330 MPG For Under $20,000!!

[RandomGuy]

I beg to differ on that. As a farmer i've seen all sorts of different stories going back and forth on Biodiesel and ethanol. I've seen formula's where it says it costs 10 cents a bushel to combine the beans. Any farmer knows that's its about a gallon an acre and beans can run 30-75 bushels an acre. I've also seen formulas that say it costs farmers $500 an acre to grow corn. Round here in northern corn belt its roughtly $300 for near 200 bushel yields. The bottom line is that most of those stories are spun. I dont know what the plants use to convert but i do know the growing part is entirely bull . Do your numbers relfect the soybean meal after processing the beans? Probably not, You go right on ahead eating your cheap food and pointing that biodiesel is too high and not thinking about that. A 10,000 gallan tanker jacknifed a few years ago into a river in Montana and spilled completely out. The quickly washed the dielsel into the river and it was a quite story. Did they get a huge EPA fine/penalty/liberal bashing? No, it was biodiesel and it was completely hamless to the enviroment, unlike cancer causing petroleum. Was that factored into those figures? The soybean has many more uses even after its processed. Canola is another one that may usurp beans as a better biodiesel ingredient. Most of Europe and Brazil i've heard has been using biodeisel for a huge population for quite some time.

I challenge. I like that. Stay tuned, and I will provide some supporting data.

[RandomGuy]

A well researched study by the world energy congress:
PDF file of Tranport and Energy demand in the Developing World

Another study by the C.V. Center for Applied Economics
PSF file of "Income's Effect on Car and Vehicle Ownership: Worldwide 1965-2015"

Both of these studies offer data on vehicles per capita in Europe and the United States. Note the higher vehicles per capita in the US.

PDF file of a Montana Department of Transportaion study of biodiesel. It is a good primer on it.

It does list an interesting tidbit: Diesel fuel consumed in the US in 2001 30,800M gallons. Biodeisel produced in the US in 2001 35M gallons.

Good thing about biodiesel is that it is less polluting by most factors than petroleum-based diesel. That still makes it dirtier than gasoline.
Read the data from the Montana study and plug that into what the American Lung Association has to say about diesel fuel.

Normal diesel engines produce about 100 time more sooty exhaust than a comparable gasoline engine. The Montana study says that AT BEST biodeisel can reduce 30% of the particulate exhaust, making it 70 times more polluting than gasoline.

[RandomGuy]

From the above two studies we can see that biodiesel production in the United States would have to expand by a factor of 880 times to simply replace oil-based diesel, let alone gasoline.

Without doing further searching it is probably a safe bet that the US uses at least as much gasoline as diesel, so let's put the ramp-up figure at 2000 times.

Where will we grow the crops that will produce 2000 times more biodiesel?

How much water will it use?

Answer me this final bit about biodiesel:

If we completely switched over to biodiesel, how much more air pollution would our primarily vehicle transportation networked cities have?

Biodiesel should be part of a mix, but don't hang your hopes in its ability to meet our fuel/energy needs over the long term.

[scott]

On the label of every bulk oil barrell it says may cause cancer on the side, look at the labels of petroleum based stuff.

Do a google for diesel skin cancer. There's an assload of it. Its more carcinogenic then ciggarette smoke.

People who work alot with liquid diesel or gas are at risk too, its not just from the exhaust.


http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts123.html

How likely are total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) to cause cancer?

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has determined that one TPH compound (benzene) is carcinogenic to humans. IARC has determined that other TPH compounds (benzo[a]pyrene and gasoline) are probably and possibly carcinogenic to humans. Most of the other TPH compounds are considered not to be classifiable by IARC.

So.. you have Benzene, the only carcinogen I know of as well (and of course Benzene is sometimes used as a gasoline additive). I don't think that justifies the statement "cancer causing petroleum."

[scott]

Without doing further searching it is probably a safe bet that the US uses at least as much gasoline as diesel, so let's put the ramp-up figure at 2000 times.

Gasoline demand is about 2:1 that of distillate fuel oil demand, and on-road only makes up a portion of that (with heating oil big the other large component of distillate demand). A general rule of thumb is a 4:1 in gasoline vs. on-road diesel for demand.

[Clandestino]

dan, i don't think your tin foil hat would fit in that "car"/three wheeler

[sickdsm]

So.. you have Benzene, the only carcinogen I know of as well (and of course Benzene is sometimes used as a gasoline additive). I don't think that justifies the statement "cancer causing petroleum."

