Doing my part for energy conservation (merged environmental threads)

[KimTjik]

Exroadie don’t play games, please. I have nothing against you, no on the contrary I respect you and your right to have whatever opinion you wish. However I don’t think you have the right to moderate a thread like this with a “let’s stay on topic” because something written goes against you belief.

 

We’re both believers so let’s live with it. Neither you neither I have the right to tell others what is on topic when it comes to environmental issues. The theme is not just “energy conservation”, but “Doing my part for energy conservation (merged environmental threads)”, in as I understand an attempt to merge all similar discussions into one thread.

 

We’ve had discussions before; a mix bag of agreements and disagreements. Allow this thread to go on in the same fashion of a liberal differential of opinions.

 

With all respect

// KimTjik

[red930]

Exroadie don’t play games, please.

 

With all respect

// KimTjik

By my previous statement I should have simply deleted your post since it was off topic.

 

But since you challenged me I felt it was only proper to respond in this manner.

 

The topic is " Doing my part for energy conservation " so that's what it means.

 

One more off topic post and the thread will be closed by the forum owner.

[_unexpected_]

@_unexpected_

 

I'm quite sure you've never stood in a sugar cane field if you believe that 6,000 gallons of ethanol per acre is even a remote possibility. There's simply not enough biomass available for conversion even at 100% efficiency.

 

The biggest concern with any of these alternative fuel sources is economic viability. While we'll never see $18.00USD barrel oil again, likewise, you won't see it much above $60.00USD a barrel for long periods either. The oil producers simply can't afford for oil to be too high because that makes the alternatives that much more viable.

 

Any country that has oil or access to oil will keep using it as long as it makes economic sense.

 

 

@ Ex-Roadie,

 

Sorry to respond so late, just been playing ALOT OF BF2142!! WOOT! and trying to fit in studying and work. Basically, I got this information from the article I posted in my first post on this thread. Here is a snap shot of what it says in the specific paragraph:

 

Other improvements include using remains of processed cane to power sugar and ethanol plants, and using industrial waste from ethanol production to fertilize sugar fields. As a result, the productivity of Brazil's ethanol producers has steadily increased. In 1975, Brazil squeezed 2,000 liters, or about 520 gallons, of ethanol from a hectare, or nearly 2.5 acres, of sugar cane. Today, it's nearly 6,000 liters.

 

Overall, I believe it was the mis-use of terminology. I meant liters and I was writing gallons. But anyway, if this country can achieve this, than we can as well. Bad thing is elections are over and all the propositions I wanted to pass, didnt do so well. Good thing is that Democrats basically did a clean sweep and I hope to see more bills like this come along.

[shocktrooper]

I guess I'd better get some more efficient bulbs then.

 

oh and if your interested in decreasing our dependency of foreign oil check out gasoline thats made from coal. Its looking pretty good right now considering the USA has a 600 year supply of coal and the Germans fueled their entire war machine in WWII using that very method. Only problem is that it still pollutes a heck of a lot and we have to mine it which causes even more pollution. Coal causes a hell of a lot of acid rain...

 

google it anyway, its interesting stuff.

[taowulf]

The economics of it have also held back the mass distobution of electric cars. We have the tech, they have been around as long as gas cars, and it is polution free.

 

This comment always bugs me.

 

Making electricity is NOT pollution free.

 

Sure, the electric car itself does not pollute....but the electrical generation frequently does.

 

And to drive a few hundred million electric cars, the amount of electricity produced would have to skyrocket.

[shocktrooper]

true, because we use coal plants to produce the electricity for electric cars.

 

this is the reason why electric heated homes are WORSE for the environment than homes heated by say natural gas.

[red930]

I see where you got your productivity numbers from if they look like this...

http://www.peopleandplanet.net/doc.php?id=2573

 

"For ethanol, the top yields per acre are 714 gallons from sugar beets in France and 662 gallons per acre for sugarcane in Brazil."

 

These are raw numbers that don't include the cost to produce the ethanol.

 

Brazil is still using refined crude oil and natural gas to power their ethanol production for the most part. Some are using renewable bagasse to suplement their consumables.

 

If you use renewable resources, such as the ethanol, to produce the ethanol you reduce the net output per acre to about 400 gallons per acre.

 

My earlier post include only production of ethanol using renewable resources.

 

I grew up around sugar cane and we always had some at the house. It's facinating that we could be driving around on the same thing we chewed on as kids.

[_unexpected_]

I grew up around sugar cane and we always had some at the house. It's facinating that we could be driving around on the same thing we chewed on as kids.

 

You know, Joe Frazier's dad, (the boxer), made some pretty nice drinking alcohol out of sugar cane. He also used the same mixture to degrease his truck's engine.