Reading “The New American Story” by Bill Bradley was a breath of fresh air. His focus on the Oil Industry and how it relates to the future of a water shortage was both interesting and enlightening. I enjoyed how Mr. Bradley focuses on what we are being told by the Bush administration and the media and compares it to what he believes is the real truth and how we as Americans can help take control and change the direction that the country is taking.
I appreciate his suggestion that we need to have a federal mandate for more fuel-efficient cars and encourage other companies to make “less wasteful versions of furnaces, hot-water heaters, air conditioners, and the like.” Bradley covers how we can’t get enough oil from “tar sands, heavy oil, coal or oil shale” due to the “fact that those sources are even more polluting than oil.” However, he then turns around and quotes Lee Raymond, a former CEO of Exxon who says that ethanol really isn’t a solution, I feel that he is somewhat contradicting himself when he follows up with we have “to eliminate our addition to oil or witness global conflict”.
Even though it has already been well-publicized that the Bush administration has filled many government posts with his friends and people with big business interest, I was shocked to hear that the chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality use to lobby for companies that opposed Superfund cleanup rules. That was down right insulting! Add to that the fact that an assistant attorney general for environmental and natural resources once represented Big Coal. The Bush administration putting these people into such positions is an insult to the American people. Bradley points out that this “[Bush] administration has the worst environmental record of any administration since passage of the first significant environmental laws, in the 1960s under Lyndon Johnson.” He covers many examples of how the rules have been weakened and the repercussions of such actions.
I was rubbed the wrong way in one area where he asks why people aren’t angrier about what’s happening, and I almost feel like he’s asking his readers why we are not doing more to prevent these global catastrophes. Being an environmental activist who has walked door to door getting petitions signed and having people write letters to their local politicians to get curb-side recycling in their neighborhood I was offended! People are angry, and people are aware that timber companies are despoiling public lands, that the glaciers in the Artic are melting and they see that hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and droughts are getting worse, but not everyone is educated on this subject. There are plenty of people who don’t understand that global warming is such an issue. There are areas in this country where the media is controlled by one interest group, and there is nothing stopping them from broadcasting or writing that global warming is a hoax and there is no reason for concern.
Bradley brings to light the issue of water shortage and the impact that it will have on us as a nation and across the world in the not so far future. His concerns are real and I was surprised to see that in his agenda at the end of the chapter he did not address any actions towards this issue.
His suggestions on what should be done to reduce our addiction to oil and help the environment for the most part were quite realistic. The only real issue I had with his suggestions was his $1 a gallon tax. The people who own the SUVs aren’t going to feel that tax too much, while the lower class will feel it tremendously! It is refreshing to hear someone stand up for his beliefs and to give constructive, realistic options on how to take America in a new and better direction.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 45
He explained it really well. I am going to mess it up here, but it went something like this. First, the govenment mandates that new vehicles have to get 45 miles per gallon. With this kind of gas mileage, we will pay the same for a tank of gas that we do now. The tax dollars collected will go to pay down the deficit, shore up Medicaid and Social Security so we don't pass this debt on to our children.
Even National Security: At 45 miles per gallon, we can produce our own fuel needs and be free from dependence on the Middle East for our energy supply.
The way he explained it, it was all win/win. Richelle, with book in hand, could you fill in the details. I know I'm missing stuff here. At the end of the radio program I was thinking, There's a man with a plan. A plan that could work.
It's a plan that is a non-plan.
The easiest way to reduce gasoline use is to drive vehicles that are more efficient, instead of lining up E85 to pump into enormous Ford Excursions and Lincoln Navigators. But we can't go there for some odd reason. Smaller vehicles are un-Christian or bad for tire companies because they use less rubber.
Of course, this is a huge contradiction to Bill Bradley himself.
First of all Ethanol FROM CORN is used primarily as a 10% addiditive in gasoline which is responsible for the dramatic increase in the quality of air in most American cities since 2000. Bush did that, not Bradley nor the "activists".
Ethanol production has grown dramatically under the Bush Adminsitration and now we have an infrastruction in place for a full cellulous economy. Raymond is correct, corn-based Ethanol may clean up our cities but it will never replace more than 10% of our foreign oil imports that will be done by cellulous ethanol.
