BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: Stringsinger
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 07:24 PM

McCain's solution is to feed the oil companies. This is just as bad as ethanol.
He would limit the caps on the industry, their price gouging and their pollution.

Both McCain and Obama have embraced the nuke industry.

I don't see what McCain is right about.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 02:14 PM

The oil sands are making money for Canada, and housing prices are not affected by the U. S. mortgage problems. Living costs are increasing.
Alberta is still booming, but reasonable housing is scarce, even finding a doctor if one is new to Alberta, is difficult. In spite of the money collected by Alberta in taxes, etc., on the oil sands, hospitals, medical facilities and personnel and mass transportation need extensive additions.

The oil sands are a close and stable source of North American oil. For Canada, the money is desirable but those monster holes and loss of boreal forest are taking a toll on the environment. Much water is needed to process the oil sands. Some aquifers are being contaminated. Little is being planned to restore the environment.

Albertans in the oil sands region are beginning to feel like the Appalachian dwellers who are impacted by coal mining.

Saskatchewan and the Bakken Formation may soon tread the same path.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 12:11 AM

"However, as Claudia Cattaneo pointed out in yesterday's Post, U. S. politicians are playing a dangerous and hypocritical game by criticizing oil sands as they are fretting about security of supply. Canada could certainly find other markets for such oil, although it would involve reversing pipelines, or building new ones. This would, ironically, reduce U.S. security and increase greenhouse gas emissions further. Republican candidate John McCain sounds a good deal more sensible on such issues, but even Mr. Obama will have to bow to reality if he reaches the White House."

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=ed54cc78-027b-41cc-8308-f88c8fa12efe

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 12:51 AM

Nigeria's agriculture is a mess, the effects of the recent civil war and long neglect of agriculture depress it.
At least 150 million acres are arable, but only about 30% is cultivated, and that inefficiently. The climate makes it unsuitable for wheat, but rice, peanuts and other crops could be raised. The cropland is there.
The oil billions must be diverted in part to food production.

Nigeria imports about $2.5 billion worth of food per year, but some are luxury goods for the new well-to-do in the cities (such as frozen foods from the U. S. and elsewhere).
20% of the food imports are from the U. S., about $0.5 billion. Europe, the Asean countries and Africa furnish the rest.

If Nigeria uses its money for development, it should become largely self-sustaining. Unfortunately, they have concentrated on oil production and ignored the agriculture sector.

If the ruling parties go crazy, Mugabe in Zimbabwe the horrible example, pdq could well be right.

Some Nigerian politicians are complaining that cropland is being used for biofuel production. The government has been buying massive amounts of rice, to be sold at a 50% subsidized price, says the UN office for Humanitarian affairs. They produce only 20% of their rice needs.

50% of the country is Muslim and 40% Christian, and they don't get along all that well. The government is finally agreeing to talk with the delta people, and that would stop much of the disruption in their oil production.

Set some firebrands loose in the country, and civil war could break out again.

I guess this is a wait and see situation- potential for development and self-sufficiency is there, but yes, so is the potential for destruction.
Our politicians, with the right moves, could help swing the scales- if they are smart enough.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: Amos
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 10:19 PM

Here's a fact: countries do not have fingers.

A

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 10:14 PM

(actually you can see the addresses at the bottom of your screen if you just put your cursor over the blickey. If you can't, you need to adjust the hoozamadigger on some thingamajig in "options." I'm not complaining, cut and paste is easy enough.)

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: pdq
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 09:37 PM

Great post, Q, but you still miss the point about Nigeria. Reliable international sources have predicted that Nigeria will have about 305 million people bt 2050. At that time, we will not be able to supply them with the food they need. They are in no trouble now, thanks to the enormous oil revenue. I pointed out that a crisis will occur between now and 2050.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 09:15 PM

A free market is one in which prices of goods and services are arranged completely by the mutual consent of sellers and buyers. In a free market economy, individuals, rather than governments, make the majority of decisions regarding economic decisions and transactions (Encarta), i. e. free competition (Websters'). Almost a lost concept.

International markets, however, are always controlled to some extent, by agreement between the exporting and importing countries, and moreover by international trade regulations (WTO talks presently stalled).

My statements do not accuse the United States alone; all major producing and trading nations share in the current situation.
Other countries provide subsidies as well. The EU countries Germany and France, Australia-New Zealand, and Brazil etc., all extend agricultural subsidies.

Subsidies enable a corn (or whatever crop) growing country to sell at a price lower than the world price, thus displacing growers that cannot compete at the low price. Subsidized farmers have the advantage in the market.

The U. S. has good crop land, so do a number of other countries playing the same game- Argentina-Brazil, Australia, China, India, etc.
A good article, or slide show, is "Foreign Crop Subsidies and Tariffs," (Texas Tech, Texas A&M, Missouri and Iowa State Univ. and others) which deals with cotton primarily but has a good summary of practices by various countries. Crops included are corn, sorghum, rice, cotton, soybeans, sugar and wheat. Twenty-one countries are included.
The developed countries protect their agriculture by income supplements and subsidies. Developing countries use tariffs or restrict imports.
Other countries have substantial outlays to assist agriculture (2007-2008 figures)-
India $52 billion
China $43 billion
Brazil $26 billion
Pakistan $2.7 billion

Nigeria, mentioned by pdq, has the highest tariffs on agricultural imports, followed by India, Pakistan and Egypt (The U. S. does not keep Nigeria "healthy and fed." They are a major supplier of oil to the U. S., in spite of occasional disruptions, and it is not one of the starving countries).

