 
Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard
Post Number: 5204
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, February 16, 2008 - 11:06 am: |    |
Gotta love seeing all the penis envy going on in Detroit against those who are better off...
Turn the clock back a few decades... Detroit was the oil industry then, overcharging the auto-buying public for their overpriced (and not so hot, really) vehicles designed with planned obsolescence in mind. And of course, hundreds of thousands of Detroiters shared in those excess profits then. Basic Economics 101...
Tough that those heady times couldn't continue. Once competition took hold, Detroit lost out to the rest of the country and the world because of Detroit's hanging onto its Soviet-era view and entitlement mindset of business and industry. |
Umcs
Member
Username: Umcs
Post Number: 473
Registered: 06-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, February 16, 2008 - 11:31 am: | |
LY,
You never cease to crack me up. |
3rdworldcity
Member
Username: 3rdworldcity
Post Number: 1020
Registered: 01-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, February 16, 2008 - 11:42 am: | |
Good question, Professor. Especially if one believes oil is a "finite" resource (as I do w/ explanation below.)
UMCS has partially answered your question I think.
Write off bio-fuels, as I stated above, which is also becoming the enlightened view of most scientists who can spell "environment."
The answer is the increased development and use of "renewable" fuels, as pointed out by Umcs. They included wind, geothermal, solar photovolaics, concentrated solar power, and ocean power. The best of course, although not strictly a "renewable," is nuclear power.
Is France so much smarter than we are? YES. Fifty percent of its electricity is generated by nuclear. It'll never happen here because the treehuggers will prevent it. NIMBY. The politicians will bow to the demands of the coal industry, its unions, and the Sierra Club (of which I'm a long time member, just for laughs the last few years. What's-his-name Pope, the Sierra Club director, makes over $600,000 a year raising huge amounts of money promoting bogus environmental trends and exerting heavy political power. It has drifted afar from its original mission when I joined.)
One of the nest areas for sustained winds is in the ocean off Nantucket Island. A huge project was promoted there, about 5 miles offshore) but was prevented by the politically well connected residents, includeing Ted Knnedy. (It probably would not have been built anyway because the economics were so tight.) Farmers in Kansas and Nebraska have bended together in many high wind areas to prevent the construction of windfarms because they would be in their opinion be visually ugly and would kill a lot of birds.
People in this country will get just what they deserve, just as do Detroit voters who always elect incompetents to lead them.
In 20 years the U.S. will be a second or third rate economic power, the world's most indebted nation, but we'll lead the f____g planet in the number of snail darters and spotted owls.
And, Professor, oil is finite as you state. There has been a lot of discussion on this forum on similar threads touching on the peak oil theory. Oil will peak. It's just a question of when. In the meantime, there have been many studies of the potential oil producing basins above the Arctic circle, AKs North Slope being one of them. When I got into the oil business in 1963 I recall that Mobil Oil drilled a well on perpetually ice locked Baffin Island. It flowed oil on a 50% chock at the rate of 15,000 bbls per day before it was plugged and abandoned; no way to get the oil to market although there was much discussion about using nuclear powered submarine tankers to go below the ice cap. Now, the ice is melting and there is a three month period during which there is an "arctic passage" by which ship can traverse the across the Arctic Ocean.
This area will be the next political hotspot. Russia has staked its claim to vast areas of the arctic by planting its flag on the ocean floor, based on its geologic interpretation of the location of the continental self opposite its ocean boundries. It cites the Law of The Sea Treaty to justify its land grab. Canada has basically said it would fight to the death Russia's attempt to dominate the area. The U.S. is not a signatory to the Treaty. Most oil people claim the ara holds vast reserves of oil and gas. So do I. The cost of development will be high but the world is addicted to the stuff so it probably doesn't matter.
The U.S. has in 4 western states more oil than all the OPEC countries combined. It's in the form of kerogen, a waxy substance locked in oil shale, which can be strip mined. Canada's doing it with its tar sands and exporting about 2 million bbls a day to the U.S. Thank God. Think the environmentalist would ever permit us to become energy independent? Hell no. Strip mining would probably upset some kind of gnat or something. |
Umcs
Member
Username: Umcs
Post Number: 474
Registered: 06-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, February 16, 2008 - 12:02 pm: | |
3rdworldcity,
Actually, I don't write off biofuels at all. I write off ethanol based on food crops. Biofuels with other potential feedstock is entirely feasible in the future. We just need to keep working towards it.
However, any discussion of alternative energy production here in Michigan is moot 3rdworldcity.
Most projects require at minimum, tens of millions of dollars. Where is a startup company with a good business model going to get tens of millions of dollars in Michigan? We don't get the venture capital, the banks are too conservative in lending, and we don't have a homegrown system in Michigan of promoting residents to invest in local companies.
If you have $50 million sitting around right now, I know people who already have feasible projects ready to go. There is no interest however, by investors or banks in funding the setup of alternative energy providers in Michigan unless it involves a JV with a major company like John Deere or GE. |
Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard
Post Number: 5205
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, February 16, 2008 - 12:42 pm: | |
quote:Isn't that the first law of conservation of energy?"
