http://www.physorg.com/news97850502.html
What the story on the costs of biofuels didn"t say is that switching cropland to corn and other biofuel crops is going to seriously drive up the price of good German BEER. Now maybe people will take the threat seriously if they know THAT.
Man made global warming is a scam. It is just a scare tactic being used to squeeze more money from the poor. Like Al Gore who is making money in the carbon credit scam. The UN is a hotbed of scams. Global warming is natural. If you look at history you will see the proof. Now there is nothing wrong with finding other sources of energy but only if it makes economical sense. If cutting CO2 is the only benefit it is a waste of money. On the up side all the extra CO2 in the air will make the plants being used for biofuels grow faster
What about
SWITCHGRASS, POPLARS,
ALGAE, HEMP, and MISCANTHUS?
Those shall be the real champions
of BioFuels, in terms of Energy Return
on Investment!
BioFuels shouldn't need to
be made from Food Crops.
SWITCHGRASS, POPLARS,
ALGAE, HEMP, and MISCANTHUS?
Those shall be the real champions
of BioFuels, in terms of Energy Return
on Investment!
BioFuels shouldn't need to
be made from Food Crops.
Bio fuel is a dirty bandage at best. We don't have the engineering figured out to actually do it efficiently. It ends up taking real oil to grow the crops. The cost factors are simply insane.
We need to be using a chemical process that can be run on a large scale. Fixating a reactant to a substrate that's easily transported and recycled/recharged.
I'm still waiting to hear any more news about the ammonia hydrides or actually see some of these supposedly 'new' battery types hit the market. It's just plain irritating that we've got electric motors that are more than powerful enough for cars and light trucks. But we can't find a freakin battery that doesn't take forever to recharge or weigh a ton.
Regardless of environmental issues, oil based fuels are a dead end course. We need to work on silicon based plastics and synthetics too.
We need to be using a chemical process that can be run on a large scale. Fixating a reactant to a substrate that's easily transported and recycled/recharged.
I'm still waiting to hear any more news about the ammonia hydrides or actually see some of these supposedly 'new' battery types hit the market. It's just plain irritating that we've got electric motors that are more than powerful enough for cars and light trucks. But we can't find a freakin battery that doesn't take forever to recharge or weigh a ton.
Regardless of environmental issues, oil based fuels are a dead end course. We need to work on silicon based plastics and synthetics too.
Corn ethanol as produced in the US is simply a means to market natural gas in liquid form. However it does make sense to use even that as a modifier for gasoline in place of much more nasty MTBE etc. modifiers. Max about 5%, any more is negative effect on environment.
And "Guest_George", you're way off.
And "Guest_George", you're way off.
QUOTE (Corvidae+May 9 2007, 11:19 AM)
Bio fuel is a dirty bandage at best. We don't have the engineering figured out to actually do it efficiently. It ends up taking real oil to grow the crops. The cost factors are simply insane.
How can they be insane?
The Biodiesel and Ethanol (VEETC) Tax Credit created tax incentives for biodiesel fuels and extended the tax credit for fuel ethanol. The biodiesel credit is available to blenders/retailers beginning in January 2005. It also established the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC), which provides ethanol blenders/retailers with $.51 per pure gallon of ethanol blended or $.0051 per percentage point of ethanol blended (i.e., E10 is eligible for $.051/gal; E85 is eligible for $.4335/gal). The incentive is available until 2010.
So, the net is, besides this relatively low subsidy, Ethanol has to make it based on selling at a lower price than gasoline (since you get fewer miles per gallon).
If it takes MORE OIL (=$'s) to make it, then you couldn't sell it for less.
But they ARE making it and they ARE selling it and they ARE making money at it.
Arthur
How can they be insane?
The Biodiesel and Ethanol (VEETC) Tax Credit created tax incentives for biodiesel fuels and extended the tax credit for fuel ethanol. The biodiesel credit is available to blenders/retailers beginning in January 2005. It also established the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC), which provides ethanol blenders/retailers with $.51 per pure gallon of ethanol blended or $.0051 per percentage point of ethanol blended (i.e., E10 is eligible for $.051/gal; E85 is eligible for $.4335/gal). The incentive is available until 2010.
So, the net is, besides this relatively low subsidy, Ethanol has to make it based on selling at a lower price than gasoline (since you get fewer miles per gallon).
If it takes MORE OIL (=$'s) to make it, then you couldn't sell it for less.
But they ARE making it and they ARE selling it and they ARE making money at it.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+May 9 2007, 06:42 PM)
So, the net is, besides this relatively low subsidy, Ethanol has to make it based on selling at a lower price than gasoline (since you get fewer miles per gallon).
Even if it means raising the price of all of your food, and your taxes?
The subsidy isn't going to pay for itself, and we're so far in debt now that the dollar is dropping value.
The increased demand for corn alone is going to drive food prices up. Try buying anything sweet in America that doesn't contain High Fructose corn syrup. Chances are if you find something with actual sugar in it, it's been hand made or imported. The increased demand is also going to mean using a lot more oil based fertilizers to keep up production.
lengould is right though, as an MTBE replacement it would work decently. With the added benefit of not acting like creeping death if you spill the stuff.
There's also the problem of total demand. Growing enough corn/switchgrass/whatever to replace just the oil we import would have a massive impact on our food supply, at a time when we're dealing with changing climates and droughts. The Chinese sending us poisoned food, and a failing FDA inspection system. Crappy corn for fuel might be no big deal, how long before shipments get 'mis-managed'?
Put simply it's a poor investment for a major fuel supply. And will most likely result in the cost burden being put on the lowest members of our society.
Even if it means raising the price of all of your food, and your taxes?
The subsidy isn't going to pay for itself, and we're so far in debt now that the dollar is dropping value.
The increased demand for corn alone is going to drive food prices up. Try buying anything sweet in America that doesn't contain High Fructose corn syrup. Chances are if you find something with actual sugar in it, it's been hand made or imported. The increased demand is also going to mean using a lot more oil based fertilizers to keep up production.
lengould is right though, as an MTBE replacement it would work decently. With the added benefit of not acting like creeping death if you spill the stuff.
There's also the problem of total demand. Growing enough corn/switchgrass/whatever to replace just the oil we import would have a massive impact on our food supply, at a time when we're dealing with changing climates and droughts. The Chinese sending us poisoned food, and a failing FDA inspection system. Crappy corn for fuel might be no big deal, how long before shipments get 'mis-managed'?
Put simply it's a poor investment for a major fuel supply. And will most likely result in the cost burden being put on the lowest members of our society.
QUOTE (Corvidae+May 9 2007, 03:53 PM)
Even if it means raising the price of all of your food, and your taxes?
The subsidy isn't going to pay for itself, and we're so far in debt now that the dollar is dropping value.
The increased demand for corn alone is going to drive food prices up. Try buying anything sweet in America that doesn't contain High Fructose corn syrup. Chances are if you find something with actual sugar in it, it's been hand made or imported. The increased demand is also going to mean using a lot more oil based fertilizers to keep up production.
lengould is right though, as an MTBE replacement it would work decently. With the added benefit of not acting like creeping death if you spill the stuff.
There's also the problem of total demand. Growing enough corn/switchgrass/whatever to replace just the oil we import would have a massive impact on our food supply, at a time when we're dealing with changing climates and droughts. The Chinese sending us poisoned food, and a failing FDA inspection system. Crappy corn for fuel might be no big deal, how long before shipments get 'mis-managed'?
Put simply it's a poor investment for a major fuel supply. And will most likely result in the cost burden being put on the lowest members of our society.
PANIC MUCH?
Try breathing SLOWLY and get a GRIP.
It is NOT going to raise the price of all our food and hike our taxes.
As for the value of the $, here's a different take, spending US $s to buy US produced fuel will certainly improve our balance of trade over those who spend $s to buy OPEC oil.
To put it all in perspective though, the part of the plant they need for Ethanol production is the STARCH. The VALUABLE part for food is the PROTEIN. When they go to Cellulose production it gets even better.
To put the quantities/taxes in proportion, take IOWA, a state with over 10% of the E85 outlets. They sold 110,000 gallons last month, their biggest month ever.
That level of sales for a year would be covered by a $500,000 subsidy.
PEANUTS
Ten times that level would be $5 million.
STILL PEANUTS.
Arthur
The subsidy isn't going to pay for itself, and we're so far in debt now that the dollar is dropping value.
The increased demand for corn alone is going to drive food prices up. Try buying anything sweet in America that doesn't contain High Fructose corn syrup. Chances are if you find something with actual sugar in it, it's been hand made or imported. The increased demand is also going to mean using a lot more oil based fertilizers to keep up production.
lengould is right though, as an MTBE replacement it would work decently. With the added benefit of not acting like creeping death if you spill the stuff.
There's also the problem of total demand. Growing enough corn/switchgrass/whatever to replace just the oil we import would have a massive impact on our food supply, at a time when we're dealing with changing climates and droughts. The Chinese sending us poisoned food, and a failing FDA inspection system. Crappy corn for fuel might be no big deal, how long before shipments get 'mis-managed'?
Put simply it's a poor investment for a major fuel supply. And will most likely result in the cost burden being put on the lowest members of our society.
PANIC MUCH?
Try breathing SLOWLY and get a GRIP.
It is NOT going to raise the price of all our food and hike our taxes.
As for the value of the $, here's a different take, spending US $s to buy US produced fuel will certainly improve our balance of trade over those who spend $s to buy OPEC oil.
To put it all in perspective though, the part of the plant they need for Ethanol production is the STARCH. The VALUABLE part for food is the PROTEIN. When they go to Cellulose production it gets even better.
To put the quantities/taxes in proportion, take IOWA, a state with over 10% of the E85 outlets. They sold 110,000 gallons last month, their biggest month ever.
That level of sales for a year would be covered by a $500,000 subsidy.
PEANUTS
Ten times that level would be $5 million.
STILL PEANUTS.
Arthur
QUOTE (ChiRaven+May 9 2007, 01:13 AM)
http://www.physorg.com/news97850502.html
What the story on the costs of biofuels didn"t say is that switching cropland to corn and other biofuel crops is going to seriously drive up the price of good German BEER. Now maybe people will take the threat seriously if they know THAT.
Rheinheitzgevolt!!!
What the story on the costs of biofuels didn"t say is that switching cropland to corn and other biofuel crops is going to seriously drive up the price of good German BEER. Now maybe people will take the threat seriously if they know THAT.
Rheinheitzgevolt!!!
QUOTE (Corvidae+May 9 2007, 04:19 PM)
Bio fuel is a dirty bandage at best. We don't have the engineering figured out to actually do it efficiently.
Regardless of environmental issues, oil based fuels are a dead end course. We need to work on silicon based plastics and synthetics too.
We do have the engineering, but mother nature (corn or any other plant) doesn't.
Corn is a crop that takes a lot of oil to produce (tractors + fertilizers). Switchgrass crops need plowing and re-seeding only every 15 years and do not need fertilizers. But its yield is lower and cellulose doesn't ferment like starch.
Whatever the crop, though, it will take at least 10 times the available land you have to cover ALL your liquid fuel needs.
Never mind if you are China on the rise, prudish Europe or fat America, you already spend too much energy and agriculture will not be able to supply it.
If the world population were 10 times smaller and stable, maybe it could have worked. But since we are 6.5 billions and 3 billions are moving out of poverty at 10% GDP growth/year, it doesn't.
When oil will finish, as unacceptable as it seems now, we will burn even more coal in power plants and we will convert part of it to liquid fuels, as Nazi Germany and Apartheid South Africa used to do.
We don't need to go into silicon plastics, since carbon plastics can also be made from coal. Or we can make them from crops.
Unless the climate change will turn catastrophic or it will ignite a devastating world war, there are solutions for the rich. In the meantime, the best we can do is try to cut back our energy consumption.
Regardless of environmental issues, oil based fuels are a dead end course. We need to work on silicon based plastics and synthetics too.
We do have the engineering, but mother nature (corn or any other plant) doesn't.
Corn is a crop that takes a lot of oil to produce (tractors + fertilizers). Switchgrass crops need plowing and re-seeding only every 15 years and do not need fertilizers. But its yield is lower and cellulose doesn't ferment like starch.
Whatever the crop, though, it will take at least 10 times the available land you have to cover ALL your liquid fuel needs.
Never mind if you are China on the rise, prudish Europe or fat America, you already spend too much energy and agriculture will not be able to supply it.
If the world population were 10 times smaller and stable, maybe it could have worked. But since we are 6.5 billions and 3 billions are moving out of poverty at 10% GDP growth/year, it doesn't.
When oil will finish, as unacceptable as it seems now, we will burn even more coal in power plants and we will convert part of it to liquid fuels, as Nazi Germany and Apartheid South Africa used to do.
We don't need to go into silicon plastics, since carbon plastics can also be made from coal. Or we can make them from crops.
Unless the climate change will turn catastrophic or it will ignite a devastating world war, there are solutions for the rich. In the meantime, the best we can do is try to cut back our energy consumption.
Just a lot of ONE DIMENSIONAL THINKING.
It isn't like anyone thinks we are going to replace all our gasoline with Ethanol fuels or all our Diesel with BioDiesel.
We won't and we don't have to.
We DO have to learn to be more efficient in generating power and consuming power.
We DO have to generate more energy from nuclear. (Fusion would be nice but Fission will do for a good while)
We DO have to generate more CLEAN enegy from Coal (which will play a huge role over this century, so we have to clean up its act, and by doing so, not only can we reduce POLLUTION of Soot, NOx, SOx and heavy metals, we can also cut the amount of CO2 per KWh by 15%)
We DO have to generate more energy from renewables.
But it won't just be from Silicon Solar, it will be from Plastic Solar and NanoSolar and Thermal Solar and X-Solar we don't even know about.
But it will also be from extracting engergy from the natural movement of Wind and Water, of from the heat of the earth itself and I'm sure from several we don't even know about yet.
Arthur
It isn't like anyone thinks we are going to replace all our gasoline with Ethanol fuels or all our Diesel with BioDiesel.
We won't and we don't have to.
We DO have to learn to be more efficient in generating power and consuming power.
We DO have to generate more energy from nuclear. (Fusion would be nice but Fission will do for a good while)
We DO have to generate more CLEAN enegy from Coal (which will play a huge role over this century, so we have to clean up its act, and by doing so, not only can we reduce POLLUTION of Soot, NOx, SOx and heavy metals, we can also cut the amount of CO2 per KWh by 15%)
We DO have to generate more energy from renewables.
But it won't just be from Silicon Solar, it will be from Plastic Solar and NanoSolar and Thermal Solar and X-Solar we don't even know about.
But it will also be from extracting engergy from the natural movement of Wind and Water, of from the heat of the earth itself and I'm sure from several we don't even know about yet.
Arthur
www.newscientist.com/article/dn11811-biofuel-production-may-raise-price-of-food--.html
It's already starting and bio-fuels are barely at the pump now.
It's already starting and bio-fuels are barely at the pump now.
QUOTE (Corvidae+May 10 2007, 09:15 AM)
www.newscientist.com/article/dn11811-biofuel-production-may-raise-price-of-food--.html
It's already starting and bio-fuels are barely at the pump now.
Do you understand what the word MAY means?
Don't think so.
Do you understand what the word BIAS means?
Don't think so.
Let's parse this:
Ok so the UN says there is a RISK (unquantified)
Then it says
Ok so the UN says there is a RISK (unquantified)
Then it says biofuel production already appears to have driven up the price of maize in 2006 and 2007.
Which is not surprising, if you have greater demand for a product its price WILL rise, But THEN the SUPPLY side reacts and the prices go back to normal.
Then the UN says:
Which is GOOD NEWS.
So
What does the UN really want?
Well WHAT DO YOU KNOW, a NEW UN AGENCY
Which is GOOD NEWS.
So
What does the UN really want?
Well WHAT DO YOU KNOW, a NEW UN AGENCY
It calls for the creation of an international bioenergy certification scheme, including greenhouse gas certification, to ensure that products meet environmental standards "all the way from the fields to the fuel tanks".
Sheesh
Arthur
It's already starting and bio-fuels are barely at the pump now.
Do you understand what the word MAY means?
Don't think so.
Do you understand what the word BIAS means?
Don't think so.
Let's parse this:
QUOTE
The emerging biofuels industry risks raising the price of food, the United Nations has warned.
Ok so the UN says there is a RISK (unquantified)
Then it says
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The emerging biofuels industry risks raising the price of food, the United Nations has warned. |
Ok so the UN says there is a RISK (unquantified)
Then it says biofuel production already appears to have driven up the price of maize in 2006 and 2007.
Which is not surprising, if you have greater demand for a product its price WILL rise, But THEN the SUPPLY side reacts and the prices go back to normal.
Then the UN says:
QUOTE
Biofuels could have a dual effect on food supplies, the report says. On the one hand, such crops could divert land, water and other resources away from food production. On the other hand, by making energy more widely and cheaply available, biofuels may also increase the availability of food.
Which is GOOD NEWS.
So
What does the UN really want?
Well WHAT DO YOU KNOW, a NEW UN AGENCY
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Biofuels could have a dual effect on food supplies, the report says. On the one hand, such crops could divert land, water and other resources away from food production. On the other hand, by making energy more widely and cheaply available, biofuels may also increase the availability of food. |
Which is GOOD NEWS.
So
What does the UN really want?
Well WHAT DO YOU KNOW, a NEW UN AGENCY
It calls for the creation of an international bioenergy certification scheme, including greenhouse gas certification, to ensure that products meet environmental standards "all the way from the fields to the fuel tanks".
Sheesh
Arthur
I second Arthur here. Good arguments. The market is completely capable of managing the transition of ethanol production from corn to cellulose if an when demand for ethanol fuel causes the price of corn to make any dramatic increase. And the price the manufacturer paid to the grower for the raw corn (maise) used to produce the sugar in your soft drink could easily double or triple without in any way affecting the price in the vending machine.
With corn at $3.50 / bushel (25 kg), there is only about $0.02 worth of corn in your box of cornflakes.
With corn at $3.50 / bushel (25 kg), there is only about $0.02 worth of corn in your box of cornflakes.
QUOTE (lengould+May 10 2007, 05:36 PM)
I second Arthur here. Good arguments. The market is completely capable of managing the transition of ethanol production from corn to cellulose if an when demand for ethanol fuel causes the price of corn to make any dramatic increase. And the price the manufacturer paid to the grower for the raw corn (maise) used to produce the sugar in your soft drink could easily double or triple without in any way affecting the price in the vending machine.
With corn at $3.50 / bushel (25 kg), there is only about $0.02 worth of corn in your box of cornflakes.
I may be the only foreigner on this forum, but you are not the only nation on this planet. Everything is related.
You are already exporting cheap corn abroad. If the price of corn in your soft drink is peanuts to you, for billions other people a doubling or tripling of its price means starvation.
I nearly felt it. Back in 1997, I had a monthly income on 300 USD/month and I was middle class. No, I earn 2200 USD/month and I am still middle class.
Back in 1997, there were retired teachers in Romania with pension of 50 USD per month. Bread price was not peanuts for them. Many of them couldn't pay heating during winters.
So if average Joe fills his SUV tank with gasoline or with corn ethanol, it matters to people, some of them as intelligent and educated as you.
If climate change will kick in destroying crops and they will starve, you will HAVE to abandon your distillation plant and send them grains. Not because of the Blame game, but because it will be in your interest. You are already hated in the Muslim world for religious/ideological reasons. If you add REAL hunger to it, the result will be explosive. You may fence in inside your borders, like Israel, but your current wealth relies heavily on free world trade and a global hunger crisis will kill such trade.
Hope it won't get to that.
Mircea
With corn at $3.50 / bushel (25 kg), there is only about $0.02 worth of corn in your box of cornflakes.
