White House Steps Up Support for Biofuels

While I agree that gas/ethanol isn't an answer, the diesel internal combustion is -- at least for now.

It needs no conversion. the CO2 is already lower off the batt, and what biodiesels we do have aren't coming from direct food sources (soy oil has little market outside biodiesel, some Chinese restaurants, and HP compatible toner cartridges, oh and in some cases -- plastics).

You do realize the average diesel is 30% more efficient, and that biodiesel has a minor increase in NOx output, but all other emissions both regulated and not drop between 20 and 70%, right?

When an electric car can go 700 miles without stopping for a charge, I'll consider the internal combustion dead and gone. However very few -- in the US only Volkswagen vehicles -- cars can achieve a 700 mile rang on less than 14 gallons of fuel. If even 20% of vehicles on the road did this, it would change the climate and economic pictures we see today.

I dare you to prove otherwise.

Right back at you and anyone else simply nodding in agreement because they are Obama syncophants. Were you for ethanol when Bush and Cheney were pushing it? CELLULOSIC biofuels along with hemp biofuels that are also not water intensive like corn could already be ready for market if politicians in BOTH PARTIES weren't so glued to the hip of their corporate sponsors. This isn't about 'wanting it all and wanting it now,' (especially since it has been THIRTY years that we have been warned about getting
our act together on this) this is about having no choice in moving to get away from sources of energy that are water intensive, require clearing land that takes away from growing food thus exacerbating deforestation in the process, and that harms the environment even more. We must now do what is necessary to maintain the climate balance of this planet, and this ain't it. But you keep putting Obama and your party first instead of seeing the big picture... then have the nerve to tell others "they" are part of the problem.

True, but the corn producers already get way to much government subsidies, now they are giving them more....this is a step in the wrong direction.

We need to legalize hemp, and we can do that without legalizing marijuana. As some one stated earlier, it is a great fallow crop, that adds nitrogen and other nutrients to the soil, and it requires little to no pesticide and fertilizer--products which are generally petro-chemically derived.

Are you including the various methane producing methods (to be used similar to natural gas) being considered...I know of two farms that are more than self sufficent.

Are you considering the human waste disposal energy systems (7 of are self sufficent in England - I think 7) - produce at least as much power as they consume.

Are you the various cellulose to fuel experiments in progress?

Are you considering the work being done in direct transformation of heat into electricity

My guess is that you are not.

yup I am.

Using land that could be producing food to try and produce an oil substitute is not a solution. It is at best a minor minor band aid to a world that is trying to continue living on a resource that has already peaked in production capacity.

The focus should be to get away from fossil fuels not to continue their use to infinity. This is not a cost effective use of resources.

WRONG

No, I do not believe you are considering the other alternative fuels I just listed. In direct response to your last comment, NOT a single one of the alternative fuels I listed utilize any additional land.

Methane requires little if any additional space, it is frequently burned off or vented right now (so, just have to capture it)

The London (England) waste processing plants are about the same size as normal waste processing plants and they are SELF powering.

cellulose to fuel can utilize waste stalks and vegetable waste (as in corn stalks, leaves, etc) - NO additional land used (maybe a refinery like plant, but no additional agricultural land use)

Heat into electricity needs not use any land what so ever..

Next time, try doing a little bit of research before commenting

Burning any form carbon is not the answer... Biofeul is just a really stupid compromise... We have to quit oxidizing carbon for energy...

Ok, first what does the article say? It discusses subsides to corn based ethanol producers. Hopefully we can agree there is no solution in corn ethanol.

Sugar cane based ethanol is much more cost/energy effective but obviously the U.S. simply does not have the climate/land to produce it in large enough quantities for it to be a substantial solution.

Currently all but 2 % of U.S. production of ethanol comes from corn.

This is the reality as of today. Now if the majority of plan is to fund the use of cellulosic crops in conversion to enthanol then it does make sense, but the article does not suggest that.

The ideas (I am assuming you are referring to Furanics) in development (from what I have read they seem to be at least 2 years off) that you mentioned are at this point still ideas, none have been demonstrated on a large scale use. If this plan was to fund the development if that, it would seem to make sense.

Otherwise, I think you are reading a lot into this article that simply isn't there.

Want to make a difference? Require a diesel option, subsidize all current forms of biodiesel, mandate complaince with a 50% product and meet both a 25% drop in oil imports and a 50% increase in combined fuel economy.

Our diesel jeep gets 23 city. The gas twin gets 15. You do the math. Soy oil alone, when not used to make HP toner for LaserJets, has little to no market share other than Biodiesel. Lots of other (currently illegal) plants that we don't consume for food can be used to produce this fuel, not to mention some of these plants happen to be good rotational crops to aid existing food farming.

It can be win-win. We just banked on the wrong technology like we always do. VHS. IPv4. CDMA. English measurements. The list goes on.