Comments on: Signs of Collapse for Biofuel Movement

By: Jin Micro

Jin Micro — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 14:14:41 +0000

I don't know why this seems negative all I say is that people should think beyond short term ideas.
My thoughts exactly. Lol
- Forex Contest

By: loan

loan — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 12:01:30 +0000

I like this article

even though oil prices, of late a significant decline, still in need of biofuel. Because when a mine will be closed due to oil reserves have been exhausted or not feasible at the mine again.

http://sidethinkings.blogspot.com/

By: Joe Osse

Joe Osse — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 20:56:43 +0000

Oh, and sorry: I intended the comment above as an answer to B. Nicholson’s one, way above this last one of mine…

By: Joe Osse

Joe Osse — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 20:53:54 +0000

Yeah! Good idea!

Why fund rogue nations as Venezuela and Iran buying their oil if Brazil is friendly and has lots of cheap, clean ethanol to sell?

By: owlafaye

owlafaye — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 03:58:10 +0000

As we became aware of the pollution problems, our focus should have been on improving the refining of the fuels we were using at that time rather than seeking other fuels. Research to reduce the sulfur in our diesel and lubricating oils was ignored yet laws for lower levels of pollution involving these sulfurs were being put into effect. Typical to a capital/profit/greedy society…we ignored the huge problem of sulfur contamination and looked for new alternative fuels to make money. Now we are stuck with the ethanol foolishness and various plant oil schemes, none of which make any sense when you consider the quantities needed to make an impact, and a negative impact at that.

By: rickw

rickw — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 00:45:03 +0000

People seem to hate ethanol, but I don't understand why. In my mind, corn-ethanol should be pursued to replace 5-15% of our oil and to get infrastructure in place for cellulosic ethanol. Why?

1. Even if ethanol is a bit more expensive than oil, that money is being paid to farmers and distillers in the USA. Remember, 60% of our oil is imported and much from countries that we seem to go to war with every decade or so. And since USA is a net importer of stuff, all those imports hurts the dollar exchange rate, making all imports more expensive.

2. When oil goes up in price, EVERYTHING goes up in price. With food, for instance, oil helps make fertilizer, runs the tractors, helps transport the raw goods to the processor and finally to the store. Oil helps you get to the store to buy it.

3. USA has about 5% of the population of the globe, but burns 25% of the oil. China and India, per capita, burn just a fraction of what we do. (Europeans burn about 1/3 as much per capita as we do.) What's gonna happen when those China/ India adopt more "western" living standards? Yep, higher gas prices. So we need to work on driving smaller cars, taking public transportation, driving hybrids, and suplementing our oil with biofuels,

By: AP

AP — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 17:30:42 +0000

This is what happens when governments mandate technologies, instead of setting up a pricing structure to encourage alternatives to develop. Adding incentives to products only makes them viable temporarily, then they die. You need long-term demand to make it work.

By: hybridman2

hybridman2 — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 15:39:31 +0000

Everyone but big business and gov't. bureaucrats had this figured out awhile ago. You can't make a biofuel to replace our current energy needs without making the food industry turn upside down. Ethanol is not the way to go- it does not have the energy content of gas and you need more of it to go the same distance- making it way too expensive.
You can also only have about 15% or less as an additive in gasoline or it starts eating away at your seals and gaskets of your engine.
You also need an infrastructure in place- we can see by this article that isn't going to happen if the market won't support it.
So what do we do?
We MUST rely on alternative fuels that don't require infrastructure changes- it's that simple.
Hydrogen by itself will not work-again because of infrastructure needs.
But On-Demand hydrogen will work, and is working. Even if it results in an overall increase of 20% across America and around the world, think of the implications (Hybrid water power is actually doing better than 20%, but let's assume low for the argument's sake).
We currently get 25% of our oil from OPEC. If we can replace some of our gas with water with an on demand hydrogen generator, we will effectively be cleaning the environment and saving gas as well as diminishing the cartels power to manipulate our economy.
I'll continue to argue for on-demand hydrogen generators until I'm blue in the face, ut many of us have found at least a partial solution, which is far better than anyone else, and cheaper too.
hybridwaterpower is the answer for now.

Bob

By: CAT

CAT — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 05:28:38 +0000

Anne Korins (co-director IAGS) mentions that methanol might be a better alternative to both ethanol and hydrogen. Methanol is easily and cheaply produced from coal, something in great abundance in the states. Methanol can replace ethanol for blending in gas and is more easily stored than pure hydrogen. It would be easier to distribute as well through the existing gas distribution channels.

See details at http://radicalislam.org/content/anne-korins-oil-solution

By: Daniel O.

Daniel O. — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 15:01:24 +0000

I think biofuels and ethanol is a waste of money for such lil benefits. I Say go for EV’s ,PHEV’s, and Hybrids thats the best way for now. Also maybe soon electromagnetic motors which i think is the best way to go and are awsome. I also think Solar Ink is going to help too be affordably for mass market.I hate oil companies!!!!