Global Warming? Journalism? Don't Make Me Laugh!



T

Tom Kunich

Guest
"Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On Feb 22, 2:22 pm, "Tom Kunich" <[email protected] com> wrote:
>> "Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:[email protected]
>>
>>
>>
>> > What I've seen is that ethanol is about 80% as efficient.

>>
>> 62%

>
> Looks like what I was hearing was overly optimistic and your estimate
> is closer to the general concensus.
>
>
> For:
> http://www.ncga.com/ethanol/pdfs/Wang2005.pdf
>
> against:
>
> http://www.catoinstitute.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=7308
>
> Fuel Comparison Chart
>
> Gasoline Ethanol (E85)
> Energy Content per Gallon 109,000 - 125,000 Btu
> ~ 80,000 Btu
>
> AFDC Home | FreedomCar & Vehicle Technologies Home | EERE Home
> Webmaster | Web Site Policies | Security & Privacy | Disclaimer |
> USA.gov
>
> U.S. Department of Energy
>
> Content Last Updated: 06/09/2003
>
> I'd still rather, on balance, subsidize US farmers than Hugo Chavez,
> and the Saudis, and it seems pretty clear that E-85 or straight
> ethanol are better for the environment.
> Some improvement is better than none.
> Just my opinion though.


How many times does someone have to explain that you aren't subsidizing
American farmers who have cultivated about every possible profitable acre?
Ethanol or soy biodiesel does one thing - reduce the amount of US food grain
surplus and since the USA is supplying 60% of the world's surpluses which
are then used by the starving third world, implimentation of ethanol or
biodiesel programs instantly cause further food shortages and starvation of
those already on subsistence diets.

It is important to realize that there is a clear and present danger to
"cellulose ethanol" programs. For one thing, grass may be a very efficient
growing plant but it also saps the ground of nutrients rapidly if it is
removed. This worked out OK with large grazing herds such as the American
Bison because they returned a large amount of the nutrients back to the
soil. Cellulose-ethanol does not. What's more, it will take a major program
of bio-engineering to develop a bacteria capable of converting cellulose to
ethanol. Presently there is nothing even close and it is stated by those
knowledgeable that the technology for making such bacteria from scratch
doesn't exist. What's more, what do you suppose would be the dangers from
such a bacteria getting loose in the environment?

Ethanol is a dead end. It is a way of using some alternate form of energy
such as sunlight to make a portable and storable energy source. It is and
always will be a very poor efficiency model. It is NOT a cure for CO2
emissions since it is energy intensive.

You also need to be aware that most of the "studies" about ethanol are being
funded by people who benefit by ethanol appearing a great deal more
practical then it is. Imagine the amount of R&D contracts awarded to
universities to study this subject? We are talking about billions of dollars
going into scientists pockets. If you've read the AAAS political statements
recently all they can talk about is how evil Bush is because he isn't
funding more research.

And yet they're also claiming that any scientist who is accepting money from
the oil or energy companies is too biased to make an honest study. Isn't
this the same as ******'s attempt to deny "Jewish science" or Stalin's equal
move?
 
B

Bill C

Guest
On Feb 22, 4:01 pm, "Tom Kunich" <[email protected] com> wrote:

>
> How many times does someone have to explain that you aren't subsidizing
> American farmers who have cultivated about every possible profitable acre?
> Ethanol or soy biodiesel does one thing - reduce the amount of US food grain
> surplus and since the USA is supplying 60% of the world's surpluses which
> are then used by the starving third world, implimentation of ethanol or
> biodiesel programs instantly cause further food shortages and starvation of
> those already on subsistence diets.


You are flat out wrong on anything close to utilizing every good
acre. Massachusetts has more forest now than it did in the mid 1800s
when much more land was being farmed. We have been losing farms at a
ridiculous rate. I'd rather these farmers, and I know, personally,
they would've done aanything rather than give up the farms if they
could've found a way to stay solvent. Out of the dairies I grew up
knowing ands working with, there are 2 left. I won't even go into the
other types of farms that are gone.
There is NO food shortage, hasn't been in ages. There is a huge
political, educational, and logistics problem to get the food to the
people.

http://www.wfp.org/aboutwfp/introduction/hunger_causes.asp?section=1&sub_section=1

Wrong on both charges!

