Global warming heats up a nuclear ene...

Global warming heats up a nuclear energy renaissance

There are 32 comments on the KOTA-TV Rapid City story from Aug 28, 2010, titled Global warming heats up a nuclear energy renaissance. In it, KOTA-TV Rapid City reports that:

Use of this site section and any information contained on or provided through this site section is at your own risk and any information contained on or provided through this site section is provided on an "as is" basis without any representations or warranties.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at KOTA-TV Rapid City.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
LessHypeMoreFact

Hamilton, Canada

#24 Aug 30, 2010
GEEWIZ wrote:
<quoted text>Coal is the cheapest and safest,emissions are under control and flyash is just another green spinning joke.coal ashes are good 4 your garden work it into your soil.only thing TOXIC is all this green spinning.
Total crap.

Not just in air pollution though that is estimated to cost about 60,000 lives a year from smog, but also in terms of pollution of aquifers.

http://projects.nytimes.com/toxic-waters/poll...

And the massive destruction of land by strip mining and 'mountain topping', runoff from mine waste, etc.

http://tinyurl.com/y9aswnc
LessHypeMoreFact

Hamilton, Canada

#25 Aug 30, 2010
McCarthy was right wrote:
<quoted text>
The point is, my disingenuous Greenie, MTBE wasn't discontinued in favor of Ethanol because of cost (as you dishonestly claimed) but because it was discovered to be contaminating) the aquifers.
That was a point I didn't bother mentioning since proper tanks would not have leaked. But certainly it contaminates water tables badly for very small leaks, a problem that is not present with Ethanol. And ethanol was chosen partly because of health issue, partly because it is cheaper (overall) and partly because it forms a cheap 'price support' for grain farmers.

It has ONE defect which is that it tends to drive off the volatile components of fuel so vapor caps are more important but that came about from attempts to reduce VOCs anyway so it worked together.

I would NOT recommend it for more than an 'octane booster' level of 15% or so. The 'E100' would cause major problems with ozone levels. For a pure biofuel I would suggest that we find a way to produce 2,5-Dimethylfuran in commercial quantities from a similar feedstock.
McCarthy was right

United States

#26 Aug 30, 2010
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
That was a point I didn't bother mentioning since proper tanks would not have leaked. But certainly it contaminates water tables badly for very small leaks, a problem that is not present with Ethanol. And ethanol was chosen partly because of health issue, partly because it is cheaper (overall) and partly because it forms a cheap 'price support' for grain farmers.
It has ONE defect which is that it tends to drive off the volatile components of fuel so vapor caps are more important but that came about from attempts to reduce VOCs anyway so it worked together.
I would NOT recommend it for more than an 'octane booster' level of 15% or so. The 'E100' would cause major problems with ozone levels. For a pure biofuel I would suggest that we find a way to produce 2,5-Dimethylfuran in commercial quantities from a similar feedstock.
You ďdidnít bother mentioning the contamination?Ē Haha. Revisionist Greenie liar.

You claimed twice that MTBE was discontinued in favor of Ethanol BECAUSE of cost.
neighbour

Okotoks, Canada

#27 Aug 30, 2010
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually producing MTBE takes far less energy than producing ethanol. Then there is the damage it does to engines. Ethanol actually takes more energy to produce from planting to delivery of the final product than is gained from it.
More bs from tina anne. Do you NEVER check your assumptions before you post??

"The ratio is about 2.3 BTU of ethanol for 1 BTU
of energy inputs, "
http://www.usda.gov/oce/reports/energy/2008Et...

And that's for corn. Sugar cane and some other crops give much higher returns.
neighbour

Okotoks, Canada

#28 Aug 30, 2010
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually producing MTBE takes far less energy than producing ethanol. Then there is the damage it does to engines. Ethanol actually takes more energy to produce from planting to delivery of the final product than is gained from it.
Also, the idea that MTBE damaged engines appears to be unfounded. Ethanol is more likely to damage your engine, because it absorbs humidity from the air. Not a problem normally but if you've been increasing the ethane percentage with an additive, and / or you let your car sit in a moist climate for too long, you can develoop problems with your gasoline.

MTBE and ethanol don't mix though. If you mixed the two types of gas, you'd get sludge in your gas. It was probably that, that led some mechanics to think that MTBE harmed engines.

BTW, on the subject of water absorption, I'll pass along some advice that actually has some validity. Brake fluid also absorbs moisture from the air, because it's an alcohol. So change your brake fluid according to the maintenance schedule to prevent rust in your braking system.

Gotta point out again though, just to illustrate the ignorance of the average AGW denier, that little or nothing in your post, once again, was correct.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#29 Aug 31, 2010
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
False. MTBE is produced by reacting methanol and isobutalene, both of which cost energy to produce from natural gas and butane. Even extracting the butane has an energy penalty.
Whereas Ethanol's exergy is about zero in terms of the farm energy equation and positive in terms of reducing refining energy use.
As usual, you just pull this from you ass and hope that nobody checks it.
<quoted text>
Again false. Ethanol did have problems with early engines due to seal deterioration but this is not a problem in any car on the road today. Most of the ones that couldn't take ethanol also couldn't use unleaded gasoline and service stations don't sell leaded gas any more.
<quoted text>
Nope. Most studies of the ENTIRE production process and all inputs and outputs show a positive exergy where it is specifically farmed ( less pesticide, plowing, etc) and specific grains designed for ethanol production.
The contrary studies almost always used food grade corn as an input with major plowing,fertilizer and pesticide inputs, to distort the issue. I imagine that the MTBE industry was a bit behind this 'tobacco science'.
It may be true that for food grade products the exergy is negative but the only food grade corn used would be cracked, mildewed, or otherwise 'not fit for human consumption' and it is a case of recovering value from what otherwise would be garbage.
The only one pulling things from thier neither region in hopes that no one would notice is yourself. Unless your using oxen to work your farm the fact is taht it takes more energy than you receive to produce thanonal. Those tracors that pull the various implements and the combine run on diesel not to mention the truck that hauls it to the place that will distill it. Then the distillation process requires even more energy. Then the ethanol blend gives you less bang for the gallon than the MTBE blend.

Face it, it takes more eregy to grow the crops your using for ethanol than you receive. Which starts ethanol out as a negative. Then you end up with less potentional energy and a larger carbon footprint because all all the equiptment it took to get the crop to processing and getting the final product to market.

Nor does your wishfull thinking about it requiring less fertilizer and pesticides. It requires just to same amounts to get the same yields. The corn your talking about for food dosn't end up in a can but in a varity of products as a sweetner. Which means that nearly every thing your finding on the supermarket shelves has a corn link. That includes the ice cream and the candy. About the only thing that dosn't have corn in it is the freash veggies and fruits.

Also according the my husband who favorite hobby seems to be taking cars apart and putting them back together and his like minded friends that the more modern cars are having just as much if not more problems with ethanol. Everything is manufactored to finer tolerences than the older cars in order to get more power and reduce weight to improve milage.

Please if your going to continue to pull those 'facts' out of your rear then least spread it on a corn field or two. Theny can use the fertlizer.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#30 Aug 31, 2010
neighbour wrote:
<quoted text>
More bs from tina anne. Do you NEVER check your assumptions before you post??
"The ratio is about 2.3 BTU of ethanol for 1 BTU
of energy inputs, "
http://www.usda.gov/oce/reports/energy/2008Et...
And that's for corn. Sugar cane and some other crops give much higher returns.
Based on a short survey and it didn't once mention anything about the amounts of energy used to raise it. Add that in and it goes from a positive to a negative. Once you factor that in it goes from your lovely 2.3 for every btu to .9 for every btu produced.
Also sugar cane and sugar beets require even more energy to produce. Hence one of the big reasons why many food production operations switched from sugar cane and sugar beets to corn as the sweetner of choice.
Not to mention also that every busel of corn used to make fuel is one less available to feed someone. now a few like LHMF will claim that the corn in question is only that which was unfit for human consumption. Which falls flat when you consider how low a percentage of the total and the fact that the corn used to make all the corn oil and sweetner not to mention feed livestock and make corn meal is feed corn. Not the stuff you love to slather butter and salt on. While it's physical appearances on the ear are not important in that market because it never reaches the market on the ear but in many of the products on the store shelves.
These facts were discovered orginally back in the seventies when due to a major oil embargo the price of fuel spiked and the idea of gasahol (the last time they tried ethanol) caused to price of corn to rise.

http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/aug01/co...
GEEWIZ

Broken Arrow, OK

#31 Aug 31, 2010
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Total crap.
Not just in air pollution though that is estimated to cost about 60,000 lives a year from smog, but also in terms of pollution of aquifers.
http://projects.nytimes.com/toxic-waters/poll...
And the massive destruction of land by strip mining and 'mountain topping', runoff from mine waste, etc.
http://tinyurl.com/y9aswnc
SO clueless heating with good old coal which a few people i know have all there lifes and lived well up in there 80s and u really do get 2 breath real emissions with a coal stove. a power plants emissions r a lot cleaner.60,000 from coal what a laugh maybe wind and solar could cost that many lives.And water what a JOKE THIS IS WHAT is wrong with u greenies.trash and bottles of household chemicals and everything else in rivers raw sewer runoff from sewer plants and then greenies cry mining runoff which is dirt and water=muddy water which is harmless,which is a lot cleaner than water running off of blacktop.And strip mining produces level land that is needed in the mountians.the Whole subject of coal being so evil is a laugh
.
McCarthy was right

Bedford, TX

#32 Aug 31, 2010
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
The only one pulling things from thier neither region in hopes that no one would notice is yourself. Unless your using oxen to work your farm the fact is taht it takes more energy than you receive to produce thanonal. Those tracors that pull the various implements and the combine run on diesel not to mention the truck that hauls it to the place that will distill it. Then the distillation process requires even more energy. Then the ethanol blend gives you less bang for the gallon than the MTBE blend.
Face it, it takes more eregy to grow the crops your using for ethanol than you receive. Which starts ethanol out as a negative. Then you end up with less potentional energy and a larger carbon footprint because all all the equiptment it took to get the crop to processing and getting the final product to market.
Nor does your wishfull thinking about it requiring less fertilizer and pesticides. It requires just to same amounts to get the same yields. The corn your talking about for food dosn't end up in a can but in a varity of products as a sweetner. Which means that nearly every thing your finding on the supermarket shelves has a corn link. That includes the ice cream and the candy. About the only thing that dosn't have corn in it is the freash veggies and fruits.
Also according the my husband who favorite hobby seems to be taking cars apart and putting them back together and his like minded friends that the more modern cars are having just as much if not more problems with ethanol. Everything is manufactored to finer tolerences than the older cars in order to get more power and reduce weight to improve milage.
Please if your going to continue to pull those 'facts' out of your rear then least spread it on a corn field or two. Theny can use the fertlizer.
Excellent posts, Tina Anne.

The only thing Iíd like to add regarding the extra cost of corn Ethanol is that since the finished product canít be piped, it must be trucked.

Sorry if you already mentioned it.
LessHypeMoreFact

Hamilton, Canada

#33 Aug 31, 2010
McCarthy was right wrote:
<quoted text>
The only thing Iíd like to add regarding the extra cost of corn
No such thing. Even corn ethanol is cheaper than MTBE which is what it replaces.
McCarthy was right wrote:
<quoted text>
Ethanol is that since the finished product canít be piped, it must be trucked.
And so does MTBE. What a lot of useless tripe.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#34 Sep 1, 2010
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
No such thing. Even corn ethanol is cheaper than MTBE which is what it replaces.
<quoted text>
And so does MTBE. What a lot of useless tripe.
And your proof other than you imagination is?

So far the only proof that corn based ethanol is cheaper than MTBE is your desire for it to be so. Sorry but really wishing really hard dosn't change the facts and the facts are that ethanol is more expensive than MTBE. And that AGW is dead.

“Did U plug the damn hole yet?”

Since: Jan 08

Addison, TX

#35 Sep 2, 2010
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
That was a point I didn't bother mentioning since proper tanks would not have leaked. But certainly it contaminates water tables badly for very small leaks, a problem that is not present with Ethanol. And ethanol was chosen partly because of health issue, partly because it is cheaper (overall) and partly because it forms a cheap 'price support' for grain farmers.
It has ONE defect which is that it tends to drive off the volatile components of fuel so vapor caps are more important but that came about from attempts to reduce VOCs anyway so it worked together.
I would NOT recommend it for more than an 'octane booster' level of 15% or so. The 'E100' would cause major problems with ozone levels. For a pure biofuel I would suggest that we find a way to produce 2,5-Dimethylfuran in commercial quantities from a similar feedstock.
"That was a point I didn't bother mentioning since proper tanks would not have leaked. "

Welcome to the real world.

Tanks do leak.

If the EPA were half as smart as the claim to be they would have known that before embarking on such a risky adventure.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Senator Mark Udall Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News GOP Faces Uphill Climb With Latino Voters In Ke... (Oct '15) Nov '16 Media Moguls 8
News For Obama, golf is an escape, even when he brin... (Aug '15) Aug '15 American_Infidel 56
News Avoiding the Trump Trap on Immigration (Jul '15) Jul '15 Jesus Latter Day ... 13
News Can Republicans Repeat an Upset in Colorado? (May '15) May '15 Le Jimbo 1
News Self-Inflicted Wounds: Phony 'War on Women' Fal... (May '15) May '15 Responsibility 4
News Gary Hart apologizes to Cory Gardner for barbs ... (May '15) May '15 Holy Silicon Wafer 1
News Poll: Paul best GOP bet in three swing states a... (Apr '15) Apr '15 E Warren the Weasel 1
More from around the web