Originally Posted by hendrixpujols11

What is wrong with using biofuel and biodiesel in general, other than ethanol?

Originally Posted by perdidochas

It's called photosynthesis.......

Originally Posted by commonsense

Nothing has as much energy as petroleum, the energy from ethanol doesn't make up for the lower price at the pump. It is much less efficient, a 'transitional' form of energy. Oil is second to nuclear power in terms of BTU's derived. Fuel cells and batteries are gaining ground, but the cost and materials put into hydrogen tanks would be tremendous. Batteries are the next wave due to high investment. Self-sustaining forms of energy are also being researched.

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-

Originally Posted by catmando

Not bad for your first time back. I like the algae fuel solution as well, but until that gets ramped up I think the best thing to replace corn as a biofuel ingredient is switchgrass. Yes I know it will take millions of acres, but switchgrass can be a stop-gap until algae can get going. What do you think?

Originally Posted by commonsense

Nothing has as much energy as petroleum, the energy from ethanol doesn't make up for the lower price at the pump. It is much less efficient, a 'transitional' form of energy. Oil is second to nuclear power in terms of BTU's derived. Fuel cells and batteries are gaining ground, but the cost and materials put into hydrogen tanks would be tremendous. Batteries are the next wave due to high investment. Self-sustaining forms of energy are also being researched.