[chardog]

JPR, do you have a rebuttle for b0st0n? He brought up some key points on ethanol.

[Jay Pan ROKK]

Originally Posted by b0st0n

You do know that the US produces more Ethanol than Brazil? The only reason Brazil can tout the success of ethanol is that they simply don't have as many automobiles to fuel...

Yes, i know, it helps my argument.

If ethanol is a success in Brazil for sure it can be more successful in USA.

USA is just few years behind, some questions placed in this forum were answered many years ago.

The U.S. has reached the unusual position of having more vehicles than licensed drivers -- 1,148 registered personal vehicles (cars and light trucks) for every 1,000 licensed drivers. Britain has 700; Mexico, 208. Brazil has 137 per thousand eligible drivers, and India has 11 per thousand. while China has just nine cars per thousand eligible drivers.
Gasoline and the American People: A CERA Special Report

USA dont produce all the oil it needs, USA import most of it.

The same could be done with bio-fuel, the differences would be that many farmers around the world will fulfill USA needs, instead a cartel in middle east.

Finally, Brazil’s ethanol infrastructure model did not arise from free market competition: It required huge taxpayer subsidies over decades before it could become viable. The ethanol program became uneconomical when petroleum prices fell in the late 1990s. The country’s Congress even resorted to drastic measures by passing a law forcing oil companies to add small quantities of ethanol to their gasoline (in Brazil, gas sold at the pumps is 25 percent ethanol). Even today, during a period of high oil prices, volatile ethanol prices have not freed Brazilians from losing money on the E20 blend mandated by their government. And pending on theprice fl uctuations, sugar growers prefer to make even more money by selling their product as sugar on the world market rather than fermenting it into alcohol. Therefore, the Brazilian ethanol program is not a suitable modelfor U.S. energy policy reform.
http://cei.org/pdf/5774.pdf

Well, Brazilian government had many highs and lows with the alcohol program, you probably know what happened here in the last 40 years, a dictatorship was in charge and they wanted to control everything.

But from many years now, bio-fuel industry is completely done by the market.

[chriskiss]

Originally Posted by Jay Pan ROKK

Yes, i know, it helps my argument.

If ethanol is a success in Brazil it for sure can be more successful in USA.

USA is just few years behind, many questions placed in this forum were answered in the 80s.

USA dont produce all the oil it needs, USA import most of it.

The same could be done with bio-fuel, the differences would be that many farmers around the world will fulfill USA needs, instead a cartel in middle east.

Well, Brazilian government had many highs and downs with the alcohol program, you probably know what happened here in the last 40 years, a dictatorship was in charge and they wanted to control everything.

But from many years now, bio-fuel industry is completely done by the market.

You missed his argument. Brazil is a completely different market than America. It's so much smaller that 14% of the Brazilian energy usage is a drop in the bucket compared to America's demand. Also, the encouragement of farmers to produce ethanol crops is part of a program to bring people out of poverty. They aren't pursuing it out of energy requirement.

You're missing the points. Ethanol and bio-fuel are not feasible solutions because they don't solve the energy problems. It takes more energy to produce these fuels than is produced by their use.

[BP3]

I'm sure I'll get flamed for this...but I think the solution (at this point) is increased production through additional drilling and exploration here in the US. Imagine if B.J.Clinton had not vetoed opening ANWR to drilling in 1994, and we were getting the million barrels a day that the area can provide.

Another great idea would be to stop electing Democrats.

Courtesy of Gateway Pundit:

Over the past 30 years:

Which party blocked the development of new sources of petroleum?-- Democrat
Which party blocked drilling in ANWR?-- Democrat
Which party blocked drilling off the coast of Florida?-- Democrat
Which party blocked drilling off of the east coast?-- Democrat
Which party blocked drilling off of the west coast?-- Democrat
Which party blocked drilling off the Alaskan coast?-- Democrat
Which party blocked building oil refineries?-- Democrat
Which party blocked clean nuclear energy production?-- Democrat
Which party blocked clean coal production?-- Democrat

Gateway Pundit: This Will Be The #1 Issue in the 2008 Elections-- And, It Goes to Republicans

.

[Jay Pan ROKK]

Originally Posted by chriskiss

You missed his argument. Brazil is a completely different market than America. It's so much smaller that 14% of the Brazilian energy usage is a drop in the bucket compared to America's demand. Also, the encouragement of farmers to produce ethanol crops is part of a program to bring people out of poverty. They aren't pursuing it out of energy requirement.

You're missing the points. Ethanol and bio-fuel are not feasible solutions because they don't solve the energy problems.

Brazilian market sure is much smaller than USA, no doubt.

But t is big enough to test the model, at least at oil price over 60 dollars.

It takes more energy to produce these fuels than is produced by their use.

This is not true.

Not even for corn, much less for sugar cane.

[chriskiss]

Originally Posted by Jay Pan ROKK

Brazilian market sure is much smaller than USA, no doubt.

But t is big enough to test the model, at least at oil price over 60 dollars.

We're trying to tell you that the model in Brazil is providing farmers were profitable work at a cost to the taxpayer. It is not adressing any environmental concerns.

Originally Posted by Jay Pan ROKK

This is not true.

Not even for corn, much less for sugar cane.

Take it up with my organic chemistry professor. It's quite likely that he's been teaching longer than you've been alive.

Let me say this: if ethanol were the solution, people wouldn't be investigating other solutions with such vigor. They'd be working on optimizing the one that works. That's how engineers think. Don't you think that it's strange that ethanol isn't practically here? All of the technology is already present but it's not being implemented. Maybe people know something you don't?

Maybe that thing rhymes with azeotrope or negative-net-energy.

[CJF]

If it were that 'simple' other nations would be doing this as well. It's hard to develop the enzymes.

But maybe in a few years as production costs go down, we will see more of this. There is hope.

[CJF]

Originally Posted by BP3

I'm sure I'll get flamed for this...but I think the solution (at this point) is increased production through additional drilling and exploration here in the US. Imagine if B.J.Clinton had not vetoed opening ANWR to drilling in 1994, and we were getting the million barrels a day that the area can provide.

Another great idea would be to stop electing Democrats.

Courtesy of Gateway Pundit:




Gateway Pundit: This Will Be The #1 Issue in the 2008 Elections-- And, It Goes to Republicans

.

That's not a solution.

That's just putting a piece of gum on a crack on the Hoover dam.

You can drill all you want. You're just delaying the inevitible. China and India's growing demand for oil won't keep up with the drilling.

We need renewable energy. Period.

[Jay Pan ROKK]

Originally Posted by chriskiss

We're trying to tell you that the model in Brazil is providing farmers were profitable work at a cost to the taxpayer. It is not adressing any environmental concerns.

No, not at all, please dont spread such info, it clearly is not true.

Ethanol agriculture and industry are very much profitable when the price of oil is over $ 60.00, even more now that it is by $ 120.00 and still going up.

Take it up with my organic chemistry professor. It's quite likely that he's been teaching longer than you've been alive.

Maybe that thing rhymes with azeotrope or negative-net-energy.

Oh no, you are working with calculation done in the 70s.

Net Energy Yield

"The broad body of available science, including numerous peer-reviewed scientific studies, supports the strong positive net energy yield of ethanol production. Those studies, as well as the work of the only significant scholar who finds a negative energy yield for ethanol production, are provided below.

The Governors’ Ethanol Coalition firmly agrees with mainstream science that ethanol production has a positive energy yield. The Governors have been concerned by the continuing inaccurate statements that ethanol production has a negative net energy yield, and believe that the negative energy yield argument cannot withstand close scrutiny. Therefore, the Coalition makes both sides of this argument available for open and public consideration.

The Coalition finds much recent work, such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture study by Hosein Shapouri (indicating that corn ethanol has an energy output/input ratio of 1.67) supports a positive energy yield conclusion. The Coalition furthermore finds that the main work arguing that ethanol has a negative net energy yield, produced by Cornell University’s David Pimentel, relies heavily on flawed and out-of-date data (from the 1970’s through early 1990s) and does not take into account energy costs associated with other co-products such as dried distillers grains (DDGs). At a basic level, critics of corn ethanol seem unaware that the production of ethanol from corn starch leaves essentially all the proteins and various other elements available for livestock feed and other purposes, and they are content to base their criticism on data that is so old that it is entirely unrelated to current farm practices.

The Governors’ Ethanol Coalition is therefore pleased to make available the complete arguments on both sides. For a useful discussion of the net energy yield debate."

Let me say this: if ethanol were the solution, people wouldn't be investigating other solutions with such vigor. They'd be working on optimizing the one that works. That's how engineers think. Don't you think that it's strange that ethanol isn't practically here? All of the technology is already present but it's not being implemented. Maybe people know something you don't?

Of course people are looking for better solution for energy and fuel.

If somebody finds a way to extract hidrogen from nature it will be heaven, the consequences will be the termination of oil and ethanol industry for fuel.

But, while we dont find better sources, bio-fuel is the solution for oil.

It is profitable, renewable and a cartel can not be made up on it since there are millions farmers around the world.

[redjako]

Originally Posted by GOD_OF_MUAYTHAI

the fucking billion dollar oil companies wont let it happen...if the oil companies were smart they would invest money into the technology to become more effecient and they could ease the transition but unfortunetly jesus is coming soon and god would never let planet earth die...at least not before the rapture

Rockefeler family ftw..

Rapture? are you actually serious?