Re: [asa] Re: global warming

They way I phrased it may have been confusing. I was trying to say that
cellulosic ethanol is an advantage precisely because it does not take corn
out of the food supply.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christine Smith" <christine_mb_smith@yahoo.com>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2008 10:27 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] Re: global warming

> Hi Jack,
>
> The question of whether or not biofuels produce more
> CO2 (and other greenhouse gas) emissions than the
> fuels they would be displacing is a complicated
> question...it depends on the specifics of the
> life-cycle, the type of feedstock chosen, etc. The
> benefit of cellulosic ethanol though, is precisely
> that they DON'T take corn out of the food supply--the
> feedstocks would be corn byproducts/waste (i.e. the
> stalk), switch grass, and other woody-materials.
> They're getting very close to being able to do this
> commercially--the key to making this happen is getting
> the enzymes and the processing procedures tuned in an
> optimal manner. I wouldn't be surprised if cellulosic
> became the dominant base for ethanol production within
> the next 5-10 years.
>
> In Christ,
> Christine (ASA Member)
>
> --- Jack <drsyme@cablespeed.com> wrote:
>
>> Biofuels wont help with the CO2 emissions. At this
>> point dont they consume
>> more energy than they produce? Cellulosic ethanol
>> might be better, but
>> taking corn out of the food supply just seems stupid
>> to me. And now with
>> the floods in the midwest, no one is going to be
>> able to afford milk, eggs,
>> and meat as it is.
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "j burg" <hossradbourne@gmail.com>
>> To: "Jack" <drsyme@cablespeed.com>
>> Cc: "David Campbell" <pleuronaia@gmail.com>; "Rich
>> Blinne"
>> <rich.blinne@gmail.com>;
>> "AmericanScientificAffiliation" <asa@calvin.edu>
>> Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2008 9:23 AM
>> Subject: Re: [asa] Re: global warming
>>
>>
>> > On 6/14/08, Jack <drsyme@cablespeed.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> So, there is no alternative to burning fossil
>> fuels to generate
>> >> electricity?
>> >> Oil obviously wont last forever, so we will have
>> to find an alternative.
>> >> Or is there no hope and we are doomed to a stone
>> age existence?
>> >>
>> > ... nuclear seems to be the closest
>> >> technology we have to solving both of these
>> problems, albeit with its own
>> >> problems. Unfortunately, it may be too late for
>> nuclear to save us.
>> >
>> > Biofuels may well carry us for awhile. And solar
>> cells may eventually
>> > become cost competitive.
>> >
>> > Both of these, as well as wind and nuclear, are in
>> competition. I'd
>> > bet on a mix of all of them.
>> >
>> > I really believe that by 2050 electric autos will
>> have driven other
>> > options off the table. Long range, it is the only
>> option that makes
>> > sense. How the electricity is generated then is up
>> for garbs.
>> >
>> > Burgy
>> >
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to
>> majordomo@calvin.edu with
>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the
>> message.
>>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Jun 16 06:45:36 2008