Let me get this straight - the robbers have $ for a gun (wonder if they could afford bullets?), had an SUV, and spent time instead of working to hope to get a few hundred $'s cash which might last them a few days? It sounds like they need a brain, and not gas.
That statement implies that improving the standard of living and protecting the environment are mutually exclusive.
From a chemical or thermodynamic point-of-view all actions result in waste and increase in entropy. As most of us consider standard-of-living = increased personal or macro GDP, then growing the conomy and using more resources results in more waste and more resources/energy converted. It's just where to you want to do that. The U.S. and many other countries simply have moved their dirty-operations to other countries like China and India. And many of us don't want any sort of environmental changes, so we don't drill and dig in many areas, and prefer to import our oil. We basically let the Saudis, Kuwaitis and others have their environment changed.
In fact I don't think it is possible to have a high standard of living in a toxic environment.
Toxic is a term best defined as "quantity ingested". Everything is toxic including pure water, or pure oxygen. For example - if one goes to their tap, and drinks 2+ gallons of water, you'd discover your environment is toxic. We're exposed to radioactivity naturally emitting from the soil, hundreds of different microbes, and heavy metals everyday (even in organically grown veggies!), so we all deal with it. In fact the more energy efficient we make our homes by making them tighter, exposes us to more radon!
Toxic is a term best defined as "quantity ingested". Everything is toxic including pure water, or pure oxygen. For example - if one goes to their tap, and drinks 2+ gallons of water, you'd discover your environment is toxic
Now you're just being obtuse. This rivals your comment about how using incandescent lightbulbs in the wintertime effectively offsets your heating bill so there is no gain in switching to CFL's during the colder months.
I grew up in So. CA during the 60's and 70's. I can assure you that the air and beaches are much cleaner today than back then. I'm also pretty sure that CA's GDP has grown considerably during this period. Your comments imply that this is impossible. Well, you're wrong.
Here in the Maryland suburbs, east of DC, I'm seeing mainly $3.05-$3.15 for 87, $3.25-3.30 for mid-grade, and $3.36-3.40 for hi-test. It's crept up maybe 5-10 cents per gallon over the last 2 weeks.
Also up here another dime since last week. Now paying $3.55/gal for regular unleaded. All these dramatic predictions in the media this last week of $4 gas by spring seem quite likely in my area...
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
It's absolutely psychotic and immoral around here. Sunoco Regular is $3.11 and "ultra?"93 is $3.35. I'm counting on $4.00+ regular gasoline by summer. Prius, anyone?
The high diesel prices haven't slowed down the semi drivers on the interstates in this area. Speed limit is 55 and they keep on keeping on. I'd think they'd slow down to economize on fuel expense on their spreadsheet.
>I'm counting on $4.00+ regular gasoline by summer.
After 7 years of hearing the administration vilified as the cause of higher fuel prices, I'm sure the next president will just snap their fingers in January and make those prices drop back below $2. --All that magic.
Shoot, diesel is closing in on $4.00 fast! I remember those Diesel Rabbits that would get something like 50 MPG. I guess even if you had one, the oil companies still found a way to screw you. Those high diesel prices will soon be showing up at your local supermarket. Spaghetti-Os at $5 a can?!?!? Good Lord, that's a lotta money!
I'd think they'd slow down to economize on fuel expense on their spreadsheet.
I think their time is still more valuable than the cost of diesel. You have a load of strawberries headed to NYC you cannot slow down and take a chance of losing them. With only so many hours allowed per day the regulations are pushing the drivers to go as fast as they can get away with. I think the independents are in a NO win situation. Many trucking companies in CA have been driven out of business by regulations here. It will spread to the rest of the country. I got my garden patch going good. We have had fresh peas all winter and the beets are coming up nicely. $4 fuel will impact everything we eat, wear and use.
I wonder which industry pollutes less on a "per product delivered per capita" calculation? Trucking or Rail? My guess is rail. Especially the clean locomotives made by GE.
Maybe the high cost of diesel will mean fewer truckers and more rail deliveries. Getting some of the huge numbers of 18-wheelers off the road is bound to have some good consequences, right?
There is no doubt that rail is far cleaner than a semi on a per ton basis. Those new engines you are referring to are far cleaner than the cleanest hybrid cars on a per ton mile calculation. When I drive to your city I see mile after mile of freight crossing the country. I have read that we are impacted on rail freight service at present. I do not see us adding to the railroad infrastructure. Though it may be a good move.
