[2ndDivisionVet]

Always with the unintended consequences for moonbats. Will this slow them down? Don't bet on it.

[greasepaint]

this is crap, from the usual whores of Big Oil.

biofuel is unstoppable.

[neverdem]

BTTT

[Rick_Michael]

Not all biofuel have to be ethanol. This articles focusing on the negative side of industry, which is actually driven for ‘semi-valid’ reasons...not just greenies...although european policies aren’t helping.

Algae biomass is probably the only good way to make biodiesels. The only issues I can see (other than cost) is water usage. But generally it’s the way to go.

[Jacquerie]

We already know that ethanol consumes more energy in its manufacture than it produces when consumed, that it is difficult to transport and evaporates easily.

It is also subsidized by the feds at 50 cents/gallon. There is a protective tariff at 51 cents/gallon. It drives up food costs. Oh, and the corn it comes from is a subsidized crop.

Those who support this collectivist energy utopia will also enjoy Hillarycare.

[xcamel]

FReepmail me to get on or off
Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown
Dr. John Ray's
GREENIE WATCH

---

"Oopsie..."

[B Knotts]

We already know that ethanol consumes more energy in its manufacture than it produces when consumed, that it is difficult to transport and evaporates easily.

In addition to the comma splice in this statement, it is my understanding that this is not correct. Corn ethanol, while it is not a very efficient use of land, is nevertheless a net energy gain.

[sittnick]

In my opinion, the problem with this debate is the same problem we have had with energy/auto/truck regs for the last 40 years: we want the scientists and industry to come up with potentially contradicting solutions to multiple problems.

For instance, for pedestrian safety, cars and trucks are being required to meet new regulations heightening the front of the vehicle. This might improve safety, but it hurts energy consumption and adds emissions(wind resistance/added weight).

Some of the emissions requirements forced additions to vehicles that compromised fuel efficiency (early catalytic converter designs, for instance). Increasing fuel standards sometimes made cars less safe because the cars were made lighter and because of stalls and hesitation (infamous Chrysler lean burn).

Some time ago, the power plant in New Haven Connecticut was told to go from coal to oil for environmental reasons. After they complied, they were told to go from oil back to coal because of an oil shortage. It is not often that I feel sympathy for a large utility, but I could feel their exacerbation when they pleaded with the regulators to pick a fuel, any fuel, but stick with it!

In The New Realities, Peter Drucker points out that the failure with large enterprises, government or private, is that they often set up multiple and conflicting goals. Public schools worked better when they worked to ensure that the graduates could read and write. Add the social engineering, and you lose the reading and writing.

I suggest that we have to pick our treasure. IF we thought it was reducing greenhouse emissions, we would do whatever it took to reduce that, and to hades with the economy. IF we thought that it was safety, we would mandate bazillions of safety features and performance regulators in automobiles without regard to the price, or the effect on fuel consumption and the environment from the added weight of having to buy bigger cars to fit booster seats for all the kids, for instance.

BUT, if our goal is to reduce dependence on foreign oil, we would stop distracting the automakers with requirements to install another four airbags, we would not require them to figure out how to reduce CO2 and CO output at the same time that they are trying to propel a car a bit farther with what they have.

If the goal is to reduce oil dependence, ethanol and biodiesel can be a part of the solution. (Ethanol doesn't save much energy, but non-oil energy can be used in its production) (We might also dump the sugar tariff, as a trade off to the infinite demand that will fall ADMs way. It would be nice to not have to get Mexican Coca-Cola in order to have real sugar instead of high fructose corn syrup). Methanol can also be part of the solution. REAL electric cars (charged from nuclear plants!) from people who don't hate cars (e.g. Tesla Motors) could be an important part of the solution. If some of the solutions ameliorate the safety and environmental concerns (e.g. electric cars don't have gas tanks to explode, and don't emit) all the better, but if you take safety and pollution (however you define it) out of the picture, then business can get job #1 done, and later, once the winning technologies are in place, can we work to refine them.

To me, hybrids are a dumb idea, as I see no point to having a heavy drivetrain in an electric car, and no point to making a gasoline engine carry around a bunch of heavy batteries.

The libertarians around here might say, why have any goal at all? Let the market do its work? I am inclined the same way. Back in the '80's, the Japanese government poured a lot into supercomputing. It turned out that American-based companies like IBM and Cray kept ahead of them in the big iron department. Part of the problem is, the subsidized program would take an approach, and would be unable to change course to accommodate new technologies. Something as simple as a new RISC processor or higher speed memory technology would render ALL of the work obsolete. The Japanese government wasted the money, and those brains would have been better off working with the Intels, Motorolas and Fujitsus of this world.

That said, we know the lefties are going to have a different set of priorities, so unfortunately I don't think it's politically viable to create the kind of environment we had in the early 20th century that showed cars of every type (including electric and steam powered) until a very affordable usable model came along (Ford). The Department of Energy, Transportation, Homeland Security, Interior etc. are all in existence to keep that from happening. The regulatory vehicle WILL move ahead. So I would like to see the manufacturers pressured to reduce oil dependency, and nothing more. (And yes, I remember Jimmy Carter's failed SynFuels program).I would like the regulations to be in terms of incentives and tax relief rather than proscriptions. That, I believe is possible.

[nh1]

Why don’t we skip all of the intermediate steps and convert the bio fuels directly to energy.

Here’s a picture of my concept car.

http://www.nmsu.edu/~ucomm/Panorama/summer2005/images/d_aw_4_1.jpg

[TheBattman]

So it isn’t the biofuels that are the culprit, it is the idiots burning vast forrests and draining swamps to grow the ingredients... So blame the fuels themselves.

ANd here we are in the US - where farmers have been growing surpluss grains for years under federal subsidies. Now that there is a demand for the grains (particularly corn), we are told that the price of all derrivatives is skyrocketing (despite the previous over supply and regulated pricing). It all boils down to some insane profits for the mills and for the other “middlemen”. And now we hear some folks trying to say it is more polluting...

ARrrggghh...

[Red Badger]

Rest In Peace, old friend, your work is finished.......

If you want on or off the DIESEL "KnOcK" LIST just FReepmail me........

This is a fairly HIGH VOLUME ping list on some days......

[JustDoItAlways]

The 2.0 billion tons of CO2 produced by the Palm Oil industry each year would be equal to the emissions from ALL passenger cars world-wide each year.

The greenies are so bad at basic math. It is part of the reason they are green. They are emotional thinkers rather than logical thinkers.