On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 15:49:36 GMT, "Dave Lyon"
wrote:

Check out this study. Granted, it's done by USDA, so it may be as biased as
the ones done by the oil companies.
But, it does match up a little better with what I have witnessed as the son
of a small scale farmer.
http://www.ethanol.org/pdfs/energy_balance_ethanol.pdf

A 5 MB PDF FILE?
YOU MUST BE JOKING !!!!

What did it conclude?
Did it cover the energy inputs to make the tractors ,tires,
chemicals, etc?
--
Cliff

"Cliff" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 15:59:44 GMT, "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.

You have to count all the upstream energy inputs.
US production only.
--
Cliff

Why? The oil companies don't count their upstream energy inputs when they do
the comparison.
According to some studies, it requires more energy (not money) to produce a
btu of gasoline than a btu of ethanol. IF you count all the up stream, down
stream, and wasted energy.

Sorry Cliff. Your information is outdated. I'm sure it was true at one time,
but not any more.

On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 16:08:55 GMT, "Dave Lyon"
wrote:


"Cliff" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 15:59:44 GMT, "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.

You have to count all the upstream energy inputs.
US production only.
--
Cliff

Why?

Fairness.

The oil companies don't count their upstream energy inputs when they do
the comparison.

Don't they?

According to some studies, it requires more energy (not money) to produce a
btu of gasoline than a btu of ethanol. IF you count all the up stream, down
stream, and wasted energy.

You may be thinking only of refining?

Sorry Cliff. Your information is outdated. I'm sure it was true at one time,
but not any more.

Have some numbers?
--
Cliff

"Cliff" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 15:49:36 GMT, "Dave Lyon"
wrote:

Check out this study. Granted, it's done by USDA, so it may be as biased
as
the ones done by the oil companies.
But, it does match up a little better with what I have witnessed as the
son
of a small scale farmer.
http://www.ethanol.org/pdfs/energy_balance_ethanol.pdf

A 5 MB PDF FILE?
YOU MUST BE JOKING !!!!

What did it conclude?
Did it cover the energy inputs to make the tractors ,tires,
chemicals, etc?
--
Cliff

What's wrong Cliff? Can't read that much? Don't worry, most of it is
pictures.

Sorry, had to.


It concluded that producing ethanol gives nearly a 30% energy increase.

On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 16:19:31 GMT, "Dave Lyon"
wrote:

What's wrong Cliff? Can't read that much? Don't worry, most of it is
pictures.

I dislike PDF files, much more huge ones.
--
Cliff

snip
iddies. How about some NUMBERS.???
...lew...



http://healthandenergy.com/ethanol.htm
http://www.physorg.com/news4942.html
http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/Ethanol/

Hope this helps.


from one of those links:

atzek is also concerned about the sustainability of industrial farming
in developing nations where surgarcane and trees are grown as feedstock
for ethanol and other biofuels.

Using United Nations data, he examined the production cycles of
plantations hundreds of billions of

tons of raw material.

"One farm for the local village probably makes sense," he says.

"But if you have a 100,000 acre plantation exporting biomass on contract
to Europe ,

that's a completely different story. From one square meter of land, you
can get roughly one watt of energy.

The price you pay is that in Brazil alone you annually damage a jungle
the size of Greece ."



am I wrong in thinking that a watt is not an appropriate unit of measure
here, that it should be btu's or an equivalent, and that a guy who
doesn't know the difference is not understanding the issue? Even if it
is a misquote and means watt/hr or somesuch, it is still scetchy. If
wood has 7000btu/lb, and we pretend that corn is similar, are we to
believe that , with a btu being worth 1052 watt seconds, that the fuel
value of one meteris .001 btu? I think the various bugs contained in
said sq meter would burn for more.....


and referencing the UN numbers, I don't know what they are but wouldn't
referncing 'best availble methods' be better?

"Cliff" wrote in message
...
On 3 Jan 2006 02:21:32 GMT, D Murphy wrote:

The it's a good thing that the US is the worlds largest exporter. If you
look up the figures we are in the top five in most all of the so called
value added.

What value is added in all those guns, bombs, etc?
And many are given away at taxpayer expense (in the end).

Be aware that virtually all aerospace-related sales, from both the US and
Europe, have a zero-sum effect on our GDP. They are sold with 100%
offsets -- in some cases, more than 100%. That means we agree to buy 100% of
the value of what we sell, from the buyer.

I researched this for my "The New Military-Industrial Complex" article a few
years ago. If anyone questions it they will find it confirmed with a little
research online.

--
Ed Huntress

Previous message didn't format as I wanted:


snip

...lew...



http://healthandenergy.com/ethanol.htm
http://www.physorg.com/news4942.html
http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/Ethanol/

Hope this helps.




From one of those links:

atzek is also concerned about the sustainability of industrial farming

in developing nations where surgarcane and trees are grown as
feedstock for ethanol and other biofuels.

Using United Nations data, he examined the production cycles of
plantations hundreds of billions of

tons of raw material.


"One farm for the local village probably makes sense," he says.


"But if you have a 100,000 acre plantation exporting biomass on
contract to Europe ,

that's a completely different story. From one square meter of land,
you can get roughly one watt of energy.

The price you pay is that in Brazil alone you annually damage a jungle
the size of Greece ."



am I wrong in thinking that a watt is not an appropriate unit of measure
here, that it should be btu's or an equivalent, and that a guy who
doesn't know the difference is not understanding the issue? Even if it
is a misquote and means watt/hr or somesuch, it is still scetchy. If
wood has 7000btu/lb, and we pretend that corn is similar, are we to
believe that , with a btu being worth 1052 watt seconds, that the fuel
value of one meteris .001 btu? I think the various bugs contained in
said sq meter would burn for more.....


and referencing the UN numbers, I don't know what they are but wouldn't
referencing 'best availble methods' be better?

Cliff wrote in
:

On 3 Jan 2006 02:31:03 GMT, D Murphy wrote:

If 10 nations embargoed the US the US would be
out of business quickly. They'd not miss many US exports
for long.

We'd be hurting mainly for oil and labor should that happen. We don't
have enough of either to be independent of other nations.

Critical materials are imported.
Tungsten, alloying elements, etc.
We do have a huge surplus of Uranium, from making all those
nuclear bombs.

What's in the "Strategic Stockpile"?

You would be amazed. Mountains of materials, parts, electronics, and loads
upon loads of machine tools. Not to mention the ordnance. All of it is
assigned a shelf life too. When the life is up they auction much of it off.
This is how unused 30 year old multi spindle screw machines turn up on the
used market from time to time.


--

Dan

MY MOM WAS KILLED BY A PDF FILE!

(Sorry, I couldn't resist)

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.


--
A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.
--Edward R. Murrow

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.

--
Ed Huntress

"Why" wrote in message
...

Be aware that virtually all aerospace-related sales, from both the US and
Europe, have a zero-sum effect on our GDP. They are sold with 100%
offsets -- in some cases, more than 100%. That means we agree to buy 100%
of
the value of what we sell, from the buyer.

I knew you would bring that up ED. Your right, it's all a money game.
My old 1944 brownies contribute more to the GDP than the aerospace
sales do with the 100%+ offsets.

Not to mention that your products do far more to keep us honest than most
companies' products do.

So for me to get in the "big" game I
would have to run parts for the "offset" of 100% Sulphur oil in
return?

You have to buy the lard and make the stuff yourself. That's a lot of raw
lard, Dave.

Hmm , I can bathe in Sulphur oil, but not screw machine parts.
Where do I sign up DOD?

I think they'd be confused. They'd want to know where you've hidden the
computers on the Brownies.

--
Ed Huntress

On Tue, 3 Jan 2006 18:30:20 +0000 (UTC),
wrote:
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.
sniped
One major problem is the consumer can't tell what they are
actually paying for petro based products such as gasoline. You
can see the pump price but you don't see the petro company tax
breaks, etc. which the consumer must pay. This ranges all the
way from local property tax abatements to depletion allowances
and allowing the major oil companies to treat their royalty
payments as taxes in the other countries with a 100% US tax
credit rather than as a business expense with a c. 20-25% tax
credit.

No need to confine the bio fuels to alcohol. Vegetable oil works
well in diesels, indeed better than petro diesel because of the
lower sulphur content, although ther may be some gelling problems
at low temps and gumming with age. For example, corn could have
the oil extracted for diesel fuel and the starch/sugar fermented
to alcohol or even plastic.

This will never happen until the oil runs out.

Uncle George

Dave Lyon wrote:
"Lew Hartswick" wrote in message
ink.net...

dazed and confuzzed wrote:

Dave Lyon 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.

No it's not...
Yes it is....
No it's not....
Yes it is...
No it's not.
OK, my comment was last. I win!

as you wish

OK Kiddies. How about some NUMBERS.???
...lew...



What fun would that be?

Check out this study. Granted, it's done by USDA, so it may be as biased as
the ones done by the oil companies.
But, it does match up a little better with what I have witnessed as the son
of a small scale farmer.
http://www.ethanol.org/pdfs/energy_balance_ethanol.pdf


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

Dave Lyon wrote in article
fwwuf.699853$xm3.444840@attbi_s21...


Foreigner? Are you suggesting that the internet is a US based item, and
the
rest of the world is stealing it like you do your cable?

Lighten up.



You mean that great American liberal icon Al Gore DIDN'T invent the
Internet?????

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.

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.



Of course natural gas is 'free' just sittin in the damn ground, and the
cost of sticking a valve on top of the hole has not changed much in the
last 10 years, but the amount we are willing to pay for it has.

The amount we are willing to pay for corn as fuel has not changed nearly
as much

In misc.survivalism 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?

Maybe the infrastructure is not yet fully depreiated, and the payback for
conversion is too long?


--
A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.
--Edward R. Murrow

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.


--
A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.
--Edward R. Murrow

"Cliff" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 16:19:31 GMT, "Dave Lyon"
wrote:

What's wrong Cliff? Can't read that much? Don't worry, most of it is
pictures.

I dislike PDF files, much more huge ones.

It's 20 pages. That's two trips to the thinking room.

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?

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

Uncle George

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

MY MOM WAS KILLED BY A PDF FILE!

(Sorry, I couldn't resist)

LOL .....

AOL & PDF files sometimes don't mix well
(used to be a problem)
Large files take time to download too.
And somewhere junk is building up on disk .... somewhere ....
And it always wants to phone home to mama ...
--
Cliff

On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 17:04:24 GMT, yourname wrote:

am I wrong in thinking that a watt is not an appropriate unit of measure
here, that it should be btu's or an equivalent

1 Btu = 0.293 071 083 watthour
--
Cliff

On 3 Jan 2006 18:01:57 GMT, D Murphy wrote:

What's in the "Strategic Stockpile"?

You would be amazed. Mountains of materials, parts, electronics, and loads
upon loads of machine tools. Not to mention the ordnance. All of it is
assigned a shelf life too. When the life is up they auction much of it off.
This is how unused 30 year old multi spindle screw machines turn up on the
used market from time to time.

A good market for new machines too?
Any idea what's in the stockpile (of machines) now? Where?


http://www.bis.doc.gov/News/2003/sto...ction=retrieve
This may be interesting too: http://www.bt.cdc.gov/stockpile/
--
Cliff

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

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.
--
Cliff

On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 22:01:42 GMT, yourname wrote:



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.



Of course natural gas is 'free' just sittin in the damn ground, and the
cost of sticking a valve on top of the hole has not changed much in the
last 10 years, but the amount we are willing to pay for it has.

In the US most undiscovered natuaral gas is probably over a mile
down. Just a wildcat exploration well that deep costs several million
US dollars I gather.
--
Cliff

On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 23:38:31 GMT, zadoc wrote:

On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 18:19:28 -0500, Cliff wrote:

On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 17:04:24 GMT, yourname wrote:

am I wrong in thinking that a watt is not an appropriate unit of measure
here, that it should be btu's or an equivalent

1 Btu = 0.293 071 083 watthour

A BTU originally stood for British Thermal Unit, and is an obsolete
measure no longer used in the UK. Possibly still used in the USA.

Yep. And it's 0.293 071 083 watthour either way g.
--
Cliff

yourname wrote:



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.



Of course natural gas is 'free' just sittin in the damn ground, and the
cost of sticking a valve on top of the hole has not changed much in the
last 10 years, but the amount we are willing to pay for it has.

Still cheaper if that hole is in Mexico than if it is in Alabama. Dammit.

The amount we are willing to pay for corn as fuel has not changed nearly
as much

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"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.

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

wrote:

In misc.survivalism 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?


Maybe the infrastructure is not yet fully depreiated, and the payback for
conversion is too long?


I'd buy that, except new plants are using natural gas too.


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

F. George McDuffee wrote:

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?

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

Uncle George

it's low temp, but still a lot of BTU's to vaporise the ethanol.

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

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.

Actually, they mix 5% gasoline before shipping. Ruins the taste.

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

Cheers,








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

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.

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.


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







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

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

MY MOM WAS KILLED BY A PDF FILE!

(Sorry, I couldn't resist)


My mother was a Bozoette.

Gunner

The aim of untold millions is to be free to do exactly as they choose
and for someone else to pay when things go wrong.

In the past few decades, a peculiar and distinctive psychology
has emerged in England. Gone are the civility, sturdy independence,
and admirable stoicism that carried the English through the war years
.. It has been replaced by a constant whine of excuses, complaints,
and special pleading. The collapse of the British character has been
as swift and complete as the collapse of British power.

Theodore Dalrymple,

On 3 Jan 2006 18:01:57 GMT, D Murphy wrote:

Cliff wrote in
:

On 3 Jan 2006 02:31:03 GMT, D Murphy wrote:

If 10 nations embargoed the US the US would be
out of business quickly. They'd not miss many US exports
for long.

We'd be hurting mainly for oil and labor should that happen. We don't
have enough of either to be independent of other nations.

Critical materials are imported.
Tungsten, alloying elements, etc.
We do have a huge surplus of Uranium, from making all those
nuclear bombs.

What's in the "Strategic Stockpile"?

You would be amazed. Mountains of materials, parts, electronics, and loads
upon loads of machine tools. Not to mention the ordnance. All of it is
assigned a shelf life too. When the life is up they auction much of it off.
This is how unused 30 year old multi spindle screw machines turn up on the
used market from time to time.

I love the Helium Reserve. Its a gas man...its a gas.

Gunner

The aim of untold millions is to be free to do exactly as they choose
and for someone else to pay when things go wrong.

In the past few decades, a peculiar and distinctive psychology
has emerged in England. Gone are the civility, sturdy independence,
and admirable stoicism that carried the English through the war years
.. It has been replaced by a constant whine of excuses, complaints,
and special pleading. The collapse of the British character has been
as swift and complete as the collapse of British power.

Theodore Dalrymple,

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

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

On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 17:08:00 -0600, F. George McDuffee
wrote:

I understand that some people are burning shelled feed corn in
their wood pellet stoves with complete success/satisfaction. Any
information on this?

Over here, people burn *everything* in pellet stoves: wheat, barley and rye,
cherry stones and almond shells; anything granulated.
--
- JN -