anybody else feeling the crunch?

I live for the day they put windmills in Nantucket sound.Then I'll know the liberals have lost.
 
Nope. We love that. I own energy stocks and have family that are in the business one way or the other. Get used to it, because it's going up a lot more. Try to ratchet down the profits, and you will find yourself in the cold come winter and without enough gas to go on summer vacation. I find it interesting how guys like Al Gore, who are concerned about global warming (and rightly so) will advocate tapping the strategic petroleum reserves when oil prices go up. Doesn't he understand that the only way to get people to conserve fuel, buy the little gas sipping four banger instead of the humongous 4x4 2 1/2 ton pickup, is to allow fuel prices to rise significantly? High fuel prices are good for the US in the long run. Only then will we conserve fuel, find alternatives, develop new technology needed to take the cash out of the hands of those that support Islamic terrorism (and jackasses like Hugo Chavez).

Ed.
 
Boy are you right Ed. This country was built on the backs of those who overcame adversity. These conditions we are in are just one more opportunity to find a way to excel, or we could just give up and let the other team win.
 
I traded in the big SUV and bought a pretend SUV - a Rav 4, I'll use it as a commuter car. Expecting to get 28 mpg, I'm only getting 22... bummer. I just started a job with a commute of 140 miles a day. Ed, your energy stocks are def. going up now that I'm contributing to those nice energy companies in a big way.
 
Crunch? Is that what it is. $3.34 Gal for DIESEL. $3.11 Gal for Home Heating Fuel. They "topped off" the tanks on automatic fill at the Church and Parsonage, $4200. +... Yea I think a lot of folks are feeling it.
 
Gee, do you suppose we ought to start drilling our own freakin' oil??
Click to expand...


No - We should grow it! The US has the land, the farmers and the ag technology to be a leader in bio fuels. If we shift our production away from crop and grain exports and toward bio fuel development we can move to some real independence from foreign oil or tapping our reserves.

The trick with this approach will be to maintain habitat and programs like CRP so they aren't lost in a greedy rush to cash in on every acre of land.
 
Last edited:
I'd definitely be up for buying a homegrown product. I haven't even seen the E-85 pumps around this area though. I filled up the NISSAN TITAN last night. 78 bucks goes 318-330 miles. It gets lousy gas milage but pulls like a ox.
 
Ethanol is not the answer - not even close. Look at the btu content of both and you will find that ethanol has 2/3 the btu content of gas. Many studies examining the mileage of ethanol vs gas have all proven the same thing - ethanol yields 1/2 - 2/3 the mileage of gas. When you consider the vast subsidies of ethanol, the amount of energy required to make ethanol (here in the midwest, they want to use coal to run the ethanol plants - tell me how that makes sense from a ecological point of view - burn coal to make a "clean" fuel), the cost to the environment, the rising cost of corn and other crops (farmers now growing corn verses soybeans so the price of soybeans also goes up) and ethanol does not make long term economic sense. Sure makes great political soundbites however and this is all the politicians really care about.

The energy of ethanol compared to gasoline

A. 76,000 = btu of energy in a gallon of ethanol
B. 116,000 = btu of energy in a gallon of gasoline
C. 1.53 = gallons of ethanol with the energy of 1 gallon of gasoline

When you look at the energy demands of the country in btu, ethanol is not even close to the answer.

Mark W
 
IMO, bio-fuels have the potential to be a greater ecological disaster, especially for waterfowl, that any given oil spill ever has been.
The land (ie: converted wetlands, prairie, CRP lands and food-croplands) and fertilizer needed to produce bio-fuels is going to lead to decreases in human food production, increases in wetland/CRP lan conversion, decreases in wildlife, esp. waterfowl, and increased non-point source water pollution. We are just trading one source of pollution for another type of environmental degredation.
 
short falls is "like beating a kid because he's not "big enough" when he hasn't stopped growing yet".....

I'm not a fan of "ethanol" in its "current permutation", (for the reasons listed), but it does have "potential" if it continues to "evolve"....

Both Parties love it, Farmers love it, the Oil Companies love it, (since they own the refineries), everybody loves it but the guy that paying the same price at the pump for an inferior product, so you can bet its not going to go away.....

As someone said already...."get used to it"....and just hope that "good sense", buwhahahahahaha, will prevail when it comes to what the stuff is made out of.....

Steve
 
Gee, do you suppose we ought to start drilling our own freakin' oil??
Click to expand...


No - We should grow it! The US has the land, the farmers and the ag technology to be a leader in bio fuels. If we shift our production away from crop and gain exports and toward bio fuel development we can move to some real independence from foreign oil or tapping our reserves.

The trick with this approach will be to maintain habitat and programs like CRP so they aren't lost in a greedy rush to cash in on every acre of land.
Click to expand...

Mark makes great points about ethanol. Corn based ethanol is basically a way for politicians to get re-elected. The farmers love it and it looks like they are "trying" to everyone else. Unfortunately "trying" is not the same as "doing". At best without worrying about how much our food would cost we can maybe get to 20% of our fuel with corn. It's horribly inefficient, about 1.3 units of power out for every 1 in.
If we want to grow a worthwhile amount we need switchgrass but since there is no grass lobby like there is a corn lobby I doubt it will happen soon. Even if we didn't make any more ethanol from switchgrass then we do corn now it would be a huge gain. It is possible to get 8 units out for every 1 in with the grass. Too bad we can't grow sugar cane in the north, I think I heard that was up to 13 for every 1. Brazil is running on 50% ethanol because of that.

Oh and there is no way CRP can pay enough right now to keep land enrolled. Land is going back into production as fast as it can come out with $4 corn, $11 beans and $9 wheat. That is 2 to 3 times more then they were two years ago. It isn't all because of ethanol but some of it is. There are plans to have enough plants in SD in 5 years to use up an amount equal to all the corn that was grown here last year. They say just plant more land in corn. They really don't care as long as they get the funding to build more, greed has long ago taken over this industry.

Tim
 
One thought:

One, looking only at BTU output ignores the systemic costs of energy creation to energy output. From what I read, the ratio of energy that goes into creating biofuels is less energy intensive overall as compared to creating petrofuels. You have to consider all the costs, not just the comparison of output energy.
 
we are forced to glean what we can about this from published reports......depends on what you read first as to what you believe...like drilling in the ANWR....one side says "one thing" and the other side says "another", and both are getting their data from the same source.....it's all about how you interpret the data and what you want to believe......

And the oil people are the winners either way from a consumer standpoint....meaning US.....regardless of any of the other data the "fact" is that there are fewer BTU's in "ethanol"....fewer BTU's means lower mpg, lower mpg means "more gas" sold to the consumer for the same miles traveled...more gas sold to the consumer means more profit to the oil companies.....which means more money to the lobbyist, which means HIGHER PRICES.....

Or, in other words, don't believe a frigging thing you read on either side cause both sides slant the data to support their agenda.....

Steve
 
Charlie,

I guess I would like to see where you got that since everything I have read on ethanol shows that corn to gas is more expensive and uses more energy to product an inferior product in the end.

On switchgrass, we don't have the enzyme technology in place to have large scale plants readily available....

Sugar cane is what makes Brazil go, however, they can grow more because of their climate, however, check out what is happening, in attempts to cash in, the are using marginal land, jungles being converted to ag land (pretty much what Carl is afraid of....)

Then look at India, they are using HEMP as their crop to create biodisel. Only problem is in the US they think everyone wants to just smoke ditchweed...But it has greater value on the engery scales than switch or cane and definitely corn.

Way to go Andrew, get us all riled up....
 
I think they need to power the ethanol plants with wind and solar power. It makes no sense to use fossil fuels to make non fossil fuel. I just know that whatever happens will create a Pandora's box down the road when it is found out that oil was the cleanest, healthiest product known to man. I think I just read somewhere that plastics and other non fuel items accounted for more oil use than power. Next time you go to the store, ask for paper bags.
 
Steve,

Great point.

Hi Eric,

Yes, it is more specifically about switchgrass.

I read it in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

Abstract: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0704767105v1
Full text: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/0704767105v1

Charlie
 
more expensive than the gas, per gallon, we are whining about AND we're pissing away oil to make the bottles to throw into the landfills......yep we're repsonsible stewards of the environment....

Steve
 
That's why I buy my beer in returnable bottles. I don't drink bottled water...especially after seeing the employees at a water bottling plant.
 
I also heard in an interview with a "green architect" that the best thing you can do for your personal energy efficiency is NOT to use windmills and solar cells (although that is what most people want because it is glamorous) it is to downsize your house, or insulate better, use better windows, site your home properly, etc. It is "just more difficult to wear on you r sleeve"...

Interesting...

PS. FYI - you are influential - I sold my biodiesel jetta after Steve's explanation of how biodiesel is not a good use of renewable resources and it's potential impact on ducks. I had never considered it like that. I also work from home one day a week, which directly cuts fuel consumption by 20%. Easy peasy. Then again, I go out and drive a v8. Go figure... I'm probably not helping much in the sum total.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top