Fair Trade for Biofuels

Geeee...! Do sound like a good temporary range transtional fuel but we'll be eventually keep on looking for a real 'Long Range Fuel' down the road. This is in part I guess due soil fatigue and foods demands needs for the rest of the population, I guess. I really don't know about it but as you know a lot of things are do relative and after a while we can have couples more consequences from everything we doing today. But, I do believe that will be a great temporary fuel at this point. I will stick with the improvements on the electrical power car for the moment. To give a break to the sky hi price of oil and everything else down the road.

Ohhh Brotherrr..!

MC

Fair Trade? What the heck, does that mean I'm supposed to pay MORE for their product than I would for gasoline? Fair Trade has so far been just a catchy little term for being willing to pay more to help support poor countries products. I too am looking for long term alternative fuels and this isn't it. R.S.

Just what is needed, food to fuel linkage, starve the poor, burn their food.

as oil runs out the poor will starve. Add on to this the new wheat rust that will plague the world in the next 2-3 years and we will have a huge problem.

Food versus fuel is an already identified problem of the rich getting fuel at the cost of fod for the poor this was part of the corn rioting problems in mexico facilitated by market increases in the US over the last couple of years as California converts just the oxygenate portion of its fuel to alcohol from MTBE. Now multiply the demand for corn by 5 times at least for a highly ethanol enriched gasoline, and 7.5 times for the entire population of US instead of predominantly California. We can not just produce ethanol with out feedstock, which happens to come for pre-existing production sources previously used for food. So you must increase production of the feedstock resources, which require land surface. Much more surface area than oil production (every seen the oil wells in the middle of long beach, or in the middle of some farm field in the Central Valley, they require very little land surface). Thus we must convert more land to intensive agricultural production. This becomes quite problematic in countries that have enforced environmental protections standards (even if marginally enforced). More land for farming=less land for Bald Eagle nesting habitat. And, since the wealthy do tend to be more concerned about birds and furry critters than the starving poor mexicans who take care of their landscaping. I suspect that the fuel market will infringe further into the food markets, rather than bringing much more land into production. I wonder how many starving mexicans worth of food production Alec Baldwin, or Hilary Clinton for that matter, would determine is the break even point for conversion of 1 acre of nesting habitat?

Ethanol cannot replace oil completely, but it can reduce our dependence on it. Why not form an EPEC to do for that fuel what OPEC does for oil, especially since we could be a leader. There are better sources of ethanol than corn. US farmers grow it because they know how to. Sorghum and switchgrass are better and will grow in drier areas than corn. Genetic engineering could also come up with plants that produce more starch or sugars, yet grow on marginal ground and are resistant to pests and weeds.

Aurizon - you sound like one of the environmentalist soft-heads who opposes the common person being able to own and drive a car, opposes oil and coal use and feels we need to live at a lower standard. Likely supports ZPG too. OPEC is dominated by people who want to destroy our culture and freedom and impose their own by force, if they can get away with it. They will suck our economies dry and keep us dependent on them until they feel they can just walk in and take over. Energy independence is true independence and we must have it.

Not a soft head at all. We have seen some grains triple in price in the last year due to the diversion into ethanol. We cannot grow enough grains to replace oil, but we can find enough waste cellulose (bark, leaves, woods etc) to ferment into ethanol and higher alcohols that are more oil like. Ethanol can be used as a feed stock to synthesize higher oil, but is is better to use butanol and propanol (4 and 3 carbon alcohols resp). There are biological pathways to many alcolholes and other molecules that can be used to replace oil and byproducts.

use the starch for food and the stems for feedstocks. I think this will happen over the next 200 years as oil ramps higher and higher.

The full industrializtion of India and China and ROW will accelerate the end of oil. As it sits, the oil shale and tar sand would last about 400 years, but with global ramping to US style of consumption it will be half that.

There is also the fact that worked out oil wells can also be mined for residual oils. They do this now with various solvents like super critical CO2.

Then solar will advance to as much as 50-60% in the future. Already lab cells are at 43%. In 100 years there will be great advances. Even 40% will allow large areas of many southern climes to be large solar energy resources.

As for your speculations about OPEC and EPEC. Well, Opec will die as their oil runs out and many of those countries will revert to starving nomads as they have wasted most of their oil revenues on dumb acts. Look at Venezuela, Gas is 5 cents a liter there and Chavez simply wastes the oil revenues. They will desruct when their oil is gone. Nigeria = much the same. Oil $$ taken by leaders into swiss banks for the large part, but they do have some trickle down. Some arab oil states are investing for the future.

EPEC will never happen, cellulosic alcohol will be so widespread that such a block will never emerge. OPEC emerged from a few oil based choke points.

Harsh realities of excess carbon in the air will accelerate the warming trend, or are you a soft head who does not feel that excess CO2 will warm the earth?

Once an ethanol cycle is in place the CO2 will stabilize and even drop if we take more CO2 from the air to make permanent items from these chemicals. If we just make it and burn it a stable point will emerge.

ZPG is nothing more than the world's women having control of their own fertility. ZPG will be slower to come in muslim countries where they feel women are breed cows for more men. This may be a malthusian problem.

OPEC is in decline now in terms of the % of oil. Canada is rising and the USA will over the next 50 years as oil shale ramps up as OPEC oil runs out.

China and India will suck up more oil each year. China will ramp up its oil from coal programs.

We must all go nuclear or fusion or we will all stop, or move to a decentralized mode. In fact if the whole world goes lower in population as birth control comes under female control we might just get theough this.

Warming has a + feedback water loop. hotter = higher partial pressure of water in the air. No matter what we do with water we will have a self controlliing water loop based on temperature. The only thing that helps with water is higher % water in the air = more clouds = higher albedo = more solar heat reflected, so it does self limit.

yes, just ad hominem, no basis at all

lets add FPEC, they want food, 1 lb wheat for a bbl of oil

Isn't long term carbon sequestering products becoming highly frowned upon since they fill landfills? Isn't the current trend towards products that rot faster degrading into CH₄ or CO₂ rather than remaining unreacted in the landfills. I know the grain price increases have had a profound effect in Mexico, since poor people are finding it hard to provide their basic meals. Mexico grows a lot of corn since it is a native grain used in the local diet for a millenium or so. If we convert more land to alcohol production, couldn't this drive the market prices up more and reduce the food available to feed the poor? How do we regulate the land management? Since we know the oil companies sneaking into ethanol production are not the best at long range global considerations versus short-term local profits. Could they deplete the land and move somewhere else?

Something to keep in mind, there was no big effort towards ethanol, until it was required in California because the oxygenate created from the Oil industries waste bioproducts, MTBE, was polluting all the freshwater and no longer allowed in fuel. Actually ethanol was originally proposed for the oxygenate, but the oil lobby opposed it since ADM owned most of the corn production at that time in the 1990s. Now that they have to produce ethanol to add to fuel in California, they might as well market it everywhere as green for the environment and mark up the fuel for everyone claiming it cost much more. They have 12 % of the market, with California, might as well try to capture the rest and sell it as the solution to everything. I foresee some land speculation schemes in the future, much like the railroad in the 1870s.

I believe solar probably affords the best long term solution, especially with the current advances in the technology, and maybe more efforts should be directed towards this development. Though of course in the process of capturing solar energy we stop the energy from striking the normal surfaces and reduce the absorption of solar energy at the ground surface. So as the population grows and energy demands increase, too many solar collectors would potentially cover too much ground. So in on a geologic timescale this might only be a short-term solution also.

Fair Trade - Check the corn lobby and corn subsidies and trade restrictions on ethanol. Non-food sources of ethanol feedstocks are available but these do not have the lobbyist working for them.

Tom

How true. We need to use other sources than corn. Switchgrass is a nasty plant, but it works. Sorghum is high in sugars and grows in drier conditions than corn. Genetic engineering could increase the sugar or starch content of plants that grow well in poor and dry soils and enrich the soils so they don't need fertilizer and would also be resistant to weeds, disease and insects. It would also be possible to make a plant that would produce a light oil suitable for fuel. That would be the ultimate in solar power and still be CO2 neutral for those who worry about that.

