"Goedjn" wrote in message
...


If I grow one ton of corn and burn it, I am not burning the equivalent
BTU in petroleum based oil. Therfore my energy consumption is carbon
neutral.


Your conclusion does not follow from your postulates.
This doesn't mean that your conclusion is wrong, but
it does mean that your argument is.


That may be true in theory, but in practice, the CO2 levels in our
atmosphere will continue to rise. An equilibrium used to exist, before our
industrial revolution, where the amount of carbon released by biotic
respiration and natural fires, was roughly equal to the rate at which the
earth was able to re-absorb that carbon.

Nowadays we burn carbon in nearly every home and in factories, powerplants
and transportation vehicles. This orgy of burning carbon is the reason the
atmospheric rate of CO2 is rising, not because of the TYPE of carbon fuel we
are burning.

"Carbon-neutral" sounds fine, but it's ridiculous to think that atmospheric
CO2 will stop rising just because we switch from fossil-carbon fuel to
biofuel-carbon fuel. The only way to stop that is to stop burning
carbon-based fuels altogether.

JoeSixPack wrote:

"Steve Spence" wrote in message
...
JoeSixPack wrote:

You get almost as much heat from burning the corn stover that's left over
after you've separated out the corn kernels. Why you need to burn the
grain itself is a mystery to me. Why not grow a crop more suited as a
fuel? Something with tiny seeds and a lot of stalk. Leafy spurge for
example is a very hardy weed that contains a good deal of oil and has
been used in the past as a heating fuel.
I'm burning the oil, not the actual kernels. Corn can produce biodiesel,
ethanol, and animal feed all from the same bushel.

Corn is rarely grown for it's oil.

I'd extend that to say corn is never grown solely for its oil, but corn
oil is a significant product--where would MickeyD be w/o it, for
example?

Q. What can be extracted from a bushel of corn?
A. The wet milling process yields approximately 31.5 pounds of starch,
which can be further processed into 33 pounds of sweetener or 2.5
gallons of ethanol. In addition, 13.5 pounds of corn gluten feed, 2.5
pounds of corn gluten meal and 1.6 pounds of corn oil can be extracted.

A typical kernel of corn has 7-7.5% oil content.

The extractable oil is in the germ and that seems a little high to me,
but in the ballpark, certainly.

Other crops are far better for this, such as oilseeds like canola,
which has 40-50% oil content. The remainder of the seed is a high-quality
animal feed. Where optimal conditions exist, canola can produce 500Kg of oil
per acre, or 17,000 gallons of crude canola oil per square mile. The vast
majority of available acres are far from optimal, so a much lower yield
figure is reasonable.

Using a realistic yield of 10,000 gallons per sq mile, the economics are
still a long way from feasible, compared to other fuel options. The
production costs alone for a square mile of canola is approximately $25,000
US. Add to this, estimated processing and distribution costs of another
$25,000, and the net consumer price for a typical gallon of biofuel canola
oil is likely to exceed $7 US. I'd say we have to experience a lot more
petroleum price increases for this to be a feasible alternative.

At present, production costs for corn ethanol are lower than the going
price for gasoline and one would only expect that to continue to favor
alternate fuel sources in the long-range future. Last I saw was
something around $1.20-$1.30 for the raw material. Processing costs
were on the order of $0.30 iirc, so net delivered cost is something in
the near $2/gal range--significantly less than $3 gasoline. I know
processing costs have escalated some owing to higher energy costs, but
don't have any new data to know the overall impact.

Some area stations had E85 at nearly a full $1 less than regular
unleaded...

While I expect there to be a significant drop in oil prices to near
pre-Katrina prices and probably approaching $40/bbl again for a short
time in a year or so, the $30/bbl days are gone forever in all
likelihood.

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
Brock Ulfsen wrote:

Duane Bozarth wrote:
Fossil fuels are biofuels...just not currently produced.

But Oil may not be a fossil fuel. It may well be left over from the
formation of the solar system.

What evidence for that is there?


Here are some of the points of circumstantial evidence for that theory:

1) Oil was found on Mars

2) Oil was found in Sweden at the rim of a meteorite crater that punctured
the earth's crust millions of years ago. There were none of the porous
coral-reef ocean-sediment formations that normally hold oil were found, and
are postulated to be where oil must be formed by ancient lifeforms.

3) The Earth's core contains a large amount of silicon carbide, as well as
radioactive elements. In theory, hydrocarbons should be a bi-product of the
radioactive decay process, and being very light, should rise towards the
surface, where it would be trapped by porous reservoirs and sealed in by
impervious overburden.

JoeSixPack wrote:
"Steve Spence" wrote in message
...

JoeSixPack wrote:


You get almost as much heat from burning the corn stover that's left over
after you've separated out the corn kernels. Why you need to burn the
grain itself is a mystery to me. Why not grow a crop more suited as a
fuel? Something with tiny seeds and a lot of stalk. Leafy spurge for
example is a very hardy weed that contains a good deal of oil and has
been used in the past as a heating fuel.

I'm burning the oil, not the actual kernels. Corn can produce biodiesel,
ethanol, and animal feed all from the same bushel.



Corn is rarely grown for it's oil. A typical kernel of corn has 7-7.5% oil
content. Other crops are far better for this, such as oilseeds like canola,
which has 40-50% oil content. The remainder of the seed is a high-quality
animal feed. Where optimal conditions exist, canola can produce 500Kg of oil
per acre, or 17,000 gallons of crude canola oil per square mile. The vast
majority of available acres are far from optimal, so a much lower yield
figure is reasonable.

Using a realistic yield of 10,000 gallons per sq mile, the economics are
still a long way from feasible, compared to other fuel options. The
production costs alone for a square mile of canola is approximately $25,000
US. Add to this, estimated processing and distribution costs of another
$25,000, and the net consumer price for a typical gallon of biofuel canola
oil is likely to exceed $7 US. I'd say we have to experience a lot more
petroleum price increases for this to be a feasible alternative.



You do realize corn oil is available it the grocery store .....

Corn is a good crop because it's commonly grown, it can be pressed for
oil, and mashed for ethanol, plus the distillers grains are used for
animal feed, so it has many by products.


--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html

JoeSixPack wrote:

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
Brock Ulfsen wrote:

Duane Bozarth wrote:
Fossil fuels are biofuels...just not currently produced.

But Oil may not be a fossil fuel. It may well be left over from the
formation of the solar system.

What evidence for that is there?

Here are some of the points of circumstantial evidence for that theory:

1) Oil was found on Mars

2) Oil was found in Sweden at the rim of a meteorite crater that punctured
the earth's crust millions of years ago. There were none of the porous
coral-reef ocean-sediment formations that normally hold oil were found, and
are postulated to be where oil must be formed by ancient lifeforms.

3) The Earth's core contains a large amount of silicon carbide, as well as
radioactive elements. In theory, hydrocarbons should be a bi-product of the
radioactive decay process, and being very light, should rise towards the
surface, where it would be trapped by porous reservoirs and sealed in by
impervious overburden.

Any citations for any of the above?

"Carbon-neutral" sounds fine, but it's ridiculous to think that atmospheric
CO2 will stop rising just because we switch from fossil-carbon fuel to
biofuel-carbon fuel. The only way to stop that is to stop burning
carbon-based fuels altogether.


Or find a plant or environment that's particularly good at
sucking carbon out of the atmosphere. Crank the global
temp a degree or so, And I'll bet you get algae blooms
like you never saw... that ought to do it...

Here are some of the points of circumstantial evidence for that theory:

1) Oil was found on Mars

You really are a nutcase, aren't you?



3) The Earth's core contains a large amount of silicon carbide, as well as
radioactive elements. In theory, hydrocarbons should be a bi-product of the
radioactive decay process, and being very light, should rise towards the
surface, where it would be trapped by porous reservoirs and sealed in by
impervious overburden.

You're confusing "hydrocarbon" and "Helium", I think.

JoeSixPack wrote:

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
Brock Ulfsen wrote:

Duane Bozarth wrote:
Fossil fuels are biofuels...just not currently produced.

But Oil may not be a fossil fuel. It may well be left over from the
formation of the solar system.

What evidence for that is there?

Here are some of the points of circumstantial evidence for that theory:

1) Oil was found on Mars

I find references to using techniques developed for terrestrial oil
exploration on Mars as part of the search for evidence of life on
Mars, but absolutely no indication of any oil being discovered on Mars.


2) Oil was found in Sweden at the rim of a meteorite crater that punctured
the earth's crust millions of years ago. There were none of the porous
coral-reef ocean-sediment formations that normally hold oil were found, and
are postulated to be where oil must be formed by ancient lifeforms.

Aaah! A little searching uncovers much--including the following little
tidbit of info. While there's a lot of links to others they're all
pretty far-fetched at best.

No Free Lunch, Part 2: If abiotic oil exists, where is it?, by Dale
Allen Pfeiffer

© Copyright 2005, From The Wilderness Publications,
www.fromthewilderness.com.
Siljan, Sweden

One of the most notable efforts to prove the existence of abiotic
hydrocarbons was undertaken by the Swedes at the urging of Thomas Gold.
....

From 1986 to 1992, two commercial wells were drilled in the Siljan
crater, at a reported cost of over $60 million.2 Only 80 barrels of oily
sludge were taken from the field. While Dr. Gold claimed this oil to
have an abiotic origin, others have pointed out that the early drilling
used injected oil as a lubricant, and that this is the likely origin of
the oily sludge.3 It has also been mentioned that sedimentary rocks 20
kilometers away could have been the source of hydrocarbon seepage.4
Others have observed that during World War II, the Swedish blasted into
the bedrock to produce caverns in order to stockpile petroleum supplies.
....

Even if we grant that these hydrocarbons are abiogenic (though it is a
highly dubious claim), this exploration could only be termed a success
in the most attenuated sense of the word. These 80 barrels of oily
sludge cost investors three quarters of a million dollars per barrel.
And if they had gone to the trouble of extracting the oil from the
sludge and refining it, they would have had even less oil, and their
expenses would have increased by the cost of extraction and refining.

3) The Earth's core contains a large amount of silicon carbide, as well as
radioactive elements. In theory, hydrocarbons should be a bi-product of the
radioactive decay process, and being very light, should rise towards the
surface, where it would be trapped by porous reservoirs and sealed in by
impervious overburden.

Which radioactive decay process is that? As a NucE, it's one I've not
come across previously...

Semantics but "carbon does not burn"

"JoeSixPack" wrote in message
news:nuYYe.303954$on1.168159@clgrps13...

"Goedjn" wrote in message
...


If I grow one ton of corn and burn it, I am not burning the equivalent
BTU in petroleum based oil. Therfore my energy consumption is carbon
neutral.


Your conclusion does not follow from your postulates.
This doesn't mean that your conclusion is wrong, but
it does mean that your argument is.


That may be true in theory, but in practice, the CO2 levels in our
atmosphere will continue to rise. An equilibrium used to exist, before our
industrial revolution, where the amount of carbon released by biotic
respiration and natural fires, was roughly equal to the rate at which the
earth was able to re-absorb that carbon.

Nowadays we burn carbon in nearly every home and in factories, powerplants
and transportation vehicles. This orgy of burning carbon is the reason the
atmospheric rate of CO2 is rising, not because of the TYPE of carbon fuel we
are burning.

"Carbon-neutral" sounds fine, but it's ridiculous to think that atmospheric
CO2 will stop rising just because we switch from fossil-carbon fuel to
biofuel-carbon fuel. The only way to stop that is to stop burning
carbon-based fuels altogether.

Solar Flare wrote:
Semantics but "carbon does not burn"

so, carbon monoxide (CO) doesn't burn?


--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html

Bottom line is: If everyone used biofuels, then the next years' crop would
reabsorb the CO2 released the previous winter, rather than releasing the CO2
from carbon that has been safely buried for millions of years. Hope we might
get there before climate change unleashes hopeless amounts of who knows
what.
"Larry Caldwell" wrote in message
oups.com...
JoeSixPack wrote:

Pellets are the easiest form
of biofuel to produce, but they still load the atmosphere with carbon.

No, they don't. All the carbon comes out of the atmosphere, so biofuel
does not contribute anything to atmospheric carbon. It is pure solar
energy.

I didn't imply that but it sounds like it doesn't either being composed of
carbon and oxygen. What would it be reduced to?

"Steve Spence" wrote in message
...
Solar Flare wrote:
Semantics but "carbon does not burn"

so, carbon monoxide (CO) doesn't burn?


--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
JoeSixPack wrote:

"Steve Spence" wrote in message
...
JoeSixPack wrote:

You get almost as much heat from burning the corn stover that's left
over
after you've separated out the corn kernels. Why you need to burn the
grain itself is a mystery to me. Why not grow a crop more suited as a
fuel? Something with tiny seeds and a lot of stalk. Leafy spurge for
example is a very hardy weed that contains a good deal of oil and has
been used in the past as a heating fuel.
I'm burning the oil, not the actual kernels. Corn can produce
biodiesel,
ethanol, and animal feed all from the same bushel.

Corn is rarely grown for it's oil.

I'd extend that to say corn is never grown solely for its oil, but corn
oil is a significant product--where would MickeyD be w/o it, for
example?

Q. What can be extracted from a bushel of corn?
A. The wet milling process yields approximately 31.5 pounds of starch,
which can be further processed into 33 pounds of sweetener or 2.5
gallons of ethanol. In addition, 13.5 pounds of corn gluten feed, 2.5
pounds of corn gluten meal and 1.6 pounds of corn oil can be extracted.

A typical kernel of corn has 7-7.5% oil content.

The extractable oil is in the germ and that seems a little high to me,
but in the ballpark, certainly.

Other crops are far better for this, such as oilseeds like canola,
which has 40-50% oil content. The remainder of the seed is a
high-quality
animal feed. Where optimal conditions exist, canola can produce 500Kg of
oil
per acre, or 17,000 gallons of crude canola oil per square mile. The
vast
majority of available acres are far from optimal, so a much lower yield
figure is reasonable.

Using a realistic yield of 10,000 gallons per sq mile, the economics are
still a long way from feasible, compared to other fuel options. The
production costs alone for a square mile of canola is approximately
$25,000
US. Add to this, estimated processing and distribution costs of another
$25,000, and the net consumer price for a typical gallon of biofuel
canola
oil is likely to exceed $7 US. I'd say we have to experience a lot more
petroleum price increases for this to be a feasible alternative.

At present, production costs for corn ethanol are lower than the going
price for gasoline and one would only expect that to continue to favor
alternate fuel sources in the long-range future. Last I saw was
something around $1.20-$1.30 for the raw material. Processing costs
were on the order of $0.30 iirc, so net delivered cost is something in
the near $2/gal range--significantly less than $3 gasoline. I know
processing costs have escalated some owing to higher energy costs, but
don't have any new data to know the overall impact.


The only reason corn ethanol is that cheap is because of massive,
overlapping subsidies on both growing the corn and in processing it for
ethanol. A recent study found that it takes more energy to produce ethanol
than the ethanol contains.

"Steve Spence" wrote in message
...
JoeSixPack wrote:
"Steve Spence" wrote in message
...

JoeSixPack wrote:


You get almost as much heat from burning the corn stover that's left
over after you've separated out the corn kernels. Why you need to burn
the grain itself is a mystery to me. Why not grow a crop more suited as
a fuel? Something with tiny seeds and a lot of stalk. Leafy spurge for
example is a very hardy weed that contains a good deal of oil and has
been used in the past as a heating fuel.

I'm burning the oil, not the actual kernels. Corn can produce biodiesel,
ethanol, and animal feed all from the same bushel.



Corn is rarely grown for it's oil. A typical kernel of corn has 7-7.5%
oil content. Other crops are far better for this, such as oilseeds like
canola, which has 40-50% oil content. The remainder of the seed is a
high-quality animal feed. Where optimal conditions exist, canola can
produce 500Kg of oil per acre, or 17,000 gallons of crude canola oil per
square mile. The vast majority of available acres are far from optimal,
so a much lower yield figure is reasonable.

Using a realistic yield of 10,000 gallons per sq mile, the economics are
still a long way from feasible, compared to other fuel options. The
production costs alone for a square mile of canola is approximately
$25,000 US. Add to this, estimated processing and distribution costs of
another $25,000, and the net consumer price for a typical gallon of
biofuel canola oil is likely to exceed $7 US. I'd say we have to
experience a lot more petroleum price increases for this to be a feasible
alternative.

You do realize corn oil is available it the grocery store .....

So is olive, palm, sunflower, safflower, peanut, canola, fish, lard, and
about a hundred others. What's your point?


Corn is a good crop because it's commonly grown, it can be pressed for
oil, and mashed for ethanol, plus the distillers grains are used for
animal feed, so it has many by products.

Does that make it feasible as a replacement for petroleum fuel?

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
JoeSixPack wrote:

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
Brock Ulfsen wrote:

Duane Bozarth wrote:
Fossil fuels are biofuels...just not currently produced.

But Oil may not be a fossil fuel. It may well be left over from the
formation of the solar system.

What evidence for that is there?

Here are some of the points of circumstantial evidence for that theory:

1) Oil was found on Mars

2) Oil was found in Sweden at the rim of a meteorite crater that
punctured
the earth's crust millions of years ago. There were none of the porous
coral-reef ocean-sediment formations that normally hold oil were found,
and
are postulated to be where oil must be formed by ancient lifeforms.

3) The Earth's core contains a large amount of silicon carbide, as well
as
radioactive elements. In theory, hydrocarbons should be a bi-product of
the
radioactive decay process, and being very light, should rise towards the
surface, where it would be trapped by porous reservoirs and sealed in by
impervious overburden.

Any citations for any of the above?

Google "abiotic oil"

In article uBYYe.303955$on1.203605@clgrps13, "JoeSixPack" wrote:

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
Brock Ulfsen wrote:

Duane Bozarth wrote:
Fossil fuels are biofuels...just not currently produced.

But Oil may not be a fossil fuel. It may well be left over from the
formation of the solar system.

What evidence for that is there?


Here are some of the points of circumstantial evidence for that theory:

1) Oil was found on Mars

Say what?

2) Oil was found in Sweden at the rim of a meteorite crater that punctured
the earth's crust millions of years ago. There were none of the porous
coral-reef ocean-sediment formations that normally hold oil were found, and
are postulated to be where oil must be formed by ancient lifeforms.

Uh-huh. Sure.

3) The Earth's core contains a large amount of silicon carbide, as well as
radioactive elements. In theory, hydrocarbons should be a bi-product of the
radioactive decay process, and being very light, should rise towards the
surface, where it would be trapped by porous reservoirs and sealed in by
impervious overburden.

Absolute nonsense. There is *no* radioactive decay series that produces
hydrocarbons in any fashion.


--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article , "Solar Flare" wrote:
Semantics but "carbon does not burn"

Oh, yes it does.

"JoeSixPack" wrote in message
news:nuYYe.303954$on1.168159@clgrps13...

"Goedjn" wrote in message
.. .


If I grow one ton of corn and burn it, I am not burning the equivalent
BTU in petroleum based oil. Therfore my energy consumption is carbon
neutral.


Your conclusion does not follow from your postulates.
This doesn't mean that your conclusion is wrong, but
it does mean that your argument is.


That may be true in theory, but in practice, the CO2 levels in our
atmosphere will continue to rise. An equilibrium used to exist, before our
industrial revolution, where the amount of carbon released by biotic
respiration and natural fires, was roughly equal to the rate at which the
earth was able to re-absorb that carbon.

And there will eventually be an equilibrium again. Probably at a higher
concentration -- possibly *much* higher -- but there will be equilibrium
again. Eventually.

Nowadays we burn carbon in nearly every home and in factories, powerplants
and transportation vehicles. This orgy of burning carbon is the reason the
atmospheric rate of CO2 is rising, not because of the TYPE of carbon fuel we
are burning.

"Carbon-neutral" sounds fine, but it's ridiculous to think that atmospheric
CO2 will stop rising just because we switch from fossil-carbon fuel to
biofuel-carbon fuel. The only way to stop that is to stop burning
carbon-based fuels altogether.

Seems you've completely missed the point of the biofuel discussion. There is a
qualitative difference in the effect of burning biofuel vs. burning fossil
fuel: the carbon in biofuel came from the atmosphere, and returns to the
atmosphere when burned -- hence no net change in carbon content in the
atmosphere. The carbon in fossil fuel came out of the ground, and burning it
produces a net increase in atmospheric carbon.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article , "Solar Flare" wrote:
I didn't imply that but it sounds like it doesn't either being composed of
carbon and oxygen. What would it be reduced to?

It wouldn't be "reduced" to anything. It would be *oxidized* from CO to CO2.
Simple reaction: 2CO + O2 -- 2CO2.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

JoeSixPack wrote:
Where optimal conditions exist, canola can produce 500Kg of oil
per acre, or 17,000 gallons of crude canola oil per square mile.

Thats about 40 pounds/gallon

Duane Bozarth wrote:
Brock Ulfsen wrote:

Also, modern hybrids have shorter stalks, and thus lay down less carbon
per acre than heritage varieties.

Not really, for the most part--hybrid wheat, corn, soybeans all are
essentially the same size plants as always. What crops specifically are
you thinking of?

Sorghum, wheat, barley, many of the varieties grown in Australia are
significantly less that 50cm tall at harvest, as opposed to heritage
pure strains many of which stand twice (or three times) as tall. Lots
of leaf, big seed heads, very little actual stalk.

....Brock.

Duane Bozarth wrote:
Brock Ulfsen wrote:
But Oil may not be a fossil fuel. It may well be left over from the
formation of the solar system.

What evidence for that is there?

Well, a neutral article covering the basis
ishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin

Or for something a little more in depth:
Authors: Rasmussen, Birger1
Source: Geology; Jun2005, Vol. 33 Issue 6, p497-500, 4p
NAICS/Industry Codes: 4227 Petroleum and Petroleum Products Wholesalers
Abstract: Petroleum generation largely occurs through the thermal
decomposition of organic matter. The presence of oil-bearing fluid
inclusions and pyrobitumen in Archean rocks suggests that similar
processes operated us early as ca. 3.25 Ga. However, direct evidence of
petroleum generation from potential source rocks is lacking, and an
abiogenic origin has been proposed for some Archean carbonaceous
residues. Pilbara craton ca. 3.2 Ga and ca. 2.63 Ga black shales were
found to contain abundant kerogenous streaks and laminae, as well as
bitumen nodules (comprising a radioactive mineral core surrounded by a
carbonaceous rim) and pyrobitumen (formerly petroleum) globules, films,
and aggregates. The bitumen nodules formed around detrital radioactive
grains via polymerization of fluid hydrocarbons generated within the
shale and represent diagnostic indicators of oil generation in ancient
shales. The bitumen globules, films, and masses are preserved within
anthigenic pyrite and demonstrate that a separate hydrocarbon phase had
developed in the shale matrix during burial, providing compelling
evidence for in situ petroleum generation and expulsion. The abundance
of bitumen nodules and residual pyrobitnmen in black shales across the
Pilbara craton suggests that hydrocarbon generation from kerogenous
shales was a common phenomenon during the Middle to Late Archean. The
petroleum was generated from organic matter that accumulated in marine
environments, most probably comprising the remains of photosynthetic and
chemosynthetic organisms, pointing to a sizeable biomass as early as 3.2
Ga. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Author Affiliations: 1School of Earth and Geographical Sciences,
University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia
ISSN: 0091-7613


