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?

__________________
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy...the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. ~John Kenneth Galbraith

Some men change their party for the sake of their principles; others their principles for the sake of their party. ~Winston Churchill

The Christian Right is neither

Nothing other than the need to switch our fleet to flex-fuel vehicles (if ethanol, battery power, and others become the new thing too close together, we could have a situation much like VHS-Beta/BlueRay-SDVD... but much more expensive).

Some bio-diesels and ethanol can be created using non-food materials. Michigan is supposed to be looking into the use of scrap waste materials for fuel. If it works, that could be created without decreasing food supply. Who knows? Maybe it could mean getting paid to recycle?

__________________
That information is classified and to be given only on a need-to-know basis...

And I do not need to know.

1) It still pollutes.

2) It takes up farmland and/or food crops

There is a version of biodiesel based on algae...algae farms could in theory be placed in undeirable land like deserts. The technology is not yet cost effective however.

__________________
My Political Blog (Most recent update Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

Quoted for emphasis. For biofuel and biodiesel in general as well as algae production.

__________________
.

"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.

--Murray Rothbard

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-

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.

__________________
My Political Blog (Most recent update Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

What would the cost of "energy independence" be?

Not worth any benefit in my opinion. There's nothing wrong with buying oil from other countries if we find it economical to do so.

__________________
.

"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.

--Murray Rothbard

I agree with that.
But I think pollution is another matter. Reducing pollution is a public good.
Amnd if there are leads on forms of biodiesel using waste or algae, it seems worthwhile to pursue. Science advances by following leads, not sticking to what we know.

__________________
That information is classified and to be given only on a need-to-know basis...

And I do not need to know.

Probably a lot less than oil is costing us now.

Aside 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.

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


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

__________________
My Political Blog (Most recent update Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

It is no longer a question of "if". We already know it can be done with existing technology. It is just a matter of developing technology to produce it on a large scale and building the initial facilities.

We could be independent with coal as well, but coal is a lot more polluting.

__________________
My Political Blog (Most recent update Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?