Brazil could displace oil at lower enviromental & dollar cost.

Just released study (Unicamp University - one of the best in technology) shows that with no clearing of rain forests there are 2.5E8 hectars of reasonbly level land in Brazil with soil, rain, truck access, etc. for mechainical cultivation of sugar cane. Also there is great potential in "enzimatic hydrolysis" for efficiency improvement of the conversion (I do not know what this really is).

The following is partial extract from Forbes special report, 16 Nov.05 called: "Sugar in the Tank" (Author David Atoms):

"Brazil is the world's largest producer of sugar and ethanol. Brazilian cars are also equipped with engines that can run on ethanol and gasoline, or any blend of the two. Known as "flex-fuel" cars, they have dazzled the market since their launch by Volkswagen in March 2003. Last month, they captured 66.7% of new car sales. ...

...in Brazil ethanol, or "alcool" as it is called, costs only $2 at the pump, compared to $4 for a gasoline-ethanol blend (Brazil no longer sells regular unblended gasoline). And while ethanol-powered cars consume 25% to 30% more fuel per mile than gasoline cars, the average motorist can save about $820 a year by switching to ethanol. ...

'Ethanol is typically cheaper than regular gasoline, and we're going to do all that we can to support it," said President Bill Ford in a speech to employees in Dearborn, Mich. Ford has since begun a prime time TV advertising campaign for its ethanol vehicles, noting that it plans to produce 250,000 ethanol vehicles next year, way ahead of its plans to produce 250,000 hybrid cars by 2010.' ...

U.S. ethanol production is rising dramatically, thanks to generous corn subsidies, (at least $4.5 billion according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture) and tax incentives for fuel distributors. There are currently 93 ethanol plants in the United States, with another 24 under construction. Production is expected to rise to 5 billion gallons by the end of next year. ...

INSERTED COMMENT BY BILLY T:
Few understand how much of their tax dollars go to support the inefficient sugar / alcohol industry in US:
If US bought alcohol from Brazil (and other tropical producers who have cheap land, labor, 24 month growing season, good rains, etc. No wonder frozen Iowa's corn based Alcohol is several times more expensive to produce.) IT WOULD COST US TAX PAYERS LESS if US simply GAVE CAR FUEL AWAY FOR FREE!!!!! The amount given would need to be limited because if car fuel were free, the consumption would rise and this would no longer be true. Perhaps every US citizen could receive free (transferable for non car owners) coupons for 1000 liters of free alcohol annually and pay lower taxes.

The US voter is in the pocket of the Iowa corn lobby and too ignorant to know it.(end of Billy T insert)

Last year the use of ethanol reduced the U.S. trade deficit by $5.1 billion by eliminating the need to import 143 million barrels of oil, according the Renewable Fuels Association, which represents ethanol producers. In recent years, major energy companies weren't interested, leaving the field wide open to smaller entrepreneurs. Ethanol became the salvation for Midwest corn growers struggling to make ends meet with a saturated market and slumping prices. ...

Sugarcane growers in Florida recently commissioned an ethanol study. Oil industry executives testifying at Senate hearings recently urged that the solution for U.S. energy needs lies in better "access" to new exploration and streamlining refinery permits. To be sure, experts agree that gasoline still has a major role in U.S. energy supply. But with demand and future prices of fossil fuels uncertain, the day of renewable energy may have arrived. ..."

Increased use of Ethanol can reduce the US trade deficit now.

Ethanol always should have been used in place of MBTE, but the damn oil industry is very powerfull in the USA and preferred MBTE as an oxengenator.

But oil prices must rise a bit more before Ethanol can compete with gasoline in an open market unaided by taxes on gasoline. The price information on the other thread showed that taxes in Brazil on gasolene explain why ethanol can compete there now. Unless some other technology comes along, ethanol should eventually replace gasoline in the USA, because we know that untaxed gasoline prices will continue to rise and should cost more than ethanol by 2020.

Plus ultimately you cant grow enough stuff to produce enough fuel to replace petrol; it is only useful as an additive. And as far as I am aware, the major farming corporations in the USA are getting subsidies to develop it, which isnt exactly free market.

American soils have been depleted for like 50 years or something. The only reason we can get any good yeilds out of them is through massive fertilization. Fertilizer that we synthesize using gasoline.

It's very inefficient to use the new bio-fuels, as they ultimately require more fossil fuels to produce than enrgy they yeild.

...The price information on the other thread showed that taxes in Brazil on gasolene explain why ethanol can compete there now. Unless some other technology comes along, ethanol should eventually replace gasoline in the USA, because we know that untaxed gasoline prices will continue to rise and should cost more than ethanol by 2020.Can you giv me more specific reference to "the other thread" and the date of the post you are referring to please?

In US, in Brazil and in all significant producer of alcohol, there are many more production sites than oil refiners. The cost of an efficient small alcohol plant is only very slightly more than a large one per litter of capacity. By locating many closer to the cane, corn, sugar, beets etc. there is great saving in transport to the plant form the growing fields. Thus in all countries, the alcohol is produced by independent producers who tend to compete.

In Brazil, the oil production and refining is by PetroBras and the government is the major stockholder, appoints the president etc. The political control is strong and used to keep the price of gas low at the domestic pump, especially in ellection years - there is never a price increase then, no matter how much the international price of crude has rissen.

The small alcohol producers sell the sugar in the cane juice as sugar on the world market, if that is more profitable or as Alcohol if not. They are not under government control and alcohol they sell is not given any tax break to make it competive. Nature did that by giving Brazil cheap land, cheap labor, abundant rain, 12 months growing season. That is why the cost of producting alcohol in Iowa (or France) is several times more expensive than in poor tropical countries and must have both great government support and quotes to keep the cheap alcohol out.

In short I do not believe your assertions that alcohol in Brazil competes very well with gasoline because of favorable relative tax treatment. If anything it is the other way round when PetroBrass is selling gas domestically at a loss (compenstated, at present, by the high international price of oil).

Plus ultimately you cant grow enough stuff to produce enough fuel to replace petrol; it is only useful as an additive. And as far as I am aware, the major farming corporations in the USA are getting subsidies to develop it, which isnt exactly free market. You are too focused on US production. The unicamp study states Brazil alone could supply most of the current oil used, with reduction in green house gases (The cane takes 100% of the carbon it contains from the air and the alcohol burn in the cars etc returns only a small fraction of it to the air. Most passes thru cows and enriches the soil - this also reducing fertilizer demand - a indirect benefit to the environment from switching to alcohol for car fuel.

Stop thinking must be "made in USA" and climb out of the pockets of the oil industry that wants to permit you only to think of alcohol as an additive to gasoline. Lower your taxes, clean the air, drive at lower cost, with alcohol.

American soils have been depleted for like 50 years or something. The only reason we can get any good yeilds out of them is through massive fertilization. Fertilizer that we synthesize using gasoline.

It's very inefficient to use the new bio-fuels, as they ultimately require more fossil fuels to produce than enrgy they yeild.You too, like guthrie, are a "thought captive" of the Iowa corn lobby and oil industry. Read my reply to him. No one (except those few receiving enormous gifts of your tax dollars) is suggesting producing alcohol in the USA. Import it at about half the cost of gasoline and reduce the US balance of payments problem.

Hmm I dont know. Im sure that there are other ways to use petrol gas more efficiently. I was reading on some site I chanced on to the other night that some guy invented a device to vaporize gas and inject it into the motor cylinder in the 30s. the guy posting on it said that guy got about 8 miles in his car that shouldve got 150 mpg before he was stopped and bought off. the old feller posting even gave detailed instructions on how to modify a carborator to make it so a vehicle could run off gas vapor. Sounded hella dangerous to me but, I somehow feel like it could be feasable. certainly there must be a multitude of ways to make a combustion engine run on less gas or be more efficient. certainly. if nothing else, stop making cars weigh 1000s of fucking pounds. what total bullshit that is. your car runs out of gas and youd be hard pressed to push it a block to a station. if you had a flat and no spare you couldnt carry your wheel a 1/2 mile to have it fixed. if your house was furnished with seats like the ones in your auto youd have to hire a college football athelete to help you redecorate. and dont they have a race in australia every year where solar cars race over a 1000 miles or something? why do hybrid cars necessarily have to produce all of their own battery reserves? is it really believable that they couldnt build a battery system for a car that would run it 200 miles per charge and have electric "filling" stations that could fastcharge the batteries just like we do at gas pumps? Im an idiot when it comes to this stuff, but im quite sure no one is really trying all too hard on this one... seriously. they will fuck us and the planet as long as they can for more cash.

BillyT you said "I gave the new prices in prior post: R$1.24/l for alcohol, just tonight when I filled up, and R$2.30/l for gas."

From the other thread: "
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=49634&page=2

1.24 Brazil Reais = 0.555355 United States Dollars x 4.544 rounds to $2.52 per gallon of ethanol

2.30 Brazil Reais = 1.03009 United States Dollars x 4.544 rounds to $4.68 per gallon of gasoline.

Here in California we were bitching and moaning about paying $3 a gallon. Price came back down to about $2.60 a gallon for gasoline.

One more calculation. With ethanol having less BTUs per gallon you would expect that you would have to burn more more ethanol per kilometer than you have to burn gas per kilometer. Posters on other web sites who may or may not know what they are talking about disagree with each other about whether the ethanol delivers less gas mileage.

If and BTU is a BTU is a BTU and miles/kilometers per volume is determined by BTUs then the adjusted Brazilian prices for ethanol would be R$1.89 per liter or US $3.84 per gallon. " (End of Quote from other thread)

.................................................. .................................................. ............

My memory was off. The gap between ethanol and gas was less than I thought. So forget 2020 as the year when gasoline is more expensive than ethanol and think more like 2010. Oh but wait. Again I forget, the USA also has large taxes on gasoline. Also the California price of gas has come back to about $2.35 . Also the U.S. refiners are propping up the price for refined gasoline by colluding to restrict refining capacity. If they start loosing market share to ethanol they will change their tactics. Maybe 2020 is the year that ethanol becomes cheaper. Who knows.

According to my unverified thinking the spot price for crude entering the US market is the same as the spot price for crude entering the Brazilian market. I see no reason to account for the higher price of gasoline in Brazil other than Brazilian taxes unless the Brazilian refiners are colluding to keep prices up even more than the USA refiners are.

...With ethanol having less BTUs per gallon you would expect that you would have to burn more ethanol per kilometer than you have to burn gas per kilometer. Posters on other web sites who may or may not know what they are talking about disagree with each other about whether the ethanol delivers less gas mileage.
If and BTU is a BTU is a BTU and miles/kilometers per volume is determined by BTUs then the adjusted Brazilian prices for ethanol would be R$1.89 per liter or US $3.84 per gallon. " True that Alcohol gives less MPG than gas. Rule of thumb, here in Brazil is that if alcohol is about 35% lower in price, it is the better bargain.
My memory was off. ... Again I forget, the USA also has large taxes on gasoline. ... Maybe 2020 is the year that ethanol becomes cheaper. All countries put a lot of taxes on fuel. the US much less than most including Brazil, but especially Europe and this is why only US drivers buy the SUV gas hogs. The level of taxes on gas is unimportant relative to the gas vs alcohol question so long as it is related to the energy content and not making a bias in favor of one over the other. In US import quotes, high duties, make alcohol expensive to import and protect the domestic producers. You are transferring billions of you tax dollars to a very few firms (people) for the "benefit" of making it more costly to drive your car! I do not understand How the American voter can be kept so ignorant /poorly informed, but the Iowa corn/ alcohol lobby is one of the most generous and the current US leadership is not only in their pockets, but made up mainly of ex oil CEOs.

According to my unverified thinking the spot price for crude entering the US market is the same as the spot price for crude entering the Brazilian market. I see no reason to account for the higher price of gasoline in Brazil other than Brazilian taxes unless the Brazilian refiners are colluding to keep prices up even more than the USA refiners are.I think this true. Brazil exports more crude than it imports (last year was first time this true) but the crude produced mainly from off shore coastal wells is too thick to supply all domestic gas needs so some is sold and lighter crude is imported. I am not sure of the net economics. PetroBras sells greater volume at lower price than it imports and economically it is probably neutral effect.

You are wrong (unless speaking of the high cost US produced alcohol) to think that alcohol will only be able to be cheaper than gas in 2020. ALCOHOL IS CHEAPER NOW, but kept out of US to benefit the few at the expense of the many, but what is novel about that? :(

Some quotes from Brian Jennings' article in Forbes called "The Case For Ethanol"
Be warned he is pro production in US and the executive vice president of the American Coalition for Ethanol, www.ethanol.org.

While no new oil refineries have been built in the U.S. in nearly three decades, new ethanol-production facilities are coming online at a rate of almost two per month. Today, 92 ethanol plants are operating across the country with a total production capacity of 4 billion gallons of fuel annually. Two dozen more plants are now under construction to provide an additional billion gallons of ethanol.

An average-sized ethanol plant costs approximately $65 million to build and will employ nearly 40 people. These positions are good-paying, high-skill jobs--chemists, engineers, managers, marketers. The plant’s $56 million in annual operating costs circulates throughout the community many times, benefiting everyone from the farmers who provide the corn to make the fuel ethanol to the local businesses that supply goods and services for the production facility. An ethanol plant will increase tax revenue for local and state governments by at least $1.2 million annually.

From the perspective of trade, our increasing imports of oil and gas are a costly habit. America’s trade deficit in crude oil has risen from $27 billion in 1987 to $100 billion in 2002. This deficit is the primary culprit in our total trade deficit. Given that each billion dollars in trade deficit costs the U.S. 19,100 jobs, this is a counterintuitive drain on the U.S. economy that must be plugged.

For every barrel of ethanol that is produced, 1.2 barrels of petroleum are displaced at the refinery. Ethanol won’t replace 100% of the fuel we use, but it is a critically important component in America’s energy-supply portfolio.

Comment by Billy T on last paragraph above:
It could, but not it you try to produce it by growing corn in Iowa's ground which is frozen 1/3 of the year, very high cost, and harvested with very expensive labor.

The U.S. retail price including taxes by volume of gasoline is cheaper than the Brazilian retail price by volume of ethanol incuding taxes. If Brazilian retail ethanol is heavily taxed then maybe ethanol might br cheaper than gasoline.

Heavily taxing gasoline, mainly to reduce the trade deficit, but also to reduce pollution, and to conserve crude oil for future generations of global humans is the obvious common sense policy that the USA should have enacted into laws in the 1970s. But, It would be foolish to expect that the SUV driving Americans led by the propaganda and political money of the extremely powerful oil industry, to vote for politicians who will significantly raise taxes on their gasoline. So ethanol has to beat gasoline at the fuel pump prices as it does in Brazil before Americans switch to ethanol.

Yes the corn growers are a problem.

US sugar growers are protected from imports. The U.S. candy industry wants to import Brazilian sugar but the US suger growers are a stronger political force that limmits sugar imports. The climate in most of the USA must be wrong for growing sugar. I don't know how sugar compares to tobaco and cotton for return on investment for U.S. Southern farmers.

If the USA did import ethanol from Brazil then the potential advantage for the US trade deficit from switching to ethanol would be lost.

...If the USA did import ethanol from Brazil then the potential advantage for the US trade deficit from switching to ethanol would be lost.No, Not true at anything near current crude oil prices as Alcohol is cheaper than energy equivalent gasoline. That is part of the reason why Brazil has a trade surplus - it is avoiding much larger imports of oil by driving alcohol powered cars. In Brazil's case the alcohol is produced in Brazil, so US driving alcohol powered cars wound only reduce the US trade balance problem, not solve it entirely. Roughly by $400 per year per car driven on alcohol instead of gasoline.

Measured either by BTUs or by volume, the retail price you gave for ethanol in Brazil is higher than the current retail price of gasoline in the USA.

If the world price of crude went up and the USA replaced crude imported from the Middle East with Ethanol imported from Brazil the US trade deficit would continue. In the future when ethanol becomes cheaper than gasoline in the USA,the US might want to produce the ethanol domestically to reduce trade deficit, even if the Brazilian ethanol was cheaper than US made ethanol.

If irrational foreign investments were not making a mess and the damn currencies and rose and fell as you would expect them to if the balance of trade drove the currency exchange movements, then David Ricardo's "law of comparative advantage" would be working and free trade would be the best economic policy for all nations, and not bying the Brazilian ethanol if it was cheaper than domesteic ethanol would be unthinkable stupidity.

I wish the Chinese would stop buying US bonds now. Let us have our global economic crisis now and get it over with so that Adam Smith's "invisable hand" of the markets can one again be an invisable hand that guides us wisely to where we should be going instead of being an invisable hand that pushes us into oncoming trafic.

Measured either by BTUs or by volume, the retail price you gave for ethanol in Brazil is higher than the current retail price of gasoline in the USA.
If the world price of crude went up and the USA replaced crude imported from the Middle East with Ethanol imported from Brazil the US trade deficit would continue. In the future when ethanol becomes cheaper than gasoline in the USA,the US might want to produce the ethanol domestically to reduce trade deficit, even if the Brazilian ethanol was cheaper than US made ethanol.
If irrational foreign investments were not making a mess and the damn currencies and rose and fell as you would expect them to if the balance of trade drove the currency exchange movements, then David Ricardo's "law of comparative advantage" would be working and free trade would be the best economic policy for all nations, and not bying the Brazilian ethanol if it was cheaper than domesteic ethanol would be unthinkable stupidity.
I wish the Chinese would stop buying US bonds now. Let us have our global economic crisis now and get it over with so that Adam Smith's "invisable hand" of the markets can one again be an invisable hand that guides us wisely to where we should be going instead of being an invisable hand that pushes us into oncoming trafic.I tend to agree with all of the above.

I want only to note the two main reasons why tropical alcohol, even in the producing country, cost more gas in USA at the pump (after taxes):
(1)Because many foreigners do accept dollars, the value of the dollar is falsely high - your reference to Ricardo & Smith's arguments and the huge US trade deficit is not producing the fall they predict. Thus, oil is imported cheaply when priced in dollars, but that is about to change with Euro be coming part of a basket for pricing crude in the near future.

Alcohol can not be cheaply imported with these same over-valued dollars as the Iowa corn lobby makes sure it can survive with quotas, high import taxes etc. They, with the Ex-oil company CEOs of the current US government, want US to "guzzel oil" as US gas additive is their only market for alcohol. - they can not export it to countries that can buy at less than half their cost. Your taxes are higher so you can pay more to dirve !!! How ignorant can the US voter be ???

(2)Compared to rest of the world, US taxes gasoline very low. This short sighted policy, not only makes US the main consummer of oil, but is very bad for US. For example, GM just announced that it will cut 30,000 more US jobs as the SUV etc it has been selling are losing ground to smaller cars. The average car here in Brazil holds 4 passengers in good confort, but is much smaller that those regular (non-SUV) cars. Your analysis only looked ta the total price of gas vs alcohol. To do it correctly, you must look at each component of the cost at the pump. If you increased the US price of gas so that the price at the pump contained the same % of taxes, then the total price of gas would be higher than Brazilian alcohol is in Brazil.

For example: Assume country B produces 12 apples at 1.00 $US and country U produces 12 at &1.50. Country B applies 300% taxes making the total cost of 12 apples $4.00 and Country U taxes only at 100% so there the total cost is only $3.00. Looking at the total cost (as you did) one concludes that apples are cheaper to produce in country U !!! - What nonsense !!! It is the short signted US tax policy, different from that which all other countries wisely follow, that lead you to the false conclusion you reached.

Drive your USVs until GM goes out of busness, and the dollar is nearly worthless. - Then prehaps you will understand how foolish low taxes on gas were, but I doubt it. I expect that, rather than admit that the US brought about its own collapse, it will blame others.

I also want to offer my reason as to why China keeps accepting Dollars, buying US bonds etc. - They know that they can not defeat US in a military contest. - Both would be losers if it comes to a nuclear ICBM exchange.

They now (or soon will) have the power to destroy US economically at any time of their choosing. I doubt they will do this, but they will be in a position to demand the US conform to their wishes, especially about Taiwan.

Stop thinking must be "made in USA" and climb out of the pockets of the oil industry that wants to permit you only to think of alcohol as an additive to gasoline. Lower your taxes, clean the air, drive at lower cost, with alcohol.
I'm in the UK. Presumably you have figures which show that Brazil can produce megatonnes of ethanol from sugar cane, sufficient in fact to feed both UK, USA and Brazilian petrol needs?

I'm in the UK. Presumably you have figures which show that Brazil can produce megatonnes of ethanol from sugar cane, sufficient in fact to feed both UK, USA and Brazilian petrol needs?

At what cost? And isn't that one of more important issues? If it's too costly, then it can't really be considered a solution to the future oil shortages.

Baron Max

I'm in the UK. Presumably you have figures which show that Brazil can produce megatonnes of ethanol from sugar cane, sufficient in fact to feed both UK, USA and Brazilian petrol needs?I do not have, nor have I read a copy of the recent UniCamp university study. The following with some explanatory comments added by me for non Brazilians came from a newspaper article on the report. It is my summary of the newspaper article:

Just released study (Unicamp University - one of the best in technology) shows that with no clearing of rain forests there are 2.5E8 hectars of reasonably level land in Brazil with soil, rain, truck access, etc. for mechanical cultivation of sugar cane. Also there is great potential in "enzymatic hydrolysis" for efficiency improvement of the conversion (I do not know what this really is).

Brazil is not the only tropical country that can supply alcohol more cheaply than gasoline. Of course none of it will happen while the markets are closed to protect domestic producers in US and Europe, but it obviously economic foolishness to be producing sugar beets in the frozen ground of France, Germany and the six other European countries who just forced an new delay of three years more the start of the agreed 39% reduction in EU's import duties. England also produces sugar, from beets behind a protective tariff wall for the benefit of the few at the expense of the many in the form of higher cost food, fuel and taxes.

What part of the facts that tropical countries, with cheap land and cheap labor and 12 month growing seasons can produce alcohol at a fraction of the cost of Iowa, or Germany or England or France etc. do you doubt?

At what cost? And isn't that one of more important issues? If it's too costly, then it can't really be considered a solution to the future oil shortages. Baron MaxUnfortunately the cost of production of alcohol currently has little to do with where it comes from or how much is produced.

VossistArts,
the old feller posting even gave detailed instructions on how to modify a carborator to make it so a vehicle could run off gas vapor.

As I understand it, the stuff that burns is vapor. Cars already run on vaporized gasoline.

I recently read of a diesel injection system for the big rigs that burns fuel more efficiently by spraying the diesel into the combustion thingy so you get more bang for your buck, so to speak.

I thnk that the only "carborator trick" that might work to reduce the cost of driving is to have a water mist injector that puts fine liquid water drops into the already burning fuel vapor. - sort of internal combustion chamber cooling that keeps the presure on the piston high longer. Something like this has been used in some old prop airplanes, years ago. I did a careful study with my old car years ago of gas efficiency in a 100+ mile drive home I made every week end one summer. I stopped at the one traffic light, even if it was green, filled the tank exactly to the scratch line I had made in the filler tube at start and end of trip, with car always parked in the same position near the pump at the two same gas stations, read the gas used to an estimated 0.01gal accuracy, etc. By edit: I was working at oil refinery and got newly gapped spark plugs for free that had 100hours of use in the dynamonitor lab prior to each trip.

My data made no sense until I included the moisture content of the air. Better MPG when the road was wet or best in slight fog. I seriously considered adding water tray with rag for carborator air to pass thru, but wrecked car first. I do not understand why already vaporized water helps, but mist sure should, if injected at the right time.

Scientific American selected 2005's 50 most important advances /notable achiements. Two were for airplanes, (Airbus 380 & Ipanema 202) that had their first flights in 2005. ("Ipanema" as in "Girl from Ipanema" song.) SA's text about the Ipanema 202 follows, with bold added by Billy T:

With oil prices at record levels, pollution limits in place at many airports and the threat of emission-control regulations, the global aviation industry has good reason to embrace alternative fuel technology. The single-seat EMB 202 Ipanema agricultural utility aircraft from Neiva/Embraer is the first production-series model to burn ethanol produced from sugarcane. This achievement is a natural progression for Brazil because its automobiles have been running on this type of renewable alcohol fuel for more than two decades, an effort that was launched in response to the 1970s oil crisis.

Not only is ethanol a third or fourth the price of aviation gasoline and a cleaner energy source, it helps to improve the aircraft's overall performance. The new Ipanema piston engine also brings other advantages, including lower maintenance costs and a 20 percent reduction in operating costs. So far Neiva/Embraer has received more than 100 orders for the novel crop duster and has plans to install alcohol-burning engines in some of its other models. Company engineers say that conversion of existing aviation gas engines is not only feasible but cost-effective.

draged up old thread instead of start new one to add some recent facts:

Brazil had 6.5 million hectars in sugar cane in 2005/06 harvest. (Our fall is in March) and because alcohol demand is rapidly growing will harvest from approximately 9 million hectars around the end of 06, start of 07. The university study (see post of 11-25-05 below) indicates that in Brazil 250 million hectars of pasture or woodlands are suitable for sugar cane production.

In 2005, 2.4billion liters of alcohol were exported and because 80+ % of all new cars and about half of the 30 million old cars in Brazil now run on alcohol, domestic consumption will require most of the alcohol from the new fields growing cane. - I.e. exports in 2006 will be about 2.6 billion liters. As only a very small fraction of the land potentially available is growing cane (~4%) the exports could be greatly increased if the markets were opened (tariff, quotas, subsidies to rich in Iowa were eliminated so your cost of driving could be less than $2/gallon again.)

There are approximately 89 locations in southern half of Brazil where cane is converted into alcohol, two of which are less than 2 years old, but there are 38 new ones being constructed now.

Japan and perhaps China are signing up for long term contractual supplies of alcohol, forming joint companies with Brail to transport it, etc. Soon It will be too late for the US to get any, even if US were to drop its protectionist policy that adds to both American's tax bills (the subsidy on corn plus a per gallon subsidy for alcohol produced from it) and your cost of driving each mile on $3+/gallon gas.

Irony is that most Americans did not vote for the ex oil CEO now in the White House, but his oil industry is being well protected, despite the cost to the average American of keeping cheap alcohol out of the US.

A few days ago, I paid $R1.14/liter for alcohol and dollar was buying 2.40 Real that day. That is same a US$1.76/gallon, but on a per mile basis (correcting for the 30% less energy in alcohol) that is same as $2.51/ gallon gas, which I think is abnormally high due to fact sugar is at all time high, like many commodities are. - Alcohol was only R$0.70/liter when wife bought our flex fuel car less than two years ago, but the great increase in sales of alcohol using cars has combined with the high prices of sugar to force the price of alcohol above one Real per liter.

Billy T:

How long before Brazil is projected to become self-sufficient in terms of producing all of its liquid fuels (alcohol) from sugar-cane. What percentage of the entire world production of petroleum could conceivably be replaced by Brazil's alcohol production, if most of the farmland were used for that purpose?

The US has very few sugar-cane growing regions. Some here in Hawaii (Maui and Kauai still grow cane, Big Island and Oahu no longer do), some in Florida, and some in Georgia I believe. Australia grows lots of cane still, I believe. I'm not up on the sugar industry - beet sugar is being grown again in Idaho, I believe, and elsewhere. How feasible is it to use the world's agricultural fields to grow for alochol and/or bio-diesel, while still retaining productivity for food? Are we talking about 10% replacement of petroleum, or 90% replacement, by growing for alcohol, etc., while still keeping adequate lands in food production?

Walter L. Wagner (Dr.)

Billy T: (1)How long before Brazil is projected to become self-sufficient in terms of producing all of its liquid fuels (alcohol) from sugar-cane? (2)What percentage of the entire world production of petroleum could conceivably be replaced by Brazil's alcohol production, if most of the farmland were used for that purpose?
....(3)How feasible is it to use the world's agricultural fields to grow for alcohol and/or bio-diesel, while still retaining productivity for food? (4)Are we talking about 10% replacement of petroleum, or 90% replacement, by growing for alcohol, etc., while still keeping adequate lands in food production?...
(1):Far in the future, well past "peak oil." This is because Brazil's oil company (PetroBras, more than half government owned, but I have some of their ADRs, which are now showing a four fold gain for me.) turned "self sufficient" in petroleum products about 6 months ago. (This is not quite true, as Brazil's off shore deposits tend to be heavy crude and currently Brazil lacks enough refinery capacity for this type so some is sold and lighter is purchased. A new refinery will begin construction soon - various states were offering tax deals trying to be chosen. I think a site North of RIO has been selected. Brazil and Venezuela, I believe, are already building a new one together in Venezuela for heavy crude.)

(2) I doubt that it can be 50% for many years, mainly because demand (read China&India) is increasing faster than production. Clearly, after "peak oil" there is a good chance alcohol will provide most of the liquid fuel. (Let us hope via enzymatic conversion of ANY cellulose to some type of sugar and that some, yet to be developed (genetic engineered?), yeast can convert into a liquid fuel, probably alcohol. If world's liquid fuel still comes from sugar cane - I doubt even the current level of food + fuel demand is possible.) See (3) for the importance of "end user efficiency."

(3)Impossible, without considerable starvation, as already exists, plus great improvements in end user efficiency, especially electric powered public transport (driven by nuclear power). Bring back the trolley (or even cable cars, for short steep runs.)!
I also think that buses that run on "super flywheels" between stops where they pause a few (5?) minutes to spin the flywheel up again make a lot of sense. - Some "flywheel buses" of this nature I think were in experimental use in Sweden about 10 years ago, but they used a common iron flywheel and thus could not go kilometers between recharges. (I have not seen the final results of this experiment. - if you find it, please post.)

(4)Nothing to add to what I said in (2). At different times, both 10% and 90% may be correct and at other intermediate times, every percentage in between.

To know more about Biofuel/Ethanol, download the powerpoint at

http://www.khoslaventures.com/presentations/Biofuels.Apr2006.ppt

We are in the process of setting up a 40 million gallon Ethanol Plant in Africa.

Alcohol: Must harvest the sugar cane, extract the juices, ferment them, collect the vapors, and very carefully purify the explosive vapors by controlling the temperatures at which they cool. Each step requires a bit of heavy machinery and power to make any large quantities.

Hemp: Shake the seeds out of the plant, squeeze them using very little energy, and filter them. The fuel is ready for use in a diesel engine or maybe even more importantly in an oil furnace for heating the home. A farm family can literally squeeze thousands of gallons a year out of their own crop with simple machinery, not necessarily using electric power but I would recommend powered machinery. One plant can yield a gallon and more. One person can process a hundred plants a day by hand easily. It's just a freaking weed that puts about half of its weight into seeds and those seeds are 25 to 30 percent perfectly good oil for fuel and lubrication. It's always been the obvious answer to much of our energy needs. Growing sugar cane for this purpose is absolutely farcical.

How much oil can you get from Hemp seeds per acre? Is it easy to grow and how many years between planting for new crop. Essentially what are the economics? May be we could test that out....I know, just the country for it.

Alcohol: ...collect the vapors, and very carefully purify the explosive vapors by controlling the temperatures at which they cool.... Growing sugar cane for this purpose is absolutely farcical.First part not true for two reasons:

(1)You can quench the vapors rapidly, in seconds, if you like or take a week to condense them. - It is simply not true that careful control of temperature is required. - Many a moonshiner in the hills of West Virginia where I grew up could not even read. - Are you telling me they practiced "careful temperature control." LOL

(2) Alcohol tends to burn, not explode. I do not know for sure, but think it may be impossible to make it explode, even if your are trying to make it explode. Even if an air/alcohol vapor mix will explode*, the vapor streaming off the distillation pot and thru the condenser has excluded all the oxygen by its flow. Without an oxidizer, it cannot even burn.

Hope I do not recall your "absolutely farcical" comment while driving my 100% alcohol fueled car* - If I LOL again then I might have an accident. With sugar cane produce alcohol in Brazil, you get 8 fold energy gain on fossil fuel input requirements. There is still some debate as to whether or not US corn produced alcohol is a net energy yield (I think it is. - I.e. about 100 Btu fossil in to get 110Btu alcohol out). I might be persuaded to agree US corn based alcohol is "absolutely farcical" as using it instead of gasoline in your car will surely add to CO2 release, almost doubling it, but replacing gasoline with sugar cane alcohol economically produced in tropical lands will slightly remove already released CO2, not add to it. That, combined with its lower cost and liquid form with little change to existing infrastructure required, make the only thing absolutely farcical about it is your uninformed comment.
-------------------------------
*When my 100% alcohol car starts, it uses a "thimble full" of pure gas from a separate small tank as it is hard to get alcohol to burn or explode in the initially cold cylinder. This little gasoline tank goes dry several times a year as I forget to put a gallon of gas in it and only remember when I can't get the car to start up easily.

What is absolutely farcical is using all that machinery and processing to accomplish what you need almost no tools to accomplish with hemp. It's farcical because in this field we really need to maximize our gains. You get a lot more pounds of oil from an acre of hemp than from an acre of sugarcane.

Ok, maybe it isn't absolutely farcical to use sugarcane, but it is pretty absurd when better stuff grows wild in the ditches. You don't have to ferment or distill hempseed oil. Now, if it becomes legal, I can laugh at your 100 percent alcohol car because I could grow a lot of gallons of fuel on an acreage that is not much good for anything else and if I have to I can squeeze it out by hand with simple equipment. The seeds crush very easily. Very nearly zero BTU in for millions of BTU out and I can stand to lose some weight anyway. The same goes for wood. I've lived places where if my car was powered by burning wood I would never run out of fuel. I've been over how much energy you gain over what you expend processing the stuff, a while back.

The ability to produce usable electrical and heat energy with low tech methods and low cash investments is something that could tip some critical balances.

Also, alcohol explodes quite readily in the right mix of air and alcohol. The stills they used during Prohibition exploded quite regularly. They had hot vapors and had to try to concentrate the alcohol. Also, their equipment was often quite primitive and unpredictable.

The problem you may be having which requires the gasoline to start is probably vapor lock. Alcohol evaporates a lot faster than gasoline does. This isn't a problem once the engine starts because it is drawing more air into the cylinders.

How much oil can you get from Hemp seeds per acre? Is it easy to grow and how many years between planting for new crop. Essentially what are the economics? ...Did you not read all the power point posts of your own reference? I did. I think all your questions are answered there. BTW your reference is well worth the few minutes it takes to down load approximately 125 power point slides. Hemp is certainly discussed, even more than tropical sugar cane, as many of the sources collected into it are US related.

What is absolutely farcical is using all that machinery and processing to accomplish what you need almost no tools to accomplish with hemp. It's farcical because in this field we really need to maximize our gains. You get a lot more pounds of oil from an acre of hemp than from an acre of sugarcane.

Ok, maybe it isn't absolutely farcical to use sugarcane, but it is pretty absurd when better stuff grows wild in the ditches. You don't have to ferment or distill hempseed oil. ...You are confusing apples and oranges. Yes there are many vegetable sources of oil that can replace diesel. Diesel engines are heavy, mainly suitable for trucks. We need to be moving towards lighter weight cars.

In Brazil 100s of small farms are already cultivating the weed "mamona" for its oil and it is already being added to diesel fuels (1 to 2 %). Recent study released by PertoBrass indicates that to really displace significant oil in diesel fuel soybeans are the way to go in Brazil, at least. Their oil is added during a hydrogen processing stage which lowers oil's sulphur content, hence they are calling this soy bean oil "H-diesel." two refineries are already making H-diesel. I was sad to learn this as mamona is a low-water-requirement, zero-fertilizer requirement weed that grows wild all over Brazil. I seriously doubt that you can just squeze hemp seed and add the oil to diesel without processing as you seem to be suggesting. No other vegitable oil, mamona included, can do this in significant % addition. Can you support your claim? (With a creditable journal article, not "love-the-Earth.org" type of web cite.)

Just a piece of friendly advice:
Goolge more and/or think more, before you post. I am growing tired of correcting you. At least you have now shown some willingness to learn - you did learn the difference between “hysterisis” and “eddy currents” in our last conflict, but still do not have it quite right as you thought magnetic hysterisis has something to do with “delay” in you last post. (It doesn’t.)

I was taught that hysteresis meant pretty much "delay." That's a six of one and half a dozen of the other argument. Hysteresis means that there is a delay between the time that the magnetic field changes direction and the time that some of the atoms of the magnetic material line up with it.

Most of the web sites that you seem to wave away so easily come from actual research articles. Do you actually check to see if they provide references? Why does "love the earth" seem to be an idea that you hold contempt for?

Also, Billy, it looks to me like you attempt to invalidate my position by arguing from a position of ignorance. You've claimed to be my superior on this kind of subject more than once. Perhaps you should find out something for yourself about the use of hemp for fuel.

I was taught that hysteresis meant pretty much "delay." That's a six of one and half a dozen of the other argument. Hysteresis means that there is a delay between the time that the magnetic field changes direction and the time that some of the atoms of the magnetic material line up with it.

Most of the web sites that you seem to wave away so easily come from actual research articles. Do you actually check to see if they provide references? Why does "love the earth" seem to be an idea that you hold contempt for?I do not, with rare exceptions, google for information. Most of what I want to know has already been squirreled away in my memory during the past 60+ years I have been studying. (You will often see in my post the phrase: "If memory serves me correctly.") I find it appalling how much nonsense is out there on the web. Not worth my time usually. In some areas, where I do not already have years of experience, I do google.

We were speaking of magnetic hysterisis. Perhaps the idea of delay is common in non-technical use of this term.

later by edit: Let me slightly correct that. It must be common and that is why the term is used in this technical area. The magnetic field in a magnetic material is not determined by the amper turns (the "B field") applied, but by the recent history of applied B fields. In this sense there is a "delay," but that delay is not the disipation mechanism. That is proportional to the area inside the H vs B curve of a cyclic application of B fields and associated with the actual "flipping of domains"*.

