Hello All,

I stopped by the store (Cub/SuperValue) last night to pick up some cheese for home made pizzas and I though I would grab a few things for the family's storage and I noticed that they have raised the price on our brand of bread flour yet again.

About a year ago the 10 pound bag was a 1.99 for the North Dakota brand that we use and they have raised it about 5-6 times now. It is going for 5.23 for the same bag. :-( I noticed a lot of other things have gone up as well and some of them a 1.00.

I guess we are inching more and more to the haves and the hungry.

Dave

Part of the reason wheat prices (and other food prices) are going up is because farmers are growing corn for ethanol. Corn is getting huge subsidies right now to make ethanol to burn instead of gasoline. After all, home grown biofuels are supposed to be better then imported oil. Of course the corollary is you can either burn food or eat it, but you can't do both. Food gets more expensive and gas doesn't get cheaper, so like you say the people who are just making ends meet suffer.

We have to face the facts and realize that automobile and airplane transportation is too expensive and inefficient. Cars get about half the energy efficiency of power plants in terms how much of the energy present in the fuel gets turned into actual work and not lost as heat exhaust. Airplanes have the added problem of injecting their exhaust directly into the upper atmosphere where it can have the greatest environmental impact. My vote is for a huge increase in commuter trains around the country, along with development of high speed trains along major air and highway routes. Trains are inherently more efficient, safer and environmentally sound then cars and planes. But I doubt we'll ever see it happen with out a very rude wake up call.

I agree that trains are the way to go. I wish they had them going everywhere like in Japan, even though train transportation is supper expensive there and other than work ect, most people stay home.

Dave

Just to clarify, but Corn is not getting huge subsidies. Ethanol is getting the subsidy and Corn and Soybeans are just following the market. It will come back down eventually. Will the price of food? Probably not as much.

Ya your probably right. Even sugar and yest is going through the roof. I wonder how long and how high prices have to get before there are social issues.

Dave

I've said it before, and unfortunately will have to say it again, and again, and...

"Everything goes up except my pay"...

Pretty much....

Dave

The problem with commuter trains is the Bodies/tie problem

Basically it comes down to - you have to have enough riders for it to pay, even with subsidies. Most places that have that many people HAVE Mass transit

The other problem is - Let's say you have train service that will get folks to the office say from 7:00am till 10:00am, and have outbound service from say 4:00pm till around 8:00pm (very common)

Anyone who sometimes gets stuck late will end up NOT taking the train - and does it really pay to run a train say at 9:00pm for the 5-15 people who got stuck late?

"Anyone who sometimes gets stuck late will end up NOT taking the train - and does it really pay to run a train say at 9:00pm for the 5-15 people who got stuck late?"

Don't stay late. A lot of people think they're indispensible, and they're not. Mostly, they're kissing hinies and getting management to think they're a team player.

The people who stay late need to realize that if they were run over by a truck tonight, they would have a replacement at their desk by 8:30 the next morning.

Sue

Don't stay late is nice, except when the boss says "you have to stay late" - which happens often enough. In that case, NOT staying late means you'll NOT have to take the train again

I think that at least in Japan, everyone finances the trains, meaning that it costs 2.00 to go 1 station or 3-4. As a society, we need to decide wither fossil fuels is a viable fuel/transit option for decades to come. Just My opinion.

Dave

Sue,

There seems to be a great deal of anger in your life.

-Blast

I do not think stores made a lot of profit from basics
like flour, beans, rice, sugar. Maybe they are trying to
change all that.

National food chain super markets were selling dried beans
for 79 cents/pound then raised them even higher.
Walmart raised them from 49 to 79.

So I checked out some health food stores;
a local chain store sells them for about 50 cents/pound.
They are also reasonable on seeds and nuts.
They also beat Alfalfa and Wild Oats on these prices.

Without making special trips, check your local stores.

I did not check out Costco or Sams Club; sometimes they
have cheap prices.

Good luck on the grains...

Now on to the train issue....
Subsidy equals PHRASECENSOREDPOSTERSHOULDKNOWBETTER.. Everyone pays for everything whether they use it or not.

People in the U.S. are to tied to their individuality (personal travel options) to buy into the mass transit thing. Besides the distances needing to be covered are to vast.

As more emphasis is put on biofuels, expect this to become more of a regular occurance.

Great concept, but for wide spread, commercial implementation, welcome to the pain of unintended consequences.

The problem is - Let's look at Japan - it's average Population density is 343 people/sq KM - which basically means that except for the most rural parts of Japan, it pays to run commuter trains

Now, I just picked a Midwestern state - Wisconsin - it's population density? 38/sq km

Ohio - 107

The list goes on.

What it comes down to - look around at the US big cities and their suburbs - they DO Have Mass Transit - ot a lot of them do. NYC (Yep - The MTA and it's subsidiaries), Chicago, Yes, LA, Boston, Philly etc - all yes. There are citys that could benefit from the addition of Mass transit (Hello Texas and Florida)

The problem is, even when you get to exurban NYC - say you're getting out a ways on some of the NJ Transit lines - of for that matter, most of them, they don't really pay, and the only reason there is service out that far is that the rail lines are there for freight use

Now, interesting, I take mass transit (disclaimer - for the last 2 months, I have not due to a leg injury, and the inability to walk even the length of a train platform - but since 1992, other than that...). I like Mass transit. A friends father used to help design mass transit systems. It's just that for it to be at ALL reasonable, you have to have N number of people within a certain distance of the right of way, otherwise it does not "pay off" even with a subsidy - and you can look at that as even on a polution level - you generate X amount building the line, Y amount maintaining it, and Z amount running the trains - it can get rural enough that you'll never pay back X+Y+Z

Like I said, I forget the exact population density breakpoint is, but it IS there

Actually all other forms of transportation besides trains get large subsidies.

Airlines like to suggest that the taxes they pay cover it but building, owning, and operating an airport is pretty heavily subsidized. As is the air traffic control system, most of the FAA and both anti-terrorism security and accident investigations.

Highways are also massively underwritten by the taxpayers. Heavy trucks lay on the vast majority of the wear and tear but their fuel taxes only cover a small fraction of the cost of building and maintaining highways. Then there is law enforcement and accident investigation.

Shipping is also heavily subsidized. The Coastguard is not funded by shippers and maintaining navigable channels and aid to navigation are all picked up on the US taxpayers dime. Inland you have all those locks and structures the Corp of Engineers has spent the last 50 years building to keep barges moving. All paid for by taxpayers money.

In fact of the major transportation systems the one that is least subsidized by taxpayers, and yet the one which taxpayers think they subsidise the most, are railroads.

Railroads are also inherently the most efficient of all methods of transport in terms of energy used/ton-mile or man-mile.

I looked into the bus schedule (only mass transit available in my city) a couple years ago. I live within the city limits and have to drive west into downtown then north to my office just outside the outerbelt, or drive east to the outerbelt and take it around to my office. Driving into downtown and up is a 30 minute 20 mile commute, driving around the outerbelt is a 40 minute 25 mile commute in the mornings. To take the bus, I have to drive about 5 miles/5 minutes to a park and ride then wait for the bus. Then take it a 30 minute ride into downtown and get off at the transfer station. Then wait for another bus then ride it the 45 minutes up to my company and hope the first bus wasn't late because there is only one that goes by my work so if I miss it then I'm out of luck for the day. Then I have to get on that bus at exactly 5:00 since there is only one that leaves there and take it back down town, wait for the next and take it home. It at least doubles my commute time and makes the chances of me missing one or the other very high since my job requires me to be flexible on my schedule too.
I wish someone would design better mass transit then it would be workable.

We quit shopping at walmart a few years ago and have noticed that while everyone else complains about the rising prices of foodours stays pretty much the same. Sams club has started raising their prices too sowe buy less and less from there and buy the same food from Kroger because its now cheaper there.
I think part of the problem comes from Walmart selling things at a loss to undercut the competition and then they reaise them up to a profit level and all of a suddent they cost more than another store with less overhead.

"The real problem is that ethanol is crap as fuel."

I don't get it. For one thing, the info at the two sites you posted conflict with each other, and your energy ratio figures don't seem to correspond to anything.

I'm sure corporate America is panting to put every field in America into corn, but using a food product for fuel is stupid. Scientists have discovered that common switchgrass makes fine ethanol. It produces about 15 tons of dry biomass per acre, and five-year yields average 11.5 tons—enough to make 1,150 gallons of ethanol per acre each year. (One acre of corn can be processed into about 330 gallons of combustible ethanol, while one acre of hemp can produce 1,000 gallons.) It's a perennial that can be harvested once or twice a year, and only have to be reseeded every ten years or more. It grows on poor, wornout soil.

But it does have its drawbacks:

The Corn Cartel will scream its collective head off.

The pesticide people will be screaming too, as they aren't needed, and will lose money because of it.

Switchgrass grows on poor soil, helps stop erosion, and doesn't need much in the way of fertilizers, esp chemical fertilizers, so Monsanto and Dow will scream,too. Ah, the decisions, the decisions!

Once ethanol production increases to where it will be a threat to the oil companies, AcresUSA magazine says "At signal intervals, the oil cartels will drop the price of gasoline to recently unheard-of lows while corn nudges parity, this to bankrupt ethanol producers and set up transfer of assets to grain handlers at 5 and 10 cents on the dollar."

The oil companies are also trying to get people to believe that the cost of producing ethanol isn't worth it. AcresUSA says it's a "Matter of bookkeeping": "Let's set aside the scholarly idea that fuel alcohol costs more than oil and is therefore uneconomical. That proposition depends entirely on how books are kept. With a $2 billion a week tab for a war over oil, with ocean spills to clean up, with well over 100,000 sacrificed to the god of war, the true cost of oil is much higher than the price paid at the pump."

So what if Brazil is currently the largest producer of ethanol (from sugar cane)? What would be the difference between buying oil from the Mideast, and buying ethanol from Brazil? Grow it here, make it here, use it here.

From http://www.ethanol-fuel.us/
"Ford, General Motors and DaimlerChrysler all have flex-fuel vehicles in their line-ups that can run on either gasoline or E85. Toyota says that they will introduce E85 flex-fuel vehicles if the demand is high enough. Toyota also states that developing such vehicles isn't that difficult of a task compared to say, developing a hybrid vehicle."

Sue

Well, don't get me wrong, but I think it has to do with the fuel economy vs the yield of fuel per unit used to make it. Corn ethanol is about as bad as it gets and the crane sugar really good...Oh and corn ethanol puts out bad air pollutants. At least that is what I hear.

Dave

I would also point out that fertilizer prices have increased, as they are tied to natural gas prices. You might find this article interesting : tight supply

I think you forgot about a relativley large albatross...

Can you say "AMTRAK"? Tons and tons of Gov't money poured into it every year.

"unintended"----I'm not so sure of that!!!!

That's only part of it. Diesel has gotten real expensive so that makes producing and transporting any grain more expensive. And I'm sure that rising metal costs hasn't made farm machinery any cheaper. Let me tell you, farming isn't cheap. I doubt that the production of ethanol has raised prices nearly as much as the other factors I listed.

I always thought the switchgrass idea might not be too bad. The only thing I wonder about is since it has to be transported in hay bales(at least that's how I assume they want to do it) I'm curious if it would be as cost effective. That's the one nice thing about corn is that you can utilize your shipment system a little better. But, if they got that worked out, I think it would work great. Especially if you can create cellulosic ethanol out of common weeds that end up taking over fields. I mean we had an alfalfa filed that we planted go bad and the weeds just took over and the drought didn't even slow them down. I mean if they could make that work, you'd never have to plant anything. Just use the good ground for food crops and the badground for ethanol production.

"I always thought the switchgrass idea might not be too bad. The only thing I wonder about is since it has to be transported in hay bales(at least that's how I assume they want to do it) I'm curious if it would be as cost effective... I mean if they could make that work, you'd never have to plant anything. Just use the good ground for food crops and the badground for ethanol production."

Organic matter for ethanol production shouldn't have to be transported long distances, as local refineries could be set up, as are already working in some areas. It isn't like we have to ship bales of switchgrass to So. Calif from Michigan. Many/most of the farmers already have baling machines. They already have seed-sowing machines. They already have equipment to cut and harvest it.

Grow it there, refine it there, use it there.

Cost effectiveness needs a good look before you discard an idea.

The oil industry, as rich as it is, is probably subsidized by the taxpayers. Much of the income from it goes to invisible bank accounts in the Caymans (etc) and isn't taxed. The citizens tend to be the ones to really foot the bill for oil spills, the refineries aren't being maintained, etc, etc, etc. The real cost of production in this country tends to be a lot higher than what you think you see.

Ask any dairy farmer how much he's getting for a gallon of milk.

Ask any factory egg farmer how much a dozen eggs REALLY costs.

Sue

Not sure I'd agree that the money is heading off-shore. As most of the oil companies are traded publicly and sooner or later need to bring the $$ into the accounting system.

The U.S. is tough on hte petroleum industry in a few ways. We make it retool and reformulate gas for various areas. You cannot sell the same gas all over.

We do not allow refineries to be built. The last refiniery built in the U.S. was built decades ago. NIMBY has become BANANA (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything).

I'm trying to find more info on biodiesel now to help make my parents farm (and someday) more sustainable for the long term. everything I find on it talks about converting from vegetable oil, so ok I have to make vegetable oil first then convert to diesel, seems like there should be a way to go straight to diesel. Then I can research which crop would grow best there.

You might find some decent information on bio-diesel, if you follow the links on this site: http://www.utterpower.com/Links.htm

+1 on the Utterpower site, lots of information. You might also want to try this site,

http://www.journeytoforever.org/biofuel_library.html

That "Tons and tons of Gov't money" actual wasn't that much compared the amount used to subsidize other forms of transportation. Also, before making believe that the trains are inherently less profitable than airlines, remember that railroads have to buy or lease and maintain their routes out of their accounts and on their very public books.

Airlines are provided radar and air traffic control by the federal government. States and municipalities buy the land for and build the airports. None of these cost show on airline books.

Truckers get it good also. Interstates are financed by tax money. Truckers pay a fuel tax but it is not even a drop in the bucket of actual costs. The highways are provided essentially gratis by taxpayers. But it doesn't show up on the news so everyone makes believe airlines and truckers are 'standing on their own two feet' while railroads are 'deadbeats on welfare'.

If all the transportation modalities had to cover their own costs trains would win easily because in terms of building, maintenance, energy and management costs they are by far the most efficient.

On the other end, if railroads were subsidized by the government, if the government just build and maintained the rails like they do highways and airways, the railroads would be much more profitable than either trucking or airlines.

Bottom line is that railroads only look like "a relatively large albatross" because they compete with transportation modalities that are much more highly subsidized than they are.

If railroads were subsidized at similar levels to trucking, airlines and shipping cargo and passengers would shift to railroads and, over time, the total amount of subsidies could be decrease. The cost of travel and shipping and need for foreign oil would also be reduced.

That "Tons and tons of Gov't money" actual wasn't that much compared the amount used to subsidize other forms of transportation. Also, before making believe that the trains are inherently less profitable than airlines, remember that railroads have to buy or lease and maintain their routes out of their accounts and on their very public books.

Airlines are provided radar and air traffic control by the federal government. States and municipalities buy the land for and build the airports. None of these cost show on airline books.

Truckers get it good also. Interstates are financed by tax money. Truckers pay a fuel tax but it is not even a drop in the bucket of actual costs. The highways are provided essentially gratis by taxpayers. But it doesn't show up on the news so everyone makes believe airlines and truckers are 'standing on their own two feet' while railroads are 'deadbeats on welfare'.

If all the transportation modalities had to cover their own costs trains would win easily because in terms of building, maintenance, energy and management costs they are by far the most efficient.

On the other end, if railroads were subsidized by the government, if the government just build and maintained the rails like they do highways and airways, the railroads would be much more profitable than either trucking or airlines.

Bottom line is that railroads only look like "a relatively large albatross" because they compete with transportation modalities that are much more highly subsidized than they are.

If railroads were subsidized at similar levels to trucking, airlines and shipping cargo and passengers would shift to railroads and, over time, the total amount of subsidies could be decrease. The cost of travel and shipping and need for foreign oil would also be reduced.