Support NeoGAF

[Ponn]

There are about 3-4 gas stations between my house and school that offer ethanol along side gasoline, although I'm slightly worried about the "It takes about 30% more ethanol than gasoline to drive a mile, and the stuff is more corrosive." If I still had my taurus I'd be all for it.

Nice to see that American car companies were thinking ahead on this.

What's the price going at? How is it compared to prices of gasoline in your area?

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Actually, we do need numbers. Modern farming relies on fertilizer, which are petrochemical in nature.

 

[Funky Papa]

As you can go get a $2000 biodiesel processor and throw in vegetable oil from the supermarket and along with a few other substances already produced (cheaply) can generate biodiesel of equivalent volume. So what, we can produce enough oil to fry chicken and then try to find ways to dispose of that waste oil but suddenly its a problem to produce equivalent amount of vegetable oil for other uses?

Actually you can almost build a state of the art biodiesel reactor with $2000. I know someone who makes his biodiesel using recycled plastic recipients and filters the used cooking oil with a couple of old jeans. And his minivan works flawlessly, according to him it runs even better than with normal diesel.

 

[Nerevar]

Funny, a standard sized vehicle here is considered a 'compact' in California. 5-door hatchbacks are very popular in NZ, because of their affordability and economy, but I think i saw one while I was in America.

America is a very big country, and the types of car you see vary from region to region. It's not nearly a monolithic cultural entity which you can draw simple conclusions from.

 

[Phoenix]

Actually you can almost build a state of the art biodiesel reactor with $2000. I know someone who makes his biodiesel using recycled plastic recipients and filters the used cooking oil with a couple of old jeans. And his minivan works flawlessly, according to him it runs even better than with normal diesel.

Yeah, I just wanted to address the part of the crowd who would be too concerned about blowing themselves up or getting their hands dirty with the DIY process to actually build a reactor.

 

[Takuan]

I watched this documentary on oil called End of Suburbia that said both hydrogen and ethanol are not viable alternatives as energy sources because they both require more in overall energy input than can be used for output. I wish they'd gone into exactly how they came upon this information, but they didn't.

For those interested, the film centered around the idea that we're operating (or soon will be) at peak oil - that is, the point where oil production has peaked and returns from the extraction process will diminish eventually to nothing. The film draws on opinions from industry "experts" who suggest that oil costs will rise to a point where it will become unaffordable to middle-class suburban America, which in turn will cause much hoopla because these people rely primarily on their cars for transportation and don't have other options to fall back on. It's an interesting documentary worth checking out just to hear the insight of one fellow - I forget his name - who's the owner of one of the biggest (if not THE biggest) energy suppliers in North America; he gives honest feedback and acknowledges that the threat of an energy crisis is indeed very real and the people in control (governments, oil companies, and associated bodies) will have to put some real thought into how to address the issue. For those with even the slightest interest, I recommend giving it a watch.

 

[jamesinclair]

I watched this documentary on oil called End of Suburbia that said both hydrogen and ethanol are not viable alternatives as energy sources because they both require more in overall energy input than can be used for output. I wish they'd gone into exactly how they came upon this information, but they didn't.

Last I heard, all corn needs to grow is the energy from the sun, and some clouds passing by.


Is ethanol THE sollution? No, but its a good placeholder until hydrogen and fuel cells can work.

Until then, ethanol is the best option. Have every car supporting both fuels, and have every station stocking them. What if theres a drought and ethanol goes up? No problem, use gas. What if theres a terrorist hurricane? Alright, use ethanol.

Its a win win situation for everybody. Local farmers get work, ethanol prices go down, and we pollute less.

Whats not to love?

 

[Ghost]

I can see how Hydrogren uses more oil than it saves but how the hell can ethanol? Its natural ingredients and theres no power requried in the process at all.


The only thing not to love is the oil companies & governments making less money from Revenue and taxes....thats why i wonder if we'll see it before its absolutely necessary.

