Food vs Fuel

Mark Hunt

have a shelf life of like 10,000,000 years.....or is that a half life???

Mark H

<A HREF="http://www.heatinghelp.com/getListed.cfm?id=238&Step=30">To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"</A>

S Ebels

Food vs Fuel (SE)

I came across this article on Cosmic Log, which sometimes has a tendency to be "out there" so read it with a grain of salt (pun intended). Some of the comments after the article are good indicators of how seriously or non-seriously Americans percieve the need for conservation of resources. The article, if it all happens as stated is scary enough, but the real scary part to me is how ignorant a lot of people are when it comes to understanding why energy prices are going up.

Here's a tidbit of information that may be indicative of things to come. Last year's (2005) corn harvest was selling for +/- $1.80 per bushel at this time of year. This year's (2006) harvest, despite another bumper crop, is now selling for $3.00+ per bushel. Hmmm wonder what's driving that?

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/01/04/26743.aspx

jp_2

1980's

i seem to recall corn being around $3.00/bushel in the 80's
though bread has going up 4-6 times, grain hasn't.

look at corn compared to freetos?

Mark Hunt

Nothing I like more


than driving through the country and seeing the Freeto fields. Row after row of Freetos!

I think the native Americans called it something different though. "Corn Chips" rings a bell.

Bushel of corn yields 2.8 gallons of Ethanol. How much does a gallon of Ethanol sell for?

Mark H

To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"

jp_2

depends

on how old that ethanol is!

Mark Hunt

jp

I googled some info.

2002 fuel consumption (Cars, trucks, buses)= 167,730,000 gallons. Link

2004 US corn production: 73,632,000 acres harvested, 11,807,217 bushels. Link

11,807,217 bushels x 2.8 gallons/bushel= 33,060,207.6 gallons ethanol.

And no Freetos.

Every little bit helps.......right?

***Edited post***

Mark H

To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"

Mark Hunt

Associated Press


released this Link

I checked out your link Steve and had more fun reading the comments after the story. This one got me:

"The fastest and easiest would be bamboo, not only does it have a higher tensile strength than steel but it can be ready to extract in 3 - 5 years. I agree that big oil is scared their power struggle will end, they'll end the world before it happens though. So no, ethanol will not last and cold fusion will probably hit the backburner."

"Big Oil" is going to end the world?

Are there REALLY groups of people out there that believe this?

Mark H

To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"

Mike T., Swampeast MO

Farmers here in Swampeast Missouri and north through Iowa LOVE ethanol.

Big ethanol plant being built here in Cape Girardeau next year with at least two more in the general area.

S Ebels

Bad numbers there

Sumpin's messed up with those acre/bushel numbers. The way that reads, production would be about 1/6th of a bushel per acre.......73MM acres and about 12MM bushels..........Nope that can't be right. Most of the farmers around here will get 130-170 BUSHELS/ACRE and we're not even in the "corn belt". This year we had timely rainfall and a long growing season which allowed many of them to get in the neighborhood of 200.

EDIT: followed the link and the number for bushels is in Billions, not millions.

S Ebels

You found it Mark

There are a number of comments from people that are fully as crazy as that. It's difficult for me to comprehend that some folks actually believe that kind of tripe. Maybe their getting their news and info from the lady John Hall is all in a lather about. Keep reading them, the comments that is, more than a few are extremely entertaining!

S Ebels

JP

Corn was high for a couple years in the 80's due to a pretty severe drought condition in most of the corn belt states. Production was down by a significant percentage over the US. The issue today is that even with record crops, the price is way above long term average.

The farmers around here (mostly dairy) that have to buy feed for their herds are sweating big time. They're being bled out by a combination of low dairy prices, high fuel prices, rising electrical costs along with huge increases in the price of fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides. I have a lot of friends in that industry and they are hurting big time.

Mark Hunt

Yup


I thought it sounded low.

Went back and looked for MY screw up. Billions, not Millions.

My bad.

Mark H

To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"

scott w.

ethanol plant

A friend of mine does consulting work for ethanol plants being built in Minosota(sp)?. He said the plants are offering engineers 125K to 150K per year plus a 30K signing bonus. Shift managers 80K
Mentioned the secretary who started before the incorporation of the company that went public got stock. She is able to sell her stock in the next 18 months. She is planning to retire at that time. Stock is now worth nine million.

As they say in that neck of the woods "Don't cha know"

jp_2

odd system steve?

generally with all other industries, rising overhead means raising prices? don;t understand why the farmers don;t charge more? don't you charge more when your costs increase? I do.

running on ethanol doesn't make sense to me.

take all the cultivating, fertilizing, harvesting, cooking, distilling , then you end up with a fuel that does not have the energy as gasoline therefore you need more of it. also theres no vehicle on the road that can utilize ethanol to peek preformance. ethanol can run higher compression ratio than standard gasoline.

what we need, is to convert household garbage to fuel!

jp_2

I hear

I seem to keep hearing we use 400 million gallons of gas a day, way, way more than we could produce in ethanol or corn oil.

scrook_2

ethanol

Was an article in the NY Times yesterday (give or take a day) about the runup in corn prices associated w/ ethanol fuel productio. The shift to E10 gasoline (~10% ethanol) from MBTE and other nasty oxygenates/octane boosters, and potential demand for higher ethanol fuels, e.g. E85 due to federal insentives to use ethanol as an alternative energy source is driving ethanol plant construction and increased demand for corn.

hr

A plant is proposed in my town in Missouri

althgough their water consumption projection is concerning to the neighbors.

Mike, oddly enough our governor and his dad are buying up all the corn fields they can get their hands on, around here!

hot rod

To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"

Weezbo

i think that the farmers are getting smarter *~/:)

they are probably buying corn futures and have watched the way the commodities are able to be finally bought about to a better deal for them.

Ethanol is another thing. there are other means to make the By product than using the nations food supplies. the Archer Daniel middland plants have some strange way of stating the production of the plants. i wonder why the National Energy Reasearch Labs hold such a power over the development of the liscencing of new plants.

to me , it seems that somehow it is the civic duty of every American to turn thier reasearch over to them to determine whether or not to allow production...at least i think that is the take that NERL has on the subject.

to think we would hire the fox to watch the chicken coop somehow dosent seem all American.

Joannie_12

Big Scary Oil

I think it would be interesting to see the reaction of these types of people if Exxon-Mobil started manufacturing and distributing ethanol, because then the same people would have to be against "Big Ethanol."

S Ebels

Farm economy

The farmers live in a little different world. Their commodity prices, what they get paid that is, are set by the markets not by they themselves. The dairy guys around here have seen raw milk prices drop from around $20/cwt to less than $11. For most, their breakeven point is $14-16/cwt. Not very pretty in the farm economy around here right now.

ALH_4

farming

From economics, and growing up on a relatively large farm where we raised durum wheat, farmers are price takers. Nearly everyone else in business is a price searcher. The actual price of durum is much less now than it was 30 years ago. No raises there to adjust for inflation or rising costs. Where I am from, the dry-land farmers are not in very good shape, and haven't been for decades. Once you take out all the costs associated with raising a crop, you have to have a good year every year in order to keep your head above water. I feel it is terrible what has happened to the family farm. I might very well be on one right now if it was financially feasible and economics had not forced my entire family out of farming and into other occupations. Granted they could probably have been slightly better business people, but they were not alone. The cost of entry is staggering when just a tractor costs nearly a quarter million dollars.

Obviously, it is all very complicated when you start looking at subsidies, demand, surpluses, the world economy, and the politics of it all. Sorry, just felt like venting my personal frustrations. ;-)

-Andrew

Gene_3

big oil is

ruining the world, you as a local fuel oil company are not big oil.

When you start to look at facts you begin to wonder just what is going on.

Rudolph Diesel invented the diesel engine to run on nut oil, mostly hemp, hemp was a big ticket back then and even our founding fathers grew it.

He refused to be involved with big oil and wanted his engine to run on oil that farmers grew themselves.

Oil had gasoline, they worked it into #2 to run in his engine, see how things coms full circle????

Hemp was used for clothing, rope, paper, the nuts were food--Grool and is very high in nutrients and protein.

Big oil & Hearst didn't like it, Hearst wanted wanted to use the vast forests he owned to make paper for his newspapers = more profit for him.

He had his papers write stories about the evils of hemp, in fact suddenly every crime in the US was by someone on the evil weed and it was made illegal. Now we all know that most violent crime is by people who drink hard booze, not smoking pot.

Rudolph Diesel was found floating in the English Channel and big oil started calling #2 Diesel Fuel.

from wikpedia:

One theory in Diesel's death is that he died by suicide, possibly due to being deeply in debt. His family stated that he committed suicide because his invention was stolen and a cross in his journal on the date he died indicates suicide. Also, a briefcase containing a very small sum of money and a large amount of debt-ridden bank statements was left to his wife, Martha.

Another theory revolves around the German military, which was beginning to use his engines on their submarines. Diesel opposed this usage, and may have feared that his invention could wind up powering the British Royal Navy submarine fleet.

A third theory in the death of Diesel is based around the hope that his engine would provide power using alternative/cheaper/greener fuels. This revolutionary thinking may have scared some oil investors. Rudolf Diesel said, "The use of vegetable oils for engine fuels may seem insignificant today. But such oils may become in course of time as important as petroleum and the coal tar products of the present time." After his death, the Diesel engine was engineered to run only on petroleum based products and his great ideas of a clean burning engine died with him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Diesel


another sad fact is that big oil has and is getting our tax dollars in subsidies while they have not built a new refinery in this country to keep the supply and demand in extremely close check { they say they don't because of the environmental costs, but if that is true they sure don't need our subsides = corporate welfare

The problem is that we are the ones on the front line, the customer cannot talk to daddy bush or joe Exxon and they equate the local OIL company with big oil, and I'm sure we've all had to deal with that conversation more than once.

Gene_3

check out algae

algae can also be a source

from whai I've researched algae can produce @ 200 times the oil of any other plant in a given acre

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel


Algaculture
Main article: algaculture
From 1978 to 1996, the U.S. National Renewable Energy Laboratory experimented with using algae as a biodiesel source in the "Aquatic Species Program".[17] A recent paper from Michael Briggs, at the UNH Biodiesel Group, offers estimates for the realistic replacement of all vehicular fuel with biodiesel by utilizing algae that have a natural oil content greater than 50%, which Briggs suggests can be grown on algae ponds at wastewater treatment plants.[12] This oil-rich algae can then be extracted from the system and processed into biodiesel, with the dried remainder further reprocessed to create ethanol.

The production of algae to harvest oil for biodiesel has not yet been undertaken on a commercial scale, but feasibility studies have been conducted to arrive at the above yield estimate. In addition to its projected high yield, algaculture — unlike crop-based biofuels — does not entail a decrease in food production, since it requires neither farmland nor fresh water.

On May 11, 2006 the Aquaflow Bionomic Corporation in Marlborough, New Zealand announced that it had produced its first sample of bio-diesel fuel made from algae found in sewage ponds.[18] Unlike previous attempts, the algae was naturally grown in pond discharge from the Marlborough District Council's sewage treatment works. In November 2006, a commercial-scale project was announced in South Africa. Using American-made, closed bioreactors, it is expected to produce 900 millions gallons a year (58 thousand barrels a day) of biodiesel within a couple of years.[19]

Guy_6

Flatlander

I am not from any farm belt-where I am, a 25 acre field has always been huge to me. What I do see is the small family farms having to become a tourist attraction in order to survive. They BUY their "farm made" preserves for resale with plain paper labels, and the corn fields are mowed into mazes for the kids. They seem to be making it, but it is NOT their Grandfather's farming. Could we, as a country, survive on what we grow (Veggies, fruit, cattle feed?)
I would HOPE that eventually the American Farmer can prosper by having the market demand whatever he or she can grow, be it corn for oil or alcohol, or brussel sprouts for gas.

Gene_3

help the planet

increase customer base

burn bio diesel in your fleet and 5-10% in your equipment

lower CO2 emmisions down @78%

http://www.biodiesel.org/resources/faqs/

Can biodiesel help mitigate “global warming”?

A 1998 biodiesel lifecycle study, jointly sponsored by the US Department of Energy and the US Department of Agriculture, concluded biodiesel reduces net CO² emissions by 78 percent compared to petroleum diesel. This is due to biodiesel’s closed carbon cycle. The CO² released into the atmosphere when biodiesel is burned is recycled by growing plants, which are later processed into fuel..Is biodiesel safer than petroleum diesel? Scientific research confirms that biodiesel exhaust has a less harmful impact on human health than petroleum diesel fuel. Biodiesel emissions have decreased levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) and nitrited PAH compounds that have been identified as potential cancer causing compounds. Test results indicate PAH compounds were reduced by 75 to 85 percent, with the exception of benzo(a)anthracene, which was reduced by roughly 50 percent. Targeted nPAH compounds were also reduced dramatically with biodiesel fuel, with 2-nitrofluorene and 1-nitropyrene reduced by 90 percent, and the rest of the nPAH compounds reduced to only trace levels.

Perry_3

But not as much as you think

> increase customer base

>

> burn bio diesel in your

> fleet and 5-10% in your equipment

>

> lower CO2

> emmisions down

> @78%

>

> http://www.biodiesel.org/resources/faqs/

> Can biodiesel help mitigate “global

> warming”?

>

> A 1998 biodiesel lifecycle study,

> jointly sponsored by the US Department of Energy

> and the US Department of Agriculture, concluded

> biodiesel reduces net CO² emissions by 78 percent

> compared to petroleum diesel. This is due to

> biodiesel’s closed carbon cycle. The CO² released

> into the atmosphere when biodiesel is burned is

> recycled by growing plants, which are later

> processed into fuel..Is biodiesel safer than

> petroleum diesel? Scientific research confirms

> that biodiesel exhaust has a less harmful impact

> on human health than petroleum diesel fuel.

> Biodiesel emissions have decreased levels of

> polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) and

> nitrited PAH compounds that have been identified

> as potential cancer causing compounds. Test

> results indicate PAH compounds were reduced by 75

> to 85 percent, with the exception of

> benzo(a)anthracene, which was reduced by roughly

> 50 percent. Targeted nPAH compounds were also

> reduced dramatically with biodiesel fuel, with

> 2-nitrofluorene and 1-nitropyrene reduced by 90

> percent, and the rest of the nPAH compounds

> reduced to only trace levels.



One of the problems with such one sided analysis is that it fails to take into account what will be needed to make that biodiesel - of for those who want to divert existing "waste" biodiesel - what will be needed to replace the existing "waste" that is really being used in other products.

I am all for helping the planet - and doing things that make sense. But I would like to see an analysis on how much impact it will have to generate the biodiesel - not just a claim that if you burn refined biodiesel that it works better. Where does the refined biodiesel come from. I assure you that it is not just laying arround waiting for us to scoop up off of the ground.

One of the problems the pet food and some of the soap industry is now having is that they are having to replace with more expensive "new" product the resturant waste oils that they used. So the resturant gets more money for selling their waste fryer oil; and the petfood, or soap, company buys the equivelent new vegitable oil product - increasing the cost of pet food and soap (and potentially putting them out of business).

Explain where it will really come from with all cost; and then let us evaluate what is the best option.

Perry

Perry_3

But not as much as you think

One of the problems with such one sided analysis is that it fails to take into account what will be needed to make that biodiesel - of for those who want to divert existing "waste" biodiesel - what will be needed to replace the existing "waste" that is really being used in other products.

I am all for helping the planet - and doing things that make sense. But I would like to see an analysis on how much impact it will have to generate the biodiesel - not just a claim that if you burn refined biodiesel that it works better. Where does the refined biodiesel come from. I assure you that it is not just laying arround waiting for us to scoop up off of the ground.

One of the problems the pet food and some of the soap industry is now having is that they are having to replace with more expensive "new" product the resturant waste oils that they used. So the resturant gets more money for selling their waste fryer oil; and the petfood, or soap, company buys the equivelent new vegitable oil product - increasing the cost of pet food and soap (and potentially putting them out of business).

Explain where it will really come from with all cost; and then let us evaluate what is the best option.

Perry

S Ebels

Tell me if this is right

As I understand things, carbon is in a constant state of flux or phase change if you will. There is a carbon cycle where plants use it as CO2 and give off O2 as a result of photosynthesis. The plant stores the carbon in the form of growth such as leaves, branches, trunks and what not. When the plant dies or is harvested, the carbon is converted into another form such as hydro carbon or the type of carbon you burn in a wood stove. When those fuels are burned or oxidize in some manner the carbon is released again in the form of CO2 and the cycle repeats.

Now, if the hydrocarbon fuels we burn today were at one time vegetative life, one has to wonder just what the atmospheric CO2 level was like when all of that was growing. My point is that we are releasing CO2 that was once in the atmosphere before the plants sucked it up and stored it as pure carbon. It would seem that the burning of "fossil fuels" merely accelerates a process that occurs naturally in our world. It would also seem that a given amount of carbon in some form or another has always existed and there can be neither more or less now than there ever has been. Carbon can only change in the chemical form it is represented as. Gas, solid or liquid but still carbon.

What do you think? Am I totally off base on this?

Perry_3

You are right - but that is only part of the picture

Steve:

You get an "A" for seeing how the long term cycle works. The only question is "what is long term" (is it 100 years, 1000, years, 100,000 years, a million years?) and are we creating "short term" problems (100 years, 1000 years?).

The key issue is that we are buring carbon - and releasing it to the atmosphere on the order of 1000 times (or more) faster than what the "normal... natural" transmission of carbon is into the atmosphere from decaying vegitation and natural fires. Thus, mankind in the last 100 years or so has increased the CO2 level in the atmosphere.

But that is only part of the story - and how much have we increased it - really? The atmospheric CO2 level is not nearly high enough to account for all - or even most - of the coal and oil burned in the last 100 years. So where is the carbon going if it has not stayed as CO2.

Areas of little understanding is how else does the planet store and carbon. Coal and Petroleum was on storage medium (which we are releasing in a short period of time); but their are other ways the planet stores carbon - and the total effect of the oceans in this picture is not well understood (and some deposits that form at the bottom of the oceans).

Is it possible that the oceans can be absorbing most of what mankind has released in the last 100 years almost as fast as it is being released? Some scientist are seriously wondering - and people are looking to see how the carbon cycle really works. Many people know the "simple" cycle that is used to teach the principals of the carbon cycle. Almost all of the really serious scientist on the subject will tell you that their is a lot they don't understand - and it obviously is more complicated than the simple example most people know.

The only real conclusion that can be said falls along this line of reasoning:

Has mankind released CO2 into the atmosphere at very high historical rates. Yes.

Has it caused an increase in the atmospheric CO2. Yes.

How much of an increase over natural fluxuations. Unkonwn.

Can we account for all the carbon mankind has released to the atmosphere. No - not by a long shot.

Where is this carbon we can't account for going. Unknown - but current theories involve the ocean water.

How much is the increase from mankind - however much it is - causing global warming. Unkonwn. (keep in mind that the history of planitary temperatures make the last 5000 years look like a very stable pause of steadyness - and that none of the changes seen or predicted are outside of historical norms when looking at a 100,000 to million year timeframe).

Would it be a good thing for mankind to not increase CO2 beyond natural levels (whatever the natural levels may be). Yes.

What people really argue over - is how much of an affect we are really having. Opinions vary all over the board - and I don't think their is any real scientific concensous on it. There is scientific consensous on the fact that mankind is at least partially responsible for global warming.

Have a great day,

Perry