Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Tiger Beer]

This came up in another conversation. About alternative energy and how to do something about America's oil dependency on the Middle East.

Here is something that could be done today: E85. Its an ethanol derived by modern enzyme fermenation that enables all types of crop and plant residue to be converted efficiently into fuel. Millions of vehicles on the roads of America today already are capable of burning E85, but the problem is a lack of retail outlets for the fuel. For example, Nebraska is one of the nation's largest ethanol producers, yet it just opened only its second retail outlet for E85. Funding and incentives would go into rapidly ramping up the production of E85. Thats just one example. You wouldn't even need to buy an expensive electric car. You don't need anything. Just funding and incentives, a slight prod by the government to get it rolling.

So what do y'all think? Should it be done?

[Tiger Beer]

Yes, its a good idea.

[Zed]

Does this mean that the agricultural sector would be even more dependent on artificial fertilizers?

[Tiger Beer]

[some waygug-in]

[Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee]

It sounds very good,

I think the US should have a 1.50 a gallon gas tax and the money should be used for research into alternative energy sources and basic scienfic research.


The US is going to become more and more dependant on imported oil much of it from a region where many don't share our values (drilling in Alaska won't do much to help this ) this is a threat to US national security.

It has been said that you can't fight terror with military power alone. I agree with that . Getting the US free of middle east oil is part of the war against terror.

Without oil the terrorists will have to rely on drug money and smuggling cigarets.Cut off their oil money and many of those in that region who don't like the US would become irrelevant.

John Kerry may want a 50c increase in the gas tax. About this he is absoultly right and showing more vision than Bush.


I am still going to vote for Bush anyway, nothing against Kerry.



I am just waiting for the day to come and it will when the anti US subversives out there start opposing alternative energy. - they oppose anything that would make the US better off.

[some waygug-in]

There's nobody more opposed to using altenative energy than Bush.

So are you saying that Bush is anti-American and subversive?

http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/airenergy.asp

I guess we finally agree on something.
Cheers

[Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee]

Naw , Bush is on record as a being a big supporter of fuel cell technology.

[Manner of Speaking]

Holy f**k.

Joo and I agree on something.

The world's coming to an end!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Crois]

Not before I am famous.

[some waygug-in]

Bush has a pretty good record of saying one thing, and then doing the opposite.

http://www.house.gov/appropriations_democrats/caughtonfilm.htm


http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/airenergy_bushplan.asp#1376


��I said when I was running for President, I supported ethanol, and I meant it. (Applause.) I support it now, because not only do I know it's important for the ag sector of our economy, it's an important part of making sure we become less reliant on foreign sources of energy.�� – Bush at South Dakota Ethanol Plant 4/24/02


According to the AP, Bush��s 2004 budget proposes to eliminate funding for the bioenergy program that funds the Dakota Ethanol Plant he visited. [4/22/02]

##############################################

The previous week, Abraham toured the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colorado, citing the nation's impending natural gas shortage as a key reason why Americans must reduce energy use. He expressed support for increased federal tax breaks for renewable energy and energy efficiency programs rather than for traditional fossil fuel industries. Abraham also recommended, among other things, that the government adopt efficiency measures for heating and cooling homes and offices.

Environmentalists viewed the apparent about-face with skepticism, particularly in light of other contradictory actions by the administration. Only the day before Abraham's visit to Colorado, for example, the Environmental Protection Agency cut funding for one of its most successful and popular energy efficiency programs. The agency's operating budget slashed by one-third its highly touted Energy Star program, which provides a federal seal of approval for energy efficient consumer products. Energy conservation groups, which work with the government to promote the program, now face a significant reduction in federal grants. That could result in less advertising to spread consumer awareness about the Energy Star program.






Your logic, or lack thereof, is astounding!

[Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee]

ethanol unless they they can do it much more effienctly is nothing but subsidized food burning. (put in subisidized food burning into a search engine)

Devote the R&D needed to do it right but right now Ethanol it doesn't do much.

Bush has allowed the US budget to increase and you can't pin that all on defense spending .

[Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee]

http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Aug01/corn-basedethanol.hrs.html


FOR RELEASE: Aug. 6, 2001
Contact: Roger Segelken
Office: 607-255-9736
E-Mail: [email protected]

ITHACA, N.Y. -- Neither increases in government subsidies to corn-based ethanol fuel nor hikes in the price of petroleum can overcome what one Cornell University agricultural scientist calls a fundamental input-yield problem: It takes more energy to make ethanol from grain than the combustion of ethanol produces.

At a time when ethanol-gasoline mixtures (gasohol) are touted as the American answer to fossil fuel shortages by corn producers, food processors and some lawmakers, Cornell's David Pimentel takes a longer range view.

