Great link there Thosfsull!!! Finally-the truth-especially about the subsidies!!!
Why are oil companies still getting them? Also, it sets straight the debate about refining ect... Gas/diesel ect... is not refined by the energy free refining fairy!!! In fact, it takes alot of energy to drill, ship, refine and distribute oil based products. As was predicted, gas will top $4 a gal. and diesel is almost $4.50 in some places.

 

Yea, that ethanol is really a good thing. We keep burning food while countries are having civil wars over starvation. Demand is up, and now brazil is trying to find a way of increasing their sugar cane production into the Amazon without pissing off the international world. (Yea, take out more vegetation. The one and only thing , along with the oceans that can actually neutralize CO2). Yea, that sugar can will make up for it. Then, because you need all this land for corn, sugar cane, etc..., and the land will go dead from over planting, we dump tons of Nitrogen and other fertilizers into the soil. (Overseas use some fertilizers that we have even banned for our use). Of course, those fertilizers get into the rivers and streams and sometimes even into the oceans. Then there's all these droughts. But instead, we will irrigate our corn fields. And the natural evaporation, condensation, and precipitation process that the rain forest does on it's own won't be there if Brazil is allowed to press into the Amazon. That's ok, they can keep irrigating. And to top it all off, ethanol isn't all that much better for the environment.

But that's OK. Many people are going to believe that we are making ourselves more independent of oil from those mean and hateful arabs. Even though the 2 largest countries we import oil from is Canada and Mexico. And it OK, because people won't consider that part of the reason for oil prices going so high is because of the NEW DEMAND from places like China and India. Our ethanol production isn't going to slow down the oil use at all. And it's OK because people don't even realize that each day more and more of the scientists and supposed experts on the whole global warming/climate change concern are starting to second guess and doubt if the CO2 levels are actually having the effect they thought. Many are even doubting if we are truly going into a global warming.

Our country, including Alaska, has more than enough oil/gas reserves to serve our country for the next 50 years which is plenty of time for technology to catch up. Unfortunately, the environmentalists who are all so knowing and caring, won't allow any new drilling, new refineries, or even uncapping of existing wells. Some say it would cost too much, but when you consider the effect it has on the lowering of the unemployment rate, the economics would actually go positive.

The right answer is to allow the technology we have to work for us instead of allowing a bunch of people who speak out of emotion instead of facts tear us away. If we combine our hydro, wind, solar, and MOST of all Nuclear energy technologies, we would have no need for fossil fuels other than for commercial transportation such as ships, trains, plains, and other portable uses. For all the money they want to subsidize and invest in ethanol and their political campaigns, they could build a heck of a lot of nuclear power plants. I wonder how many people even know that we have 104 nuclear power plants in our country. And that the nuclear power accounts for almost 20% of our nation's electricity. And with modern nuclear technology, the waste is so minimal. Everyone loves talking about how great Europe is. Well, check out France. They produce 75% of their electricity from Nuclear. They are the world LARGEST EXPORTER OF ELECTRICITY because nuclear is so cheap. They PROFIT 3 Billion Euros a year; $4,5 billion dollars. What a concept.

If we would just double our nuclear power, wind, solar, and hydro production, we could cut our fossil fuel consumption down by about 30-40%. Then, as CLEAN electricity became the norm, our automobile technology could evolve into electric and we would reduce our fossil fuel usage down to 20% of what it is today. This could all be done in 10 years. Our economy would grow. Unemployment would reach even lower levels than the 4% was. And for all those worried about greenhouse gases, they would even go down.

But no. Instead, keep concentrating on things like ethanol. Feel good about an alternative fuel; even if it's not as good as you think. Keep WASTING money on campaigns fight a system instead of truly fixing the problem. The answer isn't finding another liquid fuel to replace oil/gas. The answer is to use totally different technology. Electricity is the one source of energy that has the potential of being created at a high enough efficiency level to make everyone happy. The economy, the environmentalists, etc... But as long as people close their eyes to nuclear, solar, wind, and hydro to make ELECTRICITY; we will continue on. Instead, we will wast billions on hydrogen cars, ethanol production, killing our soil and water supply because of the over planting for ethanol. We'll keep letting people die of starvation by burning food instead of eating it.

But keep on believing nuclear is so bad. Did you know that what happened at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant; even for extrapolating out to 2005, and giving the benefit of the doubt that some people were dying because of long term problems; that ONLY 56 people's deaths have been linked to that nuclear accident. 22 year later, and only 56 deaths. Yet, in the last 17 years, we average approximately 45 deaths per year in COAL MINES. If you really want to gain independence, make it ENERGY independence and not OIL independence. Let us grow food so we can feed ourselves and others around the world. Let us become energy independent by going all electricity by nuclear, wind, solar, and hydro. Let's use our own LOCAL Oil and gas for our mass portable requirements such as ships, trains, planes, etc... Let's not let the Brazilians cut down the rain forests of the Amazon. This is what we should be doing. Ethanol and similar things are nothing more than politics in action. It's a way to continue to subsidize farmers and companies like ADM. It's a way for a politician to work off the emotions of the common citizen using their ignorance instead of educating them on the truth.

 

I agree that corn ethanol is not a viable solution. However, there are other sources and other ways to produce bio-fuels that do not eat into the world's food supply. Here are a couple of examples:

North Carolina State University :: Biomass to Gas
North Carolina State University :: Biofuel Bonanza

Plug-in hybrids are another way to reduce oil usage. These are capable of operating solely on electricity for short trips, but have a conventional IC engine to extend the range once the battery charge is depleted. North Carolina State University :: Closer to Reality

 

The Blume guy is decent, he explains corn is garbage for ethanol really for it. Way better yield elsewhere plus he also is big into the natural movement of farming.

Here is a review from a site I peak at everyday. it does get a wee bit tinfoilish in parts, but what do you expect? My book and DVD has not come as of yet. I will post more after I see it. I figure some would be interested in it.

Review:Alcohol can be a Gas - PESWiki

 

Some just don't get it. ANY TYPE OF LIQUID FUEL that you put into the car is defeating the purpose. It is still messing up the environment. Either in the air through emissions, or through the land and water in producing the liquid fuel. Anyway you want to look at it, it's not FIXING the environment. Any mention of bio-fuels, hydrogen, etc... is nothing more than a band-aid; and a TERRIBLE one at that. If you care about the environment and our energy independence, then all new cars need to be electric. And that electric needs to be created from non-organic matter. Nuclear, Solar, Wind, and Hydro. Any organic matter will adversely affect the environment.

Existing cars, as well as long haul transit such as boats/ships, airplanes, long haul trucking, etc... can stay conventional fossil fuels. If you take fossil fuel out of the equation for electrical power plants, which then means no need for fossil fuels for homes and the vast majority of automobiles, then the use of fossil fuels can be reduced by more than 75% in less than 10 years.

Any talk of ethanol, bio-diesel, other bio-fuels, etc... are all political actions. They do nothing for fixing the real problem. The don't make a significant different to the environment. They don't make a significant reduction of our petroleum use and the prices. They only affect the employment and economics of a few special interest groups and companies. They do NOT FIX THE PROBLEM. Nuclear, Solar, Wind, and Hydro affect our unemployment rate; directly improve and affect the environment; directly reduce our need and use for foreign fossil fuels; and directly improves the economics of all citizens. Anything talked about at the organic level is a band-aid, a waste of money and time, and is only perpetuated for political reasons.

 

Well you're right that solar (which also includes wind power) is the only energy source into our environment. Everything else is already here or was created by the sun in the past.

What do you do with all the nuclear waste? It may be better than coal, but it certainly isn't perfect. The same goes for hydro-power. Not long ago Hoover dam was opened full drain to re-create sandbars in the Colorado river that would normally have formed had the dam not been there. Hydroelectricity would be cleaner for the air, but it also is not without environmental issues. The only way we can not pollute is to return to being hunter/gatherers and live off the land much like the natives did before Columbus. I don't see that happening, nor do I see the world reducing dependence on oil and liquid fuels.

If material that would normally be sent to get buried in a landfill can be used to fuel our lives, why would that be a bad thing? We could at least get another use out of it before adding that CO2 to the atmosphere. That would be better than the waste just sitting in the landfill off-gassing, right?

Ultimately, liquid fuels might be the wrong direction, but the status quo is not working. I applaud the effort to make a change, whether or not it will be a change that is beneficial is still personal opinion at this point.

 

You guys REALLY need to take a look around! All this BS about the subsidies and the higher cost of food? Did you know that RIGHT NOW- this country has millions of bushels of surplus corn that is sitting in piles waiting to be used? Obviously not!
And as far as blaming opec and the oil companies for the high costs?" Reality check- Take a good hard look at wal street and you will find the culprit! And if that isnt enough, take a good hard look at OUR EPA! They are also to blame! Do your home work before you throw out unfounded accusations! The problem started right here at home and it will end here!

 

I definitely agree that the commodity exchange is what ultimately controls the price per barrel. I have said that on a number of occasions. OPEC does however contribute largely to the price of oil. My argument was that it isn't the big bad oil companies causing all the problem.

I personally don't have any real problems with using oil. I don't believe that mankind is the evil being that is causing greenhouse gases and global warming (Climate change). There are however a lot of good and valid reasons besides the climate that would be good for getting away from fossil fuels. My argument is that if you want to become energy independent and lower the price down, then organic fuels are not the answer. Things like ethanol are only a political means for votes. It doesn't fix the problem at all.

Of course there stock piles of corn. It's pretty difficult to go straight from the field to whatever processing you want done. Whether it's food or ethanol. There will always be a reserve. That is factored in. Nothing is manufactured or processed without having a stock pile. If you didn't have that, processing of whatever would have high and low periods. That's not good business. Plus, there stock pile is also in case of partial disaster such as weather, flood, etc... We have a 60 stock pile of oil in the national oil reserve, but that doesn't affect the price of oil on the street.

The point is, corn and other food items do NOT need to be used as a fuel. They need to be eaten. Most importantly, directly making fuel from food sources causes just as many problems for the environment as does oil. Might as well just stick with oil. Recycling of grease, oil, etc... for making bio-diesel is obviously a smart idea. Growing a crop specifically to be used as fuel is utterly ridiculous.

And for all those anti-nuclear folks out there; there is a big difference between nuclear energy and a bomb dropped on Hiroshima. Unfortunately, that is what most people consider nuclear energy. That somehow, if there's a problem at a nuclear power plant, that the whole world is going to blow up. If we could get the ignorance out of people's minds, we wouldn't be in this situation today. Nuclear energy is safe. It's safer than coal and oil. In it's production and usage. And for all those that think we are going to have some big nuclear waste problem, PLEASE, PLEASE, read up on it. The so called nuclear waste is recyclable. It is put right back into the system. The equivalent amount of nuclear waste from a nuclear power plant, after a year of operation and recycling, is approximately enough to fix into a box 3ft by 3ft by 3ft. AND, it is less radioactive than the natural uranium was when it was first mined out of the ground.

So, my position basically is;
1. The price of oil is not because of the oil companies. It's because of the commodity exchange and opec/non opec price agreements.
2. Any organic fuel that is grown specifically for the purpose of becoming fuel is worse for the environment and the health of the people on the planet than the fossil fuels.
3. Recycling organic matter such as for bio-diesel is a good idea, but it couldn't come close to making an impact on the price of oil and gas.
4. Organic alternatives such as ethanol are nothing more than a political stunt to gain votes through subsidies and catering to both sides. It's the one energy that the oil companies and the customer BOTH like. Oil companies because they know that there's no way we can replace even a small percentage of oil with it; and the customer because they believe that it's cleaner and better than oil. Both HATE NUCLEAR because it puts oil out of business and customers are afraid. Democrats have always claimed the republicans were trying to scare the people with terrorism and 9/11, well both political sides have scared the people with nuclear.
5. The answer to all our energy needs that are fixed in place, or local mobility, is electric. That electric needs to be made out of non-organic sources such as Nuclear. Solar, wind, and hydro can augment it. (Once a dam is built and the hydro established, they can get the river to flow exactly the way it had been prior to building the dam.)
6. Long haul transportation such as ships, plane, trucking, etc... should stay fossil fuel until technology catches up.
7. We will always have a need for some fossil products such as crude oil. We just don't need to BURN it. We need it to make roads, make plastics, rubber, etc.... But for energy, we don't need it.
8. I believe that we can open up drilling in our country/alaska, and provide enough oil/gas for the next 50 years. We can directly affects the economy and the prices if we were to do so. We could become 75% independent.
9. Any and all money and research should be put into non-organic fuel replacements. Anything organic is a waste of that money; hurts the planet; hurts the people; and doesn't bring us any closer to becoming free of fossil fuels.
10. And change, because it's "Change" and therefor the motives are good, should not be applauded. Sounds like an OBAMA slogan. "Change we can believe in". Well, raising taxes 25% is change. Raising unemployment to 10% is change. Giving up our sovereignty to international agencies is change. Just because there is change doesn't make it good. You might be frustrated with the existing status quo, but changing it for change sake is not the answer. MOST times, it's worse.

 

Very well written and very well thought out, I appreciate your thoughts and your opinions. I don't agree on all counts, but there's no harm in that. I agree very much that food products shouldn't be at the forefront of alternative fuels. I can't say what will be the means of powering our personal transportation ultimately, but maybe biofuels are the temporary bandaid needed to ease the transition to something else and spur the technologies to keep moving forward.

 

CCMike, you're correct in post 170#, some just don't get it. But you are halfway one of them that 'don't get it'. The 'food burning' arguement is nonsense, it just isn't happening. That is an oil industry line designed to scare people away from what is a very real and helpful technology. There is more than enough food on the planet, but governments and evil men who love money are buying it all to use as a weapon against people they deem uncooperative. Right now, the oil industry loves ethanol, cause they make money on it, and it is only at 10% strength in most fuel. The 85% stuff scares the hell out of them, because they fear that people may begin to realize that there really are alternatives to their products. That is not knowledge the oil industry wants people to have. You are quite correct that corn is not the best way to do things. Yes, there are distiller's grains left over, but one can get twice the output of gallons of ethanol from sugar beets, sweet potatoes, sorghum and more than twice as much from miscanthus gigantuem. The notion that cellulose ethanol is not figured out is another oil industry BS idea. The Russians were making ethanol from woodchips in 1943. It isn't new or difficult. Miscanthus grows damn near anyplace, and doesn't need fetilizer. I've often wondered why that 100ft strip of grass between the lanes of the nation's interstates isn't filled with miscanthus.......thats alot of acres in those grass strips. But miscanthus G. grows more than 12 feet tall. And then the state troopers couldn't easily turn around in the median and generate major bucks from speeding tickets. So don't look for any help from your government.
Global warming is real, it is happening now, and it is our fault. But it isn't because too many of us are driving trucks. Deforestation is a big problem, but not just at farms. In my State, Michigan, the usual practice for building a subdivision is to buy a 160 acres of woods, bulldoze every tree on the place and burn it right there. No making firewood or lumber or anything. But is quick and easy for the developer. I'd rather live in a home surrounded by trees, but thats just me. But the real dirty birds in the GW problem are the coal fired power plants. Just one coal fired power station throws out more GW accellerants than do thousands of automobiles.
Now where I like your thinking, Mike, is on the nuclear power issue. The Chernoble reactor was constructed in a style most nations know better than to use. We can and should use many more nuke plants and we should change the US laws that don't allow the 'nuclear waste' to be reused and recycled. But nuclear power stations have all that extra heat left over. So you see the huge cooling towers at the nuke plants. Some of the anti-ethanol types complain that the heat inputs required for distillation make ethanol a net energy loss, they're incorrect about it being a net loss, but just imagine how much more efficient it could be if the distillery used someone else's waste heat......Nukes and distillerys right next door to each other, makes sense to me. But it won't happen any time soon, because the oil industry knows that lots more nukes would be a total game changer, and not to their benefit. And it is the oil industry that tells our gov't what to do, and when to do it. Neat discussion. DinosaurFan, on work's old 'puter

 

WOW-An intelligent conversation with VERY good opinions! You guys all have great ideas and great input here- I think we need to start by getting a few people that have the ability as well as the nads to say these things into more public offices! Think the oil companies are scared of ethanol? wait till people started having public debates like this and then watch a bunch of politicians start shakin in their patent leathers! Great conversation guys!

