Gas prices have doubled. High food prices have pushed over a hundred million people into starvation. It's snowing in the northwest United States -- in the middle of summer. And a United States president, known for his allegiance to the dark world of oil and for his suspect behavior around the biggest terrorist attack in U.S. history, appears to be preparing to go to war with Iran.
This is not the set up for Oliver Stone's new World War III thriller; it is the summer of 2008 -- a year that will likely determine the course of America for generations to come.
Against this volatile backdrop, there is a growing hope that the "green" in America's red, white and blue could yield answers and technologies that can get us out of the climate and energy crises. Depending on one's particular definition of "green," a new group of fuels called "biofuels" have become a personal badge of honor for some and a national disgrace for others. A fervent debate rages over the ecological, economic, and sociological impact of these fuels.
In an effort to simplify the data, the media has clumped these fuels together, calling the entire conglomerate of biologically derived fuels "biofuels." Through a carefully managed flurry of information, the public has been led to believe three vastly generalized myths:
1) Biofuels are all the same;
2) Biofuels are "bad" because they are produced at the expense of food;
oh, and one other thing ,
3) Biofuels are all made from the big bad grain called corn.
But nothing could be further from the truth.
That's because, like biofuels, the truth is a commodity bought and sold on the open market. The recent "untruths" about biofuels are brought to us by the American Petroleum Institute (API), which has given the New York based public relations agency Edelmann the mandate to "better America's perception of petroleum fuels," and the Grocery Marketer's Association of America (GMA), which, according to Iowa Senator Grassley's web site, has also initiated a smear campaign against biofuels. The debate these strange bedfellows manufactured is now commonly known as "Food vs. Fuel."
Much of the "Food vs. Fuel" controversy centers on ethanol, the alcohol fuel that is primarily made from corn in the United States and sugarcane in Brazil. Very little ink or airtime is given to the other biofuels, especially fuels from non-food sources, fuels from waste and fuels from new crops like algae.
In addition to dissuading the public and most policy makers that biofuels could be a viable solution to the energy woes of America, this debate has combined with the soaring price of oil and a lack of government support to decimate much of the U.S. biofuels industry.
Over the coming weeks, I will attempt to dissect the myths surrounding the "Food vs. Fuel" debate, and present you with some cutting-edge information about biofuels. I will also do my best to address the many questions you will pose.
Following is a general outline of the topics I will be covering:
Week 2
Who Ate My Tortillas? -- The Truth About Food vs. Fuel
Week 3
Where's My Orangutan? -- Why Biofuels Don't Kill Apes
Week 4
Too Expensive to Meter -- The Exploding Nuclear/Hydrogen Hype
Week 5
Biofuels 101 -- What Dick Cheney Doesn't Want You to Know
Week 6
Biofuels: The Next (and Hopefully We'll Get it Right) Generation
Week 7
Mean Green Fuel Machines -- Algae to the Rescue
Week 8
Bio "Energy" -- Mother Nature Knows Best
Week 9
The Secret to the Energy Universe -- (Finally!)
Week 10
New Series -- "Global Warming Doesn't Exist (So Why is it so Darned Hot ?!)"
Our country is capable of becoming self-sufficient, out of war and out of debt while breathing the fresh air of environmental consciousness and keeping our stomachs full.
It takes ten pounds of grain to raise one pound of beef but only one pound of grain to raise one pound of fish.
Alcohol burns much cleaner in cars than gasoline and you can make alcohol out of anything that ferments and any fruit,vegtable, or grain, will ferment with sugar and water and yeast.
Most of Americas farmland does not grow corn only about 5%.
Plants take carbon dioxide out of the atmostphere in order to grow. By making fuel out of plants you are helping to remove carbon dioxide from the air. Burning gasoline puts carbon dioxide into the air that wasn't there last year or the year before (from ancient source only).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zo8iPAzgVcw
David Wojick http://www.climatechangedebate.org
http://www.showmenews.com/2008/Jun/20080610News022.asp
Published Tuesday, June 10, 2008
WASHINGTON (AP) - Senate Republicans have blocked action on legislation containing more than $50 billion in tax breaks and renewable energy incentives..........
As a comparison, we have spent approximately 650 billion dollars in Iraq to date.
http://www.showmenews.com/2008/Jun/20080610News022.asp
Published Tuesday, June 10, 2008
WASHINGTON (AP) - Senate Republicans have blocked action on legislation containing more than $50 billion in tax breaks and renewable energy incentives
As a means of comparison, we have spent approximately $650 billion on the war in Iraq to date.
