• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

[Money] How to beat the price of gasoline - forever

Status
Not open for further replies.

Phoenix

Member
I've been chatting about this for a while, that the solutions are already there its just that consumers know so little about them that they don't demand them or demand that politicians support them. Well here is a little supporting information, this time from the folks at money magazine.

(FORTUNE Magazine) - You probably don't know it, but the answer to America's gasoline addiction could be under the hood of your car. More than five million Tauruses, Explorers, Stratuses, Suburbans, and other vehicles are already equipped with engines that can run on an energy source that costs less than gasoline, produces almost none of the emissions that cause global warming, and comes from the Midwest, not the Middle East.

These lucky drivers need never pay for gasoline again--if only they could find this elusive fuel, called ethanol. Chemically, ethanol is identical to the grain alcohol you may have spiked the punch with in college. It also went into gasohol, that 1970s concoction that brings back memories of Jimmy Carter in a cardigan and outrageous subsidies from Washington. But while the chemistry is the same, the economics, technology, and politics of ethanol are profoundly different.

Instead of coming exclusively from corn or sugar cane as it has up to now, thanks to biotech breakthroughs, the fuel can be made out of everything from prairie switchgrass and wood chips to corn husks and other agricultural waste. This biomass-derived fuel is known as cellulosic ethanol. Whatever the source, burning ethanol instead of gasoline reduces carbon emissions by more than 80% while eliminating entirely the release of acid-rain-causing sulfur dioxide. Even the cautious Department of Energy predicts that ethanol could put a 30% dent in America's gasoline consumption by 2030.

We may not have to wait that long. After decades of being merely an additive to gasoline, ethanol suddenly looks to be the stuff of a fuel revolution--and a pipe dream for futurists. An unlikely alliance of venture capitalists, Wall Streeters, automakers, environmentalists, farmers, and, yes, politicians is doing more than just talk about ethanol's potential. They're putting real money into biorefineries, car engines that switch effortlessly between gasoline and biofuels, and R&D to churn out ethanol more cheaply. (By the way, the reason motorists don't know about the five-million-plus ethanol-ready cars and trucks on the road is that until now Detroit never felt the need to tell them. Automakers quietly added the flex-fuel feature to get a break from fuel-economy standards.)

What's more, powerful political lobbies in Washington that never used to concern themselves with botanical affairs are suddenly focusing on ethanol. "Energy dependence is America's economic, environmental, and security Achilles' heel," says Nathanael Greene of the Natural Resources Defense Council, a mainstream environmental group. National- security hawks agree. Says former CIA chief James Woolsey: "We've got a coalition of tree huggers, do-gooders, sodbusters, hawks, and evangelicals." (Yes, he did say "evangelicals"--some have found common ground with greens in the notion of environmental stewardship.)

The next five years could see ethanol go from a mere sliver of the fuel pie to a major energy solution in a world where the cost of relying on a finite supply of oil is way too high. As that happens, says Vinod Khosla, a Silicon Valley venture capitalist who has become one of the nation's most influential ethanol advocates, "I'm absolutely convinced that without putting any more land under agriculture and without changing our food production, we can introduce enough ethanol in the U.S. to replace the majority of our petroleum use in cars and light trucks."

Filling up on ethanol isn't new. Henry Ford's Model Ts ran on it. What's changing is the cost of distilling ethanol and the advantages it brings over rival fuels. Energy visionaries like to dream about hydrogen as the ultimate replacement for fossil fuels, but switching to it would mean a trillion-dollar upheaval--for new production and distribution systems, new fuel stations, and new cars. Not so with ethanol--today's gas stations can handle the most common mixture of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline, called E85, with minimal retrofitting. It takes about 30% more ethanol than gasoline to drive a mile, and the stuff is more corrosive, but building a car that's E85-ready adds only about $200 to the cost. Ethanol has already transformed one major economy: In Brazil nearly three-quarters of new cars can burn either ethanol or gasoline, whichever happens to be cheaper at the pump, and the nation has weaned itself off imported oil.

And have you heard about GM's yellow gas caps? In the next few weeks the auto giant is set to unveil an unlikely marketing campaign drawing attention to E85 and its E85-ready cars and trucks like the Chevy Avalanche. They will sport special yellow gas caps, and if you already own such a vehicle, GM will send you a gas cap free. California governor and Hummer owner Arnold Schwarzenegger is backing a ballot initiative that would encourage service stations to offer ethanol at the pump. Even big oil companies like Royal Dutch Shell and Exxon Mobil are funding ethanol research. Says Beth Lowry, GM's vice president for energy and environment: "People's perception used to be 'The agricultural lobby is very interested in it.' Now people are waking up and saying, 'This isn't just about the Midwest. This is about the U.S. as a whole.' " Adds Daniel Yergin, one of the country's top energy experts: "I don't think I've seen so many kinds of renewable energy fermenting and bubbling as right now. The very definition of oil is broadening."

Not that ethanol will replace gasoline overnight. There are 170,000 service stations in the U.S.; only 587 (count 'em!) sell E85. To refine enough ethanol to replace the gas we burn (140 billion gallons a year) would require thousands of biorefineries and hundreds of billions of dollars. Yet one of capitalism's favorite visionaries is convinced that very soon filling up on weeds and cornhusks will be no more remarkable than tanking up on regular. Says Richard Branson, whose Virgin Group is starting an ethanol-inspired subsidiary called Virgin Fuels: "This is the win-win fuel of the future."

BARRELS FROM BUSHELS

In Decatur, Ill., nobody is waiting around for the future; demand for ethanol from corn is booming right now. This grain-elevator-dotted town is home to agribusiness giant Archer Daniels Midland, which makes it the capital of the old-school heavily subsidized U.S. ethanol industry. On a blustery January day, the air is thick with fog, sleet, and condensation from the corn mills on the 600-acre complex next to ADM's corporate office. Outside the ethanol plant, the air smells like grape juice gone bad. Inside, with its giant vats and fermentation towers, the biorefinery resembles a winery, but it's much noisier.

ADM used to call itself "Supermarket to the World." Today, reflecting its emergence as an alternative-energy supplier, it boasts of being "Resourceful by Nature." The company created the corn-ethanol industry when Jimmy Carter asked it to in 1978--the oil-shocked President wanted a homegrown alternative to gasoline. ADM now pumps out more than a billion gallons of ethanol per year. While the fuel accounts for just 5% of the company's $36 billion in annual sales, analysts estimate that it generates 23% of ADM's operating profit. Says Allen Andreas, the courtly 62-year-old CEO: "We've always been feeding people and looking for better alternatives; now we're doing the same thing in energy."

ADM aims to be a big player in what Andreas calls the shift "from hydrocarbons to carbohydrates." But for now it's ignoring E85 and cellulosic ethanol in favor of keeping pace with demand that is already booming. Corn ethanol's main use is as an additive that helps gasoline burn more efficiently. ADM sells nearly its entire output to oil companies, which use ethanol as a substitute for MTBE, a petroleum-based additive that is toxic and is now banned in California and 24 other states. With two billion gallons of MTBE still in use annually and 25 states that have yet to ban it, the ethanol industry could grow 50% simply by replacing MTBE.

In September, ADM announced a nearly 50% expansion project, or 500 million new gallons of annual production capacity. Archrival Cargill is belatedly ramping up ethanol production, and new entrants are using private capital to build ethanol plants. The only publicly traded pure-play ethanol maker, Pacific Ethanol of Fresno, plans to build five plants in California and has raised a total of $111 million, including $84 million from Bill Gates. (For a guide to playing the ethanol boom, see Investing.) All told, the planned projects represent a nearly $2.6 billion investment and will increase U.S. ethanol capacity by 40%.

Other major players are making long-term ethanol bets. Ford is working with VeraSun, a startup in South Dakota, to promote E85 fueling stations. Shell is the primary backer of Canada's Iogen, which is attempting the first large-scale production of cellulosic ethanol--the kind made from cornstalks and grasses--at a pilot plant in Ottawa (see following story, "Biorefinery Breakthrough"). Exxon Mobil has pledged $100 million to Stanford University for research into alternative fuels. The oil giant's new CEO, Rex Tillerson, visited the campus last year to hear what researchers are cooking up. Biology professor Chris Sommerville says the change in the industry is palpable: "I went to six scientific conferences on biofuels last year; the previous 29 years I didn't go to any."

The biggest alternative-fuels player of all, of course, is Uncle Sam. Oil refiners receive a 51-cent tax credit for every gallon of ethanol they blend into their gasoline. That alone will cost taxpayers more than $7 billion over five years, estimates the Congressional Budget Office. The U.S. has also funded research into biodiesel, which uses deep-fryer grease and other nontoxic ingredients to replace regular diesel fuel. (See box at left.) But ethanol will never really take off unless consumers demand it, and while the U.S. industry still relies on taxpayer largesse, Brazil has leaped to the next step: a profitable free-market system in which the government has gotten out of the way.

HOW BRAZIL BEATS THE U.S.

Near the prosperous farm town of Sertãozinho, some 200 miles north of São Paulo, the fuel that will fill the tanks of nearly three million Brazilian cars in a few months is still waist-high. Lush sugar-cane fields stretch as far as the eye can see, interrupted only by the towering white mills where the stalks of the plants will be turned into ethanol when the harvest begins in March.

Brazil boasts the biggest economy south of Mexico, and with annual GDP growth of 2.6%, it is a powerhouse you might expect to consume growing amounts of oil, coal, and nuclear energy. But Brazil also happens to have the perfect geography for growing sugar cane, the most energy-rich ethanol feedstock known to science. And so, for Brazil's 16.5 million drivers, there is ready access to what's known in Portuguese as álcool at nearly all of the country's 34,000 gas stations. "Everyone talks about alternative fuels, but we're doing it," says Barry Engle, president of Ford Brazil. Ethanol accounts for more than 40% of the fuel Brazilians use in their cars.

While oil frequently has to be shipped halfway around the world before it's refined into gasoline, here the sugar cane grows right up to the gates of Sertãozinho's Santa Elisa mill, where it will be made into ethanol. There's very little waste--leftovers are burned to produce electricity for Santa Elisa and the local electrical grid. "The maximum distance from farm to mill is about 25 miles," says Fernando Ribeiro, secretary general of Unica, the trade association that represents Brazilian sugar-cane growers. "It's very, very efficient in terms of energy use."

Although Brazilians have driven some cars that run exclusively on ethanol since 1979, the introduction three years ago of new engines that let drivers switch between ethanol and gasoline has transformed what was once an economic niche into the planet's leading example of renewable fuels. Ford exhibited the first prototype of what came to be known as a flex-fuel engine in 2002; soon VW marketed a flex-fuel car. Ford's Engle says flex-fuel technology helps avoid problems that had plagued ethanol cars, such as balky starts on cold mornings, weak pickup, and corrosion.

Consumers loved flex-fuel because it meant not having to choose between ethanol and gas models--memories were still fresh of the 1990 sugar-cane shortage, when ethanol-car owners found themselves, well, out of gas. Today "nobody would buy an alcohol-only car, even with tax incentives," says sales manager Rogerio Beraldo of Green Automoveis, a sprawling dealership in São Paulo. "Brazilians are traumatized by our earlier experience, when supplies ran out. But with flex-fuel, there's no risk of that."

With Brazilian ethanol selling for 45% less per liter than gasoline in 2003 and 2004, flex-fuel cars caught on like iPods. In 2003, flex-fuel had 6% of the market for Brazilian-made cars, and automakers were expecting the technology's share to zoom to 30% in 2005. That proved wildly conservative: As of last December, 73% of cars sold in Brazil came with flex-fuel engines. There are now 1.3 million flex-fuel cars on the road. "I have never seen an automotive technology with that fast an adoption rate," says Engle.

Ethanol's rise has had far-reaching effects on the economy. Not only does Brazil no longer have to import oil but an estimated $69 billion that would have gone to the Middle East or elsewhere has stayed in the country and is revitalizing once-depressed rural areas. More than 250 mills have sprouted in southeastern Brazil, and another 50 are under construction, at a cost of about $100 million each. Driving to lunch at his local churrasco barbecue spot in Sertãozinho, the head of the local sugar-cane growers' association points to one new business after another, from farm-equipment sellers to builders of boilers and other gear for the nearby mills. "My family has been in this business for 30 years, and this is the best it's been," says Manoel Carlos Ortolan. "There's even nouveaux riches."

The key to Brazil's success is that consumers are choosing ethanol rather than being forced to buy it. Brazil's military dictators tried the latter approach in the 1970s and early 1980s, by offering tax breaks to build mills, ordering state-owned oil company Petrobras to sell ethanol at gas stations, and regulating prices at the pump. This bullying--and cheap oil in the 1990s--nearly killed the market for ethanol until flex-fuel came along. The regime wasn't good for much, says consultant Plinio Nastari, but it did create the distribution system that enables drivers to fill up on ethanol just about anywhere.

Even though the U.S. will never be a sugar-cane powerhouse like Brazil, investors now view Rio as the future of fuel. "I hate to see the U.S. ten years behind Brazil, but that's probably about where we are," says one shrewd American freethinker, Ted Turner.

