1 Umm,reduce consumption......right.

2

The European Powers are buying up land in Africa to support their industries, coincidentally impoverishing the local people. Haven't they been there before?

These are biofeul plantations.

3 Everyone who knew anything about science and common sense has always known that this gas-ahol BS was a scam from day one.

It has always been about nothing more than "buying" voters in the midwest. Call it an early version of the "Louisiana Purchase".

What is really bad about it? It was started by the Republicans.

4 Let's see, less food, less land, more "greenhouse gases", and increased material wealth for only those at the top of the scam pyramid...yep, sounds like a typical eco-scam. 

5

We are the Saudi Arabia of coal. We EXPORT huge amounts of coal. All kinds of synthetic fuels can be made from coal with current technology. Yet, we aren't doing SHIT to develop coal. I hope that when conservatives take back the Senate and the Presidency we can curb the pointless stupidity of biofuel and do something about using our COAL to reduce or eliminate our oil imports.

Yeah, I know. Coal is politically incorrect, while feel good stupidity is a libtard staple. Fucking morons.

6 What is wrong with being green? It is good for the Earth and all the living creatures that live hear including us dumb humans !!!!!!

7

Yeah, I know. Coal is politically incorrect, while feel good stupidity is a libtard staple. Fucking morons.

Posted by: maddogg at December 09, 2010 09:21 AM (OlN4e)

We will have to eliminate the EPA first.

8 Sigh... Look, I know biofuels is a hated thing among the Right, so I won't try to change your minds on that.  But we're also supposed to not let myths take the place of facts.  Sooo...

1) Corn ethanol is NOT necessarily economically unattractive.  Corn and gasoline prices fluctuate quite a bit.  Under some circumstances, it makes quite a bit of sense.  With gasoline prices staying rather high post 2007 (we're at record prices for December), its going to make economic sense more often than not.  That whole $0.45 ethanol subsidy?  We can get rid of it with only a slight decrease of consumption.

2) The US is not Europe (thankfully).  I've never heard of that study, and if so then it's a stupid way of producing biofuel.  In the US, however, we have more farmland than we know what to do with.  Ethanol in the US hasn't hurt food security in the slightest (our agricultural exports did not decrease with the ethanol boom).  We can make far far more biofuel (if it can come from cellulosic sources) than we are currently making without a problem.

9 I heard that John Lennon has been converted to biofuel and is now a greenhouse gas.  Imagine that.

10 5We are the Saudi Arabia of coal. We EXPORT huge amounts of coal. All kinds of synthetic fuels can be made from coal with current technology. Yet, we aren't doing SHIT to develop coal. I hope that when conservatives take back the Senate and the Presidency we can curb the pointless stupidity of biofuel and do something about using our COAL to reduce or eliminate our oil imports.

In the meantime, look for Obama to pull a Clinton and designate mineral-rich areas as "National Monuments" to keep them off-limits for production.  Google "Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument" to read how Clinton shut down the largest undeveloped coal field in US just as mining operations were about to begin. 

/One side-effect of Clinton's actions was that some coal fields in Indonesia became more valuable.  Quid-pro-quo? 

11 7 Let's do that anyway.Liquidate them,as Stalin liked to say.

12 And all this emanates from the MotherScam, AGW.  Even as the AGW scam gets shakier and shakier, it's tendrils continue to reach out.

13 10 Yes,I remember it well.

14 "Shut up," I explained.

15 Save the trees, burn environmentalists

16
1) Corn ethanol is NOT necessarily economically unattractive.

Yes it is, you are FOS

17 Grassley needs to be primaried.

18

Posted by: SkepticalMI at December 09, 2010 09:26 AM

 

Okay, but that still doesn't account for the fact that it is net negative in energy creation, causing more greenhouse gases that directly burning gasoline. If that's the case, what's the point? So you can feel smug?

19 I am pro-clean environment and pro-responsibility in developing resources, but that does not mean I have to be pro-hair brained idiot.

20 So you mean all this green stuff is just a scam by some people who want to control your lives? It isn't actually about saving the planet. Wow, who could have seen that coming. Watermelon: green on the outside, red on the inside.

21

We will have to eliminate the EPA first.

Posted by: Vic

I 100% agree that the EPA, as an enforcement agency, needs to go. I believe there are enough tree huggers out there to insist that industry does the right thing.

You want to see what is in store for the cement and power industries in the US. Meanwhile China is out pacing the world in all categories of consumption and pollution.

22 Corn works ok as s fuel when you burn it directly.  Steam, anybody?

23 When coal, oil and electricity prices go through the roof we will see massive deforestation. People will start burning anything they can get their hands on to stay warm.

24 Save the trees, burn environmentalists

If you turned those guys in Cancun into biodiesel, it would be the first useful thing they've done in their life.

25 Ethanol in the US hasn't hurt food security in the slightest (our agricultural exports did not decrease with the ethanol boom).

I call BS.  Here's an old editorial (from 2006), but I say the situation has gotten worse since then:

Taxes arenÂ’t the only burden that will fall on consumers. As ethanol usurps more of the corn crop, the price of corn rises, boosting food prices. Already, about 20% of the corn crop goes toward ethanol production, up from just 3% five years ago. That drove up corn prices 80% in 2006 alone.

26 i thought china was doing the whole colonize africa thing of late, so the EU is gonna have a heckuva time with that i think. though a small resource war might be fun. and why are politicians being allowed to decide which scheme of 'renewable energy' we should use? it's obvious that we'll develop new fuels when we actually need them, but to do it now is insane. substitution of bio for petro in the EU will just make oil cheaper and thus be used more elsewhere. talk about subsydising your enemies.

27 WASHINGTON Â— Top Democratic fundraisers and lobbyists with links to the White House are behind a proposed wind farm in Texas that stands to get $450 million in stimulus money, even though a Chinese company would operate the farm and its turbines would be built in China.   

The farmÂ’s backers also have close ties with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.,

28 Posted by: PoconoJoe at December 09, 2010 09:44 AM (7MoUQ)

I thought that wind farm in TX was the brain child of T. Boone Nosepicker and it had been canceled after everyone figured out he wanted the government to confiscate the land and buy the turbines for him and that the whole thing was a land grab for him.

29 i though GE cornered the polititians on windpower in the US?

30 Here is an article from the NYT from 5 years ago. I think we passed the $35 mark a while back......

31 Here's the story, it's pretty damning. I noticed it in the headlines and went to the site. http://tinyurl.com/264sxhz Harry Reid is in it up to his ass.

32 I haven't seen a single "green" project in the last 40 years since that shit started that actually made any sense. Nearly everyone of them are BS and a scam of some sort or another.

I use the term "nearly" only because it is ot possible for me to see ALL the green projects and there may be one somewhere that is actually good. But I doubt it.

33 Ethanol in the US hasn't hurt food security in the slightest

Have you been living in a cave since Michelle Obama took office? Billions of American children are so food insecure in their food deserts they're fat.

When you plow under the tomato vines to get the corn ethanol subsidies, the price of tomatoes goes up until there's nothing for poor kids to eat but Fritos. 

_{Nevermind the part where 8 of 10 kids would eat the Fritos and leave the tomato if you put both on a plate.}

Instead of subsidizing tomato stands, stop the corn subsidies, let everything shake out a bit.

34 Makes you wonder if this was their plan form the start?

35 "Food desert", ugh.  I'd like to beat whichever one of Michelle's political strategists came up with that fallacious term within an inch of their life. 

36 That's not the one that T. Boone had. His was much bigger. I like this little gem that MSNB-Commie neglect info on.

Dubbed the Spinning Star wind farm, the projectÂ’s 600-megawatt capacity is, theoretically, enough to power 180,000 American homes and would be the sixth-largest wind farm in the country.

600 MW, sure you fking idiots. That is the peak rating if you assume the wind is blowing at optimum speed constantly. IT NEVER DOES

Which is why wind power will never work. Wind power will only work in areas with a significant amount of wind and located too far from a grid power source to connect. And then only for small loads tied to a battery that is charged by the windmill.

37 Kratos--it predates FKOTUS, it's a social justice word.

38 Save the trees, burn environmentalists

Posted by: Truman North at December 09, 2010 09:34 AM (G5JPI)

 

Bingo. Get rid of all of these know it all commie assholes who take private jets and fleets of limos to enviro conferences and Gaia will be doing a lot better

39 God, I love history. Apparently despite all the education the AGW purports to have is limited by their rose tinted glasses.  What, none of them have taken a history course? This time they won't ship the slaves, they will merely tie them to the land and run Africa as a feudal state - just so they can drive their cars and feel good about themselves. This is nauseating.

40 More on coal to fuel in South Africa.

41

I haven't seen a single "green" government project in the last 40 years since that shit started that actually made any sense.

FIFY

The only useful green projects are really small scale and economically viable. Like using reusable water bottles instead of single use kind or composting hobos. The government only gets involved when a project requires coercion, aka is unprofitable. Stupid government power grabs.

42 I want my whale fat lamps! 

Whales are renewable right?

43 Okay, but that still doesn't account for the fact that it is net negative in energy creation, causing more greenhouse gases that directly burning gasoline. If that's the case, what's the point? So you can feel smug?
Posted by: Jeff Weimer at December 09, 2010 09:38 AM (tuOLO)

Yes I can, actually, since you're wrong on both accounts there too =)  The net negative in energy creation is a myth based on one person, Dr. David Pimentel, that the MSM swooned over in 2005.  For the record, this guy is one of those rabid baby-hating environmentalists that all of us freedom loving conservatives should despise.  His is the only analysis that shows that it is a net negative, and is based on heavily outdated data (ethanol production efficiency has improved greatly since the 80s) and improper assumptions (he fails to account for co-product credits, for example).  Every other analysis consistently shows that corn ethanol produces ~50% more energy than it requires.  Which doesn't sound like much, perhaps, but it's positive.  Also, on an oil bases, it displaces ~20 times as much petroleum as consumed.

As for the GHG production, that is a myth based on an analysis in 2008 by Dr. Tim Searchinger.  This analysis is based off a model more flawed than the global warming models (if that can be believed).  If you were to "hindcast" this model (use it to predict changes from 2001-2009, for example), you would find that it predicts results wildly different than what actually happened.  The model is a poor predictor of the actual global changes that are occuring because of corn ethanol because it is a complex system that is quite difficult to model.  And you trust the MSM to give you the facts on this?  The same MSM that slobbers over global warming?  Really?

44 Is there a hydro-phobic biofuel yet, ethanol is too expensive to distribute and transport because of water contamination?

45 The "green" thing that I've always hoped would emerge from the zillions of dollars poured into the cause is a cheap, foldable, durable little solar sheet or "panel" that could be used to efficiently power/charge things like phones, radios, even Kindles or laptops and then be folded up like a map and put in your back pocket.
I've seen some heavy-duty, but not quite ready for prime-time, examples of the technology in SciAm, on outdoors/mil sites, etc. but nothing that's really the Jetsons-quality "free energy on demand" that I'm looking for. 

46 When you plow under the tomato vines to get the corn ethanol subsidies, the price of tomatoes goes up until there's nothing for poor kids to eat but Fritos. 

This brings us full circle to yesterdays conversation: Fritos burn well!

47 The absolute proof that this crap is BS is the FACT that the only way it is viable is through government order and subsidies.

If it was cost effective it would have already been implemented long ago.

I'll believe the scientists who say it is bull shit based on that alone.

48 This time they won't ship the slaves, they will merely tie them to the land and run Africa as a feudal state - just so they can drive their cars and feel good about themselves. This is nauseating. Out of sight, out of mind.. But like you said, they feel good about it. That's what really matters.

49 This brings us full circle to yesterdays conversation: Fritos burn well!

I loved that episode of Survivorman.


Grassly needs to be primaried for this. There is no excuse. There can be no forgiveness!

50

Frankly, I don't give a crap about 3rd world starvation.  To some extent it can be good - the more they must concentrate on feeding themselves, the less trouble they can make for us.  If people are hungry, they will pay more for food, and at that time it will become more economical to make food instead of fuel.  It's all about priorities.  The US can make lots more food if necessary just by cultivating more land that the government is paying to keep fallow.  Let our farmers make money.  It's a great export product, and increases the dependency of other nations on us.  We can live without big TVs and $2 tee shirts.  Can they live without grain?  Let them go hungry, and see how much energy they have left to hate us and plot terrorism. 

The US is the only place I care about, and we're not starving.  Our "poor" are the worlds fattest poor.  They need to have about 1000 calories removed from their daily diet as it is, just so they're not so morbidly obese.  And maybe then it won't seem so lucrative to birth out a huge surplus of babies.

Burn that corn!  Burn it as ethanol, burn it in a corn-burning fire place.  The reduction in oil use is welcome.  It's not like we're talking about wind power - THAT'S the BS energy source that needs killing.  That enriches only the Chinese, while killing off our birds and ruining our views.

 

51 Who is this Surviorwoman you speak of?

52

"...the more difficult option of increasing energy efficiency and reducing consumption."

Always has to be less and less of whatever as the "only" choices. Between nuclear, natural gas, and so-called clean coal there is enough energy for all of us forever... or at least until we blow the planet up with nukes or G*d gets tired and pulls a do-over.

Malthusian assclowns.

53

I've lived on the border of EPA Ethanol gulags for the last quarter century.  For the vehicles(mostly Nipponese engineering) that I've owned Ethanol is filler.

Over and over again, I have proven that if my vehicle can safely use an ethanol fuel mileage decreases in direct proportion to the fuel removed.

Government sponsored fraud.

54 Look for Barry to push full speed ahead on ethanol once the Europeans realize how stupid it is. Such a brilliant idea; take our topsoil and burn it.

55 What they're doing in Europe is nearing the same level of insanity as China's 1958 Great Leap Forward, which resulted in the starvation deaths of 20 million people.  And it's all based on the Great Hoax Of AGW, when you examine it closely.  The capper, is that this ethanol-initiative will result in massively-more "greenhouse gases," which, if they really had the power to heat the Earth like a greenhouse, would fry us to a cinder.  Fortunately, the Greenhouse Model is a load of crap, but still...it's the principle of the thing. 

56

No, they're not death panels!

http://tinyurl.com/293vgdy

We don't need no stinking panels!

HotAir

57

E10 has less energy in it per gallon than regualar gasoline... thus we burn MORE to drive the same distance.

E-15 will cause much more wear and tear on older engines.  It will actually DAMAGE your car.

And the REAL reason to get rid of the subsidies on Corn Ethanol, is WATER.  We have only so much fresh water to use for Farm Land.  In times of drought, which are just part of the cycle, this WILL take food off the table... as the choice will have to be made between food and fuel.

I'm still an advocate for turning our Transportation grip over to using Compressed Natural Gas for cars, and Diesal for trucks... The technology already exists to take most cars and convert them to CNG, which burns cleaner than normal gasoline... and because of the transportation problems with Natural Gas, it would drive the production to become a North American economic unit...

58

hey, UwY65, is it a myth that ethonol is the result of the corn lobby? it's the same reason we all disapprove of HSR: it is not economically viable, unless free money is economically viable.

and i do doubt your second point for two reasons. one, you never give affirmative evidence of your claim. you say that the study was wrong because emissions from ethonol production didn't show up in the world temperature changes. um, ok. maybe that has to do with the earth being a lot bigger than corn production. and that the earth's climate is pretty volitile.

the second reason is that you argue against it yourself. when you mention that "Every other analysis consistently shows that corn ethanol produces ~50% more energy than it requires." you demonstrate just how nasty the process is. this means we have to produce 300% of the energy no longer produced by oil. (the energy cost of extraction is pretty low considering.) i know there's no math on the blog, but

10 units of oil = 10 units of bio energy + 20 units used in production. yeah, that's a winning formula in a world with huge oil reserves.

59
Rumor has it that there is enough natural gas contained in the shale seam that runs thru Pennsylvania and up to NY to supply the US for the next 100 yrs. So the headhunter told me.

There are jobs available if you want to relocate to the corp office in some farking Arctic Freeze zone in Wisconsin.

60

"Yes I can, actually, since you're wrong on both accounts there too "

He's not wrong.  Gasoline (and especially Diesel) have the highest BTU/cu.ft. levels of liquid (at room temp & ambient pressure) fuels.

"Biofuels" (properly in quotes as the term is not well defined) aren't science.

 

61 i'm going to open a new funeral home where greenies can become bio fuel......at the end of the service...rather than handing the family their loved one in an urn or strolling over to the gravesite... i'll fill up their tank.... i'm not going to do windows or check oil though....

62 i'm going to be a bazillionaire

63 #61 - there's a Sam Kinison line in there somewhere..

64 This alternative, renewable fuel business is an exercise in vanity and greed. There is no need to deviate from fossil fuels; we have enough to last centuries. We have no obligation to make sure distant generations have good sources of energy. That is their job. As for the effect on the Third World, well, as human beings we should care, and as Americans with strategic vision we should care. The more the World is free and Capitalist, the safer is the USA.

65 phoenixgirl, that is more palatable than turning them into kibble.

66

"Food desert", ugh. 

So...a ham bush in a food desert would be a good thing, right?

67

#68,

I'm guessing the Mighty Kinison would've been skewering much of the current lunacy...

68 68, "We live where the food is!"

69 The ethanol industry has had enough subsidy to get on it's feet - phase out the subsidy and let Mr. Smiths' Invisible Hand see if it is viable.

70 There is no need to deviate from fossil fuels; we have enough to last centuries.

Y'know, I think back to school and how the teachers used to terrorize us all by telling us we were in imminent risk of running out of oil, at which point cars weren't going to work anymore and we were all going to be screwed, and why it was important we start using solar and wind.

 Then I found out that we use gas because it's so damn cheap compared to anything else that we could use.

71 Rumor has it that there is enough natural gas contained in the shale seam that runs thru Pennsylvania and up to NY to supply the US for the next 100 yrs.

Last I heard, NY was going to outlaw going after it.

72

i'm going to open a new funeral home where greenies can become bio

not a major leap "forward". http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/ (remove this space) 2007/04/ill_compost_your_corpse_1.html

73

"#61 - there's a Sam Kinison line in there somewhere."

"They might as well change their name to The Fucks, cause they're fucked"

74 So...a ham bush in a food desert would be a good thing, right?

Too much fat and calories.  And the sugar glaze!   You people can't be allowed to have that!!  Gimme that right now, and get me some rolls to go with it!

75 dude

76 Has the third world that has been supported by the West been advancing in freedom and capitalism? I don't think so. Probably half of the 7 billion people on Earth wouldn't even be able to exist without the wealth and beneficence and generosity of the West (the US , most of all) but what do those populations think of the US? Posted by: iknowtheleft®© I said nothing about giving them money. I was talking about preventing their exploitation.

77 if we are going to use people as bio fuel or compost them ....shouldn't we fatten them up?

78 i think you can make it a hit here in the US if you have free wifi though. people would love it!

79 The only problem with biofuels and biomass derived chemicals is the state support for them. Governments decide that ethanol from corn should replace oil and coal so stupid decisions are made to try to bring that about including land use choices. Biomass harvesting does not drive up food prices - the last big food price spike came right in the middle of the highest oil prices so it was immediately blamed on biofuels competing with farmed food for space. In reality, high energy prices tend to increase transportation, harvesting and processing costs which makes food more expensive but why bother with reality. Biomass harvesting only has a negative impact on food prices if people (rather than market forces) decide it should be harvested from arable land. Take the state, the lefties and the public money out of the biomass market and the industry would be smaller but more valuable and have virtually no impact on the environment since it would only expand into market contexts where it was not competing with agriculture for land and water usage. Find an instance where jungle is being torn up for biofuel harvesting and I guarantee you will find state support via either carbon schemes, preferential purchase contracts, subsidies or the like. Biomass is not the problem. Government is.

80

if we are going to use people as bio fuel or compost them ....shouldn't we fatten them up?

mmmm blubber.

81 The more the World is free and Capitalist, the safer is the USA. I stand by this statement. Do you think it is wrong, iknowtheleft®© ?

82

" the last big food price spike came right in the middle of the highest oil prices"

Which can be correctly blamed on the same government's influence.

The "biofuel"/petro ratio is being manipulated by government, not customers, thus when "biofuels" are supported by government, other fuels are not.

83

Government is.

Shut it it.

84

75 Rumor has it that there is enough natural gas contained in the shale seam that runs thru Pennsylvania and up to NY to supply the US for the next 100 yrs.

Last I heard, NY was going to outlaw going after it.

Posted by: HeatherRadish at December 09, 2010 10:35 AM (4ucxv)

True.

And the ecotards in PA are out in full force to stop the drilling there, too.

85

45 Is there a hydro-phobic biofuel yet, ethanol is too expensive to distribute and transport because of water contamination?

Posted by: Jean at December 09, 2010 10:08 AM (wgkZv)

Just add some dry gas and problem solved!

86 I said nothing about giving them money. I was talking about preventing their exploitation. So, give them guns?

87 Ed - I forget, is it one or two bottles of STP per 50,000gal tank car

88 The more the World is free and Capitalist, the safer is the USA.

I stand by this statement.

Posted by: eman at December 09, 2010 10:41 AM (b1GWR)

I agree to some extent, but not completely.  For one, those two things MUST go together.  Prosperity without freedom does not help us.  It simply gives hostile governments greater stability and more resources to threaten us with - like China.  And I doubt that there is any level of freedom and capitalism that will make Islam less of a threat.  After all, it's known that there is no causal relationship between povety and jihadism, and "free" people in the West have become jihadists.  Thus, I want every muslim nation on earth as poor and as riddled with starvation as is possible.  Preferably with a heavy dose of plague and pestilence thrown in for good measure.

89 Rumor has it that there is enough natural gas contained in the shale seam that runs thru Pennsylvania and up to NY to supply the US for the next 100 yrs. So the headhunter told me.

The same thing is true for nat gas under the Great Lakes, and every state on the US side forbids drilling for it.  Yet there are literally thousands of gas derricks on the Canadian side pulling it out.

Want to guess who buys that gas from the Canadians?

90

92 Ed - I forget, is it one or two bottles of STP per 50,000gal tank car

Posted by: Jean at December 09, 2010 10:48 AM (xkJak)

Heh.

Dry gas is alcohol.

91

hey, UwY65, is it a myth that ethonol is the result of the corn lobby? it's the same reason we all disapprove of HSR: it is not economically viable, unless free money is economically viable.

and i do doubt your second point for two reasons. one, you never give affirmative evidence of your claim. you say that the study was wrong because emissions from ethonol production didn't show up in the world temperature changes. um, ok. maybe that has to do with the earth being a lot bigger than corn production. and that the earth's climate is pretty volitile.

the second reason is that you argue against it yourself. when you mention that "Every other analysis consistently shows that corn ethanol produces ~50% more energy than it requires." you demonstrate just how nasty the process is. this means we have to produce 300% of the energy no longer produced by oil. (the energy cost of extraction is pretty low considering.) i know there's no math on the blog, but

10 units of oil = 10 units of bio energy + 20 units used in production. yeah, that's a winning formula in a world with huge oil reserves.

Posted by: dudeinsantacruz at December 09, 2010 10:23 AM (X/L9Z)

Your math is wrong, actually.  Here is the actual equation:

8 Btu oil + 92 Btu Natural Gas = 150 Btu Ethanol

Hence the 50% more.  Most of the corn ethanol energy requirement is in fertilizers (produced from natural gas) and steam produced from natural gas in the refinery.  Oil is really only used as diesel on farm and transportation, hence why it's so good as an oil displacement (and the US produces quite a bit of NG, especially in the past few years).  So essentially, we're converting NG to an oil substitute. 

As for my first point, my apology for not making it clear.  Considering the comments in Ace's food rant yesterday about it being too long, I wanted to make myself concise =)  In any case, the GHG emission myth is based on the idea of indirect land use change.  Essentially, it says that an increase in corn ethanol production will result in an agricultural imbalance that will be adjusted through economic factors.  Just look at the geniuses in the White House if you think academics can do that easily =)  In any case, the prediction indicates a dramatic increase in agricultural production outside of the US particularly in terms of clearing land for farms.  It is that imbalance, not the corn ethanol production itself, that in the study caused 27% more GHGs than gasoline. 

So you don't have to actually measure GHG emissions from farms or temperature changes to check if the model is correct; all you have to do is follow farmland changes.  And as you move along (the study was a step move from 2001 to 2015; we're 2/3 of the way through it), you'll find that farmland did not change the way they believed it to be.  The big hype from Time and the rest of the MSM was an increase in Amazon deforestation; there is actually no correlation there to ethanol production.  The trade imbalance did not incur.  Instead, yields increased on US farmland, and marginal land that had gone out of production went back in.  So the huge changes in third world countries simply did not incur.  In other words, the model was falsified.  People are trying to improve the model, but so far I have yet to see one that properly hindcasts the agricultural world.

That's what I mean when I say it's worse than the GHG models.  The global warming crowd throws in a bunch of other assumptions to get a semi-decent hindcast while still promoting ridiculous warming trends.  The indirect land use change crowd didn't even bother to do that.

The absolute proof that this crap is BS is the FACT that the only way it is viable is through government order and subsidies.

Posted by: Vic at December 09, 2010 10:10 AM (e4sSD)

I've backed up my claims.  Care to back up yours? =)

92

Want to guess who buys that gas from the Canadians?

The chicoms? or is this a terrance and phillip joke?

93 I thought it was white gas

94 Chuck Grassley, a Republican senator from Iowa, said in no uncertain terms that the new tax deal will include an extension of those ethanol subsidies. That pragmatic bipartisan compromise with Obama just looks better and better.

95

Want to guess who buys that gas from the Canadians?

The chicoms? or is this a terrance and phillip joke?

Posted by: dudeinsantacruz

LOL nope.  The US buys it.

If anyone ever finds themselves in the U.P. of Michigan, there are several 36 inch compressed natual gas pipes that run down from canada and into michigan on their way to chicago/detroit.

The compression stations are pretty cool, if not extremely loud.

