Renewable Fuels May Provide 25% of U.S. Energy by 2025

Wall Street Journal ^ | November 13, 2006 | John J. Fialka

[Mr. Lucky]

The use of corn for ethanol is not inconsistent with the use of it for food. Only a very minor percentage of the yellow dent corn crop is raised on semi arid soils requiring irrigation.

[chimera]

25%? That's great. Only one small problem, though. Where do we go for the other 75%? Seems like we're leaving the larger problem unsolved if we focus on the 25% solution.

[cogitator]

We also have the new bulbs that can cut our energy costs by 10% if we all switched. 22% of energy bills are lighting. We need to ditch the old bulbs. Each one we buy means more money for the terrorists. Seriously. They get funded by energy money.

Maybe conservation is a virtue... and good for national security, too. Alert the VP.

[Muleteam1]

I'm certainly not opposed to ethanol production from corn. Anything we can do to return energy production to the U.S. has my vote. Returning it to the cornbelt is another plus.

[wolfcreek]

I suppose you could use all the french fry oil from the school cafeterias.


If the Food Nazis have their way, there won't be any FF.

[TKDietz]

"25%? That's great. Only one small problem, though. Where do we go for the other 75%? Seems like we're leaving the larger problem unsolved if we focus on the 25% solution."

I think we only produce about 20% of the oil we need. Is that a waste of time and effort as well? Just because we probably won't ever satisfy all our fuel needs with biofuels, does not mean we shouldn't produce them. In fact, it seems to me like it would be in our best interests to diversify into several different fuel sources. We should be drilling more for our own oil. We should be developing our oil shale deposits and producing more fuel through coal liquefaction while refining the process to make it less polluting. If we could produce 5% here, 25% there, on so on, we'll get closer and closer to the point that we produce 100% of the energy we need. We'll be less and less at the mercy of OPEC and better prepared in the event of catastrophic occurrences like wars and natural disasters that could make petroleum based fuels scarce commodities.

[chimera]

I'm just saying we've got a heck of a lot more work to do to make up the bulk of our energy needs. Having a bunch of hydrogen producers out there running full tilt (breeder reactors mainly, but renewables can kick in a few pennies here and there) might be worth a serious look.

[TKDietz]

I think it will be a good long while before we have a lot of hydrogen powered vehicles on our roads. For the next several years at least I think the main alternative fuels we use in our vehicles will be those that work with current vehicles with little or no modification. Transitioning to hydrogen power, if it ever happens, will take decades probably and an awful lot of money. There will be vehicles on our roads powered by internal combustion engines burning gasoline, diesel, and equivalents for many decades to come, if not longer.

[chimera]

Probably about twice what we're paying now in the transport sector. The economics are not there now and as long as carbon-based fuels remain relatively inexpensive then electric substitution (hydrogen) is not going to happen. Unless petroleum-baed fuels become unavailable to us or get costed beyond reach, the economic incentive just isn't there. My guess at this point is some political event (war) will force a disruption in supply, driving up the costs and simply leading to unavailability of those fuels. Our domestic reserves (including oil sands and biofuels) can't make up the shortfall. There will thus be a major economic dislocation (depression) as a result of the lag between availability of petroleum-based products and the transition to non-petroleum fuels. I'm not sure I'll live to see it, but my kids (if they are still alive) probably will.