I heard on NPR this morning that there is legislation in the works that would require that ethanol be available in 25% of the gas stations in the US in the next several decades. I was shocked to hear this, because it seemed painfully slow.

Iowa is the nation's leading ethanol producer, and 10% ethanol is common place here, and is the lowest cost gasoline option at most stations. E85 (85% ethanol) is becoming more readily available, is usually about 20 cents a gallon cheaper and can only be used in Flex Fuel vehicles. E85 burns cleaner and therefore is supposed to be better for the environment. Now I hear about straw based E85, which is being produced in Canada, and doesn't require fossil fuels to power the plant like corn based ethanol does.
Hydrogen powered cars are becoming more of a reality it seems and hybrids are more popular than a couple of years ago.

My disappointment is that it is expected to take DECADES for E10 to be in only 25% of US gas stations.

I realize that developing things takes time, but I don't think that the planet can really wait DECADES for cleaner fuel sources. If it is simply an issue of money, the oil companies worrying about losing too much money, why don't they pour some of their resources into alternative, cleaner fuel sources? Get in on the ground floor and they can still be plenty rich when the focus shifts off of fossil fuels. Is it just that old habits die hard?

If this thinking of keeping the stauts quo, fossil fuel based energy for familiarity and profits sake, makes sense to someone, could you please explain it to me? I just don't get it. <img src="/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

I'm no expert, but here's my two cents and/or $2.93/gal:

E85 is cheaper than normal gasoline because ethanol is subsidized! What's more, at this point ethanol seems to be a destroyer of energy rather than an energy source. Not much different than the “water powered car”.

I don't think oil companies are simply being sentimental about oil when they don't jump on the "alternative fuel" bandwagon. They’ll apply their capital to whatever will make them money.

If ethanol was such a great solution, you wouldn't need legislation to make it happen. The oil companies would be fighting each other to be the first in line.

- Tom Scarince

It's called money. If there's seemingly no good reason for something just follow the money trail. Brazil uses sugar cane which, IIRC, is something like 7 times more efficient at producing ethanol than corn. So, why aren't we growing those crops? Switchgrass is another solution, etc. But the resistance is mainly at the corporate and government levels which has the people benefiting from the current status quo. The only thing that will spur faster development is higher demand and forced compliance for auto manufacturers. I've read reports of them actually burying cars. They come out with hybrids to "comply" with regulations regarding overall fuel efficiency, and then they don't market them or push their sales. This results in an appearant "lack of demand". So they pull the vehicles off the market saying that there is no demand.

What I find strange about the whole thing is exactly what you say... why aren't these massive energy companies buying up solar/wind/water/biofuel energy generation companies. They are basically burning themselves out of the market. I suppose their pockets are so deep they can afford to do it when it makes economic sense (let others take the plunge and get into the market when you can make a killing - this was discussed on the Mag Light LED market thread).

Going forward, we should all buy vehicles that are hybrid. If demand skyrockets for high mileage cars and trucks using E85, BioDiesel, Hydrolic compression, Batteries, hydrogen, HHO gas, and other hybrids and demand falls for non-hybrids, guess what will happen?

We should stick to our guns and just waitlist for such vehicles, lower our energy consumption, be more efficient with what we do use, and economics will kick in much faster than a "couple of decades". The real issue at hand is getting the addicted American people off of our crazy energy binge. One other note, ethanol is subsidized to the tune of 50 cents a gallon since it's not taxes the same as gas. That, to me is a good thing and it should go even farther. But I've read some reports that producing ethanol from corn is actually pretty inefficient compared to other crops. My wife's dad might just be a sugar farmer one of these days. <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

There are several problems with E85 type fuels.

A. Current U.S. mass production of ethanol is based on corn.
1. Ethanol-power equivelents from corn is a negative energy process (takes more energy to make than you get).
2. There isn't enough irrigated crop land or chemical plants available in the U.S. to produce enough corn to switch everyone over to E85.
a. #2 *might* be overcome if switching ethanol production over to other sugar/startch sources can be accomplished. Breakdown of plant waste-stock cellulose to sugar would help tremendously, but that technology isn't ready yet. Design/construction/fighting enviromentalists over new chemical plants also takes time, usually ten years (oil refineries currently take 30+ years to get approval).

B. 5% or greater ethanol in gas is an electrolytic fluid (translation: is conducts electricity). When two dissimilar metals are in contact through a conductive solution galvanic corrosion occurs (translation: E85 fuel causes causes engine components to rot away). Flexible Fuel Vehicles have engine and fuel line components made of special corrosion resistant alloys to prevent this. Most cars on the road today would end up needing major repairs after a year of E85 fuel. Oil companies don't want to have to buy everyone new cars.

C. Oil company "profits"
1. The news loves to report how Big Oil has made record profits this last year. What they don't tell you is this "profit" is the number BEFORE their costs are taken from it. Their actual "in the pocket" profit is under 8 cents per gallon of gasoline (meanwhile, the government takes forty-four cents). They have a return on investment of 7.3% which is dead-average with all companies in America. They are pulling in lots of money because everyone is using boatloads of their product, but it costs them a fortune to keep the oil flowing. Their profit margin is equal to Radio Shack's and lower than Starbucks.

So, my solution? Coal!

We have TONS of coal. During WWII the Germans converted coal into gasoiline via the very expensive process. The U.S. had started working on developing cheaper ways of making coal into gas back in the 70's, but that research was put on the shelf when oil prices plummeted. Remember back in the late 90's/early 00's when gas was under a dollar? Tens of thousands of people in the oil industry lost their jobs. Well, coal-to-gas is back on the front Bunsen burner again and will remain there while gas prices are high. However, if the prices drop before a breakthrough occurs then money for research will dry up.

There is not instant replacement for oil that cost LESS than oil. Work is being done, but the technological/economic hurdles are HUGE.

-Blast

Even if it's a slight net negative for energy, it can be a massive net positive for environmental reasons. That plus lessening the demand for foreign oil is in it's favor, plus it can benefit farmers. Ethenol is one step in the right direction. Combine it with BioDiesel and our carbon and pollution footprints improve. Couple renewable generated electricity (and hydrogen) from hydro/wind/solar and maybe someday fusion... and we'll only be using oil for chemicals... and even then we could do many chems with biological stocks instead.

Higher gas prices mean that it will happen faster. Ever note how the oil industry "just barely" get to your pain threshold and sometimes a little over it with gas prices? They don't want their addicted PHRASECENSOREDPOSTERSHOULDKNOWBETTER. switching, but they want to extract every penny they can.

Oh, and a Model T got 25 miles to the gallon vs. an Explorer which gets 18 MPG. If the 70's regulations hadn't been relaxed, car companies would have been forced to incrementally increase fuel efficiency. 40-50MPG cars would be the norm. I have 2 non-hybrids, but when it comes time to get a new vehicle, I'm definitely going that way. I also plan on installing solar and geothermal in my next house. There are successful $200,000 homes with zero energy consumption available now (they are on the grid, but in effect they produce as much as they consume). I think the tide might be turning as more consumers become aware and the costs continue to drop.

Blast, it's interesting that you mention this. I was just reading an interesting article on the topic: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa004&articleID=000DFF5E-9E57-1446-9A6283414B7F0000

There is some debate about the relative efficiency with some saying it's negative and others positive - I'm pretty sure the producers say it's not net negative. One thing that is for sure is that it's not going to produce enough to cover everyone (at least not with corn). And not everywhere can grow sugar.

New processes will continue to improve cellulose-to-ethanol, but like any distilling process it stinks and nobody wants it around them. While I agree that some research implies that it takes more energy to make ethanol, it also means a better environment, more money for farmers, and less money leaving the country to prop up lovely regimes in sandy places. One reason it might not be favored by oil companies is that they have such momentum with their multi-trillion dollar infrastructure and no real incentive to change. I know I wouldn't mind making 7% on a fairly guaranteed basis... and those folks who lost there jobs when oil was cheap weren't the hi-level ones, you can bet money on that.

BTW, where did you get that info on oil profits? There's a huge difference between "income" and "profit" at least from what I remember at school. <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> You either post a profit or a loss, and that statement includes cost of producing the profit. Are you saying that the media is trying to get people to believe that income=profit where it concerns the oil companies? I'm *sure* that our media wouldn't sensationalize a story just to drive an agenda or ad revenue! <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Oil Profits Article

These were for 2004. 2005 numbers were a bit worse for oil companies, but they (2005 numbers) were from the "Journal of Petroleum Engineers" so I'm assuming people would not regard that as an unbiased source.

I'm aware of the net energy argument about corn. It depnds on how deep you want to go (fertilizer takes energy!/war takes energy! type calculations):p

A lot of the problem is chicken or the egg type stuff. Why would oil companies invest in new fuel research if auto manufacturers don't make cars that can use it? Why would consumers buy flex-fuel cars if there's no place to buy the fuel? Why would farmers grow the crops if there's no one to buy them and produce alcohol? It boils down to simple economics and that is controlled by our INDIVIDUAL choices. Laws can be passed, research can be done, but at the end of the day which product will be made is determined by you and me.

As for job losses during the low years, they really were across the board. I knew chemists with 25 years experience and 6-figure incomes who were tossed out along side the minimum-wage broom-pushers. Whole levels of management were dropped including vice-presidents. Then when the mergers started to keep the companies viable presidents ghot the axe. Sure, it was a nice golden axe that sang and made cookies, but it was still an axe.

On the topic of "why don't oil companies invest in alternate energy sources (wind/solar/blue kryptonite)". Again, it's simple economics. The oil companies have only a certian amount of money available for such research. They can either a) look for ways to produce oil more cheaply or b) look at new energy sources. The companies already have legions of researchers trained in oil chemistry, formation geology, petroleum engineering, etc... Why dump them and their tremendous amount of knowledge/experience?! It'd be like Kodak suddenly trying to come up with a new soft drink. Also, think about it this: oil companies are not dumb. They've crunched the numbers and the answer they get is that solar/wind/tidal/etc power ISN'T the answer. Those things may play a part, but not a big enough part to be a threat or a profitable investment other than as a PR stunt.

The Environment:
I grew up in a small Minnesota farming community. My 20 year high school reunion was this summer. The town has grown from 2500 when I left to over 14,000 now. All the crop land has been converted into housing. <img src="/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" /> What is more likely to be converted farmland to grow more crops, houses or the forests that surround them? Plowing under forests does not sound like it'd be better for the environment. <img src="/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />

Unfortunately, I won't be able to continue this thread for a while. I'm going to be out in the field for the next week trying to stop a bugger of a corrosion problem. Wish me luck. <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

-Blast, who has a great deal of respect for Massacre.

I never said Oil companies are stupid. <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Ah, I wish that I had a golden axe that sang and made cookies (and trailed behind it a lovely golden parachute!). If you calculate war into the equation, we're paying a hell of a lot more for our oil (and have been for decades) than we are willing to admit. Talk about a subsidy! Think of what efficiencies alternate energy sources could do with a trillion dollars in funding! Of course, you would have to do an X-Prize style dangle the carrot thing or it would become as corrupt as the current "few billion missing here, a few billion overreported here, a few billion overrun here" crop of contractors.

I'm not a dyed in the wool crazy leftist (or a rightist for that matter). I do think that there are fuels to be used here at home without the political issues that oil brings. Coal, however is extremely dirty no matter what way you slice it.

One thing is for sure, it's down to US making the decision to buy which drives the rest of the dynamics. If there's enough demand, they'll figure out the supply line.

I'm not sure that hydro and wind really need much in the way of research, but rather investment. Solar still has plenty of research wiggle room. The others will likely benefit from incremental change at this point.

The respect is right back at you Blast. And have a good time in the field.

Diesel is the way to go right now. With diesel you get 30-40% better mileage, more low end torque than a gas engine or hybrid, you have the ability to run various fuels and mixes, it produces less green house gasses than a comparable gas vehicle, is much more reliable than hybrid technology and doesn't require expensive battery replacement or electric motors, the list just goes on and on. America should learn to love modern diesels, if just 20% of people here switched to diesel we would save millions on fuel every day.

Diesel is wonderful fuel. I'm really eyeballing the new Jeep Liberty. That thing can run on just about anything!

-Blast, and I'm off!!!

I hate to say it, (and I'm sure a hard rain is gonna fall on this thread for my saying so), but I think that any development of alternative sources of fuel is going to run afoul of our (the U.S.) policy of propping up the Saudi government at all costs. Besides Israel, Jordan, and Egypt (the latter two lukewarm at best), they are our best allies in the Middle East. If the Saudi Royal Family falls, then the Islamofascists will take over. And the only thing preventing that is oil money.

Diesel is very much the way for us to go, for the reasons you list, plus a few more. Not the least of which is that the crops that people keep talking about during into ethanol, which only has 70-80% the potential energy of gasoline depending on water contamination (it's a hydrosorbic material, it sucks water out of the air, that's why all the flexfuel vehicles have wonderalloy or synthetic lined tanks and fuel lines), could instead be turned into biodiesel, which has almost the same amount of energy as diesel. I forget the exact number, but it's something like 97%+ comperable.

Unlike ethanol, which is an energy negative process, biodeisel is almost energy neutral. What you need is:

vegitable oil (from pressing, not cooking the stock)
ethanol (you do need a LITTLE)
lye (it's a catalyst)

All three of which you can get out of corn. (Lye comes from burning the stalks.) If we are going to put the acerage under the plow, we should at least get the best bang for our buck.

And unlike gasoline alternatives, nothing has to be done to an existing vehicle. No need to open the carb nozzles or reprogram the fuel injector, no need for fancy fuel lines. Every deisel on the road today could be filled with 100% bio and roll away happily. And if we get the additives out of deisel that make it stink (so people won't use it instead of #2 oil in their heaters, which works just fine), deisel runs cleaner, bio even cleaner.

And my favorite- you've got a fuel leak, BIG DEAL! Biodeisel is biodegradable.

Of course, if you were willing to sacrifice a little in performance, and do some higgery jiggery under the hood with changes to glow plugs and the like, you could run off of straight vegitable oil. An unmodified deisel will supposedly run off super pure vegitable oil, but it gets funky below freezing. Once upon a time, the olive oil merchant was rich becuase his product was used for light, cosmetics, food, et al. Corn and soy oil could do the same in the future, particulalry if someone would slap the anti-genemod luddites until they shut up, and we could get a corn specificially designed for oil production rather than starch production.

The great irony of supporting and blaming the House of Saud is that the US only gest about 7% of our petrochems from them. We are somewhere (depending on who's numbers you see) 40-48% self sufficent, and we get a LOT from Canada.

By compairison, we also get about 7% of our supply from Mexico, which is the same amount we used to get out of Venezula until a couple years ago. We get more out of Nigeria than we do out of Saudi.

Oh, and in case no one has checked, the Saudi's aren't all that cuddly. If you are an animist (like me) or Jewish, it used to be you couldn't even get off the plane without being arrested, even before you hit customs. That might have changed, but I doubt it. They look the other way for our troops, but not very well. Hell, they still have the guys with the sticks that wack you in public if you break even the smallest and obscure Koranic tenant, as they see it. Even if the official word is they don't, I've spoke with people who've returned from deployments there in the past year, and say those "religion police" are still on the beat.

What they Saudi's have going for them is that they are pro-Western theofacists, at least at the leadership level. It's the whole shi'a-sunni thing with the added variable of a lot of money and thier national defense is pretty much taken care of. They have a "military", and again, based on what I've been told by people who've been there in the past year and war gamed against them, a US National Gaurd brigade with a carrier group and airborne battalion or MEU to grab an airport could roll them up. That's why the Saudi royal family stays pro-Western- if we pull out, they either run away to Switzerland and Monaco, or thier heads are on pikes outside the ruins of the big palace is Riyhad. Instead, we GIVE them heavy weapons, and hire contractors to maintain that gear becuase the Saudi's only want to do the fun parts of having a military, like the hitting range and racing tanks.

Give me the Kuwaiti's any day. They might be a little greedy, but they are much better friends than the Saudis. Why do you think we buy more oil from them?

Part of why Brazil uses sugar cane is because they have the right climate for it. Most of the US's sugar is from domestic sugar beets.

The other big reason is, they had all these acres of cane when we clamped on the big mungo tax on sugar imports to protect our domestic growers. When that happened, thier economy took a solid kick in the jimmies, which made gas an out of reach item economically, and with all the sugar going to rot in the fields, they solved the problem themselves.

Wasn't that a MythBusters episode? I didn't watch it, but they briefly mentioned it on another episode. I think they took a Mercedes and poured in straight used cooking oil. I don't think that they really noticed any difference in how the car drove, so it works.

You'd have to filter it. I forget the size of the strainer we used to make a five gallon batch of biodeisel in college chemistry, but I remember that it had to a fairly good strain lest you try to such a bit of french fry into the combustion chamber. That could be.... bad. That said, we used a a very fine mesh metal strainer with a couple layers of tightly woven cloth, felt like muslin but I'm not positive.

And I missed some of that segment. I know that part of why the ethanol goes into biodeisel is so that it sucks up some water, you are using the lye as an emulsifier. The two also lower your gel and flash points. So unless you are Pheonix or the like, you'd probably not want to run pure vegitable oil.

They used left over fry grease. It was filtered (I think quite a bit from the sound of it on the show). The car got the same mileage as with PetroDiesel. Sounded rather impressive all things considered (unknown maintence requirements/firing issues, etc)

Here's an article I read a while back that holds a lot of promise for speedy and mobile production of your own diesel. I would tend to agree that ethanol is not the end all of our problems with fuel, but I think it's still needed for the diesel process as you mentioned. It will have it's place and with the flexfuel vehicles, you can switch between gas and E85. With Diesel, you can switch between Diesel and BioDiesel (and maybe Veggie oil!). Diesel isn't as easy to find as gas and BioDiesel is even harder (so is E85 for that matter). If we could manufacture our own from home grown oil stocks, farmers could sell you biodiesel! Talk about bring it back home for the working man. <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

The other thing I'm intersted in is the new Algae feedstock for biodiesel which can be produced while it filters power plant emissions. Very cool indeed.

I've read about the gas algea, very, very spiffy. There was some work done about 15 years ago with making an algae or fungus that could could be air scattered that would eat petrochem based plastics and rubbers. I'm not sure if DoD ever got anywhere with it, but that could be adapted to be used to recycle plastic garbage into fuel by the a process similiar to that of the smoke stack guys.

And it doesn't have to be ethanol. It could be methanol, which is what the pulp based process which have been mentioned would be producing. The down side is that methanol, while a better fuel, burns a little dirtier. But certainly not as bas as gasoline.

Mr. Diesel, creator of the diesel engine, DESIGNED it to run on peanut oil.

Here is an interesting thread on biodiesel at the Permaculture Institute of AU forum. These people are actually DOING it! "Running on Veggie Oil":
http://forums.permaculture.org.au/viewtopic.php?t=799

We had the warning of gas problems thirty years ago, and not much changed, except for making bigger, heavier vehicles with lousy gas mileage. Really, how fast do you think our government is going to move this time?

BTW, I read somewhere not long ago that our federal government now consists of over a million people. "Okay, guys! Everyone take one step to the right!" Talk about ponderous...

Sue

I read once that Henry Ford had a car designed to be run and built primarily from hemp. From the paint, to the body to the biomass fuel that run it. Then the whole "Reefer Madness" (which refers to hemp's cousin, marijuana btw) insanity took hold. Some believe that there was a push by a certain well known company now in the news for the possible toxic effects of one of its non-stick coatings to get hemp outlawed in the 1930s because they had developed chemical alternatives for a lot of the things hemp was used for...cornered the market on it as it was. But that might sound like a conspiracy theory to some and I won't go into it. Of course that company is still thriving and hemp production in this country is still illegal and our own government still gets hemp and marijuana confused...

But like I said, probably just conspiracy theory...

Ors, it wasn't just hemp.. he liked soy too (both the oil for fuel and the leftover mush for the early plastics he used). In general, he was pro farmer and wanted to increase their market. The oil companies were finding that their stake in the fuel game in jeapardy should they not completely dominate the situation. They did push the government to continue taxing alcohol (it was taxed heavily) and since Ford primarily pushed ethanol and not biodiesel, that was damaging to the burgeoning "growing automobiles from the ground" ideal Ford had. Oil magnates used smear campaigns telling folks that farmers were getting rich while their taxes were used to get them there. Which would have been quite the opposite... more alcohol production would have meant more taxes for the government.

Anyway along with Chemical and the Oil companies (very much in bed together) and World War II, I think there was a perfect storm for bio-engineering (from the plastic panels to the home-grown fuels). Farmers needed to grow crops for human and animal consumption for the war effort instead of for fuel. Hemp was needed for cordage, and chemical processing was well established with petroleum and although money was being put into experimentation across the board, I think the situation helped solidify the petrochemical industry.

Based on past and current antisocial/monopolistic/corrupt behavior of SOME organizations to spread FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) and their willingness to lobby and do whatever it takes to stay at the top, I don't think you need call it conspiracy theory. It's amazing what goes on under our noses. <img src="/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

Don't get me wrong, not all businesses are bad, and many try to make amends for past behavior when new leadership assumes command. But if we didn't allow passive subisdation of some of them by not holding them accountable for environmental damage (past, present and future) then the landscape would be very, very different indeed.

Okay, I'm trying not to come off as a nut job and I'm certainly not a pot-head. Ors is right on the money when it comes to Industrial Hemp. This article should be mandatory reading by all DEA, LEO, and government employee, including elected officials. Just for the record, I'm not interested in illicit drugs in any way, shape or form. I am, however, interested in our environment, our rural economy, and on intelligent discussion. <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

When do we start the revolution <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />???

Troy

This is one of those "your dollar is your vote" things I think. It starts with the individual choices we make on a daily basis. It begins with each of us. <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Two things I would like to make perfectly clear: 1. I think I'm right when it comes to Industrial Hemp too <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
2. Advocates for legal hemp cultivation are sometimes marijuana users, but not necessarily. I am stating this not as a judgement, but simply as a fact. Hemp and marijuana are cousins, but not exactly the same plant. I liken it sweet corn and seed corn. You could eat both, but one is going to taste a whole lot better than the other. Hemp and marijuana are not interchangable. Potheads and hemp advocates may find common ground, but they are two separate issues.

I have always wondered why--if hemp is really such a miraculous do-it-all solution for today's problems--other countries aren't developing it. After all, even pot is legal in the Netherlands. Surely it would be no problem for them to grow or import all the hemp they need, make petroleum products obsolete, and become the new Saudi Arabia. They would surely be rolling in "hemp dollars". But nobody is doing that even in places where it would be legal. Something just doesn't add up somewhere.

My guess is it has to do with political pressure. Other countries export hemp products. Romania is said to export some of the most environmentally friendly hemp. Chinese hemp is processed with a lot of harsh chemicals, which pretty much negates the whole point. Now Canada is getting into the game too.

It may be like the "Super Size Me" guy said about McD's...what McD's does, the rest of the industry does. Maybe it's that way with the US in this respect..."The US isn't producing hemp and phasing out petrochemicals, so we won't either". That sounds arrogant, I know, but it may be the reality of the situation.

I think too many people in influential positions are thinking too short term. But who would stand to lose in the short term if hemp production became the standard in the US? Cotton, lumbar, petrochemicals/big oil...very powerful economic and political entities. But this is where the short term thinking comes in. I'm guessing if I was in charge of lumber or cotton or oil production, I'd be pretty comfortable with the status quo. I've still got plenty of resources to process, and financially I'm very comfortable. So why would I advocate something that might threaten that level of comfort and security? I WOULDN'T! Because my instinct for self-preservation tells me that my position on Maslow's hierarchy of needs is just where I like it, I've got financial security, material security, my family is well taken care of, and that feels good and safe to me. What if this idea of producing hemp to make clothes and paper and biomass fuel and building materials and food and any of the other 4000+ uses there are for the plant doesn't take off? So what if one acre of hemp can produce four times the amount of fiber that one acre of trees can? It needs little or no pesticides to thrive unlike cotton? Yeah, so what? Do I really want to let go of my nice comfortable piece of the pie to take a chance on something like that? No way! I'm sure I've got enough resources to keep myself and my children comfortable, and who knows, maybe even my grandchildren too. By the time I'm gone, someone else will have to worry about air pollution, water pollution, global warming and all that stuff that a bunch of scientists with nothing better to do sit around and think up. Why would I let go of the bird in the hand for the possibility of two in the bush?

Even considering the impact you have on the world in one lifetime is short term thinking. I prefer what I understand to be an old Native American belief: Preserving resources for the seventh generation. Make sure you don't take more than you need so that your descendents seven generations from now will still have some to use.

You're right norad, something doesn't add up. But I'm voting with my dollar to do what I can to change the equation.

I guess my doubts come from the fact that, to be blunt, it seems like most of the push for hemp is coming from the same crowd who want to legalize pot. I get to wondering why that is. There is just no question in my mind that if it were economically sound to do so, then we'd all be driving hempmobiles. Maybe what it will take is a government decree (shudder) like they did in Brazil with sugercane ethanol. Oh well, I guess we'll find out in about 100 years when the oil runs out.

No "Shot heard 'round the world"? Da**.

Troy

Government decrees can be withdrawn, ignored, ambivalently applied, unenforced, and are political targets. The only way things change is by educating the populace and encouraging change in their consumption. Period. Need proof? Look at fuel economy law/regulations mapped to the price of oil. Now do the same with environmental law and political parties in charge.

I have no pot agenda, and don't really care if those who want to legalize reefer also want to legalize hemp. The only problem I have with them being involved is that they tend to take attention away from the reality of the situation with their other agenda. Read the article; they are two completely different beasts. Both are criminalized. I can buy that there's an argument as to why ONE of them is illegal, but there's NO solid argument why they lump in the other.

Oh, and Ors.. I appreciate sarcasm as argument. <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

The only true vote we have left is also the more powerful. Our wallet vote! Viv La Revolution!

After weeks of oil execs defending themselves on TV against charges of "excessive profits" by saying, "We only make 8 cents for every dollar. We're just average", here's some contrary information for thought. I just heard this same info mentioned on an NPR broadcast yesterday so I guess the word is getting out.

Check out the reports which can be download from this and this webpage. It's certainly more intellectually credible than this simplistic profit margin argument that the American Petroleum Institute has all the oil execs repeating over and over. Think about it--how useful is it to compare profit margins across completely different industries? It's hard enough to justify comparing two similar companies with similar products this way. General Motors vs. Ferrari? Ferrari vs Yahoo? Yahoo vs some fresh start up company? So who's making a "fair" profit margin and who's making "excessive" profits? It's just the wrong statistic and a smokescreen to avoid seriously addressing the question on people's minds--are gasoline prices rising more than increases in crude oil prices justify? Read the reports. Even if you don't think we're getting gouged, you'll learn important information about how the refining business works, at least in California.

With Americans buying 320 million gallons of gasoline a day, even a fraction of a penny difference in profit margin adds up to a tidy extra profit. And most Big Oil companies make most of their money selling crude oil, not gasoline anyway. Mr. Oil Exec, what's your company's profit margin on a barrel of crude when it goes from $35 to $71 in a short time?

And I agree with Blast, it's really our consumption that is causing us a world of hurt, not only at the pump, but at the expense of the environment, in our foreign policy, etc.

Econimics Nobel prize winners will tell you that gouging is the right thing to do (say like during Katrina). It means that the people who need supplies will have suppliers working to get them to them when it's timely. It also helps prevent hoarding and abuse of people who say "I'll just buy all the extras" so that the next dude in line has NOTHING to buy and one person walks away with far too much to use. Gas is really no different. In a sense, we are stuck with gas because it's been so damn cheap compared to anything else. If they price it beyond the Everyman to pay for comfortably, then their demand falls as does price. What I'm hoping for is that they screw up horribly and price themselves out of a market. Hard to do? Sure. Currently changing our policies and views toward alternative fuels? You betcha.

We have a short attention span. As soon as the Oil Cartel embargos were a thing of the past and gas was plentiful, cheap, and always in the pipeline, everyone went back happily humming along in their vehicles and let fuel mileage regulations go lax with nary a whimper.

Hopefully today, the populace is more educated, more capable of making their anger heard, and has more wisdom. I'm not certain of any of those things, but the Internet is a powerful force. If gas were 6 bucks tomorrow, would you go hoard it? Would you start looking for alternative transport? Curtail extracurricular activities? Probably. The only bad thing about this is that the States have almost no public transport facilities outside of major metro areas (and sometimes not even there). And I NEVER EVER like to be made to rely on a government supported and subsidized method of travel. It puts far too much power in the hands of government and we are already in a bad state with that concern.

I say let the oil companies get rich. It breeds the right kind of anger, indignation, and willingness to smack down those who would abuse the average joe and not think of our futures with their crap environmental policies and petrodollar economics.

And in case anyone missed it, they ran this years fuel competition:
http://news.com.com/2300-11389_3-6074867-1.html?part=rss&tag=6074867&subj=news
Most are concept/impracticle designs, but not all. And it's sponsored by Shell. Gotta love it. <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Vehicles have not gotten bigger and heavier, that is a common misconception. The >10mpg 70 Blazer I had could easily crush the biggest SUV's today.
Oil Companies are falling the same fate as most big companies where short term profit is most important to keep the stockholders happy, new product research and development takes a long time therefore the lowest priority. Companies like HP close their R&D and just resell other products, Microsoft's product has just gotten worse since 2000, Honda, Toyota, GM, etc just keep churning out the same old product with slightly different skin. Services like my cable internet are no faster today than 1998 when I first got it. Its going to take some garage tinkerer to come up with something new
Also its going to take a while to get crop production up to be able to support the extra needed to make it as well as slowly working out the gov subsidizing.

I hear ya, massacre and I generally agree with what you're saying. I don't think price controls work either. Free markets are generally the most efficient allocator of capital and investment and such, but that's only in a truly free and fair market.

Here in California, everyone thought electricity deregulation would drive down prices with competition and improve service. Uh-huh. What happened? Companies--Enron included--gamed the system by purposefully taking generating capacity offline during peak loads, pushing prices to outrageous levels and plunging people's homes and businesses all around the state into darkness. Is this what the public signed up for?

Here's my anti-Katrina gasoline example. I can't remember if it was in those reports I cited or in other ones, but there is similar evidence uncovered by the FTC that suggests that oil companies and independent refiners have similarly gamed the gasoline system. It's easier to do here in California, mostly because of our unique gasoline blend, limited pipeline access and tight refining capacity. There is evidence of slowing down refining, or even switching California refineries from California blends to non-California blends just when prices are peaking in California, higher than pretty much anywhere else in the country. In an ideal world, gasoline would go where it gets the highest price, right? Instead they moved to limit supplies even further and drive prices even higher. And yet they claim, "Hey, don't blame us. It's simply supply and demand."

In both cases I give, it's hard to prove and easy to justify the actions because you're working right on the edge. The generators are running at full capacity, the refineries are running at full capacity--of course unexpected events can lead to shortages...and higher prices.

I know that oil companies aren't the only ones to do these kinds of things all the time, but the sheer size of the oil/gasoline market means that billions of dollars are wasted by consumers on these shenanigans every year.

Agreed. I believe in a free market that's fair. We need stringent controls for corruption. I've always thought that any company convicted of corruption of any kind (environmental, market manipulation, damaging monopolistic practices) should have to forfeit profits for 5 years and all Officer/President/Board/Chair level employees be put in Jail for the same mandatory term as well as pay massive fines. All Publicly traded companies should have ZERO capability to contribute financially to politics and not be allowed any PAC/lobbying. Period.

This is a government for the people and by the people.... not for the corporation and by the market. Any proxy/3rd parties acting on behalf of said companies or receiving any benefit from them fall under same set of rules. And if they could pass that, they should limit industry involvement in any federal or local "planning" and if it's allowed at all, it's immediately public (unlike our energy policy "contributors"). Couldn't get anyone to start any businesses you say? Phooey I say right back. Plenty of market to go around and plenty of honest corporations mean that someone somewhere will get it done. If you make it so any government official convicted of corruption serves extensive sentences and forfeits all past earnings and pension, well, that's just icing on the cake. I doubt anything like all that would pass though....

I'm aware of the shenanigans and the utilities lobbied HARD for deregulation... Ma Bell has nearly come back together again and our Internet connectivity fell behind by a lot in the last 5 years. The country who invented it is nowhere near the top in getting it to it's people. It's like half of the people in the united states not having TV, only worse because the Internet is so much more than TV ever could be.

Our problem is that we let too much of this go on. Political campaign funding and lobbying reform is truly the first major step and the rest would probably fall in line quickly. Otherwise, I'm afraid we are headed for a PHRASECENSOREDPOSTERSHOULDKNOWBETTER. regime and a police state. Many argue that we are already in that state and just in denial.

What I continue to find amazing is how the public trust continues to be violated and seemingly nobody gives a damn. Makes me want to run for office. <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

If you run, you've got my vote, but I think you're being too light on the perpetrators... how about any white collar embezzling/theft/fraud/whatever, that exceeds $100,000 being a mandatory death sentance... let's get the terms "public trust" and "general welfare" to mean something good for a change <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />.

Troy

Hehe... well, I don't know that theft is the equivalent of death. I think that forced repayment of all income ever generated plus forfeiting any retirement, etc. and say a dozen or so years behind bars might deter some people though (especially if you change incorporation laws to make Board and C level culpable for fraud and corruption). I am quite certain you aren't alone in your sentiment, however. There are a lot of people who face a bleak financial future due to the Enron's and MCIs of the world.

If you could figure out a way to penalize shareholders of note (institutional and primary owners, mainly) when a company goes fraudulent/monopolistic/corrupt then you might see a change of voting and policy. I know if I was a mutual fund manager, I'd have a real hard time investing in a company that could cost me my portfolio if it turned belly up. <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Ethanol has one major problem (right now), which is it takes more than 1 BTU of energy from fossil fuels (oil) to produde 1 BTU's worth of Ethanol. That's not going to change with a corn-based production process. Sugar cane is a FAR better Ethanol production source.

I've read a lot of interesting view points in this thread, and even learned some things about ethanol production. I guess my thought with the original post was that too many people seem too comfortable with this country's energy consumption the way it is. That's scary to me. The other day on the Today show (IIRC) they had a piece about solar panels becoming standard on some new houses in So. California. Yeah, it costs about $18K more to build them like that, but average electric bills instead of being $200 to $300 a month are more like $50 to $100. That seems like $18K well spent when the lower environmental impact is factored in.

I didn't mean to give the impression that corn based ethanol was the end all be all solution for gas. I didn't really think about all the fossil fuels needed to produce it. But the fact that the government is talking about E85 being available at 25% of the gas pumps in this state within the next 20 years just seems like the legislation is not seeing a problem with energy consumption as it is now. Someone from my hometown is running for Congress and in a TV add says, "I think we need to increase our ethanol production so we can end our dependence on foreign oil". How misguided is that? The sad truth, at least in my state, is that I think most people would nod their heads in agreement with that statement, not realizing that it is only a partial solution to the problem. But I suppose the candidate that says publically, "I think we need to develop hydrogen engines for cars so we can cut out all this petroleum and corn based fuel crap" would not get elected in Iowa. Maybe if we could get the Green Party revitalized...

Again, it comes down to "my dollar is my vote". I buy ethanol, because it's the best option available for the car I drive. When I get a house, I'd like to put in solar panels and maybe even a wind turbine in the back yard. I can see it now, "But honey, it really does look cool!"

I just get nervous that I'll have to tell my grandchildren stories about what trees were like... <img src="/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

Okay, just some side notes... Solar is still a fairly toxic process. Hydrogen is technically a fuel transport, not really a source unless you are using fossil generated fuel. Mainly it's a clean way to burn stored energy produced via other methods like Nuclear/Wind/Solar/Coal/NG/Gas plants.

When you get a house, look into using all the latest tech: http://blogs.zdnet.com/emergingtech/?p=239 With geothermal, instant hot water heaters, solar, and a combination of Low-E glass and good insulation, you might not pay anything for energy. In fact at some point, it's very likely that we will be producing our own energy on an ad hoc basis and only purchasing supplemental energy on the open market for both our home and our cars.

Right now the single biggest impact you can have is to cut your energy consumption. Then buy the highest mileage cars you can. Then get your home upgraded (or built) with the latest technology where you can pay for it over many years of useful life. Some of the latest gear has a really reasonable ROI. All of the above are voting with our dollars.

SOLAR is TOXIC??? Educate me... I wasn't aware of this <img src="/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />.

Troy

While Solar itself has no emissions or toxicity to speak of, processing silicon to get it into the panels and and such has an environmental impact. Yeah, kinda sucks. The latest technology deals with flexible plastic substrates, using lower quality silicon (doesn't have to be processed as well) and even nano-structures; all of which should lower it's overall impact and increase efficiency.

There is a new system which can convert broad spectrum light, including non-visible which gives it an immediate efficiency boost simply because current designs use about 30% of visible IIRC. Plus they are using prisms and other light concentrating methods to make the PV sheets much smaller in size while using the same amount of light. Basically the prism appears full size, but concentrates the light into a PV cell that's a fraction of the size of the original surface area. This cuts down on cost, weight, and environmental impact to produce.

Solar is coming along quite nicely... we just need to see some of these advances in the lab make it into the field. Right now, concentration and increasing usable spectrum are making excellent strides. Bio-immitating and nano are a little way behind, but I have a feeling that increases in technology may soon bring about a revolution in local power generation. The only bad thing is that it might be a bad time to buy because of silicon demand and improvements in design. Those bad boys are usually for 20-30 years, so you want to make the right choices. <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I just read in today's paper that Walmart is considering selling E85 at its 380+ company-owned gas stations. Since there are currently only 600 gas stations that sell E85, getting Walmart onboard would be a dramatic increase in the number of places to buy E85.

What's going on with Walmart lately? All of a sudden recently, they're all about green technologies and sustainability.

So it's basicly the same story as computers, oh, say fifteen years ago...fairly soon (in the grand scheme of things) everybody will be able to afford it... cool <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />
But I'm still curious... what's the big impact due to processing???
Go ahead... say it... yeah, I'm an idiot when it comes to high tech., cutting edge, innovative schtuff <img src="/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />.

Troy

Trying to repair an image that has gone downhill since Sam died. Illegal immigrant hiring practices (okay, it was a third party), poor benefits and forced free overtime for workers, contributing mightily to the Chinese/American trade deficit and bringing about the revolution to transfer it offshore in the first place, etc. Wal-Mart has been credited with destroying many a main street, lowering standards of living, and for deceptive and anti-competetive business tactics like pricing competitors out of a market and then lifting prices up drastically once they are gone.

My local WM has just redone their floorplan and put in new flooring and signage to make it look more stylish and sleek and open. To some degree it's effective, but to me it seems like whitewash on a rotting house of policy. I'm pretty much forced to shop there at least some of the time, but I try to buy stuff from other local smaller merchants when I can. If I do shop there, I try not to buy anything not made in the US. I never make any major purchases there; say over $150 for any single item. If they bring back the "Buy American" campaign from the late 80's, then maybe they have truly changed. Otherwise, they are trying to raise their damaged image out of the gutter with a new facade without really changing the core issues.

And I adamantly refuse to use their "self-service" checkouts - for starters they are annoyingly slow and secondly, they invariably force me to wait while some shift manager comes over and resets the thing for items that can't leave without their say-so or because of equipment failure. This is a pure profit thing for them since they don't have to pay anyone to ring up your goods. I don't see prices lowering because of it either. I'm really an opponent of their upcoming RFID revolution as well. And this is coming from a guy who loves and works with technology, so I've read and thought about it a lot.

The sad thing is that they have an opportunity to do some real good with their stores and their seemingly very motivated workforce. They could lead retail in a clear, environmentally and socially responsible manner and I'm pretty sure that any lost profits up front would be made up for in volume that returns from the disillusioned like myself. I don't understand why companies bow to Wall Street pressure. If any institution in our country is more myopic than the short-sighted almighty dollar seeking damn the consequences Wall Street, you'll have to clue me in. <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

In today's news, Ford Motor Co. reportedly is backing off its hybrid production goals to focus on multi-fuel/flexfuel models instead down the line, like those that run on E85. I'm just reading between the lines here, but if a major American car manufacturer is aiming to build more cars that can use ethanol, I think it's a safe bet that its lobbyists will be pushing Congress and the White House hard to promote the build out of an ethanol infrastructure. If they can tie oil companies into the process somehow, like piggybacking and paying to use their infrastructure and distribution channels, then that's a lot of political clout pointing in the same direction.

The only green Walmart cares about is money. TheTobbaco companys hold copyrights on every slang term for marijuana you can list. It'scalled hedging your investments.

I'd have to agree with Chris on this one. If anything I think the powers that be at Wal Mart have realized how many people are miffed about the company decimating Mom and Pop places in communities, or as the Green Party has said time and time again, "Wal Mart destroys our communities". If anything, I think all the hype about burning the used motor oil and fryer grease from the snack bars to power the stores that have the wind generators out back is another tactic. "Look at us! Wal Mart cares about the environment...look how we are using these green techs to benefit YOUR community."

I'll bet the local buisnesses still sorting out Chapter 11 aren't impressed with those schemes. <img src="/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" />