Shell says ethanol knocks down CO2 big time
 

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

Smarter products | Innovation

Why not just use less in the first place ?

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.

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.

.

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

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.

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?

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.

( 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 !

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.

Betting against human nature is never a winning bet.

just what is CO2?

You'll need to ask David Suzuki - maybe ?

Oooh... Naw.

Having been a farmer now for over 50 years, it is hard to read the response by many who really have no idea what they are saying, as they just spout what they have read from some expert. To blame high food prices on ethanol ignores all reality. When corn goes up $1.00 a bushel I see cereal companies raise prices a $1.00 a box. Their cost from the corn increase is less than 2 cents. The idea of corn disappearing that goes to ethanol production is a myth. The by-product is brought back and is a higher quality feed for livestock than when it left the farm.I could go on and on, but the point is so many people act as experts that are misinformed about ethanol production as they use facts that are from the early years of making ethanol and apply it to today's modern plants.

Saw an ad for a show (I think it was on Discovery Channel) about a family with 19 kids and another one on the way. The woman has been pregnant for 13.6 years of her life.

There was another show about a Mormon family that said that "plural marriage" is decreed by God. The hubby has 4 wives and 8 kids (I think). He was trying to coach his friend on how to date single women while he was married.

Oh well, if humanity doesn't take care of it, Mother Nature will (eventually).

...more people need to be shown the movie "Deliverance" more often.

The problem with polygamous societies is what do you do with the extra men. In traditional polygamous societies its either been cannon fodder, slavery, or the monastery.

Right. For population growth statistics, you have to look at birthrate per female. Population isn't affected by who fathered them. Replacement birthrate in modern society is about 2.1 or 2.2, to account for those who die early or have no children.

Why not do all of those things, AND use biofuels too? And EVs, more efficient engines... None of them are mutually exclusive; each one has benefits.

Exactly. For every biofuel or alternative energy technology, the decriers complain, "that would only replace x% of fossil fuels, so why waste the time and money?" The answer is that you don't use just one. Solar and wind BOTH can replace coal and natural gas for stationary sources, and biofuels and EVs can BOTH TOGETHER replace fossil fuels. Eventually, as catalysts for cracking water improve, you start supplementing biofuels with fuel cells (or use fuel cells to "flatten out" the base load for solar and wind.)

A catalyst will do nothing for a process that even if perfect, will never make sense from an efficiency standpoint. Come on, can't we all agree there is no future in hydrogen, at least any we want to live in?

Dunno, haven't really studied it. But if you've got a bunch of wind turbines running at night, producing more than you can use, is catalyzing hydrogen that much less efficient than charging batteries, pushing water uphill or spinning a massive flywheel to try to store the energy for the next day? If "all the wind is concentrated in the flyover states," as the anti-AE crowd says, then rather than trying to transmit it thousands of miles across wires, why not make a liquid fuel that can be used in local transportation?

Even those who suggest population control agree that with wealth and choice comes a reduced level of population growth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytRSmwmTY1Q

Because to make a liquid fuel out of hydrogen, you have to cool it to -423F? See Liquid hydrogen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia