nicksta43 wrote: Plus I have a corn allergy so I can't have anything corn or corn based with the exception of corn oil. So to me it's pert near useless. Well I forgot about corn whiskey, that's about all it's good for.
Can you play Corn Hole? (not the prison version)
Yes, I'm very good at corn hole. (not the prison version)
nicksta43 wrote: corn whiskey
Oh hell yeah.
nicksta43 wrote: What the hell is corn good for?
I assure you that in its most oft derived form of high fructose corn sugar, it is NOT good for human consumption.
Shame that it IS in 75% off all items in a grocery store.
The0retical wrote: For those with a short attention span, a bio reactor with the surface size of Maryland would provide enough bio fuel for the worlds aviation fleet in 2006 - 2007. That's before the advent of the newer super high efficiency engines.
So, 12,407 square miles of surface space........BRILLIANT. I don't dispute its worth looking into, but until it gets metric E36 M3loads smaller, it is a completely impractical dream. 
oldopelguy wrote: Didn't some Navy researchers publish just last week about producing fuel from the h2 and co2 in seawater? Not super efficient, but better scalability could mean that it will pair up well with the dumb wind farms to make the power from them useful.
I don't think a windfarm the size of the continent of North America could generate enough electricity to make plenty of fuel to feed the nation. New nuclear stations could power that relatively efficiently, but the enviromentalists aren't allowing them. 
I am working on an engine designed for E85 exclusively, so there's that
nicksta43 wrote: What the hell is corn good for?
Grits.
Corn is good as corn. Not a good fuel, not good as a replacement for something like sugar. I think it is yummy before processing, not after. So, that includes grits. Its good for grits and to mix in your smashed pateters and what-not.
In reply to NOHOME:
Shop the outer perimeter of the store, man. Or, better yet, grow a garden.
NOHOME wrote:nicksta43 wrote: What the hell is corn good for?I assure you that in its most oft derived form of high fructose corn sugar, it is NOT good for human consumption. Shame that it IS in 75% off all items in a grocery store.
That is not entirely true. There is nothing inherently bad about HF Corn syrup. In fact, one could eat a small amount of it a day, every day, for their entire lives and experience no ill-effects because of it. The problem with it arises with your second statement. Anything in the amounts that we get HFCS becomes toxic.
Everything in moderation.
I'm no physicist, so my observations are just that. I do know that corn based fuels do affect my fuel mileage by a several mpg, and it simply doesn't make sense to me to burn up a potential food supply source when you have countries across the world starving. I know we subsidize farmers to grow it, but as a fuel source it fails on many levels.
Personally, I'd prefer we offer incentives to true alternatives such as fuel cells, etc., while continuing to produce true dino fuel for current supply. I maintain that you can do both and have low gas prices. I say that in that my father is a partner in a company that has dealt with energy for some time (solar and oil, as well as mining and surface products.) The truth is, if there is a potential payoff at the end, there are really no true obstacles for obtaining what you want. To me, corn is not the answer, it is the answer to a lobbyist.
We're still some time away from having a true alternative to fossil fuels, but it is getting closer everyday.
stuart in mn wrote:iceracer wrote: A $ 500,000 study paid for by the federal government and released Sunday concludes that biofuels made from corn residue releases 7 percent more greenhouse gasses than conventional gasoline. There was more to the article but wanted to keep the post short.How about a link to the story referenced?
According to my newspaper, it appeared in the peer-reviewed journal "Nature Climate Change". my newspaper got it's info from The Associated Press.
Bumboclaat wrote:nicksta43 wrote: corn whiskeyOh hell yeah.
Have that at home. Woah, strong stuff.
I was under the impression that most farmers that weren't part of a corporation lost their shirts growing corn. Hence the subsidy. If the corn wasn't overproduced, then the price would go up, then the subsidies would be unneeded.
In reply to racerdave600:
We don't get subsidies to grow it, and the government berkeleys with the prices(there's always a "bumper crop" in Iowa) when the prices start to creep up......then an actual bump in price when people realize they were lied to. Also, cattle farmers get E36 M3loads of ground corn meal for rock bottom prices thanks to ethanol plants. They're just charging more because they can bandwagon the excuse for it.
The ethanol plants are subsidized......
stuart in mn wrote:iceracer wrote: A $ 500,000 study paid for by the federal government and released Sunday concludes that biofuels made from corn residue releases 7 percent more greenhouse gasses than conventional gasoline. There was more to the article but wanted to keep the post short.How about a link to the story referenced?
Here's a link to an AP-sourced article: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_BIOFUELS_GLOBAL_WARMING?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-04-21-04-02-59
HFCS is The Devil!!! Why do they use it? Because it is 1/3 to 1/4th the price of regular cane sugar and would you really want to pay an extra dime plus markup, say 15 to 25 cents at the store per 2L soda to not have HFCS? I didn't think so. Oh look, that one's a quarter cheaper for the same thing....
1988RedT2 wrote:nicksta43 wrote: What the hell is corn good for?
Bang, bait for catching stew meat
racerdave600 wrote: I'm no physicist, so my observations are just that. I do know that corn based fuels do affect my fuel mileage by a several mpg...
Actually, that's a chemistry issue, not a physics one. Alcohol has lower energy density than petrol. What alcohol has going for it, is that it has oxygen atoms in the structure, so you can run a much richer mixture and get more energy per combustion cycle.
iceracer wrote: A $ 500,000 study paid for by the federal government and released Sunday concludes that biofuels made from corn residue releases 7 percent more greenhouse gasses than conventional gasoline. There was more to the article but wanted to keep the post short.
Oh My berkeleying Lord.
Seriously.
I don't give a flying berkeley how many greenhouse gasses biofuels release into the atmosphere.
THE POINT IS THAT THEY ABSORBED THEM FROM THE ATMOSPHERE IN THE FIRST PLACE.
I'm sorry, but this whole fossil fuel/bio fuel bullE36 M3 is crazy. Is there no one on the internet who has anything better than a D+ in Chemistry, Biology, Physics, (or for that matter) 4TH GRADE SCIENCE????
I'm sorry, but this crap just rubs me the wrong way.
Let's take this back to basics. Let's say you have a plant that takes carbon from the atmosphere and converts it to something we can consume and put that carbon back in the atmosphere. Now, let's say that there is a world-dominated economic system that is completely dependent on digging up carbon from miles below the earth with zero regard to human, plant, or animal life, just so we can regulate how much of that carbon we belch into the atmosphere.
The pathetic truth is that biofuels will not support our current carbon consumption. At best it could support 10%.
curtis73 wrote:iceracer wrote: A $ 500,000 study paid for by the federal government and released Sunday concludes that biofuels made from corn residue releases 7 percent more greenhouse gasses than conventional gasoline. There was more to the article but wanted to keep the post short.Oh My berkeleying Lord. Seriously. I don't give a flying berkeley how many greenhouse gasses biofuels release into the atmosphere. THE POINT IS THAT THEY ABSORBED THEM FROM THE ATMOSPHERE IN THE FIRST PLACE. I'm sorry, but this whole fossil fuel/bio fuel bullE36 M3 is crazy. Is there no one on the internet who has anything better than a D+ in Chemistry, Biology, Physics, (or for that matter) 4TH GRADE SCIENCE???? I'm sorry, but this crap just rubs me the wrong way. Let's take this back to basics. Let's say you have a plant that takes carbon from the atmosphere and converts it to something we can consume and put that carbon back in the atmosphere. Now, let's say that there is a world-dominated economic system that is completely dependent on digging up carbon from miles below the earth with zero regard to human, plant, or animal life, just so we can regulate how much of that carbon we belch into the atmosphere. The pathetic truth is that biofuels will not support our current carbon consumption. At best it could support 10%.
well, that saves me some keystrokes. thanks.
-J0N
NOHOME wrote:nicksta43 wrote: What the hell is corn good for?I assure you that in its most oft derived form of high fructose corn sugar, it is NOT good for human consumption. Shame that it IS in 75% off all items in a grocery store.
The reason corn sugar is used in these products is because it is cheaper than cane sugar, due to the ridiculously high import tax on cane sugar.
The back side of the issue is that the carbon footprint lifeline to produce corn alcohol is greater than what was assumed to be saved by using it in fuel.
Now it has been shown that the end cycle is even worse than was believed.
AAAAaaaaaaaahhhhh! The sky is falling even faster now!
Where do you think all the farm and factory and industrial equipment that it takes to process ethanol is getting the energy to operate from? Hint: not corn.
Am I the only one who sees a good plague (50% die off) as the only way out of our spiral into crushing pollution and food/water shortages?
Think about it for a minute, every single one of our problems in the world today can be tied to overpopulation and limited resources. We can't make the planet bigger or increase the resources, so.........
(Edit: I'm personally hoping for zombies, but that's just me)
You'll need to log in to post.
