After hearing a comment about this on a PBS talking-heads show, I found
a couple articles confirming what was said: a team of researchers
compared turning an equal amount of biomass into biofuel to producing
electricity from it to power an electric car. The winner? The electric
car, by far (on the order of 80% more).

Articles he
http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/22628
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...90510/20090510

Of course, this is only part of the picture. While this indicates it
would make more sense to put our eggs in the electric-car basket, rather
than funding more biofuel research, the problem remains of the high cost
of electric vehicles, and the greater difficulty of converting the
world's cars to run on electricity rather than an "alternative" fuel.
(Not to mention the yet-unsolved problems of better battery storage.)

But it's interesting. Discuss amongst yourselves.


--
Save the Planet
Kill Yourself

- motto of the Church of Euthanasia (http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/)

On May 10, 11:09 pm, David Nebenzahl wrote:
After hearing a comment about this on a PBS talking-heads show, I found
a couple articles confirming what was said: a team of researchers
compared turning an equal amount of biomass into biofuel to producing
electricity from it to power an electric car. The winner? The electric
car, by far (on the order of 80% more).

Articles hehttp://www.technologyreview.com/ener...90508/biomass_...

Of course, this is only part of the picture. While this indicates it
would make more sense to put our eggs in the electric-car basket, rather
than funding more biofuel research, the problem remains of the high cost
of electric vehicles, and the greater difficulty of converting the
world's cars to run on electricity rather than an "alternative" fuel.
(Not to mention the yet-unsolved problems of better battery storage.)

But it's interesting. Discuss amongst yourselves.

--
Save the Planet
Kill Yourself

- motto of the Church of Euthanasia (http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/)

the verdict is in !

On Sun, 10 May 2009 21:09:46 -0700, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

After hearing a comment about this on a PBS talking-heads show, I found
a couple articles confirming what was said: a team of researchers
compared turning an equal amount of biomass into biofuel to producing
electricity from it to power an electric car. The winner? The electric
car, by far (on the order of 80% more).

Articles he
http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/22628
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...90510/20090510

Of course, this is only part of the picture. While this indicates it
would make more sense to put our eggs in the electric-car basket, rather
than funding more biofuel research, the problem remains of the high cost
of electric vehicles, and the greater difficulty of converting the
world's cars to run on electricity rather than an "alternative" fuel.
(Not to mention the yet-unsolved problems of better battery storage.)

But it's interesting. Discuss amongst yourselves.

There is no clear winners yet. There are a lot of "studies"
"Proving" this or that, while ignoring side issues that often are
larger than the part they are measuring.

We are still in the early stages of finding the best way to
go. Let's keep the free for all going until we really have a winner
or two.

On May 11, 12:09*am, David Nebenzahl wrote:
After hearing a comment about this on a PBS talking-heads show, I found
a couple articles confirming what was said: a team of researchers
compared turning an equal amount of biomass into biofuel to producing
electricity from it to power an electric car. The winner? The electric
car, by far (on the order of 80% more).

Articles hehttp://www.technologyreview.com/ener...90508/biomass_...

Of course, this is only part of the picture. While this indicates it
would make more sense to put our eggs in the electric-car basket, rather
than funding more biofuel research, the problem remains of the high cost
of electric vehicles, and the greater difficulty of converting the
world's cars to run on electricity rather than an "alternative" fuel.
(Not to mention the yet-unsolved problems of better battery storage.)

But it's interesting. Discuss amongst yourselves.

--
Save the Planet
Kill Yourself

- motto of the Church of Euthanasia (http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/)

The problem, around here, is that electric cars lose a LOT of
efficiency in the winter. It's even a problem with hybrids. Two
friends who have Priuses report a 1/3rd drop in gas mileage in the
winter (from about 60 mpg to about 40 mpg).

Seems like they could boost the gas mileage. I had a 1988 Pontiac
LeMans that got 45 mpg. In 20 years, not much has changed.

