|
|
Please Register and login to reply and use other advanced options
Posted by John Larkin on July 16, 2008, 7:36 pm
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 20:25:14 GMT, James Arthur
>a7yvm109gf5d1@netzero.com wrote:
>> James Arthur wrote:
>>> Spehro Pefhany wrote:
>>>> John Larkin wrote:
>>>>> Hydrogen is plentiful and easy to store and distribute, and a superb
>>>>> way to transport energy; just attach it to carbon.
>>>>> John
>>>> Brilliant. What shall we call this substance? "Hydro-carbon" or
>>>> something like that?
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Spehro Pefhany
> >>
>>> How about "carbohydrate", as some prefer? That one's popular too.
>>>
>> Er, you do realize there's a difference between "hydrocarbon" and
>> "carbohydrate"?
>Yes, but carbohydrates are so much easier to grow, and even easier
>to subsidize. Hence their popularity.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biofuel
>Grins,
>James Arthur
About a billion people on this planet get insufficient carbohydrates
to meet their body's needs. Burning food in SUVs and airplanes is
grotesque. One bushel of corn, 65 pounds, makes a couple of gallons of
ethanol. So refilling an Escalade could waste a half of a ton of food.
John
Posted by James Arthur on July 16, 2008, 8:02 pm
John Larkin wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 20:25:14 GMT, James Arthur
>
>> a7yvm109gf5d1@netzero.com wrote:
>>> James Arthur wrote:
>>>> Spehro Pefhany wrote:
>>>>> John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>> Hydrogen is plentiful and easy to store and distribute, and a superb
>>>>>> way to transport energy; just attach it to carbon.
>>>>>> John
>>>>> Brilliant. What shall we call this substance? "Hydro-carbon" or
>>>>> something like that?
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>> Spehro Pefhany
>>>> How about "carbohydrate", as some prefer? That one's popular too.
>>>>
>>> Er, you do realize there's a difference between "hydrocarbon" and
>>> "carbohydrate"?
>> Yes, but carbohydrates are so much easier to grow, and even easier
>> to subsidize. Hence their popularity.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biofuel
>>
>>
>
> About a billion people on this planet get insufficient carbohydrates
> to meet their body's needs. Burning food in SUVs and airplanes is
> grotesque. One bushel of corn, 65 pounds, makes a couple of gallons of
> ethanol. So refilling an Escalade could waste a half of a ton of food.
>
> John
Half a ton? Heck, that's burning chicken feed. No, really...it is
burning chicken feed.
Cheers,
James Arthur
Posted by Martin Brown on July 17, 2008, 5:35 am John Larkin wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 20:25:14 GMT, James Arthur
>> Yes, but carbohydrates are so much easier to grow, and even easier
>> to subsidize. Hence their popularity.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biofuel
Sugar cane and its relatives are the ones to beat. Nothing else comes
close yet. We can also grow oil rich plants on marginal land. People are
playing with Jatropha for this although I don't envy the farmers job.
>
> About a billion people on this planet get insufficient carbohydrates
> to meet their body's needs. Burning food in SUVs and airplanes is
> grotesque. One bushel of corn, 65 pounds, makes a couple of gallons of
> ethanol. So refilling an Escalade could waste a half of a ton of food.
I am in full agreement with you there.
Only the power of the US corn lobby could ever have got this one off the
ground. The end to end energy cost of making alcohol from grain
including all inputs is pretty awful. You get only about 10-20% return
if you are lucky. Sugar cane is more than 300% ROI and still with scope
for improvement.
Regards,
Martin Brown
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Posted by Martin Brown on July 17, 2008, 12:23 pm John Larkin wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 20:25:14 GMT, James Arthur
>> Yes, but carbohydrates are so much easier to grow, and even easier
>> to subsidize. Hence their popularity.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biofuel
Sugar cane and its relatives are the ones to beat. Nothing else comes
close yet. We can also grow oil rich plants on marginal land. People
are playing with Jatropha for this although I don't envy the farmers
job.
> About a billion people on this planet get insufficient carbohydrates
> to meet their body's needs. Burning food in SUVs and airplanes is
> grotesque. One bushel of corn, 65 pounds, makes a couple of gallons of
> ethanol. So refilling an Escalade could waste a half of a ton of food.
I am in full agreement with you there. It also drives prices of grain
up out of reach of the poorest.
Only the power of the US corn lobby could ever have got this one off
the ground. The end to end energy cost of making alcohol from grain
including all inputs is pretty awful. You get only about 10-20% return
if you are lucky. Sugar cane is more than 300% ROI and still with
scope for improvement.
Regards,
Martin Brown
Posted by Ken Maltby on July 17, 2008, 2:28 pm
> John Larkin wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 20:25:14 GMT, James Arthur
>>> Yes, but carbohydrates are so much easier to grow, and even easier
>>> to subsidize. Hence their popularity.
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biofuel
> Sugar cane and its relatives are the ones to beat. Nothing else comes
> close yet. We can also grow oil rich plants on marginal land. People
> are playing with Jatropha for this although I don't envy the farmers
> job.
>>
>> About a billion people on this planet get insufficient carbohydrates
>> to meet their body's needs. Burning food in SUVs and airplanes is
>> grotesque. One bushel of corn, 65 pounds, makes a couple of gallons of
>> ethanol. So refilling an Escalade could waste a half of a ton of food.
> I am in full agreement with you there. It also drives prices of grain
> up out of reach of the poorest.
> Only the power of the US corn lobby could ever have got this one off
> the ground. The end to end energy cost of making alcohol from grain
> including all inputs is pretty awful. You get only about 10-20% return
> if you are lucky. Sugar cane is more than 300% ROI and still with
> scope for improvement.
> Regards,
> Martin Brown
This Thread
Please Register and login to reply and use other advanced options
Related Posts
Latest Posts
|
|
|
>> James Arthur wrote:
>>> Spehro Pefhany wrote:
>>>> John Larkin wrote:
>>>>> Hydrogen is plentiful and easy to store and distribute, and a superb
>>>>> way to transport energy; just attach it to carbon.
>>>>> John
>>>> Brilliant. What shall we call this substance? "Hydro-carbon" or
>>>> something like that?
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Spehro Pefhany
> >>
>>> How about "carbohydrate", as some prefer? That one's popular too.
>>>
>> Er, you do realize there's a difference between "hydrocarbon" and
>> "carbohydrate"?
>Yes, but carbohydrates are so much easier to grow, and even easier
>to subsidize. Hence their popularity.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biofuel
>Grins,
>James Arthur