T
Tom Kunich
Guest
"Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Feb 22, 2:22 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. 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?
news:[email protected]...
> On Feb 22, 2:22 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. 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?