RightSeatDude

Hilarious stuff. Biofuels cannot be produced in large enough quantities to replace fossil fuels. Ethanol has already driven up the price of corn, increasing prices on dairy and ranch products as a result. Other than making a few enviro-cultists feel warm and fuzzy, this flight means absolutely NOTHING in the real world.

fosters

What are your thoughts on this article?

Sounds pretty feasible to me.

ToiletDuck

Driving up the prices of crops is a good thing. Our chemical costs and fuel costs have tripled in the past two years making it almost impossible to pull a profit of any kind. We've been operating in the red the past couple years because of it and this is a sigh of relief. What we need to do is quit taxing the hell out of the farmers on their fuel. We use to pay 85 cents a gal now we're at $2.45 and our tractors and combines burn about 80 gal a day each.

RightSeatDude

"Which is the exact reason why we should be turning away from oil for our energy needs. Solar power, wind power, hydro power, nuclear power, biodiesel, whatever..."
===== Um, how about doing more drilling domestically? Or shall we worry about displacing the caribou?

"I personally agree with rickair. The cost to farm, produce, and transport biodiesel probably offsets all the environmentally friendly aspects of using biodiesel. I think we have a better chance of switching to alternative energy for our other energy needs (cars especially). I think kerosene is going to be powering airplanes for a long time."
==== You got that one right.

"It is good to know there are subsidies that make biodiesel less expensive, as well as carbon regulations to make oil consuming more expensive. The free market is great in many applications, but with something as critical to our nations survival as energy, we need someone to intervene (even if it is the government)."
==== subsidies don't make anything less expensive. They only shift the cost to someone else. Subsidies ultimately make things more expensive, as government is inefficient and wasteful. Best to let free markets dictate. For example, corn prices are at an all-time high. Yet government hasn't moved a muscle to repeal Bush's $180 billion farm bill. No, having a failing, wasting, overspending government is NOT better than no intervention at all.

RightSeatDude

Why should farmers be exempt from outrageous taxes? Everyone else has to pay. While you may think driving the price of crops is a wonderful thing, virtually all consumers would disagree. Farmers can pay taxes like everyone else. In fact, given the huge subsidies, they should be paying more.

RightSeatDude

I think it's FANTASTIC and I wish them the very best in their endeavors. And since they're so sold on their technology, they shouldn't have any problem gathering their own funds to develop their technology. If the free market dictates that their technology is worth investing in, then it will probably work. If they're yet another group/organization looking for a government handout for pie-in-the-sky "research", screw 'em.

FDXLAG

How about this article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/08/sc...hp&oref=slogin

RightSeatDude

It's unfortunate, but I think you'll find that any alternative fuel that actually does more harm to the environment will still be rabidly pursued by enviro-cultists. The environmental movement started out as an additional means for governments tax and control their people.

However, it's now big business as well. Take Al Gore, for instance. On the one hand, he warns us against the evils of fossil fuels, yet continues to travel on a Gulfstream rather than fly commercial. Of course, he's heavily invested in technologies that stand to reap huge profits from his attacks on "big oil".

So if an alternative fuel comes along that is actually WORSE than fossil fuels, that's a-OK to the enviro-cultists. The important thing is that it's not oil. And God forbid we should actually produce more oil here in the United States.

All in all, much of the environmentalists arguments make no sense, and don't account for earth's survival of over 5 billion years of "climate change". The movement has taken on a life of its own, and the every kook on the fringe will want to have his say.

avi8tor4life

I personally think that the key to reducing our need for oil or biodiesel or anything is to reduce our reliance on automobiles to carry on everyday life. To do this we need a redesign of our cities to make them less auto friendly and more pedestrian oriented. Think Boston, New York, Washington DC, London, Paris VS Phoenix, Dallas, Houston, Los Angeles(especially).

This way I don't have to drive my car the equivalent distance of three blocks (using up fuel, putting carbon molecules into the air the whole time, costing me more money) just to pick up a gallon of milk. When it would have been a lot easier, cheaper, and cleaner for me to just walk if it wasn't for the 8 lanes of traffic on the collector road between me and the store.

If the city was designed right that would take care of a lot of our problems, not just fuel and pollution, but that's another debate.

For more information:
http://www.newurbanism.org

Congress for New Urbanism
http://www.cnu.org

http://www.newurbannews.com

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/earthpulse/sprawl/

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/dem...ism/index.html

These are just a few to start with. Just do a search for "new urbanism".

Here's where the answer lies. More people need to find it.

fosters

Looks to me like it doesn't apply. UNH is talking about making algae farms in the desert, where there aren't any trees to knock down .