Corn oil might always be to expensive, against other plant oils
I don’t really know what the cheapest plant oil is. There is a ceiling, on how high , maybe 5 $, that petroleum diesel could rise, before it becomes an additive, rather than the main component of the fuel. Bio diesel, made with maybe 10 % petroleum diesel- detergents and 90 % plant oil, would then be used in farm machines. Perhaps corn oil will be to costly. Maybe a genetically modified plant might make lots more oil/acre than corn can. Once the price of diesel fuel rises high enough, bio-diesel will take over. Then people will learn more about oil farming.
I am confident that some type of plant oil, even if it tastes like crap, could be produced for about 4 $/Gallon and sold for 5$. So the diesels aren’t going anywhere. This is a very old technology. USA trucks had multi fuel engines back in WW2. It’s a diesel with massive fuel filters and line heaters. Sometimes cooking oil is all you got,or can capture, and so they had planned ahead for that possibility.
Just kidding, of course I am.
I advised buying BP stock on June 19th, sensing irrational fear in the herd. It reached bottom on June 26 th, and has since rallied, up 16 %. One of my better calls. Gloat gloat.
Here is a good article where they talk about the casing
To me , this is more interesting then the world cup, or a player I can’t recognize from a sport I never watch moving to Miami.
They are putting a new cap on the BOP and doing pressure tests. The fear here is of a worse disaster. If the outer casing of the hole has breaks in porous areas of rock, all black hell might break loose. They are sure they can stop up the top of the pipe and catch all the oil. They just don’t know if they think it’s a good idea.
It’s like a tea kettle that might have a hole in it. So they are going to close the top of the kettle for a bit, and hope it gets all pressured up like, well, a kettle without a leak in it. A kettle that not just going to blow out it’s bottom once you plug up it’s top.
It’s a real nail biter, when do you call it. Once the tight collection “hat”, on top of the well is closed, they want to see a lot of pressure build up. Fast. If it doesn’t, they will open valves to lower the pressure in the casing.
They really don’t want to blow out the casing. Worst case scenario.
Should they catch all the oil with this new device tomorrow, BP stock will rally 22%
I will not gloat because I am a rich guy who bought 100 x $ of BP stock, and now has 140x$, I never had the cash and never bought any stock. I just have fun calling where the dumb herd is running and pointing out the cliffs they are heading to. It’s just a hobby. I like making calls and doing it ahead of time on a forum is fun.
Profiting from ecological holocaust… Totally something to gloat over.
Is there a line you’d draw on whom you’d invest your money in, if so - where is it? Or do you believe there is moral justification for investing in absolutely anything so long as the returns are good?
On the subject of agri-fuels as an alternative to their fossil formed bredrin: the EROI of agri-fuels, according to several studies (here’s one) is either marginal or negative.
Industrial food production already costs more in fossil fuel energy to produce an equivalent amount of food energy, not mentioning global nitrogen depletion due to fertilisers used. So far, the GM crops that have made it to market have as a rule required even more nitrogen based fertilisers than conventional industrially farmed crops.
Jinking between energy sources wont solve the inherent energy imbalance in modern industrial food production techniques. What is required is a move to more localised and sustainable farming methods. Methods that have been shown can actually boost production beyond that of industrial methods without the negatives that come with the current rapacious farming methods that are causing so much damage. The benefits could be huge, but of course if your portfolio contains Cargill or Monsanto stock, your motivation to back beneficial change might be less…
Well, I am not surprised that my writings piss people off enough that they only skim it. If you really read, you will learn that since BP is not issuing IPO at this time, 100% of what you pay goes to the former share holder, not a cent to BP.
I am unaware of a nitrogen shortage. There is a problem of nitrogen run off from fields, a form of pollution, but no shortage of nitrogen. Breath deep and relax. Then exhale a gas that is 79% nitrogen. Perhaps you failed to notice.
The most common source of protein on earth today is genetically modified (GM) soybeans. They can take nitrogen out of the air. No nitrogen fertilizer is used to grow them. If we can find a way to move this gene to other crops, no nitrogen fertilizer will be needed to grow them either. The air is 79% nitrogen, about 21 % oxygen, with just traces of water, CO2 and other stuff. There is a lot of things to worry about. That GM foods will cause a nitrogen shortage is not one of them.
You can buy bulk food oils for about 4-6 $/gallon now. The amount of diesel fuel required to produce a gallon of veg oil is very small, perhaps a half cup. The magic is called photosynthesis of carbohydrates. The sun does it. So bio diesel will be a viable alternative to petroleum diesel as long as the sun comes up.
True, but as a shareholder you receive a dividend based on the profitability of the company you own a share in. Further, as a shareholder of a company it is to you that the company is legally responsible to. Willingly or not you share culpability for the companies actions when you make the decision to own a part of it, whether the money you paid for the shares goes to the company or not.
My question was a serious one. By your reasoning there’s an absolute moral disconnect between yourself and any company you buy shares in. Is there a company you wouldn’t buy shares in because of its actions? Say for instance Abu Ghraib prison (I was going to say Auschwitz but thought I’d keep it contemporary) went public. After its IPO was completed you got a hot tip that it had been undervalued at its IPO and there was a chance for a hefty rise in its price. Would you buy shares in it?
Moral considerations aside I personally think it’s crackers to be investing in stocks at the minute when 70% of all trades that take place on the Dow Jones are carried out by the algorithmic trading platforms of the designated liquidity providers (i.e. Goldman, JP Morgan et al) allowing massive market manipulation. It doesn’t take a Wall Street high flyer to see there’s little connection between trade volume and other market fundamentals and the performance of the markets at the minute. The flash crash of May 6th was a prime example of the manipulative power available to those with access to the high frequency trading platforms. If you ain’t one of them you’re nowt but market fodder. If I had any money I’d be getting into gold at the minute. Physical though, not paper and I’d want delivery of it.
My apologies, I should’ve written there’s a shortage in nitrogen fertiliser, not nitrogen. Phosphorous and potash are both vital inputs to most nitrogen fertilisers. It is these which are diminishing rapidly. I’ve read estimates that at current rates of extraction there is around 50-100 years of phosphorous reserves left with the vast majority of the easily extracted stuff already gone.
China is currently undertaking massive industrialisation of its agriculture which will increase world demand by a good chunk. Huzzah, another resource for us to fight over… Unless, as said before, we move towards local and sustainable farming methods with an emphasis on food sovereignty over corporate consolidation of the food supply.
Ah yes, the panacea of GM and agro-fuels. I might have to come back to you on this one later… It could take a bit of time and I’ve got stuff to do at the minute. In the meantime, could you reference your source on the half cup of fuel required to produce a gallon of agro-fuel?
“According to a study by Drs. Van Dyne and Raymer for the Tennessee Valley Authority, the average US farm consumes fuel at the rate of 82 litres per hectare (8.75 US gal/acre) of land to produce one crop. However, average crops of rapeseed produce oil at an average rate of 1,029 L/ha (110 US gal/acre), and high-yield rapeseed fields produce about 1,356 L/ha (145 US gal/acre). The ratio of input to output in these cases is roughly 1:12.5 and 1:16.5.” - From this article
I guess I’m a tad optimistic, it takes a bit less than a cup to make a gallon of oil. But that’s with present technology. Once cheap diesel is gone, oil farming methods will improve. The turning point for soybean made oil is diesel needs to be about 4.50 $/gallon at current bean prices, as shown in the chart below. This supports my contention that diesel can not remain above 5 $/ gal very long ,before it is replaced with an oil farming industry.
As far as feeling guilty as a small investor, well with BP, I’m already guilty as sin. I made a living once as a welder making oil rigs. If one of the rigs I made blows, what am I gonna do, cry? That wouldn’t change anything.
I might feel different if I was Warren Buffet, and could buy enough shares to effect the company. Really though, a small investor is like a flea on the back of an elephant. A suggestion has been made that owning shares will somehow corrupt my political perspective and votes. How is that? , is it gonna make me vote for the pro oil Dems instead of the pro oil GOP ?
After living so long in a world of irrational people doing things I wouldn’t do, sometimes instead of bitching and calling people stupid, I like to bet on it.
Notice stupid-irrational is popular -----???—bet = Profit !
I’m assuming you know they have capped off the well tightly now. I’m a bit cynical as to why. I would have just hooked the well with a pipe to surface ships, and run as little pressure in the well as possible, that would collect all the oil. Capping it tight, when the casing may have cracks, seems an odd move. Like seeing how many straws you can pile on a camels back before it breaks. Seemingly worthwhile info to know, if you have many camels. Here there is only one well casing. If it was my call, I would only pressurize the casing to the minimal amount possible. Have you ever see something blow up at 7000 psi ?
The cynical part is I think the Dems and the GOP are want to give the oil guys what they can. The law says BP must pay about 2000 $/barrel for every barrel spilled. How much was that ? 20,000 to 100,000 barrels/day is “the best science estimate”. So in court they will get a good shot at a low ball estimate for the fine. A true pity to hook that well up completely to surface ships and prove it put out 100,000 barrels/day. A pity indeed. Obama and the GOP, and BP, don’t want to see the actual flow of the well proven.
Let’s just say, I wouldn’t do it that way. The higher the pressure goes in the casing, the more likely the casing will blow. They should be tapping off the flow to surface ships. IMHO they are to worried about the data that would provide. They really love the fuzzy low ball estimates of flow they got now. We are talking 10-20 billion dollars of love here.
I feel compelled to respond here, as I mentioned earlier that I leaned some of my investments toward energy stocks in the last couple of years.
Selfish thought: Those companies are profiting hand over fist, apparently at our expense. Why not get something back?
Bigger picture thought: For those of us who use fossil fuels (I have a car), to a certain degree we are funding/promoting this sort of oil exporation. Sure, we could all be driving bio-diesel cars now, or electric cars now, or riding bikes everywhere. Except we can’t. If everyone wanted a bio-diesel car tomorrow, it would take years for the industry to catch up. Meanwhile, the price of fuel would shoot through the roof. Same idea on the electric, except the price of electricity would go up less. Yes, we’d be doing the “right” thing, but most people can’t afford to do that. Right now the world demands fossil fuels. If we don’t like the parameters under which oil exploration is taking place, it’s up to us to make more noise and say what things we won’t tolerate.
So, though I don’t own any BP stock directly, I am invested in oil/energy stocks. And I don’t feel bad about it at all.
Scary information. This is the kind of things we, the oil customers, should be making noise about. Do we think this is okay? What should change? What should be legal? Illegal?
Let’s order them by the potential to stop gulf drilling disasters. Who can we vote for ?
Most useless, the Libertarian candidate. Abolish the EPA and allow the law to do nothing . Almost the definition of useless, at least they are well defined and easy to understand.
2 The tea party . Drill baby drill. Jesus will fix everything eventually anyway. Sara Palin is a visionary articulate genius inspired by god. Also, petroleum engineering is to many hard words together. Pray more and drill baby drill.
People make fun of Palin as if she is not the Petroleum engineer, geologist, energy expert who knows everything about the oil biz in Alaska as she has implied.
On the contrary, I have seen the work done. Pray, and drill baby drill is exactly how the pro guys in the field do it.
3 Or go with the GOP guy. Some of them are mavericks that stand up to the oil industry and insist on “common sense” safety rules, winking while they do.
No, just kidding. Their speech writer gave Palin the “drill baby drill”, line.
4 So that leaves us with the Dems. Well I hope you like the feeling of that change in your pockets my friends. Obama has show a consistent ability to be publicly castrated by the folks with big bucks. Big Pharma won, big war has won, big surveillance has won, big banks have won. Rendition has won, health insurance stocks went up with Obama care. Am I an asshole for betting on BP now ? I cop to cynical, but asshole is a matter of opinion. Maybe I am just a news hobbyist that likes to bet on patterns.
It’s not like the good old USA has been corrupted, and things are getting worse. Really, I am a dedicated student of USA history and I am sure things were much worse back then. Or at least as corrupt. I would take my day job today over that of a soldier at Gettysburg. WW1 sucked nearly as bad and WW2 sucked so bad people remember the Korean war mostly as a TV comedy with Alan Alda. And anyone who went to Nam will tell you how bad that sucked, yet only 57 thousand died in ten years. Less than half the dead and a fraction of the wounded as fell at Gettysburg in 2 days. And Gettysburg wasn’t a war, it was a skirmish among many to come in a much smaller country than the USA is today. I consider this timeline an irrefutable demonstration of progress towards the good. The % of the world’s population effected by war is the lowest ever, at the highest population ever, as the population growth rate slows to it’s slowest ever.
Back to the subject, sorry about that. Why we should feel cheerful about the continuance of gulf oil drilling?
I know this sounds crazy out of hand, but safety. We are safer taking the oil and gas out of these undersea fossil sediments, than we would be leaving it there. Improvements will be made. Perhaps require the relief well to be drilled in tandem with the primary tap. Use 2 BOP devices, like they require in Norway. Let’s not forget that there are 5000 production wells in the gulf now, and their safety record is many decades old.
Pulling out the tiny violin again, I don’t expect many of you to like my tune as I sing about how awesome working on the production rig was. Food, awesome, fishing, awesome, pay, awesome, work, pretty mild, and did I mention we flew everywhere in helicopters ? It was awesome. OK, I may share a bit of pro “this rig job is awesome” bias , but seriously, I haven’t worked there in 30 years. So I am unbiased sorta. But people love those jobs and they support , well 5000 rigs, hundreds of workers each.
Anyway, about the environmental safety thing. Major ruptures of oil fields, due to earth quakes, are as certain as earth quakes. Huge and major catastrophic ruptures are seen in the fossil records as causing extinctions. Imagine if instead of the field gushing out of a small hole for 10 years, the earth cracks and releases it all at once.
I believe the 5000 wells running safely for 40 years record means maybe we can learn from this and move forward with off shore oil extraction in a safe fashion. If we don’t, the high pressure gas and oil will just stay there, and burst up during some “natural” event. I am not Dorthy, and long ago lost faith in that magical natural place over the rainbow. Natural events kill 300,000 people in a snap with a tsunami. The best way to prevent a disastrous rupture of an oil pocket during a quake would be to slowly draw off the oil beforehand. “Natural” (as in not caused by people drilling), seeps into the oceans is responsible for tons of oil going into the water each day. Done properly, off shore oil extraction should reduce oil pollution of the water, while eliminating the risk of catastrophic breaches of huge deposits, by depleting them slowly.
Sorry for the delayed response - been away for a bit and busy with a new job.
The calculations you’ve posted for farm fuel input/output neglect to include the fossil fuel usage required for the production of agricultural inputs, transportation and other measures necessary to arrive at a complete (or as near to complete as possible) EROEI number. Consideration of land availability for fuel vs food production and usage of other finite resources, most importantly water, must also be taken into consideration when considering the viability of agro-fuels (I dislike the term “biofuels” as it implies sustainability or “green-ness”).
Here’s a recent paper that raises serious questions on the viability of corn ethanol as a supplement to fossil fuel energy. The EROEI of other agro-fuel crops varies but corn ethanol is currently the most common form of agro-fuel production in the US.
US agriculture is currently undergoing a rapid move towards the production of crops for fuel production rather than food production. This change is being actively encouraged by the US government through subsidies and binding targets that will see 50% of available domestic agricultural land given over to agro-fuel production in the none too distant future. Even with 50% of US agricultural land producing food rather than fuel, US energy needs will still be nowhere near met.
So where are, and where will, the huge expanses of land required to come close to meeting current energy demand coming from if we continue down the path of attempting to maintain current ways of life through GM, corporate-controlled agriculture and who will be the winners and losers?
If current trends continue then carbon sinks in the form of rainforests and peatland, and the agricultural land relied upon by people for their food requirements will be consumed further and given over to the unsustainable monocultures required to create agro-fuels under current agro-fuel production methods. On top of the negative environmental impacts this will have the effect of further destabilising global food prices as land and resources to grow food are brought under the control of the large agro-fuel interests leading to further food crises such as those of 2008 when people in over 30 countries, including Italy and others you might find surprising, rioted.
Throughout history revolutions have often been preceded by societies experiencing hunger and often whilst controlling interests simultaneously live in opulence (let them eat cake!)
Now consider the often cited justification for growth in the use of agro-fuels: that they increase energy security. If there isn’t enough land, water or other necessities to meet both energy and food needs for the united States, then the crops will have to be grown abroad and a lot of the surplus agricultural land is in countries that are less than staunch allies of the US.
Advocates of agro-fuels when faced with evidence of the less than satisfactory net energy producing capacity of agro-fuels often say the current technology isn’t perfect but the ‘next generation’ of agro-fuels is just around the corner. Looking back to the ‘green revolution’ of the 70’s when industrial farming methods were encouraged around the world, particularly the global South, and the great promises of the ability of the new farming technologies abilities to solve the problem of world hunger it is difficult to believe the promises this time around. The green revolution did little but consolidate food production into fewer hands, deny people the right to grow their own food, wiped out incalculable amounts of farming knowledge in communities around the globe and created the perverse food system we have now where foods are flown around the world at vast cost to the environment for the gain of neither those who grow the food, nor really those who consume it (obesity, malnutrition and other diet related problems are at never before seen levels), but those with the biggest muscle in the globalised food markets.
My criticisms of investing in this or that company were inspired more by my frustration at a system which makes it normal, indeed profitable, for people to participate and associate with groups committing actions that cause great harm to people and the ecosystems we rely on. But what frustrates me most is that the knowledge and technologies to move to sustainable modes of production of both food and energy largely exist, and with a redirection of capital and resources could provide plenty for all whilst limiting the damage we’re doing trying sustain lifestyles in the Global North through the rapid eating up of the Earth’s resources.
This quote sums up ting more succinctly than my pages of ramble:
“Don’t go inventing the acid that will eat through anything without giving some thought to a jar to keep it in” -
I think it is best to go with the name “bio diesel”
Dim fundamentalists never debate me about evolution, they call it Darwinism, as if the only reason I believe the theory is because I love Darwin and celebrated his birthday all my life with gifts every year. Dim Christians call themselves Christians because they believe Christ was correct. So they can’t help themselves and call me a Darwinist. This rebranding did nothing to improve the logic of their arguments, it seemed transparently desperate to me.
So a huge multi billion dollar industry in bio diesel came together long ago and decides to name their “diesel engine ready fuel” made from plants “bio diesel.” Makes sense to me. Traditionally the maker of a product, or the creator of a new theory gets to name it. Bio diesel sounds like you can put it in any diesel engine, and in fact you can. You know, the type of engines that run our trains, ships, mining and farming, commercial trucks, cranes, construction tools and hospital back up power. That fuel. It runs everything thats not plugged in, and much of what is, except for most cars and small cheap things.
So your argument to explain why the use of this fuel must and will soon cease starts by renaming the fuel “agro fuel” ? WTF hippy? Agro fuel is maybe a good name for nitro alcohol to put in a funny car. " Agro" , is hippy slang for an overly aggressive asshole. Leading off your debate this way makes you sound desperate. Gasohol and bio diesel are the correct names, and you should learn to use them. They will not change IMHO.
Also, I wish to refudiate the creation of new words for dubious reasons;).
I didn’t come up with the term, it’s one of several I’ve come across:agri-fuel, bio-fuel, bio-diesel, bio-ethanol. Can’t say I’ve come across gasohol before… You say tomato etc. I only mentioned it’s the term I prefer to use - I ain’t aking anyone else to do the same.
Do you have anything to contribute on the actual points I raised on the sustainability or viability of relying of diesel derived from plants?
Oh yeah… You should look up the word agronomy - that’s where the term agro-fuel comes from, though the conflation of the word with aggrevation may not be misplaced when you consider the wider impacts and questionable viability of agro-fuels.
Well, I agree with you on some things. Corn ethanol as a fuel is more politics than science. It’s based mostly on laws and subsidies created for farm state politics.
Could we grow all our fuel ? Well, we haven’t really cared to learn what we will start learning once fossil fuels hit 5 $/gal.
There is massive acreage in south Florida thick with fast growing invasive plants like Melucca and Brazilian pepper. Half of the south east USA is overrun with Kudzu vines. Turning all these weeds into cellostic ethanol might be possible, and should require no water or fertilizer to grow them. Apparently Brazil grows about 40 % of it’s car fuel as ethanol, from beets and cane. That’s at todays prices.
I predict a long future for bio diesel because of the installed base of engines. Expensive and made to last decades, I just can’t believe the price of diesel will ever rise high enough to make it sensible economically to replace them.
It would take some really dramatic game changer. Like if fusion power gives us near free electricity, and thus free hydrogen. Room temperature superconductors would help also.
Certainly the methods used to grow fuel oils will evolve. Where theres a will there is a way. Right now, we haven’t the will. Any one of the 5000 rigs in the gulf costs more than we have spent on bio diesel research this past decade. Let those wells tap out, and the money will flow to finding the next replacement.
When I traveled around the USA in the 70’s they used cement silos to store crops. Thirty years later, the cement silos are still there, but they have giant metals silos next to them, twice as big. I take that as evidence that production has improved. This trend will continue IMHO.
I wouldn’t worry to much about running out of fertilizer to grow fuel crops. There is millions of tons of pig crap in Lagoons all around the country. They don’t want to spray it on fields of food crops because of e coli concerns. It should grow fuel crops safely though. It’s so cheap now, they will pay you to take it.
Didn’t bother reading this whole thread (waste of time to me), but I saw that at least a few of you are very enviornmentally conerned. Thought some of you might want to check out another fuel alternative that I thought very cool. Here is the website to by compnent’s and kits. And here is a pretty cool and somewhat informative video on the fuel system. Although it does not go into extreme detail, it does help you understand the system very simply.
The fuelsystem might be refferd to as a “greasel fuel system”, not sure what it is reffered to as. It is a system that implements 2 readily available fuel sources in order to prevent waste and be more “enviornmentally friendly”. The two sources are vegetable oil and diesel. The video explains pretty well how the system works.
Sorry for the somewhat off-topic post. Just thought the fuel thing was somewhat interesting and some of you might like to find out about it. Ta ta.
Just skimmed a bit and looks like you already spoke of it a bit. Should have figured.
Also, assuming at the current moment that this is not yet a reliable alternative for everyone to use (which is certainly true). It is still a good and very cheap fuel source for the few people who wish to convert their vehicles to run off both diesel and vegie oil (for now).