Interesting facts about biofuel-production and -use
Posted on April 16, 2013 (at wattsupwiththat.com)
by Steve Goreham
Originally published in The Washington Times. [Back-up link--Accessed 2013 04 17]
“[A] 2011 opinion from the Science Committee of the European Environment Agency pointed out what it called a “serious accounting error.” The carbon neutral concept does not consider vegetation that would naturally grow on land used for biofuel production. Since biofuels are less efficient than gasoline or diesel fuel, they actually emit more CO2 per mile driven than hydrocarbon fuels, when proper accounting is used for carbon sequestered in natural vegetation. Further, a 2011 study for the National Academy of Sciences found that, “…production of ethanol as fuel to displace gasoline is likely to increase such air pollutants as particulate matter, ozone, and sulfur oxides.”
Ethanol fuel is no bargain. For example, when gasoline is priced at $3.40 per gallon, the 85 percent ethanol blend (E85) is priced at about $3.00 per gallon. But since the energy content of ethanol is only 66 percent that of gasoline, a tank of E85 gets only about 71 percent of the mileage of a tank of pure gasoline. E85 fuel should be priced at $2.41 per gallon for the driver to break even. According to the US Department of Agriculture, ethanol fuel remains about 25 percent more expensive than gasoline.”
Full article and discussion at wattsupwiththat.com
Obviously, we have been had. We have had the wool pulled over our eyes, but of course, you knew that all along if you have been following this blog.
You may wonder why all of that happened. There is no doubt in my mind that it all is part of the program for raising concerns about certain issues that can be used to re-engineer civilization, and what better way to do that than through being successful at it and to make money in the process, money for a few people, their camp followers and foot soldiers at the top of the pile.
If that reeks of conspiracy theory to you then, for starters, consider the graphs identified in the following quote.
There are contingency plans for maintaining totalitarian control, to enable those in power to maintain the totalitarian system of control that they used feminism for to establish. One of those is multiculturalism and the other is environmentalism. Those two ideologies and feminism are “the unholy trinity of deconstruction.”
To drive the point home, take the relative extents to which those three ideologies were promoted by the publishing industry over time. I wonder for how much longer Google Ngram will provide the honest truth about such things, but this is what it shows: http://tinyurl.com/c978sov
Keep in mind what the ngrams show. They do not show relative extents of power. Short of Milton Friedman, whose analysis and predictions are on the mark, I don’t know of anyone who has studied this objectively and in depth, but it seems clear to me how things went and where they are going.
We now have totalitarian systems ruled by bureaucracies. It may be that once a bureaucracy has absolute power, then it no longer needs any ideology to maintain itself, but what it does need is tax revenues. Ultimately, the bureaucracies will collapse or at least submit to authorities other than themselves, not so much when the taxpayers willingness to pay is exhausted but when the limit of their ability to pay is reached. That ultimate limit to power will be reached within fewer than ten years.
One last illustration, trend-line comparisons that show not what people are supposed to think about (the ngrams do that) but the true extent of their interest in the three ideologies, in other words, how well they were indoctrinated to become concerned: http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=climate%20change,feminism,affirmative%20action
Enjoy your day, and perhaps it will warm up soon, so you can begin work in your garden.