>Ethanol has a net energy loss of 8%<
who cares?
I don’t
ethanol has a LIQUID energy gain of ten to one.
which has the effect of cutting the ragheads
out of the deal, I realy don’t care how
much coal is used.
Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 04/25/2009 2:21:42 PM PDT by neverdem
Energy Policy: California regulators are ready to conclude that corn ethanol cannot help the state fight global warming. It seems they've discovered putting food in our cars would destroy the earth in order to save it.
California regulators have apparently discovered it ain't easy being green. The California Air Resources Board began two days of hearings in Sacramento on Thursday on a proposed Low Carbon Fuel Standard which considers the carbon intensity of fuels during a given fuel's entire life cycle.
The California Environmental Protection Agency apparently has concluded that corn ethanol would not help the state implement Executive Order S-1-07. The order, signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Jan. 18, 2007, mandated a 10% reduction in the carbon intensity of the state's fuels by 2020. Fuels deemed to have low carbon intensity earn credits toward that goal.
With 20-20 hindsight, the California EPA, by dropping ethanol for now as a cure-all for climate change, is doing the right thing for the wrong reason. "Ethanol is a good fuel, but how it is produced is problematic," Dimitri Stanich, public information officer for the California EPA, said in an interview with World Net Daily. "The corn ethanol industry has to figure out another way to process corn into ethanol that is not so corn-intensive."
California could build more nuclear power plants, but never mind. Ethanol is in fact not a good fuel. According to the Hoover...
--snip--
It generates less than two units of energy for every unit of energy used to produce it. It takes about 1,700 gallons of water to produce one gallon of ethanol. Each acre of corn requires about 130 pounds of nitrogen and 55 pounds of phosphorous. Increased acreage means increased agricultural runoff, which is creating aquatic "dead zones" in our rivers, bays and coastal areas...
(Excerpt) Read more at ibdeditorials.com ...
Maybe pigs will fly?
The CA politicians must have completed selling off their stock in the corn-producing corporations. Explains why CA is shucking the idea now.
Huh? Maybe make it less corn intensive by substituting oil that comes from the California coastline?
“The corn ethanol industry has to figure out another way to process corn into ethanol that is not so corn-intensive.”
_____________________________________________________________________________________
WTF!? Maybe we should try pixie dust?
As has been explained elsewhere, a “less carbon-intensive” fuel means a less energy-efficient fuel, which means you simply have to burn more of it.
Huh? Maybe make it less corn intensive by substituting oil that comes from the California coastline?
They're refering to cellulosic ethanol in which the whole plant gets digested by enzymes and requires much less energy to produce the ethanol. You won't need corn to make it. Get that oil too.
Now that makes sense.
What????
ethanol cuts the oil companies and the ragheads,
out of the deal.
sadly, many on FR don’t like that idea.
Uh, no it doesn't bub.
If you want to "cut" the ragheads out of the equation, drill for oil here.
See comment# 6.
oil companies are not the friends of
America or of the Conservative movement.
..........................
the electric car is coming.
People were trying to tell them that for years. But no, they had to see for themselves. At a huge cost.
The law of unintended consequences strikes again.
I've been trying to figure out a way to make make work less work-intensive. And my sleeping less sleep-intensive. And paying bills less paying-intensive. And making taxes less tax-intensive.
“No subsidies for corn ethanol!”
Surely you are jesting. Corn belt farmers have their congressmen by the short and curlies on this. Sadly, ethanol subsidies are here to stay. Now, probably the best we can hope for is to pay farmers not to produce the stuff.
Tis whole business of trying to control the amount of CO2 emissions from various sources may be a misplaced priority, as its only political virtue lies in having a handle on a new way to assess taxes, based on the size of the "carbon footprint" produced in a year's time.
The best, surest and most tested method of taking up CO2 is to let there be sufficient plant growth (which requires considerable water and reasonably fertile land area) to form a "sink" for the supposedly "excess" carbon dioxide formed by burning of so-called "fossil fuels". If there is enough biomass, from the excess of plant growth, then the biomass can be recycled right back into a form of energy we can use, which involves burning up the biomass in some manner. So our problem here is to produce sufficient amount of water of low salinity to adequately water these crops, and for that we could turn to nuclear power plants, to produce the heat necessary to desalinate brackish water wherever it is found, distilling the mixture to near-potable degree of purity (totally satisfactory for crops), then just using the resources made available by this process to continue the expanded cultivation of green growing plants of EVERY variety.
The biomass could be fed directly into a Thermal Depolymerization unit, as a slurry, and under conditions of heat and pressure in the absence of oxygen, the slurry is converted into an excellent grade of kerogen, much like crude oil but without the grit and sand of the natural product. The science and the tweaking have already been pretty well worked out on this process, and it proves to be "carbon-neutral", because the feedstock is taken from biological substances that were formed from atmospheric carbon dioxide which was temporarily sequestered, and have no impact on the burning of fossil fuel at all.
This provides a substitute for petroleum, but if there is anyone who wants to go really high-tech, a process called Plasma Arc Trash Reduction could empty out all our landfills, convert the daily trash stream into a reliable source of electricity, and generate several other revenue streams for the entity that makes it into a going concern. ALL forms of trash are reduced to their constituent atomic structure, then the heat generated by this process is used to drive electric power generation. The primary products of this process are "syngas", a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen, both of which are excellent fuels that may be used to drive the generation of electric power, and a silica slag which contains practically all other components of whatever went into the trash stream.
The volume of the slag that comes off is about a quarter to a tenth of the volume of the original trash, and it may be mined for various metallic content, as it is a higher grade of ore than is most of the material that is hauled up out of the ground by various mining operations all over the world. It may be hot-formed into building blocks, and depending on how it is cooled (rapid quench or slow radiant cooling), it forms various grades of igneous stone. Or it may be crushed as aggregate for concrete or for road building purposes.
The temperature of the plasma torch is about 33,000˚ F., about three times the temperature of the sun's surface. The syngas generated is about 2,200˚ F., and is passed over a heat exchanger to generate superheated steam, in the process of cooling it. Once cooled, the stream of hydrogen and carbon monoxide may be separated, yielding up pure hydrogen which may be used to power a fuel cell, or burned directly in the presence of oxygen to yield a very hot flame, which may be used to further produce power through the medium of superheated steam. Carbon monoxide itself is an excellent fuel which when combined with oxygen, forms carbon dioxide, a safe, NON-POLLUTING fraction of our atmosphere, and one that is vital for the photosynthesis of oxygen and carbohydrates in green growing plants. The carbon dioxide may also be captured, cooled and compressed into either liquid CO2, or allowed to become "dry ice", an intensely cold and solid form of CO2, and an important industrial product.
The hydrogen, of course, when combined with oxygen, becomes water vapor.
Empty out our land fills and turn those blighted acres back into "greenfields", divert all the existing and continuing waste stream into electric power, reduce need for and dependence on fossil fuels, assure a continuous supply of building materials that will prove to be the equal of our current supplies, and provide a way of reclaiming metallic elements otherwise lost when merely dumped in a hole in the ground. And not only the land fills, the sewage sludge that is now dumped there could go through this plasma arc, with the decomposed fecal matter adding its bit to the "syngas", and simultaneously extracting all the dreaded metals like cadmium and mercury from circulation in the soil and groundwater.
I don't see a downside. Most elegant solution.
It has been estimated that perhaps fewer than a dozen of these processing units could both clean up all the existing waste dumps, and the current waste stream, for a municipality the size of New York City, and generate enough electricity to keep it lit and industry-capable, without tapping into outside sources.
There is a place to spend the funds for infrastructure that does NOT have to be only for the roads and bridges. This is infrastructure that actually IMPROVES our environment. And generates a number of useful by-products, not the least of which is relatively cheap electric power.
And carbon-neutral to boot. NO fossil fuels are used once the cycle is started.
Can't get greener than that.
And the conservative movement.
Drill and produce in spite of the “unfriendly” oil companies.
The electric cars run on coal, very environmentally unfriendly.
Ethanol has a net energy loss of 8%
It a political fuel, that's all. At least in this country.
>Ethanol has a net energy loss of 8%<
who cares?
I don’t
ethanol has a LIQUID energy gain of ten to one.
which has the effect of cutting the ragheads
out of the deal, I realy don’t care how
much coal is used.
Surely you are jesting.
Why should I? I want cheap energy. Let the market figure it out. I would tax imported energy. Until there's a revolution in renewable energy, it's are very expensive, e.g. wind turbines cost about $1,000,000 each, and good only for adding to peak load on an electricity grid. Otherwise, we also have to pay for storing it in a usable way.
See if you can get a grant for a pilot project.
I agree with your contention “Why should I?” My point was/is that once a subsidy is put in place it is rarely if ever discontinued. The midwest corn farmers and those vested in the ethanol industry are not about to let their congressmen vote in favor of eliminating subsidizing this endeavor. All that must be done is provide a gentle reminder to said congressmen where their money comes from and where their votes come from, and business will be taken care of...
About two years ago, areas with weaker soil types were pulling out producing fruit trees and planting corn. Corn was everywhere ... except at feed lots where it's meteoric rise in wholesale price made it cost prohibitive as a cattle feed. That triggered a tripling in the price of dry alfalfa (hay). Suddenly, raising cattle, beef or dairy, got a lot more expensive. The cost of a horse to keep teenage daughters out of mischief got a lot more expensive.
Looks like the ag lobby hit the fan and our state is reacting. Next step for the the Austrian and his green minions will be whaling and lamentations about plowing up rain forest in Brazil to plant soy and cane.
Of course you don't care, I knew that.>Ethanol has a net energy loss of 8%<
who cares?
I don’tethanol has a LIQUID energy gain of ten to one.
which has the effect of cutting the ragheads
out of the deal, I realy don’t care how
much coal is used.
Ethanol uses more energy to produce than it delivers, is not cost effective and has to be subsidized by the government to make it sellable.
It will never cut the "ragheads" out of the deal, drilling for and pumping oil will.
Yes, coal fired electric cars are not clean green driving machines.
The Bum Rap on Biofuels
American Thinker | 5-13-08 | Herbert Meyer
Posted on 05/14/2008 3:59:06 AM PDT by Renfield
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2015711/posts
Campaign to vilify ethanol revealed
ethanol producer Magazine | May 16, 2008 | By Kris Bevill
Posted on 05/17/2008 9:22:13 AM PDT by Kevin J waldroup
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2017389/posts
Further proves that ethanol is a political tool, not a good fuel.
ethanol cuts the oil companies and the ragheads
Uh, no it doesn’t bub.
If you want to “cut” the ragheads out of the equation, drill for oil here.
I hate shopping at BP and Exxon, I will not shop at Citgo because that is Chavez’s company even tho they have the lowest prices.
BTW, I am for both domestic drilling and for corn used for ethanol. I saw a windmill farm in Iowa and support that too (imprortant distinction—not in place of oil or ethanol, in addition).
IMHO, As long as the production and dollars stay in US. it is goo—for our national and the local farm economy. We need to produce our own energy—more the better thru the more sources the better—that way if we are attacked by terrorists, we have alternative sources—be they ethanol, wind, oil, solar, etc. Again, I support all sources including domestic oil drilling, by well, by plattorm off coast and with theh new shale horizontal drill technologies in the the Plains States like the Dakotas.
IMHO, We need to keep the dollars here in US—thru drilling and planting, and developing cost effective alternatives—
For the farmers, there is way to much crop price fluctuation. Until recently when ethanol was used for fuel additive, there was some concern that US was going to lose the ability to put food on it’s tables because farmers could not make a decent living—remember the farm auctions of the 80s and early 90s? Many farmer’s kids have been leaving the business. IMHO, Last thing US needs is to lose land allocated to agricultural production whether it is for food or fuel. It is US dollars staying in US. I think that is good. US doesn’t need its farmers going out of business.
Sadly most people don’t understand the importance of the Ag sector in this country—for national security, for food supply, and fuel development as well. Sadly farmers are at the mercy of the weather, too bad they are at the mercy of politicians as well.
The more self-sufficient we can become as a nation and as individuals, the better! That means domestic drilling, domestic crop production (for any and all purposes), and domestic energy production.
They say the exact opposite.
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.