| Author | Message | ||
     Boogiman1981 |
Well I'm all for using waste. | ||
| Sifo |
Using waste sounds good to me too. I have issues with the idea that the cost could be more than double a technology that already needs subsidies to compete with petroleum. Are you really in favor of that kind of "corporate welfare"? | ||
| Boogiman1981 |
As I understand it most of the subsidies were allowed to die in jan of this year. No in general I'm not a fan of corporate wellfare I am however a fan of being able to breath. The cellulose ethanol isn't brand new however there is a lot of work being done to bring the cost down as I think that most people understand and agree that using food as a source of fuel is insanity. | ||
| Sifo |
I think we all want to be able to breath. The whole ethanol thing has nothing, NOTHING, to do with pollutants that has to do with air quality. It's about greenhouse gases that deal with an unproven (largely dis-proven) idea that we are causing global warming. I hope that's right that the subsidies have ended for ethanol. Now tell me how the economics works if you suddenly decided to produce ethanol my a means that double the price? Are the gas producers going to flock to this new source of ethanol? You can quickly see that even if it sounds like a good idea in some areas, it fails badly on the economics. That's where the government likes to step in and through one means or another (it's all forms of corporate welfare though) change the natural course of the market. So essentially, you are saying that you are OK with corporate welfare as long as it promotes a made up issue. Forgive me if I don't go along with that. | ||
| Hootowl |
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/10/business/energy- environment/companies-face-fines-for-not-using-una vailable-biofuel.html Cellulose is a pipe dream too. Refiners would have bought every drop produced. That should tell you how cost effective it is to make. Even the people in the alt energy business don't want anything to do with it. | ||
| Boogiman1981 |
lol you seem to have bitten into some misinfo as alcohol does produce far less smog related pollutants through both burning cleaner and reducing methane production in landfills and therefor does have the ability to improve air quality. as for corporate welfare you assume far to much about me and my ideals to make that kind of statement, back-off. certain types of alcohol production i.e. cellulosic has the ability to produce fuel without consuming food and use the remains as the fuel source to generate the electricity needed to run the plant. the economics at this exact moment aren't in it's favor but then again very few things were economically feasible at the beginning. esp when you're talking about breaking into a mature market with a totally new way of doing things. now if you just don't like ethanol fine no problem. if you just like oil/gasoline again fine no problem. the slight against me that is a problem. ethanol can be good but not the way that is the current method i.e. food to fuel. the biggest difference in cost is the cost of yeast vs. custom made algae and so forth. the negative costs of the biomass nearly outweighs that cost difference though. yes the welfare ended in January for standard ethanol production via corn. there are a few subsidies left that are funding the cellulosic methods of production in an attempt to get the overall costs down and production per ton up. being a good steward of the limited resources this earth contains is something that all humans need to consider. there isn't an unlimited supply of crude oil there isn't an unlimited supply of water there isn't an unlimited supply of oxygen. are we causing global climate change? i have my doubts however that doesn't excuse us to go and be as wasteful as we can. we all have a responsibility to take care of this rock we call home. does that mean we can't live comfortably? no it doesn't. does that mean we need to be financially reckless? no of course not. what it means is we need to seek to achieve balance. | ||
| Bob_thompson |
Good thoughts Boogiman and: Just a "far out" thought. Why doesn't this country (mainly our ignorant politicians), just go with our most abundant fuel source, natural gas (very clean by the way), and make this country totally energy independent. Then start selling it to foreign countries and start bringing revenue into this country instead of out. Yes it would take some "investment" but that can come from small subsidies and by private investors, not government. Until we get the infrastructure of things needed to do this use an "all of the above" idea for fuel until then. T. Boone Pickens suggested this very thing years ago. He was right then and is still right now and he made his wealth in oil. He is a patriot. On another front, a question: Even though we try to be a leader nation in most world pursuits, just why are we doing so much in environmental protection when practically no other nation even cares, especially China. They can't even take care of their own people. Lets continue to have the compassion for all people we have always had but, as they say, "charity begins at home". So lets get back to being the greatest nation in the world as we once were (we haven't slipped very far yet) and then help the rest of the world. | ||
| Sifo |
Misinfo? I don't know where that would have come from. The wikipedia article you cited mentioned the GHG (green house gas) issue multiple times. It is EXACTLY this issue that the EPA has seized upon to regulate the current fuel mandates, as mentioned in the article posted by Hootowl above. The reality is that we have already done a very good job of cleaning up exhaust emissions, to the point that a lawn mower is far dirtier than the modern automobile. So just how much methane will be eliminated from landfills? I would be curious to know the percentage of the total. I'm willing to bet that it's insignificant. I'm also willing to bet that the answer to this question is not readily available, for that same reason. Sorry if you feel slighted by my comments. You may not feel that you consciously make you decisions as I described. The problem as I see it though is that, deliberately or not, this scheme requires corporate welfare to work. I'm sorry for having to point out this reality, but it is reality. So the government has stopped with the corporate welfare for the ethanol industry? Perhaps, in a way. Hootowls article makes it clear that a certain amount of ethanol is still being required to be mixed in fuel. They even specify amounts from various sources. The big problem is that the ethanol industry is failing to provide what is required by law. The law then fines the user of the ethanol because the ethanol industry failed to provide it. It's a slightly different form of corporate welfare, but it still serves the same purpose... Leveling the playing field for the economics of "green" fuels. This also points out the falicy that ethanol isn't required in our fuel (Boogiman, this paragraph has nothing to do with you). Clearly though a certain amount is required in the mix. So it may be true that some pure gas is allowed by law, it seems quite clear that the majority is mandated to be mixed with ethanol by law. This explains the continued use of ethanol blends after the ending of the tax breaks. This too is a form of corporate welfare, by forcing the market to purchase your product. So I fully agree that we should be good stewards of our resources and environment. I would also point out that if you examine virtually any metric that you wish to use to judge this point on, a comparison from the 1960's to today will clearly demonstrate that we have indeed struck a pretty good balance. That of course doesn't mean the work is done, but I have problems with government stepping in picking the winners and losers of these technologies. Government has proven itself to be very poor at doing this many times over. | ||
| Chauly |
Aesquire posted this elsewhere: \http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/09/world/asia/incen tive-to-slow-climate-change-drives-output-of-harmf ul-gases.html This is what happens when trying to "do good"--- unintended consequences! | ||
| Sifo |
Fixed Chauly's link... http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/09/world/asia/incen tive-to-slow-climate-change-drives-output-of-harmf ul-gases.html | ||
| Boogiman1981 |
the comments i felt slighted by were actually slights directed to me. not your discussion of the facts or topic at hand. as for green house gases just because cars are cleaner than they were before doesn't make them as clean as they need to be. and doesn't mean we are ready to rest on our laurels. the numbers that i was seeing in just the wiki link i provided indicated that biomass usable for ethanol production made up nearly 70% of landfill contributions. landfills are estimated as being the third largest release point of methane at approx 17% of the annual release. cut that in half and that's more than insignificant. so rather than the government giving a helping hand to bring new tech online you would rather keep the status quo? i would like to think that some entrepreneurial spirit would come along and get the ball rolling but again when there are huge interests at stake by corps like BP, Shell, mobil/exxon etc i just don't see it happening without some help from big bro. progress is often painful and slow that doesn't mean we should not keep moving. | ||
| Boogiman1981 |
the NYT article is nearly hysterical | ||
| Chauly |
Reality dictates diminishing returns on any attempt to reduce or eliminate anything. Yes, we have made a great deal of progress reducing emissions from automobiles, but to get the last little bit will incur a cost vastly greater than what it took to get here. Technical types refer to this as "close enough for all practical purposes": A mathematician and an engineer are sitting at a table drinking when a very beautiful woman walks in and sits down at the bar. The mathematician sighs. "I'd like to talk to her, but first I have to cover half the distance between where we are and where she is, then half of the distance that remains, then half of that distance, and so on. The series is infinite. There will always be some finite distance between us." The engineer gets up and starts walking. "Ah, well, I figure I can get close enough for all practical purposes." Then you turn your attention to other, more flagrant sources of irritation or pollution like , say, China or India, using the resources you save in other, more productive ways. | ||
| Sifo |
as for green house gases just because cars are cleaner than they were before doesn't make them as clean as they need to be. and doesn't mean we are ready to rest on our laurels. Agreed and why I said... "That of course doesn't mean the work is done, but I have problems with government stepping in picking the winners and losers of these technologies". the numbers that i was seeing in just the wiki link i provided indicated that biomass usable for ethanol production made up nearly 70% of landfill contributions. landfills are estimated as being the third largest release point of methane at approx 17% of the annual release. cut that in half and that's more than insignificant. Lots of things may be usable to make ethanol. How many of those things can be done profitable? That's the problem I pointed to earlier about mixing various statistics of various sources. You need numbers on what is feasible to use from the landfills, not just in theory, but in real world practice. | ||
| Sifo |
Yes, we have made a great deal of progress reducing emissions from automobiles, but to get the last little bit will incur a cost vastly greater than what it took to get here. Also commonly known as the last 10% takes 90% of the effort. | ||
| Oldog |
wiki link i provided indicated that biomass usable for ethanol production made up nearly 70% of landfill contributions. landfills are estimated as being the third largest release point of methane at approx 17% of the annual release. Land fills are starting to capture that methane for use as fuel, or to resell IIRC I was under the impression that if corn were used that the spent corn was used for animal feed... } | ||
| Boogiman1981 |
those numbers don't exist yet and won't until the ball is rolling. it sounds like you're interested but only if a buck can be made and there's nothing wrong with making $ lord knows it's a necessary thing. at the same time i say again how many industries inventions etc were profitable right out of the gate? i've never in my life seen a business model that didn't include a burn rate. the newer the tech the higher and longer the red is. the way i see it is that the g-ment is funding these plants as an extension of the national labs may not be that way on paper but i think that's the idea. there are known methods of creating ethanol from biomass now we need more innovators on task to get the processes and so forth to the point of critical mass. right now they are creating new germs algae etc to convert this stuff and it's being done in small scale once the right combo is found that gives the biggest yields tehy have to start churning those little buggers out enmasse to drop the cost per unit down. the issue is being forced not just due to environmental concerns but also due to energy concerns foreign oil etc. this is good progress and i am truly hopeful that it will continue. | ||
| Sifo |
This article explains well how things don't work in isolation. Government meddling almost always has bad consequences. http://washingtonexaminer.com/examiner-editorial-t o-protect-ethanol-obama-seeks-to-inflate-meat-pric es/article/2504906#.UCvLuaNWLvb | ||
| Sifo |
those numbers don't exist yet and won't until the ball is rolling. it sounds like you're interested but only if a buck can be made and there's nothing wrong with making $ lord knows it's a necessary thing. at the same time i say again how many industries inventions etc were profitable right out of the gate? i've never in my life seen a business model that didn't include a burn rate. the newer the tech the higher and longer the red is. the way i see it is that the g-ment is funding these plants as an extension of the national labs may not be that way on paper but i think that's the idea. there are known methods of creating ethanol from biomass now we need more innovators on task to get the processes and so forth to the point of critical mass. right now they are creating new germs algae etc to convert this stuff and it's being done in small scale once the right combo is found that gives the biggest yields tehy have to start churning those little buggers out enmasse to drop the cost per unit down. the issue is being forced not just due to environmental concerns but also due to energy concerns foreign oil etc. this is good progress and i am truly hopeful that it will continue. Sounds like more pie in the sky theory than anything else at this point. Those numbers DO exist at this time. When the numbers make economic sense, things will go forward. I've given a concrete example of government passing a law that CAN'T be followed because the ability doesn't exist yet, and consumers get fined. The consumer in this case is a business in the fuel production chain, but the fine still gets passed down to the "you and me" consumer. | ||
| Boogiman1981 |
it's not pie in the sky theory. not even close. that law is def bs and is wrong. the numbers are making more sense as time goes by and the tech is being developed. without government stimulation(funding) though it'll just sit like it did for nearly 100yrs before. food being used for fuel is bad. waste biomass being used however is good, albeit it's not at the break-even point yet let alone profitable but we've got to move forward. that is really the bottom line forward progress must be made. i don't think that the g-ment is going about things in a way that is the most lean but at least there is something being done. progress is being made. and wouldn't be without g-ment help. as for the link to the examiner that's an editorial opinion piece that is bashing the pres. not what i would call concrete proof. | ||
| Sifo |
food being used for fuel is bad. waste biomass being used however is good, albeit it's not at the break-even point yet let alone profitable but we've got to move forward. that is really the bottom line forward progress must be made. If I understand what you are saying here, you are looking to government to tilt the economics to make research into new technologies appear viable. The problem is that it isn't viable without government intervention, also known as corporate welfare, in one form or another. You say you aren't for this, but then argue for it. as for the link to the examiner that's an editorial opinion piece that is bashing the pres. not what i would call concrete proof. It wasn't offered as "proof" of anything. It was offered only as an example of how government meddling in one area has negative effects elsewhere. You can call it bashing of BO, but I would see it as bashing of bad government policies that are far from being limited to BO. (Message edited by SIFO on August 15, 2012) | ||
