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.
Because we are now the leasding devloper of methnol. It is too expensive and has to be mandated to even have anyone use it. bascailly cuba could make it from sugar but then they would approach the amoutns we wouold need. Btween the subsidies for enthnol;the energy used ;the increased cost and infrastructure cost added to even amount to 50% of need ;we would be broke basically. Just looking at E85 testing in same vehicles the enthnol industry cliams 20% less mileage oer tank but Consumer reports averaged 27%. That makes it even now when subsided much more expensive.Natural gas makes muchmore sense in a alternative enrgy , But then we alos have to repalce 13000 other esentail prodccuts from crude besides.But even natrual gas infrastructure is too exopensive to do it for much but transport like big trucks;buses.government equipment for now.But lookig atthe CNG terminals just built and more to come its on its way to being adeqautely i supplies to meet need;all by private investment.likie always priavte investment weilltake us where we need to go without the waste of taxpayers money by decisions based on politcs.
I don't know much about it but I think what this person is saying makes sense.
When I see studies being done that goes against alternatives in many topics, including the energy and fuel, I tend to ask - Who paid for these studies???
You have to follow the money trail.
But I ask that before you oil/gas advocates go down my throat, listen to everything he has to say.
He makes sense to me.
I don't have 5+ minutes to waste listening to some jack-ass idiot.
What he should be saying is that you can't afford bio-fuels. Every acre of bio-mass is an acre of food you can't eat, and that drives up the cost of food, and the cost of food rises faster than the cost of fuels.
There's no such thing as cheap fuel. In the end, the increased cost of foods will result in a net loss to your bank account.
Idiot should also be talking about the water issue. If he had done his research, he would have searched the forum and found an article I posted about a southern Illinois town that lost their biggest employer. They could have accepted an ethanol plant, which would have provided jobs, but they rejected it, because an ethanol plant in full operation burns through 10,000 gallons of water per hour. It would have sucked their aquifer dry and driven up the price of water and ultimately ended up with water use restrictions forced upon the residents.
While there may be many people in Brazil, very few of them need cars and millions live in the favelas without electricity and running water.
The above was written in 2008, at the first page of the thread, but I feel obligated to respond it.
This guy knows nothing about the reality of the so called Brazilian favelas. At least 95 percent of all houses in the "favelas" in the Brazilian cities does have BOTH electricity and running water. In fact, many houses in the favelas also have flat screen TVs and a "Playstation II" videogame.
Learn a thing: the Brazilian favelas have NOTHING to do with the cardboard slums in India, where people have no electricity or running water. The only differences between a favela and a normal neighborhood are: the houses in favelas were built illegally, and the residents have no documents to prove they are owners of the houses; most houses have no external painting, and the bricks are exposed; and most streets are so narrow that only motorcycles can travel on it.
Less than 18 percent of Brazilians live in urban favelas, but those who live there constitute a huge consumer market, and most companies know it. Never underestimate the favela's consumer, or you're going to loose great business oportunities.
---------------
And about the "very few of them need cars" part, my only comment is: Brazil is the 6th producer of auto vehicles in the world. Most of the production is for the domestic market. The Brazilian cities are filled with tens of millions of cars.
--------------
About ethanol: I don't think ethanol is the solution, neither to Brazil nor the world. Many Brazilians, including me, are critics of the expansion of sugarcane plantation to produce ethanol.
I don't have 5+ minutes to waste listening to some jack-ass idiot.
What he should be saying is that you can't afford bio-fuels. Every acre of bio-mass is an acre of food you can't eat, and that drives up the cost of food, and the cost of food rises faster than the cost of fuels.
Mind if I fact-check that a bit?
I am not a huge fan of bio-fuels, but they do seem to a functional place in the long-term. Since most (other than "burning" bio-mass) yields some sort of relatively energy dense liquid fuel -- such as:
Ethanol -- (2-carbon alcohol) which can be a near direct replacement for gasoline, (if done with that end in mind) which is a good tool for remote and beyond-the-grid applications, along with emergency back-up and emergency vehicle fuels.
Various Bio-Diesel -- not that big of fan, of that, either, but yes, this works, too -- with possible re-use and capture of CO2 emissions.
Butanol -- (a 4-carbon alcohol) appears to be a decent replacement fuel for aircraft. Not a fan at all of US Domestic "Airlining" -- my future fantasies would replace most Domestic Airlining with Renewable Electric High Speed Rail -- but this stuff will keep them flying, for whatever that is worth. But local domestic airlines may be doomed by budget cuts, anyway.
Methanol -- (1-carbon alcohol) just mentioning this because Texdav did mention this, above. Methanol is an environmental poison and severe neurotoxin and is probably NOT a good part of any wide use fuel program.
But towards the entire Food v. Fuel premise . . . .
The Food v. Fuel stuff is a bit (quite a bit) beyond the stale date. Times and things change, Micrea. We are used to that in tech fields, but in the larger picture, that applies to Economics, as well.
Even Pimentel has repented most of his earlier numbers and claims. (You are familiar? Pimentel was the widely quoted early source of the Food v. Fuel claims -- but that stuff was from over 10 years ago.) Here is some updated info >>> Food and Fuel America.com: Pimentel Pumps Up Ethanol
Take US Corn, for example. Not that much goes to directly to people-food to start with. A large percentage goes to Cattle Feed where it is used in feed lots where it is churned through the critters who poop it out and pollute the local ground water.
As you say -- How Smart is That?
As our household is Veggie, that all seems real stupid from our point of view. But let's say we as a nation have to keep eating brain-food like cows, until we all have prions popping out our ears.
By running that Feed Corn through an Ethanol producing process, the sugars and some carbohydrates are stripped off and the end mash becomes a higher percentage protein feed and is better quality Cattle Feed than the raw Corn.
What had been counted as a loss, is now an improvement in the process.
Quote:
There's no such thing as cheap fuel. In the end, the increased cost of foods will result in a net loss to your bank account.
There does not have to be an increase in food costs, at all. Our Electric Farming approaches look like they should reduce production costs significantly and give a higher quality product.
Lower costs, higher quality, much less fuel burned. How can that be?
Progress does happen.
Keep in mind that Technology Progress does occur, as part of human existence. I do not think you can really use the Static Analysis (which you are Very Good at, btw) on anything that involves progress across time.
Quote:
Idiot should also be talking about the water issue. If he had done his research, he would have searched the forum and found an article I posted about a southern Illinois town that lost their biggest employer. They could have accepted an ethanol plant, which would have provided jobs, but they rejected it, because an ethanol plant in full operation burns through 10,000 gallons of water per hour. It would have sucked their aquifer dry and driven up the price of water and ultimately ended up with water use restrictions forced upon the residents.
Again, this is kind of silly when traded off against the tools available and how to best use them. For example, the yearly massive floods along the Mississippi should point to one thing -- There is No Lack of Water. Even Fresh Water. Just have to smart enough to use what is available, when it is available.
Quote:
How smart is that?
I guess that makes sense to you.
You are correct. It does take some smarts to improve things.
A lot of this does take some combination of smarts and good judgment.
The Business Folks' short-term greed and "hacker" mentality is the hardest part of overcome when exercising smarts and good judgment.
I don't have 5+ minutes to waste listening to some jack-ass idiot.
What he should be saying is that you can't afford bio-fuels. Every acre of bio-mass is an acre of food you can't eat, and that drives up the cost of food, and the cost of food rises faster than the cost of fuels.
There's no such thing as cheap fuel. In the end, the increased cost of foods will result in a net loss to your bank account.
Idiot should also be talking about the water issue. If he had done his research, he would have searched the forum and found an article I posted about a southern Illinois town that lost their biggest employer. They could have accepted an ethanol plant, which would have provided jobs, but they rejected it, because an ethanol plant in full operation burns through 10,000 gallons of water per hour. It would have sucked their aquifer dry and driven up the price of water and ultimately ended up with water use restrictions forced upon the residents.
How smart is that?
I guess that makes sense to you.
There has and will always be ignorance, so I'm not surprised at your post.
I saw an article today stating Brasil was starting to import Ethanol. They use more than they can manufacturer currently due to sugar cane crops being off.
Again, how smart is that?
A drought hits and you're all paying $12/gallon for E85 at the pump and whining and crying about it, with dozens of useless posts here at C-D.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philip T
Mind if I fact-check that a bit?
Sure, just go to your local grocery store.
You're already paying higher food prices. In fact, that was one of the causes 2008 Recession. How quickly people forget paying $12.99/pound for chicken.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philip T
The Food v. Fuel stuff is a bit (quite a bit) beyond the stale date. Times and things change, Micrea. We are used to that in tech fields, but in the larger picture, that applies to Economics, as well.
You currently consume 8.8 Million barrels of gasoline per day. That is 369 Million gallons per day.
2007 Ethanol production was 6.5 Billion gallons. That would be the equivalent of 17 Million gallons per day.
To produce that, you used up 2.3 Billion bushels of corn.
E85 would have to produce 313 Million gallons of ethanol per day, so you'd need 42.4 Billion bushels of corn to produce it.
Fortunately for you, the EPA in its infinite wisdom has decreed that corn-based ethanol production tops out in 2013, and all ethanol production after that will have to use cellulostic fibers to produce the remaining levels of ethanol to reach the goals mandated by E85.
Regardless, you're going to be short 42 Billion bushels of something, whether it's wheat or soy or cabbage, you'll be paying higher prices for it.
Come April 2014, you'll all going to be in for a big surprise.
Location: Visitation between Wal-Mart & Home Depot
8,309 posts, read 38,776,945 times
Reputation: 7185
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJ Chutzpah
so once again why cant switch to ethanol?
brazil has done it
is it better for the environment
Brazil's fuel demand is a tiny fraction of ours and they are able to easily meet their needs with domestic sugar cane production and some relatively small imports.
Unless ethanol from waste cellulose and crop chaff can be made economic, we don't have the arable land. If 100% of the largest domestic corn harvest the United States ever recorded were put into ethanol production, it would satisfy less than 20% of our annual transportation fuel demand.
The economic power of the future is going to be in food production - if we pursue an all-ethanol fleet we're taking ourselves out of a game that we can dominate.
Edit: Hmmm, I did the old "reply to a post from 2008 trick" on myself...
Brazil's fuel demand is a tiny fraction of ours and they are able to easily meet their needs with domestic sugar cane production and some relatively small imports.
Sure.
From a US perspective, the various other countries discussed -- Brazil for Ethanol, France for Nukes, Germany for Renewables, on and on, tend to work well as models to study what works well (and what does not) along with where and why.
Where it gets a bit brainless is from the folks' who want to copy some-one-else without doing the homework.
Quote:
Unless ethanol from waste cellulose and crop chaff can be made economic, we don't have the arable land. If 100% of the largest domestic corn harvest the United States ever recorded were put into ethanol production, it would satisfy less than 20% of our annual transportation fuel demand.
THAT Would Be Enormous.
And collapse the Entire Ethanol, Gasoline, Oil, and Food Industries in the process.
And is totally beyond the scope of where this likely heading, anyway.
But still an interesting data point for the extreme point of the spectrum.
Quote:
The economic power of the future is going to be in food production - if we pursue an all-ethanol fleet we're taking ourselves out of a game that we can dominate.
Predictions tend to be touchy things.
Especially about the future.
And especially tricky to get correct.
But overall, I do not think anyone is promoting an "All-Ethanol Fleet" for the US. But if we even hit HALF of what you are describing, with a heavy mix of Electric, that could take US off oil for Ground Transportation.
Most likely long-term is a mix of Electric, various Bio (including Ethanol), maybe Hydrogen, along with on-going Natural Gas, Gasoline, and Diesel.
But we agree -- FOOD is First.
That is why we are doing the Electric Farm BEFORE we start the Electric Highway.
Quote:
Edit: Hmmm, I did the old "reply to a post from 2008 trick" on myself...
Unfortunately, this one is somewhat timeless.
If this thread had been started in 1973, when the US/Texas hit Peak Oil production it would have been valid, as it still is now. I knew guys back then brewing their own bio-fuels.
Same in the 78-80 Oil Shocks, and again, over and over. Until we get US off Oil, this will be a current and on-going problem, like a long-term economic infection.
Bottom line: ethanol is a useful fuel source, but it is not a solution to all of our fuel needs, even if we can reduce usage (as we must).
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.
