Posted on 03/08/2007 7:52:41 AM PST by ZGuy
Good thread!
For those suspicious of the subsidized production of ethanol from food(like me), there is a process to create ethanol from cellulose - specifically woodwaste from pulp and paper production:
20 years ago, Canadian pulp & paper producer Repap developed a fermentation process to extract lignin from waste, producing ethanol as a by-product. This technology may be actually economically sensible!
I am still awaiting an entry point on the stock later this year, but the technology appears robust regardless of the company’s still uncertain fortunes.
After the famine caused by the removal of food from agriculture in favor of ethanol we would have a much reduced need for energy as the population would be very much reduced. The greenies get to kill two birds with one stone, “renewable” energy and population reduction.
Sure. Lots. My crazy eco-hippie In-laws and teacher neigbors for just four examples.
Many people see wind as the answer or at least a significant contributor to replacing fossil & nuclear power. It’s never going to even put a dent into our dependence on other forms of energy.
The Greenies are for ethanol now? That must be news to them.
I rarely hear any Greens in favor of ethanol these days unless it is from cellulose...and they got quiet after the President started talking about it.
The year 2005 was marked by a flurry of construction activity in the Nation’s ethanol industry, as ground was broken on dozens of new plants throughout the U.S. Corn Belt and plans were drawn for even more facilities. As of February 2006, the annual capacity of the U.S. ethanol sector stood at 4.4 billion gallons, and plants under construction or expansion are likely to add another 2.1 billion gallons to this number (map). If this trend and the existing and anticipated policy incentives in support of ethanol continue, U.S. ethanol production could reach 7 billion gallons in 2010, 3.3 billion more than the amount produced in 2005.
The tremendous expansion of the ethanol sector raises a key question: Where will ethanol producers get the corn needed to increase their output? With a corn-to-ethanol conversion rate of 2.7 gallons per bushel (a rate that many state-of-the-art facilities are already surpassing), the U.S. ethanol sector will need 2.6 billion bushels per year by 2010—1.2 billion bushels more than it consumed in 2005. That’s a lot of corn, and how the market adapts to this increased demand is likely to be one of the major developments of the early 21st century in U.S. agriculture. The most recent USDA Baseline Projections suggest that much of the additional corn needed for ethanol production will be diverted from exports. However, if the United States successfully develops cellulosic biomass (wood fibers and crop residue) as an economical alternative feedstock for ethanol production, corn would become one of many crops and plant-based materials used to produce ethanol.
There is another problem with relying on a food-based biofuel, such as corn ethanol, as the poor of Mexico can attest. In recent months, soaring corn prices, sparked by demand from ethanol plants, have doubled the price of tortillas, a staple food. Tens of thousands of Mexico City's poor recently protested this "ethanol tax" in the streets.
In the United States, the protests have also begun -- in Congress. Representatives of the dairy, poultry and livestock industries, which rely on corn as a principal animal feed, are seeking an end to subsidies for corn ethanol in the hope of stabilizing corn prices. (It takes about three pounds of corn to produce a pound of chicken, and seven or eight pounds to grow a pound of beef.) Profit margins are being squeezed, and meat prices are rising.
U.S. soybeans, which are used to make biodiesel, may be about to follow corn's trajectory, escalating the food vs. fuel conflict. The National Biodiesel Board recently reported that 77 biodiesel production plants are under construction and that eight established plants are expanding capacity.
Old article.
The WP article I linked is dated Sunday, March 25, 2007. Since when is 30 days an "old" article.
The truth is, only about 55% of a barrel of crude, are used as fuels for transportation purposes. (Jet fuel included)
the rest goes into building roads, (asphalt) Tires, shoes, cosmetics, medical, parachutes, telephones, antiseptics, deodorant, sports equipment, computers,... (just to name less than 1% of the products we rely on so much every day)
Can we get along without oil? Not very well.
Source: www.imoga.com/refoutput.htm.
The information is old, recycled.
What’s old about it?
The Tesla does not have a 250 mile range. They’ve restated the range to 200 miles and you can bet that’s under optimal conditions. Batteries perform is greatly subject to ambient temperature. I read a article in Car and Drive quoting a GM engineer, that on a cold morning the EV-1 would barely make 12 miles on a full charge.
On a sub 40F morning, that car may take you less than 50 miles
It’s still going on about starving Mexicans.
Like I said. Old and recycled. After some ‘price stabilization’ legislation and threatened investigation into speculation and monopolistic practices, the prices fell.
LOL. "price stabilization’ legislation" does not reflect market forces but government intervention. That doesn't change the world's supply of corn or the increasing use of corn to make ethanol. The impact is being felt on food prices in the US as the price of cattle feed goes up. You have a curious definition for the word "old." The problem is far from being solved as corn and other food crops such as soybeans are being diverted into making fuel.
Two players control 70% of the tortilla production in Mexico. Did you know that? Low and behold, when the spotlight fell on them they cut their prices.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.