• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama Says Commitment to Clean Energy Will Boost Jobs

j-mac said:
That is because these sources are unreliable...And will be far longer than it would take to develop current, known sources like Coal, and Oil.


j-mac
Click to expand...

So shoulden't we pump research into a technology that is farther ahead and let our current known sources of coal and oil passively develop? I'm not against clean energy, I'm just more concerned about renewable. I don't think our world is gonna die out anytime soon due to CO2 emissions. But the sooner we get off unrenewable sources the better.
 
LimeLight said:
So shoulden't we pump research into a technology that is farther ahead and let our current known sources of coal and oil passively develop?
Click to expand...

That's just the problem, I think we agree, being 'all the above' types. But, what is clearly going on now is an attack of sorts hitting the current energy developers, and the attack through regulation, and moratorium, meanwhile, there is nothing that is alternative, so the future is ungodly high prices.


I'm not against clean energy, I'm just more concerned about renewable. I don't think our world is gonna die out anytime soon due to CO2 emissions. But the sooner we get off unrenewable sources the better.
Click to expand...

I don't think we know nearly enough to say that a source is renewable or not. Sure we have a lot of propaganda out there driven in one direction or another due to political bents, and "feelings" but things like Natural gas, as Bill has outlined may or may not be renewable, and for that matter we have an over abundance of it to begin with.

So hey, you want to live in a world where your roof is made of mirrors, and on cloudy days you don't have any electric power? Go right ahead....I'll stick with the known's for now.


j-mac
 
UtahBill said:
Brazil has an advantage, more raw land, better climate, much more water, etc. for sugar cane production. So it is cheaper, even adding transportation to the costs. Doesn't mean we should be buying it. We could probably save more more gasoline by reducing speed limits than by importing ethanol from Brazil to dilute the gasoline we have.


We need to deal with our energy needs without too much involvement from foreign countries.
The primary need is oil, electricity is not in short supply and we can easily build more power plants.

OIL is the primary issue...
Click to expand...

So, according to you we should have protective tariffs (such as one on ethanol) to establish domestic energy production. Then why on earth are you against subsidizing domestic ethanol production? It would reduce our need for foreign oil w/out increasing the price of oil. It gives the market place more alternatives, and it is somewhat more environmentally friendly than its petro counterparts.
 
drz-400 said:
So, according to you we should have protective tariffs (such as one on ethanol) to establish domestic energy production. Then why on earth are you against subsidizing domestic ethanol production? It would reduce our need for foreign oil w/out increasing the price of oil. It gives the market place more alternatives, and it is somewhat more environmentally friendly than its petro counterparts.
Click to expand...


From 2001, still makes sense today:

In June, the Bush administration reported to Congress that the federal ethanol incentive program has done precisely the opposite of what was intended. Instead of reducing gasoline consumption, foreign oil dependency, and air pollution, the program caused Americans to use 473 million more gallons of gasoline in 2000 than in 1999. In fact, if this program remains in place, it actually will increase gasoline use by 9 billion gallons from 2005 to 2008.
Virtually every independent assessment of ethanol has shown that it's unjustified by either science or economics. The official effort to push ethanol has failed to live up to any of its stated goals. So in the face of this manifest boondoggle, what's the administration recommending? Continue the program and possibly even expand it.

Running on Empty: The Failure of Ethanol [Mackinac Center]
Click to expand...


j-mac
 
UtahBill said:
Ethanol is still just an additive that costs too much for the little it does.....
If it wasn't for govt subsidies, a lot of similar scams would have never gotten started.
Click to expand...

What does it do? It lowers the energy content of a gallon of gasoline.
 
Harshaw said:
I don't give a crap about "fossil fuels" per se. I do give a crap about energy. And as it is, it's a physical and economic fact that oil is cheap, it's easily transportable, and it's highly energy-intensive.

Find something which beats it in those categories, and then you'll have something, and the world will happily convert. But wishes and good intentions aren't energy sources.
Click to expand...
You have think positive thoughts to get the energy. You're just all full of negative vibes, man. ;)
 
j-mac said:
From 2001, still makes sense today:




j-mac
Click to expand...

So what are you specifically arguing for. Should we tear down the protective tariffs and remove the subsidies? If so, then we well see ethanol prices decrease and ethanol consumption increase here in the states. Ethanol is currently a viable alternative to gasoline.

If you think we should subsidize US industry to continue to expand, and grow the US ethanol industry, and to promote energy independence then ethanol subsidies and a tariff on ethanol imports are the policy to go with.

