In article ,
says...

On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 09:16:32 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...




The principle advances in the whole process are agricultural. We use
more chemicals, more water, bigger machines and genetically altered
corn.

Nope.

cite

No problem!

http://tinyurl.com/ctx4n29

This one is about feeding the sludge in the bottom of the still to
farm animals

http://www.nrel.gov/biomass/pdfs/40742.pdf

This one talks about how hard it is to get ethanol from biomass and
points out nobody is doing it in the US commercially.


http://tinyurl.com/d39dskp

This one only has one short reference to the distillation process
where they put some benzine (a carcinogen) in the mix to help extract
the last 5-6% of water but the bulk of it comes out on a process
similar to reverse osmosis.


http://tinyurl.com/cqa4o6t


This is another biomass article, saying it is "here" but "here" is not
the US unless you include these science fair projects by grad
students..

How do any of these address a better still?

Who said it did? YOU said that the advances "are agricultural", I said
no, and you asked for cite, you have it.

I got supreme examples of turd polishing by industry hacks and NONE of
them address distillation improvements.,

Again, who said anything about "distillation improvements"????? YOU said
that the ONLY improvements were in agricultural methods, and you were
wrong.

In article ,
says...

On 4/29/2013 12:57 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 14:12:45 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 12:49:14 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 12:00:04 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 10:14:55 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:


It faces challenges just like any new technology, but it can be piped
and there are several proposals to build and use pipelines for ethanol.

http://tinyurl.com/cbbxz6l

There is nothing new about ethanol. Distilling alcohol predates
petroleum by a thousand years

Oh, crap, you are going to take BARS stance that NOTHING in the process
has changed since the dinosaurs?? REALLY?????

The principle advances in the whole process are agricultural. We use
more chemicals, more water, bigger machines and genetically altered
corn.

Nope.

cite

No problem!

http://tinyurl.com/ctx4n29

http://www.nrel.gov/biomass/pdfs/40742.pdf

http://tinyurl.com/d39dskp

http://tinyurl.com/cqa4o6t

How do any of these address a better still?


... and the even bigger question to kevin is "why is it ok to build
pipeline for ethanol that isn't even ready to ship, but not ok to build
for oil which we have plenty of?"

I don't know about KevinHarryPlume, but if you are addressing ME, show
me where I ever said it was "not ok to build for oil"?

On 4/29/13 5:28 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 12:45:43 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 09:16:32 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...




The principle advances in the whole process are agricultural. We use
more chemicals, more water, bigger machines and genetically altered
corn.

Nope.

cite

No problem!

http://tinyurl.com/ctx4n29

This one is about feeding the sludge in the bottom of the still to
farm animals

http://www.nrel.gov/biomass/pdfs/40742.pdf

This one talks about how hard it is to get ethanol from biomass and
points out nobody is doing it in the US commercially.


http://tinyurl.com/d39dskp

This one only has one short reference to the distillation process
where they put some benzine (a carcinogen) in the mix to help extract
the last 5-6% of water but the bulk of it comes out on a process
similar to reverse osmosis.


http://tinyurl.com/cqa4o6t


This is another biomass article, saying it is "here" but "here" is not
the US unless you include these science fair projects by grad
students..

How do any of these address a better still?

Who said it did? YOU said that the advances "are agricultural", I said
no, and you asked for cite, you have it.

I got supreme examples of turd polishing by industry hacks and NONE of
them address distillation improvements.,

Again, who said anything about "distillation improvements"????? YOU said
that the ONLY improvements were in agricultural methods, and you were
wrong.

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?



Why does the government subsidize "Big Oil"?

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 12:45:43 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 09:16:32 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...




The principle advances in the whole process are agricultural. We use
more chemicals, more water, bigger machines and genetically altered
corn.

Nope.

cite

No problem!

http://tinyurl.com/ctx4n29

This one is about feeding the sludge in the bottom of the still to
farm animals

http://www.nrel.gov/biomass/pdfs/40742.pdf

This one talks about how hard it is to get ethanol from biomass and
points out nobody is doing it in the US commercially.


http://tinyurl.com/d39dskp

This one only has one short reference to the distillation process
where they put some benzine (a carcinogen) in the mix to help extract
the last 5-6% of water but the bulk of it comes out on a process
similar to reverse osmosis.


http://tinyurl.com/cqa4o6t


This is another biomass article, saying it is "here" but "here" is not
the US unless you include these science fair projects by grad
students..

How do any of these address a better still?

Who said it did? YOU said that the advances "are agricultural", I said
no, and you asked for cite, you have it.

I got supreme examples of turd polishing by industry hacks and NONE of
them address distillation improvements.,

Again, who said anything about "distillation improvements"????? YOU said
that the ONLY improvements were in agricultural methods, and you were
wrong.

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. Oh, and probably the same reason why the government has to
subsidize the crops that YOU and everyone eats.

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 17:44:28 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 4/29/13 5:28 PM, wrote:


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



Why does the government subsidize "Big Oil"?

Mostly to get them to exploit "old" wells here and reduce our imports
of foreign oil.
As a per gallon rate it is still minuscule compared to ethanol.
US oil production is about 2.3 billion barrels a year and a reasonable
guess on subsidies is $5B so it is about a nickel a gallon for the
crude, spread over whatever products they produce, from gasoline to
plastics and road tar.
You can't even include the military cost in North American oil
production subsidies.

Hooboy....

On Thursday, April 25, 2013 5:25:05 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote:
My heretofore trusty Honda lawnmower wouldn't start earlier this week.

It's 10 years old and I only use it for trim work. Over the winter, I

run it dry with Sta-bil blue (marine). Unfortunately, I forgot to drain

the carb bowl.



Everything else seemed ok on the Honda motor, so I pulled the carb to

see what was going on. What was going on was heavy duty "white"

corrosion of some sort. Never seen anything like it before. Valleys

etched into the walls of the carb.



So, I took the carb up to a local lawn equipment dealer and the parts

guy said, "That's ethanol 'corrosion' on aluminum...your carb is

ruined." He ordered a new carb and gasket for me, it came in today, I

installed it and the motor started right up.



In the past, I've posted I didn't have any "ethanol problems." Well, I

had a $50 (cost of carb) problem this week.



Next fall, I'll remember to drain the damned carb bowl.



Grrrr.

You mean that lawnmower was not seized or repossesed in your multiple bankruptcies?

On 4/29/2013 10:44 PM, wrote:
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.

Oh, and probably the same reason why the government has to
subsidize the crops that YOU and everyone eats.

The reason they do that is simply more corporate welfare. I would
applaud stopping that tomorrow.


What happend to the notion that O'Bama wants to dip into the pockets of
the rich? Seems like he's giving them money at the expense of us poor folks.

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 21:57:50 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 17:44:28 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 4/29/13 5:28 PM, wrote:


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



Why does the government subsidize "Big Oil"?

Mostly to get them to exploit "old" wells here and reduce our imports
of foreign oil.
As a per gallon rate it is still minuscule compared to ethanol.
US oil production is about 2.3 billion barrels a year and a reasonable
guess on subsidies is $5B so it is about a nickel a gallon for the
crude, spread over whatever products they produce, from gasoline to
plastics and road tar.
You can't even include the military cost in North American oil
production subsidies.

Hooboy....

Your worst case guess of the subsidy was $15B or so. That gets it up
to 15 cents a gallon.

If you want to spread that $15b over all of our imports plus domestic
production it gets closer to a penny a gallon.

I guess the hooboy is just what you say when you are wrong.

The hooboy is your ASSumption, without justification of course, that the
government subsidizes oil companies to exploit old wells. Of course, it
doesn't matter, the government is subsidizing big oil, you seem okay
with that, but ethanol? Of course not, it's that damned NEW stuff.

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....

Oh, and probably the same reason why the government has to
subsidize the crops that YOU and everyone eats.

The reason they do that is simply more corporate welfare. I would
applaud stopping that tomorrow.

How about stopping subsidizing big oil?

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 1 May 2013 08:57:42 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 21:57:50 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 17:44:28 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 4/29/13 5:28 PM, wrote:


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



Why does the government subsidize "Big Oil"?

Mostly to get them to exploit "old" wells here and reduce our imports
of foreign oil.
As a per gallon rate it is still minuscule compared to ethanol.
US oil production is about 2.3 billion barrels a year and a reasonable
guess on subsidies is $5B so it is about a nickel a gallon for the
crude, spread over whatever products they produce, from gasoline to
plastics and road tar.
You can't even include the military cost in North American oil
production subsidies.

Hooboy....

Your worst case guess of the subsidy was $15B or so. That gets it up
to 15 cents a gallon.

If you want to spread that $15b over all of our imports plus domestic
production it gets closer to a penny a gallon.

I guess the hooboy is just what you say when you are wrong.

The hooboy is your ASSumption, without justification of course, that the
government subsidizes oil companies to exploit old wells. Of course, it
doesn't matter, the government is subsidizing big oil, you seem okay
with that, but ethanol? Of course not, it's that damned NEW stuff.

Perhaps you should look at the tax credits the oil companies exploit
before you pop off like that. They are mostly for increasing or
sustaining domestic production and they have been since the Carter
administration.

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.