AutoblogGreen

1. Since biofuels are no answer at all to climate change as evidenced in recent studies, this isn't the story that needs to be reported here.

This is:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23552526/

Posted at 9:51AM on Mar 10th 2008 by Steve

2. Instead of spamming link, Steve should actually read some of the background. Coskata's process should make ethanol roughly as green as electricity in the US. True Coskata's process is still mostly on the drawing board, but I suspect Steve is a 'bus-only' environmentalist so I wonder why he is posting here at all.

Posted at 11:04AM on Mar 10th 2008 by jpm100

3. LOL! A bus-only environmentalist...Thanks for the laugh.

I used to use the bus to get around in Phoenix, AZ. I know how useless buses are. And I own a car that doesn't quite get 30 mpg.

But never mind me, let's talk about ethanol. As you probably know, ethanol (as well as other biofuels) made from crops results in land use changes that release about 93 years' worth of CO2 into the atmosphere. In other words, the supposedly "carbon-neutral" nature of the biofuels only truly comes into effect some 93 years after the start of the new land use. Even then, non-cellulosic ethanol doesn't even produce as much energy in the form of ethanol as is put into farming it.

This, of course, is referring to cellulosic ethanol, which only has the 93-year issue to contend with in terms of energy efficiency. However, using the cellulosic material to make ethanol instead of leaving it on the ground to rot and replenish the soil (as has been standard practice in farming for thousands of years) depletes the soil of vital nutrients. Eventually the soil becomes useless for growing anything and one must either use significant quantities of fertilizer to overcome this problem (and remember, fertilizer takes energy to produce and transport) or move on to another area and engage in land use change, which brings one face-first back into the 93-year problem.

Not to mention that, as you say, the process is largely still on the drawing board anyway. Which, in my view, is a good thing.

I need to read the background, eh? Maybe it's you who shouldn't assume you know what you're talking about.

Posted at 11:48AM on Mar 10th 2008 by Steve

4. Oklahoma has aabundant supply of natural resources. Oil, natural gas, switchgrass, wind, solar and numerous other alternatives. The heartland is forming these partnerships with corporations and state universities to develope the most cost effective way to supply our needs and demand. Unfortunately it will take time and investment to find the best solution. Infastructure remains the stumbling block in most cases. Energy prices in Oklahoma are still some of the lowest in the nation. CNG is still a viable alternative, especially will fuel prices at record highs.

Posted at 11:29AM on Apr 20th 2008 by Ben K.