 

[Phoenix]

I can see how Hydrogren uses more oil than it saves but how the hell can ethanol? Its natural ingredients and theres no power requried in the process at all.


The only thing not to love is the oil companies & governments making less money from Revenue and taxes....thats why i wonder if we'll see it before its absolutely necessary.

Not necessarily. The world economy grows rapidly when stupidly cheap energy is available. Hell if gas was $1 a gallon or cheaper, US auto companies would still be selling SUVs and probably have plans for "commuter RVs" on the books So don't worry, if fuel were cheaper - people would still use a lot of it and industry would continue to grow wildly as with cheap energy, a whole lot of things become possible.

 

[AdmiralViscen]

I'd like to point out that Ford will soon be producing the first ethanol-engine hybrid.

 

[Gorgie]

As Innatz Mouse pointed out, agriculture is HEAVILY DEPENDENT ON PETROCHEMICALS. All the fertilizer the majority of farms use is nitrogen, which is from petrochemicals. All the heavy machinery to plant and harvest the crops don't run on good intentions, but on gas/diesel. The arrigation necessary to keep the crops from drying up (especially noticable these days) is powered by petrochemicals. And to transport the crop, the global economy can't function if done by wheelbarrel.

Also, no one has mentioned that with repeated use of soil, on top of soil erosion, the fertile top soil that takes hundreds of years to create is used up.

Our current lifestyle demands our arable land is used as efficient as possible, which means crops can't just be thrown into dirt, and then come back when the plants are done growing. Pests like locuts, beetles, fungi, and what not, will destroy everything in their path. And since pestcides are made from petrochemicals, ethanol is not a viable alternative.

At the end of the day, if it takes more energy to grow the crops, than the energy stored in ethanol, even if you switch all of the oil dependent agricultural needs, you're going to run into a dead end.

 

[jamesinclair]

A\ All the heavy machinery to plant and harvest the crops don't run on good intentions, but on gas/diesel. The arrigation necessary to keep the crops from drying up (especially noticable these days) is powered by petrochemicals. And to transport the crop, the global economy can't function if done by wheelbarrel.

At the end of the day, if it takes more energy to grow the crops, than the energy stored in ethanol, even if you switch all of the oil dependent agricultural needs, you're going to run into a dead end.

Then use tractors that run on ethanol?

If it didnt work, than Brasil, Argentina, India and Pakistan wouldn't be using it.

 

[Phoenix]

As Innatz Mouse pointed out, agriculture is HEAVILY DEPENDENT ON PETROCHEMICALS. All the fertilizer the majority of farms use is nitrogen, which is from petrochemicals.

Do you realize how much nitrogen the american public produces several times a day, usually a couple of hours after a meal? Manure is actually BETTER than chemical based fertilizer and anyone who has done any gardening will tell you, if you use manure when planting the soil is MUCH richer.

All the heavy machinery to plant and harvest the crops don't run on good intentions, but on gas/diesel. The arrigation necessary to keep the crops from drying up (especially noticable these days) is powered by petrochemicals. And to transport the crop, the global economy can't function if done by wheelbarrel.

No, but it can certainly function on biodiesel - the stuff that you're making right now. There are cars all over the planet that you can actually pour crisco into and they will run for goodness sakes!

Also, no one has mentioned that with repeated use of soil, on top of soil erosion, the fertile top soil that takes hundreds of years to create is used up.

Well I guess we're all doomed to die since we don't plan to stop using soil for our own food anytime soon. Come on man, these arguments are 20 years old and have been debunked in those 20 years.

Our current lifestyle demands our arable land is used as efficient as possible, which means crops can't just be thrown into dirt, and then come back when the plants are done growing. Pests like locuts, beetles, fungi, and what not, will destroy everything in their path. And since pestcides are made from petrochemicals, ethanol is not a viable alternative.

Your argument is poor. While pesticides need to be made from chemical process, that has absolutely no bearing on the ability or inability of ethanol as an alternative fuel.

