- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 133,631
- Reaction score
- 30,937
- Location
- Bagdad, La.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Water is needed to produce most things... including gasoline production.
Does a gallon of produced gasoline create three gallons of waste water, like ethanol does? Most of the water used to produce gasoline, is used for cooling and be recycled within the refinery.
"Among algal fuels' attractive characteristics: they do not affect fresh water resources,[2] can be produced using ocean and wastewater, and are biodegradable and relatively harmless to the environment if spilled.[3][4][5] Algae cost more per unit mass (as of 2010, food grade algae costs ~$5000/tonne), due to high capital and operating costs[6], yet can theoretically yield between 10 and 100 times more energy per unit area than other second-generation biofuel crops."
Algae fuel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
That's all fine and good, but what becomes of the waste water created from ethanol production?
Also, how do we contend with the fact that it takes a gallon-and-a-half of ethanol to produce the same amount of energy as a gallon of gasoline? People are going to be paying the same price--or more--and using more ethanol to produce the same effect. Gonna have a hard time selling that one to the people.
Why don't we increase corporate taxes on companies who send jobs overseas? That might actually work to keep manufacturing jobs in the U.S.
Water is recycled in algae production, and it yields between 10 and 100 times more energy per unit area than other second-generation biofuel crops. If you look at the true cost of gasoline, adding in the military support to keep the oil from the Persian Gulf flowing, this is a cost effective alternative.
Cost effective for who?
For consumers/taxpayers that are currently paying over $6/gal for gas by the time you add in the military cost of keeping the oil flowing from the Persian Gulf.
I'm ok with paying $6 per gallon for gas, because that only amounts to about an additional $50-$100 per month to my fuel bill on top of what I pay now. I'm ok with that, because $50-$100 isn't going to break me.
No, $6/gal is what you have been paying per gal since we invaded Iraq. and that doesn't even include what Uncle Sam put on the credit card for our kids and grandkids to pay off, or the unnecessary loss of life it entailed. But the oil companies and their record profits love you for it Jerry!
Sensible. Has happened in Europe.. hard to get the old style bulbs now days and good. In this case government should mandate such things as people would never switch over to energy saving bulbs because they are more expensive than "old type" bulbs. Now the fact that energy saving bulbs last longer on average (way longer) and cost way less to run should factor in, but as we all know, the consumer is ignorant of such things and only want short term visible results. I think I have one old type bulb in the house, but that is due to the lamp ("it looks pretty" is the comment in this house).. and as soon as the lamp can be replaced then it goes.
For consumers/taxpayers that are currently paying over $6/gal for gas by the time you add in the military cost of keeping the oil flowing from the Persian Gulf.
You're talking to someone who joined the service last year out of direct support for fighting for oil. My unit is deploying to the ME in 6 months to than and, and I'm glad to go. So, you're telling me that I've been paying this money all along. Ok, I'm doing just fine, so no big deal.
so one must spend more money on light bulbs instead of food for thier families.... that's some great eurologic there...... :lol:
Actually, you have it a little backwards, the new bulbs save you money over the life of the bulb, so you get the same light for less money.
What's the price going to be, after you add in the ethanol subsidies that come from the government? Oil, or no oil, our military presence isn't going away anytime soon. I bet if you factor in the government subsidies, it goes up to 12 bucks a gallon. Plus, the fact that consumers are going to have to buy more ethanol, because it's not as efficient as gasoline.
So, how is this better for the consumer again?
So starve a little now, you'll get it back in 5 years? :roll:
Now you are speculating wildly. Let's see some facts and figures. You are not looking at this long term and I am not sure why. You seem opposed to any form of energy, or even energy efficiency that would lessen our dependence on foreign sources of oil that are declining and therefore becoming more expensive. Why is that?
A penny saved is a penny earned!
don't they contain mercury?
Like I said, the oil companies love you for it Jerry!
Don't forget the zinc and cooper that has to be strip mined for those pennies.
don't they contain mercury?
I'm all for a practical alternative, that doesn't need to be permanently propped up with tax dollars. So far, that alternative doesn't exist. Why aren't you alter-energy gurus pushing natural gas?
Cutting domestic oil production by 13% sure as hell isn't the answer. The One wanted to go after the oil companies and doing so, he caused the price of oil to go up, thereby increasing profits for the oil companies. He really showed them!!!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?