...I wouldn't mind seeing a massive upgrade in our rail infrastructure. I'm hoping that SEPTA reopens a line that's been closed since 1982. I could pretty much do without a car if that happens. I believe all of SEPTA's trains are electric, so no waste of diesel fuel there!
Heck, my Dad told me stories about riding the train from Philadelphia all the way to NE Pennsylvania to see relatives as recently as the 1950s. Now that my parents live there, I wouldn't mind leaving the Caddy or Park Ave at home and riding the old Lehigh Valley line to see them.
Back in the day the Lehigh River had two rail line along its shores. The Lehigh Valley R.R. was on the eastern bank and the New Jersey Central was on the western bank. The LVRR rails are still there, but the CRRNJ rails ceased operations in 1959 and were tore-up sometime in the 1970s. Sad. Back in the 1950s, you could've taken an excursion ride from New York City to NE PA to see this picturesque country on the New Jersey Central.
Those were anthracite lines first and last, and the rise of home heating oil after World War II is what put them out of business (along with excessive regulation and cash-cow taxation). If oil gets expensive enough, they might be worth rebuilding someday.
Rail cargo is still using diesel, but seems to be a lot LOT cleaner than trucking:
Rail transport has comparative advantages in carrying heavy bulk traffic on specific itineraries over long distances. For instance, a 10 car freight train can carry as much cargo as 600 trucks. Beside its emphasis on safety and reliability, rail transport favors the fast commuting of suburbanites during peak hours and has become an important mode supporting passenger movements in large cities.
So a 30 car train can replace 1800 trucks? Must be talking about Tonka trucks!! If true, indeed Amazing !!
If you related rail efficiency to a vehicle it would mean a 4000 lb car would be getting 203 MPG on diesel.
Prior to 1980, a gallon of diesel fuel moved one ton of freight an average of 235 miles. In 2001, the same amount of fuel moved one ton of freight an average of 406 miles. Overall, railroads and rail suppliers have reduced the weight and increased the capacity of rail cars to improve fuel efficiency and reduce emissions.
Here is what UP is doing to conserve fuel:
Even though fuel prices are at record highs, and the railroad is hauling more materials than ever before (four percent more than last year at this time), Union Pacific was able to shave two percent off its diesel fuel consumption during the first quarter of 2006 – resulting in nearly $7 million in savings. The railroad was able to achieve the savings through a number of energy conservation initiatives, including:
* Creation and deployment of the Fuel Masters program to reward locomotive engineers for efficiently operating trains * Acquisition of newer, more fuel-efficient locomotives * Implementation of changes in traffic flow and operations to move freight more efficiently.
"We all have a role to play in helping conserve fuel for our nation, and Union Pacific employees are doing it every day," said Jim Young, president and CEO, Union Pacific.
For instance, a 10 car freight train can carry as much cargo as 600 trucks.
I agree, that doesn't sound right. I'd say the ratio is probably more like one freight car for every two semi trailers. I've seen trains hauling semi trailers, and they usually get two trailers per flatcar. However, these are short trailers, not the long 50-53 foot or whatever trailers that I see associated with most 18 wheelers.
According to UP, the trucking companies may say otherwise: Railroad versus Road In terms of fuel efficiency, railroads are three times more fuel-efficient than trucks. If just 10 percent of the freight moved by highway were diverted to rail, the nation could save as much as 200 million gallons of fuel each year. And, railroad fuel efficiency has increased by 72 percent since 1980.
My cousin got sucked into a partnership as an independent trucker back in the 1990s. They hauled produce from and to Minnesota. It was always a rush job. You cannot always count on the RR for quick PU and delivery. He lost his shorts in the venture. Long haul trucking is not an easy way to make a living.
the nation could save as much as 200 million gallons of fuel each year.
I'm all for sending more freight by rail. In addition to the increased efficiency it would reduce congestion, accidents and wear and tear on the highways. However 200 million gallons isn't all that much in a country that uses over 140 billion gallons of fuel per year. It represents roughly 1/2 day of consumption.
Having traveled Interstates 8 & 10 recently, I would say any reduction in truck traffic will be a blessing. The $4 fuel may be the impetus needed to cut back on trucks and opt for the rails. In the mean time we will be paying more for food. I can see it already at the Supermarkets. When you combine making ethanol with corn and the higher prices for transport it makes the grocery bill higher. I did get an email recently that showed the cost of food around the world. We are no where near the most expensive, Yet
I know the higher fuel costs have been reflected in food prices - I do the grocery shopping for my kids and myself, so I have seen it going up.