At the end of the day, if it takes more energy to grow the crops, than the energy stored in ethanol, even if you switch all of the oil dependent agricultural needs, you're going to run into a dead end.

Uh no. A non-renewable fuel is a guaranteed dead end by virtue of it being NON RENEWABLE. Using a renewable source of energy requires change along the length of the energy economy and has large upfront costs. That much is an absolute. Change on the scale of the US energy backbone will require expenditure of large sums of money. However the argument of the vein of "well we have to spray solar cells with cleaning products made from petrochemicals therefore solar power is not viable" or "well solar cells currently have to be built from fossil fuels" is laughable at best, and if equally applied to out current energy economy would result in us immediatly shutting down civilization. It assumes the conclusion isn't possible and restates that although it clearly is.

Our current process is simply not sustainable. There ARE alternatives and they work. A large portion of the shit we throw away (literally and figuratively) needs to remain a part of the energy economy. The solution is a system of a variety of things, not a heavy dependence on one thing. For automobiles, oil based products is all we've got. Not because it is the smart thing, not even because its the most efficient thing, but because its what we have and too many people aren't interested in seeing that change.

And for the record, while ethanol is more corrosive than gasoline - it has been almost 15-20 years since the car industry used components that were impacted by ethanol. Why? Here's a simple reason, because its already in your damn gas! Most gasoline in the United States and other parts of the world AT LEAST use ethanol as an additive to help with emissions (gasp). In many parts of the world and the United States there are cars that can run ONLY on ethanol.

 

[Phoenix]

I'd like to point out that Ford will soon be producing the first ethanol-engine hybrid.

Yep, and cars in the Indy 500 and other races have been running on ethanol for years (80+).

 

[Javaman]

Then use tractors that run on ethanol?

If it didnt work, than Brasil, Argentina, India and Pakistan wouldn't be using it.

Um, It's already been mentioned that Eth creates less energy then was used to produce. If you need 6 gallons of fuel to harvest 1 gallon you aren't going to gain, you'll lose.

 

[sans_pants]

This is nothing new, it's just that the general public is unaware...as ususal. The big issue is that 'big oil' comsortium isn't a fan of this. In my personal opinion, we will NEVER get away from fossil fuels until the very last drop is sucked from the planet. It just way too much money and politics (not to mention lobbyists) involved with the current status quo. If 'big oil' and car manufacturers wanted, we could've starting switchinh over to thhis technology a decade ago. as long as the oil barrons stay greedy and the general public uninformed...don't expect any changes anytime soon. As soon as things calm down in the middle east. it be business as usual.

big oil is getting their hands in it now. they will be the ones backing the production because they have the infrastructure to do it, and they arent stupid, they know they sell a finite resource

 

[jamesinclair]

Um, It's already been mentioned that Eth creates less energy then was used to produce. If you need 6 gallons of fuel to harvest 1 gallon you aren't going to gain, you'll lose.

Excellent argument.

Now tell me, how Brasil switched to ethanol, and is now self-sustained on domestic oil production, to the point that they now export gasoline (they import diesel, yes, because thats not made in Brasil).



Also, Id like to change my other line to "tractors use bio-diesel" another renewable energy source.

 

[border]

My sister is a University of California hippie, and even she thinks that biodiesel/ethanol is just a pipe dream that's essentially unsustainable on any large scale (read: American-style fuel consumption). Yes you can put Crisco in a car and get it to run, but if everyone did it then there'd be bigger problems.

 

[Phoenix]

My sister is a University of California hippie, and even she thinks that biodiesel/ethanol is just a pipe dream that's essentially unsustainable on any large scale (read: American-style fuel consumption). Yes you can put Crisco in a car and get it to run, but if everyone did it then there'd be bigger problems.

Next time you talk to her, ask her WHY its a pipe dream.

The oil companies have people right where they want them. People are absolutely convinced there is no other solution even in the midst of evidence to the contrary. No biggie for me, I'll be producing most of my own fuel in a few years so I'll sit back and watch the rest of the people bitch about $3.00 gas and how there aren't any solutions to it.

 

[border]

Next time you talk to her, ask her WHY its a pipe dream.

Pretty much the same reasons already addressed here. Producing organic fuels at the same level we produce fossil fuels won't work. Errr, I guess according to that article we not only have to produce as much ethanol as we do gas, but we have to produce 30% more. So that's 26 million barrels per day of ethanol...all from something that's crop driven.

People are absolutely convinced there is no other solution even in the midst of evidence to the contrary.

Just because organic stuff seems unpalatable doesn't mean there are no solutions. Hybrids and fuel cells are certainly hopeful technologies.

I'll be producing most of my own fuel in a few years so I'll sit back and watch the rest of the people bitch about $3.00 gas and how there aren't any solutions to it.

Sit back and watch? You aren't going to be doing a lot of sitting. Have fun spending your Saturdays dumpster diving at McDonald's The rest of us will be spending free time with leisure activities, and not worrying about the explosive chemicals housed in our garage.

The biodiesel folk are cool, but it seems like a pretty huge sacrifice. For the time you spend doing all that shit you might as well just buy gas.

 

[Leatherface]

just show me where to sign!!

 

[ToxicAdam]

It's funny how discussion of oil always brings out these pessimistic nabobs that believe we are doomed. I wonder what motivates thier thinking? Is it this apocalyptic yearning for a societal reset?

Man always conquers. The only limitations we have, are the ones we put upon ourselves. But that has always been the ratio throughout history ... 1 million doubters, but one man who believes ... one man that succeeds and pushes through.

 

[border]

But that has always been the ratio throughout history ... 1 million doubters, but one man who believes ... one man that succeeds and pushes through.

It seems like that because you only hear the success stories. You never hear about the cranks and crackpots who died penniless after pushing some unfeasible technology. The ratio is probably way different, when you factor in the people that thought they were geniuses but had no idea what the fuck they were talking about.

Man always conquers.

This will make an amusing epitaph when aliens are sifting through the ashes of our civilization 200 million years from now. Let's etch it into some marble or something.

"My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look upon my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"

 

[emomoonbase]

I'm sure whoever would be selling it would probably charge pretty close to the same as gas so it's not like you'd really gain anything financially.

 

[jamesinclair]

Pretty much the same reasons already addressed here. Producing organic fuels at the same level we produce fossil fuels won't work. Errr, I guess according to that article we not only have to produce as much ethanol as we do gas, but we have to produce 30% more. So that's 26 million barrels per day of ethanol...all from something that's crop driven.
Just because organic stuff seems unpalatable doesn't mean there are no solutions. Hybrids and fuel cells are certainly hopeful technologies.
Sit back and watch? You aren't going to be doing a lot of sitting. Have fun spending your Saturdays dumpster diving at McDonald's The rest of us will be spending free time with leisure activities, and not worrying about the explosive chemicals housed in our garage.

The biodiesel folk are cool, but it seems like a pretty huge sacrifice. For the time you spend doing all that shit you might as well just buy gas.

Gasoline prices started out this year higher than ever before, and they usually go up during the summer. One hurricane, and $3.50 a gallon isnt out of the question at all.

Meanwhile, ethanol should continue at $2.00.

Enjoy.

 

[border]

Meanwhile, ethanol should continue at $2.00.

If ethanol burns 30% faster then that's actually equivalent to $2.60 per gallon of gas....which at the moment would make it a worse choice.

But at any rate I'm talking about the make-your-own-fuel thing, not buying ethanol from the 587 gas stations that stock it (enjoy finding one). The problem seems to be that the widespread acceptance of ethanol would make it more convenient, but would probably send the prices up a good deal.

 

[jamesinclair]

If ethanol burns 30% faster then that's actually equivalent to $2.60 per gallon of gas....which at the moment would make it a worse choice.

But at any rate I'm talking about the make-your-own-fuel thing, not buying ethanol from the 587 gas stations that stock it (enjoy finding one). The problem seems to be that the widespread acceptance of ethanol would make it more convenient, but would probably send the prices up a good deal.

The number WAS actually 26%, but thanks to advances in compression methods, that can be reduced to 14%.

14% less efficient at prices 20-50% cheaper? Sounds good to me (large range is ebcause prices in both ags and ethanol change daily).

 

[jamesinclair]

I did some reaserch and studies show that currently in the US, ethanol produces 38% more energy then it put in to harvest it, and this is expected to increase they they shift from corn to stalks of various plants.


Also, some ethanol prices:


E85 Price: 1.99
Station Name: Super America
Station City: Cohassett, MN
Unleaded Price: 2.29
Date: Monday, January 30, 2006


From: GP
E85 Price: 1.71
Station Name: Holiday
Station City: Brooklyn Center
Unleaded Price: 2.11
Date: Monday, January 30, 2006

From: Brian
E85 Price: 1.569
Station Name: Kwik Trip - Dodd and 55
Station City: Eagen
Unleaded Price: 2.069
Date: Saturday, January 28, 2006

From: pat
E85 Price: 1.79
Station Name: shell aka I came to my senses
Station City: monticello
Unleaded Price: 2.19
Date: Saturday, January 28, 2006

 

[BorkBork]

I'm not sure if this has been posted in the thread, way too much info to wade through.

Q: Pros and cons of ethanol:

Pros: Ethanol reduces levels of carbon monoxide and other toxic air pollutants. The biomass used for ethanol absorbs carbon dioxide (CO2) when it is grown, so it adds no net CO2 to the atmosphere. It can be used to boost the octane in gasoline to prevent engine knocking, and it increases gasoline's lubricity. It also takes only six months to harvest a substantial crop of fuel. Ethanol is an oxygenate that reduces ground-level ozone. Since ethanol can be produced locally, it has the potential to add to the local economy, particularly in the agricultural sector, and help reduce the importation of oil.

Cons: Depending on the ethanol/gasoline blend, ethanol may raise levels of nitrogen oxides produced as gasoline emissions. Because of its lower energy content relative to gasoline, ethanol also reduces mileage per gallon. Corn-based ethanol production is energy intensive, and in some instances uses nearly as much energy to produce (including the energy needed for farming and making fertilizers) than it supplies, although new technologies are improving the efficiency of production.

It's definitely not the technological panacea some people make it out to be, but it will have its place in the energy system in the near future.

 

[Phoenix]

The biodiesel folk are cool, but it seems like a pretty huge sacrifice. For the time you spend doing all that shit you might as well just buy gas.

False again. There are entirely automated biodiesel production systems. But since you didn't search to find out for yourself, yeah - you'll believe is a lot of work

 

[Phoenix]

I'm not sure if this has been posted in the thread, way too much info to wade through.



It's definitely not the technological panacea some people make it out to be, but it will have its place in the energy system in the near future.

I'll counter your source with a set of my own which show the opposite with respect to NOx.

"Nitrous Oxides (NOx) are reported by several researchers to be increased with Biodiesel. However, our own data shows a reduction in nitrous oxides, very consistently, throughout all these [dynamometer] tests. NOx started at 6.2 gm/mile for diesel and goes down to around 5.6 gm/mile with 100% ester (Biodiesel), with slightly more reduction with REE (rapeseed ethyl ester) than RME (rapeseed methyl ester)... Emissions results for 100 percent ester compared with diesel control fuel show a 53% reduction in HC (Hydrocarbons), a 50% reduction in CO (Carbon monoxide), 10% reduction in NOx and 13.6% increase in PM (particulate matter)." -- "Toxicology, Biodegradability and Environmental Benefits of Biodiesel", Charles L. Peterson and Daryl Reece, Professor and Engineering Technician, Department of Agricultural Engineering, University of Idaho, 1994

"Fueling with biodiesel/diesel fuel blends reduced particulate matter (PM), total hydrocarbons (THC), and carbon monoxide (CO), while increasing oxides of nitrogen (NOx). Retarded fuel injection timing reduced NOx emissions while maintaining the other emissions reductions." -- "6V-92TA DDC Engine Exhaust Emission Tests using Methyl Ester [Biodiesel]", L. G. Schumacher (Department of Agricultural Engineering at the University of Missouri), D. Fosseen, W. Goetz, S. C. Borgelt, W. G. Hires (1995) in Bioresource Technology, 1995

"As the concentration of biodiesel increased, the oxides of nitrogen [NOx] emissions increased. The B20A20 fuel blend effectively reduced the oxides of nitrogen emissions below that of baseline diesel fuel. Retarding the timing was an effective way of reducing NOx emissions when fueling with the biodiesel blends. Oxides of nitrogen emissions ... can be successfully reduced below that of baseline diesel fuel by either retarding injection timing or replacing 20 percent of the baseline diesel fuel of the B20 blend with heavy alkylate." -- "Engine Exhaust Emissions Evaluation of a Cummins L10E When Fueled with a Biodiesel Blend", William Marshall, Leon G. Schumacher, Steve Howell (1995), Society of Automotive Engineers, SAE Paper # 952363
[B20 = a blend of 20% biodiesel with 80% conventional low sulfur petroleum diesel fuel
B20A20 = a blend of 20% biodiesel and 20% heavy alkylate with 60% conventional low-sulfur petroleum diesel fuel

"Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) emissions from biodiesel increase or decrease depending on the engine family and testing procedures. NOx emissions (a contributing factor in the localized formation of smog and ozone) from pure (100%) biodiesel increased in this test by 13 percent. However, biodiesel's lack of sulfur allows the use of NOx control technologies that cannot be used with conventional diesel. So, biodiesel NOx emissions can be effectively managed and efficiently eliminated as a concern of the fuel's use." -- US National Biodiesel Board, Biodiesel Report, April 1998, "Biodiesel First Alternative Fuel to Meet EPA Health Effects Requirement -- Positive environmental and health effects results for Biodiesel"
[Sulphur poisons catalytic converters. Sulphur content of low-sulphur conventional diesel fuel: 0.05 percentage weight. Sulphur content of methyl ester biodiesel: less than 0.001 percentage weight.]

 

[Phoenix]

I did some reaserch and studies show that currently in the US, ethanol produces 38% more energy then it put in to harvest it, and this is expected to increase they they shift from corn to stalks of various plants.

Yeah some of the country level initiatives use sugar based ethanol which is more efficient and has a significantly better energy output than corn.

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

Also, no one has mentioned that with repeated use of soil, on top of soil erosion, the fertile top soil that takes hundreds of years to create is used up.

Haven't humans been using topsoil since the beginning of known civilzation? What is different in how we would use soil for ethanol versus how we use soil for regular argricultural purposes?

 

[jamesinclair]

Yeah some of the country level initiatives use sugar based ethanol which is more efficient and has a significantly better energy output than corn.

Thats what Brasil uses.

For the US, they use corn now simply because its the most available, and sugar cane is only really possible in the south. However, everything from straw to beets can be used, of course, with varying energy outputs. And, the more the product is used, the more money that goes in to make the whole process better. Just like a hybrid today will get better millage than a hybrid from 2000, the whole ethanol system could be made less wasteful.

And really, in the end, what's better than having an economy which has an industry which runs thanks to the farmers next door?

 

[krypt0nian]

Break the habit of the American driver, not Bush.

RED BULL give you wings?

 

[border]

There are entirely automated biodiesel production systems. But since you didn't search to find out for yourself, yeah - you'll believe is a lot of work

You can automate the actual production, but you still have to collect all the oil and ethanol on your own. Mixing it yourself is probably the least tedious part. NPR ran a story on some guy that makes his own biodiesel and not only does he dumpster-dive for used vegetable oil, but he has to keep a big supply of highly flammable ethanol at his residence. It just sounded kinda crappy, trading off your time and your safety for some gas savings. I'd hate to be saddled with a car that required hours of legwork everytime I wanted to fill up the tank. At the moment it just seems smarter to buy a fuel-efficient compact.

But hey, might as well ask it straight up: You say you have plans to make your own fuel....how much time do you expect to spend on each tank?

 

[border]

Oh and for anyone interested, here's the story on Biodiesel that ran on NPR's Day To Day:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4961881

Seems like a fairly balanced look. Less than $1/gallon, though that doesn't really include the time spent finding ~30 gallons of vegetable oil. You mix the oil with methanol and lye and there you go. The story ends with a scientist saying that meeting the country's oil needs would require "4 Iowa's worth of crops".

 

[BorkBork]

I'll counter your source with a set of my own which show the opposite with respect to NOx.

Thanks for those sources. That helps to counter the majority of concerns regarding NOX's.
I just read a synopsis also on a paper that stated corn is not a viable option in terms of a renewable fuel source. Very interesting.

However, even looking at Brazil, there are concerns about increased sugarcane expansion into existing food-producing argicultural land and natural habitats. Burning of sugarcane fields, a common practice, contributes significantly to increased particulate matter and poor air quality. Also, sugarcane cultivation is extremely water intensive and if significant chemical inputs are required, then the energy net benefit in the production of ethanol will be reduced or lost. If large agrochemical companies take over with transgenic versions, that may cause some more problems.

I'm not looking to be a downer, there are a lot of benefits to a renewable source of biomass fuel. But I stand by my statement that it's not a panacea that people think it will be. There are still a lot of big issues to overcome before it will globally overtake fossil fuels in terms of energy importance.

 

[border]

I just read a synopsis also on a paper that stated corn is not a viable option in terms of a renewable fuel source.

Probably not. I think we are having trouble producing enough corn as-is. Part of the problem is that as China's economy grows, they will put more pressure on agricultural markets and drive prices up. Though at the same time, their demands will push oil prices up as well.

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

Probably not. I think we are having trouble producing enough corn as-is. Part of the problem is that as China's economy grows, they will put more pressure on agricultural markets and drive prices up. Though at the same time, their demands will push oil prices up as well.

But are we looking to replace oil with ethanol? Or to just slow the tide until something better comes along? What about GM argriculture as a possible source of fuel (it comes with it's own concerns as well).

 

[Phoenix]

Oh and for anyone interested, here's the story on Biodiesel that ran on NPR's Day To Day:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4961881

Seems like a fairly balanced look. Less than $1/gallon, though that doesn't really include the time spent finding ~30 gallons of vegetable oil.

You don't have any fast food or other restaurants nearby? Since they have to pay to dispose of the stuff, I don't think they'll have any problem giving it to you by the truckload. In a week you'll have hundreds of gallons of oil - easily. Your bigger problem is stockpiling it.

 

[Phoenix]

The story ends with a scientist saying that meeting the country's oil needs would require "4 Iowa's worth of crops".

He should investigate the size of land currently roped off and unusable due to oil exploration, drilling, and production.

One of the great things about using crops/a crop is that we can actually put all this wonderful gene manipulation technology to work on something that people don't plan to eat and genetically increase the portions of the plants we use.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

It's funny how discussion of oil always brings out these pessimistic nabobs that believe we are doomed. I wonder what motivates thier thinking? Is it this apocalyptic yearning for a societal reset?

Man always conquers. The only limitations we have, are the ones we put upon ourselves. But that has always been the ratio throughout history ... 1 million doubters, but one man who believes ... one man that succeeds and pushes through.

I think that being pessimistic about Oil's future does not mean we are doomed. I think it's those pessimists who ultimately solve the problems and come up with the alternatives.

I have no doubt we will persevere and even thrive, but I am concerned.

 

[DarthWoo]

Although the whole point is getting away from oil, whatever happened to that machine in New Jersey or PA that they supposedly had converting any and all organic waste into oil?

 

[Forgotten Ancient]

Although the whole point is getting away from oil, whatever happened to that machine in New Jersey or PA that they supposedly had converting any and all organic waste into oil?

I think you're talking about thermal depolymerization. I haven't heard much about that lately, either. Anyone?

 

[Phoenix]

I think you're talking about thermal depolymerization. I haven't heard much about that lately, either. Anyone?

The plant in Carthage was working, albeit at marginal profitability due to having to pay for organic materials as opposed to having them piped in from a dump or similar.

Plant owner surprised by closing order
An order by Missouri Gov. Matt Blunt to close a Carthage plant because of noxious odors caught its owner by surprise.

It’s not because the plant didn’t stink, said Brian Appel, the chief executive officer of Changing World Technologies. It was because he believed the odor problems were being worked out.

Appel said the plant, which turns turkey waste into oil, had been closed since Dec. 22 to install better odor-suppressing equipment, and a meeting with officials was planned next week.

“We are all just actually shocked,” Appel said Friday.

As part of the order, the Missouri Department of Natural Resources suspended the plant’s air permit for 60 days, said Connie Patterson, a spokeswoman.

The DNR’s order said the odors had “resulted and will continue to result in a clear and present danger to the public welfare in Carthage.”

Smell complaints

The pilot plant in Carthage, Missouri was temporarily shut down due to smell complaints, but was soon restarted when it was discovered that many of the smells were not actually generated by the plant. (reported by the Kansas City Star, April 12, 2005). Furthermore, the plant agreed[4] to install an enhanced thermal oxidizer and to upgrade its air scrubber system under a court order. [5] Since the plant is located only four blocks from the tourist-attracting town center, this has strained relations with the mayor and citizens of Carthage. If it cannot be resolved, this could lead to NIMBYism, making it difficult to implement this technology widely.
Although there were complaints of a "smell" coming from the plant, complaints were still being placed even when the plant wasn't operating. The complaints stopped when the complainers were identified. Investigators are looking into the case believing that the tipsters were biofuel competitors to the TCP plant.
As of December 29, 2005, the plant was ordered by the state governor to shut down once again over allegations of horrible odors. (as reported by MSNBC on December 29, 2005.) No word on when it plans to reopen.

 

[TheOMan]

He should investigate the size of land currently roped off and unusable due to oil exploration, drilling, and production.

One of the great things about using crops/a crop is that we can actually put all this wonderful gene manipulation technology to work on something that people don't plan to eat and genetically increase the portions of the plants we use.

Great minds think alike. Also, not only would they be able to increase the yields of the portions required, but with some careful manipulation, the resulting ethanol could burn more efficiently with greater combustible power. Of course, the con is ensuring that these plants did not seed outside of their designated area, otherwise the results on sugar cane production for public consumption could be rather disastrous.

 

[SickBoy]

The issue with genetic modification is that you might have to use a plant that people don't eat period to do it (this may not be a problem). There are widespread concerns that genetically modified food could end up in "natural" crops in the long run, just by virtue of nature doing its thing.

 

[BorkBork]

Not to mention the patents for most geneticially modified crop strains are owned by agrochemcial corporations, which would then be dominant players in both the energy and agricultural sector.

 

[Phoenix]

Not to mention the patents for most geneticially modified crop strains are owned by agrochemcial corporations, which would then be dominant players in both the energy and agricultural sector.

No matter what happens, some major corporation is going to control the mass production of fuel. Even if making fuel simply required getting some tap water, throwing some special tea leaves in it, and processing it into fuel - the mass market will still just go to the pump. Its just the way of things. Consumers are too lazy to produce their own fuel en masse.