biofuel hoax

Seems to me that Iraq is right in the middle of the terrorism problem. May not have been home to the terrorist, or had anything to do with 9/11. It is convienently located, and Sadam wasn't a great, human leader, or honaring his previous inspection agreement. Just consider the number of daily suicide bombings in Iraq (you'd think they'd eventually run out of volunteers...). I think Iraq was chosen, because it divides the the middle east region in half, and most of the neighbors were agreeable to the invasion (or atleast not willing to jump in and save Sadam's butt).

There is always a lot of opposition to war, and it limits the level involvement. Here, the democrats are fight against war funding, want to cut and run. It's mostly a political move, election next year. Many of the other countries that have sent troops, have cut back or withdrawn altogether. Tony Blair just stepped down, kind of think the UK is about to step out of it too, but after last weeks London car bombs...

I don't know what specific intelligence the White House ignored before 9/11, that allowed it to happen, imagine there were dozen of similar type reports on the desk. How do you decide which are crediable, how clear a specific was the warning? If it were so simple, the terrorist would only need to advertise any such plot to cause panic and terror, whether they were prepared to carry the out or not. It's a lot easy to look back after the fact, and see how something might have been prevented (we get this at work too often, but people still get injured...). Personally, I wouldn't have believed it before it actually happend. 20 guys going to comercial aviation school, with the sole purpose of learning to crash a jet into a building. I might have been more concerned if the targets were nuclear power plants, oil refineries, chemical processing and storage...

that article seems to be something that the author just winged with little to no facts on the subject. There are a lot of holes in the argument, and it seems a little rediculous.

HarveyH42 said:

What a load of crap. Farms have been closing down for years because they can't sell crops. Biofuels would turn things around in many ways. There are a lot of rapid growth plants, that aren't of food interest, but would make great fuel. Farming for fuel wouldn't involve an special care of the crops, as it wouldn't matter what the product looked like, how ripe (or over ripe). No special harvesters (might help with the border issues, sorry mexico). Wouldn't have to seperate anything, different type plants could grow together in the same fields. Not much worr about pest, majority of the damage is cosmetic. Bacteria would be killed when the fuel is rendered. Farming without the hassles. Really don't see how this will effect the world food supply.

Carbon based fuels will polute just the same, don't think enviroment friendly applies here, except more plants, cleaner air...

Click to expand...

I fully agree! In Brazil, the government supplies anyone interested and with agricultural property, CASTOR OIL SEEDS. They also provide full instructions on how and when to plant, harvest etc. They then promise to buy the end product. Castor oil is not worth much for anything else, but as the name suggests, it produces LOTS of oil, extremely suitable for use in bio-diesel production. This way, no-one can complain that plants intended for food, will be used to produce fuel.

That is a problem we are already starting to have with ethanol. Corn futures are going through the roof and food producers are feeling the crunch.

Using non-food crops as fuel would be a great idea.

Here's a story about biofuel to cheer you up, doesn't produce much fuel per plant but the input energy is also low
https://www.smh.com.au/news/Nationa...el-tree-biofuel/2006/09/19/1158431695812.html

Oh, quit worrying about nuclear waste - it's being spread all over Iraq and Afghanistan (and Kosovo) in the form of depleted uranium munitions - far away from you.

Part of the current biofuel footprint is that most production methods are still based on standard energy sources of petroleum and coal. Burning biofuels will produce a smaller carbon footprint, but a much larger particulate footprint.

There is still one answer - the one that's fueled all life on this planet since the beginning - SOLAR. The amount of solar energy that hits this planet every day can supply the world's needs many times over. But at its best, it's an inherently decentralized energy supply and Big Energy is fighting it at every front...

It's all total BS what about the methane given off when it's grown?

Bio-fuels might sound nice but they're just too expensive.

If the government want to tax fuel then that's fine by me but if they're claiming it's a green tax they're lying otherwise they'd make bio diesel tax free.

There's too much BS about so-called climate change. I tend to stard to switch off as soon as someone starts talking about carbon footprints, trading and similar crap.

TheVictim said:

That is a problem we are already starting to have with ethanol. Corn futures are going through the roof and food producers are feeling the crunch.

Using non-food crops as fuel would be a great idea.

Click to expand...

IIRC the box they put corn flakes in costs more then the corn inside it. A $1 loaf of bread has 1 or 2 cents of wheat in it. I do not see a problem with the price of corn or wheat going double or triple in price. There is no reason for the consumer to see a increase. But I am sure that the corps that package the food will use it as an excuse to more the double their profits.

The price would have to go up by about a factor of 10 to make a real diff in the cost of food.

The exception would be meat and milk where the cost of feeding the animal comes into play. Even here the product processing and packaging is a major part of the cost so a doubling in the cost of milk or meat production does not require that the cost to the consumer double.

Stand by for a possibly better way...

2,5 dimethylfuran (DMF) can be made from reacting acids with fructose and glucose. It has an energy content almost as good as gas. Might be worth watching. But it probably doesn't mix well with lemonaid.

Sell those switchgrass futures.

It's like when the price paid for coffee doubles from a severe weather episode and there is much scare mongering in the press. They conviently forget to tell everyone that the coffee farmers are being paid a pitance for their work.

Super_voip said:

It's like when the price paid for coffee doubles from a severe weather episode and there is much scare mongering in the press. They conviently forget to tell everyone that the coffee farmers are being paid a pitance for their work.

Click to expand...

Didn't know Australia grew coffee. I started roasting coffee at home about a year ago, tried a bunch coffees from different countries. Don't recall seeing anything from there. I've got one plant in my backyard, only about a foot tall so far. Takes about three years to bare fruit, hope it survives...

We do grow some coffee, not as much as we import though. We use mech harvesters as wages too high for manual picking. We also grow tea and sugar and have vast vineyards. You can't beat Costa Rican coffee though.

I usually buy 5 pounds Costa Rican, and a pound of one or two others to see if there is anything interesting about them. Columbian Supremo is my second choice. I like strong, rich, coffee. I don't expect anything spectacular out of the plant in my yard, mostly likely won't even produce enough coffee to last a month. Just thought it would be a fun project. If it survives the winter, might put in a few more.

Guessing Australia doesn't export much coffee. Will look a little closer next time I buy, maybe I over looked it.

Hero999 said:

Bio-fuels might sound nice but they're just too expensive.

Click to expand...

No they aren't. I make biodiesel. The production of "bio-fuels" is not too expensive. It is very cheap.

I make biodiesel.

Click to expand...

How much do you pay for the vegetable oil? Is the price sustainable if everyone tapped your sources? Do you pay the road taxes?

mneary said:

How much do you pay for the vegetable oil? Is the price sustainable if everyone tapped your sources? Do you pay the road taxes?

Click to expand...

Everyone isn't going to tap my sources. That's not how it works. The goal is not to completely switch everyone to biodiesel. Commercial biodiesel production has been growing rapidly in the United States. Some other countries have been producing much more than the U.S. a while ago. The only "problem" with biodiesel is that it is not yet widely available. We're working on that. There are tons of commercial producers today. The largest facility in the U.S can produce 100 million gallons per year and that same company also has other facilities that produce 20 million gallons per year. The common biodiesel plant produces 10 to 20 million gallons per year and they are popping up all over. Biodiesel is not a concept. It's big, it's happening and it's affordable.

OK, what is the current price of vegetable oil? How does it compare to $99 / barrel crude?

If OPEC begins to lose market share to biofuels, what would they do?

There is no one price for vegetable oil. You can use all sorts of oils and fats. The price for vegetable oil depends on who you get it from, where they are located, and how much you buy. The deal you make can vary greatly. One existing price for new vegetable oil is $1.84 per gallon. I'm sure you can get it cheaper. That's new oil. You probably know that biodiesel can be made from used oils, which are much cheaper. At your $99/barrel that's $2.36/gallon for crude oil. There are many products that come out of crude oil and there are many products that can come out of vegetable oil as co-products of biodiesel. Did you know that Canada and Mexico are the largest oil suppliers for the U.S. by far? Why are you so concerned about the production cost? It's real and it's happening. I can go out right now and buy commercial biodiesel nearby for less money than diesel #2.