backtop


Print 90 comment(s) - last by inperfectdarkn.. on Mar 4 at 12:16 PM

Finally a use for tobacco that is good for the environment

Not all research into alternative energy for vehicles centers on batteries or solar power. A lot of research time and money around the world is being allotted to finding new, cheaper, and cleaner fuels that can power internal combustion engines like hydrogen and ethanol.

Ethanol is typically thought of as a fuel made from corn, but other plant matter can also be turned into ethanol. The USDA issued findings in August of 2009 that watermelons that would normally be thrown away could be used to produce biofuels. There are already a number of vehicles on the road that can burn E85 ethanol and as production costs come down, it makes the price per gallon cheaper for consumers. Cellulosic Ethanol from POET is targeting a price of $2.35 per gallon.

Scientists are also pursuing new methods of creating ethanol from other types of plant materials. Professor Henry Daniell from the University of Central Florida has made a groundbreaking discovery in the production of ethanol from waste products like orange peels and newspapers. According to Daniell, his technique is cheaper and greener than methods currently used to create ethanol today.

The breakthrough isn't limited to fruit peels and newspaper though, Daniell says that the process can also be applied to other non-food products being used for biofuel production like sugarcane, switchgrass, and straw.

Daniell said, "This could be a turning point where vehicles could use this fuel as the norm for protecting our air and environment for future generations."

The technique was developed with funding from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and uses a plant derived enzyme cocktail to break down orange peels and other waste products into sugar, which is then fermented into ethanol. Current processes for making ethanol include using cornstarch that is fermented into fuel, but the ethanol produced with this method produces more emissions than normal gasoline.

The method Daniell has discovered produces much less emissions than gas or electricity. One major point with the method Daniell has discovered is that the process can be used on many waste products to produce ethanol without affecting the world's food supply. Discarded orange peels in Florida alone can produce as much as 200 million gallons of ethanol each year.

Daniell and his team used techniques to clone genes from fungi and bacteria that cause wood to rot and produced the needed enzymes in tobacco plants. By producing the enzymes in tobacco plants, the process of creating the enzyme is much cheaper than producing the enzymes synthetically. The enzyme cocktail has more than ten enzymes that are required to turn the biomass into sugar.

"Dr. Henry Daniell's team's success in producing a combination of several cell wall degrading enzymes in plants using chloroplast transgenesis is a great achievement," said Mariam Sticklen, a professor of crop and soil sciences at Michigan State University.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

OK, fine but...
By joex444 on 2/18/2010 6:59:05 PM , Rating: 5
I mean, its better than using a food source.

But the idea that ethanol is cleaner or safer for the environment is beyond retarded. Study after study has shown you get lower efficiency with ethanol vs gasoline, and that you produce more CO2.

Also, as a homebrewer, I can tell you that yeast does not strictly produce ethanol. In addition to the other various fusel alcohols such as methanol, it produces a whopping amount of CO2. A large scale fermentation of 200M gals would produce a significant amount of CO2 just converting the sugar to ethanol. Then burning said ethanol releases much more.

This kind of technology is NOT for protecting future generations. It will leave the planet worse off than it was before.




RE: OK, fine but...
By seamonkey79 on 2/18/2010 7:11:18 PM , Rating: 4
shhh... you just used thought.


RE: OK, fine but...
By Moohbear on 2/18/2010 7:51:00 PM , Rating: 2
Biofuels "cost" more CO2 than regular fuel if you have to grow the plant material specifically for it. If you're using waste material, it's much cleaner than regular fuel.


RE: OK, fine but...
By AnnihilatorX on 2/20/2010 8:09:45 AM , Rating: 4
Just to add

If you throw orange peel, newspaper into the landfill, bacteria won't just break them down into CO2, the waste would be releasing methane which is much worse than CO2.

The point is, when the waste decays, CO2 would be released anyway. The question is where, in an ethanol conversion plant or the landfill.


RE: OK, fine but...
By Menda on 2/18/2010 8:01:31 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
. Study after study has shown you get lower efficiency with ethanol vs gasoline, and that you produce more CO2.


This is BS.

All of the CO2 emmited by burning ethanol is taken from the air when the plants used to make the fuel grow (photosynthesis). Its a closed circle, where Carbon is just used as a "media" to carry suns energy to run your cars engine. Maybe burning oil based fuels is more efficent if it comes to MPG, but by burning it you just add more CO2 to the atmosphere, that wont come back to the ground.

IMO the easiest and cheapest way to reduce carbon footprint, as opposed to using high-tech batteries in cars or making stupid hybrid engines, where manufacturing those parts cause high emmisions.


RE: OK, fine but...
By RivuxGamma on 2/18/10, Rating: 0
RE: OK, fine but...
By MonkeyPaw on 2/18/2010 8:44:58 PM , Rating: 4
Honesty, yes there is a difference. You see, burning fossil fuels gives off CO2 from carbon stored underground. That carbon was not part of our current atmosphere. Ethanol is made from plant material, which gained it's carbon from the current atmosphere. When any biological organism dies, it gets broken down by decomposing agents that release CO2 in that process. The net effect for CO2 levels is essentially zero (there is a small net solar energy gain). If it weren't, then plants would eventually absorb all CO2, creating an environment that would suffocate them!

Essentially, ethanol would just make a more productive use of the decomposing process. Where fungi once consumed the energy, now we get some. It's great if this is from ag-waste, but not if we are using legitamate food, like with corn.


RE: OK, fine but...
By porkpie on 2/18/2010 8:58:20 PM , Rating: 4
"The net effect for CO2 levels is essentially zero...If it weren't, then plants would eventually absorb all CO2, creating an environment that would suffocate them!"

It actually isn't zero, it's somewhat negative. That explains why oil and coal form in the first place...fixed carbon that never got released back into the atmosphere.

And yes, if the process wasn't eventually halted, plant life on earth would eventually end. The biosphere is already far less lush than it was in the Carboniferous Era...an era where carbon levels were at one point more than ten times higher than they are today...in fact, that's why it was named such, because of the high atmospheric carbon.


RE: OK, fine but...
By Murloc on 2/19/2010 7:38:36 AM , Rating: 1
if you grow the right number of forests for each gallon of fossil fuel burned, then it's got no impact.
The problem is creating new forests.


RE: OK, fine but...
By namechamps on 2/19/2010 12:44:11 PM , Rating: 2
Try thinking a little harder.

Oil from ground:
CO2 locked in the ground -> refined -> burned releasing CO2 = net gain of CO2 into atmosphere.

Ethanol
Plant consumes CO2 from atmosphere -> plant harvested -> burned releasing CO2.

The CO2 from bruning is equal to CO2 the plant consumed in its lifetime. There is no net gain of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Of course harvesting & refining may result in some CO2 release.

You could make CO2 release from your oil based gasoline net gain of 0. Simply plant enough NEW forest such that the CO2 sink from Forrest equals the CO2 release from your car.

Given I doubt you (or anyone) is doing that oil based fuel is a net producer of CO2.


RE: OK, fine but...
By kattanna on 2/19/2010 10:44:34 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
All of the CO2 emmited by burning ethanol is taken from the air when the plants used to make the fuel grow (photosynthesis). Its a closed circle, where Carbon is just used as a "media" to carry suns energy to run your cars engine. Maybe burning oil based fuels is more efficent if it comes to MPG, but by burning it you just add more CO2 to the atmosphere, that wont come back to the ground


burning coal and oil is also a closed loop system, just not on what humans would call a useable timeline.


RE: OK, fine but...
By namechamps on 2/19/2010 12:45:49 PM , Rating: 2
That is true. All oil comes from carbon captured by plants millions of years ago.

Thus atmosphere concentration of carbon is lower today than millions of years ago AND the concentration of carbon in fossil fuels is higher today than millions of years ago.


RE: OK, fine but...
By mandan17 on 2/18/2010 8:01:00 PM , Rating: 3
It doesn't seem like you know what you're talking about. The problem with fossil fuels is not strictly that they produce carbon dioxide when burned but that they cause more CO2 to be produced than is consumed over a given period of time. This leads to an accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere. The point of using ethanol from biomass is that there is no net production of CO2 if you look at the overall life of the biomass (and this includes CO2 produced during fermentation). The worst thing about ethanol production is the inefficiency in separating the ethanol from water after fermentation but this is an inherent problem with distillation. I am a chemical engineer working in the biofuels industry and my company's research deals with finding alternative separation methods. I am fairly sure that most ethanol production plants use their dried distillers grains for some energy but most of it probably comes from fossil fuels. This is also an area of debate because some numbers show that the energy you get out of the ethanol produced is not much more (if at all) than what was put into the system using fossil fuels. Also, the energy required to cultivate and irrigate the plants must also be taken into consideration. This is why so much money is being poured into research allowing the use of wild plants (switchgrass...) as the sugar source instead of corn. Using waste like this research has done is also a step in the right direction.


RE: OK, fine but...
By porkpie on 2/18/2010 8:49:52 PM , Rating: 5
"This leads to an accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere"

So? CO2 is airborne plant food, required for all life on earth. The CO2 we release from burning fossil fuels was once in the atmospher to begin with. Millions of years of unregulated plant growth has reduced carbon levels to the point where plants now grow significantly slower than they once did.

Had mankind not come along when we did and began releasing some of this stored CO2, the earth's biosphere would have eventually self-destructed...killed by its own consumption of resources.

I'd like to also point out that atmosphericCO2 increases are a self-regulation process. The more CO2 goes up, the faster growing plants fix carbon. In fact, several studies have shown they we are already seeing increased plant growth of between 5 to 30%, depending on species...an increase that works out to enough extra food each year to feed hundreds of millions of people.


RE: OK, fine but...
By Mjello on 2/19/2010 4:13:11 AM , Rating: 2
The earths biosphere is just fine without our intervention.

The earth itself recycles CO2. At every place of seismic activity in the earths crust CO2 trapped in the ground is released. This natural cycle has worked for mio. of years and nature is adapted to it.

Today we are accelerating the CO2 release greatly, by digging and drilling it up everywhere, with unforeseen consequenses.

Are we going to die from it. Probably no. But North America might turn into a desert and sahara might go green. Greenlands ice could melt and Europe might be a frozen wasteland.

The change scenarios are endless. And we humans will have to adapt in order to survive. Adapting cost money and the "money people" dont like it. It'll affect everybody but importantly it will affect the money flows in society and that makes it worth using money on, to the "money people".

Ultimately the changes could be so severe that our civilisation, just like rome, will end. And a new will take its place.


RE: OK, fine but...
By TSS on 2/19/2010 8:05:07 AM , Rating: 1
Oh get of your high horse. There's NOTHING we can do to this planet it can't recover of.

We can't even properly exterminate life. I mean we can drop every nuke we have and most of the current life will die out including us, but in 1 billion years it'll be green all over with some form of life. After all, the basic building blocks are here on this planet have have survived a unspeakable amount more problems then we could ever throw at it. The only reason we should hold back consumption of anything is because *we* might not survive it.

The only people who worry about the actual climate are the people that see an oppertunity to shift money/power their way, and the fools that actually belive them.

How the hell are you going to save a planet when millions upon millions of dollars can't even save the tiger from a few idiots with guns.


RE: OK, fine but...
By amirite on 2/19/2010 7:16:48 PM , Rating: 1
You mean like the ozone layer? We can't something worldwide like when we were destroying the ozone layer?


RE: OK, fine but...
By porkpie on 2/19/2010 10:11:29 AM , Rating: 5
The earth itself recycles CO2. At every place of seismic activity in the earths crust CO2 trapped in the ground is released.

"Seismic activity" does not release the CO2 stored in fossil fuels. CO2 levels go up and down depending on temperature, but the long term trend has been sharply downward. We no longer have periods where CO2 levels hit 3000 or even 5000 ppm.

Interestingly enough, the earth didn't begin to experience incredibly damaging ice ages until CO2 levels dropped below ~500 ppm or so. This makes sense. At warmer temperatures, CO2 is an incredibly weak greenhouse gas..but when it's very cold (and thus water vapor drops out of the air) CO2 remains. So while CO2 can never cause runaway warming, it actually is very good at preventing ice ages.

"This natural cycle has worked for mio. of years and nature is adapted to it."

Actually no, the natural cycle doesn't work perfectly. The planet's original atmosphere contained no free oxygen, a gas that at the time was very toxic to early life. But millions of years of oxygen-producing bacteria produced enough of it to not only load up our atmosphere, but to kill off all the original life on the planet. Life only survived by evolving to forms which could withstand (and in the case of animal life: utilize) that oxygen.

"North America might turn into a desert and sahara might go green. Greenlands ice could melt and Europe might be a frozen wasteland."

You've been watching too many Hollywood movies. The Sahara will eventually turn green on its own (it's done so several times in the past and appears to be moving in that direction again on its own). Likewise with portions of Southwestern US. They are naturally becoming more arid, as part of a long term cycle we're just now starting to understand.

