So much for the biofuel plan

Carnut · February 08, 2008, 03:40:40 AM

Studies deem biofuels a greenhouse threat

Almost all biofuels used today cause more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional fuels if the full emissions costs of producing these "green" fuels are taken into account, two studies being published Thursday have concluded.

Crosley.In.AZ · February 08, 2008, 07:38:19 AM

Quote from: "Carnut"Studies deem biofuels a greenhouse threat

Almost all biofuels used today cause more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional fuels if the full emissions costs of producing these "green" fuels are taken into account, two studies being published Thursday have concluded.

sounds like the hybrid cars ...... take into account the filth left behind building the batterys and the prius type cars are not carbon friendly.

we must buy carbon offsets to make the world like us again.

tomslik · February 08, 2008, 08:22:40 AM

i don't know WHY we're so * worried about it, no other country is.
certainly not china

rumrumm · February 08, 2008, 08:55:27 AM

If we could put a man on the moon in less than ten years, surely we can develop practical hydrogen fuel in ten years. It's going to take an intelligent president with some courage to lay down a similar challenge.

CQQL33 · February 08, 2008, 10:03:27 AM

.....AND WHERE WILL WE GET AND "INTELLIGENT PRESIDENT"

??

I still think the best new fuel should/will be hydrogen.....possibly made from, of all things, SALT WATER.....!

Uncle Bob · February 08, 2008, 10:24:46 AM

Lynn, I can't remember ever disagreeing with you, but we're there now. Name any president who's ever invented anything. It's "regular" citizens who create useful things, and industry (yes, evil profitable businesses) that make them for the widespread market. Government entities and individuals (most often congress, not a president) that comes up with stupid mandates such as turning our food stream into fuel for vehicles instead of people, thus driving up the price for finished food stuffs.

However, I do remember one smart president who said something like; "Government isn't the answer, it's the problem!"

rumrumm · February 08, 2008, 11:34:00 AM

Quote from: "Uncle Bob"Lynn, I can't remember ever disagreeing with you, but we're there now. Name any president who's ever invented anything. It's "regular" citizens who create useful things, and industry (yes, evil profitable businesses) that make them for the widespread market. Government entities and individuals (most often congress, not a president) that comes up with stupid mandates such as turning our food stream into fuel for vehicles instead of people, thus driving up the price for finished food stuffs.

However, I do remember one smart president who said something like; "Government isn't the answer, it's the problem!"

I don't think we are disagreeing, necessarily. The answers have to come from the private sector. But it will take a challenge from a president, who voices the objective, in much the same way that Kennedy did in 1960, the goal of "putting a man on the moon by the end of the decade." And it was done. It will take research, government initiatives, and funding from both government and the private sector to make it possible to achieve this new goal in much the same way NASA achieved its goal in 1968. But it will take a leader with a vision to throw down this challenge and see it through.

wayne petty · February 08, 2008, 12:03:54 PM

i have been thinking about fuel economy....

current engines are running at fuel mixtures to feed the cat... too lean and it does not heat enough to work... too rich and it melts....

ethanol is a great idea to reduce fuel imports... except it reduces fuel economy.... so we are burning more fuel per mile with the 10%+ blends...

the makes the refiners more money ... the goverment more money in collected taxes per mile driven... and we get to pay both...

somebody is going to have to come up wiith an electricly heated or microwave heated cat.... something that does not require a constant amount of unburned hydrocarbons to heat... it is probably not possable now that i think about it as you have to create enough electricity to power it... so i guess we are just stuck.,.....until someone has a brainstorm...

Mikej · February 08, 2008, 12:17:17 PM

When was the last time anyone one here ate field corn? Are you taking in all of the by products of alcohol in your figures? They still feed the the by products to cattle. With the huge surplus of corn with used to have our the goverment paying more than it was worth, just to give it away. Let the rest of the world pay a fair price for our product. Every gallon of alcohol that we make in this country is one gallon of oil we buy from some where else.

tomslik · February 08, 2008, 12:29:44 PM

Quote from: "Mikej"When was the last time anyone one here ate field corn? Are you taking in all of the by products of alcohol in your figures? They still feed the the by products to cattle. With the huge surplus of corn with used to have our the goverment paying more than it was worth, just to give it away. Let the rest of the world pay a fair price for our product. Every gallon of alcohol that we make in this country is one gallon of oil we buy from some where else.

if ya catch it just right, you can troll for some good corn-fed iowa girls.....

better make that 1.5 gal od alky to 1 gallon of gas AFTER it's been refined.

btw, anybody cutting back on plastics,etc?
ya know, that stuff made from oil.....
i want a cast-iron 'puter moniter;)

tomslik · February 08, 2008, 12:36:06 PM

Quote from: "wayne petty"i have been thinking about fuel economy....

current engines are running at fuel mixtures to feed the cat... too lean and it does not heat enough to work... too rich and it melts....

ethanol is a great idea to reduce fuel imports... except it reduces fuel economy.... so we are burning more fuel per mile with the 10%+ blends...

the makes the refiners more money ... the goverment more money in collected taxes per mile driven... and we get to pay both...

somebody is going to have to come up wiith an electricly heated or microwave heated cat.... something that does not require a constant amount of unburned hydrocarbons to heat... it is probably not possable now that i think about it as you have to create enough electricity to power it... so i guess we are just stuck.,.....until someone has a brainstorm...

it's STILL gonna take a certain amount of "power" to heat the cat, whether it's electric or fuel...
but that won't be why they do it (and it's being developed), it'll be for emissions...
ever wonder how much weight they could pull out of a car by "dispensing) with the emissions controls?
don't forget wiring;)

Uncle Bob · February 08, 2008, 01:22:38 PM

Quote from: "rumrumm"I don't think we are disagreeing, necessarily. The answers have to come from the private sector. But it will take a challenge from a president, who voices the objective, in much the same way that Kennedy did in 1960, the goal of "putting a man on the moon by the end of the decade." And it was done. It will take research, government initiatives, and funding from both government and the private sector to make it possible to achieve this new goal in much the same way NASA achieved its goal in 1968. But it will take a leader with a vision to throw down this challenge and see it through.

Thanks for the clarification. I also remember Pres. Kennedy famously saying "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country". Sadly, near 50 years later that almost (and sadly) seems quaint. Not everyone believes that the government should do everything (to some degree or other) for us, but the number of people who believe that notion now out number those that don't, a shift from 50 years ago. Why Kennedy's admonition worked was because the aerospace community was already aiming in that direction, he merely, and effectively, gave it a push ahead. In that era, Pres. Eisenhower did the same for the interstate highway system that enabled the growth of economic trade between the states. In both cases the government efforts were in support of enabling technologies that had positive outcomes. Today the tone and intents are different. Now the predominant expectation is that government has the answers and only needs to dictate to the public and business interests not only the broad end objective, but also the mechanisms to get there. Thus we end up cannibalizing our food stream to create fuel for vehicles, and subsidize inefficient enterprises to achieve that dubious objective. You're correct, leadership is necessary, but it also needs to be effective leadership.

As for the argument that some lesser crop such as "field" corn is used for ethanol production misses what really happens in the marketplace. Let's take that at face value. Because ethanol is foisted on the fuel market by government mandate and not market demand, it gains an unequal advantage. So what we end up with is farmers doing what makes sense from their point of view. In the past most would choose to grow the higher value crop, the lower value crop had less production because of less demand. Now, the value structure changes artificially, so farmers stop growing food bound corn and grow "field" corn (again, assuming those are correct terms). By virtue of the supply/demand dynamic, the supply of food corn goes down, the price goes up. The market has proven this as the price has doubled in the past two years. AND we still subsidize farmers, AND the ethanol producers, AND the fabrication of the ethanol plants. The accurate economics of ethanol as a motor fuel don't pencil out at all if all costs involved are accurately accounted for, and of course those in favor, for whatever motivation, of ethanol as fuel will never link the increased cost of food in the equation because it further undermines their propostion. So that's when we start waving the American flag so as to distract as many as possible from what's really going on. That would be the "we won't buy as much foreigh oil " rubrick. Unfortunately that hasn't worked either. The biggest reason is twofold. First the production and transportation of the raw material and finished ethanol consumes almost as much crude oil as it replaces, some say more some say less, but in either argument it is close to even. It sounds logical, it doesn't prove out as such. The second is that the same people who have distorted the fuel and food marketplaces (congress) have also put a lid on domestic crude oil production by refusing to allow production of known reserves off our coasts and in remote regions of Alaska. Constricting supply will drive up prices.

unklian · February 08, 2008, 01:46:00 PM

Suddenly,Carbon Dioxide is evil,but nobody suggests we plant more trees,
or stop burning the Rain Forests,or burn less oil.

Global Warming is real,but has very little to do with "Green House Gases".
The average temperatures on other planets are increasing as well.

Mikej · February 08, 2008, 03:24:28 PM

Most of the corn grown in the US is field corn. Used to feed livestock, ( pigs, cattle, poultry) not people directly. Sweet corn is what we eat. The land that the article was talking about being converted to crop acres is in other countries. Rain forest, which they have been cutting down anyway for years now. You are right that the Gov. is helping the industry get started. Alcohol has been used in Iowa for 30+ years and it works fine.

tomslik · February 08, 2008, 03:33:03 PM

Quote from: "Uncle Bob"
Quote from: "rumrumm"I don't think we are disagreeing, necessarily. The answers have to come from the private sector. But it will take a challenge from a president, who voices the objective, in much the same way that Kennedy did in 1960, the goal of "putting a man on the moon by the end of the decade." And it was done. It will take research, government initiatives, and funding from both government and the private sector to make it possible to achieve this new goal in much the same way NASA achieved its goal in 1968. But it will take a leader with a vision to throw down this challenge and see it through.

Thanks for the clarification. I also remember Pres. Kennedy famously saying "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country". Sadly, near 50 years later that almost (and sadly) seems quaint. Not everyone believes that the government should do everything (to some degree or other) for us, but the number of people who believe that notion now out number those that don't, a shift from 50 years ago. Why Kennedy's admonition worked was because the aerospace community was already aiming in that direction, he merely, and effectively, gave it a push ahead. In that era, Pres. Eisenhower did the same for the interstate highway system that enabled the growth of economic trade between the states. In both cases the government efforts were in support of enabling technologies that had positive outcomes. Today the tone and intents are different. Now the predominant expectation is that government has the answers and only needs to dictate to the public and business interests not only the broad end objective, but also the mechanisms to get there. Thus we end up cannibalizing our food stream to create fuel for vehicles, and subsidize inefficient enterprises to achieve that dubious objective. You're correct, leadership is necessary, but it also needs to be effective leadership.

As for the argument that some lesser crop such as "field" corn is used for ethanol production misses what really happens in the marketplace. Let's take that at face value. Because ethanol is foisted on the fuel market by government mandate and not market demand, it gains an unequal advantage. So what we end up with is farmers doing what makes sense from their point of view. In the past most would choose to grow the higher value crop, the lower value crop had less production because of less demand. Now, the value structure changes artificially, so farmers stop growing food bound corn and grow "field" corn (again, assuming those are correct terms). By virtue of the supply/demand dynamic, the supply of food corn goes down, the price goes up. The market has proven this as the price has doubled in the past two years. AND we still subsidize farmers, AND the ethanol producers, AND the fabrication of the ethanol plants. The accurate economics of ethanol as a motor fuel don't pencil out at all if all costs involved are accurately accounted for, and of course those in favor, for whatever motivation, of ethanol as fuel will never link the increased cost of food in the equation because it further undermines their propostion. So that's when we start waving the American flag so as to distract as many as possible from what's really going on. That would be the "we won't buy as much foreigh oil " rubrick. Unfortunately that hasn't worked either. The biggest reason is twofold. First the production and transportation of the raw material and finished ethanol consumes almost as much crude oil as it replaces, some say more some say less, but in either argument it is close to even. It sounds logical, it doesn't prove out as such. The second is that the same people who have distorted the fuel and food marketplaces (congress) have also put a lid on domestic crude oil production by refusing to allow production of known reserves off our coasts and in remote regions of Alaska. Constricting supply will drive up prices.

and don't forget that there's not been a new refinery built in 30 years....