Pellet stove

(National) Socialist

....Brock.

Actually much cropland is not covered in vegetation.

Also, modern hybrids have shorter stalks, and thus lay down less carbon per acre than heritage varieties.

Some crops grow more Biomas per acre than others, compare strawberries and Sugarcane...

....Brock.

If you eat the corn, much of the carbon goes back into the atmosphere. If you bury it and let it rot, it goes back into the atmoshpere...

....Brock.

But Oil may not be a fossil fuel. It may well be left over from the formation of the solar system.

....Brock.

I didn't imply that but it sounds like it doesn't either being composed of carbon and oxygen. What would it be reduced to?

so, carbon monoxide (CO) doesn't burn?

Thats about 40 pounds/gallon

The only reason corn ethanol is that cheap is because of massive, overlapping subsidies on both growing the corn and in processing it for ethanol. A recent study found that it takes more energy to produce ethanol than the ethanol contains.

So is olive, palm, sunflower, safflower, peanut, canola, fish, lard, and about a hundred others. What's your point?

Does that make it feasible as a replacement for petroleum fuel?

I'm no chemist, but: (2)CO + O2 -> (2)CO2 ?

R, Tom Q.

Google "abiotic oil"

Say what?

Uh-huh. Sure.

Absolute nonsense. There is *no* radioactive decay series that produces hydrocarbons in any fashion.

Oh, yes it does.

And there will eventually be an equilibrium again. Probably at a higher concentration -- possibly *much* higher -- but there will be equilibrium again. Eventually.

Seems you've completely missed the point of the biofuel discussion. There is a qualitative difference in the effect of burning biofuel vs. burning fossil fuel: the carbon in biofuel came from the atmosphere, and returns to the atmosphere when burned -- hence no net change in carbon content in the atmosphere. The carbon in fossil fuel came out of the ground, and burning it produces a net increase in atmospheric carbon.

It wouldn't be "reduced" to anything. It would be *oxidized* from CO to CO2. Simple reaction: 2CO + O2 --> 2CO2.

Good grief Brock.... About the only thing I could understand is part of the first sentance.....

After that it gets a little heavy

That "recent study" was bought and paid for by the oil industry, and is bogus:

you claimed it was rarely grown for oil. you were wrong.

as one replacement, yes. since you can make biodiesel and ethanol from the same bushel, plus animal feed, it's a very good source of fuel.

I'd be interested to see the hybrid data for those--that's far different than US hybrids. Who are the seed suppliers and do they have web presence? Are these produced by the US equivalent of the land-grant universities research programs as were/are many of the new varieties here or by commercial seed growers?

I don't recall seeing a commercially grown wheat/barley/rye variety that would be much over 3 ft, even going back to old Turkey Red, the original hard red winter wheat brought over in the 1800s. Extremely tall is bad owing to tendency to go down, of course. Very, very short is a problem as well owing to difficulty in cutting w/o getting into the ground or missing the short heads. On the very rare occasion w/ really high moisture years I can recall some years which may have gotten to mid-chest height, but that would be the exception, not the rule.

We've been growing wheat and grain sorghum here since the early 1900s and the pictures back then of harvest w/ teams and stationary thresher don't show a real significant difference in heights from what I recall in the 50s when I first can really remember up to now...