If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Cub Driver wrote:
In 1975, Aristotle Onassis wanted to build an oil refinery in the town in which I live. We believed, and went around saying, that this was utterly stupid because in 25 years we would have run out of oil (and this wasn't something we made up, but was a serious forecast) and we would be stuck with a rusting shell. So here it is, four years after the apocalypse, and there are more proven reserves in the world today than there were in 1975. The popular environmental "prediction" of the mid/late 60's was over population. Your concerns over a refinery with no oil to refine by 2000 was unnecessary, since the earth would already be wrecked from human over-population! Who cares about keeping the tank of their Buick filled when there's nothing to eat? SMH |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
George:
You are aware that the only self -sustaining (better than break even) energy source other than fossil fuels is Helium-3 Fusion, right? And you are also aware that the best (most cost effective) place to harvest the quantities of He-3 required to power this planet is on the surface of the moon, right? You certainly must be aware that *all* of the alternatives you mention require more energy to produce than they provide, right? "Wasting our money going to the moon" indeed! Steve Swartz "George Z. Bush" wrote in message ... R. David Steele wrote: Right now Freedom runs on oil. We tried nuclear, and bio-fuels, and until we get a Congress willing to go Hydrogen in 10 years, (instead of another wasted trip to the Moon, or Mar's), then we will all burn in hell. We have an energy policy that is based on depletion. Really? In that case, you won't have any problem explaining to those of us who still don't get it why, when our oil supply is recognizably being depleted without replenishment, we are (1) still manufacturing and selling gas-guzzling SUVs and (2) why we haven't required every vehicle on our roads to be able to get 40 or 50 mpg as a prerequisite for getting a license plate. In any case, our current energy policy was put together by a commission appointed by the President and chaired by the Vice President, whose membership seems to be a secret, along with the minutes of the meetings they may have had that evolved into our national policy. It's not even clear what the policy actually is, much less the reasons for it, since everything about that commission has been kept secret by the Vice President, who is now or shortly will be defending himself against a lawsuit before the Supreme Court which was filed to force the administration to make public the details of the commission's proceedings. It's entirely possible that, in the light of day, we may learn that our energy policy is aimed at the protection of certain economic interests first, rather than the nation's best interests. We may find out one of these days. George Z. Because the UAW has a huge influence on such policies. I gather that you want millions of common folks without jobs? Those SUVs put money in the common man's pocket. I guess that non-sequitor is about as much as I could expect by way of an answer. George Z. |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
"Stephen Harding" wrote in message ... George Z. Bush wrote: "D. Strang" wrote in message Ethanol is a welfare program. It has nothing to do with future energy. You don't know what you're talking about. When you pour a gallon of it into your gas tank, that's one less gallon of gasoline that you're going to need, because it's supposed to burn just about as good as gasoline does. That has to do with reducing gasoline consumption, the way I see it. Unfortunately, for some reason, it never caught on with consumers. I like ethanol. My car does that is. Seems to run a little smoother when I'm cruising across Iowa where "gasohol" can be found in abundance. But from an energy conservation point of view, it really isn't very good sense. How much energy does it take to create ethanol from corn? How much energy do you get back from burning it with gas? It's a net energy loss IIRC. Maybe it's because I don't fully understand how it works, but if, as you say, it runs as smoothly in your car as does gasoline and if the stuff is made of surplus corn not otherwise needed to nourish human beings, why doesn't its manufacture in far larger quantities than presently help to extend the life of our oil reserves? For every gallon of ethanol-containing gasohol that is burned (made of stuff that otherwise would likely rot and be of no value to anyone), would that not represent at least a portion of a gallon of gasoline that won't be burned in its place, therefore extending the life of our petroleum reserves? How can that be an energy loss? Is the fact that there might not be as much profit in a gallon of gasohol as there is in a gallon of gasoline what inhibits an expansion of the amount of ethanol manufactured? If so, should our national energy policy be based on the profitability of the fuel used by our nation's consumers, or should that factor have any influence at all? it has been stated that if diesel prices reach $2.00 a gallon, that the current technology in algae production would be able to match that price, with future prices going lower as production increases, and technology improves. That's all well and good, but 25+ years after they started looking into the possibilities, there is still nothing available that is cost-effective enough to put on the market. Since no one denies that we ought to be able to rub our bellies and scratch our heads at the same time, why haven't they created greater demand on vehicle manufacturers to produce engines capable of simultaneously reducing fuel consumption and expanding the life of our petroleum reserves and stocks while, at the same time, continuing to explore alternative sources? That's a rhetorical question, and I'm sure you know the answer as well as I. Because oil is what drives the economy, and because no satisfactory alternative is anywhere on the horizon, with the possible exception of hydrogen driven fuel cell technology in perhaps 20 years. The infrastructure is set up for oil and whatever replaces oil should fit that same infrastructure for best effect. The idea you're going to "stick it" to oil companies with some new technology is naive. As I recall, they said just about the same thing way back when most cars could only get 10 or 15 mph, and the federal government mandated that they needed to improve dramatically as their contribution to our national energy policy. It took a few years, but after that, just about every vehicle on the market was capable of getting 25-30 mpg from our existing fuel supply. I don't think anyone is claiming that the efficiency of existing auto engines have reached any sort of pinnacle. I suspect that, if pushed, the manufacturers will again produce, just as they have in the past. Call it naive if you will, but many people think it possible. .....The oil companies will become the "hydrogen companies", or "solar companies" or "wind companies" of the future. They're not going away and until fusion nukes come along, energy is always going to be a hard to come by, costly resource. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
"George Z. Bush" wrote in message ... "Stephen Harding" wrote in message ... George Z. Bush wrote: "D. Strang" wrote in message Ethanol is a welfare program. It has nothing to do with future energy. You don't know what you're talking about. When you pour a gallon of it into your gas tank, that's one less gallon of gasoline that you're going to need, because it's supposed to burn just about as good as gasoline does. That has to do with reducing gasoline consumption, the way I see it. Unfortunately, for some reason, it never caught on with consumers. I like ethanol. My car does that is. Seems to run a little smoother when I'm cruising across Iowa where "gasohol" can be found in abundance. But from an energy conservation point of view, it really isn't very good sense. How much energy does it take to create ethanol from corn? How much energy do you get back from burning it with gas? It's a net energy loss IIRC. Maybe it's because I don't fully understand how it works, but if, as you say, it runs as smoothly in your car as does gasoline and if the stuff is made of surplus corn not otherwise needed to nourish human beings, why doesn't its manufacture in far larger quantities than presently help to extend the life of our oil reserves? For every gallon of ethanol-containing gasohol that is burned (made of stuff that otherwise would likely rot and be of no value to anyone), would that not represent at least a portion of a gallon of gasoline that won't be burned in its place, therefore extending the life of our petroleum reserves? How can that be an energy loss? If the amount of fossil based fuel required to create and process the ethanol is greater than the quantity/energy value of the ethanol that is yielded. At least one source claims that the use of corn as the biomass for the process yields a net gain in terms of energy yielded, but without providing any specifics of how that conclusion was reached. Other sources indicate ethanol production is still a net energy loser. Is the fact that there might not be as much profit in a gallon of gasohol as there is in a gallon of gasoline what inhibits an expansion of the amount of ethanol manufactured? See above. And: "...most ethanol is currently made from corn and the process involved has matured to the point that further significant declines in production costs seem unlikely. Ethanol's economic viability as a gasoline blending component also depends in part on Federal and States subsidies, and the Federal subsidy (54 cents per gallon) is slated for slow reduction over the next few years and expiration at the end of 2007." www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/plugs/plbioeth.html If so, should our national energy policy be based on the profitability of the fuel used by our nation's consumers, or should that factor have any influence at all? Got any idea how much CO2 is generated by the ethanol manufacturing process? A lot, which is unrecovered. That is a "greenhouse gas"--a good Al Gore man like yourself ought to be upset over that. Ironically, one of the big drivers of the use of ethanol as a fuel additive is as an oxygenating agent to improve air quality in metropolitan areas with poor air quality, ignoring the CO2 issue. Brooks |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
"George Z. Bush" wrote
