Posted on 03/11/2008 9:18:57 PM PDT by neverdem
Other areas, even populous ones, have little E85 infrastructure
Even IF I could swallow all the bs about energy 'neutral' ethanol, your underlying point is correct that here in bfe Ky there wont be a viable infrastructure for a long time...
Mans arrogance/folly in trying to outsmart God is going to be the final nail in this nations coffin IMO...all in the name of a little polital power and monetary greed...
Ky house budget commitee just passed a new proposal to add another 1.5c/gal tax as well...
Political WHORES...
in a country/world awash with fuel sources, we are arguing with imbeciles over a policy to expend that energy to find a better way to burn food for fuel, all the while every time the cost rises at the pump, the whores get a larger take as their profit margin will never drop below 100%...
Any suggestions about where to invest for the in-evitable collapse of our economy ??? guns ? gold? lead?
Maybe we need a thread on that...
Keep yer powder dry, Ive a feelin we'll need it...
LFOD...
Guns, Gold, Groceries, Gas and Guts !........:o)
G-Factor !
Stay Safe ~
Why don't you check my comments and links before you wear out your keyboard?
ethanol no good for fuel. (short/simple ‘nuff for you?)
There has not been any collusion. You are engaging in conspiratorial talk. The reason that mpg has not shown much improvement is that there has not been much demand for improved mpg until recently. Auto technology has improved in many ways, particularly safety and reliability that were demanded. Now that mpg improvements are demanded, private initiative will respond unless stymied by government.
I have no knowledge of any hydrogen generator. If the technology is viable, it will be widely adopted. I doubt that it is viable.
The conspiracy is solely on the shoulders of nationalized oil producers and governments. Nationalized oil producers are obvious cartels with inefficient production. Governments particularly rats and rinos here are conspiring with alternative energy to force non viable energy solutions upon us. The private oil industry (big oil) is not a cartel nor engaged in any conspiracy. Big oil is the only player with clean hands in this energy farce.
No. Why don't you read my comments and links? I don't want ethanol from food sources. That's throwing good money after bad. I want it from cellulosic sources, otherwise known as waste and biomass, for energy independence. It's not the sole source of energy, but one of many new as well as traditional sources.
If you want to restore value to the dollar we have to export more goods including energy, stop importing so much energy and target the oil and gasoline export markets of our adversaries, e.g. Venezuela, Iran, Russia, Saudi Arabia, etc.
Do you have a link?
Tell Sweetie to quit hijackin my alphabet verbaige !!!......;o)
I think shell is priming the pump for oil shale extraction. Jeroen van der Veer also wrote the following...
As a result, we will have no choice but to add other sources of energy – renewables, yes, but also more nuclear power and unconventional fossil fuels such as oil sands. Using more energy inevitably means emitting more CO2 at a time when climate change has become a critical global issue.
Shell's research into in situ oil shale development is extremely promising. The potential, according to the New York Times is staggering...
Government estimates of recoverable shale oil in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming put the reserves at 800 billion barrels — more than triple the proven oil reserves of Saudi Arabia. So aside from Mr. Vawter, now many in Washington have their eyes on a big prize, not in small part for the promise it might hold to ease national security concerns. “It could literally shake the world,” Senator Pete V. Domenici, a Republican from New Mexico, told a recent Senate hearing.
It seems all substances containing cellulose, i.e. all plants.
Let's say corn stalks: Lots of corn equals lots of stalks. How are these stalks to be captured?
Why not like the way that they bale hay?
Corn combines spit the cobs and stalks on the ground. Are you going to pay for this waste?
This waste is now a resource. How was it disposed of before this?
Where is the processing of this cellulose to take place?
Corn ethanol is being subsidized because on it's economic merits it won't stand. If cellulosic ethanol is a good idea then who is raising capital for a demonstration plant? Who is getting a startup company going with a few hundred or thousand acres of switchgrass?
Can Coskata produce ethanol for less than $1 a gallon?
The final question to be addressed is one that will be with us until the day Coskata’s distribution partner starts taking ethanol from the first facility in late 2010 or early 2011. And that is: “Can you really produce this ethanol for $1/gallon?”Rather than just say yes, let me lay out the top five reasons Coskata will be able to deliver on this promise:
1) Coskata does not have an expensive pre-treatment process, with expensive enzymes to break down the input material. This also saves a lot of water, large tanks, and a slurry.
Since we avoid handling the lignin – the leftovers from enzymatic breakdown -- and the drying of that material on the back end, we are right into feeding time for the bugs.
2) Coskata has significant advantages by using multiple input We do not need a specific enzyme for a specific material to make cellulosic ethanol. We can use the whole stalk, fiber, and cob or other lower-cost material like fast-growing energy crops, trash, tires and a mixture of ag waste.
3) Compared to other technologies that use gasification and get the same input material flexibility, we do not have to pressurize the syngas. We can also co-locate with a current corn ethanol plant, pulp and paper mill, blending terminal, or other user of steam, because we recover the hot syngas, (1,600 degrees F), and cool it to 100 degrees F before it goes to our organisms. This is part of the energy-positive Coskata process.
4) We do not need an expensive chemical catalyst on the back end of a gasifier that ends up making a mixed alcohol and requires a specific CO-to-Hydrogen ratios in the syngas and expensive water shift reactions to get to that ratio. The Coskata organisms eat low- temperature, low-pressure, much less “cleaned up” syngas, which avoids some off the scrubbing required, in whatever ratio we feed them. The bugs reproduce themselves with only a little bit of energy, so we don’t have to worry about “generating” enough organisms.
5) Since Coskata’s anaerobic (dies in the presence of oxygen, non-harmful to animals and humans) organisms are able to live in a recycled water stream, we have major advantages on water usage and no solids handling on the back end with dried-distillers grains, lignin, or anything else. The only product coming off the back end is ethanol..
"The new Zymetis technology is a win for the State of Maryland, for the University and for the environment,” said University of Maryland President C.D. Mote, Jr. "It makes affordable ethanol production a reality and makes it from waste materials, which benefits everyone and supports the green-friendly goal of carbon-neutrality.“It also highlights the importance of transformational basic research and of technology incubators at the University. Partnership with the State enables University of Maryland faculty and students to commercialize new discoveries quickly.”
Complete Cellulase System in the Marine Bacterium Saccharophagus degradans Strain 2-40T
On paper, making biofuels from switchgrass and other perennials that need not be replanted seems like a no-brainer. Use the sun's energy to grow the crop, and then convert it to liquid fuels to power our cars without the need for gasoline. But so far, experiments with these "cellulosic" crop-based fuels have only been conducted on small scales, leaving open the question of how feasible the strategy is. Now, the first large-scale study shows that switchgrass yields more than five times the energy needed to grow, harvest, and transport the grass and convert it to ethanol. The results could propel efforts to sow millions of hectares of marginal farmland with biofuel crops.
It might come to pass but the lost opportunity costs are enormous when we have the infrastructure, experience and raw materials already at hand.
We haven't biult a petroleum refinery in thirty years and there's a shortage of them, and we don't have the political will to access the other raw materials, so I don't understand that comment. Tar sands and shale oil were supposed to be viable at $70 per barrel of oil.
Yeah, and put a chicken in every pot! Like snakeoil, ethonal can save us from everything./sarcasm
Pure, unadultarated BS.
Absolutely, 100% correct. Nice post!
The level of economic ignorance on this site never ceases to astound me.
Yeah, and put a chicken in every pot! Like snakeoil, ethonal can save us from everything./sarcasm
Did you ever study organic chemistry?
You are not informed about this issue...since when has there not been a demand for great mpg’s? There is always a demand for drivers to save a bundle of money. The technology is here and is being used by many people to get great mpg improvements for little investment. The oil companies also hold many patents on high mpg’s vapor systems which basically turn gasoline into a complete vapor, thereby greatly increasing the volume and combustibility of it. Mr. Pogue used that technology to get 205 mpg’s out of a full sized sedan. His patent was bought out and he became a millionaire. Of course the people never got to benefit from his invention. That is a simple fact. Because you haven’t done the research and are simply in the dark about this subject makes your points very weak and innaccurate. Why don’t you do some research before forming an opinion? That would be the fair thing to do.
So be it, if you say so. Green Giant, BirdsEye, other vegetable processors still have all of the other vegetable matter which they have to dispose. There's quite a range of biomass that can be harvested for energy.
To get right to it: Right now about $40 billion worth of natural gas is flared off (that means just burned off in the air) each year around the world. The U.S. has the infrastructure to distribute it, the technology to liquefy it and ship it. But what did you mention? Coal and oil shale. Natural gas needs no farm land and little processing yet you stand in thrall of “biomass” while a very clean fuel is available to replace dirtier fuels. There is not enough LNG ports to take advantage of one the best fuels in the world yet the arguments are over what kind of grass to process.
If the U.S. can recover our own flared off natural gas, that helps the dollar and our current account deficit. When terror is still a possibility, who wants a LNG port in their backyard?
If you're concerned about greenhouse gases, remember the gas is burning anyway so burning it here adds nothing since it can replace dirty fuels.
I'm not concerned about making carbon dioxide. I want energy independence. Better yet, I would like to see the U.S. export energy and energy related biotechnology. Photosynthesis makes organic matter naturally. I want to undermine the world market of oil and gasoline that supports the likes of Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, etc. I don't like a cheap dollar.
If someone wants my corn to make ethanol he should pay a fair price and if he wants my biomass he will have to pay well for it too. You make a profit from it, I want some of the money. In short, there ain't going to be no cheap ethanol no matter the source.
Why not let the market sort it out? I'd rather pay an American than someone from a foreign country.
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.