State Of The Union, Undressed

Does anyone seriously think that ethanol would work as a major, sustainable alternative in the long term, when the water supply problem in the midwest and west gets worse all the time? How much corn can you grow to turn into fuel, when the excessive production of corn that goes for food and livestock feed is already taxing the system too hard?

Bush likes the idea of a corn-fed car, but he can't see farther than the end of his nose anyway.

stoirmeil,
That plus Brazilian interest being represented in the ethanol production using their sugar cane stalks.
Not a viable option, costs too much to produce but lobbyist are pushing it and Congress is falling for it and we are too.

Ok, so now that you have dashed the idea of a way to lowering gas prices. I can’t say I’m happy about it, even if what you have said is more than likely true. I guess that’s why they say: “Any port in a storm”. It’s only too bad that we are running out of ports that are not oil slicked.
As for the rest of you post, I am aware of what you have said, and I agree totally.
Thanks for you input Ulster, I think I'll go and stick my head in the oven now.
Until later,
JC

JC, I am just as depressed!! Oil sure is not the future and prices will continue to spike and roller coaster higher. Last night they had a special on television about corn and the estimate is it takes a gallon of fossil fuel to produce 1.3 gallons of ethanol. Not a very good return and that doesn't take into account other cost variables ethanol creates.
PS don't waste the oven gas!!!

Noooooooo!
Nobody said your brain was half-baked, amigo!

Noooooooo!
Nobody said your brain was half-baked, amigo!

I should have been more specific. I only stick my head in the oven to clean it. (These days I’ll do anything for a buzz.)

Noooooooo!
Nobody said your brain was half-baked, amigo!

I should have been more specific. I only stick my head in the oven to clean it. (These days I’ll do anything for a buzz.)

JC, does it work!!!????!!!

Does anyone seriously think that ethanol would work as a major, sustainable alternative in the long term, when the water supply problem in the midwest and west gets worse all the time? How much corn can you grow to turn into fuel, when the excessive production of corn that goes for food and livestock feed is already taxing the system too hard?

Bush likes the idea of a corn-fed car, but he can't see farther than the end of his nose anyway.

This is classic example of a nation without visionary leadership. They continue to push old models and ways as if they are creating something new and innovative. Of course this administration has the oil industry as its cohort so I can see why. The long term vision is away from internal combustion of fossil or carbon based fuels. But in the mean time lets milk ever last drop of wealth that we can from our existing modus operandi.

Someone suggested to read a book called "The Tipping Point" anybody do so?

UlsterScotNutt;

Yeah it works. Especially if you use the old type Easy Off that you have to turn the oven on .

Camac.

Noooooooo!
Nobody said your brain was half-baked, amigo!

I prefer to think of it as "half raw" rather than "half baked".....

Your right, the old Easy-Off works great, but it even works better, if you stick your finger in the oven light socket too, (but first you better ask your Doctor if you’re healthy enough).
I guess one could say that this discussion still falls under the State of the Union thread. Couldn’t one?

Your right, the old Easy-Off works great, but it even works better, if you stick your finger in the oven light socket too, (but first you better ask your Doctor if you’re healthy enough).
I guess one could say that this discussion still falls under the State of the Union thread. Couldn’t one?

JC, Lets see, the country is at war, foreign policy is a jumble, domestic policy is status quo, the economy is in the toilet, we are in an election year which means nothing is accomplished for fear of backing wrong horse, current horse is dead at the gate, consumer confidence is gone and many people do want to put their heads in the oven, so yea, we are still on topic. :rolleyes

Couple of views: The Republicans win and hopefully McCain brings them back to there senses and proves the ultra right wing wrong and the party is brought back to more or less just right of center, foreign policy remains mostly unchanged, domestic improves slightly maybe, immigration is thought through hopefully, things are alittle better than now, economy probably still stays in the toilet.

The Democrats win, making the ultra right wing scream and yell that they were right in not bringing an extreme conservative to the polls and they become even more radical, we remove ourselves from Iraq and watch as they continue a slow self destruct and we keep a close eye on Iran, hopefully they don't become to enboldened, we start a new dialogue as to were we as a nation need to be.

Regardless we have our work cut out for us in the next few years. This is my rosey glasses view. Flame suit on, extinguishers handy.

Vote for me

Ethanol can be manufactured from far more than just corn. Cellulosic ethanol can be produced from a wide variety of plant cellulose sources, from sugar, beets, some types of grass, wheat, straw, fruit, tubers and even hemp. The sources are varied enough not only to be grown in different climates, but also to spark new economic impetus in agriculture. Aside from questions of efficiency over gasoline, since it takes more ethanol than gas to produce the same amount of energy, there's the economic problem of distribution and the creation of markets. Yeah, some conglomerate is going to make money off of it UlsterScotNutt, but how is that different from the current situation?

No one is going to invest in widespread distribution without cars built to run on it and no one's going to build those without sufficient demand. No one's going cold turkey for ethanol unless a huge demand is created.

The problem with solar and wind energy is that the technology doesn't exist to meet the demand. Of course that doesn't mean do nothing at all, but it does mean unless you want to cover the state of New York or comperable size territory with solar panels, you're not going to convert to full solar.

While so many think more idealistically than practically about this problem, improvements that can be made which aren't. I'm talking about energy production in general now, not just ethanol. For example, not long ago there was a news story about 6 coal fired electrical generation plants being planned for Texas. Together they'd produce the equivalent CO2 to 70 million autos per year. Existing technology to recover enough CO2 to drop those emissions by 98% exists, but the electrical company in question did not want to invest in it, according to the story.

I'm just wondering while we're thinking so thoroughlly in terms of clean energy sources that aren't developed to the extent to meet practical demand, why do we ignore simple improvements which could easily be made to lessen our pollutant outputs considerably? Is the all or nothing complete conversion mentality so often expressed realistic at all? Would seem to me in the situation above, that the state corporation commission (or equivalent in Texas) might demand that that utility cut its emissions by using the technology mentioned in the story, and adjust rate regulations over time to cover the initial capital investment required. All that would take is the one quality most lacking of all - cooperation.

I have read some of the posting about Ethanol and other sources of fuel but I did not see Hydrogen Fuel Cells mentioned. This techonolgy is clean, efficient and sustainable. The by-product of Fuel Cells are water and heat. They can be made small enough to power a cell phone or large enough to power a city bus. The Ballard system developed in British Columbia is a prime example of this technology.

Camac.

Antwn, all good points.
Cellulosic ethanol is still not efficient, not as the Brazilian sugar cane industry would have us believe nor the corn producers. Part of the question is will these other sources of ethanol be capable of meeting the replacement of fossil fuels or is it only a part of a solution.

Someone always profits , from a creation of a valued commodity, thats not a problem. I just advocate care in paying attention to whom we listen to for solutions, ideas, programs and policies with regards to our energy futures and issues, and they are very big issues.

Cold turkey is not the way to go but we are a reactionary society who very rarely takes a proactive stance and most of the time we only act at crisis moments and then in a pendulum way . One source switching is not what I am advocating but a real look at alternative energy sources, not the spray coal with kerosene either. Not to say it isn't already being done either.

The same issue exists for solar, wind, ethanol, wave energy, etc. ,it does not exist in the needed quantities to meet the demand. I don't believe anyone is pushing for a total single source energy supply but reality may allow for various sources combined and further developed. We will never create a NY state solar array panel. We should look at local and regional needs, and abilitiies to provide energy sources from a variety of technologies. Wind is practical in places that water may not be, solar vs wave in climate specific areas, nuclear and geothermal were applicable, you get the idea

As long as investors push for short term returns on investment it will always be difficult to finance long term projects from the private sector. This is were a proactive and visionary goverment takes its place. This is when a nation backs new and creative ideas. This is were cooperation occurs.

Another problem why we ignore solutions is Congress always creates loopholes for fear of offending an industry, stifling local and regional economies and basically governing with the mentality that you represent business to their profit and they will in turn take care of the population.
An aside note,The Alternative Energy tax credits were a great idea that was allowed to be abused and misused by existing energy suppliers, speculators and profiteers to the point of completely stifling any real innovative energy concepts and creativity for 20 plus years. The short term over the long term.

The point is not a wholesale conversion at once but a wholesale conversion will need to take place in the future. Not necessarily to be provided from one source either but most likely and practically from a combination of all sources being utilized. The one source mentality is what put us in this situation. Oil was abundant and cheap and became the dominant source of our energy supply. It has met a need and now our needs are moving on.

I know Canada is heavily involved in Earth Hour, anybody in the US? Anybody in the US know what it is???


Vote for me