But I SERIOUSLY DOUBT that Ethanol has a thing at all to do with higher food prices. The ethanol production is not at a high enough level yet to be affecting overall food prices.
I will have to disagree. I have a lot of data that backs up the ethanol causing higher food prices argument.
SIOUX CENTER, Iowa, Jan. 11 - Early every winter here, farmers make their best guesses about how much food the world will demand in the coming year, and then decide how many acres of corn to plant, and how many of soybeans.
But this year is different. Now it is not just the demand for food that is driving the decision, it is also the demand for ethanol, the fuel that is made from corn.
The rising corn prices may be good news for farmers, but they are worrying some food planners.
"We're putting the supermarket in competition with the corner filling station for the output of the farm," said Lester R. Brown, an agriculture expert in Washington, D.C., and president of the Earth Policy Institute. Farms cannot feed all the world's people and its motor vehicles as well, Mr. Brown said, and the result is that more people will go hungry.
There is a shortage of wheat as a result of farmers planting the more lucrative corn for ethanol.
9:03 PM EST, February 20, 2008
Take a spoonful of population growth. Add a pinch of ethanol. Throw in a weak U.S. dollar and a drought in Australia. That's the recipe for a staggering increase in wheat prices, which has caused the cost of bagels and pizzas -- to name just a few edibles -- to shoot through the roof. And it's not coming down anytime soon.
The price of a plain bagel has jumped more than 10 percent at many stores, and some shop owners are afraid they won't be able to stay in business.
"For the past four or five months, it's going crazy," said Joe Assemi, owner of Cup O' Joe Bagels in Huntington. "Pretty soon I'll have to shut the door and go home."
Store owners have seen flour prices double and even triple in the past year due to fluctuations in the wheat market. Increasing demand and poor weather in Australia and South America are just two of the factors driving prices up.
If you don't think that ethanol is having an impact on the price of our food. You are just about the only one I know of that believes that. I cannot think of any other reason the price of corn has doubled. I cannot think of any other reason why Mexican farmers would dig up Agave to plant corn for tortillas. I cannot think of any other reason why Imperial valley farmers would plant corn instead of cotton and lettuce. Interesting how the production of ethanol has increased and the price of oil has gone up. I guess Congress needs a plan "B".
I think your pro-ethanol bias might be sticking out.
Corn prices have pretty much doubled in the last couple years. That obviously inflates the price of any food product that uses corn, either directly or indirectly. An indirect example would be ranchers that use corn for feed.
It also inflates the price of a lot of other commodities. With corn prices being so high farmers are allocating more land to produce corn. This means less land is going to produce wheat, soy beans, etc.. If less of these commodities are being produced their price will definitely go up.
The impact our ethanol mandate has had on food prices has been almost universally acknowledged. The question that is still to be answered is whether or not it has reduced our consumption of oil.
Ethanol is great no doubt about it. But studies show that were about 15 years into the future before enough refineries could be built, and enough filling stations accross the U.S. could be made accesiable to all Ethanol users. This country hasn't built an Oil refinery in the past 30 years. Yet I was in the Houston area in the early 1980,s when allOil Wells were capped. The remaining capped Oil refineries would take several years to be put back into working order after laying dormant for so many years. Yes America has plenty of it's own oil beneath our surface. But that's a subject our Politicians will not address. Also consider how Oil rich Mexico is. We could drill there and get all the oil we need. By doing that Mexico's economy would grow by leaps and bounds there would be work for every one American & Mexican oil drillers. And we wouldn't have to travel 12,000 miles round trip per oil tanker to bring middle eastern oil to our shores, and gouge us by the barrel. Drilling tests were performed in the Mexican Interior, and the reports showed that Mexico is as Oil rich as the middle east. I believe the report was done by Geoligists from U.C.L.A. and the private sector in the early 1980,s. These are my thoughts. Thank you, Ben.
Oil up $5 today to $104.something. I stopped and topped off at $2.93 a gallon on way home from work, thinking It will be $3.20 tomorrow. Then it might be $3.35 for spring break and $3.60 for the Indy 500, and $3.80 for the summer driving season. However, if the Exxon funded, Univ of Colo. annual prediction of how active the hurricane season will be, comes in as normal or below normal, $3.80 will be the peak until someone lights off a fire at a refinery or determines that the Alaska pipeline has rust in it. Then we'll finally get our $4 gas.