 

Seaweed can be used for ethanol, grown in nets and placed into the Dead zone in the Gulf, it grows fast and can restore the damage done from the Mississippi River pollution.

Blume dissolves the BS about alky-based fuels in his book. Including the food vs Fuel argument that people enjoy reciting. America uses GM corn, which only a handful of nations will accept.

Genetically modified food - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

All I am saying is take your time, watch the videos on his page, and think about it. That is all.

I do agree that other sources of power are valid and should be used also. I have no problem with nuke, wind, tidal, solar, etc....

Biodiesel is fine by me too. However the amount of diesels vs gassers are the issue.

 

I personally am not too concerned about those starving around the world directly. But, as long as there are those that are, burning food for fuel just doesn't seem ethical. Plus, I'm not too worried about the 10% ethanol. It's when we start pushing for 85% ethanol that I see major ecological problems. Problems with our soil; water supply; other burnoffs and side products of burning it; etc... I just believe that we should take a stand on the energy issue and go one of two ways.

1. Agree that fossil fuels aren't the evil everyone believes, and allow us to get the fossil fuels from our own country. We have plenty for our needs for the next 50 years. We don't have to go 100% independent from the world; that isn't good politically; but we can provide enough to force the markets to bring the prices back down to a reasonable level.

2. If however we can't agree that fossil fuels isn't the evil of the world; and that is is causing all these greenhouse gases and other problems; then we need to go to the other extreme. We have to get rid of organic energy source as much as possible. That means no fossil fuel for power plants, homes, cars, etc... No ethanol. No bio-fuels. etc... For every argument about fossil fuels being a problem for the planet and ecology, there are just as many arguments against the other organic fuels. The only things that should use fossil fuels would be portable devices that have no way of "Pulling over". e.g planes, trains, ships, grandfathered vehicles, etc... All new vehicles need to be electric and the electric needs to be made from non-organic means. Nuclear is my preference.

This is what we need to decide on. Ethanol is not a good answer or a good band-aid. Of course at the 10% level, oil companies like it because it actually makes us use more gasoline. At 85% WE SHOULDN'T like it because it's going hurt our planet in trying to grow it, fertilize it, water irrigation, polution, etc... And at 85%, we will be spending too much money and effort on it to the point where it too will become too political. We will then be trenched into ethanol and other organic fuels.

The right answer is education. We need to educate the people that nuclear is safe. Make all our electricity from nuclear, solar, wind, and hydro, and we immediately reduce our CO2 emmisions by more than 40%. We reduce our fossil fuel usage by approximately 50%. Newer cars will start becoming ELECTRIC technology, which will reduce our oil use by another 30%. We could take our fossil fuel usage down by almost 80% in 10 Years. I wouldn't worry about the rest of the planet. As we go this direction, others will see it and emulate us.

Unfortunately, this is what I would do if I was in charge. Unfortunately, I'm not. Instead, we will be listening to the same garbage that Ford, Carter, Regan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush have said about us becoming energy independent. It is all a bunch of crap. Obama or McCain will tell us exactly the same crap. It won't change until it's political and the government can control it. It won't change until the oil companies, ADM, and others can make more money with it than with oil and ethanol. It won't change until we tell the government NO MORE SUBSIDIES to farmers, ADM, Oil Companies, etc...

 

I am just looking to cut the costs of operating a bunch of gassers for my dad's contracting business. I am from NJ, opposite Philly and the gas is killing us for the econolines, even though Jersey has some of the cheapest gas prices in the region.

I have a bucket truck that is a gasser with a 427 industrial and the back motor doesn't work. So it has to idle to run it. 8 hours running straight doing shopping center lighting up past 40ft all the time. I am just looking to cut my costs in this bad economy and survive through. I can't afford a Diesel-Hyrbid bucket from International at 150K plus now.

 

What about methanol? I understand it can be made from things that aren't very edible, like wood. It does have drawbacks, but they're easier to overcome than switching to hydrogen.