Biodiesel and biofuel - Page 2

White Fox · #11 (**permalink**) 07-25-2008, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sadistic-Savior

Probably a lot less than oil is costing us now.

If it was cheaper to make all of our own energy, why wouldn't we be wasting money on foreign sources?

Quote:

side from the fact that we would no longer be dependent on foreigners for our energy, it would also eliminate price increases due to speculation. Because our supply would be entirely under our control.

It would not eliminate speculation unless you controlled how much people could buy.

Being dependent on foreign sources isn't a problem.

Controlling the supply is NOT a good idea; GOSPLAN and the USSR failed for a reason.

Quote:

How much is it worth to you not to have to be dependent on our enemies for our energy?

Are these countries enemies?

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/p...nt/import.html
CANADA 1,840 1,952 1,889 1,821 1,841
SAUDI ARABIA 1,579 1,453 1,531 1,574 1,402
MEXICO 1,116 1,259 1,207 1,461 1,469
VENEZUELA 1,030 1,019 998 1,232 1,103
NIGERIA 851 1,115 1,053 882 1,047
IRAQ 583 679 670 341 458
ANGOLA 464 579 468 680 581
ALGERIA 440 393 329 496 495
BRAZIL 318 201 209 152 170
KUWAIT 263 176 227 162 182
COLOMBIA 245 149 184 104 101
ECUADOR 162 160 194 201 200
RUSSIA 119 106 86 232 156
LIBYA 96 85 73 33 51
EQUATORIAL GUINEA 93 40 58 0 52

Quote:

Unless they decide to stop selling it to us when it is inconvenient....

I find it hard to believe that all of these countries would come together and refuse to sell to us knowing that they would lose trillions of dollars by doing so.

Sadistic-Savior · #12 (**permalink**) 07-25-2008, 03:28 PM

Quote:

If it was cheaper to make all of our own energy, why wouldn't we be wasting money on foreign sources?

The fact that it is not cheaper at the moment doesnt mean it wont be cheaper a year or ten years from now.

Quote:

It would not eliminate speculation unless you controlled how much people could buy.

Speculation is driven by the perception of supply and demand. We can eliminate speculation at any time by increasing supply. We can do this almost indefinitely with biofuels.

That is not possible with oil. Increasing supply takes years, and even then our domestic supplies are finite.

Quote:

Being dependent on foreign sources isn't a problem.

I disagree. I do not share your faith in our suppliers.

Quote:

I find it hard to believe that all of these countries would come together and refuse to sell to us knowing that they would lose trillions of dollars by doing so.

I see no reason to take chances if we have alternatives. I trust us more than I trust them.

Forest119 · #13 (**permalink**) 07-25-2008, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hendrixpujols11

I understand that using ethanol as fuel made the price of food skyrocket because corn is subsidized. But that's about all I understand. What is wrong with using biofuel and biodiesel in general, other than ethanol?

In an indirect way. Subsidies to farmers reduce the price of our crops, making them cheaper, not more expensive. However, since they are cheaper they can be used to create an affordable biofuel. The increased demand for those crops made the price rise. This is one of the big arguments against biofuels.

Another is that they release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, which many believe contributes to global warming. Of course the plants take CO2 from the atmosphere when they grow, but petroleum based fertilizers are also used, so the carbon goes from petroleum to plant to atmosphere instead of directly from petroleum to atmosphere as in petroleum based fuels.

There are some biofuels being developed that do not require crops or arable land (such as algae), so that eliminates the price pressure on our food source. However, biofuels will always produce CO2 when burned. There is no way around that, although you may be able to capture it. How much of a problem it is depends on how harmful CO2 is.

itraveltheworld · #14 (**permalink**) 08-02-2008, 06:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Forest119

In an indirect way. Subsidies to farmers reduce the price of our crops, making them cheaper, not more expensive. However, since they are cheaper they can be used to create an affordable biofuel. The increased demand for those crops made the price rise. This is one of the big arguments against biofuels.

Another is that they release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, which many believe contributes to global warming. Of course the plants take CO2 from the atmosphere when they grow, but petroleum based fertilizers are also used, so the carbon goes from petroleum to plant to atmosphere instead of directly from petroleum to atmosphere as in petroleum based fuels.

There are some biofuels being developed that do not require crops or arable land (such as algae), so that eliminates the price pressure on our food source. However, biofuels will always produce CO2 when burned. There is no way around that, although you may be able to capture it. How much of a problem it is depends on how harmful CO2 is.

Subsidies NEVER make anything cheaper. A small example might help you to understand...

Lets say that sweater makers in the UK can produce, ship, and put sweaters on the shelves in America for $25. Along comes Johnny Congressman whose state wants to get into sweater making. Unfortunately Johnny's state can only produce sweaters and get them to the consumer at $30. Johnny has two options, tariffs or subsidies. (Both of which ultimately cost the consumer, with tariffs being worse.) So Congressman Johnny goes out there and gets a $5 subsidy for his states sweater makers. So where does this $5 dollar subsidy come from ?? Why Timmy taxpayer, thats who. So now instead of paying $25 for his sweater, Timmy pays $25 plus whatever his individual share of the tax burden from the subsidy. This extra burden is minuscule (which is the appealing aspect) but is ultimately a cost to the consumer (and every other taxpayer.)

Tariffs are even worse. Using the same example, instead of paying $25 for his sweater, Timmy Taxpayer must now pay $30. This is because both American and UK (w/ the added tariff) sweaters cost thirty dollars.

On to your second point. Its not cheap corn that caused companies to produce ethanol, its all the gov't ethanol subsidies that allowed ethanol to compete with petroleum based fuels as a profitable business. This opening up of the ethanol market caused an increase demand in corn, hence an increase in price.

Finally, algal based biofuels have a negative net emission of CO2 because not all of the carbon produced in the algae is released back into the atmosphere. All living things are composed of proteins, lipids, and carbohydrates. With algae, its only the lipids we are interested in, so all the carbon locked up in the carbohydrates and proteins add up to a net negative on CO2 emissions. This is because each successive crop of algae consumes CO2 in an amount greater than the previous crops emissions.

-The Traveler-

ocean_314 · #15 (**permalink**) 08-02-2008, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sadistic-Savior

Biodiesel is still better than oil IMO...we could be fully independent with biodiesel. It is infinitely renewable, and we have lots of land.

I still prefer Solar, Wind, and Nuclear over biodiesel. Solar and Wind are indefinitely renewable and can be scaled down to inividual houses if we want. Hooking them up to the power grid would make it exponentially redundant.

But still I prefer biodiesel over oil and coal. It is renewable and less polluting than both.

If we where to plant every square inch of farm land in the US with corn for biodiesel we would only produce around 10% of the fuel used in this country.

The technology is energy and water intensive, and is only profitable with .50 cents per gallon subsidy and $4.50 a gallon gas. From used fryer oil its still very energy intensive and just forcing the rendering plants to find their feedstock elsewhere.
Biodiesiel is a backyard hobbyist fuel, until algae or swtichgrass is profitable. I think hydrogen is the fuel of the future.

Cajun Controller · #16 (**permalink**) 08-02-2008, 10:09 AM

There are other crops that can produce ethanol that are being overlooked, sugar cane, and sorghum (I believe that's how you spell it). I am not sure what sorghum is used for but it can be harvested up to three times a year. Ethanol from cane is made from a byproduct, called molasses, of the sugar refining process. The left over plant matter from cane also contains enough sugar, I believe, to produce ethanol.

Forest119 · #17 (**permalink**) 08-02-2008, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by itraveltheworld

Subsidies NEVER make anything cheaper. A small example might help you to understand...

Lets say that sweater makers in the UK can produce, ship, and put sweaters on the shelves in America for $25. Along comes Johnny Congressman whose state wants to get into sweater making. Unfortunately Johnny's state can only produce sweaters and get them to the consumer at $30. Johnny has two options, tariffs or subsidies. (Both of which ultimately cost the consumer, with tariffs being worse.) So Congressman Johnny goes out there and gets a $5 subsidy for his states sweater makers. So where does this $5 dollar subsidy come from ?? Why Timmy taxpayer, thats who. So now instead of paying $25 for his sweater, Timmy pays $25 plus whatever his individual share of the tax burden from the subsidy. This extra burden is minuscule (which is the appealing aspect) but is ultimately a cost to the consumer (and every other taxpayer.)

Tariffs are even worse. Using the same example, instead of paying $25 for his sweater, Timmy Taxpayer must now pay $30. This is because both American and UK (w/ the added tariff) sweaters cost thirty dollars.

I understand how subsidies work. They don't lower the cost of producing the product, rather they cover some of the cost with taxpayer money. This means the consumer of the product has to pay less out-of-pocket at the time of purchase. However, the biofuel producer is not paying taxes to cover the full amount of subsidies on the crops he purchases. Those taxes come from everyone, meaning everyone is helping reduce the purchase price of his raw materials. In that sense, the crops are cheaper (or perhaps I should say cost less, so as not to confuse you) becasue of subsidies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by itraveltheworld

On to your second point. Its not cheap corn that caused companies to produce ethanol, its all the gov't ethanol subsidies that allowed ethanol to compete with petroleum based fuels as a profitable business. This opening up of the ethanol market caused an increase demand in corn, hence an increase in price.

You are correct. I was focused on corn subsidies in my post since I was replying to a statement on corn subsidies. But yes, they did affect crop prices in an indirect way, in that they allowed ethanol producers to be profitable which thereby increased the demand on corn, raising prices. This gives a fuller picture of how ethanol production increases crop prices.

Quote:

Originally Posted by itraveltheworld

Finally, algal based biofuels have a negative net emission of CO2 because not all of the carbon produced in the algae is released back into the atmosphere. All living things are composed of proteins, lipids, and carbohydrates. With algae, its only the lipids we are interested in, so all the carbon locked up in the carbohydrates and proteins add up to a net negative on CO2 emissions. This is because each successive crop of algae consumes CO2 in an amount greater than the previous crops emissions.

Another great point. The use of algae for production of biofuel would be carbon negative. However, it still releases some CO2 into the atmosphere and some people object to any release of CO2. I made the same point in another thread after a poster claimed algae based biofuel would be carbon neutral at best, but you described the process much better than I did.

White Fox · #18 (**permalink**) 08-02-2008, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sadistic-Savior

The fact that it is not cheaper at the moment doesnt mean it wont be cheaper a year or ten years from now.

Then why force it now through government action?

Quote:

Speculation is driven by the perception of supply and demand. We can eliminate speculation at any time by increasing supply. We can do this almost indefinitely with biofuels.

We cannot do that almost indefinitely; there is not enough raw material to do that. There is still a limit to supply.

Quote:

That is not possible with oil. Increasing supply takes years, and even then our domestic supplies are finite.

Shocking the supply is another solution, and we conveniently have the SPR......

Quote:

I disagree. I do not share your faith in our suppliers.

All of the nations in the entire world are not going to come together and refuse to sell us oil. They would have to sacrifice trillions of dollars to do so, and the opportunity for one of them to break would provide a huge incentive for them to do so.

And if you think that we get oil from our enemies, then have a look at where it comes from:

CANADA 1,840 1,952 1,889 1,858 1,876
SAUDI ARABIA 1,579 1,453 1,531 1,574 1,389
MEXICO 1,116 1,259 1,207 1,461 1,467
VENEZUELA 1,030 1,019 998 1,232 1,103
NIGERIA 851 1,115 1,053 882 1,048
IRAQ 583 679 670 341 456
ANGOLA 464 579 468 680 581
ALGERIA 440 393 329 496 492
BRAZIL 318 201 209 152 165
KUWAIT 263 176 227 162 179
COLOMBIA 245 149 184 104 101
ECUADOR 162 160 194 201 200
RUSSIA 119 106 86 232 156
LIBYA 96 85 73 33 51
EQUATORIAL GUINEA 93 40 58 0 52

Quote:

I see no reason to take chances if we have alternatives. I trust us more than I trust them.

We could spend trillions of dollars to eliminate an infinitesimally small risk, but that wouldn't benefit us.

Guy Fawkes · #19 (**permalink**) 08-02-2008, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hendrixpujols11

I understand that using ethanol as fuel made the price of food skyrocket because corn is subsidized. But that's about all I understand. What is wrong with using biofuel and biodiesel in general, other than ethanol?

here's the no bull simplified version, and you are correct about food prices. 30% of the Corn stock was used for fuel and it displaced valuable farmland.

here ya go.
http://www.healthandenergy.com/ethanol.htm

Guy Fawkes · #20 (**permalink**) 08-02-2008, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by itraveltheworld

This is my first post on this board in looooong time so, I just wanted to stop and say hi to everyone. Hi.

To address the original poster, you have to understand why corn is subsidized and why its being used as ethanol. The corn subsidy adds cost, but not in the way you think. And its not the corn subsidy that is to blame, its the ethanol subsidies.

First let me state that IMHO nothing but emerging markets should be subsidized, and only for a preset amount of time at that. Subsidies are evil things that do nothing but steal money out of everyones pocket to benefit a few people. While at the same time making anything they touch more expensive. Ethanol is a candidate for subsidy, corn is not.

One of the original, and still valid, reasons for food (corn) subsdies is food security. This is a valid concern that should be addressed in ways other than farm subsidies. (But thats another post.)

The reason for an ethanol subsidy is that we want an alternative fuel to ease petroleum prices with the eventual goal of total replacement. If ethanol was a valid alternative for petroleum based fuels I would be out in front cheering for subsidies. Unfortunately, it is not. So why is it that we are spending billions of dollars on a technology that currently is net energy negative and makes food very expensive ?? Because Iowa is the first in the nation to vote. Because ADM and other agro giants lobby Congress. Because, as with all subsidies, the relative cost to the individual is small which allows the overall cost to be ignored. Because we all want to stop sending our money to countries that sponsor terrorism. (Yes Saudi, I am looking at you.)

So what is the answer ?? Anything with a renewable source that doesn't involve food, or the land where food grows. Personally I am a BIG fan of algal biodiesel. I would direct you to this paper (http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html) for a good run down on why algae could be one of the major answers to our energy future.

At the end of the day more drilling is not the answer. All more drilling does is spend time and resources (both finite) on a path we know to have an end. Whether its 70 or 700 years, the end is inevitable. Let us instead spend our time and money working on energy sources that have no foreseeable end. (Not including when the sun goes red giant

Good to be back.

-Traveler-

Big Fan huh, How much of your own money have you invested out of your portfolio into algae?

I know people that are big football fans and they at least have a jersey and a bumper sticker. How much?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Bandaid Economics, Biofuel Ban, Padilla Sentence, the Clinton Duo, el Padre de Mitt	SeminalBlog	Political Blogs	0	01-22-2008 03:00 PM