If you remove the tariff and continue the subsidy you will subsidize Brazil, if you remove the subsidy and continue the tariff you will decrease our ethanol production, and increase our foreign oil consumption.

What sounds best to you?
 
Last edited:
drz-400 said:
Ethanol refining is an industrial process, it does not need potable water. They can treat water used in ethanol plants to the level that it needs to be in order to be used. They could use groundwater, surface water, waste water from municipal plants, or even re-use the water they already use. The average for the gallons of water used to refine a gallon of gasoline is 1.53. Ethanol is 3 gallons to one gallon of ethanol in the refining process. So it takes about 2 times as much. What it pales in comparison to is the amount of water it takes to crow corn, not the refining process.
Click to expand...

Yeah??? Give me a list of ethanol plants that get their water from a river. How much does treating water add to the cost of ethanol??

Do you actually believe corn growers water their corn ???

The actual amount of water to produce ethanol in the manufacturing process is over 4 gallons of water for every gallon of fuel.

Dozens of communities that have rejected ethanol plants because they are concerned their water supply would be damaged. Here's one of many:

Enlarge By Paul Snyder, The Daily Reporter via AP
An ethanol plant in Stanley, Wis. Illinois officials are worried about the amount of water needed to run ethanol plants.

By Jim Paul, Associated Press
CHAMPAIGN, Ill. — City officials in Champaign and Urbana took notice when they heard that an ethanol plant proposed nearby would use about two million gallons of water per day, most likely from the aquifer that also supplies both cities.

"There was concern about impacting a pretty valuable resource," said Matt Wempe, a city planner for Urbana. "It should raise red flags."

The proposal for a 100 million-gallon-per-year ethanol plant is just one of many that have popped up in the past several months across Illinois, which already has seven operating plants and is the nation's No. 2 ethanol producer after Iowa.
Click to expand...
Ethanol plants' water usage raises some concerns - USATODAY.com
 
Last edited:
drz-400 said:
So, according to you we should have protective tariffs (such as one on ethanol) to establish domestic energy production. Then why on earth are you against subsidizing domestic ethanol production? It would reduce our need for foreign oil w/out increasing the price of oil. It gives the market place more alternatives, and it is somewhat more environmentally friendly than its petro counterparts.
Click to expand...

No, in fact I am in favor of removing ethanol from gasoline supplies. It costs too much for the little it does. I don't want tariffs, or subsidies, I want my gasoline to be ALL gasoline....
AND, I want speed limits on highways reduced to 65 mph for cars, 60 for trucks....
I know for a fact that driving slower uses a lot less gasoline. My 2000 Impala gets 37mpg at 65mph, 33mpg at 75mph hiway miles.
That is better than 10% improvement...
What do you think car makers would have to do to make the same car get 10% better mileage at 75mph?
 
UtahBill said:
a good read on green energy...
Five myths about green energy
Click to expand...

I have a number of problems with this article.

To start with,

Unfortunately, solar and wind technologies require huge amounts of land to deliver relatively small amounts of energy, disrupting natural habitats. Even an aging natural gas well producing 60,000 cubic feet per day generates more than 20 times the watts per square meter of a wind turbine.

I found this comparrison odd more than anything. It's comparing different things, other things have to happen to gas to make it into electricity, is this including the land the power plant it on, or the gas pipeline?

Also, new wind farms are using much larger turbines than older projects, a wind farm constructed today could produce 3 or 4 times more 'watts per square meter' than one construted 10 years ago. In the UK they are building over 30 GW of wind capacity offshore, where there is plenty of space, the US has some big coastlines too if it really needs space.


Nor does wind energy substantially reduce CO2 emissions. Since the wind doesn't always blow, utilities must use gas- or coal-fired generators to offset wind's unreliability. The result is minimal -- or no -- carbon dioxide reduction.

Evidence??? Most CCGT's can be tunred on or off in 30 minutes, allowing them to make up for periods when wind turbines are not operating.

Denmark, the poster child for wind energy boosters, more than doubled its production of wind energy between 1999 and 2007. Yet data from Energinet.dk, the operator of Denmark's natural gas and electricity grids, show that carbon dioxide emissions from electricity generation in 2007 were at about the same level as they were back in 1990, before the country began its frenzied construction of turbines.

If you look at the graph in the mentioned report, it clearly shows CO2 emmisions rising after 1990, and then falling from about 1997 to 2000. Page 27 states:

CO2 emissions vary considerably from year to year, depending on electricity trading.
Adjusting for imports and exports resulte in an overall emissions reduction of 23% in the 1990-2007 period. The primary reason is a conversion of Danish electricity and heat generation to less CO2 intensive fuels such as natural gas, coupled with increased use of renewable energy sources.

The article then states:

And through 2017, the Danes foresee no decrease in carbon dioxide emissions from electricity generation.

This is probably because Denmark has no plans to increase its wind generation capacity.
 
drz-400 said:
So what are you specifically arguing for. Should we tear down the protective tariffs and remove the subsidies? If so, then we well see ethanol prices decrease and ethanol consumption increase here in the states. Ethanol is currently a viable alternative to gasoline.

If you think we should subsidize US industry to continue to expand, and grow the US ethanol industry, and to promote energy independence then ethanol subsidies and a tariff on ethanol imports are the policy to go with.

If you remove the tariff and continue the subsidy you will subsidize Brazil, if you remove the subsidy and continue the tariff you will decrease our ethanol production, and increase our foreign oil consumption.

What sounds best to you?
Click to expand...


Easy! DRILL!!!!! our own oil, while at the same time developing things like natural gas and other alternatives that don't rely on using the food source to produce energy.


j-mac
 
UtahBill said:
No, in fact I am in favor of removing ethanol from gasoline supplies. It costs too much for the little it does. I don't want tariffs, or subsidies, I want my gasoline to be ALL gasoline....
AND, I want speed limits on highways reduced to 65 mph for cars, 60 for trucks....
I know for a fact that driving slower uses a lot less gasoline. My 2000 Impala gets 37mpg at 65mph, 33mpg at 75mph hiway miles.
That is better than 10% improvement...
What do you think car makers would have to do to make the same car get 10% better mileage at 75mph?
Click to expand...

We could reduce speed limits regarless of what fues we use.

Also, pure gasoline does not fully combust in the engine. Its why we adopted oyginated fuel for cars, to reduce CO emmissions. Ethanol is an octane booster. We can make engines with higher compression ratios if we use oyginated gas, which in turn means more horsepower and torque for your car, and cleaner emmissions.
 
Last edited:
Gill said:
Yeah??? Give me a list of ethanol plants that get their water from a river. How much does treating water add to the cost of ethanol??

Do you actually believe corn growers water their corn ???

The actual amount of water to produce ethanol in the manufacturing process is over 4 gallons of water for every gallon of fuel.

Dozens of communities that have rejected ethanol plants because they are concerned their water supply would be damaged. Here's one of many:


Ethanol plants' water usage raises some concerns - USATODAY.com
Click to expand...

A list, I would if I knew where to find it. Pretreating the water obviously costs more, as in any industrial setting, so that is probobly why more plants opt to pump their water, but it is not necessary. This is a complaint of literally any industrial water supply though.

I actually do believe farmers water their corn. Actually I know it, I've done it myself.

I am sure plenty of communities have rejected ethanol plants for concerns of their water resources, and I have no problems with that.
 
Last edited:
j-mac said:
Easy! DRILL!!!!! our own oil, while at the same time developing things like natural gas and other alternatives that don't rely on using the food source to produce energy.


j-mac
Click to expand...

So, you want to get rid of the tariffs and subsidies?
 
drz-400 said:
We could reduce speed limits regarless of what fues we use.

Also, pure gasoline does not fully combust in the engine. Its why we adopted oyginated fuel for cars, to reduce CO emmissions. Ethanol is an octane booster. We can make engines with higher compression ratios if we use oyginated gas, which in turn means more horsepower and torque for your car, and cleaner emmissions.
Click to expand...
yeah, you are right, I was only thinking about the emissions improvements. OK, I will let them put in 10% ethanol , and not a molecule more...:2razz:
 
drz-400 said:
A list, I would if I knew where to find it. Pretreating the water obviously costs more, as in any industrial setting, so that is probobly why more plants opt to pump their water, but it is not necessary. This is a complaint of literally any industrial water supply though.

I actually do believe farmers water their corn. Actually I know it, I've done it myself.

I am sure plenty of communities have rejected ethanol plants for concerns of their water resources, and I have no problems with that.
Click to expand...

Maybe a few farmers water corn in extremely arid areas, but they only produce a very limited amount of corn. We're not talking about a backyard garden here.

Drive through Illinois and Iowa where most of the country's corn is grown and you won't see a single corn field that is irrigated.
 
Gill said:
Maybe a few farmers water corn in extremely arid areas, but they only produce a very limited amount of corn. We're not talking about a backyard garden here.

Drive through Illinois and Iowa where most of the country's corn is grown and you won't see a single corn field that is irrigated.
Click to expand...

Is corn the only crop grown in the area? Do the other crops need water?
 
UtahBill said:
Is corn the only crop grown in the area? Do the other crops need water?
Click to expand...

When I lived in Iowa, my house was surrounded by fields and I drove past hundreds more each week. All of the farmers there alternated between corn and soybeans. One year corn, the next soybeans, then corn again. None of the fields were irrigated since it would be almost impossible to do. It's the same in Illinois.

If you fly over Iowa in a small plane, you can see corn or soybean fields growing as far as the eye can see.
 
drz-400 said:
We could reduce speed limits regarless of what fues we use.
Click to expand...

Oh wow man....flashback....I could have swore I just heard Jimmah Carter telling me to put on a sweater....

So, you want to get rid of the tariffs and subsidies?
Click to expand...

Sure to some extent. but why does it have to be either one extreme or another with you liberals?


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Oh wow man....flashback....I could have swore I just heard Jimmah Carter telling me to put on a sweater....
j-mac
Click to expand...
so do it already....or are you the type that overheats an entire house when he is the only one cold....
I should say she, that is the typical scenario.:2razz:
 
Gill said:
Maybe a few farmers water corn in extremely arid areas, but they only produce a very limited amount of corn. We're not talking about a backyard garden here.

Drive through Illinois and Iowa where most of the country's corn is grown and you won't see a single corn field that is irrigated.
Click to expand...

I know, and you are right in the major crop areas of the midwest. In, for example, colorado, kansas (west side), nebraska, the dakotas, it is the norm to irrigate. There are some major corn growing areas in these arid places as well.
 
UtahBill said:
so do it already....or are you the type that overheats an entire house when he is the only one cold....
I should say she, that is the typical scenario.:2razz:
Click to expand...


heh, heh, no....I start a fire in the fireplace and that usually makes it nice and toasty.

j-mac
 
Jucon said:
They are already capable of mass-producing solar cells. If every house had it's roof covered in solar cells, it could drastically reduce the amount of non-renewable resources we need to power our homes. I honestly don't get why it's not more affordable right now.

YouTube - Nanosolar Utility Panel

Lower-cost Solar Cells To Be Printed Like Newspaper, Painted On Rooftops

Innovation puts next-generation solar cells on the horizon

High-efficiency Low-cost Silicon Solar Cell Demonstrated

IMO the evidence is there that solar power is a viable future solution to our energy needs... we just need bright minds who can outsmart our competition (other countries). Even if the panels wouldn't work at night, they would still cut energy costs during the day. But if we can improve our energy storage capabilities, they could power our homes even during the night. Most people use less power at night anyways.
Click to expand...

Actually, there is research into using spare capacity in battery banks on electric and hybrid vehicles to provide overnight storage of solar/wind power, as well as providing "backup power" to the grid to help prevent brownouts. All based upon the fact that these vehicles are being designed to travel much farther than most people actually do, day to day. Allowing the owner to "authorize" the power company to "extract" a certain percentage of their vehicle's charge when demand is high, which is replaced when demand is low, all the while never affecting the owner's driving needs.

Which is just mentioned in support of your point. And to demonstrate the potential for real solutions to real problems offered by "green technologies" apart from political bickering.
 
Erod said:
Say we manage to create or harness this alternative "green" energy.

How expensive will it be to convert every house, business, school, car, stadium, skyscraper, university, train, plane, lawnmower, etc, to this new energy?

How do we switch out every outlet, every light switch, every gas oven and refridgerator, to accommodate this new fuel? How long until we build these new "fuel" centers to re-charge our vehicles and household items.

Take the stimulus money, and multiply it by the same number. It'll cost a trillion trillions.

Meanwhile, China will keep churning on cheap oil and gas, and we'll be Afghanistan before you know it.
Click to expand...

I once did the math and would be happy to again as the total cost is much higher now, but the gist was a "whole house", "grid tied" solar system for an average family, just being normally "conservative"(do ya have to have every light in the house on?), costs about $25,000 for a $0 electric bill. If the average "house" has 4 residents, then for one billion dollars, 160,000 people could end their dependence on foreign oil to power their homes ($25,000 x 40,000 = 1,000,000,000, 40,000 x 4 = 160,000), I believe at the time I did the original equations, the bill for the Iraq war was six hundred billion dollars. So 160,000 x 600 = 96 millionamericans could have been permanently freed of their dependence on foreign oil to power their homes had the money been put to this purpose. It's over a trillion now, so do the math.

Oh, and by the way, there aren't that many panels available on the market, we'd have had to build a bunch of factories to have actually been able to put them on the houses.

Silly Greenies?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom