The ethanol scam

Eeyore wrote in
:



Dan Luke wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote:

The more I look at alleged global warming the more cracks I see in the
flimsy IPCC case.

Post some.

I'll probably put something about it on a site eventually.


Don't put too much work into it, netkkkop. You'll prolly get booted anyway.



Bertie

Graham

Eeyore wrote in
:



Dan Luke wrote:

"Jay Honeck" wrote:

Scientific theory is all well and good -- but things tend to get
grossly distorted when money and humans are mixed in.

So, on that basis you can wave away the scientific consensus on the
subject?

Alleged (and alleged is all it is) 'consensus' proves nothing.

I suppose you'd wave away the very well argued objections to the IPCC
case ? A convincing and scientifically sound case wouldn't need to
rely on making such claims.



Is da guv'ment, eh mate?



Sun reading scumbag



Bertie




Graham

"Dan Luke" wrote in
:


"Eeyore" wrote:


So, on that basis you can wave away the scientific consensus on the
subject?

Alleged (and alleged is all it is)

Really?

======================
Science 3 December 2004:
Vol. 306. no. 5702, p. 1686


IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major
scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears
directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example,
the National Academy of Sciences report, 'Climate Change Science: An
Analysis of Some Key Questions', begins: "Greenhouse gases are
accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities,
causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to
rise." The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a
fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes:
"The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last
50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas
concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the
scientific community on this issue."

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society, the American
Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of
Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding
that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling.

======================

Perhaps you can offer some evidence in refutation of the above.



'consensus' proves nothing.

Correct. But to wave it away on no empirical basis is foolish.


I suppose you'd wave away the very well argued objections to the IPCC
case ?

Indeed not. I have spent a good deal of time examining such
objections, and have not found any that are destructive to the case
made in IPCC 4AR.

I'd be grateful if you could post links to some that you think are
'very well argued.'


convincing and scientifically sound case wouldn't need to rely on
making such
claims.

You mean claims like the one made by deniers that all the IPCC
scientists are distorting the findings so they'll get paid?


Just in case you didn't know, Graham is a known net-kook. He spends most
of his time on usenet whining about other's behaviour and netkkoping
them, only to be TOSsed himself...



He's your standard issue facist k00k.


He is fun though! Some of the e-mails my provider has passed on to me
are just priceless.





Bertie

Dan Luke wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote:

I'll probably put something about it on a site eventually.

It would be more helpful to us if you just mentioned one
or two here. By the time you have gotten around to doing
something on your site the moment will have passed and
we shall all have forgotton about it. You wouldn't want that,
would you?

I spend enough time on Usenet without typing reams of stuff to please some
one who also might forget about it in a trice.

However, here's suimple one. Let's start at the beginning. The IPCC case is
that CO2 and temperature data show anthropogenic global warming.

So, their CO2 and temperature figures are rather important to their case, no ?


Now, look in some details and you'll find that both their CO2 and
temperature numbers are based on data manipulation that is fundamentally
flawed.

No doubt you could point out those details and why they are flawed, if only
you had the time.

I would indeed.

Graham

Eeyore wrote in
:



Dan Luke wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote:

I'll probably put something about it on a site eventually.

It would be more helpful to us if you just mentioned one
or two here. By the time you have gotten around to doing
something on your site the moment will have passed and
we shall all have forgotton about it. You wouldn't want that,
would you?

I spend enough time on Usenet without typing reams of stuff to
please some one who also might forget about it in a trice.

However, here's suimple one. Let's start at the beginning. The IPCC
case is that CO2 and temperature data show anthropogenic global
warming.

So, their CO2 and temperature figures are rather important to their
case, no ?


Now, look in some details and you'll find that both their CO2 and
temperature numbers are based on data manipulation that is
fundamentally
flawed.

No doubt you could point out those details and why they are flawed,
if only you had the time.

I would indeed.




Bwahwahawhawhawhawhahwhahwhahhwhahwhhahwhahhwhah¬


Bertie






Graham

To insert a message into this discussion that continues the global
warming brouhaha, but also actually has some connection -- even if
rather indirect -- to piloting (or at least, to the undesirability of
putting pilots into space, if you want to look at it that way):

============================================

WHAT'S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 6 Jan 06 Washington, DC

1. POLITICAL RETRIBUTION: DEEP SPACE CLIMATE OBSERVATORY KILLED.

The deep space climate observatory satellite Triana was never able to
overcome its roots, and NASA has now quietly terminated what may have
been its most important science mission.

Critics of programs to limit emissions argue that climate change is
caused by solar variation, not by atmospheric changes. There is one
unambiguous way to tell: locate an observatory at L-1, the
neutral-gravity point between Earth and Sun. It would have a continuous
view of the sunlit face of Earth in one direction, and the Sun in the
other, thus constantly monitoring Earth's albedo.

Al Gore initiated the observatory project in 1998 to inspire school
children with a continuous view of climate unfolding on our fragile
planet. It was even given a poetic name, Triana, the sailor on the Santa
Maria who was first to sight the New World. But Triana's importance to
climate research, perhaps Earth's biggest challenge, was not recognized
until later.

With urging from the National Academy, it was finished in 2001 and given
a new name. It was still waiting to be launched when Columbia crashed.
By then we had a new President and a new "vision." It was put on hold.

The official reason for killing it is "competing priorities." The
priority now is to replace Gore's vision of the world with the Bush
vision of sending people back to the moon. We should all weep.

--------

Opinions are the author's and not necessarily shared by the University
of Maryland -- but they should be.

To subscribe to this newletter please visit:

http://listserv.umd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S...s-whatsnew&A=1

Archives of What's New can be found at http://www.bobpark.org

AES wrote:





Al Gore initiated the observatory project in 1998 to inspire school
children with a continuous view of climate unfolding on our fragile
planet. It was even given a poetic name, Triana, the sailor on the Santa
Maria who was first to sight the New World. But Triana's importance to
climate research, perhaps Earth's biggest challenge, was not recognized
until later.


This Al Gore stuff is amazing, I have got to get the Al Gore "Gaia man"
action figure, he's every where. Internet inventing, teaching kids,
inventing satellites, what a guy, and think he could be president right
now, save for the Election stealing Republicans....


--
An ignorant person is one who doesn't know what you have just found out

http://OutSourcedNews.com


The problem with the global warming theory, is that a theory is like a
bowl of ice-cream, it only takes a little dab of bull**** to ruin the
whole thing.

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 08:31:40 -0700, Jay Honeck
wrote:

As gas -- and corn -- prices creep ever higher, everyone in my great
State of Iowa is all ablush with talk of riches pouring in, thanks to
ethanol production. They can barely contain their glee at this
remarkable turn of economic fortune. (Remember, just a few years ago
farmers here had one foot in the grave, and the other on a banana
peel...)

Thus, I feel like Don Quixote, tilting at windmills, trying to get a
word in edgewise about the absurdity of it all. Of course, since
subsidized ethanol production is the single greatest farm subsidy
program in US history -- and since Iowa remains largely an
agricultural society -- facing facts is not a popular passtime here.

But it must be done, or our country is being led down the primrose
path to perdition. The fact remains that converting corn into
ethanol, for the purpose of fueling automobiles, is simply absurd.

Here is a quote that sums it up nicely, IMHO:

"Overall (farming, distillation), it takes 129,600 BTU to produce a
gallon of EtOH (ethanol), but the energy value of a gallon of EtOH is
only 76,000 BTU. In SI units [conversions in footnote 3]: it takes
45.7 MJ to produce a kilogram of EtOH, but the energy value of that
kilogram of EtOH is 26.8 MJ."

Although I share your views on using Ethanol from corn, that has to be
old information. The current net energy gain for corn based alcohol
is about 50%. IOW you get back 3 gallons for every two gallons
invested. That includes the entire chain from the farmer growing and
harvesting the crop through fermentation and distillation processes.
That is still not good and it also makes it expensive.

"There is thus a net energy loss of about 54,000 Btu for every gallon
(18.9 MJ for every kilogram) of EtOH produced. Unlike the old joke
about the tailor who claims he loses money on every suit, but stays in
business by 'making up for it in quantity', there is no deception
here. It's a losing proposition."

and the information is outdated. The article is dated and copywrite
1997, but some of the references are 1998 which seems a bit strange.
Last I knew you can not post date a copyright.

It was around 10 years ago they passed the beak even point with corn
grown ethanol.

HOWEVER "corn is probably one of the least efficient sources of
alcohol." It helps they can now also use the corn stalks and bacteria
to produce ethanol but it still leaves corn at, or close to the bottom
of the rankings for efficient production. Also that alcohol is
expensive enough to make today's gas prices seem almost tolerable.

In addition, using corn for ethanol production has a dramatic impact
on both the availability of other foods and their prices. The price
of beef is already climbing steadily due to the increased cost of
grain.

OTOH our government, or rather some of our conservative politicians
have a mental block against using the word "hemp" for any crop. Of
course hemp is one of the more efficient sources of ethanol in our
climate and that of Canada as well. Apparently Canada has no
reservations about using hemp for producing alcohol.

The one saving grace about this is the public will only stand for so
much before complaining about food prices. The cost of the corn based
alcohol will have much more of an impact on the cost of living than
any of the recent gas price peaks.As I said above, it not only costs
more, it will cause the availability to go down and price to go up
for many foods


You can read the whole article he
http://www.energyadvocate.com/etohscam.htm

You need up-to-date information which still does not make corn look
all that good and it's useable information.


Write your Congress Critters. The politicians are leading us down
this path for purely political purposes, and it's up to us to stop it.

On 2007-07-19 08:31:40 -0700, Jay Honeck said:

As gas -- and corn -- prices creep ever higher, everyone in my great
State of Iowa is all ablush with talk of riches pouring in, thanks to
ethanol production. They can barely contain their glee at this
remarkable turn of economic fortune. (Remember, just a few years ago
farmers here had one foot in the grave, and the other on a banana
peel...)

There have already been riots in Mexico because of the corn shortage.
But you will have about as much luck fighting "Big Corn" as you did
"Big Oil."



--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 10:04:46 -0600, RomeoMike
wrote:



Jay Honeck wrote:


"Overall (farming, distillation), it takes 129,600 BTU to produce a
gallon of EtOH (ethanol), but the energy value of a gallon of EtOH is
only 76,000 BTU. In SI units [conversions in footnote 3]: it takes
45.7 MJ to produce a kilogram of EtOH, but the energy value of that
kilogram of EtOH is 26.8 MJ."

Does anyone know how much energy it takes to pump crude out of the
ground, ship it to a refinery, and the refine it to make a gallon of
gas? I don't, just asking for a comparison.

It's surprisingly inefficient, but using the same stuff for power
makes it relatively inexpensive.
I looked it up a while back and as I recall it was "cost of producing
alcohol compared to processing crude oil into gas" The biggest problem
I found is there is so much conflicting information out there that it
takes time (a lot of it) to filter out what is and is not both correct
and up-to-date. Even where studies are undertaken you really need to
know the criteria under which the studies were conducted.

*Probably* one of the least expensive fuels is hydrogen produced by
gasification of coal, but that process is not clean and produces a
tremendous amount of CO2 as a byproduct. OTOH the byproducts and be
recovered and sold while the CO2 can be sequestered.