Now this is the kind of post we can really get our teeth into -- for it certainly seems that we can find resources to suggest higher "bbl or pump" prices, like yours; or, much lower prices, like mine:
4 July 2006 www.economy.com/dismal
"Despite the onset of the Northern Hemisphere winter, in the fourth quarter of the year, a further erosion of the oil price is foreseen, taking Brent back to the low US$60s. Further rapid supply growth in the fourth quarter will once again soak up increased demand, with an overall surplus of just over 1m b/d envisaged. Canada, Iraq, Angola, Nigeria, Norway, and Brazil are forecast to lead supplies higher in the fourth quarter.
Moody’s Economy.com foresees rapid supply growth continuing to exceed that enjoyed by demand over the next couple of years. Indeed, supply growth should accelerate in 2007 and 2008, as we increasingly start to see the fruits from the previous price rally begin to feed through into heightened capacity growth.
For now, we return to Moody’s Economy.com’s underlying forecast of further oil surpluses, and no great escalation in geopolitical uncertainty, taking oil back below US$50 by late 2007, and falling into the low US$40s by the summer of 2008. Crude oil prices are forecast to fall, as the global market increasingly realises that the recent past was not in fact undersupplied."
Their analysis seems to be for lower prices for years (at least two.)
Long term? Well, I am of the mind that does believe we are using up a limited supply of oil. However, we are literally talking about that limitation based on today's data of three generations on the low side to twelve generations on the high side.
I am not suggesting we play a waiting game and get closer to the bottom of the barrel (no pun) since we have perhaps hundreds of years worth of dino goo left (that we currently know about) -- not at all. I am suggesting we use NOW what would have the greatest logistical and economical ease of being placed into widespread use.
That is, let's use the planet's oil as effectively and efficiently as possible rather than try with such almost religious fervor to force the adoption of a technology that seems at this point to carry so much economic and environmental baggage with it.
In the Most recent Car Talk column, Tom and Ray discuss whether the energy used to make ethanol is worth the effort.
They note that David Pimentel of Cornell University has calculated the amount of energy needed to grow the corn, has then subtracted the amount of energy you get from a gallon of ethanol, and has come up with a negative number.
They also report that David Lorenz and David Morris of the Institute of Local Self-Reliance take Pimentel's research a step further. They note that a gallon of ethanol isn't the only thing you get from the corn you grow. You also get stuff like corn oil and gluten feed. So some of the energy that goes into growing corn has to be assigned to those other corn byproducts, too. When Lorenz and Morris do the numbers, the energy ratio of ethanol comes out positive.
Does anyone know of any other research done on this question? Or, where can I get more information on the pros and cons of ethanol when it comes to energy efficiency?
Some places you can check at are: Northeastern Sustainable energy Association, Altwheels festival, National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition, etc are in the Northeast...
Just a few I remember over the top of my head but there are a whole bunch of them if you do google search.
where can I get more information on the pros and cons of ethanol when it comes to energy efficiency?
Even if it was 2 to 1 in favor of corn ethanol it would be bad news for the environment. The people in the Midwest in favor of corn ethanol are only thinking of their own best interest. The damage their fertilizer is causing may cost us way more than can possibly be gained by a few extra gallons of ethanol. If they were farming in a civilized manner this would not be an issue.
It is one of the toughest environmental problems facing America. For over 20 years, scientists have documented the appearance of a summertime "Dead Zone" that all but obliterates marine life in what is arguably the nation's most important fishery, the Gulf of Mexico. Each year the Dead Zone grows to an area that is roughly the size of New Jersey - ranging from 5,000 to 8,000 square miles. The main culprit: an annual flood of wasted fertilizer from heavily farmed land, running off into rivers and finally into the Gulf, where it feeds the development of massive algae blooms. The algae then die and decompose, robbing the water of oxygen and suffocating all life that cannot leave the area.
"Even the hermit crabs were dead, and nothing kills hermit crabs. I just kept traveling and traveling, and then I realized this wasn't local."
In fact, the lack of shrimp was the harbinger of a problem that has linked Minnesota's incredibly productive farming region with one of the nation's most vital fisheries. Scientists now know that excessive nitrogen is the major cause of the "dead zone," a Connecticut-sized chunk of the gulf that is hypoxic--containing too little oxygen to support life. They also know that, although some of that nitrogen is natural, most comes from farms.
Companies like ADM and Versun would rather you not know the facts about modern Corn farming. This report is from a state that is big into ethanol. They have a lot to lose. I give them credit for telling the truth.
Farming and Fishing On a summer evening, a northeastern Iowa farmer named Dan Specht finished up hog and cattle chores, hopped into his pickup truck, and wound his way down to the nearby Mississippi River. He had fishing gear in the back, soil under his fingernails, and hiü farm's nutrient cycle on his mind. Specht, who's been farming and fishing near the Mississippi River community of McGregor, Iowa, for almost 30 years, doesn't feel good knowing that contaminants from his ridgetop land may be asphyxiating fish in the gulf. Part of Specht's concern is based on a big-picture view of the effect he is having on downstream neighbors. As a guest of an environmental group called the Mississippi Riverwise Partnership, Specht has visited the gulf and met with members of the commercial fishing community. "It's really fragile," he said of the area where the Mississippi meets the gulf. "It's vast, but it's fragile."
It's clear Specht is concerned about the local effects of his farming as well. He pulled into a boat landing and met up with frequent fishing partner and fellow farmer Jeff Klinge. While Klinge guided a small outboard through the backwaters, the two farmers pointed out the natural beauty of the area and talked passionately about fishing. A bald eagle soared overhead, and massive barges plied their way up and down the main channel as the men trolled for walleyes. Specht and Klinge talked about the results of a long-running study called the Big Spring Basin Demonstration Project, which has shown that nitrate-nitrogen is contaminating drinking water in the area, posing a serious health risk to infants. Like the gulf, this region is vast and fragile too.
Supergrowth Bacteria in the soil convert nitrogen, a rich plant nutrient, to nitrate. Nitrate-nitrogen reaches our waterways and groundwater by leaching through the soil. Some of that nitrate-nitrogen is hitching a ride on the Mississippi River and causing a super?rowth of algae when it hits the salty water of the gulf. Eventually, the algae die and sink to the bottom. The bacteria that decompose the algae consume oxygen at an extraordinary rate, particularly close to the bottom. In the depths of summer, this prnduces a zone so low in oxygen that fish flee. Clams, oysters, and other crustaceans that can't flee may die.
In the early 1980s, shrimp catches dropped dramatically in areas where bottom waters were hypoxic. Now, in the hardest hit areas, a boat hauling a 40-foot net for six hours might not catch a single shrimp. The size of the zone can fluctuate greatly from year to year.
Such news has prompted an official of one farm group to call the dead zone the "spotted owl" of Midwestern agriculture. No wonder: Nitrogen is a linchpin fertilizer for corn farmers, and animal manure is full of the nutrient. Overall, about half of the nitrogen that makes it to the gulf is from commercial fertilizer, and 15 percent is from livestock manure. The rest comes from human sewage, industrial point sources, and rainfall, say U.S. Geological Survey scientists
Mark, I hope that you don't want to bet the farm based upon that one forecast.
Let's remember a couple of things:
-It's a forecast, not a crystal ball. It might be right, or it might be wrong.
-That forecast is for a short-run period. I would think that most people who would advocate a proactive energy policy of whatever sort (as opposed to the free marketeers who expect the Invisible Hand to always find a suitable way to fill our fuel tanks) are looking beyond that window, and are not necessarily worrying about short-term price fluctuations.
Incidentally, I happen to actually agree with that forecast (I also believe that energy prices are likely going to fall for a time, for a number of reasons), but I wouldn't hang my hat on it. And in any case, it's not relevant to my personal view of what should happen, because my motivations are not simply based on short-term pump prices. That is, let's use the planet's oil as effectively and efficiently as possible
That's one of the problems -- it isn't the planet's oil, most of it just happens to belong to unstable dictatorships with Wahhabists in their backyards. Conveniently, those folks aren't terribly fond of the world's largest consumer of oil. Since we can't afford to invade all of them, I would think that reducing our need for their products is vital to our security interests, and not just a matter of trying to save a few cents on the price of a gallon of gas.
most of it just happens to belong to unstable dictatorships with Wahhabists in their backyards
I pretty much agree with you. Except that it does belong to whoever is the strongest. It was not that many years ago it was all under British rule. I am not sure that the very radical fundamentalist Wahabi sect has ever had control. They would like to have control and I am one that thinks we should deny that control at whatever the cost. With the money that oil brings weapons are available. Why wait until they are well armed to take them on?
We can flood the desert with Persian Gulf water, grow algae and make biodiesel. It would be a lot less damaging than the mess we got going in the US with corn ethanol.
I pretty much agree with you. Except that it does belong to whoever is the strongest.
It's a precarious balance. Take the House of Saud, which is in a fairly fragile position, and includes some radical fundamentalists attempting to foment unrest. KSA is the world's largest supplier of oil and one of our best sources for cheaply refined sweet crude, so this should be of concern to all of us. Do we really want to tangle with the Chinese and other rivals in the next few decades if this all comes to a head?
We can flood the desert with Persian Gulf water, grow algae and make biodiesel.
I'm sure you're pulling my leg with that last comment. We can't and won't be doing that. We're having trouble with the current conflicts, an expansion plan is not doable or in the cards.
To be perfectly clear, I am completely advocating investigating and adopting as many appropriate, doable, affordable, etc etc alternatives as possible.
The price over the next few years -- even if it is one generation or three is certainly not a reliable long term forecast (unless someone demonstrates we quite literally have an unlimited supply of dinoleum.) I have not ever intended to allude to or suggest we "go blindly and merrily along" not even attempting to find ways to stretch what we have, use less, use other methods and fuels, etc.
On this forum, I am able to read post after post that almost seem to completely and apparently legitimately contradict the other (usually opposite) point of view.
Corn ethanol is an energy negative.
Corn ethanol if you do this that and the other thing is actually an energy positive.
E85 gets only 68% of the "distance per drop" that gasoline gets.
E85 in toto is only about 20% poorer in mileage and with boosts in technology designed to exclusively use E85, even that mileage disadvantage will shrink.
Ethanol cannot be pumped through our existing distribution network -- the costs to build an ethanol infrastructure will be staggering.
Ethanol doesn't need to be pumped through existing networks, it will be created close to the point of consumption and will simply be trucked at most a "few miles" to the consumer -- no new infrastructure needs to be built.
Ethanol makes your teeth yellow
Ethanol may yellow your teeth but tooth decay is virtually eliminated.
Ethanol is, depending on how you look at it no cleaner burning than gasoline.
Ethanol will create a toxic layer around the earth and slowly over decades cause mutations even Darwin could not have imagined.
Ethanol has much higher octane and can be used in a generation of cars with ever higher compression ratios and ever shorter ET's in the quarter mile.
Ethanol is the second coming.
Ethanol is the devil incarnate.
Ethanol is King Corn scamming us all and shame on them.
Ethanol will save the world from its own poverty and paucity of power.
Ethanol can be fruit scented or made to smell like sulphur burning and like rotten eggs.
When applied to dried chewing gum ethanol removes only the gum leaving your favorite oriental rug without any tell tale evidence.
Evidence suggests we'll eventually turn all our biomass into fuel and we can stick our finger in the eye of the middle eastern producers.
The amount of E85 that would have to be created to make a dent in our consumption of the dinolene is the equivalent of the entire cubic volume of the Indian and Pacific ocean -- in liquid form -- EVERY year. If we turned all non human organism on the planet into ethanol we would still come up short.
Whew!
It is enough to blow almost anyone away who stumbled upon this forum and doesn't stay on top of it.
I may be biased, I hope I am not, but my conclusions at this point lead me to question how E85 can be made viable -- apparently it cannot be made thus "on its own." And, I am too skeptical of something that HAS to be mandated to believe it's future is encouraging.
With all it has going against it, though, I remain at least "hopeful" that diesel may actually rise to the challenge.
It will require a hell of a lot more creative and widespread advertising than we've seen thus far. So, it too is a fringe alternative -- but one that simply seems (in the near term) to offer everything we want from E85 and we already have a suitable infrastructure with which to distribute it. :surprise:
The amount of E85 that would have to be created to make a dent in our consumption of the dinolene is the equivalent of the entire cubic volume of the Indian and Pacific ocean -- in liquid form -- EVERY year.
I don't know where you got that -- at first blush, that doesn't seem to make sense -- but regardless, this is one reason to avoid these Magic Bullet arguments.
This pursuit of the Perfect Utopian Solution (or PUS -- hey, I should trademark that) is foolhardy and unnecessary. I don't expect any one solution to provide all of the answers, whether it be ethanol or anything else. But even if ethanol could reduce our oil consumption by, for example, 10%, and could be combined with conservation, more efficient vehicles, etc., then it could play an important role in the mix.
Condemning something because it doesn't offer an all-eggs-in-one-basket solution is not a good argument. This thread seems to be a mixture of hyperbole, slanted factoids spun out of context, and dogma, little of which helps to provide useful information. If we're going to hang our hats on either university studies funded by the oil industry or else from ethanol trade associations for our "data", then that's a pretty dishonest discussion in my book.
You are correct about the damage fertilizers are causing to the gulf. It really has nothing to do with ethanol, however. Ethanol production is not going to change the fact that the farming is already contributing to the problem. We are not going to shut the farmers down - right? So the pollution will be there regardless. It doesn't matter if the final product is corn feedstock, ethanol or shoe laces.
Almost everything we do causes pollution. Many oil wells around the world still flare gas. The oil sand recovery up in Canada is doing who knows what to their land. How many gas stations had or have leaky gas tanks?
Does anyone remember MTBE? It still is a problem for many water systems. The good news, AWWA kicked some booty and made sure congress would not give the oil companies a free ride. They get to help with the cleanups.
Ethanol, gasoline and diesel each have their advantages and disadvantages when it comes to emissions and pollution. And all three will be powering our vehicles for many years to come....
"If they were farming in a civilized manner this would not be an issue." I would be interested to know what you mean by civilized farming?
"The people in the Midwest in favor of corn ethanol are only thinking of their own best interest." Yes, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Those of you in the East, west and south should be overjoyed that jobs are created in the midwest. If people move here there will be less crowding in your neck of the woods.
I would be interested to know what you mean by civilized farming?
We spread manure piled up over the winter on our corn ground. We may have only gotten 90-110 bushels to the acre. At least we did not pump Anhydrous Ammonia into the soil. Our property borders the Long Prairie River that dumps into the Mississippi at Little Falls, MN. We used the same methods that were used for several generations. It is the Mega Ag farms that are squeezing 225 Bushels to the acre that are causing the problems down stream.
Yes, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
So your of the mind that says I can do anything on my land that I feel is in my best interest? So it is OK to dump toxic waste into the river upstream from you as long as it is in my best interest? Or I can take all the smog crap off my truck and spew stuff into the air we all breathe.
It doesn't matter if the final product is corn feedstock, ethanol or shoe laces.
The move is on to grow more corn and add more pollution. With the mandate it will take a lot more corn to keep up with all the new stills being built. That means more land planted in Corn, and more downstream pollution.
I think the folks that depend on the fisheries in the Mississippi Delta will have a good case for a class action suit against the Corn growing states. The documentation and studies are there for all to see. The Audubon Society and Sierra Club are not on the side of Corn Ethanol.
Hello, Could anyone possibly assist me on finding an internet site listing values of classic cars. I'm trying to find some pricing for a 1951 Mercury with suicide doors. The vehicle has been totally restored and is in pristine condition. I would appreciate any assistance that could be given.
There are a lot of different opinions among the analysts as to where oil prices will go. What did Moody's say about demand from China, India and the US? China could suck up that extra supply in a heartbeat. All those new cars in China will need petrol to run.
To be perfectly clear, I am completely advocating investigating and adopting as many appropriate, doable, affordable, etc etc alternatives as possible.
I will add one thing: if Brazil can supply us for 50% of our current cost let them.
Brazil is nearing commercial production of ethanol from cellulose as well. They could be on line with 'switchgrass' ethanol real soon if our tarriff dies.
Sorry, I was making most of the stuff up -- to make the point that here on this very forum it is almost literally possible to find contradictory and validated claims, many with their sources duly cited.
Today, that beacon of objectivity, the New York Times, had an article about Ethanol for cars -- it claimed ethanol costs more per gallon than gasoline (not the first time I have seen this statement, but finding it in the NYT seems odd, I would have expected a bias that would have, would it have been possible, been more favorable to ethanol -- but it wasn't.)
I read the mostly well-made cases for certain points of view here and imagine someone who stumbles across this forum might become confused.
Perhaps we're all confused.
Hey, guess what?
I saw a Ford Taurus FFV at Costco today, fillin up on GASOLINE. I asked the guy if he ever put E85 in it -- he said, he might if there was any for sale around here.
He said it didn't cost any more to get the FFV and it is just a normal Taurus.
You are correct about the damage fertilizers are causing to the gulf. It really has nothing to do with ethanol, however. Ethanol production is not going to change the fact that the farming is already contributing to the problem. We are not going to shut the farmers down - right? So the pollution will be there regardless. It doesn't matter if the final product is corn feedstock, ethanol or shoe laces.
I think a lot of land is kept fallow (out of production) by payments from USDA. This preserves the fertility of the land, saves water and fuel, and reduces water pollution. A rush to produce ethanol from corn will bring more total land into production and lead to other land already cultivated being shifted to corn.
All this so we can hype ethanol as a solution that will allow us to continue to binge on motor fuel.
I see that one oil giant (Exxon-Mobil?) is questioning the morality of converting food to fuel.
By far the best solution is to change to vehicles that consume fewer BTUs per mile. This would entail far reaching changes in our lifestyle. Many people don't want to do this and there is a fear that this would wreck the economy.
I see that one oil giant (Exxon-Mobil?) is questioning the morality of converting food to fuel.
That I would question. I think if anything converting corn to ethanol is good from the standpoint of not making as much "Poor quality food stuffs". The corn products we are sold at the store may be the biggest health threat to our country.
I think a lot of land is kept fallow (out of production) by payments from USDA. This preserves the fertility of the land, saves water and fuel, and reduces water pollution.
Leaving land to rejuvenate itself is wise land management. Corn growers will become so addicted to the ethanol check that they will not use good land management practices. I have never received a penny from the government for not growing crops on my farm. I think that is something reserved for the Mega Farms & tobacco farmers like Al Gore.
> Leaving land to rejuvenate itself is wise land management.
When land rejuvenates here in the Minnesota, the plant that naturally takes over the land is switchgrass... which is a product that can be for feeding livestock, and sometimes is in times of drought. That switchgrass can also be used to produce ethanol.
Switchgrass also naturally grows on the sides of highways. So why not make good use of that too?
Can facilities that use corn to produce ethanol be easily, inexpensively and rapidly switched to other raw materials?
So far, the only evidence I have found says the answer is no.
Our President did use the word switchgrass -- so of course we immediately begin cranking up the machine to produce ethanol from -- what -- corn.
Folks as diverse as clik and clak and government officials and think tanks and academic institutions and even "horsepower tv" personalities all speak well and with clarity about the advantages of diesel and biodiesel.
Yet, my personal enthusiasm for such an approach (although somewhat bolstered by tax credits for those who buy diesel vehicles), is tempered by the enormous negative history about diesel powered cars and light trucks.
Who Killed the Electric Car? Who Killed the Electric Car? (thinking, of course of the movie.)
Rather. . .
Hell, I want to know who killed diesel, hmm, must be Tom Cruise in his role of pre-crime cop, in the bizzaro world where pragmatic solutions with, apparently, few side effects are discounted, not shouted from the rooftops and apparently left to atrophy.
The last sentence of what follows may be one of the greatest understatements ever (Movie Review):
In 1990 General Motors rolled out an electric concept car. Later that year California mandated that automakers sell a percentage of emissions-free vehicles there. Hello, future? Six years later the concept car had evolved into the stylish, well-engineered EV1 - but the legislation was being dismantled, and GM rather eagerly threw production into reverse. By 2003 the automaker announced it would yank back all leased EV1s from early adopters, who loved the cars despite some limitations, and within a couple of years the fleet had been "recycled." Ex-lessee Chris Paine's activist documentary might have been a shrill assault on the usual suspects. Instead he delivers a provocative exploration of competing interests - each articulately voiced - and of broad consumer indifference. Grade: A - Clayton Collins - C.S. Monitor
Switchgrass also naturally grows on the sides of highways. So why not make good use of that too?
On that I agree. The problem is, the only company (Iogen) that has a working plant that will do that, is not getting enough funding to build. We have too much invested in Corn Ethanol to take a chance on a product that will compete.
So some of the energy that goes into growing corn has to be assigned to those other corn byproducts, too. When Lorenz and Morris do the numbers, the energy ratio of ethanol comes out positive.
I would like to know how they assigned the energy to grow the corn to the different products.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
That is true. The real sad story is the little towns in the Midwest. ADM & Verasun come in with tall tales of riches for the local people. They get land, water and tax breaks. Everyone gets a nice job that pays more than whatever they were doing before. Housing prices go up. Many buy into new homes with higher mortgage payments.
THEN, 5-10 years down the road the corn ethanol plant is no longer needed. They built a switchgrass plant in the next town, and the corn ethanol plant is outdated. ADM has made a fortune. You and I guaranteed the loans on the plant. And our friends in the little Midwestern town are bankrupt. No high paying job, no money for the big mortgage, banks get more houses than they can sell. All because of greed and corrupt legislation.
By far the best solution is to change to vehicles that consume fewer BTUs per mile. This would entail far reaching changes in our lifestyle. Many people don't want to do this and there is a fear that this would wreck the economy.
It's a political problem. I think that every politician in Washington remembers when Jimmy Carter gave a speech on television when he told the American people to address the energy crisis by turning down the heat in their homes, and wearing a sweater, instead.
We know what happened to him. You're not going to find anyone in DC on either side of the aisle who sees a chance to advance his political career by telling the voters to sacrifice. This is a nation built on prosperity, and the last thing we want is to have our politicians tell us that we can't consume as we like.
It's the same reason why you won't find increased fuel taxes being used to motivate behavior, but you will see tax credits. The latter doesn't require any change in behavior from consumers, while the former would stick it in their faces.
How about suing Congress who are pushing this crap? How about suing ADM who spread the bucks around to get congress to push this crap?
I think Congress is protected. I agree on suing the Mega AG companies like ADM & Verasun. Maybe we can nail a Congress person or two for bribery. I imagine it will all be white washed like the MTBE mess they got us into.
Sorry, I was making most of the stuff up -- to make the point that here on this very forum it is almost literally possible to find contradictory and validated claims, many with their sources duly cited.
Sorry, I missed the irony. That's what I get for reading quickly and multitasking...
The question is can we economically grow enough switchgrass, or any crop, to provide a significant fraction of our current usage of petroleum fuel. And can we do this in a way that doesn't require excessive inputs of irrigation water, fertilizer, doesn't cause soil erosion and water pollution, and doesn't wreck natural ecosystems which have expected future value. See Brazilian Trees May Harbor Millions of Unidentified Species of Bacteria .
Suppose you decide your personal budget is broken, and you must rectify the situation. The thing you must do immediately is to figure out what expenditures you can eliminate, not where can you get more income this afternoon or tomorrow. In the longer term you may be able to secure higher income, but that is far from certain for just about anybody. Being determined to balance a budget by achieving higher income usually gets people into a lot of trouble.
Being determined to balance a budget by achieving higher income usually gets people into a lot of trouble.
That's the strategy of just about every successful growth company that you can think of. To get a return on investment, first you need to make an investment.
Here is what I have to say to EXXON- Mobil You Dirty Bastards you do not have a leg to stand on when you say MORALITY. You have raped middle Americans and lower status Americans of millions of dollars. You are going to ruin the economy if you are not stopped. The State of Ohio is going to build four E85 refineries to give us lower fuel cost. Gerald E Smith Providence RI
The question is can we economically grow enough switchgrass, or any crop, to provide a significant fraction of our current usage of petroleum fuel. And can we do this in a way that doesn't require excessive inputs of irrigation water, fertilizer, doesn't cause soil erosion and water pollution, and doesn't wreck natural ecosystems which have expected future value.
The Atlantic forest of Brazil, which in the past 400 years has been reduced to less than 8 percent of its original size, could contain as many as 13 million unidentified species of bacteria, a new study has found. Not only do the results point to an abundance of life still remaining the forest, but they indicate a potentially untapped resource for drug development. "Besides the importance of these bacteria in ecosystem stability, they can also be sources of biochemical compounds for the pharmaceutical industry and agriculture," says Marcio Lambais of the University of Sao Paulo in Brazil, whose team published their results in today's issue of Science.
Suppose you decide your personal budget is broken, and you must rectify the situation. The thing you must do immediately is to figure out what expenditures you can eliminate, not where can you get more income this afternoon or tomorrow. In the longer term you may be able to secure higher income, but that is far from certain for just about anybody. Being determined to balance a budget by achieving higher income usually gets people into a lot of trouble.
If we actually do get lower fuel costs can we discuss certain consequences (unintended, I would assume.)
If we build these refineries here in my state and the fuel created is indeed E85, it will be some time before we Ohioans, even, can purchase it.
Touted as numbers we may achieve, are fuel costs about 30% cheaper than gasoline. Today, the price of REGULAR unleaded, E10 actually, at a major brand retailer is $3.05.
If one could find a filling station, today, and put E85 into his/her FFV car or SUV, this tankful of E85 (AND if it were indeed priced at 70% of the price of gasoline,) would cost about the same to use as it would to use gasoline.
There would only be altruistic motivation to use E85 that is.
And, if it really could be priced as mentioned above, TODAY, that would be with the $.51 per gallon subsidy. As this subsidy erodes, it is, I assume, hoped that E85 will, due to other economic reasons, fall in price, offsetting the subsidy as it declined.
We are currently nowhere near this kind of price disparity -- that is, it is very rare to find 3 buck gas right next to $2.10 E85. Yesterday, according to the New York Times, E85 is ~ $.20 more gallon than gasoline.
Meantime our strapped state is pumping public money into helping these new refineries -- money it cannot afford to pump, currently.
Now for somewhat of a reality check -- the price of E85 is NOT 30% less than the price of gasoline.
It would be, if one could buy the car and find the fueling station, more expensive to use E85.
E85, presently, is inconvenient and expensive.
Now, once again, I do believe we should pursue alternatives -- but this is more than a pursuit. This is being presented and funded (subsidized) not as R&D and/or an energy or social experiment, it is being being presented as if it were a proven solution and worthy of the full capitalistic treatment -- which would seem to imply no government subsidies would be required or "allowed."
Were it being subsized, but NOT by our government, I might feel more comfortable about the consequences to my state.
As it stands it seems like the winners may be ADM, et al -- and the losers will be those folks in Cadiz, Ohio who will potentially be propped up because of some government mandates, only to be disappointed later due to the circumsatnces surrounding this "investment."
Check back with me in 2008 and let me know if you really do have lower fuel costs ALL things taken into account.
I am not sure about Exxon. Shell & Texaco are big players in the Ethanol business. You might ask why. Because it takes a LOT of oil to grow corn and make ethanol. Ethanol is doing nothing to eliminate the oil companies and countries. We made and used 4.4 billion gallons of ethanol last year and still used more oil than the year before.
As many have said, the best way to cut our fossil fuel consumption is to use less. Tell me how driving a PU truck or SUV on E85 will save any oil? Give facts and figures. If folks feel the urge to save more oil they should drive less and buy a Corolla, Cobalt, Focus, Civic etc and save some serious oil.
What other goal besides using less fossil fuel? Buying one of the aforementioned cars would do more to cut fossil fuel use, than buying any of the available E85 capable FFVs and using E85. Of course finding E85 is a major problem for 99% of the US population.
It is a major problem for 99.9% of the population currently.
Yet this is slowly changing -- and there is a school of thought that suggests (not without merit) this will also be associated with lower pump prices.
The disconnect between the more pro and less pro ethanol crowd keeps showing up though.
The pro crowd says "drive less, drive more economical cars, etc." -- this doesn't seem likely (yet.)
The pro crowd also says buy FFV's and use E85 -- this is currently difficult to do even if one wants to do this.
The pro crowd seems less likely to acknowledge that FFV's using E85 achieve poorer MPG's, but that today the price of E85 does not support much commercial/retail enthusiasm for its use.
The government mandate and subsidy and tax credit may encourage the growth of supply and availability (and hopefully lower the cost of E85 at the pump at to a number that is "always" at least 30% less than gasoline.)
But to get to 10% of the population having access to and actually using E85 seems so far in the future and without some economic incentive that is widely understood to be a "good deal" still somewhat of an unlikely short term remedy for anything other than ADM's P&L.
But to get to 10% of the population having access to and actually using E85 seems so far in the future and without some economic incentive
Put yourself in the oil company position. They own gas stations to sell gas. Why would they want to take up valuable tank and island space to sell E85? Only independents, farm co-ops and big chain stores like Walmart would go for it. Then only to grab some of the "Free money" Uncle is spending like a drunk sailor on this boondoggle. It may work to get more Republicans elected this fall. I know I would not vote for any politician that voted in favor of Corn Ethanol.
I have already written my {Republican] congresswoman who seems to think this is a good deal since it sends money to Iowa rather than Iran.
I don't even know where to begin to respond to that.
I am often wrong, but I do NOT think this is a Rep or Dem issue, per se.
There are those on both sides of the isle who are pro and con -- perhaps someone has info on each and every rep and senator's position and, then, PERHAPS, we could make this a party issue.
I don't even know where to begin to respond to that.
Ask her when was the last time we bought any of that low grade crude from Iran? I would rather keep the money in the USA as well. I just think we are squandering the money in Iowa and not cutting back one penny in Saudi Arabia. I'm with you we should be developing some of our own known sources of oil. ANWR & the Gulf off of Florida. If we don't the Canadians and Castro will. The Canadians are already producing oil on our border with ANWR in Alaska. Many work in our oilfields and laugh at our stupidity.
You will notice ANWR borders Canada for a couple hundred miles. They have operations in that whole area on their side of the border. We are buying oil from them. Our number one oil importers. Notice the little red dot on the map. The area with KNOWN oil reserves of approximately 16 billion barrels of oil. The Prudhoe Bay field was estimated at 9 billion barrels. They are still taking oil from that field 29 years and counting. It costs less than $5 per barrel to get that to the West Coast of the USA.
As a comparison it costs over $8 to get a barrel of ethanol to CA from the midwest. It also adds traffic, wear and tear to our Interstate highways. One of you math genius's should figure out how much diesel is consumed getting one gallon of Ethanol from Iowa to CA.
Wow! I never expected you to attempt something that blatantly non-constructive. But you did!!
Just 3 days ago, that's only 58 messages back, I pointed out what both goals were. And you responded to that very message 3 times! So there is quite simply no purpose for the question you just asked.
Heck, even the topic of E85 itself identifies that there is more than one goal.
And then there's the little matter of an estimated 800 trillion bbls of oil in Colorado and Wyoming (triple the proven Saudi reserves.)
Shell oil, apparently using its own money, so says the Rand Corporation report, started "cooking" some oil shale some time ago. It has been demonstrated in a small way that oil can be produced that would be about $20bbl. It is not known what a large scale facility could do and when nor how much it would cost (or if those numbers are known, they are -- for me, thus far -- elusive.)
Here is what I read, from the Rand Report: Shell estimates that the ground can be heated (for four years) sufficiently to release the oil from the shale without "strip mining" and that the resulting crude can be turned into gasoline just like "normal" crude and that the costs appear to relate to a per bbl price of $20.
If this is wrong by half, what would it be worth to have approximately 100 years of our entire need for oil at present utilization be satisfied by our own resources at a cost in my made up scenario of $40/bbl?
Rand suggests considering the use of this resource over a 400 year period of time, for the record.
Summary of the Summary:
Prepared for the National Energy Technology Laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy
In-Situ Retorting.
In-situ retorting entails heating oil shale in place, extracting the liquid from the ground, and transporting it to an upgrading or refining facility. Because in-situ retorting does not involve mining or aboveground spent shale disposal, it offers an alternative that does not permanently modify land surface topography and that may be significantly less damaging to the environment.
Shell Oil Company has successfully conducted small-scale field tests of an insitu process based on slow underground heating via thermal conduction. Larger-scale operations are required to establish technical viability, especially with regard to avoiding adverse impacts on groundwater quality. Shell anticipates that, in contrast to the cost estimates for mining and surface retorting, the petroleum products produced by their thermally conductive in-situ method will be competitive at crude oil prices in the mid-$20's per barrel.
The largest known oil shale deposits in the world are in the Green River Formation, which covers portions of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. Estimates of the oil resource in place within the Green River Formation range from 1.5 to 1.8 trillion barrels.
Not all resources in place are recoverable. For potentially recoverable oil shale resources, we roughly derive an upper bound of 1.1 trillion barrels of oil and a lower bound of about 500 billion barrels. For policy planning purposes, it is enough to know that any amount in this range is very high. For example, the midpoint in our estimate range, 800 billion barrels, is more than triple the proven oil reserves of Saudi Arabia.
Present U.S. demand for petroleum products is about 20 million barrels per day. If oil shale could be used to meet a quarter of that demand, 800 billion barrels of recoverable resources would last for more than 400 years.
The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit research organization providing objective analysis and effective solutions that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors around the world.
I do not know these people. But I know that the Sate of OHIO is going to support 4 e85 Refineries. Just got back to Rhode Island from Ohio. Route 80 30 MPG 2001 PT Cruiser.
Comments
4 July 2006 www.economy.com/dismal
"Despite the onset of the Northern Hemisphere winter, in the fourth quarter of the year, a further erosion of the oil price is foreseen, taking Brent back to the low US$60s. Further rapid supply growth in the fourth quarter will once again soak up increased demand, with an overall surplus of just over 1m b/d envisaged. Canada, Iraq, Angola, Nigeria, Norway, and Brazil are forecast to lead supplies higher in the fourth quarter.
Moody’s Economy.com foresees rapid supply growth continuing to exceed that enjoyed by demand over the next couple of years. Indeed, supply growth should accelerate in 2007 and 2008, as we increasingly start to see the fruits from the previous price rally begin to feed through into heightened capacity growth.
For now, we return to Moody’s Economy.com’s underlying forecast of further oil surpluses, and no great escalation in geopolitical uncertainty, taking oil back below US$50 by late 2007, and falling into the low US$40s by the summer of 2008. Crude oil prices are forecast to fall, as the global market increasingly realises that the recent past was not in fact undersupplied."
Their analysis seems to be for lower prices for years (at least two.)
Long term? Well, I am of the mind that does believe we are using up a limited supply of oil. However, we are literally talking about that limitation based on today's data of three generations on the low side to twelve generations on the high side.
I am not suggesting we play a waiting game and get closer to the bottom of the barrel (no pun) since we have perhaps hundreds of years worth of dino goo left (that we currently know about) -- not at all. I am suggesting we use NOW what would have the greatest logistical and economical ease of being placed into widespread use.
That is, let's use the planet's oil as effectively and efficiently as possible rather than try with such almost religious fervor to force the adoption of a technology that seems at this point to carry so much economic and environmental baggage with it.
They note that David Pimentel of Cornell University has calculated the amount of energy needed to grow the corn, has then subtracted the amount of energy you get from a gallon of ethanol, and has come up with a negative number.
They also report that David Lorenz and David Morris of the Institute of Local Self-Reliance take Pimentel's research a step further. They note that a gallon of ethanol isn't the only thing you get from the corn you grow. You also get stuff like corn oil and gluten feed. So some of the energy that goes into growing corn has to be assigned to those other corn byproducts, too. When Lorenz and Morris do the numbers, the energy ratio of ethanol comes out positive.
Does anyone know of any other research done on this question? Or, where can I get more information on the pros and cons of ethanol when it comes to energy efficiency?
Northeastern Sustainable energy Association, Altwheels festival, National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition, etc are in the Northeast...
Just a few I remember over the top of my head but there are a whole bunch of them if you do google search.
Even if it was 2 to 1 in favor of corn ethanol it would be bad news for the environment. The people in the Midwest in favor of corn ethanol are only thinking of their own best interest. The damage their fertilizer is causing may cost us way more than can possibly be gained by a few extra gallons of ethanol. If they were farming in a civilized manner this would not be an issue.
It is one of the toughest environmental problems facing America. For over 20 years, scientists have documented the appearance of a summertime "Dead Zone" that all but obliterates marine life in what is arguably the nation's most important fishery, the Gulf of Mexico. Each year the Dead Zone grows to an area that is roughly the size of New Jersey - ranging from 5,000 to 8,000 square miles. The main culprit: an annual flood of wasted fertilizer from heavily farmed land, running off into rivers and finally into the Gulf, where it feeds the development of massive algae blooms. The algae then die and decompose, robbing the water of oxygen and suffocating all life that cannot leave the area.
Dead zone caused by Corn growers
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/products/pubs_hypox.html#Topic3
NASA Dead Zone Photos
In fact, the lack of shrimp was the harbinger of a problem that has linked Minnesota's incredibly productive farming region with one of the nation's most vital fisheries. Scientists now know that excessive nitrogen is the major cause of the "dead zone," a Connecticut-sized chunk of the gulf that is hypoxic--containing too little oxygen to support life. They also know that, although some of that nitrogen is natural, most comes from farms.
http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/volunteer/julaug01/hypoxia.html
Farming and Fishing
On a summer evening, a northeastern Iowa farmer named Dan Specht finished up hog and cattle chores, hopped into his pickup truck, and wound his way down to the nearby Mississippi River. He had fishing gear in the back, soil under his fingernails, and hiü farm's nutrient cycle on his mind. Specht, who's been farming and fishing near the Mississippi River community of McGregor, Iowa, for almost 30 years, doesn't feel good knowing that contaminants from his ridgetop land may be asphyxiating fish in the gulf. Part of Specht's concern is based on a big-picture view of the effect he is having on downstream neighbors. As a guest of an environmental group called the Mississippi Riverwise Partnership, Specht has visited the gulf and met with members of the commercial fishing community. "It's really fragile," he said of the area where the Mississippi meets the gulf. "It's vast, but it's fragile."
It's clear Specht is concerned about the local effects of his farming as well. He pulled into a boat landing and met up with frequent fishing partner and fellow farmer Jeff Klinge. While Klinge guided a small outboard through the backwaters, the two farmers pointed out the natural beauty of the area and talked passionately about fishing. A bald eagle soared overhead, and massive barges plied their way up and down the main channel as the men trolled for walleyes. Specht and Klinge talked about the results of a long-running study called the Big Spring Basin Demonstration Project, which has shown that nitrate-nitrogen is contaminating drinking water in the area, posing a serious health risk to infants. Like the gulf, this region is vast and fragile too.
Supergrowth
Bacteria in the soil convert nitrogen, a rich plant nutrient, to nitrate. Nitrate-nitrogen reaches our waterways and groundwater by leaching through the soil. Some of that nitrate-nitrogen is hitching a ride on the Mississippi River and causing a super?rowth of algae when it hits the salty water of the gulf. Eventually, the algae die and sink to the bottom. The bacteria that decompose the algae consume oxygen at an extraordinary rate, particularly close to the bottom. In the depths of summer, this prnduces a zone so low in oxygen that fish flee. Clams, oysters, and other crustaceans that can't flee may die.
In the early 1980s, shrimp catches dropped dramatically in areas where bottom waters were hypoxic. Now, in the hardest hit areas, a boat hauling a 40-foot net for six hours might not catch a single shrimp. The size of the zone can fluctuate greatly from year to year.
Such news has prompted an official of one farm group to call the dead zone the "spotted owl" of Midwestern agriculture. No wonder: Nitrogen is a linchpin fertilizer for corn farmers, and animal manure is full of the nutrient. Overall, about half of the nitrogen that makes it to the gulf is from commercial fertilizer, and 15 percent is from livestock manure. The rest comes from human sewage, industrial point sources, and rainfall, say U.S. Geological Survey scientists
Let's remember a couple of things:
-It's a forecast, not a crystal ball. It might be right, or it might be wrong.
-That forecast is for a short-run period. I would think that most people who would advocate a proactive energy policy of whatever sort (as opposed to the free marketeers who expect the Invisible Hand to always find a suitable way to fill our fuel tanks) are looking beyond that window, and are not necessarily worrying about short-term price fluctuations.
Incidentally, I happen to actually agree with that forecast (I also believe that energy prices are likely going to fall for a time, for a number of reasons), but I wouldn't hang my hat on it. And in any case, it's not relevant to my personal view of what should happen, because my motivations are not simply based on short-term pump prices.
That is, let's use the planet's oil as effectively and efficiently as possible
That's one of the problems -- it isn't the planet's oil, most of it just happens to belong to unstable dictatorships with Wahhabists in their backyards. Conveniently, those folks aren't terribly fond of the world's largest consumer of oil. Since we can't afford to invade all of them, I would think that reducing our need for their products is vital to our security interests, and not just a matter of trying to save a few cents on the price of a gallon of gas.
I pretty much agree with you. Except that it does belong to whoever is the strongest. It was not that many years ago it was all under British rule. I am not sure that the very radical fundamentalist Wahabi sect has ever had control. They would like to have control and I am one that thinks we should deny that control at whatever the cost. With the money that oil brings weapons are available. Why wait until they are well armed to take them on?
We can flood the desert with Persian Gulf water, grow algae and make biodiesel. It would be a lot less damaging than the mess we got going in the US with corn ethanol.
It's a precarious balance. Take the House of Saud, which is in a fairly fragile position, and includes some radical fundamentalists attempting to foment unrest. KSA is the world's largest supplier of oil and one of our best sources for cheaply refined sweet crude, so this should be of concern to all of us. Do we really want to tangle with the Chinese and other rivals in the next few decades if this all comes to a head?
We can flood the desert with Persian Gulf water, grow algae and make biodiesel.
I'm sure you're pulling my leg with that last comment. We can't and won't be doing that. We're having trouble with the current conflicts, an expansion plan is not doable or in the cards.
Mostly. It is feasible for the future. I don't think it is needed for a few more years.
The price over the next few years -- even if it is one generation or three is certainly not a reliable long term forecast (unless someone demonstrates we quite literally have an unlimited supply of dinoleum.) I have not ever intended to allude to or suggest we "go blindly and merrily along" not even attempting to find ways to stretch what we have, use less, use other methods and fuels, etc.
On this forum, I am able to read post after post that almost seem to completely and apparently legitimately contradict the other (usually opposite) point of view.
Corn ethanol is an energy negative.
Corn ethanol if you do this that and the other thing is actually an energy positive.
E85 gets only 68% of the "distance per drop" that gasoline gets.
E85 in toto is only about 20% poorer in mileage and with boosts in technology designed to exclusively use E85, even that mileage disadvantage will shrink.
Ethanol cannot be pumped through our existing distribution network -- the costs to build an ethanol infrastructure will be staggering.
Ethanol doesn't need to be pumped through existing networks, it will be created close to the point of consumption and will simply be trucked at most a "few miles" to the consumer -- no new infrastructure needs to be built.
Ethanol makes your teeth yellow
Ethanol may yellow your teeth but tooth decay is virtually eliminated.
Ethanol is, depending on how you look at it no cleaner burning than gasoline.
Ethanol will create a toxic layer around the earth and slowly over decades cause mutations even Darwin could not have imagined.
Ethanol has much higher octane and can be used in a generation of cars with ever higher compression ratios and ever shorter ET's in the quarter mile.
Ethanol is the second coming.
Ethanol is the devil incarnate.
Ethanol is King Corn scamming us all and shame on them.
Ethanol will save the world from its own poverty and paucity of power.
Ethanol can be fruit scented or made to smell like sulphur burning and like rotten eggs.
When applied to dried chewing gum ethanol removes only the gum leaving your favorite oriental rug without any tell tale evidence.
Evidence suggests we'll eventually turn all our biomass into fuel and we can stick our finger in the eye of the middle eastern producers.
The amount of E85 that would have to be created to make a dent in our consumption of the dinolene is the equivalent of the entire cubic volume of the Indian and Pacific ocean -- in liquid form -- EVERY year. If we turned all non human organism on the planet into ethanol we would still come up short.
Whew!
It is enough to blow almost anyone away who stumbled upon this forum and doesn't stay on top of it.
I may be biased, I hope I am not, but my conclusions at this point lead me to question how E85 can be made viable -- apparently it cannot be made thus "on its own." And, I am too skeptical of something that HAS to be mandated to believe it's future is encouraging.
With all it has going against it, though, I remain at least "hopeful" that diesel may actually rise to the challenge.
It will require a hell of a lot more creative and widespread advertising than we've seen thus far. So, it too is a fringe alternative -- but one that simply seems (in the near term) to offer everything we want from E85 and we already have a suitable infrastructure with which to distribute it. :surprise:
I don't know where you got that -- at first blush, that doesn't seem to make sense -- but regardless, this is one reason to avoid these Magic Bullet arguments.
This pursuit of the Perfect Utopian Solution (or PUS -- hey, I should trademark that) is foolhardy and unnecessary. I don't expect any one solution to provide all of the answers, whether it be ethanol or anything else. But even if ethanol could reduce our oil consumption by, for example, 10%, and could be combined with conservation, more efficient vehicles, etc., then it could play an important role in the mix.
Condemning something because it doesn't offer an all-eggs-in-one-basket solution is not a good argument. This thread seems to be a mixture of hyperbole, slanted factoids spun out of context, and dogma, little of which helps to provide useful information. If we're going to hang our hats on either university studies funded by the oil industry or else from ethanol trade associations for our "data", then that's a pretty dishonest discussion in my book.
Almost everything we do causes pollution. Many oil wells around the world still flare gas. The oil sand recovery up in Canada is doing who knows what to their land. How many gas stations had or have leaky gas tanks?
Does anyone remember MTBE? It still is a problem for many water systems. The good news, AWWA kicked some booty and made sure congress would not give the oil companies a free ride. They get to help with the cleanups.
Ethanol, gasoline and diesel each have their advantages and disadvantages when it comes to emissions and pollution. And all three will be powering our vehicles for many years to come....
"If they were farming in a civilized manner this would not be an issue."
I would be interested to know what you mean by civilized farming?
"The people in the Midwest in favor of corn ethanol are only thinking of their own best interest."
Yes, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Those of you in the East, west and south should be overjoyed that jobs are created in the midwest. If people move here there will be less crowding in your neck of the woods.
http://www.ndsu.nodak.edu/sdc/presentations/042006.pps
Take a look at slide 10. What part of the country has an outmigration problem? Creating jobs with Ethanol plants in those areas is a good deal for EVERYBODY
We spread manure piled up over the winter on our corn ground. We may have only gotten 90-110 bushels to the acre. At least we did not pump Anhydrous Ammonia into the soil. Our property borders the Long Prairie River that dumps into the Mississippi at Little Falls, MN. We used the same methods that were used for several generations. It is the Mega Ag farms that are squeezing 225 Bushels to the acre that are causing the problems down stream.
Yes, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
So your of the mind that says I can do anything on my land that I feel is in my best interest? So it is OK to dump toxic waste into the river upstream from you as long as it is in my best interest? Or I can take all the smog crap off my truck and spew stuff into the air we all breathe.
It doesn't matter if the final product is corn feedstock, ethanol or shoe laces.
The move is on to grow more corn and add more pollution. With the mandate it will take a lot more corn to keep up with all the new stills being built. That means more land planted in Corn, and more downstream pollution.
I think the folks that depend on the fisheries in the Mississippi Delta will have a good case for a class action suit against the Corn growing states. The documentation and studies are there for all to see. The Audubon Society and Sierra Club are not on the side of Corn Ethanol.
Could anyone possibly assist me on finding an internet site listing values of classic cars. I'm trying to find some pricing for a 1951 Mercury with suicide doors. The vehicle has been totally restored and is in pristine condition. I would appreciate any assistance that could be given.
"In the first half of this year, China's passenger car sales rose 63% to 1.78 million from 1.09 million in the same period last year, according to association data."
http://www.easybourse.com/Website/dynamic/News.php?NewsID=17404&lang=fra&NewsRub- rique=2
Any comments on all the new E85 stations you will be getting in Ohio?
http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060708/NEWS01/607080349/1- 001/BIZ
I will add one thing: if Brazil can supply us for 50% of our current cost let them.
Brazil is nearing commercial production of ethanol from cellulose as well. They could be on line with 'switchgrass' ethanol real soon if our tarriff dies.
Today, that beacon of objectivity, the New York Times, had an article about Ethanol for cars -- it claimed ethanol costs more per gallon than gasoline (not the first time I have seen this statement, but finding it in the NYT seems odd, I would have expected a bias that would have, would it have been possible, been more favorable to ethanol -- but it wasn't.)
I read the mostly well-made cases for certain points of view here and imagine someone who stumbles across this forum might become confused.
Perhaps we're all confused.
Hey, guess what?
I saw a Ford Taurus FFV at Costco today, fillin up on GASOLINE. I asked the guy if he ever put E85 in it -- he said, he might if there was any for sale around here.
He said it didn't cost any more to get the FFV and it is just a normal Taurus.
I got nearly excited for about 90 seconds.
I'm over it now. :surprise:
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060708/BUSINESS01/607080341/10- 14
Rocky
I think a lot of land is kept fallow (out of production) by payments from USDA. This preserves the fertility of the land, saves water and fuel, and reduces water pollution. A rush to produce ethanol from corn will bring more total land into production and lead to other land already cultivated being shifted to corn.
All this so we can hype ethanol as a solution that will allow us to continue to binge on motor fuel.
I see that one oil giant (Exxon-Mobil?) is questioning the morality of converting food to fuel.
By far the best solution is to change to vehicles that consume fewer BTUs per mile. This would entail far reaching changes in our lifestyle. Many people don't want to do this and there is a fear that this would wreck the economy.
That I would question. I think if anything converting corn to ethanol is good from the standpoint of not making as much "Poor quality food stuffs". The corn products we are sold at the store may be the biggest health threat to our country.
I think a lot of land is kept fallow (out of production) by payments from USDA. This preserves the fertility of the land, saves water and fuel, and reduces water pollution.
Leaving land to rejuvenate itself is wise land management. Corn growers will become so addicted to the ethanol check that they will not use good land management practices. I have never received a penny from the government for not growing crops on my farm. I think that is something reserved for the Mega Farms & tobacco farmers like Al Gore.
When land rejuvenates here in the Minnesota, the plant that naturally takes over the land is switchgrass... which is a product that can be for feeding livestock, and sometimes is in times of drought. That switchgrass can also be used to produce ethanol.
Switchgrass also naturally grows on the sides of highways. So why not make good use of that too?
JOHN
So far, the only evidence I have found says the answer is no.
Our President did use the word switchgrass -- so of course we immediately begin cranking up the machine to produce ethanol from -- what -- corn.
Folks as diverse as clik and clak and government officials and think tanks and academic institutions and even "horsepower tv" personalities all speak well and with clarity about the advantages of diesel and biodiesel.
Yet, my personal enthusiasm for such an approach (although somewhat bolstered by tax credits for those who buy diesel vehicles), is tempered by the enormous negative history about diesel powered cars and light trucks.
Who Killed the Electric Car? Who Killed the Electric Car? (thinking, of course of the movie.)
Rather. . .
Hell, I want to know who killed diesel, hmm, must be Tom Cruise in his role of pre-crime cop, in the bizzaro world where pragmatic solutions with, apparently, few side effects are discounted, not shouted from the rooftops and apparently left to atrophy.
The last sentence of what follows may be one of the greatest understatements ever (Movie Review):
In 1990 General Motors rolled out an electric concept car. Later that year California mandated that automakers sell a percentage of emissions-free vehicles there. Hello, future? Six years later the concept car had evolved into the stylish, well-engineered EV1 - but the legislation was being dismantled, and GM rather eagerly threw production into reverse. By 2003 the automaker announced it would yank back all leased EV1s from early adopters, who loved the cars despite some limitations, and within a couple of years the fleet had been "recycled." Ex-lessee Chris Paine's activist documentary might have been a shrill assault on the usual suspects. Instead he delivers a provocative exploration of competing interests - each articulately voiced - and of broad consumer indifference. Grade: A
- Clayton Collins - C.S. Monitor
On that I agree. The problem is, the only company (Iogen) that has a working plant that will do that, is not getting enough funding to build. We have too much invested in Corn Ethanol to take a chance on a product that will compete.
I would like to know how they assigned the energy to grow the corn to the different products.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
How much water does it take to make a gallon of ethonol?
We tried ethonol once before and it did not work.
How about suing Congress who are pushing this crap? How about suing ADM who spread the bucks around to get congress to push this crap?
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
That is true. The real sad story is the little towns in the Midwest. ADM & Verasun come in with tall tales of riches for the local people. They get land, water and tax breaks. Everyone gets a nice job that pays more than whatever they were doing before. Housing prices go up. Many buy into new homes with higher mortgage payments.
THEN, 5-10 years down the road the corn ethanol plant is no longer needed. They built a switchgrass plant in the next town, and the corn ethanol plant is outdated. ADM has made a fortune. You and I guaranteed the loans on the plant. And our friends in the little Midwestern town are bankrupt. No high paying job, no money for the big mortgage, banks get more houses than they can sell. All because of greed and corrupt legislation.
It's a political problem. I think that every politician in Washington remembers when Jimmy Carter gave a speech on television when he told the American people to address the energy crisis by turning down the heat in their homes, and wearing a sweater, instead.
We know what happened to him. You're not going to find anyone in DC on either side of the aisle who sees a chance to advance his political career by telling the voters to sacrifice. This is a nation built on prosperity, and the last thing we want is to have our politicians tell us that we can't consume as we like.
It's the same reason why you won't find increased fuel taxes being used to motivate behavior, but you will see tax credits. The latter doesn't require any change in behavior from consumers, while the former would stick it in their faces.
I think Congress is protected. I agree on suing the Mega AG companies like ADM & Verasun. Maybe we can nail a Congress person or two for bribery. I imagine it will all be white washed like the MTBE mess they got us into.
Sorry, I missed the irony. That's what I get for reading quickly and multitasking...
Suppose you decide your personal budget is broken, and you must rectify the situation. The thing you must do immediately is to figure out what expenditures you can eliminate, not where can you get more income this afternoon or tomorrow. In the longer term you may be able to secure higher income, but that is far from certain for just about anybody. Being determined to balance a budget by achieving higher income usually gets people into a lot of trouble.
That's the strategy of just about every successful growth company that you can think of. To get a return on investment, first you need to make an investment.
Gerald E Smith
Providence RI
See Brazilian Trees May Harbor Millions of Unidentified Species of Bacteria .
The Atlantic forest of Brazil, which in the past 400 years has been reduced to less than 8 percent of its original size, could contain as many as 13 million unidentified species of bacteria, a new study has found. Not only do the results point to an abundance of life still remaining the forest, but they indicate a potentially untapped resource for drug development.
"Besides the importance of these bacteria in ecosystem stability, they can also be sources of biochemical compounds for the pharmaceutical industry and agriculture," says Marcio Lambais of the University of Sao Paulo in Brazil, whose team published their results in today's issue of Science.
Suppose you decide your personal budget is broken, and you must rectify the situation. The thing you must do immediately is to figure out what expenditures you can eliminate, not where can you get more income this afternoon or tomorrow. In the longer term you may be able to secure higher income, but that is far from certain for just about anybody. Being determined to balance a budget by achieving higher income usually gets people into a lot of trouble.
If we build these refineries here in my state and the fuel created is indeed E85, it will be some time before we Ohioans, even, can purchase it.
Touted as numbers we may achieve, are fuel costs about 30% cheaper than gasoline. Today, the price of REGULAR unleaded, E10 actually, at a major brand retailer is $3.05.
If one could find a filling station, today, and put E85 into his/her FFV car or SUV, this tankful of E85 (AND if it were indeed priced at 70% of the price of gasoline,) would cost about the same to use as it would to use gasoline.
There would only be altruistic motivation to use E85 that is.
And, if it really could be priced as mentioned above, TODAY, that would be with the $.51 per gallon subsidy. As this subsidy erodes, it is, I assume, hoped that E85 will, due to other economic reasons, fall in price, offsetting the subsidy as it declined.
We are currently nowhere near this kind of price disparity -- that is, it is very rare to find 3 buck gas right next to $2.10 E85. Yesterday, according to the New York Times, E85 is ~ $.20 more gallon than gasoline.
Meantime our strapped state is pumping public money into helping these new refineries -- money it cannot afford to pump, currently.
Now for somewhat of a reality check -- the price of E85 is NOT 30% less than the price of gasoline.
It would be, if one could buy the car and find the fueling station, more expensive to use E85.
E85, presently, is inconvenient and expensive.
Now, once again, I do believe we should pursue alternatives -- but this is more than a pursuit. This is being presented and funded (subsidized) not as R&D and/or an energy or social experiment, it is being being presented as if it were a proven solution and worthy of the full capitalistic treatment -- which would seem to imply no government subsidies would be required or "allowed."
Were it being subsized, but NOT by our government, I might feel more comfortable about the consequences to my state.
As it stands it seems like the winners may be ADM, et al -- and the losers will be those folks in Cadiz, Ohio who will potentially be propped up because of some government mandates, only to be disappointed later due to the circumsatnces surrounding this "investment."
Check back with me in 2008 and let me know if you really do have lower fuel costs ALL things taken into account.
I hope I am wrong. :surprise:
As many have said, the best way to cut our fossil fuel consumption is to use less. Tell me how driving a PU truck or SUV on E85 will save any oil? Give facts and figures. If folks feel the urge to save more oil they should drive less and buy a Corolla, Cobalt, Focus, Civic etc and save some serious oil.
But doing that will not achieve *BOTH* goals.
JOHN
What other goal besides using less fossil fuel? Buying one of the aforementioned cars would do more to cut fossil fuel use, than buying any of the available E85 capable FFVs and using E85. Of course finding E85 is a major problem for 99% of the US population.
Yet this is slowly changing -- and there is a school of thought that suggests (not without merit) this will also be associated with lower pump prices.
The disconnect between the more pro and less pro ethanol crowd keeps showing up though.
The pro crowd says "drive less, drive more economical cars, etc." -- this doesn't seem likely (yet.)
The pro crowd also says buy FFV's and use E85 -- this is currently difficult to do even if one wants to do this.
The pro crowd seems less likely to acknowledge that FFV's using E85 achieve poorer MPG's, but that today the price of E85 does not support much commercial/retail enthusiasm for its use.
The government mandate and subsidy and tax credit may encourage the growth of supply and availability (and hopefully lower the cost of E85 at the pump at to a number that is "always" at least 30% less than gasoline.)
But to get to 10% of the population having access to and actually using E85 seems so far in the future and without some economic incentive that is widely understood to be a "good deal" still somewhat of an unlikely short term remedy for anything other than ADM's P&L.
Put yourself in the oil company position. They own gas stations to sell gas. Why would they want to take up valuable tank and island space to sell E85? Only independents, farm co-ops and big chain stores like Walmart would go for it. Then only to grab some of the "Free money" Uncle is spending like a drunk sailor on this boondoggle. It may work to get more Republicans elected this fall. I know I would not vote for any politician that voted in favor of Corn Ethanol.
I don't even know where to begin to respond to that.
I am often wrong, but I do NOT think this is a Rep or Dem issue, per se.
There are those on both sides of the isle who are pro and con -- perhaps someone has info on each and every rep and senator's position and, then, PERHAPS, we could make this a party issue.
I doubt it though.
Ask her when was the last time we bought any of that low grade crude from Iran? I would rather keep the money in the USA as well. I just think we are squandering the money in Iowa and not cutting back one penny in Saudi Arabia. I'm with you we should be developing some of our own known sources of oil. ANWR & the Gulf off of Florida. If we don't the Canadians and Castro will. The Canadians are already producing oil on our border with ANWR in Alaska. Many work in our oilfields and laugh at our stupidity.
As a comparison it costs over $8 to get a barrel of ethanol to CA from the midwest. It also adds traffic, wear and tear to our Interstate highways. One of you math genius's should figure out how much diesel is consumed getting one gallon of Ethanol from Iowa to CA.
ANWR Map
Ethanol price chart
Wow! I never expected you to attempt something that blatantly non-constructive. But you did!!
Just 3 days ago, that's only 58 messages back, I pointed out what both goals were. And you responded to that very message 3 times! So there is quite simply no purpose for the question you just asked.
Heck, even the topic of E85 itself identifies that there is more than one goal.
JOHN
Shell oil, apparently using its own money, so says the Rand Corporation report, started "cooking" some oil shale some time ago. It has been demonstrated in a small way that oil can be produced that would be about $20bbl. It is not known what a large scale facility could do and when nor how much it would cost (or if those numbers are known, they are -- for me, thus far -- elusive.)
Here is what I read, from the Rand Report: Shell estimates that the ground can be heated (for four years) sufficiently to release the oil from the shale without "strip mining" and that the resulting crude can be turned into gasoline just like "normal" crude and that the costs appear to relate to a per bbl price of $20.
If this is wrong by half, what would it be worth to have approximately 100 years of our entire need for oil at present utilization be satisfied by our own resources at a cost in my made up scenario of $40/bbl?
Rand suggests considering the use of this resource over a 400 year period of time, for the record.
Summary of the Summary:
Prepared for the National Energy Technology Laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy
In-Situ Retorting.
In-situ retorting entails heating oil shale in place, extracting the liquid from the ground, and transporting it to an upgrading or refining facility. Because in-situ retorting does not involve mining or aboveground spent shale disposal, it offers an alternative that does not permanently modify land surface topography and that may be significantly less damaging to the environment.
Shell Oil Company has successfully conducted small-scale field tests of an insitu process based on slow underground heating via thermal conduction. Larger-scale operations are required to establish technical viability, especially with regard to avoiding adverse impacts on groundwater quality. Shell anticipates that, in contrast to the cost estimates for mining and surface retorting, the petroleum products produced by their thermally conductive in-situ method will be competitive at crude oil prices in the mid-$20's per barrel.
The largest known oil shale deposits in the world are in the Green River Formation, which covers portions of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. Estimates of the oil
resource in place within the Green River Formation range from 1.5 to 1.8 trillion barrels.
Not all resources in place are recoverable. For potentially recoverable oil shale resources, we roughly derive an upper bound of 1.1 trillion barrels of oil and a lower bound of about 500 billion barrels. For policy planning purposes, it is enough to know that any amount in this range is very high. For example, the midpoint in our estimate range, 800 billion barrels, is more than triple the proven oil reserves of Saudi Arabia.
Present U.S. demand for petroleum products is about 20 million barrels per day. If oil shale could be used to meet a quarter of that demand, 800 billion barrels
of recoverable resources would last for more than 400 years.
The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit research organization providing objective analysis and effective solutions that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors around the world.
Lornasshep