Nothing good about Ethanol

Kick some A-rab ass....

wrote in message
...
Dan Luke wrote:

wrote:



Homeland Security and the invasion of Afghanistan were direct results
of 9/11.

Duh!

And 9/11 was a result of what? What is the root reason our nation is so
intimately involved with these scum?

Wild eyed, Islamic religious extremists who are still fighting the
Medieval Crusades against the infidels, i.e. us.

BTW, care to guess which country exported the most crude oil to the
US in March of 2006?

I don't have to guess; I know.

Care to guess of the top 5 crude oil exporters how many can be
considered to be Islamic?

Which ones of the top five are governed by stable democracies? What
military action is the U. S. prepared to take in the ones controlled by nuts
and criminals--besides the one controlled by infidel-hating religious
fanatics, I mean? Does this seem like a long term, secure, affordable
energy situation to you?

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

In article ,
"Dan Luke" wrote:

The same military is used to protect the land and people who would
grow corn for ethanol.

...and everything else *at home*. But how much extra expense do we entail
because we must protect our foreign oil supply?

actually, a lot of effort goes into protecting the sea lanes for all trade, not
just oil.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

On Wed, 31 May 2006 23:30:40 GMT,
wrote:


On 31-May-2006, "Dan Luke" wrote:

The bottom line is that at the moment producing Ethanol from corn
wastes more energy than it makes according to experts.


I ain't got a dog in this fight, but any time I read a sentence like that,
my bs meter starts to twitch.

What experts? Employed by whom? What are their qualifications? What
peer-reviewed studies did they publish?



Excellent questions. I note that "experts" also dispute the danger of
global warning, and other "experts" claim that species evolution is a myth.
Yet other "experts" (hired by the tobacco industry, but of course that's
just a coincidence) were unable to find any linkage between smoking and lung
cancer. At one point many "experts" could prove that powered flight was
impossible.

Or breaking the sound barrier.


Truth is, if you want to use the Internet as a source of information, a
finely tuned BS meter is an absolute necessity!

Don't blame the Internet. How could it be any more reliable than main
stream science?

Even mainstream science will have pro and con. Although there has
been a shift to accepting first global warming and the accepting
mankind's contribution as being significant there is still a strong
camp that say it aint so.

If we truly had "experts" then opposing camps on any topic would only
find one view available from the experts for support and that is not
the case.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com



-Elliott Drucker

On Fri, 2 Jun 2006 09:27:39 -0500, "Montblack"
wrote:

("Dan Luke" wrote)
I seriously doubt we would be at war with terrorism instigated mostly by
Arabs if imported oil were not a vital national interest that has required
a military presence in the Middle East for decades. The cost of Homeland
Security and the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan should count in the
price of gasoline, IMO.


East Timor and Rwanda come to mind.

Thousands of Mini (micro) Nuclear Power Plants, for a variety of uses (all
of the same design) is my answer. (1) Micro-NPP + (1) Ethanol Plant ...corn,
sugar beets, hemp, whatever.

Cost? - This one's too easy. g

[Montblack's reply after linked newspaper story]

Minneapolis [Red] Star-Tribune story today (Friday)
http://www.startribune.com/462/story/468717.html

And they want to have all electric cars on the highways.

As I've said before. We don't have the infrastructure to handled much
more load even when using real time load management which is decades
off.

This is a good example of being unable to use a non polluting,
alternative energy source even when it is in place.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On Thu, 1 Jun 2006 16:01:37 -0500, "Dan Luke"
wrote:


"Newps" wrote:


Think about it logically. Besides, in order to be "energy independent"
with Ethanol alone, we would haqve to plant corn on every arcre of
farmland in this country.... forget growing any actual food.

Bah, we've got millions of acres here in Montana, any wheat producing state
will, that are not farmed right now because it won't support sweet corn.

There is a *lot* of field corn grown in Michigan and the Mid West. In
both Michigan and Wisconsin a lot of that is used to feed dairy
cattle. We also have large farms producing cattle for beef.

But it will grow the field corn that you use to produce ethanol quite
nicely.

And the only reason we're talking about ethanol from corn is the mighty U. S.
corn lobby. Other crops--sugar beets up North, sugar cane down South--can
give much higher ethanol yields/acre.

Well, we are limited to how many acres of sugar beets we can grow and
they bring a premium price compared to corn. As a SWAG I say we
might be able to come up with another 15% in acreage planted to beets
up here in the frozen north. We might get more alcohol and we might
not. I don't know what the net energy yield would be, but it most
likely would be more expensive than corn alcohol.

I don't know what the yield would be from Sorghum. Too bad, we as a
country, have such a fixation against growing commercial hemp. (not
the recreational kind)

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On Thu, 01 Jun 2006 10:55:05 GMT, "Guy Byars"
wrote:

Most of the stations in the Cincinnati metro area are now selling gasoline
with 5-6% ethanol. My regular supplier didn't sell gas with ethanol until

Try and find on in Michigan that doesn't have Ethanol and it's
probably going to be 10% Ethanol.


Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

"Roger" wrote:

Even mainstream science will have pro and con. Although there has
been a shift to accepting first global warming and the accepting
mankind's contribution as being significant there is still a strong
camp that say it aint so.

Cite for the latter, please?

--
Dan

"Hell hath no fury like a noncombatant."
-Mitchell Coffey

Roger wrote:
: As I've said before. We don't have the infrastructure to handled much
: more load even when using real time load management which is decades
: off.

Pray forgive a non-aviation related aside.
I've been working in the electrical distribution industry for a long time.
My company makes real-time load flow profiling equipment (see your
transformer loads LIVE on the internet!), and real-time load management
hardware, software, and systems (amoung other hardware & software).
We have several programs on-line TODAY with real-time load management.
There is a fundamental problem with real-time load management.
No one will pay for it.
The consumer says, "you want to be able to shut off MY airconditioner
when it's hot out, and you want ME to pay for that privilege? Drop dead."
The utility says, "My income comes from spinning meters. You want ME to
reduce my income, and you want ME to pay for that privilege? Get lost."

Attitudes are slowly changing. It costs $billions to build new generation
plants, and takes at least 10 years - probably 25 is more like it. If the
utility can defer generation construction it has a high value. (I know that
utilities no longer own generation directly but the concept holds.)

PS, in this widely spread out country purely electric cars are not useful
until they have the same performance as gasoline cars, particularly in
their recharge time. My gasoline car recharges in 10 minutes and goes
450 miles per charge. Each charge costs $55. It's really pretty cheap,
all things considered.

: This is a good example of being unable to use a non polluting,
: alternative energy source even when it is in place.

With electrical generation primarilly coal-powered in this country,
changing to electric powered anything moves the polution center to
the power plant, and centralizes the place where pollution control needs
to be applied. This is good in many ways, because it's easier to keep
one big engine tuned than millions of smaller ones.
--
Aaron C.

On 2-Jun-2006, Roger wrote:

Even mainstream science will have pro and con. Although there has
been a shift to accepting first global warming and the accepting
mankind's contribution as being significant there is still a strong
camp that say it aint so.


Hogwash!

-Elliott Drucker