Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Hawker25 on April 28, 2008, 02:09:15 PM
-
as everyone has felt the pinch of higher prices due to increased fuel i have started to pay attention to alternatives more and more. I believe that ethanol is not even a short term answer. We are already seeing shortages in the word of food staples because more ground is being used to grow corn for ethanol than food. Also in a time when we are seeing cities have serious water shortages is this the point where we want to start planting crops that use a very large amount of water. We could easily i believe create another dust bowl in the Midwest if we are not careful. I have been pondering what we could use a viable alternative to gasoline in a short time frame and believe that the answer is cng(compressed natural gas). I was reading an article in the Sunday newspaper about how Honda is selling right now a cng civic that has refueling station that you can tap into your house gas line to refuel. This is not some prototype or idea for the future, it is being sold at Honda dealerships as fast as they can produce them. Utah right now is a big player in the cng movement with it costing the approx equivalent of $0.63 a gallon. There are also many other important benefits besides just monetary gain. I believe this is an issue that both the left leaning public and right leaning public can get behind. The left i believe would support this due to the fact that cng is much cleaner burning and better for the environment. The right i think would support it because most natural gas used in the united states comes from the united states therefore our money we spend to do our necessary driving will not be going into the hands of governments and individuals who are hostile towards the united states therefore it will be good for national security. Now what i found most encouraging is that todays gasoline cars can be converted to run on cng fairly easily with average cost of aobut $3000. I figured it out and for me and my truck that gets between 18 to 20 mpg at current gas prices the ssystem would pay for itself in about 1 year. Taking into account my truck is a 2008 and is just beggining it service life i believe that it would be a good deal. Older vehicle with low number of serivice years left may not be worth the conversion. The federal govt. is now offering a $4000 tax rebate to help cover the cost of an individual switching to cng. If you are in a tax bracket that pays more than $3000 per year you could possibly get your system for free and start accumulating savings day one of operating on cng instead of gasoline. Now there are two main argumjents that come up when discussing this. Number one is that the refueling infrastructur is not in place so it won't work. I would counter with the fact that now there has been developed a system to refill from your home that this is a moot point, also there are a lot more refueling stations in places you would not expect. In Kansas City where i am now i found 2 places that are open to the public 24 hour a day. They are about 10 miles from my home but if i didn't want to put in a home refueling station the low cost of the fuel would more than offset the cost of the drive. Now everybody knows as well that as soon as gas stations see a demand for this fuel they will sell it. The second argument is that cng is much more dangerous than gasoline. I believe this is over exaggerated. People have become complacent with gasoline and forget how dangerous it is because we use it all the time. If i remember correctly 5 gallons of gasoline has approx explosive force of 25 sticks of dynamite. That being said i do believe that we need certain rules to be in enacted as to regulating inspection of cng tanks and mandatory replacement after certain kinds of accidents.
All this being said with cng being a great alternative to gasoline I do not think it is the end all replacement. I believe Hydrogen made from water is the end all, but we have not quite been able to make the scientific breakthrough to make it viable like cng is right now. The great thing about building cng infrastructure right now as opposed to other alternative fuels is that the infrastructure from cng can be carried over and used when hydrogen becomes a viable alternative making the switch cheaper and faster with less waste.
I posted this to facilitate an intelligent discussion with other aher's and I hope that we get to have it.
In closing as this is the first election where i have not had a candidate i feel that i need to vote for because they are the best i am planning on writing three letters basically outlining what i have said here and asking what that candidate plans to do about it. I plan on posting the letter on a few bbs boards i frequent along with emails of all three candidates to encourage other people to ask as well.
Rabbit27
-
The Coast Guard base in Portsmouth VA has a couple of CNG vehicles. All the forklifts on base use it and they have started converting some of the bases utility vehicles over.
I could see it being used in a hybrid vehicle as well. Imagine a Prius that used CNG and electric. Less than $10 to fill the tank and 300+ mile range. The only concern I would have is the fact that the gas is under pressure. With normal gas, if the tank is ruptured the fuel just pours out. If a spark is present you have a fire. With CNG if the tank is punctured you have an explosive decompression. Mix it with the air and add one little spark, you don't have a fire, you have a large fuel-air explosion with the resulting shock wave as well.
Safety standards would have to be much higher with regards to the tanks before it would be practical for mass production. Maybe a double walled, self sealing tank of some sort.
-
wow rambling read..... In the US there is all kinds of available farm land. Many farmers are paid not to raise certain crops.
Here this is truely a non-issue.
-
Punctuation is a good thing, as well as capitalization.
That being said, the USA imports on the order of 400 trillion cu ft of natural gas PER MONTH,
about 95% from our upstairs neighbors.
We use on the order of 2,600 trillion cu ft per month, so we produce 85% of what we use.
So any significant increase of natural gas use will need to come from increased domestic production or increased imports.
-
My alternative to the alternatives=gasoline.
Explore/drill/refine/use..................right here in good old U.S.A.
Remove the unwarranted tax and we`re good to go.
-
Holy Wall o'text Batman!
-
I just thought this kitten gif was cute and couldn't find a place to put it, so I'll put it here.
(http://elitistjerks.com/customavatars/avatar9445_1.gif)
-
Eat beans! Insert tube up rectum drive natural gas car for free till the government decides to tax your a@#, again. :lol
-
Eat beans! Insert tube up rectum drive natural gas car for free till the government decides to tax your a@#, again. :lol
If mine gets taxed anymore I want rent. :)
-
wow rambling read..... In the US there is all kinds of available farm land. Many farmers are paid not to raise certain crops.
Here this is truely a non-issue.
sorry too burst your bubble but the last farm report shows 90% of all available farm land in production at this time! the crp land that is still out is mostly in non producing areas and would not support any financial gain to farmers! also most of the money paid by the farm bill has went too disaster relief such as hurricane katrina and other stand by programs, the farmers recieve less than 12% of the moneys alocated in the plan itself! the government does not pay farmers not too produce, the only thing even like that is the base line crop rates that if not met the farmer can recieve subsidies provided he planted enough acres and did not yeild a satisfactory crop!
in this day and age there is no good reason not too plant fence row to fence row with the comodity prices so high! so all the gov. will allow in the farm bill is planted! the U.S. has grown record crops over and over again for the last ten years, each bigger than the last,even with the droughts on the lower plains, technology has been such that record crops are grown with 70% less water than twenty years ago!
my family farm grew 88 bushel soybeans here in north west texas just 5 years ago, those numbers were unheard of under irrigation!! sadly we have sold our farm and i am no longer part of the most noble profesion of feeding the people, yet i still remember talking about farming for fuel with my grandfather who said that it would be the end of us all once it was more imptortant too farm for fuel than for food!!
-
the government does not pay farmers not too produce, the only thing even like that is the base line crop rates that if not met the farmer can recieve subsidies provided he planted enough acres and did not yeild a satisfactory crop!
Really? It took me three seconds to remember and find an article referencing this (italics mine for emphasis):
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_38_17/ai_79027432
Pippen, who reportedly makes $14 million a year dribbling basketballs for the Portland Trailblazers, last year received $26,000 for growing hardwood trees on an Arkansas property enrolled in the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Conservation Reserve Program, which pays "farmers" to idle their land.
-
I can tell you that at least 10,000 acres are lying fallow around here, just in this vicinity. And yes, farmers are paid NOT to produce, and some crops have price supports.
-
Really? It took me three seconds to remember and find an article referencing this (italics mine for emphasis):
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_38_17/ai_79027432
your snippit proves my point he did produce trees on the land and he did get paid too do so!
with the crp land that was put into the program in this part of the country the farmers were paid for the land too set idle only if they planted it back too native grass ! the contracts were for ten years, this was in the 1980's the reason this happened is because of very low comodity prices, the gov thought that reducing the producing acres would help to raise prices, but in the end it just turned alot of poor quality farm land back into pasture!
it is estimated that 91 million acres are in production in the U.S. this year, in production means new crop rotation ,not trees, try to figure out the percentage of that for your basketball player, sounds like he made out pretty good at the tax payers expence and he really needed the money! yes there are people out there that still recieve money for land they do not farm but at a loss! if the land is worth anything there are buyers lined up to by and put back into production that land, o might have forgot to tell you there is a penalty from the gov.for taking the land out of crp that is also stoping what little crp land is left out of production!
-
I can tell you that at least 10,000 acres are lying fallow around here, just in this vicinity. And yes, farmers are paid NOT to produce, and some crops have price supports.
you might be talking about ground that needs to set out for one or more seasons, in some parts of the country where more natural farming takes place, fallow land is part of the crop rotation, and it is usualy provided for in the yearly farm bill! if you dont abide by the farm bills guidlines then you dont get any fed. asistance if your crop fails! the gov. ties your hands by saying plant all you want and take the risk! or plant what we tell you and we will help insure your crops agains loss! if a farmer goes against the farm bill and fails, that is the end of him in most cases, very few farmers can afford too do so!
10% of 91 million is 9.1 million acres set out this year, so yea, im sure you can find some land that is fallow but they are not getting paid to not farm that land in most cases they are forced by the farm bill too lay that land out in order too qualify for assistance!
on that note , i'm tired and i will see you all tomorow night g-night all
-
Uh, no, I've actually BEEN in the farm business (farm hand, mechanic, etc., either part time of full time) around here in one way or another for most of my life. The land lying fallow is not due to crop rotation, or anything of the sort. It is just lying fallow, and some of it for a decade.
-
We are already seeing shortages in the word of food staples because more ground is being used to grow corn for ethanol than food.
Actually, this is what I thought until I spoke to a farmer. Here's how it actually works: The corn used to feed livestock is pressed, squeezing out the corn oil for ethanol production. The remaining mush is then fed to livestock.
Simply put, the corn for ethanol food shortage is a myth.
-
yea, a myth thats y the prices of food is gonna skyrocket, now i know its due to transportation costs also, but if u don't have something or little of it what does it do?, drives the price up, were running out crops epically rice and grain. Its only gonna get worse too, because China, India and other countries with huge populations are growing and cutting even further into the demand for food.
-
You don't have to like it, but ethanol production has nothing to do with food shortages.
Demand is up, as you so correctly mentioned gasoline prices have exacerbated the situation. With the crash of the dollar, our exports(food) are cheap elsewhere, further driving the market higher. Some say speculators are also influencing prices, this is a possibility I guess.
It could get worse, much worse. The fields in the midwest are so soaked, often flooded, that some may not be able to be planted in time to complete a growing season. One could make some money selling short, I'm having trouble coming up with any other good news.
-
Actually, this is what I thought until I spoke to a farmer. Here's how it actually works: The corn used to feed livestock is pressed, squeezing out the corn oil for ethanol production. The remaining mush is then fed to livestock.
Simply put, the corn for ethanol food shortage is a myth.
It`s called filler.
It has nothing to do with the land being tied up for ethanol production.
The land is not being used to produce food is the point.
The by-product of the rolled corn is nothing more than filler for fiber.
Livestock still have to have their rations.
-
It`s called filler.
It has nothing to do with the land being tied up for ethanol production.
The land is not being used to produce food is the point.
The by-product of the rolled corn is nothing more than filler for fiber.
Livestock still have to have their rations.
Could you's splain this to me a little differently please? I don't know what you are saying. If you are saying the cows aren't eating the corn, either you or the farmer is mistaken.
-
Could you's splain this to me a little differently please? I don't know what you are saying. If you are saying the cows aren't eating the corn, either you or the farmer are mistaken.
Yes the cows are eating the by-product from the rolled corn as a filler for roughage.
They still have to have their rations. Not much nutritional value per original weight of corn. The concentrations after rolling/compressing are causing some problems also.
You can get roughage from hay.
That`s not the point though. The point is all of the land being tied up for this instead of producing food.
-
Yes the cows are eating the by-product from the rolled corn as a filler for roughage.
They still have to have their rations. Not much nutritional value per original weight of corn. The concentrations after rolling/compressing are causing some problems also.
You can get roughage from hay.
That`s not the point though. The point is all of the land being tied up for this instead of producing food.
I'm not sure the farmer would agree with you. Where did you get your info? Be that as it may, I think ethanol production is a waste and probably takes more resources/energy than it actually produces... a total waste of time.
-
I`m not sure you would agree that the sun comes up in the east ......................with anyone. :)
The point is not the resources and energy used, although that`s a good point. In this context it is the land that is being tied up purely for the making of ethanol and not being used to produce food.
It`s not only going to cause problems if it continues. It is now.
-
I am glad to see that there is a discussion going on about this topic i believe discussion among people is the first step to finding a solution to a problem. I am looking for the article right now from fox news that i read probably six months ago. The main point was that if we all switched to e85 than at current usage we could not grow enough crops to sustain our fuel load and to our food needs. So i believe that yes right now we still have fields available if the US made a serious effort to switch we could not sustain ourselves. I still believe cng is is a good step to take before moving to hydrogen. Then i would open up drilling around the us for oil, because we are still going to need oil to produce things like: plastics, tires, and other such petro goods. My feelings are that i would much rather see my dollars and other Americans dollars staying inside the us or instead of propping up regimes that are hostile to the us. In 2007 total OPEC import where 1.97 BILLION barrels of oil. Now multiply that times $120 a barrel and figure how much money we are sending out of the country. At a time when our economy is in trouble we are cutting our own throats sending our money overseas. It is no wonder a Saudi prince just bought a Airbus 380 for his own personal use.
Rabbit27
-
Hmmm dollar weak yet they want our food? Seems to me you make someone hungry enough they'll pay what you want there by strengthening the dollar. Kind of like what's going on with oil right now. Stop exporting food till they get hungry! Make food the rival of oil in these foreign countries! Sure i'll pay $4 a gallon for gas and you pay $4 for a lb of grain. Works for me.
-
Problem is....
1. we're going to run out of fossil fuel.
2. some have more consumption than others.
3. those "some" with more consumption may take a fuel crisis worse than the others.
-
I just thought this kitten gif was cute and couldn't find a place to put it, so I'll put it here.
(http://elitistjerks.com/customavatars/avatar9445_1.gif)
Best post here, hands down!
-
Could you's splain this to me a little differently please? I don't know what you are saying. If you are saying the cows aren't eating the corn, either you or the farmer is mistaken.
Put another way . . . the nutritional content (for humans, anyway) of corn is in the stuff they squeeze out. The stuff that is left that goes in as cow feed filler is the same stuff the elves in your colon put back together and you see at the bottom of the potty. You can't make flour from it, hence no corn tortillas for Mexico. You could eat it if you wanted to, but you would starve. The Cow won't, but you will.
-
That and the concentration that is left is not a ration in itself and is causing problems even in the cattle.
It`s nothing new other than the extent it is being taken to and the rises in cost of everything else involved due to it tying up land that would otherwise be used to produce food. Wheat, oats, veggies , fruit, soybeans,...on and on.
By products have always been used and are good to suppliment, but not as a ration.
Once again..my alternative to alternatives is explore/drill/refine/produce gasoline and diesel right here in the good old U.S.A. Foreign oil price would then regulate itself and we could deal with it as needed.
Time to stop the BS and get on with life.