The president signs new energy bill

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

As a generality, I agree with your statement about HFCS / ethanol. I don't think it's as easy a decision as that, however...

You're right. The influx of that crap into damn near everything that we eat has been a long time in the making. I'd be willing to bet that HFCS is probably the third ingredient on the nutrition label of more than half of the items you find in the grocery store. That's why I bought some stock in a company that makes a diabetes monitoring device

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Rush
I discovered another side benefit to this bill which I think would interest you folks in the electrical utility business, The prospect of further development of electrical generation at the point of use. For example photovoltaics and on site electrical generators such as fuel cells.
Wouldn't that reduce the strain on an already over worked power line grid system?

Yes, and the utilities are heavily involved in that type of development. Associations like the EEI and others.

For the short term and most likley even a longer term base load plants are going to be needed.

There are a couple of applications to build nuclear plants and 4 or 5 more are waiting to see what happens with those apps.

Coal fired plants will still need to be built as well. We are working on the final app here in Iowa for one. This plant is being built with CO2 issues in mind for when the tech becomes avialable to use it.

Lots going on right now.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

It confirms who controls congress. Big Oil.

With a 600% increase in ethanol production it's not just "big oil".

And with this, at least in the short term, food prices will go up and food reserves (are already) go down

billvon has mentioned surgar before. that is one of the most effective products to make ethanol. But that would mean imports unless production land is taken out of production for food.
...and the workers south of the border will be even less competitive than they were (didn't think that was possible) and guess what that means to you immigration issue voters?
Don't get me wrong, I like ethanol as an alternative fuel but I'd rather we make it from the corn that goes to create high fructose corn syrup and keep it out of our food. We'd be better off fiscally as well as physically.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Misternatural 0]

We do live in a lobbyocracy and oddly sugar, actually glycogen ,is the fuel that our cells need to function. So I can see how this would be a powerful lobby.

But the OIL lobby has got to be THE most powerful lobby and I suspect that they are responsible for most of the fear mongering when it comes to the development of alternative fuels.

I say you can either start investing in the new energy infrastucture or continue to allow oil producers to rule our lives. The U.S. government has made a courageous choice in this matter.

Beware of the collateralizing and monetization of your desires.
D S #3.1415

[freethefly 6]

Quote

Switch to cellulosic ethanol? Corn prices come down, but fertilizer prices go up (less waste to compost.) Water becomes more scarce in general as places grow more biomass to ferment. Food overall becomes more expensive; people might starve.

The only clear answer is hemp! Very little or no pesticides, very little if no fertilizers, very little water. Hemp has a quick turn around from seed to harvest. It does not leach the soil and it halts erosion. Henery Ford envisioned his car being ran soley on biomass fuels, particularly hemp. Rudolph Diesel at the World Expo, Paris, first demonstrated his engine being ran on peanut oil in 1898. Peanut oil being the first biomass fuel.
Clearly, corn is not the golden answer but, combined with hemp and other agricultral products it can help free us and the rest of the planet from the grip of OPEC and Big Oil.
Contrary to popular belief is hemp fuel is a hippies dream. Hemp and other biomass were the original fuel envisioned and implemented by those who invented the combustion engine.
Short history of biomass fuel;
http://www.ybiofuels.org/bio_fuels/history_biofuels.html


http://fuelandfiber.com/Hemp4NRG/Hemp4NRGRV3.htm

After reading the following, why is hemp not considered as a viable biomass fuel? Why is corn viewed as the main scource when it's cost to produce out weighs the output? Why is it that the DEA is allowed to hold the answer hostage? 90% of the "marijuana" pulled from the ground is feral hemp. The offsprings of the legal hemp once grown in the U.S..
Cornell ecologist's study finds that producing ethanol and biodiesel from corn and other crops is not worth the energy
By Susan S. Lang

ITHACA, N.Y. -- Turning plants such as corn, soybeans and sunflowers into fuel uses much more energy than the resulting ethanol or biodiesel generates, according to a new Cornell University and University of California-Berkeley study.

"There is just no energy benefit to using plant biomass for liquid fuel," says David Pimentel, professor of ecology and agriculture at Cornell. "These strategies are not sustainable."

Pimentel and Tad W. Patzek, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Berkeley, conducted a detailed analysis of the energy input-yield ratios of producing ethanol from corn, switch grass and wood biomass as well as for producing biodiesel from soybean and sunflower plants. Their report is published in Natural Resources Research (Vol. 14:1, 65-76).

In terms of energy output compared with energy input for ethanol production, the study found that:

corn requires 29 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced;
switch grass requires 45 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced; and
wood biomass requires 57 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced.
In terms of energy output compared with the energy input for biodiesel production, the study found that:

soybean plants requires 27 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced, and
sunflower plants requires 118 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced.
In assessing inputs, the researchers considered such factors as the energy used in producing the crop (including production of pesticides and fertilizer, running farm machinery and irrigating, grinding and transporting the crop) and in fermenting/distilling the ethanol from the water mix. Although additional costs are incurred, such as federal and state subsidies that are passed on to consumers and the costs associated with environmental pollution or degradation, these figures were not included in the analysis.

"The United State desperately needs a liquid fuel replacement for oil in the near future," says Pimentel, "but producing ethanol or biodiesel from plant biomass is going down the wrong road, because you use more energy to produce these fuels than you get out from the combustion of these products."

Although Pimentel advocates the use of burning biomass to produce thermal energy (to heat homes, for example), he deplores the use of biomass for liquid fuel. "The government spends more than $3 billion a year to subsidize ethanol production when it does not provide a net energy balance or gain, is not a renewable energy source or an economical fuel. Further, its production and use contribute to air, water and soil pollution and global warming," Pimentel says. He points out that the vast majority of the subsidies do not go to farmers but to large ethanol-producing corporations.

"Ethanol production in the United States does not benefit the nation's energy security, its agriculture, economy or the environment," says Pimentel. "Ethanol production requires large fossil energy input, and therefore, it is contributing to oil and natural gas imports and U.S. deficits." He says the country should instead focus its efforts on producing electrical energy from photovoltaic cells, wind power and burning biomass and producing fuel from hydrogen conversion.
----------------------------------------------------------
I wonder why hemp is not pushed for a biomass fuel when it is the cheapest and fastest to produce.
The plant and the technology is here to cleanly fuel the planet if only the government could get past its ignorance and use what was envisioned in the beginning.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[Misternatural 0]

>>Coal fired plants will still need to be built as well. We are working on the final app here in Iowa for one. This plant is being built with CO2 issues in mind for when the tech becomes avialable to use it.

Clean coal technology and gassification/liquification of coal are two excellent possibilities as alternatives to oil.
I have to say though that half of the fish in the waters of Vermont are deemed hazardous to eat because of past generation coal fired plants exhaust flowing over New England. So I hope that pollution control equipment will be installed.

Beware of the collateralizing and monetization of your desires.
D S #3.1415

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>>Coal fired plants will still need to be built as well. We are working on the final app here in Iowa for one. This plant is being built with CO2 issues in mind for when the tech becomes avialable to use it.

Clean coal technology and gassification/liquification of coal are two excellent possibilities as alternatives to oil.
I have to say though that half of the fish in the waters of Vermont are deemed hazardous to eat because of past generation coal fired plants exhaust flowing over New England. So I hope that pollution control equipment will be installed.

Estimated cost of ther plan is 1B dollars. 750M will be polution control expense. (all aprox dollars)

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Andrewwhyte 1]

You are correct Bill that it all conspires to raise the price of food. I am less optimistic than you about the possibilities for cellulosic ethanol. It seems to me that the process will only be economical if the price of the higher starch parts of the plant are high enough.
What really worries me is that we wont even notice as the third world moves from food production to ethanol production for the benefit of the landowners and the detriment of the rest, similar to coffee production today.

[Misternatural 0]

>> soybean plants requires 27 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced, and
sunflower plants requires 118 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced.


OK this is what cracks me up, when they say "Fossil Energy used to produce these fuels"....The equipment can run on biodeisel and or ethanol so it is an effective net zero factor for fossil fuel consumption.

The second law of thermodynamics mandates that energy production requires energy consumption so we are not going to get any free fuel here no matter what we do.

>>I wonder why hemp is not pushed for a biomass fuel when it is the cheapest and fastest to produce.

Hemp is an excellent alternative, it grows in harsh conditions is virtually pest free AND the seeds are an excellent food source BUT it has such a hippie/drug stigma that people can't get their minds wrapped around it as a useful crop.

Beware of the collateralizing and monetization of your desires.
D S #3.1415

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

BUT it has such a hippie/drug stigma that people can't get their minds wrapped around it as a useful crop.

Using some of this (see attachment) before going to the protest would probably help their chances...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Misternatural 0]

>>Estimated cost of ther plan is 1B dollars. 750M will be polution control expense. (all aprox dollars)

Excellent- everyone wins, more jobs are created, the fish become edible, less oil is burned.

Beware of the collateralizing and monetization of your desires.
D S #3.1415

[Misternatural 0]

I said wrapping not warping our minds around it.

Beware of the collateralizing and monetization of your desires.
D S #3.1415

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

>> soybean plants requires 27 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced, and
sunflower plants requires 118 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced.


OK this is what cracks me up, when they say "Fossil Energy used to produce these fuels"....The equipment can run on biodeisel and or ethanol so it is an effective net zero factor for fossil fuel consumption.

Not quite. There point is that you have to burn fossil fuels because you use more energy to make the fuel than you get.

Quote

The second law of thermodynamics mandates that energy production requires energy consumption so we are not going to get any free fuel here no matter what we do.

The second law of thermodynamics includes the energy from the sun, so yes we can get "free" fuel in the same way we get "free" energy from eating plants or burning wood.
It is basically an efficiency issue; the energy is there, we just have to figure out a way to make it usable without losing all the benefit during the conversion process.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

BUT it has such a hippie/drug stigma that people can't get their minds wrapped around it as a useful crop.

ACTUALLY.. it has a far bigger stigma with the establishment .... it was a favorite drug of poor and non wasp groups and its demonization was more racist at its outset.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

I say you can either start investing in the new energy infrastucture or continue to allow oil producers to rule our lives.

I agree completely.

Quote

The U.S. government has made a courageous choice in this matter.

I think "courageous" is an overstatement.
It's a step in the right direction but it's a baby step. Negating oil drilling subsidies and transferring those funds towards solar and wind development would have pegged my courageous meter.

[Misternatural 0]

>>"Yes we can get "free" fuel in the same way we get "free" energy from eating plants or burning wood."


I'll remember you said that the next time I am busting my ass cutting firewood.

Beware of the collateralizing and monetization of your desires.
D S #3.1415

[Misternatural 0]

>>ACTUALLY.. it has a far bigger stigma with the establishment .... it was a favorite drug of poor and non wasp groups and its demonization was more racist at its outset.

Well It's a good thing we are not talking about scotch , then people in Washington would really be pissed.

Beware of the collateralizing and monetization of your desires.
D S #3.1415

[Butters 0]

The Emperor Wears No Clothes

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[billvon 2,396]

>Bill, all that extra tonnage of corn grown this year will not stave off the
>increase in the commodity cost.

Correct. Supply and demand.

> Most of the corn grown (from what I could actually see) was for animal
>feed.

Right. Thus reducing meat consumption solves the problem as well. (Which happens more or less automatically as feed prices rise.)

>US production of ethanol hits new records every year, but the supply
>is not increasing quite to what you may believe.

Right. Production will trail demand. If it didn't, there'd be no incentive to grow more.

>This country has set the standard by being able to lead in relief to
>those less fortunate while not seriously rationing life at home. Be real.

"Being real" by not changing a thing we do, and pretending we never will have to change, isn't being real; it's living in an unsustainable fantasy.

>..and we'll just put those that lost jobs at Coca-Cola, Pepsico, et al
>on welfare? Can you really look at the impact of what you say?

?? Uh, no. Now they work at ethanol refineries. Those things don't run themselves.

>So, eliminating those products eliminates $75B out of the economy in
>payroll alone, 300,000 jobs directly.

And adds even more as we switch our money flow from Saudi Arabia to the United States. We employ scientists, engineers, chemists, process workers, delivery people, maintenance people, construction workers, management types and QC analysts instead of shipping all that money to Saudi Arabia.

We buy 1.3 million barrels a DAY from Saudi Arabia, another 1.2 million from Venezuela. That's $233 million dollars a day, or $85 billion a year to those two countries alone. That's money we're sending to people who dislike us instead of money we are using in our own economy to hire US workers.

So let's say that your premise is correct, and that for some reason rather than switching to other sweeteners we just plain shut down those soft drink factories. We lose $75 billion a year and gain $85 billion. Sounds like an overall win.

In reality, of course, we won't shut down any soft drink plants. We'll just partially switch to another sweetener, like, say, sugar. It's better for you anyway. So we keep the $75 billion here AND start to see some of that $85 billion stay in the US. Win-win again.

>But hey, we-give-a-shit about the rest of the world right?

We should give more of a shit about american farmers than about Saudi sheiks. But that's just my opinion.

>We cannot lead in this world if we do not lead at home.

I agree, if I read you correctly. We should not lead the world. We should, however, do the right thing here at home and set an example the rest of the world can follow. If they don't want to follow, that should be fine. If they do, great.

>There is no "sudden-psychic-change" like stop producing soda,
>solution. You can infuse the mentality, but the reality will not see
>the light of day for decades.

I agree - which is why we have to start _now._

>This energy bill accomplishes neither.

It solves nothing. It starts us toward a solution.

[billvon 2,396]

Hemp's not a bad source of fuel overall. It could become another part of the eventual fuel stream that keeps our cars running. Note, though, that Otto cycle engines can't use it; they have to be diesel.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Hemp's not a bad source of fuel overall. It could become another part of the eventual fuel stream that keeps our cars running. Note, though, that Otto cycle engines can't use it; they have to be diesel.

I'm starting to think that EV may be my next move. The wife has a Camry with 215K on it. This site is giving me some ideas. http://www.electroauto.com/index.html
My only question is range but if I use it as my five day/wk commuter vehicle then charging it with a roof top solar panel should take care of it.
Not sure if that's the decision yet but I'm steadily moving from "hey, that would be nice" to "why the hell not?"

[jumpinfarmer 0]

That Pimentel study is over 20 years old and has been proved wrong by dozens of newer studies, yet it still pops up all the time. Since it's the only one that keeps comming up maybe it's the only negative one out there.

[jumpinfarmer 0]

I know nothing about hemp production but I know how to raise crops and there principals would be similar. There may not be many pests now but, if it is raised for any length of time and in any quanity pests will show up, history proves this. Then to say it grows with no fertilizer is bull crap. Every plant harvested from the soil removes nutriants, the more harvested the more is removed. At some point you have to replace thouse nutrians or your production will drop off dramaticly. Corn can be raised with no fertilizer if you only want 1/4 of a crop but for the last 75 years yields have been rising along with fertilizer use. That said with todays high fertilizer prices less is being used while production still is rising, this is done by more efficiant use and timing.

[freethefly 6]

This study is for the Pacific Northwest but, contains much information concerning pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers.
http://extension.oregonstate.edu/catalog/html/sb/sb681/

The North American Industrial Hemp Council
http://www.naihc.org/
More links;
http://www.industrialhemp.net/edu.html

Quote

Then to say it grows with no fertilizer is bull crap

Actually I said Little or no fertilizers.
100% organic hemp farms in Canada and Europe do quite well without the use of fertilizers. Hemp can be grown, year after year in the same field but, that is not allowed in organic farming and is rotated with cereal and legume crops. As hemp requires a sufficient supply of nitrogen this is often overcomed by field retting, rotation and manure.

I have no doubt that you know about farming. What I know is what I hear from my dad and my uncles. They farm corn in Northwest Missouri (Fillmore and New Point) (that and raise a good number of hogs). I have, however read i large amount on hemp to learn about how it can be grown and the conditions that it can be grown in. To learn more steer clear of the hippy sites.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[Erroll 49]

From CNN :-

Quote

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger plans to sue the federal government over its decision not to allow a California plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, he announced Thursday.

Environmental Protection Agency chief Stephen Johnson announced the decision Wednesday, refusing the state's request for a waiver that would have allowed it to cut emissions faster than a new federal plan the president signed into law Wednesday