FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Forum index » Science and Technology » Chem
George "Big Oil" Bush KNOWS Bio Fuels Won't Work!
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 2 [17 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  1, 2 Next
Author Message
zzbunker@netscape.net
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 30 May 2005
Posts: 284

PostPosted: Sun Jul 02, 2006 5:15 pm    Post subject: Re: George "Big Oil" Bush KNOWS Bio Fuels Won't Work! Reply with quote

perryneheum@hotmail.com wrote:
Quote:
In fact the entire administration, at Karl Rove's urging, is touting
alternative fuels merely as a POLITICAL points-gainer. As big oil
stock holders, they KNOW very well that fuel from corn or ANY crop or
"biomass" simply can't replace petroleum to propel our cars, SUVs, and
other trucks. But they view their supporters as ill-informed and
willing to believe anything they say. Like Iraq and bin Laden and WMD.
And you know, they're right!

They're automatically right, since the only energy
energy solution Detroit has ever been interested in
is New York morons and power steering, not
erthanol, gasoline, oil, electricity, or cars, or trucks.





Quote:

===
"The False Hope of Biofuels"

For Energy and Environmental Reasons, Ethanol Will Never Replace
Gasoline
By James Jordan and James Powell
The Washington Post
Sunday, July 2, 2006; B07

Biofuels such as ethanol made from corn, sugar cane, switchgrass and
other crops are being touted as a "green" solution for a large part of
America's transportation problem. Auto manufacturers, Midwest corn
farmers and politicians are excited about ethanol. Initially, we, too,
were excited about biofuels: no net carbon dioxide emissions, reduction
of oil imports. Who wouldn't be enthusiastic?

But as we've looked at biofuels more closely, we've concluded that
they're not a practical long-term solution to our need for transport
fuels. Even if all of the 300 million acres (500,000 square miles) of
currently harvested U.S. cropland produced ethanol, it wouldn't supply
all of the gasoline and diesel fuel we now burn for transport, and it
would supply only about half of the needs for the year 2025. And the
effects on land and agriculture would be devastating.

It's difficult to understand how advocates of biofuels can believe they
are a real solution to kicking our oil addiction. Agriculture
Department studies of ethanol production from corn -- the present U.S.
process for ethanol fuel -- find that an acre of corn yields about 139
bushels. At an average of about 2.5 gallons per bushel, the acre then
will yield about 350 gallons of ethanol. But the fuel value of ethanol
is only about two-thirds that of gasoline -- 1.5 gallons of ethanol in
the tank equals 1 gallon of gasoline in terms of energy output.

Moreover, it takes a lot of input energy to produce ethanol: for
fertilizer, harvesting, transport, corn processing, etc. After
subtracting this input, the net positive energy available is less than
half of the figure cited above. Some researchers even claim that the
net energy of ethanol is actually negative when all inputs are included
-- it takes more energy to make ethanol than one gets out of it.

But allowing a net positive energy output of 30,000 British thermal
units (Btu) per gallon, it would still take four gallons of ethanol
from corn to equal one gallon of gasoline. The United States has 73
million acres of corn cropland. At 350 gallons per acre, the entire
U.S. corn crop would make 25.5 billion gallons, equivalent to about 6.3
billion gallons of gasoline. The United States consumes 170 billion
gallons of gasoline and diesel fuel annually. Thus the entire U.S. corn
crop would supply only 3.7 percent of our auto and truck transport
demands. Using the entire 300 million acres of U.S. cropland for
corn-based ethanol production would meet about 15 percent of the
demand.

It is argued that rather than using corn to make ethanol, we can use
agricultural wastes. But the amounts are still a drop in the bucket.
Using the crop residues (called corn stover) from corn production could
provide about 10 billion gallons per year of ethanol, according to a
recent study by the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The net
energy available would be greater than with ethanol from corn -- about
60,000 Btu per gallon, equivalent to a half-gallon of gasoline. Still,
all of the U.S. corn wastes would produce only the equivalent of 5
billion gallons of gasoline. Another factor to be considered: Not
plowing wastes back into the land hurts soil fertility.

Similar limitations and problems apply to growing any crop for
biofuels, whether switchgrass, hybrid willow, hybrid poplar or
whatever. Optimistically, assuming that switchgrass or some other crop
could produce 1,000 gallons of ethanol per acre, over twice as much as
we can get from corn plus stover, and that its net energy was 60,000
Btu per gallon, ethanol from 300 million acres of switchgrass still
could not supply our present gasoline and diesel consumption, which is
projected to double by 2025. The ethanol would meet less than half of
our needs by that date.
Perhaps more important: The agricultural effects of such a large-scale
program would be devastating.

Recently, there has been lots of excitement and media coverage about
how Brazil produces ethanol for its automobile fuel and talk that
America should follow its lead. But Brazil consumes only 10 billion
gallons of gasoline and diesel fuel annually, compared with America's
170 billion. There are almost 4 million miles of paved roads in America
-- Brazil has 60,000. And Brazil is the leading producer of sugar cane
-- more than 300 million tons annually -- so it has lots of
agricultural waste to make ethanol.

Finally, considering projected population growth in the United States
and the world, the humanitarian policy would be to maintain cropland
for growing food -- not fuel. Every day more than 16,000 children die
from hunger-related causes -- one child every five seconds. The
situation will only get worse. It would be morally wrong to divert
cropland needed for human food supply to powering automobiles. It would
also deplete soil fertility and the long-term capability to maintain
food production. We would destroy the farmland that our grandchildren
and their grandchildren will need to live.

The writers are research professors in Maglev Research Center at
Polytechnic University of New York.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/30/AR2006063001480.html
Back to top
GW Chimpzilla's Eye-Rack
science forum beginner


Joined: 02 Jul 2006
Posts: 1

PostPosted: Sun Jul 02, 2006 6:24 pm    Post subject: Re: George "Big Oil" Bush KNOWS Bio Fuels Won't Work! Reply with quote

perryneheum@hotmail.com wrote:

Quote:
In fact the entire administration, at Karl Rove's urging, is touting
alternative fuels merely as a POLITICAL points-gainer. As big oil
stock holders, they KNOW very well that fuel from corn or ANY crop or
"biomass" simply can't replace petroleum to propel our cars, SUVs, and
other trucks. But they view their supporters as ill-informed and
willing to believe anything they say. Like Iraq and bin Laden and WMD.
And you know, they're right!

Here's a great rundown on the lack of potential of switchgrass ethanol

production.

http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/3/7/03949/82426

Quote:
===
"The False Hope of Biofuels"

For Energy and Environmental Reasons, Ethanol Will Never Replace
Gasoline
By James Jordan and James Powell
The Washington Post
Sunday, July 2, 2006; B07

Biofuels such as ethanol made from corn, sugar cane, switchgrass and
other crops are being touted as a "green" solution for a large part of
America's transportation problem. Auto manufacturers, Midwest corn
farmers and politicians are excited about ethanol. Initially, we, too,
were excited about biofuels: no net carbon dioxide emissions, reduction
of oil imports. Who wouldn't be enthusiastic?

But as we've looked at biofuels more closely, we've concluded that
they're not a practical long-term solution to our need for transport
fuels. Even if all of the 300 million acres (500,000 square miles) of
currently harvested U.S. cropland produced ethanol, it wouldn't supply
all of the gasoline and diesel fuel we now burn for transport, and it
would supply only about half of the needs for the year 2025. And the
effects on land and agriculture would be devastating.

It's difficult to understand how advocates of biofuels can believe they
are a real solution to kicking our oil addiction. Agriculture
Department studies of ethanol production from corn -- the present U.S.
process for ethanol fuel -- find that an acre of corn yields about 139
bushels. At an average of about 2.5 gallons per bushel, the acre then
will yield about 350 gallons of ethanol. But the fuel value of ethanol
is only about two-thirds that of gasoline -- 1.5 gallons of ethanol in
the tank equals 1 gallon of gasoline in terms of energy output.

Moreover, it takes a lot of input energy to produce ethanol: for
fertilizer, harvesting, transport, corn processing, etc. After
subtracting this input, the net positive energy available is less than
half of the figure cited above. Some researchers even claim that the
net energy of ethanol is actually negative when all inputs are included
-- it takes more energy to make ethanol than one gets out of it.

But allowing a net positive energy output of 30,000 British thermal
units (Btu) per gallon, it would still take four gallons of ethanol
from corn to equal one gallon of gasoline. The United States has 73
million acres of corn cropland. At 350 gallons per acre, the entire
U.S. corn crop would make 25.5 billion gallons, equivalent to about 6.3
billion gallons of gasoline. The United States consumes 170 billion
gallons of gasoline and diesel fuel annually. Thus the entire U.S. corn
crop would supply only 3.7 percent of our auto and truck transport
demands. Using the entire 300 million acres of U.S. cropland for
corn-based ethanol production would meet about 15 percent of the
demand.

It is argued that rather than using corn to make ethanol, we can use
agricultural wastes. But the amounts are still a drop in the bucket.
Using the crop residues (called corn stover) from corn production could
provide about 10 billion gallons per year of ethanol, according to a
recent study by the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The net
energy available would be greater than with ethanol from corn -- about
60,000 Btu per gallon, equivalent to a half-gallon of gasoline. Still,
all of the U.S. corn wastes would produce only the equivalent of 5
billion gallons of gasoline. Another factor to be considered: Not
plowing wastes back into the land hurts soil fertility.

Similar limitations and problems apply to growing any crop for
biofuels, whether switchgrass, hybrid willow, hybrid poplar or
whatever. Optimistically, assuming that switchgrass or some other crop
could produce 1,000 gallons of ethanol per acre, over twice as much as
we can get from corn plus stover, and that its net energy was 60,000
Btu per gallon, ethanol from 300 million acres of switchgrass still
could not supply our present gasoline and diesel consumption, which is
projected to double by 2025. The ethanol would meet less than half of
our needs by that date.
Perhaps more important: The agricultural effects of such a large-scale
program would be devastating.

Recently, there has been lots of excitement and media coverage about
how Brazil produces ethanol for its automobile fuel and talk that
America should follow its lead. But Brazil consumes only 10 billion
gallons of gasoline and diesel fuel annually, compared with America's
170 billion. There are almost 4 million miles of paved roads in America
-- Brazil has 60,000. And Brazil is the leading producer of sugar cane
-- more than 300 million tons annually -- so it has lots of
agricultural waste to make ethanol.

Finally, considering projected population growth in the United States
and the world, the humanitarian policy would be to maintain cropland
for growing food -- not fuel. Every day more than 16,000 children die
from hunger-related causes -- one child every five seconds. The
situation will only get worse. It would be morally wrong to divert
cropland needed for human food supply to powering automobiles. It would
also deplete soil fertility and the long-term capability to maintain
food production. We would destroy the farmland that our grandchildren
and their grandchildren will need to live.

The writers are research professors in Maglev Research Center at
Polytechnic University of New York.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/30/AR2006063001480.html


--
There are only two kinds of Republicans: Millionaires and fools.
Back to top
zzbunker@netscape.net
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 30 May 2005
Posts: 284

PostPosted: Sun Jul 02, 2006 6:50 pm    Post subject: Re: George "Big Oil" Bush KNOWS Bio Fuels Won't Work! Reply with quote

GW Chimpzilla's Eye-Rack Neocon Utopia wrote:
Quote:
perryneheum@hotmail.com wrote:

In fact the entire administration, at Karl Rove's urging, is touting
alternative fuels merely as a POLITICAL points-gainer. As big oil
stock holders, they KNOW very well that fuel from corn or ANY crop or
"biomass" simply can't replace petroleum to propel our cars, SUVs, and
other trucks. But they view their supporters as ill-informed and
willing to believe anything they say. Like Iraq and bin Laden and WMD.
And you know, they're right!

Here's a great rundown on the lack of potential of switchgrass ethanol
production.

What Bush idiots and the farmers obviously do not understand about
the provess is that ethanol is a compound, extremly low viscoity
fuel.
Which is why it's called a top-fueler, rather than a fuel useful
for
farmers and tractors.

It's potenital is in making F-16s, rather than in making morons
like farmers and Bush.









Quote:

http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/3/7/03949/82426

===
"The False Hope of Biofuels"

For Energy and Environmental Reasons, Ethanol Will Never Replace
Gasoline
By James Jordan and James Powell
The Washington Post
Sunday, July 2, 2006; B07

Biofuels such as ethanol made from corn, sugar cane, switchgrass and
other crops are being touted as a "green" solution for a large part of
America's transportation problem. Auto manufacturers, Midwest corn
farmers and politicians are excited about ethanol. Initially, we, too,
were excited about biofuels: no net carbon dioxide emissions, reduction
of oil imports. Who wouldn't be enthusiastic?

But as we've looked at biofuels more closely, we've concluded that
they're not a practical long-term solution to our need for transport
fuels. Even if all of the 300 million acres (500,000 square miles) of
currently harvested U.S. cropland produced ethanol, it wouldn't supply
all of the gasoline and diesel fuel we now burn for transport, and it
would supply only about half of the needs for the year 2025. And the
effects on land and agriculture would be devastating.

It's difficult to understand how advocates of biofuels can believe they
are a real solution to kicking our oil addiction. Agriculture
Department studies of ethanol production from corn -- the present U.S.
process for ethanol fuel -- find that an acre of corn yields about 139
bushels. At an average of about 2.5 gallons per bushel, the acre then
will yield about 350 gallons of ethanol. But the fuel value of ethanol
is only about two-thirds that of gasoline -- 1.5 gallons of ethanol in
the tank equals 1 gallon of gasoline in terms of energy output.

Moreover, it takes a lot of input energy to produce ethanol: for
fertilizer, harvesting, transport, corn processing, etc. After
subtracting this input, the net positive energy available is less than
half of the figure cited above. Some researchers even claim that the
net energy of ethanol is actually negative when all inputs are included
-- it takes more energy to make ethanol than one gets out of it.

But allowing a net positive energy output of 30,000 British thermal
units (Btu) per gallon, it would still take four gallons of ethanol
from corn to equal one gallon of gasoline. The United States has 73
million acres of corn cropland. At 350 gallons per acre, the entire
U.S. corn crop would make 25.5 billion gallons, equivalent to about 6.3
billion gallons of gasoline. The United States consumes 170 billion
gallons of gasoline and diesel fuel annually. Thus the entire U.S. corn
crop would supply only 3.7 percent of our auto and truck transport
demands. Using the entire 300 million acres of U.S. cropland for
corn-based ethanol production would meet about 15 percent of the
demand.

It is argued that rather than using corn to make ethanol, we can use
agricultural wastes. But the amounts are still a drop in the bucket.
Using the crop residues (called corn stover) from corn production could
provide about 10 billion gallons per year of ethanol, according to a
recent study by the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The net
energy available would be greater than with ethanol from corn -- about
60,000 Btu per gallon, equivalent to a half-gallon of gasoline. Still,
all of the U.S. corn wastes would produce only the equivalent of 5
billion gallons of gasoline. Another factor to be considered: Not
plowing wastes back into the land hurts soil fertility.

Similar limitations and problems apply to growing any crop for
biofuels, whether switchgrass, hybrid willow, hybrid poplar or
whatever. Optimistically, assuming that switchgrass or some other crop
could produce 1,000 gallons of ethanol per acre, over twice as much as
we can get from corn plus stover, and that its net energy was 60,000
Btu per gallon, ethanol from 300 million acres of switchgrass still
could not supply our present gasoline and diesel consumption, which is
projected to double by 2025. The ethanol would meet less than half of
our needs by that date.
Perhaps more important: The agricultural effects of such a large-scale
program would be devastating.

Recently, there has been lots of excitement and media coverage about
how Brazil produces ethanol for its automobile fuel and talk that
America should follow its lead. But Brazil consumes only 10 billion
gallons of gasoline and diesel fuel annually, compared with America's
170 billion. There are almost 4 million miles of paved roads in America
-- Brazil has 60,000. And Brazil is the leading producer of sugar cane
-- more than 300 million tons annually -- so it has lots of
agricultural waste to make ethanol.

Finally, considering projected population growth in the United States
and the world, the humanitarian policy would be to maintain cropland
for growing food -- not fuel. Every day more than 16,000 children die
from hunger-related causes -- one child every five seconds. The
situation will only get worse. It would be morally wrong to divert
cropland needed for human food supply to powering automobiles. It would
also deplete soil fertility and the long-term capability to maintain
food production. We would destroy the farmland that our grandchildren
and their grandchildren will need to live.

The writers are research professors in Maglev Research Center at
Polytechnic University of New York.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/30/AR2006063001480.html

--
There are only two kinds of Republicans: Millionaires and fools.
Back to top
rekuci@gmail.com
science forum addict


Joined: 22 Sep 2005
Posts: 98

PostPosted: Mon Jul 03, 2006 5:10 pm    Post subject: Re: George "Big Oil" Bush KNOWS Bio Fuels Won't Work! Reply with quote

Quote:
"The False Hope of Biofuels"

For Energy and Environmental Reasons, Ethanol Will Never Replace
Gasoline
By James Jordan and James Powell
The Washington Post
Sunday, July 2, 2006; B07

Thanks for posting this article, it's one I've been waiting...and
waiting for. The problem is that not enough people will see this
(didn't see it as a daily reader - they stuck it in the "opinion"
columns section, along with the rest of the unimportant rants...)

People in the US are so uneducated in the most basic of science (ask
the average person what the primary gases are in the atmosphere, this
was actually a $16000 question on "who wants to be a millionaire" and
the contestant got it wrong) that they will not only mindlessly
believe, but vehemently support any corporate pseudoscientific garbage
spewed at them. Unfortunately this includes politicians from both
parties - it's probably far too late to stop the momentum of this
mega-disaster.

And if I hear the Brazil analogy one more time...
1. Sugarcane has a much higher yield of ethanol than corn
2. Brazil has destroyed a large portion of its natural environment to
grow said sugarcane
3. The average Brazilian uses probably 1/100 to 1/1000 the vehicle
fuel of the average American
Back to top
G. R. L. Cowan
science forum addict


Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 50

PostPosted: Mon Jul 03, 2006 6:40 pm    Post subject: Re: George "Big Oil" Bush KNOWS Bio Fuels Won't Work! Reply with quote

rekuci@gmail.com wrote:
Quote:

"The False Hope of Biofuels"

For Energy and Environmental Reasons, Ethanol Will Never Replace
Gasoline
By James Jordan and James Powell
The Washington Post
Sunday, July 2, 2006; B07

Thanks for posting this article, it's one I've been waiting...and
waiting for. The problem is that not enough people will see this
(didn't see it as a daily reader - they stuck it in the "opinion"
columns section, along with the rest of the unimportant rants...)

People in the US are so uneducated in the most basic of science (ask
the average person what the primary gases are in the atmosphere, this
was actually a $16000 question on "who wants to be a millionaire" and
the contestant got it wrong) that they will not only mindlessly
believe, but vehemently support any corporate pseudoscientific garbage
spewed at them. Unfortunately this includes politicians from both
parties - it's probably far too late to stop the momentum of this
mega-disaster.

And if I hear the Brazil analogy one more time...
1. Sugarcane has a much higher yield of ethanol than corn
2. Brazil has destroyed a large portion of its natural environment to
grow said sugarcane
3. The average Brazilian uses probably 1/100 to 1/1000 the vehicle
fuel of the average American

And 4. In the time that Brazilian ethanol production has,
in oil-equivalent terms, got up near 220,000 BOE/d,
their Atlantic seabed extracton of actual oil has risen
to two million b/d, from IIRC about 0.25 million.



--- G. R. L. Cowan, former hydrogen fan
Boron: internal combustion, nuclear cachet http://tinyurl.com/4xt8g
Back to top
zzbunker@netscape.net
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 30 May 2005
Posts: 284

PostPosted: Mon Jul 03, 2006 11:30 pm    Post subject: Re: George "Big Oil" Bush KNOWS Bio Fuels Won't Work! Reply with quote

rekuci@gmail.com wrote:
Quote:
"The False Hope of Biofuels"

For Energy and Environmental Reasons, Ethanol Will Never Replace
Gasoline
By James Jordan and James Powell
The Washington Post
Sunday, July 2, 2006; B07

Thanks for posting this article, it's one I've been waiting...and
waiting for. The problem is that not enough people will see this
(didn't see it as a daily reader - they stuck it in the "opinion"
columns section, along with the rest of the unimportant rants...)

People in the US are so uneducated in the most basic of science (ask
the average person what the primary gases are in the atmosphere, this
was actually a $16000 question on "who wants to be a millionaire" and
the contestant got it wrong) that they will not only mindlessly
believe,

But the US media still doesn't seem to get the basic point about the
basic problem. Which is that to people in buisness it doesn't
make a difference what fuel the US uses for cars, since
the highways are jammed either way. So people are
inventing new ways of doing buisnees, less dependent
on ground traffic entirely, and hence new education methods.



but vehemently support any corporate pseudoscientific garbage
Quote:
spewed at them. Unfortunately this includes politicians from both
parties - it's probably far too late to stop the momentum of this
mega-disaster.




Quote:

And if I hear the Brazil analogy one more time...
1. Sugarcane has a much higher yield of ethanol than corn
2. Brazil has destroyed a large portion of its natural environment to
grow said sugarcane
3. The average Brazilian uses probably 1/100 to 1/1000 the vehicle
fuel of the average American
Back to top
<HLS@nospam.nix>
science forum addict


Joined: 25 Oct 2005
Posts: 90

PostPosted: Wed Jul 05, 2006 1:29 pm    Post subject: Re: George "Big Oil" Bush KNOWS Bio Fuels Won't Work! Reply with quote

<zzbunker@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1151969416.002622.85590@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Quote:
But the US media still doesn't seem to get the basic point about the
basic problem.

Nor does the US citizenry understand, or believe, the situation we are in.
Avoiding the problem,
and saying that it is not real, is foolishness.

We are not energy immortal.

Saw an interesting blurb on Iceland yesterday, and apparently they have no
dependence upon petroleum.
It is an unusual case, but they have ample geothermal energy and couple this
with hydrogen technology.

I suspect that we in the USA are going to, sooner or later, have to learn to
live without 7 litre pickup trucks
and 15 mpg SUVs, we are going to have to take our transportation energy from
a number of different sources
in order to fuel our energy debt, and are probably going to have to pay
more and get less.
Back to top
sigvald@binet.is
science forum beginner


Joined: 05 Jul 2006
Posts: 1

PostPosted: Wed Jul 05, 2006 2:10 pm    Post subject: Re: George "Big Oil" Bush KNOWS Bio Fuels Won't Work! Reply with quote

HLS@nospam.nix wrote:
Quote:
zzbunker@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1151969416.002622.85590@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

But the US media still doesn't seem to get the basic point about the
basic problem.

Nor does the US citizenry understand, or believe, the situation we are in.
Avoiding the problem,
and saying that it is not real, is foolishness.

We are not energy immortal.

Saw an interesting blurb on Iceland yesterday, and apparently they have no
dependence upon petroleum.

Icelanders are just as dependant upon petroleum as any other nation,
they hope, someday in the future, to become less dependant upon it.

Quote:
It is an unusual case, but they have ample geothermal energy and couple this
with hydrogen technology.
Back to top
zzbunker@netscape.net
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 30 May 2005
Posts: 284

PostPosted: Wed Jul 05, 2006 4:37 pm    Post subject: Re: George "Big Oil" Bush KNOWS Bio Fuels Won't Work! Reply with quote

HLS@nospam.nix wrote:
Quote:
zzbunker@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1151969416.002622.85590@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

But the US media still doesn't seem to get the basic point about the
basic problem.

Nor does the US citizenry understand, or believe, the situation we are in.
Avoiding the problem,
and saying that it is not real, is foolishness.

We are not energy immortal.

But, we already discoverved that that is irrevlevent with
the retarded US Press morons.
Since every time we raiise the question
of building the primary alternatives to oil and nuclear power,
which are coal and wind generators,
the fucking retards only have one thing to say:

NIMBY, it's time for something completly different, like
fucking morons like Bill Clinton and the Olympics!!!!








