Can Biofuels Match the Hype?

I think it's worthwhile for the government to support biofuel research and development. What come to mind are liquid fuel research and gasification of plant waste into a gaseous fuel. While it is true that some countries have had great success with biofuels, those sucesses cannot necessarily be "exported" to us because of different dynamics, economics and other factors. For example, Brazil has had great success with pure alcohol fuel partly as a result of their enormous sugar cane production and the high cost of petroleum derived fuels.

The part of gov't support that I do NOT agree with is subsidization of, say, U.S. corn production so as to divert it to biofuel production. This price distortion causes all sorts of unintended consequences and perverse results, and actually ends up damaging the environment rather than improving it.

I think biofuels will become a viable source of sustainable energy, but not a primary source. Every little bit does help. The only way biofuels have impacted my organization thus far is negatively. We pay at the pump for state-mandated 10 percent gasohol and then we pay again in our taxes to provide the alcohol producers a subsidy. We have also experienced some price spikes due to shortages of alcohol to blend with the gasoline. As stated, some states require fuel to be blended in order to be legal fuel. It's rather messed up when shortages of biofuels cause the price to go up rather than shortages of gasoline!

Biofuels emit CO₂, too, though the proportion may vary from that of fossil hydrocarbons. Biofuels have some advantage in being agriculture-based (offset by competition for food resources). They may also somewhat decrease dependence on foreign oil, but they are not especially green on CO₂ grounds. Claims of greenness are often just marketing hype, or attempts to acquire various unmerited subsidies.

Ther are bona fide green initiatives going on, but not all claims fall into this category.

Bio fuels are useful and can cover a certain percentage of the energy needs. Its development should be pursued, why waste it. On the other hand oil and natural gas will always be the mayor 'other' natural source of energy. (Funny, gas we call natural, oil we are made o believe it came form fossils).

Oil is abiotic and is generated naturally under high pressure and temperature deep in the earth crust. The believe that oil comes from fossils and dinosaurs is not proven at all and hogwash in my opinion. There is still an abundance of oil present, likely for eternity.

The other mayor 'unproven fact' is that CO2 is the culprit for global warming. First of all, do we really have global warming? and if so, is it not a natural occurrence. The name has lately been changed to 'climate change', but climates change all the time. Nothing in nature is stationary. There are always cycles, it can't be any other way.

Instead of going after CO2, we should go after the emissions of 'chemicals' the industry is spewing out into the atmosphere and in our water ways. These include compounds of S, Ca, Fluorides, and a whole slew of further chemical compounds that are the real culprits that cause 'pollution' and health hazards.

It is not the CO2. In fact, the plant life is happy and thrives by the presence of CO2. Forest grow stronger and healthier, other plant life as well. In fact it also supports growth in plant life that is part of our food chain.

It is a pity that politics overrides common sense and the real issues, that of cleaning up the industrial emissions.

Long live CO2. Without it we would all die.

Whoa up there you don't understand the theater in which your statements would be heard have been primed to fantasy. The American public is bored to death by facts and now are hungry for dreams, untruths so they can avoid reality as their leaders have reinforced upon them over the past generations.

Yes Biofuels match the hype when utilized optimally.

I know what you mean.

It is not that I don't understand the theater, I was just trying to poke a hole in it. But this likely an unsurmountable task, I am afraid.

You write as if no arguments or facts will change your perspective.

"There is still an abundance of oil present, likely for eternity."

-Eternity is a long time, and if you are correct likely, it is not so long.

Poison is bad.

It is not a one or the other situation.

Now don't be informing the uninformed public that nature already ahas a way to clean up and keep CO2 in balance naturally. It could cause many clueless tree huggers and environmentalists to loose their jobs and have to rejoin the work force.

Plus think of the billions of dollars big business and government will loose if people start to question the honesty and validity of their actions and intentions.

Yes, that is the background problem.

Big money is being made for little actual work by scaring the public into false beliefs. It is one of the ways in living off the society.

CO2 among gases is the same as H2O for liquids. Both are building stones of nature and both are badly needed in the earth's eco-system. Take one or both out, or even reduce one too much, we, animals and plants can't survive. That includes the oceans and its life.

//

As to Transcendian's comments, I would call it a draw. You believe your story, I believe mine.

BTW poison is matter of degree, at least generally, and don't call crude oil or CO2 a poison. It too is essential for our survival. Are you aware how many products are being manufactured from crude oil?

Without coal, 'natural crude' and natural gas we would live like in the times of the stone age. The CO2 levels would likely be no different anyway. And in case they were, it would not make a difference in ours, plant or animal life. I suppose that you will not believe that. But really, how do you know for sure?

If you ask me the same question I honestly would not know for sure either, but I believe it would be so. My "belief' has some foundation. Yours, in my view, is mostly scare mongering and manipulation of data.

Just adding two web sites to enhance my last point of my last message.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/search-engines-censoring-climategate.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html

Bio fuels are not important and will not become important other than as a political tool of the left wing wanting control of more American industry, and thus the hype. There is no angle that Bio fuels can be looked at favorably other than as an exotic political tool played by idiots to delay with a fools rationalizations the need for oil coming out of the ground. And eventually with enough fools meddling and costs skyrocketing and jobs falling, and the collapse of private industry, the recovery from revolution or other wise will insure that oil will be again pumped and "discovered" and developed again. Bio fuel will increase food prices, use up tax dollars for subsidies, increase equipment maintenance costs, life cycle costs, ruin the land and anyone who believes in it is not any one other than an idiot and a dumb one at that.

Ethanol production is a fools errand unless used to destabilize a market.

But Ethanol is not a topic within the scope of the discussion for those reasons.

The consumption of fossil fuels for the purpose of moving a few hundreds of millions of people from their homes to work or shoppping malls is a monstrous waste of a finite resource. Fully 60% of every barrel of crude oil is turned into land tranportation fuel(gasoline & diesel). The balance goes into the manufacture of higher value products such as lubricants and monomers (the base building blocks of virtually all our commonplace and exceedingly valuable/useful synthetic platics and polymers).

So yes I agree - let's build up our capacity to find all sustainable alternatives for transportation fuels, including biofuels. Save the remaining crude oil reserves for uses that do not significantly contribute to air pollution.

The large scale development of a biofuels as part of the North American altrnative fuels/ alternative energy strategy will not succeed until government decides to make it happen. This can be accomplished by either driving the change through public investment and ownership of the biofuels infrastructure or by implementing real cost taxation on consumption of fossil fuel for transportation purposes.

Given the short term view of most governments (US & Canada - federal/state/provincial), I don't see either of the preceding happening unless world events force them into it (aka the WWII Manhattan Project). And with all of the developing world clamoring for the same resources, maybe the decisions will be made for us.