BioFuels: Boondoggle or Genius Strategy

[drewtam]

[This post is both tongue and cheek and serious]

Not all biofuels are created equal. Some consume more agricultural resources than others. Supposed soy bean based bio-diesel is more efficient with land and food than ethanol. But for the purposes of this theory, I will lump them together.

The USA has an astounding amount of natural resources: agriculture, iron, wood, and numerous other commodities. America is the breadbasket of the world. But we just don't have enough oil. OPEC is really able to squeeze us for the oil. But Biofuels has given us a weapon to fight back with. It basically allows us to remove vast quantities of food from the world market and supplement our oil needs from South America and others.

So think deeply about this economic war; would you rather go without gas for a month (walking to work and everywhere), or go without food for a month (i.e. starving to death). Rising corn and soy prices have put a shot across OPEC's bow. As our oil prices rise, their food prices rise. Oil may fuel the world, but food makes a world to fuel. The upper hand is in the Organization of the Food Exporting Counties.

[RaspberrySurprise]

Unfortunately high food prices cut both ways. Now if we start charging for grain on par with oil to foreign countries you might have something. Probably won't happen though, fairness and all that rot.

[Standing Wolf]

But we just don't have enough oil.

We have plenty of oil; unfortunately, we have far too many leftist extremists who want us to import oil from terrorist nations rather than drill our own.

[lupinus]

We have plenty of oil.  Conservative estimates put as at or ABOVE mid east oil deposits which largely have powered the world for a fairly long time, tapping into our deposits gets us by while other fuels come online and get practical.  Most just don't want an oil field in their backyard.  I think it would make a groovy stand for hunting, but thats just me I guess.

Getting more to the point though biofuel isn't a bad idea in itself, it's just not practical on all counts.  Biodiesel is practical as pretty much any diesel can run on the stuff with no or light modification.  However, gasoline engines can't run on strait biofuel.  It takes a lot of modification to get the vast majority of gasoline engines to run on strait or even high percentages of alcohol.  More flex fuel vehicles is a good strategy for newer cars (GM has a nice lineup for most of their models) but there are considerations.  One, most cars on the road aren't brand new and a lot of people don't buy brand new.  I've bought four cars, only one has even been from the 90's let alone brand new.  Also alcohol doesn't get as good gas mileage as it burns cooler so you need more of it to go a given distance.

But if we could get more fuel to 15% (about the max on your average gasoline engine), get more biodiesel out there for the diesel engines, and more E85 for the cars that can run it, and we would be on a start.  Also get away from this corn based crap.  Most corn doesn't have a whole lot of alcohol to produce unlike, say, sugar beets, sugar cane, sweet grasses, etc.  Higher sugar content means higher alcohol yield, corn just don't got it.

[HankB]

More than 10 years ago when I still lived there, Minnesota passed a law requiring gasoline to be "fortified" (I say "diluted") with ethanol.

This legislation was enacted largely through the efforts of state legislators who just happened to be recipients of some hefty campaign contributions from Archer-Daniels Midland, a large agribusiness and major producer of fuel ethanol.

Pure coincidence, of course. 

[wmenorr67]

"fortified" (I say "diluted") with ethanol.

So that is what I do when I drink large amounts of alcohol.

[Nitrogen]

We have plenty of oil.  Conservative estimates put as at or ABOVE mid east oil deposits which largely have powered the world for a fairly long time, tapping into our deposits gets us by while other fuels come online and get practical.  Most just don't want an oil field in their backyard.  I think it would make a groovy stand for hunting, but thats just me I guess.

Got some numbers on this?  Not to doubt you, but I had always "heard" (meaning it seemed to be common knowledge but I don't have numbers to back it up either) that our untapped oil reserves wouldn't amount to much.  I'd like to know more either way.

[RocketMan]

We have plenty of oil; unfortunately, we have far too many leftist extremists who want us to import oil from terrorist nations rather than drill our own.

We have plenty of oil.  Conservative estimates put as at or ABOVE mid east oil deposits which largely have powered the world for a fairly long time, tapping into our deposits gets us by while other fuels come online and get practical.

I'm with Nitrogen on this.  Our having plenty of oil is often stated, but stats and sources are never presented.  While this would not surprise me given the size of American territory, actual numbers and sources would be a good thing.

[lupinus]

http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news2.13s.html

That's one, I don't have a ton of links available for sharing.  But do a Google on that reserve if you want more info.

The US has a lot of oil between tar sands, oil shale, etc.  On top of that you have the gulf of Mexico.

We are not dependent on the Mideast because we lack oil, but because we don't want to drill on our own land.

[Gewehr98]

As a member of the farming community who sells surplus corn to the local ethanol distillery, I too, would like to see facts and figures.  I have plenty of my own, and our cows ain't starving, last I saw.   Even the local grocery stores backed down from their tirade about ethanol causing increases in fuel prices, once they figured out it takes diesel fuel (made from petroleum, who woulda thunk?) to move groceries around this country.   

As I've stated before, people won't really consider alternative energy sources until squeezed out of their comfort zones.  Then they'll still scream bloody murder, stating that their tax dollars shouldn't subsidize the research and development of said alternative energy sources, but they won't offer their own money to get us away from a petroleum economy that's been amortized nicely since John D. Rockefeller.  Of course, research and development costs nothing, don't you know...

[yesitsloaded]

As an engineering student working on a cert. in automotive design as well as a member of a farming family I think I have just a little bit of credibility on this. Biofuels are a PART of the solution. We must be good stewards of what we have been blessed with. Running the whole country on corn based ethanol is about as dumb if not dumber than running everything on petrol. I think something like nuclear power for 20%, corn ethanol for 10%, solar for 10%, wind for 10%, geothermal for 5%, hydroelectric for 15%, natural gas for 10%, and oil based fuels for the rest makes more sense than the eggs in one basket strategy. Combined with using sustainable resources and recycling we could easily be better to the environment as well as have plenty of fuel and "stuff". I also wish every city would burn their trash that isn't toxic and filter out all of the metals for sale as well as using the heat for steam power generation. Smoke can be filtered and separated. I know it would be expensive to set up in the beginning, but we are fighting a 12 billion dollar a month war right now so thats 144 billion a year. If we ever reach a solution in Iraq we could use the funds for five years. 12 B*12 months *5 years/50 states= 14.4BILLION per state. In five years we could be energy independent. That is just a rough example. The truth is we need to be less wasteful as a culture and save more and not spend so much on unnecessary garbage. I'm not knocking wealth or capitalism, I'm knocking wasteful behavior that will end up with  a whole generation of poor fat kids that have no real education because all they were taught was to pass standardized tests with standards so low I could have passed them when I was in 3rd grade. The next generation will not be able to sustain the level of wealth in this country because they will be chock full of learning but will not have any knowledge or wisdom. Teach a little critical thinking, punish kids for bad behavior, and teach proper conservation skills (like how to not spend your allowance on ice cream and iTunes). That is what will make this country great again. I am only 20 for crying out loud and saying that makes me feel old. I can read every book I pick up because I know how to read the English language, I can fix cars, play musical instruments, cast lead, fish, hunt, make things from wood, survive if I need to anywhere, and I did not learn one bit of that in a classroom. Society is broke kids, the ARMEDPOLITESOCIETY and the folks in it represent the last of a dying breed. Remember back when most kids went camping or made stuff instead of playing video games or other mindless dribble. Ok wow I think I just went on a rant.

[Firethorn]

I think something like nuclear power for 20%, corn ethanol for 10%, solar for 10%, wind for 10%, geothermal for 5%, hydroelectric for 15%, natural gas for 10%, and oil based fuels for the rest makes more sense than the eggs in one basket strategy.

The way things are going, oil based fuels will be priced out of economy fairly soon.  Another point - we need to differentiate between mobile power(IE cars) and static power(houses).  The needs are different.

20% nuclear(IE electric) - not bad.  Electric cars are reaching the point that a NYC taxi driver should be able to use one for the day without problem.  The 300 mile range thing.  Right now I'd be engaging in emergency measures to build new nuclear plants.  My goal, even if we make the DOE 'buy' their building, is one gigawatt a year.  Start with each design in the approved list that's approved but hasn't been built in the USA yet, to get the bugs worked out.  After those have been built, build any new prototypes that offer a significant chance of improved economy/efficiency/safety that reach the 'approved' level.  If no new candidates, build another of one of the ones that are demonstrating better performance.  Since the DOE isn't in the business of running power plants, auction them off after a 5 year shakedown or so.  Oh - and I'd build them with the mind of turning off the dirtiest coal plants.

15% hydroelectric - not the way we're going.  We're already maxed here.
10% corn ethanol - No way.  Cellulostic ethanol is a much better choice.  Don't forget biodiesel, possibly from algae farms out in the desert.
10% solar - As far as I'm concerned, we should be installing solar water heaters south of the Mason-Dixon left and right.  Cheap and efficient, with a realistic payback period.  Especially when compared to photovoltiacs.
10% wind - Not a bad goal, especially for many of the smaller towns out there.  A single turbine should more than power our little town.  Build the system right and we could still have power even if the service line from the coal plant gets knocked down .

Increasing recycling would be great, as would serious recovery of valuable metals and such from landfills.  Still, I figure it'll be a few years yet.  Pilot projects are in place.  Thermal Depolymerization is one process I've read about.

[richyoung]

[This post is both tongue and cheek and serious]

Not all biofuels are created equal. Some consume more agricultural resources than others. Supposed soy bean based bio-diesel is more efficient with land and food than ethanol. But for the purposes of this theory, I will lump them together.

The USA has an astounding amount of natural resources: agriculture, iron, wood, and numerous other commodities. America is the breadbasket of the world. But we just don't have enough oil. OPEC is really able to squeeze us for the oil. But Biofuels has given us a weapon to fight back with. It basically allows us to remove vast quantities of food from the world market and supplement our oil needs from South America and others.

So think deeply about this economic war; would you rather go without gas for a month (walking to work and everywhere), or go without food for a month (i.e. starving to death). Rising corn and soy prices have put a shot across OPEC's bow. As our oil prices rise, their food prices rise. Oil may fuel the world, but food makes a world to fuel. The upper hand is in the Organization of the Food Exporting Counties.

The energy invested/energy return on biofuels suck.  As to the part in red, we don't even KNOW how much oil we have:  only two tiny parts of Alaska have been explored - google "Gull Island" sometime.  It's enirely possible that there is more oil in Alaska than Saudi Arabia, and that's not including off-shore areas we refuse to drill, like the Santa Barbara channel and off Florida.  Add in oil shales, oil sands, liquifoed coal and natural gas, and there is NO, repeeat NO reason why, with a generous helping of nuke power, we couldn;t be energy self-sufficient in ten years.

[richyoung]

The following is a comparison between the three oil fields on the North Slope of Alaska which have been drilled into with numerous wells, tested, and proven. Prudhoe Bay can produce two (2) million barrels of oil every 24 hours for 20 to 40 years at artesian pressure. Imagine what the production of the Kuparuk and Gull Island fields could be.

Field            Pay Zone                                          Area of Field
                 (Average depth of oil pool)
Prudhoe       600 Ft. of pay zone                                   100 square miles
Kuparuk       300 Ft. of pay zone                                  Twice the size of Prudhoe
Gull Island  1,200 Ft. of pay zone                                At least four times the size of Prudhoe . . . (Estimates are that it is the richest oil field on the face of the earth.)
 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Then they'll still scream bloody murder, stating that their tax dollars shouldn't subsidize the research and development of said alternative energy sources, but they won't offer their own money to get us away from a petroleum economy that's been amortized nicely since John D. Rockefeller.  Of course, research and development costs nothing, don't you know...

Hell yeah we'll scream bloody murder whenever our tax dollars are being wasted on research and subsidies.  Neither are proper or legitimate functions of government.

Of course we won't offer our own money to get us away from a petroleum economy.  I have better things to do with my money.  If YOU want to develop new fuels or radically reinvent the economy, YOU should spend YOUR money to do it.  Keep your grubby fingers out of my wallet. 

Now, if ethanol or other biofuels held real promise, you would find plenty of people willing to put their own money up to develop the technology, just like Rockefeller and his ilk did back in the day.  The fact that FedGov had to intervene in order to make ethanol viable ought to tell you something.

No matter how much research I do, I can't shake the impression that ethanol is nothing more than a welfare scheme packaged up for proud midwesterners. 

[Gewehr98]

Sorry, HTG.  I only sell the corn to the distillers, and use it in my dual-fuel truck as I help out my family on their Angus beef ranches.  We're using former PIK acreage, and I'll let you Google that sometime.  (Hint, it was subsidized too, as is your moo juice and cheese...)

As for your tax dollars, thank you for my military pension.  I hope that doesn't torque you too much that a ethanol farmer getting some of your taxes.  Unwed syphilitic teenage mothers are getting some too, as are a bazillion other subsidized programs.  I know, I know, Ron Paul for Emperor!   

Jeebus, did Wooderson get reincarnated or what?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I don't have a problem with paying soldiers.  I do have a problem with welfare in all its various forms.  That includes farmers, syphilitic teens, deadbeats, and anyone else suckling at the public teat.

I live in farm country Indiana, and I see the ethanol propaganda everywhere.  It's going to save the country from those eeevil Saudis and make us all rich in the process.  How can you argue against that?  Go America!

But the reality has revealed itself to be a bit less exciting. 

First off, we don't get much of our oil from the middle east.  The vast majority of our fuel comes from North America.

Second, we couldn't produce enough corn ethanol to become energy independent even if we diverted all of our corn production into the stuff.  We could starve ourselves to death and still not affect the bottom line in places like Saudi Arabia.

Third, ethanol only works economically when the government pays for a goodly chunk of it.  Sure, there are plenty of other government subsidies out there.  But a subsidy is a subsidy, and none of 'em are good for the country at large.  Basic economics.

I'm sorry if I was snippy in my last post.  It's been a long day.  All of this ethanol fanboy crap really gets under my skin.  I'd like to think that we folks in flyover country had better sense than that.  But I guess in the end we're just like the rest.  As long as we get ours, who cares what it costs?

 

[Brad Johnson]

First off, we don't get much of our oil from the middle east.  The vast majority of our fuel comes from North America.

Guess again, skippy.  My Google-fu says imports account for about 60% of the crude oil used in the US.

Brad

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

First off, we don't get much of our oil from the middle east.  The vast majority of our fuel comes from North America.

Guess again, skippy.  My Google-fu says imports account for about 60% of the crude oil used in the US.

Brad

Guess again yourself, skippy.  My statement is correct.  We don't get much of our oil from the Middle East.  Far, far more of our oil comes from North America.

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbblpd_m.htm
We get 1.4B barrels per day from Saudi Arabia.  2.1B barrels per day from the Persian Gulf overall.  2.4B barrels from Canada.  1.4B from Mexico. 

Domestic production is 5.0B (http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_crpdn_adc_mbblpd_m.htm)

Do the math.  7.8 billion of barrels per day from North America (9.2 billion if you include Venezuela - not quite NA but darned close).  2.1B billion barrels per day from the Middle East.

[WayneConrad]

Last I heard, Ethanol is a net energy loss.  You use more oil fertilizing and distilling it than you save.  The actual reason we put ethanol in our gas is to bribe votes out of corn farmers and "green" voters.

I've seen this map flung about a lot, lately.  Claims the US holds a mere 2% of the remaining oil reserves:



Anyone know where this map came from?

[HankB]

Canada has a tremendous amount of oil in oil sands . . . but our government doesn't want that used, allegedly for environmental reasons. (There was a story a couple of weeks ago about government agencies - including DOD - being prohibited from using fuel recovered from Canadian oil sands.)

The USA has as much as 2,500 billion barrels of oil in oil shale . . . but that's off limits, again -allegedly - for environmental reasons. (The stuff is chemically different from most crude, and needs different processing than what you'd get from an ordinary refinery.)

Any petrochemical engineers here to set us straight?

[MillCreek]

The upper hand is in the Organization of the Food Exporting Counties.

Very presciently, Frederik Pohl wrote about this very issue in his novel Jem, published in 1979.  The world had divided into three political power blocs: exporters of petroleum, food and people.  They were referred to as the Greasies, the Foods and the Peeps. 

It was one of his better works.  I should dig it out and re-read it, along with Man Plus and his Heechee novels.

[Brad Johnson]

Guess again yourself, skippy.  My statement is correct.  We don't get much of our oil from the Middle East.  Far, far more of our oil comes from North America.

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbblpd_m.htm
We get 1.4B barrels per day from Saudi Arabia.  2.1B barrels per day from the Persian Gulf overall.  2.4B barrels from Canada.  1.4B from Mexico. 

Domestic production is 5.0B (http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_crpdn_adc_mbblpd_m.htm)

Do the math.  7.8 billion of barrels per day from North America (9.2 billion if you include Venezuela - not quite NA but darned close).  2.1B billion barrels per day from the Middle East.

You're right.  I am incorrect.  It isn't 60% as I was surmising.  It's actually higher.  Per the page you linked imports accounted for 66.97% of crude oil sourced by US refineries in March 2008.


Imports, Crude Oil by Sourch, March 2008 (Monthly by Thousand Barrels)
OPEC Nations
169,679

Non OPEC Nations
128,781

Total Crude Imports
298,160

Domestic Refinery Input, Crude Oil, March 2008 (Monthly by Thousand Barrels)
445,189

And the math says....

298,160 of the 445,189 barrels of crude processed in US refineries in March 2008 came from imports.

(298,160 / 445,189) x 100 = 66.97%

Do the math.  7.8 billion of barrels per day from North America (9.2 billion if you include Venezuela - not quite NA but darned close).  2.1B billion barrels per day from the Middle East.

"North America" does not equal "United States".  Those countries may be in North America but they are not "domestic".  All non-US sourced production is, by definition, an import.  Even from countries on the same continent.  My calculations reflect this.

And Venezuela (again according to the page you linked) is an OPEC affiliated country.  Why on earth even consider them for inclusion on the domestic source list, even if in passion mention?

*edited to correct for sourcing*

Brad

[Balog]

Guess again yourself, skippy.  My statement is correct.  We don't get much of our oil from the Middle East.  Far, far more of our oil comes from North America.

He never said it was domestic. He said it didn't come from the ME. He's right, and if you read what he actually said you'd know that.

[Brad Johnson]

Okay, I capitulate that the majority comes from North America.  However, that's about as precise as saying the majority of my income is from Lubbock, TX.  Is it technically accurate?  Yes.  But it is a gross generalization, conveniently leaving out a bunch of very important information and lacking in the context and detail needed to truly define my income sources.

Just because the crude comes from North America means exactly zip.  It's still an import.  It's still oil we are buying from somewhere else.  It's still money going out of this country for a resource we have more of, but can't or won't access because of bureaucratic, political, or environment restrictions.

Beating up on Middle East oil while conveniently leaving out all the other places we pay for crude is, at best, lying to yourself.  An import is an import is an import, no matter what continent it's from.

Brad