New German 4 seater gets 157 MPG

True, as is energy from oil and gas. However, the definition of solar
energy (or any other for that matter) tends to be related to the
somewhat "real time" availability of that energy. Oil is solar energy
with a VERY long time constant. Corn is less of delay, but still not
what most would consider solar energy. However, I'm certainly not
opposed at all to research in this area, but I really think that the
world's need for food will make crop based sources of energy a very
short-lived solution at best. I think we're much better served looking
for ways to directly use solar, wind and water (wave) energy and to use
all energy more efficiently and wisely (conservation).


Matt

 

Well yes, that was part of it. Before these places started closing up,
they were running at 60% capacity.

 

Taxpayers, of course. Just like most of the other gov't. subsidies.
Eliminate the subsidies and that money can be used for something else, like
emergency management...

 

Mr. Keating posted a figure of 1% as the "biomass solar efficiency" of
ethanol and biodiesel. I asked for a definition of "biomass solar
efficiency", and you posted in reply that it (biomass solar efficiency)
was more like .05%. Though my original challenge was to Mr. Keating, to
define it, since you responded with another figure for this nebulous
"biomass solar efficiency" term, I asked you to define it. You quoted a
number for biomass solar efficiency, and you don't like me to ask you to
define it? You are quantifying a term (the .05% that you posted) and
I'm not allowed to ask you to explain what the term (and therefore your
number) mean?

Umm - no - things are touchy-feely when numbers are given for terms that
the person giving the numbers refuses to define - THAT's touchy-feely.

Do you have a definition of "biomass solar efficiency" or not? When I
asked, you said the usage of the term "solar" in there appeared to be
*my* requirement (see your quote above), yet you are quantifying it
(.05%) - apparently without knowing what the term means.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

Well, you snipped gross yield numbers and now claim I don't know what
you are asking. Once again, the number is meaningless in isolation. It
says nothing about your net yield.

But if you must, call gross hydrocarbons 1000gallons/acre equivalent
ethanol x nutrients supplied by the farmer.

1000 * 77kbtu * 2.9E-4 (kwh/btu) / 4047= 5.5kwh/year/meter^2. Call
incident radiation 5.5kwh/day, so .2% for switchgrass. .05% was a number
from the past, probably corn, I don't recall now.

So, what does this tell us now that I've backed your precious number
with numbers? You must have something in mind to be so anal about it. As
you are incapable of using a calculator and doing your own homework, I
don't expect much.

--
"We need an energy policy that encourages consumption"
George W. Bush.

"Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a
sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy."
Vice President Dick Cheney

 

Ray is one of those ppl who are going to have a bumpy ride when reality sinks
in.

Graham

 

Since 'clean' fuels exist in other countries too, it's pretty damn obvious that no
US political party is the reason.

How can you possibly be so parochial ?

Graham

 

Yes, it's called efficiency like using CFL lighting and *NOT* driving SUVs and
trucks frivolously.

Graham

 

Uh ? What's that supposed to mean ?

Graham

 

I don't live in other countries, I live in the US where it IS political.

 

Yes, that's part of it.

 

Simple mathematics really.

Seems to be a scarily popular idea in the USA.

Graham

 

With that attitude, you are indeed classicly parochial. Try getting out a bit.

Graham

 

Part of 'living within one's means'.

No matter whether current reserves of oil are x% or y% exhausted they won't be there
for ever. We need to have a net energy balance that's *sustainable*.

Graham

 

I'm not sure, but the right answer of course is. . . tah-dah . . .
petroluem.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

Which is why mineral wool ( for example ) makes so much more sense as an
insulator.

Graham

 

I got a family of 5. even McD is only $20, chili's is $35 tops.

Back when we used to baudget closely (don't ask why) $250 would do us
for a month.

 

and you just pointed out the BIG flaw with all this. The US economy
becomes extremely dependant on corn. Right now corn is the core of the
Us food industry (and I prefer grazing cattle meat to grained cattle
meat) - adding the country's fuel economy onto it is just asking for
trouble.

Seems no-one in the US studied recent history that wasn't centered on
the US, else they wouldn't forget about the last country that put
their reliance on a single crop, Ireland and the spud.Right now, the
Us is as corn-centric as the irish were on their king Eddies, and you
want to ADD to it for fuel.

If I were a terrorist, I wouldn't bother attacking people - biowar can
be just as good against infrastructure, and a corn-crop vector is one
thats not been discussed. Regardless, the bigger the dependance on
corn, the more its grown, the more its grown the sooner a mutation
man-made or natural, that affects corn will happen, and then there
will be a corn blight. Not only then is the ford system finished, but
the fuel that corn would ahve provided is gone too.

Wake up and THINK people. Its not exactly advanced bioscience. Crop
blights can happen and do happen. disease vectors come and go quickly,
and in the wild can ruin crop production for a year or two. What
would a year or two without corn do for the high-fructose corn syrup,
cattle, and now fuel industries.

 

OK - thank you.

Let me put it this way: I get sick and tired of hearing pseudo
statistics thrown into discussions that can affect public opinion and
legislation when it's clear that the person throwing the numbers into
the discussion haven't a clue as to their meaning. Apparently this is
not the case with you, but since the OP never did post back to answer my
question, I assume that it is the case with him (most likely he was
quoting a parameter he heard or read without him really understanding it
himself). You hear this kind of thing in newscasts all the time, and
most of the public don't know enough to even question it, so it gets
into the public opinion arena, and our lives get affected by
pseudo-science-driven legislation.

A perfect example of this was in this thread earlier today: "The
environmental subsidy for Oil is in the ~590$ per barrel range" - all
based on false assumptions that make up today's pseudo-science.

So - yes - when it comes to discussions about things that have an effect
on our lives and future, we need to get anal about the numbers and their
implications.

Yes - amazing how I got an engineering degree and P.E. license without
being able to use a calculator (actually the transition from slide rule
to calculator started when I was in school). But I know you said those
things because I pissed you off, so I don't take them personally.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')