Printable View
With many farmers moving over to corn to feed the growing ethanol demand (or what they hope will be a demand) I see an opportunity for Africans.
Don't cry about how the price of food and livestock will increase, complain about the lack of investment in AFRICA! The largest un-tapped (Since 1900) farmland, and at dirt cheat prices!
Yea or nay?
problems already , not in Africa but central America .Quote:
Yea or nay?
Apparently there is a country there where corn is the staple , prices have gone through the roof and only the exporters are doing any business .
Food aid is having to be sent to a country that produces a surplus of food .
I suppose thats free market for ya . A rush to exploit the opening without proper planning for the outcome .
Terrible idea, since it would take all of the USA's output of corn to provide enogu fuel to suppy our own demand. Just forget about corn based ethanol, all it is is a bone to farmers.
edit: what is a good idea though is to use really low quality land to grow stuff that is only used for ethanol though. I remeber reading about some kind of grass that is great for this.
Better to keep developing cellulose biofuel technology so that the non-edible plant matter can be used for fuel instead. I read an article that I cannot find again right now, dang it, that claimed if the US used all the corn it produces currently for bio-fuel; it would only replace 10% of fossil fuels needed at this time. Not very efficient if true.
Ethanol is not going to be a real solution in my view, as disco stated. First, it takes a TON of energy to turn raw material into useable ethanol. Second, ethanol is HELL on automobile powerplants. Even heavily dilluted and mixed in with normal gasoline it's still not as clean burning or efficient as pure gas. Liquid hydrogen always seemed to be a much more promising fuel source for private transport down the road, provided they can iron out some of the larger problems.
I prefer to just drink the stuff, personally.
Just to let you know, the current process in which ethanol is being produced is through fermentation of sugars. All fermentation releases carbon dioxide so it might end up producing even more net CO2 than normal petroleum which basically solves our fuel dependency, but elevates the global warming problem
Amen. Let's hear it for watery American beer! ~:cheers:Quote:
Originally Posted by Big King Sanctaphrax
Honestly, I would drink ale, but it's too expensive over here, and for some bizarre reason, hoppy beers give me an instant headache. :dizzy2: No idea why.
Family from Yorkshire? Do you also get offended if your pint doesn't have about two inches of head? If so, this might be the problem.Quote:
Honestly, I would drink ale, but it's too expensive over here, and for some bizarre reason, hoppy beers give me an instant headache. No idea why.
Ireland, Eastern Europe (Jews) and French Canada. :help: I believe the proper term for me is "confused-ass honkey."Quote:
Originally Posted by Big King Sanctaphrax
(I miss my edit button.)
And no, I actually hate "heady" beers. That's another reason I like lager; no head.
That's where the blessing comes in. ~:cheers:Quote:
Originally Posted by Big King Sanctaphrax
The renewable vs fossil fuels. You don't get more CO2 than what the plants themself took up when they grew.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xdeathfire
It's a subsidy to american farmers.
Plans that use agricultural waste products, now there's a much better idea. Or using plastics to create diesel. Or efficient crops for biofules. Or even just plain old renewables.
~:smoking:
Not really, the market rejected ethanol. It's being forced on us by government mandate. The opposite of the free-market, really.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
I've said it before, but corn ethanol as a fuel source is just idiotic. There are so many reasons why it is not a good choice.
That is not the case I was making was it .Quote:
Not really, the market rejected ethanol. It's being forced on us by government mandate. The opposite of the free-market, really.
Creates only as much CO2 as would have been produced if you let the corn decay.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xdeathfire
Major problem, corn is ridiculously inefficient at producing ethanol. Sugar cane and beat's are far better at producing ethanol then almost any other plant. There wouldnt be enough land in the world to produce enough ethanol if we used corn.Quote:
With many farmers moving over to corn to feed the growing ethanol demand (or what they hope will be a demand) I see an opportunity for Africans.
Don't cry about how the price of food and livestock will increase, complain about the lack of investment in AFRICA! The largest un-tapped (Since 1900) farmland, and at dirt cheat prices!
Also Africa is a very bad place to try to grow sugar cane. It takesn nearly a year to grow. Wouldnt do well with the rainy/dry cycle Africa has.
Alcohol, the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems!
Corn ethanol is a gift for the farmers, that's all. Carbon-wise, it's better than oil, but not completely neutral though, since harvesting and transportation of material are probably done with some petroleum.
Mandating a staple foodstuff to be used for fuel is insane. Not only will food prices jump (not just corn, but livestock that uses corn feed as well), but the potential for another economically-induced famine is encouraged.
Definitely. :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
Yet, we have an energy bill making it's way through Congress that does exactly that. I think this has the potential to be truly disastrous. As you mention, corn and corn related foods (including livestock) will skyrocket in price. Additionally, farmers that previously grew other foods may abandon them to a great extent in favor of growing more lucrative corn. :sweatdrop:
Incorrect good sir: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/st...emissions.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by drone
That link does not have the actual unpublished report (which I beleive has been done so as of now). The information I have read in the past has indicated that ethanol is actually pollutes more than straight or combined gasoline, but not by a huge margin.
The other problem that many folks neglect is the amount of energy needed to actually get the ethanol from the corn. I'm talking about the power to supply the machinery and tools that facilitate the process from creation to distillation/purification are quite monsterous. Sorry I don't have any links to information supporting this at the time being. :sweatdrop:
Well, that link doesn't really go into the details. Out of the tailpipe, gas and ethanol emissions are close. When I say ethanol is almost "carbon-neutral", this means that the CO2 coming out of the tailpipe being added to the atmosphere is close to the amount that the plants took in through the photosynthesis process while growing. So in that sense, less CO2 is being added to the air when using ethanol. In a perfect world, this would be neutral. However, this does not include carbon added from harvesting, processing, and transportation. The crops act as a carbon sink, which is good, but the power efficiency of corn for ethanol is bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whacker
Pure politics, if we were really serious we would be using sugar cane, or better yet, bio-waste. The only good I see coming from this is a switch back to real sugar instead high-fructose corn syrup. I miss that in my Coca-Cola.
We're arguing on the same side here.
People makes decisions on these kinds of reports? :inquisitive: :wall:Quote:
Originally Posted by Whacker
Because if you're combusting something containing carbon you want as much CO2 as possible as everything else is an energy loss. The important stuff is were the coal itself comes from. So it basically says that the same amount of carbon is used/liter (or wehatever unit that the tail gases meassures in practice) with gasoline and ethanol.