Diesel. It's the way to go right now.

I am still noticing that noone wants to convert the inputs into fossil fuel equivalents.

"53 bushels of corn"

In agriculture in the developed (industrial) farming world it costs 4 units of fossil fuel energy to make 1 unit of energy from corn.

I don't dispute that ethanol can be made with virtually 0 energy loss with improved methods but the fact still remains that it costs large amounts of fossil fuel energy to make the "raw material" they are using.

One thing that the article doesn't mention is that battery technology is getting better all the time. The article discusses Nickel Metal Hydride but Lithium Ion may be feasible in the very near future. Plus there are ways to generate electricity that don't involve burning coal.

We'll build better batteries but we can't invent new improved versions of the methanol molecule.

Jose:

I agree, and I also think nuclear power would be a great way to charge-em-up.

The Sons of Martha by Rudyard Kipling: tinyurl.com/2869my

Great article, thanks for posting.

The mention at the end is key. As we move to alternatives to oil the oil producing nations will drop their costs, at least those like Saudi that are low cost producers.

Like an addict you need to have the will to move yourself to a better place even if it is easier to get the next hit rather than go through the pain.

While global sources of oil and natural gas resources remain unstable and potentially threatening it makes little sense to rely on them so much.

My personal favourite is Bio Diesel, as I have a TDI and it is great. I would pay a little more for the lower emissions and that I am not potentially funding Bin Laden or Chavez.

Someone before mentioned a labelling scheme of Canadian only gasoline....I would buy that at a premium for my car as well, as I thnk many Canadians would. Maybe its marketing but they dont sell wine that way....Water gets differentiated by source, often, so why not this.

I think the gas retailers would be incredibly surprised by demand if the gasoline was certified as 100% Canadian, but that would screw up their operations.

Great article, thanks for posting.

The mention at the end is key. As we move to alternatives to oil the oil producing nations will drop their costs, at least those like Saudi that are low cost producers.

Like an addict you need to have the will to move yourself to a better place even if it is easier to get the next hit rather than go through the pain.

While global sources of oil and natural gas resources remain unstable and potentially threatening it makes little sense to rely on them so much.

My personal favourite is Bio Diesel, as I have a TDI and it is great. I would pay a little more for the lower emissions and that I am not potentially funding Bin Laden or Chavez.

Someone before mentioned a labelling scheme of Canadian only gasoline....I would buy that at a premium for my car as well, as I thnk many Canadians would. Maybe its marketing but they dont sell wine that way....Water gets differentiated by source, often, so why not this.

I think the gas retailers would be incredibly surprised by demand if the gasoline was certified as 100% Canadian, but that would screw up their operations.

"I agree, and I also think nuclear power would be a great way to charge-em-up."

The only problem with nuclear is that it isn't as cost effective as you might think. The nuclear industry in North America is propped up by hefty government subsidies. Nuclear power plants run on Uranium and corporate welfare.

Solar has been improving in cost effectiveness by 5% a year and that rate of improvement is about to accelerate big time over the next few years. It also has the advantage of not requiring a vast transmission network because you generate your power at or pretty near the point of consumption.

Yeah, good article.

As other have mentioned producing agri-products tales quite a bit of Fuel units (Fertilzer- yah gotta make it, tractors, trucks, etc....)

Also, every pound of corn you grow for fuel is a pound that's not being turned into food. This is a big concern in much of the world.

However, there's also the flip side to some alternatives, that's the cost _now_ in small scale.

Economies of scale can be drammatic.

Kind of like solar electric cells. If you want to make 1sq ft it costs 1 million dollars per sq ft* or something. If you want to make a square kilometer of them, the costs per sq ft is a LOT less say 20$.

(*All numbers made up, ok? Relax)

Fred2

Solar is a non-starter in Canada. The issue is square footage per watt, and storage on the inumerable cloudy days we get.

Solar panels don't take the weather extremes well either. Even if somebody comes up with some magic formula you can paint on your roof, solar is too erratic to be an energy solution this far north. An adjunct maybe, if somebody can come up with a panel that doesn't cost a megabuck to install and service. And service and service and service.

Same deal with wind. Wind doesn't blow every day, generators are megabucks, and the maintenance is horrific. The greenies won't tell you that they have to wash the bugs off those huge blades every couple of weeks in summer or the airfoil loses about half its efficiency. Then there's the bearings, the generator windings, the steering motors...

As Barcs mentioned, alcohol and biodiesel suffer from low net output after considering the fuel cost to grow, collect and process the crop. Estimates vary, but the bottom line is the stuff is expensive per net watt of energy.

Nuclear as presently constituted is a white elephant of greased palms and idiot regulations, as Jose said. I have a buddy in the biz, the stories he tells about over engineered everything would curl your hair. Still, nuke is the only process we have which does not emit the dreaded CO2.

Bottom line, for vehiclular alternatives to oil major breakthroughs are needed in two areas. Batteries, and power generation. Nuclear fusion or fission are the best bets on the horizon.

Fusion remains pie in the sky, but the Yanks have had nuke power in ships since the 1960's and haven't blown one up yet. That's 40+ years running compact power plants with 100% safety from major accident.

Batteries await "high" temperature (liquid nitrogen is cheap) superconductors for -real- efficiency IMHO, but we may see some completely unexpected results from nano materials in the next few years. Things act funny when they get real small.

In the meantime, I'll keep the emission controls on my V8 tuned up and not worry about it. There's more oil in Alberta than there is in the Middle East. Dig them tar sands, baby.

"Still, nuke is the only process we have which does not emit the dreaded CO2"

If you consider only the process....

Consider mining, smelting, forming steel.

Cement produces CO2 in production and in curing. Globally it is responsible for 100 million tonnes of CO2/year. (Though it is rather energy efficient when used (properly) as insulation)
http://www.ghgonline.org/co2industry.htm

To have an accurate picture of GHG savings you need to compare "up the line" a bit to see if your inputs too are more energy efficient. (It makes no sense, for example, to protect the rain forest with a 30 meter high solid wood fence.)

Alt auto fuels have tough competition with sweet crude...first off, you really don't believe the by-products from the 5:1 ration to make 97 gal of gas is just tossed away? That 5 barrels of oil makes 97 gal of gas AND gallons of other petro chem by products used in everything from plastics to lubricants...there is no process waste and the energy consumed to distil the gas is minor compared to the energy needed to plant/harvest/transport and precess seed crops into bio fuels...not to mention the amount of land that will have to be reclaimed from boreal forest to grow these fuel crops as demand/dependence increases...and they ain't making any more good ag land with temperate climates these days...uh uh...bio fuels are not a substitute...maybe a interim suppliment but not a substitute that can expand with demand...for that you go solar or to available abundant atmospheric gases. The tech to make these fuels efficient enough to transpoert goods internationally is a long way off....so in the immediate short term we are left with the logical reality of making fuel scrimping tech for sweet crude fuels....which wil plummit crude costs further as supply increases as demand shrinks.

Despite the best efforts by oil producing cartels to limit supply, the price of a barrel of oil continues to plummit from the $60+ range which was the result of supply panic. Some commodity and industry experts are calling for a $40 barrel before the price stabilizes to reflect actual supply.

There are a few factors behind this but the major one is the fact that the myth of "peak oil" was exploded by new pool and deep reserve discovereies the past decade and buyers are through being conned about dwindling supply. More oil has come on line, and sits in reserve, in the past 5 years than at any other time and this has created "surpluses" far in excess of refinery capacity.

Think I'll take my F350 Ford 4X4, load the camper on 'er and go to Fla. for 2 weeks...pump prices are tastey in the US these days....'course Canadian pump prices remain artificially high due to the tax bite and unaddressed price fixing at wholesale/distribution levels.

Looking forward to the 72 cent liter this summer....and a long rule of oil as the king fuel.

