Let me guess, this is one of those futurist cellulose-—ethanol nonexistant technologies.
A little education is in order for you.
Posted on 11/28/2007 1:01:39 AM PST by CutePuppy
Claims for Environment, Energy Use Draw Fire; Fighting on the Farm
By LAUREN ETTER
November 28, 2007; Page A1
Little over a year ago, ethanol was winning the hearts and wallets of both Main Street and Wall Street, with promises of greater U.S. energy independence, fewer greenhouse gases and help for the farm economy. Today, the corn-based biofuel is under siege.
In the span of one growing season, ethanol has gone from panacea to pariah in the eyes of some. The critics, which include industries hurt when the price of corn rises, blame ethanol for pushing up food prices, question its environmental bona fides and dispute how much it really helps reduce the need for oil.
A recent study by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development concluded that biofuels "offer a cure [for oil dependence] that is worse than the disease." A National Academy of Sciences study said corn-based ethanol could strain water supplies. The American Lung Association expressed concern about a form of air pollution from burning ethanol in gasoline. Political cartoonists have taken to skewering the fuel for raising the price of food to the world's poor.
Last month, an outside expert advising the United Nations on the "right to food" labeled the use of food crops to make biofuels "a crime against humanity," although the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization later disowned the remark as "regrettable."
The fortunes of many U.S. farmers, farm towns and ethanol companies are tied to corn-based ethanol, of which America is the largest producer. Ethanol is also a cornerstone of President Bush's push to reduce dependence on foreign oil. But the once-booming business has gone in the dumps, with profits squeezed, plans for new plants shelved in certain cases, and stock prices hovering near 52-week lows.
.....
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
It’s not nice to fool Mother Nature. No one can insulate himself from the influence of the marketplace forever. Not even government.
Not forever, but they proved that they can do that for generations.
whoever believes any of this crap is mentally ill.
the reason Wall Street has soured on ethanol
is that the price has dropped from 4 bucks
a gallon, just after the MTBE phaseout,
to 2 bucks a gallon now.
Shhhhh!!! Nobody is allowed to tell Iowa to go get stuffed for another five weeks!
Iowa votes.
Corn wins.
America loses.
“That’s what happens when government “plans” the economy...
That’s what happens when government “plans” the economy...
That’s what happens when government “plans” the economy...
That’s what happens when government “plans” the economy...
That’s what happens when government “plans” the economy...”
People have been making ‘corn squeezins’ for years, and if they were such good fuel, they would have been running the jalopy on ‘em instead of drinking them. (well, the bad batches, anyway...)
"Why would he want to stick his thumb in the eye of Iowa farm interests?" you may ask. To understand the reason, you have to look at what can happen for Thompson in Iowa if he does not.
If Thompson runs the standard Panderpalooza campaign for Iowa, he will finish, at best, third, and probably fourth. This will be seen by all as a further indicator of his general decline and place a nail on the edge of his coffin that will be driven home by the New Hampshire primary soon to follow. By the time he gets to his Southern strength, it may be too late.
But if Thompson comes out strongly against the standard pander package deal in Iowa, his poor showing there will be seen as a result of his Principled Conservative stand against the subsidies and wasteful ethanol policies that Iowans hold near and dear. He will still finish fourth, or maybe fifth, but this will not be seen as an indicator of general decline, but rather an indicator of his commitment to as a Principled Conservative. Thus he will have a much better chance of surviving Iowa and getting to his Southern strength with a campaign intact.
In other words, Fred Thompson can choose to leave Iowa either as The Hapless Candidate in Decline or as The Principled Conservative Willing to Stand Up for What is Right. The former story has already been written by everybody in the MSM and is just waiting to be filed. The latter story could be substituted, and would put Fred Thompson in a much better position.
Furthermore, Thompson could take all the time and money he has budgeted for Iowa and spend it on other races, and have his stand against ethanol and subsidies to fall back on to explain his poor showing. Since time and money are both in short supply, this should be an appealing prospect.
Call it a long ball, a Hail Mary pass, if you will. But it is the best strategy for Fred Thompson and the Principled Conservative position as well. If Fred is going to win this thing, he is going to win it as the Principled Conservative. It is about time he started acting like it.
We could be energy independent utilizing Diesel from Coal. We have single states that alone have more energy potential in coal than Saudi Arabia has in oil. Gag and hog-tie the global warming alarmists and we can get some things done.
You need only talk to an elementary school child to understand they are being brainwashed to believe the anthropogenic global warming hoax. It’s time Americans started acting like Americans again, started innovating and stopped bowing to theories that are the stuff of hippie pipe dreams and not science.
You are absolutely forgetting “granny”! Granny easily beat Jethro in his hotrod in the old truck, utlizing white lightin’. :)
You’re smart, but Fred isn’t. Neither is Hunter when it comes to ethanol. I have no idea what they are thinking.
Why'd y'all think is had such a Southern emphasis?
We do not need to use food supplies to make biofuels. Hemp is easier to process and has many other uses that corn does not.
Despite the fact that men such as Henry Ford, Rudolph Diesel, and subsequent manufacturers of diesel engines saw the future of renewable resource fuels, a political and economic struggle doomed the industry. Manufacturing industrialists made modifications to the diesel engines so they could take advantage of the extremely low prices of the residual, low-grade fuel now offered by the petroleum industry. The petroleum companies wanted control of the fuel supplies in the United States and, despite the benefits of biomass fuel verses the fossil fuels, they moved ahead to eliminate all competition.
One player in the biofuel, paper, textile, as well as many other industries, was hemp. Hemp had been grown as a major product in America since colonial times by such men as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and has had both governmental and popular support. Hemp’s long history in civilization and the multitude of products that can be derived from this single plant has made it one of the most valuable and sustainable plants in the history of mankind. More importantly to the biofuel industry, hemp provided the biomass that Ford needed for his production of ethanol. He found that 30% hemp seed oil is usable as a high-grade diesel fuel and that it could also be used as a machine lubricant and an engine oil.
In the 1930’s, the industrialists entered the picture. William Randolph Hurst, who produced 90% of the paper in the United States, Secretary of Treasury, Andrew Mellon, who was a major financial backer for the DuPont Company which ha d just patented the chemical necessary to process wood pulp into paper, the Rockefellers, and other “oil barons”, who were developing vast empires from petroleum, all had vested interest in seeing the renewable resources industry derailed, the hemp industry eliminated, and biomass fuels derided. A campaign was begun to discredit hemp. Playing on the racism that existed in America, Hurst used his newspapers to apply the name “marijuana” to hemp. Marijuana is the Mexican word for the hemp plant. This application along with various “objective” articles began to create a fear. By 1937, these industrialists were able to parlay the fear they created into the Marijuana Tax Act. This law was the precursor to the demise of the hemp industry in the United States and the resultant long reaching effect on the biofuel, petroleum and many other industries. Within three years, Ford closed his biofuel plant.
http://www.ybiofuels.org/bio_fuels/history_biofuels.html
At the beginning of World War II, the groundwork for our current perceptions of biofuels was in place. First, the diesel engine had been modified, enabling it to use Diesel #2. Second, the petroleum industry had established a market with very low prices for a residual product. Third, a major biomass industry was being shut down. Corn farmers were unable to organize at that time and provide a potential product to replace hemp as a biomass resource. Finally, industries with immense wealth behind them were acting in concert to push forward their own agenda - that of making more wealth for themselves. It is interesting to note that, during World War II, the United States government launched a slogan campaign, “Hemp for Victory”, to encourage farmers to plant this discredited plant. Hemp made a multitude of indispensable contributions to the war effort. It is also interesting that, during World War II, both the Allies and Nazi Germany utilized biomass fuels in their machines. Despite its use during World War II, biofuels remained in the obscurity to which they had been forced.
This doesn’t even rise to the level of “planning” the economy. It’s more like tampering.
l0l...You speak the truth all the best drivers were the ones running the shine. Can you see Jeff Gordon running shine and whining he needed another round of wedge? heh
Ethanol....the new DDT ..whoda thunk it.....
ANother libtard idea not worth a tinker’s crap..
CHA.....hey man wuz that the baby i just threw out with the bathwater? FAARRRR OWWWWWT man,.
2 bucks? Gas averages $3.39 for Regular in San Diego, CA.
You’re smart, but Fred isn’t. Neither is Hunter when it comes to ethanol. I have no idea what they are thinking.
******************************
Energy Policy
Rep. Hunter (R-CA) voted against the Clean Energy Act of 2007. He also voted for the Gasoline for America’s Security Act of 2005, which allowed for the construction of new oil refineries. Hunter voted in favor of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. He did not vote, however, on the August 2007 New Direction for Energy Independence, National Security, and Consumer Protection Act.
http://www.cfr.org/bios/13302/duncan_hunter.html
I find CFR to be amazingly nonpartisan with some of the stuff I have read from there, considering their . Very strange.
I bet Hunter doesn’t pander to the Greens. And this is exactly what all this alternative fuel talk does, pander to the Greens who hold very little voting power. As far as the Iowans are concerned, Iowa isn’t exactly in the middle of urban scum-land, they can think for themselves:
http://www.smallbiztrends.com/2004countymap-final.gif
Iowa is a pretty nice place.
We do not need to use food supplies to make biofuels. Hemp is easier to process and has many other uses that corn does not.
************************
Really? Are you going to grow hemp in space? Underground? In the sea? Where else would you grow hemp, other then displacing current farmland? You know farmland which produces FOOD!
I’ve never had much doubt of ethanol’s usefulness. I was forced to buy gasoline diluted with 10% corn whiskey, and in turn my mpg dropped 10%. What did I gain?
As long as it takes more energy to produce ethanol than ethanol provides in fuel benefits, it will never ever become a viable substitute for oil or natural gas.
Perhaps it might, emphasize might, provide some economic benefits by providing jobs and the need for new infrastructure, etc.... but it will not signifigantly reduce the need for natural oils.
Besides, there is more oil still in the ground around this big wide world than we know. We haven’t even begun to explore Anarctica, most of South America, and many other areas.
Hemp can revitilize farmland when planted as a rotational crop...And there are millions of acres of farmland that are simply not utilized. If there is still the knee jerk opposition to hemp from drug warriors it must be noted that smoking a pound of hemp would only give the smoker a headache. Ole Randolf Hearst proved that a little propaganda can go a long way in a nation of ignorant sheep..
Agreed. Ethanol is the first ‘fuel’ in history that takes more energy to create than it produces. It wouldn’t work at all except for a distorted tax regime.
Drive across Iowa and you wouldn't see a single soybean field this past summer. It was almost wall to wall field corn, not even human consumption corn. Where's the food value in that?
You know farmland which produces FOOD!
Drive across Iowa and you wouldn’t see a single soybean field this past summer. It was almost wall to wall field corn, not even human consumption corn. Where’s the food value in that?
****************
*sigh*
The Pot Smokers of America (PSOA) are making the assertion that making ethanol from weed wouldn’t draw up the price of food.
Its not the fact that ethanol from CORN, because CORN is a food drives up the price of food, it is the displacement of crops. WEED ethanol would displace CORN crops just like ethanol CORN crops displace food CORN crops.
And 2nd of all, where in the hell is the sugar content in WEED, to ferment into alcohol anyways?
Allow me to simplify:
Scenario A: The world consists of 2 acres of land. 1 acre of land is used to produce CORN for ETHANOL. The 2nd acre of land is used to produce CORN for food consumption.
The price of CORN food is higher.
Scenario B: The world consists of 2 acres of land. 1 acre of land is used to produce WEED for ETHANOL. The 2nd acre of land is used to produce CORN for food consumption.
The price of CORN food is higher.
“blame ethanol for pushing up food prices, question its environmental bona fides and dispute how much it really helps reduce the need for oil.”
Ahh...yet another “GNS”* moment.
[*Gee, no sh**]
There you go with the ignorant smears...ok forget hemp then..Bush proposed using switch grass. Would that plant material satisfy your moral objections to hemp.
Green fuels produce lower emissions of greenhouse gases and atmospheric pollutants than does gasoline. But corn grain–derived biofuel has its downsides. Its critics point to the high energy costs associated with corn farming and environmental impacts such as fertilizer pollution and soil erosion
Using waste plant material instead of corn grain to produce ethanol and other green fuels may sidestep these problems. Annual U.S. accumulation of agricultural detritus such as cornhusks, switchgrass, and wood chips—collectively known as cellulosic biomass—measures nearly a billion tons per year. A study of biofuels released by the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) last July reports that biomass fuels from such sources could supply as much as 30 percent of the nation's fuel needs by 2050.
Truth hurts, I guess.
Really? Are you going to grow hemp in space? Underground? In the sea? Where else would you grow hemp, other then displacing current farmland? You know farmland which produces FOOD!
Hemp grows like a weed. It grows plenty of places food crops will not grow. In particular it grows just like tobacco and could be a replacement cash crop for the tobacco farmer.
***********************
It doesn’t matter if Hemp grows like a tree. It would still displace food crops like CORN ethanol displaces food crops. Probably at the exact same proportions too, considering HEMP DONT HAVE MUCH SUGAR CONTENT!
Let me guess, this is one of those futurist cellulose-—>ethanol nonexistant technologies.
There you go with the ignorant smears...ok forget hemp then..Bush proposed using switch grass. Would that plant material satisfy your moral objections to hemp.
*****************************
Switch grass would displace food crops, just like CORN ethanol displaces food crops. Higher food prices in both situations.
Just because CORN can be stuffed into a human piehole isn’t what drives the price of CORN up. Its the displacement of of land use.
If there was a plant called, “MEGA WEED X” which could be turned into ethanol with some magical futuristic technology, and it grew mostly in the northern-colder regions, and farmers stopped planting potatoes and instead planted “MEGA WEED X”, then the price of potatoes would go up.
And, it’s time that we demand the Congress to remove restrictions on drilling for new oil... ANWR, Gulf of Mexico, Coastal waters, etc. We’ll need new refinery capacity, as well. In my view, we have the elements of a true economic revival right in front of our eyes. Unfortunately, our myopic ‘leaders’ can’t see it.
Our reliance on Mid East oil puts us in the compromised position of supporting both sides of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, I believe. As long as we are paying for their oil (directly or indirectly), we are providing them means to continue funding jihadists and other terrorist types around the world. AND, we are still funding the WOT.
Did advancing ethanol prices hurt food supplies? Probably. However, don’t forget we are paying billions annually to ‘farmers’ to keep ground fallow in set-aside programs and such. Seems to me it’s time to get the gubmint out of agricultural economics all together. That would save billions, and allow the farming community to get back to what it does best...
If there was a plant called, “MEGA WEED X” which could be turned into ethanol with some magical futuristic technology, and it grew mostly in the desert regions, and farmers stopped planting ‘agave plant’ and instead planted “MEGA WEED X”, then the price of tequila would go up.
“We do not need to use food supplies to make biofuels. Hemp is easier to process and has many other uses that corn does not.”
Put “hemp” in your car and it will save fuel by making the car not care enough to take you to work.
Let me guess, this is one of those futurist cellulose-—ethanol nonexistant technologies.
A little education is in order for you.
Some southern redneck (BTW, I are one) should market kudzu as “Mega Weed X”. He’d make a fortune.
Seriously, if you make a home kit to turn kudzu to biofuel, the south would be energy independent (every summer).
And, why are so many people concerned about food prices? The marketplace will set the prices of these goods, as all others, IF we can get government out of the way long enough to let it happen. Unfortunately, too many of our enlightened “leaders” think they know better; which merely confirms their ignorance.
Yes, food prices are likely to increase if we begin to produce hemp, switchgrass, or other biomass products to be used to create ethanol.
Yes, we need to find a raw material that doesn’t require more energy to convert than it ultimately yields.
AND YES...we need to stop the ridiculous set-aside programs sponsored by the government that keeps productive ground out of service, thereby restricting the output from America’s farmland.
No way Hunter is going to cave to the enviro-whackos. I think ethanol is about agriculture and farmers for him. He was a farmer himself when he got back from the war, so maybe that’s the reason. I am not sure there is a candidate in the field who will speak against ethanol.
In regard to CFR; Did you see on some of the foreign policy, it starts out with, “Like, Huckabee, Hunter”. WTH? Hunter is like Huckabee? HAHAHA! You could put what Huckabee knows of foreign policy in a thimble and still have room for what the rest know about securing our borders. :)
“Researchers SEEKING to make ethanol must first unlock sugars from the plant polymer called cellulose and other plant carbohydrates. “Cellulose looks like a long string of pearls,” explains Charles Wyman of Dartmouth College in Hanover, N.H. “The individual pearls are the sugar-monomer units.” Yeast and bacterial cells CAN ferment those individual sugar monomers into alcohol.”
**********************
Your mistaking the PRESENT with the FUTURE.
I hope this burning food concept dies a swift and very painful death.
The use of cellulosic biofuels has some serious bottlenecks. Hauling and storing massive quantities of low-density feedstock is expensive, and breakdown of the cellulose to fermentable sugars is very slow. The process is more expensive than fermenting grain, and you end up with the same product - ethanol.
In every case, producing home-grown fuels has a cost, either economic or environmental. Are we willing to pay the cost to reduce cash outlays to hostile nations?
Tobacco is not grown like a weed.
Context is everything.
Go back and read the entire article.
Combined with the cost of Middle East nation building exercises such as the multi trillion dollar adventure in Iraq...I'd say the monetary net gain would be positive for us.
You have a better energy policy in the one comment than anyone in the presidential field. That doesn’t bode well for us does it? I am for drilling where we can and utilizing our own resources. We can throw diesel from coal into the mix and be completely energy independent in 4 years.
While we are drilling here at home and getting diesel from coal the rest can work out the viability of alternatives in the interim. I agree with you completely that energy independence is absolutely a security issue.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.