Conservation of energy is the first law of thermodynamics in an isolated, Newtonian-view system. |
D_mcc
Member
Username: D_mcc
Post Number: 249
Registered: 12-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, February 16, 2008 - 1:00 pm: | |
Strip mining is one of the most environmentally damaging mining practices in the world. 3rdWorld, I think you are a moron with dollar signs as an ulterior motive. Its clear that you have a vested interest in the oil industry, so clearly your views are biased.
Saying "treehuggers" will not allow Nuclear Plants..actually, most in the green movement advocate the shift towards nuclear power based on the sustainable nature of the fuel used for fission.
Oil is not the answer, clearly, even if the earth is in a natural warming period, to say that man has not effected it through manipulation of the environment is absurd and clearly an unintelligent view. |
3rdworldcity
Member
Username: 3rdworldcity
Post Number: 1021
Registered: 01-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, February 16, 2008 - 1:03 pm: | |
Umcs: Apparently you don't believe the weight of scientific evidence predicting that bio-fuels require more energy to produce than they generate as fuel, and are very bad for the environment (GHGs.) That's OK. In fact, the more people who agree with you and cause our resources to be wasted on the stuff, the better it is for my oil and gas production businesses. |
Urbanoutdoors
Member
Username: Urbanoutdoors
Post Number: 746
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, February 16, 2008 - 1:08 pm: | |
http://www.worldchanging.com/a rchives/007800.html
I thought this might shed some light on the debate. From my building greener cars is the answer or is it.... forum from the beginning of the month. |
Umcs
Member
Username: Umcs
Post Number: 475
Registered: 06-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, February 16, 2008 - 1:24 pm: | |
That's okay 3rdworldcity. I've seen the citations for the "weight" of scientific evidence and it's based on corn-based ethanol production in most cases and seems to ignore the propensity for increased technological advancements. The arguments that a field of study regarding the practical application of science should be abandoned now doesn't really lead to innovation which you preach. Ah that's right, you're best at being snarky with people who disagree with you.
As an aside, I've never stated current ethanol production methods are viable. You seem to miss that point in most of your arguments against the industry. Keep in mind, oil and gas, during its infancy, was not as cost effective as distilled alcohol or even wood (hence the steam-powered automobile?).
As for my mineral rights that you're pumping from, feel free to keep paying me for the oil and gas. I'll allow farmers to grow switchgrass on top of your wells when they tap out.
Is this a snarky enough response for your overly arrogant reply to my correction of what you pass off as my position on biofuels? |
3rdworldcity
Member
Username: 3rdworldcity
Post Number: 1023
Registered: 01-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, February 16, 2008 - 1:47 pm: | |
Don't call me snarky, whatever that means. Or do. I could care less. Just don't misrepresent what I say in my posts. You seem to have a comprehension problem.
So don't agree with SCIENCE magazine and the many other studies that contradict your views. Maybe you're smarter than all of them for all I know.
And where did I misrepresent your views on bio-fuels? I could care as little about your views as you care about mine. Why would I want to misrepresent yours? People on here can judge these things for themselves and seek additional information, as I have done frequently, and which you apparently haven't.
Didn't you comprehend what the studies (plural) say about switchgrass production? Do you care, since they contradict your views?
By the way, your understanding of the early history of the oil business is as deficient as your views on bio-fuels in general.
You should be so lucky as to own mineral rights. I own abut 8000 acres of mineral leases and the surface owners have historically grown cotton and wheat. Several are switching to corn for ethanol use because the subsidies are higher. Guess what that's going to do for the price of food and clothing as more and more farmers are doing that. |
Umcs
Member
Username: Umcs
Post Number: 477
Registered: 06-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, February 16, 2008 - 2:09 pm: | |
"UMCS has partially answered your question I think.
Write off bio-fuels, as I stated above, which is also becoming the enlightened view of most scientists who can spell "environment."
The answer is the increased development and use of "renewable" fuels, as pointed out by Umcs."
I was pointing out current deficiencies in production methods. You extrapolated that further for your own purposes.
I also cited a study prepared by the Royal Society regarding those deficiencies in the biofuel industry, as opposed to the most commonly cited study conducted by the Nature Conservancy.
You also have misrepresented the scope of those studies. There have been -2- studies regarding biofuels that have led to the current criticism of the industry. That is not a "great scientifc weight." In fact, most articles recently published that criticize the biofuel industry cite to those two studies. They will on occassion, cite to other, past studies that are not current in their analysis.
Additionally, the two studies provided as a reference for most articles discuss the carbon equivalency of biofuels versus oil. The study by Nature Conservancy ignored the inputs to oil refining such as exploration, drilling, extraction, refining, and final distribution. It compares apples to oranges.
The studies also analyze switchgrass based on current technologies but in the UK study, it is far less derogatory in nature towards this type of stock for biofuels than that provided by the Nature Conservancy.
As for your 8000 acres of mineral leases, great. You (the oil industry) can still keep paying me and my family. You obviously didn't know I'm from Texas originally.
As an aside, you seem like an intelligent person. I disagree with you on some things however. That does not mean I am trying to insult your intelligence. I am trying to point out that many of the studies (pro and con) being conducted in relation to alternative energy are too highly tinged with political agendas to be entirely trustworthy.
I dislike however, that anyone who disagree's with you somehow has a viewpoint that is incredible or "stunning." The overall implication is that it is amazing that such a person could have such an unenlightened view in comparison to your own views. It comes off as rather arrogant.
It may not be your intention to convey this sense, but nonetheless it does come off that way. Hence, it's rather snarky (condescending). |
Fishtoes2000
Member
Username: Fishtoes2000
Post Number: 412
Registered: 06-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, February 16, 2008 - 2:14 pm: | |
quote:Apparently you don't believe the weight of scientific evidence predicting that bio-fuels require more energy to produce than they generate as fuel
Where is this evidence? I'd love to see some citations. With the exception of one flawed oil industry funded study, everything I've read says you're wrong. |
Nainrouge
Member
Username: Nainrouge
Post Number: 815
Registered: 05-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, February 16, 2008 - 4:32 pm: | |
Corn-based ethanol is indeed a political boondoggle.
Other crops, such as switchgrass, are better and can be grown in areas that aren't currently used for agriculture but they also have some problems.
On the other hand, cellulosic ethanol (which can be produced from agricultural waste) and algae-based biofuels (which feed on sewage and carbon emissions) are very promising developments.
Algae farming:
http://www.popularmechanics.co m/science/earth/4213775.html
Cellulosic Ethanol:
http://www.harvestcleanenergy. org/enews/enews_0505/enews_0505_Cellulosic_Ethanol.htm
Saying that a technology is not viable based on its current status without looking at the development pipeline is short sighted. There are some very exciting things happening in this field. Given some $$ for development, the biofuel industry could look very different in the next few years.
(Message edited by nainrouge on February 16, 2008) |
El_jimbo
Member
Username: El_jimbo
Post Number: 580
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, February 17, 2008 - 9:23 am: | |
Nain Rouge,
what are some of the issues with switchgrass? From what I've been reading, using that as an alternative to corn seems like a VAST improvement.
On a side note, I think it is interesting that all the people against biofuels don't seem to realize that the industry is already beginning to move beyond corn to other means of production that are cheaper, more efficient and will not require crops we use for food. |
Lilpup
Member
Username: Lilpup
Post Number: 3507
Registered: 06-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, February 17, 2008 - 10:32 am: | |
"it is interesting that all the people against biofuels don't seem to realize that the industry is already beginning to move beyond corn"
that's because the corn/food crop argument provides their best attack against biofuels - once that's taken away from them fighting biofuels becomes a lot more difficult
of course, crop fields are lost due to oil drilling, too, but they don't bring that up - North Dakota is one of the current oil boom regions - wells planted in the middle of what used to be wheat fields |
Sknutson
Member
Username: Sknutson
Post Number: 1061
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, February 17, 2008 - 10:58 am: | |
Since Michigan is so full of fatties, maybe biofuels increasing food prices is a blessing..... |
3rdworldcity
Member
Username: 3rdworldcity
Post Number: 1028
Registered: 01-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, February 17, 2008 - 11:19 am: | |
The "corn-food crop argument" is far from the best "attack against"
bio-fuels. Jeez, just read about the issue by studying what competent scientists, who know a lot more about the issue than you (or I) do, have to say. The SCIENCE magazine article I referred to above would be a good place to start. Ignore references to "oil business" supported research. That's bogus. The leading studies are not financed by oil companies, which have much to gain by the misdirected attention towards alternate fuels than if we had an intelligent energy policy which would actually help get us off our dependance on foreign oil.
Sure, there's a lot of research going on. Even under the best of circumstances the energy needed to produce bio-fuels exceed the energy which they generate, and even if that weren't the case, far more CO2 is generated during the process than by burning fossil fuels. |
Nainrouge
Member
Username: Nainrouge
Post Number: 817
Registered: 05-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, February 17, 2008 - 12:51 pm: | |
quote:Even under the best of circumstances the energy needed to produce bio-fuels exceed the energy which they generate, and even if that weren't the case, far more CO2 is generated during the process than by burning fossil fuels
Wrong:
"The WTW model for cellulosic ethanol showed greenhouse gas emission reductions of about 80% [over gasoline]," said Wang. "Corn ethanol showed 20 to 30% reductions." Cellulosic ethanol's favorable profile stems from using lignin, a biomass by-product of the conversion operation, to fuel the process. "Lignin is a renewable fuel with no net greenhouse gas emissions," explains Wang. "Greenhouse gases produced by the combustion of biomass are offset by the CO2 absorbed by the biomass as it grows."
"Industrial wastes and municipal solid waste (MSW) can also be used to produce ethanol. Lee Lynd, an engineering professor at Dartmouth, has been working with the Gorham Paper Mill to convert paper sludge to ethanol. "Paper sludge is a waste material that goes into landfills at a cost of $80/dry ton," says Lynd. "This is genuinely a negative cost feedstock. And it is already pretreated, eliminating a step in the conversion process."
The studies that you quote that show that biofuels produce more energy than they generate are based on corn-based ethanol that is produced on land that used to be rainforest or an land that used to be for food production. These are pretty sweeping assumptions. Clearly biased studies.
They do not address cellulosic ethanol, which is produced from materials that would otherwise be dumped in the landfill, or algae farming, which actually uses CO2 emissions to grow the algae.
BTW thirdworldcity, I didn't find the SCIENCE article that you referred to, but I did find this abstract:
Fuel Ethanol from Cellulosic Biomass
LEE R. LYND 1, JANET H. CUSHMAN 2, ROBERTA J. NICHOLS 3, and CHARLES E. WYMAN 4
1 Thayer School of Engineering, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755
2 Biofuels Feedstock Development Program Environmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN 37831
3 Environmental and Safety Engineering Staff, Ford Motor Company, Dearborn, MI 48121
4 Biotechnology Research Branch, Solar Energy Research Institute, Golden, CO 80401
Ethanol produced from cellulosic biomass is examined as a large-scale transportation fuel. Desirable features include ethanol's fuel properties as well as benefits with respect to urban air quality, global climate change, balance of trade, and energy security. Energy balance, feedstock supply, and environmental impact considerations are not seen as significant barriers to the widespread use of fuel ethanol derived from cellulosic biomass. Conversion economics is the key obstacle to be overcome. In light of past progress and future prospects for research-driven improvements, a cost-competitive process appears possible in a decade.
And this one:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/ content/summary/315/5818/1488
CELLULOSIC ETHANOL:
Biofuel Researchers Prepare to Reap a New Harvest
Robert F. Service
After decades in the background, technology for converting agricultural wastes into liquid fuels is now poised to enter the market.
and this one:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/ content/abstract/311/5760/506? maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RES ULTFORMAT=&fulltext=ethanol&se archid=1&FIRSTINDEX=10&resourc etype=HWCIT
Ethanol Can Contribute to Energy and Environmental Goals
Alexander E. Farrell,1* Richard J. Plevin,1 Brian T. Turner,1,2 Andrew D. Jones,1 Michael O'Hare,2 Daniel M. Kammen1,2,3
To study the potential effects of increased biofuel use, we evaluated six representative analyses of fuel ethanol. Studies that reported negative net energy incorrectly ignored coproducts and used some obsolete data. All studies indicated that current corn ethanol technologies are much less petroleum-intensive than gasoline but have greenhouse gas emissions similar to those of gasoline. However, many important environmental effects of biofuel production are poorly understood. New metrics that measure specific resource inputs are developed, but further research into environmental metrics is needed. Nonetheless, it is already clear that large-scale use of ethanol for fuel will almost certainly require cellulosic technology.
and this one:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/ content/abstract/315/5813/808? maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RES ULTFORMAT=&fulltext=ethanol&se archid=1&FIRSTINDEX=20&resourc etype=HWCIT
Ethanol for a Sustainable Energy Future
José Goldemberg*
Renewable energy is one of the most efficient ways to achieve sustainable development. Increasing its share in the world matrix will help prolong the existence of fossil fuel reserves, address the threats posed by climate change, and enable better security of the energy supply on a global scale. Most of the "new renewable energy sources" are still undergoing large-scale commercial development, but some technologies are already well established. These include Brazilian sugarcane ethanol, which, after 30 years of production, is a global energy commodity that is fully competitive with motor gasoline and appropriate for replication in many countries.
Seems like your SCIENCE magazine that you like to quote so much that you have to always spell it in CAPITAL LETTERS actually is rather PRO-BIOFUELS!
(Message edited by nainrouge on February 17, 2008) |
Fishtoes2000
Member
Username: Fishtoes2000
Post Number: 413
Registered: 06-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, February 17, 2008 - 1:29 pm: | |
So you cannot provide any specific citations to back up your claim that "the weight of scientific evidence predicting that bio-fuels require more energy to produce than they generate as fuel." This seems like the only/most often quoted study that backs your claim (by "Patzek") was funded by BP, Chevron USA, Mobil USA, and Shell.
A published, peer reviewed USDA/DOE study says "Biodiesel yields 3.2 units of fuel product energy for every unit of fossil energy consumed in its life cycle."
http://www.biodiesel.org/resou rces/reportsdatabase/reports/g en/19980501_gen-339.pdf
And here is a weight of research showing ethanol creates more energy than it uses.
http://journeytoforever.org/et hanol_energy.html
You may find this Business Week article interesting, "Big Oil's Big Stall On Ethanol".
http://www.businessweek.com/ma gazine/content/07_40/b4052052. htm
From that article: One prong in the oil industry's strategy is an anti-ethanol information campaign.
...and...
"Big Oil is at the top of the list for blocking the spread of ethanol acceptance by consumers and the marketplace," says Loren Beard, senior manager for energy planning and policy at Chrysler, referring to the struggle to get E85 pumps installed. |
Kevdog
Member
Username: Kevdog
Post Number: 159
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 17, 2008 - 9:18 pm: | |
Professor Scott, your comment regarding the law of conservation of energy is somewhat misleading. True, in order to produce any amount of usable energy, it takes more than that amount to produce it. However, sometimes that input energy can be supplied by mundane natural phenomena--wind blowing, sun shining, waves waving, etc, none of which requires any human input. In the case of biofuel, hopefully we will one day be able to use algae that grows basically in its own with sunlight(rather than corn, which must be fertilized and tended) in order to produce the biofuel (some energy other than sunlight will still be required to grow refine it). Currently, however,the input energy for biofuel is supplied by gasoline & diesel for the tractors, fertilizers, and refineries that produce the corn and ethanol.
For the technically inclined, ProfessorScott's comment was actually an application of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The first law states that the input energy is always EQUAL to the output energy. However, the 2nd law states that the output energy always includes more UNUSABLE energy (like waste heat in the exhaust) than the input energy had. This is formalized in the concept of entropy. |
D_mcc
Member
Username: D_mcc
Post Number: 250
Registered: 12-2007
| | Posted on Sunday, February 17, 2008 - 11:25 pm: | |
^^ If I Have read articles correctly, there is a type of algae that grows by chemosynthesis. If this is true, and it is implemented into coal plants, the CO2 emissions from the coal plants can be used to "feed" the algae, which, I also heard produce Hydrogen as a byproduct that can be used in fuel cells. If this is true...we can still carry on our obsession with dead dinosaurs, and still produce multiple forms of energy with pre-existing energy sources. |
3rdworldcity
Member
Username: 3rdworldcity
Post Number: 1030
Registered: 01-2005
| | Posted on Monday, February 18, 2008 - 11:06 pm: | |
Nainrouge: Think again. I pointed out there there are over 5000 references to "ethanol" in SCIENCE (that's how it's frequently cited.) Some are pro-ethanol and more and more are pointing out the major flaws in "pro-ethanol" so-called research.
However, the magazine itself is not pro- or anti-ethanol. It just reports on research. Nice try though.
Fishtoes: You misrepresent "big oil's" antagonism towards ethanol. It has little to do with the science, because the oil companies receive huge subsidies ($.51/gal, is it) for mixing the stuff into gasoline. What the oil companies fight is the movement to go to E85, and as the Business Week article accurately points out (did you read it ?) is that the infrastructure costs (special tanks, pumps, storage and transportation facilities) would be astronomical and the market will not support it without more huge subsidies. They have a hell of a better feel for the market than the federal beaurocrats, or you.
Somebody above referred to a "study" (no cite) bankrolled by several named oil companies. One was BP. Well, those companies never work together on stuff like that as far as I know; they work through associations they support. I don't believe it.
Read my posts. I'm all in favor of real renewable fuels, such as geothermal and the others commonly listed. The oil companies have been supportive of those. So am I.
However, under the best of circumstance, they will provide only a small fraction of our energy needs. Most people don't have the foggiest idea of the magnitude of fuel consumption in this country and therefore don't understand what little impact the widespread use of alternative fuels will have if they ever can be produced economically.
By the way, BP was cited above as supporting anti-biofuel research. I doubt it and would have to see clear evidence of it.
BP like to bra about how much it cares about the issue by i "BP" stands for "beyond petroleum." BS. It brags about the billions it spend on alternative fuels; problem is, it categorizes natural gas as an "alternative fuel," which it's no, and it happens to be a big part of BP's fossil fuel business. They're very misleading.
Anyway, folks, dream on that ethanol et al will save the planet. We'll see. |
Umcs
Member
Username: Umcs
Post Number: 478
Registered: 06-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 19, 2008 - 12:00 am: | |
Interestingly, technology just keeps getting better and better. Never mind technological improvements though. Nothing will ever pan out. Bah humbug. Those scientists are all crazy wacko's. We might as well pull the cash out from under them for their funding. If the business community doesn't want to fund it, the government shouldn't either. Or maybe not...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02 /19/science/19carb.html?ref=sc ience |
Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard
Post Number: 5243
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 19, 2008 - 12:18 am: | |
Hell, with carbon dioxide being a primary fuelstuff, as described in the NYT article, why not run a car directly on dry ice?
Pull up to a fueling station and plunk in a few blocks of dry ice and allow a reactor within the vehicle to convert that into a usable fuel for the car to run on... |
Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott
Post Number: 1113
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 19, 2008 - 12:44 am: | |
Boy, I'm sure being taken to task on my misread of Newton, eh? So a Physics prof. I admittedly am not. LY, I get almost no money ever from government at any level, and I'm a Libertarian politically (an independent, but Libertarian is as close as you'll come with a modern American label). I'm pro transit because urban areas with good transit work better (by almost any metric you care to name) than those without.
Atlanta or Denver would have been considered permanently left behind, transit-wise, 20 years ago. They've started to catch up; we haven't.
This is an interesting thread; I'm sorry I haven't had the normal amount of wasteable (unsustainable?) time to post the past couple days.
A lot of the cost of energy has to do with the fact that it isn't where you need it to be. Same with other commodities; when I used to be in municipal government as an elected official, an older fellow was complaining to me about his water bill. "Why do we have to pay the City for water," he asked me, not pleasantly. "Water ought to be free. We shouldn't have to pay for water." I told him fine, get a five-gallon bucket, take it down to the Detroit River and fill up, no charge. Take as many damn buckets as you like. Oh, wait, you want treated water coming out of a tap in your house under pressure? Now that's a different matter entirely.
Prof. Scott |
Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard
Post Number: 5245
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 19, 2008 - 12:52 am: | |
BTW, Scott. Entropy deals with the direction of reactions or mechanisms occurring (usually, irreversible). IOW, sources of higher-grade heat energy (among other energy forms) will eventually all wind up as low-grade heat (of little or no future use).
Order into chaos.
That water out of the Detroit River isn't free either. Otherwise, Arizona would be talking it and delivering it there somehow.
(Message edited by Livernoisyard on February 19, 2008) |
El_jimbo
Member
Username: El_jimbo
Post Number: 583
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 19, 2008 - 9:04 am: | |
3rdworld,
If ethanol requires more energy to make than it produces, How could companies like Coskata claim to have develop a method of producing ethanol that generates 7.7 times the amount of energy they put into creating it?
Try this website. You might find it enlightening.
http://www.coskataenergy.com/P ressRelease-Launch.htm |
D_mcc
Member
Username: D_mcc
Post Number: 253
Registered: 12-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 19, 2008 - 9:38 am: | |
El, he will keep citing studies that promote big oil as he himself owns an oil company and is biased.
I think I am going to start buying stock in Trane and a respirator company |
Peachlaser
Member
Username: Peachlaser
Post Number: 156
Registered: 08-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 19, 2008 - 9:38 am: | |
One flaw in determining the cost of these sources is the amount of money the 'Oil Wars' have consumed. When Bush began, it was about $5 billion a year to contain Iraq. Now we are approaching $1,000,000,000 ($1 trillion) spent and we are now at $100 billion a year. So when comparing costs of the different fuels, I think this cost needs to be added to the cost of oil in comparison. The SCIENCE articles alluded to this fact with the term "Energy Security" but did not spell it out. I know there is a lot of talk about alternative energy research being propped up by govt. money, but the huge amount of money (and lives) being spent to protect the source of oil seems to be forgotten in these arguments. What does a gallon of gas really cost? $15 a gallon? $20 a gallon? |
Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard
Post Number: 5248
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 19, 2008 - 9:47 am: | |
quote:One flaw in determining the cost of these sources is the amount of money the 'Oil Wars' have consumed. When Bush began, it was about $5 billion a year to contain Iraq. Now we are approaching $1,000,000,000 ($1 trillion) spent and we are now at $100 billion a year. So when comparing costs of the different fuels, I think this cost needs to be added to the cost of oil in comparison. The SCIENCE articles alluded to this fact with the term "Energy Security" but did not spell it out. I know there is a lot of talk about alternative energy research being propped up by govt. money, but the huge amount of money (and lives) being spent to protect the source of oil seems to be forgotten in these arguments. What does a gallon of gas really cost? $15 a gallon? $20 a gallon? A much bigger flaw is thoughtlessly throwing around cost projections as in this quote.
And then to top it off with predictions of outrageously out-of-line gasoline costs to consumers.
BTW, there are hidden costs in virtually everything. How come the advocates of social programs and such never care to ever enter those areas? |
Peachlaser
Member
Username: Peachlaser
Post Number: 157
Registered: 08-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 19, 2008 - 10:38 am: | |
I believe the big question on the table is 'sustainability'.
How long can we sustain and afford our appetite for oil? |
Nainrouge
Member
Username: Nainrouge
Post Number: 820
Registered: 05-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 19, 2008 - 11:28 am: | |
quote:However, the magazine itself is not pro- or anti-ethanol. It just reports on research. Nice try though
I was pointing out the hypocrisy in your statements such as:
quote:So don't agree with SCIENCE magazine and the many other studies that contradict your views. Maybe you're smarter than all of them for all I know.
It would have been correct to say "so you don't agree WITH ONE ARTICLE that was in SCIENCE magazine, and subsequently debunked by other articles in same said magazine."
quote:Studies that reported negative net energy incorrectly ignored coproducts and used some obsolete data.
You were presenting that one article as if it was the opinion of SCIENCE magazine, which it is obviously not. It is not even the "weight of scientific evidence" in that single magazine. There are many more pro-biofuels articles in that magazine from lots of scientists - and yes, I believe that they all spelled "environment" correctly. You are seriously misrepresenting that single article and I am calling you on it.
Damn, it sucks when someone checks your source, doesn't it? |
3rdworldcity
Member
Username: 3rdworldcity
Post Number: 1032
Registered: 01-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 19, 2008 - 6:26 pm: | |
Umcs: I skimmed that article in the NYT today and read it more thoroughly on your link. To tell you the truth I was particularly impressed with the fact the inventor has run some tests in his garage and claims it will revolutionize the ethanol business. Remember "cold fusion?" If I read it correctly, it appears to be misleading insofar as they claim to make ethanol at $1.40 a gallon or something like that, but when all factors are figured in it won't be economical until gasoline hits $4.60/gal. Interesting article though although a little light on the explanation of the technology.
El_jimbo: Coskata can claim to have developed a method of producing ethanol that generates 7.7 times the amount of energy they put into creating it, or anything else they feel like claiming. Next, changing lead into gold. Hey, it's just a press release. Or maybe later it will be a perpetual motion machine. They can say anything they want in their press releases as long as it's not in connection with a public offering of their stock. That's next. Believe what you wish, as we all do.
The fact that GM is somehow "involved" is not impressive either. GM dropped a couple of billion investing in Fiat as you may recall and that was in a business they are supposed to know something about. GM is out to impress Congress and some car buyers with how green the company has become. Take its involvement with a grain of salt. It got the press it needed at the auto show.
Nainrouge: Think you're clever, don't you? I posted the SCIENCE article because I expected folks to check it out. I also pointed out that there were several thousand references to ethanol on it's search base. Hoped people would check those out as well. Some did.
I'm glad that as a result of my enlightening you to the fact that sources such as SCIENCE exist you might be able to broaden your knowledge by checking out different points of view. Instead, you refer to a couple of articles which I doubt you read because only the summaries were published (2 or 3 paragraphs.)
You can miscategorize my position and intentions as much as you wish. I think people on here generally have the ability to see through your pettiness.
And by the way, I've done pretty well financially in the energy business and have bet correctly many more times than not. What's your record? Tell you what. You invest whatever money you have in ethanol and biofuels in general and I'll bet on oil and truly renewable energy sources, and let's compare bankbooks in 5 -10 years. (I just turned down the "opportunity" to invest in a new ethanol deal up in St. John, Mi. They already started the project without enough money to complete it. Supposed to be the biggest in the state, and state-of-the art, using primarily corn, but also wood chips, forest waste (dead trees and brush), sugar beet waste etc as well. Because of the fact that the smart money (not you) is beginning to realize that the whole bio-fuel pie-in-the sky dream is all hat and no cattle, they've lost a couple of funding sources and some investors are already backing out. The project is stalled and will probably never be completed. Post your name and address and I'll send you the Prospectus and related docs/research/projections etc. Have fun. Make your first million. |
Lilpup
Member
Username: Lilpup
Post Number: 3517
Registered: 06-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 19, 2008 - 6:32 pm: | |
1) having money doesn't make you a 'better' or more intelligent person
2) people on here generally have the ability to see through your self-serving agenda |
3rdworldcity
Member
Username: 3rdworldcity
Post Number: 1035
Registered: 01-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 19, 2008 - 7:22 pm: | |
Couldn't agree more with Item # 1 above. Neither does not having any.
My agenda is to share my knowledge and experience about (the few) subjects where I have quite a bit of it with others who may be interested. Why is anybody on here if not for that? Everyone can learn something on this forum if they wish. Including you. And me. What's your agenda?
Nainrouge: You may have noticed oil closed over $100/bbl today (by a penny). Seems not too many folks are petrified of the impending glut of cheap ethanol which will allegedly sink the oil business. (I know that's a cheap shot but you're good at them so I thought I'd try my hand.) Cheers
(Message edited by 3rdworldcity on February 19, 2008) |
Nainrouge
Member
Username: Nainrouge
Post Number: 824
Registered: 05-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 19, 2008 - 9:23 pm: | |
Hmm, I am petty because I called you out for misrepresenting the truth? Strange logic.
I obviously did not read all 5000 articles about ethanol that have ever been printed by SCIENCE magazine - I have a life, thank you - but I did read enough to see that the majority of the articles were positive towards the future of biofuels. Attempting to say that SCIENCE magazine itself said that biofuels use more energy than they produce is an outright lie.
I have no need to categorize your obviously biased opinions. Your words stand for themselves.
You failed to respond to my statements that your study is based on old data and is flawed and does not address new technologies such as cellulosic ethanol.
You made money in oil? Good for you, but as they say - "past performance is no guarantee of future results". Call me in 5-10 years when your wells run dry. They ain't making any more oil, bud.
Here is another quote for you "The world is moving so fast these days that the man who says it can't be done is generally interrupted by someone doing it."
Oh, and the price of oil went up because of fears that OPEC will cut production because of a perceived world-wide economic slow down and because of a weakening of the dollar - not because of your report in SCIENCE. |
3rdworldcity
Member
Username: 3rdworldcity
Post Number: 1036
Registered: 01-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 19, 2008 - 11:23 pm: | |
How does one misrepresent the truth?
Jeez, I'm glad you told me why you think oil went up today. Oil went up today for three reasons. Trouble in Nigeria, the refinery explosion in west Tx, and rumors (unfounded in all probability) that OPEC will cut production, but not for the reasons you think (contrary to what you may have read somewhere.)
Keep me informed, though.
Want to bet what the price will do tomorrow?
And by the way, you say they're not making any more oil. Nonsense. Oil is being made constantly. It's just that it won't be finished, migrated and trapped for a few million more years. We (oil companies) sure are finding more existing oil every day, by the millions of bbls (except the rate of discovery isn't keeping up with expected demand.) Please keep me informed on what's going on in the oil business; I'll look forward to your expert analysis. Bud.
I'll be gone for a week. Carry on and have fun. |
D_mcc
Member
Username: D_mcc
Post Number: 255
Registered: 12-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 20, 2008 - 9:15 am: | |
3rdworld....you mentioned the oil shale and tar sands as being a good thing...think again:
http://www.environmentaldefenc e.ca/reports/pdf/TarSands_TheR eport.pdf |
Nainrouge
Member
Username: Nainrouge
Post Number: 825
Registered: 05-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 20, 2008 - 2:42 pm: | |
I'd say that the price of oil will continue to rise with minor fluctuations as it has for the past years. We are looking at maybe $120 a barrel by the end of the year. As the prices go up, so will the intensity of the search for alternatives and ways to save energy.
Remember natural rubber tires? The rubber plantation owners had it made until Dupont came along with Neoprene. You restrict the supply and drive up the prices for long enough until some bright guy comes along and creates an alternative that changes the industry.
What will that technology be? Hydrogen, bio-fuel, electric, or something else entirely? Hard to tell now. Unless the oil prices drop again - and there is currently no prospect of this happening - it is inevitable that change will happen. |
Umcs
Member
Username: Umcs
Post Number: 481
Registered: 06-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, February 23, 2008 - 9:12 am: | |
3rdWorldCity,
I understand that should we only ask you, you will inform us that you are a genius.
You illustrate the exact point I was making perfectly. God forbid that we continue to invest in innovative technologies. Your type of investment is the exact type that has led to the decline of Michigan and Detroit. I'll direct you to a good blog that makes the point more eloquently than I could.
http://metromodemedia.com/blog s/posts/TMeloche3037a.aspx
I see you as the exact type of person that is the cause of the economic decline here in Michigan with your "smart" investments. It's the mindset that breeds the lack of innovative actions that Michigan requires. Thank god you moved to Texas.
As for ethanol plant in St. Johns, let me correct you on a few points:
1. It is located in Ithaca.
2. It is Liberty Renewable Fuels.
3. It was the first in Michigan registered with the SEC and your "prospectus" is available via SEC filings.
4. It was originally designed only for production of ethanol using corn feedstock.
You are one helluva peach as my grandfather used to say. I used to respect your opinions. I know when to correct my opinions though. |
3rdworldcity
Member
Username: 3rdworldcity
Post Number: 1037
Registered: 01-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 27, 2008 - 2:15 pm: | |
Back again. Couldn't leave some scurrilous things unrebutted.
D_mcc: (You're not scurrilous.) I said the oil sand projects are good things and they are, notwithstanding the photos on your link. I did not say they are the most environmentally friendly projects on earth. They're heavy industrial projects for heavens sake. The Canadian govt has taken steps to limit pollution and require ongoing remediation. The oil sands have elevated Canada to a high level of international financial respect. Look at the Loony vs the dollar for instance. The country is undergoing a financial renaissance and it's primarily as a results of the oil sands projects. If you drive a car you should be pretty happy they've chosen to sell their oil to us. We should be developing our own oil shale resources, but of course that ain't going to happen as long as the Sierra Club (I'm a long time member) can continue to suck so much dough from its members so Carl Pope can enjoy his $600,000+/yr salary. (I joined the SC years ago when it built trails, printed trail guides etc, but continue to support it because its doing its best to keep the U.S. from developing its natural resources, mostly oil, and that puts bucks in my pocket although its very bad for the country.)
Nain: Well, well, well. Oil's going to $120/bbl before year end, eh? I hope so. I can tell you're a real professional and know you've spent a lot of time analyzing the issue and I'm sure you've backed up your opinion by doubling down in the futures market. Good for you. Wanna make a side bet?
Umcs: Why don't you read my posts carefully before you respond.I'm all for investment in innovative technologies, including potentially renewable energy sources, just not bio-fuels such as ethanol. Even if they're (wind, ocean waves etc) all economically successful, it's just going to be a drop in the bucket towards reducing dependence on fossil fuels.
You're dead wrong as well on my reference to the ethanol deal I was solicited to support. The developers are from St. Johns and it sure wasn't Liberty, which I'm familiar with and which I've heard failed long ago (primarily for the reason you mentioned, corn based ethanol only. The deal I referred to is a private placement, not registered with the SEC, and the only way one can get a prospectus ("Offering Circular")is from the promoters/sponsors. So, wise ass, apology accepted in advance.
And, you should know I could care less whether you respect my opinions. Why should I? It does piss me off a little, however, that you misrepresent my views and jump to unwarranted conclusions, while in the process insulting me. |
Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard
Post Number: 5416
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 27, 2008 - 2:40 pm: | |
The December prediction for crude is expected to be $84/bbl. Giddy high prices have to drop after inventories accumulate. |
Nainrouge
Member
Username: Nainrouge
Post Number: 874
Registered: 05-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 27, 2008 - 3:52 pm: | |
Do a search for a conversation I had with NDavies. I bet him $100 that oil would go over $100 a barrel. Luckily for him, he didn't bet me. I would take your side bet if I thought there was a chance in hell that you would honor it when I won.
I don't buy oil futures because I invest only in socially responsible industries. Some people are about more than the almighty dollar. |
3rdworldcity
Member
Username: 3rdworldcity
Post Number: 1038
Registered: 01-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 27, 2008 - 10:15 pm: | |
N: Yeah, like I'm going to do a search for a conversation you had with NDavies about your alleged bet. When was this, last week?
NDavies probably didn't take your bet because he wasn't sure you could raise the sawbuck.
I take it you don't think the oil business is socially responsible. And since I can't picture you patronizing a socially irresponsible business, I take it you walk everywhere or ride your bike. That's it, you use the most common form of alternative, renewable energy, muscle power. Good for you, you holier-than-thou hypocrite. |
Nainrouge
Member
Username: Nainrouge
Post Number: 886
Registered: 05-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 27, 2008 - 11:02 pm: | |
I am buying a diesel that I will convert to use WVO. I guess that does make me holier than thou. Not hard, though. |
|
New threads cannot be started on this page. The threads above are previous posts made to this thread.