New poll on Renewable fuels

[oil pan 4]

Ethanol at least appears to be making people a lot of government money.

It needs to be able to stand on its own.

I would not call bio diesel fossil fuel free. The methanol used to make the bio diesel likely came from natural gas, the lye made from electrical power which we know didn't come from sun shine or wind.
Not to mention all the diesel powered farm harvesting equipment and trucks that took the seed off the plant and from the field to the bio diesel plant.
Any fertlizer or pestacide used on any crop are products of the petrochemical industry.
Even if the fertlizer is "all natural" it was picked up, put in a big pile, turned and airated, moved from one place to another and applied to the field with diesel power.

Given all that, it seems that bio diesel stands on its own much better than ethanol.

I can usually only find b5 and some times b10.
If I could I would rather run 20% or 30% WVO at least during the summer.

[Daox]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the major subsidy for ethanol is now gone. There might be a little bit here and there, but it is standing on its own right now.

[Allch Chcar]

Originally Posted by Daox

I think you should be able to edit the poll. There is an 'edit poll' link on the upper right hand side of the poll window for me. If you can't, just list out your options and I'll update it for you.

It's not there on my end. I'll just leave it as is since it's not scientific in any way. It's just for fun.

Originally Posted by Daox

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the major subsidy for ethanol is now gone. There might be a little bit here and there, but it is standing on its own right now.

The 51 cent blending tax credit expired in Dec 2011. There are RINs for blending and Corn farming subsidies. From what I've read, Corn farming subsidies went down when Corn prices went up. RIN prices are becoming an issue now that they're around 60 cents a gallon. But I don't know if they qualify as a subsidy or not?

I've seen a few people confused about the Ethanol mandate. But it's a state by state ordeal. The RFS requires Oil companies to blend certain amounts of Ethanol. So long as Ethanol sales are good it doesn't matter where this happens. States like Minnesota, Iowa, and the Dakotas have gone a long way towards building E85 pumps. Even California and Colorado have gradually warmed up to E85 pumps.

[Frank Lee]

[Big Dave]

The poll is poorly worded and will probably be used even more poorly.

It's a push-poll.

In theory who could be opposed to alternative fuels? The problems start when you reduce it to reality.

There are only two really feasible renewable fuels out there: ethanol (actually denatured alcohol) and biodiesel.

Of the two only biodiesel makes any energy sense. Ethanol due to the energy costs of farming, transporting and fermenting refining the product takes more energy to make than it yields. Biodiesel is considerably better.

But both run into the same problem: They compete with food crop resources (arable land, fresh water, farm labor, fertilizer, pesticides and herbicides, etc). These resources are more finite than oil. If more acreage goes into ethanol or biodiesel feedstocks food prices go up. Bad idea.

Algal biodiesel offers some hope. You could build algae farms and refineries on desert lands near bodies of seawater. You refine the algae into biodiesel, propyl triol and feed mash on the spot so that you minimize transportation costs by transport finished product rather than raw materials. Seawater costs only the cost of the electricity for the pump motors. Desert land is worthless (could you build a algal biodiesel plant in the US given obstructive environmental regulations?) so you get around having to compete against food crops for resources. Nobody is farming on desert land using seawater. Yeah, biodiesel needs natural gas in today's state of the art to make the methanol and lye. But the US will be hip-deep in natural gas for the foreseeable future, buying time to find alternatives to the natural gas.

Biodiesel has one big problem from the standpoint of the consumer - its high (35 degree F) cloud point. So, if used straight it is a summer-only or southern states only renewable.

Ethanol has a similar problem. It works OK in tropical Brazil, but in the cold of the Midwest, its low Reid vapor pressure makes cold starts a nightmare. That's why it is currently sold as E85 - cut with 15% RUG.

An elegant solution to biodiesel's cloud point problem is to marry the biodiesel operation with a Fischer-Tropsch kerosene operation. F-T could use any number of carbonaceous feedstocks (coal, old tires, prepared garbage, even dried sewage sludge) to make its gaseous intermediate product. F-T makes an excellent high cetane distillate (F-T distillate is used by German diesel race cars) which could cut the biodiesel during cold weather into a usable product. Also, F-T produces CO2 like crazy. That CO2 could be captured and bubbled into the algae water to accelerate algae growth to industrial rates.

[Big Dave]

What the poll does not address is HOW one gets to renewable fuels.

I am vehemently opposed to making renewables attractive by making existing fuels more scarce or expensive or drive other prices up.

I am 100% opposed to ethanol subsidies/mandates because they drive food prices up.

I am 100% opposed to subsidies taken from my taxes. I am taxed too much already and begrudge every additional dime of taxation for any reason.

In short: If increased use of alternative fuels makes my gasoline or diesel fuel or food prices go up or my taxes go up, I am 100% opposed. But if alternative fuels makes these costs go down, I'm A-OK with it.

All subsidies and mandates do is aggravate people - many are living paycheck-to-paycheck - with higher taxes or higher energy/food costs. This is not the way to make friends (for alternative fuels) or (positively) influence people. It is great way to generate opposition.

Someone dumped on Standard Oil for their sharp business practices. but remember this: Standard Oil drove their competitors out of business because Standard Oil found a way to make high-purity kerosene with zero naptha content. The consumer got a better product for a competitive price so what do you think happened. People bought the Standard Oil kerosene instead of the fire-hazard competitors. Rockefeller did not have to resort to rent-seeking the government to get his competitive edge. Government at the time was leery of rent-seekers and was too small to abet rent-seekers on any scale.

Today, alternative fuel - because they are offering inferior products at noncompetitive prices - have to rent-seek or die. Insulated from the discipline of the market, they'll never do any better.

I don't see ethanol as ever being truly competitive. Distilling alcohol from corn or sugar or whatever is very, very old tech. If there were improvements to be made they would have been made long ago. The liquor biz is competitive, too.

Algal biodiesel is close but still too expensive. I doubt if integrated algae farms/biodiesel refineries could be built in the US. The refineries are combination rendering plants and oil refineries. NIMBYs and the EPA just wouldn't let it happen.

I would think the Australians would be a natural for this. They have lots of unusable desert and a long coastline. Sites with nearby seawater and desert abound. Australia has lots of coal for F-T refining of blended cold weather fuel and CO2 algae growth accelerant. Much of Australia is warm enough that the high cloud point of biodiesel isn't really much of a problem. And whiole Australia does have its own NIMBY and environmental regualtions they have nothing like the mad dogs the US is afflicted with.

[mikeyjd]

good words dave.