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.

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.)

--

--

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.

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 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.