• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Economics of Bio Fuel

Tim the plumber

Tim the plumber

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
16,501
Reaction score
3,829
Location
Sheffield
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
YouTube

Interesting video. Part of it looks at the link between food prices and oil prices, the direct link that exists today, when oil goes up food goes up, was not there before we started using food as fuel.

Makes sense it is more economic to use food as fuel when oil is expensive.
 
The oil companies are experimenting with algae as fuel.

What could go wrong?

:thumbs:
 
3leftsdoo said:
The oil companies are experimenting with algae as fuel.

What could go wrong?

:thumbs:
Click to expand...

If they get something that will not use agricultrual land to make fuel I'm all for it.

The problem is that the increase in food prices is killing the world's poor in the tens of millions.

3 Billion people live on less than $2.50 a day. The food price is twice what it would be if we stopped doing this evil.
 
3leftsdoo said:
The oil companies are experimenting with algae as fuel.

What could go wrong?

:thumbs:
Click to expand...

It's not just fuel companies. The problem with algae so far is the ability to do it in a manner that could even remotely keep up with demand. We have a local government-funded facility that, among other things, does a fair amount with bio-fuel research. Last time I saw any of them being interviewed, they were saying that algae and switchgrass were the most promising but they still had a very long way to go before they were viable.
 
Drawdown said:
It's not just fuel companies. The problem with algae so far is the ability to do it in a manner that could even remotely keep up with demand. We have a local government-funded facility that, among other things, does a fair amount with bio-fuel research. Last time I saw any of them being interviewed, they were saying that algae and switchgrass were the most promising but they still had a very long way to go before they were viable.
Click to expand...
Algae and switchgrass, are effectively collecting solar energy at very low density, and converting a very small amount of that energy to a recoverable hydrocarbon.
I think the more direct approach of simply making hydrocarbons from scratch is a more sustainable path.
Start-up Sunfire’s e-fuels can decarbonise industries most addicted to fossil fuels | Clean Energy Wire
Solar and wind energy at high density will create a problem for electrical grids, the current oil refineries have large scale grid connections
for co generation, so could harvest the massive energy surpluses and store those surpluses as carbon neutral transport fuels.
Current jets could fly across the ocean without any new CO2 emissions, (the fuel having been made with CO2 harvested from the environment).
Gasoline cars could fill up with carbon neutral gasoline, and so on.
As the process gets more efficient, the price where this technology becomes viable get closer.
 
[h=1]Electric cars crash[/h]Posted on 01 Dec 19 by TONY THOMAS • 1 Comment
Globally, SUVs are swamping car sales and here’s the point: as fast as governments bribe or wrangle people into low-emission electrics, the popular shift to SUVs more than cancels the emissions cuts. In the forced march of folly towards net zero emissions, electrics are as much a lost cause as windmills. Tony Thomas 30 November … Continue reading →
 
Tim the plumber said:
3 Billion people live on less than $2.50 a day. The food price is twice what it would be if we stopped doing this evil.
Click to expand...

I have a couple of questions for you, Tim... of that $2.50 a day how much of that is actually being spent on food? And do you know how much a serving of corn costs? Or a serving of sugar costs?
 
We use about 1/3 of our corn production for fuel. That means growing high sugar corn, also known as sweet corn. Now pretty much ALL corn grown is high sugar. Why that matters is modern corn has almost NO nutritional value. Traditional corn had good sized protein kernel but high sugar corn has a very small, insignificant protein kernel. Additionally, high sugar corn does not pick up nutrients and minerals from the soil like traditional corn did. And since our soils (world wide) are depleted now that makes the problem even worse. Corn is now an empty calorie. About all it does is promote diabetes.

BTW; modern bio-engineered crops of all types grow faster and bigger and are more pest resistant, but do not take up nutrients very well. Dumping large amounts of nitrogen on them increases the yield (top growth) even further, but does nothing to improve the depleted soil.

In many poverty stricken nations (much of Africa and S. America) the land that could be used for domestic consumption crops is being used to grow export crops to pay back loans. In other countries population has exceeded the ability of that nation to feed itself. That is the case in Egypt, for instance. And importing caused huge increases in prices, because transport and processing imported bulk food is expensive. Which led to the "Arab Spring".
 
PoS said:
Soylent green? :2razz:
Click to expand...
I'm surprised he hasn't posted already.

Chemically speaking, you could build the entire plastics industry on algae slime. It's a logical way to develop some of the staple compounds.

longview said:
Algae and switchgrass, are effectively collecting solar energy at very low density, and converting a very small amount of that energy to a recoverable hydrocarbon.
I think the more direct approach of simply making hydrocarbons from scratch is a more sustainable path.
Start-up Sunfire’s e-fuels can decarbonise industries most addicted to fossil fuels | Clean Energy Wire
Solar and wind energy at high density will create a problem for electrical grids, the current oil refineries have large scale grid connections
for co generation, so could harvest the massive energy surpluses and store those surpluses as carbon neutral transport fuels.
Current jets could fly across the ocean without any new CO2 emissions, (the fuel having been made with CO2 harvested from the environment).
Gasoline cars could fill up with carbon neutral gasoline, and so on.
As the process gets more efficient, the price where this technology becomes viable get closer.
Click to expand...
CO2 capture is certainly a plausible approach. However, there is still no convincing evidence that reducing CO2 has any real benefit. Climate science could be fixated on the wrong tree.
 
Last edited:
Buzz said:
I have a couple of questions for you, Tim... of that $2.50 a day how much of that is actually being spent on food? And do you know how much a serving of corn costs? Or a serving of sugar costs?
Click to expand...

I would estimate 70% to 80% generally.

This is what poped out in a very brief search;

Here’s How Much Food Really Costs for People Around the World

The cost of food is going to influenced by many factors but the base price on the world markets is always going to be the start point. Other factors may add to thios or very occaisionally reduce it.
 
Waddy said:
We use about 1/3 of our corn production for fuel. That means growing high sugar corn, also known as sweet corn. Now pretty much ALL corn grown is high sugar. Why that matters is modern corn has almost NO nutritional value. Traditional corn had good sized protein kernel but high sugar corn has a very small, insignificant protein kernel. Additionally, high sugar corn does not pick up nutrients and minerals from the soil like traditional corn did. And since our soils (world wide) are depleted now that makes the problem even worse. Corn is now an empty calorie. About all it does is promote diabetes.

BTW; modern bio-engineered crops of all types grow faster and bigger and are more pest resistant, but do not take up nutrients very well. Dumping large amounts of nitrogen on them increases the yield (top growth) even further, but does nothing to improve the depleted soil.

In many poverty stricken nations (much of Africa and S. America) the land that could be used for domestic consumption crops is being used to grow export crops to pay back loans. In other countries population has exceeded the ability of that nation to feed itself. That is the case in Egypt, for instance. And importing caused huge increases in prices, because transport and processing imported bulk food is expensive. Which led to the "Arab Spring".
Click to expand...

Yes. The Arab Spring and the Syrian civil war both happened as a direct result in changes in US food policy.
 
Jay59 said:
I'm surprised he hasn't posted already.

Chemically speaking, you could build the entire plastics industry on algae slime. It's a logical way to develop some of the staple compounds.


CO2 capture is certainly a plausible approach. However, there is still no convincing evidence that reducing CO2 has any real benefit. Climate science could be fixated on the wrong tree.
Click to expand...

I meant soylent green as in the food, not the member here lol
 
Jay59 said:
I'm surprised he hasn't posted already.

Chemically speaking, you could build the entire plastics industry on algae slime. It's a logical way to develop some of the staple compounds.


CO2 capture is certainly a plausible approach. However, there is still no convincing evidence that reducing CO2 has any real benefit. Climate science could be fixated on the wrong tree.
Click to expand...
The real benefits of air carbon capture, is not reducing CO2, but the concept that a small plant could be built (say in a shipping container)
that would collect solar energy, and produce usable fuel from air and water, and perhaps supply a micro grid.
The implications of this alone would be staggering, a very remote village could have electricity, Drinking water,
and some amount of fuels for tractors.
For people who are at a subsistence farming level, a little advantage would go a long way.
 
3leftsdoo said:
The oil companies are experimenting with algae as fuel.

What could go wrong?

:thumbs:
Click to expand...

I mean other than failing to be economically competitive, I don't see what could go "wrong."
 
Deuce said:
I mean other than failing to be economically competitive, I don't see what could go "wrong."
Click to expand...
The number for economic viability of any technology is always changing and is relative to the alternatives
that can perform the same function.
Since Fossil fuels are finite resources, at some point the laws of supply and demand will push the prices up,
but they have a ceiling, because of alternate technologies waiting in the wings.
At some point one of the alternatives will be more economical than extracting and refining fossil oil.
 
longview said:
The number for economic viability of any technology is always changing and is relative to the alternatives
that can perform the same function.
Since Fossil fuels are finite resources, at some point the laws of supply and demand will push the prices up,
but they have a ceiling, because of alternate technologies waiting in the wings.
At some point one of the alternatives will be more economical than extracting and refining fossil oil.
Click to expand...

Guy I quoted seemed to suggest something more dire, but I'm not sure what he could be referring to. Algae causing zombie apocalypse?
 
[FONT=&quot]biofuels[/FONT]
[h=1]No end in sight for the biofuel wars[/h][FONT=&quot]Biofuels are unsustainable in every way, but still demand – and get – preferential treatment Guest post by Paul Driessen, The Big Oil-Big Biofuel wars rage on. From my perch, ethanol, biodiesel and “advanced biofuels” make about zero energy, economic or environmental sense. They make little political sense either, until you recognize that politics is…
[/FONT]
 
Jack Hays said:
[FONT="][URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/12/15/no-end-in-sight-for-the-biofuel-wars/"]
corn_ethanol_subsidy.jpg
[/URL]biofuels[/FONT]
[h=1]No end in sight for the biofuel wars[/h][FONT="]Biofuels are unsustainable in every way, but still demand – and get – preferential treatment Guest post by Paul Driessen, The Big Oil-Big Biofuel wars rage on. From my perch, ethanol, biodiesel and “advanced biofuels” make about zero energy, economic or environmental sense. They make little political sense either, until you recognize that politics is…
[/FONT]
Click to expand...

You mean government imposed demand, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom