Farmers using food as fuel.

[3v0]

In the US farming has been a none to profitable business for the last 50 or so years. The US government ensured low commodity prices by buying up low priced crops when they were abundant and dumping them to keep prices down during any shortage.

(On this part I am sketchy.) To make matters worse Canada paid its farmers significant subsidies for growing their crops, wheat comes to mind. When the prices in the US were up, subsidized Canadian wheat dumped on US markets would prevent further price increase. I see this a failure on the part of the US rather then Canada.

Currently the US government dictates the actions of farmers because the artificially low (government enforced) commodity prices forces farmers to sign up for (take part in) government programs that will boost their income but only if they do as the government dedicates.

When it becomes economical for farmers to produce bio-diesel food production will drop on a global basis.

If farmers were to grow their own fuel it could reduce the food surplus and increase the commodity price to where they could make a decent living. Maybe even get rich. Just like the companies who process the food you are eating.

Think about it. Is the US cheap food policy finished ?

 

[MacFeegle]

I'm not sure of the overall picture, but I have heard that the use of corn to produce ethanol is driving up food prices. This fall the overall picture will certianly be distorted by the flooding in the midwest.

 

[rjvh]

Think about it. Is the US cheap food policy finished ?

Yes but I think it's global

subsidised produce of food is in the end not sustainable and it's a bad form of market protection

Robert-Jan

 

[Hero999]

I wish government would stop interfering. The US is a huge country more than capable of over producing I don't see how the crops could fail in every state and cause a famine.

I don't know about the US but it's legal to brew your own biodesel tax-free, providing it's only for personal use and under a certain quantity per year. I don't see why farmers can't just produce their own fuel to cut down on their overheads.

 

[Nigel Goodwin]

I don't see why farmers can't just produce their own fuel to cut down on their overheads.

Farmers use 'red diesel', it's either tax free, or VERY low tax - there's little incentive for farmers to make their own fuel - it's already dirt cheap.

Same applies to TVO - used in very old tractors, you have dual tanks, start it up on petrol (which is highly taxed), then when the engine is warm switch to TVO (Tractor Vapourising Oil - cheap nasty paraffin!).

As a kid I used to play with a friend on a farm a few miles away, we used to ride old motorbikes and cars - and the farmer had diesel and TVO tanks on the farm, but had bought his petrol in a gallon can when required. It didn't take long to find out that if we bought a gallon of petrol we could add a gallon of TVO to it, and old cars and bikes ran fine!

We even added dual tanks to an old Ford Popular pickup, and did the cold start and switch over when warm, just like the old tractor they had.

 

[3v0]

Earlier this year I recall a farmer said he paid 20K US $ to fill his diesel tanks and it would not get him throgh the year. Back in the 70's and 80's when my family was still farming I recall the cost of fuel as a major expense. It may be dirt cheap in the UK but not in the US.

It would be interesting to see what taxes farmers pay or do not pay but it is bound to vary by localion etc. Not interesting enough to look it up.

Farmers use 'red diesel', it's either tax free, or VERY low tax - there's little incentive for farmers to make their own fuel - it's already dirt cheap.

 

[Nigel Goodwin]

Earlier this year I recall a farmer said he paid 20K US $ to fill his diesel tanks and it would not get him throgh the year. Back in the 70's and 80's when my family was still farming I recall the cost of fuel as a major expense. It may be dirt cheap in the UK but not in the US.

But all fuel in the USA is dirt cheap anyway!

In the UK the price difference between 'red diesel' and normal diesel is huge, red diesel is probably only 20%-25% of the cost - and it's a serious offence using it in a road vehicle. It's called 'red' because it contains a red dye, which will stain large quantities of normal fuel. So if you put it in your cars tank just once, it can be detected even after hundreds of gallons of normal fuel have gone through the tank.

It's not just farms of course, quarries use it as well - anything which is non-road use.

 

[Hero999]

What if I use it to power a generator?

Would that be alright?

If so, I could use it to charge an electric vehicle or would that be breaking the law?

 

[3v0]

I think we have had the same or similar dye system in place for a few years.

The huge difference between red and normal diesel in the UK points out the problem is not the price of fuel but the taxes.

But all fuel in the USA is dirt cheap anyway!

In the UK the price difference between 'red diesel' and normal diesel is huge, red diesel is probably only 20%-25% of the cost - and it's a serious offence using it in a road vehicle. It's called 'red' because it contains a red dye, which will stain large quantities of normal fuel. So if you put it in your cars tank just once, it can be detected even after hundreds of gallons of normal fuel have gone through the tank.

It's not just farms of course, quarries use it as well - anything which is non-road use.

 

[Hero999]

Of course it is and diesel is more expensive than petrol here because the government have taxed it more. They need to have a higher tax on diesel because diesel cars are more efficient so they need to compenste for it.

 

[Mikebits]

A quote from a internet source.

I asked a friend who is in the petroleum industry why they charge so much for diesel.

"Because we can," he said.

And I thought it was harder to explain...

 

[Nigel Goodwin]

What if I use it to power a generator?

Would that be alright?

If so, I could use it to charge an electric vehicle or would that be breaking the law?

Interesting point, but I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be alright.

However, even using red diesel in a generator is probably going to be more expensive than charging off the mains.

 

[Hero999]

That's probably true.

Another thing I'm thinking about it whether you could get heater generators. The heat from the engine is used to heat your home instead of wasted. I know such a scheme has been used on a large scale but would it work on a small scale?


Also natural gas is cheaper than electricity so what about using it to generate electricity?


I know a generator would only be 25% efficient but if you're using the heat it's not that wasteful.

Alright, it's probably not worth it in mild areas like the UK but it might be worth it in colder areas like northern Canada.

 

[Nigel Goodwin]

That's probably true.

Another thing I'm thinking about it whether you could get heater generators. The heat from the engine is used to heat your home instead of wasted. I know such a scheme has been used on a large scale but would it work on a small scale?

Near where I work there's a woodyard (Gregory's Woodyard), and the owner, who lives a fair few houses away from the yard pipes heat from a sawdust powered boiler in the yard. I seem to recall hearing it heats a few more houses as well?, probably the intervening ones n order to get permission for running the pipes used.

 

[Sceadwian]

It'd be easy Hero, you just put the generator in an insulated enclosure and pass the outlet gas through a heat exchanger, I doubt the heat exchange rate would be glorious or anything but it would supplement the normal heating system as long as the generators gas outlet temperature was high enough. Higher efficiency could be realized by compressing the exhaust gas to make the temperature concentration higher but the compressor itself has to be taken into account as well.
In many moderate climates heat pumps are being used increasingly because the ground temperature is relative moderate and constant all year long. The compressor just concentrates whatever form of heating or cooling is required, and dissipates the waste heat/cooling into the ground through a closed loop water system. The only energy used is what is required to drive the compressor system, the earth itself is the thermal well the energy is drawn from..

 

[killivolt]

As to disposal of Rods or waste unclear.

With all the hubbub about fuel and usage I know that you have nuclear Subs Air Craft Carrier. Low Cost. Why not nuclear batteries.

Does the means justify the end ?

 

[Mikebits]

Two words, nuclear waste.

 

[killivolt]

Two words, nuclear waste.

Right that is the given. But no one is spending time on the proper way to handle it in the first place.

They are treating it the same as if we will never run out of oil.

I'm just waiting to see if the new Super Collider will actually find the Higgins to see if it holds the answer to most of the questions. How the universe was born and how to control matter.

Disassociation of these building blocks of matter will ultimately lead to discovery of how to assemble and dis-assemble matter solving the age old question of garbage disposal.

 

[arrie]

By the way,
refresh my memory...
What do they do with a pebble-bed nuclear reactor once it's used up?

 

[killivolt]

By the way,
refresh my memory...
What do they do with a pebble-bed nuclear reactor once it's used up?

Based on what I'm reading about it. The threat is trying to contain it. Keeping it from disappearing in somebody's pocket and then using it as a dirty bomb.

About the size of a golf ball. Easy to transport then pulverize it and spread it to various locations creating mass cleanup costs.