OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

Rather than clog up the other thread, I'll reply here:

Note that I only referenced that site for the number 7, adding in the reference from a really quick Google search. I wasn't basing any argument off of it. Take that as you will.

It doesn't matter what crop you use, you still have to use crops to create the ethanol. This will, beyond any shadow of a doubt, increase the amount of crops that have to be grown. You can certainly use excess crops that don't get sold for food, but there are only so many of those. Talking about a nation with a population of 266+ million that has who knows how many 10s-100s of millions of cars, you're going to need to grow a lot more crops. Then think about China and India converting to ethanol. This has nothing to do with oil companies or PR, it is basic logic... Such efforts will require cultivating more land. This is not deniable. More wilderness will be tamed. There are tradeoffs with converting to ethanol to think about. There are always tradeoffs to think about. That was my only point. Any new technology has good and bad tradeoffs that have to be considered.

Can plastics be made efficiently from ethanol, or in a similar manner? Or will they still require crude oil?

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

What your creating is alcohol. There is a huge myth that you need thousands of acres of land to make one gallon of alcohol fuel. That is simply untrue. If you take the combined US gross production of alcohol beverage in the US compared to the land used to make these products, you will find that per gallon of alcohol produced, less than 1/1000 of an acre of land is used.

Sugar is the primary ingrediant to making fuel. Keep that in mind. Corn fuel is just a very very very small part of the overall products that can be grown to make fuel. Sugar Beats take up very little space compared to the amount of sugar they make. Converting that sugar into fuel still yeilds a very healthy amount something on the order of 80%. Now this is all from memory mind you so my numbers could be off, but the truth is, alcohol fuel is more pratical than we have been led to believe.

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

Hmm, I always wonder which threads cause these random OT hijacks... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Anyway, most of what I have read regarding ethanol advocates the use of switchgrass. That is basically the kind of grass that is naitive to, and grows all over, the US Midwest and Southwest. The process involves crushing out all the sugary and juicy bits of the grass, then beginning the distillation using the remaining stuff as fuel. That said, I have no idea on the feasability of the process. Switchgrass is already abundant, and would require no work to cultivate, and only a little amount of work to harvest it (you mow it). But I haven't seen any studies about what volume of ethanol a typical acre of land can produce in a 365 day period, or if the leftover material used to distill the ethanol is enough fuel for the entire process. Plus I do know that it will take a while to modify the infrastructure to accomodate different fuel; most likely, initially all of it will go into a biodiesel blend, where 80% is standard diesel, and the rest ethanol. Once engines that are designed to work with pure ethanol instead of gasoline, then we could start seeing pure ethanol pumps at a "gas station" instead of blends.

Anyway, I have seen a flurry of commentary on the subject of converting our energy dependence from oil to ethanol, so we should be seeing the results of a lot of research and many studies come out during the next year. It may turn out to be a bust like so many claimed magic pills, but it is still promising at this point. I wouldn't be suprised if there is a study within two years involving creating an ethanol distillery and distribution center based on the switchgrass method in a small town somewhere in the southwest US (probably in Arizona or New Mexico, outside of one of the university towns), with several residents agreeing to purchase ethanol-optimized vehicles and only being able to buy fuel at that one location. They'll do it because it'll be subsidized by a government research grant, and will likely be supported by a few universities, so the residents would essentially get a second new car at discount, and will buy fuel for it at what would likely be 1/3 to 1/2 the price of gasoline. If that works without much of a hitch, there would be more grants to slowly expand it out, etc.

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

"What your creating is alcohol. There is a huge myth that you need thousands of acres of land to make one gallon of alcohol fuel. That is simply untrue."

Nobody posted such a statement though? What post are you reading? The study I had linked to talked about a _years_ worth of energy anyways...

"Corn fuel is just a very very very small part of the overall products that can be grown to make fuel."

I don't understand why you are so concerned about corn? The study had to pick something to analyze... Its not really possible, or even advisable, to analyze every single plant in one study. Part of suggesting we implement a new technology is determining whether or not it can work. Studies like this are a basic part of the scientific process.

=0=

Hey Will, go to your IRC window please.

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

You make alcohol (hydrocarbon) with sugar (hydrocarbon), which most plants produce. Beets, Cane Sugar and Corn are the big three sources right now. And there is a good source for almost any agro climate. In the US, we hear about corn because the industry spends money to promote itself. Beets would probably be a better crop for production. A self renewing grass is the best. Problem with bio alcohol fuel is the energy it takes to make it and then the fact that takes 1.63 gallons of pure alcohol to equal the energy in a gallon of gas. As for emissions, we don’t wear gas masks in alky race gars because they look cool. One of the combustion byproducts of methanol is formaldehyde. Alcohol is hard to store, and it is so hydroscopic that it visibly absorbs water from the air. Also, methanol (the kind that comes from bio) is highly corrosive, it will eat through an aluminum fuel cell in less than a years worth of use. Bio only pans out if there is no oil. It does not offer a true source of substitute energy. Much of the promotion today is done in pursuit of US Federal subsidies. Public funds being spent on bio should be diverted into hydrogen research IMHO. Or…..Bio research should look at hydrocarbon based oils as fuel. Peanuts and soybeans being two sources already in production along with corn. It takes less energy to produce and returns more energy per gallon.

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

Why burn sugar ethanol when we can Manufacture Crude Oil?

Which, incedentally, also gets us such useful things as plastic, in addition to fuel, takes no conversion of the existing distribution setup (just conversion in production - instead of pulling it out of the ground, farm and alter), and even allows for recycling. Assuming, of course, that the company's claims are accurate.

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

Well from my poorly educated point of view, it is foolish to waste time and money on carbon based fuel sources. At some point in the future, we will reach the atmospheric tipping point for atmospheric carbon load. I would like to see a government backed push into hydrogen. Right now, the major challenges are basically just engineering, and money will usually push to technology past these kinds of barriers.

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

Funny thing about that.... plants, and things that eat plants, have a net 0 atmospheric carbon impact when you burn the resulting fuel - plants took the carbon out of the air, animals ate the plants to get their carbon, carbon is bound up in the fuel, carbon goes back into the air when burned. Some of the carbon gets pulled out for things like excrement and plastics, so in general it will actually reduce the amount of carbon in the air, not increase it.

Might have a little problem if global warming is the only thing holding off an ice age, but hey, everything has risks.....

Biggest problem with hydrogen is that it only stores the energy used to split it; it doesn't capture it from the sun (like a plant does) in order to make hydrogen burning (to water, rather than helium....) a viable option, you first need more power than you plan to generate from burning the hydrogen. And even then, we still need plastics.

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

Yay! A good old biomass discussion!

Ethanol could work for the US in a limited capacity, such as replacing 15% or so of gasoline if developed well. Which is good! Like Jack Smith said, ethanol does not add any net CO2 emissions - like fossil fuels or even synthetic fossil fuels would. Bio-desiel is also gaining popularity, although it's a mixture of various fatty acids.

Corn is the most commonly used crop for ethanol in the US, but there are other alternatives (like Will mentioned, switchgrass etc) that have less environment impact.

Brazil's fuel industry was almost entirely ethanol-based from the mid-70s to the early 90s - until they had too many cars - so they've now got to import some gasoline. The main reason why Brazil was able to do this was sugarcane, which is one of the most efficient plants for making ethanol.

The holy grail of biomass is the ability to degrade cellulose effectively. A number of cellulose-degrading enzymes have been isolated from fungi and have been cloned into E. coli etc. for fermentation of organic materials.

Ethanol is probably best suited to displacing gasoline use, rather than as a power source. It'd be better to develop the other greener alternatives (hydro, wind, etc) for now.

Bio-plastics tend to be made out of cellulose or starch-based polymers and are really just starting to gain popularity. Right now a significant percentage of landfill is petro-plastics that will take forever to degrade, so they'll keep making up a higher and higher percentage of our refuse. You'll probably notice a few of the more green stores using starch-based bags.

Lastly, the hydrogen dream is nice but it's a little ways off. I think it will take the invention of something like fusion power to provide the amounts of extra electricity we'd need to split water into hydrogen. If that happens, then we might get lucky and see a new H2 economy.

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ethanol_fuel

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

In the broad sense, Fyron is right. It's not that there is so much acreage needed to produce a few gallons of fuel as AT is claiming. It's the sheer quantity of fuel we use in this country. I don't have the latest statistics, but it's in the billions of gallons a year for gasoline alone, let alone diesel and then various sorts of fuel oil for heating and what not. Assuming this 'breakthrough' that will let them convert cellulose into alcohol actually works, making it possible for ethanol to have a positive energy balance -- which it doesn't right now (and saving us from having to grow food crops to produce fuel), you're still talking about vast areas of land to grow the millions of tons of plants to digest into alcohol.

Billions of gallons of alcohol will require many millions of acres of cropland even at a yield of several hundred gallons per acre. It will have a major effect on the agricultural economy, and perhaps not a good one. If petroleum really does become scarce soon we might be faced with having to choose between food and fuel. Just because ethanol is a convenient liquid that we can transport around and pour into vehicles like gasoline doesn't mean it's the best replacement for gasoline. We really need to think about lifestyle changes that reduce the need for everyone to have their own personal vehicle to drive to work every day, to drive to the grocery store, etc. Reducing usage is the only real soluton to the multiple converging crises around our petroleum use.

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

OK, so where are we? Alcohol cost too much and dumps more carbon into the air per unit of energy than just burning gas. Hydrogen is too far off. It’s not an energy issue, is a manufacturing issue. You can catalyze hydrogen from oil and coal. You just need the plants and transportation system.

That leaves us with conservation and alternative energy.

What if every new home had to have some form of solar power installed? It could be power cells or heat panels. In the Northern areas wind turbines could be substituted. 20k added to a 400k home is not that big of a deal over 30 years

What if every new car or truck under 2 tons had a meaningful fuel tariff added to the price.
35mpg+ no tariff
35-28 $300
27-23 $500
22-18 $1000
Less than 18mpg $5000

No fleet loading as was done in the past, build and sell fuel efficient vehicles or get out of the business.

Additionally, each state would collect additional fees based on the formula for tags. All collected funds go to energy research and mass transit. No use of these funds for roads.

Business use would be exempted but regulated. Something along the lines of demonstrated need and no take home allowed.

Airlines not allowed to fly unless planes are at least 75% capacity.

Recreational fuel for boats, small aircraft, and such where it can be regulated surcharged and set at say 300%.

No tax deduction for business travel---Learn to use technology for meetings and skip the trips to the resorts.

And lastly, countries not adopting economy and environmental measures at least equal to those in the US will be subjected to stiff tariffs on their good imported into the US. If we are going to bite the bullet, then so should the rest of the world.


I’ll bet 50 of Nolan’s dollars that you would see a 10% reduction in energy use in less than 5 years.

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

Economic penalties for pursuing increased fossil fuel usage is a good idea IMO. It's the fastest ways to get things done.

There is no way that biofuels could meet energy or fuel needs of the US ever, but as a way to displace some of the fossil fuel consumption it can help. Conservation can also help a lot but good luck trying to get that to work without some sort of penalties.

Any C released by biofuels is used by the next generation of crops, so that's covered more or less.

The US already makes so much more food than it needs, so the land issue for a 15-20% displacement is not excessive. Also keep in mind that at any given time at least a quarter of farmland is not in use ("to regenerate") - low impact biocrops like switchgrass etc. could be used here. Also, it's an additional source of income for poor farmers who already need subsidies to support themselves as their crop prices are so low because there is so much extra food. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

Look to Brazil for proof that it can be done.

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

The economic system is not the same here. Will you be willing to cut cane for $10 a day to make fuel for a car that you don't have?

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

I'm sorry, but that's dead wrong in a lot of cases, an idea predicated on everyone living in a city. I, and most other people not living in a city, have no choice about having a personal vehicle. Some examples; In Northern BC, there is no public transit. It takes about 40 minutes to travel to work, a distance of about 60km one way. The nearest grocery store is 20 minutes away, at 100km/hr. We, and everyone else who don't live in a city, have no choice in the matter.
Inaccurate. There is no net release of carbon.
As you mentioned, in Northern areas this would not work. Winter isn't a great time of year for sunlight. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif I think wind turbines would be a lot more expensive than solar, and for that matter where would the average city-dwelling person put a wind turbine? You'd need a lot of them and a good, constant wind to be of any use. Wind is impractical in cities and solar is no good in Northern areas. So what do people in those positions do?
Again, I do not like this idea. Those of us who need trucks for the 4x4 ability, just to get around in the spring/fall when the roads turn to slippery ****e, should we take a massive hit just because of our geographical location? I don't think so. Go for it with things like SUV's or something, those are totally luxury. Or have exemptions based upon locale. Then again, that's just more red-tape, so the money taken in through you tariffs would probably end up being eaten in beaurocracy.
Energy research, sure. Transit, no way. Again, everyone living in rural areas would pay in but experience no benefit whatsoever. Rural people already subsidize the mass transit systems for city people with our taxes (little of which is ever actually spent in rural areas....only a few votes in those areas after all...) No good making it worse than it already is.
Again, many farmers/ranchers/etc use "recreational vehicles" such as 4-wheelers and snowmobiles to either get around their land or to, for example, chase cattle when the need arises. Taxing it will only hurt those least able to pay. And for that matter, should we all just kill every motorized sport there is, to save a wee bit of gas or to generate a bit of money? No thanks. I don't want that world.
This the the part I hate the most. It's going to sound utterly rude, but your comment struck me as the stereotypical arrogant American attitude. We can do whatever the hell we want because of our God-given right to do whatever the hell we want. Sorry, but you put tariffs on Canada for not adopting what is essentially an American domestic policy, we'll be slapping tariffs on you right back. As will the rest of the world. Oh, and while you're at it, you'll have to kill NAFTA as well. And since the American economy is in the crapper unlike ours, guess who's going to be hurt the most from all the tariff's flying around? "If we are going to bite the bullet, so should the rest of the world" It's that kind of arrogance that, IMO, causes the opinion most of the world has of Americans. It's also just not practical.

I sincerely do apologize if I offend anyone with my comments towards the end, but I needed to say it. I hope we're all adult enough to accept differing viewpoints and some criticism of attitudes.

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

I understand your comments re: rural areas - but keep in mind in North America and most other developed nations over 80% of people live in urban areas - so it makes good sense to encourage the use of public transportation etc. as a general policy. A single bus at capacity can remove 20-25 cars on the road. My personal beef is with long-distance commuters and (beyond responsible) multi-car families. Also another beef I have is with the design of housing communities these days too - it pratically forces people into their cars for everything...

Fuel tariffs on new vehicles with poor fuel economy can also be configured based on rural vs. urban etc. For things like small vehicles, many snowmobiles etc. are already configured to run on pure ethanol fuel...

Also for the record, urban areas receive less back in services/infrastructure than what they pay for in taxes in comparison to rural areas.

Also, solar power is far more expensive than wind power. A wind turbine in a windy area costs about 3-5 cents/kwh, where solar power can range from 20-50 cents/kwh. The technology is still expensive and the return low. Wind turbines are a good bet for the windy northwest!

I do agree it would be difficult for the U.S. to impose tariffs based on fossil fuel products etc. when it is the U.S. that by far that uses the most per capita...

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

Seems to me that the US needs a department of Global Public Relations far more than the so-called Homeland security.

Accomplish the goal of security, with none of the anti-privacy and pro-government-secrecy stuff.

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

Well, I'm always happy to have my ignorance exposed. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif After all, how else will I learn!??

I agree that with the sheer number of city dwellers that there are, it is sensible to encourage mass transit. Makes a lot of sense. But charging those who have no choice about travelling for how much they travel and putting it into the endless pit that is mass transit isn't a good idea, I think. But maybe that's just me.

I didn't realize urban areas didn't get as much back as compared to rural areas. But most of what is put into rural areas are for things like the Trans-Canada highway maintenance which doesn't specifically benefit any demographic, it benefits both rural and urban people equally when they travel across the country. In fact, roads are pretty much all that money gets spent on in rural areas. After all, what else can it be spent on!

Also didn't realize the economic comparison between wind and solar. Still would be difficult though to fit a wind turbine in the yard of the average city person! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif

What really needs to be looked at is energy generated from tidal turbines. Use waves and tidal action to generate power. Since neither the wind nor the moon are going away any time soon, it'd work well.

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

Wind and hydro are generally the cheapest forms of power. Programs that allow individuals (particularly in rural area) to purchase turbines and then sell the electricity to the local grid should be encourage even more!

Mass transit is not a money pit and has many tangible benefits - even for people in rural areas such as reducing smog emissions and things of that sort. In general, its road systems are more subsidized than transit by government.

The disparity with tax collection and service distribution between urban and rural areas is really just logical. Because people in rural areas require services like health care etc., but the tax base is usally too small to justify a 'locally' regional hospital. In the same kind of way, Ontario/Alberta/BC tend to subsidize some of the other lower populated provinces at the federal level. It's part of the price we pay to live in our society.

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

No, that is what laborers from Mexico are for. Pay them $8.00 an hour to do it.

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

Sounds to me like a great place for some of those exceptions and conditions and complex gyrations that the tax system is known for.

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

re: requiring all newly built homes to have some kind of renewable energy capability built with it.
It's a good idea in theory. But, as always, the devil is in the details, and it would not be feasible to implement this as a federal law. The most that could be done is have a tax credit for builders making homes with this, or a grant to local governments if there are ordinances requiring such. This would give incentive to the private sector and municipal governments, respectively, to look into the renewable energy options. For both, the incentives alone aren't enough, but combined with increased value of the house, it pushes the return on the investment just that little bit higher to make it worthwhile. The value of the house would go up due to the improvements, which means developers can sell at a higher price, and the municipality can get more tax revenue from the property, and that's where the money really comes from.
Also, Renegade, you need not worry about the city folk needing to build turbines in their yard. You won't find a new house being built in the middle of a city, you'll find it being built on an empty plot outside of the city.

re: the company using TDP to turn agricultural and consumer waste into crude oil, methane, and minerals.
Sounds great, but the article is dated November 2003, and I haven't found any information on the company that goes beyond 2004. I'm going to guess that this particular venture, while still worth looking into after more research, is a bust.

re: Urban vs. Rural (and really, both vs. Sub-Urban) as far as taxes
I see nothing wrong with the fuel-efficiency tarrif, and I would add additional taxes on the price of gasoline as well. But I wouldn't implement it overnight, that is just asking for economic disaster. Even if people know increased costs are coming, it still costs a lot of money NOW to avoid those extra costs in the future. So if everyone had to pay more for it now, there would be problems. Have a 10-to-15 year plan, where the gas tax and fuel efficiency tax are slowly increased; by the end of the cycle, the majority of vehicles would be replaced anyway, and there is a good incentive along the way to encourage people to choose fuel-efficiency. So what if it ends up costing more for people who live 20km from the nearest place that could be called a town? The cost of living in rural areas are vastly smaller compared to urban and suburban areas, plus you can get a huge house for under $100,000, along with an acre or more of land around it. People choose to live there, and if the negligable costs comprared to cities is too much, they can move a little closer to the city.

And really, when you look at taxes, a disproportionate amount comes from urban areas, since that is where the majority of the wealth is created. A small part of that is invested back into cities as services, but most of it goes to... not rural areas. Rural areas in general recieve more money for services than is paid in those areas in taxes. A lot of that is in the form of Social Security, Medicare, etc., but also in education, safety (police and fire depts), military (a lot of bases are in remote areas), and transportation (especially if there is a significant route between larger cities). But rural areas only get a little bit more than they put in. The biggest chunk of tax dollars go to suburban areas. For example, the area I live in, Los Angeles County. LA and its five "satellite cities" comprise the largest industrial complex in the United States, has the largest international port on the West Coast, the largest financial center west of the Mississippi, etc. All of these are in urban parts of LA. And most of the tax income from these industries goes to... the Valley, and the southern part of the county bordering Orange, suburban areas. It's used to build new roads, new schools, new infrastructure, for a population that has been exploding since WWII.

re: tarrifs on imported goods unless certain policies are in place
I don't see the "stereotypical arrogant American attitude" in implementing tarrifs. It's simple economics. The point of all these little taxes and incentives is to guide the free market to make certain choices over what would otherwise be the most cost-effective choice. Most (or some would say all) rational people would agree that at some point, the developed world needs to stop using fossil fuels. If the US takes this view to heart, and implements these costs on American industry, then foreign products have a cost advantage. The tarrif isn't meant to change policy in other countries, but to offset the penalty that American products would inherently have. If, for example, Canada implemented similar taxes, then there would be no need to balance things out. And it wouldn't throw out NAFTA or any other trade treaty, since treaties supercede Acts of Congress in US law. Canada and Mexico would not be affected by the tarriff, and are free to do as they wish (however, reforms like this would be more likely to happen in Canada first, and right now the Mexican government is so weak, if the US does it, they probably could be coerced into doing the same soon after). Any country without a trade treaty that explicitly forbids tarrifs based on the country's policies would be subject to the tarrif.

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

Well this all depends on the size of the city you're talking about, but if you're talking a large city then yeah, cost of houses and land is considerably cheaper in rural areas. But take a look at the taxes for in a different light. People who live in rural areas are often farmers and ranchers. Namely, the people who need to fuel their tractors and other farm machinery. Add these taxes on when your fuel bill is already at a couple thousand (at least) per month, and you're going to be killing off a lot of small operations. Simple fix, exempt farms and ranches and the like from these new taxes, as they are already exempted from many taxes.

I'm actually not sure about more going to rural than urban (though I am sure sub-urban gets more than both!). In Vancouver, billions are being spent on new rapid-transit systems. Billions extra, on top of the usual. All we get is cracks sealed on our highways, sometimes not even that. Can't cost more than a few dozen million per year. Of course, things you mentioned such as military bases etc. are for the benefit of all, not one single group, so it can't be counted in the equation. As are trans-continental highways and the like, since they're necessary for industry to occur in the cities as well, so they can't really be counted as solely rural either.

That's the thing, in a capitalist society the economy isn't supposed to be "guided" by the government. It's not capitalism then, it's closer to socialism. And yes, I think it is an arrogant attitude to think that the American idea is the best idea there is or can be! Tariffs for not doing as the States thinks is best is arrogant, since it's automatically dismissing the idea that other countries have the right to do as they wish with their own economic policy. If the States decides to implement such an idea, go for it, but don't try to force the rest of the world into doing what ONE country thinks is a wise measure. Of course, I'm sure I'll be disagreed with on this particular point. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smile.gif

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

It is not the idea itself, but the manner in which it is presented.

To me, it sounded aggressive; "if we're gonna do it, we're gonna hit you up for it too."
My impression is that Europe is way ahead of us slobs on this side of the pond.

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

Europe is primarily ahead of us environmentally because of the fact that have little to no resources left- so it's by necessity. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

And farmers and ranchers already get huge subsidies. Slight adjustments to these would more than offset additional costs.

Per-capita. It would be silly to look at total dollar amount going to a given area, you need to see how many people it is being spent on. If you just look at total amount, then yes, I could see where you get the idea that rural taxes pay for urban mass transit. But it's simply false, taxes from urban areas subsidize development in suburban and rural areas, not the other way around. And yes, while some things like major roads and military bases are for the benefit of all, the economy of the area immediately surrounding the (often rural) area gets a huge boost out of it.

Economics 101, Renegade http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif
You are wrong on one point though. While the economy in that case would not be a laissez-faire free market captialist economy, it is still a free market, and it is still capitalism. Socialism implies that at least some part of the economy is planned (presumably by everyone, but the government is a 'good enough' substitution). Canada has this in its health care system; entirely government owned, paid for by taxes, free to the people. And yes, that has problems. But if you think that any government intervention in economic issues makes the economy not capitalist, or socialist, then there is not a single capitalist economy on this planet. That would require no zoning laws, no emissions laws, no controls on banking, no oversight of accounting practices, no tax deductions or exemptions of any sort, and so on, and so on. We learned a long time ago that pure captialism, or pure socialism, or pure communism, is a bad idea. So, any economy in the world worth speaking of combines elements of all forms. These taxes would just be another form of it.

And you have missed my point entirely for the reason the tarrifs are valid. They are not a policy tool to force other countries to do as the US. And frankly, most countries don't need any encouragement, and will end up doing something similar regardless of US actions. The tarrif is meant to allow fair competition between US and foreign firms. For example, take steel. If it is estimated that the new taxes directly cause steel made in the US to be $10 more expensive per ton, then US steel is at a disadvantage to say, Chinese steel. But! If the US put a tariff on steel coming from China, to the amount of $10 per ton, then the two can compete evenly in the market. The tariff isn't forcing China to adopt the same policies at all, but it does force domestic buyers of steel to buy based on the controllable costs of producing the steel only. Otherwise, US producers would be saddled with the double burden of increased costs and cheaper competitors. The tariff doesn't apply to countries with similar policies because those policies result in the same costs for producers in that country, so no adjustment is required. The other government already took care of it.

Now, an "arrogant" way of forcing policy change would involve telling the other government they need to adopt certain changes, implement a tariff on their products that is very much in excess of the difference of costs based on the policy difference (take the above example, and make the tariff $100 instead of $10), threaten to put an embargo into effect, and 'accidentally' blow up a building during a training exercise. We're not talking about that though, are we now? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

Perhaps it is an arrogant American attitude. Have you seen the treaties that have been proposed for placing limits on greenhouse gasses? The developed world cuts emissions and the third world gets to slash and burn rain forest so as to graze cattle. I’m not sorry that America has been more successful than most of the rest of the world, but I will be damned if I’ll make concessions on energy so that Asia can continue its 1950’s industrial revolution. I’m all for protecting the environment, but the sacrifices I’m forced to make have to be made by the rest of the world. The way I see it, much of the world has a lot of catching up to do on environmental issues.

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

Get out of the tour books and take a good look at Europe. I wouldn't advise drinking the well water.

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

Where the heck are you going to get the energy to till, plant, harvest, ferment, and refine the alky? Do you have any idea how much carbon is vented by an acre of tilled land? Do you have any idea how many regulated chemicals are needed to grow a crop like hybrid corn? 0 waste carbon is an invention from some slick publicity agency. It only has value when only the actual carbon in the fuel in measured. When the Brazilians’ were doing it they were using some purpose grown crops and a lot of waste biomaterial from the sugar industry. They still had almost a man hour per gallon of fuel produced. It was never profitable and as demand for fuel rose, they couldn’t justify the costs of expansion. Bio alky is one of the biggest fictions of the decade. It’s typical politics and almost totally promoted by the bio industry. If you were Conaggra, would you rather sell a million tons of corn as feed and get $3.40 a bushel? Or would you rather turn it into alky and realize $5.00 per bushel. Of course feed corn will rise to the same level. So beef and chicken will more or less double in price. But the big Farm corporations will plant lots of corn and make lots of money. Their lawyers will be able to handle the subsidy paper work, and their congressmen will provide tax loop holes. The little guys with a 1000 acres or so will be right where they are today. The demand for fertilizer and chemicals will cause the prices to rise, absorbing any increase in the profits that they were expecting. Oh, and lets not forget the down side of speed fermenting, many of these fermentation plants will be located right in those nice quiet little country towns.

Mass production on this scale would reduce the costs significantly. The fan head on a 12 foot generator would be about the price of a good lawn mower. In cities, the tall buildings would provide excellent sites for generation units. And remember, they don’t have to look like aircraft engines. They can have ducted parallel blades also. These could be mounted on the sides of tall buildings.

As for solar panels, the technology to spray the materials onto a backing material with an inkjet printing process is in use today. If this was scaled up in size, it could economically be used in housing.

Save that for someone who doesn't know better. You do not need a big Cummings Turbo powered 4x4 to get around in when the weather is bad. Hey, I feel your need, but I don’t buy the reason. I’ve got my full size Chevy 4x4 sitting out back. Biggest engine I could get in a half ton at the time. Heavy duty everything. But I drive a Honda Civic Hybrid to work everyday. And I’ve got a little 44 jeep that will go through any snow and muck that the truck will, on a quarter of the gas. Those big pickups could easily be replaced with smaller more fuel efficient 4x4’s. I have yet to see a farm that didn’t have tractors, wagons, and heavy trucks, what do you really need a big pick up for. Around here every farmer has several. The tax laws encouraged them to buy them. They ride around in them with 40 or 50 pounds of junk in the back and brag about how little fuel they use.


I won’t get into the rural vs. urban thing. I type way to slow for that. I will say that most big cities have a net loss on revenues. As do the rural areas. The revenue hogs are the outer suburbs where development has outrun infrastructure.

Oh, and while we are on the subject…….I thought that up there in the far north, people just got snowed in for the winter. That’s why all the birthdays are in the early summer http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

As far as the crop used goes, I would recommend hemp. It grows well, even on marginal land, and can be planted/harvested 3 times per year.

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

Actually Kwok is right. Given you are looking at central europe and not china (with its waste-into-river-thingy) and russia (same).

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

Point taken. Of course, before being sure of the fact, I'd want to take a look at the actual numbers for my specific province and area, but you may be right.

Well, my experience with US tariffs isn't exactly what you'd describe as positive. The US tariffs on Canadian softwood lumber and pointless, politically motivated bans on Canadian beef both had rather negative effects on me. The lumber tariffs were supposedly since our lumber was subsidized more than American lumber (which international committee's have repeatedly shown to be false and the tariffs illegal), yet the tariffs remain to today. And the illegal duties taken by American companies ($5 Billion worth) hasn't been returned to it's rightful owners.

In other words, my experience with American tariffs is that they are heavy-handed, intended to give American businesses an advantage domestically, and most of all politically motivated.

Of course, if it was a fair system of tariffs etc, and if the US wouldn't mind having tariffs imposed on them for having less advanced environmental policies than oher countries, then sure, go for it. Doubt your gov't would appreciate it though!

I find this hard to believe, since the US has consistently decided against international treaties requiring a lowering of greenhousee gases. Yup, but it's the rest of the world that needs to catch up with the US...

This carbon expenditure needs to be balanced against the equivalent amount of carbon emitted by traditional fuels. Not to mention the fact that once alcohol fuels become commonplace, they would replace the traditional fuels that are used to till the soil, plant, harvest, etc the ethanol, thus giving you a net emission close to zero.

Point taken, most rural people do not need a big truck. For them, it is a luxury. And again I agree, no one needs a huge, powerful 4x4. It too is a luxury. But as you seem to agree, and drawing from my own experience, a 4x4 vehicle of some sort is necessary on a, for example, ranch. Yep, every ranch/farm has tractors, wagons, etc. Trucks are kinda useful though to haul those wagons when loaded with hay or something. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif Especially if it's muddy and slippery.

To be honest, if every farmer or rancher around your area can afford several heavy trucks...well they're a lot richer than almost all the ranchers or farmers around here http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif

Yep, people do get snowed in for the winter. Doesn't mean you can stop feeding the cows. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

I'll conceed that heavy trucks are not necessary, but some sort of 4x4 vehicle is.

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

I have a question for those of you who might know. What's the big deal about greenhouse gases and global warming?

What I mean to say is, is there any conclusive evidence linking the increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases and a rising average world temperature? Or is it the political maneuvering of environmentalists, or just spouted off by people who have taken one too many looks at Venus?

Do we really know that this is not a part of a natural cycle that the Earth goes through? After all, we don't exactly have detailed records beyond a few decades ago, and a few decades on a geological timescale isn't exactly an amount of time that would allow detailed conclusions to be drawn. And yet it appears that everyone is freaking out about "global warming". Or could it just be the media making a big deal out of nothing?

There have been times in the Earth's not-to-distant history when the Earth was a lot warmer globally than it is now. Something like 4-8 degrees C warmer at the poles. Life didn't become extinct after that happened! That suggests to me that this whole 'global warming' thing is a natural cycle.

What do you guys think?

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

"Life becoming extinct" is a pretty severe standard. There have been periods where 80-90% of all life on the planet died. You'd consider that pretty nasty, and it'd likely take *us* out, but it wouldn't fit that standard.

Read your statements again. "We don't have records beyond a few decades ago" and "There have been times when it was warmer than now" DON'T fit together.

The answer there is we do have records, care of trapped air bubbles in ice sheets and the like.

More to the point, global warming is a problem regardless of the cause. There are countries that will *cease to exist* if the sea level rises too much, and most of the human population lies close to a coast. Beyond that you have increased storm power, desertifcation of previous cropland, all sorts of unpleasant crap.

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

Life, capital L, did not go exitnct, but many many species of life did. Some of the mass extictinctions in the past may have wiped out as many as 90% of the species. Yes life recovered, after millions of years. Nobody rational is saying we are going to wipe out all life on earth, but the question is whether we are going to make earth unihabitable for species H. sapiens.

In fact there are massive global cycles that have been going on and will continue to go on regardless of human actions. If past occurances are a good forecaster of future events, and there is no reason to think they aren't on the epoch-time scales we are looking at, then earth will get much colder and much warmer many times between now and when the sun uses up it's fuel and expands to swallow the whole thing up billions of years from now.

The question is whether our actions as a species are precipitating climactic change and speeding it up. If we have 50,000 years before the climate changes to make life here inhospitable that gives us a decent shot at achieving the technological ability to deal with it. Maybe we could get to where we really could change the climate in predictable ways, or if not we could leave and find another home, or perhaps genetically modifiy ourselves to adapt to the new conditions here.

But if through our actions we speed up that process so that the planet becomes inhospitable to us in 500 years, we are probably screwed as a species.

The question is whether or not we have the capability to effect such a change. A lot of good research says we do. There are some indications even that we've gone beyond the point where we can undo the damage we've done.

On the other hand, maybe we aren't really having an effect on the climate.

But I would rather think we are and find out later that we aren't, then think we aren't and find out later that we are.

Geoschmo

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

We have precise temperature records dating back to sometime around the turn of the 19th century. And there's also things like core samples of ice in Antarcica that gives us a very good estimate of concentrations of atmospheric gasses and a reasonably good estimate on what temperatures were (varying amounts of gas would be trapped based on the temperature at the time it was frozen, and crystal structure of the ice will vary based on the conditions when the water froze).

Data from around 1900 back is going to be a lot more coarse than data that we have today, so that does affect estimates of the impact of the greenhouse gasses, since more detailed analysis is not possible. All we really have is aggregate data averages; the temperature in a certain approximately 10 year range in the past, in the area the ice was formed, averaged X degrees. Correlate to percentages of greenhouse gasses trapped. Studies have found a correlation to the calculated levels of gasses and the calculated temperature.

The naysayers for global warming point out that the estimated release of greenhouse gasses by human actions (including farmed livestock, vehicles, factories, etc.) is calculated to be only a modest percentage of the natural release. The only problem with this criticism is what Phoenix-D pointed out: large portions of the population of the world is in danger if sea levels rise even a little. Even the modest percentage accelerates the temperature increase, which accelerates the melting of ice at the polar caps, which accelerates the rising of sea levels and the rising of sea temperatures. Higher ocean temperatures mean bigger more powerful storms (see this year's hurricane season). Higher sea levels mean more danger from those storms and flooding, tsunamis, etc. There are lots of costal areas that are technically below sea level, and only have essentially a small ridge holding back the ocean.

So, the point is, do we want to accelerate the cycle and make sure the peak temperature is even higher than it would have been? Or do we want to cut back on our emissions and make sure that the damage is minimized?

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

My fault. I should have said "We don't have detailed, in depth records beyond a few decades ago". We do, however, have estimates based on ice cores, etc, that give estimates of past climates.
The climate shift I was talking about, when temps. were a few degrees warmer than now was only about 140,000 years ago. There was no massive extinction event around that time (as far as I know), so this is why I doubt a climate 'shift' of a few degrees can wipe out many species on a global scale.

OK, another couple questions. Is there actually enough ice in glaciers, polar ice caps, icebergs, etc. to raise ocean levels beyond a few feet over what they are today, if they all melted? Lets say a meter of water was added to todays ocean levels. A meter wouldn't cause any significant damage to coastlines beyond making a few seawalls necessary. The area of the worlds oceans is ~361 Million square km. So, to raise ocean levels by a meter, you'd need an additional 361,000,000 x .001 = 361,000 cubic kilometers of water! Is there even that much ice in the polar caps/glaciers?

Another question: Is it possible to slow significantly the amount of CO2 that is emitted into the atmosphere without cutting back so much that we might as well be in the stone age again?

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

There is ten times that much ice just in Greenland. And another ten times that at the south pole. linky
The north pole ice is sea ice so as it melts it won't have much net change in sea level.

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

Interesting...

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

I don't know how accurate that particular model is. The fact is the south pole ice cheet is smaller now then it was a hundred years ago when we started measuring that sort of thing. This correlates nicely with the rise in temperature we've already seen over that period of time. Of course maybe that's just a short term cycle and not the beginning of a long term warming trend. It would be nice to think that the planet had all these nifty backup systems that would cancel out the effects over time, but that's just wishful thinking really.

The geological record clearly shows that the oceans were lower in the past. Perhaps as many as 300 meters lower during the most recent ice age that ended about 40,000 years ago. There is no reason to think that the current sea level that we've enjoyed for the last 3,000 years or so is special. The earth doesn't care that we've built our cities along the current coastlines.

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

In lieu of actually adding anything productive to the conversation, I'll just be lazy and throw in a relevant wiki-link with a nifty chart of global tempartures from 1860 onward...and a bunch of other stuff:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

Yep, the oceans used to be a lot lower than they are today. Shores used to be miles further out to sea than they are now. Then again, back then everything was covered in a hellacious amount of ice, so I don't think whatever was around back then cared too much about the extra few miles of "dry" land. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif Then about 18,000-6,000 years ago was a period of very fast rising of ocean levels, something like 30-40 mm per year. This of course corresponded to the massive ice shelves melting off of North America. Oddly enough, there was a time in the not-too-distant past when ocean levels were 6 meters higher than today, then retreated again. This is shown by the remains of coral reefs that are now high and dry above the ocean, and also by evidence of wave action on cliffs and stuff like that. So the ocean rose, stabilized, rose very quickly, fell again and is now rising slowly again. Most of this happened before man began the industrial revolution and started spewing many so-called greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. This suggests to me that "global warming" is nothing more than a natural cycle that has been blown out of proportion by the media and by environmental scientists who want big research grants...

I'm not saying mankind hasn't accelerated the process, but I bet it was coming anyways. The real questions are: To what effect are mankinds emmissions into the atmosphere truely effecting the natural cycle of things, Is is possible/practical/feasible to slow the amount of greenhouse gases that are let into the atmosphere, What would be the positive and negative results of the Earth's mean temperature rising by a couple degrees and would the positive outweigh the negative. Questions like this need to be answered before I'll even have a chance of truly believing the alarmists and start losing sleep over this issue.

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

Renegade 13: "And since the American economy is in the crapper unlike ours, guess who's going to be hurt the most from all the tariff's flying around?"

From the CIA Factbook, 2005 figures:

GDP per Capita: US $41,800, Canada $32,900
GDP growth: US 3.5%, Canada 2.9%
Unemployment: US 5.1%, Canada 6.8%

As of February 2006 US unemployment was listed as 4.8%. These are limited statistics, of course, but it's pretty clear that neither economy is "in the crapper". Both the US and Canada have modern, robust, and growing economies that are closely tied to each other by our common border. Indeed, each country is the other's biggest trading partner.

I share Renegade's distaste for tariffs in support of dubious energy initiatives, not because I dislike American "arrogance" but because free trade is good business for everybody. I trust the market a lot more than I trust politicians. If biofuels are worthwhile, they'll make it in the marketplace on their own; if not, they won't.

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

The most fascinating aspect of biofuels for me is the possiblilty of decentralizing the production of vehicle fuel. Even if he could get his hands on a barrel of crude, the average joe can't turn it into gasoline in his shed. But small scale ethanol and alcohol fuel production might actually be feasible. Maybe someday the gas station won't need to have trucks delivering gas, cause they'll be destilling there own ethanol from local waste biomass that people are more then happy to drop off rather then pay to take it to the landfill.

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

True, but the state of an economy can not be measured by unemployment alone. For example:

There's another couple huge economic differences. The US runs a trade deficit to Canada, Asia and Europe. Canada has a trade deficit to Asia and Europe as well, but a huge surplus to the US ($100 Billion per year), resulting in an overall trade surplus of $17 Billion/yr.

Also if you take a look at the governmental deficits...The US runs a huge annual deficit. If you look at this site -> www.brillig.com/debt_clock , you'll see that the US debt is currently getting close to $8.4 Trillion USD, with the annual deficit sitting at (in 2004) $477 Billion. ( http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/26/budget.deficits.ap/ )

This works out to each citizen's share of the debt being almost $28,000. In contrast, Canada's debt is roughly $800 Billion CDN or about $688 Billion USD. Works out to ~$21,500 USD per Canadian. A lot less than in the States, and we're actually paying down the debt not increasing it by almost half a trillion per year!

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

Not unless people always drive a lot less. I can see regional production happening, but local? Not likely. Your average gas station would need to produce 5,000 gallons or so *per day*, which they just don't have the room (or, likely, the waste) for..

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

Renegade 13: "True, but the state of an economy can not be measured by unemployment alone."

Um, yes, that's why I included GDP per capita and economic growth rate, which Renegade conveniently forgets to mention. BTW, it turns out the US unemployment rate has been consistently below Canada's since the 1980s. If the US economy is "in the crapper" then Canada's is...

"...the United States has relatively higher rates [of poverty]."

I believe that. Fortunately in both the US and Canada only a fraction of the poor stay poor for six years or more, i.e. both economies create jobs for the poor, many of whom are immigrants. An economy "in the crapper" wouldn't do that, would it? BTW, as a thought experiment, it would be interesting to move Mexico adjacent to Canada instead of the US.

"Canada has a trade deficit to Asia and Europe as well, but a huge surplus to the US ($100 Billion per year)"

Ah yes, the trade deficit boogeyman. Canada delivers goods, commodities, and services, and gets little green pieces of paper in return. Sounds like the US gets the better part of the deal here. BTW, if the US economy is "in the crapper," it seems strange that Canadians would accept these IOUs instead of insisting on tangible goods. Also BTW, if the Canadian economy is so dependent on exports to America, it seems that Canada, not the US, would suffer more from a trade war, contrary to Renegade's earlier assertion.

"Also if you take a look at the governmental deficits..."

While I have my own reservations about US government priorities, note that only a strong economy can support such levels of politically-motivated spending, i.e. the people who finance the debt obviously have confidence in the economic future of the US. Now if Renegade is of the view that American government is "in the crapper," he's welcome to his opinion. Confidence in the US economy, however, isn't a matter of opinion, it's a demonstrated fact.

My intention in replying to Renegade's post was not to demonstrate any superiority of the American economy or the wisdom of American policy. I wanted merely to point out that the Canadian and American economies are quite comparable by size-independent measures, both strong, and neither can be characterized as "in the crapper" by any stretch of the imagination.

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

It should be noted that public confidence does not nessesarily relate very closely to reality. One way or the other.

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

Actually, when I was replying I simply forgot about the inclusion of CDP per capita and economic growth rate, it wasn't "convenient" at all. And, as we all know the saying "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics." Essentially, it matters who derived the statistics, what the sources of information were, and the methods used to analyse. But that's neither here nor there, since the statistics are about all we have as a basis for comparison.

Actually, you should think about it in another way. Canada is better off exporting more, since we really don't need those resources, or else we obviously wouldn't be exporting them. On the other hand, the US obviously does need those very same resources, or else they wouldn't be buying them. Therefore, in a trade war, Canada has the advantage since there's more 'stuff' that the US needs that Canada has, and less stuff Canada needs that the US has. In other words, the US needs Canada more than Canada needs the US, giving us the advantage in a trade war. Then again, we shouldn't deceive ourselves into thinking either country would "win" a trade war. Both sides would lose, it's just a matter of to what extent. We're better off as trading allies, trading with each other rather than certain other places from overseas who may not ultimately have the best interests of either country at heart.

I'm forced to disagree with you here. It's a very foolish economic policy to borrow endlessly; it'll end up biting you in the rear end. I also disagree that it takes a strong economy to support such huge deficits, since if the economy was truly strong, such borrowing wouldn't be necessary in the first place! It's not so much that the lenders have great confidence in the future economy of the country, it's that there such a huge collateral to secure it! For a personal loan banks want a vehicle or house for collateral, and as long as you don't want to borrow beyond the value of the collateral, they're happy to lend you money. After all, they're the ones who benefit via the interest. Now imagine if you had an entire country as collateral. You could easily borrow into the trillions, but it doesn't mean the economy is great. Also, perceived as being great does not necessarily translate well into reality, as SJ mentioned.

Here I agree with you. I was mistaken in my original post that the American economy was circling the drain, at least in certain aspects. This seems to be what you're trying to point out to me, and I agree. However, I do think I'd rather be in charge of the Canadian economy than the American. I think it has better prospects. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif