Posted on 05/09/2006 10:08:21 AM PDT by areafiftyone
"you would have to divert huge amounts of water to irrigation"
we are surrounded by water
I'm also in favor of desalination.
check outhttp://www.aaenvironment.com/nuhydro.htm
"based in ignorance"
"ignorance?" there is absolutely nothing to prevent America from becoming independent of foregin oil but DOING IT!
"I find highly offensive"
"offensive?" I tell ya what's offensive!
Putting as many Marines in body bags as I have is what's OFFENSIVE!
You're excused.
I'm also in favor of desalination. check outhttp://www.aaenvironment.com/nuhydro.htm
While Nuclear power is relatively inexpensive, desalination is a rather energy intensive process, and when using it on a very large scale the security issues and the problems of nuclear waste grow somewhat.
Even a bigger issue is how would you plan on pumping huge rivers of water uphill over distances of hundreds of miles.
Are you planning on pumping water over mountain ranges to get it to inland regions where there is land to grow the vast quantities of crops that would be needed?
One of the big problems with ethanol produced from easily fermentable sugars is that the amount of energy that it takes to produce and distribute ethanol is not a whole lot less energy than you get from the ethanol itself. If have to desalinate sea water and pump it to the fields for irrigation, you're going to have a fuel that takes considerably more energy to produce than you get from it.
"ignorance?" there is absolutely nothing to prevent America from becoming independent of foregin oil but DOING IT!
I would absolutely love to see us be energy independent. That's why I take the time to learn about possible ways we might be able to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
However, even if we had supply of affordable ethanol right now it would take over a decade before there would be a decent percentage of vehicles on the road that could run on a mixture of ethanol and gasoline much over 15%.
Even current flex fuel vehicles that can run on E85 fuel are only using 85% ethanol in summer blends, and have to drop down to 70% in cooler weather. These engines also aren't very making very efficient use of the fuel mixture, but making a engine that can run efficiently on a wide range of ethanol-gasoline mixtures is going to add more to the cost of the vehicles, and delay how quickly people can afford to purchase new vehicles that can use the fuel.
"offensive?" I tell ya what's offensive! Putting as many Marines in body bags as I have is what's OFFENSIVE!
Yes it unquestionably is.
However, you apparently are saying that we have to become independent of foreign oil right now no matter what the costs. You don't care what it takes or if it's really possible. So how do you know that the effects of doing that won't result in us going to war with others, or weaken us to the point where we can't defend ourselves against others. If we have to make huge sacrifices in our freedoms to become independent of foreign oil are we surrendering what our soldiers fought and died for? What if we slow down our economy and are less able to fund research in medicine?
If you don't appear to care about the costs, how can you claim to be pushing for this in the interests of our soldiers and with respect for what they have fought and died for?
A very typical liberal ploy to justify something that they can't justify through the facts is to invoke an emotional response.
We have to do it to protect the children!
We have to do it protect abused women!
We have to do this to keep our marines safe!
If you can justify your views with facts, and those facts support that it will help keep our military men and women safe, then you are acting to support them.
If you can't support your views with facts and can't form a rational argument that your idea's overall effects will help our military, using the their deaths as a ploy to convince others to support your views is disgusting.
The Gov't grants help too.
Check my Tagline for another way to go. ;0)
In MN they get state grants to make ehtonal cost effective. Otherwise the cost per gallon would be higher.
They're using the old Miller beer plant. Appropriate.
No mention of what the ethanol will cost? Dollars per gallon would be OK.
Will it be subsidized by tax-payers to bring the price down?
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.