 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Ford / Ford Mustang / March 2008Green Fuels?
Environmental lawsuits block ethanol expansion So lets get this straight: Ethanol is supposed to be the gasoline replacement that eases our oil imports and pays a dividend for the American farmer, while at the same time yielding environmental benefits from a cleaner, renewable fuel, right? So why are environmental groups around the country suing to halt construction of ethanol-producing facilities? If you havent learned by now that things that sound too good to be true are too good to be true, Id like to talk about how you can make millions selling real estate without a single dollar down... but thats another matter. Now that the bloom is off the corn fuel, er, flower, some hard truths are emerging. By now, you probably know about speculation and wild fluctuations in grain futures, about pork-barrel projects, and about questions of how much energy goes into ethanol production in the first place. What you may not have heard about is the strain that the 140 or so existing ethanol plants place on local infrastructure. When US Envirofuels began the permitting process for Floridas first ethanol plant in Tampa, the city put their plans on hold when it emerged that the facility would require 400,000 gallons of water per day to operate far more than the drought-stricken municipality can safely supply. Tampa shouldnt have been surprised, though. In Missouri, Gulfstream Bioflex Energys plans to build a plant near Fordlands has run into a lawsuit by the local Citizens for Groundwater Protection, over Gulfstreams plans to draw over 1.3 million gallons a day from the depleted Ozark aquifer. Missouri water rights currently allow anyone to use as much as they desire. Similar legal battles are being fought in Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas and Illinois. Green, it turns out, is a matter of perspective. - By David Traver Adolphus NOTE: According to a recent agricultural report.... the US could not possibly produce enough corn to alleviate foreign dependence without replacing all other crops... farmers will produce crops for whoever pays the most.... if it is fuels, then there will be a shortage in foods and therefore food prices will climb. Just wait until biofuels impact on food prices hit the average Joe citizen. It is already occurring and if this whole biofuel debacle isn't stopped it will get much, much worse. All the hype that biofuel is as viable an alternative to oil as other alternative fuel sources like solar, hydro, geothermal etc. is about as grounded in logic, science and economics as is the environmentalists' global warming movement. IMO, if we are going to invest in alternative energy production lets do it smart by harvesting wind, geothermal, tides, ocean currents, solar etc. Not by methods that are more destructive to the environment than drilling for oil. > Environmental lawsuits block ethanol expansion > So let’s get this straight: Ethanol is supposed to be the gasoline [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > crops for whoever pays the most.... if it is fuels, then there will be > a shortage in foods and therefore food prices will climb. >Just wait until biofuels impact on food prices hit the average Joe >citizen. It is already occurring and if this whole biofuel debacle [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] >> crops for whoever pays the most.... if it is fuels, then there will be >> a shortage in foods and therefore food prices will climb. Of course if we could drill sideways and suck the oil out from under the desert... at least until the middle east falls into the sinkhole.... that might not be a bad idea either. One of these days, we're going to run out of oil. When is a question since nobody really knows how much there is down there. Before it gets to that point, there will be war.... MAJOR war.... for control of what little may remain.... unless an alternative is found. Thus nature's normal balance will be returned through the loss of so many billions of people. All the programs the US government provides won't mean diddly. BUT, if a government program was instituted to convert to actually green power, combined with government incentives for homeowners, business owners, etc to convert to green solutions, we might last a bit longer. The future kinda looks like the new movie release... "10,000BC" :0) >> Just wait until biofuels impact on food prices hit the average Joe >> citizen. It is already occurring and if this whole biofuel debacle [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > the desert... at least until the middle east falls into the > sinkhole.... that might not be a bad idea either. I say we just make Saudi Arabia the 51st state and let Exxon/Mobil suck the place bone dry. > One of these days, we're going to run out of oil. When is a question > since nobody really knows how much there is down there. Before it gets > to that point, there will be war.... MAJOR war.... for control of > what little may remain.... unless an alternative is found. Thus > nature's normal balance will be returned through the loss of so many > billions of people. There is more to fossil fuels than just oil and when you add coal, gas and all the various forms of crude oil (tar sands etc.) the currently known supply will last for hundreds of years. Then include the methane hydrate supplies in the ocean floor and that number bumps to well over 1,000 years. There is plenty of fossil fuel to last until we come up with a cheaper more environmentally friendly alternative. I don't think war can remove several billion people from the planet. Plagues, viruses and starvation are Nature's most efficient ways of correcting imbalances. I don't see mankind bucking that trend forever. > All the programs the US government provides won't mean diddly. BUT, if > a government program was instituted to convert to actually green > power, combined with government incentives for homeowners, business > owners, etc to convert to green solutions, we might last a bit longer. > > The future kinda looks like the new movie release... "10,000BC" :0) Economics will drive the move to "green" fuels and energy sources. If the price of oil keeps rising it will happen sooner than later. China and India developing at a ferocious pace will insure it. SNIP >>>> NOTE: According to a recent agricultural report.... >>>> the US could not possibly produce enough corn to alleviate foreign [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >1,000 years. There is plenty of fossil fuel to last until we come up >with a cheaper more environmentally friendly alternative. While I agree there are additional resources, it's what can easily be converted that will go first, and when that form runs low the panic will be widespread. If you can't fly the planes, or power the ships, etc, for international trade, it's a major concern. Recall that the USA provides a wealth of the worlds breadbasket resources, just as Asia does the rice commodity. Starvation can drive people to do a lot of things. I look back to the effects which drove Japan to WW2, no resources of their own.... and Germany (aside from bitterness over the WW1 armistice ) they too lack access to fuels. Now the Russians, reverting to the old USSR ideals, are building pipelines into Europe which the Euros will become hooked on.... >I don't think war can remove several billion people from the planet. >Plagues, viruses and starvation are Nature's most efficient ways of >correcting imbalances. I don't see mankind bucking that trend forever. When the time comes, we won't be talking the wars of the past. As for the numbers, the following famines, diseases, climate change impacts, etc, will remove a good share. >> All the programs the US government provides won't mean diddly. BUT, if >> a government program was instituted to convert to actually green [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >the price of oil keeps rising it will happen sooner than later. China >and India developing at a ferocious pace will insure it. But will it happen in time? I have grave doubts and I'm not exactly a pessimist. But we are living in dangerous times. > SNIP >>>>> NOTE: According to a recent agricultural report.... [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Asia does the rice commodity. Starvation can drive people to do a lot > of things. The oil won't just disappear one day. It will be a gradual process of less resources for more users. Also, at $100/barrel, there is a lot of oil in the ground that is financially feasible to retrieve at that price. We are seeing the beginning of serious transitions to renewable technologies. It will take several years to get to a point where it supplies an appreciable portion of our energy but it will occur. There is plenty of oil to go around while this transition takes place in this country and Europe. > I look back to the effects which drove Japan to WW2, no resources of > their own.... and Germany (aside from bitterness over the WW1 > armistice ) they too lack access to fuels. The advent of nuclear weapons have changed changed the fundamentals of warfare. We haven't had a major war since the atomic age because there are no winners in a conflict where nukes are exchanged. Even with conventional warfare the weapons are so powerful, and precise, that large scale conflict is a net losing proposition for almost every country that would initiate it. China has too much infrastructure to lose in the event of a war as do we. One hundred well placed cruise missiles targeting dams, power plants, distribution networks etc. would wreak havoc on China as the same would on us. > Now the Russians, reverting to the old USSR ideals, are building > pipelines into Europe which the Euros will become hooked on.... Europe has made the most progress in going with renewable energy technologies. They are hooked on oil for now but 50 years in the future will be a new game for them, IMO, as it will be for us too. >> I don't think war can remove several billion people from the planet. >> Plagues, viruses and starvation are Nature's most efficient ways of >> correcting imbalances. I don't see mankind bucking that trend forever. > When the time comes, we won't be talking the wars of the past. As for > the numbers, the following famines, diseases, climate change impacts, > etc, will remove a good share. When one looks at the pattern of population growth in countries with varying degrees of standard of living there is a very clear pattern that emerges. As the standard of living increases population growth slows and even turns negative at some point. This is seen in Europe, Japan and even the USA. We have a net population increase only due to immigration (both legal and illegal). If mankind can keep it together while the standard of living for the rest of the world improves then our species footprint on the planet should start to recede. China is removing their one child policy because they see the effects an improved standard of living is having of population growth. Improvements in their overall standard of living is doing more to limit population growth than any government imposed policy. This phenomenon of reduced population growth tied to standard of living increases might just be what saves our a.ses in the long term. >>> All the programs the US government provides won't mean diddly. BUT, if >>> a government program was instituted to convert to actually green [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > But will it happen in time? I have grave doubts and I'm not exactly a > pessimist. But we are living in dangerous times. I think it will happen in time. There are plenty of fossil fuels to go around for some time. We have a lot of oil we can go after here but the environmentalists have kept us from retrieving it. Add to this the eventual harvesting of methane hydrate and future finds of oil fields and we can extend our grace period for several decades, IMO. Just look at the technology increases we have seen during the last 100 years. Who in 1900 would have conceived the technology we have today? Think what will be around 100 years from now. I expect fusion reactors will be the norm. Have you heard of the mining of helium3 from the moon? I watched a show about it the other day and it was fascinating. One space shuttle load of helium3 (50,000 lbs.) from the moon would supply the energy needs of the entire USA for one year. It is estimated that the moon has one million tons of helium3 in its top soil layer. Also, the Sun is the the ultimate source of helium3 and the reason the Earth has little of it is due to its magnetic field shielding us from the solar winds. Maybe the way of the future is to send out robot ships to circle the Sun to collect helium3 from the solar wind and then return to Earth. Now that would be a truly unlimited source of energy. Helium3 also produces very little radioactive byproducts and makes the fusion process much easier to achieve. Like I said, who can say what technology will be available to us in 100 years.
|
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.