backtop

Print 38 comment(s) - last by rcc.. on Dec 11 at 6:18 PM
The U.S. government continues research into biofuel

To help spur new interest in next-generation biofuel research among the private sector, the U.S. government has set aside up to $600 million for biofuel projects.

"Advanced biofuels are critical to building a cleaner, more sustainable transportation system in the U.S.," said Steven Chu, U.S. Secretary of Energy, in a statement.  "These projects will help establish a domestic industry that will create jobs here at home and open new markets across rural America."

California is at the forefront of biofuel development in the nation, with the San Francisco Bay Area and  San Diego regions leading the state and the country.  For example, San Diego's Sapphire Energy will receive a Department of Energy $50M grant to build a biofuel development plant that will be located in New Mexico.

Specifically, the plant will be responsible for converting pond algae into fuel for jets and commercial aircraft.

Ethanol, diesel and jet fuel can be produced now from crop waste, nonfood crops, wood waste, algae, along with other biodegradable materials.

Biofuel has become a popular area of research for the U.S. government, which is looking to help reduce the use of foreign oil.  Several military projects range from developing a green Humvee and biofuel-based UAV that can be used in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
By Machinegear on 12/9/2009 8:09:38 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Federal Government Dishing Out Money For Biofuel Research


Tax Payers Dishing Out Money For Biofuel Research




By FITCamaro on 12/9/2009 8:43:11 AM , Rating: 2
Well I don't mind paying for research into things. I think $600 million is a bit excessive though for bio-fuel.

I care a whole lot more about billions in subsidies to make technologies that aren't otherwise competitive or practical.


By zombiexl on 12/9/2009 10:28:20 AM , Rating: 2
If you like paying for research invest in a company through stock. The return we see as forced contributors is -0-.


By Yawgm0th on 12/9/2009 2:54:18 PM , Rating: 2
Some technologies aren't profitable to invest in for a private enterprise, but still provide more benefit to the public as a whole than they cost. Hence, return on investment.

One such technology is the network (and its protocols) that the data packets containing this post go through.


By randomly on 12/9/2009 10:33:35 AM , Rating: 3
I would have to agree.

Research is good, but things like the Corn Ethanol subsidies which can never develop into a practical or economical fuel source is just an absolute scam. Corn ethanol has no positive benefit to anybody but the Corn producers who line their pockets with taxpayers money. Over $3 billion a year in direct subsidies, which does not even include the costs to the people of the increased prices at the gas pump, increased wear on the engines, reduced gas mileage, and the increased food prices.

Ethanol from corn is such a poorly efficient process that it essentially just turns petroleum into alcohol and generates billions of dollars of profits for the Archer Daniels Midland corporation. Of course they do spend a lot of money on lobbyists and campaign contributions.

Corn Ethanol has no positive effect at all. It doesn't help CO2 emissions, it increases food and fuel prices, it accelerates agricultural land depletion, increases fertilizer and pesticide runoff pollution, and funnels money away from research that could be helpful like cellulose based fuels or geothermal power.


By Reclaimer77 on 12/9/2009 10:40:00 AM , Rating: 3
I just heard that 80% of all fuel in Brazil ( I think it was Brazil ) is made from sugar. If sugar is a better way to go, than why are we so stuck on corn ?


By zombiexl on 12/9/2009 10:42:00 AM , Rating: 1
Using food for fuel is a bad idea no matter how you look at it.


By Yawgm0th on 12/9/2009 3:01:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Using food for fuel is a bad idea no matter how you look at it.
I disagree. This is BS that sounds like it's straight from some clown at the UN.

We have too much food in this country. Farmers are subsidized so that food prices are kept artificially low and people can buy more food than they need. Using agriculture for fuel production, if it is energy-efficient and cost-efficient, would save more money than it costs.

In a country where there isn't enough arable land to feed the populace, that is a different story.


By Kurz on 12/9/2009 10:55:32 AM , Rating: 2
Because its not viable to grow Sugar here...
Its not warm enough, plus the Water required is huge.

Cellositic (switchgrass) and Algae are the best ways.
With all the lobbists Corn growers and refiners have its hard for these techs to gain ground.


By rcc on 12/9/2009 3:05:11 PM , Rating: 2
Farm lobbyists for the most part.

And, we'd have to import sugar cane. I don't think Hawaii can keep up if it's used for biofuel.

As someone else said tho, making it out of a food crop is iffy anyway.


By Reclaimer77 on 12/9/2009 3:36:26 PM , Rating: 1
Well I would rather make it out of those billions of barrels of oil sitting under us doing jack shit. But since that's apparently so evil to do these days, I guess we'll keep wasting money on pipe dreams and lesser solutions.


By thurston on 12/9/2009 8:19:36 PM , Rating: 1
Do you really think it is a good idea to wait till we are out of oil before we find a replacement?


By rcc on 12/11/2009 6:18:28 PM , Rating: 2
Well yes, but then again, didn't some nobel peace prize winner declare tha bio fuels were a crime against humanity?


By elgueroloco on 12/9/2009 5:54:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Corn Ethanol has no positive effect at all.


That's not true. Just ask the good folks at Maker's Mark, Knob Creek, and Jim Beam. I love the effects of the corn ethanol in their products. Theirs is the only good use for it, though.


By jiminmpls on 12/9/2009 9:44:52 AM , Rating: 2
Let's have a little perspective: Obama just approved a $3 billion subsidy for Exxon to build a liquified natural gas plant in Papua New Guinea.


By Reclaimer77 on 12/9/2009 10:24:15 AM , Rating: 4
Yeah because we won't let them build them HERE in our own country.


By zombiexl on 12/9/2009 10:26:35 AM , Rating: 2
I think we should drill here as much as anyone, but giving private business tax payers money is, has been and will always be complete BS.

Redistribution of wealth no matter the recipient or reason is always wrong and unconstitutional.


By Yawgm0th on 12/9/2009 2:50:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Redistribution of wealth no matter the recipient or reason is always wrong and unconstitutional.
All taxation is redistribution of wealth, and there's nothing unconstitutional about it.


By roykahn on 12/9/2009 3:40:45 PM , Rating: 2
Redistribution of wealth is only wrong when you're not the one benefitting from it. If money is coming out of your pockets then you would use any excuse possible to argue against it (e.g. unconstitutional, un-American). But if you're benefitting from it like the American agriculture industry (especially corn and cotton), oil producers, and military, then you'd argue strongly for even more redistribution. Don't think that many people care about the principle, it's all about how it affects THEM.


By Yawgm0th on 12/9/2009 3:59:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Redistribution of wealth is only wrong when you're not the one benefitting from it.

quote:
Don't think that many people care about the principle, it's all about how it affects THEM.
QFT. You've said more eloquently and concisely what I've been trying to point out to people for a while now.


By Spuke on 12/9/2009 4:39:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Don't think that many people care about the principle, it's all about how it affects THEM.
Unfortunately, I would have to agree.


By tallcool1 on 12/9/2009 12:32:29 PM , Rating: 1
Yea, that might actually create some good paying jobs here.

They talk about wanted to be independant for fuel from foriegn countries, but only willing to invest it into GREEN technologies, which is not going to get us independant for a very long time. They could start by allowing more drilling and refining of our own oil here, which would create thousands of good paying jobs.

On the other hand and another news story released today we did spend $6 million dollars to save 3 jobs.

Federal records show that $5.97 million from the $787 billion stimulus helped preserve three jobs at Burson-Marsteller, the global public-relations and communications firm headed by Penn, Hillary Clinton’s pollster in 2008.
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/71353-m...


By zombiexl on 12/9/2009 10:24:23 AM , Rating: 2
Which is also BS. Let's have some true perspective. It is our money that is being tossed around as if we have no say about it. It's time to take a stand and vote these clowns (dems and reps who like spending like there is no tomorrow) out of office permanently. The 2010 elections wont be here soon enough.


By zombiexl on 12/9/2009 10:59:16 AM , Rating: 2
I agree. I will take it one step further though.

If you have no stake in the system (or skin in the game), you should not be allowed to vote. I think that if you are not paying taxes (meaning you have more than a 0% liability after filing your return) you should not be allowed to vote. The idea is by no way perfected and there are other things that give you a stake, like owning property, etc.

Also we need to do away with negative tax liabilities. For example paying people more in a tax return than they paid in originally. Assuming we don't replace the tax code completely with something far better like a flat or consumption tax where there would be no refunds, returns, etc for most people.

Also term limits are needed to keep people honest. If they don't need to buy votes for the next election then they can vote more purely.


By AEvangel on 12/9/2009 12:08:47 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Also term limits are needed to keep people honest. If they don't need to buy votes for the next election then they can vote more purely.


Amen...get rid of Career Politicians.


By Yawgm0th on 12/9/2009 3:58:29 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
If you have no stake in the system (or skin in the game), you should not be allowed to vote.
That's ridiculous. One doesn't need monetary incentive to have a stake in voting. But it's silly because even the homeless and jobless pay taxes in one way or another. Even the extremely poor who get most or all of their income taxes back pay taxes in some form.

Not only that, but this method essentially ensures those with money have the power to stay wealthy and keep the poor poor.

If anything, you make an argument for a progressive tax system (which we have in terms of income tax, but tax revenue as a whole is regressive). Since people with higher income and/or more wealth have a higher stake, they should pay more.

Besides, you're kidding yourself if you think a poor man's vote is worth nearly as much as a rich man's money or a wealthy corporation's money. Money already is what wins most elections, which most people see as a problem, so I don't see an advantage to institutionalizing it.

quote:
Also term limits are needed to keep people honest. If they don't need to buy votes for the next election then they can vote more purely.
Conversely, if they don't have multiple terms than what incentive do they have to not abuse their power during their term? If there is no reelection, there is no incentive to actually follow through for constituents. I don't necessarily disagree with you here; I'm just pointing out that politicians have incentives to pander for money and ignore voters no matter how long terms last or how many they can have.


By Reclaimer77 on 12/9/2009 4:02:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Since people with higher income and/or more wealth have a higher stake, they should pay more.


The top 10% of earners in this country pay 80% of the tax burden dude. They ARE paying more and always have. Where are you getting your information from ?


By Nfarce on 12/9/2009 4:36:15 PM , Rating: 2
And don't forget R77 the bottom 50% pay a whopping 3%, and politicians (liberal Democrats) want to shift that top 10% burden to the upper echelon even more.

What so many wealth-hating people in this nation (and around the world for that matter) do not understand is that it's the wealthy that create the jobs and are the entrepreneurs and business developers. I have two of them just in my family alone. When was the last time you saw a low income person create a company and jobs? Uh huh.


By Spuke on 12/9/2009 7:13:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
the wealthy that create the jobs and are the entrepreneurs and business developers.
This is so obvious as to be ridiculous to even have to say it but sooooooooooooooooooo many people do not understand this or it does not make sense to them. They just think the job fairy creates these jobs I guess.


By FITCamaro on 12/9/2009 7:06:32 PM , Rating: 2
Both this and Reclaimers post needs to be a 6.

If you do nothing but suck off the system I pay for, you should not have a say in how much I pay into it.


By zombiexl on 12/9/2009 1:32:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We can't afford another Barack Obama and fully Democratic congress. We just can't. The fate of the entire union is at stake


Not to give you the idea that I like Obama, because I don't.

The problem isn't just democrats the problem is the you owe me something society. They have been forcing more and more people to the left (what they now call center would have been considered commie about 40 years ago).

Obama won largely based on his promises to raise taxes on the rich and give more money to lower income people. I am not by any stretch of the imagination rich, but I do have some nice things and I work for everything I have so I should have some nice things. The limiting of votes to people with a stake in the system (as I suggest in another post) would have never had him or McCain elected or making it through the primary for that matter.


By Spuke on 12/9/2009 2:52:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The limiting of votes to people with a stake in the system
I agree here but it will never fly. People will scream racism and discrimination all day long. Raising the age limit does get rid of a good portion of the idealists (ie I'm not old enough to understand how the world works but I have an idea). But I'm starting to wonder if conflict and strife were the intentions of the "founding fathers".


By Nfarce on 12/9/2009 4:48:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Obama won largely based on his promises to raise taxes on the rich and give more money to lower income people.


Obama was also elected from a main stream media who did NOTHING to call his leadership ability into question. They fluffed him up, put him on a pedestal, and voters (many first time ever voters) saw a rock star like a groupie and mindlessly voted for "change" because he looked good, sounded good, and read the teleprompters good. They continue to do that today and do not DARE make him look bad. They've got Sarah Palin to focus on!

This is a well-known link about the ignorance of some of the Obama voters in just one polling station. REPUBLICANS run Congress? LMAO. You can't make up stuff like this.

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/11/18/video-how-ob...

Oh, and this also proves that the mindless masses who went out in droves in November 2008 sat at home during the two Republican-won governorship elections a few months ago. In their minds, their guy won the White House and their voting job is over until 2012. Can't wait for 2010! Buh-bye Harry Reid (Princess Pelosi will stay in because of the radical left wing liberal moonbat territory she hails from).


By FITCamaro on 12/9/2009 1:50:29 PM , Rating: 2
Are you implying that's a good thing?

Obama also just gave Brazil $2 billion for offshore oil development. Yet we can't spend that money here for the same thing or even allow private businesses to spend their own money on it.


GreenCollarEconomy.Com
By caseyverdant on 12/9/2009 4:25:42 PM , Rating: 2
New biofuels are at the top of every green wishlist, and the government's $600 million will do a lot to encourage research and development. If you’re interested in biofuels or green technologies try: http://www.greencollareconomy.com. It has It’s the largest b2b green directory on the web, and lots of sustainability white papers for businesses trying to use biofuels or take their company green.




"Death Is Very Likely The Single Best Invention Of Life" -- Steve Jobs











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