I may be the only foreigner on this forum, but you are not the only nation on this planet. Everything is related.
You are already exporting cheap corn abroad. If the price of corn in your soft drink is peanuts to you, for billions other people a doubling or tripling of its price means starvation.
I nearly felt it. Back in 1997, I had a monthly income on 300 USD/month and I was middle class. No, I earn 2200 USD/month and I am still middle class.
Back in 1997, there were retired teachers in Romania with pension of 50 USD per month. Bread price was not peanuts for them. Many of them couldn't pay heating during winters.
So if average Joe fills his SUV tank with gasoline or with corn ethanol, it matters to people, some of them as intelligent and educated as you.
If climate change will kick in destroying crops and they will starve, you will HAVE to abandon your distillation plant and send them grains. Not because of the Blame game, but because it will be in your interest. You are already hated in the Muslim world for religious/ideological reasons. If you add REAL hunger to it, the result will be explosive. You may fence in inside your borders, like Israel, but your current wealth relies heavily on free world trade and a global hunger crisis will kill such trade.
Hope it won't get to that.
Mircea
Salut Mircea!
Some good points from someone who has been at the sharp end of this evolving scam.
I'll ignore the politics.
You cannot take this conversion of food to fuel in isolation. Ethanol cannot be piped and has to be transported. Fertiliser has to be made and transported. More demand on land from forests is already creating a lower albedo, which reduces rainfall.
The wasteful efforts being put into ameliorating climate change will have a minuscule effect, when vast biosphere changes are occurring which have no anthropogenic origin at all.
See http://www.physorg.com/news98033767.html
Some good points from someone who has been at the sharp end of this evolving scam.
I'll ignore the politics.
You cannot take this conversion of food to fuel in isolation. Ethanol cannot be piped and has to be transported. Fertiliser has to be made and transported. More demand on land from forests is already creating a lower albedo, which reduces rainfall.
The wasteful efforts being put into ameliorating climate change will have a minuscule effect, when vast biosphere changes are occurring which have no anthropogenic origin at all.
See http://www.physorg.com/news98033767.html
Hi Mircea the Romanian: Welcome. And BTW, I and several others here are Canadian not American, many other nations also represented, though with todays systems of education and communication nationalities are becoming blurred, a good thing. Now if we could only deal with religion. 
There are huge tracts of land in N America which are presently unused / underused. The farm I grew up on is no longer farmed. It's simply that modern crop species and scientific management make crops so productive none of it is presently needed. I doubt corn ethanol is going to affect any crop with enough significance to be noticed (at least dramatically) in the foreign price of derivitives, given all the "other costs" added on (cleaning, drying, storage, traders, transport by rail and sea, handling in ports, storage at many points, processing, packaging, distribution, retailing, etc. etc.). I definitely worry about water availability in the west of N America, but fresh water is simply another exchange of energy, and there is certainly enough solar energy about to deal with that given some logic.
That said, I still think that from both an ecological and energy security viewpoint, ethanol from corn is a dead waste of time, effort and money beyond its role as a modifier for gasoline up to 5%. I haven't seen accurate analyses of ethanol from cellulose yet, but am concerned simply because I know that all current strains of bugs which convert sugar to alcohol cannot survive when alcohol content exceeds about 15%, meaning there is a very high proportion of useless water to be heated to the boiling point of alcohol in order for separation to happen, a large wasted energy input, and that won't change regardless of the feedstock.
There are huge tracts of land in N America which are presently unused / underused. The farm I grew up on is no longer farmed. It's simply that modern crop species and scientific management make crops so productive none of it is presently needed. I doubt corn ethanol is going to affect any crop with enough significance to be noticed (at least dramatically) in the foreign price of derivitives, given all the "other costs" added on (cleaning, drying, storage, traders, transport by rail and sea, handling in ports, storage at many points, processing, packaging, distribution, retailing, etc. etc.). I definitely worry about water availability in the west of N America, but fresh water is simply another exchange of energy, and there is certainly enough solar energy about to deal with that given some logic.
That said, I still think that from both an ecological and energy security viewpoint, ethanol from corn is a dead waste of time, effort and money beyond its role as a modifier for gasoline up to 5%. I haven't seen accurate analyses of ethanol from cellulose yet, but am concerned simply because I know that all current strains of bugs which convert sugar to alcohol cannot survive when alcohol content exceeds about 15%, meaning there is a very high proportion of useless water to be heated to the boiling point of alcohol in order for separation to happen, a large wasted energy input, and that won't change regardless of the feedstock.
QUOTE (adoucette+May 10 2007, 01:40 PM)
Just a lot of ONE DIMENSIONAL THINKING.
This is not one dimensional thinking.
3 billion people are moving out of poverty with 10% GDP growth per year. Only in China, this means one new coal power plant per week.
And they have all the moral reasons to want to be rich like us.
This is not something that can be dealt with small steps. It will take a breakthrough energy technology to allow us to cope with such energy demand while keeping CO2 emissions constant.
But there is no such technology.
And many of these small steps compete against the same scarce resources. You cannot grow corn to cover up 10% of your gasoline demand AND at the same time grow canola for the biodiesel to power the tractors and harvesters.
You can put windmills in your corn field, but you cannot put solar panels or mirrors. So you have to move the solar to desert unfertile areas. The US may have them, but other large economies or nations, such as Europe, Japan, India or Indonesia don't. And I am not sure if Mr. Qaddafi or the Algerians will welcome us to carpet Sahara with solar panels. And if they do, how do we transport the electricity all the way to England?
Improving the efficiency of power plants. How lazy would the guys in this industry be, if in 100 years they haven't reached the max of the efficiency, when this means pure profit for them? Modern power plants run, depending on fuel, at ~50% efficiency. Much more is not possible due to simple thermodynamics, unless you increase the burning temperature, but then you get lots of NOx in you flue gas.
Clean coal is an empty word. Clean power plant has meaning, it means that the flue gases are scrubbed clean of NOx, SOx, and soot, but this is reducing the efficiency, rather than enhancing it. Anyway, this is mostly a local problem, each country decides if it has money to care for its health. Clean coal as in CO2 capture and sequestration DOES NOT EXIST outside politician's speeches. Talk, talk, talk for years, but not even ONE pilot plant.
Nuclear is up to debate, France has 90% electricity from it, Germany and Italy don't want it anymore, investors are in doubt, you can quickly make a list with 20 countries where you don't want to find any nukes.
0.X times 10 may be X.0, but 0.00X or 0.0X is practically the same.
La revedere, have a nice weekend!
This is not one dimensional thinking.
3 billion people are moving out of poverty with 10% GDP growth per year. Only in China, this means one new coal power plant per week.
And they have all the moral reasons to want to be rich like us.
This is not something that can be dealt with small steps. It will take a breakthrough energy technology to allow us to cope with such energy demand while keeping CO2 emissions constant.
But there is no such technology.
And many of these small steps compete against the same scarce resources. You cannot grow corn to cover up 10% of your gasoline demand AND at the same time grow canola for the biodiesel to power the tractors and harvesters.
You can put windmills in your corn field, but you cannot put solar panels or mirrors. So you have to move the solar to desert unfertile areas. The US may have them, but other large economies or nations, such as Europe, Japan, India or Indonesia don't. And I am not sure if Mr. Qaddafi or the Algerians will welcome us to carpet Sahara with solar panels. And if they do, how do we transport the electricity all the way to England?
Improving the efficiency of power plants. How lazy would the guys in this industry be, if in 100 years they haven't reached the max of the efficiency, when this means pure profit for them? Modern power plants run, depending on fuel, at ~50% efficiency. Much more is not possible due to simple thermodynamics, unless you increase the burning temperature, but then you get lots of NOx in you flue gas.
Clean coal is an empty word. Clean power plant has meaning, it means that the flue gases are scrubbed clean of NOx, SOx, and soot, but this is reducing the efficiency, rather than enhancing it. Anyway, this is mostly a local problem, each country decides if it has money to care for its health. Clean coal as in CO2 capture and sequestration DOES NOT EXIST outside politician's speeches. Talk, talk, talk for years, but not even ONE pilot plant.
Nuclear is up to debate, France has 90% electricity from it, Germany and Italy don't want it anymore, investors are in doubt, you can quickly make a list with 20 countries where you don't want to find any nukes.
0.X times 10 may be X.0, but 0.00X or 0.0X is practically the same.
La revedere, have a nice weekend!
Mircea, your right, its not all one dimensional thinking, its all ONE DIMENSIONAL NEGATIVE THINKING.
All you post is CAN'T CAN'T CAN'T CAN'T.
Come back in 10 years and then you can find out how we
DID DID DID DID.
Arthur
All you post is CAN'T CAN'T CAN'T CAN'T.
Come back in 10 years and then you can find out how we
DID DID DID DID.
Arthur
The French girls performing the CAN CAN dance to `Beer Swilling and .45 Callibre=>: Gun Popping Men' in the Saloons of the: `American Wild West' without wearing underpant's under their '` Hot Sexy French Fashion Dresses' started as out as Preteen amature CAN'T CAN'T girls in France then bluming into the heavenly prity pettal CAN CAN girls of the Wild West!!! loll 
QUOTE (adoucette+May 11 2007, 02:55 PM)
Mircea, your right, its not all one dimensional thinking, its all ONE DIMENSIONAL NEGATIVE THINKING.
All you post is CAN'T CAN'T CAN'T CAN'T.
Come back in 10 years and then you can find out how we
DID DID DID DID.
Arthur
I see that you CAN reduce your car CO2 with hybrids, but you actually can't because not enough hybrids are available. (How strange is that in the most market oriented country in the world? Doesn't is say anything about the ACTUAL demand or at least about the car maker's evaluation of the demand?)
I see that clean coal CAN reduce the CO2 output, but FOR YEARS there's been a lot of talk, but not even ONE pilot power plant with carbon sequestration.
I see that wind and solar energy CAN produce CO2-free electricity, but I cannot see even one decent ASSESSMENT (and that goes for Europe, too) of actually HOW MUCH energy these can produce. What was done so far in Europe in this area is peanuts.
I see that fuel crops CAN produce CO2-free energy, but no one has computed yet how much land and freshwater is really available and what is the Overall contribution fuel crops can have on reducing CO2 growth.
I see that flex fuel cars CAN reduce CO2 output and that the USA government is giving facilities to car manufacturers that make such cars. But it is doing that IN THE ABSENCE of any decent study by EPA or whatever agency that clearly measures, once and for all, how much fossil fuel energy is used to produce 1 energy unit of of corn ethanol.
I am SAYING that you COULD dramatically reduce your CO2 output from transportation at very low extra cost if you would embrace diesel and/or reduce the power of your cars to REASONABLE levels, but you CAN'T, because of a few ppm NOx or soot.
Mircea
All you post is CAN'T CAN'T CAN'T CAN'T.
Come back in 10 years and then you can find out how we
DID DID DID DID.
Arthur
I see that you CAN reduce your car CO2 with hybrids, but you actually can't because not enough hybrids are available. (How strange is that in the most market oriented country in the world? Doesn't is say anything about the ACTUAL demand or at least about the car maker's evaluation of the demand?)
I see that clean coal CAN reduce the CO2 output, but FOR YEARS there's been a lot of talk, but not even ONE pilot power plant with carbon sequestration.
I see that wind and solar energy CAN produce CO2-free electricity, but I cannot see even one decent ASSESSMENT (and that goes for Europe, too) of actually HOW MUCH energy these can produce. What was done so far in Europe in this area is peanuts.
I see that fuel crops CAN produce CO2-free energy, but no one has computed yet how much land and freshwater is really available and what is the Overall contribution fuel crops can have on reducing CO2 growth.
I see that flex fuel cars CAN reduce CO2 output and that the USA government is giving facilities to car manufacturers that make such cars. But it is doing that IN THE ABSENCE of any decent study by EPA or whatever agency that clearly measures, once and for all, how much fossil fuel energy is used to produce 1 energy unit of of corn ethanol.
I am SAYING that you COULD dramatically reduce your CO2 output from transportation at very low extra cost if you would embrace diesel and/or reduce the power of your cars to REASONABLE levels, but you CAN'T, because of a few ppm NOx or soot.
Mircea
QUOTE (lengould+May 11 2007, 12:52 PM)
There are huge tracts of land in N America which are presently unused / underused.
That said, I still think that from both an ecological and energy security viewpoint, ethanol from corn is a dead waste of time, effort and money beyond its role as a modifier for gasoline up to 5%. I haven't seen accurate analyses of ethanol from cellulose yet, but am concerned simply because I know that all current strains of bugs which convert sugar to alcohol cannot survive when alcohol content exceeds about 15%, meaning there is a very high proportion of useless water to be heated to the boiling point of alcohol in order for separation to happen, a large wasted energy input, and that won't change regardless of the feedstock.
While the impact of corn ethanol on the global warming front is still in the "ppm range", the effect on corn prices is already in double digit percents. Maybe I turned melodramatic last Friday, but I still think there is reason for concern.
I think it makes much more sense to burn the cellulose directly into power plants and recover say 40-50% of its energy, instead of feeding it to bacteria that convert only part of its energy into ethanol, than distill out ethanol from 10% water solution, than burn it into car engines at ~25% thermal efficiency.
A big problem with cellulose is that it comes from crops that are harvested only once a year and cellulose has a very low (energy) density. So you have to build very large storage facilities. Other forms of energy, like coal or oil, are much more dense and they are "harvested" daily, natural gas included.
Mircea
That said, I still think that from both an ecological and energy security viewpoint, ethanol from corn is a dead waste of time, effort and money beyond its role as a modifier for gasoline up to 5%. I haven't seen accurate analyses of ethanol from cellulose yet, but am concerned simply because I know that all current strains of bugs which convert sugar to alcohol cannot survive when alcohol content exceeds about 15%, meaning there is a very high proportion of useless water to be heated to the boiling point of alcohol in order for separation to happen, a large wasted energy input, and that won't change regardless of the feedstock.
While the impact of corn ethanol on the global warming front is still in the "ppm range", the effect on corn prices is already in double digit percents. Maybe I turned melodramatic last Friday, but I still think there is reason for concern.
I think it makes much more sense to burn the cellulose directly into power plants and recover say 40-50% of its energy, instead of feeding it to bacteria that convert only part of its energy into ethanol, than distill out ethanol from 10% water solution, than burn it into car engines at ~25% thermal efficiency.
A big problem with cellulose is that it comes from crops that are harvested only once a year and cellulose has a very low (energy) density. So you have to build very large storage facilities. Other forms of energy, like coal or oil, are much more dense and they are "harvested" daily, natural gas included.
Mircea
QUOTE (Mircea the Romanian+May 14 2007, 03:46 AM)
While the impact of corn ethanol on the global warming front is still in the "ppm range", the effect on corn prices is already in double digit percents. Maybe I turned melodramatic last Friday, but I still think there is reason for concern.
Not at all.
Farmers get the more of our money instead of oil barons.
That's good.
If we replace a LOT of gas with corn then the price of gas goes down
Of
If corn goes to high, then Ethanol becomes pricier than gasoline and corn demand falls.
Either way we can easily grow enough corn to put a big dent in oil consumption and not raise food prices at the same time.
So CALM down.
Arthur
Not at all.
Farmers get the more of our money instead of oil barons.
That's good.
If we replace a LOT of gas with corn then the price of gas goes down
Of
If corn goes to high, then Ethanol becomes pricier than gasoline and corn demand falls.
Either way we can easily grow enough corn to put a big dent in oil consumption and not raise food prices at the same time.
So CALM down.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+)
Either way we can easily grow enough corn to put a big dent in oil consumption and not raise food prices at the same time.
Do you just not think Mexicans are people? Or are you just completely ignorant of what has been going on down there?
Do you just not think Mexicans are people? Or are you just completely ignorant of what has been going on down there?
QUOTE (waltzero+May 15 2007, 07:32 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+)
Either way we can easily grow enough corn to put a big dent in oil consumption and not raise food prices at the same time.
Do you just not think Mexicans are people? Or are you just completely ignorant of what has been going on down there?
Actually, personal issues prevent me from staying up to the minute on the news, so please inform me of what my statement about the fact that we CAN grow sufficient corn to put a dent in oil consumption has to do with Mexico.
Oh and keep in mind that Mexico is the world's fourth largest producer of the grain and is self-sufficient in the production of white corn which is generally used for tortillas and human consumption.
Arthur
Do you just not think Mexicans are people? Or are you just completely ignorant of what has been going on down there?
Actually, personal issues prevent me from staying up to the minute on the news, so please inform me of what my statement about the fact that we CAN grow sufficient corn to put a dent in oil consumption has to do with Mexico.
Oh and keep in mind that Mexico is the world's fourth largest producer of the grain and is self-sufficient in the production of white corn which is generally used for tortillas and human consumption.
Arthur
See http://www.whiskeyandgunpowder.com/bin/n/x...ornFutures2.jpg
and
and
http://running_on_alcohol.tripod.com/siteb...pg.w560h312.jpg
Seems in real dollars corn was at higher prices through much of the 90s.
Were people starving back then and I just didn't notice?
Arthur
and
and
http://running_on_alcohol.tripod.com/siteb...pg.w560h312.jpg
Seems in real dollars corn was at higher prices through much of the 90s.
Were people starving back then and I just didn't notice?
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+May 15 2007, 05:30 PM)
Either way we can easily grow enough corn to put a big dent in oil consumption and not raise food prices at the same time.
Is 10% (projection for 2015) a big dent?
What about the fossil/imported energy consumed to MAKE ethanol?
Really, doesn't it bother you that there is no clear/comprehensive/widely accepted assessment of how much energy it takes to make ethanol from corn?
If the US corn industry is really going to pursue the 10% goal and the government will continue to support it, shouldn't this assessment be done?
Now, about corn price, type "corn price" on any search engine and most of the results will contain the word SOARING. Type "Mexico corn price" and you'll find their particular story. The price is not really soaring, but is certainly higher.
And the price of oil will continue to be high, no matter how much corn ethanol USA will produce.
Am I calm enough?
Is 10% (projection for 2015) a big dent?
What about the fossil/imported energy consumed to MAKE ethanol?
Really, doesn't it bother you that there is no clear/comprehensive/widely accepted assessment of how much energy it takes to make ethanol from corn?
If the US corn industry is really going to pursue the 10% goal and the government will continue to support it, shouldn't this assessment be done?
Now, about corn price, type "corn price" on any search engine and most of the results will contain the word SOARING. Type "Mexico corn price" and you'll find their particular story. The price is not really soaring, but is certainly higher.
And the price of oil will continue to be high, no matter how much corn ethanol USA will produce.
Am I calm enough?
QUOTE (Mircea the Romanian+May 11 2007, 11:57 AM)
I may be the only foreigner on this forum, but you are not the only nation on this planet. Everything is related.
You are already exporting cheap corn abroad. If the price of corn in your soft drink is peanuts to you, for billions other people a doubling or tripling of its price means starvation.
I nearly felt it. Back in 1997, I had a monthly income on 300 USD/month and I was middle class. No, I earn 2200 USD/month and I am still middle class.
Back in 1997, there were retired teachers in Romania with pension of 50 USD per month. Bread price was not peanuts for them. Many of them couldn't pay heating during winters.
So if average Joe fills his SUV tank with gasoline or with corn ethanol, it matters to people, some of them as intelligent and educated as you.
If climate change will kick in destroying crops and they will starve, you will HAVE to abandon your distillation plant and send them grains. Not because of the Blame game, but because it will be in your interest. You are already hated in the Muslim world for religious/ideological reasons. If you add REAL hunger to it, the result will be explosive. You may fence in inside your borders, like Israel, but your current wealth relies heavily on free world trade and a global hunger crisis will kill such trade.
Hope it won't get to that.
Mircea
Last time I looked Mircea, we were paying farmers here in America NOT to grow. I will look into it but I am pretty sure we have some pretty humongous surplus capacity in the US. Real Global warming of the expected sort will probably INCREASE our production capacity and yields, and most likely will make much of the rest of the world better able to feed itself, unlike the popular hysteria
A radiocarbon-dated box core in the Sargasso Sea shows that the sea surface temperature was approximately 1°C cooler than today approximately 400 years ago (the Little Ice Age) and 1700 years ago, and approximately 1°C warmer than today 1000 years ago (the Medieval Warm Period ).[12]
There is evidence showing that France was very upset about the increasingly good wines being produced in ENGLAND during that time (you cannot grow grapes there now, too cold). It was a period of better, drier weather, better health (marshes and wetlands dried out and made disease less common), and very good times. You will note that the MWP (800-1300 AD) is usually projected to have been 1 DEGREE C HOTTER THAN NOW. The following Little Ice Age (beginning about 1650, about 1770, and 1850, each separated by slight warming intervals), was projected as about 1 degree c colder than now. That is when the Dark Ages happened, starvation, the Plague, etc. etc. During the Little Ice Age, rampant warfare among neighbors was inevitable due to the starving population, failed crops and shrinking resources. This made it of course even worse.
Even if the reverse were true, the American people would proudly support sending our surpluses mostly for free or at minimal cost to starving nations, and our government does a lot of that now.
As to being hated by the Muslims, why did they hate us BEFORE 9/11? You cannot appease the hate mongers, unfortunately we have learned that you must hunt them down and kill them where they hide. It is an unfortunate truth.
As to being hated by the Muslims, why did they hate us BEFORE 9/11? You cannot appease the hate mongers, unfortunately we have learned that you must hunt them down and kill them where they hide. It is an unfortunate truth.
Death threats are now a form of discussion? You really need to stop watching Fox news for a while. For one thing you'd be able to answer your own question.
As for the price of corn. It's already gone up due to higher demand and higher fuel costs. Right now it's just a cool deal for the farmers, they get more money and higher demand.
The problem is when you look at the amount of oil we import and use, and then compare it to the ethanol yield from corn. As ethanol production really starts to take hold, it's going to have a lot more impact. On the market, the soil quality and our water supply.
They're problems that could be dealt with if legislators were to plan ahead and discuss it with the farmers and refiners. Of course that would take forethought and intelligence, so it's better to expect problems and be prepared to deal with failed planning.
You are already exporting cheap corn abroad. If the price of corn in your soft drink is peanuts to you, for billions other people a doubling or tripling of its price means starvation.
I nearly felt it. Back in 1997, I had a monthly income on 300 USD/month and I was middle class. No, I earn 2200 USD/month and I am still middle class.
Back in 1997, there were retired teachers in Romania with pension of 50 USD per month. Bread price was not peanuts for them. Many of them couldn't pay heating during winters.
So if average Joe fills his SUV tank with gasoline or with corn ethanol, it matters to people, some of them as intelligent and educated as you.
If climate change will kick in destroying crops and they will starve, you will HAVE to abandon your distillation plant and send them grains. Not because of the Blame game, but because it will be in your interest. You are already hated in the Muslim world for religious/ideological reasons. If you add REAL hunger to it, the result will be explosive. You may fence in inside your borders, like Israel, but your current wealth relies heavily on free world trade and a global hunger crisis will kill such trade.
Hope it won't get to that.
Mircea
Last time I looked Mircea, we were paying farmers here in America NOT to grow. I will look into it but I am pretty sure we have some pretty humongous surplus capacity in the US. Real Global warming of the expected sort will probably INCREASE our production capacity and yields, and most likely will make much of the rest of the world better able to feed itself, unlike the popular hysteria
QUOTE (wikipedia "medieval warm period"+)
A radiocarbon-dated box core in the Sargasso Sea shows that the sea surface temperature was approximately 1°C cooler than today approximately 400 years ago (the Little Ice Age) and 1700 years ago, and approximately 1°C warmer than today 1000 years ago (the Medieval Warm Period ).[12]
There is evidence showing that France was very upset about the increasingly good wines being produced in ENGLAND during that time (you cannot grow grapes there now, too cold). It was a period of better, drier weather, better health (marshes and wetlands dried out and made disease less common), and very good times. You will note that the MWP (800-1300 AD) is usually projected to have been 1 DEGREE C HOTTER THAN NOW. The following Little Ice Age (beginning about 1650, about 1770, and 1850, each separated by slight warming intervals), was projected as about 1 degree c colder than now. That is when the Dark Ages happened, starvation, the Plague, etc. etc. During the Little Ice Age, rampant warfare among neighbors was inevitable due to the starving population, failed crops and shrinking resources. This made it of course even worse.
Even if the reverse were true, the American people would proudly support sending our surpluses mostly for free or at minimal cost to starving nations, and our government does a lot of that now.
As to being hated by the Muslims, why did they hate us BEFORE 9/11? You cannot appease the hate mongers, unfortunately we have learned that you must hunt them down and kill them where they hide. It is an unfortunate truth.
QUOTE (Mircea the Romanian+May 16 2007, 02:54 AM)
Is 10% (projection for 2015) a big dent?
What about the fossil/imported energy consumed to MAKE ethanol?
Really, doesn't it bother you that there is no clear/comprehensive/widely accepted assessment of how much energy it takes to make ethanol from corn?
If the US corn industry is really going to pursue the 10% goal and the government will continue to support it, shouldn't this assessment be done?
Now, about corn price, type "corn price" on any search engine and most of the results will contain the word SOARING. Type "Mexico corn price" and you'll find their particular story. The price is not really soaring, but is certainly higher.
And the price of oil will continue to be high, no matter how much corn ethanol USA will produce.
Am I calm enough?
I'd say reducing the Oil component of our gasoline by 10% is a big dent and seems like about ALL that could be done in 8 years.
Keep in mind however, that OTHER FACTORS, such as increasing fleet milage and changing use patterns (due mainly to higher prices) will tend to reduce overall PER CAPITA usage and we will do it with much less Soot and NOx.
As to Corn.
Did you not look at the charts?
http://running_on_alcohol.tripod.com/siteb...pg.w560h312.jpg
This one shows the NET corn costs as it relates to the price of Ethanol. So yes, we have some long term figures that show that about a third of the cost of Ethanol is the cost of the corn. All the other costs, including the fossil fuel to make the ethanol are included in the TOTAL price. So you can see, that the most recent production costs were ~ $0.80 per gallon. Considering the cost of the Ethanol plant, the people to run and maintain it etc, I'd estimate that the energy cost is less than $0.50 per gallon, but in any case is quite a bit less than the cost of gasoline derived from oil.
Did you not look at the price of corn charts?
http://partners.futuresource.com/fbm/image...4/0302/Corn.gif
This one shows the prices of corn have been on a slow DESCENT since the 70s. These charts AREN'T adjusted for inflation. Those are the prices paid in that years dollars.
Or this chart
http://www.whiskeyandgunpowder.com/bin/n/x...ornFutures2.jpg
Which shows the higher prices in the 90s (again, chart is NOT adjusted for inflation).
The issue about prices SOARING is really only in relation to the abysmally LOW prices (farmers need to earn a living too) for corn at the start of the 21st century.
As to Mexico, they are the forth largest grower of corn and are self sufficient for the white corn they use for tortillas so if the price is going up, look SOMEWHERE else than the production of Ethanol in the US.
Don't you think that maybe the RISING PRICE OF OIL and Natural gas is a MORE LIKELY CULPRIT?
Arthur
What about the fossil/imported energy consumed to MAKE ethanol?
Really, doesn't it bother you that there is no clear/comprehensive/widely accepted assessment of how much energy it takes to make ethanol from corn?
If the US corn industry is really going to pursue the 10% goal and the government will continue to support it, shouldn't this assessment be done?
Now, about corn price, type "corn price" on any search engine and most of the results will contain the word SOARING. Type "Mexico corn price" and you'll find their particular story. The price is not really soaring, but is certainly higher.
And the price of oil will continue to be high, no matter how much corn ethanol USA will produce.
Am I calm enough?
I'd say reducing the Oil component of our gasoline by 10% is a big dent and seems like about ALL that could be done in 8 years.
Keep in mind however, that OTHER FACTORS, such as increasing fleet milage and changing use patterns (due mainly to higher prices) will tend to reduce overall PER CAPITA usage and we will do it with much less Soot and NOx.
As to Corn.
Did you not look at the charts?
http://running_on_alcohol.tripod.com/siteb...pg.w560h312.jpg
This one shows the NET corn costs as it relates to the price of Ethanol. So yes, we have some long term figures that show that about a third of the cost of Ethanol is the cost of the corn. All the other costs, including the fossil fuel to make the ethanol are included in the TOTAL price. So you can see, that the most recent production costs were ~ $0.80 per gallon. Considering the cost of the Ethanol plant, the people to run and maintain it etc, I'd estimate that the energy cost is less than $0.50 per gallon, but in any case is quite a bit less than the cost of gasoline derived from oil.
Did you not look at the price of corn charts?
http://partners.futuresource.com/fbm/image...4/0302/Corn.gif
This one shows the prices of corn have been on a slow DESCENT since the 70s. These charts AREN'T adjusted for inflation. Those are the prices paid in that years dollars.
Or this chart
http://www.whiskeyandgunpowder.com/bin/n/x...ornFutures2.jpg
Which shows the higher prices in the 90s (again, chart is NOT adjusted for inflation).
The issue about prices SOARING is really only in relation to the abysmally LOW prices (farmers need to earn a living too) for corn at the start of the 21st century.
As to Mexico, they are the forth largest grower of corn and are self sufficient for the white corn they use for tortillas so if the price is going up, look SOMEWHERE else than the production of Ethanol in the US.
Don't you think that maybe the RISING PRICE OF OIL and Natural gas is a MORE LIKELY CULPRIT?
