"ETHANOL EATING UP THE FOOD SUPPLY!!"

Yup........And the Results are "Questionable".......Ain't that AMAZING?..........
"Biofuels Boom Raises Tough Questions March 10, 2007, 10:25 PM EST
NEW YORK (AP)-- America is drunk on ethanol. Farmers in the Midwest are sending billions of bushels of corn to refineries that turn it into billions of gallons of fuel. Automakers in Detroit have already built millions of cars, trucks and SUVs that can run on it, and are committed to making millions more. In Washington, politicians have approved generous subsidies for companies that make ethanol.
And just this week, President Bush arranged with Brazil's President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva for their countries to share ethanol production technology.
Even alternative fuel aficionados are surprised at the nation's sudden enthusiasm for grain alcohol.
"It's coming on dramatically; more rapidly than anyone had expected," said Nathanael Greene, a senior policy analyst at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
You'd think that would be good news, but it actually worries a lot of people.
The problem is, ethanol really isn't ready for prime time. The only economical way to make ethanol right now is with corn, which means the burgeoning industry is literally eating America's lunch, not to mention its breakfast and dinner. And though ethanol from corn may have some minor benefits with regard to energy independence, most analysts conclude its environmental benefits are questionable at best.
There are many questions about ethanol's place in America's energy future. Some are easily answered; others, not so much."

You post is not related to Global Warming. It's alternative to external oil,
Global Warming is Real, but CO2 is not the cause!
How can you people believe the <1% of CO2 can influence the 99% of heated air?
Is not the CO2 that caused the problem, it is the actual heat source that vibrates the electrons of OXYGEN & NITROGEN. The vibrations started from the ground, from your car engines, from factory, fuel producers, etc.. Yes Nuclear Plant too because they generate >5000 degree F.
Keep in mind 99% of the air contains Oxygen and Nitrogen, they are the ones that melt the Ices.
Today Scientists are so stupid, I just can't believe they claim CO2 trapping the heat. You cannot trap the heat with light object, it has to be a bigger object(in large quantity) to trap the 99% of heated air.

"theloneranger100@aol.com" wrote in message

Yup........And the Results are "Questionable".......Ain't that AMAZING?..........
"Biofuels Boom Raises Tough Questions March 10, 2007, 10:25 PM EST
NEW YORK (AP)-- America is drunk on ethanol. Farmers in the Midwest are sending billions of bushels of corn to refineries that turn it into billions of gallons of fuel. Automakers in Detroit have already built millions of cars, trucks and SUVs that can run on it, and are committed to making millions more. In Washington, politicians have approved generous subsidies for companies that make ethanol.
And just this week, President Bush arranged with Brazil's President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva for their countries to share ethanol production technology.
Even alternative fuel aficionados are surprised at the nation's sudden enthusiasm for grain alcohol.
"It's coming on dramatically; more rapidly than anyone had expected," said Nathanael Greene, a senior policy analyst at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
You'd think that would be good news, but it actually worries a lot of people.
The problem is, ethanol really isn't ready for prime time. The only economical way to make ethanol right now is with corn, which means the burgeoning industry is literally eating America's lunch, not to mention its breakfast and dinner. And though ethanol from corn may have some minor benefits with regard to energy independence, most analysts conclude its environmental benefits are questionable at best.
There are many questions about ethanol's place in America's energy future. Some are easily answered; others, not so much."

On Mar 11, 5:42 pm, "theloneranger...@aol.com" wrote:

Yup........And the Results are "Questionable".......Ain't that AMAZING?..........
"Biofuels Boom Raises Tough Questions March 10, 2007, 10:25 PM EST
NEW YORK (AP)-- America is drunk on ethanol. Farmers in the Midwest are sending billions of bushels of corn to refineries that turn it into billions of gallons of fuel. Automakers in Detroit have already built millions of cars, trucks and SUVs that can run on it, and are committed to making millions more. In Washington, politicians have approved generous subsidies for companies that make ethanol.

It's simple to understand, since the only thing they make in the Midwest is morons and Caterpillar,Tractors, rather than automobiles,

And just this week, President Bush arranged with Brazil's President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva for their countries to share ethanol production technology.
Even alternative fuel aficionados are surprised at the nation's sudden enthusiasm for grain alcohol.
"It's coming on dramatically; more rapidly than anyone had expected," said Nathanael Greene, a senior policy analyst at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
You'd think that would be good news, but it actually worries a lot of people.
The problem is, ethanol really isn't ready for prime time. The only economical way to make ethanol right now is with corn, which means the burgeoning industry is literally eating America's lunch, not to mention its breakfast and dinner. And though ethanol from corn may have some minor benefits with regard to energy independence, most analysts conclude its environmental benefits are questionable at best.
There are many questions about ethanol's place in America's energy future. Some are easily answered; others, not so much."

On 12 Mar 2007 21:41:12 -0700, "zzbunker@netscape.net" wrote:

It's simple to understand, since the only thing they make in the Midwest is morons and Caterpillar,Tractors, rather than automobiles,

Toyota has a number of assembly plants in the Midwest.
But we need yeast technology, and maybe some seed stock for the right strains of yeast, to use other things besides corn.
Joe Fischer

On Mar 13, 6:33 am, Joe Fischer wrote:

On 12 Mar 2007 21:41:12 -0700, "zzbun...@netscape.net"
zzbun...@netscape.net> wrote: It's simple to understand, since the only thing they make in the Midwest is morons and Caterpillar,Tractors, rather than automobiles,
Toyota has a number of assembly plants in the Midwest.

Toyota also has a huge number of dealerships in Washington. Which doesn;t mean anything other than Toyota is Ford spelled with working transmissions,

But we need yeast technology, and maybe some seed stock for the right strains of yeast, to use other things besides corn.
Joe Fischer

On 15 Mar 2007 14:01:55 -0700, "zzbunker@netscape.net" wrote:

Toyota also has a huge number of dealerships in Washington. Which doesn;t mean anything other than Toyota is Ford spelled with working transmissions,

Toyota would love to sell as many vehicles as Ford in the US.
Joe Fischer

On Mar 15, 3:15 pm, Joe Fischer wrote:

On 15 Mar 2007 14:01:55 -0700, "zzbun...@netscape.net"
zzbun...@netscape.net> wrote: Toyota also has a huge number of dealerships in Washington. Which doesn;t mean anything other than Toyota is Ford spelled with working transmissions,
Toyota would love to sell as many vehicles as Ford in the US.
Joe Fischer

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/08/02/business/web.0802cars.php Toyota's U.S. sales edge past Ford's By MICHELINE MAYNARD and FARA WARNER The New York Times DETROIT The Japanese auto giant Toyota passed the struggling Ford Motor Company in July to rank as the second-biggest-selling auto company in the United States, behind General Motors, sales figures showed Tuesday.
Crackpot Joe Fischer, ignore.

On 15 Mar 2007 17:24:42 -0700, "Carbon Criminal Polluters" wrote:

On Mar 15, 3:15 pm, Joe Fischer wrote: Toyota would love to sell as many vehicles as Ford in the US.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/08/02/business/web.0802cars.php Toyota's U.S. sales edge past Ford's By MICHELINE MAYNARD and FARA WARNER The New York Times DETROIT The Japanese auto giant Toyota passed the struggling Ford Motor Company in July to rank as the second-biggest-selling auto company in the United States, behind General Motors, sales figures showed Tuesday.

It may not be that bad for the whole year, Ford made big changes in the work force last year, and the year end inventory is way down 591,000 units, and that probably means some big change in design.
So maybe Toyota would like to sell as many cars in the US as GM. But "Ford" in that article may not include all ford brands and types.
>Crackpot Joe Fischer, ignore.

