Posted on 07/28/2007 7:45:52 PM PDT by P-40
Did you even read the fuc*ing article? Or are you just dim?
"...Did you even read the fuc*ing article? Or are you just dim?..."
Yeah, I read the fuckin' article. Apparently you're someone who believes that ethanol should be the first solution to replace oil, even though it's obviously liquid-pork!
The proprietary (i.e. secret) K-2 process operates at 180 degrees Celsius, and that requires energy. Boiling fermented corn requires energy too. Where does that energy come from? More taxes?
Either way, you get ethanol, a crappy automotive fuel at a high total cost, or Crown Royal, a fairly good whiskey at a reasonable price.
With trillions of barrels of crude-oil (packed with energy) still un-drilled, and a coupla-hundred Nuclear Power Plants still not built, why-the-fuck are we wasting our time trying to put food and trees into our gas tanks?
I'm not 'dim', pal. I just have a low tolerance for stupid, political ideas. Stay well .................... FRegards
Whoa, someone step on your tail? I think Ethanol is not the solution to anything, except political pandering. Ethanol is a net energy loser. The growing area needed alone is enough to doom any realistic look at ethanol as an oil substitute. Especially since there are 400 years or so of oil stored in oil shales in the western states. I have argued so many times on FreeRepublic.
Perhaps you have confused me with someone else.
Very well put, Gonzo. Stupid political ideas with absolutely no rationale in simple engineering economics. Simple payback to farmers and ADM. Liberal feel-good nostrums that don’t do a damn thing for our energy independence. Consuming huge amounts of fossil fuel to run tractors, produce fertilizer and operate refineries and for what? To run our food prices sky high, starve the world’s poor and not produce a single incremental BTU. Washington is full of F’ing mental midgets on the take from ADM.
Yeah, it was addressed to P-40, but once I started addin' names, I couldn't stop!
We're on the same page, pal ................... FRegards
Because we have had a glut of cereal crops since the English first enacted corn laws in 1800. That is why it is a false argument. The Doha round of the WTO stymied on 3rd world demands that we stop subsidizing grain and dumping it and damaging 3rd world farmers. We don’t need the food, iow.
Some people even sign petitions for silly ideas.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw
Monty Python was correct in so many ways ................ FRegards
Thx for the dihydrogen monoxide link...haven’t seen that in a while and had forgotten completely about it. That explains so many things, doesn’t it?
Well said Gonzo.
We also have a couple of hundred years worth of coal in this country. If we want to send money on expanding our fuel options why not further the research on gasifying or liquefying coal. Why turn food in to fuel?
Economics will usually tell you if something is a good idea. Economically ethanol does not have a chance. The BTUs use to produce ethanol relative to the BTUs produced burning ethanol (when you include generation of the crop and transportation) can not justify the manufacture of ethanol as a fuel.
Driving through the western North Carolina mountains last week barely north of Georgia, it occurred to me that prisoners should be put to work clearing the seemingly millions of acres KUDZU encrusted hillsides. The biomass is an outstanding candidate for making ethanol.
why did you ping me for this rant?
Red Herrings my friend.
The vast majority of the oil we buy is from Canada, Mexico and Venezuela. And if buying form Muslims is something we don’t want to do the only thing stopping us from drilling for our own oil to reduce our dependence on Middle East oil is politics.
As for Chinese food it should have to pass all of the same inspections as domestic food. Given that if it still cheaper than Domestic food and people want to buy it, so be it. It is called the Free Market and it works.
My previous post also mentioned that drilling for oil in this country would still be a better and more economically sound solution to the above problem than the pork barrel project of changing biomass however derived in to fuel.
Considering the growth in demand for fuel it is physically impossible to even put a dent in the demand for oil by the use of biomass derived in to fuel. So there must be another point to this endeavor. The only logical explanation it that it is to line the pockets of those with an economic interest in the production of ethanol. Who would that be? Archer Daniels Midland and other farm interest.
In pre-automobile days, about 1/3 of tillable farmland was necessary to produce the country’s roadway fuel needs. If that same percentage were so dedicated today, it would yield somewhere around 100 Billion gallons of ethanol a year.
I’ve often wondered what those farmers of that era would think of the yields we see today.
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.