On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 19:14:18 -0500, with neither quill nor qualm,
"Pete C." quickly quoth:

Larry Jaques wrote:

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 11:11:25 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:

Unless you're talking about wave generation, my impression of tidal is that
it's hellishly intrusive on the coastal environment. You have to dam
something up to make it work.

Am I wrong about this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_power See the section on "tidal
stream power".

--
If you turn the United States on its side,
everything loose will fall to California.
--Frank Lloyd Wright

Interesting, but it doesn't have anything on the type of tidal generator
I noted. I believe I've seen a piece on the buoy type on the science
channel, including a couple prototypes in testing.

Yeah, I was surprised at that, too. I have seen the long buoyed
section generator types, too, and they weren't mentioned. Well, that's
Wiki for ya. Go add yours, eh, Pete?

--
If you turn the United States on its side,
everything loose will fall to California.
--Frank Lloyd Wright

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 00:39:42 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm, "Pete
C." quickly quoth:

Larry Jaques wrote:

still more snippage

I'm curious to see the outcome of the FedEX solar experiment in
Oakland. 904kW of solar covering 81k feet of roof.

Haven't seen anything about that. Sounds interesting. Key thing being
utilizing existing roof space to avoid the environmental impact of the
attempts at utility scale solar.

http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com...story?id=17154


even more snippage
I've always tried to double/tripletask my trips. Whenever I'm in town,
I shop on the way to or from home, saving at least one trip if not
more each time. Keeping a running list of items I need with me in the
truck helps. I add to and scratch off items each time.

Same here for the longer trips. When I visit the office about about 60
miles away about once a month I schedule that to coincide with a number
of other activities in the area.

Oh, yeah. Whenever I need to go to Medford, I hit the Target, Costco,
Harbor Freight, Michaels, the ITEX (my barter group) warehouse, and
whatever else I need there while I'm there. It's only a half hour
drive, but that's $10 in gas, so I make it count, make a day of it.
I sometimes stop in Phoenix and Ashland on those trips, too. Home
Depot finally put a store nearby (28 miles is closer than the old 100
mile distance. I used to mail order things instead.)


The additional taxes and insurance on a second vehicle, not to mention
the vehicle cost itself would make such a second vehicle a money pit, so
until something is done to reform taxes and insurance, expect to see me
grocery shopping in a 7,000# truck.

I'm pleasantly surprised that my new truck will cost only $250 more in
insurance per year than my old '90 F-150. The value difference is
about $25k.

My point was the additional cost for a second vehicle in taxes and
insurance, which in my case would substantially exceed the potential gas
savings.

Right. My insurance statement was more of an aside than an addition to
the thread context. I was very happy to hear it.


more snippage

Do you think lessons will ever be learned? Look at thousands of years of
history and the same problems occurring over and over and over again.
Lessons are never learned for any appreciable length of time, they may
be learned in the short term but are rapidly lost on successive
generations.

Good question. Look at the "leadership" we have and the corruption of
our gov't., yet people still vote for the same thugs every year. deep
sigh

Yes, the same thugs of either party. They may be at opposite ends of the
spectrum, but they both still suck.

100%, minimum.

--
If you turn the United States on its side,
everything loose will fall to California.
--Frank Lloyd Wright

On Sep 12, 6:17 am, Maxwell Lol wrote:
Gunner writes:
http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...inessNews&stor...

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.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics... _boondoggles

According to this: Ethonal accounts for 3.5 percent of our gas
consumption currently, And uses 20 percent of the Corn Crop.

They don't cite where they got their numbers though.

"Ned Simmons" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 11:31:29 -0500, "Pete C."
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message


The tidal generation I'm referring to involves no dams and no waves,
it
is based on solidly anchored buoys. When the tidal level lowers the
buoy
anchor cable retracts into the buoy to remain tight to the ocean
floor.
When the tide comes in the buoyancy of the buoy produces tremendous
tension on the anchor cable which is used to spin the generator as the
buoy slowly rises (and the anchor cable extends) until the tide maxes
out. There were some recent innovations in this design that simplified
it and improved efficiency.

At any rate, a low profile buoy bobbing up and down with the tide has
extremely low environmental impact and there is a massive amount of
available energy at high densities waiting to be captured.

