Sorry all for taking the bait and continuing on with this diversion.
Well, insults and name calling seem to be the main tactic of those who can't win on facts or truth....
It took about ten seconds to find support for the biofuels are a net negative energy source. But just ignore the truth and go ahead feeling all good about burning commercial biofuels.......
Corn Ethanol And Biodiesel Net Energy Losers
David Pimentel and Tad W. Patzek have once again analyzed plants as ethanol energy sources and found the energy cost of growth and processing outweighs the energy produced.
ITHACA, N.Y. -- Turning plants such as corn, soybeans and sunflowers into fuel uses much more energy than the resulting ethanol or biodiesel generates, according to a new Cornell University and University of California-Berkeley study.
"There is just no energy benefit to using plant biomass for liquid fuel," says David Pimentel, professor of ecology and agriculture at Cornell. "These strategies are not sustainable."
Pimentel and Tad W. Patzek, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Berkeley, conducted a detailed analysis of the energy input-yield ratios of producing ethanol from corn, switch grass and wood biomass as well as for producing biodiesel from soybean and sunflower plants. Their report is published in Natural Resources Research (Vol. 14:1, 65-76).
In terms of energy output compared with energy input for ethanol production, the study found that:
corn requires 29 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced;
switch grass requires 45 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced; and
wood biomass requires 57 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced.
In terms of energy output compared with the energy input for biodiesel production, the study found that:
soybean plants requires 27 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced, and
sunflower plants requires 118 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced.
--- In diesel_mercedes@yahoogroups.com, audiolaw@... wrote:
>
> Proving, for all to understand, that actual intelligence is not a
> prerequisite for loving Mercedes diesels.
>
>
>
>
> In a message dated 6/12/2012 7:43:01 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
> schulzpaul@... writes:
>
>
>
>
> I will agree some still believe the global warming hoax.
>
> I'm not a big fan of biofuels if they are derived directly from crops.
> Just don't think it is wise to be burning your food supply with the planet's
> population at an all time high and growing. Not to mention that they have a
> negative net energy by the time they get to the consumer. You will "save
> the planet" faster by burning diesel. Post consumer waste biofuels I think
> are great.
> Since finding and employing a second hand centrifuge to clean the post
> consumer waste biofuels I find frequent filter changes are a thing of the past
> in my 91 350SD. (Yes,it is the "rod-bender" with 520,000 miles)
>
> _l_mercedes@yahoogroups.com_ (mailto:l_mercedes@yahoogroups.com) , Yahoo!
> Member Service <tccservice111@> wrote:
> >
> > Gobal warming is real Capalist don't understand.Glad I can burn bio fuels
> >
> >
> > --- On Tue, 6/12/12, Paul Schulz <schulzpaul@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > From: Paul Schulz <schulzpaul@>
> > Subject: [diesel_mercedes] Re: They LIED
> > To: "_diesel_mercedes@yahoogroups.com_
> (mailto:diesel_mercedes@yahoogroups.com) " <_diesel_mercedes@yahoogroups.com_
> (mailto:diesel_mercedes@yahoogroups.com) >
> > Date: Tuesday, June 12, 2012, 8:52 AM
> >
> >
> >
> > Â
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Tom:
> > Please get in your Mercedes diesel and go on a road-trip. So then we
> don't have to see your continued pollution of this wonderful yahoo group with
> your continued babbling about your philosophical phantasies of the
> poor government workers being taken advantage of or global warming and the
> junk science that supports it! When you return we would love to hear about
> how wonderful your Mercedes diesel is.
> > Thanx, Paul
> >
>
No comments:
Post a Comment