Carbonaceous Chondrites are meteorites that have a large percentage of
what is effectively crude oil in their substance, some of it in a matrix
much like oil shale. Also remember that helium is all sourced from
oil/gas wells.

....Brock.

Brock Ulfsen wrote:

Or for something a little more in depth:

Good grief Brock.... About the only thing I could understand is part
of the first sentance.....

Petroleum generation largely occurs

After that it gets a little heavy

Solar Flare wrote:
Nowadays we burn carbon in nearly every home and in factories, powerplants
and transportation vehicles. This orgy of burning carbon is the reason the
atmospheric rate of CO2 is rising, not because of the TYPE of carbon fuel we
are burning.

We've been burning carbon fuels for something like 1 to 1.5 million years.

All of our fuel came from the bioshpere until the adoption of coal and
oil to drive the Dark Satanic Mills of the industrial revolution.

The fuel was carbon neutral, it grew, mostly within a century of when we
used it, we burned it (as opposed to it decaying), its carbon returned
to the carbin cycle.

....Brock.

Solar Flare wrote:
I didn't imply that but it sounds like it doesn't either being composed of
carbon and oxygen. What would it be reduced to?

Reduction and combustion are complimentary processes. If you want iron,
you reduce iron oxides, if you want rust, you oxegenate iron (slowly, it
rusts, fast and you use it to cut your way through things (thermite
(waves to Eschelon))...

Ask a metalurgist, or potter...

....Brock.
(Many Russian Nuclear Vessels are now complete bombs.)

Solar Flare wrote:
I didn't imply that but it sounds like it doesn't either being composed of
carbon and oxygen. What would it be reduced to?

"Steve Spence" wrote in message
...
Solar Flare wrote:

Semantics but "carbon does not burn"


so, carbon monoxide (CO) doesn't burn?



http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/p1/producer.asp

--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html

JoeSixPack wrote:

The only reason corn ethanol is that cheap is because of massive,
overlapping subsidies on both growing the corn and in processing it for
ethanol. A recent study found that it takes more energy to produce ethanol
than the ethanol contains.


That "recent study" was bought and paid for by the oil industry, and is
bogus:
http://www.green-trust.org/2005/07/i...stainable.html


--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html

JoeSixPack wrote:

You do realize corn oil is available it the grocery store .....


So is olive, palm, sunflower, safflower, peanut, canola, fish, lard, and
about a hundred others. What's your point?

you claimed it was rarely grown for oil. you were wrong.


Corn is a good crop because it's commonly grown, it can be pressed for
oil, and mashed for ethanol, plus the distillers grains are used for
animal feed, so it has many by products.


Does that make it feasible as a replacement for petroleum fuel?


as one replacement, yes. since you can make biodiesel and ethanol from
the same bushel, plus animal feed, it's a very good source of fuel.

--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html

"Steve Spence" wrote in message
...
JoeSixPack wrote:

You do realize corn oil is available it the grocery store .....


So is olive, palm, sunflower, safflower, peanut, canola, fish, lard, and
about a hundred others. What's your point?

you claimed it was rarely grown for oil. you were wrong.


Corn is a good crop because it's commonly grown, it can be pressed for
oil, and mashed for ethanol, plus the distillers grains are used for
animal feed, so it has many by products.


Does that make it feasible as a replacement for petroleum fuel?
as one replacement, yes. since you can make biodiesel and ethanol from the
same bushel, plus animal feed, it's a very good source of fuel.


Even if it costs $10 a gallon?

"Brock Ulfsen" wrote in message
...
Solar Flare wrote:
Nowadays we burn carbon in nearly every home and in factories,
powerplants
and transportation vehicles. This orgy of burning carbon is the reason
the
atmospheric rate of CO2 is rising, not because of the TYPE of carbon fuel
we
are burning.

We've been burning carbon fuels for something like 1 to 1.5 million years.

All of our fuel came from the bioshpere until the adoption of coal and oil
to drive the Dark Satanic Mills of the industrial revolution.


Which Luddite said that originally?

The fuel was carbon neutral, it grew, mostly within a century of when we
used it, we burned it (as opposed to it decaying), its carbon returned to
the carbin cycle.

...Brock.

So where did all the excess "carbin" in the atmosphere come from before we
started burning petroleum?

"Goedjn" wrote in message
...


Here are some of the points of circumstantial evidence for that theory:

1) Oil was found on Mars

You really are a nutcase, aren't you?


No, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this point. The dark
seeps seen on Mars have not yet conclusively been determined to be
petroleum. I incorrectly interpreted such speculation as evidence.



3) The Earth's core contains a large amount of silicon carbide, as well as
radioactive elements. In theory, hydrocarbons should be a bi-product of
the
radioactive decay process, and being very light, should rise towards the
surface, where it would be trapped by porous reservoirs and sealed in by
impervious overburden.

You're confusing "hydrocarbon" and "Helium", I think.


The occurrence of helium in natural gas deposits is actually sited as
evidence for the "abiotic oil" theory.

Brock Ulfsen wrote:

Duane Bozarth wrote:
Brock Ulfsen wrote:

Also, modern hybrids have shorter stalks, and thus lay down less carbon
per acre than heritage varieties.

Not really, for the most part--hybrid wheat, corn, soybeans all are
essentially the same size plants as always. What crops specifically are
you thinking of?

Sorghum, wheat, barley, many of the varieties grown in Australia are
significantly less that 50cm tall at harvest, as opposed to heritage
pure strains many of which stand twice (or three times) as tall. Lots
of leaf, big seed heads, very little actual stalk.

I'd be interested to see the hybrid data for those--that's far different
than US hybrids. Who are the seed suppliers and do they have web
presence? Are these produced by the US equivalent of the land-grant
universities research programs as were/are many of the new varieties
here or by commercial seed growers?

I don't recall ever seeing a commercially grown wheat/barley/rye
variety that would be much over 3 ft, even going back to old Turkey Red,
the original hard red winter wheat brought over in the 1800s. Extremely
tall is bad owing to tendency to go down, of course. Very, very short is
a problem as well owing to difficulty in cutting w/o getting into the
ground or missing the short heads. On the very rare occasion w/ really
high moisture years I can recall some years which may have gotten to
mid-chest height, but that would be the exception, not the rule.

We've been growing wheat and grain sorghum here since the early 1900s
and the pictures back then of harvest w/ teams and stationary thresher
don't show a real significant difference in heights from what I recall
in the 50s when I first can really remember up to now...

JoeSixPack wrote:

....
The only reason corn ethanol is that cheap is because of massive,
overlapping subsidies on both growing the corn and in processing it for
ethanol. A recent study found that it takes more energy to produce ethanol
than the ethanol contains.

Ethanol production subsidies have no bearing on the production cost of
the grain which is currently about $2/bu for feed corn--that used for
ethanol production doesn't need to be that good, even.

The "massive" farm program subsidies are more used for non-production
programs such as school lunch programs and food stamps.

The "study" of which you speak is both out of date in data and
wrong--see

http://www.eere.energy.gov/biomass/n...y_balance.html

for a more considered evaluation. Note that Pimental has consistently
not considered the value of the animal feedstock co-product in order to
make his conclusion in all studies I've seen.

Latest DOE studies vary from 1.3 to nearly 2, depending on the actual
processes considered...

JoeSixPack wrote:

"Steve Spence" wrote in message
...
JoeSixPack wrote:

You do realize corn oil is available it the grocery store .....


So is olive, palm, sunflower, safflower, peanut, canola, fish, lard, and
about a hundred others. What's your point?

you claimed it was rarely grown for oil. you were wrong.


Corn is a good crop because it's commonly grown, it can be pressed for
oil, and mashed for ethanol, plus the distillers grains are used for
animal feed, so it has many by products.


Does that make it feasible as a replacement for petroleum fuel?
as one replacement, yes. since you can make biodiesel and ethanol from the
same bushel, plus animal feed, it's a very good source of fuel.

Even if it costs $10 a gallon?

Ehanol is cheaper than gasoline at today's prices...

JoeSixPack wrote:

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
JoeSixPack wrote:

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
Brock Ulfsen wrote:

Duane Bozarth wrote:
Fossil fuels are biofuels...just not currently produced.

But Oil may not be a fossil fuel. It may well be left over from the
formation of the solar system.

What evidence for that is there?

Here are some of the points of circumstantial evidence for that theory:

1) Oil was found on Mars

2) Oil was found in Sweden at the rim of a meteorite crater that
punctured
the earth's crust millions of years ago. There were none of the porous
coral-reef ocean-sediment formations that normally hold oil were found,
and
are postulated to be where oil must be formed by ancient lifeforms.

3) The Earth's core contains a large amount of silicon carbide, as well
as
radioactive elements. In theory, hydrocarbons should be a bi-product of
the
radioactive decay process, and being very light, should rise towards the
surface, where it would be trapped by porous reservoirs and sealed in by
impervious overburden.

Any citations for any of the above?

Google "abiotic oil"

I did--it's hokum.

JoeSixPack wrote:

"Goedjn" wrote in message
...


Here are some of the points of circumstantial evidence for that theory:

1) Oil was found on Mars

You really are a nutcase, aren't you?


No, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this point. The dark
seeps seen on Mars have not yet conclusively been determined to be
petroleum. I incorrectly interpreted such speculation as evidence.



3) The Earth's core contains a large amount of silicon carbide, as well as
radioactive elements. In theory, hydrocarbons should be a bi-product of
the
radioactive decay process, and being very light, should rise towards the
surface, where it would be trapped by porous reservoirs and sealed in by
impervious overburden.

You're confusing "hydrocarbon" and "Helium", I think.


The occurrence of helium in natural gas deposits is actually sited as
evidence for the "abiotic oil" theory.

That would be "citing" and saying something doesn't make it so...

Shiver wrote:

Brock Ulfsen wrote:

Or for something a little more in depth:

Good grief Brock.... About the only thing I could understand is part
of the first sentance.....

Petroleum generation largely occurs

After that it gets a little heavy

The point is synthesized as.

"...However, direct evidence of petroleum generation from potential
source rocks is lacking, ..."

and

"The abundance of bitumen nodules and residual pyrobitnmen in black
shales across the Pilbara craton suggests that hydrocarbon generation
from kerogenous
shales was a common phenomenon during the Middle to Late Archean. The
petroleum was generated from organic matter that accumulated in marine
environments,..."

What is found in these environments is, iow, still organic-based.

In article RvcZe.274182$tt5.146243@edtnps90, "JoeSixPack" wrote:

"Brock Ulfsen" wrote in message
...

The fuel was carbon neutral, it grew, mostly within a century of when we
used it, we burned it (as opposed to it decaying), its carbon returned to
the carbin cycle.

So where did all the excess "carbin" in the atmosphere come from before we
started burning petroleum?

There *wasn't* an excess -- precisely because burning wood *is*
carbon-neutral.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article zzcZe.274183$tt5.167492@edtnps90, "JoeSixPack" wrote:

The occurrence of helium in natural gas deposits is actually sited as
evidence for the "abiotic oil" theory.

I'd sure like to see an explanation of that. The conventional wisdom is that
helium is formed as a byproduct of the radioactive decay of uranium and
certain other elements, deep within the earth's crust. We find it in natural
gas deposits, not because of some particular association between helium and
natural gas, but because natural gas deposits are where we happen to drill
into the earth's crust.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Sorry. I wrote none of the follow text.

"Brock Ulfsen" wrote in message
...
Solar Flare wrote:
Nowadays we burn carbon in nearly every home and in factories, powerplants
and transportation vehicles. This orgy of burning carbon is the reason
the
atmospheric rate of CO2 is rising, not because of the TYPE of carbon fuel
we
are burning.

We've been burning carbon fuels for something like 1 to 1.5 million years.

All of our fuel came from the bioshpere until the adoption of coal and
oil to drive the Dark Satanic Mills of the industrial revolution.

The fuel was carbon neutral, it grew, mostly within a century of when we
used it, we burned it (as opposed to it decaying), its carbon returned
to the carbin cycle.

....Brock.

"JoeSixPack" wrote in message
news:nuYYe.303954$on1.168159@clgrps13...

"Goedjn" wrote in message
...


If I grow one ton of corn and burn it, I am not burning the equivalent
BTU in petroleum based oil. Therfore my energy consumption is carbon
neutral.


Your conclusion does not follow from your postulates.
This doesn't mean that your conclusion is wrong, but
it does mean that your argument is.


That may be true in theory, but in practice, the CO2 levels in our
atmosphere will continue to rise. An equilibrium used to exist, before
our
industrial revolution, where the amount of carbon released by biotic
respiration and natural fires, was roughly equal to the rate at which the
earth was able to re-absorb that carbon.

Nowadays we burn carbon in nearly every home and in factories, powerplants
and transportation vehicles. This orgy of burning carbon is the reason
the
atmospheric rate of CO2 is rising, not because of the TYPE of carbon fuel
we
are burning.

"Carbon-neutral" sounds fine, but it's ridiculous to think that
atmospheric
CO2 will stop rising just because we switch from fossil-carbon fuel to
biofuel-carbon fuel. The only way to stop that is to stop burning
carbon-based fuels altogether.


alright, then. please explain why you think that is ridiculous ?