Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There has been a lot of talk about bio-fuels over the last few yrs. I question if they will work, or help the environment.I wrote a paper, when I was in school, in the 1970s. Two of the most promising future energy sources were fusion and bio-fuel. Fusion has obviously not worked and neither have bio-fuels.
According to the History Channel's, Modern Marvels: Corn production, it takes a gal of dino-fuel to grow a gal of bio-fuel. There is no net gain in the process and that why Ethanol has to be subsidized. The idea was get an Ethanol industry started, then they will find more ways to be efficient. Unfortunately, this has not happened. Research on bio-fuels has gone on since the 70s. I really wonder if it's not a pipe dream. Here are my reasons why:
Dino-fuel, is decayed plant matter, that accumulated over a long period of time and is millions of yrs old. That's why dino-fuel is far more stable than bio-fuel. Ethanol can't be put in pipelines and then be used as a motor fuel. It's unstable and changes if put in a pipeline. Pipelines are a big part of the distribution system of gas and diesel fuel, in the US.
Dino-fuel is by definition, millions of yrs old and thus stable. I question if US agriculture can produce something, in a short period of time, that is stable and cost effective. Brazil grows a lot of sugar cane, which is 3 times more efficient, in making Ethanol than is corn. Sugar cane also grows like a weed, all yr in Brazil. However, sugar cane can't be used as fodder (livestock feed). Corn makes up 50% of fodder used in US agriculture. Therefore, the cost of corn has a major effect on the cost of meat and dairy.
In 2008 the US produced 12.1 billion bushels of corn. (USDA figures)
5,250 million bu. - livestock feed
3,650 million bu. - ethanol production
1,850 million bu. - exports
943 million bu. - production of starch, corn oil, sweeteners
327 million bu. - human consumption - grits, flour, meal, beverage alcohol
Food riots took place 2009, due price increases in food, in some countries. Because corn went to Ethanol production, forcing the price up, which in turn increased meat prices. It's also not clear, bio-fuels pollute less than dino-fuels. That's now a matter of debate. The idea we are running out of dino-fuel is also questionable. Technology to find and produce dino-fuels, continues to improve. Even with the restrictions on exploring and drilling in areas that might have a lot of dino-fuel, the energy industry has been able to meet US needs for fuel. Easing restrictions would give energy companies more potential to produce, which would help continue technologic development and lower the cost of fuels. Helping people, businesses, state and local governments and the US economy in general.
The idea that the US would have all these new and so-called green sources of energy. That would also create lots of new jobs, has not happened. I really think many people knew that, but it was done for political reasons. Not for lower costs, jobs or the environment.
Recycled oils that have been used for cooking or are already waste products can either be used directly as fuel or chemically modified to use in Diesel engines. I do not know if they can be used a lubricants.
INHO Corn Ethanol was instituted to keep corn prices high even after the producers flooded the market with high fructose corn syrup. Like most agricultural sybsidies this favors the bankers more than the farmers or the consumers. It should be dropped along with the EPA requirements driving the scam.
Even if lowered cost the cost to increase its usage by infrastructure needed will keep it growing at moderate pace.Then of course their are like 19K essential other products that come from crude. Crude is now totally refined into many products besides just gasoline and oil now days.
What is corrupting our country? A well set up system of elections dependant on political contributions along with a status conscious society that worships money and will do anything, including sell their politics, to get it.
Them that has, gets. Them that has more, gets more. Them that has nearly all, buys politicians to protect all they have. Them that has little or none get left out of the discussion. That is not corruption if it is the only system in town.
There are bio-fuels that are cost effective, and made from waste instead of fresh food stocks.
For instance, decaying organic material in an anaerobic environment produces methane gas. Methane can be filtered into pure natural gas.
The methane can be pulled efficiently from septic treatment plants, large livestock farms such as dairies and hog farms which have manure lagoons, or even old landfills.
Currently there are several projects in operation utilizing this resource, and because it comes from waste it is very cost effective.
The biggest problem with bio-fuels like ethanol are that they buy fresh stock, (like corn) on the open market which drives up prices and decreases stocks available for food production.
Ethanol doesn't contain the same amount of energy in BTUs that gasoline does, so it is less efficient on a miles per gallon rating than gasoline so you use more to do the same tasks.
Bio-diesel runs into the same problem when using fresh stocks of soybeans. The competition for the base material drives the price up until it is not competitive against petro-diesel.
Now, Bio-diesel only has a 3 percent loss of power over petro-diesel, so it is a viable alternative, but unless it is made from waste like used grease from fryers, the cost is prohibitive.
Most of the current subsidies are tied to a political agenda, not science. The greens are forcing their issue and through their political muscle, money is channeled to their projects based on what they want to see, not what works.
Hydro-electric power where available, or nuclear are much more efficient than solar or wind, but dams are not being constructed, no new nuclear plants have been permitted in 30 years, but billions are channeled into wind farms that produce power for an average cost of 18 cents/kilowatt hour instead of the 4 cents that hydro costs.
Wind and solar are not "On Demand" power, so if the need goes up, you have brown outs or black outs when need exceeds supply.
The "Green energy" production also uses huge amounts of heavy metals like lead, arsenic, cyanide, nickel, cadmium, all which have to be mined and are impossible to dispose of.
Use of rare earth minerals also means more mining for limited resources.
Could alternative fuels be economically feasible for meeting our energy needs? Yes, but not until we get off the politically correct bandwagon and actually look for viable economically produced sources.
I can authoritatively say that bio diesel is insanity, not only it takes enormous amounts of soil erosion, poisons and fertilizers to produce, it cuts mpg big, low sulfur diesel 7 mpg, bio-crap 6 mpg, diesel fuel is selling for almost $4/gallon, you calculate what it would cost to switch. Why? It's absolute madness, it solves nothing, it makes things much worse.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
