 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: ChemistrySetChemistrySet
Date: Jul 12, 2006 22:29
NOTE: Sci.chem, Sci-materials have a thread exploring the use of
Thistles as sustainable energy production cropping.
Now, every farmer knows that the Thistle -- in whatever form -- is the
bane of agriculture, a weed intrusive, difficult even painful to
eradicate. The Bible writes that thistles are cursed to agriculture
and that man would suffer eradicating them in order to grow cereals and
other crops -- a most anciently known fact. Here in Western Oregon the
thistles are so stubborn, tuborous, and sharp thorned, they are
monsters eradicated or taking over and so difficult then to root out.
Like the scientist dismissing coal miners as 'unskilled workers' are we
failing to consult the farmer on his own science & craft -- ready to
sow the most pernicious of weeds and to rob Peter to pay Paul?
Ask any farmer; are thistles vis-Ã -vis his staple crops a plausable
idea, and with air-borne seeds drifting for hundreds of miles and on?
I have never seen a man 'run out of town on a rail' or 'tarred and
feathered', have any of y'all? Perhaps some of these ideas had better
be vetted on Mr & Mrs Farmer before proceeding too far . . . !
CS
|
| |
|
| |
no comments
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author: boofreakboofreak
Date: Jul 12, 2006 17:51
Eeyore wrote:
>> Eeyore wrote:
>>>> But here in the USA with our petrol
>>>> based farming, we spend about 1.5 gallons of petrol just to get 1
>>>> gallon of ethanol.
>>>
>>> Thta is simply plain wrong.
>>>
>>> Graham
>>
>> Unfortunately not.
>
> Actually yes. Read what he said !
>
> " we spend about 1.5 gallons of petrol just to get 1 gallon of ethanol " which
> is wrong on several counts actually. ...
|
| Show full article (1.73Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: EeyoreEeyore
Date: Jul 12, 2006 16:44
> Eeyore wrote:
>>> But here in the USA with our petrol
>>> based farming, we spend about 1.5 gallons of petrol just to get 1
>>> gallon of ethanol.
>>
>> Thta is simply plain wrong.
>>
>> Graham
>
> Unfortunately not.
Actually yes. Read what he said !
" we spend about 1.5 gallons of petrol just to get 1 gallon of ethanol " which
is wrong on several counts actually.
Graham
|
| |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: boofreakboofreak
Date: Jul 12, 2006 15:42
Eeyore wrote:
>> But here in the USA with our petrol
>> based farming, we spend about 1.5 gallons of petrol just to get 1
>> gallon of ethanol.
>
> Thta is simply plain wrong.
>
> Graham
Unfortunately not. Most studies show the EROEI for ethanol to
hover around 1. Perhaps a little positive, perhaps a little negative.
Ethanol is never going to amount to much, and it certainly will
never come close to replacing oil as it now stands in our
economy. Oil has an EROEI of between 10-100:1.
|
| Show full article (1.29Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: EeyoreEeyore
Date: Jul 12, 2006 10:19
> But here in the USA with our petrol
> based farming, we spend about 1.5 gallons of petrol just to get 1
> gallon of ethanol.
Thta is simply plain wrong.
Graham
|
| |
|
4 Comments |
|
|
Author: a_plutoniuma_plutonium
Date: Jul 12, 2006 10:08
shashi wrote:
(snip what I wrote)
>
> dear a-pluton,
> Even though the cost of ethanol prduced from sweet corn and other crops
> exceed
> the cost of producing, the same it is not so with all crops eg.
The distinction I am making is not whether it is monocrop or polycrop.
The distinction is petrol-based farming and that of Amish or no petrol
used farming.
|
| Show full article (4.09Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: William.MookWilliam.Mook
Date: Jul 12, 2006 08:38
David Bostwick wrote:
>>
>>David Bostwick wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Oz wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Which says something for the strength of your argument.
>>>>
>>>>OUCH! You don't think that's vicious? lol.
>>>>
>>>
>>> OK, so if anyone questions your logic or the strength of your argument,
>> that's
>>> vicious. That explains a lot. ...
|
| Show full article (2.74Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: OzOz
Date: Jul 12, 2006 08:32
David Bostwick chemistry.gatech.edu> writes>I am truly impressed by the way you
>resisted any personal attacks, responded
>to what was written, and provided clear, logical, and concise support for your
>position. I can see why you're so successful in your endeavors.
Quite. Such a calm and experienced person able to rationally remove any
counterarguments without loosing their cool in any way.
Quite impressive as you say.
--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
|
| |
|
no comments
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author: shashishashi
Date: Jul 12, 2006 05:48
> I am getting annoyed by politicians running for office who tout ethanol
> as a great new energy source. Iowa and Nebraska are campaigning with
> ethanol as an issue. This does great harm. For farmers and others may
> think that ethanol is some sort of solution.
>
> Ethanol can be a solution provided the farming of grains is done
> without using any petroleum products. That means the old way of farming
> using horses and no tractors.
>
> The science is that it takes 1.5 gallons of gasoline/diesel to produce
> 1 gallon of ethanol.
>
> Ethanol was meant as a octane booster, not as the fuel itself.
>
> So I am worried and angry that politicians are sending the wrong
> message into the farm states by suggesting ethanol as some sort of
> energy panacea. And alot of farmers could easily get hurt with a
> decision based on the false understanding of ethanol.
> ...
|
| Show full article (4.78Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
|
|
|
