goathunter wrote:If you would have paid attention to this:I don't agree. As a matter of fact, I think the attempt to use the world's FOOD products and resources as a significant source of energy for the masses has got to be one of the most dumbass ideas to come along in modern timesYou would have understood my point.Leave it up to the people to make their own fuels.
My Dad makes his own biodiesel. Prior to gasoline all cars ran off of ethanol(before the diesel engine). The infastructure can be made to support ethanol(or people can make their own).
And the food prices argument doesn't fly. Farm subsidies PAY farmers to NOT farm land. Another great swindle. The mash that comes off of ethanol production is better feed for animals than grains in raw. More efficient feed equals less of it to raise livestock. Which means lower prices for meat products. And since ethanol production uses plants usually reserved for industrial sugar applications or other wise un-edible plants, there is no threat to food products. America has plenty of land to raise both food and fuel.
The real argument against ethanol is how to produce it efficiently and without fossil fuels. Again I bring back to small scale production...community wide production. Quit thinking large scale. Nothing has ever started out at its very largest scale. Everything has to be built up.
All that being said, I'm all for drilling more. I see that as the most useful short term tide over.
Killjoy: Dead on bro!
"Prior to gasoline all cars ran off of ethanol(before the diesel engine)."
Uhh... No. Gasoline, both in form and name, predates the invention of the internal combustion engine by several decades. The earliest internal combustion engines (Barsanti/Matteucci, Lenoir, Otto-Langen free piston, Silent Otto) all ran on assorted mixes of gases, usually "illuminating gas", which is mainly hydrogen.
Ethanol is a boondoggle. The production and growing are terrible. I don't give a flying rusty fuck about the food supply argument because like you said, it's not really true for the most part. However, almost all farm tractors nowadays are not Otto cycle, they are Diesel. Also, this increased farming means more fertilizers have to be used. What makes those? Petroleum or natural gas. Not ethanol.
Besides, small scale farming is even worse than large-scale in terms of cost. All across industries, farming included, it is cheaper to make a lot of stuff in huge batches than it is in one-at-a-time. Besides, ethanol is most likely to be consumed in the cities. But crops can't be grown in cities in the quantities we would need them to fuel the U.S. vehicle fleet. Where is enough space? The country, where very few live (and subsequently, very few make).
Plus, ethanol is shit for fuel. It's awful. It has less BTUs per gallon than gasoline and it's hydrophilic as all hell, so it goes stale in a matter of weeks. Stale fuel is not good for much is it? It simply does not keep.
Not that I'm for increased drilling either, we're just deluding ourselves if we think that we're actually going to work towards mainstreaming alternative energy supplies so long as we have ANY oil we're extracting. Of course we're not going to stop drilling until we are completely out, since we already have the infrastructure all set up for the use of petroleum and it would be a fortune to switch.
Basically, we're gonna run out of oil someday, we're fucked, there's nothing we can do to change it. And ethanol is not the answer either.