That certainly sounds interesting, and it sounds extremely simple. Why
don't
we have them now?

'Cause we're stupid???


I think there's a bit more to it than that. Here on the Gulf of Maine
we're probably positioned better than the vast majority of the rest of
the world to take advantage of such a scheme - tides of approx 10 ft
amplitude, deep water close to shore and only rare tropical storms.
With two daily tides there's about 20 ft of rise available per day. In
our house we use a modest 10 kwh of electricity per day which equals
2.7 x 10^7 ft*lb. Divide by 20 ft and you need 680 tons of force to
generate that much power. That translates to buoy of 22000 ft^3. If
the water's deep enough, that's a buoy 100 ft tall x 17 ft in
diameter.

Another way to look at it is the displacement of one of the Aegis
destroyers, built in the next town, would be enough to power about 4
small homes.

If the tides are the more typical 2 or 3 feet, 100 foot deep water is
far from shore and hurricanes are a regular occurrence, the problems
are compounded

--
Ned Simmons

I'm glad to see that confirmed. After discussing it today I tried some
numbers from the other end. With 6-ft. tides, a float the size of a 55-gal
drum would generate roughly 2 Watt-hours per day. Sheesh. It would take a
float equivalent to almost 1,000 barrels to power one house.

--
Ed Huntress

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 11:31:29 -0500, "Pete C."
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
snip

Unless you're talking about wave generation, my impression of tidal is
that
it's hellishly intrusive on the coastal environment. You have to dam
something up to make it work.

Am I wrong about this?

The tidal generation I'm referring to involves no dams and no waves, it
is based on solidly anchored buoys. When the tidal level lowers the buoy
anchor cable retracts into the buoy to remain tight to the ocean floor.
When the tide comes in the buoyancy of the buoy produces tremendous
tension on the anchor cable which is used to spin the generator as the
buoy slowly rises (and the anchor cable extends) until the tide maxes
out. There were some recent innovations in this design that simplified
it and improved efficiency.

At any rate, a low profile buoy bobbing up and down with the tide has
extremely low environmental impact and there is a massive amount of
available energy at high densities waiting to be captured.

That certainly sounds interesting, and it sounds extremely simple. Why don't
we have them now?

'Cause we're stupid???

Also, they aren't flashy, easy to show off PR items like wind turbines
and solar panels.


The Japanese did some experiments in both this application and wave
powered bouy generators some forty years ago. Nothing was heard after
the opening announcements so it probably wasn't effective.

Given that the Japanese import essentially all of their energy I
believe that if a simple method of producing electricity was available
they would use it.

By the way, the most productive tidal generating plant is on the Rance
river in France. Built in the 1960s and producing 240 MWs.


Bruce in Bangkok
(brucepaigeATgmailDOTcom)

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 21:11:09 -0400, Ned Simmons
wrote:

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 11:31:29 -0500, "Pete C."
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message


The tidal generation I'm referring to involves no dams and no waves, it
is based on solidly anchored buoys. When the tidal level lowers the buoy
anchor cable retracts into the buoy to remain tight to the ocean floor.
When the tide comes in the buoyancy of the buoy produces tremendous
tension on the anchor cable which is used to spin the generator as the
buoy slowly rises (and the anchor cable extends) until the tide maxes
out. There were some recent innovations in this design that simplified
it and improved efficiency.

At any rate, a low profile buoy bobbing up and down with the tide has
extremely low environmental impact and there is a massive amount of
available energy at high densities waiting to be captured.

That certainly sounds interesting, and it sounds extremely simple. Why don't
we have them now?

'Cause we're stupid???


I think there's a bit more to it than that. Here on the Gulf of Maine
we're probably positioned better than the vast majority of the rest of
the world to take advantage of such a scheme - tides of approx 10 ft
amplitude, deep water close to shore and only rare tropical storms.
With two daily tides there's about 20 ft of rise available per day. In
our house we use a modest 10 kwh of electricity per day which equals
2.7 x 10^7 ft*lb. Divide by 20 ft and you need 680 tons of force to
generate that much power. That translates to buoy of 22000 ft^3. If
the water's deep enough, that's a buoy 100 ft tall x 17 ft in
diameter.

Another way to look at it is the displacement of one of the Aegis
destroyers, built in the next town, would be enough to power about 4
small homes.

If the tides are the more typical 2 or 3 feet, 100 foot deep water is
far from shore and hurricanes are a regular occurrence, the problems
are compounded

Some times in the 1960's there was a Maine state referendum to build a
tidal powered power station. Was all the local newspapers talked about
for nearly a month.

There were hordes of people ranging from lobster fishermen to collage
professors arguing pros and cons for weeks.

The motion was defeated and my impression, as an outsider, was that
whether tidal power is really practical, or not, is a far from simple
question.


Bruce in Bangkok
(brucepaigeATgmailDOTcom)

In article ,
"Pete C." wrote:

I see Soccer Moms everywhere, by themselves, in SUBURBANS (8mpg?) etc.
when they could be using electric vehicles for town driving 4x a day.
I hope more convert.

Some will eventually, when the economics become reasonable. As I noted
in another post, taxes and insurance currently make having a second high
MPG / electric vehicle a money pit, even with purchase subsidies.

If I have 2 vehicles why should I have to pay extra taxes & insurance on
both since I can only drive one at a time?

Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 05:00:23 -0000, wrote:
On Sep 12, 6:17 am, Maxwell Lol wrote:

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.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics... _boondoggles
According to this: Ethonal accounts for 3.5 percent of our gas
consumption currently, And uses 20 percent of the Corn Crop.

Of which year's? The nice thing about crops, is they can change
proportions of one to the other year to year. And, if the price gets
attractive enough to grow, lots of folks who have land in CRP programs
will decide to take 'em out - which is what CRP is for in the first
place.

They don't cite where they got their numbers though.

Of course they don't. But pretending that the corn supply is inelastic,
or that corn is the only/best way to make methanol, are two problems
with that particular point of view.

Trevor Jones wrote:
nick hull wrote:

Hemp is one of the most efficient plants and grows in poor soil
unsuited for food. The Constitution is written on hemp paper and the
founding fathers wore hemp clothing

Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/


...and if they smoked enough of it, eventually, their heads would start
to spin from breathing in all that carbon monoxide from the burning,
while the smoke would probably start clogging up their lungs.

The stuff that is grown for fiber and oil these days, is selected for
production of "other" than THC content.

Cheers
Trevor Jones


As a quick aside to this...

Do you US Americans still have blanket coverage laws against the
growing of hemp on the books, or have those been relaxed at all?

I recall reading somewhere that the law would have to be changed to
grow hemp at all. Could be wrong.

In Canada, there are a pile of regulatory hoops to jump through to
grow Hemp, but it can be done. There is much monitoring and analysis of
product, and getting it to market is a bit of a challenge, as there are
few users on an industrial footing. But it can be done. Legally.

Cheers
Trevor Jones

Ed Huntress wrote:



I'm glad to see that confirmed. After discussing it today I tried some
numbers from the other end. With 6-ft. tides, a float the size of a 55-gal
drum would generate roughly 2 Watt-hours per day. Sheesh. It would take a
float equivalent to almost 1,000 barrels to power one house.

--
Ed Huntress



Or more to the point, it would take 1000 floating barrels, all hooked
up to some means of converting mechanical, low speed input, into a
useful or transportable form, in order to get it to the grid.

Add to that, the propensity for weed growth on any fixed object in the
water, and it becomes a money sink to maintain.

The energy is there, sorta like a herd of teenagers. Extracting it in
a usefull manner is the puzzler.

Cheers
Trevor Jones

wrote:

On Sep 12, 6:17 am, Maxwell Lol wrote:

Gunner writes:

http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...inessNews&stor...

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.


http://www.rollingstone.com/politics... _boondoggles

According to this: Ethonal accounts for 3.5 percent of our gas
consumption currently, And uses 20 percent of the Corn Crop.

They don't cite where they got their numbers though.

And what is the portion of the corn crop used for ethanol, that is
grown for ethanol?

The statistic is meaningless, but looks important.

Sorta along the lines of wailing "Fifty percent of graduating students
have below average marks!"

Cheers
Trevor Jones

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 15:15:39 -0500, erik litchy
wrote:

you know there is a surplus of sugar in cuba that is ideal for bio fuels?

There is currently research happening that use the enzymes found in
termite intestine that break down cellulose into simple sugars which
are then fermented into alcohols.

Good use for grass clippings, leaves, waster paper etc.

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 20:28:50 -0700, Gunner
wrote:



http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...rpc=23&sp=true

The significant problems we face cannot be solved by the same level of
thinking that created them.
- Albert Einstein
--

Boris Mohar



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Sep 13, 6:56 am, Dave Hinz wrote:
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 05:00:23 -0000, wrote:
On Sep 12, 6:17 am, Maxwell Lol wrote:
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.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics..._ethanol_scam_...
According to this: Ethonal accounts for 3.5 percent of our gas
consumption currently, And uses 20 percent of the Corn Crop.

Of which year's? The nice thing about crops, is they can change
proportions of one to the other year to year. And, if the price gets
attractive enough to grow, lots of folks who have land in CRP programs
will decide to take 'em out - which is what CRP is for in the first
place.

Ok, I did some digging. USDA states that we harvested 70.6 Million
acres of corn (Planting 78.3) in 2006 and averaged 149.1 Bushels Per
Acre.
That comes out to 10.5 Billion Bushels.

Ethonal industry claimes that it can output 5.6 Billion Gallons per
year as of the close of 2006. (It only output 4.9 in 2006, but I'll
use the 5.6 as the current number)

Inustry average of 2.7 Gallons per bushel. This is the highest number
I could find. Others where between 2.5 and 2.6.
Divide and you get 2,074,074,0742,074,074,074
Or 2.1 Billion Bushels used == 20% of the crop.


They don't cite where they got their numbers though.

Of course they don't. But pretending that the corn supply is inelastic,
or that corn is the only/best way to make methanol, are two problems
with that particular point of view.

2007 numbers from the USDA state:
92.8 Billion acres planted, 85.4 Harvested, averaging 155.8 Bushels/
Acre
That gives us 13.3 Billion Bushels.

Ethanol is estimated to output 9 billion gallons this year with the
addition of 53 new or expanded plants.

Giving some points to the gallon/bushel conversion for improvements,
lets say 3 gallons/bushel (just over a 10% improvement which is
nothing to scoff at). Easy to divide this time so we get 3 billion
bushels. Or 22% of the crop.

We averaged 140 Billion Gallons of gas in 2004. With an outlook of
146 Billion Gallons for 2006. (DOE Website sucks, so I stop the
digging there). So lets call 2007 148 Billion gallons just to have a
safe number (less increase than the average 3 billion/year between
2004 and 2006, thank god for the Smart car!).

I'm all for alternative energy, and I don't claim that Corn is the
only Ethenol source. However thats the current main source for US
Ethanol. Hopefully it changes for the better with good research.

The only time Americans will get onboard with alternative energy is when
they have to hitch oxen to pull their oversized SUV's around, and they have
to use candles to light their homes, derived from their liposuctioned obese
fat asses.

Crude oil hit a record $80 per bbl today, with not even any major war/crisis
interupting oil flow. I can't wait till it goes over $200/bbl, and it costs
$10 per gallon for regular gas.

Americans dont want alternative energy (to much hassle, raises the price of
doritos), don't want windmills (spoils my view/noise/kills birds), don't
want nukes (too dangerous). They do want cheap energy from the all you can
eat buffet, and not in their backyard (NIMBY), while they use the atmosphere
as the CO2 dumping ground.

In the years to come, as we are on the downhill ride from peak oil & gas
production, reality is going to be a cruel surprise, and there will be so
much CO2 released that our planet will become Venusian.


"Gunner" wrote in message
news


http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...rpc=23&sp=true

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 20:01:20 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm,
"Tony" quickly quoth:

The only time Americans will get onboard with alternative energy is when
they have to hitch oxen to pull their oversized SUV's around, and they have
to use candles to light their homes, derived from their liposuctioned obese
fat asses.

Crude oil hit a record $80 per bbl today, with not even any major war/crisis
interupting oil flow. I can't wait till it goes over $200/bbl, and it costs
$10 per gallon for regular gas.

Americans dont want alternative energy (to much hassle, raises the price of
doritos), don't want windmills (spoils my view/noise/kills birds), don't
want nukes (too dangerous). They do want cheap energy from the all you can
eat buffet, and not in their backyard (NIMBY), while they use the atmosphere
as the CO2 dumping ground.

