  Tetsua Member Username: Tetsua Post Number: 1292 Registered: 01-2004 |
I was aware of the one proposed biodiesel in the midtown area, but where is the other one supposed to be? quote: http://www.detnews.com/apps/pb cs.dll/article?AID=/20070731/A UTO01/707310356&theme=Autos-Gr een-tech-hybrids | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 3421 Registered: 02-2005 |
http://www.modeldmedia.com/tim news/Default.aspx They're not sure where that is located, but, your hunch is correct, one biodiesel plant will soon be built between E. Baltimore and the train tracks in New Center. It would be cool to see some similar businesses join them there. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 5879 Registered: 10-2003 |
It may be a big increase from the number the state has had in the past, but when compared to neighboring states, we're quite a few years behind in terms of the development of all types of renewable energy. | ||
Tetsua Member Username: Tetsua Post Number: 1293 Registered: 01-2004 |
According to the article, there are 6 already here, and 16 additional in the works. That would put Michigan at 22, which is the second most in the country. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 5880 Registered: 10-2003 |
That's assuming that no other states are growing in this industry, which isn't the case. It also assumes all 16 will be built, which isn't likely. BTW, I definitely think it's laudable for us to be growing this industry, I just hope we don't put to much emphasis on it. It is, at best, a transition fuel, and we shouldn't be expecting it to turn the state around. | ||
Sharmaal Member Username: Sharmaal Post Number: 1192 Registered: 09-2004 |
The number of facilities doesn't matter as much as their combined capacity. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 5881 Registered: 10-2003 |
Yes, the chart in the article shows that. | ||
Detroit313 Member Username: Detroit313 Post Number: 418 Registered: 02-2006 |
What about sugar-based Ethanol? Brazil produces/uses it and it is more profitable than corn-based!!! <313> | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 5885 Registered: 10-2003 |
You can't grow sugar cane in most of the nation, let alone in Michigan. This is not to mention that sugar cane is easily one of the most destructive and polluting agricultural ventures you'll ever find. I really do question if the actual production of ethanol from sugar cane may not be even more environmentally hazardous than the greenhouse gases we put out burning fossil fuels. We've got to bring our technology much further before any of these crop-based fuels will be woth it, IMO, but all that said, I don't think that means we shouldn't try. I'd definitely say we need to be much more measured in our reaction to this form of renewable energy, and I think there are much better renewable energy options out there that we should be concentrating on. (Message edited by lmichigan on July 31, 2007) | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 3432 Registered: 02-2005 |
Sugar beats = central MI Ethanol is overrated, only good in terms of lowering the amount of petroleum needed in gasoline, thereby reducing demand for foreign oil a bit. It has negligable effects in helping the economy, and does not help prices at the pump. It is quickly becoming a cash-grab for the corn belt, trying to get more government subsidies. Biodiesel is well worth it, though. | ||
Trainman Member Username: Trainman Post Number: 470 Registered: 04-2006 |
Gasoline is still the best fuel and will be for a very long time. We need to raise the gas tax in all fifty states to protect our inner cities from the large freeways and the large Wal-Marts being built in cornfields and forests. Allowing over $300 Million per year to be taken away from public bus service by replacing this money with property taxes is destructive, immoral and is presently illegal in Michigan. Yet, lawmakers are working to make the fuel tax cuts legal. Learn the facts in my website before Michigan gets bulldozed into paying county sales taxes to expand roads and into paying the operating costs of SMART and DDOT without any additional federal and state fuel tax money. Fuel tax money for mass transit is a dinosaur in most states. Michigan will soon join them, if nothing is done to stop the fuel tax cuts for public bus service. But, $300 Million per year is not really that much when you consider that a half percent three county sales tax can easily raise this much. Or, is it? It's your choice at the voting booth. So, read the fine print and be SMART next August 2010. | ||
Classico Member Username: Classico Post Number: 40 Registered: 12-2005 |
There is one In Centerline, near Sherwood and 10 Mile. One is in Ann-Arbor, and another is in Taylor I believe. Not sure about the others. Perhaps RFBAN ,aka the Bio-diesel king, can elaborate. As he has already filled up at those stations and the results were better than expected. | ||
Detroit_stylin Member Username: Detroit_stylin Post Number: 4510 Registered: 10-2003 |
The one in MIdtown is right across from where I work at the Tech One Building in Tech Town, between Cass and Second north of WSU... | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 3433 Registered: 02-2005 |
I assume that with production commencing in the C of D, more stations will begin offering it. | ||
Tkangas_23 Member Username: Tkangas_23 Post Number: 23 Registered: 09-2006 |
In Kzoo, the Kalamazoo Metro Bus System is partially operated with biodiesel from local restaurant grease | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 3550 Registered: 10-2004 |
So what's with the concern about the BOOM? Will they blow up? | ||
Ccbatson Member Username: Ccbatson Post Number: 1598 Registered: 11-2006 |
The concern is that they are currently far more expensive to produce and inefficient in terms of yield to compete with fossil fuels. Gas at the pump would need to be holding at about 5-6 dollars a gallon for these alternates to begin to be viable (without government subsidies. | ||
Detroit_stylin Member Username: Detroit_stylin Post Number: 4512 Registered: 10-2003 |
As if Big Oil isnt subsidised itself... | ||
3rdworldcity Member Username: 3rdworldcity Post Number: 827 Registered: 01-2005 |
Ccbatson, you are so correct. What started out as the usual farm subsidy giveaway has turned into a monster that will negatively effect our energy policy for years. As an oil producer who will benefit from the false hope of energy independence the alternative fuel environmentalists are shoving down the countries' throat, I am saddened by the fact this country will inexorably continue down the path of even greater energy dependence on OPEC and Russia. We are inevitably becoming the biggest debtor nation the world has seen and a 2nd or 3rd rate economic power. | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 3553 Registered: 10-2004 |
Once ethanol is used by a larger part of the public, they will then realize just how foolish they were to let the government, the ignorant, yet know-it-all Greens, and subsidized companies, such as ADM, for leading them to their folly in using ethanol. Without going into much detail--I have better things to do, at present--just consider this one of several drawbacks from using ethanol: the state and federal governments tax fuel. If the "gas" taxes are the same for ethanol as for naphtha (gasoline) and because it requires about 40% more ethanol to get the same mileage as gasoline on a volumetric basis, these governments will collect 40% more taxes from the gullible ethanol users. Uncle Sam and Granny will love you for your increased tax contributions. (Message edited by Livernoisyard on August 01, 2007) | ||
Ccbatson Member Username: Ccbatson Post Number: 1618 Registered: 11-2006 |
Not even close to being ready for prime time. Even when it is, other options are likely better. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 5887 Registered: 10-2003 |
It's true, though, I could do without all of LY's usual virulent conspiracy theorism, and partisan/ideological hackery. This isn't a partisan issue. (Message edited by lmichigan on August 01, 2007) | ||
Dbest Member Username: Dbest Post Number: 39 Registered: 03-2007 |
The place that I get it in Indiana, it cost .50$ less then regular gas | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 3554 Registered: 10-2004 |
I ran some fuel consumption tests comparing E10 (Sunoco) with 100% naphtha on my older Honda CRX HF a while back before I retired it. At that time, it had about 175,000 miles on it. With E10 and doing virtually the same type of combined surface streets/freeway driving, the best mileage was about 44 MPG. With E0, that same type of driving got me between 50 to 53 MPG, with 56 MPG for long-distance freeway driving. Those were the EPA figures too, BTW. The HF, with its 5-speed manual tranny, is a very light vehicle with a 10.6-gallon tank, but it had a nice "sports car" feel for a vehicle that only cost me $1000 and gave some three dependable years of driving. The nearby Sunoco tonight is selling 87-octane E10 for $2.90/gallon. With a cost differential of 50 cents/gallon, that ethanol (E85?) in Indiana would cost about $2.40/gal, plus/minus the difference in state gas tax between MI and IN. Assuming that ethanol gives only about 66% the heating value on a volumetric basis as naphtha, that fuel costing $2.40/g would yield the same fuel economy as naphtha costing $3.64/gal ($2.40/0.66). Obviously, gasoline is cheaper, causes fewer engine problems, and saves the additional energy it cost to produce the ethanol compared to naphtha production. Them be the simple facts... I didn't spend that time studying chemical engineering after a BSEE without learning some simple engineering economics. | ||
Zulu_warrior Member Username: Zulu_warrior Post Number: 3208 Registered: 10-2003 |
Michigan goes Green by using Maize | ||
3rdworldcity Member Username: 3rdworldcity Post Number: 828 Registered: 01-2005 |
Lmichigan: I didn't sense any partisanship in LY's post #3553. The fact is he's absolutely correct in everything he's posted and his analysis of his Honda experience has been duplicated by countless times by the scientific community. (Both political parties are to blame for this debacle, and they have been for years. ADM, Conagra and the farm lobby are the most powerful special interest group in the country and they don't give a damn about a sane energy policy. I have to luv 'em in a way for putting more dollars in my pocket but they sure are bad for the country - and my grandchildren.) The fact he left out of his analysis re: cost is the fact that WE all are paying an additional cost of almost $.60 a gallon in the form of federal tax subsidies for every gallon of ethanol. | ||
El_jimbo Member Username: El_jimbo Post Number: 266 Registered: 12-2006 |
What of the cellulosic Ethanol plants? I thought those are MUCH more efficient than corn based? | ||
Rfban Member Username: Rfban Post Number: 147 Registered: 02-2004 |
ethanol is stupid. | ||
Johnlodge Member Username: Johnlodge Post Number: 1444 Registered: 10-2003 |
My car runs on happy thoughts and good intentions. | ||
Detroit_stylin Member Username: Detroit_stylin Post Number: 4513 Registered: 10-2003 |
So what happens to the blue then Zulu eh...? | ||
3rdworldcity Member Username: 3rdworldcity Post Number: 832 Registered: 01-2005 |
Cellulosic ethanol may or may not be cheaper than corn based ethanol. However, I believe the govt has pretty much given up on corn based ethanol because of its huge direct and indirect cost. Brazil has been a leader in cellulosic based ethanol for years and would love to export billions of gallons of it to the U.S. each year. However, we don't seem to be in to much of a a hurry to solve the alleged greenhouse gas "problem" because we slap large tariffs on it to keep it out of the country. We are doomed. |
