DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Renewable Revolution
HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Renewables
*****************************************************
#Post#: 6382--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ethanol
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: January 28, 2017, 5:09 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]January 28, 2017 Trump campaigned on a pro-ethanol
platform when he visited America - HE LIED [/center]
Commodities | Mon Nov 28, 2016 | 8:09am EST
[center]
Trump faces dilemma as U.S. oil reels ;D from record biofuels
targets[/center]
By Chris Prentice | NEW YORK
The Obama administration signed its final plan for renewable
fuel use in the United States last week, leaving an oil industry
reeling from the most aggressive biofuel targets yet as
President-elect Donald Trump takes over.
The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program, signed into law by
President George W. Bush, is one of the country's most
controversial energy policies. It requires energy firms to blend
ethanol and biodiesel into gasoline and diesel.
The policy was designed to cut greenhouse gas emissions, reduce
U.S. reliance on oil imports and boost rural economies that
provide the crops for biofuels.
It has pitted two of Trump's support bases against each other:
Big Oil and Big Corn. The farming sector has lobbied hard for
the maximum biofuel volumes laid out in the law to be blended
into gasoline motor fuels, while the oil industry argues that
the program creates additional costs.
Balancing oil and farm interests is likely to prove a challenge
for Trump, who has promised to curtail regulations on the oil
industry but is already being reminded by biofuels advocates of
the importance of the program to the American Midwest, where he
received strong support from voters on Nov. 8.
Oil groups are renewing their calls to change or repeal the
program following Wednesday's announcement, when the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) set record mandates for
renewable fuels - for the first time hitting levels targeted by
Congress nearly a decade ago..
The EPA plan is "completely detached from market realities and
confirms once again that Congress must take immediate action to
remedy this broken program," said Chet Thompson, President of
the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, in a
statement.
It is unclear what Trump's plans for the program will be and his
transition team did not respond to Reuters' requests for
comment.
Both camps are expecting an administration receptive to their
demands, though both have expressed concern and uncertainty over
Trump's plans for the program, according to experts, industry
and political sources.
The installation of climate change skeptic Myron Ebell as head
of the transition at the EPA bolstered oil industry confidence
Trump will swing their way. In September, Trump appeared to
briefly echo the views of his supporter, billionaire Carl Icahn,
who expressed concern about the program.
Icahn, who owns a stake in an oil refiner, renewed those
criticisms last week, saying the ethanol credit market generated
by the program is susceptible to manipulation and harming
independent refiners.
PRO-ETHANOL CAMPAIGNING
The president-elect campaigned on a pro-ethanol platform when he
visited America's farm states and biofuels advocates expect he
will keep the RFS strong, maintaining annual targets at the
minimum set forth by Congress.
"Mr. Trump will not turn his back on the American heartland, we
believe in him," said Annette Sweeney, a former state
representative from Iowa who was a member of the Trump's
agricultural advisory committee during his candidacy.
"To a certain extent, we are on higher ground. You always want
to be on higher ground," said Bob Dinneen, head of the Renewable
Fuels Association, referring to the increase.
"We’ll be able to demonstrate the marketplace can absorb 15
billion gallons of ethanol. We can put this all behind us. As we
look to 2018... there's no reason to go back," he said.
The renewables industries have already started to emphasize
their place among American-made fuels, something experts expect
will appeal to Trump.
"There are a lot of good things to be said about
second-generation fuels, even from the new administration’s
perspective," said Harvard University professor and former Obama
administration advisor James Stock.
"All the new administration needs to do is embrace the original
... vision of the RFS," he said.
HTML http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-biofuels-idUSKBN13N0CR
HTML http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-biofuels-idUSKBN13N0CR
Agelbert NOTE: Trump is, and always was, a TOOL of the Fascist
Fossil Fuel Industry. His latest action AGAINST ethanol, despite
his campaign LIES and the poor suckers who believed him, is
clear evidence that big oil pollution will RUN WILD all over the
USA and ethanol production will be crushed.
[center]
HTML http://www.fourwinds10.net/resources/uploads/images/dissolving%20the%20planet%20for%20oil.jpg[/center]
[center]
HTML http://img06.deviantart.net/bb6a/i/2011/120/f/6/corporate_pollution_by_jakejames-d3512u1.jpg[/center]
#Post#: 6383--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ethanol
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: January 28, 2017, 6:33 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Eddie asked,
--- Quote ---
>
> My flawed world view?
>
> I was talking about the current agricultural boondoggle that
results in government money being thrown into growing many
thousands of acres of GMO corn on land that is already worn out,
just to make ethanol at an EROEI that's barely over 1:1 by the
most generous estimates.
>
> It's just a Big Ag scam that puts money into Monsanto's bank
account, and that of a number of congressmen, no doubt.
>
> I have no allegiance to the fossil fuel industry, beyond
driving a car, which I expect you also do from time to time.
What pisses me off is you calling me names. My informed opinion
is that it's a bad idea to keep making ethanol from GMO corn.
>
> My view is not based of on fossil fuel propaganda. It's based
on understanding EROEI, and on understanding how using all that
ammonium nitrate and glyphosate poisons the land and the water.
>
>
HTML https://www.buildinggreen.com/news-article/producing-ethanol-corn-bad-idea
HTML https://www.buildinggreen.com/news-article/producing-ethanol-corn-bad-idea
--- End Quote ---
A world view includes many other assumptions that are
corollaries to your belief that, for example, published ERoEI
numbers, as in the "low positive" EroEI allegations in your
referenced article, are valid. So, I will limit this discussion
to Energy Return on Energy Invested.
First of all, the term "ERoEI" is a deliberate misnomer. It
actually refers to MONEY returned for MONEY invested. It is
doubletalk to claim the energy units required for the production
of ethanol from whatever are X:1.
WHY? Because along absolutely every step of the way to get that
ethanol, assumptions are made that PETROLEUM PRODUCTS are
required to obtain the processed ethanol. THAT IS A LIE. But, if
we proceed from that flawed assumption, you can get some very
low ERoEI numbers from a plant that requires chemical
fertilization, plowing, has slow growth, is not temperature
tolerant, cannot be grown all year round, ETC.
But all the above is not even my biggest complaint about the
lack of scientific objectivity involved in making ERoEI
assumptions (i.e. ENERGY UNITS, not SUBSIDIZED, or otherwise,
dollars).
You as a scientist, will not dispute the FACT that every cubic
inch of soil has over 50 million microscopic critters in it. Do
you REALLY think that our science can accurately compute the
energy in versus the energy out of that bioactivity? You KNOW we
CANNOT.
When a plant is growing, the soil it is in is bioactive, or the
plant dies. I am not just talking about nitrogen fixing
bacteria, available water, potassium and phosphorous. That is
the super simplistic world view that has gotten us into this
mess.
The flawed thinking which assumes that is all a crop needs to
grow is the simplistic science that leads to quantifying the
"energy" inputs. That is inaccurate, to put it mildly. THAT is
the flawed thinking that leads to quantifying crop "yield" by
weight, instead of by nutrients.
SCIENCE is NOT supposed to DO THAT! Science is supposed to add
and subtract EVERYTHING that is going on in the bioactivity in
order to properly determine how much ENERGY is going in to grow
that crop and how much is available in the crop product
SUSTAINABLY.
In the case of ethanol ERoEI, the calculations flat REFUSE to do
soil comparison yield due to microbial activity or the lack of
it. They don't want to go there (chemical fertilizers inhibit
microbial activity BUT increase crop WEIGHT while decreasing
crop nutrients) so they DON'T. Yes, the BT GMO corn grown for
ethanol is practically inedible so the nutrient content should
theoretically not be a factor. The factor should be starch,
which is what the ethanol is produced from.
But it HAS been conclusively proven that rich bioactive soils
produce a higher percentage starch content in corn than straight
chemical fertilized crops. So, even if the WEIGHT of the corn
might be greater with all the fossil fuel CRAP used, increased
starch percentage is certainly NOT a guaranteed benefit of
increased weight.
The depletion of soils by mono cropping ethanol constitutes
world class crocodile tears from Big Ag when they never gave a
DAMN about that for food crops (although they certainly should
have!). There certainly IS a way to grow corn without depleting
the soil, but the fossil fuel industry and Big Ag ARE NOT
INTERESTED IN SUSTAINABILITY. That is why any talk of soil
depletion caused by growing ethanol is a red herring.
The ERoEI concept, as I have discussed in the past, does not
even have a STANDARD in the scientific community, other than
what the Charles Hall gang (i.e. fossil fuel industry funded
happy talkers for oil and doom and gloomers for Renewable Energy
in general and ethanol in particular) publish.
DON'T tell me there is some kind of tidy ERoEI Joules in and
joules out formula out there because there AIN'T!
