China enlarges bio-ethanol fuel coverage

[DMikeS4321]

Or continue the hippy pipe dream of turning our planet's food supply fuel for our cars

Wow. Didn't realize Henry Ford and Rudolph Diesel were hippies.

 

http://www.greendaily.com/2008/02/09/green...oil-dependence/

 

World population is a little larger now than in Henry and Rudy's day, Dave. It's a damned poor allocation of resources to use food or feed as fuel when there are better alternatives.

[IllinoisDave]

Or continue the hippy pipe dream of turning our planet's food supply fuel for our cars

Wow. Didn't realize Henry Ford and Rudolph Diesel were hippies.

 

http://www.greendaily.com/2008/02/09/green...oil-dependence/

 

World population is a little larger now than in Henry and Rudy's day, Dave. It's a damned poor allocation of resources to use food or feed as fuel when there are better alternatives.

Right. But they were the first "dreamers" in the field of biofuels and hardly hippies, which was my point. And like many today, at least they were trying to do SOMETHING about the need for alternatives to non-renewable resources, which was my other point.

 

This need some have to make derisive comments about those trying to do something instead of nothing just seems a little silly and sophmoric IMHO.

[Jeikun]

Or continue the hippy pipe dream of turning our planet's food supply fuel for our cars

Wow. Didn't realize Henry Ford and Rudolph Diesel were hippies.

 

http://www.greendaily.com/2008/02/09/green...oil-dependence/

 

World population is a little larger now than in Henry and Rudy's day, Dave. It's a damned poor allocation of resources to use food or feed as fuel when there are better alternatives.

Right. But they were the first "dreamers" in the field of biofuels and hardly hippies, which was my point. And like many today, at least they were trying to do SOMETHING about the need for alternatives to non-renewable resources, which was my other point.

 

This need some have to make derisive comments about those trying to do something instead of nothing just seems a little silly and sophmoric IMHO.

 

 

I don't think that ethanol is "doing something". I think it is intentionally wasting money and time on something that the people that make the big decisions already know isn't going to work, but continue to do so anyway because of the money involved in the whole charade. So it isn't doing something... it is taking us in the wrong direction while delivering false promises. That is even worse than doing nothing in my book. You are being deceived.

[IllinoisDave]

By the way, your Prius has a much larger carbon foot print in it's contruction than does a Hummer.

By the way, that's crap. That "fact" is put forth by lots of right-wing environment-haters based on a dis-credited report done by an outfit called CNW Marketing Research Inc. referred to as the "Dust to Dust" report.

 

Any credible scientist/analyst who's looked at it recognizes that is lacks in even the most basic requirements for a study like this to be taken seriously, not the least of which is that they refuse to release their methodology for peer review.

 

Of course it got lots of play in a lazy media that didn't bother to do any actual fact checking or reporting. People like George Will, that bastion of objectivity.

 

 

http://www.pacinst.org/topics/integrity_of...er_vs_prius.pdf

http://www.sudburyedc.org/blog/2007/05/12/...lysis-debunked/

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/04/17/th...er-controversy/

 

And:

http://www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Transportat..._DustToDust.pdf

 

Which says in part:

"Indeed, if we triple the entire vehicle lifecycle (which includes the mining and manufacture of all materials,plus painting and assembly), the Hummer still has a greater impact per mile."

[IllinoisDave]

Or continue the hippy pipe dream of turning our planet's food supply fuel for our cars

Wow. Didn't realize Henry Ford and Rudolph Diesel were hippies.

 

http://www.greendaily.com/2008/02/09/green...oil-dependence/

 

World population is a little larger now than in Henry and Rudy's day, Dave. It's a damned poor allocation of resources to use food or feed as fuel when there are better alternatives.

Right. But they were the first "dreamers" in the field of biofuels and hardly hippies, which was my point. And like many today, at least they were trying to do SOMETHING about the need for alternatives to non-renewable resources, which was my other point.

 

This need some have to make derisive comments about those trying to do something instead of nothing just seems a little silly and sophmoric IMHO.

 

 

I don't think that ethanol is "doing something". I think it is intentionally wasting money and time on something that the people that make the big decisions already know isn't going to work, but continue to do so anyway because of the money involved in the whole charade. So it isn't doing something... it is taking us in the wrong direction while delivering false promises. That is even worse than doing nothing in my book. You are being deceived.

I didn't say ethanol was the right answer. In fact, I don't happen to think it is either. There are people trying to come up with answers in MANY different ways, not just ethanol. My use of the words "many" and "something" encompasses a lot of things, not just ethanol.

 

But all these people working on or advocating various alternatives usually get lumped into one group and derisively labelled "tree-huggers" or "hippies" or the like by those who,for whatever reason, think that trying to improve the environment is a BAD thing to be sneered at. I don't know maybe they think god will provide for everyone so no need to do anything. Or that there's no problem to begin with so "Screw it, I'll drive my Hummer if I want and neener neener neener to the rest of you and the environment you rode in on."

 

Does that sound like an unfair, oversimplified stereotype of the "anti-green" side? Maybe even silly and sophmoric? If so, maybe I've made my point a little clearer.

[Jeikun]

Or continue the hippy pipe dream of turning our planet's food supply fuel for our cars

Wow. Didn't realize Henry Ford and Rudolph Diesel were hippies.

 

http://www.greendaily.com/2008/02/09/green...oil-dependence/

 

World population is a little larger now than in Henry and Rudy's day, Dave. It's a damned poor allocation of resources to use food or feed as fuel when there are better alternatives.

Right. But they were the first "dreamers" in the field of biofuels and hardly hippies, which was my point. And like many today, at least they were trying to do SOMETHING about the need for alternatives to non-renewable resources, which was my other point.

 

This need some have to make derisive comments about those trying to do something instead of nothing just seems a little silly and sophmoric IMHO.

 

 

I don't think that ethanol is "doing something". I think it is intentionally wasting money and time on something that the people that make the big decisions already know isn't going to work, but continue to do so anyway because of the money involved in the whole charade. So it isn't doing something... it is taking us in the wrong direction while delivering false promises. That is even worse than doing nothing in my book. You are being deceived.

I didn't say ethanol was the right answer. In fact, I don't happen to think it is either. There are people trying to come up with answers in MANY different ways, not just ethanol. My use of the words "many" and "something" encompasses a lot of things, not just ethanol.

 

But all these people working on or advocating various alternatives usually get lumped into one group and derisively labelled "tree-huggers" or "hippies" or the like by those who,for whatever reason, think that trying to improve the environment is a BAD thing to be sneered at. I don't know maybe they think god will provide for everyone so no need to do anything. Or that there's no problem to begin with so "Screw it, I'll drive my Hummer if I want and neener neener neener to the rest of you and the environment you rode in on."

 

Does that sound like an unfair, oversimplified stereotype of the "anti-green" side? Maybe even silly and sophmoric? If so, maybe I've made my point a little clearer.

 

I don't disagree with your point. But if you believe the situation is coming close to being dire, and something major needs to be done now then we have to look at solutions that can be put in place and take a large percentage of the load as quickly as possible.

 

Unfortunately, many of those who most vocally demand we move towards energy independance and cleaner energy sources, are also vocally opposed to the tools we have at our disposal to make rapid progress to that end.

 

I think that nuclear power, and expanded domestic drilling for petroleum, as well as expanding our refining capabilities would show the most progress in the shortest period of time. Greener and more long-term solutions can continue to be developed to take over in the long term.

 

As far as vehicles and emissions, gas-electric hybrids such as the prius are more viable than the idea of switching to ethanol. Long term, a hydrogen-electric hybrid, or full electric vehicle could be the answer (though of course only one of many).

 

I think many of those who desire greener energy and energy independance are wanting to skip past the immediate solutions, and use the solutions of 25 years in the future today... and it just isn't viable.

 

End result is by and large nothing is changing and money is being wasted on a menagarie of theoretical models that will take longer to cause any improvement than we can afford to wait.

[IllinoisDave]

I don't disagree with your point. But if you believe the situation is coming close to being dire, and something major needs to be done now then we have to look at solutions that can be put in place and take a large percentage of the load as quickly as possible.

 

Unfortunately, many of those who most vocally demand we move towards energy independance and cleaner energy sources, are also vocally opposed to the tools we have at our disposal to make rapid progress to that end.

 

I think that nuclear power, and expanded domestic drilling for petroleum, as well as expanding our refining capabilities would show the most progress in the shortest period of time. Greener and more long-term solutions can continue to be developed to take over in the long term.

 

As far as vehicles and emissions, gas-electric hybrids such as the prius are more viable than the idea of switching to ethanol. Long term, a hydrogen-electric hybrid, or full electric vehicle could be the answer (though of course only one of many).

 

I think many of those who desire greener energy and energy independance are wanting to skip past the immediate solutions, and use the solutions of 25 years in the future today... and it just isn't viable.

 

End result is by and large nothing is changing and money is being wasted on a menagarie of theoretical models that will take longer to cause any improvement than we can afford to wait.

And I don't disagree with pretty much all of your post. The parts that I may differ with sure aren't worth arguing over.

[Randy W]

And I don't disagree with pretty much all of your post. The parts that I may differ with sure aren't worth arguing over.

 

I think these people have their own left wing newspapers that they read and argue with, since they figure everyone reads and believes them.

[IllinoisDave]

And I don't disagree with pretty much all of your post. The parts that I may differ with sure aren't worth arguing over.

 

I think these people have their own left wing newspapers that they read and argue with, since they figure everyone reads and believes them.

"These people"?

Edited April 14, 2008 by IllinoisDave (see edit history)

[Randy W]

And I don't disagree with pretty much all of your post. The parts that I may differ with sure aren't worth arguing over.

 

I think these people have their own left wing newspapers that they read and argue with, since they figure everyone reads and believes them.

"These people"?

 

I meant the people who argue with the left wing wacko's like us.

 

Sorry - I had to take Jason's quote out of there so he wouldn't think I was specifically referring to him.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Mike)

[IllinoisDave]

And I don't disagree with pretty much all of your post. The parts that I may differ with sure aren't worth arguing over.

 

I think these people have their own left wing newspapers that they read and argue with, since they figure everyone reads and believes them.

"These people"?

 

I meant the people who argue with the left wing wacko's like us.

 

Sorry - I had to take Jason's quote out of there so he wouldn't think I was specifically referring to him.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Mike)

Now I get it.

[Don]

In IL we have been buying blended fuels for a long time. A small change can have big changes down the road. What is wrong with the American farming making money that Exxon wants to control. In IL many of the stations offers a 10 to 15% blended fuel. If we cut our imported oil by 10% how much money did we not give to people that hate American's way of life? Plus, a small change right now starts to build the infrastructure we need later for when better tech is here to make the fuel. With today tech we can not make more than a 5 to 10% change in oil import, but later with better tech maybe a 20 to 30% reduction is possible. What will happen to oil price if we can cut down our imports by 10%? Again think big picture not narrow, small change right now bigger later. As many have said "how many stations in CA offer E85?" Very few do, but how many stations in USA offer a 10 to 15% blend - Many, Many. Every station in the US can switch to the low level Alcohol blend.

[DMikeS4321]

And I don't disagree with pretty much all of your post. The parts that I may differ with sure aren't worth arguing over.

 

I think these people have their own left wing newspapers that they read and argue with, since they figure everyone reads and believes them.

"These people"?

 

I meant the people who argue with the left wing wacko's like us.

 

Sorry - I had to take Jason's quote out of there so he wouldn't think I was specifically referring to him.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Mike)

Now I get it.

 

So do I.

 

 

[Corbin]

Here is what I see out of what has been said here without doing allot of more research.

 

1. Bio fuel has many draw backs and it would cause many problems, such as higher food costs if food crops are used.

 

2. Nuclear power plants could be built to help with electric power generation, but what do we do with the hazardous waste in the form of spent fuel rods.

 

2a. Update current power plants.

 

3. Nuclear fusion should be research even more to make it viable choice.

 

4. Wind and solar can help but also have short comings. ie solar is still expensive to put into use for what is gotten out of it.

 

5. Our current refining plants are to few and to old.

 

6. Drilling for oil that we can get now has its own issues, but it would help and if we try to be environmentally friendly doing it there will be less impact on the areas drilled in.

 

7. Gas electric or Diesel electric has a good chance of helping.

 

8. Electric cars have the draw back of battery technology right now.

 

All of the above have their pluses and minuses that have to be considered, but if we do nothing we will be so cooked and might as well climb into a grave now.

[georgeandli]

The good old days are a thing of the past. No more cheap gas because the rest of the world has TV and sees how we live and demands the same standard of living. No matter that what they see isn't how most of us really live. 20 years ago I worked as a field tech doing efficiency testing on coal fired boilers all over the country. The Feds had just started doing NOX testing at power plants. It was cheaper to have the company I worked for be there "testing" than pay for the equipment to clean up the emissions. The Dutch were in the forefront with the technology at the time and Europe as a whole still is. The US is sitting on vast coal reserves but no one wants to build high tech plants to burn it clean because of the upfront cost. Cheaper to pay the fines and pollute. Trade pollution credits? Same with oil refineries, patch up the old ones cause no one wants a new one built next door. BP bought AMOCO and the first thing they did was cut back on safety and maintenance in Texas to boost profits. Explosion took it off line and they got to raise the price because they was a shortage of suprise, gasoline. Call me a treehugger [well maybe I do if I walk a little wobbly once in a while ] but seems stupid to me. Add another what 3 billion cars in Asia and a few hundred power plants...