Gas $2.73 ... Diesel $2.73

skywarn · **Posted:** Fri May 04, 2007 11:16 am

Reflex wrote:

Cowcatcher wrote:

Just a slight detour of the subject.

As someone from a dryland, small grain, farming area I have seen farmers struggle for years and have struggled there myself. I am more than happy to know that corn prices are increasing due to the demand for ethnol and it is impacting our wheat prices upward as well since demand on corn shifts the feed grain market to wheat, barley and oats. I will gladly pay a little more for fuel and food to know that we are moving away from foreign oil and making farming a viable profession again.

Thats a false premise. We are buying more fuel for farming, processing and transportation of ethanol than we are mitigating by its use. Furthermore, its not going to be 'slightly more' at all, its going to be a mass rise if they continue this trend, affecting all areas of food production.

Should be looking into algae growth for your region if your truly trying to be forward thinking. It could be cultivated in eastern Washington very very easily by those same farmers. And it could be done on land left fallow for crop rotation issues.

Not trying to be argumentative, but of all the biofuels, corn based ethanol is the absolute worst.

have you noticed that after ever post regarding fuel you must put in your $.02 regarding Algae??? for you that must be great. but...every fuel has its probs... all of them. But for us down here in TX where we are just now coming out of a 2+year dry spell it wouldn't work for us so much. And the End user wouldn't be able to make there own, thus still depending on someone for fuel. and with our luck, some shark will notice that the best place to grow algae is in a wet place... hey what if we cut down all of the rain forest and grow algae... i don't care, ill get rich, people will buy it and by the time the earth dies ill be long gone! Just like they are already de-foresting to grow Soybeans, for oil.

so no matter what we do someone will turn it into a bad thing.

If algae is soo good then why are you not running on it?? are you making it in your garage, back yard? or are you still going to the pump and buying USLD and depending on the oil that so many American's have died for??

me? i depend on every red blooded American who love to pig out on fried foods! everytime my redneck buddies go fishing, then have a big o'll fish fry, they just dump the used oil on the ground, pour it in the trash, or the lake.. but now, i take it and use something that was trash and is now fuel. I'm helping the planet now.. cause no matter what, there is oil already on the shelf at the stores and most of it will end up in the trash can or down a drain.

I'm sure if there was a way i could make algae fuel right now and its cheaper... i would, but not when I'm more worried about winning "who has the best yard on the block" award. that's where my water goes....

DarbyWalters · **Posted:** Fri May 04, 2007 11:54 am

Reflex wrote:

Thats a false premise. We are buying more fuel for farming, processing and transportation of ethanol than we are mitigating by its use. Furthermore, its not going to be 'slightly more' at all, its going to be a mass rise if they continue this trend, affecting all areas of food production.

This is a statement that can not be backed up precisely with numbers. Whether we transport barrels of oil, bushels of corn, trucks of fossil fuels or tankers across the ocean the transportation cost is a wash (no water pun intended) in a sense. No matter what fuel we chose to use, there will be those costs. As for other costs to produce ethanol, they are there but so are the costs of producing any fuels. The main thing is to get a balance of fuels and costs to produce and transport those fuels. We need to be more "Flexible" ( this pun is intended ) when it comes to any power producing forms.

We would be better off reducing the "need" for so much fuel of any type. Too many people using up limited resources in a wasteful way. The problem is that unless it hits us in the pocketbook, we tend to go on ignoring the eventual costs.

skywarn · **Posted:** Fri May 04, 2007 12:00 pm

Entendre!, Entendre! Je boirai à celui !

Reflex · **Joined:** Mon Jan 29, 2007 8:48 pm **Posts:** 567

DarbyWalters wrote:

This is a statement that can not be backed up precisely with numbers.

Actually it can. The yields for various crops can be seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fu ... production
You'll note that corn is one of the absolute worst crops that can be used for production. In fact, you'll never likely break even when all factors are considered due to its low energy density.

Quote:

Whether we transport barrels of oil, bushels of corn, trucks of fossil fuels or tankers across the ocean the transportation cost is a wash (no water pun intended) in a sense. No matter what fuel we chose to use, there will be those costs.

Not true. The reason this is an issue for ethanol is that most fuels can be sent through pipelines, which consume far less energy than trucking. Unfortunatly due to the highly corrosive nature of ethanol, there is no way currently to send it via pipeline, it has to be trucked everywhere. This is not an expenditure that the estimates are taking into account even though its actually very very significant(especially when one considers the fuel being trucked is 20-30% less energy dense than gasoline).

Quote:

As for other costs to produce ethanol, they are there but so are the costs of producing any fuels. The main thing is to get a balance of fuels and costs to produce and transport those fuels. We need to be more "Flexible" ( this pun is intended ) when it comes to any power producing forms.

I agree with this, but we also should be weeding out fuels that use more resources than can be produced by their usage, or that threaten other resources(such as water in the case of ethanol).

Quote:

We would be better off reducing the "need" for so much fuel of any type. Too many people using up limited resources in a wasteful way. The problem is that unless it hits us in the pocketbook, we tend to go on ignoring the eventual costs.

In full agreement with this.

Reflex · **Joined:** Mon Jan 29, 2007 8:48 pm **Posts:** 567

skywarn wrote:

have you noticed that after ever post regarding fuel you must put in your $.02 regarding Algae???

Cowcatcher is a representative for a district in my state. I speak up to him specifically because he is advancing the cause of local farmers but without understanding the issue itself. The eastern and western Democratic parties in WA appear to be rather divided on the issue, in the west they generally understand the threat that current farm based biofuels represent, in the east they just see massive subsidies. I do not feel it is intentional, but I strongly feel that there are better ways to bring long term revenues to the eastern Washington farmers without compromising other resources in the process.

Quote:

for you that must be great. but...every fuel has its probs... all of them. But for us down here in TX where we are just now coming out of a 2+year dry spell it wouldn't work for us so much. And the End user wouldn't be able to make there own, thus still depending on someone for fuel. and with our luck, some shark will notice that the best place to grow algae is in a wet place... hey what if we cut down all of the rain forest and grow algae... i don't care, ill get rich, people will buy it and by the time the earth dies ill be long gone! Just like they are already de-foresting to grow Soybeans, for oil.

The reason I mention algae specifically is because it needs federal backing to bring it to widescale production, and it does not have the other major drawbacks that other biofuels have. Namely, it can use saltwater instead of freshwater, and its energy density is so high it can be done without harvesting vast tracks of forest. Honestly at this point I have yet to see a down side.

Quote:

If algae is soo good then why are you not running on it?? are you making it in your garage, back yard? or are you still going to the pump and buying USLD and depending on the oil that so many American's have died for??

Like most biofuels, it requires a conversion process, so its not something you can do in your back yard. You can't make biofuel from corn or any other product in your back yard either, you rely on others to do the processing into veggie oil before you can convert it to BD.

Not to side track things. But I do feel its an important issue.

Pablo · **Joined:** Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:06 pm **Posts:** 1201

I would have to concur that Algae is the best hope for a sustainable affordable crop, mainly for the reasons already posted by Reflex. Algae is simpler to produce, and has a much higher yield. I don't think APS and others would be so interested in it if it had no future. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15287313/. It will be interesting to see if genetic modifications of algae result in even more fuel yield.

DarbyWalters · **Posted:** Fri May 04, 2007 3:53 pm

Well this thread is, like some others in the past, becoming a discussion of alternative fuels and politics of economics. Let's let it get back to the subject of the thread.

There is now a section specifically for Alternative Fuels:

http://www.lostjeeps.com/forum/phpBB3/viewforum.php?f=94

Kniggit · **Posted:** Fri May 04, 2007 4:44 pm

They do, just ask the people in California about brush fires. Basically the way it works anything that rots can be turned into some kind of fuel....

K

Cowcatcher · **Posted:** Fri May 04, 2007 9:12 pm

I have been biting my tongue but since I was specifically mischaracterized. I said nothing about bio fuel production in Eastern Washington, rather I said that increased demand for midwest corn for ethonol production was helping small grain prices. I also take umbrage at the characterization of those from of us from the other 7/8th of Washington state. :oops:

Now I disengage.

Phadeout · **Posted:** Fri May 04, 2007 11:05 pm

You guys in the States are lucky...

Right now in Edmonton, Alberta, unleaded 87 octane is 1.065 per Liter.

That is:

4.03 per Gallon!

Gahhhhhhhhhh! And this is Oil Country! We export 80% of our oil! Shoot me :evil:

jcphoto20 · **Joined:** Sun Nov 19, 2006 1:36 am **Posts:** 507

87 $3.56 diesel $3.36

BKH · **Posted:** Mon May 07, 2007 5:48 pm

Denver May 6, 2007:

Regular $3.09
Diesel $3.09
Premium $3.39

YES!!!

bdptp73 · **Posted:** Mon May 07, 2007 9:14 pm

RUG $3.18
B10 $2.56

$0.62 difference, WOO HOO!!!

techTim · **Posted:** Tue May 08, 2007 12:44 am

2.83$ for #2 diesel, 3.05-ish for B20, 3.29/.39/.49 for gas in their funny grades.
viva diesel!

BVCRD · **Posted:** Tue May 08, 2007 8:48 am

BKH wrote:

Denver May 6, 2007:

Regular $3.09
Diesel $3.09
Premium $3.39

YES!!!

We are about 2 bits higher up here.

vtdog · **Joined:** Fri Sep 30, 2005 11:27 am **Posts:** 640

Schadenfreude (but I gloat too!!)

jinstall · **Posted:** Tue May 08, 2007 10:51 am

$5.59 a gallon here.

chadhargis · **Posted:** Tue May 08, 2007 11:14 am

$5.59 a gallon?

How the heck to you guys afford anything. Costs more to drive back and forth to work than you earn! :shock:

I imagine shipping costs are ghastly too. Food, clothing, etc...all have to be expensive due to the cost of fuel.

The sad thing is, oil companies keep making record profits as we all stand by and watch. Not much we can do about it I guess.

BiodieselJeep.com · **Posted:** Tue May 08, 2007 11:31 am

chadhargis wrote:

The sad thing is, oil companies keep making record profits as we all stand by and watch. Not much we can do about it I guess.

Dare I say it: Biodiesel?

chadhargis · **Posted:** Tue May 08, 2007 11:42 am

I with ya brother...but I don't think there is enough farmland to grow the veggies. Then you have extract the oil, then transesterfy it.

The funny thing about petro diesel is it's a byproduct of making gasoline. It should be free.

Gas $2.73 ... Diesel $2.73

Who is online