Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #81   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 382
Default Bio-Fuels Bite the Dust

On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 20:03:57 -0400, ATP* wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...


Your reading skills are weak. And, your point of view doesn't
acknowledge this wonderful thing called "market forces". If the price
of corn goes up, people like me who have CRP contracts to not grow
things on viable farmland might just decide it's time to go back to
producing, er, you know, more corn.


Even if the corn is FREE it's a bad deal for the environment.


Right now that land is growing not-corn. Switch to corn, tell me, how
does that hurt the environment? We're still burning (x) amount of fuel,
we're still growing things on (y) amount of land. Just that some of Y
now goes for some of X.

Also, even if
you go back to producing corn, the added demand still increases the price of
corn, assuming the available agricultural land is not unlimited.


Yes, that's what I mentioned about market forces above. Can we please
start giving money to American farmers, instead of arabs?

  #82   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 382
Default Bio-Fuels Bite the Dust

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 08:47:12 -0400, ATP* wrote:

The major problem with corn based ethanol is the energy input to make a
gallon of ethanol, which is very close to a gallon of fossil fuels.


You'll be providn' a cite for that claim, right?

Land use
issues, corn prices and pollution from agriculture are all just additional
nails in the coffin, as far as I'm concerned. Let's admit that the whole
program is just a big give away to agribusiness and get moving on other
alternative energy sources, including nuclear.


Call it what you want, I don't care, but when you have to lie and
distort about it to make your points, it weakens your point of view's
credibility.
  #83   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 366
Default Bio-Fuels Bite the Dust


"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 08:47:12 -0400, ATP*
wrote:

The major problem with corn based ethanol is the energy input to make a
gallon of ethanol, which is very close to a gallon of fossil fuels.


You'll be providn' a cite for that claim, right?

Land use
issues, corn prices and pollution from agriculture are all just
additional
nails in the coffin, as far as I'm concerned. Let's admit that the whole
program is just a big give away to agribusiness and get moving on other
alternative energy sources, including nuclear.


Call it what you want, I don't care, but when you have to lie and
distort about it to make your points, it weakens your point of view's
credibility.


When you have to include insults and personal attacks in every post, you
have ZERO credibility. Address the issues, if you can.


  #84   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 382
Default Bio-Fuels Bite the Dust

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 10:40:01 -0400, ATP* wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 08:47:12 -0400, ATP*
wrote:

The major problem with corn based ethanol is the energy input to make a
gallon of ethanol, which is very close to a gallon of fossil fuels.


You'll be providn' a cite for that claim, right?


I can't help but notice that you have dodged this request for a cite.

Land use
issues, corn prices and pollution from agriculture are all just
additional
nails in the coffin, as far as I'm concerned. Let's admit that the whole
program is just a big give away to agribusiness and get moving on other
alternative energy sources, including nuclear.


Call it what you want, I don't care, but when you have to lie and
distort about it to make your points, it weakens your point of view's
credibility.


When you have to include insults and personal attacks in every post,


Sorry, but you have misrepresented me several times by claiming I'm
saying things I have not. And, if you take "lie and distort about it"
to be a "insult and personal attack", it makes me wonder how an actual
insult or personal attack would look.

you
have ZERO credibility. Address the issues, if you can.


I've asked you for a cite. Can you provide one? I asked you how me
growing corn instead of something else is, as you claim, bad for the
environment. I must have missed your substantive response to that
question too.


  #85   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 558
Default Bio-Fuels Bite the Dust

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007, Larry Jaques wrote:
Gerald Miller quickly quoth:
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007, Larry Jaques wrote:


Ah, but have you plumbed your cows for methane capture yet?


I wonder, has anyone tried Bean-o on cows?


Ask yourself one question, Gerry "Who in their right mind cares if a
cow farts?"


Well, all the enviro-nuts who actually quantified how much gas cows
pass in the course of a day, but they beg the "in their right mind"
question rather severely.

Member of PETA - People Eating Tasty Animals. (In moderation.)

-- Bruce --



  #86   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 602
Default Bio-Fuels Bite the Dust

Search google for "bio fuel" and "boondoggle", 47,800 hits.

Biofuel boondoggle: US subsidy aids Europe's drivers
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0608/p02s01-usec.html

Even Communists Can See Through Biofuel Boondoggle
http://www.granma.cu/ingles/2007/ago...21/agenda.html

Biofuels may harm more than help
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=businessNews&storyid=2007-09-11T162914Z_01_L11879479_RTRUKOC_0_US-BIOFUELS-OECD-REPORT.xml&src=rss&rpc=23&sp=true


The Facts About Ethanol
http://factsaboutethanol.org/

Will this infant industry ever grow up?
http://factsaboutethanol.org/?p=227
Note the tax subsidies that the company is getting.

Ethanol Hurts the Environment And Is One of America's Biggest Political
Boondoggles
http://www.eroei.com/index2.php?opti...o_pdf=1&id=221

Ethanol, of course, is nothing new. American refiners will produce
nearly 6 billion gallons of corn ethanol this year, mostly for use as a
gasoline additive to make engines burn cleaner. But in June, the Senate
all but announced that America's future is going to be powered by
biofuels, mandating the production of 36 billion gallons of ethanol by
2022. According to ethanol boosters, this is the beginning of a much
larger revolution that could entirely replace our
21-million-barrel-a-day oil addiction. Midwest farmers will get rich,
the air will be cleaner, the planet will be cooler, and, best of all,
we can tell those greedy sheiks to **** off. As the king of ethanol
hype, Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, put it recently, "Everything about
ethanol is good, good, good."


This is not just hype -- it's dangerous, delusional bull****. Ethanol
doesn't burn cleaner than gasoline, nor is it cheaper. Our current
ethanol production represents only 3.5 percent of our gasoline
consumption -- yet it consumes twenty percent of the entire U.S. corn
crop, causing the price of corn to double in the last two years and
raising the threat of hunger in the Third World. And the increasing
acreage devoted to corn for ethanol means less land for other staple
crops, giving farmers in South America an incentive to carve fields out
of tropical forests that help to cool the planet and stave off global
warming.

So why bother? Because the whole point of corn ethanol is not to solve
America's energy crisis, but to generate one of the great political
boondoggles of our time. Corn is already the most subsidized crop in
America, raking in a total of $51 billion in federal handouts between
1995 and 2005 -- twice as much as wheat subsidies and four times as
much as soybeans. Ethanol itself is propped up by hefty subsidies,
including a fifty-one-cent-per-gallon tax allowance for refiners. And a
study by the International Institute for Sustainable Development found
that ethanol subsidies amount to as much as $1.38 per gallon -- about
half of ethanol's wholesale market price.

But as a gasoline substitute, ethanol has big problems: Its energy
density is one-third less than gasoline, which means you have to burn
more of it to get the same amount of power. It also has a nasty
tendency to absorb water, so it can't be transported in existing
pipelines and must be distributed by truck or rail, which is
tremendously inefficient.

Nor is all ethanol created equal. In Brazil, ethanol made from sugar
cane has an energy balance of 8-to-1 -- that is, when you add up the
fossil fuels used to irrigate, fertilize, grow, transport and refine
sugar cane into ethanol, the energy output is eight times higher than
the energy inputs. That's a better deal than gasoline, which has an
energy balance of 5-to-1. In contrast, the energy balance of corn
ethanol is only 1.3-to-1 - making it practically worthless as an energy
source. "Corn ethanol is essentially a way of recycling natural gas,"
says Robert Rapier, an oil-industry engineer who runs the R-Squared
Energy Blog.

The ethanol boondoggle is largely a tribute to the political muscle of
a single company: agribusiness giant Archer Daniels Midland. In the
1970s, looking for new ways to profit from corn, ADM began pushing
ethanol as a fuel additive. By the early 1980s, ADM was producing 175
million gallons of ethanol a year. The company's then-chairman, Dwayne
Andreas, struck up a close relationship with Sen. Bob Dole of Kansas,
a.k.a. "Senator Ethanol." During the 1992 election, ADM gave $1 million
to Dole and his friends in the GOP (compared with $455,000 to the
Democrats). In return, Dole helped the company secure billions of
dollars in subsidies and tax breaks. In 1995, the conservative Cato
Institute, estimating that nearly half of ADM's profits came from
products either subsidized or protected by the federal government,
called the company "the most prominent recipient of corporate welfare
in recent U.S. history."

But the biggest problem with ethanol is that it steals vast swaths of
land that might be better used for growing food. In a recent article in
Foreign Affairs titled "How Biofuels Could Starve the Poor," University
of Minnesota economists C. Ford Runge and Benjamin Senauer point out
that filling the gas tank of an SUV with pure ethanol requires more than
450 pounds of corn -- roughly enough calories to feed one person for a
year.

Thanks in large part to the ethanol craze, the price of beef, poultry
and pork in the United States rose more than three percent during the
first five months of this year. In some parts of the country, hog
farmers now find it cheaper to fatten their animals on trail mix,
french fries and chocolate bars. And since America provides two-thirds
of all global corn exports, the impact is being felt around the world.
In Mexico, tortilla prices have jumped sixty percent, leading to food
riots. In Europe, butter prices have spiked forty percent, and pork
prices in China are up twenty percent. By 2025, according to Runge and
Senauer, rising food prices caused by the demand for ethanol and other
biofuels could cause as many as 600 million more people to go hungry
worldwide.


Dave, the world is your oyster, just crack the shell...

Dave Hinz wrote:
On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 10:40:01 -0400, ATP* wrote:
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 08:47:12 -0400, ATP*
wrote:
The major problem with corn based ethanol is the energy input to make a
gallon of ethanol, which is very close to a gallon of fossil fuels.
You'll be providn' a cite for that claim, right?


I can't help but notice that you have dodged this request for a cite.

Land use
issues, corn prices and pollution from agriculture are all just
additional
nails in the coffin, as far as I'm concerned. Let's admit that the whole
program is just a big give away to agribusiness and get moving on other
alternative energy sources, including nuclear.


Call it what you want, I don't care, but when you have to lie and
distort about it to make your points, it weakens your point of view's
credibility.


When you have to include insults and personal attacks in every post,


Sorry, but you have misrepresented me several times by claiming I'm
saying things I have not. And, if you take "lie and distort about it"
to be a "insult and personal attack", it makes me wonder how an actual
insult or personal attack would look.

you
have ZERO credibility. Address the issues, if you can.


I've asked you for a cite. Can you provide one? I asked you how me
growing corn instead of something else is, as you claim, bad for the
environment. I must have missed your substantive response to that
question too.


  #87   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default Bio-Fuels Bite the Dust


"Bruce L. Bergman" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 16 Sep 2007, Larry Jaques wrote:
Gerald Miller quickly quoth:
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007, Larry Jaques wrote:


Ah, but have you plumbed your cows for methane capture yet?

I wonder, has anyone tried Bean-o on cows?


Ask yourself one question, Gerry "Who in their right mind cares if a
cow farts?"


Well, all the enviro-nuts who actually quantified how much gas cows
pass in the course of a day, but they beg the "in their right mind"
question rather severely.


Having watched this stuff go by several times, I finally have to clear
something else: the large methane production quoted for cows refers to cow
burps, not cow farts.

So forget about collecting it with a simple exhaust hose. g

--
Ed Huntress


  #88   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,984
Default Bio-Fuels Bite the Dust

On Sep 16, 3:43 pm, Dave Hinz wrote:

I can't help but notice that you have dodged this request for a cite.


I've asked you for a cite. Can you provide one? I asked you how me
growing corn instead of something else is, as you claim, bad for the
environment. I must have missed your substantive response to that
question too.



Harvard magazine " The Ethanol Illusion " Nov/Dec 2006

Dan

  #89   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 382
Default Bio-Fuels Bite the Dust

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 12:46:26 -0500, Louis Ohland wrote:
Search google for "bio fuel" and "boondoggle", 47,800 hits.


Right, because anything using such emotionally charged language is
_sure_ to be an accurate, unbiased reference, is that it?

Ethanol, of course, is nothing new. American refiners will produce
nearly 6 billion gallons of corn ethanol this year, mostly for use as a
gasoline additive to make engines burn cleaner. But in June, the Senate
all but announced that America's future is going to be powered by
biofuels, mandating the production of 36 billion gallons of ethanol by
2022. According to ethanol boosters, this is the beginning of a much
larger revolution that could entirely replace our
21-million-barrel-a-day oil addiction.


So, cleaner burning and less foreign oil. If it was a net-negative as
some claim, obviously that wouldn't work. So someone is wrong - either
biased people with a grudge writing emonionally charged rhetoric, or
it's the people investing millions or billions in the projects. I'm
guessing they've done their research.

