Thus speaks the provincial New Yorker. Reminds me of that Saul Steinberg cartoon in the New Yorker: 
Posted on 02/25/2006 7:51:26 AM PST by Rakkasan1
When discussing economic policies it is important to not let rhetoric overpower reality. That happened in a recent, much-reprinted New York Times article that argued "endless fields of corn in the Midwest can be distilled into endless gallons of ethanol … that could end any worldwide oil shortage … and free the United States from dependence on foreign energy." The story went on to discuss how much energy goes into producing ethanol. But it failed to substantiate its lead assertion of "endless gallons of ethanol" that might "free the United States" from oil imports. The United States is an agricultural powerhouse, but even common crops like corn are not endless. In 2004, we harvested just under 12 billion bushels of corn, the most in several years. One bushel of corn yields about 2.7 gallons of ethanol. So if we processed all the corn we produce, we would have 32 billion gallons of fuel alcohol.
(Excerpt) Read more at twincities.com ...
The same BS mindset convinces the left's minions that it is useless to drill ANWAR for the same reasons.
We'll never get anything close to energy independance because everybody poopoos all the little things that add-up.
One bu corn = less than 2 gallons of alcohol.
Why would the laws of supply and demand not apply here. I imagine if we decided to depend heavily upon this for a fuel source, a lot more corn would be grown.
Bingo. There are days when I wonder if half this forum isn't made up of oil spokes-holes.
Nothing is the complete answer. There are a number of partial answers. Even if we cut our dependence by 30-50%, would that be a good thing?
Hell yes.
Thus speaks the provincial New Yorker. Reminds me of that Saul Steinberg cartoon in the New Yorker:
It may not be a cure all but it will help. It just got to produced on the whole supply and demand system. However I'm all for drilling in ANWAR and anywhere else we have oil and natural gas.
My main thing is my wish to watch the mideast starve themselves back to pre 1800s population levels.
"But we should not get carried away with our own rhetoric. Grain-derived fuel alcohol is not a panacea for all energy and environmental problems."
President Bush specifically mentioned "cellulistic" dervied fuels, not grains. This would dramtically increase the alchohol production in the US if not elsewhere.
And we will nerer get anything close to energy independance if we are not even capable of basic math.
Ethanol will help. The US should expand this resource and continue to invest R&D dollars to help it. But it will come nowhere close to replacing our transportation energy needs. It can only be part of a much larger solution.
He articulates his objection, assuming that grain fuels are to be used straight, without mixing with fossil fuels.
How would you like to have a man sized sirloin @ Charlie's Stake House right now?? AND... I'll have the house made Blue Cheese dressing.
Energy? oil for cars... Nukes to heat/cool homes and water. Quite simple actually.
In reading on this forum I have come to the conclusion that some folks equate alternative fuels with tree-huggers and close their minds from that point forward.
everybody poopoos
now if we can convert that.....
At work, I keep hearing that it takes more than a gallon of oil based fuel to produce a gallon of ethanol based fuel. I don't know if this is fact or fiction but FR ought to be able to dig it up. Does anyone have info on this?
Cost-Benefit. Oil is still relatively cheap
Thanks for the comments. Good for you. I'm not a tree hugger by any stretch of the imagination. I'm the original red-neck on these subjects. Still, there are things that just make sense. I don't like having the Middle-East's boot on my nation's neck.
There are a myriad of things that could be done to help make most homes nearly self-reliant. With a crash effort, we could do this within ten to fifteen years. My question is, why not?
Celluosic?
Was it ever written that this would be the case?
I don't care if we've got to burn cow patties, as long as we don't have to buy them from a gang of murdering rug-riders.
Spoken by people who couldn't plant a single ear of corn if their lives depended on it. "Somebody else will do it. It's not my job."
According to this article, one bushel of corn yields about 2.7 gallons of ethanol. An acre of land can yield over 200 bushels of corn. It doesn't take a minute or two to roll over an acre of land with a tractor to plant and fertilize or combine to harvest.
