23 Jun 07
Originally posted by ChaswrayI'm just thinking that many farmers would be selling to fuel producers and there would be less farmers to produce food but i see your point of view also.
I'm curious as to why you feel that food crop producers would not be able to meet supply? Do you have any idea of the amount of food wasted in America today!? Over a ton and a half of food is wasted every second. So to address your other concern about them raising prices, perhaps if food was a bit more dear in price, we'd waste a bit less? After all Americans don't waste their plasma TVs, their SUVs, their Guicchi loafers or their Rolexs, do they?
24 Jun 07
Originally posted by ChaswrayWhat I was thinking was can the US afford not to at least have a crack at making that dent? With concerns about peak oil looming large on the horizon it would seem from my rudimentary understanding of using biomass for energy, at least you will have all that photosynthesis consuming CO2 and producing O2 which would be a handy kicker in the global warming redress.
One concern I do have is, can enough ethanol be produced to make any dent in our dependence on oil?
It seems Dubbya's not shy in putting a foot forward to signal that if the US could be less dependent on oil producing nations and more dependent on their own farmers then it has to be a good thing. For once I don't think anyone could agree with him more!
24 Jun 07
Originally posted by kmax87I agree, it's worth looking into. I just hope we don't spend billions of dollars and end up still kissing "big oil's ass"! Another area that will need addressed is what I understand to be a corrosive effect on engine parts by ethanol. If I've read correctly ethanol has a tendency to "attract" water? Maybe some of our more learned members have some insight on this?
What I was thinking was can the US afford not to at least have a crack at making that dent? With concerns about peak oil looming large on the horizon it would seem from my rudimentary understanding of using biomass for energy, at least you will have all that photosynthesis consuming CO2 and producing O2 which would be a handy kicker in the global warming redr ...[text shortened]... rmers then it has to be a good thing. For once I don't think anyone could agree with him more!
24 Jun 07
Originally posted by ChaswrayI can't speak from much experience with ethanol' but I do have a lot of experience with methanol and I would imagine both have similar tendencies to attract moisture.
I agree, it's worth looking into. I just hope we don't spend billions of dollars and end up still kissing "big oil's ass"! Another area that will need addressed is what I understand to be a corrosive effect on engine parts by ethanol. If I've read correctly ethanol has a tendency to "attract" water? Maybe some of our more learned members have some insight on this?
In a car, where it is constantly being consumed and replaced, I don't think moisture is going to be getting in. More likely in cars that sit for a while. Perhaps in gas station tanks etc.
Another thing about alcohol fuels is cylinder wash. Upper cylinder wear tends to be a bigger problem than with gas because the alcohol washes the oil off the cylinder walls. Though the modern ring stack is so much better than a couple decades ago that it is much less of a problem.
24 Jun 07
Originally posted by ChaswrayThere have been suggestions in Australia that adding ethanol to the mix would do this, but it is unclear if it is just bad press because it means the oil companies have to allow farmers into the act. Currently I think we run 10-15% ethanol blends for regular unleaded. Some of the peak motoring group associations like the NRMA have come out and declared that from their perspective adding ethanol to the mix should have no detrimental effects on engine wear.
Another area that will need addressed is what I understand to be a corrosive effect on engine parts by ethanol. If I've read correctly ethanol has a tendency to "attract" water? Maybe some of our more learned members have some insight on this?
If there is a compelling scientific/engineering reason why it should not be so, I would also be eager to hear from someone who has specific technical information on the issue.
24 Jun 07
Originally posted by MerkI think I also read somewhere that ethanol can not be pumped through a pipeline. I believe that was also because of the moisture problem? At the present time it can only be delivered through tank cars on railway or tank trucks. That would most likely result in higher costs.
I can't speak from much experience with ethanol' but I do have a lot of experience with methanol and I would imagine both have similar tendencies to attract moisture.
In a car, where it is constantly being consumed and replaced, I don't think moisture is going to be getting in. More likely in cars that sit for a while. Perhaps in gas station tanks etc.
...[text shortened]... ern ring stack is so much better than a couple decades ago that it is much less of a problem.
24 Jun 07
Originally posted by aardvarkhomeNo, it's field corn being turned into ethanol. The part/s of the corn that can be used for "food" are still available. Even though it's high fructose corn syrup which leads to health problems. It's also still able to be used for livestock feed after the ethanol is processed. Corn is not the only plant that can be used to process ethanol either.
What a wierd thread. The USA responds to increasing oil prices by consuming less oil? No, don't be silly, we'll turn food into oil.
So is this a good idea. If your a rich over fed westerner its a fine idea. If you're poor and starving in the third world its appalling
24 Jun 07
1 edit
Originally posted by kmax87You're talking about running a small percentage of ethanol. I'm talking about running ethanlol. Around here we can buy what's called E85. Its st least 85 percent ethanol. We've run a 10 percent minimum here for well over a decade. Adding a smal percentage is not the problem, nor will it fix the oil problem.
There have been suggestions in Australia that adding ethanol to the mix would do this, but it is unclear if it is just bad press because it means the oil companies have to allow farmers into the act. Currently I think we run 10-15% ethanol blends for regular unleaded. Some of the peak motoring group associations like the NRMA have come out and declared that f ...[text shortened]... I would also be eager to hear from someone who has specific technical information on the issue.
Alcohol fuels attract moisture. Ask anyone who runs them. It also washes down cylinders. Again, ask anyone who runs them. I will say again that atlinder wash will likely not be a major concern due to better oil control.
24 Jun 07
Originally posted by aardvarkhomeLet them eat cake!
What a wierd thread. The USA responds to increasing oil prices by consuming less oil? No, don't be silly, we'll turn food into oil.
So is this a good idea. If your a rich over fed westerner its a fine idea. If you're poor and starving in the third world its appalling
24 Jun 07
Originally posted by aardvarkhomeThen maybe you should grow some more food over there.
What a wierd thread. The USA responds to increasing oil prices by consuming less oil? No, don't be silly, we'll turn food into oil.
So is this a good idea. If your a rich over fed westerner its a fine idea. If you're poor and starving in the third world its appalling
25 Jun 07
Originally posted by aardvarkhomeLet me get this straight:
What a wierd thread. The USA responds to increasing oil prices by consuming less oil? No, don't be silly, we'll turn food into oil.
So is this a good idea. If your a rich over fed westerner its a fine idea. If you're poor and starving in the third world its appalling
You don't want the US to consume so much of the worlds oil.
So we try to produce bio fuels.
But that's bad because you will starve if we don't have enough grain to feed you.
Are you out of your ever lovin' mind? Grow your own food. Eat a bean. Drop dead. Who cares. WaWaWaWaWa! Before you grow anyfood, first grow some nads!Why is the US responsible for your caloric intake? Do you grow anything i can have for FREE?
25 Jun 07
Originally posted by smw6869Let me tell you straight.
Let me get this straight:
You don't want the US to consume so much of the worlds oil.
So we try to produce bio fuels.
But that's bad because you will starve if we don't have enough grain to feed you.
Are you out of your ever lovin' mind? Grow your own food. Eat a bean. Drop dead. Who cares. WaWaWaWaWa! Before you grow anyfood, first grow some nads!Why is the US responsible for your caloric intake? Do you grow anything i can have for FREE?
The obvious response to energy shortages is to use less energy. An obvious place to start would be to introduce energy efficient technologies. The next item on the agenda would be to make lifestyle changes to reduce demand; use public transport, walk, cycle, drive a small car, turn the airconditioning down, or off,; the list could go on.
You don't produce the food I eat. I live in the UK, we export wheat and barley while importing soya and maize, so on balance we're close to being self sufficent. Its not a US vs The Rest issue. Its a Rich vs Poor issue and I'm one of the world's rich just like you.
The bushel price for maize has doubled within the last year as production is diverted to biofuel. The world wheat price is at a 10 year high due to harvest failiure in Austrailia and news of drought in the Ukraine.
Please don't run away with the idea that the US feeds the world, it doesn't.
I wanted to pose the question, if food is converted to energy for the rich west, who pays. The answer is that the world's poorest will pay. If we can afford to buy food commodities and burn them, the poor will be priced out of the market. If your happy to starve people so you can drive an SUV you'll be called greedy. If your country does it as policy your country will be called greedy. Live with it, lots of people in the world will think your greedy.
25 Jun 07
Originally posted by smw6869Clear the Amazon; plant corn for SUVs. Poor people might starve, but at last people* are getting to the point where they can admit they really just don't care.
I'm just thinking that many farmers would be selling to fuel producers and there would be less farmers to produce food but i see your point of view also.
*the poor are not people