Guest anonymous@dizum.com Posted July 17, 2007 Posted July 17, 2007 There is a mad rush for U.S. farmers to grow more corn for ethanol as a fuel. However, according to an agricultural expert speaking on BNN, Canada's TV business news network, it takes more fossil fuel energy to produce ethanol than the resulting ethanol will provide. Quote
Guest Server 13 Posted July 17, 2007 Posted July 17, 2007 <anonymous@dizum.com> wrote in message news:aU7ni.137358$mZ7.23878@fe01.news.easynews.com... > There is a mad rush for U.S. farmers to grow more corn > for ethanol as a fuel. However, according to an agricultural > expert speaking on BNN, Canada's TV business news network, > it takes more fossil fuel energy to produce ethanol than > the resulting ethanol will provide. Yes, lots of portable energy sources are like that. What's your suggestion for a substitute? Quote
Guest Joe Posted July 17, 2007 Posted July 17, 2007 Server 13 wrote: > <anonymous@dizum.com> wrote in message > news:aU7ni.137358$mZ7.23878@fe01.news.easynews.com... >> There is a mad rush for U.S. farmers to grow more corn >> for ethanol as a fuel. However, according to an agricultural >> expert speaking on BNN, Canada's TV business news network, >> it takes more fossil fuel energy to produce ethanol than >> the resulting ethanol will provide. > > Yes, lots of portable energy sources are like that. > > What's your suggestion for a substitute? How about huge banks of solar cells in sunny areas to convert water into hydrogen? Water might have to be piped in, but a few more solar panels should help with that. Think of all the energy that could be created using only a tiny percentage of the area of the Sahara Desert, or one of the many other perpetually sunny spots on Earth... except at night, of course. The resulting fuel may be more expensive per unit than fossil fuel, but, after initial fossil fuel use in the startup of such an endeavor, the plant could fuel its own operation. The hydrogen could either be burned in an internal combustion engine with super clean exhaust, or it could be used in fuel cells to produce mobile electricity. Quote
Guest The People's Party Posted July 17, 2007 Posted July 17, 2007 "Server 13" <its@casual.com> wrote in message news:f7j3u6$lan$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu... > > <anonymous@dizum.com> wrote in message > news:aU7ni.137358$mZ7.23878@fe01.news.easynews.com... >> There is a mad rush for U.S. farmers to grow more corn >> for ethanol as a fuel. However, according to an agricultural >> expert speaking on BNN, Canada's TV business news network, >> it takes more fossil fuel energy to produce ethanol than >> the resulting ethanol will provide. > > Yes, lots of portable energy sources are like that. > > What's your suggestion for a substitute? a republican burning engine. Quote
Guest Flash Bazbo Posted July 17, 2007 Posted July 17, 2007 On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 14:05:42 -0500, "Server 13" <its@casual.com> wrote: > ><anonymous@dizum.com> wrote in message >news:aU7ni.137358$mZ7.23878@fe01.news.easynews.com... >> There is a mad rush for U.S. farmers to grow more corn >> for ethanol as a fuel. However, according to an agricultural >> expert speaking on BNN, Canada's TV business news network, >> it takes more fossil fuel energy to produce ethanol than >> the resulting ethanol will provide. > > Yes, lots of portable energy sources are like that. > > What's your suggestion for a substitute? Industrial hemp. It grows like a weed practically everywhere and doesn't tear up the landscape. More appealing than Bush's "the future is strip-mining coal" vision. Quote
Guest Joe Posted July 17, 2007 Posted July 17, 2007 Flash Bazbo wrote: > On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 14:05:42 -0500, "Server 13" <its@casual.com> > wrote: > >> <anonymous@dizum.com> wrote in message >> news:aU7ni.137358$mZ7.23878@fe01.news.easynews.com... >>> There is a mad rush for U.S. farmers to grow more corn >>> for ethanol as a fuel. However, according to an agricultural >>> expert speaking on BNN, Canada's TV business news network, >>> it takes more fossil fuel energy to produce ethanol than >>> the resulting ethanol will provide. >> Yes, lots of portable energy sources are like that. >> >> What's your suggestion for a substitute? > > Industrial hemp. It grows like a weed practically everywhere and > doesn't tear up the landscape. More appealing than Bush's "the future > is strip-mining coal" vision. Growing hemp to convert to ethanol on a scale that would make a dent in oil consumption in the US poses the same problems as using corn or sugar cane. It would require more ethanol to fuel the process on an industrial scale than is produced by the process. If hemp were more efficient than sugar cane to produce ethanol, Brazil would