DON'T tell me the fossil fuel industry hasn't been gaming ERoEI
numbers against ethanol because they ARE!
This brings us to your assumption that the article you just
quoted has scientifically accurate energy numbers. THAT is just
one part of your world view, that I contend, is flawed.
You believe a plethora of falsehoods about thermodynamics
because Capitalism wants you to view products with a very
precise bit of cherry picking for costs and profits. It all goes
back to money, not energy. Published ERoEI numbers are baloney.
Fossil fuels, ALL OF THEM, require more energy to go from source
to processed product than the energy in the product. That is
blasphemy to your world view. You laugh when you read that. And
the reason you laugh is because you firmly believe the fossil
fuel industry has "profited" (along with civilization) from
them. They have stolen from the biosphere. They have used the
air water and land as an open sewer.
But you read one article about "low positive" ethanol EroEI and
depleted soils and immediately pass judgement on a program that
just last year reached its biofuel goals (set nearly ten years
before) for the first time.
That is because you have a flawed world view. You were, as we
all have been, propagandized by inaccurate science passed off as
"reputable" energy mathematics.
I don't ask you to agree with me. I just ask you to be more
aware of the depth with which you assume published data is
"reputable" without a second thought.
#Post#: 7084--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ethanol
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: May 9, 2017, 1:09 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML http://geothermalexpo.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/REW-logo-new.jpg
[center]More to biofuels than CO2 reduction
HTML http://cliparts.co/cliparts/Big/Egq/BigEgqBMT.png[/center]
Thursday, May 4, 2017
Failure to account for non-fuel related benefits from biofuel
production leads to an underestimation of the greenhouse gas
(GHG) emission reduction potential for biofuels when replacing
fossil fuels due to the many valuable by-products and/or
co-produced utilities with high fossil replacement potential.
With the current Swedish biofuel production portfolio,
consideration of non-fuel related benefits could lead to 50
percent greater GHG emission savings, a recently concluded
project finds.
In 2014, the Swedish Energy Agency reported a greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions reduction of 1.95 million tonnes of carbon
dioxide equivalent (CO2-eq) due to the replacement of fossil
fuels with biofuels. However, a narrow focus on CO2 fails to
capture the additional benefits biofuel production may have
according to a recently concluded Swedish research project.
Over 16 percent of all fuel used on Swedish roads during the
first half of 2016 were renewable.
HTML http://www.clker.com/cliparts/c/8/f/8/11949865511933397169thumbs_up_nathan_eady_01.svg.hi.png
[center]GHG reduction benefits of biofuel production
underestimated according to a new study.[/center]
Studies often indicate that agricultural and biomass production
systems have the potential to provide considerable
socio-economic benefits, but that the level of detail and
clarity regarding benefits provided by expanded biomass
production and biofuel process industries are insufficient.
Furthermore, the significant focus directed toward investigating
the life cycle impacts and negative socio-economic effects of
biofuel production tend to exclude, miss, or ignore additional
benefits from the biofuel industry accrued in both environmental
and socio-economic spheres.
This was the starting point for a recently completed project
within the Swedish Knowledge Centre for Renewable Transportation
Fuels (f3) and Swedish Energy Agency collaborative research
programme Renewable transportation fuels and systems (Förnybara
drivmedel och system).
Factoring non-fuel GHG emission benefits
Project leader Michael Martin from IVL Swedish Environmental
Research Institute has worked together with participants from f3
partners Bio4Energy/Luleå University of Technology and Lund
University to study the additional socio-economic benefits that
also come from replacing fossil fuels with biofuels.
The project Environmental and socio-economic benefits from
Swedish biofuel production, has quantified and analyzed
environmental benefits, and reviewed and documented
socio-economic benefits of biofuel production in Sweden.
The results from the environmental analysis provide evidence
that failure to account for non-fuel related benefits from
biofuel production leads to an underestimation of the potential
for biofuels to contribute to GHG emission reductions when
replacing fossil fuels due to the many valuable by-products
and/or co-produced utilities with high fossil replacement
potential.
Prime examples of such being by-products from grain-based
ethanol production, digestate from biogas production, and
utility integration of lignocellulosic fuel production such as
fuels derived from biomass gasification.
[center]
HTML http://static.progressivemediagroup.com/uploads/imagelibrary/nri/chemicals/Projects/gobigas.jpg<br
/>[/center]
[center]Göteborg Energi’s Gothenburg Biomass Gasification
Project (GoBiGas) is the world’s largest woody biomass
gasification demonstration project.[/center]
With the current Swedish biofuel production portfolio,
consideration of non-fuel related benefits could lead to 50
percent greater GHG emission savings, compared to when only
considering the replaced fossil fuels. In the considered future
fuel production mix scenarios the corresponding number could
almost reach 90 percent, due to significantly increasing shares
of biogas and lignocellulosic biofuels.
The results from the project have been submitted in two
scientific articles that are to be published. An additional
supporting report that elaborates on the socio-economic benefits
through a screening and review of job creation and assessment
methods for other benefits is also under way. In the meanwhile,
an extended summary report is available.
Reference:
HTML https://bioenergyinternational.com/
HTML https://advancedbiofuelsconference.org/
HTML http://buyersguide.renewableenergyworld.com/international-advanced-biofuels-conference/pressrelease/more-to-biofuels-than-co2-reduction.html
#Post#: 8165--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ethanol
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: October 22, 2017, 2:30 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]What You Need to Know about an Ethanol Powered
Generator[/center]
An ethanol generator is similar in most ways to other
generators, except for the fact that they use ethanol fuel
instead of other fuel types. This one small fact, however, makes
a world of difference due to the environment-friendly nature of
ethanol fuel.
Advantages of An Ethanol Fueled Generator
Compared to gasoline, ethanol fuel is a renewable resource, so
you will not contribute to the oil shortage that some countries
are now at the brink of.
Other than that, ethanol fuel burns cleaner than gasoline and
helps reduce the amount of carbon contaminants in the air. This
way, you can rest assured that as it generates electricity, it
won’t release toxic materials into the air, which can then harm
your surroundings.
Using an ethanol generator running on an E85 ethanol fuel blend
may also qualify you for some benefits and tax incentives
offered by the government. And if you produce your own ethanol
fuel, your generator will not run out under load and [i]will
thus last longer.
[/i]
Drawbacks (Agelbert NOTE: Thanks to the Fossil Fuel Industry
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013201314.png)<br
/>of An Ethanol Powered Generator
Like all types of generators, an ethanol fueled generator has
its disadvantages. ;)
First of all, one of the most significant problems that people
using ethanol fuels face is the lack of fueling stations that
offer ethanol.
Car owners who use ethanol to run their cars have to go greater
distances before they can find a gas station that offers ethanol
fuel.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183312.bmp
Despite the fact that ethanol can be locally produced, the
country does not have enough resource to produce as much ethanol
fuel as necessary to make ethanol fuel a major fuel source.
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-221017145820.jpeg
The Working Principle of Ethanol Generators
Instead of burning gasoline to convert it into energy, ethanol
generators burn ethanol fuel. Ethanol fuel is made by mixing
ethanol and gasoline to produce a blend that can contain either
more ethanol or more gasoline.
E85, the higher blend of ethanol fuel, contains more ethanol at
85% than gasoline at 15%. The lower blend, however, also known
as E10, is made up of only 10% of ethanol. The higher the
ethanol content, the cleaner the fuel is.
However, there are some special requirements for engines before
they can safely use higher blends of ethanol fuel. ::)
Majority of generators these days can run only on E10.
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_2932.gif
There are also some types of generators that benefit more with
the use of ethanol fuel. For example, portable generators,
emergency generators, and standby generators, which are not
continuously used and do not require a large amount of fuel,
will use ethanol better than commercial, industrial, or marine
types of generators.
Some Quality Brands to Consider
Ethanol generators are still not very easy to find these days,
especially in the United
States.
HTML http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle-pics/Flag_of_the_United_States.pnghttp://www.pic4ever.com/images/pirates5B15D_th.gif
However, there is a greater market in store as major generator
brands in the US, like Coleman, Honda, and Generac, start
looking into cleaner generators powered by alternative fuel
sources.
HTML http://www.emofaces.com/png/200/emoticons/fingerscrossed.png
Some brands, such as Black Max, also manufacture generators that
can be tuned to run on ethanol fuel.
For many other brands, their generators can often use E10 and
can run on E85 as long as the engine can handle it.
Many generators these days are powered by Briggs and Stratton
engines, which have been known to use ethanol fuels without any
problem.
If your engine is not built to tackle ethanol fuel, there are
many rebuilding kits on the market so you can raise your
engine’s compression and enable it to use ethanol fuels.
2010 - 2011 Copyright All Rights Reserved
www.alternativeenergysourcesinfo.com
#Post#: 10225--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ethanol
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: July 7, 2018, 12:48 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]
HTML https://c1cleantechnicacom-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2012/04/earth-day-globe.jpg[/center]
[center]The planet Earth is our home and we need to do
everything we can to save it. [/center]
Challenge the deniers to argue the points made here. Demand
proof rather than some huffy dismissal about not understanding
the laws of thermodynamics, capitalism or free enterprise. Ask
them how many Mega Joules per Liter will we expend in dealing
with THEIR “GIFT” TO US of 415 (AND RISING!) parts per million
of CO2, increased cancer rates, excess heat from internal
combustion engines that are only about 20% efficient, erosion of
democracy through monopoly oil corporation price control and
purchase of of our representatives and laws and useless wars
that get our children killed for their GOD DAMNED profits (no, I
am not swearing; I am certain the creator is not amused by
humans trashing his garden or those who, like some poor deluded
souls, claim that this is the way the world works and we just
have to live with it).
And tell them to stuff it when they say we-the-people are
responsible because we consumed their products. If they return
all the profits and swag from subsidies made by big oil, then
we’ll consider that possibility but otherwise it was THEY who
corralled us into consuming their crap so they could centralize
riches and power and turn the USA into a plutocracy ruled by
ruthless oligarchs.
Call them cowards for drinking the koolaid. Force them to face
responsibility for ruining the future for their offspring with
ther blindness and greed. When the Biased Bums, like the
pseudo-erudite mathematician Palloy claim you don’t know what
you are talking about when you claim that ethanol (otherwise
known as ethyl alcohol) is a superior fuel to gasoline because
it gets better mileage in high compression engines and burns
cleaner ,translating to a GREATER effective EROI than gasoline,
push this into their face and ask them why they never got the
memo:
Quote
Ethyl alcohol in the early 20th century
The following excerpt is from a Paper to the American Society
for Environmental History, Annual Conference March 26-30, 2003
By William Kovarik, Ph.D. “Studies of alcohol as an internal
combustion engine fuel began in the U.S. with the Edison
Electric Testing Laboratory and Columbia University in 1906.
Elihu Thomson reported that despite a smaller heat or B.T.U.
value, “a gallon of alcohol will develop substantially the same
power in an internal combustion engine as a gallon of gasoline.
This is owing to the superior efficiency of operation…” (New
York Times Aug. 5, 1906) Other researchers confirmed the same
phenomena around the same time. “USDA tests in 1906 also
demonstrated the efficiency of alcohol in engines and described
how gasoline engines could be modified for higher power with
pure alcohol fuel or for equivalent fuel consumption, depending
on the need. The U.S. Geological Service (USGS) and the U.S.
Navy performed 2000 tests on alcohol and gasoline engines in
1907 and 1908 in Norfolk, Va. and St. Louis, Mo. They found that
much higher engine compression ratios could be achieved with
alcohol than with gasoline. When the compression ratios were
adjusted for each fuel, fuel economy was virtually equal despite
the greater B.T.U. value of gasoline. “In regard to general
cleanliness, such as absence of smoke and disagreeable odors,
alcohol has many advantages over gasoline or kerosene as a
fuel,” the report said. “The exhaust from an alcohol engine is
never clouded with a black or grayish smoke.” USGS continued the
comparative tests and later noted that alcohol was “a more ideal
fuel than gasoline” with better efficiency despite the high
cost.”
HTML http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/alcoholengines.aspx
Quote
Ethanol Engine efficiency exceeds gasoline engines, giving
greater miles per gallon (MPG) with ethanol fuel: High
Efficiency and Low Emissions from a Port-Injected Engine with
Alcohol Fuels— By Matthew Brusstar, Mark Stuhldreher, David
Swain and William Pidgeon, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
size: 70 Kb – 7 pages
HTML http://www.epa.gov/otaq/presentations/sae-2002-01-2743-v2.pdf
When they fall back on the EROI formula Procrustean Bed with the
claim that EROI only deals with energy density in fuels and not
efficiency coefficients in different engine types, calmly remind
them (hopefully, two by fours will be unnecessary to knock some
sense into their heads but you never know ;D) that gasoline is
not customarily used for furnaces, room lighting, barbeque
grills or to boil water; it’s used almost exclusively in the ICE
(internal combustion engine).
For these fossil fuel lakeys, water carriers and quislings to
refuse to measure gasoline’s EFFECTIVE USABLE ENERGY when it is
actually used in an ICE to do work is the height of duplicity.
