|
Home > Archive > Alternative Power sources > February 2006 > Ethanol
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
| Harry Chickpea 2006-01-28, 4:21 pm |
| Interesting article in Fortune:
How to Beat the High Cost of Gasoline. Forever!
Stop dreaming about hydrogen. Ethanol is the answer to the energy
dilemma. It's clean and green and runs in today's cars. And in a
generation, it could replace gas.
By Adam Lashinsky and Nelson D. Schwartz
January 24, 2006: 4:09 PM EST
(FORTUNE Magazine) - You probably don't know it, but the answer to
America's gasoline addiction could be under the hood of your car. More
than five million Tauruses, Explorers, Stratuses, Suburbans, and other
vehicles are already equipped with engines that can run on an energy
source that costs less than gasoline, produces almost none of the
emissions that cause global warming, and comes from the Midwest, not
the Middle East.
These lucky drivers need never pay for gasoline again--if only they
could find this elusive fuel, called ethanol. Chemically, ethanol is
identical to the grain alcohol you may have spiked the punch with in
college. It also went into gasohol, that 1970s concoction that brings
back memories of Jimmy Carter in a cardigan and outrageous subsidies
from Washington. But while the chemistry is the same, the economics,
technology, and politics of ethanol are profoundly different.
Instead of coming exclusively from corn or sugar cane as it has up to
now, thanks to biotech breakthroughs, the fuel can be made out of
everything from prairie switchgrass and wood chips to corn husks and
other agricultural waste. This biomass-derived fuel is known as
cellulosic ethanol. Whatever the source, burning ethanol instead of
gasoline reduces carbon emissions by more than 80% while eliminating
entirely the release of acid-rain-causing sulfur dioxide. Even the
cautious Department of Energy predicts that ethanol could put a 30%
dent in America's gasoline consumption by 2030.
We may not have to wait that long. After decades of being merely an
additive to gasoline, ethanol suddenly looks to be the stuff of a fuel
revolution--and a pipe dream for futurists. An unlikely alliance of
venture capitalists, Wall Streeters, automakers, environmentalists,
farmers, and, yes, politicians is doing more than just talk about
ethanol's potential. They're putting real money into biorefineries,
car engines that switch effortlessly between gasoline and biofuels,
and R&D to churn out ethanol more cheaply. (By the way, the reason
motorists don't know about the five-million-plus ethanol-ready cars
and trucks on the road is that until now Detroit never felt the need
to tell them. Automakers quietly added the flex-fuel feature to get a
break from fuel-economy standards.)
What's more, powerful political lobbies in Washington that never used
to concern themselves with botanical affairs are suddenly focusing on
ethanol. "Energy dependence is America's economic, environmental, and
security Achilles' heel," says Nathanael Greene of the Natural
Resources Defense Council, a mainstream environmental group. National-
security hawks agree. Says former CIA chief James Woolsey: "We've got
a coalition of tree huggers, do-gooders, sodbusters, hawks, and
evangelicals." (Yes, he did say "evangelicals"--some have found common
ground with greens in the notion of environmental stewardship.)
The next five years could see ethanol go from a mere sliver of the
fuel pie to a major energy solution in a world where the cost of
relying on a finite supply of oil is way too high. As that happens,
says Vinod Khosla, a Silicon Valley venture capitalist who has become
one of the nation's most influential ethanol advocates, "I'm
absolutely convinced that without putting any more land under
agriculture and without changing our food production, we can introduce
enough ethanol in the U.S. to replace the majority of our petroleum
use in cars and light trucks."
Filling up on ethanol isn't new. Henry Ford's Model Ts ran on it.
What's changing is the cost of distilling ethanol and the advantages
it brings over rival fuels. Energy visionaries like to dream about
hydrogen as the ultimate replacement for fossil fuels, but switching
to it would mean a trillion-dollar upheaval--for new production and
distribution systems, new fuel stations, and new cars. Not so with
ethanol--today's gas stations can handle the most common mixture of
85% ethanol and 15% gasoline, called E85, with minimal retrofitting.
It takes about 30% more ethanol than gasoline to drive a mile, and the
stuff is more corrosive, but building a car that's E85-ready adds only
about $200 to the cost. Ethanol has already transformed one major
economy: In Brazil nearly three-quarters of new cars can burn either
ethanol or gasoline, whichever happens to be cheaper at the pump, and
the nation has weaned itself off imported oil.
And have you heard about GM's yellow gas caps? In the next few weeks
the auto giant is set to unveil an unlikely marketing campaign drawing
attention to E85 and its E85-ready cars and trucks like the Chevy
Avalanche. They will sport special yellow gas caps, and if you already
own such a vehicle, GM will send you a gas cap free. California
governor and Hummer owner Arnold Schwarzenegger is backing a ballot
initiative that would encourage service stations to offer ethanol at
the pump. Even big oil companies like Royal Dutch Shell and Exxon
Mobil are funding ethanol research. Says Beth Lowry, GM's vice
president for energy and environment: "People's perception used to be
'The agricultural lobby is very interested in it.' Now people are
waking up and saying, 'This isn't just about the Midwest. This is
about the U.S. as a whole.' " Adds Daniel Yergin, one of the country's
top energy experts: "I don't think I've seen so many kinds of
renewable energy fermenting and bubbling as right now. The very
definition of oil is broadening."
The rest of the articel is available at:
<http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fort...dex.htm?cnn=yes>
| |
| Bughunter 2006-01-28, 9:21 pm |
| I'll drink to that!
| |
| barry@sme-online.com 2006-01-30, 1:21 pm |
| In some respects, methanol might well be preferable. Vaporizes much
more readily- you might well need glow-plugs for starting with high-%
ethanol mix. Methanol could possibly be extracted from
wood-gasification process as a distillation product, and it has a much
lower boiling-pt. than ethanol.
Then, too, the fuel-injectors might facilitate vaporization by acting
more like diesel injectors than current gasoline injectors (1000 psi vs
35), or the fuel system might mix in a more volatile fuel for starting
and cold-running.
Gotta get something going, Dubs. Just joking- work around any static
federales.
J
| |
| Ulysses 2006-01-30, 1:21 pm |
|
"Harry Chickpea" <hchickpeaREMOVEME@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:43ddcf39.19979580@news.east.earthlink.net...
> Interesting article in Fortune:
>
>
> How to Beat the High Cost of Gasoline. Forever!
> Stop dreaming about hydrogen. Ethanol is the answer to the energy
> dilemma. It's clean and green and runs in today's cars. And in a
> generation, it could replace gas.
> By Adam Lashinsky and Nelson D. Schwartz
> January 24, 2006: 4:09 PM EST
>
I recently looked into getting a used "Flex-Fuel" truck and abandoned the
idea when I discovered that there were 5 places in the USA to buy ethanol
and it cost considerabley more than gasoline.
| |
| Ron Purvis 2006-02-05, 4:21 am |
| Sorry but you are flat out wrong on both points. There are almost 5 stations
with it here in my small city (pop 56,000). There are at least 26 stations
just here in SC that carry it and there are also stations in 34 other
states. The price here locally is also considerably cheaper than the cost of
regular unleaded. Nationwide CBS found over the summer that the price of E85
was 45 cents cheaper a gallon. Every place that I have seen mentioned on
the internet currently shows E85 at least 40 cents cheaper a gallon, and
some places considerably more difference in price between E85 and regular
gasoline.
--
Ron Purvis
ronpurvis@charter.net
"Ulysses" <therealulysses@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:11tsglimkvt5761@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Harry Chickpea" <hchickpeaREMOVEME@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:43ddcf39.19979580@news.east.earthlink.net...
>
> I recently looked into getting a used "Flex-Fuel" truck and abandoned the
> idea when I discovered that there were 5 places in the USA to buy ethanol
> and it cost considerabley more than gasoline.
>
>
| |
| Steve Stone 2006-02-05, 11:21 am |
| Ethanol is an interesting elixer.
I am concerned about the production issues surrounding non traditional
methods used to produce ethanol from garbage and the safety of
large storage facilities.
Think diesel garbage trucks, LARGE tractor trailor gar-barge trucks, idling
, sitting in line , 24x7 with garbage to feed the ethanol plant in a small
valley that already is prone to smog problems in the summer. The stench of
rotting garbage, Aunt Jennys' 3 week old maggot infest lasanga rotting away
multiplied by thousands of households. The litter the trucks cause on the
highways because of improperly secured loads. Overloaded trucks destroying
local roads, the traffic jams.
Think of an increase of diesel air pollution. Think of the toxic sludge
leftovers from the process. Think aquifer pollution.
Think huge tank farms of flammable ethanol and only small local volunteer
fire companies to respond to emergencies.
This might be the byproducts of ethanol production in my small town.
There is no free ride from ethanol.
Better to reinvent transportation using other fuel technology
| |
| Ron Purvis 2006-02-05, 12:21 pm |
| IMHO you are worrying about nothing. Those trucks will be running the same
as before. They will just be carrying stuff to the ethanol plant instead of
to the landfill. If you really think that the amount of trash left rotting
for long periods of time will be any greater, then you are very mistaken.
Think about the famous barge of trash that took 7 months to be disposed of,
or of the open landfills across the country now. There also will not be any
increase in pollution to the aquifer. Do you really think it is better to
dump all that in the ground rather than to produce ethanol? I don't think
so.
However the biggest thing that I think you are over concerned about is that
there is not near as much talk about producing ethanol from these types of
trash as there is about using wood chips and grass cutting to make it, and
using the other waste to make oil through thermal depolymerization. That
does not have any greater environmental risks than normal fuel methods.
--
Ron Purvis
ronpurvis@charter.net
"Steve Stone" <zzspfleck@citlink.netzz> wrote in message
news:4moFf.23767$wk5.9079@news02.roc.ny...
> Ethanol is an interesting elixer.
>
> I am concerned about the production issues surrounding non traditional
> methods used to produce ethanol from garbage and the safety of
> large storage facilities.
>
> Think diesel garbage trucks, LARGE tractor trailor gar-barge trucks,
> idling , sitting in line , 24x7 with garbage to feed the ethanol plant in
> a small valley that already is prone to smog problems in the summer. The
> stench of rotting garbage, Aunt Jennys' 3 week old maggot infest lasanga
> rotting away multiplied by thousands of households. The litter the trucks
> cause on the highways because of improperly secured loads. Overloaded
> trucks destroying local roads, the traffic jams.
>
> Think of an increase of diesel air pollution. Think of the toxic sludge
> leftovers from the process. Think aquifer pollution.
> Think huge tank farms of flammable ethanol and only small local volunteer
> fire companies to respond to emergencies.
>
> This might be the byproducts of ethanol production in my small town.
>
> There is no free ride from ethanol.
>
> Better to reinvent transportation using other fuel technology
>
>
>
| |
| Harry Chickpea 2006-02-05, 2:21 pm |
| "Steve Stone" <zzspfleck@citlink.netzz> wrote:
>Ethanol is an interesting elixer.
I'll drink to that.
>I am concerned about the production issues surrounding non traditional
>methods used to produce ethanol from garbage and the safety of
>large storage facilities.
>
>Think diesel garbage trucks, LARGE tractor trailor gar-barge trucks, idling
>, sitting in line , 24x7 with garbage to feed the ethanol plant in a small
>valley that already is prone to smog problems in the summer. The stench of
>rotting garbage, Aunt Jennys' 3 week old maggot infest lasanga rotting away
>multiplied by thousands of households. The litter the trucks cause on the
>highways because of improperly secured loads. Overloaded trucks destroying
>local roads, the traffic jams.
Well... Any day that I want, I can drive five miles and watch "diesel
garbage trucks, LARGE tractor trailor gar-barge trucks, idling,
sitting in line , 24x7 with garbage" at one of a number of local
landfills for south Florida. The trucks don't really operate 24/7,
but there are more of them than you would ever want at a wedding
reception. As for stench? In this area of high heat and humidity,
the stench of a well managed facility is still enough to make you gag
and puke. We live with your scenario already.
From the way you write, you make it sound like your shit don't stink.
Any E plant would have the same hoops to jump through that any other
waste facility must. You won't find one next to Donald Trump's house.
>Think of an increase of diesel air pollution. Think of the toxic sludge
>leftovers from the process. Think aquifer pollution.
>Think huge tank farms of flammable ethanol and only small local volunteer
>fire companies to respond to emergencies.
Think of the massive piles of hyperbole, rotting in the light of
common sense. Huge tank farms of flammable ethanol? Have you ever
tried to flambe a dish and found the stuff disappointing in flash and
bang? Have you ever used an alcohol stove and waited for an eternity
for water to get hot enough to boil? Compare that with a gasoline
stove, and count the number of singed hairs on your eyebrows. Huge
tank farms of gasoline already exist.
Toxic sludge? How toxic can it be if it supports the yeasties that
make the ethanol? Is brewers yeast toxic sludge? Try telling that to
health food stores.
>This might be the byproducts of ethanol production in my small town.
Yep, another NIBY eco-walnut. You wouldn't have to worry much about
it anyway. IF ethanol takes off, the economies of scale and
difficulties in permit acquisition would make a limited number of
large facilities more practical. Think of a destination stop for the
Long Island garbage train. (Yes, there already is a garbage train for
Long Island.)
>There is no free ride from ethanol.
There are issues, which you have managed to avoid. For one, even
though ethanol burns clean, brewing it releases large amounts of
carbon dioxide. That fizz in your draft beer is CO2. If you've ever
brewed beer, you know there is a lot more where that came from. IME,
ethanol isn't any better at energy extraction or CO2 reduction than
burning the waste directly in a garbage to energy plant. It merely
makes the energy more portable and available to vehicles that can use
it.
The other big issue is the lower energy density of ethanol compared to
gasoline or diesel. That means more fuel weight being lugged around
per mile of transport, which translates to greater consumption.
>Better to reinvent transportation using other fuel technology
It was done years ago. They were called trolleys. Ban internal
combustion engines in cities and provide either inductive or safe
direct power pick-offs on all roadways, and vehicles can run on
electricity generated by the fuel du-jour. Small on-board batteries
would power the vehicles in and out of parking spots or across dead
zones. Self-contained power generation in vehicles is so 20th
century.
| |
| Steve Stone 2006-02-06, 10:21 am |
|
"Ron Purvis" <ronpurvis@charter.net> wrote in message
news:LupFf.18$Xr7.0@fe05.lga...
> IMHO you are worrying about nothing. Those trucks will be running the same
> as before.
True, they will be running same as before, but instead of heading to the
dump in the middle of nowhere they will be heading to the edge of a small
city where the fumes accumulate in a small valley instead of disburse in a
larger area.
There also will not be any
> increase in pollution to the aquifer.
Stuff leaks into the aquifer today from local dumps with high tech
"barriers". I leachs into our rivers and streams. What makes a processing
plant different ? nada
> However the biggest thing that I think you are over concerned about is
> that there is not near as much talk about producing ethanol from these
> types of trash as there is about using wood chips and grass cutting to
> make it, and using the other waste to make oil through thermal
> depolymerization. That does not have any greater environmental risks than
> normal fuel methods.
Not in my neighborhood.
| |
| Ron Purvis 2006-02-06, 12:21 pm |
|
--
Ron Purvis
ronpurvis@charter.net
"Steve Stone" <zzspfleck@citlink.netzz> wrote in message
news:D%HFf.23840$wk5.17215@news02.roc.ny...
>
> "Ron Purvis" <ronpurvis@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:LupFf.18$Xr7.0@fe05.lga...
>
> True, they will be running same as before, but instead of heading to the
> dump in the middle of nowhere they will be heading to the edge of a small
> city where the fumes accumulate in a small valley instead of disburse in a
> larger area.
>
That is just not going to happen. Those plants will be built out in the
country just like the landfills are. The land is cheaper out there, they
need to have space to unload all the trucks, etc. They are not going to put
it in the center of your town.
>
There is a lot of difference since the landfill has the trash laying on the
ground until it is buried and the rains then get out side of the barriers.
However, what I had said was there will be no INCREASE. That means that it
will not be any more than what it is now.
>
> Stuff leaks into the aquifer today from local dumps with high tech
> "barriers". I leachs into our rivers and streams. What makes a processing
> plant different ? nada
>
>
>
>
> Not in my neighborhood.
Now we come to your real argument. The rest of your comments didn't make any
sense because they are not real arguments. There is nothing that can be done
to convince you to any other position since you have an emotional basis for
your position rather than a rational one.
| |
| Keith K@ 2006-02-14, 6:21 pm |
| barry@sme-online.com wrote:
> In some respects, methanol might well be preferable. Vaporizes much
> more readily- you might well need glow-plugs for starting with high-%
> ethanol mix. Methanol could possibly be extracted from
> wood-gasification process as a distillation product, and it has a much
> lower boiling-pt. than ethanol.
>
> Then, too, the fuel-injectors might facilitate vaporization by acting
> more like diesel injectors than current gasoline injectors (1000 psi vs
> 35), or the fuel system might mix in a more volatile fuel for starting
> and cold-running.
>
> Gotta get something going, Dubs. Just joking- work around any static
> federales.
>
Methanol is quite a bit nastier as far as toxicity of the liquid and vapors
are concerned. I don't know how the emissions from burning methyl alcohol
compare to ethanol but that might also be a factor to consider. It also has
the unwanted effect of dissolving all but a few of the more exotic (and
expensive) synthetic materials used to make seals, hoses, gaskets, and
connectors. Most of the bad rap "gasohol" got in the 80's was caused by
unscrupulous refiners substituting cheaper methanol for ethanol to squeeze
out a few more profit dollars. Methanol ate through the seals or gummed up
the plastic parts.
I think the push to ethanol is also aided by the fact that it can be
economically produced on a very small scale and requires a much lower input
of energy for each gallon produced. We produced quite a bit of alcohol fuel
here in Michigan in a home set-up using a combination of solar energy and
biomass fuel. There's also talk of a new genetically engineered yeast
they've developed up in Canada that can break down cellulose directly into
alcohol. Unfortunately, it sounds great right up to the point where it gets
into the wild and eats anything and everything in the vegetable kingdom.
Oops! Back to the drawing board!
Since we seem to be moving towards achieving ultra-high mileage cars by
adopting a fuel/electric hybrid model, using a small electrical warming
unit would be a simple addition to the fuel system for cold starts,
switching itself off as more exhaust heat is stored and used to vaporize
the fuel. Using domestically produced fuel in a high-mileage
alcohol/electric hybrid cars would go a long way toward reducing our
dependence on foreign oil until better technology comes along.
--
All Success
Keith K2
| |
| Psiclone 2006-02-20, 3:21 am |
|
"Ulysses" <therealulysses@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:11tsglimkvt5761@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Harry Chickpea" <hchickpeaREMOVEME@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:43ddcf39.19979580@news.east.earthlink.net...
>
> I recently looked into getting a used "Flex-Fuel" truck and abandoned the
> idea when I discovered that there were 5 places in the USA to buy ethanol
> and it cost considerabley more than gasoline.
>
this is why i'm hesitant to grow the 6-8 tonnes per acre of
http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/papers/mi...ss-profile.html on my 5
acres. i just dont see the industrial demand coming to fruition in the 3
years it'd take me to get my crop up to a full head of steam. i also wonder
what kind of liscenscing i'd have to go through to refine it myself.
| |
| Psiclone 2006-02-20, 3:21 am |
| where do the farmers go to have their
http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/papers/mi...ss-profile.html refined into
fuel? can they do it themselves or do they have to ship it to a facility?
2 weeks ago i heard a person on NPR complaining that there was noplace to
buy it where they were as well..
as one who may farm switchgrass i wonder how long it will take for the
industry to catch up to the technology. or, how hard would it be for me to
make it myself and just use it for my personal vehicles
"Ron Purvis" <ronpurvis@charter.net> wrote in message
news:a5iFf.887$KH4.450@fe05.lga...
> Sorry but you are flat out wrong on both points. There are almost 5
stations
> with it here in my small city (pop 56,000). There are at least 26 stations
> just here in SC that carry it and there are also stations in 34 other
> states. The price here locally is also considerably cheaper than the cost
of
> regular unleaded. Nationwide CBS found over the summer that the price of
E85
> was 45 cents cheaper a gallon. Every place that I have seen mentioned on
> the internet currently shows E85 at least 40 cents cheaper a gallon, and
> some places considerably more difference in price between E85 and regular
> gasoline.
>
> --
> Ron Purvis
> ronpurvis@charter.net
> "Ulysses" <therealulysses@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:11tsglimkvt5761@corp.supernews.com...
the[color=darkred]
ethanol[color=darkred]
>
>
| |
| Ron Purvis 2006-02-20, 4:21 pm |
| I have no idea where you would go to sell switchgrass to be made into
ethanol. I would suggest that you contact a company that produces ethanol
form switchgrass and see where they purchase it. That should tell you who to
talk to next. As far whether you can make it yourself, I would doubt that
for the present. However as more of the tools become available to the
public, it may be possible in the future. You can currently make ethanol
from other sources though.
While it is not available everywhere, it is not as hard to find as
"Ulysses" claimed. I would expect over the next two years, you will see it
become even more available. It is just going to take some time.
--
Ron Purvis
ronpurvis@charter.net
"Psiclone" <nunya@biz.net> wrote in message
news:SpdKf.430351$qk4.243674@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> where do the farmers go to have their
> http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/papers/mi...ss-profile.html refined
> into
> fuel? can they do it themselves or do they have to ship it to a facility?
>
> 2 weeks ago i heard a person on NPR complaining that there was noplace to
> buy it where they were as well..
> as one who may farm switchgrass i wonder how long it will take for the
> industry to catch up to the technology. or, how hard would it be for me to
> make it myself and just use it for my personal vehicles
>
> "Ron Purvis" <ronpurvis@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:a5iFf.887$KH4.450@fe05.lga...
> stations
> of
> E85
> the
> ethanol
>
>
| |
| Ron Purvis 2006-02-20, 4:21 pm |
| Why don't you contact David Bransby or someone from his department at Auburn
University?
--
Ron Purvis
ronpurvis@charter.net
"Psiclone" <nunya@biz.net> wrote in message
news:chdKf.430311$qk4.344422@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "Ulysses" <therealulysses@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:11tsglimkvt5761@corp.supernews.com...
> this is why i'm hesitant to grow the 6-8 tonnes per acre of
> http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/papers/mi...ss-profile.html on my 5
> acres. i just dont see the industrial demand coming to fruition in the 3
> years it'd take me to get my crop up to a full head of steam. i also
> wonder
> what kind of liscenscing i'd have to go through to refine it myself.
>
>
| |
| Pokee Joe 2006-02-20, 5:21 pm |
| > i also wonder
> what kind of liscenscing i'd have to go through to refine it myself.
>
IIRC, I read recently that you could get a permit from BATF to produce
fuel ethanol in small production quantities. I expect the application
process would include your becoming familiar with the limiting
regulations.
regards,
Joe
| |
| Psiclone 2006-02-21, 1:21 am |
| k, thanx...
"Ron Purvis" <ronpurvis@charter.net> wrote in message
news:%ZoKf.43$Qq1.38@fe03.lga...
> Why don't you contact David Bransby or someone from his department at
Auburn
> University?
>
> --
> Ron Purvis
> ronpurvis@charter.net
> "Psiclone" <nunya@biz.net> wrote in message
> news:chdKf.430311$qk4.344422@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
ethanol[color=darkred]
>
>
| |
| Psiclone 2006-02-21, 1:21 am |
| thanx to you too
IIRC?
i'll poke around the batf
"Pokee Joe" <nospam@dont.bother> wrote in message
news:11vka03nf4kr07c@corp.supernews.com...
>
> IIRC, I read recently that you could get a permit from BATF to produce
> fuel ethanol in small production quantities. I expect the application
> process would include your becoming familiar with the limiting
> regulations.
>
> regards,
> Joe
| |
| Ron Purvis 2006-02-21, 1:21 am |
| See http://www.atf.treas.gov/alcohol/in...nalcohol.htm#g1 it has a few
link in the second paragraph under spirits.
--
Ron Purvis
ronpurvis@charter.net
"Psiclone" <nunya@biz.net> wrote in message
news:sCwKf.46455$id5.26809@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> thanx to you too
>
> IIRC?
> i'll poke around the batf
>
> "Pokee Joe" <nospam@dont.bother> wrote in message
> news:11vka03nf4kr07c@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
| |
| Psiclone 2006-02-23, 6:21 am |
| yaaay! solar [or feul du-jour] slot cars[inductive] sounds nice! but i guess
it may have to be phased in slowly as other technologies deteriorate, since
ripping up whats already here now may be a waste...
....waiter, this fuel du-jour doesnt taste the same as i had last month!
"Harry Chickpea" <hchickpeaREMOVEME@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:43e629dc.1885226@news.east.earthlink.net...
> "Steve Stone" <zzspfleck@citlink.netzz> wrote:
>
>
> I'll drink to that.
>
idling[color=darkred]
small[color=darkred]
of[color=darkred]
away[color=darkred]
destroying[color=darkred]
>
> Well... Any day that I want, I can drive five miles and watch "diesel
> garbage trucks, LARGE tractor trailor gar-barge trucks, idling,
> sitting in line , 24x7 with garbage" at one of a number of local
> landfills for south Florida. The trucks don't really operate 24/7,
> but there are more of them than you would ever want at a wedding
> reception. As for stench? In this area of high heat and humidity,
> the stench of a well managed facility is still enough to make you gag
> and puke. We live with your scenario already.
>
> From the way you write, you make it sound like your shit don't stink.
> Any E plant would have the same hoops to jump through that any other
> waste facility must. You won't find one next to Donald Trump's house.
>
>
> Think of the massive piles of hyperbole, rotting in the light of
> common sense. Huge tank farms of flammable ethanol? Have you ever
> tried to flambe a dish and found the stuff disappointing in flash and
> bang? Have you ever used an alcohol stove and waited for an eternity
> for water to get hot enough to boil? Compare that with a gasoline
> stove, and count the number of singed hairs on your eyebrows. Huge
> tank farms of gasoline already exist.
>
> Toxic sludge? How toxic can it be if it supports the yeasties that
> make the ethanol? Is brewers yeast toxic sludge? Try telling that to
> health food stores.
>
>
> Yep, another NIBY eco-walnut. You wouldn't have to worry much about
> it anyway. IF ethanol takes off, the economies of scale and
> difficulties in permit acquisition would make a limited number of
> large facilities more practical. Think of a destination stop for the
> Long Island garbage train. (Yes, there already is a garbage train for
> Long Island.)
>
>
> There are issues, which you have managed to avoid. For one, even
> though ethanol burns clean, brewing it releases large amounts of
> carbon dioxide. That fizz in your draft beer is CO2. If you've ever
> brewed beer, you know there is a lot more where that came from. IME,
> ethanol isn't any better at energy extraction or CO2 reduction than
> burning the waste directly in a garbage to energy plant. It merely
> makes the energy more portable and available to vehicles that can use
> it.
>
> The other big issue is the lower energy density of ethanol compared to
> gasoline or diesel. That means more fuel weight being lugged around
> per mile of transport, which translates to greater consumption.
>
>
> It was done years ago. They were called trolleys. Ban internal
> combustion engines in cities and provide either inductive or safe
> direct power pick-offs on all roadways, and vehicles can run on
> electricity generated by the fuel du-jour. Small on-board batteries
> would power the vehicles in and out of parking spots or across dead
> zones. Self-contained power generation in vehicles is so 20th
> century.
>
>
|
|
|
|
|