be growing hemp. As it is, Brazil relies on an almost slave-like labor force to produce the sugar cane. This saves using fossil fuels to power large combine-like machines to harvest the crop. The solution is to go directly to the source of the energy that produces corn, sugar cane and hemp... the sun. Cut out the middle man, the soil. Or rather, exchange an inefficient middle man, the soil, for a more efficient middle man, solar panels. The sun is the source of energy for fossil fuels as well, since fossil fuels are just the fermented and condensed remnants of ancient biomass. But fossil fuels take too long to prepare. They are very inefficient in converting sunlight into energy. They just take too long to create. Using solar, wind, tidal, sea-wave, and geothermal energies to produce electricity are the best hope. They are clean, constant, practically unlimited and relatively non polluting. Quote
Guest Docky Wocky Posted July 17, 2007 Posted July 17, 2007 flash bazbo sez: "Industrial hemp. It grows like a weed practically everywhere and doesn't tear up the landscape. More appealing than Bush's "the future is strip-mining coal" vision..." _____________________________ Nothing like going backwards in technology to satisfy the geeks. Let's just cut the federal tax on alcohol and sell it at every store along with marijuana, cheap. Along with free hot dogs made out of the discarded mash. Then, after a couple of years, nobody will be interested in going anywhere, anyway, so that will cut the use of oil. Quote
Guest James McGill Posted July 17, 2007 Posted July 17, 2007 Funny you should mention that. I just took a trip in one of our fleet cars, which are not only ethanol-fueled, but the university makes the fuel. Quote
Guest Joe Posted July 17, 2007 Posted July 17, 2007 James McGill wrote: > Funny you should mention that. I just took a trip in one of our fleet > cars, which are not only ethanol-fueled, but the university makes the > fuel. Do you know what powers the process used to produce the ethanol? What university is this? Quote
Guest Bert Hyman Posted July 17, 2007 Posted July 17, 2007 mnb@fgh.com (Joe) wrote in news:fB9ni.11180$rL1.569@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net: > James McGill wrote: >> Funny you should mention that. I just took a trip in one of our >> fleet cars, which are not only ethanol-fueled, but the university >> makes the fuel. > > Do you know what powers the process used to produce the ethanol? What powers the process used to produce gasoline? -- Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | bert@iphouse.com Quote
Guest john Posted July 17, 2007 Posted July 17, 2007 "Joe" <mnb@fgh.com> wrote in message news:rs9ni.11176$rL1.11066@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net... > Flash Bazbo wrote: >> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 14:05:42 -0500, "Server 13" <its@casual.com> >> wrote: >> >>> <anonymous@dizum.com> wrote in message >>> news:aU7ni.137358$mZ7.23878@fe01.news.easynews.com... >>>> There is a mad rush for U.S. farmers to grow more corn >>>> for ethanol as a fuel. However, according to an agricultural >>>> expert speaking on BNN, Canada's TV business news network, >>>> it takes more fossil fuel energy to produce ethanol than >>>> the resulting ethanol will provide. >>> Yes, lots of portable energy sources are like that. >>> >>> What's your suggestion for a substitute? >> >> Industrial hemp. It grows like a weed practically everywhere and >> doesn't tear up the landscape. More appealing than Bush's "the future >> is strip-mining coal" vision. > > Growing hemp to convert to ethanol on a scale that would make a dent in > oil consumption in the US poses the same problems as using corn or sugar > cane. It would require more ethanol to fuel the process on an industrial > scale than is produced by the process. If hemp were more efficient than > sugar cane to produce ethanol, Brazil would be growing hemp. As it is, > Brazil relies on an almost slave-like labor force to produce the sugar > cane. This saves using fossil fuels to power large combine-like machines > to harvest the crop. > > The solution is to go directly to the source of the energy that produces > corn, sugar cane and hemp... the sun. Cut out the middle man, the soil. Or > rather, exchange an inefficient middle man, the soil, for a more efficient > middle man, solar panels. > > The sun is the source of energy for fossil fuels as well, since fossil > fuels are just the fermented and condensed remnants of ancient biomass. > But fossil fuels take too long to prepare. They are very inefficient in > converting sunlight into energy. They just take too long to create. > > Using solar, wind, tidal, sea-wave, and geothermal energies to produce > electricity are the best hope. They are clean, constant, practically > unlimited and relatively non polluting. > I agree. However, I saw the argument that if too many windmills are stuck up in the air, then it "might" change wind circulation patterns - i.e., slow it down. Which could cause as big of a crisis as global warming. The same goes for turning open land into solar farms, you may change heating patterns. What does make sense, is to install solar panels on every rooftop everywhere. Those structures are already changing the environment, might as well put them to use. Quote
Guest Joe Posted July 17, 2007 Posted July 17, 2007 Bert Hyman wrote: > mnb@fgh.com (Joe) wrote in > news:fB9ni.11180$rL1.569@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net: > >> James McGill wrote: >>> Funny you should mention that. I just took a trip in one of our >>> fleet cars, which are not only ethanol-fueled, but the university >>> makes the fuel. >> Do you know what powers the process used to produce the ethanol? > > What powers the process used to produce gasoline? Fossil fuels power the process used to produce gasoline, for the most part, depending on where the refinery is located. Some refineries use electrical power that is partly produced by hydro-electric plants. The difference between "using fossil fuels to produce ethanol from biomass" and "using fossil fuels to produce gasoline from fossil fuels" is that "using fossil fuels to produce gasoline from fossil fuels" produces much more energy that it consumes i. But this is only because the energy that is stored in fossil fuels is very much greater per unit of weight compared to the energy stored in unprocessed biomass such as corn or hemp. Quote
Guest Joe Posted July 17, 2007 Posted July 17, 2007 john wrote: > "Joe" <mnb@fgh.com> wrote in message > news:rs9ni.11176$rL1.11066@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net... >> Flash Bazbo wrote: >>> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 14:05:42 -0500, "Server 13" <its@casual.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> <anonymous@dizum.com> wrote in message >>>> news:aU7ni.137358$mZ7.23878@fe01.news.easynews.com... >>>>> There is a mad rush for U.S. farmers to grow more corn >>>>> for ethanol as a fuel. However, according to an agricultural >>>>> expert speaking on BNN, Canada's TV business news network, >>>>> it takes more fossil fuel energy to produce ethanol than >>>>> the resulting ethanol will provide. >>>> Yes, lots of portable energy sources are like that. >>>> >>>> What's your suggestion for a substitute? >>> Industrial hemp. It grows like a weed practically everywhere and >>> doesn't tear up the landscape. More appealing than Bush's "the future >>> is strip-mining coal" vision. >> Growing hemp to convert to ethanol on a scale that would make a dent in >> oil consumption in the US poses the same problems as using corn or sugar >> cane. It would require more ethanol to fuel the process on an industrial >> scale than is produced by the process. If hemp were more efficient than >> sugar cane to produce ethanol, Brazil would be growing hemp. As it is, >> Brazil relies on an almost slave-like labor force to produce the sugar >> cane. This saves using fossil fuels to power large combine-like machines >> to harvest the crop. >> >> The solution is to go directly to the source of the energy that produces >> corn, sugar cane and hemp... the sun. Cut out the middle man, the soil. Or >> rather, exchange an inefficient middle man, the soil, for a more efficient >> middle man, solar panels. >> >> The sun is the source of energy for fossil fuels as well, since fossil >> fuels are just the fermented and condensed remnants of ancient biomass. >> But fossil fuels take too long to prepare. They are very inefficient in >> converting sunlight into energy. They just take too long to create. >> >> Using solar, wind, tidal, sea-wave, and geothermal energies to produce >> electricity are the best hope. They are clean, constant, practically >> unlimited and relatively non polluting. >> > > I agree. However, I saw the argument that if too many windmills are stuck > up in the air, then it "might" change wind circulation patterns - i.e., slow > it down. Which could cause as big of a crisis as global warming. The same > goes for turning open land into solar farms, you may change heating > patterns. What does make sense, is to install solar panels on every rooftop > everywhere. Those structures are already changing the environment, might as > well put them to use. Sounds like a great business opportunity. Quote
Guest James McGill Posted July 17, 2007 Posted July 17, 2007 Joe wrote: > Bert Hyman wrote: >> mnb@fgh.com (Joe) wrote in >> news:fB9ni.11180$rL1.569@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net: >>> James McGill wrote: >>>> Funny you should mention that. I just took a trip in one of our >>>> fleet cars, which are not only ethanol-fueled, but the university >>>> makes the fuel. >>> Do you know what powers the process used to produce the ethanol? >> >> What powers the process used to produce gasoline? > > Fossil fuels power the process used to produce gasoline, for the most > part, depending on where the refinery is located. 17% solar here in Tucson AZ. And the source material is a by-product of the university's ag extension. Quote
Guest Joe Posted July 17, 2007 Posted July 17, 2007 James McGill wrote: > Joe wrote: >> Bert Hyman wrote: >>> mnb@fgh.com (Joe) wrote in >>> news:fB9ni.11180$rL1.569@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net: >>>> James McGill wrote: >>>>> Funny you should mention that. I just took a trip in one of our >>>>> fleet cars, which are not only ethanol-fueled, but the university >>>>> makes the fuel. >>>> Do you know what powers the process used to produce the ethanol? >>> What powers the process used to produce gasoline? >> Fossil fuels power the process used to produce gasoline, for the most >> part, depending on where the refinery is located. > > 17% solar here in Tucson AZ. And the source material is a by-product of > the university's ag extension. Are you saying that 17% of the electrical needs of Tucson is supplied by solar energy? If so, what kind of solar energy? Photovoltaic cells, solar thermal, or some other method? Quote
Guest Bert Hyman Posted July 17, 2007 Posted July 17, 2007 In news:8cani.26722$2v1.6561@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net Joe <mnb@fgh.com> wrote: > The difference between "using fossil fuels to produce ethanol from > biomass" and "using fossil fuels to produce gasoline from fossil > fuels" is that "using fossil fuels to produce gasoline from fossil > fuels" produces much more energy that it consumes. That's probably a good rule of thumb for energy production in general, but I think that it might be useful to consider using a wasteful process that changes an otherwise unusable energy source into one that can be used. For example, if all we had was mountains of coal and a process to convert it into a portable energy source that could be used to power vehicles was developed, it would be useful even if the coal burned to produce it contained more energy than the result. -- Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN bert@iphouse.com Quote
Guest Joe Posted July 17, 2007 Posted July 17, 2007 Bert Hyman wrote: > In news:8cani.26722$2v1.6561@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net Joe > <mnb@fgh.com> wrote: > >> The difference between "using fossil fuels to produce ethanol from >> biomass" and "using fossil fuels to produce gasoline from fossil >> fuels" is that "using fossil fuels to produce gasoline from fossil >> fuels" produces much more energy that it consumes. > > That's probably a good rule of thumb for energy production in general, > but I think that it might be useful to consider using a wasteful process > that changes an otherwise unusable energy source into one that can be > used. > > For example, if all we had was mountains of coal and a process to > convert it into a portable energy source that could be used to power > vehicles was developed, it would be useful even if the coal burned to > produce it contained more energy than the result. > One big drawback to coal is that it is much "dirtier" than oil to burn, not to mention the greenhouse gases produced. Direct conversion of sunlight into electricity, and the use of solar thermal energy to run turbines is the best alternative to oil. Coal is the energy source of the 19th century. Quote
Guest Mega Gnome Posted July 17, 2007 Posted July 17, 2007 Joe wrote: > Coal is the energy source of the 19th century. And Joe is the dipshit of the 1st century. Quote
Guest Joe Posted July 17, 2007 Posted July 17, 2007 Mega Gnome wrote: > Joe wrote: > >> Coal is the energy source of the 19th century. > > > And Joe is the dipshit of the 1st century. > > Gee, you're like a bad cough that won't go away. You serve no purpose and no one likes you. Quote
Guest Flash Bazbo Posted July 18, 2007 Posted July 18, 2007 On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 20:18:05 GMT, "Docky Wocky" <mrchuck@lst.net> wrote: >flash bazbo sez: > >"Industrial hemp. It grows like a weed practically everywhere and >doesn't tear up the landscape. More appealing than Bush's "the future >is strip-mining coal" vision..." >_____________________________ >Nothing like going backwards in technology to satisfy the geeks. > >Let's just cut the federal tax on alcohol and sell it at every store along >with marijuana, cheap. Along with free hot dogs made out of the discarded >mash. > >Then, after a couple of years, nobody will be interested in going anywhere, >anyway, so that will cut the use of oil. I'm not quite sure what you are saying here. There is a difference between industrial hemp and marijuana, mainly it is really difficult to get high on hemp. Quote
Guest Flash Bazbo Posted July 18, 2007 Posted July 18, 2007 On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 21:09:55 GMT, Joe <mnb@fgh.com> wrote: >john wrote: >> "Joe" <mnb@fgh.com> wrote in message >> news:rs9ni.11176$rL1.11066@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net... >>> Flash Bazbo wrote: >>>> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 14:05:42 -0500, "Server 13" <its@casual.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> <anonymous@dizum.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:aU7ni.137358$mZ7.23878@fe01.news.easynews.com... >>>>>> There is a mad rush for U.S. farmers to grow more corn >>>>>> for ethanol as a fuel. However, according to an agricultural >>>>>> expert speaking on BNN, Canada's TV business news network, >>>>>> it takes more fossil fuel energy to produce ethanol than >>>>>> the resulting ethanol will provide. >>>>> Yes, lots of portable energy sources are like that. >>>>> >>>>> What's your suggestion for a substitute? >>>> Industrial hemp. It grows like a weed practically everywhere and >>>> doesn't tear up the landscape. More appealing than Bush's "the future >>>> is strip-mining coal" vision. >>> Growing hemp to convert to ethanol on a scale that would make a dent in >>> oil consumption in the US poses the same problems as using corn or sugar >>> cane. It would require more ethanol to fuel the process on an industrial >>> scale than is produced by the process. If hemp were more efficient than >>> sugar cane to produce ethanol, Brazil would be growing hemp. As it is, >>> Brazil relies on an almost slave-like labor force to produce the sugar >>> cane. This saves using fossil fuels to power large combine-like machines >>> to harvest the crop. >>> >>> The solution is to go directly to the source of the energy that produces >>> corn, sugar cane and hemp... the sun. Cut out the middle man, the soil. Or >>> rather, exchange an inefficient middle man, the soil, for a more efficient >>> middle man, solar panels. >>> >>> The sun is the source of energy for fossil fuels as well, since fossil >>> fuels are just the fermented and condensed remnants of ancient biomass. >>> But fossil fuels take too long to prepare. They are very inefficient in >>> converting sunlight into energy. They just take too long to create. >>> >>> Using solar, wind, tidal, sea-wave, and geothermal energies to produce >>> electricity are the best hope. They are clean, constant, practically >>> unlimited and relatively non polluting. >>> >> >> I agree. However, I saw the argument that if too many windmills are stuck >> up in the air, then it "might" change wind circulation patterns - i.e., slow >> it down. Which could cause as big of a crisis as global warming. The same >> goes for turning open land into solar farms, you may change heating >> patterns. What does make sense, is to install solar panels on every rooftop >> everywhere. Those structures are already changing the environment, might as >> well put them to use. > > >Sounds like a great business opportunity. Fair enough. Let's get the nation oving in that direction. All we have to do is overcome the entrenched and determined resistance of Bush/Cheney, Inc. They have their hearts and wallets set on fossil fuels. Those energy policy meetings weren't secret for no reason, you know. Quote
Guest the_blogologist Posted July 18, 2007 Posted July 18, 2007 <anonymous@dizum.com> wrote: > There is a mad rush for U.S. farmers to grow more corn > for ethanol as a fuel. However, according to an agricultural > expert speaking on BNN, Canada's TV business news network, > it takes more fossil fuel energy to produce ethanol than > the resulting ethanol will provide. It used to be that way. It's improved. Today it costs 1 unit of fuel to produce 1.2 of ethanol from corn. In brazil they use sugar cane which is much more efficient, costing 1 unit of fuel to produce 8. Bush's ethanol requirement is basically corporate welfare for corn growers. Quote
Guest Bruno Muscarelli Posted July 18, 2007 Posted July 18, 2007 "The People's Party" <DrugAddict@Crawfordl.net> wrote in message news:2V8ni.38593$YL5.29445@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net... > > "Server 13" <its@casual.com> wrote in message > news:f7j3u6$lan$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu... > > > > <anonymous@dizum.com> wrote in message > > news:aU7ni.137358$mZ7.23878@fe01.news.easynews.com... > >> There is a mad rush for U.S. farmers to grow more corn > >> for ethanol as a fuel. However, according to an agricultural > >> expert speaking on BNN, Canada's TV business news network, > >> it takes more fossil fuel energy to produce ethanol than > >> the resulting ethanol will provide. > > > > Yes, lots of portable energy sources are like that. > > > > What's your suggestion for a substitute? > > a republican burning engine. Yes. If we could burn stupidity for fuel, we would have a never-ending, self-renewing source of power. Trailer parks would have a new respect as the future's "oil fields". Quote
Guest Jack Posted July 18, 2007 Posted July 18, 2007 Flash Bazbo wrote: > On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 21:09:55 GMT, Joe <mnb@fgh.com> wrote: > >> john wrote: >>> "Joe" <mnb@fgh.com> wrote in message >>> news:rs9ni.11176$rL1.11066@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net... >>>> Flash Bazbo wrote: >>>>> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 14:05:42 -0500, "Server 13" <its@casual.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> <anonymous@dizum.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:aU7ni.137358$mZ7.23878@fe01.news.easynews.com... >>>>>>> There is a mad rush for U.S. farmers to grow more corn >>>>>>> for ethanol as a fuel. However, according to an agricultural >>>>>>> expert speaking on BNN, Canada's TV business news network, >>>>>>> it takes more fossil fuel energy to produce ethanol than >>>>>>> the resulting ethanol will provide. >>>>>> Yes, lots of portable energy sources are like that. >>>>>> >>>>>> What's your suggestion for a substitute? >>>>> Industrial hemp. It grows like a weed practically everywhere and >>>>> doesn't tear up the landscape. More appealing than Bush's "the future >>>>> is strip-mining coal" vision. >>>> Growing hemp to convert to ethanol on a scale that would make a dent in >>>> oil consumption in the US poses the same problems as using corn or sugar >>>> cane. It would require more ethanol to fuel the process on an industrial >>>> scale than is produced by the process. If hemp were more efficient than >>>> sugar cane to produce ethanol, Brazil would be growing hemp. As it is, >>>> Brazil relies on an almost slave-like labor force to produce the sugar >>>> cane. This saves using fossil fuels to power large combine-like machines >>>> to harvest the crop. >>>> >>>> The solution is to go directly to the source of the energy that produces >>>> corn, sugar cane and hemp... the sun. Cut out the middle man, the soil. Or >>>> rather, exchange an inefficient middle man, the soil, for a more efficient >>>> middle man, solar panels. >>>> >>>> The sun is the source of energy for fossil fuels as well, since fossil >>>> fuels are just the fermented and condensed remnants of ancient biomass. >>>> But fossil fuels take too long to prepare. They are very inefficient in >>>> converting sunlight into energy. They just take too long to create. >>>> >>>> Using solar, wind, tidal, sea-wave, and geothermal energies to produce >>>> electricity are the best hope. They are clean, constant, practically >>>> unlimited and relatively non polluting. >>>> >>> I agree. However, I saw the argument that if too many windmills are stuck >>> up in the air, then it "might" change wind circulation patterns - i.e., slow >>> it down. Which could cause as big of a crisis as global warming. The same >>> goes for turning open land into solar farms, you may change heating >>> patterns. What does make sense, is to install solar panels on every rooftop >>> everywhere. Those structures are already changing the environment, might as >>> well put them to use. >> >> Sounds like a great business opportunity. > > Fair enough. Let's get the nation oving in that direction. All we > have to do is overcome the entrenched and determined resistance of > Bush/Cheney, Inc. They have their hearts and wallets set on fossil > fuels. Those energy policy meetings weren't secret for no reason, you > know. Screw 'em, you do an end run around 'em. Put up solar panels one roof at a time. Quote
Guest Joe Posted July 18, 2007 Posted July 18, 2007 the_blogologist wrote: > <anonymous@dizum.com> wrote: > >> There is a mad rush for U.S. farmers to grow more corn >> for ethanol as a fuel. However, according to an agricultural >> expert speaking on BNN, Canada's TV business news network, >> it takes more fossil fuel energy to produce ethanol than >> the resulting ethanol will provide. > > It used to be that way. It's improved. Today it costs 1 unit of fuel to > produce 1.2 of ethanol from corn. In brazil they use sugar cane which is > much more efficient, costing 1 unit of fuel to produce 8. Bush's ethanol > requirement is basically corporate welfare for corn growers. > How hard would it be for them to switch to sugar cane? Is the climate and soil suitable in corn growing regions? If I might ask, where did you get the 1 to 8 ratio of fuel in to fuel out? That would be worth taking a look at. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.