Ethanol under fire

wren wrote:

ALGAE and corn and wind and solar and coal gasification and natural gas and what EVER works and can be mass produced and distributed through out the state and the country. Biomass! Do it in mass! Just do it!

wren wrote:

ALGAE and corn and wind and solar and coal gasification and natural gas and what EVER works and can be mass produced and distributed through out the state and the country. Biomass! Do it in mass! Just do it!

wren wrote:

You know cybear: people like you haven't figured out which kid's dinner I am burning in my car, how to buy that dinner for that kid, how to get that kid's dinner to him/her or ANY of the logistics of that pathetic little game you try to play.

CyBear wrote:

<quoted text>
If it is so easy, why aren't YOU doing it?

Lesson Number One wrote:

We believe that there are several important reasons to open ANWR. First, contrary to claims by environmental pressure groups that the oil and gas ANWR potentially contains are only a few “drops in the bucket” and that oil companies are not interested in exploring ANWR’s coastal plain, the U. S. Geological Survey’s mean estimate of economically recoverable oil and gas reserves under the coastal plain of ANWR is 10.4 billion barrels of crude oil. Such an amount would increase proven U. S. crude oil reserves by 50% and is equivalent to approximately a quarter century of current imports from Saudi Arabia, one of our top foreign suppliers. The USGS estimate was based on assuming oil priced at $30 a barrel; assuming $60 a barrel would give a much higher estimate of economically recoverable reserves.
Second, environmental pressure groups contradict themselves by arguing that opening ANWR would be nothing but a payoff to “Big Oil”. If it contains little oil, then it isn’t much of a payoff. If it does contain billions of barrels of oil, then oil companies will bid for the right to explore. It is estimated that the winners will initially pay several billion dollars for exploration contracts. When production begins, these companies will pay a twelve-and-one-half percent royalty, split evenly between the federal Treasury and the State of Alaska, on every barrel of oil and every cubic foot of gas produced. In addition, companies will pay billions of dollars of corporate income tax on their profits from production in ANWR, and their shareholders will pay billions of dollars of individual income taxes on dividends paid out of these profits. The revenues that will flow into the federal treasury from oil and gas production in ANWR should be compared with the equally colossal expenditures that are necessary to subsidize many of the alternative energy technologies and fuels supported by environmental pressure groups.

Jay wrote:

<quoted text>
Did you know that to refine a barrel of crude oil uses up about 25%-30% of that barrel it's self?(Cut)

Don't you realize that by running the current ethanol plants, they're gaining a lot of knowledge on different processes so that the use of cellulosic will become viable, and make sense?

(Cut)

Selinda B wrote:

When "oxygenated fuels" (MTBE added) were introduced, it wasn't to save money. It was to save the environment (but instead it contaminated groundwater, so the shift was made to the cleaner ethanol). The price of a gallon of gas didn't increase one cent. It still hasn't. If anything, the cost per gallon of gasoline to the consumer has increased only due to how oil has financed the obscene rate of growth of the oil sheiks' empires in the middle east.
Ethanol: important energy source, efficient, renewable resource, makes sense. It should be in your tank!

Jay wrote:

<quoted text>
It takes 20% of a barrel of oil to refine that very barrel.
Try this. Spill oil on the ground, and then spill alcohol on the ground, and you tell me which one is more harmful to the environment.
And, before you group me in with other assumptions, I think the Global Warming thing is a scam.

real information wrote:

<quoted text>
Oil/gas is profitable (as long as the oil conglomerated don't have to pay taxes) and a few people (mostly in the middle east) get rich.
Ethanol is made (profitably) locally using American resources and the benefits are felt by all Americans (even the one to thick headed to believe facts). We still pitch in a few cents per gallon to the oil companies (for blending ethanol in with their gas) to help reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
There, that ought to settle it.

Calvin wrote:

<quoted text>
T boner dickens could use a lesson from T Boone Pickens who states:
Can't we just produce more oil?
World oil production peaked in 2005. Despite growing demand and an unprecedented increase in prices, oil production has fallen over the last three years. Oil is getting more expensive to produce, harder to find and there just isn't enough of it to keep up with demand.
The simple truth is that cheap and easy oil is gone.
What's the good news?
The United States is the Saudi Arabia of wind power.
http://www.pickensplan.com/index.php
Who are you going to believe; the most successful oil driller in the last 50 years or some right wing "just drill" nut on a board?

wren wrote:

In India and China the average consumption of oil is somewhere between 1.5 and 2.0 barrels of oil per person. In the USA it is well over 25 barrels per person..
Guess what tank: they are wanting to up their meager consumption per person.(Cut to meet 4000 characters) The curve for world wide consumption is on the upswing. The world wide production is on the downswing.
Check out the oil rig rental situation. There is NO spare capacity. Even if you wanted to it is becomeing increasingly difficult to come up with spare oil riggs. Look at the oil Service companies. Check it out.
Then, of course, there are the refiners. Unless the refining margins are sky high, nobody in their right minds wants to stick money into refineries. Even the refineries in the USA aren't running at full capacity and the stock prices of the pure refines has nose-dived.
The administration has poured a trillion dollars of unfunded debt into "being there" in Iraq. It hasn't helped stabalize the price of oil much to date.
The infrastructure of the electrical grid, highway systems, bridges and water works all across America have been neglected by administration after administration. Democrat and Republican alike have totally failed the American public. The lack of a workable energy policy also points directly to both the Republicans and Democrats.
Just as with the Social Security/Medicare systems, both parties have taken turns being the bad-guys and have ignored the problems that we are heading toward at breakneck speed.
Before it's too late: get an energy policy. We have waited almost too long now. Yes, by all means, drill some, build some nukes, figure out where to store the spent nuke waste (Do we want it in Minnesota? Why tell them in Nevada that they need to take it?) Build solar and wind energy plants. Use ethanol and progress towards the next generations of ethanol production using more and more waste products and bio-mass. Develope a hydrogen economy. Find ways to better utilize natural gas.
People, we have waited too long and are on the brink of huge problems. I still contend that this is the new "industrial revolution" that is giving us the chance to become the world leader in new sources of energy production. However, if we try to say that just one thing will solve all the problems while the rest of the world moves ahead with finding alternative energy solutions, America could be well on it's way to becoming a 3rd world country. We have these great university systems that the world is starting to pay to utilize. Use their research capabilities. Let the investors invest in great wind-farms/solar-energy/new fueling infrastructure solutions. Let who ever sells us the vehicles drastically increase fuel economy. But do it...and do it NOW! Let's have a "war on energy problems" and take our heads out of the sand before it leads the world to the brink of WWIII all in the name of the quest for energy. Think beyond your own generation. Try thinking about 25 years...50 years out in the future. Things are going to change people...whether you want things to change or not. Change is coming and if we don't start changing there is going to be hell to pay.

Farmer Fathead wrote:

***Things you didn't know about OIL SHALE ***
http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_997375...
Colorado, Wyoming and Utah have more oil in oil shale than OPEC. Everyone seems to know that by now, but here are six things you probably did not know about oil shale.
1) Did you know oil shale has a smaller "carbon footprint" than ethanol? When calculating the carbon emissions of the entire oil shale process, without the use of carbon capture technology, its total carbon footprint is about 7 percent larger than gasoline. But a peer-reviewed article in the February issue of Science calculates the entire carbon footprint of ethanol to be 93 percent larger than gasoline. The article reports that even switchgrass footprint is 50 percent larger than gasoline.
2) Did you know oil shale uses less water than ethanol and no more than gasoline? Increased ethanol production will require more irrigation. A September 2007 article in Southwest Hydrology states that irrigated corn requires more than 780 barrels of water for each barrel of ethanol. The Department of Energy reports that oil shale, for the entire process including land restoration, requires three barrels of water for every barrel of shale oil, about the same as gasoline.
3) Did you know oil shale uses much less land than either ethanol or gasoline? One acre of corn produces 10 barrels of ethanol. One acre in the oil patch produces about 10,000 barrels of oil. One acre of oil shale produces between 100,000 and one million-plus barrels of shale oil! No, that's not a typo.
Whether your concern is carbon emissions, water use or wildlife habitat, oil shale is a better answer than ethanol.

wren wrote:

Long live the 10% blend of ethanol at the pumps! I don't want the cancer causing additive made from an oil base to continue to kill peple and contaminate ground water.
Ban gasoline then! It is driving the price of everything sky high. The poor, American public that fell hook, line and sinker for the sub-prime loans and now are being evicted from their homes have a lot more to worry about than whether there is a mandate to blend 10% alcohol in with their gasoline.
Politicians have to get their tails elected, so the ONLY thing they are currently worrying about is whether to issue another economic stimulas package to try to buy votes from the poor voters. They can't agree with anyone from the other party for anything other than pay outs to the public duing this election season.
People, if you don't like the ethanol blended into the gasoline...just stop driving! It is that simple. Otherwise, you are going to continue to support the ethanol industry. The republicans won't and can't do anything about it. Their fearless leader...prexy bush is the dude who has backed ethanol to the hilt. The deomcrats won't buck ethanol in numbers large enough to do anything.
You can't kill free enterprise with your socialistic notions that you can make the government kill the ethanol industry. Free trade! That's what made America. Free trade! Are you people some of those whinning Americans that the republican candidate's economic adviser (former republican Texas Sen. Grahm) was talking about?
IF you are going to drive in Minnesota, you are going to be burning a mix with ethanol. The republican governor fully supports that and wants it to increase to 20% eventually. I could dig it! Keep Minnesota money in Minnesota! Besides that: you have no choice but to burn ethanol IF you are going to drive in the state of Minnesota.
So, go buy yourself a vehicle powered by natural gas or something if you don't like the ethonol blend. Buy the new Chevy electric car that will come out in 2010...or walk if you don't like it!
But here is the deal: the republican's brought ethanol to the party. The democrats bought it hook, line and sinker. There is so much gridlock and such a panic by those running for office to do anything to be elected again that gridlock is going to reign supreme. They won't be changing anything. New ethanol plants will continue to be built. President Bush, Governor Pawlenty...they are deeply behind ethanol.
As for myself, I'll keep buying and burning e-85. I'll keep my energy money right here in the state of Minnesota and it will help keep the economy in the state of Minnesota alive.