A light oil suitable for fuel. Something like vegetable oil?

My real question in all of this is how would it be beneficial to the global environment increase the international market for ethanol, such that countries like Brazil convert Rainforest to sugar cane production. Aren't we potentially trading one global impact for another. One thing about evaluating whether production is CO₂ Neutral is the evaluation of the replacement of the existing conditions with the new facilities. Is the "Do Nothing" option on a local basis more CO₂ Neutral. 2nd and 3rd World Countries, like Brazil, do not conduct EIRs before converting huge tract of land from native vegetation to agriculture. This is a net carbon gain to the atmosphere as existing plant tissues are almost always burned. Even in the US, conversion of land for agriculture is not currently well reviewed, since it has always been almost entirely for food production. As a higher percentage becomes land for energy production, the conversion of land may need to be reviewed for environmental impacts in a better process than is currently done.

Why not grow it in high-rise green-houses like they're doing it in Vegas and other places?

Most vegetable oil is too thick, especially at low temperatures, for easy use.

It could be possible through genetic engineering, to make plants which fix nitrogen and other elements in their roots which actually enrich the soil while also being used to produce fuel. In areas of Brazil which have been deforested in the past, then farmed and abandoned, these new fuel plants would provide cover for the soil and income to the people.

The carbon gain hysteria is not worth the effort. All the carbon which was ever on the earth is still here. It has been locked up by plants and will be locked up by plants again. The best anyone can do is support forest management and the planting of more trees and oppose developers clear-cutting every new housing development. It makes one wonder if construction workers are incapable of traveling in anything but straight lines and would walk into trees if they left any standing.

We need food, so why on earth review conversion of land for agriculture? You are just trading plants for plants. No one reviews the conversion by eminent domain of farms to private development. How about slowing the taking of farmland for commercial use? Most of the environmental impact studies wind up taking away a farmers right to use his land to earn money, while demanding he pay taxes as if he could use it. I once owned a piece of land that had a creek running through it that was usually dry by late summer. Yet because it was classified as a trout stream [never saw one there] I couldn't build a bridge over it so it would be usable. Still was expected to pay taxes as if it was usable though. Gave it to the state in exchange for the taxes owed.

most plant oils are three oil chains attached to a glycerol backbone. Break it apart and you have bio-diesel and glycerol, which is a nuisance to dispose of, but new uses as feedstock are appearing

Actually, I suspect that if we did the mass balance, you'd probably find that most of the carbon is locked up in geologic formations, e.g. limestone, dolomite, calcareous shales, oil, coal, etc..

Regarding nitrogen fixation, this is done by symbiotic bacteria associated with the plants. Plants don't fix the nitrogen. These types bacteria function under specific conditions in the rhizosphere. Typically one of the conditions is a shortage of mineralized nitrogen. this shortage is usually well below the level of nitrogen needed by the plants to grow and produce at the rates we require, and base all our estimates relating to plants on. The plants would grow, just not as fast and healthy as we normally expect. Plus the release to the environment of any seriously genetically enhance species to a new environment always poses a risk, killer bees are good examples. Could the nitrogen fixation get out of hand and pollute all the groundwater and surface water? Will the species grow out of control and become invasive? Will it displace native species to the point of extinction?

Regarding re-use of deforested areas, along with many other plantation schemes, Bio-fuels schemes have been tried in 3rd world countries in the past, and they always lead to clearing new forest, it is usually just better business sense on paper for the corporations in the short-term. If the money is there, I do not really see 3rd world countries analyzing the environmental impacts and limiting development to deforested areas, before allowing BP to start a new plantation.

Plus if they get more efficient with cellulosic ethanol production maybe the native species that were displaced would be a better option for fuel production.

the cellulose path to ethanol, butanol etc is being explored now from examination and optimization of the various enzymes found is fungi yeast and bacteria. They are examining these with a view towards using them in various non biological ways, tethered to beads, high temperature enzymes derived from extremeophiles (things that live in hotsprings, black smokers etc and can tolerate extremes of T and P etc)

They start with wood rot fungi/bacteria/termite-gut germs etc and go from there, see how it is done and try to make a non biological factory to make butanol etc.(many products can be made, nit just ethanol)

This would allow for operation at higher temperatres and concentrations that would kill a living system. In addition, it would make only one thing, while living systems make many many things, which are wasted work by our measure.

This has the advantage of being able to use the hueg amount of cellulosic waste we make every year. Some suggest some fast grow grasses are the best cellulose factor on earth. Others want to create plants with ethanlo for sap.

These will all take time and work to optimize. My guess is they will be out of the lab in 10-15 years and into big scale use in 20-30 years.

Never said where the carbon was, just that it is all here as it has always been. I don't worry about the carbon in oil and coal since it was all once in the air anyway and a little more won't hurt. The plants love it and I like happy plants.

Plants could be engineered to harbor nitrogen fixing bacteria, which could REDUCE the use of nitrogen fertilizers. Since the bacteria have to stay with the plants how could it get out of control? Killer bees were not genetically engineered. They were a hybrid of an African and an Italian bee. In genetic engineering it has been said that they could have selected the DNA that made the bees docile, or big honey producers or able to withstand warm temperatures, rather than the hit or miss hybridizing that brought about the "Killer" bee. Any plant can be invasive, but none are beyond control, and to be a good crop the seeds need to be planted by farmers and not just go wild. If the basic plant is not invasive, making it nitrogen-fixing, higher in sugar, starch or oil content or pest resistant will not make it invasive.

An area already deforested is easier to replant than clearing new areas. 3rd world countries already have a dismal record in protecting forests just from food production, but there are ways to apply pressure to get them to do better. And BP responds very well to pressure. So I don't see that as such a problem as to reject the idea.

Since you are one of the "be afraid, be very afraid" type of people who opposes genetic engineering, you probably oppose nanotech too. Any risk is too much risk and everything unknown is to be feared.

Alrigth it does all sound reasonable and I tell ya' after reading here some of this good ideas I am wondering , How about if someone became with a real good synthetic fuel or a compound that closely give or produce strong enougth combustion similar to gas but even cleaner after burn in order to protect some how the atmosphere up there and still safe for use on regular automobiles engines. Probably we do have to make up or addapt some of the fuel system components to make it happen but we'll get it down the road eventually. And also something else here just brainstorming about this issue. How come that if someone can make a synthetic DIAMOND which also have to do with carbon elements if that rigth then probably we would "Copy Cat Fuel"- carbon - sulfur-hydrogen- and what ever missing in that formula and make it happen that way probably, again , I don't know nothing but that's probably a little chance to 'crank it up'... I guess. Alrigth pal's you have all nice nite now and stay cool.

Easy Does It,

MC

But it isn't about the fuel, it is about the end product of oxidizing Carbon, Sulfur, or Nitrogen based compounds to form CO₂, NO_x, or SO₂. Actually, if enough Hydrogen is burned that a significant change occurs in the global water vapor in the atmosphere we will have adverse environmental impacts also. Water vapor is more efficient at trapping thermal energy than CO₂. However, water droplets reflect solar energy, effectively cooling the earths surface. So we do not know the real global impact of dumping large amounts of water vapor into the lower atmosphere, except local effects like fog. Of course large amounts is a a relative term. So the next question is how much additional water can we dump into the atmosphere before we have an adverse global effect? What a new generation of fuels offers is the possibility of more efficient utilization of the energy released by the chemical oxidation, and a reduction on dependance upon foreign resources to supply our energy needs.

Original Free Trade in BioFuels Market started with

1. Brazil use of biofuel from sugarcane (both directly and from baggase/pressed waste) and seeking to create a global biofuels market.

Market is there, Brazil is already a major player

2. Europe, Asia, and the U.S. have overtaken Brazil as the world's leading ethanol producer(s).

Formed internal monopolies byt protectionist duty barriers to brazilian ethanol in order to improve the internal agrobusinesses and lobbyists.

3. biofuels market requires coordinating body-BfPEC, promoting sales, standards, and technology.

Need an open and free international market as in the same for oil, natural gas, and fuel products.