ETHANOL FINDS A GODFATHER

There are venture capitalists, and then there's Vinod Khosla. A co-founder of Sun Microsystems and a partner at Kleiner Perkins, he was an early backer of Juniper Networks, whose technology helped end decades of dominance by traditional telecom manufacturers. A lean, 50-year-old native of India, Khosla says, without a hint of modesty, "I love the challenge of breaking monopolies."

Frustrated that Kleiner Perkins wasn't taking enough risks after the dot-com crash, Khosla opted out of Kleiner's most recent fund and started his own group, Khosla Ventures. He'd been dabbling in environmentalism but never expected to become an investor. Brazil's success, however, made him wonder about ethanol's U.S. potential. "I spent two years trying to convince myself that this was never going to be more than another minor alternative fuel," he says. "What I discovered was that ethanol might completely replace petroleum in this country. And a lot of countries. This was a great shock to me."

Pretty soon Khosla was surprising plenty of others. He put together a PowerPoint presentation, "Biofuels: Think Outside the Barrel," which he fires up on a moment's notice. He has made the pitch on ethanol to the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology and elsewhere in the White House. He is also behind California's upcoming ballot initiative to fund a subsidy for gasoline retailers that add E85 fuel pumps. "Getting distribution going is the real problem," says Khosla. "We need to increase blending and then introduce E85 pumps, and the possible will become the probable."

His conversion to energy investing is part of a Silicon Valley trend, as VCs seek the rapid growth and giant markets that computers once offered. VantagePoint Venture Partners in San Bruno, for instance, established a fund called New Energy Capital that invests in ethanol, wind power, and other energy projects. Nth Power, a San Francisco energy-investment firm, estimates that $700 million of the $21 billion flowing into venture funds last year were earmarked for "clean technology" startups.

CELLULOSE NIRVANA

No one, not even a professionally optimistic VC, thinks we're anywhere near getting rid of gasoline. The oil superstructure is simply too efficient and too entrenched to just go away. Nor could corn ethanol generate enough fuel to run America's cars, pickups, and SUVs. Already ethanol gobbles up 14% of the country's corn production. Converting a bigger share into fuel would pinch the world's food supply--a favorite objection of skeptics. Critics also contend that producing fuel from crops consumes more energy than it yields. On this topic of endless Internet bickering, the Energy Department recently reported, "In terms of key energy and environmental benefits, cornstarch ethanol comes out clearly ahead of petroleum-based fuels, and tomorrow's cellulosic-based ethanol would do even better."

Because cellulosic ethanol comes from cornstalks, grasses, tree bark--fibrous stuff that humans can't digest--it doesn't threaten the food supply at all. Cellulose is the carbohydrate that makes up the walls of plant cells. Researchers have figured out how to unlock the energy in such biomass by devising enzymes that convert cellulose into simpler sugars. Cellulose is abundant; ethanol from it is clean and can power an engine as effectively as gasoline. Plus, you don't have to reinvent cars. Ratcheting up production of cellulosic ethanol, however, is a gnarly engineering problem.

The onus now is on companies like Genencor, a Palo Alto biotech. Its biological enzymes are used to break down stains in Tide detergent and achieve just the right distressed look in blue jeans. But making underpants whiter and denim bluer is nothing compared with breaking America's longstanding addiction to gasoline. The best way to do this would be to bring down the cost of ethanol to the point where consumers clamor for it. Before flex-fuel engines came along, Brazilians would mix their own rabo de galo (cocktail) of ethanol and gasoline when filling up, simply because it was cheaper than straight gas. Genencor says its enzymes have cut the cost of making a gallon of cellulosic ethanol from $5 five years ago to 20 cents today. Now refiners have to learn how to scale up production. Canada's Iogen is the furthest along in commercialization; another hopeful is BC International, a Dedham, Mass., company that's building a cellulosic ethanol plant in Louisiana.

There's still a role for government--and we don't mean more handouts for corn growers or distillers. The recently enacted energy bill takes steps in the right direction, like mandating the use of 250 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol a year by 2013, but much more can be done. Easing the tariff of 54 cents per gallon on imports of ethanol from Brazil and other countries would certainly help. Because sugar cane generates far more ethanol per acre than corn, Brazil can produce ethanol more cheaply than the U.S. Not only would importing more of it broaden access to ethanol for U.S. buyers, but it would also make it cheaper for the ultimate consumers--us. That in turn would spur demand at the pump and encourage service station owners to offer ethanol more widely. What's also needed is for someone big--like Shell or BP, which tout themselves as green companies--to commit to cellulosic ethanol on a commercial scale. Shell's bet on Iogen is minuscule compared with the $20 billion it plans to spend on producing oil and gas off Russia's Sakhalin Island.

Of course, the timing of when ethanol goes from dream to reality isn't just a matter of an investment here or a subsidy there. It took decades of ferment in Brazil before serendipity in the form of high gas prices and flex-fuel engines made ethanol an everyday choice for consumers. But the sooner we start, the greater our ability to shape a future that's not centered on increasingly expensive oil and gas. It's not as if gasoline demand is going to go down: As long as the Chinese and the Indians want our lifestyle--and they do--you can forget about oil at $10 or even $20 a barrel. Whatever the technological challenges, a world of abundant, clean ethanol is suddenly looking a lot more realistic than a return to the days of cheap, inexhaustible oil.

FEEDBACK [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
 

ToxicAdam

Member
Campanion article.


Farmers big winners in booming ethanol businessFri Jan 27, 2006 3:07 PM ET
Printer Friendly | Email Article | Reprints | RSS

By Christine Stebbins

CHICAGO (Reuters) - There's an even bigger winner in the green fuel revolution than the environment -- U.S. farmers. They've found themselves at the center of a booming industry, with corn-based ethanol poised to make up 6 percent of U.S. gasoline consumption by 2012, about double the current level.

Much of the growth is tied to the latest U.S. Energy Bill, which mandates use of green fuel. Also, several states have ordered refiners to use ethanol as a clean-burning fuel additive in place of petroleum-based MTBE (or methyl tertiary butyl ether), which is a cancer-causing pollutant.

"For the next four or five years it's going to grow like wildfire, like it is right now, " said Tom Branhan, chief executive of Glacial Lakes Energy LLC, a 50 million-gallon ethanol plant in Watertown, South Dakota.

Currently, there are 95 ethanol plants in the United States and another 31 under construction, with the bulk of the facilities west of the Mississippi River, according to the Renewable Fuels Association.

"You've pretty much saturated South Dakota. Iowa is pretty much saturated, (as are) Nebraska (and) Minnesota. I think where you're going to see the next move toward the east -- Indiana, Ohio, Wisconsin," said Branhan.

Not only are farmers supplying the key ingredient -- corn -- but they are finding new ways to form alliances which allow them to compete head-to-head against international grain conglomerates like Archer Daniels Midland Co. (ADM.N: Quote, Profile, Research) and Cargill Inc.

More than 45 percent of all the ethanol produced in the United States now comes from farmer-owned plants, thanks to enhanced management systems.

Unlike traditional co-ops which were managed by farmers, today's farmer-owned ethanol plants are built and managed by specialists in the fuel industry.

"There has been a lot of organization and management innovations relative to these ethanol plants that allow them to play much bigger than they are," said Peter Goldsmith, economist in agricultural strategy with the University of Illinois.

The farmer-owned ethanol plants are centrally managed which allows better quality-control and cooperative marketing of their fuel additive. The production of 50 million to 100 million-gallon plants is packaged together to meet the volume needed by such refiners and blenders as BP Amoco Chemical Co., Marathon Oil Corp. (MRO.N: Quote, Profile, Research) and Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM.N: Quote, Profile, Research)

In this movement away from the century-old co-op system, many of these plants are limited liability companies, or LLCs.

"The LLC allows them to specialize. That's the ticket," Goldsmith said.

LLC status means that not only can farmers buy into the plants, but outside investors can as well -- something not possible under the old co-op system.


"The growth has really been with the farmer-owned plants but we're going to see some non-farmer entities get back into it big," said Brian Jennings, executive vice president with the American Coalition for Ethanol.

Among big corporations, Cargill and ADM have both announced plans to expand ethanol production capacity.

ADM, still the top U.S. ethanol producer even though its market share has declined to 25 percent from more than 40 percent in 2000, said last fall it was expanding its ethanol capacity by 500 million gallons.

Cargill is taking a two-pronged approach by increasing its own production along with establishing service agreements with independent groups of investors, like ASAlliances and BioFuels Solutions, which build and manage ethanol plants. Cargill's biggest expansion is planned for its corn processing complex in Blair, Nebraska, where construction of a 110 million-gallon-a-year plant is set to begin this spring.

While farmers have competed successfully against the corporate giants over the last five years, the key question is whether they will be able to do so in the future.

"That's the million-dollar question. Time will tell ... but if history is any lesson, farmers have competed with the large companies very well," said Jennin


That's why I laugh at all the 'Peak Oil' kooks on here. We haven't even seen the tip of the iceburg on alternative fuels in America.
 
Ethanol? DUH!

Bu th oil lobbyists and corrupt suits in Washington will never let it happen. Who's gonna pay for their kickbacks with no oil being brought it?
 

Phoenix

Member
Outcast2004 said:
Ethanol? DUH!

Bu th oil lobbyists and corrupt suits in Washington will never let it happen. Who's gonna pay for their kickbacks with no oil being brought it?

Who do you think will own/control all the biorefineries in the United States? Here's a hint - it will be the same people who will contorl all the hydrogen refineries in the United States too :)
 

Nerevar

they call me "Man Gravy".
I was under the impression that it took more energy to convert raw biomass to ethanol than the overall energy provided by burning it, making it impractical to use for the long term (as we'd still rely on fossil fuels, such as coal, to be providing us with energy in the first place). Maybe that argument was purely for an ecological approach to the problem though, rather than a "we shouldn't be dependent on foreign oil" policy standpoint.
 

DarienA

The black man everyone at Activision can agree on
Your post comes just in time for our president!

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/29/bush.sotu.ap/index.html

State of the Union to focus on energy

Bush to promote fuel-saving technologies in address

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Trying to calm anxieties about soaring energy costs, President Bush is using his State of the Union address this week to focus on a package of energy of proposals aimed at bringing fuel-saving technologies out of the lab and into use.

In Bush's vision, drivers will one day stop at hydrogen stations and fill their fuel-cell cars with the pollution-free fuel. Or they would power their engines with ethanol made from trash or corn. More Americans would run their lights at home on solar power.

Bush has been talking about these ideas since his first year in office. Proposals aimed at spreading the use of ethanol, hydrogen and renewable fuels all were part of the energy bill that he signed into law in August, but that hasn't eased Americans' worries about high fuel prices. (Watch a State of the Union forecast -- 3:24)

Americans were hit with the biggest jump in energy prices in 15 years in 2005, and worries about the cost of gas and heating oil have damped spirits about the economy despite other recent encouraging signs.

Add in the unrest in the Middle East, and energy becomes a major problem for the president to address Tuesday night.

"I agree with Americans who understand being hooked on foreign oil as an economic problem and a national security problem," Bush said in a recent interview with CBS.

Eight in 10 Americans surveyed earlier this month by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press said gasoline prices were a big problem.

Home heating fuel and health care were the other major economic concerns. It's not a coincidence that Bush will spend much of his State of the Union reassuring Americans that he has a plan to address energy and medical costs. (Full story)

House Democrats sought to take the luster off Bush's speech with a television commercial that accuses the president and Republicans of tilting their policies toward the pharmaceutical, oil and investment industries.

It shows lawmakers cheering Bush's words from three previous State of the Union addresses, and asks: "What Special Interest Will the Republican Congress Rubberstamp This Time?"

Officials said the commercial would air only once, on Fox, in the run-up to Bush's speech, making it more like a guerilla-style attack on the GOP than an attempt to mold public opinion.

Bush told CBS that he does not support a big raise in the gas tax, as others have proposed. Instead, he is looking for tax breaks that encourage new technologies, which is popular with farmers, with industry and with consumers of those products.

"We have got to wean ourselves off hydrocarbons, oil," Bush explained. "And the best way, in my judgment, to do it is to promote and actively advance new technologies so that we can drive -- have different driving habits."

For example, he said, the federal government could push more widespread use of corn-based ethanol and spur production from other sources.

Almost all ethanol produced now comes from corn. Although non-corn ethanol from sources like grasses, wood chips and even garbage is widely talked about, a practical and cost-effective process for producing it appears years away.

Bush noted to CBS that about 4.6 million cars on the road in the United States can run on ethanol.

The fuel works in more than 30 models, including General Motor's Yukon, Chevrolet's Silverado and Ford's Taurus. However, almost all drivers of those vehicles outside the Corn Belt fill up with gasoline.

Automakers and environmentalists are also excited about the prospect of fuel cells, which would run on hydrogen that would only emit water instead of gas fumes.

But fuel cell vehicles are extremely expensive to produce and lack an infrastructure of fueling stations to make them viable. The government has said it hopes hydrogen fuel cell vehicles will be available in car showrooms by 2020.

