You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Arabia
Saudi Cleric Announces his Return to Religious Activity
2006-01-23
Saudi religious figure, Dr Aaeed Al-Qarni announced Friday his return to preaching and the withdrawal of his decision to end his religious preaching and writing. Al-Qarni told Asharq Al-Awsat that his return comes after the call of Prince Salman Bin Abdulaziz, governor of Riyadh, who had urged the cleric to resume his religious role. He said that the prince, who met Al-Qarni recently upon his return from the Haj pilgrimage, had addressed the religious figure as "son of the state."

Al-Qarni praised the rulers of Saudi Arabia, mostly Prince Salman Bin Abdulaziz for "his interest in my affairs and his care since the publishing of my first poem. I asked the Prince to give me a month to consider my situation and I have now decided to return to my role in the religious field." He continued to say that he would recite a poem on Saturday, at the King Khaled Mosque in Umm Al-Hammam in Riyadh. The poem would carry a message for the Saudi leadership, scholars, media, extremists, women, dialogue, youth, fathers, those who denounce others as infidels and those who criticize the invariable principles. With reference to reports of alleged attempts to keep the media spotlight focused upon him, Al-Qarni said, "I do not need fame or for people to know me to put myself in this kind of situation."
Posted by:Fred

#14  All said so far completely ignores that the "Mash" remaining is a highly nutritious cattle feed, (They love it) and is sold for more than the initial corn costs.

Plus the inclusion of "Costs" not directly related to farming (Transport both ways) leads me to believe that the article is worthless, it's heavily slanted to make alcohol look as bad as possible.
Example if I include the "Costs" of all the copper wires, all the towers, maintenance and all the generators I could make the same argument that it costs $10,000 per lightbulb purchased for 2 bucks at the store. (God, how do they stay in business with a loss like that?)

False accounting here, beware, heavily slanted article.
Posted by: Redneck Jim   2006-01-23 20:21  

#13  Bet Ed is right, but the US is not well placed for efficient ethanol production.... um.... Cuba?
Posted by: 6   2006-01-23 17:52  

#12  The 1000 gallons is way out of line. A 1995 ethanol study had 13.5 gallons of liquid fuels and twice that amount of natural gas (fertilizer synthesis) per acre of corn. Google for details. In the meantime, farm yields go up, driving down ethanol prices. But it's not only fuel inputs, but labor and capital equipment that must be factored in.
Posted by: ed   2006-01-23 17:38  

#11  Gardens and "induatrial-size" fields are two very different things. Gardening is more labor-intensive and uses less mecahnization/energy/fertilizers. But gardening doesn't scale. Oh, and you don't transport the products of your garden thousands of miles away, who is quite costly in energy.
Posted by: JFM   2006-01-23 17:22  

#10  This quantity of corn requires 1,000 gallons of fossil fuels to plant, grow and harvest,

That's a flat lie, I've had gardens before, and for 10 acres I used less than 50 gallons of gasoline per year total
Posted by: Redneck Jim   2006-01-23 12:26  

#9  This link sheds a little light on the ethanol EROEI issue:

Those who extol ethanol fail to look at the energy costs of production, what certain energy analysts call the EROEI (Energy Return on Energy Invested).

Simply put, it takes more energy to produce ethanol than is produced by the combustion of ethanol. According to Cornell professor David Pimentel, an acre of corn ultimately yields 328 gallons of ethanol. This quantity of corn requires 1,000 gallons of fossil fuels to plant, grow and harvest, and costs $347 per acre. This means the corn feedstock costs $1.05 per gallon of ethanol before it is even converted into ethanol. Additional energy costs accrue in distilling the ethanol. Adding it all up, 131,000 BTUs are needed to make 1 gallon of ethanol, with an energy value of only 77,000 BTUs. This results in an EROEI of roughly 59 percent. That is a 41 percent loss of energy, according the UniSci science daily news website.

The reason companies can make money on ethanol production despite the negative EROEI is that it is heavily subsidized by the government.
Posted by: Biff Wellington   2006-01-23 11:37  

#8  Michael Moore, domestic energy source.

Forget him, imagine the power available from the alcohol-soaked fat of Ted Kennedy!
Posted by: Robert Crawford   2006-01-23 11:06  

#7  In the US Ethanol has a negative return on energy invested. Brazil has a positive EROI from sugarcane.
Posted by: Ulomoth Whogum2314   2006-01-23 10:12  

#6  it does not take two tonnes of oil for every tonne of methanol you produce, if that were true it would be too expensive to produce it in the first place and these companies wouldn't be in business.

And I don't know WHY you'd want to bring nuke power up, unless you think you can fit a mini nuke reactor to your car. Most power plants burn coal, not oil and therefore do not purchase it from the Saudis who are trying to kill us.

Jeesh, what a maroon
Posted by: anon1   2006-01-23 09:25  

#5  Michael Moore, domestic energy source.

Can he take the oil depletion allowance as a deduction on his taxes or is it considered a renewable resource?
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2006-01-23 08:29  

#4  use the fat of greens and liberals instead of oil.

Offer low cost liposuctions, and we'll have a hundred year supply in no time at all.
Posted by: trailing wife   2006-01-23 07:45  

#3   use the fat of greens and liberals instead of oil.

Soylent Unleaded is people!
Posted by: Steve   2006-01-23 07:30  

#2  Given that producing ethanol requirs using two tons of oil for every ton of oil you "save" I have a better plan.

1) Use nuclear plants for producing electricity

2) Modify cars so they can use the fat of greens and liberals instead of oil.
Posted by: JFM   2006-01-23 07:12  

#1  The best way to screw the Saudis is to wean yourself off Saudi Black Skag (oil).

Your car does not have to run solely on petrol any more. You can get a modified engine to run on 85% ethanol and only 15% petrol. that's a lot less dollars for those who are trying to kill us.

And diesel engines can run straight on ethanol, no modifying required.

----
Bio-ethanol has been available in the US since the late '90s as a fuel additive commonly sold as 'E10', a blend of 90% petrol and 10% ethanol. While some vehicles have been modified to accept blends of E85, bio-ethanol remains overwhelmingly a fuel additive, rather than a replacement.

Although biodiesel is commonly blended with regular diesel, diesel engines can also run using only biodiesel, or B100, without any vehicle modifications. In fact, when Rudolf Diesel's first engine came to life in 1893, it was fuelled entirely by peanut oil.

So biodiesel can replace petrofuel at no additional cost to immediately achieve improved environmental performance.
---

From Transport Industry Net news (registration required)

"Banking on biodiesel - Part 1"

Wednesday, January 11, 2006
Sabian Wilde

http://transport.industry-news.net//storyview.asp?storyid=52142§ionsource=f25
Posted by: anon1   2006-01-23 02:30  

00:00