Skip to comments.
Ethanol could leave the world hungry
Cnn.com ^
| 8-16-06
| Lester Brown
Posted on 08/29/2006 5:55:39 AM PDT by Hydroshock
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 281-289 next last
To: HEY4QDEMS
All the new plants use the corn stalks and solid waste to provide themselves with all of their energy requirements... Most of the newest plants coming up burn coal. The huge amount of co2 produced in ethanol production, not to mention by burning coal or natural gas (or even waste), means environmentalists will never accept ethanol as fuel.
61
posted on
08/29/2006 6:30:08 AM PDT
by
hlmencken3
(Originalist on the the 'general welfare' clause? No? NOT an originalist!)
To: hurly
Dr. Tad Patzek, a petroleum and chemical engineer at UC Berkeley
The opinions of one doctor...at Berkeley. Let's see some research.
62
posted on
08/29/2006 6:30:21 AM PDT
by
P-40
(Al Qaeda was working in Iraq. They were just undocumented.)
To: from occupied ga
And, a number of studies are wrong.
BTW, recombinant DNA work now underway is going to provide us with high cellulose content crops which when heated will release enzymes that turn the entire mass of material into ethanol.
Think weeds!
63
posted on
08/29/2006 6:32:34 AM PDT
by
muawiyah
To: Mr. Lucky
wholly possible to power an ethanol plant with the spent grain from the distillation processdo you have a reference?
64
posted on
08/29/2006 6:32:36 AM PDT
by
from occupied ga
(Your most dangerous enemy is your own government)
To: xcamel
Cash flow in extreme quantities from your taxpayer wallet into the hands of heavily subsidized corn farmers, and former brewery owners.
Do you really think that Shell Oil is going to rely on government subsidies to provide feedstock for its domestic ethanol production?
65
posted on
08/29/2006 6:32:37 AM PDT
by
P-40
(Al Qaeda was working in Iraq. They were just undocumented.)
To: petro45acp
details if convenient...Since you asked, read this: Pimental
66
posted on
08/29/2006 6:35:09 AM PDT
by
from occupied ga
(Your most dangerous enemy is your own government)
To: from occupied ga
In addition, according to WSJ and the EPA, ethanol is a greater pollutant, and costs more per gallon than gasoline while delivering lower mpg.
67
posted on
08/29/2006 6:36:00 AM PDT
by
sportutegrl
(A person is a person, no matter how small. (Dr. Seuss))
To: mcg2000
For the most part, the land which is not being farmed is less than satisfactory for good yields.
68
posted on
08/29/2006 6:37:50 AM PDT
by
rollin
(q)
To: from occupied ga
The continental US has enough coal in the ground to last 3 to 500 years. If we had spent all the time and effort that is going into ethanol production into coal gasification we would be swimming in $1.00 a gallon gas and diesel.
69
posted on
08/29/2006 6:37:56 AM PDT
by
painter
(We celebrate liberty which comes from God not from government.)
To: Mr. Lucky
but it is wholly possible to power an ethanol plant with the spent grain from the distillation processThank you for your reasoned reply:- a breath of fresh air on this thread. Please note: it is not just the ethanol plant that needs fuelling - one also has to harvest the grain. Combine harvesters need fuel and we also need to transport our bio-fuel to the vendor. If we look at the entire process - does it produce excess energy?
The very simplest way of checking this without doing exhaustive sums is to ask the question: does the process require subsidy? Is there free-market investment in a non-subsidised industry? At the moment the answer is no.
The answer might not always be no, of course. A genetically created crop might come along that pushes ethanol over the edge. But Govt subsidy of corn ethanol is actually holding back such research - the profit barrier is raised by having to beat subsidy as well as the normal problems of research
To: P-40
Who says you can't?Pimental does. See link in post #66
71
posted on
08/29/2006 6:38:11 AM PDT
by
from occupied ga
(Your most dangerous enemy is your own government)
To: Eric in the Ozarks
In 5 years, we'll be inundated in light crude oil from the Canada syncrude projects. If not 5 years then soon after... In 9 years, with the investment of $105 Billion (Canadian) they might get the production up to 3 million barrels a day. If they get enough labor, material and equipment to proceed with all the projects. A good help to us, but a long way from the 20 million BPD we use.
Oil sands take over center stage
72
posted on
08/29/2006 6:38:35 AM PDT
by
thackney
(life is fragile, handle with prayer)
To: betsyross1776
Cite facts ... this is so false, we should not dignify it with a reply!
73
posted on
08/29/2006 6:40:50 AM PDT
by
rollin
(q)
To: from occupied ga
What then would you suggest as an alternative? It's easy to poo-poo an idea without offering another option.
74
posted on
08/29/2006 6:43:49 AM PDT
by
Ouderkirk
(Don't you think it's interesting how death and destruction seems to happen wherever Muslims gather?)
To: painter
Coal is a very high carbon content fuel. Consequently the amount of CO2 it produces per given quantity of energy is far higher than high hydrogen content fuels.
Just basic highschool chemistry ~ besides, coal has many uses beyond energy production and should be husbanded for the indefinite future.
75
posted on
08/29/2006 6:43:58 AM PDT
by
muawiyah
To: muawiyah
And, a number of studies are wrong.Oh no doubt, but are the ones that suddenly show it to be a net energy producer wrong or are the ones that have for decades shown it to be a net energy consumer wrong? or are they both wrong and it''s energy neutral, but another great way for Kongress to justify pouring gobs of taxpayer money into special interest groups.
If you really want energy independence ramp up coal synfuel and use more diesels. There is a steady supply of coal synfuel that works it's way into the diesel fuel supply, but no one seems to care about it since it's not a tree hugger thing.
76
posted on
08/29/2006 6:44:11 AM PDT
by
from occupied ga
(Your most dangerous enemy is your own government)
To: from occupied ga
Thank you for making the point. You are right on target.
77
posted on
08/29/2006 6:45:07 AM PDT
by
em2vn
To: from occupied ga
Pimental does. See link in post #66
He also claim in 2001 that it took 70% more energy to produce ethanol than the ethanol would yield. His answer changed a bit, did it not? Maybe the fuel used to fight those fires on 9/11 messed his equations up.
78
posted on
08/29/2006 6:45:15 AM PDT
by
P-40
(Al Qaeda was working in Iraq. They were just undocumented.)
To: from occupied ga
Thank you for making the point. You are right on target.
79
posted on
08/29/2006 6:45:23 AM PDT
by
em2vn
To: Ouderkirk
alternativeTwo things. If it really is a net energy consumer, then doing nothing is a better alternative, sincer its use just makes us more dependent on fossil fuel, but as it turns out there are a number of viable alternatives - drill in ANWAR, coal synfuel, build 200 more nuclear plants and use them to provide the energy to synthesize fuel.
80
posted on
08/29/2006 6:46:49 AM PDT
by
from occupied ga
(Your most dangerous enemy is your own government)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 281-289 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson