alt.energy.renewable

On Feb 25, 8:24=A0am, "calderh...@yahoo.com"
wrote:
> The world is running out of wheat because so many farmers have
> switched to growing corn for ethanol production. =A0

You can make ethanol out of wheat you know. It's at least as silly as
making it from corn, but there you go.

Actually though, the world is more likely to run out of wheat due to
climate change and the movement of plant diseases to hitherto pristine
areas than changes in agricultural land use.

And of course you say nothing about all the other sub-optimal land
uses competing for farmland. This is what is called 'special
pleading'.


>
> Biofuels are far worse for the environment than using ordinary
> gasoline!
>

No they aren't. Depending how they are sourced, they can be far
better.



> The "energy independence" argument for biofuels is a hoax because
> American biodiesel made out of soybeans costs us the equivalent of
> making regular diesel out of oil at $232 a barrel. =A0

Let's put to one side the fact that making biodiesel from soy is
simply stupid. This would not defeat the argument for energy
independence.

> Making ethanol
> from corn costs us the equivalent of oil at $81. a barrel and uses 28%
> more fossil fuels than gasoline. =A0

This is what one calls 'garbage in, garbage out'. The figures are
totally bogus. While ethanol from corn is close to being the most
irrational way to make ethanol, lying about how bad it necessarily is
does you no credit.

> Only massive government subsides
> makes biofuels affordable at the pump. =A0

A sweeping generalisation. As things stand, it's porkbarrelling. It
need not be.

> Biofuel manufacturers have
> become a malignant force in America like the tobacco companies, not
> caring who they harm as long as they make their fortune.
>
> Global biofuel production will dangerously heat up earth's atmosphere
> because farming contributes more to global warming each year than all
> the land, sea, and air transportation combined.

Again, the generalisation hides the specifics. Clearing a tropical
rainforest to run cattle, as is the case in Brazil certainly does a
huge amount of environmental damage. Clearing one in Malaysia to
produce palm oil for pharmaceuticals, cooking AND biodiesel is a
horrible thing. Much agricultural production is wasteful, but in lands
already cleared, at the margin, biofuel profduction could be rational.
If one interplants a food crop like rye, or sorghum or soy or corn or
wheat with panicum, then one can reduce fertilizer application and
prevent run off. All the crops grow better and the panicum can be
harvested to produce butanol or ethanol and the residual parts either
burned for electricity or returned to the soil.

>=A0This destruction
> makes no sense strategically because by 2015 it is estimated that oil
> from American shale will cost only $30 a barrel to manufacture, and
> there is more oil potential in Colorado shale alone than the entire
> Middle East had before drilling began in Iran in 1908. =A0

These analyses are impossibly optimistic and merely represent
(understandable) attempts by the oil industry to maintain dependence
on their product. Again though, you would be burning sequestered
carbon (as opposed to recycling carbon using biomass) .

> Making
> hydrogen fuel through the electrolysis of water via electricity
> provided by nuclear energy would be far better for the environment

No, it would be stupid, because hydrogen can't be easily stored. It
would be very expensive to convert the fleet to running on fuel cells,
since these require noble metals. Nor is it likely that any fuel
distributor would want to spend the considerable sums installing
equipment to dispense it until hydrogen demand reached critical mass.
It's pie in the sky stuff.

> than farming biofuel crops, and the world has enough nuclear fuel to
> last for thousands of years.
>

It would be more sensible to have PHEVs. Why waste energy converting
to hydrogen when the car can be recharged from home and run on biofuel
when the battery is exhausted?

> The world is suffering a global food crisis, so it is better to drill
> in ANWR for energy than in our food! =A0

You're not from the Sierra Club are you? You're just a fossil fool
vandal.

> Please work to have all biofuel
> mandates, subsidies, and incentives repealed in order to LOWER FOOD
> PRICES now! =A0

You really think people are as stupid as this implies? Go back to your
paymasters and tell them that only your fellow snake oil salesmen are
interested. Food prices are unaffected by biofuels.



Fran