Augathor supports hydrogen as an alternitive fuel as posted in these forums, which takes a whole lot more energy to produce than what is returned as a viable fuel-less than alcohol production, and if it is cracked from water, this would not be supported by Christcorp as he states that ethanol production uses too much water. So, it is what a person decides to support that they will have positive opinions for. No one will ever agree what if any fuel should replace gasoline, but right now alcohol fueled cars are being produced. If mass produced hydrogen or any other alternitive becomes available that will be more cost effective, I will support it. As Christcorp has stated many times, the distribution of alcohol is mostly by tanker truck and we don't have a pipeline system. Well, there are many more alcohol plants in a specific region than oil refineries. There are only a handful of refineries in the U.S.-Go through Whiting Indiana-Half of the town is a huge refinery, and they dump a whole lot of environmentally bad crap into Lake Michigan. This is also where the Buckeye pipeline is- which runs through my backyard, and I receive shipments from the Buckeye terminal in South Bend. But when this refinery has any problem, the price of gas and diesel shoots up considerably in the midwest as this is the main refinery for the Chicago/Northern Indiana area. That is why there are more alcohol plants per region, which makes transportation costs cheaper. Also, the waste water from an alcohol plant is biodegradable plus you don't only get alcohol from the corn, you get feedstocks, corn oil, and other products used in food production. I know I sound like a broken record, but those who have toured an alcohol plant and studied the pros and cons first hand know what I am talking about. Also, a lot of new alcohol plants are locating next to both existing and former landfills here in the midwest to use the free methane coming from them-have you ever gone by a landfill and saw those big torches burning? They HAVE to burn of the methane because not only does it stink, but it IS bad for the environment, and they cap off the landfills with a layer of clay to help prevent it from escaping, they set up a pipeline to accumilate and burn it. Sounds like the alcohol plants are doing us a favor!! And unlike using solar for the production of hydrogen as Aurgathor would like to see, that wouldn't work here in most of the midwest as we are plagued by the PERMACLOUD that seems to cover the sun 50% of the year. So dis us as much as you want, but right now we are doing it and not talking about it. I'll await your negative replys!!!

 

Bdox; Just because you don't agree with something doesn't make it wrong. Or in your case; "Big Oil Company Propaganda". There is truth in every one of those points. If you want to stay closed to that, that's fine.

I do agree with you that we aren't getting any closer to meeting minds. That's because there are too many people out there that have closed their minds. You say you haven't closed your mind to all the other forms of ethanol and biofuel. My question is; what about natural gas? What about drilling natural gas in Alaska. Alaska has more than twice as much natural gas than the entire lower 48 could ever think of producing. Natural gas is the easiest energy conversion to be done to the auto industry; both past and present/future automobiles. It's better on the environment, cost less, and is much more efficient. Instead, we are WASTING our natural gas trying to use it to produce another energy (Electricity). But of course you probably aren't for drilling in Alaska and putting in a pipeline.

What about going ALL ELECTRIC and building more nuclear power plants. Nuclear power is probably the MOST efficient means of power our planet knows how to produce. It's our way of artificially creating the sun because be don't know yet how to efficiently use all the sun's energy. Nuclear power is clean and safe. (Don't even talk about 30 years ago stuff. Nuclear energy has changed so many times that unless you have studied it; you don't want to go there). The europeans; who so many want to praise and worship as a model society is getting so much more into nuclear energy. Especially the French. Did you know, that the amount of "Waste" that is produced from a nuclear power plant proportionate to what is used to create electricity for your personal home for 20 years; is small enough to fill a shoe box. And,,,, the uranium/plutonium after the 20 years of using has 97% usable components and can be rejuvenated (THE FRENCH AND MANY OTHERS CURRENTLY DO THIS); in which case, the actual left over "WASTE" is small enough to fill up a "FILM CANNISTER".

But of course there are way too many people whining and crying about nuclear is unsafe and dirty. Those people have absolutely no understanding whatsoever of nuclear energy. Talk about propaganda. A nuclear power plant can be started, built, and put online in approximately 5 years. If we built enough power plants to run "THE GRID" for our electricity; and allowed fossil fuels to be used for mobile devices like cars, trains, buses, trucks, ocean liners, and airplanes; then our fossil fuel use would be reduce by 60%. If our consumption went down, the prices would go down, the CO2 affect (man-made contribution) would go down. The economic savings would be enough to pay for the nuclear power plants.

