OT of an OT: Ethanol

[Baron Munchausen]

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.

[Thermodyne]

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.

[Captain Kwok]

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.

[Atrocities]

Look to Brazil for proof that it can be done.

[Thermodyne]

Atrocities said:
Look to Brazil for proof that it can be done.

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?

[Renegade 13]

Baron Munchausen said:
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.

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.

Thermodyne said:
OK, so where are we? Alcohol cost too much and dumps more carbon into the air per unit of energy than just burning gas.

Inaccurate. There is no net release of carbon.

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.

As you mentioned, in Northern areas this would not work. Winter isn't a great time of year for sunlight. 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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

[Captain Kwok]

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...

[Suicide Junkie]

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.

[Renegade 13]

Captain Kwok said:
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...

Well, I'm always happy to have my ignorance exposed. 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!

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.

[Captain Kwok]

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.