New German 4 seater gets 157 MPG

Our health would certainly improve without high-fructose corn syrup.

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

 

It's not an attitude, it's plain truth. How many Republican
Environmentalists do you know?

 

It's 2006 and we are still finding new oil reserves. Some we can get to
and some we can't. I remember being a young boy sitting with my father
in the family car as we waited for over an hour in line at the gas
station during the Nixon Administration. Back then we thought we were
out of oil or damn near it.

 

I think he was being sarcastic.

 

It can be done, but that's a hell of a lot of spaghetti. :{

 

You can build a house out of mineral wool?

 

You are very correct here although I think you are getting a bit carried
away. Corn is subject to droughts, insects and floods which could put a
damper on things, this is why we really can't ever have a total
conversion to ethanol; we must have vehicles that can run on pure
gasoline as well. No, corn is not our saviour, it's just a temporary
solution for now. But it is a step in the right direction.

 

You are welcome.

That was my point where I started. This number is meaningless.

There are different ways to come up with a number, it depends on the
objective. But what I think that matters is the actual cost of
production because it is production that has to be replaced with
alternatives. New production may be running some $10-$20/barrel. But a
majority of production is old and runs some $2-$5/barrel. When
alternatives are suggested, like ethanol, the cost of production and the
availability of resources are often neglected.

It has always been about the numbers for me.

A slide rule is faster but I've gotten lazy in my old age.

Sure. I figured you were just being thick when it was clear from my
previous I knew what the number was about. BTW, there may be potential
in algae to oil. It could prove to be better than a magnitude more
resourceful in land mass and be done on land that won't displace food
crops. But as it may be more expensive than coal liquefaction, it may
not go anywhere. Because there is so little real work being done in this
area I don't have tenable numbers.

Best, Dan.

--
"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

 

Your comment lacks quantitative content. Production is outpacing
discoveries by a magnitude last I saw.

--
"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

 

We can't have a total conversion because the numbers don't add up! Why
not keep your trolling off sci.energy. You sound like a fool.

--
"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

 

You may have missed my point there - the guy was saying the cost is
$590/barrel - not $59/barrel - and he was serious. I think he was
getting into the Al Gore pseudo-science doomsday ice caps melting,
entire east coast of the U.S. going under water - that kind of crap.

Any more, if it involves more than one calculation, I put it in Excel.

Just do what everyone else does when they don't know - just make the
numbers up and don't even attach units to them - that way no-one can say
you're wrong.

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

 

2 + 2 = 4. Except for very large values of 2

Ken

 

Percentage of solar energy expended over area covered @ harvest time
verses stored chemical energy which can be release by oxidation.


http://patzek.berkeley.edu/E11/Photosynthesis.pdf

A few more factors in Practical Efficiency category..

8. Length of growing season.
Frost usually kills the fast growing plant life (or forces it into
hibernation. )

9. Coverage area. Plants need room to grow, and normally start out
covering just a few percent of the ultimate surface area.

10. Temperature @ point of production. Photosynthesis production peaks
at 93 F and ceases 104F Lower temps have a similar effect on
production(decreasing production of ATP). (ties in with item 4.)

11. Available moisture is a critical factor. Very little ATP is
produced in drought conditions.

12. Subtract inputs.. At some point one will need to replenish the
soil expending some energy.

But you do pay for usage of the land.. (taxes, rent, replenishment,
water rights, etc).
It makes a huge difference..
Do you grow food for animals or do you produce a fuel for your
automobile?

Note: A lot of our current irrigation practices are NOT sustainable,
(Aquifer depletion).

Conversion efficiency..
The amount of energy produced as a percentage of the amount of
energy consumed (or discarded).

In this case precentage of overall solar input @ surface to energy
output released from plant material during oxidation.


=====

As for typical solar radiation/biomass production planet wide..

A substantial amount of our planets surface area is not suitable for
Bio production.. (Temp to low, too high, too little moisture,
consumption by marine animals, etc. )

The following link places earth's overall biomass production @
328Wh/M^2/year or ~50x less than (1%). see..
http://www.windpower.org/en/tour/wres/index.htm

"The net power output stored by plants is thus 1.91 x 10 13 W, or
0.011% of the power emitted to earth. "

 

No, really, I didn't miss the point. But yea, the number was untenable.
To what extent, I don't know. As far as GW goes, it may be a real man
made problem. It is just the way science works. When someone says it is
or isn't with certainty, they are not doing the science. But I'll go
with the assessment of folks doing the science. There are reasonable
numbers that suggest it very likely we will see meaningful climate
change from what we are doing. But I don't see it as our immediate
threat. Our present course will most probably lead to resource wars. It
is just human nature.

I use c++ when it gets thick. I write financial software.

It would be nice to see more folks on these groups that would think
critically instead of just believing whatever. And guesstamates are not
out of line when time is limited and you have a reasonable base of
knowledge to work from.

--
"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

 

Depends ifyou're just thinking of the elimination of the syrup at the
end product, and not for what replaces it, the vast cost increases for
it, or its repalcment etc.

 

Really? I knew even at the ripe old age of 13 that the oil embargo had
nothing to do with oil reserves and everything to do with the politics
of revenge.

Matt

 

I wouldn't recommend using that 'logic' to conclude that it's going to be easy to
find lots more.

There's also more competition for what's available too.

Graham

 

Ken Weitzel wrote:

It depends on what the definition of "=" equals.


Matt

 

I wouldn't suggest that any more than building a house out of polystyrene.

I doubt anyone's going to be especially happy with a plastic house either.
Doesn't mean it can't be well insulated.

Graham

 

Dan Bloomquist wrote re alleged anthropogenic global warming:

Don't worry, Dan! Queen Hillary will soon be in charge, and then we
won't have resource wars; instead, we will have resource surrenders.
Her Majesty will "redeploy" to Okinawa, leaving North America to the
tender mercies of the jihadists. It is going to be fun! Just wait
till the jihadists show up at the high schools, looking for 72 virgins
to keep their suicide bombers happy -- what's the chances of finding 72
nubile virgins at a typical US high school? Oh, the BBC will have
harsh words to say about the morals of US teenagers that night! Right
after their normal broadcast of the evening prayers.

Life goes on. Either we expand energy supplies to meet human needs
(and that includes all the poor people in the developing world) --
that's the optimistic view, and probably requires a huge expansion in
nuclear power and a more realistic view of mining, along with a
well-grounded contempt for global warming alarmists & their kin. Or
the human population shrinks to fit the energy supplies we do have --
the more pessimistic scenario.

So the worst case scenario is that, in maybe 50 years time, everyone
speaks Portugese and lives in a tin shack in the middle of a sugar cane
plantation. But at least the French and the Defeatocrats will be gone.