Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

World must wake up to the dangers of biofuels, head of Kew Gardens warns (Solution is a problem)
The Independent (UK) | September 9, 2006 | Michael McCarthy

Posted on 09/09/2006 2:53:33 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger

Link Only: World must wake up to the dangers of biofuels, head of Kew Gardens warns


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Extended News
KEYWORDS: biofuel; energy; ethanol; globalwarming
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-82 next last
For all the environmentalists crying of the need for more earth-friendly resources, they'd better be careful what they support in terms of alternative fuels.
1 posted on 09/09/2006 2:53:35 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
For all the environmentalists crying

The environmentalists certainly do not want biofuels and are doing all they can to prevent their rapid adoption. What could be a worse nightmare for an environmentalist that a fuel made from plants?
2 posted on 09/09/2006 2:56:30 PM PDT by P-40 (Al Qaeda was working in Iraq. They were just undocumented.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

So, now we're back to "Destroying the Rainforest" again, huh?


3 posted on 09/09/2006 2:56:41 PM PDT by digger48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: texianyankee; JayB; ElkGroveDan; markman46; palmer; Bahbah; Paradox; FOG724; Mike Darancette; ...
(((GLOBAL WARMING PING)))



You have been pinged because of your interest in environmentalism, alarmist wackos, mainstream media doomsday hype, and other issues pertaining to global warming. Freep-mail me to get on or off.
Add me! / Remove me
Please ping me to all note-worthy threads on global warming.

4 posted on 09/09/2006 2:56:53 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (Lord, help me to be the Christian conservative that liberals fear I am.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: digger48

What's Willie Nelson going to do then? This is his baby.


5 posted on 09/09/2006 2:58:17 PM PDT by boop (Now Greg, you know I don't like that WORD!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: boop
Willie's "Rainforest"

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

6 posted on 09/09/2006 3:07:03 PM PDT by digger48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Radical environmentalists do not care about the environment. They care about reducing capitalism and the human population by any means necessary. One step at a time, and that means hamstringing development.


7 posted on 09/09/2006 3:07:32 PM PDT by Crazieman (The Democratic Party: Culture of Treason)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
He's right on one point only. Bio-fuels will not be the answer to the fuel problem.

The "chicken-little" gloom & doom loss of Rain Forest and other nonsense is to generate buzz for his arrival at a new gig. In uber-liberal Chicago, none the less.

If I'm proved wrong and it becomes a commodity of choice, then there's enough American farmers and idle farmland in America to handle the world market. Still no environmental degradation.

We heard the same song & dance during the development of GM agricultural products. Yet, the "Frankenfood's" & destruction of native crops by escape hasn't, nor will it, manifest.

The Royal Botanical Gardens at Kew, are awesome, however.

8 posted on 09/09/2006 3:10:04 PM PDT by bigfootbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Bio-fuels are political hype enbraced by both parties. One gallon of ethanol requires three gallons of gasoline or diesel to produce.


9 posted on 09/09/2006 3:25:31 PM PDT by em2vn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: em2vn
One gallon of ethanol requires three gallons of gasoline or diesel to produce.

If you research that statement you will find it is one put out by radical environmentalists.
10 posted on 09/09/2006 3:28:24 PM PDT by P-40 (Al Qaeda was working in Iraq. They were just undocumented.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

However, that article didn't point out the fact that certain plants such as sugar cane, sugar beets and switchgrass can produce huge amounts of ethanol on a per-acre basis with minimal land impact, and the development of growing oil-laden algae in vertical tanks fed by the exhaust of coal-fired and natural gas-fired powerplants could mean a massive source of ethanol, too.


11 posted on 09/09/2006 3:40:43 PM PDT by RayChuang88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RayChuang88


Liquefied Coal Cuts Oil Need
China plans to launch a coal liquefaction programme in the next five years to ease the nation's oil shortage.

The State Development Planning Commission is carrying out a feasibility study on setting up coal liquefaction projects in Yunnan, Shaanxi and Heilongjiang provinces, according to a senior official with the commission.

"Experiments have been finished in these three places. The results were desirable, but we have not located the specific site to launch the project," said the official.

Analysts predict that total investment for the project will amount to billions of US dollars with the annual output of 2 or 3 million tons of oil.

Coal liquefaction is the chemical process of adding hydrogen to coal under high temperature and pressure to liquefy coal into crude oil.

"Generally speaking, 2 tons of coal can turn out 1 ton of oil," explained Shu Geping, a senior engineer of the China Coal Research Institute.

Given the fact that the total reserves of coal in China far exceed those of oil, it is desirable to implement the technology to stretch the oil supply, Shu said.

According to Shu, 20 billion tons of the total proven coal reserves can be liquefied into 10 billion tons of oil, sufficient for China's consumption for 50 years.

Thanks to 20 years of hard work and co-operation with developed countries, China has mastered the technology and can perform the commercial operation at a desirable cost, said Shu.

With the coal liquefaction technology, producing 1 ton of oil is 30 per cent cheaper than purchasing oil from the overseas market, Shu added.

"A coal liquefaction manufacturer can recoup their total investment within 13 years," Shu noted.

The systematic research of the coal liquefaction technology dates back to 1910. Since then many countries such as Germany, the United States and Japan have been making great efforts to develop the technology. However, due to the high cost of coal and labour in developed countries, this technology has not been commercialized on a large scale.

But South Africa, whose structure of energy reserves is similar to China's, has established three coal liquefaction manufacturers with total investment of US$7 billion in 1950. In 1999, these manufacturers registered a profit before tax of US$610 million.

"If the government can make some preferential policies, such as cutting down the oil consumption tax and value added tax, coal liquefaction manufacturers can attain more profits than factories in South Africa," Shu said.

China has been a net importer of oil since 1993. It is expected to import 70 million tons of oil this year. (Source: chinadaily.com.cn)


12 posted on 09/09/2006 3:43:12 PM PDT by digger48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: RayChuang88

Especially switchgrass, which is native to North America.

Forget the environment; the main thing is cutting off the money supply to the Arabs.


13 posted on 09/09/2006 3:48:51 PM PDT by A.J.Armitage (http://calvinist-libertarians.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: digger48

Usually there are complaints about ethanol subsidies. Be aware that the Liquefied Coal folks are lobbying for a $5b sssubsidy to get going and a government price support at $35/bb.


14 posted on 09/09/2006 4:00:00 PM PDT by ClaireSolt (Have you have gotten mixed up in a mish-masher?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: em2vn
that's old information. Processes have been improved and will be improved even more.

Eventually, we'll have biofuel vehicles that produce even more fuel than they burn and the big problem will be sopping up the alcohol spiled all over the highways.

15 posted on 09/09/2006 4:24:21 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ClaireSolt
Notice, contrarily, that Shell hasn't asked (and won't, btw) for any subsidy or price floors for its in situ shale oil development in CO, nor has any company participating in Canadian tar sands development asked for either of these.

Well, except Imperial Oil (CAN) -- but that's a whole 'nother story. No American, British, or Dutch company has asked, let me rephrase that.

Coal liquefaction shouldn't NEED a subsidy in the first place. It's fully competitive as long as crude stays above $35/bbl or so. But then again, who says crude will stay that high when alternative production methods come online, eh?

16 posted on 09/09/2006 4:29:53 PM PDT by SAJ ("Who doesn't jump is a French!!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
The enviros do not wantany fuels except what is enough to power the limousines of the ruling elite which will be them. Environmental protection is to them only a means to power. They are the Communists of old in a more acceptable garb for the post USSR world.
17 posted on 09/09/2006 4:37:12 PM PDT by arthurus (Better to fight them over THERE than over HERE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: digger48
"A coal liquefaction manufacturer can recoup their total investment within 13 years," Shu noted.

Probably a bit overoptimistic because as it comes on line, if it is large scale it will reduce the price of oil, probably to below the cost of coal liquifaction. More power to them.

18 posted on 09/09/2006 4:41:21 PM PDT by arthurus (Better to fight them over THERE than over HERE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: em2vn

Tell that to the Good Ol Boys down in Kentucky who switched their stills over to making ethanol for cars. Fired by waste wood and they turn out many gallons a day.


19 posted on 09/09/2006 4:48:45 PM PDT by crz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: P-40

>>>>One gallon of ethanol requires three gallons of gasoline or diesel to produce.

>>If you research that statement you will find it is one put out by radical environmentalists.

1:3 is pretty absurd. But more sober analyses have shown that it takes more energy from petroleum to make a gallon of ethanol, than you get from the ethanol.

Do not underestimate the power of the ADM/farm lobby, for subsidies.


20 posted on 09/09/2006 4:51:44 PM PDT by FreedomPoster (Guns themselves are fairly robust; their chief enemies are rust and politicians) (NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: RayChuang88

Not to mention trash/waste to biofuel....imagine biofuel processing plants at each major city dump!


21 posted on 09/09/2006 5:02:41 PM PDT by bordergal (John)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: em2vn
Bio-fuels are political hype enbraced by both parties. One gallon of ethanol requires three gallons of gasoline or diesel to produce.

Then ethanol would be more than three times the cost of gasoline adjusted for taxes, say between two to three times the cost of gasoline. Who would buy such a fuel? Something doesn't make sense with this statement.

22 posted on 09/09/2006 5:13:53 PM PDT by LoneRangerMassachusetts (The only good Mullah is a dead Mullah. The only good Mosque is the one that used to be there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Th ebottom line is that the end goal of environmentalism is to turn back civilization by thousands of years.

When speaking to environmentalists (and there are legions of them here) I like to ask what would be the ideal "green" community. They generally say something like an African village or a native American village.

These people want us living in the stone age.


23 posted on 09/09/2006 5:52:17 PM PDT by Straight Vermonter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage

I agree. The Arab Muslims are taking our money to fund ways to either kill us or convert us to Islam.

I had rather be dealing with the Russians. For all their dishonesty and other faults, at least they aren't suicidal to try to get to a "paradise" that seems to be some sort of holy whorehouse.


24 posted on 09/09/2006 5:57:07 PM PDT by 308MBR (I'll be back for YOU, Jack, and I'll let the MACHINE speak! That's right. That's right.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: LoneRangerMassachusetts

Ethanol isn't now being sold at production cost. It is being sold to produce a market.
In the little berg I live in, premium that is 10% ethanol is being sold cheaper than regular unleaded, by one chain. I ask about the practice and was informed it is being sold at the lower price to help in the development of a market.


25 posted on 09/09/2006 5:59:41 PM PDT by em2vn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: em2vn

Our regular unleaded has 10% ethanol, and that content has been so for years. No market issue I can see here (KY.)


26 posted on 09/09/2006 6:20:48 PM PDT by toddst
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: arthurus
Probably a bit overoptimistic because as it comes on line, if it is large scale it will reduce the price of oil, probably to below the cost of coal liquifaction. More power to them.

I'm not sure it's unfair to evaluate it the way he's doing with prices as they are before the decision is taken, because that IS the alternative if they don't do the coal project.

27 posted on 09/09/2006 8:06:29 PM PDT by Still Thinking (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: SAJ

South Africa took the position that energy self-sufficiency was good for the country, and guaranteed Sasol, the coal gasifier, something like $20/bbl, to insulate them from the immense downside risk in starting up such a process. An approach like that doesn't seem unreasonable here.


28 posted on 09/09/2006 8:09:52 PM PDT by Still Thinking (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: bordergal

The big breakthrough could be the low-cost conversion of plant cellulose to ethanol. Once we master that technology, that could mean that agricultural waste could be converted to ethanol on a huge scale.


29 posted on 09/09/2006 8:27:33 PM PDT by RayChuang88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: FreedomPoster
But more sober analyses have shown that it takes more energy from petroleum to make a gallon of ethanol

I've yet to see a study that has held up to scrutiny. Generally, these studies make assumptions that do not hold true for all methods of agriculture in all areas of the country. I don't think this is accidental.

The kicker is the statement about three gallons of petroleum to make a gallon of ethanol. How many gallons of petroleum does it take to make a gallon of gas, or diesel. :)
30 posted on 09/09/2006 8:29:05 PM PDT by P-40 (Al Qaeda was working in Iraq. They were just undocumented.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger; A. Pole
Biofuels are massive money-wasting boondogles that won't do anything for energy independence or Global warming.

This Polish-American scientist at Berkeley has done an excellent job exposing it:

http://www.coe.berkeley.edu/labnotes/0305/patzek.html

31 posted on 09/09/2006 9:12:15 PM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: curiosity
This Polish-American scientist at Berkeley

Yes...he has some rather interesting articles...
32 posted on 09/09/2006 9:31:06 PM PDT by P-40 (Al Qaeda was working in Iraq. They were just undocumented.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

The environmentalists won't be happy till we're all living like a third world country, starving, naked and dying from malaria. Wait... that's already happening in half the world... Not here... right?


33 posted on 09/10/2006 4:00:10 AM PDT by poobear (Political Left, continually accusing their foes of what THEY themselves do every day.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SAJ
But then again, who says crude will stay that high when alternative production methods come online, eh?

The Saudi cost of production is what -- about $5 a barrel? They've been getting $60-70 a barrel recently, which is a pretty nice margin. They have plenty of room to come down. The question is, how much can the Saudis and other OPEC countries increase production?

In the 1970's the oil price spike was clearly artificial. OPEC threw a switch and cut production. The USA then responded with the most completely counterproductive energy policy imaginable, as we subsidized imports and penalized domestic production on the theory that the main enemy was big oil companies, not OPEC. Stupid is as stupid does, but the dems made successful short term politics out of it, which is all they care about. Ronald Reagan solved the problem overnight by decontrolling oil.

The betting on alternative energy sources today rests on one very big assumption -- that the current runup in oil prices is market driven and permanent. I don't pretend to know the answer to that, but most of the analysts seem to agree that OPEC is now producing near capacity and that the Saudis no longer have have the ability to flood the market, especially with India and China coming on strong.

I frankly hope that's right. I can remember filling the tank for $5 or less, and that was nice, but we can clearly live with an oil price of $40-50 a barrel, or even higher. If today's prices stick we will see a very significant shift in the resource base over 20 years. We will still be burning a lot of oil and/or biofuels (unless we make the necessary breakthroughs on hydrogen fuel cells), but the supply will be much more diversified. I hope I live to see it -- let the sheiks go pound sand.

34 posted on 09/10/2006 4:38:19 AM PDT by sphinx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: sphinx
I frankly hope that's right. I can remember filling the tank for $5 or less, and that was nice, but we can clearly live with an oil price of $40-50 a barrel, or even higher.

Especially if we restore the public transport. In rural areas people could use more buses, train, bicycles or horses.

35 posted on 09/10/2006 5:28:16 AM PDT by A. Pole (George Orwell: "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: P-40
One gallon of ethanol requires three gallons of gasoline or diesel to produce.
If you research that statement you will find it is one put out by radical environmentalists.

Also a theory being pushed by Big Oil.

Why do you think the price of gasoline has dropped this past week? The price of a barrel of oil has not changed.

Big Oil is attempting to slow down any further plans to construct Biorefineries. Plain and Simple.

36 posted on 09/10/2006 5:49:05 AM PDT by Iowa Granny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: digger48
So, now we're back to "Destroying the Rainforest" again, huh?

round and round we go...

37 posted on 09/10/2006 7:37:04 AM PDT by GOPJ (Note to MSM - when dems say "jump", you don't have to ask "how high".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Iowa Granny
Big Oil is attempting to slow down any further plans to construct Biorefineries. Plain and Simple.

Big Oil is building quite a few of the biorefineries. It is all the same to them.
38 posted on 09/10/2006 9:29:34 AM PDT by P-40 (Al Qaeda was working in Iraq. They were just undocumented.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: sphinx; thackney; Smokin' Joe; Eric in the Ozarks
Yah, Saudi COP is way low...but that's irrelevant to the mkt price. Just a fortunate circumstance for them.

The 1970s price spikes were only artificial insofar as US monetary and regulatory policy was ''artificial'', and, as you point out, idiotic. Remember the background then (and I remember it very well, as a trader and broker in that period). LBJ had just, for the first time, REALLY busted the US budget. Bretton Woods had become untenable, and it was only a matter of time until the US went off gold.

Nixon, the moron, put on domestic wage/price controls to ''combat'' inflation in 1971, and cleverly traded -- as ALWAYS w/price controls -- mkt discipline for shortages. The Saudis, after 20 months of this nonsense, with the dollar declining essentially every day, quite reasonably decided that they would build in an anti-inflation premium. The only thing they did that was stupid (and not a little greedy) was to build in 15 years' premium all at once. Inflation btw, for our historians here, was running at all of 5.2% annually when Nixon went berserk. This would come to seem like a bargain in just a few years.

Then, the December 1972 flap w/Israel came along, with the concomitant embargo, and crude doubled in price again. This would be the ''artificial'' run-up of which you spoke; the rest was due solely and only to US policy lunacy. Actually, Ford's and Carter's policies exacerbated the price situation after that point, which is why we got the second oil shock in 1977-1979.

The magic number in crude is and has been for years the daily worldwide excess production capacity in bbl-equivalents, many times called 'excap'. The ''problem'' with alternative production methods is not that they won't work (some of them have worked perfectly well for decades), is not that their cost is indeterminate (it isn't; it's moderately variable w/in a known range), and not that investors won't put up the capital to get these methods online (they're bloody standing in line to plunk their capital down on these deals).

The problem is this: given the feckless and, as we agree, idiotic track record of the US gov't in past regarding energy, both oil companies and investors are scared spitless of two highly likely outcomes. The first (duh!) is government re-regulation along confiscatory lines, of which we saw entirely too much in the 1970s. This, presumably (haha), can be avoided by a combination of heavy lobbying and harnessing an angry citizenry to threaten the political class regarding the only thing that matters to them, to wit, their power. Summary execution of a number of the radical greenie Marxists would be useful here, too. Won't happen, more's the pity.

The second fear cannot be dealt with readily, or perhaps at all. There is the entirely legitimate fear that, even without gov't screwing around with the energy mkts, alternative production (from shale, from tar sands, from biofuel, from liquefaction, from gasification, whatever) will in fairly short order, say a decade, put enough marginal capacity online to raise the excap figure over, say, 4-5 MM bbls/day. This figure is rising slowly even as I write this, about 1.72 MM bbl/day up from 0.6 this past January. If this occurs -- and it will do if all the alternative players crank it up (not to mention the results of expanded drilling and more discoveries worldwide) -- crude will be in the $20s/bbl without a single doubt in this world, no matter the demand increases from Asia.

Companies and investors who hold shares in alternative production ventures that produce at $35 or so/bbl (see the list above) will in this case be royally screwed. There's no way to make back the original, highly capital-intensive investment in 10 years' time.

This unfortunate situation will lead to one of two outcomes. Either the gov't will pick winners (ok, Shell, you go do your in situ recovery from shale in CO, no, sorry, BPAmoco, we don't want your gasification projects -- that sort of thing) or the gov't will cave in to subsidy demands from all of the above producers, would-be and actual. We've seen the latter outcome before, twice in fact. How's your memory today?

Ethanol is an old story in this regard. The same subsidy addicts that infest D.C. now were around in the 1970s, too. Result: a huge ethanol boom...until one day someone ran the numbers. Result: an even more huge ethanol crash. Whole towns in Colorado were shut down (effectively) on 1 day's notice -- ask any Colorado resident of that day, and you'll hear some amazing horror stories.

The second was, of course, Red Jimmuh Peanut's infamous ''synfuels'' boondoogle, which cost multi-billions and never produced a single drop of broad-market fuel. We'll see a some sort of replay of this at some point shortly, very likely (a dead cert if some lefty gets into the White House in 2008).

Whether the current run-up in price is, as you say, ''market-driven (it is) and permanent (it certainly doesn't have to be)'' is up for grabs. It's finger-crossing time, and the past record of events in energy mkts is sufficient for a good deal of pessimism. Gov't will trade sensible policy for perceived short-term political advantage every single time.

Any thoughts here, gents? FReegards!

39 posted on 09/10/2006 12:08:23 PM PDT by SAJ ("Who doesn't jump is a French!!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: P-40
Big Oil is building quite a few of the biorefineries.

Exactly. Which is why they want to artifically supress the price of gasoline.

The price of a barrel of oil hasn't changed from last week, yet gasoline prices continue to fall. To what do you attribute this?

Since Big Oil is beginning to invest in biorefineries, it stands to reason they'd like to discourage others from similar investment.

40 posted on 09/10/2006 12:10:56 PM PDT by Iowa Granny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Crazieman
Radical environmentalists do not care about the environment. They care about reducing capitalism and the human population by any means necessary. One step at a time, and that means hamstringing development.

Absolutely right. And bringing attention to scientific nutcases like the Kew guy (he's a plant specialist and knows nothing about climate!) adds more fuel to the global "warming" fire. There's a worldwide socialist effort to bring attention to any issues that can damage American conservatives prior to November's elections.

41 posted on 09/10/2006 12:14:28 PM PDT by Bernard Marx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Crazieman

They want us to live in caves.


42 posted on 09/10/2006 12:20:48 PM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks (BTUs are my Beat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Iowa Granny
To what do you attribute this?

Lot's of factors: end of the summer driving season; lack of hurricanes; relative stability in the oil markets, etc. Big Oil can get in early and establish a large market presense...but it will be hard to dominate the market as it is fairly easy for new players to enter.
43 posted on 09/10/2006 12:47:42 PM PDT by P-40 (Al Qaeda was working in Iraq. They were just undocumented.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Iowa Granny
The price of a barrel of oil has not changed.

The price of oil has fallen almost continuously for a month.

44 posted on 09/10/2006 1:48:18 PM PDT by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Iowa Granny
The price of a barrel of oil hasn't changed from last week

The price of oil has fallen every day for the past week.

CLV6 - CRUDE OIL October 2006 (NYMEX)

45 posted on 09/10/2006 1:51:06 PM PDT by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: RayChuang88

Heck, cows convert plant cellulose to methane now. Let's capture that and kill two birds with one stone: Reduce a greenhouse gas while capturing an energy source! ;-)!


46 posted on 09/10/2006 6:45:10 PM PDT by Conservative Goddess (Politiae legibus, non leges politiis, adaptandae)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: P-40; curiosity

TechCentral did an article on this subject a few months ago...concluded that the environmental footprint of ethanol was not all that clean and green......written by a guy from the Competitive Enterprise Insitute....I respect both organizations.....

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=071206E


47 posted on 09/10/2006 6:53:32 PM PDT by Conservative Goddess (Politiae legibus, non leges politiis, adaptandae)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Goddess
concluded that the environmental footprint of ethanol was not all that clean and green

It isn't as green as the Greenies used to say it was...and now that it is not a pipe dream but a reality they don't seem to like it at all. If grown right, it is a good product. Hopefully the new methods of producing the stuff will pan out once a market is established and much of the ag concerns will be moot.
48 posted on 09/10/2006 7:20:17 PM PDT by P-40 (Al Qaeda was working in Iraq. They were just undocumented.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Goddess
Even the sugar-based ethonol in Brazil, which is more energy efficient than corn-based, is not sustainable. It depletes the soil, so they have to keep clearing more and more land to maintain their supply. They cannot do that indefinitely, and the environmental cost of the resulting deforestation is staggering.

What sickens me is that an environmentally friendly and economical solution is there, nuclear, but we refuse to go that way.

49 posted on 09/10/2006 8:00:38 PM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: P-40
It isn't as green as the Greenies used to say it was...and now that it is not a pipe dream but a reality they don't seem to like it at all. If grown right, it is a good product.

I disagree. It's a horrible product. It's expensive, depletes the soil, wastes water, and consumes more energy than it produces. Now that oil and gas prices are high, ethanol refineries are using coal, yes, coal, resulting in even worse pollution than using gasoline in cars. Ethanol is nothing more than a giveaway for parasites like ADM that wouldn't be in business if they couldn't suck the government teat.

Hopefully the new methods of producing the stuff will pan out once a market is established and much of the ag concerns will be moot.

Ain't gonna happen. The first and second laws of thermodynamics will see to it.

50 posted on 09/10/2006 8:11:17 PM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-82 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson