Shell says ethanol knocks down CO2 big time

[Frank Lee]

From the link in the ads at the top of the page...

Smarter products | Innovation

Biofuels

We believe that biofuels present the most practical, commercial way to reduce CO2 in the transport fuels sector over the next 20 years. We are already among the world’s largest distributors of biofuels. Now we are moving into the production of one of the most sustainable and lowest-CO2 biofuels, ethanol from Brazilian sugar cane. This offers a reduction of around 70% on CO2 emissions from production to use compared to conventional petrol.

[Arragonis]

Why not just use less in the first place ?

[Daox]

I don't know about Shell, but according to this article cellulostic ethanol is FINALLY going to start being used in mass production. Poet LLC (the current largest refiner of ethanol in the US) is putting up a plant that is due to start production in early 2013, and BP has a plant going up that'll be running in late 2013. This is what has really been needed to make cellulose a viable and reasonable alternative fuel IMO. The price should drop, the energy to make it is less as well as the alleged impact on the food supply.

[slowmover]

Alleged?

The price should drop, the energy to make it is less as well as the alleged impact on the food supply.

What subsidies, direct and indirect? Are the fuel "crops" contemplated nitrogen-fixing? What is the cost of removing productive farmland from food production? What level of production is contemplated without the addition of fossil fuel fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, etc?

What percentage increase to the nations "supply"? A day or two of respite? As against capital investment that might have gone elsewhere in re fuel production and use? Versus farmland, equipment and the cost of money increased for a taxpayer scam?

Is there not a problem -- even the least bit of cognitive dissonance -- in understanding that a transnational corporation has only it's own interests at heart? That this is PR -- propaganda -- where the best ROI for a society is concerned, and is not done in a true cost accounting?

Alleged? Try looking at the cost of food basics, globally. The North may not give a flip for the South, or the West for the East, but commodity food prices are rising -- being pinched. Diverting farmland for extra-high cost "fuel" is nothing but a scam, before, and remains so now.

Both the above-referenced articles are little more than "investor feel good" words and phrases. I admire the use of floodgates, ha!

Might have a look, instead, at articles that may be similar, but far more promising with the idea that Moore's Law may apply to solar. Despite problems of materials acquistion, manufacture, etc, it would be welcome news to individual/familial energy independence with long term investment returns.

.

[CigaR007]

My local Shell started adding ethanol (up to 10 %) to regular gas (87 & 89).

[Frank Lee]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

Why not just use less in the first place ?

Indeed. Why not drive less? Why not live closer to work and play? Why not drive more efficiently? Why not drive efficient vehicles? Ride share? Have fewer kids?

Cuz I guess it's unreasonable to expect these things of people.

[Frank Lee]

Originally Posted by slowmover

Alleged?

The price should drop, the energy to make it is less as well as the alleged impact on the food supply.

What subsidies, direct and indirect? Are the fuel "crops" contemplated nitrogen-fixing? What is the cost of removing productive farmland from food production? What level of production is contemplated without the addition of fossil fuel fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, etc?

What percentage increase to the nations "supply"? A day or two of respite? As against capital investment that might have gone elsewhere in re fuel production and use? Versus farmland, equipment and the cost of money increased for a taxpayer scam?

Is there not a problem -- even the least bit of cognitive dissonance -- in understanding that a transnational corporation has only it's own interests at heart? That this is PR -- propaganda -- where the best ROI for a society is concerned, and is not done in a true cost accounting?

Alleged? Try looking at the cost of food basics, globally. The North may not give a flip for the South, or the West for the East, but commodity food prices are rising -- being pinched. Diverting farmland for extra-high cost "fuel" is nothing but a scam, before, and remains so now.

Both the above-referenced articles are little more than "investor feel good" words and phrases. I admire the use of floodgates, ha!

Might have a look, instead, at articles that may be similar, but far more promising with the idea that Moore's Law may apply to solar. Despite problems of materials acquistion, manufacture, etc, it would be welcome news to individual/familial energy independence with long term investment returns.

.

Perhaps it is a mistake for society to demand so much of it's farmland. Doesn't leave much wiggle room for instances of bad crop years either. But hey, what's more important, crapping out those extra mouths to feed (6,000,000,000 and counting) or looking at the big picture?

[Daox]

I'm sure corn produced ethanol has driven up the price of food, but not nearly to what most seem to think. The price of all food has increased quite a bit over recent years. Farmers are still being paid to not produce crops, so its not like we don't have the land to grow more stuff. The problem is with all the subsity and all the politics involved with ethanol (and food and fuel) you can never get a straight answer. If you have solid info to backup your case I'd be glad to change my mind. However, I'm still willing to pay more for food to cut our depenance on foreign oil. As I said, cellulostic ethanol should reduce many of the ethanol problems. I'm sure the change won't be made overnight, but at least its being put into production vs just being tested in labs.

[Cd]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

Perhaps it is a mistake for society to demand so much of it's farmland. Doesn't leave much wiggle room for instances of bad crop years either. But hey, what's more important, crapping out those extra mouths to feed (6,000,000,000 and counting) or looking at the big picture?

( Or use more of the farmland wasted to feeding cows to feed people, thereby resulting in less emissions from the cows as well ( eat less meat ) ...but back on topic eh ? )

So I'm wondering where the break even point is when it comes to emissions versus ( more gasoline ) fuel used, since burning more gasoline results in more pollution.

A 70% reduction in emissions IS huge. I would call that a win !

[Clev]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

Perhaps it is a mistake for society to demand so much of it's farmland. Doesn't leave much wiggle room for instances of bad crop years either. But hey, what's more important, crapping out those extra mouths to feed (6,000,000,000 and counting) or looking at the big picture?

Out here in the prime farmland of California, the problem is not ripping out productive farmland to plant fuel crops. It's ripping out productive farmland to plant shopping centers and McMansions, connected by 80-foot wide rows of asphalt.

Indeed. Why not drive less? Why not live closer to work and play? Why not drive more efficiently? Why not drive efficient vehicles? Ride share? Have fewer kids?

Cuz I guess it's unreasonable to expect these things of people.

Betting against human nature is never a winning bet.