Alternative Energies, - and Recycling

[VWE]

Alternative energy is nice to read about but untill we run out of cheap fossil fuels all these 'other' energy sorces are really just a pipe dream.

[Mr No Name]

Ethanol cant be stored long term... All the ethanol craze has done is to raise the price of corn and everything made with corn.

The damned traitorous speculators on wall street would corner the market on blood if they could sell it.

We need a "Moon shot" type program to build MANY nuclear reactors, drill domestic sources for oil, including the Alaskan reserves, offshore of florida (China is drilling the area at the behest of cuba) Oklahoma and Cali.

I think we should all be more mindful of waste... I mean if no-one is watching the TV, turn it off, If you can, plan shopping trips, etc to eliminate trips later.  Insulate, Shut all blinds and curtains in the summer to make the cooling more efficient. I learned these lessons a few years ago when I had a few months without work and had to stretch every penny to survive, literally.

[Chairboy]

Too bad the SCORE engine didn't hit the development threshold needed before being sold off, a diesel-capable Wankel engine would be pretty handy for the small engine market, maybe good for hybrids.

[Angus]

Ethanol can be stored longer than both or fossil fuels or nukes will last

Anyway, just asking, - Kcal pr. liter of gasoline?

[FBBone]

Originally posted by Angus
Ahhhh, the Pimental report.

Here, from Wiki:
"Skeptics caution, however, that these potential benefits are balanced, and possibly offset, by a significant cost in the form of farmland. It has been estimated that the land area required to operate a motor vehicle for one year on pure ethanol, 11 acres, could feed 7 people over the same timeframe.[2] The logical consequences of these competing land uses are that widespread use of ethanol would lower food production from existing agricultural land, potentially inflating food prices due to less supply. Alternatively, the agricultural industry could maintain existing levels of food production and create more farmland — through deforestation — upon which to grow crops for energy production. Ironically, this could lead to the acceleration of the greenhouse effect as well as the loss of biodiversity.

It should be pointed out though, that many of these concerns are derived from studies by a single author (Pimentel) which have been rebutted by several reports.[3][4] Pimentel's argument, for example, is based on long-outdated technology, understates the energy costs of refining and transporting petroleum fuels, and neglects to account for the energy value of the byproducts of the ethanol production process, including that of the high protein cattle feed."

Pimentel's stuff is in short....rubbish.
BTW, I know a farm who's main output is liquor. They however feed dozens of cattle from the rests, since it's high quality protein feed. If you leave such major things out of the equations, youre not worth your salt.
Have fun with the article reading, and especially the part of E85 being used in race engines



linkie:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E85

Hold the phones, I give you a World renowned Cornell University Scientist, and you give me wiki?  Plus you seemed to overlook the efficiency (or lack thereof) of ethanol.  Anyone who's ever been to the drag strip knows the potential of alcohol to produce power, the only thing is you need LOTS of it to do so.

This from The University of Arkansas.........

The data indicated that E-85 has more horsepower generating potential than 87 octane unleaded
gasoline, but has a higher consumption rate. On November 2, 2004 the price of E-85 was $1.81
and the price of 87 octane unleaded gasoline was $1.88 at the Petro Plus Station in Garnett,
Kansas. At these fuel prices the cost to produce one horsepower per hour with E-85 is $0.31 and
is $0.15with 87 octane unleaded gasoline. Thus, 87 octane unleaded gasoline is more efficient in
small gas engines. For E-85 to be more efficient the price per gallon of E-85 would have to be
nearly 50 percent of the price per gallon of unleaded gasoline. Future plans include running
engines for extended periods of time then disassembling the engines and measuring the internal
parts to compare them for any differences in wear. This project will serve as a model for future
undergraduate research.

LINK

Even if initial production costs are lower, the overall cost is higher given its lower output/lb, making ethanol a bad choice.

[Sikboy]

Originally posted by Mr No Name
All the ethanol craze has done is to raise the price of corn and everything made with corn.

If this is going to raise the price of Elijah Craig, I say **** the planet.

http://www.internetwines.com/mh201194.html

-Sik

[Mr No Name]

Sooner or later, it WILL.  Look at the price of corn products in the grocery stores now.  If you have kids you already know that cereals, milk (because cows eat corn) have already been hit by corn now being traded as an energy commodity.

[bj229r]

Does the govt still pay farmers NOT to grow corn? (I realize it HAS been necessary at various points in the past, but no govt program EVER goes away)

[Chairboy]

Originally posted by bj229r
Does the govt still pay farmers NOT to grow corn? (I realize it HAS been necessary at various points in the past, but no govt program EVER goes away)

I'm not sure it HAS been necessary.  Price controls suck, centralized control is communistic, and the market has historically been better at self regulating than the ham-fisted machinations of economists.

[lazs2]

Oh, we can grow sugar here.. I have seen it done and it is done but... it is not an optimal crop...  we don't get the yield that say a cuba or a brazil gets.

I am all for adding 5% alcohol to our fuel if it doesn't deplete food crops and it doesn't cost more.

lazs

[Charon]

Ethanol and biodiesel, without biomass and algae respectively, are limited.

According to the  International Energy Agency’s World Energy Outlook report for 2006, biofuels are projected to provide 4 percent or 7 percent of global road-fuel demand by 2030 depending upon two analyzed scenarios. In both scenarios, the United States, the European Union and Brazil account for the bulk of the increase and remain the leading producers and consumers of biofuels. Ethanol is expected to account for most of the increase in biofuels use worldwide, as production costs are expected to fall faster than those of biodiesel. The share of biofuels in transport-fuel use remains far and away the highest in Brazil -- the world’s lowest-cost producer of ethanol.
According to the report, a primary limiter is the fuel or food usage About 35 million acres of land are now used for the production of biofuels, equal to about 1 percent of the world’s currently available arable land. This share rises to 2 percent in the Reference Scenario and 3.5 percent in the Alternative Policy Scenario. The amount of arable land needed in 2030 is equal to more than that of France and Spain in the Reference Scenario and that of all the OECD Pacific countries -- including Australia -- in the Alternative Policy Scenario.
[edit my addition]Neither of these scenarios take into account potential breakthrough technologies such as cellulosic ethanol or the production of biodiesel from algae, which could generate 5,000 US gallons per acre compared to 48 gallons with soy; 127 gallons with rapeseed (canola); and 635 gallons with palm oil.[end my addition]
Crude oil is expected to undergo a moderate easing in adjusted prices during this time relative to today, barring any major geopolitical disruptions.

These are realities. 4 percent or 7 percent is neat, but not a solution. And, biofuels are still not cost competitive and this is not a market driven solution.

In the US, its either limited E85 or national E10 - not both. maximum agricultural capacity is about 15 billion gallons per year. That's coming straight from the mouth (literally, over the phone) of several major ethanol producers and ethanol associations. The biodiesel folk are shooting for 5 percent on road displacement by 2015.

The only viable solution is a real alternative to the internal combustion engine and /or a huge sociality shift in fuel consumption patters. This is for a reduction in emissions. For no reduction in emissions, we still have a ranges of alternative petroleum options that are viable when crude is over $40 a bbl. But as the report I quoted above notes (in other areas) there is certainly no guarantee of that regardless of the past few years.

Charon

[Charon]

DUPE POST

[crockett]

Well the problem is, I don't think we will ever be able to replace fossil fuels with the one "magic bullet" fuel.

The reason gas/diesel are the dominat fuels are because they work so well. There has always been alternatives, but nothing with the same usability as gas/diesel.

The only one fuel I could see taking the place, is hydrogen but it has it's own problems and seems for what ever reason no one wants to really push it.

Natural gas is a great fuel source and can be burned in a normal car engine with modifcations. However we just can't get enough to supply the world.

Same with electric cars.. It's great for around town, but will never replace the gas engine. Then add to the fact to get the full benifit you would need solor power plants otherwise you aren't doing much to help the consumption problems.

So it comes down to the point, that people are going to have to make a drastic change in the way they live. Simply because we will likely no longer have our cake and be able to eat it too.

[LePaul]

Two words:  Oil Shale

The technology to extract it is there, it requires a significant investment to make happen.  The largest deposits are here in the USA.  Trillions.

Just imagine

[bustr]

This is interesting out of Germany.

http://biopact.com/2007/05/green-designer-coal-more-on.html

They are creating man made coal and or petroleum.