cliaz Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 Rules: * Avoid the use of Never * Avoid the use of Always * Refrain from saying you are wrong and instead use mistaken * Attack the idea not the person * Avoid exaggeration * Quote sources * If it is just an opinion, admit it * Do not present opinion as facts * Concede minor or trivial points * Avoid bickering, quarreling, and wrangling * Don't win a debate and lose a friend * Keep your perspective - You're just debating * And do not hijack the thread Question: Are biofuels a better alternative to fossil fuels? Should their use be encouraged by government regulations and subsidy? Context: Biofuels are sources of energy which come from living, renewable sources, such as crops, trees and even animal manure. Fossil fuels like on oil, gas and coal, on the other hand, formed in the earth from decaying vegetation many millions of years ago, and cannot be renewed. In recent years biofuels have come to mean fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel which can be burned in engines to drive vehicles in place of fossil fuels like petroleum and diesel. Ethanol can be made from a variety of crops, such as maize or sugarcane, while biodiesel is often made from palm oil, soya or rapeseed (canola). In the past biofuels have not been give much attention (save in Brazil, which has little oil but much sugar cane to convert into transport fuel), but this is rapidly changing. As the price of oil has soared in the past few years and biofuel production methods have improved, the price gap has narrowed considerably although levels of subsidy are an important part of the economic equation. Biofuels have also been promoted as a way of reducing carbon emissions and so of tackling global climate change. Over forty countries now offer some sort of subsidy to encourage the production and use of biofuels instead of fossil fuels. Four times as much biodiesel was produced worldwide in 2005 compared with five years previously, while the production of ethanol doubled. In most cases ethanol or biodiesel is mixed with regular gasoline or diesel – typically 5% or 10% of what comes out of the pump is biofuel, but it can be as high as 85%. In the USA only about 3.5% of all vehicle fuel was biofuel (almost all ethanol) in 2006, but this proportion is rising rapidly and the federal government wants 30% of gasoline to come from biofuels within 25 years. The EU has similar targets, although in Europe biodiesel is more important than ethanol at present. This topic looks at whether biofuels really are better than fossil fuels, and if governments should continue and develop policies to promote biofuel production and use. The specific arguments will vary a little from country to country, but the principles behind them should be relevant everywhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HowboutthemCowboys Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 Is'nt every post on this entire board a "debate"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 (edited) Biofuels promote deforestation, increease in prices of food stuffs, are supported by government subsidies because they are not economically viable alternatives, increase the use of nitrogen based fertilizers which contribute to the formation of green house gases (and incidentally are made from petro based chemicals), contaminate rivers and streams, lead to topsoil deterioration and do not burn as efficiently in today's engines. We need to start a 'Manhattan" project to develop hydrogen powered motor vehicles to go truly green, but people are too fixated on these other, less efficient, means of powering autos. ETA: Bite my ass all you freaking biofuel/electric car luvin homos... Edited February 8, 2011 by SEC=UGA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cliaz Posted February 8, 2011 Author Share Posted February 8, 2011 Biofuels promote deforestation, increease in prices of food stuffs, are supported by government subsidies because they are not economically viable alternatives, increase the use of nitrogen based fertilizers which contribute to the formation of green house gases (and incidentally are made from petro based chemicals), contaminate rivers and streams, lead to topsoil deterioration and do not burn as efficiently in today's engines. We need to start a 'Manhattan" project to develop hydrogen powered motor vehicles to go truly green, but people are too fixated on these other, less efficient, means of powering autos. ETA: Bite my ass all you freaking biofuel/electric car luvin homos... A very interesting point I had not thought of before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 Biofuels are a good idea. The problem with most good ideas is they don't work, or have unintended consequences. SEC laid out why they really should be canned. I'm not smart enough to say if hydrogen powered vehicles is the way to go or not, but I've seen enough evidence to believe that biofuels are not the way that we should be heading. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cliaz Posted February 8, 2011 Author Share Posted February 8, 2011 Remember that biofuels do not mean corn, sugar cane, ect but can also include algae. There are vertical bio reactors that grow algae which is converted in to bio fuel. Would regional reactors be cost effective if coupled with algae as a source for the bio fuel? Vertical Algae Bioreactor Valcent - Manufacturer of Vertical Farms Imagine that each major city has the proper vertical farms to generate the needed bio fuel. Do you think regionalizing the production of bio fuel through these reactors would help to keep the impact to the environment in check and produce enough fuel for at least the city's transportation infrastructure? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whoopazz Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 Biofuels promote deforestation, increease in prices of food stuffs, are supported by government subsidies because they are not economically viable alternatives, increase the use of nitrogen based fertilizers which contribute to the formation of green house gases (and incidentally are made from petro based chemicals), contaminate rivers and streams, lead to topsoil deterioration and do not burn as efficiently in today's engines. We need to start a 'Manhattan" project to develop hydrogen powered motor vehicles to go truly green, but people are too fixated on these other, less efficient, means of powering autos. ETA: Bite my ass all you freaking biofuel/electric car luvin homos... All BS you idiot But seriously, the biofuels research we are doing is based primarily conversion of waste materials (MSW, animal waste, waste wood shavings, corn stover, etc) into gaseous or liquid fuels. Certainly at the local level (that is, power your own military base, farm, paper mill, whatever with your waste). Yes in many cases, the biofuels have a lower energy content than fossil fuels, but still represent a viable, if not yet proven, alternative source of fuels. Not the answer of course, but a start. One of our goals is to demonstrate that biofuels can be delivered to the consumer at a lower cost than refined fossil fuels. It will never work if that doesn't happen, and if that does happen, OPEC will probably just reduce oil prices. There is a significant amount of DOE (and DoD for that matter) funding available for this research. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 the corn ethanol boondoggle demonstrates why the government should stay the hell out of this, as far as picking specific technologies. if fossil fuel useage has externalities that are not being caputured, then pigovian taxes on their use is the best way to incentivize their replacement by "alternatives". market forces are perfectly capable of taking it from there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoJoTheWebToedBoy Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 I just want my freakin Flying Car that I was promised when I was ten Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redrumjuice Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 the corn ethanol boondoggle demonstrates why the government should stay the hell out of this AMEN +10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 Now they are pushing e15, it will ruin my quad and boat, not to mention my 1999 vehicle. Absolute fkin outrage! Show me anything in the world we can use on a small scale near the economics of gasoline, the power per part is amazing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 All BS you idiot But seriously, the biofuels research we are doing is based primarily conversion of waste materials (MSW, animal waste, waste wood shavings, corn stover, etc) into gaseous or liquid fuels. Certainly at the local level (that is, power your own military base, farm, paper mill, whatever with your waste). Yes in many cases, the biofuels have a lower energy content than fossil fuels, but still represent a viable, if not yet proven, alternative source of fuels. Not the answer of course, but a start. One of our goals is to demonstrate that biofuels can be delivered to the consumer at a lower cost than refined fossil fuels. It will never work if that doesn't happen, and if that does happen, OPEC will probably just reduce oil prices. There is a significant amount of DOE (and DoD for that matter) funding available for this research. Please tell me where I am wrong in my previous post with regard to the current major methods of producing biofuels. You are converting"waste" materials, as outlined above, into biofuel, so you have a vested interest in perpetuating the idea that biofuels are indeed the way to go? How many gallons of biofuel can be produced from a ton of the waste materials that you are using? Is there enough of this waste material to produce enough biofuel to offset even 5% of the fossil fuel use in this country? Does the process you use require more energy to produce a gallon of fuel than the energy that gallon of fuel can produce? With regard to Cliaz's post, that's pretty freaking nifty. I like the fact that it can produce 100X the amount of fuel per acre, but have 2 concerns. This method requires, it appears, a great deal of water to work. One of the most finite resources that we have is fresh water, states are fighting battles over rights to rivers, channels, etc... to serve their population. In order to be a widely used and viable source of fuel, even with systems that recirculate the water, one would have to have access to a bunch of water. Do we currently have the water resources to be able to deliver fuels created in this manner. To offset the fuel needs of the US by 5% we would need to produce roughly 6,896,500,000 gallons of this stuff per year. At 100,000 gallons per acre that would be roughly 68,965 acres worth of facilities, or 1,725, 40 acre sites throughout the country, or 34.48 sites per state. Not saying that it can't be done, but that is a lot of land for 5% of our gasoline consumption. Now, think of how many acres of corn, sugar cane, and other agri products that it would take to equate to 5% of our total usage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 TImely article in the AJC, today: To turn wood chips into ethanol fuel, George W. Bush’s Department of Energy in February 2007 announced a $76 million grant to Range Fuels for a cutting-edge refinery. A few months later, the refinery opened in the piney woods of Treutlen County, Ga., as the taxpayers of Georgia piled on another $6 million. In 2008, the ethanol plant was the first beneficiary of the Biorefinery Assistance Program, pocketing a loan for $80 million guaranteed by the U.S. taxpayers. Last month, the refinery closed down, having failed to squeeze even a drop of ethanol out of its pine chips. The Soperton, Ga., ethanol plant is another blemish on ethanol’s already tarnished image, but more broadly, it is cautionary tale about the elusive nature of “green jobs” and the folly of the government’s efforts at “investing” — as President Obama puts it — in new technologies. Remember in last year’s gubernatorial campaign, when hopefuls from both major parties were throwing around the “Georgia is ‘the Saudi Arabia of pine trees’ ” line? It turns out that line of thinking is what led to the Soperton start-up, which was subsidized to the tune of $100 million, Carney writes: Late in the Bush administration, corn-based ethanol started to get a bad rap. Corn for ethanol was crowding out other crops, and food prices were soaring. Mexicans rioted as tortilla prices spiked. So Bush started talking up “advanced biofuels” including “cellulosic ethanol”: roughly, ethanol distilled from plants that were not also food products. Bush mentioned wood chips and switchgrass in two consecutive State of the Union addresses. Georgia politicians saw an opportunity here. “The Saudi Arabia of Pine Trees” became an unofficial state motto among Peach State politicians, and Gov. Sonny Perdue declared, “I’m confident the bioenergy industry and sector is going to be a cornerstone of the new Georgia.” Range Fuels is a politically connected, mostly through its founder, venture capitalist Vinod Khosla. Khosla has given more the $350,000 to federal candidates and campaign committees in recent years, a vast majority going to Democrats. … Despite these Democratic ties, it’s been Republicans who have lathered the subsidies on Soperton and celebrated them — Gov. Perdue, President Bush, Sens. Johnny Isakson and Saxby Chambliss. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whoopazz Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 (edited) (Please tell me where I am wrong in my previous post with regard to the current major methods of producing biofuels. You are converting"waste" materials, as outlined above, into biofuel, so you have a vested interest in perpetuating the idea that biofuels are indeed the way to go? How many gallons of biofuel can be produced from a ton of the waste materials that you are using? Is there enough of this waste material to produce enough biofuel to offset even 5% of the fossil fuel use in this country? Does the process you use require more energy to produce a gallon of fuel than the energy that gallon of fuel can produce?) Just my attempt to break the thread rules. I don't support the use of food or forest products for biofuels production. Regarding your other questions, I do consider MSW, manure and other "waste" (not sure why you put waste in quotes) materials that can be used to produce biofuels, especially at the source location. But I specifically avoided saying that biofuels are the way to go. I think they may be a part of a very complex answer to future energy supplies. I work at a research facility so my "vested interest" is that i get paid to conduct research, not to ultimately produce biofuels commercially. In fact one of our selling points is that we don't have a vested interest and can therefore provide an independent assessment of technology performance and feasibility. We have some data on your second two questions but I don't have the answers in my back pocket and don't have time to dig it up, I'm guessing 5% is probably about right though. And I'll add that this is a huge number that should not be ignored. Finally, the process(es) that we are working on (there are several) vary in efficiency of course, but we understand that if the energy in to energy out ratio cannot beat fossil, then it won't work. Edited February 9, 2011 by whoopazz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 (Please tell me where I am wrong in my previous post with regard to the current major methods of producing biofuels. You are converting"waste" materials, as outlined above, into biofuel, so you have a vested interest in perpetuating the idea that biofuels are indeed the way to go? How many gallons of biofuel can be produced from a ton of the waste materials that you are using? Is there enough of this waste material to produce enough biofuel to offset even 5% of the fossil fuel use in this country? Does the process you use require more energy to produce a gallon of fuel than the energy that gallon of fuel can produce?) Just my attempt to break the thread rules. I don't support the use of food or forest products for biofuels production. Regarding your other questions, I do consider MSW, manure and other "waste" (not sure why you put waste in quotes) materials that can be used to produce biofuels, especially at the source location. But I specifically avoided saying that biofuels are the way to go. I think they may be a part of a very complex answer to future energy supplies. I work at a research facility so my "vested interest" is that i get paid to conduct research, not to ultimately produce biofuels commercially. In fact one of our selling points is that we don't have a vested interest and can therefore provide an independent assessment of technology performance and feasibility. We have some data on your second two questions but I don't have the answers in my back pocket and don't have time to dig it up, I'm guessing 5% is probably about right though. And I'll add that this is a huge number that should not be ignored. Finally, the process(es) that we are working on (there are several) vary in efficiency of course, but we understand that if the energy in to energy out ratio cannot beat fossil, then it won't work. Not a problem with regard to the rule breaking, that is where I thought you were going. The waste in "" I'm not sure why I did that either. I was being a little snarky with the vested interest thing, I apologize. I agree that if we could mitigate our fosil fuel usage by 5% that would be HUGE and that is why I came around to that number (also taking into consideration the availability of resources to produce bio-fuel, etc...) I do think that re-using our waste for a productive purpose should be a key goal, much like they are beginning to siphon methane out of landfills, and is something that should be pursued. But to look to biofuels as a primary means for removing us from our dependence on oil seems to be very much an uphill battle. Mind you, mitigating any amount of usage is a good thing as long as the economics are there. However, in many cases, in the circle that I am around, I hear people speak of biofuels as being the end-all-be-all coupled with electric autos (and I know that I am mainly focusing on autos here, but that is what I think of when I hear the word biofuel.) I find these solutions to not be viable for a number of reasons, biofuels, specifically for some of the reasons I outlined in my first post (electrics for other reasons.) I do believe, and it may be false, that a very viable alternative is hydrogen fuel cells. But agin, that is a completely different thread as well. At some point, we may be able to convert common trash (watch it) into biofuels and that it is noble that research is headed in that direction. But the federal funding that goes into this research migh better be put into one concerted effort, say hydrogen engines, than this mish-mash of bio-fuel research. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 Remember that biofuels do not mean corn, sugar cane, ect but can also include algae. There are vertical bio reactors that grow algae which is converted in to bio fuel. Would regional reactors be cost effective if coupled with algae as a source for the bio fuel? This. I haven't read the rest of this thread, but have a friend who's been heavily involved in algae research. As far as fuels go, it is a long way from a sustainable solution (but it can very much be a part of a solution), but they are getting up to 12x that yield by using them to produce bioplastics. He's already sent me several articles about how companies like Ford and Toyota are using these bioplastics for interior pieces and foam... Great thing about using algae sand waste waters is that it actually makes use of the wastes coming from plants, and can also be sustainably grown and reproduced in lab settings, without any of the whole food vs. fuel debate (unlike others who are now using wheat for bioplastics, in addition to all of the other food sources we're set to over-consume).... The thing we all need to remember is that there probably isn't going to be just one sustainable and effective solution, but if we continue research in these areas, we should find that alot of these different practices can be used together to ween us off of overconsumpiton of fossil fuels, as we work on better and better solutions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 I don't support the use of food or forest products for biofuels production. Agree 100% on the whole food vs. fuel, and using our timber to some extemt, but are you not in support of using the limbs and waste left over from cutting that timber? Having lived in South Georgia where it's nothing but planted pines, I can say that there is an extremely large bulk of wood available that IIRC is not used for timber. Hell, we've had tons of huge bonfires just with all of the fallen branches all over the property. It would be good use of that if we're not using elsewhere.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NAUgrad Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 Compressed air sounds much better to me. http://videos.howstuffworks.com/science-ch...r-car-video.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whoopazz Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 At some point, we may be able to convert common trash (watch it) into biofuels and that it is noble that research is headed in that direction. But the federal funding that goes into this research migh better be put into one concerted effort, say hydrogen engines, than this mish-mash of bio-fuel research. We're pretty close on that, but its important to remember that it only works at the source. For example, domestic and even more so forward operating military bases, where we are generating tons of trash, plus have huge energy demands. Makes good sense there, and DoD SHOULD be paying for that research. Municipalities could follow suit if it works economically on bases, and certainly farms or other industries with tons of organic waste. The last thing you want to do though is start hauling any of this stuff around. I don't want to get into the whole should the fed govt be funding this research debate. Alot of the stuff we're doing at our place funded by private investors, but there is alot of federal cash out there for research and we are certainly trying like hell to get as much of it as we can. The algae techs that Cliaz posted are very promising. I'm not up to speed on them since we missed that boat and have our hands full with waste conversion techs we're working on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 Compressed air sounds much better to me. http://videos.howstuffworks.com/science-ch...r-car-video.htm That is bad ass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 Four years ago, in a muddy Mitchell County field, Georgia entered the big leagues of biomass production. Ground was broken in January 2007 outside Camilla for the largest biofuel factory in the Southeast. Politicians one-upped one another with paeans to plans for the lowly corn cob that would bring 300 jobs to rural South Georgia, pump $267 million into the state economy, scrub the nation’s polluted air and break dependence on foreign oil. One day, the dreamers said, Georgia would turn corn, pine trees, yeast, soy beans, peanut shells — any rapidly grown feed stock — into gasoline for cars or diesel for trucks. Alternative energy factories would dot the countryside. Georgia would be transformed into the “Saudi Arabia of biomass.” Four years later, the state’s alternative energy future is hobbled. Southwest Georgia Ethanol, the corn-to-fuel factory in Camilla, filed for bankruptcy earlier this month. Range Fuels, the state’s prized cellulosic (i.e. not corn) ethanol factory in Soperton, closed its doors in January. Biodiesel plants in Atlanta, Rome, Perry and beyond have either curtailed or ceased production. Today, Georgia only boasts a few unsexy wood pellet factories. Visions of an alternative fuel Mecca remain foggy even after local, state and federal agencies pumped tens of millions of tax dollars into two dozen biomass ventures. “Expectations were too high and people promised things they just couldn’t deliver,” said Sam Shelton, research director for Georgia Tech’s Strategic Energy Institute. “Renewable fuels are not going to make big, rapid growth without a lot of energy policy and mandates from the state and federal governments.” Biomass proponents caution it’s too early to dig graves for ethanol and biodiesel. Some of the state’s biodiesel makers say they’ll soon ramp up production, thanks to renewal of a federal subsidy. The Camilla ethanol factory is still producing and, with a cash infusion or corporate takeover, might one day flourish. Unbowed, the state’s biomass boosters tout the $1 billion invested in renewable energy ventures the past five years. And they preach the wonders of the next can’t-miss energy alternatives, whether it’s leafy miscanthus or “drop-in” fuels. “We’ve had more announced bioenergy projects than any other state in the nation and that says a lot about what we have to offer,” said Jill Stuckey, the state’s tireless alternative energy advocate. “I don’t think we’ll be the Saudi Arabia of biomass, but I want Georgia to be independent from foreign sources of oil. Just give me 15 years and we’ll do it.” Biofuel boom, then bust Georgia jumped on the bio-fuel bandwagon in 2006, designating the rural-based industry an economic development priority eligible for financial incentives. The Herty Advanced Materials Development Center in Savannah, a state-funded development authority, predicted 60,000 jobs, 30 alternative-fuel factories and a $30 billion economic impact statewide by 2017. At first, the alternative energy industry blossomed. Ethanol, biodiesel and pellet plants dotted the state. Southwest in Camilla imported trainloads of corn from the Midwest to make ethanol. Range Fuels, bankrolled with $82 million in state and federal subsidies, built its plant in Soperton. FRAM Renewable Fuels in Baxley produced wood pellets for environmentally conscious European utilities. Former President Jimmy Carter welcomed Alterra Bioenergy, and its claim to brew 30 million gallons of biodiesel, to his hometown of Plains. Today, the alternative energy landscape is littered with padlocked distilleries, empty storage tanks and broken dreams. Unemployment in Treutlen County, where the Range factory is located, is 13 percent. Range’s promised 69 jobs dwindled to a few when the ethanol maker shut its doors last month. “We were hoping they’d be hiring instead of laying off,” said John Lee, the county’s business recruiter. Forisk Consulting, an Athens-based forestry research firm, compiled a list last month of 36 wood-based biofuel projects once planned for Georgia. Only nine are in operation. Two are under construction. Most of the remainder are “proposed.” “People had high hopes, but that’s not to say they won’t become reality in a few years,” said Amanda Lang, operations manager for Forisk. “These are capital-intensive projects and it’s hard to secure funding needed to develop that technology.” Tales of the industry Here’s what happened to industry stalwarts in Georgia: ● Southwest Georgia Ethanol. Its ethanol-brewing subsidiary filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, yet it continues production. The company lost $2.2 million in fiscal 2010 and lists debt of $134 million, according to its SEC filing. CFO Lawrence Kamp blamed rising corn costs and too-low ethanol prices. Importing 100,000 bushels of corn daily by train from the Midwest also proved costly (the company owes Norfolk Southern and CSX more than $2.1 million). “It never did make sense why they’d ship corn from the Midwest to their plant to make ethanol rather than make ethanol up there in plants that already exist and ship the ethanol down here,” said Georgia Tech’s Shelton. ● Range Fuels. The $225 million factory closed last month after reportedly making only a small batch of cellulosic ethanol. The Colorado-based company planned to turn tree limbs, grasses, cornstalks and garbage into ethanol. Range had raised $158 million privately, $76 million from the U.S. Department of Energy and $6.2 million from the state of Georgia. It also received an $80 million loan guarantee from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Most of the money has been spent on construction and equipment, so recovery is unlikely. Range says it will restart production once it raises more capital. ● Biodiesel. More than a dozen biodiesel factories, which turn soybeans, restaurant grease and chicken fat into a diesel additive, were planned and/or operating across Georgia a few years ago. Now, virtually all of them have ceased or greatly curtailed production. “There’s no demand in the local market. We can’t rely on the tax incentives and support from Congress. And the pricing of raw materials is a real challenge,” said Bobby Heiser, a partner in BullDog Biodiesel in Ellenwood. “And Europe, once a large market for us, placed very steep tariffs specifically against biodiesel that originated in the U.S.” Subsidies a lifeblood The nation’s biodiesel and ethanol producers live and die on federal and state subsidies. The $1-a-gallon tax credit for diesel refiners expired in 2009 and decimated the industry. BullDog stayed open, but slashed its work force from 30 to six employees. Georgia, unlike many other states, offers no mandates for biodiesel and ethanol usage. “Really the only way we’ll replace gas and diesel is if we have government mandates or oil gets over $100 a barrel and stays there and people will become convinced it will never come back down,” Shelton said. Washington recently rejuvenated the biofuel industry. Congress last December reauthorized the $1-a-gallon biodiesel tax credit. BullDog’s Heiser said he’ll soon re-hire 15 laid-off employees. The EPA last year approved blended gasoline with as much as 15 percent ethanol for vehicles produced in 2007 or later. The agency later extended the E15 blend to cars and light trucks built between 2001 and 2006. Georgia’s wood pellet business, turning trees and timber scrap into fuel, is poised for a comeback, too. Boosters point to this year’s expected opening of the massive Georgia Biomass factory in Waycross as evidence of a robust pellet industry. The company, owned by two European utilities, could produce 750,000 tons of pellets annually to be shipped to Germany and Sweden. After a dreadful 2009, production nearly doubled to 140,000 tons last year for FRAM Fuels. Harold Arnold, the company’s president, is shooting for 200,000 tons this year. “We’re still bullish on the renewable fuel industry, and we’ll see more consumption coming on line in the United States, Europe and certainly in Asia,” Arnold said. “But we need to make renewable fuels more attractive through incentives for commercial-sized operations like hospitals and apartment buildings. That will come.” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 seems like a good thread to post this: Tim Carney writes, Environmental policy is not driven by tree-hugging activists, earnest liberal bloggers, or ecologically minded citizens. Instead, it flows from the lobbyists and executives of well-connected multinational corporations and built-for-subsidy startups that see profit in the loan guarantees, handouts, mandates, and tax credits Congress creates in the name of saving the planet. This is a most depressing topic. The latest issue of Technology Review has a cover story on the editors' selection of the 50 most innovative companies. It is heavily weighted toward firms involved in green energy, and these are in turn heavily weighted toward companies that enjoy subsidies and loan guarantees from the taxpayers. In reality, much of the increase in energy demand over the next ten years will be met by natural gas, which is cheap, abundant, and relatively "clean" in terms of carbon emissions. The subsidized forms of energy will be a net drain on the economy. Yet TR' energy blogger, Kevin Bullis, writes, Obama, with his proposed multi-billion dollar increases for renewable energy research has the right idea, although this could go further (more research into cleaner hydrofracking technology for natural gas, for example, would likely prove a wise investment). Cheap, clean energy that doesn't come from oppressive dictators and enemies of the United States should have strong bipartisan support. Of course, nobody is opposed to cheap, clean, domestically-produced energy. But the political attempt to provide it will only result in expensive energy, with unseen environmental costs (biofuels), and increases in budget deficits that will harm, rather than enhance, America's strategic position. The Department of Energy was established during the Carter Administration. As far as I know, no one has ever suggested that we have benefited from its existence. The other night, Ron Bailey pointed out that its original goal was "synfuels," which not only were ridiculously expensive but would have greatly increased the carbon emissions of our transportation system. Still, if you suggest that America should not have an energy policy, everybody other than a hardcore libertarian will dismiss you as a crackpot. Energy policy is a triumph of faith over experience. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetsfan Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 We need to start a 'Manhattan" project to develop hydrogen powered motor vehicles to go truly green, but people are too fixated on these other, less efficient, means of powering autos. Already there. Distribution and cheap storage of liquid hydrogen is proving to be a big hurdle. It takes a lot of energy to create and maintain LH2. I rode in a car not too long ago that had a hydrogen combustion engine, the exhaust contained luke-warm air and water. The air samples from the exhaust were actually cleaner than the surrounding air. To answer cliaz's post I do not see bio-fuels as sustainable. You are basically diverting food production to energy. The repercussions in a global economy that is reliant on both food and energy could produce a serious war where food supplies are destroyed. All of the above is my opinion and personal experience supporting the development of safe, economic hydrogen storage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 The thing we all need to remember is that there probably isn't going to be just one sustainable and effective solution, but if we continue research in these areas, we should find that alot of these different practices can be used together to ween us off of overconsumpiton of fossil fuels, as we work on better and better solutions. Right. Biofuels are just starting and aren't a BAD idea, but one of the keys to the weaning is that alternative energy CANNOT (and probably never will) supply energy as efficiently as fossil fuels; alternative energy should go hand in glove with conservation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 At some point, we may be able to convert common trash (watch it) into biofuels and that it is noble that research is headed in that direction. But the federal funding that goes into this research migh better be put into one concerted effort, say hydrogen engines, than this mish-mash of bio-fuel research. We're pretty close on that, but its important to remember that it only works at the source. For example, domestic and even more so forward operating military bases, where we are generating tons of trash, plus have huge energy demands. Makes good sense there, and DoD SHOULD be paying for that research. They are. DARPA is working on it, and doing well. Also, they made JP-8 from a biological source. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 one of the keys to the weaning is that alternative energy CANNOT (and probably never will) supply energy as efficiently as fossil fuels man, I hope you are wrong about that. we sure are throwing a lot of money down the chitter if you're not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.