Biofuels Brouhaha

The big oil companies pretty much own the world we live in. They simply will not allow a technology that eliminates the consumers reliance on them unless they can first control oil's replacement. If someone designed a new power source that used fresh air as effectively as gasoline, how far out of the patent office door do you think he'd get before some terrible 'accident' squelched him AND his idea?

If the big oil companies had a monopoly on bean soup, I'll bet it would be easy to market a vehicle that ran on bean soup, but impossible to market one, even if more efficient, that ran on say, cream of celery.

I'm sure the oil companies have teams of lawyers and analysts and lobyists on their payrolls whose only goal is to hinder any attempt at reducing the worlds thirst for oil.

The same holds true for electricity - Tesla demonstrated the free generation and transmission of electricity. unfortunately for you and I, he died, the government sent in a team to open his safe and remove all his notes, and we still pay too much to turn on a light.

The world is a very corrupt place.

Gee you sound like me. Only the World banks own the oil co.s and they take money very personally.

Brad

GMan, I'm also a worshipper at the shrine of Tesla, and I second your comment. I would like to re-inforce it with a comment about the stupidity of burning whiskey. The mandating of the use of ethanol here in the States has, regrettably, had the unintended consequence of raising global food prices with the benefit of a questionable reduction in petrochemical use and in overall pollution generation. It's not just big oil, it's big farm (cough "ADM"cough) which has perverted the farm subsidy structure to this point. Methanol from lumber slash, or dairy cattle flatulance for that matter, is a laudable use of a waste product. It breaks my heart to see the flare stacks of my local refineries as I drive by them some ten to twenty times a week. I weep salt tears for the stupidity and shortsightedness.

Hi ktel60.

I agree with you all the way!!!

And burning bio-fuels just adds more CO2 to the atmosphere. I know this because I drive a diesel car on bio-fuel, I have had the exaust emmisions tested, and there was quite a lot of CO2 coming out of the exaust pipe!

If farmers are to grow bio-fuels instead of food crops, there will come a day when there will be a sevear food shortage?

Spencer.

Biofuels are CO2 neutral. They use CO2 to grow. It is released as burned. No addition. Coal no longer uses CO2.

Ron Wagner

I side with you all on your comments, only I don't believe it is any one particular group that creates the problem. I believe it is the greed nature of man (with the obvious exception of engineers and scientists, well most of them. Eh, Eh!)

At least ADM is doing something in the right direction. They need to start using corn stover instead of kernels though. Cellulosic ethanol will solve this problem. It is only one solution. It will take all technologies to compete and evolve the solutions.

Ron Wagner

Decatur Illinois, Home of ADM

mr. wagner are you serious about ADM helping the enviroment? when did you last read what they are doing along with cargill to the amazon rainforest in order to supply the auto and security industries with plastic product? have read about what their products are doing to the metabolite levels of children in the u.s.midwest and perhaps all over the world? may i suggest youread the report of the u.of w. scientist then kaayla daniels book after you do that and the amazonia research papers? after you have read that then find rats in the grain. after you have done reading all three i invite you to consider the possibility of a rethink of your position of how benificent that group of manufacturers is to the human race and the world which it relies for existence on.

Like the phrase, "crime against humanity," the question is phrased in an inflammatory manner. Ecolabelling would be valuable on a variety of products, whether or not they are a "menace." I'd like to see ecolabelling on different brands of petroleum-based products -- gasoline from shale oil, from old wells, from new exploration, etc. The problem is going to arise when people try to agree on what the labels mean. You can't have so much information that it confuses the buyer, yet so little it is meaningless. And, not everyone places the same value on the same "sin."

On the 6 oclock news here in the UK today there was an alert about the higher food prices that we are paying, the cause was because of the massive amounts of arrable land that is being used for the production of bio-fuels!!!

You have all been warned!

Spencer.

Seems like the most practical solution would be to put all the eco whiners in their own space ship and put them in orbit.

That is a claim that needs to be backed up by analysis, not just sensational hype. Reports like this have come out here in the US but the data (which, unfortunately, I cannot link you to right now) does not support it.

Industries raise prices when they feel they can get away with it (which sometimes is because of a legitimate rise the the price of supplies), but they don't always lower their prices when the price pressure goes away, and having someone to blame for it is convenient.

There is some effect on food prices. There is also an effect by high oil prices. It takes a lot of oil to farm. Most corn (maize) grown goes to animal feed. It takes eight pounds of grain to grow a pound of meat. So eating less meat would help.

We are working on cellulosic ethanol which will solve grain use problem. Wood and grasses that are grown on wastelands, algae grown with sewage etc can all be used.

Ron Wagner

Decatur,Illinois

Biofuels release the CO2 they took in from the air and the next crop of biofuel takes in that CO2 and so on in an endless cycle. Biofuels are CO2 neutral. Biofuels are also renewable fuels. They are just what all you "green" nuts have been pushing for for years. Now you change your tune and are opposed to biofuels, because you got what you wished for and it isn't as perfect as you thought.

There are whole groups in the environmental movement who think there are too many people and we need to reduce the world population to save the animals. They also were in favor of biofuels. Now that they think some people may starve and die, they oppose biofuels, yet they still want fewer people. If you lump all these groups together and carry their silly ideas to their conclusion, all people would live in a few reserves, so as to have no impact on the wilderness, they would be vegans, use no animal labor or products, have no fires to produce CO2, and raise all their own organic vegetables with stone tools.

Name any large scale source of energy and there is an environut to oppose it and drag it through the legal system until it costs too much. Critics require tic poison.

There are ways to have plants that grow on marginal land and that would be ideal for use a fuel crops without competing with food crops, It is called genetic engineering, but horrors, that is unnatural and cannot be allowed by the environuts.

Get government out of mandating fuels, they are in bed with Big Oil and Big Auto anyway, just follow the money, and get government out of the way of new alternative solutions. If a new solution doesn't work, the public and the market will reject it and if one does work it will sell. To the Left all these systems of labels and criteria are a means to gain more power to tell people what to do and raise taxes to buy more votes with government programs.

Down with the nanny-state - power to the individual people.

Great answer! I disagree with part of the governmental criticism though. I think it is unrealistic to believe that government should get out of energy issues. It has to at least regulate emissions etc. I would like to see it out of education. I think people can spend their money more wisely themselves. Still, poor people need help with education. I am a Republican, but they fought to keep oil subsidies and quashed alternative energy subsidies in the new energy bill. I would like to reverse that.

Ron Wagner

Biofuels satisfying 10% of transportation is still pretty small, but for it to become a large proportion of transportation in its current form of production will put a huge strain on arable land.

An ecolabeling system may well be required, especially when we take a look at how some new biofuels are being grown at the environment's expense. They simply negate the benefit of producing them in the first place.

Indonesia has now become the third largest CO2 producer behind the U.S. and China. Significantly this is from cutting down rainforests in peatland areas, which are susequently left to be burnt off or exposed to dry, releasing CO2. This has been reported previously this year by The New York Times, New Scientist and elsewhere.

Rich European nations getting subsidies for biofuel to meet carbon emissions targets are not helping the environment when poorer nations are paid to do the polluting.

Hi TJS.

One of my friends came back from Indonesia last month, he was over there to help the local people set up a small hospital. He has seen the devastation over there, thay are setting the jungle alight so that they can plant row apon row of oil palms.

The oil from these palms are to be used in the manufacture of bio-fuel. He told me that they had now burnt down the jungle to cover an area the size of England! He also told me that a lot of the population where becoming very sick from the bi-products that are released into the surrounding jungle!

They were also suffering from malnutrition because the the big companies took their land from them to plant even more oil palms. He said that it seems that the rich western nations do not give a damn about the local indigenous population in their greed and thirst for fuel.

I gave up my personal transport in 2000 and rely on public transport and my two legs, luckely we in England have a very good intergrated transport system, so it has never been a problem for me. I believe that the west should start to realise that we cannot go on like this, we have to cut down on travel.

I do not want or mean that we go back to the dark older days either, but we have to put more money into future sustainable transport methods, but not to the deprement of others!

Spencer.

The peat bogs themselves can be harvested and will replenish themselves. The peat could be burned cleanly, for producing electricity. I would love to see preservation of maximum amounts of rain forest. Native Americans would have loved to see preservation of pristine American flora and fauna also. We can spend all the money we like buying off rain forest, to protect it, as the oil palm farmers spend to use it.

Nations will follow their perceived self interest, or at least that of their oligarchs. We should try to influence for the good though.

Ron Wagner

I find these un-conclusive articles funny, where a potential answer to a global problem is only address by what the whole knows. In retrospect, we should be addressing these problems not by finding the quick and easy, which has historically led to compounding or making them worse only because it benefits a few. We should be looking at other bio-sources like Micro-Algae as the renewable source of fuels, that those not displace mankind's croplands and the Oil yields are by far greater than what most consider primary feedstock sources.

Photosynthesis is the way to create that renewable fuel answer that the world is looking for. Also the perception that the Big Multinational are the only ones that can successfully address these issue is simply unamerican. We just don't give up that easy, it's simply not our way. Besides, when you where a little one didn't you before going to play with the big kids made a mental note of who you wanted to stay away from and who you need to align yourself with.

Algae is the future!

What is the largest experimental success that you are aware of. Barrels produced per year?

I believe in the concept. Our lakes, rivers, and even groundwater is polluted with nitrogen and algae from agricultural runoff. No further inputs should be needed.

We need ways to automate pond skimmers and other equipment for this purpose. A system like this could be nearly automated. The tube systems have a large capital expense. even if it did not break even, it would be worthwhile as pollution remediation. This is worthy of subsidizing the development of.

Would appreciate ideas from sewage engineers.

Ron Wagner

If we're going to have a dialogue, let's be constructive and open to that...! I am really interested in your GURU opinion, perhaps maybe you may want to read http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html before defending my rights.

VERY INTERESTING BUT IGNORED FINDINGS...

Ha, ha, ha

Thanks! That is the best article I have seen yet on algae to diesel. Very informative, and with more links.

What do you think about tapping nitrogen rich lakes? Would you be able to remove excess nitrogen in the process? Would it be worthwhile to sell it back to the farmers, or just sell it back as diesel?

Ron Wagner

Decatur, IL

Home of ADM

I'm only a Guru, because I've been here & participated. More like senority than any real competence.

algae seems like a good idea, especially closed systems in conjunction w/say a coal fired plant. using some of the otherwise wasted heat & co² to feed the algae [ or other plants]. In open pond or lakes, the key is to find ways to suppress the less disireable strains [algae], so only the profitable strains are grown. I imagine different products will be produced. The increased price of energy, make good ideas economically viable!

Welcome to GRod & Ronwagn, always good to have more diverse viewpoints.

I agree that we need to take energy out of the exclusive hands of big corporations and government. We need to make energy as distributable, and independently produceable as possible. Common specifications for liquid, gaseous fuels, and electrical transmission should be encouraged. Government should mandate that power companies purchase electricity from those who produce more than they need. This strengthens the grid.

Illinois just passed a law that supposedly requires the purchase of exess electricity from individuals. A couple of years ago Illinois charged a Decaturite for producing his own biofuel without thousands of dollars on deposit for taxes he wasn't paying. Public uproar quickly reversed the action.

Ron Wagner,

Decatur,IL

Hi Guest.

Last year a farmer here in the UK was prodcing his own bio-fuel without paying the government fuel tax (62%), there was a public backlash here too, but our government has a way with dealing with disenters!!!

Spencer.

Is there just one identifiable tax on fuel? Do you pay income tax also? Then you pay for the fuel with what you have left.

When you figure all the different taxes here in the USA, we start to keep our money sometime in May.

Hi ronwagn.

This is how it works in the UK. We pay income tax at 20 to 40% depending on your earnings, then we pay 17% on every item of consumer products that we buy. Fuel has a special tax, 51% plus 17% because we also pay consumer tax on this.

Now maybe you understand why we up in arms over taxation in the UK! We also pay a 10% tax on our properties, this comes on top of our income tax.

So, yes we are begining to get fed up with taxes.

Spencer.

Time for your own tea party! I would seriously consider making your own biodiesel as we used to make moonshine, or make ethanol, and convert your vehicles to it. At least you wouldn't be tempted to become an alcoholic.

Bartering services and goods should be a major thing over there. Not to mention gardening and every other do it yourself activity.

We may be heading down your path, unfortunately.

Happy New Year

Ron Wagner

The sinking dollar, may have some positive effects for the manufacturing base. As imported goods & transportation costs rise, regional production of goods & energy will make more sense! Lots of opportunites to increase efficencies.

Producing our own energy can create jobs in:

1. Research and development.

2. Agriculture and forestry. Opening up marginal land and wasteland to production. Even use saltwater to grow reeds and mangroves. Also roadsides and highway meridians. Thick bushes in meridians could save lives buy stopping cars before the run into someone. Algae farms are another idea.

3. Manufacturing

4. Equipment installation and service.

5. Sales and marketing.

6. Transportation

And we can become more diversified in our energy sources thus eliminating widespread outages and monopolies. We can stop sending our money to our enemies and be selective who we buy petroleum from.

Interesting thought very interesting strategy could be developed to provide a surplus for the future.