Quote:

Saw an interesting blurb on Iceland yesterday, and apparently they have no
dependence upon petroleum.
It is an unusual case, but they have ample geothermal energy and couple this
with hydrogen technology.

I suspect that we in the USA are going to, sooner or later, have to learn to
live without 7 litre pickup trucks
and 15 mpg SUVs, we are going to have to take our transportation energy from
a number of different sources
in order to fuel our energy debt, and are probably going to have to pay
more and get less.
Back to top
The_Man
science forum addict


Joined: 21 May 2006
Posts: 52

PostPosted: Sat Jul 08, 2006 4:21 pm    Post subject: Re: George "Big Oil" Bush KNOWS Bio Fuels Won't Work! Reply with quote

perryneheum@hotmail.com wrote:
Quote:
In fact the entire administration, at Karl Rove's urging, is touting
alternative fuels merely as a POLITICAL points-gainer. As big oil
stock holders, they KNOW very well that fuel from corn or ANY crop or
"biomass" simply can't replace petroleum to propel our cars, SUVs, and
other trucks. But they view their supporters as ill-informed and
willing to believe anything they say. Like Iraq and bin Laden and WMD.
And you know, they're right!

===
"The False Hope of Biofuels"

For Energy and Environmental Reasons, Ethanol Will Never Replace
Gasoline
By James Jordan and James Powell
The Washington Post
Sunday, July 2, 2006; B07

Biofuels such as ethanol made from corn, sugar cane, switchgrass and
other crops are being touted as a "green" solution for a large part of
America's transportation problem. Auto manufacturers, Midwest corn
farmers and politicians are excited about ethanol. Initially, we, too,
were excited about biofuels: no net carbon dioxide emissions, reduction
of oil imports. Who wouldn't be enthusiastic?

But as we've looked at biofuels more closely, we've concluded that
they're not a practical long-term solution to our need for transport
fuels. Even if all of the 300 million acres (500,000 square miles) of
currently harvested U.S. cropland produced ethanol, it wouldn't supply
all of the gasoline and diesel fuel we now burn for transport, and it
would supply only about half of the needs for the year 2025. And the
effects on land and agriculture would be devastating.

It's difficult to understand how advocates of biofuels can believe they
are a real solution to kicking our oil addiction. Agriculture
Department studies of ethanol production from corn -- the present U.S.
process for ethanol fuel -- find that an acre of corn yields about 139
bushels. At an average of about 2.5 gallons per bushel, the acre then
will yield about 350 gallons of ethanol. But the fuel value of ethanol
is only about two-thirds that of gasoline -- 1.5 gallons of ethanol in
the tank equals 1 gallon of gasoline in terms of energy output.

Moreover, it takes a lot of input energy to produce ethanol: for
fertilizer, harvesting, transport, corn processing, etc. After
subtracting this input, the net positive energy available is less than
half of the figure cited above. Some researchers even claim that the
net energy of ethanol is actually negative when all inputs are included
-- it takes more energy to make ethanol than one gets out of it.

But allowing a net positive energy output of 30,000 British thermal
units (Btu) per gallon, it would still take four gallons of ethanol
from corn to equal one gallon of gasoline. The United States has 73
million acres of corn cropland. At 350 gallons per acre, the entire
U.S. corn crop would make 25.5 billion gallons, equivalent to about 6.3
billion gallons of gasoline. The United States consumes 170 billion
gallons of gasoline and diesel fuel annually. Thus the entire U.S. corn
crop would supply only 3.7 percent of our auto and truck transport
demands. Using the entire 300 million acres of U.S. cropland for
corn-based ethanol production would meet about 15 percent of the
demand.

It is argued that rather than using corn to make ethanol, we can use
agricultural wastes. But the amounts are still a drop in the bucket.
Using the crop residues (called corn stover) from corn production could
provide about 10 billion gallons per year of ethanol, according to a
recent study by the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The net
energy available would be greater than with ethanol from corn -- about
60,000 Btu per gallon, equivalent to a half-gallon of gasoline. Still,
all of the U.S. corn wastes would produce only the equivalent of 5
billion gallons of gasoline. Another factor to be considered: Not
plowing wastes back into the land hurts soil fertility.

Similar limitations and problems apply to growing any crop for
biofuels, whether switchgrass, hybrid willow, hybrid poplar or
whatever. Optimistically, assuming that switchgrass or some other crop
could produce 1,000 gallons of ethanol per acre, over twice as much as
we can get from corn plus stover, and that its net energy was 60,000
Btu per gallon, ethanol from 300 million acres of switchgrass still
could not supply our present gasoline and diesel consumption, which is
projected to double by 2025. The ethanol would meet less than half of
our needs by that date.
Perhaps more important: The agricultural effects of such a large-scale
program would be devastating.

Recently, there has been lots of excitement and media coverage about
how Brazil produces ethanol for its automobile fuel and talk that
America should follow its lead. But Brazil consumes only 10 billion
gallons of gasoline and diesel fuel annually, compared with America's
170 billion. There are almost 4 million miles of paved roads in America
-- Brazil has 60,000. And Brazil is the leading producer of sugar cane
-- more than 300 million tons annually -- so it has lots of
agricultural waste to make ethanol.

Finally, considering projected population growth in the United States
and the world, the humanitarian policy would be to maintain cropland
for growing food -- not fuel. Every day more than 16,000 children die
from hunger-related causes -- one child every five seconds. The
situation will only get worse. It would be morally wrong to divert
cropland needed for human food supply to powering automobiles. It would
also deplete soil fertility and the long-term capability to maintain
food production. We would destroy the farmland that our grandchildren
and their grandchildren will need to live.

The writers are research professors in Maglev Research Center at
Polytechnic University of New York.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/30/AR2006063001480.html

There is nothing here that has not been well known for decades.
Ethanol as fuel is welfare for the farm states, which is why both
Democrats and Republicans support it. It "sounds" good to the Left, who
have too little understanding of science to understand that it is
hopeless.
Most of the other "alternative" fuels are equally hopeless. A simpl
calculation shows the lunacy of solar power. The energy at the equator
(where there is the most sun) is 1000 W / m^2. Since solar cells are
about 15% efficient, the actual yield is 150 W per square meter. So a
cell 1 meter by 1 meter can generate enough electricity to power 2 x 75
W light bulbs. How can you power automobiles or industry on that?
Wind power is also a joke. The windmills are ugly (even Ted
Kennedy, paragon of the Left, fought to keep wind power away from HIS
property) and kill enedangered species birds, who are attracted to the
rotating blades.
The problem with energy policy is that the Left is against
EVERYTHING, but in favor of technologies that don't work, never could
work, and, even if they did work, they would oppose them as soon as
they became operational.
The only energy source that serious people discuss is nuclear
power, since it is the only clean source of power that is not held
hostage by Middle Eastern dictatorships, and can still supply all the
U.S. power needs without us becoming a Third World country (which the
Left would not mind)
Back to top
zzbunker@netscape.net
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 30 May 2005
Posts: 284

PostPosted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 5:30 pm    Post subject: Re: George "Big Oil" Bush KNOWS Bio Fuels Won't Work! Reply with quote

The_Man wrote:
Quote:
perryneheum@hotmail.com wrote:
In fact the entire administration, at Karl Rove's urging, is touting
alternative fuels merely as a POLITICAL points-gainer. As big oil
stock holders, they KNOW very well that fuel from corn or ANY crop or
"biomass" simply can't replace petroleum to propel our cars, SUVs, and
other trucks. But they view their supporters as ill-informed and
willing to believe anything they say. Like Iraq and bin Laden and WMD.
And you know, they're right!

===
"The False Hope of Biofuels"

For Energy and Environmental Reasons, Ethanol Will Never Replace
Gasoline
By James Jordan and James Powell
The Washington Post
Sunday, July 2, 2006; B07

Biofuels such as ethanol made from corn, sugar cane, switchgrass and
other crops are being touted as a "green" solution for a large part of
America's transportation problem. Auto manufacturers, Midwest corn
farmers and politicians are excited about ethanol. Initially, we, too,
were excited about biofuels: no net carbon dioxide emissions, reduction
of oil imports. Who wouldn't be enthusiastic?

But as we've looked at biofuels more closely, we've concluded that
they're not a practical long-term solution to our need for transport
fuels. Even if all of the 300 million acres (500,000 square miles) of
currently harvested U.S. cropland produced ethanol, it wouldn't supply
all of the gasoline and diesel fuel we now burn for transport, and it
would supply only about half of the needs for the year 2025. And the
effects on land and agriculture would be devastating.

It's difficult to understand how advocates of biofuels can believe they
are a real solution to kicking our oil addiction. Agriculture
Department studies of ethanol production from corn -- the present U.S.
process for ethanol fuel -- find that an acre of corn yields about 139
bushels. At an average of about 2.5 gallons per bushel, the acre then
will yield about 350 gallons of ethanol. But the fuel value of ethanol
is only about two-thirds that of gasoline -- 1.5 gallons of ethanol in
the tank equals 1 gallon of gasoline in terms of energy output.

Moreover, it takes a lot of input energy to produce ethanol: for
fertilizer, harvesting, transport, corn processing, etc. After
subtracting this input, the net positive energy available is less than
half of the figure cited above. Some researchers even claim that the
net energy of ethanol is actually negative when all inputs are included
-- it takes more energy to make ethanol than one gets out of it.

But allowing a net positive energy output of 30,000 British thermal
units (Btu) per gallon, it would still take four gallons of ethanol
from corn to equal one gallon of gasoline. The United States has 73
million acres of corn cropland. At 350 gallons per acre, the entire
U.S. corn crop would make 25.5 billion gallons, equivalent to about 6.3
billion gallons of gasoline. The United States consumes 170 billion
gallons of gasoline and diesel fuel annually. Thus the entire U.S. corn
crop would supply only 3.7 percent of our auto and truck transport
demands. Using the entire 300 million acres of U.S. cropland for
corn-based ethanol production would meet about 15 percent of the
demand.

It is argued that rather than using corn to make ethanol, we can use
agricultural wastes. But the amounts are still a drop in the bucket.
Using the crop residues (called corn stover) from corn production could
provide about 10 billion gallons per year of ethanol, according to a
recent study by the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The net
energy available would be greater than with ethanol from corn -- about
60,000 Btu per gallon, equivalent to a half-gallon of gasoline. Still,
all of the U.S. corn wastes would produce only the equivalent of 5
billion gallons of gasoline. Another factor to be considered: Not
plowing wastes back into the land hurts soil fertility.

Similar limitations and problems apply to growing any crop for
biofuels, whether switchgrass, hybrid willow, hybrid poplar or
whatever. Optimistically, assuming that switchgrass or some other crop
could produce 1,000 gallons of ethanol per acre, over twice as much as
we can get from corn plus stover, and that its net energy was 60,000
Btu per gallon, ethanol from 300 million acres of switchgrass still
could not supply our present gasoline and diesel consumption, which is
projected to double by 2025. The ethanol would meet less than half of
our needs by that date.
Perhaps more important: The agricultural effects of such a large-scale
program would be devastating.

Recently, there has been lots of excitement and media coverage about
how Brazil produces ethanol for its automobile fuel and talk that
America should follow its lead. But Brazil consumes only 10 billion
gallons of gasoline and diesel fuel annually, compared with America's
170 billion. There are almost 4 million miles of paved roads in America
-- Brazil has 60,000. And Brazil is the leading producer of sugar cane
-- more than 300 million tons annually -- so it has lots of
agricultural waste to make ethanol.

Finally, considering projected population growth in the United States
and the world, the humanitarian policy would be to maintain cropland
for growing food -- not fuel. Every day more than 16,000 children die
from hunger-related causes -- one child every five seconds. The
situation will only get worse. It would be morally wrong to divert
cropland needed for human food supply to powering automobiles. It would
also deplete soil fertility and the long-term capability to maintain
food production. We would destroy the farmland that our grandchildren
and their grandchildren will need to live.

The writers are research professors in Maglev Research Center at
Polytechnic University of New York.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/30/AR2006063001480.html

There is nothing here that has not been well known for decades.
Ethanol as fuel is welfare for the farm states, which is why both
Democrats and Republicans support it. It "sounds" good to the Left, who
have too little understanding of science to understand that it is
hopeless.

It makes no difference, since oil is welfare for Exxon,
The US Air Farce, Bush, AT&T, and OPEC retards.
Back to top
beav
science forum addict


Joined: 18 Oct 2005
Posts: 63

PostPosted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 6:27 pm    Post subject: Re: George "Big Oil" Bush KNOWS Bio Fuels Won't Work! Reply with quote

Quote:
There is nothing here that has not been well known for decades.
Ethanol as fuel is welfare for the farm states, which is why both
Democrats and Republicans support it. It "sounds" good to the Left, who
have too little understanding of science to understand that it is
hopeless.
Most of the other "alternative" fuels are equally hopeless. A simpl
calculation shows the lunacy of solar power. The energy at the equator
(where there is the most sun) is 1000 W / m^2. Since solar cells are
about 15% efficient, the actual yield is 150 W per square meter. So a
cell 1 meter by 1 meter can generate enough electricity to power 2 x 75
W light bulbs. How can you power automobiles or industry on that?


some kind of real world heavy duty storage solution is needed. none
are here yet...

Quote:
Wind power is also a joke. The windmills are ugly (even Ted
Kennedy, paragon of the Left, fought to keep wind power away from HIS
property) and kill enedangered species birds, who are attracted to the
rotating blades.

not really. wind power's strong suit is the fact that capital costs
are up front and one time. operating expense and maintenance, as in a
nuke plant, are small, ongoing and a cost of doing business.

i don't think they're ugly at all. me and many other on Nantucketers
desperatley want the things, so they 'll turn down/turn off the messy
Sagamore oil power plant that fouls the air in the whole Cape and
Islands region. f*** Teddy....

the wind mills don't "attract" birds. if the mills are located in teh
birds' flyway, they're too dopey to stay away. even then, the numbers
of sushi'd seagulls will be small, since the Cape Wind project is
pretty far off the coast. what? do wind mills attract only
endangered species?



Quote:
The problem with energy policy is that the Left is against
EVERYTHING, but in favor of technologies that don't work, never could
work, and, even if they did work, they would oppose them as soon as
they became operational.

amen!

Quote:
The only energy source that serious people discuss is nuclear
power, since it is the only clean source of power that is not held
hostage by Middle Eastern dictatorships, and can still supply all the
U.S. power needs without us becoming a Third World country (which the
Left would not mind)

word!
Back to top
lifeform1@charter.net
science forum beginner


Joined: 15 Jul 2006
Posts: 1

PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 9:54 pm    Post subject: Re: George "Big Oil" Bush KNOWS Bio Fuels Won't Work! Reply with quote

The_Man wrote:

Quote:
Most of the other "alternative" fuels are equally hopeless. A simpl
calculation shows the lunacy of solar power. The energy at the equator
(where there is the most sun) is 1000 W / m^2. Since solar cells are
about 15% efficient, the actual yield is 150 W per square meter. So a
cell 1 meter by 1 meter can generate enough electricity to power 2 x 75
W light bulbs. How can you power automobiles or industry on that?

With dumbfucks like you in charge, those number will never change, will
they.

Quote:
Wind power is also a joke. The windmills are ugly

But they aren't butt fucking dumb like you, are they.

They produce, you don't. Well, at least you've to the s**t coming from
your mouth thing down.

http://cosmic.lifeform.org
Back to top
zzbunker@netscape.net
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 30 May 2005
Posts: 284

PostPosted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 1:05 am    Post subject: Re: George "Big Oil" Bush KNOWS Bio Fuels Won't Work! Reply with quote

The_Man wrote:
Quote:
perryneheum@hotmail.com wrote:
In fact the entire administration, at Karl Rove's urging, is touting
alternative fuels merely as a POLITICAL points-gainer. As big oil
stock holders, they KNOW very well that fuel from corn or ANY crop or
"biomass" simply can't replace petroleum to propel our cars, SUVs, and
other trucks. But they view their supporters as ill-informed and
willing to believe anything they say. Like Iraq and bin Laden and WMD.
And you know, they're right!

===
"The False Hope of Biofuels"

For Energy and Environmental Reasons, Ethanol Will Never Replace
Gasoline
By James Jordan and James Powell
The Washington Post
Sunday, July 2, 2006; B07

Biofuels such as ethanol made from corn, sugar cane, switchgrass and
other crops are being touted as a "green" solution for a large part of
America's transportation problem. Auto manufacturers, Midwest corn
farmers and politicians are excited about ethanol. Initially, we, too,
were excited about biofuels: no net carbon dioxide emissions, reduction
of oil imports. Who wouldn't be enthusiastic?

But as we've looked at biofuels more closely, we've concluded that
they're not a practical long-term solution to our need for transport
fuels. Even if all of the 300 million acres (500,000 square miles) of
currently harvested U.S. cropland produced ethanol, it wouldn't supply
all of the gasoline and diesel fuel we now burn for transport, and it
would supply only about half of the needs for the year 2025. And the
effects on land and agriculture would be devastating.

It's difficult to understand how advocates of biofuels can believe they
are a real solution to kicking our oil addiction. Agriculture
Department studies of ethanol production from corn -- the present U.S.
process for ethanol fuel -- find that an acre of corn yields about 139
bushels. At an average of about 2.5 gallons per bushel, the acre then
will yield about 350 gallons of ethanol. But the fuel value of ethanol
is only about two-thirds that of gasoline -- 1.5 gallons of ethanol in
the tank equals 1 gallon of gasoline in terms of energy output.

Moreover, it takes a lot of input energy to produce ethanol: for
fertilizer, harvesting, transport, corn processing, etc. After
subtracting this input, the net positive energy available is less than
half of the figure cited above. Some researchers even claim that the
net energy of ethanol is actually negative when all inputs are included
-- it takes more energy to make ethanol than one gets out of it.

But allowing a net positive energy output of 30,000 British thermal
units (Btu) per gallon, it would still take four gallons of ethanol
from corn to equal one gallon of gasoline. The United States has 73
million acres of corn cropland. At 350 gallons per acre, the entire
U.S. corn crop would make 25.5 billion gallons, equivalent to about 6.3
billion gallons of gasoline. The United States consumes 170 billion
gallons of gasoline and diesel fuel annually. Thus the entire U.S. corn
crop would supply only 3.7 percent of our auto and truck transport
demands. Using the entire 300 million acres of U.S. cropland for
corn-based ethanol production would meet about 15 percent of the
demand.

It is argued that rather than using corn to make ethanol, we can use
agricultural wastes. But the amounts are still a drop in the bucket.
Using the crop residues (called corn stover) from corn production could
provide about 10 billion gallons per year of ethanol, according to a
recent study by the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The net
energy available would be greater than with ethanol from corn -- about
60,000 Btu per gallon, equivalent to a half-gallon of gasoline. Still,
all of the U.S. corn wastes would produce only the equivalent of 5
billion gallons of gasoline. Another factor to be considered: Not
plowing wastes back into the land hurts soil fertility.

Similar limitations and problems apply to growing any crop for
biofuels, whether switchgrass, hybrid willow, hybrid poplar or
whatever. Optimistically, assuming that switchgrass or some other crop
could produce 1,000 gallons of ethanol per acre, over twice as much as
we can get from corn plus stover, and that its net energy was 60,000
Btu per gallon, ethanol from 300 million acres of switchgrass still
could not supply our present gasoline and diesel consumption, which is
projected to double by 2025. The ethanol would meet less than half of
our needs by that date.
Perhaps more important: The agricultural effects of such a large-scale
program would be devastating.

Recently, there has been lots of excitement and media coverage about
how Brazil produces ethanol for its automobile fuel and talk that
America should follow its lead. But Brazil consumes only 10 billion
gallons of gasoline and diesel fuel annually, compared with America's
170 billion. There are almost 4 million miles of paved roads in America
-- Brazil has 60,000. And Brazil is the leading producer of sugar cane
-- more than 300 million tons annually -- so it has lots of
agricultural waste to make ethanol.

Finally, considering projected population growth in the United States
and the world, the humanitarian policy would be to maintain cropland
for growing food -- not fuel. Every day more than 16,000 children die
from hunger-related causes -- one child every five seconds. The
situation will only get worse. It would be morally wrong to divert
cropland needed for human food supply to powering automobiles. It would
also deplete soil fertility and the long-term capability to maintain
food production. We would destroy the farmland that our grandchildren
and their grandchildren will need to live.

The writers are research professors in Maglev Research Center at
Polytechnic University of New York.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/30/AR2006063001480.html

There is nothing here that has not been well known for decades.
Ethanol as fuel is welfare for the farm states, which is why both
Democrats and Republicans support it. It "sounds" good to the Left, who
have too little understanding of science to understand that it is
hopeless.
Most of the other "alternative" fuels are equally hopeless. A simpl
calculation shows the lunacy of solar power. The energy at the equator
(where there is the most sun) is 1000 W / m^2. Since solar cells are
about 15% efficient, the actual yield is 150 W per square meter. So a
cell 1 meter by 1 meter can generate enough electricity to power 2 x 75
W light bulbs. How can you power automobiles or industry on that?

Well you don't. We never said solar power was going to
work for Detroit morons.

Just as we never said nuclear power or liguid oxegen was
going to work for Detroit idiots either.


Quote:
Wind power is also a joke. The windmills are ugly (even Ted
Kennedy, paragon of the Left, fought to keep wind power away from HIS
property) and kill enedangered species birds, who are attracted to the
rotating blades.

Well wind power in Calitucky has always been ugly,
since the only energy those morons know anything
about is PBS and The Beatles anyway.



Quote:
The problem with energy policy is that the Left is against
EVERYTHING, but in favor of technologies that don't work, never could
work, and, even if they did work, they would oppose them as soon as
they became operational.
The only energy source that serious people discuss is nuclear
power, since it is the only clean source of power that is not held
hostage by Middle Eastern dictatorships, and can still supply all the
U.S. power needs without us becoming a Third World country (which the
Left would not mind)
Back to top
Roedy Green
science forum beginner


Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 2

PostPosted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 1:59 am    Post subject: Re: George "Big Oil" Bush KNOWS Bio Fuels Won't Work! Reply with quote

On 10 Jul 2006 10:30:51 -0700, "zzbunker@netscape.net"
<zzbunker@netscape.net> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who
said :

Quote:
Moreover, it takes a lot of input energy to produce ethanol: for
fertilizer, harvesting, transport, corn processing, etc. After
subtracting this input, the net positive energy available is less than
half of the figure cited above. Some researchers even claim that the
net energy of ethanol is actually negative when all inputs are included
-- it takes more energy to make ethanol than one gets out of it.

And one more problem. Farm crops are heavily subsidised. So the true
cost of biofuels is much higher than it appears.

But they biggest problem is you need fossil fuels to create bio fuels.
You need them pump water, drive farm machinery, create fertilizers,
and process the crops.

As cheap fossil fuels disappear the cost of bio fuels will go up and
up -- the very opposite of what you would hope for in a replacement.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green, http://mindprod.com
Who's in charge Cheney or Bush? Ask the people who work for them:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 2 [17 Posts] Goto page:  1, 2 Next
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Sat Dec 16, 2017 1:31 am | All times are GMT
Forum index » Science and Technology » Chem
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts Now let's put the work together gb6724 New Theories 13 Fri Jul 14, 2006 10:58 pm
No new posts No difference from any other 'Bush sucks' person... gb7648 New Theories 9 Thu Jul 13, 2006 10:54 pm
No new posts Hey Bush, the world sucks. gb6724 New Theories 1 Thu Jul 13, 2006 3:06 am
No new posts bush: war on terrorism has just started gb6724 New Theories 4 Thu Jul 13, 2006 2:13 am
No new posts USA and Canada open for work? gb6724 New Theories 1 Thu Jul 13, 2006 1:36 am

Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites: Electronics forum |  Medicine forum |  Unix/Linux blog |  Unix/Linux documentation |  Unix/Linux forums  |  send newsletters
 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.2431s ][ Queries: 16 (0.1970s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]