SubsidyEye

You Say Fossil Fuels, I Say Future Fuels

"But for the immediate future, any “subsidies” fossil fuel extraction companies realize in the form of depletion allowances, accelerated depreciation, etc. are more than offset by the massive taxes at the federal and state level that is levied upon their finished products – unlike alternative energy sources."

Says who? The main taxes levied on fossil fuels are either royalties (which are not taxes but payments to owners of natural resources), income tax (which all companies are supposed to pay, yet oil and gas companies in particular enjoy many breaks in the ones they are supposed to pay), and excise taxes. Those excise taxes, in the United States at least, are essentially road user fees, and are also levied on biofuels. Off-road vehicles, like farm tractors, are usually exempt from such taxes. General aviation pays a tax, but that is similarly earmarked to cover the cost of providing infrastructure. And jet fuel is hardly taxed at all.

So what in the world are you talking about?

Algae Biofuels Have a Promising Future

EVNow: the Nature Biotechnology article to which you provide a link is unusually objective and rich in information. Many thanks for the link.

Algae Biofuels Have a Promising Future

Don't you just love these articles? "Algae Biofuels Have a Promising Future". Sure. And so does cold fusion, massive solar arrays in space, and deep-ocean geothermal energy. This is Seeking Alpha, not Popular Science. Why does it run so many vapid articles like this?

Anybody who is curious about algal energy should read through Robert Rapier's "R-squared blog" articles on the topic:

i-r-squared.blogspot.c...

i-r-squared.blogspot.c...

Rapier knows what he is talking about. But,even more so, the people in the industry that he interviews know what they are talking about.

It would be nice if algae could live up to its hype. But that is 99% of what one reads about it these days: hype.

BP Scientist: Ethanol Easier than Biodiesel

"Subsidyeye as you most likely know oil is fungible thus whenever oil is bought anywhere it drives the price up. Since it's a world market and our enemies control 40% of it, 40% of every dollar we pay for oil goes to them."

Yes, I know oil is fungible. But from where did you get the 40% number? According to this chart, total world oil reserves are 1,350 billion barrels.

nationmaster.com/graph...

Being generous in the definition of "enemy", I would count the reserves of Iran, Venezuela, Russia, Libya, Yemen, Syria, Sudan, Burma and Cuba. Adding those together, I get just under 25%. I am not counting Saudi Arabia (20% of world reserves) as an enemy. Though some of its diaspora (like Osama) might be sworn enemies of the United States, its government is not, nor are most of its citizens. Not wanting U.S. military bases on its soil does not make Saudi Arabia an enemy, any less than it makes Finland, France, Ireland, Sweden, Switzerland or any of a large number of other countries who don't want U.S. military bases on their soil enemies of America. (Would you like Saudi Arabia to set up a military base in your state?)

"We are at war in Afghanistan because Osama who wanted us out of Saudi Arabia where we were because of OIL was hiding, attacking us from there, No?"

No. Ever heard of the Taliban? They long precede Osama. Indeed, the United States encouraged the Taliban at first as our enemy's (Sovient Union) enemy. The Taliban regards western culture as decadent; so does Osame. They were a match made in heaven.

"The money for terrorist mostly comes from the countries, people who are wealthy, in power because of oil. No? Where were most of the 9-11 hijackers from? Iceland?"

At the time that the 9-11 attacks were being planned, oil prices were at a record low. It does not take much money to fund terrorism. And, as you point out, oil money is fungible. So even if the USA were to stop importing oil, other countries would. Trying to stop terrorism through subsidizing biofuels is about the least cost-effective way I can imagine to address the problem of terrorism.

We need, above all, to be winning hearts and minds in the countries harboring terrorists; not creating new terrorists and terrorist sympathizers (as we did in Iraq); and getting serious about tracking down the leaders and bringing them to justice.

"While there were some other excuses no one who thinks well so I guess that leaves you out ... "

Translation into English, please?

BP Scientist: Ethanol Easier than Biodiesel

JerryDD writes, "Last yr we spent $500B for imported oil which could instead make jobs, invest here instead of it going to Iran, Russia, oil dictators and terrorist[s]."

Note to Jerry: U.S. imports of petroleum from Iran are zero, and have been for some time (since the U.S. government started imposing sanctions on trade with Iran after the 1979 revolution):

tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav...

And just out of curiosity, from what terrorists is the United States buying oil? I'm sure that the State Department would want to know. Please provide names and contact details. I assume Canadians (e.g., Quebec separatists) do not count.

Speaking of terrorists, JerryDD asserts that "We are at war now for 1 reason, OIL!!!". So, it has nothing to do with terrorism (in Afghanistan, which has no oil), alleged weapons of mass destruction (in Iraq), or that GWB wanted to finish a war (in Iraq) that daddy started, or to secure a strategic base in order to be able to mount strikes against (possibly nuclear-armed) Iran?

Algae Biofuel Sustainable Markets: Stocks to Benefit

I agree with Long_on_oil: in the biofuels world there is a vast difference between technical feasibility and economic feasibility. Journalists and bloggers need to be asking questions about the latter and not just the former.

The articles about the planned algae-fuelled power plant in Venice, Italy are long on hype and short on details:

ecoworldly.com/2009/03.../

First the articles say that "Italy recently announced a 200 million euro eco-friendly project TO HARVEST the prolific seaweed that lines Venice’s canals and transform it into emissions-free energy." [My emphasis.] Then the article says "The algae will be cultivated in laboratories and put in plastic cylinders where water, carbon dioxide, and sunshine can trigger photosynthesis. The resulting biomass will be treated further to produce a fuel to turn turbines."

Well, which is it, folks? Will the algae be harvested, dried, and then combusted as a solid fuel? Or is it going to be cultivated, and then treated (i.e., oils extracted?) so that it can be used as a fuel in gas turbines?

I'll believe this one when I see it.

Biofuel Production Will Continue to Grow

There is one flaw (well, actually, more than one flaw) in your argument, Tdot: had gasoline not been available, it is unlikely that spark-ignition engines would have developed in a big way, period. That is because the scale of grain production that would have been required to feed growth in demand for transport fuels would not have been able to keep up. Even today, if the United States converted all of its corn crop to ethanol, it would satisfy only 12-15% of gasoline demand.

One could just as easily speculate that vehicles powered by EXTERNAL combustion engines (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...) would have taken the lead.

"Maybe it isn't to late to just throw down and start to invest the necessary trillions of dollars (over the next few decades) the pursuit of developing the alternative renewable fuels." May we quote you on that figure? And why are you so certain that investing in alternative rennewable fuels -- by which I assume you mean biomass-derived transport fuels -- would be the most cost-effective use of the public's (read: other people's) money, even if your only concern is to reduce dependence on petroleum?

Biofuel Production Will Continue to Grow

User 40970. Got any figures on how much Verenium/BP, Mascoma, BFRE Iogen/Shell, Poet, etc.? are now producing ethanol from waste -- crop waste or otherwise? The sum total is not even equal to one moderate-sized corn-ethanol plant.

Ethanol improves some air pollutants, increases others.

Suggest you do some simple research, User. This from Wikipedia: "by February 2009, the fleet of 'flex' cars and light commercial vehicles reached 7.1 million vehicles, which represents around 21% of Brazil's registered light motor vehicle fleet. The success of 'flex' vehicles, together with the mandatory E25 blend throughout the country, have allowed ethanol fuel consumption in the country to achieve a 50% market share of the gasoline-powered fleet by February 2008. Considering diesel-powered vehicles, sugarcane ethanol represented 16.7% of the country's total energy consumption by the automotive sector in 2007."

Yes, all spark-ignition vehicles in Brazil burn SOME ethanol; they can't avoid it, as it is blended in all gasoline. But the overall share is still only 50% of the gasoline-powered fleet, and less than 20% of the country's total energy consumption for ground transport.

Biofuel Production Will Continue to Grow

WTF? There is so much propoganda and misinformation in this article, I don't know where to begin. "Brazil runs 100% on biofuels, Europe 52% of all new vehicles are biofuel"? Where did you get those figures from? Most new passenger vehicle registered in Brazil are flex-fuel vehicles, but the share of gasoline in the country's total consumption of light transport fuels is still around 50%. And if you are saying that any diesel engine can use at least low-level blends of biodiesel, that is true. But the share of biodiesel actually used in vehicles in Europe is no more than 2%.

You speak of"the "global demand" for biofuels as if it is consumer driven. In virtually every country where biofuels are used, the "demand" is a totally artificial one, created by mandated blending requirements (yes, even in Brazil), subsidies, or usually a combination of both. The only thing that is impressive about the growth in the use of biofuels is, as AlexS puts it, the enormous power of the special-interest groups who promote biofuels, and their influence over powerful friends in high places.

You say that "ethanol production results in nearly twice as much energy than used in its production". That is only true of sugar-cane ethanol. If you are speaking of corn ethanol, it is only true (and then only for the most-efficient plants in teh Midwest) if you phrase it as "corn ethanol production results in nearly twice as much energy than the energy contained in the fossil fuels used in its production." There is energy in the corn kernels themselves, but life-cycle analysts in the United States tend to ignore it, hence the confusion. By the way, elsewhere, you say "Each gallon of corn ethanol today delivers as much as 67% more energy than is used to produce it." That is far below "twice".

Some of your statements are downright bizzare, such as "The bad news is the U.S. plans to cut spending for farm programs, placing a hard cap of commodity program payments of $250,000, phasing out direct payments to farmers with gross sales over $500,000 and making cuts in the federal crop insurance program." Bad new to whom? Millionaire farmers? These are pure rents for land-owners; capping eligibility at those kinds of rates will have virtually no effect on production or prices, though it will save taxpayers some money.

All in all, this is an over-long, infomercial for the biofuel industry. Seeking Alpha can do better.