But this subterfuge by Rockefeller’s admirers is not new. As I
have mentioned before, way back at the end of the 19th century,
Rockefeller was flushing his gasoline waste product in the
rivers by his refineries at night. He could not avoid producing
gasoline in his refinery cracking towers (about 19 gallons of
gasoline for every 42 gallon barrel of crude refined)*.
When the automobile came out in the early twentieth century, the
early car fuel called benzene had to be eliminated because that
hydrocarbon is a carcinogenic. As you read above in the 1906
Edison lab study, ethanol was considered competitive energywise
with gasoline.
What did Rockefeller do? He lowered the price of gasoline
(remember his cost was near zero because it had been a waste
product of the refining process) so much that ethanol was priced
out of the market**. It was a win-win for Rockefeller.
It was only a matter of time before his nasty habit of flushing
gasoline into rivers at night was going to get him and his
refinery employees facing the wrong end of a shotgun from some
irate farmer who noticed his horses and cows getting sick or
dying when drinking the river water downstream of an oil
refinery.
So, Rockefeller managed to change the flush operation from the
rivers to the atmosphere and make a bundle out of it too.
But this predatory capitalist wasn’t done killing ethanol yet.
He gave millions to a temperance group that ultimately succeeded
in Prohibition legislation banning the production and use of
ethanol (ethyl alcohol), not just for drinking, but for ICE fuel
as well (and you thought Prohibition was just the fundies not
wanting you to get high on booze. Rockefeller USED the fundies
to block ethanol competition).
The reality was that the “cheap” gasoline was far, far more
expensive than ethanol due to the atmospheric poisons
introduced. It got even worse when tetra-ethyl lead entered the
mix in the 1920s. It wasn’t until about 1973 that the severe
damage from leaded gasoline was recognized and even so, to this
day, unleaded gasoline is not mandatory in off road vehicles.
Now that ethanol is out there and available once again as a
competitor to gasoline, the fossil fuel enablers return with the
familiar FALSE claims that ethanol is not competitive with
gasoline and the poppycock that gasoline gets better mileage
than ethanol.
Call out these overeducated, Procrustean Bed, creative
thermodynamics “geniuses” carrying water for the fossil fuel
industry on their lies and distortions. Accuse them of being
well aware of the above and deliberately distorting the fuel
facts when they are actually applied to their use in engines.
Tell them their Procrustean Bed EROI Bullshit isn’t going to fly
anymore.
Quote
*On average, about 19.5 US gallons (16.2 imp gal; 74 L) of
gasoline are available from a 42-US-gallon (35 imp gal; 160 L)
barrel of crude oil (about 46% by volume), varying due to
quality of crude and grade of gasoline. The remaining residue
comes off as products ranging from tar to naptha.[4]
HTML http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline
Quote
**The gasoline engine became the preferred engine for the
automobile because gasoline was cheaper than alcohol, not
because it was a better fuel. And, because alcohol was not
available at any price from 1920 to 1933, a period during which
the sale, manufacture, and transportation of alcohol was banned
nationally as mandated in the Eighteenth Amendment to the United
States Constitution. The amendment was repealed by the
Twenty-First Amendment on December 5, 1933. In time to produce
alcohol fuels during World War II. By the time World War II
ended, the gasoline engine had become “entrenched” because
gasoline remained cheaper than Alcohol, and widely distributed –
gas stations were everywhere.
HTML http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/alcoholengines.aspx
Tell anybody with fried logic circuits that claims this is “the
way the world works” that the REAL WORLD, not the predatory
capitalist hell hole they so love, is the BIOSPHERE.
That world has a set of rules and, for most of our human
existence on this planet, we followed them. For over a century
and a half, a level of insanity not seen in human history has
produced a greed fest so blind, so stupid and so incorrigible
that it can only be labelled what it is: EVIL. Fossil and
nuclear fuel advocates and their pseudo scientific Procrustean
Bed EROI happy number formulations NEVER WORKED. The backers of
these poisoned energy sources lied about absolutely everything
related to their extraction and use from day one and they are
lying through their teeth now to sabotage the truth about
renewable energy sources.
Renewable energy sources are practical, sustainable and healthy
for the planet and humans. Hydrocarbon fuels have brought us
pollution, wars and corrupted democracy.
[center][center]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-110617161054.png[/center][/center]
*****************************************************
Page 5 of 5
DIR Previous Page