Posted on 03/18/2007 10:46:42 PM PDT by thackney
Paul Hitch has spent his entire life raising cattle and hogs on a stretch of the Oklahoma panhandle he says is "flat as a billiard table." His great-grandfather started the ranch in 1884, before Oklahoma was a state, and now Hitch, 63, is preparing to pass the family business on to his two sons.
But he worries that they'll face mounting pressures in the industry, particularly because of the soaring price for corn, which the business depends on to feed the livestock. In the past year, corn prices have doubled as demand from ethanol producers has surged.
"This ethanol binge is insane," says Hitch, who's president-elect of the National Cattlemen's Beef Assn. (NCBA). "This talk about energy independence and wrapping yourself in the flag and singing God Bless America—all that's going to come at a severe cost to another part of the economy."
The ethanol movement is sprouting a vocal crop of critics. While politicians including President George W. Bush and farmers across the Midwest hope that the U.S. can win its energy independence by turning corn into fuel, Hitch and an unlikely assortment of allies are raising their voices in opposition. The effort is uniting ranchers and environmentalists, hog farmers and hippies, solar-power idealists and free-market pragmatists (see BW Online, 02/2/07, " Ethanol: Too Much Hype—and Corn").
They have different reasons for opposing ethanol. But their common contentions are that the focus on corn-based ethanol has been too hasty, and the government's active involvement—through subsidies for ethanol refiners and high tariffs to keep out alternatives like ethanol made from sugar—is likely to lead to chaos in other sectors of the economy.
(Excerpt) Read more at businessweek.com ...
"I've said it before and I'll say it again: It's wrong to set up a system in which the production of fuel directly competes with the production of bourbon."
Jeff, your comment is the first intelligent thing I have seen written about ethanol.
Personally I think bio diesel is a bit more practical. But it will have the same effect on all the oil seed markets, plus I don't think people will be as willing to drive around little diesel powered cars, which, because of the need to conserve, will be gutless, underpowered little things.
Imagine gridlock with thousands of little rattling diesel engines idling. It will drive people even more crazy.
Petition to the UN that its a human right...
Yep. Gasoline, for all it's evils, if very efficient (has a high energy value, is cheap and available compared to alternatives.
If you make real good stuff, it could be dual use. :o) I remember my grandpappy made stuff like that once upon a time.
The practical answer is liquefied coal.
Amen! To paraphrase: "If they come, you will build it."
(Meaning: If there is a genuine demand, free enterprise will leap to meet it.... without government "incentives".
They used to use "gassifiers" during WW2 that used crushed coal, which was then lit, the gasses collected and burned in a regular gas engine.
If you google the subject, you will find some pics of those cars with a device mounted on the front bumper. They also work for wood chips.
Perhaps there is a practical way to extract these gasses compress and liquify them.
I think it's- "If you build it, they will come".
"Don't drink and drive."
Think of it as a dual-use fuel.
It is not the only commitment we need. You see the Military is a driver, Eisenhower's need for roads, the highway system, ditto the Internet. In the early 80's there were R & D programs for engines without cooling (and almost no lubrication system) for military Trucks the "Adiabatic Engines". They were prototyped and tested and were potentially omnivorous. Also A Wankel Program was afoot, the S.C.O.R.E. program, that engine was omnivorous.
These engines used a lot of expensive materials, but what I think may have been missing from these programs was control, i.e. electronic engine controls.
What is going on right now that may or may not be a driver is the 2010 NATO requirement that all engines in the military fleet need to run on JP5 and JP8.
In my opinion, the national commitment should be for an engine that is truly omnivorous.
An engine that is omnivorous at this point would be a big cost reducer for the big 3 if they truly want a world platform that doesn't require different engines for different markets. Also, the overlooked fuel at this point? natural gas (CNG LPG). I have been reading in certain parts of the world it is much cheaper (as much as 70%) than gasoline not to mention cleaner. Keep you eye on it, I seems to be building momentum.
First rule of civilization: Never burn your food.
The cost of sheet rock is up and nobody complaines that is ruining the building industry. Has anyone seen the price of kitchen cabinets lately? Where are the cries for the poor builder and home buyer who must live in a modest 3,000 sq ft house? /sarcasm and rant off
There isn't, Carbon Monoxide won't liquify above -140C.
And it's a lousy fuel anyway, delivering little energy for massive CO2 emission
"...The farmers will get rich anyway you work this..."
This is a problem?
Ann
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.