If the farmer began using biodiesel, all the better.
Keep in mind that getting fossil fuel out of the ground, to the refinery, refined, and to the marketplace burns alot of energy too.
Point is, we have to start somewhere.
I would love to see a some sort of national campaign to do just that perhaps similar to the "Help Us Win the War" programs of WWII. If energy prices get much higher it should be easy to get the public to buy into it.
If you search you will find results all over the place. I have found them as low as 40% of the energy produced must be consumed to over 100%.
However, on http://www.ethanol.org a Pro-Ethanol web site they link to a study on energy balance.
http://www.ethanol.org/pdfs/energy_balance_ethanol.pdf
It states:
Production of corn-ethanol is energy efficient, in that it yields 34 percent more energy than it takes to produce it, including growing the corn, harvesting it, transporting it, and distilling it into ethanol.
As long as we just accept that petroleum is the cost-effective answer, we will be in a world of hurt when we have no real alternative, import most of our oil (already there), and the mid-east/Venezuelan/Nigerian oil industry/governments cut us off/collapse.
We must focus on pushing current alternative fuel technologies, expanding domestic oil supplies (ANWR), and be ready for the inevitable crash-weaning from foreign oil.
I will have little problem moving to Montana and living off the land - armed to the teeth - when I must. Although I believe we will probably have to do something like this in the next century, I want my sons to have a shot at a full, meaningful life.
If we aren't willing to take over and annex Saudi Arabia, we have to have other alternatives for when they fail us.
100 percent agree. If we use coal to make liquid fuels, it doesn't matter if there is a net energy loss.
http://www.jackherer.com/
LOL - You might have something there.
Probably a thimble full of diesel.
I would also like to see some research into small solar collectors driving steam driven generators.
Because the Green Weenies block any/all attempts to use our own energy resources, current and potential. Such people are at the root cause of many national and international problems. If we were able to exploit our domestics energy without the endless envioro-studies and legal challenges the problems could probably be resolved within five years. Can you imagine how the space program would have turned out if all the environmental whacos had existed in those early days?
I pray for the souls of the middle-easterners but I don't have to support their murderous anti-Christian/Jew/west religion through oil.
The US Army sent me to Kuwait/S.A. twice: once as a private in the Gulf War and again as a platoon sergeant in '97. The area is the arm pit of the world.
If there was no oil under that sand, that region would still be stuck in the dark ages.
I agree.
Your analysis is 100% correct. The solution is to use ALL our resources. The third world despots would be left holding the bag and go back to living in tents and caves. Then they would not have the finances to support terrorist.
What is there to discuss? If it's economic someone will invest the money and start marketing it. If there isn't a market willing to pay the cost plus a good profit it isn't worth doing.
I don't care how much you drink but keep that lousy fuel out of my gas tank!
Drill and consume the massive amount of oil in California.
I'll bet there's a massive amount of oil under Texas and Okalahoma too.
It should be seen as a substitute to increase extra energy resource while China is trying to steal more oil from the market, threatening US's share. The DUmmies may be seeing illusions, but we are looking in to what is availible with limited resource, to maintain our access to energy under threat by China's growth.
Crops may also be used for producing plastic. If the price of oil goes up, this might be one of the alternative for plastic. It depends on the cost, but if the cost is lower than oil by the time oil may rise for increase of consumption by China and India, this would be useful. No one would like to spend another dime buying fast food products using platic for the rise of cost of oil. It might not be a silver bullet, but useful. Forget the DUmmies ecologic illusions. It's the cost and countries such as China threatening US's shares that matters.
And your very strong opinion is based on what?
That is quite an overstatement. Only 15% of Brazil transportation fuel comes from ethanol.
Although the majority of the cars sold there today are flex fuel cars, they only make up less than 8% of the vehicles in Brazil.
Brazil Sugar Ethanol Update – February 2006, USDA Foreign Agricultural Service
Screws up fuel systems, reduces mileage, and I spent too many years using it in racing fuels, it's pure crap!
What do they add-up to? 600 new nuke plants?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.