Arthur
QUOTE (deadbeat+May 16 2007, 09:48 AM)
Real Global warming of the expected sort will probably INCREASE our production capacity and yields, and most likely will make much of the rest of the world better able to feed itself, unlike the popular hysteria
It (800-1300 AD) was a period of better, drier weather, better health (marshes and wetlands dried out and made disease less common), and very good times.
As to being hated by the Muslims, why did they hate us BEFORE 9/11? You cannot appease the hate mongers, unfortunately we have learned that you must hunt them down and kill them where they hide. It is an unfortunate truth.
How big was the population back in 800-1200 AD? How many species were endangered back than?
If the world population today would be just 650M instead of 6.5 Bn, I think it would be very easy for it to manage either global warming or ice age. Such a small population can easily relocate and plenty of farmland will ensure its prosperity.
But when you have for instance 100M poor people in a small and low-altitude country such as Bangladesh, two consecutive crops destroyed by hurricanes and floods and you have a massive food problem.
I don't know, I am not Muslim. After your success in Iraq, I would not be so enthusiast.
It (800-1300 AD) was a period of better, drier weather, better health (marshes and wetlands dried out and made disease less common), and very good times.
As to being hated by the Muslims, why did they hate us BEFORE 9/11? You cannot appease the hate mongers, unfortunately we have learned that you must hunt them down and kill them where they hide. It is an unfortunate truth.
How big was the population back in 800-1200 AD? How many species were endangered back than?
If the world population today would be just 650M instead of 6.5 Bn, I think it would be very easy for it to manage either global warming or ice age. Such a small population can easily relocate and plenty of farmland will ensure its prosperity.
But when you have for instance 100M poor people in a small and low-altitude country such as Bangladesh, two consecutive crops destroyed by hurricanes and floods and you have a massive food problem.
I don't know, I am not Muslim. After your success in Iraq, I would not be so enthusiast.
QUOTE (adoucette+May 16 2007, 03:00 PM)
we have some long term figures that show that about a third of the cost of Ethanol is the cost of the corn. All the other costs, including the fossil fuel to make the ethanol are included in the TOTAL price. So you can see, that the most recent production costs were ~ $0.80 per gallon. Considering the cost of the Ethanol plant, the people to run and maintain it etc, I'd estimate that the energy cost is less than $0.50 per gallon, but in any case is quite a bit less than the cost of gasoline derived from oil.
My question was different, but ... forget it.
The ECONOMIC data look FABULOUS. How much would it cost me to buy from USA ethanol FOB East Coast Harbor? I am even willing to barter it for gasoline!
Which is the smallest flex fuel car in US? As there are no excises on fuel-grade ethanol in Romania, if I have a fleet of taxis running on $1.5/gallon ethanol, I'll CRUSH the competition.
My question was different, but ... forget it.
The ECONOMIC data look FABULOUS. How much would it cost me to buy from USA ethanol FOB East Coast Harbor? I am even willing to barter it for gasoline!
Which is the smallest flex fuel car in US? As there are no excises on fuel-grade ethanol in Romania, if I have a fleet of taxis running on $1.5/gallon ethanol, I'll CRUSH the competition.
QUOTE (Mircea the Romanian+May 17 2007, 07:01 AM)
My question was different, but ... forget it.
The ECONOMIC data look FABULOUS. How much would it cost me to buy from USA ethanol FOB East Coast Harbor? I am even willing to barter it for gasoline!
Which is the smallest flex fuel car in US? As there are no excises on fuel-grade ethanol in Romania, if I have a fleet of taxis running on $1.5/gallon ethanol, I'll CRUSH the competition.
Ethanol FOB NY has been trading for ~ $1.20 gal and Ethanol Brazil has been trading at ~ $1.00 gal over the last year.
Contracts are in 7,750 gal increments
http://www.infinitytrading.com/images/ethanol_chart.gif
Arthur
The ECONOMIC data look FABULOUS. How much would it cost me to buy from USA ethanol FOB East Coast Harbor? I am even willing to barter it for gasoline!
Which is the smallest flex fuel car in US? As there are no excises on fuel-grade ethanol in Romania, if I have a fleet of taxis running on $1.5/gallon ethanol, I'll CRUSH the competition.
Ethanol FOB NY has been trading for ~ $1.20 gal and Ethanol Brazil has been trading at ~ $1.00 gal over the last year.
Contracts are in 7,750 gal increments
http://www.infinitytrading.com/images/ethanol_chart.gif
Arthur
QUOTE (deadbeat+May 16 2007, 09:48 AM)
As to being hated by the Muslims, why did they hate us BEFORE 9/11? You cannot appease the hate mongers, unfortunately we have learned that you must hunt them down and kill them where they hide. It is an unfortunate truth.
Death threats are now a form of discussion? You really need to stop watching Fox news for a while. For one thing you'd be able to answer your own question.
As for the price of corn. It's already gone up due to higher demand and higher fuel costs. Right now it's just a cool deal for the farmers, they get more money and higher demand.
The problem is when you look at the amount of oil we import and use, and then compare it to the ethanol yield from corn. As ethanol production really starts to take hold, it's going to have a lot more impact. On the market, the soil quality and our water supply.
They're problems that could be dealt with if legislators were to plan ahead and discuss it with the farmers and refiners. Of course that would take forethought and intelligence, so it's better to expect problems and be prepared to deal with failed planning.
Yeah, US farm production has been in a decline.
NOT.
Sheesh.
Arthur
NOT.
Sheesh.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+May 17 2007, 01:19 PM)
Ethanol FOB NY has been trading for ~ $1.20 gal and Ethanol Brazil has been trading at ~ $1.00 gal over the last year.
Thank you, but the most recent data in that chart are from March 2004. I tracked down the link you gave back to the NY stock exchange web site and there are actually No Data or No Transactions of ethanol on that stock exchange.
More, the ethanol prices from that chart back is SUGAR ethanol and is UNDENATURED ethanol, which means that:
- it is meant for food and drinks use;
- excises are applied to it when used inside US/Brazil or when imported in another country.
I expect fuel-grade to be cheaper.
It may be that fuel-grade ethanol is not traded now on any stock market. Probably they are simply signing contracts between the distilleries and the fuel retailers.
Anyway, I probably must learn Portuguese to pursue my idea, as:
- ethanol prices in Brazil seem to be lower;
- the optimal size for a taxi in Bucharest is Hyundai Accent and your flex fuel cars are in the range of Ford Crown Victoria. European car manufacturers are making flex-fuel cars in Brazil with Romanian sizes.
Thank you, but the most recent data in that chart are from March 2004. I tracked down the link you gave back to the NY stock exchange web site and there are actually No Data or No Transactions of ethanol on that stock exchange.
More, the ethanol prices from that chart back is SUGAR ethanol and is UNDENATURED ethanol, which means that:
- it is meant for food and drinks use;
- excises are applied to it when used inside US/Brazil or when imported in another country.
I expect fuel-grade to be cheaper.
It may be that fuel-grade ethanol is not traded now on any stock market. Probably they are simply signing contracts between the distilleries and the fuel retailers.
Anyway, I probably must learn Portuguese to pursue my idea, as:
- ethanol prices in Brazil seem to be lower;
- the optimal size for a taxi in Bucharest is Hyundai Accent and your flex fuel cars are in the range of Ford Crown Victoria. European car manufacturers are making flex-fuel cars in Brazil with Romanian sizes.
QUOTE (Mircea the Romanian+May 17 2007, 11:23 AM)
How big was the population back in 800-1200 AD? How many species were endangered back than?
If the world population today would be just 650M instead of 6.5 Bn, I think it would be very easy for it to manage either global warming or ice age. Such a small population can easily relocate and plenty of farmland will ensure its prosperity.
But when you have for instance 100M poor people in a small and low-altitude country such as Bangladesh, two consecutive crops destroyed by hurricanes and floods and you have a massive food problem.
Aren't you missing a RATHER LARGE POINT? Not surprised but let me draw it out for you. It was WARMER (1 to 2 degrees) than it is NOW in 800-1200 AD. That is WITHOUT THE MASSIVE CARBON POLLUTION of the industrial age (purely agrarian economies). It was a FANTASTIC time for humans, with incredibly increased crop yields, reduction in hunger and starvation, and general happiness and increased health and life expectancy.
Okay think about that a little bit.
Endangered species HAHAHAHAHAH man you guys are a broken record. So you are a Creationist then? If you believe in Evolution, isn't the constant changeover of life kind of necessary? Or you believe that Evolution and everything was fine, until now, where we need to keep everything absolutely the same? You need to read about the history of Yellowstone park, and the results of the wonderful environmental interventions there.
I don't know, I am not Muslim. After your success in Iraq, I would not be so enthusiast.
Oh so you do not remember the various terrorist attacks on the US interests and its citizens PRIOR to 9/11?
This is an informative reference
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/pubs/fs/5902.htm
Some excerpted info on "Muslim attacks" on the US prior to 9/11
Attempted Iraqi Attacks on U.S. Posts, January 18-19, 1991:
Kidnappings of U.S. Citizens in Colombia, January 31, 1993:
World Trade Center Bombing, February 26, 1993:
Attempted Assassination of President Bush by Iraqi Agents, April 14, 1993:
Air France Hijacking, December 24, 1994:
Attack on U.S. Diplomats in Pakistan, March 8, 1995:
Kashmiri Hostage-taking, July 4, 1995
Jerusalem Bus Attack, August 21, 1995:
Saudi Military Installation Attack, November 13, 1995:
Athens Embassy Attack, February 15, 1996:
HAMAS Bus Attack, February 26, 1996
Dizengoff Center Bombing, March 4, 1996
West Bank Attack, May 13, 1996:
Zekharya Attack, June 9, 1996
Khobar Towers Bombing, June 25, 1996:
Egyptian Letter Bombs, January 2-13, 1997
Empire State Building Sniper Attack, February 23, 1997
Israeli Shopping Mall Bombing, September 4, 1997
Murder of U.S. Businessmen in Pakistan, November 12, 1997
Somali Hostage-takings, April 15, 1998:
U.S. Embassy Bombings in East Africa, August 7, 1998
Diplomatic Assassination in Greece, June 8, 2000
Attack on U.S.S. Cole, October 12, 2000
Manila Bombing, December 30, 2000
Suicide Bombing in Israel, March 4, 2001:
Death of "the Lion of the Panjshir", September 9, 2001:
Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Homeland, September 11, 2001: Two hijacked airliners crashed into the twin towers of the World Trade Center. Soon thereafter, the Pentagon was struck by a third hijacked plane. A fourth hijacked plane, suspected to be bound for a high-profile target in Washington, crashed into a field in southern Pennsylvania. The attacks killed 3,025 U.S. citizens and other nationals. President Bush and Cabinet officials indicated that Usama Bin Laden was the prime suspect and that they considered the United States in a state of war with international terrorism. In the aftermath of the attacks, the United States formed the Global Coalition Against Terrorism.
What do you suggest we do? Stay here and lob a couple cruise missiles? No the time for that crap is over. Hunt them down and kill them where they hide like the dogs they are. Enough killing of civilians. I would much prefer a thousand well-trained, fully prepared soldiers die in battle with our enemies (and I guarantee the enemies losses are much more painful), than one more innocent American Mother or baby. I did my time guarding the wall, I will do it again if they call me.
If the world population today would be just 650M instead of 6.5 Bn, I think it would be very easy for it to manage either global warming or ice age. Such a small population can easily relocate and plenty of farmland will ensure its prosperity.
But when you have for instance 100M poor people in a small and low-altitude country such as Bangladesh, two consecutive crops destroyed by hurricanes and floods and you have a massive food problem.
Aren't you missing a RATHER LARGE POINT? Not surprised but let me draw it out for you. It was WARMER (1 to 2 degrees) than it is NOW in 800-1200 AD. That is WITHOUT THE MASSIVE CARBON POLLUTION of the industrial age (purely agrarian economies). It was a FANTASTIC time for humans, with incredibly increased crop yields, reduction in hunger and starvation, and general happiness and increased health and life expectancy.
Okay think about that a little bit.
Endangered species HAHAHAHAHAH man you guys are a broken record. So you are a Creationist then? If you believe in Evolution, isn't the constant changeover of life kind of necessary? Or you believe that Evolution and everything was fine, until now, where we need to keep everything absolutely the same? You need to read about the history of Yellowstone park, and the results of the wonderful environmental interventions there.
QUOTE (Mircea the Romanian+May 17 2007, 11:23 AM)
I don't know, I am not Muslim. After your success in Iraq, I would not be so enthusiast.
Oh so you do not remember the various terrorist attacks on the US interests and its citizens PRIOR to 9/11?
This is an informative reference
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/pubs/fs/5902.htm
Some excerpted info on "Muslim attacks" on the US prior to 9/11
QUOTE (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/pubs/fs/5902.htm+)
Attempted Iraqi Attacks on U.S. Posts, January 18-19, 1991:
Kidnappings of U.S. Citizens in Colombia, January 31, 1993:
World Trade Center Bombing, February 26, 1993:
Attempted Assassination of President Bush by Iraqi Agents, April 14, 1993:
Air France Hijacking, December 24, 1994:
Attack on U.S. Diplomats in Pakistan, March 8, 1995:
Kashmiri Hostage-taking, July 4, 1995
Jerusalem Bus Attack, August 21, 1995:
Saudi Military Installation Attack, November 13, 1995:
Athens Embassy Attack, February 15, 1996:
HAMAS Bus Attack, February 26, 1996
Dizengoff Center Bombing, March 4, 1996
West Bank Attack, May 13, 1996:
Zekharya Attack, June 9, 1996
Khobar Towers Bombing, June 25, 1996:
Egyptian Letter Bombs, January 2-13, 1997
Empire State Building Sniper Attack, February 23, 1997
Israeli Shopping Mall Bombing, September 4, 1997
Murder of U.S. Businessmen in Pakistan, November 12, 1997
Somali Hostage-takings, April 15, 1998:
U.S. Embassy Bombings in East Africa, August 7, 1998
Diplomatic Assassination in Greece, June 8, 2000
Attack on U.S.S. Cole, October 12, 2000
Manila Bombing, December 30, 2000
Suicide Bombing in Israel, March 4, 2001:
Death of "the Lion of the Panjshir", September 9, 2001:
Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Homeland, September 11, 2001: Two hijacked airliners crashed into the twin towers of the World Trade Center. Soon thereafter, the Pentagon was struck by a third hijacked plane. A fourth hijacked plane, suspected to be bound for a high-profile target in Washington, crashed into a field in southern Pennsylvania. The attacks killed 3,025 U.S. citizens and other nationals. President Bush and Cabinet officials indicated that Usama Bin Laden was the prime suspect and that they considered the United States in a state of war with international terrorism. In the aftermath of the attacks, the United States formed the Global Coalition Against Terrorism.
What do you suggest we do? Stay here and lob a couple cruise missiles? No the time for that crap is over. Hunt them down and kill them where they hide like the dogs they are. Enough killing of civilians. I would much prefer a thousand well-trained, fully prepared soldiers die in battle with our enemies (and I guarantee the enemies losses are much more painful), than one more innocent American Mother or baby. I did my time guarding the wall, I will do it again if they call me.
QUOTE (deadbeat+May 20 2007, 03:35 AM)
[b]It was WARMER (1 to 2 degrees) than it is NOW in 800-1200 AD. [ ... ] Okay think about that a little bit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Ye..._Comparison.png
Ok I did, you're wrong.
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/48620/
And you're wrong again. Not really surprising, Bush broke from the advice of Sun Tzu. Not a guarantee of disaster, just a definite worsening of the odds.
http://www.sonshi.com/learn.html
For claiming to be such a reader of history, it's too bad Bush didn't know more about the tactics the Americans used in our own revolution. Then again, he doesn't understand the warfare of any age, so it's not surprising.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Ye..._Comparison.png
Ok I did, you're wrong.
QUOTE
No the time for that crap is over. Hunt them down and kill them where they hide like the dogs they are.
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/48620/
And you're wrong again. Not really surprising, Bush broke from the advice of Sun Tzu. Not a guarantee of disaster, just a definite worsening of the odds.
http://www.sonshi.com/learn.html
For claiming to be such a reader of history, it's too bad Bush didn't know more about the tactics the Americans used in our own revolution. Then again, he doesn't understand the warfare of any age, so it's not surprising.
QUOTE (Corvidae+May 20 2007, 03:10 PM)
Ok I did, you're wrong.
You missed THIS little tidbit.
It should also be noted that many reconstructions of past climate report substantial error bars, which are not represented on this figure.
We don't have actual measurements from back then we have proxies and the proxies result in a great deal of error, which is why we look to OTHER forms of evidence. For the MWP it is HISTORICAL, which in many ways is better than the proxies.
When they can live off of farming again in Greenland and Wine grapes thrive again in England THEN we can say its as warm NOW as it was then.
Arthur
You missed THIS little tidbit.
It should also be noted that many reconstructions of past climate report substantial error bars, which are not represented on this figure.
We don't have actual measurements from back then we have proxies and the proxies result in a great deal of error, which is why we look to OTHER forms of evidence. For the MWP it is HISTORICAL, which in many ways is better than the proxies.
When they can live off of farming again in Greenland and Wine grapes thrive again in England THEN we can say its as warm NOW as it was then.
Arthur
QUOTE (Corvidae+May 20 2007, 08:10 PM)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Ye..._Comparison.png
Ok I did, you're wrong.
Really? There seems to be some disagreement. This is 1990 IPCC and Moberg 2005 overlaid. Your diagram is intentionally misleading, using MANY different sources that are calibrated differently. That page it comes from has been edited and used to say about that chart that there is definite scientific disagreement, and that the MWP as shown is actually higher than current temp. Wonder why they took that out? Kind of embarrassing no?
[
]
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/48620/
And you're wrong again. Not really surprising, Bush broke from the advice of Sun Tzu. Not a guarantee of disaster, just a definite worsening of the odds.
http://www.sonshi.com/learn.html
HAHAHAHA its like taking candy from a baby. What advice are you referring to? Hide and lob cruise missiles?
Idiotic. The "War on Terror" (which began after the 9/11 2001 Terror attacks) is responsible for the acts of terror that preceeded it too? You are a smart one you. Gee, I'll have to think about how to argue against that one.
how about this little nugget from an earlier post of mine?
Let us first consider Terrorists inside your or any country. They would be working against your own government. Terror is a method resorted to by Despots and Dictators and other fanatical people that want to spread and enforce ideology that is unpopular with the masses, and the government in power.
If it was popular with the masses, killing the masses would be bad, simply revolt and overthrow the government.
If it was popular with the government, it would just be done. Unless it is secret terror used to control people by fear (Despot? Dictator). In that case it is not really terrorists but the government.
Okay, so neither the people or the government are with the terrorists. They use coercion, Murder and fear to try to bring down the government and assume power, and if successful will just result in a dictator or despot.
Inside a country however, a legal or police type solution can be effectively enforced. The nature of the beast is that even if the masses support them at first, the eventual killing and violence will change that. (Witness what is finally now happening in Iraq, Iraqi chieftains and factions are turning against Al-Queda, it takes time but it is inevitable). So they can be caught and dealt with fairly simply.
The problem gets much more complicated when they are in or sponsored by another country.
Every country is Sovereign, and in complete control of what happens inside its boundaries. The UN is a great idea, (which Americans founded and supported by the way), and one way to enhance communication and negotiation of difficult inter-country affairs.
But what if the country harboring or supporting the terrorists refuses to prosecute or extradite them? Legal means and police actions are no longer possible. Eventually negotiations are pointless (As in with Saddam Hussein, after defiance of 18 UN Sanctions demanding he cease making and using Weapons of Mass Destruction over 22 years). The joke saying we "lied about WMD" is ridiculous. ALL SADDAM HAD TO DO WAS LET THE UN INSPECTORS IN TO DO THEIR JOB AND VERIFY HIS PROGRAMS WERE GONE, AND WEAPONS DESTROYED. If he had done so, the US could not and would not have invaded. Would you charge a man with murder if he shot a man holding a gun with no bullets threatening your wife? Not if you did not know there were no bullets. Stupid and pointless argument.
If the offending country refuses to honor either police actions or negotiations, the only avenue remaining is WAR.
Eventually, hopefully, people will begin to see the truth in this matter, hopefully before the incredibly biased media, and best efforts of the Democratic party destroy our ability to defend ourselves.
For claiming to be such a reader of history, it's too bad Bush didn't know more about the tactics the Americans used in our own revolution. Then again, he doesn't understand the warfare of any age, so it's not surprising.
Oh, you didn't know? Dubya actually was a History Major. And got better grades than Kerry HAHAHAHAH.
Ok I did, you're wrong.
Really? There seems to be some disagreement. This is 1990 IPCC and Moberg 2005 overlaid. Your diagram is intentionally misleading, using MANY different sources that are calibrated differently. That page it comes from has been edited and used to say about that chart that there is definite scientific disagreement, and that the MWP as shown is actually higher than current temp. Wonder why they took that out? Kind of embarrassing no?
[
]QUOTE (Corvidae+May 20 2007, 08:10 PM)
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/48620/
And you're wrong again. Not really surprising, Bush broke from the advice of Sun Tzu. Not a guarantee of disaster, just a definite worsening of the odds.
http://www.sonshi.com/learn.html
HAHAHAHA its like taking candy from a baby. What advice are you referring to? Hide and lob cruise missiles?
Idiotic. The "War on Terror" (which began after the 9/11 2001 Terror attacks) is responsible for the acts of terror that preceeded it too? You are a smart one you. Gee, I'll have to think about how to argue against that one.
how about this little nugget from an earlier post of mine?
Let us first consider Terrorists inside your or any country. They would be working against your own government. Terror is a method resorted to by Despots and Dictators and other fanatical people that want to spread and enforce ideology that is unpopular with the masses, and the government in power.
If it was popular with the masses, killing the masses would be bad, simply revolt and overthrow the government.
If it was popular with the government, it would just be done. Unless it is secret terror used to control people by fear (Despot? Dictator). In that case it is not really terrorists but the government.
Okay, so neither the people or the government are with the terrorists. They use coercion, Murder and fear to try to bring down the government and assume power, and if successful will just result in a dictator or despot.
Inside a country however, a legal or police type solution can be effectively enforced. The nature of the beast is that even if the masses support them at first, the eventual killing and violence will change that. (Witness what is finally now happening in Iraq, Iraqi chieftains and factions are turning against Al-Queda, it takes time but it is inevitable). So they can be caught and dealt with fairly simply.
The problem gets much more complicated when they are in or sponsored by another country.
Every country is Sovereign, and in complete control of what happens inside its boundaries. The UN is a great idea, (which Americans founded and supported by the way), and one way to enhance communication and negotiation of difficult inter-country affairs.
But what if the country harboring or supporting the terrorists refuses to prosecute or extradite them? Legal means and police actions are no longer possible. Eventually negotiations are pointless (As in with Saddam Hussein, after defiance of 18 UN Sanctions demanding he cease making and using Weapons of Mass Destruction over 22 years). The joke saying we "lied about WMD" is ridiculous. ALL SADDAM HAD TO DO WAS LET THE UN INSPECTORS IN TO DO THEIR JOB AND VERIFY HIS PROGRAMS WERE GONE, AND WEAPONS DESTROYED. If he had done so, the US could not and would not have invaded. Would you charge a man with murder if he shot a man holding a gun with no bullets threatening your wife? Not if you did not know there were no bullets. Stupid and pointless argument.
If the offending country refuses to honor either police actions or negotiations, the only avenue remaining is WAR.
Eventually, hopefully, people will begin to see the truth in this matter, hopefully before the incredibly biased media, and best efforts of the Democratic party destroy our ability to defend ourselves.
QUOTE (Corvidae+May 20 2007, 08:10 PM)
For claiming to be such a reader of history, it's too bad Bush didn't know more about the tactics the Americans used in our own revolution. Then again, he doesn't understand the warfare of any age, so it's not surprising.
Oh, you didn't know? Dubya actually was a History Major. And got better grades than Kerry HAHAHAHAH.
QUOTE (deadbeat+May 20 2007, 03:35 AM)
It was WARMER (1 to 2 degrees) than it is NOW in 800-1200 AD. That is WITHOUT THE MASSIVE CARBON POLLUTION of the industrial age (purely agrarian economies). It was a FANTASTIC time for humans, with incredibly increased crop yields, reduction in hunger and starvation, and general happiness and increased health and life expectancy.
No the time for that crap is over. Hunt them down and kill them (Muslim terrorist) where they hide like the dogs they are.
I get it! The time of the crusades was the Golden Age of human civilization and you Knights are bringing it back:
- driving tank-size cars instead of horses;
- embarking to new crusades around the world to hunt down Muslims.
It would be nice to wish you good luck and enjoy watching you fail, but it's also my world that you will mess up with your actions.
Whatever!
No the time for that crap is over. Hunt them down and kill them (Muslim terrorist) where they hide like the dogs they are.
I get it! The time of the crusades was the Golden Age of human civilization and you Knights are bringing it back:
- driving tank-size cars instead of horses;
- embarking to new crusades around the world to hunt down Muslims.
It would be nice to wish you good luck and enjoy watching you fail, but it's also my world that you will mess up with your actions.
Whatever!
QUOTE (Mircea the Romanian+May 21 2007, 07:52 AM)
I get it! The time of the crusades was the Golden Age of human civilization and you Knights are bringing it back:
- driving tank-size cars instead of horses;
- embarking to new crusades around the world to hunt down Muslims.
It would be nice to wish you good luck and enjoy watching you fail, but it's also my world that you will mess up with your actions.
Whatever!
Oh, so now Terrorists=Muslims?
I do not know how you can delude yourself into thinking that NOT taking any action against World organized Terror is a good idea. The idea that we shouldn't make them mad is ridiculous. They were already mad. Now they are mad because we are killing them back. What would you suggest? A hug and a warm glass of Soy Milk?
You stay at home and complain about the unfairness of it all, while we do the heavy lifting. Just do try to stay out of the way would you? Just what is America doing to your world that is bad?
- driving tank-size cars instead of horses;
- embarking to new crusades around the world to hunt down Muslims.
It would be nice to wish you good luck and enjoy watching you fail, but it's also my world that you will mess up with your actions.
Whatever!
Oh, so now Terrorists=Muslims?
I do not know how you can delude yourself into thinking that NOT taking any action against World organized Terror is a good idea. The idea that we shouldn't make them mad is ridiculous. They were already mad. Now they are mad because we are killing them back. What would you suggest? A hug and a warm glass of Soy Milk?
You stay at home and complain about the unfairness of it all, while we do the heavy lifting. Just do try to stay out of the way would you? Just what is America doing to your world that is bad?
QUOTE (deadbeat+May 21 2007, 09:18 AM)
Oh, so now Terrorists=Muslims?
I would like to continue this debate, but, out of respect for the other people on this SCIENCE forum, I think we should take it outside. Invite me, if you want, to a political forum and we can continue this. I DO have a lot to say.
I would like to continue this debate, but, out of respect for the other people on this SCIENCE forum, I think we should take it outside. Invite me, if you want, to a political forum and we can continue this. I DO have a lot to say.
Hi Mircea!
Sure, do learn Portuguese. Not exactly easy, but it's a Latin language anyway, and it's used by over 230 million people. Then, go on with Spanish.
Ethanol:
- Very nice, it works fine, but
- Only its untaxed price is lower than heavily taxed gasoline. Governments would react if use of ethanol spreads.
- With cane or beet just as with rapeseed, the area available to agriculture can't replace the crude oil output. We need better methods; some algae look promising.
Sure, do learn Portuguese. Not exactly easy, but it's a Latin language anyway, and it's used by over 230 million people. Then, go on with Spanish.
Ethanol:
- Very nice, it works fine, but
- Only its untaxed price is lower than heavily taxed gasoline. Governments would react if use of ethanol spreads.
- With cane or beet just as with rapeseed, the area available to agriculture can't replace the crude oil output. We need better methods; some algae look promising.
QUOTE (Enthalpy+May 21 2007, 08:31 AM)
Ethanol:
- Very nice, it works fine, but
- Only its untaxed price is lower than heavily taxed gasoline. Governments would react if use of ethanol spreads.
- With cane or beet just as with rapeseed, the area available to agriculture can't replace the crude oil output. We need better methods; some algae look promising.
Depends on the price of crude vs corn vs cane.
Currently with oil trading in the $60 barrel range Ethanol is cheaper regardless of the stock.
Drop the price of Crude to the $40 barrel range and only Ethanol from Cane would be cheaper.
See: http://www.oilnergy.com/1cashpet.htm
http://www.oilnergy.com/hpix/1sgaso.gif
(prices PRIOR to taxes)
vs oil
http://www.oilnergy.com/hpix/1soil.gif
Arthur
- Very nice, it works fine, but
- Only its untaxed price is lower than heavily taxed gasoline. Governments would react if use of ethanol spreads.
- With cane or beet just as with rapeseed, the area available to agriculture can't replace the crude oil output. We need better methods; some algae look promising.
Depends on the price of crude vs corn vs cane.
Currently with oil trading in the $60 barrel range Ethanol is cheaper regardless of the stock.
Drop the price of Crude to the $40 barrel range and only Ethanol from Cane would be cheaper.
See: http://www.oilnergy.com/1cashpet.htm
http://www.oilnergy.com/hpix/1sgaso.gif
(prices PRIOR to taxes)
vs oil
http://www.oilnergy.com/hpix/1soil.gif
Arthur
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.