does that mean?
>
> ethanol, and burning the ethanol, the greenhouse gas output to drive a
> vehicle one mile on ethanol is greater than the greenhouse gas output of
> driving one mile with fossil fuel.
>
The claim *as a general proposition* is wrong. Clearly, it is possible
to raise ethanol in a way that would produce a bigger carbon footprint
than fossil fuels, but why one would do that is hard to fathom.
Conceivably, ethanol might be raised from waste biomass or resideu, or
from switchgrass or algae or even sugar cane juice. Conceivably, the
energy inputs could be largely or entirely from zero or low carbon
footprint sources. And at the user end, the ethanol could be used in
cars adapted to make use of its combustion properties, increasing the
thermal effciency of the engine realtive to one configured for
gasoline.
In such circumstances, the carbon footprint of ethanol would be a
fraction of that of fossil fuels.
> > Does that mean it puts out more pollution, it takes more energy to make
> > then fossil fuel and ultimately puts out more pollution or carbon dioxide
> > or carbon?
>
> "Pollution" covers a lot more territory than greenhouse gasses. Lots of
> pollution does *not* contribute to global warming. In fact, particulate
> pollutions, smog, and similar stuff probably *reduces* global warming.
It would be more accurate to say that it masks it, since, in the long
run, we cannot indefinitely tolerate increasing concentrations of sun-
filtering aerosols .
> In other words, most of what you see and smell and think of as "air
> pollution" tends to *reduce* global warming. Many of the greenhouse gasses
> that *increase* global warming you probably don't notice and don't think of
> as "pollution." In particular, carbon dioxide is odorless, colorless, and
> harmless to breath (provided it is mixed with sufficient oxygen).
>
> How much noxious pollution reduces global warming is a matter of some
> debate, but at present greenhouse gases are winning (that is the net effect
> of noxious pollution reducing global warming plus greenhouse gasses
> contributing to global warming is on the side of increased global warming).
> Just getting rid of the noxious pollution would have an immediate positive
> effect on human health, but would be likely to accelerate global warming.
>
> > Which I doubt burning oil is cleaner then burning corn
>
> It depends upon what you mean by "cleaner." In theory burning ethanol will
> reduce noxious pollution (athough when you figure in the petroleum and other
> fossil fuels used in fertilizer manufacture and processing into ethanol,
> this is not clear cut).
This is a reasonable point, because the Haber-Bosch process largely
uses (fossil) natural gas as the feedstock for the synthesis of urea,
ammonium and ammonium nitrate. Of course, if need not because
renewable energy could be used to electrolyse hydrogen from water.
This is not currently cost effective, in part because carbon fuels are
free of a carbon charge.
Of course, if one's feedstocks did not require fertiliser -- e.g.
biomass waste -- or, not much fertiliser (eg switchgrass) or the
input was methane from an anaerobic digester, or from landfill or any
other place emitting methane then the net impact of this would be
zero.
> But burning ethanol increases greenhouse gas
> emissions.
>
> Of course, the only real solution is to eliminate the "car culture."
>
That's not a 'real' solution within the time frame that solutions are
needed. Exhortation will not greatly mitigate individual
transportation. Yes, it would be far better if far fewer people
operated private vehicles, and if there were efficient low carbon
footprint mass transit options, and if those who had to operate motor
vehicles largely used low carbon footprint vehicles (e.g. EVs). That's
not about to happen inow or in the next 20 years. What we do now is
very important.
For the record I don't believe that ethanol is the best transitional
fuel -- for 'gasoline' powered cars, butanol would be better. But
ethanol isn't bad, if raised by the right methods. I'm against
subsidising it, but also against subsidising fossil fuels. I say a
cost that reflects the damage being done by them should attach to
fossil fuels, and a rebate given to those who clean up the mess these
make through what they do. Then, whatever fuel was used would reflect
the balance between these in a technologically neutral process.
Fran
Lars Eighner
<a846dd6b-10ec-46e3...@q24g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, the
lovely and talented Fran broadcast on alt.politics:
Thank your for your intelligent and thoughtful contribution to this thread.
A few of the problems with ethanol are real-world implementation. These are
such things as it is not being made from switchgrass (mainly), clean and
renewable energy is not being used for distillation, etc. Diversion of land
that is being used for food crops entails geopolitical problems -- so the
"Let's stick it to the arabs" thing is a tad on the disingenuous side,
whereas conversion of waste land or forests is likely to incur a carbon debt
that ethanol cannot pay off for centuries. I don't think that is going to be
sorted out within 20 years, either.
But to be fair, dismantling the car culture is likely to take much longer.
It runs really deep --- consider just for a moment how vehicle have become
embedded with male sexuality. And of course there is the enormous
commitment of infrastructure. Frankly a pat on the head and "Just switch to
ethanol and everything will be fine" won't cut it.
> For the record I don't believe that ethanol is the best transitional
> fuel -- for 'gasoline' powered cars, butanol would be better. But
> ethanol isn't bad, if raised by the right methods. I'm against
> subsidising it, but also against subsidising fossil fuels. I say a
> cost that reflects the damage being done by them should attach to
> fossil fuels, and a rebate given to those who clean up the mess these
> make through what they do. Then, whatever fuel was used would reflect
> the balance between these in a technologically neutral process.
--
hanson
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.chem/msg/2858531434d2f815
on scams perpetrated the Ethanol lobby with the help of vast
hordes or little green idiots who function as unpaid enablers
and facilitators to fill the coffers from the scams by the fat
class 2 enviros like ADM and Gore, et. al... ahahaha.....
>
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics>
news:b6NVj.5314$KQ4....@newsfe10.ams2...
expressed his hope that "we really want improved efficiency
and a low cost portable energy source that available on demand,
so why not electrolyze water from sunlight? Not cheap I know,
but neither is going to war over oil and building and operating
oil refineries. Anyone that has operated an oxy-acetylene torch
knows there is a whole lot of energy in those bottles, more than a
tank of gasoline".
>
Enter <Willie...@gmail.com> denizen of sci.space.policy
who wrote & prescribed a "solution"... ahahaha... in his message
news:08aecf76-fde9-4437...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
wherein Willy concludes: "Properly developed,a solar hydrogen
infrastructure that is competitive with oil, can replace coal and
natural gas totally,and knock oil prices back below $30 per
barrel, before ending the importance of oil altogether"... ahaha
Willie is promoting the hope for acceptance of large Hydrogen
use scenarios, using "ultra-low-cost solar panel of the type
in here http://www.usoal.com,"... ahaha.. BUT which do not exist...
--- Hey Willie, kudos, for you are now being an emergent class 2
enviro. Welcome to the world of green dreams. May they become
true before they bankrupt you or drive you into the nut house or
make you end up in jail... ahahahaha...
>
hanson wrote:
Hey listen guys, *in principle!!*, of course I do share your dreams.
But dreams are not reality... and very few of such dreams will
ever turn into any kind of reality. I have no idea HOW the
growing energy need will be accommodated. Except I know that
it will be solved.... ahahahaha... 'cuz not doing do will be a
pill too bitter to swallow...
>
With little doubt, the chief obstacle to progress and change
are the oil-, coal- and gas providers of today... them being the
largest stake holders in the game. - Now, put yourself into their
shoes, you being in a position to monopolize & control price
and output ... internationally.. at a time when your product is
in demand like it was never before... Business is good! !!!...
>
So, don't tell me that YOU would give up your position in such
a fabulous candy store... just because a few million people
starve to death or cuz a few thousand of anarchist activists
agitate the hordes of little green idiots... If you says that
you would act differently then... then you will have simply
joined ranks with the hordes of the little green idiots.
... ahahahaha....
>
So, why should this international cartel of C&CH barons give
their position in their cookie store, in particular since they are
all publicly traded multinationals who give fat dividends to 100
of millions of little share holders... ahahaha..
>
It will take EXTRAORDINARY social, economic and political
circumstances to change the current paradigm. But these
conditions are not here... & the few loud Greenies, half of which
are playing, unpaid & unwittingly, into the hands of the agenda
of the C&CH conglomerate... that will not do the trick. ahahaha..
>
Don't you remember Shale Oil, Tar sands, Coal Gasification, etc.
all commercial/financial duds. -- Don't you rem the 30 + year old
Ocean Wave projects, all the Wind farms, all the PV promos,... all
being nothing more than unsuccessful band aids which were failed
attempts to cure a huge global hemmorhoid...
>
Remember "Solar 1" in the desert of California built in 1970. It is
shut down. Remember the vast PV-project in the Libyan desert...
Never got off the ground... Remember Jimmy Carter's Syn Fuel
Corporation, an $80 Billion debacle that got whored into
bankruptcy by OPEC nine years later... ahaha... more here:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/fbea04f3733af667
and here:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/2084d8f1e6393226
wherein it says:
I am continuously impressed by the oil boys of how cleverly
the manipulate the fuel market ever since 1917. Back then
they killed the first green (solar water heat) wave, by simply
providing cheaper and more reliable energy: oil.... all the
way to another cycle when during the Israeli precipitated oil
embargo in ~1971/73 OPEC's Sheik Ahmad Zaki al-Yamani
(Saudi's oil minister) appeared for weeks on all the TV news-
and Talk-show circuits in the US and openly declared that
anybody who thinks that they'll be able to threaten the oil
interests is kidding himself, ....because the moment anybody
is becoming a threat to the oil boys they simply do flood the
market with cheap oil and bankrupt the investors of/in/with
green "renewable & sustainable" energy gismos.
As soon as the "alternative energy" competition is killed off
the oil boys announce that Peak Oil is just around the corner
& the price at the pump and their profits go up.... ahahahaha.....
>
I am sorry fellas, that I do not have more encouraging news
for you. --- Actually last time I've offered my unpopular opinion, a
fanatical little green idiot, Lion Kunts aka "Awe Shit" investigated
& dug up paydirt in my archive and "Awe Shit", not so brilliantly,
revealed that :
= "hanson is the Chauffeur of Organized Corporate Crime Lords"=
Needless to say, check the record,... sadly, "Awe Shit" is no longer
around. .... ahahaha... AHAHAHAHA...
Thanks for the laughs, guys.... ahahaha... ahahahanson
Fran
I aim to enlighten, or be enlightened.
> A few of the problems with ethanol are real-world implementation. These are
> such things as it is not being made from switchgrass (mainly), clean and
> renewable energy is not being used for distillation, etc.
You're right, but of course one of the predisposing factors in this is
that it's just too cheap to burn stuff because the disposal costs
borne by emitters at the moment are ... zero. It costs nothing to dump
stuff into the air. And of course, digging up what the sun raised and
a geological time span, huge pressure and heat and an odd confluence
of strata contrived is a hell of a lot cheaper to get at than any
energy at the volumes we want can be contrived in real time.
So IMO, we have to do two things. Firstly, we have to stop wasting the
energy we now have access to, and treat it as an incredibly scarce and
precious commodity, not because coal or even oil is all that scarce
yet, but because the resultant emissions are hurting us not just in
the long run, but right now and because every alternative to using
those sources that is cleaner is also in short supply. The 'low
hanging fruit' is in curbing demand, either through efficiency or
changes in the way we meet our needs.
A great deal of how we use energy is discretionary. There's no obvious
reason why everyone's electrical appliances have to be on standby the
whole time we're at work. There's no obvious reason why we couldn't
car pool more. There's no obvious reason why the occupancy per
dwelling rates are falling in the developed countries or why huge
energy intensive homes are being built when smaller and easier to heat
and cool homes would serve as well, or why there have to be suburbs
running for 40 and 50 miles out of major cities when somewhat
different patterns of urban planning could squeeze the same number of
people into half that space and still leave room for green space in
the middle of it all.
> Diversion of land
> that is being used for food crops entails geopolitical problems -- so the
> "Let's stick it to the arabs" thing is a tad on the disingenuous side,
> whereas conversion of waste land or forests is likely to incur a carbon debt
> that ethanol cannot pay off for centuries. I don't think that is going to be
> sorted out within 20 years, either.
>
You mix up two issues here. I'm very much for protecting forests and
their associated watercourses etc. On the other hand, at the moment, a
part of protecting them (or making them fire safe) involves controlled
burning which is obviously polluting, not 100% effective, and
expensive in money and energy to do. Removing excess ground fuel seems
a far better way to go since the recovered materials can be forced
through a fuel cycle before decomposing. Equally, selective culling of
large fully mature trees, preserving canopies, can acutally increase
the effectiveness of a forest as a carbon sink. The culled trees
themselves can be buried on the forest perimeters, returning their
accumulated nutrient to the soil as they decompose.
Lands that are already under tillage will make no contribution to
extra carbon since these have already been cleared. One could argue
that some of these lands should be returned to whatever vegetation was
extant, and in some cases this would be best as the crops grown on
them are at best of marginal value.
It's worth noting though that a good proportion of agricultural land
is taken up with crops that are of even less value to humans than the
feedstock for ethanol. Some of them are used to raise tobacco, or
cocaine, or the feedstock for various alcohol products. While I don't
imagine that you, Lars, take this view, a good many of those special
pleading against corn-based ethanol think it perfectly fine to use
lands to raise crops that are either not food staples or are even
harmful. If one thinks corn-based ethanol irrational (as I do) then
using lands for even less worthy purposes with much the same fossil
fuel inputs as for conventional corn is even crazier. On the question
of forest conversion, you should be aware that in Brazil, the
principal threat to the rainforests comes not from sugar cane but from
cattle ranching. And yet, if one is interested in feeding people, it's
cheaper on land, fuel and water to grow soy by quite a large margin --
perhaps 40:1.
> But to be fair, dismantling the car culture is likely to take much longer.
> It runs really deep --- consider just for a moment how vehicle have become
> embedded with male sexuality.
That's a factor, but it's not the driving factor (pun intended). The
real issues are more basic -- the huge and regular distances peop,e
have to commute, the inadequacy of public transport, the
geographically disperesed character of cities.
> And of course there is the enormous
> commitment of infrastructure. Frankly a pat on the head and "Just switch to
> ethanol and everything will be fine" won't cut it.
Well obviously not. I can't see how you can produce 31 billion barrels
of ethanol per annum from the world's lands any time soon. We have to
draw both ends (demand and supply) together and then transition to
running what cars and trucks we need from renewably raised electricity
or similar low footprint technologies.
Fran
Fran
> >> In our last episode, <wdYUj.1466$Vd.1020@trndny06>, the lovely and talented
> >> mcs broadcast on alt.politics:
>
> >>> "ethanol has a larger carbon footprint then fossil fuel"
> >>> Ok what does that mean?
> >> It means when you consider the planting, growing, harvesing, processing into
> >> ethanol, and burning the ethanol, the greenhouse gas output to drive a
> >> vehicle one mile on ethanol is greater than the greenhouse gas output of
> >> driving one mile with fossil fuel.
>
> > As far as I know, that is really not true.
> > Where did you get this info ?
>
> Ethanol/methanol are types of alcohol. As a fuel, alcohol has less
> energy content than does gasoline. IIRC, alcohol provides somewhere
> around one-half the mileage than gasoline does.
>
That's factually wrong (ethanol is about 70% as energy intensive as
gasoline) and misleading, beacue mileage and energy intensity are not
precisely correlated. Ethanol is a higfher octane fuel and thus higher
compression is possible than with gasoline. The longer stroke leads to
greater thermal efficiency and cancels out the disadvantage. Because
the engine runs cooler, and the same engine can operate at the same
speed at lower RPM, engine life is extended. One can use a smaller
lighter engine in a lighter vehicle to do the same work and achieve
even greater fuel economy.
> Here's one minor study:http://www.edmunds.com/advice/alternativefuels/articles/120863/articl...
>
> Just from this standpoint, alcohol is not good as a motor fuel.
>
> Right now ethanol has become a huge boondoggle funded primarily with
> crop incentives paid by the fedgov to the farmers. This has certainly
> caused a huge rise in the costs of corn-based food products.
>
So get rid of the subsidies and price support for sugar too and see
what happens.
> It is insane for us to burn food to drive our cars.
That's largely an urban myth pushed by the fossil fuel lobby. Most
ethanol is made from sugar cane, which is not really a food staple.
Some is made from non-edible portions of corn and other plant matter.
And how insane is it to use land to produce other non-essential crops
such as tobacco, cocaine, alcohol etc? Do you have the same food v
whatever worry?
Fran
Willie...@gmail.com
> hanson wrote in:http://groups.google.com/group/sci.chem/msg/2858531434d2f815
> on scams perpetrated the Ethanol lobby with the help of vast
> hordes or little green idiots who function as unpaid enablers
> and facilitators to fill the coffers from the scams by the fat
> class 2 enviros like ADM and Gore, et. al... ahahaha.....
The use of biomass to make fuels increases the cost of fuels while
robbing the worlds hungry of needed foods. So, I am opposed to ethanol
production from biomass for that reason - except in rare cases where
agricultural wastes might be more efficiently used.
I am not aware of any scams involving biofuels or any alternative
energy programs. Not really. There are madmen who claim 'free
energy' and all of that. But that doesn't really rise to the level of
Enron or Teapot Dome does it? I mean if scams were a reason not to
develop an energy resource, then we'd still be burning wood in our
steam engines wouldn't we? lol. Big oil and big coal has a history
rife with scams from their very beginning to today. So, I don't
understand why you have one standard for alternative energy and
another for oil and coal.
> "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics>news:b6NVj.5314$KQ4....@newsfe10.ams2...
> expressed his hope that "we really want improved efficiency
> and a low cost portable energy source that available on demand,
> so why not electrolyze water from sunlight?
depends on the details.
> Not cheap I know,
depends on the details. If done efficiently at the right scale and
the right price - this can be competitive with oil.
> but neither is going to war over oil and building and operating
> oil refineries.
Yes. Look at the total resource available - total demand for it - and
the amount of capital involved in making it available. For oil
you're talking about 900 billion barrels left, 28.8 billion barrels
per year (growing at 7%) and $20 trillion.
For solar you are talking about 600,000 sq km of land covered with $5
trillion worth of solar panels feeding $3 trillion worth of
electrolyzers, pipelines, batteries and wires to provide 3.34 billion
tons of hydrogen from 30 billion tons of water each year. . which
replaces not only the oil but the coal and natural gas as well..
>Anyone that has operated an oxy-acetylene torch
> knows there is a whole lot of energy in those bottles, more than a
> tank of gasoline".
You are confusing power and energy.
> Enter <Willie.Moo...@gmail.com> denizen of sci.space.policy
> who wrote & prescribed a "solution"... ahahaha... in his messagenews:08aecf76-fde9-4437...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> wherein Willy concludes: "Properly developed,a solar hydrogen
> infrastructure that is competitive with oil, can replace coal and
> natural gas totally,and knock oil prices back below $30 per
> barrel, before ending the importance of oil altogether"...
Well, we currently use
28.8 billion barrels per year of oil products
5.5 billion tons per year of coal
1.1 billion tons per year of natural gas
We replace the coal and natural gas with hydrogen made from sunlight,
and use additional hydrogen to convert the coal into 38.5 billion
barrels of suncrude, and convert the natural gas into methanol using
oxygen, then dehydrate to form iso-octane, we get another 16.1 billion
barrels of liquid fuels. That's 54.6 billion barrels of liquid fuels
with zero increase in our carbon footprint. Add that output to the
28.8 billion barrels already extracted and we get 83.4 billion barels
- .and if we look at the demand curve for oil, we end up with $30 per
barrel in today's markets.
That is, the efficient produciton of solar hydrogen gives those
making solar hydrogen this way the means to undercut and then dominate
the market for oil and other energy products. Once we control 2/3 of
the market for these products, then we can direct capital toward more
efficient uses like direct burning of hydrogen in vehicles, the use of
powered roadways (which the oil companies put out of business when
they were getting started) and all manner of things.
> ahaha
> Willie is promoting the hope for acceptance of large Hydrogen
> use scenarios, using "ultra-low-cost solar panel of the type
> in herehttp://www.usoal.com,"... ahaha..
No. I'm sponsoring 8 coal-to-liquid projects around the world
(outside the USA) each one produces 220,000 b/d of suncrude - from
30,000 tons per day of coal and 36,000 tons per day of water - made
with 180 sq km of solar panels - each at 8 locations in Asia and
Australia.
I sell a portion of the commodities made and retain ownership of the
facility and operate it, while selling the balance of commodities I
make. Thus, with this revenue stream I will do a number of things.
The first thing I will do is buy Sunoco and Westmoreland Coal in the
USA. I will merge these two companies into an integrated domestically
sources energy company, and increase the value of the combined
entities from $6.5 billion to $230 billion by dumping $68 per barrel
directly to the bottom line using coal derived sunfuel.
> BUT which do not exist...
http://www.mitrais.com/mining/miningNews060818.asp
Sugico MOK to Develop Brown Coal
(Sugico MOK Garap Batu Bara Muda)
Bisnis Indonesia, 16 Aug 2006
Sugico MOK Energy, a joint venture between Sugico Group and MOK
Industries LLC USA plan to develop low rank coal resources to produce
alternative synthetic fuel. The energy development project will be
developed in South Sumatra with an initial investment of US$800
million. Sugico MOK Energy targets to produce 20,000 barrels of
synthetic fuel per day by 2011. It will be gradually be develop in the
years to come so that by 2015, production is expected to reach 700,000
barrels per day
While I have gotten some press related to my efforts in Asia, I have
been ignored in the West.
> --- Hey Willie, kudos, for you are now being an emergent class 2
> enviro.
The banks and financial backers - some of them from UAE - are backing
me to the tune of $7 billion per facility - buying forward positions
in the production of these facilities. That leaves 35% of the output
at each facility in my hands. They wanted to increase output from
20,000 per day to 220,000 per day (more economic) at each facility
which is what we've done. Once I am in produciton, I intend to
leverage the cash flow generated by the sale of my portion of fuels to
acquire a retailing operation in the USA and additional coal reserves
- to expand my system. Once that is in place, then, I will move to
sell hydrogen and other things.
> Welcome to the world of green dreams.
Why do you insist on saying dismissive things about important
projects?
> May they become
> true before they bankrupt you or drive you into the nut house or
> make you end up in jail... ahahahaha..
What the hell does that mean?
.
>
> hanson wrote:
>
> Hey listen guys, *in principle!!*, of course I do share your dreams.
Yeah, I feel the love. lol.
> But dreams are not reality...
Especially your dreams about me being bankrupts and all that.
> and very few of such dreams will
> ever turn into any kind of reality.
Including yours.
> I have no idea HOW the
> growing energy need will be accommodated.
That doesn't stop you from shitting on those who do though does it?
lol.
>Except I know that
> it will be solved.... ahahahaha... 'cuz not doing do will be a
> pill too bitter to swallow...
That's not logical. People who trouble themselves to understand an
issue and take positive steps to do what they think best is how things
get done. Dogging someone with ignorant tripe who is doing their best
to help resolve these issues so you can be richer tomorrow than you
are today - is not the way to go.
>
> With little doubt, the chief obstacle to progress and change
> are the oil-, coal- and gas providers of today...
I don't know. They are doing what they're organized to do - create
the greatest value for their stockholders with the resources and
skills they have at hand. Its the technologists that should be on the
spot. Its up to those who come up with a better way to prove it. To
go out and do it. That's what I'm doing.
> them being the
> largest stake holders in the game. -
Industrial society is the largest stakeholder. When Jimmy Carter
vowed to do something about the energy crisis - he's a nuclear
engineer - Three mile island happened the week he submitted his bill
to Congress. Then China Syndrome came out. All reference to nuclear
was elided from the bill. Damn lucky for the oil companies don't you
think?
In the 1950s we were told that power would be too cheap to meter by
1970. That has been ignored. Despite the fact that costs are
inversely proportional to the fourth power of temperature, GE and
Westinghouse designed their power plants to operate at 600F - which
made them PRECISELY competitive with coal. DOE efforts since the
1950s to cinrease temperature to 1,100F - have been opposed throughout
the industry. The 1950s idea of a nuclear lightbulb that operated at
6,000F - has consistently been derided as fantasy. Meanwhile
legitimate concerns about nuclear proliferation and safety - have
created an inpenetratble barrier to clear thinking and clear decision
making around nuclear energy.
In response to a request by LBJ in 1964 the Brookhaven National
Laboratory came up with a plan to implement the 'too cheap to meter'
scenario - with high temperature nuclear reactors that thermolytically
reduced water to hydrogen and oxygen, and used it to make synfuel at
$2 per barrel - while powering out cities with cheap nuclear
electricity - and providing cheap fertilizer for our farms.
LBJ ignored this study while he dealt with Vietnam. Then, he did not
seek or accept the nomination for another term as president. Humphrey
lost to Nixon., Nixon replaced the energy advisors LBJ had, and the
BNL study was forgotten. We began shipping increasing amounts of oil
from the Middle East. OPEC flexed their muscles.
Carter came into office and vowed to do something. He had LBJs old
advisors, and brushed off the BNL study. (which by the way has been
reincornated as Gen IV reactors slated to be introduced by DOE in 2040
about the time oil prices are so high that even the value of oil
company stocks are adversely affected) but it was quietly dropped
after Three Mile Island and China Syndrome. Well Jane Fonda had to
so something to get those charges dropped from her Cleveland arrest!
lol.
Yet, even with all of this, we could have avoided the problems we're
having today - if we had had better leadership. Of course, Bobby
Kennedy got shot, and MLK got shot and JFK got shot, and well - people
play for keeps don't they?
> Now, put yourself into their
> shoes, you being in a position to monopolize & control price
> and output ...
Its not monopolies its access to power and control of the media in the
USA. Its lack of supply that's the problem - and how to manage
that. Oil companies want it managed to aximize their value and not
to have it turned into a competitive advantage.
> internationally.. at a time when your product is
> in demand like it was never before... Business is good! !!!...
From 1850 to 1950 the cost of energy dropped an average of 5% per
year. After the USA peaked in oil output in 1960s - prices began to
rise world wide at 8% per year from 1970s onward. World oil output is
likely to peak sometime in the next 5 to 15 years.- by 2030 things
will be so bad, the oil companies will likely sponsor the BNL study -
in the guise of Gen IV nuclear reactors.
My low cost solar panels does an end run around that. I use
concentrated sunlight in low cost collectors to basically replicate
the processes described in the BNL study and compete head to head with
oil companies today.
> So, don't tell me that YOU would give up your position in such
> a fabulous candy store...
Don't make the oil companies out to be more than they are. Its
fundamental lack of supply and increasing demand that create rising
prices. Disinformation and political influence of big oil are
factors only - once a well established competitor emerges, they will
change their tune and the efficiencies of a competitive market will
accelerate conversion and the shift away from extracted fuels.
> just because a few million people
> starve to death or cuz a few thousand of anarchist activists
> agitate the hordes of little green idiots...
You like to look down your nose at people don't you? Fact is the
world is organized around the USA at present. At the end of world war
two the USA worried about a nuclear pearl harbor that would leave the
US defeated after a surprise nuclear attack. So, we organized our
policies to avoid this possibility. We became the shop keepers of the
world. Our allies were our manufacturers, and everyone else could
sell them raw materials.
So, the US became the center of a ring of supporters. A guy in the
outer ring grows cotton, which is shipped to the inner ring to make 25
T-shirts - which is shipped to the center to be worn by Americans. 20
of the 25 T-shirts stay in America. 4 ot the T-shirts go back to
those who make them. 1 T shirt goes to those who grow the cotton.
That way, no one but the USA has enough money to buildnuclear weapons
and threaten the USA.
People won't stand fo rthis too long. It works short term. It
creates more problems than it resolves. One of the problems, are
rising commodity prices - and the interruption of natural flows of
capital to where its needed to resolve problems of supply and
incorporate innovations in production.
> If you says that
> you would act differently then... then you will have simply
> joined ranks with the hordes of the little green idiots.
> ... ahahahaha....
Oil company owners are members of the same community you and I are.
If we live in a society that rewards us being members of the same
community then we will all grow and prosper. If we live in a society
that creates huge disparities - then we are creating conflict.
US policies since the beignning of the cold war, for very good and
valid reasons have created a huge disparity that favored the USA - and
that system is crumbling - higher commodity prices is one effect.
There are others.
The oil companies are not evil. They are merely taking advantage as
anyone would of the situation they find themselves in. This is a
factor, its not the primary effect. The primary effect is that there
is crying need for new supplies - and we need to get our shit together
and overcome the concerns of the cold way to meet todays needs to
maintain our leadership position.
> So, why should this international cartel of C&CH barons give
> their position in their cookie store, in particular since they are
> all publicly traded multinationals who give fat dividends to 100
> of millions of little share holders... ahahaha..
Oil companies operate in the shadow of US national security concerns.
to think otherwise is foolish.
> It will take EXTRAORDINARY social, economic and political
> circumstances to change the current paradigm. But these
> conditions are not here... & the few loud Greenies, half of which
> are playing, unpaid & unwittingly, into the hands of the agenda
> of the C&CH conglomerate... that will not do the trick. ahahaha..
No, all it takes is to point out that US security interests in the
modern age are better served by managing growth rather than disparity.
> Don't you remember Shale Oil, Tar sands, Coal Gasification, etc.
> all commercial/financial duds. -- Don't you rem the 30 + year old
> Ocean Wave projects, all the Wind farms, all the PV promos,... all
> being nothing more than unsuccessful band aids which were failed
> attempts to cure a huge global hemmorhoid...
Yes, a large number of high profile failures have been used to manage
investment enthusiasm for alternatives to the majors. Absolutely.
This is a factor, not a primary determinant of what's going on.
the oil companies are not the boss of me. Oil companies have made a
few mis-steps, in Indonesia, Australia, UAE - the places I am
working. Once these projects are generating revenue, I will use that
revenue stream to buy an oil retail operation and create with it an
integrated oil company in the US. Expand that, and begin introducing
alternatives to oil in a big way - and expand from that success
worldwide.
I want to shave 20 years off the Gen IV plan - using solar energy.
Bama Brian
This is absolutely wrong. Have you not studied thermodynamics?
Cite, please. And see if you can find the relative efficiencies of the
current types of vehicle motors today. It's online.
Look, it's the energy content of the fuel that determines gas mileage.
This energy content is expressed in British Thermal Units (BTU's).
Here's a handy fedgov chart that shows the differences:
http://www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/pdfs/afv_info.pdf
Read the chart. Note the differences between gasoline, ethanol, and
methanol. Also read the fine print where it discusses environmental
impacts on page 2 - especially where it talks about how the ethanol
produces "less" pollution. But note that more ethanol must be burned,
so even this is a wash.
>
>> Here's one minor study:http://www.edmunds.com/advice/alternativefuels/articles/120863/articl...
>>
>> Just from this standpoint, alcohol is not good as a motor fuel.
>>
>> Right now ethanol has become a huge boondoggle funded primarily with
>> crop incentives paid by the fedgov to the farmers. This has certainly
>> caused a huge rise in the costs of corn-based food products.
>>
>
> So get rid of the subsidies and price support for sugar too and see
> what happens.
Then the price increases in ethanol will add another 50 cents to a
dollar to our present fuel costs.
>> It is insane for us to burn food to drive our cars.
>
> That's largely an urban myth pushed by the fossil fuel lobby. Most
> ethanol is made from sugar cane, which is not really a food staple.
> Some is made from non-edible portions of corn and other plant matter.
Ethanol is made from sugar cane primarily in Brazil. The US government
currently blocks the importation of such cane or ethanol in order to
protect the farmers. Forbes magazine claims the fedgov puts a 54 cents
tariff on each gallon of ethanol made in Brazil. Almost no ethanol is
produced from US sugar cane.
http://money.cnn.com/2007/08/06/news/economy/sugarcane_ethanol/index.htm
http://www.forbes.com/2005/11/15/energy-ethanol-brazil_cx_1116energy_adams.html
Some ethanol in the US is made from corn silage; most is made from corn.
> And how insane is it to use land to produce other non-essential crops
> such as tobacco, cocaine, alcohol etc? Do you have the same food v
> whatever worry?
That's your Strawman argument; you feed it.
Has your food bill gone up lately? Most of the rise is caused by the
increases in transportation and production costs due to the recent rises
in fuel prices.
BUT - Ethanol is heavily subsidized by the fedgov to the tune of $4.5
billion for 3.8 gallons produced - and ethanol additives still cost
money at the pump. This is the biggest reason why corn food products
have shot up in price. Go back and read that Forbes article again. And
note that meat prices are about to take another HUGE jump upwards due to
the recent cost increases of raising the animals.
Here's the World of Corn, 2007. Track through the pages for an
education - and don't miss the price increases year to year:
http://www.ncga.com/WorldOfCorn/main/Record1.asp
So which do you want? Ethanol from corn at heavily subsidized prices,
or cheaper food?
JanPM...@gmail.com
wrote:
> Ethanol increases air pollution in addition to raising food prices!
>
> "Politics fueling rising food prices"
>
> http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/322-05082008-1530897.html
>
> "Ethanol increases two of the most dangerous air pollutants — volatile
> organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) by 4 to 7 percent
> over gasoline, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.
> Together, VOC and NOx cause thousands of premature deaths each year,
> the EPA said."
> ----------------------
> From my own webpage on biofuels athttp://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html
>
> "Biofuel advocates falsely claim that ethanol is a "clean fuel" that
> will reduce air pollution. Ethanol blended fuels burn cleaner on a
> per gallon basis, but not on a miles traveled basis, because ethanol
> contains 33% less energy than gasoline. Ethanol blended fuels
> actually emit more CO2 per miles driven than ordinary gasoline in
> addition to emitting far more CO2 during their manufacture."
>
> "Despite all of this bad news, biofuel fans and many television news
> anchors keep mindlessly repeating the false claim that ethanol is
> "green" and "renewable." If we dramatically speed up global warming
> by producing ethanol, soon we won't be able to "renew" much of
> anything."
>
> Christopher Calder
The only reason we cannot solve global warming is because of a
greenhouse gas called GREED!
We have the technologies to make Hydrogen, Gasoline, Diesel, Ethanol,
Methanol and many other fuels, without using edible materials,
farmland or hazzardous and poluting techniques, by the way of using
Algae and waste products. We can even do it CHEAPER than the Petrol
Industries, and by doing that clean up the mess we made of our planet.
However the same people that are behind the International Banking
Cartels, are behind the Strategic (read: Energy, Food) Markets and
they don´t give a damn about this planet or you or me. The just want
money and control.
The longer we argue about this and do not work together on this, the
more money they make and the bigger a mess this planet becomes. The
human species is the only one that litters its own nest.
Let´s just do this in a clever way. Clean Energy IS possible. Let´s
take the monopoly out of the hands of those dictators!
Think about this.
Rob Dekker
"Lars Eighner" <use...@larseighner.com> wrote in message news:slrng2cft5...@debranded.larseighner.com...
OK. This study we talked about before (here on the NG), and although noone has really disputed the general idea, there are certainly
some side notes to be made here.
First off, this study (and the related one) pertain to carbon impacts of land use change.
The general idea is that if you grow fuel, then you need more land. For example, if the US uses more corn for ethanol, but would not
use more land, then it will export less corn, or farmers will grow more corn but less soybean, and since the world still needs to
eat, somebody else will start growing more soybean or corn. That land ultimately requires a land use change somewhere, and most
likely in developing nations, where rain forest is then devastated to clear land to grow crops.
Although the general idea of this is undoubtfully true on a global scale, it is a bit like throwing the baby away with the bathwater
when we talk about local decisions to grow fuel.
For example, the US does mostly corn for ethanol production, but that has not really resulted in reduction in export. Neither did
our soybean export.
You could argue that even if it does, we could have exported more corn and soybean if we would not use corn for ethanol.
However, most US corn is used for animal food (cattle, chicken etc) and corn to ethanol does produce a product called 'distillers
grain'.
Distillers grain has higher amount of protein than the corn it came from, so it is even contestable that getting ethanol out of corn
reduces the amount of nutricious (animal) food overall.
The picture gets even more distorted because the current land-use changes in the world are mostly caused by increased demand for
food.
For example, there is strong growing demand for beef (and other 'expensive' foods) because of the higher standard of living in the
world. Even Brasil (the master of ethanol biofuel) clears the Amazon land mostly for cattle and animal food, NOT for ethanol. They
use only a small portion of their land for ethanol production. Also the way in which we clear the land makes a really big
difference. If you burn rain forest to clear land for cattle, then obviously you create a huge carbon deficit, which will be very
difficult to make up later. If you would use the wood to build houses, then the carbon lost to the atmosphere will be much less. And
'clearing' grassland to grow switchgrass can hardly be considered a land-use change. Similar with clearing any other land for any
other food of fuel.
So the land-use changes that this study looked at, even when made from corn, should at least be taken with a grain of salt (or grain
of corn if you will).
Maybe you can argue that farming in general has a negative impact on the carbon balance, and that growing anything will create a
carbon deficit. But to blame biofuels for that is somewhat shortsighted.
>
> In real vehicles available today the situation is even worse. While the
> theoretical yeild of ethanol has a worse carbon footprint than gasoline,
> hybrid vehicles that can actually be purchased today are less efficient than
> gasoline-only vehicles that are really comparable.
Mmm. Here we go again : Where did you get this info ?
Rob Dekker
<JanPM...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:2ffd44e0-1bac-43a5...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> The only reason we cannot solve global warming is because of a
> greenhouse gas called GREED!
> We have the technologies to make Hydrogen, Gasoline, Diesel, Ethanol,
> Methanol and many other fuels, without using edible materials,
> farmland or hazzardous and poluting techniques, by the way of using
> Algae and waste products. We can even do it CHEAPER than the Petrol
> Industries, and by doing that clean up the mess we made of our planet.
Really ? Where did you get that info ?
Especially the part where you claim that we grow fuel from algae cheaper than using fossil fuel.
> However the same people that are behind the International Banking
> Cartels, are behind the Strategic (read: Energy, Food) Markets and
> they don愒 give a damn about this planet or you or me. The just want
> money and control.
Well, if they only care about money and control, then wouldn't it make sense for them to choose the cheaper algae solution, and
control that market ?
> The longer we argue about this and do not work together on this, the
> more money they make and the bigger a mess this planet becomes. The
> human species is the only one that litters its own nest.
> Let愀 just do this in a clever way. Clean Energy IS possible. Let愀
> take the monopoly out of the hands of those dictators!
We have a free market throughout most of the word.
If you have a good method to make algae oil cheaper than petrol, I'm sure you can find investors.
Rob
mcs
> of noxious pollution reducing global warming plus greenhouse gasses
> contributing to global warming is on the side of increased global warming
No kidding! To seriously have to explain that, was not necessary. The only
interesting thing was the word mask. The people who like to reword their
slant on global warming, call it reducing the global warming. Its almost the
largest outright lie possible and you know when they can do that, they can
just assume their footprint theory is true. Like I said I see miles of
refineries and I see black soot from coal and diesel fuel and gas engines on
beaches that are allowed to have vehicles in them. I doubt although I don't
know the overall production of even ethanol comes close to making gasoline
--
the goal when communicating is to rationzlize existence with truth and
facts and what is right coupled with getting what we desire (which might not
always be what is right)
Facts are often hidden so rich control options
Sometimes feelings are not accurate and sometimes they are. Lets learn to do
better based on truth, honesty and facts and the desire to do good
"Fran" <Fran...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a846dd6b-10ec-46e3...@q24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
hanson
** Green Willie Wonka in the enviro chocolate factory ** who
has all the earmarks of one of the many enthusiastic class 2
enviro aspirants. But for rest of his life he will remain a poverty
stricken class 3 enviro, but mostly likely will never realize it.
So, very vociferously & prolix, in 4 his posts, he went against
the mighty Coal-, Gas- & Oil Barons and wrote in message
news:3e31560d-a127-4685...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
::WW:: We don't lack resources, we lack imagination and the
::WW:: courage to act on our imagination. The energy problem
::WW:: is solvable. The other problems ditto. Once I get the
::WW:: energy thing under control, I'll show you all how its done.
>
hanson wrote:
ahahaha... But Willie, listen: If we don't lack the resouces why
do we wanna chance? **If it ain't broke -- don't fix it!** ... But,
Willie, my good man, for your last sentence you deserve and
get no 3 "attaboys". And when you "get it under control" & done
what you said, I wanna become your first understudy. Till then
thanks for the laughs and heed the warnings that were given
to you in
<http://groups.google.com/group/sci.chem/msg/3c9acd28ee4c0ae5>
wherein it says:
(1) Yes, you are right, Willie, we are not running out of resources
like coal, oil and gas. --- Cries from the C&CH boys on "Peak oil",
"End of the oil age", "we are running out of oil" are all nothing
but cons to keep clout and control over their domain. -- You can
see that from a simple high school chem. calc, which shows that
>
Initially, "they" say the earth had an anaerobic envelope ~0 % O2.
At hand back then was only (relevant) CO2 and Carbonates.
So, Photosynth. etc. has liberated by now ~21% free O2 into the
air: That translates into ~1E+21 gr or ~1E+15 tons of available
O2. So, each 32 gr of O2 buried somewhere 12-14 gr = 1 C (max
CH4). Hence, there is 1E+21 * 12/32 = 5E+20 gr or ~ 5.E+14
tons of fossil C in store. So, at a current use/consumption/burning
of 3E+15 gr/yr of oil, the fossil stuff (coal, oil & CH4) will be
reoxydised in 5E+20 gr / 3E+15 gr/yr =~ 1.5E+05 years!
>
So, even at a ***1% *** availability of this recourse estimate
the "we are running out of oil" "End of the oil age", or "Peak oil",
may have some gravitas only in 1500 years from now!... ahaha..
and no EARLIER than in 150'000 years from now, when the next
ice age has come and gone, and the green fuckers are not even
a foot note in history anymore, will all the fossil C be burned off.
>
(2) Also Willie, in your great attempt to establish a world that
runs primarily on alternative energy sources watch for the barbs
that will come from the C&CH syndicate and cartels.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/2084d8f1e6393226
They have told you quite openly how cleverly the manipulate
the fuel market ever since 1917. Back then they killed the first
green (solar water heat) wave, by simply providing cheaper
and more reliable energy: oil.... all the way to another cycle
when during the Israeli precipitated oil embargo in ~1971/73
OPEC's Sheik Ahmad Zaki al-Yamani (Saudi's oil minister)
appeared for weeks on all the TV news- and Talk-show
circuits in the US and openly declared that anybody who
thinks that they'll be able to threaten the oil interests is
kidding himself, ....because the moment anybody is
becoming a threat to the oil boys they simply do flood the
market with cheap oil and bankrupt the investors of/in/with
green "renewable & sustainable" energy gismos.
As soon as the "alternative energy" competition is killed off
the oil boys announce that Peak Oil is just around the corner
& the price at the pump and their profits go up.... ahahahaha...
>
Thanks for the laughs... ahahaha... ahahahanson
>
PS:
Enviros class classification in here:
< http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/70ed6372eccc32ba>
Green Crimes, Green Scams, Green Extortions & Green Lies:
<http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/14968cc3ee9939d4>
hanson
the fuel market ever since 1917. Back then they killed the first
green (solar water heat) wave, by simply providing cheaper
and more reliable energy: oil.... all the way to another cycle
when during the Israeli precipitated oil embargo in ~1971/73
OPEC's Sheik Ahmad Zaki al-Yamani (Saudi's oil minister)
appeared for weeks on all the TV news- and Talk-show
circuits in the US and openly declared that anybody who
thinks that they'll be able to threaten the oil interests is
kidding himself, ....because the moment anybody is
becoming a threat to the oil boys they simply do flood the
market with cheap oil and bankrupt the investors of/in/with
green "renewable & sustainable" energy gismos.
As soon as the "alternative energy" competition is killed off
the oil boys announce that Peak Oil is just around the corner
hanson
.
Rob Dekker
"Fran" <Fran...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:a846dd6b-10ec-46e3...@q24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> > In our last episode, <wdYUj.1466$Vd.1020@trndny06>, the lovely and talented
> > mcs broadcast on alt.politics:
> >
> > > "ethanol has a larger carbon footprint then fossil fuel"
> > > Ok what does that mean?
> >
> > It means when you consider the planting, growing, harvesing, processing into
> > ethanol, and burning the ethanol, the greenhouse gas output to drive a
> > vehicle one mile on ethanol is greater than the greenhouse gas output of
> > driving one mile with fossil fuel.
> >
>
> The claim *as a general proposition* is wrong. Clearly, it is possible
> to raise ethanol in a way that would produce a bigger carbon footprint
> than fossil fuels, but why one would do that is hard to fathom.
>
> Conceivably, ethanol might be raised from waste biomass or resideu, or
> from switchgrass or algae or even sugar cane juice. Conceivably, the
> energy inputs could be largely or entirely from zero or low carbon
> footprint sources. And at the user end, the ethanol could be used in
> cars adapted to make use of its combustion properties, increasing the
> thermal effciency of the engine realtive to one configured for
> gasoline.
>
> In such circumstances, the carbon footprint of ethanol would be a
> fraction of that of fossil fuels.
> For the record I don't believe that ethanol is the best transitional
> fuel -- for 'gasoline' powered cars, butanol would be better. But
> ethanol isn't bad, if raised by the right methods. I'm against
> subsidising it, but also against subsidising fossil fuels. I say a
> cost that reflects the damage being done by them should attach to
> fossil fuels, and a rebate given to those who clean up the mess these
> make through what they do. Then, whatever fuel was used would reflect
> the balance between these in a technologically neutral process.
Hi Fran,
I'd like your expert opinion on the following finding :
When talking about energy balance for biofuels, we often see the numbers of 1.25 or 1.5 for ethanol from corn, but much better
numbers for ethanol from switchgrass.
The process for producing ethanol from switchgrass overlaps with ethanol from corn ; they both require a fermentation and
distillation step.
So I always wondered about why that difference is so large.
So I recently looked into one of these studies in more detail :
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/105/2/464
It reports a factor of 5.4 energy balance for ethanol from switchgrass. So the process, including seeding, farming and processing
produces 5.4 units of energy for 1 unit of fossil energy used. I looked a bit more into this, and came across the energy balance
usage sheet for this study :
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/0704767105/DC1
Here, I noticed that the reactor used is a bioreactor, fired by lignin (from the switchgrass presumably). Fossil energy used there
is zero.
Other energy input numbers seem similar to what we see from normal ethanol-from-corn processing, including high energy costs for
ferilizers.
Likewise, in Brazil, they get a 1:8 energy balance from sugercane, by using dried sugercane leafs in bioreactors for the
distillation step.
So, it seems that the feedstock for ethanol production is not the determining factor for the energy balance of ethanol.
It seems that the energy used for fermentation/distillation is much more important :
Traditional (current) ethanol from corn could get to a 1:5 level if bioractors would be used in the processing steps. Maybe burning
dried corn leafs or lignin from corn stalks, rather than the current natural gas burners.
That would put the entire "ethanol energy balance" question behind us for once and for all...
Rob
sbm...@shaw.ca
> In our last episode, <DZQUj.667$Hh.518@trndny09>, the lovely and talented
> mcs broadcast on alt.politics.greens:
>
> > and this one is not clear. What does Al Gore think?
>
> Al Gore has been warning about the problems of ethanol for some time.
>
> > Cellulose use to be hyped and now I have my doubts about that too.
>
> Ethanol has a larger carbon foot print than fossil fuels, whatever it is
> derived of.> Countdown: 256 days to go.
Actually, no it doesn't. If you use corn, it's about 30% smaller. If
you use sugar cane, it's 1/8 the size. If it's switchgrass, about
1/3-1/5 the size.
Day Brown
> In article <dGIUj.25700$aA1.23663@trnddc05>,
> "mcs" <mcsantp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> wall street journal just wrote a report and said ethanol was not economical
>> or effecient in green house gases. who to believe? I don't know anymore
>> Gates even seems to be selling. There are two sides and the side with just
>> ethanol seems to be losing. From a gut perspective one would think it would
>> succeed
>
>
> "For every problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"
Depends on how ethanol is produced. There is a green process if you
start with Sorghum, not corn. A U of GA report says you can grow an acre
of sorghum with modern methods on 3.5 gallons of tractor fuel. And get
100-120 gallons of ethanol.
But lets be specific here. For one, Sorghum is much more tolerant of
drought, and only needs sufficient water in the week before harvest to
ramp up sucrose sap in the plants. Sorghum is also less demanding of the
soil, and dont need nearly the chemical fertilizers.
harvested in August or early sept, there is still plenty of hot sun to
power solar stills, and the juice only needs 5 days to ferment to 8-10%
ethanol. Moreover, you'd still get seed to raise chickens on, and the
mash to raise beef on, and the manure could go back on the field. Its a
completely sustainable system. The ethanol is made of hydrogen and
oxygen that come from the rain and air. You'd only need to replace the
phosphorus, Nitrogen, and Potash exported in the meat. diddly.
HOWEVER: note that this is ETHANOL, which does not have the isopropyl
alcohol from the corn based sour mash process. So, unlike moonshine, it
is rum, and not poisonous. Were farmers to switch to sorghum, they could
afford all the fermenting and distillation equipment, and roadside
stands selling ethanol that you could drive on would spring up all over
the place. Course, you could also *drink* it.
Which means that the BATF would loose control of liquor. The seed
outfits would loose profits cause you dont need hybrids much less GM.
The chemical companies would loose money cause you dont need nearly so
much fertilizer, pesticides and herbicides. And of course, the oil
companies would loose money if people bought the ethanol straight from
the small farmers.
We cant have that can we? So, of course, the corporate media wont say a
word about it.
Androcles
Hey buddy!
As you know I'm not so hot on chemistry and my geology could so
with some brushing up, too, but I do have a question here.
We find fossil leaves in coal just as we find fossil shells in chalk (I have
actually
found one of the second but never one of the first, I don't go coal mining
very much). A perfect scallop measuring 4" in breadth and an inch deep,
an amazing find when I was chatting to old bricklayer while idly picking
at the rockface. He's now long dead, although his beautiful Kent Ragstone
wall is still standing, holding back the chalk from crumbling with frost and
rain
eroding the bank and making an unsightly mess.
http://tinyurl.com/2nfwlo
http://www.favonius.com/romans/points_arising.htm
There was nothing of the shell itself, just the shape.
I gave it to the local museum but they did not seem overly impressed,
even if I was, but then we do have a plethora of calcium carbonate:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/119/290719612_5a27cbaf61.jpg
Anyway, here's my question.
If coal (of which we are NOT running out, there is oodles of it left and
easily accessible, whatever Willie Wonka says) is fossilized timber or peat,
where the hell does oil come from? Is it processed from coal by heat
and pressure from sedimentary rock and/or metamorphic/igneous rock
above it, or is there some other process that takes what is essentially
a biosphere product underground? Is it even a biosphere product?
I'm lost here, I just don't know.
hanson
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
> Hey buddy!
> As you know I'm not so hot on chemistry and my geology could
> so with some brushing up, too, but I do have a question here.
> We find fossil leaves in coal just as we find fossil shells in chalk
> (I have actually found one of the second but never one of the first,
> I don't go coal mining very much). A perfect scallop measuring
> 4" in breadth and an inch deep, an amazing find when I was
> chatting to old bricklayer while idly picking at the rockface. He's
> now long dead, although his beautiful Kent Ragstone wall is still
> standing, holding back the chalk from crumbling with frost and
> rain eroding the bank and making an unsightly mess.
> http://tinyurl.com/2nfwlo
> http://www.favonius.com/romans/points_arising.htm
> There was nothing of the shell itself, just the shape. I gave it to
> the local museum but they did not seem overly impressed, even
> if I was, but then we do have a plethora of calcium carbonate:
> http://farm1.static.flickr.com/119/290719612_5a27cbaf61.jpg
>
Anyway, here's my question.
If coal (of which we are NOT running out, there is oodles of it left
and easily accessible, whatever Willie Wonka says) is fossilized
timber or peat, where the hell does oil come from? Is it processed
from coal by heat and pressure from sedimentary rock and/or
metamorphic/igneous rock above it, or is there some other process
that takes what is essentially a biosphere product underground?
Is it even a biosphere product? I'm lost here, I just don't know.
>
Well, I am not the expert you should ask about this, but AFAIU
here is a widely held conjecture of evolutionary events: When
the world cooled there were the anoxic oceans with eventually
anaerobic life forms in an atmosphere that was largely CO2.
Then some life forms "discovered" photosynthesis like Cyano
bacteria, Algae and the famous Stromatolites, which "ate" the
CO2 and made sugars and cellulose out of it for their own use
--- 6 CO2 + 6 H2O + hf ---> C6H12O6 (glucose) + 6 O2 ---
-- C6H12O6 (glucose) --enzm --> C6H10O5 (St/Cel)+ H2O --
and farted out O2 in the process. They were so successful
that the also colonized the land as ferns, grass & later trees
which changed the atmosphere from CO2-major into O2-major.
(N2 has a different roll not deeply germane to the question here)
>
These scenarios are naturally all hypotheses and conjectures.
Anyways, it is believed today that the remains of the life forms
in the oceans eventually turned into Gas or Oil,...
-- C6H12O6 (glucose) + heat & pr ---> 3 CH4 (gas) + 3 CO2
- 3 C6H10O5 (c'lose) + h&pr --> 12 CH2: (oil) + 6 CO2 + 3 H2O
whereas decaying organic matter from organisms on land
formed the peat bogs, brown coal & finally anthracite beds.
-- C6H10O5 (starch/cellulose)+heat --> 6 C (coal)+5 H2O
>
Plate tectonics moved the loci around which is why oil is found
too in the middle of inland desert plateaus and under mountains.
Same for the coal beds and in few locations you find oil and
coal together. -- Furthermore, oil deposits when near they surface
can eventually turn into coal as is seen in the Tar pits, shale oil,
and tar sands. Then there is also the abiogenist formation of coal
and oil, a still hotly debated issue for which Thomas Gold was a
fanatic about. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
http://econtent-01.its.yale.edu/paleo/pdf/Oldest_Fossil.pdf
>
To me all these things are of belletristic interest but not worthwhile
getting hot over, because all these stories will not buy me a single
cup of coffee without me having worked for or conned $4 out of
someone who did some honeste work and harvested the food
stuff with his hands.
>
Take care, Andro.
hanson
mcs
I really have no idea what you just said. for the most part. I got the
impression you don't like ethanol from corn.
I think its great alternative, I think adm will easiy go to 100.. I think
you can't have objective people decide which footprint is bigger when the
side with the most money say foolish things like pollution decreases global
warming and they really think they are going to convince people with that
crap?
If this is the same way they determine footprints comparisons no wonder the
food price blame goes on in earnest. As for ways to use ethanol without
expensive fossil fuel fertilizer, I think its possible. As of now if the
same people worried about ethanol were half as worried about the footprint
from coal and oil and pollution we might be able to compare fair.
On your last point,
about electricity having a low foot print are you sure? If that was true we
just would need to power our cars with electricity and that would be that.
Fran
<sigh> If you believe that there is a flaw in something I've claimed,
you should specify it rather than wave your hand in the direction of
thermodynamics.
> Cite, please. And see if you can find the relative efficiencies of the
> current types of vehicle motors today. It's online.
>
You might take a look at the study done by GM in Warren Michigan that
examined a test single-cylinder engine (Brinkman's study IIRC). Here
it was shown that even at identical CR, ethanol engines increased
thermal efficiency by 3% over gasoline. When CR was adjusted from
7.5:1 to 18:1 ethanol improved thermal efficiency by 18% over
gasoline.
There's also William Scheller's study in Nebraska in the mid 1970s
called something like "the 2 million mile gasohol test run"). In this
study covering more than 40 vehicles over 2 million miles, gasohol
improved over unleaded by more that 5% and achieved more than 8 miles
extra per BTU. Another study by Naim Kosaric in 1984 showed that by
using straight anhydrous ethanol in an engine with a CR of 12.5:1,
power output at 1600 RPM was 57% higher than with a gasoline engine
running at 8.5:1 and 26% more than straight ethanol at 8.4:1.
> Look, it's the energy content of the fuel that determines gas mileage.
Energy intensity is only one factor, since in practice, the carnot
efficiency of the engine a fuel is combusted in is overlaid on it.
> This energy content is expressed in British Thermal Units (BTU's).
> Here's a handy fedgov chart that shows the differences:http://www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/pdfs/afv_info.pdf
>
Err yes ... I am aware.
> Read the chart. Note the differences between gasoline, ethanol, and
> methanol. Also read the fine print where it discusses environmental
> impacts on page 2 - especially where it talks about how the ethanol
> produces "less" pollution. But note that more ethanol must be burned,
> so even this is a wash.
>
No, it isn't. For a start, ethanol contains no aromatics or sulphur,
or benzine. which is just a straight win. Studies show that PM10 is
lower at the tailpipe. VOCs are also reduced. Lower operating
temperatures also reduce the scope for formation of oxides of
nitrogen. There's also virtually no CO emitted. The only downside
rally is aldhehydes and ketyones, which can be higher when not using a
catalytic converter.
And as was noted above, you can configure vehicles to run as or even
more fuel efficiently on ethanol at comparable levels of performance.
>
>
> >> Here's one minor study:http://www.edmunds.com/advice/alternativefuels/articles/120863/articl...
>
"File Not Found"
> >> Just from this standpoint, alcohol is not good as a motor fuel.
>
> >> Right now ethanol has become a huge boondoggle funded primarily with
> >> crop incentives paid by the fedgov to the farmers. This has certainly
> >> caused a huge rise in the costs of corn-based food products.
>
> > So get rid of the subsidies and price support for sugar too and see
> > what happens.
>
> Then the price increases in ethanol will add another 50 cents to a
> dollar to our present fuel costs.
>
Well one would have to be consistent. One would
a) abandon price support and subsidies for sugar
b) abandon all direct and indirect subsidies for ethanol and other
biofuels (apart from R & D, which would be repayable when/if the
technology was commercialised)
c) attach the full cost of securing crude oil supplies to gasoline and
petro-diesel and other crude oil-based industrial products. As is
known, the US military zero rates the lives of Iraqis, Palestinians
etc, but it would be interesting to see what cost they put on US
casualties (dead and injured).
d) attach a cost to all emitting activities that reflected the cost of
remediation, R & D, and/or restitution, health impacts etc.
e) attach a rebate to all mitigating activities that reflected the
quantum of mitigation that the activity achieved
Items c), d) and e) could be dtermined by detailed competitive tender
with independent auditing.
> >> It is insane for us to burn food to drive our cars.
>
> > That's largely an urban myth pushed by the fossil fuel lobby. Most
> > ethanol is made from sugar cane, which is not really a food staple.
> > Some is made from non-edible portions of corn and other plant matter.
>
> Ethanol is made from sugar cane primarily in Brazil. The US government
> currently blocks the importation of such cane or ethanol in order to
> protect the farmers.
So as a "libertarian" do you approve or not of protecting farmers?
> Forbes magazine claims the fedgov puts a 54 cents
> tariff on each gallon of ethanol made in Brazil. Almost no ethanol is
> produced from US sugar cane.
>
Well yes, because US sugar is too expensive, because its protected.
> http://money.cnn.com/2007/08/06/news/economy/sugarcane_ethanol/index.htm
>
> http://www.forbes.com/2005/11/15/energy-ethanol-brazil_cx_1116energy_...
>
> Some ethanol in the US is made from corn silage; most is made from corn.
>
> > And how insane is it to use land to produce other non-essential crops
> > such as tobacco, cocaine, alcohol etc? Do you have the same food v
> > whatever worry?
>
> That's your Strawman argument; you feed it.
>
You need to deal with it. If you are putting the case for utility in
land use policy "It is insane for us to burn food to drive our cars"
then plainly, you need
a) to define food
b) to rank land usages competing with food on a scale of 'insanity'
and declare the threshhold beneath which the land usage is contra-
indicated, and the methodology by which you arrived at that.
Consider also that as a self-avowed 'libertarian' straying into
centralised policy prescription is tricky. What is 'sane' should, for
you, be determined by 'the market'. You're not about to order farmers
to start producing food because it's necessary, or have the state do
it.
Now I'm a vegetarian, and so ideally, IMO, nobody would be raising
livestock. But the tidier and more consistent way to go, from a
utilitarian perspective is along the lines I proposed above --
attaching the costs upon the commons of various human activities to
the beneficiaries. Where human activities create public goods, then
rebates also attach. If some activity does both, then the balance is
relfected in the price. The context would be determined by the roll
out of general policy -- itself the broad policy that the community as
a whole thought most suitable.
You want to cherrypick, that's your problem.
> Has your food bill gone up lately? Most of the rise is caused by the
> increases in transportation and production costs due to the recent rises
> in fuel prices.
>
That's certainly one important factor.
> BUT - Ethanol is heavily subsidized by the fedgov to the tune of $4.5
> billion for 3.8 gallons produced - and ethanol additives still cost
> money at the pump. This is the biggest reason why corn food products
> have shot up in price. Go back and read that Forbes article again. And
> note that meat prices are about to take another HUGE jump upwards due to
> the recent cost increases of raising the animals.
>
That's why I'd dump the subsidies, and have what would amount to a
technologically neutral regime. The key parameters would be driven by
the envioronmental aims -- lower net carbon emissions, cleaner air and
water and so forth.
> Here's the World of Corn, 2007. Track through the pages for an
> education - and don't miss the price increases year to year:http://www.ncga.com/WorldOfCorn/main/Record1.asp
>
Well so what? Frankly, I'd sooner have 2.8 gallons of ethanol than
31.5 lbs of starch, or 33 lbs of sweetener. The question is, what does
the portion of corn that might be used for ethanol actually going to
be used for alternatively. In the US, most of it will wind up as
livestock feed or (much the same) in convenience foods. Can one
seriously claim that the world would be a worse place if people ate a
lot less convenience food? A lot less meat and a lot more vegetable
protein?
No, of course not.
People say that the EROEI on corn ethanol at about 1: 1.3 (in some
studies) doesn't justify using it -- and I would certainly agree. Even
if it were 1:5 I'd be against it if most of the "1" was composed of
fossil fuels. But look at food. The EROEI here is much worse -- on
average about 10:1. For every calorie out about 10 go in. That's
defencible if that's as good as we can get, and the food is of high
nutritional value. But junk food? Stuff that causes health problems?
Non-foods like tobacco and drinking alcohol?
> So which do you want? Ethanol from corn at heavily subsidized prices,
> or cheaper food?
False dilemma. I don't favour subsidised ethanol and the price of food
is not strongly related to corn-based ethanol, and to the extent that
it is, it is turning up in the price of meat or junk food.
If you want the price of food to decline you need to find cheaper
liquid fuels or some cheap substitute for the same or some way of
reducing the transport component in food production. You also need to
reduce the demand for livestock, which is the key pressure point on
land that would be used for raising of lower priced and more
nutritious (per unit of land, water, power, fertiliser) food.
Fran
Fran
> Fran
> I really have no idea what you just said. for the most part. I got the
> impression you don't like ethanol from corn.
I don't. I regard it as a very sub-optimal use of land, and I'm not
that keen on ethanol as a transition fuel because I believe there are
better alternatives for conventional ICEs-- butanol for example.
> I think its great alternative, I think adm will easiy go to 100.. I think
> you can't have objective people decide which footprint is bigger when the
> side with the most money say foolish things like pollution decreases global
> warming and they really think they are going to convince people with that
> crap?
I believe that you may have somewhat misunderstood Lars' point. He
simply noted that some aerosols (eg SO2, particulate) reduce
insolation (by reflecting it back to space in a kind of albedo
effect).
> If this is the same way they determine footprints comparisons no wonder the
> food price blame goes on in earnest.
You're mxing up concepts here. The 'footprint' describes the full
impact of an activity on surrounding systems -- in this case, the
footprint of an energy producing or consuming activity describes the
net emissions of CO2 and other agents, the impact on the structure of
human activity it demands etc through its full lifecycle.
> As for ways to use ethanol without
> expensive fossil fuel fertilizer, I think its possible.
So do I. But the same processes could be used to make butanol, which
is more energy intensive than ethanol, while having almost all the
other advantages and being able to be piped, because it's non-
corrosive. It can blend in any conventional ICE vehicle mix (including
with ethanol). It's not as high octane as ethanol and so CRs wouldn't
be able to be adjusted as radically, but this is, in the whole scheme
of things, a minor deficit, since no new fuel system would be
required..
> As of now if the
> same people worried about ethanol were half as worried about the footprint
> from coal and oil and pollution we might be able to compare fair.
A valid point, but these are really separate arguments.
> On your last point,
> about electricity having a low foot print are you sure? If that was true we
> just would need to power our cars with electricity and that would be that.
Electrical vehicles can have a low footprint --- nuclear power
compares favourably with coal for example and if this, or perhaps
hydro or geothermal or waste biomass or wind or tidal/wave were the
source of the energy to recharge cars, then plainly, we'd be ahead.
The problem here is plain. Firstly, most cars are not electric and
even those that are, are mostly not equipped to be recharged from
homes, offices or public car parks and of course, most homes, offices
and public carparks would have to be reconfigured to do this. So the
cost of doing this would not be cheap, and the process not speedy.
Then there's the cost and delay in building all those cars, building
the batteries needed (and their replacements) in a way that could
allow them to be efficiently recycled.
And of course, not all people would get their neds met with purely
electric vehicles. Long distance drivers and those wanting to use AC
would probably need some sort of combustion engine.
That's why I believe hybrids will anticipate PEVs and transitional
fuel vehicles using biodiesel and butanol would be best, short-term.
Coterminoulsy, we ought to be reconfiguring cities to reduce the need
for individualised transport options. If fewer people need continuous
access to cars, then the cost per mile of running them can go up
without making a huge difference to most people, and so a cleaner
energy system becomes supportable and the lead time in converting
declines.
Fran
mcs
in a just world we can have it. I never heard of what you just wrote about
though. Have the ethanol producers thought about it and know about it and
what do you think their response would be?
--
the goal when communicating is to rationzlize existence with truth and
facts and what is right coupled with getting what we desire (which might not
always be what is right)
Facts are often hidden so rich control options
Sometimes feelings are not accurate and sometimes they are. Lets learn to do
better based on truth, honesty and facts and the desire to do good
"Day Brown" <dayb...@hughes.net> wrote in message
news:Rh2Wj.115862$Ft5....@newsfe15.lga...
mcs
splt three times. They are going to split for forth time soon .We know about
oil These industries have caused countless millions of people to get sick
and I know that to be true and we paid them for our dependency and our
illness with huge prices. Whatever way to gain pharmacy or hosptials or
energy or illness they won. Our politicians dead silent. I don't trust
either candidate to tell the truth but one can hope. Americans don't
understand that. We need lots of innovative ways. We need people to tell the
truth not get paid to hype lies for their companies they know are doing the
wrong things . One day we are all going to wake up and there will be no more
America. We would have done the wrong things for the longest times based on
who had the most money we lost our health, our fortitude, our ideals, our
morals and our sanity because of control. Other countries moved on we were
living on a cycle of violence dependency and control. .. If you call that
dependence status quo, you know why this country is in the shape it is
--
the goal when communicating is to rationzlize existence with truth and
facts and what is right coupled with getting what we desire (which might not
always be what is right)
Facts are often hidden so rich control options
Sometimes feelings are not accurate and sometimes they are. Lets learn to do
better based on truth, honesty and facts and the desire to do good
<JanPM...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2ffd44e0-1bac-43a5...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Androcles
Ok, thanks, that satisfies my curiousity. Keep up the honest day's work,
I've just had a letter from Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency telling
me I'm losing my truck license on medical grounds so that's the last
of the honest day's work for me. Not that I've driven anything in the last
few years but it was fun for a while and better than tapping a keyboard
for a living, even if it didn't pay as well. I miss never getting to drive a
train but we can't have everything.
Fran
> "Fran" <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:a846dd6b-10ec-46e3...@q24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
My opinion will be that of an educated observer whose interest has
driven her to pore over reports on renewables and reflect on them,
rather than that of an 'expert'.
> When talking about energy balance for biofuels, we often see the numbers of 1.25 or 1.5 for ethanol from corn, but much better
> numbers for ethanol from switchgrass.
Realistically, the Pimentel study greatly underestimated the EROEI on
corn by modelling in ways that prejudiced the result. A more realistic
EROEI on corn-based ethanol is probably closer to 1:3 -- which is
still not good.
> The process for producing ethanol from switchgrass overlaps with ethanol from corn ; they both require a fermentation and
> distillation step.
> So I always wondered about why that difference is so large.
>
> So I recently looked into one of these studies in more detail :http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/105/2/464
>
> It reports a factor of 5.4 energy balance for ethanol from switchgrass. So the process, including seeding, farming and processing
> produces 5.4 units of energy for 1 unit of fossil energy used. I looked a bit more into this, and came across the energy balance
> usage sheet for this study :http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/0704767105/DC1
>
> Here, I noticed that the reactor used is a bioreactor, fired by lignin (from the switchgrass presumably). Fossil energy used there
> is zero.
Well actually, it's not *zero* because although they sue the residues,
there are still fossil inputs attaching to the coppicing, use of
pesticides etc. Fairly obviously, if you irrigate, you're going to
have fossil energy inputs unless the pump is operated from renewables.
The 5.4 was the relationship between fossil inputs and energy output.
It would also be possible to use residues from corn to fire a biomass
plant, or perhaps put them into an anaerobic digester to extract
methane (which you'd then use either as the fertiliser feedstock, or
to generate energy or some combination) and then use the end lignin
and chitin to fire up a generator.
It's not a perpetual motion machine though. You'd still have to keep
adding new inputs of either methane from some source or NG, albeit at
a smaller rate than if you cast this aside.
> Other energy input numbers seem similar to what we see from normal ethanol-from-corn processing, including high energy costs for
> ferilizers.
>
> Likewise, in Brazil, they get a 1:8 energy balance from sugarcane, by using dried sugercane leafs in bioreactors for the
> distillation step.
>
"bagasse".
> So, it seems that the feedstock for ethanol production is not the determining factor for the energy balance of ethanol.
> It seems that the energy used for fermentation/distillation is much more important :
>
You have to consider pesticides too, particularly in the case of a
crop like corn.
> Traditional (current) ethanol from corn could get to a 1:5 level if bioractors would be used in the processing steps. Maybe burning
> dried corn leafs or lignin from corn stalks, rather than the current natural gas burners.
>
> That would put the entire "ethanol energy balance" question behind us for once and for all...
Unlikely IMO, as there are far better options we should explore first.
Algae crops produce both starch and lipids and by lucky happenstance
these, respectively, are what is needed for alcohol-based fuels, and
diesel. Algae demands neither potable water nor arable land and its
yield potential makes even the best herbaceous perennials look
mediocre. In some places, ag runoff actually triggers algal bloom, so
this is genuinely a waste product. Algae can also be cultured at the
sites where flues are emitting both CO2 and NOx.. That would be my
first port of call.
There are benefits associated with herbaceous perennials like
switchgrass and rye. Their deep roots can staunch fertiliser run-off
and companion planted with food crops, they can actually improve
yields, since as C4 crops, they fix nitrogen in the soil. They also
act as excellent windbreaks. In short, using a mixed planting regime,
in which someone grew corn, or perhaps a C3 food crop, the activity
would be economically viable, reduce the demand for fertiliser and
energy inputs and produce a fuel.
Although there has properly been much focus on EROEI, it seems to me
that this is not the only consideration. Gasoline refineries generate
work in a limited set of discrete locations. An economy producing
substantial biofuels could operate plants scattered over a
geographically dispersed area, making for greater equity between
regions, and underpinning regional life, which is important to very
many people. It would also reduce the distances that fuels have to be
carted, which is relevant both in terms of practical EROEI and in
terms of prospective spillage. Every sea-borne fuel tanker ship is a
prospective environmental disaster which humans have so far proven ill-
equipped to abate. And the more miles within a country that a heavy
fuel truck drives, the more likely it is that there will be a spill.
There are benefits also in import substitution and in these days where
there is concern over 'asymmetrical warfare', doesn't it make sense to
have widely dispersed fuel production capacity? I'd say so. One might
also wonder how much fuel is being consumed by US forces currently
occupying the middle east. That's a piece of EROEI that is NEVER
examined. I read somewhere recently that the current Strategic
Petroleum Reserve of the US would allow it to keep its airforce in the
air for 72 days, assuming it wasn't on a war footing and we forgot
about the rest of the armed forces. For the more xenophobic amongst
Americans, this alone ought to be a sobering thought.
Fran
mcs
--
I don't. I regard it as a very sub-optimal use of land, and I'm not
that keen on ethanol as a transition fuel because I believe there are
better alternatives for conventional ICEs-- butanol for example.
> I think its great alternative, I think adm will easiy go to 100.. I think
> you can't have objective people decide which footprint is bigger when the
> side with the most money say foolish things like pollution decreases
> global
> warming and they really think they are going to convince people with that
> crap?
I believe that you may have somewhat misunderstood Lars' point. He
simply noted that some aerosols (eg SO2, particulate) reduce
insolation (by reflecting it back to space in a kind of albedo
effect).
Yes read his point I quoted his point and he said the same thing twice. Its
magic mirrors. If you clog your arteries you can tell people your making
your heart work harder and doesn't more exercise make heart stronger? Not
necessarily!
If you stuff pollution and green house gas into atmosphere you can't then
say because its getting cooler because its clogged we have less global
warming! I understood his point and you know what, the best minds in the
world don't say to make your heart work harder to clog up your arteries and
the best minds don't suggest we neeed more pollution to lessen or decrease
global warming!
> If this is the same way they determine footprints comparisons no wonder
> the
> food price blame goes on in earnest.
You're mxing up concepts here. The 'footprint' describes the full
impact of an activity on surrounding systems -- in this case, the
footprint of an energy producing or consuming activity describes the
net emissions of CO2 and other agents, the impact on the structure of
human activity it demands etc through its full lifecycle.
> As for ways to use ethanol without
> expensive fossil fuel fertilizer, I think its possible.
So do I. But the same processes could be used to make butanol, which
is more energy intensive than ethanol, while having almost all the
other advantages and being able to be piped, because it's non-
corrosive. It can blend in any conventional ICE vehicle mix (including
with ethanol). It's not as high octane as ethanol and so CRs wouldn't
be able to be adjusted as radically, but this is, in the whole scheme
of things, a minor deficit, since no new fuel system would be
required..
Fine so whats the hold up?
> As of now if the
> same people worried about ethanol were half as worried about the footprint
> from coal and oil and pollution we might be able to compare fair.
A valid point, but these are really separate arguments.
> On your last point,
> about electricity having a low foot print are you sure? If that was true
> we
> just would need to power our cars with electricity and that would be that.
Electrical vehicles can have a low footprint --- nuclear power
compares favourably with coal for example and if this, or perhaps
hydro or geothermal or waste biomass or wind or tidal/wave were the
source of the energy to recharge cars, then plainly, we'd be ahead.
Yes agreed, electricity can be low footprint but really its not now, If it
can be in the future, then why worry about the other alternatives for cars?
Yes costs and home useage to recharge is a problem.
Finally about food costs rising , u know the truth about GREED..
the people that we have to KICK.. is congress.. for not doing their job...
the Hedge Funds are helping the increase in prices of commodities... by
buying it all up.. and selling it at a high price... and the BEST part is
that the government just recenlty (2 months ago) allowed the hedge fund to
BORROW money from the government at a very LOW rate... (LMAO!!!!) i know
that the above is a fact... because i know people working in hedge funds...
:) and then when the hedge funds lose... WE still bail them out... (now that
is hilarious!!!)
My reply as long as we don't have election reform the changes we need to
make will not be made fast enough. There is no way to change things with
reason or logic if the major money changers don't want to move. They would
sabotage everyone and everything and thus the problem with societies based
on consoldiation and aristocratic ideals. The world is a microcasm of
different types and degrees of society like a Tale of Two Cities. I am not
saying I know for sure which alternatives need to be focused on maybe
buthanol or maybe the other types people suggested on this thread. What I do
know is we can't afford till 2020 to make the changes.
JanPM...@gmail.com
> <JanPMul...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:2ffd44e0-1bac-43a5...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> > The only reason we cannot solve global warming is because of a
> > greenhouse gas called GREED!
> > We have the technologies to make Hydrogen, Gasoline, Diesel, Ethanol,
> > Methanol and many other fuels, without using edible materials,
> > farmland or hazzardous and poluting techniques, by the way of using
> > Algae and waste products. We can even do it CHEAPER than the Petrol
> > Industries, and by doing that clean up the mess we made of our planet.
>
> Really ? Where did you get that info ?
> Especially the part where you claim that we grow fuel from algae cheaper than using fossil fuel.
That info is very much available. If you do your calculations, like I
did, you´ll find that you can make Algae Biodiesel for about USD 0.25
per Liter.(or less) All included! Hydrogen comes even more cheaper,
but is more costly in storage. If however you would use it to generate
electricity on the spot it would be many times cheaper that coal or
diesel fuel.
Methane comes from the fermentation of COW Manure, if left in the
environment, it becomes a worse greenhouse gas than CO2, but if you
have it fermented in a digestor, not only can you prevent this from
getting in the air, but you can even use it as fuel, or transform it
into methanol if you want to.(More difficult but feasable) Cow manure
comes very cheap (free). In Europe they even pay you to get it!
>
> > However the same people that are behind the International Banking
> > Cartels, are behind the Strategic (read: Energy, Food) Markets and
> > they don´t give a damn about this planet or you or me. The just want
> > money and control.
>
> Well, if they only care about money and control, then wouldn't it make sense for them to choose the cheaper algae solution, and
> control that market ?
Why would they be interested in earning 20 cents on a Dollar if they
can have you pay the whole Dollar? They control the market anyway by
spreading all this disinformation and even paying "critics" to be
against it. Biofuels are as much a bad Idea as Irak had weapons of
Mass Destruction. They control the media, remember? It certainly
worked on you! Please, don't accept my word for it, investigate!
>
> > The longer we argue about this and do not work together on this, the
> > more money they make and the bigger a mess this planet becomes. The
> > human species is the only one that litters its own nest.
> > Let´s just do this in a clever way. Clean Energy IS possible. Let´s
> > take the monopoly out of the hands of those dictators!
>
> We have a free market throughout most of the word.
> If you have a good method to make algae oil cheaper than petrol, I'm sure you can find investors.
>
and who said I don't?
I am currently staring up one project and have 2 more lined up.
the first one being for 15 tons per day, the other two for 100.000
tons per year.(planned)
Take care, and please do your investigation. Don´t take anyones word
for it, find out for yourself. Keep an open mind.
Jan.
> Rob
lora...@cs.com
wrote:
> Ethanol increases air pollution in addition to raising food prices!
So your bulging brain believes that maybe if we doubled our amount of
fossil fuel burning.. that the air pollution would decrease and that
food proces would go down ???
Brilliant! Simply Brilliant! .. for a frog.
Fran
> --
> I don't. I regard it as a very sub-optimal use of land, and I'm not
> that keen on ethanol as a transition fuel because I believe there are
> better alternatives for conventional ICEs-- butanol for example.
>
> > I think its great alternative, I think adm will easiy go to 100.. I think
> > you can't have objective people decide which footprint is bigger when the
> > side with the most money say foolish things like pollution decreases
> > global
> > warming and they really think they are going to convince people with that
> > crap?
>
> I believe that you may have somewhat misunderstood Lars' point. He
> simply noted that some aerosols (eg SO2, particulate) reduce
> insolation (by reflecting it back to space in a kind of albedo
> effect).
>
> Yes read his point I quoted his point and he said the same thing twice. Its
> magic mirrors. If you clog your arteries you can tell people your making
> your heart work harder and doesn't more exercise make heart stronger? Not
> necessarily!
>
Err this is a rather odd analogy. As far as I can tell, you are
implying that Lars said that pollution was a good thing. He didn't. He
merely noted one of its consequences.
Butanol uses an enzyme (clostridium acetobutylicum) process that is a
pungent. The plants are quite a bit smellier than ethanol plants. I
imagine that's one consideration. That helped torpedo a proposal from
Changing World Technologies for a TDP plant. I imagine there would be
ways of containing the odour however.
> > >As of now if the
> > >same people worried about ethanol were half as worried about the
> > >footprint
> > >from coal and oil and pollution we might be able to compare fair.
>
> > A valid point, but these are really separate arguments.
>
> > >On your last point,
> > >about electricity having a low foot print are you sure? If that was
> > >true we
> > > just would need to power our cars with electricity and that would > > >be that.
>
> > Electrical vehicles can have a low footprint --- nuclear power
> >compares favourably with coal for example and if this, or perhaps
> >hydro or geothermal or waste biomass or wind or tidal/wave were the
> > source of the energy to recharge cars, then plainly, we'd be ahead.
>
> Yes agreed, electricity can be low footprint but really its not now, If it
> can be in the future, then why worry about the other alternatives for > cars?
Because we need solutions now.
> Yes costs and home useage to recharge is a problem.
>
So we have to have a solution that begins to meet our needs now.
> Finally about food costs rising , u know the truth about GREED..
> the people that we have to KICK.. is congress.. for not doing their job...
> the Hedge Funds are helping the increase in prices of commodities... by
> buying it all up.. and selling it at a high price... and the BEST part is
> that the government just recenlty (2 months ago) allowed the hedge fund to
> BORROW money from the government at a very LOW rate... (LMAO!!!!) i know
> that the above is a fact... because i know people working in hedge funds...
> :) and then when the hedge funds lose... WE still bail them out... (now that
> is hilarious!!!)
>
Not really. It's what is called power politics.
> My reply as long as we don't have election reform the changes we need to
> make will not be made fast enough. There is no way to change things with
> reason or logic if the major money changers don't want to move. They would
> sabotage everyone and everything and thus the problem with societies based
> on consoldiation and aristocratic ideals. The world is a microcasm of
> different types and degrees of society like a Tale of Two Cities. I am not
> saying I know for sure which alternatives need to be focused on maybe
> buthanol or maybe the other types people suggested on this thread. What I do
> know is we can't afford till 2020 to make the changes.
>
True ... so what is needed right now is, as Lars suggested a move away
from the whole car centred culture thing. More public transport
options, better laid out cities, and also the roll out of transition
fuiels like biodiesel and butanol.
Fran
Lars Eighner
mcs broadcast on alt.politics:
(Attribution to Fran missing from the followup which appeared entirely in
the sig --- please get some help learning to use a newsreader)
>> I think its great alternative, I think adm will easiy go to 100.. I think
>> you can't have objective people decide which footprint is bigger when the
>> side with the most money say foolish things like pollution decreases
>> global warming and they really think they are going to convince people
>> with that crap?
>I believe that you may have somewhat misunderstood Lars' point. He
>simply noted that some aerosols (eg SO2, particulate) reduce
>insolation (by reflecting it back to space in a kind of albedo
>effect).
>Yes read his point I quoted his point and he said the same thing twice. Its
>magic mirrors.
No, it isn't. There are some pollutants which increase global warming
(greenhouse gases); most (but not all of them) do not have a direct adverse
effect on human health and cannot be detected by sight or smell --- and so
may not be recognized by the guy on the street as pollutants. There are
some which have no effect or even a negative effect on global warming, but
many of them have direct adverse effects on human health. There are even
some which can have different effects in different circumstances. Most
sources, no doubt, put out both kinds of pollutants, but it doesn't follow
that sources with less of one kind will also have less of the other.
I certainly did not offer one as a solution to the other. I did not claim
that one was acceptable and the other not. I simply pointed out that when
you are talking about global warming, it is best to know which are which.
> If you clog your arteries you can tell people your making your heart work
> harder and doesn't more exercise make heart stronger? Not necessarily!
This is a complete non-sequitur. No one has made any such claim or anything
analogous to it. It may be true that where there is smoke there is fire,
but there can be fire without smoke. Your campfire has visible smoke, you
can smell it, some of the gases it gives off will sting your eyes. Your gas
range (if properly adjusted) does not smoke (until you burn something),
doesn't smell (if the burner is on), and doesn't give off vapors that will
irritate your eyes or nose. But burning a log and burning methane both
produce two major greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide and water vapor. Wood is
a renewable resource. Most (all?) methane use in home cooking is fossil
methane. If you can just guess which has the greater effect on global
warming without working out, you are some kind of green Rainman.
> If you stuff pollution and green house gas into atmosphere you can't then
> say because its getting cooler because its clogged we have less global
> warming!
The study that tipped people off was one done when aircraft flights were
banned for the two or three days after 9/11. But of course we already knew
that particulate matter could reduce global warming (by reducing solar
heating) from studies of volcanic eruptions such as Krakatoa and Mount St.
Helens. But no one is saying the solution to global warming is to try to
arrange more volcanic eruptions.
You seem to have a problem with understanding situations in which several
different forces are at work, some of them at cross purposes. Or for some
reason of your own, you have started a vendetta against me personally.
> I understood his point and you know what, the best minds in the world
> don't say to make your heart work harder to clog up your arteries and the
> best minds don't suggest we need more pollution to lessen or decrease
> global warming!
Then you do not understand my point because I never said or implied that
more pollution of any kind is some kind of solution to global warming.
All I said was some kinds of pollutants tend to oppose global warming.
That doesn't mean we need more of them. It does mean if reduce only
them while not reducing greenhouse gases, the rate of global warming
is like to increase.
Here's a list of some pollutants. I don't know the effects of many of them.
Smoke: you can see it, you can smell it, has direct adverse health effects
on humans and other living things; it is particulate matter, probably
decreases global warming (but may indicate the source of the smoke is also
the source of greenhouse gases).
Water (as a gas): you cannot see it, you cannot smell it, has no direct on
humans and other living things; the number one greenhouse gas, contributes
to global warming, but overall apparently not affected by human activity.
Sulphate (as sulphur oxide gases): smelly and irritating, cause of acid
rain, direct adverse health effects on humans and other living things;
not a greenhouse gas, may reduce global warming.
Carbon dioxide: cannot see it, cannot smell it, no direct adverse effects on
health; the number two greenhouse gas, possibly the one most affected by
human activity, increases global warming.
Oxides of nitrogen: one is very irritating and visible, one is laughing gas,
adverse effects on health, contributor to acid rain; the laughing gas one is
a greenhouse gas, but the brownish-green one is a contributor to smog, and I
don't know the overall effect of smog in regard to global warming.
Methane: colorless, odorless, doesn't effect human health directly (but if
you don't get oxygen or the methane does can have adverse local effects);
number three greenhouse gas --- everyone wants to reduce the release of this
pollutant, but some who want to reduce the release of it merely want to burn
it to produce the #1 and #2 greenhouse gases.
Ozone: a slightly bluish gas with a distinctive odor, adverse health effects,
however the naturally occurring ozone in the upper atmosphere is essential
to life on this planet; #4 greenhouse gases.
A bunch of halogenated carbon compounds: many of these never were pollution,
in the sense of being an unwanted side effect. Production is now mostly
banned. Some serious direct health effects, mostly banned not because they
are greenhouse gases (which they are), but because of adverse effects on the
ozone layer.
Many fairly dangerous pollutants which are dangerous because they are very
reactive, but because they are very reactive, don't have very, very long
lives in the atmosphere: HCl, CO, and so forth. Some may react (while they
are still in the atmosphere) in ways that increase greenhouse gases, but not
considered greenhouse gases themselves.
>> If this is the same way they determine footprints comparisons no wonder
>> the food price blame goes on in earnest.
>You're mixing up concepts here. The 'footprint' describes the full
>impact of an activity on surrounding systems -- in this case, the
>footprint of an energy producing or consuming activity describes the
>net emissions of CO2 and other agents, the impact on the structure of
>human activity it demands etc through its full life cycle.
We are pretty much talking about "carbon footprint" here, which is pretty
much shorthand for "effect on global warming." Yeah, lots of terms which
may not be exactly right (like "lowest common denominator") when used in
common speech, but that's how language happens.
So if ethanol had exactly the same carbon footprint as gasoline but incurred
none of the other pollutants that are entailed in using gasoline, would it
be good to replace gasoline with ethanol? Sure, if the replacement were
free. However, global warming is an emergency, and switching to ethanol has
many costs in infrastructure. Maybe resources should be expended instead on
something that clearly will have a big impact on global warm.
It's like CFBs. They are expensive. They last a pretty long time. They
take less energy. But they are wrong solution because LEDs will be online
soon and they last all-but-forever, take even less energy, and don't put
mercury in landfills like CFBs do. Unfortunately, people will have spent a
bunch of money on CFBs and will resist spending a bunch of money on LEDs,
which will remain really expensive for a very long time because of the
reduced demand on account of CFBs. Or lo-flo toilets. Sure, they would be
great if the worked. But they don't. So if something takes 40% less water
per flush, what good is it if you have to flush it four times to do the job
one flush of an old toilet did.
We don't need more half-baked wrong step solutions.
Frankly, green elitists often get the wrong answer the first time, and if
that keeps happening, the boy-who-cried-wolf-effect will kick in. We are
where we are today from the unintended consequences of the industrial
revolution. Let's be skeptical enough to reduce the unintended consequences
of the green revolution. And of course, Nader is unforgivable.
--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> use...@larseighner.com
Countdown: 252 days to go.
Fran
<snip>
>
> It's like CFBs. They are expensive. They last a pretty long time. They
> take less energy. But they are wrong solution because LEDs will be online
> soon and they last all-but-forever, take even less energy, and don't put
> mercury in landfills like CFBs do.
Sorry Lars, but I don't agree. There is still some way to go before
LEDs can offer the quality of lighting that CFLs do. They are also
quite expensive to purchase and presume long operating life. Progress
is being made on LEDs and it's certainly possible that 5 years from
now, LEDs will be the better solution in places where they aren't now,
but until then ...
It's true that mercury from CFLs will wind up in landfill, but even in
this case it's preferable to mercury and sulphur and actinides and PM
in the air from fly ash from coal fired power plants. At least the
pollutants are contained. The average life of a CFL and the reduction
in power usage do make a contribution that exceeds the mercury that
goes into landfill.
That's not to say that we should be realxed about mercury in landfill.
There should be a scheme to recover spent CFLs and recycle the
mercury, and other materials, keeping them out of landfill. A deposit
scheme (say $1 per bulb) of some kind and a system in which retailers
could take them back doesn't sound like rocket science to me. Perhaps
people and retailers participating could be put into a draw for a
prize of some kind?
> Unfortunately, people will have spent a
> bunch of money on CFBs and will resist spending a bunch of money on LEDs,
> which will remain really expensive for a very long time because of the
> reduced demand on account of CFBs.
No, they'll stay expensive because they are actually expensive to
make. The basic LED technology is very widely used already in IT.
> Or lo-flo toilets. Sure, they would be
> great if the worked. But they don't. So if something takes 40% less water
> per flush, what good is it if you have to flush it four times to do the job
> one flush of an old toilet did.
It doesn't. See a plumber if yours isn't effective. The real issue is
why potable water is being used to flush the toilet.
> We don't need more half-baked wrong step solutions.
>
That's true.
> Frankly, green elitists often get the wrong answer the first time, and if
> that keeps happening, the boy-who-cried-wolf-effect will kick in. We are
> where we are today from the unintended consequences of the industrial
> revolution. Let's be skeptical enough to reduce the unintended consequences
> of the green revolution.
That, Lars, is grist to the mill of those who want to white-ant
progress. I don't doubt you are genuine, but those who aren't hide
themselves under objections couched in these terms. It would be better
to explore what, positively, we want to achieve with green
technologies and test proposed solutions against that standards than
to advocate vague 'skepticism'.
Fran
Lars Eighner
<74be8279-101e-441f...@k10g2000prm.googlegroups.com>, the
lovely and talented Fran broadcast on alt.politics:
> True ... so what is needed right now is, as Lars suggested a move away
> from the whole car centred culture thing. More public transport
> options, better laid out cities, and also the roll out of transition
> fuiels like biodiesel and butanol.
Heartening news today that ridership is up on many mass transit systems.
Unfortunately, for realists, if enough people ride mass transit, fuel prices
will fall and people will go back to driving. Okay, maybe the lesson will
stick with a small percentage.
I don't forsee a future with zero internal combustion engines. There
probably always will be a use for emergency vehicles --- short-haul trucking
may really be the most efficient means of distributing goods locally and so
forth.
When you see how some suburban areas are laid out, you understand why people
think they would die without cars. When you see some mass transit
schedules, they are clearly arranged to take domestic workers to rich peoples
houses in the morning and take them back in the evening. That's the kind of
stuff I'm talking about.
Lars Eighner
<393cc28a-08ea-4418...@w4g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, the
lovely and talented Fran broadcast on alt.politics:
> On May 13, 5:16 pm, Lars Eighner <use...@larseighner.com> wrote:
><snip>
>>
>> It's like CFBs. They are expensive. They last a pretty long time. They
>> take less energy. But they are wrong solution because LEDs will be online
>> soon and they last all-but-forever, take even less energy, and don't put
>> mercury in landfills like CFBs do.
> Sorry Lars, but I don't agree. There is still some way to go before
> LEDs can offer the quality of lighting that CFLs do. They are also
> quite expensive to purchase and presume long operating life. Progress
> is being made on LEDs and it's certainly possible that 5 years from
> now, LEDs will be the better solution in places where they aren't now,
> but until then ...
LEDs will come online faster and become affordable more quickly if they do
not have to fight an installed base of CFBs.
> It's true that mercury from CFLs will wind up in landfill, but even in
> this case it's preferable to mercury and sulphur and actinides and PM
> in the air from fly ash from coal fired power plants. At least the
> pollutants are contained. The average life of a CFL and the reduction
> in power usage do make a contribution that exceeds the mercury that
> goes into landfill.
I live in an apartment complex owned by GE. They came in and replaced the
bulbs residents had purchased without providing any information on disposal
precautions for whole or broken bulbs. We have had two shatter (in two
months) for no apparent reason. Most of the 500 or so apartments in this
complex have small children, pregnant woman, or both. Appropriate
precautions are not printed in or on CBFs sold in this neighborhood in a
language that 90% of the residents here can understand (assuming they can
read their own language). Guess who gets to pay the price so people can
feel green --- that't right, poor children.
The landlord (GE) won't even admit there is a problem. The city-owned
electric utility subsidizes CFBs, admits there is a problem, but the
disposal plan is that residents will drive to a hazardous waste site in a
distant part of the county when a bulb breaks or burns out. What is the
carbon footprint of that? Local news went to the Home Depot which does have
a CFB return barrel. Guess what the Home Depot does with the CFB return
barrel when it is full.
That's right. They dump it in a Dumpster to go to the landfill, not the
toxic waste disposal site.
I don't think CFBs are the solution, but even if they are, the
implementation sucks.
> That's true.
> Fran
Anthony Matonak
...
> When you see how some suburban areas are laid out, you understand why people
> think they would die without cars.
These areas are laid out around cars so, obviously, it'll look
like cars are essential. If there was a mass transit system
that allowed people to travel just as freely as cars, nonstop
from one place to another without having to share the ride
with hundreds of strangers, then it might work in suburbia.
Anthony
Fran
> In our last episode,
> <393cc28a-08ea-4418-bdb7-0c5385865...@w4g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, the
> lovely and talented Fran broadcast on alt.politics:
>
> > On May 13, 5:16 pm, Lars Eighner <use...@larseighner.com> wrote:
> ><snip>
>
> >> It's like CFBs. They are expensive. They last a pretty long time. They
> >> take less energy. But they are wrong solution because LEDs will be online
> >> soon and they last all-but-forever, take even less energy, and don't put
> >> mercury in landfills like CFBs do.
> > Sorry Lars, but I don't agree. There is still some way to go before
> > LEDs can offer the quality of lighting that CFLs do. They are also
> > quite expensive to purchase and presume long operating life. Progress
> > is being made on LEDs and it's certainly possible that 5 years from
> > now, LEDs will be the better solution in places where they aren't now,
> > but until then ...
>
> LEDs will come online faster and become affordable more quickly if they do
> not have to fight an installed base of CFBs.
>
I don't think it will make a scrap of difference. It will be a very
long time before they are able to be afforded by the bulk of the
people on the planet. There are many people who have neither
electricity nor lighting.
> > It's true that mercury from CFLs will wind up in landfill, but even in
> > this case it's preferable to mercury and sulphur and actinides and PM
> > in the air from fly ash from coal fired power plants. At least the
> > pollutants are contained. The average life of a CFL and the reduction
> > in power usage do make a contribution that exceeds the mercury that
> > goes into landfill.
>
> I live in an apartment complex owned by GE. They came in and replaced the
> bulbs residents had purchased without providing any information on disposal
> precautions for whole or broken bulbs. We have had two shatter (in two
> months) for no apparent reason.
There would have been a reason -- typically someone accidentally
bumping one.
> Most of the 500 or so apartments in this
> complex have small children, pregnant woman, or both. Appropriate
> precautions are not printed in or on CBFs sold in this neighborhood in a
> language that 90% of the residents here can understand (assuming they can
> read their own language).
Well then that's wrong, obviously.
> Guess who gets to pay the price so people can
> feel green --- that't right, poor children.
>
hmm ... actually the cause of children paying the price is not a
dxesire 'to feel green' on the part of others, but a desire by a cost-
cutting company and political bean counters to appear green without
following the whole process through. Really Lars, this sort of cheap
political posturing ought to be confined to right wing blogs and the
tabloid press. You're a smarter chap than that.
> The landlord (GE) won't even admit there is a problem. The city-owned
> electric utility subsidizes CFBs, admits there is a problem, but the
> disposal plan is that residents will drive to a hazardous waste site in a
> distant part of the county when a bulb breaks or burns out. What is the
> carbon footprint of that?
Very large.
> Local news went to the Home Depot which does have
> a CFB return barrel. Guess what the Home Depot does with the CFB return
> barrel when it is full.
>
> That's right. They dump it in a Dumpster to go to the landfill, not the
> toxic waste disposal site.
Again, that's wrong, and something that ought not be permitted.
>
> I don't think CFBs are the solution, but even if they are, the
> implementation sucks.
>
Implementation is a lot easier to re-engineer than new technology
Fran
Fran
You're just dying to wheel out that hobby horse of yours aren't you?
It's not feasible Anthony. Let it go.
Fran
Bama Brian
Per gallon for corn, yes. But in a car you must burn more gallons of
ethanol than gasoline to cover the same distance because of the lower
energy content of ethanol.
And I really don't know where you get those switchgrass and sugar cane
numbers. Ethanol is ethanol and burns the same, no matter what the
parent source.
--
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
George Santayana, 1863 - 1952
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
Bama Brian
Just a note for you. Moonshine is not poisonous. Some of the
distilleries used metals such as lead-based solder on the piping, and
that does cause problems. But in the main, you're confusing moonshine,
a form of ethanol, with methanol which is quite poisonous.
> Were farmers to switch to sorghum, they could
> afford all the fermenting and distillation equipment, and roadside
> stands selling ethanol that you could drive on would spring up all over
> the place. Course, you could also *drink* it.
>
> Which means that the BATF would loose control of liquor. The seed
> outfits would loose profits cause you dont need hybrids much less GM.
> The chemical companies would loose money cause you dont need nearly so
> much fertilizer, pesticides and herbicides. And of course, the oil
> companies would loose money if people bought the ethanol straight from
> the small farmers.
>
> We cant have that can we? So, of course, the corporate media wont say a
> word about it.
Bama Brian
OK. Lemme 'splain it. Smaller and lighter in a car means less fuel
consumption, no matter what fuel is used.
But if the playing field is leveled, and ethanol or gasoline are used as
fuels in motors which are optimized for their uses, then the gasoline
will produce better mileage per gallon simply because ethanol has less
BTU's per gallon in it.
>> Cite, please. And see if you can find the relative efficiencies of the
>> current types of vehicle motors today. It's online.
>>
>
> You might take a look at the study done by GM in Warren Michigan that
> examined a test single-cylinder engine (Brinkman's study IIRC). Here
> it was shown that even at identical CR, ethanol engines increased
> thermal efficiency by 3% over gasoline. When CR was adjusted from
> 7.5:1 to 18:1 ethanol improved thermal efficiency by 18% over
> gasoline.
Cite please. I can find Brinkman's PPT presentation 3 online but you
need to cite your ideas.
But did you know that if you just put a little water mist in the
gasoline, you can burn it at higher compression ratios in a typical
motor? You can get similar results in a supercharged engine, some of
which actually used water injection to control combustion temperatures
way back when.
But you still won't get better gas mileage than you can get from
gasoline, provided only that it's a level playing field re: motor
characteristics.
>
> There's also William Scheller's study in Nebraska in the mid 1970s
> called something like "the 2 million mile gasohol test run"). In this
> study covering more than 40 vehicles over 2 million miles, gasohol
> improved over unleaded by more that 5% and achieved more than 8 miles
> extra per BTU. Another study by Naim Kosaric in 1984 showed that by
> using straight anhydrous ethanol in an engine with a CR of 12.5:1,
> power output at 1600 RPM was 57% higher than with a gasoline engine
> running at 8.5:1 and 26% more than straight ethanol at 8.4:1.
And dragsters use a nitromethane mix and a supercharger at truly
horrendous CR's. But I'm not going to put that setup in my car. I'd
like the motor to last more than 20 miles.
>> Look, it's the energy content of the fuel that determines gas mileage.
>
> Energy intensity is only one factor, since in practice, the carnot
> efficiency of the engine a fuel is combusted in is overlaid on it.
>
>> This energy content is expressed in British Thermal Units (BTU's).
>> Here's a handy fedgov chart that shows the differences:
http://www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/pdfs/afv_info.pdf
>>
>
> Err yes ... I am aware.
>
>> Read the chart. Note the differences between gasoline, ethanol, and
>> methanol. Also read the fine print where it discusses environmental
>> impacts on page 2 - especially where it talks about how the ethanol
>> produces "less" pollution. But note that more ethanol must be burned,
>> so even this is a wash.
>>
>
>
> No, it isn't. For a start, ethanol contains no aromatics or sulphur,
> or benzine. which is just a straight win. Studies show that PM10 is
> lower at the tailpipe. VOCs are also reduced. Lower operating
> temperatures also reduce the scope for formation of oxides of
> nitrogen. There's also virtually no CO emitted. The only downside
> rally is aldhehydes and ketyones, which can be higher when not using a
> catalytic converter.
Read this Stanford University report - and note that the professor says
that until one knows what emissions controls are placed on a motor, you
can never predict what the gas mileage will be. That's what's the
problem with gasoline motors today, WRT gas mileage.
>
> And as was noted above, you can configure vehicles to run as or even
> more fuel efficiently on ethanol at comparable levels of performance.
>
>>
>>>> Here's one minor study:
http://www.edmunds.com/advice/alternativefuels/articles/120863/articl...
>
> "File Not Found"
Gee whiz, and I thought you were bright enough to cut and paste. Let me
do it for you.
http://www.edmunds.com/advice/alternativefuels/articles/120863/article.html
or
http://tinyurl.com/3dxjns
(for the c&p impaired)
Here's a situation where the playing field is reasonably level - and the
results were predictable, based on ethanol's lesser heat content.
The farmers should not be protected. ESPECIALLY the giant corporate farms.
>> Forbes magazine claims the fedgov puts a 54 cents
>> tariff on each gallon of ethanol made in Brazil. Almost no ethanol is
>> produced from US sugar cane.
>>
>
> Well yes, because US sugar is too expensive, because its protected.
Yet you argued that ethanol was produced from sugar cane. It can be -
but it isn't done here in the US. Get your story straight.
>
>> http://money.cnn.com/2007/08/06/news/economy/sugarcane_ethanol/index.htm
>>
>> http://www.forbes.com/2005/11/15/energy-ethanol-brazil_cx_1116energy_...
>>
>> Some ethanol in the US is made from corn silage; most is made from corn.
>>
>>> And how insane is it to use land to produce other non-essential crops
>>> such as tobacco, cocaine, alcohol etc? Do you have the same food v
>>> whatever worry?
>> That's your Strawman argument; you feed it.
>>
>
> You need to deal with it. If you are putting the case for utility in
> land use policy "It is insane for us to burn food to drive our cars"
> then plainly, you need
>
> a) to define food
Anything nutritious we can put into our bellies and enjoy.
> b) to rank land usages competing with food on a scale of 'insanity'
> and declare the threshhold beneath which the land usage is contra-
> indicated, and the methodology by which you arrived at that.
'Scuse me? If I start following your methodology, we ought to just kill
off 80% of the human race. That will immediately solve all of our
problems. Sorry, but I'm not dancing to your rules.
>
> Consider also that as a self-avowed 'libertarian' straying into
> centralised policy prescription is tricky. What is 'sane' should, for
> you, be determined by 'the market'. You're not about to order farmers
> to start producing food because it's necessary, or have the state do
> it.
The STATE is doing it by subsidizing the production of ethanol to the
tune of more than a dollar a gallon. IOW, every time the fedgov pays a
dollar to the farmer, it's a dollar ripped at gunpoint out of a
taxpayer's pocket.
Now why do you think I want to maintain an artificial market structure?
You're accusing me first of being a Lib, and then of being on the
fedgov's side. You need to think about what you're saying.
>
> Now I'm a vegetarian, and so ideally, IMO, nobody would be raising
> livestock. But the tidier and more consistent way to go, from a
> utilitarian perspective is along the lines I proposed above --
> attaching the costs upon the commons of various human activities to
> the beneficiaries. Where human activities create public goods, then
> rebates also attach. If some activity does both, then the balance is
> relfected in the price. The context would be determined by the roll
> out of general policy -- itself the broad policy that the community as
> a whole thought most suitable.
>
> You want to cherrypick, that's your problem.
You want to be a bull-goose looney socialist, that's your problem.
Talk to yourself much, Fran? Just as an aside, small children need good
sources of protein. It is difficult, although not impossible, to
achieve adequate growth, both in mentation and stature using a vegan
only diet. For the lower classes a vegan diet becomes a
multi-generational disaster.
Most people don't have the resources today to afford that "better for
you" diet. Go into one of the green grocery stores that offer better
everything, and note the difference in prices over your normal
supermarket's prices.
And these upscale stores will NOT locate themselves in the high crime
areas, let alone in lower middle-class suburbs.
Great thought, but it's for the elite.
>
> People say that the EROEI on corn ethanol at about 1: 1.3 (in some
> studies) doesn't justify using it -- and I would certainly agree. Even
> if it were 1:5 I'd be against it if most of the "1" was composed of
> fossil fuels. But look at food. The EROEI here is much worse -- on
> average about 10:1. For every calorie out about 10 go in. That's
> defencible if that's as good as we can get, and the food is of high
> nutritional value. But junk food? Stuff that causes health problems?
> Non-foods like tobacco and drinking alcohol?
>
>> So which do you want? Ethanol from corn at heavily subsidized prices,
>> or cheaper food?
>
> False dilemma. I don't favour subsidised ethanol and the price of food
> is not strongly related to corn-based ethanol, and to the extent that
> it is, it is turning up in the price of meat or junk food.
One man's junk food is another's poi, Fran. What do you eat for snacks?
Come to think of it, do you eat corn at all, even on the cob? If you
eat corn on the cob, do you use butter or margarine?
Now I don't favor government subsidized prices for anything - not even
medical or education, let alone fuels or electricity. All it does is to
push up the prices to the end consumer.
>
> If you want the price of food to decline you need to find cheaper
> liquid fuels or some cheap substitute for the same or some way of
> reducing the transport component in food production. You also need to
> reduce the demand for livestock, which is the key pressure point on
> land that would be used for raising of lower priced and more
> nutritious (per unit of land, water, power, fertiliser) food.
The livestock themselves are not the problem. It's the cost of
production, both in vegetables, grains, and livestock that is the problem.
Let me say it real clearly. The cost of EVERYTHING in this country is
dependent on cheap energy. Whether the energy is electric or coal or
liquid fuel based doesn't matter - all costs are driven up when one or
the other goes up in price.
Even so, ethanol, as it is today is no answer at all.
Bama Brian
Heh! Recycling isn't energy or fuel generation. We still need huge
amounts of energy to first recycle those old vehicles, then to build
those hundreds of millions of cars, and to find a reliable and cheap
source of energy to put into them.
>
> And of course, not all people would get their neds met with purely
> electric vehicles. Long distance drivers and those wanting to use AC
> would probably need some sort of combustion engine.
Absolutely have to - unless you think you can get cross-country in a
reasonable time using batteries. Even if your batteries give you 300
miles, the recharge times will cost you considerable time. No battery I
know of recharges in minutes. So a coast-to-coast drive might take you
as long as ten days.
And I ain't flying transcontinental in no battery powered airliner.
>
> That's why I believe hybrids will anticipate PEVs and transitional
> fuel vehicles using biodiesel and butanol would be best, short-term.
> Coterminoulsy, we ought to be reconfiguring cities to reduce the need
> for individualised transport options. If fewer people need continuous
> access to cars, then the cost per mile of running them can go up
> without making a huge difference to most people, and so a cleaner
> energy system becomes supportable and the lead time in converting
> declines.
First, you've got to move all the people out of the 'burbs and build
housing for them back in the cities. Where I live there aren't even
sidewalks around - and you risk your life on a bicycle since the traffic
is moving at 50 mph on a small two-lane road. Yet I live in a major
metropolitan area.
This problem is hideously complex.
Bama Brian
> On May 12, 9:02 pm, "Rob Dekker" <r...@verific.com> wrote:
>> <JanPMul...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:2ffd44e0-1bac-43a5...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>> The only reason we cannot solve global warming is because of a
>>> greenhouse gas called GREED!
>>> We have the technologies to make Hydrogen, Gasoline, Diesel, Ethanol,
>>> Methanol and many other fuels, without using edible materials,
>>> farmland or hazzardous and poluting techniques, by the way of using
>>> Algae and waste products. We can even do it CHEAPER than the Petrol
>>> Industries, and by doing that clean up the mess we made of our planet.
>> Really ? Where did you get that info ?
>> Especially the part where you claim that we grow fuel from algae cheaper than using fossil fuel.
>
> That info is very much available. If you do your calculations, like I
> did, you´ll find that you can make Algae Biodiesel for about USD 0.25
> per Liter.(or less) All included!
Cite please. Are you including the huge amount of pond area in which to
grow the algae?
> Hydrogen comes even more cheaper,
> but is more costly in storage. If however you would use it to generate
> electricity on the spot it would be many times cheaper that coal or
> diesel fuel.
Except there are no hydrogen mines. You still have to crack the H and
O2 out of water - and, AFAIK, that's a net energy loss. Hydrogen
storage is not a trivial problem. It has a tendency to escape and go
its merry way, since it walks through all types of seals. Best way
would be cryogenic storage - but I can't see maintaining that in an
automobile. Hydrogen could be stored as an hydrargyllite, but that's an
unproven technology so far.
> Methane comes from the fermentation of COW Manure, if left in the
> environment, it becomes a worse greenhouse gas than CO2, but if you
> have it fermented in a digestor, not only can you prevent this from
> getting in the air, but you can even use it as fuel, or transform it
> into methanol if you want to.(More difficult but feasable) Cow manure
> comes very cheap (free). In Europe they even pay you to get it!
But there ain't enough cows to power all the vehicles.
>>> However the same people that are behind the International Banking
>>> Cartels, are behind the Strategic (read: Energy, Food) Markets and
>>> they don´t give a damn about this planet or you or me. The just want
>>> money and control.
>> Well, if they only care about money and control, then wouldn't it make sense for them to choose the cheaper algae solution, and
>> control that market ?
>
> Why would they be interested in earning 20 cents on a Dollar if they
> can have you pay the whole Dollar? They control the market anyway by
> spreading all this disinformation and even paying "critics" to be
> against it. Biofuels are as much a bad Idea as Irak had weapons of
> Mass Destruction. They control the media, remember? It certainly
> worked on you! Please, don't accept my word for it, investigate!
>>> The longer we argue about this and do not work together on this, the
>>> more money they make and the bigger a mess this planet becomes. The
>>> human species is the only one that litters its own nest.
>>> Let´s just do this in a clever way. Clean Energy IS possible. Let´s
>>> take the monopoly out of the hands of those dictators!
>> We have a free market throughout most of the word.
>> If you have a good method to make algae oil cheaper than petrol, I'm sure you can find investors.
>>
> and who said I don't?
> I am currently staring up one project and have 2 more lined up.
> the first one being for 15 tons per day, the other two for 100.000
> tons per year.(planned)
At what yield of acres of biodiesel per acre of land, Jan?
Lloyd
Some of the latest research is on storage as metal hydrides, or simply
a tank of water and passing it over an aluminum-gallium alloy (this
produces hydrogen and aluminum oxide).
Rob Dekker
<JanPM...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:6097aea1-8319-4624...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On May 12, 9:02 pm, "Rob Dekker" <r...@verific.com> wrote:
> > <JanPMul...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:2ffd44e0-1bac-43a5...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> > > The only reason we cannot solve global warming is because of a
> > > greenhouse gas called GREED!
> > > We have the technologies to make Hydrogen, Gasoline, Diesel, Ethanol,
> > > Methanol and many other fuels, without using edible materials,
> > > farmland or hazzardous and poluting techniques, by the way of using
> > > Algae and waste products. We can even do it CHEAPER than the Petrol
> > > Industries, and by doing that clean up the mess we made of our planet.
> >
> > Really ? Where did you get that info ?
> Especially the part where you claim that we grow fuel from algae cheaper than using fossil fuel.
>
> That info is very much available. If you do your calculations, like I
> per Liter.(or less) All included!
OK. I call your bluf.
Show me a project that can make biodiesel for USD 0.25 per liter, all included.
If you cannot talk because of a pending patent issues or so, then please say so.
Otherwize, show us the technology !
"That info is very much available" is not helpful.
> Hydrogen comes even more cheaper,
> but is more costly in storage. If however you would use it to generate
> electricity on the spot it would be many times cheaper that coal or
> diesel fuel.
> Methane comes from the fermentation of COW Manure, if left in the
> environment, it becomes a worse greenhouse gas than CO2, but if you
> have it fermented in a digestor, not only can you prevent this from
> getting in the air, but you can even use it as fuel, or transform it
> into methanol if you want to.(More difficult but feasable) Cow manure
> comes very cheap (free). In Europe they even pay you to get it!
I guess they pay you because it is valuable. Not just as source of methane, but also as fertilizer.
But what does this have to do with algae ?
>
> > > However the same people that are behind the International Banking
> > > Cartels, are behind the Strategic (read: Energy, Food) Markets and
> > > they don愒 give a damn about this planet or you or me. The just want
> > > money and control.
> >
> > Well, if they only care about money and control, then wouldn't it make sense for them to choose the cheaper algae solution, and
> > control that market ?
>
> Why would they be interested in earning 20 cents on a Dollar if they
> can have you pay the whole Dollar? They control the market anyway by
> spreading all this disinformation and even paying "critics" to be
> against it. Biofuels are as much a bad Idea as Irak had weapons of
> Mass Destruction. They control the media, remember? It certainly
> worked on you! Please, don't accept my word for it, investigate!
Sounds like a conspiricy theory.
If you want investors, then this is not going to get you anywhere.
>
> > > The longer we argue about this and do not work together on this, the
> > > more money they make and the bigger a mess this planet becomes. The
> > > human species is the only one that litters its own nest.
> > > Let愀 just do this in a clever way. Clean Energy IS possible. Let愀
> > > take the monopoly out of the hands of those dictators!
> >
> > We have a free market throughout most of the word.
> > If you have a good method to make algae oil cheaper than petrol, I'm sure you can find investors.
> >
> and who said I don't?
> I am currently staring up one project and have 2 more lined up.
> the first one being for 15 tons per day, the other two for 100.000
> tons per year.(planned)
Are you willing to share info on these projects, or stay hidden in secrecy ?
What are you afraid of ?
> Take care, and please do your investigation. Don愒 take anyones word
> for it, find out for yourself. Keep an open mind.
> Jan.
Same counts for you, and maybe you need that more than me.
Rob
Jerry Okamura
> selling ethanol that you could drive on would spring up all over the
> place. Course, you could also *drink* it.
>
> Which means that the BATF would loose control of liquor. The seed outfits
> would loose profits cause you dont need hybrids much less GM. The chemical
> companies would loose money cause you dont need nearly so much fertilizer,
> pesticides and herbicides. And of course, the oil companies would loose
> money if people bought the ethanol straight from the small farmers.
>
> We cant have that can we? So, of course, the corporate media wont say a
> word about it.
Land that is used for fuel, is not land that is producing food. It is as
simple as that. When you do that, food prices WILL rise. When you do that,
those countries which provide food for those third world countries to feed
their population , will have less food to feed their people.
Jerry Okamura
> In our last episode, <WIHVj.2041$Uz2.1329@trnddc06>, the lovely and
> mcs broadcast on alt.politics:
>
>
>>> Now how exactly are articles which say ethanol has no smaller carbon
>>> footprint than fossil fuels in any way related to denying that pollution
>>> contributes to global warming?
>
>>how ? you said it or implied it.
>
> No. I didn't. Global-warming deniers claim either 1) global warming is
> not
> happening, or 2) human activity is not contributing to global warming.
> Saying that ethanol fuel has a larger carbon footprint that gasoline does
> not support either claim. Indeed, it is a pointless observation unless
> you
> already agree that 1) global warming does exist and 2) that human activity
> contributes to it.
>
Let us for the sake of discussion say the the scientist are right. If they
are right, then if the world does not reduce their greenhouse gases, then we
will have global warming. If the event happens, then eveyone pays the
price. So, then the question becomes, why is the world not doing anything
effective to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases that they produce? Also,
do we really know, or do the scientist really know how much greenhouse gases
will cause the globe to warm? If you want to attack a prolem, don't you
have to know exactly what the target should be, when the target MUST be
reached? Can you prevent the event from happening without any significant
cost to the inhabitants on earth? Can one country go all out and do their
part, while other countries are doing just the opposite to prevent the event
from happening? Recently, all three Presidential wannabees have propsed
what they will try to do. Are you convinced that if they are able to do
what they say they want to do, that we can prevent the event from happening?
Fran
Well yes ... it's just that given equal performance, it's possible to
have an ethanol-optimised configuration that is smaller and lighter
than a gasoline vehicle.
> But if the playing field is leveled, and ethanol or gasoline are used as
> fuels in motors which are optimized for their uses, then the gasoline
> will produce better mileage per gallon simply because ethanol has less
> BTU's per gallon in it.
>
That's not what the studies show.
> >> Cite, please. And see if you can find the relative efficiencies of the
> >> current types of vehicle motors today. It's online.
>
> > You might take a look at the study done by GM in Warren Michigan that
> > examined a test single-cylinder engine (Brinkman's study IIRC). Here
> > it was shown that even at identical CR, ethanol engines increased
> > thermal efficiency by 3% over gasoline. When CR was adjusted from
> > 7.5:1 to 18:1 ethanol improved thermal efficiency by 18% over
> > gasoline.
>
> Cite please. I can find Brinkman's PPT presentation 3 online but you
> need to cite your ideas.
>
I'll see if I can dig out an appropriate reference. I'm on my way to
work.
> But did you know that if you just put a little water mist in the
> gasoline, you can burn it at higher compression ratios in a typical
> motor? You can get similar results in a supercharged engine, some of
> which actually used water injection to control combustion temperatures
> way back when.
>
So?
> But you still won't get better gas mileage than you can get from
> gasoline, provided only that it's a level playing field re: motor
> characteristics.
>
You mean 'displacement'? The studies don't say this. You can improve
thermal efficiency consistently by using higher octane fuels in higher
CR engines. The problem with gasoline is that for a variety of reasons
it's not a consistent product when it comes out of the bowser -- hence
the lowest common denominator engine configuration.
>
>
> > There's also William Scheller's study in Nebraska in the mid 1970s
> > called something like "the 2 million mile gasohol test run"). In this
> > study covering more than 40 vehicles over 2 million miles, gasohol
> > improved over unleaded by more that 5% and achieved more than 8 miles
> > extra per BTU. Another study by Naim Kosaric in 1984 showed that by
> > using straight anhydrous ethanol in an engine with a CR of 12.5:1,
> > power output at 1600 RPM was 57% higher than with a gasoline engine
> > running at 8.5:1 and 26% more than straight ethanol at 8.4:1.
>
> And dragsters use a nitromethane mix and a supercharger at truly
> horrendous CR's. But I'm not going to put that setup in my car. I'd
> like the motor to last more than 20 miles.
>
Now you're being silly. Special pleading will do that to you.
> >> Look, it's the energy content of the fuel that determines gas mileage.
>
> > Energy intensity is only one factor, since in practice, the carnot
> > efficiency of the engine a fuel is combusted in is overlaid on it.
>
> >> This energy content is expressed in British Thermal Units (BTU's).
> >> Here's a handy fedgov chart that shows the differences:
>
> http://www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/pdfs/afv_info.pdf
>
>
>
> > Err yes ... I am aware.
>
> >> Read the chart. Note the differences between gasoline, ethanol, and
> >> methanol. Also read the fine print where it discusses environmental
> >> impacts on page 2 - especially where it talks about how the ethanol
> >> produces "less" pollution. But note that more ethanol must be burned,
> >> so even this is a wash.
>
> > No, it isn't. For a start, ethanol contains no aromatics or sulphur,
> > or benzine. which is just a straight win. Studies show that PM10 is
> > lower at the tailpipe. VOCs are also reduced. Lower operating
> > temperatures also reduce the scope for formation of oxides of
> > nitrogen. There's also virtually no CO emitted. The only downside
> > rally is aldhehydes and ketyones, which can be higher when not using a
> > catalytic converter.
>
> Read this Stanford University report - and note that the professor says
> that until one knows what emissions controls are placed on a motor, you
> can never predict what the gas mileage will be. That's what's the
> problem with gasoline motors today, WRT gas mileage.
>
I'll deal with this part of the post later.
>
>
> > And as was noted above, you can configure vehicles to run as or even
> > more fuel efficiently on ethanol at comparable levels of performance.
>
> >>>> Here's one minor study:
>
> http://www.edmunds.com/advice/alternativefuels/articles/120863/articl...
>
>
>
> > "File Not Found"
>
> Gee whiz, and I thought you were bright enough to cut and paste. Let me
> do it for you.
>
> http://www.edmunds.com/advice/alternativefuels/articles/120863/articl...
> orhttp://tinyurl.com/3dxjns
Agreed
> >> Forbes magazine claims the fedgov puts a 54 cents
> >> tariff on each gallon of ethanol made in Brazil. Almost no ethanol is
> >> produced from US sugar cane.
>
> > Well yes, because US sugar is too expensive, because its protected.
>
> Yet you argued that ethanol was produced from sugar cane. It can be -
> but it isn't done here in the US. Get your story straight.
>
>
My story was straight. You assumed I was talking about the US.
>
> >>http://money.cnn.com/2007/08/06/news/economy/sugarcane_ethanol/index.htm
>
> >>http://www.forbes.com/2005/11/15/energy-ethanol-brazil_cx_1116energy_...
>
> >> Some ethanol in the US is made from corn silage; most is made from corn.
>
> >>> And how insane is it to use land to produce other non-essential crops
> >>> such as tobacco, cocaine, alcohol etc? Do you have the same food v
> >>> whatever worry?
> >> That's your Strawman argument; you feed it.
>
> > You need to deal with it. If you are putting the case for utility in
> > land use policy "It is insane for us to burn food to drive our cars"
> > then plainly, you need
>
> > a) to define food
>
> Anything nutritious we can put into our bellies and enjoy.
>
So pop tarts and corn syrup are out. Sugar, out. Alcohol, out.
Confectionery, out..
> > b) to rank land usages competing with food on a scale of 'insanity'
> > and declare the threshhold beneath which the land usage is contra-
> > indicated, and the methodology by which you arrived at that.
>
> 'Scuse me? If I start following your methodology, we ought to just kill
> off 80% of the human race. That will immediately solve all of our
> problems. Sorry, but I'm not dancing to your rules.
>
I asked you to specify your methodology, so that we could go through
your claims, and now you want to wander off and visit some parallel
universe? You're the one wanting to move the goal posts.
>
>
> > Consider also that as a self-avowed 'libertarian' straying into
> > centralised policy prescription is tricky. What is 'sane' should, for
> > you, be determined by 'the market'. You're not about to order farmers
> > to start producing food because it's necessary, or have the state do
> > it.
>
> The STATE is doing it by subsidizing the production of ethanol to the
> tune of more than a dollar a gallon. IOW, every time the fedgov pays a
> dollar to the farmer, it's a dollar ripped at gunpoint out of a
> taxpayer's pocket.
>
<sigh> always with the extravagant claims. I disagree with the
subsidy, m'kay. Sheesh ...
> Now why do you think I want to maintain an artificial market structure?
> You're accusing me first of being a Lib, and then of being on the
> fedgov's side. You need to think about what you're saying.
>
You were the one having a whine about prices going up if the subsidy
were removed. You're the one who is all over the shop on this.
>
>
> > Now I'm a vegetarian, and so ideally, IMO, nobody would be raising
> > livestock. But the tidier and more consistent way to go, from a
> > utilitarian perspective is along the lines I proposed above --
> > attaching the costs upon the commons of various human activities to
> > the beneficiaries. Where human activities create public goods, then
> > rebates also attach. If some activity does both, then the balance is
> > relfected in the price. The context would be determined by the roll
> > out of general policy -- itself the broad policy that the community as
> > a whole thought most suitable.
>
> > You want to cherrypick, that's your problem.
>
> You want to be a bull-goose looney socialist, that's your problem.
>
Pardon?
>
> >> Has your food bill gone up lately? Most of the rise is caused by the
> >> increases in transportation and production costs due to the recent rises
> >> in fuel prices.
>
> > That's certainly one important factor.
>
> >> BUT - Ethanol is heavily subsidized by the fedgov to the tune of $4.5
> >> billion for 3.8 gallons produced - and ethanol additives still cost
> >> money at the pump. This is the biggest reason why corn food products
> >> have shot up in price. Go back and read that Forbes article again. And
> >> note that meat prices are about to take another HUGE jump upwards due to
> >> the recent cost increases of raising the animals.
>
> > That's why I'd dump the subsidies, and have what would amount to a
> > technologically neutral regime. The key parameters would be driven by
> > the envioronmental aims -- lower net carbon emissions, cleaner air and
> > water and so forth.
>
> >> Here's the World of Corn, 2007. Track through the pages for an
> >> education - and don't miss the price increases year to year:
>
> http://www.ncga.com/WorldOfCorn/main/Record1.asp
>
OK ... ignore the point ... where have crude oil prices gone recently?
Is this relevant?
>
>
> > Well so what? Frankly, I'd sooner have 2.8 gallons of ethanol than
> > 31.5 lbs of starch, or 33 lbs of sweetener. The question is, what does
> > the portion of corn that might be used for ethanol actually going to
> > be used for alternatively. In the US, most of it will wind up as
> > livestock feed or (much the same) in convenience foods. Can one
> > seriously claim that the world would be a worse place if people ate a
> > lot less convenience food? A lot less meat and a lot more vegetable
> > protein?
>
> > No, of course not.
>
> Talk to yourself much, Fran? Just as an aside, small children need good
> sources of protein. It is difficult, although not impossible, to
> achieve adequate growth, both in mentation and stature using a vegan
> only diet.
It's not difficult. Both my children (now 24, 15) are in robust good
health on such a diet.
> For the lower classes a vegan diet becomes a
> multi-generational disaster.
>
What nonsense. Look at first world kids and adults these days. Obesity
is rampant.
> Most people don't have the resources today to afford that "better for
> you" diet. Go into one of the green grocery stores that offer better
> everything, and note the difference in prices over your normal
> supermarket's prices.
>
Of course they do. I'm not necessariuly talking organic, but simple
good nutritious food.
> And these upscale stores will NOT locate themselves in the high crime
> areas, let alone in lower middle-class suburbs.
>
> Great thought, but it's for the elite.
>
>
>
> > People say that the EROEI on corn ethanol at about 1: 1.3 (in some
> > studies) doesn't justify using it -- and I would certainly agree. Even
> > if it were 1:5 I'd be against it if most of the "1" was composed of
> > fossil fuels. But look at food. The EROEI here is much worse -- on
> > average about 10:1. For every calorie out about 10 go in. That's
> > defencible if that's as good as we can get, and the food is of high
> > nutritional value. But junk food? Stuff that causes health problems?
> > Non-foods like tobacco and drinking alcohol?
>
> >> So which do you want? Ethanol from corn at heavily subsidized prices,
> >> or cheaper food?
>
> > False dilemma. I don't favour subsidised ethanol and the price of food
> > is not strongly related to corn-based ethanol, and to the extent that
> > it is, it is turning up in the price of meat or junk food.
>
> One man's junk food is another's poi, Fran. What do you eat for snacks?
Nuts, seeds, but I tend not to snack.
> Come to think of it, do you eat corn at all, even on the cob?
Yes
> If you
> eat corn on the cob, do you use butter or margarine?
>
Not on the corn, no.
> Now I don't favor government subsidized prices for anything - not even
> medical or education, let alone fuels or electricity. All it does is to
> push up the prices to the end consumer.
>
>
A sweeping generalisation. It depends how you use a subsidy.
>
> > If you want the price of food to decline you need to find cheaper
> > liquid fuels or some cheap substitute for the same or some way of
> > reducing the transport component in food production. You also need to
> > reduce the demand for livestock, which is the key pressure point on
> > land that would be used for raising of lower priced and more
> > nutritious (per unit of land, water, power, fertiliser) food.
>
> The livestock themselves are not the problem. It's the cost of
> production, both in vegetables, grains, and livestock that is the problem.
>
Wrong. Livestock are very energy, water- and land- -intensive.
> Let me say it real clearly. The cost of EVERYTHING in this country is
> dependent on cheap energy. Whether the energy is electric or coal or
> liquid fuel based doesn't matter - all costs are driven up when one or
> the other goes up in price.
>
True, and the more energy that is embedded ...
> Even so, ethanol, as it is today is no answer at all.
>
> --
Oh I agree. Butanol from waste biomass, algae etc . would be better.
Fran
Fran
> > electric vehicles. Long distance drivers and those wanting to use AC
> > would probably need some sort of combustion engine.
>
> Absolutely have to - unless you think you can get cross-country in a
> reasonable time using batteries. Even if your batteries give you 300
> miles, the recharge times will cost you considerable time. No battery I
> know of recharges in minutes. So a coast-to-coast drive might take you
> as long as ten days.
That's true, but, if the only people using ICEs were that fairly small
class of persons for whom neither PEVs nor public transport were
feasible, then there would still be enormous savings. Many of the ICE
drivers could be running on hybrids.
> And I ain't flying transcontinental in no battery powered airliner.
>
>
Again though, this, by comparison with energy used in private motor
vehicles is modest. Virgin is looking at renewables like butanol and
biodiesel.
>
> > That's why I believe hybrids will anticipate PEVs and transitional
> > fuel vehicles using biodiesel and butanol would be best, short-term.
> > Coterminoulsy, we ought to be reconfiguring cities to reduce the need
> > for individualised transport options. If fewer people need continuous
> > access to cars, then the cost per mile of running them can go up
> > without making a huge difference to most people, and so a cleaner
> > energy system becomes supportable and the lead time in converting
> > declines.
>
> First, you've got to move all the people out of the 'burbs and build
> housing for them back in the cities.
Yes.
> Where I live there aren't even
> sidewalks around - and you risk your life on a bicycle since the traffic
> is moving at 50 mph on a small two-lane road. Yet I live in a major
> metropolitan area.
>
> This problem is hideously complex.
>
A long lead time, but not that complex really.
Fran
Day Brown
> Day,
> in a just world we can have it. I never heard of what you just wrote about
> though. Have the ethanol producers thought about it and know about it and
> what do you think their response would be?
Not that I know of. All the websites I've seen from the USDA and the
corporate outfits focus on corn and the whole complicated sour mash
process at a much larger scale than a farmer could afford.
The U of GA page on ethanol production was thinking of syrup, not rum.
but I've made sorghum/sassafras ale, (tasty) and know how easy it is to
get 10% ethanol in the brew. As warm as it is in August, 5-10 days works
well enuf to start a siphon to feed a solar still.
Part of the problem is that GW Bush is not the only politician with a
"ranch". It is SOP for real estate honchos to tip off an official when a
deal opens up on a farm. All completely legal. So then, agricultural
policy is crafted to minimize the expenses of the hobby farm for the
politician. And maximizing profits for agribusiness. The last thing they
want is competition from farmers who dont have a million dollars to get
in the game.
The only realistic thing I see to do is use the net to organize a new
political party that will not accept lawyers as candidates. And if they
want to win elections, they mite avoid liberal political activists also.
Partisan group think affects both the Left & Right, Liberal &
Conservative, Fundamentalist & Environmentalist. Obama is dong so well
because he seems outside of Democratic group think, but I dont see that
he is far enuf outside.
I've had ideas and posts on this, but the main plank should be that we
will work out the other planks here, in the postings, where the ideas
can be carefully parsed out and clarified.
Day Brown
>> HOWEVER: note that this is ETHANOL, which does not have the isopropyl
>> alcohol from the corn based sour mash process. So, unlike moonshine,
>> it is rum, and not poisonous.
>
> Just a note for you. Moonshine is not poisonous. Some of the
> distilleries used metals such as lead-based solder on the piping, and
> that does cause problems. But in the main, you're confusing moonshine,
> a form of ethanol, with methanol which is quite poisonous.
Done right, moonshine is fine; I've tried it. But if the mash is too
hot, then the snuff box dont catch all the isopropyl alcohol, and that
causes even more brain damage than ethanol. There's only a few degrees
diff in the condensation temperatures.
The hillbilly shuffle is characterized by a swivel in the hips, the
centripital force helping to compensate for the damage done to the
balance center in the inner ear. The stride is wider, and many could not
do the white line toe to toe in front of the police even if sober.
Course, lotsa them were born with fetal alcohol syndrome, so its hard to
measure how much damage they added to what they were born with. But the
beady eyes are not egzactly genetic. If you could keep the mother away
from booze for 9 months, but her genetic markers related to alcohol
metabolization makes that damn near impossible.
Then too, the stupid bitches raise their kids on sugar cereals,
junkfood, and soda, so sorting out all the poisons aint easy.