In the years to come, as we are on the downhill ride from peak oil & gas
production, reality is going to be a cruel surprise, and there will be so
much CO2 released that our planet will become Venusian.

You forgot to say "Kumbaya" after that silly rant, ya putz.

--
I think this is the crux of the global warming media hype (not some of
the science). Gobal warming research and it's ugly step-sister, the
media, are a business. They will only feed frenzy that adds to their
business. Hence, the lack of talk about your cold and snowy western
weather, lack of hurricanes in '06, etc. The only things that will
be brought up are those that will "help" their cause and industry.
Do something for something we KNOW about, like the kid down the
street that needs a home, etc. Don't try to help for something
that we are trying (ridiculously) to predict will be a problem
100-200years from now!!
Thanks,

A Liberal, Environmentally Friendly, Global Warming, Anti-Hype Lad
James, 11Jan07 on Weather Channel's "One Degree" hype site

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 20:01:20 -0400, Tony wrote:
The only time Americans will get onboard with alternative energy is when
they have to hitch oxen to pull their oversized SUV's around, and they have
to use candles to light their homes, derived from their liposuctioned obese
fat asses.

I am on board with alternative energy, I don't have an SUV, I don't need
candles for my house (I have been replacing incandescants with CF's
though), and my ass isn't particularly wobbly. So I'd say that your
assumption is dead wrong.

Crude oil hit a record $80 per bbl today, with not even any major war/crisis
interupting oil flow.

Hurricanes don't exist in your world? Because in _this_ world, 2 of 'em
got knocked offline by Humberto or whatever it's called.

I can't wait till it goes over $200/bbl, and it costs
$10 per gallon for regular gas.

Sooner we start subsidizing biofuels the better. Let's get the
economies of scale going now, before it's a real crisis.

Americans dont want alternative energy (to much hassle, raises the price of
doritos), don't want windmills (spoils my view/noise/kills birds), don't
want nukes (too dangerous).

I question why you feel you're qualified to speak for Americans. This
one disagrees with nearly all you claim I believe.

They do want cheap energy from the all you can
eat buffet, and not in their backyard (NIMBY), while they use the atmosphere
as the CO2 dumping ground.

Yawn. Got anything useful? Because you're kind of stuck in a rut here.

In the years to come, as we are on the downhill ride from peak oil & gas
production, reality is going to be a cruel surprise, and there will be so
much CO2 released that our planet will become Venusian.

See, it's alarmist language like this that makes it impossible to take
your type seriously.

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 20:01:20 -0400, "Tony"
wrote:
snip
Crude oil hit a record $80 per bbl today, with not even any major war/crisis
interupting oil flow. I can't wait till it goes over $200/bbl, and it costs
$10 per gallon for regular gas.
snip
The flip side of the run-up in oil price is the slip in the value
of the US dollar v the Euro/Pound/Yen etc.

When the price of oil is charted in terms of the Euro/Pound/Yen
and yes gold, there is no spike.

The importance of the oil producers divesting their dollar
denominated securities and beginning to price their oil in Euros
and Yen should now be apparent.


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
============
Merchants have no country.
The mere spot they stand on
does not constitute so strong an attachment
as that from which they draw their gains.

Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826),
U.S. president. Letter, 17 March 1814.

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

Sooner we start subsidizing biofuels the better. Let's get the
economies of scale going now, before it's a real crisis.

WRT corn derived ethanol, I think the economies of scale have been going for
a while. Archer Daniels Midland is just laughing all the way to the bank
with the taxpayer's money, with no net gain to the environment, considering
the amount of fossil fuels needed to produce and distill the corn.

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 22:32:58 -0400, ATP* wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

Sooner we start subsidizing biofuels the better. Let's get the
economies of scale going now, before it's a real crisis.

WRT corn derived ethanol, I think the economies of scale have been going for
a while. Archer Daniels Midland is just laughing all the way to the bank
with the taxpayer's money, with no net gain to the environment, considering
the amount of fossil fuels needed to produce and distill the corn.

Sorry, did I seem to restrict my suggestion to just ADM and ethanol? My
bad. I meant it to mean "subsidizing biofuels". Oh look. Just like I
said and you quoted.

The last time you filled your tank did you hand the station attendant euro's
or yen?


"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 20:01:20 -0400, "Tony"
wrote:
snip
Crude oil hit a record $80 per bbl today, with not even any major
war/crisis
interupting oil flow. I can't wait till it goes over $200/bbl, and it
costs
$10 per gallon for regular gas.
snip
The flip side of the run-up in oil price is the slip in the value
of the US dollar v the Euro/Pound/Yen etc.

When the price of oil is charted in terms of the Euro/Pound/Yen
and yes gold, there is no spike.

The importance of the oil producers divesting their dollar
denominated securities and beginning to price their oil in Euros
and Yen should now be apparent.


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
============
Merchants have no country.
The mere spot they stand on
does not constitute so strong an attachment
as that from which they draw their gains.

Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826),
U.S. president. Letter, 17 March 1814.

I think this is the crux of the global warming media hype (not some of
the science). Gobal warming research and it's ugly step-sister, the
media, are a business. They will only feed frenzy that adds to their
business. Hence, the lack of talk about your cold and snowy western
weather, lack of hurricanes in '06, etc. The only things that will
be brought up are those that will "help" their cause and industry.
Do something for something we KNOW about, like the kid down the
street that needs a home, etc. Don't try to help for something
that we are trying (ridiculously) to predict will be a problem
100-200years from now!!

It's a fact that CO2 traps heat. (That's why Venus's surface temperature is
800F degrees).

It's a fact the Polar ice caps are significantly smaller today then they
were 100 years ago.

It's a fact every glacier in the world has retreated, and many glaciers will
be gone in the coming years.

It's a fact fossil fuel burning is at a peak in all history, somewhere
around 80 million barrels per day, with demand on a upwards curve. That's
like 70 Exxon Valdez size supertankers of oil being burned every day, seven
days per week, around the clock, for decades. And that's oil only, coal &
natural gas are on top of this.

The kid down the street is gonna need a new home due to flooding when the
Appalachians become beachfront property.

WRT corn derived ethanol, I think the economies of scale have been going
for a while. Archer Daniels Midland is just laughing all the way to the
bank with the taxpayer's money, with no net gain to the environment,
considering the amount of fossil fuels needed to produce and distill the
corn.

Your worried about ADM? How about Exxon Mobil laughing all the way to the
bank. And OPEC. And a assortment of dictatorial regimes propped up with
petrodollars.

Subsidizing? No fuel is subsidized more heavily that oil/gas. From
sweetheart deals for drilling leases, to special tax structures (Master
Limited Partnerships), to several Carrier task groups to protect the Persian
gulf waterways. How many trillions is the US spending on Iraq since 1991? No
Americans have died protecting corn fields. Don't forget the environmental
damage (EPA, DEC Superfund sites) to clean up oil spills all over the place.
How much does this cost?

In article qB9Gi.61954$vP5.48684@edtnps90,
Trevor Jones wrote:

Do you US Americans still have blanket coverage laws against the
growing of hemp on the books, or have those been relaxed at all?

In America you can grow all the hemp you want by paying the $1/acre tax.
Now try finding A bureaurat who will accept that tax payment

Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/

In article , "Tony"
wrote:

It's a fact that CO2 traps heat. (That's why Venus's surface temperature is
800F degrees).

More likely Venus's thick atmosphere simply slowed its cooling from
initial formation. Hard to get much greenhouse effect when Venus's
clouds reflect almost all the light and heat from the Sun.

It's a fact the Polar ice caps are significantly smaller today then they
were 100 years ago.

We were still in the "little ice age" when this country was founded, it
should be no surprise things have warmed up. Still not as warm as the
medieval warm period.

It's a fact every glacier in the world has retreated, and many glaciers will
be gone in the coming years.

Has happened before, and the world will panic (again) when the glaciers
expand again as they did in the 'little ice age'

Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 22:32:58 -0400, ATP*
wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

Sooner we start subsidizing biofuels the better. Let's get the
economies of scale going now, before it's a real crisis.

WRT corn derived ethanol, I think the economies of scale have been going
for
a while. Archer Daniels Midland is just laughing all the way to the bank
with the taxpayer's money, with no net gain to the environment,
considering
the amount of fossil fuels needed to produce and distill the corn.

Sorry, did I seem to restrict my suggestion to just ADM and ethanol? My
bad. I meant it to mean "subsidizing biofuels". Oh look. Just like I
said and you quoted.

Subsidizing biofuels that don't help the environment doesn't make sense.
That's my point.

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 07:40:01 -0400, ATP* wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 22:32:58 -0400, ATP*
wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

Sooner we start subsidizing biofuels the better. Let's get the
economies of scale going now, before it's a real crisis.

WRT corn derived ethanol, I think the economies of scale have been going
for
a while. Archer Daniels Midland is just laughing all the way to the bank
with the taxpayer's money, with no net gain to the environment,
considering
the amount of fossil fuels needed to produce and distill the corn.

Sorry, did I seem to restrict my suggestion to just ADM and ethanol? My
bad. I meant it to mean "subsidizing biofuels". Oh look. Just like I
said and you quoted.

Subsidizing biofuels that don't help the environment doesn't make sense.
That's my point.

I see. So you respond to my point with a subset of the technology to
refute what I said. Then when I challenge said tactic you reinforce it
by repeating it. Interesting tactic you have there. You might want to
try logic and coherence and see how that would work for you, because
this one, well, not so much.

Now then. Can we start giving money to farmers instead of arabs,
please?

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 07:40:01 -0400, ATP*
wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 22:32:58 -0400, ATP*
wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

Sooner we start subsidizing biofuels the better. Let's get the
economies of scale going now, before it's a real crisis.

WRT corn derived ethanol, I think the economies of scale have been
going
for
a while. Archer Daniels Midland is just laughing all the way to the
bank
with the taxpayer's money, with no net gain to the environment,
considering
the amount of fossil fuels needed to produce and distill the corn.

Sorry, did I seem to restrict my suggestion to just ADM and ethanol? My
bad. I meant it to mean "subsidizing biofuels". Oh look. Just like I
said and you quoted.

Subsidizing biofuels that don't help the environment doesn't make sense.
That's my point.

I see. So you respond to my point with a subset of the technology to
refute what I said. Then when I challenge said tactic you reinforce it
by repeating it. Interesting tactic you have there. You might want to
try logic and coherence and see how that would work for you, because
this one, well, not so much.

Now then. Can we start giving money to farmers instead of arabs,
please?

I have to spell it out point by point? You need to refine your broad support
for "subsidizing biofuels" so that it is not just a subsidy to corn
producers at the expense of the environment and the economy. You made no
distinction as to the type of biofuel, therefore, it was your post that was
imprecise and promoted bad policy.

"Pete C." wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote:

still more snippage

I'm curious to see the outcome of the FedEX solar experiment in
Oakland. 904kW of solar covering 81k feet of roof.

Haven't seen anything about that. Sounds interesting. Key thing being
utilizing existing roof space to avoid the environmental impact of the
attempts at utility scale solar.


even more snippage

Don't know about Fedex, but last I knew the ones on Moscone Center,
and the Alameda county Jail roofs were doing just fine.

jk

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 08:29:31 -0400, "ATP*"
wrote:


"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 07:40:01 -0400, ATP*
wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 22:32:58 -0400, ATP*
wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

Sooner we start subsidizing biofuels the better. Let's get the
economies of scale going now, before it's a real crisis.

WRT corn derived ethanol, I think the economies of scale have been
going
for
a while. Archer Daniels Midland is just laughing all the way to the
bank
with the taxpayer's money, with no net gain to the environment,
considering
the amount of fossil fuels needed to produce and distill the corn.

Sorry, did I seem to restrict my suggestion to just ADM and ethanol? My
bad. I meant it to mean "subsidizing biofuels". Oh look. Just like I
said and you quoted.

Subsidizing biofuels that don't help the environment doesn't make sense.
That's my point.

I see. So you respond to my point with a subset of the technology to
refute what I said. Then when I challenge said tactic you reinforce it
by repeating it. Interesting tactic you have there. You might want to
try logic and coherence and see how that would work for you, because
this one, well, not so much.

Now then. Can we start giving money to farmers instead of arabs,
please?

I have to spell it out point by point? You need to refine your broad support
for "subsidizing biofuels" so that it is not just a subsidy to corn
producers at the expense of the environment and the economy. You made no
distinction as to the type of biofuel, therefore, it was your post that was
imprecise and promoted bad policy.

--------

There is another point, the apparent mistrust of consumers for
"Gasohol", for want of a better word.

Some time in the 1990's I had some dealings with the Philippine
National Oil Company who were, at the time, pushing the use of
gasoline/alcohol mixes as a solution of the Philippine's high fuel
costs. While there I met a gentleman who was the secretary of the
"Gasohol Committee" and discussed the program with him.

He stated that even though the Marcos government was cooperating by
restricting sale of gasoline on certain days to try and convert
consumers to the idea of using gasohol it was not a success and most
consumers just wouldn't use it although it was cheaper then gasoline.

The same thing seems to be happening here in Thailand with sale of
"gasohol" falling far below expected volumes, to the extent that one
of the big agricultural conglomerates has announced that they are
stopping the building of a second ethanol plant as the demand was not
high enough.



Bruce in Bangkok
(brucepaigeATgmailDOTcom)

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 08:29:31 -0400, ATP* wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

I see. So you respond to my point with a subset of the technology to
refute what I said. Then when I challenge said tactic you reinforce it
by repeating it. Interesting tactic you have there. You might want to
try logic and coherence and see how that would work for you, because
this one, well, not so much.
Now then. Can we start giving money to farmers instead of arabs,
please?

I have to spell it out point by point? You need to refine your broad support
for "subsidizing biofuels" so that it is not just a subsidy to corn
producers at the expense of the environment and the economy.

I didn't specify corn ethanol, you did.

You made no
distinction as to the type of biofuel, therefore, it was your post that was
imprecise and promoted bad policy.

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.

That's the whole point of the land-bank program. You know that of
course, right?

In article ,
wrote:

[snip]
--------

There is another point, the apparent mistrust of consumers for
"Gasohol", for want of a better word.

Some time in the 1990's I had some dealings with the Philippine
National Oil Company who were, at the time, pushing the use of
gasoline/alcohol mixes as a solution of the Philippine's high fuel
costs. While there I met a gentleman who was the secretary of the
"Gasohol Committee" and discussed the program with him.

He stated that even though the Marcos government was cooperating by
restricting sale of gasoline on certain days to try and convert
consumers to the idea of using gasohol it was not a success and most
consumers just wouldn't use it although it was cheaper then gasoline.

The same thing seems to be happening here in Thailand with sale of
"gasohol" falling far below expected volumes, to the extent that one
of the big agricultural conglomerates has announced that they are
stopping the building of a second ethanol plant as the demand was not
high enough.

What are the claimed and/or actual reasons for the consumer resistance
to gasahol both in the Philippines and in Thailand? There has to be a
story here.

Joe Gwinn

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

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

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?

--
Who is John Galt?

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 08:29:31 -0400, ATP*
wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

I see. So you respond to my point with a subset of the technology to
refute what I said. Then when I challenge said tactic you reinforce it
by repeating it. Interesting tactic you have there. You might want to
try logic and coherence and see how that would work for you, because
this one, well, not so much.
Now then. Can we start giving money to farmers instead of arabs,
please?

I have to spell it out point by point? You need to refine your broad
support
for "subsidizing biofuels" so that it is not just a subsidy to corn
producers at the expense of the environment and the economy.

I didn't specify corn ethanol, you did.

You made no
distinction as to the type of biofuel, therefore, it was your post that
was
imprecise and promoted bad policy.

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. 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.

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?
I wonder, has anyone tried Bean-o on cows? Or is it even still around?
Gerry :-)}
London, Canada

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

yeah, and poisoning the groundwater with MTBE spills and leaks (which was
replaced with ethanol) was better for the environment?

On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 23:59:07 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm,
Gerald Miller quickly quoth:

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?

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

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


Or is it even still around?

It's still around. I bought some a couple years ago before learning
that your body gets used to legumes and stops farting after a few days
of them being in your diet.

--
Who is John Galt?

"Tony" wrote in message
...
Even if the corn is FREE it's a bad deal for the environment.

yeah, and poisoning the groundwater with MTBE spills and leaks (which was
replaced with ethanol) was better for the environment?

That's a different issue than the idea of replacing fossil-based fuels with
biofuels. MTBE was a bad idea, but ethanol as an additive to decrease
pollution is also controversial, because it increases certain emissions.
It's quite possible that no oxygenating additive would be preferable, or
some alternative formulation would be better.

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. 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.