UN Warns Of Biofuels' Environmental Risk

[geriatrickid]

1. PetroSun isn't exactly like a dot com startup. It is a successful oil exploration company.

2. They currently have 1100 acres of open algae ponds in production in Hondo, Texas. The estimated annual output is 4.4 million gallons of algae oil feedstock. The facility opened in April of this year.

3. Prior to that they purchased a 50% interest in a large scale biodiesel refinery. They have recently entered into a joint venture to build another refinery in Arizona.

4.Among the other players in the algae oil business are Chevron, Honeywell and Boeing

5.Based on the entensive multi-year studies by the US DOE I previously mentioned there should be little doubt this can be developed as an alternative fuel.

1. You're right, maybe I should have said less allure than one of those dotcom companies. It has a market capital of about $5M USD. That's nothing. With an ROA of -3%, an ROE of -5%, that's hardly success is it? Throw in a declining share price of 15 1/2 cents, weak financial fundamentals and you have a stock that no one is going to run for. I don't think they have even been able to hire a CFO yet.

2.Key word is ESTIMATED. In the oil industry, there is another term; PROVEN oil reserves. Open algae ponds is not the direction of oil development. It is not economically viable. Algae is now grown in tubes. Open ponds create an environmental impact, including foul smells and run off. Even if this company had a miracle method (which no one knows about) they have not started production yet and are some time before producing oil in any significant quantity.

3. What does PetroSun's purchase of 2 small companies in the armpit of Alabama have to do with this? Eagle Biodiesel is 1 gas station, 5 tanker trucks and a miniscule production point. Fleet Biodiesel is as important as the local Piggly Wiggly general store.

How one could interpret these purchases as a demonstration expertise and the ability to deliver on the promises of algae is beyond me. Read the financials and the regulatory filing information, not the company issued press releases.

4. Chevron, Honeywell and Boeing are going in a different direction. Their respective investments just might be driven by;

i) Tax credits given for R&D into alternative fuels

ii) Tax credits generated by losses in specific areas.

iii) Public Relations benefit to show that they are good corporate citizens and are helping to fund R&D

in addition to the desire to identify alternative fuels.I don't think the amount of money spent on these projects is significant. Important and valuable yes, but hardly a sign of a trend.

As I stated before and I'll emphasize again, I'm not denying the potential, but we're several years away from it being a viable alternative. Something is needed in the interim and so far the only option left is the current biofuel option. The amounts of replacement fuel are so large that it will take many years before there is even an infrastructure in place to provide and service that fuel. For the next decade or so, we're going to have to rely on something. As was wisely observed previously, best method is conservation and a big reduction of automobile use.

[Spee]

As I stated before and I'll emphasize again, I'm not denying the potential, but we're several years away from it being a viable alternative.

As was wisely observed previously, best method is conservation and a big reduction of automobile use.

IMHO, this is a fair statement followed by a completely ridiculous statement. In the modern era, there are two things that historically drive innovation, private industry R&D investment because of perceived consumer demand and proven consumer demand. Social brainwashing, political manipulation of the facts, corruption between the political and private sectors (eg, ADM in the US) and conservation/reduction are not solutions or even movement in a positive direction. Hardly wise at all. Governments don't solve problems. If anything, the solutions they propose aggravate the situation. History has proven this time after time.

[geriatrickid]

As was wisely observed previously, best method is conservation and a big reduction of automobile use.

IMHO, a completely ridiculous statement. In the modern era, there are two things that historically drive innovation, private industry R&D investment because of perceived consumer demand and proven consumer demand. Social brainwashing, political manipulation of the facts, corruption between the political and private sectors (eg, ADM in the US) and conservation/reduction are not solutions or even movement in a positive direction. Hardly wise at all. Governments don't solve problems. If anything, the solutions they propose aggravate the situation. History has proven this time after time.

Sorry, but I don't understand your point. Are you saying that conservation is not an appropriate method to reduce consumption? Conservation offers immediate benefits. What's so bad about walking somewhere or taking public transit instead of the car? or not running the A/c 24/7? A litre saved here and a litre saved there do add up. Conservation buys time to accomplish all the wonderful things you cite. If we can stretch out fuel supplies a few extra years, it will certainly bring some time to get things done properly. If Thailand could trim energy imports by just 5% think of the impact it would have on the balance of payments and direct impact upon the consumer's pocketbook. People have to choose between gas for the vehicle and clothes, food and medical care. Instead of petro dollars flowing out of the economy, they might very well be spent on goods and services that employ other thais.

[Spee]

As was wisely observed previously, best method is conservation and a big reduction of automobile use.

IMHO, a completely ridiculous statement. In the modern era, there are two things that historically drive innovation, private industry R&D investment because of perceived consumer demand and proven consumer demand. Social brainwashing, political manipulation of the facts, corruption between the political and private sectors (eg, ADM in the US) and conservation/reduction are not solutions or even movement in a positive direction. Hardly wise at all. Governments don't solve problems. If anything, the solutions they propose aggravate the situation. History has proven this time after time.

Sorry, but I don't understand your point. Are you saying that conservation is not an appropriate method to reduce consumption? Conservation offers immediate benefits. What's so bad about walking somewhere or taking public transit instead of the car? or not running the A/c 24/7? A litre saved here and a litre saved there do add up. Conservation buys time to accomplish all the wonderful things you cite. If we can stretch out fuel supplies a few extra years, it will certainly bring some time to get things done properly.

This may be all well and good, but it is hardly practical. Growing economies and populations such as those in India and China aren't about to implement an energy conservation program to stagnate or reverse their growth. The same could be said of ALL other highly populated areas. Any conservation that you or I or other small groups can do are statistically insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

From my perspective, there is no rational need or reason to conserve. Energy is a commodity. There are basically two forms of energy that I need: 1) Electricity for my personal life and business and 2) Fuel for transportation (whether car, airplane or other). Conserving a few watts of electricity is a matter of pennies per month and has ZERO effect upon the overhead costs and operations of the electrical grids. Conserving a gallon or two of fuel here or there again only saves a few dollars at the cost of time and inconvenience to me.

As for train, airline and other forms of mass transit, it is purely supply and demand. If they are available when I need them, then I will pay whatever the costs may be to get to where I want to go. Whether I as an individual choose to use them or not is going to have little or not effect on the operating cost of an individual leg of travel.

If Thailand could trim energy imports by just 5% think of the impact it would have on the balance of payments and direct impact upon the consumer's pocketbook. People have to choose between gas for the vehicle and clothes, food and medical care. Instead of petro dollars flowing out of the economy, they might very well be spent on goods and services that employ other thais.

There is no cause and effect to the point you are trying to make. Some people may have to make spending trade-offs because they don't have enough money, not because the cost of energy is increasing. They don't have enough money because they don't have the skills required to take on a higher paying job, NOT because the cost of fuel has increased. They don't have the skills required because basic educational and career opportunities aren't available.

**

EDIT

**

I would also add that ridiculous government energy policies are indeed causing starvation in other parts of the world. For example, in Mexico where corn is a dietary staple of the rural poor, the sky-rocketing cost of corn due to government requirements for ethanol based fuel has resulted in food becoming unaffordable. People want to talk about crimes against humanity. Well, this is a classic example IMHO.

Consider hypothetically if someone were to figure out how to make fuel from rice and this caused the price of rice to increase by a factor of ten or twenty. Now you would have a situation where 10's of millions of rural poor in Thailand and other southeast Asian countries may not be able to afford basic food. As in Mexico, governmental policy would have in effect, created the same scenarios that prevent millions in Africa from eating, surviving and prospering.

**

Heck, maybe I would like to have a $10,000 Rolex, drive a Bentley, and live in a posh Phuket gated complex. But I don't make enough money so I have to conserve my spending and instead I have a $10 Timex, drive a Ford and live in a simple up-country village house.

Rather than force conservation of energy and place additional government restrictions, the Thai government should help their people to be better educated, have more freedom of choice in employment, encourage offshore investment and allow their economy and citizens to join the 21st century.

Edited July 20, 2008 by Spee

[Plus]

Any conservation that you or I or other small groups can do are statistically insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

Can you show some statistics to prove so?

Switching from petrol to natural gas makes HUGE difference on any scale you look, for example. For drivers it's 5-6k savings a month, and the impact of a million LPG powered cars on the economy is not insignificant - Thailand used to be LPG exporter, now it has to import this stuff at market prices and subsidize the difference. I don't remember the exact figures of government losses here but I guesstimate they are comparable to running 30baht scheme. Maybe on a grand scale these tens of billions of baht don't mean much for the economy of Thailand if expressed in numbers, but if it means a loss of half of money that goes on healthcare - that's quite a lot.

[vagabond48]

instead I have a $10 Timex, drive a Ford and live in a simple up-country village house.

Guess what, you have a lot in common with billionaire Warren Buffet who leads a moderate lifestyle considering his enormous wealth

[Galong]

Any conservation that you or I or other small groups can do are statistically insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

Can you show some statistics to prove so?

Switching from petrol to natural gas makes HUGE difference on any scale you look, for example. For drivers it's 5-6k savings a month, and the impact of a million LPG powered cars on the economy is not insignificant - Thailand used to be LPG exporter, now it has to import this stuff at market prices and subsidize the difference. I don't remember the exact figures of government losses here but I guesstimate they are comparable to running 30baht scheme. Maybe on a grand scale these tens of billions of baht don't mean much for the economy of Thailand if expressed in numbers, but if it means a loss of half of money that goes on healthcare - that's quite a lot.

I second what Plus is saying. Conservation is math, plain and simple.

If enough people care enough to cut back or perhaps more realistically, engineering takes place that makes engines more efficient, that is a potential huge infuence on energy consumption. If petro chemical fuels are supplemented with biofuel, all the better.

The problem with China and India coming around to become major consumers is scary for sure. However, if done wisely (fat chance), the impact could be lessened.

Corn for fuel is ridiculous , but that doesn't blow the whole biofuel ship out of the water. There is wise land use and there is land use based on lobbying power and corruption.

Growing corn to feed cattle is also stupid. First of all, cows aren't designed to eat grain. This is all marketing hype done by strong lobbying interests. In other words, the food/crop industry is just as corrupt as any other big-money making industry. There are ways to improve, but that means the fat cats don't get to fill their pockets in a fashion in which they've become accustomed.

[ChiangMaiAmerican]

OriginOil Files Patent For Breakthrough Algae Oil Extraction Technique

OriginOil's latest invention builds on the company's first patent, Quantum Fracturing, in which ultrasound from intense fluid fracturing breaks down algae cells much in the same way a high-frequency sound wave breaks glass. In the new patent filing, the flowing algae biomass is first sent through a shielded wave guide system where it receives low-wattage, frequency-tuned microwave bursts, breaking the cell walls. Quantum Fracturing is then applied to these pre-cracked cells to complete the oil extraction. The result is a system that makes low-energy and environmentally-safe algae oil production a reality.

http://www.chemicalonline.com/article.mvc/...ough-Algae-0001

If it works as they say algae oil will be simpler to extract making it more viable.

[ChiangMaiAmerican]

Growing corn to feed cattle is also stupid. First of all, cows aren't designed to eat grain. This is all marketing hype done by strong lobbying interests. In other words, the food/crop industry is just as corrupt as any other big-money making industry. There are ways to improve, but that means the fat cats don't get to fill their pockets in a fashion in which they've become accustomed.

Without corn the cow is very lean and skinny. Most beef served in Western countries is marbled. In the US cows are grazed on grasslands until mature, shipped to a feed lot in the Midwest, fattened on corn and sold as Western Beef.

[ChiangMaiAmerican]

For anyone who is interested below is a link to the findings of the long term study (16 years) of algae for biofuels conducted by the US Department of Energy. The study established that growing algae for oil extraction in open ponds is feasible. It was not cost effective to do so at the time the report was written (1998). The estimate was that oil prices would have to increase twofold before it would be cost effective. The price of oil has now increased threefold over the 1998 price. The report is 328 pages long. The file is over 3 megabytes so for those with slow connections it will take a while to download.

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/pdfs/b..._from_algae.pdf

Edited July 21, 2008 by ChiangMaiAmerican

[Galong]

Growing corn to feed cattle is also stupid. First of all, cows aren't designed to eat grain. This is all marketing hype done by strong lobbying interests. In other words, the food/crop industry is just as corrupt as any other big-money making industry. There are ways to improve, but that means the fat cats don't get to fill their pockets in a fashion in which they've become accustomed.

Without corn the cow is very lean and skinny. Most beef served in Western countries is marbled. In the US cows are grazed on grasslands until mature, shipped to a feed lot in the Midwest, fattened on corn and sold as Western Beef.

Yep, consumers are told that this is what beef is supposed to be like. It's not. Cows eat grass; they're herbivores... check out this page. Forcing them to eat grain (granivores) often results in ulcerated rumen and other digestive problems. Plus, fat cows seem to equal fat people... apparently

Thanks for the link to the Breakthrough Algae Oil Extraction Technique... there's some hope for us.

[plachon]

Any conservation that you or I or other small groups can do are statistically insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

Can you show some statistics to prove so?

Switching from petrol to natural gas makes HUGE difference on any scale you look, for example. For drivers it's 5-6k savings a month, and the impact of a million LPG powered cars on the economy is not insignificant - Thailand used to be LPG exporter, now it has to import this stuff at market prices and subsidize the difference. I don't remember the exact figures of government losses here but I guesstimate they are comparable to running 30baht scheme. Maybe on a grand scale these tens of billions of baht don't mean much for the economy of Thailand if expressed in numbers, but if it means a loss of half of money that goes on healthcare - that's quite a lot.

Rawang Plus, or you might be accused of drinking "koolaid" (whatever that is).

Spee talks <deleted>: always has and probably always will. One only has to look over the global warming thread to see this self-evident fact.

Of course energy conservation works on whatever scale one cares to look, from a personal money-saving perspective to a national or global perspective. And each day that the stats indicate the world's greenhouse gas emissions are increasing the imperative to save energy and switch to less polluting modes of consumption get ever greater. It's a no brainer, unless one was brainwashed from an early stage that the mythical American Way of Life was the best show on earth. Sadly, Spee is not alone in his neo-con delusion, which is looking on the bright side, helping to speed up the demise of his nation's hegemonic position.

[plachon]

Growing corn to feed cattle is also stupid. First of all, cows aren't designed to eat grain. This is all marketing hype done by strong lobbying interests. In other words, the food/crop industry is just as corrupt as any other big-money making industry. There are ways to improve, but that means the fat cats don't get to fill their pockets in a fashion in which they've become accustomed.

Without corn the cow is very lean and skinny. Most beef served in Western countries is marbled. In the US cows are grazed on grasslands until mature, shipped to a feed lot in the Midwest, fattened on corn and sold as Western Beef.

In other words their turned into obese bovines to feed obese people.

Luckily America is not The West, so in Western Europe and Australia, cows are still mostly fed on free-range grass and are not "lean and skinny", but healthy and muscular. I just have to walk a few miles into the surrounding West of England countryside to see hundreds of healthy cows to confirm this fact and look in our butcher to see "British Beef" on sale, which is as succulent and tasty as it's ever been without a corn-fed diet for its final fattening.

So, let's not confuse "Western Beef" with beef from The West.

[Galong]

So, let's not confuse "Western Beef" with beef from The West.

I stand corrected.

There are some American beef suppliers who let their cows eat grass, but not many.

I've read that it takes ten pounds of corn to grow one pound of beef... not a very good return I'd say. Environmentally speaking, we should eat the corn instead of the beef.

[plachon]

So, let's not confuse "Western Beef" with beef from The West.

I stand corrected.

There are some American beef suppliers who let their cows eat grass, but not many.

I've read that it takes ten pounds of corn to grow one pound of beef... not a very good return I'd say. Environmentally speaking, we should eat the corn instead of the beef.

Which is something of an irony, given the size of the US and the profusion of grass and general rangelands suitable for grazing cattle that the majority finish their lives in penned feedlots. I guess this situation can be attributed to the fact that the US largely sacrificed sound principles of farming to the "industrial mentality" back in the pre-WW2 era, when Henry Ford wanted soya oil for his cars' paint and created the soya industry and the cotton industry was created to destroy the hemp (evil weed) crop which hitherto had been the fabric of choice for the jeans industry.

I guess beef too was taken over by industrial interests who didn't give a hoot about environmental or energy costs when they totally distorted common sense farming methods that had prevailed before. Bankers, businessmen and economists were given "free range" in an industry they didn't really have a clue about (because they thought it was "just another industry"), and the world has been paying the price with oil-dependent agro-industry ever since.

[Gary A]

Keeping this on topic regarding Thailand, I have a couple questions for the anti ethanol people. Are you suggesting that we should eat more sugar and quit using sugar cane as feed stock for ethanol? Do you know what cassava is? Do you consider that as a major food crop? OK I lied. I have another question. Why are the Thai farming communities the poorest people in Thailand? Pay them a fair price for their crops and they will produce much more. Marginal land is growing nothing but weeds in my area. They simply can't afford to try to grow anything.

[Galong]

Do you know what cassava is? Do you consider that as a major food crop?

"Major" no, a food crop, yes. Could we do without it? Yep. A lot of it is grown to feed livestock I believe.

Why are the Thai farming communities the poorest people in Thailand? Pay them a fair price for their crops and they will produce much more. Marginal land is growing nothing but weeds in my area. They simply can't afford to try to grow anything.

Farmers who are poor businessmen are poorer as a result. That coupled with the inability to cut out the middleman makes their profits low.

Marginal land can certainly grow biofuels, such as Jathropa. Now, whether it's the farmers who take advantage of that land or businessmen is one of the big issues. If farmers don't have the investment/working capital to farm the land, then they might need a loan. However, if they don't know how to handle the loan repayment, can't manage money and can't do the necessary math to make it a viable business, they'll end up still poor.

Farmers is the US, for example, have had to become businessmen in order to be farmers.

[ChiangMaiAmerican]

One thing that is not happening in Thailand or most developing countries for that matter is consolidation of farmland which brings economy of scale. Small farmers cannot compete with large agribusiness. With the exception of organic fruit and vegetables, farms in developed countries must be large scale in order to bring sufficient income to live. Even labor intensive organic farms must be at least 12 rai in order to earn a marginal living. If the Thai farmer's children do not become educated and move beyond the farm it is unlikely they will ever break free of poverty.

Edited July 21, 2008 by ChiangMaiAmerican

[Galong]

There's a show on TV at the moment called Think Green. It featured a bit about Jathropa oil and a company called D1 and about biodiesel. Check out this website.

There is an underlying problem with someone going into business in the biodiesel realm. PPT has already got the monopoly on it... surprise. If you grow and sell fuel, you're seen as cheating the country out of taxes as fuel is taxed. A way around it is to form a co op and have a lot of members. You can sell to member. Ah, loopholes... I'm sure they'll plug that soon though.

[Spee]

Any conservation that you or I or other small groups can do are statistically insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

Can you show some statistics to prove so?

Switching from petrol to natural gas makes HUGE difference on any scale you look, for example. For drivers it's 5-6k savings a month, and the impact of a million LPG powered cars on the economy is not insignificant - Thailand used to be LPG exporter, now it has to import this stuff at market prices and subsidize the difference. I don't remember the exact figures of government losses here but I guesstimate they are comparable to running 30baht scheme. Maybe on a grand scale these tens of billions of baht don't mean much for the economy of Thailand if expressed in numbers, but if it means a loss of half of money that goes on healthcare - that's quite a lot.

Rawang Plus, or you might be accused of drinking "koolaid" (whatever that is).

Spee talks <deleted>: always has and probably always will. One only has to look over the global warming thread to see this self-evident fact.

Oh puh-lease ... spare me the two-bit liberal sniping.

Let's say I "conserve" two gallons a fuel a week and convince 10,000 people to do the same. In other words, we collectively "conserve" about 1,000,000 gallons of fuel annually.

A large amount to be sure, but what does that really mean in the grand scheme of things?

JACK SQUAT !!!!!

That fuel will get sold and consumed elsewhere. That's why companies hire sales people, to sell product. Unless you're in China, Burma, North Korea or Iran, you live in an area governed by supply and demand capitalism. The consumer demands and the seller sells. If demand starts drying up due to "conservation" then the seller will lower the price until people start buying more again.

Then there are the various militaries around the world. The US military alone burns about 5 or 10 times that amount of fuel PER DAY!! On the other hand, the US military is also arguably the biggest "conserver" of fuel in the entire world. The US military has 70-something submarines and about a dozen aircraft carriers. By using nuclear fuel in their submarines and warships, the US military "conserves" millions of gallons of fuel EVERY DAY!

Combining your argument and mine, if people were really serious about "conservation" of fossil fuel, then we would be building nuclear powered electrical generating plants. That might possibly "conserve" hundred of millions of gallons of fuel EVERY DAY!

[Gary A]

Food shortage? I predict that Thai rice prices will drop drastically by this fall. Since the rice price went up, marginal land has been planted and that means a surplus. The farmer gets screwed again.

[slapout]

So, let's not confuse "Western Beef" with beef from The West.

I stand corrected.

There are some American beef suppliers who let their cows eat grass, but not many.

I've read that it takes ten pounds of corn to grow one pound of beef... not a very good return I'd say. Environmentally speaking, we should eat the corn instead of the beef.

I reckon you need to read that article again, I know sometimes we mis-state or mis-read but you have brought this to a new high for beef (feed to weight conversion rate)

[plachon]

One thing that is not happening in Thailand or most developing countries for that matter is consolidation of farmland which brings economy of scale. Small farmers cannot compete with large agribusiness. With the exception of organic fruit and vegetables, farms in developed countries must be large scale in order to bring sufficient income to live. Even labor intensive organic farms must be at least 12 rai in order to earn a marginal living. If the Thai farmer's children do not become educated and move beyond the farm it is unlikely they will ever break free of poverty.

I think land consolidation is happening in Thailand, but still at a fairly slow rate and it varies by region. In Central Thailand there clearly has been massive land consolidation into relatively few hands and then owners becoming absentee landlords splitting their holdings between villagers who rent it out for rice cultivation. In North and NE, I think the land consolidation process is only just beginning, but again the land is being snapped up by non-farmer business people who want to try industrial, monocrop farming like rubber (NE) and fruit orchards (esp in North), or plant the dreaded eucalyptus for quick returns and long term land degradation.

But as the present generation of rice farmers enter their twilight years and split their land between offspring mostly, rather than passing it on as a block to the most capable member likely to make a go of farming, there is still continuous fracturing of land into small parcels. And 90 % of the siblings are unlikely to be motivated farmers, so long as the prospects in other sectors are better and farmers are an un-united majority, subject to exploitation by predatory politicians and middle-class merchants.

[plachon]

Any conservation that you or I or other small groups can do are statistically insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

Can you show some statistics to prove so?

Switching from petrol to natural gas makes HUGE difference on any scale you look, for example. For drivers it's 5-6k savings a month, and the impact of a million LPG powered cars on the economy is not insignificant - Thailand used to be LPG exporter, now it has to import this stuff at market prices and subsidize the difference. I don't remember the exact figures of government losses here but I guesstimate they are comparable to running 30baht scheme. Maybe on a grand scale these tens of billions of baht don't mean much for the economy of Thailand if expressed in numbers, but if it means a loss of half of money that goes on healthcare - that's quite a lot.

Rawang Plus, or you might be accused of drinking "koolaid" (whatever that is).

Spee talks <deleted>: always has and probably always will. One only has to look over the global warming thread to see this self-evident fact.

Oh puh-lease ... spare me the two-bit liberal sniping.

Let's say I "conserve" two gallons a fuel a week and convince 10,000 people to do the same. In other words, we collectively "conserve" about 1,000,000 gallons of fuel annually.

A large amount to be sure, but what does that really mean in the grand scheme of things?

JACK SQUAT !!!!!

That fuel will get sold and consumed elsewhere. That's why companies hire sales people, to sell product. Unless you're in China, Burma, North Korea or Iran, you live in an area governed by supply and demand capitalism. The consumer demands and the seller sells. If demand starts drying up due to "conservation" then the seller will lower the price until people start buying more again.

Then there are the various militaries around the world. The US military alone burns about 5 or 10 times that amount of fuel PER DAY!! On the other hand, the US military is also arguably the biggest "conserver" of fuel in the entire world. The US military has 70-something submarines and about a dozen aircraft carriers. By using nuclear fuel in their submarines and warships, the US military "conserves" millions of gallons of fuel EVERY DAY!

Combining your argument and mine, if people were really serious about "conservation" of fossil fuel, then we would be building nuclear powered electrical generating plants. That might possibly "conserve" hundred of millions of gallons of fuel EVERY DAY!

If you can convince 10,000 people to conserve fuel/energy, then you obviously have a good message and should take that up for a living and maybe those 10,000 people can persuade their friends/neighbours too, and before you know it, everyone is into energy conservation!

