<Request for Drupal help The Oil Drum Koppelaar: Peak Oil, Separating Facts from Fiction>
<DrumBeat: October 24, 2006 DrumBeat DrumBeat: October 26, 2006>

206 comments on DrumBeat: October 25, 2006

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Show without comments | PDF version

fuelaholic on October 25, 2006 - 10:59am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
still deafeningly silent on subsidies for oil companies, eh RR?
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Robert Rapier on October 25, 2006 - 11:09am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Oh my gosh! I think a bridge has lost its troll this morning.

If you have something you wish to say, and it is something I have taken a position on, by all means spit it out man.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
fuelaholic on October 25, 2006 - 12:54pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I am very clear, as is everyone here on your position on ethanol subsidies.
I have never seen ANY posts on oil company subsidies.
Please link.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Robert Rapier on October 25, 2006 - 1:33pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Don't be lazy. Do your own homework. You can start with the story I recently wrote advocating much higher gasoline taxes. I don't favor any oil company subsidies, and frankly I would like to see us completely stop using fossil fuels altogether. I want people to pay the true costs, and I don't want them to be hidden behind any tax breaks, etc. This would encourage conservation, which if you do your homework you will see that I also advocate.

What hypocrites like you don't seem to appreciate is that any oil subsidies also subsidize the ethanol industry. That is, unless you can show me a tractor or semi running on the ethanol they produce. What you would find is that higher gasoline prices will force higher ethanol prices. Such is the hypocritical nature of ethanol advocates - undisputably receiving very generous subsidies for marginal energy creation - complaining about oil company subsidies that directly benefit them.

Clear enough?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
fuelaholic on October 25, 2006 - 2:09pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Hypocrites, huh?  Do I hear an ad hominem?

You clearly favor oil company subsidies as you refuse to talk about them on this blog.  You'd rather dwell ad nauseam (Latin, in case you don't understand) on ethanol whose subsidies have stayed at home, rather than being invested aboard in oilogolopolies .  Do your own homework on the subsidies.  Khosla has, it doesn't take a billionaire.  Who cares if you want higher gas taxes, you still want all the power in the hands of your bosses.  Not what I want.

No tax breaks were given to ethanol producers to run their tractors, etc on ethanol.  So Because gas was cheap, they didn't bother.  Things will change now, once they get educated.  If oil companies will allow it.

I'm happy to see all oil subsidies lifted, regardless of what it does to ethanol industry.  Then we'll see who survives.  We're a pretty ingenious people when we wanna be.  Why bother with gas taxes when you can lift all subsidies and watch prices rise!  Then we'll have to go out and make our own cheap stuff!

As Khosla says, naysayers better stand back and get out of the way, because ethanol is coming and in a few years, it will be mostly sustainable, no thanks to oil industry obstructionism.  
 

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Telumehtar on October 25, 2006 - 2:45pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
because ethanol is coming and in a few years

I'll believe it when I see it.  The EROEI studies I've seen so far only make this worthwhile for Sugar in Brazil(Maybe).  I've yet to see the data for corn ethanol or other North American crop that says this will be an energy positive investment.  Consider also that crops rely heavily on oil/NG to plow, harvest, fertilize and pesticide their crops, I find it convenient that most Ethanol studies I've seen ignore the energy inputs of those actions.

it will be mostly sustainable

Either it is, or it isn't, its kind of the same problem when people say, they're almost not pregnant.  Mostly sustainable is another way to say not sustainable.  You might argue it will take a long time for the degradation of the process to catch up with itself, but ultimately it is not sustainable if its only "mostly sustainable".

You clearly favor oil company subsidies as you refuse to talk about them on this blog.

And you apparently clearly favor Ethanol without fair consideration to oil and how it impacts the ability of Ethanol to be viable.  But hey, Kettle meet Pot.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
pstarr on October 25, 2006 - 9:13pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Sugar ethanol studies promoting 8:1 energy return are published by the Brazilian government and are not peer-reviewed. Unlike Pimentel's work in the US on other biofuels.

I find it difficult to believe that one particular woody plant (sugar cane) growing on this planet earth and receiving similar solar radiation could be 4X as productive as corn, soy, etc. converting said radiation to similar mass.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
mwilbert on October 25, 2006 - 11:41pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I don't think anyone claims that sugarcane is "4 times as productive" but rather that the overall energy cost of producing it and turning it into a given amount of ethanol is (perhaps) 4 times less.  That is a big difference.

Corn produces some protein and some oil, which don't get turned into ethanol. Reasonable corn yields require huge amounts of fertilizer, which requires a lot of energy to produce.  Harvesting corn in the US is fairly energy-intensive also.

Sugarcane, on the other hand, produces carbohydrates with very little protein or fat, with less fertilizer input, and it is harvested with fewer energy inputs as well, at least in Brazil.

So while you may well be correct that the Brazilian numbers are inadequately documented, I don't think it is hard to believe that one crop might be vastly superior to another by this metric (EROEI) for ethanol production.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Jack on October 26, 2006 - 12:01am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Pstarr has been making this sort of post frequently and rarely responds to any conterpoint. My impression is that he is so religiously opposed to ethanol, he thinks that it is essential that he combat any assertion that there could be anything good about any kind of ethanol.

While I suspect the root of this oppositionalism is a well justified concern over the broader impacts of biofuels, I think perpetrating falsehood about ethanol EROEI is the wrong way to deal with the real potential problems of biofuels.

Here are several links that all cite figures of positive 8-10 EROEI for ethanol from sugar cane, none of which come from the Brazilian government. I have posted these for pstarr several times, but he continues to ignore them or attempt to discredit them, without opening the documents. The studies address EROEI, land use, environmental and climate impacts and other issues in detail.

There are good points and bad points to ethanol and biofuels. Potential deforestation from biodiesel is so bad as to justify a halt to all palm-based fuel immediately. The article linked at the top of this thread has several other links that discuss these very real issues. But his willfully inaccurate assault on the EROEI of sugar cane-based ethanol is not helping this cause.

Here are three studies
IEA Automotive Fuels for the Future
http://www.iea.org/textbase/nppdf/free/1990/autofuel99.pdf

IEA: Biofuels for Transport
http://www.iea.org/textbase/nppdf/free/2004/biofuels2004.pdf

Worldwatch Institute & Government of Germany: Biofuels for Transport  (Link to register - study is free)

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/4078

Potential for Biofuels for Transport in Developing Countries

http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/IW3P/IB/2006/01/05/000090341_20060105 161036/Rendered/PDF/ESM3120PAPER0Biofuels.pdf

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
pstarr on October 26, 2006 - 2:43am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
you keep repeating these same studies (Macedo et. al. )but none are peer-reviewed and I am starting to doubt their veracity. I am sorry that you find my sceptism upsetting. I find your repetition boring.

The truth will win out.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Telumehtar on October 26, 2006 - 10:03am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I find it difficult to believe that one particular woody plant (sugar cane) growing on this planet earth and receiving similar solar radiation could be 4X as productive as corn, soy, etc. converting said radiation to similar mass.

I admit I'm a skeptic too, but then I also readily admit I'm not a biologist of biofuels expert, hence the "(Maybe)" I appended to my statement about Brazilian sugar cane.  But sugar cane in relation to US demand is inconsequential, as A) we can't grow sugar cane like the Brazilians can, and B) Even if we could, several people have stated we would still need to curb our appetite for liquid fuels as it can't replace current oil consumption.  

So we are left with Corn, which currently is in the middle of a firestorm of debate about its viability.  Not saying we shouldn't explore corn ethanol at all, but pending our futures on an untested "maybe" doesn't seem smart to me, when we do know of models which could allow us to maintain a modern standard of living albeit a different looking one.  Mainly accomplished by bussing/trolley systems, light rail, heavy rail, and an effort to bolster and improve our electricity grid along with localizing electricity generation via solar, wind,

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Robert Rapier on October 25, 2006 - 3:33pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Hypocrites, huh?  Do I hear an ad hominem?

Yet another person who doesn't understand what an ad hominem actually is. Look it up. And ad hominem is when you starting casting aspersions on my arguments by making false accusations against me, like "you must be getting paid to do this."

You clearly favor oil company subsidies as you refuse to talk about them on this blog.

So, you ask me about oil company subsidies; I tell you I am against them; and you announce that I clearly favor them. If you think you already know the answers, and aren't willing to listen, why bother asking the question?

I have no trouble at all talking about oil company subsidies. Show a case where I "refuse to talk about them." You have been guilty of having your facts wrong on a great number of occasions, and this is just another example.

I would also point out that you and Blume were claiming oil company subsidies equivalent to the entire federal budget of the U.S. government. I don't consider you exactly the most credible source out there.

No tax breaks were given to ethanol producers to run their tractors, etc on ethanol.

Yet ethanol is subsidized, is it not? That is a tax break. So instead of relying on cheap oil to run their tractors, why not run them on tax-subsidized ethanol? Do you know why they don't? Because the ethanol industry in the U.S. is completely dependent on cheap fossil fuels (your pipe dreams notwithstanding). Wake up and smell the coffee.

If you have an actual argument to make, now's the time. I am too busy to mess with trolls right now.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
fuelaholic on October 26, 2006 - 9:47am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
It now appears you have been paid very well to do this.  Witness all the offers that have come in for you.
Thanks for all your insults and condescension.  Time will tell what will occur now, won't it?  
You can bet oil companies will do their damndest to smash any alternative.  It's part of history, something I don't think you've studied enough of.
Check out Forbidden Fuel by Kovarik and Bernton, which will be rereleased next year.  They're not pro or con ethanol particularly but they know history.  And history shows what oil companies do.
Kenny Rogers now has to think  about his cheating.  Hope you're always thinking about well you serve the status quo by working for big oil.

BTW, the numbers Blume and I cited were from the Center for Technology Assessment's report which they updated during the Iraq war.  We d on't invent facts out of whole cloth, you know.  

What can I say? You had your chance to work on sustainable ethanol and you gave it up for fossil fuel.  You say you want to end our dependence on fossil fuel?  Then why work for the enemy?  (better life for your family, Ik n ow what that's about, really I do)  Read some history and you'll see why I call them the enemy.

Stop preening about yourself and sneering at Blume.  Look at what he's done and then decide if you think he's a nutjob.  (Which clearly you do.)
http://permaculture.com/who/teachers/blume.shtml

Bon voyage.  I blog rarely because I have a life and wife and children.... sorry not to address everyone else's responses here.  

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Robert Rapier on October 26, 2006 - 6:09pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
What can I say? You had your chance to work on sustainable ethanol and you gave it up for fossil fuel.  You say you want to end our dependence on fossil fuel?  Then why work for the enemy?

You should thank your lucky stars that some of us do. What do you think would happen if oil companies suddenly turned off the taps? Sometimes I wish people could see the consequences of what would happen if Big Oil just got fed up with all the hatred pointed their direction and just shut the taps off for a while. I think then people would come to appreciate how much their lives depend on oil production.

Your problem, in all honesty, is that you are seriously delusional. All this oil company vitriol is a bit tiresome, when you are as dependent on oil products as are the rest of us (and as is the ethanol industry).

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
dipchip on October 25, 2006 - 4:16pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Ethanol seems to be on the exact path I had expected. Here is a quickie website for all commodities.
http://futures.tradingcharts.com/marketquotes/
As you can see Dec corn is up to $3.27 and higher for later months. No doubt due to the USDA crop report of 10.8 billion bushels for 2006. As ethanol production continues to rise so will corn prices, and at some point either gas will have to increase, and NG will have to decrease, or the subsidy will have to increase, or there will be some sorry ethanol investors. It may get up to 5% of gasoline fuel. As gas prices increase so does diesel, and all farm expenses, so in order to maintain corn production, corn prices will continue to rise. If PO is on a plateau and gas prices remain flat, ethanol goes in the dump. Compared to last year corn prices have caused a 40-cent drop in ethanol margin and the lower gas prices will increase the lower margin. What happens next year if the crop is further reduced and corn is $4, and gasoline spot is still under $2? I don't see ethanol production increasing more than another 50% before it becomes a net loser for the producers, and investors.
Unless there is a breakthrough in cellulosic ethanol there will be some idle new ethanol plants. I don't see gas prices rising fast enough to keep up with rising corn prices, unless there is a catastrophic political upheaval some where in the oil field. .  Checkout the ethanol price, why is it so much higher than gas, with 2/3rds the energy?
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
airdale on October 25, 2006 - 8:42pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Dipchip,(possible airdale type)

You might like to check out what is happening in the ethanol scenario in the state of IOWA. Peers the farmers coops are doing it big time. ADM is the big hitter in Illinois. Here in Ky the plants are being touted a lot. Farmers just love it.

The VCs smell flesh in the water to flense for their carpet bags. Politicos are for it and riding it to election.

So who loses? Who always loses?

IMO the ethanol scenario will , will happen and the chips can fall where they may. Yet the exports IMO will have to cease if serious corn goes to ethanol contracts.

In the end it be all folly as you surmise but the ride will be taken I am afraid.

Whats next then? Well the dieoff of course. The pale rider who is drunk on ethanol comes to set things aright.

Many who eschew religion and tetragrammon will suddenly find themselves on their knees begging , begging for relief and a light at the end of the tunnel. It won't happen for the goats and sheep still have to face the seperation test and then comes ...yep...The Lake Of Fire, you guessed it.

Finally the Whore of Babylon(sound familiar?) will feed from the face of the Serpent(this part is neat) and then ..well a NEW EARTH arises from the ashes of the old. We knew it. Darn it that I won't get to see it. I will be waiting for those graves to open and the dead to come forth. Won't be pretty I don't think.

So..spirituality wins. The righteous survive and why shouldn't they? The evildoers will go to that Lake yonder.

Airdale--Some/Most of the above is serious discourse. Some/Most is not. You all can pick and choose but .....but..choose carefully...Red or Blue. Election comes. Are you Red or Blue. Yank or Reb.Blue or Gray. Righteous or not. God Bombs will fall..S. King was right all along.Thankee sai and happy trails to ye.

P.S. Dipchip: I was duty station NAS Barbers Point, Oahu(and points north and west) for 4 long nice years. Back before the haole roundeyes ruined it for all. Willy Victors were my trade. Radar was my game. AT3,2,1 and out at TI. You?  

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Hothgor on October 26, 2006 - 12:31am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
WOW!  Just WOW!!!
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
dipchip on October 26, 2006 - 8:25am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I'll get back to you later , right now I'm leaving for S. Padre (30 min.) for Co. retirie get together. Later
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Papirus on October 25, 2006 - 5:35pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
fuelaholic


still deafeningly silent on subsidies for oil companies, eh RR?

Yes, Mr. Rapier work for an oil company - but i really can't see how this exclude him from being honest and frank. I've not seen anything of his writings that should imply that his views are somewhat guided by big oil.

I have no idea what gave you an impression that Mr. Rapier is something remotely close to dishonest. He's a productive clear-thinking educator who choose to participate in a forum like TOD.

And to echo his own response; make a post if you believe there is something being under-communicated here.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

206 comments on DrumBeat: October 25, 2006

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Show without comments | PDF version