And as I mentioned in another thread:MonteQuest wrote:Solving the Problem of Liquid Fuels
With the entire media abuzz about renewable energy and climate change, it appears to be masking the major energy issue, which is a declining amount of cheap and readily available liquid fuel. We know this to be a serious issue, as we already feed 40% of the US corn crop to our machines, via a 10% blend of ethanol in our gasoline. 13% of our soybean crop goes to a 5% blend of biodiesel in our diesel fuel.
Keith_McClary wrote:Looks like "renewable" ethanol is made with fossil water:
87% of irrigated U.S. corn is grown in regions with high or extremely high water stress, meaning there is limited additional water available for expansion of crop irrigation.
Twelve ethanol refineries above the High Plains aquifer – with nearly $1.7 billion in annual corn ethanol production capacity – are sourcing corn in areas experiencing cumulative declines in groundwater levels. Six of these refineries are in regions of extreme water-level decline (between 50-150 feet).
http://www.ceres.org/issues/water/agric ... st-of-corn
I also posted this in the Drought thread.
Yes especially now at less then $3.00 a US gallon.Shaved Monkey wrote:Obviously its still cheap compared to wages in the US or you would see smaller cars and more public transport,like in Europe
MonteQuest wrote:Solving the Problem of Liquid Fuels
With the entire media abuzz about renewable energy and climate change, it appears to be masking the major energy issue, which is a declining amount of cheap and readily available liquid fuel. We know this to be a serious issue, as we already feed 40% of the US corn crop to our machines, via a 10% blend of ethanol in our gasoline. 13% of our soybean crop goes to a 5% blend of biodiesel in our diesel fuel.
While renewable energies in the form of wind/solar/geothermal, etc, help to address our electrical power demand, they offer little in the way of alleviating our liquid fuel dilemma.
Or do they?
Will renewables be used on an ever increasing scale to generate hydrogen to replace gasoline or to extract uneconomical oil, or oil that has an EROEI<1? Or, will we subsidize uneconomical oil extraction?
Look at the countries that already subsidize gasoline. Prices range from $9.79/gallon in Norway to $.04/gallon in Venezuela.
The 1.2 billion fleet of ICE powered vehicles on the road isn’t going to be replaced anytime soon with electric vehicles. There are just too many and more coming---2 billion by 2035. Not to mention, that starting in 2011, we produce 200 million ICE engines every year to power everything from weed wackers and chainsaws, to power plants and ships at sea.
In my mind, the utility of liquid fuels is just too great and too necessary, for our complex system to function without them.
vtsnowedin wrote:My first step would be to stop the production of corn ethanol as a waste of energy.
DesuMaiden wrote: When oil becomes too scarce, driving cars and riding on airplanes will cease to exist because automobiles and airplanes depend on oil which is no longer available.
DesuMaiden wrote: I believe we will have to go back to horses as our primary transportation method as oil becomes too scarce.
vtsnowedin wrote: And finally raise fuel taxes a lot to discourage unneeded use and accelerate the turnover of the automobile and truck fleet to more efficient or alternative designs.
Perhaps but the growing and transport of the corn uses a lot of diesel. Why don't we remove all the mandates and subsidies that push corn ethanol and let the industry decide how much to produce. After all they do use some ethanol to modify octane blends.MonteQuest wrote:vtsnowedin wrote:My first step would be to stop the production of corn ethanol as a waste of energy.
Sure, it may be slightly energy positive or not, but as long as you don't use fuels that would otherwise run ICE's, then producing ethanol will help our liquid fuel problem, may say the protectors of BAU.
Currently, the process heat is usually supplied by natural gas, and the electricity is generated with coal or natural gas. If coal remains abundant and cheap, coal economics will beat natural gas economics, but coal will increase the rate at which we put carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
TPTB may not much care, especially if they are GOP.
MonteQuest wrote:vtsnowedin wrote: And finally raise fuel taxes a lot to discourage unneeded use and accelerate the turnover of the automobile and truck fleet to more efficient or alternative designs.
Selectively, or overall? Would you raise taxes on recreation use vehicles but not on commuters or service vehicles?
They will consume the same amount regardless of price, since little can be done to shorten routes. Service trucks will pass on the tax to their clients as a fuel surcharge, which is already being done.
Where will the money come from to finance an early turnover of the fleet of 1.3 billion headed to 2 billion?
CAFE standards are already in place and reducing fuel use.
vtsnowedin wrote:Why don't we remove all the mandates and subsidies that push corn ethanol and let the industry decide how much to produce.
MonteQuest wrote:vtsnowedin wrote:Why don't we remove all the mandates and subsidies that push corn ethanol and let the industry decide how much to produce.
Because we need the liquid fuel. That's the point. Forget economics.
vtsnowedin wrote: If the fuel tax is high enough and stays that way heavy freight will move to rail and shorten delivery routes.
The money for a more rapid fleet turnover will come from the fuel savings and out of the consumers pocket,(just like always).
vtsnowedin wrote: With an EROEI of just 1.1 they would be better off just using the fossil fuel as end product and save all the added labor and interest costs.
MonteQuest wrote:Long-haul trucking to short-haul to rail? Never happen.
Consumers aren't going to be getting any fuel savings. What incentive will there be for the average consumer to go into debt and buy a new car sooner than the normal 14 years? There will have to be a huge tax break or subsidy. Where will this money come from?
MonteQuest wrote:vtsnowedin-TPTB wish to continue BAU. That's why instead of raising fuel taxes to curb demand for liquid fuels, they opted instead to try to increase them via biofuels, coal to liquids, hydrogen, etc.
I think this will continue to be the play. And I wonder if it will come to outright subsidies to increase liquid fuel production, at all costs, to maintain the status quo.
Maybe China and it's authoritarian govt could instill such taxes, but here in the US, you would have to get them past Congress which just became controlled by the tax opposition party.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 67 guests