So until you get the energy balance thing worked out and get Washington to put its hands in its own pocket (and keep them out of my pocket), I’ll stick to gasoline and I’m not buying a “sweet ride”.

Oh yeah, one thing more: Let’s make the waste sugar into Chocolate Chip Cookies and bubble the waste CO2 through another part of the sugar mix to make a carbonated drink to go with the cookies!! Then you’ll have a product I can get behind!!

Most of us could probably handle cutting down on our sugar intake.

Corn, on the other hand, is a great vegetable with protein and vitamins. It’s also used for feed for animals. Have you noticed the way the cost of eggs, milk and meat have gone up? I haven’t tracked it down, but I bet it’s part of the chain of the rise in the price of corn.

Mr. Bingley on April 15, 2008 at 12:54 PM

Yep, taling US because we are talking energy independence, not just changing one imported commodity to another.

Sugarcane cultivation requires a tropical or subtropical climate, with a minimum of 600 mm (24 in) of annual moisture

sugar beat production, which is about 58% of sugar production in the US, is another water intensive crop.

What a lot of folks in the US don’t get is we have a WATER shortage here in the US. Lake Powell is at historic low levels since it was built… water prices are WAY up… farmers are being told to NOT use well water…

And with this we are going to tranform FOOD into fuel using two very water intensive crops??? HUH???

Nearly 80% of the world’s sugar production comes from cane sugar, which is basically a high-falutin’ grass that grows in dan near any tropical and sub-tropical climate. There are lots of unused places to grow sugar; the problem has been that at 6 cents/lb it hasn’t been worth the effort.

We could power homes, cars, and all sorts of transportation with hydrogen if we could get around the need to transport and store it.

second look at the Hindenburg?

Mr. Bingley on April 15, 2008 at 11:38 AM

Hmmm…

Cane sugar can only grow in a very limited environment… most sugar comes from beets.

“This trend is particularly true and alarming for the production of sugar beets, which are considered to be one of the most water-intensive crops. ”
From

http://www.waterfair.org/content.spring?contentItem=247

Thought I remember that from growing up… Beets take a LOT of water… which is already now in short supply here in Colorado…

Whole thing is unsustainable. We literaly CAN’T waste our irrigation water to make fuel, or the whole Food system of the world gets out of whack quickly.

If we can send a spacecraft to Saturn with a nuclear fuel cell, why can’t we design one for use in cars?

Because Cassini-Huygens won’t be speeding down the highway in rush hour traffic, weaving back and forth across all lanes as well as the shoulder while adjusting the rear view mirror with one hand and applying makup with the other, no hands on the wheel, no eyes on the road?

Third, sugar is not easy to grow or manufacture. It could very well fall into the same trap as ethanol, where its not really energy efficient for the society (ie, all things considered, it takes as much, or more, energy to make it as it supplies).

Romeo13 on April 15, 2008 at 11:07 AM

Actually I don’t think this is true. Cane sugar is exceedingly easy to grow and manufacture, and many sugar mills burn the cane bio-mass to provide the weightier portion of the energy needed in the refining process, so the energy cost to get to the ’sugar in the raw’ stage is negligible, I believe.

Obviously any new process beyond that has its costs.

Buy Danish,

What? Did I even mention Splenda? The only carbohydrates I eat are vegetables and nuts and berries

RobD on April 15, 2008 at 10:46 AM

Good for you, Dude! If you want to eat like an animal in the woods, go for it! Just don’t tell me what I don’t need or won’t miss. It’s a freedom thing.

If the process also produces carbon dioxide, there would have to be some means to separate the carbon dioxide from the hydrogen, so that the CO2 doesn’t smother the flames from the hydrogen. Membrane filters work well for this purpose, but need to be maintained under pressure.

The cost of producing the enzymes that catalyze the reaction could be a problem, as could the disposal of “spent” sugar water (what remains after the hydrogen has been removed). Could the reaction be re-started by adding fresh sugar to the water, or would a situation be reached where reaction by-products in the water prevent the reaction from continuing or fresh sugar from dissolving?
Once a solution is totally “spent”, how is the enzyme recovered from the water? Or is new enzyme required, and what is its cost?

Another potential problem with this process is the freezing of sugar water in winter. Sugar is very soluble in hot water, but tends to precipitate out as a solid in cold water. Would a heat source be needed to keep the sugar solution warm while the car is not in use in cold weather?

This sounds interesting on the surface, but the devil may be in the details…

One, in my philosophy anything that makes race survival less likely is evil. Turning food to fuel fits that category.

Second, I’d have to run the numbers, but I’d guess that the amount of sugar you’d need to generate a reasoable Power to weight ratio would kill this.

Third, sugar is not easy to grow or manufacture. It could very well fall into the same trap as ethanol, where its not really energy efficient for the society (ie, all things considered, it takes as much, or more, energy to make it as it supplies).

but the government subsidies need to be removed to improve free market forces on American sugar production.

ThackerAgency on April 15, 2008 at 10:58 AM

Also, we should get rid of the $0.54/gallon tariff on imported ethanol.

ThackerAgency on April 15, 2008 at 10:52 AM

Actually, I just looked it up…they say Splenda’s chemical name is sucralose, and it’s totally artificial (but does share some chemical structure with real sugar, except for the chlorine). The fillers you refer to are dextrose-based and are required because in its pure form it’s about 600 times sweeter than sugar so they market it in equivalent volume to ‘one serving’ of other sweeteners…also, without them it’s unstable at higher temperatures.

What? Did I even mention Splenda? The only carbohydrates I eat are vegetables and nuts and berries

August 2007

manfriend on April 15, 2008 at 10:22 AM
RobD on April 15, 2008 at 10:21 AM

Nanny staters?

Leave my sugar alone! Splenda tastes god-awful, but you are free to eat it to your heart’s content.

ThackerAgency on April 15, 2008 at 9:55 AM

This is a very interesting article about Big Sugar, the folly of price controls, and the attempt to muscle out the competition of Splenda by Stephen Moore, written exactly 2 years ago.