If the logic is good, the benefits clear (survival of mankind swing it?) and there's money to be saved then it will catch on, especially in times of an economic downturn like now. (At least to those with a reasonable standard of education). The only slight hitch arises from uneducated masses becoming Coca-colonised and deliberate acts of misinformation and subterfuge from the powerful forces out there who want to preserve the status quo or stand to lose from a massive change in consumer sentiment. Hence, the billions poured into the oil advertising industry and US military complex by a few Texas oil barrons (who are v. soon to be shown the door, after milking it for all they can get while screwing up the Middle East for the foreseeable future).

Mind you, I love your logic that the US military should be regarded as the biggest fuel "conserver" in the world. Priceless.

[Spee]

There's a show on TV at the moment called Think Green. It featured a bit about Jathropa oil and a company called D1 and about biodiesel. Check out this website.

Biofuel is a worse scam than the whole global warming nonsense.

First off, there are no market forces driving it. Biofuel survives only because of government subsidies. Without government law and subsidies, there would be no market for biofuel. In other words, biofuel exists because governments are forcing social change upon the backs of the taxpayers. This is scary, scary, scary stuff.

Second, it is a move towards socialism and bigger government which has always failed, rather than small government, free market policies under which people and societies have always prospered.

Third, when money and government are involved, there is always corruption, extortion, and thievery, general at the expense of the lower and middle classes. Some of the stories about Jatropha production in India, with land-grabs, government intrusion and intervention, and general screwing of the poor are example enough of where all this nonsense is headed. I could only imagine how badly this would get out of control in Thailand.

Fourth, by pushing the biofuel agenda, governments are hurting the very people they purport to help. The biofuel agenda is driving up the price of crops that would otherwise become food. In the previously stated case of Mexico, this policy is driving the poor to starvation. Have we learned nothing from the likes of Zimbabwe. Ethiopia, and Sudan where millions live in poverty and die of starvation because of government policy?

Finally, biofuel is a complete joke, economic and otherwise, because it costs more fuel to produce than it delivers as a final product. The fact that the fuel used to produce it is petroleum-based makes it all the more ironic. It takes more petroleum to produce the equivalent biofuel than the energy the biofuel itself is capable of producing. Only by government force, koolaid drinking and general pretzel logic could some crazy scenario like this even be possible.

Edited July 22, 2008 by Spee

[Spee]

I love your logic that the US military should be regarded as the biggest fuel "conserver" in the world. Priceless.

It was fact used as satire to point out how silly the whole fuel conservation nonsense is.

If you really wanted to conserve fossil fuel, then you would be an active proponent of a nuclear-fueled electrical industry.

But you don't want conservation.

You want to push a social agenda backed by government force which mandates what people can and can't use for their energy needs.

That whole notion of government mandated control is contrary to everything that has helped societies grow and prosper over the last 150 years. (gasp ... gasp ... barf)

[Galong]

There's a show on TV at the moment called Think Green. It featured a bit about Jathropa oil and a company called D1 and about biodiesel. Check out this website.

Biofuel is a worse scam than the whole global warming nonsense.

First off, there are no market forces driving it. Biofuel survives only because of government subsidies. Without government law and subsidies, there would be no market for biofuel. In other words, biofuel exists because governments are forcing social change upon the backs of the taxpayers. This is scary, scary, scary stuff.

Second, it is a move towards socialism and bigger government which has always failed, rather than small government, free market policies under which people and societies have always prospered.

Third, when money and government are involved, there is always corruption, extortion, and thievery, general at the expense of the lower and middle classes. Some of the stories about Jatropha production in India, with land-grabs, government intrusion and intervention, and general screwing of the poor are example enough of where all this nonsense is headed. I could only imagine how badly this would get out of control in Thailand.

Fourth, by pushing the biofuel agenda, governments are hurting the very people they purport to help. The biofuel agenda is driving up the price of crops that would otherwise become food. In the previously stated case of Mexico, this policy is driving the poor to starvation. Have we learned nothing from the likes of Zimbabwe. Ethiopia, and Sudan where millions live in poverty and die of starvation because of government policy?

Finally, biofuel is a complete joke, economic and otherwise, because it costs more fuel to produce than it delivers as a final product. The fact that the fuel used to produce it is petroleum-based makes it all the more ironic. It takes more petroleum to produce the equivalent biofuel than the energy the biofuel itself is capable of producing. Only by government force, koolaid drinking and general pretzel logic could some crazy scenario like this even be possible.

First, you're obviously reading different studies. I only watch Fox News when I need a laugh. Yes, there is corruption potential in everything, but biofuel is a viable option and it is NOT necessarily at the cost of food prices nor does it need to use petrochemicals to be produced.

Second, what is scary, scary, scary stuff is believing that the oil industry and current governments are trustworthy and that the status quo is acceptable. "Land grabs"...um, there's a little war going on in Iraq because big oil companies can't accept the fact that our oil is under their country. There were no weapons of mass destruction and Osama wasn't there either... the only thing there is oil.

Third, whether you like it or not, alternative fuel are the future. There are plenty of people making their own fuel at home. Used cooking oil that might otherwise be discarded in a non-environmentally friendly way is being utilized. Marginal land is being used for fuel instead of just sitting there unused. Electric vehicles, air-powered vehicles and all sorts of alternatives are popping up. But I guess you think this is a waste of time and all of it is based on pretzel logic. I prefer to be more optimistic. I like to think that there's hope outside of the norm.

Forth, the global warming (worst) scam, as you enlightenly call it, is backed by a lot of scientists and it is not 100% clear which side is right. It's probably not purely a black or white scenario, but some shade of gray. Are you suggesting that humans can pump all of the burnt fossil fuel gasses that they wish into the atmosphere without ANY consequences?

[ChiangMaiAmerican]

Finally, biofuel is a complete joke, economic and otherwise, because it costs more fuel to produce than it delivers as a final product. The fact that the fuel used to produce it is petroleum-based makes it all the more ironic. It takes more petroleum to produce the equivalent biofuel than the energy the biofuel itself is capable of producing. Only by government force, koolaid drinking and general pretzel logic could some crazy scenario like this even be possible.

1. Changing World Technologies thermal depolymerization process produced fuels use a small portion of the fuel they create from the input feedstock to power the process. At the current price of crude they be profitable even without the government tax breaks. The feedstock since I doubt you are familiar with the it is turkey and pig guts from the ConAgra processing plant in Carthage, Missouri. The process can turn garbage, sewage, plastic waste, used tires and a host of other materials into crude.

2. The US Department of Energy over an 18 year period established that producing biodiesel from algae would be profitable if crude prices were double what they were in 1998. Crude prices are now triple what they were at that time hence all of the companies opening algae farms.

Biofuel can't be profitable if it takes more energy to produce it than the process yields.

Stop listening to and repeating Rush and Hannity and do some research.

Edited July 23, 2008 by ChiangMaiAmerican

[Gary A]

I guess that someone should tell Brazil how stupid they are. Imagine a country who stopped importing oil to use their own ethanol. They MUST be stupid to keep producing and exporting ethanol at a loss. Bio fuels are a winner in a number of ways. Bio fuels create jobs, they're renewable, reduce oil imports, reduce air pollution and most importantly they keep the countries money in that country. It's a big win any way you look at it. Some of you must have graduated from Berkeley to actually believe that it takes more energy to produce bio fuel than it's worth.

[Spee]

Responses like these three kill me.

Let me be explicitly clear. I don't have an issue with so-called "alternative" fuel. If individuals want to use them, no problem. If independent companies think they can make a profit in that line of business, no problem.

What I do have issues with is taxpayer funded government subsidies to push a social agenda towards alternative fuels in lieu of proven reliable cost-effective technologies. It is made even worse when those subsidies lead to corporate/government corruption, as they have done at practically every instance since the beginning of time.

I also have major issues with people pushing social and behavior modification agendas. The world is proven to work best when people have individual and economic freedom, not when they are told what to do, how to behave and how to spend their hard earned income. The world is proven to work best when government and subsidy programs are small, taxes are low, and companies are allowed to practice free market economics and let their products succeed or fail on their own merit and profitability.

I also find it very strange that people who tend to be the biggest proponents of alternative fuels and conservation of fossil fuels also tend to be stridently anti-nuclear technology, which is by far the most economical means for mass-production of electricity (thereby also making it the most pro fossil fuel conservation. Edit: They also tend to run in the same circles as the global warming zombies.

Edited July 23, 2008 by Spee