Science – No doubt about it, if there were a Miss Energy Pageant, Miss Ethanol would win hands down. Everyone loves ethanol. "Ramp up the availability of ethanol," says Hillary Clinton. "Ethanol makes a lot of sense," says John McCain. "The economics of ethanol make more and more sense," says Mitt Romney. "We've
As I've said many times despite the fact that my father, my grandfather and my father in law are all corn farmers what is good for them is not necessarily good for the country.
Corn production and ethanol production are up sharply here in Nebraska and while that is good for my family it doesn't address the problem that ethanol is supposed to solve. That is, getting America off of oil. The solution to this problem in my opinion is actually threefold. But, it's going to hurt and the voters don't like that.
1. Reduce consumption of oil. This is an 'easy' fix. Raise the MPG requirements. STOP selling SUV's and light trucks to every Tom, Dick, Harry and Jane. Last year, according to ABC Americans bought more SUV's and light trucks than in any previous year. It's INSANE. Improve public transportation. Build more wind farms. Stop making incandescent light bulbs. Mandate more efficient appliances and homes. Reduce, reduce, reduce.
cont:
I heard about the Nebraska version of the Hells Angels.
A couple of old farmers are sitting on the backs of a couple of really huge hogs, and there are chickens out in front of them. One of them looks at the other, "I heard them fellers saying riding hogs and chasing chicks was fun, but this ain't much fun. In fact it stinks!"
Most of the Nebraskans I met were good hard working people. My uncles used to raise corn and hay.
..and my apology to any Nebraskan offended by that. An uncle of mine gave that to me and he was from Nebraska. But he never owned a motorcyle, but in the 50's made a fortune on hogs. He said he had had about 50,000 of them. Everywhere he looked there were hogs, all his fields were planted in corn to feed them, and he had bought them at like 3 cents a pound and then sold them for 60 cents. It paid off his loan to the bank in one year, but he said he could never buy another hog. The farm he said stunk for years...and his wife told him if she ever saw another one he would be in the hogpen with them!
I can see where a farmer, a cattleman, or a construction worker needs a large 4x4 or SUV just to do their jobs, but some I've seen....hey, those are yuppies just trying to impress their neighbors, and they don't know how to drive them. More than one accident and rollover were caused by them. Just because you have a 4x4 doesn't mean you can stop any faster...
In Sudbury, Massachusetts, it's quite a status symbol to have a Range Rover or other SUV "off road" style monster, and it's only complete with the metal brush guards on the lights.
But these people wouldn't even drive on the soft shoulder to get around a turning car, let alone have some brush rub against their paint.
Then they drive from the wild suburb on the highway to their urban jobs.
But if you told them they don't need it....
from above
2. Come up with a solution (my personal choice is hydrogen, but there are some issues with that) to using the internal combustion engine run on fossil fuels. Figure it out. Do it now. Feed every university in the country several billion dollars and figure it out. Build a government agency that does nothing but look at new and more innovative ways to produce energy that reduce greenhouse emissions and improve efficiency. We put a man on the Moon from a virtual dead start in less than nine years. We can sure as hell figure out a way to do this.
3. Understand the the economic and security issue implications are enormous. If we get off of oil, we stop funding both sides of the war on terror. We can sell our innovations to the rest of the world, possibly restoring our trade imbalance with countries like China and India. The process of converting ourselves to new energy will take 50 years and provide millions of high paying jobs.
But, it won't be easy.
Bkumm...
I dont agree with you on everything, but in this we are in total agreement.
I know we aren't, but this is kind of the point I've been trying to make since I go on this site. People might disagree about this and that, but most of the stuff that needs doing...needs doing. Period, full stop. Do my suggestions stand to hurt some people, especially farmers? Yes, they do. Will it hurt the oil companies? Yes, it will. Will it effect unions? Yes, it will. Will it (in the short term) hurt the economy? Yes, it will. But, in the long run (five years or so) it will make for a better nation all around and possibly a safer, cleaner and more profitable world.
Thank you, by the way.
it wouldnt take fifty years if we just took the time to do it coal has aready been converted to liquid fuel and i think a company in cal. made the stuff to do it and sold it overseas as long as oil companies are in charge we will never get free of the problem,to many peaple in high places have a lot to lose if we find alternatives to oil
Funny you didn't mention drilling in ANWAR and allowing more off-shore drilling - even slant drilling in the Great Lakes.
The U.S. has a large supply of oil reserves. It's time for liberals to stop interfering with domestic oil production, which is the most pragmatic way to reduce our dependency on foreign oil.
First of all, as I commented further down in this post if we really want to get off of oil, more drilling is just going to postpone the inevitable.
Secondly, ANWAR has about five years worth of oil if we used it for all of our consumption and it will take ten years to bring it on-line.
It just doesn't make sense.
"Build a government agency that does nothing but look at new and more innovative ways to produce energy that reduce greenhouse emissions and improve efficiency."
Rather than getting the government involved (we know where this would end up) make the big oil companies give cosumers "gas credits" based on their purchases and then allow the consumers to use these credits to buy stock and invest in a select group of corporations specializing in the reasearch and delvelopement of alternative fuels.
That gives the cosumer the opportunity to make an informed choice while at the same time helping the economy and hopefully if they chose wisely would also contribute to their future retirement based on the profit from their investment.
Does this make sense?
In God We Trust
From the article
And it's good for vote-hungry presidential hopefuls. Iowa is a key state in the presidential-nomination sweepstakes, and we all know what they grow in Iowa [http://www.iowacorn.org/]. Sen. Clinton voted against ethanol 17 times until she started running for president. Coincidence?
what does she know about corn doesnt she live in a big city they want corn they go to the store and buy it they dont think about growing it she is the last person i would like to see in the white house didnt like her husband dont like her she will get votes any way she can just like the rest of them
Love this,
"It's no mystery that people who want to be president support the corn ethanol program," Taylor says. "If you're not willing to sacrifice children to the corn god, you will not get out of the Iowa primary with more than one percent of the vote, Right now the closest thing we have to a state religion in the United States isn't Christianity. It's corn."
And it's not just Hillary, McCain has a short memory too
McCain's farm flip
The senator has been a critic of ethanol. That doesn't play in Iowa. So the Straight Talk Express has taken a detour.
Over the years, the Arizona senator has made a habit of ripping ethanol subsidies as corporate pork for agribusinesses like Archer Daniels Midland
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_...
Solar power generation was developed as part of the US space program in the 1950's - today we're well behind a bunch of nations in the technology, especially Japan and Germany, who have been setting the solar-powered pace for over a decade.
We're getting our asses kicked in wind-generated power, too. Right now Denmark generates about 20% of all its electricty from wind, and we're behind both Spain and Germany (again) in installed capacity.
By most accounts the leading producers of ethanol are the US and Brazil, who together account for about 70% of the world's total ethanol production.
So why aren't wind & solar getting the same traction as ethanol here in the US?
It could be as simple as giving our farmers something to do. After all, they can't plant and harvest sunshine and wind, and the government has been subsidising financially struggling farms for years. Ethanol is a great way to get hundreds of farmers off the federal dole, & it gives them something to grow.
Haven't you heard about Sweaty Teddy's objection to windmills? They spoil his view of Cape Cod. And they also spatter birds, when they fly into the arms.
Libs will never accept wind power in the US.
Solar would be acceptable to most Libs but the panels are terribly inefficient, cost an arm and a leg and are limited to fixed locations (not cars).
One quick fix is propane. As an auto fuel it costs $1.25/gallon and burns so clean even the Goremeister would have trouble objecting. It is delivered by pipeline rather than truck and has been around for 40 years (although most have never heard of propane powered cars). And we could be up an running on propane in less than 1 year. Honda makes a propane car they sell in Calif.
Actually, I did follow the story of the proposed windfarm off the Vineyard and while I think there should be turbines all over the place, I don't think its necessary to put them right in front of some of the most expensive real estate in the entire nation. It would be one thing it that was the only place where there is wind, or if it was the most convenient and cheapest place to build, or the easiest to hook up to the grid, or the easiest to maintain... but it was none of those things.
Really, all that idea was was a political lightning rod.
The cost of solar power will come down when millions are forced to turn to it by the rising cost of oil, and the technology will grow by leaps and bounds (they already have a solar-powered auto race across the whole of Australia's outback).
As you said, propane is a "quick fix", and frankly I'd put ethanol in the same category. And all we do by adopting any "quick fix" is pass on our problems to future generations.
As we develop a strategy for change, it is absolutely imperative that we insure that change be sustainable.
The folks you call "Libs" actually have a rather eclectic collection of beliefs. This "Lib" accepts wind power. Propane is a good suggestion, and one of my irritants is the increased use of this clean, portable fuel for electrical power generation after our utilities stopped building nuclear plants. It would have been much better to improve the safety of nuclear plants and solve the problem of nuclear waste disposal.
My objection to propane is essentially the same objection I have to oil. It is a finite, non-renewable resource. As such, it is subject to the same market vagaries as oil. Plus, propane is distilled from? You guessed it...OIL. So, it solves none of the root problems.
70 percent of propane comes from natural gas wells 30 percent from crude oil. And there are more natural gas wells than crude oil wells. About 85% of U.S. propane is domestically produced.
If you build an engine to run just on propane, (not just convert a gasoline engine) propane is equal to 125 octane. And will burn 97 percent clean.
It also makes more sense than cars running on compressed natural gas. As propane is a liquid and requires lower pressure to store and operate. A 50 gallon propane tank will take you roughly twice as far as a similar size tank of compressed natural gas.
Okay, but that still doesn't address the root problem which is getting off of oil. We still have to drill, we still have to explore and we still have a finite resource.
Propane is only a liquid after it is compressed, which takes energy.
We have to get away from the idea of making do with this technology and the processes and come up with something new. Once upon a time America was the home of invention. Are we afraid to take on this challenge?
Have you seen Future Car on the Discovery channel?
Have you heard of the new 40.7% improved solar cells?
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=643C...
People are working on solutions to our energy problems every day. Some solutions will take time. Others will take breakthroughs.
Maybe the money wasted trying to prove the man caused global warming junk science theory, was spent on research trying find better energy solutions, we could make better progress.
I mean, if we all agree that we need to get off oil, and most of us do. Then wasting money on carbon credits that produce no solutions won't get us there any quicker. Money needs to be spent on research. Not BS.
Invest: Last I heard, cars do not outrun solar rays. And isn't there an annual race where solar geeks can enter sun powered cars they've built to see whose is the fastest? Even if these aren't practical for autos as we know them, can't panels be used for at least partial power on mobile units? Of course, the "original," and cheap, lo-tech solar panel is a sine wave shaped hose or tube run thru a clear box which can be used for heating water in the home? Any kid who noticed hot water coming out of the garden hose lying in the sun knows that principle.
Not a member? Sign-up today!
Bunkersweetie
parkertiogos
parkkamits
terrisphils
rontravel
daviannewton651975
Apennyforyours
ishmuga
SCJDM
lovingu
MikeWesner
BJ80
michaeln
Saturan
perkonis
susie82426
citizen-by-choice
carloverman
Doodle07
InglewoodBob
RedRiverJ
protoham
dschlienz
hossstyle
bugluver
Beeboppin71
simonsez
avpd85
normallysilent
tglad
SusanParrish
AngryEyes
masterofpointillism
Coop666
imafish
brahmasdream
himentor
Prismoon
Obaku
TheAttacks
psayer
Yellek
denkular
109)
Good read. Vintage Stossel.
((And it's good for vote-hungry presidential hopefuls. Iowa is a key state in the presidential-nomination sweepstakes, and we all know what they grow in Iowa. Sen. Clinton voted against ethanol 17 times until she started running for president. Coincidence?))
Of course it is! ;-)
The Brazilian model of ethanol production from sugar is actually more efficient than current corn based systems. If I understand all this, corn is starch and less efficient to produce alcohol than sugar, which is closer chemically to alcohol.
Sugar can be produced in warm states from cane and in the midwest and west from sugar beets. But this doesn't buy Ms Slick any votes in Iowa, does it?
The problem with ethanol I'm told is that the hype is much better than the product. It costs a great deal of water and fuel to harvest the corn, which might be better fed to hogs, then use their methane to power your vehicle.
It's good for Iowa perhaps but perhaps not for the rest of the nation. My old Chevy Pickup gets almost 30 miles to the gallon, has 2-60 air conditioning, and armstrong steering. It doesn't have any of the polution devices we absolutely have to have, yet it tests better than new ones. It has 2-60 air conditioning because when you want air conditioning you roll down two windows and drive 60. Armstrong steering...no power steering. You only need strong arms when you're stopped. Other than that you don't notice the difference. Its a 1952 chevy 1/2 ton 6, best engine I think chevy ever made...ruggged and solid as a rock!
you are right has any body else noticed the prices of corn byproducts and meats going up in price even taco shells went up that is pathetic
I'm a professional chef and I can tell you that everything that has to do with corn (from oil to beef) is taking a big jump in price since this Ethanol frenzy started.
It may have more to do with the increase in oil pricing to transport produce across the country.
To make it short and simple: ethanol has just barely enough energy per pound as a combustion fuel to make it worth producing out of an agricultural crop - IF there's no transportation from where you make it to where you use it. If you have to transport it, it's not worth using. Put simply, it's a bust. That being said, it's a bad path with good intentions behind it. Oh, wait, that had something to do with a hot place at a low elevation...
Anyway, there's some guys in Philly (last I heard) that were doing process research on a high temp/high pressure process for converting organic scrap materials (chicken/beef intestines, from slaughterhouses, plant material etc.) into an oil product almost like fuel oil with methane as a byproduct that can be recycled to run the process. If there's a product/process worth dumping public money into, that's probably it. They can probably make it on their own, though, from what little I've heard. Check it out if you're interested.
Now you are on the right track. Ethanol and biodiesel work only when they can be used locally, and the by-products used as well.
For instance, If I am farming a lot of corn, which I sell to the local ethanol plant, which sells all of its product for local vehicles, the distillers grain wet to the hog operation down the road, which produces methane from the manure, which it sells to the ethanol plant for fuel, and the processed manure from the mathane tanks to me for fertilizer - then my friends, we have a big winner, ecologically and economically.
Ethanol has one more problem not mentioned in the article. In small engines (lawnmowers, snowblowers, etc) where gas can sit for 6 months it will harden and destroy the gaskets and make the engine fail.
Ethanol is BAD, add that to the MTBE that they add to the gas around here and I get 3 Miles to the Gallon Less.
Lets add that up, the Government get tax off every gallon, they cause the gas to be less productive, so they get more taxes. These guys ain't dumb after all. Vote them all out of office!!
IF there's no transportation from where you make it to where you use it. If you have to transport it, it's not worth using.
Maybe the beauty behind it would be that local state farming would benefit instead of just the corporate farming in Iowa.
Seems to me that this article couldn't be better written if the Oil Execs had written it themselves....maybe they did.
Using sugar cane to make ethanol is a waste - unless you're making rum. ;-)
Seriously, we should be finding ways to kick the oil habit, if for no other reason than the unreliabilty of its sources. And, as mentioned below, alternative fuel development could be a huge shot in the arm for the economy
It wortks for Brazil.
The local Denver news did a story on ethanol and the Coors Brewing company in Golden Colorado. Apparently they built an ethanol plant 2 years ago to turn what they used to haul to the dump into ethanol. They produced 3 million gallons last year and doubled their capacity this year to an expected 6 million. What's sad is that's just a drop in the bucket for what is needed just in the front range area.
I bought my wife a flex fuel van in 2000 and we couldn't even get ethanol until just this past year. The fuel efficiancy is 15% less than when we run it on regular and the cost is 15% less. It's a wash but we aren't contributing to the mid east problems.
I bought a Compressed Natural Gas (CNG)/bi-fuel (runs on regular as well) '98 Contour for myself to comute in because I drive 110 miles a day. I put 120,000 miles on it in 3 years and just bought a 2003 CNG/Bi-Fuel Cavalier to replace it. I get the same milage and get this I pay $1.04 a gallon, there's an alternative for you...
Have you priced sugar lately? The problem is we can not grow enough food and energy to take care of our needs. So do you want to drive or eat?
There is nothing as cheap as oil as a transportable fuel and that is why it is king.
Send this story to your state congressman and federal congressman. Add the fact that solar cell cost 20 years of energy to make, they don't last 20 years so they are a loss. Ignorance is the global warming problem and it starts with our government, except for one time it seems Bush has the right idea.