Biofuel for the masses

M

MeekAndMild

New member
This thread is more of a heads up than any great political discussion which will change anybody's mind. But I thought it to be appropriate to post in the context of more forum interest in energy policy, alternative fuels and (here comes the gun related topic) the price of petrochemicals from which gunpowders and plastic rifle stocks are made from.

Since before WWII engineers have been working to create economically viable synthetic petroleum. And since the mid 1940's the price per gallon of gasoline created from coal has been about $1.50 per gallon. Not that it helps us any because since the mid 1960's the greenies have been exerting nearly constant pressure to do away with anything made from coal in the first place. Which is why we're not using $1.50 per gallon coal-derived gasoline today.

Enter the concept of biogasoline made from switchgrass. (Greenies love "renewable energy".) It hasn't been economically feasible ... until a couple of days ago. So now it seems that they've finally found the right combination of catalysts and flow processing to create cheap biogas. LINK Present production cost of second generation biofuels is similar to that of corn based ethanol but I'd expect the price to fall once the new process goes on line. LINK
 
That's my old school... neat!

I think biodiesel is still a better idea, no need to waste farmland for crops, and there is an extremely high yield of fuel per unit area, AND diesel engines are naturally more efficient than gasoline engines.

But this is good news.
 
Buck fifty to produce, bet they add another buck fifty on in taxes. Notice how the Government is taking big oil to task over thier profits, but the government isn't spending so much as a single second considering lowering or even temporarily cutting gas taxes.
 
From M&Ms second link.

The biorefineries will also be able to use lignocellulosic crops like poplar and switchgrass, which can be grown on land less suitable for farming than traditional row crops.
Click to expand...

If you follow the population trends in some sections of the Dakotas you'll be aware there are areas in both states that once supported small but vibrant farming communities that are becoming ghost towns. Nat Geo recently had a story on the topic. It was only the most recent I've read in the last 20 years. There are any number of reasons people left these areas but lack of rain in dependable amounts required to grow certain crops profitably is/was a core problem.

If switchgrass or a genetically adapted verson of same will grow in the Dakotas you just might be in for:
-A new industry in the those areas
-Return of the buffalo common (cash crop #2)
-Reduced dependency on foreign oil (dare we suppose we might be able to export the stuff?)

I sure hope this becomes a reality. Wonder how much land in the Dakotas sells for these days?

The only fly-in-the-ointment for the Dakotas is perhaps, the poplar....

Best,

S-
 
Notice how the Government is taking big oil to task over thier profits, but the government isn't spending so much as a single second considering lowering or even temporarily cutting gas taxes.
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong I'm against high taxes and excessive government regulation, however the 'what about the high taxes' line is another tactic of the oil companies to divert attention form their high profits.

I would wager that most Americans like our highway system and it has to be paid for. The federal tax per gallon of gasoline is 18.4 cpg and here is a list of the rates in the various states. http://www.gaspricewatch.com/usgastaxes.asp

The highest rate listed is for NY at 31.9 the lowest is Alaska at 8 now combine that with the federal rate and then look at the total price per gallon.

No matter which excuse the oil companies use, no matter the diversion tactic they use, the bottom line is that every quarter they turn in record profits.

Well some of their defenders might say, they have a fiduciary responsibility to maximize profits for their share holders. Boy they sure are!
 
An updated as of jan08 tax list. The one you posted is from 2005.
Click to expand...

Sorry about that.

Ok lets say that some states could reduce their tax rates and still pay for roads. Could not the oil companies reduce their profits and still make good money?

The bottom line is that the government won't reduce taxes and the oil companies won't reduce profits, unless they are forced to. Consumers also don't seem to want to reduce their rate of consuption, a 5% reduction would dramaticaly lower prices.

I will also agree that government over regulation, drilling restrictions, and fuel blend requirements are also contributing factors.

When you get down to it our dependence on oil is a huge problem and there is no easy answer. It looks like for the future we can only expect higher and higher prices.
 
Could not the oil companies reduce their profits and still make good money?
Click to expand...
The stockholders would fire them and replace them with people who would not do such stupid things. Many retirement funds and mutual funds are heavily invested in energy stocks.

Energy is far from being the most profitable industry in the world. Look to pharmaceuticals (Legal and otherwise.) and banking to get the real profits. Energy companies make the large profits simply from dealing in large volumes.
 
Return on Investment - Beverage and Tabacco has a profit running 22% That is better than the 7 to 10% in the oil industry.
 
When you talk about oil company profits, the dollar amount is not really a fair measure, unless you adjust for the impact of inflation. In other words, a dollar today will not buy nearly as much stuff as forty years ago. I have an old menu from one of the more expensive places just off of my undergraduate campus. Back then, a really top-of-the-line hamburger cost 35 cents. Today. . .try $6.00. These prices are for the sandwich only--no fries or drinks.

The proper measures are net profit margin, return on investment, and return on equity. By the way, just how much money is a 5% profit margin on sales of $900,000,000,000? Yes, I meant $900 billion; because, that is less than Exxon's total sales revenue in their recent annual report. But, nobody would consider 5% of sales an excessive profit margin.

The problem is that politicians play us like violins. They are experts at blowing smoke. By focusing on dollar amounts, they get us to overlook the profit margins. They play the same game on the gun debates. Most of the anti's arguments are strawmen or red herrings. That is how they manage to win.
 
I made the point in another thread that gas prices are not necessarily the result of anything done by oil companies. We went from a stock bubble which burst early in the decade from which capital fled into a real estate bubble, which is still bursting, and capital is fleeing into a commodity, or commodity futures bubble. That market does not necessarily reflect wellhead prices by oil companies. Markets are not perfect, often they're not even very good, at realistic pricing. We know this from previous bubbles. Market participants are irrational and the markets subject to manipulation. I predict this bubble will burst, and when it does, it will leave a lot of "alternative energy" producers idled, priced out of the market.

However, it's insanity not to move to a clean, reasonably priced, energy rich source such as nuclear. When the oil rich countries are again poor they will be more peaceful. Biofuels are not that alternative. Ethanol is a negative return. Biodiesel is better, but all our fuel needs could not be met by available raw material. (There is some oil producing grass that if you planted all of the southwest with it and fed it plenty of water would produce enough biodiesel to meet current transportation needs, ethanol will never be a viable replacement and has a host of negatives on the food supply).
 
Ditto to HKuser.

"...the government isn't spending so much as a single second considering lowering or even temporarily cutting gas taxes."

Pollyticians in general and Democrats in particular think raising taxes is the only correct answer to everything. They want to raise taxes in economic hard times to get money to help the poor, that is the ones who won't work. And then, if they can't raise taxes in good economic times when would they ever get to raise them? Bah, a pox on all of 'em1

Al Gore wanted us to have $4 a gal gas, now that we have it they still want to raise fuel taxes even more! And the Democrats demonise oil companies simply because it makes good sound bites to feed the mentally challanged folk who vote for them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top