On Mar 15, 7:15 pm, Joe Fischer wrote:

On 15 Mar 2007 14:01:55 -0700, "zzbun...@netscape.net"
zzbun...@netscape.net> wrote: Toyota also has a huge number of dealerships in Washington. Which doesn;t mean anything other than Toyota is Ford spelled with working transmissions,
Toyota would love to sell as many vehicles as Ford in the US.

Undoutably they would. Since the only thing either of the morons have to do with the US is Tokyo robots.


> Joe Fischer

On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 04:55:32 GMT, "Niel Humphreys" wrote:

You post is not related to Global Warming. It's alternative to external oil,
Global Warming is Real, but CO2 is not the cause!
How can you people believe the <1% of CO2 can influence the 99% of heated air?

Yes it can, and does so continuously. You can start out by learning some fundamental chemistry concepts. This information is usually included in a 1st year college chemistry course..
Modern technology and industry has been founded on and is completely dependant on these fundamental chemistry concepts.

Is not the CO2 that caused the problem, it is the actual heat source that vibrates the electrons of OXYGEN & NITROGEN. The vibrations started from the ground, from your car engines, from factory, fuel producers, etc.. Yes Nuclear Plant too because they generate >5000 degree F.

NOT..
O2, and N2 are mostly opaque for both Visible and IR wavelengths. Meanwhile CO2 is NOT opaque in certain IR bands.
O2, and N2 gains energy from C02 molecules via kinetic means.

Keep in mind 99% of the air contains Oxygen and Nitrogen, they are the ones that melt the Ices.
Today Scientists are so stupid, I just can't believe they claim CO2 trapping the heat. You cannot trap the heat with light object, it has to be a bigger object(in large quantity) to trap the 99% of heated air.

I see that you're one of those lower IQ types who demonstrates that fact via keyboard. Please refrain from posting to the science related Usenet groups until you acquire the necessary knowledge.
Snip the rest of previous post...
Dependency on Ethanol (C2H5OH) production from biomass (solar energy @ less than 0.5% eff) is a somewhat dubious proposition. Crops and other biomass are highly vulnerable to the environmental extremes (hi/low temp, Lack of h20, too much/little solar flux) over an extended period. Those extremes are projected to increase in magnitude as Global Warming progresses.

On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 T. Keating wrote:

On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 04:55:32 GMT, "Niel Humphreys" admin@sznzozwzdzoznzczozmzpzuztezrzsz.co.uk> wrote: You post is not related to Global Warming. It's alternative to external oil, Global Warming is Real, but CO2 is not the cause! How can you people believe the <1% of CO2 can influence the 99% of heated air? Is not the CO2 that caused the problem, it is the actual heat source that vibrates the electrons of OXYGEN & NITROGEN. The vibrations started from the ground, from your car engines, from factory, fuel producers, etc.. Yes Nuclear Plant too because they generate >5000 degree F.
NOT..
O2, and N2 are mostly opaque for both Visible and IR wavelengths. Meanwhile CO2 is NOT opaque in certain IR bands.
O2, and N2 gains energy from C02 molecules via kinetic means.
I see that you're one of those lower IQ types who demonstrates that fact via keyboard. Please refrain from posting to the science related Usenet groups until you acquire the necessary knowledge.

Would you be kind enough to explain what "opaque" means, does that mean the O2 and N2 molecules block IR? Or does that mean O2 and N2 molecules reflect IR?
If CO2 is NOT "opaque" in certain IR bands, does that mean CO2 allows those IR bands to pass without absorbing or reflecting them? Joe Fischer

On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 16:46:32 -0400, T.Keating wrote:

On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 04:55:32 GMT, "Niel Humphreys" admin@sznzozwzdzoznzczozmzpzuztezrzsz.co.uk> wrote:
You post is not related to Global Warming. It's alternative to external oil,
Global Warming is Real, but CO2 is not the cause!
How can you people believe the <1% of CO2 can influence the 99% of heated air?
Yes it can, and does so continuously.
You can start out by learning some fundamental chemistry concepts. This information is usually included in a 1st year college chemistry course..
Modern technology and industry has been founded on and is completely dependant on these fundamental chemistry concepts.
Is not the CO2 that caused the problem, it is the actual heat source that vibrates the electrons of OXYGEN & NITROGEN. The vibrations started from the ground, from your car engines, from factory, fuel producers, etc.. Yes Nuclear Plant too because they generate >5000 degree F.
NOT..
O2, and N2 are mostly opaque for both Visible and IR wavelengths.

You may want to reconsider that statement.

On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 16:46:32 -0400, T. Keating wrote:

On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 04:55:32 GMT, "Niel Humphreys" admin@sznzozwzdzoznzczozmzpzuztezrzsz.co.uk> wrote:
You post is not related to Global Warming. It's alternative to external oil,
Global Warming is Real, but CO2 is not the cause!
How can you people believe the <1% of CO2 can influence the 99% of heated air?
Yes it can, and does so continuously.
You can start out by learning some fundamental chemistry concepts. This information is usually included in a 1st year college chemistry course..
Modern technology and industry has been founded on and is completely dependant on these fundamental chemistry concepts.
Is not the CO2 that caused the problem, it is the actual heat source that vibrates the electrons of OXYGEN & NITROGEN. The vibrations started from the ground, from your car engines, from factory, fuel producers, etc.. Yes Nuclear Plant too because they generate >5000 degree F.
NOT..
O2, and N2 are mostly opaque for both Visible and IR wavelengths. Meanwhile CO2 is NOT opaque in certain IR bands.

Correction as others have pointed out.. O2 and N2 is mostly transparent for both visible and IR wavelengths.
Meanwhile CO2 is transparent for visible and opaque for some IR wavelengths.

O2, and N2 gains energy from C02 molecules via kinetic means.
Keep in mind 99% of the air contains Oxygen and Nitrogen, they are the ones that melt the Ices.
Today Scientists are so stupid, I just can't believe they claim CO2 trapping the heat. You cannot trap the heat with light object, it has to be a bigger object(in large quantity) to trap the 99% of heated air.
I see that you're one of those lower IQ types who demonstrates that fact via keyboard. Please refrain from posting to the science related Usenet groups until you acquire the necessary knowledge.
Snip the rest of previous post...
Dependency on Ethanol (C2H5OH) production from biomass (solar energy @ less than 0.5% eff) is a somewhat dubious proposition. Crops and other biomass are highly vulnerable to the environmental extremes (hi/low temp, Lack of h20, too much/little solar flux) over an extended period. Those extremes are projected to increase in magnitude as Global Warming progresses.

On 11 Mar, 21:42, "theloneranger...@aol.com" wrote:

The problem is, ethanol really isn't ready for prime time. The only economical way to make ethanol right now is with corn, which means the burgeoning industry is literally eating America's lunch, not to mention its breakfast and dinner. And though ethanol from corn may have some minor benefits with regard to energy independence, most analysts conclude its environmental benefits are questionable at best.
There are many questions about ethanol's place in America's energy future. Some are easily answered; others, not so much."

Actually, corn is definitely not the economical way to make ethanol. You would be hard pushed to choose a worse crop than corn. Principally, the energy payback is marginal - even negative according to some studies.
The reason America is getting ethanol from corn is because it has a lot of corn farmers, who have persuaded the Government to give subsidies to produce ethanol, so they can boost their incomes doing what they've always done.
Switching over to better crops would make huge sense. Switchgrass seems a good bet for the USA. Are there parts of the USA where sugar cane is appropriate?

On 23 Mar 2007 "Alex Terrell" wrote:

Switching over to better crops would make huge sense. Switchgrass seems a good bet for the USA. Are there parts of the USA where sugar cane is appropriate?

Yes, about half a million square miles.
Joe Fischer