TEA Parties

[tw]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

I have brought up the whole biofuel from algae thing before and posted a link. Brazil makes fuel from sugarcane, so we know it can work.

It works for Brazilian biomass because they grow in temperatures above 70 degrees F. The process to obtain energy from biomaterial grown at lower temperatures (ie corn) is so inefficient as to probably consume more energy than it creates.

The concept works in theory. In practice, it has been a grand and expensive disappointment.

So how did we solve the problem? A technically ignorant admistration solved it by putting a $0.50 per gallon tax on Brazilian and other imported ethanol. Biofuels were really only welfare to midwest farmers.

For your proposals to work, first they must work in science. None have yet shown anywhere near the promise or success that must exist today for them to work in years future.

A glaring fact makes the most viable solution obvious. In ten gallons of gas maybe one and never more than two gallons do productive work. That other eight plus gallons gets wasted completely as heat or pollution. That is where solutions can be implemented, already exist in some examples, and are still being routinely stified by the companies who could best implement them and be profitable for doing so.

Everybody likes Sara Lee - even though she routinely stifled battery innovation? General Motors remains unscathed by your contempt?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by slang

Which coastline are they proposing to set up production?

Southern Cali would be nearly perfect. That means it will not be done there the way things work.

I've not seen the published data on the emissions but heard in an interview that it's "nearly as clean as hydrogen while being much more economical."

Here's another one.

BILLINGS, Mont. (AP) - A new study says jet fuel made with the oilseed
crop camelina could cut greenhouse gas emissions by up to 84 percent
compared with jet fuel from petroleum.
The finding is expected to be used by the aviation industry as it weighs a
number of alternative fuels with the potential to reduce costs and curb
emissions.
Camelina is considered well-suited to Montana and other arid Northern
Plains states because it needs little water. Terrance Scott with the
aircraft manufacturer Boeing says camelina is one of a handful of crops
with the potential to provide sufficient "feedstock" to make large
quantities of jet fuel.
However, the industry has struggled to attract growers willing to switch
to the crop. Also, falling oil prices have dampened its economic appeal.
The greenhouse gas emissions study was done by the Sustainable Futures
Institute at Michigan Technological University. It was funded by the
camelina industry and conducted with jet fuel from camelina seeds
developed by a Bozeman company, Sustainable Oils.
For the study, lead author David Shonnard said he conducted a "life cycle"
comparison of camelina with petroleum, meaning he factored in the
greenhouse gas emissions from fertilizing, growing, harvesting and using
the crop.
Conventional camelina, Shonnard said, can cut greenhouse gas emissions by
60 to 70 percent with no loss of performance for the fuel.
The 84 percent reduction in greenhouse gases was based on a strain of
camelina expected to need less fertilizer and yield more pounds per acre
than types of the crop currently in production.
"These next generation biofuels are true hydrocarbons and on a molecular
level indistinguishable from fossil fuels," said Shonnard, a chemical
engineering professor at Michigan Tech.
Sustainable Oils General Manager Scott Johnson said Shonnard's study could
help sell dubious farmers on camelina by showing them its market
advantages.
"It's been a little slow start for camelina," Johnson said. "They don't
want to grow something that doesn't have a fit."
Shonnard said he expected that within a few years a market will develop
for camelina and other biofuels such as jatropha, switchgrass and algae.
With the worldwide population growing -- and worries over global warming
intensifying -- he said the "trends are in place" for the biofuels market
to expand as at least a partial replacement for petroleum.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

They are viable now. I'm sick of people saying they aren't viable. They are.

They aren't nearly as efficient as they could be. Here in Minnesota they identified a very strong wind draft that occurs about 500ft (or meters) above the surface that happens every night. If that can be exploited, it can create a lot of energy. More research as that will push the technology significant steps further.

Either way, these technologies need to prove themselves to the public before mainstream use. That is in the process. The technology will grow.

[slang]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

What else did I say that makes you want to kill me?

Not you, your socialist/collectivist ideas/non-stop slobbering on the Messiah.

Which ones? Yeah I know, please cite. I'm working 7 days now and don't have time to properly add to many of these irritating posts.

[slang]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Here's another one.

Very interesting.

The time available for researching and reading has been reduced lately due to deadlines at work.

Anything that can make the US fuel independant or move us in that direction has my attention. That attention is limited for now but that's going to change in a few months.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by tw

Everybody likes Sara Lee - even though she routinely stifled battery innovation? General Motors remains unscathed by your contempt?

Not something you can prove, so it must be one of your moronic lies: you cannot show improved battery technology to exist, and insist some industry conspiracy is suppressing its expression. Well, conspiracy theory is the realm of flakes and kooks.

Note that I never subscribe to conspiracy theory in any of my so-called "crazy" posts.

Not like you could make a 500-mile/80mph battery pack, either. You can't even theorize how, let alone engineer it. Broke-dick.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

They aren't nearly as efficient as they could be. Here in Minnesota they identified a very strong wind draft that occurs about 500ft (or meters) above the surface that happens every night. If that can be exploited, it can create a lot of energy. More research as that will push the technology significant steps further.

Either way, these technologies need to prove themselves to the public before mainstream use. That is in the process. The technology will grow.

They have proven themselves. But to be clear, are you arguing we shouldn't do it because they aren't as efficient as they could be, even though they are already more efficient than what we're using now? yea, that makes a whole lotta sense.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by slang

Not you, your socialist/collectivist ideas/non-stop slobbering on the Messiah.

Which ones? Yeah I know, please cite. I'm working 7 days now and don't have time to properly add to many of these irritating posts.

non-stop slobbering on the messiah? Clearly you have me confused with someone else...

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Not something you can prove, so it must be one of your moronic lies: you cannot show improved battery technology to exist, and insist some industry conspiracy is suppressing its expression. Well, conspiracy theory is the realm of flakes and kooks.

Note that I never subscribe to conspiracy theory in any of my so-called "crazy" posts.

Not like you could make a 500-mile/80mph battery pack, either. You can't even theorize how, let alone engineer it. Broke-dick.

There IS a 300 mile battery though, already in use, and I have posted SEVERAL TIMES links to the website. yes, the cars are still kind of expensive for some people, but as more people buy them, they will become less expensive, AND, they are comparable to other cars in the same price range.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

I have posted SEVERAL TIMES links to the website.

Exept tesla is apparently full of crap - err - exaggerating their claims.

[atrw93]

Hey guys 'n' gals,

Dont forget that all energy originates from the sun
either as thermal energy or by
causing things to grow into "biofuels" to serve as
food aka fuel for living things or decay into fossil fuels.

You have your choice of eating or getting biofuels!

You cannot get anything for nothing (First Law
of Thermodynamics)

Even the Tesla needs an external source of energy
to recharge its batteries.

Just hope and pray (to whatever "god" you may
believe in, even if only yourself) that the sun keeps shining!

Al

[TheMercenary]

And Tommy Toilet says, "Don't forget to wipe!"


http://www.knitteldude.com/images/An...mmy_toilet.jpg

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by classicman

Exept tesla is apparently full of crap - err - exaggerating their claims.

cite please.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

They have proven themselves. But to be clear, are you arguing we shouldn't do it because they aren't as efficient as they could be, even though they are already more efficient than what we're using now? yea, that makes a whole lotta sense.

Are they realistic to use? Whats the price?

[sugarpop]

Of course they are realistic to use. The price of some things may be high now, but it will come down as the demand for those technologies rises. And the cost of those technologies really is much less expensive than building coal or nuclear plants or using oil.

And ftr, there is no such thing as "clean coal." We have one, count it, ONE, coal plant in this country that captures the co2. Even the plants that are in the process of being built do not capture the co2. So they are ALL "dirty coal" plants. But of course people wouldn't know that by the commercials being aired every 5 minutes on TV touting the promise of "clean coal."