"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 21:54:06 GMT, "Dave Lyon"
wrote:




An interesting article. THere may well be a break even on the ethanol
production. But if this is truly the case, then why are the Distilling
plants STILL using natural gas and/or coal for their heating?

--
"A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them;
the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs
22:3


Because it's cheaper. We have been talking about the amount of energy
required to produce ethanol. Don't confuse that with the amount of money
that it requires.

If you really wanted to glean the most energy from corn, don't convert it
to
ethanol, just burn it. If you do that, it's cheaper per btu than natural
gas.
====================
I understand that some people are burning shelled feed corn in
their wood pellet stoves with complete success/satisfaction. Any
information on this?

I have a "multi fuel" stove. Basically, it's a pellet stove with an agitator
in the fire box to stir the fuel while it burns. I can burn corn, but only
on higher heat settings. Unless it's pretty cold outside, it puts out too
much heat. I have found that if I mix my corn with wood pellets it does very
well at the lower heat settings.



Also given the low temperature required for distilation, even
lower with vacuum, is solar power a large scale viable option?

Uncle George


Yes and no.
Yes it can be done, but at extreme capital investments. Right now, it's much
cheaper to use petroleum products, or coal. If petroleum wasn't an option, I
would probably look into burning corn for the heat needed. The main drawback
with burning corn is the mess and maintenance required.

"Cliff" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 3 Jan 2006 14:50:31 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
In misc.survivalism Dave Lyon wrote:

Unfortunately, ethanol is probably not a long term solution. We
simply
don't
have enough crop land to supply our energy needs.


No one souce is a "long term solution". Not even oil.

Sources I've seen over the past few months, DOE-related, say up to 6% of
motor-fuel consumption could come from biodiesel (others say this would
require an all-out effort); 5% from corn-based ethanol; up to 12% from
cellulosic ethanol.

Every little bit helps.

Global warming?

Someone forgot coal gasification too.
--
Cliff

Burning corn is thought to be CO2 neutral. Yes, it produces CO2 when you
burn it, but it consumes CO2 when you grow it.
Nearly anything carbon based can be gasified, including coal, and wood, and
grass. But, the process is very expensive.

I believe our short term energy needs will probably be best handled by
nuclear power.

"Cliff" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 23:16:49 -0600, dazed and confuzzed
wrote:

That's an interesting question. Alternative-fuel promoters often talk
about
the advantage of these biological sources in terms of CO2 production,
because they supposedly sequester as much CO2 in growing as they
release in
burning.

Only the burning of the ethanol. In fact, the CO2 from the fermentation
is collected and sold as a part of the production of the ethanol plant.

It still gets released in the end, just as will the Carbon
sequestered in your building materials when they burn or rot.

BTW, IIRC Cement production releases a huge amount of CO2
as well.
--
Cliff

So do farting cows!

However, there is a (probably complex) heat-cycling issue, too. If you
let
corn stover compost, it gives off heat. If you burn it, it gives off
heat.
If you convert it to ethanol and burn the ethanol, it gives off heat.

Quick now, calculus students...

--
Ed Huntress

Please don't quote me on this, cause I'm not sure I'm accurate.

I think any heat that is given off from plant life is actually stored solar
energy. It's possible it may balance out.

Considering that the US once passed a Constitutional amendment to
attempt to ban alcohol, then later passed another to repeal it, one
must wonder how many barriers have been placed in the way of
distilling ethanol for fuel.

After all, such stills must be tightly regulated or someone might
manage to get a few ml. of untaxed ethanol and "misuse" it.



Any one in the US can get a permit to make ethanol. Once distilled it must
be made poisonous immediately. Usually they do that by adding 15% gasoline.

On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 00:59:47 GMT, zadoc
wrote:

On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 19:06:50 -0500, Cliff wrote:

On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 15:02:35 -0600, dazed and confuzzed
wrote:

An interesting article. THere may well be a break even on the ethanol
production. But if this is truly the case, then why are the Distilling
plants STILL using natural gas and/or coal for their heating?

It's cheaper than Jack Daniels.

Considering that the US once passed a Constitutional amendment to
attempt to ban alcohol, then later passed another to repeal it, one
must wonder how many barriers have been placed in the way of
distilling ethanol for fuel.

After all, such stills must be tightly regulated or someone might
manage to get a few ml. of untaxed ethanol and "misuse" it.

As H.L. Mencken once wrote:
Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.

Am listening to a lecture on ABC Radio National which is also the
shortwave service Radio Australia. IMHO, excellent speech entitled
"Make-believe Democracy" You can find a transcript or listen to it
at:

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/bigidea/stories/s1481032.htm

The ravings of yet another AAA. (Anti-American Asshole)

--
Robert Sturgeon
Summum ius summa inuria.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/

On Tue, 3 Jan 2006 22:47:19 +0000 (UTC),
wrote:

In misc.survivalism Ed Huntress wrote:

No one souce is a "long term solution". Not even oil.

Sources I've seen over the past few months, DOE-related, say up to 6% of
motor-fuel consumption could come from biodiesel (others say this would
require an all-out effort); 5% from corn-based ethanol; up to 12% from
cellulosic ethanol.

Every little bit helps.

Exactly. The point is to reduce our dependence on foreign energy. This
is a national security issue.

Objections that no one solution is compete miss the point.

If the goal is to reduce our dependence on foreign energy,
then ANY solution that REDUCES our dependence on foreign
energy IS "complete," in that it does reduce our dependence
on foreign energy. If more reduction is better than less
reduction, then more "complete" solutions are better than
fewer of them, and solutions that reduce more of the
dependence are better than those that reduce it less. If
the goal is to eliminate our dependence on foreign energy,
then no, merely reducing our dependence isn't "complete."
"Reduce" is not synonymous with "eliminate."

There are arguments supporting the idea that we are better
off burning the foreigners' energy now, and saving our own
for later, when it will be even more valuable. But that
really doesn't make much sense, since by then it will be too
valuable to burn, just as the foreigners' energy will be too
costly to buy. Why don't we do something really radical,
and let the market figure it out? The market seems to do a
much better job of it than politicians do.

--
Robert Sturgeon
Summum ius summa inuria.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/

On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 14:26:27 GMT, "Dave Lyon"
wrote:


"Cliff" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 23:16:49 -0600, dazed and confuzzed
wrote:

That's an interesting question. Alternative-fuel promoters often talk
about
the advantage of these biological sources in terms of CO2 production,
because they supposedly sequester as much CO2 in growing as they
release in
burning.

Only the burning of the ethanol. In fact, the CO2 from the fermentation
is collected and sold as a part of the production of the ethanol plant.

It still gets released in the end, just as will the Carbon
sequestered in your building materials when they burn or rot.

BTW, IIRC Cement production releases a huge amount of CO2
as well.


So do farting cows!

And here I thought that was Methane ....
--
Cliff

On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 14:19:53 GMT, "Dave Lyon"
wrote:

I can burn corn

Have you tried coal?
You may be able to import it from England.
--
Cliff

On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 14:24:48 GMT, "Dave Lyon"
wrote:

Burning corn is thought to be CO2 neutral. Yes, it produces CO2 when you
burn it, but it consumes CO2 when you grow it.
Nearly anything carbon based can be gasified, including coal, and wood, and
grass. But, the process is very expensive.

All this talk of making Ethanol by fermentation when Methanol
you can get with a bit of simple heating ...

BTW, That "super yeast" might reduce costs for Ethanol a little
as less water needs to be removed via distillation.
--
Cliff

On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 14:28:31 GMT, "Dave Lyon"
wrote:

However, there is a (probably complex) heat-cycling issue, too. If you
let
corn stover compost, it gives off heat. If you burn it, it gives off
heat.
If you convert it to ethanol and burn the ethanol, it gives off heat.

Quick now, calculus students...

Please don't quote me on this, cause I'm not sure I'm accurate.

I think any heat that is given off from plant life is actually stored solar
energy. It's possible it may balance out.

Plants metabolize sugars at night and make them during the day.
That does produce some heat at night in plants.
--
Cliff

On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 14:36:17 GMT, "Dave Lyon"
wrote:


Considering that the US once passed a Constitutional amendment to
attempt to ban alcohol, then later passed another to repeal it, one
must wonder how many barriers have been placed in the way of
distilling ethanol for fuel.

After all, such stills must be tightly regulated or someone might
manage to get a few ml. of untaxed ethanol and "misuse" it.



Any one in the US can get a permit to make ethanol. Once distilled it must
be made poisonous immediately. Usually they do that by adding 15% gasoline.

Denatonium benzoate "the bitterest tasting substance known" is
also used it seems (rather than gasoline). SD-40 Alcohol .....
http://sci-toys.com/ingredients/dena..._benzoate.html

Looks like many other things may be used as well: MEK, Bitrex,
DEP, Methanol ...
--
Cliff

On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 08:22:05 -0800, Robert Sturgeon
wrote:

There are arguments supporting the idea that we are better
off burning the foreigners' energy now, and saving our own
for later, when it will be even more valuable.

Hence Iran & Iraq need nuclear power ....
--
Cliff

On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 18:46:00 -0500, Cliff
wrote:
On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 14:19:53 GMT, "Dave Lyon"
wrote:
I can burn corn
Have you tried coal?
You may be able to import it from England.
======================
On a more useful note, it appears we can extract corn oil for use
in/as bio-diesel, use the cellulose, starch and sugar as
fermentation feed stock. We can burn part of the corn as fuel to
distill the ethanol. Use the bio-diesel and ethanol as fuel to
raise more corn. Outside of the fact this would put a large
crimp in the earnings of the multinational oil companies and
international grain traders, why aren't we doing this? This
would put our fallow agricultural lands back into production.

We should be able to ferment polymers plastics] also.

Would be nice to independent of external influences due to our
need to import oil and export agricultural products, but thats
another reason *NOT* to do this.

Uncle George

"Cliff" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 3 Jan 2006 21:42:32 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Cliff" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 3 Jan 2006 14:50:31 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
In misc.survivalism Dave Lyon wrote:

Unfortunately, ethanol is probably not a long term solution. We
simply
don't
have enough crop land to supply our energy needs.


No one souce is a "long term solution". Not even oil.

Sources I've seen over the past few months, DOE-related, say up to 6%
of
motor-fuel consumption could come from biodiesel (others say this
would
require an all-out effort); 5% from corn-based ethanol; up to 12% from
cellulosic ethanol.

Every little bit helps.

Global warming?

That's an interesting question. Alternative-fuel promoters often talk
about
the advantage of these biological sources in terms of CO2 production,
because they supposedly sequester as much CO2 in growing as they release
in
burning.

Closed cycle. But you cannot deplete the soils doing so either or
it all fails in a bit.

However, there is a (probably complex) heat-cycling issue, too. If you
let
corn stover compost, it gives off heat. If you burn it, it gives off
heat.
If you convert it to ethanol and burn the ethanol, it gives off heat.

Quick now, calculus students...

That heat is very minimal, compared to the effects of global
warming.
Nuclear remains, as they know in Iran.
--
Cliff

The interesting thing is that, added up, those sources of biofuel could make
up something like 20+% of our motor fuel consumption. And the heat going
into the system is solar energy converted by electrolysis.

--
Ed Huntress

"Dave Lyon" wrote in message
news:jYQuf.704815$xm3.687923@attbi_s21...

However, there is a (probably complex) heat-cycling issue, too. If you
let
corn stover compost, it gives off heat. If you burn it, it gives off
heat.
If you convert it to ethanol and burn the ethanol, it gives off heat.

Quick now, calculus students...

--
Ed Huntress

Please don't quote me on this, cause I'm not sure I'm accurate.

I think any heat that is given off from plant life is actually stored
solar
energy. It's possible it may balance out.

Yes, it's all solar energy (fussy people may get into mineral sources of
fertilizer, etc., but it still goes back to solar, and almost all of it is
short-cycle solar. That is, the cycle is one year or less).

It does balance out. But you'd have to do a lot of calculations to prove it.

--
Ed Huntress

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 18:46:00 -0500, Cliff
wrote:
On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 14:19:53 GMT, "Dave Lyon"
wrote:
I can burn corn
Have you tried coal?
You may be able to import it from England.
======================
On a more useful note, it appears we can extract corn oil for use
in/as bio-diesel, use the cellulose, starch and sugar as
fermentation feed stock. We can burn part of the corn as fuel to
distill the ethanol. Use the bio-diesel and ethanol as fuel to
raise more corn. Outside of the fact this would put a large
crimp in the earnings of the multinational oil companies and
international grain traders, why aren't we doing this? This
would put our fallow agricultural lands back into production.

We should be able to ferment polymers plastics] also.

Would be nice to independent of external influences due to our
need to import oil and export agricultural products, but thats
another reason *NOT* to do this.

Uncle George

We CAN do those things. But, for now, it's still cheaper to use petroleum.

"dazed and confuzzed" wrote in message
...
Dave Lyon wrote:

It takes more oil energy to produce a gallon of grain Ethanol than
you can get back by burning same IIRC.




No it doesn't That's a lie that has been originated by oil companies.

Only wingers believe it.


actually, it's true.

--
"A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them;
the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs
22:3


Not here! Hydroelectric power solves the problem.

Steve R.

On Wed, 4 Jan 2006 22:35:44 -0800, "Steve R."
wrote:


"dazed and confuzzed" wrote in message
...
Dave Lyon wrote:

It takes more oil energy to produce a gallon of grain Ethanol than
you can get back by burning same IIRC.




No it doesn't That's a lie that has been originated by oil companies.

Only wingers believe it.


actually, it's true.

--
"A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them;
the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs
22:3


Not here! Hydroelectric power solves the problem.

Steve R.
======================
Standard excuses for not making more use of bio fuels:

(1) It takes more fossil energy to make it than just to use the
fossil fuel in the first place.

(2) When it is pointed out that you can make the bio fuels using
other energy sources such as hydroelectric, solar, or even by
burning part of the biomass then it costs too much. What the
true cost of fossil fuels, with the large amounts of tax
abatements, subsidies, and out right tax evasion is never
discussed.

If bio fuels are produced, and if these are price competitive, it
will still require legislative action with stiff fines and
possibly executive jail time to get these into the existing
distribution networks (owned by the petro companies). Despite
laws to the contrary, vertical integration has reoccurred, and
the regulatory process is now being used to prevent rather than
promote competition.

Uncle George

On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 10:07:41 -0600, F. George McDuffee
wrote:

It takes more fossil energy to make it than just to use the
fossil fuel in the first place.

The replaced oil is more valuable ($$) than the coal used ....?
--
Cliff

(1) It takes more fossil energy to make it than just to use the
fossil fuel in the first place.


That statement isn't true for ethonol. Intresting enough, it is true for
electricity.


(2) When it is pointed out that you can make the bio fuels using
other energy sources such as hydroelectric, solar, or even by
burning part of the biomass then it costs too much.

This statement is true.


Here's the deal. I have a truck that will burn E85 without modifications. I
simply pull up to the pump, fill'er up, and drive away. There is a pump that
is on a route that I pass about once per week. When gas got really high a
couple of months ago, I did just that because I could get e85 about $.20 per
gallon cheaper. Now that gas has gone down, the price of E85 is about the
same as gasoline, but I take a 15% hit in fuel economy. When it becomes more
economical (for whatever reason)to burn E85 than gasoline, that's what I,
and many others will do. In the mean time, I know very few people that will
use it when it takes extra money out of their pocket.

Dave Lyon wrote:

Here's the deal. I have a truck that will burn E85 without modifications. I
simply pull up to the pump, fill'er up, and drive away. There is a pump that
is on a route that I pass about once per week. When gas got really high a
couple of months ago, I did just that because I could get e85 about $.20 per
gallon cheaper. Now that gas has gone down, the price of E85 is about the
same as gasoline, but I take a 15% hit in fuel economy. When it becomes more
economical (for whatever reason)to burn E85 than gasoline, that's what I,
and many others will do. In the mean time, I know very few people that will
use it when it takes extra money out of their pocket.

Even your usage during the high gas price times doesn't seem to compute
- don't you loose more value by burning 15% more fuel that you gain by
getting 20 cents a gallon off a price in the $2-$3 range (which would
be a less than 10 percent lower price)

wrote in message
oups.com...
Dave Lyon wrote:

Here's the deal. I have a truck that will burn E85 without
modifications. I
simply pull up to the pump, fill'er up, and drive away. There is a pump
that
is on a route that I pass about once per week. When gas got really high
a
couple of months ago, I did just that because I could get e85 about $.20
per
gallon cheaper. Now that gas has gone down, the price of E85 is about
the
same as gasoline, but I take a 15% hit in fuel economy. When it becomes
more
economical (for whatever reason)to burn E85 than gasoline, that's what
I,
and many others will do. In the mean time, I know very few people that
will
use it when it takes extra money out of their pocket.

Even your usage during the high gas price times doesn't seem to compute
- don't you loose more value by burning 15% more fuel that you gain by
getting 20 cents a gallon off a price in the $2-$3 range (which would
be a less than 10 percent lower price)


Yep, you're right. But, at the time I didn't know I was going to take a 15%
fuel economy loss.

Greetings and Salutations...

On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 18:16:39 -0500, Cliff wrote:

On 3 Jan 2006 10:06:59 -0800, wrote:

MY MOM WAS KILLED BY A PDF FILE!

(Sorry, I couldn't resist)

LOL .....

And it was probably a 5 megger too...

AOL & PDF files sometimes don't mix well
(used to be a problem)

It has been my experience that AOL does not
mix well with ANYTHING.

Large files take time to download too.

This is true. It took ALL of 15 seconds to
download the thing. (Did I mention I have broadband
access?)

And somewhere junk is building up on disk .... somewhere ....

This is a point. I would suggest SequoiaView as
the best tool for tracking down what is filling the disk
and where it is. Here is the link to the home page:
http://www.win.tue.nl/sequoiaview/


And it always wants to phone home to mama ...

So far, this is not an issue with PDF files,
although it is true that the acrobat reader CAN be
set to "auto update" when it fires up. I, for one
prefer to leave that turned off.
Regards
Dave Mundt

(G.D.R)