Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
The US need a strong China
- Thread starter anthrax
- Start date
chemical soldier
New member
pintoca said:
sadly i agree!
mrplunkey
New member
1) China will be strong regardless of what the US wants or does.anthrax said:
2) If they push us economically without kicking-off another cold war then we'll both win. Cold wars divert a ton of resources away from places that actually need them and into weapons that collect dust.
My SO is deeply involved in China's push for bettering their educational system. They are moving forward on many fronts. Quietly ... patiently ... relentlessly.
The good news is ... they love "stuff" and are not really interested in war. The stats are a secret, but they have a huge number of rural peasants that are keeping them in check.
IMO ... Do business with them. No confrontations and no wars. Let western decadence do its work.
They are also a nice check mate to Russia and India.
The good news is ... they love "stuff" and are not really interested in war. The stats are a secret, but they have a huge number of rural peasants that are keeping them in check.
IMO ... Do business with them. No confrontations and no wars. Let western decadence do its work.
They are also a nice check mate to Russia and India.
Last edited:
GoldenDelicious
New member
too early to tell. divisions may yet emerge in china. atm the chinese government controls its people with an iron fist. itd be interesting to see what happens in china as its populace becomes richer, more aware, loosens governmental control and descends into decadence.
1.3 billion peasant slaves is one thing for a country. 1.3 people all of a sudden saying MEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEME....now that would be something to see..
1.3 billion peasant slaves is one thing for a country. 1.3 people all of a sudden saying MEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEME....now that would be something to see..
eat big
New member
pintoca said:
Not only cheap labor but labor laws, environmental laws and other standards the US has instilled aren't and won't be in China. What's even funnier is we all trade with China because goods are so damned cheap. Double-edged sword. We can't stop feeding the monster either. It needs a twinkie like Klu.
Testosterone boy
New member
mrplunkey said:Perhaps their evil plans can be thwarted by people wearing hats made of aluminum foil to keep the evil brainwaves out.
I do so love paranoid conspiracy people
You neo con fuck wads are the reason that thinking citizens have grown "paranoid" (aware) of our government.
Anybody who has studied this situation at all knows that nothing but pure evil is running the show in Washington.
Nothing but pure evil. Lies, fear, intimidation, lies, fear, intimidation. And thats sugar coating it.
More like 'Murder for Money Inc.'
Tin Foil Hats....................................Bwahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
mrplunkey
New member
Angry liberal alert!Testosterone boy said:
Take deep breaths... clutch your copy of the New Yorker... rock back and forth to the rthymic droning of Al Franken's talk show. This will pass....
Unless, of course... if the evil conservatives have already implanted a mind control chip in your brain that they are waiting to latently activate! If I were you, I wouldn't go to sleep just to make sure -- I bet they can only turn it on when you sleep.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't someone out to get you
E85 is a joke. It's about as scalable and susatainable as... well it's not, it's a joke, and it's about as energy intensive to make as the energy you get out.
boxerjake said:
Yeah, and their power plants (coal) are going to push us over the edge to runaway global warming. While CNN isnt the most fair and balanced news, they spoke a good deal in the last week over the effects of chinese industry on the neighboring environments. YAY! All we need is a healthier chinese population to reproduce more and further take us over the planet's carrying capacity. Their growth cannot be continued at the level it's at. Not enough resources or buffer in the environment.
mrplunkey
New member
I have no idea where you got your information from, but it must be very old. Ethanol currently has a net 34% energy gain in it's production. Improving corn yields and higher starch content corn varieties will push that upward even farther. We're also always moving heat around the dry mill plants more efficiently, so less and less natural gas is being used to generate heat.juiceddreadlocks said:
And here's the *big* thing you are missing. The energy used in the process comes from the sun, so until the sun burns out we'll have a renewable energy source. It's also greenhouse gas neutral, since the plant absorbs roughly the same amount of CO2 as is produced by fermentation and the burning of the ethanol.
Ethanol is also a great oxygenator for gasoline. All the clean air hippies decided years ago that we needed cleaner-burning fuel so they drove the use of MTBE as an oxygenator. Well guess what? MTBE is a carcinogen -- and it gets better. It also has this nasty habit of showing-up in our ground water. So the environmentalists traded our clean water for clean air. Now we need to double our ethanol production from around 4.5B gallons a year to over 8B gallons just to keep from poisoning ourselves from our own clean-air additive.
It's totally unrealistic to think the American masses are going to trade their 300, 400 and even 500 hp vehicles for hybrid vehicles that struggle against every hill or headwind. Corn-based ethanol, combined with flexible-fuel vehicles give us the only viable migration path. Today it's gasoline oxygenated with ethanol. Soon it's E85 or gasoline being burned in a flexible fuel vehicle. Next we'll have dedicated E85 vehicles and begin seeing cellulose-based ethanol being manufactured. Then, between sugar and cellulose-based ethanol, we can take the next 15-25 years and migrate to an even better long-term solution.
Now I'm off to visit the plant in East Kansas. I'll drink a shot right out of the evaporation column just for you guys (it tastes like shit for drinking tho ><)!
