118 comments on The Politics of Biofuels
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
118 comments on The Politics of Biofuels
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Support The Oil Drum
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
TOD:Europe
- Peak Gold, Easier to Model than Peak Oil? - Part I
- Carbon Capture and Storage
- Oilwatch Monthly November 2009
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- International Energy Agency calls 'Peak' on OECD Oil Demand
- Australian Senate: Peak Oil motion defeated 31:6
- The Bullroarer - Friday 20th November 2009
TOD:Net Energy
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- Early Warning
- The Energy Blog
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
Peak Oil Primers
Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
“So one may almost say that the theory of universal suffrage assumes that the Average Citizen is an active, instructed, intelligent ruler of his country. The facts contradict this assumption.”
—James Bryce (1909, 35)
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Nate Hagens, Gail the Actuary, Prof. Goose
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Heading Out, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Sam Foucher, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Campfire: Glenn, Jason Bradford
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
Mr. Rapier as usual your comments are well thought out. Biodiesel and biologically derived alcohols can provide a means of fueling construction and agricultural machinery after post peak petroleum has priced itself out of the market. I see no diference between this and the historical practice of devoting a percentage of good crop land to feed draft animals.
At present I see no technologically developed replacements for liquid fuels in these uses.
If the crude plus concentrate peak is really 2005 and the rate of decline remains a point of contention the point at which the U.S. may need nonpetroleum liquid fuels is undefined.
One may readily criticize the U.S. govt for how they are encouraging alternate fuels. Some of the schemes being given state money in the state in which I live make ethanol look really golden. The roots of the ethanol push by the U.S. Govt lie in flawed agricultural policies of that govt but the history is past and we must deal with the present and the future. I look for ethanol efficiencies to improve as less efficient plants begin to fail economically.
Failing to push biofuels as a partial solution will in my opinion force us to use coal to liquid and or oil shale. It would be easy to fall into the anti-nuclear trap of destroying one alternative only to force the use of a worse alternative-coal.
The US fleet averages 20 MPG. Doubling this number is possible with inexpensive vehicles for sale today.
A 2 MPG increase would save more fuel than the whole US grain crop could provide and it would lower gasoline prices. Why should people be forced to pay More taxes and Higher gas prices and Higher food prices because the farm lobby wants a cut of the gasoline revenue?
If the farm states want subsidy, give the farmers funds to produce inexpensive organic produce!
US mpg is already going up, albeit very very slightly. that's just a start.
electricity and electric motors.
Go and stand on a bridge over a six lane freeway and count how many passing vehicles are electrically powered - as usual you are talking complete bollocks!
The electric motors you suggest need an adequate, low cost, high capacity battery of some sort - currently none come anywhere near gasoline and diesel for energy density, ease of use and cost.
It is not wise to assume personal electric vehicles will ever be cost competitive with ICE.
I used to rely on an electrically powered vehicle for most of my commute to work, when I lived in Newcastle and was commuting to a branch campus on the NSW Central Coast.
Of course, batteries were not an issue for those ...
... in any event, the "in these uses" in the comment further above referred to mechanized agriculture and construction machinery. That is a quite different problem to moving the people and freight that current use the Interstate.
In mechanized agriculture in particular, biofuel seems a plausible technology for including in the mix when developing alternatives to a petroleum based agriculture.
John,
You don't need new technology. It's already there. Ordinary cars (not the expensive hybrid technology) that run 50+ mpg can be bought as we speak. As a matter of facts, I have one, a second hand. The model has been on the market since 1997.
VW has introduced the Lupo 3L years ago. It runs 3 liters of diesel on 100 km. That's 75 mpg.
It's already there. No need for inventions. No need for break throughs. And it is much cheaper than a 15 mpg SUV. The average costs of cars like this are well below 10.000 US$.
And if you are American and want something a bit bigger:
http://www.whatcar.co.uk/car-review-pictures.aspx?RT=56&U=1
I get 45mpg (Urban commute) to 60mpg (Motorway) from this diesel, which has a larger cargo capacity than a lot of SUVs, as well as vastly better cornering. Modern diesel technology is something that might actually make a difference in the US - it's the reason why many European countries have seen flat or even slightly dropping oil usage in the past decade, despite increasing populations and passenger miles.