China enlarges bio-ethanol fuel coverage

[Randy W]

 

It's not just a waste of water. It costs more energy to produce ethanol than you get by using it. I wonder why the Chinese are messing with it? It's subsidized in the USA only for political reasons. It has no future as a cheap energy source.

 

Well, let's see! If we can produce more energy than what we put in, wouldn't that be a perpetual motion machine?

 

It was nice of the dinosaurs to roll over, die and be converted to oil, so that all we had left to do was pump it out of the ground

 

Anything else will cost money, and not necessarily cheap

[Corbin]

As was stated before, ethanol is a huge waste of water. It is a quick fix to a long term problem. Over a year ago an article in the Singapore Straits Times, stated China and India could both not afford ethanol. Corn takes 8 gallons of water to produce a gallon of ethanol, sugar cane takes 11 gallons. Not sure about beats.

Water is one of the scarcest resources in these two countries.Not to mention the high rise in food prices from diverting corn and sugars to ethanol production.

The US will see a large increase later this summer from these very problems.

It has been said that wars will soon be fought over water, not oil.Some political ones have been in US already. The state of Texas bought land in SE New Mexico to drill a large water well to pipe to dallas. New Mexico got wind of it and put a stop to it.

 

We can live without oil, but cannot go to long without water.

I would not say that we can live without oil.........

 

Oil is used in many things other than being burned to move things or produce heat. It is used to make many of our modern products.

[Don]

As was stated before, ethanol is a huge waste of water. It is a quick fix to a long term problem. Over a year ago an article in the Singapore Straits Times, stated China and India could both not afford ethanol. Corn takes 8 gallons of water to produce a gallon of ethanol, sugar cane takes 11 gallons. Not sure about beats.

Water is one of the scarcest resources in these two countries.Not to mention the high rise in food prices from diverting corn and sugars to ethanol production.

The US will see a large increase later this summer from these very problems.

It has been said that wars will soon be fought over water, not oil.Some political ones have been in US already. The state of Texas bought land in SE New Mexico to drill a large water well to pipe to dallas. New Mexico got wind of it and put a stop to it.

 

We can live without oil, but cannot go to long without water.

I would not say that we can live without oil.........

 

Oil is used in many things other than being burned to move things or produce heat. It is used to make many of our modern products.

 

Many areas have the water and can make the ethanol. Not all the country is like the Southwest, or the southeast lately.

[Jeikun]

This whole ethanol business is going to be revealed in a couple of decades at most to have been something akin to shoving our money up a pig's ass, giving it a good slap and watching it run off.

 

For all of the ethanol capable vehicles in California, how many ethanol stations are there? Two? Five? There sure aren't any in Northern California. Country wide only about 2% of those who own ethanol capable vehicles actually ever put ethanol in them. Who wins? Manufacturers. By making them dual-use they don't have to meet the MPG requirements of a gasoline only vehicle. It's cheaper for them.

 

You aren't going to see vast fields of sugarbeets, sawgrass, or Norwegian albino rutabegas stretching into the purple sunset and voodooing away our dependance on foreign oil in 10, 20, or 50,000 years. It's all smoke and mirrors, politics, and male bovine fecal material.

 

It's popular with the public because at a glance it seems like a way to get what we want with no sacrifice on our parts. How often does that ever work?

[DMikeS4321]

This whole ethanol business is going to be revealed in a couple of decades at most to have been something akin to shoving our money up a pig's ass, giving it a good slap and watching it run off.

 

For all of the ethanol capable vehicles in California, how many ethanol stations are there? Two? Five? There sure aren't any in Northern California. Country wide only about 2% of those who own ethanol capable vehicles actually ever put ethanol in them. Who wins? Manufacturers. By making them dual-use they don't have to meet the MPG requirements of a gasoline only vehicle. It's cheaper for them.

 

You aren't going to see vast fields of sugarbeets, sawgrass, or Norwegian albino rutabegas stretching into the purple sunset and voodooing away our dependance on foreign oil in 10, 20, or 50,000 years. It's all smoke and mirrors, politics, and male bovine fecal material.

 

It's popular with the public because at a glance it seems like a way to get what we want with no sacrifice on our parts. How often does that ever work?

 

OUCH!!!! Jason, you say what I've been thinking, I just didn't want to get reprimanded.

 

How DO you feel about jojoba and veggie diesel? It makes more sense to me as veggie was the fuel Dr. Rudy originally designed his engine around and jojoba in particular shouldn't impact food production.

 

You may think that's a crazy idea, but at least it makes a little more sense than the ethanol thing.

 

Best Regards

[Corbin]

This whole ethanol business is going to be revealed in a couple of decades at most to have been something akin to shoving our money up a pig's ass, giving it a good slap and watching it run off.

 

For all of the ethanol capable vehicles in California, how many ethanol stations are there? Two? Five? There sure aren't any in Northern California. Country wide only about 2% of those who own ethanol capable vehicles actually ever put ethanol in them. Who wins? Manufacturers. By making them dual-use they don't have to meet the MPG requirements of a gasoline only vehicle. It's cheaper for them.

 

You aren't going to see vast fields of sugarbeets, sawgrass, or Norwegian albino rutabegas stretching into the purple sunset and voodooing away our dependance on foreign oil in 10, 20, or 50,000 years. It's all smoke and mirrors, politics, and male bovine fecal material.

 

It's popular with the public because at a glance it seems like a way to get what we want with no sacrifice on our parts. How often does that ever work?

 

OUCH!!!! Jason, you say what I've been thinking, I just didn't want to get reprimanded.

 

How DO you feel about jojoba and veggie diesel? It makes more sense to me as veggie was the fuel Dr. Rudy originally designed his engine around and jojoba in particular shouldn't impact food production.

 

You may think that's a crazy idea, but at least it makes a little more sense than the ethanol thing.

 

Best Regards

The beauty of the diesel engine is it can run on just about any type of fuel, be it diesel, peanut oil, fryer oil or this jojoba stuff. The gas engine has its problems when it comes to other fuels.

[Feathers268]

This whole ethanol business is going to be revealed in a couple of decades at most to have been something akin to shoving our money up a pig's ass, giving it a good slap and watching it run off.

 

For all of the ethanol capable vehicles in California, how many ethanol stations are there? Two? Five? There sure aren't any in Northern California. Country wide only about 2% of those who own ethanol capable vehicles actually ever put ethanol in them. Who wins? Manufacturers. By making them dual-use they don't have to meet the MPG requirements of a gasoline only vehicle. It's cheaper for them.

 

You aren't going to see vast fields of sugarbeets, sawgrass, or Norwegian albino rutabegas stretching into the purple sunset and voodooing away our dependance on foreign oil in 10, 20, or 50,000 years. It's all smoke and mirrors, politics, and male bovine fecal material.

 

It's popular with the public because at a glance it seems like a way to get what we want with no sacrifice on our parts. How often does that ever work?

 

OUCH!!!! Jason, you say what I've been thinking, I just didn't want to get reprimanded.

 

How DO you feel about jojoba and veggie diesel? It makes more sense to me as veggie was the fuel Dr. Rudy originally designed his engine around and jojoba in particular shouldn't impact food production.

 

You may think that's a crazy idea, but at least it makes a little more sense than the ethanol thing.

 

Best Regards

Ditto

Energy problem is easily solved. Where we have oil in this country? Drill for it. In the Gulf, it is litterally being sucked out from under us. If you don't want the polution? Go nuclear. All of these fancy car fuel ideas need a hell of a lot of electricity so we'll just burn the fossil fuels elswhere.

[Corbin]

This whole ethanol business is going to be revealed in a couple of decades at most to have been something akin to shoving our money up a pig's ass, giving it a good slap and watching it run off.

 

For all of the ethanol capable vehicles in California, how many ethanol stations are there? Two? Five? There sure aren't any in Northern California. Country wide only about 2% of those who own ethanol capable vehicles actually ever put ethanol in them. Who wins? Manufacturers. By making them dual-use they don't have to meet the MPG requirements of a gasoline only vehicle. It's cheaper for them.

 

You aren't going to see vast fields of sugarbeets, sawgrass, or Norwegian albino rutabegas stretching into the purple sunset and voodooing away our dependance on foreign oil in 10, 20, or 50,000 years. It's all smoke and mirrors, politics, and male bovine fecal material.

 

It's popular with the public because at a glance it seems like a way to get what we want with no sacrifice on our parts. How often does that ever work?

 

OUCH!!!! Jason, you say what I've been thinking, I just didn't want to get reprimanded.

 

How DO you feel about jojoba and veggie diesel? It makes more sense to me as veggie was the fuel Dr. Rudy originally designed his engine around and jojoba in particular shouldn't impact food production.

 

You may think that's a crazy idea, but at least it makes a little more sense than the ethanol thing.

 

Best Regards

Ditto

Energy problem is easily solved. Where we have oil in this country? Drill for it. In the Gulf, it is litterally being sucked out from under us. If you don't want the polution? Go nuclear. All of these fancy car fuel ideas need a hell of a lot of electricity so we'll just burn the fossil fuels elswhere.

I hope when you say go nuclear, you are talking about developing fusion power and not talking about fission power because that stuff is far more deadly than the coal belching electric plants we have now.

[Jeikun]

I hope when you say go nuclear, you are talking about developing fusion power and not talking about fission power because that stuff is far more deadly than the coal belching electric plants we have now.

 

 

Fusion would be awesome if it could ever be developed to a point where it is safe and cost-effective, but the "fission is deadly" argument is bullcrap. Modern nuclear reactors are a FAR better option for us than coal.

 

There are people who would try to convince the public that they are all a bunch of would-be chernobyls irradiating the countryside and burping out metric tons of deadly radioactive waste that can't be safely stored and poison the environment and mutate the wildlife... so much so that it's actually at the back of everyone's minds... but it is ludicrous and so overexagerated it's sad really.

 

I've been on the site of the first privately owned reactor to be hooked into a public electric grid for 2 years. There are people who have worked here for 40 years. The average exposure per year is about 1/5 of what you get exposed to on a 6 hour flight on an airplane.

 

No need to get into gruelling detail of course, but if you take a hard look at nuclear power comparitively... hard facts and not opinion columns you will see the boogeyman of nuclear power is about as real as the boogeyman that was under your bed when you were 5.

Edited April 11, 2008 by Jeikun (see edit history)

[DMikeS4321]

I hope when you say go nuclear, you are talking about developing fusion power and not talking about fission power because that stuff is far more deadly than the coal belching electric plants we have now.

 

 

Fusion would be awesome if it could ever be developed to a point where it is safe and cost-effective, but the "fission is deadly" argument is bullcrap. Modern nuclear reactors are a FAR better option for us than coal.

 

There are people who would try to convince the public that they are all a bunch of would-be chernobyls irradiating the countryside and burping out metric tons of deadly radioactive waste that can't be safely stored and poison the environment and mutate the wildlife... so much so that it's actually at the back of everyone's minds... but it is ludicrous and so overexagerated it's sad really.

 

I've been on the site of the first privately owned reactor to be hooked into a public electric grid for 2 years. There are people who have worked here for 40 years. The average exposure per year is about 1/5 of what you get exposed to on a 6 hour flight on an airplane.

 

No need to get into gruelling detail of course, but if you take a hard look at nuclear power comparitively... hard facts and not opinion columns you will see the boogeyman of nuclear power is about as real as the boogeyman that was under your bed when you were 5.

 

Jason,

 

Why don't you quit dancing around the subject and tell us how you REALLY feel??

[Corbin]

I hope when you say go nuclear, you are talking about developing fusion power and not talking about fission power because that stuff is far more deadly than the coal belching electric plants we have now.

 

 

Fusion would be awesome if it could ever be developed to a point where it is safe and cost-effective, but the "fission is deadly" argument is bullcrap. Modern nuclear reactors are a FAR better option for us than coal.

 

There are people who would try to convince the public that they are all a bunch of would-be chernobyls irradiating the countryside and burping out metric tons of deadly radioactive waste that can't be safely stored and poison the environment and mutate the wildlife... so much so that it's actually at the back of everyone's minds... but it is ludicrous and so overexagerated it's sad really.

 

I've been on the site of the first privately owned reactor to be hooked into a public electric grid for 2 years. There are people who have worked here for 40 years. The average exposure per year is about 1/5 of what you get exposed to on a 6 hour flight on an airplane.

 

No need to get into gruelling detail of course, but if you take a hard look at nuclear power comparitively... hard facts and not opinion columns you will see the boogeyman of nuclear power is about as real as the boogeyman that was under your bed when you were 5.

I'm talking about the byproduct, spent fuel rods......

 

Already there is an issue of what to do with them........

 

I have no problem with the idea of a modern reactor as long as it is built right with the needed backups. Also build it in areas that are stable.

[Feathers268]

I hope when you say go nuclear, you are talking about developing fusion power and not talking about fission power because that stuff is far more deadly than the coal belching electric plants we have now.

 

 

Fusion would be awesome if it could ever be developed to a point where it is safe and cost-effective, but the "fission is deadly" argument is bullcrap. Modern nuclear reactors are a FAR better option for us than coal.

 

There are people who would try to convince the public that they are all a bunch of would-be chernobyls irradiating the countryside and burping out metric tons of deadly radioactive waste that can't be safely stored and poison the environment and mutate the wildlife... so much so that it's actually at the back of everyone's minds... but it is ludicrous and so overexagerated it's sad really.

 

I've been on the site of the first privately owned reactor to be hooked into a public electric grid for 2 years. There are people who have worked here for 40 years. The average exposure per year is about 1/5 of what you get exposed to on a 6 hour flight on an airplane.

 

No need to get into gruelling detail of course, but if you take a hard look at nuclear power comparitively... hard facts and not opinion columns you will see the boogeyman of nuclear power is about as real as the boogeyman that was under your bed when you were 5.

I'm talking about the byproduct, spent fuel rods......

 

Already there is an issue of what to do with them........

 

I have no problem with the idea of a modern reactor as long as it is built right with the needed backups. Also build it in areas that are stable.

First off, having a father who worked for 20+ years at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboritory, I can say that the Fusion experiments there have got us close to breaking even but research is still far off from becoming the next great feul source. That being said, the choice is,

Build fission plants and creat energy as safely as our Navy has for the past several decades along with most of the industrial nationd, China included.

Drill for the oil within our borders, including ANWAR and the Gulf of Mexico, driving down the cost of gas drastically along with food costs and the rest of inflation.

Or continue the hippy pipe dream of turning our planet's food supply fuel for our cars puting the US economy in the toilet as well as creating food riots in many 3rd world countries as food becomes so much more expensive.

I can't help thinking of a Rush song, "Can't feed the people, but we feed the machines."

The US government has been giving money to farmers for the past 10 years, trying to turn corn into a viable fuel source. In that time, we could have built several nuclear plants, over doubled our crude production out of Alaska, and double our refinement ability which would have kept our feul cost down by at least 50%.

Until we creat a super conductor that work at high temperatures, wind and solar won't even come close to being viable.

By the way, your Prius has a much larger carbon foot print in it's contruction than does a Hummer. And, that compact flouresent light is a hazardous waste product for our landfills along with being a hazmat issue if broken in your home.

[Corbin]

I hope when you say go nuclear, you are talking about developing fusion power and not talking about fission power because that stuff is far more deadly than the coal belching electric plants we have now.

 

 

Fusion would be awesome if it could ever be developed to a point where it is safe and cost-effective, but the "fission is deadly" argument is bullcrap. Modern nuclear reactors are a FAR better option for us than coal.

 

There are people who would try to convince the public that they are all a bunch of would-be chernobyls irradiating the countryside and burping out metric tons of deadly radioactive waste that can't be safely stored and poison the environment and mutate the wildlife... so much so that it's actually at the back of everyone's minds... but it is ludicrous and so overexagerated it's sad really.

 

I've been on the site of the first privately owned reactor to be hooked into a public electric grid for 2 years. There are people who have worked here for 40 years. The average exposure per year is about 1/5 of what you get exposed to on a 6 hour flight on an airplane.

 

No need to get into gruelling detail of course, but if you take a hard look at nuclear power comparitively... hard facts and not opinion columns you will see the boogeyman of nuclear power is about as real as the boogeyman that was under your bed when you were 5.

I'm talking about the byproduct, spent fuel rods......

 

Already there is an issue of what to do with them........

 

I have no problem with the idea of a modern reactor as long as it is built right with the needed backups. Also build it in areas that are stable.

First off, having a father who worked for 20+ years at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboritory, I can say that the Fusion experiments there have got us close to breaking even but research is still far off from becoming the next great feul source. That being said, the choice is,

Build fission plants and creat energy as safely as our Navy has for the past several decades along with most of the industrial nationd, China included.

Drill for the oil within our borders, including ANWAR and the Gulf of Mexico, driving down the cost of gas drastically along with food costs and the rest of inflation.

Or continue the hippy pipe dream of turning our planet's food supply fuel for our cars puting the US economy in the toilet as well as creating food riots in many 3rd world countries as food becomes so much more expensive.

I can't help thinking of a Rush song, "Can't feed the people, but we feed the machines."

The US government has been giving money to farmers for the past 10 years, trying to turn corn into a viable fuel source. In that time, we could have built several nuclear plants, over doubled our crude production out of Alaska, and double our refinement ability which would have kept our feul cost down by at least 50%.

Until we creat a super conductor that work at high temperatures, wind and solar won't even come close to being viable.

By the way, your Prius has a much larger carbon foot print in it's contruction than does a Hummer. And, that compact flouresent light is a hazardous waste product for our landfills along with being a hazmat issue if broken in your home.

I never thought about those florescent lights being a hazardous waste product.

 

I can agree that trying to use food crops to produce fuel is stupid, but if you could use waste products from lets say sugar beats in making sugar why not do it. Agreed it could never provide the needed fuel. The use of wind and solar can also help some, but has it's short comings.

 

Nuclear power is safe to use with the proper safety backups installed and built in a stable area. The spent fuel rods scare the hell out of me. What do you do with them? You can't just toss them to the side which I know we don't do. Fusion is what needs to be research on more.

[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/

Edited April 13, 2008 by IllinoisDave (see edit history)

[DMikeS4321]

 

First off, having a father who worked for 20+ years at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboritory, I can say that the Fusion experiments there have got us close to breaking even but research is still far off from becoming the next great feul source. That being said, the choice is,

Build fission plants and creat energy as safely as our Navy has for the past several decades along with most of the industrial nationd, China included.

Drill for the oil within our borders, including ANWAR and the Gulf of Mexico, driving down the cost of gas drastically along with food costs and the rest of inflation.

Or continue the hippy pipe dream of turning our planet's food supply fuel for our cars puting the US economy in the toilet as well as creating food riots in many 3rd world countries as food becomes so much more expensive.

I can't help thinking of a Rush song, "Can't feed the people, but we feed the machines."

The US government has been giving money to farmers for the past 10 years, trying to turn corn into a viable fuel source. In that time, we could have built several nuclear plants, over doubled our crude production out of Alaska, and double our refinement ability which would have kept our feul cost down by at least 50%.

Until we creat a super conductor that work at high temperatures, wind and solar won't even come close to being viable.

By the way, your Prius has a much larger carbon foot print in it's contruction than does a Hummer. And, that compact flouresent light is a hazardous waste product for our landfills along with being a hazmat issue if broken in your home.

 

 

What Jim said....