Kick The Oil Habit And Make Your Own Ethanol

It's a step in the right direction. But at $10,000, such a machine is a little too pricey. Could buy alot of gasoline for that much.

*

I mentioned this in a post a couple weeks back, but it didn't get many hits -

The Next Generation of Ethanol - Efficient, Affordable and Flexible

Coskata is a biology-based renewable energy company. Our technology enables the low-cost production of ethanol from a wide variety of input material including biomass, municipal solid waste and other carbonaceous material. Using proprietary microorganisms and patented bioreactor designs, we will produce ethanol for under US$1.00 per gallon.

Founded by leading renewable energy investors and entrepreneurs, we have compiled a strong IP portfolio of patents, trade secrets and know-how and assembled a first-class team for the development and commercialization of our compelling syngas-to-ethanol process technology.

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The goal of Coskata is to play a major role in creating economic fuels from renewable resources, thus minimizing the dependency of countries around the world on petroleum derived fuels.[/FONT]

 

Drill for oil instead. There's still plenty of it. Let the price go where it needs. The market will invent solutions to meet the needs. Ethanol is a typical stupid political solution to a technical and market problem.

 

OK so you pay out good money for the machine and make 30 gallons over the next couple months. In what are you going to burn it in? Your car? OK you spend another big chunk of money to convert your car and then you run short of your ethanol, now what are you going to do?

 

Even if Congress approved drilling in ANWR and off the coastal shelf tomorrow (which isn't going to happen), even if they streamlined the procedure for approving new refineries tomorrow (which isn't going to happen), it would probably take 5-10 years to make an impact on gasoline prices at the pump.

As everyone has pointed out, this $10,000 machine is not a workable solution.

But look again at this LINK

This is a free-market solution. GM has invested in the company because they see great potential here. They can produce alternative fuel that doesn't use food (corn) as a feedstock. It can be sold through the existing distribution system that gasoline uses. It will lessen our dependance on foreign oil. It's not a political solution, and doesn't take tax dollars to implement.

 

At $10,000.00 a pop it isnt yet workable.

 

Yes, I know. We agree on that. I was pointing to a different solution, if you will follow the link. This company is not selling any machine. They are close to producing & selling ethanol commercially, through the current distribution system. It is one of those things we will see more of in the near future.

 

I am all for it either way so long as it is attainable for the average joe. It would do the oil companies some good to have competition.

 

Which "greenies" are these, perchance? They wouldn't be people trying to obey the following dictate from God, would they?

The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.

Of course trade-offs need to be made. But for the obedient Christian, caring for the earth that God will redeem should be part of our building for the Kingdom.

The earth is neither a gold-mine nor an ashtray. It is God's good creation, redeemed at great cost, and should be cared for.

 

You know it is just about heretical to suggest Christ shed his blood for the earth. It is certainly unbiblcial and and at best silly. As well as inappropriate.

 

Then you need to call Paul a heretic as well:

18I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. 19The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. 20For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21that[i] the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.
22We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies

I know that you believe that by "creation", Paul means "the Gentiles". You have been asked repeatedly to defend that claim but have produced nothing.

I will take Paul at his word, if you do not mind. God is in the business of redeeming all of his creation, not just us. So we should treat his world as the kind of thing it is - a thing that is being, and will be, redeemed.

 

Christ did not die to redeem the earth Paul makes no mention of such anywhere in scripture and there is nothing here you have posted that suggests such. And of course I made myself quite clear on this issue before. So refrain from your lie that I did not. Creation did not sin and therefore does not need the redemption od man. Niether does it need justification. The blood of Christ was shed for the sin of man alone. And your worship of creation has driven you to a dilluded perversion of the gospel.

 

I will not embarass you by going to the trouble of proving that I have not lied. But if you think I have lied, why not enlighten the readers in this thread as to what you think "the creation" refers to in the Romans 8 text.

I will let the Romans 8 and this text from Isaiah 55 speak for themselves as to whether the physical creation will be redeemed:

You will go out in joy
and be led forth in peace;
the mountains and hills
will burst into song before you,
and all the trees of the field
will clap their hands.
13 Instead of the thornbush will grow the pine tree,
and instead of briers the myrtle will grow.
This will be for the LORD's renown,
for an everlasting sign,
which will not be destroyed."

 

Embarrass me? :laugh: Your perversion of the gospel is quite enough for embarrasment.

 

Gentlemen,

Lets calm down and stop with the attacks. There is no need for that.

 

It is true that creation did not sin. But the scriptures are quite clear - the creation was affected by Adam's sin;

To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,'
"Cursed is the ground because of you;

It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.

So creation is indeed in a state where it needs to be redeemed from it "bondage to decay". Paul puts it all together in the great climactic statement of Romans 8 - the entire creation will be liberated from its bondage to decay.

And texts like Isaiah 55 echo this where the good plant replaces the weeds (refer to the Genesis text).

I have presented scripture that supports my assertion that the created world will be redeemed. You are invited to provide scriptural counterarguments.

 

My disagreement is that Christ shed His blood for the redemption of the earth. The earth has nothing to do with why Christ died. Its restoration in the future is a by-product. And you have not presented any scripture that suggests other wise. So there is no need for me to provide any scripture. Your eisegetical method has no credibility.

 

The "greenies" often put more emphasis on the second instruction verses the first - to work it - and also forget that we no longer live in the Garden of Eden.