But as for all of North America becoming a desert, or Europe freezing...this is just Hollywood nonsense. Not even the IPCC itself is predicting anything nearly as frightening.


RE: OK, fine but...
By Mint on 2/20/2010 2:00:09 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The change scenarios are endless. And we humans will have to adapt in order to survive. Adapting cost money and the "money people" dont like it.

And what does logic tell you to do when adapting costs 10-100x less than prevention? When money to help "the greater good" is 10-100x more effective at improving quality of life through vaccination and building infrastructure in third world countries than GHG reduction?

Even if you believe the IPCC's projections, and look at gov't spending $0.10/kWh for wind (which doesn't even fully displace a kWh of coal) and much more for solar, they are valuing prevention of AGW at trillions of dollars per hundredth of a degree . This is not opinion, but indisputable fact.

Either go nuclear, or wait for solar/wind to get cheaper. Spending on wind/solar now is a disgusting waste of money given the other issues in the world today. Thankfully the US is only trickling money into solar/wind, relative to the total energy market.


RE: OK, fine but...
By mandan17 on 2/19/2010 11:03:53 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
"This leads to an accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere"

So? CO2 is airborne plant food, required for all life on earth. The CO2 we release from burning fossil fuels was once in the atmospher to begin with. Millions of years of unregulated plant growth has reduced carbon levels to the point where plants now grow significantly slower than they once did.


I never gave an opinion on whether the accumulation was good or bad, but was simply explaining to joex444 why his statements were pointless and wrong. Obviously a system as advanced as the biosphere would have some method of control if it is still functioning today. As with most reactions (not zero or negative order), the rate is going to increase as the concentration of reactants increases. Biological systems are a bit more complex but there are simple models to simulate enzyme catalyzed reactions (michaelis-menten) would predict faster plant growth with increases in CO2 content in the atmosphere so I do not disagree with you.


RE: OK, fine but...
By Lugaidster on 2/20/2010 3:43:01 PM , Rating: 2
People tend to forget that plants produce CO2 and consume oxigen when they aren't receiving sun light. So it's usually balanced. On one side of the planet the plants consume CO2 and on the other side they produce it.


RE: OK, fine but...
By porkpie on 2/20/2010 4:16:03 PM , Rating: 2
Plants do produce CO2 during cellular respiration...but the overall proces is in now way balanced. In the absence of animal life and other CO2 sources, the plant biome would rather quickly consme all atmospheric CO2.

Even with those external sources, plants have over the last several hundred million years, managed to strip most of the CO2 out of the air, a process which will, if left unchecked, eventually result in the loss of all life on earth.


RE: OK, fine but...
By FITCamaro on 2/18/2010 9:14:56 PM , Rating: 2
I really could care less how much CO2 is produced. It doesn't do anything.

I wouldn't mind ethanol replacing gas as long as its cheap enough to justify it and it doesn't drive up the price of things like food.


RE: OK, fine but...
By FITCamaro on 2/18/2010 9:15:14 PM , Rating: 1
I really could care less how much CO2 is produced. It doesn't do anything.

I wouldn't mind ethanol replacing gas as long as its cheap enough to justify it and it doesn't drive up the price of things like food.


RE: OK, fine but...
By MrPoletski on 2/19/2010 5:12:41 AM , Rating: 3
You could care less?

Meaning you *do* care, because you are able to care less than you do?

...then get the damn phrase right.


RE: OK, fine but...
By xlion on 2/19/2010 8:31:02 AM , Rating: 2
RE: OK, fine but...
By MrPoletski on 2/22/2010 6:15:25 AM , Rating: 2
pahaha true.dat


RE: OK, fine but...
By FITCamaro on 2/21/2010 11:16:21 PM , Rating: 2
Welcome to the twilight zone where being able to care less means you can't really care less because you couldn't care less...

Slip of the ol' keyboard there sir.


RE: OK, fine but...
By MrPoletski on 2/19/2010 4:56:23 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
But the idea that ethanol is cleaner or safer for the environment is beyond retarded. Study after study has shown you get lower efficiency with ethanol vs gasoline, and that you produce more CO2.


I wonder who published all those 'studies' that convinced people to jump on the ethanol bandwagon?

I dunno, but somebody is making more money now your mileage has gone down and u need to buy more gas...

Neat trick they pulled there, now can anybody see some parallels with other hot political topics lately?


RE: OK, fine but...
By Solandri on 2/19/2010 7:21:34 AM , Rating: 5
The U.S. subsidizes food production to insure there's always an adequate oversupply. That way a cold snap or drought which destroys part of the annual food crop, or a major storm which destroys a significant portion of arable land doesn't result in food shortages.

A side effect of this is that each year there's an oversupply of food, particularly corn. Some of the excess is shipped overseas in the form of foreign aid. The question came up what to do with the rest of it. Couple this with the desire to reduce dependence on foreign oil, and you have the rationale for research into corn-based ethanol.

"It seemed like a good idea at the time."


RE: OK, fine but...
By JediJeb on 2/19/2010 10:04:54 AM , Rating: 2
If the US is subsidizing food production so much, then why do they run a program to set aside crop ground to keep it out of production? I would also like to know where all these subsidies go, because my family and many others I know have been farming for years and we haven't been handed money and told to go grow more crops. The best we get is a low interest loan that has to be paid back even when the crops fail and you get no money from them at the end of the year. Of course you can also buy low cost crop insurance, but it only covers the cost of the supplies to raise the crop, not lost revenue.

The oversupply of food comes from farmers trying to grow enough to pay the bills and keep their family supplied with the things many people take for granted like a decent home and cloths and other essentials.

It's funny how in 2010 a farmer gets the same price for a bushel of corn that he got in 1970. Also the price per pound he gets for beef is the same for both years. Admittedly in 2008 the price of corn jumped to $8 per bushel from the normal $2-$3 per bushel for a couple months, but very few farmers got any of that money, it all went to the middle men who trade in commodities and never even touch the stuff they buy and sell.

Honestly research into ethanol is a good idea. Most complain about the energy it takes to distill it from the water in production, but never even mention that it takes a similar amount of energy to distill gasoline and diesel fuel from crude oil. How much CO2 is produced in the refining process of gasoline and diesel fuel? What happens to the heavy weight tars and sludge left over from that process? Though it is far from the point now, ethanol has the potential to become a cleaner fuel overall than gasoline and diesel fuel, but we will never get there if there is no research.


RE: OK, fine but...
By porkpie on 2/19/2010 11:04:12 AM , Rating: 2
"It's funny how in 2010 a farmer gets the same price for a bushel of corn that he got in 1970."

