 | DrumBeat: May 25, 2008 | The Oil Drum | TOD Local Open Thread: What's your town doing about high gas prices? |  |
162 comments on Weekend Energy Listening: Ethanol's Energy Balance with Tad Patzek
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
162 comments on Weekend Energy Listening: Ethanol's Energy Balance with Tad Patzek
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
User login
Personnel
Archives
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
It's a first-law calculation, not EROI. You should read up on the first law and figure it out yourself. I already know how to do it.
Pollutant emissions: Hydrogen peroxide, organic hydroperoxide species, and formaldehyde for starters; there's plenty more.
Toxic to ruminants: ruminant rumens are alkaline. Feeding them corn or DDGS acidifies it and gives them acidosis. This in turn harms the liver and makes the ruminant sick. That's why the livestock industry is the largest user of antibiotics and why industrial meat is laced with it in turn. That's why the USDA has guidelines on the percent of DDGS or corn to be fed to cows, to avoid killing them with their food before we do as our food. Also feeding corn/DDGS to cows has led to the acid-tolerant version of E. coli (O157:H7), first identified in 1982 after corn became a staple of industrial feedlots. The normal E. coli in a rumen dies when exposed to the acidity of our stomachs (pH 2) which is why we never had beef recalls prior to the huge push to corn feeding. Now we have this acid-tolerant version that is pathogenic and can be fatal to humans (it was the identified pathogen responsible for the spinach scare a few years ago). You can read all about and the connection to corn-fed cows in Virulence Mechanisms of Bacterial Pathogens, p. 68.
There is no switchgrass-based ethanol industry. Grow all the switchgrass you want and do whatever you want with it.
If you know all that you know that, out of the hundreds of millions of cattle that have been fed DDGS, there has not been One case of a human getting sick as a result of DDGS-induced ecoli.
There has, also, not been one ethanol refinery that's had a problem with "emissions" as a result of burning biomass.
And, btw, shouldn't some of you intellectually-Energetic, uber-literate ex-oil/oil guys mention Octane, Compression, and Thermal Efficiency every now, and then? You know; that property of Ethanol that allows it, under proper compression, to generate 25% more HP than gasoline.
I notice you, RR, and Ted Patzek are always talking about btus, but, never the fact that I can run 105 Octane under high compression in a much smaller engine, and achieve the same HP, and Mileage as straight gasoline in a larger engine.
That one kind of slips the old literate, energetic minds, eh?
And you all accuse Me of being biased.
Very careful weasel-wording.
Whether or not anyone has yet died as a consequence of feeding DDGS, the fact that it increases risks is undeniable. I suppose you deny that tobacco causes lung cancer too, because your reasoning is identical.
You can do the same thing using direct injection of less than 5% average ethanol to reduce gasoline consumption by 30%, but it appears you are more interested in promoting ethanol for its own sake than increasing efficiency.
If we used 5% ethanol (from 190-proof hydrous to E85 or anything in between) as an octane booster to allow heavier turbocharging and engine downsizing, the USA could get by with just 7 billion gallons/year of ethanol to cut total gasoline/gasohol demand by 30% (42 billion gallons/year). The USA is already making 7 billion gallons/year, we just have to stop paying to blend it with gasoline and get manufacturers to build two-tank turbocharged cars instead.
I DID NOT weasel-word. I was very specific. I said, Not one Human HAS GOTTEN SICK. Then, YOU changed it to "Died."
Too much corn is bad for cattle. Okay, take it up with Smithfield Foods, or Hormel. A very slightly more e coli has been found a few times in the Manure of cows fed DDGS. Okay. And, your point is?
Not one human has gotten sick.
How dare you try to disparage my beliefs on absolutely no evidence. I don't know what you think about cigarettes and cancer, gay sex and Marriage, or Family Guy vs the Simpsons; and, I don't care. How utterly ridiculous it would be for me to disparage you on what you "might possibly" believe.
As for Direct injection of ethanol during load? Sure. It will, absolutely, work. Sell some stock, start a company, and rock and roll. Lobby Ford, and GM. Don't you get it? I don't care. I'm trying to say, "there's a Problem (Peak Oil) that's upon us, and there's an answer available, NOW."
The Oil Companies, and their proxies, and the Grocery Manufacturers (think, Tyson, Hormel, and Smithfield) are trying to kill a possible mitigation for my Grand-Kids, and it pisses me off. I've said it before: I don't own an acre of farmland, I don't draw a nickel, or a dime from any company or organization connected to any biofuels business, or trade group. Please, attack my arguments; but, don't attempt to demonize me by divining, with no evidence, whatsoever, my attitudes about irrelevent subjects. That's beneath the level of discourse I've observed from you on this forum.
G'Nite,
KD
The Oil Companies, and their proxies, and the Grocery Manufacturers (think, Tyson, Hormel, and Smithfield) are trying to kill a possible mitigation for my Grand-Kids, and it pisses me off.
And you see, I see this grand experiment itself threatening to kill off your grandkids by diverting our resources toward false solutions, that are really just a way to recycle fossil fuels, while capturing just a bit of solar energy. You see, I myself have children that mean the world to me. I want them to grow up in a world that has energy options. I see corn ethanol as a complete dead-end, and you promoting it, often with misinformation and cherry-picked data. That is not acceptable, and it pisses me off.
I don't own an acre of farmland, I don't draw a nickel, or a dime from any company or organization connected to any biofuels business, or trade group.
I think we know that's simply not true. And it is also true that you have made accusations against others based on even less evidence than it took me to conclude that you work for the ethanol lobby.
Well, THAT "Objectivity" didn't last long, did it?
Give me an example of misinformation, and cherry picked data.
I think we know that's simply not true.
That's simply Breathtaking!
I notice you've quit talking numbers with me. Why is that?
Give me an example of misinformation, and cherry picked data.
Just one? OK, misinformation: You claimed that Big Oil was behind the lobbying effort to promote food for fuel. When challenged, you could not defend. Another, you accused Tad Patzek of earning hundreds of thousands of dollars a year for lobbying for Big Oil. Again, misinformation. Shall I go on?
Cherry-picked data? Any time you pick a study paid for by the ethanol lobby over a peer-reviewed study, you have cherry-picked data. And we all know you have done that many times.
I notice you've quit talking numbers with me. Why is that?
What are you, a comedian today? I quit talking numbers because you can't even do dimensional analysis. So, you come up with all sorts of bogus ethanol yields, like 634 gallons/acre. We went down that road, I showed you again and again that your units were all messed up, and you couldn't understand. Here, let me refresh your memory:
http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/3780#comment-323389
Is there anything else comedic you would like to add?
The peer-reviewed data was Searching, et al. Searchinger is not a scientist, mathematician, or even a quasi-expert in the field. He is a Lawyer. Peer-reviewed, or not, the article was a joke. It tried to establish (not with evidence, but with innuendo, and supposition) a connection between ethanol, and the cutting down of rain forests in Brazil. It's ludicrous. For many reasons. You will notice that No One mentions this piece of crap study any more. It was Agenda-Driven Horse Hockey.
There was Not a Single Instance of, even Anecdotal, evidence to sustain such a simple-minded supposition. The head of the Department from which the team was drawn said it, "Was NOT Science.
I, in turn, shortly thereafter, presented two real-world studies, performed to "Scientific Standards" that Observed Real World Vehicles achieving very good gas mileage on mid-level Ethanol Blends. You squawked, and tried to disparage the team of College students performing one of the Tests as biased even though their work was perfectly documented.
In your triumphal link (there's a reason why you linked it, and didn't synopsize it) you questioned why I used "10/6" in my calc. I explained it was easier for me to do in my head than divide by .60. You admitted the accuracy of my result when I showed a link supporting my work. That was your big ex. of my disinformation. You're full of bull. You accepted that I was right.
I'm not the one with a big red nose, and floppy shoes, today.
Searchinger is not a scientist, mathematician, or even a quasi-expert in the field.
What is Bob Dineen, again? I forget. He is an engineer? Or a scientist of some sort? Or aren't you applying those standard consistently? And I forget, was Searchinger the sole author?
tried to disparage the team of College students performing one of the Tests as biased even though their work was perfectly documented
No matter how many times you repeat this, you are still a liar. I pointed out that the study was paid for by the ethanol lobby. That is true. I also said I would wait for independent verification.
You admitted the accuracy of my result when I showed a link supporting my work.
Are you serious? With everything you post, you confirm my lobbyist suspicions. That was not the link in question. That was something entirely different - the amount of weight gain on DDGS. You are either intentionally trying to mislead, or just terribly mistaken.
It is no wonder that someone such as yourself would see ethanol as the solution for your grandkids' futures, when you so dishonestly portray the evidence. Of course when you do that, ethanol looks great. But I can also use your tactics to make ExxonMobil look like Mother Teresa.
If you want to play that game, Searching led a team from Iowa State University which received $22 Millin from Conoco, I believe it was. The project was commissioned by The Nature Conservancy which has Exxon, and Conoco as permanent board members, if memory serves. The Other team was from Princeton, I think, that received$15 million from Exxon.
It doesn't matter; the fact remains that it is absolutely impossible to draw a connection between switchgrass in Florida, or Corn in Iowa, and someone cutting down trees in the rain forest for lumber. And, yes, That IS why they cut down trees. To get Lumber. There are tens of millions of acres of Cerrano land lying fallow, ready to be farmed. No One, Absolutely, No One, would clear trees in the rain forest to plant soybeans. It's ludicrous.
Dineen is the Head of a Trade Group. A Lobbyist. He doesn't pretend to be anything more, or less. He doesn't write hit pieces, and pretend they're "scholarly" research. And, enough with the "peer-review." No one's falling for it, anymore.
We were discussing my "weight-gain" assertion, and when I posted the link you gave it up. The comments were just slightly above the comment you linked. Go look it up.
G'Day :)
If you want to play that game, Searching led a team from Iowa State University which received $22 Millin from Conoco, I believe it was.
You know why I grow tired of conversing with you? You can't even bother to get the most basic facts correct. I tire and tire of correcting you, and then when I do you just repeat some other fallacy. ConocoPhillips gave $22.5 million to ISU for biofuels research.
http://www.public.iastate.edu/~nscentral/news/2007/apr/biofuels.shtml
But don't ever let little things like facts get in the way of your hysteria. Do you ever fact check any of your accusations?
Dineen is the Head of a Trade Group. A Lobbyist. He doesn't pretend to be anything more, or less.
Yet you have cited him, and yet rejected Searchinger on the basis of qualifications. More of your double-standards.
We were discussing my "weight-gain" assertion, and when I posted the link you gave it up.
You are pathetic. Really. You made an assertion on DDGS and weight gain, and I asked for a link. I never disputed that assertion, and indicated as much. I just asked for a link (although I did note the irony of the age of the link, which was older than one I had just given you - and yet you complained about the age). There was nothing for me to "give up." But if you want to pretend you scored a point somehow - and I would encourage anyone to read through that exchange to see how it actually played out - by all means knock yourself out.
But you have really exhausted my patience. It's just lies upon lies, misrepresentation after misrepresentation. It gets old after a while, and is a huge waste of my time to constantly correct your made up "facts." But of course ethanol looks good to you. You have spun all kinds of myths around it to make it look good. But what you can't handle is the truth.
Incredible!
I stated that Conoco gave Iowa State $22 Million, and you called me a Liar, said I was "Pathetic," and then you posted a link showing
Conoco Gave Iowa State $22.5 Million!!
Just Freak'in Incredible!
You couldn't make this stuff up. :)
I stated that Conoco gave Iowa State $22 Million, and you called me a Liar, said I was "Pathetic," and then you posted a link showing
Do you ever tell the truth? Just when I didn't think you could get any more pathetic, you prove me wrong.
You are pathetic because the money was not for Searchinger, nor for his research. That was your claim - that he was being funded by COP through ISU. That is a lie.
The money from COP was for ISU to do biofuels research, primarily on cellulosic ethanol. Did you not understand that? Really? Or is this some kind of joke where you just see how much of everyone's time you can waste?
Just out of curiosity I searched for Kolliso on the web and found Kum Dollison . This guy is ethanol's version of Dave Matthews (now there is a name from the past). If he does not get paid by the ethanol industry he should send them a bill for all of the posts he makes on their behalf. Looks like he gets just as much of a beating as he gets here; at the Café Hayek http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2007/09/the-case-for-in.html (uses the name rufus) he is really called to task for no evidence for his ethanol claims. Persistent!
Cool, did you notice that the link you gave was a thread where I was defending the Peak Oil position?
I'm not only prolific, I'm multi-faceted. Prestidigitacious, too. ;)
It's possible to get peak oil right and get the solution totally wrong.
Persistent!
And note that when he is caught in a lie - and there have been many (e.g., his claim that ConocoPhillips funded the Searchinger study) - he doesn't miss a beat. No admission of being wrong, he just trots out another claim. (I only ever recall getting him to admit to being wrong once - when he falsely claimed that ethanol made in any fashion qualified for the blender's credit).
No, No, No! I Never said that.
I said that Conoco gave Iowa State $22 Million. YOU confirmed it.
Persistently Accurate.
Uh, have you already forgotten what you wrote? It's just above, where people can still read it. Most of the time you will at least wait until we are in a new thread before making your false claims. But, just above you wrote:
If you want to play that game, Searching led a team from Iowa State University which received $22 Millin from Conoco, I believe it was.
Did you forget about the bit you wrote where "Searching [sic] led the team" that received the money? I mean, if that wasn't what you intended to convey, why did you write it like that?
I think we all understand quite clearly your game. Anti-ethanol studies are to be linked to Big Oil if possible, and if not possible, just make something up, like the Searchinger/COP link (or, "Big Oil is funding the food versus fuel smear"). It's pathetic and dishonest, but then at least it is consistent with your methods.
Yeah, I was trying to give the impression that Conoco gave those team members checks for $3 something Million, apiece.
You betcha.
Jeez
OH, but you can dump on some College Kids doing a serious fuel cycle test because . . . . . . They study at a University situated in a "State" where some people Raise Corn?
OH, but you can dump on some College Kids doing a serious fuel cycle test because...
Does the lying not even bother you? You have been corrected on this multiple times - once even in this thread - and yet you continue to lie. Why?
But when you have to lie so persistently to make your arguments, there is no denying that you have a vested interest. After all, you may deny it, but you have proven that you lie.
I notice you, RR, and Ted Patzek are always talking about btus, but, never the fact that I can run 105 Octane under high compression in a much smaller engine, and achieve the same HP, and Mileage as straight gasoline in a larger engine.
In fact, I have mentioned this a number of times. I explained this at length to someone via e-mail just last week, who didn't understand how it could be. And I have discussed in public here, and on my blog.
And you all accuse Me of being biased.
Yes, because you are biased. I have written a number of positive essays about ethanol. Where can I find anything negative you have ever said about ethanol? Oh, right. There are no negatives. You see, we call someone like that biased. Your penchant for cherry-picking data favorable to you, or quickly rejecting any data unfavorable to you, shows your bias clearly.
And I have discussed in public here, and on my blog.
Must have been before my time.
I'm an Ethanol supporter. I think it's a good short/medium term solution to a huge impending problem. I don't have a clue what the transportation picture will look like fifty years from now; but, I have confidence my grandchildren will be able to figure it out if I can keep them alive long enough to give them a chance.
There lies the rub, it seems. It appears that my desires don't necessarily coincide with those from Exxon, Tyson, and the house of saud. If I'm constantly "Defending" ethanol it's because it has been increasingly under attack from those that would deprive my family of this very much needed resource. The Disinformation Campaign has been Biblical in magnitude, and Brilliant in execution. It has not, in my estimation, been an even contest.
So, here I stand; Kdolliso for the Defense. Biased? Damned Betcha. My client needs me (metaphorically speaking, of course.) Oh! There is ONE thing I don't like about it. They mess it up by adding that foul-tasting gasoline to it. It don't "Sip" worth a damn.
it has been increasingly under attack from those that would deprive my family of this very much needed resource
Why does your family need ethanol?
My family needs affordable transportation fuel (for us, for our customers, for the grocery trucks that bring our groceries, etc.)
If you really want that, you will stop supporting the current ethanol regime immediately. It is roughly energy-neutral, is massively dependent on fossil inputs (thus vulnerable to disruption of supply), and costs a fortune.
The way to affordable transport has two major parts: electrification and rail (esp. electrified rail). Crossing the Smith Newton with the Bladerunner dual-mode truck would get your produce from Florida, Texas and California to your supermarket without a drop of liquid fuel. Biofuels such as ethanol are far too expensive to have a major role in an affordable system; the current (relatively) low prices are due to subsidy from untaxed fossil inputs.
