Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: No New Refineries to be Built:: Blame Ethanol

  1. #1
    Chief of Naval Operations johnnymk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    LEVITTOWN< PA> USA
    Posts
    13,621

    No New Refineries to be Built:: Blame Ethanol

    Another short sighted decision by this administration.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/24/bu..._r=1&th&emc=th

    Gas prices are spiking again — to an average of $3.22 a gallon, and close to $4 a gallon in many areas.

    And some oil executives are now warning that the current shortages of fuel could become a long-term problem, leading to stubbornly higher prices at the pump.

    They point to a surprising culprit: uncertainty created by the government’s push to increase the supply of biofuels like ethanol in coming years.

    In his State of the Union address in January, President Bush called for a sharp increase in the use of biofuels, along with some improvement in automobile fuel efficiency to reduce America’s use of gasoline by 20 percent within 10 years. Congress is considering legislation calling for a nearly fivefold increase in the use of ethanol.

    That has forced many oil companies to reconsider or scale back their plans for constructing new refinery capacity.

    In hearings before Congress last year, oil executives outlined plans to increase fuel production by expanding existing refineries. Those plans would add capacity of 1.6 million to 1.8 million barrels a day over the next five years, for an increase of 10 percent, according to the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association.

    But those plans have since been scaled back to more than one million barrels a day, according to the Energy Information Administration, an arm of the federal government.

    “If the national policy of the country is to push for dramatic increases in the biofuels industry, this is a disincentive for those making investment decisions on expanding capacity in oil products and refining,” said John D. Hofmeister, the president of the Shell Oil Company. “Industrywide, this will have an impact.”

    The concerns were echoed in a recent report by Barclays Capital, which said the uncertainty about the ethanol growth “will do little to accelerate desperately needed investment in complex United States refining units.”

    “Indeed, it is likely to deter and further delay investment, if not rule out many refinery investments completely.”

    Even so, the current cost of gas — which in real terms is approaching the old peak of $1.42 a gallon in March 1981, or $3.31 adjusted for inflation — has renewed suspicions that the oil industry is looking for ways to keep profits high by delaying much-needed investments. Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, began hearings yesterday on the topic “Is Market Concentration in the U.S. Petroleum Industry Harming Consumers?”

    And the House voted yesterday by a narrow margin to penalize any oil companies, traders or retailers found to be charging “unconscionably excessive” prices for gasoline and other fuels. President Bush will probably veto the measure because the White House has said such legislation would amount to price controls.

    Experts point to many short-term reasons the United States is running low on gasoline, causing prices to rise: many oil companies are doing maintenance work on refineries; new federal rules make fuels cleaner but costlier; and a string of delays, fires and accidents in the industry have reduced supplies just when drivers are starting to hit the road for summer vacations. Many analysts predict prices will keep rising, then soften later in the summer as demand trails off.

    Energy executives dismissed any suggestions that they were intentionally keeping gasoline off the market.

    The oil companies say their views on the longer-term prospects for fuel reflect simple economics. Because of the enormous investments required to expand refineries, they say they have no other choice but to re-examine their plans in light of the calls for more ethanol fuel, regardless of how realistic they may be.

    “The policy environment has shifted dramatically,” said Mike Wirth, head of global refining business for Chevron. “There is a great risk that has been introduced to projects, predicated upon increasing supplies, that the demand may not be there.”

    Refineries are a choke point in the nation’s supply of fuel. Because they have not invested enough in refineries to increase gasoline supplies, oil companies have been unable to meet the country’s growing demand in recent years. That has forced them to rely on imports, which are more expensive than fuel refined domestically.

    The fragility of the refining system became apparent after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005. At the time, President Bush offered to reopen some military bases as sites for constructing refineries and Congress passed legislation to encourage refiners.

    But oil companies rejected the idea of constructing new refineries in the United States, saying it would be impractical and too expensive.

    As a result of the push for biofuels, and encouraged by federal subsidies and grants, dozens of ethanol distilleries are being planned. These investments should double the annual production of ethanol from corn to 15 billion gallons by 2012 from about 6 billion gallons today.

    But given farmland constraints and the need to use corn for food, that is as much ethanol as can possibly be produced from corn, according to the ethanol industry’s own calculations. Ethanol producers recognize that it is not clear how an additional 20 billion gallons of ethanol — President Bush has called for 35 billion gallons of biofuels by 2017 — would be produced from cellulose or biomass.

    “The current thinking is that based on today’s technology, we suspect corn-based ethanol will generate at least 15 billion gallons,” said Brian Jennings, the executive vice president of the American Coalition for Ethanol, an association of ethanol and corn producers. “Beyond that, it’s uncertain. The marketplace will make that determination on where it will come from.”

    Yet some members of Congress would like to make the president’s goal for biofuels a mandatory target — the equivalent of 2.3 million barrels a day that would, in effect, create an ethanol industry roughly the size of world-class oil producers like Kuwait or Nigeria.

    The economics of cellulosic ethanol, made from nonfood crops and agricultural waste, are also unclear. Since cellulosic ethanol, still at an experimental stage, is twice as expensive as corn-based ethanol, there are currently no commercial-scale cellulosic plants.

    Lawrence Goldstein, an energy analyst at the Energy Policy Research Foundation, an industry-financed group, has been warning for nearly a year that the government’s twin goals of encouraging refiners to increase production and promoting increased supplies of biofuels work against each other.

    “These two policies are not complementary,” Mr. Goldstein said. “These policies are in conflict.”

    In addition, Mr. Goldstein said, an emphasis on ethanol might lead to increased volatility in fuel prices.

    “If we get a bad corn crop, we will end up paying for it at the pump and on the food shelves,” he said. “We are not buying security. We are increasing volatility.”

    Clay Sell, the deputy secretary of energy, acknowledged the concern, but said that rising energy consumption meant both biofuels and additional refining capacity would be needed in the long term.

    “One can think that these goals are potentially in conflict,” Mr. Sell said. “But demand growth supports the need for investments in biofuels and growth in refining capacity. Are we concerned about it? Yes. But do we believe these concerns are well founded? No.”

    Until the mid-1990s, the United States had significant spare refining capacity. But because of consolidation in the industry, the number of refineries declined while unprofitable operations were shut. As demand grew, however, and capacity remained flat, the picture changed. In recent years, refineries in the United States have been running at or close to full capacity.

    Domestic refineries can now process about 17.5 million barrels of crude oil each day, much of it imported. But with consumption now close to about 21 million barrels a day, more imports of refined products are also needed.

    In recent weeks, refiners point out that they have been increasing output: gasoline production in the United States is at its highest level ever, 8.85 million barrels a day.

    Also, by increasing output from existing refineries, oil companies say they have expanded their production by 200,000 barrels a day since last year. Expansion of existing plants has added the equivalent of 10 new refineries over the last 10 years.

    The refining industry has also spent vast amounts — more than $50 billion in the last 10 years — to meet requirements to produce cleaner fuels, according to the American Petroleum Institute, the industry’s main trade group.

    But demand is outstripping supply. In the first three quarters of the year, gasoline use grew by 2 percent, nearly twice last year’s pace. Domestically produced supplies, though, have increased by only 0.5 percent a year on average

  2. #2
    Rear Admiral Lower Half VTGreg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    2,533
    Couldn't the same be said for the push to be green and consume less oil and gasoline in general? Is the administration's push to utilize more biofuel a bad thing even if oil executive's decide to limit their expansion?

    People can't have it both ways. Environmental zealots and those wanting independence from foreign oil champion less consumption and alternate forms of energy but when it hurts their pocketbook at the pump they cry foul.

    Perhaps instead of complaining about refining capacity and how expensive gas is everyone should try driving less and thus lowering demand and the price of gasoline. Novel idea but it will never happen because no one wants to be inconvenienced.
    It only ends once... Anything that happens before that is just progress.

    Courage is not the absence of fear but rather the judgment that something else is more important than fear.

  3. #3
    Chief of Naval Operations brainsmile's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    woah... why is welfareloser here with me so early in the morning and more importantly why am I wearing her clothes?!?
    Posts
    13,761
    well most of my stocks have been in VLO and TSO. I've been overall doing well so that makes it a bit easier.
    **********************************
    DCM #1 (Founder)





    "Nobody beats Vitus Gerulaitis 18 times in a row." - Vitus Gerulaitis on beating Jimmy Connors after 17 failed attempts.

  4. #4
    Lieutenant Commander shocky123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Ames, Iowa
    Posts
    828
    I'd say the [increasing] costs of gasoline are directly affecting the amount of driving I do, and many others would agree with me on that, that in itself creates less demand for the high priced gasoline.
    I'm SOO not surprised that the oil companies are blaming ethanol for the decreased 'demand', i.e. increased cost, etc. hell, I bet they'll be doing the same if/when we get around to hydrogen based fuel cells...
    "me awaits onslaught of estrogen fury." -CornMonkey

    "5. When your friend dates a woman that is absolutely terrible for him, and she's wrecking his life, it's your duty to openly hate her, and point out how evil she is." -ialsohaveadream

  5. #5
    Chief of Naval Operations cheapie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    raising my pimp hand strong
    Posts
    13,038
    blame ethanol? ha! wait until they're quarterly profit reports come out again.
    70% of the world is covered by water. The rest is covered by Bob Sanders

  6. #6
    Chief of Naval Operations brainsmile's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    woah... why is welfareloser here with me so early in the morning and more importantly why am I wearing her clothes?!?
    Posts
    13,761
    Beef prices are way high due to corn prices
    **********************************
    DCM #1 (Founder)





    "Nobody beats Vitus Gerulaitis 18 times in a row." - Vitus Gerulaitis on beating Jimmy Connors after 17 failed attempts.

  7. #7
    Chief of Naval Operations InfiniteNothing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    10,086
    How about we blame the oil companys. Remember back when the power companies ramped down supply to make prices go up. The rolling black outs?
    As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.

  8. #8
    Admiral Houdini's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    5,067
    How is this "short sighted by this administration?" Seriously, except for stating he favors increased alternative fuels over the next decade or two, what has the Administration done to raise gas prices, especially in this context?

    That has forced many oil companies to reconsider or scale back their plans for constructing new refinery capacity.
    Er...what about the fact that legislative pressures have kept new refineries from being built for decades?

    Or even more important, what about all the different formulations required by different states, causing refineries to shut down to reconfigure at times to make gas, for say, Illinois or CA? Same with different seasons? Overregulation on this type of thing really crimps our already limited refining capacity. Kill that - so that we all drink the same gas, the formulations aren't all that different, and have little to no impact on local environments - and prices would have to go down.

    Some recent studies in the news have shown that combustion of blended EtOH and octane can actually produce more of the nitrogen compounds that the cat converters have to scrub but still are emitted.

    What about diesel? The new turbo diesels, and the turbo-turbo diesels, and the new technology for turbo diesels with pressure capturing (kinda like a steam engine) for more strokes are very, very efficient as well as clean. And performance is getting a helluva lot better. No more slow, smoky, stinky Benzes. And, diesel is much easier to refine, as well as cheaper to refine. It's only very expensive around some parts of the country right now because it's only shipped in small quantities due to low demand - it's kind of a "luxury" in some areas, which is really bass-aquards. But there will be resistance from enviro-groups who think it's still dirty, smelly, sooty, etc.

    But I really don't think ethanol is the answer. Diesels/biodiesels, etc., go for it.

    And, as of last month studies show that oil companies, after drilling, extracting, transporting, refining, and transporting oil and oil products, taking all expenses into account, only make a 5-8 cent profit on each gallon sold, there's much more to the story. A lot of the maintenance of all that stuff has to be paid
    for somehow.

    I'd love to see more refineries being built, as well as tapping our own oil supplies to get the crude. But I'd also love to see more diesel. Not only better and cheaper in the ways I've mentioned above, but you can get very high MPG when driving diesel. And a diesel hybrid would throw MPG off the charts.

    Yes, they will make profits. If they didn't, they wouldn't be in the business. But they do sell a helluva lot of gas.

    What about the 50-80 cent taxes imposed on each gallon? Where does that money go, and to what purpose?

    Much more to this issue than meets the eye. It's not simply "oil companies are greedy" and "Bush wants alternative fuels so prices are going up." You have to look at how refineries work (the few we have, which are outdated to begin with,) from season to season, how they have to refine specific gas for specific regions due to specific, if mostly pointless, concerns. Also have to look at the pros and cons of ethanol and whether it can ever be a viable source of internal combustion fuel. Also have to look at the huge taxes/gallon that could easily drop the prices much more than anything else right now and actually help the economy - more people drive=more spending/working/etc.

  9. #9
    Chief of Naval Operations johnnymk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    LEVITTOWN< PA> USA
    Posts
    13,621
    "How is this "short sighted by this administration?" Seriously, except for stating he favors increased alternative fuels over the next decade or two, what has the Administration done to raise gas prices, especially in this context?"

    We've been through this in a previous thread. Since the cost of producing the fuel and the BTU content is radically lower than gasoline, there will never be an advantage to ethanol usage, NEVER!!

    With the 50 cent per gallon subsidy and the reduced fuel mileage, $3 per gallon gasoline is about equal to $4 (85%) ethanol. Increase the ratio to 50% ethanol or even pure ethanol and it looks even worse.

    Assuming 100% ethanol just for cars a decade or two from now, what about home heating fuel, heavy duty truck fuel, grease and other lubricants?

    Add to that, radically higher prices for nearly everything we eat, the whole concept is utterly ridiculous.

    I am surprised that there are haven't been hearings in Congress about this and the effect on the economy. But the Americans have been sold a bill of goods, and temporarily they are buying it. A few years from now after the ripple effect has been felt, everyone will be howling to drop this stupid idea.

    We will always be dependent on foreign fuel. Ethanol usage is definitely not the answer.
    Last edited by johnnymk; 05-27-2007 at 05:08 AM.

  10. #10
    Admiral Houdini's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    5,067
    Quote Originally Posted by johnnymk
    "How is this "short sighted by this administration?" Seriously, except for stating he favors increased alternative fuels over the next decade or two, what has the Administration done to raise gas prices, especially in this context?"

    We've been through this in a previous thread. Since the cost of producing the fuel and the BTU content is radically lower than gasoline, there will never be an advantage to ethanol usage, NEVER!!

    With the 50 cent per gallon subsidy and the reduced fuel mileage, $3 per gallon gasoline is about equal to $4 (85%) ethanol. Increase the ratio to 50% ethanol or even pure ethanol and it looks even worse.

    Assuming 100% ethanol just for cars a decade or two from now, what about home heating fuel, heavy duty truck fuel, grease and other lubricants?

    Add to that, radically higher prices for nearly everything we eat, the whole concept is utterly ridiculous.

    I am surprised that there are haven't been hearings in Congress about this and the effect on the economy. But the Americans have been sold a bill of goods, and temporarily they are buying it. A few years from now after the ripple effect has been felt, everyone will be howling to drop this stupid idea.

    We will always be dependent on foreign fuel. Ethanol usage is definitely not the answer.
    Before you argue, you must notice that we AGREE!

    But a few lines in the SOTU address addressing alternative fuels can hardly be blamed for anything. He didn't order it/mandate it/whatever. That's up to Congress. But it's easy to blame Bush. I overslept today (weird tempo jet-lag thing). Must be Bush's fault. Damn admin.

  11. #11
    Chief of Naval Operations johnnymk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    LEVITTOWN< PA> USA
    Posts
    13,621
    Quote Originally Posted by Houdini
    Before you argue, you must notice that we AGREE!

    But a few lines in the SOTU address addressing alternative fuels can hardly be blamed for anything. He didn't order it/mandate it/whatever. That's up to Congress. But it's easy to blame Bush. I overslept today (weird tempo jet-lag thing). Must be Bush's fault. Damn admin.

    I said this administration, not Bush. But he still is endorsing it.

  12. #12
    Admiral Houdini's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    5,067
    Quote Originally Posted by johnnymk
    I said this administration, not Bush. But he still is endorsing it.
    Er...ok. I still don't see how that matters re: Congress' and states' disapproval of solving the problems in the first place. Again, except for a line in a speech talking about alternative energy sources (which a lot of people back, like EtOH - something I don't back as a source - but I am in favor of alternative energy), exactly how is Bush or the Administration being short-sighted or influencing this free-market progress in any way?

  13. #13
    Admiral Napoleon54's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    floating inside of a giant egg made of stars
    Posts
    5,176
    Ethanol is NOT a viable alternative to oil. It is a dead end and any further talk of using it to replace (or even significantly suppliment) oil is a waste of time.
    There is all the difference in the world between treating people equally and attempting to make them equal. - Friedrich Hayek

  14. #14
    Rear Admiral Lower Half Prngr44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    2,669
    I still think advances in the refining of it will make it more viable. We're still almost at square one using corn. Yeah it works, yeah it's not as energy efficient as oil, but there's lots of room for improvement not only in the process itself but in the materials used.

  15. #15
    Chief of Naval Operations cheapie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    raising my pimp hand strong
    Posts
    13,038
    do we care if it's as efficient? do we care if it's not as good of a source of energy? it's super easy to grow. it's plentiful HERE in the good 'ol USA. and reduces our independence on countries we really don't like in the first place.
    70% of the world is covered by water. The rest is covered by Bob Sanders

  16. #16
    Chief of Naval Operations johnnymk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    LEVITTOWN< PA> USA
    Posts
    13,621
    Quote Originally Posted by cheapie
    do we care if it's as efficient? do we care if it's not as good of a source of energy? it's super easy to grow. it's plentiful HERE in the good 'ol USA. and reduces our independence on countries we really don't like in the first place.

    I guess you didn't read the previous posts a couple of months ago.

  17. #17
    Chief of Naval Operations cheapie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    raising my pimp hand strong
    Posts
    13,038
    guess not.
    70% of the world is covered by water. The rest is covered by Bob Sanders

  18. #18
    Admiral Houdini's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    5,067
    Quote Originally Posted by Prngr44
    I still think advances in the refining of it will make it more viable. We're still almost at square one using corn. Yeah it works, yeah it's not as energy efficient as oil, but there's lots of room for improvement not only in the process itself but in the materials used.
    The problem is that ethanol is a very simple chemical. It's the stuff you drink. You can't refine it any more than you can everclear. There may be alternate sources, but the best bet is probably genetically-engineered corn or something.

    At any rate, it has less energy. So it takes more ethanol than gas to go the same distance. And you still get CO2. It's really not a feasible alternative. That's why I'm becoming more of a diesel fan. Cheaper to refine, great mileage, and very clean nowdays.

  19. #19
    Admiral Houdini's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    5,067
    Quote Originally Posted by cheapie
    do we care if it's as efficient? do we care if it's not as good of a source of energy? it's super easy to grow. it's plentiful HERE in the good 'ol USA. and reduces our independence on countries we really don't like in the first place.
    True, but you really don't want to have to fill up your car every hundred miles or less. We're only talking about one carbon bond here, not ~8, so there's less energy involved.

  20. #20
    Admiral guiseppewv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    East coast
    Posts
    7,116
    Quote Originally Posted by Houdini
    The problem is that ethanol is a very simple chemical. It's the stuff you drink. You can't refine it any more than you can everclear. There may be alternate sources, but the best bet is probably genetically-engineered corn or something.

    At any rate, it has less energy. So it takes more ethanol than gas to go the same distance. And you still get CO2. It's really not a feasible alternative. That's why I'm becoming more of a diesel fan. Cheaper to refine, great mileage, and very clean nowdays.
    Diesel takes ~25% more oil to produce a gallon compared to producing a gallon of unleaded.

  21. #21
    Admiral Napoleon54's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    floating inside of a giant egg made of stars
    Posts
    5,176
    There isn't enough corn on the planet to make anything more than a tiny dent in the need for oil.
    There is all the difference in the world between treating people equally and attempting to make them equal. - Friedrich Hayek

  22. #22
    Rear Admiral Lower Half Prngr44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    2,669
    Quote Originally Posted by Napoleon54
    There isn't enough corn on the planet to make anything more than a tiny dent in the need for oil.
    Good thing there's tons of algae!

    http://phoenix.bizjournals.com/phoen...14/story2.html

    A group of dairy farm technology experts is building a $400 million biorefinery near Phoenix that could produce ethanol and biodiesel fuel from algae.

    XL Dairy Group Inc., a privately held company based in Phoenix, expects to begin operations at its 7,500-head dairy farm in 2008. The farm will be in Vicksburg, about 100 miles west of Phoenix along Interstate 10.


    The two-phase project will be completely self-contained, producing its own energy and cow feed from byproducts of the biodiesel and ethanol production.

    The refinery, named XL Biorefinery-Vicksburg, will use corn for ethanol production during its first year, then shift to algae by 2009, said XL Dairy Chief Executive Dennis Corderman. The decision to use algae was in response to the high costs of trucking corn in from Midwestern farms. Algae has been studied for decades as an alternative biomass energy product.

    "We think our biomass will replace corn and sugar as the industry standard for biofuel and ethanol production," Corderman said.

    Once completely operational, the company expects to sell more than $180 million in milk, ethanol, biodiesel and other byproducts. It also expects to hire 175 workers.

    In the meantime, another ethanol plant in Maricopa, south of Phoenix, is nearing completion. It will use corn as feedstock.

    Algae as an answer
    From environmentalists to general grocery store customers, people have decried the financial and environmental effects of corn-based ethanol since it became a popular energy alternative during the past decade. Sugar, which fuels ethanol-producing South American countries, also has become more expensive.

    Environmentalists protest the amount of energy spent to harvest and transport feedstocks such as corn and sugar, and the energy spent converting it into ethanol. Ethanol also is more expensive and dangerous to transport than gasoline because it cannot be moved through most underground pipelines, leaving trucks and railways as the only answer.

    But algae can be grown anywhere and is not part of the human food supply, offering an advantage for the ethanol and biodiesel community, said Phillip Brown, president of Gilbert-based Diversified Energy Corp., which specializes in renewable energy production.

    "What is very promising about algae is that you have the potential to increase the yields per acre," he said. "Arizona appears to be a very suitable place for algae growth as a feedstock."

  23. #23
    Admiral Napoleon54's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    floating inside of a giant egg made of stars
    Posts
    5,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Prngr44
    Huh, very interesting. Thanks for the info!

    That seems like a promising alternative to me. Algae is much easier to grow reliably and requires much less space. Instead of corn being produced in large batches, one crop at a time, imagine a constantly growing algae population in a large tank, continuously being filtered off and regenerating itself. Rather than saying "this field of corn will produce X tons when we harvest it in the fall", it's more like "this tank of algae will produce X tons per day". Continuous production instead of batch production. Largely independant of weather conditions (dry year versus wet year), taking up much less space, more control over the whole process. Algae growing in a liquid phase environment would be much easier to control and manage than corn growing in a field.

    This is just speculation on my part, a guess as to the scal of things that we're talking about. So take it for what it's worth. It would probably take hundreds of thousands of gigantic tanks, like 10 million gallons each, of algae to supplant oil as the main fuel source, but I can see that as being more realistic than farming tens or hundreds of millions of acres of corn.
    Last edited by Napoleon54; 06-04-2007 at 09:58 AM.
    There is all the difference in the world between treating people equally and attempting to make them equal. - Friedrich Hayek

  24. #24
    Chief of Naval Operations cheapie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    raising my pimp hand strong
    Posts
    13,038
    expect we already have the corn production in place for farming lots and lots of corn. then maybe middle america will be able to stop dying a slow death like it is now.
    70% of the world is covered by water. The rest is covered by Bob Sanders

  25. #25
    Admiral Napoleon54's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    floating inside of a giant egg made of stars
    Posts
    5,176
    Quote Originally Posted by cheapie
    expect we already have the corn production in place for farming lots and lots of corn. then maybe middle america will be able to stop dying a slow death like it is now.
    Lots and lots still isn't nearly enough. Corn production would have to jump by a few orders of magnitude to become significant. How much of a dent has ethanol production from corn put into our demand for oil, and corn prices are already going through the roof? Don't get me wrong, I don't mean to sound all negative. Corn is a step in the right direction, but it is not a viable or effective endpoint solution for replacing oil. We need something bigger than corn. We need to look beyond corn to something further ahead. Algae looks like something that could be it IMHO. This article is the first I've ever read on algae being a fuel source, but it seems like an intuitive long-lasting solution to me. It just makes sense in a way that corn doesn't. Hypothetically, the production method would be much easier to scale to huge amounts. That's my first impression.
    Last edited by Napoleon54; 06-04-2007 at 10:25 AM.
    There is all the difference in the world between treating people equally and attempting to make them equal. - Friedrich Hayek

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •