Here comes Big Corn
By Vladimir Comments (131) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
A few highlights from a Wall Street Journal article, Jan 17, 2007, p. 8, on Pres. Bush's push to reduce gasoline consumption 20% over 10 years, in part by subsidizing ethanol production.
...[F]ederal and state subsidies for ethanol ran to about $6 billion last year, equivalent to roughly half its wholesale market price. Ethanol gets a 51-cent a gallon domestic subsidy, and there's another 54-cent a gallon tariff applied at the border against imported ethanol. [...]
...[T]he percentage of the U.S. corn crop devoted to ethanol has risen to 20% from 3% in just five years, or about 8.6 million acres of farmland. Reaching the President's target of 35 billion gallons of renewable and alternative fuels by 2017 would, at present corn yields, require the entire U.S. corn harvest.
The article notes the fact that corn prices have risen 80% in just the past few months. In Mexico, the price of corn tortillas, the staple food for the poorest segment of society, is up 30%.
The article goes on to detail the potential environmental impact of conversion domestic grasslands to corn agriculture. The benefit of ethanol over hydrocarbons in terms of carbon dioxide is addressed, too; it's about 5% less, no great shakes.
I especially like the conclusion (emphasis all mine):
So here comes Big Corn. Make that Very, Very Big Corn. Sooner or later, our experience with this huge public gamble may make us yearn for the efficiency, capacity, lower cost and -- yes -- superior environmental record of "Big Oil."
pros and cons list. I understand that until there is a some new technological breakthrough the only agricultural methods for making ethanol involve corn or sugar. Brazil uses cane sugar instead of corn. From an energy efficiency standpoint, it would be better for the US to use beet sugar instead of corn. Of course that decision would knock off the 1 and only pro reason (Iowa votes first).
You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
Of course, they are also simply a product of protectionism. They are inferior to sugar cane in just about every single way, but we use them (along with corn sweeteners) because of the tariffs on foreign cane sugar. Cane sugar is a much better feedstock for ethanol than either corn or beets.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
The HinzSight Report
Race 4 2008
http://www.distill.com/World-Fuel-Ethanol-A&O-2004.html
You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
The HinzSight Report
Race 4 2008
I say, remove all tariffs on Brazilian ethanol and any related energy imports and let the marketplace bring us cheaper energy and decreased dependence on foreign petroleum.
The last, best hope for profits,
the porkmans best friend,
Crucifying America on a Cross of Corn!
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
It costs more energy to produce than it yields.
It uses vast amounts of water.
It pollutes more than gasoline.
It ties up food production.
...it's not "environmentally friendly". Fertilizer and nutrient runoff make for a giant "dead zone" in the Gulf of Mexico every summer.
You don't understand the reality of gasoline if you say that burning gasoline is better than using corn. Corn is regrowable and gasoline is not. We will at some point in time use up oil because it is not being redeposited as fast as we are burning it. Furthermore, when we use corn the carbon that is released from the burning of corn will be reabsorbed by next years crop. However, when we burn oil it simply adds more carbon dioxides to the air that will stay in the atmosphere until it can be redeposited as oil. And does anyone know how long that would takd?
it costs next to nothing to plant and grow, it is more dense than corn, yields more ethenol, and all those millions of acres in the "lnad bank" could produce switchgrass without ANY loss of corn for feed. Maybe we could actually get our money back from paying farmers NOT to grow crops by converting the non-crops to switchgrass!
can they produce high quality ethanol from switchgrass today? I thought this process was still a work in progress. I could be confusing switchgrass with other biomass alternatives.
You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
Don't get me wrong; I badly want one of these babies myself. But it's way out of my price range.
Get one down to 20 grand, though, and we'll talk. 15 grand and it'll be my next car.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
The trouble is that turning switchgrass, or any cellulosic feedstock, into ethanol, is really expensive. There are several major problems that need to be solved and people who I've talked to who have worked on biofuels are not optimistic about the problems being solved any time soon. Obviously there is a lot of work being done and there is a possibility that that might produce a breakthrough but there are no guarantees.
for making ethanol, and it actually has a higher yield of energy for its mass than corn. This would be mostly smaller branches and twigs left after a timber harvest, anything too small to chip or use for other wood products, and if it catches on, woodcutters will clean up after themselves much more than they do now.
and for the past 30 years of post 3 mile island greenie domination of the dem party that is responsible for this self inflicted wound of foreign energy dependence that pays for terrorism and nukes in Iran. Had the USSR or the terrorists sought to injure us, they couldn't have done a better job.
Our whole infrastructure is for oil. Oil will be the fuel that runs the world when our grandchildren retire.
If corn is a panacea, why hasn't Europe embraced it?
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
The HinzSight Report
Race 4 2008
Now in Europe, Spain and Italy are not looking at corn but they have been looking at beet sugar for ethanol. Science shows that sugar not corn is the better alternative for producing ethanol.
You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
90% of Americas's energy needs are currently satisfied by fossil fuels: oil, natural gas, and coal. No matter how that makes one "feel", that is the reality.
If the ideal technology were identified, and if we committed the national resources, it would be a generation before we could make a significant dent in that 90%. It's like turning an aircraft carrier; the American economy has a ton of momentum and cannot turn on a dime. In the meantime, our energy needs continue to grow, as does our reliance on foreign sources.
As my history of diaries shows, we need to make this a national commitment at least on the scale of the Manhattan Project. Trouble is, the price of gasoline at the pump is at $2.00 headed south, so the issue is off the radar for most folks.
You really think that we can continue to grow our consumption or even maintain our consumption of oil and leave the mess to our grandchildren. Talk about delusional. I have seen weather extremes getting worse and worse in my life time. Hell we live in a world were 15% of our children have breathing problems. What planet do you live on? Are you that selfish.
I agree that corn is not the answer because we could never replace oil with corn. To do that we would have to cover 75% of the planet with corn and that is not possible. No form of biofuel can replace oil.
We need to look for new non-fossil fuel forms of energy if we are to survive, and it is that simple. I know none of us including myself wants to cut back, but we should be cheering for the end of oil and the beginning of new non-polluting energy.
And for those of you who say it can not be done you should get out of the way of those who are doing it. If we are going to dream up solutions they should be good ones. Unlike the Bush Administration's idea to place mirrors and dust in space between the sun and our planet to reduce the intensity of the sun and therefore reduce the temperature of our planet. While it is a ridiculous plan at least they are starting to admit there is a problem with our environment.
I have seen weather extremes getting worse and worse in my life time.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
What was man's life expectancy in the Cold, Chevrolet challenged 19th Century?
The mess this 40+ yr old grandchild was left by his gas guzzling grandparents is called the greatest economy and nation in the history of Earth with a life expectancy exponentially higher that those poor humans born before The Model T.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
You really think that we can continue to grow our consumption or even maintain our consumption of oil and leave the mess to our grandchildren. Talk about delusional.
The market has a way of taking care of that. The fact is we have no idea how much oil there is, and new techniques for extracting it become viable all the time with advancements in technology. For this reason, there's more oil now than there was in the 1950s. If we start to run out, oil will run up in price and we will switch to other alternatives that are too expensive right now without massive government subsidies (like ethanol).
I have seen weather extremes getting worse and worse in my life time. Hell we live in a world were 15% of our children have breathing problems. What planet do you live on?
Not sure if this was a paid advertisement for the ELF or what. If there was a point contained somewhere in here it was well hidden.
I know none of us including myself wants to cut back, but we should be cheering for the end of oil and the beginning of new non-polluting energy.
Biofuels don't come close to "non-polluting." Some of the emissions from burning ethanol are actually worse than those from burning gasoline.
And for those of you who say it can not be done you should get out of the way of those who are doing it. If we are going to dream up solutions they should be good ones.
Nobody is in your way. If you want to do it, do it. Or invest in someone else's business who is doing it. Just don't try to pick my pocket to pay for it and we won't have a problem.
Unlike the Bush Administration's idea to place mirrors and dust in space between the sun and our planet to reduce the intensity of the sun and therefore reduce the temperature of our planet.
I guess we break here for another paid advertisement for the ELF that has nothing to do with anything.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Yeah, I think we all get that corn is green and it grows.
What we are questioning are the economic, engineering and environmental issues raised by the flight to ethanol, which in the short term at least, means a BIG sop to the corporate interests that comprise Big Corn.
Corn is a crop that requires a lot of energy to grow & process into ethanol. While there is some debate about whether it even has a positive energy balance overall, at best it results in a 30% gain over the energy inputs, whereas the gain for gasoline is around 10 times (i.e., 130% vs 1000%). Natural gas producers love ethanol because so much of their product is consumed in fertilizers and in drying corn waste.
Ask any farmer what the most costly crop is, in terms of depletion of the soil. Corn requires plenty of fertilizer for optimum yields. My link upthread details just one of the environmental costs of fertilizer runoff at current levels; just imagine if we were to double or triple corn production.
...is that the government is subsidizing ADM's and Cargill's entry into the motor fuel business despite the underlying economics and market forces.
As the article points out, few private investors would enter the market, absent tariffs & federal tax credits.
About a year ago the state of Minnesota conducted hearings about price fixing in the ethanol market. The price of ethanol had wildly outpaced the price of corn, but it was determined that there was no price fixing because ethanol had simply followed the price of gasoline up.
I guess people feel better about ADM making a buck than Valero, ConocoPhillips or ExxonMobil.
From Wikipedia's entry on ADM: "ADM's receipt of federal agribusiness subsidies have come under criticism. According to the Cato Institute, a Libertarian think tank, 'ADM has cost the American economy billions of dollars since 1980 and has indirectly cost Americans tens of billions of dollars in higher prices and higher taxes over that same period. At least 43 percent of ADM's annual profits are from products heavily subsidized or protected by the American government. Moreover, every $1 of profits earned by ADM's corn sweetener operation costs consumers $10, and every $1 of profits earned by its ethanol operation costs taxpayers $30.'"
If you eliminate the artificial price-supports on cane sugar, KO will ditch the high-fructose corn syrup.
Might be easier to do that now, given that some of the primary beneficiaries of the existing supports are Republican-leaning Cubans.
Bring down the price of raw sugar, get high-fructose corn syrup out of soft drinks, and we cure childhood obesity while reducing the meddlesome ways of an overpowered government.
Harry Reid is to ethics reform what HIV was to free love!
It isn't just Iowa. It's the entire interior of the country. The red states. So you have Republicans representing rural red state districts where the ethanol gravy train makes all the stops, and on the other side you have Democrats who haven't seen a welfare program they don't like. Where are the votes against? They aren't there. Agribusiness welfare is the one thing everybody can agree on.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
...laugh all the way to the bank with corn ethanol -- they burn so d****d much gas drying the waste!
Just give it time, I'm sure the left will make the connection.
Vladimir is right. We don't yet have an efficient way to convert this year's sunshine or nuclear energy into transportation. That's the most general way to state the technical goal. We do need to figure out how to do this, and there are many different possible approaches. These range from figuring out a way to make ethanol that actually makes economic sense, all the way to displacing transportation itself as a core human activity.
What doesn't make any sense is displacing petroleum usage with an alternative that is vastly inferior in real economic terms. Doing this now will solve none of the problems it's intended to solve. We'll wreck our global competitiveness by making economic production vastly cheaper for every other nation on earth (they'll delightedly lap up all the cheap petroleum we'll be foregoing), which will eliminate our ability to develop energy alternatives that actually make sense. And the terrorism-exporting OPEC nations won't lose even a bit of their current income.
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
The HinzSight Report
Race 4 2008
is exactly the way that we should go. Iowa caucuses in January should not be the reason to choose to convert corn into ethanol.
GC have you had a chance to look at some of the charts on that link I sent you? If you did, it is abundantly obvious corn or any other grain variety is a terrible choice for making ethanol.
You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
The HinzSight Report
Race 4 2008
We would have to cover more than 75% of the planet with corn or what ever you want to use to replace oil, so yes corn is a false flag and that we can agree on.
When you look at energy sources you see that fossil fuels, Bio-fuels, Solar Panels, and Wind energy all come from the energy of the sun at one time or another. And since there is a finite area available to capture solar energy for all but fossil fuels which is a sort of Solar Energy Bank which is also finite we can not have continued growth indefinitely. There will come a time sooner or later where the use of those types of energy will have serious adverse economic consequences unless we change the system so that the goal is not to have growth. And I don’t think that is realistic.
However, there is other forms of energy that doesn’t come from the sun. Those are tidal and geothermal. Of the two I feel geothermal has the most promise based on the abundant energy that we find inside our earth. It can be tapped with deep well drilling and based on my calculations it would be difficult to exhaust this type of energy. Combine it with tidal wave energy capture and we would not run out of energy thus avoiding the inevitable economic collapse that would happen if we continue using fossil fuels. If we want a good economy for ourselves and our children we need a non-exhaustible source of energy and it is that simple.
Please let me know if you think what I am saying makes sense to you.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Continue to explore for fossil fuels
Promote alternative liquid fuel sources (Cellulosic Ethanol, Sugar based ethanol, Biodiesel of various kinds)
For electric switch to nuclear as fast as possible work on thorium power amplifying reactors. Continue to work on solar power. Wind and Tidal will always be jokes. Maintenance costs alone will render the irrelevant.
Finally there is hydrogen fusion which at some point in the future may not be 50 years away.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
All I am trying to do is anticipate and prevent a problem. So if you think I am speaking English as a second language maybe it is the foresight that you don't understand. Get over the grammatical, spelling, and syntax mistake and try to get the message. Oil is a dead end energy source.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Exxon.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
Do you need a study to tell you that there is a fixed amount of oil on our planet. I don't care what that fixed amount is only that one day it will run out. Now if you are Exxon you don't want to believe it could end, but what part of finite don't you understand. Oil is a dead end energy source because it is not unlimited.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Geothermal energy is a renewable energy source. It is renewed by the rotation of the earth so as long as the world turns the energy will be there. Unlike oil where we can suck it all out of the earth and it can not be replaced or renew at the rate that we are consuming it. Oil will run out geothermal will not.
I guess you have to understand energy and where it comes from to make good decision and I am starting to see what the problem is with regard to our decision making process.
Is primarily from the radioactive decay of thorium.
Second ambient geothermal is not useful for power generation. What you need are hotspots, and those do get exhausted.
Third we are not living on IO having the insides of our celestial orb pulped by vengeful Jupiter. The primary source of geothermal power is radioactive decay (potassium and thorium)
Yes you are living on top of a nuclear reactor.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Second ambient geothermal is not useful for power generation. What you need are hotspots, and those do get exhausted.
We have developed deep well drilling in the oil industry that can tap this energy deep inside the earth most anywhere on the planet and not just the hotspots as you suggest. Once you get to the energy the rest is easy. So do you get that I am not talking about AMBIENT geothermal. We can take technology developed by the oil industry to access the energy and of that there is no doubt. Do you know how deep we are drilling for oil these days?
# When we compute the total amount of geothermal energy generated by 232Th, 238U, and 40K, we find that the total, global, energy production is 3.8x1013 Watts, or 38,000,000,000,000 Watts, or 38 trillion Watts!
# For comparison purposes, in the United States, our energy consumption averages about 3.0x1011 (300 billion or 0.3 trillion) Watts.
# Most of the energy by radioactive decay in the Earth escapes as heat and eventually radiates into outer space.
So given this information it only makes sense to develop the technology to harness this huge abundant energy source which is nuclear. However, it is the safe abundant nuclear energy that exist on the planet. Unlike oil I don't think our energy needs would exceed this energy source.
Tidal energy is due to the rotation of the earth and the forces of gravity from the moon acting on the water on our planet. I did say that this energy could also play a part in our energy solution. I don't think we should put all our eggs in the tidal energy basket just in case the changing sea levels do occur. So that is the part of my plan that renews its self as the world turns.
Joliphant
Thank you for pointing out my mistakes as far as the world turns statement as it relates to geothermal, it is only through the proper understanding of energy and its sources that we will avoid an energy crunch. I see that you are very well informed and I am sorry I suggested you were not. But do you really think that oil is our best energy solution and if so why?
But know this we can get at that nuclear energy today with the technology that exist today.
Oil is here now, Use it to solve the immediate problems.
Longer term problems get solved by longer term methods.
Nuclear (Fission/fusion) can be in place to solve the problem of providing electrical power.
Coal, and renewable hydrocarbons (Ethanol, methane, biodiesel) can be used to provide liquid transportation fuels.
Solar can be included for peak power needs.
Wind well it would be nice if when you turned on the lightswitch it also turned on the wind.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Oil is here now, Use it to solve the immediate problems.
Longer term problems get solved by longer term methods.
Nuclear (Fission/fusion) can be in place to solve the problem of providing electrical power.
Coal, and renewable hydrocarbons (Ethanol, methane, biodiesel) can be used to provide liquid transportation fuels.
Solar can be included for peak power needs.
Wind well it would be nice if when you turned on the lightswitch it also turned on the wind.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
C.f. entropy, the second law of thermodynamics. Earth isn't a perpetual motion machine. I'd like to hear your explanation for how the energy available from the Earth and Moon (geothermic/tidal energy) outstrips the energy available from the Sun (solar energy).
The second law of thermodynamics is not broken by the the Earht's perpetual motion. And if the Earth is not in perpetual motion then when will it stop rotating and circling the sun? I think complete destruction is when that will happen and until then it will continue the revolutions that generate tidal energy for as long as the world turns. Do you see the difference between this type of energy and oil? We can burn all the oil on the planet while we can't stop the world from turning.
Where to start?
-The rotation of Earth is entropic, although the amount of energy currently being lost (due to tidal acceleration, impacts with other solar bodies, and manmade events such as rocket launches as well) is so minute compared to the complete amount of energy in the system that the entropy is barely noticeable in our frame of reference.
-Our use of energy somehow culled from the rotation of Earth is subject to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Whatever energy we remove from the rotation of Earth will reduce the kinetic energy of the rotation. In a noticeable manner? I'm pretty sure the answer is yes, although I'm no physicist. So basically, what I'm saying is yes, we can stop the world from turning.
-But back to my central idea here: whatever energy exists in the rotation of Earth (and the gravitational effect between Earth and the Moon as well) is utterly dwarfed by the energy available from the Sun.
-Side note: The rotation and revolution of Earth are two separate forces. Earth would not fall into the Sun if its rotation suddenly stopped.
at the same time.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
One day the sun will burn out. What is your point by that statement? Do you not see any future beyond oil? Or maybe you think the end times will take care of everything. It is hard to talk to someone who believes there is no future.
welcome alchemy and any other great breakthrough. But show me the breakthrough? Once we have the breakthrough, then we can talk. Meanwhile, your crowd has tied our hands for 30 years on new oil fields on US territory that has left us vulnerable to the commies and now the islamies. Both would have paid the lib-dem-greenies to weaken us this day, but our own shot us in the foot.
That's what I mean. Drill for our own oil.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
that is why we instituted "Daylight savings time."
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
I feel geothermal has the most promise based on the abundant energy that we find inside our earth. It can be tapped with deep well drilling and based on my calculations it would be difficult to exhaust this type of energy. Combine it with tidal wave energy capture and we would not run out of energy thus avoiding the inevitable economic collapse that would happen if we continue using fossil fuels.
I think I saw that movie. The one with the total exonomic collapse. Capitalists raping the land...good imagery.
I am not worried about the environment because the environment will take care of its self, but we are in charge of our economy and it is our economy that will suffer at one point in time or another due to the lack of energy to fuel it. Let's face it, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that there is a finite amount or a fixed amount of sun energy available to us and once we exhaust it our economy can no longer run. If not during our life time for sure withing the life time of our children. All I am saying is that we need to develop the technology that will save us from a certain economic collapse.
but we are in charge of our economy and it is our economy that will suffer at one point in time or another due to the lack of energy to fuel it
Maybe you have our economy confused with that of the USSR. The economy isn't controlled by the government, and it takes care of itself pretty well so long as the government tries to keep its interference to a minimum.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
From a Feb 12, 2007 Wall Street Journal article on alternative energy:
Geothermal energy -- tapping heat deep in the Earth to generate power -- may have more potential, at less impact to society, than any of the other alternative resources. A new study on geothermal energy, produced by an interdisciplinary team at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, found that geothermal energy could produce 10% of the nation's electricity by 2050 at prices that would be competitive with fossil fuels. [emphasis added]
Cool pie chart from the same article depicting 2006 energy consumption:
Oil 34.3%; Nat Gas 20.9%; Coal 25.1%; Nukes 6.5%.
Renewables and renewable waste: 13.5%. One component of that was "Other", 0.5%.
"Other" is comprised of Geothermal 0.414%; Wind 0.064%; Solar 0.039%, and Tides 0.0004%.
I think I remember from reading the Guinness Book's entry on the world's largest tidal energy project in France. It measurably slowed the Earth's rotation. Now that's something I wouldn't mess with.
So if we get busy now, geothermal energy might be significant 50 years out. I'll be wearing Lisa Nowak signature underdrawers by then. Tidal power generation will never have a significant impact in terms of replacing fossil fuels.
Bottom line: if we want to do something meaningful, exploit domestic petroleum, research renewables & look to nuclear for new power plants.
Geothermal isn't as everlasting and foolproof as you make it out to be. Geothermal facilities need to be very carefully controlled and monitored, and it is very easy to ruin the geothermal resources they tap. There's a large geothermal facility somewhere in Northern CA and maybe half the units there are no longer operational for this very reason. They are also capital intensive and don't work everywhere. Geothermal is one of those practical alternative energy sources, but that just goes to show how unpractical alternative energy sources are.
Tidal is probably the least practical source. There's a reason we get a lot more power from wind and even solar arrays than from tidal systems.
Anyway, I'm content to let the market sort all this out.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
I see your bottom line does not include unlimited oil. So you don't need a study to tell you that oil is finite.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, found that geothermal energy could produce 10% of the nation's electricity by 2050 at prices that would be competitive with fossil fuels.
Did the study say what limits geothermal energy to 10%? Is it the source of geothermal energy that is limited?
Have you found a trusted study on how much oil is available to us? Is there an estimate as to how much oil exist on our planet?
That is the type of information we need to make good decision for the future, however, I am unable to find information to do with quantifying our oil reserves. It seems to be a big secret. We the people don't know where we stand with regard to estimates of available oil.
Best estimates - which are pretty vague, and could easily be 50% out in either direction - are that we have 23,000 years' supply of oil. No-one believe for a moment that we will still be using oil in 1,000 years time. Probably most of the living people 1,000 from now will have been born on another planet.
So, don't worry about oil running out. It may get more expensive to extract, though trends are in the opposite direction and the price is likely to continue downwards for some time. But if the price of extraction does rise this - not government actions - will encourage new technologies.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
If we had 23,000 years of oil left, then why the fuss? (the real number is closer to 23,000 days - I suspect a bad calculation.)
The highest estimate I've heard lately is from CERA. I referred to it in a diary the other day, but here's their estimate of worldwide resources:
Note that that's not "Proved Reserves", a much more restrictive estimate. That's an estimate of everything that might ultimately be produced, ever, even if it hasn't been found yet and even if the technology doesn't exist to extract it. And CERA is regarded as a "cornucopian" by peak oilers.
Also note that of the 4.8 trillion barrels, 1.1 trillion has already been produced and burned (most of that by Cadillac Escalades, no doubt!) We are producing 85 million barrels a day worldwide right now. If my ciphering is correct, that's more like 120 years.
We are, after all, talking about resources that no-one has even bothered looking for. Oil companies spend billions seeking reserves that they anticipate being able to sell. That means they look on timescales of several decades, not centuries. Beyond that it is pure guesswork.
My source, by the way, is Lomborg.
As for your question 'what is all the fuss about?' I have no idea. There is not the slightest danger that we will run out of oil, EVER. As Sheikh Yamani put it, "the stone age didn't end because we ran out of stones and the oil age will not end because we run out of oil". Oil will have been superseded as a technology before it starts to run out.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
From the same article:
Currently, geothermal energy costs about 6 cents to 10 cents a kilowatt hour, without subsidies. The main expense is actually drilling the holes and building power plants on top of them. And expertise is needed to properly manage a site to make sure the right amount of liquid is cycled through the geothermal source to extract the heat.The amount of electricity produced depends on many things, including the size of the geothermal field, water pressure and temperature and how quickly the field can heat and release water.
[snip]
Today, there's about 8,000 megawatts of installed geothermal capacity globally, with 3,000 megawatts in the U.S., the top producer. Mostly, it has been developed where heat is easily accessed and is accompanied by water and porous rock. [which means, you just can't do it everywhere. - ed.] ...The MIT study found that far more geothermal electricity could be generated if companies -- especially oil companies -- leveraged their knowledge of drilling techniques, geology and hydrology to tackle the problem. An investment of $800 million to $1 billion in research and development would be required, equivalent to the expense of a single coal-fired plant.
The initial units would make electricity for 10 cents or so a kilowatt hour but later plants would see costs fall to 5 cents a kilowatt hour, probably within a decade, as processes became more refined. That would make geothermal operations competitive with modern gas-fired plants. But backers say that for geothermal energy to thrive, supportive policies are needed, including loan guarantees, depletion allowances, tax credits and accelerated depreciation -- things oil, gas and minerals-extraction companies get.
Ah, there's the rub; an oil company might make a buck at it. Wouldn't that be a terrible thing.
You know, these guys running the oil companies are not stupid people. They are fairly risk-averse and some are short-term oriented, but they realize they are in the energy business more than they are in the lubricant business. As geothermal technology develops, they will want to be there. Uncle Sam has the ability to change the desirability of an investment alternative just by tweaking the tax code. Maybe you should write your congressman....
As the article points out, there is considerable overlap between oil & gas technologies & geothermal development. Also, the geology has to lend itself to commercial exploitation of the geothermal resource; a lot of those places tend to be pretty, so you have an environmental hurdle.
BTW, the State of Texas just recently leased a tract to a Nevada-based geothermal operator... (h/t www.ocsbbs.com).
Or the plastics business
Or well you get the idea ;-)
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
So I go back to my original statement, corn is a false flag and we should fund things that have a chance of solving our problem We should not use the environment concerns of people to fund dead end projects it is simply a waste of money.
We often don't think about what government is doing and accept that they must know what they are doing. They are simply reacting to pressure from a largely uninformed public much like qlangley who thinks we have 23000 year supply of oil or environmentalist who believe we have cause irreparable harm. We will run out of oil and if we don't want to suffer the consequences of that we better get to work on the alternatives.
And the quicker we get to the alternatives the longer our oil reserves will last and who can argue with that logic.
Vlad said
You know, these guys running the oil companies are not stupid people. They are fairly risk-averse and some are short-term oriented, but they realize they are in the energy business more than they are in the lubricant business.
_______________________________________________________________
Vlad you are right those guys are not stupid but I think many of us are stupid. The oil companies goal is to make money. And what better way to make money but to keep going without developing alternatives so that the shortage rises the price of their main commodity.
Our interest and the oil companies objectives are absolutely opposite. They want to create conditions that allows them to take more and more money out of our pockets and put it into theirs.
It is frustrating to see how many people don't understand that the oil companies do a good job for themselves and rightfully so. It is their duty to the share holders to make money and there is nothing wrong with that, but at some point in time it get ridiculous. The industry definitely has foresight but the question is do we?
First, would you be able to directly reply to the post to which you're responding, instead of adding a new comment to the bottom of the thread?
Second: You state that (a) oil companies are self-interested, (b) oil companies have foresight, and (c) oil production will collapse sometime in the foreseeable future. Doesn't that lead us to believe that (d) oil companies have a plan for averting or surviving the collapse of oil production? I mean, all the cash they're making is going to be worthless if they cause the complete collapse of the economy. Unless you think their plan for surviving oil production collapse is to stock up on guns . . .
No I don't think that their plan is to collapse the economy just milk it for all it is worth. Do you not know what the duty of the board of directors of any company is; It is to make as much money as possible for the share holders and that is the way our capitalistic system works and thank God for that. But don't you see how that could conflict with the consumer's interest when it comes to such an important thing such as energy.
The only reason a regular person should not want to see investments into alternative energy sources is if the own an oil company or its stock. I do own stock in oil by the way, but I can see that more money will come out of my pocket then will go into my pocket if we have a shortage. My main business depends on energy and if the cost of energy goes up I may be out of business or my profits will dry-up and I don't want to just survive I want to make money now and in the future.
But ResposiblePower (sic),
It would be the height of stupidity for oil companies to stick with oil for the long term and block alternative energy, knowing that oil is such a limited resource. Do you see that this is so? Yet you state, "And what better way to make money but to keep going without developing alternatives so that the shortage rises the price of their main commodity." Well, a much better way would be for the oil companies to be at the forefront of developing and exploiting these alternatives, since you're claiming it's such a good investment.
Why aren't they? Well, actually, they are:
"[Chevron CEO] O'Reilly called for more alliances between oil companies and universities to pursue energy technologies and fuels. BP recently announced a $500 million grant to create an alternative energy research center with UC Berkeley, the University of Illinois and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Chevron has its own university partnerships, including a $25 million biofuels research program with UC Davis."
You are in a room with a man holding a shotgun.
He says to you, I can shoot you now or I can shoot you sometime in the future.
Which do you pick ?
Most of the alternative energy schemes are the equivalent of shouting "Shoot me now, Shoot me now"
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I am an "Ignore them maybe they will go away" kind of guy. So far its worked well. (Except with telemarketers)
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Alternative energies do not mean we get shot today and waiting to develop alternatives later does not mean we get shot later. Where do you get this method of think that it is either or when it can be both. Limited thinking is most likely the cause for this type of statement. We can and should have a win win situation as far as energy is concerned.
Joliphant I am not going to say that you are a negative thinker but you are most certainly not a positive thinker.
And its a very reasonable analogy, its taken me weeks to come up with it. Its at the heart of so many liberal positions.
Simply put you have accepted the idea of "Suffering is coming lets start now and avoid the rush".
How do alternative energy schemes now mean we get shot today ? Well lets analyze the situation.
We currently get one barrel of oils energy for the cost of one barrel of oil. In order to start using alternative fuels or energy sources (with the exception of nuclear and certain minor solar situations and our friend coal, and hydro) it requires us to spend more than the cost of 1 barrel of oil for 1 barrels worth of energy.
Now instead of spending the difference on research into making that alternative energy cheaper we are spending it on this uneconomic energy. Whats more the chinese and japanese who are no fools will buy the oil we aren't using anyway. They will be quite happy with us for taking the hit so they can buy cheaper oil.
So maybe its not quite like shooting ourselves. Maybe its like giving ourselves a giant papercut and taking a swim in lemon juice.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
...in a myriad of ways.
We can't just stop using oil. Look around you. Oil is a uniquely valuable product that is not going to abruptly "run out". As it becomes harder to find, the economics of alternatives will naturally be enhanced, and we'll go in the most economic direction.
However enthusiastic you may be about geothermal power, it is primarily for electricity generation. The portability of gasoline makes it hard to replace as a transportation fuel.
"Our interest and the oil companies objectives are absolutely opposite. They want to create conditions that allows them to take more and more money out of our pockets and put it into theirs." Guess what? If the supply of oil is finite, the oil companies are going out of business every day. Think they're not smart enough to figure that one out? They will be involved in whatever the energy picture evolves into, I promise you.
As I suggested upthread, you should stop the handwringing and write your congressman and encourage the creation of geothermal energy tax credits. Now that will get some attention from Big Oil.
All I am saying is that what is best for the oil companies is not best for us the consumer. Am I wrong about that?
Look in your mutual funds, 401(k) or other retirement plan. You'll find that what's best for the public oil companies is what's best for YOU. Because you own a piece of them.
He has all his money tied up in magic beans right now. They will be huge once we run out of oil and the sun extinguishes itself, leaving only tidal, geothermal, and magic beans as possible power sources.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
I own a business that depends on energy prices being stable and when an event such as Katrina can affect energy prices the way it did that tells me something. We are not safe from high energy prices when the loss of less then 5% production can spike the prices the way it did. We don't have a 5% cushion in production. And if we do have such enough to absorb a 5% loss in production then the oil companies scammed me out of a lot of money. To artificially rise the price is the same thing to when it comes to my bottom line.
Let the oil companies build more refineries. And explore in other places. Once again you are complaining about a self inflicted wound, brought to us by those so foresighted that hey could outthink the markets.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
When it is nearly impossible to build a refinery, drill for oil, drill for gas, or build any kind of power plant that isn't gas-fired, should it be a surprise that this will eventually cause problems with supply and causes prices to spike? You can thank your leftist environmentalist friends for that.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
I'll try to do the same.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
You can go to the NY Merc and buy all the fuel you'll need for a whole year or more in advance. But you can't be running an enterprise that is sensitive to energy prices and not already be hedging away the risk. What am I missing?
I believe he doesn't want to take responsibility
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
You have enjoyed the benefits of cheap hydrocarbons since 1981. Real prices have hardly grown at all while other things in the economy like health care are up by a factor of 4. Even in the post-Katrina spike, oil and gas were less expensive on an inflation-adjusted basis than they were right before President Reagan decontrolled their prices in 1981.
Maybe the problem has been that they weren't expensive enough...
The basis of capitalism is that the interaction between a producer and a consumer is one of cooperation rather than competition. To claim otherwise is Marxism.
Both oil companies and oil consumers depend on a stable economy. As I stated above, your claims logically imply that oil companies are irrationally and intentionally moving the economy toward destabilization and collapse.
Right now the oil companies have a monopoly on the energy industry. All I am saying is a little diversification is good for all of us, unless we own an oil company.
Oil only provides something like one third of our total energy, so clearly they don't "have a monopoly on the energy industry." Never mind there are a whole lot of oil companies and they are all in competition with each other.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
When I say oil I am including all types of fossil fuels. When I say alternative I mean non-fossil fuels.
When you say you don't like fossil fuels. If someone left you an inheritance would you disdain it, because its fossil money ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
You don't get it what I am say, and that could be my fault. But you can't find something if you are not looking for it.
I don't buy the we must blind ourselves to improve our other senses argument.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
When you say oil you don't mean oil and when you say monopoly you don't mean monopoly and when you say fossil you don't mean fossil (biofuels and nuclear are not fossil). Gotcha. I knew I should have dug through that box of Captain Crunch for the secret decoder ring last night.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Stinkin' oil tycoons! How can it be a monopoly if there are competing companies? Next thing you'll tell us is that McDonald's, Hardee's, and the like have a monopoly on the fast-food industry. Never mind that there are other places to eat, and there is more than one business in the loop.
And to think, my teachers were wrong when they told me a monopoly consisted of only one company.
If you want to keep this meme going, you might want to start calling the oil companies cartels instead of monopolies.
Fides non in bonus intentions , tamen in bonus factum
For more common sense conservatism, visit the Show Me Conservatism blog.
Except maybe OPEC. All the American & European private companies are like a flyspeck compared to the Arabs & the Russians.
You can say the same thing about any eeeeviiil corporation. I guess we can only trust the government to operate in our best interests, right?
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Not at all no corporation is evil it is the monopoly they have that is evil and counter productive. Has your financial adviser ever told you about diversifying your investments.
There's a lot of gas companies competing for your trade.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I think it wise to diversify our source of energy. Why is that not understandable or desirable to you? I don't care if the existing oil companies do it as long as it gets done. It will give us security by getting off our addiction to foreign oil and give us a more stable economy.
Go out and buy a flex-fuel car and fill it up with E85. Or buy a hybrid. Or heat your house with wood. You can do that today. Of course, you will lose your shirt buying E85, even after all the government subsidies, but that's a small price to pay to "fight the power."
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Sell your car and buy a bicycle.
2.5 years now - over 16k saved in car payments and insurance - zero emissions - and I weigh 25 pounds less.
If more environmentalists would take personal responsibility for their own lives before complaining about the actions of others.... well, they'd be better received overall.
Where do you get that I am an environmentalist? I everyone who wants to diversify our energy sources an environmentalist to you?
Do I know you ? we are sounding too much alike.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/vladimir/2007/jan/27/here_comes_big_corn#c...
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Business used to be looked on as the bringer of progress and prosperity. Now when people try to sell us things we want to buy they are malicious.
All those years we were so wrong. I guess when I used to look at the Morgan Library and say theres a great man, he refinanced the federal government twice. He was really just an evil b******d. Go to the Gugenheim museum and remember there was a SOB who raped the earth of copper so you could make phone calls. Drop down to the Woolworth building and see an evil mastermind that decided to force goods on people for nickels and dimes. And lets not stop by G.E.. The brainchild of that demented mastermind Thomas Edison. Who in a fit of madness decided to shove lighting, the first Ipods, and primitive streaming video down our throats.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I will say it again good business is not evil and we don't have to go back to the stone age to have a diverse energy supply.
Does no-one understand monopoly vs diversification. Have never been told it is not wise to keep all your eggs in one basket.
Do all of you own oil companies? Why is diversification so scary to you?
As to diversification, no one is holding a gun to your head. Buy a natural gas powered car or an electric. You can even get a vehicle that runs on powdered coal. (just remember to lay tracks)
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Given all the money that goes to defense to protect our oil interest abroad it is clear why you would support the status quo.
When I say oil I mean all fossil fuels not just gasoline.
So now comes the
That's not gonna fly very long here at RS.
I shouldn't assume Joli is male.
And I had italics n stuff planned for the post above, but I messed it up.
I think if you want to really know what is going on you must understand what motivates people, corporations and governments. I can see that is not how it works here. thinking is not allowed here and that sort of strategy is not used. Right.
You assume without oil we would have no need of defense. The chinese provide an argument against that position.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Just because we would not have to fight over energy does not mean we will not find something new to fight over.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
As Vladamir pointed out:
Cool pie chart from the same article depicting 2006 energy consumption:
Oil 34.3%; Nat Gas 20.9%; Coal 25.1%; Nukes 6.5%.
Renewables and renewable waste: 13.5%. One component of that was "Other", 0.5%."Other" is comprised of Geothermal 0.414%; Wind 0.064%; Solar 0.039%, and Tides 0.0004%.
There are also thousands of serious players just in the oil market and they are all competing against each other. Oil (exploration, production, refining, retailing, whatever you are talking about) is no more a monopoly than any other industry.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
When in our economic system does it say the companies have an obligations to due what is for their consumer and we are all consumers weather we like it or not.
If companies had that kind of obligation we would not have products that wear out. So what makes you think the oil companies have our best interest in mind?
Yes the oil companies will be involved in whatever energy picture that evolves but they will do it when it suit their interest not ours. Unless your interest are the same as the oil companies which is to make as much money as is humanly possible for the oil companies.
Simply recognizing what motivates people and corporations can give insights into why they do or do not take action.
I don't care what the alternative energies are as long as they can do the job. My enthusiasm is in developing alternatives or in other words diversification.
It's been fun stirring up the pot. So until later. You folks are fun to debate with and I hope you had fun too.
Against protectionism:
1. It raises taxes (minutely).
2. It raises food prices for all consumers in western countries. (I estimate 10-20%).
3. # 2 above hits the poor especially hard.
4. It damages the environment.
5. It is the single biggest stumbling block to greater free trade worldwide.
6. It is the single largest cause of preventable death - from starvation - in poor countries.
7. It helps ensure that poor countries remain poor and unstable.
8. It creates a huge demand for permanent 'emergency' aid, thus raising taxes again.
9. Because aid goes principally to governments, it props up dictatorships and encourages corruption and genocide across the world.
The pros of protectionism.
1. Iowa votes first.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