4. U.S. assumes lead in creating market by

4.1 removing existing barriers to fair trade and

Would be great if done

4.2 promoting the export of advanced bioenergy technology to developing areas?...

especially for post consumer and agricultural wastes instead of directly from food products

Now we are a ways away from where we started:

A. But it isn't about the fuel, it is about the end product of oxidizing Carbon, Sulfur, or Nitrogen based compounds to form CO₂, NO_x, or SO₂.

CO2 is the most difficult as it is relatively chemically inert/stable exhaust compounds, the other water H2O.

B. Hydrogen or any H-compound burned = significant change by global atmospheric water vapor

= adverse environmental impacts - more efficient trap for trophospheric thermal energy than CO₂.

=water droplets reflect solar energy, effectively cooling the earths' surface.

If we had enough clouds at 10,000 m we would have less heating due to the albedo (90+) of the clouds, similar the more ice/snow (albedo 95+) we have on the surface the more reflection…positive feed back loop problem with melting glaciers/snow packs.

CO2 is transparent/albedo <1 to incoming radiation and allow reradiating from high (>50) albedo earth surface, but reradiation of low albedo surfaces are longer wave and CO2 is opaque therefore trophospheric heating.

C. Not know – can we estimate real global impact of putting large amounts of water vapor into lower atmosphere,

No true, water vapor is being modeled in the world climate model, especially as the equatorial humidity and clouds increase the reflectance (lowering temps) in the equatorial zones and thereby reduce temp differentials between Equatorial and Polar zones, and most of the drivers in the atmosphere.

D. except local effects like fog.

Under clouds, lower trop. air can be warmer as it is holding the heat radiating from the ground is in winter time: clear sky during the day warms the ground and if the clouds come in the night air will be warmer, while if clouds are during the day and then clear at night – night air temps plummet.

E. how much additional water can we dump into atmosphere before adverse global effect?

Model results show a lot more, not the driver that CO2 is.

F. New fuels generation

New fuels are always good – especially post-consumer wastes, non-food crops, "natural" cultivatable stocks…spartina, reeds, etc.

G. more efficient utilization of the energy released by the chemical oxidation

Energy-Production Efficiency is one of the best primary "renewable" resources – 20% increase in overall efficiencies would provide considerable benefit – but losses in many peoples' portfolios.

H. reduction on dependence upon foreign resources to supply our energy needs.

Energy-Production Efficiency is one of the best primary "renewable" resources – 20% reduction in imported product, gas, and oil would provide considerable benefit – but losses in many peoples' portfolios.

Lets try to keep the focus on the original question OR start new questions.

Tom Williams

Has free trade and open markets ever meant any coproation maintain production with in the US, or do they find cheap land and labor abroad and sell the product to the US. This sounds similar to arguments for NAFTA and Free Trade with china. Free trade arguments always imply that since the US is a major producer now they will just be opening new markets through free trade. Brazil, as well as ADM, have been pushing for ethanol in US fuel for many decades, even at an expense astounding expense to the consumer. We would be opening the US market to outside produceders, not opening outside markets, since, as we have seen with China, outside markets that would be open to free trade agreements can not afford to buy very many US products, but have the cheap land available, the government just disappears a few native residence and removes a rain forest for a plantation. Biofuel speculations have occurred in the past when corporations thought they would have a US market in places like Indonesia, with disastrous environmental impacts. Oil is not an open and free international market, there are restrictions and monopolies all over the place in the oil market, just not in the US, e.g. Mexico, OPEC. Protecting the US market promotes advancement in technologies that you won't see with third world production.

Chemically CO₂ is easy to scrub since it reacts readily with many compounds. NOx can be more problematic, but can be minimized through efficient burning of fuels. The cost and technology for removing CO₂ however does not lend itself readily to small scale mobile low maintenance systems needed for transportation.

Modeling atmospheric water can not be all that accurate since i can not get an accurate weather prediction still for rain, and surprisingly rain is derived from water in the atmosphere. Saying we model something doesn't mean that the results of the model accurately predict the consequences. If models can not accurate predict the visible consequences of existing conditions, how could the accurately predict the consequences of scenarios beyond the know data sets. Models that are not calibrated to real world conditions and accurately reflect real world events are inaccurate. If I modeled water systems the way atmospheric "scientists" claim to model the activity of water in our atmosphere, I would get sued. We do not know the consequences of putting large amounts of heated water vapor into the atmosphere, we can just prognosticate.

