+- +-


Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Total Members: 52
Latest: Carnesia
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Total Posts: 16222
Total Topics: 264
Most Online Today: 1
Most Online Ever: 201
(December 08, 2019, 11:34:38 pm)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 0
Total: 0

Author Topic: Ethanol  (Read 7745 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33007
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Ethanol
« Reply #15 on: January 26, 2016, 06:59:25 pm »
Agelbert NOTE: The following is a back and forth with a (biosphere) math challenged mathematician called Palloy. He refuses to do the math on fossil fuel pollution but pretends to do so.

He refuses to acknowledge that fossil fuels DO NOT have an Energy  Return on Energy Invested (ERoEI). He refuses to acknowledge that fossil fuel industry "profits" are artificially supported by government DIRECT subsidies, on the one hand, and INDIRECT "subsidies" from the LACK of government regulations and oversight on their severely polluting practices like flaring at drill sites and refineries.

And, he refuses to acknowledge the beneficial facts and high ERoEI of biofuels like Ethanol.

The thread includes Palloy's ridiculous claim that solar energy harvested with PV "cannot be scaled up". He games his formulas to conveniently leave out the advantages of Renewable Energy over fossil fuels in order to make a case for the alleged "impossibility" of running our civilization on Renewable Energy.

The exact reverse true. It is, in fact, impossible to run it on polluting energy sources. It just takes a while for pollutants to start severely degrading the biosphere. We are there. Palloy AND the governments influenced (i.e. corrupted) by the fossil fuel industry do not get it.  >:(

I present this rather long thread with a post or two from it (in the approriate sequence) daily for the next several days in order for you to learn how these propagandists for the polluters play their disingenuoos games.

Since most of it is about Renewable Energy (plant based) Ethanol, I have placed it here.

It begins with what seems like an irrelevant topic to Palloy's claims. But it is VERY relevant because Palloy likes to use gamed government data and stats to back his baloney.

Of course not all government data is gamed. But the data published for ERoEI for fossil fuels and ethanol IS gamed BY the fossil fuel industry corruption of governments. I provide evidence of that. Palloy plays dumb and scoffs. Enjoy.   

Research highlight: Enforcement question for pesticide laws
January 18, 2016 at 10:37 am
Helicopter spraying pesticide over pond in a city with ducks flying under it.  :emthdown:

Readers will be familiar with concerns that traditional chemical risk assessment methods give results which are either insufficiently complete (ignoring mixture effects, for example) or insufficiently accurate (e.g. by potentially under-estimating risks from individual compounds).

There is also the concern that chemical regulations might be insufficiently enforced, as highlighted in a recent paper in Environmental Science and Pollution Research (Stehle & Schulz 2015a).

In this paper, the researchers reviewed the published literature measuring pesticide levels in EU surface waters, aggregating a total of 1566 measured insecticide concentrations. Of these, 45% exceeded the maximum limit as determined by their respective risk assessments.

This paints a worrying picture of pesticide risk assessment in the EU: even if the results of the risk assessment are sufficiently protective (which seems doubtful), they are not being adequately enforced. So in what sense are EU pesticides laws sufficiently protective of the environment?

The research follows on from another study by the same authors, published earlier in 2015, which found that more than 50% of global surface waters contain pesticide residues exceeding the limit determined by their risk assessments  :(  >:( (Stehle and Schulz 2015b), and was covered by the Washington Post.


Agelbert NOTE: The INACCURATE "traditional     " chemical risk assessment methods are part and parcel of the DATA SETS that statisticians and mathematicians like PALLOY use to make their arguments about WHATEVER. 

The government published HAPPY TALK, designed to defend the profit over planet polluting status quo, is certainly NOT limited to CONVENIENT (for business as usual    ) risk assessments.

The "rigorous peer reviewed studies" on energy resources, that produce ERoEI numbers that somehow always manage to low ball Renewable Energy sources as compared to fossil fuels,  from the bought and paid for scientists of the fossil fuel industry (e.g. Charles Hall, et al ), are willingly embraced by the Palloy's of this world as the, sniff,  ONLY CREDIBLE standard. After referencing a few of these "rigorous studies", the Palloy's of this world will claim that any other claims are "not credible" and, since they are serious mathematician/statisticians   ;)   , any allegations that the data sets they swear by are inaccurate are instantly deemed "spurious. wild eyed and worthy of disdain". So it goes.

Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate:
For the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them. Pr. 22:22-23


+-Recent Topics

Experts Knew a Pandemic Was Coming. Here’s What They’re Worried About Next. by Surly1
May 12, 2020, 07:46:22 am

Doomstead Diner Daily by Surly1
May 12, 2020, 07:40:17 am

Profiles in Courage by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 11:47:35 pm

Money by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 11:27:30 pm

Creeping Police State by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 10:35:38 pm

COVID-19 🏴☠️ Pandemic by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 10:19:30 pm

Resisting Brainwashing Propaganda by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 10:07:28 pm

Corruption in Government by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 09:54:48 pm

🚩 Global Climate Chaos ☠️ by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 09:10:24 pm

Intelligent Design by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 06:38:41 pm