The Pickens Plan

[scooterbug44]

Corn ethanol is not the way to go, but sugarcane ethanol is! It's 4x better in terms of efficiency and doesn't mess w/ food prices/supplies. I think corn is 1:2 and sugarcane is 1:8.

Brazil currently runs 35% of their cars on sugarcane ethanol (they want to increase it to almost 100%) and also exports it to other countries - including the US where we have a hefty tax on it (want to say 45 cents per gallon) to protect the corn ethanol folks!

 

[full time]

Corn ethanol is not the way to go, but sugarcane ethanol is! It's 4x better in terms of efficiency and doesn't mess w/ food prices/supplies. I think corn is 1:2 and sugarcane is 1:8.

Brazil currently runs 35% of their cars on sugarcane ethanol (they want to increase it to almost 100%) and also exports it to other countries - including the US where we have a hefty tax on it (want to say 45 cents per gallon) to protect the corn ethanol folks!

Is that right? What happens to the price of sugar we eat? What happens to the price of other food when our farmers decide it's more profitable to grow sugarcane? What happens when we need to start filling wetlands and clear cutting forests and swamplands in south Louisiana to grow more sugarcane to put in our tanks? What about when the Brazilians clear cut the Amazon rain forest so that US greenies can load up the tanks with crops? It's sounds romantic but lets not kid anyone here, the Brazilians are drilling for oil off there coast.

 

[scooterbug44]

Those are all invalid arguments.

Part of the reason Brazil is using sugarcane is because it has more sugar/sugarcane than it can use. Not only do they produce ethanol from it, they use the waste products/leftovers to fuel their sugar and ethanol plants.

Our protectionist tariffs and billions in agricultural subsidies do way more to raise the cost of sugar and ethanol. I was incorrect about the ethanol tariff - its 54 cents a gallon, not 45 and sugar import tariffs currently raise the price of sugar 20%.

For more info:
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=6817
and
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0505/p04s01-woam.html

 

[30ashopper]

Those are all invalid arguments.

Part of the reason Brazil is using sugarcane is because it has more sugar/sugarcane than it can use. Not only do they produce ethanol from it, they use the waste products/leftovers to fuel their sugar and ethanol plants.

Our protectionist tariffs and billions in agricultural subsidies do way more to raise the cost of sugar and ethanol. I was incorrect about the ethanol tariff - its 54 cents a gallon, not 45 and sugar import tariffs currently raise the price of sugar 20%.

For more info:
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=6817
and
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0505/p04s01-woam.html

How much of the Amazon was cleared to make room for the production of sugarcane? It's a double edged sword.

 

[Bob]

Actually, we have had an excellent nuclear plant north of Tampa, in Citrus County, since 1977. Progress Energy is building another one in Levy County that was recently approved. There was not a lot of opposition -- the biggest complaint was the surcharges that will start soon. The Citrus County plant has been run very well. The main issue of course is what to do with increasing amounts of waste.

Something needs to be done about the "ethanol solution" NOW before it becomes something that can't be undone. Now that is a nightmare.

I think Orlando is nicely east of the Crystal River meltdown plume. More please!!!

 

[scooterbug44]

The new sugarcane fields are going on old cow pastureland and part of their research is how to get better yields and use less land and resources to produce it. The global demand for corn and soybean is doing WAY more to deforest the amazon than sugarcane.

I'm not saying it's a 100% solution, but it's WAY better than the other biofuels - beet, corn, wheat etc. by a factor of 4!

Brazil will soon be energy independent thanks to it's domestic oil and ethanol production, while we'll still be pouring money into the Middle East while we biatch about other solutions.

 

[full time]

The new sugarcane fields are going on old cow pastureland and part of their research is how to get better yields and use less land and resources to produce it. The global demand for corn and soybean is doing WAY more to deforest the amazon than sugarcane.

I'm not saying it's a 100% solution, but it's WAY better than the other biofuels - beet, corn, wheat etc. by a factor of 4!

Brazil will soon be energy independent thanks to it's domestic oil and ethanol production, while we'll still be pouring money into the Middle East while we biatch about other solutions.

Acording to environmentalists, the sugar cane ethanol industry in Brazil has forced small farmers to sell their land at low prices and work for large multi-national companies, under poor conditions and little pay. Ethanol production has pushed soybean cultivation and cattle ranching into the Amazon area, making room for sugarcane production. Finally, sugar cane cultivation involves the burning of the old cane to get rid of dry leaves and dispensable biomass. This practice creates health problems for local populations, and spreads the fires into some of the Amazon rainforests. Sounds lovely. We can finish off southeast Louisiana and the Amazons with this policy.

 

[full time]

Never mind - lets cancel this deal immediately and save Florida a billion bucks. Now, we can go back to farming the Everglades which environmentalists called a disaster. I can see see the greenies' argument - I was for saving the Everglades from sugar cane farming before I was against it to promote alternative fuels. The only nuclear meltdown is between the greenies' ears.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/governmentFilingsNews/idUKN2147112120080722

 

[elgordoboy]

Never mind - lets cancel this deal immediately and save Florida a billion bucks. Now, we can go back to farming the Everglades which environmentalists called a disaster. I can see see the greenies' argument - I was for saving the Everglades from sugar cane farming before I was against it to promote alternative fuels. The only nuclear meltdown is between the greenies' ears.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/governmentFilingsNews/idUKN2147112120080722

Your repeated use of the term "greenies" was about to win me over to your viewpoint, then I googled "greenies" and found that only "weinies" say "greenies" and then say it again, and again, and again, ad nauseum. If nuclear energy could speak and knew that you, in particular, were advocating for it, nuclear energy would ask you to cease and desist.

 

[Miss Critter]

I'm all for nuclear FUSION once that is available. I am adamantly opposed to nuclear FISSION, for many reasons. Going from one bad fuel source to another makes no sense. I'm not sure that using a food source for fuel is such a great idea either. The international food shortage is severe, and worst among those who can least afford it. See http://compassion.com

I am so tired of "solutions" that only work for today, and even then not very well. I feel a responsibility to my son and his future children and grandchildren not to leave him a planet that we've poisoned beyond repair. Anything less is irresponsible to the highest order, IMO.

http://www.nirs.org/falsepromises.pdf outlines the many reasons why nuclear power is not the answer. Certainly a world society with the intelligence and creativity of ours can solve this problem.