Posted on 06/27/2005 5:52:42 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
I was called a fraud and a crimminal here once because I use solar powered lights around my lawn. I think the worst part was the fact that I have promoted them to my neighbors around the lake and they're popping up all over the place.
have you considered that it's popular because in the case of ethanol it's true?
All well known - ADM/Bob Dole/Kongress is more of a criminal conspiracy to defraud the taxpayer than it is anything else. Bovard is always dead on with his facts.
I'm not the least bit surprised. When it comes to energy policy I really don't know why I'm a republican. When the price of gas goes up, the classical Rush Limbaugian Republican demands more and cheaper oil while defending his Chevy Suburban. The idea of driving a smaller car only makes them feel shame as they hear Rush's parody "In a Yugo" go through their minds.
Try being pro windpower and anti nuke around here. ;-\
It makes one a little discouraged with "conservatives" to whom the idea of conservation is foreign.
It appears that your link is back to this thread?
Gosh a San Fransisco geology professor publishes a study on an agronomic subject and this board treats it like the gospel.
They should be thankfull because my small use of solar power helps to reduce demand on other sources. Personally I wish there was enough local private money to build a small hydro plant at the damsite in my little town. After powering the 75 or 100 homes there would likely be a surplus to be sold into the grid.
Next thing you know some of the ludites will be screaming that there is nothing wrong with cars that can't be solved with a V8 engine. the Prisus costs more than it sells for in the market place, but 10 years from now, like a PC, the price will be lower and the technology better.
In 1982 a $14,000 Xerox word processor was not cost effective, but it was part of a tech change. At the advanced stage everyone who did not play the tech/ethanol game will cry that the market is unfair. Plants running on coal, trukey parts or nuclear will make the cost reasonable. - /rant off
It actually requires considerably more energy from fossil fuel to produce that it delivers. I didn't know that the Socialist Club Sierra club was against it.
Please ignore the weird stuff in post 50. My cut and paste went wild.
Solar panels make them think of "kooks" with pony tails and tie-dyed shirts who "want us to live in caves" and the obvious fact that everyone knows Rush wouldn't approve. Therefore they are bad. By the way, I've recently been reminded by God about the power of prayer. I prayed for windpower to grow in this country, especially in Iowa and suddenly, Clipper wind is building an assembly plant right here in Cedar Rapids!!!
Ethanol is just another farm subsidy.
Ethanol can be produced with 1 gallon of fuel yielding 6 gallons using a genetically engineered microbe that ferments five-carbon sugars (corn stalks) and using standard fermentation for the six-carbon sugars (corn kernels).
The analysis that was done only evaluates the conversion of 6-carbon sugars (i.e. sugars in the corn kernel) to ethanol via standard fermentation. Taking into consideration the fuel consumed for plowing, planting, harvesting, + processing, you consume more fuel than you produce.
However, there is a genetically engineered microbe (see patent #3000000 - landmark patent granted by the Commerce Department) that eats five carbon sugars that changes this balance so 1 gallon of fuel can yield six. In fact, you don
't even need to grow corn - you can let a field grow switch grass and convert the switch grass to ethanol - saves on some of the costs of raising corn.
Woolsey (former CIA director) was involved in a Massachussets company that was attempting to bring this technology to market and has written several articles in the Wall Street Journal on this microbe. They've proven the technology in the lab, worked with the National Energy Labs to address scalability issues, and have subsequently proven the technology at a pilot plant in Colorado. They got screwed on the financing side by con-man / blowhard M. Ijaz and a Spanish ethanol company (who is hoping the company folds so they can get the technology cheap) and the attempts to build a facility in Louisiana have stalled.
The technology has been available for four years and we could have taken giant steps towards energy independence. Nobody's listening, however, and we keep buying oil from countries that would see us destroyed.
Thanks.
One of Dr. Shapouri's papers refuting Patzek and Pimentel
This would probably be very good news for the agricultural industry in Northern Maine, which is perfectly suited for growing hay.
Based on the various comments here this is obviously a complex subject. Ethanol is a farm subsidy, but it is one here in the US. Oil revenues to Saudi Arabia subsidize terrorism. That adds a little to the equation.
The "fuel" to power cars has to be portable; gasoline, ethanol, diesel, batteries, etc. There will always be a loss in creating that "fuel." It takes energy to create gasoline, but you can't burn crude oil in most cars!
At some point, when the cost of Saudi oil reaches a high-enough level, ethanol will be cost effective (figuring in the production costs, the benefits of keeping the money in the US/balance of trade issue, and denial of money to our enemies).
This is very true. But envrio wackos will not believe it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.