Ethanol Should Be Made Out Of Switchgrass

[RW]

What the US and a number of other countries are now doing is making
ethanol out of corn. The problem is this is an experimental technology
and it takes about a gallon of gasoline to make a gallon of ethanol.
Then if you make it out of corn it's costing all the more to produce.
This is driving up the cost of gasoline and creating a worldwide food
shortage. And they're going whole hog in producing this with 200
factories with plans to make more and more corn based ethanol in the
future helped with government subsidies. Not smart. You need to make a
concerted effort to learn how to make ethanol out of a cheap product
like switchgrass which could be economical.



And the technology is already here to make hybrid cars that get double
mileage using hydrogen (water) along with gasoline. It would be
smarter for governments to pressure the automobile manufacturers to
make all new cars hybrids. You can also convert a used car into a
hybrid for less than $150. Why doesn't the government encourage with
tax credits, etc. all drivers to convert their vehicles into hybrids?
Semi-trucks can even be converted into hybrids. This would make a lot
of sense. See my website about this: http://www.squidoo.com/hydrogen-fuel-cell-powered-cars

[f***@gmail.com]

Post by RW
What the US and a number of other countries are now doing is making
ethanol out of corn. The problem is this is an experimental technology
and it takes about a gallon of gasoline to make a gallon of ethanol.
Then if you make it out of corn it's costing all the more to produce.
This is driving up the cost of gasoline and creating a worldwide food
shortage. And they're going whole hog in producing this with 200
factories with plans to make more and more corn based ethanol in the
future helped with government subsidies. Not smart. You need to make a
concerted effort to learn how to make ethanol out of a cheap product
like switchgrass which could be economical.
And the technology is already here to make hybrid cars that get double
mileage using hydrogen (water) along with gasoline. It would be
smarter for governments to pressure the automobile manufacturers to
make all new cars hybrids. You can also convert a used car into a
hybrid for less than $150. Why doesn't the government encourage with
tax credits, etc. all drivers to convert their vehicles into hybrids?
Semi-trucks can even be converted into hybrids. This would make a lot
of sense. See my website about this:http://www.squidoo.com/hydrogen-fuel-cell-powered-cars

Yeah, I have heard this before. I figure anything but a "food
product".

[Zeke]

The corn to ethanol program has destroyed the American farm system.

Farmers are now not planting enough other crops such as wheat
so they can convert to subsidized corn.


The shortage of food crops has started panic & riots all over the world.

CostCo is limiting sales of some food products to the consumers.

The USA is now importing wheat & the cost has gone up by a factor or 4.

Beef, pork, chicken, beer, whisky, eggs, & almost all other food products
are now increasing in price as a result of this scam by AlGore & friends.

All can be traced back to AlGore & friends not letting the USA drill for oil
in ANWR & off the Florida coast, build new nuclear power plants, & new oil
refineries.

AlGore is making $millions selling scam "Carbon Credits".

Z

Post by f***@gmail.com

Post by RW
What the US and a number of other countries are now doing is making
ethanol out of corn. The problem is this is an experimental technology
and it takes about a gallon of gasoline to make a gallon of ethanol.
Then if you make it out of corn it's costing all the more to produce.
This is driving up the cost of gasoline and creating a worldwide food
shortage. And they're going whole hog in producing this with 200
factories with plans to make more and more corn based ethanol in the
future helped with government subsidies. Not smart. You need to make a
concerted effort to learn how to make ethanol out of a cheap product
like switchgrass which could be economical.
And the technology is already here to make hybrid cars that get double
mileage using hydrogen (water) along with gasoline. It would be
smarter for governments to pressure the automobile manufacturers to
make all new cars hybrids. You can also convert a used car into a
hybrid for less than $150. Why doesn't the government encourage with
tax credits, etc. all drivers to convert their vehicles into hybrids?
Semi-trucks can even be converted into hybrids. This would make a lot
of sense. See my website about
this:http://www.squidoo.com/hydrogen-fuel-cell-powered-cars

Yeah, I have heard this before. I figure anything but a "food
product".

[Hugh Gibbons]

In article

Post by RW
What the US and a number of other countries are now doing is making
ethanol out of corn. The problem is this is an experimental technology

Experimental??? What's experimental about making grain alcohol?

Post by RW
and it takes about a gallon of gasoline to make a gallon of ethanol.

No, it doesn't take a gallon of gasoline to make a gallon of ethanol
from corn. It can be done quite easily using no fossil fuel at all.
What it takes a lot of is water.