You combine the nuclear power plants with Natural Gas use for our cars, and we will reduce fossil fuel use by 60% in 5-7 years and could be totally oil dependent from other countries within 10 years. We could also work our way to all electric cars and other transportation methods that could eliminate our fossil fuel use by 85% total. REMEMBER; WE WILL ALWAYS NEED SOME CRUDE OIL FOR THINGS LIKE PLASTICS, RUBBER, AND OTHER MATERIALS. At least until other synthetics are developed. Anyway, if you want the meeting of the minds to get closer, then show me you have an understanding of technology and that you are open to natural gas and nuclear power. If you fight these, then you obviously don't understand them.

The only reason they aren't as highly pushed is because of political reasons. The TRUTH IS; most Americans are ignorant about such issues and will believe ANYONE who sensationalizes it. When you have groups like the Sierra Club and other bunny huggers who know very little of the technology fighting and brainwashing the consumer; and oil companies fighting and brainwashing the consumer because of their interests in fossil fuels; politicians are PUSSIES because they only care about being voted for. They rationalize by saying; "I can't do any good if I'm not elected". But then when they are elected they are afraid to do what's right because they are afraid of losing support to stay in office or they've been bought off.

 

I am backing alcohol fuels, not as the ultimate, but as a practical low-tech solution to getting rid of dependence on gasoline. Same with biodiesel fuels. It's easy, it IS doable and it is important for to obvious political and economic reasons and also the fact that it is an improvement as far as air pollution is concerned. I do NOT promote biofuels to the exclusion of all alterntives.

But we do have a financial hemmorage going on and we need to stop it FAST. It seems that biofuels are the fastest. If we use all the various crops rather than trying to use only one (corn,) we would learn pretty quickly which is best.

We can continue to develop other technologies over time, but we do need to break the petroleum habit ASAP.

Hell, even if we don't save money, at least the money stays in the country and employs Americans.

 

:lol: Can't talk about anything here in a relevant post.

I like nuclear power, but the industry is so heavily regulated that making any profit is nigh unto the impossible. I know that nuclear power's biggest pollutant is actually heat. It's enough heat to keep a lake from freezing in winter!

Natural gas is used as heat in almost half of American homes. In the warm parts of the year, NG is cheaper. But during the winter it is many times the normal price. Plus NG has the same storage problems as hydrogen, you either have to store it as a cold liquid or as a compressed gas. There is actually a home refueling unit available for the CNG honda civic. The current problems with depending on fossil fuels for the future is excessive drilling regulation and refining regulations.

In the end, the problems aren't just supply but regulations making them unprofitable therefore nonviable in the market. Plus utility industry as a whole is regulated far more than any other industry. That's my view on that problem. Regulation is something I can't directly change without getting directly involved with politics.

And if I was in charge I'd probably order all greenies, treehuggers, and peaceloving hippies be promptly reeducated. Choosing a homegrown fuel system like electricity or ethanol seems much more appealing to the individual who doesn't have the ambition of changing everyone's world. Like me for example.

 

I am a car guy, a truck guy. I like cars and trucks and I want to be able to own and enjoy cars and trucks as I know them. If I have to modify them a little to continue to enjoy them, so be it. I am also, fed up with OPEC! That's where I am coming from.

If I were the king/tyrant, I would provide grants to study nuclear fusion. But even without becoming an expert on nuclear power, I am inclined to resist it as it is now.

I do know that right now, they are looking for a place to store nuclear waste from OTHER STATES, and they want to store it in MY STATE. I think that they should keep it themselves. Back in 1970 when we were involved in debate about nuclear energy, I said OK, let's put it to a vote. Everyone who votes for it, gets their electricity from nuclear power plants and the also get to keep their share of the nuclear waste. Well that didn't happen, but the plant got built and now I am faced with the asses wanting to store that waste near my place!!! WTF? But I'm glad to hear that it is safe, so now maybe the will keep their nuclear waste and not bother me with it.

Oh, and sorry if you don't want to know about thirty years ago, but that crap just doesn't go away!

 

Cool Man!!!

 

"And if I was in charge I'd probably order all greenies, treehuggers, and peaceloving hippies be promptly reeducated."

Yep. Pollution is wonderful and we can trust industry to care for our safety and that of the planet without intervention. Anyone who points out problems is actually the cause of the problems...

