Today's Tacoma News Tribune has an editorial critical of the biodiesel boondoggle bills circulating in the legislature: "Olympia should keep eye on hot biofuels market".
In Washington, the Legislature is considering a host of proposals that seek to boost production and consumption of biofuels. [Mrs.] Gregoire has suggested a $17.5 million package that would require fuel sellers in Washington to gradually increase the use of biodiesel as farmers grow enough feedstock.I think that research and development on alternative fuels and reducing our national dependence on foreign petroleum is a good idea. But I agree with the TNT editorial that we can expect the private sector to do a much better job of investing private capital than we can expect Mrs. Gregoire1 and the legislature to do by spending taxpayers' money, especially when the private sector is already investing in this industry.Lawmakers have piled on, going so far as to propose $100 million in loans for development of new and renewable energy technology and production facilities.
The Seattle Times has also had a few recent editorial columns on the biodiesel boondoggle: this op-ed by Bob Benze and this column by Bruce Ramsey.
[See, for example, the $9 million boondoggle bill HB 2393, "Establishing an energy freedom program"]
--
1 The haughty, French-named Massachusetts-style Democrat who by the way has never held a job in the private sector.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at January 30, 2006 09:36 AM | Email ThisTake biodiesel. People think, "Hey! Let's grow some corn and turn it into gas!". What they forget is that it takes gasoline to drive the tractor that sows the seeds, plows the field, cuts the stuff down, and more to process it into usable fuel.
The rate of return isn't economically attractive and certainly won't do beans for reducing foreign oil consumption. The only people who benefit are farmers in Iowa who will be subsidized out the wazoo by the feds.
Want to make biodiesel that makes sense? There *is* a way, and for those who love McDonald's, this is right up your alley:
Recycle cooking grease.
Taking cooking grease to biodiesel is a batch chemical process that's surprisingly easy. You filter out the particulates, and after that it's a simple mixing of water and IIRC glycerin. Let the goo separate and voila! Instant fuel, courtsey of America's bad eating habits.
I know of a guy who gets old fryer grease and makes his own bio at a clip of about $0.79/gal. That kind of cost number puts BD on a par with regular gasoline and actually makes some sense.
Posted by: Steve_dog on January 30, 2006 09:49 AMBiodiesel based on waste products (fry vats from burger joints) is inexpensive simply because it is a waste product. When you try to increase the amount available by producing more you end up using more oil than if you just made diesel out of the oil.
Sounds great to politicians who want to get Eastern Washington votes from farmers with subsidies though.
Posted by: Student on January 30, 2006 09:49 AMThe question the occurred to me; If we are not producing enough food (leave aside for the moment the real cause of famine) why would we move crop land out of food production to fuel production?
Especially when we have not yet leveraged all the available petroleum reserves, the full potential of nuclear energy etc...
On top of that I have yet to see clear cut evidence we can produce bio-fuel without an energy loss in the process. I see lots of dueling studies but have yet to see a consensus, or clear evidence.
Give the state of Olympia I think this is more a slap at "big oil" than anything else. If bio-fuel is viable it will be the private sector that makes it so.
Posted by: JCM on January 30, 2006 09:52 AMExactly. There is no silver bullet that will solve our energy issues. The best we can do with the technology we have now is to maximize efficiency and look for smarter ways to apply what we've got.
Posted by: Steve_dog on January 30, 2006 09:53 AMIf you read the Seattle P-I or glance at it in your hunt for the Tatapu poster today...
Representative Jeannie Darneille of Dumb E-mail fame has proposed yet another felon suffrage bill, HB 2873. Namely, "to allow felons to vote once they're completed their sentences and probations, even if they have not paid all their fines and financial penalties."
Last link is P-I article, BTW.
Posted by: A Watchdog on January 30, 2006 10:17 AMSo, you see, it really isn’t about the environment at all, it’s all about taxes.
Posted by: Steve-O on January 30, 2006 10:48 AM...Mike was born and raised in Everett, Washington. His mom taught elementary school in the Everett school district for 35 years. His father worked as a private contractor and union carpenter. A graduate of Everett High School forty years ago, Mike remains connected to many of his high school friends. His football buddies and he still regularly get together for an Everett p0ker game.
I wonder if they play for money? Wouldn't that be illegal?
Posted by: Jeremy on January 30, 2006 11:00 AMAs for subsidies, no farmer deserves to be subsidized, but that seems like an odd sentiment to be published on a Republican website...
Posted by: m on January 30, 2006 11:24 AMK.C. GOLDEN
Published: January 22nd, 2006 02:30 AM
Columnist Richard Davis is right about one thing: Good intentions wont make biodiesel a success (TNT, 1-4).
But good policy and private enterprise will.
Gov. Chris Gregoires proposed renewable fuel standard with strong support on both sides of the political aisle and both sides of the mountains will build a stable, growing market for biofuels in Washington. It will turn our desire for energy security into a solid business proposition something that farmers and biofuel entrepreneurs can take to the bank.Energy independence is a big deal an enormous business opportunity that can boost farm income and reduce the drag on our economy from importing fossil fuels.Right now, Washingtons economy loses over $25 million every day in the form of oil and gas imports more than the state spends on public education. Weve got better things to do with that money, and building our own biofuel industry will help us get some of it back.Developing these industries means creating new enterprises, taking new risks, growing new crops. Competition for profits and jobs in the clean energy industries of the future will be intense. To succeed in these markets, we need a policy that says to the private sector that Washington is open for clean energy business. We need what amounts to a contract with the budding renewable fuel industry a policy that rewards private investment.The bipartisan energy independence bill will offer that kind of solid contract. It will create a stable, growing market for biofuel. It will unleash the private sector to do what it does best: invest and innovate and compete for market share. Its the kind of strong, decisive, market-building policy that will get us moving toward a more secure energy future.Opposition to this policy comes from a predictable source. Davis, whose think tank receives oil industry funding, cites the lone researcher who claims that biofuel production uses more energy than it produces.But he ignores the 11 other studies that have analyzed the issue in the last 15 years and reached the opposite conclusion: Biodiesel actually delivers more than three units of renewable energy for every unit of fossil fuel used in production.The net energy balance for ethanol made from wheat straw a major agricultural waste product in Eastern Washington is even better: 5 to 1.You can find straight answers to these and other questions about biofuels at www.independentfuels.org.Davis also objects to the energy independence bill by calling it a mandate. This is one of those words people use when they want you to react with your spleen instead of your brain. It provokes a you cant make me reaction, an impulse thats as American as the Boston Tea Party.But the really troubling mandate is this: We are being forced by bad public policy to pay the exorbitant costs of oil addiction at the pump, in the battlefields of the Middle East and in the growing toll from global warming.To reduce those costs, we can adopt a smarter policy that allows us to develop our enormous potential for domestic clean energy production.Nobodys going to make us do this. But if were tired of being whacked by the costs of fossil fuel dependence, we can change course. We can choose a brighter energy future.And seriously, when Davis cries mandate, what does he think those legislators are doing in Olympia anyway? Theyre writing laws. These laws are the essence of a stable democracy: We elect leaders who make decisions that represent commitments real, legally binding promises that we can count on.Stop signs, speed limits, protections against fraud and drunken drivers and child labor ... Davis could call any of these things mandates if he wants to gripe about them. But they are the will of the people, and we give them the force of law because were serious about them.So are we serious about energy independence or not? Breaking free of our oil addiction does take more than good intentions. It takes leadership. It takes commitment. It takes a strong policy framework for a successful, prosperous, domestic fuel market with real businesses and farmers making real money on the deal.Its no surprise that some oil companies wont support our states efforts to reduce petroleum dependence. But with a growing bipartisan consensus for a more secure energy future, we have reason to hope that our leaders will stand up for energy independence this year by passing the renewable fuel standard.
At this rate, we'll never know, though.
Posted by: Marc on January 30, 2006 11:27 AMFrom what I understand, the energy required to produce BD exceeds the energy gained. Thus it is a loss.
I guess a good policy would look at all sources of energy including remaining fossil fuels. It makes no sense to create an artificial economy with subsidies and restrictive legislation. Wouldn't the best solution be to burn through the cheapest form of energy as quickly (and efficiently) as possible, forcing us to look at other viable solutions? It's not liek we're going to run out of gas one day and then just sit there doing nothing.
Posted by: doofdaddy on January 30, 2006 12:01 PMThat's a loaded question, because there isn't a tanker in the world that ships one barrel of oil. There are, however, a lot of tankers that ship hundreds of thousands of barrels, thus making it a relatively economical way to transport oil compared to the amount of deisel they burn getting it there.
Posted by: Mike H on January 30, 2006 12:47 PMGee- I suppose the same is true for BD?!?
"From what I understand, the energy required to produce BD exceeds the energy gained. Thus it is a loss."
Did you not read what I wrote? What you "understand" is obviously false. For the second time, if you don't believe me ask the DOE or NREL or any other respected and peer reviewed study author that has concluded energy required to produce BD does NOT exceed the energy gained. After all, wouldn't it be figured into the price at the pump? For pump prices check, check BD retailers listed at www.biodiesel.org
Posted by: m on January 30, 2006 12:47 PMThe net costs would show up at the pump if biodiesel weren't heavily subsidized to the tune of over $1/gallon this year. Furthermore, energy can come from many sources, not just gasoline. Biodiesel production requires natural gas to produce, which is less expensive to purchase but that does not necessarily make for a net energy positive biodiesel production model.
I'm not saying doofdaddy is right and you are wrong, just that the question of net energy gain is one that has been recently disputed. The DOE uses estimates that show it being energy positive, but other studies show this not to be the case. I don't know which is correct, but you can't judge whether something is net energy positive just looking at pump price.
Posted by: Marc on January 30, 2006 01:09 PMThat is true, but my point is that it is equally preposterous to dismiss biodiesel because farmers drive tractors which consume fuel.
It takes energy to drive a tractor and it takes energy to navigate a tanker. It also takes energy to find oil. It takes energy to drill for oil. It takes energy to transport oil. It takes energy to refine oil. It takes energy to transport the refined product. It takes energy to pump the refined product into vehicles.
In the end, it all figures into the price. People on this posting seem to only half get it...
Posted by: m on January 30, 2006 01:12 PMWould you be so kind as to provide a link to information from DOE and/or NREL that supports your assertion that more energy is produced than consumed in producing biodiesel or other bio-fuels? I looked for a while and found nothing on point.
Posted by: Micajah on January 30, 2006 01:32 PMMy personal economics make the decision work this way if it more economical to run a ASTM certified B100 or blend than straight diesel I will do that. That includes the extra time and mileage to go get the stuff. Currently I can get petroleum diesel around the block, but to get bio have to go to Laurelhurst fuel in the U-dist.
Market decisions are driven the same way, when and if bio is as easy to obtain and cost competitive then will bio feasible.
The best way to ensure that is let the market work. The market economics will find out surer than any study if making bio makes sense. Involving government will only skew the equation.
Don't confuse recycled fry oil with certified bio-diesel. In my van I can run ASTM certified (meets the same standards as petro diesel) bio and blends without voiding the warranty. You can get certified fry oil but it is more expensive than the home brew variety. A lot of the fry oil is not certified, it works but is not to engineering standards.
Posted by: JCM on January 30, 2006 01:42 PMI like biodiesel production from an agricultural base. It's one of those wonderful products that can drive the Greener Than Thou crowd bonkers when they realize what they are doing by pushing the bejeezis out of biodiesel as one of the Holy Grails of alternative fuels.
These are, by and large, the same crew of economic saboteurs who are demanding severely curtailing or ending irrigated farming to "conserve" water for the salmon. (...And only incidentally to preserve their urban convenience of hosing down teh driveway instead of going to the effort of actually sweeping the dirt away instead of washing it down the storm drain out there in the street, from whence it proceedeth to the outfall where the added silt gets sucked in by Holy Salmon . . . but that's another story...)
In order to grow enough biodiesel stock crop to make enough of the fuel for it to become a commodity, irrigated farming has to remain at current levels, or actually increase in intensity and number of acres under cultivation.
These Green Machiners, busily attempting to export our food production to the Third World in a spasm of environmental equity, thwart themselves by their very insistence on forcing us all to use biodiesel (and the other greenest fuel, ethanol).
It's a delicious irony that serves to perhaps one day protect us from the vagaries of a Third Wrorld food cartel patterned after OPEC. Producing biodiesel keeps farmland productive, farmers in business, and farm machinery manufacturers and maintainers alive and well.
Posted by: gaelwolf on January 30, 2006 05:02 PMWe would be cutting down on foreign oil and trading one "fossil fuel" for another! And for once liberals could actually contribute something other than hot air!
I must admit that I would be reluctant to man the collection stations ;'}
Posted by: alphabet soup on January 30, 2006 05:16 PMhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel
the fuel equivalent of the energy required for processing, the yield of fuel from raw oil, the return on cultivating food, and the relative cost of biodiesel versus petrodiesel. A 1998 joint study by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) traced many of the various costs involved in the production of biodiesel and found that overall, it yields 3.2 units of fuel product energy for every unit of fossil fuel energy consumed. [7] That measure is referred to as the energy yield. A comparison to petroleum diesel, petroleum gasoline and bioethanol using the USDA numbers can be found at the Minnesota Department of Agriculture website[8] In the comparison petroleum diesel fuel is found to have a 0.843 energy yield, along with 0.805 for petroleum gasoline, and 1.34 for bioethanol. The 1998 study used soybean oil primarily as the base oil to calculate the energy yields. It is conceivable that higher oil yielding crops could increase the energy yield of biodiesel. The debate over the energy balance of biodiesel is ongoing, however.
My father was a farmer. One thing I remember explicitly as a kid, is that all farm machinery(with exception of maybe a little generator or lawn mower) runs on diesel, not gasoline.
I may be wrong here, but if an engine can run on diesel, it can run on biodiesel, so therefore, won't the overall usage of dyno-fuel go down as the use of biodiesel goes up? Then, is there a point where it doesn't cost more in petroleum based fuels than it does to create bio? (Meaning, operate the tractors and combines with bio.)
It's not all pie in the sky, but it is not as stupid as some would make it sound. What? Do you work for Exxon?
Also, corn creates ethanol, which if not for Cargill or ADM, would not still be an issue. Biodiesel would be created from soybeans; it can also be made from waste vegetable oils, but I doubt in any large quantities.
Posted by: CandrewB on January 30, 2006 05:36 PMNope. I don't work for the government, either. They work for me!
I don't mind if private enterprise wants to explore alternative fuels, but the scheme that fraudoire wants should be offensive to everyone (not on the take, that is).
It wasn't so many years ago that they were referring to it as "synth-fuels" and "synth-ahol". I faintly recall a study that said that the break-even point was around $3.50/gal - that is, gasoline would need to cost (at the pump) in order to compete with refined gas. Of course, at the time pump prices were less than a buck, so it wasn't attractive in the slightest.
Times change.
As I recall, a more recent study (sorry, I couldn't find a link to it) put the break-even point at $3.00. Sound familiar? As advances in technology take place, private enterprise and the marketplace will find ways to compete as long as government keeps its hands off!
And there lies the catch 22. Yes, the use of petro would go down... but if all your farm equipement uses bio... are you able to grow enough soy to offset the use? If it takes (and I'm making these numbers up because I don't know the exact figures) three gallons of biodiesel to produce one... you have a problem.
Posted by: Mike H on January 30, 2006 06:06 PM"If it takes (and I'm making these numbers up because I don't know the exact figures) three gallons of biodiesel to produce one... you have a problem."
Understood, do you have close figures? You can grow and harvest alot of food on a gallon of fuel. As the demand grows, so will the innovations. The state getting involved isn't going to this hurt this process either.
The problem I have is with people declaring it a waste of time and resources off the cuff. How many gallons of gasoline would it take to bring a gallon of gasoline to the pump if the world was just starting to use it?
None... it was all steam or coal engines or horse drawn. So it's kind apples and oranges.
I don't have anything resembling close numbers, just that all I've seen so far is that it takes more than can be produced. My family used to be in raspberries, so I know you can get a lot of food per gallon... but that's food. It takes a lot of refining for deisel, I think. But I beleive most of the studies has been for soy. I read somewhere it may be more feasible with mustard seed or other crops.
I think there's a shot with biodiesel, so long as folks don't keep a pie in the sky attitude about it.
The next question is... where are you going to grow all of this?
Posted by: Mike H on January 30, 2006 07:18 PMThat's easy, the Midwest. Maybe we (the Feds) won't have to pay farmers billions a year not to grow crops thus overproducing to meet demand and putting the per barrel price in the toilet.
"It takes a lot of refining for deisel"
The owner from Seattle Biodiesel posts here from time to time; he'll be able to tell you exactly.
It seems people need to pay attention to which kind of "bio" fuel is being talked about.
If it's any form of alcohol, the jury is still out on the question whether you get more energy out than you put in. It might produce more than it consumes, but the difference is apparently very small if it does.
If, on the other hand, it's "biodiesel" made from oilseed crops, then the answer is clear: You get a lot more energy out than you put in -- 3.2 units of fuel energy product for every 1 unit of "fossil" energy consumed. Part of that apparently whopping surplus of fuel energy results from the fact that you are "consuming" petroleum when you send a barrel of diesel out the door -- the departing barrel of diesel was itself petroleum from beginning to end. The product from oilseed, of course, wasn't petroleum when it came in or when it left.
It seems apparent that biodiesel's cost isn't driven primarily by the amount of energy used in producing it. What else makes it so much more expensive than diesel from petroleum? If energy produced by energy consumed were the primary cost factor, there wouldn't seem to be any need at all for a government subsidy.
Posted by: Micajah on January 30, 2006 09:00 PMI bought stock in Exxon years ago thinking that if gas prices are going to rise, I might as well profit from it. As a shareholder I get their energy magazine every quarter, and only then do you discover that the company is alot more than about drilling for oil.
Posted by: Palouse on January 31, 2006 08:18 AMSome want to pass on biodiesel
Posted by: JCM on January 31, 2006 08:30 AMhttp://petroleum.berkeley.edu/papers/patzek/CRPS416-Patzek-Web.pdf#search='biofuel'
Clearly the UC campus on Berkley is not considered the hotbed of conservative thinking.
However the technical report clearly states that bio fuel harvested from crops is a losing proposition. Here is a partial extract from the summary pages:
The purpose of this paper was to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the industrial corn-ethanol
cycle accelerates the irrevocable depletion of natural resources: fossil fuels, minerals, top soil,surface and subsurface water, and air, while creating wide-spread environmental damage throughout the continental United States. My arguments relied entirely on the First and Second Law of thermodynamics, and on the Law of Mass Conservation.
I have tried to avoid political questions, but at some point one should ask how it was possible for
a poor agri-industrial technology to grow so explosively in the last four years? The only plausible answer lies in politics. The recent growth of ethanol production could occur only because of the massive transfer of money from the collective pocket of the U.S. taxpayers to the transnational agricultural cartel, represented most notably by Archer Daniel Midlands Co., Cargill Inc., Monsanto Co., and A. E. Stanley Manufacturing Co. This flow of billions of dollars from the pockets of the many to the pockets of the few was accomplished by federal subsidies of corn producers, and the
federal and state tax subsidies of ethanol producers. It was spearheaded by many powerful, and I would like to think, thoroughly misinformed politicians.
This is a large report and the extract clearly states the findings of the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering for the State of California. Readers are invited to read the report in its entirity it will address the many questions asked.
Notice that the Berkley report you reference is not referring to "biodiesel."
It refers to ethanol made from corn, not biodiesel made from oilseed crops.
They aren't the same. Ethanol from corn may well be a losing proposition. Biodiesel from oilseed crops may be a winner -- if the costs other than energy consumed in production don't turn out to make it a loser.
Posted by: Micajah on January 31, 2006 09:51 AMThe great thing about pdf files and their like is the ability to search for words such as "biodiesel" and "diesel."
I downloaded the report to which you refer, searched for those terms, and found that one need only read to page 2 of the report (page 10 of the pdf file) to see what I said is correct beyond any doubt.
This report is about ethanol and only about ethanol. It is not a report about biodiesel.
Most traditional biofuels, such as ethanol from corn, wheat, or sugar beets, and biodiesel from oil seeds, are produced from classic agricultural food crops that require high-quality agricultural land for growth. A significant portion of the sunlight these crops capture is diverted to produce seeds and store sugar, and their growing seasons are short. The net energy yield of corn4, _100-130 GJ/ha-crop (Part I of this paper), is significantly lower that those5 of perennial crops and grasses (200-300 GJ/ha-crop), and sugarcane (_400 GJ/ha-crop) (Rogner, 2000). Also, the environmental costs of annual crops are very high: they cause more soil erosion (up to 100-fold), require 7-10 times more pesticides, and more fertilizers than perennial grasses or wood (Berndes et al., 2003). Finally, industrial manufacturing of hybrid seeds is very energy-intensive.
In this paper, I will describe in some detail the unfavorable thermodynamics of the industrial production of ethanol from one particular food crop, corn. I will use the Second Law of thermodynamics to track what is happening to us (or, is it U.S.?) as mere years pass, and the precious resources the sun and the earth have been making and storing for millions of years are being squandered in front of our eyes.
A few questions:
How many acres or if you prefer square miles of land will be required to match the output of oil?
Or if you prefer
Acres to barrels?
How many bags or tons of fertilizer will be required to produce 1 million barrels of fuel produced from seed.
What are the other costs associated with harvesting the seeds. Labor, energy, et al.
If the trade offs merit investment than why isn't private enterprise doing it?
Private enterprise has in the past and into the future often makes investments into productive crops. The history of rubber for example. If indeed it is economically feasible then private enterprise will make it so.
My point is that although there are a number of ways to produce fuels, at the present time oil is most competitive in fuel for engines. Nuclear is probably most competitive for stationary power plants.
Posted by: snuffy on January 31, 2006 11:24 AMThe Biorefinery Initiative.
To achieve greater use of "homegrown" renewable fuels in the United States, advanced technologies need to be perfected to make fuel ethanol from cellulosic (plant fiber) biomass, which is now discarded as waste. The President's 2007 Budget will include $150 million – a $59 million increase over FY06 – to help develop bio-based transportation fuels from agricultural waste products, such as wood chips, stalks, or switch grass.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/01/20060131-6.html
Posted by: GarySea on February 1, 2006 08:50 AMI don't agree with government sponsored development of this type of speculative venture for the simple and well established reason that government is uniquely ill-equipped to manage such ventures. They have nothing to gain and everything to lose by investing their constituent's (our) money wisely.
This is exactly what Stefan says it is . . . a first-rate boondoggle. Step over a near term solution (ANWAR) in favor of something that-as yet-doesn't exist. Liberals are so friggin' stupid.
Amazing.
”Many have brought bio to the market Amused. You can buy it at any number of places around here.” I am aware of that. My comments were meant to be taken generally. I am also aware from reading history that the only times governments have ever produced technological advancements in any significant way, that produced a net gain for any society, it resulted from developing weapons for wars. NASA is the only exception to this fact and that is likely because it was prospectively defense oriented in nature as well. Governments are never good at developing technology, simply because that is not their purpose.
”Don't count on Detroit bringing good ideas to the table soon either; if they survive the decade, it'll be a miracle. Funny thing what happens when unions price production costs out of the market (and overseas) eh? Destruction of production capacity, eventually leads to diminished production. The only reason “Detroit” ever existed as a force is because of the profit motive and corresponding initiative to compete. The current failures in Detroit have nothing whatsoever to do with technical innovation itself, and saying otherwise only obscures the relevant facts.
You say, ”I also remember GWB talking about forming a partnership amongst the Feds and the Big 3 to create an economical hybrid soon after he took office. The Big 3 wanted nothing to do with it in the age of the big SUV and the plan ultimately failed. Honda and Toyota came out with theirs the next year.” Apparently you suggest that public policy force the automobile manufacturing industry into federal corporatism? This was the result of marketing decisions by companies protecting their futures in a capitalist economy. If they shift their capital to areas where it will produce profits, and Honda and Toyota capture a limited market, it is because both are navigating in the real world economy—not a farcical liberal delusion.
I don’t agree with things that GW Bush (or anyone else) says he wants to do that are liberal in nature because by definition in this context, “liberal” means impractical. Liberals like you justify ideas by association with their feelings about what should be done rather than facts. Since such partnerships won’t make a profit, it becomes a net loss to GUESS WHO . . . Joe taxpayer. Initiatives like the “partnership amongst the Feds and the Big 3,” would utterly fail because they are based on a fundamentally flawed premise; that capitalism and socialism are compatible. Like oil and water, whenever combined they are both corrupted. Not one single instance of such an intrinsically conflicted venture has ever produced a net gain for any society in the history of the world. Still, I recognize that you would like to try anyway.
I would rather we pursue efforts that have the substantial potential to solve our problems. If that involves biodiesel, someone in the private sector will find a way to develop and bring it to market. Since—as always—you are thoroughly incapable of dealing with objective facts, it doesn’t surprise me that you would say, ” . . . it's no accident GWB mentioned failing ethanol derivatives and not biodiesel. Unlike ethanol, I doubt very few of his donators are in position to dominate a biodiesel market.” Next you'll be saying that the recent so-called Exxon "windfall" profits were promoted by GW Bush and his "donators". Same old Candr.
Liberals are so friggin stupid. Amazing.
Who is advocating governments spearhead technology? The successful programs are the ones where governments give/lend companies (ie. encourage - not force) money and let them loose with a profitable goal in mind. The Big 3 didn't see a profit in hybrids and stonewalled. Sucks being them. Yeah, the unions have made producing a car pricier than otherwise, but you completely discount the fact that their current lineup is boring, thirsty and out of touch with current economic realities. That's a management problem.
The fact remains, the biggest hurdle to biodiesel is that you are extremely limited in your diesel automobile purchase options. I guess we'll see how limited the fuel saving market is; who wants odds on the Japanese again?
"I would rather we pursue efforts that have the substantial potential to solve our problems." Me too, and I hope you are not suggesting ethanol, a failed government program if there ever was one. George suggested ethanol if you didn't notice. You mentioned ANWR, honestly, I don't care if we drill there, great. It may slightly help globally ease price pressures, but I'd hardly call it a near term solution. You may also be surprised I am in full favor of Exxon spending billions on their Qatari natural-gas-to-diesel refinery. It's still foreign oil though.
And the whole Limbaugh "liberals feeeel things" is dismissive and tired. Don't worry though, my delicate sensibilities are intact. For the record, I am not in favor of the gov forcing truckers to use bio. They should realize they don't have to.
Posted by: CandrewB on February 2, 2006 06:27 PMWhile I am amused when you say that your delicate sensibilities are intact, I didn't know that Rush Limbaugh's feeeelngs about things were dismissive and tired . . . thanks for the heads up.
You say, ”The successful programs are the ones where governments give/lend companies (ie. encourage - not force) money and let them loose with a profitable goal in mind.
Which programs are these?
The best innovators in the world are out looking for opportunities to make a profit and if solutions come around (including biodeisel tech) they will come about as a result of free market enterprise. If this is not true . . . how so? Because corporations would deliberately pass on the immense profits that can come from it? Or is it that corporations (Bush’s donors) would rather see America at war in the Middle East?
The current lineup [of cars and trucks] may be ”boring, thirsty and out of touch with current economic realities,” but the shift to other sources of fuel for transportation had better address more than simply fuel efficiency.
If you wish to drive a disposable golf cart (hybrid car) death trap on the freeway that’s your business, but I prefer cars and trucks, because they are practical and serve their purposes. I am willing to pay the price at the pump just as I am willing to let free enterprise do it’s job of inventing new alternatives through the evolution of trade and industry that has invented ALL modern conveniences—capitalism.
I don’t want governments to ”give/lend companies . . . capital,” to do anything for the simple historically well-established reason that such schemes always fail and ALWAYS cause more serious problems. To do so anyway, simply because you believe (feel) that it is a good idea, despite the powerful inductive evidence to the contrary, is foolish.
If free enterprise (market forces) fails to satisfy my needs, that is self adjusting. On the other hand, should free enterprise be forced by government numb-skulls to seize my money in order to provide me with what other numb-skulls think is best for me, it is no longer free and I will fight it with everything I have. I understand that many people don’t see the potential problems with this type of arrangement, but I do because I read history and pay close attention to its lessons. Most of the decisions made by liberals are like this in that they appeal to ill considered beliefs that are not based on established facts as much as feeeelings. If you have established facts that I could use to improve my views on this subject, I’m all ears.
Candr, if you believe that biodeisel is a good way to go, look up the companies that produce it in the stock market and buy stock in those companies. Capitalists are the most certain and trustworthy seekers of innovation for profits sake. You might make a fortune and then you can tell me you told me so.
Since you voted for Ron Sims, I doubt that you will come around, but one can always hope.
Amusing indeed.
Thanks for the comments.