The Problem with Biofuels

2021 ж. 4 Мау.
1 913 523 Рет қаралды

Get a year of both Nebula and Curiosity Stream for just 14.79 here: www.CuriosityStream.com/realen... and using the code, "realengineering"
New streaming platform: watchnebula.com/
Vlog channel: / @brianmcmanus
Patreon:
www.patreon.com/user?u=282505...
Facebook:
/ realengineering1
Instagram:
/ brianjamesmcmanus
Reddit:
/ realengineering
Twitter:
/ thebrianmcmanus
Discord:
/ discord
Get your Real Engineering shirts at: standard.tv/collections/real-...
Credits:
Writer/Narrator: Brian McManus
Editor: Stephanie Sammann (www.stephanie-sammann.com/)
Animator: Mike Ridolfi (www.moboxgraphics.com/)
Sound: Graham Haerther (haerther.net/)
Thumbnail: Simon Buckmaster / forgottentowel
References:
[1] www.agriculture.com/news/busi...
[2] www.politico.com/newsletters/...
[3] www.eia.gov/energyexplained/b...
[4] www.eubia.org/cms/wiki-biomas... [19]
[5] www.eia.gov/energyexplained/b... [19a]
[6] www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/det.... [19b]
[7] www.usgs.gov/media/images/map.... [20b]
[8] www.usda.gov/media/blog/2019/... [20d]
[9] www.forbes.com/sites/jamescon... [21b]
[10] www.macrotrends.net/2532/corn... [21c]
[11] www.nature.com/articles/s4146... [21d]
[12] www.technologyreview.com/2011... [21f]
[13] link.springer.com/article/10.... [19c]
[14] www.springer.com/gp/book/9783... [21a]
[15] link.springer.com/article/10....
[16] www.circleofblue.org/wp-conte...
[17] hoptownchronicle.org/corn-gro... [23a]
[18] economics.yale.edu/sites/defa... [22b]
[19]www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti... [21]
[20]www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti.... [21e]
[21] www.energy.gov/eere/bioenergy... [25]
[22] www.ge.com/gas-power/future-o...
[23] www.reuters.com/article/us-no...
[24] www.neste.com/products/all-pr...
[25] www.reuters.com/article/us-no...
Thank you to AP Archive for access to their archival footage.
Music by Epidemic Sound: epidemicsound.com/creato
Thank you to my patreon supporters: Adam Flohr, Henning Basma, Hank Green, William Leu, Tristan Edwards, Ian Dundore, John & Becki Johnston. Nevin Spoljaric, Jason Clark, Thomas Barth, Johnny MacDonald, Stephen Foland, Alfred Holzheu, Abdulrahman Abdulaziz Binghaith, Brent Higgins, Dexter Appleberry, Alex Pavek, Marko Hirsch, Mikkel Johansen, Hibiyi Mori. Viktor Józsa, Ron Hochsprung

Пікірлер
  • “If humans could eat electricity, we would” That kid who licked batteries: *My goals are beyond your understanding*

    @Joserider123@Joserider1232 жыл бұрын
    • That same kid :- they called me a madman

      @moeron9172@moeron91722 жыл бұрын
    • I knew I wasn't alone!

      @alexsolosm@alexsolosm2 жыл бұрын
    • @@alexsolosm ayyy high five internet stranger

      @moeron9172@moeron91722 жыл бұрын
    • When I was a kid I put four 9volt batteries in series and touched the leads to my tounge... I had zero scientific understanding of what I was doing but I sure did learned something

      @thecrazyfarmboy@thecrazyfarmboy2 жыл бұрын
    • At least 15 kids have died from eating batteries

      @ianh1504@ianh15042 жыл бұрын
  • If you're dead set on making biofuel work, then switch to mesquite beans as the feed stock. It's one of the most desert adapted plants on the planet, using almost no water at all and growing in places that you can't use for normal crops. It also produces more ethanol per farm footprint than corn. It's also gluten free, high in fiber, high in protein, and self-sweetening. Lastly, it's a legume and a tree, meaning that it gives both shade and nitrogen to the soil underneath it, paving the way for other crops to be planted underneath. There's a reason the Native Americans called it the "Tree of Life". It's an incredible plant. The only issue comes with grinding the super hard seeds, which can be smashed using hammer mills or slow-cooked into the equivalent of baked beans. Speaking of Native Americans, we should also try switching from the monoculture agricultural strategy used with most corn farming. We could try growing the corn with beans and squash, which the Natives called the "Three Sisters", because they synergize and create a complete protein. The corn gives something for the beans to climb, the beans give nitrogen to the nitrogen-thirsty roots of the corn, and the squash covers the ground and prevents the growth of weeds.

    @carsonrush3352@carsonrush33522 жыл бұрын
    • I agree 100%. For biofuel to work we need to use crops that don't grow in highly fertile farmland that NEEDS to remain food growing land. Switchgrass can be grown in rocky dry soil, clay soil, sand, and even gravel. It also grows wonderfully in floodlands. All areas that don't grow corn or wheat. It's good for the environment and good for fuel production. Twice as much yield per acre as corn and 700% more yield per unit of fuel required for production. Mesquite would open up desert land as well. Potentially increasing rainfall in those areas and thus increasing plant life and providing better soil and habitats for wildlife. Lastly, he does mention in the video, algae, this can be grown in contaminated runoff water and it cleans the water of much of the contamination. Thus giving a useful side affect. I think looking to a -Single-source for biofuel is always going to have downsides. But the benefits of biofuel outweigh most of those drawbacks. But looking to multiple sources is where the benefits come from. In America we have millions of acres of nearly dead land. Huge swathes of desert or gravelly soil that is not growing anything other than a few weeds. We know of crops that can not only use that wasted space, but also improve the soil and even increase rainfall in those areas. Providing a benefit to both mankind and nature. Algae can be grown almost anywhere, in almost any water. Algae makes around 1000 gallons of biofuel per acre. Switchgrass makes around 80 gallons per acre. I don't know about mesquite, but the total production per acre is still higher than desert sand growing rocks. lol. Even just 20 gallons per acre would be useful and profitable. Although I'd assume it probably produces more like 40-50 gallons per acre. Between mesquite in the desert and switchgrass in the mountains, the soil will benefit as farming with non-chemical fertilizers and avoiding the use of liquid nitrogen, will enable the soil to build a layer of top soil so that production will increase over time. My dad started farming on sand with just 2 inches of top soil and after 9 years we had over 12 inches of dark top soil and our alfalfa was more than twice as tall and much greener than our neighbor's alfalfa.

      @Bearthedancingman@Bearthedancingman2 жыл бұрын
    • Love Real Engineering, but I feel like this episode should have been titled "The Problem with Ethanol", not the problem with biofuels. Many of the objections to other biofuels raised at the end of the video either do not apply to all potential sources or represent cost/production inefficiencies that might be addressed with improved manufacturing techniques, advances in enzymatic processed or refinements in the plant stock used to start.

      @christopherleblanc160@christopherleblanc1602 жыл бұрын
    • @@christopherleblanc160 I think that too often alternative energy is focused in the wrong places. Electric cars are a good idea and Tesla has proven it. There's still a ways to go, but it's a good way into it's development. As for industrial or commercial vehicles, hybrid diesel-electric systems seem to be completely being overlooked. Instead we see a focus on pure electric trucks. Diesel-electric is a system that could likely be retrofitted to existing trucks and heavy equipment. Combine that with continuing development of biofuels and the vehicles that actually produce the majority of pollutants might get cleaner without adding even more exhaust filtration that reduces fuel economy. Now I'm rambling. Sorry.

      @Bearthedancingman@Bearthedancingman2 жыл бұрын
    • @@christopherleblanc160 100%

      @waynebow70@waynebow702 жыл бұрын
    • let us not forget the potential of alge biofuel. im not against biofuel but corn is not the best way to do it

      @rex5611@rex56112 жыл бұрын
  • BUSHEL: bush·el /ˈbo͝oSHəl/ noun 1. US: a measure of capacity equal to 64 US pints (equivalent to 35.2 liters), used for dry goods. 2.BRITISH: a measure of capacity equal to 8 imperial gallons (equivalent to 36.4 liters), used for dry goods and liquids.

    @WarpedPerception@WarpedPerception2 жыл бұрын
    • so a British Bushel is larger than an American Bushel? screw the Imperial System! it can't even be the same in 2 Imperial countries.

      @jgr7487@jgr74872 жыл бұрын
    • @@jgr7487 lol ..

      @WarpedPerception@WarpedPerception2 жыл бұрын
    • 64US pints = 8 US Gal

      @Mitch_Rogoff@Mitch_Rogoff2 жыл бұрын
    • Whatever the hell that is😂

      @nauuwgtx@nauuwgtx2 жыл бұрын
    • @@jgr7487 the US is NOT an Imperial country, we forked from the Imperial System at the same time we left the British Imperial Empire. We share a lot of units still, but we improved and tweaked what at the time was the most common units, and created new ones as industry needed them, and we created the US Customary System. So while everyone "out there" keeps repeating that we use the Imperial system in the US, we don't, and that's why it's different from the UK. For instance, until a few years ago, the UK Inch was a few thousandths different from the US inch, and finally they agreed to make them the same, and so each adjusted their inch slightly towards the middle.

      @ke6gwf@ke6gwf2 жыл бұрын
  • This should be renamed "The Problem with Ethanol". Also, I would love to see a similar study on the energy inputs for producing gasoline.

    @tobysarver8693@tobysarver8693 Жыл бұрын
    • This should be renamed "I'm shilling on Pimental even though every single other researcher disagrees with him, and I'm just gonna regurgitate his output uncritically".

      @SianaGearz@SianaGearz Жыл бұрын
    • There is no external energy input for producing gasoline. Meaning that as a direct source of energy from the ground as crude oil, the math is just some reduction of energy in the final products of distillation. Distillation is conceptually simple, in that you heat up crude oil and siphon off different densities of resulting components from a tower. Gas at top, gasoline somewhere in the middle and tars at the bottom. There isn't a substance on earth as convenient and energy dense for creating heat as fossil fuels.. It often even extracts itself due to underground pressure. Nuclear fissile material has more potential energy but is very complicated to extract that energy, as nuclear plants tend to be.

      @wyskass861@wyskass861 Жыл бұрын
    • They are quite low, actually. Huge refineries are amazingly efficient.

      @toomanymarys7355@toomanymarys7355 Жыл бұрын
    • @@SianaGearz The other calculations are still pretty dire. Just not negative.

      @toomanymarys7355@toomanymarys7355 Жыл бұрын
    • @@toomanymarys7355 "dire" is not how i would put it. "a little borderline", perhaps. It does highlight a related issue - meat consumption, but as long as it's sufficiently high, this is what basically absorbs the environmental impact of bioethanol and makes it sensible for the time being in the volume used. Lots of interdependent eco issues that need a systemic solution rather than debating one thing at a time in isolation.

      @SianaGearz@SianaGearz Жыл бұрын
  • Brazilian here. What distroys the amazon the most is actually soybean plantation. Most of Brazil's sugarcane fields are further south in the state of São Paulo, nowhere near the amazon rainforest.

    @leothefirst@leothefirst2 жыл бұрын
    • Good point. Soy is being mostly consumed by animals. Which we in then as humans eat them. Why not eat the soy directly and skip the inefficient process of converting thay to meat..!

      @TheAhmedvienna@TheAhmedvienna2 жыл бұрын
    • It is not the soybeans, but the cattle. The Amazon soil is not fertile to farm anything, really.

      @JohnnyJonathan@JohnnyJonathan2 жыл бұрын
    • @@TheAhmedvienna because soy is terrible for your health. Specially if you're a man.

      @orodrigodemoraes@orodrigodemoraes2 жыл бұрын
    • @@orodrigodemoraes compared to the McDonald's?

      @TheAhmedvienna@TheAhmedvienna2 жыл бұрын
    • Either way, subsistence farmers who previously had a healthy diet are now growing on one, unhealthy crop: their earnings are not enough to pay for the food that have also increased with the diminishing edible crops.

      @oakstrong1@oakstrong12 жыл бұрын
  • "Whatever the hell a bushel is" had me dead

    @jaydoncampbell561@jaydoncampbell5612 жыл бұрын
    • It's a stupid Imperial measurement which, by the sound of his accent, originated in a nation adjacent to his.

      @winstonsmith478@winstonsmith4782 жыл бұрын
    • Yeah, but he still used acre-feet when speaking about water usage.

      @SFKelvin@SFKelvin2 жыл бұрын
    • @@winstonsmith478 Bushel is a very useful measurement, it's only stupid to city dwellers who have never needed it. A bushel provides a convenient bridge between weight and volume. Farmers measure their grain by volume, they know how many bushels their bin will hold. But when they go to sell it, it is measured by weight at the grain elevator. Bushels are useful because it is a weight figure that is based off volume, thus the farmer can know how many bushels he has by measuring the volume in his bins. Of course, this all seems very silly to the people who think food magically appears on their grocery shelves.

      @TheOwenMajor@TheOwenMajor2 жыл бұрын
    • five dozen, 60 ears

      @mgs02184@mgs021842 жыл бұрын
    • @@TheOwenMajor I feel your pain. To bad these young folks were not around agricultural and see what has happened during the past one hundred years. Someone other than the American farmer started the destroying the Amazon rainforest and other places to raise food. That broke the U.S. markets and ran thousands off of farms to cities for jobs. Farming destroying all the habitat? How about urban sprawl? People are moving to live in wildlife habitat, as well as prime farmland. You must remember farm ground has to have certain qualities, or it will end up like the grounds of the rainforests that are now abandoned because it is not the right type of ground to support agriculture over time. Who gets so much of the federal moneys? Usually urban land owners and multinational food companies. And nevermind small things such as alcohol fuels burn cleaner and doesn't possess some of the cancerous problems of other fuels. More care was taken of the land and the farm animals when the family living on and farming the land depended on that farm being successful. More and more ground is owned by people not on the land. Bill Gates is one of the largest private agricultural land owners in the U.S. Many livestock production operations, especially the large ones, are corporation owned and ran. There are many family farm operations yet. But they do not hold the real power. But if the markets are ruined again, corporate America will be in even a bigger strangle hold of this nation's food supply. It will be coming fairly soon as the electric vehicles take over for the i.c.e. vehicles. More family owned operations will fold unless more diverse crops are found. I grew up in a family farm operation. And I remained in ag-business till fifty years old. But us that loved that life are being pushed out for those who will only operate it as strictly a dollars and cents business. Not as an operation of life that it is.

      @ronfullerton3162@ronfullerton31622 жыл бұрын
  • 6:50 Energy negative process 8:15 Photosynthesis efficiency of plants vs solar panels 8:40 Biomass uses water

    @paifu.@paifu. Жыл бұрын
    • Advanced biofuels are promoted because of properties that overcome the many disadvantages of ethanol (high hygroscopicity, low energy density, and costly purification) and plant-based biodiesel (high cloud point, tropical deforestation).

      @AndrewPick6@AndrewPick68 ай бұрын
    • Seaweed biofuels is only solution

      @ayushtieari385@ayushtieari3852 ай бұрын
  • If you're using the cost to produce ethanol out of 1 bushel of corn, should you be looking at the net energy of the bushel as a whole? Distillers grains is used as feed for animals and DCO is being used for biodiesel, which would have a energy impact. Not sure if it would make a difference, but I'm curious...

    @gbear6919@gbear6919 Жыл бұрын
    • I can tell you that Biodiesel is problematic, in that it clogs fuel filters. Nothing worse than driving & suddenly you have a filter clog you lose speed and can't get it back up to speed.

      @robertadams6606@robertadams66067 ай бұрын
  • "Siri, what is a bushel?" "You will arrive at your destination in 200 meters".

    @w0mblemania@w0mblemania2 жыл бұрын
    • Is this the first time we've seen him??

      @blaircox1589@blaircox15892 жыл бұрын
    • @@blaircox1589 first time for me.

      @DavidChipman@DavidChipman2 жыл бұрын
    • Ok thank you! I was beginning to think my Google Home speaker is retarded but now I know Alexa and Siri have the same problems.

      @SomeDudeInBaltimore@SomeDudeInBaltimore2 жыл бұрын
    • @@Teekles you seriously base your judgement of science on who gets "Nobel prizes for chemistry"? Do understand that it's easy to totally politicize a public relations gimmick like that? That's unbelievably naive thinking.

      @oriraykai3610@oriraykai36102 жыл бұрын
    • @@blaircox1589 I think he appeared at the end of 1 or 2 videos in the past.

      @rockyblacksmith@rockyblacksmith2 жыл бұрын
  • Biofuels make a great deal of sense, when they're made out of waste products. They don't make a lot of sense when they're the raw material is produced just to turn it into fuel. Extracting the potential energy out of things like human waste or used deep frying oil is sensible.

    @Irthex@Irthex2 жыл бұрын
    • @@krazyivan9733 Yeah, but nuke is bad. Well that's the mantra. Imagine how much better it would be if we had promoted nuclear energy and didn't rely on coal and natural gas.

      @caferace8418@caferace84182 жыл бұрын
    • @@caferace8418 nuclear energy is such an easy target for negative PR 😔

      @bruhdabones@bruhdabones2 жыл бұрын
    • @@krazyivan9733 Or fusion. But also renewables.

      @maxmustermann-cy9zn@maxmustermann-cy9zn2 жыл бұрын
    • @@krazyivan9733 Uhhh no... human waste is rarely required in the ecosystem. Human waste is in excess, not in demand. Eliminating some of that waste would help the ecosystem, not hurt it.

      @neurofiedyamato8763@neurofiedyamato87632 жыл бұрын
    • @@krazyivan9733 ?? Ecosystem that relied on human waste?? You see that mountain of trash in mexico or trash island in the middle of pacific and call that ecosystem???

      @2Pains1Love@2Pains1Love2 жыл бұрын
  • I love your simple, logical breakdowns. I'm an engineer as well, and all these questions about carbon emissions and efficiency seem so damn obvious, yet we plow ahead into doom.

    @SamuelVella1995@SamuelVella19952 жыл бұрын
    • This video essay was written from a single source, which is HIGHLY disputed scientifically. All other researchers in this area say Pimental used the wrong underlying efficiency values and completely ignored the fact that ethanol produced here is a byproduct, the rest of the plant, the resulting mash, is processed to feedstock, making up the bulk use of the biomass. Of course there is a debate to be had there whether that in turn is a good idea, what with the high carbon equivalent cow farts, but that is a different problem altogether. Obvious my ass. This video is worth nothing and the likes of you can't even be arsed to turn on their brain, pacified by some pretty stock footage and whatnot, and think you learned something because it's in line with your personal bias. You can't just single source things like that. You try writing such an essay in high school, no passing grade for you.

      @SianaGearz@SianaGearz Жыл бұрын
    • @@SianaGearz Thank you for the comment. Its unfortunate so many people are watching this and thinking they learned something. This video is missing so much information and makes ridiculous assumptions. Very biased.

      @danielpesicka8513@danielpesicka8513 Жыл бұрын
    • Biofuels make sense for aviation. They just flew transatlantic on a 787 with biofuel. Everything else can become electric.

      @Serrf@Serrf5 ай бұрын
  • This is eye opening. Thank you for this great video.

    @wei48221@wei482212 жыл бұрын
  • The first bite determines the front side of the Burger

    @doge8530@doge85302 жыл бұрын
    • Okay

      @RealEngineering@RealEngineering2 жыл бұрын
    • @@RealEngineering just wanted to make a point about your video since you brought up solar, solar is mostly bad(because it takes up space and destroys undergrowth), wind kills birds and cost of running wind farms is higher over all that you get from energy output, electric cars are retarded because of what goes into making their batteries, ahem massive toxic lake in choyna, hydro, yea i agree with use of hydroelectric, and ofcourse nuclear is the best we have but people have had fear propaganda against it propounded into them for decades now, edit, also carbon neutrality is a retarded concept because the earth has been getting greener with rising carbon levels, whilst the temp has remained stable, so people taking fear porn of "we're all gonna die in ten years" which has been going on for decades is just silly, seriously more carbon in the air is a good thing, plastic however and toxic chemical dumps really are a legitimate problem, but including carbon in there is a form of well poisoning about actual legitimate discussions on environmental problems.

      @TS-jm7jm@TS-jm7jm2 жыл бұрын
    • Just what?

      @marcoyado@marcoyado2 жыл бұрын
    • @@TS-jm7jm Solar panels could be put into existing building, it would reduce power consumption and wouldn't take extra space. Such a thing would be most efficient in small towns and villages (because when there are a lot of skyscrapers there is not much light and area for them).

      @ImieNazwiskoOK@ImieNazwiskoOK2 жыл бұрын
    • @@TS-jm7jm Fossil fuel pollution is estimated to kill 10 times as many birds, bats and vulnerable species as wind turbines. Wind farms tend to turn a profit after about 5 to 10 years of operation. And the larger the turbine is the more efficient it is, the slower it turns and less dangerous it is for birds. Compared to the toxic waste produced by coal mining, fracking, and petroleum drilling at least the batteries aren't burned every time and can be reused. For the fossil fuels you will just keep producing more toxic byproducts after burning everything you dug up over and over again. Hydroelectric cannot be expanded into new areas much anymore without destroying the land behind the dams, much like you complain of solar taking up space.

      @HermanVonPetri@HermanVonPetri2 жыл бұрын
  • "Ethanol, a biofuel" you know, i'm something of a car myself

    @ansersoftware4463@ansersoftware44632 жыл бұрын
    • This injun only consumes ethanol. (this comment might get deleted by youtube)

      @leerman22@leerman222 жыл бұрын
    • one for you, one for me! heh heh heh heh heh -Homer Simpson on the ethanol-powered car

      @WasFakestCenturyAesthetics@WasFakestCenturyAesthetics2 жыл бұрын
    • Russia has a lot of "cars"...

      @peterfireflylund@peterfireflylund2 жыл бұрын
    • Rofl!!

      @mba4677@mba46772 жыл бұрын
    • actually, cars use methanol, ethanol and buthanol mixed.

      @monad_tcp@monad_tcp2 жыл бұрын
  • There’s also a few fish and chip shop owners that get free diesel fuel from whenever they change their fryer oil as they filter the old used oil and are than able to use it as biodiesel! :)

    @Techno-Universal@Techno-Universal Жыл бұрын
  • Excellent video and very well presented. I find the stuff fascinating so thank you mate.

    @big-g6@big-g6 Жыл бұрын
  • I first recognized there was something wrong with the ethanol industry when they announced they were building a coal fired ethanol plant near my home. Yes, they were going to burn coal to produce biofuel. Not green at all.

    @MatthewStinar@MatthewStinar2 жыл бұрын
    • Its evolving but backwards

      @peterbakic4493@peterbakic44932 жыл бұрын
    • It's about job creation nothing more.

      @RichRich1955@RichRich19552 жыл бұрын
    • @@RichRich1955 Better for the environment and the economy to pay them to stay home in that case.

      @MatthewStinar@MatthewStinar2 жыл бұрын
    • @@MatthewStinar Better for the environment, sure. The economy... not so much.

      @dirtypure2023@dirtypure20232 жыл бұрын
    • @@dirtypure2023 They are spending resources and labor to turn a given amount of energy into less energy. What they do is an economic loss. I'm estimating that the cost of paying them to stay home is less than the economic losses they cause by wasting energy. Those same resources could be spent producing something rather than wasting energy, which should more than cover the cost of paying those people to stay home. More realistically though, we should eliminate their jobs so they can become productive members of society instead of freeloading like they're doing now.

      @MatthewStinar@MatthewStinar2 жыл бұрын
  • My thermodynamics teacher in College pointed the inefficiency of biofuels 8 years ago

    @Dodgerific@Dodgerific2 жыл бұрын
    • And any law of thermodynamics would favor more consumption of effective products over more effective consumption, so that max entropy is reached quicker, and the end of the world comes faster

      @acasccseea4434@acasccseea44342 жыл бұрын
    • all fuels are inefficient, the question is whether we can continuously make it

      @justinokraski3796@justinokraski37962 жыл бұрын
    • Yet we are making more and more biofuels now, more than ever. Just look what Biden pushed for this year, its insane and unscientific.

      @dongster529@dongster5292 жыл бұрын
    • @@dongster529 Lots of insane and unscientific notions in American politics these days.

      @dirtypure2023@dirtypure20232 жыл бұрын
    • @@acasccseea4434 Well there's no technical reason why any of this would break the laws of thermodynamics - there's an immense energy input available that we only barely touch currently (ie: the sun). If photosynthesis was more effective at converting solar energy into sugars, this process could easily net several times more energy than we put in. Unfortunately that's not how things work. Maybe it would be possible to bioengineer photosynthesis to be more efficient (hence playing around with algae and whatnot) but natural plants like corn just don't cut it. Its the same problem with the idiots who say we should just "plant more trees" to fix climate change. Natural trees and plants just aren't anywhere near sufficient to do the job (never mind the fact that we're burning more trees than we could possibly re-plant thanks to the continual and accelerating destruction of the Amazon, and I'm sure the same thing happens in many lesser forests around the world as well that we just never hear about due to the Amazon taking up all the headlines).

      @altrag@altrag2 жыл бұрын
  • I'm surprised. Just an en passing mention to Brazil, despite we using Ethanol since the 80s? Plus pertty much all cars made/sold here nowadays can run with either Gasoline OR pure Ethanol, and it has been that way for over a decade.A little more detail on the maths for sugarcane would also be great. Honestly, Ethanol has been working REALLY WELL in Brazil. To the point pretty much everyone can power their cars with only Ethanol, as I myself do (Can't recall the last time I put Gasoline in ANY vehicle, probably over a decade ago. I always go for ethanol). Sure, Ethanol is nowhere near perfect, but it works well enough that Brazil can pretty much do away with Gasoline for fueling cars (We still need it for trucks and planes though, so there's that). And being able to stop using petrol, while not a solution in itself, seems like a pretty good step forward. In Brazil, when gas prices go up, people simply use Ethanol. It would be really nice to get your input on how that changes things, and what that can mean in the grand scheme of moving away from fossil fuels, after all, despite all problems with Ethanol, it is definitely not "fossil".

    @fernandocordeiro8830@fernandocordeiro88307 ай бұрын
  • I would love to see a video on using hemp vs corn. It needs less water, less fertilizer, less land, and can be grown faster.

    @adamstephenson6088@adamstephenson6088 Жыл бұрын
    • Hemp isn't energy dense when it comes to sugars. It's mostly leaf and stem

      @randybobandy9828@randybobandy98288 ай бұрын
    • Hemp would actually be less efficient than corn for ethnol. Technically you you can produce ethanol from any biomass. the most efficient is sugercane. It requires half as much production time and cost. Unlike corn you don't have to turn starch into suger then into ethnol. Produces twice as much than corn per hectare.

      @alejandrocastro6323@alejandrocastro63232 ай бұрын
  • After all these years of watching real engineering, this is the first time seeing Brian's face!

    @dahasolomon7314@dahasolomon73142 жыл бұрын
    • Well you haven’t seen all the videos then😁

      @kanishka.b8550@kanishka.b85502 жыл бұрын
    • First time for me too. Found his channel after the Spitfire video.

      @clearsmashdrop5829@clearsmashdrop58292 жыл бұрын
    • He shows his face on Twitter and Instagram a fair amount, check them out! Even got Sam from Wendover in there too.

      @thelegend-e7919@thelegend-e79192 жыл бұрын
    • Cool

      @rlicon1970@rlicon19702 жыл бұрын
    • @@thelegend-e7919 don't do none of those.

      @rlicon1970@rlicon19702 жыл бұрын
  • Dead Dinosaurs: "Congratulations, you played yourself."

    @JoeyCarb@JoeyCarb2 жыл бұрын
    • People still believe the dinosaur juice theory?

      @xypleth@xypleth2 жыл бұрын
    • @@xypleth I think it's just more fun to think about. The idea of dinosaurs powering our world is way cooler than algae and other plant matter

      @priatalat@priatalat2 жыл бұрын
    • @@priatalat That would be fine, as long as it's not covering up the true abundance of the natural resource and facts about it. Which probably is the exact reason for these "theories".

      @xypleth@xypleth2 жыл бұрын
    • @@priatalat With that said: *Algae and Plant Matter:* Congratulations, you played yourself

      @TR33ZY_CRTM@TR33ZY_CRTM2 жыл бұрын
  • EIA estimates corn ethanol produces 1.3 to 1.7 times energy used to produce it and in the future cellulosic ethanol could yield more than 4x energy used for production. Time for a new video

    @gregorypapas9354@gregorypapas9354 Жыл бұрын
  • Its worth biofuel to go in the direction of byproduct priority. A good example is refined waste vegetable oil for diesel engines.

    @mattuiop@mattuiop Жыл бұрын
    • yea thats where most of the field is going. when you grow crops like tomato, how much of the plant do we eat? even in the "easy" biofuel production from corn, the parts not uses to make fuel are fed to animals, its basically never just "this is grown to make only fuel" .

      @garchompy_1561@garchompy_1561 Жыл бұрын
  • I see mr real engineering has taken a more aggressive stance for the video title since the initial upload; I like it

    @JoshF710@JoshF7102 жыл бұрын
    • What was the the original title?

      @Joe--@Joe--2 жыл бұрын
    • Its just gotten more naive. Of course its not perfect, nothing is. But its certainly better than burning coal or oil, which has none of the CO2 recaptured, if you go by these numbers. This video is really poor, it doesnt really answer any conclusive questions about bio fuels.

      @termitreter6545@termitreter65452 жыл бұрын
    • @@Joe-- same as the thumbnail: the truth about biofuels.

      @JoshF710@JoshF7102 жыл бұрын
    • @@termitreter6545 it says fund renewable instead of biofuels, that will lead to a greater return on investment

      @vighneshkannan7896@vighneshkannan78962 жыл бұрын
    • @@vighneshkannan7896 The thing is, you want a healthy mix of energy sources, not just rely on one or two things. So even if bio fuel is an inferior source, it might still have a place. And frankly, how is wind and solar power gonna help your cars with their combustion engines?

      @termitreter6545@termitreter65452 жыл бұрын
  • Wow, who could've guessed? Once again the core issue in the US is lobbying. Legalised bribery, illegal in most other countries. Literally, every core issue you find in the country can easily be tracked down to lobbying.

    @dennispremoli7950@dennispremoli79502 жыл бұрын
    • America is run by corporations, not people. And yet every 4 years we get the propaganda that voting is important shoved down our throats. It doesn't matter who we vote for, corporate lobbyists are in charge.

      @mjc0961@mjc09612 жыл бұрын
    • @@mjc0961 honestly this is why I found the people literally crying that trump got elected so funny, do you not understand what’s going on here?

      @zashbot@zashbot2 жыл бұрын
    • Capitalism

      @spacetacos7574@spacetacos75742 жыл бұрын
    • @@spacetacos7574 if only things were that easy. Capitalism is bad, but every other socioeconomic organization is worse so we work with what we have

      @Supreme_Lobster@Supreme_Lobster2 жыл бұрын
    • @@Supreme_Lobster Those real-life iterations of capitalism that are closest to traditional socialism (i. e. those that empower their workers most within the economy) have a lot less of these problems to deal with.

      @rockyblacksmith@rockyblacksmith2 жыл бұрын
  • Just keep in mind that other renewables create huge enviromental problems due to the mining of the components they need, which, btw, are also finite

    @cristinanovillo8731@cristinanovillo87312 жыл бұрын
    • It's a game of tradeoffs with other renewables being vastly more useful to our social order. Be careful to not fall into the "But sometimes" trap.

      @crazycolbster@crazycolbster Жыл бұрын
    • @@crazycolbster What about nuclear?

      @hstapes@hstapes Жыл бұрын
    • @@hstapes My personal opinion on nuclear is that the new construction takes far too long to solve climate problems on its own. We don't have 10 years for new plants without doing something now. Existing plants, however, should never be taken offline. Shutting down a functional nuclear reactor is climate malpractice

      @crazycolbster@crazycolbster Жыл бұрын
    • To replace the amount of energy just the US gets from oil products we'd have build 1400 new gigawatt level nuclear power plants and double or triple the electric grid. Never mind the resources needed to build power storage or batteries. Renewables will NEVER do that. The entire green movement is a fever dream designed to force us back to how we lived in 1850. I can only wait to see how this new algae ruins the environment once it gets out.

      @unchosenid@unchosenid Жыл бұрын
    • Most ethanol in comes from sugarcane, corn, or beets; either way, It's a plant. You bury it where it's exposed to rain and it just grows from dirt, air, water, and sunlight. It's actually nuclear energy from nuclear fusion in the sun, albeit chemically stored as fructose. The vegetable matter that's left stores a lot of CO2 and could be used in biocrete, or be burned for heat(like for distilling the sugarcane-cachaça into ethanol) composted to fertilize crops, fed to cattle/farm animals... Ethanol is more than carbon 0, it's carbon negative and then much more! The worse problem is by far overwhelmingly huge fields under monoculture practices and distribution of it through diesel fueled trucks (there's e100 trucks and trains, ideally the infrastructure for the latter would be built and used for that), but small local farms could supply most of the local needs of a city, whilst bigger farms produce a reserve to be used if there's increased demand somewhere. Ethanol is truly green, more than it could be asked for. Using it means actively fighting climate change. Especially if we store the CO2 and stop using gasoline to use ethanol(the engine mod is faaaaaaar cheaper than a hydrogen car or a Tesla, which aren't even truly green alternatives) in its place. Sunlight has fed all energy on earth at some point somehow. It is the one true energy source we have. Ethanol is about harvesting it and storing it as a liquid by consuming excessive atmospheric CO2.

      @Ewr42@Ewr4210 ай бұрын
  • Since algae can use the pollution from energy plants as food, someone should invent a car attachment that caps the exhaust and pressurizes it into something like propane tanks. You keep an empty in you car, and swap it out when the sensor tells you it's full (there would of course be some sort of emergency release valve). Put the empty in, then drop the full one at the algae biofuel station, and pick up another empty to keep back in your car and fill up on biofuel while you're there. Maybe they could even come up with an aviation version, because algae can make jet fuel too. Also plastics that don't just break down into microplastics. Also pharmaceutical compounds. Also food and beauty products. Maybe I should take some some engineering classes...

    @LaineyBug2020@LaineyBug20202 жыл бұрын
  • ‘If humans could eat electricity, they would.’ Need a real engineering out of context video

    @sluagh5534@sluagh55342 жыл бұрын
    • the resource it takes to feed one person can be used to create electricity for a lot of people

      @grissee@grissee2 жыл бұрын
    • Its because electricity is more closer to pure energy We eat food, but because of our shitty digestive systems we get very little energy especially from plants All our energy comes from sunlight, so the plants needs to eat the sunlight, then we need to eat the plants (From video plants absorb like 1% of the solar energy) If we could eat pure electricity (imagine we took out our brains and put them into robot bodies like in alita) A couple of solar panels could feed a human Right now it takes 4 acres of fully farmed land to feed a single person for a year, if you want healthy diet with meat and eggs

      @xblade11230@xblade112302 жыл бұрын
    • @@xblade11230 and the indigestion complications!! It's as gross as chemical fuels

      @gwho@gwho2 жыл бұрын
    • 1 liter of gasoline has 8,325,818 calories

      @ztac_dex@ztac_dex2 жыл бұрын
    • @@xblade11230 bring back the electric chair!

      @ts757arse@ts757arse2 жыл бұрын
  • From central Midwest and my dad is a farmer...and an important and negative side effect that didn't get mentioned directly is that the increased demand for bio fuels drives increased demand for all inputs. Inputs such as chemicals and farm equipment where those chemicals (namely fertilizer and herbicides/pesticides) are being used more heavily and driving up costs. Farmers take on more agriculture operating (ag-op) loans (I worked in a bank on these loans) and their debt level increases as well increasing dependence on biofuels and continuing the cycle of increasing the use of double cropping and yet even higher inputs costs.

    @OPiguy35@OPiguy352 жыл бұрын
    • The reason it didn't get mentioned is that's not a consequence of biofuel. The reason prices are driven up to a price where farmers are required to take loans is scale economics where big corporations owning a lot of farmland can get better loans than farmers. This means they can afford inputs better but farmers can't so they are forced to take loans. So regardless of biofuel or any production, farmers simply can't compete with corporations and would end up doing that anyways. This generally leads farmers to sell their land to the corporations. But it's not related to biofuels at all. Biofuels requiring more inputs just make it go faster if anything.

      @dzello@dzello2 жыл бұрын
    • ​@@jarielrotta135 Yeh but like I said, it's absolutely unrelated to biofuels. It looks like this: Food: low imput amount, low output reward Biofuel: high input amount, high output reward So if a small farmer does food, he'll have to buy a small amount of input at an uncompetitive price and he won't have much of a margin of profit due to low output reward. He'll need loans to operate because otherwise he barely makes money so he needs to do things in mass. And if a small farmer does biofuel, he buys high amount of input at an uncompetitive price but his margin of profit is better. He'll need a loan to buy his inputs because it's expensive. Basically, regardless of if you do food or biofuel, a small farmer ends up taking loan, it's just a loan related to input or a loan related to output. And it's due to farmers not being able to compete with a corporation. In the long term, it means they end up unsuccesful. It's like a normal restaurant next to a McDonald's... It's rough competing with a massive corporation that can lower its prices that low.

      @dzello@dzello2 жыл бұрын
    • @@jarielrotta135 Basically, farmers have to take loans regardless of what they produce. Corporations either don't need loans or have access to better loans due to their sheer worth (lower interests).

      @dzello@dzello2 жыл бұрын
    • @@dzello How exactly is that *not* due to biofuels? The demand for them is changing how farmers operate.

      @Joesolo13@Joesolo132 жыл бұрын
    • @@Joesolo13 I kinda just explained it. It's unrelated to biofuels because regardless if farmers do FOOD or BIOFUEL, they'll have to take a loan of the exact same size if they want to make the same money. Biofuel is not changing how farmers operate whatsoever, what's happening is simply CORPORATIONS being too efficient which drives the price of inputs TOO HIGH for single farmers. Basically, even if biofuels literally didn't exist, farmers would experience the same situation.

      @dzello@dzello2 жыл бұрын
  • You forgot to mention, corn can be feed to livestock and also kind of important in food security while petroleum is not. Huge petroleum refinery also destroys the land, not to mention sometimes it bring disaster to marine life.

    @huntermansuper6243@huntermansuper62438 ай бұрын
  • 11:00 mixed plants (1gen+2gen) are a good solution, they use very little food crops to make the 2gen part of the process energy positive and sustainable (with sugarcane). We need energy in every way possibile so as long as they don’t do deforestation for me is not that much of a problem. It’s one more solution to a bigger problem!

    @alessandromassimo5717@alessandromassimo5717 Жыл бұрын
    • People starve so you can drive your gas burning vehicle.

      @johnhannonHanno@johnhannonHanno Жыл бұрын
    • @@johnhannonHanno people die because you use internet and create co2 emissions

      @alessandromassimo5717@alessandromassimo5717 Жыл бұрын
  • Biofuels are energy negative - my god, what the hell are we doing.

    @davidbuderim2395@davidbuderim23952 жыл бұрын
    • listening to lobbyists

      @666Tomato666@666Tomato6662 жыл бұрын
    • Buying jobs and having cars. Maybe we don't like those answers, but that is the answers

      @iolithblue@iolithblue2 жыл бұрын
    • Not all biofuels. This video is a steep drop in quality of this channel. Biodiesel's are 20% the CO2 release of petroleum diesel. This is still positive impact..it means my Biodiesel car has an eMPG rating of 180mpg. And who cares how inefficient photosynthesis is. Photovoltaic is 0% efficient at capturing carbon. Deforestation is a problem, but it's not a problem because of biofuel, it's a problem because humans are shit at managing public resources.

      @coreyfro@coreyfro2 жыл бұрын
    • @@coreyfro We need to be gasifying crop residue, Miscanthus grass (farmed biomass), municipal solid waste, and sewage sludge to pass through the Fischer-Tropsch process to make liquid fuels in the gasoline and diesel fuel ranges.

      @gregorymalchuk272@gregorymalchuk2722 жыл бұрын
    • ​@@coreyfro Exactly, the video is misleading, all the problems mentioned in this video don't really matter much. On one hand he advocates moving away from fossil fuels, but on the other hand he is concerned with insignificant things like the fact that its energy negative, where is this extra energy coming and what is the carbon footprint of the process is what should matter, also, water is a renewable resource. It doesnt matter at all that the process is energy negative if the extra energy is coming from food, you cant use food as fuel. The inefficiency of plants is also misleading, ok, they capture just 1% of the solar energy, but cost almost nothing to plant, and emit less CO2 than photovoltaic cells, its frankly an idiotic point to compare efficiency of plants to photovoltaic cells in this context. The video covers an interesting topic, but the conclusion doesnt make much sense.

      @werrkowalski2985@werrkowalski29852 жыл бұрын
  • I like your aggressive and constructive criticism. This is probably unrelated, but can you do one for the oil palm industry ? Thank you

    @adamfaiz3214@adamfaiz32142 жыл бұрын
    • It is entirely & completely related. The scale of products derived from palm oil is on another level vs corn. Concentrating on ethanol (and corn-derived ethanol in the North American region specifically) is just too narrow a subset to lump up this video as “biofuels”, the title should have been “ethanol in NA” instead. The thermodynamics, environmental factors, economics and politics involved for the other elephants in the room are 1) biofuels derived from palm - not ethanol but methanol 2) the mandated blending of FAME / biodiesel in nations across the world (not just derived from palm but rapeseed too) 3) economics of competing against food crop.

      @hpifwkak@hpifwkak2 жыл бұрын
    • I just finished reading Ch.6 of Bill Gate's 'How To Avoid a Climate Disaster" in which he says that THE primary cause of Indonesian deforestation is for, of ALL things, palm tree farms...(!) the extraction of exportable palm oil. There has just gotta be...there MUST be a better (non-carbon emitting, non-deforestation) way of doing things but not even Bill Gates had any suggestions.

      @scottwarthin1528@scottwarthin15282 жыл бұрын
    • @@hpifwkak I just finished reading Ch.6 of Bill Gate's 'How To Avoid a Climate Disaster" in which he says that THE primary cause of Indonesian deforestation is for, of ALL things, palm tree farms...(!) the extraction of exportable palm oil. There has just gotta be...there MUST be a better (non-carbon emitting, non-deforestation) way of doing things but not even Bill Gates had any suggestions.

      @scottwarthin1528@scottwarthin15282 жыл бұрын
    • Use palm oil for bio fuel use corn to feed the hunger of world

      @1jh963@1jh9632 жыл бұрын
    • @@scottwarthin1528 the thing is, there are just not many plants that could beat palm trees in productivity. Compare the output of palm trees and other oil producing plants, it is a big difference. And with most of the palm plantation being in underdeveloped areas. It is really hard to switch to other industry.

      @felixrahullowvigatarigan8693@felixrahullowvigatarigan86932 жыл бұрын
  • Here in California 2023, E85 is about 2/3rds the price of gasoline at the pump. OTOH, E85 delivers about 75% as much power per gallon as gasoline. That makes E85 more economical than gasoline, though for dense traffic/long idling scenarios, I'm not sure which fuel runs more efficiently? Does the extra power produced by gasoline largely go to waste while idling, making E85 cheaper to run in stop-and-go traffic?

    @FallenStarFeatures@FallenStarFeatures Жыл бұрын
  • Thank you for bringing this to the light.

    @MartinRonky@MartinRonky Жыл бұрын
  • Rural Kansan here: The rise of ethanol has driven a lot of farmers to install water pipes so they can turn wheat/soy fields into corn fields. That means the demand for corn is high enough you can make more money with one corn crop than you can with the double crop per year the wheat/soy method offers.

    @samsonsoturian6013@samsonsoturian60132 жыл бұрын
    • That kind of means this needs to be nipped in the bud now before it grows to a level where there won't be the political will to get rid of it. That is if we aren't already at that point.

      @theuglykwan@theuglykwan2 жыл бұрын
    • The kicker is? Corn is hella terrible for making biofuel compared to other sources. But lobbyist fucked it up

      @goldenhate6649@goldenhate66492 жыл бұрын
    • Also a great way to deprive your farmland of nutrients over some time due to monoculture farming

      @asylumking3642@asylumking36422 жыл бұрын
    • @@goldenhate6649 don't blame lobbyists, as we all wanted it to happen including you mr. The fact is we tax gasoline and subsidize ethanol, making it artificially cheaper to use high ethanol fuel.

      @samsonsoturian6013@samsonsoturian60132 жыл бұрын
    • @@asylumking3642 that not all that fair since two crops a year does the same thing. Getting lots of good crops involve a copious amount of fertilizer.

      @samsonsoturian6013@samsonsoturian60132 жыл бұрын
  • American biofuel is 100% just a kickback to agricultural megacorps. The Brazilians are getting like a 7:1 return from sugar cane but we're getting 2:1 on corn.

    @Nope_handlesaretrash@Nope_handlesaretrash2 жыл бұрын
    • I wouldn't cite Brazil for good farming practices. But that's surprising, i didn't know sugarcane was that... Potentially alcoholic.

      @crackedemerald4930@crackedemerald49302 жыл бұрын
    • @@crackedemerald4930 yeah I won't praise the land management of Brazil but sugar cane itself is much more efficient than corn if you're going to do that.

      @Nope_handlesaretrash@Nope_handlesaretrash2 жыл бұрын
    • @@crackedemerald4930 sugar cane by itself has much more energy, more sugar, to be converted in Energy

      @claudiaroedel1368@claudiaroedel13682 жыл бұрын
    • Oil production is failing. Fossil Fuels will be mostly gone by 2080. Think fast. The Wall humans are about to run into is a near extinction level event.

      @SeaJay_Oceans@SeaJay_Oceans2 жыл бұрын
    • @@ForzaJersey No need for food, light, heat... that's for boomers.

      @SeaJay_Oceans@SeaJay_Oceans2 жыл бұрын
  • There’s a very good documentary called “Switch” by a Texas A&M professor that covers alternative energy options as well as biofuel. He came to the same conclusion. It’s very informative and actually keeps it interesting throughout. I highly recommend it.

    @titan_o7@titan_o7 Жыл бұрын
    • Flawed or naive studies negative on ethanol naively or on purpose assign all the fertilizer, CO2, and energy to ethanol and none to feed. It should be the exact opposite since we will grow the same amount of corn with or without ethanol. Cattle feeders who use distillers grain would need a protein replacement if ethanol ended and that would be feeding the corn straight like those who don’t use it do. This video even naively called the leftovers from ethanol production "waste" but since it is triple protein, mineral, and other things concentrated it is more valuable per pound than the straight corn. To go to E20, no new acres of corn would be needed, we can just over double current production from this source. Beyond the protein requirements of the cattle herd on feed, corn ethanol becomes uneconomical to produce. No corn is grown just for ethanol, rather it is value-added from existing feed production and leaves 100% of the protein (& other things) still available for feed in a healthier, more digestible/efficient, and more concentrated form called distillers grains. This is why ethanol is so cheap ($2.08/gal spot cash) despite the current high price of corn, they are making a lot up with high price of distilers grains. Cattle cannot digest starch very well and lose it as methane gas flatulence and carb rich manure which turns into methane to off-gas later. 100% of the fertilizer and things from the soil are still fed to the livestock, ethanol is only made of things of the air: solar energy, CO2, and water with the latter two recycled once burnt. The US used 11,160,933 tons total fertilizer on corn in 1980, before ethanol. In 2018, the year of most ethanol production ever, the US used 10,521,850 tons total fertilizer on corn.

      @danafletcher2341@danafletcher2341 Жыл бұрын
    • ​@@danafletcher2341 I don't think you understand the problem. All that ethanol subsidies do is make sure the price of corn stays high, since government subsidies will buy that corn to use for ethanol. It doesn't matter if you "double" corn production for it or expand production, ethanol still has less potential energy which offsets it's cheaper price (a price only maintained by said subsidies). It's a worse fuel source than gasoline and very wasteful with the energy required for production, especially with the end product in mind, so why you would doggedly promote it is beyond me.

      @bakerboat4572@bakerboat45723 ай бұрын
    • ​@@bakerboat4572 There are no Federal ethanol subsidies, those (i.e. the VEETC/"blenders credit") ended back in 2011. The long-standing stated goal of the G7 Nations to end petroleum subsidies? Not so much. Here is what happened to the prices of grains since the 2007 energy act was enacted: 2007 WEIGHTED CORN PRICE =$4.20 WITH 4 .7B GAL MANDATE 2008 WEIGHTED CORN PRICE =$4.06 WITH 9B GAL MANDATE 2009 WEIGHTED CORN PRICE=$3.55 WITH 10.5B GAL MANDATE 2016 WEIGHTED CORN PRICE =$3.36 WITH 15B GAL MADATE MAXED OUT 2017 WEIGHTED CORN PRICE =$3.36 WITH 15B GAL MANDATE MAXED OUT 2018 WEIGHTED CORN PRICE =$3.61 WITH SAME 15B GAL MANDATE MAXED OUT + MOST ETHANOL EVER PRODUCED Wheat 2007...............$6.48/bu 2008...............$6.78/bu 2009...………$4.87/bu 2016...………$3.89/bu 2017...............$4.72/bu 2018...............$5.15/bu Soybeans 2007..............$10.10/bu 2008..............$ 9.97/bu 2009...……...$9.59/bu 2016..............$9.47/bu 2017..............$9.33/bu 2018..............$8.48/bu Ethanol producers are somewhat insulated from the price of corn, for if corn is low in price, then so too are the prices of their distillers grains and byproducts. If the price of corn becomes high, like it was earlier this year when I made that earlier post, ethanol producers can keep ethanol low by offsetting with high prices of those same distillers grains/byproducts. All the energy it takes to produce and deliver a product to the consumer is reflected in its price. The spot cash price of ethanol on the NYMEX is $1.85/gal. The price of an unusable sub-grade of gasoline (RBOB) is $2.12/gal, It takes more energy to make unusable gasoline than ethanol. To turn RBOB into usable E0 fuel costs even more much like premium gasoline costs more. Unfortunately for humanity, it also becomes much more toxic, carcinogenic, and dirty. Or simply splash in >10% ethanol to RBOB and the resultant usable fuel becomes less toxic, less carcinogenic, vastly cleaner burning, and cheaper/cheaper per mile to drive with. Who can be against that? Or, and you gain in horsepower with ethanol. For example a Chevy 5.3L gets a clean 380 horsepower on E85 vs a dirty 355 horsepower on E0. In an ethanol optimized engine you have both more horsepower and more mileage than gasoline engines and even more than diesel. It is near pollution free to boot. Ricardo built an ethanol optimized engine for GM and it ran in a pickup. Here is an excerpt of an article describing it: FROM RICARDO: The new federal CAFE standards are calling for a doubling of fuel mileage performance, which, Vint says, is going to send OEM’s looking for high octane numbers to improve efficiency and ethanol is the best source. Ricardo, an engineering firm with over 100 years in the business of engine design, has developed an extreme boosted direct injection engine (EBDI) to optimize ethanol blends. The 3.2 V6 gasoline engine rivals the power and torque of a much larger GMC Sierra 6.6 diesel, he said, and it delivers 3.5 percent better fuel economy than the diesel.

      @danafletcher2341@danafletcher23413 ай бұрын
    • @@bakerboat4572 They censored my last post so I'll try to split them up: There are no Federal ethanol subsidies, those (i.e. the VEETC/"blenders credit") ended back in 2011. The long-standing stated goal of the G7 Nations to end petroleum subsidies? Not so much. Here is what happened to the prices of grains since the 2007 energy act was enacted: 2007 WEIGHTED CORN PRICE =$4.20 WITH 4 .7B GAL MANDATE 2008 WEIGHTED CORN PRICE =$4.06 WITH 9B GAL MANDATE 2009 WEIGHTED CORN PRICE=$3.55 WITH 10.5B GAL MANDATE 2016 WEIGHTED CORN PRICE =$3.36 WITH 15B GAL MADATE MAXED OUT 2017 WEIGHTED CORN PRICE =$3.36 WITH 15B GAL MANDATE MAXED OUT 2018 WEIGHTED CORN PRICE =$3.61 WITH SAME 15B GAL MANDATE MAXED OUT + MOST ETHANOL EVER PRODUCED Wheat 2007...............$6.48/bu 2008...............$6.78/bu 2009...………$4.87/bu 2016...………$3.89/bu 2017...............$4.72/bu 2018...............$5.15/bu Soybeans 2007..............$10.10/bu 2008..............$ 9.97/bu 2009...……...$9.59/bu 2016..............$9.47/bu 2017..............$9.33/bu 2018..............$8.48/bu

      @danafletcher2341@danafletcher23413 ай бұрын
    • @@bakerboat4572 I'm sorry but the censors here are removing my reply to you. Perhaps you can see them under your bell notification icon. There were two, with the second one being a small part of the first one. I hate censorship in the worst way.

      @danafletcher2341@danafletcher23413 ай бұрын
  • Algae Bio Fuel is Carbon Neg and is grown in Photo Bio Reactors(PBR) that produce 5000 gallons of Bio Fuel per Acre p/a. Permanently sequestering 1 Ton of atmospheric CO2 for every Barrel, also is fed waste water so cleaning it in the process!

    @Kiyarose3999@Kiyarose3999 Жыл бұрын
  • 10:15 If you look closely, most of the sugarcane area is concentrated in the São Paulo countryside, which is about as far from the Amazon as Ireland is from Italy. The main drivers of deforestation in the Amazon are cattle ranching, soy farming, logging, and mining. The Brazilian southwest itself was mostly devastated by agriculture during the 20th century.

    @ulti-mantis@ulti-mantis2 жыл бұрын
    • Most sugar cane producing areas now were once rain forest that was cleared for ranching, that essentially destroyed soil quality to the point of it no longer being useful for other crops. That there is virtually no rain forest left near large urban centers is proof of just how much has been destroyed. The opposite of 'proof' sugar cane production has no relation to the destruction of the Amazon. It is intrinsically linked to the cycle of environmental destruction that is the backbone of the the Brazilian economy

      @AppleSauceGamingChannel@AppleSauceGamingChannel2 жыл бұрын
    • @@AppleSauceGamingChannel backbone of the brazilian economy? the agriculture industry represents only 6% of brazil's gdp. surely, there is a catastrophy happening due to amazonia's deforestation, but those farmers do not represent the sector as a whole. this cycle you mention does not describe what happens in brazil accurately, the dynamics of deforestation are much more subtle than that. sugarcane farmers are not the same group of people as the ones in the amazon. are they liberals who lobby for green policy? hell no. both would benefit from relaxed environmental policy, but not for the same changes in the law. my only point here is to "unlink" sugarcane to the amazon, these are two different matters and should be treated as such if we want less carbon emission and more carbon abosrption.

      @hippocelestial4306@hippocelestial43062 жыл бұрын
    • "More than three-quarters (77%) of global soy is fed to livestock for meat and dairy production. Most of the rest is used for biofuels, industry or vegetable oils. Just 7% of soy is used directly for human food products such as tofu, soy milk, edamame beans, and tempeh."

      @Daniel_Meyers@Daniel_Meyers2 жыл бұрын
    • @@Daniel_Meyers Wherever land is used to make biofuels, it forces farmers to take more land from elsewhere (the Amazon) to make food.

      @evannibbe9375@evannibbe93752 жыл бұрын
    • @@evannibbe9375 only about 10% of brazil's farmland is used for sugarcane, and about half of that is used to make all types of ethanol. there is no shortage of food in brazil, at least not in the production side. for every 3 liters of pure gasoline sold in brazil, it is sold 2 of pure ethanol, roughly speaking. if you think poor farmers are being displaced due to biofuels and that is why the amazon is being deforested, you do not know the problem at all. if tomorrow, all sugarcane land was made available to be used as food land, the amount of trees being cut in amazon would not change one bit. people take land in the amazonia because it pays off, no other reason. it's not because of the price of the soy or maize or whatever. the math is simple: i have X area of land, if i burn down some trees on no man's land (amazon), my area is now 1.5X. the problem is the lack of punishment for those who don't obey the law, they get away with murder. we don't even have a good record of what part of the land belongs to whom (the areas that are already farmland), some people simply say that the part they burned down was legally bought and it often sticks!!!!!!!!!!! what i'm trying to say here is that we use a lot of ethanol in mobility and it represents only a tiny fraction of our land use. also that this dynamic of displacement of crops being the reason for amazonia's deforestation isn't accurate. land is expensive, if some farmer has the opportunity to take it for free (with no repercussions), one probably will.

      @hippocelestial4306@hippocelestial43062 жыл бұрын
  • Thank you for mentioning aviation. I work on aircraft, and it's always so frustrating when people just recommend things like "ban fossil fuels" or "just make them electric" as viable solutions for aviation. They have been trying to find a good alternative to kerosene-based fuels, but there just isn't any other cheap fuel that has the same properties, namely the energy density. You not only need to bring fuel to carry the plane, you need to bring fuel to carry the fuel in the plane. Most biofuels just don't have that energy density, which means we would either have less range, or need to carry more fuel, and more fuel to carry that extra fuel. And batteries' energy density is laughable compared to Jet-A. The other thing that drives me nuts is suggestions to "be more fuel-efficient." In aviation, fuel is money. We already design the plane with fuel efficiency in mind. Winglets? Fuel efficiency. Weight reduction? Fuel efficiency. Ultra-high bypass turbofans? Fuel efficiency. Now, some airlines are even looking at flying planes in formation, like birds, to reduce drag, and increase fuel efficiency. I'm not one of those guys who think fossil fuels will always be the #1 supply of energy, but I also don't think it will ever truly go "extinct," at least not for a long time. I like to use the example of horses. Used to be, almost everyone owned and used a horse. In the US, there was probably more horses than people. However, cars came along, and suddenly the demand for horses plummeted. There was no longer a stable in every town, and roads were redesigned for cars, not horses. But, even to this day, there are some regions, especially rural areas without roads or infrastructure, where horses are better than a car. Even off-road vehicles still need fuel, and it's hard to get fuel in the middle of a grassy field. Although the demand for horses has plummeted to 1% of what it was, there is still a market. I don't think fossil fuels will go the way of the dodo, but more the way of the horse. In the next 30 or so years, I'm sure fossil fuels will almost entirely disappear from people's lives. Their cars will be electric, their houses powered by renewable energy. But there will still be niche markets that use fossil fuels, such as parts of aviation, automotive hobbyists, and certain industrial processes. The fossil fuel industry will still collapse, since the demand will be a fraction of what it was, but I doubt it will entirely disappear for a long time.

    @MatthewSmith-sz1yq@MatthewSmith-sz1yq2 жыл бұрын
    • In addition, think of all the military jets around the world... They won't be going electric any time soon, and when using afterburner most of those bad boys can go through about 10 litres of fuel per second... Fossil fuels are still very relevant imo.

      @beenusirimanne@beenusirimanne2 жыл бұрын
    • That is because people will always attack the low hanging fruit that they can see and not the root of the problem that is always out of sight. The core of the fossil fuel problem isn't it's use in vehicles or in industrial processes, it's in energy generation. Electricity isn't just there to power up a house or recharge an electric car. It makes everything and literally has a knock down effect on every facet of our existence. A cheaper and more reliable energy generation leads to more capacity and lower prices. Lower prices means that not only does everything get cheaper (manufacturing, storage and soon transport become less expensive) but it also unlock new ways of recycling or generating resources locally from waste in ways that would otherwise be prohibitively expensive. This makes me think of the spaceX construction at Boca chica, where they intend to create a solar powered carbon capture system, which would then collect ambient CO2 and water and produce oxygen and methane form literally thin air to use in the starship test facilities. Same goes for Tesla's battery reprocessing facilities within the gigafactories, which are an energy intensive process but will allow to reduce or downright eliminate the need for new resource intake. All of which depends on having access to cheap, stable energy. Whenever possible solar power should be used. It's the most reliable renewable energy that is accessible everywhere. However this can only be relied on as a baseload in countries with basically zero cloud cover and a lot of sunlight. Solar and batteries there should be enough to stabilize the grid. Nuclear reactors (especially SMRs or thorium ones) should be used in countries where solar energy is too unreliable. The cost of energy would go down, and with it our entire need for fossil fuels, only leaving active domains where the compact and energy dense nature of internal combustion and fuel engines can be exploited

      @mobiuscoreindustries@mobiuscoreindustries2 жыл бұрын
    • This is seriously the most legit and interesting KZhead comment I’ve ever read. Love your theory on how fossil fuels will become like the horse!

      @Woody2194@Woody21942 жыл бұрын
    • You can make oil from any biological or plastic waste if you have enough heat. It's not rocket science. If people weren't idiots about nuclear, it¨'d be fairly straightforward.

      @IvanTre@IvanTre2 жыл бұрын
    • @@IvanTre So ... how would you generate such heat?

      @arsenioibay414@arsenioibay4142 жыл бұрын
  • Hi there! I really enjoy your videos! I have a question or maybe a topic to research. In 2011, Tulane University released a research paper covering a bacteria they named TU-103, that converts cellulose to butanol, aerobically. I was wondering what happened to this technology? Why was it never pursued? Thanks!

    @adammeek7706@adammeek7706 Жыл бұрын
    • Check out LanzaTech

      @danafletcher2341@danafletcher2341 Жыл бұрын
  • What about the bio diesel Made out of usted/wasted oil from fast food industry, is it energy positive?

    @gerardosalazar527@gerardosalazar5272 жыл бұрын
  • Sugarcane production isn’t destroying the amazon. The map you showed at 10:11 says it all, the main growers of sugarcane are located on Centro-Oeste, South and Southeast regions of Brazil hundreds of kilometers from the amazon. It is destroying the cerrado(A savanna like biome) and the almost entirely destroyed Atlantic Rainforest.

    @lucasdeoliveirapontes2789@lucasdeoliveirapontes27892 жыл бұрын
  • Biofuel needs to be created from leftover foods, not from freshly grown corn or types of wheat.

    @peterbeerman4982@peterbeerman49822 жыл бұрын
    • That was the first video i have seen on that topic. It was definitely a good reuse of the left over oil. The exhaust was smelling like fried chicken however. lol.

      @weirdshit@weirdshit2 жыл бұрын
    • Wastewater treatment plants use sludge to make methane. It's not very efficient and they only make enough to help heat the buildings on the plant.

      @jeromewright93@jeromewright932 жыл бұрын
    • You can turn it into fertilizers, producing that from scratch is energy intensive.

      @leerman22@leerman222 жыл бұрын
    • @@leerman22 Interestingly, compost isn't a fertilizer . It's a "soil amendment". No, it doesn't give dirt more rights, Lol. It makes more soil and that is really very important as agriculture depletes the soil not just of nutrients but actually destroys soil.

      @jeromewright93@jeromewright932 жыл бұрын
    • biofuels by themselves are not horrible, they do work. video means you just should use the biowaste product of industries for it, like cooking oil, grease, and such into biodiesel or renewable diesel. not raise eatable things for it. waste animal fats, oils, and grease can clog pipes and pumps both in the public sewer lines as well as in wastewater treatment facilities. you can even produce aircraft kerosene from such waste.

      @Redmanticore@Redmanticore2 жыл бұрын
  • Having consulted a dictionary I assume that folk in the US call Maize corn because it is ubiquitous. Corn in UK is just the name for the main cereal crop in an area. Eg wheat, barley in England or oats in Scotland. In UK English call it either sweetcorn or corn on the cob or maize. Also UK cornflour (US cornstarch?) Is called harina de Maiz in Spain, farine de maiz in French etc.

    @helenamcginty4920@helenamcginty4920 Жыл бұрын
  • Glucose can be sythentisised using microorganisms, CO2 and H2 via Chemosynthesis. There is no need to separately cultivate plants for glucose / carbohydrates consumption. Note : Plant do it via photosynthesis, using light energy to make glucose. Some bacteria found in deep ocean where there is no Light, Bacteria insted uses chemical energy to make glucose insted. We can genetically modify microorganisms as per our requirements. And note input chemicals are very siple that is CO2 and H2. H2 can be generated thought electrolysis of water. Once Glucose is generated, we can ferment it using custom designed microorganisms to produce any kind of biomolecules, like Eathonol, Carbohydrates, Amino Acids and Protins etc. Biofules, food, Cosmetics, Engymes, Medicine, Specilised Bio chemicals etc.. Everything can be made without using traditional agriculture.

    @Charvak-Atheist@Charvak-Atheist Жыл бұрын
  • “Alternative forms of energy” like NUCLEAR.

    @kyledellinger@kyledellinger2 жыл бұрын
    • All the politicians be like : "ooo scary word, nuclear scary"

      @justanerd414@justanerd4142 жыл бұрын
    • Not even, the general public is uneducated and only associates nuclear with weaponry and destruction. Can't run a good campaign saying you're for nuclear

      @mrthunderbird_@mrthunderbird_2 жыл бұрын
    • I don't wanna debate about long term ramification of nuclear waste, just that at the end of the day is just like oil: eventually you run out of fissable materials. Also bombs.

      @ef3675@ef36752 жыл бұрын
    • He already made a video about this topic - nuclear is too expensive

      @michahell1@michahell12 жыл бұрын
    • @@ef3675 Nope. Nuclear power produces hardly any waste relative to the amount of energy produced. The waste is easy to deal with, and a lot of what's in "nuclear waste" is valuable in its own right (like xenon, for example). There is enough easily obtainable uranium and thorium to supply all of humanity's energy needs for hundreds of thousands of years, and if we run out, there's plenty more on the moon.

      @Marmocet@Marmocet2 жыл бұрын
  • "This is not a green technology. The reality is that photosynthesis is an incredible inefficient way to turn sunlight into usable energy." This was not the video I expected but it is so spot on and that quite had blown my mind.

    @scharftalicous@scharftalicous2 жыл бұрын
    • Dedicated biomass probably isn't going anywhere. Algae definitely isn't going anywhere. Because the area of the collectors may as well be replaced with solar panels with 20% or higher efficiency compared to 1 or 2% for photosynthesis. Then use the electricity to run an amine carbon dioxide scrubber, an electrolyzer, a water gas shift reactor, and a Fischer-Tropsch reactor to produce liquid hydrocarbons in the gasoline and diesel fuel ranges. The truth is that we can use solar panels, electricity, and industrial chemical processes to fix carbon with higher efficiencies than nature has ever been able to. I also am interested in gasifying crop residue, biomass, municipal solid waste, and sewage sludge to make synthesis gas and putting it through the Fischer-Tropsch process to make liquid fuels. I'm a big supporter of nuclear energy for our electricity too.

      @gregorymalchuk272@gregorymalchuk2722 жыл бұрын
    • @@gregorymalchuk272 So u think u can do better in a couple of years, taking into account all the possible and unimaginable consequences and effects, than nature has been perfecting it in 100s of millions of years?

      @Turbo_TechnoLogic@Turbo_TechnoLogic2 жыл бұрын
    • @@Turbo_TechnoLogic while I get what you are saying I do have to add that nature does what is best for THAT species only. It does not take into account any other effects a change might have to any other species or the environment. What I'm trying to say is that sure nature does have ways of tackling problems, but those solutions are not always the best for us, cause there are many other variables that affect it. A plant might have low solar energy efficiency because it grows slowly so it doesn't need to evolve more efficiently photosynthesis

      @alexxans1154@alexxans11542 жыл бұрын
    • It’s a bit dumb, because if they hadn’t noticed plants survive when the sun goes in unlike solar power. It’s the stores of chemical power that bio fuel uses and it’s the fact that it is a store that makes it so much more useful as an energy supply. Much more efficient to cart around plants or oils to burn for power then electricity, which notoriously losses a huge chunk of its power in transmission.

      @James-sk4db@James-sk4db2 жыл бұрын
    • @@alexxans1154 what do u mean by That species? Somehow in the end millions of species managed to form here and live together in a conpl3x system, relying on each other. While this and the balances change over time, it stood the test of time. Also, there must be a reason why things go at that pace or efficiency as they do, even if slower than some people want it to be.

      @Turbo_TechnoLogic@Turbo_TechnoLogic2 жыл бұрын
  • In regards Brazil sugar cane, it was imprecise says it is responsible for the deforestations as it is a complete different region and biome in the country

    @mayconathayde3832@mayconathayde3832 Жыл бұрын
  • A beautiful byproduct of the corn to ethanol industry though is not only abundant feed sources for cattle, producing milk, meat and many other byproducts, but also corn is being converted into plastic. From what I remember from my class on it almost 6 years ago, the corn mash, after the glucose has been removed from it, can go to be formed into plastic products, reducing how much plastic we use and making it more biodegradable. We can all stomp our feet about industries, but looking at what is accomplished with them can be astounding, like finding out charcoal came from the production of wood spoke wheels in Ford factories.

    @carburetorgaming5173@carburetorgaming5173 Жыл бұрын
  • "growing stuff we cant eat" oh boy wait till you look at how much water Grass Lawns use.

    @MirorR3fl3ction@MirorR3fl3ction2 жыл бұрын
    • And the fuel/energy wasted on mowing them constantly.

      @mjc0961@mjc09612 жыл бұрын
    • Sure but the alternatives aren’t much better

      @ben5056@ben50562 жыл бұрын
    • You don’t eat your lawn?!

      @stdesy@stdesy2 жыл бұрын
    • @@ben5056 I am converting my lawn to prairie. After the first year, it does better if you don't water it (not how it evolved to grow) and with careful planning it will be a drift of native flowers all summer, which is great for pollinators. It protects itself against native bugs it also evolved to coexist with.

      @gl15col@gl15col2 жыл бұрын
    • That’s just disgusting I’ve always hate lawns

      @spacetacos7574@spacetacos75742 жыл бұрын
  • Happy to know that someone agreed with me after a decade of being criticized for saying this.

    @CaptainMarvelsSon@CaptainMarvelsSon2 жыл бұрын
    • I'd like to see the same calculations done for Bio AvTur jet fuel. I think it could actually be worse.

      @gordonlawrence1448@gordonlawrence14482 жыл бұрын
    • Stfu

      @rurathn5534@rurathn55342 жыл бұрын
    • Mostly by people who are not even able to calculate this kind of stuff by themself I assume? Those people who feel woke but just repeat that something is good because someone said it's green are basically the bane of my existence....

      @marcuswillbrandt5901@marcuswillbrandt59012 жыл бұрын
    • I think you'll find that "bio" means good

      @therabbithat@therabbithat2 жыл бұрын
    • @@therabbithat bio weapons

      @jatpack3@jatpack32 жыл бұрын
  • Some algae growing on waste water convert the waste water into clean water. So algae may be a solution for bio-fuel as they will convert waste water into fresh water, which can be used as a source for manufacturing the ethanol required. Alternatively, agricutural waste (not agriculture products) can also be an excellent source of biofuels such as ethanol. The same is true in case of sea weeds, hemp, and many more products. So the issue isn't the biofuels but the way buofuels are produced.

    @hrushikeshavachat900@hrushikeshavachat900 Жыл бұрын
  • This video does not begin to scratch the surface of possible feedstocks for Ethanol production. Corn is what is being used in the US because AgriCorps... There are a number of plants that can be grown, or that grow wild, that are superior to corn in a variety of ways. Quite a few are capable of being grown in polyculture systems, allowing for multiple ethanol production crops layered one upon the other, as opposed to monoculture production of single crops per unit of land. Ethanol is also able to be produced using existing human "waste" streams... If you are interested, look up David Blume's lecture "Permaculture Distillation, Producing Alcohol Biofuels" here on KZhead.

    @michaeljacobsen5636@michaeljacobsen56362 жыл бұрын
  • The line of the day: "What the hell is a bushel?"

    @nitsuanew@nitsuanew2 жыл бұрын
    • What the hell is a Hectare?

      @tomcorwine3091@tomcorwine30912 жыл бұрын
    • Followed closely by "if humans could eat electricity we would".

      @loklan1@loklan12 жыл бұрын
    • @@loklan1 If humans could eat electricity they would! Especially in the US, they'd put hot sauce on it and they'd be Obese.

      @oldmanfromscenetwentyfour8164@oldmanfromscenetwentyfour81642 жыл бұрын
    • The references in this video are terrible and extremely out of date. The article by David Pimentel is from 2005 and is based off information from the 1980s. Agriculture and the ethanol industry has made extraordinary advancements since those times. This video makes me question everything written by Brian McManus. I really like this channel so I am absolutely shocked how bad this video is. On average, without subsidies, it costs a farmer about $3 to produce and transport a bushel of corn. This price includes the costs of all the energy and other inputs required to produce a bushel. In 2021, one bushel yields over 11 litres of ethanol plus 7kg of animal feed plus 0.4kg of corn oil. The energy contained in just the ethanol is 60,000kcal. Even if you use the out of date figure from this video of 6600kcal to produce a bushel that's a pretty good return on investment. But don't take my word for it, do your own research, but do a better job than Brian did.

      @joegardhouse5285@joegardhouse52852 жыл бұрын
    • @@tomcorwine3091 h = 100, area of 100mx100m = 100 m^2

      @FrateVideoMaker@FrateVideoMaker2 жыл бұрын
  • Small correction: it's not the Amazon that is deforested for planting sugarcane here in Brazil. It's mostly the "Cerrado" biome (similar to the African Savannah)

    @MarceloGosling@MarceloGosling2 жыл бұрын
    • Yes, in the map shown it places nearly 0% of sugarcane crops on Amazon biome. Most of the cane crops are shown in São Paulo, which is at least about 1000km from the closest little bit of Amazon forest. It's like saying that corn crops in Iowa are responsible for deforestation in Oregon. I'm not saying that deforestation and preservation of natural biomes isn't an issue. But most people talking about it internationally don't even bother to look at a map.

      @marcouno8850@marcouno88502 жыл бұрын
    • @@marcouno8850 mostly because their disingenuous. If they cared about the environment they would use the 1000’s of other arguments that would help the environment (for example, we should go green to remove our oil dependence on the Middle East which would allow us to have our men and women in the military to come home)

      @hilkmeister1382@hilkmeister13822 жыл бұрын
    • @@marcouno8850 That also includes both Seeker and Just Have A Think.

      @beaudavis3808@beaudavis38082 жыл бұрын
    • Yes, the Amazon is being deforested mainly to raise cattle and grow soybeans.

      @Zuaquim1@Zuaquim12 жыл бұрын
    • @@Zuaquim1 Soybeans?

      @gordonlawrence1448@gordonlawrence14482 жыл бұрын
  • Sugar beets are meant to be a replacement for sugarcane. They have a far higher energy density, and to be turned into a pretty easily produced beat vodka. By changing the rules around the grain subsidy to be a staple food subsidy, this could be a potential alternative. I don't like subsidies as much as the next person, but simply put big agriculture is always going to have its hands in the cookie jar.

    @zeanyt2372@zeanyt23722 жыл бұрын
  • the energy to make ethanol and how much energy the ethanol can make, did that equation add the air used to mix with ethanol in an internal combustion engine?

    @powersliding@powersliding Жыл бұрын
  • 1:20, "this begs an important question, why?" because the corn lobby wants more money lol

    @jakejones8225@jakejones82252 жыл бұрын
    • that's the first answer. But really, the corn lobby only matters because the electoral college effectively gives rural areas more political power.

      @chaklee435@chaklee4352 жыл бұрын
    • Just Call it "Big Corn"

      @rafafr9@rafafr92 жыл бұрын
    • @@chaklee435 And especially the senate. The way states were drawn up is basically a nationwide gerrymander in favor of people who won't live near other people.

      @HermanVonPetri@HermanVonPetri2 жыл бұрын
    • @@chaklee435 That's the reason they get federal money, but even without the electoral college they would get (tons of) state money.

      @R_V_@R_V_2 жыл бұрын
    • It's more that the presidential primary elections have their first contests in Iowa, so candidates are susceptible to pressure from the corn lobby when they campaign there. "Big Corn" can run ads against them in a relatively cheap media market and derail entire candidacies just for a realistic take on Ethanol.

      @joelshuman@joelshuman2 жыл бұрын
  • In Finland we make bio ethanol from everyday food waste. This is a more sustainable way to produce it.

    @madmanjoe@madmanjoe2 жыл бұрын
    • Indeed, mechanical engines(Diesel engines) run off of cooking oil or plant oil by product is a good backup incase of a solar flare. Last one hit as recently as the 1800's, taking down the telegraph communications in the U.S. at the time. If we had a solar flare that powerful today it would cripple or even destroy some countries.

      @Eric1-373@Eric1-3732 жыл бұрын
    • You should not waste food. There goes your susteinability.

      @cleitonfelipe2092@cleitonfelipe20922 жыл бұрын
    • @@cleitonfelipe2092 Im talking about biodegradable waste, from peals of vegetables and all sorts of stuff. Of course it is true that you shouldnt throw out food, but it is a sad fact that people do it anyways and even if you ate all the food you ever bought, you are still going to have biowaste. Its better to make it into something useful than just let it decompose at a landfill. Nothing is perfect in this world. You really expect humanity to reach a point where there is no more biowaste in any form? I dont think so.

      @madmanjoe@madmanjoe2 жыл бұрын
    • @@cleitonfelipe2092 😥 estou decepcionado!

      @standowner6979@standowner69792 жыл бұрын
    • The references in this video are terrible and extremely out of date. The article by David Pimentel is from 2005 and is based off information from the 1980s. Agriculture and the ethanol industry has made extraordinary advancements since those times. This video makes me question everything written by Brian McManus. I really like this channel so I am absolutely shocked how bad this video is. On average, without subsidies, it costs a farmer about $3 to produce and transport a bushel of corn. This price includes the costs of all the energy and other inputs required to produce a bushel. In 2021, one bushel yields over 11 litres of ethanol plus 7kg of animal feed plus 0.4kg of corn oil. The energy contained in just the ethanol is 60,000kcal. Even if you use the out of date figure from this video of 6600kcal to produce a bushel that's a pretty good return on investment. But don't take my word for it, do your own research, but do a better job than Brian did.

      @joegardhouse5285@joegardhouse52852 жыл бұрын
  • Could you please do a complete video on Switch grass as a biofuel?

    @jeromeburrasca6710@jeromeburrasca6710 Жыл бұрын
  • Is there any leftover during ethanol production, and can this leftover be used to feed livestock?

    @aqibrizal1367@aqibrizal13677 ай бұрын
  • When real engineering uploads it’s a global event

    @Error-xl3ty@Error-xl3ty2 жыл бұрын
    • Right i was also waiting for new video of real engineering

      @buddingscientist170@buddingscientist1702 жыл бұрын
    • Yes it js

      @patherek7914@patherek79142 жыл бұрын
    • When it's global event, real engineering uploads

      @kp5343@kp53432 жыл бұрын
    • The soothing sounds of logic and discourse, with a mellow accent!

      @Robert_McGarry_Poems@Robert_McGarry_Poems2 жыл бұрын
    • Shit gets real

      @TheWaynester101@TheWaynester1012 жыл бұрын
  • Biofuels follow essentially the same logic as that thing in the matrix about raising human beings to extract their body heat

    @sammymartin1801@sammymartin18012 жыл бұрын
    • Matrix was worse in that there was no mention of where the inputs came from. Apparently not from solar, if cutting off the sun were actually possible. Nuclear? Hydro? Dragon piss? The movie ran as though humans were the primary energy source, which we aren’t, which no life ever is. Biofuels are an atrocious idea but at least it honestly harvests from solar energy as the primary energy source. What Real Engineering fails to mention is all the fossil fuel inputs that go into growing the biofuels: pumping water, tractors, fertilizers, harvesters, transport. On net I suspect it takes more fossil fuels than the energy contained in the resulting biofuels. A negative return on energy investment. *edit: thanks everyone who pointed out that at 7:00 Real Engineering does point out the negative energy return.

      @CarFreeSegnitz@CarFreeSegnitz2 жыл бұрын
    • I had almost forgotten that particular bit of stupidity... Damn you for reminding me ;) While that metaphor isn't really wrong, it isn't quite right. Biofuels are *fuels*. You always lose some energy converting it into a fuel. The question is wether the benefits, like ease of storage, transport, and conversation into the sort of energy you want, are worth that loss. If an organic (as in chemistry) fuel has desirable properties, biology is likely going to be a good way of making it. There's also the whole "stuff we are producing anyway which would otherwise go to waste" angle. Remember gasoline used to be the trash fraction left over after making kerosene. Finally, biofuels can be made from some energy we just wouldn't capture otherwise. Related to the waste point I suppose. Anyways, sort of like how meat production on rangeland which isn't suitable for agriculture ends up adding total available food despite the fact that animals only turn a small fraction of the calories they consume into meat. We wouldn't be able to consume the calories they use. Well, we can't efficiently consume a lot of the energy used by the plants which we can turn into usable biofuels. Of course, a lot of the current implementation of biofuels isn't so sensible. But there are sensible implementations.

      @travcollier@travcollier2 жыл бұрын
    • Or farming low energy-dense, intermittent sources like wind or sun.

      @chapter4travels@chapter4travels2 жыл бұрын
    • Except it doesn't work. Waste heat is wasted, unless you are the Matrix.

      @psikot@psikot2 жыл бұрын
    • @@CarFreeSegnitz Most definitely not. What's happening is that you need to input 20% from external sources. You could look at like this: You're amplifying the energy 5 fold - give 1 watt, get out 5 watts. You still need to provide 1 watt to get 5 watts, so it's not energy neutral. But you don't enter 5.5 watts to get 5 watt.

      @Merthalophor@Merthalophor2 жыл бұрын
  • As always, thanks for the in-depth video. Engineering Explained has a video on this as well and worth a view.

    @jzb8380@jzb83809 ай бұрын
  • Is there a reason why corn is used for making ethanol instead of something much more efficient?

    @WhatHappenedIn-vt3vq@WhatHappenedIn-vt3vq Жыл бұрын
  • Imagine using corn to make your ethanol. *This post was made by the sugarcane gang*

    @DanielVCOliveira@DanielVCOliveira2 жыл бұрын
    • POTATOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      @leerman22@leerman222 жыл бұрын
    • Having fun destroying the rainforest? Hows that 20 year breakeven doing?

      @JJAB91@JJAB912 жыл бұрын
    • Yeah sugarcane ethanol is better I guess, anyway it's byproduct of sugar production, why make ppl drunk when we can drive cars from it.

      @suprithAnCom@suprithAnCom2 жыл бұрын
    • @@suprithAnCom It is not a byproduct, it is either/or.

      @Yuri-bt4wl@Yuri-bt4wl2 жыл бұрын
    • @Daniel Oliveira EU QUERO É CACHAÇA CACHAÇA CARAI

      @Yuri-bt4wl@Yuri-bt4wl2 жыл бұрын
  • Biodiesel is great when it's just recycled cooking oil.

    @BW-qf4cl@BW-qf4cl2 жыл бұрын
    • I too was wanting to know his thought on Biodiesel. Any feedstock for fuel that is already used once is a good thing, but making a feedstock just for use as a fuel and that’s it? No.

      @joncalon7508@joncalon75082 жыл бұрын
    • Just imagine when the US realize dat

      @nguyenthituyetmai9075@nguyenthituyetmai90752 жыл бұрын
    • Or waste production from cooking oil refinery or high ffa cooking oil

      @telurkucing5006@telurkucing50062 жыл бұрын
    • @@joncalon7508 dont forget, that we allready throw away massive sums of our plant production from all areas, but wont mix it in the corn to produce biofuels, because thats a different technology with less profit margin, but better CO2 statistics.

      @apollomars1678@apollomars16782 жыл бұрын
    • IKR? The main source would be fast food chains, culinary schools, restaurants, etc...

      @froilanflorentino1252@froilanflorentino12522 жыл бұрын
  • A byproduct of ethanol production is distillers grain which goes into animal feed… I’m curious if that changes the caloric situation.

    @amk4956@amk4956 Жыл бұрын
  • Very interesting! question are tree farms for wood efficient, you know like burning wood for energy like to power an energy plant that uses coal but using charcoal instead?

    @CMZneu@CMZneu Жыл бұрын
    • I remember reading a paper showing that pyrolysis of hardwood had a positive NEV, but I don't think anyone should be growing trees just to harvest them, considering they generally take a long time to mature. Realistically, pyrolysis would be better suited on waste from crops already grown

      @PapaphobiaPictures@PapaphobiaPictures5 ай бұрын
  • Cool, the company I'm working in is investing heavily in algae biofuel research. Though I'm not working on that project, I'm interested to see whether it will be successful in the next few years.

    @starsoffyre@starsoffyre2 жыл бұрын
    • Exxon Mobil?

      @williamwalsh4912@williamwalsh49122 жыл бұрын
    • @@williamwalsh4912 Yup

      @starsoffyre@starsoffyre2 жыл бұрын
    • I've seen studies of algae biofuel, and the biggest problem is the energy efficiency of water extraction.

      @WG55@WG552 жыл бұрын
    • OK, but algae is not produced on farmland, it is made of sh*t. So I think it should be calculated differently. Like the producion cost should be reduced by the cost of waste water treatment. Even if it is not cost effective, it is still beneficial.

      @kormocziaron4362@kormocziaron43622 жыл бұрын
    • Biofuel are useless from a energy point of view. Economically is total out of question. The 10% ethanol mandante is criminal at best. If it gets reduce to zero, the cars will run more per litter of gasoline. That's what really reduces emissions. Another crime is the federal government giving 7 Billion a year to corn farmers directly. That's makes no sense at all. Plus, diverting roughly 50% corn crops to ethanol productions incrises the price of food.

      @Brandon_letsgo@Brandon_letsgo2 жыл бұрын
  • FYI: a bushel is 4 pecks

    @WTH1812@WTH18122 жыл бұрын
    • Wtf is a peck

      @wovasteengova@wovasteengova2 жыл бұрын
    • @@wovasteengova one quarter bushel

      @bruhmoment5465@bruhmoment54652 жыл бұрын
    • @@wovasteengova ... a peck is 2 gallons (dry measure) or 4 baskets (field measure) or 15 minutes (mosquito swarming hot afternoon sun pea picking measure) ... or 1 cheek (affection measure) or 5 Academy Awards nominations with 1 win/Dead Mockingbird (Gregory measure) ... a standard peck holds 8 kittens, but due to the laws kittycatodynamics a bushel holds only 1 cat

      @WTH1812@WTH18122 жыл бұрын
    • :p

      @AdamBechtol@AdamBechtol2 жыл бұрын
    • @@CharlesNauck ... a gallon is a standard unit of measurement. For example, a gallon of milk is a liquid measure. There is also a dry measure called gallon, which by volume equals one half peck. ... Dry gallons are not directly measured by kitten units as they get confused and wander off looking for the milk.

      @WTH1812@WTH18122 жыл бұрын
  • What about the Hydrogen from Electrolysis? Is the conversion process more or less efficient?

    @AJ-lu3wx@AJ-lu3wx Жыл бұрын
  • What's the total carbon footprint of solar panel based electricity production? What's the amount of distribution losses of the produced electricity? How much methane can be produced from sewage slurry of ethanol production? Is does using a mix of green tech far better than using a particular tech standalone?

    @TheGuruNetOn@TheGuruNetOn2 жыл бұрын
  • The reality is, this is a federal subsidy for Big Agra. (Cargill, Bayer, ConAgra, etc..) Also this is not sweet corn that humans want to consume.

    @jimurrata6785@jimurrata67852 жыл бұрын
    • Guess he does not know it feed corn and it takes 4 peck to make a bushel. Look up palm oil biodiesel that is what they use in the EU. That is really messed up.

      @schristy3637@schristy36372 жыл бұрын
    • @@schristy3637 I think The U.S. is the only country that doesn't call it maize anyhow. Yes, monoculture palm plantations are horrible for the rainforests and all that ecosystem. Pressing it into oil and shipping it across the globe, to convert it into bio-diesel and burn it in an ICE is a horrific waste. A lot of people talk about Bio-diesel, but no one talks about converting the glycerol created to butanol. This is a pretty good stand-in for petroleum gasoline in warmer climates. But our focus should be to eliminate inefficient internal combustion engines entirely.

      @jimurrata6785@jimurrata67852 жыл бұрын
    • Yes it's crime.

      @crhu319@crhu3192 жыл бұрын
    • also the "waste" is fairly high in protein about 30% and used in animal feed and actually works better than regular feed corn as it is more easily digested.

      @jstanotherone1@jstanotherone12 жыл бұрын
    • @@jimurrata6785 I don't understand why there isn't more interest in using crop residue, Miscanthus grass (farmed biomass), municipal solid waste, and sewage sludge to be gassified to make synthesis gas and passed through the Fischer-Tropsch process to make liquid fuels in the gasoline and diesel fuel ranges.

      @gregorymalchuk272@gregorymalchuk2722 жыл бұрын
  • Very well done, as usual! However, I would like to point out something that you overlooked. When the sugar has been turned to alcohol, the rest of the mash is still fed to livestock. So it's not that 100% of the feed value of the corn goes to ethanol as you assumed in your analysis, it's just the sugar portion of the corn. I am sure that one factor won't redeem ethanol all by itself, but I know people that jump up and down, hopping mad when people miss that fact because in their minds, it does make all of the difference. I would love to quantify this and to know what portion of the feed value is removed when the corn is reduced to ethanol and distillers mash.

    @ethanj454@ethanj4542 жыл бұрын
    • PROBLEMS could exist though, as pointed out by KZheadr Joe Scott.

      @nenmaster5218@nenmaster52182 жыл бұрын
    • Your name is suspiciously close to 'Ethanol'

      @WassimMurr@WassimMurr2 жыл бұрын
    • but it doesnt really matter if there is some food value; all that matters is that it takes more energy to make the so called "fuel" than you get back when you use the fuel. so its a losing proposition from the word go.

      @scottmcshannon6821@scottmcshannon68212 жыл бұрын
    • @@scottmcshannon6821 yes and no. It has two purposes. The inputs may not be worth the outputs when just automotive fuel is the output, but the inputs may be worth less than the outputs when you count the automotive fuel value plus the feed value. Put it this way, how many resources would you need to make that livestock feed without the distillers mesh that already exists because of the ethanol production?

      @ethanj454@ethanj4542 жыл бұрын
    • @@WassimMurr you got me. I'm an alcohol-ish.

      @ethanj454@ethanj4542 жыл бұрын
  • Man. Making aviation sustainable is a huge milestone we need to overcome in then coming decades. Would love to hear your take on current technologies

    @mossm717@mossm7176 ай бұрын
    • Future of sustainable Aviation is really efficient and fast trains

      @NishantSoniTV@NishantSoniTV5 ай бұрын
    • ​@NishantSoniTV i don't think you can take a train across an ocean 😂

      @PapaphobiaPictures@PapaphobiaPictures5 ай бұрын
  • So, I've seen in most vegan documentaries that say this aggressive corn farming is connected to meat consumption (livestock feed). Would you say that perhaps by cutting down (not fully quitting) meat consumption, the challenges we face here can be reduced?

    @anikethan4833@anikethan4833 Жыл бұрын
  • Wow! I never knew “green crude oil” was a thing. That sounds like a big deal.

    @IAmNumber4000@IAmNumber40002 жыл бұрын
    • Been having to correct and educate people who aren't biologists (and even some uneducated biologists) for years. It was great to finally see someone with pretty large reach set the record straight.

      @hj2479@hj24792 жыл бұрын
    • @@hj2479 The references in this video are terrible and extremely out of date. The article by David Pimentel is from 2005 and is based off information from the 1980s. Agriculture and the ethanol industry has made extraordinary advancements since those times. This video makes me question everything written by Brian McManus. I really like this channel so I am absolutely shocked how bad this video is. On average, without subsidies, it costs a farmer about $3 to produce and transport a bushel of corn. This price includes the costs of all the energy and other inputs required to produce a bushel. In 2021, one bushel yields over 11 litres of ethanol plus 7kg of animal feed plus 0.4kg of corn oil. The energy contained in just the ethanol is 60,000kcal. Even if you use the out of date figure from this video of 6600kcal to produce a bushel that's a pretty good return on investment. But don't take my word for it, do your own research, but do a better job than Brian did.

      @joegardhouse5285@joegardhouse52852 жыл бұрын
  • Sugarcane in Brazil is not cultivated in the Amazon but in the south of the country. These cultivations are highly efficient and do not play a role in Amazon’s deforestation

    @EArtVideos@EArtVideos2 жыл бұрын
    • Correct. It is the cattle farming industry that is seeing the destruction of the rainforest increase, as far as I am aware. From what I know, the ground cleared from rainforests isnt even fertile enough to grow continual crops of sugarcane. Slash and burn sees a few crops of grass grow then it dies off and everything moves along.

      @booradley6832@booradley68322 жыл бұрын
    • @@booradley6832 I agree with both you and OP. Deforestation for cattle is a real situation. To exacerbate the concern, as more forrest is cleared for cattle grazing, more Forrest has to be cleared for... wait for it... CORN, for cattle consumption. It's a self licking ice cream cone.

      @revell7156@revell71562 жыл бұрын
    • Someone needs to tell Brazil that since they say otherwise

      @bobhope401@bobhope4012 жыл бұрын
    • Sugarcane also makes ethanol many times more efficiently than corn. Fun fact, the corn lobby got the production of ethanol from sugarcane banned in the US to make sure we're locked into ethanol from corn, which consumes more high-sulfur off-road diesel fuel cultivating and harvesting the corn than the ethanol we get out of the process.

      @jblyon2@jblyon22 жыл бұрын
    • A wise comment! congrats!!!

      @kikobarros76@kikobarros762 жыл бұрын
  • This is an interesting topic for sure. I noticed that nitrogen accounted for the majority of kilocalories needed per liter of ethanol. It seems that a discussion of the nitrogen cycle in nature would be warranted, and a review of how we use fossil fuels to electrically fix nitrogen fertilizer from the atmosphere. It is the production of electricity with coal that supplies most of our nitrogen.

    @benagnew1@benagnew1 Жыл бұрын
  • I has talking about that another day with friends of mine and i said that it can injuries the solo too, bacause of them demands, and they said that i was wrong. Thanks for prove my point

    @Verdadesimportam@Verdadesimportam10 ай бұрын
  • Not surprised at all about the inefficiency of this industry when you say it's popular amongst lobbyists. That's like their staple.

    @joyl7842@joyl78422 жыл бұрын
    • Never was about saving the planet. It was a scam to get more money for a cheap ridiculous vegetable that my 3 year old helps me grow every year lmfao. Corn Is cheapest. Veggie in the store , corn for gas not so cheap. Let's just used fossil fuels until they get fusion thing down to consumer level id drive a truck with fusion power lol probably have a shitload kf horsepower and get 30000 miles on the reactor before needing a switch arooo

      @TRUMP_WAS_RIGHT_ABOUT_EVRYTHNG@TRUMP_WAS_RIGHT_ABOUT_EVRYTHNG2 жыл бұрын
    • The references in this video are terrible and extremely out of date. The article by David Pimentel is from 2005 and is based off information from the 1980s. Agriculture and the ethanol industry has made extraordinary advancements since those times. This video makes me question everything written by Brian McManus. I really like this channel so I am absolutely shocked how bad this video is. On average, without subsidies, it costs a farmer about $3 to produce and transport a bushel of corn. This price includes the costs of all the energy and other inputs required to produce a bushel. In 2021, one bushel yields over 11 litres of ethanol plus 7kg of animal feed plus 0.4kg of corn oil. The energy contained in just the ethanol is 60,000kcal. Even if you use the out of date figure from this video of 6600kcal to produce a bushel that's a pretty good return on investment. But don't take my word for it, do your own research, but do a better job than Brian did.

      @joegardhouse5285@joegardhouse52852 жыл бұрын
  • Woah I’ve been watching your videos for years and this is the first time I’ve seen what you actually look like. I was not expecting that at all!

    @malr2014@malr20142 жыл бұрын
  • what a research. amazing!

    @mistercurious5298@mistercurious52982 жыл бұрын
  • In Brazil, our gasoline has aproximately 27% of ethanol, made from sugarcane

    @Acelerado007@Acelerado0075 ай бұрын
  • 10:04 - This is i huge misconception about sugar-cane ethanol! Deforrestation in Brazil has little to nothing to do with sugar-cane. Recent deforrested areas are mostly used for grass growing for cattle. It happens Amazon climate and soil are not adequate for cultivation of current existing sugar-cane varieties.

    @crito3534@crito35342 жыл бұрын
    • Deforestation is a political issue not related to biofuels. The rainforests were being cutdown long before the rise of the biofuel industry. Ethanol is a clean burning carbon neutral fuel. Videos like this just give corrupt governments a scapegoat issue to cover up their negligence in protecting forests.

      @joegardhouse5285@joegardhouse52852 жыл бұрын
    • Exactly! This video is a lie! Rainforest destruction has nothing to do with ethanol! Also, second generation ethanol are a lot better then what's said. Yes, algae fuel is still on RESEARCH, yet, some papers see future on algae biorefinery!

      @VitorFM@VitorFM2 жыл бұрын
    • Yeah but people get really angry when you tell them that eating meat is not sustainable

      @Klamev@Klamev2 жыл бұрын
    • @@VitorFM the video isn't a lie..one part of it was wrong. There's a difference between getting a part wrong and the entire 15 minutes being a lie. Also, if you watched the video, he said the whole algae process is inefficient now but could be efficient in the future. Please watch the entire video before commenting next time

      @thmadeym4556@thmadeym45562 жыл бұрын
    • @@thmadeym4556 no, 85% of the video is a lie. Some points are wrigh, this doesn't turn the rest ok.

      @VitorFM@VitorFM2 жыл бұрын
  • "The united states is a powerhouse..." Me: Of the cell

    @MrSplodez@MrSplodez2 жыл бұрын
    • United Mitochondrion of Cell

      @FirestormX9@FirestormX92 жыл бұрын
    • -emia, meaning presence in blood.

      @downstream0114@downstream01142 жыл бұрын
    • Me: of war crimes and crimes against humanity

      @williamwimmer5473@williamwimmer54732 жыл бұрын
    • Downstream01 YES

      @y33t23@y33t232 жыл бұрын
    • If you say Mitochondria and your girl does not say "the powerhouse of the cell" . She aint your girl

      @timobatana6705@timobatana67052 жыл бұрын
  • Can we use sugarcane ethanol as fuel to desalinate sea water and use it to reforest sand deserts?

    @alessandroperin5728@alessandroperin5728 Жыл бұрын
  • You say sustainability is a problem but that's only if we also use land to still drill for crude oil as well as produce bio diesel. Bio diesel is more sustainable than any other fuel source since CO emissions are taken from the air to make the methanol and soy bean crops are sustainable when planted from seed - and water doesn't just disappear; it literally falls from the sky after a sunny day. Once the chemical reaction occurs in lithium cells which degrade them they are not renewable.

    @ArmThePoor161@ArmThePoor1612 жыл бұрын
  • When I was in Britain I lived near a McDonald's. I often see large truck went to McD collecting waste oil for making biodiesel I think that's not so bad

    @jachtk893@jachtk8932 жыл бұрын
    • Depends how much energy is expended in the process and yielded from the product.

      @responsiblejerk2328@responsiblejerk23282 жыл бұрын
    • @@responsiblejerk2328 Works just like regular diesel. Less clean but will do in most of the old construction types of engines.

      @HanSolo__@HanSolo__2 жыл бұрын
    • biofuel is made for the oil. the fried oil. so there it is waste converted in energy. Not the same...

      @wotzatfa@wotzatfa2 жыл бұрын
    • Are you sure the truck wasn't DELIVERING the waste oil TO McD for making fries?

      @fnfjack8743@fnfjack87432 жыл бұрын
    • @@fnfjack8743 nope, only the used oil is taken, filtered, de waterised and then put in the tank. The is not a "new" tech. Army 6x6 truck or even 4*4 are using this type of oil since the fifties.. As long as the engine is bigger than a six litres engine, cooking oil can be used as diesel. Smaller engine don't like it that much.

      @wotzatfa@wotzatfa2 жыл бұрын
  • I'm always amazed by the variety of means we can invent to self-destruct.

    @ecovoycanada@ecovoycanada2 жыл бұрын
    • Cheers

      @limb.dondototohasstartedso7288@limb.dondototohasstartedso72882 жыл бұрын
    • Do you have any better options?

      @blooeagle5118@blooeagle51182 жыл бұрын
    • @@blooeagle5118 Nope

      @JustinL614@JustinL6142 жыл бұрын
    • @@blooeagle5118 Of course : ANY option is better. Look at the numbers (…and watch the video). You can’t “grow”energy efficiently. We humans have to get our energy from food because we can’t get it any other way. But for machines, we can do better. Any way is better than using precious soil. That’s just a fact and it’s well documented.

      @ecovoycanada@ecovoycanada2 жыл бұрын
    • @@blooeagle5118 Bloo Eagle: listen to the science instead of the leftist activists.

      @harrkev@harrkev2 жыл бұрын
  • Biomass is cutting down our forest in the east and Alaska they are 18 plants their and about 8 here. They are made into wood pellets to burn in eu power plants The U.S. exported 635,463.4 metric tons of wood pellets in April, down from 667,309 metric tons in March, but up from 595,166.2 metric tons in April 2020, according to data released by the USDA Foreign Agricultural Service on June 8. The U.S. exported wood pellets to approximately 16 countries during April. The U.K. was the top destination at 519,144.4 metric tons, followed by the Netherlands at 91,050.3 metric tons and the French West Indies at 21,733.9 metric tons.

    @thomas4315@thomas43152 жыл бұрын
  • 6:40 I couldn't find a source other than yours that bioethanol has a negative energy balance over its lifetime. Also I'd be interested if Biogas would be better as it needs less refinement.

    @thomasmaier7053@thomasmaier70532 жыл бұрын
    • He conveniently brushed over the fact that the spent grain has the missing calories and then some (from the fermentation process)

      @MrCodeTroll@MrCodeTroll2 жыл бұрын
  • "Today more than half of the corn goes into the production of ethanol." Yup, we call it vodka.

    @game-f-un-limitedgamer8958@game-f-un-limitedgamer89582 жыл бұрын
    • @pinned by Real Engineering dont trust him its spam probably a bot trying to scam you

      @Silverdev2482@Silverdev24822 жыл бұрын
    • Bourbon is made from corn

      @xxxBradTxxx@xxxBradTxxx2 жыл бұрын
    • @@xxxBradTxxx damn, it is! Just looked it up. so, we better not waste corn on biofuel!

      @fnfjack8743@fnfjack87432 жыл бұрын
    • Isnt that potatoes ?

      @randomrealistictone2231@randomrealistictone22312 жыл бұрын
    • That is made from potatoes junior

      @halweilbrenner9926@halweilbrenner99262 жыл бұрын
  • "RAIN MAKES CORN, CORN MAKES WHISKEY"

    @markmeripa@markmeripa2 жыл бұрын
    • WHISKEY MAKES MY BABY A LITTLE BIT FRISKY"

      @tarnished9108@tarnished91082 жыл бұрын
    • @@tarnished9108 don't give whiskey to your child, he will become a lobbyst

      @none-dv3bg@none-dv3bg2 жыл бұрын
    • @@tarnished9108 ? More like Pillbo Baggins

      @yigitalpalakoc@yigitalpalakoc2 жыл бұрын
    • In Scotland we make Whisky and make biofuel from the waste produced. So we get whisky and biofuel.

      @johnbinnie5697@johnbinnie56972 жыл бұрын
    • @@none-dv3bg i turned out okay. Atleast thats what my bartended told me

      @markmeripa@markmeripa2 жыл бұрын
  • 5:30 don't know whether to be angry or amused that you activated my alexa 😂

    @alio2269@alio22696 ай бұрын
  • your overlay at the end of the video isn't working anymore (can't click any of the links for the recommendations or patreon)

    @hansmaulwurf7629@hansmaulwurf7629 Жыл бұрын
KZhead