Today’s Equation: Green Energy = No Energy

/\ /\ You claim a "better education," but you claim "demand is highly inelastic," after rolling right past consumer education, so you distort, on top of distortion.

Since all you offer is distortion and layered logical fallacies, tell us how you got such a great command of English.

What drives the fascist state and its corporate clients is GREED, supported by special-interest socialism. Your rants completely ignore all free-market constructs, since you subscribe, to supply-side zombienomics. Stop claiming to know economics. You are taking up bandwidth, with total fraud.

While "your corrupt greentech company may use governemnt (sic) to" get some kind of advantages, we have to put up with the loaded language, in your incoherent rants and your pompous attitude, toward your circular agenda, since you have some unstated, preconceived notions, which are thoroughly corrupt.

Fossil fuel purveyors have corrupt advantages, guy. They have cooked the planet, in just a few years. They have fixed the game, so they have all kinds of media, holding up biofuels, throughout the 20th Century, which won't continue, in the 21st Century.

Meanwhile, you are over here trying to pretend you can convince us, how the Earth is flat, again. But the ice will melt, the planet will heat up, and when the sheet ice melts, it won't all flow, off the edge of the Earth, no matter how much circular logic you concoct.

I don't need a "lesson," in corruption, from YOU. That is the only subject you could teach.

 

Did you try any of the websites for that long list of greentech companies? I chose 3 at random, and found nothing. Government funding of green energy creates a lot of hype, a lot of promises, but very little fuel. Also, if the total capacity of that list (and capacity is rarely actual output), provides 1/2 gallon per person per year.

I can't wait for algae to replace fossil fuels, because closed algae systems is that they are scalable. Combine sewage treatment, power generation, and an algae farm, and a third world village has power (squeeze the oil out of the alge for transportation fuel, burn the left overs for electricity, recycle the waste into the algae farm).

I also hear all the hype about switch grass and other land grown sources of cellulose to create ethanol - why is no one talking about algae? Far higher yields per acre. Squeeze out the oil, convert the rest to ethanol (butanol would be better - a direct substitute for gasoline).

Energy is prosperity.

 

Algae sounds good but does it really work well enough to be economically feasable?

I tend to think more work has to be done...in the meantime we do have natural gas as a "bridge" fuel.

 

1. Were you able to go to the link, at the top of the list of the list of bio-refineries, or were you trying the live links? The list I envision is of biofuel media processors, which each list their biomass capabilities. Refer to a post number, or something.

2. Check out the algae thread, OP by Taxcutter, and the biofuels thread, OP by Bowerbird. The best closed system algae should be grown, near an O2-fired gas power plant or near a Fischer-Tropsch furnace, with scrubbed CO2, to furnish for algae and methanol. Some CO2 salvage may be better, for compression, into algae ponds, while other CO2 may be superior, for methanol conversion, by adding H2. All excess CO2 should be converted, by oxide processing, to carbonates.

3. Take a look at the internet, this thread, and other PF threads. Algae is all over the place. The US DOD may have algae refineries, at bases, all the way forward. What is your problem, understanding cellulosic media? We have corn subsidy problems, TODAY, while cellulosic biofuels AND plastics AND all other products, from plants, associated with cellulosic fuels have been suppressed, for coal, timber, oil, and CORN. Heard of the supply side? You can't demand any cellulosic fuels because ALL related media has been suppressed, by cartels.

Of course, if you don't read other posts, at this thread, or other threads, you are welcome to run a search.

 

Solar, wind, geothermal, and nuclear make lousy transportation fuels. Bio-oil is our best alternative, and algae is the best source. I have followed it quite closely.

Veggie oil can be cracked using conventional refineries into gasoline and diesel, eliminating additional infrastructure costs.

After squeezing the oil from the algae, the rest can be powdered and burned in a coal fired plant, the CO2 from the plant enriches the bio-reactor.

But, so far, I have seen far more hype than reality.

 

The good setup is well-known, by now, but this will require cooperation, with Feds, who have been keeping hemp out of the biofuels and plastic equation, for so long, they don't know how to anything, but start wars, which somebody will have to finish, one day.

The schweet setup is an O2-fired natural gas-methane power plant, which automatically just makes CO2 and H2O, so the CO2 can be pressurized and piped, into a closed algae system, nearby, with a minimum of hassle.

Nitro-methane and methanol processing can go on, at the same complex.

A Fischer-Tropsch plant can have its output scrubbed, and its CO2 can be separated, to feed algae and methanol processing.

The algae can be processed and refined, into oil and fuel pellets, in the same complex. Ethanol processing of cellulosic biomass can also contribute, to biodiesel blends, which include methanol and nitro-methanol.

Jet fuel is apparently not a problem, for theorists. The high-torque 2-stroke engine can make a comback, while turbines and flywheels in hybrid vehicles look promising.

 

What a rant. Not that you made a single point. Your attempt to address the inelasticity of the energy market with the concept of consumer education is laughable. For starters it ignores what elasticity of demand is. Elasticity is how demand responds to changes in price. The energy markets is the primary example given in every econ class as an inelastic market. Yet you try to deny reality.

I also see that you are once again trying to pull the flat earth mantra out of the bag even when you know that its a fraud.

 

Psst! Your usual lunacy ignores how consumer education is how demand becomes more elastic. If you knew what you were talking about, even ONCE, we'd all find out, by now.

Of course, price is one contributor, to elasticity, given a perfect market. But since you are a ranter, who can't read, you perceive the supply side as the only player, since if demand is manipulated, markets must rely on economies of scale, to continue, during fraud.

YOU don't admit, to any elasticity component, but price. This says you can't think, past a two-dimensional representation, of market behavior.

FYI, VALUE and CONSUMER PREFERENCE play a big part, in market function. Consumer education may be from media or experience. These contribute, to elasticity, which will snap back, any year now. You watch. Your rants just make you look ridiculous.

Ronald Reagan admitted, to being a supply-sider. Hey, if poo is for dinner, a lot of people will eat poo!

W.Meat Obamney is also a supply-sider. If scams and Vampire Authority are what rule, scams are what people will do, supervised by a Vampire Authority, until somebody gets tired, whips out the stakes, and sticks Dracula. Or, the vampires suck all the blood, eat each other, and that's the end of Willard's takeover, infusion of loan funds, and extraction of exec salaries, while the acquired businesses toil, under debt, or they fail.

President Obamney is a Republicrat supply-sider. He gathered all the governors he could grab, told them single-payer Medicare was off the table, and he pushed and signed 2400 pages of private-insurer nonsense, on top of a lot of inflation, in the healthcare industry, which fluffed up the Republicans, so they took the US House and they will take the Senate, which Mr.Obamney is supplying, to them, while he imposes more corruption, in the Republican style, but he is a Republicrat.

You are a supply-sider. You rant, and you barely read, only what you write, or you'd realize how ridiculous all of your rants are. Your demand is completely inelastic. Consumer education isn't evident. You rant about a "lesson," which isn't evident, since you shovel poo, into posts, courtesy of PF bandwidth. You are a supply-side poo-dispenser.

If we had a free market, instead of a forum, you'd go out of business. My demand is elastic. I wouldn't put up with your poo, given a free market. Neither would anyone else.

 

No price is the only contributor.

That is why it is also called the price elasticity of demand or PED.

I'm actually in this business and I do quite well. But I understand that I'm competing for market share not creating new demand. If I didn't realize that distinction I would go out of business.

 

Great, I already explained you have a two-dimensional market model, and you seem to know you have a one-dimensional elasticity function.

When you have PED and a fixation on this, you also have THIS:

GIGO!

Say, have you heard what happens, when you plug GARBAGE, into a model, including and particularly the two-dimensional kind?

Guess what comes out!

 

Say, have you heard what happens, when you try to take GARBAGE, to market?

You have to leave it there, and poor kids end up picking the bits out, which they can sell, to a recycler or make into something.

Don't just try to take over real markets, like you do, at forum threads, with your pompous rants, including this latest one, about your fabulous, one-dimensional demand theory, from the bottom of boo-boo Econ class.

 

Yes why would someone pay any attention to basic economics when you can live in a dream world the selling 1 MWh of green power at $150 as opposed to $70 for natural gas power is somehow supposed to help the economy.

 

I know why put commas in your garbage-in garbage-out post when you got busted for GIGO-nomics and you now propose some government-hindered green media is somehow competitive with natural gas when fracking has no regulations and green is hindered by years of deflection and Schedule I CS for hemp.

 

You didn't bust (*)(*)(*)(*). You simply said garbage in garbage out without making a point. Your rhetoric is wearing thin. But it is fun to toy with you.

 

As for your post of biofuels ever competing with natural gas.

lol

Check how natural gas is priced. Its MMBTu that is million BTus. The current price is about $2.50/MMBTu.

Now a gallon of ethanol has around 80k BTus. Do you understand orders of magnitude? Do you understand the difference between million and thousand? Biofuels cannot even come close to matching the $/BTu of natural gas.

 

In some situations biofuels work very well. A plywood factory that generates its power with the waste from the manufacturing process is a good example. Or a sawmill that burns the wood waste for fuel. A large dairy could burn manure for electricity (if it were cost effective) and I am sure there are many other biofuels that could work.

In many cases biofuel is simply thrown away(or hauled away) rather than put to good use.

We will still need oil and natural gas but we could make a dent by using alternatives where they make sense.

Better designed buildings would reduce fuel cost without even using an alternate source. And geothermal is free after startup cost, as the earth stays a constant temperarture just below the surface.

 

1. Your PED is a two-dimensional model.
2. You rant supply-side garbage.
3. Only garbage comes out, of your modeling, and consider your rants.

1. You are ranting about a market, which has been manipulated.
2. You plugged in figures, for corn ethanol, not top nitro-methanol biodiesel.
3. You ignored regular methanol biodiesel.
4. You posted even more garbage.

 

Natural gas is priced at normal transmission pressures - about 100 psi.

For CNG to be used as transportation fuel, it has to be compressed up to 3,000 psi. Compressing gas costs money.

Around here the best (untaxed) price for CNG is $0.95/gge. That is about $7.60/MMBTU. Add 25% more cost for compression and you get transportation fuel that costs $9.50/MMBTU. Add 75 cents per gallon in taxes (they will get around to taxing CNg if it gets into widespread use - bet on it). Now you are up to a cost of about $2.15/gge for CNG. Yes that's cheaper than the $3.85 taxed RUG costs at the pump. Biofuel has work to do, but right now the $12,000 cost of converting your car to CNG (thanks to EPA regs) holds back CNG usage, and gives biofuel a window of opportunity.

"A plywood factory that generates its power with the waste from the manufacturing process is a good example. Or a sawmill that burns the wood waste for fuel."

Taxcutter says;
Most of the big boys already do this, but smaller operations are intimidated by the regulations.

 

Price demand curves are not supply side economics. Its basic economics valid to all forms of economics from Keynesian to supply side. Listen to yourself for a minute. I'm arguing about demand and the nations aggregate demand. You turn around and saying that I'm arguing supply side. Uh genius nothing I have argued has anything to do with supply side economics. My argument is a Keynesian one. I think you need to learn some economics and quite spewing talking points. Your argument makes absolutely no sense as you are throwing around terms of which you don't know the meaning.

Its all ethanol. Not just corn. Ethanol is a chemical C2H6O. It doesn't' matter if it comes from corn or hemp. Its the same thing. Once again you spew out terms to which you don't know the meaning. Why do you think that corn ethanol and hemp ethanol are different?

As for biodiesel its about 120k BTus/gallon so it still doesn't even come close.

 

Rather speculative. All I am talking about is a post-carbon sustainable future. If there is enough biomass to feed 6 billion people (and that is debatable) there is still going to be enough biomass to feed 6 million people, post-carbon use

I don't deny these things. In fact they are absolutely necessary if we want a carbon-based society.

The free market still allows oil to be produced more cheaply.

 

And since when is aggregate demand synonymous supply side economics?

http://www.auburn.edu/~johnspm/gloss/aggregate_demand

I'm not arguing about corn or hemp or any other source of ethanol or biodiesel on the energy content contained in said fuels. You keep wanting to change the subject to something you are more comfortable arguing.

 

We are feeding 6 billion today - how is that debatable?

6 billion to 6 million - isn't that almost 6 billion starving to death? How is that speculative? If not 6 billion starving, maybe only 1 or 2 billion?

Because it is cheaper. The only way bio-fuel is going to sell at all is if the cost is no more than a bit more expensive, and it won't replace petro fuel until it is cheaper. Thats not politics, that is reality.

Cheaper, including the cost of infrastructure. Do you think the world if going to junk a perfectly good gasoline based cars to buy an electrics? Do you think the electric companies will beef the grid up enough to charge those cars for free?