On May 10, 11:09*pm, David Nebenzahl wrote:
After hearing a comment about this on a PBS talking-heads show, I found
a couple articles confirming what was said: a team of researchers
compared turning an equal amount of biomass into biofuel to producing
electricity from it to power an electric car. The winner? The electric
car, by far (on the order of 80% more).

Articles hehttp://www.technologyreview.com/ener...90508/biomass_...

Of course, this is only part of the picture. While this indicates it
would make more sense to put our eggs in the electric-car basket, rather
than funding more biofuel research, the problem remains of the high cost
of electric vehicles, and the greater difficulty of converting the
world's cars to run on electricity rather than an "alternative" fuel.
(Not to mention the yet-unsolved problems of better battery storage.)

But it's interesting. Discuss amongst yourselves.

--
Save the Planet
Kill Yourself

- motto of the Church of Euthanasia (http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/)

Filling up the 9.5 gallon tank on my Saturn every 300 miles is enough
of a hassle for me (I wish it went 500). I cant imagine ever driving
a vehicle that only went 50 or 60 miles, then it began to use gasoline
from a 5 gallon or less tank. I say 5 gallon tank because after you
fit the batteries there is not much room left for spare tire, decent
gas tank, and interior room. The range barrier must break 400 miles
before any re-fueling to make these new vehicles not be a royal PIA.
In my area I have to travel a bit for a station and refueling is
fairly inconvenient.

On May 11, 5:24*pm, wrote:
On Mon, 11 May 2009 13:29:49 -0700 (PDT), RickH

wrote:
Filling up the 9.5 gallon tank on my Saturn every 300 miles is enough
of a hassle for me (I wish it went 500). *I cant imagine ever driving
a vehicle that only went 50 or 60 miles,

I think they are using the statistics about how many people drive less
than that on most days.
If you drive a lot, you need enough fuel on board to have reasonable
range.
For someone like me who is retired and makes short trips most of the
time I pretty much would need 2 cars. One for around town and one for
road trips.

Replacing one car with two doesn't sound all that good for the
enviroment or economical either.

You really think anything on PBS is factual? I don't.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
.com...
After hearing a comment about this on a PBS

On Mon, 11 May 2009 22:24:43 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

You really think anything on PBS is factual? I don't.

They your mind is less than fully open.

Go dig some plates out fo the desert.

OK, I've got some plates. Now that they are fo the desert,
I'll have to get them delivered. I be going to UPS, tell em
these plates be fo de desert. No I'm sayin, bro?

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"dgk" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 11 May 2009 22:24:43 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

You really think anything on PBS is factual? I don't.

They your mind is less than fully open.

Go dig some plates out fo the desert.

wrote:
....
Replacing one car with two doesn't sound all that good for the
enviroment or economical either.

Should help the economy rebound...

I can see they can help in metro areas but won't help very much at all
if any in the wide open spaces. Hybrids may eventually, but except for
midgets or families w/o kids or other stuff to carry, at least to this
point they aren't particularly convenient, at least to the way US folks
are accustomed. Don't see either really taking off w/ wild popularity
any time soon despite wishes of "them that be" for some other alternate
universe of their imagining...

I'd have to read the actual studies, not just some summary, to have any
real input on the conclusion other than it just doesn't seem right that
there could be such a large difference if the complete cycle were
considered on a consistent basis for both. Thermodynamics generally
doesn't lead to one outcome being so predominantly favorable as that
makes it seem.

As a comparison point, there are farmer/producers here who are
converting to biodiesel from their own production enough fuel for their
overall operation from about one-eighth of their crop acreage. That
seems a pretty good input/output ratio to me. The analyses of energy
input/output between ethanol and biodiesel are also roughly equivalent
which makes me wonder if the actual costs of electric production are
fully accounted for in the cited comparison or there are added
production costs on the ethanol side that aren't comparably included on
the electric side. (The latter has been a favorite ploy of many of the
anti-ethanol bunch that add sun energy inputs on the one side but leave
out the energy content of secondary products such as the feed value of
distillers' grains on the output side thus allowing them to claim net
energy loss. Of course it is if you set the boundaries of the process
analyzed so that it must be.)

--

--

On May 12, 12:24*am, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
You really think anything on PBS is factual? I don't.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
*www.lds.org
.

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message

.com...
After hearing a comment about this on a PBS

Well it is to be expected; the 'proponents' or 'opponents' of anything
will mention all the factors that reinforce their particular point of
view.

Examples:
1) Those who favour nuclear power generation will emphasize low cost,
long life of the fuel etc. while de-emphasizing any of the risks of
leakage, transportation or disposing of radio-active materials, etc.
2) Proponents of electric cars will emphasize the lack of pollution,
lower cost of the fuel while deemphasizing battery costs, battery
life, greater vehicle complexity/manufacturing, shorter range. Costs
of recycling those batteries included?
3) Opponents of hunting, e.g. seal hunting in Alaska, Eastern Canada,
Eastern Russia etc. will emphasize pictures of red blood on white ice
and (incorrectly) that 'baby seals' are harvested. While conveniently
forgetting that millions of pigs, chickens, cattle are slaughtered
commercially every day. And are not eggs embryonic 'baby
chickens'? :-)
4) Enthusiastic adopters of CFLs (Compact fluorescent lamps) will
emphasize electricity saving by users, while completely missing the
increased production complexity and energy use along with more toxic
materials during manufacture. Also greater recycling costs!
5) On a lesser scale people who like and light candles seem to forget
that they with several candles they are burning a pound or two of
hydrocarbons within the atmosphere of their loving space!
6) Having families of three or four people living in four thousand
square foot housing; using (and wasting) many gallons of water and
high amounts of energy (either fossil fuel directly or electrically)
will eventually become unsustainable; while proponents of the 'Good
life' and intense 'consumerism' will continue to promote it!
And so on, and so ....................................... depending on
ones point of view!
Anyway must go and help my son who is installing better insulation
around the windows of a house he bought; then help him replace the
leaking pump of their clothes washer. Later, he'll hopefully give me a
hand to install a used (and repaired, other wise it would have gone to
the dump) dish washer that somebody gave me, free! It only needed one
minor repair from scrapped parts we had on hand! Reuse-recycle eh?

On Tue, 12 May 2009 06:21:21 -0700 (PDT), stan
wrote:

On May 12, 12:24*am, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
You really think anything on PBS is factual? I don't.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
*www.lds.org
.

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message

.com...
After hearing a comment about this on a PBS

Well it is to be expected; the 'proponents' or 'opponents' of anything
will mention all the factors that reinforce their particular point of
view.

Examples:
1) Those who favour nuclear power generation will emphasize low cost,
long life of the fuel etc. while de-emphasizing any of the risks of
leakage, transportation or disposing of radio-active materials, etc.
2) Proponents of electric cars will emphasize the lack of pollution,
lower cost of the fuel while deemphasizing battery costs, battery
life, greater vehicle complexity/manufacturing, shorter range. Costs
of recycling those batteries included?
3) Opponents of hunting, e.g. seal hunting in Alaska, Eastern Canada,
Eastern Russia etc. will emphasize pictures of red blood on white ice
and (incorrectly) that 'baby seals' are harvested. While conveniently
forgetting that millions of pigs, chickens, cattle are slaughtered
commercially every day. And are not eggs embryonic 'baby
chickens'? :-)
4) Enthusiastic adopters of CFLs (Compact fluorescent lamps) will
emphasize electricity saving by users, while completely missing the
increased production complexity and energy use along with more toxic
materials during manufacture. Also greater recycling costs!
5) On a lesser scale people who like and light candles seem to forget
that they with several candles they are burning a pound or two of
hydrocarbons within the atmosphere of their loving space!
6) Having families of three or four people living in four thousand
square foot housing; using (and wasting) many gallons of water and
high amounts of energy (either fossil fuel directly or electrically)
will eventually become unsustainable; while proponents of the 'Good
life' and intense 'consumerism' will continue to promote it!
And so on, and so ....................................... depending on
ones point of view!
Anyway must go and help my son who is installing better insulation
around the windows of a house he bought; then help him replace the
leaking pump of their clothes washer. Later, he'll hopefully give me a
hand to install a used (and repaired, other wise it would have gone to
the dump) dish washer that somebody gave me, free! It only needed one
minor repair from scrapped parts we had on hand! Reuse-recycle eh?

Good. I'm guilty on some counts but I try to be reasonable. I'm on the
side of less burning out of the earth and leaving something for the
future. Freecycle and all that.

I don't believe the Supreme Court has ruled yet on when life begins
for a chicken. I guess it's an easy question if the egg hasn't been
fertilized - and I'm guessing that most egg producing chickens aren't
having sex. I think I'm safe eating eggs. Except for the horrible
conditions the poor things have to live in. So, I do go for the free
range type. Nothing like eating eggs from contented chickens.

On Tue, 12 May 2009 08:36:27 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

OK, I've got some plates. Now that they are fo the desert,
I'll have to get them delivered. I be going to UPS, tell em
these plates be fo de desert. No I'm sayin, bro?


Are you making fun of southerners or blacks? I'm missing the reasoning
for that.

As for Jesus, wasn't he that dark skinned Jewish kid from Egypt or
Palestine or something? Something of a trouble maker as I recall.

In article ,
dgk wrote:

On Tue, 12 May 2009 08:36:27 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

OK, I've got some plates. Now that they are fo the desert,
I'll have to get them delivered. I be going to UPS, tell em
these plates be fo de desert. No I'm sayin, bro?


Are you making fun of southerners or blacks? I'm missing the reasoning
for that.


He's making fun of you typing "fo" instead of "of." As for his
reasoning, I'd guess it's based on you making fun of his religion.
Something I started to do, as in "PBS is a hell of a lot more factual
than the Book of Mormon," but I was feeling kind that day and aborted my
post.

As for Jesus, wasn't he that dark skinned Jewish kid from Egypt or
Palestine or something? Something of a trouble maker as I recall.

On 5/13/2009 11:32 AM dpb spake thus:

David Nebenzahl wrote:

On 5/12/2009 6:01 AM dpb spake thus:

wrote:
...
Replacing one car with two doesn't sound all that good for the
enviroment or economical either.

Should help the economy rebound...

I can see they can help in metro areas but won't help very much at all
if any in the wide open spaces. Hybrids may eventually, but except
for midgets or families w/o kids or other stuff to carry, at least to
this point they aren't particularly convenient, at least to the way US
folks are accustomed. Don't see either really taking off w/ wild
popularity any time soon despite wishes of "them that be" for some
other alternate universe of their imagining...

I'd have to read the actual studies, not just some summary, to have
any real input on the conclusion other than it just doesn't seem right
that there could be such a large difference if the complete cycle were
considered on a consistent basis for both. Thermodynamics generally
doesn't lead to one outcome being so predominantly favorable as that
makes it seem.

It can if one of the methods being compared (the infernal combustion
engine) is ****-poor as an energy conversion mechanism. Apparently the
method used to generate electricity is more efficient.

Which method would that be? 30% range is pretty much it for
conventional generation.

I'd still have to see where the analysis boundaries were drawn and what,
precisely, was compared to what rather than some summary as gospel.
(And, no, I'm not interested enough in the particular studies to go do
that... )

It is pretty disappointing not to know more about the methodoligies used
in the experiment. I'm also not all that keen on hunting down the
original article in /Science/.

My understanding from the commentary I heard before I found these
articles was that the researchers took identical amounts of input "fuel"
(switchgrass) and used them to power the two cars (one using liquid
biofuel, the other electricity). What isn't known is how they converted
the grass into electricity. Also not known is whether they actually used
identical masses of grass in the experiment, or whether they simply
extrapolated from different amounts. (For instance, it's possible that
the conversion to electricity is more efficient due to economy of
scale--burning the fuel in a large plant as opposed to a small portable
engine--and that they simply calculated the yield based on that.)


--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

David Nebenzahl wrote:
....
My understanding from the commentary I heard before I found these
articles was that the researchers took identical amounts of input "fuel"
(switchgrass) and used them to power the two cars (one using liquid
biofuel, the other electricity). What isn't known is how they converted
the grass into electricity. Also not known is whether they actually used
identical masses of grass in the experiment, or whether they simply
extrapolated from different amounts. (For instance, it's possible that
the conversion to electricity is more efficient due to economy of
scale--burning the fuel in a large plant as opposed to a small portable
engine--and that they simply calculated the yield based on that.)

However they generated electricity as opposed to converting to biofuel
if that's all they did then it's the same thing as the previous example
I gave where the analytical comparisons used input energy from the sun
but didn't count the distillers' grains energy outputs in many ethanol
studies.

Same thing w/ the biodiesel cycle--if you don't count the entire cycle
including useful byproducts you haven't done a fair comparison but
biased the study ground rules to produce the expected/desired result.

And, of course, there's still the problem of while they can be useful in
a niche market (inner city commuting, namely) and while it's a fairly
sizable niche, helping solve that niche problem doesn't mean it's an
overall solution by any stretch.

It reminds me of the touch of realism I heard the other day on
wind/solar generation. The goal is to double their share in 20 years or
so and in fact we've roughly double wind's share in the last 10 or so
which seems pretty good--until one notes that they started out at 0.16%
of US energy consumption so that by doubling it yet again they would be
at 0.3%. It's just not what those in DC want to hear but unfortunately
they're making policy on wishful thinking not reality.

--

dpb wrote:
....
Same thing w/ the biodiesel cycle--if you don't count the entire cycle
including useful byproducts you haven't done a fair comparison but
biased the study ground rules to produce the expected/desired result.
....
That is, in a real implementation/deployment there will be markets for
every useful byproduct and energy extraction or other value from those
can't be conveniently ignored in a relative cost/value comparison to
alternative technologies.

That's why the market is so effective--if there is a gross inefficiency
in a process that will show up as a high real cost as long as it isn't
artificially subsidized or the convenience/utilitarian factors offset a
higher cost. That is, if ranges are only 50-60 miles for electric
vehicles but it's 200 miles to the nearest large airport, needless to
say it isn't going to be a choice to take that to go catch a plane if
have to stop 3-4 times on the way for recharging. (And, no, that's not
made up; that's reality here in round numbers--it's 180+ to Amarillo,
210+/- to Wichita)

--

In article , dpb wrote:

higher cost. That is, if ranges are only 50-60 miles for electric
vehicles but it's 200 miles to the nearest large airport, needless to
say it isn't going to be a choice to take that to go catch a plane if
have to stop 3-4 times on the way for recharging. (And, no, that's not
made up; that's reality here in round numbers--it's 180+ to Amarillo,
210+/- to Wichita)

--

You don't have to go that far. Quite a few people I know drive from
Cincinnati to Indy because Indy is so much cheaper (another indication
of market forces at work).

--
"Distracting a politician from governing
is like distracting a bear from eating your baby."

--PJ O'Rourke

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article , dpb wrote:

higher cost. That is, if ranges are only 50-60 miles for electric
vehicles but it's 200 miles to the nearest large airport, needless to
say it isn't going to be a choice to take that to go catch a plane if
have to stop 3-4 times on the way for recharging. (And, no, that's not
made up; that's reality here in round numbers--it's 180+ to Amarillo,
210+/- to Wichita)

--

You don't have to go that far. Quite a few people I know drive from
Cincinnati to Indy because Indy is so much cheaper (another indication
of market forces at work).

Or maybe not...does Indy subsidize AirTran or another discount carrier
to get that? Wichita does, for example, to the tune of $1M/yr or more.
As a consequence, since they started the other carriers' fares have
come down significantly.

As for the distance, there is no other airport of any size between here
and those places. Even w/ the above subsidies, Amarillo generally is
still cheaper but they may also be subsidizing somebody there; that I
don't know.

But, air fares etc., weren't the point; simply an example of one reason
that electric isn't _necessarily_ the answer even if the study of the
post were fair and unbiased (which I still doubt given such a large
disparity I still think there's at least one or more factors not being
accounted for).

The success of the producers here in converting to enough biodiesel to
run their operation from the production of roughly 1/8-th their acreage
satisfies me the net benefit is pretty good irrespective of any other
study. Of course, there's another whole market area of heavy equipment,
stationary equipment, trucks, etc., that electric isn't going to touch
(other than perhaps diesel-electric like locomotives) any time soon.

--

In article , dpb wrote:

Or maybe not...does Indy subsidize AirTran or another discount carrier
to get that? Wichita does, for example, to the tune of $1M/yr or more.
As a consequence, since they started the other carriers' fares have
come down significantly.


Nope. Just that no single carrier has more than 30-40% of the flights.
We are nobody's hub (like Cincy for instance) so nobody runs enough
flights that they can raise rates.

--
"Distracting a politician from governing
is like distracting a bear from eating your baby."

--PJ O'Rourke

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article , dpb wrote:

Or maybe not...does Indy subsidize AirTran or another discount carrier
to get that? Wichita does, for example, to the tune of $1M/yr or more.
As a consequence, since they started the other carriers' fares have
come down significantly.


Nope. Just that no single carrier has more than 30-40% of the flights.
We are nobody's hub (like Cincy for instance) so nobody runs enough
flights that they can raise rates.

Even more significant is the volume is sufficient to attract enough
carriers to make it a competitive market so there is more than one
carrier per destination/direction for the most part.

Looking I find Indianapolis is served by 11 airlines averaging 154 daily
departures. Wichita has 43 flights/day.

Smaller markets that struggle to get more than a few carriers have a
much harder time in having any influence on rates--the overall business
is such a small fraction that the carriers really don't care--complain
too much and they'll just leave entirely and never notice the loss in
revenue off past the number of significant digits kept in the summary
P&L statements...

The commercial service out of local airport consists of a morning and
evening flight from/to Denver. That's it. The two slightly larger that
are 60/80 miles do have alternate service to KC as well as Denver. But
the cost of those local fares generally approaches or exceeds that of
the rest of the trip whatever it is.

Still this is a distant sidebar to the point I was after...

--

On Wed, 13 May 2009 07:39:55 -0700, Smitty Two
wrote:

In article ,
dgk wrote:

On Tue, 12 May 2009 08:36:27 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

OK, I've got some plates. Now that they are fo the desert,
I'll have to get them delivered. I be going to UPS, tell em
these plates be fo de desert. No I'm sayin, bro?


Are you making fun of southerners or blacks? I'm missing the reasoning
for that.


He's making fun of you typing "fo" instead of "of." As for his
reasoning, I'd guess it's based on you making fun of his religion.
Something I started to do, as in "PBS is a hell of a lot more factual
than the Book of Mormon," but I was feeling kind that day and aborted my
post.


Oh, thanks. Forgot to proofread I guess.

I shouldn't make fun of religion but when folks are as pushy about it
as the MormonMoron it just slipped out.

We have some of his missionaries patrolling our subways. Very funny
really, They have nameplates like Elder Bryan or something. The kids
are barely shaving but they're elders. Oh well, born into mind
control.