Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol
Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

dean.psiropoulos(at)veriz
Guest

Posted: Tue Jul 04, 2006 9:32 pm Post subject: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol

No reputable source is needed Larry.  The fact of the matter is, you can not

get 100% ethanol directly from ANY source, it always comes along with some

water mixed in (ever make, wine beer or hooch).  So.......it takes some

OTHER source of heat (fossil fuel, nuclear energy, wind power, etc) to

distill the water out and get the pure alcohol.   As you surmised, it does

not make sense, it's just enviro-wackos stabbing at anything to get rid of

fossil fuels. When we've succeeded in replacing oil, they will find

something wrong with alcohol to bitch about. Since alcohol is a hydrocarbon,

like oil it produces carbon dioxide.  But the enviro-wackos have ignored

that fine little detail right now, they just want to get rid of those EVIL

fossil fuels. Trust me, if we had the "perfect" energy source that's fully

renewable and generates no toxic waste products or CO2 (I don't consider CO2

a hazard to our planets health) they would still find something "evil" about

it!



Dean Psiropoulos

RV-6A N197DM





_________________________Original Message_________________________________

Time: 04:45:43 PM PST US



        Would someone please point us to a reputable reference that 

authenticates it requires more fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol 

energy than we get back?  How can         that make sense if oil is in 

short supply?  Why waste .3 gallons of it?

rv8ch

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 250
Location: Switzerland

Posted: Tue Jul 04, 2006 11:29 pm Post subject: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol

DEAN PSIROPOULOS wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   ....   As you surmised, it does

 not make sense, it's just enviro-wackos stabbing at anything to get rid of

 fossil fuels. When we've succeeded in replacing oil, they will find

 something wrong with alcohol to bitch about. Since alcohol is a hydrocarbon,

 like oil it produces carbon dioxide.  But the enviro-wackos have ignored

 that fine little detail right now, they just want to get rid of those EVIL

 fossil fuels.


	


I can't seem to find any indication on any environmentalist website

that says they support ethanol.  In fact, I found these two articles

which show that the Sierra Club (kind of a poster child for 

environmentalist organizations) opposed subsidies for ethanol

production.



http://www.cato.org/dailys/11-03-03-2.html



http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleID.17809/article_detail.asp



It's the agriculture industry pushing taxpayer funded subsidies

for ethanol, not the environmentalists.  Since we already spend

billions each year subsidizing petroleum products, it's not

surprising to see the Ag people fighting their way to the trough.

-- 

Mickey Coggins

http://www.rv8.ch/

#82007 finishing

do not archive

_________________
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/

daverv6a(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Jul 05, 2006 5:25 am Post subject: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol

Larry,

  

 David Pimentel at Cornell University - do a Google search you'll find it all.

  

 The latest is they gain about 10% BTU's over fossil fuel used. What the environmentalists don't tell you is that for every bushel of corn used in ethanol production, 1/3 is ethanol, 1/3 CO2 (ethanol is produced by bacterial fermentation of carbohydrates - so much for reducing CO2 emissions); 1/3 of distillers dried grains and solubles - they are depending on the animal feed industry to find a home for this by-product (seems like a lot of the environmentalists are also animal rights people?) 

  

 The energy used to produce it - diesel for crop ploughing, harvesting, drying and transport, natural gas for fertilizer production (that bad stuff - according to the organic crowd - that allows us to feed the world - see any pattern here) and then drying the by-product, electricity for the fermentation process (lots). 

  

 It is going to cause the price of corn to rise. Yes, so in addition to the 55c per gallon subsidy we pay, our food is going to become ore expensive as well.

  

 ADM stock price is soring - lobbyists, what lobbyists.

  

 What a deal!

  

 DO NOT ARCHIVE

 



 

 On 7/5/06, DEAN PSIROPOULOS <dean.psiropoulos(at)verizon.net (dean.psiropoulos(at)verizon.net)> wrote:  	  Quote: 	
		  --> RV-List message posted by: "DEAN PSIROPOULOS" < dean.psiropoulos(at)verizon.net (dean.psiropoulos(at)verizon.net)>



No reputable source is needed Larry.  The fact of the matter is, you can not

get 100% ethanol directly from ANY source, it always comes along with some

water mixed in (ever make, wine beer or hooch).  So.......it takes some 

OTHER source of heat (fossil fuel, nuclear energy, wind power, etc) to

distill the water out and get the pure alcohol.   As you surmised, it does

not make sense, it's just enviro-wackos stabbing at anything to get rid of 

fossil fuels. When we've succeeded in replacing oil, they will find

something wrong with alcohol to bitch about. Since alcohol is a hydrocarbon,

like oil it produces carbon dioxide.  But the enviro-wackos have ignored 

that fine little detail right now, they just want to get rid of those EVIL

fossil fuels. Trust me, if we had the "perfect" energy source that's fully

renewable and generates no toxic waste products or CO2 (I don't consider CO2 

a hazard to our planets health) they would still find something "evil" about

it!



Dean Psiropoulos

RV-6A N197DM





_________________________Original Message_________________________________ 

Time: 04:45:43 PM PST US



       Would someone please point us to a reputable reference that

authenticates it requires more fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol

energy than we get back?  How can         that make sense if oil is in

jpl(at)showpage.org
Guest

Posted: Wed Jul 05, 2006 6:28 am Post subject: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol

I'm one of those enviro-wackos mentioned in Dean's letter.  Yep, I  

believe we should get off the oil-based economy so that we can stop  

caring how much the people in the mideast hate each other, so we can  

stop shelling out billions to foreign countries to fuel our cars, and  

so that we can reduce the harmful effects petroleum has on our  

environment.  Oh, and it's running out, anyway.



That makes me a wacko, I guess.



Dean, this is a public list with people from all walks of life.   

Check your facts before you go about intentionally insulting a bunch  

of people whom you clearly haven't bothered to try to understand.   

Don't continue to post like an ignorant bigot.  Environmentalists are  

generally smart people who care about the world around them.  They  

usually have pretty good reasons for the positions they take.   

Instead of assuming they are wackos, maybe you should actually try to  

understand their reasoning.  You may continue to feel the other side  

is more important, but at least you'll have made an informed decision.



They are some wackos (I don't agree with the people who spike trees,  

for instance, but I understand their position), but the bulk of  

environmentalists have solid science at their backs.  Some of them  

even have financial data in mind, too (as I do).



In any case, as another poster has said, it's not the  

environmentalists who are pushing for ethanol.  It's the farm  

industry.  Ethanol is a big political button in all the corn states.   

Despite the scientific evidence.



Environmentalists, however, tend to listen to the scientists.  When  

there's scientific evidence against something, we tend to say, "Let's  

not go that way."  So us enviro-wackos aren't telling you to use  

ethanol.



However, you don't need to use petroleum to produce ethanol.  You can  

use the energy in ethanol to produce more ethanol.  Okay, you have a  

chicken and egg thing, but once you have a barrel of ethanol, you can  

use that barrel to make more ethanol.  If you want to sell a barrel  

of ethanol, first you have to make 5 barrels.  Sell one barrel.  Use  

the remaining 4 to make 5 more.  Sell 1.  That's the ratio.  (Or I  

might be off by one, it might be 6 to sell 1, I'm going from memory).



Oh, and the poster who linked to the Sierra Club (yes, I'm a member)  

-- the poster child for us enviro-wackos is Greenpeace.  I'm not a  

member, but I periodically give them money.  They state an anti- 

ethanol policy the same as the Sierra Club.



-Joe



On Jul 5, 2006, at 12:09 AM, DEAN PSIROPOULOS wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   

 <dean.psiropoulos(at)verizon.net>



 No reputable source is needed Larry.  The fact of the matter is,  

 you can not

 get 100% ethanol directly from ANY source, it always comes along  

 with some

 water mixed in (ever make, wine beer or hooch).  So.......it takes  

 some

 OTHER source of heat (fossil fuel, nuclear energy, wind power, etc) to

 distill the water out and get the pure alcohol.   As you surmised,  

 it does

 not make sense, it's just enviro-wackos stabbing at anything to get  

 rid of

 fossil fuels. When we've succeeded in replacing oil, they will find

 something wrong with alcohol to bitch about. Since alcohol is a  

 hydrocarbon,

 like oil it produces carbon dioxide.  But the enviro-wackos have  

 ignored

 that fine little detail right now, they just want to get rid of  

 those EVIL

 fossil fuels. Trust me, if we had the "perfect" energy source  

 that's fully

 renewable and generates no toxic waste products or CO2 (I don't  

 consider CO2

 a hazard to our planets health) they would still find something  

 "evil" about

 it!



 Dean Psiropoulos

 RV-6A N197DM

n5lp(at)warpdriveonline.c
Guest

Posted: Wed Jul 05, 2006 6:28 am Post subject: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol

Thanks for the information David.  Somewhere in all the quoting my name got put in the wrong place.  My only input was that I think subsidies should be eliminated.  I think the free market is a great way to find out the true value of an idea.

 

 Larry

 

 

 On 7/5/06 7:22 AM, "David Burnham" <daverv6a(at)gmail.com> wrote:

 

  	  Quote: 	
		  Larry,

  

 David Pimentel at Cornell University - do a Google search you'll find it all.

  

 The latest is they gain about 10% BTU's over fossil fuel used. What the environmentalists don't tell you is that for every bushel of corn used in ethanol production, 1/3 is ethanol, 1/3 CO2 (ethanol is produced by bacterial fermentation of carbohydrates - so much for reducing CO2 emissions); 1/3 of distillers dried grains and solubles - they are depending on the animal feed industry to find a home for this by-product (seems like a lot of the environmentalists are also animal rights people?) 

  

 The energy used to produce it - diesel for crop ploughing, harvesting, drying and transport, natural gas for fertilizer production (that bad stuff - according to the organic crowd - that allows us to feed the world - see any pattern here) and then drying the by-product, electricity for the fermentation process (lots). 

  

 It is going to cause the price of corn to rise. Yes, so in addition to the 55c per gallon subsidy we pay, our food is going to become ore expensive as well.

  

 ADM stock price is soring - lobbyists, what lobbyists.

  

 What a deal!

  

 DO NOT ARCHIVE

 

 

  

 On 7/5/06, DEAN PSIROPOULOS <dean.psiropoulos(at)verizon.net> wrote: 

  	  Quote: 	
		  --> RV-List message posted by: "DEAN PSIROPOULOS" < dean.psiropoulos(at)verizon.net <mailto:dean.psiropoulos(at)verizon.net> (dean.psiropoulos(at)verizon.net) >

 

 No reputable source is needed Larry.  The fact of the matter is, you can not

 get 100% ethanol directly from ANY source, it always comes along with some

 water mixed in (ever make, wine beer or hooch).  So.......it takes some 

 OTHER source of heat (fossil fuel, nuclear energy, wind power, etc) to

 distill the water out and get the pure alcohol.   As you surmised, it does

 not make sense, it's just enviro-wackos stabbing at anything to get rid of 

 fossil fuels. When we've succeeded in replacing oil, they will find

 something wrong with alcohol to bitch about. Since alcohol is a hydrocarbon,

 like oil it produces carbon dioxide.  But the enviro-wackos have ignored 

 that fine little detail right now, they just want to get rid of those EVIL

 fossil fuels. Trust me, if we had the "perfect" energy source that's fully

 renewable and generates no toxic waste products or CO2 (I don't consider CO2 

 a hazard to our planets health) they would still find something "evil" about

 it!

 

 Dean Psiropoulos

 RV-6A N197DM

 

 

 

 

 _________________________Original Message_________________________________ 

 

 

 Time: 04:45:43 PM PST US

 

        Would someone please point us to a reputable reference that

 authenticates it requires more fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol

 energy than we get back?  How can         that make sense if oil is in

cjensen(at)dts9000.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Jul 05, 2006 6:52 am Post subject: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol

Tsk, tsk.  Shame on people who listen to Enviro-wackos who do stupid

stuff like listen to scientists.  You won't catch me consulting those

Ivy Tower Egg-Heads.  I get all my facts from Rush Limbaugh, so I know

it's the straight scoop.



Chuck Jensen



Do Not Archive



[quote] --

3edcft6(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Wed Jul 05, 2006 10:15 am Post subject: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol

Time: 04:45:43 PM PST US



 	  Quote: 	
		          Would someone please point us to a reputable reference that 

authenticates it requires more fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol 

energy than we get back?  How can         that make sense if oil is in 

short supply?  Why waste .3 gallons of it?

  



if you don't care about my rantings on alternative energy delete now.
	




do not archive



I don't have any good references but I can tell you that it is not as 

simple as what you have heard and here is my understanding.



In order to refine any fuel it takes energy.  If you don't get more 

energy out of the refined fuel than you put in, you are wasting your 

time.  Unless of course the fuel you are refining is for a very 

specialized purpose, like the liquid hydrogen to launch the space 

shuttle.  When it comes to creating ethanol, you can create it from a 

number of different bio sources.  Corn is all the rage here in the USA 

and it does seem like a bit of a waste.  The numbers I have heard range 

from 1.3 to .8 units of energy out for every unit of energy in.  I think 

that is where the takes more than you get people are getting their 

argument from.  If it is done right you don't do get more out than you 

put in.  On the other hand if you use sugar, like they do in Brazil, I 

have heard that you can get as much as 7 times more energy out as you 

put in.  Alternative fuels make a lot of sense if you do it right.  

Ethanol from corn is not doing it right.  A much easier and better 

alternative fuel is bio diesel, which gives you much more out than you 

put in.  This is just a wild guess but I would be willing to bet that 

you could get corn oil out of the corn and convert that to bio diesel 

and get a lot more energy out than you do making corn into ethanol.  It 

also has the added advantage that any diesel engine will, with out 

modification, run on bio diesel, they will last longer running it  too.  

There are some older vehicles that have rubber fuel lines that bio 

diesel will eventually dissolve but modern vehicles use materials that 

are compatible and it is an easy fix if you have an older vehicle.  The 

only down side to bio diesel is an exaggerated version of the biggest 

problem with regular diesel, it will gel up at a relatively high 

temperature.  So if you live in a cold climate you have to take measures 

against that.  The easiest thing is to mix the bio with winterized 

diesel.  The colder it is the higher percentage of winterized diesel you 

need.  That is another nice thing about bio diesel, you can mix it at 

any ratio with "dino" diesel. Honda makes turbo diesel engine Civic that 

get a real life 60+ highway mpg.  That's a lot better than what hybrids 

get with real life driving.  To bad they don't sell them in the USA.  Of 

course there is little chance that the environmental wacko crowd will 

like bio diesel.  While it does pollute a lot less than dino diesel it 

does still pollute the air.  I just love the morons that push electric 

vehicles as a zero emissions vehicle.  Just because they don't have a 

tail pipe doesn't mean they create no emissions.  The emissions are just 

displaced to where ever the electricity is generated to charge their 

batteries.  When you have to dispose of those batteries there is going 

be pollution there, not to mention when they make the batteries.



do not archive



-- 

Chris W

KE5GIX

3edcft6(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Wed Jul 05, 2006 10:22 am Post subject: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol

Joe Larson wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   



 I'm one of those enviro-wackos mentioned in Dean's letter.  Yep, I  

 believe we should get off the oil-based economy so that we can stop  

 caring how much the people in the mideast hate each other, so we can  

 stop shelling out billions to foreign countries to fuel our cars, and  

 so that we can reduce the harmful effects petroleum has on our  

 environment.  Oh, and it's running out, anyway.



 That makes me a wacko, I guess.




	


I agree that we would should and can significantly reduce or even 

eliminate our dependence on oil from the middle east.   Ethanol from 

Corn is not the way to do it.  (see my other post on this topic if you 

want to know more on my view.)  However, even if we do completely 

eliminate our dependence on oil from the middle east, we will still need 

to care about what goes on over there.  They hate us much more than they 

hate each other.  When we stop buying their oil, they are going to hate 

us even more.  But at least we won't be funding their terrorist 

activities by buying their oil.



do not archive



-- 

Chris W

KE5GIX

3edcft6(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Wed Jul 05, 2006 10:39 am Post subject: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol

Joe Larson wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   Dean, this is a public list with people from all walks of life.   

 Check your facts before you go about intentionally insulting a bunch  

 of people whom you clearly haven't bothered to try to understand.   

 Don't continue to post like an ignorant bigot.  Environmentalists are  

 generally smart people who care about the world around them.  They  

 usually have pretty good reasons for the positions they take.   

 Instead of assuming they are wackos, maybe you should actually try to  

 understand their reasoning.  You may continue to feel the other side  

 is more important, but at least you'll have made an informed decision.



 They are some wackos (I don't agree with the people who spike trees,  

 for instance, but I understand their position), but the bulk of  

 environmentalists have solid science at their backs.  Some of them  

 even have financial data in mind, too (as I do).




	


I believe you that most people concerned about the environment are not 

"wackos".   However the environmentalist and groups that are the most 

vocal in the media today are very high on the "wacko" scale.  Even those 

wackos have financial impact in mind, they want to to negatively impact 

our economy.  While even the wackos have science behind what they say, 

they tend to ignore any and all science that doesn't support the 

conclusions they want to support.  Everyone knows if you go looking for 

evidence that something is they way you think it is, or want it to be, 

you will find it.  Of course even the environmental wackos get some 

things right.  Any of them that are against ethanol from corn. I would 

say got it right on that issue.



do not archive



-- 

Chris W

KE5GIX

jpl(at)showpage.org
Guest

Posted: Wed Jul 05, 2006 10:51 am Post subject: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol

Chris made some interesting comments, although I trimmed most of them  

out and kept the parts on which I will comment.



Might I suggest that folks not use the term "wacko" unless you really  

feel that caring about the environment means you truly are insane.   

Environmentalists may have a different opinion that you do, but it's  

steeped in science and concern for a polluted earth.  Evidence of  

Earth's destruction is all around you.  For instance, just today  

there is a CNN report today that a recent fisheries report by the  

organization that regulates tuna fishing in Europe is suggesting the  

fishery be closed.  Maybe you don't care about what the Earth is  

becoming and what it will be like for your grandchildren, but please  

don't call people "wacko" just because they DO care.



As for liking bio diesel....  Google for "Sierra club biodiesel" and  

you'll see support for it.  It's somewhat tentative, of course, as  

any technology can be misused.



Electric cars -- it is presumed that electricity can be created far  

more cleanly than burning fossil fuels.  Even relatively dirty  

electrical generation (such as coal) is still probably cleaner due to  

the high technology used to scrub the pollutants.



Most technologies have some sort of tradeoff.  The goal should be to  

maximize some formula that takes into account economics and harmful  

effects.  Maximize financial gains while minimizing harmful effects.   

This compromise solution may not be the most economically  

advantageous, and it may have harmful effects.  But that's why it's a  

compromise.



Even wind turbines have negative effects from bird strikes.  And some  

people think that's sufficient to shut them down.  I disagree.



-Joe



On Jul 5, 2006, at 1:13 PM, Chris W wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   Of course there is little chance that the environmental wacko crowd  

 will like bio diesel.  While it does pollute a lot less than dino  

 diesel it does still pollute the air.  I just love the morons that  

 push electric vehicles as a zero emissions vehicle.  Just because  

 they don't have a tail pipe doesn't mean they create no emissions.   

 The emissions are just displaced to where ever the electricity is  

 generated to charge their batteries.  When you have to dispose of  

 those batteries there is going be pollution there, not to mention  

 when they make the batteries.



 do not archive

etekberg(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Jul 05, 2006 11:28 am Post subject: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol

Most of the enviro types, while maybe not wackos, are illogical.  The best enviro friendly thing we have going for us these days is nuclear power.  Why are they not out there shouting that from the roof tops??  Logic doesn't work with the majority of these people. 

  

 Eric

 do not archive

rv8ch

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 250
Location: Switzerland

Posted: Wed Jul 05, 2006 11:44 am Post subject: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol

Chris W wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   I believe you that most people concerned about the environment are not 

 "wackos".   However the environmentalist and groups that are the most 

 vocal in the media today are very high on the "wacko" scale.  Even those 

 wackos have financial impact in mind, they want to to negatively impact 

 our economy.  


	


I've never heard any environmentalists say that they want to

negatively impact the economy.  What the most extreme

environmentalists' goal seems to be, based on what I have read,

is for "humankind" to have no impact on nature.  Some consider

this extreme in practice, and some see it as a goal or

something to keep in mind when we do things.  For example, if

we can do things two ways, and one will kill off a species of

plant, and the other will not, then choosing the option that

does not kill off a species of plant sounds like a more

reasonable alternative.  Of course, it's rarely that simple,

and there are usually costs involved.  This is usually where

the debate centers - money.

 	  Quote: 	
		   While even the wackos have science behind what they say, 

 they tend to ignore any and all science that doesn't support the 

 conclusions they want to support.  Everyone knows if you go looking for 

 evidence that something is they way you think it is, or want it to be, 

 you will find it.  


	


Many things in science are eventually proven wrong.

Scientific research usually starts with a hypothesis, and then

the researcher objectively looks at the data, and should be willing

to reject the hypothesis.  If the researcher is not willing to

do this, then their work ceases to be science.



 	  Quote: 	
		   Of course even the environmental wackos get some 

 things right.  Any of them that are against ethanol from corn. I would 

 say got it right on that issue.


	


Understanding and communication starts with a point of agreement,

which can be an anchor for further discussion.  If the

environmentalists can be right on one thing, perhaps they are

right on another.  Might be worth checking into.



In any case, I agree with previous posters that if we let the

free market decide, then we'll probably come up with a winner.

Our current system that encourages the buying of political favors

makes it very difficult for us to have a free market.



-- 

Mickey Coggins

http://www.rv8.ch/

#82007 finishing

do not archive

_________________
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/

jpl(at)showpage.org
Guest

Posted: Wed Jul 05, 2006 12:05 pm Post subject: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol

Everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion.  I'm sure the people  

who live near Chernobyl will agree with your sentiment.



I happen to agree that nuclear power might serve as an intermediate  

power source while we look for something sustainable.  Fission  

reactors are sustainable -- Hubbert's Peak for uranium will occur  

this century, probably the first half of this century, and that's  

without vastly increased demands.  Now, if they can get fusion to  

work for energy production....



But Eric, you really do need to watch the stereotypes.  I don't think  

your view on environmentalists is well-researched.  Logic works  

fine.  Try talking to an enviro type sometime and see.



-Joe



On Jul 5, 2006, at 2:08 PM, Eric Ekberg wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   Most of the enviro types, while maybe not wackos, are illogical.   

 The best enviro friendly thing we have going for us these days is  

 nuclear power.  Why are they not out there shouting that from the  

 roof tops??  Logic doesn't work with the majority of these people.



 Eric

 do not archive

bicyclop(at)pacbell.net
Guest

Posted: Wed Jul 05, 2006 12:32 pm Post subject: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol

Nothing illogical about not wanting spent fuel around for 10,000 years. We still don’t have an operational waste dump – anywhere - except in “temporary “ storage, mostly right onsite. Other than that, nuclear power has the potential to be cleaner than most anything but solar and wind. Here in SoCal, my money’s on solar.  

   

Pax,  

   

Ed Holyoke  

   

--

rvbuilder(at)sausen.net
Guest

Posted: Wed Jul 05, 2006 1:12 pm Post subject: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol

Like everything, the whole issue here is around the definition of

wacko.  People who tie themselves to trees to keep it from getting cut

down... wacko.  People who are concerned about doing what they can to

make sure we don't end up with a wasteland... not wacko.  Like my

definitions so far. 



  Look, this is kind of like the old say about arguing on the Internet.

You may win but..... Anyway, I doubt anyone on this list is an

environmental wacko in reality or you wouldn't be building an aircraft

that sucks gas, needs a 8qt oil change every 25 or so hours, and greatly

contributes to noise pollution.  Wacko's are nothing but extreme

fundamentalists that usually make decisions that are contrary to what

they stand for.  Like the Greenpeace guys that go out in huge boats

protesting oil drilling while they suck down 200 gallons of diesel an

hour.  Or the PETA celebrity that protests out in public and then jumps

into their Escalade with leather everything.  Or even more timely, the

guy that straps a bomb to himself and kills 20 people in the name of

their god that specifically forbids killing people.  Now THAT's wacko.



  Quit worry about whether or not you fit into someone's label and start

worrying about building a gas guzzling airplane!  Can we get back on

subject now.



Michael Sausen

RV-10 #352 Working on Fuselage

Do Not Archive



--

n5lp(at)warpdriveonline.c
Guest

Posted: Wed Jul 05, 2006 1:55 pm Post subject: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol

I notice that there are listers that do profess to be  

environmentalists.  Now I know if you do profess this there are  

different possible levels, but since this is an RV list I am curious  

about it.



An RV is generally built to have fun with.  Most trips are strictly  

for entertainment and almost no one really needs the RV.  So here we  

are burning lots of irreplaceable fossil fuel, loaded with poisonous  

lead and with no emissions controls whatever, not to mention things  

like mufflers.  This is all basically just for the thrill of it.   

Sometimes we just go out and do aerobatics or formation flying or  

sightseeing or photography, in which case we aren't even getting  

anywhere.



I'm reminded of the time all the folks at the local glider club were  

sitting around after a day of flying.  We could hear the dragsters at  

the local dragstrip.  One of the glider pilots remarked about what a  

stupid hobby that is.  They just spend money, burn fuel and don't  

even get anywhere.  This is at the end of a day using expensive  

airplanes, burning lots of gas to tow unbelievably expensive german  

gliders into the air in order to fly in circles and land back at the  

launch point.



I think sometimes it is hard to have perspective on our own hobby.



I am worried about resources, animals, conservation, pollution and  

like things, but sure don't have the guts to call myself an  

environmentalist while owning a pollution spewing airplane that I  

sure don't need.



So how about it?  How can our airplane toys be reconciled with  

environmentalism?



Boy this thread got way off topic, so please do not archive.



Larry Pardue

Carlsbad, NM



RV-6 N441LP Flying

http://n5lp.net

Terry Watson

Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 290
Location: Seattle, WA USA

Posted: Wed Jul 05, 2006 2:26 pm Post subject: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol

If I were to say "I don't agree with suicide bombers, but I understand their

position," I would expect most of you to be offended and question my

intelligence or sincerity or ethics, or all three. If I were to say, "I

don't agree with fire-bombing expensive new homes, but I understand the

fire-bomber's position," or "I don't agree with people who sabotage small

airplanes, (presumably because I don't like their noise flying over

wilderness areas) but I understand their position", I would expect all hell

to break loose, and it should.  Giving sympathy to terrorists of any stripe

supports not only their cause but their tactics.



So when Joe Larson says "They are some wackos (I don't agree with the people

who spike trees, for instance, but I understand their position).", I would

expect someone to object to acceptance or sympathy for this form of

terrorism. Maybe you don't understand was it means to spike a tree. It means

to drive a spike into a tree in a location and in a manner so that it will

not be seen by the logger, and so that when a logger with a chainsaw tries

to fall (fell) the tree, he will hit the spike, causing the saw's chain to

explode off the saw and cause mayhem to the logger, or if the logger is

lucky, to destroy the huge high-speed band saw blade in the mill and cause

mayhem to the mill workers. It is a form of terrorism used to prevent the

owners of timber from harvesting timber on their own property, or timber

legally purchased from other private or public timberland owners. Unlike

tree sitters or people who chain themselves to equipment in order to prevent

something from happening, tree spikers are sabotaging the tree so that

anyone attempting to use it runs a high risk of injury or death.



So, if by "understand their position," Joe, you mean that there is any

possible justification for what they are doing; I really hope you don't know

what you are talking about. 



If anyone cares, I consider myself a free-market environmentalist. I have a

university degree in forest management (now called natural resource

management) and am old enough and lucky enough to have spent time in the

timber country of the northwest when the sound of a saw cutting down a tree

was the quiet swish-swish of a long cross-cut saw being pulled back and

forth by muscle power. With parents who survived the Depression, I grew up

knowing that waste was bad - very bad - and that re-cycle and re-use were

the norm, not the exception. Maybe this is why the modern-day save-the-world

trendy authoritarian brand of environmentalism frosts me so much. Clean up

your own act before you try to tell me what I can and cannot do with what I

worked hard to have. Why do your 'solutions' to preserve an eco-system

invariably involve top-down command and control, in complete contradiction

of the natural give and take that characterizes the ecosystem itself?



My apologies to Michael and others who thought this list was about building

little airplanes.



Terry

RV-8A finishing

Seattle

jpl(at)showpage.org
Guest

Posted: Wed Jul 05, 2006 3:30 pm Post subject: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol

One shouldn't read more into what I said that what I said.  I  

specifically said that I don't agree with what they are doing, but I  

understand their position.  That is, I understand why they are doing it.



To understand someone is not remotely the same as condoning it.  And  

it's wrong to read that into what I said.



You can tell someone, "I understand what you are saying.  I  

understand why you are doing what you are doing.  And you're wrong."



-Joe



do not archive



On Jul 5, 2006, at 5:24 PM, Terry Watson wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   

 If I were to say "I don't agree with suicide bombers, but I  

 understand their

 position," I would expect most of you to be offended and question my

 intelligence or sincerity or ethics, or all three. If I were to  

 say, "I

 don't agree with fire-bombing expensive new homes, but I understand  

 the

 fire-bomber's position," or "I don't agree with people who sabotage  

 small

 airplanes, (presumably because I don't like their noise flying over

 wilderness areas) but I understand their position", I would expect  

 all hell

 to break loose, and it should.  Giving sympathy to terrorists of  

 any stripe

 supports not only their cause but their tactics.



 So when Joe Larson says "They are some wackos (I don't agree with  

 the people

 who spike trees, for instance, but I understand their position).",  

 I would

 expect someone to object to acceptance or sympathy for this form of

 terrorism. Maybe you don't understand was it means to spike a tree.  

 It means

 to drive a spike into a tree in a location and in a manner so that  

 it will

 not be seen by the logger, and so that when a logger with a  

 chainsaw tries

 to fall (fell) the tree, he will hit the spike, causing the saw's  

 chain to

 explode off the saw and cause mayhem to the logger, or if the  

 logger is

 lucky, to destroy the huge high-speed band saw blade in the mill  

 and cause

 mayhem to the mill workers. It is a form of terrorism used to  

 prevent the

 owners of timber from harvesting timber on their own property, or  

 timber

 legally purchased from other private or public timberland owners.  

 Unlike

 tree sitters or people who chain themselves to equipment in order  

 to prevent

 something from happening, tree spikers are sabotaging the tree so that

 anyone attempting to use it runs a high risk of injury or death.



 So, if by "understand their position," Joe, you mean that there is any

 possible justification for what they are doing; I really hope you  

 don't know

 what you are talking about.



 If anyone cares, I consider myself a free-market environmentalist.  

 I have a

 university degree in forest management (now called natural resource

 management) and am old enough and lucky enough to have spent time  

 in the

 timber country of the northwest when the sound of a saw cutting  

 down a tree

 was the quiet swish-swish of a long cross-cut saw being pulled back  

 and

 forth by muscle power. With parents who survived the Depression, I  

 grew up

 knowing that waste was bad - very bad - and that re-cycle and re- 

 use were

 the norm, not the exception. Maybe this is why the modern-day save- 

 the-world

 trendy authoritarian brand of environmentalism frosts me so much.  

 Clean up

 your own act before you try to tell me what I can and cannot do  

 with what I

 worked hard to have. Why do your 'solutions' to preserve an eco-system

 invariably involve top-down command and control, in complete  

 contradiction

 of the natural give and take that characterizes the ecosystem itself?



 My apologies to Michael and others who thought this list was about  

 building

 little airplanes.



 Terry

 RV-8A finishing

 Seattle

tcervin(at)valkyrie.net
Guest

Posted: Wed Jul 05, 2006 3:53 pm Post subject: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol

These are them same Scientists who said "We are moving into an Ice Age in 

the mid 1970's!" They have always claimed to be the "Only intelligent 

opinion" around. "Liberal arguments always are emotion based while claiming 

intellectual superiority." The Scientific Community was wrong in the 70's 

and many of the same scientists are on the Global Warming Band Wagon today.

          Let's get back to building RV's!   DO NO ARCHIVE

                                                                             

                                                                             

       Tom in Ohio

---

jsflyrv(at)verizon.net
Guest

Posted: Wed Jul 05, 2006 3:53 pm Post subject: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol

Terry Watson wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   Maybe you don't understand was it means to spike a tree. It means

to drive a spike into a tree in a location and in a manner so that it will

not be seen by the logger, and so that when a logger with a chainsaw tries

to fall (fell) the tree, he will hit the spike, causing the saw's chain to

explode off the saw and cause mayhem to the logger, or if the logger is

lucky, to destroy the huge high-speed band saw blade in the mill and cause

mayhem to the mill workers. It is a form of terrorism used to prevent the

owners of timber from harvesting timber on their own property, or timber

legally purchased from other private or public timberland owners. Unlike

tree sitters or people who chain themselves to equipment in order to prevent

something from happening, tree spikers are sabotaging the tree so that

anyone attempting to use it runs a high risk of injury or death.



  



Well said Terry, you said what I wanted to say but much better and much 
	


politer than I would have. Having grown

up in a logger sawmill family tree spiking was a great concern and 

potently very dangerous and costly. I don't call people that do that

environmentalist I call them low life scum.



Now back to getting ready to fly to Arlington EAA flyin in the morning.



Jerry

do not archive

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next
Page 1 of 3

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum