Canada's BioFuel Industry

[PrimeNumber]

Instead of thread drifting on another thread, I thought I'd open a new one to discuss the BioFuel industry in Canada and why Harper was so against it.

Here's a few things that need to be done;

1. Re-opening of the ecoEnergy Biofuels program. The initial cost was subsidies of $190-million spread out over five years.
2. Direct unused ethanol money in the ecoEnergy fund to support next-generation biofuels made from agricultural and municipal waste. Provide incentive for those next-generation biofuel producers at a cost about $50-million.

3. Start a $500-million NextGen Biofuels Fund which is used to subsidize construction of cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel–from-waste plants.

Biofuels are created in the process of making cattle-feed as well.

[TimG]

BioFuels are a fraud that increase the cost of the food and do nothing for the environment once the complete costs of growing, transporting and burning the fuel are taken into account.

Edited June 28, 2015 by TimG

[-1=e^ipi]

I would prefer to see more research into utilizing the thermoelectric effect. There was a recent paper about phonons having a bad gap structure or something and that this could be used to create more efficient thermoelectric devices (I don't remember where I read about it though).

Edit: Maybe this was it:
http://www.nature.com/nmat/journal/v14/n7/full/nmat4308.html
http://www.rh.gatech.edu/news/417301/can-heat-be-controlled-waves

Edited June 28, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[msj]

I'm also not a fan of biofuels.

Given the way solar is going I hope this biofuel bs will stop soon.

Of course, I also hope solar blows a hole in the coal, oil and gas industries but I'm okay with that taking another decade or two.

[PrimeNumber]

BioFuels are a fraud that increase the cost of the food and do nothing for the environment once the complete costs of growing, transporting and burning the fuel are taken into account.

That's just not true and has been researched. The real cause for food inflation is what should be very obvious population and the growing wealth of high population countries like India and China. Their population is growing and it is also eating more meat which means more grain goes to feed animals and that in turns reduces supplies. If the US or Brazil stopped producing biofuels now it would not change the rise in food prices. Animal feed produces Ethanol and Ethanol production in turn produces animal feed. Every acre of grain taken for ethanol or biodiesel doesn't mean one less acre for animal feed.

[PrimeNumber]

I would prefer to see more research into utilizing the thermoelectric effect. There was a recent paper about phonons having a bad gap structure or something and that this could be used to create more efficient thermoelectric devices (I don't remember where I read about it though).

Edit: Maybe this was it:

http://www.nature.com/nmat/journal/v14/n7/full/nmat4308.html

http://www.rh.gatech.edu/news/417301/can-heat-be-controlled-waves

What are the main uses of this technology in household and transportation energy?

[-1=e^ipi]

What are the main uses of this technology in household and transportation energy?

I'm not sure if I completely understand your question. With respect to the thermoelectric effect, it can be used as a source of renewable energy, although I guess if you could generate materials with better heat conduction properties then maybe this could improve energy transport (idk).

Edited June 28, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[PrimeNumber]

I'm not sure if I completely understand your question. With respect to the thermoelectric effect, it can be used as a source of renewable energy, although I guess if you could generate materials with better heat conduction properties then maybe this could improve energy transport (idk).

So it could finally be what revolutionizes the energy industry? When I said transportation energy I was referring to replacing fossil fuels as the primary source of energy in automobiles.

[TimG]

That's just not true and has been researched.

I am sure rent seekers can produce manipulated numbers but the fact is 40% of the US corn crop goes to subsidized biofuels and that directly impacts the world price for animal feed and corn based foodstuffs. Similar market distortions exist in other places where subsidized biofuels compete with food crops. It is simply impossible for the not to be an effect when biofuels consume such as large share of the crop. Edited June 28, 2015 by TimG

[PrimeNumber]

I am sure rent seekers can produce manipulated numbers but the fact is 40% of the US corn crop goes to subsidized biofuels and that directly impacts the world price for animal feed and corn based foodstuffs. Similar market distortions exist in other places where subsidized biofuels compete with food crops. It is simply impossible for the not to be an effect when biofuels consume such as large share of the crop.

That's just not true. Either way the US is producing the animal feed, regardless if they also produce the biofuels. Not making the boifuels will not stop the animal feed from being produced.

[-1=e^ipi]

So it could finally be what revolutionizes the energy industry? When I said transportation energy I was referring to replacing fossil fuels as the primary source of energy in automobiles.

Revolutionize the energy industry? Doubt it. But it could have many niche applications. Also, scientific inquiry has value on it's own merit, so even if it doesn't result in something that is very economic, something of value has still been produced.

With a country like Canada were wind and solar are not as viable as other places, but where we have larger temperature swings and lots of lakes that can be used as a heat reservoirs, it could be useful.

[PrimeNumber]

Revolutionize the energy industry? Doubt it. But it could have many niche applications. Also, scientific inquiry has value on it's own merit, so even if it doesn't result in something that is very economic, something of value has still been produced.

With a country like Canada were wind and solar are not as viable as other places, but where we have larger temperature swings and lots of lakes that can be used as a heat reservoirs, it could be useful.

I was just reading an article about it's use in electric cars to reduce power consumption on the battery. in a Hydrogen Cell vehicle it could have some incredible results. As well as in internal combustion engines, giving even better MPG.

Edited June 28, 2015 by PrimeNumber

[TimG]

That's just not true. Either way the US is producing the animal feed, regardless if they also produce the biofuels. Not making the boifuels will not stop the animal feed from being produced.

It clear you do not understand markets. 40% of the crop is being burned. If this crop was sold for animal feed instead the price of feed would be much less than it is. This is how biofuels hurt the poor by making food more expensive. I suggest learn something about basic economic if you cannot understand this relationships.

[TimG]

in a Hydrogen Cell vehicle it could have some incredible results.

If you have free hydrogen you can manufacture synthetic diesel too. The problem is how to get the hydrogen and that process consumes energy and can be worse than simply using fossil fuels.

[PrimeNumber]

It clear you do not understand markets. 40% of the crop is being burned. If this crop was sold for animal feed instead the price of feed would be much less than it is. This is how biofuels hurt the poor by making food more expensive. I suggest learn something about basic economic if you cannot understand this relationships.

I don't think you understand. The crop is going to feed either way. The feed is sold, all of it. No matter what. If the USA does not produce this feed, another country will. Not using that 40% will not decrease the cost of the feed. Because it will be produced elsewhere. The demand is there. It's simple economics of supply and demand. I suggest you learn some simple economics.

China and India are using most of it, if the US does not produce it. China and India still need it, so someone else will be producing it. How is that hard to understand. The price will remain unchanged. This was laid to bed awhile ago, keep up with the times.

[-1=e^ipi]

I was just reading an article about it's use in electric cars to reduce power consumption on the battery. in a Hydrogen Cell vehicle it could have some incredible results. As well as in internal combustion engines, giving even better MPG.

That's a niche use, yes. I wouldn't call it revolutionary.

[PrimeNumber]

That's a niche use, yes. I wouldn't call it revolutionary.

What will determine if its revolutionary is if hydrogen cell cars go down in price.

[TimG]

I don't think you understand.

I understand that you have no clue about how markets work. It is very simple: supply and demand. If the demand goes up the price rises. If the demand goes down the price drops. If subsidized biofuels increase the demand for corn the price rises. If those subsidies are removed the price will drop. Short answer: the non-farming poor get screwed over by biofuels because they spend the most of their income on staples like corn. Edited June 28, 2015 by TimG

[TimG]

What will determine if its revolutionary is if hydrogen cell cars go down in price.

Nope. The cost of the car is largely irrelevant. It is cost of hydrogen that is the problem. If you burn coal create electricity which used to manufacture hydrogen then you are not really doing much for the environment.

[-1=e^ipi]

What will determine if its revolutionary is if hydrogen cell cars go down in price.

And where does the power come from? What is your energy source to produce the hydrogen? Nuclear?

I skeptical that hydrogen fuel cars will be superior compared to electric cars with improvements in battery technology.

Edited June 28, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[PrimeNumber]

Nope. The cost of the car is largely irrelevant. It is cost of hydrogen that is the problem. If you burn coal create electricity which used to manufacture hydrogen then you are not really doing much for the environment.

Only if you still use coal fire electricity. If you use Nuclear to produce it, geothermal, wind, solar. Than I guess that argument falls apart.

[PrimeNumber]

And where does the power come from? What is your energy source to produce the hydrogen? Nuclear?

I skeptical that hydrogen fuel cars will be superior compared to electric cars with improvements in battery technology.

Depends on the improvement in battery technology and where they go. Time will tell.

[TimG]

Only if you still use coal fire electricity. If you use Nuclear to produce it, geothermal, wind, solar. Than I guess that argument falls apart.

Not really. My argument was the cost of the car is largely irrelevant. It is cost of hydrogen that matters. Nuclear solves the CO2 emission issue but you are fooling yourself if you believe anyone will build new nuclear plants at this time. Solar and wind are incredibly expensive so hydrogen produced with those power sources would not be economically viable. Edited June 28, 2015 by TimG

[Freddy]

Instead of thread drifting on another thread, I thought I'd open a new one to discuss the BioFuel industry in Canada and why Harper was so against it.

Here's a few things that need to be done;

1. Re-opening of the ecoEnergy Biofuels program. The initial cost was subsidies of $190-million spread out over five years.

2. Direct unused ethanol money in the ecoEnergy fund to support next-generation biofuels made from agricultural and municipal waste. Provide incentive for those next-generation biofuel producers at a cost about $50-million.

3. Start a $500-million NextGen Biofuels Fund which is used to subsidize construction of cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel–from-waste plants.

Biofuels are created in the process of making cattle-feed as well.

All fuel pumps around here contain the message.

"May contain 10% ethanol". That was a goal set by our previous government.

And that goal had been accomplished.

As for subsidizing the industry. I think the 12+ years they got from government was good enough. If they couldn't figure how to turn into a profitable business after that long, to bad.

The ones that figured it out are still operating today without subsidization.

[Mighty AC]

I have no problem with bio-wastes being used to generate fuels, but dedicating highly productive acreage to fuel production really doesn't make sense. Something like 90% of the biomass produced by corn, soybean and wheat production is inedible. By all means let's turn that waste into niche fuels...however, coproduction of crops and either wind or solar energy on the same land is the mainstream way forward.