Even though gasoline is possibley carcinogenic, diesel is. I guess a better statement would have been cancer causing diesel.

[sickdsm]

From the above two studies we can see that biodiesel production in the United States would have to expand by a factor of 880 times to simply replace oil-based diesel, let alone gasoline.

Without doing further searching it is probably a safe bet that the US uses at least as much gasoline as diesel, so let's put the ramp-up figure at 2000 times.

Where will we grow the crops that will produce 2000 times more biodiesel?

How much water will it use?

Answer me this final bit about biodiesel:

If we completely switched over to biodiesel, how much more air pollution would our primarily vehicle transportation networked cities have?

Biodiesel should be part of a mix, but don't hang your hopes in its ability to meet our fuel/energy needs over the long term.

Ahhh, people said the same thing about corn production for the ethanol demand decades ago. If the demand is there, farmers can produce it. You underestimate the agri-business. Severe droughts in illinois and indiana produced over 120 bu corn yields, where not too long ago that was exceptional. Roundup beans have been pushing farther in farther west towards the rocky mountains. No till, no fuss, no work, on ground that was previosly cattle pasture. You obviously aren't aware of Matto Grosso in Brazil, whether its wrong or right the rain forest is being demolished for bean acres. They are able to double crop corn and beans but the problem is the transportation system. If/when they develop roads, you won't be worrying about the bushels, trust me.


Like ANY/EVERY alternative energy, it isn't going to happan overnight, why do you assume it has do with biodiesel?

[Spurminator]

Yo, sickdsm...

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=38209

[sickdsm]

I'm sorry though, i didn't read any of your links, i don't have time, but looking at your summary it appears your basing your argument on the amount of biodiesel needed. That seems a skewed thought because to replace the biodiesel in diesel fleets at the current rate means paying more per gallon (although fleet managers that have done it have sworn they've come out ahead due to the higher lubricity and less overhaul/service done on the engines) and also doing it to dozens/hundreds/thousands of fuel tanks at a time.

Whereas to buy a VW jetta diesel and filling it up with bio at the pump is alot more achievable to a single family.

[Nbadan]

Gallup Surprise: Most Americans Now Say They May Buy Hybrid Cars

NEW YORK A Gallup poll released today shows that nearly half of all Americans have cut back "significantly" on their driving due to high gas prices--and in a surprise, 57% say they will consider buying a hybrid car when replacing their current vehicle.

About half of Americans report economizing in general in order to compensate for the increase in gas prices over the past year.

Those favoring hybrids show little gender or regional differences, but "hybrids appeal much more to younger and middle-aged Americans than to seniors," Gallup reports. Upper-income Americans are slightly more likely than lower-income Americans (62% vs. 55%) to say they would seriously consider buying a hybrid when purchasing their next car.

According to the poll, 48% say they have cut back significantly on the amount they drive and 54% says they have reduced their household spending on other items because of high gas prices.

Gallup

Somebody call Ford and GM.

[RandomGuy]

I'm sorry though, i didn't read any of your links, i don't have time, but looking at your summary it appears your basing your argument on the amount of biodiesel needed. That seems a skewed thought because to replace the biodiesel in diesel fleets at the current rate means paying more per gallon (although fleet managers that have done it have sworn they've come out ahead due to the higher lubricity and less overhaul/service done on the engines) and also doing it to dozens/hundreds/thousands of fuel tanks at a time.

Whereas to buy a VW jetta diesel and filling it up with bio at the pump is alot more achievable to a single family.

I base my arguments that biodeisel (or any other crop-based fuel) is not feasible in the long run on several things:

1)The amount of arable land available is limited. Yes agribusiness in the US can crank out large amounts of crops, but I highly doubt that we could replace gasoline entirely with either ethanol or biodiesel and still have the same number of cars or combustion-engine miles driven.

2) Water, the ultimate limiting factor. Agriculture in the US consumes more water than is used for all other purposes, such as flushing toilets or bathing. If you want to prove to me that crop-based fuels will be where humanity will turn when oil gets REALLY expensive, show me where we will get the water for the TRILLIONS of tons of extra plant mass you want to produce for this fuel.
Your turn to provide some proof.

for biodeisel exclusively:
3) Biodeisel will NEVER replace gasoline in ANY sane scenario. As the simple data I found and presented shows, that would increase particlulate matter (soot aka SMOG) by a factor of 70 times for each gasoline engine it replaced.

We could simply switch a lot of current crop production from sugar to using that sugar for fuel, and make vehicles more efficient. We will have to accept higher food prices as the demand for sugar-based fuels adds to the demand for sugar in foods. , a $20 donut might actually be GOOD for a chronically overweight country like the US.

BUT

Simple physics precludes corn-based ethanol from ever replacing ANY fuel. It takes more energy to plant, care for, harvest, transport, and process than you get in the end. Cane-based sugar is something else entirely, and I have no data on that, but it is safe to assume that the NET energy out of that isn't that much better. It may be slightly positive, but I really really doubt it could even come CLOSE to providing the energy requirements of our civilisation.

[RandomGuy]

I'm sorry though, i didn't read any of your links, i don't have time, but looking at your summary it appears your basing your argument on the amount of biodiesel needed. That seems a skewed thought because to replace the biodiesel in diesel fleets at the current rate means paying more per gallon (although fleet managers that have done it have sworn they've come out ahead due to the higher lubricity and less overhaul/service done on the engines) and also doing it to dozens/hundreds/thousands of fuel tanks at a time.

Whereas to buy a VW jetta diesel and filling it up with bio at the pump is alot more achievable to a single family.

As for it seeming skewed how so?

You say that biodeisel will solve everything and have NO data to back it up.

I say that biodeisel isn't as great as you think it is, and I provided quite a bit of data and a lot of sound arguments based on that data.

Our civilization uses more energy than can be feasibly had by using crop-based fuels for transportation, and simple thermodynamics can back that up, even ignoring the issue of water. You can argue with a lot of things, but physics ain't one of 'em.

[scott]

Don't forget the difficulties of transporting ethanol. It can't be blended with gasoline at a refinery to travel through a pipeline because of its affinity for water. It needs to be trucked or sent by railcar. There are huge compe ive disadvantages for ethanol just from the logistics alone.

[RandomGuy]

Gallup Surprise: Most Americans Now Say They May Buy Hybrid Cars



Gallup

Somebody call Ford and GM.

GMC is in for a rude shock. Ford will be saved by the R & D that Henry's grandson pumped into hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and other such things before stepping down as CEO.

Wait until gas costs $5 a gallon. I estimate that this will happen by 2013, and will double again in a bit under five or six years, making $10 a gallon the norm before 2020.

The US economy will become more energy efficient because it will be too expensive not to be, but standards of living are going to take a big hit as the cost of energy goes up.

It sucks, but that is what my take on the situation will be.

[RandomGuy]

Don't forget the difficulties of transporting ethanol. It can't be blended with gasoline at a refinery to travel through a pipeline because of its affinity for water. It needs to be trucked or sent by railcar. There are huge compe ive disadvantages for ethanol just from the logistics alone.

Yup. It always comes down to physics. Return on invested energy, baby.

Middle East oil 30+ remember fossil fuel quality varies
Tar sands 1.5
Hydro power 45
Coal 25 according to accessibility (suspect figure)
Nuclear 5 – 20 according to assumptions (suspect figure)
Wind 4 – 10
Solar 5
Corn methanol negative therefore, subsidised by the crazy US government!

diminishing returns

In any human activity, there tends to be what is often referred to as the Law of Diminishing Returns. This means that for any activity, the first part of the process produces the greatest profits or advantages. For example, when a successful oil well is sunk, the oil gushes up under considerable pressure. As the oil reservoir depletes, so more energy has to be applied to extracting what remains. And this energy amount increases as the depletion grows.

It is normal, in human behaviour, to go go for the easier and cheaper returns first. Hence, the easily extracted oil in the Middle East will tend to be at a premium relative to the deep-sea returns from the North Sea, or the heavier oils in Venezuela.

In general, the oil and gas will be extracted before the coal and tar sands. [6] When it comes to any particular resource, such as coal, the easier fields will be exploited first.

Read this dammit!!!

[Clandestino]

did nba dan ever say what kind of vehicles his family owned?

[RandomGuy]

Don't get me wrong on this.

I think that crop-based fuels will indeed play a part in our future energy supply, and quite possibly a big part.

BUT

They are far from able to supply our civilisation with its current energy needs, let alone our future (larger) energy needs.

Renewables, like crop-based fuels will have to shoulder an increasingly large portion of the burden of supply.