| |
Main
Date: 15 Feb 2007 16:18:50
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: What Did I Tell You?
|
February 3, 2007 Science News Page 78:
"The 116 existing US ethanol-fuel distillaries now use 53 million tons of
corn. the 90 distillaries now under or planned for construction would boost
that demand to 139 million metric tons of corn, half of the projected 2008
US harvest.
US farmers produce 40% of the world's corn and export 55 million tons. Brown
argues that any change in the crop's availability for food anfd feed will
propel world grain prices - including those of wheat and rice - "to levels
never seen before." He explains, "These three crops compete for much of the
same land"" (for agricultural purposes)
There you have it as I was predicting. Guilt ridden middle class white men
are planning on starving the world in order to pretend that they're going to
fight world use of oil and global warming.
|
|
| |
Date: 16 Feb 2007 11:15:39
From: dustoyevsky@mac.com
Subject: Re: What Did I Tell You?
|
On Feb 16, 11:40 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> Somehow it doesn't surprise me that someone that can't pick their own weight
> up with a forklift couldn't drive properly either. Well, I drove a diesel VW
> to Seattle and back and on the way back from Ashland to Red Bluff made 78
> mpg and overall something over 60 mpg.
Yeah, I always believe the word-of-mouth bullshit when someone claims
to double the EPA highway estimate. Not.
> Do you feed yourself with a forklift as well?
You're a dork, dorkface. You get out of bed with a dorklift. Your wife
used to kick you out of bed, but she de-vorked you. Good for her, too,
if your abuse at home was anything like the shit you dish out around
here. What a waste of a human being. You, not her.
The diesel Rabbit was a commercial failure because they stank, they
were stupid-slow, the US-made versions at least were "de-contented" in
quality, from upholstery and door handles to cylinder heads, which VW
USA never did get fixed.
The good ones ran forever (slowly, stinking) at least until it got
cold. Then it was a different story.
Once again, you're full of shit, like I said before. Well, what else
is new? See you next time you pop off with a bunch of crap. --D-y
|
| |
Date: 16 Feb 2007 08:39:12
From:
Subject: Re: What Did I Tell You?
|
RicodJour wrote:
> r15757@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > Ethanol is a dead end. It has a negative energy-returned-
> > on-energy-invested (EROEI).
>
> A positive value would occur with a perpetual motion machine. It's
> not a question if the return is negative, it's how negative, how
> inefficient.
>
> R
I meant corn-based ethanol is a dead end. It only
puts us deeper into our oil dependency hole. Ethanol
derived from 'cellulosic' sources could conceivably
be helpful, although it could never replace our
current demand for gasoline (much less our future
projected demand for gasoline).
>From the Union of Concerned Scientists:
"Our total oil use [USA] is expected to grow from
21 million barrels per day today to more than
26 million barrels per day by 2025, but even if we
used all our corn to make ethanol, with nothing left
for food or animal feed, we could only displace
perhaps 1.5 million barrels per day of this demand."
The crux of the matter:
"In order for biofuels [even cellulosic] to have a
chance of meeting our needs, we will need to
significantly reduce the total amount of fuel
we use."
"UCS contributed to a report entitled Growing
Energy that laid out a "pedal to the metal"
scenario for the broad adoption of biofuels.
The study found that with the right combination
of policies and technological breakthroughs,
cellulosic ethanol and other biomass fuels
used in combination with a doubling of fuel
economy and a cut in the growth in travel
demand could conceivably reduce our gasoline
demand to near-zero in about 50 years,
without sizable interference in food crop
production. To do this, we would need to
significantly increase fuel economy standards
for all vehicles, adopt st growth policies
to reduce travel demand, more than double
the amount of usable biomass that can be
grown on an acre of land, and more than
double the number of gallons of biofuel that
can be produced from that biomass.[...]
A successful biofuels strategy will require technology
innovation, significant vehicle efficiency improvements,
and reduced travel as critical supporting strategies,
along with attention to sustainable agricultural
practices."
Even in a best-case scenario, we will still need to
drastically reduce our driving. No free lunch.
<http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/fuel_economy/ethanol-frequently-
asked-questions.html >
Robert
|
| |
Date: 16 Feb 2007 07:58:51
From: RicodJour
Subject: Re: What Did I Tell You?
|
r15757@aol.com wrote:
>
> Ethanol is a dead end. It has a negative energy-returned-
> on-energy-invested (EROEI).
A positive value would occur with a perpetual motion machine. It's
not a question if the return is negative, it's how negative, how
inefficient.
R
|
| |
Date: 16 Feb 2007 07:22:45
From: dustoyevsky@mac.com
Subject: Re: What Did I Tell You?
|
On Feb 16, 9:10 am, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com > wrote:
Please excuse my poor trimming on the VW info.
Oh, and "how I know" should be obvious, but my Rabbit Diesel PU with
the broken dash, un-functional radio, cracked cylinder head, that
didn't work in the cold even with additives and gasoline in the fuel
tank, and stank real bad, was kind of a biege color.
I forgot to mention: assholes in "real" USA-made PU trucks tailgating
and otherwise indicating their displeasure at your "buying foreign".
Always surprising because the shared misery factor should have
sufficed to form a bond of brotherhood-- your Chevy truck's shift
linkage jamming between gears, battery run-downs from the stupid
switching arrangement that let the radio run the battery down, the
front-end problems with the Ford Twin I-Beam front suspension, Ford's
overheating problems, etc.
That VW? Potentially a fine 2-up Bikemobile, with a camper shell on
the PU bed. Maybe OK in Arizona, if you got one that didn't crack the
cylinder head, which in spite of at least three iterations (that were
not interchangeable, according to info of the time), VW never did
really fix.
OK Kunich, you were full of shit on the VW. Onward! --D-y
|
| |
Date: 16 Feb 2007 07:10:19
From: dustoyevsky@mac.com
Subject: Re: What Did I Tell You?
|
On Feb 15, 1:41 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> Remember that in the 70's VW made a diesel car and pickup and these both
> gave 70-80 mpg.
Wrong on the mpg, by about 100% (from Edmunds):
(Quoting)
Diesel power came to the Rabbit lineup for 1977 with the addition of a
1.5-liter diesel four to the options list. Rated at just 48 hp, this
engine delivered phenomenal fuel mileage with the EPA ratings coming
in at nearly 50 mpg on the highway and nearly 40 mpg in the city.
Slow? Yeah, acceleration was absolutely glacial but many diesel Rabbit
buyers wore their lackadaisical performance as a sign of their own
obvious virtues. And the diesel option was cheap, carrying a premium
of only $170 over that of the gas-fueled version. (end quote)
In July of '78, VW started production of the 1979 Rabbit in a new
plant it had built (using the shell of an old Chrysler plant as a
base) in Westmoreland, Pennsylvania. Volkswagen became the first
foreign manufacturer to establish a significant production base in the
U.S., opening the door for Honda, Toyota and just about every other
German manufacturer to follow.
The Rabbits produced in the U.S. differed from their German cousins in
having square instead of round headlights, larger taillights, color-
matched interiors, some spectacularly ugly hubcaps and a suspension
softened for domestic consumption.
A newly available five-speed manual transmission was the major
addition to the 1979 Rabbit's mechanical package. That helped the
diesel version achieve an astonishing 53 mpg on the highway and 40 mpg
in the city, according to the EPA.
Initially, German and American Rabbits were sold alongside each other
and were easily distinguished by their headlights. But soon all gas-
powered Rabbits sold in America were American made, even as all the
diesels still came from Wolfsburg.
The last Beetle in VW's U.S. lineup, the convertible, was finally gone
after the '79 model year and in its place was a new Rabbit convertible
for 1980. Like the Beetle convertible, the Rabbit version was built
with coachbuilder Karmann doing much of the work. As in the Beetle,
the top dropped back into a rather tall stack at the car's rear, but
that's about all they had in common.
Turning the two-door hatchback Rabbit into a convertible entailed some
rather radical surgery. Naturally the steel roof was hacked off, but
the frames around the door windows were excised as well necessitating
new glass and new seals. The rear fenders were also reshaped so they
now had a slight kickup leading to their trailing edge and contained
roll-up quarter windows. In place of the hatchback a flap now allowed
awkward access to a small trunklet below the convertible top and
access to the interior when the rear seat was folded forward. But the
ragtop Rabbit's most distinctive element was a padded steel hoop that
ran across and over the cockpit just behind the doors that added both
structural heft to the unibody and rollover protection. In all, the
Rabbit convertible was just flat-out adorable and was soon filling
sorority house parking lots across the country. Power for the
convertible came from a new fuel-injected 1.6-liter version of VW's
SOHC four rated at 76 hp and mated to a standard five-speed manual
transmission (a three-speed automatic was optional). Car and Driver's
test of a 2,170-pound, manual-transmission convertible had it getting
to 60 mph in 12.8 seconds and completing the quarter-mile in 18.8
seconds at 71 mph.
While the convertible was made in Germany, virtually all other '80
Rabbits were now made in America (a few diesels still came from
Europe). The standard engine was still the 1.5-liter carbureted four
with the convertible's injected 1.6-liter version and the diesel
optional. In a comparison test against its new be-trunked brother, the
German-made Jetta, Car and Driver found the lighter American-made
Rabbit to be slightly quicker but still suffering the squishy
suspension effects of its Americanization.
While both the Jetta and convertible proved to be amazingly popular
variations on the basic Golf/Rabbit theme, the most bizarre twist came
with the introduction of the Rabbit pickup, also during the 1980 model
year. Available with both gas and diesel engines, the pickup wasn't
much more than a Rabbit cut down at the B-pillar (just behind the
front seats) with a bed grafted on behind. The most significant
mechanical changes were a longer wheelbase and a revised leaf spring
and solid axle rear suspension for better load carrying. The pickup
would never be a big seller, but it sure was unique.
> But no one wanted to drive them because they were simply
> transportation.
They were incredibly slow. They stank. The US-made diesels had a huge
problem with cracking cylinder heads. In cold weather, a nighte of
fuel additives, "putting a little gas in her", and still stalling out
due to fuel freeze, if the poor thing did start in the first place.
Not to mention the cheap cheap cheap interiors on the USA- made
vehicles, including cracking dashboards, and "making the radio work".
> Instead they were buying cars getting 1/3rd the mileage that
> could spin the wheels away from stoplights.
>
> The point is that we haven't even scratched the surface of improving
> efficiency measured by passenger miles per gallon.
Compare the fuel efficiency (mileage) of 70's cars to those of today,
factoring in safety equipment ("weight") such as multiple air bags and
side-intrusion beams, along with improvements in emissions levels.
There's been a lot of progress. They've even improved the diesel for
passenger car use!!!
> Towns that are spread out reqiure long distance driving everywhere. Towns
> that are compact are easier to patrol and keep safe and easier to walk to
> the stores or the schools or to work. Towns can be spred out if they're
> built around transportation systems such as trolleys and commuter trains.
> You don't get people in a democracy to change their way of life by
> shouting curses at them and telling them they're really stupid and causing
> global warming and killing everyone else because they're behaving the same
> way the last three generations did.
You mean The Kunich Method is flawed?
> They say that the power to tax is the power to destroy. If that's the case
> it's also the power to nag people into transforming society into something
> better.
>
> When they offer tax incentives for anything the response is phenomenal. So
> social planning backed up by tax incentives ought to be a good lever to
> change society in a manner that makes it less energy dependent and socially
> more responsible.
Taxes are "point of a gun", TK. Remember? Not a "nag" or a "lever". --
D-y
|
| | |
Date: 16 Feb 2007 17:40:15
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: What Did I Tell You?
|
<dustoyevsky@mac.com > wrote in message
news:1171638617.715062.196170@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 15, 1:41 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
>> Remember that in the 70's VW made a diesel car and pickup and these both
>> gave 70-80 mpg.
>
> Wrong on the mpg, by about 100% (from Edmunds):
Somehow it doesn't surprise me that someone that can't pick their own weight
up with a forklift couldn't drive properly either. Well, I drove a diesel VW
to Seattle and back and on the way back from Ashland to Red Bluff made 78
mpg and overall something over 60 mpg.
Do you feed yourself with a forklift as well?
|
| |
Date: 15 Feb 2007 10:52:31
From: rick-paulos@uiowa.edu
Subject: Re: What Did I Tell You?
|
I see, keep repeating the same out dated bs.
|
| | |
Date: 15 Feb 2007 19:41:12
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: What Did I Tell You?
|
<rick-paulos@uiowa.edu > wrote in message
news:1171565551.032616.182220@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>I see, keep repeating the same out dated bs.
It isn't really clear whether it is energy positive or energy negative. What
IS clear is that corn produces only a 16% positive return and soybeans a
little better. This isn't exactly a profit center.
Like wind power, the only way these things become profitable is when they
are heavily subsidized by the government - USING YOUR MONEY.
Remember that in the 70's VW made a diesel car and pickup and these both
gave 70-80 mpg. But no one wanted to drive them because they were simply
transportation. Instead they were buying cars getting 1/3rd the mileage that
could spin the wheels away from stoplights.
The point is that we haven't even scratched the surface of improving
efficiency measured by passenger miles per gallon.
Towns that are spread out reqiure long distance driving everywhere. Towns
that are compact are easier to patrol and keep safe and easier to walk to
the stores or the schools or to work. Towns can be spred out if they're
built around transportation systems such as trolleys and commuter trains.
The problem is that we prefered personal transportation and wide flung road
systems to efficiency. Screeching now that we need to "conserve" is a little
silly. You don't get people in a democracy to change their way of life by
shouting curses at them and telling them they're really stupid and causing
global warming and killing everyone else because they're behaving the same
way the last three generations did.
They say that the power to tax is the power to destroy. If that's the case
it's also the power to nag people into transforming society into something
better.
When they offer tax incentives for anything the response is phenomenal. So
social planning backed up by tax incentives ought to be a good lever to
change society in a manner that makes it less energy dependent and socially
more responsible.
|
| |
Date: 15 Feb 2007 10:32:41
From:
Subject: Re: What Did I Tell You?
|
On Feb 15, 9:18 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> February 3, 2007 Science News Page 78:
>
> "The 116 existing US ethanol-fuel distillaries now use 53 million tons of
> corn. the 90 distillaries now under or planned for construction would boost
> that demand to 139 million metric tons of corn, half of the projected 2008
> US harvest.
>
> US farmers produce 40% of the world's corn and export 55 million tons. Brown
> argues that any change in the crop's availability for food anfd feed will
> propel world grain prices - including those of wheat and rice - "to levels
> never seen before." He explains, "These three crops compete for much of the
> same land"" (for agricultural purposes)
>
> There you have it as I was predicting. Guilt ridden middle class white men
> are planning on starving the world in order to pretend that they're going to
> fight world use of oil and global warming.
Ethanol is a dead end. It has a negative energy-returned-
on-energy-invested (EROEI).
Robert
|
| |
Date: 15 Feb 2007 10:32:17
From:
Subject: Re: What Did I Tell You?
|
On Feb 15, 9:18 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> February 3, 2007 Science News Page 78:
>
> "The 116 existing US ethanol-fuel distillaries now use 53 million tons of
> corn. the 90 distillaries now under or planned for construction would boost
> that demand to 139 million metric tons of corn, half of the projected 2008
> US harvest.
>
> US farmers produce 40% of the world's corn and export 55 million tons. Brown
> argues that any change in the crop's availability for food anfd feed will
> propel world grain prices - including those of wheat and rice - "to levels
> never seen before." He explains, "These three crops compete for much of the
> same land"" (for agricultural purposes)
>
> There you have it as I was predicting. Guilt ridden middle class white men
> are planning on starving the world in order to pretend that they're going to
> fight world use of oil and global warming.
Ethanol is a dead end. It has a negative energy-returned-
on-energy-invested (EROEI).
Robert
|
| |
Date: 15 Feb 2007 10:31:46
From:
Subject: Re: What Did I Tell You?
|
On Feb 15, 9:18 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> February 3, 2007 Science News Page 78:
>
> "The 116 existing US ethanol-fuel distillaries now use 53 million tons of
> corn. the 90 distillaries now under or planned for construction would boost
> that demand to 139 million metric tons of corn, half of the projected 2008
> US harvest.
>
> US farmers produce 40% of the world's corn and export 55 million tons. Brown
> argues that any change in the crop's availability for food anfd feed will
> propel world grain prices - including those of wheat and rice - "to levels
> never seen before." He explains, "These three crops compete for much of the
> same land"" (for agricultural purposes)
>
> There you have it as I was predicting. Guilt ridden middle class white men
> are planning on starving the world in order to pretend that they're going to
> fight world use of oil and global warming.
Ethanol is a dead end. It has a negative energy-returned-
on-energy-invested (EROEI).
Robert
|
|
