[dude1394]

Originally posted by: Mavdog


you look at this very simplisticly, and you are decieving yourself if you honestly believe that we can not do anything about our oil addiction. look into brazil for example, where they are using renewable energy sources (such as ethanol) for about 1/3 of their energy needs. we produce enough corn to halve our oil imports, if our government had supported this type of endeavor rather than subsidizing oil production we likely would not be feeling the price squeeze.

I am not looking at it simplisticly. Unfortunately you are and most of the folks who put on their tin-hats and talk about the evil oil companies are. The reason that oil and fossil fuels are used for energy is..
a. It's cheap
b. It's really, really efficient
c. There is a whole hell of a lot of it.
d. It's relatively easy to produce

Even in brazil they have 95% of their electricity provided by hydro. Give the US 95% of it's electricity by hydro and there are no high prices for gasoline.

I would have picked France to be honest, since that's a more representative industrialized country. And we know how they do it, nuclear which your party will not allow either.

Even the scales aren't comparable. Oil consumption by brazil is ~2.2 mbbls/day, the US is 10x that 19.65 mbbls/day. You are saying we are going to create 6mbbls/day of ethanol and biomass? You are nuts.

Here (imo) is about the best thing I've seen on energy. Take a read and if you still think that renewable energy will make anymore of a dent then comeback with something. You have to follow the links, because Steven has tackled it all, ethanol, wind, turkey guts, fusion, core taps, you name it.

Here is one particularly interesting example talking about how enviromentally friendly ethanol is:

Let's run some numbers, shall we? Let's optimistically assume that 10% by weight of the corn plant is harvestable grain. (It probably isn't that high.) Let's assume a 25% conversion of grain into alcohol, also by weight. (It's doubtful it's that efficient.)

5 billion gallons of ethanol is 18.925 billion liters. Ethanol has a density of .789, so that's 14.931 billion kilograms. Each kilogram of ethanol would come from 4 kilograms of grain, leaving 36 kilograms of greenery behind, so we're looking at 537.5 billion kilograms of compost: a bit over half a billion metric tonnes.

There is no possible way we can bury a half a billion tonnes of compost every year. There's nowhere to put it, and the long term effects (on things like groundwater, for example) would be horrendous. This is a waste disposal problem to dwarf the amount of garbage that all our cities create. (Note that it would have to be buried near where it was grown; if you have to transport it long distances, you'll more than use up all the fuel you thought you were gaining by producing ethanol in the first place.)

That's not what is actually done. It's used for a number of different things, but in practice nearly all the carbon in it eventually ends up back in the air, via direct or circuitous routes, within a year. Some of it is used for animal feed; most of it gets burned.

So basically what you end up with is burning all of the waste and put the CO2 back into the air. So not only is it inefficient, it doesn't even help the environment.

your soapbox on demos/repubs is getting sooo old. there are many demos who want higher gas mileage standards fo autos...but guess who blocked them? and ANWAR as a solution? that's the same mindset that has left our country depending on oil for our energy needs today.

I have no problem with cars that get higher mileage. But why the heck do you think they are needed if gasoline is 1.25/gallon. Why not just mandate them to be 100mpg, that'll solve it. It's feel-good legislation, thats' why I don't like it. Even the europeans aren't this stupid, they just tax the heck out of fuel and let the market place decide, as we should.

actually I''ve voted for many winners and many losers of elections. some were dems and some were not. get off your friggin' soapbox, you sound too much like limbaugh.

And you are sounding like a typical liberal democrat. I don't honestly know your party, but are you telling me you are not a liberal democrat?????? I have also voted for dems but I've learned my lesson.

I do not want democrats in office, it is no longer a serious party. There are no more scoop jackson, zell miller or probably Breaux. Poor lieberman should switch while he can, he's a dinosaur in that party. Their time went with the fall of socialism.

the chinese and indian economies help keep ours going, we're globalized remember? i recall reading on how the chinese boom has reduced our core inflation rate by about 2.5 points.

They are keeping inflation low, but we are talking about energy here...remember. You seem to think that their rising economies are having no impact here, you are wrong.

[quote]
the champion of price controls was none other than...dick nixon. so much for your party bashing...[q/]
Ford too, it was stupid then, stupid now. But the energy shortages happened under jimmah...stay focused here.

Our appetite for imported energy is based on where the most cost-effective energy is produced....period. As soon as it reaches $80/bl, then the most cost-effective may wind up being canada, or solar, or massive conservation. It's called the free market, get it.

don't you ask yourself why, if we had the scenario unfold 30 years ago of an energy crisis, we find ourselves here today with a similar scenario? it isn't because of dems or repubs, it's due to the lobbyists getting their way.

Again mavdog, if you want to do something about it, then get your congressman to vote for a 3.00 tax on gasoline. That would have solved your problem. But your party doesn't mind trying to dictate the economy, but they are too busy demagaguing to do anything useful about it.