BoatBanter.com
Page 11 of 11 « First 45678910 11
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

BoatBanter.com (https://www.boatbanter.com/)
-   General (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/)
-   -   Ethanol? (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/156901-ethanol.html)

iBoaterer[_3_] May 5th 13 02:53 PM
Ethanol?
 
In article ,
says...

On 5/5/2013 12:14 AM, BAR wrote:
In article , says...

In article ,
says...

In article , says...

In article ,
 says...

On Thu, 2 May 2013 13:15:57 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
 says...

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.

Huh?I gave you the example of technology that did change, using your
example of the Wright brothers. The difference was that they had
something people wanted. I have not seen any real desire for ethanol
except by the corporate farmers who are getting rich on it.


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?


No, we should develop technology people want, like maybe another way
to oxygenate gasoline that isn't a pollutant like MTBE or a
operational and environmental problem like ethanol.

If it was left to people like you and other FOXites who have been told
by them that new technology is bad and evil, we'd go back and not
develop the wheel.

The wheeel was an invention. Manufacturing technologies have improved upon the wheel.

As well as Ethanol production, thanks for making my point.

Distillation has been around for 6000 years or more.


Probably millions... it was around long before man discovered it:)

Huh, well, that blows that Christianity myth out of the water then,
thanks!

BAR[_2_] May 5th 13 08:53 PM
Ethanol?
 
In article , says...

In article ,
says...

In article , says...

In article ,
says...

In article , says...

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 2 May 2013 13:15:57 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

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.

Huh?I gave you the example of technology that did change, using your
example of the Wright brothers. The difference was that they had
something people wanted. I have not seen any real desire for ethanol
except by the corporate farmers who are getting rich on it.


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?


No, we should develop technology people want, like maybe another way
to oxygenate gasoline that isn't a pollutant like MTBE or a
operational and environmental problem like ethanol.

If it was left to people like you and other FOXites who have been told
by them that new technology is bad and evil, we'd go back and not
develop the wheel.

The wheeel was an invention. Manufacturing technologies have improved upon the wheel.

As well as Ethanol production, thanks for making my point.

Distillation has been around for 6000 years or more.

And you think it's the same as it was 6000 years ago, right? No
advancement in methods or materials, same as a car engine, right? No
advancements, same thing.

You tell me what advancements have been made in distillation in the last 6000 years?

iBoaterer[_3_] May 9th 13 01:59 PM
Ethanol?
 
In article ,
says...

On Wed, 1 May 2013 17:04:15 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

Typically, new technology becomes lower in price as time and ingenuity
take their course.

Biomass is not new technology. The government has been pouring money
into it for 40 years.

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, in your non-scientific mind, any technology should follow the exact
same timeline as aviation????

iBoaterer[_3_] May 9th 13 02:00 PM
Ethanol?
 
In article ,
says...

On Wednesday, May 1, 2013 7:00:34 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Wed, 1 May 2013 17:04:15 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:



In article ,

says...



Typically, new technology becomes lower in price as time and ingenuity

take their course.



Biomass is not new technology. The government has been pouring money

into it for 40 years.



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.

Check and Mate.

Bull****. Anyone that thinks that every technology should be on the same
timeline as any other is a fool. And by the way, aviation technology is
STILL emerging.

iBoaterer[_3_] May 9th 13 05:17 PM
Ethanol?
 
In article ,
says...

On Thu, 9 May 2013 08:59:46 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 1 May 2013 17:04:15 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

Typically, new technology becomes lower in price as time and ingenuity
take their course.

Biomass is not new technology. The government has been pouring money
into it for 40 years.

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, in your non-scientific mind, any technology should follow the exact
same timeline as aviation????

You brought up the Wright brothers.

Yes, I did, so where in my diatribe about them did you get the idea that
I think that all technology should follow the same timeline as aviation?
Also, be advised that aviation is STILL and will continue to be,
evolving.

iBoaterer[_3_] May 9th 13 06:16 PM
Ethanol?
 
In article ,
says...

On Thu, 9 May 2013 12:17:05 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 9 May 2013 08:59:46 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 1 May 2013 17:04:15 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

Typically, new technology becomes lower in price as time and ingenuity
take their course.

Biomass is not new technology. The government has been pouring money
into it for 40 years.

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, in your non-scientific mind, any technology should follow the exact
same timeline as aviation????

You brought up the Wright brothers.

Yes, I did, so where in my diatribe about them did you get the idea that
I think that all technology should follow the same timeline as aviation?
Also, be advised that aviation is STILL and will continue to be,
evolving.

You brought up the Wright brothers as an example

Yes, an example of evolving technology, thanks for making my point!

BAR[_2_] May 10th 13 12:16 PM
Ethanol?
 
In article , says...

On Thu, 9 May 2013 12:17:05 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 9 May 2013 08:59:46 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 1 May 2013 17:04:15 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

Typically, new technology becomes lower in price as time and ingenuity
take their course.

Biomass is not new technology. The government has been pouring money
into it for 40 years.

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, in your non-scientific mind, any technology should follow the exact
same timeline as aviation????

You brought up the Wright brothers.

Yes, I did, so where in my diatribe about them did you get the idea that
I think that all technology should follow the same timeline as aviation?
Also, be advised that aviation is STILL and will continue to be,
evolving.

You brought up the Wright brothers as an example

In less than 66 short years the Wright brothers flew at Kitty Hawk and man landed on the Moon
and returned to Earth safely.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:46 PM.
Page 11 of 11 « First 45678910 11
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com