Phantom:

Solar photovoltaics (SPv) does have the problem of intermittency and it's definitely not here yet. SPV presently costs over 40 cents per KWhr. There was a recent article quoting the president of Sharp Electronics (largest manufacturer of solar panels) where he predicted that SPv costs would drop by half by 2010, half again by 2020 and half again in a further ten years at which time it will be competitive with fossil or nuclear. The potential for SPV varies around the continent and within Canada. While it's usefulness will be diminished in winter (short days), it will be increased during summer. It also matches well with loading - i.e. it is most effective on hot summer days when air conditioning kicks in.

Wind is now quite reliable mechanically and, while it does suffer from the intermittency problem, this is diminished as the number of turbines increases geographically. Think of it as a diversified investment portfolio, while some locations may be calm, it becomes increasingly unlikely all will be. Wind energy presently costs somewhat under 9 cents per KWhr. It is unlikely wind will ever contribute more than 10 to 20 percent of electric power given it's variability.

I'm currently looking into ways to make my car burn coal directly :^))) Perhaps we could resurrect the old Stanley Steamer technology?? Quick, stoke the boiler, the lights about to change.....

I vote for going back to steamers as well, no massive fireballs on impact anymore though so Hollywood will be pissed! My fuel of choice would be wood pellets, not coal. You can have an automatic feed system set up and just top up your "tank" of renewable wood pellets each night. You can carry some extra bags in the trunk and even have a hopper in the firepan to open up and feed in copies of the Toronto Star and G&M in emergencies. Canada would be energy self sufficient with all the water and wood that we have. The pellets are by-products of the lumber industry anyway.
My personal favourite right now is Bio-Diesel, I too own a TDI and enjoy 1000 Km/600 Mile to the tank. My average Mpg since I bought the car is 53 Mpg which exceeds just about everything but a SmartCar, and the Jetta is much more comfortable to drive. I drove from Ottawa to Victoria last summer, covering 7000 Km for around $230 in fuel, of course I went through the US where the fuel is cheaper and the roads much better.
If we all switched to diesel it would reduce our fuel consumption by 30%, and with the new technology that is available with ULSD (Ultra Low Sulphur Diesel) performance goes up while emmissions go down. Sell your shares in Spark Plug companies though....

I agree with the person who said that solar is a non-starter in Canada.

I lived in a home in Israel that had a solar-heated water tank on top of the house. You could have a quick hot shower, but the next person would have to wait maybe half an hour or so for the tank to heat up.

Canada's "heat" is much different than the "heat" in the middle east....and for all of the other reasons posed by the Phantom.

This time, I disagree with Kate.

The reason for developing renewable fuels is to prepare for a world without cheap oil. If you know another way to bring our way of life into the 22nd century, let me know.

Manny, in Moncton.

On a related topic, the mother of all convergence, courtesy of Reuters. Bonus material: quote of Bin Laden defending Kyoto.

Manny, in Moncton

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=scienceNews&storyID=2007-01-24T164720Z_01_L24304978_RTRUKOC_0_US-CLIMATE-SECURITY.xml

This whole debate about ethanol is ridiculous. So far, on principle, it does not work. Chemically, you're talking a fuel source that is in a more oxidized state and burning it. The result is less free energy released. So you'll end up using more e-85 (or whatever) fuel in the end to get to where you need to go. Guess what that means? More consumption.

Tell me again how using a more inefficient fuel source is supposed to be good for the environment or the economy?

It's a less efficient fuel source, it costs more, and that's without even considering the cost of cultivating/producing/synthesizing the ethanol from it's source, and the greenhouse gasses emitted in the process.

The scientific papers i've seen have been less than promising, but there is new stuff coming out every day I suppose....

To streamline this discussion, accept the fact that the complex moving parts internal combustion engine is passe.

Only the super efficient electro-motive motor is viable today.

The question is simplified to a choice of the Eestore nano-super cap battery, the large format battery that Chevron is patent holder of, or hydrogen cell.

TonyGuitar.blogspot.com

Ethanol is a farm subsidy, it suits no other purpose.

Ethanol also serves the purpose of filling up the twenty percent of a bottle of Port that would be empty without it.

"Ethanol is a farm subsidy, it suits no other purpose."

1. Which is why all the farmers in the city are touting it as the earth's savior?? And no doubt why people like me are questioning it (note: I'm a farmer)??

2. It may serve a very valuable purpose. Remember when Lead was removed from gasoline? Very toxic. It was immediately replaced with a chemical compound called MMT (methylcyclopentadienyl manganese tricarbonyl). Manganese is arguably as toxic as the lead it replaced. Imagine though a cleaner burning additive that might replace MMT. Say ethanol. That is why low concentrations (whatever the research says is needed) of ethanol is a good thing in fuel.

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/fuels/additive/mmt_cmts.htm

Just to let the public know, one of my new year's resolutions is to figure out a way to make cheap alternative fueI. Will keep you posted... Tired of hearing everyone saying "they" should "invent" cheaper energy, and yet they do nothing to solve the dilemma themselves, expecting others to make it happen.

"It is probably true quite generally that in the history of human thinking the most fruitful developments frequently take place at those points where two different lines of thought meet.  These lines may have their roots in quite different parts of human nature, in different times or different cultural environments or different religious traditions:  hence if they actually meet, that is, if they are at least so much related to each other that a real interaction can take place, then one may hope that new and interesting developments may follow. "
- Werner Heisenberg, founder of quantum mechanic.
Who is John Galt?"

Nothing wrong with using ethanol as a minor fuel additive where cost and production efficiency aren't important. Prevents knock and sucks up any condensation in the fuel system before it freezes.

Has anybody seen any good global warming bumper stickers lately? Here's a SUGGESTION: PREVENT GLOBAL WARMING - STOP EXHALING

Nothing wrong with using ethanol as a minor fuel additive where cost and production efficiency aren't important. Prevents knock and sucks up any condensation in the fuel system before it freezes.

Has anybody seen any good global warming bumper stickers lately? Here's a suggestion: PREVENT GLOBAL WARMING - STOP EXHALING

A guy I know spent about 25 to 30k building a windmill system that will save them maybe 20 bucks a month on his hydro bill. There are certainly applications for this technology, but it will not likely be mainstream suburban in my life time.

The problem with ethanol is we use corn to make it. In Brazil, they use cane sugar, which is much less energy intensive to grow, and therefore the energy in/energy out equation looks a whole lot better.

But in the United States, 7 families control the sugar business, and they have had Congress bar foreign imports so that they can control their market. This makes the price of sugar in the United States higher than elsewhere, which is why so many food manufacturers have changed to high-fructose corn sugar to use in processed foods. Some nutritionists suspect the use of h-f corn sugar is related to the rise of diabetes in North America.

The USDA allows 1.5 million tons of sugar to be imported at low or zero tariffs each year. That's about 10 pounds of sugar per capita annually. Unfortunately, Americans consume some 60-65 pounds of sugar per capita annually (and this figure does not include h-f corn sugar). In addition, while there is a 51-cent per gallon tax CREDIT for US produced ethanol, there is a 54-cent per gallon TARIFF for foreign ethanol.

So America's current agricultural policies represent a transfer of money to Louisiana and Florida sugar cane growers, and the corn farmers of the mid-West. The refusal to allow foreign ethanol in has made corn prices rise in the US and Canada, as ethanol makers compete for corn.

I'm not saying cheap ethanol from Brazil (or Trinidad, which has practically closed down its sugar industry due to protectionism from the US and the EU) doesn't have a place in the overall energy scheme - steam powered cars would run just fine on it, and the old complaints against steam (exploding boilers, long time to heat up, and inexperienced operators allowing all the pressure to run out, can now be easily overcome with better materials technology, battery motors for the first few miles, and computerised controls) can now be overcome.

I know - let's all write Belinda Stronach, and tell her how Magna can create the 21st century steam engine and save the world! I'm sure for someone who's bright enough to date Tie Domi, this will be child's play.

A guy I know spent 25 - 30 k on a windmill that saves him 10 to 20 bucks a month on his hydro bill. It has its applications but it ain't going to save the planet.

Clearly there is no easy answer and anyone advocating x, y or z is being nieve. Like everything else in this world, people want a quick and easy solution to the problem. It ain't going to happen folks. Unless someone out there re-invents the flux capacitor, it will take time for all technologies to develop and to a lesser extent peoples attitudes and habits. Smart solutions are needed and one ideal is not for everyone. I remember almost running over an eco-biker saving a gallon of long rotted dinosaur once. Silly bugger was riding his bike down one of the two ruts in the middle of a snowstorm!

An article on a Gas Station in Omaha that's only offering terror-free oil as per Sean's post a week ago!!!!!
http://www.newsnet5.com/money/10815377/detail.html

Don't worry, new Albertan oil production will be up much more than 4.5 barrels this year.
New technologies like polymer flooding are going to drive old production assets much higher...

Or, we could just go the idiot leftist way by converting food production into energy to run our cars.

Everyone always forgets about butanol.

http://www.butanol.com/

Steam power? I laugh at steam power. The Stirling engine is safer to operate, and more efficient. Plus, you don't need a steam license to operate one.

http://www.stirlingengine.com/

Also lots of information on the Stirling cycle at wikipedia, and other places around the net.

Sorry to spam the board so repeatedly. but last week I remember reading a story about the president of Mexico signing a new law to regulate the price of tortillas. The reason? Corn prices had driven up the cost of food for the poor. Another example of the law of unintended consequences.

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/01/16/mexico.tortillas.ap/index.html

Also, I have wondered why no one builds a real hybrid? Gas for quick power, solar skin, steam to capture the waste heat, and anything else you could think of. Besides cost I mean.

And hey, while you are tanking up on the bio-diesel, why not try out another technology that I heard about last year? Combine hydrogen injection with the efficiency of diesel!

http://www.chechfi.ca/

An anonymous poster commented that, based upon his experience in the Middle East, that solar heating is a non-starter in Canada.

You have to change your perception of solar energy for heating. There is a company in Ontario that makes an efficient solar hot water heater - they only use solar energy to pre-heat the water. If there is plenty of sunshine and not much use for a period, then solar will heat the hot water tank. During periods of heavy useage and/or cloudy days, the regular tank takes over. It's a simple and efficient system that could be effectively installed in new homes. It would probably not be cost effective to retrofit a house though.

Cooking the oils out of Alberta Oil Sands is a heavy source of pollution. Its in the class of the heaviest polluter, Jet air transport.

The USA is pushing for a five [5] times expansion of the oil sands. That would require vast flows of fresh water piped over long distances and a nasty pollution boost.

Switching to an enercell model can*t come soon enough. = TG

I see that there is no shortage of "energy experts" posting comments on this thread. How about making the energy market free and allow price and convenience to decide energy dominance.

John B., I actually owned one of those solar pre-heat water heating systems in Arizona. It was on a house I bought. The sun shines 362 days a year, one would think it'd be a no brainer.

But this is not the case. Even though there are a variety of state government sponsored solar energy programs, houses with solar panels on the roof are quite rare. Basically, they can't even give them away.

The reason, as I discovered the hard way, is maintenance. Those panels get HOT in the day, and they get cool at night. Below freezing in winter sometimes. Which means that the solder joints work free and leak. Plastic perishes in the sun, and leaks. Wind shakes the panels, which cracks the roofing shingles, which then... leak. And if she freezes on you, oh baby! You get to replace all your drywall, carpets, roof and etc. because you just got flooded.

Consequently what you end up with after five or six years is a cantankerous plumber's nightmare that needs constant fiddling to keep it going, and poses a major flood risk to your house. Your home insurance rates will reflect it too.

Besides which, when do you normally use hot water? Night time! Because in the daytime you're at work. Real energy savings are quite small.

Bottom line, it was considerably cheaper for me to yank the whole thing off and run an electric water heater.

In Ontario you can't run the water straight through the panels, you have to use antifreeze and a heat exchanger. Which means your panels leak glycol instead of water. Eew.