The article-slide show absolves the developed countries, like the U. S., of blame, a conclusion which I think is flawed. The effect of the subsidies hurts specific crop growers in the 21 countries considered, but more importantly the poorest nations are not considered at all.

Guide to foreign crop subsidies and tariffs, a power point presentation at the Texas Tech. website.
www.aaec.ttu.edu, and click on the link to download "Cotton economics research ..." or
http://www.aaec.ttu.edu/ceri/policy/Crop%20Subsidies%20Handbook/T&S_LayoutFinal.pdf

I know it makes work in getting the websites, but if I make the link, then one cannot decide whether they want to visit that site or not.

(Hemp growing was made illegal in the U. S. in 1938. Canada recently allowed production of industrial hemp, which just makes a bad smoke).

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: pdq
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 07:11 PM

We have the world's finest crop land and we are obusing and destroying it in a frantic effort to get food to all the new mouths in the Third World. In 45 years, Nigeria will have over 300 million people, about what the US has now. They will still be shaking an accousing finger at the US for not keeping them healthy and fed. When and where will this end?

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: GUEST,Chief Chaos
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 07:01 PM

Yeah Q, I give up, your right, it's all the U.S. fault that everyone in the world is paying high fuel prices and that people in the world are starving.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: pdq
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 06:54 PM

"U. S. corn subsidies amounted to $56.2 billion dollars from 1995-2006."

By showing the total for twelve years, you make it look bigger than it really is. The annual farm subsidy could be expressed as 4.68 billion per year which does not sound out of line.

Odd that free market forces are reviled when that suits some people's political purposes and begged for when that better suits the same person's goals.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 06:10 PM

Who is "screwing with the world economy and food supply?"

U. S. corn subsidies amounted to $56.2 billion dollars from 1995-2006. See http://farm.ewg.org/farm/progdetail.php?flps=00000&progcode=corn
Congress approves $190 billion farm subsidy package. Christian Science Moniter and news agaicies
U. S. Corn subsidies devestating to Mexican farmers- see www.organicconsumers.org/corn_subsidies.cfm
Amazon deforestation and fires are being aggravated by U. S. farm subsidies... See www.enn.com/ecosystems/article/28859
EU joins WTO complaint against U. S. corn subsidies. See www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/22/business/wto.php

McCain blasts U. S. corn subsidies, saying the planting of corn for use in ethanol has added to a sharp spike in global food prices.
Where is Obama, on this?
International Herald tribune-New York Times, June 16, 2008. See http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/06/15/america/LA-POL-Brazil-US-McCain.php

Canadian corn case- Argentina and Brazil have joined Canada in a WTO complaint against the Unted States over what they claim are illegal government handouts to American corn growers... http://www.farmpolicy.com/?p=106
etc. etc.

What has the U. S. done about the oil and grain futures market other than complain a bit? A lot of speculators have made fortunes. Some may even pay a few taxes on their gains. But they are contributing to starvation and turmoil.
Neither McCain nor Obama say much about this.

Now who is "screwing with the world economy and food supply?" The U. S. as usual, stinks in this regard as much or more than "the oil producing nations."
Canada is the largest supplier of oil and natural gas to the United States. Finally, it is getting a little of its own back in that regard.

End of rant.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: pdq
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 05:55 PM

"...countries that are heavy consumers of petroleum resources (China and India to name just two others)"

Combined population of those two countries is nearing 3 billion people. Their energy needs will not be met any time soon. We have $4 per gallon gas because these two countries need more oil than the world can supply. That and OPEC manipulation of the market. Less than 10% of crude oil is distributed by free market forces.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: GUEST,Chief Chaos
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 05:23 PM

The problem here is that McCain is trying to say that Obama is a one trick pony when it comes to the energy debate.

No one is saying that we should replace gasoline with ethanol. It is something that can be used to add to the gasoline, spreading out the current supply, lessening the demand.

The problem on the McCain side is that once the wells are drilled the environmental damage is done and pretty much can't be undone. The wells sometimes come up dry, and it leaves us in the hands of people who have demonstrated a great ability to manipulate the market.

At least corn, hemp, soybeans, etc. can be grown and regrown to produce both oil and ethanol.

As far as the rest of the world starving, I'm trying to not be shallow about it but how is it that these folks survive in a nation/country/state/continent that apparently can't support it's population? Is it only the United States that can grow crops and feed itself as well as the rest of the world?

If so, along with the U.S. cutting back on it's consumption, shouldn't the rest of the world be putting pressure on the other countries that are heavy consumers of petroleum resources (China and India to name just two others) so that we don't have to use cellulosic ehtanol / bio-diesel?

Shouldn't the rest of the world be putting pressure on the oil rich nations to stop screwing with the world economy and food supply?

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 03:41 PM

Guymon (note spelling) is a town of about 11,000, employment highs in food processing and agriculture. Over 38% 0f the population is Hispanic, 20% not born in the States.

A little more on the switchgrass project, funded by the Noble Foundation. It is a project of the Oklahoma Bioenergy Center, the Universities of Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. It will take three years for 100% crop harvest. Abengoa Bioenergy of Hugoton, Kansas, will complete the refinery for for bio fuels in 2010.
At first, there will be some irrigation to insure that they get a crop which can be experimented with.

The Castleman article, linked previously, discusses cellulosic use.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 03:00 PM

Cellulosic ethanol farm gets started

Switchgrass planted, idea is to avoid fuel vs. food competition

The Associated Press
updated 3:11 p.m. CT, Tues., June. 17, 2008

GUYMON, Okla. - Work has started on the planting of a 1,000-acre switchgrass field in the Oklahoma Panhandle that researchers plan to use in the production of cellulosic ethanol.

The field is being touted as the world's largest for switchgrass, a drought-resistant perennial plant that grows even on marginal lands. Scientists at the Noble Foundation in Ardmore are overseeing the project and hope that switchgrass proves to be a viable substitute for corn in ethanol production.

Hitch Enterprises, a Panhandle-based company, began planting the field earlier this month. Smaller fields of switchgrass also will be planted in central Oklahoma near Chickasha and Maysville.

/quote

Switchgrass has been often mentioned as a potential source material, assuming that the breakdown of cellulosic plants can be made sufficiently efficient. As noted above, there are a few start-up plants planned for the near future.

A problem with cellulosics is that the cellulose has to be broken down to release/extract the sugars which can then be fermented into ethanol - in most schemes considered even remotely viable. Most schemes have accepted the need for a two-step process, with seperate digesters and fermenters.

There has been some progress in improving the biological digesters to breakdown cellulosic plants, but most schemes still require a separate fermentation. At least one startup company (there may be a dozen similar ones) has been claiming for about a year now that they believe that within a couple of years they'll have a "superbug" that can digest the cellulose and ferment it all in one jug.

Obviously a single-step process would have significant cost advantages if the yields are high enough - - but we're still waiting for the big announcement.

(Guyman OK is in the west end of the OK panhandle. I haven't been down there recently, but my recollection of the general area is that it's about as "marginal" as land can get. It's possible I missed the good parts though, since I was driving and had to watch the road occasionally the last time I crossed that end of the P-Handle.)

John

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 11:59 AM

Tim Castlemal, of Fuel and Fiber Company, has written a brief summary of use of plant seed and biomass to produce diesel and ethanol. "Hemp biomass for Energy."

http://fuelandfiber.com/Hemp4NRG/Hemp4NRGRV3.htm

Other high oil alternatives also are discussed.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 11:49 AM

Growth of hemp, like corn or any other source, requires diverting agricultural land or clearing new land, and is ecologically damaging and raises food crop costs dramatically.
Aid agencies estimate that biodiesel-ethanol production has already driven 30 million people closer to starvation (BBC News report).

Hemp seed has 28% oil and as a crop can produce 15 gallons/acre, giving a production cost for biodiesel of $35/gallon, but using special varieties could lower the cost to $5.20/gallon.
Hemp biomass overall is a good source of ethanol, yielding 25-100 gallons/ton (higher figures depending on special varieties and some pie in the sky speculation).

Rice straw (burned in California) has been proposed as a source, but high silica content and high gathering costs make its use unlikely. Rice plants, like a number of grasses, collect silica, which is difficult to remove in refining.

All of this information is on the net, but beware of the cloud nine blogs (in the majority).

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: katlaughing
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 11:43 AM

I have a checkbook cover and a tee-shirt which are both made of hemp and have lasted forever it seems like. The shirt is the softest one I own.

McCain's latest tv ad, entitled "Global" is a joke. It brags that he disagreed with the president about global warming five years ago (like wow!) and has a plan to bring us to "Reform, Prosperity, Peace." What a fucking joke.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: Peace
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 10:29 AM

Just grow the hemp. I have a few ideas for the THC. (Work with me on this . . . . )

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 09:52 AM

hemp is a serious alternative.

Produces nearly 5 tmes as much methanol as a cornstalk,

Can grow anywhere,

returns nutrients to the soil,

is perennial,

can be grown with other plants ... in forests for example so no trees need to be cut down ...

Doesn't even need to have THC in it ... there are huge fields full of hemp that won't get you high in the UK that are being grown fr reseearch purposes.

you can make paper, rope, clothes (strongest natural fibre)

doesn't need chemical fertilizers or pesticides.


check this out.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Jun 08 - 10:45 PM

Not having done much research on this, I would tend to agree that McCain is on the right side of this issue--and Obama is not.

But the salient question is how significant this issue is against others. For my money, it's nothing compared to the Iraq war.

And there's no question who's on the wrong side there:   McCain.

I cannot imagine anybody basing a vote in the fall on how Obama and McCain view ethanol. Sounds like a parody of a one-issue voter.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: Amos
Date: 24 Jun 08 - 09:23 PM

I have to second Bobert's remarks. The one thing Barack Obama has demonstrated is his ability and willingness to think newly with new information. And he does it well.

I'll back him up until he demonstrates in some concrete way he can't handle the truth. So far, he's been doing better than any one else in he pool, because he shows the ability not only to think fresh thoughts, but also to balance the pragmatic vectors of winning consensus.,

A

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Jun 08 - 08:44 PM

I'm with lox... grow hemp... I gotta little patch up in the mountain that only I kbnow about that oughtta be good and sticky toward the end of September... Yezzir...

But lets get real here folks... What we have is the beginning of the beginning of not only the very real possibility of having a president who isn't locked into any one policy if something else makes sense...

The United States does do one thing very well and that is grow stuff and so farming is very important to our economy... Giving billions of dallars to millionaire agri-business corporations has been the other "third rail" for a long time and, yeah, if you have any chance of being elected you'd better not piss them off so...

...like BillD said, Obama has to walk a tight rope here and he is doing just that...

Now, fast forward to an Obama administration and I think that the tunes will changes... They have to... And Obamas views will cahnge as new information and technology rears it head... That's why I like Obama... We have had 7 long years of dagmatism for the sake of dogmatism and stubbornness for the sake or stubborness and look where it has gotten US???

In the words of the latem great Waylon Jennings, "We need a change" and regardless of Obama's views on ethenol today I am less concerned about him being flexible enough to make changes as needed than my concerns are for McCain's abilities to do so...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 24 Jun 08 - 08:29 PM

The whole ethanol concept is flawed. To make an important contribution to fuel needs, forests would be mowed down, production of food grains cut, and the environment impacted.
Small processing plants using waste are feasible, but unlimited allowables would be destructive to the environment.

This thread has digressed from Lonesome EJ's original idea, but not in a destructive way, we all need to think about energy and push candidates to do the same. I wonder about his sugar beets, since the crop in both the U. S. and Canada already has a ready market. The waste, however, may be useful- I don't know about this.

One ton of sugar beets yields 19.5 gallons of ethanol.
Ethanol production from corn costs $1.05/gallon; from sugar beets or sugar cane $2.35-$2.40/gallon.
USDA figures, July, 2006 (Prices in the market for sugar beets has risen since then).
http://www.usda.gov/oce/EthanolSugarFeasibilityReport3.pdf

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: Peace
Date: 24 Jun 08 - 08:10 PM

"It would be cheaper to fire it off to the moon (OK, I know it would poison the man in the moon)."

Good thinking. However, maybe the sun would be better. Once the trajectory is all figured out, it wouldn't require much in the way of fuey--assuming Newton was right and NASA still knows how to aim.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: pdq
Date: 24 Jun 08 - 07:38 PM

First Cellulosic Ethanol Plant Goes Online, Makes Fuel From Wood Waste
Written by Clayton B. Cornell

Published on March 7th, 2008

The first commercial cellulosic ethanol facility to convert waste wood materials into a renewable fuel went online last month near Upton, Wyoming. After 6 years of development, KL Process Design Group, in conjunction with the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, has produced a proprietary enzymatic method to break down wood and waste materials, such as cardboard and paper:

KL's cellulosic ethanol plant is converting waste wood into a renewable fuel. "It is now possible to economically convert discarded wood into a clean burning, sustainable alternate motor fuel" said Randy Kramer, president of KL Process Design Group, a design firm that has been working in corn ethanol. "We're proud of what this small company has accomplished, and believe that our design will be a cornerstone from which we can build our country's renewable fuel infrastructure providing a better source of motor fuel, starting today."

The press release makes no mention of production volumes or plans for expansion (I'm currently contacting KL about this), but the company could be the first to capitalize on the massive potential of cellulosic ethanol, namely, making fuel from waste products (see earlier post).

KL projects that its cellulosic technology, coupled with new applied design concepts, will allow the plants to build to match the amount and type of feed stock available near large cities, further lessening the fuel's carbon foot print. KL's Advanced Biofuels plants will also produce excess electricity and/or steam heat that can provide additional power sources for local municipalities or complimenting biofuel plants and manufacturing facilities.

Government officials are already worried about meeting the 2015 cellulosic-ethanol targets required by the new Renewable Fuels Standard (adding up to 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels). The US Energy Information Administration Chief suggested that quotas would have to be adjusted, unless "breakthroughs in commercialization of cellulosic ethanol come faster, within a year or two…".

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 24 Jun 08 - 06:31 PM

Or grow hemp ....

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: GUEST,Chief Chaos
Date: 24 Jun 08 - 06:28 PM

Corn based ehtanol might indeed be the lower end of the bang for the buck but at least it's a crop that is useful for things other than fuel or sugar. I agree with the sugar cane and sugar beet solutions but unless they can grow accross the country like corn/maize then that limits the output. I'd like to see such crops replace tobacco.

You have to wait until switch grass grows to a height of something like 6 to 8 feet before it can be used.

As I've said before though, it's going to take a combination of these technologies to actually impact the situation. Alone a wind generator only produces so much wattage, cover it with solar cells and you generate more per covered area. Adapt technologies to collect the static electricity generated by the blades moving through the air (as they do in a helicopter) and you generate more, etc. etc.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Jun 08 - 06:15 PM

Yeah...it's a delicate line to walk.....trying not to 'promise' any particular thing, while convincing enough people that he will try to do "the greatest good for the greatest number", and make them realize that is a good policy.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 24 Jun 08 - 06:10 PM

Then again kissing up to the farmers is too important an issue to be ignored, since he's not getting the hayseed vote from the roots up. They gave us Bush and they can give us another four years of Republican policies.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: Stringsinger
Date: 24 Jun 08 - 06:00 PM

Take a fresh look at McCain if you want to but if you vote for him, you'll sorry.

I don't think the ethanol idea is particularly good either but McCain has no solution
at all except to destroy ANWAR for some ridiculous idea that it would make gas prices
come down.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Jun 08 - 05:24 PM

Lots of time yet. I suspect Obama will 'modify' his position on fuel during the campaign. There are many ways to use excess crops for 'some' ethanol, and I'd bet he's being briefed on the trade-offs as we speak.

It's too important an issue for him to simply kiss-up to farmers who want to sell high-priced corn.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 24 Jun 08 - 04:57 PM

I don't know either what problems come up when going from lab to commercial application. Have to confess ignorance there.
I remember proposals based on small scale experiments that were deep-sixed by engineers, or cost analysts, or governmental regulations. Of course situations change and interest renewed, data are never lost.
I'm sure that the atomic research guys at Los Alamos National Laboratory never quit looking, but according to the papers, they are having trouble with nuclear waste even there. Complaints about water being contaminated and other problems.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: EBarnacle
Date: 24 Jun 08 - 03:30 PM

Q, if it can be reprocessed on a lab scale and can be refined for weaponry and fuel, why can they not come up with a larger scale method? Could it be that they are not trying hard enough? I don't have an answer to this one.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 24 Jun 08 - 02:11 PM

The work Casten and REM are doing is important (and there are others), use of generated heat is a useful step, but experts have told me that much more is needed to economically handle the exhaust from coal-fired electrical power generation plants. Sulfur and other products in the gases corrode the equipment. Separation and re-use of these materials needs a market that would take time to develop.

I remember the mountains of sulfur left over from the refining of sulfur-rich crude oil in Alberta. It took a long time for the sulfur to be absorbed into the chemical industry, although this did finally happen.

Direction from government is needed to get diverse industries to cooperate in finding solutions to some of these problems.

China is building coal-fired electrical power plants at a great rate. One can hope that, with centralized government to a much greater extent than is possible in our 'democracy,' China might become involved in developing new methods.

Nuclear waste can be reprocessed on a laboratory scale, but no one has come up with a large-scale method that is economically viable.
It would be cheaper to fire it off to the moon (OK, I know it would poison the man in the moon).

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: Amos
Date: 24 Jun 08 - 12:54 PM

Bagasse (cane plant byproducts) have been used as a fuel source for decades in Brazil--I lost five grand once investing in a company backing the moveent to cane-derived ethaniol there--I was about 20 years ahead of the market, I guess!

A

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: Peace
Date: 24 Jun 08 - 12:17 PM

Damn. Cool Beans: I was wondering why the recent 'time to look at Cuba/US relations once more' was happening. You nailed it in one. I am always impressed when a divergent thinker does just that because the results are ever interesting. Good one.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: Cool Beans
Date: 24 Jun 08 - 12:13 PM

Just a couple doors down from here we have a thread running on US-Cuba relations, or lack of same. There's such a lot of sugar cane in Cuba (hey, that could make a song). Would the eventual availabilty of Cuban cane have an impact on US energy needs?

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: pdq
Date: 24 Jun 08 - 11:53 AM

...from The Guardian (UK):

Saturday March 16, 2002 5:20 AM

REDONDO BEACH, Calif. (AP) - Gov. Gray Davis on Friday pushed back a deadline to phase out a fuel additive that pollutes groundwater, saying the state risked gas shortages and prices hikes if the deadline wasn't extended.

The ban on MTBE was set to go into effect on Dec. 31, 2002; Davis extended it to Jan. 1, 2004. The governor said the strain of shifting to other clean-fuel additives, like ethanol, would have resulted in supply problems.

``If I could snap my fingers and eliminate MTBE today I would do it in a heartbeat,'' Davis said.

MTBE, or methyl tertiary butyl ether, is added to gasoline as an oxygenate to make it burn cleaner. Its use has allowed states to meet a federal requirement that gasoline contain a 2 percent oxygen additive to cut down on air pollution, but MTBE also been found to pollute groundwater.

Davis said that under the Clean Air Act, California would require 900 million gallons of ethanol per year to make the transition away from MTBE. But, he said, only about seven companies nationwide produce ethanol, raising fears California refineries and consumers could be gouged by a relatively small supply of the sugar cane- or corn-derived additive.

At least 13 states, including California, have either already banned or plan to ban the additive, but those efforts have been hindered because of a federal requirement that gasoline contain an oxygenate like MTBE.

A bill now before Congress would lead to a nationwide ban of MTBE in four years.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 24 Jun 08 - 11:48 AM

Also the guy who can fit coal-fired generators with an economically viable device to collect the gases and make use of them. This would be an extremely important development. Even a couple of oil majors have done some research on this, but what works in the lab often isn't practical when dealing with the real thing.

Tom Kasten of Recycled Energy Development website here, is actively installing systems to recapture heat and gases, byproducts of industrial processes, which ordinarily escape and are wasted. This waste product can be recycled and used, and the potential is the savings of 19% of current fossil fuel usage. Such a system is not science fiction, but is currently employed in such facilities as the ArcelorMittal Steel plant in East Chicago. This mill cut purchases of coal-fired power in half, reduced carbon emissions by 1.3 million tons per year, and saved 100 million dollars to its bottom line.

The main stumbling block in this case is NOT the technology. With the exception of Dupont and Dow, most US companies are not targeting energy-saving, but favor simplification of manufacturing processes. The boom/bust cycle of American industrial production also tends to discourage long-term energy investment. When things are good, investment comes in the form of added capacity; when things are bad, investment is generally withheld.

Another challenge is, perversely, in the form of the Clean Air Act. Any interference with a plant's exhaust system is likely to trigger a federal review, and a freshly-opened can of worms for plants. But the greatest issue is involved with utilities regulation: Companies who would go to the expense of adding industrial recycling systems could produce more energy than they could use, but existing regulations make the excess energy produced difficult or impossible to sell.

Among power utilities, there is no competition and hence no incentive to increase efficiencies. Excess costs are merely passed to consumers. What is truly needed is a wide-ranging approach to energy savings that involves solid leadership by the government and an end to business as usual.
Casten points out that the 16 heat-recycling contraptions that perch atop the East Chicago steel plant produce as much clean energy as all the grid-connected solar panels in the world. There's nothing stopping us, but us.

For more on this, see "Waste Not" in the May 08 issue of Atlantic.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: Peace
Date: 24 Jun 08 - 11:21 AM

Politicians look for answers. People need solutions. There's a difference.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: catspaw49
Date: 24 Jun 08 - 10:56 AM

Actually MTBE was originally viewed as a top octane enhancer to replace lead. Its oxygenate property added to its "lustre" as a saviour. It turned out to be not only corrosive but when leaked out of storage tanks a major ground water problem. Its made from Methanol(basically wood alcohol) not Ethanol(grain alcohol). I was working for Airtex (biggest fuel and water pump maker) back then and the problems especially for fully submerged electric fuel pumps was major.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: Amos
Date: 24 Jun 08 - 10:53 AM

Really? And what was the case for including it in fuel, PDQ? Do you know? This is news to me.


A

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: pdq
Date: 24 Jun 08 - 10:41 AM

"The guy who figures out how to treat and use nuclear waste will become a billionaire."

And he/she will deserve every penny, unlike Madonna, Michael Jackson, et al, ad mauseum.

"...we are more willing to bury the 'spent' fuel than to reprocess it on site..."

Wrong. There is, as of yet, absolutely no approved burial site for nuclear waste in the entire United States. Not one.

"...ethanol, anyone who has had a plastic fuel tank or lines rot out has discovered the truth of this statement"

Wrong. The chemical that has rotted gaskets and other soft items in older cars, sometimes causing fires, is MTBE, not ethanol. You owe its presence in your gas tank to Carol Browner, EPA chief for the Clinton administration.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: EBarnacle
Date: 24 Jun 08 - 10:22 AM

The guy who figures out how to treat and use nuclear waste will become a billionaire.

They already know how. The issue is that we are more willing to bury the "spent" fuel than to reprocess it on site. Yes, the amount of fuel will get lower but significantly less will need to be buried away or transported. The technology exists. We just need the will to use it.

In regard to Dick's statement above about the reactivity of ethanol, anyone who has had a plastic fuel tank or lines rot out has discovered the truth of this statement. It did not used to happen prior to ethanol diluted fuel. Our vehicle fuel systems were not originally designed to use this stuff and the owner's manuals said so explicitly.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: katlaughing
Date: 24 Jun 08 - 12:29 AM

Western Colorado's wilderness is dotted with the "oil boom" right now AND they want to open a bunch more for oil shale exploration. That is what brought my parents here in the 60s and it was a bust by the 70s. The landscape, now, is terrible to look at...everywhere there are too many people building too many enclaves of BIG boxes, taking over the wild spots, and the oil rigs are everywhere present, plopped out in the middle of vast stretches of what used to be prime grazing lands, ranches, forests, wilderness, etc. now subdivided and fighting with nature's creatures for space and resources. I don't know what the answers are but we have to quit raping the land for our greed or any other reason for that matter.

It irks me to no end that in "Sunny Colorado" we aren't ALL using solar power; there is no excuse for not making it affordable and, even, mandatory, imo.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 24 Jun 08 - 12:11 AM

Looked into those big wind power masts when I was in Hawaii, a 'windy' place. They contribute to the grid, but to provide the power needed for the islands would destroy many scenic places. Hard on birds. Public approval? Very doubtful.
But see the article on Hawai'i's wind energy. Much information there, and mention of some research in the mainland.
http://www.state.hi.us/dbedy/ert/wwg/windy.html

Some big solar collectors in Arizona. Individual collectors on houses is expensive. No one has figured out how to generate the total power needed for a city in an affordable way. Some interesting information on Arizona solar power-
Arizona solar center

Hydrogen offers help for transportation, but it will be years before the production capacity is widespread. Toyota starts production of an automobile next year, but its use will be limited to a few cities. BMW has been testing cars and buses for some time now, but similarly restricted. Time is needed to set up a network of hydrogen generation systems.

Italy looks ready to build new nuclear power generators starting next year.

The guy who figures out how to treat and use nuclear waste will become a billionaire.

Also the guy who can fit coal-fired generators with an economically viable device to collect the gases and make use of them. This would be an extremely important development. Even a couple of oil majors have done some research on this, but what works in the lab often isn't practical when dealing with the real thing.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: Amos
Date: 23 Jun 08 - 11:15 PM

...unless we learn to think outside the box a leetle further than we do now.

SOlar concentration, in the whole south half of the country, can generate enough steam to make a Stirling-driven generator dance, if the other side is cooled by -- just for one example -- a buried radiator twenty feet down, or some other effective heat exchanger.

Not enough noise being made about that.

Nano tech might be a path to completely resolving the spent-fuel-rod issue, I dunno.

They're making a solar paint, in prototype. There is the planet's biggest pump passing overhead on a 28.6-day cycle. The atmosphere erupts in lightning bolts thousands of times a day around the girdle of the globe. The winds never stop blowing in some places. And it is possible that space itself is a limitless source of energy, according to some theories.

Plenty to do, not enough hard work getting it done.

A

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 23 Jun 08 - 11:06 PM

Wow, Q, now I really am depressed. I'll have to go back to the "This will cheer you up!" Thread.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 23 Jun 08 - 10:12 PM

Yes, one hell of a lot of oil sand and shale in Alberta and Saskatchewan, but one hell of a lot of the boreal forest gets destroyed, and trememdous amounts of water are used and aquifers are contaminated, etc. It takes years to develop this resource.
Alberta could triple oil sands production, but this doesn't begin to deal with the growing world need for energy.

Biofuel crops displace food crops and the amount by no means will meet future needs as energy use will triple in the next thirty years.

Nuclear power is most feasible, but the problem of waste hasn't been solved. This looks like the only solution for the long haul.

Lots of talk about offshore oil, and cloud nine predictions of the billions of barrels out there, but this is only guesstimation, as we used to call it. I spend many years in research and exploration with a major, and we learned that only the drill could answer the question of reserves. And not just one or two exploratory holes, because one could hit a limited 'glory hole.' Several years of exploration, building tankers, constructing refineries would be involved even if succesful.
Much of the Arctic Slope has large areas where the thermal history would have destroyed oil, and porosity can be very discontinuous- many other problems, including damaging an important ecological-biological resource.   

Liquid fuels have their place, but increasing nuclear power to generate electricity to power industry and the needs of cities seems inevitable.

Neither McCain nor Obama seem to have any knowledge of the energy problem, nor have they shown how the United States can continue to prosper in the 21st century world which the United States cannot dominate, and in which it must cooperate with equals.

It seems likely that the U. S. will continue to muddle along, slowly falling behind. The fruitless Middle Eastern war is using up resources that need to be spend on developing its future. The Democratic Congress went with along with the astronomical expenditure asked for by the Bush administration, and no protest or words of caution were heard from either Obama or McCain.


Just my depressing, and I'm sure, rather incohrent thoughts.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: katlaughing
Date: 23 Jun 08 - 09:42 PM

Bobertdarlin'...maybe you missed LeeJ's posting:
Well, I'm not jumping ship.?

Anyone hear tonight's news?

A top adviser to John McCain said another terrorist attack on U.S. soil would be a "big advantage" for the Republican presidential candidate, drawing a sharp rebuke Monday from both the presumed GOP nominee and Democrat Barack Obama.

Charlie Black, already in the spotlight for his past lobbying work, is quoted in the upcoming July 7 edition of Fortune magazine as saying such an attack "certainly would be a big advantage to him." Black said Monday he regretted the comment.

Black is also quoted as saying the "unfortunate event" of the assassination of former Pakistani leader Benazir Bhutto in December 2007 "helped us."

Great aides there, McCain.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 23 Jun 08 - 09:29 PM

Not wanting to vote for a guy who will support BAD policy that is desired by a famously powerful lobbying interest is far more sophisticated than wanting to vote for him because he is black.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Jun 08 - 09:17 PM

Listen, EJ....When folks make staements like "I'm piised off at this guy and maybe it's time for a fresh look at the other guy" it sends an undeniable message that the swap is a "done deal"...

Now if this ain't the way you feel, then my deepest apologies and get back on the Obama bandwagon... You can sit right here next to me... You got yer harps??? Great... I'm in A tuning...

Woke up this morning
with Bush's hand in my pocket
Yeah, woke up this mornin'
With Bush's hand in my pocket
And if McCain get elected
Won't be no change so just focket..

Ya like that one, Lonesome... Hey, I got more... Come on an' quit that McCain crap... I mean, what's Obama know about ethenol??? He ever drenk any??? Well, hell no he didn't... My couzin Rufus he drenks it every Saturday night... Don't worry... Rufe is a convicted felon and ain't allowed to vote no more...

But lets get real here, ol buddy, if you are for change then you gotta get back on the Change Bus... You been uder the Straight Talk Express Bus??? Ain't a purdy sight... They got rotted up brake lines, bad wirin', leaky shocks, wored out steerin', leaky differntial, exhaust leak that would kilt off half of Arizona and half a dead racoon smushed up between the rear springs and the frame... It ain't a purdy sight... No sir, down right nasty under John's Straight Talker... No, make that very nasty...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: kendall
Date: 23 Jun 08 - 09:02 PM

Who knows anything about this new car that runs on compressed air? Made in China, ugly as a bucket of arm pits.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 23 Jun 08 - 08:59 PM

Bobert, I never voted for a Republican for President in my life. And I don't play that bait and switch crap. Did you hear me say I was voting for McCain? I said I was taking a fresh look. and I said what I said because I meant it, which is what I usually do. Frankly, I'm offended by your comment. It's true that I'm to the right of you, but so are most people.
I have thought Obama was the best opportunity this country has had in years to restore the people's faith in leadership. In fact I still believe that the grassroots funding campaign his organization has run is little short of a revolution, and just the kind of revolution that Thomas Jefferson would be proud of. But I feel strongly about the ethanol question, and I'm disappointed in his handling of the issue thus far. That's a long way from voting for McCain.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Jun 08 - 08:39 PM

Well, gol danged, Ralph.... Yeah, I understand that McCain is going to bankrupt us by spending a billion dollars of my tax bucks paying Iraqi thugs not to shoot us... And I understand that he is stealing from is to give lots of money to rich people but...

...this Obama feller is fir ethenol so screw him... I'm going with McCain...

(((spit)))

Have at him, EJ... You couldn't have been fir Obama one second of your life to make a shift over such a minor issue... Nah, hate to say it, buddy, but you have been a McCain or Repub all along... People don't switch alliances and parties over little issues...

There, that is the way I see it but...

...hey, it's okay to like McCain or be a Repub... Really... I still like you... Really...

Ya' know, every election cycle folks come out and say stuff just like you have said thinking that, geeze Louise, if folks could just think I was a ____________ who turned into a ____________ because __________________ did this or that that all of a sudden everyone else would support the guy I like... I just doesn't work like that... Not one person in Mudville who really supports Obama gives a rat's ass about his position on ethenol enough to make them accept more war and more money going to the rich...

That's the way I see it...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 23 Jun 08 - 08:38 PM

I met some Model A enthusiasts and was surprised to hear that these late 20s Fords were designed to run on ethanol, gasoline, or kerosene. I guess in those days, you never knew if there would be a gas station, but you could surely find kerosene at any General Store.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 23 Jun 08 - 07:58 PM

BTW, ethanol is a fairly miserable fuel for cars. It corrodes fuel lines, damages seals and provides piss poor MPG figures.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: Amos
Date: 23 Jun 08 - 07:12 PM

LEJ and Rapaire are both raising excellent points here worthy of sober reflection.

I expect Obama to be politically pragmatic because he can't do what he wants to do without it. At the same time, I am not sure what the real bottom summum bonum in his calculation is, although I have been persuaded from the outset that it is highly rational and positive, just tempered with realism about how to do what is possible.

But this bears continued watching, because selling the country to a different set of vested interests is not the same as the kind of change he has promised, I believe.


A

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: Rapparee
Date: 23 Jun 08 - 06:23 PM

Ethanol is for drinking, not for running motor vehicles.

You can actually make ethanol from anything in the plant kingdom. The only question is how much sugar it has available in it. Maple sap. Maize stalks and leaves. Sugar cane. Tomatoes. Potato peelings. Walnut hulls. Cactus. Grapes. Dandelions. Rotten cabbages. Grass.

Ethanol is produced the same way for cars as it is for people: mash, still beer, low wines, doublings, triplings. You can run it through a worm three times or use a thump keg.

You'll just lay there by the junipers
When the moon is bright
Watch them barrels fillin'
In the pale moonlight....

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Jun 08 - 06:03 PM

True enough, maize isn't currently a very good crop fro making ethanol, because existing manufacturingt methods aren't good enough to convert more than a fraction of the plant. That means at present it's not a good plant to be growing for biofuel. That could change, it's just a matter of technology.

But whether you make it from maize ("corn") or sugar beet or sugar cane, it's still ethanol, which si an excellent fuel for cars. And from that story it looks as if Obama was talking about etrhanol, not specifically about maize.

Incidentally one of the best crops from this point of view would, I believe, be hemp. As grown by George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 23 Jun 08 - 05:50 PM

Well, I'm not jumping ship. But anyone who has looked objectively into this matter will realize that corn-ethanol is inefficient and it drives up the cost of every other food product related to corn (which is almost all of them). We should all know as well that the corn-ethanol lobby has been successful for years at holding the rated per-barrel cost of oil at an artificial level to maximize their subsidies. This is all a matter of record. To ignore this and plunge ahead with glowing endorsements reveals a very politically pragmatic side of Obama that I don't like.
And you can call ethanol a minor issue. But I think heric had it right in his above post. If this is an example, the Change we may get could be pocket change after all.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: Rapparee
Date: 23 Jun 08 - 05:15 PM

Why bother with ethanol?

That is to say, the short-term solution is right here. But we must must must plan for the long term -- even a hundred or more years out.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 23 Jun 08 - 05:11 PM

Seems I have to vote for him given the options but on the single-issue of "change" I increasingly doubt it and ethanol is probably just a harbinger of things to come -- It may be a change in small currents and eddies of money flow, not Change with a capial C.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: PoppaGator
Date: 23 Jun 08 - 05:02 PM

I agree that ethanol is a bad deal, and that Obama's support smells of favors owed to agribusiness.

However, I still believe that his candidacy offers greater hope for the future than a continuation of enslavement to neoconservative orthodoxy.

We need radical change, a whole lot of it, immediately if not sooner. And we are NOT going to get as much change as we need, because (as LH pointed out) "the Democrats and Republicans are the two halves of a great big phony oligarchy."

But they're not identical halves. I'll throw my support to the side whose Big Money supporters are mostly in the entertainment and software indistries rather than invested in continued dependence upon fossil fuels.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: DougR
Date: 23 Jun 08 - 04:51 PM

LeeJ: McCain the man!
DougR

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: katlaughing
Date: 23 Jun 08 - 04:49 PM

LeeJ, PLEASE reconsider! There are LOTS of reasons to vote FOR Obama and AGAINST McCain...real issues which matter to many, including me.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Jun 08 - 04:46 PM

The payback?

He is the Senator from Illinois, the second largest producer of Corn.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: Def Shepard
Date: 23 Jun 08 - 04:35 PM

From this view point, in England, it seems that alot of folk 'jump ship' either one way or the other, based on a single issue. Isn't this rather like throwing the baby out with the bath water?

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: Peace
Date: 23 Jun 08 - 04:26 PM

It isn't phony, LH. It's a real oligarchy.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Jun 08 - 04:22 PM

Why not take a fresh look at the idea that the Democrats and Republicans are the two halves of a great big phony oligarchy?

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: Wesley S
Date: 23 Jun 08 - 04:19 PM

"I'm through donating money to Obama at this point, and, frankly, I am going to take a fresh look at John McCain."

Based on one issue? So that's the deal breaker for you?

Subject: RE: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: Rapparee
Date: 23 Jun 08 - 04:10 PM

Lots and lots of sugar beets grown here. Whole trainloads of 'em -- literally.

Subject: BS: McCain Right, Obama Wrong on this one
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 23 Jun 08 - 04:08 PM

It seems the guy I've been whole-heartedly supporting, Barack Obama, who has claimed to be beyond the reach of lobbyists, may have fallen into the hands of one of the biggest industries of them all. Read about it here.

There's nothing wrong with the concept of plant-based ethanol. But the science clearly indicates that corn is one of the least efficient crops for raw materials, yielding consumable energy only marginally greater than that required to grow it. The sugar beet and cane crops grown in Brazil for ethanol are exponentially greater in their yield. Can we grow sugar beets in the US? Yes! The sugar beet has been a preferred crop in many parts of the midwest for scores of years. So why are we investing government subsidies and efforts in corn? Because it is in the interest of agribusiness to develop ethanol based on an existing crop with roots already firmly in place.

Sorry. Corn-based ethanol is a lousy solution, and Barack is too smart to support such a boondoggle unless he has some real paybacks due. And isn't that what we've been getting all along?

I'm through donating money to Obama at this point, and, frankly, I am going to take a fresh look at John McCain.