(Thus there is at least some connection with the idea of "delay" in the choice of the name "hysterisis." I was not recalling this when we were speaking of loss mechanism, eddy current and hystersis. Even the eddy currents have a delay in that the eddy current is not in phase with the externally applied field, once you are inside the conductor, but once again, this "delay" is not the cause of the disipation - the disipation is still the I^2R losses of the eddy current, not any "delay".)
-----------------------------------
*I never really thought much about the real mechanism, but it now seems to me hysterises may actually be "micro eddy currents" I.e. as the domain flips there is a very local dB/dt term and that means a very local electric field and that mean a local I^2 R loss! -See that is why I like to teach - I almost always learn when I do so.

"Delay" is one synonym for "hysteresis." It's good enough for me.

The thing about hempseed oil is old history that has made a lot of rounds. Jack Herer's book contains not one thing that cannot be verified with the usual book type references. He made sure of that. The history of the diesel engine includes the fact that it was originally run on hempseed oil and that people have actually run pure hempseed oil in diesel engines successfully.

I do like it better when the proper studies are referenced, but some people also take the oil and put it in the engine and run it and write it up. Myself I think the "biodiesel" recipes are unnecessary and "esterification" may be more smoke and mirrors when you are talking about hempseed oil. You have an oil with properties roughly similar to those of diesel so I think that all it needs is a tune-up if it needs that. We already know that it's possible to run passenger cars with diesel engines. They do exist.

...The thing about hempseed oil is old history that has made a lot of rounds. Jack Herer's book contains not one thing that cannot be verified with the usual book type references. He made sure of that. The history of the diesel engine includes the fact that it was originally run on hempseed oil and that people have actually run pure hempseed oil in diesel engines successfully. ,,, I do not know that essentially unprocessed hemp oil is not a suitable replacement for refined diesel, but remain skeptical. I have no doubt that diesel motors will run on it. They can run on old french-fry oil. The first ran on peanut oil I think.

That running is not a proof they are a viable replacement for refined diesel. The instruction manual for the first VW I owned stated it could run on benzene. (The toxicity of benezene was not as well known them.) I once put some very cheap gas (actually it was probably mainly untaxed paint thiner) in my four wheel drive, old Russian* made Lada, which is a "gas only" car. Well it did run, but never again will I do that. You need to be sure that the fuel you feed the engine does not destroy it after a few years of use. I am not saying it is impossible for this to be true of simple unrefined hemp oil, but I would be very surprised if it is. After all, PetroBrass has spent millions and come to a conlculsion that soybean oil must replace the currently used mamona oil. I am sure they looked into hemp oil and many others.

About "love the Earth.org" I just made that name up half hour ago to illustrate the type of sites more full of hopes more than facts one can encounter on the net. If it really exists, I want to state I know nothing about the quality of what is there.
--------------------------------
* Russian gas was, at least then, very low quality, so I thought it would be OK.

...We already know that it's possible to run passenger cars with diesel engines. They do exist.Yes. So do SUVs. the most cost effective way to get better fuel economy is reduce the car weight. Diesel engines ignite the fuel/air mixture by very high compression and must be strong to do so. - read that as heavy. If the moter is heavy the frame must be heavy. I do not remember the exact numbers, but roughly every pound you can take out of the engine weight becomes at least 5 pounds off the car weight. Diesel car would be a step backwards in the drive to reduce fuel consumption. Lighter, not heaver, cars are needed.

...You have an oil with properties roughly similar to those of diesel so I think that all it needs is a tune-up if it needs that...Your are aware, I hope, that there is nothing to "tune up" in a diesel as there are no sparks plugs and thus no "timing of ignition" to adjust. Again pause and think a little before you post. If I am mistaken, tell me what you "tune up" in a diesel.

I think I found it:

A typical hemp seed crop yields 20 to 30 bushels per acre, or about 900 to 1300 lbs per acre.
Wholesale prices for hemp seed in the USA vary between 20c - 90c per pound. (NZ 30c - $1.40)
Farmers would therefore gross between US$375 - $1200 (NZ$575 - $1850) per acre.
Pressing seeds for oil usually yields 25% oil by weight, therefore 14 - 21 gallons per acre.
Hemp seed oil currently sells for between US$50 - $100 per gallon (NZ$77 - 153).
Gross Income per acre would therefore be between US$700 -$2100 (NZ$1076 - 3230).
(source: Ed Rosenthal, 1995)

I think I found it:...good work. Now compare to sugar cane grown in Brazil if you can. I think I have posted some related infro, but if using any of my cost data, be careful as I tend to include the taxes, not theproduction cost as I go by what I most recently paid at the pump for my car. I must go to bed now.

I learned about this stuff in class a long time ago. Diesel engines do indeed need to be tuned and I was taught that you needed a computer to do it, meaning something like a low-powered processor or some logic circuits (this was in 1977).

There are timing belts, pump timing, and the injectors. The valves are also adjustable. I don't know how but this site (http://www.prairietruckandtractor.com/dieseltuneup.html) explains some of it. Even knowing that a diesel engine can fall out of tune is useful.

The most likely thing to have to adjust for a different fuel is the fuel/air mixture. I have very little familiarity with the types of diesel engines that are around so I have no real idea what would make one model able to use hemp oil and another unable. The lubrication of hemp oil is known to be good enough to use on aircraft engines. This means that the fuel does not have to be mixed with sulfur substitute to lubricate the valve action.

Diesels have their problems but hemp fuel is easy to make at home for very little cost. There will be no major obstacles to overcome to make the engines work with the fuel. The very first such engines ran on it. It can't cost all that much to buy the fuel, either. A lot of people will line up to buy a car that can run on a fuel that costs less than a dollar a gallon. So, yes, give people an engine of moderate horsepower that can run on freely available hempseed oil, they will want it.

We still have the home heating applications, too. A lot of people spend more on home heating than gasoline.

I learned about this stuff in class a long time ago. Diesel engines do indeed need to be tuned and I was taught that you needed a computer to do it, meaning something like a low-powered processor or some logic circuits (this was in 1977).

There are timing belts, pump timing, and the injectors. The valves are also adjustable. I don't know how but this site (http://www.prairietruckandtractor.com/dieseltuneup.html) explains some of it. Even knowing that a diesel engine can fall out of tune is useful....OK, and thanks for the link, reference. We use the term "tune up" differently. Yes, one needs to check the compression to make sure you do not have a broken piston ring. Yes, one needs to check to make sure the injectors are not clogged. These are the two items your reference mentions for diesel engines.

I guess it may be possible for the belts, rocker arms and or gear train that lifts the exhaust valve via the unadjustable cam shaft to fail. I guess the mechanism that rotates the cam shaft could break and cause the exhaust valve to not open at all or remain open, etc. I call these mechanical checks and repairs "maintance" same a I call keeping the correct air pressure in the tires, "Maintance."

If you like to call things like this a "tune up," that is your right but do not be surprised if few understand you. If you refer to adjusting tire pressure as "tuning up the tires" people will understand that you are repairing the alingnment or adjusting the air pressure etc., but if you just say "tune up" (as you did) I think few will understand you are speaking of uncloging an injector of fixing a broken part like a piston ring, or gear or rocker arm screw that determines when the valves open. (I certainly did not understand you to be referring to these routine maintance items when speaking of a "tune up" for diesels.)

SUMMARY:
All mechanical devices need matainance, but not all maintaince should be called "tune up" IMHO. For example, do you "tune up" your front door lock when you squirt some graphite into it? Or do you maintain it?

You seem not to know, Billy, that the fuel injection on a diesel engine occurs at a precisely timed interval during the compression cycle and that this timing critically affects performance. Both the timing of the injection of fuel and the amount of fuel injected need to be adjusted to suit the fuel and the specific model of the engine. I am not the world's ranking expert on diesel engines but I could do that kind of servicing if I had a manual that told me how.

I had to look that up. I knew that diesel engines required tuning but I had to look it up to find out exactly what kind. The compression cycle starts with just air to compress. Then the pump squirts the fuel in at (hopefully) exactly the optimum time for complete combustion. This can't be done so well at low RPM and everyone's seen what happens then. The reasonable thing to speculate is that the engine might have to be retuned when you use a different fuel.

The valve action is also adjustable according to the link I put up.

All of this is the equivalent of adjusting air flow and ignition timing, so it is definitely tuning the engine. A "tune up" consists of replacing parts that are involved, like injectors, timing belts, and possibly valves, pistons, and heads. After doing any such replacements, a wise mechanic checks the tuning of the engine even if he thinks that what he did would not affect it. That's my opinion anyway. Replacing something like a timing belt absolutely requires checking the injector timing or you will have problems. I would do it for new injectors on general principles.

People have to be careful whose reports they believe, too. If you estimate 16 square feet per plant, 43506 square feet per acre, that's 2719 plants per acre, and that is sparse. If two pounds of oil can be recovered per plant, that's more than 700 gallons of oil per acre, not someone's figure of about 14 gallons per acre. I've seen estimates as high as 65 barrels per acre, which is 3575 gallons. Two pounds of oil would be from a plant that yielded eight pounds of seed and weighed not less than sixteen pounds but not much more than twenty to thirty. A big plant can weigh over 100 pounds and be half seed by weight, which is when you will probably need that 16 square feet per plant. Then you are looking at a plausible 12 pounds of oil out of one plant, more than a gallon and a half.

You seem not to know, Billy, that the fuel injection on a diesel engine occurs at a precisely timed interval during the compression cycle and that this timing critically affects performance. ...Of course I knew that, but admit I know little about how fuel injectors work. If they have electronic activated pumps, and they very well may in this day of computerized car, you have a good defense for calling the adjustment, if needed, of their timing a "tune up." I admit my unthinking image of how these pumps might work is based on the (probably false) assumption that they work like all the fuel pumps I am familiar with. - I.e. some mechanical energy from the car's motor directly (instead of indirectly via generator, whoops, via alternator etc) activates the pumps. Again you have caused me to think. Yes, I can even learn from you. Thanks.

People have to be careful whose reports they believe, too. If you estimate 16 square feet per plant, 43506 square feet per acre, that's 2719 plants per acre, and that is sparse. If two pounds of oil can be recovered per plant, that's more than 700 gallons of oil per acre, not someone's figure of about 14 gallons per acre. I've seen estimates as high as 65 barrels per acre, which is 3575 gallons. Two pounds of oil would be from a plant that yielded eight pounds of seed and weighed not less than sixteen pounds but not much more than twenty to thirty. A big plant can weigh over 100 pounds and be half seed by weight, which is when you will probably need that 16 square feet per plant. Then you are looking at a plausible 12 pounds of oil out of one plant, more than a gallon and a half.I am not going to do it, but it might be useful to compute the conversion efficiency your 700gallons/ per acre (/year?) implies. The total annual solar energy input/ acre assuming the leaves capture roughly 1/25* of it should should be at least 20 times greater that the Btu content of the oil. (I here assume half the energy ends up in the cellose and the non C4 photo synthesis is actually well below 10%. Corn an sugar cane both are the more efficient "C4 photosynthesis, but few other plants are.") conversion I.e. Even with these generous estimates, the conversion of solar energy is one part out of 500 ends up in the oil and plant celulose. Asuming equal division between oil and celulose, a rough order of magnitued wouold be a solar system with 0.1% efficiency. Solar cells can easily get 50 times better, but of course the cost a hell of a lot more than plants. Have you done this type of "sanity check"?
---------------------------------
*When plant is small, probably is is capturing less that 1/1000 of the solar energy falling on the ground. Perhaps it might be useful to consider less than annual solar imput.

Well, knowing that the plants will make themselves if I prepare the ground and plant the seeds, and knowing that solar cells cost millions of dollars per acre, actually calculating efficiencies that way seems superfluous to me. We are a long way away from having the means to squeeze that much out of every square foot of the planet's surface. The plant also produces the storage medium for the energy.

Well, knowing that the plants will make themselves if I prepare the ground and plant the seeds, and knowing that solar cells cost millions of dollars per acre, actually calculating efficiencies that way seems superfluous to me. We are a long way away from having the means to squeeze that much out of every square foot of the planet's surface. The plant also produces the storage medium for the energy.I only suggested it as a "sanity check" - Clearly if the energy in 700 gallons of oil is even 3% of that in the sunshine that fell on the acre, then the 700gallons per acre number is wrong. I am not suggesting that the efficiency is particulatly important.

It is always the costs that makes a system live or die (unless you start having quotas and discriminator taxes, subsidies, etc., which is what is keeping Brazilian alcohol out of the US and is making it more costly for Americans to drive and forcing them to pay higher taxes for the huge subsidies given to a relative few, already-rich, corn farmers. Privately held Cargill is not even a stock company, so in its case there are not even share holders making profits off the average taxer's back.

We need to avoid leaving farming in the hands of a few large businesses. Those monopolies are able to dictate terms to the general population that are way bad for civil rights and for our ability to even survive. What are they selling us? Tasteless food that any small farmer can easily improve on, more taxes, more restrictions on our lives, and nothing in return but low wages, clothing and shoes that fall apart, housing that falls apart, and almost entirely worthless television and movies. Even most of the books are insipid.

It's better to face death by gunshot or wild animals than to face a life that just winds down according to the rules of entropy. In the first instance you live until you die. In the second instance you start dying the moment you are born.

I am please we comletely agree at least on all your last post but this part....It's better to face death by gunshot or wild animals than to face a life that just winds down according to the rules of entropy....
With energy input you can control the increase of entropy, in your local system, but unfortunately, from the individual POV, not all the aging process.

Your choice. How about letting me have mine?

That sounded too personal. What I meant was, society should let me have my choice.

Your choice. How about letting me have mine?...Certainly. If you are really serious, not one can stop you from ending it all. Me, I put $5oK into a life annuity (Mainly to protect me from getting stupid with age as I can easily live on that and Social Security in Brazil.) I am frugal. So despite having already gotten my $50K back, I want to live long enough to collect at least $150 from the company.

No, it's just having a reasonable risk that I want as opposed to futile attempts to remove all risk from life. If doing something stupid means that I have a one in a million chance of dying from doing it, I don't want the law to say that I can't do it. I see it as having a 99.9999 chance of surviving it.

No, it's just having a reasonable risk that I want as opposed to futile attempts to remove all risk from life. If doing something stupid means that I have a one in a million chance of dying from doing it, I don't want the law to say that I can't do it. I see it as having a 99.9999 chance of surviving it.Sorry - I was not clear and think you misunderstood my "doing something stupid" - I was not concerned with possible suicide or activity risk factors, but with foolish F&F decisions I might make in my old age.
(Finances and Females)

Well, I wasn't all that clear either. I don't take risks that are unrewarding or high probability of injury or death. At the same time I have complete confidence doing some things that people characterize as deadly risks because I know that the chances of dying are on the order of one in a million.

I do not know that essentially unprocessed hemp oil is not a suitable replacement for refined diesel, but remain skeptical. I have no doubt that diesel motors will run on it. They can run on old french-fry oil. The first ran on peanut oil I think.

That running is not a proof they are a viable replacement for refined diesel. The instruction manual for the first VW I owned stated it could run on benzene. (The toxicity of benezene was not as well known them.) I once put some very cheap gas (actually it was probably mainly untaxed paint thiner) in my four wheel drive, old Russian* made Lada, which is a "gas only" car. Well it did run, but never again will I do that. You need to be sure that the fuel you feed the engine does not destroy it after a few years of use. I am not saying it is impossible for this to be true of simple unrefined hemp oil, but I would be very surprised if it is. After all, PetroBrass has spent millions and come to a conlculsion that soybean oil must replace the currently used mamona oil. I am sure they looked into hemp oil and many others.

About "love the Earth.org" I just made that name up half hour ago to illustrate the type of sites more full of hopes more than facts one can encounter on the net. If it really exists, I want to state I know nothing about the quality of what is there.
--------------------------------
* Russian gas was, at least then, very low quality, so I thought it would be OK.


Any country that chooses to manufacture large quantities of hempseed oil faces trade embargoes by the U.S. at best, and it could escalate to military assaults and carpet-bombing of cities. It is and always will be feasible to grow it for fuel as long as no authority chooses to attack the growers for doing it. The U.S. has a bad history of attacking other countries over the alleged drug trade, including using chemical weapons like paraquat that are quite dangerous to humans on both food crops and hemp, which even if they were still usable would have to be picked by hand. They also killed somewhere from 500 to 5,000 Panamanians to extract Noriega, and this was over the cocaine trade. The drug trade has been used as an excuse for a lot of operations like that.

In other words, choosing hempseed oil as fuel is mortally dangerous to the country that does so and invites destruction on a vast scale, courtesy of the nation that was built on principles like individual liberty.

And there does need to be careful temperature control when distilling alcohol for fuel or it will end up with too much water to be useful as fuel. The requirements are a little looser for moonshine but people still want a lot of kick for the dollar.

Just heard on NPR that with recent, revised number crunching, ethanol is a viable fuel, so long as they get it from stuff that doesn't require enormous nitrogen inputs.

I was thinking about this, and if America was to raise crops more efficiently without losing all the fertilizer to runoff every year, we would get far more calories of ethanol to the acre than we currently do. There's no reason we couldn't get more energy from our farms than teh energy we put in, as the all the energy that comes from plants comes from the sun, not nitrogenous fertilizer.

Check these guys out:
http://www.landinstitute.org/

And there does need to be careful temperature control when distilling alcohol for fuel or it will end up with too much water to be useful as fuel....Can you explain better what you mean by "temperature control"? I suspect that in ignorance, you are confusing it with thru-put control. (The temperature of the distillation pot does not change much as the liquid boils.)

I know a little something about distillation. One of my summer jobs as an undergraduate student was with the Lion Oil company's Lab in Southern Arkansas, (I forget the city now.) At start of start of summer I poured 55gal of benzene and 55 gal of Carbon Tetra Chloride together in the "pot" of a small (~3m tall distillation tower) research distillation unit and spent the summer trying various ways to get them separated again.

This is not as silly as that sounds as my job was to evaluate the number of "theoretical plates" for a particular perforated metal packing that Lion Oil was thinking about buying for their main refinery. (Actually it was quite an important job. I never learned if the did or did not spend millions based on my report.) The packing looked sort of like "rice checks," but the small slightly curved squares were shiny metal with many holes punched in them but no removal of any metal by the punching. - About 3 m of that packing got to 22 plates, with relative low thru put, but of course, the packing was just a continuous jumble in the vertical column.

Again tell what you mean by “temperature control”

Just heard on NPR that with recent, revised number crunching, ethanol is a viable fuel, so long as they get it from stuff that doesn't require enormous nitrogen inputs....Glad you are beginning to understand.

The ratio of energy in alcohol produced to total non-solar energy input (for fertilizer, plowing, crop collection, distillation, etc) varies greatly. In Iowa, with corn as the crop, and substantial fertilizer required to compensate for the limited growing season, in my opinion the energy yield ratio is about 1.1; I.e. a 10% net gain, although some experts are still of the opinion there is a slight energy loss. In Brazil, with more sun and manual labor the energy gain ratio is about 8!

Just today, Adriabo Dalbem, Director of Supplements, for Brazil's division of Royal Dutch Shell oil company announced that they will buy and send 30 million liters of alcohol to the US and plan to ship a total of 150 Million liters to US from this fall's harvest of cane. They will only confirm that the price paid to Brazilian producers will be "AT THE MARKET," but that currently means approximately US$0.55/L (or if you like US$2.06/gallon.) I think it will also be burdened with import duties of US$0.51/gallon (if they can get it in before the extra 10cents/gal Iowa corn producers want is added.) for a total of $2.57/gallon. Shipping etc cost will add about 13 cents so let us call it $2.70/gallon. (I am only guessing at the import duty by setting it equal to the alcohol subsidy now paid to US producers. - If anyone knows what it is, please post.)

On an energy equivalent basis this translates to $3.86/gallon of gasoline. - Obviously, Shell either is willing to test the import system, even if it loses a little or they know something about where gasoline prices are headed soon.

There may be other factors in their analysis. For example, the demand for US corn based alcohol may get so great with more cars, especially in California, using E85 that there is a squeeze on the availability of alcohol as additive for regular gas, especially in states where both lead and MBTE is illegal, so shell may be just taking out an insurance policy against tight supply with this first ever substantial shipment to US of Brazilian alcohol.

By temperature control, I mean that separation of alcohol and water by distillation is a bit tricky. The vapor pressure of water isn't a lot different from the vapor pressure of alcohol at the boiling point of alcohol, which is about 173 degrees F. The vapors contain a huge proportion of water that has to be separated. Obviously the water will condense out at below its boiling point. It will also absorb alcohol from the vapors as it condenses, so that water needs to go back into the mix. You need a stretch that says between 212 F and 173 F. Too long a stretch and the scheme becomes inefficient because too much alcohol returns. Too short, you deliver too much water to the output.

Maybe it's not rocket science and not high precision, but there are ideal temperatures and lengths for the coils where the water is condensed. Ideally the part where the water condenses is all downhill back to the cauldron so it doesn't start burping. Then the alcohol condenses on the way down the other side and drips into whatever you use to catch it. Where the tubing starts downhill it needs to be less than 212 F and more than 173 F. I am sure there are other details I'm not mentioning in this quick essay, or that I don't know. If you are using electricity or petroleum to heat the mash you definitely want high efficiency when you produce fuel. I wish they would do it with solar heat.

A homesteader using wood as the source of heat might well find that he can produce alcohol at a much lower cost than gasoline since wood used as fuel, if it grows on your own acreage, costs the equivalent of pennies (maybe less than a penny) a gallon in heat. It's essentially free even when you use a chainsaw to cut it. A chainsaw can make a hundred pounds of wood usable as fuel using very little out of a tank of gas, I know from experience. One man with a handsaw can also break down large trees into wood, although that can be a waste of usable man-hours.

Commercial production has certain limitations and imperatives. Home producers can strip the corn cobs, or not, and throw them into the digester. The kernels soften with soaking. Any source of starch works. Cellulose works but that doesn't go as easy.

What makes it expensive is when you have to comply with regulations that force you to add a certain amount of petroleum or more poisonous alcohols to the mix so that it is not drinkable. I haven't looked those up in a while, but it definitely cuts down the savings if you have to mix three dollar a gallon gasoline with it or even more expensive isopropyl alcohol. I'll vote for methyl at 2 percent myself.

To MetaTron:

You appear to be familiar with the typical moonshiner's "pot and coil" distillation of alcohol. Industral production does not use temperature controlled tubing or coils. Instead there is a vertical cylinder, usually with some horizontal plates with holes in them (for the vapor and condensate to pass thru) that support the packing. They are well insulated on the outside. No heat is added or removed thru the cylinder walls. Nature (physical chemistry) automatically establishes the "perfect" negative vertical thermal gradient for the thru-put in the column.

Get a book that discusses a distillation tower and understand the concept of a "theoretical plate" before posting more in ignorance.

See/read my post again. I have worked 3 months with a small research lab version of a commercial distillation tower. They have no "tubing." They have no "coil." They are large (more than 1 meter in diameter) vertical cylinders. Have you ever even seen one?

To MetaTron:

You appear to be familiar with the typical moonshiner's distillation of alcohol. Industral production does not use temperature controlled tubing. Instead there is a vertiacal cylinder, usually with some horizontal plates with hole in them of course that support the packing.

See/read my post again. I have worked 3 months with a small research lab version of a commercial distillation tower. They have no "tubing." They are large (more than 1 meter in diameter) vertical cylinders. Have you ever even seen one?

They're not going to get the results they want unless they condense the water out without losing the alcohol. That "packing" had better be at the right temperature, so there had better be some kind of temperature control. I don't know what you are quibbling about.

They're not going to get the results they want unless they condense the water out without losing the alcohol. That "packing" had better be at the right temperature, so there had better be some kind of temperature control. I don't know what you are quibbling about.Read again my last post, now that it is complete. (I am dyslexic so it is necesary for me to post and check. When I do so, I often add new parts to make it more clear.)

You replied before I had edit it to tell you that nature supplies the "perfect" temperature gradient. When you know the theory behind the standard "theoretical plate" analysis, you will understand how the heat of evaporation and condensation are used within the column and why it would be a disaster to make it the way you think it works with external water cooling or some other form of "temperature control" as the moonshiner does.

Again no heat is removed from the column (except by the exit flow of hot liquid and or vapor at the top). I.e. there is no external cooling / "temperature control" for condensing the vapor in a commercial distillation tower. The heat of condensation in one theoretical plate supplies the heat of evaporation to the next, but of course these "theoretical plates" do not really exist, except in the detail analysis of how it works.

So the temperature control is inherent. It is still there. It can still be overheated if someone finds a way to crank up the heat too high. Someone had still better be watching the gauges. I appreciate the fact that the scheme is fool-resistant.

So the temperature control is inherent. It is still there. It can still be overheated if someone finds a way to crank up the heat too high.* Someone had still better be watching the gauges. I appreciate the fact that the scheme is fool-resistant.That is a silly, confusing, extension of the concept of "temperature control" to include the inherent boiling temperatures, which nature controls, not man. Yes, I admit nature does “control” water to boil at 100C but calling that “temperature control” is silly and confusing. Simply admit that you were wrong to say that "careful temperature control is required" in industrial distillation of alcohol, which is basically continuous boiling and condensing of constantly varying vapors and condensate mixes in the distillation column, always at the temperature set by nature for the local mixture.

You had only a partial understanding and you were thinking in terms of the tubing and coils (you explicitly mentioned them) used by a moonshiner, who does exercise external temperature control, usually by cold water and because he tries to interfere with nature produces a poor separation.

Industrial scale distillation is entirely different. NO TEMPERATURE CONTROL, NO TUBES, NO COILS, but there is “heating control” during industrial distillation. (Even in your text I quoted above, there still appears to be some confusion between heat and temperature, but I am reasonable sure you know the difference and this just reflects your lack of understand of the commercial scale distillation process.)

You should not state that "careful temperature control is required" for distillation for industrial scale production of alcohol. I.e. for the differential condensation of alcohol and water vapors and the differential evaporation of alcohol water mixture, on the packing filling the distillation column, which is what the "theoretical plate" analysis is all about.

If your claim were true for a mutually soluble liquid mix passing thru a distillation column, then the same would be true of the condensation and evaporation of a pure liquid substance in a distillation column. (but of course if only one substance were there, then it would remain a constant concentration of that one component.) I.e. effectively you are saying (with your silly extension of the concept of "temperature control" to cases where the control is entirely intrinsic, done by nature.) that one must have "careful temperature control" to make steam condense to water at 100C!

For any given pure liquid or any given mix of mutually soluble liquids (like a mix of alcohol and water or a mix of benzene and toluene, etc.) there is a temperature set my nature not "controlled by man," at which the (total) vapor pressure of the liquid is equal to the pressure of the of the vapor above the surface - I.e. a temperature, set by nature at which the liquid boils (and at which a slightly different composition mix vapor condenses).

What you do control, as I told you earlier, is not the boiling temperature, but the heating rate of the liquid in the "pot." I.e. you control the thru-put or mass flowing from liquid to vapor. Nature controls the temperature at which the boiling occurs for any liquid or mix of mutually soluble liquids, like alcohol and water.

As the mixed vapors proceed thru the packing in the distillation column, the relative amount of the lower boiling temperature component constantly increases and nature is constantly setting the new temperature at which the condensing liquid still boils. Man is not controlling this temperature. If he tries to do so, he will just worsen the performance of the distillation. So the truth is just the opposite of your statement, when one is speaking of the commercial production of alcohol instead of the moonshiner's method you were wrongly assuming of how commercial scale distillation works / is done.

I think you are now beginning to understand, no longer fully ignorant, but I still recommend you get a book that tells you about the "theoretical plates" in a commercial distillation tower. (And forget what you know about the moonshiner's method when discussing distillation of alcohol on an industrial scale - that has already misled you enough!)
---------------------------------------------
*This is true, but you are speaking of "thru-put" not "temperature" control. As the thru-put is increased, the performance, measured in "theoretical plates," of the distillation tower goes down. I.e. the emerging vapor or liquid taken from the top of the tower will have more of the higher boiling point component. - I do not feel like going into more subtle points related to the existence of eutectics just now - read that in a book.

I should also note that in my work in this field so many years ago it was toluene, not carbon tetra chloride as I stated earlier, that I mixed with the benzene. They have very nearly the same boiling point and are often used to test the maximum performance of a distillation system, as I was doing so long ago that initially I forgot what I did in detail. (I remembered the benzene because a few year later, it became known that it is toxic. Quite a few times, when opening the hot pot, I unintentionally inhaled some. Fact that it is often in the glue that some really stupid kids intentionally inhale, in much greater volumes, helped me not worry much about this exposure.)

In Sao paulo, Brazil at 7PM local CNNi (i for international edition) used all of its 30 minute program, called "Insight," to report on alcohol, mainly facts from Brazil's 30 years of experience with driving cars on it." I even learned somethng from it - namely VW of Brazil will not make any more gasoline engines here. All VWs will be "flex fuel" - any ratio of gas and alcohol and that the total cost of these engines is only $100 dollars greater (where I now buy my alcohol fuel it is exactly half the price of gas so I save more than $100 every 3 months filling tank with 100% alcohol.) US's "E85 cars" are still 15% gas.

There was only one error in the program, that I noticed. I hope it is available in CNN of USA also - try to see it. (Error is one expert's statement that corn is most the most efficient source. - He was thinking of the those used in US. - For example, the net energy yield of sugar cane alcohol in Brazil is about 8 but only 1.1 with Iowa corn. Both corn and sugar cane are among the few crops that use the more efficient four carbon step photo sythensis process, but sugar cane is more efficient at removing the CO2 from the air so it is the most efficient even if only considering the capture of sun light and neglecting the huge fossil input (fertilizers etc) required to grow corn in Iowa's short summers. The residue from cane also makes both good fertilizer and acts as a pesticide. - Corn residue does not, but both can be feed to cattle.

Program is full of facts - watch it if you can.

Summary of article on corn based ethanol in tomorrow's New York Times:

Expect to pay higher taxes (for the subsidies) and higher food prices while big agri-business gets richer.
Article ends with:
"With oil prices at $70 a barrel sharply lifting the prices paid for ethanol, the average processing plant is earning a net profit of more than $5 a bushel on the corn it is buying for about $2 a bushel, Mr. Basse said. And that is before the 51-cent-a-gallon tax credit given to refiners and blenders that incorporate ethanol into their gasoline. It is truly yellow gold" See: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/25/business/25ethanol.html?pagewanted=3&ei=5089&en=3db79886d5cf7f34&ex=1308888000&partner=rssyahoo&emc=rss

Also in NYT report:
"Despite continuing doubts about whether the fuel provides a genuine energy saving, at least 39 new ethanol plants are expected to be completed over the next 9 to 12 months..."

"...ADM has not lost interest in promoting ethanol among farm organizations, politicians and the news media. It is by far the biggest beneficiary of more than $2 billion in government subsidies the ethanol industry receives each year, via a 51-cent-a-gallon tax credit given to refiners and blenders that mix ethanol into their gasoline. ADM will earn an estimated $1.3 billion from ethanol alone in the 2007 fiscal year."
{Billy T adds: NOT included is the subsidy given to corn growers or more than half of all farm subsidies! ADM=Archer Daniels Midland}

"While ADM has pushed ethanol, rivals like Cargill* have been more skeptical. To Mr. Staley, ethanol is over promoted as a solution to the nation's energy challenges, and the growth in production, if unchecked, has the potential to ravage America's livestock industry and harm the nation's reliability as an exporter of corn and its byproducts.

"Unless we have huge increases in productivity, we will have a huge problem with food production," Mr. Staley said. "And the world will have to make choices. ....analysts doubt whether the scientists and farmers can keep up with the ethanol merchants."{Remainder by Billy T, not NYTimes}

Looks like big oil must share space on back of US tax payers who will not be eating beef. Do you think you can carry the load, or is it time to clean out Washington, end alcohol import quotes, and end the 54 cents per gallon import duty so Brazil can sell you alcohol at about 60% of what you are paying now for gasoline?
.................................................. ..............Again I ask: HOW DUMB CAN US VOTERS BE?............................................... .................
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Gargill is privately held. Annually, 100s of millions of your tax dollars Cargill collects go basically to a family group as Gargill has no shareholders. ...........I have no doubt many return to Washington politicians (of both parties) so I guess it is all fair. :rolleyes: ...... What do your think?

Just one specific reason why you will pay more for your food as a result of growing corn for alcohol instead of importing alcohol from areas where it is much cheaper to produce:

From:
http://news.morningstar.com/news/PR/M07/D05/NYW099.html

"...Under the agreement, AGRI-Bunge would be the exclusive originator of corn for the plant. In a separate agreement, Bunge North America has agreed to market the ethanol and the dried distiller's grain (DDGs) that would be produced by the facility. The proposed site would be located on 100 acres just north of U.S. Route 30 near the elevator operated by AGRI-Bunge. The 108-million gallon per year plant would require 40 million bushels of corn from area farmers. ..."

There are 39 of these plants now in construction in US (but not all by Bunge)!


In post before this one you can see that you will pay more taxes to support big agri-business via fram subsidies (10 billion dollars annually for corn) plus a 51cent/ gallon subsidy to the industries that convert the corn to alcohol.

I.e. "your" LOL government is:

(1) making your taxes higher than need be.
(2) making your food more expensive than need be.
(3) protecting inefficient producers with 54cents per gallon import duty on imported alcohol.
(4) annually transferring 20 billion dollars of your taxes to some of the richest people in US, such as the Cargill family, and other generous campaign contributors.
(5) making your cost of driving about 40% higher than it need be.

Be sure to vote for them next time. - You must "stay the course" :rolleyes:

More in thread "How DUMB can US voters be?" of the politics forum.

Fusion plants to power hydrogen plants. Thats the only thing that will solve it.

Fusion plants to power hydrogen plants. Thats the only thing that will solve it.Fusion power, is a long time into the future (except for the natural reactor, called the sun). Even if it is possible to control, the economics are very doubtful. True, the fuel MAY cost less than coal, but it is not free, (some details later), and we already have electric power entirely free from any fuel cost. (Hydropower). Unfortunately, most (at least 80%) of the cost of electric power is the capital invested to produce and distribute it.

The capital cost of a coal plant and a fusion plant will have a lot in common. For example, both will require: steam generators, (which include the heat input surface, usually many iron pipes in a heat exchanger), steam turbines, cooling towers, and electric generators, so their difference in production cost is in how they get the heat to make the steam. That is what determines their relative cost advantage. Most everyone, like you, ignore this simple and obvious fact.

In the case of coal used to produce heat:
The heat production requires (in addition to coal at plant):

(1) a coal conveyer belt, (Section near furnace is usually made of steel links)
(2) a fire brick lined combustion chamber, and
(3) a tall brick chimney.

COAL SUMMARY: Nothing very expensive or requiring significant design and development costs.

In the case of fusion used to produce heat:
The heat production requires (D-T fusion assumed)*:

(1) Tritium production (half-live around 11years as I recall) it will no doubt be made from lithium by neutron bombardment. (Getting some of the neutrons from the D-T fusion, but this is tricky as they will also make most materials they pass thru radioactive and that also adds a lot of expense as handling many radioactive materials, in addition to the radioactive tritium, will not be cheap.)
(2) Processing large volumes of water to separate out the small component that is Deterium. This can not be done chemically as D and H (hydrogen) are chemically identical. Perhaps all the water is converted to steam and kept hot all the time it is being pumped thru a gaseous diffusion plant. Perhaps some centrifuge technology developed for enrichment of uranium can be used. This requirement is not discussed much, but all solution require a lot of electric power and and both types of separation facilities are expensive.
(3) Now that radioactive fuel is available, it must be (a) injected thru the magnetic confinement systems and (b) heated to about 100,000 degrees. Not cheap. Probably part (b) is not a problem after start up as it can enter an already running reactor and be heated by the fusion going on there, but remember we are comparing capital cost. Thus, even if the heating is required only once in 30 years, you still must pay for the equipment that can do it.
Part (a) will be costly also. The D & T must be neutral atoms to cross the confining magnetic field (and even then some will get ionized by the UV coming from the fusion) so they must have high speeds to get in before all are ionized. Some will interact with the field once they are ionized, perhaps destroying its ability to confine, but probably this problem is solvable, but expensive. To get them up to the high injection speeds required, they need to be accelerated and this almost certainly will require some sort of particle accelerators, at least similar to those expensive ones used for high energy physics research. That is the D & T must be ionized, accelerated, then neutralized again - not cheap.
(4)Just getting the fuel in will be as costly as all the coal system's bricks above so I will not tell much about the liquid nitrogen production (assuming the magnets do not require liquid helium), which keeps the the supper conducting magnets cool or the expense of those magnets or the very strong structure that hold the magnets together (not steel as the neutron flux would make it too radioactive, possibly titanium as can take high temperatures and I think not get too radioactive) or the pumps used in many different systems incuding pump which moves the liquid lithium near the neutron flux for production of tritium, or the nature of the pipe material for the flowing lithium that will not be dissolved by hot lithium and that will not get too radioactive or brittle under the neutron flux, or in the nature of the material which can contain the water becoming steam with out becoming too radioactive or brittle. - Perhaps there can be an extra heat exchange loop I.e. Neutrons heat the liquid lithium, (while making tritium) and then another heat exchange transfers the heat to the steam forming heat exchanger pipes, which then need not resist the neutron flux, but an additional heat exchange loop will certainly increase the cost and lower the efficiency.

Did I forget to mention that there must be a system to separate the tritium from the liquid lithium? - No matter, there are lots of other costs I did not mention, many associated with, extra site selection delays the "greens" add to any nuclear facility**, security, radioactive materials disposal at closure, control room and system costs, etc. for the plant and the safety, training, clearance investigations, etc. of its workers.

FUSION SUMMARY: Everything is very expensive (compared to bricks) and still requires a huge investment in design and development.

FINNAL SUMMARY: The capital cost of fusion power will probably be at least 50 times greater than coal power. (Increasing your electric bill by more than 40 times.) The only thing that may keep fusion power from being so costly is that there is still a good chance it is impossible (to control in less than sun-size reactors) in the steady state; But dream on and ignore the simple fact that the cost of your power is mainly capital.

I spent ~15 years of my professional life working on the “Controlled Thermonuclear Reactor, CTR, problem” and years on my experimental Ph.D. which used a plasma because I was idealistic and wanted to help solve the CTR problem. Do not feel too bad if you can not see the obvious because of your dream. - look how long it took me!
--------------------------
*There are other fuel for fusion, but the D-T process is by far the cheapest and easiest to make work, so I assumed that one.

**this is the main reason there have been no new fision plants in more than 30 years, even ordered in US. Ten year approval delays has made them economically unattractive. It initially seemed that: "Fission power is too cheap to meter." (Original idea was just a fixed monthly fee for each home as the meter would add to much to the cost of almost free power to all homes). The "greens" have change this to: "Fission power is too costly to build"). Thank them next time you pay your bill. :rolleyes:

"The possibility of mining the moon for its Helium-3 is thought to be a major motivator behind the Chinese space programme. Helium-3 has great potential as a non-polluting fuel source, but there is virtually none on Earth. The moon, meanwhile is relatively rich in the isotope. Although technology to exploit helium-3 is not yet in place, its value as a replacement for oil and gas could be enormous."

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/19/china_lunar_plans/

Perhaps another power source?

"The possibility of mining the moon for its Helium-3 is thought to be a major motivator behind the Chinese space programme....Your post is NOT a distortion of your reference, but neither you nor the reference give the slightest reason why He3 is this magic fuel or should be found on moon.

If you would like to suppy reasons for either, I would be interested. If you think it would not ecape into space, when normal He4 readly does so from Earth, why?
What is reason it is there?
Does answer to that have anything to due with the bombardment of atmospher free moon? (gravity too weak to even hold much heaver gases)? Note all bombardment from single atoms or protons to multi-ton asteroids, relase so much energy that hot vapor is produced (locally blasting out and melting a crater much larger than their own cross-section)

How 'bout some support for what to me seems about as silly an idea as I can think of when one compares the energy cost of bringing X grams of anything from the moon surface (not to mention the "mining") back to Earth against its energy content.

http://www.asi.org/adb/02/09/he3-intro.html

Private space mining projects are the answer...possibly 50 years from now!!!

To Kmquru (and Vega et al.):....neither you nor the reference give the slightest reason why He3 is this magic fuel or should be found on moon.
... Note all bombardment from single atoms or protons to multi-ton asteroids, relase so much energy that hot vapor is produced (locally blasting out and melting a crater much larger than their own cross-section)
How 'bout some support for what to me seems about as silly an idea as I can think of when one compares the energy cost of bringing X grams of anything from the moon surface (not to mention the "mining") back to Earth against its energy content.Thanks for the reference.

I will withdraw my last comment about the economics, silly idea, etc., however, I think it still true, but I am not as confident about this as when I first posted. He3 may be the only thing worth the cost of transport back to Earth. (My main concern is that only one in 10.000 of the He atoms, ACCORDING TO YOUR REFERENCE, is He3, so not only will you need to heat a lot of moon rocks to liberate helium, you will need some sort of mass spectrograph separator operating on the moon to avoid the cost of hauling 99.99% pure "trash" back from the moon. (Actually, problem is very much worse as I explain later - quickly look at the bold sentence, just before the final “PS”!!!!)

Considering that the separation of U235 from U238 could also be done by with mass spectra graph, but is not, a gaseous diffusion plant or large centrifuge enrichment facility is very likely cheaper. Note, however, that both these approaches are so expensive that few nations can afford them and they produce only a Kilogram or less per week not the 25tons per day your reference speaks of! - Thus, I am now only 99% sure it is the silliest idea I have ever heard of.

However, the economics of non-existent, quite possibly impossible, concepts is tricky so I will turn to my other, more serious, “is it even possible” concern also reposted above:

The moon keeps the same face turned to Earth. Thus every longitude of it is directly under the noon day sun once each month for many hours. (360 degrees /28 days = 12.8 degrees per day angular movement) As 15degrees (of Earth rotation) is one hour this 12.8 degrees means that for more than two days on the moon the sun is between "11 O'clock and 1 O'clock high in the sky" - must get awful hot on the moon surface with the sun almost exactly over head for more than two Earth days. Perhaps you will Google etc and tell me how hot.

Thus, there will be considerable diffusion of any Helium that has been absorbed on the moon surface, especially as the moon dust it is in is exposed to high vacuum. Helium is very mobile - why it is used to find the tiniest leak in a vacuum system. So, I see little reason to expect any is there. Your reference seems to be ducking this question by noting that the bombardment of the moon by small meteors etc will mix the surface dust absorbed He deeper, (and thus is thermally insulated) but this idea is in strong contention for second place as the "silliest idea" I have heard of. True fine dust in a vacuum probably does make good insulator (strong thermal gradient) when sun is at "high noon" for more than two days, but these meteorite impacts will surely liberate any absorbed He as they even vaporize the absorbing dust and rocks!

SUMMARY: I still think this is economically very silly even if the He3 is there, which I strongly doubt. Note also that the monthly heating of the surface will preferentially liberate He3 compared to normal He4. Therefore, if there is any He3 it is very likely to be not the 1 part in 10,000 of the solar wind, but more like 1 part in 10,000,000! - A plant that can separate 25 tons/ day of He3 from such poor "ore" is likely to be bigger than the moon!

PS - I would love to be wrong on this. I have long hoped that the DT fusion reaction is only a "match" to light others so that mankind can get to a reaction like D-He3 were all the energy release is in charged particles (a these temperatures the He is fully ionized) because then, all the energy can, in principle, be converted to electric power. All you need do is make the charged particles into a beam (easy - in fact natural in a magnetic mirror) and then let it work on a retarding electric potential field (The D-He3 reaction porduct are both positive, but still must be separated first, as the potential that stops them or recovers all their KE is different. They will drag electrons with them also so it is much more complex, but I think can be done. Sure would be nice to avoid the Carnot limits on conversion efficiency.)

I also note your reference (and his references) make an extreme point of insisting that this future power system must be a private operation and not a governmental, effort. - Quite honestly, I think this is a scheme to "fleece investors," but one of the better ones of that type I have seen. - Everyone initially concerned will be dead long before it collapses! - I will give your 100 to 1 odds that it does collapse before 2100, but you send me your bet money now. :D I also offer to all to predict the sex of your yet to be concieved child, with 110% refund if I am wrong, but again require payments up front.)

Lunar He-3 is pretty much pure He-3 from the solar wind, not a mixture that is mostly He-4. The decay of uranium produces He-4. I don't know how the sun produces He-3. Different processes.

I suspect that a working fusion plant would cost a hundred times less if funded by private investors.

Lunar He-3 is pretty much pure He-3 from the solar wind, not a mixture that is mostly He-4. ... I don't know how the sun produces He-3. ...All He3 is 100% He3, not "pretty much." Lunar He3 is no exception. - You must be very confused or perhaps you are postulating some local source? (Not sure how to read your statement. What do you mean?)

As far as the fraction of the solar wind He that is He3, the 1 part in 10,000 is not my estimate but taken direct from Kmguru's reference.

I too do not know how the sun produces any. I would have expected that the nuclear reactions in the sun should be able to burn up this fuel. I.e. this He3 fuel is what his references plan to "burn" in nuclear fusion plant on Earth.

However, as I am not an expert in this area, I will accept their one part in ten thousand of the solar wind He is He3. Perhaps, it is primordial in origin, not produced in the sun. Certainly, it comes from the most outer layers of the sun if it is part of the solar wind. That region may be mainly the primordial mix of Hydrogen and Helium isotopes, except for the fact that some is from earlier stars. (We are all "star dust" in that the iron in your blood was once part of a star. Etc.)

If it is one part in 10,000 on the moon, then I might as well mention that He-3 is a product of the decay of tritium. We are a bit better off extracting it from tritiated water, I think.

SUMMARY: I still think this is economically very silly even if the He3 is there, which I strongly doubt.

I have to agree. But there is no reason, we scientists should not look at different possibilities and look for breakthroughs in technology.

Next 15 years, most of the world will concentrate on various forms of Bio-fuels. We are talking to several African countries because, they have the land that is idle at the moment.

Then there will be other energy converters similar to Solar cells....Technology such as Graphene might come handy to store energy in desert. If we can create several molecule thick solar cells and unfold in space to collect energy and beam it back to earth....or use the planned space elevator ....to pipe it back....that could be a possibility

I think we could design a Hot fusion system using super conductors that produces massive magnetic fields...right now, 850 Tesla is the strongest destructive field we have produced. Stable field has been achieved at 33T to 40T from 12T several years ago. So, may be we can have a breakthrough....that is the key to creating a little Sun....

If it is one part in 10,000 on the moon, then I might as well mention that He-3 is a product of the decay of tritium. We are a bit better off extracting it from tritiated water, I think.I suspect there are several ways to obtain He3, on Earth*, that are at least 10,000 times cheaper than going to the moon for it.

Perhaps the tritium route you mention is a good one, but I suspect that the tritium is more valuable than the He3. Perhaps some He3 is already being produced in carbon moderated fission reactors. I.e. common carbon12, when its six protons were split unequally by a fast neutron into Helium and Beryllium (A=4) without capture of that fast neutron, could yield He3 + common Be9.

I know little about "nuclear chemistry" but think that in general the nuclei produced as fission products tend to have even A. If this applies in this case, then He + Be products may be more common than two lithium atoms (2xLi6) because then both are odd A = 3 elements; however, He4 + Be9 with the capture of the fast neutron may be common if there is a resonance near the energy of the fast neutron.

Perhaps someone willing to search, or who know about these things, will replace my speculations with facts. I would be curious to know how good or poor my guessing is.
-----------------------------------------
*I think idea I now advance is silly but much less so than going to moon for He3: Why not "farm He3" in low Earth orbit? I.e. place large slowly spinning aluminum foil disks in low Earth orbit to absorb solar wind.

If you are really clever about it, I bet having one part "mirror shinny" and the compliment optically rough (difuse reflector) can produce enough "photon torque" to keep the disk "broad-side" to the sun all year long. (Perhaps one needs to use the Earth shadow also - I do not want to take trouble to think this out in detail.)

I seriously doubt that the tritium that is a waste product from nuclear fission is more valuable than a nuclear fuel that is much easier to use for fusion. The tritium comes from the absorption of neutrons in the water from the nuclear reactor.

I love the idea of mining the moon for He-3. It might even be cost-effective for all I know. I can't work with figures that I haven't seen. All things considered I would rather see us mining the moon for a lot of materials. The land under our feet is made of materials. Dig up too much of it and we damage the integrity of the land that we are trying to live on.

The He-3 idea was that some of it was trapped in the lunar soil. If it's a lot higher in concentration than it is here on Earth, you have a good case for extracting it there.

I seriously doubt that the tritium that is a waste product from nuclear fission is more valuable than a nuclear fuel that is much easier to use for fusion...He3 is a potential nuclear fuel, but much higher temperatures are required to "burn" it. (Basically because it has twice the electrostatic repelling force of single-proton hydrogen resisting the close approach necessary for fusion {less than 10^15cm before the "short range" nuclear force is larger, I seem to recall.}).

Even then, the plasma density must higher (harder to contain, even if it were not much hotter) because the interaction cross-section is significantly smaller than for the DT fusion.

All current fusion efforts are planning to burn tritium as the fuel because this is possible at lower densities (cross section effect) and at much lower temperatures. These are two of the main reasons are why Tritium is a better, more valuable, nuclear fuel than He3.

I fear I must again advise you to think or Goolge before you post and expose such ignorance.

OK, since you called me ignorant again, I am going to have to break down crying and go sulk in the corner for a while. Please excuse me while I take care of that chore. Have fun with whatever it is that you are doing.

Hey BillyT,

I haven't been following this thread closely, but I thought you might be interested in something my Chem. E. friend told me yesterday. As you know, the negative net energy is a popular argument against alcohol-based fuel. He told me that the formula for calculating that is (lower heat of combustion - total fossil fuel heat required to produce)/(lower heat of combustion). Apparently for alcohol that number is something like -25%. What the anti-alcohol crowd often fails to mention is that for gasoline it is -40%, and hydrogen and electricity are much worse than gasoline. In other words, of the kinds of energy that we can use for vehicles today, alcohol is the most effecient in terms of energy investment.

I can't personally vouch for the veracity of the numbers since I didn't run them myself, but I do trust my friend to be both knowledgeable in this field (his principal area of research for the past 30+ years) and careful in his research and conclusions.

-Dale

...As you know, the negative net energy is a popular argument against alcohol-based fuel. He told me that the formula for calculating that is (lower heat of combustion - total fossil fuel heat required to produce)/(lower heat of combustion). Apparently for alcohol that number is something like -25%. What the anti-alcohol crowd often fails to mention is that for gasoline it is -40%, and hydrogen and electricity are much worse than gasoline. In other words, of the kinds of energy that we can use for vehicles today, alcohol is the most effecient in terms of energy investment....Thanks. Most such studies assume the high input of fossil energy used to produce alcohol from corn. In Iowa the human labor input is nil, but not in Brazil with humans cutting cane. Also in Iowa, considerable fossil fuel fertilizer must be used to accelerate the growth rate and compensated for the shorter growing season. Becasue of these facts, most studies of a few years ago did conclude that alcohol from Iowa corn uses more fossil energy than it produces. Some of the more recent studies still do, but others show a net energy gain. Personally I am generous and will grant a 1.1 positive gain factor for Iowa corn based alcohol.

All the old and newer studies of cane based alcohol grown in tropical countries with cheap labor cutting it show much higher energy gain ratios. I think it is some where between 5 and 8 fold GAIN. Thus, your Chem E. friend is not up to day or thinking of growing sugar beets in Alaska or something like that.

I have posted some references that do show an 8 fold energy gain when only the fossil (not human or solar) energy input is considered. If you want to up date your CE friend, I will try to find that reference again. (It is the highest I have seen.)

As I recall, the "lower heat value" assumes the exhaust temperature is slightly greater than 100C so you do not get to count the 540 cal / gram associated with any water produced condensing. - If I am wrong on this, please correct. Perhaps the numbers I have seen are assuming the higher heat value. There is a lot of energy in the condensing steam. If that is the case, and explains why your friend is getting negative energy gain, this is very important. Your friend's lower energy value is obviously the correct one for any internal combustion engine, and US turning to Iowa corn is really just a clever oil company plan to boost oil consumption! if his numbers are correct.

Thanks. Most such studies assume the high input of fossil energy used to produce alcohol from corn. In Iowa the human labor input is nil, but not in Brazil with humans cutting cane. Also in Iowa, considerable fossil fuel fertilizer must be used to accelerate the growth rate and compensated for the shorter growing season. Becasue of these facts, most studies of a few years ago did conclude that alcohol from Iowa corn uses more fossil energy than it produces. Some of the more recent studies still do, but others show a net energy gain. Personally I am generous and will grant a 1.1 positive gain factor for Iowa corn based alcohol.

All the old and newer studies of cane based alcohol grown in tropical countries with cheap labor cutting it show much higher energy gain ratios. I think it is some where between 5 and 8 fold GAIN. Thus, your Chem E. friend is not up to day or thinking of growing sugar beets in Alaska or something like that.I would suspect that he is up to date, his research (on treatments to produce ethanol from cellulose) is consistently well funded, even before the recent political pushes in this direction. But he is definitely talking 100% exclusively about domestic ethanol production, not tropical production.


As I recall, the "lower heat value" assumes the exhaust temperature is slightly greater than 100C so you do not get to count the 540 cal / gram associated with any water produced condensing. - If I am wrong on this, please correct. Perhaps the numbers I have seen are assuming the higher heat value. There is a lot of energy in the condensing steam. If that is the case, and explains why your friend is getting negative energy gain, this is very important. Your friend's lower energy value is obviously the correct one for any internal combustion engine, and US turning to Iowa corn is really just a clever oil company plan to boost oil consumption! if his numbers are correct.That is correct. The higher heat value might be appropriate in industrial settings where you could recover the water vapor heat, but not in vehicles.

I have heard your Iowa-corn-lobby-dumb-US-voter rant several times and do not want to get into that. The point is that the negative net energy value needs to be compared relative to the net energy value of other similar forms of energy (similar in the sense that we can use it to run a vehicle). In that comparison, even domestic ethanol is better than gasoline in terms of net energy.

-Dale

...I have heard your Iowa-corn-lobby-dumb-US-voter rant several times and do not want to get into that. The point is that the negative net energy value needs to be compared relative to the net energy value of other similar forms of energy (similar in the sense that we can use it to run a vehicle). In that comparison, even domestic ethanol is better than gasoline in terms of net energy.-DaleYou must read most of my posts - I think I have climbed on that "Iowa-corn-lobby-dumb-US-voter" horse only twice, perhaps three times,althought when I do, I may charge into more than one thread.

Please ask your friend why he uses the comparison index he does instead of the much more common simple ratio: (alcohol energy out) / (fossil energy in).

His point about the correct "energy" being the lower heating value is 110% correct and I have never noted what energy other studies are using, but will ignore those in the future that are not clear on this important point.

Thanks again.

Please ask your friend why he uses the comparison index he does instead of the much more common simple ratio: (alcohol energy out) / (fossil energy in).He doesn't use it, it is just a value that is commonly cited in the literature as an argument against alcohol. The reason that he does not use that value is that he believes that the premise of the calculation is fundamentally wrong. Specifically, he disagrees that the various forms of energy are equivalent. You can calculate the number of Joules of energy in a liter of alcohol, and you can calculate how much energy was in the coal you had to burn to make the alcohol, but since you cannot directly use the coal to move your car the subtraction doesn't make sense on its own. Instead, it only makes sense in comparison to other forms of energy that you can directly use in your car, like gasoline, and that comparison is both favorable to alcohol and absent in the literature.

It is as though they performed some experiment, noticed a negative number in their results, but never compared the experimental result to the control group.

-Dale

Billy-T, I wonder why you are surprised at American ignorance in this matter. I have not ever heard any proposal for importing ethanol, ever. It doesn't seem like something that should have been obvious.

I just did a google search to see if I could see your idea anywhere else and the only didn't find much at all. A couple mentions of Bush actually proposing to remove the imported ethanol tariff, but it not being expected to go anywhere.

I'm not surprised at American ignorance in any matter.

....I have not ever heard any proposal for importing ethanol, ever. It doesn't seem like something that should have been obvious....It was obvious enough to China and Japan. US may have "missed the boat" already. Although Brazil's potential production capacity far exceeds it needs, it is limited. Too bad as alcohol produced in Iowa will be much more expensive.

Several moths ago, I read Japan and Brazil had formed a joint company to build ships to send alcohol to Japan, but I have not read anything about it recently. US is governed by ex oil industry CEOs and the farm lobby. Their interest is in profits for themselves, their friends, and big campaign contributors, not the general public good. Thus I am not surprised you have been keep ill-informed. You should not be surprised when the Iowa corn subsidy (and your taxes to pay for it) are increased. I forget his name, but one of Iowa's Senators is chairman of the "ways and means" committee. - he has "ways and means" to make this happen, even though you will pay more to drive as well as higher taxes than need be. Ignorance may not be deadly, but it is at least costly.

PS to MetaKron: Glad to see your self-imposed period of "sulking in the corner" is over. Read more carefully and you will see I never called you "ignorant." I only suggested two ways for you to avoid appearing so. The same two ways I have several times suggested to you in the past. I doubt you will believe it, but the quality of your post is much better, if you do Google and or stop to think first. I seldom google and have learned from one or two of your posts in the past when you have reported your finding at Google.

Billy, you don't seem to realize that I was bullshitting you.

I've heard we could produce oil from coal at a lower cost than what we're paying now in the US. The CEO of Jet Blue is in the early stages of plans to build ten such plants in the US and claims we would be energy independent within ten years.

BTW, the US has the largest coal reserves in the world.

I've heard we could produce oil from coal at a lower cost than what we're paying now in the US. The CEO of Jet Blue is in the early stages of plans to build ten such plants in the US and claims we would be energy independent within ten years.
BTW, the US has the largest coal reserves in the world.Can you give some references? I would like to read more about this.

On US coal: Certainly it is large reserve, but may not be “greatest in world“, only better known and much is deep or has environmental cost from open pit type operations.

Today's Folha de Sao Paulo, page B4, tells that world's largest exporter of iron ore, (Brazilian company Vale do Rio Doce) will invest 2 billion dollars in Mozambique to make the largest coal mine in the Southern Hemisphere. (They appear to want to use some of their great cash flux form China to become a "one stop" supplier to China's steel industry. Brazil's trade balance is record setting and headed for about 40 to 45 billion dollar surplus this year.) You may not be impressed by "Southern Hemisphere coal," but I think currently Australia is greater supplier than US is.

One serious problem with oil from coal is that adds more CO2 to air during the conversion so compared to oil energy, cars driving on "converted coal" will accelerate the CO2 in air. This is in contrast to cars driving on "converted sugar" (alcohol) which actually reduces the CO2 as for every ton of CO2 the growing cane removes from the air less than a ton is returned when the car burns the alcohol produced etc.

Can you give some references? I would like to read more about this.
Here you go:
http://www.glennbeck.com/2006ads/jbluctl.pdf
http://www.glennbeck.com/2006ads/Consumers%20Transportation%20and%20Energy%20Securi ty%20v%206-20%20_2_.pdf
http://www.glennbeck.com/2006ads/2006harrison_barna.pdf
These links are all from the Glenn Beck show. He apparently goes to church with CEO of Jet Blue.

Here you go:
http://www.glennbeck.com/2006ads/jbluctl.pdf
http://www.glennbeck.com/2006ads/Consumers%20Transportation%20and%20Energy%20Securi ty%20v%206-20%20_2_.pdf
http://www.glennbeck.com/2006ads/2006harrison_barna.pdf
These links are all from the Glenn Beck show. He apparently goes to church with CEO of Jet Blue.Thanks for the references, but I am not convenced; however, I'm glad someone is putting up money to try.

I dug up this old thread to bring some facts, recently published by Forbes, about alcohol to light:

(1) US Energy Act of 2005 mandated a growing market for the alcohol, by requiring refiners to ramp up ethanol use from 2.5 billion gallons last year to 7.5 billion gallons by 2012.

(2) There is the 51-cent tax credit paid to blenders of the fuel and a 54-cent tariff on imported ethanol to keep cheaper foreign producers out of the market. -{Billy T insert: I.e. the playing field is "tilted" to help corn based alcohol by $1.05 / gallon (and this does not count the subsidy given to growers of corn, which is by far the largest of all farm subsidies.) all at cost to the US tax payer and when he fills his car up at the station.}

(3) The ethanol lobby has been emboldened by its victories. Green investors such as Silicon Valley's Vinod Khosla regularly call for a price floor on gas to support the industry.

(4) Senator Richard Luger (R-Ind.) just introduced a bill that would scrap the current ethanol tax credit in favor of one that would zero out at $45 oil but grow as oil prices fall below that level. If passed into law, it would amount to a de facto floor on the price of gas relative to ethanol.

Remainder by Billy T, (not quotes from Forbes):
Article went on to say that GWB had recently "floated" the idea to increase the 54 cents/ per gallon subsidy, but other Republicans feared it would be exploited to hurt them so he should wait until after the elections.

Looks like at least Richard Lugar fears that the voters can not always be kept so ill informed that they support tax dollars going to the wealthy few so they can have the privilege to pay more to drive their car and feed their family as corn become alcohol instead of food. More at thread “How DUMB can US voters be?”

Not only in the US is big oil fighting to keep on polluting:

"Japanese government is locked in a head-on battle with the country's oil industry to take the lead in the green auto fuels market, ...Japan could end up importing thousands of barrels of gasoline to blend with ethanol if the government does not find a distributor in coming months, since domestic oil refiners are promoting a different type of alternative fuel.

The Japanese refiners' reluctance to supply the gasoline needed ... another setback in Japan's struggling efforts to cut emissions using voluntary measures. Japan lacks farm products to produce biofuels but is looking to its unused bio-mass, including forests which cover 70 per cent of the country and that can be harvested in a sustainable way. .... But it faces resistance from the country's powerful oil industry, which is instead promoting gasoline blended with ethyl tertiary butyl ether ... The oil sector is anxious to defend its nationwide network through its own alternative fuel - launching its trial sale at 50 pump stations in Tokyo and surrounding areas last week ...The oil industry does not like the idea of an alternative auto fuel distribution in cities. The fact that anyone can now sell gasoline under the liberalized market irks them...
Japan*, the world's No. 3 gasoline consumer, is the biggest polluter among the countries with Kyoto caps. It aims to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 6 per cent from 1990 levels by 2008-2012. Japan's largest business lobby Keidanren, which opposes mandatory emissions caps, told the government … it will have to spend 60-90 per cent more than other nations in achieving Kyoto targets.

From:
http://archive.gulfnews.com/articles/07/05/04/10122667.html

---------------------------
*Brazil & Japan have formed a company to build many alcohol tanker ships and Mitishibish has 30 year contract to take 30% of the alcohol produced by new large San Martino (I own 2500 shares of it.) facility, (plus option to buy part of the plant.) When US wakes up to the stupidity of sending money to the oil exporters supporting terrorists and drops the import tariffs against the much cheaper sugar cane alcohol (than corn based alcohol from cold, short-season, Iowa that that takes essentially the same imported oil to produce as it displaces) there may be none left to sell to US.

U.S. Corn Prices soar....

Price in cents per Bushel

http://i16.tinypic.com/6gxw5e8.gif

U.S. Corn Prices soar....

Price in cents per Bushel

http://i16.tinypic.com/6gxw5e8.gifThanks for the graph. I will explain why the recent dip back below $4. It is simple: the expansion of corn planting is more rapid that the expansion of plants that can take in corn and put out alcohol - that takes about two years to make a new large alcohol production facility. Thus this summer there will be a surplus of corn grown until the many new alcohol refineries get finished. Next summer that will reverse. Corn may go above $8 and your food cost will also soar.

Good observation. In the meantime Beef prices are also soaring.

The average retail price for a pound of choice beef rose to $4.25 in April, the second-highest month ever, the Agriculture Department reports. That's up 5% from the same month last year and 17% from two years ago.

Imagine what will happen two years from now. The new President in USA will have his/her hands full.

Sacrificing Our Children to the 'Corn God'

Ethanol May Not Be the Miracle It's Made Out to Be (http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=3130684&page=1)

http://a.abcnews.com/images/Business/ethanol_graphic_070426_ms.jpg

Sacrificing Our Children to the 'Corn God'...Again a good link.

Here is the last paragraph on page one and the first on page two:

"As Jerry Taylor reminded us in his interview on ABC's "20/20," when ethanol is produced "it takes a lot of fossil fuels to make the fertilizer, to run the tractor, to build the silo, to get that corn to a processing plant, to run the processing plant." Then there's the energy it takes to move the ethanol around. Because ethanol degrades, it's not possible to transport it in pipelines like we do oil, so using ethanol means putting many more polluting trucks on the road to deliver it.

Because of that, a number of recent studies show that it takes just about as much energy to produce ethanol as you get when you burn ethanol. "Its net energy balance is zero, more or less,"

Note GWB never suggests that corn based alcohol will reduce the importation of oil, only that it can displace 20% of the gasoline used. He knows (and probably hopes so Saudis will continue to send him and his father many millions annually) that US oil dependancy will INCREASE.

Here are the last two paragraphs of the 3 page article (speaking about alcohol from corn program in US):

"When a fuel source is expensive and bad for the environment and won't help our foreign policy, then there's no reason to force taxpayers to foot the bill for producing it.

"This is a naked transfer program designed to take money from people who buy corn and to give it to people who grow corn and people who make ethanol for a living. That's all it is,"

I might add, it is also heartless to push a program that will significantly increase the cost of food for everyone, especially when some are already forced to chose between eating or buying their esentail medicine.

"...Critics say that the principal problem with the use of ethanol as an automotive fuel is that the energy-returned-on-energy-invested (EROEI) for ethanol made from corn is approximately 1: 1. In other words, it takes roughly as much energy (for planting and harvesting, natural gas based fertilizers, transportation, and processing) to create a gallon of ethanol as a gallon of ethanol produces when used as a motor fuel.

Ethanol advocates reject that notion outright, suggesting that the EROEI models fail to include the energy reducing byproducts of ethanol production, such as utilizing corn stalks as fuel in the distillation process.* In addition, they suggest that waste mash from the distillation process can be used as a supplement in cattle feed and that the waste material subsequently produced by the cattle can then be used as a replacement for natural gas-based fertilizers.*

According to the Renewable Fuels Association, 107 grain biorefineries in the U.S. have a production capacity of 5.1 billion gallons of ethanol per year, while an additional 56 plants, now under construction, can add 3.8 billion gallons of new capacity in the next 18 months. This is compared to U.S. gasoline demand currently at 150 billion gallons per year. ..."

From:
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/24713.html
---------------------------
*Not very easy as the corn stocks are in Iowa and the distillation is in Indiania. (As alcohol can not travel far it is made near the markets and corn shiped there for conversion.) Very few if any alcohol from corn production actually does this possible but not economically attract approach. In Brazil the crushed cane is used to produce electricity or for animal food, but even here the maneur is not collected and used in a bio-digester to make low quality (too much CO2 mixed with the methane) combustible gas. Thus, as actually done, the energy in the alcohol is at best equal to the energy in the oil it required.

I.e. GWB is Hoodwinking the public into thinking that the US will use less oil if it converts some to corn and then the corn to alcohol. He is carefull to never say that it will reduce oil consumption - only says that alcohol can displace 20% of the gasoline used. - I even doubt that as 13% of the corn is only displacing <3% of the gasoline now. To get to 20% you need 7x13 = 91% of US corn going into alcohol production - can you afford $25/ pound for chicken?

I guess GWB is going after the soon to be huge vegitarian population's vote.:mad: :bawl: :bugeye:

Vegetarian food is very expensive in USA due to the type of life style and supply chain process. It will be even more expensive as corn prices grow and wheat, rice and bean production declines.

Why alcohol for cane (especially Brazilian cane) is best for environment, and cheaper compared to gasoline. See:

http://www.infrasite.nl/news/news_article.php?ID_nieuwsberichten=7436&language=en

First paragraph tells of the "40 experts" and the international meeting just concluded in Paris on this subject.

Second paragraph is:
"There is a high degree of uncertainty over the net greenhouse gas emissions from producing and consuming biofuels in place of gasoline or diesel.Some may even produce higher emissions than petroleum. Of currently produced fuels ethanol from sugar cane produced in Brazil is by far the best, partly because sugar is easier to turn into alcohol than starch (from wheat or corn) and partly because waste cane pulp* is used to fuel Brazil’s distilleries. Distillation takes a lot of energy and in many other countries ethanol is produced using natural gas or coal to heat the stills – emitting large quantities of CO2."

Fourth Paragraph:
"In 2007, four billion dollars in the US, fully one quarter of the total farm subsidy budget, and expected to grow to 16 billion dollars under current biofuels targets. Support for biofuels already totals around 15 billion dollars a year in the OECD as a whole. Much cheaper ways of saving fuel and CO2 emissions are available in the transport sector and elsewhere in the economy."

From your tax dollars and going to very few people. (Part of why the rich are getting richer and middle class, poorer in USA under GWB.)

Final pargaraph:
"The papers and conclusions of the Round Table will be published under the title Biofuels – Linking Support to Performance and feed into the debate on Transport and energy: the challenge of climate change at the upcoming International Transport Forum in Leipzig."

-----------------------
* I also add that the crushed cane available is greater than requirements for distillation heat, so much is used to generate electricity at the larger processing centers or as cattle food at the smaller ones. Increasingly "no till" planting is being used and mechanical harvesting, which does not first burn the fields (done as leaves cut the workers - seem fair as they cut the cane. :D ) Thus, with mechanical harvesting, the leaves both sequester more carbon and improve the soil. ALL fossil fuels "de-sequester" 100% of their carbon content, but cane sequesters (in the soil and in the storage tanks (even your car's) a significant percent of the carbon it annually REMOVES from the air!

THE MORE MAN SWITCHES TO BIO-ALCOHOL THE LESS MAN'S CONTRIBUTION TO GLOBAL WARMING BECOMES. One of the few ways to do this WITH NEGATIVE COST! Again I ask: How stupid can American voters be? (See old thread with that name for more.)

PS - Nothing here I have not been posting for several years. :bugeye:

Except don't they burn down rainforest in order to get room to plant sugar cane?

We have to look beyond alternative fuels and address the total energy usage of our society.

Except don't they burn down rain forest in order to get room to plant sugar cane?
We have to look beyond alternative fuels and address the total energy usage of our society.I agree with second point strongly - Amory Lovins*, one of the few intelligent "greens," for many years has been making the point that the largest, most economical and most environmentally friendly source of energy is conservation and greater efficiency. Read his article in Scientific American of about 6 months ago. (Just as I think the CIA has done more harm to US than any other agency of ANY government, I think Green Peace has done more harm to the environment than any business group! - For example, the radioactivity released into the air by burning coal for a KiloWatt electric produced is greater than if 10 KiloWatts came from a nuclear plant! Not to mention the CO2 problem with coal. The US's main electric energy source, still, thanks to the stupid Green Peace activists, is coal. etc.)

Cane is much more concentrated energy than the sunlight it came from, but has very low energy density compared to fossil fuels. Thus you can not ship it far. Hence it is not going to be grown in the rain forest land, 1000 miles for the point of use. This is why much more than half of the cane field of all of Brazil are in close proximity to the markets for alcohol - i.e. in the state of Sao Paulo. This is also why unlike the energy dense oil sent to a few big refineries, there are a couple of hundred plants converting cane from near-by fields (40 miles at most away) into Alcohol.

Even the big paper companies, like Aracruz (which I have ADRs of) do not cut down the amazon. The soil there is weak. They have plantations (mainly of Euclplsis - spelled wrong.) they grow like a crop. It is ready for cutting in about 5 years - has been genetic improved - faster growing only a few short branches.

Some of the world's dumbest "greens" destroyed their main research facility about a year ago ("The land should be growing food for the poor" was their claim/ POV. - There is lots of food for the population in the stores and tons are exported every hour to China. What the poor need is a job and now Aracruz will be hiring less until the 5 years of genetic development they destroyed can be restored.) In about 15 years, Aracruz has doubled the yield of fiber from each acre and the number of jobs to process it has also increased but not by factor or two, unless you count the construction jobs associated with new plants, new road, new ports** etc. - then must have quadrupled in those 15 years. (America has no monoply on really dumb people.)

The main reason the amazon is being cut (IMHO) is to supply the demand for wood from US and EU that is cheaper than from Canada and Scandinavia. The burning is often natural. (That tropical region has more lightning than any other part of the world by far. Some of the burning is caused by men who have been cutting where it is illegal. Brazil does try hard to keep this regulated, but the profits are so high, it is hard.

Stop buying rain forest wood, if you are concerned and willing to pay more for new house or furniture to put in it.
------------------------------
* His house has tripple glass pane windows, and the two spaces between are filled with very heavy gas (Kripton?) as that moves more slowing for same average kinetic energy (temperature) and consequently the R value of even his windows is some huge number like 60, but I forget it exactly. House in the mountains of Colorado and it does get cold there in winter. I am not sure it has a furnace - the lights and human body heat probably keep it warm at 20 below zero. Fancy counter flow heat exchangers keep the air "mountain fresh" etc.

**Much of Aracruz's wood is made into short fiber pulp for export - Aracruz is world's most profitable and largest supplier of pulp for making paper. Their stock just hit new high today. My ADRs in them are up about 600% in 5 years, but that is because they are priced in dollars - the real gain is only about 300%.

* His house has tripple glass pane windows, and the two spaces between are filled with very heavy gas (Kripton?) as that moves more slowing for same average kinetic energy (temperature) and consequently the R value of even his windows is some huge number like 60, but I forget it exactly.

House in the mountains of Colorado and it does get cold there in winter. I am not sure it has a furnace - the lights and human body heat probably keep it warm at 20 below zero. Fancy counter flow heat exchangers keep the air "mountain fresh" etc.

There were some pics of his house in a magazine a while back. The central part of the flat roofed structure is a green house with a glass roof.

With the super insulation this generates enough heat from the sun to keep the house warm, even in a Colorado winter!

It also houses many varities of tropical plants including banana trees.

Oh, heres a pic and excellent interview:
http://www.sqwalk.com/blog2006/000764.html

Hey, Billy, you're the one who plays head games when I talk about hempseed oil, so I think I've as usual wandered into a circle jerk.

Hey, Billy, you're the one who plays head games when I talk about hempseed oil,...Not sure want you mean by "head games" but admit that I do not take your "Hempseed is great new energy source." very seriously.

Hundreds of millions of dollars, perhaps billions, and thousands of very skilled, well trained, researchers (many with Ph.D.s) are investigating hundred of plants and even making artificial life forms designed to produce liquid fuels, yet I have never seen a single one of them suggesting hemp! You make many claims, provide data sometimes, etc. but if there is a basis in the scientific literature for your statement, I do not know of it.

If you want to be taken seriously, give some evidence from reputable sources, WITH LINKs TO IT, not just some "facts" I suspect you just make up. Look at my posts. - Most are quoting others now as many have now come to hold the POV I began this thread with long ago and some others years before it.

I GIVE LINKS to the sources. Do the same.

If I do that, do you promise not to get amnesia again?

If I do that, do you promise not to get amnesia again?no, can't promises not to forget, but if you have given reputable references, cite the post and I will read.

no, can't promises not to forget, but if you have given reputable references, cite the post and I will read.

I gave you reputable references before.

I gave you reputable references before.If you did , please supply link to the post.

for review of Brazil's alcohol sysytem / status /potential see:

http://www.earthtoys.com/news.php?section=view&id=2677

"... the industry here {Brazil} is a thriving free market business, complete with ethanol pumps at every filling station in Latin America's largest country. Millions of cars run on either ethanol, gas or any combination of the two. And there's plenty more land available for sugar cane cultivation as the planet's biggest sugar producer gears up to become its undisputed long-term ethanol supplier. "

Sacrificing Our Children to the 'Corn God'

Ethanol May Not Be the Miracle It's Made Out to Be (http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=3130684&page=1)

And:
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11628-warning-biofuel-may-harm-your-health.html

Already drinking alcohol for fuel almost everyday.

Sorry this is late, but how is the ethanol used by Brazil an answer when it requires more energy in than the energy it gives out?

Anyone? :o

Sorry this is late, but how is the ethanol used by Brazil an answer when it requires more energy in than the energy it gives out?BillyT has already answered this exhaustively...several times.

Alcohol fuel, good excuse if you get pulled over.....

Sorry this is late, but how is the ethanol used by Brazil an answer when it requires more energy in than the energy it gives out?If produced from cane, grown in tropical lands, where little or no petroleum based fertilizer is need (to accelerate growth before the cold winter of Iowa sets in etc.) then you get approximate 8 times more energy out in the alcohol than the fossil energy input. (This extra energy comes from the captured sun light.)

If the alcohol comes from corn grown in Iowa (main producing state in US) then even the most optimistic of it supporters claim only 1.3 units of energy out for each unit of fossil energy input. More honest evaluation, by institutions such as the the Un. of Cal and Cornell, who have no economic interest in the results, tend to show the energy out is equal to the fossil energy input, of perhaps slightly less.

As far as I know, only the Un. of Illinois disagrees with this. It is cheaper to ship the corn in train cars than the alcohol to near the market areas (Chicago and East coast, etc.) so almost half of the plants that convert corn to alcohol are either in Illinois or near it.

Hmm... Sorry for asking, I put in the 1:8 ratio in my search and found stuff that agrees with what you said, but prior to that I had read on numerous places that you do not get more energy from sugar cane.

Hmm... Sorry for asking, I put in the 1:8 ratio in my search and found stuff that agrees with what you said, but prior to that I had read on numerous places that you do not get more energy from sugar cane.Perhaps your memory is in error? - Even big oil agrees that there is large energy gain factor with alcohol from sugar cane, but of course they are not supporting that as it would greatly reduce oil consumption, as it has in Brazil. - Brazil is now self-sufficient in auto-fuel. (All domestic cars now sold, with very few exceptions, mainly expensive imported cars, can run on pure alcohol and do as it is cheaper per mile.)

Big oil likes and supports GWB´s alcohol from corn as it will not significantly, if at all, reduce oil consumption. GWB himself never promisses that corn based alcohol will reduce oil use. He only says that alcohol can displace 20% of the gasoline used in US by 2020 - the public mis understgands this as a 20% reduction in oil imports, but by 2020 US will be even more dependent upon GWB´s main FINANCIAL supporters (THE SAUDI ROYAL FAMILY.)

The problem with alcohol fuel is that it'll never work anywhere outside of Brazil. For example, the US already produces more ethanol than Brazil, but it's still not enough to make a dent in gasoline consumption. If America were to adopt the kinds of policies that Billy T favors (i.e., dropping tarriffs and importing lots of Brazilian ethanol), the only difference for the US would be a stabilization in the price of corn, and less seasonal variations in ethanol prices. Even if America imported Brazil's entire ethanol output, it still wouldn't be enough to convert America's car fleets to 20% ethanol flex-fuel. There's simply not enough cane-based production potential out there to put a significant dent in world gasoline consumption. On the Brazilian side, exposure to US ethanol demand would drive up ethanol prices to the point where Brazilians could no longer afford to use it as fuel, and they'd be right back where they started (albeit with some extra income from ethanol exports). The only way ethanol is ever going to make a real difference is if processes for cellulosic production become affordable. Cane works great for Brazil, and Brazil alone, but is not going to work on a larger level.

Also, Brazilian oil-independence has as much to do with a recent boom in oil exploration as with ethanol fuel. It's not so much that Brazilians consume less oil than they did, say, 5 years ago (you can't run diesel engines on ethanol, after all), but that Brazil produces a bunch more oil.

As usual, there is a lot of truth in quadraphonics adjacent post, but it is over stated (MHO) in some spots.

Brazil is not the only tropical country. In fact the potential for producing alcohol closer to US in the tropics, including Cuba, is at least equal to the US´s total potential from corn and would significantly reduce the cost of driving in the US and the lessen money the US is currently sending to terrorists.

I do not know the details of the chemistry but Brazilian oil company, PetroBras, is begining to produce bio-diesel and as I recall about 10% of diesel used in Brazil, by laws already on the books, will be bio-diesel in only a few years. They do something with hydrogen during the refining process and call the bio-diesel produced "H-diesel." H-diesel is now supplying the legally required 2%. Brazil is leading the world in bio-diesel, just as it did in alcohol fuel.

Certainly greater fuel efficiency and less massive cars are part of the solution to the US transport needs. The current US system will collapse as the demand from China and India etc. ramps the price of oil up beyond $100/ barrel. Joe American can not afford his suburban life style with higher cost fuel and steadly shrinking real incomes. Unless some more intelligent policy is adopted soon, the drop in suburban home values will accelerate.

When many tropical lands are gaining income from alcohol, the production can supply a significantpart of US and EU demands for mobile fuel, but it will not happen in only one of two years and not at all if GWB and his oil friends have their way. Yes, if it proves to be feasible, cellulosic alcohol is the way to go - With it Brazil and other tropical (sunshine rich) land can supply the entire world´s needs for auto fuels, if more efficient smaller cars also replace the US gas hogs and some greater use of public transport is developed.

In fact the potential for producing alcohol closer to US in the tropics, including Cuba, is at least equal to the US´s total potential from corn

I seriously doubt that statement. As I mentioned previously, American corn ethanol production already exceeds Brazilian cane ethanol production. Unless you can point out some suitable tropical locations with as much (indeed, more) arable land than Brazil, then there really isn't anywhere significant to expand. It's true that Cuba could produce a decent amount of cane, but not enough to significantly dent American fuel needs. Again, even the entire output of Brazil, combined with America's production, isn't enough to do it, even if US fuel efficiency were to double. And that's without taking into account demand from the rest of the world.

Moreover, impact on food prices of large-scale ethanol production in said tropical countries (which are still largely agrarian) would be devestating. We're talking millions of people starving to death worldwide, every year. The current push for more ethanol production, both in the US and Brazil, is already driving up food prices worldwide and contributing to a resurgence in famine (international food aid budgets only go half as far as they did a few years ago). There are some very real, very serious consequences to deriving our energy and food supplies from a single source, and ethanol advocates must give them more consideration if they wish to be taken seriously. One very nice thing about fossil fuels is that you get them by drilling holes in the desert/ocean rather than by converting croplands, as is the case with ethanol.


Brazil is leading the world in bio-diesel, just as it did in alcohol fuel.

Anyone who knows anything about biodiesel knows that the European Union has led the world in that area for decades. Brazilian biodiesel production is not even a blip on the world radar. Moreover, many US states have had even more aggressive biodiesel policies than Brazil does for years now. you can even get *organicly produced* biodiesel in Washington. It may well be true that the Brazilian government is pursuing a more activist policy than the US federal government on the issue, but that hardly amounts to "leading the world" and also indicates a real lack of understanding of US political economy.


Certainly greater fuel efficiency and less massive cars are part of the solution to the US transport needs.

Yes, and any sensible policy will recognize that. That doesn't add up to an argument in favor of ethanol in particular, though. Anyway, increased fuel efficiency is not going to decrease the total demand for fuel; it's just going to slow its growth, and improve the energy intensity of the US economy. The total amount of energy required (which is the relevant figure for comparing with world production capacity) will continue to grow, even as more miles are driven per gallon (or, more generally, more dollars are made per joule). If your suggestion is "well, if America cuts its energy requirements by an order of magnitude, then ethanol can play a major role," you're deluding yourself. Moreover, if fuel efficiency were to improve by a significant factor, the price of oil would drop to the point that ethanol would no longer be competitive.

I seriously doubt that statement. As I mentioned previously, American corn ethanol production already exceeds Brazilian cane ethanol production. Unless you can point out some suitable tropical locations with as much (indeed, more) arable land than Brazil, then there really isn't anywhere significant to expand. ...
Moreover, impact on food prices of large-scale ethanol production in said tropical countries (which are still largely agrarian) would be devestating. .... There are some very real, very serious consequences to deriving our energy and food supplies from a single source, and ethanol advocates must give them more consideration if they wish to be taken seriously. One very nice thing about fossil fuels is that you get them by drilling holes in the desert/ocean rather than by converting croplands, as is the case with ethanol.
Anyone who knows anything about biodiesel knows that the European Union has led the world in that area for decades. Brazilian biodiesel production is not even a blip on the world radar....It probably is true that US production of ethanol exceeds Brazil´s, but one can not be sure as they are almost the same and Brazil´s data collection is not as well developed as is the US - lot of small producers not much any central data base.

This is not very important, compared to the fact that EVERY "gas" station in Brazil has had pump for alcohol for two decades and in US few do. In US, even with production about same as Brazil, the GOAL is to get to 20% of gasoline displacement by 2020 - Brazil is already at least twice that level of alcohol use in it transport system.

I do not remember where, perhaps in this thread, the accurate datawas posted, but only by converting existing pasture land to cane, Brazil could increase alcohol production several fold (five times more I seem to recal) When the US finally does open its market to cheaper Brazilian alcohol Brazil will be producing several times the US volume. Currently there is a glut of alcohol in Brazil - price is down about 40% in the last year. Obviously the lack of market, not land is what has allowed US to matchor slightly exceed Brazil´s production.

The US policy will in the end keep US dependent on the oil supliers as the Chinese and Japanese are now signing long term contracts and buildiing new refineries and tankers to take what brazil can produce in the future. (There will be little left to sell to US, when US realizes GWB´s mistake in this area.)

Also we disagree on what US demand for fuel will a decade hense. I think it will be slightly less than it is today. You obviously do not. (This not only because we see the economy of US then very differently but also because by then Detroit will be making he cars it should have a decade ago and with many out of work in a depression there will be funding for mass transit etc., again as should have occured a at least two decades ago, instead of the suburban sprawl that did occur.)

Summary:
Even without celulsose alcohol, the conversion of pasture to alcohol production in Brazil plus some expanson into forest lands will increase Brazil´s output by at least five times in a decade. With celulous alcohol then all global sources can supply more half the fuel needed. Battries and super capacitors (storing nuclear and coal enery) for urban use could supply the other half, if economical but as you note oil will not go much above $100/barrel (current dollars) if cellulosios alcohol is economical at that level. (I think there is good chance that this will be possible.)

On the food / starvation question I agree that massive use of land for energy production will tend to drive up food prices; however, beef (meat in general) production is already a very inefficient way to feed people. Like it or not, if I am correct about the existance of a depression in US and EU, there will be more efficient food production with less meat eaten. Thus conversion of pasture to alcohol production may not be the big deal some are suggesting.

On the bio-diesel lead you may be correct, but I do not know of any country in europe that is currently supplying 2% of its diesel needs from plant oils. Can you name one?

It probably is true that US production of ethanol exceeds Brazil´s, but one can not be sure as they are almost the same and Brazil´s data collection is not as well developed as is the US - lot of small producers not much any central data base.

It doesn't matter who is int he lead right now, the points are that US ethanol production is already comparable to Brazil, and growing much faster (tripled in the past 10 years, doubled in the last 5 years). By this time next year, America will have left Brazil well behind.


This is not very important, compared to the fact that EVERY "gas" station in Brazil has had pump for alcohol for two decades and in US few do. In US, even with production about same as Brazil, the GOAL is to get to 20% of gasoline displacement by 2020 - Brazil is already at least twice that level of alcohol use in it transport system.

You're missing the point, which is that America's fuel consumption is so much larger than Brazil's that even the huge domestic production isn't enough to supply such a network of pumps. To get America to the 20% goal will require America to consume TEN TIMES as much ethanol as Brazil currently does. it's not a simple matter of installing pumps and selling flex-fuel cars: the fuel production simply does not exist.


I do not remember where, perhaps in this thread, the accurate datawas posted, but only by converting existing pasture land to cane, Brazil could increase alcohol production several fold (five times more I seem to recal)

I'm not going to debate unreferenced estimates, but even if this were true, it would still be far short of the production required to get America onto 20% ethanol.

Like it or not, if I am correct about the existance of a depression in US and EU, there will be more efficient food production with less meat eaten.

The kind of depression you're talking about will make all these considerations moot, because it would drive global oil consumption down to the point where none of these alternatives are economical. If America's oil consumption were to get cut in half, it could then be met by domestic production, with a little bit of imports from Canada.


On the bio-diesel lead you may be correct, but I do not know of any country in europe that is currently supplying 2% of its diesel needs from plant oils. Can you name one?

Pretty much all of them get at least that much from biodiesel, and have for quite some time. What's more, diesel is used to fuel a much broader range of transport than in other areas. Many personal automobiles run on diesel, not just big shipping vehicles. Brazil's whole program is modeled on Europe's use of biodiesels, so it's pretty hilarious that you think they're leading the way.

Brazil is not the only tropical country. In fact the potential for producing alcohol closer to US in the tropics, including Cuba,
Nevermind Cuba...how bout producing ethanol from sugarcane in Louisana, Georgia, Florida, Alabama...Texas?

It doesn't matter who is int he lead right now, the points are that US ethanol production is already comparable to Brazil, and growing much faster (tripled in the past 10 years, doubled in the last 5 years). By this time next year, America will have left Brazil well behind.

You're missing the point, which is that America's fuel consumption is so much larger than Brazil's that even the huge domestic production isn't enough to supply such a network of pumps. To get America to the 20% goal will require America to consume TEN TIMES as much ethanol as Brazil currently does. it's not a simple matter of installing pumps and selling flex-fuel cars: the fuel production simply does not exist.

I'm not going to debate unreferenced estimates, but even if this were true, it would still be far short of the production required to get America onto 20% ethanol. ...Pretty much all of them get at least that much from biodiesel, and have for quite some time. What's more, diesel is used to fuel a much broader range of transport than in other areas. Many personal automobiles run on diesel, not just big shipping vehicles. Brazil's whole program is modeled on Europe's use of biodiesels, so it's pretty hilarious that you think they're leading the way.I agree that US production will be greater than Brazil's until Brazil's export market grows - currently the best producers are financially at best at "brake even" and many are losing money. Only those with long term POV are expanding. Waiting for the Japanese to build tankers as agreed, convert to alcohol etc. The postential for Brazil to produce at leaswt 10 times more than US is very real:

From post 24:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1055867&postcount=24

“ …Brazil had 6.5 million hectars in sugar cane in 2005/06 harvest. (Our fall is in March) and because alcohol demand is rapidly growing will harvest from approximately 9 million hectars around the end of 06, start of 07. The university study (see post of 11-25-05 below)* indicates that in Brazil 250 million hectars of pasture or woodlands are suitable for sugar cane production. …”

Thus even with out the improvement of yield by genetics or the development of cellulousic alcohol the current production of Brazil alone could be increased more than 35 fold. The US can at best increase its production by a factor of 3.5 and even that would be a great stress on the cost of food as there is little un or under used agricultural land in the US. (Most of Brazil’s is very underutilized, but not the areas near the population centers of Sao Paulo and Rio, where agricultural use of land is well developed.)

* http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=915616&postcount=19

I may be wrong about the Brazil leading in bio-diesel, if you are correct that most European contries also get 2 or more % of their diesel from plant oils. I assume (from riding on trains in Europe) that it must be sunflowers. Can you give more details? PertroBras may just be making excessive claims, but some European countries are trying to buy bio-diesel from Brazil.

Nevermind Cuba...how bout producing ethanol from sugarcane in Louisana, Georgia, Florida, Alabama...Texas?

Well, in any case, the sugar-growing lobbies from that area (and the anti-Castro exile groups in Cuba) will ensure that we never, ever open our market to Cuban sugar/ethanol.

I may be wrong about the Brazil leading in bio-diesel, if you are correct that most European contries also get 2 or more % of their diesel from plant oils. I assume (from riding on trains in Europe) that it must be sunflowers. Can you give more details? PertroBras may just be making excessive claims, but some European countries are trying to buy bio-diesel from Brazil.

Naturally, since the EU biodiesel market is so huge, they will indeed seek supplementary imports from time to time. All that means is that their demand is bigger than their production, not that Brazil's production exceeds Europe's. And I believe that rapeseed is the main feedstock used in Europe. More info here:

http://www.ebb-eu.org/
http://cornandsoybeandigest.com/mag/soybean_us_versus_world/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel#Demand_and_availability
(excerpt: "Global biodiesel production reached 3.8 million ton in 2005. Approximately 85% of biodiesel production came from the European Union.")
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel_around_the_World

Consider the following production stats (from the last link):

Brazil: 12,000 cubic meters per year
Quebec: 35,000 cubic meters per year (don't have numbers for Canada as a whole)
Czech Republic: 60,000 cubic meters per year
Germany: 3,000,000 cubic meters per year
Indonesia: 136,000 cubic meters per year
Malaysia: 590,000 cubic meters per year
UK: 500,000 cubic meters per year
United States: 290,000 cubic meters per year

So, about the only countries that produce less biodiesel than Brazil are those that don't even have biodiesel industries. Also, these are actual production numbers; the total installed production capacity in Europe is even larger by a wide margin. Brazil will need to quintiple production just to catch up with the Czech Republic. Moreover, production in many of those countries (US, Canada, some others) is growing as fast or faster than production in Brazil. They were literally the last guys to show up at the biodiesel party, so it's pretty hilarious that you think they're some kind of world leaders.

As far as your wild figures of Brazil boosting ethanol production by a factor of 35, you'll need to cite actual sources if you want to be taken seriously. Posting links to previous posts containing unsupported claims doesn't count.

...As far as your wild figures of Brazil boosting ethanol production by a factor of 35, you'll need to cite actual sources if you want to be taken seriously. Posting links to previous posts containing unsupported claims doesn't count.The earlier post told the source (the most important agricultural university in Brazil did the study and made the report) but It is in Portuguese, so not much use to you I assume. (also I do not have it. - I only read the summary article in Folio de Sao Paulo and that was some months ago, so no longer have even that.)

Below is some related news from only a few days ago, in English you can check. You have no reason to call my information "wild and unsuported," except your lack of ability to follow the studies being done in Brazil. (I named the university that did the study in the earlier post.)

It shows that the need to rotate crops (to avoid excessive cost of fertalizer) is potentially capable of restoring spent pasture to food production (unlike US corn based alcohol, cane produced alcohol may INCREASE the land in food production, if the spent pasture and old pasture, which has now reverted to forest, is added to the agricultural land in use. (Alternately producing sugar cane and peanuts, soybeans or other legumes to add nitrogen to the soil.) Note also that more than half of the alcohol currently produced in Brazil comes from the state of Sao Paulo (one small part of Brazil, near the domestic market) alone. As I told you, the reason US produces essentially the same volume as Brazil reflection the marginal economics in Brazil with the US market closed to imports, not the lack of land.

The following is from:
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=38675

" ...Brazil's Ministry of Agriculture announced on Jul. 17 that it will ban sugarcane encroachment in the Amazon and the Pantanal, a vast wetland in the west of the country that extends into Paraguay and Bolivia. The ban will take effect through a registry of the areas in which new crops can be planted, and is to be ready within a year.
The purpose is to provide incentives for sugarcane expansion in agricultural areas already degraded by use as pastureland. ..."The expansion of sugarcane in Sao Paulo is already occurring, especially in pasture areas... There is no reason to take over forests, because this country has plenty of degraded land available," Marcos Landell, director of the Sugarcane Agronomy Institute (IAC), told Tierramérica.
A study by the IAC, associated with the government of Sao Paulo state, shows that in the last 30 years production levels jumped from 65 to 90 tonnes of sugarcane per hectare. The number of harvests grew from three to six per year, which increased the sector's environmental impacts.
Also on the rise is the mechanical collection of raw cane. In this way, the leaves are not burned off and instead fall to the ground to decompose as natural fertiliser. According to Landell, in some areas there are up to 20 tonnes of stubble per hectare per year, which represents a huge return of organic material for the tropical soils.
Sugarcane today covers seven million hectares in Brazil, four million in Sao Paulo state alone. With the production level of 30 years ago, twice the area would be needed to obtain the same amount of alcohol produced today, or about 7,000 litres per hectare. The experts hope to push it further, to 11,000 litres per hectare in the next few years by using genetic and industrial improvements.
In 15 years more, the increase in yields across the system should be 80 percent. "In this way, the planted area would not surpass 30 million hectares," says Landell.
Improvements over the past decade allowed cultivation of more than 80 types of sugarcane, "the crop with the greatest number of varieties on each farm. This diversity creates resistance and helps protect the plants from diseases," he explained.
As a result, less pesticide is used. The new varieties are resistant to many of the diseases that tend to affect cane fields.
According to the IAC, the advance of sugarcane could even promote production of food. Fifteen percent of the country's cane fields are available each year for rotation with crops to help renew the soils, which represents millions of hectares for growing soybeans, peanuts and other crops.
In the Sao Paulo region of Ribeirao Preto, direct planting -- without tilling or removing waste from previous crops -- is increasingly being used for renewing cane fields. Cane farmers cultivate and harvest fast-growing varieties of soybean and peanut in the stubble left from cane before beginning a new sugarcane cycle.
On some farms, the new cane is planted among the stubble of the harvested legumes. "This is an irreversible trend," says Landell.
Direct planting without burning off cane leaves is a practice that can be adopted in all sugarcane-growing regions across Brazil, according to the Sao Paulo Agribusiness Technology Agency (APTA).
An estimated one tonne of carbon dioxide is captured per hectare of raw sugarcane harvested.
"When the collection of raw cane is collected -- whose biowaste increases the moisture and fertility of the soil -- is combined with direct planting, the environmental benefits are reinforced," APTA researcher Denizart Bolonhezi told Tierramérica.
In Ribeirao Preto, there are 40,000 hectares of peanut cultivated using direct planting and traditional techniques in sugarcane renewal areas. Two cooperatives, Coopercana, in Sertaozinho, and Coplana, in Guariba, collect and sell the peanuts.

I will read rest of your post and try to reply, if needed, soon - I am traveling back to Brazil tomorrow eve and busy now, but often I get Email notices like the above, so I sent it as support of what I have posted.

The name of a university is not a sufficient reference. That's more of an appeal to authority than a citation.

Anyway, this new info is a lot better. However, it still falls far short of supporting your earlier claims of a 35-fold increase. Taking the most generous estimates from your sources, we see an increase in ethanol cropland of just over %300 (from 7 million hectares to 30 million hectares), and an increased land yield of 80% (from 7000 liters per hectare to 12600). This gives an overall long-term maximum production capacity of 12600 liters/hectare * 30 Million hectares = 379 Billion liters per year. Current capacity is 7000 liters/hectare * 7 Million hectares = 50 Billion liters per year. That's a a factor of about 7.6, which is pretty impressive, but still only one fifth of your previous statement. Plus, that uses up all of Brazil's available land for ethanol production; there will be no room to pursue biodiesel or expand food production.

So, how much ethanol is 380 Billion liters per year? Well, it's about 100 Billion gallons per year, or 275 Million gallons per day. Since ethanol contains 34% less energy per gallon than gasoline, that quantity can replace 181 Million gallons of gasoline per day. US motor gasoline consumption runs to 387 Million gallons per day, and is expected to hit 500 Million gallons per day by 15 years from now (the soonest possible time that the 7.6-fold increase in Brazilian production could materialize). So, even if America imported *ALL* of the ethanol that Brazil will be theoretically capable of producing, it wouldn't even cover 40% of transport fuel needs (nor leave any ethanol for Brazil or anyone else to use). The only way that ethanol is going to move from a niche product to a global competitor for gasoline is if cellulosic production takes off, allowing large-scale economical production outside of the tropics, or if Brazil cuts down the entire rain forest to grow cane.

...Anyway, this new info is a lot better. However, it still falls far short of supporting your earlier claims of a 35-fold increase. Taking the most generous estimates from your sources, we see an increase in ethanol cropland of just over %300 (from 7 million hectares to 30 million hectares), and an increased land yield of 80% (from 7000 liters per hectare to 12600). This gives an overall long-term maximum production capacity of 12600 liters/hectare * 30 Million hectares = 379 Billion liters per year. Current capacity is 7000 liters/hectare * 7 Million hectares = 50 Billion liters per year. That's a a factor of about 7.6, which is pretty impressive, but still only one fifth of your previous statement. ...Current Brazilian production of alcohol comes 4/7 from the state of Sao Paulo alone, but Brazil is much bigger than that one state. The Unicamp University multi-year study stated:

" ...with no clearing of rain forests there are 2.5E8 hectars of reasonably level land in Brazil with soil, rain, truck access, etc. for mechanical cultivation of sugar cane. ..." Compared to the 7E6 hectars in current prduction, this is a potential increase of 350 times, without either celluloseic or improved genetics etc., but of course not all the suitable land in Brazil can be devoted to fuel production.
If only 10% of the suitable land were, then again we are back again to the 35 fold increase the other article suggested.

Further more, I have never suggested that Brazil alone could supply the US liquid fuel needs. I have always spoken of "tropical lands." Even then I have never said that all the world's fuel needs could be met by conventional sugar cane alcohol, but if cellulosic production of ETOH is possible and economical, then petroleum could be reserved mainly for chemical feed stocks and luberication.

Using only 10% of the available (and mostly un-used) suitable land in Brazil is not a "wild unsupported" possibility. If the US were to allow its citizens to use the cheaper alcohol fuel available from tropical lands, then much of the money funding the terrorist would be cut off because oil consumption and gasoline prices would be reduced. Current US policy is designed to insure the opposite. (Corn based alcohol may* give a slight net energy gain, over the fossil energy it requires, but even that will disappear as more marginal land is pressed into production. Tropical sugar cane gives an eight fold gain and that will become about a 25 fold gain if cellulosic production is feasible, with little net effect on food production.)

Quoting my old post:

"What part of the facts that tropical countries, with cheap land and cheap labor and 12 month growing seasons can produce alcohol at a fraction of the cost of Iowa, or Germany or England or France etc. do you doubt?"

Do you still doubt that Brazil could produce at least a 30 fold increase in production? I doubt it actually will because there are many other tropical areas also willing and able to produce alcohol (Their total potential is greater than Brazil's, I thinnk, if India is included.) In any case there will be little increase until the US changes its stupid, oil industry serving, policies as the domestic market can use only a small fraction of the potential production.

Also note that the 30million hectars, which you used to get your 7.6 fold increase, is not the 250million hectars of suitable land available. It is a realistic projection of what may occur in next 15 years (with sales only to EU and Japan, but not to the US, I think.)

AGAIN LACK OF MARKET, NOT LAND, IS RESTRAINING BRAZIL'S PRODUCTION.
Plus, that uses up all of Brazil's available land for ethanol production; there will be no room to pursue biodiesel or expand food production. ...This is simply false. It would be true if only the state of Sao Paulo were used.
-----------------------
*The Cornell and U of Calif studies indicate a slight negative gain. Only the Un. of Illonis and oil interested studies show a positive gain. Most to the new distiliation facilities are being built either in Illionois or near by states, so they too have a bias compared to the truely disinterested univesity studies.

" ...with no clearing of rain forests there are 2.5E8 hectars of reasonably level land in Brazil with soil, rain, truck access, etc. for mechanical cultivation of sugar cane. ..." .

I find that number extremely hard to believe. The total land area of Brazil is about 850 Million hectares, and the rain forest is 400 Million hectares, so you're talking about using 55% of non-rainforest Brazil for ethanol production. That seems pretty unreasonable, to say nothing of what it would do to food prices and potential for biodiesel. Also, according to this publication:

http://www.gronabilister.se/file.php?REF=39461a19e9eddfb385ea76b26521ea48&art=376&FILE_ID=20060511084611.pdf

There are only 140 Million hectares of arable, non-rainforest, non-cattle lands in Brazil, which would cap you at a 20-fold increase.


Compared to the 7E6 hectars in current prduction, this is a potential increase of 350 times, without either celluloseic or improved genetics etc., but of course not all the suitable land in Brazil can be devoted to fuel production.
If only 10% of the suitable land were, then again we are back again to the 35 fold increase the other article suggested.

Uh, no, 7E6 times 35 = 245E8. You have to use all of that (theoretical) land to get the 35-fold increase. Using only 10% results in a 3.5-fold increase.


Further more, I have never suggested that Brazil alone could supply the US liquid fuel needs. I have always spoken of "tropical lands."

Yes, but you've never suggested any suitable candidates outside of Brazil. Where exactly are these non-Brazilian suitable agricultural lands in the tropics? Sure, there's some lands, but I'm not seeing any tropical areas with anywhere near as much spare land as Brazil has, so...


Even then I have never said that all the world's fuel needs could be met by conventional sugar cane alcohol, but if cellulosic production of ETOH is possible and economical, then petroleum could be reserved mainly for chemical feed stocks and luberication.

If cellulosic production takes off, the agricultural waste of American food production would provide enough feedstock to produce mind-boggling quantities of ethanol. In which case, ethanol trade policy with Brazil will be a minor concern.

"What part of the facts that tropical countries, with cheap land and cheap labor and 12 month growing seasons can produce alcohol at a fraction of the cost of Iowa, or Germany or England or France etc. do you doubt?"

First of all, the growing season is only 7 months, not 12. Second, labor costs are not a factor, as this kind of production can be mechanized. The advantage is mostly due to the fact of a suitable climate for sugar cane.


Do you still doubt that Brazil could produce at least a 30 fold increase in production?.

Yes. As mentioned above, your math is off by an order of magnitude. If you meant a 3-fold increase, then, sure; in fact, I expect them to produce a 7-fold increase in the medium term.


I doubt it actually will because there are many other tropical areas also willing and able to produce alcohol (Their total potential is greater than Brazil's, I thinnk, if India is included.)

Oh, and where is all of this spare arable land in India? Unless you plan to kill off a few hundred million Indians, they need all the land they have to feed themselves.

In any case there will be little increase until the US changes its stupid, oil industry serving, policies as the domestic market can use only a small fraction of the potential production.

Why harp on the US here? There are plenty of other gasoline-hungry economies out there that aren't importing Brazilian ethanol in significant quantities. If it was as great an idea as you say, then it wouldn't matter if America were intersted or not: Europe, China, India, Australia, etc. comprise a big enough market to buy up much mroe ethanol than Brazil is producing, should they want to do so.

I'll note again that substituting one fuel import for another is not a terribly appealing proposition for most people, even if said fuel does have environmental benefits.


AGAIN LACK OF MARKET, NOT LAND, IS RESTRAINING BRAZIL'S PRODUCTION.


Okay, but I'll repeat that you can't pin the lack of market solely on American policy. There are plenty of other gas-hungry economies out there which are not importing significant quantities of Brazilian ethanol. I submit that the lack of a market is due to a more fundamental factor than the American corn and cane lobbies.

...Yes, but you've never suggested any suitable candidates outside of Brazil. Where exactly are these non-Brazilian suitable agricultural lands in the tropics? Sure, there's some lands, but I'm not seeing any tropical areas with anywhere near as much spare land as Brazil has, so.. ...Just returned to Brazil from month in USA and do not have time for full reply, but by chance, today's paper tells that Brazil's president (Lula) is in central America, with plane load of business men (50) most of whom are trying to sell sugar cane / alcohol related equipment. They will visit 5 different countries, one being Mexico, which along with several others is already expanding their cane fields.

These countries, unlike Brazil, have "free trade" agreement with USA, and are closer to US. Thus, they avoid the 54 cents per gallon tariff and ship more economically. Brazil leads world in the design and manufacturing of the cane to alcohol equipment, so sale of equipment is all Brazil can do to profit from the US alcohol market. I also recal reading that ADM (almost sure it was ADM) is making a big investment in Hondurous, I think it was, to develope cane fields and crushing/ fermentation/ distilation plants.

A new, comprehensive study on the impact of ethanol fuel on air quality has just been released by Stanford University. The results:

"Ethanol is being promoted as a clean and renewable fuel that will reduce global warming and air pollution," said Jacobson, associate professor of civil and environmental engineering. "But our results show that a high blend of ethanol poses an equal or greater risk to public health than gasoline, which already causes significant health damage."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070418072616.htm

A new, comprehensive study on the impact of ethanol fuel on air quality has just been released by Stanford University. The results:

"Ethanol is being promoted as a clean and renewable fuel that will reduce global warming and air pollution," said Jacobson, associate professor of civil and environmental engineering. "But our results show that a high blend of ethanol poses an equal or greater risk to public health than gasoline, which already causes significant health damage."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070418072616.htmNot true. The study considered E85 vs Gasoline. It did not consider pure ethanol vs. gasoline. Note the part of your quote I made bold.

In genereral the more different chemicals you add to the fuel, the more complex will be the mix coming out of the exhaust pipe. This is why several "octane boosters" for gasoline are BANNED, even when only a small fraction of 1% was added to the gasoline and even though they do cause the gasoline to burn rather than explode ("knock"). Knocking makes a huge presure and temperature surge and lots of complex, potentially dangerous, compounds.

Pure ethanol is a single simple molecule that burns clean, and as it has higher octane than even pure octane, requires no additatives.

Not true. The study considered E85 vs Gasoline. It did not consider pure ethanol vs. gasoline.

Fair enough, but there's a good reason they considered E85 rather than pure ethanol. The reason is that nobody is even considering trying to switch the US auto fleet to pure ethanol. Apart from the additional costs of converting vehicles to accept pure ethanol (E85 requires only minor changes), there's no possibility of that much ethanol being produced any time in the forseeable future. Even the most optimistic scenarios for world ethanol production won't result in enough to move the US to E85, let along pure ethanol. Realistically, increased ethanol fuel usage in the United States is going to come in the form of higher-proof blends with gasoline, and so that is the relevant thing to study.

...Realistically, increased ethanol fuel usage in the United States is going to come in the form of higher-proof blends with gasoline, and so that is the relevant thing to study.US is in the control of big oil and big agro-business. Both are happy with Bush's alcohol from corn program as it will increase food prices (already is) increase land prices (farms) increase (or at least not reduce) oil consumption.
So I think you are correct on this, but note that x% of US cars could run on pure ethonol and (100-x)% on gasoline only.

You can buy these alcohol only cars now (or 20 years ago!) from Brazil at lower prices than US cars that run on gasoline. Despite the strong Real, Brazil is exporting more every year - to countries with governments more interested in the wealfare of the average citizen than big business.

So I think you are correct on this, but note that x% of US cars could run on pure ethonol and (100-x)% on gasoline only.

Yes, but x would have to be less than 15 (and then only if America manages to meet the goal of boosting production by a factor of 6, Brazil increases production by a factor of 7, and America buys every drop of Brazilian ethanol). Even then, it would only work if said 15% of the cars were driven only in a geographically localized area (it isn't economical to install ethanol pumps nationwide if only 15% of cars are going to use it).

Another ethanol fun-fact: it cannot be transported in pipelines like oil can, as it will absorb too much water along the way. Thus, it has to be shipped around in inefficient diesel trucks or trains.

http://www.agmrc.org/NR/rdonlyres/4EE0E81C-C607-4C3F-BBCF-B75B7395C881/0/ksupipelineethl.pdf

Yes, but x would have to be less than 15 (and then only if America manages to meet the goal of boosting production by a factor of 6, Brazil increases production by a factor of 7, and America buys every drop of Brazilian ethanol). Even then, it would only work if said 15% of the cars were driven only in a geographically localized area (it isn't economical to install ethanol pumps nationwide if only 15% of cars are going to use it).

Another ethanol fun-fact: it cannot be transported in pipelines like oil can, as it will absorb too much water along the way. Thus, it has to be shipped around in inefficient diesel trucks or trains.
... Yes but it is a chicken and egg problem. With US market closed, and large subsidies to both corn producers and the fermentation/distilation facilities (per gallon) Brazil will not expand production. (currently at some stations alcohol is less than one Real because of the production exceeds demand and gasoline is R$2.30/ liter. There is an enormous amount of underutalized land in the global and near global tropics. (BTW more than half of Brazil production is south of the tropics, to be near to market of Sao Paulo.)

I agree that the suburban life style of the US is unsustanable. I have long called for less "suburban infrastructure" more urban high rises (with near by parks, etc) public transport, smaller cars with higher cost (via taxes) etc. but think US has run out of time. (It will take more than a decade to get even to european levels of rational land use and transport systems.) Imported alcohol and cars to use it might make it possible for US to avoid depression with high cost oil when China and India have many more cars, but I have given up hope that it will happen.

I too have read that alcohol can not be moved by pipelines, but do not understand where the water would come from, so I expect this is just big oil fighting back with mis-information. Japan is building many ocean tankers in partneship with Brazil for transport of alcohol (30 year contracts already signed, etc.) - How is that possible if pipeline transport is not?

To Quadraphonics:
If you have time, please look at my new thread in world events forum called: "Is today start of perfect financial storm? (caused by "6L cycle") "

Yes but it is a chicken and egg problem. With US market closed, and large subsidies to both corn producers and the fermentation/distilation facilities (per gallon) Brazil will not expand production. (currently at some stations alcohol is less than one Real because of the production exceeds demand and gasoline is R$2.30/ liter.

Again, if ethanol fuel is such a great idea, why isn't the rest of the world buying it? It shouldn't matter whether America buys it or not, as there are plenty of other markets to provide demand. You keep saying that tons of countries are signing up, and yet the production boom is not materializing. Something doesn't add up. I'll mention again that energy independence is as important to most people as aspects like sustainability and even cost, so switching from imported oil to imported ethanol is not a terribly appealing proposition.


There is an enormous amount of underutalized land in the global and near global tropics.

You keep saying that, but when I ask where said land is, I never receive an answer. As mentioned previously, even if we believe the sky-high predictions of a 35-fold increase in Brazilian production being feasible, that STILL isn't enough ethanol to switch America to E85, let alone supply Brazil and the rest of the world, or leave any room for food production and biodiesel.

(It will take more than a decade to get even to european levels of rational land use and transport systems.)

European land use isn't so much 'rational' as 'crowded.' There's 50% more people in the same area, and open, wild spaces are pretty much non-existant. Also, you're far too married to this stereotype of Americans living in the suburbs and driving big cars everywhere. There is a segment of the population that does that, but the demographic trend has been towards reurbanization for decades now. The days of sprawl cities pretty much dried up some years back, with the recent increases in gas prices being the last nail in the coffin. Well over half of the population lives in cities, and lots of investment in mass transit has been made. They've even got a subway in Los Angeles now, for crying out loud! San Diego, another bastion of the car culture, has been in the process of expanding light-rail throughout the city for decades, and already has an extensive bus system that runs entirely on natural gas. It's the rural population that stands to suffer, as they actually need to drive long distances and haul lots of stuff in their cars. But, on the other hand, the ethanol boom is driving up their income and property values, so no problems there.


Imported alcohol and cars to use it might make it possible for US to avoid depression with high cost oil when China and India have many more cars, but I have given up hope that it will happen.

Oh, and how are China and India going to avoid depression when the high oil cost hits? Considering that they're in the process of moving *away* from mass transit and *towards* personal automobiles, and also operate much more energy-intensive economies than the United States?


I too have read that alcohol can not be moved by pipelines, but do not understand where the water would come from, so I expect this is just big oil fighting back with mis-information.

Not sure how the water gets in there, but it seems to be a normal phenomenon. The study I posted was from the agriculture department at Kansas State University, as part of the Agriculture Marketing Resource Center, so I have a hard time believing it's disinformation from "Big Oil." Anyway, a couple posts ago you were claiming that Big Oil is in on the ethanol conspiracy. I suggest you pick a conspiracy and stick with it.


Japan is building many ocean tankers in partneship with Brazil for transport of alcohol (30 year contracts already signed, etc.) - How is that possible if pipeline transport is not?

Err, maybe because ocean liners, being boats, are designed to keep water out? Pipelines and ships are very different things.

Again, if ethanol fuel is such a great idea, why isn't the rest of the world buying it? It shouldn't matter whether America buys it or not, as there are plenty of other markets to provide demand. You keep saying that tons of countries are signing up, and yet the production boom is not materializing. Something doesn't add up. I think mainly because special ocean tankers are required and they are just now being built. I do not have all the answers, but as I own 2500 sh of San Martino I can tell you (from their news release of 26March07):

" ...Sao Martinho signed a 30-year ethanol supply deal with Mitsubishi Corp. Sao Martinho subsidiary Usina Boa Vista SA will ultimately produce around 286,000 cubic meters hydrated alcohol and sell Mitsubishi 30% of it. Some from the 2008/09 harvest, with prices based on prevailing market conditions. Also Mitsubishi will buy 10 percent of new usina, Boa Vista. Financial terms were not disclosed. "Mitsubishi already acquires our Ribonucleic Acid Sodium Salt output and this new contract strengthens our long-term ties even further, as well as reinforcing Sao Martinho's determination to continue investing in the growth of its activities," Joao Carvalho do Val, CEO said. ..."

(I keep and update private files on more than 100 companies that I either own or am considering buying.)

SUMMARY: Many countries and large international firms are buying but the delivery is still typically a few years away. (Mainly due to logistical and automative fleet conversion delays. I recall reading Toyota will soon market an alcohol powered car.)

When USA wakes up, your concerns will be validated. I.e. Brazil will not be able to supply alcohol to the US.

Unfortunately the production boom is materalizing. That is why most producing compaines are hurting with the glut induced low prices. - The wholesale price has dropped about 40% in the last 6 months with the glut of supply. I have a paper loss of about 8,000 R$ on my shares!

I'll mention again that energy independence is as important to most people as aspects like sustainability and even cost, so switching from imported oil to imported ethanol is not a terribly appealing proposition. There are three main reasons to spend your fuel importing dollars on alcohol instead of oil:
(1) Most importantly is to cut off much of the funding that supplies most of the terrorists.
(2) To diversify the number of competing suppliers. - At least twice as many countries can produce significantly alcohol (if assured of a market) as can significant amounts of oil.
(3) To reduce CO2 contribution to "global warming" by a net removal of it from the air, instead of adding more CO2 into the air from carbon sources now well sequested deep in the earth



You keep saying that, but when I ask where said land is, I never receive an answer. That is not true. I told you that Mexico is expanind it fields, I mentioned Cuba and you even agreed that there was significant potential there. I also mentionde that India is a big producer, with a chronic glut of sugar and molasis. (Government is strongly encouraging the production of alcohol to solve this problem.) I DO NOT NEED TO REPEAT MORE - GET A GLOBE. See how much land is between +40 and -40 latitude. I am getting tired of your implying that I think or suggest only Brazil has potential, when I have said just the opposite - I have guessed that in this hemisphere Brazil has at most half of the potential.


European land use isn't so much 'rational' as 'crowded.' There's 50% more people in the same area, and open, wild spaces are pretty much non-existant. I will not argue withj you on what to call it. Call it "crowed" if you like, but that is what makes for less distance traveled by cars and that is what is imjportant when it comes to liquid fuel requirements. Also, US has not even approached the public transport system and small efficient cars available in Europe - why the per capitat use of petroeum in US is so much higher.
Get back in your Hummer (or SUV), drive around and try to find many American made cars like the new Morris Mini, etc. that are very common in Europe, where gasoline has been "rationally priced" (excuse me, "expensive," if you prefer:D) for decades to produce the absence of SUVs etc. and well developed bus and passenger trains (worlds fastest etc.)

Also, you're far too married to this stereotype of Americans living in the suburbs and driving big cars everywhere. There is a segment of the population that does that, but the demographic trend has been towards reurbanization for decades now. The days of sprawl cities pretty much dried up some years back, with the recent increases in gas prices being the last nail in the coffin. Well over half of the population lives in cities, and lots of investment in mass transit has been made. They've even got a subway in Los Angeles now, for crying out loud! San Diego, another bastion of the car culture, has been in the process of expanding light-rail throughout the city for decades, and already has an extensive bus system that runs entirely on natural gas. It's the rural population that stands to suffer, as they actually need to drive long distances and haul lots of stuff in their cars. But, on the other hand, the ethanol boom is driving up their income and property values, so no problems there.As I have only visited US for about a year total in the last 15 years, I can not strongly argue with your observations here, but I have not noticed much of what you are claiming.

One of my "bitches" for the last 50 years is against the unlimited tax deduction on home mortgages. It is a huge economic distortion - unthinking central planning of land use. It is why a high-income childless couple is forced to buy a country estate. - They need the tax deduction, not the 6 bed-room house. About 40 years ago, US news and World Report published my letter making this point after they printed an article calling for a housing slump bail out via greater tax deduction. (I concluded with: "Better the current slump now than a recession later from over building."

In general, I still think the US has been very stupid with it tacit assumption that cheap oil is "forever." - US will soon pay a high price for this short sightedness. (Call me "too married" to concerns about the "US's surburban infrastructure" if you like now, but when Joe American's car is up on blocks because he can not afford gas, I do not think you will be so critical of my POV. He should have had an apartment in the "crowed" city, near the park if with kids, and on the express bus line, only two block from the metro station, with grocery store, barber shop, dry cleaners, etc. on the ground level of the building. Most US zoning laws stupidly keep services and residences far apart or at least did so when I lived there and the suburban infrastucture was being made.)

This post already too long so I will not reply to your remainer, but could and will later, if asked to do so.

Billy T,
(currently at some stations alcohol is less than one Real because of the production exceeds demand and gasoline is R$2.30/ liter. There is an enormous amount of underutalized land in the global and near global tropics. (BTW more than half of Brazil production is south of the tropics, to be near to market of Sao Paulo.)
So, one of the reasons alcohol is so cheap in Sao Paulo is because production is close to market, correct?
Japan is building many ocean tankers in partneship with Brazil for transport of alcohol (30 year contracts already signed, etc.)
How could Brazil transport a large supply of alcohol to the US if the specially constructed tankers do not yet exist?

I too have read that alcohol can not be moved by pipelines, but do not understand where the water would come from, so I expect this is just big oil fighting back with mis-information.
That was pretty easy to find info about. Alcohol is corrosive to the welds that have been used in older pipeline construction, oil is not. Stress fractures occur, leading to water contamination hazards of the 99.8% pure alcohol. The US government is investing several million dollars for a study of how best to construct pipelines for alcohol transport. Another problem is that present pipelines are not in the right locations. They are concentrated around oil-producing areas, not ethanol producing areas.
That is not true. I told you that Mexico is expanind it fields, I mentioned Cuba and you even agreed that there was significant potential there. I also mentionde that India is a big producer, with a chronic glut of sugar and molasis. (Government is strongly encouraging the production of alcohol to solve this problem.)
The US and Cuba are not exactly on friendly trading terms, are they? The US and Brazil have problems agreeing on import duties. Brazil places high import duties on cheap American milk and some other agricultural products to protect their farmers and dairy industry. The US does the same on alcohol to protect the US sugar industry. I thought you said earlier that India and China were going to cause serious problems with world oil supplies due to their economic development? If India can produce more than enough alcohol to supply their own needs allowing them to export, why would they need to import so much oil?

Billy T, the Brazilian government subsidized their alcohol industry for many years to reach the point they are at now. The US cannot convert over to alcohol quickly. Citizens cannot afford to lose their investments in their gasoline-burning cars overnight. Cars that burn pure alcohol are not even sold here yet. There are a few new E85 vehicles at dealers now, but most people find it much more economical to pay a few dollars more to fill-up their late model vehicle that to shell out $20,000 plus dollars for a new car. There are not ANY fuel stations that sell E85 in my area as of yet. I am thinking of buying a new car this fall myself, even though my present car only has 24,000 miles on it. I will probably get either a hybrid or diesel car, even though I am a low-milage driver, because of future fuel price concerns. Except for the higher initial vehicle purchase price compared to Flex-fuel, hybrids are my best bet because most all my driving is short trips on city streets. Flex-fuel and alcohol cars hold little appeal for me because I doubt alcohol, or E85, will ever sell for much less than gasoline in the forseeable future at my location. Better dump those alcohol stocks before you lose your butt, Billy T! :D

... So, one of the reasons alcohol is so cheap in Sao Paulo is because production is close to market, correct? That helps but main reason is the expansion of the cane fields (I think in part to bankrupt most of the smaller producers - consolidate the now highly divided industry. Even San Martino, second largest producer, only has three large refineries and there are several hundred small independent ones in Brazil.) Every one believes Brazil will produce much more at a profit when the transport and distribution and cars in Japan etc. are running on alcohol. The long-term "take or pay" contracts are signed.

...How could Brazil transport a large supply of alcohol to the US if the specially constructed tankers do not yet exist? I do not think they could now, and even later while the US market is closed. No one (but possibly me) is wanting to sell much to USA. (All over the world now, few want to help the rich "war mongers"). I am motivated to help US avoid the foolish "GWB alcohol from corn" plan, which is designed to build more campaign contributions from rich pigs already well feed by taxpayer's dollars instead of reducing oil imports, terminating much of the funds now going to terrorists, reducing CO2 polution, etc. (All my grandchildren live in the USA - my efforts are for them.)

Thanks for the pipeline information - that probably explains why existing tankers are not suitable. I rarely search the net, instead of my memory.


...The US and Cuba are not exactly on friendly trading terms, are they? The US and Brazil have problems agreeing on import duties. Brazil places high import duties on cheap American milk and some other agricultural products to protect their farmers and dairy industry.I take a longer term view so current relations with Cuba do not concern me. Yes there is trade conflict between Brazil and US but I doubt US milk can be competive in Brazil with the locally produced milk (unless there are subsidies to make this possible). Perhaps US can sell cheeze here. Brazil's "guilt" (stupidity in the long term) is trying to protect its industral products, especially electronics. It is the "make high value added products" mentality causing this. Brazil's natural advantage is agricultural. Other items can be traded for. Adam Smith told / proved this was the best plan long ago.

I intend to get back to you and Quadraphonics on China questions in a later post.

...Billy T, the Brazilian government subsidized their alcohol industry for many years to reach the point they are at now. ... Better dump those alcohol stocks before you lose your butt, Billy T! :DI do not know if there was any subsidy as not here 35 years ago. Brazil was a military dictatorship in oil crisis of 1973. They simply ordered all gas stations to install alcohol pumps, farmers to plant cane and may have funded the processing plants but I do not know the details. I am sure the total subsidy, if any, given back then is small compared to only the tax write-offs big oil still gets (called "Oil Depletion Allowances") every year in the US, despite huge profits.

Yes, I was too quick* to buy after the 30 year contract with Mitisbshi was announced and did not adequately understand / anticipate the drive now under way to crush the little guys by making alcohol low priced with excessive production for the local demand. I am in for the long haul and not concerned with the current low prices. (They at least help when I fill the car's tank.)
-----------------
*I usually read, in portugese, local financial paper early and as Brazil's time is ahead of NYC's, I have my buy or sell orders near front of the "market execute" line when the market opens, but I do not trade much - none for the last two months. I rarely deal in the "after hours market." If Bloomberg already knows what I am reading in local paper, I do not act fast. Unfortunately, this time I knew first.

There are three main reasons to spend your fuel importing dollars on alcohol instead of oil:
(1) Most importantly is to cut off much of the funding that supplies most of the terrorists.

Ummm... those oil dollars pay for a lot of things besides terrorism. Water, food, hospitals and schools, for example. I don't think that trying to starve entire societies is a very useful solution to the problem of terrorism. I suppose you just included this as a jingoistic appeal to Americans, but it's a pretty ugly sentiment.


(2) To diversify the number of competing suppliers. - At least twice as many countries can produce significantly alcohol (if assured of a market) as can significant amounts of oil.
(3) To reduce CO2 contribution to "global warming" by a net removal of it from the air, instead of adding more CO2 into the air from carbon sources now well sequested deep in the earth

There's no net removal of CO2 with ethanol, but, yeah, those are still nice properties. I never said there weren't reasons to favor ethanol over gas. What I said was that people are as much (or more) interested in energy independence as with these other concerns. It's not just the corn farmers: you're not going to get Americans in general excited about the idea of switching from one form of imported energy to another, no matter what the other benefits may be.


That is not true. I told you that Mexico is expanind it fields, I mentioned Cuba and you even agreed that there was significant potential there. I also mentionde that India is a big producer, with a chronic glut of sugar and molasis. (Government is strongly encouraging the production of alcohol to solve this problem.) I DO NOT NEED TO REPEAT MORE - GET A GLOBE. See how much land is between +40 and -40 latitude. I am getting tired of your implying that I think or suggest only Brazil has potential, when I have said just the opposite - I have guessed that in this hemisphere Brazil has at most half of the potential.

I never said there wasn't any land in the tropics, I said there wasn't any *unused* land in the tropics. There's no way Cuba can produce enough to even dent global demand, and Mexico is largely desert. The thing about tropical countries is that, other than Brazil, they tend to be quite crowded already. Brazil has a population density of 22 people/km^2 (182nd in the word, out of about 200 countries). India has 336 people/km^2 (31st highest in the world). Australia and northern Africa are mostly desert. About the only place with rainfall and low-ish population densities is sub-Saharan Africa, and they have a whole other set of problems.

Get back in your Hummer (or SUV), drive around and try to find many American made cars like the new Morris Mini, etc. that are very common in Europe, where gasoline has been "rationally priced" (excuse me, "expensive," if you prefer:D) for decades to produce the absence of SUVs etc. and well developed bus and passenger trains (worlds fastest etc.)

What does it matter where the cars are made? What matters is where they're sold. Incidentally, Americans now purchase more cars from foreign brands than American brands. Also, the MINI has been on the American market for like 5 years now, and sells very well. I see them all the time. And the public transport is pretty well developed, if not to the point of Europe (which, again, has 50% more people in the same area, with the same income). I regularly ride the train to visit my girlfriend, and have my choice of bus or light-rail options to commute to work.

By the way, I drive a Subaru wagon.

Most US zoning laws stupidly keep services and residences far apart or at least did so when I lived there and the suburban infrastucture was being made.

Yeah, those types of zoning practices were another casualty of the last two decades. The phrase nowadays is "mixed-use" or "live-work" zoning, which means commercial areas on the first floor, with residential areas above and behind them, like you see in big cities. The sprawl thing kind of ran into a limit, where the benefits of cheap land were counteracted by the distance from jobs and services (especially as gas prices keep going up). Meanwhile, the urban centers had been somewhat neglected during the suburban building boom, and so became cheaper to redevelop, as well as offering the proximity to various amenities that customers want. So the trend in the past decade has been "reurbanization."

That's not to say that there isn't still a lot of suburban areas with a lot of people living in them, but most aren't being expanded (the growth is in more urban areas), and there's a renewed effort to include localized services in them (which boosts their desirability; people are sick of long commutes). Anyway, there's a good reason that people choose to live in suburbs and commute even in the face of rising gas prices. The reason is this: the amount of money spent on fuel is miniscule compared to the cost of a house. Even if gas prices triple, it will still cost less than buying a house in the city and avoiding the commute, since the city houses often go for 3-4 times (or more) what suburban houses cost (and are smaller to boot). The gas money comes out of disposable income, so it's less TVs, iPods and vacations that people can afford. But ask someone to choose between home ownership with a large gasoline bill, or renting a house in the city and riding the bus, and they'll go for the former every time.

Ummm... those oil dollars pay for a lot of things besides terrorism. Water, food, hospitals and schools, for example. I don't think that trying to starve entire societies is a very useful solution to the problem of terrorism. I suppose you just included this as a jingoistic appeal to Americans, but it's a pretty ugly sentiment.No, I did not suggest "starve entire societies" to end funds supporting terroist. We both know and accept that US will be importing most of its energy from Saudi Arabia, etc. for decades; however, if the funds going there (to countries now supporting terrorist) were not growing so rapidly, then their ability to fund terrorist would be reduced as they met these domestic demands. (Water, food, hospitals and schools etc. as you said.)
There's no net removal of CO2 with ethanol, but, ...Yes, there is. Some of the carbon removed from the air (in form of CO2) remains in the soil (roots of the cut cane) or in the growing cane.

The carbon in the alcohol storage tanks, tankers transporting it, even in the "gas tanks" of cars is all also a result of removal of CO2 from the air. This storage of carbon is not quite as large as that stored in the growing cane, but is a real reduction in atmospheric CO2, in contrast to the buring of oil which only adds CO2 to the air from sources that are now well sequested deep in the Earth. In contrast to gasoline, the CO2 in the exhaust from a vehicle buring alcohol ADDS ZERO NEW CO2 to the air - it is only restoring PART of that, which was removed earlier.

On your other comments, I am glad to learn that the US is not still expanding the suburban infrastructure and now allowing more integrated land use (mixed zoning).

No, I did not suggest "starve entire societies" to end funds supporting terroist. We both know and accept that US will be importing most of its energy from Saudi Arabia, etc. for decades; however, if the funds going there (to countries now supporting terrorist) were not growing so rapidly, then their ability to fund terrorist would be reduced as they met these domestic demands. (Water, food, hospitals and schools etc. as you said.)

Okay, so you want to impoverish, rather than outright starve, entire societies. Big difference... you do understand that terrorism is, by and large, financed by sources *other* than oil income, right? It's not as if the Saudi government has a beaurocrat charged with tracking income growth and infrastructure costs and funneling any surplusses to terrorism. On the contrary, terrorism is largely funded by black market operations (Afghan opium crop) and underground international charity networks. Not to mention Bin Laden's extensive personal fortune. And have you considered that it just might piss off a whole lot of potential terrorists for America to endorse a policy of undermining the economies of the entire Middle East?

Also, only 10% of American oil imports come from Saudi Arabia, and only about 12-13% come from the Middle East as a whole. Europe, China and India are the main markets for Middle Eastern oil. If America were to stop importing oil, the big losers would be Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Angola and Nigeria. Of course world prices would all come down, but those are the countries with easy oil transport to the US, so they'd lose the most.


Yes, there is. Some of the carbon removed from the air (in form of CO2) remains in the soil (roots of the cut cane) or in the growing cane.

Growing cane doesn't count as a net removal. That's simply short-term storage. Likewise, the carbon in roots is rerelased into the atmosphere when the roots decompose.


The carbon in the alcohol storage tanks, tankers transporting it, even in the "gas tanks" of cars is all also a result of removal of CO2 from the air. This reduction is not quite as large as that in the growing cane, but is a real reduction in contrast to the buring of oil which only adds CO2 to the air from sources that are now well sequested deep in the Earth. In contrast, the CO2 in the exhaust from a vehicle buring alcohol ADDS ZERO NEW CO2 to the air - it is only restoring part that was removed earlier.

I agree that ethanol doesn't *add* CO2 (unlike fossil fuels), but it's incorrect to refer to carbon temporarily stored in the infrastructure as "removed." It's simply been temporarily stored, soon to be released back into the atmosphere.

To actually remove CO2 from circulation, you need some kind of permanent sequestering technology, or large-scale reforestation. Unfortunately, Brazil seems more interested in continuing deforestation (to the tune of 10,000 km^2 per year) than reforestation, and this trend is likely to increase with boosted biofuel production, persistent commodity prices, energy and transport project in the Amazon basin, and a tax policy that favors agricultural lands over forests. Despite Brazil's efforts in the transportation and energy sectors, deforestation has resulted in an overall economy with roughly the same carbon intensity as the United States (i.e., dollars made divided by CO2 emitted). Which is to say that, were Brazil's economy to grow to the same size as that of the US, we'd expect it to release the exact same amount of CO2 that the US does.

Also, note that the eastern US is one of the very few spots in the world were large-scale reforestation HAS occurred, mitigating the effects of greenhouse gases. Not that anybody ever gives us any credit for that when tallying up the emissions numbers.

...Growing cane doesn't count as a net removal. That's simply short-term storage. Likewise, the carbon in roots is rerelased into the atmosphere when the roots decompose.

I agree that ethanol doesn't *add* CO2 (unlike fossil fuels), but it's incorrect to refer to carbon temporarily stored in the infrastructure as "removed." It's simply been temporarily stored, soon to be released back into the atmosphere.

To actually remove CO2 from circulation, you need some kind of permanent sequestering technology, or large-scale reforestation. Unfortunately, Brazil seems more interested in continuing deforestation (to the tune of 10,000 km^2 per year) than reforestation, . ...The carbon stored (in roots, cane fields, storage tanks etc.) is permanent as long as cars use alcohol. Obviously, the cane in the field THIS YEAR is not a permanet removal of CO2 from the air, but more will be grown next year etc. so until the use of alcohol from cane stops, it is removed. It is, in fact, the most economical means available to actually remove CO2 from the air. (You make a profit, instead of require payment as the "plant trees/ carbon credits" require.)

Brazil is having some success with reducing the cutting down of trees TO SUPPLY THE GLOBAL DEMAND FOR LUMBER, NOT CANE FIELDS. Long before Brazil exported a drop of alcohol or even planed cane to produce it, Brazil exported wood.

In fact the name "Brazil" comes from the name of a native tree which was extensively exported (and now is rarely found) beginning about 300 years ago. The developed world has "rapped the amazon" for WOOD for 300 years.* When brazil wood trees were cut to exhaustion, then and only then, did the planting of coffee begin. The history of Brazil is presented as three major cycle: export of wood from the brazil tree, export of coffee (still continuing) and the modern industral era.
-------------------------
*This is still continuing, but most of the cutting is illegal. - The area is great and the enforcement is thus difficult. If you want to help save the Amazon, stop buying Brazilian mahogany etc. Unlike most wood, the growing of ucaleptus trees is a crop - planted and harvested in about 7 years for paper pulp. For more information on this see:
www.aracruz.com
I own stock in them - they are the world's largest (and lowest cost) supplier of short fiber cellulose pulp.

The carbon stored (in roots, cane fields, storage tanks etc.) is permanent as long as cars use alcohol. Obviously, the cane in the field THIS YEAR is not a permanet removal of CO2 from the air, but more will be grown next year etc. so until the use of alcohol from cane stops, it is removed. It is, in fact, the most economical means available to actually remove CO2 from the air. (You make a profit, instead of require payment as the "plant trees/ carbon credits" require.)

Okay, if you insist on accounting this way, but if you really want to argue semantics I'll point out that this type of CO2 "removal" is associated with the *growth* of ethanol usage, as opposed to ethanol usage per-se. Steady-state ethanol usage does not result in any removal of CO2 from the atmosphere.


Brazil is having some success with reducing the cutting down of trees TO SUPPLY THE GLOBAL DEMAND FOR LUMBER, NOT CANE FIELDS.

Actually, lumber is a secondary cause. Most of the deforestation has been to convert the forest into pasture land for raising cattle, which is then exported to Europe. See here:

http://www.mongabay.com/brazil.html

While commercial agriculture is not a direct cause of deforestation, the expansion of agriculture throughout Brazil has pushed up land prices, and so created another incentive for ranchers and subsistence farmers to clear more forest. Also, much commercial agriculture is on land that was once rainforest, was cleared by ranchers or subsistence farmers, and was then sold to the commercial farmers. While Brazil has passed some unenforceable laws to crack down on unauthorized clearing, these are more than counteracted by the various land-use, development and tax policies which all encourage deforestation. Why do you think there is so much unused pasture land that could potentially be converted to cane production?

....Actually, lumber is a secondary cause. Most of the deforestation has been to convert the forest into pasture land for raising cattle, which is then exported to Europe. See here:

http://www.mongabay.com/brazil.html

While commercial agriculture is not a direct cause of deforestation, the expansion of agriculture throughout Brazil has pushed up land prices, and so created another incentive for ranchers and subsistence farmers to clear more forest. ...Why do you think there is so much unused pasture land that could potentially be converted to cane production? I do not think your reference is entirely accurate, but admit that much of cleared rainforest does end up as poor abandoned pasture land, usually not even a single cow on it. What often happens is that after illegal logging is done the loggers set fire to the remaining forest to help hide their crime. Then some one will try for a few years to make a profit on the grasses that grow, but the rain forest soil is poor, so they soon fail and that answers your question as to why there is so much "unused pasture land."

It is true farm land taxes are extremely low, but there is zero tax on the forest part of it, so this is not an inducement to convert forest to farmland. Also, one is required now to keep 20% of your farm as forest and all land withing 50 meters of any stream, even very tiny ones, can not be farmed.

(I owned about 100 acres of pasture and paid less than US$10 annually in taxes! When I bought this "farm" it was badly run down and supported only 15 head of skinny, sad looking, cattle, trying to find grass amonst the weeds. When I sold it about 10 years later it had 50 steers, all fat and well feed, as I rebuilt the pasture by plowing and planting good seed, etc. Most farmers burn their fields at least every year to kill insects, bushes and restore grasses. I did not but had a man with hoe kill weeds and let the dying vegetation feed earthworms etc. to help restore the soil fertility.)

I do not think your reference is entirely accurate, but admit that much of cleared rainforest does end up as poor abandoned pasture land, usually not even a single cow on it. What often happens is that after illegal logging is done the loggers set fire to the remaining forest to help hide their crime. Then some one will try for a few years to make a profit on the grasses that grow, but the rain forest soil is poor, so they soon fail and that answers your question as to why there is so much "unused pasture land."

Well, here's another source stating that the primary cause is conversion to cattle pasture:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_Rainforest#Deforestation

Note that they don't even mention logging on there. Also, a few years ago I attended a lecture from a noted econometrician who had spent the last decade studying the deforestation of Brazil, and he also cited the primary cause as the cattle industry. I certainly believe that illegal logging is a real issue, but I'm not convinced that its impact is even close to that of cattle and other factors.


It is true farm land taxes are extremely low, but there is zero tax on the forest part of it, so this is not an inducement to convert forest to farmland.

The effect is not as direct as that. It's driven by tax incentives which reward agricultural income, driving up demand for farmland:

http://www.colby.edu/personal/t/thtieten/defor-brazil.html


Also, one is required now to keep 20% of your farm as forest and all land withing 50 meters of any stream, even very tiny ones, can not be farmed.


Sounds good to me.

Most farmers burn their fields at least every year to kill insects, bushes and restore grasses. I did not but had a man with hoe kill weeds and let the dying vegetation feed earthworms etc. to help restore the soil fertility.)

Yeah, short-sighted agricultural practices are another contributing factor, as they unnecessarily diminish the supply of good farm and pasture land, creating further incentives for deforestation.

Well, here's another source stating that the primary cause is conversion to cattle pasture:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_Rainforest#Deforestation

Note that they don't even mention logging on there. ...YES THEY DO. In fact they confirm what I told you:

"Brazil produces about 300 million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide a year; 200 million of these come from logging and burning in the Amazon."

What many think when they see some cows grazing on the poor soil's grass that was once rain forest, is that it was cleared for that reason and not to burn to hid the illegal logging that took out the valuable mahogony trees (some 500 dollars each) but the local residents use the forest for thier livlyhoods and many have died fighting agains the road developers that the big logging companies push into their homeland and transform their way of life.

The article is correct. 2/3 of the CO2 comes from the burning the forests(some by lighning and some to cover logging crimes) and one third from the cars and factories.

must stop now for other reasons - no time to edit.

I thought it was clear that my statements pertained tot he "Deforestation" section of the page, which is what I'd directly linked to (and the subject we're talking about). Note that the "causes of deforestation" section doesn't mention anything about logging. Also note that the CO2 emissions associated with logging don't necessarily equate to deforestation. It's perfectly possible to do sustainable logging, and it need not be located in the rainforest at all. Moreover, the fact that the CO2 is directly released in the logging and burning phase of land-clearing doesn't mean that the clearing wasn't done for the purpose of ranching or farming.

Anyway, illegal logging is usually done in a selective fashion. I.e., they go in and cut down a few mahogany trees here, and a few over there. There's no interest in slashing and burning whole areas, as is required for cattle pasture or cropland usage. That land you see cows on was cleared for cattle; cutting and selling the wood was just an intermediate step:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/10/051023123348.htm

Also note that the CO2 emissions figures do not include emissions due to illegal selective logging, which is thought to boost the number by 100 million tonnes per year. Which means that Brazil's economy is actually substantially more carbon-intensive than America's.

... the fact that the CO2 is directly released in the logging and burning phase of land-clearing doesn't mean that the clearing wasn't done for the purpose of ranching or farming.

Anyway, illegal logging is usually done in a selective fashion. I.e., they go in and cut down a few mahogany trees here, and a few over there. There's no interest in slashing and burning whole areas, as is required for cattle pasture or cropland usage. That land you see cows on was cleared for cattle; cutting and selling the wood was just an intermediate step:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/10/051023123348.htm....Again you have not read your own reference well: I agian quote what you missed and make bold the part that again confirms what I told you:

"...selective logging also involves the use of tractors and skidders that rip up the soil and the forest floor. Loggers also build makeshift dirt roads to get in, and study after study has shown that those frontier roads become larger and larger as more people move in, and that feeds the deforestation process. Think of logging as the first land-use change. ..."

The logger transform the entire economy. the native hunters, trappers, fishers, gathers of nuts, panner for gold, stealer of animals for zoos and private collectors, growers of pot, taper of natural rubber trees, etc. (and god knows what else they live on) resist and are killed. (Even a Nun who was helping them resist the loggers was killed last year.) Some join the logging companies to drive the tractors, make the dirt roads, and eventually help set the fires. Then with their way of life destroyed there is little choice for those that remain except to try to farm the poor soil - raise a few cows, chickens and pigs. Soon they too sell out and then the cattle rancher do move in (if the paper companies like Aracruz do not plant forests as a crop to harvest).

This is when the "do gooder" enviomentalist arrives, see the cattle on vast expanse of cleard land and write the reference you quote, blaming the cattle farmers instead of the loggers who illegally started the process. They of course are not the truely guilty parties - they live in the developed world and like the looks of their manhogny coffee table etc. but prefer to blame the victims.

Nobody has disputed that the first step in deforestation is the cutting down of trees. But that doesn't mean that the logging interests are the primary driver of deforestation. Moreover, you're conflating several different phenomena here: there's legal commercial logging, illegal logging, land clearing and road/infrastructure development. They are interrelated, but you still need to observe the distinctions. The deforestation created by illegal logging in combination with subsistence farmers is not a significant source of deforestation. As stated in one of my earlier links ( http://www.mongabay.com/brazil.html ):

"In many tropical countries, the majority of deforestation results from the actions of poor subsistence cultivators. However, in Brazil only about one-third of recent deforestation can be linked to "shifted" cultivators. Historically a large portion of deforestation in Brazil can be attributed to land clearing for pastureland by commercial and speculative interests, misguided government policies, inappropriate World Bank projects, and commercial exploitation of forest resources. For effective action it is imperative that these issues be addressed. Focusing solely on the promotion of sustainable use by local people would neglect the most important forces behind deforestation in Brazil.

Brazilian deforestation is strongly correlated to the economic health of the country: the decline in deforestation from 1988-1991 nicely matched the economic slowdown during the same period, while the rocketing rate of deforestation from 1993-1998 paralleled Brazil's period of rapid economic growth. During lean times, ranchers and developers do not have the cash to rapidly expand their pasturelands and operations, while the government lacks funds to sponsor highways and colonization programs and grant tax breaks and subsidies to forest exploiters.

A relatively small percentage of large landowners clear vast sections of the Amazon for cattle pastureland. Large tracts of forest are cleared and sometimes planted with African savanna grasses for cattle feeding. In many cases, especially during periods of high inflation, land is simply cleared for investment purposes. When pastureland prices exceed forest land prices (a condition made possible by tax incentives that favor pastureland over natural forest), forest clearing is a good hedge against inflation.

Such favorable taxation policies, combined with government subsidized agriculture and colonization programs, encourage the destruction of the Amazon. The practice of low taxes on income derived from agriculture and tax rates that favor pasture over forest overvalues agriculture and pastureland and makes it profitable to convert natural forest for these purposes when it normally would not be so. "

It's not the case that weak-minded foreign environmentalists swing through Brazil, see a cow on what was once rainforest, and leap to the conclusion that deforestation is entirely caused by cattle. There are whole groups of professional policy analysts, econometricians and government policy-makers who spend their entire careers on the subject of Amazon deforestation. They have access to satellite imagery, government records and investigative bodies, as well as a myriad of other sources. When they say that ranching and farming are the primary causes of deforestation, they are staking their careers and livelihoods on this assertion. You can be completely assured that they have spent much more time and effort working out the causes than you have.

To Quadraphonics:

I will not reporduce your post 167 as I agree with much of it, but again we have a verb tense / time reference conflict. It certainly WAS true what you state AND you reference (one, but not sure this one) is published in 1990 on data collected years earlier (cites developments in 1950 as I recall, but will not look at again).

I am speaking of modern Brazil. Brazil has some of the toughest enviromental laws on the books and some reasonable efforts at enforcement of them.* The problem is that there is wide spread corruption and the police are paid off. One of your reference was not only obsolete, wrong in several places, but as naieve in its suggestion that giving the police a small part of the fines would help enforcement. - The police would laugh at that as they make much more from the criminals. (I paid one R$50 to avoid having my car detained until if could get some papers proving I owned it from my house. They are grosely underpaid and have very dangerous job - many killed each month. All and all, bribes are part of the necessity here.)

Summary: Yes Brazil did rape the land just as the US did a couple of hundred years earlier as Dan Boon etc lead the settlers into the virgin forests. (In fact I tend to understand Brazil best when I think of it as like the US of about 100 years ago - your reference's use of "slash and burn / move on" agriculture is exactly how Dixie raised cotton etc.)

A large part of the current enviromental conflict between developing world (India, Brazil, China, all of Africa, etc) and US and English enviromentalist is that they want to do what the US and England did to develope at the expense of the enviroment also. - Burn dirty coal, pollute the streams, clear the forests, kill the native heards (buffalo in the US, deer in England) and move in cattle. the first of your reference has a nice grap of the area Amazon cleared each year - steadly downward for last few years - least than half what it was less than a decade ago. I am speaking of modern Brazil - your reference of Brazil at least a decade earlier when it was following the US example of a 100 years earlier.
---------------------------
*When I owned my farm, I got a notice to come to court for judgement about cutting some trees - detected by photo reconcance, but fortunely for me it was my neighbor cutting on his side of the common border. Another time worried as someone (posibably the man I bought fence post from), had entered my woods and cut about 20 small trees for fence posts one night, but not yet removed then that same night. My hired man notice it and we moved them and hid them in a new location. I immediately filed a report that they had been stolen with the police. I did not dare to use them as that would under mine my true claim that someelse had cut them against my wishes (as far as I know they were rotting on the ground when I sold the farm.) Brazil is an interesting place to live, but you need to do as the natives do.

It certainly WAS true what you state AND you reference (one, but not sure this one) is published in 1990 on data collected years earlier (cites developments in 1950 as I reacall, but will not look at again). I am speaking of modern Brazil.

Uh, the article on tax law in Brazil was from 1990 or so, but the others (which detail the causes of deforestation) are all much newer. The oldest one is from 2005, the other two are from this year.

I lost the reference, but starting in 2008 Mexio will be able to ship sugar to US without paying the protective tariff that makes it economical for sugar beets to be grown in the US (mainly in the northern mid west states). A rider has just been added to farm subsidy bill which will require the US gov to buy ALL of it up and resell to the alcohol industry at a loss (for mixing with the fermenting corn).

More false economic protection so big agribusiness can compete with ROW and the tax paying Joe American can pay even more. Twice (Once to IRS and again to grocery stores) Again I ask:

How DUMB can US voters be?

'ZERO POINT ENERGY' is the only viable option. It might all be well and good for our generation (maybe not, we will see) but what about the future. Any type of fuel that does not contain a closed loop belongs in the history books!!!

I lost the reference, but starting in 2008 Mexio will be able to ship sugar to US without paying the protective tariff that makes it economical for sugar beets to be grown in the US (mainly in the northern mid west states). A rider has just been added to farm subsidy bill which will require the US gov to buy ALL of it up and resell to the alcohol industry at a loss (for mixing with the fermenting corn).

More false economic protection so big agribusiness can compete with ROW and the tax paying Joe American can pay even more. Twice (Once to IRS and again to grocery stores) Again I ask:

How DUMB can US voters be?

I guess about as dumb as Brazilian voters, who supported a comparable system of subsidies and protections for decades in order to get their ethanol fuel industry up and running. For that matter, the Brazilian energy sector as a whole is much less liberalized than the US sector, even after the reforms of the 1990's.

...Brazilian voters, who supported a comparable system of subsidies and protections for decades in order to get their ethanol fuel industry up and running. For that matter, the Brazilian energy sector as a whole is much less liberalized than the US sector, even after the reforms of the 1990's.Can you give me a reference about the period of Brazilian subsidies to alcohol? (I am not saying they were not subsidized - I just don't know. They have not been in 16 years I have lived here to best of my knowledge.)

Also I do not understand what you refer to by:
"Brazilian energy sector as a whole is much less liberalized than the US sector"

There is lots of competition. Foreign oil companies (Shell, BP, Exxo*, lots of independants like Hddson, Ruff, etc.) operate in competitions

All stations offer both gasoline and Alcohol and one other fuel (about half that "other" is diesel and about half it is compressed natural gas, which is used by most of the taxis and many of the pickup trucks as it the the most economical of all.)

The alcohol industry is very fragmented. There are ~400 distillers at least 250are single operators. San Martino, which I own shares in is number 2 in production and has only three, relatively large refineries. The largest is Cosan but I do not know much about them.

What would you like to see more "liberal"?
--------------
*It still goes by the name ESSO here, so I am not sure of US name.)

See new chenistry forum thread:
"Alcohol's second threat to oil is as chemical feed stocks."
At:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1514936&postcount=1

Can you give me a reference about the period of Brazilian subsidies to alcohol? (I am not saying they were not subsidized - I just don't know. They have not been in 16 years I have lived here to best of my knowledge.)

I don't have a good reference handy, but the program was called "Proalcool", and was started in the mid-70's. It was mostly dismantled in the mid-90's, and consisted of subsidies to cane growers, price controls on ethanol to keep to cheaper than gasoline, and various tax breaks for ethanol producers/transporters/etc. Note that the removal of this program of subsidies had less to do with any Brazil aversion to government interference in the economy (Petrobras retained their monopoly for years afterwards), but rather that the price controls became unaffordable in the face of low oil prices.


Also I do not understand what you refer to by:
"Brazilian energy sector as a whole is much less liberalized than the US sector"

There is lots of competition. Foreign oil companies (Shell, BP, Exxo*, lots of independants like Hddson, Ruff, etc.) operate in competitions.

There have been some recent liberalizations, but the state oil company Petrobras still accounts for essentially all Brazilian oil production. Note that they had a legal monopoly on oil production until (IIRC) 1997.


All stations offer both gasoline and Alcohol and one other fuel

Yeah, due to a government regulation forcing them to do so. Not to say that wasn't a good idea, but it's not exactly laissez-faire.


The alcohol industry is very fragmented. There are ~400 distillers at least 250are single operators. San Martino, which I own shares in is number 2 in production and has only three, relatively large refineries. The largest is Cosan but I do not know much about them.

It's true that there has been an explosion in the number of producers lately, but my understanding was that the lion's share of production is still done by a handful of companies, controlled by powerful old-money families of plantation owners.


What would you like to see more "liberal"?


It's not so much that I'd like to see more liberalization (Brazil has done a pretty good job deregulating and privatizing various sectors over the past 10-15 years). Given more time to work, the reforms will probably turn out quite well. What I'd like to see is a more balanced critique of American ethanol policy. You keep complaining that America is overly protectionist towards the ethanol industry, while ignoring the fact that Brazil was much MORE protectionist towards its ethanol industry at comparable stages of its development. If America were to truly follow Brazil's lead in ethanol development, we'd add price controls, boost subsidies and increase tariffs. The reason for protectionism is obvious: we're interested in developing a reliable internal supply, and the industry is not at a point where it can compete with Brazilian suppliers. Brazil's alcohol industry nearly tanked when some of the protectionist measures were removed in the 1990's, so I have to question the wisdom of your recommendations.

...the state oil company Petrobras still accounts for essentially all Brazilian oil production. Note that they had a legal monopoly on oil production until (IIRC) 1997.More important that any legal monopoly is the fact that all of Brazil's oil is off shore, so Petrobras, by necessity became the world leader in deep ocean drilling. Mexico has turned to Pertobras to try to replinish the dying fields it has. - I do not believe anyone else can economically drill in as deep sea as Petrobras.

I think one of the other international companies did win a bid on some Brazilian sector recently. Most nations dominate their own contental shelf economically. When was the last time you saw a Japanese boat haulling lobsters off the coast of Maine?:D

...Yeah, due to a government regulation forcing them to do so. Not to say that wasn't a good idea, but it's not exactly laissez-faire.What do you expect from a Military dictatorship? (Which along with those in most others South American nations at the time had the active support of the US thru the CIA) Yes, they ordered people to plant cane, stations to install alcohol pumps etc in respose the oil crisis of 1973. The US under laissez-faire, let the people buy their gas gulzers as soon as they got out of the gas lines, so look at what it has today - SUVs. Finally the US government is dropping some of your cherished laissez-faire and mandating things too, like fuel efficiency - but I assume you oppose this also to be a consistent supporter of laissez-faire.

More important that any legal monopoly is the fact that all of Brazil's oil is off shore, so Petrobras, by necessity became the world leader in deep ocean drilling. Mexico has turned to Pertobras to try to replinish the dying fields it has. - I do not believe anyone else can economically drill in as deep sea as Petrobras.

Yes, because others were prevented from competing with Petrobras. Just because their legal monopoly is over doesn't mean that they don't still enjoy advantages stemming from it.


I think one of the other international companies did win a bid on some Brazilian sector recently. Most nations dominate their own contental shelf economically. When was the last time you saw a Japanese boat haulling lobsters off the coast of Maine?:D

The point wasn't the national affiliation of the companies in the energy sector, but the *number* of them, which is very low. One company does not add up to much competition.


Finally the US government is dropping some of your cherished laissez-faire and mandating things too, like fuel efficiency - but I assume you oppose this also to be a consistent supporter of laissez-faire.

I don't recall evangelizing about laissez-faire policies. The point is that if you're going to call Americans dumb for permitting a protectionist approach to developing ethanol production, then you're also going to have to admit that Brazilians are even dumber, since they employed a much more egregious protectionist regime for much longer. You insist that America should emulate Brazilian energy policy, and then call us idiots when we do exactly that.

...The point is that if you're going to call Americans dumb for permitting a protectionist approach to developing ethanol production, then you're also going to have to admit that Brazilians are even dumber, since they employed a much more egregious protectionist regime for much longer. You insist that America should emulate Brazilian energy policy, and then call us idiots when we do exactly that.NO - you missed the point entirely!

I do not call Americans DUMB for (or not for) using the power of government to aid (or restrict) trade with subsidies and/or tariffs, although I go along with Adam Smith in that restriction are bad at least in the long run - every one should do what they can do best (most economically). If US were able to produce alcohol without subsidies and protective tariffs EVENTUALLY, then it not necessarily dumb to put them in place while the industry is developing. But it is dumb (to take an extreme example) for Alsaka to grow oranges in greenhouses. (Given enough subsidies and tariff walls, even that could be done.) US can never compete with corn against tropical cane for the produdtion of alcohol! - period - same as Alaska can never compete against California & Florida in growing oranges. It is DUMB for either to try.

I am angy that the Bush administration is selling Joe American on a plan to add to his cost of food and increase his taxes with essentially no impact on US's need to import oil. It is pure and simple "reward the few and rich campaign contributers at the expense of the poor and many" politics again.

GWB is careful not to even promisse that alcohol from corn will (or even may) reduce oil imports. All he states is that it can displace 20% of the gasoline requirements. - Poor dumb Joe is being duped into thinking that at least the US will not be so dependent upon the oil imports.

If US were able to produce alcohol without subsidies and protective tariffs EVENTUALLY, then it not necessarily dumb to put them in place while the industry is developing.

I don't think it's at all clear that America won't eventually become competitive in ethanol production. It's unlikely to happen with corn as a feedstock, but feedstock production is only one small part of the ethanol production chain, all of which needs to develop if America is going to have a viable ethanol fuel industry. You're dumb for assuming America will never switch to another feedstock (despite the fact that all of the research money and interest is in cellulosic production), and for ignoring the myriad other elements of the supply chain that require protection for initial development.

I don't think it's at all clear that America won't eventually become competitive in ethanol production. It's unlikely to happen with corn as a feedstock, but feedstock production is only one small part of the ethanol production chain, all of which needs to develop if America is going to have a viable ethanol fuel industry. You're dumb for assuming America will never switch to another feedstock (despite the fact that all of the research money and interest is in cellulosic production), and for ignoring the myriad other elements of the supply chain that require protection for initial development.No if US switches to celulose alcohol so will Brazil. There is an enormous amout of research on this and all aspects of alcohol production going on in Brazil. The same canes fields will then yield at least three times more alcohol.

No. What is dumb is to think that Iowa can ever compete with the tropics in converting sunshine into energy, regardless of the agro-technology that is used to convert it.

No if US switches to celulose alcohol so will Brazil. There is an enormous amout of research on this and all aspects of alcohol production going on in Brazil. The same canes fields will then yield at least three times more alcohol.

Yeah, so? America won't even need dedicated ethanol fields if cellulosic production takes off: the waste cellulose from food production, forestry, etc. will provide enough feedstock to produce stupendous quantities of ethanol.


No. What is dumb is to think that Iowa can ever compete with the tropics in converting sunshine into energy, regardless of the agro-technology that is used to convert it.

You're not converting sunshine into energy (sunshine IS energy after all), but rather converting it to (storage) chemical energy. And to suggest that technology has no influence on this issue is idiotic.

Yeah, so? America won't even need dedicated ethanol fields if cellulosic production takes off: the waste cellulose from food production, forestry, etc. will provide enough feedstock to produce stupendous quantities of ethanol. Possible true, but it will still need tariffs and or subsidies to avoid import of the lower cost alcohol from where there is more sunshine, cheaper labor, more rain, cheaper land and the grass never freezes. :D



You're not converting sunshine into energy (sunshine IS energy after all), but rather converting it to (storage) chemical energy. And to suggest that technology has no influence on this issue is idiotic.Talk about being pedantic! You and every one know that I was speaking of energy in the form of alcohol, especially as I said "reguardless of what form of agro-technology is used!" Also I never said that the technology has "no influence." I only said that Brazil and US would both use cellulose if that proves to be possible. (That it will boost the output of the cane fields by a factor of three, I also noted.)

Possible true, but it will still need tariffs and or subsidies to avoid import of the lower cost alcohol from where there is more sunshine, cheaper labor, more rain, cheaper land and the grass never freezes. :D

Not really. The added transport costs associated with those places will probably be tarriff enough. Especially if you consider that labor costs are not a major factor, as the production will be mechanized like all other US agricultural production. Land costs are unlikely to be a big factor either, as cellulosic feedstocks do not require new land to be developed; in fact, land costs will drop as demand for corn subsides. Rain is also not a big factor when you consider that America already has extensive irrigation infrastructure. Some of our most productive agricultural lands are in the desert. And there is plenty of agricultural land in the US that never freezes. I'm not sure why you're siezing on Iowa for this example; there's a lot of other states, and cellulosic production does not need to be fed by Iowa-specific crops. The agricultural waste produced by California and Florida, for example, represents a huge potential feedstock source for cellulosic production.

...The added transport costs associated with those places will probably be tarriff enough. Especially if you consider that labor costs are not a major factor, as the production will be mechanized like all other US agricultural production. Land costs are unlikely to be a big factor either, as cellulosic feedstocks do not require new land to be developed; in fact, land costs will drop as demand for corn subsides. Rain is also not a big factor when you consider that America already has extensive irrigation infrastructure. Some of our most productive agricultural lands are in the desert. And there is plenty of agricultural land in the US that never freezes. I'm not sure why you're siezing on Iowa for this example; there's a lot of other states, and cellulosic production does not need to be fed by Iowa-specific crops. The agricultural waste produced by California and Florida, for example, represents a huge potential feedstock source for cellulosic production. I agree that any reference I made to Iowa a few post back was restricted to the current corn based alcohol program. Certainly there is a great deal of un-used cellulose produced in the USA, but most of it must be collected from the fields (and this will reduce the soil fertility in the long run compared to plowing it under. - That lower fertility is a cost also, either in lower yields or more fertilizer later.)

There has been at least one attempt to use some of it. (Timber waste usually left in the forest as limbs are trimed off for loading on trucks of the trunks. - In Maine as I recal a small power plant was developed to collect and burn the forest and lumber mill waste, but I think it failed economically. (Too expensive to collect the limbs from forest and not enough sawdust at the mill.) Labor cost do count! (Even with free fuel, it failed - actually slightly negative cost fuel as the mills pay them a little to take the waste away, but not as much as coal power companies pay for someone to take the sulpher away.)

You are greatly over estimating the cost of ocean transport (on a per liter basis, of course.) and underestimating the cost of building plants in US verse Brazil and other low land and labor cost areas. As far as "making the deserts bloom" that is true, but expensive - ask Israel - even just the cost of the water, not including the pumps and energy for them is significant. - Look at the fertial irrigated lands in souther California (and the assoicated disputes over water costs with LA etc.) These desert areas can NOT economically produce anything but crops like vegetables etc with relative high value per pound. For example, they do not grow hay and export it, even though that can displace relatively expensive animal food. Hay must be produced near its final use.

That all said, I remind you that I have already admitted that tropical lands closer to USA will supply alcohol to US cheaper than Brazil. That is why Brazil's president just returned from visit to 5 central American countires (including Mexico, where cane fields are already expanding) trying to sell the EQUIPMENT associated with alcohol production. I.e. Brazil recognizes that in the end it will need to send to Europe and Asia, not the US, so this is the best way for Brazil to profit from the potential US demand. (Brazil even exports this equipment to India as it is the most advanced available.)

Labor cost do count!

[...]

That is why Brazil's president just returned from visit to 5 central American countires (including Mexico, where cane fields are already expanding) trying to sell the EQUIPMENT associated with alcohol production.

Well, if you think that the cost of agricultural labor in the United States differs significantly from its cost in Mexico and Central America, you're really out of touch. You may have heard about the 12+ Million illegal immigrants from those countries that are living in America?

Well, if you think that the cost of agricultural labor in the United States differs significantly from its cost in Mexico and Central America, you're really out of touch. You may have heard about the 12+ Million illegal immigrants from those countries that are living in America?If that were true, why would these illegal immigrants be risking death in the deserts of the SW, and when caught and deported, try again to sneak back in with full knowledge that they may die in the effort?

I do not have salary data (probably no one does - only someone's estimates) but logic and fact they are willing to die to get US wages clearly shows that:
It is you, not me, who is "really out of touch." Be a little more logical!

Hydrogen is the way to go. There always could be a drought and the farmers won't raise enough grains to produce the energy needed. With hydrogen all you need is water, which we have allot of and nuclear power to make the hydrogen. Simple, easy to do. Why are we waiting???:shrug:

More on fact that cane based alcohol is not likely to be available to US, when it finally realizes that it should be importing it, not preventing its importation:

"... a joint effort between Brazilian oil monopoly Petroleo Brasileiro SA (Petrobras) and trading house Mitsui & Co., with financial support from the Japan Bank for International Cooperation.

Japan will use the ethanol to reduce its use of gasoline by mixing the two fuels. In the near future, all of Japan's gasoline is expected to be at least 3 percent ethanol.*
....
Petrobras, Mitsui and JBIC are analyzing their participation in 40 projects evaluated at $8 billion for building 40 new "usinas," or processing plants, which produce alcohol and sugar from sugar cane. Brazil has 335 processing plants throughout the country.

"Our target is to produce ethanol to be exported only to Japan," said Paulo Roberto Costa, who heads Petrobras' supply division, ...
The cost of building a processing plant is $250 million, and .... We are solely interested in the production and distribution of ethanol, while usina owners will guarantee the sugar cane crops," he said.

Within two or three months, Petrobras will sign a pioneer contract to produce 1 billion liters of alcohol annually at five processing plants in the states of Mato Grosso and Goias in western Brazil, and in the southeastern state of Minas Gerais. The contract will be part of a pilot project, Costa said.

"Each of these five usinas will produce 200 million liters of ethanol within 2 1/2 years, and the whole production will be exported to Japan," he said.

Petrobras Strategic Plan estimates the company will export 3.5 billion liters of ethanol in 2011, with 90 percent of that expected to be shipped to Japan for mixing with gasoline. Brazil exports about 3 billion liters of ethanol a year and expects to more than double that to 7 billion liters in 2012, according to the Sao Paulo Sugarcane Agroindustry Union (Unica), a private body representing firms that produce more than 60 percent of Brazil's ethanol.

condensed FROM: http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nb20070822a3.html

In addition, as reported earlier, the company I am share holder in, San Martino, second largest, has 30 year contract to supply Japan. Mitisbusi is financing and taking part ownership in the new "usina" now being built. The fields that will supply it are 100% mechanized - so leaves are not burn off the cane stocks to facilate harvesting, but enrich the soil and sequester even more carbon.
----------------------
*That is national mix. In less than 1% of US gas stations E85 is available for sale (I think more expensive than gas, but not sure of this.) So even if they sold only E85, the national mis in US is less than 0.85% Toyota is making a Felx fuel car in Japan now. All the main makers have been selling them in Brazil for 3 to 6 years. (discounting the expensive imports, New car sold in Brazil ar about 95% flex fuel and run on pure alcohol now as it cost less than half as much per mile to drive with pure alcohol. (Can buy it for R$0.94 vs 2.34 in my local station now as there is a glut of alcohol at present.)

Hydrogen is the way to go. There always could be a drought and the farmers won't raise enough grains to produce the energy needed. With hydrogen all you need is water, which we have allot of and nuclear power to make the hydrogen. Simple, easy to do. Why are we waiting???:shrug:Answer is also simple:
IGNORANT GREENPIECE ACTIVISTS

They lead my list of organizations who have harmed the environment most! - Forced US to be dependent upon coal for most of its electric power.

BTW 1: There are huge volumes of coal burnt and this is the main US release of radioactivity into the air. (Mainly as K40, an isotope of potasium, which is easily incorporated into the human body.) I.e. coal makes more radioactivity per Kilo-Watt-Hour of power produced than if it came from U235. (Why I called them "ignorant.")

BTW 2: At present, alcohol is the way to go. Perhaps forever, if it can be economically produced from celluose, but that is highly questionable now. One other "way to go" is more and better public transport. In cities, where smog etc is serious health problem (read LA , Denver and many others - roughly 1/2 the nation's cities) IMHO, there should be a "crash* effort" to make the super -flywheel - bus as it has the mobility street cars do not, yet is 100% electric with regenerative braking that street cars do not have. Super-flywheels can have 10 times the energy stored per pound as batteries, but in practice only a fives times more is reasonable.

A government, run by big oil is obviously not interested in them for buses. For space applications, in addition to superior energy stored per pound, they can also stablize the space craft, so only NASA is developing them now, as far as I know. About 35 years ago, at APL, where I worked, Dan Rabinhorst lead the super-flywheel effort, but funding was always difficult and then stopped entirely as they were becoming obviously a real threat to the diesel bus. We did mainly distruction / continment tests of various rotor designs. (This did not require the magnetic bearings, so was easy to "spin her up" in vaccum til she busts.)
--------------------
*Pun definitely not intended. :eek:

Did you know that American oil is of much higher quality that other countries which it can sell at a higher rate. American oil companies sell that oil to other nations to make more money than they could selling it inside of America. That way they reduce the amounts of gas to the people in America making them think that there's an oil supply problem, then raise the gas prices to everyone. Americans are getting screwed

If that were true, why would these illegal immigrants be risking death in the deserts of the SW, and when caught and deported, try again to sneak back in with full knowledge that they may die in the effort?

In the case of farm work, the difference isn't so much the wages, but the availability of work. Of course, many of the immigrants come looking for higher-paying work in cities, but you get the point... Also, a big part of the reason that we have so many illegals here permanently is that it's become so difficult to cross the border that people don't return once they're here. What used to be seasonal labor for the harvest is now a permanent population of low-wage labor.

...many of the immigrants come looking for higher-paying work in cities, ...I strongly doubt that. They COME to work in the fields as they do not speak English, have city skills, etc. After they have been here some years, some do learn these things (and how to collect wealfare etc) and move to the cities.

BTW, the low-wage farm workers of Poland are doing the same thing in Germany now that Poland is part of the EU. I.e. FOR THE HIGHER WAGES, they do the back-breaking labor in the fields - pick 100% of the aspagrass grown in Germany etc. They too migrate to the cities when they speak German, have city skills etc. In both countries, the farm fields are the initial attraction and serve as great open-air schools.

I strongly doubt that. They COME to work in the fields as they do not speak English, have city skills, etc. After they have been here some years, some do learn these things (and how to collect wealfare etc) and move to the cities.

No, that's not how it works any more. Maybe back in the 1950's that was what happened, but you don't need to speak much English at all to work most of the non-agricultural jobs that illegal immigrants do. You DO, however, need to speak Spanish if you want to work as a manager at, say, McDonald's.


BTW, the low-wage farm workers of Poland are doing the same thing in Germany now that Poland is part of the EU. I.e. FOR THE HIGHER WAGES, they do the back-breaking labor in the fields - pick 100% of the aspagrass grown in Germany etc. They too migrate to the cities when they speak German, have city skills etc. In both countries, the farm fields are the initial attraction and serve as great open-air schools.

The two situations really are not comparable, but notice that the same thing happens in Poland as in Mexico: all the works flee in search of higher wages, which drives down the wages in the host countries, and drives up the wages in the source countries. The end result is that the wages do not differ much between the two countries.

No, that's not how it works any more. Maybe back in the 1950's that was what happened, but you don't need to speak much English at all to work most of the non-agricultural jobs that illegal immigrants do. You DO, however, need to speak Spanish if you want to work as a manager at, say, McDonald's.
The two situations really are not comparable, but notice that the same thing happens in Poland as in Mexico: all the works flee in search of higher wages, which drives down the wages in the host countries, and drives up the wages in the source countries. The end result is that the wages do not differ much between the two countries.I will take your word on this - have not been direct observer for 16 years. Also what you say about the wages tending to move towards each other makes sense.

I will take your word on this - have not been direct observer for 16 years. Also what you say about the wages tending to move towards each other makes sense.

Another thing to keep in mind is that just about every major American city now has a large, entrenched immigrant population, so it's not terribly problematic for newcomers to move directly into the cities.

Regarding Germany and Poland, there's the stereotype of the Polish plumber coming and undermining German wages. I read somewhere a while back that the flipside of this is that you now have to pay German wages to get plumbing done in Poland, supposing you can even find a plumber in the first place.

There appears to be a difference in alcohol source crops most suited to India vs Brazil:

"Sugarcane requires 18 months to harvest {in India} while tropical sugar beet takes up to just five months and uses a half to a third of the water that sugarcane needs. On the financial side, the cost of cultivation for cane ranges between Rs 20,000 and Rs 25,000 per acre, while tropical sugar beet can be grown for nearly half the cost at Rs 10,000-12,000 per acre, explains Chavare. “A yield of 30 tons per acre of tropical sugar beet is economical for the farmer. If this rises to over 40 tons per acre, it is very good,” he says. In addition a more important benefit is that of reclaiming the land for further cultivation. “In parts of Sangli district, land is lost every year on account of over watering for sugarcane. ..."

From:
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Food/Sweet_surrender/articleshow/2395951.cms

Hydrogen can be made rather easily, look at this again....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kKtKSEQBeI&mode=related&search=

Hydrogen can be made rather easily, look at this again....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kKtKSEQBeI&mode=related&search=I have seen this before and also previously pointed out that it is a negative energy source (More energy required to produce the RF field and split the H2O than is available when the produced hydrogen is burned (I.e when it is recombined with oxygen)

The very best one could do IF there were zero energy required to produce* the RF field would be to "break even" - I.e. every joule you can get by recombining the produced hydrogen with oxygen was required to split the H2O in the first palce, but of course there are loses in practice so even if the high quality RF energy were magically available at zero energy requirement, you could not even "break even." (For example in his set up, more than half of the RF is simply radiating away into space. Another large fraction is just heating the quite conductive salt water, like a microwave oven, not splitting H2O.)

There is alot of hydrogen produced for comercial reasons. I am almost sure by chemisty on natural gas as even the much more efficient electrolysis of water process (than this RF splitting) is not economially competive. I think that Chlorine is produced by an "electrolysis like" process (in strong NaCl brines that flow from some wells) and as a lower value by-product, some hydrogen may be recovered. - Perhaps it is worth collecting for sale, but if so, it only competes with the hydrogen from decompositon of natural gas because the Chlorine is paying for the production of it.

I am not a chemist and working from old menories here so I may be wrong. If so, please correct me on how hydrogen is comercially porduced. I am sure I need no correction when stating that this RF produced hydrogen is a net "negative energy source."
------------------------
*by "produce" I mean the energy used to generate the RF, not the energy in the RF. For example, assume all the disipation in the wires and transistors (or if with vacuum tubes, their filaments are magically hot, etc.) is zero. Obviously the RF field itself must have energy and I am not assuming it is zero as that is the energy which splits the H2O (it will in practice also heat the water os you can not even "break even". Further more if the produced hydrogen is used as fuel, you will not get mechanical energy out equal to even half ot the chemical energy in the hydrogen as the Carnot limits will apply. Also, by very nature of RF energy there will be enormous losses as it radiates away instead of splits water. I would guess at least half is not spliting water even if entirely enclosed in a copper chamber to prevent any escape of radiation as then the currents in the chamber walls are disipating energy - same reason only a <50% fraction of the RF energy your microwave used is actually heating the food.


Really the only thing uncertain is whether or not he is "ignorate and sincere" or just another "con-man" trying to make a quick buck off ignorant investors.

Nobel prize winner (in Chemistry / 1995) Paul Crutzen has just published detailed study of greenhouse effect of various liquid fuels in journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions

The primary conclusion is:
Alcohol from corn causes a 90% INCREASE in the greenhouse effect (compared to burning gasoline) and from sugar cane a 50% DECREASE in greenhouse effect.
Stated alternately:
Replacing two gallons of gasoline with alcohol (ETOH) from corn is equivalent to the combustion of 3.8 gallons of gasoline, but if the alcohol comes from sugar cane it is equivalent to combustion of only 1.0 gallons of gasoline. Note that on a volume basis, alcohol has only about 70% of the energy content of gasoline, so for the same energy (miles driven) there is still a reduction with cane alcohol. From an energy POV, the two gallons of alcohol replace only 1.4 of gasoline. As every drop of cane alcohol used, instead of gasoline, produces a net greenhouse gas benefit, the more that must be used the greater the benefit. (More CO2 is removed from the air than alcohol had the same energy content as gasoline.)

Thus, for the same energy each gallon of cane alcohol is the same as NOT BURNING 0.2 gallons of gasoline but if it comes from corn it is the same as BURNING AN EXTRA 0.9 gallons of gasoline, AS REGARDS THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT PRODUCED BY SAME MILES DRIVEN. (Note added later by edit: I now realize that I did not do this accurately. I only pentalized the cane alcohol, not the corn alcohol, for its 30% lower energy content. - if done correctly the advantage of cane is considerable greater.)

Most prior studies have concluded that corn alcohol is about neutral and cane alcohol is a 5 to 8 fold reduction in the greenhouse effect. All the industry supported studies of corn alcohol show a slight benefit and all of the university studies have shown a slight worsening effect, except the Un. of Indiana's (state where half of the new refineries are being built) study did show slight benefit.

The large difference is that Dr. Crutzen's analysis included the effect of the N2O released by the growing plant as it takes CO2 from the air where as the prior studies only consider the CO2. In much of the US, corn must be stimulated by heavy fertilization to get the yield before the frost. The production of this fertilizer (and to some extent the greater use of machinery) caused the significant advantage of cane alcohol over corn alcohol in ALL the prior, CO2-only, studies (even those paid for by the corn based alcohol industry).

The dramatic superiority of cane over corn from a greenhouse gas effect POV is due to the way the plant UTALIZES the fertilizer (not only the CO2 released in fertilizer PRODUCTION, as considered in prior studies). The utilization* of the fertilizer is accompanied by the production of N2O and, like methane, each molecule of N2O released is a much more powerful contributor to the greenhouse effect than each molecule of CO2 released in the production of the fertilizer. I.e. the prior studies neglected the main greenhouse gas effect. Fertilized corn is a terrible source of alcohol, from a greenhouse POV!

Dr. Crutzen did qualify his results by stating that he was assuming that the cane was grown in existing pasture instead of in new fields created from forest. I note however, that even if forest is destroyed to make new growing field (illegal in Brazil, but does happen**) this is a "one time effect" = I.e. eventually the use of two gallons of cane alcohol equivalent to not burning approximately three gallons of gasoline (from a greenhouse, not energy, POV) will remove from the air all the carbon that was once locked up in the trees of the forest.
--------------------
*Obviously the N2O is produced from the nitrogen in the fertilizer. All fertilizer is very rich in "fixed" nitrogen. - Plants cannot utilize the N2 making up 80% of the air, but need to get it from compounds like ammonia (NH3) but I do not understand the details of this process that creates and releases N2O.

**In Brazil forest are illegally destroyed for the timber (lumber) they contain. Often after the commercial trees have been cut (many individually worth $500 or more) the forest is usually burned to help hide the crime. Then some poor persons who previously lived by collecting nuts or illegally trapping animals (a parrot brings more than $2000 in Sao Paulo, but he is lucky to get $200 for it) is reduced to trying to farm the poor soil or use it for pasture. The anti-timber theft enforcement is much better now than a few decades ago. - Fact that forest is cut for its wood, not to make pasture or plant sugar cane, is demonstrated by fact that the illegal deforestation was more than twice as rapid in the past, before Brazil was producing any alcohol! Hopefully there will still be some Amazon left for future generations if the enforcement against the loggers continues to improve.

Billy T, I have only looked into this a little, but you seem to be making some assumptions that may be incorrect. First, alcohol from RAPESEED, as done in Europe, may be the worst method of producing alcohol. It may result in a 70% increase in N20, according to some preliminary studies. Alcohol from corn may produce a 50% increase in N20. I have not found how sugar cane rates in these new studies. These estimates were preliminary estimates, they indicated that much more work was need to understand the true effects. Your assumption that it is the nitrogen-rich fertilizer that causes the increase is unwarranted. You assume that if the soil is naturally nitrogen-rich so that no fertilizer is needed, no excess N20 will be produced. That is not true, the plant gives off the N20 during its growing process whether it gets the nitrogen directly from nitrogen-rich soil or from the added fertilizer.
The biggest problem to overcome is how to utilize the entire plant, to convert the waste cellulose from the stalks, leaves etc. into alcohol. With corn, we only use the corn kernels for alcohol production. With sugar cane, you only use the juice from the stalk for alcohol production. I think Brazil does burn some of the biomass for energy and the US uses some of the biomass in animal feeds.

Billy T, I have only looked into this a little, but you seem to be making some assumptions that may be incorrect. First, alcohol from RAPESEED, as done in Europe, may be the worst method of producing alcohol. It may result in a 70% increase in N20, according to some preliminary studies. Alcohol from corn may produce a 50% increase in N20. I have not found how sugar cane rates in these new studies. These estimates were preliminary estimates, they indicated that much more work was need to understand the true effects. Your assumption that it is the nitrogen-rich fertilizer that causes the increase is unwarranted. You assume that if the soil is naturally nitrogen-rich so that no fertilizer is needed, no excess N20 will be produced. That is not true, the plant gives off the N20 during its growing process whether it gets the nitrogen directly from nitrogen-rich soil or from the added fertilizer.
The biggest problem to overcome is how to utilize the entire plant, to convert the waste cellulose from the stalks, leaves etc. into alcohol. With corn, we only use the corn kernels for alcohol production. With sugar cane, you only use the juice from the stalk for alcohol production. I think Brazil does burn some of the biomass for energy and the US uses some of the biomass in animal feeds.Your points are well taken. I was only assuming that the more extensive use of fertilizer (in cold climates to stimulate rapid growth, maturity of the corn before frost) was the reason why alcohol from corn was 1.9 times more producer of "greenhouse" gases than use of gasoline would. According to Dr. Paul Crutzen (Nobel prize winner in Chemistry 1995). This in contrast to alcohol from sugar cane, which makes only 0.5 release of what the use of gasoline would (again according to Dr. Crutzen).

After thinking about more it, my assumption seems to be possibly the true reason, but certainly not necessarily the reason. Perhaps it is just the difference in how the plants process the "fixed nitrogen" and does not depend upon how concentrated it is in the soil near their roots. Both corn and sugar cane must use some from some source. It is also possible the reason corn is so much more a producer of greenhouse gases than sugar cane is that sugar cane plant simply needs less. - Obviously I do not know and was assuming. Thanks for point this out, but the fact remains, reguardless of these details, that corn alcohol is MORE polluting than gasoline (almost twice as bad) and sugar cane alcohol is only half as polluting as gasoline. (Assuming Dr. Crutzen knows what he is talking about, but that seems likely, given he is recocognized world expert and has published in peir-reviewed journal his results.)

BTW, I know nothing about rapeseed alcohol. In fact, I would have guessed that is a potential source of only bio-diesel! Also I just recently learned of "tropical sugar beets" in Indian newspaper, which pointed out that they can be harvested in 6 months (not the 18 sugar cane requires in India) and require only 1/3 the water that cane does. (Acording to that article growing sugar cane is causing soil errosion and the beet alternative dose not with less water used.) India is just now changing its laws/regularions to allow cane crushers to produce either sugar of alcohol. In past only molasas could be used to produce alcohol, as I understand it, because sugar was in short supply in India*, but now it is glut on the global market, with about half the price it had only a couple of years ago.
---------------
*Was illegal to export when world price was high,but now that few want to, it is legal again. (All modern governments, unfortunately in IMHO, excessively manage their economies, rather than let Adam Smith's invisible hand do the job, so you end up with US-like complex tax codes and India's silly "alcohol only from molases" details instead of trade and most economical production possible.)

To show some of the other adverse effects of GWB's insane alcohol from corn program:

" ... Wheat futures for December delivery rose 6 cents, or 0.6 percent, to $9.39 a bushel on the Chicago Board of Trade. The price was up 22 percent this month and has more than doubled in the past 12 months. ..."

FROM:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ahz4k9Whhrys&refer=home

I am sure price of corn will more than double next year when the alcohol refineries now being constructed can process more of the corn crop. Now the cost increase in food is better seen in things like wheat it is competing with for fields. (I think the price of corn may actually be significantly down and some is being stored waiting for these refineries to open.)

Billy T,
Your points are well taken. I was only assuming that the more extensive use of fertilizer (in cold climates to stimulate rapid growth, maturity of the corn before frost) was the reason why alcohol from corn was 1.9 times more producer of "greenhouse" gases than use of gasoline would.
Most all the corn grown in the US is some type of hybrid variety. There are long-season hybrids that require 100 more days for the corn to reach maturity than short-season hybrids. Others are mid-season hybrids. The main reason for the use of fertilizer is to increase yield per acre, not to make it mature faster. Another thing I am unsure of is how the length of the growing season required affects the N20 released per plant. There may not be much difference between varieties that 'grow fast' and mature early and a variety that grows and matures more slowly. The slower growing variety is releasing N20 over a longer period of time while it takes longer to reach maturity. I am neither a farmer nor an expert in these matters, but they are a lot more complicated that at first glance. I already knew of the various lengths of time to maturity for different corn varieties, so I did a google search for some additional info. Here is a link pertaining to what I am posting about:
http://ohioline.osu.edu/agf-fact/0101.html
Thanks for point this out, but the fact remains, reguardless of these details, that corn alcohol is MORE polluting than gasoline (almost twice as bad) and sugar cane alcohol is only half as polluting as gasoline. (Assuming Dr. Crutzen knows what he is talking about, but that seems likely, given he is recocognized world expert and has published in peir-reviewed journal his results.)
This assertion is what I could not confirm, Billy T. I read the popular press articles on Dr. Cruzen's paper, but I could find no mention that alcohol from sugar cane reduces greenhouse gasses emissions by 50%. Are you comparing old data that did not consider the N2O emitted during plant growing for the sugar cane 'reduction' in greenhouse gas with the new data that does consider the N2) for corn and rapeseed only? Why do you believe that a stalk of sugar cane gives off only a fraction of N2O compared to a very similar stalk of corn? I think you are mixing old with new data to arrive at your conclusions. Are you also aware that Brazil's habit of burning the biomass (stalks, etc) has an adverse affect on pollution? In some areas, there has been a 33% increase in hospital admissions due to the pollutants in the air, mostly young children and the elderly. US anti-pollution laws will not allow the open burning of the biomass, so it is converted into animal feed instead, which is a non-polluting solution.
To show some of the other adverse effects of GWB's insane alcohol from corn program:

" ... Wheat futures for December delivery rose 6 cents, or 0.6 percent, to $9.39 a bushel on the Chicago Board of Trade. The price was up 22 percent this month and has more than doubled in the past 12 months. ..."
Here is another example of your biased viewpoint. Here is a cut & paste from the article:
Commodities had the biggest monthly gain in 32 years, led by wheat, crude oil and gold, as the dollar's slump enhanced the appeal of energy, grains and precious metals as a hedge against inflation.
Wheat climbed to a record in September amid a global grain shortfall, boosting corn and soybeans. Oil also hit a record, and gold reached a 27-year high. The Federal Reserve cut borrowing costs to bolster the U.S. economy, sending the dollar tumbling.

...I am neither a farmer nor an expert in these matters, but they are a lot more complicated that at first glance. I already knew of the various lengths of time to maturity for different corn varieties, so I did a google search for some additional info.As I am too lazy to search, and also not a farmer, you know more than I do, but I agree with "lot more complicated that at first glance" as that is generally true of most things When carefully considered.

I am not mixing old and new data. Everything I reported came from today's Folio de Sao Paulo article telling of Dr. Crutzen's paper. If you have read in English similar reports, you may be better informed than I am. (I have not tried to read the original paper, and is possible The Folio article has errors.) Please tell what your "popular press" states, if anything, about alcohol from sugar cane. I can understand why there may be little on sugar cane in US press reports and much more in the Brazilian report of his article. I assure you that the 50% reduction is part of the article I read today and is stated to be part of Dr. Crutzen's results, not some old data added. I have never seen any earlier article / study that considers the N2O effects. Note also the Folio has a "t" in his name, but you do not.

...Why do you believe that a stalk of sugar cane gives off only a fraction of N2O compared to a very similar stalk of corn? .... Are you also aware that Brazil's habit of burning the biomass (stalks, etc) has an adverse affect on pollution? In some areas, there has been a 33% increase in hospital admissions due to the pollutants in the air, mostly young children and the elderly. US anti-pollution laws will not allow the open burning of the biomass, so it is converted into animal feed instead, which is a non-polluting solution.I do not believe that and did not state the N2O came from the stocks, I did mention the concentration in soil near the roots. (I was thinking the more intensive fertilization might make higher concentrations and shift the chemical reactions some way to explain the higher pollution from corn and lower from from cane. It now occurs to me that the particular types of bacteria that live in the roots may differ and be part of the reason - but I am very ignorant and only wildly guessing at possible explainations for the big corn/cane difference Folio states Dr. Crutzen found.

Yes prior to manual cutting, the leaves are burned off the still standing sugar cane. They would cut the cane cutters if this is not done and conversion to mechanical harvesting is nearly half done, but never will be 100% as some fields are to steep for the machines. As for air polution it is a brief problem (dayor two in anyone area) I strongly supect the increse in illness from air pollution is do the growth of automobile sales, not cane.

Sao Paulo is very polluted 365 days each year. I usually go to city about hours away every Monday at 6 AM, sleep in motel Monday night to work on house I am slowly building (all by myself!) until dark on Tuesday, mainly for two reasons: (1) to escape the air polution in world's fourth largest city with traffic jams second to none! and (2) I am too frugal to pay an gym or trainer. I find that exercise, which all need, very boring, but if you set blocks and mix concrete at my age two days in a row, that is a real workout. (I do stop to watch the birds and sail boats etc some.) As I am a slow and careful worker, the house will cost about five times more than if I hired someone to build it, but it has so many special features that I would still need to be there continuosly to supervise, pay for the nite in motel, dinner, etc. anyway.

I am in no hurry to finish it. - in about 25 years more I think it will be done, if I can live that long. (My philosphy in live is the destination is not important - the thing that matters is to enjoy the journey.)

...Here is another example of your biased viewpoint. Here is a cut & paste from the article:I am biased, if you wish to call it that, but becasue of what I have read, not by birth or residence or financial interest etc. I am developing some bias also for butinoil the four carbon alcohol, again based on the facts I have read about it, but it is much farther from being a comercail fuel. Alcohol from cane is already significantly more economical than gasoline, with neither being falsely favored by taxes or subsidies. I.e.on a "level playing field."

I do not understand why you think the Bloomberg article both I and then you quoted shows my "biased viewpoint." I noted wheat was up 22% in last month and that corn had not increased as much. I knew it was in good supply from other articles and that it is below its peak price, although up15% in the last month. (Same as silver is - mainly a dollar dropping effect, I believe, as that article in your quote.) I tried to explain this greater wheat increase also, and am reasonable sure I am correct. Both corn production and alcohol refinery capacity are rapidly increasing but it takes more than a year to make a refinery and less to make corn, so while both are rapidly growing there will be a surplus of corn is reason I offered. Some fields that last year grew wheat are now growing corn, I assume also as reason for the extra price gain in wheat.

I especially do not understand why you made bold "hedge against inflation." This is exactly what I have been saying for years. -I.e that is just "dollar dropping in value" in other words. I do not follow your logic and certainly have been recommend to all that they buy ADRs in countries supplying "raw material", "food stocks" and "energy" (or in a word "commodities") as a "hedge against inflation" (or "dollar dropping" as I usually express this). If you still think this reporting of the facts is a biased POV, then you will need to explain to me why it is.

Do you have access to a library that has the journal Crutzen published in? I do not. I would like to know accurately what it does say about relative merits of cain and corn.

OK, Billy T, I found a reference to sugar cane N2O production in an article in Green Car Congress, a pro biofuel organization. The nimbers for the best estimates for corn equal the worst estimates for sugarcane, but sugar cane is better, just not by the degree that you seemed to state. Here is a cut & paste and link:
For rapeseed biodiesel, which accounts for about 80 percent of the biofuel production in Europe, the relative warming due to nitrous oxide emissions is estimated at 1 to 1.7 times larger than the relative cooling effect due to saved fossil CO2 emissions. For corn bioethanol, dominant in the US, the figure is 0.9 to 1.5. Only sugarcane bioethanol—with a relative warming of 0.5 to 0.9—looks like a better alternative to conventional fuels.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/09/study-n2o-emiss.html
A link is given at the website to the original paper, but I get an error message when I try to open it. Maybe your luck will be better.

To show some of the other adverse effects of GWB's insane alcohol from corn program:
This was the statement I was referring to when I said your viewpoint seemed biased. You quoted the increase in price of wheat, corn and soybeans after this statement. The article said the increase was mostly due to overestimating world wheat production and a hedge against the inflating dollar, neither due to 'GWB's insane alcohol from corn program'. I think the 'alcohol from corn program' was mostly due to the US congress, not from oilman Bush.
Both corn production and alcohol refinery capacity are rapidly increasing but it takes more than a year to make a refinery and less to make corn, so while both are rapidly growing there will be a surplus of corn is reason I offered. Some fields that last year grew wheat are now growing corn, I assume also as reason for the extra price gain in wheat.
The price of corn did not decrease due to any surplus, corn increased in price also, just not as much as wheat. There may be a slight shift from wheat-to-corn, but it is unlikely it is great. Remember the farmer's acreage allotments I spoke of earlier? The exact purpose of the allotments is to keep farmers from ignoring one crop in order to use that land to plant a 'hot' crop. Both wheat and corn increased in price, plus soybeans. It seems more likely adverse weather conditions may have affected the estimated yields. The government already knows how many acreas of each crop varity are planted before the crops are ever harvested. The faulty estimates should have been based on acreas planted, but lower than expected yields.

To 2inqusitive: Thanks for the good search. I too was not able to open the link to Crutzen's paper.

First two minor points (not to forget): It appears that rapeseed is used for bio-diesel, not alcohol, production and that is why I had never heard of it as alcohol crop.- I follow this field with several sources automately sending me information as I own shares in 2nd or 3d largest alcohol/sugar company in Brazil. (Bought them too soon, as current glut of sugar has depressed stock value.)
I tell this as wish all to know I do have a financial interest in seeing Brazil export alcohol, but WHERE it is sold is not important. Looks like Japan will be taking all Brazil can produce as soon as the tankers for transporting it are finished. - Even China lost out on this cheap energy. (USA, under GWB, never stood a chance.) I wanted alcohol to go to US as my grandchildren live there and I pay taxes there, which are higher than they need because GWB is "pushing corn based alcohol." Also I do not like to see the dollar dropping in value as my social security paymnets buy less and there is no way I can protect them by buying ADRs etc. The "sovern funds" of the oil exporters could destroythe dollar over night and by ceasing to buy US Treasury bonds are doing that more slowly to get assets out of dollars with least possible loss, but same final effect - a US in deep depression with inflation caused by "printing press money" paying off maturing Treasury bonds tha can not be "rolled.")
I think the 'alcohol from corn program' was mostly due to the US congress, not from oilman Bush.Certainly congress plays a role, and probably GWB is not the true source of it, only manupliated by some with even more financial interest in keeping the world "hooked on oil." I think he is also not the true source of the Iraq war. Probably both stem from the "neocons" that guide him as does his "anti-Koyota treaty" stand.

The alcohol from corn plan is much to clever to have been GWB's idea. It will give the apearance of doing something to reduce the US dependance on oil, while actually slightly increasing it. Never does GWB state that alcohol from corn will reduce oil consumption. (He has been well coached.) He always states that the goal is to replace 20% of US gasoline with alcohol. Joe American misunderstands this as reduce oil consumption by 20%. Joe will pay more in taxes for the subsidies, more for his food, more to drive his car (on either alcohol or gasoline) than needed, and part of the dollars Joe sends to the mid East will buy the weapons tha kill Joe's son (instead buying alcohol from Brazil, which would be buying the products Joe's son is safely making where he works). Also the cane alcohol from tropical lands, would be reducing man's contribution to global warming, instead of increasing it above what simply continuing to use gasloine would produce!

It is for these reasons, I called alcohol from corn an "insane program." If you stop to think, I think you will agree. It is insane, self-interest, of the oil industry, that does not care about the damage (to entire world and Joe) being done because correcting it would reduce their profit rate. Also, great damage is being done to Joe's future descendents dozens of generations hence. - Oil is much to valuable as a chemical feed stock to burn for heat! What is going on now is not only insane, but probably the greatest crime against humanity in all of history!
-------
On corn and wheat etc.:
I am not sure (about 95% so) but think corn is significantly below the all time peak price but wheat is at or near it. It is true that in last month corn did recover 15% and wheat climbed to new high by 22%. It may well be true that factors other than switching acrerage from wheat to corn is only a minor part of the difference and certainly is true that the dropping value of the dollar makes both cost more.
--------
On Crutzen's N2O study:
In prior CO2 only studies, which did consider the "full production cycle" I.e. the fossil fuel burned to make the fertalizer, plow the field, deliver alcohol to "gas" stations, etc. there are a lot of estimates, so no precise conclusions. Oil industry paid for studies of alcohol from corn show slight reduction in net CO2 released and dis-interested university studies show a larger increase, but for simplicity, I will assume corn alcohol is "CO2 neutral." All studies show cane alcohol reduces CO2 release by factor between 4 and 8 fold, so I will assume by 6.

Crutzen's study is NOT of the "full production cycle." It concerns ONLY two effects of growing the source crop. The benefical one is CO2 is being removed from the air. The damaging one is that N2O is being released.
It concludes that "bad/good ratio" for corn is between 1.0 and 1.7, so I will assume corn alcohol is 1.35 worse than using gasoline as your car's fuel, from a greenhouse gas POV. Likewise he concludes alcohol from sugar cane is 0.5 to 0.9 times worse, so I will assume 0.7 times worse. (Of course any number less than unity is an improvement.) Thus 1000 liters of alcohol is same "Growing Release," GR, as burning 1350L of gasoline in the corn case and 700L in the cane case.

Now let me try to extened his results to the "full production cycle" with these assumptions:

To make it easy I will fill my car's 600 litter tank with alcohol. That, under the old CO2 only studies, has same CO2 release as 600 liter of gasoline (if from corn) and same CO2 effect as 100 liters of gasoline burned (if from cane).

Clearly all of the "benefit" in both cases comes from the growing crop removing CO2 from the air. Thus, with these assumptions making 600L of alcohol has net removal for the air is the carbon in 500L of gasoline (if from cane) and 0L (if from corn).

Now with the effect of N2O considered (and assuming the production of fertalizer dose not produce any and FALSELY assuming that the delivery trucks taking alcohol to the distribution stations also do not produce any, when in fact all high compression IC engines produce a lot of N2O) where corn is 1.35 times worse than gas and cane is 0.7 times worse, the 600L of gasoline (corn's equivalent) becomes 1.35x600 = 810 liters of gasoline and the 100L (cane's equivalent) becomes 70L of gasoline.

My assumptions may be wrong, but is seems to indicate that sugar cane is a net benefit (compared to using gasoline) of 600/70 = 8.6 times while from corn alcohol is a net damage of 810/600 = 1.35 times worse than gasoline. (This is obviously the same as Crutzen's N2O only GR results becuase I assum that the old studies CO2 studies were neutral in the release of CO2.)

I am sure that this logic is flawed or at least too simple. Perhaps you or some one will correct it? To do so. I think it is necessary to make one more assumption about the old CO2 only, total-cycle, studies related to what fraction, f, of the CO2 release comes out of the tail pipe of the car and then (1-f) of the CO2 is associated with fertilizer production, field plowing etc. This information must be part of the old CO2 only total-cycle studies, but may be hard to get that detail.

BTW, after reading your reference, it appears my guess about "root bacteria" working on the higher concentrations of fixed nitrogen in the soil used with corn may indeeed be the reason corn is so bad. - I.e. corn's gross inferiority to cane may not be due directly to any corn/cane difference. I already knew that both corn and cane are among the few plants that run the same, more complex, (four step), but more efficient, process in their photosynthesis, so suspected the difference might not be in the plants at all from the start.

See 32 slides Bunge presented at 2 Oct 07 conference on alcohol at:
http://www.veracast.com/citigroup/biofuels07/player.cfm?eventName=1051_bungel
(I do not know why the "l" is at end of the link (name is not Bungel)

Despite half of the slides being about Bunge* many are general and the set of distorted maps of world (starting with slide 8) is very interesting: First shows countires reshaped to reflect their populations (India & China are huge) another shows countires by rain fall, some more by income per capita, and populations in various income ranges, etc.

------------------
*I have substancial holdings in BG - bought years ago when it was a company still headquartered in Brazil. It is very properous, world leader now in sales of several eatable oils and Number 1 supplier of fertalizer in major grain producing countries (except Russia where it is #2).

Farmers** use their future crops to pay for the fertilizer. Very "vertical": BG starts with its phospate mines and ends by placing of oils, milled flours, (and items, like mainoness) on grocery shelves or delivered to the bakers or delivery of feed sacks to farmers raising animals. They pay good dividends - I will probably never sell my shares as they are still rapidly appreciating.

**BG works very closely with the farmers. Even has service for the larger farms that uses GPS and soil analysis grid of the farm to help put down just the correct type and amount of fertilizer on each grid. After reading Crutzen's results (SEE SEVERAL JUST PRIOR POSTS) the avoidance of excessive nitrogen fertalizer this permits is more important for reducing man's contribution to global warming.
-----------------------
-----------------------
PS I also own a few shares in Verenium, VRNM, bought about 3 years ago when called Diversa (pre merger). It has not done anything for me fiancially, yet, but it too is very vertical. (I always like that.) Starts with its own developed enzimes and sells*** celulosic alcohol - As www.Verenium.com 's home page states: "FIRST PUBLIC COMPANY WITH THE INTEGRATED, END-TO-END CAPABILITIES TO MAKE CELLULOSIC BIOFUELS A COMMERCIAL REALITY"

-----------------------
***Only tiny amount from its pilot plant but:
"...In February 2007, Verenium broke ground on a 1.4 million gallon per year (MGY) demonstration facility located adjacent to its pilot facility in Jennings, Louisiana. The first demonstration-scale cellulosic ethanol facility to break ground in the United States, it is designated to operate on diverse regional feedstocks including sugarcane bagasse and specially-bred energy cane. The facility is slated for completion by the end of calendar year 2007, and for first operations in early 2008. ..."

They have operating experience already at the larger opperating level:

"... Under an exclusive license with Verenium covering four nations in East Asia, Marubeni Corporation and Tsukishima Kikai Corporation, LTD (TSK) completed the first demonstration project using the Company’s technology in January 2007. The Osaka Project, designed and constructed by TSK, utilizes demolition wood waste as a feedstock in producing up to 1.3 million liters of cellulosic ethanol annually. A second phase, planned for completion in 2008, will increase production to 4 million liters per year. ..."

Both texs from sub page:
http://www.verenium.com/Pages/Biofuels/BiofuelsProjects.html

By chance today there is an independant up date on Verenium from a local Beaumont newspaper (assuming they were not paid by Verenium etc.):
http://www.southeasttexaslive.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18894598&BRD=2287&PAG=461&dept_id=512504&rfi=6

Yesterday despite mentioning both BG and VRNM, I forgot to note that much bigger BG does use some enzimes it has licensed from VRMN, most of which VRNM, cleverly got the original version of by careful disection of the guts of terminites - they were processing celuose for energy, long be man existed.

BTW, theres a big front page article in the current National Geographic issue on the Ethanol debate.

Its like reading all of Billy's posts in one spot! :eek:

BTW, theres a big front page article in the current National Geographic issue on the Ethanol debate. Its like reading all of Billy's posts in one spot! :eek:thanks. I will try to see it. I am often well ahead of most - how I got to be multi-millionar on only investment from a salary of a branch of Johns Hopkins.

After looking a little I found following (It appears that my prior posts stating America's "suburban infrastructure" would make it suffer more than others when the cheap energy era ends, as it is now, has had one factor wrong - the average distance food travels is three times larger than I thought. Must be GWB's expanded wealthy class importing French wine and Russian carivar.):

"... now we're used to ordering take-out food from every corner of the world every night of our lives–according to one study, the average bite of food has traveled nearly 1,500 miles (2,414 kilometers) before it reaches an American's lips, which means it's been marinated in (crude) oil. We drive alone, because it's more convenient than adjusting our schedules for public transit. We build ever bigger homes even as our family sizes shrink, and we watch ever bigger TVs, and–well, enough said. We need to figure out how to change those habits. ..."

FROM:
http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/2007-10/carbon-crisis/carbon-crisis-p3.html

I did know and have quoted that the average potato's cost is 7/8 ths in the oil it needs - in the sense that its cost includes its fertalizer, plowing, harvesting, insect killing chemicals, and transport to your table.

...Its like reading all of Billy's posts in one spot! :eek:Surely illegal as that would be / is "cruel and inhuman" punishment, but only a small sample of the "hell" that is coming.

National Geographic will not currently let me read article on line - perhaps later.

Hello. I just read the first page and not the other near 200 posts- so this may have been covered.

Brazil and Cane ethanol is an excellent replacement for Gasoline, America and Corn Ethanol is Not.

Cane gives you an 8:1 ratio on energy put in
Corn 1.3:1
Some say the actual ratio is no more energy derived than put in.

Certainly with diversion of land good for food crops and the doubling of prices for those grainstocks-- Corn ethanol has been a loser for the consumer.

We'd be better off just importing efficient Ethanol from Brazil.
Soros has bought Brazilian Cane land, not Iowa fields.

If we must produce Ethanol as a replacement and for strategic reasons.. Planting Cane Fields from Florida (Ala, Mis, La) to South Texas would make more sense because of the above ratio.



EDIT.. I see the above was mostly covered in the post at the top of this page-- so use this mostly as a simpler presentation to read and my other comments on where, etc

National Geographic will not currently let me read article on line - perhaps later.
Its available now Billy.
http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/2007-10/biofuels/biofuels.html

Spends a lot of time time talking about the stupidity of the US Corn ethanol incentives, in comparison to the Cane ethanol industry already up and running in Brazil.

National Geographic probably got the idea from scoping your posts right here on Sciforums!

Its available now Billy.
http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/2007-10/biofuels/biofuels.html
Spends a lot of time time talking about the stupidity of the US Corn ethanol incentives, in comparison to the Cane ethanol industry already up and running in Brazil.
National Geographic probably got the idea from scoping your posts right here on Sciforums!Thanks for the link.
Yes this stealing from my posts is getting to be a real problem. The Economist has done it consistently in the last few issues.

Have now read the 6 pages. Not anything new to me there, but I can add an important thing National Geographic missed or at least did not point out:

I too think a significant part of the future alcohol prduction is with algae, but fear that it will never be economically competive with tropical sugar cane; however, the demand will be so great for liquid fuels (especailly when oil is over $100/ barrel) that algae will be used to produce liquid fuels. The fact that sugar cane dose displace food crops, at least pasture, will eventually cause regulations* on cane field expansion, so sugar cane will never meet even 1/2 the untimate demand. Nothing comes even close to already existing strains of algae on a yield per acre bases. I do not know, but suspect some of the dried solids from the algae system can be used as cattle food. Thus compenasting for the expansion of sugar cane into pastures, but a more rational, if improbable, solution to the shrinking pasture acreage is to reduce the consumption of red meat - not very healthy anyway and very inefficient way to feed people as less than 10 (I think less than 5, perhaps even less than 1) percent of the pasture's potential food production ends up on the table as calories in beef.

Algae can be grown in sealed systems in the desert, even if the intital load of water needs to be trucked in. The thing that Nat. Geo. failed to mention is that the sealed system is essential, even if fresh water is abundant. Many ignorantly seem to think of "green ponds" as the source of the algae, but that will not work because wild algae types will quickly gain dominance and process sunlight and CO2 for their own ends, not to make sugars and oils that man-selected algae are being genetically engineered to deliver.
---------------------------
*IT IS DEMAND FOR HARD WOODS, NOT AGRICULTURE which is causing the "rape of the Amazon." Many individual trees are worth more than $500 dollars. Typically the illegal loggers, burn the forest to destroy evidence of their cime. The poor living in the forest can then no longer steal parrots etc to sell so are reduced to trying to raise a few cows on the typically poor soil. Then some "do good" reporter will arrive to write his ignorant article, when the real problem is the demand for these hard woods from the US and EU. Mainly to combat this negative PR, Brazil has passed laws prohibiting the expansion of cane fields into the previously forested (or still forested) lands (also off limits is a great wet lands nature reserve, bigger than NY and California combined states etc. in the SW of Brazil).

The laws are not needed because the Amazon is not economicaly attractive for cane as Alcohol must be delivered to the cities by trunk, not conventional pipelines. Thus the refineries are near the cites and the bulk cane must be grown near the refineries. For these reasons, slight more than half of all Brazil's cane fields are in the State of Sao Paulo, which is about 1000 milles from the Amazon, but the ignorant "do good" reporters will continue to come to the amazon, see the burn areas and some cattle and a week later be back in US writing another article warning about how the production of alcohol from cane will soon destroy the Amazon.

"...but a more rational, if improbable, solution to the shrinking pasture acreage is to reduce the consumption of red meat - not very healthy anyway and very inefficient way to feed people as less than 10 (I think less than 5, perhaps even less than 1) percent of the pasture's potential food production ends up on the table as calories in beef.
Yes, and we could stop drinking the alcohol we already produce to boot. Even more toxic...and without any nutritive value whatsoever.

In fact, I think we could avoid a general apocalypse altogether as simply stated, as "its cheaper to save fuel than to buy fuel" -Amory Lovins.

The thing that Nat. Geo. failed to mention is that the sealed system is essential, even if fresh water is abundant. Many ignorantly seem to think of "green ponds" as the source of the algae, but that will not work because wild algae types will quickly gain dominance and process sunlight and CO2 for their own ends, not to make sugars and oils that man-selected algae are being genetically engineered to deliver.
I guess thats why most prototype systems are contained in transparent plexiglass tubes, with bubbling CO2 for respiration and turbulence.

Just an inch of algae growth is very opaque, so it has to be kept in circulation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnOSnJJSP5c

Still, you gotta feel sorry for all this research when better batteries are just around the corner. A good 'direct' energy system will clobber all these roundabout strategies.

To Carcano:
Good comments, but do not forget, batteries are NOT an energy source and when used, demand at least a 20%, often a 50% INCREASE in enegry consumption, when both the charge/discharge cycle losses and the transmission from remote primary source (and its AC to DC conversion losses) are included. (If the true source is solar cells, which are DC producing, those "conversion losses" are doubled if that tranmission is by high voltage AC, as is now 100% of the case.) (Don't try to tell me the home owner has expensive PV cells on the roof and calls a cab on cloudy days. - that will not be acceptible in the market place especially as the cabs are busy and he just joins the "waiting list" for his turn.)

I.e. Charge/discharge loss is at least 20% and other losses mention above can easily be greater than 30% of the out put power the battery can supply.

As significant sunlight is absent, especially in winter, for long periods, there must be either:
(1)large losses and capital costs associated with the energy storage system.
or
(2)Very larger capital costs for the larger array of photo-voltatic cells, which can not efficiently be used at their peak generation capacity on a clear summer day. Without storage cost and losses solar, even the wind power verion, is not much of a solution. However, the ocean wave and bio-alcohol are potentailly the main energy source of the future. (Storage is inherent.) (Personnally - I have liitle faith that wave power will be a significant source for the fundamental reason that the ocean can be very destructive and the capital cost of these system is large so more than 40 year useful life is equired if the interest raqte at time of construction is near 10% as it surely will be if and when they can achieve an average of a 40+ year useful life. However, some "rest on the bottom" during the 5 year storms, system may be feasible.)

Nuclear power, basically along the French model, defintely not as US does it, is the way to go for the base load, IMHO. Then batteies for cars, etc, MAY be competive, with regenerative braking to a large extent compensating for the over all inefficiency of ALL battery systems, mentioned above. Even still, the capital cost of battery system, compared to simple tank holding alcohol is very tough economic challenge to over come for ALL battery systems.

Personnally, I prefer to develope the "supper flywheel" and more public transport at least for urban use, however some locations, with steep hills, many still need liquid fuels or battery systems, but San Francisico's Cable Cars may be better for these locations (one going down helping its mate go up etc. is even more efficient than regenerative braking with its 20% cycle loses, and zero recovery of energy when storage is full.) An alternative for the steep hill/ gymbal limit problem is "auto jack up of one end of the bus" (Passengers would prefer to remain more level.) etc.

Supperfly wheels have already demonstrated several times higher specific (per pound) energy density than all batteries and the theortical limit gives them about 10 times more energy density than ANY chemical storage system. That is what batteries are - a chemical STORAGE system, never an energy source. Same is true of "hydrogen energy."

There is much too much popular nonsense about both batteries and hydrogen.

Even still, the capital cost of battery system, compared to simple tank holding alcohol is very tough economic challenge to over come for ALL battery systems.
It is tough but we're getting there. A company called Enerdel just came out with a Lithium-ion stacked system for hybrids, which is half the size and 65% of the weight compared to the units already used in the Prius. Its also a lot cheaper!

http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2007/09/enerdel-lithium.html

http://enerdel.com/content/view/127/92/

The bottom line is cost per mile, and at 1-3 cents per mile, direct electrical storage systems will always clobber any liquid fuel option.

Consider this:
Supposing all the agricultural bio-fuel were burned in power stations to supply thousands of electric cars through the power grid.

Instead of each car burning the fuel separately in its own little engine.

Do you think the cost per mile would be more or less???

It is tough but we're getting there. A company called Enerdel just came out with a Lithium-ion stacked system for hybrids, which is half the size and 65% of the weight compared to the units already used in the Prius. Its also a lot cheaper! What does that mean in real numbers? I.e. "only" 200 times more expensive than a tank which will hold 10 times more energy?

The bottom line is cost per mile, and at 1-3 cents per mile, direct electrical storage systems will always clobber any liquid fuel option.That may impress many people, who are ignorant of economics, but is only a small part of the cost of using an electric car. What is important is the "life cycle" cost. This includes the cost of the capital tied up (batteries, copper conductors in motor generators etc. are not cheap compared to steal motor and even many "electric cars" still need smaller version of them.) All need a "power train" of some sorts and most use several generators for regenerative braking in the wheels, even if the "power train" is only copper cables.

When you do the econonmics correctly, there is a long way to go still before you can get the life-cycle cost down to only twice as expensive as a car with IC engine and alcohol (from sugar cane of course) in the tank.

Supposing all the agricultural bio-fuel were burned in power stations to supply thousands of electric cars through the power grid. Instead of each car burning the fuel separately in its own little engine. Do you think the cost per mile would be more or less???Larger by about a factor of at least 2, but again I am speaking of the "life cycle" cost, not just one relatively small part of it. Also I am trying to be optimistic (from the battery POV) about how much one drives annually (+>10,000 miles) and how long the battery lasts (300 deep cycles is about the tops now available. Why the superfly wheel is so much better with >3000 demonstrated with no evidence of deterioration. - It is too expensive to test to learn how long the superfly wheels will last - probably longer than any one human can drive in his lifetime! None the less, they need to go into public transport first, like busses.)

I.e. "only" 200 times more expensive than a tank which will hold 10 times more energy?
10 times??? Its more like 2-3 times actually...and closing. Maybe youre thinking of the total energy contained before 75% of it is wasted by internal combustion.

What is important is the "life cycle" cost.

I agree. Instead of looking at the cost per mile, you could look at the cost of the cars entire life at a fixed number of miles for both ICE and electric.

The initial cost of electrics is still higher, in spite of the fact that you dont need a transmission, exhaust system, radiators, etc., but the maintenance is vastly less expensive. So I suppose it depends on how much your time is worth...as well as the other non-economic factors of toxicity and noise.

10 times??? Its more like 2-3 times actually...and closing. Maybe youre thinking of the total energy contained before 75% of it is wasted by internal combustion. ... as well as the other non-economic factors of toxicity and noise.I was thinking of a big tank (still 100 or more times less expensive than batteries) and giving 1000 mile range, instead of 100 in round numbers.

Yes I agree the production of and disposal of batteries with many toxic heavy metals is a serious polution hazzard as unlike CO2 from alcohol, nature can not clean them up and they are already poluting drinking water in some areas. Think what an nation driving on battery cars could do.

(I have had for more than two years now and old cell phone battery I can not get anyone to take back. -I can not bring myself to just throw it in the trash as most do as I know how dangerous cadmium is and nickle is somewhat toxics also, I think. God only knows what the mix of salts in the electrolytes will do.)

I heard that the environmentalists and animal rights kooks in Brazil are even worse bastards than they are here in the U.S.

Yes I agree the production of and disposal of batteries with many toxic heavy metals is a serious polution hazzard as unlike CO2 from alcohol, nature can not clean them up and they are already poluting drinking water in some areas. Think what an nation driving on battery cars could do.
Well a nation could always recycle the battery elements, instead of tossing them in the dump.

In my city we're not even allowed to throw out old paint cans. We are strongly 'encouraged' to take them to a special site.

The most important battery specs are cost, recharge time, energy density, and life cycle.

The most advanced now available makes for a vehicle that has a range of 130 miles, recharges in ten minutes with a high voltage system, thousands of charge cycles, and costs about 40 grand, which is damn good for a such a small volume of production.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vxjagsod4UY

Also, regenerative braking is not nearly as useful as the capacity to prevent the car from using gas while in slow lines or at a stop.

Also, regenerative braking is not nearly as useful as the capacity to prevent the car from using gas while in slow lines or at a stop.
Thats exactly what I see driving out to the burbs in the morning...long lines of SUVs idleing on the highway.

And I wonder, are even a thousand of these vehicles spewing out as much pollution as ONE of Al Gore's private jet excursions??? :eek:

Dont get me wrong, I'm not against biofuels. I sent an email of congratulations to the local bus company a few days ago. They now have over 200 buses on biodiesel...which smells like fresh popcorn!

I just think its a brief transitional technology. Its going to be biofuel blends and hybrids for the next 10-15 years, after which we'll be solidly into pure electrics.

Carcano, we might as well use hempseed oil. I am also for third or fourth generation nuclear reactors (OK, the actual generation count may be off.) Nuclear reactors can solve the problem of spend nuclear fuel by "burning" it in reactors that can use it. But hempseed oil is the liquid fuel that returns the most energy for energy expended in obtaining it and requires the least elaborate technology to extract. I would happily go on forever burning hempseed oil.

...The most advanced now available makes for a vehicle that has a range of 130 miles, recharges in ten minutes with a high voltage system, thousands of charge cycles, and costs about 40 grand, which is damn good for a such a small volume of production.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vxjagsod4UYLink is mainly a sales pitch for the car, but did claim battery design which reduces the heat production associated with rapid charge so if true (and seems to be) that is big advance, (but not a significant one for the typical car owner as remainder of this post will show). Because of this "10 minute recharge" claim, I strongly doubt their claim of 20,000 deep discharge cycles. Other facts mentioned were it cost $3 to recharge and is done in 10 minutes.

If, in round numbers, (long time since I paid electric bill in USA, so I assume 10cents/ KWH is still in the ball park for cost of electrical energy and will use that value).

Thus, they claim recharge is 30KWH delivered in 10 minutes or 3000 WH delivered every minute for 10 minutes or 3600x3000 WattSeconds (also called Joules) delivered every minute (for 10 minutes) or 180,000 Joules delivered every second (for 10 minutes), but a Joule delivered in a second is a one watt power level. Thus, the house power system must be capable of handling 180,000 watts

Now a watt is a volts ampere and I will assume that the house's voltage is 110V so this means for 10 minutes your house must be drawing 1636 Amperes. Typically the house is fused for about 40 Ampere on each circuit, so your house with heavy duty extension cords from 43 other houses is what is required for their claim to be true.

Perhaps I have some error here, but I think not. If not, then their claim is at best, a great missrepresentation. More like an outright lie, IMHO.

SUMMARY - Their claim on this is at best "not realistic." - Why should I believe their claim of 20,000 deep discharge cycles? Or 12 year battery life?

PS, If you really want to recharge in 10 minutes, you will need to contact the power company and pay for the installation of an industral circuit, including very heavy cables and the transformer which can service about 50 normal houses. That will boost the price of the $40,000 car quite a lot and that part of the cost will not decrease with production volume. As you will not be using much energy, by industral standards, the "fixed charges" (a couple of hundred dollars each month) will dominate your electric bill.

Some independant views of Brazil and its alcohol potential:

The Netherlands recently released a study looking at the sustainability of Brazilian ethanol as a prelude to importing ethanol in order to meet future energy demands. The study found that there were no issues which would preclude San Paulo ethanol from not being able to meet Dutch sustainability standards for 2007.

National Food Supply Company president, Wagner Rossi announced that the March 2008 sugar cane harvest is expected to yield 547 million tons, a 15.2% increase over the previous crop. 473 million tons, or 86.47%, is expected to be used for sugar and alcohol production. Plant technicians aim to maintain similar sugar levels as last year due to the low market price while alcohol production is expected to increase by 21.9% from last year. We can expect the amount of available ethanol to remain flat in the coming year as well.

Farmland used for the growing of sugar cane grew by 12.3% to 6.9 million hectares, up from 6.2 million a year ago.

Environmentalists are concerned over the damage to the rainforest in Brazil as it helps maintain the world's ecosystem. In a landmark decision, Brazilian Indians are celebrating a court decision declaring that 18,070 hectares of land in Espirito Santo belong to the Tupinikim and Guarani people rather than multinational Aracruz Celulose. This decision may pave the way for a slowdown in the destruction of the rainforest and capping the amount of available farmland, a bullish sign for sugar and agricultural prices. {SEE Footnote for some facts. Typical environmentalist often can not see very well because the head is inserted in a body cavity. :D There are exceptions, like Amory Lovins -you can trust him- but if also part of GreenPeace, that is almost 100% proof of their ignorance.}

Last week, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development disclosed that Brazil is the fifth most attractive country to invest. Already, FDI through August of 2007 has surpassed the total FDI for all of 2006. {But because the Brazilian Real is so strong and the dollar so weak, US gets first place in FDI and Brazil is in position 19 of the FDI list.}

Brazil and Saudi Arabia have been working towards a trade agreement with Mercosur and the GCC which would promote investment between the two countries. Last year, Saudi Arabia opened itself up to Brazilian mining companies. Saudi Arabia is promoting Brazil as a place to invest and Arab banks have been listing on the Brazilian exchanges.

FROM:
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article2455.html
----------------
Aracruz grows trees for paper production, not sugar cane. It is illegal to grow sugar cane in the Amazon, but most is also off limits to the loggers who still go in, extract individual tree (often worth more than $500 each) and then set the forest on fire to hid their crime. Thus, it is the fact that the market for alcohol is about 1000 miles from the Amazon, not the illegality, that keeps sugar cane fields far from the Amazon. (Alcohol moves by tanker truck to the "gas" stations. It can not travel in conventional pipelines or ocean tankers -Alcohol has at least 4% water in it, or slightly more usually, and is too corrosive for that.)

Perhaps I have some error here,

Indeed, if you research more carefully youll see that the 10 min. recharge time is only possible with a special high voltage system they are selling to fleet companies.

The home version recharges in a few hours with the usual 110-240 volt outlet.

As far as their claims of several thousand life cycles, you could google the battery manufacturer altairnano.com or 'nanosafe' for more info.

Heres a video made by PopularMechanics magazine talking to Roy Graham from Altairnano on the technical aspects of their battery design.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCkXwwEC2p8

And a short video of the special high voltage system for fleets:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rcbx57Azisw

It's simply not going to happen. Someone will grab it up and prevent any significant number of large capacity Nanosafe batteries from being sold to consumers. They did it with nickel-metal hydride batteries.

Indeed, if you research more carefully youll see that the 10 min. recharge time is only possible with a special high voltage system they are selling to fleet companies....I never said that a 10minute recharge was impossible.
I only said that their public claim of 10 minute recharge, WITHOUT ANY INDICATION that NO HOME OWNER COULD ACHIEVE THAT was:
" at best, a great missrepresentation. More like an outright lie, IMHO."

BTW, they are wise to target the fleet market. Few ordinary people will buy a 40 thousand dollar car that can only go 130 miles and then must wait about 6 hours to go another 130miles, if where it stops for recharge only 110V is available. Even if continuously traveling at it top speed of 90mph the travel time for each segment of a trip is approximately 6+1.5 hours. 130/(7.5) = 17mph average speed. - a horse can do that, and it runs on grass.

This is NOT the solution for the public's transportation needs. Do not present it as such - that is mis-representation, at best.

The biggest problem with plug-in vehicles is initial costs. They might work fine for someone buying it as a commute to work and back vehicle, but they are not practicle for vacations, visiting out of town relatives, etc. The one I saw tested required three recharges to travel 180 miles. That's only about 60 miles of stop-and-go driving per charge. Don't forget, the power of the electric motor reduces as the battery is being depleted.

The problem with costs is that $40,000 price tag. One can buy an economy car that does not have distance restrictions for $15,000. That $25,000 difference in purchase price will buy close to 10,000 gallons of gas. Assuming the car only gets 30 miles per gallon, that is still enough gas to drive 300,000 miles. Even if the electricity were free, they cannot compete with a regular car until the purchase price of both are more comparable.

...One can buy an economy car that does not have distance restrictions for $15,000. ...Perhaps for $3000 if Tata motors new plastic body car can pass US saftey / crash test.* It is scheduled to be shown to public in India in Jan 2008. Rumor has it that it gets more than 70 mpg, has top speed of >60mph, and color is in the plastic Never repaint, never rusts and assembeled with glue, as some air planes are now. (Modern glue is stronger than rivets and does not produce their stress concentration points.) It seats 6, Indians at least, has automatic continuous shifting ratio "gears" (good selling point for people who never drove a car.)

I.e. a nice urban car, at least, for 1/5 of the cost of the batteries!
---------------------
*may be able too as deforming non-shattering plastic can absorb a lot of energy, but may not, in the Indian model, have "5 mph bumpers" etc. Low top speed willhelp also as energy goes as square of the speed. e.g. at 60mph less than half as much energy to disipate as at 85mph.

This is NOT the solution for the public's transportation needs. Do not present it as such - that is mis-representation, at best.

Billy, I personally need around 50 miles on a charge to go back and forth to work with some reserve left over. I could live with half the battery, which would save a lot of money, and still do my commute. If I could recharge at work, which would cost my employer a noticeable amount of money, I could do a really long commute on half the battery capacity of this car. It has done shot past the basic requirements for a huge number of commuters.

There are a lot of used cars out there of all sizes and shapes that can be had cheap, with bad engines. There are already retrofit kits and unfortunately the huge expense will be the DC motor. So what about cheaper motors, perhaps three phase motors plus a solid state inverter? You really want a brushless motor anyway. A 6 volt 6 hp DC motor costs about $6,000 and a 10 HP three phase motor for 230/460 volts costs about 550. Search me about whether they are comparable, but a typical conversion kit using a 6 volt DC motor uses a 6 horsepower motor. Why this works something like a 60 HP internal combustion engine is complicated and I would have to find out why before I could explain it fully. A lot of the extra horsepower is simply so the IC engine can develop enough torque to move, when the electric motor's torque is highest when starting out.

An electrical motor can be electronically reversed, also, so I wonder if it wouldn't be feasible to change out the transmission of a used car for a transmission that simply passes straight through with no gearing.

You can't get something for nothing though, but I think that $6,000 is ridiculous for an electric motor when IC engines are more complex and cost a fourth as much.

http://www.phaseconverter.com/ElectricMotor.html

Billy, I personally need around 50 miles on a charge to go back and forth to work with some reserve left over. I could live with half the battery, which would save a lot of money, and still do my commute. .... There are already retrofit kits and unfortunately the huge expense will be the DC motor. So what about cheaper motors, perhaps three phase motors plus a solid state inverter? You really want a brushless motor anyway. A 6 volt 6 hp DC motor costs about $6,000 and a 10 HP three phase motor for 230/460 volts costs about 550. ...An electrical motor can be electronically reversed, also, so I wonder if it wouldn't be feasible to change out the transmission of a used car for a transmission that simply passes straight through with no gearing. ...Thanks, for thought provoking post. You seem to have one error, however, only the DC motor has high torque at turn on (low speed).

Just after WWII ended there was a lot of good surplus stuff. I bought a PE-103 motor generator. It had both on the same shaft. The motor took 6V DC and the generator made 500V DC for my car's amature radio station. - I nearly ran off the road when a guy from Cuba responded to my "CQ."

Why not have a dual-unit common-shaft three-phase (or more phases) AC & DC motor unit. The DC motor is active only as you pull away from the light. - You over load the hell out of it for about a second and then switch to the AC (even retract the brushes with simple centrifical forces against the spring so the last the life of the car.) Need a thermal lock out to prevent destruction by many repeated over loads in creaping traffic etc. (or the computer could keep track instead)

For the same reasons that Alternators have replaced the old generators (work at low RPM) the AC section is used for the regenrative breaking. You can get a lot more power per pound of motor with 3 phases than with only one phase. Also one should note that since you will be generating the multi-phase AC from DC batery (OR FUEL CELL) with relative short wire run lengths, five phase (or what ever is optimium is ok. - Five short wires not much cost.) And certainly higher than 60 cycles and 110V is desirable. Many air planes use 440VAC power, I think. I do not know enough about motor design to guess the best operating frequence, but probably a continuously varialbe one (no gears) is required anyway to be economical.

Modern solid state devices, including computers, opens up a lot of possibilities.

MetaKron, did you notice the RPM's the electric motors operated at? That is one of their greatest deficiencies, their low operating RPM range. If the vehicle is geared to have sufficient power off the line, it will have the speed potential of a tow lift. The motor must have enough power to operate the vehicle at highway speeds, and that will mean the vehicle must have an overdrive type transmission for highway speeds and geared down for power off the line. The limited operating RPMs of the electric motor means the transmission needs a wider gearing range than conventional gasoline engines, which have a much greater RPM range.

I was thinking of buying a hybrid vehicle until I researched them further. The hybrid with the most powerful electric motor is the Toyota Prius, which has something like a 76 hp equivalent motor. Its maximum speed on electric only operation is around 30 MPH. One must drive like they had an eggshell on the accelerator to keep it on electric power. It uses an expensive continuously variable transmission to make the most of the electric motor. That 30mph speed is with a fully charged batterypack. As the voltage in the batterypack drops due to usage, the electric motor produces less power.

I am not trying to put down electric vehicles because I love IC engines, it is just that until some method of producing a powerful, steady electric current to the motor is discovered, they are just not practical for most people. I would love to have an electric vehicle with an on-board nuclear powerplant supplying the juice! :D

This is NOT the solution for the public's transportation needs.
Not at the moment...but then neither is alcohol the solution for replacing oil in 2008.

An electric solution requires some infrastructure for highway travel, and that isnt in place yet. And also requires higher volume production to reduce costs.

This is why I predict we'll have biofuel blends and hybrids for the next 10-15 years, after which we'll be solidly into pure electrics.

...but then neither is alcohol the solution for replacing oil in 2008. ...True that there is not enough supply of alcohol and will not be for many years for America's needs; But there is only need to replicate existing cane fields and refineries etc.

No need to solve (possibly insolveable) technical problems as is the case for general purpose electric car.* - That is a huge difference. As far as Brazil is concerned, it would now be possible to get rid of gasoline cars in a few years. Something like 90% of all cars sold last year are running on pure alcohol, (much cheaper) but it will take time to use up (Junk) the old gas only cars. (Owners will not just throw them away.) Will need to expand cane production and the alcohol production facilities eventually also. (As all see this is the future - there is a temporary glut of alcohol now - refineries being built in excess of domestic demand, in part to be ready to export more.
----------------------------
*You do admit the possibility that it is tecnically impossible to make an electric car for the average American driver, do you not?

Billy, that's true, as I remember three phase motors have low starting torque. I'll bet that it's still comparable to an IC engine's torque. Conversions traditionally use the vehicle's original transmission too.

2inquisitive, it sounds like the electric motor of the Prius is underpowered. Electric vehicles capable of 65 mph and greater are established engineering and it doesn't take the annual budget of the United Arab Emirates to do it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_electric_vehicle
Just prior to 1900, before the pre-eminence of powerful but polluting internal combustion engines, electric automobiles held many speed and distance records. Among the most notable of these records was the breaking of the 100 km/h (60 mph) speed barrier, by Camille Jenatzy on April 29, 1899 in his 'rocket-shaped' vehicle Jamais Contente, which reached a top speed of 105.88 km/h (65.79 mph).

Here's one example of a kit that has a top speed of 75 mph:
http://www.canev.com/KitsComp/GeoKit/Geo-Kit.html

Anyway, there are a lot of possibilities for building electric cars that will get you to work on time and safely. Lightweight batteries are the holy grail of the homebuilt electric car industry, but I don't expect them to be easily available in my lifetime.

You do admit the possibility that it is tecnically impossible to make an electric car for the average American driver, do you not?
Not in 2008, and not for several years in fact.
As I said, the two key developments are high volume production, and a high voltage recharging infrastructure.

Switching to some form of lighter carbon fiber body material would also help, but most of the worlds supply at the moment has been bought up by Boeing for their new Dreamliner aircraft.

This will take several years. By that time the price of oil will be in geosynchronous orbit, and folks will be lining up to buy alternatives.

The UK is already moving on getting a recharging structure in place.

http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2007/10/uk-to-get-250-e.html

Billy T,
As far as Brazil is concerned, it would now be possible to get rid of gasoline cars in a few years. Something like 90% of all cars sold last year are running on pure alcohol, (much cheaper) but it will take time to use up (Junk) the old gas only cars. (Owners will not just throw them away.)
I sometimes wonder where you get your statistics, Billy T. In the mid 80s, alcohol only car sales were near 90% of the market, but their sales fell to only a few percent of the market after the 1990 alcohol shortages. Flex-fuel vehicles introduced around 2004 started the acceptance of partially alcohol fueled vekicles again, with about 87-88% of car sales in 2006. The increase in the strength of the Real has caused imported vehicles to be more competative in the Brazilian market. Many of those imports are not flex-fuel capable, resulting in a decline in the percentage of flex-fuel cars for 2007. From what I have read, no alcohol-only vehicles are currently sold in Brazil, and haven't been in over 15 years.

I have often seen you ridicule the US for not buying Brazilian alcohol. The fact is that the US is the number 1 buyer of Brazilian alcohol exports. The US has a duty on the imported alcohol to protect the emerging American alcohol producers. The major German and Spanish alcohol producers have gone bankrupt trying to compete with imported Bazilian alcohol. As the Real increases in value, the cost of Brazilian alcohol will increase for importing countries, making it less attractive. That is why the US is trying to protect its fledgling alcohol industry while research is conducted to determine the best method for future production.

I am not so sure that alcohol will ever be a major player in the American market. For instance, here is a project that is being implimented in my state for future fuel:
SILVERADO has been working six years with the head of its Green Fuel Division, Dr. Warrack Willson, who is an industry leader in the development of low-rank coal-water fuels (LRCWF). This fuel is made from hydrothermally treated low-rank coals (LRCs), sub-bituminous, lignitic, and brown coals. It is a low cost, non-toxic, non-hazardous and environmentally friendly substitute for petroleum derived fuels mainly in industrial and utility boilers, gasifiers, and other advanced combustors. Initial process economics indicate that LRCWF can be produced from any American LRC for under $15 per barrel, on an oil equivalent energy basis.

Silverado’s LRCWF (Green Fuel), so named due to its environmental friendliness, is an ideal candidate for use in high pressure liquid fed gasifiers, like the one developed by Texaco now being marketed by G.E. The product, synthesis gas, can then be converted by any one of a number of commercial Fischer Tropsch proc esses to yield a myriad of clean fuels and petrochemicals. The products are free of nitrogen, sulfur, particulate matter, and heavy metals and will find many applications, including aviation and auto gasoline, diesel, synthetic natural gas, naphtha, fertilizers, ammonia, urea, plastics and many others.

On April 9, 2007, Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour and Congressman Roger Wicker joined other state officials to kick off the Silverado Green Fuel Demonstration Project with a ground-breaking ceremony at the Red Hills EcoPlex site.
http://www.silveradogreenfuel.com/
The United States is literally loaded with this low-rank coal, enough to supply our energy needs for hundreds of years.
Here is another link to many other projects currently being studied in Mississippi, including alcohol from bio-mass production. Petroleum will eventually be replaced, but studies are needed to determine the best methods.
http://www.technologyalliance.ms/pointe-innovation/latest-issue.php

2inqusitive

Interesting post. Your basically correct about the history of alcohol powered cars in Brazil. They were originally only able to use alcohol and did get to be about 90% of sales, but then then in the 1990s the world price of sugar surged up and the supply of alcohol dried up as the processors of sugar cane made mainly sugar, - No need to waste time fermenting it and there are other steps and additional costs with converting sugar juice into alcohol.

For example, must add anti-biotics to control bacterial with cost of nearly 3 cents per liter of alcohol produced. Yeast used must be centrfuged out. etc. People waited in lines for hours to get a little alcohol so they could drive a little their alcohol only car. (Often muttering "Never again" while waiting.) Sales of them fell to zero of course and industry began to work on the current "flex fuel" verions (any mix of alcohol and gas is OK.) which do have nearly 90% of the sales again. It is true that rich people do import gasoline cars - big luxury models, but the price, even with the strong Real is much higher. Those BMWs, Mercedies, Toyota lexus, etc are much too expensive for the typical Brazilian.

I have not "ridiculed USA for not buying Brazilian alcohol" - I know USA does. What I have been saying is that it is stupid to make Joe American needless pay more for his fuel, pay higher taxes (for the subsidies to both corn and 50 cents/ gallon "bonus" to the alcohol producer) and pay more for his food. What the US needs to encourage, is the instalation of alcohol pumps and storage tanks at "gas stations" - I believe there are less than 300 in the entire US! IMHO, the current corn to alcohol program is a clever way to avoid decreasing oil imports, keep the flow of funds to the terrorists etc. while making Joe American believe the government is doing the opposite. GWB is careful to state the goal as to replace 20% of the gasoline with alcohol and Joe thinks incorrectly that will reduce oil imports (at best it is neutral, but probably slightly will increase them, according to university instead of oil/corn industry funded studies.)

Because of the news about (and direct experience in the grocery store) the increase in the cost of food this program is causing, the govenment has been increasingly describing it a getting ready for cellulosic alcohol. That is highly unlikely to be competitive with even $100/barrel oil. There are many complex steps to just get to the staring point of sugar cane, which gives a simple sugar (sacrine linked to glucose requiring only one cleavage, I think, if memory serves me correctly) solution by simple crushing of the cane.

For example, with cellulose as starting point, you must first get the ligium,* which binds the celulose fibers together, off. - It is basically a glue as wood etc. is nature's strong tough composite material, like fiber glass. Once you have that off, you must have enzimes to cut up the long complex celulose (very complex sugars) molecules. When that is done, you have mix of still complex sugar molecules, but smaller ones. Now you almost as well off as starting with potatoes** to make vodica, but not quite as there are yeasts developed by nature long ago to break down the complex sugars that are the "carbohydrates" of potatoes. The artificially produced "carbohydrates" from cellulose need different and yet to be developed, yeast. (I bought stock in Dervsa, now merged with Celunol to become Verenium, because they were carefully disecting the guts of termites to get some yeast produced by nature that can process celulose all the way to energy for the termite. - I believe nature usually is much more clever than man.)
----------------------
*Ligium is very versatile substance. Joke of the industry working on / with it is: "You can make anything from ligium, except money.") Often it is removed by boiling in acid solution, I think. If true, and US were to run on celulosic alcohol be preparted for some horendous water polition problems, worse than paper production by far I think. BTW, if you can buy natural color toilet paper, and are concerned about the enviroment do so - no need to promote the use of weak acid solution to bleach it white (It will be brown again anyway soon. :eek: :o )

**I dare you: Put a potatoe in a closed plastic bag, at room temperature, and then open it a week later. - A terrible sweet roughten stink will greet you.
-------------------------------
-------------------------------

Now about Silverado's "Green Fuel" - "a low cost, non-toxic, non-hazardous and environmentally friendly substitute for petroleum derived fuels mainly in industrial and utility boilers, gasifiers, and other advanced combustors. Initial process economics indicate that LRCWF can be produced from any American LRC for under $15 per barrel, on an oil equivalent energy basis. ..." ACCORDING TO THEIR CLAIMS. Fact they are a gold mining company's latest adventure, makes me very cautious in taking their word for this; but trying to keep an open mind, I did spend some time at their web site.

Not one chemical equation - just a lot of claims and vague words about their process. Very hard to believe that they can take cheap low quality coal and turn it into liquid fuel with zero release of CO2 etc. I do not think I will be investing in them. They exhibit all the chartacteristic I associate with a fraudlent scam, but I may be wrong.

Excerpts from one patent on the process:

The basic coal water mixture fuel technology has emerged as one potential answer to uncertain fuel oil supply to the electricity generating industry during the past two decades. As is evident from numerous patents in the field, coal water mixture technology provides methods to manufacture fuels based on finely pulverized coal and water and wherein different chemicals are used to enhance both the solids concentration of the fuels and the pumpability and combustibility of such slurry fuels.

Although it may well be said that coal water mixture fuels have proven technically and economically useful alternatives to fuel oil, it is equally true that considerable improvement over the present state of the art is required to fully utilize the potential benefits of the coal water fuel concept.

For example, U.S. Pat. No. 4,282,006 discloses a combination of particles of a claimed unique particle size distribution with dispersing chemicals and water to form particularly advantageous slurry fuels, and U.S. Pat. No. 4,358,293, discloses the use of nonionic surface active materials incorporating a hydrophobic portion and a hydrophilic portion comprising at least 100 repeating ethylene oxide units to form slurries of coal in water. In particular, the patent discloses a method of cleaning the finely divided coal which includes a pretreatment of the coal particles with various chemicals and oils to render their surfaces oleophilic and hydrophobic. Thus, cleaned coal is slurried with water and nonionic surfactants to yield directly burnable fuels. The fuels may also contain various salts and polymeric stabilizers which serve to keep the particles of pretreated coal in suspension.

U.S. Pat. No. 4,470,828 discloses compositions of coal water slurry fuels which have enhanced stability and pumpability. Combinations of certain chemicals are responsible for producing these advantageous effects. Thus, the patent teaches the use of particular anionic surface active agents in combination with either polyether polyols or esterified such compounds, or phosphated, sulphated or carboxylated such compounds.

Such teachings show that functioning slurries of fine coal in water can be made by paying attention to particle size distribution, coal surface conditioning and selection of dispersing chemicals. One patent, U.S. Pat. No. 4,501,205, even teaches the blending of different coals into the slurry. The patent teaches (col. 7, lines 17-25) the use of at least one coarse carbonaceous fraction, such as anthracite or low volatile bituminous coal and at least one fine carbonaceous fraction such as lignite, to make up the slurry solids. In other words, the patent teaches the use of at least two types of coal to make up the solids of the slurry whereby the fine fraction is a lower rank coal and the coarser fraction is a higher rank coal.

A particular weakness of present day coal-water mixture fuel technology appears to be a greatly increased need and decreasing efficiency of dispersing chemicals with decreasing rank of the coal involved. This predicament is doubly unfortunate because the mining cost of lower rank coals, i.e., coals with relatively high oxygen content, is normally significantly lower than that of high rank coals, i.e., coals with relatively low oxygen content. Slurry fuels based on lower rank coals could potentially offer very significant economic benefits as replacement fuels for increasingly scarce fuel oil produced from finite supplies. Lower rank coals as slurry fuel feedstock further offer the distinct environmental advantage of containing very low sulfur concentrations; in fact, lower than the high rank coals which are presently used as suitable coal-water mixture fuel feedstock.

Recent publications, such as "Effects of coal type, surfactant, and coal cleaning on the rheological properties of coal water mixtures" (Kaji et al., 5th International Symposium on Coal Slurry Combustion and Technology, U.S. DOE, Tampa, Fla., Apr. 25-27, 1983) clearly show that coals with higher oxygen contents, commonly exceeding some 6 to 8 weight precent in the ultimate analysis (ASTM procedure D3176-74 (1979), dry and mineral matter free basis) require high levels of addition of surface active dispersing agents before they flow, even at very low solids concentrations. In fact, using nonionic surface active dispersing agents in accordance with U.S. Pat. No. 4,358,293, or anionic dispersing agents as taught in e.g., U.S. Pat. No. 4,504,277, it has been found that lower rank coals, i.e., coals with more than 6-8% oxygen (ASTM D3176-74, dmmf) frequently require high amounts of dispersing agent. Such high addition levels bring the cost of manufacturing the slurry fuels to a level where the commercial feasibility suffers.

TO KMGURU:

Thanks for the post. I now understand that the low grade coal slurry is for fixed site power plant and industrial applications, not a liquid fuel for cars etc.
Thus I take back my suggestion that it may all be a fradulent scam. I have known that coal was sometimes pumped thru piplines for many years, The extra cost of crushing it fine more than compensated by the lower cost of pipeline than the rubber conveyer belt alternative when considerable distant of transport is required. I suspect that in some cases the coal water mix can make steam without the expense of the boiler both for power and chemical processing.

My intention when creating this thread, was focused on the need for MOBILE liquid fuel use, mainly this thread is about replacing gasoline use as a car fuel.

Billy T,
Not one chemical equation - just a lot of claims and vague words about their process. Very hard to believe that they can take cheap low quality coal and turn it into liquid fuel with zero release of CO2 etc. I do not think I will be investing in them. They exhibit all the chartacteristic I associate with a fraudlent scam, but I may be wrong.
You must not have read very much, Billy T. The hydrothermal treatment process is described in pretty fair detail at their site. After all, Silverado Green Fuel is a business interest that is not tempted to diverge their exact methods of production to possible competitors. In case you missed it, here is a cut & paste plus link to the process:
Right Side -- Microscopic View of Hydrothermally Treated LRC Particle: Hydrothermal treatment involves heating LRC to coal specific temperatures in an aqueous phase maintained by pressures above the saturated steam pressure somewhat analogous to pressure cooking. Water expands and is expelled from most of the pores when much of the oxygen in LRC is released as CO2 during heating. This eliminates most of the pore bound moisture and that held by the LRC's oxygen functionalities. When CO2 is lost, cations are also released into the water phase eliminating the inherent water associated with LRC cations. However, a key to permanent moisture removal is the evolution of some of the LRC volatile matter as waxy substances upon heating. Waxy material, being hydrophobic is retained on the LRC in the pressurized aqueous environment. Upon cooling it seals most of the micro-pores and limits moisture reabsorption. Following hydrothermal treatment there is a net increase in the energy content of the dry LRC since most of the volatile matter is retained and LRC carbon lost as CO2 has already been oxidized.


Even after HT, LRCs retain some of their oxygen functionality and are still somewhat hydrophilic, or water loving. Therefore, they have a much lower tendency than their bituminous coal-water fuel counterparts to settle rapidly. Some LRC produced fuels have shown almost no settling tendencies even when stored for months. For LRC produced fuels that do settle over time, the tendency is to produce a soft pack suspension that can be re-suspended by stirring. As opposed to some of their bituminous counterparts, no LRC produced fuels created to date, regardless of particle size distribution, have shown any tendency towards dilatent (tending to solidify), shear thickening, behavior. Consequently, the higher the shearing force applied, the lower the viscosity, which accounts for their ease of atomization. Therefore, generally no costly stability enhancing or viscosity reducing additives are used with LRC produced fuel. Instead, stirring and/or agitation are used to maintain a constant feed in storage and feed tanks. Typically the only additive recommended for Silverado’s Green Fuel is a biocide to prevent biological growth in fuel that is to be stored for some period of time before use.
http://www.silveradogreenfuel.com/ourfuel/process/
Also, Billy T, their claim was that no greenhouse gases are released into the atmosphere during the manufacturing process. The released CO2 is collected.

kmguru, you seem to have a mixture of patents involving two different processes. In the older patents, coal water slurry fuels are derived from simply grinding up high-rank coals and mixing the particles with water and additional chemicals to stabalize the mixture. In the new LRCWF fuels such as from Silvarado, no chemicals are needed for stabalization.

TO KMGURU:

Thanks for the post. I now understand that the low grade coal slurry is for fixed site power plant and industrial applications, not a liquid fuel for cars etc.
Thus I take back my suggestion that it may all be a fradulent scam. I have known that coal was sometimes pumped thru piplines for many years, The extra cost of crushing it fine more than compensated by the lower cost of pipeline than the rubber conveyer belt alternative when considerable distant of transport is required. I suspect that in some cases the coal water mix can make steam without the expense of the boiler both for power and chemical processing.

My intention when creating this thread, was focused on the need for MOBILE liquid fuel use, mainly this thread is about replacing gasoline use as a car fuel.
I think you still do not understand the technology. To put it very briefly, the basic slurry is what is projected to cost maybe $15 a barrel. That basic slurry has limited uses, such as for powering turbines in electricity producing plants. There is a new process developed by Texaco, sold by G.E., that uses the slurry in high pressure liquid fed gasifiers to refine the slurry into a product called synthesis gas. This synthesis gas can then be refined by a number of Fischer Tropsch processes to produce automobile gas, diesel, fertilizer, and many other petrochemical products. Silverado's product is a high quality particulate matter that can be shipped dry for economy, then later mixed with water to produce the stable slurry that can either be used directly for electricity generating, or refined into various products such as auto gasoline. It is something like refining crude oil into various products.

I think you still do not understand the technology. To put it very briefly, the basic slurry is what is projected to cost maybe $15 a barrel. That basic slurry has limited uses, such as for powering turbines in electricity producing plants. There is a new process developed by Texaco, sold by G.E., that uses the slurry in high pressure liquid fed gasifiers to refine the slurry into a product called synthesis gas. This synthesis gas can then be refined by a number of Fischer Tropsch processes to produce automobile gas, diesel, fertilizer, and many other petrochemical products. Silverado's product is a high quality particulate matter that can be shipped dry for economy, then later mixed with water to produce the stable slurry that can either be used directly for electricity generating, or refined into various products such as auto gasoline. It is something like refining crude oil into various products.How, if at all, does this differ from what the Germans did in WWII to make liquid fuel? Starting with coal to make liquid fuel with the Fischer Tropsch processes is both expensive and makes twice as much CO2 compared to just using oil - how can they call that "environmentally friendly"?

FROM search of wiki (on "Fischer-Tropsch" ):
"... gasification of coal or biomass:

C + H2O → H2 + CO
The energy needed for this endothermic reaction of coal or biomass and steam is usually provided by (exothermic) combustion with air or oxygen. This leads to the following reaction:

2C + O2 → 2CO
The mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen is called synthesis gas or syngas. The resulting hydrocarbon products are refined to produce the desired synthetic fuel.

The carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide is generated by partial oxidation of coal and wood-based fuels. The utility of the process is primarily in its role in producing fluid hydrocarbons from a solid feedstock, such as coal or solid carbon-containing wastes of various types.
...
Syntroleum, a publicly traded US company (Nasdaq: SYNM) has produced over 400,000 gallons of diesel and jet fuel from the Fischer-Tropsch process at its demonstration plant near Tulsa, Oklahoma. Syntroleum is working to commercialize its proprietary* Fischer-Tropsch technology via coal-to-liquid plants in the US, China, and Germany,
...
large-scale development of synthetic fuels is the increase in primary energy use and carbon emissions inherent in conversion of gaseous and solid carbon sources to a usable liquid form, assuming the energy used to drive the process comes from burning coal or hydrocarbon fuels. Recent work by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory indicates that full fuel cycle greenhouse gas emissions for coal-based synfuels are nearly twice as high as their petroleum-based equivalent. ... "
-----------------------
*I am sure that Silverado has some minor twist (probably patentable) as Syntroleum no doubt does on the basic Fischer-Tropsch process, but given the long period since it was invented and the essentially unlimited funds and high skills of German WWII chemists, it is very hard to believe they have any thing significantly improving it. - I.e. still a greater contributor to green house gases than just using petroleum for liquid fuel. This is in contrast to sugar cane based alcohol which significantly reduces the GHGs the more it is used to displace oil and is at least "caron neutral" or slightly negative CO2 source as some that was in the air is sequestered in various storage systems (every thing from ocean tankers to your car's fuel tank.) plus the cane stocks and roots plowed into the soil.
If we want to reduce CO2 release to the atmosphere, we need to let green plants of today (not their residue, now coal and oil, safely sequested) be the solar energy we use. All energy is from the stars, if you go back far enough. Releasing the safely stored energy in coal and oil is the problem, not the solution.

Billy T,
How, if at all, does this differ from what the Germans did in WWII to make liquid fuel? Starting with coal to make liquid fuel with the Fischer Tropsch processes is both expensive and makes twice as much CO2 compared to just using oil - how can they call that "environmentally friendly"?
Pay attention Billy T. Silverado does not use the Fischer Tropsch process at all. They use hydrothermal treatment of low-rank coals to produce the particles for the slurry. They capture the CO2 that is produced rather than letting it escape into the atmosphere. The product they produce is free of heavy metals and sulfur, and burns cleanly unlike bituminous CWF when it is later used for liquid fuel production in the Fischer Tropsch process. The product produced by Silverado is both cheaper and cleaner than the natural gas or conventional CWF slurry used in most current Fischer Tropsch processes. The greenhouse gasses that are produced during the FT process can be captured, much like Silverado does in their initial processing.

You seem to overlook the enviromental pollution caused by sugarcane growing and harvesting. In addition to the NO given off during growing, burning the sugarcane crops to get rid of the leaves before harvesting is very polluting. The cane cutters have many serious lung diseases from the ash and many others suffer because of the ash released into the atmosphere.
Ethanol as a fuel pollutes at least 13 percent less than gasoline, says Alex Farrell, a University of California, Berkeley, economist who published a study about ethanol's environmental effects. Although ethanol is cleaner than gasoline, its production pollutes the air and makes people sick in Brazil, São Paulo Governor José Serra says. Brazilian farmers set fire to their fields the night before harvest to burn off leaves that get in the way of cutters. Last year, cane fires consumed an area the size of Haiti. They spewed 750,000 tons of particles into the skies over São Paulo state, Serra says. The burning causes a 20-50 percent increase in hospital and doctor visits for bronchitis, asthma and other respiratory illnesses in people who live in São Paulo's sugar cane belt, according to Amâncio, the government doctor who specializes in sugar cane health issues.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aYPvjBb8QWi8

Lightweight batteries are the holy grail of the homebuilt electric car industry, but I don't expect them to be easily available in my lifetime.

The new lithium/polymer batteries are very light, but expensive.

...Silverado does not use the Fischer Tropsch process at all. They use hydrothermal treatment of low-rank coals to produce the particles for the slurry. They capture the CO2 that is produced rather than letting it escape into the atmosphere....OK. how do they "capture" the CO2? and where is the carbon that was once in the low quality coal?

Also how is the heat generated for the "hydrothermal" process?
It would help me undestand if there was at least some indication of the chemical reactions used, together with brief text. For example, something like:

C + O2 + 4N2--> CO2 & heat +4N2

I.e. part of the crushed coal carbon is burnt with oxygen of the air to supply the heat that drives contaminates like sulpher from another part of the crushed coal...

BTW, buring fields is very common in Brazil's agriculture, especially pastures. There are no bug killing freezes, so fire is used. The burning of cane, a one time per year event, is decreasing. Less than half of the fields now, I think, as not done when mechanical havest is done. The company I have a stock interest in, San Martino, has already reached about 85% mechanical harvesting. -It is more economical with machines being amortized. Thus, machines are replacing the cutters. Next year there will be a social problem, but re-training of some for other jobs has started. more machines being used is reason why number of cutter is about same (slightly more) as in last harvest despite much greater increase in the acres in cane. Cities on annual average are dozens of times more polluted than the fields growing cane.

The new lithium/polymer batteries are very light, but expensive.

Exactly, and it costs next to nothing to set up to make hempseed oil.

Billy T,
OK. how do they "capture" the CO2? and where is the carbon that was once in the low quality coal?
I only learned of this process a short while ago. I would imagine they 'capture' the CO2 by similar methods that it is captured in other industrial processes for later use in enhanced oil recovery or sequestering, wouldn't you? The carbon is in the 'C' in CO2. :D It was all explained at my link, which you obviously didn't read after asking me for specifics of the processing. Here it is again:
http://www.silveradogreenfuel.com/ourfuel/process/
Also how is the heat generated for the "hydrothermal" process?
Through the use of energy. I don't think they use open fires by burning sugarcane stalks like they use in producing Brazil's moonshine, though. :D
Here is a more in-depth explaination as the Silverado fuel is delivered to electric plants for use and for being converted by the Texaco technology into synthetic gas for further refining into auto gasoline and other petrochemical products:
http://www.silveradogreenfuel.com/ourfuel/technology/

Billy T,
I.e. part of the crushed coal carbon is burnt with oxygen of the air to supply the heat that drives contaminates like sulpher from another part of the crushed coal...
It has already been explained that this new process with low-rank coals produces a virtually sulpher-free product. The low rank coals themselves have a much lower sulpher content than high rank coals. You keep confusing the new process with what you have read of the old German process on wiki.

I have just encountered some website problems at one of my links, although the other seems to work fine. I suppose it is just temporary.

To 2inqusitive:

neither of the last posts links is working for me just now, but i read the first earlier (or at leas one of them, quite extensively and quoted parts of it in my reply. - I visited at least 5 sub pages, inaddition to the home page, looking for some facts, rather than claims. As I complained before not one chemical formulae to be found, not one line of non vague text explaning the process.

Even you do not seem to know how the carbon removed from the Earth (coal)is sequestered, or where the heat for the "hydrothermic process" comes from. Your answer that it comes from "energy" is at best amusing, but as vague as their "information."

I am not, despite what it may seem, hostile -I only want some specifics, not just claims that this process is "enviromentally freindly" economic, heavy metal free, sulpher free, etc.

I have no reason to believe that low grade coal is more free of contaminates than high grade coal -Do you? if not and the dig it up where do they go? It is "low grade" as it has less carbon per ton - ergo - it has more of some other things per ton, and I doubt that water is the only "other thing."

Billy T, it took me about 15 seconds to find the information to dispell your speculation about the sulfur content of some of the low rank coals. This paper is an older one before the current production methods were discovered to eliminate most all the moisture through hydrothermic processing.
UPGRADING LOW RANK COAL USING THE KOPPELMAN SERIES C PROCESS
Norman W. Merriam (NMERRIAM@UWYO.EDU; 307-721-2296)
Western Research Institute
365 North Ninth St
Laramie, Wyoming 82072-3380
This research and development is sponsored by the U. S Department of Energy’s Federal Energy
Technology Center , Under Cooperative Agreement DE-FE21-93MC30127 with Western Research
Institute
INTRODUCTION
Development of the K-Fuelâ technology began after the energy shortage of the early 1970s in the
United States led energy producers to develop the huge deposits of low-sulfur coal in the Powder
River Basin (PRB) of Wyoming. PRB coal is a subbituminous C coal containing about 30 wt %
moisture and having heating values of about 18.6 megajoules/kg (8150 Btu/lb). PRB coal contains
from 0.3 to 0.5 wt % sulfur, which is nearly all combined with the organic matrix in the coal. It is in
much demand for boiler fuel because of the low-sulfur content and the low price. However, the
low-heating value limits the markets for PRB coal to boilers specially designed for the high-moisture
coal. Thus, the advantages of the low-sulfur content are not available to many potential customers
having boilers that were designed for bituminous coal.
http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/293400-v4U7Zf/webviewable/293400.PDF
Billy T, I thought it should be clear that the energy to heat the slurry can come in many different forms, from burning bio-mass (;)) to using a part of the slurry itself. Remember, they are not using energy to make new energy, but to enhance the removal of the energy already stored in the low rank coals.

Billy T, it took me about 15 seconds to find the information to dispell your speculation about the sulfur content of some of the low rank coals. ....Billy T, I thought it should be clear that the energy to heat the slurry can come in many different forms, from burning bio-mass (;)) to using a part of the slurry itself. Remember, they are not using energy to make new energy, but to enhance the removal of the energy already stored in the low rank coals.I never "speculated about sulfer" - I ILLUSTRATED WHAT TYPE OF INFORMATION I WAS HOPING TO SEE (a chemical formulae and some related text). In my illustration I mentioned sulpher as that is a common contaminate in most fossel fuels. I only made an illustration as you were being dense - not understanding that I wanted some facts, not claims. I was reduced to illustrating the nature of the facts I sought - I was not giving any. I only was illustrating what they might look like.

I know there are many sources of energy. I have been asking for specifics, complaining that the silverado paper is vague on specifice and long on claims. You are being equally vague, telling me heat comes from energy.

Only solar energy (including wind, water and nuclear energy forms of it) and "tidal" energy do not release CO2. They claim not to release CO2. Are they using any of these non CO2 releasing forms in their "hydrothermal process" ? - I think not.

When I ask for where the heat for the hydroTHERMAL process comes from (with out releasing CO2) it is silly to tell me "energy." You are not so dense that you do not understand what I am questioning in their "enviromentally friendly" claim when I specifically ask where the heat comes from.

If you can not give any of the specifics I am seeking either, then lets drop it. You can blindly accept their claims and I can continue to doubt them, until I have some specific information.