"aarcuda69062" <nonelson@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:nonelson-7A8CC6.18074918052006@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com ...
> In article <xO3bg.78247$H71.796@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com> ,
> <HLS@nospam.nix> wrote:
>
> > > Burning natural gas doesn't produce CO2?
> >
> > Of course burning natural gas produces CO2. That is not what the carbon
> > loading
> > is all about.
>
> I suppose, if you choose to believe their creative accounting.
>
> > Coal, oil, etc is based on fixed carbon. That carbon is out of the
> > environment until
> > we mine or pump it and burn it.
>
> Understood.
>
> > The more coal or oil we burn, the more we push the atmosphere toward the
> > composition it had, perhaps, in prehistoric times.
> >
> > Ethanol based on plant fermentation does not put new CO2 into the
> > atmosphere. It
> > just recycles what is already there.
>
> Totally ignores the CO2 generated by [choose the fuel] during the
> fermentation process. Or do you know of a way to remove the 92%
> water from Ethanol crude without using heat?

The CO2 generated in the distillation process is not necessarily a part of
the carbon balance that we have to worry about. For example, if we use
bagasse to generate the heat for distillation, that carbon is part of the
circulating carbon, not part of the carbon that was fixed in fossil fuel
beds.

Just three days ago, I read that a two mile long core of ice was taken from
the
arctic regions and the gases were analyzed representing the past 650,000
years.

We are now 27% higher in CO2, a KNOWN greenhouse gas, that at any time
during
that past history.

Man, as we view him from Neanderthal through Cro-Magnon, has been here
on the order of a hundred thousand years. We have seriously changed the
atmosphere, and nobody really knows how serious it can be.

For those of us living now, we will be dead before the extreme effects will
be known.
Our children, and their children, may survive through a harsher and more
difficult
environment due to the policies we have undertaken.

Do we care what we pass on to them, either in ecology or in attitudes?
Wouldnt seem
that we do.

In article <4Syxg.137932$H71.81667@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com >,
<HLS@nospam.nix> wrote:

> > Totally ignores the CO2 generated by [choose the fuel] during the
> > fermentation process. Or do you know of a way to remove the 92%
> > water from Ethanol crude without using heat?
>
> The CO2 generated in the distillation process is not necessarily a part of
> the carbon balance that we have to worry about. For example, if we use
> bagasse to generate the heat for distillation, that carbon is part of the
> circulating carbon, not part of the carbon that was fixed in fossil fuel
> beds.

"If"

How many ethanol plants are currently burning bagasse to generate
heat?

> Just three days ago, I read that a two mile long core of ice was taken from
> the
> arctic regions and the gases were analyzed representing the past 650,000
> years.
>
> We are now 27% higher in CO2, a KNOWN greenhouse gas, that at any time
> during
> that past history.

There have been more naturally occurring CO2 producing events as
of right now than there has in any time during that past history.
Certainly more than there was 650,000 years ago.

> Man, as we view him from Neanderthal through Cro-Magnon, has been here
> on the order of a hundred thousand years. We have seriously changed the
> atmosphere, and nobody really knows how serious it can be.

Brazil keeps cutting down rain forest so they can plant more
sugar cane in order to produce more ethanol. Which do you
suppose is better at converting CO2, cane or rain forest?

> For those of us living now, we will be dead before the extreme effects will
> be known.
> Our children, and their children, may survive through a harsher and more
> difficult
> environment due to the policies we have undertaken.
>
> Do we care what we pass on to them, either in ecology or in attitudes?
> Wouldnt seem
> that we do.

So we go back to living in caves?

> How many ethanol plants are currently burning bagasse to generate
> heat?

In Brazil..ALL PLANTS burn bagasse. Actualy the plants are so energy
efficient that it has a positive balance, meaning the plant generates
surplus of eletric power which is re-directed to the local towns around
the plant.

> Brazil keeps cutting down rain forest so they can plant more
> sugar cane in order to produce more ethanol. Which do you
> suppose is better at converting CO2, cane or rain forest?

NOT TRUE. The soil that is perfect for sugar cane is located at the
southeast of the country not even close to the amazon and the rain
forest (although the forest REALLY is in danger for many other
reasons). And we have enough land to increase ethanol production a few
times without any deforestation (is that a word? forgive my english).

There is too many mis-conceptions about ethanol on the web today, so
here comes a few facts from a brazilian that knows "alcool" since long
ago.

1) It works for us. Even though our economy is around 20% (if I'm not
mistaken) the size of the USA economy, still means A LOT of money we
save. A lot of money that stays inside Brazil. But if you think, how
many economies in the world can be compared to the USA economy? So
cheap ethanol can help a lot of countries around the world.

