Alcohol fuel - The obvious answer, Yes or No?

[Billy T]

To 2inqusitive: Thanks for the good search. I too was not able to open the link to Crutzen's paper.

First two minor points (not to forget): It appears that rapeseed is used for bio-diesel, not alcohol, production and that is why I had never heard of it as alcohol crop.- I follow this field with several sources automately sending me information as I own shares in 2nd or 3d largest alcohol/sugar company in Brazil. (Bought them too soon, as current glut of sugar has depressed stock value.)
I tell this as wish all to know I do have a financial interest in seeing Brazil export alcohol, but WHERE it is sold is not important. Looks like Japan will be taking all Brazil can produce as soon as the tankers for transporting it are finished. - Even China lost out on this cheap energy. (USA, under GWB, never stood a chance.) I wanted alcohol to go to US as my grandchildren live there and I pay taxes there, which are higher than they need because GWB is "pushing corn based alcohol." Also I do not like to see the dollar dropping in value as my social security paymnets buy less and there is no way I can protect them by buying ADRs etc. The "sovern funds" of the oil exporters could destroythe dollar over night and by ceasing to buy US Treasury bonds are doing that more slowly to get assets out of dollars with least possible loss, but same final effect - a US in deep depression with inflation caused by "printing press money" paying off maturing Treasury bonds tha can not be "rolled.")

I think the 'alcohol from corn program' was mostly due to the US congress, not from oilman Bush.

Certainly congress plays a role, and probably GWB is not the true source of it, only manupliated by some with even more financial interest in keeping the world "hooked on oil." I think he is also not the true source of the Iraq war. Probably both stem from the "neocons" that guide him as does his "anti-Koyota treaty" stand.

The alcohol from corn plan is much to clever to have been GWB's idea. It will give the apearance of doing something to reduce the US dependance on oil, while actually slightly increasing it. Never does GWB state that alcohol from corn will reduce oil consumption. (He has been well coached.) He always states that the goal is to replace 20% of US gasoline with alcohol. Joe American misunderstands this as reduce oil consumption by 20%. Joe will pay more in taxes for the subsidies, more for his food, more to drive his car (on either alcohol or gasoline) than needed, and part of the dollars Joe sends to the mid East will buy the weapons tha kill Joe's son (instead buying alcohol from Brazil, which would be buying the products Joe's son is safely making where he works). Also the cane alcohol from tropical lands, would be reducing man's contribution to global warming, instead of increasing it above what simply continuing to use gasloine would produce!

It is for these reasons, I called alcohol from corn an "insane program." If you stop to think, I think you will agree. It is insane, self-interest, of the oil industry, that does not care about the damage (to entire world and Joe) being done because correcting it would reduce their profit rate. Also, great damage is being done to Joe's future descendents dozens of generations hence. - Oil is much to valuable as a chemical feed stock to burn for heat! What is going on now is not only insane, but probably the greatest crime against humanity in all of history!
-------
On corn and wheat etc.:
I am not sure (about 95% so) but think corn is significantly below the all time peak price but wheat is at or near it. It is true that in last month corn did recover 15% and wheat climbed to new high by 22%. It may well be true that factors other than switching acrerage from wheat to corn is only a minor part of the difference and certainly is true that the dropping value of the dollar makes both cost more.
--------
On Crutzen's N2O study:
In prior CO2 only studies, which did consider the "full production cycle" I.e. the fossil fuel burned to make the fertalizer, plow the field, deliver alcohol to "gas" stations, etc. there are a lot of estimates, so no precise conclusions. Oil industry paid for studies of alcohol from corn show slight reduction in net CO2 released and dis-interested university studies show a larger increase, but for simplicity, I will assume corn alcohol is "CO2 neutral." All studies show cane alcohol reduces CO2 release by factor between 4 and 8 fold, so I will assume by 6.

Crutzen's study is NOT of the "full production cycle." It concerns ONLY two effects of growing the source crop. The benefical one is CO2 is being removed from the air. The damaging one is that N2O is being released.
It concludes that "bad/good ratio" for corn is between 1.0 and 1.7, so I will assume corn alcohol is 1.35 worse than using gasoline as your car's fuel, from a greenhouse gas POV. Likewise he concludes alcohol from sugar cane is 0.5 to 0.9 times worse, so I will assume 0.7 times worse. (Of course any number less than unity is an improvement.) Thus 1000 liters of alcohol is same "Growing Release," GR, as burning 1350L of gasoline in the corn case and 700L in the cane case.

Now let me try to extened his results to the "full production cycle" with these assumptions:

To make it easy I will fill my car's 600 litter tank with alcohol. That, under the old CO2 only studies, has same CO2 release as 600 liter of gasoline (if from corn) and same CO2 effect as 100 liters of gasoline burned (if from cane).

Clearly all of the "benefit" in both cases comes from the growing crop removing CO2 from the air. Thus, with these assumptions making 600L of alcohol has net removal for the air is the carbon in 500L of gasoline (if from cane) and 0L (if from corn).

Now with the effect of N2O considered (and assuming the production of fertalizer dose not produce any and FALSELY assuming that the delivery trucks taking alcohol to the distribution stations also do not produce any, when in fact all high compression IC engines produce a lot of N2O) where corn is 1.35 times worse than gas and cane is 0.7 times worse, the 600L of gasoline (corn's equivalent) becomes 1.35x600 = 810 liters of gasoline and the 100L (cane's equivalent) becomes 70L of gasoline.

My assumptions may be wrong, but is seems to indicate that sugar cane is a net benefit (compared to using gasoline) of 600/70 = 8.6 times while from corn alcohol is a net damage of 810/600 = 1.35 times worse than gasoline. (This is obviously the same as Crutzen's N2O only GR results becuase I assum that the old studies CO2 studies were neutral in the release of CO2.)

I am sure that this logic is flawed or at least too simple. Perhaps you or some one will correct it? To do so. I think it is necessary to make one more assumption about the old CO2 only, total-cycle, studies related to what fraction, f, of the CO2 release comes out of the tail pipe of the car and then (1-f) of the CO2 is associated with fertilizer production, field plowing etc. This information must be part of the old CO2 only total-cycle studies, but may be hard to get that detail.

BTW, after reading your reference, it appears my guess about "root bacteria" working on the higher concentrations of fixed nitrogen in the soil used with corn may indeeed be the reason corn is so bad. - I.e. corn's gross inferiority to cane may not be due directly to any corn/cane difference. I already knew that both corn and cane are among the few plants that run the same, more complex, (four step), but more efficient, process in their photosynthesis, so suspected the difference might not be in the plants at all from the start.

 

[Billy T]

See 32 slides Bunge presented at 2 Oct 07 conference on alcohol at:
http://www.veracast.com/citigroup/biofuels07/player.cfm?eventName=1051_bungel
(I do not know why the "l" is at end of the link (name is not Bungel)

Despite half of the slides being about Bunge* many are general and the set of distorted maps of world (starting with slide 8) is very interesting: First shows countires reshaped to reflect their populations (India & China are huge) another shows countires by rain fall, some more by income per capita, and populations in various income ranges, etc.

------------------
*I have substancial holdings in BG - bought years ago when it was a company still headquartered in Brazil. It is very properous, world leader now in sales of several eatable oils and Number 1 supplier of fertalizer in major grain producing countries (except Russia where it is #2).

Farmers** use their future crops to pay for the fertilizer. Very "vertical": BG starts with its phospate mines and ends by placing of oils, milled flours, (and items, like mainoness) on grocery shelves or delivered to the bakers or delivery of feed sacks to farmers raising animals. They pay good dividends - I will probably never sell my shares as they are still rapidly appreciating.

**BG works very closely with the farmers. Even has service for the larger farms that uses GPS and soil analysis grid of the farm to help put down just the correct type and amount of fertilizer on each grid. After reading Crutzen's results (SEE SEVERAL JUST PRIOR POSTS) the avoidance of excessive nitrogen fertalizer this permits is more important for reducing man's contribution to global warming.
-----------------------
-----------------------
PS I also own a few shares in Verenium, VRNM, bought about 3 years ago when called Diversa (pre merger). It has not done anything for me fiancially, yet, but it too is very vertical. (I always like that.) Starts with its own developed enzimes and sells*** celulosic alcohol - As www.Verenium.com 's home page states: "FIRST PUBLIC COMPANY WITH THE INTEGRATED, END-TO-END CAPABILITIES TO MAKE CELLULOSIC BIOFUELS A COMMERCIAL REALITY"

-----------------------
***Only tiny amount from its pilot plant but:
"...In February 2007, Verenium broke ground on a 1.4 million gallon per year (MGY) demonstration facility located adjacent to its pilot facility in Jennings, Louisiana. The first demonstration-scale cellulosic ethanol facility to break ground in the United States, it is designated to operate on diverse regional feedstocks including sugarcane bagasse and specially-bred energy cane. The facility is slated for completion by the end of calendar year 2007, and for first operations in early 2008. ..."

They have operating experience already at the larger opperating level:

"... Under an exclusive license with Verenium covering four nations in East Asia, Marubeni Corporation and Tsukishima Kikai Corporation, LTD (TSK) completed the first demonstration project using the Company’s technology in January 2007. The Osaka Project, designed and constructed by TSK, utilizes demolition wood waste as a feedstock in producing up to 1.3 million liters of cellulosic ethanol annually. A second phase, planned for completion in 2008, will increase production to 4 million liters per year. ..."

Both texs from sub page:
http://www.verenium.com/Pages/Biofuels/BiofuelsProjects.html

 

[Billy T]

By chance today there is an independant up date on Verenium from a local Beaumont newspaper (assuming they were not paid by Verenium etc.):
http://www.southeasttexaslive.com/s...8894598&BRD=2287&PAG=461&dept_id=512504&rfi=6

Yesterday despite mentioning both BG and VRNM, I forgot to note that much bigger BG does use some enzimes it has licensed from VRMN, most of which VRNM, cleverly got the original version of by careful disection of the guts of terminites - they were processing celuose for energy, long be man existed.

 

[Carcano]

BTW, theres a big front page article in the current National Geographic issue on the Ethanol debate.

Its like reading all of Billy's posts in one spot!

 

[Billy T]

BTW, theres a big front page article in the current National Geographic issue on the Ethanol debate. Its like reading all of Billy's posts in one spot!

thanks. I will try to see it. I am often well ahead of most - how I got to be multi-millionar on only investment from a salary of a branch of Johns Hopkins.

After looking a little I found following (It appears that my prior posts stating America's "suburban infrastructure" would make it suffer more than others when the cheap energy era ends, as it is now, has had one factor wrong - the average distance food travels is three times larger than I thought. Must be GWB's expanded wealthy class importing French wine and Russian carivar.):

"... now we're used to ordering take-out food from every corner of the world every night of our lives–according to one study, the average bite of food has traveled nearly 1,500 miles (2,414 kilometers) before it reaches an American's lips, which means it's been marinated in (crude) oil. We drive alone, because it's more convenient than adjusting our schedules for public transit. We build ever bigger homes even as our family sizes shrink, and we watch ever bigger TVs, and–well, enough said. We need to figure out how to change those habits. ..."

FROM:
http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/2007-10/carbon-crisis/carbon-crisis-p3.html

I did know and have quoted that the average potato's cost is 7/8 ths in the oil it needs - in the sense that its cost includes its fertalizer, plowing, harvesting, insect killing chemicals, and transport to your table.

 

[Billy T]

...Its like reading all of Billy's posts in one spot!

Surely illegal as that would be / is "cruel and inhuman" punishment, but only a small sample of the "hell" that is coming.

National Geographic will not currently let me read article on line - perhaps later.

 

[abu_afak]

Hello. I just read the first page and not the other near 200 posts- so this may have been covered.

Brazil and Cane ethanol is an excellent replacement for Gasoline, America and Corn Ethanol is Not.

Cane gives you an 8:1 ratio on energy put in
Corn 1.3:1
Some say the actual ratio is no more energy derived than put in.

Certainly with diversion of land good for food crops and the doubling of prices for those grainstocks-- Corn ethanol has been a loser for the consumer.

We'd be better off just importing efficient Ethanol from Brazil.
Soros has bought Brazilian Cane land, not Iowa fields.

If we must produce Ethanol as a replacement and for strategic reasons.. Planting Cane Fields from Florida (Ala, Mis, La) to South Texas would make more sense because of the above ratio.



EDIT.. I see the above was mostly covered in the post at the top of this page-- so use this mostly as a simpler presentation to read and my other comments on where, etc

 

[Carcano]

National Geographic will not currently let me read article on line - perhaps later.

Its available now Billy.
http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/2007-10/biofuels/biofuels.html

Spends a lot of time time talking about the stupidity of the US Corn ethanol incentives, in comparison to the Cane ethanol industry already up and running in Brazil.

National Geographic probably got the idea from scoping your posts right here on Sciforums!

 

[Billy T]

Its available now Billy.
http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/2007-10/biofuels/biofuels.html
Spends a lot of time time talking about the stupidity of the US Corn ethanol incentives, in comparison to the Cane ethanol industry already up and running in Brazil.
National Geographic probably got the idea from scoping your posts right here on Sciforums!

Thanks for the link.
Yes this stealing from my posts is getting to be a real problem. The Economist has done it consistently in the last few issues.

Have now read the 6 pages. Not anything new to me there, but I can add an important thing National Geographic missed or at least did not point out:

I too think a significant part of the future alcohol prduction is with algae, but fear that it will never be economically competive with tropical sugar cane; however, the demand will be so great for liquid fuels (especailly when oil is over $100/ barrel) that algae will be used to produce liquid fuels. The fact that sugar cane dose displace food crops, at least pasture, will eventually cause regulations* on cane field expansion, so sugar cane will never meet even 1/2 the untimate demand. Nothing comes even close to already existing strains of algae on a yield per acre bases. I do not know, but suspect some of the dried solids from the algae system can be used as cattle food. Thus compenasting for the expansion of sugar cane into pastures, but a more rational, if improbable, solution to the shrinking pasture acreage is to reduce the consumption of red meat - not very healthy anyway and very inefficient way to feed people as less than 10 (I think less than 5, perhaps even less than 1) percent of the pasture's potential food production ends up on the table as calories in beef.

Algae can be grown in sealed systems in the desert, even if the intital load of water needs to be trucked in. The thing that Nat. Geo. failed to mention is that the sealed system is essential, even if fresh water is abundant. Many ignorantly seem to think of "green ponds" as the source of the algae, but that will not work because wild algae types will quickly gain dominance and process sunlight and CO2 for their own ends, not to make sugars and oils that man-selected algae are being genetically engineered to deliver.
---------------------------
*IT IS DEMAND FOR HARD WOODS, NOT AGRICULTURE which is causing the "rape of the Amazon." Many individual trees are worth more than $500 dollars. Typically the illegal loggers, burn the forest to destroy evidence of their cime. The poor living in the forest can then no longer steal parrots etc to sell so are reduced to trying to raise a few cows on the typically poor soil. Then some "do good" reporter will arrive to write his ignorant article, when the real problem is the demand for these hard woods from the US and EU. Mainly to combat this negative PR, Brazil has passed laws prohibiting the expansion of cane fields into the previously forested (or still forested) lands (also off limits is a great wet lands nature reserve, bigger than NY and California combined states etc. in the SW of Brazil).

The laws are not needed because the Amazon is not economicaly attractive for cane as Alcohol must be delivered to the cities by trunk, not conventional pipelines. Thus the refineries are near the cites and the bulk cane must be grown near the refineries. For these reasons, slight more than half of all Brazil's cane fields are in the State of Sao Paulo, which is about 1000 milles from the Amazon, but the ignorant "do good" reporters will continue to come to the amazon, see the burn areas and some cattle and a week later be back in US writing another article warning about how the production of alcohol from cane will soon destroy the Amazon.

 

[Carcano]

"...but a more rational, if improbable, solution to the shrinking pasture acreage is to reduce the consumption of red meat - not very healthy anyway and very inefficient way to feed people as less than 10 (I think less than 5, perhaps even less than 1) percent of the pasture's potential food production ends up on the table as calories in beef.

Yes, and we could stop drinking the alcohol we already produce to boot. Even more toxic...and without any nutritive value whatsoever.

In fact, I think we could avoid a general apocalypse altogether as simply stated, as "its cheaper to save fuel than to buy fuel" -Amory Lovins.

The thing that Nat. Geo. failed to mention is that the sealed system is essential, even if fresh water is abundant. Many ignorantly seem to think of "green ponds" as the source of the algae, but that will not work because wild algae types will quickly gain dominance and process sunlight and CO2 for their own ends, not to make sugars and oils that man-selected algae are being genetically engineered to deliver.

I guess thats why most prototype systems are contained in transparent plexiglass tubes, with bubbling CO2 for respiration and turbulence.

Just an inch of algae growth is very opaque, so it has to be kept in circulation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnOSnJJSP5c

Still, you gotta feel sorry for all this research when better batteries are just around the corner. A good 'direct' energy system will clobber all these roundabout strategies.

 

[Billy T]

To Carcano:
Good comments, but do not forget, batteries are NOT an energy source and when used, demand at least a 20%, often a 50% INCREASE in enegry consumption, when both the charge/discharge cycle losses and the transmission from remote primary source (and its AC to DC conversion losses) are included. (If the true source is solar cells, which are DC producing, those "conversion losses" are doubled if that tranmission is by high voltage AC, as is now 100% of the case.) (Don't try to tell me the home owner has expensive PV cells on the roof and calls a cab on cloudy days. - that will not be acceptible in the market place especially as the cabs are busy and he just joins the "waiting list" for his turn.)

I.e. Charge/discharge loss is at least 20% and other losses mention above can easily be greater than 30% of the out put power the battery can supply.

As significant sunlight is absent, especially in winter, for long periods, there must be either:
(1)large losses and capital costs associated with the energy storage system.
or
(2)Very larger capital costs for the larger array of photo-voltatic cells, which can not efficiently be used at their peak generation capacity on a clear summer day. Without storage cost and losses solar, even the wind power verion, is not much of a solution. However, the ocean wave and bio-alcohol are potentailly the main energy source of the future. (Storage is inherent.) (Personnally - I have liitle faith that wave power will be a significant source for the fundamental reason that the ocean can be very destructive and the capital cost of these system is large so more than 40 year useful life is equired if the interest raqte at time of construction is near 10% as it surely will be if and when they can achieve an average of a 40+ year useful life. However, some "rest on the bottom" during the 5 year storms, system may be feasible.)

Nuclear power, basically along the French model, defintely not as US does it, is the way to go for the base load, IMHO. Then batteies for cars, etc, MAY be competive, with regenerative braking to a large extent compensating for the over all inefficiency of ALL battery systems, mentioned above. Even still, the capital cost of battery system, compared to simple tank holding alcohol is very tough economic challenge to over come for ALL battery systems.

Personnally, I prefer to develope the "supper flywheel" and more public transport at least for urban use, however some locations, with steep hills, many still need liquid fuels or battery systems, but San Francisico's Cable Cars may be better for these locations (one going down helping its mate go up etc. is even more efficient than regenerative braking with its 20% cycle loses, and zero recovery of energy when storage is full.) An alternative for the steep hill/ gymbal limit problem is "auto jack up of one end of the bus" (Passengers would prefer to remain more level.) etc.

Supperfly wheels have already demonstrated several times higher specific (per pound) energy density than all batteries and the theortical limit gives them about 10 times more energy density than ANY chemical storage system. That is what batteries are - a chemical STORAGE system, never an energy source. Same is true of "hydrogen energy."

There is much too much popular nonsense about both batteries and hydrogen.

 

[Carcano]

Even still, the capital cost of battery system, compared to simple tank holding alcohol is very tough economic challenge to over come for ALL battery systems.

It is tough but we're getting there. A company called Enerdel just came out with a Lithium-ion stacked system for hybrids, which is half the size and 65% of the weight compared to the units already used in the Prius. Its also a lot cheaper!

http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2007/09/enerdel-lithium.html

http://enerdel.com/content/view/127/92/

The bottom line is cost per mile, and at 1-3 cents per mile, direct electrical storage systems will always clobber any liquid fuel option.

Consider this:
Supposing all the agricultural bio-fuel were burned in power stations to supply thousands of electric cars through the power grid.

Instead of each car burning the fuel separately in its own little engine.

Do you think the cost per mile would be more or less???

 

[Billy T]

It is tough but we're getting there. A company called Enerdel just came out with a Lithium-ion stacked system for hybrids, which is half the size and 65% of the weight compared to the units already used in the Prius. Its also a lot cheaper!

What does that mean in real numbers? I.e. "only" 200 times more expensive than a tank which will hold 10 times more energy?

The bottom line is cost per mile, and at 1-3 cents per mile, direct electrical storage systems will always clobber any liquid fuel option.

That may impress many people, who are ignorant of economics, but is only a small part of the cost of using an electric car. What is important is the "life cycle" cost. This includes the cost of the capital tied up (batteries, copper conductors in motor generators etc. are not cheap compared to steal motor and even many "electric cars" still need smaller version of them.) All need a "power train" of some sorts and most use several generators for regenerative braking in the wheels, even if the "power train" is only copper cables.

When you do the econonmics correctly, there is a long way to go still before you can get the life-cycle cost down to only twice as expensive as a car with IC engine and alcohol (from sugar cane of course) in the tank.

Supposing all the agricultural bio-fuel were burned in power stations to supply thousands of electric cars through the power grid. Instead of each car burning the fuel separately in its own little engine. Do you think the cost per mile would be more or less???

Larger by about a factor of at least 2, but again I am speaking of the "life cycle" cost, not just one relatively small part of it. Also I am trying to be optimistic (from the battery POV) about how much one drives annually (+>10,000 miles) and how long the battery lasts (300 deep cycles is about the tops now available. Why the superfly wheel is so much better with >3000 demonstrated with no evidence of deterioration. - It is too expensive to test to learn how long the superfly wheels will last - probably longer than any one human can drive in his lifetime! None the less, they need to go into public transport first, like busses.)

 

[Carcano]

I.e. "only" 200 times more expensive than a tank which will hold 10 times more energy?

10 times??? Its more like 2-3 times actually...and closing. Maybe youre thinking of the total energy contained before 75% of it is wasted by internal combustion.

What is important is the "life cycle" cost.

I agree. Instead of looking at the cost per mile, you could look at the cost of the cars entire life at a fixed number of miles for both ICE and electric.

The initial cost of electrics is still higher, in spite of the fact that you dont need a transmission, exhaust system, radiators, etc., but the maintenance is vastly less expensive. So I suppose it depends on how much your time is worth...as well as the other non-economic factors of toxicity and noise.

 

[Billy T]

10 times??? Its more like 2-3 times actually...and closing. Maybe youre thinking of the total energy contained before 75% of it is wasted by internal combustion. ... as well as the other non-economic factors of toxicity and noise.

I was thinking of a big tank (still 100 or more times less expensive than batteries) and giving 1000 mile range, instead of 100 in round numbers.

Yes I agree the production of and disposal of batteries with many toxic heavy metals is a serious polution hazzard as unlike CO2 from alcohol, nature can not clean them up and they are already poluting drinking water in some areas. Think what an nation driving on battery cars could do.

(I have had for more than two years now and old cell phone battery I can not get anyone to take back. -I can not bring myself to just throw it in the trash as most do as I know how dangerous cadmium is and nickle is somewhat toxics also, I think. God only knows what the mix of salts in the electrolytes will do.)

 

[MetaKron]

I heard that the environmentalists and animal rights kooks in Brazil are even worse bastards than they are here in the U.S.

 

[Carcano]

Yes I agree the production of and disposal of batteries with many toxic heavy metals is a serious polution hazzard as unlike CO2 from alcohol, nature can not clean them up and they are already poluting drinking water in some areas. Think what an nation driving on battery cars could do.

Well a nation could always recycle the battery elements, instead of tossing them in the dump.

In my city we're not even allowed to throw out old paint cans. We are strongly 'encouraged' to take them to a special site.

The most important battery specs are cost, recharge time, energy density, and life cycle.

The most advanced now available makes for a vehicle that has a range of 130 miles, recharges in ten minutes with a high voltage system, thousands of charge cycles, and costs about 40 grand, which is damn good for a such a small volume of production.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vxjagsod4UY

 

[MetaKron]

Also, regenerative braking is not nearly as useful as the capacity to prevent the car from using gas while in slow lines or at a stop.

 

[Carcano]

Also, regenerative braking is not nearly as useful as the capacity to prevent the car from using gas while in slow lines or at a stop.

Thats exactly what I see driving out to the burbs in the morning...long lines of SUVs idleing on the highway.

And I wonder, are even a thousand of these vehicles spewing out as much pollution as ONE of Al Gore's private jet excursions???

Dont get me wrong, I'm not against biofuels. I sent an email of congratulations to the local bus company a few days ago. They now have over 200 buses on biodiesel...which smells like fresh popcorn!

I just think its a brief transitional technology. Its going to be biofuel blends and hybrids for the next 10-15 years, after which we'll be solidly into pure electrics.

 

[MetaKron]

Carcano, we might as well use hempseed oil. I am also for third or fourth generation nuclear reactors (OK, the actual generation count may be off.) Nuclear reactors can solve the problem of spend nuclear fuel by "burning" it in reactors that can use it. But hempseed oil is the liquid fuel that returns the most energy for energy expended in obtaining it and requires the least elaborate technology to extract. I would happily go on forever burning hempseed oil.