Re: Take that, Iowa!!
On 1/10/08, Robert Seeberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 1/10/2008 6:13:29 PM, Lance A. Brown ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > Perhaps. The use of corn to produce ethanol is already driving the > > cost > > of corn higher, impacting food costs already[1]. I don't > > think we want > > to use corn _or_ sugarcane for producing ethanol in the long term. > > The problem with corn is that it produces a lower energy ethanol. > Sugarcane *is* much better in that regard. > But why are you worried about sugarcane? We don't use it all that much > in the US, even for making sugar. Last I heard, sugar beets was the > big resource in that industry. (In the US that is.) True, but you *can* taste the difference between sugar from sugar beets and suger from sugarcane, contrary to what Wikipedia states. That's why the old C&H sugar jingle makes a big deal of it -- "C and H, pure cane sugar, that's the one." While sugar from both is just sucrose, it's only 99.95% sucrose. That 0.05% difference doesn't sound like a lot, but it sure makes a difference in baking. There is a great page about this at http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgifile=/chronicle/archive/1999/03/31/FD91867.DTL or http://tinyurl.com/8ljgg This page includes info about blind taste tests of foods baked with cane sugar and the same foods baked with beet sugar. It also includes recipes so you can try it for yourself. Sorry, I got sidetracked for a minute there. The original point I wanted to make is that, as corn prices rise, the price of high-fructose corn syrup will rise. Eventually, it will be less expensive for manufacturers to go back to using good old-fashioned sucrose, whether from cane or beet. And while that might be better from a culinary standpoint, there is a downside. As demand for sugar increases, the price will increase. Some days you just can't win. -- Mauro Diotallevi "Hey, Harry, you haven't done anything useful for a while -- you be the god of jello now." -- Patricia Wrede, 8/16/2006 on rasfc ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Take that, Iowa!!
- Original Message - From: "Dan M" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion'" Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 11:24 PM Subject: RE: Take that, Iowa!! > > >> -Original Message- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> Behalf Of Jim Sharkey >> Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 4:08 PM >> To: brin-l@mccmedia.com >> Subject: Take that, Iowa!! >> >> >> I'm sure some of you knew this, what with your big brains and all, >> but I found it interesting: >> >> http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=grass-makes-better-ethanol-than-corn >> >> _Scientific American_ is saying grass as a source of ethanol has >> the >> potential to be vastly more efficient than corn. Pretty cool >> stuff, >> I think. > > I've been busy, but I'm sorta back. > > Unfortunately, when the numbers are crunched, it doesn't look very > good. I > have a blog on the Scientific American website that looked into the > fundamental numbers. > > I looked at 2006 numbers for a baseline. I didn't include the > energy price > of ethanol, so these numbers overstate the viability of ethonal. > > In 2006, 4.9 billion gallons of ethanol were produced. That's a > yield of > about 2.3 gal/bushel.a bit lower than the estimate I gave. 4.9 > billion > gallons of ethanol replace 3.3 billion gallons of gasoline.or about > 2.4% of > gasoline consumption. 100% of the crop would give 5x that amount, or > 12%. > That's slightly less than the 13% I estimated earlier.which means > that the > 2.6 gallons/bushel was a bit optimistic. > > These yields are for a high density crop usually grown on the best > land with > intense cultivation. I cranked the numbers for switchgrass, and the > nominal > yield of ethanol per acre on cultivated land is less than half of > that of > corn. It still might be better, due to a lower energy costs for > production, > but it won't be better than my analysis which ignored the energy > cost of > ethanol. > > In 2006, the US had about 320,000 sq. km of the best farmland > dedicated to > corn. In 2002, the US had about 1.760 million sq. km cultivated in > all > crops (I couldn't easily find 2006 data for the total..but 2002 > should give > order of magnitude). The total land area of the US about 3.8 million > sq. km, > of which about 0.5 million is in Alaska, which I will not consider > potential > crop land. So, most of the Continental US and Hawaii is already crop > land...so there is not a lot of land just waiting to be used. Some, > like > the SW desert and the mountains are virtually impossible to use, so > it is > very difficult for me to see how any significant contribution to our > energy > supply will be afforded by ethanol. > > Then why the subsidy? Two words: farm lobby. > I agree with you on almost every point here, especially when you point out the farm lobby. There are aspects of the American ethanol industry that are quite problematic. And I think most would agree that supplanting food crops to enhance energy production is a pretty bad idea. As I understood the original switchgrass proposals made a few years ago, switchgrass was supposed to be grown in addition to and not instead of other crops. The reason this was proposed was that switchgrass (and several other hardy grasses) would easily grow in areas considered marginal to poor (or worse) for other crops. Grasses could be grown on highway right-of-ways or to prevent erosion on hillsides and riversides. It would grow in swamps. It could even be grown in fallow fields if the need arose. Our fuel standard is currently E15 and moving toward E85, but I have not seen any proposals for E100. So I don't think this will be a long term problem/solution. Hopefully, we will have better alternatives in just a few years and won't have to burn anything more complex than hydrogen to move us and our goods around. Like this from the Wikipedia article for Gallium: "Aluminum is reactive enough to reduce water to hydrogen, being oxidized to aluminium oxide. However, the aluminum oxide forms a protective coat which prevents further reaction. When gallium is alloyed with aluminum, the coat does not form, thus the alloy can potentially provide a solid hydrogen source for transportation purposes, which would be more convenient than a pressurized hydrogen tank. Resmelting the resultant aluminum oxide and gallium mixture to metallic aluminum and gallium and reforming these into electrodes would constitute most of the energy input into the system, while electricity produced by a hydrogen fuel cell co
Re: Take that, Iowa!!
Charlie Bell wrote: > >> You didn't parse my e-mail address. Do it now. >> There's plenty of suitable land for sugarcane here... :-) > > Hasn't it got rainforest on it? > No, the rainforest is 1000 km away from the sugercane area. Check... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture_in_Brazil ... namely: Sugarcane production is concentrated in 6 brazilian states: São Paulo, Minas Gerais, Mato Grosso, Mato Grosso do Sul, Goiás and Paraná. Those 6 states are responsible for 82% of the total production Except for Mato Grosso (that is in the border of the rainforest), none of those states are rainforest states. Map of the rainforest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_Rainforest Map of Brazil states: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Brazil_Labelled_Map.svg In the map, above, the rainforest more or less corresponds to the green area, and the sugarcane to the yellow, part of the red and part of the blue. BTW, our "Saudi Arabia" is the central state in the red area, Rio de Janeiro (where I live). I am probably farther away from the rainforest than most USA listmembers :-) Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Take that, Iowa!!
Dave Land wrote: > >> You didn't parse my e-mail address. Do it now. >> There's plenty of suitable land for sugarcane here... :-) > > Sure, and if it's not already cleared for planting, I'm sure you folks > can figure out how to slash and burn a couple of million square miles of > the planet's lungs to clear the way. :-) > You offend me, Dave. We are not birmanese or liberians. We slash and burn million square kilometers! But that's our contribution to Save The Planet. A forest is carbon-neutral. Slashing and burning it - provided we sequester a little carbon as wooden furniture or paper - means that something else will grow there, removing CO2 from the air :-P Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Take that, Iowa!!
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Jim Sharkey > Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 4:08 PM > To: brin-l@mccmedia.com > Subject: Take that, Iowa!! > > > I'm sure some of you knew this, what with your big brains and all, > but I found it interesting: > > http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=grass-makes-better-ethanol-than-corn > > _Scientific American_ is saying grass as a source of ethanol has the > potential to be vastly more efficient than corn. Pretty cool stuff, > I think. I've been busy, but I'm sorta back. Unfortunately, when the numbers are crunched, it doesn't look very good. I have a blog on the Scientific American website that looked into the fundamental numbers. I looked at 2006 numbers for a baseline. I didn't include the energy price of ethanol, so these numbers overstate the viability of ethonal. In 2006, 4.9 billion gallons of ethanol were produced. That's a yield of about 2.3 gal/bushel.a bit lower than the estimate I gave. 4.9 billion gallons of ethanol replace 3.3 billion gallons of gasoline.or about 2.4% of gasoline consumption. 100% of the crop would give 5x that amount, or 12%. That's slightly less than the 13% I estimated earlier.which means that the 2.6 gallons/bushel was a bit optimistic. These yields are for a high density crop usually grown on the best land with intense cultivation. I cranked the numbers for switchgrass, and the nominal yield of ethanol per acre on cultivated land is less than half of that of corn. It still might be better, due to a lower energy costs for production, but it won't be better than my analysis which ignored the energy cost of ethanol. In 2006, the US had about 320,000 sq. km of the best farmland dedicated to corn. In 2002, the US had about 1.760 million sq. km cultivated in all crops (I couldn't easily find 2006 data for the total..but 2002 should give order of magnitude). The total land area of the US about 3.8 million sq. km, of which about 0.5 million is in Alaska, which I will not consider potential crop land. So, most of the Continental US and Hawaii is already crop land...so there is not a lot of land just waiting to be used. Some, like the SW desert and the mountains are virtually impossible to use, so it is very difficult for me to see how any significant contribution to our energy supply will be afforded by ethanol. Then why the subsidy? Two words: farm lobby. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Take that, Iowa!!
On 12 Jan 2008, at 00:10, Dave Land wrote: > On Jan 11, 2008, at 11:10 AM, Alberto Monteiro wrote: > >> Lance A. Brown wrote: >>> This is not necessarily true - if there's unused land and the new crop grows into that land, then this would have no positive impact in the food price. The reverse would even be more likely, since if it becomes not viable to turn the food crop into fuel, the new crop would compete with the previous crops, making food prices cheaper. >>> Unused land suitable for corn or sugarcane? >>> >> You didn't parse my e-mail address. Do it now. >> There's plenty of suitable land for sugarcane here... :-) > > Sure, and if it's not already cleared for planting, I'm sure you folks > can figure out how to slash and burn a couple of million square > miles of > the planet's lungs to clear the way. :-) And replay 19th C colonialism on the autochthons! No pants no rights Maru. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." ~Voltaire. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Take that, Iowa!!
On 12/01/2008, at 6:10 AM, Alberto Monteiro wrote: >> > You didn't parse my e-mail address. Do it now. > There's plenty of suitable land for sugarcane here... :-) Hasn't it got rainforest on it? Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Take that, Iowa!!
On Jan 11, 2008, at 11:10 AM, Alberto Monteiro wrote: > Lance A. Brown wrote: >> >>> This is not necessarily true - if there's unused land and the new >>> crop >>> grows into that land, then this would have no positive impact in the >>> food price. The reverse would even be more likely, since if it >>> becomes >>> not viable to turn the food crop into fuel, the new crop would >>> compete >>> with the previous crops, making food prices cheaper. >>> >> Unused land suitable for corn or sugarcane? >> > You didn't parse my e-mail address. Do it now. > There's plenty of suitable land for sugarcane here... :-) Sure, and if it's not already cleared for planting, I'm sure you folks can figure out how to slash and burn a couple of million square miles of the planet's lungs to clear the way. :-) Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Take that, Iowa!!
At 02:16 PM Friday 1/11/2008, Jim Sharkey wrote: >Ronn! Blankenship wrote: > >I, too, have issues with all those cellulouses who > yakity-yak >constantly, oblivious of where they are driving . . . > >Hang up and ferment, you cellulouses! We're having an energy crisis >here! > >Oh, the costs of an extra "u." :-( > >Jim I think it's a great neologism for describing those who don't realize that it's not just children who are better seen and not heard . . . -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Take that, Iowa!!
Trent Shipley wrote: > How much private land is there that could be converted from lower yield to > cellulose production? Could ex-farms on the Montana and Dakota prairies be > put back into production as cellulose ranches? (In AZ we can grow agave on > some private ranch land.) I dunno. We should note that high-yield switchgrass cultivation requires tending and fertilizing the grass. "Natural" growth will not yield enough product to be economical. The research I linked to previously *does* include the energy cost for the tending and fertlizing in the cost-benefit ratio, so it's still a good thing. --[Lance] -- Celebrate The Circle http://www.celebratethecircle.org/ Carolina Spirit Quest http://www.carolinaspiritquest.org/ My LiveJournal http://www.livejournal.com/users/labrown/ GPG Fingerprint: 409B A409 A38D 92BF 15D9 6EEE 9A82 F2AC 69AC 07B9 CACert.org Assurer ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Take that, Iowa!!
On Friday 2008-01-11 12:04, Jim Sharkey wrote: > Lance A. Brown wrote: > >Being able to grow switchgrass on marginal land not suitable for > >other, more traditional, crops is one of its benefits. > > To me that certainly seems like one of its biggest benefits. It's > grass; it doesn't require nearly the same kind of care that more > traditional food crops do. And I recall the article indicated that > unlike those crops, it doesn't need replanting every year. If they > can work around the cellulouse issues, I think it's very promising. > > Jim How much private land is there that could be converted from lower yield to cellulose production? Could ex-farms on the Montana and Dakota prairies be put back into production as cellulose ranches? (In AZ we can grow agave on some private ranch land.) In the US the environmental lobby would prevent public land being leased for cellulose ranching. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Take that, Iowa!!
On Friday 2008-01-11 12:04, Jim Sharkey wrote: > Lance A. Brown wrote: > >Being able to grow switchgrass on marginal land not suitable for > >other, more traditional, crops is one of its benefits. > > To me that certainly seems like one of its biggest benefits. It's > grass; it doesn't require nearly the same kind of care that more > traditional food crops do. And I recall the article indicated that > unlike those crops, it doesn't need replanting every year. If they > can work around the cellulouse issues, I think it's very promising. > > Jim I think that the whole US cellulosic ethanol project must be driven almost entirely by *energy security* not global warming. If you really wanted to combat global warming you would replace coal (the most carbiniferous energy source) with cellulose and sequester the cellulose fuel's CO2. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Take that, Iowa!!
Ronn! Blankenship wrote: >I, too, have issues with all those cellulouses who yakity-yak >constantly, >oblivious of where they are driving . . . Hang up and ferment, you cellulouses! We're having an energy crisis here! Oh, the costs of an extra "u." :-( Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Take that, Iowa!!
Alberto Monteiro wrote: >>Unused land suitable for corn or sugarcane? >> > > You didn't parse my e-mail address. Do it now. > There's plenty of suitable land for sugarcane here... :-) Yer right. I didn't. Assumption has once again worked against me. :-) --[Lance] -- Celebrate The Circle http://www.celebratethecircle.org/ Carolina Spirit Quest http://www.carolinaspiritquest.org/ My LiveJournal http://www.livejournal.com/users/labrown/ GPG Fingerprint: 409B A409 A38D 92BF 15D9 6EEE 9A82 F2AC 69AC 07B9 CACert.org Assurer ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Take that, Iowa!!
At 01:04 PM Friday 1/11/2008, Jim Sharkey wrote: >Lance A. Brown wrote: > >Being able to grow switchgrass on marginal land not suitable for > >other, more traditional, crops is one of its benefits. > >To me that certainly seems like one of its biggest benefits. It's >grass; it doesn't require nearly the same kind of care that more >traditional food crops do. And I recall the article indicated that >unlike those crops, it doesn't need replanting every year. If they >can work around the cellulouse issues, I, too, have issues with all those cellulouses who yakity-yak constantly, oblivious of where they are driving . . . -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Take that, Iowa!!
Lance A. Brown wrote: > >> This is not necessarily true - if there's unused land and >> the new crop grows into that land, then this would have no positive >> impact in the food price. The reverse would even be more likely, >> since if it becomes not viable to turn the food crop into fuel, >> the new crop would compete with the previous crops, making >> food prices cheaper. > > Unused land suitable for corn or sugarcane? > You didn't parse my e-mail address. Do it now. There's plenty of suitable land for sugarcane here... :-) > Surely you jest. > Most times (I was once named the list jester), but not now. Alberto Monteiro albmont (at) centroin (dot) com (dot) br (just in case your mail program doesn't show) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Take that, Iowa!!
