Cellulosic ethanol represents a beacon on the horizon -- the justification cited by wiseguys like Vinod Khosla for dropping billions per year in public cash to prop up corn ethanol production.
Corn ethanol, you see, is a bridge to a bright cellulosic future.
But the beacon is looking more and more like a mirage, a ghost, a specter; the bridge we're hurtling down may well lead to a chasm. A quiet consensus seems to be forming among people you'd think would know the facts on the ground: cellulosic ethanol, touted as five years away from viability for decades now, may never be viable.
Last fall, a researcher from the USDA -- an agency that has lavished ethanol with research cash since the '70s -- declared that while cellulosic has "some long-term promise" (some?), we shouldn't expect it to contribute significantly to fuel supplies before 2013.
Then in January, Colin Peterson -- chair of the House Ag Committee and a long-time friend of agribiz -- let slip that "I'm not sure cellulosic ethanol will ever get off the ground." He muttered something about "a lot bigger problem to overcome here than people realize in terms of the feedstocks."
Now we get a new study (PDF) from a trio of ag economists at Iowa State University. For the record, the authors are conventional ag scholars firmly entrenched within the corporate-dominated research world described so well by Nancy Scola in her recent "Monsanto U." post.
Indeed, one of the authors holds the Pioneer Hi-Bred International Chair in Agribusiness. (Pioneer is the genetically modified seed arm of the chemical giant Dupont.) The researchers' patrons -- i.e., the agribiz giants -- benefit from the corn-as-bridge-to-cellulosic myth; it keeps those highly profitable government goodies coming.
So it's surprising to see these mainstream economists deliver such a dismal forecast for cellulosic ethanol.
To come up with their forecasts, the authors do their economists' trick of creating a model and plugging in various assumptions.
They start by calculating that without the latest round of goodies -- i.e., the fat "Renewable Fuel Standard" of the 2007 Energy Act -- cellulosic ethanol (and biodiesel, too) would have withered away. In that scenario, corn ethanol would keep ramping up from the current level of about 7 billion gallons, pushed by high oil prices and the $0.51/gallon tax credit that's existed for years.
Here's what they say would have happened by 2022, if the 2007 Act had never happened (economists lay out their conditional, speculative scenarios in the simple present tense):
The corn ethanol sector expands until total production exceeds 18 billion gallons per year. Biodiesel and cellulosic ethanol from switchgrass are not viable in this scenario. Cellulosic ethanol never expands, and the biodiesel sector contracts so that there are no biodiesel plants operating in the long run.
They add a bit that I found particularly devastating: "These results suggest that [without the 2007 Energy Act], once the opportunity cost of land is taken into account, rational farmers will not grow switchgrass or soybeans for biofuel production, and rational investors will not build these plants."
Believe me, that thing about "rational" farmers and investors is strong stuff, coming from conventional economists.
Now, what happens when we account for the 2007 Act's hefty mandate? Current production, almost all from corn, stands at about 7 billion gallons. The act demands 36 billion gallons of biofuel by 2022, of which 15 billion comes from corn, and the other 21 billion gallons comes from cellulosic (and to a much less extent biodiesel).
The authors seriously doubt the cellulosic target can even come close to being met. They reckon that the mandate can inspire "rational" farmers and investors to churn out 4.5 billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol by 2022 -- but there's a catch. In order to reach even that level, the government will have to significantly jack up the tax credit awarded to mixers -- from the current 51 cents to $1.55.
The message is this: Even with the fat 2007 Act mandate, cellulosic ethanol can only offset a tiny amount of petroleum use -- and then only if it's borne aloft by titanic amounts of public cash.
Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change
Global boiling declares war on Thanksgiving
Climate Citizen: Michael Pollan on agriculture and health care
Comments
View as Threaded
gzuckier Posted 9:59 am
03 Mar 2008
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 10:21 am
03 Mar 2008
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:58 am
03 Mar 2008
Cost when charged from your own solar panels (after a few years payback period) 0 cents per gallon's worth of miles?
It is very difficult to understand why 10 cents per kwh or 60 cents per gallon (saved by the plugin hybrid and solar panels) shouldn't be provided to investors. With government tax incentives diverted from corporate welfare for oil, coal, agribizz fuel, and nuclear power.
Isn't it about time to get started on reducing GHG? The oil war costs over a dollar per gallon of gas and heating fuel we use. All borrowed money from china and Saudi Arabia.
Wouldn't it be better to pay our neighbor with a solar panel or wind farm for our transportation fuel and stop borrowing money so americans can kill and be killed for oil?
It's the economy... and the soul. And mother earth at stake.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Craig Allen Posted 12:01 pm
03 Mar 2008
Australian prime Minister Kevin Rudd has signaled taxpayer grants to support drought-affected farmers will be overhauled to ensure grants encourage climate change preparedness.
>> News article at the Australian Newspaper
Permalink
Pompey Road Posted 12:03 pm
03 Mar 2008
But as far as efficiency and coming closer to something that acutally works, the Brazil Sugar Cane things looks more vialbe than using a food stock.
They actually use the by product of the process for a heat source to make the new fuel. I know the corn lobby has ruined this venture and the subsidy will be long lived. Most anything farm related is but I do not why they never took a realistic look at sugar cane.
The stuff actually works, I don't know about the economy of scale but they run a 75% mix down there with over 4 million cars now on pure ethanol. Sugar Cane
The eons of time and nature was good to us down here. It was not until we become civilized that destroying our habitat become fathomable or fashionable.
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 12:42 pm
03 Mar 2008
Cellulose (trimmings, dung, leaves, waste wood and paper) get to the plant on electric garden wagons. Cellulose is sun dried and pyrolized in a pressure system. No productive land is needed to provide feedstock as the feed in needs are modest. Using high pressure pyrolisis even septage becomes a valuable feedstock instead of waste.
Products- town gas, bio-fuels, hot water, char, ash and steam are distributed locally and efficiently. The town gas and the steam can be used to make electricity.
The char and ash are returned to local fields increasing their fertility and sequestering carbon. The whole process would be carbon negative.
If you scale the whole thing up to fuel cars in distant cities it becomes an energetic and economic loser due to transport costs of feedstock and product.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
JMG Posted 3:54 pm
03 Mar 2008
http://www.theonion.com/content/amvo/biofuels_worse_for_t ...
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
mcg404 Posted 1:51 am
04 Mar 2008
Permalink
christophersj Posted 2:51 am
04 Mar 2008
Again, another blog post that doesnt differentiate the huge differences between corn and switchgrass. In fact, isnt this whole posting confused by naming corn as a cellulosic ethanol???
Why mention the worst kind of ethanol (corn) and then dis cellulosic woody switchgrass types? Isnt this like mentioning Twinkis and Broccoli in the same breath and saying "food is bad for you"??? Am I missing a point?
Permalink
cheflovesbeer Posted 2:52 am
04 Mar 2008
Just for food
Not cars
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 3:03 am
04 Mar 2008
So for them, cellulosic will likely come from corn stover, or "waste"--which means the soil will need yet more mined and synthesized fertilizers.
The whole thing sounds like a bit of a mess, really.
Victual Reality
Permalink
bfreewithrp Posted 3:24 am
04 Mar 2008
Ethanol, Will It Totally Replace Gasoline?
Permalink
christophersj Posted 3:27 am
04 Mar 2008
Here is my point: even if neither is perfect, as Grey Falcon likes to point out, is it intellectually dishonest to lump switchgrass and corn into the same subject heading when the differences are so vast in both environmental impact and energy return?
If switchgrass made its promise of being grown in the Dakotas and Montana and alongside intersate Highways, used little to no fertilizer, returned a 36 fold energy prize, and produced 90% less CO2 than gasoline, wouldn't it need a different classification than corn?
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 3:53 am
04 Mar 2008
Victual Reality
Permalink
PJD Posted 4:02 am
04 Mar 2008
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/pdfs/final_billionton ...
It would be interesting for someone with the time and knowledge to compare this new Iowa State study to see how it actually stacks up against this government study. Is it outright contradicting anything, or just making some economic assumptions that make the monetary viability of the scenario look questionable. It would seem to be a good thing if switching food acreage to cellulosic acreage would require such a large subsidy... don't give the subsidy and the fuel doesn't displace food.
One should also consider that there have been some studies since that government report considering something called Low Input High Diversity (LIHD, or was it HDLI) that proposes mixed grasses and plant species as being potentially better than monoculture switchgrass.
Here is the glossy corporate interpretation of that government report.
http://coskata.com/EthanolFeedstockPotential.asp
Permalink
christophersj Posted 4:16 am
04 Mar 2008
I dont know. Beats me. How were we ever going to figure out how to fly to the moon or eradicate small pox?
What were you going to put into the liquid tank portion of your plug-in hybrid in 2012? I'd rather it not be gasoline. Lets do the least bad thing.
If battery technology and nano-tube solar panels can do the whole job, then great. I'm the first in line.
-Christopher
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 4:18 am
04 Mar 2008
What do you think that land is doing now? The reason that you see an empty field in the Dakotas or Montana is that you can't grow a profitable crop there. That means that it is now pasture and empty pasture means that it's trying to grow more grass while the grazers are elsewhere. There are no "extra" grasslands.
Where there is "extra" cellulose is in whatever green or brown yard and tree waste that goes to the dumps. Here in California we are currently chipping and/or burning large piles of prunings from grapes and orchard stock. These stocks aren't concentrated enough to feed a large industrial plant. Plus we want the carbon and ash back in the soil where it will do the most good.
In forests slash biomass in frequently burned that could by pyrolized but again feedstocks are widely dispersed and seasonal. Ideally you would want a process that took minutes instead of hours, produced profitable product and returned the majority of carbon and ash to local soils as amendment. The whole rig would have to fit on one or two flatbed trailers also.
Here is a list of companies developing these technologies. It's a process that works but isn't going to replace fossil fuels for the happy motoring utiopia.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
christophersj Posted 5:14 am
04 Mar 2008
Pangolin,
it sounds like you have this figured out from every angle. Have you thought about contacting the NRDC, National Geographic, Sierra Club, Rocky Mountain Institute, ect. and letting them know about the huge mistake they are making in promoting cellulosic ethanol?
It sounds like all of these well meaning organizations are lacking fundamental and basic knowledge. Have they been hood-winked?
I'm not a scientist so I rely on reports from these organizations for my environmental information.
Permalink
BILL HANNAHAN Posted 5:38 am
04 Mar 2008
Authors of the Solar Grand Plan published in Scientific American
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan
want to use all our biomass to feed solar storage, but it is only enough to meet 20% of the requirement in 2100, with none left over for liquid fuels.
See point number 3.
http://science-community.sciam.com/topic/Solar-Grand-Plan ...
Permalink
atreyger Posted 6:58 am
04 Mar 2008
Also, I believe the greatest downfall of cellulosic ethanol (or ethanol in general) is its lack of transportability under current infrastructure limitations, and a lack of savings when considering delivery by truck. Corollary to that, localized production systems will have a great advantage over a centralized system in Iowa.
Permalink
wunderhof Posted 8:36 am
04 Mar 2008
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 9:11 am
04 Mar 2008
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/03/eia-forecasts-s.h ...
http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2007/05/comments-on-senat ...
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 9:59 am
04 Mar 2008
All of those computations about the value of cellulosic ethanol assumed that the cellulose would be harvested by a a combine. Forest biomass has to be harvested by a feller-buncher or worse, guys with chainsaws. Then it has to be hauled to the plant, dried, converted and the fuel shipped by truck or rail.
When I see a tree crew there's at least three guys working one chipper truck sometimes five. That's not a very profitable operation if you're trying to convert wood chips to methanol or biodiesel. The feller buncher is faster but eats fuel itself and requires moderate slopes to operate.
The reason loggers clearcut is because it's the most profitable way to operate. Flatten everything and take what you want is faster than leaving a thinned but functional forest behind. It also destroys soils and contributes to erosion. That's a non-starter as far as carbon balance is concerned.
So the forest biomass is there, it can be sustainably harvested and create carbon negative fuels. There is no way it's going to be cheap.
I can imagine a future where a giant solar-powered airship hovers above the forest. Bladed tentacles hang down and grind low quality trees to chips and vacuum them into an on-board pyrolisis unit. Hydrogen is stored in lift bags with methane and liquids go into ballast tanks. At the far end of the ship a suspended platform weaves through the forest injecting a slurry of hot char and water into the soil. The ship moves on leaving perfectly spaced lumber and habitat trees to grow in the newly fertilized soil.
Call Popular Science, I got the cover.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 10:12 am
04 Mar 2008
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/pdfs/final_billionton ... ...
Well here's my link :P
http://stopbp-berkeley.org/CellulosicBiofuels.pdf
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 11:37 am
04 Mar 2008
Then Greyflcn posts something that includes this:
Figure 1: Annual fossil and nuclear energy consumption in the U.S. is now larger than all biomass yield over its territory. Sources: EIA; USDA NASS; Good & Bell (1980); Patzek, 2006 calculations
That would have something to do with the fact that the entire ecosystem can't absorb the CO2 output of a mere 5% of the human population. There isn't any extra capacity in the ecosystem
I liked my idea with the big, tree-eating zeppelin better. Spoil my fun. ;~P
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
christophersj Posted 11:51 am
04 Mar 2008
Anything is possible.
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 11:57 am
04 Mar 2008
These are only my personal opinions.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:23 pm
04 Mar 2008
Only the biomass that would otherwise burn could be used without pushing the GHG balance in the wrong direction. That would be carbon neutral only if renewable energy were used in the whole process, necessitasting more GHG intensive energy to replace the renewables.
Only in a 100% renewable energy system that had a surplus for prohjects like this could it even be carbon neutral. It will never be carbon negative.
That's not enough biomass to make enough liquid fuel to extend gas guzzling.
It could only be harvested safely and efficiently with moderm equipment. no crews with wood chippers throwing brances in and chainsawing. the accident rate alone would make it uneconomic.
Working in the woods like that is more dangerous than coal mining.
The agtibizz experts claim a $1.55 per gallon subsidy would be needed even after all that dangerous, expensive, energy intensive work.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
christophersj Posted 1:10 pm
04 Mar 2008
Attitude is just as important as physics, ask a survivor of a traumatic event.
Its nice to hear about the real world limitations but there really can be amazing and brilliant solutions to some of these problems. From Beethoven to Pasteur to the NASA team that went to the moon, new paradigms and elegant concepts can be had for those who are creative.
Can you imagine if I were to talk to you about antibiotics or the internet in 1900?
But you have to have the attitude. Silicon Valley does.
- Christopher
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 2:11 pm
04 Mar 2008
I was blogging over here on a similar subject:
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/recolumnists ...
Pretty much when it all comes down to it:
"It's the Feedstock, stupid"
Then again, Algae would be nice.
Assuming you're willing to pay $1,200 a barrel for it.
http://greyfalcon.net/algae4
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 4:19 pm
04 Mar 2008
But in the case of biofuels, we are talking about billions in public subsidies, commitments to future tens of billions in subsidies, other billions in costs to consumers (not just in the subsidizing country but also, more importantly, in food-importing countries) -- all (so we are assured) on the self-fulfilling promise that keeping agro-fuels going (after 30 years already of subsidies) is building a bridge to a cheaper, more efficient cellulosic nirvana.
With such heavy intervention, and the potential for serious unintended consequences, "attitude" is exactly what we don't need among those who are setting energy policy. What we need is cold, hard analysis, a priority on cost-effectiveness, and a willingness to change course in light of new evidence.
That does not mean necessarily abandoning research and demonstration projects for cellulosic ethanol. But it should mean a fresh -- and honest appraisal -- of whether current mandates and subsidies are leading the country down a primrose path ... or a dead end.
These are only my personal opinions.
Permalink
christophersj Posted 4:58 pm
04 Mar 2008
Yeah I'm definitely talking about R&D and entrepreneurship. Some new way of doing X or Y that none of you finger waggers have not thought of yet.
And of course I would want it to be self sustaining financially and even profitable.
I'm not an ethanol whore, I'd love my rooftop to provide all of my energy needs.
Maybe cellulosic ethanol will be just for heavy machinery and batteries/solar/wind will be fine for house and car. Whatever. We'll figure it out.
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 8:02 pm
04 Mar 2008
"it can be sustainably harvested and create carbon negative fuels"- me
Only the biomass that would otherwise burn could be used without pushing the GHG balance in the wrong direction. That would be carbon neutral only if renewable energy were used in the whole process, necessitasting more GHG intensive energy to replace the renewables.Where the ground doesn't freeze and outside of bogs all the carbon is returned to the atmosphere from biomass even if the nutrients are recycled into new biomass. Locally termites are quite efficient at converting woody waste to more termites and methane. Even when you are using said waste as a house. What they can't do is convert charcoal into methane. The plants however can extract nutrients from charcoal. Harvest the hydrocarbons, vent the steam, burn the hydrogen and carbon monoxide and bury the charcoal. About 30% of the carbon in the biomass is sequestered. Short of sinking logs that's the only way you can sequester more carbon than the climax forest contains.
Only in a 100% renewable energy system that had a surplus for prohjects like this could it even be carbon neutral. It will never be carbon negative. One guy with an ox and a fat tire cart, 5 hectares of forest and 4 neighbors doing the same thing sharing the pyrolisis plant. He doesn't even need power tools, in the amazon stone axes and zero animal power created an area of Terra Preta estimated to be greater than the British Isles. It's sustainable and carbon negative because the carbon is still there.
That's not enough biomass to make enough liquid fuel to extend gas guzzling. Nothing, short of aliens floating down to earth with Mr. Fusion devices for everybody will maintain the happy motoring utopia.
It could only be harvested safely and efficiently with moderm equipment. no crews with wood chippers throwing brances in and chainsawing. the accident rate alone would make it uneconomic. Modern equipment requires roads, steel, lubricants and fuel. The most efficient modern addition would be a light steel monorail system capable of moving 1 ton loads. Establish each zone as a food/fuel/habitat coppice and it would yield more calories than a cornfield for less input.
Working in the woods like that is more dangerous than coal mining.No joke. Not as dangerous as fishing though. Fishing, forestry and agriculture jobs are the most dangerous professions. Much of the hazard comes from haste and poor management practices. If the work was done at a human pace the hazard could be reduced but never eliminated. What's your house made of? What's in your refrigerator? Have you ever seen a choker-setter work a clear cut? Wood comes at the price of blood; there's no other way.
The agtibizz experts claim a $1.55 per gallon subsidy would be needed even after all that dangerous, expensive, energy intensive work.Trashing the ecosystem of an entire planet is a pretty heavy subsidy for air conditioning and weekend flights to the islands don't you think? At some point we are going to have to put all that carbon back and people will still need tar and diesel. North Carolinans are called tarheels for doing exactly this work at lower efficiencies. It's not a desert, there's still forest there and there's still forest in England and Germany despite thousands of years of wood burning. It can be managed.
The program where we got 80-from-one energy yields from fossil fuels is done. We have to plan a replacement even if we don't implement it right away. The important thing was to establish foresters with a vested interest in the long-term yield of their patch. Billhook knows all about this stuff as he seems to be involved with a coppice forest in England.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 11:08 pm
04 Mar 2008
Does this rich history and knowledge-base give us any grounds, whatsoever, for believing that coppicing could be managed sustainably on the massive scale necessary for ethanol production as a substitute liquid fuel? It is undeniable that our liquid fuel demands are somewhere between voracious and totally out of control. Seems to me that monopsonistic reduction of the coppice to mere feedstock for this insatiable appetite is self-evidently yet one more environmental disaster in the making and an absolute travesty of the integrated, wholistic, and sustainable coppicing tradition.
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
atreyger Posted 2:14 am
05 Mar 2008
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 10:52 pm
05 Mar 2008
http://energy.biofuels.coop/general/2008/03/05/going-glob ...
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
chuck kottke Posted 1:47 am
07 Mar 2008
I wouldn't write cellulose-based ethanol off the page quite yet. Research into better and better enzymes (from fungi & termites) may help solve the riddle of cheaper ethanol from organic matter. As far as efficiency, it will beat corn-based ethanol - because biomass is easier to make than starch from a plant's perspective. Reverse Osmosis might be the way to go for efficiency of separation for alcohol and water (vs. distillation). Funny, isn't it - the termite runs quite well on biofuels! Oh, if nature can do it, then why can't we?? I say - engage brain - there's an answer. It took a leap to get silicon solar cells in the 50's; it's going to be a leap to get cellulosic ethanol up to max efficiency, but we can do it. Even if it's only perhaps 4X the output of energy compared to input, it's still not bad.
As far as solar-cell electricity-to-battery cars go, there's another good direction. We simply must design better batteries though - all that lead, nickel, cadmium, lithium, etc. run environmental risks and are in limited supply - better to work on carbon nanotube supercapacitors, light metal cells, zeolites for H2 storage, etc. as prime movers. Making good advances in slipstream designs will make the miles go up as fast as anything.
But the real answer is 95% efficiency; 5% newer & better technologies.
I sometimes wonder.. we have an economy that flies along at 100 mph, and never seems to stop and smell the roses. Perhaps we ought to consider revamping our economy to promote quality of life, rather than quantity of stuff. Locally grown food makes much more sense than food from hither, tither, and yon. Locally produced power as well! Just looking at electricity, if 90% of the energy is lost before you turn on the switch, does this make any sense either? All the biofuel plants in the world are no real help, if the energy isn't being used wisely. I think we should look to producing energy nearest the point of use - and using the waste heat generated to improve our lives as well - one could have greenhouses, houses, swimming pools, etc. heated with the energy lost in the transition to make electricity.
Makes to much sense, though. But markets will ultimately force the change to happen, as we cannot keep going all-out bonkers on expansion, and a more common-sense approach will then become common.
Permalink
Thomas Dobbs Posted 2:42 am
11 Mar 2008
Thomas L. Dobbs
Professor Emeritus of Economics, South Dakota State University, and W.K. Kellogg Foundation Food & Society Policy Fellow
Permalink
richharding1 Posted 11:41 pm
14 Jun 2008
BTW, I wouldn't give up on cellulosic ethanol just yet, it's still in its infancy.
Rich.
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 12:07 am
15 Jun 2008
Just one little problem: there is an ad valorem tariff of 2.5% plus a specific-rate tariff of $0.54 per gallon levied on undenatured ethanol from Brazil. And Congress keeps extending the tariff, most recently (in the Farm Bill) for another two years.
In the past, there was a duty-drawback scheme which allowed importers to get back the duty they paid on imported ethanol for every gallon of jet fuel they exported. (Fuelling a jet flying off to another country counted as an export.) But that loophole was closed in the Farm Bill, effective 1 October 2008, which will make it even more costly to import Brazilian ethanol in the future.
These are only my personal opinions.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 1:49 am
15 Jun 2008
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:15 am
15 Jun 2008
It hasn't been perfected yet? How much research money has been invested in nearly 40 years?
Let's take another example of a much touted fantstically GHG intensive fuel process. Coal gasification and coal to liquid fuel.
When was coal gasification first put into mass production? Remember the gas lamps that lighted cities way back in the 1800s? That was coal gas from coal gasification.
Almost 200 years and it still emits at least twice the GHG of oil based fuel.
Look at the history of nuclear power. Nearly 60 years and it still is fantastically expensive and problematic. After 100s of billions in subsidies.
How long has wind power been around? Hundreds of years, and it's always been cost effective and GHG free. And now the cost of electricity from wind is down to 4 cents per kwh, one third of the cost of power from fossil fuel or nuclear power.
It's pretty clear where this ought to lead us. To replacing liquid fuel guzzling in 6% efficient behemoth gas guzzlers (with 4 times the weight and horse power they need). With plugin hybrid hypercars and plugin bikes and electric powered mass transit. Powered by wind and solar, which is now coming right down to meet the cost of wind.
It is very hard to understand how this mass delusion that is fuel farming can continue given the powerfully obvious arguments against it. That's what the corruption related to misplaced subsidies can do.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
papermaker Posted 3:40 pm
16 Jul 2008
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:54 pm
16 Jul 2008
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=772398
Trees into biodiesel, to burn in 6% efficient diesel guzzling vehicles. With $30 million wasted on it. Thanks to Dave Obey.
He could have got the 30 million for farm biogas, but no, a technology that offsets GHG, and makes farms into backup power providers for a renewable power grid. Tree fuel farming, that's what this genius wastes his seniority on. A boondoggle that spikes GHG.
Good for you congressman, listen to those lobbyists. Money talks.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
eheath1000 Posted 3:07 am
18 Jul 2008
So we might as well try to do something with the corn waste. I don't know about the processing of it, but with gas at 4 bucks a gallon, it seems worthwhile and maybe proiftable to try.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 3:35 am
18 Jul 2008
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink