<Cyclone Gonu Thread 3 (Last Updated 10pm EDT, 6/6)The Oil DrumRelocalization: A Strategic Response to Climate Change and Peak Oil>
<DrumBeat: June 5, 2007DrumBeatDrumBeat: June 7, 2007>

121 comments on DrumBeat: June 6, 2007

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Robert Rapier on June 6, 2007 - 12:44pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

To save yourself some time, Google ethanol and "reduce petroleum demand." You will find many instances of ethanol advocates stating that ethanol can/will/may reduce petroleum demand.

As I said, there is nothing to your challenge. Even if you do think that reducing gasoline usage by 150 billion barrels is not a reduction in gasoline demand.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
tstreet on June 6, 2007 - 2:11pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

And besides, wasn't reducing petroleum demand or usage kind of the point in developing ethanol? Or was it just to make a heavily subsidized buck? If it is not supposed to reduce demand or usage, then it is more worthless than I thought.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Syntec on June 6, 2007 - 2:12pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I am not interested in Google search parameters.

I've asked you and other TODers to find me a quote from a biofuel proponent who has stated that petroleum demand will decrease as result of biofuel usage. This is a rather simple request that so far no one has been able to fill.

Nor for that matter, will the choosing of an arbitrary number deflect the standing of my position.

For example: If I were to replace 10 barrels of gasoline on the world market with 10 barrels of ethanol would demand for those 10 barrels of gasoline be removed? No, of course not. How about 100 million barrels? Same effect. Why?

Because demand for petroleum and its byproducts i.e. gasoline is ever increasing and for all intents and purposes, will not cease until it’s all gone.

If this assertion wasn’t fundamentally true, then the IEA and EIA would have nice charts detailing the future demand of gasoline as sloping down and away into negative territory.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Robert Rapier on June 6, 2007 - 3:10pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I've asked you and other TODers to find me a quote from a biofuel proponent who has stated that petroleum demand will decrease as result of biofuel usage.

That's what I gave you. You just wish to apply your own definition of demand in order to avoid the conclusion. I am pretty familiar with that tactic.

Do you know how the EIA, keeper of U.S. energy statistics, defines demand? Product supplied to the market. If gasoline supplied to the market went to zero, then demand went to zero. So I am really not interested in your special version of demand. Biofuels advocates are saying that biofuels are going to displace gasoline. You know, that whole 20 in 10 meme? So, the fact remains, no matter what your definition of "is" is.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Syntec on June 6, 2007 - 3:53pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

You did not fulfill the request and the patronizing EIA comment is uncalled for.

Product supply and product demand are not the same -ECON 101- but since you’ve decided to 3rd party the EIAs definition as your own, are we to assume that during the Arab oil embargo when 1000’s of people were lined up in their cars at service stations that did not have gasoline to sell, that demand for gasoline did not exist?

“Biofuels advocates are saying that biofuels are going to displace gasoline.” – which has been the crux of my position all along.

Biofuel usage displaces gasonline usage. This is a measurable fact.

Biofuel usage does not, however, reduce gasoline demand. To erroneously infer otherwise and assign such inferences to participants in the biofuel sector is your own personal agenda.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Robert Rapier on June 7, 2007 - 1:35am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Biofuel usage does not, however, reduce gasoline demand.

You are confusing fuel demand with gasoline demand. If I can put either ethanol or gasoline in my car, and I choose ethanol, then my gasoline demand went down. But my fuel demand did not.

And there was nothing patronizing about the EIA comment. I am just pointing out that my use of demand is exactly the same as theirs.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Bruce Scott on June 7, 2007 - 12:51pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Syntec,

Yes he did fulfill the request. You are just posturing to avoid his clear answer. This is annoying.

ciao,
Bruce

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
unrepentantcowboy on June 7, 2007 - 8:00am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Unfortunately, 40 gallons of petroleum are used to grow one acre of corn. Factor in the petroleum used to move corn to market and to get ethanol back to the market, other depletable energy sources like natural gas used to make fertilizer to grow the corn, to run the distiller...

Ethanol produced from corn is a scam.

Best case scenario gives a slight increase in energy. Best case scenarios rarely hold up in the real world.

I did inhale.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.