When it comes to alternative ways to power homes and businesses, very little U.S. electricity now comes from renewables such as wind, solar, geothermal, wood and waste. But that share is expected to increase as the price of fossil fuel rises.
 

LuCkymoON

Banned
Nerevar said:
I was under the impression that it took more energy to convert raw biomass to ethanol than the overall energy provided by burning it, making it impractical to use for the long term (as we'd still rely on fossil fuels, such as coal, to be providing us with energy in the first place). Maybe that argument was purely for an ecological approach to the problem though, rather than a "we shouldn't be dependent on foreign oil" policy standpoint.

You're thinking of hydrogen not ethanol. Enthanol comes from biomass being distilled which needs space and time.
 

Nerevar

they call me "Man Gravy".
wait, a Bush-backed policy proposal that Democrats can agree with? The Red Sox winning the world series followed by the White Sox winning the world series? Tom Brady as the antichrist? Armageddon really is coming.
 

Tiger

Banned
Why do I have a feeling that whatever proposals Bush has regarding energy, they're always gonna somehow involve lots of oil drilling and funding for such projects? :/


I'm not one of those people that think he's motivated by "making his friends rich", but I think the guy is just built on a foundation of "oil thinking" and it's hard to break the habit.
 

DarienA

The black man everyone at Activision can agree on
Nerevar said:
wait, a Bush-backed policy proposal that Democrats can agree with? The Red Sox winning the world series followed by the White Sox winning the world series? Tom Brady as the antichrist? Armageddon really is coming.

:lol :lol :lol
 

Phoenix

Member
LuCkymoON said:
You're thinking of hydrogen not ethanol. Enthanol comes from biomass being distilled which needs space and time.

And actually only thinking about conversion of hydrogen from fossil fuels. You can get hydrogen "for free" by using our partner in energy, the environment.
 

Phoenix

Member
Matlock said:
The only problem with ethanol is that it makes more smog than petroleum. :\

Smog? What smog? Ethanol is being used in places where they are trying to reduce smog!

http://www.ethanolrfa.org/resource/facts/environment/

FACT: Ethanol reduces smog pollution.

Blending ethanol in gasoline dramatically reduces carbon monoxide tailpipe emissions. According to the National Research Council, carbon monoxide emissions are responsible for as much as 20% of smog formation. Additionally, ethanol-blended fuels reduce tailpipe emissions of volatile organic compounds, which readily form ozone in the atmosphere. These reductions more than offset any slight increases of evaporative emissions due to the higher volatility of ethanol-blended fuel. Thus, the use of ethanol plays an important role in smog reduction.

Importantly, in reformulated gasoline areas where smog is of most concern, gasoline blended with ethanol must meet the same evaporative emission standard as gasoline without ethanol. These ethanol blends have the added benefit of providing reduced tailpipe carbon monoxide emissions and, therefore, further emissions reductions of smog.
 

malek4980

Rosa Parks hater
Tigerriot said:
Why do I have a feeling that whatever proposals Bush has regarding energy, they're always gonna somehow involve lots of oil drilling and funding for such projects? :/


I'm not one of those people that think he's motivated by "making his friends rich", but I think the guy is just built on a foundation of "oil thinking" and it's hard to break the habit.
Break the habit of the American driver, not Bush.
 

Matlock

Banned
Phoenix said:
Smog? What smog? Ethanol is being used in places where they are trying to reduce smog!

http://www.ethanolrfa.org/resource/facts/environment/

Hrm, it seems that I was thinking of ethanol added to petroleum, not pure ethanol.

When ethanol is blended with gasoline, it has the potential to increase the volatility of gasoline. High volatility gasoline has higher emissions that contribute to increased smog formation. It is the gasoline emissions that are creating the smog, however, it is ethanol that raises the volatility of the gasoline blend. In Canada, gasoline volatility is closely regulated. Commercial blends of ethanol and gasoline cannot have higher volatility than unblended gasoline, therefore, there is no increase in smog-forming emissions due to ethanol blended fuel in Canada.

http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/eng4473
 

Phoenix

Member
malek4980 said:
Break the habit of the American driver, not Bush.

Attack the drug dealer, not those addicted to the drug - thereby keeping the demand for the drug high and in fact increasing prices of it.


Make sense to me :)
 

Ghost

Chili Con Carnage!
i saw this on BBC (website) the other day, the UK is ramping up production with the view to start to switch over in the next 5 years.

The fact this isnt bigger news says a lot about the level of power that oil companies have over all aspects of our lives...I mean this could totally rejuvinate the farming industry world-wide, which could mean the end of subsidies and trade caps that cost everyone who isnt a farmer a hell of a lot of money, literally benefit everyone...and no broadcaster seems to care.
 
malek4980 said:
Break the habit of the American driver, not Bush.

And how do you propose we do that oh great one?you do realize that mass transit in the Us is not always a viable means of transport. Especially speaking for the midwest here.
 

DarienA

The black man everyone at Activision can agree on
Outcast2004 said:
And how do you propose we do that oh great one?you do realize that mass transit in the Us is not always a viable means of transport. Especially speaking for the midwest here.

Well you see folks who live in the suburbs....
 

sprsk

force push the doodoo rock
when i hear "Bush to promote fuel-saving technologies in address"

i cant help but think "yeah were not doing anything really."

also changing driving habits is bullshit

redesign every fucking city in america and then talk to me about fucking driving habits.
 
Incidently, VW is introducing a newer flex car that supports gasoline, ethanol and natural gas. True, Ive never seen a fueling station with natural gas, but still...

Fun facts: All gasoline in brasil is blended with 25% ethanol, vs ~10% in the US. (I dont know if they blend diesel with ethanol or not)
There are millions on flex cars in the US, but very few places to find ethanol. Most states have only 1 or 2, and theyre government only.
You get less milage with ethanol than pure gas, around 20% less, but since the price can be up to 40% less.....
 

demon

I don't mean to alarm you but you have dogs on your face
malek4980 said:
Break the habit of the American driver, not Bush.
Perhaps you'd like to outline a more detailed plan on how I can "break my driving habits" where I live. Everything worth going to is at least a mile away; the grocery store is a couple miles away, any real shopping is three to five miles away, there's nothing except State Street (Madison WI) that's even close to walking distance, and the public transportation system is shit and involves walking ten minutes to the desired bus stop, waiting 45 minutes to an hour for your bus or a lot more depending on the time of day, and being dropped off a ten or fifteen minute walk from your destination, five if you're lucky. Unless you're addressing only people who live in a metropolis, then stfu about our "driving habits". Life without a car in the majority of the US is near impossible.

by the way, I drive a 4-cylinder small car, and it's still expensive as hell to fuel up.
 

malek4980

Rosa Parks hater
Outcast2004 said:
And how do you propose we do that oh great one?you do realize that mass transit in the Us is not always a viable means of transport. Especially speaking for the midwest here.
Most suburban public transit systems are poor because they offer few buses, on few routes and with long waiting times. As someone who grew up in the suburbs I can attest to this. It's a bit of a chicken and egg thing. There are so few routes, with so few buses servicing those routes because there are few riders. Many drivers claim that they would use public transit if there were more routes available, which were serviced more often. However there won't be more routes unless there are more riders. And on we go.

Doesn't matter, these people are liars. They like their cars, and the suburbs were built for cars. About 50 to 66% of the suburbs are built for the car. This doesn't include the way houses and businesses are constructed, with the car in mind.

Anyway, my original comment was simply a retort to a simple Bush bash. Americans want to drive large cars, for long distances yet don’t like the dirty work involved with fuelling those large cars. Namely wars in the Middle East, or drilling in Alaska. Public transit is a non-starter, how about smaller more fuel efficient cars. And get over your fear of nuclear energy!
 

Funky Papa

FUNK-Y-PPA-4
jamesinclair said:
Incidently, VW is introducing a newer flex car that supports gasoline, ethanol and natural gas. True, Ive never seen a fueling station with natural gas, but still...
That has an easy explanation as natural gas stations are widespread in Germany. Opel has a lot of gas vehicles out there, they are just normal cars with a special tank.
 

demon

I don't mean to alarm you but you have dogs on your face
Many drivers claim that they would use public transit if there were more routes available, which were serviced more often. However there won't be more routes unless there are more riders. And on we go.

Doesn't matter, these people are liars.
I'm sure if gas prices rose to obscene levels, people wouldn't have much of a problem using public transportation....if any decent public transportation were available.
 

Nerevar

they call me "Man Gravy".
demon said:
I'm sure if gas prices rose to obscene levels, people wouldn't have much of a problem using public transportation....if any decent public transportation were available.

when it comes down to it, it's still the public's fault that there isn't good public transit. In my city (Boston) there actually is a variety of very good public transit, even for people living in the surrounding suburban counties (commuter rail + city subway) and most people (that I know, at least) use those methods rather than fighting traffic into the city. This is because the public has let politicians know that a viable mass transit system was important. The plain fact is that in most other cities in the US people don't want a good mass transit system - they want more and bigger highways so they can continue the habits they've already developed. If you really think an expansion of mass transit is something that people in your area would care about, do something about it. I think you'll find that people are in general a lot less forward thinking than that.
 
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.
 

DarienA

The black man everyone at Activision can agree on
malek4980 said:
Anyway, my original comment was simply a retort to a simple Bush bash. Americans want to drive large cars, for long distances yet don’t like the dirty work involved with fuelling those large cars. Namely wars in the Middle East, or drilling in Alaska. Public transit is a non-starter, how about smaller more fuel efficient cars. And get over your fear of nuclear energy!

WTF? A war certainly wasn't/isn't necessary for gas...wtf, not only that but not every drives a big f*k'n Expedition size'd SUV.
 

WedgeX

Banned
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.

More than five million Tauruses, Explorers, Stratuses, Suburbans, and other vehicles are already equipped with engines that can run on an energy source that costs less than gasoline, produces almost none of the emissions that cause global warming, and comes from the Midwest, not the Middle East.
 

malek4980

Rosa Parks hater
DarienA said:
WTF? A war certainly wasn't/isn't necessary for gas...wtf, not only that but not every drives a big f*k'n Expedition size'd SUV.
No, the fact the Middle East has a lots oil factors in on any decisions the government has to make, especially when over 50% of the oil America consumes has to be imported, a number which will only rise. It wasn't the only reason for the Iraq war, but it played a part. No not everyone drives a giant SUV, but a large enough percentage of the poplation does.
 

ToxicAdam

Member
malek4980 said:
No, the fact the Middle East has a lots oil factors in on any decisions the government has to make, especially when over 50% of the oil America consumes has to be imported, a number which will only rise. It wasn't the only reason for the Iraq war, but it played a part. No not everyone drives a giant SUV, but a large enough percentage of the poplation does.



Large SUV sales for 2005.

trucks.gif


Total sales: 900k (est)

U.S. auto sales totaled 17 million vehicles in 2005, up 0.5 percent compared with the previous year's sales.

Link


That's only 15% of all vehicle sales. Stop the bullshit.
 

DarienA

The black man everyone at Activision can agree on
malek4980 said:
No, the fact the Middle East has a lots oil factors in on any decisions the government has to make, especially when over 50% of the oil America consumes has to be imported, a number which will only rise. It wasn't the only reason for the Iraq war, but it played a part. No not everyone drives a giant SUV, but a large enough percentage of the poplation does.

Not only does Toxic's chart show your wrong but if you read any of the Big 3 articles on where they are losing sales(psst that means people aren't buying these as much).... pickups and SUV's my friend... pickups and SUV's.
 

whytemyke

Honorary Canadian.
DarienA said:
WTF? A war certainly wasn't/isn't necessary for gas...wtf, not only that but not every drives a big f*k'n Expedition size'd SUV.
well, maybe you dirty stinky poor people don't drive them, but I drive 2 at the same time. Maybe you should quit being so selfish and think of all the rich people for once who like to get 8 miles to the gallon, hm? I have my Escalade tow my Navigator so that if the Escalade only has half a tank in it, I can still make it the 3 miles to the gas station for some 'Lade Juice. ;)
 
"What About Biofuels Such
as Ethanol and Biodiesel?"


Biofuels such as biodiesel, ethanol, methanol etc. are great, but only in small doses. Biofuels are all grown with massive fossil fuel inputs (pesticides and fertilizers) and suffer from horribly low, sometimes negative, EROEIs. The production of ethanol, for instance, requires six units of energy to produce just one. That means it consumes more energy than it produces and thus will only serve to compound our energy deficit.

In addition, there is the problem of where to grow the stuff, as we are rapidly running out of arable land on which to grow food, let alone fuel. This is no small problem as the amount of land it takes to grow even a small amount of biofuel is quite staggering. As journalist Lee Dye points out in a July 2004 article entitled "Old Policies Make Shift From Foreign Oil Tough:"

. . . relying on corn for our future energy needs would
devastate the nation's food production. It takes 11 acres to
grow enough corn to fuel one automobile with ethanol for
10,000 miles, or about a year's driving, Pimentel says. That's
the amount of land needed to feed seven persons for the
same period of time.

And if we decided to power all of our automobiles with
ethanol, we would need to cover 97 percent of our land with
corn, he adds.

Biodiesel is considerably better than ethanol, (and probably the best of the biofuels) but with an EROEI of three, it still doesn't compare to oil, which has had an EROEI of about 30.

While any significant attempt to switch to biofuels will work out great for giant agribusiness companies (political campaign contributors) such as Archer Daniels Midland, ConAgra, and Monsanto, it won't do much to solve a permanent energy crisis for you.

The ghoulish reality is that if we wanted to replace even a small part of our oil supply with farm grown biofuels, we would need to turn most of Africa into a giant biofuel farm, an idea that is currently gaining traction in some circles. Obviously many Africans - who are already starving - would not take kindly to us appropriating the land they use to grow their food to grow our fuel. As journalist George Monbiot points out, such an endeavor would be a humanitarian disaster.

Some folks are doing research into alternatives to soybeans such as biodiesel producing pools of algae. As with every other project that promises to "replace all petroleum fuels," this project has yet to produce a single drop of commercially available fuel. This hasn't prevented many of its most vocal proponents from insisting that algae grown biodiesel will solve our energy problems. The same is true for other, equally ambitious plans such as using recycled farm waste, switchgrass, etc. These projects all look great on paper or in the laboratory. Some of them may even end up providing a small amount of commercially available energy at some undetermined point in the future. However, in the context of our colossal demand for petroleum and the small amount of time we have remaining before the peak, these projects can't be expected to be more than a "drop in the bucket."

Tragically, many well-meaing people attempting to develop solutions don't even understand this. As Dr. Ted Trainer explains in a recent article on the thermodynamic limitations of biomass fuels:

This is why I do not believe consumer-capitalist society can
save itself. Not even its "intellectual" classes or green
leadership give any sign that this society has the wit or the
will to even think about the basic situation we are in. As the
above figures make clear, the situation cannot be solved
without huge reduction in the volume of production and
consumption going on.

The current craze surrounding biodiesel is a good example of what Dr. Trainer is talking about. While folks who have converted their personal vehicles to run on vegetable oil should certainly be given credit for their noble attempts at reducing our reliance on petroleum, the long-term viability of their efforts is questionable at best. Once our system of food production collapses due to the effects of Peak Oil, vegetable oil will likely become far too precious/expensive a commodity to be burned as transportation fuel for anybody but the super-rich. As James Kunstler points out in an April 2005 update to his blog "Cluster Fuck Nation", many biodiesel enthusiasts are dangerously clueless as to this reality:

Over in Vermont last week, I ran into a gang of biodiesel
enthusiasts. They were earnest, forward-looking guys who
would like to do some good for their country. But their
expectations struck me as fairly crazy, and in a way typical
of the bad thinking at all levels of our society these days.

For instance, I asked if it had ever occurred to them that
biodiesel crops would have to compete for farmland that
would be needed otherwise to grow feed crops for working
animals. No, it hadn't. (And it seemed like a far-out
suggestion to them.) Their expectation seemed to be that
the future would run a lot like the present, that bio-diesel
was just another ingenious, innovative, high-tech module
that we can "drop into" our existing system in place of the
previous, obsolete module of regular oil.

Kunstler goes on to explain that when policies or living/working arrangements are set up around such unexamined expectations, the result is usually a dangerous deepening of our reliance on cheap energy and "easy motoring."

Biodiesel advocates can get downright nasty when somebody points out any of the above described limitations of their favorite fuel. For instance, in a December 2005 article entitled, "The Most Destructive Crop on Earth No Solution to the Energy Crisis," well known progressive journalist George Monbiot, recounted his experiences attempting to point out the limits of biodiesel:

The last time I drew attention to the hazards of making
diesel fuel from vegetable oils, I received as much abuse as
I have ever been sent for my stance on the Iraq war. The
biodiesel missionaries, I discovered, are as vociferous in
their denial as the executives of Exxon.

If biofuels such as biodiesel and ethanol are such poor substitutes for oil, why then do you hear about them so much? The answer becomes obvious once you follow the money: the vast majority of the biofuels produced in this country are (as mentioned earlier) produced by giant agribusiness conglomerates such as Archer Daneiles Midland. Investigative reporter Mike Ruppert points out:

Archer Daniels Midland laughs all the way to the bank. With a
price to earnings (P/E) ratio of 17:1, every dollar of net
profit thrown into their coffers by politicians or investment
advisors selling the snake oil of alternative fuels generates
$17 in stock value which ADM will happily sell off before all
markets succumb to Peak Oil. That $17 came out of your
pocket whether you invested or not.

Published on 2 Apr 2005 by Science Daily. Archived on 2 Apr 2005.
Study: Ethanol Production Consumes Six Units Of Energy To Produce Just One

by SD staffer
RELATED NEWS:

Thermodynamics of the Corn-Ethanol Biofuel cycle...

Peak Oil - Jan 19...

ASPO Newsletter 61 (January 2006)...

Grasshoppers and oxen -- grassroots responses to peak oil...

Audio: Rob Hopkins on energy descent and action plans...

In 2004, approximately 3.57 billion gallons of ethanol were used as a gas additive in the United States, according to the Renewable Fuels Association (RFA). During the February State of the Union address, President George Bush urged Congress to pass an energy bill that would pump up the amount to 5 billion gallons by 2012. UC Berkeley geoengineering professor Tad W. Patzek thinks that's a very bad idea.

For two years, Patzek has analyzed the environmental ramifications of ethanol, a renewable fuel that many believe could significantly reduce our dependence on petroleum-based fossil fuels. According to Patzek though, ethanol may do more harm than good.

"In terms of renewable fuels, ethanol is the worst solution," Patzek says. "It has the highest energy cost with the least benefit."

Ethanol is produced by fermenting renewable crops like corn or sugarcane. It may sound green, Patzek says, but that's because many scientists are not looking at the whole picture. According to his research, more fossil energy is used to produce ethanol than the energy contained within it.

Patzek's ethanol critique began during a freshman seminar he taught in which he and his students calculated the energy balance of the biofuel. Taking into account the energy required to grow the corn and convert it into ethanol, they determined that burning the biofuel as a gasoline additive actually results in a net energy loss of 65 percent. Later, Patzek says he realized the loss is much more than that even.

"Limiting yourself to the energy balance, and within that balance, just the fossil fuel used, is just scraping the surface of the problem," he says. "Corn is not 'free energy.'"

Recently, Patzek published a fifty-page study on the subject in the journal Critical Reviews in Plant Science. This time, he factored in the myriad energy inputs required by industrial agriculture, from the amount of fuel used to produce fertilizers and corn seeds to the transportation and wastewater disposal costs. All told, he believes that the cumulative energy consumed in corn farming and ethanol production is six times greater than what the end product provides your car engine in terms of power.

Patzek is also concerned about the sustainability of industrial farming in developing nations where surgarcane and trees are grown as feedstock for ethanol and other biofuels. Using United Nations data, he examined the production cycles of plantations hundreds of billions of tons of raw material.

"One farm for the local village probably makes sense," he says. "But if you have a 100,000 acre plantation exporting biomass on contract to Europe , that's a completely different story. From one square meter of land, you can get roughly one watt of energy. The price you pay is that in Brazil alone you annually damage a jungle the size of Greece ."

If ethanol is as much of an environmental Trojan horse as Patzek's data suggests, what is the solution? The researcher sees several possibilities, all of which can be explored in tandem. First, he says, is to divert funds earmarked for ethanol to improve the efficiency of fuel cells and hybrid electric cars.

"Can engineers double the mileage of these cars?" he asks. "If so, we can cut down the petroleum consumption in the US by one-third."

For generating electricity on the grid, Patzek's "favorite renewable energy" to replace coal is solar. Unfortunately, he says that solar cell technology is still too immature for use in large power stations. Until it's ready for prime time, he has a suggestion that could raise even more controversy than his criticisms of ethanol additives.

"I've come to the conclusion that if we're smart about it, nuclear power plants may be the lesser of the evils when we compare them with coal-fired plants and their impact on global warming," he says. "We're going to pay now or later. The question is what's the smallest price we'll have to pay?"

I need numbers. Both the Money, and the subsequent articles are too vague in the net energy from the creation of ethanol. Until I see proof of new advanced techniques, this isn't a viable solution.
 

Nerevar

they call me "Man Gravy".
Gorgie said:
I need numbers. Both the Money, and the subsequent articles are too vague in the net energy from the creation of ethanol. Until I see proof of new advanced techniques, this isn't a viable solution.

GWCarverLPix.gif


I've got an idea ... let's make biodiesal out of peanuts!
 

Yamauchi

Banned
The above article is quite ridiculous. It talks about how Africans don't want their land to be used for vegetable oil production. Now, in Southeast Asia, particularly in Indonesia and Malaysia, the production of crude palm oil at current world prices has been enough to sustain a GDP per capita of over $1,500 (PPP GDP per capita around $5000) on the plantations. That is a higher annual income than all but three countries in Sub-Saharan Africa (Botswana, Namibia, and South Africa - together representing about 6% of Africa's population).

The best source for biodiesel is from a crop that is already being harvested on a massive scale. Malaysia produce 15.2 million metric tons of crude palm oil in 2005; Indonesia produced 13.5 million metric tons. When you realize these huge levels are being primarily grown in only two areas, Riau province Indonesia and central Borneo which both Malaysia and Indonesia control, it becomes apparent that the exaggerated levels of crop production spoken of by American journalists are only taking into account their limited viewpoints. They generally disregard CPO entirely and instead focus on American-grown crops that can be transplanted to Africa.

The current world price for CPO is roughly $350 per metric ton. Currently in Indonesia and Malaysia biodiesel costs 70 cents per liter.
 

DarienA

The black man everyone at Activision can agree on
whytemyke said:
well, maybe you dirty stinky poor people don't drive them, but I drive 2 at the same time. Maybe you should quit being so selfish and think of all the rich people for once who like to get 8 miles to the gallon, hm? I have my Escalade tow my Navigator so that if the Escalade only has half a tank in it, I can still make it the 3 miles to the gas station for some 'Lade Juice. ;)

:lol :lol :lol :lol
 

Tiger

Banned
whytemyke said:
well, maybe you dirty stinky poor people don't drive them, but I drive 2 at the same time. Maybe you should quit being so selfish and think of all the rich people for once who like to get 8 miles to the gallon, hm? I have my Escalade tow my Navigator so that if the Escalade only has half a tank in it, I can still make it the 3 miles to the gas station for some 'Lade Juice. ;)


:lol That was real good.
 

Phoenix

Member
Gorgie said:
I need numbers. Both the Money, and the subsequent articles are too vague in the net energy from the creation of ethanol. Until I see proof of new advanced techniques, this isn't a viable solution.

Complete and utter nonsense. Corn doesn't require any human energy to grow, just to harvest. You field some corn and come back and I guarantee you you'll have a corn field. Its like saying grass requires energy to grow. That's the whole point of using things that get their energy from the one source in the solar system that gives us more energy than we can actually use - the sun (we just suck at and aren't very interested in extracting that energy).

The process of producing ethanol and biodiesel is pretty much the same. Get a vat, put your raw materials in it and let bacteria and the like do the work. Again, you haven't expended an energy. The bacteria will grow and need only be harvested from a vat. That bacteria in many instances requiring only basic sugars which are also fed by the sun.

I've got an idea ... let's make biodiesal out of peanuts!

The first diesel engine actually ran on peanut oil :)

When I see stuff like this it only pisses me off

. . . relying on corn for our future energy needs would
devastate the nation's food production. It takes 11 acres to
grow enough corn to fuel one automobile with ethanol for
10,000 miles, or about a year's driving, Pimentel says. That's
the amount of land needed to feed seven persons for the
same period of time.

yhst-58408316580279_1882_707423


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?

The process of producing ethanol (which is just grain alcohol) isn't much different than producing beer. Its not that fucking difficult or expensive, nor does it require that much energy or material. It uses a lot of the same stuff we already throw away!

The problem is that in reality people are stupid. They think "well this has to be too good to be true" and then when someone says "oh wait, I don't think we can do it" they say phew, okay I don't have to think about that anymore.

There are intelligent people all over the world producing biodiesel in their backyards and basements. Having seen one of these biodiesel processors at a home show, when I build my next house in the next couple of years - I'll be generating biodiesel myself, both from waste cooking oil and by processing other feedstock into biodiesel.

Ethanol and biodiesel are real, and they have been around for a long time. Make friends with your nearest hippies, because they will show you the real deal. News organizations such as CNN run stories about these folks all the time. Hell there was one guy who had cut a deal with a restaurant to take all of their waste oil off their hands so they didn't have to pay to dispose of it.

Stop believing what people tell you and buy a science kit (both the ethanol and biodiesel ones are available in the K-12 range) and see for yourself. If you don't - you only have yourself to blame.
 

mrkgoo

Member
Just to add my perspective - when I was in California last year, we rented a vehicle. Some kind of SUV-wannabe. It was supposedly SMALLER than the original car we had booked, which was an absolute monster of a sedan. The guy told us the vehicle wasn't really suited to more than 4-people, which is crap, because we easily sat 5. But even with a giant vehicle, our ride was dwarfed by the other cars out there.

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom