Largest BioFuel Plant in world to be located in ALBERTA

[mykalberta]

Its bout damn time Alberta stood up to the plate and told all other districts in North American to straighten up with leading by example not just rhetroic.

http://www.thecarlylegroup.com/eng/n...-news3777.html

MYK

[TurnedTheCorner]

How much non-renewable fossil fuel is burned in the construction, production (i.e. fertilization, harvesting, pest control, etc.) and transporting this bio fuel?

Seems like a bunch of feel-good, nothing-accomplished hooey to me.

[burn_baby_burn]

There had been rumors that that plant was going to be at Innisfail. Late last year the Western Producer said there were three possible sites for the plant in Central Alberta. Glad to hear its in Innisfail. It will have a huge impact on my earning potential.

[Bobblehead]

I'm in the "I like the idea, but I'll believe it when I see it" camp. I've been reading where the requirements of all the ethanol plants already in production + being built + announced are greater than out ability to supply. Corn futures are already trending up and stockpiles are disappearing.

I applaud the progress, I just hope it turns out like expected.

[burn_baby_burn]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

I'm in the "I like the idea, but I'll believe it when I see it" camp. I've been reading where the requirements of all the ethanol plants already in production + being built + announced are greater than out ability to supply. Corn futures are already trending up and stockpiles are disappearing.

I applaud the progress, I just hope it turns out like expected.

Your not a cattle feeder are you?

[Cowperson]

Sidebar, but there's a pretty good chance the spot where they're going to build this plant saw me spending many an hour bouncing across it in a tractor listening to Bette Midler's "The Rose" over and over and over and over. . . . . .

Ah, the salad days of a quarter century ago.

Cowperson

[SeeGeeWhy]

I am mixed on biofuels. I fail to see how there is much net benefit to the environment as the process itself is fairly energy intense.

And unless the feedstock was nothing but waste prior to being used for fuel generation, then there are going to be other "un-intended consequences" to such plants.

Oh well, it's all in the name of science. Here's hoping farmers can get a better shake for their crops now at any rate...

[burn_baby_burn]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Sidebar, but there's a pretty good chance the spot where they're going to build this plant saw me spending many an hour bouncing across it in a tractor listening to Bette Midler's "The Rose" over and over and over and over. . . . . .

Ah, the salad days of a quarter century ago.

Cowperson

If that field was by the Niobe elevator, you would be right.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by burn_baby_burn

If that field was by the Niobe elevator, you would be right.

Spot on . . . . to the west or the east of the elevator?

Drove a grain truck to that elevator a few times too.

Cowperson

[alltherage]

Originally Posted by TurnedTheCorner

How much non-renewable fossil fuel is burned in the construction, production (i.e. fertilization, harvesting, pest control, etc.) and transporting this bio fuel?

Seems like a bunch of feel-good, nothing-accomplished hooey to me.

Dude, its the fact that the initiative has been taken. How much pollution will be prevented once this construction is complete? It's obviously something good for the environment, like an investment. You have to give something to getsomething, and if the least expensive way to build this is by using the resources we have, so be it. It will pay off. Making environmentally safe progress for the future should NEVER be sacraficed for what is cheap and comfortable now.

Whos to say that it will be unrenewable sources that transport or contribute to this project once initial construction is complete?

The world hiding under it's blanket wont make the global warming monster go away.

[photon]

alltherage you're assuming it will be good for the environment, TTC is asking if it really is though.

You are jumping to a conclusion without actually reading his post.

[alltherage]

Originally Posted by photon

alltherage you're assuming it will be good for the environment, TTC is asking if it really is though.

You are jumping to a conclusion without actually reading his post.

Actually, I've done quite a bit of research on Bio-Diesel. I'm not assuming it will be good for the environment, I know it will have less impact on the environment when people make the switch from dependancy on oil.

I can assure you that the amount of oil it takes to fuel a crop duster will be trumped by the magnitude of biodiesel it produces. I can also assure you that the tradeoff of diesel trucks transporting the bio-diesel will be in the favour of biodiesel quantity as well.

Seeing as oil refineries use the same transportation, and heavier machinery to excavate petro-oil from the earth, (ie oilsands development, oil rigs, etc) it is clearly a better option for them to be transporting Bio-Diesel than yet another oil product.

[BlackArcher101]

Just wait until the price of corn/food goes up, then people will be outraged. It's a no win situation.

[SeeGeeWhy]

ATR,

Construction is just one aspect. It takes a lot of fuel and energy to produce a crop of corn or wheat.

So if you take all of the energy spent and emissions produced while growing enough feedstock to make one barrel of oil equivalent of energy you need to compare that to how much energy it took and how many emissions were made while producing and transporting one barrel of oil through conventional means because that one barrel worth of biofuel will produce the same amount of emissions as the oil will.

Conventional oil production is typically not very energy intensive, so producing biofuels isn't exactly a magic bullet for net reduction of emissions.

What it does do is allow people to produce burnable fuel in a somewhat renewable fashion. This will put stress on feedstocks, and in poor areas that require their food for eating, this will be a bad thing until biofuel plants can use 'throw away' feestocks such as corn husks, human/animal waste, etc.

So say we solve those problems.. now we have devised a way to make burnable oil perpetually. My question to you is how does that help reduce emissions? All it will do is serve to stabilize oil prices and accessibility... if anything that will have a very negative impact on total emissions as growing economies will build biofuel plants like crazy in order to keep their people warm and mobile, and their industry powered.

So yeah, put me in the category of skeptical. I don't think that this will solve any environmental issues and will likely cause more political and environmental stress than we anticipate.

The real solution to mankind's perpetual energy crisis needs to come from a renewable, non-damaging and sustainable source.

[alltherage]

Originally Posted by BlackArcher101

Just wait until the price of corn/food goes up, then people will be outraged. It's a no win situation.

They arent going to start tapping food resources, they are going to make new ones. They rip apart land to try to find oil, when that same land could be used to grow crops.

If this is a no win situation, i wonder what you would call global power struggles, starving nations, greedy north america, and an aconomy consumed by a non-renewable resource that is ultimately going to destroy our planet?

[BlackArcher101]

Originally Posted by alltherage

They arent going to start tapping food resources, they are going to make new ones. They rip apart land to try to find oil, when that same land could be used to grow crops.

If this is a no win situation, i wonder what you would call global power struggles, starving nations, greedy north america, and an aconomy consumed by a non-renewable resource that is ultimately going to destroy our planet?

Sorry, let me add a wink to make the sarcasm more clear.

[TurnedTheCorner]

I think the green benefits of biofuel are vastly oversold - there are better alternatives IMO that can effect real climate change. This kind of stuff is farm subsidies wearing a green coat.

[photon]

Originally Posted by alltherage

Actually, I've done quite a bit of research on Bio-Diesel. I'm not assuming it will be good for the environment, I know it will have less impact on the environment when people make the switch from dependancy on oil.

I can assure you that the amount of oil it takes to fuel a crop duster will be trumped by the magnitude of biodiesel it produces. I can also assure you that the tradeoff of diesel trucks transporting the bio-diesel will be in the favour of biodiesel quantity as well.

Seeing as oil refineries use the same transportation, and heavier machinery to excavate petro-oil from the earth, (ie oilsands development, oil rigs, etc) it is clearly a better option for them to be transporting Bio-Diesel than yet another oil product.

Then that should have been your response, since that was what he was asking. All those things you say aren't "obvious" at all, the devil is always in the details.

I think bio fuels are only one part of a solution; what percentage of food crops would have to be replaced with bio fuel crops? One paper I read said a huge percentage in the US just to meet the needs of all the automobiles.

[GlobeTrotter]

I'm also not sold on BioFuels, although I think they are well worth the investment in R&D - could have lots of potential, maybe not the ultimate alternative though. I think they are more of a bridge that could lead from a reliance on fossil fuels to a more permanent alternative energy source.

Interesting to note, the Carlyle Group apparently has deep affiliations with the Bush Family, and has been linked to a great deal of Saudi money. Interesting that they are going to be investing in a high profile Alberta project. I'm sure there are better websites that can outline the history of the company but check the link below out...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlyle_Group

I'm not really trying to fire up a political discussion but its a pretty interesting story.

[SeeGeeWhy]

Originally Posted by photon

Then that should have been your response, since that was what he was asking. All those things you say aren't "obvious" at all, the devil is always in the details.

I think bio fuels are only one part of a solution; what percentage of food crops would have to be replaced with bio fuel crops? One paper I read said a huge percentage in the US just to meet the needs of all the automobiles.

In a recent Scientific American I seem to recall a figure that stated that if 100% of the corn produced in the US was used to create bio-diesel, it would contribute roughly 15% of the total fuel requirements of automobile use in the US. I will try to find the article to get the numbers correct, but the point is that bio-diesel from corn is not the solution to gasoline supply issues in the US.

Mankind has always had an energy crisis, and we have always figured out a way to address it. We will figure out a way to address our problems with oil, but our lives will change drastically as a result.

Like I said before, the only way our lifestyles can be sustained as they are is to produce oil as a renewable resource. I fail to see how that would be a desirable outcome.

The solution to energy crises is always a combination of three things:

1. New resource
2. New technology
3. New lifestyle

Biofuels alone are not the "answer". As a matter of opinion, I find the technology is a weak effort to maintain an oil based economy and lifestyle. To me, this is not a good solution as I find the biggest threat lays in our lifestyle itself... very energy demanding, not efficient, not sustainable. If we were to continue the human race as it exists today in a North American/Western way of life... things would not be very pretty for people down the road. These are the things we need to think about.