Gore says transfer to clean energy vital for U.S.

upwithbiofuels wrote:

<quoted text>
Its people like you that are a roadblock to progress. The reason people are going hungry is because of the rising price of FOSSIL FUELS all over the globe. It takes FOSSIL FUELS in every step of food production. It takes FOSSIL FUELS for planting the seed, for cultivating and protecting the crops, most fertilizers and pesticides are manufactured from FOSSIL FUELS, for harvesting the crops, for transporting the crop to be processed, packaging the crop, transporting the end product to the grocery store, etc. To make matters worse Tina Anne as all of this FOSSIL FUEL is being burned more CO2 is added to the atmosphere and more dollars leave this nation and go to the middle east.
You must quit using food and hunger as part of your argument against BIOFUELS anyway Tina Anne because the future of BIOFUELS is from biomass as I have tried to explain to you. Ethanol will be produced from forest wastes next year in Georgia. Let me repeat that for Tina Anne. Ethanol will be produced from FOREST WASTES not CORN Tina Anne. Do y'all think she got it that time?

Try again, those forest wastes already have uses, everything from toilet paper to brake pads. So you would end up with the exact same problem you have with corn. Only x amount of material and a shortage for making your biofuels. Keep in mind that only a little while ago that sawdust was going for $100.00 a ton. Just imagine what it would be if you started needed a hundred times more. And what makes that situation even worse is that the corn only takes several months not years to have a new crop. So where do you think these crops of wood are going to come from. Just Georgia, that would be akin to saying that the only place your going to get the corn from is Iowa.

With you the National Park Service better watch out because at the rate your going they are going to be clear cutting them.

Roy wrote:

<quoted text>
Ethanol is problematic.
When you take resources used for food production, and change that to fuel, you have less food production. We're already seeing that today with the existing ethanol subsidies.
More of that strategy is not a solution.

I agree, I was saying the same thing when they were talking about corn based ethonal. The problem with upwithbiofuels idea of using wood is that he hasn't figured out that the wood in question already has uses from building to automotobile parts.

He has seen a new road and hasn't bothered to look down it to see where it goes. Which is why he will be busy driving off the cliff and into the swamp.

Listen Tina Anne, Range fuels will be using forest waste. I live down here in Georgia. I ride around in the country side. I see what they leave after taking the logs and pulp wood off of the land. They leave a lot and now it will be put to good use. They're going to do it period and I will buy their American made product that is cleaner and burns cooler and I guess you and your hardhead will keep buying FOSSIL FUELS from Saudi Arabia, Iran and Venezuela.

Kimbefly wrote:

<quoted text>
Brazil has done a great thing for itself, but I don't know if we can replicate it here. Brazil has a great capacity for growing sugar cane, and we are mostly reduced to grain crops for that.
I've looked at the Range Fuels site. Their process is not explained in anything close to a scientific or chemically feasible manner.
I truly want cellulosic ethanol to be successful, but I have not seen evidence that a plant is actually built or that any ethanol has been produced. Please join me in digging deeper, and let me know what you find. I fear they are just after "investor" money.

I think they use a process called gasification to reduce the biomass into a synthetic gas. This can be done to coal also to make gasoline.
Modules from the plant will go to the site where the biomass is located and convert the biomass to the synthetic gas which is then taken back to the plant where the ethanol will be produced.

I like biofuels.
It is much wiser to GROW fuel and burn it, rather than pumping it out of the ground and burning it.
There is nothing more organic than bull$it.
:)

upwithbiofuels wrote:

Listen Tina Anne, Range fuels will be using forest waste. I live down here in Georgia. I ride around in the country side. I see what they leave after taking the logs and pulp wood off of the land. They leave a lot and now it will be put to good use. They're going to do it period and I will buy their American made product that is cleaner and burns cooler and I guess you and your hardhead will keep buying FOSSIL FUELS from Saudi Arabia, Iran and Venezuela.

If they were ecomonical then that waste would be leaving for other uses. The problem with that waste is that it would have to be turned into something that could be processed into some sort of fuel. The idea of sticking a bunch of twigs into a still isn't going to work. Even with corn they have to grind it into a meal and then add the water and yeast to produce the biofuel. Before you start complaining about how I just don't get it why don't you actually do a little research on the subject. That way you see all the flaws in you biofuel plan.

http://petroleum.berkeley.edu/papers/Biofuels...

http://www.mail-archive.com/sustainablelorgbi... @sustainablelists.org/msg63443 .html

http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_library/W...

tina anne wrote:

<quoted text>
If they were ecomonical then that waste would be leaving for other uses. The problem with that waste is that it would have to be turned into something that could be processed into some sort of fuel. The idea of sticking a bunch of twigs into a still isn't going to work. Even with corn they have to grind it into a meal and then add the water and yeast to produce the biofuel. Before you start complaining about how I just don't get it why don't you actually do a little research on the subject. That way you see all the flaws in you biofuel plan.
http://petroleum.berkeley.edu/papers/Biofuels...
http://www.mail-archive.com/sustainablelorgbi... @sustainablelists.org/msg63443 .html
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_library/W...

Listen Dupont has invested 140 million in cellulosic ethanol. Who has done more research you or Dupont? I don't need to do a little research I would bet Dupont did a lot of research before they invested $140 million. Shell has invested a lot. Maybe you should quit research biofuels at petroleum websites. I'm not going to complain how you just don't get it, I think you're kind of cute.

upwithbiofuels wrote:

Listen Tina Anne, Range fuels will be using forest waste. I live down here in Georgia. I ride around in the country side. I see what they leave after taking the logs and pulp wood off of the land. They leave a lot and now it will be put to good use. They're going to do it period and I will buy their American made product that is cleaner and burns cooler and I guess you and your hardhead will keep buying FOSSIL FUELS from Saudi Arabia, Iran and Venezuela.

next thing will be that the environutters aill be accusing people like you of deforestation. Already the greenies don't understand how wood is grown for the purpose of being cut down. To them forests have always been there and we are just vandals. Also, the greenies will condemn any solution , even the ones they suggested.

upwithbiofuels wrote:

<quoted text>
Listen Dupont has invested 140 million in cellulosic ethanol. Who has done more research you or Dupont? I don't need to do a little research I would bet Dupont did a lot of research before they invested $140 million. Shell has invested a lot. Maybe you should quit research biofuels at petroleum websites. I'm not going to complain how you just don't get it, I think you're kind of cute.

Funny how your telling me to quit researching biofuels at petroleum web sites then mention how much Shell is investing. New Flash, Shell is a Dutch Owned Petroleum Company.

The real problem is that the current tech avialable would take more enregy to produce wood based ethanol than you would receive.

If your research is so great why arn't you providing the links that allow people to check out what you have found or at least telling them where you found this wonderful information. So far all you have is a few numbers small numbers about research that may or may not pan out and your opinion. If you think that is big money then you need to look at what big drug spends on research, or big anything.

So either put up or give up. I want to see something more than this company has invested this much in research and I think. After all car companies have built nermerous concept cars that never got father than a car show display.

Mr Giblets wrote:

<quoted text>next thing will be that the environutters aill be accusing people like you of deforestation. Already the greenies don't understand how wood is grown for the purpose of being cut down. To them forests have always been there and we are just vandals. Also, the greenies will condemn any solution , even the ones they suggested.

No kidding, remeber back when it was the Spotted Owl? My dad was looking at the news and he pointed out how all those trees were growing in nice straight rows. The trees in this old growth forest were in those rows because someone had planted them like that.

Here's an article about Dupont:

http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/...

Here's some more news:

http://www.tcetoday.com/tcetoday/NewsDetail.a...
You might as well jump on the bandwagon. The United States is ready to kick the FOSSIL FUELS habit and it will be the best thing that ever happened to this country. I just hope we can get through the present economic crisis. It really looks scary to me.

upwithbiofuels wrote:

Here's an article about Dupont:
http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/...
Here's some more news:
http://www.tcetoday.com/tcetoday/NewsDetail.a...
You might as well jump on the bandwagon. The United States is ready to kick the FOSSIL FUELS habit and it will be the best thing that ever happened to this country. I just hope we can get through the present economic crisis. It really looks scary to me.

Before you go jumping ship notice that it is still in the expermental stage. Pilot plants and lab studies are they have right now. Pilot plants are just a way to test how to produce something in the real world that they have made in a lab. It dosn't mean that they will go any further with it. After all there has been other pilot plants, including the one for corn based ethanol and one of the first things they learned was the dam things smell. They also had other issued that they had to wrok out before they could start building large scale production. Of course they still managed to miss the biggest basic flaw. Supply of materials at a resonable rate.

why do people who want to use gas try to prevent those of us who want different choices of energy?

And for those who still seem to think smog is al gores imagination, watch the olympics. lemme know if you can see all of beijing.

Daniel wrote:

why do people who want to use gas try to prevent those of us who want different choices of energy?
And for those who still seem to think smog is al gores imagination, watch the olympics. lemme know if you can see all of beijing.

Why do liberal environmentalists who love clean air oppose nuclear?

If clean air is the question then atomic energy is the answer.

It seems like libs are the ones who are inflexible and unwilling to compromise.

Mac-7 wrote:

<quoted text>
Why do liberal environmentalists who love clean air oppose nuclear?
If clean air is the question then atomic energy is the answer.
It seems like libs are the ones who are inflexible and unwilling to compromise.

ROFL, nuclear is clean? you seem to know nothing about it..... where you going to put all the waste? sure france runs off of pretty much all nuclear. do you know where they send there waste? I'll save you the time. They pay russia to take it to Siberia......... think canada will do the same for us? rightttt

conservatives have been blocking alternative energy for far to long. there is no stopping it now. we don't have a choice anymore.

again, do some research before ya waste my time.

Mac-7 wrote:

<quoted text>
Why do liberal environmentalists who love clean air oppose nuclear?
If clean air is the question then atomic energy is the answer.
It seems like libs are the ones who are inflexible and unwilling to compromise.

and don't test my knowledge of nuclear. i live in PA. thats right. near Three Mile Island. Many of us around here are very educated on nuclear. and many of us oppose it.

Daniel wrote:

<quoted text>
ROFL, nuclear is clean? you seem to know nothing about it..... where you going to put all the waste? sure france runs off of pretty much all nuclear. do you know where they send there waste? I'll save you the time. They pay russia to take it to Siberia......... think canada will do the same for us? rightttt
conservatives have been blocking alternative energy for far to long. there is no stopping it now. we don't have a choice anymore.
again, do some research before ya waste my time.

Today each US nuclear facility stores their nuclear waste on-site.

Reactors can be configured to use recycled nuclear fuel rods.

"Reprocessing and plutonium recycling have now attained industrial maturity in France and Europe. Specifically, mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel is fabricated and used in light water reactors (LWRs) in satisfactory operating conditions. The utilities and the fuel cycle industry experience no technical difficulties, and European recycling programs are growing steadily, from 18 reactors in operation today up to 50 expected around the year 2000, putting the system reprocessing-recycling in coherence: 25 t of plutonium will then be used each year to produce the electricity equivalence of 25 millions tons of oil. Plutonium recycling in MOX fuel in current LWRs proves to be technically safe and economically competitive and meets natural resource savings and environmental protection objectives. And recycling responds properly to the nonproliferation concerns. Such an industrial experience gives a unique reference for weapons plutonium disposition through MOX use in reactors."
http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.b...

Daniel wrote:

<quoted text>
and don't test my knowledge of nuclear. i live in PA. thats right. near Three Mile Island. Many of us around here are very educated on nuclear. and many of us oppose it.

... and I live near Palo Verde.

What's your point?

Daniel wrote:

<quoted text>
ROFL, nuclear is clean? you seem to know nothing about it..... where you going to put all the waste? sure france runs off of pretty much all nuclear. do you know where they send there waste? I'll save you the time. They pay russia to take it to Siberia......... think canada will do the same for us? rightttt
conservatives have been blocking alternative energy for far to long. there is no stopping it now. we don't have a choice anymore.
again, do some research before ya waste my time.

Meanwhile as liberal environmentalists sit on their hinnies waiting for the lost secrets of Atlantis to be revealed to them Americans need energy to run their cars and heat their homes.

If you're worried about storing nuclear waste then we have lots of coal to make electricty with.

But libs don't like coal either.

It seems that they don't like any form of energy that is proven, practical, and available now.

Daniel wrote:

<quoted text>
and don't test my knowledge of nuclear. i live in PA. thats right. near Three Mile Island.

How can that be, Daniel?

To hear the left tell it, because of Three Mile Island PA is uninhabitable today, right?