"Abusing our precious croplands to grow corn for an energy-inefficient process that yields low-grade automobile fuel amounts to unsustainable, subsidized food burning," says the Cornell professor in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. Pimentel, who chaired a U.S. Department of Energy panel that investigated the energetics, economics and environmental aspects of ethanol production several years ago, subsequently conducted a detailed analysis of the corn-to-car fuel process. His findings will be published in September, 2001 in the forthcoming Encyclopedia of Physical Sciences and Technology .

Among his findings are:

o An acre of U.S. corn yields about 7,110 pounds of corn for processing into 328 gallons of ethanol. But planting, growing and harvesting that much corn requires about 140 gallons of fossil fuels and costs $347 per acre, according to Pimentel's analysis. Thus, even before corn is converted to ethanol, the feedstock costs $1.05 per gallon of ethanol.

o The energy economics get worse at the processing plants, where the grain is crushed and fermented. As many as three distillation steps are needed to separate the 8 percent ethanol from the 92 percent water. Additional treatment and energy are required to produce the 99.8 percent pure ethanol for mixing with gasoline. o Adding up the energy costs of corn production and its conversion to ethanol, 131,000 BTUs are needed to make 1 gallon of ethanol. One gallon of ethanol has an energy value of only 77,000 BTU. "Put another way," Pimentel says, "about 70 percent more energy is required to produce ethanol than the energy that actually is in ethanol. Every time you make 1 gallon of ethanol, there is a net energy loss of 54,000 BTU."

o Ethanol from corn costs about $1.74 per gallon to produce, compared with about 95 cents to produce a gallon of gasoline. "That helps explain why fossil fuels -- not ethanol -- are used to produce ethanol," Pimentel says. "The growers and processors can't afford to burn ethanol to make ethanol. U.S. drivers couldn't afford it, either, if it weren't for government subsidies to artificially lower the price."

o Most economic analyses of corn-to-ethanol production overlook the costs of environmental damages, which Pimentel says should add another 23 cents per gallon. "Corn production in the U.S. erodes soil about 12 times faster than the soil can be reformed, and irrigating corn mines groundwater 25 percent faster than the natural recharge rate of ground water. The environmental system in which corn is being produced is being rapidly degraded. Corn should not be considered a renewable resource for ethanol energy production, especially when human food is being converted into ethanol."

o The approximately $1 billion a year in current federal and state subsidies (mainly to large corporations) for ethanol production are not the only costs to consumers, the Cornell scientist observes. Subsidized corn results in higher prices for meat, milk and eggs because about 70 percent of corn grain is fed to livestock and poultry in the United States Increasing ethanol production would further inflate corn prices, Pimentel says, noting: "In addition to paying tax dollars for ethanol subsidies, consumers would be paying significantly higher food prices in the marketplace."

Nickels and dimes aside, some drivers still would rather see their cars fueled by farms in the Midwest than by oil wells in the Middle East, Pimentel acknowledges, so he calculated the amount of corn needed to power an automobile:

o The average U.S. automobile, traveling 10,000 miles a year on pure ethanol (not a gasoline-ethanol mix) would need about 852 gallons of the corn-based fuel. This would take 11 acres to grow, based on net ethanol production. This is the same amount of cropland required to feed seven Americans.

o If all the automobiles in the United States were fueled with 100 percent ethanol, a total of about 97 percent of U.S. land area would be needed to grow the corn feedstock. Corn would cover nearly the total land area of the United States.

-30-

[some waygug-in]

So now you are saying you are opposed to alternative energy?



Not a surprise to me, but some things you haven't thought about:

Take a look at this:http://www.theindependent.com/stories/031104/new_ethanol11.shtml

Ethanol doesn't have to come from JUST CORN!

That study focuses on Just using CORN while not looking at all the other alternatives.

http://ethanolacrossamerica.net/what.html

Have a look at that site, ethanol can come from many sources. It can come from fruit, hemp, and many other forms of biomass. Normally, every year tons of fruit and vegetables are discarded due to spoilage and or damage, this could all be used to produce ethanol. That is without changing one acre of land to produce corn.

http://www.greenspirit.com/index.cfm

There are a lot more alternatives that need to be explored. All your article does is try and pretend that corn is the only way.

sheesk!

[nolin nae]

i'm into alternative energy sources, and i worked in a place 10 years ago that i think might be onto a viable one:
www.pppl.gov/

ultimately i think solar energy is going to be the direction we'll go. it's currently a topic i'm reading into, although at this point i can't report much. if you're interested this is a good place to start:
http://www.eere.energy.gov/RE/solar.html