96 Sorry for being such a pain about this, but I live in a rather unique world as a fiscal conservative in the biofuel industry.  I'm alone on the Right in actually believing in the promise of biofuels (I've seen more than enough to convince me it's a promising future), and I'm alone in the biofuels world in rolling my eyes about government planning and global warming.  Forget about the negatives of ethanol as a fuel (damages cars, lower energy density); ethanol itself is a stopgap.  A butanol facility (which eliminates these problems) is currently being built, and if successful its easy to retrofit all the ethanol facilities out there.  Biogasoline (virtually indistinguishable from petroleum gasoline) is getting closer to reality.  Which means all you need to worry about are the economics and the capacity.  And both are far more promising than most people realize.

It's not going to replace all petroleum use.  Of course we should push for increased drilling.  But economical alternatives are fine too.  It's a heckuva lot better than sending money to Saudi Arabia and Venezuela.

97 An appropriate quote given the season... "`Spirit,' said Scrooge, with an interest he had never felt before, `tell me if Tiny Tim will live.' `I see a vacant seat,' replied the Ghost, `in the poor chimney-corner, and a crutch without an owner, carefully preserved. If these shadows remain unaltered by the Future, the child will die.' `No, no,' said Scrooge. `Oh, no, kind Spirit. say he will be spared.' `If these shadows remain unaltered by the Future, none other of my race,' returned the Ghost, `will find him here. What then. If he be like to die, he had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.' Scrooge hung his head to hear his own words quoted by the Spirit, and was overcome with penitence and grief. `Man,' said the Ghost, `if man you be in heart, not adamant, forbear that wicked cant until you have discovered What the surplus is, and Where it is. Will you decide what men shall live, what men shall die. It may be, that in the sight of Heaven, you are more worthless and less fit to live than millions like this poor man's child. Oh God. to hear the Insect on the leaf pronouncing on the too much life among his hungry brothers in the dust.'" A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens

98 OT:

Rudolph Balloon Impaled During Parade.  Oh the humanity !!!

http://tinyurl.com/36qzqn5

99 Memo to Euroweenies:

Drink the Ethanol.  STFU.

100

The absolute proof that this crap is BS is the FACT that the only way it is viable is through government order and subsidies.

Posted by: Vic at December 09, 2010 10:10 AM (e4sSD)

I've backed up my claims.  Care to back up yours? =)

Posted by: SkepticalMI at December 09, 2010 10:51 AM (UwY65)

It should be totally obvious to anyone who is not blindly stupid.

101
Chuck Grassley, a Republican senator from Iowa

Ah, the children of the corn. It's a payoff to corn farmers. Among other problems, tho, is that I've started seeing corn being planted where it has no business growing. But irrigation water is cheap, especially if corn prices shoot up.

Take a look at this chart for corn, and go for the full chart. The big peak was in the summer of 2008, when gas prices went thru the roof. And as I recall, there was a certain amount of political unrest in Mexico because the poor folks couldn't afford corn tortillas!

102 Since the electric cars are, indirectly, coal-powered cars, can we just cut out the middleman and have real coal-powered cars? Imagine just being able to drop a chunk of coal into your car to refill it. Long trips? Load up the trunk with coal. Not sure what they should be called. Lumpa? Earth Destroyer? Hunka Hunka Burning Coal?

103

Posted by: SkepticalMI at December 09, 2010 10:56 AM (UwY65)

Bringing concrete facts is not being a pain. I for one appreciate it. What I don't appreciate is the government shoving ethanol down my throat. I have a lot of older engines that don't like the stuff worth a damn, and finding pure gas is getting damn hard. Plus, we aren't developing what we have in abundance, due to political correctness, and that pisses me off no end.

104

"Rudolph Balloon Impaled During Parade."

Randolph is suck a dick.

105 I meant such not suck.  Or maybe i didn't?

106 A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens

Posted by: dscott at December 09, 2010 10:58 AM (gaD9p)

An attempt to compare Scrooge's personal greed to matters of national policy is pure sentimentalism and do-gooderism.  In any case, we're not talking about friendlies starving, like Australians or some such.  We're talking about enemies.  The fewer of them the better.  They dance in the streets when Americans are killed - we owe them nothing.

 

107 ethanol itself is a stopgap

That is the problem right there. There is no emergency (that was not created by govt) with our oil based energy use.

There at some point in the future will be a crossover to some different energy tech when it is necessary. But that day will come about on it's own when the price of oil rises above whatever the best available alternative at that time is.

If we let this happen naturally it will be a slow fairly painless change and it will truly get the best alternative. If we allow govt to force it and pick the winner, the unintended consequences will be huge IMHO.

108 i've already alerted friends and family that if they buy an electric car...they may not charge it at my house....

109 In the last 500 years the Europeans are responsible for rapacious colonialism and Communism (close cousins). Now we are to continue following their lead? Madness.

110

While you people discuss trivial matters, this is the big story in my area today:

Police are still looking for Super Red, a 1,500-pound longhorn bull that escaped Wednesday night from Klingel Farm and ran loose on four-lane Route 209 and Shafers Schoolhouse Road, holding up traffic, and in nearby woods and...

111

honestly i don't really care about ghg because they're um, shady science. so i'm not gonna bother doing research so whatever. but still

8 Btu oil + 92 Btu Natural Gas = 150 Btu Ethanol

150 btu output - 100 btu input = net of 50 btu.

10 units of oil = 10 units of bio energy + 20 units used in production.

or this way

10 units of oil = 30 units of bio energy - 20 units used in production.

that 20 units is a real opprotunity cost. sure it can be invested in ethanol production but it could also go to other forms of energy generation, eg, building a hydro-dam (i do hate fish btw), building a nuke plant, getting more Natgas. also natgas has no other requirements, whereas corn still uses a trememndous amount of water and promotes soil exhaustion (which is why it needs so much fertilizer). the cost of a marginal btu from corn ethanol is way high compared against a btu from pretty much any other source.

112 17
Grassley needs to be primaried.
Posted by: Ken at December 09, 2010 09:38 AM (fFh95)

You missed the boat - he was just re-elected for another 6 years in November.

113 .....please.....this is not a math blog....it hurts just scrolling over it////

114 62

"Yes I can, actually, since you're wrong on both accounts there too "

He's not wrong.  Gasoline (and especially Diesel) have the highest BTU/cu.ft. levels of liquid (at room temp & ambient pressure) fuels.

"Biofuels" (properly in quotes as the term is not well defined) aren't science.

 

Posted by: Jess at December 09, 2010 10:25 AM (JxrwH)

That wasn't the argument.  Ethanol has about 67% of the energy value per unit that gasoline has.  Established fact, nobody is debating that.  What MI was pointing out it that biofuels are NOT net negatives in energy production (ie, they don't take more energy to produce than you gain from combustion of the fuel).  That fallacious assertion is based, like MI said, on Pimental's work, and technology is definitely better now than the period from which Pimental drew his data.

Renewable fuels aren't necessarily a bad idea; diversity is, after all, the spice of life.  I just despise the government trying to force them on us...this is why I vehemently disagree with others in the industry (I work in renewable energy) who say every state should have a renewable portfolio standard.  Why?  Why should we force energy producers to use economically inefficient feedstocks?  I AM a big fan of research, though...more from the standpoint of energy security (not independence...I think that chances of a totally energy independent America are nil).

115 Butanol?  What's that?  Seriously, I never heard of the stuff till you tossed that out there--put me some knowledge here...

116

Police are still looking for Super Red, a 1,500-pound longhorn bull that escaped Wednesday night from Klingel Farm and ran loose on four-lane Route 209 and Shafers Schoolhouse Road, holding up traffic, and in nearby woods and...

Posted by: PoconoJoe at December 09, 2010 11:09 AM (7MoUQ)

Shouldn't be a problem -- Rt. 209 is a quiet country lane.

117 Biofuels have more vanity-joules per gram than fossil fuels. The vanity-joule is the primary energy unit in all Liberal energy calculations. Ethanol stores less energy per gram than hydrocarbons, but it contains far more emotional satisfaction. Of course this is true only if the ignorance value is above a critical limit. Below that limit the vanity-joule content approaches zero.

118

Forget about the negatives of ethanol as a fuel (damages cars, lower energy density)

No, we won't. These negatives are real, and we're subsidizing them.

ethanol itself is a stopgap.  A butanol facility (which eliminates these problems) is currently being built, and if successful its easy to retrofit all the ethanol facilities out there.  Biogasoline (virtually indistinguishable from petroleum gasoline) is getting closer to reality.  Which means all you need to worry about are the economics and the capacity.  And both are far more promising than most people realize.

So butanol will be a more efficient product than ethanol? That sounds nice, but unless it matches or exceeds gasoline, AND does not incur the damage that ethanol does, then there is still no point in adopting it.

It's not going to replace all petroleum use.  Of course we should push for increased drilling.  But economical alternatives are fine too.  It's a heckuva lot better than sending money to Saudi Arabia and Venezuela.

Posted by: SkepticalMI

 

The problem remains: If we subsdize ethanol or any follow on product, and oil prices drop as a result of decreased demand because an ethanol product is meeting some percentage of our needs, then the economic cost /benefit to drill locally does down. At least temporarily. Thus, the likelihood of us not buying foreign oil is slim. As we've seen before, when oil is cheaper, exploration lags, and then nations that are not oil dependent begin to turn to it (see latin America and africa in the 60s. This eventually sends a signal of increasing demand which starts the cycle again. Subsidized fuel sources complicate that cycle.

119 .....please.....this is not a math blog....it hurts just scrolling over it////

I'm not picking on you personally, but you've just summed up a good fraction of what's wrong with America that we're in such dire straits today. We're so collectively math-phobic (it's hard! And it's raaaaacist! So let's ignore it!)  that very few voters (and I'd say even fewer bureaucrats and elected lifers) can figure out what numbers mean or how they're derived.

OK, rant off.  Continue.

120 ethanol itself is a stopgap.

Do tell. What "gap" is it stopping? It's an uneconomical, subsidy-driven boondoggle, eating up 40% of the corn supply to displace 5% of gasoline use. It'd be a pretty good joke, if it wasn't costing billions.

121 I just despise the government trying to force them on us.

Rephrase that, they are not TRYING, they ARE forcing it on us.

That was my entire point. There have been many studies that we here at AOS have linked to that show that ethanol is a losing proposition in nearly every area. No I am not going to go back re-link, but my statement is ALL the proof that is needed.

The government has passed LAWS that force us to use it.

The government is making direct payments of money, direct tax CREDITS, and even tax deductions for individuals for pushing its use.

Without those ethanol use would be near zero.

If it was truly viable there would be no government push, that is NONE, and it would be flourishing on its own.

122 heather i know...i agree....that's why i put the sarc tags.....

123 102 Sorry for being such a pain about this, but I live in a rather unique world as a fiscal conservative in the biofuel industry.  I'm alone on the Right in actually believing in the promise of biofuels (I've seen more than enough to convince me it's a promising future), and I'm alone in the biofuels world in rolling my eyes about government planning and global warming.  Forget about the negatives of ethanol as a fuel (damages cars, lower energy density); ethanol itself is a stopgap.  A butanol facility (which eliminates these problems) is currently being built, and if successful its easy to retrofit all the ethanol facilities out there.  Biogasoline (virtually indistinguishable from petroleum gasoline) is getting closer to reality.  Which means all you need to worry about are the economics and the capacity.  And both are far more promising than most people realize.

It's not going to replace all petroleum use.  Of course we should push for increased drilling.  But economical alternatives are fine too.  It's a heckuva lot better than sending money to Saudi Arabia and Venezuela.

Posted by: SkepticalMI at December 09, 2010 10:56 AM (UwY65)

SkepticalMI, you're not alone.  I worked with biofuel economics in college, and was lucky enough to get a job in the field, which I really enjoy; I just hate that people aren't more sensible about it (mostly because they think we should just close our eyes, click our heels together three times, and say "there's no fuel like ethanol, there's no fuel like ethanol").  Holler at me at the link; always enjoy hearing from a fellow conservative biofuel enthusiast.

124

This is the perfect argument for drafting an engineer for president.

125

We're so collectively math-phobic (it's hard! And it's raaaaacist! So let's ignore it!)  that very few voters (and I'd say even fewer bureaucrats and elected lifers) can figure out what numbers mean or how they're derived.

i actually have a theory about how a lack of understanding of statistics contributed to the finantial crisis. when the CFO of goldman says his models described what actually happened on some bad days in october 07 were "25 sigma" events the gig was up. 25 sigma is about the same chance as winning a major state lottery 20 times in a row.

i don't mind if someone has a hard time with math, but those in a position to screw us should have some understanding of it and reality.

126
Butanol?  What's that?  Seriously, I never heard of the stuff till you tossed that out there--put me some knowledge here...

Butanol is toxic. Wait until it leaks into the ground water from leaking underground storage tanks. It'll be MBTE Act II.

127 Oh sure, we all know ethanol sucks.  But what presidential candidate would ever say so?

128

This is the perfect argument for drafting an engineer for president.

Ahem

129 This is the perfect argument for drafting an engineer for president.

Even someone who can do basic math would be a good start.

130 I live in a rather unique world as a fiscal conservative in the biofuel industry.

Explains everything

131

The Europeans are total dipshits who haven't made a decent decision of import in the last 100 years - not a one - but their colonization brought modernity to the far reaches of the world. 

Posted by: iknowtheleft®© at December 09, 2010 11:16 AM (G/MYk)

Exactly.  Now, I will say that French and Beligian colonialism was more questionable in terms of overall benefit.  The history of the Belgian Congo reads like a horror novel.  That said, the English had the biggest, and by far the best, empire.  They brought the light of Northwestern European culture to the far reaches of the earth, and the lives of the common folk of those lands improved dramatically as a result.  Naturally, those people were not keen on being ruled by foreigners, but they sure did their best to make the most of all the benefits it brought.  And now that they have independance, all they want to do is get into Europe and the US because they can't manage things properly. 

Ultimately, though, I think the way the US was colonized is the best.  If you plan to take over land, it's best if the people who were living there are made to no longer be living there.  This avoids lots of trouble later on.  Trying to subjugate and rule over the Indians was not going to work out well.

132 It's a heckuva lot better than sending money to Saudi Arabia and Venezuela.

Posted by: SkepticalMI at December 09, 2010 10:56 AM

I hate that argument. It's usually laid out by people who willfully force us to buy from foreign sources by curtailing or limiting our ability to drill for oil here. Obama and the offshore ban, anyone? How about ANWR? Shale oil?

These folks then point to "foreign oil", a problem THEY THEMSELVES CREATED by throwing up nearly insumountable regulatory and statutory roadblocks, as the reason we "must" do all these wasteful and inneficient "green" initiatives.

It's a specious argument, and when you use it here, despite your talk about being an economic "conservative", that means you're arguing this point in bad faith and we rightfully should ignore anything else you say.

133 Oh sure, we all know ethanol sucks.  But what presidential candidate would ever say so?

Posted by: Iowa at December 09, 2010 11:28 AM (TpXEI)

Hey Iowa, Slow Joe was hatin on coal in PA.

134 It's about power, just not the kind you were thinking of.

135 Ick.  Just did some research on butanol, courtesy of the Internet.  A shame about that toxicity problem, stuff looks like a damn fine 'Plan B' fuel otherwise.

136 I thought the DREAM vote was scheduled for 11AM. What's going on?

137
also natgas has no other requirements, whereas corn still uses a trememndous amount of water and promotes soil exhaustion (which is why it needs so much fertilizer). the cost of a marginal btu from corn ethanol is way high compared against a btu from pretty much any other source.

And guess what it takes to make fertilizer.

Energy.

Lots of it.

Mostly in the form of natural gas.

Any accounting of the economics of ethanol needs that to be taken into account. But it never is.

138 You should try liberol.  There's a never ending supply.

139

It's about power, just not the kind you were thinking of.

You mean forcing the masses all of the time from a great distance?

140 I'm considering using Charlie Sheen's liver in my hybrid.  The energy density multiplier has got to be nearing peak ethanol.

141 Hey Iowa, Slow Joe was hatin on coal in PA.

One of the advantages of going first.

142
Where's the post about the next chairman of the House's appropiations (theft, spending & extortion) committee?

He's from KY -- Tom Somebody, I can't remember his name. But the media is all a-giggle because he's been dubbed the 'king of the pork' in KY.

143 I did work on a BS/anti-BS reactor in my youth.  It went...poorly.

In other news, the crater may be fit for human habitation in about 20 million years.

144 ...the grand Green Poobah, Al Gore...

Do not mock Gai'ore.

145 If we could recycle ace's 12,000 word posts, we could feed 5000 starving children in the deepest jungles.

146

Heh.  But in terms of raw stupidity I think that Vikram Pandit was even better.  He said that Citi didn't factor in the possibility of the real estate market stagnating or declining in their (laughable excuse for a) portoflio risk analysis, when we had just come out of a declining real estate market 10 years before that.  And Pandit didn't even get fired/arrested after the said that - in Congressional hearings, IIRC.

uh, damn. thanks for putting me that knowledge.

while i don't really mind high executive salary if the executive is really good (i think Alan Mulally at Boeing and Ford), idiots always seem to infest the high office.

147

You know, if we hadn'd voted in a bunch of idiots into office for the past, oh, twenty years or so, we wouldn't even be having this debate because we'd be drilling for our own oil and gasoline would be about a buck a gallon at the pump, if that.

As it is, unless and until we get the right people in office who aren't busy being in some political fantasy-land, we're going to legislate ourselves back into the Stone Age.

And I can't believe that none of my fellow morons saw what I did back there...

148 Butanol?  What's that?  Seriously, I never heard of the stuff till you tossed that out there--put me some knowledge here...

Butanol is toxic. Wait until it leaks into the ground water from leaking underground storage tanks. It'll be MBTE Act II.

Posted by: Ed Anger

 

I'm unsure that this is a valid criticism. Gasoline is toxic as well. Most stations here had to take step to check and replace their storage tanks.

Natural gas is toxic, and highly flammable.

I'm still curious as to whether the energy benefit is comparable to gasoline. Also, does this fuel inflict damage on engines like current ethanol blends do?

149 OT: Bloomberg -
Most Americans Say They're Worse Off Since Obama Took Office, Poll Shows

150 #61 "Lastly, third world countries will always be starving because they seem to populate themselves to the point of starvation every time they are given the opportunity."

Case in point - Ethiopia. Google Ethiopia population and first up is a graph showing the population increasing from 30 million  around the time of the We Are The World concert to around 85 million now. One cheery prediction in the google list suggests a population of 174 million in 2050. Given the increase in the last 30 years, not at all improbable. The one constant in the overall 3/4 century period is that they can't feed themselves. Not then, not now and not in the future.

151 You're burning food, morons. Nothing more, nothing less.

152 Most third world countries have problems feeding themselves, not because of populations, but because either the current ruling leader for life is stealing their stuff or a neighboring leader for life is stealing their stuff.

153

This is the perfect argument for drafting an engineer for president.

And I can't believe that none of my fellow morons saw what I did back there...

That's terrible

154 Case in point, Zimbabwe used to be an exporter of food. Now imports and is starving.

155

This is the perfect argument for drafting an engineer for president.

And I can't believe that none of my fellow morons saw what I did back there...

That's terrible

Posted by: dudeinsantacruz

 

I see your Jimmah Carter emoticon. Does that count?

156 Sooner or later we'll get a blight or a rust affecting corn or wheat. With production diverted for corn-o-hol and not much crop genetic diversity it could be very interesting.Ya wanna drive or ya wanna eat?

157

Case in point, Zimbabwe used to be an exporter of food. Now imports and is starving.

Hey, that's because mugabe caused inflation in the billions of %, that has...oh wait, nevermind.

158 I thought the DREAM vote was scheduled for 11AM. What's going on?

So no one's going to answer me and I have to go find out for myself. I can't believe this place sometimes. You people want me to click and read stuff on my own?

159 OT - House Democrats defy Obama on Tax Cut Bill (CNN)

Defying President Obama, House Democrats voted Thursday not to bring up the tax package that he negotiated with Republicans in its current form.

"This message today is very simple: That in the form that it was negotiated, it is not acceptable to the House Democratic caucus. It's as simple as that," said Democratic Congressman Chris Van Hollen.

160 Can we just use "manna"?

161
I'm unsure that this is a valid criticism. Gasoline is toxic as well. Most stations here had to take step to check and replace their storage tanks.

Gasoline isn't soluble in water so when it leaks it generally forms a defined plume.

Butanol is highly soluble in water and will spread more widely than gasoline. That's why MBTE was such a disaster.

162

Ya wanna drive or ya wanna eat?

This is why we ought go back to whaling. Kill two birds with one harpoon.

163 OT:
FBI Issues Alert on Barbie Doll With Video Camera
Used to make child porn videos.

164

That's terrible...

And terribly industry-specific, too.

Still, we have the best and most efficient form of energy available to us if the form of oil and we're allowing an ignorant minority to keep us from using it.

I wonder if our species will survive this mutation of humanity, this homo progressivus.

165

163 You're burning food, morons. Nothing more, nothing less.

Yeah, it's interesting that they can't use the waste product -- husks, etc.

166 You're burning food, morons. Nothing more, nothing less.

Posted by: richard mcenroe

 

That doesn't bother as much as we know that the existence of the subsidies is encouraging cultivation in grades of corn which is fit only for burning, and to whom its sold. True, farmers have the freedom to plant what they wish, if they wish. The artificial incentive to grow to feed the government funded cash cow is a safer bet then growing feed or 'people' corn, when one considers that farmers gamble everytime they sow crops. Will it even mature to harvest? What will the market return be? What will happen to costs? If the market return and client base is more of a sure thing, we shouldn't be surprised that sensible people aim for that 'market'.

Despite the horror stories, many businesses like having the government for a buyer; there is alayer of  insulation from the market.

167 This is the perfect argument for drafting an engineer for president.

Dear God, no.  Most of the engineers that I know are libtards who look down on non-engineers, and who believe that society can be organized and run like a machine...

168 homo progressivus

Apocalypse Now

169 Borlaug absolutely owns Malthus, overpopulation is a myth - political disruption of the economy is a fact. I doubt the diversion for ethanol production is a direct driver of food costs. Most of the cost of food is in distribution and processing - not raw crop prices. This might be different in a crisis year, drought - pestilence - banks not lending money . However, ethanol production goes up when fuel prices do - and food prices also go up due to fuel costs. So, there may be a correlation, but causation does not appear to be evident.

170 you're burning food that feeds food....my pigs and cows and chickens need to eat!

171 According to comments on Malkin, DREAM Act has been tabled - 59-40....

172 House Dems vote to table tax cuts deal.

Popcorn time.

173

I wonder if our species will survive this mutation of humanity, this homo progressivus.

I thought gay jokes were a no-no?

174 I'm unsure that this is a valid criticism. Gasoline is toxic as well. Most stations here had to take step to check and replace their storage tanks.

Gasoline isn't soluble in water so when it leaks it generally forms a defined plume.

Butanol is highly soluble in water and will spread more widely than gasoline. That's why MBTE was such a disaster.

Posted by: Ed Anger

 

A fair point. Will either of the self identifying industry insiders provide to us some knowledge on this? Any chance of mitigating this?

175 You're burning food, morons. Nothing more, nothing less.

Posted by: richard mcenroe at December 09, 2010 11:45 AM (0GCID)

Indeed.  And it burns nicely.  Some relatives of mine have a corn burning fire place, and it's lovely for producing heat.  Way cheaper than the propane they had been using. 

I have to burn food every night on the damned elliptical machine.  I eat too much, so I have to work it back off.  Wasteful.  But I'm going to keep doing it, and I feel no guilt whatsoever.

 

176 Senate version of DREAM Act is tabled. Another stall. Senate votes on House version next week...

177 According to comments on Malkin, DREAM Act has been tabled - 59-40....

Posted by: The Mega Indepedent

 

Egad that was close. We're one Maine sister away from a colossal fuck up.

178 Most of the engineers that I know are libtards who look down on non-engineers, and who believe that society can be organized and run like a machine...

Society should be run by morons.

179 So no one's going to answer me and I have to go find out for myself. I can't believe this place sometimes. You people want me to click and read stuff on my own?

Posted by: The Mega Indepedent at December 09, 2010 11:49 AM (FJQtI)

DREAM was "tabled".  I think it has to do, in part, with the Dems refusing to bring Obama's tax compromise to a vote in the House and that pledge by the 42 Republican Senators.

180 Society should be run by morons.

Posted by: Cherry ð

 

It isn't now!?!

181 We convert our jungles and our habitat into oil and natural gas for the humans, go extinct and now they say: "hey, let's convert our habitat into fuel!". WTF? It's like drilling into a vein of stupid.

182

See report from Cancun by Lord Monckton at SPPI blog, entitled "The Abdication of the West"--1.5% of US GDP to be dedicated per year to be paid to "developing" countries for the harm we do them via global warming, estimated to total $600B per year when it gets going.

 

To be administered by a new UN international body (they are creating the World Union, as the EU is on life support?).

 

 

183 "We saw last night in the House that there is genuine support for the DREAM Act that crosses party lines," Rep. Gutierrez said of the . "We forged a coalition of Democrats and a handful of clear-thinking Republicans to put the DREAM Act over the finish line in the House. We can do the same in the Senate if we work hard over the next several days."

Thanks Mike Castle and Co. for forging good old "bipartisanship" once again. Dummies.

184 Dear God, no.  Most of the engineers that I know are libtards who look down on non-engineers, and who believe that society can be organized and run like a machine...

It's the same disease the current Ruling Class has, except with a different list of approved universities.

185 According to comments on Malkin, DREAM Act has been tabled - 59-40....
Posted by: The Mega Indepedent at December 09, 2010 11:54 AM

I think what happened is that the Senate voted to to table an immediate vote, so they could go on with interminable, preening speeches and posturing before passing the actual bill....

If, God forbid, a giant sinkhole were to open up below D.C. at this moment, the country might be saved.

186 The problem, for Westerners, arises when they move into a heavy guilt-phase --the answer for which is whiskey, which is why your scots-irish should do your colonizing.