Post by RW
Then if you make it out of corn it's costing all the more to produce.
This is driving up the cost of gasoline and creating a worldwide food
shortage. And they're going whole hog in producing this with 200
factories with plans to make more and more corn based ethanol in the
future helped with government subsidies. Not smart. You need to make a
concerted effort to learn how to make ethanol out of a cheap product
like switchgrass which could be economical.

There are demonstration plants for that technology under construction
now. However, I think switchgrass is not what you want to use. The
ideal material is farm waste. Use the corn for food. Use the rest of
the plant to make alcohol.

Post by RW
And the technology is already here to make hybrid cars that get double
mileage using hydrogen (water) along with gasoline.

Nope. Hybrids don't work on water, and they don't get 2x the mileage of
regular cars. The improvement is modest. Compare a Honda Civic hybrid
sedan (40 city/ 44 hiway MPG) and 110 horsepower with the Civic sedan
(25 city/36 highway) and 140 horsepower. Because the hybrid has a CVT
and a broader power curve due to the motor assist, you probably won't
miss the 30 HP, but even if your driving is all city, you're still only
getting a 60% improvement in mileage, not 100%. For highway, it's a
little over 20% better mileage.

Post by RW
It would be
smarter for governments to pressure the automobile manufacturers to
make all new cars hybrids. You can also convert a used car into a
hybrid for less than $150.

Who's doing that? You'd spend more than that on the motor, the upgraded
alternator and the batteries.

Post by RW
Why doesn't the government encourage with
tax credits, etc. all drivers to convert their vehicles into hybrids?

Why should the government give you an incentive to do what you are going
to do anyway as soon as it's cost effective for you? It won't be cost
effective for the government to help you do it any sooner than it will
be cost effective for citizens to do it on their own initiative.

Post by RW
Semi-trucks can even be converted into hybrids. This would make a lot
of sense.

Indeed it would, except that the semi trucks already have diesel
engines, which are more efficient than gasoline engines, and they have a
buttload of gears to so they can keep their engines at the optimum power
point most of the time (not as good as automatic CVT but close), and
they're running them on the highway all the time, where the advantage of
a hybrid is minimized.

Let the price of diesel get high and the truck makers will improve their
engines and transmissions as much as they practically can with no
incentive from the government. Truckers and trucking companies are very
sensitive to the price of diesel, and will be quick to adopt any fuel
or system if you can show them it's cheaper to operate.

[Jeffrey Turner]

Post by Hugh Gibbons

Post by RW
What the US and a number of other countries are now doing is making
ethanol out of corn. The problem is this is an experimental technology

Experimental??? What's experimental about making grain alcohol?

Post by RW
and it takes about a gallon of gasoline to make a gallon of ethanol.

No, it doesn't take a gallon of gasoline to make a gallon of ethanol
from corn. It can be done quite easily using no fossil fuel at all.
What it takes a lot of is water.

Modern agriculture doesn't grow corn without petrochemical inputs.
Nobody with a large farm isn't using fossil fuels.

Post by Hugh Gibbons

Post by RW
Then if you make it out of corn it's costing all the more to produce.
This is driving up the cost of gasoline and creating a worldwide food
shortage. And they're going whole hog in producing this with 200
factories with plans to make more and more corn based ethanol in the
future helped with government subsidies. Not smart. You need to make a
concerted effort to learn how to make ethanol out of a cheap product
like switchgrass which could be economical.

There are demonstration plants for that technology under construction
now. However, I think switchgrass is not what you want to use. The
ideal material is farm waste. Use the corn for food. Use the rest of
the plant to make alcohol.

When it comes to making ethanol, there's not much difference between
cornstalks and switchgrass. Efficient electric vehicles - and fewer of
them - are the way to go. We're never going to come close to sustaining
today's lifestyle, and ethanol is not generally good for the ecology.

Post by Hugh Gibbons

Post by RW
And the technology is already here to make hybrid cars that get double
mileage using hydrogen (water) along with gasoline.

Nope. Hybrids don't work on water, and they don't get 2x the mileage of
regular cars. The improvement is modest. Compare a Honda Civic hybrid
sedan (40 city/ 44 hiway MPG) and 110 horsepower with the Civic sedan
(25 city/36 highway) and 140 horsepower. Because the hybrid has a CVT
and a broader power curve due to the motor assist, you probably won't
miss the 30 HP, but even if your driving is all city, you're still only
getting a 60% improvement in mileage, not 100%. For highway, it's a
little over 20% better mileage.

Post by RW
It would be
smarter for governments to pressure the automobile manufacturers to
make all new cars hybrids. You can also convert a used car into a
hybrid for less than $150.

Who's doing that? You'd spend more than that on the motor, the upgraded
alternator and the batteries.

Post by RW
Why doesn't the government encourage with
tax credits, etc. all drivers to convert their vehicles into hybrids?

Why should the government give you an incentive to do what you are going
to do anyway as soon as it's cost effective for you? It won't be cost
effective for the government to help you do it any sooner than it will
be cost effective for citizens to do it on their own initiative.

Because there are other considerations than just the cost of fossil
fuels.

Post by Hugh Gibbons

Post by RW
Semi-trucks can even be converted into hybrids. This would make a lot
of sense.

Indeed it would, except that the semi trucks already have diesel
engines, which are more efficient than gasoline engines, and they have a
buttload of gears to so they can keep their engines at the optimum power
point most of the time (not as good as automatic CVT but close), and
they're running them on the highway all the time, where the advantage of
a hybrid is minimized.
Let the price of diesel get high and the truck makers will improve their
engines and transmissions as much as they practically can with no
incentive from the government. Truckers and trucking companies are very
sensitive to the price of diesel, and will be quick to adopt any fuel
or system if you can show them it's cheaper to operate.

They should have started long before now.

--Jeff

[Hugh Gibbons]

Post by Jeffrey Turner

Post by Hugh Gibbons

Post by RW
What the US and a number of other countries are now doing is making
ethanol out of corn. The problem is this is an experimental technology

Experimental??? What's experimental about making grain alcohol?

Post by RW
and it takes about a gallon of gasoline to make a gallon of ethanol.

No, it doesn't take a gallon of gasoline to make a gallon of ethanol
from corn. It can be done quite easily using no fossil fuel at all.
What it takes a lot of is water.

Modern agriculture doesn't grow corn without petrochemical inputs.
Nobody with a large farm isn't using fossil fuels.

Granted, but it's feasible. And the amount of fossil fuel required has
been considerably exaggerated. There is a net gain in making alcohol
out of corn.

Post by Jeffrey Turner

Post by Hugh Gibbons

Post by RW
Then if you make it out of corn it's costing all the more to produce.
This is driving up the cost of gasoline and creating a worldwide food
shortage. And they're going whole hog in producing this with 200
factories with plans to make more and more corn based ethanol in the
future helped with government subsidies. Not smart. You need to make a
concerted effort to learn how to make ethanol out of a cheap product
like switchgrass which could be economical.

There are demonstration plants for that technology under construction
now. However, I think switchgrass is not what you want to use. The
ideal material is farm waste. Use the corn for food. Use the rest of
the plant to make alcohol.

When it comes to making ethanol, there's not much difference between
cornstalks and switchgrass. Efficient electric vehicles - and fewer of
them - are the way to go.

Electric vehicles -- battery powered ones -- can never come close to the
capacity of fueled ones, but they can be excellent commuter vehicles.
Fuel cells eventually will meet or exceed the capacity of internal
combustion engines.

Post by Jeffrey Turner

Post by Hugh Gibbons

Post by RW
Why doesn't the government encourage with
tax credits, etc. all drivers to convert their vehicles into hybrids?

Why should the government give you an incentive to do what you are going
to do anyway as soon as it's cost effective for you? It won't be cost
effective for the government to help you do it any sooner than it will
be cost effective for citizens to do it on their own initiative.

Because there are other considerations than just the cost of fossil
fuels.

Yes, there's also what the government can realistically afford to do,
and there are opportunity costs.

[Governor Swill]

Hugh Gibbons used a stick in the sand to babble

Post by Hugh Gibbons

Post by Jeffrey Turner
Modern agriculture doesn't grow corn without petrochemical inputs.
Nobody with a large farm isn't using fossil fuels.

Granted, but it's feasible. And the amount of fossil fuel required has
been considerably exaggerated. There is a net gain in making alcohol
out of corn.

A net *energy* gain. The problem is, it makes food more expensive.
What good is it going to do to lower the price of gas a dime or two
when food is going up?

Swill
--
Shift Happens
"Welcome to reality. Enjoy your visit.
Slow thinkers keep right." - Peter Principle
(US)
http://youtu.be/ljbI-363A2Q
http://preview.tinyurl.com/33cvso
(UK)
http://youtu.be/QeoKQbT8BKs
http://preview.tinyurl.com/6nd7kr

[Hugh Gibbons]

Post by Governor Swill
Hugh Gibbons used a stick in the sand to babble

Post by Hugh Gibbons

Post by Jeffrey Turner
Modern agriculture doesn't grow corn without petrochemical inputs.
Nobody with a large farm isn't using fossil fuels.