Cellulous Ethanol IS carbon-positive and can easily be produced on marginal lands. It requires several orders of magnitude less fertilizer and field work than corn based ethanol.
Cellulous Ethanol, advanced by the Bush Administration, has moved past the pilot-plant stage into the production stage with three plants coming on-line this spring.
I guess that is the difference between talking and doing, between college-kid activism and actually getting something done.
Hello?? Hello??
Of course you are aware Chris, that a by-product of ethanol prodution is either Distillers Grain (DG) or Distillers Dry Grain (DDG) which is a high quality feed used in livestock production.
-- but of course you knew that.
Of course you know that the primary use for ethanol is in a 10% blend used to boost octane and as an oxegenator in gasoline -- which is responsible for a dramatic increase in the quality of air in most American cities.
-- but of course you knew that.
And I also suppose you thought long and hard about the wisdom of feeding corn to cattle. Of course you know that half the world's bicarbonat of soda (alkaseltzer) is fed to cattle to soothe tummies that nature did not design for the digestion of corn.
-- but of course you knew that.
And of course we all know that the marbling of beef is what is killing a lot of humans by clogging up their arteries.....we marble beef by feeding them corn-meal.
-- but of course you knew that.
As to cellulosic ethanol, bring it on. I think it will be a great thing. But until it goes on line, corn based ethanol will continue to be a boondogle.
I repeat my argument that GWB, after pretending that global warming does not exist for six years, is paying lip service to the challenge of acting to reduce the threat. The correct approach to transportation fuels is to ask the question how little fuel can we use to power more efficient vehicles and still get the job done. Yet he is asking the opposite question: how much fuel will we have to buy or produce in order to propel the oversized fleet of vehicles we have gotten used to in the past 20 years.
I have no argument with ethanol being used as a 10% additive to gasoline to improve air quality. That pre-dates GWB by a long shot. But if we ever get to the point of creating a nationwide network of E85 ethanol blend stations, it is going to need to be a cheaper fuel than gasoline, because a gallon of it will take you fewer miles than a gallon of gasoline. What if after all the billions spent nobody wants to use the stuff?
My beef, pardon me, with GWB is that he is throwing a bone to those with environmental consciences but little understanding of the problem of global warming. My question to him is: now that you have admitted that global warming is real, and come up with an inadequate plan to address it with ethanol production, what else are you going to do about it? The unspoke reply is: nothing, I am too busy running out the clock.
We passed the point of Ethanol being cheaper than oil back in 2002. Today, Ethanol comes out of the plant at a cheaper price than oil comes out of the ground in Saudi Arabia. The only reason that E85 is not cost competitive with gasoline at the pump is marketing pure and simple. E85 follows the price of gas minus an energy equivalent discount.
As cellulous ethanol, we already are producing it, though it may take a few years to ramp up the production just as it took a few years to ramp up corn-based Ethanol -- under Bush.
The key is -- corn-based Ethanol has provided the infrastructure for a cellulous based Ethanol economy.
I have no idea where you get the idea that this administration is no pushing ethanol, especially cellulous ethanol. They have been screaming the message for four years - perhaps you do not listen to the media that has carried the message. Maybe it is time to ask the media -- why not?
Visit the http://www.iogen.ca/
Also see http://www.ethanolproducer.com/article.jsp?article_id=2747
Has anyone read or heard Bill Bradley's plan? Can anyone fill in the details so we know what we are debating?
Does this bickering solve anything? Are we looking for solutions or for a fight?
I suppose what bothers me is that people, mostly city people, are obsessing about corn ethanol when they simply do not understand that this is a first generation product.
The administration, Bush himself, and the industry have made clear that the future of ethanol is in cellulous ethanol production -- primarily with switch-grass. "Switch-grass" is more of a term than a species; it refers to a method of raising cellulous from a combination of 9 grasses. I look forward to the day that The Great Plains are returned to their native grasses to fuel the transportation needs of the country.
This form of energy farming would fix nitrogen and build the soil rather than depleting it. It will greatly reduce irrigation and as it will greatly reduce fertilizer and pesticide use. It will dramatically reduce run-off, reduce wind erosion and lock carbon into biomass.
Ethanol used to power cars with fuel cells rather than combustion will increase the energy efficiency of automobiles from 24% to 50%. Coupled with hybrid technology, it is feasible to get 100 mpg for a car the size and weight of a Prius.
I have absolutely no idea why "activists" waste their time and everyone else's time howling about something that they know nothing about, and a technology that is on the verge of solving the greatest problem of our time.
Not a bad idea, though you do have to give rail credit for what they have done so far. A great deal of interstate truck traffic has been transfered to rail.
When Ethanol production moves to switch-grass, the native grasses of the prairie, the Oglala aquifier will be recharged -- with water free of fertilizer and pesticides -- switch grass does not require the application of chemicals.
It would be great to have more intercity and intervillage transportation but keep in mind that we will never have the system that say, Germany has, we simply do not have 80 million people living in a place the size of Wisconsin.
"I guess that is the difference between talking and doing, between college-kid activism and actually getting something done."
Bush is president of the U.S., the rest of us aren't, so of course he's in much more of a position to get something done.
As president of the U.S., Bush has consistently censored the opinions of government scientists on climate change and other environmental issues.
As president of the U.S., here are some of the many things to improve our energy security and fight climate change that he should have gotten done, but hasn't:
tax policies, research, and incentives to encourage green buildings that would save a tremendous amount of energy; higher CAFE standards that would improve auto efficiency (perhaps together with a higher gasoline tax); encouraging Smart Growth to shorten the number and length of daily car trips; policies to encourage wind farms and solar panels.
Corn ethanol not only takes up energy in all stages of production, but takes away from the food supply on a hungry planet. We should have skipped the corn ethanol and gone right to the cellulose stage.
We need a real president who will actually get many things done. As it is we've largely wasted 6 years, and will likely get little done for the next two.
Excuse ME!!!!
Where in the world do you get your information? I would suggest that perhaps you consider switching your news sources. Anyone who listened to his State Of The Union speech was quite familiar with his "Addicted to Oil" statement in support of a multi-billion alternative energy initiative and anyone who has opened a newspaper or listened to the radio lately has heard him stumping for Ethanol in South America this prior month.
Yeah, and the Wright Brothers should have built a 747 instead of fooling around with fabric and wood.
Corn ethanol has made the air in American cities breathable -- BUSH did that - not the activists.
Gimme a freak'n break...
Cellulous Ethanol is under hyper-development at the moment, companies like Logen are literally working around the clock, but wishing is not going to magically transform pilot to production and small-scale production to large scale production.
This administration has been critical in pushing cellulous forward --- maybe its about time the activist-left caught up to present-day reality.
If Bush had done policies to cut the amount of fuel used in automobiles it would have done far more to make American cities breathable than using an ethanol blend. And encouraging corn ethanol on the scale were doing it is just the wrong policy--it will do nothing to advance cellulose technology.
I appreciate all the comments that this article has created, I have learned a lot more about ethanol and then some.
I am not really sure what "problems" are being posed by corn based ethanol. There is a limitation, in that our corn harvest can only produce about 10% of ethanol needs, but that is quite enough to clean the air of our cities.
That is about it. The farm journals tend to cover these things much better. City people are often kept in the dark about a lot of things.
Result #1 - a dramatic improvement in the quality of air in U.S. cities since the year 2000.
Result #2 - The growth of U.S. ethanol production from 1.6 Billion gallons to 8.5 billion gallons.
Result #3 - The building of the U.S. ethanol infrastructure, including plants, pipelines and the supply network of ethanol certified engine components.
Result #4 - The development of the bio-diesel industry. Last year 150 million gallons were produced, in 2007 that number will triple with two plants coming on-line with over 100 million gallon annual capacity each.
Result #5 The Administration Is Providing A Federal Tax Credit Of Up To $3,400 For Hybrid Purchasers.
Result #6 The President signed an Executive Order on January 24 ordering Federal agencies to lead by example in reducing fuel consumption and purchasing more fuel-efficient vehicles.
Result #7 Since 2000. the Federal Government has invested $12 Billion to develop alternate energy source.
Result #8 Wind energy production soared from 2,578 megawatts in 2000 to 12,500 megawatts in 2006.
What have the Democrats done during this time?
Well, uh, Senator Ted Kennedy shut down WIND ENERGY INSTALLATIONS throughout the nation for several months because he was personally upset about a wind-farm proposed near the Kennedy compound in Hyannis Port. He didn't want to have to look at them ----- this delayed projects all over the nation, locally, it delayed a project near Austin Minnesota that is producing enough power for 30,000 homes
Wind-Power Projects Halted Supporters See Political Motive Behind Defense Dept. Study
Kennedy doesn't play by the rules
So where was Senator Bradley on this issue? Inquiring minds want to know.
Be very careful, Bradley's plan is little more than a massive corporate subsidy. His proposal is really nothing more than a national sales tax that shifs of taxation from corporate payroll taxes to middle-class and lower-class consumers. Only the very poor get a break.
In other words......a person living in a trailer park in Clark's Grove Minnesota pays more in energy taxes so that Hormel, their employer, get a break on the 6.5% Social Security tax and unemployment taxes.
That sure does not sound like enlightened policy to me.
Thanks Richelle.
The argument that corn ethanol helps us with the infrastructure needed to make cellulosic ethanol isn't true. They require completely different plants, and the distribution was never that difficult in the first place.
Cellulosic biofuels are probably the future for biofuels. Cellulosic ethanol produces (if I remember correctly) 10 times as much energy as it takes to produce. It also doesn't take food to produce--In fact, most sources of cellulose that would be used for cellulosic ethanol are discarded. It will be several years (allegedly 10-15) before cellulosic ethanol can be produced on a large scale.
Ethanol might not even be the future alcohol biofuel that we end up using. One of the major problems with ethanol is that it can't be shipped by pipeline, which adds shipping costs and reduces the energy conversion. It also requires engine modifications to use high-level ethanol fuel. Butanol, however, is extremely similar to gasoline. It can be pumped through pipelines, and can be mixed with gasoline without engine modification. It's not necessarily the future, but it does have several significant advantages as a biofuel.
Daniel has been told endlessly that the primary use for corn-based ethanol is in a 10% blend with gasoline to supply a fuel that meets EPA standards for clean air. Why Daniel continues to deliberatly ignore this fact is beyond me, and beyond basic honesty and good manners.
It is okay to be an activist Daniel A. but it is important to be an honest activist.
Really, so what do that actual experts in the field say?
Biofuel pioneer Lee Lynd points the way toward a "carbohydrate economy"
As for you last couple of paragraphs -- please try to keep your story straight. First you claim "and the distribution was never that difficult in the first place" then you say "ethanol is that it can't be shipped by pipeline"
But the reality is that corn-based ethanol IS prompting the retrofit of pipeline to handle ethanol which will then be used by the cellulous economy.
I know it is popular to be "against ethanol" these days, too bad it is not just as popular to think critically.
Now look at history. In 1953 cars were smaller, ran on regular gasoline, and gave better mpg than the small ones we have today. Of course you have to give up a lot of goodies such as A/C, but you would do that to save some fuel wouldn't you?
The real fuel savings is that we used to grow most of our food and eat it in the same areas so transportation from around the world was not necessary. I believe we ate better too, because we had fresher and less additives in our food necessary to stop it from spoiling. The trucks also were smaller and safer, plus public transportation was more available.
Sure Ethanol helps the farmers but it helps city people more. The EPA established clean air mandates to reduce the smog that was literally killing people in our cities. Originally, we used MTBE, a petroleum derivative to reduce smog but then found that it polluted ground water and was persistently toxic. Ethanol became the most viable substitute for MTBE.
I agree with you on smaller cars. I drove a VW for years. My current Honda Civic only gets 33 mph which is not that much better than my old 1964 VW.
The future looks bright for cellulous ethanol though. We have some marvelous fuel cell technology that is perfect for Ethanol and produces 35% to 50% energy efficiency which is double that of a combustion engine.
Even if corn ethanol were such a great energy source (which it isn't by any stretch of the imagination), there isn't nearly enough to make any significant dent in our oil consumption. Only 15 billion gallons per year (and one gallon of ethanol has less energy than a gallon of gasoline) can reasonably be produced without starting food shortages, while we consume 140 billion gallons of gasoline, which isn't the only component of our oil consumption (excludes heating oil, jet fuel, diesel, etc.).
If we were really interested in promoting ethanol as a fuel source, why would we have a tariff on Brazilian ethanol from sugar cane, which is both cheaper and has better energy return? Anybody with eyes can see that corn ethanol is just another subsidy to midwestern farmers. Personally, I'd rather just give them the money.
Cellulosic ethanol is a good fuel source. Butanol is a better form to produce biofuels in. But corn ethanol is just a bad fuel source, and takes attention away to a great verity of good fuel sources.
--For every dollar ethanol producers make in profit, they receive $30 in subsidies according to the National Taxpayers Institute.
The USDA says 12 million more acres will be planted to corn this year than in 2006. Much of the new arcres come from reducing acres in soybeans, cotton, and hay which will drive up the prices of these feed stocks(Cotton seed is fed to cattle). We will also gain from some acres coming out of the conservation reserve program which is marginal ground in the first place. There is going to be less crop rotation causing more demand for ferterlizer and insecticide. Planting corn on acres used to produce corn the previous year results in lower yields.
Ethonal has caused the corn prices to double in the last year. This is great for the crop farmer who no longer has to be subsidized by loan deficiency payments. I have seen a great improvement in the moral of these farmers knowing they don't have to receive a government check to stay in business.
However, for the livestock farmer things could not be much worse. Feed cost amount 60 to 70 percent of the total cost of livestock production. Feed rations for swine and poultry are 60 to 80 percent corn. Cattle consume much less corn but hay prices as I said are on the rise as well because hay acres are being plowed to plant corn. Do the math. It is very difficult if not impossible livestock businesses to operate in the black. Cattle fed in Iowa alone is down 8% from last year. There is only one large scale egg producing operation in the US that I know of that is operating in the black. Our food costs are on the rise because of ethonal.
The main reason that ethonal producers can pay more for their corn is that they get $.52 per gallon of ethonal they produce from our government. This was obviously used to get companies to invest in ethonal production. Now in Iowa there are places that have 3 ethonal plants within 30 miles. These companies need to be weaned off their government subsidy so livestock producers can competively bid for corn. The market does a better job of distributing our corn supply than a well intentioned subsidy.
I don't know of any companies looking at switch grass as a cellulose source for ethonal production on a large scale. There is an ethonal company in my backyard that recieved a 85 million dollar government grant to produce ethonal from corn stover(stalk). The biggest challenge in this process is the harvesting, transporting and storage of the many tons of dry raw materials needed. The John Deere company is developing a modified combine to harvest both the shell corn(seed) and the stover in one pass across the field. A wet fall season could mean disaster. Shell corn can be harvested even if the stalk is wet. However, there are limited dry days in the fall that dry stover can be harvested. Another difficulty is storing the stover until needed for production. How this company plans on keeping the amount of stover needed for a year's production dry and rodent free baffles univeristy professors.
Ethonal is good for the US and is here to stay. However, we need to look to other raw sources for its production. Maybe we need to look at using surgar cane like Brazil does. Anybody know much about surgar cane?
Yes and no, and no and yes. The main problem with shipping ethanol by pipeline has to do with ethanol's tendency to mix with other batches sent through the same line.
But beyond that, the current corn ethanol production is well past the tipping point of becoming economical to rationalize devoted pipelines. As I said, corn ethanol is providing the ground-work for the cellulous ethanol economy.
The straw man of replacing ALL petroleum with corn ethanol is yours not mine or that of any other rational person. However most rational people would consider even a 10% figure as "a dent". As for energy security, we import some 30% from the gulf, ethanol has already matched a figure that is close to a quarter of that.....not bad.
Think....
The reason that we have been subsidizing corn is because we have been producing so much of it that we have destroyed the economics of our own market. Because we subsidized it, we exported it and ruined the economics of foreign corn markets like Mexico.
Now that we can actually match our corn production to our corn needs and the price rises to a natural level, one where the price actually meets the cost of production, you guys go into a panic.
So let me see, you want to import sugar that is subsidized by Brazil so you can subsidize American farmers to ship corn to Brazil.
That is a plan that must have been thought up by a Democrat!!
Great comments. It is great to read someone who knows at least a little about the subject, but again let us not lose focus on the primary use for corn based ethanol -- clean air in metropolitan areas.
Spot on.
Exactly... Of course one needs to question the wisdom of feeding corn to cattle like we do. Who knows maybe higher corn prices will mean that cattle will not have to be fed half the world's supply of bicarbonate of soda.
Switch grass, no not at this point but a lot of ethanol plants are looking ahead at what they will have to do to retrofit.
There are a couple of cellulous plants in Canada, one in Idaho and one in Louisina. These plants are beyond pilot into early production. They are at the same stage that corn ethanol was in 1995.
First of all, 15 billion gallons of ethanol isn't equivalent to 15 billion gallons of gasoline because a gallon of gasoline has only 2/3 the energy content of a gallon of gasoline. And only about half of all crude oil is turned into gasoline. All of a sudden, that 15 million gallons of gasoline is only 3 1/3% of our oil consumption. And that doesn't include the amount of oil (oil products) it takes to produce ethanol. That also doesn't include the natural gas to produce the fertilizer.
"So let me see, you want to import sugar that is subsidized by Brazil so you can subsidize American farmers to ship corn to Brazil."
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Not only is sugar ethanol cheaper, it produces FOUR TIMES the amount of energy it takes to produce--meaning not only is it easier on the taxpayer, and easier on the consumer, IT'S ACTUALLY GOOD FOR THE ENVIROMENT AND LOWERS OIL IMPORTS. Isn't that the point of producing ethanol? Anybody who's ever opened an economics textbook would know that.
"Yes and no, and no and yes. The main problem with shipping ethanol by pipeline has to do with ethanol's tendency to mix with other batches sent through the same line."
Unfortunately, that's not even the biggest problem with shipping ethanol through pipelines. Ethanol can't be shipped through pipelines because it's corrosive (It's grain alcohol, after all. Drink some moonshine and tell me it's not corrosive) and because the ethanol would absorb water in the pipeline. Butanol can be shipped through pipelines with no major problems. Butanol can be produced from any biofuel, meaning the corn farmers can still have their subsidies. It can also be used in any internal combustion engine, meaning you don't need a flex-fuel vehicle to modify it. But yet we rush to produce ethanol when it might not be the biofuel of the future.
Face it. Corn ethanol is only being promoted to get the votes of midwestern farmers and placate environmentalists into thinking something's being done.
I think we need to let the markets decide if corn is fed to cattle. There currently is a great Japense market for corn fed beef. Packers pay more for corn fed beef because they have a higher yield and more carcasses are graded prime than are grass-only fed cattle. Beef producers get more $ per pound for corn fed beef and they grow to market weight sooner than grass fed catttle.
The number one domestic use of Sodium Bicarbonate is in human food at 32% of total production. Agriculture use is SECOND with the majority being used as a cattle buffering agent. The balance is used in the manufacturing of other chemicals or products. Again, why not let the markets determine the distribution of sodium bicarbonate?
I do hope switch grass becomes a profitable resource for ethonal. However, surgar cane takes less processing to produce ethonal. I think it is something we should look into.
I agree with much of what you posted, however there are not enough midwestern farmers left to vote to have and affect on an election. Many farmers have gone broke the last few decades and moved to the cities to find a new career. The last two Iowa governors have written the rural areas off so they can concentrate on the population centers for votes.
Ethonal is big business because corn has been a cheap resource to buy and with the government offering an "enviromental" subsidy at $.52 a gallon everybody and their dog wanted a peice of the pie. Now the price of corn has doubled causing financial problems for livestock producers and increased food prices. The corn market will eventually find a new range, but we probably will never see corn lower than $2.50 bu. again unless ethonal producers are weaned of their subsidy.
I was waiting to get enouigh morons here with this global warming crap, then in a few weeks I was going to burst their tiny minds with how this is a hoax to promote what is actually more dangerous than gas.
Dang you ruined my fun!!!!!
Daniel, it would be great if you woud devote as much time to educating yourself then as you do to misinforming others. Ethanol used in a 10% blend with gasoline actually increases the performance of gasoline. It boosts the octane rating of gasoline ----- now think about that.
Good for the environment? Again you dodge the primary use of ethanol in the United States which is to comply with clean air mandates.
While you are opening your economics textbook -- think of the economics of building a cellulous ethanol plant. Imagine your are a pension fund with $2 billion to invest in, say the technology developed by Logen Corp. Would you actually invest in a plant that produces ethanol that is almost twice as expensive as that which can be purchased from Brazil?
Most economic text books will tell you that the purpose of tariffs is to protect developing markets.
No, it is only being promoted to maintain the clean air in our cities. As for this magical Brazilian market what will our citizens be breathing when the Europeans, Chinese, Indians and Japanese buy up all the ethanol from Brazil so they can breathe cleaner air?
Think about it.
I agree, the market should decide. Livestock producers and ethanol producers should compete on a level playing field without subsidies to either.
I merely brought up this point in reference to the "energy from food" slogan that gets thrown around. Odd, how people fail to understand that sugar is food.
You got me there, Lee.
Sodium Bicarbonate
Exactly. There's no economic or environmental reason to produce corn ethanol, and it shouldn't be produced. It consumes subsidies that can be better used for other renewable energy sources. There's a cheaper substitute that is good for the environment, but we put a tariff on it while subsidizing and giving tax-free status to corn ethanol. THE LAW OF COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE (if you don't know what it is, look it up) says that if something can be purchased more cheaply from another country, it should be. If sugar ethanol is better for the environment and for both our economy, Brazil's economy, and the world economy, we shouldn't be producing corn ethanol. Cellulosic ethanol is only more expensive now because the technology hasn't developed yet, but it will be less expensive in the future.
"Daniel, it would be great if you woud devote as much time to educating yourself then as you do to misinforming others. Ethanol used in a 10% blend with gasoline actually increases the performance of gasoline. It boosts the octane rating of gasoline ----- now think about that."
Fine. If we want to use ethanol as a fuel additive and not a fuel source, that's perfectly fine. Unfortunately, it's being promoted as a replacement for gasoline and it's being produced in the least productive way possible (corn). It may be a great fuel additive (I admit I haven't done much research on it as a fuel additive), but it is a horrible source of fuel, and an insignificant one at that.
You've also devoted a large portion of your comments explaining how I'm misinforming people, but have spent little time explaining what I'm misinforming them on. For all I know I may be wrong, and please inform me when I am, but it sounds like a defensive tactic at best. I know this because I've heard it all to many times by people who can't make a solid argument.
www.changingworldtech.com
I would be in favor of nuclear power ... IF it was run as a government effort and took the mismanagement and corruption away from the oil and energy industry that we seem to be snarled in today. Using nuclear energy to generate electricity, and then using electric cars would catapult the US back into the lead of the world in terms of industry again ... now why doesn't our government seem to want that.
Energy is too important a sector to have it as a private enterprise, particularly when the main component comes from a bunch of countries that want to destroy us with the money we send them. How long can we count on being able to fool them with CIA tricks, or to coerce them with military action.
I think the talk about Global Warming is way overblown. It better be because there is not much that we are going to be able to do about it until about 100 years the scientists say.
What my point is that we should never allow industry to dump into the environment again, and if the GW scare can do that I'm all for it.
The other point is that we are killing nature. It will be sheer good luck if we do not end up exterminating everything but the cow, dog, cat, cockroach and rat from this planet. We cannot cut everything up into little subdivisions and industrial parks and expect nature to adapt to something like global warming.
Why doesn't anyone seem to see this that is not a total wacko fanatic?