My grocery truck is increasingly a wheelbarrow that runs from my garden to my kitchen. I suggest you teach your children and grand children how to feed themselves rather than relying on the welfare system that ethanol would be.
I would also suggest you use a condom (on either end, you would be the best judge there:). When you come right down to the nub of it, our problem is not one of energy replacements but of population reduction, so, 'sucks' to your first-world pollution producing grandchildren, besides as an argument that is a rather weasely one, much akin to hiding behind a woman's skirts.
What I don’t understand about your “conspiracy’ theory is what is keeping Exxon, Tyson, and the House of Saud from investing in ethanol? They all have enough money to back ethanol - if they thought it was a good sound long term investment. Maybe it’s because the numbers don’t work , and why they hire people like Ted Patzek and Robert Rapier to discover if the investment is worth it.
Bruce, Exxon, and the Sauds are members of an Oligopoly. Why would they want to promote a Competing technology? Do you think the Royal Princes are going to turn into Farmers? Is Rex Tillotson going to manage fields of Switch Grass? They've got the world by the Balls. Why would they possibly want to change that?
As for Tyson, Hormel, and Smithfield? They Loved that "subsidized" $2.00 field corn. You know, the stuff your taxes were paying the farmers $11 Billion/Yr to grow.
Dude, your world view is one usually found in comic books and conspiracy sites. Modern corporations care about profit, and if diversifying their investments improves their bottom line, ex. Phillip Morris, then that is where the money will flow. And unlike you, there is little emotion involved. Moreover, corporations, ala Bill Gates, usually take over or buy their competitors, especially if it improves their bottom line, not engage in a costly and futile campaign to crush an emerging technology, especially if the numbers show it is a winner.
Dude,
I've turned a few profits in my day; and, not one time did I do it by cutting my own throat. If you want to think that Exxon, Shell, and the Saudis will embrace ethanol once they're convinced it's a viable competitor to gasoline, Have a Ball.
I warn you, though; before you go telling people they're "Comic Book Charactures," you might want to sit down in a quiet place and think a little more. You wouldn't want to suffer the embarressment of finding out later that the "Conspiralist" was, indeed, right; and, you were, thus, . . . . . .
Oh, and why do you imagine all of the big oil companies forbade their franchisees from installing e85 pumps, collecting for e85 on their credit cards, or displaying e85 prices?
Why do you suppose they were putting 10% ethanol in their "Premium" Brands (where DID you think that 92 Octane came from?) and, at the same time, disparaging ethanol at every turn?
Do you really think the Royal Princes see themselves as future switchgrass farmers?
Regarding Kdolliso,
here is a small sampling of Kdolliso's comments that go back for 11 days.
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3587#comment-301654
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4039#comment-349237
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4027#comment-347900
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3972#comment-345341
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3992#comment-344778
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3972#comment-345494
http://anz.theoildrum.com/node/3988#comment-344521
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3986#comment-343784
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3934#comment-340625
http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/3960#comment-344125
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3971#comment-342349
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3963#comment-341556
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3963#comment-342708
http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/3952#comment-340677
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3986#comment-343784
As you notice, All of them are ethanol advocating propaganda with cherry picked data and outright false information.
http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/3952#comment-340695
Here is an argument, where the links provided by him are used against him, an example of cherry picking and misleading calculations.
I am not going to argue with him anymore, It is pointless to argue with a man who is paid to argue against you.
Here is his other profile X, that he sometime uses to back himself up on the ethanol argument. Also an Ethanol pundit, but likely the same man nevertheless.
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4032#comment-348605
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3992#comment-345078
http://www.theoildrum.com/user/kdolliso
http://www.theoildrum.com/user/x
their used in conjunction all the time to make it appear like their is more of a consensus for corn-ethanol and more of a voice against it, he will faux tag team people with this style.
Why would the ethanol industry pay a person to comment positively about their product all over the internet using various accounts/profiles? Simple explanation, The Ethanol Industry is not a profitable industry under regular circumstances, It survives off of government subsidies and mandates. It is able to do this through various lobbyist which are financed by companies such as Archer Daniel's Midland. Now, recently as most of us know we have uncovered that first generation and likely second generation biofuels may contribute and do contribute to starvation, rising food prices, a greater dependence on foreign oil and climate change at almost no benefit whatsoever. By sowing doubt and confusion among the people the ethanol industry thinks it can keep back political pressure to repeal the 36 billion gallon ethanol mandate and remove the subsidies keeping the industry alive. Therefore, you can see it is in the industry's best interest to use such lowly methods to further their interest. This, precisely is whats wrong with humanity and why it very well may not survive the next few centuries in any respectable form. We put selfish interest before everybody else, yet we live in a society where the outcome of the many becomes the fate of the few. We put our short term interest before the long term, The ethanol industry wants to remain intact and resorts to these desperate measures. However, the more the ethanol industry hurts the country and the people as a whole the more it destroys it's future by contributing to a downturn in the economy as a whole. Really, the survival of the ethanol industry is not the priority, but the well-being of those in control of the ethanol-industry is. The ethanol industry will not survive in the long run, but it only has to live long enough to pad the pockets of those in charge, so they can finance a paradise away from the hell-hole of a world they've left behind or live in comfort until their dead. These snakes think like the great economist Keynes did, "In the long run well all be dead." Thing is Keynes never had children, and therefore didn't care what happened to the world. Kdolliso, have you any idea what you are doing? You spoke of your grandchildren, next time you see them, look at them. Don't just look at them though, go up to them stare them in the eye's and hold their hands and tell them you love them. Then think if what you are doing is truly good for them, then again you probably don't have any grandchildren. What your doing now is lowly vile and I would hope you realize what you are doing is only in the benefit of those at the top of the industry, not people like you. Reconsider everything
Kdolliso is a ethanol industry pundit. He receives a check every month from various sources related to the ethanol industry. He is a perfect example of why we are in the mess we are in, but people can change, or I hope they can. I think we all all can. It's that or die..
I guess kdolliso, and X should have ISP addresses in at least the same geographical area of the country, huh? I don't know much about the intertubes, but I think I know that much.
Maybe the Host could clear that up.
Wanna make a little bet, Sword?
LOL, even if that's true it doesn't matter, your the Joseph Goebbels of ethanol or one of his henchmen, and that's that...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Goebbels
Joseph Goebbels was the minister of enlightenment and propoganda for the Nazi's
Mister Goebbels to you, Bub
Now, where did I put those "henchmen?"
They're prolly hiding out back drinkin up the profits. Ya just can't get good (evil) help, nowadays.
Kdolliso is a ethanol industry pundit. He receives a check every month from various sources related to the ethanol industry.
I think this bit is correct. Nobody is that one-sided and over the top without someone paying them to defend an interest. But he isn't X. That identity belongs to our corn farmer, Practical. So you are correct that X had more than one user name, but Kdolliso is a different animal. He oozes the sort of dishonesty I have come to expect from certain lobbyists, defending an interest while pleading for the moral high ground.
He may be Majorian, though, or at least connected to him. They registered here within hours of each other, both spouting off the same ethanol propaganda.
definitely, I just did a little research, your most likely right. I don't have to be completely right though just close, I'm playing his game now and it's a dirty one, where the facts don't matter and everyones a jackass.
And, the magic ISPs ARE?
R-squared,
I suppose it is remotely possible (in your dreams) that kdolliso is working for the ethanol industry. If so, I would like him to send some checks to me for all my 'good work' on behalf of RFA.
As for me, all I can remember is that kdolliso said he is in the insurance business. I know nothing else about him and I am not him.
OTH, how pure are you? You've admitted your family is in the livestock business which is suffering from high corn prices. You've admitted you worked for an oil company, though now you're somewhere else.
Contrast that to the fact you actually have no proof of any kind of lobbying against kdolliso (or me).
Is it so hard to imagine that he might believe in ethanol all on his own? Millions of perfectly normal people do.
Or is it that you can't believe that he doesn't find your
many anti-ethanol posts convincing?
Or could it be the fact that you've tied yourself to
anti-ethanol position and there is NO WAY you can allow yourself to flip-flop on your position.
We all agree that Peak Oil/Gas is upon us, right?
Or are you still backing the nuclear/NG cornucopian Robert Bryce who ridicules energy independence and renewable electricity as well as ethanol. He thinks a kind of battery that doesn't exist now will save us.
http://www.motherjones.com/interview/2008/05/interview-robert-bryce.html
OTH, ethanol is replacing .5 mbpd of oil. Try being realistic.
OTH, how pure are you? You've admitted your family is in the livestock business which is suffering from high corn prices. You've admitted you worked for an oil company, though now you're somewhere else.
Yes, that's just the thing. The open and honest among us are open to those criticisms. Those who make impassioned pleas for ethanol while hiding behind pseudonyms can continue to claim that they are merely concerned citizens. It has happened lots of times. The lobbyist is given his marching orders to go spread the good news. Not, of course as a lobbyist. Who would believe it?
Or is it that you can't believe that he doesn't find your many anti-ethanol posts convincing?
LOL! The issue is simple. He has taken to steadily lying and misrepresenting in order to argue his case. It isn't that he doesn't find my posts convincing; he argues against them by fabricating information and constant smears. That's not the behavior of a simple, concerned citizen. The only people I ever see who argue from such a position are those with vested ethanol interests. And where your associations are not transparent, your actions speak for themselves.
Or could it be the fact that you've tied yourself to anti-ethanol position and there is NO WAY you can allow yourself to flip-flop on your position.
I don't know how many times I have to point out that I am not anti-ethanol. I am against using grain supplies to produce something that mostly recycles fossil fuels while consuming our cropland. Is that so hard to understand? I continue to be involved in an ethanol project to this day; one that I think will work. I spoke to Al Gore's investment fund in London about it last week. So don't misrepresent my position. I have enough of that with your alter-ego.
Do you want to clarify for the record how it is that you and kdolliso, two of the three biggest ethanol boosters on this board (the other being a corn farmer), just happened to register in the same week? Was that just incredible coincidence? Or do you have more to tell us?
How do you know it's not Bi-Weekly, O' Prescient One?
And, how do you know it's not just from ONE source?
That's some "Intelligence" Network you got there, Bubba. :)
I don't think he's a paid lobbyist, just a retired guy from Tennessee who has nothing better to do than argue regardless of the facts and studies presented. I run into these people in my parts in South Central Illinois all of the time - never let the facts get in the way of a belief, even to the point of violence or calamity. Sad.
He is a paid lobbyist no doubt I have very strong reason to believe so.. he's not even arguing against it because he knows he has no chance of winning that argument..
I admit it; ya got me thinkin.
Now, I'm trying to figure out who to call.
How much should I ask for?
How much is evil henchmenin goin for nowadays?
You should call Kum Dollison,
Ask where he gets his money from,
ask for a lot,
Well if your a global warming skeptic about 10,000$ a paper,
But, wait, you don't have a PhD do you, well I guess your screwed..
Google "Kum Dollison" and tell me why he has nothing to do but comment positively about corn ethanol all damn day?
Why does he use multiple profiles like skh.pcola ... ohh wait you can google that too, and find a million comments on ethanol
http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2007/09/the-case-for-in.html
Posted by: skh.pcola | Sep 30, 2007 6:05:01 PM
What part of 113 OCTANE vs 86 Octane don't you understand?
What part of 42% efficiency don't you understand? What part of 20% fuel efficiency over baseline gasoline engine don't you understand?
Look, a gallon of oil has more btu's (energy) than a gallon of gasoline, but that doesn't mean you can burn it in an automobile engine. According to that EPA study e85 (properly compressed) has an energy EFFICIENCY (the thing that actually powers your auto) 20% higher than that of gasoline. It's NOT just the btu's, but, also, the ease with which it gives it up that counts.
As for the rundown on costs, there has been a long discussion over at the New York Times blog, here:
http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/24/corn-ethanol-biofuel-or-biofr...
I have, under the name Kum Dollison, made a number of comments going through the numbers. They are, absolutely, nothing like you think they are. I came in about halfway through the thread
....................
your dumb
I'm Dumb?
You're the one that read MY comment, and attributed it to this Cola guy.
It goes like this "Comment," and then Name at the Bottom.
The Cola guy was arguing for abiotic oil.
I think the conspiracy theory is unproven. Not saying its not the case etc..
Also the investment in online ego can produce serious self sustaining arseholes of almost psychotic determination.
you know the internet and all that..
Boris
London