|
|
Mike McWilliams wrote:
Don Lancaster wrote:
Don Lancaster wrote:
Bob Eldred wrote:
I don't by that. I think you are right that is the implication but
it makes
little sense. It's basically saying that even with all of the solar
input it
still takes more energy to produce than you get out. Why should that
be?
Bob
For obvious openers, diesel fuel, electricity, and crop loans.
Ethanol from corn under US farm conditions makes no sense whatsoever.
It is simply a twelve billion dollar vote buying scam.
http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf
Oops.
Should have said "Ethanol for energy uses from corn under..."
But, at some point it will become useful. Once the standard of living
plummetts a little ways, and we are back to the horse and carraige for
all but the upper class, you can bet that manual labour will be used to
supply the rich with ethanol fuel...
and americans will suddenly stop being 60% overweight.
In theory, ethanol for energy from bagasse under subsistance conditions
can just barely become viable net energy.
Brazil nearly bankrupted themselves believing this, though.
Drinking the rum makes a lot more sense.
www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf">http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf
--
Many thanks,
Don Lancaster
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
voice: (928)428-4073 email: don@xxxxxxxxxx
Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at www.tinaja.com">http://www.tinaja.com
|
|