New West Energy Grok
Is Big Oil Blocking Ethanol?
By Richard Martin, 9-28-07
 |
|
 | |
|
Earlier this month POET Biorefining of Sioux Falls opened its 21st ethanol production plant, a Portland, Ind. Facility that will produce 65 million gallons a year. Poet now has the capacity to provide 1.1 billion gallons annually, making it the world’s largest ethanol company.
Unfortunately, according to a report by BusinessWeek’s David Kiley, the spread of ethanol into America’s vehicles is being stalled by a likely suspect: Big Oil. “Despite collecting billions for blending small amounts of ethanol with gas, oil companies seem determined to fight the spread of E85, a fuel that is 85% ethanol and 15% gas,” Kiley writes.
Though the industry collects a 51 cents-per-gallon federal subsidy for sales of E10 (10% ethanol and 90% gas), “it’s working against the E85 blend with tactics both overt and stealthy,” the article claims.
Writing on his R-Squared Energy Blog, Robert Rapier calls the BusinessWeek story “very misinformed.” Among other things, Rapier claims that Big Oil doesn’t really benefit from the ethanol subsidy, and that the nation couldn’t produce enough ethanol to displace 15% of the conventional gasoline supply (the congressionally mandated target for 2017) anyway.
Rapier mainly disputes the peripheral points in the BusinessWeek story, and since Kiley quotes Big Oil officials as saying essentially “we’re against E85”, it’s kind of hard to disprove his central thesis.
In other energy news: Interior Department analysts allege big underpayment for oil and gas leases on federal land; first new nuclear plant in 30 years to be built in South Texas; and DOE funds development of new batteries for plug-in electric cars.
In other energy news:
-- The Western Slope residents who have objected to the terms at which oil and gas companies carry on exploration and drilling have a point, according to the head independent investigator at the Interior Department. The yearlong study, showing underpayment by companies that drill on federal land, “grew out of complaints by four auditors at the agency, who said that senior administration officials had blocked them from recovering money from oil companies that underpaid the government,” The New York Times reports.
-- Monday was a historic day for the renascent nuclear power energy: the first application for a construction and operating license for a nuclear plant in almost 30 years was filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. NRG Energy, Inc. and South Texas Project Nuclear Operating Co. plan to build two new Advanced Boiling Water Reactor units, with a total capacity of 2700 megawatts, at the South Texas site.
-- The Department of Energy said this week it will provide almost $20 million to hasten development of advanced batteries for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, with the aim of helping achieve the federal “Twenty in Ten” plan to eliminate 20 percent of nationwide gas consumption by 2017. Earlier this month, Google.org—the philanthropic arm of the California search-engine giant—offered $10 million to for-profit companies that are working to advance PHEV technologies.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
>>>>>>>
Biofuels could boost global warming, finds study
21 September 2007
Growing and burning many biofuels may actually raise rather than lower greenhouse gas emissions, a new study led by Nobel prize-winning chemist Paul Crutzen has shown.1 The findings come in the wake of a recent OECD report, which warned nations not to rush headlong into growing energy crops because they cause food shortages and damage biodiversity.
Crutzen and colleagues have calculated that growing some of the most commonly used biofuel crops releases around twice the amount of the potent greenhouse gas nitrous oxide (N2O) than previously thought - wiping out any benefits from not using fossil fuels and, worse, probably contributing to global warming. The work appears in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics and is currently subject to open review.
'The significance of it is that the supposed benefits of biofuel are even more disputable than had been thought hitherto,' Keith Smith, a co-author on the paper from the University of Edinburgh, told Chemistry World. 'What we are saying is that [growing many biofuels] is probably of no benefit and in fact is actually making the climate issue worse.'
<<<<<<<<<<<<
Sort of makes Big Oil on the side of saving the plantet. ;?P
Is Big Oil Blocking Biodiesel?
Did Big Oil Kill the Electric Car?
Is Big Oil Fueling Misinformation about Climate Change?
Are we spending 12 Billion and more a month In Iraq to protect Big Oil Profits?
All signs point to a sad YES, YES, YES and YES.
Regarding the 4 questions, the answers are more nuanced:
1. Maybe but clean deisel cars have never been pushed here in the US unlike the EU, 2. Automotive as much as Big Oil, 3. HELL YES, and 4. Ask Ray Hunt (Lead Bush pioneer at Hunt Oil who signed a possibly illegal oil deal with Kurdistani Iraq. One of the Texas oil patch wundakinds).
I fail to see how big oil killed the electric car, too many problems with them, the hybrid is going good despite it's cost.
Big oil fueling misinformation about global warming? I beleive it was Mr. Jensen at NASA that got 3/4 of a million from George Soros. Talk about misleading.
Every person in this country has the right and ability to cut back on their own fuel use, that includes yoou and Mr. Gore. I do not believe anyone is forcing you to use more and more.
What big oil profits in Iraq?
The situation reminds me of Big Tobacco. Could you imagine just now coming out with cigarettes? It wouldn’t make it past a few days with the FDA. But still, here tobacco is and here it stays. Can you imaging the study results if gasoline was just hitting the market and we were all driving electric cars? Holy pollution batman…… gasoline will kill us all!
Im all for getting rid of gasoline engines powering our cars and if it starts with ethanol then great. It has to start somewhere. Lets power them with photons, electrons, compressed air or ethanol….anything but gasoline!!!!
Oh wait a minute…..Big Oil is not going to like this…………..I better watch out…..
It was the enviros in Montana that put the kibosh on windmills. there is one adequate kind of energy and we will eventually have to admit it, but expect the enviro lawsuits to fly, that is nuclear energy.
The word uranium gives them apoplexy, doubly so because the uranium is where the coal, gas and oil is pretty much...in the west, Wyoming, Utah, Colorado.
We can burn our own coal cleanly, get oil from Canada and the Gulf of Mexico, aggressively peruse and establish safe nuclear power and evolve away from oil dominance.
The Arabs will sell their oil to the last drop, nothing can be done to stop them. I would like to see that last drop go to some other country and have them be guardian, referee and baby sitter to the Middle East oil supply from now on.
I like ethanol. It's a good first step in that direction. It won’t always be made from corn. I Someday, gasoline engines will be a thing of the past. The sooner the better.
Finally, and I have no research at all to prove this, but it wouldn’t surprise me if Big Oil is behind funding the enviro's bad reports on ethanol.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
...ultra clean and ultra efficient petroleum fuel is far less disruptive to the environment than biofuel. It requires far less water (per unit of energy) than any biofuel crop, it requires far, far less land, and to the extent biofuel displaces forests, using petroleum results in far less CO2 emissions. I even think we may learn that tropical deforestation, for a variety of reasons, is a greater contributor to climate change than anthropogenic CO2, and there is a growing number of climate scientists who are voicing this concern.
We recently called the Rainforest Action Network and spoke with one of their press officers, and their response to me was similar to the tone of the essay to follow. One gets the impression we are trying to turn around a big ship that got sailing in a particular direction, and we're not sure how to turn it around, and we don't want to turn it around very fast. And that ship is biofuel.
Biofuel is a great idea if it's grown in tanks in factories, or if it's extracted from waste that can't be returned to the soil (watch out, cellulosic extraction could create a dust bowl as all crop residue gets taken away for processing). Otherwise, biofuel is very, very problematic.
As we prove in "Is Biofuel Water Positive," if corn requires more than 20 inches (50 centimeters) of irrigation per year, then the ethanol you get from the biofuel will not provide sufficient energy to desalinate the amount of seawater you will need to irrigate the next year's crop. So in South Africa, for example, if the government is contemplating building desalination plants, they might instead stop growing any corn for ethanol if the corn requires anywhere near that much irrigation.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<
A macro, holistic view of biobuels versus petroleum products is necessary to understand whether such a switch is 2 steps backwards. Just my opinion. In addtion, the UN, not Big Oil, is warning of adverse consequences of biofuels: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6636467.stm
1. Why participate here if discussing issues with people that don't believe like you do is a waste of your time? Why not use it as an opportunity for mutual education?
2. Why the nastiness, unkindness, and display of arrogant superiority? Is that for your benefit or ours?
3. Do you believe that the info I posted coming from Chemistry World, Eco World, and the UN is conservative propaganda too? If so, please explain how this criteria fits your lable: http://www.ecoworld.com/blog/2007/05/09/biofuel-or-biohazard/
>>>>>>>
Here are some of the criteria biofuel needs to meet:
(1) Biofuel cannot displace food crops.
(2) Biofuel cannot displace rainforest.
(3) Biofuel cannot displace critical wildlife habitat.
(4) Production of biofuel must be decisively energy positive.
(5) Biofuel must not exacerbate water scarcity, either in the growing or the refining process.
(6) Biofuel plantations cannot exploit local labor, or exclude local ownership.
(7) Biofuel use should be encouraged in the most efficient applications, such as combined heat and power, and not automatically be directed into the automotive sector.
(8) Biofuel produced using cellulosic extraction must not prevent valuable organic matter from returning to the soil.
Any other criteria? When viewed against these criteria, the potential for an environmentally correct biofuel industry becomes far more problematic than is generally acknowledged.
Whatever happened to “Save the Rainforests?”
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I'm disappointed that you would stoop so low Craig, your pretense is below the effort of mutual education we all come to these pages to engage in.
Feel free to challenge what I have written with something more than "how you feel" about things. Again, why not just discuss issues while exchanging information and ideas without the cowardly insults? Maybe we will both learn something.
I would be failing in my duty to those seeking to learn and grow in their understanding of these issues if I didn't point out the cowardly insults and dishonest manipulations in your posts Craig.
This column is about Ethanol. What lies have I posted and what perversion of "truth" have I stated? Which of the sources Eco World, BBC, UN, and Chemistry World fit your argument about propaganda? Come on Tim and demonstrate what you charge me with.
As to your reference to past years comments, do the same thing. What have I said on environmental columns that has been PROVEN a lie? Let's get down to exact references and not your vague memory.
'Proof, Proof, Evidence and Facts we cry. Prove your accusations with quotes, specific dates and times. He hides cowardly behind a user name and viciously insults old women and those honestly trying to engage in intellectual discourse'.
'We are SHOCKED, SHOCKED and APPALLED at this liberal would question our motives or our integrity. I'll write the editor! Call my attorney! I'll talk to my priest! Then I'll lobby my Congressman! There should be a law against it'!
You two are ridiculous.
You have beat up on Marion with your insults. For example, you said here: "Marion I wasn't asking you a question, I wouldn't waste my time." You have also called her a very black sooty pot on another column. Next time say that to your wife if you have one.
Therefore, Tim, you beat up on a woman while hiding behind your fig leaf of half a name.
Marion, you should be careful about what you read online. Most of the time it's complete BS.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/browse_thread/thread/032cdb2d6ca99ae3/7964867eb469b4c5
>>>>>>>>>
Soaring food prices, driven in part by demand for ethanol made from corn, have helped slash the amount of food aid the government buys to its lowest level in a decade, possibly resulting in more hungry people around the world this year.
The United States, the world’s dominant donor, has purchased less than half the amount of food aid this year that it did in 2000, according to new data from the Department of Agriculture.
“The people who are starving and have to rely on food aid, they will suffer,” Jean Ziegler, who reports to the United Nations on hunger and food issues, said in an interview this week.
Corn prices have fallen in recent months, but are still far higher than they were a year ago. Demand for ethanol has also indirectly driven the rising price of soybeans, as land that had been planted with soybeans shifted to corn. And wheat prices have skyrocketed, in large part because drought hurt production in Australia, a major producer, economists say.
<<<<<<<<<<
>>>>>>>>
Environmental Defense examined the potential impacts of expanded ethanol production on the Ogallala Aquifer, one of the largest underground pools of water in the world. Also known as the High Plains Aquifer, it stretches beneath portions of eastern Colorado and eight neighboring states, from North Dakota to Texas. This water supports most of the irrigated agriculture in the southern Great Plains.
The region was the center of the Dust Bowl in the 1930s. Currently, five corn ethanol plants are operating in the affected region, and produce 71.5 million gallons of ethanol annually. But nine more plants are under construction, with a capacity of 639 million gallons.
"This dramatic expansion has substantial implications for already strained water and grassland resources in the Ogallala Aquifer region," the report states, calculating the additional withdrawal of water from the most depleted parts of the aquifer at 59 billion to 120 billion gallons per year - comparable to the amount of water consumed by Denver Water Board customers in a year. Another potential consequence, it warns, is the loss of fragile grasslands.
And it isn't just Environmental Defense that is worried. A report from the Government Accountability Office released on Wednesday estimated that in the plains states, more than 5.5 million acres of grasslands had been converted into crop production from 1982 to 2003, and the trend is continuing. The GAO attributed "farm program payments" and, more recently, "rising crop prices - largely spurred by ethanol demand" - as factors that convince farmers to plow under native grasslands.
<<<<<<<<<
1. Growing and burning ethanol may increase greenhouse gases.
2. The ethanol crop process adversely affects our food supply and prices.
3. The 'footprint' for the ethanol from dirt to tank is huge compared to tradtional oil recovery.
4. Ethanol is water intensive and will adversely impact scarce water supply sources.
5. Plowing under CRP and native grasslands will negatively affect wildlife and potentially creat dust bowl conditions while polluting surface water with excessive nitrates from fertilizers to grow corn.
Therefore, the title of this column should be, "Why aren't environmentalists blocking ethanol?" I thought New West was pro environment.
you might want to make note that Craig's demand that you use your full name can be considered a threat, as the only use of your full name that he would have is to stalk you and possibly harm you.
Craig,
Once again, you aren't a scientist, you don't have the credentials and you mindlessly cut and paste things you don't understand but in which you believe support your preconceived notions. Your arguments are based off of other's hard work and none of your own while your opinions and your debate style lack any sort of tone that would indicate any sort of learning potential or potential to understand other viewpoints. In essence, it isn't worth addressing a single one of your issues because it does no good, you'll just move goalposts and ignore evidence that you are incapable of understanding.
Marion,
go look out the window, I think there are some kids on your lawn that need to be yelled at.
Use of advanced farming techniques, such as root-drip irrigation combined with seed drills and other advancements can create more than enough corn/soy/cane to produce the needed amount of ethanol to create a 15% drop in petroleum usage. This combined with advances in mass transit, fuel economies of future automobiles and changes across society to reduce out fuel usage are necessary in a long run situation where the reduction of oil supplies will no longer mean a security issue for the US, instead creating a future where energy trading on an international scale will be done to assist growing third world countries.
Of course, development of alternate fuels will also increase research fundings, ethanol is a short term solution to a long term problem that will require repeated steps that may not reduce CO2 output, but instead will lead towards fuels and energy creation methods that will be more viable and will reduce CO2 output at a far greater rate and sooner.
But always remember, Craig, that your member is too small, so you can always justify your Hummer, F350, dual-wheeled truck. Besides, one day you might actually have something to tow, so you better plan ahead!
Or maybe you can just keep slinging poo at those that actually have added to the debate without doing any of the hard work yourself.
Then why are you commenting about Tim?
As for canned crap, you might take a look at Marion's rants and how they come right from Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and other republican talking heads and have nothing of substance to them.
As for more canned crap, you may take a look at Craig's inability to directly opine without smothering a thread in data that only slightly supports his predefined positions while ignoring the point of the debate entirely.
As in this thread, the parallel paths of fuel consumption and the threat of peak oil with the changes in global climate are almost two totally separate debates at this point. A recognition amongst most environmentalists that fossil fuel consumption must be reduced prior to the reduction in some CO2, methane and NO2 emissions is ignored by Craig. He instead tries to bait environmentalists into agreeing with the opinion that ethanol and other alternative fuels are so bad that they aren't worth looking into or using as a midstep in the search for a more acceptable fuel for our transportation needs.
As well, Craig's free market arguments lack any sort of common sense. The free market demands short term gains with no long term vision towards a more stable profit structure in an unstable future. Instead of trying to understand the timeline of development in alternative fuels, Craig and many other anti-environmentalists would rather attack solutions that might cut into profits and/or cost them a slight bit more.
People like Craig attack the attempts to develop fuel alternatives from platforms of greed. I can understand Tim's frustration with that.
Both Republicans and Democrats use government as an engine of plunder to reward constituents and perpetuate incumbency
Most ethanol is made from Midwest corn. Hence, it's not surprising the region's congressmen and their agribusiness constituents support ethanol mandates.
Ethanol producers, led by Archer Daniels Midland, would have us believe ethanol will increase U.S. energy independence, clean up the environment, and provide new markets for farmers. These are lies.
There are huge payoffs for finding the "miracle fuel" (i.e., one that is both clean and cheap). As yet, no one, nowhere has found it.
We should be highly skeptical of the ability of government-funded research to pick winners in the quest for cleaner energy.
As well, we should be highly skeptical of all that research done into nuclear submarines. They aren't real and my brother's best-friend's cat has the answers, but you have to read through all of Cal Thomas' articles to find the clues he left there!
And that Archer guy, he's a liar, but only because I said so! Rarrr!
The free market will suddenly turn around, any day now, and provide us with solutions to peak oil, hair loss and the threat of marsupials on our precious tin foil market!
Or something like that, right Pete?
I just do not see "Big Oil" worrying about stopping ethanol, I do see them investing if they think there is money to be made. I do see green groups objecting to it because of a multitude of reasons that make sense only to them.
You're awful trusting of an process that delivers us FEMA and the TSA.
And maybe if you'd take your head out of where you've so inconveniently placed it, you'd understand what the green groups are saying. However, that might be a bit impossible for someone that so sourly believes that profit is the only motivation for people and/or businesses.
Are you going to retract your lies about the Soros funding or are you going to stick to your guns even though you've been shown to be a fool that will believe anything negative of someone you don't agree with? If no retraction, then you have no real argument here, at least nothing worth responding to after this.
Government funding doesn't make something automatically bad. Government funding typically goes to Universities that spend much more wisely than your typical bottom feeding contractor and they usually turn out much better results than those contractors. I suspect that you can be scared by someone pointing behind you and yelling "look out, socialist!" even though you don't even know what socialism is about.
But don't worry, the reflection in the helmets of the astronauts will back you up on your claims that it was all staged.
http://www.freenewmexican.com:80/news/69632.html
It is really kind of funny that this whole thread is about whether enviros oppose ethanol or whether oil companies do.
http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=275526219598836
"How many people, for instance, know that James Hansen, a man billed as a lonely "NASA whistleblower" standing up to the mighty U.S. government, was really funded by Soros' Open Society Institute , which gave him "legal and media advice"?
That's right, Hansen was packaged for the media by Soros' flagship "philanthropy," by as much as $720,000, most likely under the OSI's "politicization of science" program."
There is nothing "pro bono" about his, as "6degrees" implies above. It's just the flip side of the coin for those who scream about industry funded lackeys denying climate change etc.
I don't believe Jim Hansen is bought and paid for by Soros any more than I believe scientists at Stanford have been bought by grants from Exxon. It's a distraction and an easy way to duck discussing the hard questions re: our energy future.
>>>>>>>>>>
Now RENEW CANADA, the magazine that addresses infrastructure renewal, has a sobering statistic: to produce one gallon of ethanol requires the use of 4.3 gallons of process water.
Even the oil sands producers use less (albeit plenty of) water. It takes between two and four barrels of water to produce a barrel of oil from oil sands.
A worldwide fresh water shortage is looming, and environmentalists are trying to make the general population aware of the problem. Potable water will become in short supply in several parts of the world. Canada is in the fortunate position of having an ample supply, but that could make us a target. Pessimists believe global military war is a possibility as various governments try to secure and control water resources.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Biofuels take up a lot of water RIGHT NOW. Tomorrow, no. With better research and better processes, they will likely use much less. The problem is people like you are so ready to jump to a conclusion that seems to support what your impotent little mind thinks that it is impossible to educate people about the future potentials of biofuels, alternative fuels, or anything else that you don't want to hear.
But please, tell me how a mining corporation that wouldn't exist without large demands for coal has the scoop on everything and is only looking out for the best interests of the environment?
Because they quoted from RENEW CANADA? Yeah, I'm sure they havn't mangled the source whatsoever in order to get a conclusion that fit their needs.
Just like claiming Soros is funding Hanson or any other lie that can be taken out of context.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/09/the_exxon_funded_swift_boating.php
But it is fine and dandy to ignore him, after all, the preconceived notion that he received money from Soros is just so juicy that nothing else matters to you idiots.
And here is more about Hansen's claim of "swift boating"
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/09/28/nasa-s-james-hansen-claims-he-s-being-swift-boated-critics
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Corn is one of the better temperate crops to use as a primary biofuel feedstock, since cellulosic extraction isn’t here yet and sugar cane doesn’t grow in Iowa. Using corn as an example, a good ethanol yield is about 480 gallons per acre per year, which is based on 160 bushels per acre, and 3.0 gallons of ethanol per bushel. How much water corn needs varies greatly, and the range we’ve arrived at for this analysis is between 300 and 900 cubic meters per ton. Our source for 900 m3/ton is from a reference to UNESCO’s “The Water Footprint of Nations,” and our source for 300 m3/ton is from Colorado State University.
Since a bushel of corn weighs about 70 pounds, based on a yield of 160 bushels per acre, expressed in tons the per acre yield of corn is about 5.6 tons. This means, at the lower figure of 300 cubic meters of water per ton of corn, the average acre of corn requires 1,680 tons of water per harvest cycle, which equates to 444,000 gallons of water for every 480 gallon yield of ethanol. Clearly, from this perspective, the 3-6 additional gallons of water required after harvest to refine each gallon of corn ethanol is not the critical factor - particularly when petroleum fuels also require water during their refining process.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
As for Newbusters? They stand to lose a lot of face if their lies about Soros funding turns out to be bunk, since they have led much of the charge.
Unfortunately, the pro-bono work that Hansen received wasn't slated specifically from funds that Soros donated.
But keep screaming Soros and Socialization and maybe those ghosts will scare someone, but then it will get foiled by those darned kids and their dog.
As for you, Craig, you deserve nothing. Your arguments are worthless.
So we should just scrap alternative fuels until we can do 100% of it to your satisfaction?
Go hump your own tinfoil hat, Craig, you're all washed up.
What is your solution to peak oil and the increased security threat to the country should we continue to demand low priced oil from countries that hate us? More drilling? More coal?
You aren't siding with the environmentalists, you're just trolling in order to prove some sort of twisted superiority.
You see the solution to "peak oil" at the pump, every day. At $80 per barrel we're seeing all sorts of responses as the search for alternatives moves forward. The key question for energy producers is: where will the price of oil be in 15 years? It is this metric that drives capital investments.
"Demanding low priced oil from countries that hate us?" Seems like we pay the market rate— every day. "Countries that hate us" don't seem to hate us quite enough to stop pumping crude for the world market.
Capital investments in what? research? Such things as fuel cells that require 100x the amount of platinum, paladium available in the world?
As for the price of oil in 15 years? There won't be much supply, so the economic laws of supply and demand say that the price will be so outrageous that only the rich will be allowed to drive.
So when there are those that have suggestions to start moving away from oil, to prolong the life of the supply of oil, you guys all throw poo at it in order to block it, even though you aren't environmentalists. Why? Your stances make no sense, your arguments don't jive with your earlier anti-environmentalism tactics, but suddenly you are all experts in CO2 and global warming vectors? And you think any of us should believe a thing you say or an article you quote? You don't have any credibility, so why should we?
Biofuels are a single step, a single tile in a vast mosaic of a strategic plan to continue being able to live with the same standards today when we get to tomorrow. Biolfuels aren't the whole solution, though. The part they play will be short and minor, and what we learn from their usage will help us in future endeavors.
Maybe we should just pray for solutions from the mythical cloud being, that always has worked in the past. After all, who planted all those fake dinosaur bones and the oil next to them?
When the concept of biofuel first came on the scene I was greatly interested. However, as I learned what, if any, gain there was for the pain, I have moved to the "caution" postion. I greatly dispise the corrupting influence of ADM in politics and other areas.
ECO World set forth the criteria I noted above for biofuels:
(1) Biofuel cannot displace food crops.
(2) Biofuel cannot displace rainforest.
(3) Biofuel cannot displace critical wildlife habitat.
(4) Production of biofuel must be decisively energy positive.
(5) Biofuel must not exacerbate water scarcity, either in the growing or the refining process.
(6) Biofuel plantations cannot exploit local labor, or exclude local ownership.
(7) Biofuel use should be encouraged in the most efficient applications, such as combined heat and power, and not automatically be directed into the automotive sector.
(8) Biofuel produced using cellulosic extraction must not prevent valuable organic matter from returning to the soil.
Any other criteria? When viewed against these criteria, the potential for an environmentally correct biofuel industry becomes far more problematic than is generally acknowledged.
Whatever happened to “Save the Rainforests?”
============
In the near future we will not have enough water for human needs, irrigate food crops, and produce biofuels. Just isn't enough to go around. Yes, I do care about the environment. I want all energy develop to meet the criteria for biofuels and the specific 'footprint' criteria for the particular energy.
The arguments regarding energy seem to always quickly degenerate into pro and oppose without uniting around 'how' according to responsible and rational criteria. Depoliticize it and solve the problem. Just my opinion.
As for Marion? Where is that apology for her baseless Hansen smear? And you. Craig, you pathetic worm, defended her, despite evidence that the IBD article was nothing more than an attack piece with no real evidence to draw a real conclusion from.
So why should anyone take you seriously or include you in any discussion from now on?
Everything has to have pros and cons evaluated. I think that the premise of the whole article is in error, that "big oil" is the only impediment to the production of ethanol. The fact is environmental groups are bringing up far more cons against ethanol than anyone else. That should be the focus of our discussion, and that is what I have tried to point out as have others that concerns about the viability of ethanol. As I said earlier, I once thought that ethanol was worth investing in, now I am not so sure, I just have to wait and see if the problems can be worked out, like everyone else.
I would like to see a lot more research into alternative fuels, and I would really like to see environmental groups help fund these. Schools of higher learning could be researching such ideas.
Jay, your constant 'personalizing' every discussion into name calling is a ruse. Don't you think people know what your opinions of others are by now? Who are you auditioning for with your constant assults of personal judgments hurled at others?
I responded to your serious question with a serious answer. You, in turn, come back with personal insults. Pathetic and childsih. Earth to Jay, time to grow up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Ethanol bandwagon rides roughshod over Bay
Editor's Note / By Karl Blankenship
The Bay region will write off any hope of meeting its cleanup goals by 2010 or any time in the foreseeable future unless leaders quickly come up with a plan to mitigate the added pollution that is already on its way from increasing corn production for ethanol.
Biofuels may hold potential for the Bay-if made with something other than corn. Making ethanol or other fuels from switchgrass, a perennial grass that requires little fertilization, would undoubtedly be a boon for the Bay. Some experts think that could happen in five to eight years. But history suggests that betting on tomorrow's technology today is often a bad gamble. In the late 1970s, "experts" were telling me solar power would be cost-competitive within a decade. I'm still waiting.
Corn holds no promise for the Bay except for more pollution: nutrients, sediment and atrazine. There is no immediate way around the problem that corn, on average, loses more nitrogen than just about any crop. That can be mitigated, but the cost of the Bay cleanup-already staggering-will be driven even higher. That's because with more nitrogen to be offset, more best management practices will have to be implemented over more acres than previously planned.
The Chesapeake Bay Commission's new report, "Biofuels and the Bay" is the latest call for action to address the problem. It shows that the impact could be offset if, for example, the region were to invest additional millions of dollars into cover crops and other conservation practices. That's not likely to happen. Even with recently enacted state spending increases, and even if the House version of the Farm Bill were to pass with dramatically increased funding (which many consider unlikely), there would not be enough money to fully implement the agricultural portions of state tributary strategies. By driving up the costs, more corn acres make that funding gap harder to close.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
"With prices for corn syrup and other ketchup ingredients going up faster than Heinz can raise its own prices, the Pittsburgh-based condiment king is overhauling its breeding operations to help compensate. Heinz is developing sweeter tomatoes that could cut down on its need for corn syrup, as well as varieties that resist disease, stay fresh longer and produce a thicker consistency. "The new seed work is all about creating the perfect tomato," says Mr. Ozminkowski, the company's manager of agriculture research.
The ethanol industry's consumption of corn is just one factor driving up its price. Rising global demand for meat is also boosting prices, since corn is a key ingredient of animal feed. The cost of a bushel of corn has risen to around $3, about 40% higher than it was a year ago, putting pressure on many food companies. Meats producer Tyson Foods Inc. recently lowered its fiscal-year earnings forecast due, in part, to high corn prices."
So despite the facts that algae farming combined with low water usage farming methods might be able to offset the damages of peak oil, along with a shift to crops that are less water dependent, I must be the juvenile, ignorant, arrogant one here.
Or maybe I just need to argue like you, where I spam the entire forum with nitpicked data that only allows you to "win", while the rest of the world loses.
Now you act like you didn't falsely make that claim nor understand what I said. That makes you a disengenuous liar, a fraud. But what the heck, who cares right?
You win a what? A free ride on a waaambulance, Craig.
But it is easy to assume you defended Marion, given your previous double standards that I mentioned.
But please, keep calling me names, I find it fascinating that you can whine about others doing that, but it is fine when you do it. Isn't that called something? Maybe the word is hypocrisy. Do you want me to post 30 references to the definition?
I doubt you even know what socialism is, nor would you recognize if it bit you. It just happens to be a convenient name for you to drop so you don't actually have to have anything of substance.
Marion and you could be twins!
And I've never said a thing about large quantities of biofuels and neither has anyone else on this thread. A maximum of 15% is sought within the next 10 years, however other alternate fuels may be brought online and substituted if the process for biofuels cannot manage to bring all of the costs in line where it needs to be.
Would you like to clarify your position on Nannyism? Perhaps the gross subsidies the Big Oil companies receive in order to keep our gas cheaper than the rest of the world? Significantly cheaper? $80 a barrel oil and our gasoline goes down? Nah, you aren't benefiting from any of that "nannyism".
And no, Big Oil and Enviro's aren't on the same side, but for someone as simplistic as yourself ("unlike some, if I don't have anything meaningful to add I keep my mouth shut.") I'm amazed at how meaningless anything you've had to say has been.
Care to be more of a hypocrite in the same thread as where you first stated that?
The truth is the largest factor contributing to the differential between US and European gas prices is government taxes. See: http://wais.stanford.edu/ztopics/week040105/energy_050401_gasolinepricesusvseurope.htm
I definitely wasn't talking about the massive tax cuts for Oil and Energy created by the Cheney Energy commission, nor was I talking about the ridiculously low taxation rate that Big Oil companies receive. I almost surely wasn't talking about how Big Oil pays less than 11% in corporate taxes while other companies face 20-29% corporate tax rates.
I definitely couldn't be talking about how "Translated into cents per gallon, gasoline receives subsidies that range from 21 cents to $1.34 per gallon. Tax subsidies received by the petroleum industry are the easiest to measure and account for $3.3 billion to $10.9 billion of this total. The largest single cost element encompasses the military costs of protecting our oil supplies, which range from $26.6 billion to $70.7 billion."
I definitely am NOT talking about the breaks that Cheney's energy commission foisted on the American tax payer, the ones that no one knows the full harm of because he's claimed executive privilege that he doesn't have.
Also, the decreased taxes on our gas vs. those of other nations can be thought of as a subsidy, since there are very good reasons for gasoline to be taxed at a much higher rate at the pump, one of those being peak oil.
But I'm definitely FOS, so don't listen to me.
lib targets that he claims the military subsidizes THEN we get our freedon protected for free! Now that IS a bargain.
Can't you guys take this off line, please?
>>>>>>>
In 2002 Clinton and others signed a letter arguing "there is no sound public policy reason for mandating the use of ethanol" in gasoline.
Last year she proposed an ethanol tax credit for gas station owners and now says, "I never was against using ethanol."
<<<<<
I guess she was really for it before she was against it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So What About the Oil Companies?
In the same 2006 speech, Obama referred to the role oil companies could play in bringing about increased consumption of renewable fuels:
Obama: Every American should have the choice to fill up their car with E85 at any fueling station. And oil companies should stop standing in the way and join us in making this happen. If the big oil companies would devote just 1 percent of their first quarter profits this year to install E85 pumps, more than 7,000 service stations would be able to serve E85 to hungry motorists.
The CRS reported in March that a new ethanol pump could cost $100,000 to $200,000 dollars. The Senator, however, was considering three different ranges of costs for refurbishing existing pumps, as opposed to building new ones. The first figure, cited by the National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition, put the cost at $5,000 per pump. The second came from the Illinois Corn Growers Association, which gave a range of $2,000 to $8,000. The final figure came from the Renewable Fuels Association: It cited a price range of $15,000 to $30,000. It should be noted, however, that each of these organizations represent groups and individuals with a vested interest in increased ethanol production.
But Obama claims oil companies are "standing in the way" of increased ethanol production. The Senator appears to be referring to oil companies' plans last year to increase gasoline refinery capacity in the U.S. — a move that had the potential to help lower gas prices. But, according to the New York Times, the plans were all but scrapped when the president proposed significantly increasing renewable fuels production in his 2007 State of the Union address. The New York Times quotes John D. Hofmeister, the president of Shell Oil Company, explaining the reason for this change:
Hofmeister: If the national policy of the country is to push for dramatic increase in the biofuels industry, this is a disincentive for those making investment decisions on expanding capacity in oil products and refining.... Industrywide, this will have an impact.
These developments lead many to believe that the oil companies are intentionally delaying investments in extra refining capacity to keep gas prices high, though we could find no conclusive evidence that intentional market manipulation is taking place.
Still, even if the oil companies immediately began giving 1 percent of their profits toward the installation of E85 pumps, other obstacles — like limitations on how much corn the nation can produce or the fact that many flex fuel vehicle owners aren't even aware that their cars can run on E85 — are significant.
<<<<<<<<<<
Doesn't look like much of an evil ogre, Big Oil, here.