On Fri, 11 Jan 2008, Jim Sharkey wrote: > > Lance A. Brown wrote: >> Being able to grow switchgrass on marginal land not suitable for >> other, more traditional, crops is one of its benefits. > > To me that certainly seems like one of its biggest benefits. It's > grass; it doesn't require nearly the same kind of care that more > traditional food crops do. And I recall the article indicated that > unlike those crops, it doesn't need replanting every year. If they > can work around the cellulouse issues, I think it's very promising. > > Jim Would it also work on land slated for development soon-but-not-immediately? There's land I pass taking the kids to school every morning that is just growing grass, which they mow and bale on a regular basis, but that is in a location attractive enough for future development that they may not want it tied up with a food crop for a year. (Or cotton. There are still a few cotton fields around here, but another one is lost to housing each year, it seems.) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Take that, Iowa!!
Lance A. Brown wrote: >Being able to grow switchgrass on marginal land not suitable for >other, more traditional, crops is one of its benefits. To me that certainly seems like one of its biggest benefits. It's grass; it doesn't require nearly the same kind of care that more traditional food crops do. And I recall the article indicated that unlike those crops, it doesn't need replanting every year. If they can work around the cellulouse issues, I think it's very promising. Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Take that, Iowa!!
Alberto Monteiro wrote: > This is not necessarily true - if there's unused land and > the new crop grows into that land, then this would have no positive > impact in the food price. The reverse would even be more likely, > since if it becomes not viable to turn the food crop into fuel, > the new crop would compete with the previous crops, making > food prices cheaper. Unused land suitable for corn or sugarcane? Surely you jest. Being able to grow switchgrass on marginal land not suitable for other, more traditional, crops is one of its benefits. We would not be stealing crop output usually used for foodstuffs to produce fuel. --[Lance] -- Celebrate The Circle http://www.celebratethecircle.org/ Carolina Spirit Quest http://www.carolinaspiritquest.org/ My LiveJournal http://www.livejournal.com/users/labrown/ GPG Fingerprint: 409B A409 A38D 92BF 15D9 6EEE 9A82 F2AC 69AC 07B9 CACert.org Assurer ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Take that, Iowa!!
Lance A. Brown wrote: > >> The problem with corn is that it produces a lower energy ethanol. >> Sugarcane *is* much better in that regard. >> But why are you worried about sugarcane? We don't use it all that much >> in the US, even for making sugar. Last I heard, sugar beets was the >> big resource in that industry. (In the US that is.) > > I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, tha using any food crop for ethanol > production would inflate the price of said food crop, leading to > economic issues for the heavy users of that crop. > This is not necessarily true - if there's unused land and the new crop grows into that land, then this would have no positive impact in the food price. The reverse would even be more likely, since if it becomes not viable to turn the food crop into fuel, the new crop would compete with the previous crops, making food prices cheaper. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Take that, Iowa!!
On 11/01/2008, at 10:39 AM, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote: > Jim Sharkey wrote: >> >> I'm sure some of you knew this, what with your big brains and all, >> but I found it interesting: >> >> http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=grass-makes-better-ethanol-than-corn >> >> _Scientific American_ is saying grass as a source of ethanol has the >> potential to be vastly more efficient than corn. Pretty cool stuff, >> I think. >> > But still less efficient than sugarcane :-P Only if you mean rum. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Take that, Iowa!!
Robert Seeberger said the following on 1/10/2008 8:56 PM: > The problem with corn is that it produces a lower energy ethanol. > Sugarcane *is* much better in that regard. > But why are you worried about sugarcane? We don't use it all that much > in the US, even for making sugar. Last I heard, sugar beets was the > big resource in that industry. (In the US that is.) I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, tha using any food crop for ethanol production would inflate the price of said food crop, leading to economic issues for the heavy users of that crop. I believe you are correct that most U.S. sugar comes from sugar beets these days. What do you get when you ferment beets? :-) > As I understand the ethanol research, grass and cellulose are looking > to become popular resources for ethanol with several useful byproducts > as an added bonus. Yep. The lignin in the switchgrass can be burned to help power the ethanol production plant, for example. --[Lance] -- Celebrate The Circle http://www.celebratethecircle.org/ Carolina Spirit Quest http://www.carolinaspiritquest.org/ GPG Fingerprint: 409B A409 A38D 92BF 15D9 6EEE 9A82 F2AC 69AC 07B9 CACert.org Assurer ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Soda (was Re: Take that, Iowa!!)
Julia Thompson wrote: >1) Where do you order Dublin Dr. Pepper? I just order it from here: http://www.dublindrpepper.com/ >2) Mexican Coke. I've heard its praises sung before, but I'm in NJ, so... >Some high-end US soda bottlers are making their stuff with cane >sugar. They did an article about those in one of the Philly papers just recently. I'll have to stop by one of Princeton's high-end groceries and see if they have them. Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Take that, Iowa!!
On Fri, 11 Jan 2008, Jim Sharkey wrote: > > Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote: >> Jim Sharkey wrote: >>> _Scientific American_ is saying grass as a source of ethanol has the >>> potential to be vastly more efficient than corn. Pretty cool >>> stuff, I think. > >> But still less efficient than sugarcane :-P > > Probably true, but I'd wager grass is a lot easier to grow than sugar > cane, at least here in the U.S. :-) > > And sadly, we don't use "real" sugar here anymore, except in tasty > and delicious Dublin Dr. Pepper. If you like Dr. Pepper and you're > in the U.S. where finding soda without corn syrup is nigh-impossible, > it's well worth the cost. Though to be fair, I rarely drink soda so > I maybe order two cases a year, tops. > > Jim > And now they're after 7-UP Maru 1) Where do you order Dublin Dr. Pepper? I can get it at Rudy's for a ridiculous price per bottle, and it's great with their barbecue, but I haven't seen it for sale by the case anywhere around here, and we're not *that* far from Dublin, TX. (To be fair, I haven't been able to get in to Costco to see if they're carrying it. It wouldn't surprise me if they did.) 2) Mexican Coke. Texas is importing great quantities of Mexican Coca-Cola. I can buy it at my local grocery store, it's somewhat expensive, but since I decided I was sick of high-fructose corn syrup sodas, I haven't been drinking much soda anyway, and I drink 4 bottles a week, tops. (A decent number of the convenience stores around here carry it, as well, which is really nice if I'm about to hit the road and I didn't have any cold in the fridge.) Some high-end US soda bottlers are making their stuff with cane sugar. Whole Foods carries some of them. (Whole Foods *makes* cane sugar sodas.) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Take that, Iowa!!
Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote: >Jim Sharkey wrote: >>_Scientific American_ is saying grass as a source of ethanol has the >> potential to be vastly more efficient than corn. Pretty cool >>stuff, I think. >But still less efficient than sugarcane :-P Probably true, but I'd wager grass is a lot easier to grow than sugar cane, at least here in the U.S. :-) And sadly, we don't use "real" sugar here anymore, except in tasty and delicious Dublin Dr. Pepper. If you like Dr. Pepper and you're in the U.S. where finding soda without corn syrup is nigh-impossible, it's well worth the cost. Though to be fair, I rarely drink soda so I maybe order two cases a year, tops. Jim And now they're after 7-UP Maru ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Take that, Iowa!!
On 1/10/2008 11:09:29 PM, Ronn! Blankenship ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > At 06:13 PM Thursday 1/10/2008, Lance A. Brown wrote: > > > > >Perhaps. The use of corn to produce ethanol is already driving the > >cost > >of corn higher, impacting food costs already[1]. I > don't think we want > >to use corn _or_ sugarcane for producing ethanol in the long term. > > > > [1] Karnack the Magnificent: "A buccaneer." (Opens the envelope > and > reads the card inside.) "What is too much to pay for corn?" > > > > Straight From The Mayonnaise Jar On Funk And Wagnell's > Back Porch Maru > > > -- Ronn! :) YMMV, but there have already been food riots in Mexico over the price of corn. 100 bucks an ear...ahhh a barrel oil has repercussions even in countries that are not significant consumers of oil per capita. xponent Poppies And Heroin Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Take that, Iowa!!
At 06:13 PM Thursday 1/10/2008, Lance A. Brown wrote: >Perhaps. The use of corn to produce ethanol is already driving the cost >of corn higher, impacting food costs already[1]. I don't think we want >to use corn _or_ sugarcane for producing ethanol in the long term. [1] Karnack the Magnificent: "A buccaneer." (Opens the envelope and reads the card inside.) "What is too much to pay for corn?" Straight From The Mayonnaise Jar On Funk And Wagnell's Back Porch Maru -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Take that, Iowa!!
On Thursday 2008-01-10 17:13, Lance A. Brown wrote: > Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote: > > Jim Sharkey wrote: > >>I'm sure some of you knew this, what with your big brains and all, > >>but I found it interesting: > >> > >>http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=grass-makes-better-ethanol-than-corn > >> > >>_Scientific American_ is saying grass as a source of ethanol has the > >>potential to be vastly more efficient than corn. Pretty cool stuff, > >>I think. > > > > But still less efficient than sugarcane :-P > > Perhaps. The use of corn to produce ethanol is already driving the cost > of corn higher, impacting food costs already[1]. I don't think we want > to use corn _or_ sugarcane for producing ethanol in the long term. > > > [1] http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/18173/ > > --[Lance] Can new arable land be brought into production for hardy energy crops? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Take that, Iowa!!
On 1/10/2008 6:13:29 PM, Lance A. Brown ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote: > > Jim Sharkey wrote: > > > >>I'm sure some of you knew this, what with your big brains and all, > >>but I found it interesting: > >> > >>http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=grass-makes-better-ethanol-than-corn > >> > >>_Scientific American_ is saying grass as a source of ethanol has > >>the > >>potential to be vastly more efficient than corn. Pretty cool > >>stuff, > >>I think. > >> > > > > But still less efficient than sugarcane :-P > > Perhaps. The use of corn to produce ethanol is already driving the > cost > of corn higher, impacting food costs already[1]. I don't > think we want > to use corn _or_ sugarcane for producing ethanol in the long term. The problem with corn is that it produces a lower energy ethanol. Sugarcane *is* much better in that regard. But why are you worried about sugarcane? We don't use it all that much in the US, even for making sugar. Last I heard, sugar beets was the big resource in that industry. (In the US that is.) As I understand the ethanol research, grass and cellulose are looking to become popular resources for ethanol with several useful byproducts as an added bonus. xponent Drastic Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Take that, Iowa!!
Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote: > Jim Sharkey wrote: > >>I'm sure some of you knew this, what with your big brains and all, >>but I found it interesting: >> >>http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=grass-makes-better-ethanol-than-corn >> >>_Scientific American_ is saying grass as a source of ethanol has the >>potential to be vastly more efficient than corn. Pretty cool stuff, >>I think. >> > > But still less efficient than sugarcane :-P Perhaps. The use of corn to produce ethanol is already driving the cost of corn higher, impacting food costs already[1]. I don't think we want to use corn _or_ sugarcane for producing ethanol in the long term. [1] http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/18173/ --[Lance] -- Celebrate The Circle http://www.celebratethecircle.org/ Carolina Spirit Quest http://www.carolinaspiritquest.org/ My LiveJournal http://www.livejournal.com/users/labrown/ GPG Fingerprint: 409B A409 A38D 92BF 15D9 6EEE 9A82 F2AC 69AC 07B9 CACert.org Assurer ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Take that, Iowa!!
Jim Sharkey wrote: > > I'm sure some of you knew this, what with your big brains and all, > but I found it interesting: > > http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=grass-makes-better-ethanol-than-corn > > _Scientific American_ is saying grass as a source of ethanol has the > potential to be vastly more efficient than corn. Pretty cool stuff, > I think. > But still less efficient than sugarcane :-P Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Take that, Iowa!!
I'm sure some of you knew this, what with your big brains and all, but I found it interesting: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=grass-makes-better-ethanol-than-corn _Scientific American_ is saying grass as a source of ethanol has the potential to be vastly more efficient than corn. Pretty cool stuff, I think. Jim Where's my hovercar? Maru ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
