The Dark Side Of Ethanol

[UNTflyer]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22808209/

Rising beer prices could leave you tapped out

Double-whammy shortages of two main ingredients are threatening to send the price of beer significantly higher, just in time for the national drinking holiday known as Super Bowl Sunday.

-------------

Brewers blame a variety of culprits. Among the less obvious is corn, which doesn’t even appear in most beers. High demand for corn-based ethanol has persuaded many farmers to devote more of their fields to corn and less to barley, creating a shortage and the resulting higher prices. Ethanol has also been blamed for higher milk, ice cream and pizza prices.

“It’s become more attractive to grow corn, so farmers have made a choice to do that,” said Ronald Manabe, brewmaster at Tied House.

[KingDL1]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22808209/

Rising beer prices could leave you tapped out

Double-whammy shortages of two main ingredients are threatening to send the price of beer significantly higher, just in time for the national drinking holiday known as Super Bowl Sunday.

-------------

Brewers blame a variety of culprits. Among the less obvious is corn, which doesn’t even appear in most beers. High demand for corn-based ethanol has persuaded many farmers to devote more of their fields to corn and less to barley, creating a shortage and the resulting higher prices. Ethanol has also been blamed for higher milk, ice cream and pizza prices.

“It’s become more attractive to grow corn, so farmers have made a choice to do that,” said Ronald Manabe, brewmaster at Tied House.

It is one of the biggest reasons for high inflation and we are doing it to ourselves. It does no good for the environment, no one but a few farmers and well the subsidized distillers and distributors.

It causes the feed for live stock to sky rocket, much higher meat prices to come, bread, eggs you name it is all going up in price because of ethanol which burns just as dirty as or worse then gas. Very bad for the environment and it is bad for your car.

The Ethanol Scam: One of America's Biggest Political Boondoggles

Edited January 26, 2008 by KingDL1

[UNTflyer]

Yeah, all that economic and political stuff is important too.... but we're talking about our BEER!!!! A shortage of BEER!!!

Edited January 26, 2008 by UNTflyer

[KingDL1]

Yeah, all that economic and political stuff is important too.... but we're talking about our BEER!!!! A shortage of BEER!!!

You are also talking Pizza

Man can you imagine a case of Miller Lite being $80

Just because just some dip$hits wrongly think ethanol is a good choice for environment.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

---Too often people with "easy" answers don't think about the other consequences of what they are really saying.. The use of ethanol "might slightly" impact oil prices and "reduce slightly" pollution but the real problem is the rise in cost of agricultural products.... food (both grain, some vegetables, and meat for us), beer, even clothing (cotton etc.). Sort of cutting of your nose to spite your face if farmers raise crops to produce ethanol instead of for human and animal food or even for clothing. --There are a lot of non-thinkers in this world that don't consider what else is affected.... in mathematics there is a "thing" called a technology matrix that exists, I am sure most have never heard of it. While we are at it I'll kick in differential equations also, where one variable changes and the other variables change as well.

Edited January 27, 2008 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[eulesseagle]

Woo hoo!! Less than $4k to go!! Click that "Continue" button below and let's git'er done!! Thank you all very much!!

Ethanol in Gasoline: Not a Good Deal for the Consumers

Hawaii Reporter ^ | 2Jul 06 | Michael R. Fox Ph.D.,

Posted on 07/07/2006 11:18:10 AM PDT by xzins

Ethanol in Gasoline: Not a Good Deal for the Consumers By Michael R. Fox Ph.D., 7/2/2006 11:14:32 PM People buying into the myth that Ethanol is our energy ace have simply got to beware.

In Hawaii, that includes The Honolulu Advertiser pushing it (June 20, 2006), and in recent weeks Hawaiian Electric Co. spokespeople, Governor Linda Lingle, and local radio talk show hosts. We had the Bill O'Reilly/Sen. John Kerry love fest on June 29 asserting the ethanol option is the right one. Even President George W. Bush has been swayed by the rhetoric.

These politically correct solutions to our energy supply problems, if allowed to persist, are beyond silly and quite dangerous. Too few understand what energy is and does; too few know what goes on upstream of the gas pumps and behind the electrical switches.

There are many good handbooks of chemistry and engineering which can add considerable information to all. There are all too few engineers involved with these debates as well. Thus, according to American Automobile Manufacturers Association, the energy content in a gallon of Ethanol is well known to be about 76,000 Btu/gallon of ethanol. Gasoline by contrast contains about 50 percent more energy at 114,000 Btu/gal. (The British thermal unit, Btu, is one of many commonly used units of energy)

As Ethanol is mixed with gasoline, the energy per gallon of the mixed fuel drops, being diluted with the less energetic ethanol. The E85 mixture (85 percent Ethanol) contains 83,260 Btu/gal. Obviously, this is less energy than is in the gasoline itself, and as a result, the mileage will therefore drop.

A major reason why Ethanol is so popular in the United States is the presence of huge subsidies throughout, not because of any magical energy sources.

There are subsidies for growing the corn, for building the distilleries, and a 51 cent subsidy for every gallon of ethanol produced. This is to say that the taxpayers are paying much of the Ethanol tab. Whatever the consumers pay at the pump is so much the better for the ethanol lobby.

This excludes state tax credits and other subsidies.

For the record according to Patzek, in the 10 years from 1995 to 2004, taxpayers spent $41.9 billion in corn subsidies.

Currently, according to Patzek (UC Berkeley The Real Biofuel Cycles April 17, 2006), there is an estimated total ethanol tax credit of 57cents per gallon.

This is collected by the Ethanol lobby, too. Just to make things sweeter, the U.S. has erected import tariffs on imported ethanol of more than 50 cents/gallon to defend against lower cost imports of that Brazilian ethanol. This helps to inflate the price of ethanol to the consumers, quite similar to the tariffs erected to protect the US sugar lobby.

According to Tad Patzek, the true costs of corn ethanol to the taxpayers are $3.12 per gallon of ethanol, or $4.74 per gallon of gasoline equivalent GGE—to adjust for the energy difference in the two fuels).

This sleight of hands bears studying. If ethanol at the pump shows a price of say $2.75/gallon, and that for gasoline is $3.00/gallon some would conclude that the ethanol is the cheaper energy. It’s not. Since the gallon of ethanol contains only 65% of the energy of the gallon of gasoline, the price for the ethanol per gallon of gasoline equivalent (GGE), is $2.75 / 0.65 = $4.23/gallon. This is not a good deal for the consumers.

A closer look is needed at the “great Ethanol successes” in Brazil claimed by television host Bill Oreilly, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass, and others. It’s a completely different situation.

First, Brazilian Ethanol is made from sugar cane, not corn, and is a much more suitable source of ethanol. Furthermore, the sugar cane grows all year around.

We can’t grow corn year round in the US, nor is it very well suited for ethanol, nor can we grow sugar cane in the Midwest climates. Brazil is in many ways a 3rd world country certainly not fully developed and not nearly as productive and energy intensive as the U.S.

Many families do not own any cars and the cars which do exist are much smaller. The population is smaller, 62 percent of the US at 186 million. Brazil also has vast tracts of very cheap land available for agriculture.

Ethanol has a great number of engineering problems to be a serious energy source for the future, not the least of which is its relatively low energy density 76,000 Btu/gal. For our leaders to be throwing out these superficial one-line energy solutions for uninformed Americans is as dangerous as it is misleading. There are many long range cost and performance uncertainties in comparing sugar cane, sugar beets, and corn infrastructures needed in the manufacture of ethanol.

In all cases the crops require long term agricultural operations, infrastructure, and investment including water, land, and energy, nutrients (fertilizers) of millions of acres of land.

In spite of the exaggerations the word is getting out about the dubious nature of Ethanol. The Salt Lake Tribune wrote (June 29, 2006):

“We don't make ethanol from corn because it is efficient..... And we don't use corn because it is environmentally friendly. Growing it sucks up huge amounts of energy and water and leaves tons of chemicals adrift in the ecosystem. We make ethanol mostly out of corn because it is astoundingly plentiful, thanks to decades of heavy federal subsidies.”

We’d do well to remember what John Fitzgerald Kennedy said: “The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth - persistent, persuasive and unrealistic.”

Michael R. Fox, Ph.D., is the energy and science writer for Hawaii Reporter. He has nearly 40 years experience in the energy field. He has also taught chemistry and energy at the University level. His interest in the communications of science has led to several communications awards, hundreds of speeches, and many appearances on television and talk shows. He can be reached via email at mailto:foxm011@hawaii.rr.com

ANOTHER STORY

Issue 14.10 - October 2006

Subscribe to WIRED magazine and receive a FREE gift!

Six Ethanol Myths

The most promising alternative fuel has been dogged by misinformation. Here's a look at the reality behind the ethanol myths.

By Vinod KhoslaPage 1 of 1

Back to Story

My Big Biofuels Bet

1) It takes more energy to make ethanol than the fuel itself produces.

Reality: Not so. Critics like to cite a 2005 study that shows a negative energy balance for ethanol, but that study was coauthored by a former oil company employee. It is contradicted by five others showing that corn ethanol delivers 20 to 50 percent more energy output than it takes to produce, and cellulosic up to 600 percent more. The National Resources Defense Council calls corn ethanol "energy well spent."

Story Tools

Rants + Raves

More »

START

Explore what's inside squirt-on cheese

Football's new call: Techdown!

How to dismantle an atomic bomb

More »

PLAY

Aardman Features plays with digital clay

Why Justin's latest album refuses to suck

Fuzoku revealed: inside Japan's sex industry

Fetish: Technolust

Test: Consumer Reviews

More »

Posts

War on Cyberterror, a role-playing game

William O. Goggins (1963-2006)

PLUS: Sterling rebuilds the Louisiana coast

More »

2) Ethanol is expensive to produce.

Reality: Ethanol costs about $1 a gallon to produce at typical facilities, which explains why E85 was selling for $1.95 at pumps in South Dakota this summer. In 2004, it was selling for $1.40 a gallon wholesale. Prices spiked higher recently because oil companies mismanaged the switch to ethanol as a replacement for the environmentally disastrous additive MBTE. Once demand and supply reach equilibrium, it can profitably sell for $1.40 a gallon without subsidies.

3) There's not enough land to grow crops for ethanol.

Reality: Former secretary of state George Schultz and ex-CIA director R. James Woolsey estimate that 30 million acres can replace half our gasoline. I estimate that 40 million to 60 million acres can replace our gasoline needs. By taking land now used to grow export crops and instead planting energy crops, it's feasible to eliminate our need to import oil for gasoline.

4) Switching to ethanol is expensive.

Reality: It didn't cost much in Brazil. Automakers already produce 10 flex-fuel models. There are almost as many flex-fuel vehicles in California as there are diesel cars and light trucks. A new car can be made flex-fuel-capable for about $35. And the cost to adapt a retail gas pump for E85 is a bargain – as little as $10,000.

5) Ethanol is unfairly subsidized.

Reality: Yes, ethanol producers and blenders share in a 51-cent-a-gallon federal credit that costs taxpayers about $2 billion a year. The majority of that accrues to oil companies, not farmers. But not mentioned by critics is the 54-cent-a-gallon tariff on imported ethanol, which hampers global competition. Meanwhile, the US also directly subsidizes Big Oil. The General Accounting Office reports that the industry has netted $82 billion from just one line item alone, something called "excess of percentage over cost depletion," and there are many other such clauses.

6) Cars that run on ethanol get lower mileage.

Reality: Ethanol gets 25 percent lower mileage compared to gasoline. But that difference is likely to shrink dramatically as engines are optimized. The Saab 9-5 gets only 18 percent less mileage and can be further optimized easily. Significantly, the cost per mile driven should be lower using E85.

Page 1 of 1

Edited January 28, 2008 by eulesseagle

[KingDL1]

Woo hoo!! Less than $4k to go!! Click that "Continue" button below and let's git'er done!! Thank you all very much!!

Ethanol in Gasoline: Not a Good Deal for the Consumers

Hawaii Reporter ^ | 2Jul 06 | Michael R. Fox Ph.D.,

Posted on 07/07/2006 11:18:10 AM PDT by xzins

Ethanol in Gasoline: Not a Good Deal for the Consumers By Michael R. Fox Ph.D., 7/2/2006 11:14:32 PM People buying into the myth that Ethanol is our energy ace have simply got to beware.

In Hawaii, that includes The Honolulu Advertiser pushing it (June 20, 2006), and in recent weeks Hawaiian Electric Co. spokespeople, Governor Linda Lingle, and local radio talk show hosts. We had the Bill O'Reilly/Sen. John Kerry love fest on June 29 asserting the ethanol option is the right one. Even President George W. Bush has been swayed by the rhetoric.

These politically correct solutions to our energy supply problems, if allowed to persist, are beyond silly and quite dangerous. Too few understand what energy is and does; too few know what goes on upstream of the gas pumps and behind the electrical switches.

There are many good handbooks of chemistry and engineering which can add considerable information to all. There are all too few engineers involved with these debates as well. Thus, according to American Automobile Manufacturers Association, the energy content in a gallon of Ethanol is well known to be about 76,000 Btu/gallon of ethanol. Gasoline by contrast contains about 50 percent more energy at 114,000 Btu/gal. (The British thermal unit, Btu, is one of many commonly used units of energy)

As Ethanol is mixed with gasoline, the energy per gallon of the mixed fuel drops, being diluted with the less energetic ethanol. The E85 mixture (85 percent Ethanol) contains 83,260 Btu/gal. Obviously, this is less energy than is in the gasoline itself, and as a result, the mileage will therefore drop.

A major reason why Ethanol is so popular in the United States is the presence of huge subsidies throughout, not because of any magical energy sources.

There are subsidies for growing the corn, for building the distilleries, and a 51 cent subsidy for every gallon of ethanol produced. This is to say that the taxpayers are paying much of the Ethanol tab. Whatever the consumers pay at the pump is so much the better for the ethanol lobby.

This excludes state tax credits and other subsidies.

For the record according to Patzek, in the 10 years from 1995 to 2004, taxpayers spent $41.9 billion in corn subsidies.

Currently, according to Patzek (UC Berkeley The Real Biofuel Cycles April 17, 2006), there is an estimated total ethanol tax credit of 57cents per gallon.

This is collected by the Ethanol lobby, too. Just to make things sweeter, the U.S. has erected import tariffs on imported ethanol of more than 50 cents/gallon to defend against lower cost imports of that Brazilian ethanol. This helps to inflate the price of ethanol to the consumers, quite similar to the tariffs erected to protect the US sugar lobby.

According to Tad Patzek, the true costs of corn ethanol to the taxpayers are $3.12 per gallon of ethanol, or $4.74 per gallon of gasoline equivalent GGE—to adjust for the energy difference in the two fuels).

This sleight of hands bears studying. If ethanol at the pump shows a price of say $2.75/gallon, and that for gasoline is $3.00/gallon some would conclude that the ethanol is the cheaper energy. It’s not. Since the gallon of ethanol contains only 65% of the energy of the gallon of gasoline, the price for the ethanol per gallon of gasoline equivalent (GGE), is $2.75 / 0.65 = $4.23/gallon. This is not a good deal for the consumers.

A closer look is needed at the “great Ethanol successes” in Brazil claimed by television host Bill Oreilly, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass, and others. It’s a completely different situation.

First, Brazilian Ethanol is made from sugar cane, not corn, and is a much more suitable source of ethanol. Furthermore, the sugar cane grows all year around.

We can’t grow corn year round in the US, nor is it very well suited for ethanol, nor can we grow sugar cane in the Midwest climates. Brazil is in many ways a 3rd world country certainly not fully developed and not nearly as productive and energy intensive as the U.S.

Many families do not own any cars and the cars which do exist are much smaller. The population is smaller, 62 percent of the US at 186 million. Brazil also has vast tracts of very cheap land available for agriculture.

Ethanol has a great number of engineering problems to be a serious energy source for the future, not the least of which is its relatively low energy density 76,000 Btu/gal. For our leaders to be throwing out these superficial one-line energy solutions for uninformed Americans is as dangerous as it is misleading. There are many long range cost and performance uncertainties in comparing sugar cane, sugar beets, and corn infrastructures needed in the manufacture of ethanol.

In all cases the crops require long term agricultural operations, infrastructure, and investment including water, land, and energy, nutrients (fertilizers) of millions of acres of land.

In spite of the exaggerations the word is getting out about the dubious nature of Ethanol. The Salt Lake Tribune wrote (June 29, 2006):

“We don't make ethanol from corn because it is efficient..... And we don't use corn because it is environmentally friendly. Growing it sucks up huge amounts of energy and water and leaves tons of chemicals adrift in the ecosystem. We make ethanol mostly out of corn because it is astoundingly plentiful, thanks to decades of heavy federal subsidies.”

We’d do well to remember what John Fitzgerald Kennedy said: “The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth - persistent, persuasive and unrealistic.”

Michael R. Fox, Ph.D., is the energy and science writer for Hawaii Reporter. He has nearly 40 years experience in the energy field. He has also taught chemistry and energy at the University level. His interest in the communications of science has led to several communications awards, hundreds of speeches, and many appearances on television and talk shows. He can be reached via email at mailto:foxm011@hawaii.rr.com

ANOTHER STORY

Issue 14.10 - October 2006

Subscribe to WIRED magazine and receive a FREE gift!

Six Ethanol Myths

The most promising alternative fuel has been dogged by misinformation. Here's a look at the reality behind the ethanol myths.

By Vinod KhoslaPage 1 of 1

Back to Story

My Big Biofuels Bet

1) It takes more energy to make ethanol than the fuel itself produces.

Reality: Not so. Critics like to cite a 2005 study that shows a negative energy balance for ethanol, but that study was coauthored by a former oil company employee. It is contradicted by five others showing that corn ethanol delivers 20 to 50 percent more energy output than it takes to produce, and cellulosic up to 600 percent more. The National Resources Defense Council calls corn ethanol "energy well spent."

Story Tools

Rants + Raves

More »

START

Explore what's inside squirt-on cheese

Football's new call: Techdown!

How to dismantle an atomic bomb

More »

PLAY

Aardman Features plays with digital clay

Why Justin's latest album refuses to suck

Fuzoku revealed: inside Japan's sex industry

Fetish: Technolust

Test: Consumer Reviews

More »

Posts

War on Cyberterror, a role-playing game

William O. Goggins (1963-2006)

PLUS: Sterling rebuilds the Louisiana coast

More »

2) Ethanol is expensive to produce.

Reality: Ethanol costs about $1 a gallon to produce at typical facilities, which explains why E85 was selling for $1.95 at pumps in South Dakota this summer. In 2004, it was selling for $1.40 a gallon wholesale. Prices spiked higher recently because oil companies mismanaged the switch to ethanol as a replacement for the environmentally disastrous additive MBTE. Once demand and supply reach equilibrium, it can profitably sell for $1.40 a gallon without subsidies.

3) There's not enough land to grow crops for ethanol.

Reality: Former secretary of state George Schultz and ex-CIA director R. James Woolsey estimate that 30 million acres can replace half our gasoline. I estimate that 40 million to 60 million acres can replace our gasoline needs. By taking land now used to grow export crops and instead planting energy crops, it's feasible to eliminate our need to import oil for gasoline.

4) Switching to ethanol is expensive.

Reality: It didn't cost much in Brazil. Automakers already produce 10 flex-fuel models. There are almost as many flex-fuel vehicles in California as there are diesel cars and light trucks. A new car can be made flex-fuel-capable for about $35. And the cost to adapt a retail gas pump for E85 is a bargain – as little as $10,000.

5) Ethanol is unfairly subsidized.

Reality: Yes, ethanol producers and blenders share in a 51-cent-a-gallon federal credit that costs taxpayers about $2 billion a year. The majority of that accrues to oil companies, not farmers. But not mentioned by critics is the 54-cent-a-gallon tariff on imported ethanol, which hampers global competition. Meanwhile, the US also directly subsidizes Big Oil. The General Accounting Office reports that the industry has netted $82 billion from just one line item alone, something called "excess of percentage over cost depletion," and there are many other such clauses.

6) Cars that run on ethanol get lower mileage.

Reality: Ethanol gets 25 percent lower mileage compared to gasoline. But that difference is likely to shrink dramatically as engines are optimized. The Saab 9-5 gets only 18 percent less mileage and can be further optimized easily. Significantly, the cost per mile driven should be lower using E85.

Page 1 of 1

The second article is a great example of the Myth, even if you could take it all at face value it does not conveniently consider the that the price of corn will go up and force all other crops into competition. Silly writer please grow a brain.

Plus he goes on to say this everything is based on one BIG mean oil company guy, well a quick search of arguments against ethanol will produce a ton of independent scientists reports for the last decade that give list upon list of why ethanol is bad period. Don't burn your food.

Ethanol absorbs water from the air, and also from direct exposure to water typically from condensation. You can not run ethanol through pipelines, you can't ship it in regular tankers. The current level of ethanol in car gas is killing older cars. Man this is crazy. Like the oil companies care, they still sell it at their gas stations, and it is not like there will be a shortage of cars needing gas.

That water absorption hammers your engine and help dissolve metal that get burn through your engine and released into the atmosphere. Gas does not absorb water, that is why many vehicles have fuel sumps to catch and release the water, any pilot can tell you about that.

Edited January 28, 2008 by KingDL1

[eulesseagle]

This is why it is imperitive that the United States Congress open up ANWR (in Alaska) and all the other fields that were put off limits, in the 90's, and build a few more refineries to handle the reserves. Without new refineries the U.S.A. will be just as dependent upon foriegn oil and foriegn refineries as today. United States refineries are at capacity, not only with our oil, but also with the reserves in Venazuela because the type of oil grade that is produced in Venazuela can only be refined in the United States. How ironic is that?

[KingDL1]

This is why it is imperitive that the United States Congress open up ANWR (in Alaska) and all the other fields that were put off limits, in the 90's, and build a few more refineries to handle the reserves. Without new refineries the U.S.A. will be just as dependent upon foriegn oil and foriegn refineries as today. United States refineries are at capacity, not only with our oil, but also with the reserves in Venazuela because the type of oil grade that is produced in Venazuela can only be refined in the United States. How ironic is that?

Well the EPA has the refineries and the off shore drilling completely hand cuffed, they have made so hard to drill off shore it has become almost impossible to make money even with the high price of crude. That is why building any new refineries is also cost prohibitive. Thanks again EPA screwing us! The Gulf has more oil in it then all of the Middle East three times over. But now we are not able to actively drill in new wells in our water, but Cuba just sold drilling rights to China to drill the Gulf, I bet they will meet our EPA standards. Right?

CHINA STARTS OIL DRILLING OFF FLORIDA

China, Cuba reported in Gulf oil partnership

[eulesseagle]

kingdl...

got to agree but congress and the current prez and the two previous chief are responsible to.....

read....

http://www.grist.org/news/muck/2006/03/03/griscom-little/

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editori...272501641356045

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa38...203/ai_n9045336

Edited January 28, 2008 by eulesseagle

[KingDL1]

kingdl...

got to agree but congress and the current prez and the two previous chief are responsible to.....

read....

http://www.grist.org/news/muck/2006/03/03/griscom-little/

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editori...272501641356045

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa38...203/ai_n9045336

Looks like in those articles Bush tried to help, but ethanol is on both sides.

But this is more of what I was thinking;

Tight regulations hinder our drilling for oil offshore

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

---I am stating something that no politician or the government dares to state publicly. I think one reason we don't drill more in the USA and that we now import so much oil is the future and what could happen. Once we "use up" our supply of oil, you don't want to think what the Arabic and other countries could do to us and what they could charge. It seems better to use their oil while it is still fairly cheap and to save our own until the future demands it. Also once the world oil situation gets critical (not in our lifetime) there is a fairly decent supply in Canada and the Artic in "shale oil". It is more expensive to produce (more than drilling) but it does exist and in large amounts. T.Boone Pickens is already into that sector.

----Besides at the moment oil production in the Middle East is cheap compared to American production. Remember those Iraq oil-field fires in the Gulf war?? It did not have to be pumped even... it just flows out of the ground and is capped by a "Christmas Tree" to control the flow.... rarely does that happen here in the USA.

----Once China and India become much more modern (and they are) the price of oil will continue to increase on the world market. Oil is a worldwide commodity that everyone will need and it will get more expensive. Bet on it.

---Ethanol is really dumb despite what Bush et. al. say. If they really wanted to clean up this world then use more solar power, more wind power, and perhaps even nuclear power... just figure out a way to get rid of the waste safely. Don't be surprised if in your lifetime that small wind generaters become commonplace and even at many private homes. The world will change.. Remember my parent's generation (born shortly after 1900) was born into a world of no cars, no airplanes, no commercial radio or TV and little electricty use. I am less than 65 and the atomic bomb did not exist, no commercial TV, most radio stations were less than 10 years old, jets did not exist, computers were science fiction, and even plastic was fairly new and rare when I was born. Even pocket calculators did not exist when I was in college nor did they exist when we went to the moon . Get used to change..... the world you were born into is not the world that will exist when you die.

--You may want to check out the final minutes of the movie: "Three Days of the Condor" (1975)

Edited January 28, 2008 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[LongJim]

Yeah, all that economic and political stuff is important too.... but we're talking about our BEER!!!! A shortage of BEER!!!

Hear him out!! FOR GOD'S SAKE...TAKE HEED!!

[chrisfisher]

I gave up on beer a while back... $8.00/6-pack (plus tax) for any half-decent beer... give me a break!?! geez....beer is very cheap to produce..... I can purchase a 1.75 liter of world class Vodka for under $20.00 that will last me a month. Even a nice 1.75 liter of wine can be had for $10-$20.00 now. And I think alot folks felt the same way, as beer sales have fallen for a while... though I heard they recently saw a boost in sales for the first time in a while.... the beer industry can kiss that sales boost goodbye if prices skyrocket as many people will be off to the liquor store instead.

Edited January 28, 2008 by chrisfisher

[UNTflyer]

If they really wanted to clean up this world then use more solar power, more wind power, and perhaps even nuclear power...

Nuclear is the way to go. Wind and solar are too expensive, for now. The day it becomes cheaper than natural-gas or coal generated electricity, then people will switch.

The French have more nuke plants than any western country. They are safe, they are secure, and the French have the cleanest air of any western country. Put the nuclear waste in that deep hole in the desert until we figure out what to do with it. It will be fine. Some are even looking at the possibility of recycling nuclear waste as a reactor fuel source.

Markets will drive solutions, not governments. When the time comes for a new source of energy, they will come up with one. But ethanol is not the answer.

[BeanCounterGrad'03]

I'm surprised nobody's brought this up (too busy fearing the dark side I guess), but switchgrass ethanol is almost as efficient as sugar ethanol and it wouldn't affect our food supply. From what I understand, it doesn't take much (fertilizer and water) to grow the crop and it can grow in several more regions than just corn. Just google "switchgrass ethanol" and you'll get a ton of info on it.

I do disagree with the subsidizing of corn ethanol as it is just not very efficient to make it. That lobby has just got to many Washington connections right now (wish lobbyists could be done away with all together, but that's a topic for another thread).

Ethanol, hydrogen, plug-in hybrids, biodeisel, and even biogas (I work for an ag company here in Colorado and got a newswire the other day that researches at NC State have developed this new non-petroleum fuel that almost matches the molecular make up of petroleum gas...exciting stuff!) are all viable alternatives to petroleum fuel. The people that push these alternatives are idiots sometimes, but that does not mean we should just dismiss all the ideas and go on pertending that we can just keep sucking oil out of the ground forever.

Signed,

A tree hugging hippie

[meangreendork]

I'm surprised nobody's brought this up (too busy fearing the dark side I guess), but switchgrass ethanol is almost as efficient as sugar ethanol and it wouldn't affect our food supply. From what I understand, it doesn't take much (fertilizer and water) to grow the crop and it can grow in several more regions than just corn. Just google "switchgrass ethanol" and you'll get a ton of info on it.

I do disagree with the subsidizing of corn ethanol as it is just not very efficient to make it. That lobby has just got to many Washington connections right now (wish lobbyists could be done away with all together, but that's a topic for another thread).

Ethanol, hydrogen, plug-in hybrids, biodeisel, and even biogas (I work for an ag company here in Colorado and got a newswire the other day that researches at NC State have developed this new non-petroleum fuel that almost matches the molecular make up of petroleum gas...exciting stuff!) are all viable alternatives to petroleum fuel. The people that push these alternatives are idiots sometimes, but that does not mean we should just dismiss all the ideas and go on pertending that we can just keep sucking oil out of the ground forever.

Signed,

A tree hugging hippie

Corn ethanol is really the main problem, it's the one that sucks up the most resources and is least efficient in its production. I guess someone said, "HEY, the US has a lot of corn, we can just use that!" and no one decided to really look too far into it.

[UNTflyer]

I guess someone said, "HEY, the US has a lot of corn, we can just use that!" and no one decided to really look too far into it.

Ethanol. Corn. Iowa. Election year.

[BeanCounterGrad'03]

Ethanol. Corn. Iowa. Election year.

Ding Ding Ding!

[meangreendork]

Ethanol. Corn. Iowa. Election year.

I hope they never think it's a great idea to turn all of America's footballs into fuel. I don't know what we'd do during fall.

[FirefightnRick]

Yeah, all that economic and political stuff is important too.... but we're talking about our BEER!!!! A shortage of BEER!!!

Just say no to the watered down corn and rice crap.

These brewers use traditional ingredients such as barley, malt and wheat, unlike the corn and rice often used by the major breweries to produce beer.

Rick

Edited January 29, 2008 by FirefightnRick

[UNTflyer]

What about the BEER?!?!

This ranks even higher than the world's worst known beer disaster:

[meangreendork]

What about the BEER?!?!

This ranks even higher than the world's worst known beer disaster:

Oh. God.

What has fate done?!

[UNTFan23]

Just say no to the watered down corn and rice crap.

Rick

Support your local brewery

[KingDL1]

New study, imagine that!!

Study: Corn ethanol worse than gasoline