34% for reduced fuel economy (less BTU/gallon)? I'm certainly not advocating using MTBE, we all know that's pretty nasty stuff.
The last info I read on peakoil.com you got the 34% positive EROEI only considering the liquid portion, not including the fertilizers used on the fields.
I think you're mistaken on it being hippies wanting the MTBE, I'm pretty sure govt officials aligned with companies who manufacture MTBE got it introduced.
The bottom line is ethanol is a piss poor attempt at a substitute for any sort of fossil fuel. The CO2 argument doesnt hold water (smokescreen) because it's not an efficient enough use of fuel and farmland to manufacture ethanol from corn, and the resulting CO2 emissions from the equipment used to make fertilizers, and tractors used for growing the corn.
Hybrids are even more of a joke. We've not got minerals to keep making big assed batteries for a ton of hybrids nor the minerals to make panels for fuel cells on a large scale for use of hydrogen (which is even stupider as a fuel for the same reasons)
The wafer left from pressing rapeseed and soybeans for oil for biodiesel type fuels can be used for fertilizer. It's a much better EROEI also.
The last info I read on peakoil.com you got the 34% positive EROEI only considering the liquid portion, not including the fertilizers used on the fields.
I think you're mistaken on it being hippies wanting the MTBE, I'm pretty sure govt officials aligned with companies who manufacture MTBE got it introduced.
The bottom line is ethanol is a piss poor attempt at a substitute for any sort of fossil fuel. The CO2 argument doesnt hold water (smokescreen) because it's not an efficient enough use of fuel and farmland to manufacture ethanol from corn, and the resulting CO2 emissions from the equipment used to make fertilizers, and tractors used for growing the corn.
Hybrids are even more of a joke. We've not got minerals to keep making big assed batteries for a ton of hybrids nor the minerals to make panels for fuel cells on a large scale for use of hydrogen (which is even stupider as a fuel for the same reasons)
The wafer left from pressing rapeseed and soybeans for oil for biodiesel type fuels can be used for fertilizer. It's a much better EROEI also.
There are more people in the know that post stuff on peakoil.com. Even if you dont agree with the message of the site, there's a lot of good science posted there.
Yeah, there's a study from the 70s where lower yields of corn are used for reference. That's not what I'm talking about, I'm talking about more recent studies.redguru said:
I put a disclaimer about believing that site. The science I was talking about is mostly (if not all) 3rd party studies
None of that can change that there is a more positive EROEI for making biodiesel than for making ethanol. Ethanol has a lower BTU than unleaded, as bio does compared to dino diesel, but bio has much less C emissions than regular diesel.
How much more expensive will ethanol be than it is now when we have to stop subsudizing corn production?
redguru
New member
juiceddreadlocks said:
I wasn't talking about ethanol, I was talking about thier reliance on 1950's empirical data in later studies to project oil reserves. Even though the studies themselves are more recent the data was gleaned in the 50's and is very unreliable by today's standards.
Brazil manufactures most of its ethanol from sugar cane, which is vastly more efficient than corn. We can do the same thing in our more humid states, like Florida, Alabama and Louisiana. It may also be a viable alternative to the tobacco crops of the South East.
redguru said:
Hey that Hubbert guy had some scary ideas.
Doesnt Brazil use manual human labor to pick its sugarcane crop? I was aware of the Brazil situation somewhat, but thought I read on a link posted here that there is some sort of lobby that keeps our sugar prices high????
I'm all for biofuels, in limited quantities and not as a scalable fuel.
mrplunkey
New member
I just saw something today on my trip to Garnett Kansas that showed ethanol's ratio of energy produced to energy consumed to be 1.7:7 -- and that included fertilization. A modern, 100-million gallon dry mill ethanol plant is a pretty amazing engineering feat.
I asked him for a copy of it and I hope they send it. As both owners and potential competitors (our newer plants will eventually compete with this one) I don't know if he'll send it or not.
Bottom line is ethanol is a fantastic fuel subsitute because corn and sugar cane can supply our needs short-term and our long-term needs will be met via cellulose. Biodesel will also do well in industrial applications but it will never be a mainstream consumer fuel in the US.
I asked him for a copy of it and I hope they send it. As both owners and potential competitors (our newer plants will eventually compete with this one) I don't know if he'll send it or not.
Bottom line is ethanol is a fantastic fuel subsitute because corn and sugar cane can supply our needs short-term and our long-term needs will be met via cellulose. Biodesel will also do well in industrial applications but it will never be a mainstream consumer fuel in the US.
mrplunkey said:
I've yet to read a single article, study, or well thought out opinion that says ethanol is scaleable. I guess the sugar and corn lobbies $$$ in washington are paying off.
mrplunkey
New member
Ethanol is quite scaleable. Corn alone can't replace all of our oil needs, but it can have a major impact. About 1/3 of our 140B gallons of fuel consumed per year is from the middle east. With corn-based ethanol, we can cut that 47B gallon number between 50% and 100%.juiceddreadlocks said:
We currently produce 4.5B gallons of ethanol per year, and plants are currently under construction to double that number (16ish month construction time, but some of these projects are virtually done). If you look out to the 2009-2010 range, there are enough funded projects right now to more than double that again. So cornbased ethanol alone should take us to 25 billion gallons or so.
Wiping out 50% of our dependency on middle eastern oil would be huge. There isn't any other option we'll see for the next 20 years that could do that.
mrplunkey said:
right. So according to Jevon's Paradox, when we develop this huge ethanol infrastructure and the price of fuel drops we're going to use more, correct? Basically we're spinning our wheels here, not to mention the reduced MPG associated with ethanol fuels.
mrplunkey
New member
Cool! Then let's just use that logic and stop *all* forms of petrolium alternatives. We can let gas hit $25/gallon, and people will use radically less. That way we can stretch our existing reserves out for a hundred more years. After all, we wouldn't want to make it too cheap. A modern dry mill can make ethanol all day long for $1.05-$1.10 per gallon and we sure don't want that to happen (that's sarcasm, just in case you are wondering).juiceddreadlocks said:
And ethanol, in an ethanol-tuned engine, delivers excellent MPG.
And finally... I saw a report yesterday that does a "walk" showing how we can double the production of corn over the next few years. If that's even close to accurate then we could almost get there on corn alone.
Ethanol is by far our best solution in the short term. No other solution even comes close.
mrplunkey said:
Okay, so going with your scenario here...
Gas hits $25 a gallon. What does ethanol cost? Is it still viable for the average joe? With regular unleaded at $25 what does 100octane (or whatever fuel) the other 15% of E85 cost? (I'm asking, not arguing)
What about modern engines that wont run for long on E85? More than one manufacturer of small engines has issued a notice saying blends more than 10% will not work with their engines.
For the part I bolded, are you Jesus? Can you get 1000 loaves of bread from 10? I dont see how there's not going to be a significant drop in fuel economy when using ethanol because of the smaller in BTU of ethanol compared to gasoline.
mrplunkey
New member
juiceddreadlocks said:
The idea is to have a low-cost alternative to gasoline that will have a negative impact on gasoline. With ethanol being reliably made at $1.05-$1.10 a gallon, it will help keep gasoline prices lower by two mechanisms: 1) as a viable substitute product it will help control the market price and 2) it will reduce our overall dependence on oil and provide some relief on an already overstressed commodity.
juiceddreadlocks said:
Conventional gasoline-only engines do not have fuel injectors or carburators that take advantage of ethanol's higher octane rating, hence they don't make full use of ethanol. The also lack stainless steel fittings in key areas because ethanol is somewhat more corrosive than gasoline. For example, in an ethanol plant's storage and fermentation tanks have to be made of the next-to-highest grade of stainless steel (it's partially to prevent infections too, but that's another issue).
juiceddreadlocks said:
I'm not Jesus, but many women report seeing God when they are "with" me in the Biblical sense -- does that count?
People love to cite the lower "energy content" of ethanol, but that's a very common misconception. A BTU (British Thermal Unit) is the quantity of heat required to raise 1 pound of water by 1 degree Fahrenheit -- it's a measure of the thermal "power" of a substance. But there is a problem... heat doesn't make a car go -- explosions do. And ethanol is much more explosive. So even though E85 has only 80,000 BTU/gallon and gasoline has 124,800 BTU/gallon, a lot more of E85's energy is delivered in the form of explosion and less in the form of heat. A car's primary energy product is heat actually... and it's secondary energy product is motion. E85 lowers that gap significantly. With higher compression ratios found in committed E85 engines (as opposed to today's FFV's), E85's higher explosiveness will make the BTU difference insignificant.
Hope this helps
Where is the demand destruction going to come from? All that increasing the supply side of the energy equation is going to do is to make it cheaper. If gasoline is $7 a gallon, ethanol isnt far behind from the fertilizer, diesel etc... it takes to make it.
mrplunkey said:People love to cite the lower "energy content" of ethanol, but that's a very common misconception. A BTU (British Thermal Unit) is the quantity of heat required to raise 1 pound of water by 1 degree Fahrenheit -- it's a measure of the thermal "power" of a substance. But there is a problem... heat doesn't make a car go -- explosions do. And ethanol is much more explosive. So even though E85 has only 80,000 BTU/gallon and gasoline has 124,800 BTU/gallon, a lot more of E85's energy is delivered in the form of explosion and less in the form of heat. A car's primary energy product is heat actually... and it's secondary energy product is motion. E85 lowers that gap significantly. With higher compression ratios found in committed E85 engines (as opposed to today's FFV's), E85's higher explosiveness will make the BTU difference insignificant.
Hope this helps
If you cant post the kinetics to back that up, you're just making it up. I've read everything I can in the last week regarding ethanol and noboday has said anything like that.
Phenom78
New member
anthrax said:
ahahahah
Yes because the mafia in control of China requires propogandizing to be made to look bad.
And who is pushing protectionist policies?
Let me give you a hint. Which party is dependent on the uniuon interests who wish to block imports from any country which does not compensate its workers equivelantly?
Similar threads