I saw an article about ethanol. Since corn has doubled and then some since ethanol got popular, profitability of ethanol production has plummetted from 100% to 12% of investment for producers. No new ethanol plants are able to get financing because the business case isn't there anymore at $5 a bushell. It takes $3 a bushell to be a worthwhile venture. Banks are no longer financing anything. ADM won't build less than a 2 million gallon a year plant anymore because they need the economy of scale for it to pan out. The little guys are all out of the business now. On the plus side, my farming neighbors all have nice new trucks now, they are caught up on their mortgages, and the finite aquifers wont be drained to empty throughout the great plains until about 2040 now. I saw a show about how fertilizer mining is ruining Idaho, environmentally. We all need to eat don't we? Maybe we can slow down the destruction of Idaho hunting and fishing lands by growing less corn for ethanol. Or, maybe we won't need ethanol since nobody needs to drive out to Idaho to go fishing, and so fuel use is dropping, and since all the rivers are polluted and the fish and game are toxic, there is no natural beauty left to see.
The housing market is soft right now here in Boise, but the commercial projects are still ticking along. I think I read that we lost 500 farms here last year and quite a few of them have been "paved over."
I filled up the minivan tonight - $50. Cheapest gas at the grocery stores now is $3.15 for regular.
Demand has already weakened in the U.S.. Fuel consumption this past year is essentially unchanged from the previous year. That is relatively weak when you consider that fuel consumption typically goes up 1 1/2 percent a year in this country. The reality is that oil is a global commodity and on that level demand in this country is not nearly as significant a factor as it was 10 years ago. The economies of China, India and many other Asian countries keep chugging along with near 10% GDP growth and nearly comparable growth in oil consumption.
When OPEC refuses to increase production I somewhat suspect it is because they can't. My reasoning is that in past years OPEC would set production quotas and there would always be member countries that would cheat on these quotas. That was with oil prices well below $50/barrel. We now have oil at $100/barrel and suddenly no one's cheating. Maybe it's because they are all producing at or near their max and it isn't possible to cheat.
Even a manipulated market will eventually reach some sort of equilibrium. Apparently $5/bushel for corn represents the point where demand and supply are somewhat in balance.
You're correct in saying that at this price only the biggest players, like ADM, can make a profit from producing ethanol from corn. Many smaller projects are being cancelled. So what should the government do? Increase subsidies so that once again these smaller projects are financially viable? All that would do is drive the price of corn up another couple dollars and we'd be back in the same situation. Unfortunately the government has put itself in the position where it can't just admit it made a mistake and terminate these programs without a lot of people, like your farming neighbors, crying foul.
There's been talk for years of producing ethanol from non-food stocks, cellulosic ethanol. That might actually make some sense. Are they any closer to being able to do that?
U.S. food inflation is rising but don't blame the ethanol-based boom in corn prices, the head of global agriculture and food-industry research firm Informa Economics said on Monday.
Memphis, Tennessee-based Informa, formerly called Sparks Companies, said a study based on 20 years of price data shows that corn prices have minimal impact on the U.S. Consumer Price Index for food, which has been on the rise.
The study, released on Monday, "debunks the concept that the ethanol expansion is the underlying and main significant reason for food price increases," Bruce Scherr, Informa's chief executive, told Reuters in an interview.
"We're not saying that corn prices are cheap, that ethanol hasn't helped underpin the growth in the corn economy," Scherr said. "What we are saying is to blame corn and corn-based ethanol for all of the inflation associated with food and food prices ... is to grossly under-consider all the other forces at work."
So, looks like it just an Urban Myth to think that corn ethanol is to blame for higher food prices lately. What a shame.
Ethanol from corn is a simple money transfer operation, consumer to farmers and the ag. industry. Numerous studies, as reported in Scientific American, National Geographic, and by the EU, demonstrate this. There's a good discussion on ethanol The inconvenient truth about ethanol where you can read much more about it. Other sources of ethanol, if not food based, do have promise, but the current corn-based program is no 'bridge' to these new sources. The same technology is being used today as was used at the last energy crunch, nothing new. They are getting closer, but it's still down the road for cellulosic ethanol.
Sorry, you're not reading it correctly. They said "to blame cor and corn-based ethanol for ALL of the inflation associated with food and food prices...". They didn't say "any of the inflation". So they are admitting it's a contributor, just arguing about the amount. Certainly, oil prices have also contributed, but corn is a raw material in a huge amount of food and other products. Anyway, it's a dead-end, with very limited contribution to either energy conservation or GW concerns.
That study was produced by a research firm for the agricultural industry. Given that this industry benefits from any kind of government farm subsidy do you really think they would take an objective position on this? Exxon/Mobil has funded studies that conclude burning fossil fuels does not contribute to global warming. Forty years ago the tobacco industry funded studies that stated cigarette smoking was not addictive and did not contribute to cardio-vascular disease.
It is not difficult to start out with a conclusion that then create a study for the purpose of supporting this pre-determined result. With that in mind I tend to give more credibility to a study that was authored by an objective, unbiased source that doesn't benefit in any way from the outcome.
Comments
From a chemical or thermodynamic point-of-view all actions result in waste and increase in entropy. As most of us consider standard-of-living = increased personal or macro GDP, then growing the conomy and using more resources results in more waste and more resources/energy converted. It's just where to you want to do that. The U.S. and many other countries simply have moved their dirty-operations to other countries like China and India. And many of us don't want any sort of environmental changes, so we don't drill and dig in many areas, and prefer to import our oil. We basically let the Saudis, Kuwaitis and others have their environment changed.
In fact I don't think it is possible to have a high standard of living in a toxic environment.
Toxic is a term best defined as "quantity ingested". Everything is toxic including pure water, or pure oxygen. For example - if one goes to their tap, and drinks 2+ gallons of water, you'd discover your environment is toxic. We're exposed to radioactivity naturally emitting from the soil, hundreds of different microbes, and heavy metals everyday (even in organically grown veggies!), so we all deal with it. In fact the more energy efficient we make our homes by making them tighter, exposes us to more radon!
Now you're just being obtuse. This rivals your comment about how using incandescent lightbulbs in the wintertime effectively offsets your heating bill so there is no gain in switching to CFL's during the colder months.
I grew up in So. CA during the 60's and 70's. I can assure you that the air and beaches are much cleaner today than back then. I'm also pretty sure that CA's GDP has grown considerably during this period. Your comments imply that this is impossible. Well, you're wrong.
How about the rest of you - is it still going up, down, or steady?
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
20 million barrels of oil per day * $100/barrel = $2 Billion per day, not $2 Trillion.
The eye popper is diesel at $3.67 around town.
If we get more diesels powered cars here expect that to go up.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
The high diesel prices haven't slowed down the semi drivers on the interstates in this area. Speed limit is 55 and they keep on keeping on. I'd think they'd slow down to economize on fuel expense on their spreadsheet.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
After 7 years of hearing the administration vilified as the cause of higher fuel prices, I'm sure the next president will just snap their fingers in January and make those prices drop back below $2. --All that magic.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I think their time is still more valuable than the cost of diesel. You have a load of strawberries headed to NYC you cannot slow down and take a chance of losing them. With only so many hours allowed per day the regulations are pushing the drivers to go as fast as they can get away with. I think the independents are in a NO win situation. Many trucking companies in CA have been driven out of business by regulations here. It will spread to the rest of the country. I got my garden patch going good. We have had fresh peas all winter and the beets are coming up nicely. $4 fuel will impact everything we eat, wear and use.
Maybe the high cost of diesel will mean fewer truckers and more rail deliveries. Getting some of the huge numbers of 18-wheelers off the road is bound to have some good consequences, right?
It's definitely being done, but mostly in less-populated areas where the general public isn't really aware of it.
Heck, my Dad told me stories about riding the train from Philadelphia all the way to NE Pennsylvania to see relatives as recently as the 1950s. Now that my parents live there, I wouldn't mind leaving the Caddy or Park Ave at home and riding the old Lehigh Valley line to see them.
Back in the day the Lehigh River had two rail line along its shores. The Lehigh Valley R.R. was on the eastern bank and the New Jersey Central was on the western bank. The LVRR rails are still there, but the CRRNJ rails ceased operations in 1959 and were tore-up sometime in the 1970s. Sad. Back in the 1950s, you could've taken an excursion ride from New York City to NE PA to see this picturesque country on the New Jersey Central.
Rail transport has comparative advantages in carrying heavy bulk traffic on specific itineraries over long distances. For instance, a 10 car freight train can carry as much cargo as 600 trucks. Beside its emphasis on safety and reliability, rail transport favors the fast commuting of suburbanites during peak hours and has become an important mode supporting passenger movements in large cities.
So a 30 car train can replace 1800 trucks? Must be talking about Tonka trucks!! If true, indeed Amazing !!
Got that from this page:
Rail Transportation
Prior to 1980, a gallon of diesel fuel moved one ton of freight an average of 235 miles. In 2001, the same amount of fuel moved one ton of freight an average of 406 miles. Overall, railroads and rail suppliers have reduced the weight and increased the capacity of rail cars to improve fuel efficiency and reduce emissions.
Here is what UP is doing to conserve fuel:
Even though fuel prices are at record highs, and the railroad is hauling more materials than ever before (four percent more than last year at this time), Union Pacific was able to shave two percent off its diesel fuel consumption during the first quarter of 2006 – resulting in nearly $7 million in savings. The railroad was able to achieve the savings through a number of energy conservation initiatives, including:
* Creation and deployment of the Fuel Masters program to reward locomotive engineers for efficiently operating trains
* Acquisition of newer, more fuel-efficient locomotives
* Implementation of changes in traffic flow and operations to move freight more efficiently.
"We all have a role to play in helping conserve fuel for our nation, and Union Pacific employees are doing it every day," said Jim Young, president and CEO, Union Pacific.
I agree, that doesn't sound right. I'd say the ratio is probably more like one freight car for every two semi trailers. I've seen trains hauling semi trailers, and they usually get two trailers per flatcar. However, these are short trailers, not the long 50-53 foot or whatever trailers that I see associated with most 18 wheelers.
Railroad versus Road
In terms of fuel efficiency, railroads are three times more fuel-efficient than trucks. If just 10 percent of the freight moved by highway were diverted to rail, the nation could save as much as 200 million gallons of fuel each year. And, railroad fuel efficiency has increased by 72 percent since 1980.
I believe the cost-per-mile is 3 times more efficient, but rail still depends on trucks to deliver the last few miles.
I'm all for sending more freight by rail. In addition to the increased efficiency it would reduce congestion, accidents and wear and tear on the highways. However 200 million gallons isn't all that much in a country that uses over 140 billion gallons of fuel per year. It represents roughly 1/2 day of consumption.
I know the higher fuel costs have been reflected in food prices - I do the grocery shopping for my kids and myself, so I have seen it going up.
But I SERIOUSLY DOUBT that Ethanol has a thing at all to do with higher food prices. The ethanol production is not at a high enough level yet to be affecting overall food prices.
SIOUX CENTER, Iowa, Jan. 11 - Early every winter here, farmers make their best guesses about how much food the world will demand in the coming year, and then decide how many acres of corn to plant, and how many of soybeans.
But this year is different. Now it is not just the demand for food that is driving the decision, it is also the demand for ethanol, the fuel that is made from corn.
The rising corn prices may be good news for farmers, but they are worrying some food planners.
"We're putting the supermarket in competition with the corner filling station for the output of the farm," said Lester R. Brown, an agriculture expert in Washington, D.C., and president of the Earth Policy Institute. Farms cannot feed all the world's people and its motor vehicles as well, Mr. Brown said, and the result is that more people will go hungry.
There is a shortage of wheat as a result of farmers planting the more lucrative corn for ethanol.
9:03 PM EST, February 20, 2008
Take a spoonful of population growth. Add a pinch of ethanol. Throw in a weak U.S. dollar and a drought in Australia. That's the recipe for a staggering increase in wheat prices, which has caused the cost of bagels and pizzas -- to name just a few edibles -- to shoot through the roof. And it's not coming down anytime soon.
The price of a plain bagel has jumped more than 10 percent at many stores, and some shop owners are afraid they won't be able to stay in business.
"For the past four or five months, it's going crazy," said Joe Assemi, owner of Cup O' Joe Bagels in Huntington. "Pretty soon I'll have to shut the door and go home."
Store owners have seen flour prices double and even triple in the past year due to fluctuations in the wheat market. Increasing demand and poor weather in Australia and South America are just two of the factors driving prices up.
1. More farmers are planting corn than wheat
2. This is causing foods which use wheat to increase in price.
That's only a few of the items I shop for. All the REST have increased in price because of more expensive deliveries.
MeThinks your anti-ethanol bias is sticking out.........................LOL
Corn prices have pretty much doubled in the last couple years. That obviously inflates the price of any food product that uses corn, either directly or indirectly. An indirect example would be ranchers that use corn for feed.
It also inflates the price of a lot of other commodities. With corn prices being so high farmers are allocating more land to produce corn. This means less land is going to produce wheat, soy beans, etc.. If less of these commodities are being produced their price will definitely go up.
The impact our ethanol mandate has had on food prices has been almost universally acknowledged. The question that is still to be answered is whether or not it has reduced our consumption of oil.
I saw an article about ethanol. Since corn has doubled and then some since ethanol got popular, profitability of ethanol production has plummetted from 100% to 12% of investment for producers. No new ethanol plants are able to get financing because the business case isn't there anymore at $5 a bushell. It takes $3 a bushell to be a worthwhile venture. Banks are no longer financing anything. ADM won't build less than a 2 million gallon a year plant anymore because they need the economy of scale for it to pan out. The little guys are all out of the business now.
On the plus side, my farming neighbors all have nice new trucks now, they are caught up on their mortgages, and the finite aquifers wont be drained to empty throughout the great plains until about 2040 now.
I saw a show about how fertilizer mining is ruining Idaho, environmentally. We all need to eat don't we? Maybe we can slow down the destruction of Idaho hunting and fishing lands by growing less corn for ethanol. Or, maybe we won't need ethanol since nobody needs to drive out to Idaho to go fishing, and so fuel use is dropping, and since all the rivers are polluted and the fish and game are toxic, there is no natural beauty left to see.
I filled up the minivan tonight - $50. Cheapest gas at the grocery stores now is $3.15 for regular.
25 NX 450h+ / 24 Sienna Plat AWD / 23 Civic Type-R / 21 Boxster GTS 4.0
Gas Prices up, Production Down: $5.19 for Regular (KION CBS)
"Demand is expected to weaken in the second quarter"
So says OPEC.
Okay.
25 NX 450h+ / 24 Sienna Plat AWD / 23 Civic Type-R / 21 Boxster GTS 4.0
link title
When OPEC refuses to increase production I somewhat suspect it is because they can't. My reasoning is that in past years OPEC would set production quotas and there would always be member countries that would cheat on these quotas. That was with oil prices well below $50/barrel. We now have oil at $100/barrel and suddenly no one's cheating. Maybe it's because they are all producing at or near their max and it isn't possible to cheat.
You're correct in saying that at this price only the biggest players, like ADM, can make a profit from producing ethanol from corn. Many smaller projects are being cancelled. So what should the government do? Increase subsidies so that once again these smaller projects are financially viable? All that would do is drive the price of corn up another couple dollars and we'd be back in the same situation. Unfortunately the government has put itself in the position where it can't just admit it made a mistake and terminate these programs without a lot of people, like your farming neighbors, crying foul.
There's been talk for years of producing ethanol from non-food stocks, cellulosic ethanol. That might actually make some sense. Are they any closer to being able to do that?
Corn Ethanol NOT the culprit for high food prices. Notice is says NOT.
U.S. food inflation is rising but don't blame the ethanol-based boom in corn prices, the head of global agriculture and food-industry research firm Informa Economics said on Monday.
Memphis, Tennessee-based Informa, formerly called Sparks Companies, said a study based on 20 years of price data shows that corn prices have minimal impact on the U.S. Consumer Price Index for food, which has been on the rise.
The study, released on Monday, "debunks the concept that the ethanol expansion is the underlying and main significant reason for food price increases," Bruce Scherr, Informa's chief executive, told Reuters in an interview.
"We're not saying that corn prices are cheap, that ethanol hasn't helped underpin the growth in the corn economy," Scherr said. "What we are saying is to blame corn and corn-based ethanol for all of the inflation associated with food and food prices ... is to grossly under-consider all the other forces at work."
So, looks like it just an Urban Myth to think that corn ethanol is to blame for higher food prices lately. What a shame.
"corn prices have minimal impact on the U.S. Consumer Price Index for food"
That's all I said, that's all the study said. Nothing more or less to be read into it.
Regards,
OW
It is not difficult to start out with a conclusion that then create a study for the purpose of supporting this pre-determined result. With that in mind I tend to give more credibility to a study that was authored by an objective, unbiased source that doesn't benefit in any way from the outcome.