BoatBanter.com - View Single Post

iBoaterer[_3_]

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 2 May 2013 08:56:11 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

Oh, man, you've watched way too much FOX. I'd guess that there's no new
technology in airplanes because they've been around since the Wright
Brothers, eh?

40 years after the Wright brothers first flew (dec 1943), commercial
aviation was an established industry. There were dozens of companies
making money with airplanes. Airlines were flying around ther world.
The Germans were flying jet fighters and so were the Brits
40 years after the energy crisis prompted government money to be spent
on biomass, we still do not have any real functioning plants and there
are not really any break through developments, only dreams.

So you DO agree that there is a tangible time for technology to develop.
But to assert that any and all technology should follow the same exact
time frame as aviation technology did (and by the way it's STILL
evolving) is just silly.

You are the one who brought up the Wright brothers but it is not the
first silly thing you have said.

*I* didn't say that technology doesn't change, YOU did by comparison.

The problem with these cellulose schemes is simply the number of
processes necessary to get grass turned into a form of energy a car
can use and the meager amount of energy the grass has in the first
place.
You can hate oil if you want but you can't deny that it has an energy
density many times that of just about any other source of energy that
doesn't involve nuclear fission. (or the holy grail, fusion)
DoE says "trash" biomass only yields a theoretical 56 gallons of
gasoline per ton of dried material and nobody has even approached that
theoretical number. OTOH you might get 124 gallons of gas from a ton
of corn, again assuming 100% efficiency and that is not happening..

So we should abandon all hope and go back to horse and buggy I guess? Or
do you want to go back further, say before fire?