| Author |
Topic:
Oil Dependency, etc.
|
AnakinsGirl
Registered:
Nov '01
|
Date Posted:
5/6 11:44am
Subject:
RE: Oil Dependency, etc.
|
Honestly, wouldn't it be better for everyone if we just stood up to the major US car companies and did some serious research and marketing on electric- or hydrogen-powered cars? Yes, that would mean building new "power-up" stations for these new cars, but methinks it is better in the long run to invest financially in an economically viable way of doing things rather than decimating portions of the worlds ecosystems and driving many people to poverty and starvation by forcing them to grow crops to fuel our cars. It just seems a bit silly to me that people should be going hungry so Americans can drive their SUVs and not pay as much.
I am legitimately frightened if ethanol or other biofuels become a major alternative fuel. Corn and sugarcane are extremely degrading to the soil, and how do we get land to grow these crops? Go into poor countries, cut down the rainforests and force farmers to grow it for us. Doesn't anyone else have a problem with that?
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Alpha-Red
Registered:
Apr '04
|
Date Posted:
5/6 11:48am
Subject:
RE: Oil Dependency, etc.
|
I'm currently doing a school report related to the HCCI engine that's under development. It's something of a hybrid between a spark plug and diesel engine, and supposedly it'll give us an increased 15% fuel efficiency and fewer emissions. We'll still be burning the same gasoline, but less of it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VZwElmZaE8&feature=related
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Rogue_Follower
Title: Manager: Literature
Registered:
Nov '03
|
Date Posted:
5/6 12:15pm
Subject:
RE: Oil Dependency, etc.
- Date Edited:
5/6 12:16pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Rogue_Follower
|
Mr44 posted:
There's an editorial in the Chicago Tribune today that explores the myth of biofuel as it relates to the food supply.
HERE
It seems so obvious: With so much corn being turned into fuel, food shortages must inevitably result, and biofuel programs must be the cause. However, that's completely untrue.
Here are the facts. In the last five years, despite the nearly threefold growth of the corn ethanol industry (or actually because of it), the U.S. corn crop grew by 35 percent, the production of distillers grain (a high-value animal feed made from the protein saved from the corn used for ethanol) quadrupled and the net corn food and feed product of the U.S. increased 26 percent.
Contrary to claims that farmers have cut other crops to grow more corn, U.S. soybean plantings this year are expected to be up 18 percent and wheat plantings up 6 percent. U.S. farm exports are up 23 percent.
America is clearly doing its share in feeding the world.
Agriculture is not a zero-sum game. There are 800 million acres of farmland in the U.S., and only about 30 percent of it is actually being used to grow anything.
Now, this article supports the idea that the perception of an ethanol-fueled (<---intentional pun there) food shortage exists largely as perception. I'm certainly not a proponent of ethanol, but it's something to think about when thinking about the science behind it.
America's only a part of the picture, though. What about farmers in other countries? Few nations have the agricultural capacity that the US does. If there's more demand for biofuel crops, the global prices goes up, and it makes more economic sense for local farmers to be growing that instead of food. Also, from what I understand, soybeans can be used in biofuels too, so the implied claim that an increase in soy is an increase in food production isn't necessarily true.
But the article seems to be generally correct---gas prices and population factors are also affecting food prices. We shouldn't jump on biofuels as being the only cause of the food shortages, but we should still recognize that they play a part.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Mr44
Registered:
May '02
|
Date Posted:
5/6 12:20pm
Subject:
RE: Oil Dependency, etc.
|
I am legitimately frightened if ethanol or other biofuels become a major alternative fuel. Corn and sugarcane are extremely degrading to the soil, and how do we get land to grow these crops? Go into poor countries, cut down the rainforests and force farmers to grow it for us. Doesn't anyone else have a problem with that?
That's why I don't mind biofuel as a transitional alternative. It's not a long term solution, but it's not like hydrogen stations are going to pop up tomorrow, or even probably within 10 years. The reduced ozone effects of ethanol are immediate.
Keep in mind that there are still 560 acres of idle farmland in the US alone, and farm exports increased 23% even as ethanol use increased as well. It's not an either/or proposition. Or rather, ethanol production isn't causing starvation.
Surprisingly, Brazil is the country that has the largest ethanol-fuel production and use because of the large sugarcane crop there. Although I agree that deforestation is a problem there as well.
-----signature-----
Don’t confuse enthusiasm with capability.
..............................................................
Peter Shoomaker
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jabbadabbado
Registered:
Mar '99
|
Date Posted:
5/6 12:36pm
Subject:
RE: Oil Dependency, etc.
|
Mr44, the editorial makes some important points, but I think they get the big picture completely wrong.
First, ethanol as a competing use for corn is clearly helping to drive up corn prices, and with it the prices of all grains. U.S. grain exports are up in part because of the cheap dollar and the failure of other export sources (e.g. Australian wheat), putting tremendous pressure on U.S. farmers to put acreage back in business that has been rotated out or left unplanted for a variety of reasons. This is great for farmers, but it's important to note that ethanol contributes to the global price of grains.
Second, the editorial notes that corn is $.08 of a box of corn flakes. The third world poor don't buy corn flakes. They buy rice, flour, corn meal. And those prices have as much as doubled in the last few months.
Third, despite America's important contribution to feeding the world, global grain stockpiles are at record lows. Ethanol is part of this picture too, although definitely not the only part.
Fourth. The idea of using ethanol to "break the back" of OPEC is absurd. Ethanol is still a tiny fraction of our motor fuel supply. It's less energy rich than oil - a gallon of ethanol is not an energy equivalent to a gallon of gasoline, so the volumes of ethanol that would be required to have a significant impact on our foreign oil demand are huge. If we made it a goal to use ethanol to become energy independent, or even have a significant impact on the demand for oil, the amounts of corn we would need then really would have a tremendous if not catastrophic impact on the food supply.
The idea of using ethanol to undercut OPEC is absurd for other reasons. I know this was not the intent of the editorial, but I'd like to see some real, solid evidence that any OPEC countries are currently flush with excess capacity. If OPEC is fixing prices at the moment, that implies that they are withholding millions of barrels a day in excess capacity. Saudi Arabia is in the middle of a multi-billion dollar effort to expand its capacity, but most of that expansion will be going to offset declines in their older fields.
-----signature-----
Malthusian Doomsday Quack
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Mr44
Registered:
May '02
|
Date Posted:
5/6 12:51pm
Subject:
RE: Oil Dependency, etc.
|
Sure, that's why I wanted you to post.
I'd view it as a sliding scale I suppose. I'd certainly agree that "breaking the back of OPEC" is much too strong a concept, but what alternatives to we have to ween ourselves off of oil? Ethanol is certainly technologically available now, before fuel cells and hydrogen pumps and such come on line. It certainly makes sense for ethanol to replace certain aspects of the fuel market. Municipal bus service, or fleets like police cars, for example. I think the world works best on deliberate change. But that's why it's not a long term/permament solution.
Such use would also fit into the larger foreign policy that we want to move in the direction of.
Other issues begin to wander away from the topic, such as, if the world is beginning to become overcrowded, should every population cluster be supported, and if so, how much...
-----signature-----
Don’t confuse enthusiasm with capability.
..............................................................
Peter Shoomaker
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jabbadabbado
Registered:
Mar '99
|
Date Posted:
5/6 12:58pm
Subject:
RE: Oil Dependency, etc.
- Date Edited:
5/6 1:00pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Jabbadabbado
|
I agree with this basic idea: if we're going to find a solution to a permanent future of tight energy supplies, then any port in the storm has to be considered. The likely answer is that there is no one answer. Biofuels will have to play a role. Fischer-Tropsch may well play a role. Expansion of nuclear power and the electrification of rail and public transport may play a role. Conservation and investment into energy efficiency will definitely play a role.
if the world is beginning to become overcrowded, should every population cluster be supported, and if so, how much...
These are scary thoughts. Banning exports of grain to protect the integrity of the domestic food supply (and the stability of the government) is a form of resource nationalism that's starting to play out around the world.
At any given time, 850 million people in the world are already malnourished. What kinds of disruption in global food trade will it take to tip them over the edge into starvation? Can anyone prevent this from happening?
-----signature-----
Malthusian Doomsday Quack
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Mr44
Registered:
May '02
|
Date Posted:
5/6 1:15pm
Subject:
RE: Oil Dependency, etc.
|
Yes, but that also opens up all sorts of other issues related to quality of life and such. What level of support is morally required, or desired? Is it better to cut off a foot if it saves the body?
There are food riots in Somalia again today, but how much should other countries throw good money after bad? If the food is just being diverted by militias while people starve, how much input is required to protect the delivery? Is it even ecologically sound to sustain large groups of people at a basic starvation level?
-----signature-----
Don’t confuse enthusiasm with capability.
..............................................................
Peter Shoomaker
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jabbadabbado
Registered:
Mar '99
|
Date Posted:
5/6 1:19pm
Subject:
RE: Oil Dependency, etc.
|
|
It might come down to that kind of food triage at a massive global level one of these days. Hopefully it hasn't come to that yet. My sense is that there is not a political institution in the world that would openly, overtly make those kinds of decisions, even if making them would ultimately save lives.
-----signature-----
Malthusian Doomsday Quack
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Blackfryar
Registered:
Aug '07
|
Date Posted:
5/9 10:55am
Subject:
RE: Oil Dependency, etc.
|
$121
$122
$124
NOW $126
NEXT $200
UNTIL THE ECONOMY COMPLETELY COLLAPSES
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jabbadabbado
Registered:
Mar '99
|
Date Posted:
5/9 1:20pm
Subject:
RE: Oil Dependency, etc.
|
|
$200 oil only translates to $7/gallon. I don't think the economy will collapse at that level. At $10-$20/gallon you'll see a complete transformation of the American way of life.
-----signature-----
Malthusian Doomsday Quack
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Neo-Paladin
Registered:
Dec '04
|
Date Posted:
5/9 7:40pm
Subject:
RE: Oil Dependency, etc.
|
I've actually been to a talk by Zubrin who was promoting a book he had written on biofuels. Breaking the power OPEC is a bit of a mania with him. That aside, I think his thesis, that the US should make flex fuel vehicles a national standard, has a lot of merit. If it was a national standard demand would necessitate an increase in supply. Careful policy will be needed to limit ecological damage from this course, but the potential seems striking. But ultimately, biofuels will pay off when either cost effective cellulosic ethanol is realized or biofuels from algae farms is realized.
Hydrogen's problems are legion. It's a really small atom so it's hard to pump, it leaks out of everything, and its energy intensive to liberate.
Batteries aren't exactly clean in production or disposal, a problem that is largely ignored because the problem hasn't been realized yet.
In both cases you need to generate the electricity cleanly or you haven't won anything. This is a hidden, wider, infrastructure problem across the nation. Demand for power is rising, and distribution and baseload supply are already strapped. It remains an known if the utilities will be able to raise supply in time to keep pace with demand.
I'm not married to the combustion engine by any means, but I don't see a better tool for the job in the toolbox at the moment.
-----signature-----
Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar.
Edward R. Murrow
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jabbadabbado
Registered:
Mar '99
|
Date Posted:
5/11 4:55am
Subject:
RE: Oil Dependency, etc.
- Date Edited:
5/11 5:41am (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Jabbadabbado
|
In Europe something like 55-60% of car owners drive turbo diesels. The VW Golf turbo diesel gets 45-47 mpg. Granted, diesel is more expensive now than unleaded gas, and the wide adoption of turbo diesel engines for personal transport in the U.S. would drive prices up even further, likely delivering a death blow to the long haul trucking industry. But, if you can double the fuel efficiency of your next car, you won't be complaining so hard when the price of gas doubles.
Internal combustion has plenty of opportunities for better fuel efficiency, but Americans haven't really taken advantage of them yet.
-----signature-----
Malthusian Doomsday Quack
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jabbadabbado
Registered:
Mar '99
|
Date Posted:
5/11 6:59am
Subject:
RE: Oil Dependency, etc.
|
An interesting chart comparing biofuel sources. No idea how accurate any of this is. Even if the estimates on the amount of cropland it would take to convert half of America's fuel consumption to biofuel are lies, they're very impressive lies. Even if the estimates are only somewhat accurate, or half truths, it would be difficult to make for example corn based ethanol a significant part of our fuel mix without having a catastrophic impact on the world's food supply.
-----signature-----
Malthusian Doomsday Quack
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Sauntaero
Registered:
Jul '03
|
Date Posted:
5/12 2:01am
Subject:
RE: Oil Dependency, etc.
- Date Edited:
5/12 2:03am (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Sauntaero
|
Awesome chart, Jabba.
If the land-use estimates are correct, that further emphasises a fact that we're going to HAVE to come to grips with: we have to decrease our demand of oil. And not just by buying more efficient cars, but by using less. Like, conserving. Purposely looking for ways to use less, which could include denigrating ourselves to using things like public transport. I'm sure it's redundant by now, but the stereotypical western lifestlye is not sustainable. Period.
Yes, it would be harmful to the economy, but we'll have to invest in other things. Oil will not be profitable indefinitely. Before long we are not going to have any choice about how much oil we use, and it's past the time when we should be prepared for that. The problem is convincing anyone who knows a bit about economics to see past the losses for the long-term benefits.
Also, I'll second the awesomeness that is the TDI engine. Diesel may cost more per gallon, but the car would pay for itself just in the savings. (okay, that might be stretching it...  ) But if you're getting 500 miles to a tank.... 
EDIT: sorry if that first bit sounds a little snarky--I'm in a hurry!
-----signature-----
I just hope I'm around to see the day the New Republic catches up with you.
Whether they give you a medal or just shoot you--either way, it'll be a terrific show.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
