Is Ethanol our ticket out of The Middle East?

[StillILearn]

Never mind that last question...here's the part muggle's post refered to in full...which I think makes things a bit clearer...
Sheds a bit of a different light on the bit muggle posted doesn't it?

Moto, can you tell me what Secretary Bodman just said? I apologize for being so dense this morning.

 

[muggle]

It means that Bush's speech is completely misleading:

Bush vowed to fund research into better batteries for hybrid vehicles and more production of the alternative fuel ethanol, setting a lofty goal of replacing "more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025."
He pledged to "move beyond a petroleum-based economy and make our dependence on Middle Eastern oil a thing of the past."

The facts are that with his plan ....and according to White House estimates, that we would save 5 million barrels a day by year 2025 from our current usage of 20.6 million barrels per day. However, we are still estimated to use 20.8 million gallons per day in year 2025 even with implementing the plan put forth by GWB in his speech. That sure does not amount to any reduction of our current import of oil from the mid-east. Oil consumption is estimated to continue increasing throughout the world in the next 20 years. A much more energetic energy plan is needed to solve the world's energy problems. Over the years the U.S. has increased the percentage of oil imported from 35% to 60%, primarily due to increased usage.

Bottom line is that unless a much more aggressive energy plan is implemented we will see much higher prices.

 

[Motokid]

First people complain bitterly about Bush being anti-green, anti-environment, pro-big oil blah blah blah….then when he finally makes a strong commitment to start working towards something that refutes those claims the complainers cry that what he proposes is not enough. WTF…damned if you do and damned if you don’t????

What is anyone supposed to do here? We are in this world together. Do you really think there is a simple and easy solution? The steps Bush outlined make perfect sense and go a long way towards at least starting down some path. If what Bush is planning is wrong, then what’s the right thing to do?

Bush made those statements in front of the largest audience in the world. He can not just go back on what he said the next day and not expect huge fallout. There are elections coming up real fast.

I think the Energy Secretary was answering a horribly worded and confusing question. I can’t read it the same way twice and understand what the question is really looking for. To me, it appears the question is about Bush’s reason for wanting to be less dependant on foreign oil. Are we doing it to spite the Middle East, or are we doing it to help our selves? That’s the way I read the question.

It doesn’t appear to me that Bush has changed his mind or was lying or whatever muggle appears to want to prove here.

As for oil getting more expensive...well duh....China and India are going to increase demand exponentially. Higher demand = higher prices. That's why the public won't let this be just grandstanding....but only time will tell.

All I can say at the moment was at least Bush made the right statements. I give him credit for that. This goofy text does nothing to alter how I felt about what Bush said. It's only been 24 hours. Time will tell.

 

[Motokid]

More from the secretary:

The President's goal, it seems to me -- I haven't asked him specifically this -- but it seems to me is an improvement in our national security that would come from a more readily available supply of domestic motor fuel. And so that's the goal, so that we would therefore be less dependent on the supply of motor fuel from countries that are less able than we would like to see them.

But it's not a matter of world domination, it's not a matter of anything other than trying to improve the security of our country by broadening the availability, the domestic availability of motor fuels and, therefore, lessening the reliance on foreign producers.

Take note of this part: The President's goal, it seems to me -- I haven't asked him specifically this

So if the Secretary has not talked specifically with Bush himself how can anybody think Bush was somehow misleading?

I think people need to take a step back from Bush-bashing and just be glad that he's made a very strong speech about doing something, anything to cut our dependance on foreign oil...that's all about this from me, or this thing will go political and get closed...

The subject is ethonal...the Canadians are developing a way to get it from hay. Nice. Go Canada!!!!

 

[Kenny Shovel]

Ok, I’m going to get reluctantly drawn in at this point.

First people complain bitterly about Bush being anti-green, anti-environment, pro-big oil blah blah blah….then when he finally makes a strong commitment to start working towards something that refutes those claims the complainers cry that what he proposes is not enough. WTF…damned if you do and damned if you don’t????

Yes, Bush’s comments regarding alternative fuel sources were a step in the right direction. However the reaction to them is going to be influenced by the perception of his administrations previous attitude towards environmentalism, and an understanding of just how much work needs to be done to slow the rate of increase in North America’s carbon emissions, let alone level them out, let alone decrease them. To put it simply: people will want to see action not just words.

I think the Energy Secretary was answering a horribly worded and confusing question. I can’t read it the same way twice and understand what the question is really looking for.

I suspect the questioner is interested in what has motivated the comments that Bush made. Behind his clumsy question may have lurked others he failed to articulate.
Has Bush had a conversion on the road to Damascus? Will we now see a different stance from the US on any post Kyoto initiatives? Why did Bush use the example of reducing American dependence on Middle Eastern Oil? Was it a way to plicate his core support whilst he brings environmental issues higher up the list of priorities or do they indicate that this initiative is being viewed primarily as an extension of US foreign policy which any environmental benefits seen as a bonus?

I think people need to take a step back from Bush-bashing

As I don’t live in America I can’t judge the exact level of “Bush Bashing” that happens in your media, but from what I have seen I have to say that it’s far less than the stuff British Prime Ministers get. Of course British Prime Ministers aren’t the head of state, merely a politician, and as such face far more face to face hostile questioning (however much they try and avoid it) than President Bush.

Regards,

K-S

 

[Motokid]

Certainly action speaks louder than words, but for jimminy sakes, the speech was just made a little over 24 hours ago. How much action is supposed to happen the next gol-dang day?

I don't think carbon emissions is anything most American's are worried about. It's the price of fuel. The price to get from A to B. The price of heating. The price of transporting food and clothing. The price of living. When so much of that is teetering at the fingers of foreign and not always friendly countries things get stressful. The American people have seen a drastic change in the last few months. The ever increasing prices of gas thanks to storms and tensions overseas. A Sheik in Suadi just has to fart to have the prices at the American pumps rise a few cents a gallon.This is what American's want to end.

To have a home based source of dependable fuel would solve so much, in so many ways. Stable prices and increased employment at home would be a wonderful thing. Lower carbon emmissions would just be icing on the cake.

Ethanol would be a great place to start all that. Hydrogen might be the holy grail, but for now...ethanol looks mighty good.

 

[Kenny Shovel]

Certainly action speaks louder than words, but for jimminy sakes, the speech was just made a little over 24 hours ago. How much action is supposed to happen the next gol-dang day?

If I was American I wouldn’t be expecting to see progress in the space of a day. But I would expect political journalists to do their job, and try and find out the details behind what Bush was saying. To my ear Bush’s comments were just sound-bites, “America is addicted to oil” being a good example, but with little detail. That’s why they were questioning his energy secretary about what should be an important new initiative, to find out “where’s the beef”. I would have thought that part of “the price of freedom” in a democracy is that politicians should be asked difficult questions rather than be allowed to make headline grabbing statements without challenge.

I don't think carbon emissions is anything most American's are worried about. It's the price of fuel. The price to get from A to B. The price of heating. The price of transporting food and clothing. The price of living. When so much of that is teetering at the fingers of foreign and not always friendly countries things get stressful. The American people have seen a drastic change in the last few months. The ever increasing prices of gas thanks to storms and tensions overseas. A Sheik in Suadi just has to fart to have the prices at the American pumps rise a few cents a gallon. This is what American's want to end.

I can understand how that would be the primary motivation for people, but I would hope that environment issues had received enough coverage in the American media for that to be a factor as well.

 

[Motokid]

From cnn:

Fill 'er up with caramel
Leftover halloween candy might not seem like fuel for anything but dental cavities, but Xethanol, a firm based in New York City, may change that perception.
Since 2003, Xethanol has operated two Iowa plants that can cheaply distill a gasoline additive called ethanol from bizarre sources such as stale butterscotch candy. When technicians mix the sweets with a special form of yeast, fermentation results, producing ethanol. (Typically producers of ethanol derive the clean-burning, high-octane fuel from corn.) Big oil companies then combine it with unleaded gasoline to reduce the cost of gas and the air pollution it causes.
Xethanol isn't just relying on candy for its fuel supply. This year it plans to introduce a process that will make it possible to turn all kinds of things--including cornstalks, grass clippings, and old newspapers--into ethanol. If all goes as planned, 59-year-old CEO and founder Christopher d'Arnaud-Taylor projects revenues of $15 million this year, up from $2.5 million in 2005--and the first-ever profit for Xethanol (www.xethanol.com), which he started in 2000 and took public last February. "Where there's muck, there's money," he quips.
Xethanol will use a recently discovered form of yeast to ferment various types of garbage into ethanol. It has obtained rights to the process from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, where a scientist discovered that a yeast in the intestines of a type of beetle can convert plant-based waste product into ethanol.
This year d'Arnaud-Taylor intends to begin opening plants on the East Coast that will use yeast from the beetles to brew ethanol from sludge left over from paper milling. The plants will be able to make in total more than 100 million gallons of ethanol a year. That's a trickle, considering that Americans burn nearly 21 million barrels of oil every day. But it's a start. Thanks to federal subsidies and $60-a-barrel oil, it's a seller's market for ethanol.
And even if oil prices drop below $30 a barrel, Xethanol needn't worry, say experts. "Relying on cheaper processes than competitors could help the company if prices fall," says Anthony Marchese, president of Monarch Capital Group in New York City. Good news. Unless, of course, Uncle Sam takes away those hefty subsidies.

 

[abecedarian]

Now if these guys can just figure out how to convert landfill muck into ethanol...

 

[muggle]

Feb 2, 2006...."The Energy Department will begin laying off researchers at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in the next week or two because of cuts to its budget.

A veteran researcher said the staff had been told that the cuts would be concentrated among researchers in wind and biomass, which includes ethanol. Those are two of the technologies that Mr. Bush cited on Tuesday night as holding the promise to replace part of the nation's oil imports.

The budget for the laboratory, which is just west of Denver, was cut by nearly 15 percent, to $174 million from $202 million, requiring the layoff of about 40 staff members out of a total of 930, said a spokesman, George Douglas. "

 

[Motokid]

I have decided to leave TBF. This will probably be my last post.

Having trouble cutting the cord, or just a change of heart?

 

[Motokid]

Another good reason to do something, anything to help reduce America's dependancy on foreign oil. Every little bit of Ethanol America can produce is that much less we have to depend on somebody else.

CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) -- Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has warned he could cut off oil exports to the United States if Washington goes "over the line" in what he has said are attempts to destabilize his left-leaning government.

Chavez made his threat Friday, a day after U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the Venezuelan government posed "one of the biggest problems" in the region and that its ties to Cuba were "particularly dangerous" to democracy in Latin America.

"The government of the United States should know that if they go over the line, they are not going to have Venezuelan oil," Chavez said.

 

[slaughterhigh]

Another good reason to do something, anything to help reduce America's dependancy on foreign oil. Every little bit of Ethanol America can produce is that much less we have to depend on somebody else.

you should be ashamed of yourself. you could've spent two more minutes solving america's energy crisis in the time it took you to write this post.

 

[Motokid]

Go Chevron, go Chevron.... 300 million baby....NICE!!!!

The world's fifth-largest oil company, Chevron, has invested $300m (£173m) a year in technology to support new energy sources, fearing oil and gas prices will continue to rise, one of the company's leading figures has told the BBC.
Peter Robertson, the oil giant's Scottish-born vice chairman, said that the company is putting the money into biodiesel and ethanol research, as it is "very important" for the long-term future of the company.

 

[Motokid]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/20/bush.energy.ap/index.html

Good stuff.

and then there's this too:

see here too

 

[Motokid]

From Yahoo

WATERLOO, Iowa - Ethanol supporters say they're encouraged by the results of a recent study refuting the notion that it takes more energy to produce ethanol than the corn-based fuel saves.

Scientists at the University of California-Berkeley say there's a 20 percent net energy gain by using fossil fuels to make ethanol compared to gasoline.

Ethanol producers say the study should be enough to convince skeptics that cleaner-burning ethanol is good for both the environment and the economy.

 

[muggle]

Some studies show that it takes more energy to make ethanol than what you get out of it. Others show that you get slightly more energy than what you expend. Regardless of the study (and who funded it) there is still a long way to go if it is to be a realistic and economical form of energy. producers of Ethanol are pushing it because they are being greatly subsidized by the government. Without the Government subsidy the cost per gallon would be well over $5 a gallon. The best bet for a fuel of the future still rests with Hydrogen. Clips from my newsletter from the Savannah River Nuclear Site:

Center for Hydrogen Research Officially Opens. State-of-the-art facility used to research new sources of fuel for vehicles.

All of SRNL's unclassified, non-radioactive hydrogen research and development is moving to the new state-of-the-art laboratory facility, with about 50 SRNL employees located there. SRNL will lease half of the 60,000 sq ft county-owned building; the other half will be leased to universities and industryt involved in related hydrogen research and development.

Deputy Secretary of Energy Clay Sell called the Center for hydrogen Research "a practical symbol of a much larger effort that has the potential to transform our economy, fuel our vehicles and move our goods in new ways - - much like the internal combustion engine did in the past century.

 

[Motokid]

I fully agree that hydrogen is or should be the ultimate goal.

But, you are talking a completely different entity.

Ethanol can be the weening method to help guide us in that direction.

Ethanol does not require an entirely differnet type engine and vehicle.
Ethanol can be incorporated into the current method of transportation.

We could pay farmers to grow crops and not subsidize.

Hydrogen is the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
Ethanol can be a major part of the bridge between oil and hydrogen though.

 

[muggle]

We could pay farmers to grow crops and not subsidize.

What is the difference between "paying the farmers" and subsidizing by "paying the Ethanol manufacturers"? It still amounts to $5+ per gal fuel. The technology needs much more development. Perhaps a better solution as many advocate would be better fuel economy on our vehicles and a "much" improved transportation system. Improved highways, mass transit systems, and overall better transportation would have a bigger impact than anything else we know of today.

Question, when was the last time government mandated a higher fuel economy for our vehicles.

 

[Motokid]

Not sure where you are getting that Ethanol is over $5.00 per gallon, and what's to stop gasoline form hitting that mark in the next two years or so?

America is too huge and spread out for an improved mass transit system to really effect most people unless they all give up living anywhere but big cities.

Improved highways, mass transit systems and the like would have to be funded by taxes. So we'd be paying no matter what. Paying a lot more.

What do you mean by better transportation? Higher fuel economy? People can already buy 40mpg+ vehicles if they want to. For some reason SUV's are still all the rage.

Making laws telling people what kind of car they can drive does not sound very American to me.

Again, I'm not saying ethanol is the complete answer to this countries energy/transportation problems. But every little thing that can help us decrease our dependancy on foreign oil is a good thing. The more ethanol our American farmers and manufacturers can produce the better. The more cars that can run any combination of gasoline/ethanol the better.

I'd rather pay $5.00 a gallon for American grown/produced ethanol than pay $5.00 per gallon for oil imported from Iraq/Iran/Saudi.....

The more effort and science poured into ethanol the better the outcome for all of us until a grander, and more elaborate system of transportation can be developed.

It's about having alternatives to foreign oil, and having those alternatives today and tomorrow. Not having to wait 25 more years to get something like hydrogen.