Biofuels cause phosphorus shortage and erode topsoil
calde...@yahoo.com
"Crop-based biofuels, whose production methods and usage suck
phosphorus out of the agricultural system in unprecedented volumes,
have, researchers in Brazil say, made the problem many times worse."
SEE STORY - http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article4193017.ece
_________________________________
Some 1.5 Bln People May Starve Due to Land Erosion - FAO
"MILAN - Rising land degradation reduces crop yields and may threaten
food security of about a quarter of the world' population, the United
Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) said on Wednesday"
Wasting cropland growing biofuels just speeds land erosion! We are
doing without thinking!
________________________________
For more biofuel disaster news, SEE http://home.att.net/~meditation/biofuel-news.html
For the full biofuel disaster story, and better alternatives, SEE
http://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html
Christopher Calder
lora...@cs.com
wrote:
> Scientists warn of lack of vital phosphorus as biofuels raise demand
>
> "Crop-based biofuels, whose production methods and usage suck
> phosphorus out of the agricultural system in unprecedented volumes,
> have, researchers in Brazil say, made the problem many times worse."
>
Good grief.. you are indeed getting clown-like in your urgency to keep
the sheeple enslaved to arab-juice..
The fact is that US industry can make cellulosic fuel from biota that
requires NO phosphorus nor any other additives..
Growing weed plants such as algae would actually improve the
environment by taking pollutants out of the environment !
Eeyore
"calde...@yahoo.com" wrote:
> Scientists warn of lack of vital phosphorus as biofuels raise demand
>
> "Crop-based biofuels, whose production methods and usage suck
> phosphorus out of the agricultural system in unprecedented volumes,
> have, researchers in Brazil say, made the problem many times worse."
Why can't the phosphorous be returned to the soil ? It's not needed in the fuel.
Graham
calde...@yahoo.com
"The fact is that US industry can make cellulosic fuel from biota that
requires NO phosphorus nor any other additives.. Growing weed plants
such as algae would actually improve the environment by taking
pollutants out of the environment !"
---------------------------------------------------
There is not a single manufacturing plant anywhere in the world making
commercial quantities of ethanol out of cellulosic sources, or
biodiesel out of algae. Don't drink the biofuel cool-aide; It makes
people do stupid things that destroy the planet and the human food
supply!
See #7 of 10 reasons to oppose biofuels pasted below.
7) The outlook for biofuels is dismal - All present and future
biofuels have the same problems. Biofuel crops are all too low in
energy, too light in weight, and thus too bulky and expensive to
transport to be of any real value. They all require vast amounts of
sunlight to grow and take up too much land, water, and fertilizer
resources to be economically beneficial. By contrast, coal has been
successful as a usable fuel because it is very heavy, high in energy
content, and makes energy sense to transport. Coal already exists in
the ground so you don't have to grow it, water it, or fertilize it.
We simply extract coal from the ground and ship it to power plants
where it is burned. All biofuel schemes, planned or imagined, will
never amount to a hill of beans (excuse the expression) because of the
basic limitations of their solar based production process. A
requirement for vast amounts of sunlight will always equal a
requirement for vast amounts of land area to collect that sunlight,
thus solar power schemes can never replace the massive concentrated
energy reservoir of fossil fuels.
Growing switchgrass to produce ethanol from lignocellulose has
most of the same drawbacks as making ethanol from corn. We will use
land, water, fertilizer, farm equipment, and labor to grow switchgrass
that will be diverted from food production, with soaring food prices
the result. If we grow switchgrass on land currently used to graze
cattle, we will reduce beef and milk production. If we grow
switchgrass on unused "marginal" prairie lands, we will soon turn
those marginal lands into a new dust bowl, which they may turn into
anyway due to global warming. Computer models for the progression of
global warming show the America Midwest and Southwest getting hotter
and dryer, with much of our farm and grazing land turning into
desert. We know that biofuel production will speed up global warming,
so why are we pinning so much hope on an environmental battle plan
that any fool can see will blow up in our face over time? We won't be
able to produce enough biofuels to run our cars or enough food to fill
our bellies.
Switchgrass and other biofuel weeds will be grown by ordinary,
profit motive driven farmers, not by environmentally trained
scientists. Farmers will grow switchgrass on land that could be used
to grow corn, wheat, or soybeans, and farmers will want to maximize
yield, so they will use lots of fertilizer to increase output. The
plans biofuel idealists are trying to sell the American public will
never produce the kind of "green," food friendly energy source they
promise. The next great scandal will be how to get rid of all the
millions of acres of invasive, deep rooted biofuel weeds once society
inevitably realizes that even growing "second generation" biofuel
crops is a tragic mistake.
The very process of making ethanol from lignocellulose has not
been proven to be economically viable (cellulosic ethanol not
affordable, pdf 180kb - http://www.card.iastate.edu/publications/DBS/PDFFiles/08wp460.pdf),
and the Bush-Obama energy plan assumes new scientific breakthroughs
that have not occurred. In practical terms, there is not enough
usable land area to grow a sufficient quantity of biofuel plants to
meet the world's energy demands. According to professors James Jordan
and James Powell, "Allowing a net positive energy output of 30,000
British thermal units (Btu) per gallon, it would still take four
gallons of ethanol from corn to equal one gallon of gasoline. The
United States has 73 million acres of corn cropland. At 350 gallons
per acre, the entire U.S. corn crop would make 25.5 billion gallons,
equivalent to about 6.3 billion gallons of gasoline. The United
States consumes 170 billion gallons of gasoline and diesel fuel
annually. Thus the entire U.S. corn crop would supply only 3.7% of
our auto and truck transport demands. Using the entire 300 million
acres of U.S. cropland for corn-based ethanol production would meet
about 15% of the demand." (see The False Hope of Biofuels -
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/30/AR2006063001480_pf.html).
Growing algae to make biodiesel is being touted as a cure-all for
all our biofuel problems, but we are still stuck with the fact that
algae need solar energy to turn carbon dioxide into fuel. To make
biodiesel, algae are used as organic solar panels which output oil
instead of electricity. Researchers brag that algae can produce 15
times more fuel per acre of land than growing corn for ethanol, but
that still means we would need an impossibly large number of acres of
concrete lined open-air algae ponds to meet our highway energy
demands. Those algae schemes that use less land invariably call for
feeding algae sugar or starches. The sugar or starches must then be
made from corn, wheat, beets, or other crop, so you are simply trading
ethanol potential to make oil instead of vodka. If we construct
genetically engineered super-algae that are capable of out-competing
native algae strains that inevitably contaminate open air algae ponds,
the new genetically modified algae will be immediately carried to
lakes, reservoirs, and oceans all over the world in the feathers of
migrating birds, with unknown and possibly catastrophic results.
Using "agricultural waste" to make biofuels has its own
problems. Removing unused portions of plants that are normally plowed
under increases the need for nitrogen fertilizers, which release the
most potent greenhouse gas of all; nitrous oxide. Much of the
residual crop biomass must be returned to the soil to maintain topsoil
integrity, otherwise the rate of topsoil erosion will increase
dramatically. If we mine our topsoil for energy, we will end up
committing slow agricultural suicide like the Mayan Empire. Without
topsoil, the world starves!
Using wood chips to make ethanol or biodiesel sounds like a good
idea until you remember that we currently use wood chips to make fuel
pellets for stoves, paper, particle board, and a thousand and one
building products. Every part of the trees we cut down for lumber are
used for something, including the bark which is used for garden
mulch. The idea of sending teams of manual laborers into forests to
salvage underbrush for fuel would be prohibitively expensive. Our
forests are already stressed just producing lumber without tasking
them with producing liquid biofuels for automobiles. Such a scheme
would inevitably drive up the price of everything made from wood,
creating yet another resource crisis. Making fuel from true garbage,
such as used cooking oil and winery waste, is fine. Those usable true
waste resources are very limited, however, and not a major energy
solution for a country that uses 8 billion barrels of crude oil every
year.
From - http://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html
The biofuel cultists have killed more human beings through starvation
in the year 2008 than killed by Bush with his illegal war in Iraq.
The biofuel cult is by far the most destructive, anti-environment and
anti-human cult in the world, and is far - far - far more destructive
than even the worst Moslem terrorist organization. People who jumped
on the phony ecological biofuel bandwagon are responsible for more
destruction than 50 years worth of coal mining and oil extraction.
jtno...@yahoo.com
>
> "Crop-based biofuels, whose production methods and usage suck
> phosphorus out of the agricultural system in unprecedented volumes,
> have, researchers in Brazil say, made the problem many times worse."
>
> _________________________________
>
> Some 1.5 Bln People May Starve Due to Land Erosion - FAO
>
> "MILAN - Rising land degradation reduces crop yields and may threaten
> food security of about a quarter of the world' population, the United
> Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) said on Wednesday"
>
> Wasting cropland growing biofuels just speeds land erosion! We are
> doing without thinking!
> ________________________________
>
>
> For the full biofuel disaster story, and better alternatives, SEEhttp://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html
>
> Christopher Calder
Bird doo-doo is rich in phosphorous and nitrogen, chickens could be
fed soybean meal that has had the soybean oil (biodiesel feedstock)
removed, people could eat the eggs, the birds go to KFC, the poop
restores the phos, which grows the soybeans, and everyone is happy,
except the chickens, problem solved.-Jitney
RS
of a barrel of oil is the main problem in the raising cost of food
costs. The small amount of corn going into biofuel doesn't offset
the vast amount going into corn syrup for junk foods..
> Growing algae to make biodiesel is being touted as a cure-all for
> all our biofuel problems, but we are still stuck with the fact that
> algae need solar energy to turn carbon dioxide into fuel.
That fact is a great thing to be stuck with. It's how we get the
stored
energy for the fuel.
To make
> biodiesel, algae are used as organic solar panels which output oil
> instead of electricity. Researchers brag that algae can produce 15
> times more fuel per acre of land than growing corn for ethanol,
I see you jumping for joy with the rest of us on this one.
but
> that still means we would need an impossibly large number of acres of
> concrete lined open-air algae ponds to meet our highway energy
> demands.
Do you actually have the math on this? Using the word "impossibly"
seems
very biased and pessimistic. What about some interesting machines
that people
could put on their property for growing algae? They could then trade
it in to a
processing plant in their neighborhood? Their land and a little of
their labor equals
their fuel supply for their cars (and even houses).
Those algae schemes that use less land invariably call for
> feeding algae sugar or starches.
I haven't seen much on this. Where are you getting this information
from? The algae in my fish tank sure isn't being fed sugars and
starches.
The sugar or starches must then be
> made from corn, wheat, beets, or other crop, so you are simply trading
> ethanol potential to make oil instead of vodka.
The more I read this the more erroneous it's sounding....
Of course, none of these solutions call for one fix like some of the
critics try
to say....all provide a part in the whole, and the faster we work on
them, the faster
food prices will go back down, People have to WAKE UP in the true
philosophical
and existential sense of the word. Their quality of life has been
robbed from
many for some time.
--
Robert Pearson
ParaMind Brainstorming Software http://www.paramind.net
Creative Virtue Press/Telical Books/Regenerative Music
http://www.rspearson.com/
DG
DG
>
>There is not a single manufacturing plant anywhere in the world making
>commercial quantities of ethanol out of cellulosic sources, or
"Commercial quantities" have been flowing out of Brazil for years.
Wake up and smell the dead plants powering vehicles...
100 years ago, Henry Ford knew you were a moron :
http://www.runet.edu/~wkovarik/papers/fuel.html
calde...@yahoo.com
"Do you actually have the math on this? Using the word "impossibly"
seems very biased and pessimistic."
--------------------
According to professors James Jordan and James Powell, "Allowing a net
positive energy output of 30,000 British thermal units (Btu) per
gallon, it would still take four gallons of ethanol from corn to equal
one gallon of gasoline. The United States has 73 million acres of
corn cropland. At 350 gallons per acre, the entire U.S. corn crop
would make 25.5 billion gallons, equivalent to about 6.3 billion
gallons of gasoline. The United States consumes 170 billion gallons
of gasoline and diesel fuel annually. Thus the entire U.S. corn crop
would supply only 3.7% of our auto and truck transport demands. Using
the entire 300 million acres of U.S. cropland for corn-based ethanol
production would meet about 15% of the demand." (see The False Hope
of Biofuels http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/30/AR2006063001480_pf.html).
300 million acres divided by 15 = 20 million acres of concrete lined
algae ponds to satisfy just 15% of highway energy demand. It will
NEVER HAPPEN!
Christopher Calder - http://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html
Bill Ward
> <calde...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>There is not a single manufacturing plant anywhere in the world making
>>commercial quantities of ethanol out of cellulosic sources, or biodiesel
>>out of algae. <SNIP of spew>
>
>
> "Commercial quantities" have been flowing out of Brazil for years. Wake up
> and smell the dead plants powering vehicles...
Commercial quantities from "cellulosic" sources? Could you show
us the quote from your source that makes you believe this? I believe the
Brazilians use sugar from cane, not cellulose.
I don't know of any algae source producing "commercial quantities" of
fuel, but would consider it good news if you are right. Without a
credible source, it's just a highly unlikely rumor, AFAIC.
calde...@yahoo.com
There are no commerical, profit making plants anywhere in the world
making ethanol from cellulose or biodiesel from algae. Brazil makes
ethanol from sugarcane and burns corn stocks to heat the fermenting
pots, that is all. It is shocking how uneducated and mislead the
biofuel advocates are. They have heard the false campaign slogans and
they have drunk the biofuel cool-aide, and they repeat the same
nonsense over and over and never figure out the truth. Biofuels are a
HOAX!
SEE http://euobserver.com/9/26449
Food and fuel crises pushing world into 'danger zone', says World Bank
- "As the head of the World Bank warns world leaders that the planet
is entering the "danger zone" with millions thrown into extreme
poverty by the twin food and fuel crises, a leaked report from his
organization shows that biofuels have pushed up global food prices by
75 percent - a much bigger role in the disaster than previously
thought."
--------------------------
For all the biofuel disaster facts, and details of far better
alternatives see - http://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html
Christopher Calder
calde...@yahoo.com
plant waste) to heat fermenting pots to make ethanol. That is not
making cellulosic ethanol by any definition.
Christopher
Whata Fool
>On Jul 3, 8:02?pm, RS <paramindsoftw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> "Do you actually have the math on this? ?Using the word "impossibly"
> seems very biased and pessimistic."
>--------------------
>
>According to professors James Jordan and James Powell, "Allowing a net
>positive energy output of 30,000 British thermal units (Btu) per
>gallon, it would still take four gallons of ethanol from corn to equal
>one gallon of gasoline.
At least use a reference that gives numbers in the ball park,
how can people get things so wrong?
"Metric tonne ethanol = 7.94 petroleum barrels = 1262 liters
ethanol energy content (LHV) = 11,500 Btu/lb = 75,700 Btu/gallon = 26.7 GJ/t
= 21.1 MJ/liter. HHV for ethanol = 84,000 Btu/gallon = 89 MJ/gallon = 23.4
MJ/liter"
http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/papers/misc/energy_conv.html
> The United States has 73 million acres of
>corn cropland. At 350 gallons per acre, the entire U.S. corn crop
>would make 25.5 billion gallons, equivalent to about 6.3 billion
>gallons of gasoline. The United States consumes 170 billion gallons
>of gasoline and diesel fuel annually. Thus the entire U.S. corn crop
>would supply only 3.7% of our auto and truck transport demands. Using
>the entire 300 million acres of U.S. cropland for corn-based ethanol
>production would meet about 15% of the demand." (see The False Hope
>of Biofuels http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/30/AR2006063001480_pf.html).
>
>300 million acres divided by 15 = 20 million acres of concrete lined
>algae ponds to satisfy just 15% of highway energy demand. It will
>NEVER HAPPEN!
>
>Christopher Calder - http://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html
That reference is grossly wrong, ethanol production last year
was about 7 Billion gallons, which is already about 3 percent of liquid
fuel demand.
Oil prices have only been high enough for about 2 years to spur
the alternate liquid fuel market, as soon as imports of non-food grade
sugar picks up, there will be more sugar ethanol, and less corn ethanol.
Eeyore
Whata Fool wrote:
> "Metric tonne ethanol = 7.94 petroleum barrels = 1262 liters
> ethanol energy content (LHV) = 11,500 Btu/lb = 75,700 Btu/gallon = 26.7 GJ/t
> = 21.1 MJ/liter. HHV for ethanol = 84,000 Btu/gallon = 89 MJ/gallon = 23.4
> MJ/liter"
What a boggle of American and metric units ! Are those 55 ? (US) gallon barrels btw ?
Graham
Whata Fool
>On Jul 4, 12:58?pm, Bill Ward <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 23:47:27 -0600, DG wrote:
>> > <calderh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>There is not a single manufacturing plant anywhere in the world making
>> >>commercial quantities of ethanol out of cellulosic sources, or biodiesel
>> >>out of algae. <SNIP of spew>
>>
>> > "Commercial quantities" have been flowing out of Brazil for years. Wake up
>> > and smell the dead plants powering vehicles...
>>
>> Commercial quantities from "cellulosic" sources? ?Could you show
>> us the quote from your source that makes you believe this? ?I believe the
>> Brazilians use sugar from cane, not cellulose.
>>
>> I don't know of any algae source producing "commercial quantities" of
>> fuel, but would consider it good news if you are right. ?Without a
>> credible source, it's just a highly unlikely rumor, AFAIC.
>-----------------------
>There are no commerical, profit making plants anywhere in the world
>making ethanol from cellulose or biodiesel from algae. Brazil makes
>ethanol from sugarcane and burns corn stocks to heat the fermenting
>pots, that is all. It is shocking how uneducated and mislead the
>biofuel advocates are. They have heard the false campaign slogans and
>they have drunk the biofuel cool-aide, and they repeat the same
>nonsense over and over and never figure out the truth. Biofuels are a
>HOAX!
[snip]
>Christopher Calder
That reference is obviously outdated,
tells of a couple of plants in production, but it seems
certain that thermal disassociation of carbon and hydrogen in
any bio or waste hydrocarbon can be converted to liquid fuel
without the use of enzymes.
The enabling feature of this lucrative technology is
co-generative processes where the heat is used for several
different things, like generating electricity or for process
heat for other things, and recovered using heat exchangers
to do most of the heating of raw material by the heat removed
from the (G)as (T)o (L)iquid processes.
The tremendous advantages of this illustrate just how
pessimistic and unthinking the AGW crowd is, converting just
the rotting dead tree limbs and underbrush would not only
produce much needed liquid fuel, but would also replace the
CO2 emissions of fossil fuels with CO2 from bio sources,
making them carbon neutral.
Cheer up!
Bill Ward
Not just yet, I'm afraid. The claim is that there are now "commercial
quantities" of cellulosic and algae fuels being produced. Where's the
evidence?
lora...@cs.com
> On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 21:57:20 -0500, Whata Fool wrote:
Right here.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellulosic_ethanol
..enjoy.
Bill Ward
Well, I noticed the following right away:
"This article or section reads like a news release, or is otherwise
written in an overly promotional tone. Please help rewrite this article
from a neutral point of view to be less promotional. Where appropriate,
blatant advertising may be marked for speedy deletion with {{db-spam}}."
Reading on anyway, I found:
<begin excerpt>
Cellulosic ethanol (Ceetol) commercialization
Main article: Cellulosic ethanol commercialization
Cellulosic ethanol commercialization can contribute to a successful
renewable fuels future.
Companies such as Iogen, Broin, and Abengoa are all building refineries
that can process biomass and turn it into ethanol, while companies such as
Diversa, Novozymes, and Dyadic are producing enzymes and Butalco[58] is
developing improved yeast strains, which could enable a cellulosic ethanol
future. The shift from food crop feedstocks to waste residues and native
grasses offers significant opportunities for a range of players, from
farmers to biotechnology firms, and from project developers to
investors.[59]
A biorefinery built to produce 1.4 million gallons of ethanol a year from
cellulosic biomass has opened in Jennings, LA. Built by Verenium, based in
Cambridge, MA, the plant makes ethanol from agricultural waste left over
from processing sugarcane. [60]
Gulf Ethanol Corporation [3] (GFET) announced in June 2008 that it has
established an R&D facility dedicated to refining the design of its
cellulosic feedstock preprocessor. Cellulosic feedstock is used to produce
ethanol from non-food products.
The new facility will be focused on enhancing the system for commercial
delivery as a solution for cellulosic feedstock processing in ethanol
production. Equipment and feedstocks are being acquired to analyze the
throughput capacity, energy requirements, and scalability of the system.
This equipment can improve the efficiencies of cellulosic feedstock and
provide ethanol producers with an alternative to corn. Initial experiences
with components of the system lead the company to believe that the system
will significantly improve process times and net ethanol yield from
cellulosic feedstocks
An ethanol production plant, capable of producing fifty million gallons of
ethanol per year, is projected to continuously require the equivalent of a
truckload of sorghum every five minutes. Initial experiences with
components of the system indicate that large quantities could be processed
with cost effective energy consumption. The focus of the R&D facility will
be to quantify the precise parameters of the systems operations and
evaluate the engineering requirements to scale the unit to handle the
quantities of feedstock that a commercially viable cellulosic ethanol
plant would require.
<end excerpt>
So where are the numbers indicating specific "commercial quantities" of
cellulosic ethanol?
I don't see any mention of any specific current production quantities on
the Verenium website:
I found the following PR on this link to the Jennings site:
http://www.americanfuels.info/2008/04/vereniums-jennings-plant-enters-startup.html
<begin excerpt>
Monday, April 7, 2008
Verenium's Jennings Plant Enters Startup
Verenium Jennings demonstration scale cellulosic plants enters
startup.Verenium announced today that it's demonstration scale cellulosic
plant at Jennings, LA has entered into the startup phase. Over the next
three months each of the more than forty separate systems will be tested.
<end excerpt>
Still no specific commercial quantities, so what are you referring to?
Do you have a credible quote, or are you just engaging in wishful
thinking?
Whata Fool
Isn't a million gallons a year enough to call commercial quantity?
From the url I posted above;
"The first demonstration plant making cellulose ethanol
Currently, Iogen Corporation in Ottawa, Canada produces just over a million
gallons annually of cellulose ethanol from wheat, oat and barley straw in
their demonstration facility."
And another million gallon plant;
http://ir.verenium.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=81345&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1151140&highlight=
With even this size plant, it has to be commercially viable,
microbes do all the work.
Whata Fool
>On Jul 5, 12:03?am, Bill Ward <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 21:57:20 -0500, Whata Fool wrote:
>> > "calderh...@yahoo.com" <calderh...@yahoo.com> ?wrote:
>>
>> >>On Jul 4, 12:58?pm, Bill Ward <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> >>> On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 23:47:27 -0600, DG wrote:
>> >>> > <calderh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>> >>There is not a single manufacturing plant anywhere in the world
>> >>> >>making commercial quantities of ethanol out of cellulosic sources, or
>> >>> >>biodiesel out of algae. <SNIP of spew>
>>
>> >>> > "Commercial quantities" have been flowing out of Brazil for years.
>> >>> > Wake up and smell the dead plants powering vehicles...
>>
>> >>> Commercial quantities from "cellulosic" sources? ?Could you show us the
>> >>> quote from your source that makes you believe this? ?I believe the
>> >>> Brazilians use sugar from cane, not cellulose.
>>
>> >>> I don't know of any algae source producing "commercial quantities" of
>> >>> fuel, but would consider it good news if you are right. ?Without a
>> >>> credible source, it's just a highly unlikely rumor, AFAIC.
>> >>-----------------------
>> >>There are no commerical, profit making plants anywhere in the world
>> >>making ethanol from cellulose or biodiesel from algae. ?Brazil makes
>> >>ethanol from sugarcane and burns corn stocks to heat the fermenting pots,
>> >>that is all. ?It is shocking how uneducated and mislead the biofuel
>> >>advocates are. ?They have heard the false campaign slogans and they have
>> >>drunk the biofuel cool-aide, and they repeat the same nonsense over and
>> >>over and never figure out the truth. ?Biofuels are a HOAX!
>> > [snip]
>> >>Christopher Calder
>>
>> > ? ? ? That reference is obviously outdated,
>>
>> >http://zfacts.com/p/85.html
>>
>> > ? ? ? tells of a couple of plants in production, but it seems
>> > certain that thermal disassociation of carbon and hydrogen in any bio or
>> > waste hydrocarbon can be converted to liquid fuel without the use of
>> > enzymes.
>>
>> > ? ? ? The enabling feature of this lucrative technology is
>> > co-generative processes where the heat is used for several different
>> > things, like generating electricity or for process heat for other things,
>> > and recovered using heat exchangers to do most of the heating of raw
>> > material by the heat removed from the (G)as (T)o (L)iquid processes.
>>
>> > ? ? ?The tremendous advantages of this illustrate just how
>> > pessimistic and unthinking the AGW crowd is, converting just the rotting
>> > dead tree limbs and underbrush would not only produce much needed liquid
>> > fuel, but would also replace the CO2 emissions of fossil fuels with CO2
>> > from bio sources, making them carbon neutral.
>>
>> > ? ? ?Cheer up!
>>
>> Not just yet, I'm afraid. ?The claim is that there are now "commercial
>> quantities" of cellulosic and algae fuels being produced. ?Where's the
>> evidence?
>
>Right here.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellulosic_ethanol
>..enjoy.
That link provides a few brand names that allow searching for
plants already in production, and apparently there is at least 4 or 5
or more producing more than a million gallons a year, which classes
them as commercial.
It sounds like production will jump to at least 50 million
gallons a year within two years, and that could be the start of a
100 Billion dollar industry, one that has a real future, one that
could make waste materials really profitable to recycle.
Landfills simply covers up the fact that the stuff is recombining
into methane and/or CO2, while cellulosic ethanol converts into a useful
carbon neutral product.
Bill Ward
Here's what your first link says:
"Currently, Canada’s Iogen Corporation is trying to commercialize an
enzymatic hydrolysis technology for ethanol production. The company
estimates that a plant with ethanol capacity of 50 million gallons per
year and lignin-fired CHP will cost about $300 million to build. By
comparison, a corn ethanol plant with a capacity of 50 million gallons per
year could be built for about $65 million, and the owners would not bear
the risk associated with a new technology. Co-location of cellulose
ethanol plants with existing coal-fired electric power plants could reduce
the capital cost of the ethanol plants but would also limit siting
possibilities."
The words "trying to commercialize" indicate to me there's no commercial
quantities being produced at present. They no doubt intend to sell a
million gallons annually, but where is the evidence they are actually
doing so? Do you have more specific info?
The second link says:
"Start-up activities will continue as the facility transitions into a
comprehensive commissioning phase allowing the Company to evaluate its
process for making ethanol at scale and validate cost and performance
assumptions to prepare for the development of its first series of
commercial plants. This phase puts Verenium on track for its goal of
beginning construction in the middle of next year on a 30
million-gallon-per-year commercial plant, which will be the first of its
kind, located in the southeastern United States."
Again, that PR, dated May 28, 2008, doesn't sound like it's actually
producing any commercial quantities yet.
It would be great if someone could show actual evidence that someone,
somewhere, is making a profit from the unsubsidized sale of cellulosic
ethanol. But what I've seen so far looks like PR to sell stock to
investors, not selling ethanol. Lots of good news, but no ethanol sales.
I hope I'm wrong.
John M.
> On Sat, 05 Jul 2008 04:32:29 -0500, Whata Fool wrote:
> > Bill Ward <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >>On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 21:57:20 -0500, Whata Fool wrote:
>
It seems Mr Fool has realised your hopes for you in a post other than
the one you are respomding to. Why not post him a nice thank you right
here and explain how you got things so badly wrong,
daestrom
There are several 'barrels', but since he mentioned petroleum, it's safe to
assume he's speaking of oil barrels which are 42 US gallons to the barrel.
If you just work it a bit backward, 1262 liters / (3.78 liters/USGal) / 7.94
'barrels' = 42 gal/barrel
daestrom
Uncle Ben
wrote:
> Scientists warn of lack of vital phosphorus as biofuels raise demand
>
> "Crop-based biofuels, whose production methods and usage suck
> phosphorus out of the agricultural system in unprecedented volumes,
> have, researchers in Brazil say, made the problem many times worse."
>
> _________________________________
>
> Some 1.5 Bln People May Starve Due to Land Erosion - FAO
>
> "MILAN - Rising land degradation reduces crop yields and may threaten
> food security of about a quarter of the world' population, the United
> Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) said on Wednesday"
>
> Wasting cropland growing biofuels just speeds land erosion! We are
> doing without thinking!
> ________________________________
>
>
> For the full biofuel disaster story, and better alternatives, SEEhttp://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html
>
> Christopher Calder
Perhaps half of the population of the earth will starve if we do NOT
find good biofuels. Earth cannot support 7 billion people without oil
or some substitute.
Uncle Ben
GALWA...@gmail.com
drive innovation but please make a distinction when you speak about
biofuels. Are you talking about biodiesel, corn ethanol, ceetol, and
which production method are you referring to? Which harvesting of
crops are you referring to? Are you referring to the production of
ceetol from waste biomass like food newspapers etc? There are many
different types. On a monthly basis, new technology is emerging which
will bring biofuels to the forefront of a massive green consumer
driven revolution. Are you aware for instance that a new bacterium has
been located by scientists in both Ireland and the U.S. that break
down any waste material containing cellulose - trash, waste food waste
grass clippings - the list is endless - it converts them directly to
ethanol - directly!! We don't even have to talk about ethanol from
crops, we are talking municiple waste - straight into ethanol within
hours- not days weeks or years. Simple! One day you will make ethanol
in your home. I have made it in mine - 190 proof using different
methods. I have no science degree, failed chemistry (hated it anyway).
I'm just an average person. When an average person can do it. It can
be mass produced on a local level. The implications are enormous. It
is going to happen, the problem is when. If the American people keep
reading articles with bad info they will remain in the dark. Do you
know that America is the only country in the world where there is a
debate regarding global warming! Apparently it's become a partizen
issue. Chances are if you are democratic you believe. If you are
republican you don't. Don't you think this is strange. Do you want to
see the chineese outpacing America in regards to energy innovation?
Brazil, a third world country, already has. Let's educate ourselves as
much as we can, and make this work. The Middle East has already grown
rich from our trillions of dollars - look at Dubai !! It's built with
American money while our kids are choking Asmatics! Let's do it
people!! The internet is going to bring this technology to the
forefront because of people like us making noise. We can make it
happen, we can make this country strong!! (I'm not even an American
and I'm fully behind this initiative but against large corporations
sucking your pockets dry - I live here too!!) so commonnnnn!!!!!
Where's that good old American pride - DEMAND clean energy from YOUR
politicans. For anyone who is interested the bacterium is called
Saccharophagus degradans - cut and paste it into your browser.
GALWA...@gmail.com
> > Scientists warn of lack of vital phosphorus as biofuels raise demand
>
> > "Crop-based biofuels, whose production methods and usage suck
> > phosphorus out of the agricultural system in unprecedented volumes,
> > have, researchers in Brazil say, made the problem many times worse."
>
> > _________________________________
>
> > Some 1.5 Bln People May Starve Due to Land Erosion - FAO
>
> > "MILAN - Rising land degradation reduces crop yields and may threaten
> > food security of about a quarter of the world' population, the United
> > Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) said on Wednesday"
>
> > Wasting cropland growing biofuels just speeds land erosion! We are
> > doing without thinking!
> > ________________________________
>
>
> > For the full biofuel disaster story, and better alternatives, SEE
> >http://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html
>
> > Christopher Calder
Ok Mr Calder, I think it's time you sold your oil stocks. You can
believe what ever you tell yourself to believe but don't do or say
things that your children wouldn't be proud of - they have to live in
this world after you. Money is not everything! Protect their future
and demand better from your politicians, is the gas you use now better
then completely renewable ethanol produced from completely harmless
means (not talking about crop ethanol) - this is one wave that is
really going to hit hard, you can pretend it's not comming but
everyone else has left the beach...the days of big oil are over. That
you cannot deny! Farewell big oil !! It's time that our children
breathed clean air again.
Day Brown
> Ok Mr Calder, I think it's time you sold your oil stocks. You can
> believe what ever you tell yourself to believe but don't do or say
> things that your children wouldn't be proud of - they have to live in
> this world after you. Money is not everything! Protect their future
> and demand better from your politicians, is the gas you use now better
> then completely renewable ethanol produced from completely harmless
> means (not talking about crop ethanol) - this is one wave that is
> really going to hit hard, you can pretend it's not comming but
> everyone else has left the beach...the days of big oil are over. That
> you cannot deny! Farewell big oil !! It's time that our children
> breathed clean air again.
Be that as it may, you can make ethanol from sorghum. 3.5 gallons of
tractor fuel per acre, which produces 100-120 gallons of ethanol. And,
you can feed the left over mash to livestock. The seeds to chickens.
then put the manure back on the field for a completely sustainable system.
cee...@gmail.com
Corn ethanol leeds to starvation via food shortages - point taken and
I agree here.
and we should mine oil and coal to avoid food shortages - this makes
absolutely no sense at all.
The price of food prodction is heavily linked to oil - kids in school
know this. The reason that food production is
so expensive is because of oil and grain price rises. So you are
saying we should not be using corn for ethanol
instead we should be using oil and coal, and it's the fault of those
looking for solutions for diversification
that has lead to these problems. Is there any logic in your arguement?
My only motivation if I were you would come
from the fact that you MUST have some interest in oil - stocks or
whatever because you are doing a lot of shouting
against biofuels but making NO sense at all. At first I thought that
you were just completely ignorant. but I realise that you
are an educated man (probably a doctor) so why then could you be so
misguided? Again sell your stocks buddy
I'm backing Bill Gates and Khosla among others who I admire. These
people MAKE sense!! It would be interesting to hear if
you think oil companies hold any responsibility. Was your daddy a
lobbyist for big oil?
Day Brown
The reason you dont hear about it is that the profits would go to the
small farmers rather than the big corporations. Not that there are not
downsides. But:
A U of GA study shows you can get 100-120 gallons of ethanol off an acre
of sorghum that only needs 3.5 gallons of tractor fuel to work.
Rather than cooking down the juice to syrup, ferment it for 5-7 days,
when its 10% alcohol, then run the juice thru a solar still. Duck soup
in August heat. You only need 171 deg F to boil off the alcohol
Feed the left over mash to cattle for burgers or milk.
feed the seed heads to chickens for eggs and legs.
You wont need chemical fertilizers much less GM seed. Sorghum is more
resistant to pests and tolerates drought better than corn. It also grows
better on marginal land.
Put the manure back on the land; you dont need chemical fertilizers. Be
a good idea tho to use some of the money from all this to buy greensand.
Its an acceptibly organic fertilzer from deposits of Cambrian beech sand
that has some slow release phosphorus as well as a wide variety of trace
minerals which- if present in the food, maximize childhood mental
development.
Most of those you try to dialogue with were raised on sugar cereals,
junkfood and soda, and their minds did not develop to the full potential
as a result. Mostly, they are neurotic, and rather than educated when
presented with the facts, get angry.
Oh, I almost forgot the downside. Since fermenting sorghum is so simple,
every small farmer could use a cheap plastic swimming pool to ferment it
in, then a cheap pump with plastic pipe for a still, and be selling jugs
out on the road with the rest of his produce.
The sour mash process for corn produces isopropyl alcohol, which is why
moonshine is poison; but sorghum produces rum, which is not. Customers
could drive on it, or drink it. The BATF would schitt a brick.
DG
So would OPEC. The only way to break the OPEC cartel is with
biofuels. Most of the disinformation about biofuels comes from the
oil fascists. Like you wrote, it's simple. Ferment at room temp,
distill at 170 degrees and put it in your tank.
I'd rather support US farmers than sheiks.
Bill Ward
Where does the distillation energy come from?
Day Brown
still juicy. You only need 171 deg F to get the alcohol to boil out, so
it'd be duck soup to modify a solar hot water design to do that.
Bill Ward
Is that the common way it's done, or is that speculation?
Day Brown
>>> Where does the distillation energy come from?
>>>
>> Solar. Sorghum is ordinarily harvested in August while the stems are still
>> juicy. You only need 171 deg F to get the alcohol to boil out, so it'd be
>> duck soup to modify a solar hot water design to do that.
>
> Is that the common way it's done, or is that speculation?
sorghum. Solar energy is being used to heat water or other fluids to
produce steam to run turbines to create power.
It any rocket science. Anyone who has built as solar water heater for a
home, as I have, knows the temps can easily reach 130deg F in August in
those areas commonly hot enuf to be growing sorghum, which I've also
done. But my place in the upper elevations of the Southern Ozark woods
is not the place to do that.
I have, however, a partnership going on at a lower elevation parcel,
where I've tested the soil, and see we need to lime it. Which we'll do
this fall. I've also saved the seed from my test plots, but this winter
will be looking at what other lines will be available, and consulting
with the county extension agent there.
Inasmuch as the plastic pipe that can handle 40 PSI at high temps is
commonly available at the local building supply, we dont see any
difficulty in setting it all up. The main variable of concern is what
the price of ethanol and gasoline will be by plowing time next spring,
and what the expectation would be at harvest.
energ...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Do some research on Bactranol- Bacterial Transformation Ethanol. It's
brand new but needs little to no energy to produce - Zymetis produced
Bactranol (location Maryland). The Bacteria do the work. It is called
Saccharophagus Degredans strain 2-40. It's esay to replicate in a lab.
Biomass strait to ethanol - no manufacturing plant - no b.s. - check
it out! We are making progress it might be slow but its exponential.
Bill Ward
> Bill Ward wrote:
>>>> Where does the distillation energy come from?
>>>>
>>> Solar. Sorghum is ordinarily harvested in August while the stems are
>>> still juicy. You only need 171 deg F to get the alcohol to boil out, so
>>> it'd be duck soup to modify a solar hot water design to do that.
>>
>> Is that the common way it's done, or is that speculation?
> There is no common way its done because nobody is making ethanol from
> sorghum.
That's what I thought.
> Solar energy is being used to heat water or other fluids to
> produce steam to run turbines to create power.
>
> It any rocket science. Anyone who has built as solar water heater for a
> home, as I have, knows the temps can easily reach 130deg F in August in
> those areas commonly hot enuf to be growing sorghum, which I've also done.
> But my place in the upper elevations of the Southern Ozark woods is not
> the place to do that.
>
> I have, however, a partnership going on at a lower elevation parcel, where
> I've tested the soil, and see we need to lime it. Which we'll do this
> fall. I've also saved the seed from my test plots, but this winter will be
> looking at what other lines will be available, and consulting with the
> county extension agent there.
>
> Inasmuch as the plastic pipe that can handle 40 PSI at high temps is
> commonly available at the local building supply, we dont see any
> difficulty in setting it all up. The main variable of concern is what the
> price of ethanol and gasoline will be by plowing time next spring, and
> what the expectation would be at harvest.
As long as you're risking your own money, I'm 100% behind you. Good luck.
I hope you earn billions.
Bill Ward
OK, but where does the energy required to remove the water come from?
Day Brown
> As long as you're risking your own money, I'm 100% behind you. Good luck.
> I hope you earn billions.
fertility of the land anyway, and dont havta decide whether to try
raising sorghum until next spring. And if we do, then there's still
several months to get the fermentation tanks and distillation system put
together. And we can wait on that to see what the price of fuel is next
spring.
DG
Distillation only requires a temperature of about 180 degrees F.
Solar thermal could easily do that.
Bill Ward
How much solar distilled ethanol is currently being sold?
"Could easily do that" and "is practical" are two different concepts.
DG
Don't know.
>"Could easily do that" and "is practical" are two different concepts.
Take a look at solar thermal and you will see it is easy and
practical. A backup system could be implemented for those days where
the mdsr isn't up to par. Here in Colorado we get 300+ days of
sunshine so we don't have or need a backup.
DG
If the feds would just allow us citizens to pay the world price for
sugar then ethanol would be here to stay.
DG
Day Brown
>> Money at this point is not really the problem. We want to improve the
>> fertility of the land anyway, and dont havta decide whether to try
>> raising sorghum until next spring. And if we do, then there's still
>> several months to get the fermentation tanks and distillation system put
>> together. And we can wait on that to see what the price of fuel is next
>> spring.
> If the feds would just allow us citizens to pay the world price for
> sugar then ethanol would be here to stay.
Yet another example of agricultural policy made by fat asses in pin
stripe suits rather than people who live on the land. Biofuels are being
promoted only insofar as they promote the profits of the oil companies,
hybrid/GM seed producers, agricultural chemical suppliers, and the
owners of vast agribusiness operations.
I saw video of GW Bush with a chainsaw, dragging it back and forth like
it was a handsaw, which spoke volumes of what he really knows about
working, rather than owning, land. Likewise many members of congress
have hobby farms and ranches, so ag policy is driven by whatever it
takes to reduce the out of pocket expenses of the hobby.
They like to ride horses playing cowboy with real cows, and dont know
anything about the beef business.
It would be interesting as well to compute how much tax on sugar it
would take to cover the dental expenses of our children.
DG
>
>DG wrote:
>>> Money at this point is not really the problem. We want to improve the
>>> fertility of the land anyway, and dont havta decide whether to try
>>> raising sorghum until next spring. And if we do, then there's still
>>> several months to get the fermentation tanks and distillation system put
>>> together. And we can wait on that to see what the price of fuel is next
>>> spring.
>
>> If the feds would just allow us citizens to pay the world price for
>> sugar then ethanol would be here to stay.
>
>Yet another example of agricultural policy made by fat asses in pin
>stripe suits rather than people who live on the land. Biofuels are being
>promoted only insofar as they promote the profits of the oil companies,
>hybrid/GM seed producers, agricultural chemical suppliers, and the
>owners of vast agribusiness operations.
Absolutely. OPEC is making out great by raping us on the price of
oil. They use some of those price gouging profits to attack biofuels.
>I saw video of GW Bush with a chainsaw, dragging it back and forth like
>it was a handsaw, which spoke volumes of what he really knows about
>working, rather than owning, land. Likewise many members of congress
>have hobby farms and ranches, so ag policy is driven by whatever it
>takes to reduce the out of pocket expenses of the hobby.
>
>They like to ride horses playing cowboy with real cows, and dont know
>anything about the beef business.
>
>It would be interesting as well to compute how much tax on sugar it
>would take to cover the dental expenses of our children.
We need to remove the tax on sugar. Not promote a new one...
Day Brown
>> It would be interesting as well to compute how much tax on sugar it
>> would take to cover the dental expenses of our children.
>
>
> We need to remove the tax on sugar. Not promote a new one...
Studies show that if you offer a rat a sugar fluid, he'll hit on the bar
for more until he cant hold any more, then come back often for more.
But if you offer a rat real fruit juice, then the rat drinks a
reasonable amount and stops. With the former, the rat gains weight, with
the latter, remains at a healthy level. It turns out that its not the
sugar per se, but the fact that real juice has trace minerals and other
complex organic compounds that trigger the limbic system to say 'enuf'.
Over 150 neurotransmitters have been identified so far. When the Minimum
Daily Requirement was first established, there were only seven. Depends
on your DNA. When trace amounts of iodine are missing in an area, some
develop goiters, some dont. Likewise, some have a greater need for trace
amounts of zinc, copper, manganese, iron, etc. in the diet.
DNA reveals Native Europeans evolved in agrarian villages over the
course of the last 10,000 years. Analysis of the bone middens, which is
also backed up with reports on bog body stomachs, is that over 100 wild
plants and animals were in the diet. Which provided the variety
indicated above in trace minerals and micronutrients veggies absorb in
what we now call "organic" soils.
But agribusiness, for a few generations now, doses the land with
Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Potash. [that's a period] The trace minerals
have been leached out long ago. So, its not what's in the sugar that is
causing the problem, its what is not. And the problem, is increasing
numbers of kids whose mental faculties dont develop well, with alarming
rates of increase in autism, ADD, ADHD, and whatever will be added to
the list next year.
That has a lot to why, when you make a reasonable proposal, so many of
the responses are just lame attempts at humor and ad hominum. People can
not really think clearly any more. There are demographic clues...
Robt. Kaplan, "Imperial Grunts" reports that half the Green Berets grew
up on family farms. This is but 1% of the total population providing 50%
of the nation's most competent soldiers.
The TV says the national autism rate is 1:155; the population in my neck
of Ozark woods, which is all family farms is low, so precise numbers are
not available, but so far as I can tell, the autism rate is 1:4000. Then
too, there is the published rate for the Amish: 1:15,000. All of these
kids are raised with a lot less junkfood, candy, and soda.
If you have some other way besides high taxes to discourage sugar in the
diet of kids, I'd be happy to spread the news.
DG
It's either cane sugar or high fructose corn syrup.
Let's use up that cane for ethanol.
Whata Fool
>We need to remove the tax on sugar. Not promote a new one...
Food grade is not the issue, there is lots of non-food grade sugar,
the distribution pipeline needs to be developed.
And cellulose ethanol will be rapidly coming on line;
http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2008/06/04/the-race-for-nonfood-biofuel/
I wonder how many people use as much science in cooking for
family as some distillers use in making ethanol;
http://www.homedistiller.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=5230
A lot of buyers for cheap sugar, so the switch to cellulose
will be very important;
http://www.alibaba.com/buyeroffers/Raw_Sugar.html
A lot of opportunity is waiting, maybe it isn't so difficult;
DG
New tech is fun if it works out.
I prefer tried and true. Fermented sugar water can easily be
distilled into ethanol.
Whata Fool
Of course, and corn probably is the worse source of sugar,
the hardest to grind, takes the most energy to cook to sugar,
has the most residue, and is not the greatest in weight per acre.
Sugar cane and beets is probably the best source of easily
processed sugar, with maybe sorghum or potatoes next in line,
but potato is a staple food, so it and corn are best to ignore
if there is a choice.
I did find a web site that talked about crop that produces
4 or 5 times the starch per acre as corn, but misplaced the link.
And there is a hardware still project that claims to be trying
to get a distribution chain in place for non-food grade sugar, they
claim that Mexican non-food sugar sells for pennies per pound.
DG
>DG <xxxxx...@xxxxxxxx.xxxxxt> wrote:
>
>><SNIP>
>>New tech is fun if it works out.
>>
>>I prefer tried and true. Fermented sugar water can easily be
>>distilled into ethanol.
>
>
> Of course, and corn probably is the worse source of sugar,
>the hardest to grind, takes the most energy to cook to sugar,
>has the most residue, and is not the greatest in weight per acre.
I'm certain we could find a worse source than corn.
> Sugar cane and beets is probably the best source of easily
>processed sugar, with maybe sorghum or potatoes next in line,
>but potato is a staple food, so it and corn are best to ignore
>if there is a choice.
In the economist a month or so ago, they talked about all the land
being used for sugar in Brazil. It was a pittance compared to cattle
ranching. When the cattle deplete the land, sugar can be easily grown
in it's place.
> I did find a web site that talked about crop that produces
>4 or 5 times the starch per acre as corn, but misplaced the link.
>
> And there is a hardware still project that claims to be trying
>to get a distribution chain in place for non-food grade sugar, they
>claim that Mexican non-food sugar sells for pennies per pound.
Mexican sugar can now enter the USA tax/tariff free. Pennies a pound
would be a dream. It takes 13-14 pounds of sugar per gallon of
ethanol. Right now, sugar goes for about $0.14 per pound. That would
cost $1.96 for the sugar to make a gallon of ethanol. Throw in
another $0.50 for fermentation/distillation/transportation.
~$2.50/gallon of ethanol makes economic sense with $4 gallon gasoline.
Siobhan Medeiros
wrote:
> On Jul 3, 9:19 am, lorad...@cs.com wrote:
>
> "The fact is that US industry can make cellulosic fuel from biota that
> requires NO phosphorus nor any other additives.. Growing weed plants
> such as algae would actually improve the environment by taking
> pollutants out of the environment !"
> ---------------------------------------------------
> There is not a single manufacturing plant anywhere in the world making
> commercial quantities of ethanol out of cellulosic sources, or
> biodiesel out of algae. Don't drink the biofuel cool-aide; It makes
> people do stupid things that destroy the planet and the human food
> supply!
>
> See #7 of 10 reasons to oppose biofuels pasted below.
>
> 7) The outlook for biofuels is dismal - All present and future
> biofuels have the same problems. Biofuel crops are all too low in
> energy, too light in weight, and thus too bulky and expensive to
> transport to be of any real value. They all require vast amounts of
> sunlight to grow and take up too much land, water, and fertilizer
> resources to be economically beneficial. By contrast, coal has been
> successful as a usable fuel because it is very heavy, high in energy
> content, and makes energy sense to transport. Coal already exists in
> the ground so you don't have to grow it, water it, or fertilize it.
> We simply extract coal from the ground and ship it to power plants
> where it is burned. All biofuel schemes, planned or imagined, will
> never amount to a hill of beans (excuse the expression) because of the
> basic limitations of their solar based production process. A
> requirement for vast amounts of sunlight will always equal a
> requirement for vast amounts of land area to collect that sunlight,
> thus solar power schemes can never replace the massive concentrated
> energy reservoir of fossil fuels.
>
> Growing switchgrass to produce ethanol from lignocellulose has
> most of the same drawbacks as making ethanol from corn. We will use
> land, water, fertilizer, farm equipment, and labor to grow switchgrass
> that will be diverted from food production, with soaring food prices
> the result. If we grow switchgrass on land currently used to graze
> cattle, we will reduce beef and milk production. If we grow
> switchgrass on unused "marginal" prairie lands, we will soon turn
> those marginal lands into a new dust bowl, which they may turn into
> anyway due to global warming. Computer models for the progression of
> global warming show the America Midwest and Southwest getting hotter
> and dryer, with much of our farm and grazing land turning into
> desert. We know that biofuel production will speed up global warming,
> so why are we pinning so much hope on an environmental battle plan
> that any fool can see will blow up in our face over time? We won't be
> able to produce enough biofuels to run our cars or enough food to fill
> our bellies.
>
> Switchgrass and other biofuel weeds will be grown by ordinary,
> profit motive driven farmers, not by environmentally trained
> scientists. Farmers will grow switchgrass on land that could be used
> to grow corn, wheat, or soybeans, and farmers will want to maximize
> yield, so they will use lots of fertilizer to increase output. The
> plans biofuel idealists are trying to sell the American public will
> never produce the kind of "green," food friendly energy source they
> promise. The next great scandal will be how to get rid of all the
> millions of acres of invasive, deep rooted biofuel weeds once society
> inevitably realizes that even growing "second generation" biofuel
> crops is a tragic mistake.
>
> The very process of making ethanol from lignocellulose has not
> been proven to be economically viable (cellulosic ethanol not
> affordable, pdf 180kb -http://www.card.iastate.edu/publications/DBS/PDFFiles/08wp460.pdf),
> and the Bush-Obama energy plan assumes new scientific breakthroughs
> that have not occurred. In practical terms, there is not enough
> usable land area to grow a sufficient quantity of biofuel plants to
> meet the world's energy demands. According to professors James Jordan
> and James Powell, "Allowing a net positive energy output of 30,000
> British thermal units (Btu) per gallon, it would still take four
> gallons of ethanol from corn to equal one gallon of gasoline. The
> United States has 73 million acres of corn cropland. At 350 gallons
> per acre, the entire U.S. corn crop would make 25.5 billion gallons,
> equivalent to about 6.3 billion gallons of gasoline. The United
> States consumes 170 billion gallons of gasoline and diesel fuel
> annually. Thus the entire U.S. corn crop would supply only 3.7% of
> our auto and truck transport demands. Using the entire 300 million
> acres of U.S. cropland for corn-based ethanol production would meet
> about 15% of the demand." (see The False Hope of Biofuels -http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/30/AR200...).
>
> Growing algae to make biodiesel is being touted as a cure-all for
> all our biofuel problems, but we are still stuck with the fact that
> algae need solar energy to turn carbon dioxide into fuel. To make
> biodiesel, algae are used as organic solar panels which output oil
> instead of electricity. Researchers brag that algae can produce 15
> times more fuel per acre of land than growing corn for ethanol, but
> that still means we would need an impossibly large number of acres of
> concrete lined open-air algae ponds to meet our highway energy
> demands. Those algae schemes that use less land invariably call for
> feeding algae sugar or starches. The sugar or starches must then be
> made from corn, wheat, beets, or other crop, so you are simply trading
> ethanol potential to make oil instead of vodka. If we construct
> genetically engineered super-algae that are capable of out-competing
> native algae strains that inevitably contaminate open air algae ponds,
> the new genetically modified algae will be immediately carried to
> lakes, reservoirs, and oceans all over the world in the feathers of
> migrating birds, with unknown and possibly catastrophic results.
>
> Using "agricultural waste" to make biofuels has its own
> problems. Removing unused portions of plants that are normally plowed
> under increases the need for nitrogen fertilizers, which release the
> most potent greenhouse gas of all; nitrous oxide. Much of the
> residual crop biomass must be returned to the soil to maintain topsoil
> integrity, otherwise the rate of topsoil erosion will increase
> dramatically. If we mine our topsoil for energy, we will end up
> committing slow agricultural suicide like the Mayan Empire. Without
> topsoil, the world starves!
>
> Using wood chips to make ethanol or biodiesel sounds like a good
> idea until you remember that we currently use wood chips to make fuel
> pellets for stoves, paper, particle board, and a thousand and one
> building products. Every part of the trees we cut down for lumber are
> used for something, including the bark which is used for garden
> mulch. The idea of sending teams of manual laborers into forests to
> salvage underbrush for fuel would be prohibitively expensive. Our
> forests are already stressed just producing lumber without tasking
> them with producing liquid biofuels for automobiles. Such a scheme
> would inevitably drive up the price of everything made from wood,
> creating yet another resource crisis. Making fuel from true garbage,
> such as used cooking oil and winery waste, is fine. Those usable true
> waste resources are very limited, however, and not a major energy
> solution for a country that uses 8 billion barrels of crude oil every
> year.
>
> From -http://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html
>
> The biofuel cultists have killed more human beings through starvation
> in the year 2008 than killed by Bush with his illegal war in Iraq.
> The biofuel cult is by far the most destructive, anti-environment and
> anti-human cult in the world, and is far - far - far more destructive
> than even the worst Moslem terrorist organization. People who jumped
> on the phony ecological biofuel bandwagon are responsible for more
> destruction than 50 years worth of coal mining and oil extraction.
>
> For more biofuel disaster news, SEEhttp://home.att.net/~meditation/biofuel-news.html
>
> For the full biofuel disaster story, and better alternatives, SEEhttp://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html
>
> Christopher Calder
Actually, idiot, switchgrass won't compete with food production
because switchgrass is essentially a WEED. It'll grow on shit land
you can't use for anything else.
Switchgrass also provides a much higher carbon return ratio than corn,
almost comparable to sugar cane.
And all that bullshit about phosphorous depletion is just that -
bullshit. If it were a problem, we could easily replace it. It's
called fertilizer, dumbass.
Siobhan Medeiros
wrote:
> On Jul 3, 8:02 pm, RS <paramindsoftw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> "Do you actually have the math on this? Using the word "impossibly"
> seems very biased and pessimistic."
> --------------------
>
> According to professors James Jordan and James Powell, "Allowing a net
> positive energy output of 30,000 British thermal units (Btu) per
> gallon, it would still take four gallons of ethanol from corn to equal
> one gallon of gasoline. The United States has 73 million acres of
> corn cropland. At 350 gallons per acre, the entire U.S. corn crop
> would make 25.5 billion gallons, equivalent to about 6.3 billion
> gallons of gasoline. The United States consumes 170 billion gallons
> of gasoline and diesel fuel annually. Thus the entire U.S. corn crop
> would supply only 3.7% of our auto and truck transport demands. Using
> the entire 300 million acres of U.S. cropland for corn-based ethanol
> production would meet about 15% of the demand." (see The False Hope
> of
We already know corn is a lousy biofuel, idiot. That's why we're
looking for better ones.
Biofuelshttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/30/AR200...).
>
> 300 million acres divided by 15 = 20 million acres of concrete lined
> algae ponds to satisfy just 15% of highway energy demand. It will
> NEVER HAPPEN!
>
> Christopher Calder -http://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html
Actually, idiot, most of the algae research I've heard of involves
growing it inside giant steel tanks using UV lights. So much for the
land use argument.
You lose, dumbass.
Siobhan Medeiros
wrote:
> On Jul 4, 12:58 pm, Bill Ward <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 23:47:27 -0600, DG wrote:
> > > <calderh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >>There is not a single manufacturing plant anywhere in the world making
> > >>commercial quantities of ethanol out of cellulosic sources, or biodiesel
>
> > > "Commercial quantities" have been flowing out of Brazil for years. Wake up
> > > and smell the dead plants powering vehicles...
>
> > Commercial quantities from "cellulosic" sources? Could you show
> > us the quote from your source that makes you believe this? I believe the
> > Brazilians use sugar from cane, not cellulose.
>
> > I don't know of any algae source producing "commercial quantities" of
> > fuel, but would consider it good news if you are right. Without a
> > credible source, it's just a highly unlikely rumor, AFAIC.
>
> -----------------------
> There are no commerical, profit making plants anywhere in the world
> making ethanol from cellulose or biodiesel from algae. Brazil makes
> ethanol from sugarcane and burns corn stocks to heat the fermenting
> pots, that is all. It is shocking how uneducated and mislead the
> biofuel advocates are. They have heard the false campaign slogans and
> they have drunk the biofuel cool-aide, and they repeat the same
> nonsense over and over and never figure out the truth. Biofuels are a
> HOAX!
>
> SEE http://euobserver.com/9/26449
>
> Food and fuel crises pushing world into 'danger zone', says World Bank
> - "As the head of the World Bank warns world leaders that the planet
> is entering the "danger zone" with millions thrown into extreme
> poverty by the twin food and fuel crises, a leaked report from his
> organization shows that biofuels have pushed up global food prices by
> 75 percent - a much bigger role in the disaster than previously
> thought."
> --------------------------
> For all the biofuel disaster facts, and details of far better
> alternatives see -http://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html
>
> Christopher Calder
A hoax powering 80% of all Brazilian vehicles. A country with a
population in the hundreds of millions. Pretty good hoax!
Day Brown
> Mexican sugar can now enter the USA tax/tariff free. Pennies a pound
> would be a dream. It takes 13-14 pounds of sugar per gallon of
> ethanol. Right now, sugar goes for about $0.14 per pound. That would
> cost $1.96 for the sugar to make a gallon of ethanol. Throw in
> another $0.50 for fermentation/distillation/transportation.
> ~$2.50/gallon of ethanol makes economic sense with $4 gallon gasoline.
dentistry.
I dont have a problem with cane sugar raised on the gulf coast, or
sorghum further north. But corn needs too much fuel and petrochemicals.
But whatever, just crush the stalks and toss in the vat to give the
yeast access to the sugar. No need to cook it down to syrup. Then,
siphon off the mash, run it into a solar still, distill ethanol.
Which can then be put in another vat to ferment with another bacteria to
make butanol. Which has the same BTU and power rating as gasoline.
I dont think there's enuf suitable acreage for sugar cane, but adding
sorghum would produce enuf to cut into foreign oil consumption to drive
down the price.
DG
>
>DG wrote:
>> Mexican sugar can now enter the USA tax/tariff free. Pennies a pound
>> would be a dream. It takes 13-14 pounds of sugar per gallon of
>> ethanol. Right now, sugar goes for about $0.14 per pound. That would
>> cost $1.96 for the sugar to make a gallon of ethanol. Throw in
>> another $0.50 for fermentation/distillation/transportation.
>> ~$2.50/gallon of ethanol makes economic sense with $4 gallon gasoline.
>
>Tax sugar/corn syrup used in food & beverages to subsidize the cost of
>dentistry.
How about we let humans decide for themselves how to take care of
their teeth?
>I dont have a problem with cane sugar raised on the gulf coast, or
>sorghum further north. But corn needs too much fuel and petrochemicals.
>
>But whatever, just crush the stalks and toss in the vat to give the
>yeast access to the sugar. No need to cook it down to syrup. Then,
>siphon off the mash, run it into a solar still, distill ethanol.
>
>Which can then be put in another vat to ferment with another bacteria to
>make butanol. Which has the same BTU and power rating as gasoline.
>
>I dont think there's enuf suitable acreage for sugar cane,
Read up on Brazil's land use. They barely use any land for sugar cane
compared to cattle ranching. Cane can be grown in "spent" former
cattle ranches.
>but adding
>sorghum would produce enuf to cut into foreign oil consumption to drive
>down the price.
Good. I would rather pay money to farmers than that fascist cartel
called OPEC.
Day Brown
> Day Brown <dayb...@daybrown.org> wrote:
>> DG wrote:
>>> Mexican sugar can now enter the USA tax/tariff free. Pennies a pound
>>> would be a dream. It takes 13-14 pounds of sugar per gallon of
>>> ethanol. Right now, sugar goes for about $0.14 per pound. That would
>>> cost $1.96 for the sugar to make a gallon of ethanol. Throw in
>>> another $0.50 for fermentation/distillation/transportation.
>>> ~$2.50/gallon of ethanol makes economic sense with $4 gallon gasoline.
>> Tax sugar/corn syrup used in food & beverages to subsidize the cost of
>> dentistry.
>
>
> How about we let humans decide for themselves how to take care of
> their teeth?
then, society has an interest in making sure their teeth are well taken
care of if the parents are not up to it.
By the time you say they are capable of managing their own sex lives,
their teeth are already ruined. The vendors of products with sugar in it
to appeal to juvenile tastes have profited; let them foot the bill.
Day Brown
> "Could easily do that" and "is practical" are two different concepts.
like this with cheaper gasoline. As a capitalist, I kinda expected you
would have figured that out.
Its not an easy decision for a farmer to grow a crop he is unfamiliar
with. But I've grown sorghum and corn, and the former is easier. Part of
the problem in this issue is that there are so many fat assed urbanites
in pin stripe suits who dunno jack schitt about the farming business who
see some profit in ethanol, and buy into all the spin from agribusiness
supply and fuel outfits.
But Yankees have always done well with innovation, and in this case, are
well ahead of the rest of the planet.
Day Brown
yes, you'd wanna put it on marginal land cause when you do get it going,
you cant hardly get rid of it. The corms broken up by a plow will just
sprout and come up next year.
I've seed it, and got no germination at all. There are certain soils it
likes, and others it dont. Those it dont like would prolly do better
with sorghum, which usta be a southern crop, but with global warming,
can be grown now throughout the old corn belt. Which has moved further
north into Canada. And even Siberia.
Like any technology, biofuels have downsides, but they can be managed,
and with the appropriate crop on appropriate land, be sustainably
profitable. which is more than we can say for oil.
DG
>
>DG wrote:
>> Day Brown <dayb...@daybrown.org> wrote:
>>> DG wrote:
>>>> Mexican sugar can now enter the USA tax/tariff free. Pennies a pound
>>>> would be a dream. It takes 13-14 pounds of sugar per gallon of
>>>> ethanol. Right now, sugar goes for about $0.14 per pound. That would
>>>> cost $1.96 for the sugar to make a gallon of ethanol. Throw in
>>>> another $0.50 for fermentation/distillation/transportation.
>>>> ~$2.50/gallon of ethanol makes economic sense with $4 gallon gasoline.
>>> Tax sugar/corn syrup used in food & beverages to subsidize the cost of
>>> dentistry.
>>
>>
>> How about we let humans decide for themselves how to take care of
>> their teeth?
>
>Because parents are irresponsible. The age of consent is 18,
Age of consent is for fucking and varies state to state.
>and until
>then, society has an interest in making sure their teeth are well taken
>care of if the parents are not up to it.
Bullshit. Socialism for baby teeth... Pure stupidity.
>By the time you say they are capable of managing their own sex lives,
>their teeth are already ruined. The vendors of products with sugar in it
>to appeal to juvenile tastes have profited; let them foot the bill.
Just teach kids how to brush their teeth in first grade. That way we
don't have to punish business people for providing a perfectly legal
product.
Day Brown
>> By the time you say they are capable of managing their own sex lives,
>> their teeth are already ruined. The vendors of products with sugar in it
>> to appeal to juvenile tastes have profited; let them foot the bill.
>
>
> Just teach kids how to brush their teeth in first grade. That way we
> don't have to punish business people for providing a perfectly legal
> product.
People are stupid. I'd prefer we not fund them breeding with food
stamps, but since we do, it'd help to make sure the food stamps cant be
used to buy sugar cereals, candy, soda, and the other crap in addition
to taxing these products which add to the cost of dental insurance.
When offered a sugar solution, rats will hit the bar to get more and
drink as much as they can hold, then come back for more soon as they've
pissed that away. The result is, among other things, fat rats.
When offered a real fruit juice, rats drink some, then go on with other
activities. Turns out, its complex organic compounds in real fruit that
signals the limbic system to turn off the appetite response. The result
is rats that are more fit.
Turns out, the trace minerals in real fruit and organic veggies- copper,
iron, zinc, boron, magnesium, etc, trigger some of the 150 or so
neurotransmitters during learning to lay down new neural pathways. But
if these trace minerals and organic compounds are not present in the
diet, then the neurotransmitters will try to make do with any of a host
of complex compounds in the modern urban environment.
The kids grow stupider. And then, as voters, support liberals who will
promise them whatever the latest psychobabble says they need. They are
now the majority. We also see the alarming rise in autism, ADD, ADHD,
etc. And of course, an epidemic of faggots.
Day Brown
> The government taxing sugar is a very stupid idea. The net result is
> we get $4/gallon gas while a perfectly viable substitute (ethanol) is
> retared because of the sugar tax.
No, no. I'm not as clear as I hope to be. Tax sugar for human
consumption! The tax could go to SUBSIDIZE the production of sugar for fuel!
And actually, you dont havta make sugar anyway. Just crush the stalks of
either sugar cane or sorghum, toss them in a vat, and let them ferment.
The yeast will find the sugars in the mash.
Run the fluid thru a solar still to extract the alcohol, let the rest
dry out, and feed the left over mash to cattle for beef and milk. The
manure can go back on the field. Since Ethanol is made up only of
carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen, which come from rain and the atmosphere,
it is not harming the fertility of the land.
Uncle Ben
> On Sun, 03 Aug 2008 08:56:04 -0700, energycane wrote:
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Do some research on Bactranol- Bacterial Transformation Ethanol. It's
> > brand new but needs little to no energy to produce - Zymetis produced
> > Bactranol (location Maryland). The Bacteria do the work. It is called
> > Saccharophagus Degredans strain 2-40. It's esay to replicate in a lab.
> > Biomass strait to ethanol - no manufacturing plant - no b.s. - check it
> > out! We are making progress it might be slow but its exponential.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
In Brazil they don't remove the last water from distillation, with a
product denoted as hydrous ethanol. They burn it in cars straight out
of the still.
Uncle Ben
>
> Distillation only requires a temperature of about 180 degrees F.
> Solar thermal could easily do that.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Distillation doesn't remove all the water. When the water gets down
to, I think, 5%, it goes across with the alcohol. This often happens
in distillation. The final mixture is called an azeotrope.
Day Brown
>> And actually, you dont havta make sugar anyway. Just crush the stalks of
>> either sugar cane or sorghum, toss them in a vat, and let them ferment.
>> The yeast will find the sugars in the mash.
>>
>> Run the fluid thru a solar still to extract the alcohol, let the rest
>> dry out, and feed the left over mash to cattle for beef and milk. The
>> manure can go back on the field. Since Ethanol is made up only of
>> carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen, which come from rain and the atmosphere,
>> it is not harming the fertility of the land.
>
>
>
> Alcohol is the way we should be powering our vehicles. I'm trying to
> convince my family members to make their car a flex fuel vehicle. One
> of them lives close to one of the cheapest ethanol pumps in the USA.
>
> In less than 1 year they can recoup the cost of the conversion kit and
> support US farmers instead of the OPEC cartel.
Mite keep an eye on butanol- google has several links. No conversion kit
would be needed. The yeast that makes alcohol is harmless, but the microbes
that make butanol require hazmat bunny suits; not a big deal in
industrial scale operations. The mileage is the same as gasoline.
desm...@uku.co.uk
billions -desmodus
Uncle Ben
> bio fuel is bonkers and will lead to the death by starvation of
> billions -desmodus
OTOH, fossil fuels cause cancer (emissions), global warming,
bankruptcy of the lower classes`(hgh prices), and starvation of
billions as the fuel runs out. Not to mention enrichment of arab
monarchies and the loss of sovereignty of dependent states such as the
U.S. and all of Europe, whose businesses are bought up by sovereign
wealth funds.
Uncle Ben
Day Brown
> On Sep 5, 7:11 am, <desmo...@uku.co.uk> wrote:
>> bio fuel is bonkers and will lead to the death by starvation of
>> billions -desmodus
the corn to start with. Another urbanite expounding on farming.
> OTOH, fossil fuels cause cancer (emissions), global warming,
> bankruptcy of the lower classes`(hgh prices), and starvation of
> billions as the fuel runs out. Not to mention enrichment of arab
> monarchies and the loss of sovereignty of dependent states such as the
> U.S. and all of Europe, whose businesses are bought up by sovereign
> wealth funds.
We are where we are, that is, with an irrational electorate, too stupid
and ignorant to choose rational leadership. The only choice for the
rational is to network with others locally to seek their own solutions
for their mutual benefit.
Whata Fool
>Uncle Ben wrote:
>> On Sep 5, 7:11 am, <desmo...@uku.co.uk> wrote:
>>> bio fuel is bonkers and will lead to the death by starvation of
>>> billions -desmodus
>
>Beef cattle do better on the left over ethanol mash than they do on
>the corn to start with. Another urbanite expounding on farming.
Of course, because the distillers grain has the cellulose
and nutrients without the sugar and starch which cattle don't need,
plus minerals and vitamins are usually added for the type of feed,
and there is a lot of it available near where distilleries are
located, and it is cheap if it doesn't need to be transported far.
>> OTOH, fossil fuels cause cancer (emissions), global warming,
>> bankruptcy of the lower classes`(hgh prices), and starvation of
>> billions as the fuel runs out. Not to mention enrichment of arab
>> monarchies and the loss of sovereignty of dependent states such as the
>> U.S. and all of Europe, whose businesses are bought up by sovereign
>> wealth funds.
>
>We are where we are, that is, with an irrational electorate, too stupid
>and ignorant to choose rational leadership. The only choice for the
>rational is to network with others locally to seek their own solutions
>for their mutual benefit.
That seems more obvious with the democrat candidates, there
seems to be more votes for rock star personalities than for legislative
or governing ability.
The democrat ticket would make more sense if the two candidates
changed places, because of experience.
Day Brown
policy. And it dont matter whether they call themselves Republican or
Democrat. Both are clubs for rich lawyers.
Grow sorghum, which can be done on much more marginal land; its much
more resistant to drought, perhaps only needing irrigation those last
few weeks when the sugar juice in the stalks develops. It dont need
nearly the fertilizer, pesticide, or GM seed. Problem with that is, that
there's hardly any profit in it for agribusiness suppliers with almost
all the money going to the farmers. (Well, we cant have that.)
Then, run thru the field with a sickle bar mower. Haul the stalks off to
a crusher and then dump them in the fermentation vat. No need to boil
off the syrup. A fortnite later, use a solar still to take off the
ethanol; the left over mash can be fed to cattle, or dried for feed in
winter. The manure goes back on the field.
The seed heads are chicken feed. And that manure can go back on the
field as well. If there's a few worms in it, the chickens will love it
even more. Sorghum grows so fast it shades out the weeds. Dont need to
by pesticides, herbicides, or fungicides. Less corporate profits, so the
media says nothing about all this, and neither will any Republican or
Democratic politician.
the ethanol, which does not have nitrogen, phosphorus, or potash, wont
be needing commercial fertilizers for the next crop. The farmers can set
up the whole thing with very little investment, and then be selling jugs
of ethanol at their fruit stands. which you can drink, it'd be like rum,
or drive on. The BATF would loose a fortune in taxes, and well... we
cant have that either.
Day Brown
> Great stuff. Thanks for posting.
Polite discourse appreciated.
> I've been reading this book and it's awesome:
> http://www.energyvictory.net/
I wish him well, but he's top down, I'm bottom up. The carbon footprint
of the American middle class nuclear family house is not sustainable. A
few of young women I know have figured that out. They can also see that
young men no longer make enuf money to support it, and are therefore
looking for another social model.
But unlike the communes we've read about, these are being setup by
women. Not some male guru who wants to have sex with their daughters.
I've seen four women share a kitchen canning up the garden. They know
how to do it; they should. Their ancestresses have done it for 10,000
years or more. They dont have a problem sharing men either. Again, for
even more generations, men have had four or more wives; only diff now,
is that the women get to pick who the men are.
The upshot is that by sharing the fixed costs- utilities, mortgage, and
broadband, and by having in-house childcare by the other women, they get
by on part time jobs. And therefore get to spend more time being with
their kids and the other women. As ancestors have done for 20,000
generations or so.
Yes, ethanol and flex fuel would be nice. But now, they only drive to
work 2-3 times a week, and cut their gas consumption in half. Even when
they go shopping, they go together, and with cell phones are able to
coordinate to have kids picked up or whatever, dropping gas consumption
even lower.
And since young men can no longer make enuf money because of downsizing
or jobs exported to Mexico or Bangalore, when I discuss fertility clinic
services with young women, they are attentive. Maybe they will never
meet mr. Wright, but clearly they can bear kids who'll be outstanding in
school and supportive as adults rather than dependents. As so many of
the young men they know now are.
The Mosou of SW China, way the fuck up in the Himalayas, have lived in
communal houses run by matriarchs for centuries, and do so comfortably
in an area that does not have much to work with. Young women from other
parts of China are wanting to move in with them. The women I know in my
neck of Ozark woods foresee this kind of thing, and are trying to plan
for it. Like maybe a single mom union.
But whatever, we dont need to wait for congress to act.
Whata Fool
>DG wrote:
>> Great stuff. Thanks for posting.
>Polite discourse appreciated.
>> I've been reading this book and it's awesome:
>> http://www.energyvictory.net/
>I wish him well, but he's top down, I'm bottom up.
I have my eyes closed.