...and if the stuff is made of surplus corn not otherwise needed to nourish human beings, Whoa now! This isn't surplus corn. The corn is a contract to the government. The farmers sell it to the buyer, and the buyer sells it to the distiller. The buyer and the distiller are then subsidized by Congress. There is no Capitalism involved. This may answer your other questions. The cost of manufacturing Ethanol is wired-in to the taxes you pay to the Revenue Service. The Revenue Service puts it in the general fund, and no accountant on Earth can decode it for at least 10 years, in which case a completely different administration is in power, and the previous ones are millionairs on retirement. Bottom line, oil is in depletion until alternatives (Capitalist ones) reach the break-even price, and then oil reserves (while still in depletion) will last for centuries longer. Conservation is one-half of the equation, if you want to play with that equation. Many of us want our Revenue spent on an alternative engine, or an alternative fuel, and not get Ethanol and a God Damned trip to Mars for no purpose. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
It's called a "net energy loss" because the energy required to *make* the
ethanol has to come from somewhere . . . like a coal burning plant . . . and the joules required to make the ethanol is MORE than the joules the ethanol itself releases. Same for all the "hydrogen" type boondoggles. Same for the "new" gas-electric hybrids. Yes, you get 60 miles to teh gallon as long as you don't count teh energy stream required to get the "top off" electricity to the vehicle and the extra energy required to manufacture the hybrid side of the vehicle in the first place. Well, o.k., the newest hybrids are probably right at break even now. The only reason they exist now is some jackboot sticks a gun in our faces and steals our money to subsidize the program. Try buyign a hybrid at "full price" and you'll see what I mean. If it takes more energy to make it than it releases, that just means you have to burn more fossil fuels (or atoms, but that's pretty much out) than you would have in the first place. Oh yeah, and I love being lectured by our "Green" friends in Europe about how great Diesel is . . . Steve Swartz "George Z. Bush" wrote in message ... "Stephen Harding" wrote in message ... George Z. Bush wrote: "D. Strang" wrote in message Ethanol is a welfare program. It has nothing to do with future energy. You don't know what you're talking about. When you pour a gallon of it into your gas tank, that's one less gallon of gasoline that you're going to need, because it's supposed to burn just about as good as gasoline does. That has to do with reducing gasoline consumption, the way I see it. Unfortunately, for some reason, it never caught on with consumers. I like ethanol. My car does that is. Seems to run a little smoother when I'm cruising across Iowa where "gasohol" can be found in abundance. But from an energy conservation point of view, it really isn't very good sense. How much energy does it take to create ethanol from corn? How much energy do you get back from burning it with gas? It's a net energy loss IIRC. Maybe it's because I don't fully understand how it works, but if, as you say, it runs as smoothly in your car as does gasoline and if the stuff is made of surplus corn not otherwise needed to nourish human beings, why doesn't its manufacture in far larger quantities than presently help to extend the life of our oil reserves? For every gallon of ethanol-containing gasohol that is burned (made of stuff that otherwise would likely rot and be of no value to anyone), would that not represent at least a portion of a gallon of gasoline that won't be burned in its place, therefore extending the life of our petroleum reserves? How can that be an energy loss? Is the fact that there might not be as much profit in a gallon of gasohol as there is in a gallon of gasoline what inhibits an expansion of the amount of ethanol manufactured? If so, should our national energy policy be based on the profitability of the fuel used by our nation's consumers, or should that factor have any influence at all? it has been stated that if diesel prices reach $2.00 a gallon, that the current technology in algae production would be able to match that price, with future prices going lower as production increases, and technology improves. That's all well and good, but 25+ years after they started looking into the possibilities, there is still nothing available that is cost-effective enough to put on the market. Since no one denies that we ought to be able to rub our bellies and scratch our heads at the same time, why haven't they created greater demand on vehicle manufacturers to produce engines capable of simultaneously reducing fuel consumption and expanding the life of our petroleum reserves and stocks while, at the same time, continuing to explore alternative sources? That's a rhetorical question, and I'm sure you know the answer as well as I. Because oil is what drives the economy, and because no satisfactory alternative is anywhere on the horizon, with the possible exception of hydrogen driven fuel cell technology in perhaps 20 years. The infrastructure is set up for oil and whatever replaces oil should fit that same infrastructure for best effect. The idea you're going to "stick it" to oil companies with some new technology is naive. As I recall, they said just about the same thing way back when most cars could only get 10 or 15 mph, and the federal government mandated that they needed to improve dramatically as their contribution to our national energy policy. It took a few years, but after that, just about every vehicle on the market was capable of getting 25-30 mpg from our existing fuel supply. I don't think anyone is claiming that the efficiency of existing auto engines have reached any sort of pinnacle. I suspect that, if pushed, the manufacturers will again produce, just as they have in the past. Call it naive if you will, but many people think it possible. .....The oil companies will become the "hydrogen companies", or "solar companies" or "wind companies" of the future. They're not going away and until fusion nukes come along, energy is always going to be a hard to come by, costly resource. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Leslie Swartz wrote: Same for the "new" gas-electric hybrids. Yes, you get 60 miles to teh gallon as long as you don't count teh energy stream required to get the "top off" electricity to the vehicle You mean like the Toyota Prius? The mileage figures include the gas required to generate the electricity. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
"D. Strang" wrote in message news:MM7_b.9908$Ru5.9336@okepread03... "George Z. Bush" wrote ...and if the stuff is made of surplus corn not otherwise needed to nourish human beings, Whoa now! This isn't surplus corn. The corn is a contract to the government. The farmers sell it to the buyer, and the buyer sells it to the distiller. The buyer and the distiller are then subsidized by Congress. There is no Capitalism involved. Hold it just a minute, please. You lost me there. I know you'll straighten me out if I have it wrong, but I thought that the way it worked was that the government established a production level for corn and, for whatever amount above that level that was produced, the government bought it up at a set price in order to keep it off the market, thereby maintaining the price on corn at a level that would keep the farmers economically viable. I thought that the stuff the government bought and kept in silos against the day when the annual supply might drop below the level needed to satisfy demand without resulting in raised prices is what I called surplus. That corn was bought and paid for by the taxpayer and intentionally withhelf drom the market against the day when what was produced wouldn't be enough to satisfy public demand. I think one of us must have the process wrong. This may answer your other questions. The cost of manufacturing Ethanol is wired-in to the taxes you pay to the Revenue Service. The Revenue Service puts it in the general fund, and no accountant on Earth can decode it for at least 10 years, in which case a completely different administration is in power, and the previous ones are millionairs on retirement. Here, too, I think it works another way. I thought that the way it worked was that the government owned corn was sold to a distiller for a mutually agreed upon price and, from that point on, the corn was in the capitalist system pipeline. It belonged to the distiller, who processed it into ethanol, did his cost accounting to establish his costs, and distributed it into the gasoline distribution net to be retailed, presumably at a profit of some sort at every level where it was handled before it ended up in somebody's gas tank. Not so? Bottom line, oil is in depletion until alternatives (Capitalist ones) reach the break-even price, and then oil reserves (while still in depletion) will last for centuries longer. Conservation is one-half of the equation, if you want to play with that equation. Many of us want our Revenue spent on an alternative engine, or an alternative fuel, and not get Ethanol and a God Damned trip to Mars for no purpose. It may come as a shock to you, but here I agree with you, from top to bottom. There's a helluva lot more we can do with our money, much less than that we'd have to borrow from banks, than to pour it into a relatively useless trip to Mars at our expense while we have so many unfulfilled needs in our own country. First things ought to come first, and Mars will be near the bottom of the list, where it belongs. George Z. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
"Kenneth Chiu" wrote in message ... In article , Leslie Swartz wrote: Same for the "new" gas-electric hybrids. Yes, you get 60 miles to teh gallon as long as you don't count teh energy stream required to get the "top off" electricity to the vehicle You mean like the Toyota Prius? The mileage figures include the gas required to generate the electricity. The comparisons are even worse that that. The extra price with hybrids makes up for a LOT of gas. Using figures from edmunds.com: A Honda Hybrid retails for $20,650, a regular LX Sedan for $16,160 highway mileage: Hybrid = 47, Sedan = 38. At $1.60 for gas, that extra $4000+ buys 1/2 million miles of gas at the 9mpg difference. Even at $2.50/gal, it doesn't equal out til 300,000+ miles. Using City mileage figures, it evens out at 200,000 miles. Now...factor in the fuel and chemicals used to make that bigass battery pack. Now...factor in the maintenance and environmental price for the expected battery replacement/disposal at 100-150,000 miles. Is the Hybrid 'better'? Yes, if gas mileage is the only factor you're looking at. Pete |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Juan Jiminez is a liar and a fraud (was: Zoom fables on ANN | ChuckSlusarczyk | Home Built | 105 | October 8th 04 12:38 AM |
Bush's guard record | JDKAHN | Home Built | 13 | October 3rd 04 09:38 PM |
GWB and the Air Guard | JD | Military Aviation | 77 | March 17th 04 10:52 AM |
Colin Powell on National Guard | ArtKramr | Military Aviation | 12 | February 23rd 04 01:26 AM |
bush rules! | Be Kind | Military Aviation | 53 | February 14th 04 04:26 PM |