Food Rationing Confronts Breadbasket of the World

Topspin said:
Luck, at least your trying. Read some more. All the grassland in the country for cellulosic ethanol wouldn't replace 10% of our oil. Reducing imports can't be done without massive increases in where we can domestically drill, an explosion of hybrids and wind farms will all be needed.
Click to expand...

I agree that we need domestic drilling in both the Gulf and ANWAR in order to reduce our exposure to foreign dependency.

We must continue to improve technology within solar, fuel cell, wind, geothermal, biofuels (non-grain) for long term solutions while drilling our own domestic supply for the short term. Unfortunately we have stalled so friggin long that it will take years to get our supply on line.
 
Topspin said:
Luck, at least your trying. Read some more. All the grassland in the country for cellulosic ethanol wouldn't replace 10% of our oil. Reducing imports can't be done without massive increases in where we can domestically drill, an explosion of hybrids and wind farms will all be needed.
Click to expand...
Additional figures:

The U.S. uses approximately 10 million barrels of gasoline per day.* That turns out to be about 153 billion gallons per year. The energy equivalent of ethanol (.67 that of gasoline) would be 228 billion gallons of ethanol. At 1150 gallons ethanol per acre** (which would not factor in those areas where two cuttings of switch grass or other cellulose crops a year are possible) we would need 198 million acres of switch grass to COMPLETELY replace our gasoline usage. We have available, some 285 million acres of grasslands, which does not include 365 million acres of shrub lands and 178 million acres of pasture and hayfields.***

* http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/quickfacts/quickoil.html

**http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/2/7/12145/81957

***http://www.heinzctr.org/ecosystems/grass/area.shtml

So there is plenty of room in undeveloped grasslands alone to harvest enough biomatter to entirely replace our gasoline consumption with ethanol.

(you see, I DO read.)
 
Superfreak said:
As opposed to what?.... Russia drilling more wells? Venezuela drilling more wells? Who is going to take greater care in the drilling process? Not to mention the area of land that would be needed at this point is approximately the size of LAX. Fear mongering is the reason we are so dependent upon foreign oil. Side note.... what is a greater danger.... piping the oil here or shipping it here?

Drilling in the Gulf is also an option.

Biofuels are ok, so long as we are not using our food to produce them.
Click to expand...
We already agree on not using food crops for energy.

As for drilling, Russia, Venezuela, et.al. are going to do their drilling anyway. That does not mean we need to ignore ecosystem risks when we drill.

We already have (comparatively) eco-friendly drilling methods. It should not take a great deal of time or effort to customize and/or improve them to meet the needs for minimal impact in anwar. Considering it will most likely take longer to get congress to allow the drilling in the first place, such efforts would not be wasted. In fact working hard to develop better eco-friendly drilling techniques may well hasten the day when congress finally does relent and allow drilling there.
 
Good Luck said:
We already agree on not using food crops for energy.

As for drilling, Russia, Venezuela, et.al. are going to do their drilling anyway. That does not mean we need to ignore ecosystem risks when we drill.

We already have (comparatively) eco-friendly drilling methods. It should not take a great deal of time or effort to customize and/or improve them to meet the needs for minimal impact in anwar. Considering it will most likely take longer to get congress to allow the drilling in the first place, such efforts would not be wasted. In fact working hard to develop better eco-friendly drilling techniques may well hasten the day when congress finally does relent and allow drilling there.
Click to expand...

This Eco-friendly drilling bullshit is an ignorant canard. Please shut up, regarding them.
 
fortune magazine made the quote on ethonal luck, I'll go with them over some hack.
Freak we need all alt just to stem our own decline, any talk of eliminating imports without increasing acreage of drilling is comical.
domestic energy companies are spending bou cou millions on alternatives, we have biodiesel, and huge geothermal investments.
 
Topspin said:
fortune magazine made the quote on ethonal luck, I'll go with them over some hack.
Freak we need all alt just to stem our own decline, any talk of eliminating imports without increasing acreage of drilling is comical.
domestic energy companies are spending bou cou millions on alternatives, we have biodiesel, and huge geothermal investments.
Click to expand...
The claims made that we have enough biomass for ethanol needs (using cellulose sources) are backed by hard facts. We DO have over 285 million acres of grasslands, not to mention 365 million acres of scrub lands, both of which can be used to produce cellulose biomass. The per-acre harvest of switch grass and the per-ton yield of ethanol in full scale production facilities DOES average to 1150 gallons per acre. 5 years ago it was about 800 gal./acre, but the techniques have been improved.

The average amount of trash generated per person by our society has long been a topic. The amount of that trash that is cellulose (paper products, etc.) and other plant matter (left over food and food waste, etc.) is well established, as is the ethanol yield from processing waste cellulose.

In short, anyone claiming that cellulose sources in the U.S. would max out at replacing 10% of our oil use is the hack. Did your "fortune" magazine quote back up its claim, or was it an out-of-the-ass claim made on the opinion pages?
 
an luck you'll need more than your $2 calculator to make that work.
Saying it can happen is lightyears away from realization. Are you and engineer? Cause in business somebody has to foot the bill for the fantasy project.
 
Topspin said:
an luck you'll need more than your $2 calculator to make that work.
Saying it can happen is lightyears away from realization. Are you and engineer? Cause in business somebody has to foot the bill for the fantasy project.
Click to expand...
As with any project, the first step is determining if a goal is attainable. The second step is determining what is needed to attain the goal. The third step is assembling the resources needed.

How does any new business get started? After steps 1 and 2 (Is it viable, and what will it take to start), people interested in starting the business pool their money, and get others interested to supply some venture capital. From the venture capital they build the beginning infrastructure, start producing whatever product, sell the product, and use a significant portion of the profit to expand and/or consolidate their market.

I already SAID it will take several years to get started. But I also support that the time for pushing biofuels has come. You seem to want people to give up on the idea because it won't happen over night. Only an idiot thinks it will happen over night.

But it is getting started. Step one is finished. Cellulosic ethanol can be produced on an industrial level. Step two is far enough along several companies have shifted or are starting to shift to step three. And as long as oil keeps increasing in price well above the inflation rate, the rate of developing the biofuels industry will only accelerate.

Two different U.S. companies are in the process, as we speak, of building multiple pilot cellulosic ethanol plants. They see what the future holds and are willing to put their money into it. Like the beginning of the internet, those that get involved early will be the ones to profit the most. The government has subsidized the construction of sugar based ethanol plants. It would not take much to convert those plants to cellulosic production when it is shown to be more effective by having larger resource base to draw from.

But all you can do is come out with bullshit reason after bullshit reason why it CANNOT happen, or the results will have a minimal impact on oil imports (10% my Aunt Sadie's bloomers.) or how it will take generations, or even call it a fantasy. You can ridicule, deny, flame, kibitz and dance all you want, but that will not change the facts that shifting a large portion of our energy needs to biofuels is not only possible, but people are actively making it happen far sooner than you want to admit.
 
Luck, dude keep your pants on.
I'm just pointing out we are not only not on the verge of getting rid of imported oil. We are on the verge of not being able to meet our domestic needs with all the alternatives under the rosiest of forecast.
Not only does my company pump millions into alternative, I've made some nice change in Hybrid batteries and solar myself. I'd go so far as to say I'm prob the most heavily invested poster in alternative sources of energy.
 
Good Luck said:
Additional figures:

The U.S. uses approximately 10 million barrels of gasoline per day.* That turns out to be about 153 billion gallons per year. The energy equivalent of ethanol (.67 that of gasoline) would be 228 billion gallons of ethanol. At 1150 gallons ethanol per acre** (which would not factor in those areas where two cuttings of switch grass or other cellulose crops a year are possible) we would need 198 million acres of switch grass to COMPLETELY replace our gasoline usage. We have available, some 285 million acres of grasslands, which does not include 365 million acres of shrub lands and 178 million acres of pasture and hayfields.***

* http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/quickfacts/quickoil.html

**http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/2/7/12145/81957

***http://www.heinzctr.org/ecosystems/grass/area.shtml

So there is plenty of room in undeveloped grasslands alone to harvest enough biomatter to entirely replace our gasoline consumption with ethanol.

(you see, I DO read.)
Click to expand...

Good info... I will read in more detail... thanks.
 
WOW we are knee deep in the switchgrass pile now.
Here's a hint we're not using the term billions are far as switchgrass ethonal sales yet are we. LOL
 
Good Luck said:
We already agree on not using food crops for energy.

As for drilling, Russia, Venezuela, et.al. are going to do their drilling anyway. That does not mean we need to ignore ecosystem risks when we drill.

We already have (comparatively) eco-friendly drilling methods. It should not take a great deal of time or effort to customize and/or improve them to meet the needs for minimal impact in anwar. Considering it will most likely take longer to get congress to allow the drilling in the first place, such efforts would not be wasted. In fact working hard to develop better eco-friendly drilling techniques may well hasten the day when congress finally does relent and allow drilling there.
Click to expand...

I did not say we need to ignore eco risks... if I was unclear let me restate... we have the ability to do a better job at being eco-friendly than Russia or Venezuela... as we can control what our companies do with our resources...

Considering the current drilling techniques they are now estimating total land usage equivalent to the size of LAX. Obviously we would have to upgrade the current pipelines as well... but additional space is not needed in great quantity.
 
Topspin said:
WOW we are knee deep in the switchgrass pile now.
Here's a hint we're not using the term billions are far as switchgrass ethonal sales yet are we. LOL
Click to expand...

Again toppy... just because we are not CURRENTLY doing something doesn't mean we cannot switch focus. The reason we have not been using switchgrass is because it was easier to use corn. Now that people see what happens to food prices when you use 15% of our grain on ethanol.... do you think they are going to say....

"gee, we have been using corn, so we should continue doing so despite the fact that my food bill just skyrocketed"

or would they be more likely to say....

"we have an alternative? and you bastards are still using our food for fuel? Time for change... you implement it... or we will."
 
I totally agree, I did read it was less cost effective than corn though.
AGAIN, I'm for ALL alternatives.
I just rejecting the kicking the oil out to the street so fast scenerio.
 
Topspin said:
I totally agree, I did read it was less cost effective than corn though.
AGAIN, I'm for ALL alternatives.
I just rejecting the kicking the oil out to the street so fast scenerio.
Click to expand...
I never said we'd kick all oil out in the street. I said we need to get rid of oil IMPORTS and cellulosic ethanol is our best bet to do that considering current infrastructures and resources. Much of our current infrastructure is built to use liquid fuel. Other alternates would require a significant shift in infrastructure in addition to shifting energy source. With ethanol all we are doing is shifting energy source without the need rebuild our energy infrastructure. And unlike corn as a biomass, we have the capability of producing enough cellulose biomass to make a MUCH larger difference in oil usage.

The cost effective comparison of corn to cellulose is very complex. From a pure dollars and cents POV, cellulosic ethanol is more expensive to produce. However, from an energy gain POV, cellulosic ethanol has a 4:1 return (we get 4 units of energy out for every unit of energy used to produce) while corn ethanol has a 1.5:1 return. Corn as a crop takes a lot more energy to produce than cellulosic crops. And if you throw in waste cellulose as a biomass source, cellulosic ethanol increases to 6:1.

Unfortunately it is impossible to calculate an "average" between the economic and energy costs. The dollars and cents comparison - which cellulose loses, cannot be ignored. But neither should the energy gain equation be ignored, which corn loses.

And then there is a third factor: impact on food availability and price, which corn loses. It may be possible to statistically analyze the cost increase in food grains due to ethanol production, and add that to the cost of corn ethanol. If so, I'd bet the numbers would crunch out in favor of cellulosic ethanol, even if on the surface it costs more per gallon to produce.
 
your grandkids will be dead before we kick imports even with the best possible ethonal outcome. That's all I'm saying.
 
Topspin said:
your grandkids will be dead before we kick imports even with the best possible ethonal outcome. That's all I'm saying.
Click to expand...
And I am saying your prediction is way pessimistic in light of the current rate oil prices are increasing. Oil prices are pushing the search for alternatives harder than ever. Add to that the fact that the current balance of power in the federal government makes it HIGHLY unlikely we'll be able to significantly increase domestic oil production, plus the current tendency for various government officials to be on the AGW wagon, and we have an economic, social AND political environment that is very much in favor of accelerating the search for and production of alternate fuels.

You say my grandkids will be dead before it happens. That's fine, except I believe your prediction is colored by your professional relationship to oil.

I say we'll see oil imports drop significantly in the next 10-15 years, and drop to near zero inside of 25 years. Barring accident, I have a good chance of seeing both events.
 
The trap has be set, hopefully you don't feel the bear claws to tight. LOFL
Ok guy's time for you to start reading. Oil imports are going up not down. Domestic production is falling by several % each year. All alternatives are well below 5%. Do the math.
 
Topspin said:
The trap has be set, hopefully you don't feel the bear claws to tight. LOFL
Ok guy's time for you to start reading. Oil imports are going up not down. Domestic production is falling by several % each year. All alternatives are well below 5%. Do the math.
Click to expand...

You really do have a severe problem with looking forward don't you? You continue to look at the past data and say... this cannot change.

Very similar to your idiocy with regards to the economy back in November of last year. Clinging desperately to backwared looking data.

Yes, oil imports are going up.... as are prices. That will continue UNLESS we take action to reverse that trend.

Alternatives being below 5% DOES NOT MEAN THEY HAVE TO STAY BELOW 5% toppy.

Seriously.... all that money you spent on an MBA.... you should really ask for a refund. You are below those GEDers you make fun of so often.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top