I do think that it's part of the solution, not the panacea. Anything
that gives the US better energy security, which is what lost the war
for the Nazis, and caused the Japanese to attack the West. We need to
stop relying on unstable, unfriendly Countries to supprt our economic,
and strategic core. Chavez right now could put a giant hurt on the US
economy by selling to China instead of us. What makesd you think he's
not planning on it.
I'm surprised that Bush hasn't forced that card yet to justify new
wilderness and offshore drilling.

Bill C
 
F

Fred Fredburger

Guest
[email protected] wrote:

> Some of this is because (IIRC) electricity is relatively
> expensive, reducing demand, which favors manufacturers
> offshoring to North Carolina or wherever. But despite
> that, California is not yet vacant.


I moved away from CA 15 years ago. So, near as I can tell, it IS vacant.

Unfortunately, I wont even get the "most specious reasoning of the day"
award for this.
 
F

Fred Fredburger

Guest
Tom Kunich wrote:

> Ethanol is a dead end. It is a way of using some alternate form of energy
> such as sunlight to make a portable and storable energy source. It is and
> always will be a very poor efficiency model. It is NOT a cure for CO2
> emissions since it is energy intensive.


Your reasoning isn't obvious, but I think it's correct. The statement
that things that are energy intensive do not cure CO2 emissions requires
a bit of explanation.

If I build a nuclear power plant and do "energy intensive" things with
that energy, I might reduce CO2 emissions. Or I might find that the
energy produced is not easily applicable to the problem at hand.

I'd guess that you're thinking that producing ethanol takes more energy
than you get when you burn it. That's true enough. That COULD actually
lead to increased CO2 emissions if all you're doing is converting
gasoline to ethanol and then combusting the ethanol. In that case, you
should save yourself the trouble and just burn the gasoline. Or it
could reduce CO2 emissions if paired with some lower impact energy
source used to produce the ethanol (say, the nuclear power plant I
mentioned earlier). I'd guess the biggest part of the energy used in
creating ethanol is the energy required to gather the biomass. Ever seen
an electric, nonpolluting tractor? I haven't.
 
T

Tom Kunich

Guest
"Fred Fredburger" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>
>> Ethanol is a dead end. It is a way of using some alternate form of energy
>> such as sunlight to make a portable and storable energy source. It is and
>> always will be a very poor efficiency model. It is NOT a cure for CO2
>> emissions since it is energy intensive.

>
> Your reasoning isn't obvious, but I think it's correct. The statement that
> things that are energy intensive do not cure CO2 emissions requires a bit
> of explanation.
>
> If I build a nuclear power plant and do "energy intensive" things with
> that energy, I might reduce CO2 emissions. Or I might find that the energy
> produced is not easily applicable to the problem at hand.


Hydrocarbon fuel supplies something like 80% of all the energy in the USA.
Talking about nuclear power plants and hydroelectric power is nice but in
the end it's natural gas, oil or coal that turns the lights on.

> I'd guess that you're thinking that producing ethanol takes more energy
> than you get when you burn it.


http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20060715/fob4.asp

The long and the short of it - corn based ethanol supplies 25% more energy
than it consumes to produce. It isn't clear from the article if this
includes the increased fertilizer and pesticides required to grow the corn
in the first place.

There is an ongoing discussion about using grass to produce ethanol. This
WON'T work since grass is extremely rapid growing and hence burns up all of
the nutrients in the soil if you are cutting the stuff off all the time.
Also in order to reduce it to ethanol requires a technology that doesn't
exist that would use a bacteria to reduce the cellulose that doesn't exist
and the technology to design the bacteria doesn't exist.

> That COULD actually lead to increased CO2 emissions if all you're doing is
> converting gasoline to ethanol and then combusting the ethanol. In that
> case, you should save yourself the trouble and just burn the gasoline. Or
> it could reduce CO2 emissions if paired with some lower impact energy
> source used to produce the ethanol (say, the nuclear power plant I
> mentioned earlier). I'd guess the biggest part of the energy used in
> creating ethanol is the energy required to gather the biomass. Ever seen
> an electric, nonpolluting tractor? I haven't.


Most of the studies are strongly biased towards "alternatice energy" to the
extent that they fudge the numbers seriously and then excuse their acts by
saying that this is the 'theoretical output'. That would be fair enough if
any of these numbers were achievable in a practical sense.

The wind power farm in the Altamont pass near where I live is the best wind
area in the western USA and yet they can barely remain in operation. The
numbers you read about the USA producing some 50 gigawatts of electrical
power out of all of the wind farms is probably grossly overstated. The farms
in the Altamont run from the western end to the eastern end. Only the first
couple of rows are now in use with the rest obsolete, broken down or taken
out of service for lack of parts. And the greenies who originally demanded
this sort of thing are now trying to kill it off completely -
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/swcbd/Programs/bdes/altamont/complaint.pdf

The only thing sillier than a Liberal is a child with a new toy.
 
F

Fred Fredburger

Guest
Tom Kunich wrote:
> "Fred Fredburger" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> Tom Kunich wrote:
>>
>>> Ethanol is a dead end. It is a way of using some alternate form of energy
>>> such as sunlight to make a portable and storable energy source. It is and
>>> always will be a very poor efficiency model. It is NOT a cure for CO2
>>> emissions since it is energy intensive.

>> Your reasoning isn't obvious, but I think it's correct. The statement that
>> things that are energy intensive do not cure CO2 emissions requires a bit
>> of explanation.
>>
>> If I build a nuclear power plant and do "energy intensive" things with
>> that energy, I might reduce CO2 emissions. Or I might find that the energy
>> produced is not easily applicable to the problem at hand.

>
> Hydrocarbon fuel supplies something like 80% of all the energy in the USA.
> Talking about nuclear power plants and hydroelectric power is nice but in
> the end it's natural gas, oil or coal that turns the lights on.
>
>> I'd guess that you're thinking that producing ethanol takes more energy
>> than you get when you burn it.

>
> http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20060715/fob4.asp
>
> The long and the short of it - corn based ethanol supplies 25% more energy
> than it consumes to produce. It isn't clear from the article if this
> includes the increased fertilizer and pesticides required to grow the corn
> in the first place.


It's a controversial subject. The answer you get depends on who you want
to listen to. Here's an alternative view:

http://www.coe.berkeley.edu/labnotes/0305/patzek.html

I don't know what's true. I do know it's not so simple or clear a
solution as is frequently presented.

>
> There is an ongoing discussion about using grass to produce ethanol. This
> WON'T work since grass is extremely rapid growing and hence burns up all of
> the nutrients in the soil if you are cutting the stuff off all the time.
> Also in order to reduce it to ethanol requires a technology that doesn't
> exist that would use a bacteria to reduce the cellulose that doesn't exist
> and the technology to design the bacteria doesn't exist.
>
>> That COULD actually lead to increased CO2 emissions if all you're doing is
>> converting gasoline to ethanol and then combusting the ethanol. In that
>> case, you should save yourself the trouble and just burn the gasoline. Or
>> it could reduce CO2 emissions if paired with some lower impact energy
>> source used to produce the ethanol (say, the nuclear power plant I
>> mentioned earlier). I'd guess the biggest part of the energy used in
>> creating ethanol is the energy required to gather the biomass. Ever seen
>> an electric, nonpolluting tractor? I haven't.

>
> Most of the studies are strongly biased towards "alternatice energy" to the
> extent that they fudge the numbers seriously and then excuse their acts by
> saying that this is the 'theoretical output'. That would be fair enough if
> any of these numbers were achievable in a practical sense.


Anyone who's doing that is being a bit too visionary. That tends to work
against practical solutions.

>
> The only thing sillier than a Liberal is a child with a new toy.


Have you ever watched a kid with a new toy they really like? They're
cool as hell! It's a lot of fun just to watch them enjoying themselves.
Liberals, not so much.
 
On Feb 24, 11:55 pm, Fred Fredburger
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Have you ever watched a kid with a new toy they really like? They're
> cool as hell! It's a lot of fun just to watch them enjoying themselves.
> Liberals, not so much.


Neocons, playing with their New Iraq toy, also "not so much". --D-y
 
F

Fred Fredburger

Guest
[email protected] wrote:
> On Feb 24, 11:55 pm, Fred Fredburger
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Have you ever watched a kid with a new toy they really like? They're
>> cool as hell! It's a lot of fun just to watch them enjoying themselves.
>> Liberals, not so much.

>
> Neocons, playing with their New Iraq toy, also "not so much". --D-y
>


Have you ever seen Neocons having fun? I've seen **** Cheney smirk. Does
that count?
 
F

Fred Fredburger

Guest
Tom Kunich wrote:
> "Fred Fredburger" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> But we never have this discussion because we're to busy being amazed by
>> one idiot who contends that there is no consensus for global warming or
>> another crackpot who insists that everyone needs to buy hydrogen cars NOW.

>
> And here all this time I thought we never have those discussions because
> people like you are wankers and know absolutely nothing about the subject
> except what your leader Al Bore tells you.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consensus
>
> "Their views contrast with the mainstream scientific opinion on climate
> change, as reported in the IPCC Third Assessment Report (2001"
>
> Here's the significant thing about that - the RELEASE of the 2001 IPCC
> report has been held up for three months so that they could change the
> scientific reports to MATCH THE SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS. They have even said
> that!
>
> So explain how ANYONE could tell us how people oppose the scientific "facts"
> when they aren't even available?
>
>


You've blown any claim to impartiality so many times it doesn't bear
repeating. But I really DID like your claim that Clinton was evil
because he didn't regulate businesses and investors enough, allowing the
dotcom bust to happen.

Clinton shall burn in hell because of his conservative, pro-business
policies. I'm sure of it.
 
J

Joe Cipale

Guest
Fred Fredburger wrote:

>
> No more red herrings, Tom. Try being honest and using a little less
> ******** sometime.


Fred,

Have you forgot WHO you are discussing this with???
 
J

John Forrest Tomlinson

Guest
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 12:03:31 -0800, Fred Fredburger
<[email protected]> wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>> On Feb 24, 11:55 pm, Fred Fredburger
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Have you ever watched a kid with a new toy they really like? They're
>>> cool as hell! It's a lot of fun just to watch them enjoying themselves.
>>> Liberals, not so much.

>>
>> Neocons, playing with their New Iraq toy, also "not so much". --D-y
>>

>
>Have you ever seen Neocons having fun? I've seen **** Cheney smirk. Does
>that count?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0d3A-hEjRZM

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
T

Tom Kunich

Guest
"Fred Fredburger" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> You've blown any claim to impartiality so many times it doesn't bear
> repeating. But I really DID like your claim that Clinton was evil because
> he didn't regulate businesses and investors enough, allowing the dotcom
> bust to happen.


Is that anything like your claim that Conservatism definitionally means that
we have to allow fraud because after all it is only free trade?

> Clinton shall burn in hell because of his conservative, pro-business
> policies. I'm sure of it.


And you will certainly never learn the difference between government
intervention in patent fraud and when it becomes regulation of honest
business.
 
H

Howard Kveck

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
"Tom Kunich" <[email protected] com> wrote:

> "Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> > Fred Fredburger wrote:
> >
> >> Have you ever seen Neocons having fun? I've seen **** Cheney smirk.
> >> Does that count?

> >
> > http://youtube.com/watch?v=0d3A-hEjRZM

>
> I thought that you were off writing a desertation


A desertation would be mighty dry reading.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
 
W

William Asher

Guest
"Tom Kunich" <[email protected] com> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> "Howard Kveck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>>>
>>> I thought that you were off writing a desertation

>>
>> A desertation would be mighty dry reading.

>
> http://www.factmonster.com/computers/jargon/S/spelling-flame.html
>
> "spelling flame: n.
>
> [Usenet] A posting ostentatiously correcting a previous article's
> spelling as a way of casting scorn on the point the article was trying
> to make, instead of actually responding to that point"


Ok, in light of your also believing the Chinese took Marco Polo to the
North Pole, was your comment about the Chinese being stupid and not
exploring a serious comment but completely ill-considered given your past
positions or simply meant to be a racist insult?

--
Bill Asher
 
H

Howard Kveck

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
"Tom Kunich" <[email protected] com> wrote:

> "Howard Kveck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> >>
> >> I thought that you were off writing a desertation

> >
> > A desertation would be mighty dry reading.

>
> http://www.factmonster.com/computers/jargon/S/spelling-flame.html
>
> "spelling flame: n.
>
> [Usenet] A posting ostentatiously correcting a previous article's spelling
> as a way of casting scorn on the point the article was trying to make,
> instead of actually responding to that point"


First, where you see a spelling flame, I see a play on words (and I would have done
it no matter who had done the original). Perhaps you got someone to explain it to you.

Second, your spelling is atrocious but I'm not going to take the time to point out
all of the errors. Particularly in light of the fact that I've had a few typos myself
(including one in a subject line).

Lastly, you actually think there was something substantive to address in your post?
Oh...

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
 
F

Fred Fredburger

Guest
Tom Kunich wrote:
> "Fred Fredburger" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> You've blown any claim to impartiality so many times it doesn't bear
>> repeating. But I really DID like your claim that Clinton was evil because
>> he didn't regulate businesses and investors enough, allowing the dotcom
>> bust to happen.

>
> Is that anything like your claim that Conservatism definitionally means that
> we have to allow fraud because after all it is only free trade?


Which, of course, I never said.

Not that anyone has any reason to expect anything other than
intellectual dishonesty from you.

>
>> Clinton shall burn in hell because of his conservative, pro-business
>> policies. I'm sure of it.

>
> And you will certainly never learn the difference between government
> intervention in patent fraud and when it becomes regulation of honest
> business.
>
>


The dotcom bust wasn't about patent fraud. It was about investors
gullible enough to invest in anything that sounded Internet-y, and
businesses unethical enough to milk that. Stopping the dotcom bust would
have involved protecting the gullible from themselves and policing
business ethics.

No more red herrings, Tom. Try being honest and using a little less
******** sometime.
 
F

Fred Fredburger

Guest
William Asher wrote:
> "Tom Kunich" <[email protected] com> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> "Howard Kveck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]
>>>> I thought that you were off writing a desertation
>>> A desertation would be mighty dry reading.

>> http://www.factmonster.com/computers/jargon/S/spelling-flame.html
>>
>> "spelling flame: n.
>>
>> [Usenet] A posting ostentatiously correcting a previous article's
>> spelling as a way of casting scorn on the point the article was trying
>> to make, instead of actually responding to that point"

>
> Ok, in light of your also believing the Chinese took Marco Polo to the
> North Pole, was your comment about the Chinese being stupid and not
> exploring a serious comment but completely ill-considered given your past
> positions or simply meant to be a racist insult?
>


He's Tom Kunich, he doesn't have to make sense.
 

Similar threads

S
Replies
1
Views
293
Road Cycling
William Asher
W
T
Replies
294
Views
6K
Road Cycling
Robert Chung
R
T
Replies
16
Views
350
Road Cycling
Mike Jacoubowsky
M
W
Replies
1
Views
130
Road Cycling
Ryan Cousineau
R