Granted, but it's feasible. And the amount of fossil fuel required has
been considerably exaggerated. There is a net gain in making alcohol
out of corn.

A net *energy* gain. The problem is, it makes food more expensive.
What good is it going to do to lower the price of gas a dime or two
when food is going up?

I didn't say it would do good.

[Governor Swill]

Hugh Gibbons <***@dontsendmeemail.net> used a stick in the
sand to babble

Post by Hugh Gibbons
Electric vehicles -- battery powered ones -- can never come close to the
capacity of fueled ones, but they can be excellent commuter vehicles.
Fuel cells eventually will meet or exceed the capacity of internal
combustion engines.

Never say never. I think fueled vehicles can reach that level
*faster* than electric, but I don't think electric can *never* do it.

Swill
--
Shift Happens
"Welcome to reality. Enjoy your visit.
Slow thinkers keep right." - Peter Principle
(US)
http://youtu.be/ljbI-363A2Q
http://preview.tinyurl.com/33cvso
(UK)
http://youtu.be/QeoKQbT8BKs
http://preview.tinyurl.com/6nd7kr

[Hugh Gibbons]

Post by Governor Swill
sand to babble

Post by Hugh Gibbons
Electric vehicles -- battery powered ones -- can never come close to the
capacity of fueled ones, but they can be excellent commuter vehicles.
Fuel cells eventually will meet or exceed the capacity of internal
combustion engines.

Never say never. I think fueled vehicles can reach that level
*faster* than electric, but I don't think electric can *never* do it.

I didn't say electric vehicles never would have the capacity of fueled
ones. I said BATTERY powered vehicles won't. The reason is that fuel
has a much higher energy density than batteries. The highest energy
density in currently available batteries (lithium thionyl chloride
cells) with 2.5 MJ/kg storage. That's chump change compared to ordinary
fuels burned in air. Gasoline gets you 46.9 MJ/kg. Ethanol gets 30
MJ/kg. Typical gasoline engines run at about 20% efficiency (though
their peak efficiency can be much higher.) So even with losses, they
can deliver more than 2x the energy per unit mass as batteries.

The best chemical fuel is hydrogen, with 143 MJ/kg. But hydrogen can't
be mined and it's relatively hard to store, so it's probably not the
best choice for a transportation fuel.

[Governor Swill]

Hugh Gibbons <***@dontsendmeemail.net> used a stick in the
sand to babble

Post by Hugh Gibbons
The best chemical fuel is hydrogen, with 143 MJ/kg. But hydrogen can't
be mined and it's relatively hard to store, so it's probably not the
best choice for a transportation fuel.

I wish I knew a bit more about chemistry at this point. Can you get
more energy out of combusting hydrogen than it takes to split water
molecules?

Swill
--
Shift Happens
"Welcome to reality. Enjoy your visit.
Slow thinkers keep right." - Peter Principle
(US)
http://youtu.be/ljbI-363A2Q
http://preview.tinyurl.com/33cvso
(UK)
http://youtu.be/QeoKQbT8BKs
http://preview.tinyurl.com/6nd7kr

[Hugh Gibbons]

Post by Governor Swill
sand to babble

Post by Hugh Gibbons
The best chemical fuel is hydrogen, with 143 MJ/kg. But hydrogen can't
be mined and it's relatively hard to store, so it's probably not the
best choice for a transportation fuel.

I wish I knew a bit more about chemistry at this point. Can you get
more energy out of combusting hydrogen than it takes to split water
molecules?

No, there's a substantial loss in the form of heat when electrolyzing
water or anything else. But you can store energy as hydrogen in a much
more dense form and for much longer than you can in batteries,
particularly rechargeable batteries.

FYI, lithium-thionyl chloride batteries are "primary cells" made by
chemical process and not rechargeable. That's why they're not used in
computer batteries and cell phones. Instead, what's used are lithium
ion batteries, which have an energy density of about 0.7 MJ/kg.

Batteries also have an efficiency issue, though not as bad as what you
incur when you burn fuel in a car engine. Lithium batteries have an
open-circuit voltage of 3.6V, and are charged at 4.2V. That means that
right off the top, if you use them at the slowest discharge rate,
resulting in the maximum recovered energy, you only get out 85% of what
you put in to charge them, not counting the losses in the charging
circuit. Under realistic loads when driving, I imagine the load voltage
is more like 3.0V per cell, so you'd only be getting 70% of the energy
you put into the cell when charging. The rest is lost as heat either
during the charge cycle or the discharge.

But if the issue is energy limitation, then you have to do everything
you can to deliver the most energy you can to the wheels from whatever
source you have available and in that case, batteries may be preferable,
because the efficiency of car engines is so low.

[Governor Swill]

Hugh Gibbons <***@dontsendmeemail.net> used a stick in the
sand to babble

Post by Hugh Gibbons
But if the issue is energy limitation, then you have to do everything
you can to deliver the most energy you can to the wheels from whatever
source you have available and in that case, batteries may be preferable,
because the efficiency of car engines is so low.

Electric motors have more torque than engines do.

Swill
--
Shift Happens
"Welcome to reality. Enjoy your visit.
Slow thinkers keep right." - Peter Principle
(US)
http://youtu.be/ljbI-363A2Q
http://preview.tinyurl.com/33cvso
(UK)
http://youtu.be/QeoKQbT8BKs
http://preview.tinyurl.com/6nd7kr

[Hugh Gibbons]

Post by Governor Swill
sand to babble

Post by Hugh Gibbons
But if the issue is energy limitation, then you have to do everything
you can to deliver the most energy you can to the wheels from whatever
source you have available and in that case, batteries may be preferable,
because the efficiency of car engines is so low.

Electric motors have more torque than engines do.

By what measure? Gasoline engines are comparable to electric motors by
a number of different parameters. The two kinds of motor are not
similar.

Electric motors have high torque when operated at low revs. At high
revs, gasoline engines have lots of torque.

[Governor Swill]

Hugh Gibbons <***@dontsendmeemail.net> used a stick in the
sand to babble

Post by Hugh Gibbons

Post by Governor Swill
sand to babble

Post by Hugh Gibbons
But if the issue is energy limitation, then you have to do everything
you can to deliver the most energy you can to the wheels from whatever
source you have available and in that case, batteries may be preferable,
because the efficiency of car engines is so low.

Electric motors have more torque than engines do.

By what measure? Gasoline engines are comparable to electric motors by
a number of different parameters. The two kinds of motor are not
similar.

Horsepower is raw power generated by combustion. Torque is the amount
of twist the engine/motor can deliver through the crankshaft/flywheel
assembly.

The horsepower created in an ICE is the power generated during
combustion. Some of this energy is wasted on internal processes like
maintaining oil pressure, opening valves and thrusting heavy pistons
and rods up and down a narrow tube which takes a chunk.

Post by Hugh Gibbons
Electric motors have high torque when operated at low revs. At high
revs, gasoline engines have lots of torque.

That's the point, IC engines have to have some revs going on in order
to convert horsepower to twist. Electric motors don't need the speed
to generate the twist, it comes right on/off and there's no inertial
torque to worry about.

Swill
--
Shift Happens
"Welcome to reality. Enjoy your visit.
Slow thinkers keep right." - Peter Principle
(US)
http://youtu.be/ljbI-363A2Q
http://preview.tinyurl.com/33cvso
(UK)
http://youtu.be/QeoKQbT8BKs
http://preview.tinyurl.com/6nd7kr

[Jeffrey Turner]

Post by Hugh Gibbons

Post by Jeffrey Turner

Post by Hugh Gibbons

Post by RW
What the US and a number of other countries are now doing is making
ethanol out of corn. The problem is this is an experimental technology

Experimental??? What's experimental about making grain alcohol?

Post by RW
and it takes about a gallon of gasoline to make a gallon of ethanol.

No, it doesn't take a gallon of gasoline to make a gallon of ethanol
from corn. It can be done quite easily using no fossil fuel at all.
What it takes a lot of is water.

Modern agriculture doesn't grow corn without petrochemical inputs.
Nobody with a large farm isn't using fossil fuels.

Granted, but it's feasible. And the amount of fossil fuel required has
been considerably exaggerated. There is a net gain in making alcohol
out of corn.

Lots of things are possible. But changing American agriculture to use
no fossil fuels would be nearly as great a change - maybe a greater
change - than transitioning to electric automobiles. And while there's
a modest net gain in making ethanol out of corn, the external costs are
outrageous. And we'll never be able to replace much of our gasoline use
with corn-based ethanol. I've heard that one fill of an SUV tank can
equal a person's annual corn consumption.

Post by Hugh Gibbons

Post by Jeffrey Turner

Post by Hugh Gibbons

Post by RW
Then if you make it out of corn it's costing all the more to produce.
This is driving up the cost of gasoline and creating a worldwide food
shortage. And they're going whole hog in producing this with 200
factories with plans to make more and more corn based ethanol in the
future helped with government subsidies. Not smart. You need to make a
concerted effort to learn how to make ethanol out of a cheap product
like switchgrass which could be economical.

There are demonstration plants for that technology under construction
now. However, I think switchgrass is not what you want to use. The
ideal material is farm waste. Use the corn for food. Use the rest of
the plant to make alcohol.

When it comes to making ethanol, there's not much difference between
cornstalks and switchgrass. Efficient electric vehicles - and fewer of
them - are the way to go.

Electric vehicles -- battery powered ones -- can never come close to the
capacity of fueled ones, but they can be excellent commuter vehicles.
Fuel cells eventually will meet or exceed the capacity of internal
combustion engines.

Post by Jeffrey Turner

Post by Hugh Gibbons

Post by RW
Why doesn't the government encourage with
tax credits, etc. all drivers to convert their vehicles into hybrids?

Why should the government give you an incentive to do what you are going
to do anyway as soon as it's cost effective for you? It won't be cost
effective for the government to help you do it any sooner than it will
be cost effective for citizens to do it on their own initiative.

Because there are other considerations than just the cost of fossil
fuels.

Yes, there's also what the government can realistically afford to do,
and there are opportunity costs.

The gov't can afford to do a whole lot more than what it is doing. And
not doing anything now but waiting to deal with the costs of mitigating
global warming later - if anything can be done - will be far more
expensive than what they'd need to spend now.

--Jeff

[Governor Swill]

Jeffrey Turner <***@localnet.com> used a stick in the sand to
babble

Post by Jeffrey Turner
Lots of things are possible. But changing American agriculture to use
no fossil fuels would be nearly as great a change - maybe a greater
change - than transitioning to electric automobiles. And while there's
a modest net gain in making ethanol out of corn, the external costs are
outrageous. And we'll never be able to replace much of our gasoline use
with corn-based ethanol. I've heard that one fill of an SUV tank can
equal a person's annual corn consumption.

Blurb on CNN that if all our grain crop were converted to ethanol, it
would only replace 16% of our motor fuel needs.

Swill
--
Shift Happens
"Welcome to reality. Enjoy your visit.
Slow thinkers keep right." - Peter Principle
(US)
http://youtu.be/ljbI-363A2Q
http://preview.tinyurl.com/33cvso
(UK)
http://youtu.be/QeoKQbT8BKs
http://preview.tinyurl.com/6nd7kr

[Governor Swill]

Hugh Gibbons <***@dontsendmeemail.net> used a stick in the
sand to babble

Post by Hugh Gibbons
There are demonstration plants for that technology under construction
now. However, I think switchgrass is not what you want to use. The
ideal material is farm waste. Use the corn for food. Use the rest of
the plant to make alcohol.

The rest of the plant a) doesn't have enough sugar and b) is used as
animal fodder. If you take away the animal fodder, farmers will have
to BUY feed which will also push up prices.

We only have an oil problem because we can't put coal in gas tanks.

Swill
--
Shift Happens
"Welcome to reality. Enjoy your visit.
Slow thinkers keep right." - Peter Principle
(US)

http://preview.tinyurl.com/33cvso
(UK)

http://preview.tinyurl.com/6nd7kr

[Hugh Gibbons]

Post by Governor Swill
sand to babble

Post by Hugh Gibbons
There are demonstration plants for that technology under construction
now. However, I think switchgrass is not what you want to use. The
ideal material is farm waste. Use the corn for food. Use the rest of
the plant to make alcohol.

The rest of the plant a) doesn't have enough sugar

That's why it's an experimental process at this point. In this process,
ethanol is not made from plant sugars by yeast fermentation. It would
be made by breaking down cellulose into its constituent sugars and THEN
fermenting it or reacting it with some oxidizer to make ethanol.

Post by Governor Swill
and b) is used as
animal fodder. If you take away the animal fodder, farmers will have
to BUY feed which will also push up prices.

Yeah, but that's not as bad as converting over a quarter of US corn
production to make fuel, which is already exacerbating famines worldwide.
You could give up meat. The world can't give up corn. Besides, I'm not
just talking about corn leaves, which make good cattle fodder. I'm
talking corn stalks, wheat straw and other inedible materials as well.

Post by Governor Swill
We only have an oil problem because we can't put coal in gas tanks.

Sure you can. Coal can be turned into methane.

[Governor Swill]

Hugh Gibbons used a stick in the sand to babble

Post by Hugh Gibbons

Post by Governor Swill
Hugh Gibbons used a stick in the sand to babble

Post by Hugh Gibbons
There are demonstration plants for that technology under construction
now. However, I think switchgrass is not what you want to use. The
ideal material is farm waste. Use the corn for food. Use the rest of
the plant to make alcohol.

