Kiss the Earth GREEN

Comment

Comment by david epps on November 25, 2008 at 12:38pm

Tanks CNG, propane, gasoline(ethanol)
Hugh is Wrong
Propane tanks are less heavy than CNG tanks (excepting absorption storage)
propane 4.11 pounds per gallon.* 13 + 70 = 123 pounds
289 lbs NG (Aluminium composite reinforced)
vs
143 lbs NG (all composite)
vs
123 lbs propane
vs
104 lbs gasoline

cites:
CNG and gasoline tanks
Propane tanks

For the kid here is info on propane
http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/sources/non-renewable/propane.html
Hugh is Wrong
Propane is transported by pipeline along 1300 miles from TX to NC and points between.

Comment by david epps on November 25, 2008 at 12:01pm

Hugh is Wrong
Poor memory on his part. Please try to keep up, Hugh

I repeat
Wrong, you did not study H.R. 2419
Reduced the corn ethanol tax credit (Sec. 15331)
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-2419&tab=summary
Increased the cellulosic ethanol tax credit (Sec. 15321).
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-2419&tab=summary

Extend the tariff on imports of ethanol until hell freezes over!

I repeat!
Propane
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pnp_gp_dc_nus_mbbl_a.htm
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_neti_a_epll_IMN_mbblpd_a.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propane
http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/sources/non-renewable/propane.html
About 70% of propane (LPG) is made in the USA

Hugh is Wrong
Propane is made from natural gas mostly.

Hugh is Wrong
To eliminating imports of oil the energy content of the alternate fuel is irrelevant.

Unless the CNG tank use absorption stoarge
Hugh is Wrong
Wrong here is comparison of various CNG tank materials
Here is weight of propane tanks.

The below Cool aid rots the teeth and mind!

Comment by Hugh Hemington on November 25, 2008 at 11:05am

davvid --

... more Kool-Aid.

and propane? Propane is a by-product of petroleum refining and produces less energy per gallon than ethanol, CNG or gasoline. It's distributed by truck and required heavy tanks in vehicles -- a poor solution!

Here is a link to H.R. 2419

Here is a link to H.R. 6124, the "parent" bill (This is the combination of H.R.2419, H.R.3246, & S.2302)

H.R. 2419 extends the corn ethanol subsidy ($1.01 / gallon) but provides less for cellulosic. It doesn't mandate that the feedstocks be a genuine waste product, just that they be used to make cellulosic ethanol, so now farmers will grow more waste crop to fill that niche.

Section 15333 extends the ethanol tariff to 1/1/2011, when it was scheduled to expire 1/1/2009 -- more protection.

According to sec. 15322(b) of HR 2419, the Secretary of the Treasury was supposed to provide an analysis on biofuels to Congress six months after the bill was enacted. I'm working on getting a copy of that analysis now, through my congressman. If anyone else gets a copy, please post it!

Here is the section:
SEC. 15322. COMPREHENSIVE STUDY OF BIOFUELS.
(a) STUDY.—The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation
with the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of Energy, and
the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, shall
enter into an agreement with the National Academy of Sciences
to produce an analysis of current scientific findings to determine—
(1) current biofuels production, as well as projections for
future production,
(2) the maximum amount of biofuels production capable
in United States forests and farmlands, including the current
quantities and character of the feedstocks and including such
information as regional forest inventories that are commercially
available, used in the production of biofuels,
H. R. 2419—593
(3) the domestic effects of an increase in biofuels production
levels, including the effects of such levels on—
(A) the price of fuel,
(B) the price of land in rural and suburban communities,
(C) crop acreage, forest acreage, and other land use,
(D) the environment, due to changes in crop acreage,
fertilizer use, runoff, water use, emissions from vehicles
utilizing biofuels, and other factors,
(E) the price of feed,
(F) the selling price of grain crops and forest products,
(G) exports and imports of grains and forest products,
(H) taxpayers, through cost or savings to commodity
crop payments, and
(I) the expansion of refinery capacity,
(4) the ability to convert corn ethanol plants for other
uses, such as cellulosic ethanol or biodiesel,
(5) a comparative analysis of corn ethanol versus other
biofuels and renewable energy sources, considering cost, energy
output, and ease of implementation,
(6) the impact of the tax credit established by this subpart
on the regional agricultural and silvicultural capabilities of
commercially available forest inventories, and
(7) the need for additional scientific inquiry, and specific
areas of interest for future research.
(b) REPORT.—The Secretary of the Treasury shall submit an
initial report of the findings of the study required under subsection
(a) to Congress not later than 6 months after the date of the
enactment of this Act (36 months after such date in the case
of the information required by subsection (a)(6)), and a final report
not later than 12 months after such date (42 months after such
date in the case of the information required by subsection (a)(6)).

The preliminary report should be available, less the material regarding the tax credit impact (a)(6). Sub-section (4) sounds like a pretty clear admission that corn ethanol needs to be phased out.

Comment by david epps on November 25, 2008 at 4:50am

Minnpost.com is Minnesota-based blog run by a news organization. Your keyword is "I think" but you don't know. That is scary that it has just gotta to be. Someone said "Wanting it to be true doesn't make it so."

David Epps advocates for energy independence and todays corn based ethanol is part of that puzzle and is a stepping stone to tomorrows cellulosic based ethanol where waste material can be thrown into the same vat as purposely grown biomass.

H.R. 2419.is a good bill it adds tax credits for cellulosic ethanol fuel blending passed on to the consumer.
H.R. 2419 promotes cellulosic refining and mandates Made in the US ethanol prodcution to 36 billion gallons.
Convert the 244 million US fleet to CNG, ethanol, or propane, NOW!!!!!!

Figures never lie, only liars figure.
Hugh Hemmington has not posted a single fact or figure substantiating his claims.
Hugh Hemmington resorts to name calling, ad hominem attacks, and techniques of Propaganda.
Hugh Hemmington has bouts of uncontrolled emotional outbursts.
Hugh Hemmington is not credentialed for his opinion to be worthy of note
Hugh Hemmington new reputation score is 0 out of 10

Comment by Hugh Hemington on November 24, 2008 at 8:37pm

When a Minnesota-based news organization -- MINNESOTA, the birthplace of ethanol fuel, says that ethanol would not exist and cannot exist without subsidies, I think that's gotta be a statement of fact.

When you kept coming back with nonsense and misdirection, I thought you were a troll, but then I found out you are selling parts into the Ethanol market. Now it's apparent that you are here to advance your own interests and bully anyone who dares to express a contrary opinion.

Obviously I'll contend all your sources are ethanol industry shills, and you'll claim everyone I cite is a tree-hugging hack. There is a lot of data. Some assembled by those who think ethanol is the answer and are willing to overlook the problems, and from those who think ethanol is not the answer and focus on the problems. All studies and research probably has a certain degree of bias, based on who funded it, and the interests of those that conducted it. Unless someone has the opportunity to watch and evaluate the "study", the results are suspect.

The basic fact is that corn ethanol is being grotesquely subsidies because it feeds the political careers of mid-west legislators. It is subsidized so far in excess of anything else that comparison is foolish, and without the subsidy, the fuel would be seen by everyone as complete nonsense. Right now, those who are profiting from it are willing to overlook the nonsense in order to make money on the opportunity.

Ethanol as a fuel or fuel additive may not be a bad idea, but not when it requires the current level of subsidy to exist, and not when we are overtly growing the feedstock. If it could be made from waste material (and the farmers weren't paid incentives to grow more of the waste!), it would be a viable product. It still would not be economical though, as the cost of the enzymes required to break down the cellulose are relatively expensive and not likely to become less so anytime soon.

So, you keep serving up your Kool-Aid, and I'll keep telling people what's in it.

Comment by david epps on November 24, 2008 at 4:54pm

Hugh
I like very much your concluding remarks of your post.
You said
"Who is saying it, and what is their stake in the matter?
"Does it sound true and does it make sense? "
"(Wanting it to be true doesn't make it so.)"

So why did you provide any of the citations?
All of them were offering opinions on the subject.
None of them provided any data that would prove truth.

Ron Way, a former reporter - Opinion (reporter)
Posted by Fran Smith quoting A New York Times editorial - Opinion (editorial)
Bob Confer is a voice for political liberty and conservative values. - Opinion (says so)
Nick Chambers - Opinion and biased toward electric cars.
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign was the only possible credible source.
Nick Chambers quoted a snippet but did not provide a link to the source material.
So the context is unknown and the University Department is unknown and the source data is unknown, and the author is unknown.

I ignored all citations that you provided in your post as the were opinions and were so much hot air.
I previously posted credible sources, by professionals regarding the ethanol issue

John O. Christianson, CPA
Argonne National Laboratory
Natural Resources Defense Council Climate Solutions
U.S. Berkeley Faculty and Staff
U.S. Dept. of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture and Argonne National Lab
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Michigan State University
Colorado School of Mines & National Corn Growers Association
Argonne National Laboratory
Insitute for Local Self-Reliance
Argonne National Laboratory
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Ross Korves, ProExporter Network
John Urbanchuk, LECG, LLC
Stuefen Research, LLC
LECG, LLC
Consumer Federation of America
Renewable Fuels Association
Downstream Alternatives, Inc.
Innovation and Information Consultants, Inc.
Jeffrey Bentley & Robert Derby
AUS Consultants & SJH & Company
AUS Consultants
AUS Consultants
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Dr. Michael Evans, Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now lets delve deeper into the herd mentality and peoples preconceptions and peoples world view

A comprehensive world view is a concept fundamental to German philosophy and epistemology and refers to a wide world perception. Additionally, it refers to the framework of ideas and beliefs through which an individual interprets the world and interacts with it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_view

What one perceives is a result of interplays between past experiences, one’s culture and the interpretation of the perceived. If the percept does not have support in any of these perceptual bases it is unlikely to rise above perceptual threshold. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perception

Belief is an opinion.
Belief a tenet or body of tenets held by a group.
I simply say belief is acceptance as fact without proof.

I do not have a world view nor beliefs nor perceptions nor do I submit to group think.
I took life Training What is life training? Well simply you are given techniques to approach life without being limited by past experiences, and one’s culture which leads to an altogether different interpretation of the perceived. Study how you can connect with your creative response to each moment, just as it happens.

Hugh what you did for your last post was very admirable.
But you only found the information which reinforced your world view, your perceptions, and your beliefs.
This energy crisis and this economy cannot be solved nor can decisions be made based upon opinion.
We are dealing with hard and cold facts and hard and cold opponents and hard and cold reality.
And in dealing with those facts, opponents, reality it is all about trade offs and proportions.
You should post a credible citation which counters your world view and shoot holes in it.
In my research this is what I do all the time. Sometimes I find something incorrect and then I report it to the author.
Other times I don't understand how they got to where they ended up so I perceiver until I weasel it out.

Nothing that you have provided or that I have been able to find convinces me that the technology should not be pursued. And pursued in a cold calculating piece wise linear process (walk before you run) Now I will admit that replacing all gasoline with ethanol in a temperate climate is not feasible. But E85 Ethanol can be a solution for much of the Heartland states and E20 can be a 20% solution for the rest of the US.

Now for the balance of the US it looks like each will need to devise a unique regional solution.

How do you propose CA solution?

I would have to study a lot of CA details to recommend.I am working on a Florida solution right now with a Floridian.
I did a Missouri Solution (but I will add more meat to the Ethanol part of it) Chikens Have Come Home to Roost.pdf
Its this sorta thing that is necessary to put some bounds on the crazy long term ideas and get solutions that will work now. I can work with you to create a document like this for CA if you like.
david

PS The documents cited below by hugh are only opinion. Truth must be sought elsewhere.

Comment by Hugh Hemington on November 24, 2008 at 10:53am

For those looking for the truth about ethanol, here are a few articles:
Minnesota's corn ethanol industry blends subsidies, politics and lobbying

"...American farmers are finding preference in growing revenue-heavy corn."
"How did this happen? Subsidies fueled by politics and lobbying."

"Minnesota is also home to Cargill, a privately-held commodities giant that along with Chicago-based Archer Daniels Midland is a big winner in ethanol's financial stakes. The companies help provide enough lobbying punch to make ethanol so politically prominent that it has its own Congressional Ethanol Caucus."

"The corn ethanol industry wouldn't exist without billions of dollars in federal subsidies and artificial markets shaped by federal production mandates."

OpenMarkets.org

As farmers switch to planting the crop with the largest subsidies, they plant less of other things that are actually better food for people. It's not that we don't have enough land -- it's that farmers only own so much, and they will plant for the greatest profit.

Free Republic

Ethanol may not even be good for the farmers!

"According to the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, the ethanol boom helped drive two years of record profits for farmers, but in these last two years, grain farmers have become increasingly disengaged from the stable food markets of the past, and placed their bets on the biofuel market."

Let's all get and stay engaged to find the truth. We've got time to fix the problem, but not to invest our future in mistakes.

We can all use Google! I don't know how much if it is true and how much is hype. When reading these articles, I keep these questions in mind:
Who is saying it, and what is their stake in the matter?

Does it sound true and does it make sense? (Wanting it to be true doesn't make it so.)

Am I getting the whole picture or is this data just cherry-picked? If it isn't complete, go looking for the rest of the information.

Don't depend on the government to come up with the best answer. They will adopt anything that funnels money their way and makes the largest number of people shut up and go away, regardless of the long-term consequences.

Comment by bob bray on November 24, 2008 at 5:51am

belive that our fed gov has our best interest at heart.
belive that the fed gov even has a heart.
belive that the best will rise to the top.
belive that pond scum also rises.
sorry for that.luis sad to hear about the problems with the cards,i am so glad noone else is here to promote them selves.if it wernt for the ATF i would have a thriving bussness on the net .things are seddleing down here,got a house to sell (oops wrong fourem ).as soon as i get this stuff in order i promise to be more active.also i want to learn more about CNG,i have done Lp converisions,most are a pain.

Comment by david epps on November 23, 2008 at 4:54pm

Hugh
Stand on your own
stop using 'Valley Girl' talk.
It only lowers your current reputation score of 6 out of 10

Valley Girl - a "ditzy" or "airhead" personality, and unapologetically "spoiled" behavior that showed more interest in shopping, personal appearance and social status than in intellectual development or personal accomplishment.

Now if you want to flame me in public, try one of these
http://barb.velvet.com/humor/flaming.html
or you could just make me your friend, email me privately, and vent with passion and tell me how you really feel.

Comment by Hugh Hemington on November 23, 2008 at 4:04pm

whatever...

• First
• Previous
• Next
• Last