I really don't understand this one. It strikes me as some of the biggest stupidity I have seen. I don't normally get super spun up on California politics because, frankly, I'm so out of step with most people here that a few comments here and there from me are not going to sway much. However, this just eats me.I really don't have the energy to comment in depth right now. Let's just pull apart a few things.
First, this is pandering to the Central Valley completely and utterly. They're the growers and they're the ones that are seeking new markets. Shwartzy is merely guarranteeing a market and getting their votes at a time of low popularity.
Second there's a faction in the Greens that is very happy to switch from Oil derived energy to agriculturally derived energy. If you grow it, it must be good? Right? gah. It's still combustion. It's still pumping out CO2. That means that its not helping much at all with the whole Global Warming issue. That's one that California really ought to be concerned about...since, y'know, we're a coastal state. This is again vote pandering by Schwartzy.
*sighs*
Oh well. I'll just make sure the home is at least 9 m above sea level and any future ones higher than that.
First, this is pandering to the Central Valley completely and utterly. They're the growers and they're the ones that are seeking new markets. Shwartzy is merely guarranteeing a market and getting their votes at a time of low popularity.
Second there's a faction in the Greens that is very happy to switch from Oil derived energy to agriculturally derived energy. If you grow it, it must be good? Right? gah. It's still combustion. It's still pumping out CO2. That means that its not helping much at all with the whole Global Warming issue. That's one that California really ought to be concerned about...since, y'know, we're a coastal state. This is again vote pandering by Schwartzy.
*sighs*
Oh well. I'll just make sure the home is at least 9 m above sea level and any future ones higher than that.
3 comments:
"If you grow it, it must be good? Right? gah. It's still combustion. It's still pumping out CO2. That means that its not helping much at all with the whole Global Warming issue."
But shouldn't it be carbin neutral? The plants withdraw CO2 from the air and the plant byproduct release it when burned.
This ignores any oil burned growing the plants, of course.
I don't belive that it is. The processing has a lot of waste, iirc. Carlos has pointed out it has questionable efficencies as well.
In a 100% efficient cycle, it's not a net add. It's not and not even close. :(
True, the ethanol process does create waste, but this waste is useful for a multitude of different agricultural and industrial processes. Besides animal feed, a manufacturer in Missouri is producing a viable replacement to petroleum based foam dishware creating a environmental friendly and biodegradable product that actually might be edible. Energy calculations showing ethanol as break even at best fail to calculate the energy for animal feed and industrial products related to ethanol production.
Post a Comment