2) We are now Energy Self-Sufficient. Ethanol is NOT responsable for
that, but is part of it. Today about 40% of our car fleet is Flex-fuel,
but by the rate they sell it will account for 100% in the next few
years. Bio-Diesels will also account more and more. (check the web for
H-BIO the new bio-diesel developed by PETROBRAS).

3) The Flex-Fuel Cars cost no more than a regular car and you need
around 15% (not 30% as most people say) more ethanol to go the same
distance as gasoline.

4) In Brazil ethanol IS NOT subsized by the government.

5) As of today ethanol in REAIS costs between R$1,20 and R$1,40 per
liter at the pump.
So it would cost around U$2.29 a gallon, way cheaper than U$3.15 for a
gallon of unleaded gas (that's how much I paid yesterday in LA). Dont
you think? But wait there is more!!!! Sometimes price at the pump goes
below R$1.00. Ethanol is economicaly viable until the barrel of crude
oil stays above U$35.00

6) The ethanol (and all bio-fuels industry) is re-vitalizing poor
country areas all over Brazil.

Ethanol is a GOOD solution, but NOT FROM CORN. The american people are
being lied about that.

The world must find a way to reduce the carbon emission before the
damage reaches a point of no return. Global warming is a FACT and the
USA is the biggest responsable for it. In a way or another the problem
finally reached the the pocket of the USA citizen, the problem is
america is waiting for the government to come up with a solution. IT
WONT HAPPEN.




aarcuda69062 wrote:
> In article <4Syxg.137932$H71.81667@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com >,
> <HLS@nospam.nix> wrote:
>
> > > Totally ignores the CO2 generated by [choose the fuel] during the
> > > fermentation process. Or do you know of a way to remove the 92%
> > > water from Ethanol crude without using heat?
> >
> > The CO2 generated in the distillation process is not necessarily a part of
> > the carbon balance that we have to worry about. For example, if we use
> > bagasse to generate the heat for distillation, that carbon is part of the
> > circulating carbon, not part of the carbon that was fixed in fossil fuel
> > beds.
>
> "If"
>
> How many ethanol plants are currently burning bagasse to generate
> heat?
>
> > Just three days ago, I read that a two mile long core of ice was taken from
> > the
> > arctic regions and the gases were analyzed representing the past 650,000
> > years.
> >
> > We are now 27% higher in CO2, a KNOWN greenhouse gas, that at any time
> > during
> > that past history.
>
> There have been more naturally occurring CO2 producing events as
> of right now than there has in any time during that past history.
> Certainly more than there was 650,000 years ago.
>
> > Man, as we view him from Neanderthal through Cro-Magnon, has been here
> > on the order of a hundred thousand years. We have seriously changed the
> > atmosphere, and nobody really knows how serious it can be.
>
> Brazil keeps cutting down rain forest so they can plant more
> sugar cane in order to produce more ethanol. Which do you
> suppose is better at converting CO2, cane or rain forest?
>
> > For those of us living now, we will be dead before the extreme effects will
> > be known.
> > Our children, and their children, may survive through a harsher and more
> > difficult
> > environment due to the policies we have undertaken.
> >
> > Do we care what we pass on to them, either in ecology or in attitudes?
> > Wouldnt seem
> > that we do.
>
> So we go back to living in caves?

Are you suggesting the US could fuel it motor vehicles with Ethanol? It
should be pointed out Brazil has around 9,000,000 vehicles, the US has
230,000,000. The US could not produce enough Ethanol to replace that much
gasoline, the best it could do is take up the increase in demand Brazil
has an in place distribution system for that many vehicles. In the US the
ONLY distribution system for Ethanol and that is by truck. Current US
environmental laws will not allow for yet another fuel distribution system
and does not allow Ethanol to be added to the current gasoline pumping
system

Gasoline averages around $2.90 in the rest of the country. California
created it own fuel problems with all of the environmental restrictions on
oil in that state. If the gasoline for all of the vehicles in that state
needs to be truck in form other states, of course it will cost more. In
addition California has one of the highest gas taxes in the country, around
40 cents


mike hunt



"Ricardo" <ricardo_brazil@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1154128037.612225.70670@m73g2000cwd.googlegro ups.com...

> 4) In Brazil ethanol IS NOT subsized by the government.
>
> 5) As of today ethanol in REAIS costs between R$1,20 and R$1,40 per
> liter at the pump.
> So it would cost around U$2.29 a gallon, way cheaper than U$3.15 for a
> gallon of unleaded gas (that's how much I paid yesterday in LA). Dont
> you think? But wait there is more!!!! Sometimes price at the pump goes
> below R$1.00. Ethanol is economicaly viable until the barrel of crude
> oil stays above U$35.00
>
> 6) The ethanol (and all bio-fuels industry) is re-vitalizing poor
> country areas all over Brazil.
>
> Ethanol is a GOOD solution, but NOT FROM CORN. The american people are
> being lied about that.
>

No, I'm not suggesting that. I was just trying to clear some wrong
information people has about ethanol in Brazil, especialy about the
rain forest.

I known that it's almost impossible to replace all gas with ethanol
right now.
But I think you agree that something must be done to replace fossil
fuels.
Ethanol is part of the solution. In Brazil every liter of gasoline is
75% gas and 25% ethanol by law. It's mandatory. It doesnt need any
distribution system, it is mixed in the refinery. It requires no engine
modifications. The car makers are the same as here (ford, chrysler,
chevrolet...), the oil companies are the same as here Shell, Exxon (we
call it Esso). And they all follow the rules.
If USA could replace 10 or maybe 15% (I dont know who much ethanol is
required for that) that only it would help a lot for start.

Mike, this is the country I choosed to live and really bothers me how
hostages this country has become of middle east oil. THIS MUST CHANGE.
America still is the world leader therefore you MUST LEAD, not follow
as you are doing on this matter. By lead I mean invest in technology to
find a solution not invade other countries to guarantee supply.


Mike Hunter wrote:
> Are you suggesting the US could fuel it motor vehicles with Ethanol? It
> should be pointed out Brazil has around 9,000,000 vehicles, the US has
> 230,000,000. The US could not produce enough Ethanol to replace that much
> gasoline, the best it could do is take up the increase in demand Brazil
> has an in place distribution system for that many vehicles. In the US the
> ONLY distribution system for Ethanol and that is by truck. Current US
> environmental laws will not allow for yet another fuel distribution system
> and does not allow Ethanol to be added to the current gasoline pumping
> system
>
> Gasoline averages around $2.90 in the rest of the country. California
> created it own fuel problems with all of the environmental restrictions on
> oil in that state. If the gasoline for all of the vehicles in that state
> needs to be truck in form other states, of course it will cost more. In
> addition California has one of the highest gas taxes in the country, around
> 40 cents
>
>
> mike hunt
>

I'm am merely pointing out that ethanol,at best can take up some of the
increase in demand for crude. Crude is used for more than power vehicles.

Current environmental laws are what limit our ability to obtain domestic
crude. Production, refining, storing and transportation crude and it
produces is what is forcing the US to import crude. The same laws make it a
crime to mix ethanol with the gasoline that is pumped throughout the US.
Nuclear power is overly restricted in the US by our current laws. Changing
some of those laws can reduce our dependency on imported crude over time.

mike hunt


"Ricardo" <ricardo_brazil@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1154163890.082527.232520@i3g2000cwc.googlegro ups.com...
> No, I'm not suggesting that. I was just trying to clear some wrong
> information people has about ethanol in Brazil, especialy about the
> rain forest.
>
> I known that it's almost impossible to replace all gas with ethanol
> right now.
> But I think you agree that something must be done to replace fossil
> fuels.
> Ethanol is part of the solution. In Brazil every liter of gasoline is
> 75% gas and 25% ethanol by law. It's mandatory. It doesnt need any
> distribution system, it is mixed in the refinery. It requires no engine
> modifications. The car makers are the same as here (ford, chrysler,
> chevrolet...), the oil companies are the same as here Shell, Exxon (we
> call it Esso). And they all follow the rules.
> If USA could replace 10 or maybe 15% (I dont know who much ethanol is
> required for that) that only it would help a lot for start.
>
> Mike, this is the country I choosed to live and really bothers me how
> hostages this country has become of middle east oil. THIS MUST CHANGE.
> America still is the world leader therefore you MUST LEAD, not follow
> as you are doing on this matter. By lead I mean invest in technology to
> find a solution not invade other countries to guarantee supply.
>
>
> Mike Hunter wrote:
>> Are you suggesting the US could fuel it motor vehicles with Ethanol? It
>> should be pointed out Brazil has around 9,000,000 vehicles, the US has
>> 230,000,000. The US could not produce enough Ethanol to replace that
>> much
>> gasoline, the best it could do is take up the increase in demand Brazil
>> has an in place distribution system for that many vehicles. In the US
>> the
>> ONLY distribution system for Ethanol and that is by truck. Current US
>> environmental laws will not allow for yet another fuel distribution
>> system
>> and does not allow Ethanol to be added to the current gasoline pumping
>> system
>>
>> Gasoline averages around $2.90 in the rest of the country. California
>> created it own fuel problems with all of the environmental restrictions
>> on
>> oil in that state. If the gasoline for all of the vehicles in that state
>> needs to be truck in form other states, of course it will cost more. In
>> addition California has one of the highest gas taxes in the country,
>> around
>> 40 cents
>>
>>
>> mike hunt
>>
>

"Ricardo" <ricardo_brazil@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1154128037.612225.70670@m73g2000cwd.googlegro ups.com...
> > How many ethanol plants are currently burning bagasse to generate
> > heat?
>
> In Brazil..ALL PLANTS burn bagasse. Actualy the plants are so energy
> efficient that it has a positive balance, meaning the plant generates
> surplus of eletric power which is re-directed to the local towns around
> the plant.
>
> > Brazil keeps cutting down rain forest so they can plant more
> > sugar cane in order to produce more ethanol. Which do you
> > suppose is better at converting CO2, cane or rain forest?
>
> NOT TRUE. The soil that is perfect for sugar cane is located at the
> southeast of the country not even close to the amazon and the rain
> forest (although the forest REALLY is in danger for many other
> reasons). And we have enough land to increase ethanol production a few
> times without any deforestation (is that a word? forgive my english).
>
> There is too many mis-conceptions about ethanol on the web today, so
> here comes a few facts from a brazilian that knows "alcool" since long
> ago.
>
> 1) It works for us. Even though our economy is around 20% (if I'm not
> mistaken) the size of the USA economy, still means A LOT of money we
> save. A lot of money that stays inside Brazil. But if you think, how
> many economies in the world can be compared to the USA economy? So
> cheap ethanol can help a lot of countries around the world.
>
> 2) We are now Energy Self-Sufficient. Ethanol is NOT responsable for
> that, but is part of it. Today about 40% of our car fleet is Flex-fuel,
> but by the rate they sell it will account for 100% in the next few
> years. Bio-Diesels will also account more and more. (check the web for
> H-BIO the new bio-diesel developed by PETROBRAS).
>
> 3) The Flex-Fuel Cars cost no more than a regular car and you need
> around 15% (not 30% as most people say) more ethanol to go the same
> distance as gasoline.
>
> 4) In Brazil ethanol IS NOT subsized by the government.
>
> 5) As of today ethanol in REAIS costs between R$1,20 and R$1,40 per
> liter at the pump.
> So it would cost around U$2.29 a gallon, way cheaper than U$3.15 for a
> gallon of unleaded gas (that's how much I paid yesterday in LA). Dont
> you think? But wait there is more!!!! Sometimes price at the pump goes
> below R$1.00. Ethanol is economicaly viable until the barrel of crude
> oil stays above U$35.00
>
> 6) The ethanol (and all bio-fuels industry) is re-vitalizing poor
> country areas all over Brazil.
>
> Ethanol is a GOOD solution, but NOT FROM CORN. The american people are
> being lied about that.
>
> The world must find a way to reduce the carbon emission before the
> damage reaches a point of no return. Global warming is a FACT and the
> USA is the biggest responsable for it. In a way or another the problem
> finally reached the the pocket of the USA citizen, the problem is
> america is waiting for the government to come up with a solution. IT
> WONT HAPPEN.


Good post, Ricardo. Gasoline in Brasil is now not as expensive as it is in
Europe.

Ethanol IS a good solution, but I doubt America can make it work. We just
like to bitch and buy SUVs.

I was in Brasil week before last. Has been a long time, BUT the same things
that used to be good there are STILL very good.

"aarcuda69062" <nonelson@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:nonelson-78F21C.08453426072006@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com ...
> "If"
>
> How many ethanol plants are currently burning bagasse to generate
> heat?


In many foreign countries, including Brasil and Bolivia, all of them do.


> > We are now 27% higher in CO2, a KNOWN greenhouse gas, that at any time
> > during
> > that past history.
>
> There have been more naturally occurring CO2 producing events as
> of right now than there has in any time during that past history.
> Certainly more than there was 650,000 years ago.

At no time in the last 650,000 has the atmospheric CO2 level been as high
as it is now. Events mean little. The concentration now is 27% higher than
it has been in almost a million years.




> Brazil keeps cutting down rain forest so they can plant more
> sugar cane in order to produce more ethanol. Which do you
> suppose is better at converting CO2, cane or rain forest?

The loss of rainforest is a serious issue. But it is not the rain forest
that is the primary convertor of CO2 back to oxygen. It is the oceans.


> > Do we care what we pass on to them, either in ecology or in attitudes?
> > Wouldnt seem
> > that we do.
>
> So we go back to living in caves?

Of course not. We should give responsible and thoughtful attention to our
environment. If we don't, we are serving up a death sentence to life on
earth.
Some, perhaps you are one of them, dont really care what happens to future
generations. Not all of us feel this way.

What the environuts do not tell you is CO2 level was much higher during the
165,000,000 years the dinosaurs roamed the earth, up until 65,000,000 years
ago. Musta been the farts from eating all the vegetation that thrived back
then on all of the CO2

Some paleontologist theorize it was the loss of CO2 that led to the loss of
vegetation, that resulted in the percentage of oxygen in the air dropping,
that caused the dinosaur to die off, for lack of a diaphragm to help them
breath.. That was the point in time when the manuals, with a diaphragm,
started to emerge. Who knows for sure, not I, not you, or anybody else. It
is all conjecture and theory.


mike hunt



<HLS@nospam.nix> wrote in message
news:dD8zg.3589$TV.555@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com. ..
>
> "aarcuda69062" <nonelson@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:nonelson-78F21C.08453426072006@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com ...

> At no time in the last 650,000 has the atmospheric CO2 level been as high
> as it is now. Events mean little. The concentration now is 27% higher
> than
> it has been in almost a million years.
>
>> Brazil keeps cutting down rain forest so they can plant more
>> sugar cane in order to produce more ethanol. Which do you
>> suppose is better at converting CO2, cane or rain forest?
>
> The loss of rainforest is a serious issue. But it is not the rain forest
> that is the primary convertor of CO2 back to oxygen. It is the oceans.
>
>
>> So we go back to living in caves?
>
> Of course not. We should give responsible and thoughtful attention to our
> environment. If we don't, we are serving up a death sentence to life on
> earth.
> Some, perhaps you are one of them, dont really care what happens to future
> generations. Not all of us feel this way.
>
>

In article <dD8zg.3589$TV.555@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>,
<HLS@nospam.nix> wrote:

> "aarcuda69062" <nonelson@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:nonelson-78F21C.08453426072006@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com ...
> > "If"
> >
> > How many ethanol plants are currently burning bagasse to generate
> > heat?
>
>
> In many foreign countries, including Brasil and Bolivia, all of them do.

I meant here in the U.S.

>
> > > We are now 27% higher in CO2, a KNOWN greenhouse gas, that at any time
> > > during
> > > that past history.
> >
> > There have been more naturally occurring CO2 producing events as
> > of right now than there has in any time during that past history.
> > Certainly more than there was 650,000 years ago.
>
> At no time in the last 650,000 has the atmospheric CO2 level been as high
> as it is now. Events mean little. The concentration now is 27% higher than
> it has been in almost a million years.

Why stop at 650,000 years?
CO2 levels were enormous millions of years ago, and if one looks
at the levels over the last 500,000 years, the CO2 level has been
cycling up and down by a significant amount.

>
>
>
> > Brazil keeps cutting down rain forest so they can plant more
> > sugar cane in order to produce more ethanol. Which do you
> > suppose is better at converting CO2, cane or rain forest?
>
> The loss of rainforest is a serious issue. But it is not the rain forest
> that is the primary convertor of CO2 back to oxygen.

Funny, just a few nights ago I was watching one of the science
channels on TV, they referred to the Amazon rain forest as the
"lungs of the planet."

> It is the oceans.

So, as the ice caps melt, the oceans will get bigger and convert
more CO2, the ice caps will re-freeze and things will cycle back
to where they're supposed to be. Where's the problem? ;-)

>
> > > Do we care what we pass on to them, either in ecology or in attitudes?
> > > Wouldnt seem
> > > that we do.
> >
> > So we go back to living in caves?
>
> Of course not. We should give responsible and thoughtful attention to our
> environment. If we don't, we are serving up a death sentence to life on
> earth.

And there is the paradox; as internal combustion engines were
forced to become more efficient, the amount of CO2 they produced
went up. IOWs, each cure produces its own set of problems.
Do we really know what new set of problems ethanol as a fuel will
produce, or more accurately, is the general public being
accurately informed of them?

> Some, perhaps you are one of them, dont really care what happens to future
> generations. Not all of us feel this way.

On the contrary, I care. I know for a fact that my 1970 Plymouth
AAR 'cuda produces half of the CO2 that my wifes late model
Intrepid does and that is with the Intrepids' engine being 3/5
the size. I feel good every time I drive it.