Corn ethanol is already causing economic and ecological blowback:

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/01...to-corn-bubbl/

, but cellulosic ethanol may be a solution to the problem.

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/...t?OpenDocument

 

appearently you haven't bought methanol lately Ken. I by it a lot in bulk to use in the making of Bio diesel and it's over $3/gal last summer and has gone up, they are expecting it to be over $4/gal be next spring and possibly higher then that. Also in a drag car Methanol is no where near only 20% reduction in mileage, you litterly double the amount of methanol to gas to get eh same power (and even then on the dyno a alky engine still losses power vs a gas engine)

BTW that 3-4/gal cost is without ANY road use taxes, because it's either sold as race fuel which has no road taxes or sold as a ingredient for further manufacturing (either bio diesel or for blenders of windshield washer fluid, which is how i buy it). it hasn't been under $1/gal for a couple of years now.

Oh and the reason the gov isn't pushing it is the major source of methanol in this country is????? And why Methanol isn't discussed much is because it comes from what major source currently???? oh yeah fossil fuels, the current prefered method of producing methanol is from natural gas and coal.

 

known any farmers, well lets see my wife is a farmers daughter as is my ex wife, I also was a farmer, I live in the mid west in the heart of farm country, in a small community that is supported by farm and ag industry and until about 10yrs ago I too was a farmer. and I will say this, farm program needs to go away. The farm subsidy program is giving the country some of the biggest headaches in the world and uses more tax dollars to support then welfare for parents of dependent children, so what does that make farmers if not welfare recipients.
Have you actually every looked at the government list of farm program payments made to individuals? apparently you haven't thus being misinformed so let me enlighten you. I have looked at that list and yes even my name is on it although I did manage to keep the amount I have collected below the six figure range unles some 400 pages worth of names that haven't been under that figure or the several pages of names that are well into the 7 figure numbers. Now tell me how many other single individuals have collected 7 figure handouts as individuals except farmers? Yes some industries people have but only farmers collect that type of money and the amount of money that is spend on farm handouts is hidden in so many budgets the true number is not even know. Who else in this country is paid thousands and thousands of dollars per year to sit on thier butts and do nothing with millions of acres of land. The CRP program is in fact one example of the absolute absurdity of the farm program payments.
BTW the current limit is $360,000 per year per SSN (thus the wife can also collect that, and the kids and the dog when you get them a SSN) and it's stated that thousands of farmers have figured out loop holes to by pass that limit, now why would you need to pass that limit if your not just trying to milk the government tit?

What I find completely insulting is the farm lobby in this country crying foul about European farmers receiving government subsidies and how it's making things unbalanced in the world trade and how our government needs to be pushing for trade sanctions against those other countries and whinning when say Germany puts a surcharge on ag imports from the us. Then can totally ignore the Trillions of dollars of direct government hand outs they have received claiming it's not a government subsidy? Talk about hypocritical and why I was actually embarrased at times to admit I was a farmer.

in 2003 the median household income in the us was $43,318, the median farm program payment recipients received $75,772 and that was JUST reported farm program payments.

 

monckywrench, you are the first greenie to be reeducated. Fertilizers use nitrogen, potash, and phosphates, and those increase phyto, proto, and zooplankton in lakes, ponds, and rivers. Many private pond owners who become greatly interested in increasing the size and/or quantity of fish in their pond can typically add fertilizer mixtures into their pond to create more food for the pond's food chain. A good plankton bloom that puts visibility between 18"-24" increase the pond's entire biomass into the ideal "green" zone. The downside to this is that it will turn the pond into a thick pea soup green, too thick is really bad but it will be thick and green either way. This "deadzone" in the gulf is merely heavily fertilized water, as it flows out into the ocean farther it will actually feed the many fish food chains of the Gulf of Mexico and where DO reaches acceptable levels for fish it will get even better for the entire fish populations. Fertilizer is a good thing, so long as it doesn't build too of density and creates a DO crash.

Oi vey, this is difficult to explain to people who don't know spend alot of time learning what dissolved oxygen + high nutrient levels to biomass is. The mississippi river has plenty of oxygen because it is a fast moving river so these nutrients increase the plant and fish populations in the river itself without creating buildup of the toxic ammonia produced from fish's digestive systems(poop). But once the nutrients reach the slower but moving oceanic currents, the effects will become positive to everyone. But the nutrients will build up in spots like they have in the Gulf of Mexico and reduce oxygen levels as the plant and fish populations explode. The fertilizers used does basically provide a nutrient boost for plant life in crops and this boosts microscopic plant life in the rivers near farmland and provides more food for the entire food chain as it spreads into the ocean. I've heard of cases where ponds and lakes turning soup green after rain brought lawn fertilizers or agricultural fertilizers or the owner simply overfertilized.

The problem with increased agricultural activity is not with fertilizers it is with pesticides and herbicides. Now that stuff is deadly to all but the hardiest fish and plant life. How do I know this? I used to lurk the Pondboss forums long before I got my Ranger . The higher nutrient levels increase animal life which in turn increases consumption of dissolved oxygen which lowers oxygen levels in the water and can kill fish in areas where the oxygen drops too low and can suffocate them. Then these rotting fish use more oxygen to decompose and only makes it worse. Typically ponds and lakes suffer most from fertilizer overdoses and in some ponds high temperatures in the summer and decaying plant life from lack of sunlight can lead to large loss of fish life. In some cases it can kill enough fish that the pond becomes nothing but water. In most cases it will kill some or most of the large animal life, which is mostly just fish. Fish like bullheads, carp, and green sunfish are notorious for overtaking ponds because they survive very low DO levels. They can overpopulate after a DO crash elimiminates all competitors and predators. Fish in the ocean have a better chance for combatting this because there is an ocean for them to spread out into and they can return to the deadzones to feed on easy to catch high density prey.

 

Between 150ford and monsterbaby we got the words for the inspiration of "International Harvester." "I'm the son of a third generation faaarmmer. Been married ten years to a faaaarmmer's daugh-ter. Got two boys in the country 4-h. Life time sponsor of the FFA. Heeey..."

I could can (almost ) finish the song but you have to admit. That song was inspired by the hard worker farmers out there chugging along at 5 miles an hour. How much you take in subsidies is your business but if you're making more money to NOT farm your land, then crop prices are too low anyway. That cannot be blammed on farmers, that is their life, their job and the reason for subsidies. Finding new or better uses for crops is just another way to get more out of our farmland and keep more farmers working their land without government assistance. With farming as efficient as it is these days it's pretty self-explanatory why crops are so cheap. 56lbs of corn for $4 as an example. There is such a thing as getting more efficient use of a given land. If we're using more land for their intended or most profitable purposes than we are improving the value of the land we stand on. Fallow land may be pretty to those who just love nature and the outdoors but if noone is using it not even for wildlife habitat, then it's worthless until you find a purpose for the land. My dad and I love to go camping/fishing and many times we've camped out in the cold or in places where we were the only people outside for miles upon miles. Land is one of the most precious commodities that we are blessed with. More precious than oil, more precious than diamonds, but never as precious as people. Unused land benefits less people than used land. It's a very basic issue here. It is my belief that animals have value, land has great value, but people were and still are more valueable than any other resource or thing on this planet or in the known universe. Anything that produces a net benefit to people is always worth investing into. That will be the sign that using fuels will be a good choice in the end.

Can we agree on any of these things mentioned thus far?

 

Thanks for the so-called education.

I read about the "dead zone" as far back as 1955, including pretty much what you stated in an article in National Geographics. More recent articles in Science News have referred to the same ideas you are talking about.

But you didn't mention what your point is.

 

I hate that song international harvestor too, it's a prime example of what is wrong with the farm attitude lately being you owe me and what i want is more important then you thus i deserve all that i am given cause i have worked for it. I can honestly tell you if I had been caught blocking traffic like that song mentions with the attitude that it's my road and you can just deal with it or get on the freeway my old man would have kicked my **** and I would kick the **** of my son if I ever catch him acting like that song.
Farmers do NOT own the road and in fact the farm lobby has worked endlessly to get out of paying almost all road use taxes (offroad diesel comes to mind, how about off hiway tires being exempt from excise taxes that help pay for road, or the heavy vehicle use tax farmers are exempt from paying that pays for roads) and in Iowa farmers are actually exempt from or have reductions in a large portion of property taxes (funny the precentage is almost dead equal to the amount of property taxes that pays for roads) basically keep the farm equipment off the road, the lobby has been successful to keep them from paying for them so they shouldn't be allowed to use them with equipment that is specifically labelled off road use ONLY.

Funny thing is most know that i am a proponent of ethanol, just not my tax dollars going to all the farm programs.

 

http://serc.carleton.edu/microbelife/topics/deadzone/

"Nutrient overloading and algal blooms lead to eutrophication (link to USGS definition), which has been shown to reduce benthic (link to definition) biomass and biodiversity. Hypoxic water supports fewer organisms and has been linked to massive fish kills in the Black Sea and Gulf of Mexico.

The Gulf of Mexico is a major source area for the seafood industry. The Gulf supplies 72% of U.S. harvested shrimp, 66% of harvested oysters, and 16% of commercial fish (Potash and Phosphate Institutes of the U.S. and Canada, 1999). Consequently, if the hypoxic zone continues or worsens, fishermen and coastal state economies will be greatly impacted."

BTW I'm not a "greenie", I just prefer to make good use of both land and marine resources.

 

Well I think farmers pay there fair share off property taxes an fuel tax to support the highways. If they have a semi to haul there grain or straight truck they pay the road tax. I presume the biggest gripe is farmers hauling grain to town with there tractors an big gravity wagons. No they do not pay fuel for use in there tractors. Right or wrong thats the way it is. My property tax has went up about 50% in the last ten years due to increasing land values off the land. As a taxpayer farmers have payed a ton off money inproperty taxes in the last year. Agriculture in effect has supported the state off Nebraska no matter how you look at it. Like I said is the system perfect no. The subsidy program has been used an abused. The CRP I thought was a good program it kept highly erodible land out off production. Now that crop prices are high a lot off that land is going back in to production. To me that is a bad thing. All the fertilizer an runoff from this land will pollute our waters. Like the previous poster said all that water will go down tto the Gulf off Mexico an do irrepairable harm. What price can you put on that. Yah maybe farm programs shpuld be eliminated. Then that would be the end off the use an abuse off it. Or it needs to be reformed or something. Then you look at it another way what would have farmers done in all those years when crop prices were cheap. Way below the cost off production. Maybe that would have been a good thing. We just wouldnt have planted a crop period. Reduced the supply naturally. Yes I have looked at that list off subsidy recipients an its not a pretty list whatsoever. Out off all the farmers listed. The top 37% got the most payments. An 60% off farmers recieved no payment. Not fair at all. Some off the biggest ricipients were the cotton an rice farms down south an not from the midwest althought the majority off payments went to corn growers.

All in all ethanol has been a great thing. The goverment is paying much less in goverment farm support then just 2 years ago. When the subsidy list is updared it should reflect that an were reducing our dependance on foreighn oil. Is it perfect No buit its all we have right now.

BTW Monsterbay you said you quit farming 10 years ago. Why an what are you doing now. Just curious? Do your wifes folks farm. Do they agree with your thoughts on subsidies?

As a livestock producer an crop farmer it can be tww edge sword. Livestock guys are most times on there own. Yah they might have dusaster program or twoo some years but most off the time your in it alone there are no susidies for livestock. Unless you wanna count about 11 years ago when the hog market blew up an hogs were worth only $10.00 per hundred weight. The goverment had a program where it would pay you so much a hog but I think those prices wiped out most small producers around my area.

Like any goverment program there is fraud an waste. Look at our Medicare. There was so much abuse in that in its erlier years it was terrible. I dont know how many millions off dollars were bilked from that when medical procedure were billed twice for the same thing. Right now its policed much more then it was in its earler days but it still went on.

I think the era off the small farm is over. Bigger an bigger operations are the norm off today just to offset expenses. Yes farmers have recieved huge payments for vrop production over the years but they have huge espenses too. Have you looked atwhat it costs to put a crop in manymore. Or the cost off machinery. Its a heck off a risky business right now to be in. Like I said earlier farmers support the state off Nebraska as well as the other farming states including Iowa. The majority off farmers I know are hard working an yes they are the backbone off the country. Yes there are a few rotten apples but if one person commits a crime does that mean everybody does pff course not. Next time you go in the grocery sstore an buy your food thank the farmers. Without them you would be starving to death. Just come around my small town an see what farmers are all about. If you ever had trouble or needed help they would be the first to offer it an do anything to help you no matter who you were thats just the way they are. If one off you guys would break down on the highway an I was around I would be the first to help you thats just the way I am. I would stop an see what you needed. No matter who you were. Thats the way I am.

Hey I hope we can all agree to disagree thats what a forum is all about. You guys have made some great points an thoughts on this issue. Agree or disagree it makes us think about what people are thinking outide off the box so to say.