By Reuters Global gas assets, especially in countries like Australia, have become a red-hot commodity as companies race to outbid each other for the clean energy to meet a spike in Asian demand that o…
The price of meat is set to rise in America as the nation’s helter-skelter dash to convert corn into road fuel begins to take its toll on the supply of food.
The US Department of Agriculture has said that meat supply will fall this year because of the high cost of feed. Output of beef, pork and chicken is expected to decline by one billion pounds as farmers react to the soaring cost of feeding their livestock.
Typically, meat production in the United States rises by about 2 per cent a year, but the pressure from American ethanol producers manufacturing road fuel from corn has sent the price of maize soaring to $4 a bushel.
The USDA is predicting that the 2006 corn crop will sell for an average of $3.10 a bushel at the farm gate, the highest for a decade. Faced with extortionate feed costs, cattle and poultry farmers are rearing fewer animals and slaughtering them early. That means a sudden reversal in the annual meat production gain, representing a fall of 1.7lb per person.
“There is a new demand component,†Shayle Shagam, a livestock analyst at USDA, said. “Livestock producers have to bid against the ethanol industry to get supplies of corn.â€
With gas prices near or above $3 per gallon, many consumers are looking for ways to reduce their costs at the pump through alternatives to traditional gas-powered vehicles. But the options are dizzying, and many people are still very green when it comes to the various alternative fuel technologies.Â
One of the most widely available and popular alternatives to gasoline-powered cars is hybrid technology. Cars that run on a combination of two or more sources of power are considered hybrid.
According to the Bureau of Transportation, there are almost 200 million vehicleson the road, of which 133 million are passenger cars. Of these, about 300,000 are hybrids.
Honda and Toyota spearheaded the hybrid market over the past few years, but others automakers have also joined the hybrid race.
Currently there are six viable model options and 10 total to choose from, said Bradley Berman, editor of HybridCars.com.
The choices
Generally speaking, hybrid cars run on rechargeable batteries and gasoline.
The type of hybrid depends on how the two sources of power connect, when each one is in operation and for how long, and finally, what portion of power is supplied by which hybrid component.
There are four types of hybrid systems:
Stop-start: shuts engine off when the car comes to a full stop and would otherwise idle.
Integrated Starter Alternator with Damping (ISAD): has the stop-start feature and an electric motor.
Integrated Motor Assist: The functions are identical to the ISAD but it has a larger electric motor for better performance.
Full hybrid system: cars generally run on electric power at low speeds with the gas engine kicking in at higher speeds.
Incentives
The incentives of purchasing a hybrid car could be philosophical, financial, or environmental. Berman recognizes that not everyone is willing to go completely green right away.
Other ConsiderationsÂ
Fuel, purchase price, and tax incentives are not the only factors to consider. But other savings and expenses can be difficult to estimate. Insurance costs are generally lower for hybrids. Battery replacement and electricity usage expenses can tip the scale the other way. According to hybridcars.com, however, the hybrid battery packs generally last 150,000 to 200,000 miles.
Â
“Everyone should take little steps,” Berman told LiveScience. “Buy the most efficient fuel car. It doesn’t have to be hybrid. If you don’t need an SUV, don’t get an SUV.”
Some car buyers might want to look at the decision from a purely financial standpoint. Here is an example of how one choice might work out:
The average American drives 15,000 miles each year, with 45 percent of that on highways. The traditional Honda Civic costs about $17,110, and it gets about 30 miles per gallon in the city and 40 highway. At $2.92 a gallon, this subcompact car costs $1,296 in gasoline in one year.
At $22,900, the Honda Civic Hybrid will initially cost a bit more, but with an average of 50 miles per gallon, a year of gas will cost $878.
In 10 years, taking into account inflation at 3 percent but not factoring in any possible changes in gas prices, the gas savings of a hybrid reaches almost $5,000.
Finally, a new federal incentive program allows you to receive a one-time $2,100 tax credit for buying a hybrid.
Tally up all the extra costs and factor in the savings—not counting additional incentives offered by some states—after 10 years, this hybrid will ultimately save you about $1,229.
It was with great apprehension that Winston Churchill converted his military from coal to oil. He understood that being reliant on your enemy for the primary resource that runs both your military might and your economy (which also pays for your military), is a fools strategy. Left with no other viable alternative energy option, he converted the military to oil to make gains in the speed and efficiency of his fleets. Churchill would be rolling in his grave if he could see the magnitude of the mess we are in today.
The good news is, we now have efficient alternative energy sources that are also economically viable. FFV vehicles that use E85 and hybrid cars are already available to supplement our energy needs, heck forty percent of Brazilian cars today are already fueled by ethanol. Converting to these alternatives would reduce our national security/economic/environmental concerns and increase demand for some of our wilting farming sectors.
Biodiesel reduces emissions of carbon monoxide (CO) by approximately 50% and carbon dioxide by 78% on a net lifecycle basis because the carbon in biodiesel emissions is recycled from carbon that was already in the atmosphere, rather than being new carbon from petroleum that was sequestered in the earth’s crust. (Sheehan, 1998)
Biodiesel contains fewer aromatic hydrocarbons: benzofluoranthene: 56% reduction; Benzopyrenes: 71% reduction.
It also eliminates sulfur emissions (SO2), because biodiesel does not contain sulfur.
Biodiesel reduces by as much as 65% the emission of particulates, small particles of solid combustion products. This reduces cancer risks by up to 94% according to testing sponsored by the Department of Energy.[citation needed]
Biodiesel does produce more nitrogen oxide (NOx emissions than petrodiesel, but these emissions can be reduced through the use of catalytic converters. As biodiesel contains no nitrogen, the increase in NOx emissions may be due to the higher cetane rating of biodiesel and higher oxygen content, which allows it to convert nitrogen from the atmosphere into NOx more rapidly. Properly designed and tuned engines may eliminate this increase.
Biodiesel has higher cetane rating than petrodiesel, and therefore ignites more rapidly when injected into the engine. It also has the highest energy content of any alternative fuel in its pure form (B100).
Biodiesel is biodegradable and non-toxic – tests sponsored by the United States Department of Agriculture confirm biodiesel is less toxic than table salt and biodegrades as quickly as sugar.[citation needed]
In the United States, biodiesel is the only alternative fuel to have successfully completed the Health Effects Testing requirements (Tier I and Tier II) of the Clean Air Act (1990).
Since biodiesel is more often used in a blend with petroleum diesel, there are fewer formal studies about the effects on pure biodiesel in unmodified engines and vehicles in day-to-day use. Fuel meeting the standards and engine parts that can withstand the greater solvent properties of biodiesel is expected to–and in reported cases does–run without any additional problems than the use of petroleum diesel.
The flash point of biodiesel (>150 °C) is significantly higher than that of petroleum diesel (64 °C) or gasoline (−45 °C). The gel point of biodiesel varies depending on the proportion of different types of esters contained. However, most biodiesel, including that made from soybean oil, has a somewhat higher gel and cloud point than petroleum diesel. In practice this often requires the heating of storage tanks, especially in cooler climates.
Pure biodiesel (B100) can be used in any petroleum diesel engine, though it is more commonly used in lower concentrations. Some areas have mandated ultra-low sulfur petrodiesel, which reduces the natural viscosity and lubricity of the fuel due to the removal of sulfur and certain other materials. Additives are required to make ULSD properly flow in engines, making biodiesel one popular alternative. Ranges as low as 2% (B2) have been shown to restore lubricity. Many municipalities have started using 5% biodiesel (B5) in snow-removal equipment and other systems.
Biodiesel refers to a diesel-equivalent, processed fuel derived from biological sources. Though derived from biological sources, it is a processed fuel that can be readily used in diesel engined vehicles, which distinguishes biodiesel from the straight vegetable oils (SVO) or waste vegetable oils (WVO) used as fuels in some modified diesel vehicles.
In this article’s context, biodiesel refers to alkyl esters made from the transesterification of both vegetable oils and/or animal fats. Biodiesel is biodegradable and non-toxic, and has significantly fewer emissions than petroleum-based diesel when burned. Biodiesel functions in current diesel engines, and is a possible candidate to replace fossil fuels as the world’s primary transport energy source.
Biodiesel can be distributed using today’s infrastructure, and its use and production is increasing rapidly. Fuel stations are beginning to make biodiesel available to consumers, and a growing number of transport fleets use it as an additive in their fuel. Biodiesel is generally more expensive to purchase than petroleum diesel, but can be made at home for much cheaper than either. This differential may diminish due to economies of scale, the rising cost of petroleum and government tax subsidies.
I think this is one of the most important movies to watch this year.Â
With gasoline prices escalating almost daily, fossil fuel shortages, unrest in the oil producing countries of the world and the move towards the hybrid electric cars (Over 140,000 Prius’ sold in the first half of 2006), this story couldn’t be more relevant. The foremost goal of Who Killed the Electric Car is to educate and enlighten audiences with the story of this car, its place in history and in the larger story of our car culture and how it enables our continuing addiction to foreign oil. This is an film holds an important message that not only calls to task the officials who abolished the Zero Emission Vehicle mandate, but all of the other accomplices, government, the car companies, Big Oil, even Eco-darling Hydrogen as well as consumers, who turned their backs on the car and embrace embracing instead the SUV. This documentary investigates the death and resurrection of the electric car, as well as the role of renewable energy and sustainable living in our country’s future.
These issues affect everyone person on the planet today from progressive liberals to the neo-conservative right.
Isn’t it strange that major companies on this planet are not looking for what is best for the world. Companies that are profess their desire to help the planet, and the planets eco system are tirelessly working behind the scenes to prevent competitors get an advantage, thereby putting our planet at risk. People need to watch this film and learn the truth behind the electric car and why some very powerful people wish to prevent its success.
WASHINGTON, May 13 — When an F-16 lights up its afterburners, it consumes nearly 28 gallons of fuel per minute. No wonder, then, that of all the fuel the United States government uses each year, the Air Force accounts for more than half. The Air Force may not be in any danger of suffering inconveniences from scarce or expensive fuel, but it has begun looking for a way to power its jets on something besides conventional fuel.
In a series of tests — first on engines mounted on blocks and then with B-52′s in flight — the Air Force will try to prove that the American military can fly its aircraft by blending traditional crude-oil-based jet fuel with a synthetic liquid made first from natural gas and, eventually, from coal, which is plentiful and cheaper.
While the military has been a leader in adopting some technologies — light but strong metals, radar-evading stealth designs and fire-retardant flight suits, for example — any effort to hit a miles-per-gallon fuel efficiency rating has taken a back seat when the mission is to haul bombs farther and faster or push 70-ton tanks across a desert to topple an adversary. (The Abrams tank, for example, gets less than a mile per gallon under certain combat conditions.)
“Energy is a national security issue,” said Michael A. Aimone, the Air Force assistant deputy chief of staff for logistics.
The United States is unlikely ever to become fully independent of foreign oil, Mr. Aimone said, but the intent of the Air Force project is “to develop enough independence to have assured domestic supplies for aviation purposes.”
By late this summer, on the hard lake beds of the Mojave Desert, where the Air Force tests its most secret and high-performance aircraft, a lumbering B-52 is scheduled to take off in an experiment in which two of the giant bomber’s engines will burn jet fuel produced not from crude oil but from natural gas. The plane’s six other engines will burn traditional jet fuel — just in case.
The Air Force consumed 3.2 billion gallons of aviation fuel in fiscal year 2005, which was 52.5 percent of all fossil fuel used by the government, Pentagon statistics show. The total Air Force bill for jet fuel last year topped $4.7 billion.
Although the share of national energy consumption by the federal government and the military is just 1.7 percent, every increase of $10 per barrel of oil drives up Air Force fuel costs by $600 million per year.
In some ways this is very exciting to here. Who better then the American Military to spend billions of dollars on finding alternative fuel sources? The military will probably be given more money then any other group in the US to find an energy solution. I guess my only concern would be, will they share what they find with the rest of the world? If they can find an energy / fuel source that can deliver similar performance to that of gasoline it would be a great thing for everyone if it was shared. It is really hard to believe the enormous amount of fuel the US military actually uses. I can see why they would be actively looking for solutions to the problem. I am not certain just changing the mix of fuel will be the solution. I would think a modification to the engines might be required too. I am excited by the possibilities here. Lets just hope they share their findings.