Midwest farmers will get rich,
the air will be cleaner, the planet will be cooler, and, best of all,
we can tell those greedy sheiks to **** off. As the king of ethanol
hype, Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, put it recently, "Everything about
ethanol is good, good, good."


I'm not going to go be a chearleader for it but, what specific problem
do you have with it?

This is not just hype -- it's dangerous, delusional bull****. Ethanol
doesn't burn cleaner than gasoline,


Really? Can you show me how a complex hydrocarbon will burn more
cleanly than an alcohol? Because I'm not seeing the chemistry as being
what you describe.

nor is it cheaper.


It's a lot closer than it was 2 years ago. And, once production volumes
go up, economies of scale and process improvements will change the
equation drastically.

Our current
ethanol production represents only 3.5 percent of our gasoline
consumption -- yet it consumes twenty percent of the entire U.S. corn
crop,


Which is an elastic supply, quantity being driven by market forces. As
of course you know.

causing the price of corn to double in the last two years and
raising the threat of hunger in the Third World.


That's amazing. Sorry, "incredible" rather. According to
the Chicago Board of Trade, corn futures are currently trading at 350.
Two years ago, they were trading at 225. Not sure where you get
"double" out of that. As far as the third world goes - per the USDA at
this URL:
http://www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/M...es/Ethanol.htm
It says we're using 14% of our corn for ethanol as of 2005/06. So
that's 86% that isn't.

And the increasing
acreage devoted to corn for ethanol means less land for other staple
crops,


Wrong again. As I've mentioned at least twice, CRP programs exist and
have for decades. Land is held out of production to allow it to
rejuvinate, and to give us a strategic reserve of cropland when the
situation shows it's needed. There's a reserve of more than 36 million
acres in CRP programs at this time. Source: USDA, he
http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?a...r&topic=crp-st

If the price goes up enough to get people more than the average they're
getting at $43.00/acre/year, then they just might decide to put that
land into corn. Market forces will work it out. The sooner we push to
get this and other biofuels into production quantities that will allow
better economies of scale, the sooner it'll be less expensive than
petro-based fuels.

giving farmers in South America an incentive to carve fields out
of tropical forests that help to cool the planet and stave off global
warming.


They're doing that now already without our help.

So why bother? Because the whole point of corn ethanol is not to solve
America's energy crisis, but to generate one of the great political
boondoggles of our time. Corn is already the most subsidized crop in
America, raking in a total of $51 billion in federal handouts between
1995 and 2005 -- twice as much as wheat subsidies and four times as
much as soybeans. Ethanol itself is propped up by hefty subsidies,
including a fifty-one-cent-per-gallon tax allowance for refiners.


How much has gasoline gone up during the Iraq war?

And a
study by the International Institute for Sustainable Development found
that ethanol subsidies amount to as much as $1.38 per gallon -- about
half of ethanol's wholesale market price.


Good. Let's keep the money here. You do know that it then gets _spent_
here, right?

But as a gasoline substitute, ethanol has big problems: Its energy
density is one-third less than gasoline, which means you have to burn
more of it to get the same amount of power. It also has a nasty
tendency to absorb water, so it can't be transported in existing
pipelines and must be distributed by truck or rail, which is
tremendously inefficient.


There's water in our pipelines? Can you please provide a cite for this?
And certainly, ethanol is a drying agent - HEET and similar additives
use it. You notice that it still burns. So I'm not seeing the problem.

Nor is all ethanol created equal. In Brazil, ethanol made from sugar
cane has an energy balance of 8-to-1 -- that is, when you add up the
fossil fuels used to irrigate, fertilize, grow, transport and refine
sugar cane into ethanol, the energy output is eight times higher than
the energy inputs. That's a better deal than gasoline, which has an
energy balance of 5-to-1. In contrast, the energy balance of corn
ethanol is only 1.3-to-1 - making it practically worthless as an energy
source.


Cite for these figures, please?

"Corn ethanol is essentially a way of recycling natural gas,"
says Robert Rapier, an oil-industry engineer who runs the R-Squared
Energy Blog.


Yeah, about cites. I've been using USDA and CBOT, you're using biased
blogs. Just thought I'd point that out.

But the biggest problem with ethanol is that it steals vast swaths of
land that might be better used for growing food.


That's an outright lie. See previous CRP land reserves.

Thanks in large part to the ethanol craze, the price of beef, poultry
and pork in the United States rose more than three percent during the
first five months of this year.


Couldn't have had _anything_ to do with the rise in fuel costs which
made everything more expensive across the board, I suppose?

In Mexico, tortilla prices have jumped sixty percent, leading to food
riots. In Europe, butter prices have spiked forty percent, and pork
prices in China are up twenty percent.


Wow. So by using a whole 14% of our corn crop for ethanol, we are
responsible for all this mayhem? Oh, the humanity! Or perhaps, somoene
is ascribing more effects than just the ethanol can account for.

By 2025, according to Runge and
Senauer, rising food prices caused by the demand for ethanol and other
biofuels could cause as many as 600 million more people to go hungry
worldwide.


Corn, and other crops, are not an inelastic supply.

Dave, the world is your oyster, just crack the shell...


Got any good cites? You know, with facts? Or just pointers to more
blogs.

  #90   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default Bio-Fuels Bite the Dust


"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 12:46:26 -0500, Louis Ohland
wrote:
Search google for "bio fuel" and "boondoggle", 47,800 hits.


Right, because anything using such emotionally charged language is
_sure_ to be an accurate, unbiased reference, is that it?

Ethanol, of course, is nothing new. American refiners will produce
nearly 6 billion gallons of corn ethanol this year, mostly for use as a
gasoline additive to make engines burn cleaner. But in June, the Senate
all but announced that America's future is going to be powered by
biofuels, mandating the production of 36 billion gallons of ethanol by
2022. According to ethanol boosters, this is the beginning of a much
larger revolution that could entirely replace our
21-million-barrel-a-day oil addiction.


So, cleaner burning and less foreign oil. If it was a net-negative as
some claim, obviously that wouldn't work. So someone is wrong - either
biased people with a grudge writing emonionally charged rhetoric, or
it's the people investing millions or billions in the projects. I'm
guessing they've done their research.


Dave, the whole deal is a production of Archer Daniels Midland. Once they
developed the market and did the lobbying, independents jumped in. Now ADL,
according to _The Economist_ or the _WSJ_, I forget which, has only 20% of
the market.

But the fact is that *nobody* cared whether it was a real net-energy
producer. ADL wanted to sell more corn products. Farm-state legislators
wanted to sell more corn products, too. And the rest of the government found
themselves a terrific red herring they could use to sound like they were
doing something to combat those evil Arabs and to protect the environment at
the same time.

As far as I'm concerned, it's mostly a hoax. Even if the DOE is correct, and
there's a 20% - 30% net gain, we're still burning a hell of a lot of oil to
produce only a little more (in energy equivalents) ethanol.

This has all the earmarks of a boondoggle with big-time financial payoffs
for a few, and political payoffs for practically everyone in the US
government. It's in the same league with PV solar.

--
Ed Huntress




  #91   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 366
Default Bio-Fuels Bite the Dust


"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 10:40:01 -0400, ATP*
wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 08:47:12 -0400, ATP*
wrote:

The major problem with corn based ethanol is the energy input to make a
gallon of ethanol, which is very close to a gallon of fossil fuels.

You'll be providn' a cite for that claim, right?


http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/...ostly.ssl.html


  #92   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 382
Default Bio-Fuels Bite the Dust

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 19:07:58 -0400, ATP* wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...


You'll be providn' a cite for that claim, right?


http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/...ostly.ssl.html


Ahhh, Pimentel.

Interesting thing about Pimentel. In 1994, he co-authored a paper which
stated "Solar energy technologies, paired with energy conservation, have
the potential to meet a large portion of future US energy needs".
http://dieoff.org/page84.htm

Not sure that that's feasable. Later on, the paper says:

"Ethanol. A wide variety of starch and sugar crops, food processing
wastes, and woody materials (Lynd et al. 1991) have been evaluated as
raw materials for ethanol production. In the United States, corn appears
to be the most feasible biomass feedstock in terms of availability and
technology (Pimentel 1991)."

In this very paper, is the nugget of his that keeps getting thrown
around, 16 years later, as if it's current: "The total fossil energy
expended to produce 1 liter of ethanol from corn is 10,200 kcal, but
note that 1 liter of ethanol has an energy value of only 5130 kcal.
Thus, there is an energy imbalance causing a net energy loss.
Approximately 53% of the total cost (55¢ per liter) of producing ethanol
in a large, modern plant is for the corn raw material (Pimentel 1991)."

Yet, further in the paper, they write:
"The most promising systems rely on distillation to bring the ethanol
concentration up to 90%, and selective-membrane processes are used to
further raise the ethanol concentration to 99.5% (Maeda and Kai 1991).
The energy input for this upgrading is approximately 1280 kcal/liter. In
laboratory tests, the total input for producing a liter of ethanol can
potentially be reduced from 10,200 to 6200 kcal by using membranes, but
even then the energy balance remains negative."

So even Pimentel knows, for at least 13 years, that with 13 year old
technology, it took 6200 kcal of energy input to produce the 5130 kcal
worth of ethanol. So his very own figures show an 82.7 percent
efficiency, with 13 year old technology. Also, these figures ignore
possible cogeneration or other uses of "waste" heat, and of the material
left after the fermentation. Brewery byproducts used as cattle feed,
for instance.

Now, if we'd power the ethanol plants with nuclear-generated
electricity, then even the 17% net energy loss that existed 13 years
ago, is a lot more attractive than what we're doing now.

  #93   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default Bio-Fuels Bite the Dust


"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 19:07:58 -0400, ATP*
wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...


You'll be providn' a cite for that claim, right?


http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/...ostly.ssl.html


Ahhh, Pimentel.

Interesting thing about Pimentel. In 1994, he co-authored a paper which
stated "Solar energy technologies, paired with energy conservation, have
the potential to meet a large portion of future US energy needs".
http://dieoff.org/page84.htm

Not sure that that's feasable. Later on, the paper says:

"Ethanol. A wide variety of starch and sugar crops, food processing
wastes, and woody materials (Lynd et al. 1991) have been evaluated as
raw materials for ethanol production. In the United States, corn appears
to be the most feasible biomass feedstock in terms of availability and
technology (Pimentel 1991)."

In this very paper, is the nugget of his that keeps getting thrown
around, 16 years later, as if it's current: "The total fossil energy
expended to produce 1 liter of ethanol from corn is 10,200 kcal, but
note that 1 liter of ethanol has an energy value of only 5130 kcal.
Thus, there is an energy imbalance causing a net energy loss.
Approximately 53% of the total cost (55¢ per liter) of producing ethanol
in a large, modern plant is for the corn raw material (Pimentel 1991)."

Yet, further in the paper, they write:
"The most promising systems rely on distillation to bring the ethanol
concentration up to 90%, and selective-membrane processes are used to
further raise the ethanol concentration to 99.5% (Maeda and Kai 1991).
The energy input for this upgrading is approximately 1280 kcal/liter. In
laboratory tests, the total input for producing a liter of ethanol can
potentially be reduced from 10,200 to 6200 kcal by using membranes, but
even then the energy balance remains negative."

So even Pimentel knows, for at least 13 years, that with 13 year old
technology, it took 6200 kcal of energy input to produce the 5130 kcal
worth of ethanol. So his very own figures show an 82.7 percent
efficiency, with 13 year old technology. Also, these figures ignore
possible cogeneration or other uses of "waste" heat, and of the material
left after the fermentation. Brewery byproducts used as cattle feed,
for instance.

Now, if we'd power the ethanol plants with nuclear-generated
electricity, then even the 17% net energy loss that existed 13 years
ago, is a lot more attractive than what we're doing now.



Pimentel updated his data in 2005 and he still shows a 30% net loss.

The argument has boiled down to a question of how far you go with an energy
audit. Pimentel says you have to go all the way through the machinery costs,
the machines-to-make-the-machinery costs, and so on. His detractors, such as
Bruce Dale of Mich. State, say that violates academic standards for
scholarship on such issues.

But does it? When you close the system under consideration, as we can almost
do with petroleum, all of these arguments disappear when we measure how much
gasoline is produced, and then measure how much is purchased by consumers.
The difference is the loss, which is considerable.

When you're using petroleum and gas sources to produce ethanol, you get into
the argument over what is really a production cost (energy, as well as
dollars). The only sure way to know the answer is to close the system, so
that all of the energy costs needed to produce ethanol are fueled
by...ethanol.

If you can't do it, I think the logic is in Pimentel's favor: a great deal
of energy costs to produce ethanol get lost or passed over because petroleum
is fueling the entire support and production system, and the systems that
produce those systems, and so on ad infinitum. Take away the petroleum and
the whole thing, says Pimentel, collapses.