The result of higher yields. It might seem unfair, but its the reason that we can now feed 300 million people on less farmland (and with fewer farmers) than we fed 100 million on back in 1900.

"What happens to the heavy weight tars and sludge left over from that process?"

Are you kidding? That stuff is worth its weight in gold. It's used to make everything from medicines to plastics to lubricants to road tar.

"in 2008 the price of corn jumped to $8 per bushel from the normal $2-$3 per bushel for a couple months, but very few farmers got any of that money, it all went to the middle men who trade in commodities"

Only because farmers use those "middle men" to hedge prices by selling their crops in advance at a set price. The flip side of that coin is that when prices drop suddenly, farmers don't suffer.


RE: OK, fine but...
By JediJeb on 2/19/2010 12:03:38 PM , Rating: 2
In 40 years the average yield for corn has increased from 120 bushels per acre to 186 bushels per acre, that is a a little over a 50% increase in yield. Yet in the same time the price of diesel fuel has increased from $0.35 per gallon to $2.70 per gallon which is a 7.7x increase in price. An tractor that cost ~$7,000 in 1970 now costs ~$40,000 which is almost a 6x increase. Housing, fuel, food, education, cloths, ect have all increased in the 6-8x range over the same time span. If everything follows a linear trend then the price of $2-$3 corn in 1970 should have increased to $9-$13.5 per bushel which takes into account the inflation rise ( I used 6x which seems to be normal for most things) divided by the increase in yields. So if a farmer in 1970 sold his crop for $10,000 then, the same ground should now give him $60,000 but instead he now only gets about $15,000 from the same amount of ground on average. My grandfather was able to make a living farming, my father had to take a job as a mechanic along with farming to keep us going. In 1970 he made $8,000 per year as a mechanic, when he retired in 2005 he was making $35,000 per year ( worked for the local school board so raises were not up to par with most other mechanics) and that was about a 4.3x increase in salary over the time period being discussed. Why should people who only farm be limited to a 1.5x increase in pay over a 40 year period just so people can have cheap food?

quote:
Only because farmers use those "middle men" to hedge prices by selling their crops in advance at a set price. The flip side of that coin is that when prices drop suddenly, farmers don't suffer.


This is not entirely true, in 2008 when the price spiked many farmers did contract corn at the $8/bushel price, but when they went to sell at harvest, they were offered the current price of $4 because a law prevented the buyers from having to honor those contracts. It turns out that if the person who was buying claimed bankruptcy then they were only required to pay current prices and not the price they contracted for. In the end the farmers got screwed.

The subsidies end up going to the middle men to protect them so that the price of food in the stores can be kept low. This is what keeps the public happy and that keeps the politicians happy. I think people who have never been farmers really don't understand the subsidy programs and believe farmers are getting rich off the government, when in fact a good percentage of farmers are facing bankruptcy each year because the cost of producing is becoming more than the revenue brought in by what they produce.


RE: OK, fine but...
By porkpie on 2/19/2010 12:58:56 PM , Rating: 2
"In 40 years the average yield for corn has increased from 120 bushels per acre to 186 bushels per acre"

I'm not simply referring to increased yields per acre, but rather increased yields per farmer. Today's farmer grows more food with less effort than ever before in history, thanks to mechanization and agricultural science.

" It turns out that if the person who was buying claimed bankruptcy then they were only required to pay current prices "

This sounds a little farfetched. Do you have a link? I can believe some buyers going bankrupt, but every single one who bought a contract?


RE: OK, fine but...
By JediJeb on 2/19/2010 2:08:17 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.dtn.com/ag/news_events/news/news_templa...

That is one link attributed to one ethanol plant. The plant doesn't have to go out of business, just file chapter 11 restructuring and it can then buy the corn at current prices no matter what the contract price was. This is affecting the entire supply chain. If the farmers invested in more land or machinery to handle the increased demand, then are told they will get half as much for the corn they produce, they are still bound by their mortgages on the equipment even though their buyers are not bound by their contracts. I can't find a link to the Progressive Farmer article I read at my parents over Christmas, but it was the one about the law that allows the contracts to be altered to change the price to current prices. But it doesn't allow farmers to get out of having to deliver the corn, only the buyer to be able to change their price. The farmer ends up stuck in a bad spot, because if they don't sell they have no money at all, so they sell for a lower price just to make some kind of payment on their loans. Farming has gone from a business where you could raise a family at a good standard of living to one where you walk a knife edge of being able to stay afloat, and many are not making it. It isn't a big news story, but what happens when farming becomes something individual farmers can no longer afford to do? If the corporations that are the end users become the farmers they will then make sure they charge enough in stores to make a good profit, and that is when we will see a sharp increase in food prices. I hope I never see that day, but it seems like that is where we are headed.

Another story on problems for farmers:

http://www.dtn.com/ag/news_events/news/news_templa...

Below is one about seed supplier raising prices for what farmers pay for their seed

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_1...

Some people say why don't farmers just save some of their seeds and plant them next year. Well the seed companies have patents on the seeds and will sue farmers if they try to do that. They equate a farmer saving back seeds to the RIAAs stance on sharing music.

Myself, I am a chemist by trade, but with so many family and friends that are farmers, it is somewhat of a passion with me how they are treated, and the misconceptions that abound concerning farming as a profession.


RE: OK, fine but...
By Danger D on 2/19/2010 2:26:31 PM , Rating: 2
This is true, and it was a significant problem. Of course, the same could be said for any farmer who went bankrupt in the recession and any elevators left holding defunct contracts.


RE: OK, fine but...
By porkpie on 2/19/10, Rating: -1
RE: OK, fine but...
By JediJeb on 2/19/2010 5:34:15 PM , Rating: 2
From the one I read in december it wasn't just the farmers unfortunately even the commodities exchange people had to sell at a lower price. That just makes it cascade down to the bottom eventually. Bad thing is the companies got to keep operating and were able to pay less for the corn.

The original reason for the first post though was that people seem to think farmers are getting tons of money from the government through subsidies, which they aren't, and that the subsidies are to ensure a buffer supply, which they don't as that happens as a normal operating procedure from farming. At best the government buys some of the surplus that end users don't buy. Over the years though the amount bought is getting less and less. I remember when I was younger the government gave out surplus commodities like cheese, peanut butter, powdered milk, ect, but you see very little of that now.

I should wait longer before I post when I see incorrect statements about farming, just too close to the subject. But even back in the early 90s college agriculture programs were shifting towards researching how to make agriculture sustainable financially, and it is becoming ever more important now. Increases in yields and efficiency have not been able to keep up with the increases in costs to offset the fact that prices for products have stagnated.


RE: OK, fine but...
By Jellodyne on 2/24/2010 5:34:37 PM , Rating: 2
> My grandfather was able to make a living farming, my father
> had to take a job as a mechanic along with farming to keep
> us going.

Efficiencies lead to oversupply, oversupply leads to low prices. If it drives you out of the business, eventually that will reduce supply and raise prices.

It's hard, and it sucks if you're a farmer. I'm sorry. But believe it or not, you don't have a god given right to do the same job as your grandfather for the same money.

Stay in school, and keep your options open. If you want to be a farmer, be a farmer, but the job doesn't pay as much as it used to, so factor that in.

This is going on in all sorts of industries, except you don't see the government propping up the mom and pop business WalMart made non-economicly viable.


RE: OK, fine but...
By Redback on 2/19/2010 8:26:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Study after study has shown you get lower efficiency with ethanol vs gasoline , and that you produce more CO2.

That's not strictly correct. If you just use ethanol in an unmodified gasoline engine then yes, efficiency is dramatically reduced and consequently more CO2 is released as a result. After all, ethanol has a much lower energy density than gasoline.

However, if you design an engine specifically to run on ethanol, the results are quite different. Its resistance to pre-ignition is so good, you can run very high compression ratios (or loads of boost) and therefore achieve higher efficiency than with a conventional gasoline motor.

Lotus has done this with a couple of different motors now and produced outstanding results.

Their new "range-extender" motor can also be configured to run on ethanol and if used in a "series hybrid", could provide extraordinary range, exceptional mileage and incredibly low emissions. Oh, - and very good performance too...


RE: OK, fine but...
By BikeDude on 2/20/2010 5:14:05 AM , Rating: 2
Apart from the fact that these plants would release CO2 when they rot (as opposed to releasing the same amount of CO2 when burned by an ICE), there is also another interesting property of ethanol worth considering:

Ethanol burns cleanly.

Saab Powertrain Europe (formerly "GM Powertrain Europe")'s boss commented a few years ago that, currently, E85 engines use a bit (approx 30%) more fuel than diesel engines. But: Future regulations could very well dictate more efficient particle filters for diesel engines. This combined with more efficient E85 engines could result in parity between the two.

But regardless of the future potential, E85 is much, much cleaner. (Plus it gives the ICE some extra kick)

IMO it is important that we reduce the emissions of NOx particles. I am no longer convinced about man-made global warming, but I am convinced that I do not want to breath more NOx gases than I absolutely have to.

Plus I think/hope biofuels help our agriculture sector to manage a bit better without government subsidies.


RE: OK, fine but...
By porkpie on 2/20/10, Rating: -1
RE: OK, fine but...
By Mint on 2/20/2010 2:03:53 PM , Rating: 2
This is why I don't support ethanol nearly as much as PHEV. Ethanol doesn't solve urban air pollution, which is a far bigger problem than global warming. Many studies from reputable medical research bodies have found that tens of thousands of people die each year from air pollution in the US.


It's NOT always about the environment
By OneEng on 2/18/2010 7:49:18 PM , Rating: 5
If we can make our own fuel instead of purchasing it from countries that hate us (while we make them rich), I think that is a win for the USA.

We could potentially create HUGE amounts of fuel right here instead of sending [b]700 BILLION[/b] dollars a year out of the US.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I could live with keeping our wealth right here at home. Perhaps with the additional $700B a year, we could get a few more jobs created in the good ole U. S. of A.

As far as the CO2 ..... Perhaps it is worse. Perhaps we are going to change our environment. I think that our quality of life must be measured carefully before we start fighting a global phenomena with pea shooters in the vain hope that we are going to change the globe while facing the certainty of lower quality of life as a consequence.

If we keep researching this kind of technology, we could some day provide 100% of our own energy needs. Imagine a self sustaining USA. Let the middle east keep their oil and try to sell the sand ;)




By roykahn on 2/18/2010 8:46:06 PM , Rating: 2
You're quite right. The less reliance the US has on foreign resources, the better off we'll ALL be. The US has huge energy consumption and the unfortunate thing is that foreign countries are used as sources. This need not be limited in scope to just energy.

The problem isn't just limited to US money going overseas. It's also the perceived need for "stability" in foreign countries so that the US and its oil companies can extract and control the foreign resources. The methods of establishing such stability can be often be barbaric or lead to massive problems for the native country. We can only hope that we, as humans, are not so reliant on limited foreign resources to continue our existence.

I can't quite agree with you on the "quality of life" argument. If we ruin the earth then our lives will not improve. We are also not the only life on this planet. Being consumers and benefactors of resource gathering, we do not appreciate the cost on the earth or the local areas where the resources come from. We also tend to have a very short-sighted view of the effect we are having on the earth. Things like deforestation, soil problems, water pollution, and overpopulation (to name just a few) are problems that we might not always appreciate because they might be hidden from our view or are problems elsewhere. We also need to really ask ourselves what "quality of life" actually means. Does it mean that the wealthy people of the world get more ipods and cars or does it mean all humans on earth living with minimal diseases, access to clean water and plentiful food?

Apologies for going off-topic.


RE: It's NOT always about the environment
By porkpie on 2/18/2010 9:01:20 PM , Rating: 5
"We could potentially create HUGE amounts of fuel right here..."

Or we could simply pump some of the hundreds of billion of barrels of oil we have domestically, but are keeping off limits to production.

Don't get me wrong, I think biofuels are a great idea. But its no secret none of them are quite ready for prime time. So keep the research going while we pump domestic oil, rather than sending tens of trillions of dollars and jobs overseas.


RE: It's NOT always about the environment
By bigboxes on 2/19/2010 2:36:03 AM , Rating: 3
The problem is we just can't pump our way out of dependency. I'm all for cheap fuel. Our economy depends on it as well as our lifestyle. I'm not against fossil fuels at all. It's just that we are going to run out of oil. We need to push for alternative fuels in the midterm and develope new technologies to replace our current ones. I view nuclear as vital until we can harness fusion (maybe we can't). I would love to see a major breakthrough in this area.

I was thinking today (before I read this DT article) that maybe we could somehow use weeds that would require little water to grow. Does switchgrass fall in this category? I remember living on the prairie when I was a kid and would think there would be some native plants that could be used when they are rotating their crops.


RE: It's NOT always about the environment
By porkpie on 2/19/2010 3:32:18 AM , Rating: 2
"The problem is we just can't pump our way out of dependency."

Sure we can. It just requires us to produce more than we consume. Given the reserves on tap in ANWR, and the coastal deposits off CA and FL, we can easily do just that.

" It's just that we are going to run out of oil. "

Eventually. We have 50 years of proven deposits at present. More importantly, that's MORE than we had 30 years ago, despite burning oil heavily the last 3 decades. Since 1965, we've found 5 new barrels of oil for every 3 we've burned.

And even when we DO run out of natural petroleum, we can easily synthesize more. It just requires a cheap source of energy (nuclear would fit the bill nicely) coupled with water and a source of CO2. The process is even carbon neutral.


RE: It's NOT always about the environment
By namechamps on 2/19/2010 12:52:55 PM , Rating: 3
Not even close.
Try looking at the numbers and getting back.

Simple version.
US oil consumption = 7 billion barrels per year
US proven oil supply = 21 billion barrels.

Even if we somehow could drill enough wells to get production up to 7 billion it would last 3 years at which point US proven reserves would be 0 and imports would be 100% or 7 billion per year.

We can NOT drill our way out of this problem. No before you go flaming I am ALL FOR more drilling but it is a simplistic non-scientific belief that we can some how drill enough to meet 100% of demand with domestic supply.


RE: It's NOT always about the environment
By ThePooBurner on 2/19/2010 3:50:57 PM , Rating: 1
No, YOU'RE not even close. Guess you've never heard of Oil Shale before? Let me enlighten you.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/...

This article ignores new tech that allows for it to be near 100% recoverable at the cost of 10$ a barrel. However, that tech is being kept quiet.

http://www.oil-price.net/en/articles/US-shale-oil-...

http://www.heartland.org/publications/environment%...

Indeed, we have just a touch more than 21 billion barrels. Please learn to know what you are talking about before you open you mouth.


RE: It's NOT always about the environment
By namechamps on 2/19/2010 4:24:41 PM , Rating: 2
Oil shale. You must be desperate.

I wouldn't endorse oil shale in any scenario other than some post apocalyptic scenario where it is needed for survival.

As of Feb 2009 US proven oil reserves are 21 billion barrel. That isn't disputed by anyone not even the oil industry.

There may be up to 121 billion in technical reserves but nobody know exactly how much that will cost to extract and what fine wellhead price will be. Some of that oil will be very expensive to extract.

Oil shale is a complete nightmare. There is a reason nobody anywhere in the world is extracting oil shale for anything other than experiments. It is horribly polluting, requires tremendous amounts of energy, needs massive amounts of water and leaves behind a slurry mess of water mixed with crude oil byproducts.

Oil shale. LOL. You are friggin idiot if you think oil shale is our salvation.


RE: It's NOT always about the environment
By porkpie on 2/19/10, Rating: -1
RE: It's NOT always about the environment
By namechamps on 2/19/2010 5:08:24 PM , Rating: 2
Tar sands are not same thing as oil shale.
Not even close.

Extracting oil from oil shale is a magnitude more difficult.

It requires drilling hundreds of holes, inserting heaters, and heating the rock to 700 degrees to separate the oil from the shale. That process can take months to years to accomplish.

Lastly a massive amount of water needs to be injected to turn the oil shale sludge into something liquid enough to pump and finally the pumping process requires much more energy than conventional reserves.

Oil shale is a nightmare.

I never said that we shouldn't expand drilling. I support expanded drilling both offshore and in ANWR. It is just intellectually dishonest to state that US can extra enough oil to eliminate imports by drilling alone or that those reserves would last for any meaningful time.


By ThePooBurner on 2/25/2010 3:00:57 AM , Rating: 2
By thepalinator on 2/19/2010 4:55:54 PM , Rating: 2
Proven reserves have no bearing on the total amount of oil a country has. They're just an industry metric used for accounting purposes.


By ThePooBurner on 2/19/2010 5:44:36 PM , Rating: 2
I thought i just asked you to know what you are talking about before trying to talk about it?

http://www.raytheon.com/newsroom/feature/oil_shale...

No slurry, no destruction to the environment.


By Danger D on 2/19/2010 2:24:50 PM , Rating: 2
Switchgrass is very possible, and would be great (no fertilizer, minimal upkeep, keeps the land diverse, etc.). Problem with any dedicated energy crop is convincing someone to set aside land to grow it. You have to convince them 1. You'll set a high enough price and have the means to pay it 2. You'll be there long-term (you need to have some longevity to justify the payback on new harvesting equipment)

Additionally, a farmer will need an incredible amount of trust for the buyer, because essentially you’re asking a farmer who grows soybeans, with multiple buyers bidding against each other, to switch to an unproven crop and handcuff himself to one buyer’s whims.

Now go find hundreds just like him for each plant.

It’s not impossible, but the government definitely needs to be involved. I know we all hate subsidies, but there need to be some guarantees in place initially for someone to make a leap like that.


By cmdrdredd on 2/19/2010 2:23:45 AM , Rating: 2
If what you say is true why don't we start drilling what we know is there? There's spots that are estimated to have more oil than Saudi Arabia, but tree huggers refuse to allow us to touch it. Fix that and we fix our fuel needs for this country in a few short years instead of decades of research on possible solutions. We know oil works now, why not use that until another solution presents itself in time?


I call B.S.
By Beenthere on 2/19/2010 12:44:19 AM , Rating: 2
Ethanol does NOT protect our environment and air now or in the future. In addition it takes approximately 1.6 times as much ethanol as it takes gasoline to travel the same distance with the same engine power. No one with a fugging clue would use alcohol based fuels due to the many problems it causes in addition to being impractical and a marketing scam by those who profit from it.

I have no love for the greedy bastards at the oil companies but alcohol fuels are simply not the answer to anything but a con job for consumers and some big profits for a select few.




RE: I call B.S.
By daInvincibleGama on 2/19/2010 2:31:13 AM , Rating: 2
RTFA. It's called news, so there has obviously been some change in whatever you described.

Besides, who gives a shit if ethanol has less energy density if it can just be produced from waste product? Boo fucking hoo you need a slightly larger fuel tank and corrosion resistant hoses for $1 a gallon fuel.

And ethanol is obviously good for the environment if you can find a way to get it as a plant waste. It's something that would otherwise be thrown out anyway. And ethanol is a much cleaner burning fuel than gasoline ever was. E10 gas(in your car right now) exists because ethanol helps the fuel burn cleaner.


RE: I call B.S.
By porkpie on 2/19/2010 3:42:31 AM , Rating: 2
While I agree with your spirit, the only problem is that we can never fuel our nation on plant waste alone...there isn't nearly enough. That doesn't mean we shouldn't produce what we can...IF it truly is as cheap or cheaper than gasoline (I'll believe it when I see it...corn-based ethanol was once sold to us as a cheaper alternative)

"ethanol is a much cleaner burning fuel than gasoline ever was"

Ethanol in E10 is added primarily as an oxygenate, which reduces CO. But ethanol also produces large amounts of acetyldehyde, a chemical potentially more hazardous than the CO and particulates that ethanol reduces:

http://sitemaker.umich.edu/section4group1/ethanol_...


RE: I call B.S.
By inperfectdarkness on 2/19/2010 9:44:05 AM , Rating: 4
i've lost track of how many times i've had to debunk this myth on dailytech.

until you drive a car that is specifically designed to use ethanol--AND ONLY ETHANOL, you cannot make accurate comparisions between it and gasoline.

for what it's worth, even with less btu's per gallon, ethanol burns better than gasoline--meaning the % of energy derived from burning a gallon of ethanol is HIGHER than with a gallon of gasoline.

i suppose it's not use trying to lecture to those without fundemental understanding of engines.


RE: I call B.S.
By porkpie on 2/19/2010 10:17:32 AM , Rating: 2
"i've lost track of how many times i've had to debunk this myth on dailytech"

His "myth" was substantially accurate. Yours is not. With current engines, ethanol provides about 2/3 the mileage as gasoline, which means you have to burn 3/2 (150%) as much to go as far.

Now, ethanol does have a much higher octane, which would theoretically allow an engine designed specifically for it to increase compression ratios, and thus increase efficiency by about 15%. That still only takes ethanol to about 3/4 the MPG of gasoline, which works out to requiring 33% more for every mile you drive.


RE: I call B.S.
By JediJeb on 2/19/2010 10:35:45 AM , Rating: 2
Other things to consider is that with pure ethanol, you can get away from having the SOx and NOx emissions to worry about that you have with petroleum based fuels. If the price for ethanol can be brought down to say $1.50 per gallon, I would much rather burn 50% more of it than pay $2.50 per gallon for gasoline. Ethanol is not ready to be produced at this point yet, but that is why we do research.

Also consider that if you were to put gasoline that was produced say in 1920 into your car you have now, how long would it last? You would probably end up with a clogged catalytic converter very quickly. You would also probably get less mileage on that gasoline too. There is so much more to consider than just how many miles you can get from one gallon of a fuel, otherwise right now we would all be driving diesel powered vehicles.


RE: I call B.S.
By porkpie on 2/19/2010 10:59:13 AM , Rating: 2
"with pure ethanol, you can get away from having the SOx and NOx emissions to worry about "

But you then introduce acetaldehyde and, in some cases, higher VOC levels. Studies have shown mixed results as to whether or not ethanol will increase or decrease overall air quality.


RE: I call B.S.
By Danger D on 2/19/2010 2:05:55 PM , Rating: 2
"Can a small, turbocharged flex-fuel spark-ignited engine perform as well as a heavy-duty diesel engine -- but at a much lower cost? Ricardo Inc. and its partners are getting ready to demonstrate exactly that."

http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2010/02/ricardo-almos...


RE: I call B.S.
By porkpie on 2/19/2010 2:16:40 PM , Rating: 2
It's interesting technology, though its hardly going to do much to improve the engine's overall Carnot efficiency...they've only boosted the compression ratio from 10.2 to 11 (some diesel engines can go as high as 25:1). I think the HCCI engines have much more promise though.

A side note about that article...wow. I think it sets a new record for amount of factual and basic-science errors packed into a single column.


RE: I call B.S.
By Danger D on 2/19/2010 2:29:09 PM , Rating: 2
For any errors, I'd attribute that to the author, not the engine maker. I think the fact that they cut the size of the engine by half is what really helps.


RE: I call B.S.
By porkpie on 2/19/10, Rating: -1
RE: I call B.S.
By Danger D on 2/19/2010 3:24:00 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, shoulda figured that out myself.


RE: I call B.S.
By inperfectdarkness on 3/4/2010 12:16:03 PM , Rating: 2
i can do 12:1 compression on a pure 93 octane engine (naturally aspirated). you're implying that 110 octane e85 cannot run above 11:1 compression (naturally aspirated)? that's....hilarious, actually.


At what cost?
By roostitup on 2/18/2010 9:25:43 PM , Rating: 5
Sure you can make biofuels out of all types of biomass, but there is a line between good and bad choices. Many people think that using corn, watermelons, grass and basically everything that normally would be returned to the soil or made into compost as fertilizer and organic matter (OM).

These nutrient and OM returns are vital to soil health and keep our dependence on inorganic fertilizers to a minimum. It also keeps the top soil from degrading which causes severe erosion and runoff from poor infiltration. We all remember the dust bowl. Granted the dust bowl was mostly from poor plowing techniques, but poor understanding of the sustaining soil aided.

The long term effect of using some of these biomass types is not necessarily the best idea. I think algae is a more sustainable and reliable method.

As for newspaper. I'm all for the use of forest resources, but same principle applies. growing massive amounts of fast growing trees on short rotations wears on the soil quickly, too. When collecting biomass they remove everything on site, leaving nothing to build the soil. Over many rotations the top soil diminishes from using inorganic fertilizers causing erosion and runoff leaving nothing but hard dirt.

It really has to be done in a sustainable way if we are going to rely on these ways of getting biomass for fuel. It's expensive and difficult to ensure long term productivity on agriculture sites with such fast rotations and no OM returns, but if done properly it will pay off. My biggest concern and/or question is that if many of the farms waste biomass goes to biofuel than where are they getting their OM for their fields?




RE: At what cost?
By armagedon on 2/19/2010 8:26:12 AM , Rating: 1
There is some really wise people in this forum. Well said roostitup. The fact is that we desperately want to maintain the same habits and energy gluttony that we have been doing over the last 100+ years, even if it means burning every green stuff on this planet. That destroy the natural replenishing cycle of nature. It's impossible without endangering every living creature on this planet, that include the billions of us.


RE: At what cost?
By JediJeb on 2/19/2010 10:25:33 AM , Rating: 2
The problem is that right now things like the orange peels and yard waste is not being put back into the soil, they are being sent to landfills and being buried where they do no good, and later release CO2 as they decompose. Why not put them into fuels were at least we are getting some energy from the CO2 they release instead of just letting it enter the atmosphere with nothing to show for it that is good?


Fuel Economy??
By Sulphademus on 2/19/2010 11:30:09 AM , Rating: 2
But what about the Fuel Economy? Ethanol has less energy than gasoline (per gallon) and studies have shown that it produces less MPGs than traditional gasoline.

While trying to increase overall fuel economy, as the Feds have just upped again, and trying to run cars on non-fossil fuels are noble goals, they counter act each other.




RE: Fuel Economy??
By Danger D on 2/19/2010 12:17:44 PM , Rating: 2
We're not trying to improve fuel economy just for fuel economy's sake. We're doing it to cut down on pollution and oil use. If ethanol accomplishes both those things, miles per gallon are irrelevant.


RE: Fuel Economy??
By Sulphademus on 2/19/2010 3:41:49 PM , Rating: 2
Both are good things but pushing one just makes the other one harder.

IIRC, ethanol (E85 I believe) gets 80% the range of gasoline. So by running an ethanol mix you've just decreased your MPG setting up for a deficit when trying to meet your CAFE requirements, which are going up, unless you are allowed to run on pure gasoline (which is getting harder to fine) for your CAFE certifications.


RE: Fuel Economy??
By Danger D on 2/19/2010 4:11:11 PM , Rating: 2
I thought CAFE gave special consideration to ethanol, which is why the Detroit folks make all their SUVs flex fuel rather than focusing on smaller vehicles.

I could be wrong.


Dirty little secrete
By blewbyu on 2/19/2010 9:40:04 AM , Rating: 2
One thing that hasn't yet been talked about here is water usage. It takes at least 3 gallons of water to make 1 gallon of ethanol. (That figure is from the ethanol industry. From what I have witnessed it is closer to 4 gallons of water.) That's the REAL problem with ethanol and why it is not a good long term solution.




RE: Dirty little secrete
By Danger D on 2/19/2010 10:03:52 AM , Rating: 2
And it takes 2-3 gallons of water to make a gallon of gas.

Biofuels have been mass-produced for about a decade now. Gas refiners have been working on their process for about a century. Water use from biofuels had dropped by well over a gallon in the last five years, and there's no reason to assume they've hit some wall.

On the other hand, oil is moving toward Canada tar sands and oil shale, which use tons more water to extract.

The lines are moving in opposite directions.


RE: Dirty little secrete
By blewbyu on 2/19/2010 3:38:15 PM , Rating: 2
According to researchers at the University of Texas at Austin, the water requirements to produce corn ethanol are significantly higher than producing non-irrigated biofuels, hydrogen generated from renewable energy, or petroleum or diesel fuel.

The researchers compared the amount of water withdrawn (used and returned to the source) and the water consumed (water not returned to the source) per mile traveled in a typical car when powered by gasoline, diesel, corn ethanol, soy-derived biofuels, hydrogen and electricity and obtained the following results:

Irrigation, Not Biofuels Themselves, The Problem

Petrol and diesel, non-irrigated biofuels, hydrogen and electricity from renewable resources: <0.15 gal water/mile consumed water and <1 gal water/mile withdrawn water;

Hydrogen and electricity derived direct from the US grid (currently mainly fossil fuel and nuclear power): 2-5 times more consumed water and 5-20 times more withdrawn water;

Irrigated biofuels (corn ethanol): 28 gal water/mile consumed water and 36 gal water/mile withdrawn water;

Soy-derived biofuels: 8 gal H2O/mile consumed water and 10 gal H2O/mile withdrawn water.


Comment about Studies
By Mathos on 2/18/2010 8:00:47 PM , Rating: 2
Actually he mentioned that in the article, studies have shown that ethanol produced from corn and corn starch release more carbon that regular gas. Which is true. But, Ethanol produced from pure sugar would release much less carbon. And that's what they're going for. Gotta remember that the process the corn starch uses is based more off the way yeast works I think.




RE: Comment about Studies
By Danger D on 2/19/2010 9:22:22 AM , Rating: 2
That's actually not true, and it hasn't been for about 20 years. It was in the news last week that the EPA finished studying the issue yet again and determined ethanol from corn is about 20 percent better than gas.

Of course, ethanol from wood, switchgrass, crop waste, etc., is much better, so it's good to see the work getting done to get that technology commercial.

We need a fleet of flex fuel PHEVs, IMO, so we don't have to cowtow to Hugo Chavez and the entire Middle East every time they sneeze. And by "flex fuel," I mean not only gas and ethanol, but methanol, butanol and everything else that can turn garbage into fuel.


Mr. Fusion anyone?
By ChiefNuts on 2/18/2010 7:23:54 PM , Rating: 2
Well, it looks like Back to the Future nailed it right on the head. The ability generate biofuel from a wide assortment of items. I'll install a Mr. Fusion.

Don't Bio-fuel based products have a higher carbon footprint than gasoline? (Like E85?)




Hardly a surprise
By nofumble62 on 2/18/2010 9:45:43 PM , Rating: 2
French already know how to brew Grand Marnier for decades.




Move it forward
By Keenan8 on 2/19/2010 8:38:12 AM , Rating: 2
It’s good to see that the technology behind the bio based production of Ethanol is advancing into new bio waste streams and the overall conversion efficiencies are increasing. The advantages and disadvantages of Ethanol have been discussed ad nausea, but it is now time to move the experiment forward to more energetic fuels such as Butanol and bio diesel. Enough money has been spent on subsidies/grants and the production point has been made. Time to move to Gen2.




By PandaBear on 2/19/2010 6:53:09 PM , Rating: 2
Then why not use these sugar to replace High Fructose Corn Syrup?




Ethanol, Gas, Oil, and Hydrogen
By texbrazos on 2/23/2010 5:11:30 PM , Rating: 2
I am not as concerned about Co2 as I am all the other pollution we get from gas, oil, coal. All the PCB's Mercury screwing up our water supplies and food supplies. Not to mention the air we breath.
Switch grass I have read is the most efficent producer of ethanol, not sure why they didn't use it in the first place.
I feel like hydrogen should be used.
I know what I am going to hear, cost. Well, let me stop anyone from even saying a word about cost. Oil and gas production cost just as much if not more. Hydrogen is even produced and used in a making certain fuels in a process called hydrocracking. Does it not cost to build the big refineries, ships, shipping, drilling, etc. etc. for oil???
Hydrogen can be made by the Average Joe. Take a look on Youtube.com and you will find a bunch of people doing it. I have even extracted the hydrogen from water via a small solar panel. There are people powering their own houses with hydrogen by using solar panels and wind gens to create the electric current that causes the hydrogen to release from the bond with the oxygen. They store the hydrogen in big propane containers and burn it to power generators. Simple.




Wondering
By owyheewine on 2/19/10, Rating: 0
"DailyTech is the best kept secret on the Internet." -- Larry Barber














botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki