Scott Sellers wrote:
> F George McDuffee <gmcduffee@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>:
>> On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 18:23:34 GMT, "Brian Bartz"
>> <nasacpa@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>>> Corn ethanol is bad news. When you figure out the amount of
>>> energy that goes into getting the ethanol, the deal doesn't
>>> make much sense.
>> =============== Indeed, from a strictly "up front" or current
>> effeciency/economic standpoint it does not, however not
>> everything is [or should be] evaluated on the factors of current
>> "efficiency" and "economics."
>
>> First: from a national defense perspective, ethanol production
>> is domestic under US control, and establishes a secure fuel
>> supply.
>
> If a limited, tem****ary fuel supply can be considered "secure".
> Ethanol cannot begin to meet current oil consumption standards,
> and is not a renewable resource under current industrial farming
> practices, where the destructive costs to the very soil are
> externalized for short-term profit.
>
See "methane ice" for ideas on a solution, which should be discussed
elsewhere.
--
bill davidsen <davidsen@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Unsigned numbers may not be negative. However, unsigned numbers may be
less than zero for sufficiently large values of zero.
|
