UFOSeek Forum

Community for discussion of UFO, Paranormal and mysterious topics
It is currently Fri Oct 20, 2017 4:16 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 6:34 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 7:50 pm
Posts: 4427
Location: Near Toronto, Ontario Canada
Another perspective on the ever-increasing push for alternate sources of fuel. Like most things, the answer probably lies somewhere in the middle.

[url "http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6949861.stm"]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6949861.stm[/url]

Timbit
___

_________________
I have absolutely nothing clever to say......but I'm workin' on it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2007 6:03 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 2:03 am
Posts: 5766
Location: Foothills of Hollywood, CA
I wish we could get our hands on some of the "free energy" gizmos Tesla developed before he died and our government took the research out of his apartment. He also provided some interesting stuff to Moscow , in those days. It would be nice if we had access to all his data, and no one would interfere with our attempts to build some of his machines for this.
___

_________________
Some days are DIAMONDS; some days are STONES!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 3:22 am 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:59 am
Posts: 70
As I have posted above in another discussion. There are so many ways of generating energy using waste materals. However this isn't much help to city dwellers.

Agricultural waste can produce electricty for the farmers use who can feed the power network . This would allow the network to function as a free storage battery. He would draw what he needs while the extra is sold to the local supplier / vender through a reverse meter system. One meter reads what the farmer drew from the system and bill him say at six cents per KWH while the other meter read how much excess the farmer put back and reward him with wholesale payment of two cents per KWH.

If thirty or forty farms in one community were to feed to the network it would be close to a twenty-four hour flow to the new-work. I know of several dairy farmers who were doing just that and doing so well at it that electricty was the second most valued crop.

This Ethenol deal is a bad deal for everyone. Thirty years ago the Department of agreculture and the department of Energy funded research for the production of ehtenol from TRASH crops and showed that a farmer could make as much money just selling the corn stalk and not impacting the general food chain cost. But no BIG MONEY decided to make it with corn grain and the price of meat, eggs, cheese,milk, are fixing to go sky high. We haven't as yet seen what food is going to cost, and there is no need for it. I know, I wrote the script for a congress presentation that proves what can be done.. "Energy from the ground up". Maybe I need to go back and talk about Doctors, because this piss' me off big time:x[pirate]:x[pirate].

Bebop
___


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 6:54 am 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 2:03 am
Posts: 5766
Location: Foothills of Hollywood, CA
Well, CORN ethanol is going to bankrupt us. I read that it will take 4 gallons of water to produce every ONE gallon of corn ethanol. We are already seeing the beginning of "water wars", and if the Global Warming/drought conditions continue over gigantic parts of this country, corn ethanol will cost us far more than gasoline, by the time it's ready to be sold.
___

_________________
Some days are DIAMONDS; some days are STONES!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 8:34 am 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:59 am
Posts: 1853
Location: Canada
Using waste is one thing, but using food crops to make fuel for cars and trucks is shameful.

When you get right down to it, if you are going to use the worlds food supply to keep the oil czars happy you might as well be rendering people into fuel because there is going to be a cost in human life.

Starvation is one hell of a horrible way to kill people, but it seems that those pulling the chain are ignoring the fact that higher food costs are going to produce more hungry people and many of them are going to starve.

Using wheat, corn and other food crops for fuel solves nothing, but creates a whole new set of problems worse than the original.
___


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 6:26 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:59 am
Posts: 70
About that four gallons of water. The three that seem to be lost are not. They still remain as water but it's in a slurry form. If the slurry is compressed into cake form or feed pellets all of that water will be released and can go back into the ethenol process line after being put through a reverse osmosis filter system.

It appears that this process is considered expensive, after all it's only water, is what the logic will play. I'm hoping that they come to some degree of intelligence on this issue. I had a running battle with Eastman Kodak for several years who were happy with the idea that "Dilution is the Solution to Pollution." deffinitely a verse that would only entertain an idiot, but such are the ways of BIG Business. [unsure]

Bebop
___


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 7:43 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 2:03 am
Posts: 5766
Location: Foothills of Hollywood, CA
[reply]About that four gallons of water. The three that seem to be lost are not. They still remain as water but it's in a slurry form. If the slurry is compressed into cake form or feed pellets all of that water will be released and can go back into the ethenol process line after being put through a reverse osmosis filter system. [/reply]

But WILL they do this? Waste not - want not is a good idea, but knowing people the way we do, how can we be sure they will go this extra step? And if they don't, will the slurry be discarded as a toxic waste product after the process?

Admittedly, I'm not a biochemist, so I honestly don't know how the slurry is affected - whether it will be toxic or not.

But I DO know human actions, and I wonder if those in charge will REALLY take the time to develope a way to re-use the slurry... Humans tend to be lazy when it comes to finding viable ways to re-use anything!
___

_________________
Some days are DIAMONDS; some days are STONES!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 8:51 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:59 am
Posts: 70
No it is not toxic and can be used by ruminate animals such as, cows, sheep, and goats to name just a few. But because it is in the semi-liquid state it needs to be consumed close to the point of production. In the drying process the residual bacteria are killed off making it a useful feed for non-ruminate animals like horses, hogs, catfish, etc. In this state the shipping cost are less and it can be stored for longer periods of time. In fact the protein factor of the processed corn is higher than the unprocessed corn.

It appears that industry thinks of only the prime product, it is often others that seek out uses for the lesser products. When I was in the Motion Picture business it cost my company 5.5 cents a foot to process 16mm reversal motion picture film. I experimented and found many ways of reducing and reusing the chemicals to a point that considering the reclaimed silver the cost was reduced to a profit of 1.5 cents a foot.

Other labs were doubtful of the results especially when Kodak said it couldn’t be done.

At first we were discovered to have an effluent discharge rate of 10, ten being unacceptable. We first explored intense oxidation as a manner of destroying our effluent. It reduced our rating to a 4 which was considered fair. Then we added silver recovery using an electrolysis method and this reduced our level to a 1.5. This kept us in business with the EPA, but resulted in higher operating cost.

The reclamation process I developed reduced our discharge by both volume and content and resulted in a profit as opposed to a cost.

This type of thinking is not popular with general business because it requires effort and divers product effort which is even worse.

The Governments first study in the production of ethanol was a full cycle study meaning that it was studied from crop source to Prime product, to waste utilization, nothing was lost, it was a perfect system.

However it was at a time when Gasoline was selling for fifty cents a gallon and Ethanol was costing $2.50 a gallon to produce. Today using ever rising corn cost the current cost is $4.50 and is projected to go $7.50 in the next year or so.

As an example: Wheat is not a good animal feed but is high on the human demand. Wheat had been selling for years at an average of $2.65 a bushel just two weeks ago it sold for $9.00 on the local exchange.

Does this give you any feel for the future?

Bebop
___


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 9:05 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 2:03 am
Posts: 5766
Location: Foothills of Hollywood, CA
Gulp!
___

_________________
Some days are DIAMONDS; some days are STONES!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 12:52 am 
Unregistered
No, Any fuel that leaves harmful emissions is NOT the answer. The world is 3/4 water. Hydrogen Burns totally clean. We are redoing our site and moving it to [url "http://www.hydrogencommand.com/"]www.hydrogencommand.com[/url] People just do not read the site. I send them out there and they ask me questions I answer on the site with scientific evidance but they never READ. So we plan on doing the site totally animated so the consumer can actually get a real idea on what this system can do for them and the air we breath.
It is sad we sell 7-10 of these units every 2 weeks and everyone loves it.
It is no wonder this planet is trashed. These systems should be flying off the shelf. We have not had one complaint as of yet. All good input and very happy people. Scares me to think of the real number of people on this planet who are talkers and not do'ers. The product has a money back gaurentee. Nothing to loose and $1.50 a gal to gain.
Sad part is 7-10 units each 2 weeks will take way too long for enough people to have one on there vehicle to make a diferance in the speed of the warming process.
All I can say. We must deserve what is coming our way. This is the one product sold that can globally realy make a change. Yet we choose not to purchase one. Hmmmmm. I have 2 of them. I have done my part.
Like they say; You can lead a horse to water. But you can not make him drink it. Sad, very sad. Come check us out here as well [url "http://melchizadek.conforums.com/index.cgi"]http://melchizadek.conforums.com/index.cgi[/url]
___


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

cron
Powered by phpBB