alt.energy.renewable

On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 20:50:12 -0000, Fran < @ > wrote:
>On Oct 1, 2:22 am, Some Guy wrote:
>> Fran wrote:
>> to the corn that comes into the plant and you sell that by-product back
>> to the farmer and completely recover the cost of your feedstock. You
>> then are simply looking at the different plant operating costs to
>> determine the cost of your ethanol.
>That sounds plausible, though the problem here is that cattle/
>livestock for food is itself more energy intensive than agriculture
>for food. It takes far more water and land and fuel to deliver a gram
>of protein to a consumer from livestock than from soy or other protein
>crops, for example. Accordingly, from a nutritional, energy or fossil
>fuel standpoint, including the offset from animal feed is misguided.

When it comes to pollution, the wery best would be if we all were
vegetarians. But, assuming that livestock will be raised, to do it
with less impact on the enviroment is not that bad either.

Personaly I prefer meat from sheep. They are mostly raised with whats
called "extensive grazing". Meaning that they mostly just walk around
and eat grass etc. I assume that the enviromental impact from raising
sheep in this way does not pollute wery much.

With cows, it should be mandatory to use the methane from the
"manure-basement" or whatever it's called. Most milk/cow farmers (At
least in Norway) just collects the manure and went off the methane
untill they spread it out at spring-time.

--
SEE YA !!!
Trygve Lillefosse
AKA - Malawi, The Fisher King