The ethanol scam

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...

Really ?

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


I don't think anyone disputes that the globe is getting warmer. It's the
allegation that human activity is the primary cause of global warming that
is disputed, and rightly so.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ups.com...
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...)

...

"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."

"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."


Figures don't lie, but liers can figgure...

There are a lot of reports out there from various universities, etc. Pick
the results you want, you can find someone to back it up. Some are from less
than unbiased sources...

There is one individual that has written several papers that come up with
the net loss figure. But, as far as I have seen, everyone else comes up with
a net benifit (there may be exceptions, but I haven't run into them).

FWIW: I've found that Prof. John Heywood at M.I.T. is about as level headed
as anyone I've ever worked with when it comes to this sort of thing. He is a
co-author on:

http://lfee.mit.edu/public/Ethanol%2...rt%20Paper.pdf

And, for some ideas on energy alternatives for automobiles:

http://lfee.mit.edu/public/LFEE_2007-03_RP.pdf (Warning: It's about 150
pages.)


However, like many things, Ethanol is being hyped like there is no tomorrow
because a lot of groups have a real intrest in either:

selling corn
down playing the real problem
pretending they are doing something
etc.

http://lfee.mit.edu/metadot/index.pl?id=2234 for an index of reports.

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

Yep, which I didn't get either.
Jim

"Road Dog" wrote in message
ink.net...
Jim Burns wrote:
It might buy a fancy pickup truck, but it sure wouldn't swing my vote.

Maybe not yours but a truck is not insignificant. Heck,
the 2000 election was bought with a $600 tax break.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote

Really ?

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

I don't think anyone disputes that the globe is getting warmer. It's the
allegation that human activity is the primary cause of global warming that
is disputed, and rightly so.

I should have said anthropogenic global warming of course.

Graham

Yep, it was the BBC... I actually got the link from Jay. It looks like
U-Tube pulled it due to copy right concerns.. see
http://www.wagtv.com/acatalog/progview.asp?ID=11
Jim

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

"Jim Burns" wrote:

I recently watched a BBC documentary on U-Tube that stated that nearly
word
for word and added that scientists requesting funding for nearly any type
of
research had better link it to an environmental issue or it would surely
be
denied. They also interviewed scientists who had been shunned from the
scientific community for asking even the most innocent or logical
questions
if those questions shed any skepticism on the climate change theory. Of
course, this might lead to hundreds if not thousands of projects loosing
their funding.. so I guess if it's funded, it must be science? and of
course all science is good science? wait.. all funded science is good
science! or would the prefer "only funded science is good science"?


Check that video again, Jim; you sure it was BBC? Got a link?

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

Orval Fairbairn wrote:
Much of the "climate change"
"science" is hokum and poorly-devised models, resulting in
Garbage-garbage out.

So how many computational models have you written?

What are your qualifications that make your opinion worth considering?

Why should I accept your opinion over the statements of, say, Nobel prize
winner Frank Sherwood Rowland (or Stephen Hawking) - or other
climatologists?

"Jim Burns" wrote:
Yep, it was the BBC... I actually got the link from Jay. It looks
like U-Tube pulled it due to copy right concerns.. see
http://www.wagtv.com/acatalog/progview.asp?ID=11

It was NOT a BBC production. It was a production of Channel 4 in the UK:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gre...arming_Swindle

I stand corrected and my memory has been adjusted!
http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.com/
Jim

"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .
"Jim Burns" wrote:
Yep, it was the BBC... I actually got the link from Jay. It looks
like U-Tube pulled it due to copy right concerns.. see
http://www.wagtv.com/acatalog/progview.asp?ID=11

It was NOT a BBC production. It was a production of Channel 4 in the UK:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gre...arming_Swindle

"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .
What are your qualifications that make your opinion worth considering?

Why should I accept your opinion over the statements of, say, Nobel prize
winner Frank Sherwood Rowland (or Stephen Hawking) - or other
climatologists?

Hawking?! That hack? What...next you're gonna tell us the Vatican isn't
the center of the universe!

-c
"The proposition that the sun is in the center of the world and immovable
from its place is absurd, philosophically false, and formally
eretical..." - Cardinal Bellarmine, in condemnation of Galileo.

Eeyore wrote in
:



Dan Luke wrote:

"Orval Fairbairn" wrote:


Much of the "climate change" "science" is hokum and poorly-devised
models,
resulting in
Garbage-garbage out.

The hokum is coming from the deniers' side, Orval.

Really ?

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



Oh, so now you've turned into a smog spotter as well, eh my litle net
kkkkop#/?



Bertie

Graham