187 191 Most of the engineers that I know are libtards who look down on non-engineers, and who believe that society can be organized and run like a machine...

Herbert Hoover was an engineer and the ethos in the Progressive/Fascist era was that society could, in fact, be run like a machine.

188

Society should be run by morons.

Idealy for me, society shouldn't be "run".

But Morons would be the group I trust most to keep idiots in line.

189 Egad that was close. We're one Maine sister away from a colossal fuck up.

I've decided that if I image the worst thing possible happening, it does.
I'm laying off imagination for a while.

190 This is the perfect argument for drafting an engineer for president. And "Herbert Hoover!" is the perfect counter-argument.

191 "This message today is very simple: That in the form that it was negotiated, it is not acceptable to the House Democratic caucus. It's as simple as that," said Democratic Congressman Chris Van Hollen.

Posted by: Bomber

 

Moronic translation:

We can get the Repubs to do this in January, and clean up the mess we made. We can claim to our base that we waged class warfare like they wanted AND claim that we helped the middle class. (Which isn't exactly true, but the MFM will cover our asses by trumpeting the false tax cut for the rich).

 

P.S. Dear Leader, fuck you. Sending Joe Biteme over here didn't help either.

192

1.5% of US GDP to be dedicated per year to be paid to "developing" countries for the harm we do them via global warming, estimated to total $600B per year when it gets going.

Let's take that from the UN budget first and then from USAID. fuckers.

193

"Rudolph Balloon Impaled During Parade."

>>Randolph is suck/such a dick.

See?? See?? I tried to warn you people about him...

194 Ooooh, Rep. DeFazio on Fox sounded willing to let this run over into next year. But now they're saying Dems will produce an alternative bill as early as today.

195 Egad that was close. We're one Maine sister away from a colossal fuck up.

Posted by: Blue Hen at December 09, 2010 11:56 AM (R2fpr)

"Maine sister"? Get with the times, Daddy-O. All the cool kids these days are calling it a "Castle".

196

So, in effect, the EU is impoverishing and starving Africans and other third-world peoples in order to feel good about the fuel they put in their tiny little cars, even though it does not help the environment

Eh...no worries, the billions in aide we send third world countries will keep the kings, despots, emperors & dictators living high on the hog in perpetuity.    

197 I work in biofuels research. Biofuel will never be anything more than an expensive fuel additive... just like corn ethanol, MTBE and lead before it.

198

Obviously, my experience with engineers is markedly different than ya'lls. Nearly all the engineers I've worked with had their heads screwed on straight and didn't deal in bullshit, because it would get someone killed.

I've done a fair amount of military and space work, however. Your mileage may vary.

199 I think what happened is that the Senate voted to to table an immediate vote, so they could go on with interminable, preening speeches and posturing before passing the actual bill....

I personally won't be convinced until they read a letter.

200 Posted by: dudeinsantacruz at December 09, 2010 12:03 PM (X/L9Z)

I have been seeing posts like that for days but no link or source. What is the source?

201

And the murder rate has skyrocketed, production has been grinding down, farm output crashing ... it's a real mess.

Posted by: iknowtheleft®© at December 09, 2010 12:01 PM (G/MYk)

What a f*ckin shocker.  They put a guy in charge who made his point by hanging burning tires around peoples' necks and then claiming to be a peace guru.  Bahh - they get what they deserve.  I'm wondering how long it will take until civil war starts up.

But back to the food part of the equasion - they are working to adopt the farm nationalization and repatriation scheme used by Zimbabwe.  It's only going to get worse.  If you have investments down there, DIVEST.

202

I have been seeing posts like that for days but no link or source. What is the source?

I saw it in post 195. but it is typical of what the euros and enviros have been bitching about for a while.

203 Posted by: Blue Hen at December 09, 2010 11:56 AM (R2fpr)

"Maine sister"? Get with the times, Daddy-O. All the cool kids these days are calling it a "Castle".

Posted by: The Mega Independent

 

I'm from Delaware. I'm striving to put that bit out of my mind, but it ain't easy.

204 Let's take that from the UN budget first and then from USAID. fuckers.

Someone in the comments on Reason suggested that if it's OK for random shitholes to bill the US for "use of the atmosphere" then the US should bill the entire world for American inventions like computers and modern medicine.

205 215: The irony content of that stream of facts is off the chart.

206 The world won't be right until the engineers automate accounting and law practice. Till then we a screwed.

207 a fellow conservative biofuel enthusiast. Thanks for making my point in advance. I do not wish to have my money forcibly taken TO SUBSIDIZE YOUR FUCKING HOBBY. How many decades old is the ethanol industry? If it can't break even by now, it's fucking USELESS. Quit trying to pimp this bullshit to those who know better and fuck off back to your lab. Make a cleaner, renewable, "green" fuel that delivers as much or more energy than gas for LESS than gas costs, and the world will suck your dick. Until then, fuck off back to your lab and get to work.

208

House tabled the Obama/GOP tax deal, too.

Go Nancy, Go! We all really knew the limits of your limousine liberalism. The poor and middle class only count as far as you can fool them for votes. If they cross you, then let their taxes be raised!

209 US should bill the entire world for American inventions like computers and modern medicine. We thought you were paying us for Marxism?! You seem to like it; you're welcome!

210 Re: Tax bill:
Has O called any of the dems obstructionists?  How about the partial party of no? Just curious is all.

211 The highest and best use of corn is the manufacture of Bourbon.

212 The highest and best use of corn is the manufacture of Bourbon.

Fuck you!!!!

213 Wish they'd hurry up and fire up this house on FOX.   Lotta opportunity for an "oops" moment.

214 #212 +1 The civil, mechanical and aerospace engineers I know and work with are conservative. Maybe its the software engineers who are libtards.

Yeah, we do look down on liberal arts grads - buncha illogical hysterics easily stampeded by the latest sky is falling gambit.

215 The civil, mechanical and aerospace engineers I know and work with are conservative. Maybe its the software engineers who are libtards.

Don't forget that engineers who can't do math do economics, like me (although I had an interest in both anyway). But maybe better engineers (or ones who actually, you know, engineer) are conservative because in their jobs they must make the most with the least.

216 The world won't be right until the engineers automate accounting and law practice. Till then we a screwed. Posted by: sTevo

Shit, the Tea Party could make that a platform plank.

217 Hey Iowa, Slow Joe was hatin on coal in PA.

And that is just fucked up.  Pennsylvania has some of the best anthracite in the world.  Burns hotter and cleaner.  Dickheads.

218 FUN FACT: It takes more than a gallon of energy to provide a gallon of ethanol.

219 Sucks trying to keep up with this thread at work.  Some quick notes...

Bringing concrete facts is not being a pain. I for one appreciate it. What I don't appreciate is the government shoving ethanol down my throat. I have a lot of older engines that don't like the stuff worth a damn, and finding pure gas is getting damn hard. Plus, we aren't developing what we have in abundance, due to political correctness, and that pisses me off no end.

Posted by: maddogg at December 09, 2010 11:03 AM (OlN4e)

Hey, no argument here.  For the people that are vilifying me, I should point out that I think the corn ethanol industry at the moment is too big and would be scaled back on the free market.  It would be best for everyone (except those losing their jobs because of it, but whatever).  Yeah, I know smaller and older engines don't work well with E10.  Blame the people that banned MTBE, not me =)  I don't know if butanol's been tested with these engines, but I think it'd be better.

And guess what it takes to make fertilizer.

Energy.

Lots of it.

Mostly in the form of natural gas.

Any accounting of the economics of ethanol needs that to be taken into account. But it never is.

Posted by: Ed Anger at December 09, 2010 11:33 AM (7+pP9)

Actually, it's ALWAYS taken into account.  I have never seen a study that didn't.  In fact, if you look at my 10:51AM post, you'll see I mentioned fertilizer as a significant energy cost.

That doesn't bother as much as we know that the existence of the subsidies is encouraging cultivation in grades of corn which is fit only for burning, and to whom its sold. True, farmers have the freedom to plant what they wish, if they wish. The artificial incentive to grow to feed the government funded cash cow is a safer bet then growing feed or 'people' corn, when one considers that farmers gamble everytime they sow crops. Will it even mature to harvest? What will the market return be? What will happen to costs? If the market return and client base is more of a sure thing, we shouldn't be surprised that sensible people aim for that 'market'.

Posted by: Blue Hen at December 09, 2010 11:53 AM (R2fpr)

This is something that most people don't intuitively realize, even though its obvious in retrospect.  Very little of the corn out there is sweet corn anyway; the vast majority of it is seed corn for animals.  The corn going to ethanol is no different than that of animals, and so there are multiple markets.  Ethanol corn is not encroaching on sweet ("people") corn.  Rather than guaranteed, the market for ethanol corn is a commodity one.  Its price fluctuates up and down just like gasoline.  Right now, it's ~$5.75/bu.  Generally its $4/bu.  It's been above $7/bu.  There's a gamble for farmers there too.

The absolute proof that this crap is BS is the FACT that the only way it is viable is through government order and subsidies.

If it was cost effective it would have already been implemented long ago.

I'll believe the scientists who say it is bull shit based on that alone.

Posted by: Vic at December 09, 2010 10:10 AM (e4sSD)

Well, judging by your posts you're clearly not interested in an actual debate, so this is the last thing I'll say to you.  As should be obvious to anyone who knows anything about free market economies, technology marches on.  Which means goods inevitably get cheaper over time.  Back when the government intruded, ethanol was not viable, and would not have made it.  Since then, substantial improvements in yield (both corn and ethanol) as well as processing have been made.  Current technology is improved over 1980 technology.  So no, it wasn't cost effective then, and thus wouldn't have been effective long ago.  And since the market is not free at the moment, there is no direct evidence that it is not viable in a free market scenario.

I'm telling you right now, if the government suddenly became libertarian (and we sorted through the crash that would inevitably happen right afterward), an ethanol market would exist in the US.  Smaller than it is now, yes.  Much smaller?  Perhaps.  But it's simple supply and demand.  Oil demand is high, pushing prices up.  Farmland supply is very high.  Food prices will go up without the farm subsidies, but corn prices will stabilize at a reasonable value, but with less production than the US is capable of.  With all that excess land, ethanol companies can compete.

Corn: $4/bu = $143/ton
NG: $4/MMBtu *3MMBtu/ton corn = $12/ton
Other raw materials (enzyme, yeast, nutrients, etc): $30/ton
Labor, taxes, maintenance, etc: $30/ton
Total cost: $215/ton corn

Ethanol: $2/gal * 100gal/ton = $200/ton
Distiller's grains: 0.33 ton * $150/ton = $50/ton corn
Total revenue: $250/ton

Profit margin = $35/ton corn

Sure, you can adjust those numbers to find times when it wouldn't be profitable, since these are all commodities that fluctuate, but the potential is there.  I never said corn ethanol was a silver bullet.  Heck, I don't even work with corn ethanol (I'm in the cellulosics world).  I said it is economically viable on its own, and I stand by that.  If it were up to me, I'd be happy to see the $.45/gal VEETC expire.  I doubt it would have a huge effect on the industry, and it would save us a lot of wasted money.

But people like Vic who just spout "facts" as if they are totally obvious need to back them up.

220

Posted by: SkepticalMI at December 09, 2010 02:23 PM (UwY65)

But as a consumer, IF given the choice, I would NOT buy gas with ethanol in it, because my Truck runs much better without it.

Between the crappy gas the State forces us to us, and the altitude here in Denver, my Durango runs like crap... went to Chicago last month... and between being near sea level, and REAL gas... my Durango ran MUCH better... which means its running more efficiently.

221 FUN FACT: It takes more than a gallon of energy to provide a gallon of ethanol.

Posted by: jukin at December 09, 2010 02:17 PM (vkkNZ)

FUN FACT: This was already brought up.  And you're wrong.  It takes ~0.67 Btu of energy to provide a Btu of ethanol.  BTW, using gallons of energy makes no sense.  Just FYI... =)

For those referring to my mention of butanol...

Butanol is a 4 carbon alcohol that is also a byproduct of sugar fermentation.  It has a higher energy density than ethanol, but still lower than gasoline.  So yes, gas mileage will still be lower, but not as much of a killer as ethanol (For the record, I own a Flex-fuel car, there's an E85 pump at the gas station I use most often, I'm in the biofuels world, and I have absolutely NO desire to actually use it.  It sucks, no question about it.)  However, it also acts like an oxygenate, which is the primary use of ethanol at the moment and why there's still a market for it.  Check out a company called Gevo if you want to learn more.  It doesn't suck up water, I don't think it damages engines as much, and is all around a better fuel.  Until recently, there just wasn't a bug that could ferment it economically.  Apparently Gevo solved that issue.

For those upset about my "stopgap" comment...

This is an annoying issue, I know.  There's a problem with developing alternate energy, and that is that there's a huge hurdle from going to the lab to the production scale for two reasons.  Early adopters are not going to get good economics on it.  This is not a big deal in most industries, because you always have a small subset of people willing to pay high for new technologies.  With alternate energy, you're providing a commodity.  Nobody outside of a few hippies pay extra for that.  You can't have the natural cost decrease that you see in, say, HDTVs or cellphones with alternate energy.

Secondly, the scale is absolutely enormous.  People don't realize the scale we're talking about here.  I read yesterday that the US' proven oil reserves are 22 billion barrels.  If that sounds like we're safe and don't need to worry about anything else, it's not; that is a 3 YEAR supply.  We go through 20 million barrels EVERY DAY.  So people who think we can just worry about renewable energy when the price gets higher and supply gets smaller don't realize the magnitude of change we're referring to here.

Suppose, for simplicity's sake, that the capital cost of an annual amount of renewable energy equivalent to a barrel of oil is $500 (ie, a refinery that can produce 1 million barrels of renewable fuel/yr costs $500 million to build).  That number is probably optimistic, but doable with improved technology.  In order to build enough facilities to convert US fossil fuel energy to renewables at current use, it would cost nearly $8 TRILLION dollars.  And that's not counting increased demand from population and GDP growth.  You can't just invest that at the drop of a hat.  And if you don't have the improved technology of early adopters, then that number is much higher.  Given that our entire economy depends on energy, a rough transition period will make matters worse. 

So no, I'm not 100% libertarian on this issue.  The current setup is crap; no argument there.  Kill the VEETC.  Keep cap and trade dead.  But a transition to a new energy source will take AT least a generation, probably longer, and with China and India's economies growing and with Iran being crazy, there's no guarantee that the transition will be smooth.  So yes, it's best to start worrying about the transition now.  Keep the knowledge flowing to better solar cells, better biofuels, better dams, maybe better windmills if I can be convinced that it ever has a chance of working economically.  Get the prices of these things down.  And build the early adopters so we can work out the engineering details at the same time.  We don't need a huge industry, just a small one to work out the details. 

The ethanol industry, for all of its many faults, has accomplished much of these goals.  Costs HAVE decreased, knowledge has increased dramatically, and we've learned what not to do.  The knowledge in building the 100+ refineries across the US has pushed the capital cost down.  While corn ethanol will never be more than a drop in the bucket, it has provided many benefits to the nascent cellulosic biofuel industry, which is on the verge of taking off and has a far greater ability to compete economically with petroleum.  Whether or not the costs were worth it is debatable, but we can't change the past anyway.  And those costs are NOT worth it currently, so we should kill the VEETC and save ourselves $6-7 billion a year.  But if petroleum prices remain high and keep going up, we're going to need a replacement.  And we're far better prepared for it now than we would have been otherwise.

Whether that's worth it or not is debatable.  I have no problems with people who disagree.  What I do have a problem with are the perpetual myths and gut reactions against biofuel (and, to a lesser extent, other renewable energy).  If economically attractive, why shouldn't we produce as much domestically as possible? 

222

dudeinsantacruz and Vic, I read it linked from a post on wattsupwiththat, to a report from Lord Monckton out of Cancun.

 

It is posted in full at the SPPI blog, and the title of the essay by Monckton is "The Abdication of the West".

 

It details all of the little agreements that have been arrived at at all the little meetings between Copenhagen and Cancun.

 

If I were a real Moron, I could tinyurl for you, but being a simple idiot, well...

 

sppiblog * dot * org * slash * news * slash * the - abdication - of - the - west

 

Hope that helps

223

WUWT now has a whole post dedicated to it on the main page--Monckton's Mexican Missive #3

224

and it contains a link to the pdf of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action
under the Convention
Thirteenth session
Cancun

in the comments.

 

I would read the entire post at wattsupwiththat.

225 Take a look at this chart for corn, and go for the full chart. The big peak was in the summer of 2008, when gas prices went thru the roof. And as I recall, there was a certain amount of political unrest in Mexico because the poor folks couldn't afford corn tortillas!


Fuck Mexico - Burn the Food!

226 95  Dry gas is alcohol.
Naw, dry gas is the result of a popcorn fart dude,

227 8 Sigh... Look, I know biofuels is a hated thing among the Right, so I won't try to change your minds on that. But we're also supposed to not let myths take the place of facts. Sooo...

Posted by: SkepticalMI at December 09, 2010 09:26 AM (D8l0M)

Just an FYI: Opening up with "You blinkered ignorant people are too dumb to understand / consider your own views in my harsh light" is not conducive to follow-up conversation.

Go ahead and state your POV, quote studies (preferably with links and/or relevant details), what have you, but when you open with an ad hom, expect an f you in return.

Everything else on this subject has been said 10 million times anyway, so there you go.