Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Bodhi on February 08, 2008, 06:58:07 PM
-
Saw this on NBC news tonight:
Recent studies are showing the the production of Ethanol is causing more harm to the environment than does the continued use of regular old gasoline and diesel.
The studies show that the removal of high green house gas absorbing flora such as trees, shrubs, and grasses to grow corn, soybeans, and bigrasses is causing more harm to the environment than had they been left in place.
The studies are also showing that the increased clearing of wild land to grow biofuels in areas like South America, the Phillipines, and Indonesia and the increased uses of heavy machinery to support these operations is creating a far higher carbon debt than the actual use of ethanol reduces.
Gotta love the knee jerk reactions. Press full production of the new technology without studying the effects.
Thanks Al!
-
Is not your post also a "knee jerk reaction"?
First off corn and soybean ethanol are two of the worst and are nothing but scams. There are other forms of ethanol that are better suited for producing fuel and not bad for the enviorment. Only reason corn and soybeans are being pushed is because our govt works for lobbyist not what's good for our country and it's people.
People whom have a clue are not pushing that kind of ethanol, that stuff is being pushed by the Farmers union lobbyist, big oil and it's eatin up by our corrupt political system. At least here in the US, can't really speak for those other countries.
-
Yep.
And in addition to all this I read that there is an indication that the carbon that biofuels emit when burned is offset by the carbon that the plants they were made from absorb from the atmosphere while growing.
Net effect = zero
SAVE PLANET!!!!!!!
Have you hugged a tree today?
-
Here in Oz sugar cane has been used for ethanol production for years.
-
Originally posted by SD67
Here in Oz sugar cane has been used for ethanol production for years.
same for Brazil.
-
Ethanol in gas causes roughly 30% less gas mileage.
-
My truck can run on E-85, but I have never put a single drop in it.
I always use 89 octane unleaded gasolene
-
We have E10 here (10% ethanol) and I wouldn't touch it with a barge pole.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Ethanol in gas causes roughly 30% less gas mileage.
And costs just about the same as regular unleaded.
But hey, it's good for the environment. :rolleyes:
-
In other countries(like Brazil) you have a choice of regular fuel, or ethanol fuel, and the ethanol is much cheaper, but there ethanol is made mostly from sugar.
-
Originally posted by Donzo
And costs just about the same as regular unleaded.
But hey, it's good for the environment. :rolleyes:
Well, with about a 30% reduction in mileage, you end up using the SAME amount of straight gas as before, and you're spending 50% more.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Well, with about a 30% reduction in mileage, you end up using the SAME amount of straight gas as before, and you're spending 50% more.
I know. The logic behind this movement kicks ass!
-
Originally posted by Donzo
I know. The logic behind this movement kicks ass!
Logic? what logic? Logic's not important, whats important is "How do you feel?" "Do you feel good?" "Do you feel like you're doing something to stop Global Warming/Climate Change/Save the Whales?"
-
This report is very misinformed and highly misleading. It must have been produced by The Bush Administration.
As stated earlier corn is a very poor crop to make ethanol from. You can thank Archer-Daniels-Midland for corn based ethanol. Switchgrass is a much better source with much higher yields. It can also be grown in areas unsuitable for corn. Plus switchgrass is not a foodstuff and would have no effect on food prices.
Ethanol is a good thing and we need to produce a lot more than we do.
-
Its too bad they havent developed oil shale production....this can be processed into synthetic crude oil. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale)
Production would require some serious investment, but we have an abundance of oil shale and could certainly ditch the need for mideast oil. Combined with conservation and more efficient engineering in cars , trucks and jet engines, this could be a real help.
The thing with crude oil versus the other options is the fact petroleum simply packs more power in its atoms. Its going to be really difficult to replace gasoline fuels just comparing the energy levels to each other.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
increased uses of heavy machinery to support these operations is creating a far higher carbon debt than the actual use of ethanol reduces.
:aok Right on. That comes from forming a so called plan, feeding it to the people without the benefit of telling them that their big plans start at point C ,D or or E instead of point A.
The one`s with the plastic Gore statues on their dash don`t like to hear this though.
The whole scam is a mockery to human intelligence.
-
Again, they are painting a worst case scenario. Using switchgrass instead of corn would flip those numbers hard.
LINK (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=grass-makes-better-ethanol-than-corn)
But yields from a grass that only needs to be planted once would deliver an average of 13.1 megajoules of energy as ethanol for every megajoule of petroleum consumed—in the form of nitrogen fertilizers or diesel for tractors—growing them. This means that switchgrass ethanol delivers 540 percent of the energy used to produce it, compared with just roughly 25 percent more energy returned by corn-based ethanol according to the most optimistic studies.
-
Originally posted by SD67
We have E10 here (10% ethanol) and I wouldn't touch it with a barge pole.
If you use a 2-Stroke engine which hasn't been properly tuned problems might arise. Yet you would have been using gasoline with an oxygen component for years allready.
From end users perspective there's no difference whether the fuel contains a little bit of ethanol or "MTBE" or equivalent.
-
Ethanol is extremely hygroscopic and as such water is miscible with it and it can have catastrophic effects on many engine components.
-
There is a problem with out good old gasoline.
You see, we're going to run out of it....
Anyway, why is the USA so hot on making ethanol from corn? As I understand it, it's not nearly the most efficient way for biofuel, and the only explanation I have heard for the mass is that the soil on large areas is unsuitable for many herbs because of exessive herbacide usage.
Anyone informed on this?
-
The only reason the USA is so "hot" on making ethanol from corn is because of the kickbacks provided by the farmers lobbyists.
-
Hemp is the way to go.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Ethanol in gas causes roughly 30% less gas mileage.
Get your facts straight.. Corn ethanol gets worse gas milage. The crap they are trying to push on us because of the farmers lobbyist. Not other forms such as sugar or algae oil.
-
Originally posted by SD67
Ethanol is extremely hygroscopic and as such water is miscible with it and it can have catastrophic effects on many engine components.
Yes that's why it's added to gasoline in cold conditions on purpose. Less in these days, but it was the norm back in the carburator days. It never caused any problems.
In any normal operating enviroment there will be no problems.
-
Originally posted by crockett
Get your facts straight.. Corn ethanol gets worse gas milage. The crap they are trying to push on us because of the farmers lobbyist. Not other forms such as sugar or algae oil.
Ethanol is ethanol no matter what it's made from, and it contains about 30% less energy in VOLUME than gasoline. Of course his facts weren't straight as he claimed that when using E85 he would use the same amount of gasoline per mile.
-
Dont know about ethnanol harming the envoirment, but these ethanol plants are popping up all over. So it's probally the future whether we like it or not. I've been to a couple of dozen in the midwest and haven't seen much visual evidence of harm. Most of the plants such as corn etc. that are being removed are planted for removal. Its not like chopping down a hundred year old tree.
I think the real problem is cows farting. Maybe we should quit feeding them beans. Or maybe we should legalize cow hunting! :lol
-
Originally posted by Xargos
Hemp is the way to go.
Yes. Alcohols should be forgotten and the focus should be in Bio-Diesel. It offers superior energy return. It can be made from anything and there's allready the equipment to use it, unlike ethanol.
-
The studies are also showing that the increased clearing of wild land to grow biofuels in areas like South America, the Phillipines, and Indonesia and the increased uses of heavy machinery to support these operations is creating a far higher carbon debt than the actual use of ethanol reduces.
That particular 'fact' has been wheeled out quite a lot lately. These people were clearing that land anyway for agricultural production, much to the detriment of the environment. Now apparently they are clearing the land for biofuel use. What's the difference?
I'm a bit suspicious that the same wording is appearing all over the place. It smells like a campaign originating from a single source. Could the oil companies have a hand in this? :noid They have a lot to lose if biofuel comes into greater use. Could there be an unholy alliance of greens and oil companies.:eek:
-
Originally posted by mora
If you use a 2-Stroke engine which hasn't been properly tuned problems might arise. Yet you would have been using gasoline with an oxygen component for years allready.
From end users perspective there's no difference whether the fuel contains a little bit of ethanol or "MTBE" or equivalent.
It doesn't take a 2 stroke engine to see the degradation in performance and mileage once ethanol or MTBE has been added to the gasoline. In my more than a decade experiance with it in Arizona the change is noticable once the fuel is diluted with it. In the two most populous counties in Arizona either ethanol or MTBE must be added to gasoline to a 10% to 15% ratio from October through March. There is a minimum 10% drop in mileage. In addition to that some vehicles have other problems as the additive eats into the rubber portions of the fuel system components.
RPM,
How many production plants are there for switch grass in operation?
-
I think that the "knee jerk" reaction that bohdi was talking about is the "we have to do something even if it is wrong" kind of thing that gave us poison water with MTBE and millions dead with a DDT ban.
GM and another company are partnering up to create a biofuel that works off grasses and plastics and old tires and lots of things.. it uses a new bacteria..
GM is quite serious..they claim 50% conversion of their fleet and the biofuel guys claim billions of gallons of fuel production capacity.
We will see.. I bet more on GM tho than osamabama and a tax.
lazs
-
Originally posted by LePaul
Its too bad they havent developed oil shale production....this can be processed into synthetic crude oil.
Canada is producing oil from oil shale, and it's not synthetic, it's real oil.
-
Originally posted by Angus
There is a problem with out good old gasoline.
You see, we're going to run out of it....
Anyway, why is the USA so hot on making ethanol from corn? As I understand it, it's not nearly the most efficient way for biofuel, and the only explanation I have heard for the mass is that the soil on large areas is unsuitable for many herbs because of exessive herbacide usage.
Anyone informed on this?
Yes. "...soil on large areas is unsuitable for many herbs because of exessive herbacide usage." as you put it sounds like boilerplate from the PANNA website. There is no basis in fact for the statement.
-
Originally posted by crockett
Get your facts straight.. Corn ethanol gets worse gas milage. The crap they are trying to push on us because of the farmers lobbyist. Not other forms such as sugar or algae oil.
Hoist on one's own petard I'd say.:)
-
Originally posted by mora
Yes. Alcohols should be forgotten and the focus should be in Bio-Diesel. It offers superior energy return. It can be made from anything and there's allready the equipment to use it, unlike ethanol.
ethanol is a primary ingrediant of Bio-diesel
-
Originally posted by alskahawk
Dont know about ethnanol harming the envoirment, but these ethanol plants are popping up all over. So it's probally the future whether we like it or not. I've been to a couple of dozen in the midwest and haven't seen much visual evidence of harm. Most of the plants such as corn etc. that are being removed are planted for removal. Its not like chopping down a hundred year old tree.
I think the real problem is cows farting. Maybe we should quit feeding them beans. Or maybe we should legalize cow hunting! :lol
Granite Falls, MN...during the first year of operation, the new ethanol plant so badly depleted the ground water they had to start pumping water from the Minnesota river just to keep operations going. It takes 4-5 gallons of water to make 1 gallon of ethanol.
Falling over ourselves to "fix"a problem that hasn't even been proven to exist is really turning out to be a not so good idea.
-
Originally posted by Donzo
Granite Falls, MN...during the first year of operation, the new ethanol plant so badly depleted the ground water they had to start pumping water from the Minnesota river just to keep operations going. It takes 4-5 gallons of water to make 1 gallon of ethanol.
Falling over ourselves to "fix"a problem that hasn't even been proven to exist is really turning out to be a not so good idea.
This was the other fact I forgot to mention. Ethanol production is also impacting local water supplies in areas where ethanol is being produced.
You liberals can keep trying to sell this ethanol scam all you like. I am not buying until some conclusive facts prove it is the right direction to head.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Ethanol in gas causes roughly 30% less gas mileage.
That would depend a lot on the quantity of ethanol I would think. We run E10 here in the DFW metroplex. That's 10% ethanol.
A 30% reduction of gas mileage would mean that a car that got 30 mpg would then suddenly only get 21 mpg.
My car is EPA rated at 29 mpg and I have gotten as much as 32 mpg for short stretches. This was done on E10 gas.
I actually don't beleive you would increase your gas consumption to 30% even on E85 which is 85% ethanol. I don't know what it would be and I would expect an increase in consumption since ethanol does not have as much energy as petroleum gasoline but I find it dificult to beleive it to be as much as 30%.
Mark
-
E85 results in a 25-30% decrease in fuel economy, but a slight increase in engine power.
E10 which is always used here in Missouri, would result in a slight decrease in economy, but it would be too marginal a difference to really make much of a difference.
I have a flex fuel Ranger, and 90% of the time I run E10, but every now and then if I'm in the area, I'll fill it up with E85 (There are only two stations in my area that sell it right now.. neither of which is convenient).
My truck loves the stuff.. runs much smoother.. peppier... kind of like giving it a treat. It's also about 30-40 cents cheaper than E10 here, but still more expensive to use in the long run. It also cleans out the fuel system nicely!
I agree, there are much more efficient ways to get ethanol other than Corn.. and we'll get there eventually, but Corn is the big thing right now.. for whatever reasons.
I'm kind of thinking this is a bit of a "test" to see how well we can adapt to alternative fuel sources... Looks like we're failing.. miserably.
-
I've seen plenty of cars with seal issues due to ethanol blended fuels, and I've also seen engines and pumps that have damage from water content in the fuel.
If you want to know if you have ethanol in your fuel (some stations have been known to sell it without advertising it since it's a little cheaper) here's a simple test.
Take a graduated container and half fill it with the fuel. Now add 1/4 volume of water and shake. Once the solution settles and separates take note of the readings. If it is not blended fuel, the separation line will be at the same volume 1/4 water and 1/2 petroleum, the petroleum will be on top. If the fuel is blended there will appear to be more water than you added, this is because the ethanol has mixed with the water and is now separated from the petroleum fuel.
This test also rather graphically demonstrates the danger of using blended fuel, this separated contaminated fuel will sit at the bottom of the tank and make its way into the pump and engine first, damaging the components it passes through. In cold conditions ice can form in these components and create further troubles.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
RPM,
How many production plants are there for switch grass in operation?
I think at the moment there is one. All the other plants are geared for corn production. Bush called for a switch to switchgrass (cellulose) production at last years SOTU. It will take a fundamental shift in production technique to get rid of corn based ethanol. Archer-Daniels-Midland has no stake in switching to cellulose based ethanol. They grow corn, not hay.
If Congress would redistribute subsidies to switchgrass production you would see vast amounts of "unsuitable" land put to use growing a crop that would fuel a good portion of our needs at a reasonable cost.
-
It's a sad day when the O'Club discusses crap like this...
Needs more Cow Bell.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Well, with about a 30% reduction in mileage, you end up using the SAME amount of straight gas as before, and you're spending 50% more.
There is 85% of Ethanol in E85 and 15% gasoline as a stabilizer.
-
Originally posted by Mark Luper
That would depend a lot on the quantity of ethanol I would think. We run E10 here in the DFW metroplex. That's 10% ethanol.
A 30% reduction of gas mileage would mean that a car that got 30 mpg would then suddenly only get 21 mpg.
My car is EPA rated at 29 mpg and I have gotten as much as 32 mpg for short stretches. This was done on E10 gas.
I actually don't beleive you would increase your gas consumption to 30% even on E85 which is 85% ethanol. I don't know what it would be and I would expect an increase in consumption since ethanol does not have as much energy as petroleum gasoline but I find it dificult to beleive it to be as much as 30%.
Mark
Around 30% with 100% Ethanol. And everyboby conveniently forgets that gasoline 100% hasn't been sold in years.
-
Originally posted by mora
If you use a 2-Stroke engine which hasn't been properly tuned problems might arise. Yet you would have been using gasoline with an oxygen component for years allready.
From end users perspective there's no difference whether the fuel contains a little bit of ethanol or "MTBE" or equivalent.
That really depends on what engine you're putting it in.
My mate put fuel with ethanol into his car without realising (the sign saying that the petrol station used ethanol in its fuel was very small and behind the counter behind the clerk). He drove 10 minutes down the road in his XM Falcon and it started spluttering, back-firing and cutting out. He had to fix a bunch of things from 10 minutes of accidental use.
I run my car on high octane unleaded from a smaller service station that cleans its tanks regularly and does not use ethanol blended fuels. I don't fill up anywhere else :aok
What about BMW's hydrogen fuelled engine idea?
-
Originally posted by mora
Around 30% with 100% Ethanol. And everyboby conveniently forgets that gasoline 100% hasn't been sold in years.
If you are referring to straight 100% gasoline, no additives like lead you are correct and also splitting hairs. That was not a very good fuel for engines that develop much horse power. If you are referring to gasoline that does not have something like alcohol or MTBE you are in error.
-
Originally posted by Mark Luper
That would depend a lot on the quantity of ethanol I would think. We run E10 here in the DFW metroplex. That's 10% ethanol.
A 30% reduction of gas mileage would mean that a car that got 30 mpg would then suddenly only get 21 mpg.
My car is EPA rated at 29 mpg and I have gotten as much as 32 mpg for short stretches. This was done on E10 gas.
I actually don't beleive you would increase your gas consumption to 30% even on E85 which is 85% ethanol. I don't know what it would be and I would expect an increase in consumption since ethanol does not have as much energy as petroleum gasoline but I find it dificult to beleive it to be as much as 30%.
Mark
Ever since the institution of E85, my fuel mileage on my jeep dropped from 20-21 to 15-16. But if I draft like crazy, I can get it up to 18 or 19.
-
I don't see why it has to be one fuel source for everyone. Competition is good
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
I don't see why it has to be one fuel source for everyone. Competition is good
True.
But when ethanol is subsidized by the gov it kinda knocks the whole competition thing out of the water.
If left to competition alone, ethanol would die a quick death.
-
I track the fuel mileage on my truck religiously. I can see a 10% drop in mpg during the periods the city requires all stations use E10 fuel. Now, they passed a law that just went into effect this year that requires it year around. A 10% decrease in efficiency with a 10% additive. The end result is that the same ammount of gasoline is used, but I end up paying 10% more for it.
-
Yet another article showing biofuels in not so desirable light:
Biofules deemed a greenhouse threat (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/08/science/earth/08wbiofuels.html?ex=1360213200&en=45a8ef741f19284f&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink)
-
Originally posted by Casca
Yes. "...soil on large areas is unsuitable for many herbs because of exessive herbacide usage." as you put it sounds like boilerplate from the PANNA website. There is no basis in fact for the statement.
What is PANNA?
Anyway, as I had understood of the herbicidal problem was that accumulated quantity of it in the soil would kill some practical species of herbs, notably food rape, which AFAIK gives a better bio-fuel yeald than corn. (On good land 1.500 litres/ha as well as 3 tonnes of high-protein food)
As for the cow farts, they fart less if they are not fed with corn, - i.e. no starch, just fructose, - that's what they are built for. The meat and milk will also taste better, - but economical outcome will drop.
Biogas can be extracted from dung, - it's better if it can be burned than letting it escape.
Anyway, farting ruminants have been around by the millions for a looooong time ;)
-
I havn't seen a single farmer up here tear up trees, or plow under grasslands so he can raise corn. Hasn't worked that way in years. Marginal land is all tied up in Conservation reserve, govt pays farmers NOT to farm it. They should be paying farmers to raise biomass like switchgrass on that land.
However I have seen the state of North Dakota which never raised much corn turn into one of the bigger corn produceing states in a single year.
Corn was listed something like # 8 of crops produced before last year.
(I used to work for the USDA here, had access to all kinds of data)
Last year corn was # 3 and we produced millions of bushels.
You know what, you want to turn that into gas for my car, go ahead.
Every gallon we grow is one gallon some desert nomad is not hijacking us for.
Its a gallon that can't be held hostage, because we need it.
Is it ideal, heck no, far far from it. But, is it better than buying oil from the middle east? In my opinion, you betcha.
Besides, there is a very good chance all those ethanol plants can be converted to produce alcohol from biomass/switchgrass instead of grain.
When that day comes, your taking grass that grows all summer, making O2 for the air. And then your turning into Alcohol that can be blended into fuel for your car.
And THAT will be a win win situation.
Ohhh and btw, all the corn, is whats known as a carbon sink. It spends 5 - 7 months sucking up carbon dioxide, and turning into O2 to breath. So grow more corn, the air just gets sweeter.
-
In Brazil they use to burn the sugarcane fields to make the harvesting easier, that alone causes quite much unnecessary pollution. Poor pay for the workers and too few of them and I guess the sugar barons are pretty much in the same position as any cocaine baron in S America collection huge profits at the cost of environment and labour.
-C+
-
Nice input Ghost :aok
BTW,an enormous amopunt of CO2 emission is simply because of forests being burned down to get a fast access to (temporarily) fertile land for coffe and then pasture. CO2 and deforestation just to get a little cheaper coffee and beef.....what a trade. Forest barons there....
-
Originally posted by Angus
What is PANNA?
Anyway, as I had understood of the herbicidal problem was that accumulated quantity of it in the soil would kill some practical species of herbs, notably food rape, which AFAIK gives a better bio-fuel yeald than corn. (On good land 1.500 litres/ha as well as 3 tonnes of high-protein food)
Pesticide Action Network North America. A group of earth muffins dedicated to the elimination of pesticides.
Pesticides don't just hang out in the soil and accumulate forever. First, they have a half life. They photodegrade (are degraded by sunlight) and biodegrade (degrade by interaction with soil compounds). Seccond, they are translocated through the soil profile through precipitation or irrigation. This is known as mobility. Thus for a pesticide to have a permanent effect on crops it can't break down and it can't go anywhere.
Products that tend to be persistant, that is to say do not readily degrade, make regulators nervous and tend to be heavily restricted or outright banned. An example of this class would be Triazines which can be used in a very limited way. Another example of a persistant product (although not an herbicide) is DDT which has been banned in the U.S. since the 1973.
I am unaware of any cases in which herbicide accumulation has had any permanent effect beyond the next few growing seasons. Even herbicides that are formulated for the express purpose of keeping things from growing for as long as possible (classified as soil sterilants. Example: Pramitol) don't really last much longer than 6 months to a year under normal conditions.
As far as Ethanol goes (so as not to hijack the thread) there is a lot of interest in Switchgrass. The Brazilians have made Ethanol a success due to the fact that they can go burn down another ten thousand acres of rain forest whenever they need some fuel. The main point to be understood though is that we can't convert enough acres currently used for food production into fuel production to have any meaningful effect on the energy problem.
-
I was referring to herbicide, and 6 months does not count as many seasons....
Anyway, a couple of seasons are an explanation enough....
AFAIK, a decent accumulated dose of all 3 (herbicide+pesticide+fungicide) can take some 9 years to water out.
Organic farming makes a demand of "clean" soil for at least 2 years.
So, in short, that could be the explanation? You don't want to drop out a couple of years in crops just to be able to grow a different crop....
-
Originally posted by Angus
I was referring to herbicide, and 6 months does not count as many seasons....
Anyway, a couple of seasons are an explanation enough....
AFAIK, a decent accumulated dose of all 3 (herbicide+pesticide+fungicide) can take some 9 years to water out.
Organic farming makes a demand of "clean" soil for at least 2 years.
So, in short, that could be the explanation? You don't want to drop out a couple of years in crops just to be able to grow a different crop....
That could be the case Angus. An organic farmer would, of course, elect not to plant behind herbicides. I spray organic acres every summer and the organic guy always comes out to inspect the airplane to make sure the spray system is neutralized. The products they have to use generally cost about five times the amount of a similar product used on commerical corn but I suppose they make it up with the "organic" premium at market.
A minor correction: herbicides and fungicides are both pesticides.
-
Interesting! Well Fascinating!
I happen to be an organic farmer, - as well as a conventional one, (different slabs of land), so I am rather familiar with the odds and ends...untill it comes to pesticides, which, due to cool climate where I live, do not get used very much.
The torture of going organic is the couple of years of very low output, where there is a question whether you are bankrupt before having proper yeald again. At the end of the day, money is the boss....sad but true.
In our case the problem has to do with pH, weeds, and crops. However, if you manage it over "the hill", crops are o.k., weeds are something that takes quite some skill and work to tackle, and the pH will fix itself,- in my case it went from 5.4-5.6 ish to 6-6.2.
Now,to pesticide....I may have the wrong word? In my understanding the English word "Herbicide" goes for the weed campaign, "Fungicide" for the fungus campaign, and "Pesticide" for the insect campaign.
As a sidenote, - of interest for you perhaps, - where I live, we have practically no insect that damages potatoes or carrots, but turnips are a pain. We have no problems with fungus in barley or oats, but they can be a pain in potatoes. Weeds are not much of a problem, and can frequently be dealt with by mechanical means (notably in potato growing).
However, it can be a pain getting weeds out if you choose to go from "row growing" to flat-field, - and in those cases the popular stuff is called "harmony".
Anyway, nice meeting someone who is a pro in the business ;)
-
Very interesting to meet an Icelandic grower. It sounds like you have some unique problems to deal with.
In the part of the world I work in, Nebraska, we have a lot of insect and weed pressure. Chemical herbicides are used to control many weeds that used to be controlled mechanically because it conserves sub soil moisture which is lost to cultivation and water can be a problem on the Plains. How long does your growing season run there?
I spray a lot of fungicide in small grains but I'm sure the conditions are more conducive to pathogens in this part of the world.
I'm assuming English is a second language for you and if that is the case I'm mightily impressed. As far as nomenclature goes a pesticide is anything that kills a pest. Types of pesticides include; herbicide, plants; insecticide, insects; fungicide, fungus; nematicide, nematodes and so on.
Nice to meet you Angus.
-
NOt to mention corn is the staple for most food production.....eggs milk meet ect.
Anyone that has to feed a family has noticed the increases in food costs. With my dollar stretching less and the costs rising it's getting tougher to feed a family of four.
-
biggest problem with biofuels and the reason why they cant replace fossil fuels is that we need that land for food production. great if we can get some fuel out of food by-product but this notion of planting to power vehicles, national grids etc is just nuts.
I mean I like the idea of using biomass for energy, plastics, textlies, building materials etc but we would need a global population of less than a billion to make it feasable. the solution is unclear. or at least its anagram :D
gunslinger ive got a feeling our posts are related...
-
Something will either REPLACE fossil fuels, or NOT. Because the resource is counting down.
And Holmes, while you mention the required land for biofuel, the EU has untill recently been paying cash for NOT using land at all (up to 10%) as well as the USA (AFAIK) still doing so today.
Anyway, for Casca:
I am happy to meet someone here that is into growing. REALLY!!!
There is definately quite some difference between our areas and what we grow. So,- there are things to learn, - from each other!
(BTW I have been involved in agriculture in Europe as well, and already the the difference is quite a bit).
Your problems would definately be more related to insects etc, while ours are more to the shorts windows of proper seasons as well as some impressive metreological abnormalities, noteably in the last years.
(hehe, last weekend we had wind gusts up to 266 KNOTS in the country!!!)
Anyway, nice to correspond with somebody with some knowledge!
-
Angus, i planted 1000 sq ft garden last year, does that count?
-
So If I grow a crop for four months on 10 acres, chop it down and grow another four months, then chop it down and grow another 4 months and chop it down, in ten years I prevent 300 acres from producing oxygen or food?
With fuzzy math like that in several generations on ten acres we'll cut half the country's oxygen supply and food.
-
Again, we need to switch from corn to switchgrass as the primary source for ethanol. Another tidbit, the corn used for ethanol is completely different from the corn used for foodstuffs. The rising cost of food is directly tied to the rise in fuel prices. That stuff don't just magicly appear at the Piggly Wiggly.
-
Uh you might want to check on that corn thing again. Even if all the corn ethanol is from feed corn, that means other corn would be diverted from human consumption corn to make up the feed shortfall. Hence the higher prices for corn used for human consumption as well as feed. That means any and everything related to the use of corn then also rises in price and that has already happened.
-
Increased food prices are the result of 2 things. One is the increased demand for land due to alternative fuel production. Second is the increased demand for meat, milk etc by big nations such as in Asia.
And John, did you plant or turf? I am planting 10.000.000 sq.ft. this spring :D
(It turns to turf, which gets cut and will in the future cover land that is barren today)
-
last year.. angus and beetle were telling me I was being selfish for not getting on the ethanol bandwagon.. that I didn't want it for my hot rods.
I explained that I would use it in my hot rods to make even more horsepower soooo bring it on.. they hated that answer cause it's no fun to be pious if you can't force people to suffer.
Now.. it seems that "do something right now" has turned into yet another nightmare...
Science magazine just said that we will waste 500 billion bucks on ethanol. that it causes more harm than good.
I guess some "scientist" got it wrong last year eh?
lazs
-
Call it scientistic Lazs, but one day, mankind will run out of fossil fuel.
Then call it silly to struggle for other alternatives.
Then call it smart to substitize land for NOT being used while it can be used to produce fuel....
And...you can get horsepowers for biofuel-cocktails...oh yeah...
(And with biofuel around on the market it's going to be longer time before you run out of fossil fuel...or rather your grand-children.)
-
name one thing we have run out of.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
name one thing we have run out of.
lazs
Oil made from whales?:D
-
This...we ran out of......(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/ExtinctDodoBird.jpeg)
:D
The thumb rule is that we will run out of just about anything if exploitation is not countered. So, mankind still is in the poddle of records being set of running out of many things as fast as possible.
This applies to hunting, fishing, mining, forests, and now partially agriculture.
Oil made from whales?...hmmm, not so much no more, but there are still some whales about.
Cod in the North sea for fish & chips? Nope, almost extinct, so better go shop from the cocky Icelanders who practically waged war to preserve their cod.....funny isn't it.
Easy prey+fast money normally means you're going to "run out" to the extent of the goods being too rare to be useable in industries.
So, Mr. Lazs, how long do you think we can keep the pace with deforestation and current consumption of fossil fuels? Which one is going to cause trouble or run out first? Will it be anything of the same period as i.e. since the industrial revolution? Will we be running on fossile fuels in 150 years as today?
-
Originally posted by rpm
As stated earlier corn is a very poor crop to make ethanol from. You can thank Archer-Daniels-Midland for corn based ethanol
You can also thank them for the 54-cent-a-gallon tariff on imported Ethanol, and the 51-cent-a-gallon tax credit for US producers.
That's right. US Ethanol blenders get a 51-cent-a-gallon tax credit for domestic production. And people wonder why the approval rating of Congress is so low.
-
I was a manager at a gas station here in WI when the EPA mandated 10% ethanol in gas for the 5 counties around Milwaukee.
it made a HUGE difference in mileage in cars, and wear and tear on lawn mowers and the like.
local mechanics have shown how the ethanol damages fuel injectors corroding the thin lining on the wires leading to tons of fuel injector replacements.
there also have been studies and reports (maybe someone here can find them) that cars made after 1989 IIRC do not show any reduction in emissions as they burn more fuel with the lost mileage. (cars older than that have a different emission system and show a small reduction in gasses and that was the reasoning for switching to mandated 10% ethanol here).
Gotta love how the EPA can just mandate something harmful to our cars, with no gain based on an assumption, and no real hard data.
-
I see the biggest problem being that all these eggheads scream for the world to start using ethanol and it will save the planet, and they haven't got the science to back it up.
It's just like the theory of man made global climate change. It's a theory that is not proven. So stop trying to act like it is.
-
Originally posted by JB73
it made a HUGE difference in mileage
Just how much? Theoretically the difference would be 3% if compared against 100% gasoline. But since it's unavailable the difference is less.
-
angus... theory aside... name one thing we have actually run out of.. not species or insects... those come and go with or without us. I bet there is oil fields bigger than any we have discovered so far...
lazs
-
Originally posted by mora
Just how much? Theoretically the difference would be 3% if compared against 100% gasoline. But since it's unavailable the difference is less.
for my car at the time from 21 down to 18 MPG.
not 3% but 3 miles, or 14% or there about. From my experience 10 - 15% reduction was the norm.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
angus... theory aside... name one thing we have actually run out of.. not species or insects... those come and go with or without us. I bet there is oil fields bigger than any we have discovered so far...
lazs
We haven't RUN OUT YET. Well, we did kill some species straight out, and we did pretty well with razing some species from hoards down to practically nothing, and that includes humans too....
Now, for your "bet" I ask thee 2 questions:
1: where did the oil fields come from?
2: Where are they?
Then the 3rd. - What is wrong with growing biofuel on land that before got grants for NOT being used?
My 4rth is actually why USA goes for corn-ethanol while Europe is more mixed up with ethanol, gas and bio-oil...all confusing...
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Uh you might want to check on that corn thing again. Even if all the corn ethanol is from feed corn, that means other corn would be diverted from human consumption corn to make up the feed shortfall. Hence the higher prices for corn used for human consumption as well as feed. That means any and everything related to the use of corn then also rises in price and that has already happened.
Mav, there are many different types of corn. Corn engineered for food, corn engineered for oil, another for ethanol, one for feed, ect.,ect...
Allotments are handed out by the USDA for each type. They want more of "Type A" they increase the allotments and put more land in production. They don't take away from "Type B" to make up the difference. There is plenty of land the government keeps idle thru allotment subsidies.
They do not divert "Type A" corn to "Type B" use either.
-
Doing travels in Germany last year, I poached some ripe corn from a field.
I boiled it. Forever. It was mostly unedible. It was the one for animal feed :D
-
A couple other minor point about costs.
Back in the early 1970's wheat sold for aprox 4 dollars 50 cents a bushel of grain. Thats roughly 60 lbs worth. There was very close to 12 cents worth of wheat in each loaf of bread.
Yet bread loaves sold on the store for 1.25$ each.
Wheat prices spike, went up to 6 and 7 $ a bushel. Ok so now the wheat in that loaf of bread went from 12 cents to what, 18-20 cents max? 50% increase, more or less.
Yet bread loaf prices went up to 2.50$ on the shelves. Everyone down the line heard that farmers were getting more, so they all raised their prices accordingly. Can't have farmers getting rich without us getting some after all.
For most of the last 30 years, grain prices have been held low.
Lots of government programs aimed at just exactly that, keep costs low, keep food cheap. Well now in part due to higher transport costs the cat is out of the bag.
Corn that 15 months ago sold for 2.05$ a bushel is over 5.00$ a bushel and climbing. Wheat, sunflower, canola, soybeans are all hitting record prices as well. In part because so much corn was grown, means competition for those bushels of wheat and soybeans on the market is fierce.
MARK MY WORDS, and mark them well.
For ever dimes worth of wheat in a loaf of bread you will pay a dollar.
Not to the farmer, don't blame him. But to all the middlemen. The trucker that hauls it, the miller that grinds it, the trucker that hauls the flour, the Baker that bakes it into bread, and the trucker that hauls the bread all take their piece of the pie.
Meat costs are going to skyrocket. To put good marbled meat on livestock takes grain. Grain just got expensive. If you double the price of grain you'll at least double the price of meat. This is bottom line, Feed lot operators have to feed them something. They will pass on any increased costs to you.
Stock up NOW on staples while you can afford them. Anything that keeps well, has a long shelf life. Rice, beans, Pasta, it may not be exciting, but it will keep you alive.
The genie is out of the bottle now. As long as we have increasing grain and fuel costs you will see increasing food costs.
-
angus.. when I was growing up ALL the scientists told us that oil came from one species.. they even used one of em for logos on gas stations.
Then.. as I got older.. they kinda changed their minds but.. they said we would run out by 1980 or so.
One thing we have never been short of is hand wringing drama queens.
I bet there are oil fields bigger than all the ones we have discovered so far. They might be hard to get to but.. I bet they are there.
nope.. we haven't run out of anything yet. Those who say we will have been wrong... oh.. let's round it off and call it... 100% of the frigging time.
lazs
-
I am not anti bio fuel. Ethanol has a part to play. It is useful to meet requirements for oxygenated fuels for instance. It is useful as a boutique fuel for special applications. Here is the problem:
Earth has a surface area of 196,940,400 square miles, slightly less than a perfect ball with a diameter of 7913.5 miles (which is the mean diameter of the Earth).
The surface area of the seven continents and all the islands of the world is about 57 million miles, while the total area of the six habitable continents (Antarctica excluded) is around 52 million square miles.
Including Antarctica , over one fifth of the globe's land mass is under water (oceans, lakes, rivers, etc.) or ice. This leaves about 45 million square miles of exposed land.
The human population on earth has crossed six billion. If we distribute all the exposed land evenly among all mankind, 133 people would have to share one square mile. What that means is that every single person on Earth, man woman and child would have close to five acres of land for his or her use. More precisely, each person would get 209,000 square feet of land, or a square plot of land 457 feet on each side.
Not all this land can be used beneficially however. A significant portion of the Earth's exposed land is unhabitable or cannot be used for any agricultural purpose. Large portions lie in the far north. Large portions are extremely arid. Large portions are very mountainous. In sum, only about one fourth of all the land on earth, or somewhat more than 12 million square miles, is arable.
Today, over half of the arable land in the world is in fact not under cultivation. Bringing the unused land into service in many cases would require huge investments of money and effort, and would do considerable damage to the environment. For example, only about 28% of the arable land on the African continent is used for growing crops. Immense tracts of forests or jungles would have to be cleared to bring the rest of the arable land on that continent to productive use.
Thus, only about one eighth of each imaginary plot of land distributed to each person is land which is under cultivation. In effect, each person has a piece of land about 26,000 square feet (a square 161 feet on each side or just a bit more than ˝ an acre) at his or her disposal on which to grow all that he or she needs. Now unless the world population starts to decrease, which is a trend I have failed to perceive yet, that half acre is going to keep getting smaller and smaller. Even if we start trying to put more land in production we will have to fight the earth muffins hammer and tongs, it will be expensive and will still, ultimately, not be enough to sustain the world population at some point.
I can remember the apocoylaptic screeds of the 60's and 70's such as The Population Bomb by Paul Erlich. We were supposed to be suffering worldwide famines by the 80s. We managed to forestall the gloomy outcomes predicted in these books through production agriculture but the issues raised in them are still valid.
Now ethanol can be produced at a rate of about 2.8 gallons per bushel. In the part of the world that I work in we are getting about 200 bushels of corn per acre so you can use your personal half acre to produce about 280 gallons of ethanol. Hey that doesn't sound bad...but wait...we had inputs which we have to subtract to figure out how much energy we are producing. We had to fertilize, run the machinery and, in some cases, irrigate. Then we had to transport the corn to the ethanol plant and process the ethanol. So what do we gain? Well a Berkeley study of three years ago says we are actually losing energy. Of course they were Berkeley professors and took the position that you really had to add the energy it took to mine the ore and smelt the metal that made the tractor. That doesn't seem fair to me so we can look at the Corn Grower's Association estimates of a net energy gain of around 20%. Using this more optimistic number we have a net energy gain of a mere 56 gallons of ethanol for your half acre. Since ethanol has about 2/3 the energy of gasoline that equates to about 37 gallons of gas.
Now you need to use your half acre to produce everything you are going to eat for the year as well as much of what you wear. So you can use your half acre to produce about 19 ounces of ethanol a day. That's not terrible news and equates to about 47 ounces of 80 proof. You can stay good and drunk but eventually you are going to want a bowl of corn flakes and a new pair of socks.
If ethanol is going to be produced on cropland, there is not enough in the world to make ethanol a viable energy alternative in any meaningful way, two or three percentage points of energy consumption maybe.
The inevitable corollary to this is that the more land that is diverted to energy production the more expensive commodities produced on the remaining land become. We are already seeing this in the case of corn which is now trading at around 5 dollars a bushel after hovering around 2 dollars a bushel from 1973 until about two years ago. Of course the market is being distorted by the massive ethanol subsidies and some people are already wondering if we are seeing a commodities "bubble". A commodities bubble preceeded the Great Depression by the way. Just sayin.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Mav, there are many different types of corn. Corn engineered for food, corn engineered for oil, another for ethanol, one for feed, ect.,ect...
Allotments are handed out by the USDA for each type. They want more of "Type A" they increase the allotments and put more land in production. They don't take away from "Type B" to make up the difference. There is plenty of land the government keeps idle thru allotment subsidies.
They do not divert "Type A" corn to "Type B" use either.
If it weren't for the fact that the price of corn has tripled. If it weren't for the fact that the price of corn related items (corn oil, corn additives in other foods has gone way up (including the corn starch based doggie chew treat we used to buy for our dog at $1.75 last seen at $7.50 when we could find it at wallyworld). If it weren't for the fact that the price of meat and other livestock related items have gone up with the price of corn, I might think you had something there.
The use of ethanol is now mandated to increase rather substantially. The switch grass and other means of producing ethanol is simply not on the ground and ready to run. That means corn will continue to be used to produce the billions of gallons of ethanol, soybeans will continue to be used for biodiesel and the price of food will rise even more steeply. Ethanol will not be able to take over for the use of petro fuels for transportation alone much less other uses in this country. It's a stop gap and a weak one at that.
-
Hence my question of why growing ethanol crops on good land,- food rape is much more effective,and then maybe the interesting switchgrass.
Anyway, Lazs, I think you will still agree with me that
- growing biofuel will delay running out of fossile fuel
- it's better to grow biofuel on a slab of land rather than substitizing nothing on it! (And that nothing will normally be weeds)
- it's a good move in the sence of reducing the might of the barons of big oil, - such as the Arab states
And we will run out... One reason we are not in a worse state is the fact that not all people of the globe consume the same amount of energy.
You can try to picture the energy consumption of the globe if every soal on earth would require the same average as a citizen of the U.S. Try gas for starters and then compare it with the rate of which it is beinbg pumped out today ;)
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
I see the biggest problem being that all these eggheads scream for the world to start using ethanol and it will save the planet, and they haven't got the science to back it up.
It's just like the theory of man made global climate change. It's a theory that is not proven. So stop trying to act like it is.
I think you are right about that - I'm in with the "it's the sun, stupid" as the source of global warming. That being said, I'm OK with biofuels, both biodiesel and ethanol, as I would vastly prefer to pay ADM or some farmers co-op for my fuel than some middle-eastern (or south american) dictator. Expanding the US agricultural sector can't do anything but good for this country in the long run.
E85 does give you less mileage - but it is supposed to cost less as well. Fuel grade ethanol on the CBOT is around 2.19 a gallon, which is high. Expect that to drop as more supply comes on line.
The biggest reason the farmers pushed corn to make ethanol was because at the time ethanol started being traded on the CBOT as fuel, corn was trading at $2 a bushel, which meant that a single corn contract (5,000 bushels) was worth about $10K to a farmer. It takes about 3 corn contracts to make a single ethanol contract (29,000 gallons), and that ethanol contract was trading just shy of $2, meaning that $30,000 worth of corn made $58,000 worth of ethanol - a good deal for the farmers who were getting hammered on $2 corn. Thats why you see so many farmers co-ops building ethanol plants - not because it is good for the environment, because it was good for the farmers bottom line.
Now we have $5 corn (which the farmers also like), and $2.19 ethanol - when the farmers can add switchgrass or soybeans or some other profitable fuel crop into their crop rotation, you will see that happen too. Soybeans happens to be a good dual use crop - you crush the oil out of it for biodiesel, then use the soybean meal as high-protein animal feed.
We've got to get off oil folks - until somebody figures a way to make, store, and distribute hydrogen economically, biofuels are our best bet.
EagleDNY
$.02
-
angus.. it sounded pretty logical when they told me we would be out of oil by 1980 too. I don't think you have a clue. I don't think anyone does and I don't think anyone can say how much oil we have or when we will run out or even if it is possible to.
I have nothing against using excess land and crops for fuel... so long as it doesn't do too much damage.
I just wonder why GM just partnered up with that bio fuel outfit. The outfit says that they intend to make billions of gallons of fuel at the cost of millions of gallons of energy.
Anyone know anything about that? Just happened to hear the guy on NPR
lazs
-
So, Eagle,- the ethanol production is basically a business-related issue as I understand it. Doesn't surprize me, - not the first time that short-term business related issues override long-term common sense.
And Lazs, - I don't know what frigging predictions you were listening to in the 70's. That applies to global cooling as well as running out of oil. Maybe a religious radio station rather than scientists? For in my case, I recall GW being predicted, and the human race running out of fossil fuels in the 21st century, with the 1st symptom being the price jacking up.
And what's happening?
Silly that all those substities payed for NOT using land didn't go to the project of growing bio-fuel and testing various technical methods instead......we'd have 30 more years of production and application experience...
-
It all comes down to one simple thing, If man made it, it's bad.
-
every thing you make from oil you can make from coal, and the USA has 300 years supply of coal.
-
Originally posted by john9001
every thing you make from oil you can make from coal, and the USA has 300 years supply of coal.
It's very expensive to make synthetics from coal though, do you want to pay $10 for gas?
-
Originally posted by Ghosth
MARK MY WORDS, and mark them well.
(http://disney-clipart.com/Chicken-Little/Disney-Chicken-Little-Sky-Falling.jpg)
-
As seen on Discovery channel, take 10% of the state of Nevada (80 % already owned by the goverment) Bulldoze it flat, and put it to Solar energy production.
You could produce all the electricity needed here in the US.
Same thing with Nebraska and wind generators.
All renewable resources, sun shines every day for a few million years yet.
Wind in North Dakota - Nebraska blows more days than not.
Yes it would cost a lot up front. But thats the kind of building that grows an economy, provides jobs.
Does this solve the oil problem? Only if the government mandated that we have 5 years to get every gas burning car off the road. Will it ever happen? Not in our lifetimes, too much money from big oil gets spent to too many people in charge.
As to the whole food situation, the problem is overpopulation.
Deal with the problem and the food situation is manageable.
Fail to deal with it, and yes we will all have a problem some day soon.
However I figure most of the Chinese will drown trying to get to Australia.
Just leaves the horde south of the border to worry about.
(yes that was a Joke btw)
-
Originally posted by C(Sea)Bass
It's very expensive to make synthetics from coal though, do you want to pay $10 for gas?
do you want $10 gas or no gas?
but seriously, the cost of syn gas from coal is about the same as gas from oil , just have to build more plants.
-
Originally posted by Angus
So, Eagle,- the ethanol production is basically a business-related issue as I understand it. Doesn't surprize me, - not the first time that short-term business related issues override long-term common sense.
The provision of fuel to consumers for transportation is a business, whether it is gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel, or biofuels like ethanol. The main question for me is who I do the business with - American farmers or middle eastern / south american dictators. I don't blame the farmers for seeing a business opportunity in being ethanol providers, after all - it is their corn, and I don't remember many people crying for the farmers when the price of corn was too low for them to make any money on it.
The long term common sense is that we have to get off oil - for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that we are giving vast amounts of money to some not very nice people. The vast wealth we are transferring to the Russians, Saudis, Iranians, Venezuelans, etc. is being used against us, and it is high time we did something about it.
I'm thinking I can trust the farmers to figure out the best business model for the biofuels industry, whether it be soybeans for biodiesel, or switch grass based ethanol, or some kind of genetically engineered corn that makes gobs of sugar for more efficient conversion - they'll figure it out. In the meantime, I'm OK with giving the industry some tax breaks (especially since I am of the opinion that we pay plenty of taxes already), especially if it helps fund the research to make it all work more efficiently.
EagleDNY
$.02 more
-
Originally posted by Ghosth
As seen on Discovery channel, take 10% of the state of Nevada (80 % already owned by the goverment) Bulldoze it flat, and put it to Solar energy production.
You could produce all the electricity needed here in the US.
True, but how do you get that electricity to where it needs to go? Transferring that electricity from Nevada to say, North Carolina isn't really practical (or you can be darn sure someone would have figured out how to make a $ doing it).
I think it is more likely that we could distribute the electrical grid by putting solar cells on pretty much every rooftop that gets good sunlight. Think of the "victory garden" concept - energy for america coming from every home in america.
On a related note - I read yesterday that some smart nano-tech researchers have come up with a new type of solar cell that will also convert IR (and waste heat) back into electricity - testing estimates say the cells will be 80% efficient and they can print them onto junk plastic sheeting. The problem they have to solve with this is that the AC current the thing produces is in the 10 Terahertz range, so they have to figure a way to step it down or convert it to DC current that they can put on the cells. Give 'em time - they'll figure it out.
-
Originally posted by john9001
do you want $10 gas or no gas?
but seriously, the cost of syn gas from coal is about the same as gas from oil , just have to build more plants.
I want a real alternate energy source.
Nuclear Cars!!! :D
Or we could just invest in the railroads, bringing them back up to the size they had in the 1940's then put electrical cantenary wires on all the routes, and power the line with nuclear power. People would be able to take a train anywhere a car goes now for the most part, and cars could run off ethanol over the short distance required to reach a railroad station.
That's my idea, doubt it has much of a chance, but I think it would work very well.
Sorry for the temporary hi-jack there:D
-
Originally posted by EagleDNY
I think it is more likely that we could distribute the electrical grid by putting solar cells on pretty much every rooftop that gets good sunlight. Think of the "victory garden" concept - energy for america coming from every home in america.
On a related note - I read yesterday that some smart nano-tech researchers have come up with a new type of solar cell that will also convert IR (and waste heat) back into electricity - testing estimates say the cells will be 80% efficient and they can print them onto junk plastic sheeting. The problem they have to solve with this is that the AC current the thing produces is in the 10 Terahertz range, so they have to figure a way to step it down or convert it to DC current that they can put on the cells. Give 'em time - they'll figure it out.
Current solar technology is useless. More energy is used in building the panel than it will produce in its lifetime.
That looks interestin, if they can make efficent solar panels, it would be a reasonable idea to put them on buildings and homes every, and at least reduce energy consumption from other sources.