Article

2006-05-03 Science & Technology

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by 3dc 2006-05-03 14:15|| || Front Page|| [8 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Just a few questions I don't have resolved.

(1)I still remember the and am still affected by the corsive effects of this type of fuel.

(2) Whats it do the ground water? Anything like the MBTE fandango?

(3)How much will the cost of food and it's abundant supply (here in the USA) be affected?

(4)How many people go will hungry now that are fed in the 3rd world when the big Ag combines and corps switch to producing fuel?

(5)How long will the luddites and lawyers in the "environmental" movement and Government "enviromental" regulators block the building of plants that can produce useful and economic fuel?

(6)Why make ethonol from coal when you can make Diesel and Gasoline from it?

(7) Why not just go completely to Diesel type fuel that doesn't take the level of processing and refinenment?

Posted by SPoD 2006-05-03 15:20|| http://sockpuppetofdoom.blogspot.com/]">[http://sockpuppetofdoom.blogspot.com/] 2006-05-03 15:20|| Front Page Top

#2 SPoD they are talking about making it from crop refuse and alternate energy crops.
It would not effect US food supply. Further down the road it might effect export foods.

Energy Crops: Miscanthus, Switch Grass, Poplar,
Willow, 250 million tons of plant waste from current crops,

This article includes Brazil and Argonne studies too. Lots of suff there and I am still working my way through it.

Link to the article was provided to me by oil lease trader...
a snippet of his discussion with another follows
If you (and I actually) are right that OPEC will try to crash the market below $40 bbl to "see off" these alternatives and protect their market it wont happen. If they cant or take too long I think ethanol might develop its own head of steam LOL. Given the environmental benefits you could ensure ethanol is economic vs conventional oil merely by pricing the environmental externalities of oil. Maybe no need for a $40 floor on oil prices after all? And of course ethanol costs will likely fall as the GM feedstock is improved whereas oil production costs will either rise as resources are depleted or stay flat if technology gains continues to offset rises as they have for some time now.

Posted by 3dc 2006-05-03 15:38|| 2006-05-03 15:38|| Front Page Top

#3 I am all for a "import tax" that slides to keep imported oil above 40 or 50 bucks a barrel. We can't do that with refined product, yet. All money from teh "fee" haver to go back to energy undependence. No Corperate welfare, governmnent bondoggles or TRANZI wealth redistribution.

Posted by SPoD 2006-05-03 16:07|| http://sockpuppetofdoom.blogspot.com/]">[http://sockpuppetofdoom.blogspot.com/] 2006-05-03 16:07|| Front Page Top

#4 Australia is the lowest cost agriculture producer in the developed world. Australia introduced a subsidy to promote the use of ethanol as a fuel.

Guess what happened?

We import almost all our ethanol from countries, dumb enough to subsidize this idiocy.

Posted by phil_b">phil_b 2006-05-03 16:33|| http://autonomousoperation.blogspot.com/]">[http://autonomousoperation.blogspot.com/] 2006-05-03 16:33|| Front Page Top

#5 And this affects me in the USA how?

Posted by SPoD 2006-05-03 16:37|| http://sockpuppetofdoom.blogspot.com/]">[http://sockpuppetofdoom.blogspot.com/] 2006-05-03 16:37|| Front Page Top

#6 SPoD, the thrust of the ppt is that ethanol is great idea and all it needs is more/enough subsidies. My point is two fold. One is that in a world market any subsidy ends up subsidizing foreign consumers. Two, if ethanol production doesn't make economic sense in Australia, it makes even less sense in the USA where agricultural production costs are higher.

Posted by phil_b">phil_b 2006-05-03 16:46|| http://autonomousoperation.blogspot.com/]">[http://autonomousoperation.blogspot.com/] 2006-05-03 16:46|| Front Page Top

#7 Slightly away from the topic, but... tip of the hat to your Diggers Phil! We here sure appreciate their many contributions in IZ and elsewhere.

Posted by Besoeker 2006-05-03 16:48|| 2006-05-03 16:48|| Front Page Top

#8 Proper link and it is a power point and not a pdf...

The distractions of folks coming in and bothering you when you post.

Posted by 3dc 2006-05-03 17:00|| 2006-05-03 17:00|| Front Page Top

#9 So Phil it appears you would rather we sit on our hands?

I am not for a subsidy at all BTW.

Posted by SPoD 2006-05-03 17:02|| http://sockpuppetofdoom.blogspot.com/]">[http://sockpuppetofdoom.blogspot.com/] 2006-05-03 17:02|| Front Page Top

#10 Phil_b - I think you've forgotten the costs of 911, Gulf War I, Gulf War II, the increased security, etc when making your calculations when calculating the price of a barrel of oil.

You make some good points, but you are just naysaying - why it can't be done. It's going to happen and when is directly proportional to the price of a gallon of oil.

Posted by 2b 2006-05-03 17:23|| 2006-05-03 17:23|| Front Page Top

#11 Some couldn't read a PowerPoint that big.
I cached it in Adobe PDF format

Posted by Chomoling Glomogum1529 2006-05-03 18:21|| 2006-05-03 18:21|| Front Page Top

#12 SPoD, exactly the opposite. Energy dependence which in effect means your entire economy depends on the Middle East/Russia/Africa/Venuzuela with their myriad problems is IMO a huge problem that unless fixed will end up in a huge economic/geopolitical event (A Great Depression or war). It is imperative to fix the problem.

This why I rail at these fake solutions that at best might make a marginal improvement but in many cases make the problem worse.

I and others have said a hundred times, there are only two energy sources that will fix the problem (barring discovery of a monster oil field in the gulf). One is nuclear and the other is coal. That's it.

Posted by phil_b">phil_b 2006-05-03 21:24|| http://autonomousoperation.blogspot.com/]">[http://autonomousoperation.blogspot.com/] 2006-05-03 21:24|| Front Page Top

#13 phil_b: I and others have said a hundred times, there are only two energy sources that will fix the problem (barring discovery of a monster oil field in the gulf). One is nuclear and the other is coal. That's it.

That's my view, in a nutshell. Anything that is as labor-, energy- and resource-intensive as growing crops can't possibly be a solution to the problem of oil dependence. It's a dead end. People are grasping at straws (no pun intended).

Posted by Zhang Fei 2006-05-03 21:58|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2006-05-03 21:58|| Front Page Top

#14 Maybe there is a biofuel source that could produce income for these third world countries whose only exports are heroin and cocaine...nuclear and coal are too difficult to put in a gas tank. I think the better answer is in totally new technology waiting to be discovered. "Necessity is the mother of invention" but I hope it doesn't take a major attack on oil production facilities to spark someone's imagination.

Posted by Danielle 2006-05-03 22:58|| 2006-05-03 22:58|| Front Page Top

#15 Makeing fuels out of Biomass is easy. Particulary when that biomass is waste material is it a good deal.

Building reactors is hard and time consuming. Building plants that can take coal for feed stock again expensive and time consuming.

Biomass is just part of the over all picture. Since phil_b is an expert he will not accept even that partial and stop gap move and instead roots for a world war or total economic colapse. Wonderful.

Posted by SPoD 2006-05-03 23:01|| http://sockpuppetofdoom.blogspot.com/]">[http://sockpuppetofdoom.blogspot.com/] 2006-05-03 23:01|| Front Page Top

00:05 JosephMendiola
23:54 Sgt. D.T.
23:52 Whose Creretch1473
23:47 AlmostAnonymous5839
23:42 Whomotle Phiter3901
23:30 Redneck Jim
23:30 Flereng Angaving6956
23:28 Whong Whoting4646
23:16 DMFD
23:16 DMFD
23:10 DMFD
23:08 Frank G
23:07 SPoD
23:06 Fred
23:05 Fordesque
23:01 SPoD
22:58 Danielle
22:55 Frank G
22:54 DMFD
22:54 trailing wife
22:52 trailing wife
22:51 Jort Angairong4948
22:42 trailing wife
22:41 Glenmore