Jump to content

Biobutanol.


takeout

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 90
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

 

While biobutanol may solve the transportation and efficiency problems with ethanol, it still relies on a food crop for its feed stock.


Using corn to make ethanol has caused corn prices to surge, which in turn can push up the prices of other foods that rely on corn - like meat fed with corn meal or soda made with corn syrup.

 

 

That about sums it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

That about sums it up.

It was the parts about using other forms of cellulose that got me going.

 

cue lug with the obligatory "Bush/teh switchgrass!!!1!1 *sneaks out of forum*" post in 3... 2... 1...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
Yeah, yeah... "CNN" - I know.

Nothing wrong with quoting CNN. It's a valid news source, just like Fox News and MSNBC. That's an interesting find, BTW. I been wondering how much more valuable the farmland that is being sold for housing would be, if the farmers held out to produce ethanol. If this product is as good as this article suggests, that may be an irrelevant thought process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Nothing wrong with quoting CNN. It's a valid news source, just like Fox News and MSNBC. That's an interesting find, BTW. I been wondering how much more valuable the farmland that is being sold for housing would be, if the farmers held out to produce ethanol. If this product is as good as this article suggests, that may be an irrelevant thought process.

 

 

Fox News is not a valid news source.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Early, but intriguing:
http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/02/news/economy/biobutanol/index.htm?cnn=yes


Yeah, yeah... "CNN" - I know. Still, I'd love to hear what the engineering-inclined have to say.

What I find to be interesting is the enzyme. It is expensive to make.

 

I would bet that it would be made form some far removed derivative of a fossil fuel.

 

There is always a trade off. Comes from the basic laws of physics and economics.

 

I still say the planet Jupiter is the answer. We need more money for space travel so we can be a predator on the biggest planet in the solar system. We could rape and pillage that planet for centuries. Jupiter, an unignited star that possesses HUGE quantities of hydrogen and the natural gases methane, ethane, propane and butane. And let's not forget about the quantities of useable ammonia too. :thu: :thu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

:rolleyes:

 

It's sad that you apparently think it is a valid news source. I have never seen a single story reported on there that did not include hidden right wing editorializing and blatant misreporting of the facts. I do watch it a bit every week just to try to keep tabs on what they're doing. It's pretty hard to stomach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Personally, I disagree that it will cause other foods to go up. It will initially, but not in the long run. Corn can be grown almost anywhere---so some countries may try to crop more corn and benefit as well. The only downsize I really see is that corn is harsh on the soil. It pulls lots of nutrients. So, more fertilizers to be used. I think we need to really tackle alternative fuels. We need to be proactive about all this. I think Big Oil would do themselves a favor too if they tried helping with this. If they invest now, they'll reap later. Just my one cent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
It's sad that you apparently think it is a valid news source. I have never seen a single story reported on there that did not include hidden left wing editorializing and blatant misreporting of the facts. I do watch it a bit every week just to try to keep tabs on what they're doing. It's pretty hard to stomach.

It's hard to stomach for you because coming out of the NY Times fantasy land to reality can be quite traumatizing for some people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

It's sad that you apparently think it is a valid news source. I have never seen a single story reported on there that did not include hidden right wing editorializing and blatant misreporting of the facts. I do watch it a bit every week just to try to keep tabs on what they're doing. It's pretty hard to stomach.

 

What's sad is that you think that Fox News has the market cornered on editorializing and blatant misreporting. :idea:

C7

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The sad thing is that ethanol (Distilled from corn) is subsidized by our tax dollars. Otherwise it would cost more per gallon as an additive to an individual than it does now. It takes more energy to produce ethanol than the ethanol product produces.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

It's sad that you apparently think it is a valid news source. I have never seen a single story reported on there that did not include hidden right wing editorializing and blatant misreporting of the facts. I do watch it a bit every week just to try to keep tabs on what they're doing. It's pretty hard to stomach.

 

 

Not saying you are wrong, but many find the same to be the case with other 'credible' sources of news.

 

I think it comes down to one accepting the bias that matches their own.

 

Agreement is a fundamental ingredient to communication. As such people tend to lean toward communications they find agreeable and eschew those which do not. We could take our own relations as an example of this fact.

 

The irony in this is that SAYING you're right does not make one right. It only makes one steadfast in their belief in their own righteousness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

What's sad is that you think that Fox News has the market cornered on editorializing and blatant misreporting.
:idea:
C7

 

I don't think they've got the market cornered, but they are by far the most egregious offender of the major "news" channels, both in terms of degree and in consistency of their one-sidedness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
I don't think they've got the market cornered, but they are by far the most egregious offender of the major "news" channels, both in terms of degree and in consistency of their one-sidedness.

That's your opinion. The sad thing is your bias, since Takeout opened the thread by thinking he would get flamed for quoting a traditinally left news source (CNN). In my super-human sense of fairness, I suggested there was no problem with the validity of it, MSNBC (another notoriously left news channel with the exception of Scarborough) or Fox News. It seems to me you are the one who is blind to the meaning of fairness, and in typical liberal fashion believe that the more you tell a lie, the more it will be believed as truth. Your leftist propaganda has been exposed for what it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
I have a number of facts on the subject of fuels, alternative and otherwise that I will share if a few people express an interest in knowing.

I'd like to know. I posted on topic earlier in the thread and got liberally flamed for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

It's true that current corn-based ethanol takes more energy to produce than is gained from using as a fuel, but that difference is now almost negligible. With new methods and processes, it will quickly be producing a net energy gain. It is also true, however, that it would require an unfeasible (and environmentally disastrous) amount of land to produce enough corn-based ethanol to replace fossil fuels in vehicles.

 

There will be no silver bullet to prevent global warming, but many small steps can make a difference. Ethanol is a very promising way to at least reduce our fuel emissions until better alternative energy solutions become available. Cellulosic ethanol (made from grasses, the parts of corn that we don't use, weeds and other good stuff) is a great alternative, and the technology is coming along. Biodiesel from restaurant waste oil is also a great way for local communities to reduce waste, save money and reduce fossil fuel use all at the same time.

 

While it may seem counterintuitive, subsidies are much less effective at bringing positive change compared to a tax. All we need to do is develop and implement a fair and effective carbon tax, and firms will quickly figure out a way to cut emissions while helping out the bottom line!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

All we need to do is develop and implement a fair and effective carbon tax, and firms will quickly figure out a way to cut emissions while helping out the bottom line!

 

Booo tax!!!:mad:

 

Would you like to have the cost of a tax passed along to you on your cooling bill this summer? Is it fair to tax the holy {censored} out of a power producer, who will be forced to pass that cost on to consumers, some of whom already struggle to keep the heat on in the winter? You live in Santa Barbara, so you've never seen a $500 energy bill in January...

Even if they become compliant, guess who gets to pay for all that new technology they had to implement immediately instead of in phases? That's right. You and I do.

C7

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...