If You REALLY Must Use Bio-Mass, Then Burn It!

Ok. so let us assume that we are on our way to solving the nation's energy security crisis. But then you ask, what about renewable energy and CO2? What about ethanol? Or, more specifically what about the 85% solution of using E85 which always has 15% conventional gaoline. Er, I mean after all the energy and fertilizer needed for corn to grow into crops used for ethanol... it seems this proposed "solution" has a lot of caveats to it. Yes, most good studies put ethanol as a net positive energy, but we cant congratulate ourselves with an energy carrier that only gives us 30% of the energy it took to make [no I dont have a source, I'm too busy right now]. Turning crops into transportation-grade IC engine fuel is an energy-intensive process - it may not always be that way, but right now that's the way it is. Remember, our rule about inventions, the plan to solve a problem can't have step 1 as "invent a solution to solve our problem." In order to solve this problem by lunchtime we need to apply known pathways or proven technology.

Mies van der Rohe described good architecture as having simple, elegant solutions. He asked, "if you have a scratch on the right side of your face, you wouldn't reach over the top of your head with you left hand to scratch it, would you?" (I have been in many buildings where many left hands were scratching right side faces).

So, if we want to use renewable biomass for our energy needs, forget about ethanol, throw the biomass directly into the burner and generate electricity!

This proposal is completely in line with the previous post. Essentially, don't use perfectly good transportation fuel in electric power plants AND don't take perfectly combustible biomass and inefficiently process it to make good transportation fuel.

Is this too simple a solution for people to recognize?

Lunch today: Taco Bell Chalupas while waiting to get my oil changed