The DOE, academicians like Dale, and most particularly the interested
parties such as ADM and farm-state politicians gloss this over or try to
dismiss it, as Dale has tried to do with Pimentel. I find Pimentel's logic
more compelling. And with his more recent data, I think the argument over
his basic numbers goes away, too.

--
Ed Huntress


  #94   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 602
Default Bio-Fuels Bite the Dust

Hey Dan, please throw the dog a bone and give us some cites of the
efficiency of ethanol?

Ethanol Production Using Corn, Switchgrass, and Wood;
Biodiesel Production Using Soybean and Sunflower
http://www.oregon.gov/ENERGY/RENEW/B...hanol.2005.pdf

The research includes 2001, 2003 and 2005. Is that current enough?

The Ethanol Forum
http://www.oregon.gov/ENERGY/RENEW/Biomass/forum.shtml

National Corn Grower's Association
http://www.ncga.com/ethanol/main/energy.htm
"Ethanol opponents frequently cite a study by Cornell University’s Dr.
David Pimentel, who concluded that it takes 70 percent more energy to
produce ethanol than it yields. Pimentel’s findings have been
consistently refuted by USDA and other scientists who say his
methodology uses obsolete data and is fundamentally unsound."

Amazing, the USDA thinks ethanol is wonderful. As Hillary might say,
this requires one to suspend disbelief...

Dave Hinz wrote:
On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 19:07:58 -0400, ATP* wrote:
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...


You'll be providn' a cite for that claim, right?


http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/...ostly.ssl.html


Ahhh, Pimentel.

Interesting thing about Pimentel. In 1994, he co-authored a paper which
stated "Solar energy technologies, paired with energy conservation, have
the potential to meet a large portion of future US energy needs".
http://dieoff.org/page84.htm

Not sure that that's feasable. Later on, the paper says:

"Ethanol. A wide variety of starch and sugar crops, food processing
wastes, and woody materials (Lynd et al. 1991) have been evaluated as
raw materials for ethanol production. In the United States, corn appears
to be the most feasible biomass feedstock in terms of availability and
technology (Pimentel 1991)."

In this very paper, is the nugget of his that keeps getting thrown
around, 16 years later, as if it's current: "The total fossil energy
expended to produce 1 liter of ethanol from corn is 10,200 kcal, but
note that 1 liter of ethanol has an energy value of only 5130 kcal.
Thus, there is an energy imbalance causing a net energy loss.
Approximately 53% of the total cost (55¢ per liter) of producing ethanol
in a large, modern plant is for the corn raw material (Pimentel 1991)."

Yet, further in the paper, they write:
"The most promising systems rely on distillation to bring the ethanol
concentration up to 90%, and selective-membrane processes are used to
further raise the ethanol concentration to 99.5% (Maeda and Kai 1991).
The energy input for this upgrading is approximately 1280 kcal/liter. In
laboratory tests, the total input for producing a liter of ethanol can
potentially be reduced from 10,200 to 6200 kcal by using membranes, but
even then the energy balance remains negative."

So even Pimentel knows, for at least 13 years, that with 13 year old
technology, it took 6200 kcal of energy input to produce the 5130 kcal
worth of ethanol. So his very own figures show an 82.7 percent
efficiency, with 13 year old technology. Also, these figures ignore
possible cogeneration or other uses of "waste" heat, and of the material
left after the fermentation. Brewery byproducts used as cattle feed,
for instance.

Now, if we'd power the ethanol plants with nuclear-generated
electricity, then even the 17% net energy loss that existed 13 years
ago, is a lot more attractive than what we're doing now.

  #95   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default Bio-Fuels Bite the Dust


"Louis Ohland" wrote in message
...
Hey Dan, please throw the dog a bone and give us some cites of the
efficiency of ethanol?

Ethanol Production Using Corn, Switchgrass, and Wood;
Biodiesel Production Using Soybean and Sunflower
http://www.oregon.gov/ENERGY/RENEW/B...hanol.2005.pdf

The research includes 2001, 2003 and 2005. Is that current enough?


Not to mention that it cites nine other studies that indicate ethanol is a
net energy loser.


The Ethanol Forum
http://www.oregon.gov/ENERGY/RENEW/Biomass/forum.shtml

National Corn Grower's Association
http://www.ncga.com/ethanol/main/energy.htm
"Ethanol opponents frequently cite a study by Cornell University’s Dr.
David Pimentel, who concluded that it takes 70 percent more energy to
produce ethanol than it yields. Pimentel’s findings have been consistently
refuted by USDA and other scientists who say his methodology uses obsolete
data and is fundamentally unsound."


Did you read the NCGA "refutation"? It's not impressive.


Amazing, the USDA thinks ethanol is wonderful. As Hillary might say, this
requires one to suspend disbelief...


The USDA thinks ethanol is wonderful. The DOE thinks it's wonderful. George
Bush thinks it's wonderful. The whole friggin' government thinks it's
wonderful. Politically, it's a can't-lose situation for them.

--
Ed Huntress




  #96   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 382
Default Bio-Fuels Bite the Dust

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 20:02:59 -0500, Louis Ohland wrote:
Hey Dan, please throw the dog a bone and give us some cites of the
efficiency of ethanol?


It's about 25% less power dense than Gasoline, right? Should be easy
enough to google up but, cost per mile more important than volume of
product, isn't it?

National Corn Grower's Association
http://www.ncga.com/ethanol/main/energy.htm
"Ethanol opponents frequently cite a study by Cornell University’s Dr.
David Pimentel, who concluded that it takes 70 percent more energy to
produce ethanol than it yields. Pimentel’s findings have been
consistently refuted by USDA and other scientists who say his
methodology uses obsolete data and is fundamentally unsound."


Right, as I showed with a few minutes of analysis below.

Amazing, the USDA thinks ethanol is wonderful. As Hillary might say,
this requires one to suspend disbelief...


So Pimentel contradicts himself and ignores findings in his own papers
(as I cited in my last post), and his peers reject his findings, but you
choose to trust him anyway? Or, am I reading you wrong?

Can we start giving money to farmers please, and stop financing arabs?
  #97   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default Bio-Fuels Bite the Dust


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Louis Ohland" wrote in message
...
Hey Dan, please throw the dog a bone and give us some cites of the
efficiency of ethanol?

