Like the illusion of Wall Street, with its vast and powerful investment banks, now shuttered, China too is an illusion perpetuated by the Globalists that gave us the 15,000 mile Caesar salad, poisoned cat food and lead based paint on babies' pacifiers. Like the illusion that money would come from thin air to always push housing prices higher, China has spent a generation pursuing its illusion. Pursuing an unattainable dream to be like the West, while 6000 years of its carefully shepherded top soil blows into the sea.
Joined: Mar 04, 2005 Posts: 2754 Location: New Zealand
Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2005 2:59 am Post subject: Alternative fuels in USA
This link is a little out of date but I would be interested in your comments about the prospects of further very large increases in alternative fuels in USA. And the prospect of using other alternative fuels not mentioned here. . .
Joined: Oct 14, 2004 Posts: 1203 Location: Left the cult
Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2005 7:26 am Post subject:
I always wonder about this sort of thing. Presumably intelligent people have come up with a list of "alternatives". Yet they are all derived from petroleum or fossil fuels, or are economic only because of cheap oil. So in what possible sense are these "alternatives"? _________________ It's all downhill from here
I hope I have the facts right. I don't have the actual figures, but believe
these comments are factual.
US - By far, the largest alternative, non-fossil fuel is ethonol, generally produced by corn. The industry is fairly large in absolute terms, and very small compared to total gasoline and diesel use.
Doubling the output is quite possible if the finances were right, but would require subtraction of farm ground now being used for other purposes.
It's unlikely a giant leap forward with occur in the next couple ofyears here-- there is growing sentiment ethonol is not a net producer of energy
or the net is very small.
And the cost. Ethonol now has what amounts to a federal tax subsidy of about 54 cents a gallon, by waiving the federal tax applied gasoline and diesel.
The big ethonol producing states generally have a state subsidy as well. There is also federal price support payments for corn in general--the amount is in question due to how complicated it is figured, but seems to be about $2 per bushel. I don't offhand know the bushel/ethonol proportions.
All the growables have the same issues. Cost, energy input/energy output
and available land for production.
Joined: Sep 25, 2004 Posts: 4715 Location: Boston, MA
Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2005 2:17 pm Post subject:
Ethanol only exists because of a massive government subsidy. The US spends tens of BILLIONS of dollars every year trying to make ethanol work. They not only send the farmers money to grow the stuff, they have to cut taxes on ethanol in order for it to even come close to regular gasoline. Brazil might be able to produce bio-fuel effectively, but only by destroying their environment. If you count the destruction of the rainforest by Brazilians...ethanol is a net energy loser. _________________ "www.peakoil.com is the Myspace of the Apocalypse."
Joined: Apr 03, 2004 Posts: 7017 Location: My Grandkids' Farm
Posted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 8:12 am Post subject:
Just a few things FWIW.
Ethanol production consumes 12% of the corn grown in the US. But also leaves byproducts called distillers grains that are good animal feed – although obviously lower in RFV (relative food value) than whole grain.
Total capacity as of Feb was 3,738.7 mgy, and 689 mgy under construction. Many facilities are farmer owned co-ops. IIRC, on the farm news the other morning someone said corn produced for ethanol production equaled the amount grown in all of Nebraska. Ethanol adds quite a bit of value to a bushel of corn.
Lots of corn is grown on land suitable for soybeans, there is a new disease – soybean rust that was blown up from South America by the hurricanes last year that could cause farmers to plant more corn – the prices have been sky high lately.
--
This paper states that ethanol from cornstarch has a positive energy return and cellulose feedstock - if and when it becomes commercial, will be higher:
http://www.carbohydrateeconomy.org/
“Assuming an average efficiency corn farm and an average efficiency ethanol plant, the total energy used in growing the corn and processing it into ethanol and other products is 81,090 BTUs. Ethanol contains 84,100 BTUs per gallon and the replacement energy value for the other co-products is 27,579 BTUs. Thus, the total energy output is 111,679 BTUs and the net energy gain is 30,589 BTUs for an energy output-input ratio of 1.38:1.”
--
BTW, that study assumes all synthetic fertilizers are used in an “average” farm, the return would be greater when rotating corn with legumes.
Most ethanol today is produced using nat. gas, cellulose ethanol wouldn’t:
“Cellulosic crops, like fast growing tree plantations, use relatively little fertilizer and use less energy in harvesting than annual row crops. The crop itself is burned to provide energy for the manufacture of ethanol and other co-products. A major co-product of cellulosic crops is lignin, which currently is used only for fuel but which potentially has a high chemical value. Were it to be processed for chemical markets, the net energy gain would be even greater.”
--
As far as tax incentives, lest we forget, the idea is to get AWAY from using oil but the oil industry itself receives quite a few bennies from Uncle Sam as well.
The upshot, in my mind anyway, is that there is no one replacement for oil, but at least with ethanol the profits aren’t going to the Sheik of Araby.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
-G