The rest of the plant a) doesn't have enough sugar

That's why it's an experimental process at this point. In this process,
ethanol is not made from plant sugars by yeast fermentation. It would
be made by breaking down cellulose into its constituent sugars and THEN
fermenting it or reacting it with some oxidizer to make ethanol.

What sort of chemical waste issues are there? How much water will be
needed? What other environmental factors are there?

Post by Hugh Gibbons

Post by Governor Swill
and b) is used as
animal fodder. If you take away the animal fodder, farmers will have
to BUY feed which will also push up prices.

Yeah, but that's not as bad as converting over a quarter of US corn
production to make fuel, which is already exacerbating famines worldwide.

A) I agree but B) I haven't heard anything about any famines. I've
heard about rising cost and low supplies of *some* foods, but not
wholesale famine. In any case, that makes both points. Biofuel has a
severe down side. It's more profitable to grow "petroleum" than food.

Post by Hugh Gibbons
You could give up meat. The world can't give up corn. Besides, I'm not
just talking about corn leaves, which make good cattle fodder. I'm
talking corn stalks, wheat straw and other inedible materials as well.

Not inedible. An uncle of mine used to grind it all up to store in a
silo and sold it over the winter to a local dairy farmer.

Post by Hugh Gibbons

Post by Governor Swill
We only have an oil problem because we can't put coal in gas tanks.

Sure you can. Coal can be turned into methane.

Then why isn't that being done? Two words: Coal tar.

Swill
--
Shift Happens
"Welcome to reality. Enjoy your visit.
Slow thinkers keep right." - Peter Principle
(US)
http://youtu.be/ljbI-363A2Q
http://preview.tinyurl.com/33cvso
(UK)
http://youtu.be/QeoKQbT8BKs
http://preview.tinyurl.com/6nd7kr

[Hugh Gibbons]

Post by Governor Swill
Hugh Gibbons used a stick in the sand to babble

Post by Hugh Gibbons

Post by Governor Swill
Hugh Gibbons used a stick in the sand to babble

Post by Hugh Gibbons
There are demonstration plants for that technology under construction
now. However, I think switchgrass is not what you want to use. The
ideal material is farm waste. Use the corn for food. Use the rest of
the plant to make alcohol.

The rest of the plant a) doesn't have enough sugar

That's why it's an experimental process at this point. In this process,
ethanol is not made from plant sugars by yeast fermentation. It would
be made by breaking down cellulose into its constituent sugars and THEN
fermenting it or reacting it with some oxidizer to make ethanol.

What sort of chemical waste issues are there? How much water will be
needed? What other environmental factors are there?

I don't know about the waste. There's a lot of water involved but it
can't be as bad as doing it from grain, because at least you're using
the bulk of the plant, so there's less water involved in producing raw
material in the first place.

Post by Governor Swill

Post by Hugh Gibbons

Post by Governor Swill
and b) is used as
animal fodder. If you take away the animal fodder, farmers will have
to BUY feed which will also push up prices.

Yeah, but that's not as bad as converting over a quarter of US corn
production to make fuel, which is already exacerbating famines worldwide.

A) I agree but B) I haven't heard anything about any famines.

There's a famine somewhere every year. My statement just means that the
consequences of famine will be more severe and probably more widespread
because of the high price of food.

Post by Governor Swill
I've
heard about rising cost and low supplies of *some* foods, but not
wholesale famine.

All the staple grains: corn, wheat and now rice.

Post by Governor Swill
In any case, that makes both points. Biofuel has a
severe down side. It's more profitable to grow "petroleum" than food.

Post by Hugh Gibbons
You could give up meat. The world can't give up corn. Besides, I'm not
just talking about corn leaves, which make good cattle fodder. I'm
talking corn stalks, wheat straw and other inedible materials as well.

Not inedible. An uncle of mine used to grind it all up to store in a
silo and sold it over the winter to a local dairy farmer.

Post by Hugh Gibbons

Post by Governor Swill
We only have an oil problem because we can't put coal in gas tanks.

Sure you can. Coal can be turned into methane.

Then why isn't that being done? Two words: Coal tar.

I don't know why. Maybe it's still more expensive than mined gas. Or
it could be essentially a capacity issue. There hasn't been much demand
for alternatives to petroleum until the last couple of years.

[Governor Swill]

Hugh Gibbons <***@dontsendmeemail.net> used a stick in the
sand to babble

Post by Hugh Gibbons

Post by Governor Swill
I've
heard about rising cost and low supplies of *some* foods, but not
wholesale famine.

All the staple grains: corn, wheat and now rice.

Again, no famine. Rising costs, yes. Countries reducing food
exports, yes. Costco and Sam's are limiting rice purchases at their
stores but nobody in the news seems to be explaining why.

So, rising costs, yes, some limited supply shortfall in some places,
maybe, but widespread famine? No, not yet anyway.

Swill
--
Shift Happens
"Welcome to reality. Enjoy your visit.
Slow thinkers keep right." - Peter Principle
(US)
http://youtu.be/ljbI-363A2Q
http://preview.tinyurl.com/33cvso
(UK)
http://youtu.be/QeoKQbT8BKs
http://preview.tinyurl.com/6nd7kr

[Governor Swill]

Hugh Gibbons <***@dontsendmeemail.net> used a stick in the
sand to babble

Post by Hugh Gibbons

Post by Governor Swill

Post by Hugh Gibbons

Post by Governor Swill
We only have an oil problem because we can't put coal in gas tanks.

Sure you can. Coal can be turned into methane.

Then why isn't that being done? Two words: Coal tar.

I don't know why. Maybe it's still more expensive than mined gas. Or
it could be essentially a capacity issue. There hasn't been much demand
for alternatives to petroleum until the last couple of years.

That's a bit disturbing. It does take some energy input to drive off
the methane but that leaves a nasty black gook. While it's usable for
some chemical production, it would probably take considerable
investment to do a switch from petroleum to coal liquids.

Swill
--
Shift Happens
"Welcome to reality. Enjoy your visit.
Slow thinkers keep right." - Peter Principle
(US)
http://youtu.be/ljbI-363A2Q
http://preview.tinyurl.com/33cvso
(UK)
http://youtu.be/QeoKQbT8BKs
http://preview.tinyurl.com/6nd7kr

[dgs]

Post by Governor Swill
That's a bit disturbing. It does take some energy input to drive off
the methane but that leaves a nasty black gook. While it's usable for
some chemical production, it would probably take considerable
investment to do a switch from petroleum to coal liquids.

If you're talking a Fischer-Tropsch plant, yep, expensive, but it's been
done: Germany during WW2, South Africa while it was oil-embargoed in
the apartheid era. "Premium" diesel sold in Europe is a blend of
petroleum-derived diesel and F-T diesel.

If we could get a major F-T plant or two going and solve some of these
problems, we could give the USAF and our airlines priority for such
fuels, perhaps. The USAF has already been experimenting successfully
with F-T fuels.

[Governor Swill]

Post by dgs
If we could get a major F-T plant or two going and solve some of these
problems, we could give the USAF and our airlines priority for such
fuels, perhaps. The USAF has already been experimenting successfully
with F-T fuels.

I don't think the airlines could use the heavy fuels derived from
coal. Remember that jets use highly refined kerosene which is much
lighter than diesel. Such plants might relieve some of the pressure
on truckers. A driver of inflation in the seventies was the
increasing prices truckers were paying for fuel. Diesel has doubled
in just a few years. It's actually risen faster than gasoline.

Swill
--
Shift Happens
"Welcome to reality. Enjoy your visit.
Slow thinkers keep right." - Peter Principle
(US)
http://youtu.be/ljbI-363A2Q
http://preview.tinyurl.com/33cvso
(UK)
http://youtu.be/QeoKQbT8BKs
http://preview.tinyurl.com/6nd7kr

[c***@yahoo.com]

A study from three agricultural economists at Iowa State University
with insider information on the latest biofuel technology says ethanol
made from cellulose will likely NEVER be affordable The Federal tax
credits for ethanol made from cellulose would have to be raised from
the current $.51 to $1.55 per gallon, which will be unacceptable to
Congress and the American public. Switchgrass, crop waste, and wood
chip biofuel schemes are too expensive to ever work!

The full study can be found here - pdf 180kb at:

http://www.card.iastate.edu/publications/DBS/PDFFiles/08wp460.pdf

Coming soon after the Princeton study published in SCIENCE showing
that all biofuels are far worse for the environment and global warming
than gasoline leaves biofuel advocates little cover to hide behind.

SEE - http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1151861

Please visit my page on biofuels, "The biofuel hoax is causing a world
food crisis!" at:

http://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html

I also have a short essay comparing the Bush biofuel plant to Mao's
failed "Great Leap Forward" 5 year plan which led to the starvation of
millions of Chinese at:

http://home.att.net/~meditation/bush-mao.html

You can find the latest biofuel disaster news at -

http://home.att.net/~meditation/biofuel-news.html

Christopher Calder