I find it amazing that Germany and to some degree Japan were fueling their militaries on ethanol and biodiesel a half century ago yet we find ourselves debating the efficacy of these technologies today. There are a plethora of renewabl energy alternatives out there, what is needed is some LEADERSHIP that can convince or encourage business to invest the capital.
Food vs. Fuel is a false debate. There is a lot of poor education regarding alternative energy and biofuels in particular. Check out Vinod Khosla's blog on this same page: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/vinod-khosla/biofuels-good-or-bad_b_107921.html
it does a good job of debunking the food or fuel myth.
Great post and great comments from users! I look forward to the reading all of your posts!
Best Regards,
G&M
All I can say is that he and David Blume have the right course, and we certainly can have both food and fuel. This following link is worth billions of dollars: http://www.alcoholcanbeagas.com/?bid=2&aid=CD1&opt=
Also, if you look at the most recect post at www.lawnstogardens.com, you can learn a fast, easy way to deal with this mess right now.
- PeakOilBoy
http://skytruth.mediatools.org/node/19981
I think you should stop repeating the right wing lie that no oil spills took place.
Here are a few links that might be helpful:
http://www.fao.org/docrep/w7241e/w7241e05.htm
Here is a hint of what it takes to coax a biological system into performing on the level of engineering systems:
http://www.plantphysiol.org/cgi/reprint/88/3/869
Now to what solar cells can do:
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=3117599
That being said, there is no reason whatsoever that 90% of hot water heating could not be done with thermal solar installations. It should simply be a part of any construction plan. It's silly to burn natural gas in the summer for water heat, and a good sized solar installation can at least pre-heat the water in winter.
It's beyond me why appliance companies are not making thermal solar and small wind generators. The materials and technologies fit exactly with what they do to make dishwashers and refrigerators.
because i'm tired of the junk about how biofuels will save us.
no anything about EROIE?
because i seriously doubt it will
we need to be straight with people, because if the democrats start making promises they can never keep, then the republicans will make a big comeback within a few years.
A friend of mine had a diesel VW Rabbit back in the 80s that got something like 70-80mpg. Yes, diesel is dirtier then gas....but when you are burning about 1/3-1/2 as much fuel (2008 Rabbit gets 22/29mpg) it has to be a whole lot dirtier to make a difference. And from what I've been told, bio-diesel (vegetable oil) burns cleaner then diesel, and gets slightly better mileage. And bio-diesel can be made from many plants, and can be made from the vegetable oil after it has been used to cook food (Work at McDonald's and drive for free).
As to which is best... not a clue. I'd personally rather see concentrated sunlight used to produce steam to run generators to make electric. Or put solar panels on every rooftop, and cover 10% of Death Valley as well (Should take care of LA).
... so powerful it could replace every type of fossil fuel energy product (oil, coal, and natural gas).
... This plant is the earth's number one biomass resource or fastest growing annual plant for agriculture on a worldwide basis, producing up to 14 tons per acre. This is the only biomass source available that is capable of producing all the energy needs of the U.S. and the world...
Hemp will produce cleaner air and reduce greenhouse gases. When biomass fuel burns, it produces CO2 (the major cause of the greenhouse effect), the same as fossil fuel; but during the growth cycle of the plant, photosynthesis removes as much CO2 from the air as burning the biomass adds, so hemp actually cleans the atmosphere. After the first cycle there is no further loading to the atmosphere...
Source: USA Hemp Museum
JOIN THE EMAIL LIST, WATCH THE FUEL VIDEOS:
Internet Explorer: http://jsknow.angelfire.com/home
Other Browsers: http://jsknow.angelfire.com/index.html
Hemp can produce several different kinds of fuel. In the 1800's and 1900's hempseed oil was the primary source of fuel in the United States and was commonly used for lamps and other oil energy needs. The diesel engine was originally designed to run on hemp oil because Rudolf Diesel assumed that it would be the most common fuel. Hemp is also the most efficient plant for the production of methanol. It is estimated that, in one form or another, hemp grown in the United States could provide up to ninety percent of the nation's entire energy needs.
Source: Schaffer Library of Drug Policy
JOIN THE EMAIL LIST, WATCH THE VIDEOS:
Internet Explorer: http://jsknow.angelfire.com/home
Other Browsers: http://jsknow.angelfire.com/index.html