Ethanol Production Using Corn, Switchgrass, and Wood;
Biodiesel Production Using Soybean and Sunflower
http://www.oregon.gov/ENERGY/RENEW/B...hanol.2005.pdf

The research includes 2001, 2003 and 2005. Is that current enough?


Not to mention that it cites nine other studies that indicate ethanol is a
net energy loser.


The Ethanol Forum
http://www.oregon.gov/ENERGY/RENEW/Biomass/forum.shtml

National Corn Grower's Association
http://www.ncga.com/ethanol/main/energy.htm
"Ethanol opponents frequently cite a study by Cornell University's Dr.
David Pimentel, who concluded that it takes 70 percent more energy to
produce ethanol than it yields. Pimentel's findings have been
consistently refuted by USDA and other scientists who say his methodology
uses obsolete data and is fundamentally unsound."


Did you read the NCGA "refutation"? It's not impressive.


Amazing, the USDA thinks ethanol is wonderful. As Hillary might say, this
requires one to suspend disbelief...


The USDA thinks ethanol is wonderful. The DOE thinks it's wonderful.
George Bush thinks it's wonderful. The whole friggin' government thinks
it's wonderful. Politically, it's a can't-lose situation for them.


Compared to "the hydrogen economy", it is wonderful.


  #98   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default Bio-Fuels Bite the Dust


"Ken Finney" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Louis Ohland" wrote in message
...
Hey Dan, please throw the dog a bone and give us some cites of the
efficiency of ethanol?

Ethanol Production Using Corn, Switchgrass, and Wood;
Biodiesel Production Using Soybean and Sunflower
http://www.oregon.gov/ENERGY/RENEW/B...hanol.2005.pdf

The research includes 2001, 2003 and 2005. Is that current enough?


Not to mention that it cites nine other studies that indicate ethanol is
a net energy loser.


The Ethanol Forum
http://www.oregon.gov/ENERGY/RENEW/Biomass/forum.shtml

National Corn Grower's Association
http://www.ncga.com/ethanol/main/energy.htm
"Ethanol opponents frequently cite a study by Cornell University's Dr.
David Pimentel, who concluded that it takes 70 percent more energy to
produce ethanol than it yields. Pimentel's findings have been
consistently refuted by USDA and other scientists who say his
methodology uses obsolete data and is fundamentally unsound."


Did you read the NCGA "refutation"? It's not impressive.


Amazing, the USDA thinks ethanol is wonderful. As Hillary might say,
this requires one to suspend disbelief...


The USDA thinks ethanol is wonderful. The DOE thinks it's wonderful.
George Bush thinks it's wonderful. The whole friggin' government thinks
it's wonderful. Politically, it's a can't-lose situation for them.


Compared to "the hydrogen economy", it is wonderful.


WHAT "hydrogen economy"? I haven't seen one.

--
Ed Huntress


  #99   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default Bio-Fuels Bite the Dust


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Ken Finney" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Louis Ohland" wrote in message
...
Hey Dan, please throw the dog a bone and give us some cites of the
efficiency of ethanol?

Ethanol Production Using Corn, Switchgrass, and Wood;
Biodiesel Production Using Soybean and Sunflower
http://www.oregon.gov/ENERGY/RENEW/B...hanol.2005.pdf

The research includes 2001, 2003 and 2005. Is that current enough?

Not to mention that it cites nine other studies that indicate ethanol is
a net energy loser.


The Ethanol Forum
http://www.oregon.gov/ENERGY/RENEW/Biomass/forum.shtml

National Corn Grower's Association
http://www.ncga.com/ethanol/main/energy.htm
"Ethanol opponents frequently cite a study by Cornell University's Dr.
David Pimentel, who concluded that it takes 70 percent more energy to
produce ethanol than it yields. Pimentel's findings have been
consistently refuted by USDA and other scientists who say his
methodology uses obsolete data and is fundamentally unsound."

Did you read the NCGA "refutation"? It's not impressive.


Amazing, the USDA thinks ethanol is wonderful. As Hillary might say,
this requires one to suspend disbelief...

The USDA thinks ethanol is wonderful. The DOE thinks it's wonderful.
George Bush thinks it's wonderful. The whole friggin' government thinks
it's wonderful. Politically, it's a can't-lose situation for them.


Compared to "the hydrogen economy", it is wonderful.


WHAT "hydrogen economy"? I haven't seen one.


Nor, do I expect, will you ever see one. But that doesn't mean billions
won't be spent on it.



  #100   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 733
Default Bio-Fuels Bite the Dust


The USDA thinks ethanol is wonderful. The DOE thinks it's wonderful.
George Bush thinks it's wonderful. The whole friggin' government thinks
it's wonderful. Politically, it's a can't-lose situation for them.

Compared to "the hydrogen economy", it is wonderful.


WHAT "hydrogen economy"? I haven't seen one.



Nor, do I expect, will you ever see one. But that doesn't mean billions
won't be spent on it.




Actually, I thought that was a funny from Ed.

Then Ken had to ruin the joke.


TOO much reality.


  #101   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default Bio-Fuels Bite the Dust


"cavelamb himself" wrote in message
...

The USDA thinks ethanol is wonderful. The DOE thinks it's wonderful.
George Bush thinks it's wonderful. The whole friggin' government thinks
it's wonderful. Politically, it's a can't-lose situation for them.

Compared to "the hydrogen economy", it is wonderful.

WHAT "hydrogen economy"? I haven't seen one.



Nor, do I expect, will you ever see one. But that doesn't mean billions
won't be spent on it.




Actually, I thought that was a funny from Ed.

Then Ken had to ruin the joke.


TOO much reality.


Sorry. I've also heard talk of a "methane economy", and frankly, that whole
concept smells to me.



  #102   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,924
Default Bio-Fuels Bite the Dust

Ed Huntress wrote:

"Ken Finney" wrote in message
...

Compared to "the hydrogen economy", it is wonderful.


WHAT "hydrogen economy"? I haven't seen one.



Don't worry, its jut another false economy.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
  #103   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,852
Default Bio-Fuels Bite the Dust

In the landfill that was sealed where I used to live - they generated
enough gas to heat the HS pool all year long and some other park stuff.
Some places in the East I'm told are mining theirs. Rich in metals of all
sorts and naturally glass.
Martin

Martin H. Eastburn
@ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
TSRA, Life; NRA LOH & Patron Member, Golden Eagle, Patriot's Medal.
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder
IHMSA and NRA Metallic Silhouette maker & member.
http://lufkinced.com/


Gerald Miller wrote:
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 20:13:34 GMT, Rich Grise wrote:

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 07:17:36 -0400, Maxwell Lol wrote:
Gunner writes:

http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...rpc=23&sp=true
I don't have the reference, but someone told me that if we switched to
biofuel, we would starve because we would need all of the land
available to make the fuel - and there would be nothing left for food.

Just capture the methane from fermenting sewage.

Cheers!
Rich

We currently are generating electricity from methane extracted from
our landfill.
Gerry :-)}
London, Canada


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
  #104   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default Bio-Fuels Bite the Dust


"Martin H. Eastburn" wrote in message
...
In the landfill that was sealed where I used to live - they generated
enough gas to heat the HS pool all year long and some other park stuff.
Some places in the East I'm told are mining theirs. Rich in metals of all
sorts and naturally glass.
Martin


In WWII my dad was sent first to radio school at the Navy's facilities in
Washington. They fueled their bunsen burners (among other things) with the
sewer gas from a nearby sewer field. Dad said it worked fine as long as the
flame didn't go out.

--
Ed Huntress


  #105   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,154
Default Bio-Fuels Bite the Dust

On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 00:18:31 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Martin H. Eastburn" wrote in message
...
In the landfill that was sealed where I used to live - they generated
enough gas to heat the HS pool all year long and some other park stuff.
Some places in the East I'm told are mining theirs. Rich in metals of all
sorts and naturally glass.
Martin


In WWII my dad was sent first to radio school at the Navy's facilities in
Washington. They fueled their bunsen burners (among other things) with the
sewer gas from a nearby sewer field. Dad said it worked fine as long as the
flame didn't go out.


1:1 odds that some smartalec in the class deflamed it at least once a
week, eh? Ewwwwwwwww! Was anyone smart (dumb) enough to attempt
sending a flame back into the system?

--

According to our strength of character and our clarity of vision, we will
endure, we will succeed, we will have contributed something to make life
where we were and as we lived it better, brighter, and more beautiful.
-- Frank Lloyd Wright


  #106   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default Bio-Fuels Bite the Dust


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 00:18:31 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Martin H. Eastburn" wrote in message
...
In the landfill that was sealed where I used to live - they generated
enough gas to heat the HS pool all year long and some other park stuff.
Some places in the East I'm told are mining theirs. Rich in metals of
all
sorts and naturally glass.
Martin


In WWII my dad was sent first to radio school at the Navy's facilities in
Washington. They fueled their bunsen burners (among other things) with the
sewer gas from a nearby sewer field. Dad said it worked fine as long as
the
flame didn't go out.


1:1 odds that some smartalec in the class deflamed it at least once a
week, eh? Ewwwwwwwww! Was anyone smart (dumb) enough to attempt
sending a flame back into the system?


I think I last heard those stories around 50 years ago, so I don't remember
the details. I do remember that he was speaking from experience -- the
flames did go out from time to time. He said the pressure was low and
unreliable, for one thing.

He was concentrating on getting his code speed up to 26 wpm so he could get
shipboard duty, but he only got to 25 because he couldn't type and that was
as fast as he could print. So he (a Marine) wound up instead directing fire
from naval guns into the Japanese lines on Guadalcanal, from 100 yards in
front of them.

There's a good argument for learning to type, eh?

--
Ed Huntress


  #107   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 916
Default Bio-Fuels Bite the Dust

Ed Huntress wrote:

So he (a Marine) wound up instead directing fire
from naval guns into the Japanese lines on Guadalcanal, from 100 yards in
front of them.


This likely taught him the value of giving clear and precise
information....


Jon
  #108   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default Bio-Fuels Bite the Dust


"Jon Anderson" wrote in message
. ..
Ed Huntress wrote:

So he (a Marine) wound up instead directing fire from naval guns into the
Japanese lines on Guadalcanal, from 100 yards in front of them.


This likely taught him the value of giving clear and precise
information....


Oh, yeah. It also improved his sprinting skills. Along that line, he would
not use numerals when transmitting coordinates in Morse code, for that very
reason. He spelled them out.

That was not a fun job. He came up out of a trench in Guadalcanal one time,
after working the radios for communications between the ships and the
Marines on the ground, only to learn that during the time he was in the hole
the Japanese had advanced well past him. He spent the night in the reeds of
the Tenaru River, up to his nose, wondering if the crocodiles or the
Japanese would get him first.

--
Ed Huntress


  #109   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 426
Default Bio-Fuels Bite the Dust

On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 16:57:23 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 19:25:52 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, Gerald
Miller quickly quoth:
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 20:13:34 GMT, Rich Grise wrote:

Just capture the methane from fermenting sewage.

We currently are generating electricity from methane extracted from our
landfill.


Ah, but have you plumbed your cows for methane capture yet?


In theory, it's doable - just have a muzzle and butt cup at the milking
stations. ;-)

On edjamacaishunal TeeVee last night, there was a climate thing, and
they said that termites make a lot of methane, with their cellulose-
digesting bacteria in their gut.

They also make a lot of CO2, but that and CH4 should be pretty easy
to separate.

Cheers!
Rich

  #110   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 426
Default Bio-Fuels Bite the Dust

On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 00:18:31 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:
"Martin H. Eastburn" wrote in message
...
In the landfill that was sealed where I used to live - they generated
enough gas to heat the HS pool all year long and some other park stuff.
Some places in the East I'm told are mining theirs. Rich in metals of
all sorts and naturally glass.
Martin


In WWII my dad was sent first to radio school at the Navy's facilities in
Washington. They fueled their bunsen burners (among other things) with the
sewer gas from a nearby sewer field. Dad said it worked fine as long as
the flame didn't go out.


Well, it would certainly be easy to spot a leak! ;-)

Cheers!
Rich



  #111   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 426
Default Bio-Fuels Bite the Dust

On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 04:42:48 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 00:18:31 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:
"Martin H. Eastburn" wrote in message
...
In the landfill that was sealed where I used to live - they generated
enough gas to heat the HS pool all year long and some other park stuff.
Some places in the East I'm told are mining theirs. Rich in metals of
all sorts and naturally glass.


In WWII my dad was sent first to radio school at the Navy's facilities in
Washington. They fueled their bunsen burners (among other things) with
the sewer gas from a nearby sewer field. Dad said it worked fine as long
as the flame didn't go out.


1:1 odds that some smartalec in the class deflamed it at least once a
week, eh? Ewwwwwwwww! Was anyone smart (dumb) enough to attempt sending
a flame back into the system?


No, but some guy told me that once at the school where we were, some
guys put a piece of rubber tubing from the hose barb on the water
faucet to the hose barb on the gas line and turned them both on.

I guess it took some time to purge the water out of the gas lines.

Cheers!
Rich

  #112   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default Bio-Fuels Bite the Dust


"Rich Grise" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 16:57:23 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 19:25:52 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, Gerald
Miller quickly quoth:
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 20:13:34 GMT, Rich Grise wrote:

Just capture the methane from fermenting sewage.

We currently are generating electricity from methane extracted from our
landfill.


Ah, but have you plumbed your cows for methane capture yet?


In theory, it's doable - just have a muzzle and butt cup at the milking
stations. ;-)

On edjamacaishunal TeeVee last night, there was a climate thing, and
they said that termites make a lot of methane, with their cellulose-
digesting bacteria in their gut.


Somebody is doing genetic engineering with termites right now to breed a
supertermite that will really put out some methane. I wouldn't want to have
that lab near *my* house.

--
Ed Huntress


  #113   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 426
Default Bio-Fuels Bite the Dust

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 10:40:01 -0400, ATP* wrote:
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 08:47:12 -0400, ATP*
wrote:

The major problem with corn based ethanol is the energy input to make a
gallon of ethanol, which is very close to a gallon of fossil fuels.


You'll be providn' a cite for that claim, right?

Land use
issues, corn prices and pollution from agriculture are all just
additional
nails in the coffin, as far as I'm concerned. Let's admit that the
whole program is just a big give away to agribusiness and get moving on
other alternative energy sources, including nuclear.


Call it what you want, I don't care, but when you have to lie and
distort about it to make your points, it weakens your point of view's
credibility.


When you have to include insults and personal attacks in every post, you
have ZERO credibility. Address the issues, if you can.


The whole global warming thing is a crock. "Agribusiness" isn't the
culprit - they're just trying to make a buck. The problem is stupid
governments making bad policies based on bad science.

You could cease all human activity immediately, and it would have
absolutely no effect on the Sun's output, or the perturbations of
Earth's orbit, or the precession of Earth's axis. In other words, it
wouldn't make any difference.

If human-caused "global warming" has had any impact at all, it is to
postpone the next cold phase of the current ice age. I mean, if you
want to look at the big picture, you have to look at the BIG picture.

And the warmingists' "computer models" are nothing but GIGO, but
"OOh! The _Computer_ says so! It MUST be right!"

Feh.
Rich

  #114   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default Bio-Fuels Bite the Dust


"Rich Grise" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 10:40:01 -0400, ATP* wrote:
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 08:47:12 -0400, ATP*
wrote:

The major problem with corn based ethanol is the energy input to make a
gallon of ethanol, which is very close to a gallon of fossil fuels.

You'll be providn' a cite for that claim, right?

Land use
issues, corn prices and pollution from agriculture are all just
additional
nails in the coffin, as far as I'm concerned. Let's admit that the
whole program is just a big give away to agribusiness and get moving on
other alternative energy sources, including nuclear.

Call it what you want, I don't care, but when you have to lie and
distort about it to make your points, it weakens your point of view's
credibility.


When you have to include insults and personal attacks in every post, you
have ZERO credibility. Address the issues, if you can.


The whole global warming thing is a crock. "Agribusiness" isn't the
culprit - they're just trying to make a buck. The problem is stupid
governments making bad policies based on bad science.

You could cease all human activity immediately, and it would have
absolutely no effect on the Sun's output, or the perturbations of
Earth's orbit, or the precession of Earth's axis. In other words, it
wouldn't make any difference.

If human-caused "global warming" has had any impact at all, it is to
postpone the next cold phase of the current ice age. I mean, if you
want to look at the big picture, you have to look at the BIG picture.

And the warmingists' "computer models" are nothing but GIGO, but
"OOh! The _Computer_ says so! It MUST be right!"

Feh.
Rich


I'm always impressed with the number of climatologists we have here who are
ready to dismiss the work of thousands of PhDs. I'd never have guessed that
climatology leads to hobby machining. d8-)

(However, I should note that one of my neighbors, who is a PhD meteorologist
working for NOAA, agrees with you. He's currently doing some multi-century
research on climates. I'm not sure if he's a crank or not.)

--
Ed Huntress



  #115   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 852
Default Bio-Fuels Bite the Dust

On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 19:20:05 GMT, Rich Grise wrote:



The whole global warming thing is a crock. "Agribusiness" isn't the
culprit - they're just trying to make a buck. The problem is stupid
governments making bad policies based on bad science.

You could cease all human activity immediately, and it would have
absolutely no effect on the Sun's output, or the perturbations of
Earth's orbit, or the precession of Earth's axis.


But it _would_ have a major effect on the amounts of CO2, CH4, NOx in the
atmosphere and the amounts growing matter on the ground. Thus It would
prevent the human caused global warming.

In other words, it wouldn't make any difference.




If human-caused "global warming" has had any impact at all, it is to
postpone the next cold phase of the current ice age. I mean, if you
want to look at the big picture, you have to look at the BIG picture.

And the warmingists' "computer models" are nothing but GIGO, but
"OOh! The _Computer_ says so! It MUST be right!"


When do you get your Nobel Prize then?


Mark Rand
RTFM


  #116   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,224
Default Bio-Fuels Bite the Dust

On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 19:11:02 GMT, Rich Grise wrote:


No, but some guy told me that once at the school where we were, some
guys put a piece of rubber tubing from the hose barb on the water
faucet to the hose barb on the gas line and turned them both on.

I guess it took some time to purge the water out of the gas lines.

Cheers!
Rich

I think that happens in every school. I know the chemistry teacher
does a double take when he turns on the Bunsen burner and gets a
fountain.
Gerry :-)}
London, Canada
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Mice that wouldn't take the bite R Kannan Home Ownership 9 June 4th 07 08:44 AM
Third Bite of Beech George Woodturning 3 January 28th 06 09:41 PM
Don't Let The Bedbugs Bite Too_Many_Tools Metalworking 4 December 4th 05 06:41 AM
Roo Glue does NOT dry sufficiently in 90 minutes...and my negligenceearlier didn't bite me David Woodworking 3 January 7th 05 06:01 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:36 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 DIYbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"