Well, besides the issues that have been shown with too much corn syrup, shipping foods grown here overseas not really all the econmocal. better to get growing programs going, personally.
I fail to see how it uses more fossil fuels than fuels it produces, please share. And it will also help push new techniques and higher efficiency growing, so that will help. and immagine if all the money being spent on drilling, pumping, and refining, werent? the good that could be done with the numerical savings. On 1/19/07, Jed Rothwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
leaking pen wrote: >since part of the process of making ethanol is making corn syrup, >which converts a lot of the partially digested starches to sugars, >yes, actually, the whole process is likely more effecient to burn then to eat. Well, that's good. >. . . also, corn is already in just about everything we eat. we >grow more corn than we and our livestock can eat. Who's we? Two billion people in the world are malnourished or starving. They can digest corn syrup, by the way. >seriously, its not a cureall, but why be down on ethanol? I am down on ethanol because because it takes food out of people's mouths, because it consumes far more fossil fuel that it produces, and because even if we converted all of the food in the United States into ethanol, we would still not have more than a tiny fraction of what we need to run our automobiles. >(especially with the photosynthetic yeast programs that will >massively drop the costs. ) After these programs pan out (if they do), THEN we should start building ethanol factories. Not before. I have no complaints about the bio-diesel from algae schemes, as long as they do not use up much productive land. In desert land near large cities such as Los Angeles or Las Vegas I think it would be better to set mechanical solar to electric power devices, but there is plenty of other desert land or marginal land that could be devoted to algae production. - Jed
-- That which yields isn't always weak.
