Schwarzenegger Blasts Bush on Global Warming

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 16 2008, 10:47 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>First of all, I lived in Silicon Valley for 15 years and know it quite well. I travel there on business a few times a year, and it is amazing how busy the freeways are at all times of the day; I don't think it's any better than LA in that respect. There's just fewer people. See the part you quoted me that I bolded.

Second, you are still describing the problems with California's attempt to <u><span style="font-size:14pt;line-height:100%">regulate</span></u> energy. Pawn it off on Wilson, he deserves some of the blame. You can't ignore what Davis did as governor, which is exactly what I posted - he bankrupted the state and gambled the peoples' money on risky investments.

Third, California has not produced its power needs for decades. The Hoover Dam began transmission of electricity to Los Angeles in 1936.</div>

I also have been to both areas, and I couldn't disagree with you more. LA is by far worse than anything I have faced in the bay area except for that stretch of highway 880 that extends from San Jose up to about Hayward. Other than that, it is a lot faster than trying to get anywhere in LA. That strech of 880 just happens to not have train access between the two spots. Coincidence? Also, the population density is roughly the same.

The State went bankrupts under Davis' watch, but those forces were sent into effect during the previous administration.

When did you start complaining about your electric bill going up? I seem to remember the biggest hits coming post 2000, when California lost much of its own production due to its power companies going belly up, to the tune of <u>doubling</u> my electric bills. With California sucking energy from the Hoover Dam since 1936, you would not have noticed any significant increases in your bill over the course of your lifetime until Hoover had to start making up for lost California production recently.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 16 2008, 11:53 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Solar's a joke. It only works _at all_ because the govt. subsidizes it. The more solar panels built, the less a % of all energy generated by solar panels. Figure that one out and you realize it's a scam.

Hydroelectric has massive environmental ramifications.

Windmills are a blight on the landscape. I do not fathom why people would protect ANWR and support a massive windmill farm covering much of the rockies. They're also a net energy loser like solar panels.

Pickens' idea is intriguing to say the least. The things he says that make the most sense are twofold: we need to solve the supply side of the equation here at home (he suggests wind), and the transfer of money from the US to the middle east is outrageous.</div>
Well I agree that a huge amount of US money is going to the Middle East. Yea, wind aren`t a very good sources as you said, they are represented by some portion of the 0.7% in other electricity production.

Nuclear probably could, and there might be room for expansion of hydroelectric. Although, yes it does have massive environmental ramifications.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 16 2008, 10:47 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Fourth, and a new point, LOL at California and how they regulated MTBE in their gasoline.</div>


You find that amusing? Funny?

MTBE additive reduced air pollutants from gasoline burning. The other effect it had was polluting ground water and poisoning the population. Hindsight is always 20-20, right? Once they found out what it was doing to the population, they made them phase it all out. A Canadian company that was selling MTBE to us took us to court and sued us because they wanted to keep putting it into our gas after the fact. Pretty sick, if you ask me.

You think its funny that people's tap water started destroying them and their children?
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Jul 16 2008, 09:10 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 16 2008, 10:47 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Fourth, and a new point, LOL at California and how they regulated MTBE in their gasoline.</div>


You find that amusing? Funny?

MTBE additive reduced air pollutants from gasoline burning. The other effect it had was polluting ground water and poisoning the population. Hindsight is always 20-20, right? Once they found out what it was doing to the population, they made them phase it all out. A Canadian company that was selling MTBE to us took us to court and sued us because they wanted to keep putting it into our gas after the fact. Pretty sick, if you ask me.

You think its funny that people's tap water started destroying them and their children?
</div>

I find it amusing in the sense that in the State's fascist zeal to regulate things, they fucked up royally. Which is typical of regulation - it always has unexpected and undesired side effects. You don't need 20-20 hindsight to figure that one out.

Isn't it sick that there's a lot of "green" companies in bed with the govt. getting money from the public taxpayers to invest in a hoax?
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Jul 16 2008, 09:04 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 16 2008, 10:47 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>First of all, I lived in Silicon Valley for 15 years and know it quite well. I travel there on business a few times a year, and it is amazing how busy the freeways are at all times of the day; I don't think it's any better than LA in that respect. There's just fewer people. See the part you quoted me that I bolded.

Second, you are still describing the problems with California's attempt to <u><span style="font-size:14pt;line-height:100%">regulate</span></u> energy. Pawn it off on Wilson, he deserves some of the blame. You can't ignore what Davis did as governor, which is exactly what I posted - he bankrupted the state and gambled the peoples' money on risky investments.

Third, California has not produced its power needs for decades. The Hoover Dam began transmission of electricity to Los Angeles in 1936.</div>

I also have been to both areas, and I couldn't disagree with you more. LA is by far worse than anything I have faced in the bay area except for that stretch of highway 880 that extends from San Jose up to about Hayward. Other than that, it is a lot faster than trying to get anywhere in LA. That strech of 880 just happens to not have train access between the two spots. Coincidence? Also, the population density is roughly the same.

The State went bankrupts under Davis' watch, but those forces were sent into effect during the previous administration.

When did you start complaining about your electric bill going up? I seem to remember the biggest hits coming post 2000, when California lost much of its own production due to its power companies going belly up, to the tune of <u>doubling</u> my electric bills. With California sucking energy from the Hoover Dam since 1936, you would not have noticed any significant increases in your bill over the course of your lifetime until Hoover had to start making up for lost California production recently.
</div>

You might want to factor in the mass migration of Californians to Vegas. So much so, they're ruining this place like they did SoCal.

In other words, Vegas' demand for electricity from Hoover Dam has increased by 6000+ new monthly immigrants over the past several years.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 16 2008, 01:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I find it amusing in the sense that in the State's fascist zeal to regulate things, they fucked up royally. Which is typical of regulation - it always has unexpected and undesired side effects. You don't need 20-20 hindsight to figure that one out.

Isn't it sick that there's a lot of "green" companies in bed with the govt. getting money from the public taxpayers to invest in a hoax?</div>

So your stance is that there should be no regulations on anything. You would rather watch everyone hang themselves, so to speak. Taking action is far more responsible than taking no action, when faced with a growing problem, and that goes for everything in life. The only thing debatable about this, in my opinion, is the implementation.

If something (whatever it is that you might be talking about, I have no idea) is indeed a hoax, then that is a different story.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 16 2008, 01:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>You might want to factor in the mass migration of Californians to Vegas. So much so, they're ruining this place like they did SoCal.

In other words, Vegas' demand for electricity from Hoover Dam has increased by 6000+ new monthly immigrants over the past several years.</div>

Can you share with us the source of your data that suggests that Californians are ruining Las Vegas and single-handedly increasing their energy consumption based on migration patterns? With you having lived in the Bay Area for 15 years, and then migrating to Las Vegas, doesn't that mean that you are part of the very problem that you are accusing others of?
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Jul 16 2008, 11:22 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 16 2008, 01:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I find it amusing in the sense that in the State's fascist zeal to regulate things, they fucked up royally. Which is typical of regulation - it always has unexpected and undesired side effects. You don't need 20-20 hindsight to figure that one out.

Isn't it sick that there's a lot of "green" companies in bed with the govt. getting money from the public taxpayers to invest in a hoax?</div>

So your stance is that there should be no regulations on anything. You would rather watch everyone hang themselves, so to speak. Taking action is far more responsible than taking no action, when faced with a growing problem, and that goes for everything in life. The only thing debatable about this, in my opinion, is the implementation.

If something (whatever it is that you might be talking about, I have no idea) is indeed a hoax, then that is a different story.
</div>

My stance is that government isn't good at regulating things. Govt. is made up of corrupt politicians and even if they weren't in bed with lobbyists for every industry and activist group under the sun, legislation is done by compromise. Compromise isn't the best of any world but compromise.

I am a believer in free markets. You had a MacDonalds serving food in Styrofoam containers that didn't biodegrade and free market forces convinced their management to change their packaging. I already pointed out GM making a wide range of vehicles that use alternative fuels. The list is pretty big, along the same lines. Though corporations are hardly what they should be because they are ... regulated, thus a product of government and not free markets.

And that is the implementation debate, I suppose. I'm not against regulation, per se, just against being in love with regulation as if it were the be-all, end-all.

Solar power, as well as most of the so-called renewable energy technologies are a big hoax. Lobbyists for the ethanol industry, solar industries, etc., etc., are outright taking money from the govt. coffers to fund money losing and energy inefficient ventures.

In fact, ethanol is another great case of a government clusterfuck. It doesn't make us energy independent in the least, and now our food costs and food supply are in serious jeopardy because of government tinkering in the markets.

As for moving to Vegas... For much of my life, I've lived in Democratic Party Machine places. Chicago, then California, then Hawaii. Vegas has been the best place I've lived (WRT govt. interference). Two years ago, the state ran such a big surplus that it refunded money to everyone through the DMV. Now, thanks to ballot initiatives and the influx of Californians and their polluted way of thinking, we're running such a severe deficit they're cutting funding for the good things govt. has done here.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 16 2008, 01:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Solar power, as well as most of the so-called renewable energy technologies are a big hoax. Lobbyists for the ethanol industry, solar industries, etc., etc., are outright taking money from the govt. coffers to fund money losing and energy inefficient ventures.

In fact, ethanol is another great case of a government clusterfuck. It doesn't make us energy independent in the least, and now our food costs and food supply are in serious jeopardy because of government tinkering in the markets.

As for moving to Vegas... For much of my life, I've lived in Democratic Party Machine places. Chicago, then California, then Hawaii. Vegas has been the best place I've lived (WRT govt. interference). Two years ago, the state ran such a big surplus that it refunded money to everyone through the DMV. Now, thanks to ballot initiatives and the influx of Californians and their polluted way of thinking, we're running such a severe deficit they're cutting funding for the good things govt. has done here.</div>

You mention lobbyists. Do you think that the more powerful energy industries have their own lobbyists who will stop at nothing to keep other energy devices held back in favor of their own? You must recognise that is also going on, and they have more resources to keep our current energy choices right where they are, as long as they can possibly get away with it. You keep bashing the little guys.

Is there anyone claiming that ethanol is the be all end all energy source? Who is saying that? Ethanol reduces dependency on petroleum, not replaces it. For many years now, midwestern states have been using gasoline that is mixed with approximately 10% ethanol. During that same period, California was not using ethanol in their gasoline. It's allowed in some states but not others. If you know how car engines work, they are not built for a 100% ethanol fuel anyway. The compression ratios are vastly different. To go 100% ethanol means that all the automobile engines would have to be rebuilt, meaning everyone has to but a brand new car to support it. As for food costs, the midwestern states that have ethanol factories are only using corn because it is very cheap for them to get it, and its grown locally for faster transport. Are you aware that the ethanol industry is not married to edible plants? I have been to an ethanol plant that uses a grain called "milo" which people do not eat, or care to eat. It is very misleading to tell people that ethanol hurts food supplies. It doesn't have to hurt food supplies to make it, they simply choose to use food plants in some cases. Would it be that difficult to tell them they can only use non-food plants? No, it wouldn't. No one brings that up because they want to use this a a political tool to stop it. US farmers have been struggling to make ends meet for years. Often, they would produce surplus crops that no one would buy from them. Farms started shutting down. Now, with the emergence of the ethanol industry, they can now continue and are making more money. It's good for everyone. So, no, ethanol is not the huge clusterfuck that you claim it to be.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 16 2008, 02:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Jul 16 2008, 11:22 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 16 2008, 01:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I find it amusing in the sense that in the State's fascist zeal to regulate things, they fucked up royally. Which is typical of regulation - it always has unexpected and undesired side effects. You don't need 20-20 hindsight to figure that one out.

Isn't it sick that there's a lot of "green" companies in bed with the govt. getting money from the public taxpayers to invest in a hoax?</div>

So your stance is that there should be no regulations on anything. You would rather watch everyone hang themselves, so to speak. Taking action is far more responsible than taking no action, when faced with a growing problem, and that goes for everything in life. The only thing debatable about this, in my opinion, is the implementation.

If something (whatever it is that you might be talking about, I have no idea) is indeed a hoax, then that is a different story.
</div>

My stance is that government isn't good at regulating things. Govt. is made up of corrupt politicians and even if they weren't in bed with lobbyists for every industry and activist group under the sun, legislation is done by compromise. Compromise isn't the best of any world but compromise.

I am a believer in free markets. You had a MacDonalds serving food in Styrofoam containers that didn't biodegrade and free market forces convinced their management to change their packaging. I already pointed out GM making a wide range of vehicles that use alternative fuels. The list is pretty big, along the same lines. Though corporations are hardly what they should be because they are ... regulated, thus a product of government and not free markets.

And that is the implementation debate, I suppose. I'm not against regulation, per se, just against being in love with regulation as if it were the be-all, end-all.

Solar power, as well as most of the so-called renewable energy technologies are a big hoax. Lobbyists for the ethanol industry, solar industries, etc., etc., are outright taking money from the govt. coffers to fund money losing and energy inefficient ventures.

In fact, ethanol is another great case of a government clusterfuck. It doesn't make us energy independent in the least, and now our food costs and food supply are in serious jeopardy because of government tinkering in the markets.

</div>

Some regulations are good, some are bad. If there weren't rules against Abestos, DDT, Lead in gasoline, Lead paint, regulations on removal of poisonous chemicals that could contaminate water supplies, etc. Then I'm sure there would be some companies that would cut corners if needed.

However yea, Solar Power is pretty dumb, and ethanol isn't much better.
 
Why is solar power a "hoax" to you? All that I have read about it suggests that it works. NASA uses solar power on their spaceships and orbital stations. It is quite relevant and useful in not only home energy, but space travel as well. It may not completely replace our dependency on fossil fuels on the ground right now but could certainly reduce that dependency and trim the cost down at least 10%.
 
They make ethanol out of whatever they want, even switch grass or the leftovers from sugar cane. The thing is, it takes land to grow whatever it is, and there isn't enough land to grow food and make much ethanol.

And yes, I'm aware of how engines work, which might be a little evident by me bringing up GM's cars.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/e...l-coskata_N.htm
http://www.gm.com/experience/fuel_economy/...amp;exist=false

The second link being about E85 (85% alcohol). GM is a huge supplier of E85 autos to Brazil.

I find it odd that I talk about lobbyists of all stripes while you seem to think some are good or something. For every powerful oil or auto lobbyist, there's many more who are more powerful (see California) environmental lobbyists.

I also find it odd that you defend a system that makes it possible for lobbyists to use government to squash ingenuity, products, and services.
 
An anecdotal story. I invested in a company that makes gas valves that turn off in an earthquake. The business plan was to hire lobbyists to get government to mandate use of these valves, thus making a government holding guns to peoples' heads scenario for a buying audience. A California company, naturally.

Not that the valves aren't a good idea.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Jul 16 2008, 12:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Why is solar power a "hoax" to you? All that I have read about it suggests that it works. NASA uses solar power on their spaceships and orbital stations. It is quite relevant and useful in not only home energy, but space travel as well. It may not completely replace our dependency on fossil fuels on the ground right now but could certainly reduce that dependency and trim the cost down at least 10%.</div>

In space, where you are powering teeny little electronic devices, solar is sufficient. But it's a sunk kind of cost anyway. Little about space is a profitable venture. It's worth burning some oil and polluting the air a little bit to make the solar panels for space exploration, just for the scientific value.

Just as I've pointed out how California is outsourcing its pollution to other places (like Houston), making solar panels does the same. It takes MORE energy to make a solar panel and batteries than they'll ever produce in their lifetime. The same is true for wind turbines.

It's really common sense if you think about it for about 10 seconds: you cannot get more energy out of a system than you put in. Unless it's a nuclear chain reaction. In fact, there's always some energy lost when you convert it from one form (like friction) to another (heat).

Truly, the more solar panels we put up, the less a % of all energy produced is from solar power.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 16 2008, 02:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>They make ethanol out of whatever they want, even switch grass or the leftovers from sugar cane. The thing is, it takes land to grow whatever it is, and there isn't enough land to grow food and make much ethanol.

And yes, I'm aware of how engines work, which might be a little evident by me bringing up GM's cars.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/e...l-coskata_N.htm
http://www.gm.com/experience/fuel_economy/...amp;exist=false

The second link being about E85 (85% alcohol). GM is a huge supplier of E85 autos to Brazil.

I find it odd that I talk about lobbyists of all stripes while you seem to think some are good or something. For every powerful oil or auto lobbyist, there's many more who are more powerful (see California) environmental lobbyists.

I also find it odd that you defend a system that makes it possible for lobbyists to use government to squash ingenuity, products, and services.</div>

Yes, we have land to grown the plants, and we are already doing so with the 10% blend fuels. We have been doing this for at least a decade now. Adding ethanol to fuel is nothing new.

I never said one lobbyist is better than another. Perhaps I missed the conversations you had against *all* types of lobbyists, and have only noticed you bashing the solar and ethanol lobby.

How did you interpret that I support the squashing of ingenuity?
 
My parents get worse mpg when they use ethanol blended gas as opposed to regular unleaded.

My dad stopped using ethanol when he discovered this.

Not sure why we'd want to tie a food source into energy either (esp. corn). Dangerous.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Jul 16 2008, 01:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 16 2008, 02:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>They make ethanol out of whatever they want, even switch grass or the leftovers from sugar cane. The thing is, it takes land to grow whatever it is, and there isn't enough land to grow food and make much ethanol.

And yes, I'm aware of how engines work, which might be a little evident by me bringing up GM's cars.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/e...l-coskata_N.htm
http://www.gm.com/experience/fuel_economy/...amp;exist=false

The second link being about E85 (85% alcohol). GM is a huge supplier of E85 autos to Brazil.

I find it odd that I talk about lobbyists of all stripes while you seem to think some are good or something. For every powerful oil or auto lobbyist, there's many more who are more powerful (see California) environmental lobbyists.

I also find it odd that you defend a system that makes it possible for lobbyists to use government to squash ingenuity, products, and services.</div>

Yes, we have land to grown the plants, and we are already doing so with the 10% blend fuels. We have been doing this for at least a decade now. Adding ethanol to fuel is nothing new.

I never said one lobbyist is better than another. Perhaps I missed the conversations you had against *all* types of lobbyists, and have only noticed you bashing the solar and ethanol lobby.

How did you interpret that I support the squashing of ingenuity?
</div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ROTR)</div><div class='quotemain'>Do you think that the more powerful energy industries have their own lobbyists who will stop at nothing to keep other energy devices held back in favor of their own?</div>

You mention squashing (held back) by lobbyists. I say ALL lobbyists do it, regardless of what side they're on. I say let the lobbyists lobby the people and let the people vote with their wallets.

As for ethanol, they've been using it on farms for like forever to run farm vehicles. I don't have an issue with it, per se. What I have issue with is government regulations requiring 20% of our fuel be ethanol at the expense of our food supply and at the behest of lobbyists. The point, again, is the regulations have the unintended side effects and always do.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 16 2008, 02:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>In space, where you are powering teeny little electronic devices, solar is sufficient. But it's a sunk kind of cost anyway. Little about space is a profitable venture. It's worth burning some oil and polluting the air a little bit to make the solar panels for space exploration, just for the scientific value.

Just as I've pointed out how California is outsourcing its pollution to other places (like Houston), making solar panels does the same. It takes MORE energy to make a solar panel and batteries than they'll ever produce in their lifetime. The same is true for wind turbines.

It's really common sense if you think about it for about 10 seconds: you cannot get more energy out of a system than you put in. Unless it's a nuclear chain reaction. In fact, there's always some energy lost when you convert it from one form (like friction) to another (heat).

Truly, the more solar panels we put up, the less a % of all energy produced is from solar power.</div>

I only brought up space because of your pretty open-ended declaration that solar power is a hoax. I am aware of how much it costs to perform space travel.

Using solar energy to power your TV *is* a small, and practical application of solar energy. How much are you really expecting to use in your own home?

Solar tech is relatively new. As with any emerging technology, the costs to produce it will go down as it improves. People are looking to solar power for more than it can handle at the present time, because of the desperation we have with rising petroleum prices. It's not ready yet, but that's not to say that it won't someday become. Again, I have never claimed that solar would outright replace anything, but merely reduce it.
 
NPR is a left-leaning news outlet, eh?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...toryId=92559699

High Corn Prices Cast Shadow Over Ethanol Plants

All Things Considered, July 15, 2008 · A rush to cash in on ethanol has slowed as soaring corn prices squeeze profit margins for producers of the alternative fuel. At a recent high of $7 per bushel, the corn used to make ethanol has tripled in price since many plants were built two years ago, and some facilities have been shut down or put on hold.

Ethanol took off in 2006, in response to two federal policies.

One policy was longstanding: Most gasoline had to include an additive that would oxygenate it, make it burn cleaner and reduce air pollution. The other policy was new: The government decided not to shield the oil companies against lawsuits over the additive that they had been using — methyl tertiary-butyl ether, or MTBE, which was found to contaminate groundwater.

So there had to be a different additive. Ethanol, a type of alcohol that is distilled from corn, fit the bill. And the oil companies could get a 51-cent-per-gallon tax credit for using ethanol.

The rush was on, and producers moved quickly to get ethanol plants online.

But recent ethanol news from the Corn Belt has been a lot less upbeat, as many ethanol-plant projects have stalled.

Changing Economics

"The ethanol industry is going through some ... adjustments or, we might say, growing pains," says Chris Hurt, a professor of agricultural economics in the heart of the Corn Belt at Indiana's Purdue University.

"Obviously, we've seen a massive boom in ethanol," he says. "We've seen a lot of capacity put in place. We've had some infrastructure problems in terms of moving all of that ethanol. And we've seen some very rapid changes in prices."

Corn is now more expensive than it was when many of the ethanol plants were built, Hurt says. Two years ago, when many of the plants were being built, corn was $2 per bushel, making ethanol production so profitable, that in some cases a plant could be paid off in just 6 months, he says.

"We were in largely a surplus corn production situation. Today, we've seen corn go to $6, and then, with the flooding most recently through the Midwest, above $7 a bushel," Hurt says.

Mark Stowers of Poet Ethanol Products, one of the biggest ethanol companies, says the economic picture has changed.

"That may have been the case in 2006, but typically that would not be the forecasted return" this year, he says. Stowers says that while the gold rush may be finished, Poet is not.

"There's already evidence that some people have closed plants, and some people have not started up plants. I don't see that impacting Poet," he says.

Stowers says the company expects to open three plants later this year. But Poet did have to cancel plans for a plant in Minnesota this year for lack of an air quality permit.

That's one of 18 problem plants listed on a "Biofuels Deathwatch" map at Earth2Tech.com. The plants are either late to open, soon to close, or already out of business.

A Plant 'On The Edge'

Some plants are just barely making it.

"We're on the edge right now," says Ken DeCubellis, the CEO of AltraBiofuels. In April, his California-based ethanol company opened a $170 million plant in Cloverdale, Ind. "We are one bad day of ethanol pricing from having to decide to shut the plant down," DeCubellis says.

At AltraBiofuels' Indiana plant, trucks drive in and dump their loads of corn to be distilled into alcohol and then shipped off to be blended into auto fuel.

The plant is powered by natural gas and employs 47 people. Two giant storage tanks hold as much as half a million bushels each of dried corn, ready to be processed. A few years ago, filling them both with corn that cost $2 a bushel would have been easy.

But today, DeCubellis says AltraBiofuels has to watch its costs very carefully.

"We run lean and mean," he says. "With corn at $7 a bushel, you don't have the working capital to fill these things up"

DeCubellis is an engineer/MBA who used to work for Exxon Mobil. Having made the switch to biofuels, he is a gung-ho proponent of ethanol. But he's also realistic about the business and the impact of rising prices for his inputs.

"If we aren't able to cover our variable costs" — for corn, natural gas and other raw materials — "we will not run the plant," he says.

Not Enough Corn

Hurt, the Purdue economist, says two big changes explain what's happened to the ethanol producers.

Once the federal requirement for a clean additive has been met, ethanol is only worth as much as the energy it packs, plus the tax break it conveys. And in fact, ethanol packs less energy than gasoline.

So ethanol can't sell for as much as gasoline, but it has to sell for more than corn. Hurt has plotted corn prices and ethanol prices for the past year. His studies show that profit margins have mostly been slim and sometimes negative.

The second big change, he says, has to do with what used to be seen as the perennial problem facing the Corn Belt: the threat of producing too much corn.

"That concept that corn was unlimited" is no longer valid, Hurt says. "Corn is not unlimited. If we used every bushel of corn that we produce this year, we could only substitute for about 14 to 15 percent of the gasoline."

According to the most recent figures, more than 30 percent of this year's U.S. corn crop is going to ethanol, and it accounts for about 8 percent of all the blended gasoline sold at the pump.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 16 2008, 03:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>You mention squashing (held back) by lobbyists. I say ALL lobbyists do it, regardless of what side they're on. I say let the lobbyists lobby the people and let the people vote with their wallets.

As for ethanol, they've been using it on farms for like forever to run farm vehicles. I don't have an issue with it, per se. What I have issue with is government regulations requiring 20% of our fuel be ethanol at the expense of our food supply and at the behest of lobbyists. The point, again, is the regulations have the unintended side effects and always do.</div>

Okay, I understand that. I offered that they can make the ethanol out of non-food sources. There is a ton of non-developed land within this country, and it would have zero effect on food sources. If they have land, and they haven't already developed it for food, what reason do we have to believe that they would have done it anyway? Why didn't they worry about that before we ever brought up using it for ethanol? I think that is just a lame excuse for not doing it.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>According to the most recent figures, more than 30 percent of this year's U.S. corn crop is going to ethanol, and it accounts for about 8 percent of all the blended gasoline sold at the pump.</div>

again, they don't have to use food crops, and we have plenty of undeveloped land to grow whatever we want to. Who will show initiative and do this?
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Jul 16 2008, 01:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 16 2008, 02:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>In space, where you are powering teeny little electronic devices, solar is sufficient. But it's a sunk kind of cost anyway. Little about space is a profitable venture. It's worth burning some oil and polluting the air a little bit to make the solar panels for space exploration, just for the scientific value.

Just as I've pointed out how California is outsourcing its pollution to other places (like Houston), making solar panels does the same. It takes MORE energy to make a solar panel and batteries than they'll ever produce in their lifetime. The same is true for wind turbines.

It's really common sense if you think about it for about 10 seconds: you cannot get more energy out of a system than you put in. Unless it's a nuclear chain reaction. In fact, there's always some energy lost when you convert it from one form (like friction) to another (heat).

Truly, the more solar panels we put up, the less a % of all energy produced is from solar power.</div>

I only brought up space because of your pretty open-ended declaration that solar power is a hoax. I am aware of how much it costs to perform space travel.

Using solar energy to power your TV *is* a small, and practical application of solar energy. How much are you really expecting to use in your own home?

Solar tech is relatively new. As with any emerging technology, the costs to produce it will go down as it improves. People are looking to solar power for more than it can handle at the present time, because of the desperation we have with rising petroleum prices. It's not ready yet, but that's not to say that it won't someday become. Again, I have never claimed that solar would outright replace anything, but merely reduce it.
</div>

It can cost $0 to produce, but the more of it you produce, the less a % of all energy that comes from solar will decrease the more you deploy it. That's why it's a hoax.

The only reason it's viable at all is due to massive government subsidies. The governments are buying energy from Peter to pay Paul, so to speak.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Jul 16 2008, 01:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>According to the most recent figures, more than 30 percent of this year's U.S. corn crop is going to ethanol, and it accounts for about 8 percent of all the blended gasoline sold at the pump.</div>

again, they don't have to use food crops, and we have plenty of undeveloped land to grow whatever we want to. Who will show initiative and do this?
</div>

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=19333

To make ethanol a significant U.S. fuel source will require clearing a tremendous amount of forestland and turning it into farms. Supplying just 10 percent of our auto fuel with domestically produced ethanol right now would require us to burn up 55 percent of the corn crop currently being produced on 78 million high-yield U.S. acres.

...

America has some 38 million acres of land in the Conservation Reserve, but little of it gets enough moisture to grow corn. It could grow switchgrass, which produces twice as much biomass per acre as corn. However, we don't yet have enzymes that can cost-effectively turn switchgrass into ethanol.

Genetic engineers are making rapid progress on more aggressive enzymes for cellulose--but when we start to produce ethanol from switchgrass and wood chips, the $40 million corn ethanol plants will sit idle.

We could clear forests to create additional farmland, but that land produces significantly less cornstarch per acre than does the high-quality land where we currently grow corn. The forestland is too steep, too rocky, too wet, or too "something," or it would already have been cleared for crops. The yield penalty on former forestland would certainly be severe.

We will either have to clear a large amount of forestland to grow corn for ethanol or we will be forced to give up the U.S. feed and meat exports dependent on current farm utilization and the profits they have been earning.
 
OK, so in the link I posted....

It says, among many other interesting things, that energy created from windfarms costs 2.5X more than other forms of energy.

Is it that inefficient?
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Vintage @ Jul 16 2008, 01:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>OK, so in the link I posted....

It says, among many other interesting things, that energy created from windfarms costs 2.5X more than other forms of energy.

Is it that inefficient?</div>

That's only a measure of economic efficiency. In technical terms, efficiency means "it takes 6x more gallons of ethanol to make the same BTUs as 1 gallon of gasoline, thus ethanol is 1/6th as efficient as gasoline." Or solar panels convert 15% of the energy in sunlight received into electricity, so it's 85% inefficient.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 16 2008, 03:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>We will either have to clear a large amount of forestland to grow corn for ethanol or we will be forced to give up the U.S. feed and meat exports dependent on current farm utilization and the profits they have been earning.</div>

Those are not our only options. In Kansas, they grow that crop that I was talking about earlier, called milo. There is no forest in Kansas and half of Colorado. Yes, the enzymes are extremely important, and there is an entire industry devoted to creating new ones. They can make 200 proof ethanol with current enzymes, molecular sieve beads, using milo, and not clearing forests.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Some regulations are good, some are bad. If there weren't rules against Abestos, DDT, Lead in gasoline, Lead paint, regulations on removal of poisonous chemicals that could contaminate water supplies, etc. Then I'm sure there would be some companies that would cut corners if needed.</div>
I'm with you on this. Hell, I've seen the worst case scenario in an unregulated, developing country like India. Like most issues, the moderate middle ground between two extremes makes the most sense.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Jul 16 2008, 01:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 16 2008, 03:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>We will either have to clear a large amount of forestland to grow corn for ethanol or we will be forced to give up the U.S. feed and meat exports dependent on current farm utilization and the profits they have been earning.</div>

Those are not our only options. In Kansas, they grow that crop that I was talking about earlier, called milo. There is no forest in Kansas and half of Colorado. Yes, the enzymes are extremely important, and there is an entire industry devoted to creating new ones. They can make 200 proof ethanol with current enzymes, molecular sieve beads, using milo, and not clearing forests.
</div>

How are you going to get ethanol from Kansas to Chicago? If you put it in a tanker truck, the truck is going to burn fuel. You can't run it through pipelines because it is trivially polluted by even a small amount of water or condensation.

There's also this:

http://www.radioiowa.com/gestalt/go.cfm?ob...4113C7AF55EFA15

Besides water, Male says there are other issues arising within the ethanol industry. He says: "If you're using coal to produce (ethanol), you're ending up emitting more carbon dioxide than you'd save at the end of the day from just using conventional gasoline. That's a really unfortunate development.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Jul 16 2008, 01:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Some regulations are good, some are bad. If there weren't rules against Abestos, DDT, Lead in gasoline, Lead paint, regulations on removal of poisonous chemicals that could contaminate water supplies, etc. Then I'm sure there would be some companies that would cut corners if needed.</div>
I'm with you on this. Hell, I've seen the worst case scenario in an unregulated, developing country like India. Like most issues, the moderate middle ground between two extremes makes the most sense.
</div>

No regulations are needed. If you get cancer from Asbestos or lead poisoning, you sue. Corporations are REALLY scared of lots of lawsuits.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

E
  • Poll Poll
Do you believe in global warming?
Replies
5
Views
872
Denny Crane
Denny Crane
The Captain
Agree With Global Warming... Or Else!
Replies
6
Views
360
Michael Bryant
Michael Bryant
BrewCityBuck
All this Global Warming scare tactic crap.
2
Replies
38
Views
1K
the_pestilence
the_pestilence
Denny Crane
Global warming protest frosted with snow
Replies
3
Views
393
AEM
AEM
huevonkiller
Evidence of Global Cooling; Global Warming is not a Consensus.
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
Denny Crane
Denny Crane

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top