Science > Physics > Forget biofuels - burn oil and plant forests instead
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Einar" |
| Date: |
16 Aug 2007 08:21:05 PM |
| Object: |
Forget biofuels - burn oil and plant forests instead |
Hello folks,
just saw an interesting article on NewScientist.com. According to it
the latest bio fuel crase really is a terrible idea. It appears to me
that it really might be true.
Below the full text of the article.
Cheers, Einar
--------------------------------------------------------------------
http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn12496-forget-biofuels--burn-oil-and-plant-forests-instead.html
Forget biofuels - burn oil and plant forests instead
* 19:10 16 August 2007
* NewScientist.com news service
* Catherine Brahic
It sounds counterintuitive, but burning oil and planting forests to
compensate is more environmentally friendly than burning biofuel. So
say scientists who have calculated the difference in net emissions
between using land to produce biofuel and the alternative: fuelling
cars with gasoline and replanting forests on the land instead.
They recommend governments steer away from biofuel and focus on
reforestation and maximising the efficiency of fossil fuels instead.
The reason is that producing biofuel is not a "green process". It
requires tractors and fertilisers and land, all of which means burning
fossil fuels to make "green" fuel. In the case of bioethanol produced
from corn - an alternative to oil - "it's essentially a zero-sums
game," says Ghislaine Kieffer, programme manager for Latin America at
the International Energy Agency in Paris, France (see Complete carbon
footprint of biofuel - or is it?).
What is more, environmentalists have expressed concerns that the
growing political backing that biofuel is enjoying will mean forests
will be chopped down to make room for biofuel crops such as maize and
sugarcane. "When you do this, you immediately release between 100 and
200 tonnes of carbon [per hectare]," says Renton Righelato of the
World Land Trust, UK, a conservation agency that seeks to preserve
rainforests.
Century-long wait
Righelato and Dominick Spracklen of the University of Leeds, UK,
calculated how long it would take to compensate for those initial
emissions by burning biofuel instead of gasoline. The answer is
between 50 and 100 years. "We cannot afford that, in terms of climate
change," says Righelato.
The researchers also compared how much carbon would be stored by
replanting forests with how much is saved by burning biofuel grown on
the land instead of gasoline.
They found that reforestation would sequester between two and nine
times as much carbon over 30 years than would be saved by burning
biofuels instead of gasoline (see bar chart, right). "You get far more
carbon sequestered by planting forests than you avoid emissions by
producing biofuels on the same land," says Righelato.
He and Spracklen conclude that if the point of biofuels policies is to
limit global warming, "policy makers may be better advised in the
short term to focus on increasing the efficiency of fossil fuel use,
to conserve existing forests and savannahs, and to restore natural
forest and grassland habitats on cropland that is not needed for
food."
They do admit, however, that biofuels made from woody materials such
as prairie grasses may have an advantage over reforestation - although
it is difficult to say for now as such fuels are still in development
(see Humble grasses may be the best source of biofuel).
Forests at high latitudes have been found to sequester less carbon
than tropical forests (see Some forests may speed global warming). But
Righelato says this does not affect his calculations as biofuel crops
are not, by and large, grown in these areas.
Journal reference: Science (DOI:10.1126/science.1141361)
Climate Change - Want to know more about global warming - the science,
impacts and political debate? Visit our continually updated special
report.
Energy and Fuels - Learn more about the looming energy crisis in our
comprehensive special report.
.
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Forget biofuels - burn oil and plant forests instead |
16 Aug 2007 08:53:07 PM |
|
|
Einar wrote:
Hello folks,
just saw an interesting article on NewScientist.com. According to it
the latest bio fuel crase really is a terrible idea. It appears to me
that it really might be true.
Below the full text of the article.
[snip]
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/tuned.htm
Some of us can do arithmetic.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
.
|
|
|
| User: "Benj" |
|
| Title: Re: Forget biofuels - burn oil and plant forests instead |
19 Aug 2007 02:00:00 AM |
|
|
Uncle Al wrote:
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/tuned.htm
Some of us can do arithmetic.
Uncle Al is right only he really doesn't go far enough. As a Bush-
hater he hasn't even BEGUN to point the cluefish at the tree-hugging
liberals spewing their unscientific and mis-quantified rubbish.
The truth is that Biofuels such as alcohol from corn is an Amazingly
stupid and unscientific concept. Biocorn actually takes MORE oil to
make than if you just BURNED the Friggin' Oil! And as Al notes it has
the wondrous side benefits of driving up food prices by skyrocketing
costs for animal feed. ALL the liberal ideas are moronic. Windmills!
Water Wheels! Solar Cells! Solar water heaters! How about just joining
an Amish church if one is REALLY so set on returning to the 19th
century! NONE of this crap has enough energy to be a substitute for
oil. The only REAL substitute as the oil runs out would be coal. This
is TESTED technology. It is OLD technology. It ran Hitler's war
machine throughout WWII thanks to the Rockefeller gift of this
technology to him. But tree-hugging liberals are so busy showing how
skilled they are lying with semantics to the public than none of them
remember this tested solution. How many oil wells in Germany? OK?
The good news is that we have plenty of coal. Peak coal is WAY off in
the future from peak oil. Which only shows how STUPID humans are for
not pulling this technology back out of mothballs. Oil, as the Shah of
Iran pointedly noted before he was killed, is FAR too valuable a
natural resource to be burning it to heat homes and drive cars! It
makes fertilizer for agriculture that makes the current population of
the planet able to not be starving. It is an invaluable chemical
resource for plastics and other products. Current use of the this
clearly limited resource is as moronic as the Japanese using rain
forest trees not to make musical instruments or fine furniture, but
rather to make PLYWOOD for construction CEMENT FORMS!!!
JUST HOW STUPID ARE YOU PEOPLE? This is a SCIENCE FORUM, for crying
out loud, if you guys won't speak out then who in hell will?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Carter" |
|
| Title: Re: Forget biofuels - burn oil and plant forests instead |
17 Aug 2007 12:21:28 AM |
|
|
Einar wrote:
Hello folks,
just saw an interesting article on NewScientist.com. According to it
the latest bio fuel crase really is a terrible idea. It appears to me
that it really might be true.
The latest biofuels craze where? In the US? Who said it was a good idea?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Findley" |
|
| Title: Re: Forget biofuels - burn oil and plant forests instead |
17 Aug 2007 08:18:04 AM |
|
|
"Bill Carter" <qhk6cxl02@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:y6GdnaxdyevkrVjbnZ2dnUVZ_srinZ2d@giganews.com...
Einar wrote:
Hello folks,
just saw an interesting article on NewScientist.com. According to it
the latest bio fuel crase really is a terrible idea. It appears to me
that it really might be true.
The latest biofuels craze where? In the US? Who said it was a good idea?
Here in the US midwest, corn to ethanol processing plants are popping up
"everywhere".
I think it's likely that this will cause corn prices to go up, which will
cause prices of anything using corn syrup to go up, which would be just
about every processed sugary food in the US. That and the cost of animal
feed will go up, so meat prices will go up.
Jeff
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)
.
|
|
|
| User: "HangEveryRepubliKKKan" |
|
| Title: Re: Forget biofuels - burn oil and plant forests instead |
01 Oct 2007 07:12:11 AM |
|
|
"Jeff Findley" <jeff.findley@ugs.nojunk.com> wrote
I think it's likely that this will cause corn prices to go up, which will
cause prices of anything using corn syrup to go up, which would be just
about every processed sugary food in the US. That and the cost of animal
feed will go up, so meat prices will go up.
Who the ***** cares what happens in Loserville.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rand Simberg" |
|
| Title: Re: Forget biofuels - burn oil and plant forests instead |
17 Aug 2007 09:03:01 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 09:18:04 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Jeff
Findley" <jeff.findley@ugs.nojunk.com> made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:
"Bill Carter" <qhk6cxl02@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:y6GdnaxdyevkrVjbnZ2dnUVZ_srinZ2d@giganews.com...
Einar wrote:
Hello folks,
just saw an interesting article on NewScientist.com. According to it
the latest bio fuel crase really is a terrible idea. It appears to me
that it really might be true.
The latest biofuels craze where? In the US? Who said it was a good idea?
Here in the US midwest, corn to ethanol processing plants are popping up
"everywhere".
I think it's likely that this will cause corn prices to go up, which will
cause prices of anything using corn syrup to go up, which would be just
about every processed sugary food in the US. That and the cost of animal
feed will go up, so meat prices will go up.
It already has. It's also increased tortilla prices in Mexico.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Alex Terrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Forget biofuels - burn oil and plant forests instead |
19 Aug 2007 05:40:14 PM |
|
|
On 17 Aug, 02:21, Einar <eina...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello folks,
just saw an interesting article on NewScientist.com. According to it
the latest bio fuel crase really is a terrible idea. It appears to me
that it really might be true.
Below the full text of the article.
Cheers, Einar
--------------------------------------------------------------------
http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn12496-forget-biofuels--...
Forget biofuels - burn oil and plant forests instead
* 19:10 16 August 2007
* NewScientist.com news service
* Catherine Brahic
It sounds counterintuitive, but burning oil and planting forests to
compensate is more environmentally friendly than burning biofuel. So
say scientists who have calculated the difference in net emissions
between using land to produce biofuel and the alternative: fuelling
cars with gasoline and replanting forests on the land instead.
They recommend governments steer away from biofuel and focus on
reforestation and maximising the efficiency of fossil fuels instead.
The reason is that producing biofuel is not a "green process". It
requires tractors and fertilisers and land, all of which means burning
fossil fuels to make "green" fuel. In the case of bioethanol produced
from corn - an alternative to oil - "it's essentially a zero-sums
game," says Ghislaine Kieffer, programme manager for Latin America at
the International Energy Agency in Paris, France (see Complete carbon
footprint of biofuel - or is it?).
What is more, environmentalists have expressed concerns that the
growing political backing that biofuel is enjoying will mean forests
will be chopped down to make room for biofuel crops such as maize and
sugarcane. "When you do this, you immediately release between 100 and
200 tonnes of carbon [per hectare]," says Renton Righelato of the
World Land Trust, UK, a conservation agency that seeks to preserve
rainforests.
Century-long wait
Righelato and Dominick Spracklen of the University of Leeds, UK,
calculated how long it would take to compensate for those initial
emissions by burning biofuel instead of gasoline. The answer is
between 50 and 100 years. "We cannot afford that, in terms of climate
change," says Righelato.
The researchers also compared how much carbon would be stored by
replanting forests with how much is saved by burning biofuel grown on
the land instead of gasoline.
They found that reforestation would sequester between two and nine
times as much carbon over 30 years than would be saved by burning
biofuels instead of gasoline (see bar chart, right). "You get far more
carbon sequestered by planting forests than you avoid emissions by
producing biofuels on the same land," says Righelato.
He and Spracklen conclude that if the point of biofuels policies is to
limit global warming, "policy makers may be better advised in the
short term to focus on increasing the efficiency of fossil fuel use,
to conserve existing forests and savannahs, and to restore natural
forest and grassland habitats on cropland that is not needed for
food."
They do admit, however, that biofuels made from woody materials such
as prairie grasses may have an advantage over reforestation - although
it is difficult to say for now as such fuels are still in development
(see Humble grasses may be the best source of biofuel).
Forests at high latitudes have been found to sequester less carbon
than tropical forests (see Some forests may speed global warming). But
Righelato says this does not affect his calculations as biofuel crops
are not, by and large, grown in these areas.
Journal reference: Science (DOI:10.1126/science.1141361)
Climate Change - Want to know more about global warming - the science,
impacts and political debate? Visit our continually updated special
report.
Energy and Fuels - Learn more about the looming energy crisis in our
comprehensive special report.
It depends where and how the biofeul is grown. There is still plenty
of set aside land in Europe.
What's not raised is the fact that the targets themselves are a spur
to the development of the second generation biofuels which the authors
themselves seem keen on.
I suppose if you call algae 3rd generation, the same applies.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Forget biofuels - burn oil and plant forests instead |
17 Aug 2007 08:53:41 AM |
|
|
On Aug 16, 6:21 pm, Einar <eina...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello folks,
just saw an interesting article on NewScientist.com. According to it
the latest bio fuel crase really is a terrible idea. It appears to me
that it really might be true.
http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn12496-forget-biofuels--...
Two problems with that..
1) It does not remove national dependence on foreign energy sources
(which as you can see causes wars).
2) Ethanol biofuel can be made from *ANY CELLULOSE*.. wood scraps,
wheat chaff, lawn clippings, raked leaves, ditch weed, sawdust, pond
scum, seaweed... you name it.
It's the way to go.
No more foreign wars for oil, no more criminal oil families, no more
foreigners buying up America with gas money, no more 'presidents for
life', no more oil industry crap propagandists in this news group.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Einar" |
|
| Title: Re: Forget biofuels - burn oil and plant forests instead |
17 Aug 2007 06:14:38 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On Aug 16, 6:21 pm, Einar <eina...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello folks,
just saw an interesting article on NewScientist.com. According to it
the latest bio fuel crase really is a terrible idea. It appears to me
that it really might be true.
http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn12496-forget-biofuels--...
Two problems with that..
1) It does not remove national dependence on foreign energy sources
(which as you can see causes wars).
2) Ethanol biofuel can be made from *ANY CELLULOSE*.. wood scraps,
wheat chaff, lawn clippings, raked leaves, ditch weed, sawdust, pond
scum, seaweed... you name it.
It's the way to go.
No more foreign wars for oil, no more criminal oil families, no more
foreigners buying up America with gas money, no more 'presidents for
life', no more oil industry crap propagandists in this news group.
This is absurd. There is no way for the USA to grow enough corn to
replase oil from the Middle East.
Cheers, Einar
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fran" |
|
| Title: Re: Forget biofuels - burn oil and plant forests instead |
17 Aug 2007 06:40:17 PM |
|
|
On Aug 18, 9:14 am, Einar <eina...@gmail.com> wrote:
lorad...@cs.com wrote:
On Aug 16, 6:21 pm, Einar <eina...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello folks,
just saw an interesting article on NewScientist.com. According to it
the latest bio fuel crase really is a terrible idea. It appears to me
that it really might be true.
http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn12496-forget-biofuels--...
Two problems with that..
1) It does not remove national dependence on foreign energy sources
(which as you can see causes wars).
2) Ethanol biofuel can be made from *ANY CELLULOSE*.. wood scraps,
wheat chaff, lawn clippings, raked leaves, ditch weed, sawdust, pond
scum, seaweed... you name it.
It's the way to go.
No more foreign wars for oil, no more criminal oil families, no more
foreigners buying up America with gas money, no more 'presidents for
life', no more oil industry crap propagandists in this news group.
This is absurd. There is no way for the USA to grow enough corn to
replase oil from the Middle East.
Why are you so focused on corn-as-fuel? The main reason corn is
promoted as fuel in the US is that sugar has trade protection and is
too expensive to use as ethanol. It's aimed at keeping Brazilian
ethanol out of US markets and protecting US sugar interests.
Given the persistent assertion by the US that it believes in "free
trade" it ought to open its markets and allow people, if they want to
buy Brazilian (or any other) ethanol/alcohol fuel on the best terms
they can get it.
A price actually reflecting the cost of mitigating the harm done by
the combustion of various fuels ought to apply and be allowed to flow
through the entire economy so that eventually, rational choices could
be made about how best to respond. The US should scale down its
military since ultimately, this is in large part aimed at securing
access to crude oil at prices the US think suit its needs. This is a
subsidy and should on crude that is paid in large part with human
lioves on both sides of this conflict. It's paid by US citizens in
loss of freedom, and huge costs associated with being spied upon and
subject to unreasonable search and seizure. Right now, the US is
funding BOTH sides of the so called "war on terror". This is arrant
stupidity.
Fully recovering carbon based waste, increasing public transport,
getting heavy goods off roads and onto rail and into ships, and so
forth can easily taper and ultimately, substantially reduce the need
for the US to import oil. This is in very nearly everyone's interests.
Almost everyone wins in this scenario.
Why would anyone have it otherwise?
Fran
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred J. McCall" |
|
| Title: Re: Forget biofuels - burn oil and plant forests instead |
17 Aug 2007 08:22:59 PM |
|
|
Fran <Fran.Beta@gmail.com> wrote:
:
:Given the persistent assertion by the US that it believes in "free
:trade" it ought to open its markets and allow people, if they want to
:buy Brazilian (or any other) ethanol/alcohol fuel on the best terms
:they can get it.
:
Please cite the laws that prevent this from happening right now.
:
:The US should scale down its
:military since ultimately, this is in large part aimed at securing
:access to crude oil at prices the US think suit its needs.
:
Oh, I see. You're just nuts. Never mind, then...
--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fran" |
|
| Title: Re: Forget biofuels - burn oil and plant forests instead |
17 Aug 2007 08:53:50 PM |
|
|
On Aug 18, 11:22 am, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:
:
:Given the persistent assertion by the US that it believes in "free
:trade" it ought to open its markets and allow people, if they want to
:buy Brazilian (or any other) ethanol/alcohol fuel on the best terms
:they can get it.
:
Please cite the laws that prevent this from happening right now.
You want me to do your homework?
The idea of this place is that people share their insights. You're
either wilffully ignorant or simply indifferent.
:
:The US should scale down its
:military since ultimately, this is in large part aimed at securing
:access to crude oil at prices the US think suit its needs.
:
Oh, I see.
You see very little. Don't flatter yourself. It's very unconvincing.
You're just nuts.
You're just self-deluded.
Never mind, then...
I don't, much as a fellow human, I regret your condition.
Fran
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred J. McCall" |
|
| Title: Re: Forget biofuels - burn oil and plant forests instead |
18 Aug 2007 01:53:19 AM |
|
|
Fran <Fran.Beta@gmail.com> wrote:
:On Aug 18, 11:22 am, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:> Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:
:>
:> :
:> :Given the persistent assertion by the US that it believes in "free
:> :trade" it ought to open its markets and allow people, if they want to
:> :buy Brazilian (or any other) ethanol/alcohol fuel on the best terms
:> :they can get it.
:> :
:>
:> Please cite the laws that prevent this from happening right now.
:>
:
:You want me to do your homework?
:
Fran, *YOU* ranted about how the US "ought to open its markets" to
Brazilian ethanol, etc. **YOU** need to support your statements, not
whine like a ***** when someone asks you to and insist that it is
somehow THEIR job to support YOUR statements.
:
:The idea of this place is that people share their insights. You're
:either wilffully ignorant or simply indifferent.
:
Honey, WHAT are you smoking?
Made up things aren't "insights". Support your claims or expect your
words to be given all the credence that unsupported blather merits.
:
:>
:> :
:> :The US should scale down its
:> :military since ultimately, this is in large part aimed at securing
:> :access to crude oil at prices the US think suit its needs.
:> :
:>
:> Oh, I see.
:>
:
:You see very little. Don't flatter yourself. It's very unconvincing.
:
Anyone who makes statements like yours, quoted above, is either a
lunatic, an imbecile, or a liar.
Dealer's choice....
:
:>
:> You're just nuts.
:>
:
:You're just self-deluded.
:
I see. You just want to blurt political *****, claim it's
"insights", and then personally attack anyone who points out that
you're merely making unsupported (and irrational) statements.
Hmmm, it seems that I (and no doubt many others) 'see' quite a bit
about you.
:
:>
:> Never mind, then...
:>
:
:I don't, much as a fellow human, I regret your condition.
:
Don't flatter yourself. You've got some distance to go in order to
achieve "human" status...
--
"The gom jabbar, the high-handed enemy...It kills only animals."
-- Reverend Mother Gaius Helen Mohiam, Dune
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fran" |
|
| Title: Re: Forget biofuels - burn oil and plant forests instead |
18 Aug 2007 11:57:50 PM |
|
|
On Aug 18, 4:53 pm, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:
:On Aug 18, 11:22 am, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote::> Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:
:>
:> :
:> :Given the persistent assertion by the US that it believes in "free
:> :trade" it ought to open its markets and allow people, if they want to
:> :buy Brazilian (or any other) ethanol/alcohol fuel on the best terms
:> :they can get it.
:> :
:>
:> Please cite the laws that prevent this from happening right now.
:>
:
:You want me to do your homework?
:
Fran, *YOU* ranted about how the US "ought to open its markets"
to
Brazilian ethanol,
that wasn't a rant, but a proposition.
etc. **YOU** need to support your statements, not
whine like a ***** when someone asks you to and insist that it is
somehow THEIR job to support YOUR statements.
You didn't really ask. You made it plain at the end that you were only
here for the flame. This was simply a pro-forma nod at the usages of
usenet. There was simply no good reason for me to state the bleeding
obvious for no grander purpose than to serve the idle and perverse
amusement of some dimwitted flame merchant.
<snip>> :>
:
:I don't, much as a fellow human, I regret your condition.
:
Don't flatter yourself. You've got some distance to go in order to
achieve "human" status...
Deary me, sonny, did I upset you? It's really your fault though. You
should have warned me that you were too thinskinned.to endure having a
mirror held up to your face.
Run along then little boy and have a good cry. You'll feel better
later.
In the meantime, you should leave the adults in here to talk.
Fran
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred J. McCall" |
|
| Title: Re: Forget biofuels - burn oil and plant forests instead |
19 Aug 2007 05:07:52 AM |
|
|
Fran <Fran.Beta@gmail.com> wrote:
:On Aug 18, 4:53 pm, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:> Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:
:>
:> :On Aug 18, 11:22 am, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote::> Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:
:>
:> :>
:> :> :
:> :> :Given the persistent assertion by the US that it believes in "free
:> :> :trade" it ought to open its markets and allow people, if they want to
:> :> :buy Brazilian (or any other) ethanol/alcohol fuel on the best terms
:> :> :they can get it.
:> :> :
:> :>
:> :> Please cite the laws that prevent this from happening right now.
:> :>
:> :
:> :You want me to do your homework?
:> :
:>
:> Fran, *YOU* ranted about how the US "ought to open its markets"
:>
:
:
:> to
:> Brazilian ethanol,
:
:that wasn't a rant, but a proposition.
:
And you decline to point out how that is being 'prohibited' now, as
you claim it as the result of some evil plot somewhere.
:
:> etc. **YOU** need to support your statements, not
:> whine like a ***** when someone asks you to and insist that it is
:> somehow THEIR job to support YOUR statements.
:>
:
:You didn't really ask. You made it plain at the end that you were only
:here for the flame. This was simply a pro-forma nod at the usages of
:usenet. There was simply no good reason for me to state the bleeding
:obvious for no grander purpose than to serve the idle and perverse
:amusement of some dimwitted flame merchant.
:
Congratulations on demonstrating the total intellectual bankruptcy of
your position, dearie.
:<snip>> :>
:> :
:> :I don't, much as a fellow human, I regret your condition.
:> :
:>
:> Don't flatter yourself. You've got some distance to go in order to
:> achieve "human" status...
:>
:
:Deary me, sonny, did I upset you? It's really your fault though. You
:should have warned me that you were too thinskinned.to endure having a
:mirror held up to your face.
:
BWAAAAHAAAAHAAaaahaaaaahaaaaahaaa!!!!!
Is THAT what you call your insanity?
:
:Run along then little boy and have a good cry. You'll feel better
:later.
:
Go take some thorazine and lithium, dearie. Perhaps it'll move you
somewhat closer to sanity. But I doubt it.
:
:In the meantime, you should leave the adults in here to talk.
:
Adults? I fear that 'adults' of your ilk have succumbed to the
ravages of age and are non compos mentis, from all the evidence you
provide.
Explain to us again how folks wanting to make money by raising crops
for conversion to ethanol are going to waste their time with poor
yields on marginal land rather than replacing current acreage, thereby
inflating prices on agricultural products.
Unfortunately for your thesis, farmers are not as stupid as you are.
--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine
.
|
|
|
| User: "Einar" |
|
| Title: Re: Forget biofuels - burn oil and plant forests instead |
19 Aug 2007 10:22:13 AM |
|
|
Fred J. McCall wrote:
Fran <Fran.Beta@gmail.com> wrote:
:On Aug 18, 4:53 pm, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:> Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:
:> Fran, *YOU* ranted about how the US "ought to open its markets"
:>
:
:
:> to
:> Brazilian ethanol,
:
:that wasn't a rant, but a proposition.
:
And you decline to point out how that is being 'prohibited' now, as
you claim it as the result of some evil plot somewhere.
The import is not prohibited, but there are steep import duties that
are steep enough to make it non-cost effective to import. If the
import duties would be removed that cost ballance would change.
Cheers, Einar
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred J. McCall" |
|
| Title: Re: Forget biofuels - burn oil and plant forests instead |
19 Aug 2007 03:34:00 PM |
|
|
Einar <einarbb@gmail.com> wrote:
:
:The import is not prohibited, but there are steep import duties that
:are steep enough to make it non-cost effective to import. If the
:import duties would be removed that cost ballance would change.
:
Ok, let me ask the same question, then.
Since you agree that Fran's "they're preventing it" position is sheer
wind, what is the tariff applied to the import of ethanol for
non-consumption purposes?
--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney
.
|
|
|
| User: "Einar" |
|
| Title: Re: Forget biofuels - burn oil and plant forests instead |
19 Aug 2007 06:20:24 PM |
|
|
Fred J. McCall wrote:
Einar <einarbb@gmail.com> wrote:
:
:The import is not prohibited, but there are steep import duties that
:are steep enough to make it non-cost effective to import. If the
:import duties would be removed that cost ballance would change.
:
Ok, let me ask the same question, then.
Since you agree that Fran's "they're preventing it" position is sheer
wind, what is the tariff applied to the import of ethanol for
non-consumption purposes?
--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney
I think that the ethanol is labelled as agricultural product, not
industrial product.
Maybe they are labelled "organic chemicals" which will mean that theyr
tarrif code can be found here:
http://www.fas.usda.gov/scriptsw/wtopdf/wtopdf_lout.asp
Cheers, Einar
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred J. McCall" |
|
| Title: Re: Forget biofuels - burn oil and plant forests instead |
20 Aug 2007 02:27:33 AM |
|
|
Einar <einarbb@gmail.com> wrote:
:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:> Einar <einarbb@gmail.com> wrote:
:>
:> :
:> :The import is not prohibited, but there are steep import duties that
:> :are steep enough to make it non-cost effective to import. If the
:> :import duties would be removed that cost ballance would change.
:> :
:>
:> Ok, let me ask the same question, then.
:>
:> Since you agree that Fran's "they're preventing it" position is sheer
:> wind, what is the tariff applied to the import of ethanol for
:> non-consumption purposes?
:>
:
:I think that the ethanol is labelled as agricultural product, not
:industrial product.
:
:Maybe they are labelled "organic chemicals" which will mean that theyr
:tarrif code can be found here:
:http://www.fas.usda.gov/scriptsw/wtopdf/wtopdf_lout.asp
:
I didn't see anything obvious there, so I decided to look. The
conclusion I arrived at was that Fran was on her *****. She either has
no clue what she's talking about, is an outright liar, or both.
The US *produces* more fuel ethanol than any other country. Brazil is
second and is the biggest exporter to the world market.
The US has the *lowest* import tariffs on fuel ethanol of any country.
http://www.ethanolrfa.org/resource/facts/trade/
Fran is, as I already knew, an ignorant loony.
--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine
.
|
|
|
| User: "Einar" |
|
| Title: Re: Forget biofuels - burn oil and plant forests instead |
20 Aug 2007 07:10:10 AM |
|
|
Fred J. McCall wrote:
Einar <einarbb@gmail.com> wrote:
:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:> Einar <einarbb@gmail.com> wrote:
:>
:> :
:> :The import is not prohibited, but there are steep import duties that
:> :are steep enough to make it non-cost effective to import. If the
:> :import duties would be removed that cost ballance would change.
:> :
:>
:> Ok, let me ask the same question, then.
:>
:> Since you agree that Fran's "they're preventing it" position is sheer
:> wind, what is the tariff applied to the import of ethanol for
:> non-consumption purposes?
:>
:
:I think that the ethanol is labelled as agricultural product, not
:industrial product.
:
:Maybe they are labelled "organic chemicals" which will mean that theyr
:tarrif code can be found here:
:http://www.fas.usda.gov/scriptsw/wtopdf/wtopdf_lout.asp
:
I didn't see anything obvious there, so I decided to look. The
conclusion I arrived at was that Fran was on her *****. She either has
no clue what she's talking about, is an outright liar, or both.
The US *produces* more fuel ethanol than any other country. Brazil is
second and is the biggest exporter to the world market.
The US has the *lowest* import tariffs on fuel ethanol of any country.
http://www.ethanolrfa.org/resource/facts/trade/
Fran is, as I already knew, an ignorant loony.
--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine
OK. A quote from the article:
"The U.S. ad valorem tariff is 2.5% of the product value, and is lower
than any other country in the world. To prevent U.S. tax dollars from
further subsidizing foreign-produced ethanol, which has already
received support from the country of origin, there is a secondary duty
of 14.27 cents per liter or 54 cents per gallon. The secondary duty
was created to offset the value of the ethanol tax credit taken by the
petroleum industry when ethanol, both domestic and imported, is
blended with gasoline. As evident by the history of ethanol imports
into the U.S., the secondary tariff is not a barrier to market entry."
She is clearly referring primarrily to that secondary duty, which is
designed to offset the subsidization of etanol production in Brasil by
the gowernment of Brasil.
Still, I wonder how the theyr subdization compares to the subdization
in USA of etanol production.
Perhaps if both subdization regimes are more or less equal that it
could be argued that secondary duty can be safelly enough removed, or
alternativelly the US own subdization regime abandoned.
I recall that Boeing and Airbus can trade planes across the Atlantic
without trade barryers, even though both firms receive considerable
gowernment support.
Cheers, Einar
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred J. McCall" |
|
| Title: Re: Forget biofuels - burn oil and plant forests instead |
20 Aug 2007 09:53:31 AM |
|
|
Einar <einarbb@gmail.com> wrote:
:
:I recall that Boeing and Airbus can trade planes across the Atlantic
:without trade barryers, even though both firms receive considerable
:gowernment support.
:
Actually, they both don't. Boeing doesn't get 'government support'.
Airbus does. It's really that simple.
--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw
.
|
|
|
| User: "Einar" |
|
| Title: Re: Forget biofuels - burn oil and plant forests instead |
20 Aug 2007 10:27:46 AM |
|
|
Fred J. McCall wrote:
Einar <einarbb@gmail.com> wrote:
:
:I recall that Boeing and Airbus can trade planes across the Atlantic
:without trade barryers, even though both firms receive considerable
:gowernment support.
:
Actually, they both don't. Boeing doesn't get 'government support'.
Airbus does. It's really that simple.
--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw
The extensive gowernment programs Boeing participates in, military
purchases of airframes like the B - 767 airframe and others, is at
least in Europe accepted as being a form og gowernment subsidy.
Cheers, Einar
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred J. McCall" |
|
| Title: Re: Forget biofuels - burn oil and plant forests instead |
20 Aug 2007 10:46:01 AM |
|
|
Einar <einarbb@gmail.com> wrote:
:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:> Einar <einarbb@gmail.com> wrote:
:>
:> :
:> :I recall that Boeing and Airbus can trade planes across the Atlantic
:> :without trade barryers, even though both firms receive considerable
:> :gowernment support.
:> :
:>
:> Actually, they both don't. Boeing doesn't get 'government support'.
:> Airbus does. It's really that simple.
:>
:
:The extensive gowernment programs Boeing participates in, military
:purchases of airframes like the B - 767 airframe and others, is at
:least in Europe accepted as being a form og gowernment subsidy.
:
Yes, but the European view is, to be blunt, rather stupidly wrong.
Only in Europe would selling a product to the government be viewed the
same as "a form og [sic] gowerment [sic] subsidy".
Airbus is paid by the government to develop commercial aircraft. When
their costs overrun, the government shows up with more money.
Boeing is not paid by the government to develop commercial aircraft.
When their costs overrun, they better hope they can recover it in
sales later because nobody is going to pay it for them.
--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rich" |
|
| Title: Re: Forget biofuels - burn oil and plant forests instead |
20 Aug 2007 10:20:31 AM |
|
|
Fred J. McCall wrote:
Einar <einarbb@gmail.com> wrote:
:
:I recall that Boeing and Airbus can trade planes across the Atlantic
:without trade barryers, even though both firms receive considerable
:gowernment support.
:
Actually, they both don't. Boeing doesn't get 'government support'.
Airbus does. It's really that simple.
Indeed.
And I'm astounded to learn that they "trade planes". It was my understanding
that they both sold planes to third parties.
The things you learn on the internet. :-)
Cheers,
Rich
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fran" |
|
| Title: Re: Forget biofuels - burn oil and plant forests instead |
19 Aug 2007 07:26:24 PM |
|
|
On Aug 20, 9:20 am, Einar <eina...@gmail.com> wrote:
Fred J. McCall wrote:
Einar <eina...@gmail.com> wrote:
:
:The import is not prohibited, but there are steep import duties that
:are steep enough to make it non-cost effective to import. If the
:import duties would be removed that cost ballance would change.
:
Ok, let me ask the same question, then.
Since you agree that Fran's "they're preventing it" position is sheer
wind, what is the tariff applied to the import ofethanolfor
non-consumption purposes?
--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney
I think that theethanolis labelled as agricultural product, not
industrial product.
Maybe they are labelled "organic chemicals" which will mean that theyr
tarrif code can be found here:http://www.fas.usda.gov/scriptsw/wtopdf/wto=
pdf_lout.asp
Cheers, Einar- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Some useful information:
Reforming Global Sugar Trade: What Do Changes in Sugar Policy Mean for
the Future?
..=2E..
Currently, U.S. policy protects sugar producers and processors from
competition by limiting imports and excluding lower-cost producers
from open access to the market. This keeps domestic sugar prices
artificially high.
..=2E..
http://www.ifpri.org/pressrel/2007/20070531.asp
U=2ES. trade policy on ethanol includes an ad valorem tariff of 2.5
percent as well as an import duty of 54=A2 per gallon.
http://www.card.iastate.edu/iowa_ag_review/spring_06/article3.aspx
At the heart of the issue is U.S. ethanol policy. Despite the Bush
Administration's explicit support for increased U.S. ethanol
consumption, the United States maintains a tariff of 54 cents per
gallon for imported ethanol. This tariff limits U.S. ethanol imports
and creates a higher domestic price than would otherwise result from a
more open market.
By limiting market access for Brazilian ethanol producers, who would
benefit from increased exports, the U.S. tariff also limits the
subsequent benefits that would accrue to Brazilian sugar producers.
Furthermore, since ethanol production in the United States is based on
corn, the tariff also leads to a higher price of corn in the United
States. This artificially inflated price is then passed on to Mexican
consumers in the form of higher food prices.
In these ways, it is the U.S. tariff on ethanol imports that may have
caused higher tortilla prices in Mexico and slowed the growth of
Brazilian ethanol production. If the United States were to eliminate
its ethanol tariff, we would likely witness market changes that would
greatly benefit everyone involved.
http://www.policyinnovations.org/ideas/briefings/data/ethanol
Fran
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred J. McCall" |
|
| Title: Re: Forget biofuels - burn oil and plant forests instead |
20 Aug 2007 02:40:21 AM |
|
|
Fran <Fran.Beta@gmail.com> wrote:
:On Aug 20, 9:20 am, Einar <eina...@gmail.com> wrote:
:> Fred J. McCall wrote:
:> > Einar <eina...@gmail.com> wrote:
:>
:> > :
:> > :The import is not prohibited, but there are steep import duties that
:> > :are steep enough to make it non-cost effective to import. If the
:> > :import duties would be removed that cost ballance would change.
:> > :
:>
:> > Ok, let me ask the same question, then.
:>
:> > Since you agree that Fran's "they're preventing it" position is sheer
:> > wind, what is the tariff applied to the import ofethanolfor
:> > non-consumption purposes?
:>
:> > --
:> > "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
:> > -- Charles Pinckney
:>
:> I think that theethanolis labelled as agricultural product, not
:> industrial product.
:>
:> Maybe they are labelled "organic chemicals" which will mean that theyr
:> tarrif code can be found here:http://www.fas.usda.gov/scriptsw/wtopdf/wtopdf_lout.asp
:>
:> Cheers, Einar- Hide quoted text -
:>
:> - Show quoted text -
:
:
:Some useful information:
:
:Reforming Global Sugar Trade: What Do Changes in Sugar Policy Mean for
:the Future?
:
:....
:
:Currently, U.S. policy protects sugar producers and processors from
:competition by limiting imports and excluding lower-cost producers
:from open access to the market. This keeps domestic sugar prices
:artificially high.
:
:....
:
:
Since we're not talking about trading sugar, the preceding is merely
irrelevant.
:
:http://www.ifpri.org/pressrel/2007/20070531.asp
:
:
:U.S. trade policy on ethanol includes an ad valorem tariff of 2.5
:percent as well as an import duty of 54¢ per gallon.
:
Which is lower than anywhere else in the world. Compare it, for
example, to Brazil's 20% tariff on alcohol imports.
The secondary duty was created to offset the value of the ethanol tax
credit taken by the petroleum industry when ethanol, both domestic and
imported, is blended with gasoline. As evident by the history of
ethanol imports into the U.S., the secondary tariff is not a barrier
to market entry.
:
:http://www.card.iastate.edu/iowa_ag_review/spring_06/article3.aspx
:
:At the heart of the issue is U.S. ethanol policy. Despite the Bush
:Administration's explicit support for increased U.S. ethanol
:consumption, the United States maintains a tariff of 54 cents per
:gallon for imported ethanol. This tariff limits U.S. ethanol imports
:and creates a higher domestic price than would otherwise result from a
:more open market.
:
Hogwash. This tariff puts imports on the same footing as domestic
production.
:
:By limiting market access for Brazilian ethanol producers, who would
:benefit from increased exports,
The US imports over 400 million gallons of ethanol a year from Brazil.
This is 2/3 of our imports. Doesn't sound like they're all that
limited to me. Perhaps we should just apply the same tariff to
Brazilian imports to us that they apply to imports into Brazil?
You're nuts, Fran.
--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "winka" |
|
| Title: Re: Forget biofuels - burn oil and plant forests instead |
17 Aug 2007 08:59:17 PM |
|
|
On Sat 18 Aug 2007 02:22:59, Fred J. McCall <fmccall@earthlink.net>
wrote in sci.physics:
Fran <Fran.Beta@gmail.com> wrote:
:
:Given the persistent assertion by the US that it believes in "free
:trade" it ought to open its markets and allow people, if they want to
:buy Brazilian (or any other) ethanol/alcohol fuel on the best terms
:they can get it.
:
Please cite the laws that prevent this from happening right now.
:
:The US should scale down its
:military since ultimately, this is in large part aimed at securing
:access to crude oil at prices the US think suit its needs.
:
Oh, I see. You're just nuts. Never mind, then...
Doesn't seem right to me.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Einar" |
|
| Title: Re: Forget biofuels - burn oil and plant forests instead |
17 Aug 2007 07:48:49 PM |
|
|
Fran wrote:
On Aug 18, 9:14 am, Einar <eina...@gmail.com> wrote:
lorad...@cs.com wrote:
On Aug 16, 6:21 pm, Einar <eina...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello folks,
just saw an interesting article on NewScientist.com. According to it
the latest bio fuel crase really is a terrible idea. It appears to =
me
that it really might be true.
http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn12496-forget-biofuels-=
-=2E..
Two problems with that..
1) It does not remove national dependence on foreign energy sources
(which as you can see causes wars).
2) Ethanol biofuel can be made from *ANY CELLULOSE*.. wood scraps,
wheat chaff, lawn clippings, raked leaves, ditch weed, sawdust, pond
scum, seaweed... you name it.
It's the way to go.
No more foreign wars for oil, no more criminal oil families, no more
foreigners buying up America with gas money, no more 'presidents for
life', no more oil industry crap propagandists in this news group.
This is absurd. There is no way for the USA to grow enough corn to
replase oil from the Middle East.
Why are you so focused on corn-as-fuel? The main reason corn is
promoted as fuel in the US is that sugar has trade protection and is
too expensive to use as ethanol. It's aimed at keeping Brazilian
ethanol out of US markets and protecting US sugar interests.
Given the persistent assertion by the US that it believes in "free
trade" it ought to open its markets and allow people, if they want to
buy Brazilian (or any other) ethanol/alcohol fuel on the best terms
they can get it.
A price actually reflecting the cost of mitigating the harm done by
the combustion of various fuels ought to apply and be allowed to flow
through the entire economy so that eventually, rational choices could
be made about how best to respond. The US should scale down its
military since ultimately, this is in large part aimed at securing
access to crude oil at prices the US think suit its needs. This is a
subsidy and should on crude that is paid in large part with human
lioves on both sides of this conflict. It's paid by US citizens in
loss of freedom, and huge costs associated with being spied upon and
subject to unreasonable search and seizure. Right now, the US is
funding BOTH sides of the so called "war on terror". This is arrant
stupidity.
Fully recovering carbon based waste, increasing public transport,
getting heavy goods off roads and onto rail and into ships, and so
forth can easily taper and ultimately, substantially reduce the need
for the US to import oil. This is in very nearly everyone's interests.
Almost everyone wins in this scenario.
Why would anyone have it otherwise?
Fran
The role of the military is to maintain the security of the USA.
Basigly the USA is in the role that the UK had assumed during the
19th. century. The UK had a policy of maintaining a 2/1 ration of
fleet size when compared to the fleet size of the second largest fleet
power. When anyone, most often France during the 18th. and the 19th.
centuries UK allways responded by building more ships itself to
maintain that 2/1 ration ensuring theyr dominance of the world Oceans.
Basigly, the USA has assumed the same role, to lume as a colossus over
the world, and hence ensuring that the world situation fits with its
needs and interests. Now, like with Britain this situation is an
unstable one.
The oil is a small part of the overall issue which is the world
situation that the armed forces are really about.
Now, it doesn=B4t matter, wether it=B4s corn or something ellse. The USA
never will be able to replase fossil fuel with bio fuel. The other
environmental impact of increasing the size of the cultivated land to
the required degree would be quite prohibitive.
Cheers, Einar
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fran" |
|
| Title: Re: Forget biofuels - burn oil and plant forests instead |
17 Aug 2007 09:12:03 PM |
|
|
On Aug 18, 10:48 am, Einar <eina...@gmail.com> wrote:
Fran wrote:
On Aug 18, 9:14 am, Einar <eina...@gmail.com> wrote:
lorad...@cs.com wrote:
On Aug 16, 6:21 pm, Einar <eina...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello folks,
just saw an interesting article on NewScientist.com. According to=
it
the latest bio fuel crase really is a terrible idea. It appears t=
o me
that it really might be true.
http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn12496-forget-biofuel=
s--...
Two problems with that..
1) It does not remove national dependence on foreign energy sources
(which as you can see causes wars).
2) Ethanol biofuel can be made from *ANY CELLULOSE*.. wood scraps,
wheat chaff, lawn clippings, raked leaves, ditch weed, sawdust, pond
scum, seaweed... you name it.
It's the way to go.
No more foreign wars for oil, no more criminal oil families, no more
foreigners buying up America with gas money, no more 'presidents for
life', no more oil industry crap propagandists in this news group.
This is absurd. There is no way for the USA to grow enough corn to
replase oil from the Middle East.
Why are you so focused on corn-as-fuel? The main reason corn is
promoted as fuel in the US is that sugar has trade protection and is
too expensive to use as ethanol. It's aimed at keeping Brazilian
ethanol out of US markets and protecting US sugar interests.
Given the persistent assertion by the US that it believes in "free
trade" it ought to open its markets and allow people, if they want to
buy Brazilian (or any other) ethanol/alcohol fuel on the best terms
they can get it.
A price actually reflecting the cost of mitigating the harm done by
the combustion of various fuels ought to apply and be allowed to flow
through the entire economy so that eventually, rational choices could
be made about how best to respond. The US should scale down its
military since ultimately, this is in large part aimed at securing
access to crude oil at prices the US think suit its needs. This is a
subsidy and should on crude that is paid in large part with human
lioves on both sides of this conflict. It's paid by US citizens in
loss of freedom, and huge costs associated with being spied upon and
subject to unreasonable search and seizure. Right now, the US is
funding BOTH sides of the so called "war on terror". This is arrant
stupidity.
Fully recovering carbon based waste, increasing public transport,
getting heavy goods off roads and onto rail and into ships, and so
forth can easily taper and ultimately, substantially reduce the need
for the US to import oil. This is in very nearly everyone's interests.
Almost everyone wins in this scenario.
Why would anyone have it otherwise?
Fran
The role of the military is to maintain the security of the USA
In this case, the security of the privileges of the richest fraction
of the country, regardless of the cost of this to everyone else.
..
Basigly the USA is in the role that the UK had assumed during the
19th. century.
True. It's an empire, and a failing one at that. But from death's dark
heart, it stabs at others. It's a little like that fiery mythical
beast that appeared in Lord of the Rings, with which Gandalf was
battling -- powerful, terrifying and even when seemingly slain, able
to reach out in its despair and strike at the living.
The UK had a policy of maintaining a 2/1 ration of
fleet size when compared to the fleet size of the second largest fleet
power. When anyone, most often France during the 18th. and the 19th.
centuries UK allways responded by building more ships itself to
maintain that 2/1 ration ensuring theyr dominance of the world Oceans.
And look where it has led. If you look at the strategic petroleum
reserve of the US, it would allow the US airforce to operate for 78
days based on non-war footing operations. 78 days!! That's not the
marines or the navy or the National Guards or anyone else. And that is
assuming nothing else in the country requires petroleum, even though
the entire country is currently using about 140 billion gallons of
petroleum each year. What a joke. Look what happened to Japan in WW2.
Part of the rationale for kamikazes was lack of fuel. Of course the US
is occupying the middle east to ensure petroleum supplies. Are you
blind?
Basigly, the USA has assumed the same role, to lume as a colossus over
the world, and hence ensuring that the world situation fits with its
needs and interests. Now, like with Britain this situation is an
unstable one.
The oil is a small part of the overall issue which is the world
situation that the armed forces are really about.
Nonsense. Secure energy supplies are the starting point of every
functioning society. Oil is the most dispatchable of all fuels. Cut
off oil supplies to a major country for a single day, and there's
panic and chaos. The "oil crisis" of the 1970s involved a 5% cut in
output and yet prices quadrupled. There was chaos on world markets.
Now, it doesn=B4t matter, wether it=B4s corn or something ellse. The USA
never will be able to replase fossil fuel with bio fuel.
Never is a very long time. You should avoid making predictions
covering eternity. What you probably mean to say is that it will be a
long time before biofuels can substantially reduce US reliance on
imported crude. On the other hand, if the US made this a policy
priority, if it really believed its own rhetoric about the war on
terror being an actual war, it would begin this policy in earnest, and
personally, I've no doubt at all that it could, within 20 years, cut
its imports of crude and its current consumption by at least 25% (and
possibly as much as 50%). Of course, this would be unthinkable if it
wanted to continue swaggering about squandering its blood and treasure
(and those of other countries) as if these counted for nothing.
The other
environmental impact of increasing the size of the cultivated land to
the required degree would be quite prohibitive.
Nonsense.
Fran
.
|
|
|
| User: "Einar" |
|
| Title: Re: Forget biofuels - burn oil and plant forests instead |
18 Aug 2007 07:32:54 PM |
|
|
Fran wrote:
On Aug 18, 10:48 am, Einar <eina...@gmail.com> wrote:
The role of the military is to maintain the security of the USA
In this case, the security of the privileges of the richest fraction
of the country, regardless of the cost of this to everyone else.
The security of the USA.
Basigly the USA is in the role that the UK had assumed during the
19th. century.
True. It's an empire, and a failing one at that. But from death's dark
heart, it stabs at others. It's a little like that fiery mythical
beast that appeared in Lord of the Rings, with which Gandalf was
battling -- powerful, terrifying and even when seemingly slain, able
to reach out in its despair and strike at the living.
You are painting a far to negative picture. True, the USA is doing
this for the most part for its own reasons. However, other states
still actually do draw many benefits from the US enforcement of its
security. We can call them side benefits.
Basigly other rich countries like Australia, New Sealand, Japan and
the European countries, benefit from the fact that the USA maintains
the security on the world=B4s oceans, somewhat in the manner as was the
case when the UK did the same thing 100 years ago.
Now, the oil trade is simply an aspect of oceanic trade. An important
aspect, but only one among many.
The UK had a policy of maintaining a 2/1 ration of
fleet size when compared to the fleet size of the second largest fleet
power. When anyone, most often France during the 18th. and the 19th.
centuries UK allways responded by building more ships itself to
maintain that 2/1 ration ensuring theyr dominance of the world Oceans.
And look where it has led. If you look at the strategic petroleum
reserve of the US, it would allow the US airforce to operate for 78
days based on non-war footing operations. 78 days!! That's not the
marines or the navy or the National Guards or anyone else. And that is
assuming nothing else in the country requires petroleum, even though
the entire country is currently using about 140 billion gallons of
petroleum each year. What a joke. Look what happened to Japan in WW2.
Part of the rationale for kamikazes was lack of fuel. Of course the US
is occupying the middle east to ensure petroleum supplies. Are you
blind?
Not at all, the whole rest of the world, not just the USA, depends on
steady supply of crude from the Gulf Area. So, while the USA is
maintaining Gulf Security for its own ends first, US policy makers are
far from unavare that most of the rest of the world does draw side
benefits from those actions of the USA.
Think about what a hawoc unsteady oil supply would wreak on the
economies of the world, not just the USA.
Basigly, the USA has assumed the same role, to lume as a colossus over
the world, and hence ensuring that the world situation fits with its
needs and interests. Now, like with Britain this situation is an
unstable one.
The oil is a small part of the overall issue which is the world
situation that the armed forces are really about.
Nonsense. Secure energy supplies are the starting point of every
functioning society. Oil is the most dispatchable of all fuels. Cut
off oil supplies to a major country for a single day, and there's
panic and chaos. The "oil crisis" of the 1970s involved a 5% cut in
output and yet prices quadrupled. There was chaos on world markets.
It would not collapse the rich societies though oil supply would dry
up tomorrow and the drought would last forever. It would create a very
uncomfortable situation, I grant but no worse than was endured during
WW2 by the public. In UK there were long period during WW2 when the
public was banned entirelly from driving theyr cars, and were banned
from owning or hoarding fuel.
So emergency, ban all driving by the public. Only allow rescue workers
and vital transports of good use the remaining fuel. Create an
emergency program of changing the vitally necessary truck fleet over
to burning something ellse than diezel or petrol/gas. Gradually over
the years the economies would recover.
Now, it doesn=B4t matter, wether it=B4s corn or something ellse. The USA
never will be able to replase fossil fuel with bio fuel.
Never is a very long time. You should avoid making predictions
covering eternity. What you probably mean to say is that it will be a
long time before biofuels can substantially reduce US reliance on
imported crude. On the other hand, if the US made this a policy
priority, if it really believed its own rhetoric about the war on
terror being an actual war, it would begin this policy in earnest, and
personally, I've no doubt at all that it could, within 20 years, cut
its imports of crude and its current consumption by at least 25% (and
possibly as much as 50%). Of course, this would be unthinkable if it
wanted to continue swaggering about squandering its blood and treasure
(and those of other countries) as if these counted for nothing.
That would necessiate a real lot of land being put aside for that
purpose. I wonder if there is enough land available beside the land
which already is being used for food crops. If not, the two
requirements will come into a direct conflict.
The other
environmental impact of increasing the size of the cultivated land to
the required degree would be quite prohibitive.
Nonsense.
Why?
Cheers, Einar
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
