Quote:
Originally Posted by RandyT0001
Biofuels in the US have been a disaster because of politics. Rising fuel costs and rising food costs are not due to acreage diverted to biofuels. Per your link, cotton produces 35 gallons of oil per acre, peanuts produce 113 gallons per acre and according to this link http://talk.newagtalk.com/forums/thr...layType=nested a farmer only uses about 5-6 gallons of fuel per acre which includes tilling, spraying, and harvesting, including the truck to collect the crop as it is harvested. In fact, the website you referenced talks about the "choice" of feeding the people or fueling the trucks here and, specifically, here. There are communities that use biofuels in third world countries because it is cheaper than buying commercial fuels. In the absence of present US politics, biofuels are indeed a good alternative fuel source. |
I don't want to get into politics here.
I am thinking of the dump truck I drive on a regular basis. The computerized management system (the truck is county property and pretty fancy) says on an average run hauling 12 tons of gravel from 6500 feet up 20+ miles up Highway 285 to 8500 feet the average is 5.7 miles per gallon.
I am not worried about the farm usage to grown and harvest the crop as tillage can be made for a fuel producing crop or cellulose bearing crops can be distilled for ethanol on the side.
I am thinking of the heavy equipment, the semi tractor/trailers, the trains. Even with the mandate by Law to include 10% ethanol per gallon of gasoline (not feasible for diesel) the ethanol plants are shutting down due to costs.
It is possible, and more probable in a scenario like TMP where the population is so small the crops for fuel doesn't impact the food supply.
When the ethanol craze was in full production the U.S. Dept of Ag sold all of the strategic reserve of grains to stabilize the world market. The costs set off rioting in Mexico and is one factor in the Arab Spring mass protests.