Interesting Ethanol Piece

[stefan segal]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-roberts/the-ethanol-lovefest-wil_b_39723.html


David Roberts

Bio

01.26.2007
The Ethanol Love-fest Will Not Last (14 comments )
READ MORE: United States
grist.org


So, Bush wants massive new ethanol subsidies. He wants 35 billion gallons of "renewable and alternative fuels" -- the vast bulk of which will be corn ethanol -- online by 2017.

Right now, there's basically no opposition to this push. It's got support from industry (mainly Big Corn and Big Auto), legislators from both parties, farmers, environmentalists, national security types, and the public at large.

That's not going to last.

It's clear that there's just not enough corn, or room to grow it, to get even to Bush's relatively modest target. As corn supplies are stressed, the price of corn goes up and the economic benefit of producing ethanol starts to wane. What to do? More subsidies? It's possible that cellulosic will ride to the rescue, but to do so it would have to undergo research breakthroughs and massive deployment in an extremely short period of time. Doubtful.

So what's the other way to boost ethanol supply? Import it from overseas. The administration is fully aware that removing the protectionist tariffs and subsidies that favor U.S. corn producers is inevitable. U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said "he did not see subsidies to U.S. farmers remaining in place beyond 2010 or import tariffs on ethanol beyond 2008."

How will the political dynamic change at that point? It's difficult to predict such things, but I'd be willing to wager that all hell breaks loose.

When you introduce competition from cheap ethanol imports:

You lose the support of the farm lobby and thus the support of midwestern legislators -- this is an enormous amount of pork on the line for them.
You lose the support of Big Corn, which was practically created by federal subsidies.
You lose the support of environmentalists, who probably won't cotton to ethanol imported on oil-burning ships from countries that clear rainforests to grow it.
You lose the support of the national security crowd, which probably wasn't envisioning simply shifting our energy dependence to a different set of countries.
At that point, who's left? What's the benefit? Where's the support?

It may not be as cut-and-dried as all that. But it's nonetheless clear that much of ethanol's support is tied to the very economic and political arrangements that limit its usefulness.

Once the global market for ethanol is opened up, its unified domestic political support in the U.S. will fragment. It will come as a surprise to no one to learn that this strikes me as excellent evidence that ethanol is at best a bridge or niche fuel. Electrification's the way, baby!

[Linkster]

Keep in mind that about 6 to 7 years after that date is when the worlds oil supply will all be gone - completely!!! And that includes all known fields that havent been tapped yet - so I would have to say that they better come up with some sort of alternative as I know my grandchildren who are toddlers now will never have an oil fed car when they go off to college

[stefan segal]

The alternative won't be ethanol...as ethanol is less than second rate for that purpose. Butanol/hemp...would do it for internal combustion far better as a fuel, and far less disruptive of our agricultural balance and ecconomic health.

Ethanol/corn is a political plumb, but as the atrical above states very disruptive...but the artical is not broad based enough in the disruptions that will occur attempting to make ethanol (which is caustic to rubber and plastics) a viable replacement.

As far as running out of oil...NEVER HAPPEN...the US is only waiting for the liquid oil price to skyrocket, then our HUGE sand-oil reserves will become ecconomicly viable in the market place, then US/Canada will be the new world's oil patch.

With our sand-oil reserves in mind, it make sense that the gov. is pushing a second rate poor fuel to keep up the price while oil supply diminish.

All the mechanics throughout the country will get a boost in their bottom line, by making conversions for engines to run ethanol, while corn growers will use vast acreage for corn, pushing the price of other foods higher.

Since the corn grown will not be for human consumption, it will be genetically altered as is the soybean/plastic crops, and edible corn will need be imported for human consumption, because ALL out corn will be cross pollanated in the wind, and no US corn can be eaten without being poisoned.

Understand that the genetic engineering done to the soybean, was not to improve its size or favor or nutritional value....it was engineered solely to be resitant to the particularly vicious pesticide 'Roundup'...which kills everything alive...no bugs (eat and you die) and no weeds.

So the ethanol issue is more far-reaching than an either/or sort of choice...and you need worry more about the price of oil than its availibility for your grand children.

Stefan

[Bill]

I was reading an interesting article in New Scientist recently.

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/energy-fuels/dn10759

The idea being that a mixture of grasses grown on land is the most efficient producer of net energy, and also the best carbon dump for controlling CO2.

You don't convert it to ethanol, you just dry it and burn it. The roots left in the soil store away more carbon than corn or other ethanolic crops do.

One of the things I thought was interesting about this ethanol thing - the day after the speech, I read, the president of mexico froze the prices of tortillas because there was a panic that US use of corn for ethanol was going to create corn shortages in countries that depend on cheap american corn.

[Linkster]

stefan - even with the sand reserves the latest calculations (and even the alaska protected reserves in the wildlife refuge) only last 17 years - thats assuming that everything produces at the rate they expect them to and demand does not go up whatsoever - if demand goes up then that number gets smaller

[stefan segal]

Linkster...I'm for any defensible "the sky is falling" scenerio of conspiracy, but what did Germany do when faced with an oil shortage for its tanks and planes?

Neccessity is the mamma of invention...but even with today's technology, we won't ecperience any shortages...except the pain of trying to function in the world without a viable currency.

With so much to worry about and rectify in our country, oil is far down on the immediacy list.

It has all been hyped up in our minds from the minds of those oil patchers in the oval office...don't buy into ther game.

Stefan

[stefan segal]

Bill...that's such a good piece, I'm going to paste it up for general comsumption :) I didn't notice switchback grass listed, which also has stats comprable to this named grouping...but the biggest bang for the acerage is by far hemp production.

Stefan

Humble grasses may be the best source of biofuel
14:20 08 December 2006
NewScientist.com news service
Catherine Brahic
PrintSendFeeds The Minnesota experiment contains numerous plots planted with combinations of up to 16 grass species. Each plot is 9 metres by 9 metres in area (Image: David Tilman)Enlarge A restored prairie in Minnesota with Indian grass (Sorghastrum nutams) is about to drop its seed (Image: Jason Hill)EnlargeTools
Advertisement
Humble grasses may be the best source of biofuel, say researchers, who estimate grasses could provide 19% of global electricity needs at the same time as soaking up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

David Tilman and colleagues at the University of Minnesota, US, say grasslands could be used to produce biofuel and would yield more energy than the traditional biofuel crops of corn and soya per hectare. What is more, the process is "carbon negative" – meaning it captures more CO2 than it releases into the atmosphere.

By contrast, corn-based biofuel has come under attack for requiring large amounts of fossil fuels to run the tractors, fertilise the fields and convert the crop into fuel (see Fuels gold: Big risks of the biofuel revolution).

Wild lupine and goldenrod
Tilman and his team focused on fields left fallow after years of degradation by agriculture, as these already exist and would not need to created. The plots they planted were home to up to 16 different wild prairie grasses, including wild lupine, goldenrod, Indian grass, big blue stem and switchgrass.

They found that plots with more species yielded more energy. Plots with 16 species generated on average 2.4 times more than plots that had just one type of plant.

When they compared the fuel yields of grasslands with corn fields, they found they could obtain over 50% more energy from the grasslands per hectare.

But the key advantage was revealed when they calculated how much CO2 was released by the entire process. This involves planting the wild grasses, harvesting and transporting them to the biofuel facility, and operating that facility.

The use of fossil fuels to power the process releases 0.3 tonnes of CO2 per hectare per year - but the growing grasses store 4.4 tonnes of CO2 in the roots and soil, meaning the net result is 4.1 tonnes removed from the atmosphere. The stems, leaves and flowers of the grasses also absorb CO2 but this is then released again when the grassland biofuel is burned later on – meaning no net gain or loss of CO2.

Global needs
In the US, there are already substantial areas of agricultural land left fallow and planted with prairie grasses on the Great Plains. Tilman estimates that converting those grasslands to biofuel, would meet 6% of that region's transportation fuel needs and 10% of its electricity needs.

He adds that these areas already store CO2 equivalent to that released by about 12% of the petroleum used for transportation in the region.

Globally, Tilman says, "we estimate that biofuels produced on the degraded lands of Earth could [meet] 13% of global needs and simultaneously produce electricity that met 19% of global needs".

Journal reference: Science (vol 314, p 1598)

[Linkster]

stefan - Im not buying into anyones games - Im just looking at the actual numbers (which are usually over-exagerated by the Saudis) and the per-year consumption rates over the last 30 years and projected numbers from all known exploration and production facilities worldwide. This is not something put out by the government - their are conservacy groups that crunch these types of numbers every day - and every one of them averages out to 17 years from now completely running out of oil if consumption stays at current day levels - which of course it wont.

[Linkster]

Stefan - figured Id give you something nice to read - this BTW is not something cooked up by environmentalists or politicians - and it does show all of their sides as well which makes it a good source (in my eyes anyway)
http://lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

[kres24GT]

The energy problems we have is a perfect example of why I believe the solution to every problem is government. Who better than corrupt politicians in bed with oil companies who help fund our enemies to help solve our energy concerns? We as the ignorant partisan mases can sit back, blame the other party, and not worry too much about a problem that won't be going away anytime soon. God Bless America, Big Government, and 2 party politics.

[stefan segal]

Linkster...here's part of the problem.

Stefan


http://www.ev1.org/chevron.htm

"Chevron controls the worldwide patent rights for NIMH batteries used in the RAV4-EV, and won't allow their use in EVs."

Unfortunately, plug-in hybrids are forced to use lead-acid or lithium batteries, and it's no accident. Electric car batteries must be able to put out enough power to run the EV without an engine, be able to "deep cycle" for acceptable range (over 100 miles on a charge), and must have long "cycle life" of at least 1000 to 2000 fill-ups (over 100,000 miles, and usually over 200,000 miles, before the batteries need replacement). > >>

The existing and proven EV-95 NiMH battery from Panasonic, which lasts longer than the life of the car, has adequate power for acceleration without an Internal Combustion ("IC") engine, and can drive an EV at 80 mph for up to 120 miles, went into production in Jan., 1997. These batteries are powerful enough to run an EV from start to 80 mph and for over 100 miles, and have cycle life of at least 1500 -- over 150,000 miles before they need replacement> >>

[Linkster]

I dont see a problem there - I just corporate money making greed :) and its to be expected on a much grander scale in the coming years - if you go through some of those links on that page I posted you will see that the corporations have actually pushed up the production more than they should have to keep prices down on the markets for right now - until the oil fields in the middle east are secured. I would expect that the price of oil will top 200 a barrel within 4 years and that the price for regular gas would be well over $7 a gallon in the US by that time.
These are problems and situations that the corporations have known about for years and have (Im sure or they arent earning their money) many plans standing by to ensure that the oil does get the highest price possible with the highest possible profits in the long run before it runs out - these guys are not stupid

[Bill]

I thought this was an interesting article - a new type of capactitor that works like a battery - like the guy at the bottom of the article says, it's vaporware till I see it on the shelf, but it's promising nonetheless.

Sweet if it can actually be manufactured at a reasonable price. A nanotech capacitor!

http://www.boingboing.net/2007/01/23/bariumnitrate_batter.html

A Texas company called EEStor has announced a type of battery it calls an Electrical Energy Storage Unit, or EESU. It uses barium-nitrate powder and stores 10 times as much energy as a lead-acid battery, by weight. It also recharges much more quickly than lead-acid or lithium-ion batteries.

EEStor claims that, using an automated production line and existing power electronics, it will initially build a 15-kilowatt-hour energy-storage system for a small electric car weighing less than 100 pounds, and with a 200-mile driving range. The vehicle, the company says, will be able to recharge in less than 10 minutes.

[exarmyranger]

Does anyone remember?The carburator that reduced the fuel consumption by 2/3rds.without loss of horsepower.It worked,was easy to install,and was inexpencive.Patent awarded,and bought by Big oil's top 3...and buried...30 odd years ago.There were other similar carb.intake modifiers,but were'nt issued patents,because of similaritys allready under patent(s)held by big oil.I find it sad but true,"people do'nt know what they have till it's gone"...ex