Campaigning on Biofuels

Comments

• Regarding E85 jaggspb on 12/07/2007 at 8:32 AM

  Posts: 9 Avg Rating:

  Anyone know why it was decided E85 and not a lower mixture like E50?  Would E50 help ease demand for ethanol while lowering our demand for foreign oil? I'm sure I'll end up researching it but just thought I'd see if someone knows here. It isn't surprising that big business will still be in control on a move to biofuels. Big oil now. Big Agriculture later. I'm still hoping that algae proves the best for biofuels. Rate this comment: (Reply)

• Why biofuels at all? franquellim on 12/07/2007 at 10:04 AM

  Posts: 11 Avg Rating:

  If battery technology has arrived to the point where we can use electricity for personal transportation, why are we spending so much time and money on biofuels? Why don't we build a 21st century electric power grid which is able to intelligently manage and distribute power, which is sourced from solar, wind, geothermal, solar thermal, hydro, nuclear and hydrocarbon sources (in roughly that order)? If we converted most personal transportation to electric in the next 20-30 years, we could use biofuels for commercial transport and other applications which electricity doesn't lend itself to. Rate this comment: (Reply)

  • Re: Why biofuels at all? techdiligence on 12/07/2007 at 10:26 AM

    Posts: 2 Avg Rating:

    The previous comment about a new electrical grid is a great one; decentralized, robust, with multiple generation sources across different geographical areas (to allow for weather changes in wind and solar) and hydrogen technology for storage and peak-period production. Biomass is best kept for making commodity chemicals since a large amount of chemistry has already been performed by nature; making useful chemical structures for materials (rather than taking everything down to a simple hydrocarbon or alcohol for fuel) gives the most efficient use of photosynthesis. Regarding an earlier comment about algae for fuel, as attractive as this is, it is still dependent on photosynthesis which is just not that good at capturing solar energy; see Nate Lewis's publications in Science and elsewhere. Nuclear energy is attractive (after wind and solar), especially if the CanDU system is used; this decouples energy production from weapons production, significantly reduces waste since it does not require enrichment technology, and has reasonable intrinsic safety since the primary coolant (heavy water) is also the neutron flux moderator. Rate this comment: (Reply)

• 	Why vehicle fuel ? DJTal on 12/07/2007 at 12:38 PM
  Posts: 116 Avg Rating:	Why not use biomass gasification in power stations directly . All of the syngas can be burnt in the power station and none of it wasted in the conversion to alcohol . Then we can all drive more efficient no poluting electric vehicles . Rate this comment: (Reply)

• uneconomical, unenviromental, and striaght up unpractical dtheisen on 12/07/2007 at 12:49 PM

  Posts: 3 Avg Rating:

  America has manly put all of its eggs in one basket , so to speak. we pretty much only use corn to produce ethanol. this is extremely unpractical or economic without the 9 billion or so in direct corn subsides each year. in fact if we were to convert all of the corn produced in America to ethanol it would only account for 12% of the gasoline we consume, and demand it only increasing. and we are forgetting that as more land is used to grow corn(already a problem) then less land will be used to grow food, milk, eggs, meat and cereal will become increasingly expensive. we surely will make the poor starve.  corn is also a row crop with contributes considerably to soil erosion and run off of fertilizer. in the gulf of Mexico there is currently a dead zone the size of new jersey due to such run off. along with being a major environmental and economic catastrophe growing corn for ethanol is terrible for the environment. paul crutzen, who won the noble prize in chemistry, did a study which found that due to industrial agriculture methods we can produces between .9 and 1.5 times more green house gases. unless we lose our fixation on corn, ethanol for the transportation sector will only end in misery... Rate this comment: (Reply)

  • Not so..... DJTal on 12/08/2007 at 8:33 AM

    Posts: 116 Avg Rating:

    Biomass production can be increased by using carbon negative biofuel . Crop residues are gasified to produce syngas and charcoal which can be added to the soil . Charcoal is a soil improver so it increases biomass production and peoples precious food supply isn't used up . Farmers can then use their crops to power their vehicles , so food and biofuel production beccome carbon negative . Rate this comment: (Reply)

• TAX THE CARBON! dmm on 12/07/2007 at 1:40 PM

  Posts: 149 Avg Rating:

  The solution to global warming and to foreign oil dependency is really very simple: tax the carbon.  The marketplace and self-interest will take care of the rest. People need to remember that the Manhattan Project was conducted under conditions of total war.  Many of the best minds in the country worked on it, they worked long days and weekends, and they worked for peanuts.  They did this happily, because their friends and relatives were dying on the battlefield and in death camps.  Plus, before they even started they already knew how to make a nuke, in principle.  And they knew that if either they or the Nazis could make one, it would end the war almost immediately.  The present energy and global-warming "crisis" is not at all analogous to WWII, so I wish people would stop these ridiculous calls for "another Manhattan project."  Unless, in order to "combat" global warming and oil dependence, they intend to also put us on a wartime footing, complete with a universal draft, centralized control of the economy, and rationing of almost everything.  Oops, I forgot: doing that in peacetime is called communism, and it doesn't work. Rate this comment: (Reply)

  • 	Re: TAX THE CARBON! Tagamet on 12/07/2007 at 2:48 PM
    Posts: 7 Avg Rating:	Try to get elected on an "I'm going to raise your taxes" platform. All people are suggesting is increased gov't support of research "up front", so that commercially viable techniques can be foud. Then CAPITALISM (gasp) can take over. Rate this comment: (Reply)

    • Re: TAX THE CARBON! dmm on 12/10/2007 at 3:35 PM

      Posts: 149 Avg Rating:

      As a political conservative, I would be averse to _new_ taxes.  Therefore, if I were in charge, I would make this carbon tax revenue-neutral in some way.  However, that is a separate issue, so I didn't raise it here.  My point was simply that, if one wants to reduce carbon emissions, the simplest and most effective way to do that is to tax the emission of carbon.  Then, in the short run, let consumers decide which emissions they wish to pay for, and which emissions they can do without.  In the long run, of course, consumers don't like to do without, thereby creating a market for "carbon-efficient" technologies.  This market will enable people to do research on technologies that allow consumers to "have their cake and eat it, too." Certainly, the gov't can help this technology along, especially by funding basic research, but experience shows us that technology never turns into useable products without a market. Rate this comment: (Reply)

  • 	Re: TAX THE CARBON! dtheisen on 12/07/2007 at 2:49 PM
    Posts: 3 Avg Rating:	take the 9 billion or so in direct corn subsides and put that into research and development of new techs...no tax increase there Rate this comment: (Reply)

  • Re: TAX THE CARBON! ChuckInReno on 12/07/2007 at 3:18 PM

    Posts: 19 Avg Rating:

    A Carbon tax is the best way I can think of to properly account for the damage done by the production of every pound of CO2. A well designed tax, with appropriate accounting for renewable carbon, will allow a market economy to find the best solution. I'm pretty sure that solution won't be ethanol from corn. However, the politicians are absolutely incapable of proposing such a new idea. Americans don't want to hear about new taxes. Fully half the country (those that are more likely to vote Republican than Democrat) have a vocal aversion to ALL taxes. I'm an engineer, not a politician. I can come up with new technologies, but I don't know how to implement such a revolutionary idea. At the end, I'm sure we'd all be better off, and I'm sure that our standard of living would ultimately be better, but this is a political problem, not a technical problem. Rate this comment: (Reply)

• 	Butanol is the answer bkshilo on 12/08/2007 at 2:16 PM
  Posts: 17 Avg Rating:	Butanol has an energy content close to gasoline and can be transported thru the same pipelines.  We need well-designed legislation that promotes a sane energy policy, not pandering to a particular agriculture lobby. Rate this comment: (Reply)

  • Re: Butanol is the answer Siphon on 12/15/2007 at 12:04 PM

    Posts: 112 Avg Rating:

    Well theoretically yes it may be better, but as I understand it higher alcohols are more difficult to make. At any rate, the technology just isn't ready yet, certainly not for billions of gallons per year. Has anyone considered that 60 billion gallons of bio-ethanol is absolutely not possible with any conventional bio-ethanol technologies? Even with cellulosic it will be difficult and it's too early to guarantee that cellulosic will be commercially viable soon enough. Plus, there may be other consequences of pushing the market so hard - backfiring or even collapse but certainly inefficiency in markets. Rate this comment: (Reply)

• price of biofuels? agurnani on 12/08/2007 at 9:06 PM

  Posts: 1

  I think the biggest advantage in US is going to be that biofuels will reduce dependence on foreign oil and/or put pressure on oil prices. But, There are many countries that still use "bullock carts" for transportation and bulls for farming. can biofuels be sold to them (with the appropriate vehicles, of course) at an attractive price? Since there are no gas stations there now, something needs to be built to service those vehicles - why not build biofuel stations there instead of gas stations? That will be in line with what Clay Christensen refers to as competing with non-consumption. Rate this comment: (Reply)

• 	Fuel or food? lasertekk on 12/10/2007 at 2:14 PM
  Posts: 27 Avg Rating:	How many people are starving in the U.S. let alone the world?  How could anyone with a good conscience divert food over to fuel use? Rate this comment: (Reply)

  • 	Not an "either-or" dmm on 12/10/2007 at 3:52 PM
    Posts: 149 Avg Rating:	Although I am no fan of gov't subsidized bio-fuels (see my other comments), you should realize that malnutrition, hunger, poor diets, and famines are often due to causes other than food shortages.  It is not uncommon for these to be caused by wars, politics, prejudice, ignorance, stupidity, greed, incompetence, drug addiction, ... and fuel shortages. Rate this comment: (Reply)

• $92 Billion Ethanol Subsidy RD on 01/17/2008 at 1:25 PM

  Posts: 58 Avg Rating:

  International Institute of Sustainable Development estimates US taxpayers will subsidize ethanol production by $92 billion from 2006-2012. Why would any rational person pay a premium for a corrosive fuel that may actually hurt the environment more?  Cellulosic butanol would be better.  Ethanol has a plethora of problems, including eating of rubber, plastic, fiberglas. Ethanol is increasing air and water pollution; it takes an average of 123 gallons of water for a gallon of ethanol to make; many ethanol facilities burn ~300 tons of coal to heat the process; shelf-life is only 90 days; and the practical limit of ethanol is 5.8% because of volatility.  Beyond that refineries have to reduce lower cost pentane and other ingredients.  We should fire the politicians who pander to the agriculture community. Rate this comment: (Reply)