Interesting Weather Record Set Today

[Chief Grey Bear]

http://www.amwater.com/learning-center/water-101/what-is-water-used-for.html

[Chief Grey Bear]

I wish I had kept all my papers from college. I wrote one in about 1981 about how the fuel required to farm the fields about offset the ethanol that could be created from the crop. Of course, I was a big consumer of ethanol in those days, and didn't want the added demand to drive up the price. Dollar pitcher night didn't come around often enough as it was.

Depending on what crop you use and other factors, cost of production may vary greatly. And by reading some of the above post, it is very easily discernible that some have never attempted any type of research on the matter.

[jeb]

Uh well, it is very well documented that Brazil invested early on in ethanol. They are now virtually energy independent. Something that some would like you to believe can happen in the US with oil. But it won't.

Just becuase it is not happening in the US does not mean it is not happening anywhere or "we" are not ready for it.

Here are a couple of articles that explain what we could be doing.

http://www.extension...f/HofFeb09.html

http://www.scientifi...hanol-than-corn

Figured you were talking about Brazil. Good for them and all, but hardly a model that many countries can reproduce. Hard to grow much sugarcane outside the tropic regions. So not really a good example. It's like saying we should all be using more earth thermal heating because it works in Iceland. Yeah, but....

[jeb]

Not much of anything is entirely "market driven". And in this case, I don't think it SHOULD be. We all know the many problems with fossil fuels, from possible climate change to air and water pollution to national security. I would suggest that it's in the national interest to do everything we can to get away from oil and other fossil fuels and become the leader in alternative energy sources. The market won't do that,

If the market won't do it, it's not going to happen. Spending our grandchilderns money trying to force it down our throats serves no purpose at all. Worse than that, really.

It is not a question of the government mandating what kind of energy we use, it's a matter of the government putting in the resources to seek those "dramatic" new technological developments that will make alternative energy sources viable. It's an investment in our future.

The current govt does want to mandate what kind of energy we use. They are on record as saying that, many times.

But as I said before, I agree with investing in future technologies. I strongly disagree with trying to force it with subsidies and monstorous loan supports.

I'll be in the cheering section when we become energy independent and don't have to import any oil from outside of America. Nothing I'd rather see than most of the mideast on the bread lines. But I'm realistic enough to know you can't replace it with rhetoric.

[Al Agnew]

Lots of plants can be used to make ethanol. Switchgrass has been talked about a lot. Easy to grow, grows fast, doesn't take much to harvest. It's even reasonably environmentally friendly, unlike monoculture corn.

Look...somebody above mentioned that it's hard to invest when the country is in so much debt. That's true, and it's just one more big reason why I don't think we're going to do much about alternative energy until it's far too late. But it could be argued that "investment", even if it temporarily puts us farther in debt, could end up being the savior of our economy in the long run. IF, and that's admittedly a big "if", we can get back to being in the forefront of developing one or more alternative, renewable energy sources, it could mean a whole new class of industry in this country that would raise the GDP and lower the unemployment rate, meaning a stronger economy, more revenue to the government, and eventually a lowering of the debt--IF the Congress critters can finally get their act together and NOT spend more when we are taking in more.

On the other hand, continuing with business as usual when it comes to energy means just the opposite. Notice that when the economy takes a downturn, oil prices also drop, because there is less demand? And when the economy takes an uptick, oil prices immediately shoot up because of more demand? It's a built-in "governor" on the economy. As soon as the economy starts to recover, the price of oil goes up, and with it everything that gets transported. And people hunker down and spend less on other stuff because they have to pay more just to get to work. And so the economy tanks again, starting another cycle. Didn't used to be that way when oil was cheap and plentiful and we were way ahead of nearly every other country on earth with our economy. But it's reality these days.

We need to get smart when it comes to the "bridge" energy sources that could take us through the transition period from an oil based economy to alternative energy sources. Ethanol could be a part of it IF we get off the idea that corn is the best source of ethanol and get serious about developing other sources. Natural gas could be a part of it IF we put in as much effort into figuring out how to be pretty sure we can get it without screwing up water supplies. But we can't just go into whatever bridge source because somebody with some influence (like the corn lobby or the NG companies) pays off a bunch of politicians to support it, and a bunch of people see it as a cash cow or a great new source of employment.

But we haven't shown any indication we can be all that smart.

[Al Agnew]

If the market won't do it, it's not going to happen. Spending our grandchilderns money trying to force it down our throats serves no purpose at all. Worse than that, really.

The current govt does want to mandate what kind of energy we use. They are on record as saying that, many times.

But as I said before, I agree with investing in future technologies. I strongly disagree with trying to force it with subsidies and monstorous loan supports.

I'll be in the cheering section when we become energy independent and don't have to import any oil from outside of America. Nothing I'd rather see than most of the mideast on the bread lines. But I'm realistic enough to know you can't replace it with rhetoric.

I agree that you can't mandate what kind of energy we use if the energy mandated is far less efficient and/or far more costly. I disagree that only the market will decide. If you leave it to the market it won't happen, at least in a time frame that will do much good. Like it or not, those subsidies and loan supports might be the only way to make it happen, although I'd like to see more resources put into research and development, not into companies trying to compete with both China and the oil companies producing products that can't compete right now on their own. Don't get me wrong, I don't think the current government approach is right in all respects, but it seems like the other choice right now is to keep on subsidizing the oil companies and do absolutely nothing to help develop alternatives.

[jeb]

Look...somebody above mentioned that it's hard to invest when the country is in so much debt. That's true, and it's just one more big reason why I don't think we're going to do much about alternative energy until it's far too late. But it could be argued that "investment", even if it temporarily puts us farther in debt, could end up being the savior of our economy in the long run. IF, and that's admittedly a big "if", we can get back to being in the forefront of developing one or more alternative, renewable energy sources, it could mean a whole new class of industry in this country that would raise the GDP and lower the unemployment rate, meaning a stronger economy, more revenue to the government, and eventually a lowering of the debt--IF the Congress critters can finally get their act together and NOT spend more when we are taking in more.

You are much more optimistic about it than I am. IMO, any big breakthrough that we may come up with will be built overseas. Just like solar and wind products now.

On the other hand, continuing with business as usual when it comes to energy means just the opposite. Notice that when the economy takes a downturn, oil prices also drop, because there is less demand? And when the economy takes an uptick, oil prices immediately shoot up because of more demand? It's a built-in "governor" on the economy. As soon as the economy starts to recover, the price of oil goes up, and with it everything that gets transported. And people hunker down and spend less on other stuff because they have to pay more just to get to work. And so the economy tanks again, starting another cycle.

Why would you think it will not be the same with any form of energy?

We need to get smart when it comes to the "bridge" energy sources that could take us through the transition period from an oil based economy to alternative energy sources.

I agree. If and when we ever find a viable alternative. Until then, it makes NO sense to invest in any kind of bridge at all.

[jeb]

I agree that you can't mandate what kind of energy we use if the energy mandated is far less efficient and/or far more costly. I disagree that only the market will decide. If you leave it to the market it won't happen, at least in a time frame that will do much good. Like it or not, those subsidies and loan supports might be the only way to make it happen, although I'd like to see more resources put into research and development, not into companies trying to compete with both China and the oil companies producing products that can't compete right now on their own. Don't get me wrong, I don't think the current government approach is right in all respects, but it seems like the other choice right now is to keep on subsidizing the oil companies and do absolutely nothing to help develop alternatives.

Which is the smart thing to do right now. There are no viable alternatives at this point.

And I'd be fine with stripping subsidies away from oil companies, as long as they're also stripped from all alternative sources. Level the playing field, see who survives.

[Chief Grey Bear]

Figured you were talking about Brazil. Good for them and all, but hardly a model that many countries can reproduce. Hard to grow much sugarcane outside the tropic regions. So not really a good example. It's like saying we should all be using more earth thermal heating because it works in Iceland. Yeah, but....

That is how you view it???

Which is the smart thing to do right now. There are no viable alternatives at this point.

Yep, lets just sit on our nuts.

[jeb]

That is how you view it???

Yes, I view it realistically. Unless you have a way to magically grow sugar cane outside of it's zone. Maybe switch grass holds some promise. Personally, I love that stuff. Awesome pheasant cover. But that's going to have major drawbacks, too. If farmers switch a lot of their lands over to that, grains like corn and soy beans are going to be heavily impacted, driving up the prices for us and probably causing even more hardship and starvation in 3rd world countries. It's not like there are vast new lands to plant it on. Most everything in our developed nation that is good for crop production is already being used for that.

Yep, lets just sit on our nuts.

I see you're dealing with this on an emotional level rather than being realistic. So I probably should just let it go. But I did not say that. I said let's continue to invest moderately in the advancement of the technology. But we should not invest in some future direction until a) we're sure it's viable and b ) we're sure it's cost effective.