Ethanol?
 

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 1 May 2013 08:59:13 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 21:36:21 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...

Those articles talking about feeding the sludge to animals sounds
agricultural to me. Two of the 3 were talking about the dream of
cellulose conversion, which they have not actually been able to do and
the last is just a puff piece from a lobbying organization and it is
still talking about better crop yields (agricultural) and biomass.

If this is such a great process, why does the government have to
subsidize every gallon by 60-70 cents?

Haven't been able to do????? Really?? Come on now, you used to be
reasonable.

They do not have ONE biomass ethanol plant in the US operating
successfully on a commercial scale.

Right so that means it will never work, got it. It's that damned new
technology....

If it worked, they would be doing it. This is not that new. Most of
this biomass research started 35 years ago and they still can't make
it work on any industrial scale in spite of billions of tax dollars
being pumped into it.

Maybe it will work if gasoline gets up to $10 a gallon.

Gee you sound like those who were against the motorcar. And those
farmers who said that the tractor could NEVER take the place of a
workhorse. There were probably cavemen who thought that damned new thing
called fire would never work!

Ethanol?
 

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 1 May 2013 12:06:57 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...


Maybe it will work if gasoline gets up to $10 a gallon.

Gee you sound like those who were against the motorcar. And those
farmers who said that the tractor could NEVER take the place of a
workhorse. There were probably cavemen who thought that damned new thing
called fire would never work!

I agree it "works" it is just too expensive to make a go of it.

Shale oil was too expensive to compete in a 99 cent a gallon gasoline
market too but once we got it over $3 shale oil looks good to us (or
at least the Canadians who are developing it)

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

Ethanol?
 

On 5/1/2013 2:17 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 1 May 2013 12:06:57 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...


Maybe it will work if gasoline gets up to $10 a gallon.

Gee you sound like those who were against the motorcar. And those
farmers who said that the tractor could NEVER take the place of a
workhorse. There were probably cavemen who thought that damned new thing
called fire would never work!

I agree it "works" it is just too expensive to make a go of it.

Shale oil was too expensive to compete in a 99 cent a gallon gasoline
market too but once we got it over $3 shale oil looks good to us (or
at least the Canadians who are developing it)


6 years ago the excuse was "it will take 6-10 years to get the oil
out...".. Gas was half what it is now, I wish we had just gone ahead,
just think where we would be now?

Ethanol?
 

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 1 May 2013 12:04:56 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...


I don't like any subsidies but I also understand the difference
between the pennies a galloon the oil companies get and the 60-70
cents ethanol gets.

Please cite those numbers.

This guy has ethanol at $1.45 a gallon.
http://zfacts.com/p/63.html

The real problem with getting a good number is because corn itself has
the highest subsidy of any farm product in the US.

Here is an environmental group trashing ethanol
http://www.ewg.org/agmag/2013/02/cor...nd-environment

That's not even close to what I asked for!

Ethanol?
 

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 1 May 2013 14:30:04 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 1 May 2013 12:06:57 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...


Maybe it will work if gasoline gets up to $10 a gallon.

Gee you sound like those who were against the motorcar. And those
farmers who said that the tractor could NEVER take the place of a
workhorse. There were probably cavemen who thought that damned new thing
called fire would never work!

I agree it "works" it is just too expensive to make a go of it.

Shale oil was too expensive to compete in a 99 cent a gallon gasoline
market too but once we got it over $3 shale oil looks good to us (or
at least the Canadians who are developing it)

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?

Ethanol?
 

In article ,
says...

On 5/1/2013 2:17 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 1 May 2013 12:06:57 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...


Maybe it will work if gasoline gets up to $10 a gallon.

Gee you sound like those who were against the motorcar. And those
farmers who said that the tractor could NEVER take the place of a
workhorse. There were probably cavemen who thought that damned new thing
called fire would never work!

I agree it "works" it is just too expensive to make a go of it.

Shale oil was too expensive to compete in a 99 cent a gallon gasoline
market too but once we got it over $3 shale oil looks good to us (or
at least the Canadians who are developing it)


6 years ago the excuse was "it will take 6-10 years to get the oil
out...".. Gas was half what it is now, I wish we had just gone ahead,
just think where we would be now?

Bull****.

Ethanol?
 

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.

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 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.

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.

Uh, no, it's a very silly argument actually. To claim that all
technology should take the same timeline is foolish at best. He knows
that as well, and is grasping at straws.

Ethanol?
 

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?

Ethanol?
 

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.

Ethanol?
 

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.

Ethanol?
 

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.

Ethanol?
 

In article om, hank57
@socialworker.net says...

On 5/4/2013 8:53 AM, BAR wrote:
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.


It's hard to believe that this individual was, last year, posing as a
patent attorney. ;-)

I was? Cite?

Ethanol?
 

On 5/4/2013 8:53 AM, BAR wrote:
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.


It's hard to believe that this individual was, last year, posing as a
patent attorney. ;-)

Ethanol?
 

at 11:40 AM :

"Hank©" wrote in message
eb.com...


It's hard to believe that this individual was, last year, posing as a
patent attorney. ;-)

at 11:28 AM :

"iBoaterer" responded in message
...

I was? Cite?

----------------------------------------------

Look, I am confused enough as it is. Please refrain from responding
to a comment before it is made.

Ethanol?
 

On 5/4/2013 4:35 PM, Eisboch wrote:


at 11:40 AM :

"Hank©" wrote in message
eb.com...


It's hard to believe that this individual was, last year, posing as a
patent attorney. ;-)

at 11:28 AM :

"iBoaterer" responded in message
...

I was? Cite?

----------------------------------------------

Look, I am confused enough as it is. Please refrain from responding to
a comment before it is made.




That was my fault. My clock was an hour fast.

Ethanol?
 

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.

Ethanol?
 

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:)

Ethanol?
 

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.

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!

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?

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????

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.

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.

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!

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.