Scientist may have lied

[nimbus]

Haven't these models been found wildly inaccurate?

Was it a model or just Al Gore who predicted some sea level catastrophe due in the 1980's or 1990's?

i'm not sure, see claims both ways without convincing evidence for either =/

 

[nimbus]

........................................Until there's a realistic profit in other fuels and sources for motive power. Almost ALL of the research into alternative fuel, has been force-funded by the Democrats with taxes and fees put upon the oil industry. Believe me, and I'll put my life on this: Successful investors; whether they be in oil or real estate or beer, will put their money into something which WILL make a profit. That's the way America became what it is (oops, I mean WAS in the 1950s). The anti-corporate and anti-"rich" movements are actually just socialists, and should move to a nice, fair, equal place like Siberia. If you want to be an American and make it big, use your brain, open your eyes, and put your money and work into a product that someone will buy...

Charles

environmental regulations will play a large role in what is profitable and what isn't.

 

[nimbus]

His GF was found drugged and without ID, and walking around INSIDE the secured area of an airport 3000 miles away in Pittsburgh the next day. And the kid's professor at CSULB was suddenly missing his computer and all his class files, and the kid's parents' computers were stolen in a mystery break-in.
Charles

where did you get this information from?

 

[EnderJE]

environmental regulations will play a large role in what is profitable and what isn't.

Does anyone like corn that much? Why does it get that many subsidies?

 

[nimbus]

Does anyone like corn that much? Why does it get that many subsidies?

They initially got overwhelming support due corn ethanol being an alternative to oil that we can produce right here in the US. Now that all these bad impacts of making corn from fuel have come to light, most people are against the subsidies. They have been hard to repeal though because corn growers are a powerful lobby, and constituents in farm states demanded that their representatives fight for them. They are starting to be repealed though and i'd be surprised see them last too much longer

 

[mrplunkey]

They initially got overwhelming support due corn ethanol being an alternative to oil that we can produce right here in the US. Now that all these bad impacts of making corn from fuel have come to light, most people are against the subsidies. They have been hard to repeal though because corn growers are a powerful lobby, and constituents in farm states demanded that their representatives fight for them. They are starting to be repealed though and i'd be surprised see them last too much longer

1) I'm a significant investor in two ethanol plants. In one I'm a limited partner and in one I was with the general partner group. Our family did about two years of diligence before making the plunge.

2) Ethanol subsidies should be removed, because it's the right thing to do. Picking winners and losers is a mistake regardless of the circumstances.

3) People get riled-up over ethanol consuming corn, but corn was never the end game for ethanol -- cellulose is. Cellulose represents about 60% of all organic matter on the planet. You can't get away from it. I'll guarantee that as you read this, you aren't more than 12 feet away from some cellulose.

4) The idea since at least the year 2000 has been to use traditional sources (sugar cane, corn) to gain a foothold in distribution, then convert to either a biorefinery (bugs that eat cellulose and make CO) or an enzyme-based technique that turns cellulose into glucose (ORNL is surprisingly close on this one).

5) The problem with alternative fuels in general is the three-fold nature of the problem. It's not just the fuel technology, but it's also the infrastructure to deliver the fuel and the upgrade path for consumers. To most people, their car is the second most valuable asset they own (and sometimes the first, for renters). Just about any whiz-bang technology other than a car you can plug into the wall will be a huge investment risk to your average Joe.

But in a weird way, ethanol is emblematic of our larger problem with alternative energy. It's a really grunty solution that involves carbohydrates, uses our existing infrastructure (service stations) and can be easily worked into an upgrade path for consumers (i.e. flexfuel vehicles). But we're Americans. And Americans don't like grunty -- we like sexy. So instead we'll chase even more exotic batteries and make bigger and bigger technology bets in the name of whiz-bang technology. And I'm not really being critical here. It's just our way. I'm gonna snicker when all these exotic batteries with cadmium and lithium start showing-up in the bottom of lakes and in garbage dumps. We've got a big enough problem with the smaller lead batteries as-is.

 

[ledhead]

........................................Until there's a realistic profit in other fuels and sources for motive power. Almost ALL of the research into alternative fuel, has been force-funded by the Democrats with taxes and fees put upon the oil industry. Believe me, and I'll put my life on this: Successful investors; whether they be in oil or real estate or beer, will put their money into something which WILL make a profit. That's the way America became what it is (oops, I mean WAS in the 1950s). The anti-corporate and anti-"rich" movements are actually just socialists, and should move to a nice, fair, equal place like Siberia. If you want to be an American and make it big, use your brain, open your eyes, and put your money and work into a product that someone will buy...

Charles

And if all else fails send in the marines because they will just take it..


I can't say enough about the two Marine divisions. If I use words like 'brilliant,' it would really be an under description of the absolutely superb job that they did in breaching the so-called 'impenetrable barrier.' It was a classic- absolutely classic- military breaching of a very very tough minefield, barbed wire, fire trenches-type barrier.
Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf, U. S. Army
Commander, Operation Desert Storm, February 1991

 

[PICK3]

1) I'm a significant investor in two ethanol plants. In one I'm a limited partner and in one I was with the general partner group. Our family did about two years of diligence before making the plunge.

2) Ethanol subsidies should be removed, because it's the right thing to do. Picking winners and losers is a mistake regardless of the circumstances.

3) People get riled-up over ethanol consuming corn, but corn was never the end game for ethanol -- cellulose is. Cellulose represents about 60% of all organic matter on the planet. You can't get away from it. I'll guarantee that as you read this, you aren't more than 12 feet away from some cellulose.

4) The idea since at least the year 2000 has been to use traditional sources (sugar cane, corn) to gain a foothold in distribution, then convert to either a biorefinery (bugs that eat cellulose and make CO) or an enzyme-based technique that turns cellulose into glucose (ORNL is surprisingly close on this one).

5) The problem with alternative fuels in general is the three-fold nature of the problem. It's not just the fuel technology, but it's also the infrastructure to deliver the fuel and the upgrade path for consumers. To most people, their car is the second most valuable asset they own (and sometimes the first, for renters). Just about any whiz-bang technology other than a car you can plug into the wall will be a huge investment risk to your average Joe.

But in a weird way, ethanol is emblematic of our larger problem with alternative energy. It's a really grunty solution that involves carbohydrates, uses our existing infrastructure (service stations) and can be easily worked into an upgrade path for consumers (i.e. flexfuel vehicles). But we're Americans. And Americans don't like grunty -- we like sexy. So instead we'll chase even more exotic batteries and make bigger and bigger technology bets in the name of whiz-bang technology. And I'm not really being critical here. It's just our way. I'm gonna snicker when all these exotic batteries with cadmium and lithium start showing-up in the bottom of lakes and in garbage dumps. We've got a big enough problem with the smaller lead batteries as-is.

turbine power > ethanol plants



just sayin'

 

[nimbus]

1) I'm a significant investor in two ethanol plants. In one I'm a limited partner and in one I was with the general partner group. Our family did about two years of diligence before making the plunge.

2) Ethanol subsidies should be removed, because it's the right thing to do. Picking winners and losers is a mistake regardless of the circumstances.

3) People get riled-up over ethanol consuming corn, but corn was never the end game for ethanol -- cellulose is. Cellulose represents about 60% of all organic matter on the planet. You can't get away from it. I'll guarantee that as you read this, you aren't more than 12 feet away from some cellulose.

4) The idea since at least the year 2000 has been to use traditional sources (sugar cane, corn) to gain a foothold in distribution, then convert to either a biorefinery (bugs that eat cellulose and make CO) or an enzyme-based technique that turns cellulose into glucose (ORNL is surprisingly close on this one).

5) The problem with alternative fuels in general is the three-fold nature of the problem. It's not just the fuel technology, but it's also the infrastructure to deliver the fuel and the upgrade path for consumers. To most people, their car is the second most valuable asset they own (and sometimes the first, for renters). Just about any whiz-bang technology other than a car you can plug into the wall will be a huge investment risk to your average Joe.

But in a weird way, ethanol is emblematic of our larger problem with alternative energy. It's a really grunty solution that involves carbohydrates, uses our existing infrastructure (service stations) and can be easily worked into an upgrade path for consumers (i.e. flexfuel vehicles). But we're Americans. And Americans don't like grunty -- we like sexy. So instead we'll chase even more exotic batteries and make bigger and bigger technology bets in the name of whiz-bang technology. And I'm not really being critical here. It's just our way. I'm gonna snicker when all these exotic batteries with cadmium and lithium start showing-up in the bottom of lakes and in garbage dumps. We've got a big enough problem with the smaller lead batteries as-is.

yea i think cellulosic is great. i know plants were having a lot of trouble getting off the ground due to issues with financing, but the DOE loan guarantee for the POET plant should be an amazing leap

 

[EnderJE]

They initially got overwhelming support due corn ethanol being an alternative to oil that we can produce right here in the US. Now that all these bad impacts of making corn from fuel have come to light, most people are against the subsidies. They have been hard to repeal though because corn growers are a powerful lobby, and constituents in farm states demanded that their representatives fight for them. They are starting to be repealed though and i'd be surprised see them last too much longer

Actually, my problem with the corn subsidies aren't with the alternative fuel angle.

The problem started with corn syrup and how it was impacting my (former) favorite drink -- soda.