| Boogiman1981 |
you ever heard of a place called DARPA? how about the National Labs? the products of those places are what makes this very conversation possible. how about a little further back to say the computer itself? nuclear power? vaccines? i can list more but i am sure you'll get the point here. starting new tech is that starting new tech. you say corp welfare i disagree. now offering existing companies handouts on products they are already making record profits from that to me is corp welfare. a part of the difference to me is that starting new tech has the ability to benefit us all where corp welfare benefits only a very few. all of it costs and i can see where you'd think the two are the same but they aren't the same. | ||
| Sifo |
you ever heard of a place called DARPA? how about the National Labs? the products of those places are what makes this very conversation possible. how about a little further back to say the computer itself? nuclear power? All in the interest of national security. The internet would have evolved anyway. It barely has anything in common with what the government developed, all thanks to greed of private industry. vaccines? Not sure you're on target on that one. I've worked for a charity that was heavily involved in development/promotion of various vaccines. The government isn't necessarily required. starting new tech is that starting new tech. you say corp welfare i disagree. now offering existing companies handouts on products they are already making record profits from that to me is corp welfare. If I have an idea for a new widget that all of society will find beneficial, but I need the government to get it started, that is indeed corporate welfare. If on the other hand I go to private investors to back my new widget, convincing them that my ideas are financially sound, that is how a free market system works. One works fairly well, one SUCKS almost all the time. | ||
| Boogiman1981 |
and stable fuel markets that are sourced from within our borders isn't in the interest of national security? yes those things have evolved but would have never existed or would not be where they are now without g-ment involvement or help. the so called free market is far from free and is just as horribly flawed as g-ment help/subsidies/ corp welfare. | ||
| Boogiman1981 |
what's the name of the charity? are you absolutely positive they aren't weren't getting money from the man? | ||
| Sifo |
and stable fuel markets that are sourced from within our borders isn't in the interest of national security? It is, but blocking development of tried and true resources in favor of pie in the sky resources is... corporate welfare. the so called free market is far from free and is just as horribly flawed as g-ment help/subsidies/ corp welfare. True. The ONLY thing standing in the way of it really being a free market is government though. I'm not saying I'm even in favor of a market completely free from government regulation though. To use a word that you used earlier... Balance. Right now things are far from balanced. what's the name of the charity? Rotary club. | ||
| Boogiman1981 |
tried and true resources like the ones that resulted in the spill in the gulf of mexico? or perhaps the poisoning of underground water resources(fracking). those seem like a pretty bad idea to me. g-ment regulation where it is flawed is necessary. i have absolutely zero faith in the concept that the people from wall street would have any type of concern for their fellow citizens at all, because they've already proven time and again that they don't. the true nature of the financial world is just as vicious as hand to hand combat the problem is that the nature of the damage those guys create is far worse than that of a fist fight. the rotary club is on the dole....http://goo.gl/UCxaO | ||
| Boogiman1981 |
the funny thing to me is that what i see from your posts is that you think/believe that these issues are clear cut black and white. i could be wrong as this is a limited exchange via the internet. i used to think about so many things like that over time i learned that there really aren't many things that are actually black and white esp when it comes to society and g-ment. it would be nice if they were simple and clear cut but they aren't and never really were. | ||
| Sifo |
tried and true resources like the ones that resulted in the spill in the gulf of mexico? Didn't say it's perfect. People have also died as a result of accidents involving just about every major development that involved industry. I don't see much validity in your point. or perhaps the poisoning of underground water resources(fracking). those seem like a pretty bad idea to me. Has there EVER been a proven case of this? I've been aware of numerous accusations that have been proven absolutely false. I had some interesting discussion this summer with someone involved in that industry. It's being demonized quite unfairly from what I can see. i have absolutely zero faith in the concept that the people from wall street... Again... BALANCE. Corporate welfare, in all it's forms, isn't balanced regulation. Time for me to go...  | ||
| Sifo |
the rotary club is on the dole... Very minimal, I can assure you. the funny thing to me is that what i see from your posts is that you think/believe that these issues are clear cut black and white. Far from it. Gotta go... |
