(03-19-2009 09:25 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(03-19-2009 08:40 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Is importing sugar cane ethanol a perfect solution? No.
Is there anything better that's available today? No.
Is that reason enough to do it? Yes.

On this item specifically I'd want to see the engineering numbers. EtOH has a low net energy yield (at least from corn) so we'd need an honest accounting of the energy costs to grow and transport sugar cane, and EtOH production.
However, if you get gov't subsidies out of the way, business has a knack for doing that very thing (honestly) because otherwise they lose money.
Meanwhile, there are alternatives for sugar cane.
http://www.verenium.com/
(At least I think this is what this means, as apparently I don't understand sciency stuff)

Net yield ratios:
Corn 2:1
Sugar beets 4:1
Sugar cane 8:1

So, yes, sugar cane is quite a bit better.

As for the cellulose, that's what I'm talking about when I say do what we can with what we have now and, when beter technology comes out of the lab, transition.

Why wait for the perfect solution when the are better things available now?

(03-19-2009 09:35 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  As for the cellulose, that's what I'm talking about when I say do what we can with what we have now and, when beter technology comes out of the lab, transition.

Why wait for the perfect solution when the are better things available now?

Agreed!

(03-18-2009 09:20 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  The tragedy of the last presidency was not Iraq, but the exploding of the deficit. Neither gang gives two ***** about spending. What they do give a **** about is what money is spent on. Obama is the reverse Reagan. Reagan cut taxes and increased the deficit so liberals could not increase spending. Starving the beast is what it was called. Obama will raise spending and increase the deficit so conservatives cannot cut taxes. Meanwhile...... the majority of Americans who are not tied to the extremes pay and they pay handsomely.

Agree 100%

(03-18-2009 09:20 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  YOU CAN NOT ***** ON ONE HAND about Obama's spending and on the other hand stay quiet about Bush's spending. It's all about priorities. YOU care about what the money is being spent on.

Disagree. If I agreed with what Bush spent money on, I could NOT complain... and if I disagree with Obama, then I can complain. Further, while Bush certainly spent money... Obama took what he had already spent and tripled it... The DEGREE of spending matters, as does where it is spent. I'm not saying you HAVE to, but you certainly can. Personally, I think we're WAY beyond rational economics here.... The biggest problem is, we're complaining about Governors who are turning down stimulus money because it would mean they had to balloon their state budgets in the future. At SOME point, spending has to be cut, and for some states, this stimulus institutionalizes the spending.

(03-18-2009 09:20 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  and another thing.................. smn talked about bums and welfare..... I can't find it and I know I read it this morning. This is another fallacy. There are approximately 14 million women and children that get Aid to Families with Dependent Children. There are no bums getting welfare. So why do you guys on the right paint democrats that way. It's not happening so quit saying it. I just wish we could at least talk the truth to each other. You guys are so caught up with your talking points you miss the forest through the trees.

Of COURSE there are welfare cheats.... and while 14mm women and children get aid, there is nothing to suggest that at least SOME of those women couldn't have jobs instead... or that there aren't men "behind" those women working and supporting the family as well.

(03-18-2009 09:20 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Pay as you go............ that's what I call for and you all know that. I've been saying I would be happy paying more taxes. 1st and foremost is we should balance the budget. I pray Obama taxes gasoline. Have you seen what has happened to hybrid sales lately? Do any of you wonder why Oil collapsed just when we were starting on the trek of weaning off of it? Tax oil for national security. Tax oil to build infrastructure. Tax oil for socialized medicine. GOP become proponents of this I sign up for the GOP the next day. I don't care about the gang affiliation. I just want results.

(03-18-2009 03:29 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Agree totally about the pay as you go part. The republicans lost their moral foundation when they began spending like drunken sailors.

Paygo SOUNDS great, but why shouldn't we be able to finance long term projects with long term debt? The problem is, we finance things for longer than their useful life. No bank would make you a 15 year loan on a car... so why do we take out 30 yr (or 100yr) debt on a road that will have to be rebuilt in 10?

(03-18-2009 03:29 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Don't agree totally with the contention that there are no bums on welfare. There are some, and always will be. There's really not much can be done to prevent that. What can be prevented is the situation where we tell a pregnant 18-year old that we will pay her $1000/month to support her and the child as long as she doesn't (a) get a job or (b) get married, and then can't understand why so many families are breaking down. That's where we need to redesign the welfare system, and I think Milton Friedman's negative income tax concept is the best way to go. The Fair Tax prefund is another version of the negative income tax.

When you encourage something, you get more of it. It really is that simple.

(03-18-2009 03:29 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  As for oil, I agree that we need to tax the price up to a level that makes alternatives cost-competitive and discourages consumption, while minimizing the impact on poor people. Charles Krauthammer's revenue-neutral carbon tax is one possible approach. He gives the money back through social security, while I would include it in the Fair Tax prefund. Also, I wouldn't make it totally revenue-neutral, I'd make it a net positive to generate some revenues. I would use those revenues for infrastructure projects designed to cut fuel consumption--solar farms, wind farms, power grid improvements, etc.--but not to subsidize alternatives. With the increased tax on oil, those alternatives will become price competitive, and that's all the "subsidy" the free market needs.

I'm not for taxing oil to support socialized medicine. But that's because I don't favor socialized medicine, at least not the kind of single-payor, single-provider system that exists in UK or Canada. The people there love their systems, but only up until they reach the point that they actually need something big done. Those systems deliver routine care well and non-routine care (everything else) poorly. Our system delivers the latter better, which is why Canadians come here for elective surgery. Brits go to France for elective surgery. The French have a mixed system that is neither single-payor nor single-provider. They also spend less per capita to provide universal coverage than we spend not to; to be clear, by that I mean their government spends less per capita.

(03-19-2009 08:40 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-18-2009 10:01 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(03-18-2009 09:03 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  In 1975 the US imported about 1/3 of its oil. Brasil imported 99 percent of its oil. Both countries announced plans to become energy independent. Today the US imports 2/3 of its oil, a good bit of that from Brasil. Brasil imports some natural gas from Bolivia, but recent finds offshore may eliminate the need to do that. Overall Brasil is a net exporter of energy today.

Brazil also doesn't have the EPA, the Clean Air Act and could revamp to an ethanol based economy better than the US.
I saw screw ethanol as a motor vehicle fuel. Its inefficient. If those Aggie Microbiologists can get the genetically engineered bacteria perfected that process butanol, we would be better off. You don't have to use corn for butanol, and butanol has almost the equivalent energy as gasoline.

Is importing sugar cane ethanol a perfect solution? No.
Is there anything better that's available today? No.
Is that reason enough to do it? Yes.

This is so easy it isn't funny. In the simplest of examples... running gasoline with 10% ethanol increases the amount of available fuel by 10%... with 20% ethanol, 20% etc. etc. Most cars could run on e-50 or even more with a cheap 02 sensor update. Certainly that will increase the cost, but not that much relative to the benefit.... and the ethanol is already there... and we can grow more of it, as can MANY countries not in the middle east... and it doesn't take long for a poor country to start selling ethanol, or at least sugar if the present providers go nuts (like Venezuela)

You want butanol and switchgrass, great... but why should we continue to do THE WORST thing, simply because it isn't THE BEST??

Stem-Cells may one day cure cancer... but we should still use chemo until then.

(03-19-2009 07:05 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  This is so easy it isn't funny. In the simplest of examples... running gasoline with 10% ethanol increases the amount of available fuel by 10%... with 20% ethanol, 20% etc. etc.

It's not quite that simple.

EtOH doesn't deliver the same mpg as gasoline. You burn more EtOH to drive a mile.

EtOH in pipelines can also retain water. That's bad for your car. There was a serious shortage in the mid-Atlantic a few years ago b/c the "oxygenated" fuel (EtOH added) had picked up water in the pipelines.

And the cost of importing sugar cane still needs to be worked out. There are also potential unintended consequences, like destroying the Amazon rain forest.

That doesn't mean don't go forward. But we can't be oblivious to the other problems that arise. I personally feel that EtOH is NOT much of a path forward, but it's worth investigating, and it doesn't mean the principle of trying all options is wrong.

Quote:You want butanol and switchgrass, great... but why should we continue to do THE WORST thing, simply because it isn't THE BEST??

Good point...as long as we're not such romantics to recognize that every new idea may not ultimately be a good idea.

Quote:Stem-Cells may one day cure cancer... but we should still use chemo until then.

Another great example. Why should insurance companies be so resistant to experimental treatments? They should be willing to pay up to the cost of the standard treatment. That would help new treaments come on line. It also proves the point of recognizing the thesis that every new idea may not ultimately be a good idea. Consider this:
http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlser...ecbc420f95

(03-19-2009 08:40 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Is importing sugar cane ethanol a perfect solution? No.
Is there anything better that's available today? No.
Is that reason enough to do it? Yes.

I am wondering why we "Import" anything to do with Sugar Cane ???

I live in Sugar Cane utopia (or Sugar Cane hell - pick your poison) and am so sick of the stuff that I won't even go around it if I don't just have too.

There is so much of the nasty stuff here that I can not imagine having to import a single stalk from outside of the United States.

But then that is what we do best, starve and punish our farmers to aid other countries farmers. Win/Win situation all the way around as evidenced by all these long years of success doing it ...

.

(03-20-2009 08:41 AM)Tripster Wrote:  

(03-19-2009 08:40 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Is importing sugar cane ethanol a perfect solution? No.
Is there anything better that's available today? No.
Is that reason enough to do it? Yes.

I am wondering why we "Import" anything to do with Sugar Cane ???
I live in Sugar Cane utopia (or Sugar Cane hell - pick your poison) and am so sick of the stuff that I won't even go around it if I don't just have too.
There is so much of the nasty stuff here that I can not imagine having to import a single stalk from outside of the United States.
But then that is what we do best, starve and punish our farmers to aid other countries farmers. Win/Win situation all the way around as evidenced by all these long years of success doing it ...
.

Obviously, we can and should be using as much domestic sugar cane as possible. That was really brought home to me last summer, driving around backwoods Hawaii, where I saw gasoline on sale for $4 plus, with abandoned sugar fields right behind the station.

But can use more ethanol than domestic sugar farmers can supply. That's where the imports come in.

You need to look at the numbers and realize just HOW big this problem is, particularly in order to understand just how inadequate some of the proposed solutions are.

(03-20-2009 01:34 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  You need to look at the numbers and realize just HOW big this problem is, particularly in order to understand just how inadequate some of the proposed solutions are.

+1

(03-19-2009 08:13 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  Jack Welch
Bill Gates
John D Rockeffeller

those guys make this nation go?

I read a biography on Rockefeller years ago, "Titan", some interesting stuff. What is fascinating is all the fear around him about the only Oil on earth really being what they discovered in Ohio/Penn region and it not being worth it to invest all the money into Oil exploration. Many also thought a world with everyone driving cars and such was science fiction type stuff.

anyway, Rockefeller was a strong Christian(Baptist) and would literally not do an ounce of work on Sunday's for example. interesting character....from the book, intersting part I think:

Quote: From Page 283, Chapter “A Matter of Trust”



“Rockefeller and his associates had long been haunted by two antithetical nightmares: Either the oil would dry up, starving their network of pipelines and refineries, or they would drown in a sea of cheap oil that would drag prices below their overhead cost. At one panicky executive-committee meeting in the early 1880’s, it was even suggested that Standard Oil should exit the business and enter something more stable. After listening quietly to such defeatist talk. Rockefeller stood up, pointed skyward, and intoned, “The Lord will Provide.” Rockefeller tended to see a heavenly design in all things and was convinced that the Almighty had buried the oil in the earth for a purpose.

of course the rest is history, and we continue to discover more Oil around the world to this day even with Libs trying to stop all drilling of it.


great book to read sometime: "God and Gold: The Making of the Modern World" by Walter Russell Mead

(03-20-2009 08:09 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(03-19-2009 07:05 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  This is so easy it isn't funny. In the simplest of examples... running gasoline with 10% ethanol increases the amount of available fuel by 10%... with 20% ethanol, 20% etc. etc.

It's not quite that simple.

EtOH doesn't deliver the same mpg as gasoline. You burn more EtOH to drive a mile.

EtOH in pipelines can also retain water. That's bad for your car. There was a serious shortage in the mid-Atlantic a few years ago b/c the "oxygenated" fuel (EtOH added) had picked up water in the pipelines.

And the cost of importing sugar cane still needs to be worked out. There are also potential unintended consequences, like destroying the Amazon rain forest.

That doesn't mean don't go forward. But we can't be oblivious to the other problems that arise. I personally feel that EtOH is NOT much of a path forward, but it's worth investigating, and it doesn't mean the principle of trying all options is wrong.

The reason I said "in the simplest of examples" was because I was ignoring these details that cause us to do nothing. It is roughly 10% less efficient depending on whom you ask and what year of car, so instead of gaining 20%, you gain 18... BFD.

Cars are already running on 15% ethanol.... Diesel also retains water... so you add a filter and/or a stabilizer... again... BFD

Destroying the rainforest? Louisiana doesn't have rainforests... nor do half of the countries that grow sugar right now... and we do more damage to the ecosystem by drilling and fighting wars over fossil fuels.

YOU may not think ethanol is a good option, but it works in Brazil... and nothing else works anywhere else in the world. No offense, but I'll take a real world success over a lab.

Quote:

Quote:You want butanol and switchgrass, great... but why should we continue to do THE WORST thing, simply because it isn't THE BEST??

Good point...as long as we're not such romantics to recognize that every new idea may not ultimately be a good idea.

Yes... antibiotics create super-bugs... that doesn't mean they weren't a good idea and didn't save millions of people.

You make the best decision you can with the information available at the time. Nothing in Brazil's experience leads us to have a "fear" of ethanol.
This country needs to get over its "just because it worked in _____ doesn't mean it will work here"

Quote:

Quote:Stem-Cells may one day cure cancer... but we should still use chemo until then.

Another great example. Why should insurance companies be so resistant to experimental treatments? They should be willing to pay up to the cost of the standard treatment. That would help new treaments come on line. It also proves the point of recognizing the thesis that every new idea may not ultimately be a good idea. Consider this:
http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlser...ecbc420f95

because when people die from experimental treatment their heirs sue insurance companies... and juries frequently side with grieving families.... even if their "desperate" family members signed a waiver.


I realize you're generally agreeing with me... but your caveats are exactly the things that paralyze us.... because they want electric cars... but batteries pollute landfills... so we do nothing.

Brasil is not destroying the rain forest to make ethanol.

The places where sugar cane grows are not in the Amazon basin. The rain forest is in the Amazon basin. The rain forest and the sugar cane fields are in two different parts of Brasil. I can show you this on maps, or the maps may still be accessible on the Petrobras web site. Brasil is a large country. How large? This should give some perspective. Flying from Houston to Sao Paulo, the halfway point in the flight is about the Colombia/Brasil border. Surprised me the first time, for sure.

Sugar cane ethanol is very unlikely to be a long term solution.
But it's a better short term solution than most.
And a quick look at the numbers will reveal that we need some short term fixes or we may never make it to the long run.

(03-20-2009 11:30 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I realize you're generally agreeing with me... but your caveats are exactly the things that paralyze us.... because they want electric cars... but batteries pollute landfills... so we do nothing.

That's a fair point. Too many people take a word of caution and use it as an excuse to do nothing.

Then you're left w/ politicians who overstate their case just to see things move forward, and the backlash when things aren't as perfect as promised.