Ethanol Mandate for Iowa?

Do you have a patent on magic BTUs? Petroleum BTUs are used grow and
distill corn into ethanol.

"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:dpe_e.18544$lW3.18289@trndny09...
sfb wrote:

Ethanol is the ultimate political boondoggle as it costs more BTUs to
manufacture than it provides.

But you don't have to use petroleum to provide those BTUs;
consequently, it does reduce dependence on foreign oil, and it does
pollute less than petrol.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person
to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

sfb wrote:
Do you have a patent on magic BTUs? Petroleum BTUs are used grow and
distill corn into ethanol.

Although, more and more, farm equipment is being run on biodiesel, because
the farm industry is backing it and encouraging farmers to use it.

--- Jay


--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.OceanCityAirport.com
http://www.oc-Adolfos.com

sfb wrote:
Do you have a patent on magic BTUs? Petroleum BTUs are used grow and
distill corn into ethanol.

Really? You never heard of coal? Propane? Natural gas?

Hell, even wood makes a fine fuel for a still.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:dpe_e.18544$lW3.18289@trndny09...
sfb wrote:

Ethanol is the ultimate political boondoggle as it costs more BTUs to
manufacture than it provides.

But you don't have to use petroleum to provide those BTUs; consequently,
it does reduce dependence on foreign oil, and it does pollute less than
petrol.



The problem is if you use a gallon of Ethanol to produce 0.99 gallons of
Ethanol all of the fuel produced will go into production and you are going
to have to add .01 petro just to break even.

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

The problem is if you use a gallon of Ethanol to produce 0.99 gallons of
Ethanol all of the fuel produced will go into production and you are going
to have to add .01 petro just to break even.

then could it still have a practical use as a means of storing
energy instead? I mean, producing ethanol using the output of
say nuclear plants (ok, replace that with wind mills or whatever
takes your fancy if 'nuclear' is against your religion); it was
my (probably mistaken) understanding that the output of a nuclear
plant could not easily be throttled up or down...

any recommendation about some good reading on the subject of
alternative fuel technologies?

--Sylvain

("Sylvain" wrote)
then could it still have a practical use as a means of storing
energy instead? I mean, producing ethanol using the output of
say nuclear plants (ok, replace that with wind mills or whatever
takes your fancy if 'nuclear' is against your religion); it was
my (probably mistaken) understanding that the output of a nuclear
plant could not easily be throttled up or down...


100% my idea also.

About NP being throttled up or down:
First: STOP trying to replace the Hoover Dam with each Nuclear Power plant
built! (Had to say that)

Each ethanol plant would have two small (tiny tiny tiny) McNuke Plants.
Tiny! If one is down, the other one chugs along.

Second: Chugging along - Store the surplus energy like an old lighthouse -
wind up the weight, release the weight. If each McNuke plant had a number of
large, in ground, weight tubes to 'work on' when the ethanol plant was down,
that would solve that problem. It would smooth out the spikes and allow the
McNuke plant to be CS -- constant speed. Sell to the grid if you have too
much stored capacity at the end of the month, quarter, whatever.

Third: Have an ethanol generator (for back up) to the Atomic Lighthouse
design - in case you get in a bind some afternoon. "Accounting sold too much
power at 'peak' prices again today, so we're short on 2nd shift ...again!"

Is there a way to make a buck from these fantastic ideas? A MacArthur
Fellows Program "genius grant?" Anything? g

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4051423

http://www.macfound.org/programs/fel/fel_overview.htm


Montblack

"Sylvain" wrote in message
...
Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

The problem is if you use a gallon of Ethanol to produce 0.99 gallons of
Ethanol all of the fuel produced will go into production and you are
going to have to add .01 petro just to break even.

then could it still have a practical use as a means of storing
energy instead? I mean, producing ethanol using the output of
say nuclear plants (ok, replace that with wind mills or whatever
takes your fancy if 'nuclear' is against your religion); it was
my (probably mistaken) understanding that the output of a nuclear
plant could not easily be throttled up or down...

any recommendation about some good reading on the subject of
alternative fuel technologies?

--Sylvain

That is still not an efficient way to store energy. But how about this? We
get rid of the of some of the unneeded regulations around Nuclear plants and
move to a point where all electrical production is created with nuclear
power and only use petro based fuel where they are the most effecient form
of energy storage. i.e. cars, trucks, and airplanes.

Nuclear is feared because the first thing it was used for was blowing up two
cities in Japan. If the first use of electricity had been for the electric
chair we'd have people out there chanting "No more watts."

"Gig 601XL Builder" wr.giacona@coxDOTnet wrote in message
news:Uag_e.87517$7f5.46917@okepread01...

The problem is if you use a gallon of Ethanol to produce 0.99 gallons of
Ethanol all of the fuel produced will go into production and you are going
to have to add .01 petro just to break even.


Although there are scientists who claim their research shows a negative
production efficiency, there appear to be an equally impressive number who
claim otherwise.

"Icebound" wrote in message
...

"Gig 601XL Builder" wr.giacona@coxDOTnet wrote in message
news:Uag_e.87517$7f5.46917@okepread01...

The problem is if you use a gallon of Ethanol to produce 0.99 gallons of
Ethanol all of the fuel produced will go into production and you are
going to have to add .01 petro just to break even.


Although there are scientists who claim their research shows a negative
production efficiency, there appear to be an equally impressive number who
claim otherwise.


Does it really matter if it is so close that informed people can't agree it
the energy balance is slightly greater or less than 1? Clearly it isn't
much of an alternative fuel if that is the case.

Mike
MU-2

"Icebound" wrote in message ...

snip

Although there are scientists who claim their research shows a negative production efficiency, there appear to be
an equally impressive number who claim otherwise.
There are other things to consider as well, such as the value of energy independence. Why pump that money into a
sheikdom when we can pour it back into our own economy?



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----