Ethanol increase in gas backed by EPA

[sheila022]

You prefer that biofuel manufacturers exploit the land rather than food growers?

Every acre used for growing biofuels is one less acre for growing food crops.

Actually, there are non-crop plants such as switchgrass, rapeseed, etc that can grow in places that are not normally used for food crops, especially in the desert, marshes, swamps, brine water, etc to be used for biofuels. So by that way, they won't compete against actual food crops. Also, it is possible that those third world countries can make money by cultivating those non-crop plants. As for invasive species....that's another story being researched right now.

The Third World countries have no reason to go into green technology since they are the one with abundant of resources..... especially oil. Its infrastructure is not well-developed yet to support green technology.

I mean.... Toyota Prius in Africa? comical.

Would it surprise you that South Africa is using one of the green technology extensively to produce synfuels/biofuels, especially since the early 1900s? The area had no oil but abundant in coal, but though the process of gasification and other methods to convert from coal to liquid fuel, they were able to achieve some sort of neutral carbon growth over its lifecycle.

 

[sheila022]

Wirelessly posted (sent from a smartphone. )

Dont you realize that China produces so much pollution and the winds are bringing it to the west us? Thats why China needs to do green technology. The use of automobiles over there boomed. Few decade ago, many were riding bikes and motorcycles.

Yeah, I agree. The sun never shows itself the whole time I was in China in several different cities.

 

[sheila022]

double post

 

[Jiro]

Would it surprise you that South Africa is using one of the green technology extensively to produce synfuels/biofuels, especially since the early 1900s? The area had no oil but abundant in coal, but though the process of gasification and other methods to convert from coal to liquid fuel, they were able to achieve some sort of neutral carbon growth over its lifecycle.

South Africa is not really a Third World Country

 

[radioman]

I bet soon in future that many cars would run on moonshine

Catty

We are now.. problem is that they need to add regular gas to ethanol to make it unfit for humans to drink. ethanol is pretty strong stuff- you can drink it but gas is added for ANOTHER reason- TAXES!!!! by making ethanol unfit to drink, it cannot be taxed as liquor therefore saving money with taxes. :roll:

 

[radioman]

Actually, there are non-crop plants such as switchgrass, rapeseed, etc that can grow in places that are not normally used for food crops, especially in the desert, marshes, swamps, brine water, etc to be used for biofuels. So by that way, they won't compete against actual food crops. Also, it is possible that those third world countries can make money by cultivating those non-crop plants. As for invasive species....that's another story being researched right now.

I agree here. They had a test plot here 5 years ago or so in NYS in syracuse on the brownfeilds growing willow and switchgrass. They were saying you can harvest it with normal corn harvest machinery. I expected this to be a boon to the local farmers, but nothing came of it.

 

[Glenn]

I believe there's ways to provide the third world countries with ways to develop their economics sustainability, instead of just rather exploiting the land/resources and spending like there's no tomorrow.

But at this moment, I'm more focused on US and European biofuels first, then maybe Africa or Asia later on.

Why focus on US and Europe? We have developed green technologies and are way ahead of where China is or many other third world countries are as far as pollution goes.

 

[Jiro]

Why focus on US and Europe? We have developed green technologies and are way ahead of where China is or many other third world countries are as far as pollution goes.

and yet.... we refused to sign Kyoto Treaty and China did... ironic, huh?

 

[sheila022]

I agree here. They had a test plot here 5 years ago or so in NYS in syracuse on the brownfeilds growing willow and switchgrass. They were saying you can harvest it with normal corn harvest machinery. I expected this to be a boon to the local farmers, but nothing came of it.

What did they do with the feedstock when farmers tried to harvest it?

and yet.... we refused to sign Kyoto Treaty and China did... ironic, huh?

Well, it is said that the Kyoto Treaty can cripple the US economy, unrealistic to expect such changes from the industries within the time frame outlined in the treaty, and did not take in the factor of population growth. Anyway, this topic has been debated to death already, so I'll leave at it. You can see it all on Wikipedia.

But at least US making the effort to invest in green technology and looking at other solutions. For example, the US aviation industry and other organizations had formed CAAFI (Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative) to advocate for neutral carbon growth over its lifecycle using alternative fuel compared to just using petroleum.

Europe happens to have different and stricter standards for alternative jet fuel compared to USA. The Africa, Asia, South America, etc analysis can come later, or someone will do them eventually.

(PS. Did you know that ethanol can be converted to biojet fuel just by cutting off about 5 carbon chains? But there is some loss of volume in the fuel when converting =/)

 

[Jiro]

What did they do with the feedstock when farmers tried to harvest it?



Well, it is said that the Kyoto Treaty can cripple the US economy, unrealistic to expect such changes from the industries within the time frame outlined in the treaty, and did not take in the factor of population growth. Anyway, this topic has been debated to death already, so I'll leave at it. You can see it all on Wikipedia.

But at least US making the effort to invest in green technology and looking at other solutions. For example, the US aviation industry and other organizations had formed CAAFI (Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative) to advocate for neutral carbon growth over its lifecycle using alternative fuel compared to just using petroleum.

Europe happens to have different and stricter standards for alternative jet fuel compared to USA. The Africa, Asia, South America, etc analysis can come later, or someone will do them eventually.

(PS. Did you know that ethanol can be converted to biojet fuel just by cutting off about 5 carbon chains? But there is some loss of volume in the fuel when converting =/)

I'm not a supporter of ethanol fuel. It has a serious economic impact on corn producers like Mexico.

While it is great that we are gearing toward green technology.... it's sad that it's largely motivated by greed... which is why our green solutions are not solution at all.

Green Solution should be simple, cost-effective, and renewable if possible.

oh btw - about Kyoto Treaty... I'll tell ya a secret to why we're not signing it. if we sign it, it will severely affect our military capability especially when it comes to training and testing. ssshhhhhh.....

 

[sheila022]

Eh, in the long term, I don't think biofuel is the best way....but....better than nothing. There must be alternatives developed because one day, petroleum is going to run out, and what can we turn to when that happens?

There should be stronger dis-link between food price and growing biofuel, which is why people are looking into non-crop feedstock growing in areas that food crops cannot grow. But, it is better when feedstock is placed closer to the biofuel plants instead of just shipping it from the other side of the world. Oh well.

 

[Jiro]

Eh, in the long term, I don't think biofuel is the best way....but....better than nothing.

better than nothing? it's not even "better". It's worse. much worse. and it's so corrosive to engines.

There must be alternatives developed because one day, petroleum is going to run out, and what can we turn to when that happens?

lol....... I'm not even worried at all about petroleum running out. We have plenty plenty plenty of oil to last us for hundreds if not thousand of years... And the future generations won't even use as much oil as we do now because of an increase in efficiency technology.

There should be stronger dis-link between food price and growing biofuel, which is why people are looking into non-crop feedstock growing in areas that food crops cannot grow. But, it is better when feedstock is placed closer to the biofuel plants instead of just shipping it from the other side of the world. Oh well.

growing non-crop feedstock means more deforestation. more agricultural waste. It also means more farmers will switch over to growing non-crop business because it's more profitable thus... a decrease in food supply and an increase in food price.... which was what happened to Mexico.

it's plain and simple - this whole ethanol thing by growing non-crop or obtaining it from corns is kaput. We need to process biofuel differently such as from wasted products. That's even a better solution. Think Recycle. However.... the problem is... when recycling especially for biofuel, it consumes resource thus nullifying the purpose of green approach.

 

[Jiro]

the most logical approach is to max out the efficiency rate of our current technology because it's cost-effective and it doesn't require dramatically changing our infrastructure.

example - coal power plant. decades ago - it was very filthy and extremely wasteful. It probably consumed as much as football field-size of coals just to power a small town. Now... for same amount of coal, it's enough to power a large town and it's cleaner. The biggest plus factor? we can simply upgrade the existing coal power plant to be efficient!

Currently - we have gas stations all over United States. Our system remains the same for decades... they drill crude oil from oil fields... then transport crude oil to oil refinery plant... then ship it to other countries... then deliver it to all gas stations... and finally - we drivers go to gas stations to fill up the tank.

The most cost-effective and green-friendly approach right now is to continue improving our gasoline/diesel engines to be as efficient as possible. We went from 12 mpg to 40+ mpg with same gasoline/diesel engine concept in just several years. We're still pushing it even more to probably 80 mpg (especially for larger vehicles like van, SUV, truck, etc). We can easily achieve this in probably 5 years.

Now... let us look at alternative technology. An electric-powered car like.... Chevrolet Volt. I'll tell you what's wrong with this picture. If millions of people switch to electric cars... that means installing thousands of "electric stations" and building more power plants to keep up with our power demand. That also means an increased production of batteries and we all know that battery is extremely harmful for our environment cuz of battery acid. What do we do with our discarded electric cars? Can't imagine the damage it would cause to Earth at junkyard. More electric power plants means global warming and it consumes tons of gas to keep it running. This is an epic fail on many levels. It's not even practical nor cost-effective to do this approach.

Hybrid Technology makes sense. Not electric or biofuel especially ethanol. I believe we are just not ready for biofuel/ethanol thing YET. We should keep researching on it but we should not implement it yet though. I think biofuel thing will be practical and cost-effective in probably 15+ years.

 

[sheila022]

Actually, I was thinking bit more along the aviation fuels rather than car fuels. The entire aviation industry's focus is reducing carbon emissions and reducing dependence on petroleum oil. Compared to car industry, aviation industry had shown much more improvement in gas efficiency and energy alternatives. By "corrosive", you're probably just talking about ethanol for car engines. Biojet fuels has much much more stringent standards before it can be used in any airplanes.

I guess aviation and car industry has different ways of looking for solutions to meet their different needs.

Also, aviation industry doesn't really want to use ethanol, because we would need to convert the entire continental United States over to corn production if we wanted to fly airplanes with corn ethanol!!!! Which is not good, right? So we're looking at second generation non-food feedstock plants and algae, which is much more energy dense than ethanol. And also, algae doesn't need a large area to produce a large amount of oil for airplanes and actually consume greenhouse gases in the process. So in the long term, algae is probably one of the best solutions. And yes, people are looking at wasted products as one of the energy supplies.

When I mean growing non-crop feedstock means growing in areas not suitable for growing food, such as desert, marshes, etc. But before people actually do that on a large scale, research is being looked into this b/c of potential for invasive species. So there cannot be an incentive to switch over from growing food crops to non-crop feedstock on the same plot of land.

 

[sheila022]

the most logical approach is to max out the efficiency rate of our current technology because it's cost-effective and it doesn't require dramatically changing our infrastructure.

example - coal power plant. decades ago - it was very filthy and extremely wasteful. It probably consumed as much as football field-size of coals just to power a small town. Now... for same amount of coal, it's enough to power a large town and it's cleaner. The biggest plus factor? we can simply upgrade the existing coal power plant to be efficient!

Currently - we have gas stations all over United States. Our system remains the same for decades... they drill crude oil from oil fields... then transport crude oil to oil refinery plant... then ship it to other countries... then deliver it to all gas stations... and finally - we drivers go to gas stations to fill up the tank.

The most cost-effective and green-friendly approach right now is to continue improving our gasoline/diesel engines to be as efficient as possible. We went from 12 mpg to 40+ mpg with same gasoline/diesel engine concept in just several years. We're still pushing it even more to probably 80 mpg (especially for larger vehicles like van, SUV, truck, etc). We can easily achieve this in probably 5 years.

Now... let us look at alternative technology. An electric-powered car like.... Chevrolet Volt. I'll tell you what's wrong with this picture. If millions of people switch to electric cars... that means installing thousands of "electric stations" and building more power plants to keep up with our power demand. That also means an increased production of batteries and we all know that battery is extremely harmful for our environment cuz of battery acid. What do we do with our discarded electric cars? Can't imagine the damage it would cause to Earth at junkyard. More electric power plants means global warming and it consumes tons of gas to keep it running. This is an epic fail on many levels. It's not even practical nor cost-effective to do this approach.

Hybrid Technology makes sense. Not electric or biofuel especially ethanol. I believe we are just not ready for biofuel/ethanol thing YET. We should keep researching on it but we should not implement it yet though. I think biofuel thing will be practical and cost-effective in probably 15+ years.

For the whole car infrastructure in USA, what you said above makes sense and one of the possible solutions for the cars. I'm not sure if second generation non-crop feedstock could be used for the cars as just it can for airplanes, but maybe not because of different carbon chain lengths requirements in both cars and airplanes.

If I had to work on this whole research into car thing instead of airplanes, I would go batshit since it seems more intractable and more variables to consider!!! LOL!

 

[Jiro]

Actually, I was thinking bit more along the aviation fuels rather than car fuels. The entire aviation industry's focus is reducing carbon emissions and reducing dependence on petroleum oil. Compared to car industry, aviation industry had shown much more improvement in gas efficiency and energy alternatives. By "corrosive", you're probably just talking about ethanol for car engines. Biojet fuels has much much more stringent standards before it can be used in any airplanes.

I guess aviation and car industry has different ways of looking for solutions to meet their different needs.

Also, aviation industry doesn't really want to use ethanol, because we would need to convert the entire continental United States over to corn production if we wanted to fly airplanes with corn ethanol!!!! Which is not good, right? So we're looking at second generation non-food feedstock plants and algae, which is much more energy dense than ethanol. And also, algae doesn't need a large area to produce a large amount of oil for airplanes and actually consume greenhouse gases in the process. So in the long term, algae is probably one of the best solutions. And yes, people are looking at wasted products as one of the energy supplies.

When I mean growing non-crop feedstock means growing in areas not suitable for growing food, such as desert, marshes, etc. But before people actually do that on a large scale, research is being looked into this b/c of potential for invasive species. So there cannot be an incentive to switch over from growing food crops to non-crop feedstock on the same plot of land.

all for more reason why it's not a practical approach. R&D should be more focused on recycling our wasted products into something else.

I'm extremely wary about growing non-crop feedstock in area especially marshes. That's a surefire way to destroying our pristine environment. Marshes are what keep our water cleans and it's also home to many indigenous species. In fact - you can actually drink water from a certain spot in marsh. It's that pure.

About the incentive to switch over to growing non-crop feedstock. I wasn't referring to farmers growing non-crop feedstock on same plot. I'm referring to farmers abandoning the business of growing crops because it's just not profitable anymore. Our agricultural sector is already suffering bad enough. In fact - many of farmers are collecting our federal tax money. approximately over $20 billions. Damn agricultural subsidization. Guess what crop ranks the highest for subsidy....... yep the corns..... for ethanol fuel..... the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

 

[Jiro]

For the whole car infrastructure in USA, what you said above makes sense and one of the possible solutions for the cars. I'm not sure if second generation non-crop feedstock could be used for the cars as just it can for airplanes, but maybe not because of different carbon chain lengths requirements in both cars and airplanes.

If I had to work on this whole research into car thing instead of airplanes, I would go batshit since it seems more intractable and more variables to consider!!! LOL!

 

[Reba]

Actually, there are non-crop plants such as switchgrass, rapeseed, etc that can grow in places that are not normally used for food crops, especially in the desert, marshes, swamps, brine water, etc to be used for biofuels. So by that way, they won't compete against actual food crops. Also, it is possible that those third world countries can make money by cultivating those non-crop plants. As for invasive species....that's another story being researched right now.

That's all well and good for the future perhaps but right now, food crop fields, especially corn, are being used for biofuels.

 

[Reba]

...I'm extremely wary about growing non-crop feedstock in area especially marshes. That's a surefire way to destroying our pristine environment. Marshes are what keep our water cleans and it's also home to many indigenous species. In fact - you can actually drink water from a certain spot in marsh. It's that pure. ...

Yep. Marshes exist for a reason, and that reason isn't to turn them into sources for fuel.

People now complain about destroying natural habitats with oil pipe lines and drilling. What about turning swamps and marshes into weed plots for fuel? Where are the environmentalists on this?

 

[sheila022]

Yep. Marshes exist for a reason, and that reason isn't to turn them into sources for fuel.

People now complain about destroying natural habitats with oil pipe lines and drilling. What about turning swamps and marshes into weed plots for fuel? Where are the environmentalists on this?

Like I said, before anybody do it, research is being done in this area. There's a bunch of stuff to consider. I never said people are doing it now. It was just one of the proposed ways when I came across it.

Man, I wish I'm that smart enough to make the magic bullet to solve all of the energy problems. Hydrogen energy. Cold fusion, etc. LOL! LOL!