Food for thought on Bush and alternative fuels

[NapaBavarian]

I hear bush pushing alternative fuel, but I don't believe it, he is pushing a pipe dream, he is looking for the hardest way to get there and endorsing it because it will make reasearchers millions of dollars and not cut into the dino oil market.

There are 2 fuels that can be implemented right now, and both are to some degree, ethanol and biodiesel, ethanol has been arround since long before Mini Bush (AKA Bush Jr.) so if bush really wanted to cut our dependance on foreign oil and increase our farmers income why dosn't he push Biodiesel? It dosn't require any new infrastructure and can be blended just like ethanol, perhaps he just wants to sound like he loves the enviroment

[bwb3]

Audi won Sebring this weekend, with a diesel. Commentators were saying this will be the performace engine of the future.

[Red SVX 92]

Anybody have articles/data for or against ethanol as an alternative fuel? I've heard that it takes more energy (i.e. fossil fuels) to make it than you can get from it.

[NapaBavarian]

I have heard this as well, but it's gotta be a crock, if it did in fact take as much energy as they say then you would need to pay for all of that when you buy ethanol, in other words if it took 1.5 gallons of fossil fuel to produce 1 gallon of ethanol then when you buy ethanol you would need to pay 1.5 times the cost of a gallon of fossil fuel, plus all the farmers expences, plus all manufacture expences, plus depreciation on all equipment used from seeding to pumping into your tank, it would cost 3x or more what gasoline costs.

[AppStateSVX]

Originally Posted by NapaBavarian

I have heard this as well, but it's gotta be a crock, if it did in fact take as much energy as they say then you would need to pay for all of that when you buy ethanol, in other words if it took 1.5 gallons of fossil fuel to produce 1 gallon of ethanol then when you buy ethanol you would need to pay 1.5 times the cost of a gallon of fossil fuel, plus all the farmers expences, plus all manufacture expences, plus depreciation on all equipment used from seeding to pumping into your tank, it would cost 3x or more what gasoline costs.

that's what I heard as well, I think that is why the "alternative fuels" have never really caught on. I think Hydrogen Cars are going to be the eventual replacement. BMW has a 7 Series that runs off hydrogen, it is in it's final stages of development

[dcarrb]

We'll see no significant progress in regard to petroleum costs, reserves, imports or alternatives, so long as the presiding U.S. administration is wholly owned by Big Oil. Ditto global warming. Stock-up on sunscreen.

A mainstream news item I saw just within the past couple of days asserted that the capacity to produce biodiesel fuels can never meet existing U.S. demand, even if every acre of land in the lower 48 were planted in oil-producing soybeans. (Wish I could remember the figures.) Simply put, it takes an ocean of oil to run this country.

There's not likely to be one simple, revolutionary technological breakthrough to solve our dilemma. The only plausible short term solution lies with ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen, hybrids, and electrics all employed in concert... along with good, old-fashioned thrift (read: conservation).

dcb

[Speedklix]

Originally Posted by dcarrb

We'll see no significant progress in regard to petroleum costs, reserves, imports or alternatives, so long as the presiding U.S. administration is wholly owned by Big Oil. Ditto global warming. Stock-up on sunscreen.

I find this statement odd because Bush actually has always been pushing solutions that could put the biggest offenders of global warming out of business. Funny no one ever seams to care. I don't like these solutions, but it is the truth. and I still don't understand this obsesion people have with claiming the administration is oil controlled. My buddy used to sequence for a GMF company and now he is in organic healthfood, guess he is trying to use them to spread GMF technology.

Originally Posted by dcarrb

A mainstream news item I saw just within the past couple of days asserted that the capacity to produce biodiesel fuels can never meet existing U.S. demand, even if every acre of land in the lower 48 were planted in oil-producing soybeans. (Wish I could remember the figures.) Simply put, it takes an ocean of oil to run this country.

There's not likely to be one simple, revolutionary technological breakthrough to solve our dilemma. The only plausible short term solution lies with ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen, hybrids, and electrics all employed in concert... along with good, old-fashioned thrift (read: conservation).

True, thats why I never understood the corn direction. The emissions also worry me, but if it was used to somehow replace these stupid coal facilities at least it would be an improvement.
I am a huge supporter of wind technology over everything else, and that is probably what I am most happy with bush for. Which will also be helpful in the electric car scene. I think the concert statement you make is accurate. It is just down right absurd to believe that one or two solutions will meet the needs of our whole nation. and it will not happen in a short period of time, petro will fade. Even if we had alternate solutions that could be mass implemented in a short period it would be like running by option into a depression. I actually think we are progressing at a pretty decent rate. The ball is rolling, we just need to be patient. If we all start pushing it too fast it’ll be like that train article someone posted earlier today.

[Electrophil]

Originally Posted by AppStateSVX

that's what I heard as well, I think that is why the "alternative fuels" have never really caught on. I think Hydrogen Cars are going to be the eventual replacement. BMW has a 7 Series that runs off hydrogen, it is in it's final stages of development

Hydrogen is the way to go, and the technology is available. But right now, the cost of extracting and storing the fuel is pretty high.

It has to be extracted from water before the car turns it to water again.

[NapaBavarian]

The biggest problem with alternative fuels can be summed up quite simply, "dirt cheap fossil fuels", the trouble is with gasoline as inexpensive as it is in this country anything else is simply too expensive.

I would never expect the entire country to run on Biodiesel, however if the standard became B20 (20% biodiesel) then polution could be reduced since B20 burns cleaner than regular old stinkey diesel, and we could use 20% less oil from the ground. It isn't the perfect solution, but that is the problem, there is no perfect solution, it is simply the easiest to implement while we work on better ways.

[mohrds]

Originally Posted by NapaBavarian

The biggest problem with alternative fuels can be summed up quite simply, "dirt cheap fossil fuels", the trouble is with gasoline as inexpensive as it is in this country anything else is simply too expensive.

I would never expect the entire country to run on Biodiesel, however if the standard became B20 (20% biodiesel) then polution could be reduced since B20 burns cleaner than regular old stinkey diesel, and we could use 20% less oil from the ground. It isn't the perfect solution, but that is the problem, there is no perfect solution, it is simply the easiest to implement while we work on better ways.

Well said. Electric cars are flopping because no one wants the repair bills and insurance rates are through the roof because of the battery hazard.

Gasahol cost more to make and refine (even with massive corn subsidies) that traditional dino-gas did. That failed.

Dino fuel is being artificially inflated by both the EPA and the oil companies.
The EPA won't standardize on less than 28 different fuel types for the states and won't allow refinery expansion or additional construction. Then the oil "futures" market is a huge scam on all consumers and should just be removed from the market.

I see fossil fuel becomming less expensive in the next few years and the alternative fuels being pushed off even further.

[Speedklix]

Well, I think hybrid technology is the easiest path to start on. B20 is easy for southern states. Not realistic for typical northern consumer without a very dangerous investment from auto manufactures though. People who can modify their vehicles can do it. Unless it is a turbocharged preferable 5 speed it sucks at mpg and puts out 6-8 times the worse of the lower percentage gases. A better understanding of the carbon cycle than the typical text book will help you to understand the dangers involving the Nitrogen output, an why I am soo very much concerned about the obscene amount b20 creates. on average 6 times the emmission from a gas car! I am also VERY concerned about taking huge steps back in the progress we have made to reduce fine particle matter. If we have 25% of america driving on b20 then our output would be much worse than where we were back in the mid 80's. I would expect MANY people to become very sick and die as a result. In the case of wide spread b20 I would also expect smog rate to double unless something is done about coal, and acid deposition would be rediculous and instead of helping the environment we increase risk of a major climate shift.

we would reduce our dependancy though.

I think the best solution for bioD is to fuel buses and trucks and possibly in heating and energy production (haven't looked too much into the last two though). I am afraid of large scale implementation on consumer vehicles. (I don't sell cars anymore before anyone goes questioning that)

[Speedklix]

Originally Posted by mohrds

I see fossil fuel becomming less expensive in the next few years and the alternative fuels being pushed off even further.

We already get it at a discount!! but besides that... if AF technology drops I would be very disappointed in the american public.

[Red SVX 92]

Originally Posted by NapaBavarian

I have heard this as well, but it's gotta be a crock, if it did in fact take as much energy as they say then you would need to pay for all of that when you buy ethanol, in other words if it took 1.5 gallons of fossil fuel to produce 1 gallon of ethanol then when you buy ethanol you would need to pay 1.5 times the cost of a gallon of fossil fuel, plus all the farmers expences, plus all manufacture expences, plus depreciation on all equipment used from seeding to pumping into your tank, it would cost 3x or more what gasoline costs.

That makes sense. Perhaps the costs would increase significantly if output were to be ramped up to level that could sustain our economy? Sounds counterintuitive, but I don't know the processes used.

[dcarrb]

Originally Posted by NapaBavarian

The biggest problem with alternative fuels can be summed up quite simply, "dirt cheap fossil fuels", the trouble is with gasoline as inexpensive as it is in this country anything else is simply too expensive.

Ahh... but they'll fix that with a federal gasoline tax. It's a vast left-wing conspiracy, you see.

dcb

[Electrophil]

Crazy left-wingers.