A $ 500,000 study paid for by the federal government and released Sunday concludes that biofuels made from corn residue releases 7 percent more greenhouse gasses than conventional gasoline.
There was more to the article but wanted to keep the post short.
There's a lot that's wrong with the bio fuel industry. Energy density and subsidies to keep them profitable are just the tip of the iceberg.
Can we invest in something self sustaining, ala Brazil, already?
The0retical wrote: Can we invest in something self sustaining, ala Brazil, already?
Just as soon as all the corrupt corporations, lobbyists, politicians and all the other benefactors of largess can make more money off a self-sustaining system...
Corn is a terrible source for fuel. It uses lots of resources for relatively little yield. The industry thrives because of subsidies.
More important to us - E85 is a great fuel for horsepower.
I work for a corn farmer.
I'll shut up now.
i don't really care about the greenouse gas aspect.
the subsidies are not really any different than the hundreds of thousands of other tax breaks that people from all walks of life qualify for and it keeps American farmers in business and working..
also, i have 2 cars that love them some E85.
Corn grows well in a large portion of the US. Sugarcane only grows well in a small portion of the US.
Didn't some Navy researchers publish just last week about producing fuel from the h2 and co2 in seawater? Not super efficient, but better scalability could mean that it will pair up well with the dumb wind farms to make the power from them useful.
What the hell is corn good for?
nicksta43 wrote: What the hell is corn good for?
The0retical wrote: There's a lot that's wrong with the bio fuel industry. Energy density and subsidies to keep them profitable are just the tip of the iceberg. Can we invest in something self sustaining, ala Brazil, already?
In addition to the problem of growing sugar cane in the US, don't forget a LOT of rainforest was (and is) taken down to grow sugar cane. Very much damed if you do, damed if you don't problem.
Honestly I don't have a problem with E-85 except the fact that it takes an insane amount of water to make one gallon.
Switchgrass
bigdaddylee82 wrote: Switchgrass
We've been 5 years from making that big time since the early 70's.
alfadriver wrote:The0retical wrote: There's a lot that's wrong with the bio fuel industry. Energy density and subsidies to keep them profitable are just the tip of the iceberg. Can we invest in something self sustaining, ala Brazil, already?In addition to the problem of growing sugar cane in the US, don't forget a LOT of rainforest was (and is) taken down to grow sugar cane. Very much damed if you do, damed if you don't problem.
And this rainforest land is spent after a few short years of production, unlike much of the midwest's excellent soils.
What is corn good for? Well, it is an excellent sweetener. It has high fructose concentrations, which the human tongue recognizes as sweetness. As a syrup, it is much more readily soluble in solutions than granular cane sugar. It is also the primary source of animal feed. Certainly not as glamorous as grass-fed meat, but it seems to have its merits, even if only financial.
iceracer wrote: A $ 500,000 study paid for by the federal government and released Sunday concludes that biofuels made from corn residue releases 7 percent more greenhouse gasses than conventional gasoline. There was more to the article but wanted to keep the post short.
How about a link to the story referenced?
E-85 (where I work) is required to be used if possible. Our fleet manager says that comparable vehicles will get 20-30% lower MPG using E-85 as opposed to regular old unleaded.
Then you factor in the subsidies we tax payers shell out to produce corn fuel and the worldwide spike in corn prices that has sent many in developing countries to the brink of starvation..... It's an ugly boondogle IMHO
I'd like to see more research going into fuel cells but to each their own I suppose.
nicksta43 wrote: What the hell is corn good for?
alfadriver wrote:The0retical wrote: There's a lot that's wrong with the bio fuel industry. Energy density and subsidies to keep them profitable are just the tip of the iceberg. Can we invest in something self sustaining, ala Brazil, already?In addition to the problem of growing sugar cane in the US, don't forget a LOT of rainforest was (and is) taken down to grow sugar cane. Very much damed if you do, damed if you don't problem.
Sugar cane is a very poor crop choice for the US. There are other options with a positive return unlike resource heavy corn which would be much better suited for the US.
I have the actual PDF of the study somewhere but the summary of the study is here: http://seattletimes.com/html/boeingaerospace/2003858756_boeingenergy30.html
For those with a short attention span, a bio reactor with the surface size of Maryland would provide enough bio fuel for the worlds aviation fleet in 2006 - 2007. That's before the advent of the newer super high efficiency engines.
That's very feasible with the advances in vertical alge farming available today. The problem is that they don't get nearly the type of breaks that industrial farms do which makes it very expensive to switch on the large scale needed.
Otherwise I agree that Brazil did rape the rainforest to gain energy independence. So it is a tricky situation.
In reply to nicksta43:
.jpg)
nicksta43 wrote: What the hell is corn good for?
all good things
In reply to nicksta43:
High Fructose Corn Syrup - pretty much any processed food or imitation food product.
oldtin wrote: In reply to nicksta43:
FTFY
Plus I have a corn allergy so I can't have anything corn or corn based with the exception of corn oil. So to me it's pert near useless. Well I forgot about corn whiskey, that's about all it's good for.
You'll need to log in to post.