Yes, clouds reflect sunlight, but water vapor effectively traps heat (Water vapor is more effective at absorbing low frequency energy than CO₂). Regarding clouds, their formation is dependant upon factors other than just water in the atmosphere. If you heat the atmosphere, you can hold more water as vapor. Water vapor typically has a shorter life cyle in the atmosphere than CO₂. Again enough heated water going into the atmosphere could be as big as problem as current CO₂. A lot of water, more than naturally entering the atmosphere does not accurately and effectively quantify this. At the current energy usage of a US citizen per capita projected worldwide, how many people could we support? What effects to the environment occur from the higher water content in the atmosphere. Would more frequent flash flooding be a consequence? Could increased flooding and landslides be a possible side effect? Are their some people who may view such side effects as adverse environmental impacts?

Efficient production has benefits of keeping energy costs low, but producing more to meet increasing demand does not address adverse effects of the watse byproducts generated by energy production. The efficient application of energy is more effective than improving the efficient production of energy resources to address waste production, and at some point waste production, and related impacts, always becomes a major issue as the population grows. Translation of energy production from one resource to another just translated the impact to one set of investors portfolios into benefits to anothers. Natural gas, nuclear, alcohol, oil, coal it all is the same financially when it comes down to energy supplies to the consumer. The difference really comes down to who is invested in what type of production and how much market share their investment holds, but the market to the consumer is still the market. (Most people have limited options for electricity and gas, e.g. I am only able to receive service from PG &E so I am at the whims of their energy purchases and production methods, I do not get to decide I do not like their methods and receive service from other providers, and most people will not waste the fuel to travel 10 miles to a different fueling station that is more environmentally friendly). The consumer really benefits in the long run from a better (more efficient) use of energy resources.

I was trying to indicate that biofuels and free trade was the original question.

If we want to discuss CO2, CH4, H2O and GHG and global warming lets start a new thread.

New Thread - If models don't work, what do we use to make decisions, yes they can be improved, and have been improved since 1966 when I worked on our first.

New Thread - Cloud formation

New Thread - Total population of the world

BioFuel Thread - post-consumer waste processing for CH4 and others has possilibities.

Investments in fuels and energy would be a good biofuel/trade thread.

Go solar voltaic if the sun shine is okay.

Fully agree - The consumer really benefits in the long run from a better (more efficient) use of energy resources.

I suspect that as a long term solution even photovoltaic would be problematic if we increase the energy demand enough. Plus, I am not sure about locating the facilities, there is the always present problem with the wealthy of NIMBY, and the wealthy activist concerns about protecting native habitats and species, the ecology, etc.. I suspect that it could be really hard to cover too much land in a state like California with Solar Collectors. But in general I believe solar is the most passive system for generating energy, and at the current rate of improvement in efficiency, it may be a highly viable system in a few years as long as the research funding continues to support new development. Of course if we cover 20 % of the surface with solar collectors, or some isgnificant portion, the question develop regarding the loss of solar energy reach the ground surface and life near the ground surface. There is always a breakthrough point where we exceed the natural systems capacity to accomodate our energy needs i guess.

I give up as a biofuel thread needs to be stopped and this Solar could be started elsewhere.

My house roof can provide more solar electric to the Grid than I can use. But utilities will not provide peak rates and if I exceed my consumption, then I don't get paid for the excess.

Enough roof space is available for most peak power requirements which means we can go back to a base load power production.

New tech is highly probable to reduce costs

I would also use the solar PV panels for shading the roof surface which further cool the house and reducing cooling loads. I am waiting for a plug in-car in order to install full roof cover - 800+900sqft so I can use the roof.

They are presently rolling out (pun intended) wall paper thick solar pannels you could cover your whole house with. The "cover the precious ground" idea is now a total washout.

It is only a "wash-out" if they do not decide that it is more cost effective and productive to purchase lands for the sole application of solar energy collection. Passive use on structure meant for other applications would be a good idea, but i suspect this does not benefit all the large corporations involved in the development, production and supply of energy, and therefore they would likely lobby against anything that promotes this kind of energy independence from their market control. If you put solar collectors on buildings and supply most of their power from their own sources, where do all the corporations involved in energy get paid. Since these companies tend to build for energy production and not some other uses with energy production coattailed along, it is likely solar energy for those companies means buying large tracts of land and occupy them solely with collectors for energy production with no other intentions for the land use. I also do not see them buying up land in Palo Alto, Malibu, or Beverly Hills to construct such facilities, even though they need to provide more energy to meet a higher per capita demand thus keeping Britney Spears house lit while she is in rehab or getting a hair cut.

I started 1 thread: http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/19755/Water-vapor-be-more-harmful-than-CO2

A lot of this stuff has been covered search out the threads & comment everyone who has subscriptions will be notified & continue.

Feel free to start as many new discussions as you wish.

Welcome to CR4.

Good Deal.. I did heared also somewhere that you can be able to produce some kind of alcohols derivatives from fermentation of some vegetables or fruits and even rice, but then again, the whole process will be another matter since there are restrictions definetly... Also then the consequences of the land and soil priority use for the population food which are number 1 to non matter what. That's the deal, I believe. Take good care of population first in order to take care of the rest then. Allset Buddy's hang in there and enjoy the best possible in the midtime...

Staying Sober,

MC

You can produce alcohols from almost any green waste, all the waste needs to have is some form of sugar in it (and all plants have some mono-, di- or poly-saccharide content in some form). Even cellulose is just a fancy left twisted form of poly-saccharide (beta-D-glucoside), it is the left twist that makes it relatively hard for most microbes to degrade and convert to alcohol, unlike starch which is similar with a right twist (alpha-D-glucoside). Then you just need to purify the alcohol to the type you want to use, removing contaminants and the other forms of alcohol you do not want to use (typically ethanol is preferable to methanol). You could even make alcohol from blood if you had some reason to want that.

Regarding the synthetic diamond. Much of the financing to create realtively good quality synthetic diamonds was provided to research during the Cold War by the Soviet Union in a long term plot to try and undermine the diamond trade in the westrn countries, it seems we are suckers for shiny baubbles. Following the cold war our business people invested in the Russian research in attempts to create a new market from the viable research that competes with geologically formed diamonds. The diamonds became so good they were indistiguishable even under ultraviolet light. So DeBeers, amongst a few other European interests developed developed the practice of laser inscribing the diamonds they seel and markets them as real diamonds. However, all the financing towards the synthetic diamonds really came from the Soviet Unions plot to destabilize our economies. So if there is some benefit to a foreign power wanting to destabilize our economy by attempt to undermining the existing oil markets, and if that power has the wealth to invest into the research for a very long time, then we might see similar results in the energy research. Of course then BP, Chevron, etc. would attempt to undermine the new energy source in the public perception (advertising misinformation is a quite effective sales technique, just watch politicians), much like alcohol as a fuel in the US was undermined by the exaggerations and generalizations regarding the early problems with methanol use. They would do this until they felt they had a strong position in the new energy market and then you would see a change in advertising and a paradigm shift in the public perception of the new fuel source.

It would be nice to remove the strangle hold BIG SUGAR has on our government here in the USA. Their political connections make sure the price of sugar stays high by excluding imports where possible.

Imagine how the large Cuban sugar crop would have affected their profits if they had been afforded the same trade laws as China.

So many laws passed to protect the market for sugar producers in the USA and keep imports out. That barrier to entry in our markets they have established in Washington with anti competition laws will make things harder in the USA for biofuels.

The Sugar industry in the US is not the cause for the trade embargo against Cuban Sugar. All cuban trade is and has been under a very strict embargo since shortly after the Castro Regime came to power. In theory this is a non-violent effort against the communist regime, and in Cubas case the program has had the effects anticipated, though poverty and a bankrupt government has not swayed the Cubans the way it would say the Chinese or the Russians. The strongest proponents for the embargo were the cuban american lobbies. It is strictly prohibited for Americans to own any Cuban products, not just Sugar. Cuba is not poor because of Big Sugar lobbyist, but because of its communist policies, and JFKs strong anti-communist programs and laws developed during that period. Don't get me wrong though, I am sure that nicaraguan cigar makers and american sugar producers don't mind the continuation of these laws. I am sure that if we the anti-communist chinese americans had the numbers, strong opinions, were as outspoken and lobbied as effectively, the US would have an embargo against China from the 1960s or 1980s (oh and if they didn't offer to provide so much slave labor for manufacturing of corporate products). Plus keep in mind that the Chinese have tried to become more capitalistic and adapt to the US, rather than trying to pick fights witht the US at every opportunity, unlike Cuba.

Worldwide sugar importations are restricted by nearly all sugar producing governments, the strictest and most comprehensive are the European governments attempting to protect the smaller sugar beat producers of Europe from foreign Sugar Cane imports.

The problem is protectionism versus fair trade. Protectionism keeps the price of foreign goods so high as to give unfair profits to domestic production, it keeps imports out and gives the market to US business. A fair trade would allow foreign goods to just barely match domestic prices or beat them by a fraction. In a fair trade Brazilian sugar might be one cent less per 100 lbs compared to US sugar, Not enough to put US growers out of business, but enough to keep them competing.

In trade we do not want to be totally dependent on other countries for things we can grow or make, so we must protect our industries and farmers from unfair competition from cheap labor and lower living standards. If we overprotect, then we kill competition which stops innovation and lowers quality. It is a very fine balance and very difficult.

Totally open and free trade is why you cannot buy American-made computer printers and many other items that are now made in other countries. Organizing a fair trade in biofuels protects everyones interests.

I would suggest hat we are discussing an Open american market more so than opening others markets. I am not sure there is ever a free trade market, since many countries still maintain some policies that they utilize to close the markets where american trade could dominate, this is common in European markets where they can afford american products. Opening markets to emrging nations with little or no environmental control policies and then expecting our own business interest to compete under our strict environmental policies is unfair trade. It would be fair if in our free trade agreements we required the implementation of equivalent or stricter environmental practice utilized in those industries. Agriculture is an industry under very limiting environmental regulations in the US, and to meet the environmental regulations requires that additional costs be incurred and passed on to the consumer. If you want blanket exclusions against cheap effective practices like the application of DDT or other specific herbicide because they are deemed unsafe for the environment or human consumption, then you should be willing to afford some protection to the farmer who must incur the cost of doing business in a more regulated nation. Given Brazil's dismal environmental policies in agriculture, I suspect that many of the standard US style regulations regularly overlooked or nonexistant still. The typical regulations in the US would be equivalent to charging the US producers a environmental tax for doing business based on the scale of business they conduct, while applying no similar tax to foreign products and letting the consumers bear all the risk for the foreign products. Keep in mind that ethanol production is a bioreactor, so working with a variety of unknown

It would be good to try to get some semblance of fairness back into trade and keep competition alive. There are some things we can make cheaper than others can or better or more improved and keep a fair balance of trade. We have to make foreign goods expensive enough that they do not dominate our market and expect that they will do the same to our goods. As long as the retail prices are within a small percentage of each other there can be competition. It would be difficult to fine tune trade to achieve this, but something needs to be done. Cooperating with other biofuel producers so we don't cut each others throats would benefit everyone.

I was pointing out that US markets are already too open and that is why we are flooded with foreign goods while our factories close. When foreign companies pay less, can be less clean, provide less benefits for workers, then a careful application of tariffs or other limits could protect our industry. Getting other biofuel producers to avoid price wars would help all biofuel producers by keeping everyone's farmers busy and wealthy through stable prices, no matter the cost of production in each individual country.

Great Great.. Then in short will be good some how to have some way of controlled consortium that regulate this alcohol production if that going to be part of the next fuel level globally speaking, I don't sure at this point but I'm trying following you guys in here. Good discussion and something to learn from everyone as always definetly. Good deal then and easy does it... See Ya' later now...

Breaking Thruw...

MC