"DSK" wrote in message

Here's an important point: there are already off-the-shelf substitutes for
fossil fuels. You could run your car on renewable methane tomorrow
afternoon if you wanted to. Here's the problem... it's more expensive. So
are all the current or forseeable alternatives.

Why is ethanol completely ignored? We can grow corn til the cows come home
(provided they don't take a shortcut through the cornfield). It's the most
practical renewable resource today, and would benefit one of the most
beleagured segments of society: farmers. Our local ethanol plant can
produce a gallon of ethanol for less than 25 cents. Auto engines can be
made to run on pure or slightly modified ethanol for less cost than to
convert them to run on methane, and for a tiny fraction of the cost of
hydrogen fuel cell technology.

Until gasoline gets at least twice as expensive (and I'd be tempted to
say 5X), there is no substitute.

See above.

Yeah, but once the species livng there are wiped out, they're gone. Kaput.
How are you going to "clean up" extinct species?

You don't. They become the oil for the next generation of higher beings,
say, 20 billion years hence. g

Now here I disagree. Prince William Sound has still not recovered fully
from the Exxon Valdez spill.

Some say it never will recover completely. Dig down into the beach sand and
you'll find crude a few thousand years from now. Same with the bottom of
the sound.

An "ethanol spill" would have less than 10% the net deleterious effect of a
crude spill, and the long-term effects would be negligible.

So why is ethanol ignored? Simple: big oil wants it ignored. Far from
perfect, alcohol possesses almost none of the negative environmental impact
issues of petroleum.

Max

"JG" wrote in message

Actually, the answer is in the stars... or at least the moon and the
asteroids...

Cosmic rays? Been wearing that foil beanie again, Jon?

Max

Read the book Moonrush. In the mean time, shut the **** up.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
link.net...

"JG" wrote in message

Actually, the answer is in the stars... or at least the moon and the
asteroids...

Cosmic rays? Been wearing that foil beanie again, Jon?

Max

Here's an important point: there are already off-the-shelf substitutes for
fossil fuels. You could run your car on renewable methane tomorrow
afternoon if you wanted to. Here's the problem... it's more expensive. So
are all the current or forseeable alternatives.


Maxprop wrote:
Why is ethanol completely ignored?

I don't know.

... We can grow corn til the cows come home
(provided they don't take a shortcut through the cornfield). It's the most
practical renewable resource today, and would benefit one of the most
beleagured segments of society: farmers. Our local ethanol plant can
produce a gallon of ethanol for less than 25 cents.

Hmm..

Ethanol produces far less energy per unit burned, but not 85% less. So
if this plant can really sell ethanol at 25c /gallon then it should be
doing a booming business.


... Auto engines can be
made to run on pure or slightly modified ethanol for less cost than to
convert them to run on methane, and for a tiny fraction of the cost of
hydrogen fuel cell technology.


Agreed, the current approved mix is %15 ethanol by volume but for some
reason pitch a fit about it.



Yeah, but once the species livng there are wiped out, they're gone. Kaput.
How are you going to "clean up" extinct species?


You don't. They become the oil for the next generation of higher beings,
say, 20 billion years hence. g


You mean, when cockroaches finally replace us?

Now here I disagree. Prince William Sound has still not recovered fully
from the Exxon Valdez spill.


Some say it never will recover completely. Dig down into the beach sand and
you'll find crude a few thousand years from now. Same with the bottom of
the sound.

An "ethanol spill" would have less than 10% the net deleterious effect of a
crude spill, and the long-term effects would be negligible.


2 points- ethanol evaporates quickly, so it's more likely to cause air
pollution than water pollution; and since it's produced int eh
cornfields we wouldn't be transporting it in huge ships anyway... well
maybe to Japan


So why is ethanol ignored? Simple: big oil wants it ignored. Far from
perfect, alcohol possesses almost none of the negative environmental impact
issues of petroleum.


Agreed. Why don't you send Cheney a memo on that. He won't return my calls.

DSK

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 20:03:53 -0500, "Bart Senior"
wrote this crap:

World fuel consumption [demand] is exceeding supply. Oil
reserves will run out in our lifetimes.


I've been hearing that since 1973.






Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 02:19:21 GMT, "Gilligan"
wrote this crap:

Oil is created by bacteria from organic material. It does not take thousands
of years to create. It can be created in a short time from biomass.

Where does hydrogen occur naturally?

Everywhere. The oceans are 2/3rds hydrogen. Your body is full of
hydrogen.


How can it be gotten and yet there be
a net energy gain?


Fusion.





Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 20:00:00 -0800, "JG" wrote
this crap:

Actually, the answer is in the stars... or at least the moon and the
asteroids...


And watch out for the Klingons around Uranus.






Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

A couple of "corrections" Bart.... from someone experienced in the Arctic
and who has witnessed what total havoc can be accomplished even under
"strict guidelines"

"Bart Senior" wrote in message
...

Even if nothing was done to clean up damange, which would
not happen, Mother Nature would solve this problem all by herself.
The fact is there would be a clean up when we are done extracting
this oil.

Disagree.... take a look at the Dew Line sites. Still not cleaned up....
areas surrounding the sites have been subject to oil drum storage and
leaking of contaminants. Simple track marks from a dozer used 30 years ago
are still clearly visible. Destruction of ground cover from over 30 years
ago has still not recovered. For all it's formidable and hostile
environment.. the Tundra is 1000 times more susceptable to environmental
damage than Taiga or Boreal areas. The permafrost degradation alone is
massive at any excavation or penetration of the substrate. Migration
patterns are altered or distrupted causing severe problems in fauna
management. Even the current strict guidelines for the relatively clean
operation of diamond mining is having a negative impact. There has been no
"clean-up" of any sites used by companies since these sites are sold, traded
and resold so many times that the original owners are not held accountable
and the last company in usually goes bankrupt ...leaving clean-up to the
taxpayers. I can assure you this is an industry wide standard in avioding
clean-up costs. It's exactly what will happen this time as well.... it's
still amazing to some that companies will promise whatever it will take to
access the sites..... what's even more amazing is that despite historical
data proving otherwise... they believe the corporate world to have a
concience and ethics.


There is nothing on the ocean that can long survive--no ship,
no mining structure, and no mineral oil spill that Mother Nature
won't clean up herself in a very short time. On land it takes a
little longer.

I take it you are referring to geological timelines... because a 100 years
is a very long time to me!


If you want to be concerned about the environment, be concerned
about toxic chemicals and radiological contaminants--you will
find those closer to home--not in the Artic.

If you can't control your own backyard... what makes you think you wll have
any control in such a remote and isolated area?



Let them pump all the oil and natural gas they can out of there and
simply make sure they do a clean job of it and remove all the
damage when they leave! Given time, there will be nothing
significant to show we were there. If you really care, go up there
and monitor what they are doing. I doubt you care enough to leave
your warm home--heated with fossil fuel, and put action to your
words.

They won't clean it up.... a thousand years from now evidence of their
activities will still be seen and the impact on the ecosystem will still be
ongoing.


In five years oil prices will be sharply higher, and you will be
mad at whoever is in office because fuel prices will be too high.
People will have bigger concerns--like how to stay warm.

Here's a clue... have everyone practise birth control and drastically reduce
the population of the world.

CM

"Maxprop" wrote in message

Why is ethanol completely ignored? We can grow corn til the cows come
home (provided they don't take a shortcut through the cornfield). It's
the most practical renewable resource today, and would benefit one of the
most beleagured segments of society: farmers. Our local ethanol plant
can produce a gallon of ethanol for less than 25 cents. Auto engines can
be made to run on pure or slightly modified ethanol for less cost than to
convert them to run on methane, and for a tiny fraction of the cost of
hydrogen fuel cell technology.

We sell ethanol at the pumps here in Canada..... it's not that cheap!

CM

Birth control? But then what excuse would Moms have to drive an SUV?

SV



"Capt. Mooron" wrote

Here's a clue... have everyone practise birth control and
drastically reduce
the population of the world.

CM